.

THE
THEOLOGY
OF
HISTORY
IN
ST. BONAVENTURE

Joseph
Ratzinger

FRANCISCAN HERALO PRESS

• .
THE THEOLOGY OF HISTORY IN ST. BONAVENTURE, by
Jo.eph Rauinser, translated by Zachary Haye., O.F.M. Copy·
rigbt © 1971 and 1989 by Franciscan Herald Pre •• , 1434 We.15hl
Street, Chicago, Dlinoi. 60609. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Library of Congr••• Catalog Card Number: 71·85509

ISBN 0·8199·0415·5

MADE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 INTRODUCTION

It is above all at times of greatest crisis in human history that

we find men concerned with the theology and the philosophy
of history.l Thus, the first great Christian theology of history,
Augustine's De civitate Dei contra paganos, emerged from the
crisis of the Roman empire, in which the life of that age had
found an orderly and apparently definitive form. 2 Since that
time, the attempt to come to terms with history theologically
has never been foreign to Western theology. In fact, from the
viewpoint of the New Testament and its eschatology, history
has become basically "critical.·· 8 The attempt to penetrate
history reached a new high.point in the High Middle Ages,
and more precisely, in the thirteenth century. One of the rea-
sons for this may be found in the new type of historical pro-
phecy of Abbot Joachim of Fiore.< But this prophecy acquired
its real incendiary force through the outstanding confirmation
which it apparently found in the person and work of St. Francis
of Assisi. G These two elements developed into that profound
questioning of the Medieval form of history from which a new
and broadly conceived theology of history could take its rise.
Bonaventure's Col/ationes in Hexaemeron represents this new,
second high-point in the Christian reflection on history. e
Therefore, the present study, which is intended to be a pre-
sentation of St. Bonaventure's theology of history, will be con-
cerned primarily with analyzing this work. But we must not
overlook the relationship of this work to the total literary
output of Bonaventure; nor may we bypass the roots which
this work has in the intellectual world to which Bonaventure
belonged.
Therefore, we can set up the basic structure for this study
as follows. First, we must bring to light the statements that
v
pertain to the theology of history and subject them to a precise
and detailed analysis. Unfortunately, these statements are not
presented systematically in the Colla/ione!; they are scattered
here and there, and are, for the most part, enigmatic and
difficult to interpret (Ch.l). Then, on the basis of these in-
dividual statements, we will attempt to bring to light the
central idea of Bonaventure's hope for history (Ch.2). This
should enable us, then, to place the doctrine of Bonaventure
in its proper place within the stream of tradition at least in
broad outline (Ch.3). Finally, on the basis of the particular
insights gained in this study, we will attempt to make a con-
tribution to the problem of the thought-form of Bonaventure
in general, which has again become a disputed question(ChA).

vi
 CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................v
Foreword to the American edition ..................................................................xi
Chapter 1: An attempt to find the structure of the Bonaventurian
theology of history on the basis of the Collatione. in
Hexaemeron ................................................................................. .
#1. General remarks concerning the Collatione$ in Hexaemeron ..... .
#2. A provisional delimitation of the relation between Scripture
and history according to the Hexaemeron ........................................ 6
#3. The historical schemata of the Hexaemeron ............ "...................... 9
1. The exclusion of Augustine from the narrower consideration
of the theology of history .............................................................. 9
2. The new form of the theology of history .................................... 10
#4. The central form of the Bonaventurian theology of history:
the 2 x 7 time schema ........................................................................ IS
1. Time·schemata built on six and seven in tradition and in
Bonaventure ........................................................................................ 15
2. The basis for the preference for the number seven ................ 18
#5. Th. historical prophecy of Bonaventure ........................................ t9
A. The promise of the seventh as. ................................................ 22
B. The problem of the sixth ase ........................................................ 24
I. The course or the sixth age in general.............................. 24
I. The texis .............................................................................. 24
2. The prophetic schemata .................................................... 26
3. Summary .................................................................................. 29
II. The eschatological position of St. Francis ........................ 31
1. Bonaventure's two-fold theology of Francis
in general .............................................................................. 31
a) Francis - preco Dei - John the Baptist -
Elias ................................................................................ 32
b) FranCis, the "angelus ascendens ab ortu solis .......... 33
2. A detailed treatment at the theology of Francis in
the Hexaemeron .................................................................. 34
a) The fisure of the .. ansel with the seal of the
\ivins God" .................................................................... 34
b) The community of 'he 144.000 sealed .................... 35
Ill. The Order of the final ase .................................................. 39
1. The development of the question prior to
Bonaventure ........................................................................ 39
2. The solution of Bonaventure ............................................ 42
8) Nature and form of the ordo ultimus ...................... 42
vii
 b) The Franciscan Order and the ordo futurus .......... 46
0) The distlnclion belween the Iwo Orde ............ 46
B) The ltaS" of approach .......................................... 51
p) The theory of defecdon ........................................ 53
c) Summary ........................................................................ 54
Chapter 11: The conlenl of Bonaventure', hope for ..Ivllion ................ 56
#6. The 1111'" of the fmal a.. : pax and ","atio ................................ 56
#7. Buie consideration. concerning reve/alio ........................................ 57
I. General limits of Bonaventure's statements on revelation ........ 57
2. Terminological conlideration. ........................................................ 58
#8. Th. theological pia.. of Bonav.nture's hope of revelation in
the four·fold concept of wildom in Ih. Hexacmeron .................... 59
#9. The /SQp~ntia multiform;': revelation I I the aU..omal
und.ntandins of Scripture .................................................................. 62
I. "Revelation" - the spiritual acnae of Scripture .................... 62
II. "Revelation" and the inspiration of Scripture ........................ 64-
III. Th. different fomu of und... tandins the Scriptures ............ 69
IV. The mediation of rev.lation ...................................................... 71
#\0. The biltoricaI character of Scripture and ita revelation .............. 75
J. The innuenc. of the unbiltorical thousht of Scholuticism...... 75
11. The innu.nc. of I)'I11bolic thousht·forms .................................. 77
1. The "canonization" of the Fathers: Hugo of St. Victor
and the oth.r early Scholastics ................................................ 77
2. Th. ProllfOlliv. lin. of Joachim ............................................ 80
a) The new .,.... tical aituation created by the ev.nt of
Francil .................................................................................... 80
b) Belief in the progressive, hillorical development of
Scripture ................................................................................ 83
#11. The IapientitJ omni/ormis: creation and revelation ...................... 84
# 12. The 6Dpientia nulli/armis: mysticism and revelation .................... 86
1. The Dionyaius-renaiuance of the 13th century .......................... 87
2. The theololY of Dionysius in the work of Bonaventure ........ 81
3. The synthesis of the mystical, colmic·hierarchical. and his.
torical order in Bonaventure's concept of revelation in the
noal 8se .............................................................................................. 92
Chapter III: The historical settins of Bonaventure's IhealolY
of hi.story .................................................................................... 95
#13. Th. pre-Bonaventurian d.velopment of the M.dieval tbeolOlY
of hi.story ................................................................................................ 95
I. Tho theolOlY of history in tho Fathers. Its reformulation
in Rup." of D.utt ...................................................................... 95
I I. The transfonnation of eschatolo8ica1 consciousness in
Honorius of Autun and Ans.lm of Ha.elberg ...................... 102
\. Honorius of Autun .................................................................. \02
2. Anselm of Havelbers .............................................................. 103

viii
 III. Tho now eschatological consoiou.n... of Joachim of Fiore .... 104
1. Joachim'. influence on Bonaventure .................................... 104
2. Tho hi,torical conscious.... of Joachim .............................. 106
#14. Tho hl,torical consciousn... of Bonaventure .................................. 109
I. The double cIovelopment of Bonaventure's historical thousht
in the period of his IfUJgl.,.rlum ................................................ 109
I. The recasting of the doctrine of the ,ix age. by the
concept of medlelas .................................................................. 109
2. The development of • living consciousness of the end in
the controversy about poverty ................................................ 110
II. The historical conaciousness of the Hexaemeron and that
of Thomu Aquinas ........................................................................ 114
1. The central point of Aquina,' critique of Joachim ............ 115
2. The central point of Bonaventure', critique of Joachim .... 117
Chapter IV: Ari,toteliani,m and the theology of history ........................ 119
#15. The modern controversy concerning Bonaventure's anli·
Aristoteliani,m ........................................................................................ 120
1. The thesi, of GUson and hi, followen: Bonaventure, the
Au..... tinian ........................................................................................ 120
2. The thesi, of Van stoenberghen: Bonaventure, the
.u..... tinlzlng Ari,totelian ................................................................ 124
l. A provisional position relative to these two views .................. 128
#16. The hi,torico-theological significance of Bonaventure',
Intl·Aristotelianitm ................................................................................ 1:14
A. The development of anti·Aristotelianiam in Bonaventure',
work .................................................................................................... 134
B. The two main fonna of Bonaventure's anti·Aristotelianism .... 138
J. AnU·Ari.totelianlsm in the .truule for • Chri,tian
undentanding of time ............................................................ 138
Excunus: The circular and linear concept of time in
Bonaventure ................................................................ 143
I. God u the sphaer. in,./Ii,lbi/is ...................................... 144
2. Tho circle of time: From God, throush Christ, to God .. 145
3. The (alJe doctrine of the philosophen concerning the
eternal cirele ........................................................................ 147
II. PropheUc-eachlto!ogical anti·Aristotenanism ...................... 148
1. A comparison of two lines of Bonaventure',
anti·Aristoteliani,m ............................................................ 148
2. The indlviduol motifs of apocalyptic
anti·Ari,toteUanl,m ............................................................ 149
a) The image of Pharao', magicians .............................. 150
b) Philosophy u the Ii,num 5<lenll•• bonl ., m.Ii...... 151
c) PhUosophy, the Beast from the Abyss .................... 154
d) Reuon, the Harlot, and ,lmUor images .................... 154
e) The prophecy of the end of rational theology ........ 155
III. Summary .................................................................................... 159

ix
 Conel .. , ,,,,, .. _. __." .. __ ....... _..... __ ._._.. __ .... _ ... __ ... _ 16.2

=~---=-__
$GIIoceo _ __ . . _
:=:-=:--:-=:-:---:-:-=:=:=:-=:-=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:::::::!!: .:sS
Abb ... 101lon> _ ......... _.. _ ._ .......... __ ... _____ ..... _ ........ _ ........... 2"
I~ ~ N~
I . . . 01 T..... : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : _"
161'
 FOREWORD TO THE AMERICAN EDITION

The German edition of this book appeared ten years ago,

which may seem to be a very long time when we consider
the developments that have taken place in theology and in the
Church in the intervening years. Naturally, under such cir-
cumstances, I have had to ask myself whether a translation of
the unaltered original could be justified; for it was clear to me
that 1 could not undertake a reworking of the text because of
the growing number of commitments which have engaged me.
A few brief remarks concerning the genesis and intent of
the book are necessary to clarify the fact that I have given an
affirmative answer to this question. When I began the prepar-
atory work for this study in the fall of 1953, one of the
questions which stood in the foreground of concern within
German-speaking, Catholic theological circles was the question
of the relation of salvation-history to metaphysics. This was
a problem which arose above all from contacts with Protestant
theology which, since the time of Luther, has tended to see in
metaphyskal thOL ght a departure from the specific claim of
the Christian faith which directs man not simply to the Eternal
but to the God who acts in time and history. Here questions
of quite diverse character and of different orders arose. How
can that which has taken place historically become present?
How can the unique and unrepeatable have a universal signi-
ficance? But then, on the other hand: Has not the "Hellen-
ization" of Christianity, which attempted to overcome the
scandal of the particular by a blending of faith and meta-
physics, led to a development in a false direction? Has it not
created a static style of thought which cannot do justice to the
dynamism of the biblical style?

xi
xii Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
These questions had a strong influence on me, and I wanted
to make a contribution toward answering them. In the light
of the accepted tradition of German theology, it was self-
evident to me that this could not be done in an a priori way.
Rather, it could take place only in dialogue with that very
theological tradition which was being called into question.
Only on the basis of this type of study could any systematic
formulation take place. I have attempted to give a tentative
sketch of such a formulation in my book Einfi;hrung in das
Christentum which appeared in 1968. Since I had devoted my
first study to Augustine, and thus had become somewhat
familiar with the world of the Fathers, it seemed natural now
to approach the Middle Ages. For the questions with which
I was concerned, Bonaventure was naturally a more likely sub-
ject for study than Aquinas. Thus, a partner was found for the
discussion. The questions which I hoped to direct to this
partner were sketched in general terms in the concepts of:
revelation - history - metaphysics.
First, I studied the nature of revelation together with the
terminology used to express it. On the basis of this material,
I attempted to describe the relation between history and meta-
physics as Bonaventure understood it. As yet it has been pos-
sible to publish only several fragments from the voluminous
material which emerged out of this research. Aside from the
external reasonS involved, there was an internal reason as well.
This is to be found in the fact that in formulating the question
in this way, we are already approaching Bonaventure with ollr
concept of history, whereas it would be important to read
Bonaventure within his own framework even though we might
discover a perspective which would be entirely foreign to us
and which might be meaningless in relation to our present
problem. So my attention was concentrated more and more on
the theology of history as Bonaventure himself had developed
it in the spiritual struggle of his own age. This is the way in
which the present volume came to be.
 Foreword to the American Edition XlII
The results were surprising enough. It became apparent that
Bonaventure's theology of history presents a struggle to arrive
at a proper understanding of eschatology. It is thus anchored
in the central issue of the New Testament <Juestion itself. It
became clear that the discussion which Bonaventure undertook
with Joachim of Fiore - the remarkable prophet of that peri-
od - led to a change in the concept of eschatology which re-
mains operative even today. Finally, it became obvious that
the theology of history does not represent an isolated area of
Bonaventure's thought. On the contrary, it is related to the
basic philosophical and theological decisions which provided
the basis for his participation in the bitter controversies of the
1260's and 1270's. It was in these controversies that the <Jues-
tion of philosophy and theology was handled as well as the
<Juestion of Hellenism and de-Hellenization and the problem
as to whether faith could be translated into understanding,
In many ways those turbulent years, with t1ie abrupt entrance
of Arabian science into the firmly built structure of traditional
theology, are similar to the post-Conciliar mood which we are
experiencing at the present time. Ten years ago it would not
have been difficult to work out applications to the present.
The discipline of the historian, however, forbade such a pro-
cedure. The task of the historian is to present his findings and
nothing but his findings. At times this limitation has disturbed
me, but I believe it was and is justified.
Since its publication, the work has been discussed fre<Juently
and its conclusions have been relined here and there. Most of
the criti<Jue seems to center around the <Juestion as to whether
I have oVerestimated the influence of Joachim of Fiore. The
reviews have been listed in: J. G. Bougerol, Lexique Saint
BonatJmture (Paris, 1969) 82. I would like to refer, further-
more, to the outstanding presentation of Bonaventure together
with comments on my book by F. van Steenberghen, La phi-
losophie au XIW siecle (Louvain-Paris, 1966) 190-271. Un-
fortunately, it is impossible to go into particular points of the
discussion. It seems clear to me that Bonaventure could not
xiv Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
remain silent concerning Joachim since he was Minister Gen-
eral of an Order that was torn almost to the breaking point
by the Joachimite question. H exaemeron is the answer he gave
to this problem as General of the Order. It is a critical discus-
sion with the Calabrian Abbot and his followers. Without
Joachim, the work would be incomprehensible. But the dis-
cussion is carried on in such a way that Joachim is interpreted
back into tradition while the Joachimites interpreted him
against that tradition. Bonaventure does not totally reject
Joachim (as Thomas had done); rather, he interprets him in
an ecclesial way and thus creates an alternative to the radical
Joachimites. On the basis of this alternative, he tries to pre-
serve the unity of the Order.
With this I will return to the original question as to whether
a translation of the unchanged original is still meaningful
today. I hope that I have learned something from the reviews
and other literature that has appeared in the meantime. I
would now place many points of emphasis differently and alter
many nuances. But the general argument remains untouched,
and I see no reason for reworking it. To this extent, a new
printing seems to me to be justified from the viewpoint of the
historian. I am furthermore convinced that, precisely at the
present moment, theology has every reason for remaining in
contact with its own history. Without this, it is condemned to
wither like a tree cut off from its roots. Therefore, it is my
hope that this book will be helpful in this area also, and that
it might stimulate others to enter into that dialogue with his-
tory which must always be taken up anew.
I cannot end this Foreword to the American edition without
expressing my gratitude again to my venerable teacher, Prof.
Dr. Gottlieb Siihngen of Munich, who provided the stimula-
tion for this study. He was always a fatherly friend and helper
in the numerous external and internal difficulties which I en-
countered while the book was in the making. Furthermore, I
must express my sincere thanks to the translator, Dr. Zachary
 Foreword to the AmericQn Edition xv
Hayes O.F.M. and to the publisher, Fr. Mark Hegener O.F.M.
In these years, both have shown me an extraordinary degree
of patience which will not be forgotten.

Tiibingen, August 15, 1969

JOSEPH RATZINGER
 THE
THEOLOGY
OF
mSTORY
IN
ST. BONAJIElVTURE
 CHAPTER I

AN AmMPT TO FIND THE STRUCTURE

OF THE BONAYENTURIAN THEOLOGY
OF HISTORY ON THE BASIS OF THE
"COLLATIONES IN HEXAEMERON"

# 1. General Remarks concerning the

"Collatlones in Hexaemeron."
When Bonaventure held his "Lectures on the Hexameron"l
at the University of Paris early in the summer of 1273, he
completed a task which had been sketched already at the time
he assumed the office of General. In February 1257, Bona-
"enture had been called suddenly from his successful activity
as professor at Paris in order to replace the departing General,
John of Parma? John's withdrawal from office was not en-
tirely voluntary, He had created an extraordinarily difficult
situation for the Franciscan Order by his decisive stand in
favor of the prophecies of Joachim of Fiore, and the Joachim-
ite-spiritualist concept of the Order in general. The unten-
ability of his position became particularly obvious in the light
of the ecclesiastical condemnation (on October 23, 1255) of
the Etlangtlium at/trnum in which the Franciscan, Gerard of
Borgo San Donnino, had attempted to formulate the Francis·
can Spiritualism. a Certainly the person of the General was
not the only difficulty with which the young Order was bur·
dened. The Order had to struggle for an understanding of its
own proper nature somewhere between the extremes of a radi-
1
2 Theology 0/ History in St. Bona.entur.
cally eschatological and purely spiritual self-consciousness on
the one hand and an all-too complacent formulation according
to the already existing forms of the older Orders on the other
hand. It seemed that the unadulterated will of the Founder
could not be realized on earth. But that which could be real-
ized seemed to be a departure from the will of the Founder. 4
In this situation, the youthful Master, Bonaventure, who was
then teaching at Paris, was called to the highest position in
the Order as the seventh successor of St. Francis." He found
himself confronted with a task which was entirely new for him.
According to the most certain chronology, 6 he had entered the
Order in Paris in 1243. At that time, it had been above all
his respect for his teacher, Alexander of Hales, which had
drawn him. So great was this reverence that he calls Alexander
not only mIJgisler, but also pIJler. T Obviously, then, the Uni-
versity of Paris was the spiritual climate for his vocation to the
Order. Consequently, his entire approach to Franciscanism has
something "Scholastic" about it. (The word "Scholastic" is
used here in the most general sense.) K Certainly the spirit of
a Franciscan soul is always perceptible in the works which
Bonaventure wrote even as a Schoolman. But the world in
which he lived, thought, and wrote as a teacher was an entirely
different world than that world of pure, fundamental religious
ardor which was characteristic of early Franciscanism." His
problems were different from those which we have just de-
scribed as the problems of the Order. I." Apparently Bona-
venture sensed this himself. When, in 1259, he withdrew into
solitude on Mount Alvecna, the holy Mount of the Order, he
apparently had no other intention in mind than to allow him-
self to be drawn more deeply into the spiritual world of
Francis in whose place he now stood."
 eluJple, I 8
The lIinerarium mmlis i,1 Deum, which Bonaventure
brought with him from these weeks of solitude, is a first sign
of a new intellectual direction. From this book onward, the
figure of St. Francis enters ever more into the center of his
thought; indeed, it is precisely that Francis who has fittingly
been called the "Christ-Image of the Middle Ages."" This
development can be followed further in the Life of 5/. Fran(is
(1260-1263),18 in the various ascetical and practical writings
which come from the time of Bonaventure's Generalate, U and
above all in a series of sermons which was begun in the year
1267. With this series, Bonaventure returned to the university
pulpit ten years after his departure, and he entered again into
the arena of doctrinal disputes which were becoming ever
more critic,,1. But it was a transformed Bonaventure. He did
not return simply to take up a position within the inner-
disciplinary debates. Rather, he came back as an outsider
to point out the limits of science from the perspective of faith.
It is in this context that we must understand the Colla/iones
de de(enl prae(ep/is, the Colla/iones de dO,lis Spiritus San(/i,
and the other Sermons given at Paris at this time.'" But it is
the final work of this period, the Colla/iones in H exaemeron,10
written in 1273, that clearly provides us with the synthesis and
crown of the whole development. It is first in this work that
Bonaventure offers a penetrating exposition of those problems
which had led earlier to the downfall of John of Parma. These
were the problems which had kept the entire Order in suspense
to an ever-increasing degree; nameiy, the questions of Joa-
chimism and Spiritualism. For this reason, the work, by its
very nature, was forced to undertake a fundamental treatment
of the theology of history. The unique individuality of this
work can be seen in the fact that it is the only work in which
4 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
a leading Scholastic theologian takes a position relative to that
stream of thought characterized by Dempf as Germanic sym-
bolism or perhaps more precisely by J. Leclerq as "moyen age
monastique" (in contrast to the "moyen age scolastique")
in order to attempt a synthesis of historical-symbolic thought
with the conceptual-abstract thought of Scholasticism. L7
Therefore it is understandable that for a long time, the
-'iexaemeron has evoked amazement. It has been called, doubt-
less not without a bit of exaggeration, "I'ouvrage Ie plus orig-
inal, Ie plus riche et peut-etre Ie plus puissant de la litterature
ecclesiastique;", , or more properly "un des plus etonnants
ouvrages de genie chretien. "11' Dempf designates it as the
"umfassendsten Entwurf einer Summa in ganzen Mittelalter"·"
and as the "bedeutendste Geschichts-und Gemeinschafts
philosophie des Mittelalters."·' Nonetheless, up to the present,
it has remained by and large a closed book; an "ager adhuc
. . . incultus, in quo ligo numquam fossus est; e via tantum
aliqui 1I0scuios de iIIo college runt, at, etsi fertilitatem et pin-
quedinem cognoverint miratique fuerint, praeterierunt," as
Tinivella has expressed it. 22
There are many reasons for this state of affairs. They lie
first of all in the unique character of this work and in its text-
ual tradition. It has already been pointed out that we are here
concerned with lectures. We do not possess the original manu-
script of the speaker but only the notes of the listeners. This
involves a degree of uncertainty in individual formulations
which is obvious already in the variety of titles under which
the work appears. At times it is referred to as I1luminationes
("desiae); at times it appears as the Col/aliones in Hexaem-
eron.28 The edition of a second text recension published by
F. Delorme2~ has revealed the inexactness of the textual tra-
 Chapler I 5
dition in a drastic way. It shows, on the one hand, that the
basic content of Bonaventure's thought has been faithfully
retained; but at the same time, it brings out clearly the free-
dom of the writers of the recensions regarding the choice
of words.
No less difficult for any attempt at interpretation is the
fragmentary character of the work which remained incomplete
because of Bonaventure's elevation to the cardinalate.2O Fur-
thermore, Bonaventure merely alludes to many things; and
frequently ideas are expressed in a veiled manner. In partic-
ular, the predictions of the future are presented in the style
of a sort of apocalyptic mystery which may well have been
understandable for his hearers because of their knowledge of
the situation, but are often almost impenetrable for us.
Consequently, we have attempted to bring together all the
related texts and allusions so as to reconstruct the original
whole on the basis of the isolated parts in as far as this is
possible. In an attempt to achieve a greater degree of cer-
tainty, all the analyses were worked out first only on the basis
of the text published in the Opera Omnia, vol. V, p. 329-449.
The comparison with Delorme's text is intended to serve as a
check for the correctness of the results. Happily, Our inter-
pretation was confirmed and at times complemented by the
text of this recension, which is frequently clearer in matters
pertaining to the theology of history. The intention of the
present study, however, is not to present a properly critical
textual comparison of the two recensions. We are concerned
rather with an analysis of the content of the Bonaventurian
theology of history. The general impression which forced itself
upon us from the texts has brought two facts more clearly
into focus. In the text of Delorme we find an effort toward
6 Theology 01 Hislory in 51. 80Mven'u,e
clarity. This text designates the historical figures by name and
interprets the contexts. It takes references from the field of
the liberal arts and expands them to short, formal tracts, 2.
and it expands the citation-material. Furthermore, it smoothes
over all the offensive passages which could be interpreted as
taking sides for Spiritualism and Joachimism. Consequently,
the other recension appears basically as the le~lio difJicilior.
We will find evidence of this often in the course of our pre-
sentation. We hope to take up this question in more detail
in a projected bilingual edition of the Hexaemeron.* On the
basis of what has been said so far. we feel justified for the
time being in preferring the text of the Opera Omnia. On the
whole, it seems to be the better text, and we have taken our
citations from it. As often as the Delorme-recension departs
substantially from the Opera Omnia or offers additions to it,
the Delorme-text will be given as well. 27

#2. A Provisional Delimitation of the Relotion between SCri ....

tu .. and History according to the "He.aemeron."
It is the intention of the H exaemeron to hold up the picture
of the true Christian wisdom in the face of the intellectual
aberrations of the age. But for Bonaventure, who was entirely
a man of his times, wisdom is unthinkable and unintelligible
without reference to the historical situation in which it has its
place. Consequently, the development of the ideal of wisdom
naturally grows into a treatment of the theology of history .

• Tr. Note: Since the orlglnll publication of the pt••• nt .tudy, • GerrNIn trln,l..
tlon of the HI..erlll,.n has been prep.,.d by Dr. Wilhelm Ny...n. This tran..
I.tlon WI. r.ad by Dr, Ratzlnger prJor 10 publication. A commentary WI. 10
appear In I "plr.t. volume whkh w .. to be PI_plred by Dr. Ny...n and Dr.
RltDnger. Iecau.. of hi' work I I ,.nav. .t the Second Vatican Cound1. Of.
Ratzlnger .... been UNbie .1 yet to compJe •• this work.
 Chapter I 7
The unique relationship between any given form of knowledge
and the historical situation to which it is related is seen already
in the general outline of the work: it distinguishes six levels
of knowledge which are interpreted allegorically in relation to
the six days of the creation account. At the same time, the six
periods of salvation history are related to the six days of crea-
tion. For Bonaventure, this double relationship is not chance
nor is it arbitrary. Rather, it is a fitting rellection of reality
which is characterized by an historical, step-wise growth in
knowledge. 1
In this way, Bonaventure arrives at a new theory of scrip-
tural exegesis which emphasizes the historical character of the
scriptural statements in contrast to the exegesis of the Fathers
and the Scholastics which had been more clearly directed to the
unchangeable and the enduring.
According to Bonaventure, the word of Scripture has, as it
were, three levels of meaning. First, there is the spirituaiis
intelligerrtia which penetrates through the literal sense to the
allegorical, tropological, or anagogical meaning. 2 But he is not
satisfied with this traditional division. Next to the "spiritual
sense" of Scripture as understood above he places a second
dimension, the figurae sacramental.s, with which Scripture
speaks of Christ and of the Anti-Christ in all its books.· And
finally, in the third place, he puts the multi/ormes theoriae of
which he says: "Who can know the unlimited number of seeds
which exist? For from one single seed, entire forests grow up;
and they in turn bring forth innumerable seeds. So it happens
that innumerable theories can arise from Scripture which only
God can grasp in His knowledge. As new seeds come from
plants, so also new theories and new meaning come from Scrip-
ture ... Each of the theories which are derived from Scripture
8 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
is related to the totality of those theories that are based on
Scripture as a drop of water taken from the sea is related to
the whole of the sea:'· It is because of this unlimited potential
that the "theories" are distinguished from the spiritual sense
and from the figurae sacramenta/es, since both of these remain
within a certain clearly established framework. G
But the question with which we are here concerned is this:
what does Bonaventure mean by these so·called theories? There
is no clear definition to be found in his works. But on the basis
of the material before us, we can express his idea as follows:
The theories are intimations about future times found in Scrip-
ture. Scripture points to the future; but only he who has under-
stood the past can grasp the interpretation of the future because
the whole of history develops in one unbroken line of meaning
in which that which is to come may be grasped in the present
on the basis of the past. Therefore, if the theories, strictly
speaking, are hidden indications of the future in Scripture, then
these theories cannot be determined without a knowledge of
the past history of salvation which is the indispensable basis
for the understanding of that which is to come. II
Thus Bonaventure appropriates the exegesis which Joachim
of Fiore had developed in his Concordia veteris et notli testa-
menti; the three-fold explanation of the work of creation is
taken from the same work. 7 Bonaventure thus accepts that
type of essentially historical understanding of Scripture which
was central in the work of Joachim and which was one of the
decisively new elements that distinguished the work of the
Calabrian abbot from that of the Fathers. With this in mind,
we can see the significance of one of the images which already
appeared in the text given above. The spiritual sense of Scrip-
ture is indicated in the gathering of the waters on the third day
 Chapter 1 9
of creation; the figura. sarramentales are indicated in the com-
mand, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation"; and finally, the
theories are implied when Scripture speaks of the fruits and
the trees that carry seeds within themselves.' It is apparent
that this amounts to nothing less than a transfer of the theory
of rationes seminales to SCripture. D Certainly Scripture is closed
objectively. But its meaning is advancing in a steady growth
through history; and this growth is not yet closed. As the physi-
cal world contains seeds, so also Scripture contains "seeds";
that is, seeds of meaning. And this meaning develops in a
constant process of growth in time. Consequently, we are able
to interpret many things which the Fathers could not bave
known because for them these things still lay in the dark future
while for us they are accessible as past history. Still other
things remain dark for us. 1 0 And so, new knowledge arises
constantly from Scripture. Something is taking place; and this
happening, this history, continues onward as long as there is
history at all. This is of fundamental importance for the theo-
logian who explains Scripture. It makes it clear that the theo-
logian cannot abstract from history in his explanation of Scrip-
ture; neither from the past nor from the future. In this way,
the exegesis of Scripture becomes a theology of history; the
clarification of the past leads to prophecy concerning the future.

#3. Th. Historical Sch.ma'a of the ..H.xa ..... 'on ...

1. The excfusion of Augustine from the narrower con a

sid.ra'ion of the theology of history.

From what has been said, it is clear that in many ways what
Bonaventure intended in writing the Hexaemeron is similar to
intention of Augustine in his Civitas Dei; that is, to make the
present and the future of the Church understandable from its
10 Theology 01 Hi%ry in 5/. Bonoven/ure
past. The traditional schema of the seven ages of world history
played only a very secondary role in the case of Augustine;'
his principal point of emphasis is the presentation of world-
events in terms of the conflict between the civitas Dei and the
cit,itas terrena, between the corpus Christi and the corpus
Diaboli. The entire course of human history is brought to-
gether in terms of this duality which reaches out over the entire
history of man in both directions, to the past and to the future.
It is exactly the opposite with Bonaventure. He mentions
Augustine'S historical principle at times; for example, when
he says: "All the mysteries of Scripture treat of Christ with his
Body and of the Anti-Christ and the Devil with his cohorts.
This is the meaning of Augustine in his book on the City of
God ... "2 However, Bonaventure relates this understanding of
Scripture not to the theoriae, and therefore not to the theology
of history, but rather to the figurae sacramentales which we
might see as a "typology" in contrast to the "allegory" that
stands behind the "spiritual sense."· Consequently, Augustine
is deliberately excluded from the real theology of history right
from the start. < This fact is not without significance for the
proper evaluation of what follows.

2. The new farm of the theology of history.

Bonaventure again carries out a careful division of the tra-
ditional materials within the realm of the theoriae; i.e. as re-
gards that which properly pertains to the historico-theological*
consideration of Scripture. He presents here two types of his-
torical schemata:
• Tr. Nat.: Rather IMn meke ute of awkward pu.pfw...., we will COftllltently
t,an,I.,. the adjective "gesehichtltheoklgl,ch" with the word "hl'forko-theolog-
Jc.l."
 Chap/er I 11
a) The divisions of history in the School-theology, ot which
three are named:

a) The doctrine of the seven ages from Adam to Christ,

as they were known from Augustine's City of God,'

b) A division of world-history into five ages. This was

worked out on the basis of Jesus' parable of the work-
ers in the vineyard (Mt. 20,1-16). In this parable, we
read about the call in the early morning, as well as at
the third, the sixth, the ninth, and the eleventh hour.
On the basis of a homily of Gregory the Great,O the
Middle Ages had seen a doctrine of five WOrld-epochs
hidden in this parable. The divisions of history are
designated by the names: Adam-Noe-Abraham-
Moses-Christ. '

c) Finally, there is the well-known division of history into

three ages: the time of the law of nature; the law of
Scripture; and the law of Grace. R We mention in
passing that the three numbers 7, 5, and 3 are finally
added together and the number 15 which results from
this process is likewise given a mysterious meaning. 9

b) Bonaventure uses none of these schemata as his own; not

even the seven-schema, as a superficial study might lead one to
believe. Instead, he contrasts all these constructs with an idea
from Joachim's Concordia which was to become decisive for
his own conception. The knowledge of history arises in the
interplay between the Old and the New Testament. These are
the two Cherubim over the mercy seat; they are the two divi-
sions of historical time which are similar in form. Accordingly,
there is not only a correspondence between the seven days of
12 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
creatIOn and the seven ages from Adam to Christ, as Augustine
had taught; but there is abo a correspondence between the
history of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament.
Not only had Augustine not taught this; he had clearly re-
jected the idea.' 0 The Old and New Testaments are related
to each other "as tree to tree; as letter to letter; as seed to seed.
And as a tree comes from a tree, a seed from a seed, and a
letter from a letter, so one Testament comes from the other
Testament."" Thus, a double relation is seen between the
Testaments. The first is a dynamic relation whereby one Testa-
ment comes from the other and emerges out of the other. The
second is a more static relation in which one Testament stands
over against the other. A further duality stands in the back-
ground: the Pauline determination of the relation between the
Testaments as /iliera and spiritus remains here in as far as the
one "tree" is designated as the lillera and the other "tree" is
seen as spirilus.'" The original Pauline comparison is trans-
formed, however, by the comparison "ut littera ad litteram."
This comparison is given precedence, and it provides a new
form for the older comparison. The presuppositions, mean-
ing, and consequences of this procedure will be treated in
detail later (##4 and 5).

In this approach. the emphasis is on the exegetical element

known as the Ihe(}ri"e, for only this element allows for real
statements concerning the future of the Church, which is the
primary concern of the "theories." Since there is a multiplicity
of "theories" hidden in Scripture, we are not restricted to one
particular schema; the relation of the Testaments can be treated
on the basis of all the numbers from 1 to 7. In this way, seven
new hi~toricaJ schemata arise.
 Chapter I 18
a) If we work on the basis of the number 1, we arrive at
the Pauline relationship
- servitus .....•..••....•..... libertas
- timor .....•....•..•__..• amor
- littera ......................... spiritus
- figura ....................... veritas
- nox ..... _ ....................... dies l8
b) In this schema, the new meaning given to this way of
thinking is not yet apparent. It becomes clear, however, in the
relationship which arises when we work on the basis of the
number two. This involves two periods of time for each of
the Testaments so that the following picture arises:
Ante legem+sub lege ..
vocatio gentium+vocatio ludaeorum. H
Here already the primary significance of the theoriae is real-
ized, that is, a projection into the future; for the call of the
Jews into the Church of Christ is yet to be realized. But ab-
stracting from the testimony of Scripture which promises this
fact, it can be seen also from the necessary correspondence of
the Testaments. It thus becomes apparent that the present time
is not a time of perfect fulfillment. "This time is not yet here.
If it were already here, then the saying of Isaias would be ful-
filled: 'Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall
they learn war anymore' (Is. 2, 4). As yet, that is still unful-
filled; for two kinds of swords are still being raised. There is
still war waged with weapons; and there is stiil the spiritual
war against heresy.'" Co Here Bonaventure raises a new, inner-
wordly, inner-historical messianic hope. He rejects the view
that with Christ the highest degree of inner-historical fulfill-
ment is already realized so that there is nothing left but an
14 Theology 0/ His/ory in St. Bonaven/ure
eschatological hope for that which lies beyond all history.
Bonaventure believes in a new salvation in history, within the
limits of this time. This is a very significant shift in the under-
standing of history, and must be seen as the central historico-
theological problem of the Hexaemeron. It is expressed for
the first time unequivocally here; but it becomes more and
more clear from schema to schema.
() The following picture arises when we use the number 3
as the basis:
.-----tempus
1.
synagogae ecc1eslae
initiatae+prAmotae+deficientis I
initiatae+dilatatae-consummatae
While in the previous schema, the prophecy of the future
does not go beyond the general statements of Scripture, here
it takes on a more precise form. It is the "fulfillment" of the
church, which is still to come. After Lea-who from antiquity
had been the picture of the vila IlCliva-had given birth to her
sons, Rachel-who is the picture of the vila (onlemplaliva-
had to bring the last sons to the world, namely Joseph and
Benjamin. In other words, the completed church, the e(desia
conlempla/il'a, is yet to come. "'
Here again we meet the same hope of an inner-historical
transformation of the church. Details of this section which
may still seem unclear will be treated more extensively later.
d) The same interpretation pointing to a contemplative,
monastic church arises from the schemata based on the num-
bers four and five. These will be treated explicitly in relation-
ship to Bonaventure·s hope regarding revelation (Ch. 2); we
can, therefore, bypass them for the present. They close with
 Chapler I 15
the announcement of Elias, "who will restore all things," (Mk.
9, 12; Mal. 3, 22f) and with a vision of the great final tribu-
lation.17
e) For Bonaventure, all of these schemata have a merely
provisional character. Each one emphasizes only particular
aspects, all of which are brought together in his own, proper
schema which is built on the numbers six and seven. This
demands a special treatment. In dealing with it, we move into
the center of the Bonaventurian theology of history.

#4. The Central Form of the Bonaventurlan Theology of

History: the 2 x 7 Time-Schema.
1. Time-schemata built on six and seven in tradition and
in Bonaventure.
a) In line with the tradition of his time, Bonaventure sees
no distinction between the time-schema buil t on six and that
built on seven. In this tradition, we find a peculiar union of
elements from late Judaism and early Christianity together
with philosophical, speculative concepts. Late Judaic thought
had developed the notion of a world-week that was to last six-
thousand years; the eternal kingdom of God would follow as
the seventh day. Presumably it was the Christian transgression
and destruction of the Judaic notions ab?ut the Sabbath which
helped to form the new notion of the eighth day of the Resur-
rection as distinct from the Sabbath. 1
A certain tension between the seventh day and the eighth
day is noticeable" until a solution is found in the axiom:
Septima aetas currit cum sexta. a Bonaventure appropriates this
axiom as his own, and understands it in such a way that the
seventh epoch is found in those who now enter into heavenly
glory between the Resurrection of Christ (with which the open-
 16 Theology 0/ His/ory in 5/. Bonaven/ure
ing of heaven IS connected), and the final cnnsummation of the
world in the general resurrection.' As lnng as the church has
existed, there has always been this hidden and glorious concur·
rent history, the history of heaven. The glory of the seventh
day is real, though its concurrence with the perilous and pain·
ful sixth day is hidden. The eternal eighth day follows these
two inter·connected days, and it will be intrnduced by the resur-
rection and judgment.' We might well say that in this solu·
tion, the problem of ecdesial eschatology is masterfully han-
dled: On the one hand, Bonaventure recognizes the full
heavenly glory of the souls of those whn have died and have
been purified; on the other hand, it remains dear that this
heavenly condition is not the final state, but that it is still a
part of world-history; it also stands in expectation of that
which is to come. Consequently, the mystery of hope remains
for Christianity; a concrete hope for a transformation of the
world."
b) The Scholion of the Quaracchi.edition indicates only
this solution, which is faithful to tradition but which repre-
sents, nonetheless, only half of Bonaventure's theology of hi-
story. 7 In fact, it is related only to the Augustinian schema
based on the number seven. This schema divides the entire
history of the world from Adam to the end of time into one
single series of seven parts. But we must here again emphasize
what we said above; namely, that Bonaventure excludes this
simple seven-part division of world history and salvation·
history from his own theology of history; he favors the view
which presupposes, first of all, the two-fold division of the
Old and the New Testament. After the Seraphic Doctor has
shown the relations based on the numbers 1 to 5, he then in-
dicates the fittingness of a double division into seven periods
 Chaplet I 17
within the two-fold division of the Testaments. This he de-
velops into his own plan for the theology of history. This
double-seven-schema must be dearly distinguished from the
simple-seven-schema found in Augustine and the ancient
Church as well as in medieval theology prior to the time of
Joachim, for a completely different understanding of time and
of history is expressed in it. We will treat this more fully
below; but the difference can be briefly summarized as follows:
For the Augustinian schema, Christ is the end of the ages;
for the Bonaventurian schema, Christ is the center of the ages. 8
The widely-spread notion that Bonaventure places the Augus-
tinian doctrine of the seven ages in opposition to the Joachim-
ite doctrine of the three ages is not to the point. '0 In reality,
Bonaventure' contrasts the double-seven-schema of Joachim
with the simple-seven-schema of Augustine, and decides in
favor of the former.
The axiom "septima aetas curcit cum sexta" does not hold
in this double-seven-schema. Instead, this schema recognizes
a seventh period of history in its own right. '" The connection
between the two schemata should be seen this way: The sixth
period of the continuous Augustinian structure embraces the
seven ecc1esiaJ ages of the bipartite Bonaventurian structure.
The following picture emerges:

Augustine
1 2 3 4 5 6
Adam-Noe - Abraham - David - transmigratio - Christus - finis
Babylonis mundi
--------rl----------------
Vetus testamentum
I
Novum testamentum
 18 Theology of Hislory in SI . Bonavenlure
Bonaventure
(Joachim)
1 ............_ ...................".."""............. "..... "........... .......... I
2 ............ _..............................................................."........... 2
3 ..................... _ ..........................................................."... 3
4 .......... _ ............".......... ........ __ ............ .................. .... 4
5 ......................... _........................... ................... ....... _ 5
6 ..............."................. . .............. .. ............................_ 6
7 ... .............................. ...._ ......... _ 7"

The Augustinian tradition remains as the broad framework;

but for the actual interpretation of history, it is superseded by
new ideas.

2. The basis for the preference for the number seven.

Bonaventure has given us an express account for the pref.
erence given to the seven·fold division over all the other
schemata. The number seven expresses in a remarkable way
the entirety of reality; J" it does this relative to God, to man,
and to the world. Rather than give a long explanation, we
will simply present the schema in which the seven·fold struc·
ture of these three "worlds"-the mundus archetypus, the
mundus minor, and the 11Iundus ma;or-is worked out. 13
 Chapler 1 19
IMaior mundus I IMinor mundus I IMundus archetypus I
quatuor e1ementa quatuor elementa Ratio causandi
{ quatuor humores secundum quatuor.
Qu-a-te-r~na~r-iu-;;- respondet corpori
tres orbes inRuxivi tres vires vitales triformis causa
et
motivi
sidereus vegetabilis
crystallinus sensibilis
empyreus rationalis
-----~~---
ternarius respondet spiritui
This relationship, therefore, means more than a mere play
with numbers because it makes us aware of the inner relations
of reality which, for Bonaventure, are a part of the harmony
that he confidently believes to be present in the universe
created by God. ' 4
Similarly, history is not a concatination of blind and op-
pressive chance happenings. Rather, it is illumined by that
same divine order which is the unifying law of all reality. The
schema given above presents the static relation~hip of these
three worlds standing next to each other. To this we must
add the dynamic relationship of the historical process of be-
coming which is involved in the affirmation of the seven-fold
division of history. Here the rational structure of history is
decisively affirmed.
#5. The Historical Prophecy of Bonaventure.
The real point of Bonaventure's new vision of history is
not the understanding of the past, but prophecy about that
20 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
which is to come, as has already been said often. But a know-
ledge of the past is necessary for the grasp of the future. In
order to clarify further the connection between the past and
the future, we will present on a special page a detailed outline
of the great double-seven-schema found in H exaemeron XVI
11-31 (Vol. V 405-408) so that it may be referred to easily
in the following presentation.
 Tempora
ori.inalia (Jemina) flluralia forbore. Jigumrum) gratiosa (/ructlU)
dies Iuds formatae tempus naturae eonditae collatae aretiae
ab Adam-ad Noe tria: a Christo et apostolis-ad Clementem I(+ca. 99, 4th Pope)
Formatio hominis Formatio Christi
tentatio-tranll'essio-nudaUo- haeresis Ebionitarum
eiectio eiectio J udaeorum
aquae divisae purgandae culpae baptismi in sanguine
a Noe-ad Abraham a Clemente-ad Silvestrum f314·335)
fabricatio arae Clemens in arC8
ostensio arcus decem tribulationes+pax Constantini
divisio linguarum "remansit confessio Christi in populo christiano"
terrae fecundae .entis electae normae catholicae
ab Abraham-ad Moysen a Silvestro-ad Leonem I (440--461)
generatio patriarcharum (12) semen doclorum altissimorum (12)
descensio in Aegyptum descl'!Dsio imperatoris Constantinopolim
affticitio populi affliclio populi per haereses (")
Iuds sidereae legis slatutae legis iustitiae ir
a Moyse-ad Samuelem a Leone-ad Gregorium I (590-604) ~
laUo legis lex canonico, politica, monelica data !i
prostratio hostium hastes per Iustinianum prostrati .....
distributio hereditatum distributio heredilatum: Gallia, Britannia, Germania
converS8 ad fidem (ditataUo in terra promissionis,
motivae vitae relalis gJoriae non apud Graecos)
a David-ad Ezeehiam sublimis cathedrae
deiectio superbi regis (Goliath) a Gregorio-ad Hadrianum I <112-795)
ampliatio cultus divini patriarcha Constantinopolitanus excommunicatus
divisio decem tribuum ordinatio officii
humanae fonnae vocis propheticae divisio Graecorum ab ecclesia
ab Ezechia-ad Zorobabel clarae doctrinae
praeclaritas vlctoriae ab Hadriano-ad ?
doctrinae vitae victoria CaroH, pax eet:lesiae
propheticae inceperunt legere et phllosophari
efr. the analysis in the following development.
quietis prImae quietis mediae pacis postremae
a Zorobabel-ad Christum a damore angeti (Apoc. 10,6,7) - ?
reaediflcatio templi reparatio divini cultus
restauratio civitatis reaediftcatio civitatis
pax data "tunc pax erit"
22 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
A. The promise of the seventh age.
Now that we have established the fact that the primary
concern of Bonaventure's view of history is related to the
future, we can determine more precisely the point around
which everything is centered. This central point of interest
lies in that small section of the sixth age which is yet to be
realized, that is, in that mysterious border-line area which
separates the perilous present time from that age of Sabbath
Rest which is yet to come within the framework of this world.
What is it that we are to expect before that long-awaited
hour strikes and peace enters the world forever? Everything
revolves around this question and is concerned with the deter-
mination of that final period of the sexla aelas which remains
to be realized.
In contrast with this problem, the question of the seventh
age is relatively simple, and will be treated immediately.
Bonaventure himself clarifies what is meant by the seventh
age when he says: "Then the prophecy of Ezechiel (401£)
will be fulfilled: The Holy City will come down from heaven;
not, however, that city 'which is above' (Gal. 4, 26), but that
one which is below, that is, the church militant. But she will
be formed in the likeness of the Church triumphant in as far
as this is possible in her pilgrim-state ... And then there will
be peace ... ".' Two things are obvious:
a) We are dealing with a thoroughly inner-worldly con-
dition. The pilgrim-character is expressly emphasized, and
the designation of the "Church militant" is emphatically held
in contrast to the "Church triumphant."
b) This period of time represents a state of salvation of a
completely new sort. But this does not destroy its inner-
worldly, inner-historical, and therefore pre-eschatological char-
 Chapter I 25
acter. It is first in this period that the great prophecies of
Ezechiel and Isaias" will be fulfilled; it is only in this age
that the state of redemption will find its full meaning.
c) Immediately a question arises. How is this seventh
age of Bonaventure related to the seventh age of Joachim?
We can take a stand on this question only when we have
presented the opinion of Joachim himself, and when we have
discovered the new form which the concept of revelation takes
on in the Hexaemeron. This concept of revelation will follow
from the Bonaventurian theology of history which we are
about to develop.
For the present, we merely point out that the Seraphic
Doctor had clearly and decisively rejected any crass form of
the Joachimite doctrine such as had been developed by Gerard
of Borgo San Donnino. Gerard considered Joachim to be the
Angel of the Apocalypse 14, 6 about whom it is stated: "I saw
another angel flying in mid-air with an eternal Gospel . . ."
The writings of Joachim were seen to be this eternal Gospel
which was supposed to take the place of the temporary New
Testament message. 3 This theory, which was expressly con-
demned by the Church, < was rejected also by Bonaventure.
He writes: "No other testament will come after the New
Testament; and no sacrament of the new Law can be done
away with, because this is already the eternal covenant:"
Therefore, the seventh age is expressly placed not only within
this course of history, but also within the time of the New
Testament. The New Testament is described as the eternal
Testament; it therefore embraces all that remains of the
course of history. Thus it is clearly seen that this new, trans-
formed historical schema is still developed within the older
Augustinian framework, as we have already indicated. Though
24 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
it is apparent that Bonaventure rejected Gerard's view to-
gether with the notion of an Evallgelium aeterllum, it would
be incorrect to equate this with the rejection of Joachim him-
self, as one might be tempted to do." We must, rather,
clearly distinguish the two so that the true situation can come
to light.

B. The problem of the sixth age.

I. The cour.. of the Ilath _•• hi •• n.... 1.

The allusions concerning the character of this final part of

the sixth age, which is partIy present and partIy future, are
scattered throughout the entire Hexaemeroll. This is another
indication that this problem was close to the heart of Bona-
venture. But there is one primary citation concerning this
question in which we lind nearly all the themes of his specu-
lation about the future; namely, Collatiolles XVI 29, vol. V.
408 a-b. We will proceed on the basis of this citation, and the
other material will be brought in at the proper points along
the way.
t. The t. . It.

In order to provide the necessary foundation for the fol-

lowing presentation, we will lirst give the texts with which
we are concerned. In the left column is the basic text from
which we are working; in the right column are the most im-
portant parallel texts which will help us gain a better under-
standing:'
Hoc tempore oportuit venire vitam XVI. 16. p. 405 b:
per ordinem. qui haberet vitam pro- Et necesse fuit. ut in hoc tempore
pheUcam (as parallel to 'praeela- veniret unus orda, sc. habitus pro-
ritas vitae propheUcae' in the OT, pheticWl, similis ordlni Jesu ChrbU,
see Schem. on p.21) cuius caput esset ".nrelus ascend.
ens ab orlu solis . . ." (Apoc. 7,2)
 Chapter 1 25
et confonnis Chrlsto.-Et dixit,
quod lam venerat. Vide xxn 21
p. 440b.: Hule respondent Cherub-
im. hi sunt PraedJeatores et MI-
nores.+XXU 27 p. 441b: revel.tlo
(respondet) Cherubim.
XV 28 p. 402: vide infra.

Hoc autem tempus est .eminum.

unde. slcut in passione Domini fult
primo lux, delnde tenebra, postea
lux; sic necease est, ut primo sit
lux doctrlnae et succedat Joslas
(4 Kg. 22; relll1 638-aJ8) Ezechlae
(4 Kg. 18-20; reign 121-693). post
quam facta est tribulalio Iudae ..
orum per capilivJtatem. Necesse est
enim. ut surgat UDUS princeps zela ..
tor ecclesiae qui vel erit vel iam
fuit-et addidil UUnam lam non
fuerit-post quam fit obsc:uritas tri. Vide XXII 22 p. «la: Qui!: Butem
butalionum. iste ordo futurus sit vel iam sit•..

Hoc tempore similiter Carolus (768..

814) exattavlt ecelesiam. et ejus
successores oppugnaverunt eam:
tempore Henricl quarti UQ56.1106)
fuerunt duo papae, similiter tern·
pore Frederiei malDi (11S2-1190)M vgl. XX 15 p. 428a: •.. eonswnma-
duo. £t certum est, quod allquis buntur pasaiones, qUBS modo corpus
inter ~ voluit extermJnare eccle. Christi patitur. Oportet enim sur-
siami sed "angelus ascendens ab lere Herodem. sub quo illudatur
ortu solis" clamavit Q.uatuor angel. Christus et Petrus incarceretur
is: "Nolile nocere terrae et mario (presumably Frederick n. 1215-
quousque .icnemus servos Dei nos .. 1250).11
tri in frontibus eorum" CApoc. 7.2l. XVI 16 p. 405 b. vide supra.
XXii 23 p. 44Ja. XXIII 3 p. 445b.
XXIII 14 p. ~7; De perf ev q. 2.
a. 3. ad 12. V 164b; Legenda 5.
Franc. Prol 1.2. VIn 504b; c 4. 9 p.
515 a·b; vide infra Nr. n

Unde adhuc: restal eccJesiae lribu .. xx 15 p. 428a. vide supra.

)aOo. XXVII 28 p. 414b.

Et dictum est Anlelo PhUadelphiae. xx 29 p. 403b; Nota quod duodecim

qui sextus est: "Haec dicit Sanctus signaUones sunt sub sexto sigillo
26 Theology 0/ Hislory iI/ SI. BOl/uvenlure
et Verus: qui babet clavem David et sub sexto anlelo . . . et RXto
qui aperit et nemo claudlt. claudlt angelo, sc. PhIladelphi.e, qui in-
et nemo aperit. Sela opera tUB, quia terpretatur conservans hereditatem
ecce, dedi coram te ostium aper- dictum est de clave David. . . .
tum" CApoc. 3, 7>. hoc est, dabo "alitism scripturarum
btl sexto angelo.

Et dixit. quod intelligenUa suip- XXIII 29 p. 449b: Hic esl anplus

lurae daretur, vel revelatio vel .extWl Philadelphiae. salvans, here-
cIavis David personae vel multi- ditatem. Relative to XXIV 4 p. 445b
tudlni; et magls credo, quod mulU- vide infra.
ludfnl. III 21 p. 347. and III 32 p. 348b
do nat belong here.

2. The prophetic "herrnlfa

This entire presentation is concerned with that final section

of the great course of history which embraces 7 x 3 periods.
We have already given the general schema above. Bonaven-
ture is no longer satisfied with the comparative study of the
Old Testament and the days of Creation. In order to cast
some light on the darkness that envelops the events that are
so imminent, he makes use of everything that can be of any
assistance. So we come upon two new auxiliary schemata:

a) The series of seven from the Apocalypse are brought in.

As regards their content, the seven series of seven in the
Apocalypse are identical with one another according to the
view of Bonaventure. Each one points to the same thing in a
different way; namely, the seven-staged course of church
history. 1 II Consequently, the sixth figure of each series offers
a new insight for the mlution of the problem of the future. 11
This interpenetration of the various schemata leads to sur-
prising results for Bonaventure, and often gives him cause to
point out to his listeners the wonderful harmony of Scrip-
ture. " In particular, the following figures are used:
'
 Chapter 1 27
a) The sixth seal (Apoc. 6, 12-17 and c 7).18 This is
the richest citation, and it ultimately provides the real
key foe understanding his interpretation. It is under
this seal that an event takes place, the concrete ful-
lillment of which can be seen with one's own eyes in
the present: It is the appearance of the angel with
the "Seal of the living God." This point must be
treated separately and in detail later (II).

b) The angel of Philadelphia, to whom the sixth letter

is addressed (Apoc. 3, 7-13).1< The most signilicant
and helpful dues in this text are: "davis David" and
"porta aperta." When these two are taken in connec-
tion with the sixth age of the Old Testament, which
was an age of prophecy, they make it possible to pre-
dict that we may await a new insight into Scripture.
This in turn makes it possible to draw conclusions
which will have to be treated. It is in the same direc-
tion that the etymology of the word Philadelphia is
worked out. This etymology is taken from the work
of Haymo, and the name is understood to mean
"Conservans hereditatem. '" •
c) In Apocalypse 21, 9, we read: "Then one of the
seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the
seven last plagues came and spoke to me: Come, I
will show you the bride, the spouse of the Lamb."
Concerning this, Bonaventure says that this must be
the sixth of the seven angels with the bowls; but he
does not make any detailed use of the vision of the
bowls in his prophecy.. •
d) Finally, the sixth trumpet is also taken into account.
It is at the time of the sixth trumpet that the "open-
ing of the book" (Apoc. 10) and the measuring and
description of the city (Apoc. 11, 1 and 2; Apoc. 21,
9-22, 5) take place. This also points to a new under-
28 Theology 0/ His/ory in St. Bonaventure
standing of Scripture. The vision of the new city is,
indeed, already a vision of the seventh age which
will be characterized by God's peace upon earth."

From this, the basic lines for determining the final course
of the sixth period are somewhat clear and unified. And wlien
we see how everything falls together almost naturally for
Bonaventure, then we can understand why he can close his
schema with one statement which reveals unmistakably the
hidden joy of a discoverer who has achieved such success:
"Et sic patet, quomodo scriptura describit successiones tem-
porum; et non sunt a casu et fortuna, sed mira lux est in eis
et multae intelligentiae spirituales." '"
b) By means of a typological explanation, the Passion of
Jesus is extended from the "Head" to the "Body."'" In the
case of Jesus' Own sufferings, there was first light, then clark-
ness, then light again. Similarly, the Mystical Body must go
this way of suffering; and on the sixth day of this way, it also
must count on a similar alternation between darkness and
light. Without a doubt, this division of the Passion is not
taken directly from the Gospels. Rather, it is modeled after
Bonaventure's closing Old Testament schema which we must
study in 'greater detail. This schema itself is already a struc-
turing of Old Testament events in accordance with the needs
of Bonaventure's own interpretation of history. Therefore it
is not fully clear what precisely is meant by this alternation of
darkness and light relative to the historical course of the Pas-
sion. But from other notions of Bonaventure, this much is
certain; he thought not only of two periods of light, but also
of two periods of darkness for the Church before the final
appearance of the glory of the seventh age." 0
 Chapter 1 29
c) Surprisingly enough, the eschatological statements of
Jesus play practically no role here. In the entire H exaemerOII,
these statements are cited only three times; and in these cases,
it is only the thought of the coming tribulation which is used;
and even this thought is developed more significantly in the
most important passages on the basis of other sources."' We
may well see the reason for this in the fact that the simple
and powerful eschatological message of Jesus offered prac-
tically no material for the speculations with which Bonaven·
ture was concerned other than the idea of the great tribulation;
and this was apparently almost self-evident. Actually the
scriptural material may have seemed to be an obstacle, es-
pecially since it seemed to allow no room for the idea of the
great peace of the seventh day.

3. Summery
Though there is a series of valuable indications in the
Apocalypse which may be helpful in determining the con-
crete content of the near future, nonetheless the external
framework of the schema is still determined by the Old Testa-
ment. This can be set up as follows :
praecltr.ra.-uietoria - Ezechias - zelator - Charlemaane
+praeclara doctrlna or Oziu ecclesiae
Manasses - tribulatio -Henry IV: -angelus
Frederick I. sexU si-
gilU
prophetia
pmedCl1'itu uitae
pt'oph.eticae Josias - zelator - vel erit vel iam fult
secundua:l!t
Babylon. - tribulatio - tribulatio, ex qua na-
Exile scitur ordo futurus.
(XXD. 23, p. "la:
Zorobabel -Iestauratio- XX, 15 p. 4388,)
pax - pax, ultima revelatio.
50 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
The course of the coming historical period is presented by
Bonaventure as follows. It is certain that Charlemagne was
the great Zealot for the well-being of the Church correspond-
ing to Ezechias or Ozias. In him, the Church of that period
achieved a glorious victory and outstanding learning, which
was clearly demanded by the Old Testament typology. Simi-
larly, it is certain that Henry IV and Frederick I were the
hostile kings corresponding to Manasses. They brought about
for the Church that tribulation which had been predicted
typologically. Further, the great growth of prophetism which
took place in the corresponding period of travail in the Old
Testament has already found a New Testament parallel in the
appearance of the angel of the seals mentioned in Apocalypse
7 and in the prophetic movement initiated by him. We will
give a detailed treatment of what is meant by this later in
this work.
In any case, the course of history up to this point is clear.
Indeed, up to now we are dealing with things that have
already taken place. Nonetheless, this theological clarification
of the past provides us with significant results for the inter-
pretation of the future. For it becomes clear that now only
two events separate u~ from the great peace of the seventh
day. There must be a second "Charlemagne," who would
correspond to ]osias; he would be a second great Zealot for
the Church of God. And corresponding to the Babylonian
Exile of Israel, there must be a second great tribulation for
the Church. Out of this time of tribulation will emerge the
ordo fUlurus; the new People of God of the final age. (For
this translation, see III, 1.)
Bonaventure indicates a degree of uncertainty in dating
these events; but in any case they are understood to be im-
 Chapter J !II
minent. He holds it as possible that the second Zealot of the
Church is already present, and he allows for the possibility
that the nO/'UI ardo has already begun. Yet his own viewpoint
would seem to tend more to the opinion that both of these
are still to come."" After this general clarification of the
course of the coming final age, it remains for uS to determine
what meaning Bonaventure sees in the apocalyptic angel with
the seals who has already appeared, and what he means by
the ordo !uturllJ. For it is here that his prophecy takes on
concrete form and color for the first time.
But before we go on to this question, we would like to
point out the combination of the prophetic-typological state-
ments in the schema of the final age which we have just
treated. The two-fold alternation of zelator-tribu/atio, zelator
(JecunduI) , tribu/atio is parallel. to the series of Ezechias-
Manasses-Josias-Babylonian Exile. This is strictly parallel
to the two-fold alternation of light and darkness as Bonaven-
ture had described it in the Passion of the Lord (vide Iupra
under b.). From the first tribnlatio onward, the apocalyptic
concept of the sixth angel is joined with the Old Testament
schema. The figure of the angel leads to the actual determi-
nation of the content of the last age in as far as the other
apocalyptic types in the sixth position are related to it, as we
indicated above. We will now treat this in greater detail.
II. n ••ach.tolollul position of St. Fr.na•.
1. Bonllventure', two-fold theology of Francis In generlll.~"

As a Franciscan, Bonaventure--like the entire Order of

Franciscans-saw Francis not simply as another Saint, but as
a sign of the final age, as one sent by God. Francis had a very
precisely determined and unexchangeable place within an
 82 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
exactly delimited historical line of salvation history. We can
determine two tendencies in the theological understanding of
Francis, which is always simultaneously a Franciscan escha-
tology.
a) Francis-praeco Dei-John the Baptist-Elias.
Francis had called himself the "Herald of a great King ... ••
Taking this as a point of departure, Bonaventure sees Francis
as the eschatological praeco Dei, as the resurrected John the
Baptist. The word "Herald," which was originally used with-
out any theological significance, easily provides a bridge to a
new theological interpretation in which the word is applied
to one who in fact is a "Voice crying in the desert." This one
is the Herald of the Kingdom of God which has Come upon
us. From here, a further connection is obvious : The Lord
Himself had called John the returned Elias (Mt. 11, 14; also
Mk. 9, 12ft, and Lk. I, 17). Consequently the two figures
remain related to each other forever.
For this reason, when Francis has been designated as John
the Baptist, it is only natural that he should be seen as Elias
as well. The two names are used interchangeably to express
the same idea?
But this alternation of names is not without significance,
for the name of Elias points more clearly to an eschatological
dimension than does the name of John the Baptist. The
prophecy of Malachy, which was so important in the New
Testament, was connected with the name of Elias, and not
with that of John. "Behold, I send you the prophet Elias,
before the great and terrible day arrives . . ." (Mal. 3, 23).
From this citation, it is fully clear what Bonaventure means
when he says: In Francis, Elias has appeared. 27 Furthermore,
 Chapler I
the name of Elias makes it possible to connect Francis with
the historical prophecy of Joachim of Fiore who had related
the biblical expectation of Elias (Mal. 3, 23) to the apocalyp-
tic prediction of the two witnesses (Apoc. 11, 31f). As a
result, he predicts the appearance of a new Elias and a new
Henoch at the beginning of the third period of history. It was
possible to see this prediction fulfilled in Francis and Dominic.
Bonaventure has these prophecies in mind when he writes:
". . . Elias must come; he will restore all things again (-he
will restore the state of the ecdesia primiliva); with him
Henoch also will come. But the Beast will overcome the two
witnesses.'·28
b) Francis, Ihe "ange/lis aJCendens ab orlll so/is."
The understanding of St. Francis as the "Angel who ascends
from the rising of the sun" (Apoc. 7,2) became familiar to
the Order through Bonaventure, and retained its significance
for centuries.,n The first indication of this idea in Bonven-
ture's work is found in the Qllaesliones displiialae concerning
evangelical perfection 8 " which date to the end of 1255, or in
any event, before the fifth of October, 1256. But he says
nothing about this again until his Legenda maior. In the Pro-
logue to this work, he places the apocalyptic interpretation of
Francis side by side with the theological treatment of Elias. 81
At any rate, the designation of Francis as Elias is still clearly
preferred. Ideas and terms from the theology of Elias and
John are used six times. This indicates a decided preference,
since the image of the angel is used expressly only twice. 8 '
But in the Col/aliolleJ in Hexaemeron, the relationship is
reversed. In this work we have found only one citation refer-
ring to Elias·· in contrast to five which refer to the angel. a•
S4 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonavellture
Of these five, three must be seen as texts of basic significance
for the entire work. 3" It is clear that here the theological
treatment of Elias has lost some of its significance. The notion
of the "angelus ascendens ab ortu solis" has become the cen-
tral concept of Bonaventure's theological understanding of
Francis as well as of his theology of the history of salvation.
We will now treat this in detail. 3 •

2. A detailed 'reatmen' of the theology of francis In the Hexnme,on.

a) The figure of the "angel with the seal of the living God."
What does Bonaventure intend to say with the figure of the
"angelus ascendens ab ortu solis?" In order to answer this
question, we must first give a brief presentation of the content
of the apocalyptic text. The citation in question is found with-
in the first series of plagues which are let loose by the open-
ing of the seven seals of the heavenly book. A scene is inserted
after the sixth plague (= the sixth seal). Four angels stand
at the four corners of the earth and create a great silence by
holding back the four winds. At this moment, "another angel"
ascends from the rising of the sun 37 "with the seal of the
living God." He commands the plagues to cease until the
servants of God have been marked with the seal of God.
They are 144,000 in number.
There are two facts in the life of St. Francis which appar-
ently occasioned the application of this citation to his person,
for both of these facts seem to point immediately in this di-
rection. First there is the fact that Francis himself was accus-
tomed to sign all his letters with the tau-sign "T". Here there
is an obvious connection with Ez. 9, 4 which says that those
who were to be saved in Jerusalem were to be marked with
this sign. The Legenda relates that Francis attributed to him-
 Chapter I gS
self the historical function of the man in the linen garment,
a fact which must be evaluated as genuinely historical accord-
ing to the indication of the Letter to Brother Leo. 8 " Since
Ez. 9, 4 had been connected with Apoc. 7, 2 already in
antiquity, a first line of thought arises here which could lead
to such a theological interpretation of Francis. Even more
important, however, is another event - the Stigmatization-
which stood as something unique and unparalleled; it all but
cried out for an interpretation. Such an interpretation offered
itself on the basis of Apoc. 7, 2. Had not the seal of the
living God - the figure of the crucified Christ - been im-
pressed on the body of the Saint? Does not the image of the
Apocalypse acquire here its real coloration and significance?
As for the full actuality and the moving probability of this
interpretation, this was to come in the encounter of this event
with the entirely independent prophecy of the Abbot of Fiore 8 !)
who had in brilliant words predicted the coming of the angel
with the seal of the living Gnd. He had seen in this angel the
lIOI'IIJ dllx de Bahylone and the IInil'erJaiiJ ponti/ex sanclae
Hierllsalem. He would receive "full freedom for the renewal
of the Christian religion:'''' In view of the amazing coinci-
dence of the particular factors. it is no longer surprising that
the identification of Francis with the angel of the Apocalypse
should have become an historico-theological axiom of practical-
ly unimpeachable certitude. Even Bonaventure could not close
himself to the suggestive power of this fact. As a result,
apocalyptic prophecy and the actualized reality of the life of
Francis are woven together for Bonaventure ever more into
an insoluble unity.· 1
b) The commllnity 0/ the 144,000 Jeaied.
For the general structure of the Bonaventurian theology of
36 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonuventure
history, the interpretation of the rest of the vision of Apoca-
lypse 7 is no less important than the figure of the angel from
the rising of the sun. In the text of Scripture, this angel bears
the seal of God; and with it, he seals the 144,000 elect from
the twelve tribes of Israel (Apoc. 7, 2-8). What significance
can this have when it is applied to St. Francis? At this point
we will present the difficult text which answers this question
(Hex. XXIII 14, Vol. V, 447 a). We will also add the most
important and most illuminating parallel texts. We will give
the text first in the original and then in translation. Our trans-
lation will be as literal as possible, but we will attempt to
work into it also the important ideas which are to be found
in the parallel texts.
Sic: anima contemplaUva signalur a
Deo. Unde sub sexto .n,ela dicltur
quod apparuit angelus. "habens
signum Del vivi" (Apoe. 1,2) t hoe
fult in asaignaUone Jerusalem ut
in caelo conslstentis. Huie ancelo
apparult signum expressivum.

quantum ad modum vivendI con- Relative to expressivum-expre5lum-

sonum bti siIDD, quod est, quod impressum, vide XXD 23: lerUus
sJ8Ilatur: "Ex trlbu Jucla duodeclm ordo conespondet Seraphim, el 1sti
milia slgn.aU" ete. (Apoc:. 1, 5ff): sunt propinqui Jerusalem et non
habent nisi evolare . . . Et dlc:ebat,
quod illa apparltio Seraph Beato
Francisco. quae fuil expressive et
impressa, ostendebat, quod isle Of-
do ill! (= bealo Francisco) respon-
dere debeat, sed tamen pervenire
ad hoc per tribulationes. vide XXVI
20. XXIII 16-30: Extension of the
U trlbes= the 1«,000 sealed because
of the basic characteristics of the
anima contemplaUva.

xxtn 2 p. 445 a: 81 autem ducantur

duodecim per duodeclm. erunt cen-
 Chapter 1 37
tum quaciraginta quatuur. numerus
scilicet civitatis Jerusalem. Anima
enim sic hierarchizata est civitas, in
qua Deus habitat el videtur ...

xxm 4 p. 44S b: . . . oporte~ quod

in fine ceneretur ecc:lesia contem-
plativa. Ecclesia enim contemplative
et anima tolum habet in se, quod
ecclesl. in mullis. . .

el hoc est: qui habet hane tripU- sc solarem - lunarem - stellarem

cern lucem elevantem (Dew; - ecclesia mllitans - ascen-
sus + descensus + reascensus ani-
mae) lOrn p. 437-1«: xxm 1 p.
444-445 a.

triplicem oportet quod habe.ot per- triplex perfectio: Without obvious_

fectionem respondentem carltaU. ly dear parallels (Poverty, chastity,
obedIence? Vide De perf. ev. q. 2-
4: V p. 125-198).

Unde silflAJ'e hoc modo est per LeI maj Prol Vol. vm 5N b: •.•
professlonem ad hoc alllpre It 1m- officium.. quod habuit CFran.c:lscus)
primere sienum, ut respondeat illi . . . sicnandJ (que) thau super
ligna caritatil. frontes vlrorum (Ez.. 9, 4) Cf. ibid
c 4, 9 vm p. 515 a-b.

We could translate this text somewhat as follows: " ... Thus

the 'contemplative soul' is sealed by God. Therefore it is said
under the sixth angel that (another) angel appeared bearing
the seal of the living God. This took place in relationship to
the sealing of the heavenly Jerusalem. Now to this angel (of
the seal i.e. Francis), there appeared an expressive sign (the
Crucified in the form of a Seraphim. It is expressive in so far
as it was able to leave behind the 'impression' of the Stig-
mata) .• " As regards the manner of life intended here, it is
synonymous with that sign concerning which it is said: From
the tribe of ]uda 12,000 were sealed, etc. This means: He
who has the 'three-fold elevating light' (which constitutes the
essence of contemplation), must also have the three-fold per-
58 Theology 0/ History in St. Bunuventure
fection which corresponds to love. (I.e. he must have the
monastic form of life without which the state of contempla-
tion is unthinkable.) 'To sign with this seal' (i.e. the process
of sealing described in Apoc. 7 is now clarified) means, ac-
cording to this, to oblige someone by profession (=through
the vows) to this (=to the contemplative form of life) and
to impress on him a seal which corresponds to the seal of love."

Here it becomes clear not only that St. Francis himself is

the bearer of the seal of God by reason of the Stigmata, but
also that he shares in the function of the apocalyptic angel
of the seal. He is to share in the task of sealing the elect of
the final age. It is his task to sign the 144,000 elect with the
seal of God, and in this way to establish the community of the
lina! age. This new and final "Order" which is to arise out of
the tribulation of the final days will be a Franciscan Order;
its proper form of life will be that of St. Francis. 4 8 With this,
the one question that leaves all the other problems of our text
in the background now becomes acute. To what extent can we
identify the actual Order of Francis, which already exists and
of which Bonaventure is the General, with the Order of the
/inal age with its 144,000 who are the mystical expression of
the .cel.sia con/em pia/iva in which the sixth day will be trans-
formed into the Sabbath Rest of the seventh day? In order to
answer this question and thus complete the description of the
sixth age and its course, we will set aside for the present all
the other questions which arise here, especially the important
problem of the relation of salvation history and mysticism,
which must also be decided of the basis of this group of texts,
 Chapter I 89
III. The Ord.r of the final •••.
1. The development of the question prior to Bonaventure.

Joachim of Fiore clearly expresses the idea of a new Order

in which the ecdesia conlemplalil'a of the final age is to find
its proper and definitive form of existence. H In this context,
the concept "Order" receives a new meaning. As Benz cor-
rectly observes, novlIS ordo can be translated as a "new order
of salvation" and a "new religious social order."" Thus, the
entire eschatological hope of the Calabrian abbot is expressed
in summary form in the concept of the new Order. With this
word, he attempts to set down the essential form of the new
age which is yet to come. We could perhaps translate novlIS
ordo as the "new People of God." It was almost necessary
from the very nature of the case to see Joachim's prophecy of
the "angelus ascendens ab ortu solis" fulfilled in the person
of the Poverello. Even more clearly, perhaps, must the com-
munity of the Saint of Assisi have awakened the thought of
the novlls ordo. It may well be that all the various Legenda
of St. Francis depict a theologically interpreted "Francis of
faith" instead of the simple "Francis of history."·e But we
can be certain, nonetheless, that Francis himself was led by
a consciousness that was strongly eschatological though lack-
ing in apocalyptic tone." By this distinction, we mean that
Francis was far removed from any historico-theological spec-
ulation concerning the nature and the time of the end; but in
an amazing and entirely authentic though totally unrellected
way, he was filled with that primitive eschatological mood of
Christianity which is expressed in the statement: "The king-
dom of God is at hand" (Mk. 1, 15). In fact we can say that
without this eschatological consciousness Francis and his mes-
sage is no more understandable than is Christ and the message
40 rheology 0/ History in St. BOllaventure
of the New Testament, the eschatological character of which
is being brought out ever more clearly at the present. 48 In
fact, every interpretation of Franciscanism which abstracts
from its original determination with regard to the history of
salvation and, more precisely, with regard to eschatology,
ultimately misses the essence of Franciscanism. 4o The unso-
phisticated and unrealistic way in which Francis tried to make
the Sermon on the Mount the rule"" of his "new People"61
is not understood properly if we designate it as "idealism,"
as W. Nigg has shown.· 2 It is understandable only as the
fruit of a vital consciousness that has raised itself above the
question of the possible, and above the institutions and forms
of this aeon; it is dominated by that eschatOlogical confidence
of the New Testament, which, as it were, puts an end to time.
It believes in the Father who clothes the flowers of the field
and nourishes the birds of the air, who neither sow nor reap
nor gather into barns (cfr. Mt. 6, 25-32). It is at this point
that we come back to our original question. Joachim had pre-
dicted that in the new and final church of the Spirit the Ser-
mon on the Mount would be observed literally "sine glossa."
This development would consist in the gradual overthrow of
that /icencia which was still allowed for the men of the second
and third ages. 03 Must not this also have directed attention
to the Poor Man of Assisi who, in his testament, forbade every
explanation of the Rule in "strict obedience ?""4 And it was
a Rule, after all, which was intended to be nothing else but
an application of the unfalsified and literal Sermon on the
Mount and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 00
This development of thought underwent another change
in the light of the pseudo-Joachimite Commentary on Jeremias,
which apparently attempted to promote a positive cooperation
 Chapter I 41
between the Franciscans and the Dominicans by proclaiming
not one but two new Orders. From among the many images
used to designate these Orders, we choose the following:
Ox-Ass
Elias - Henoch
Paul-John
Joseph - Benjamin
The two Witnesses of the Apocalypse (c. 11) GO

No doubt, the anonymous forger could have made use of

genuine texts of Joachim for his purpose; for the Abbot of
Fiore had said that at the end of the sixth age God would
send two Orders to the world. One would have the task of
leading the spiritual People in the desert as Moses had done;
the other would have the task of living in solitude far from
the community of men as Elias had done." But an important
difference between Joachim and pseudo-Joachim appears if we
compare this text from the Concordia veteris et novi testamenti
with another from the Enchiridion In Apocalypsin. »8 While
pseudo-Joachim apparently considers these two Orders to be
final and definitive, roll the Abbot of Fiore himself ascribes a
provisional significance to them. They are to prepare for the
transition from the sixth to the seventh age. They correspond
to the angels of the communities of Philadelphia and Lao-
dicea; "they are passing on to the third stage, yet they still
share in the second stage." "They are more spiritual than
those which have preceded them; they are less spiritual and
less contemplative, however, than those which will follow
them. They will still be concerned with scientific work and
the pursuit of knowledge 8 ' whereas the spiritual men of the
third age will be already in possession of the knowledge of
42 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
truth and will strive only to savor heavenly things." Accord-
ing to Joachim himself, there will be only one final Order;
but the period of transition will give rise to two temporary
Orders. We will see how Bonaventure reaches back beyond
pseudo-Joachim to Joachim himself and appropriates Joachim's
solution as his own.
2. The solution of Bonaventure.

We must distinguish two questions. First there is the ques-

tion of the nature and form of the new Order in itself; then
there is the concrete, historical question of the relation of this
Order to the Franciscan Order. Here the question of the pre-
sent historical moment finds its most pOinted formulation in
the view of Bonaventure.
a) Nature and form of the ordo u/timus,
For Bonaventure, the basic statement 'concerning the new
and final Order is the same as it had been for Joachim: It will
be an Order of contemp/atio. 01 But this contemp/atio is to be
a new insight into Scripture. It is here that Scripture will be
fully and truly opened, so that we can speak of a new and
extensive "revelation" which consists in a new understanding
of the old Scriptures. "0 We will have to give a fuller treat-
ment to this idea as well as to the concept of revelation that
lies behind it (Ch. 2).
This Order is prefigured by Paul and Benjamin"· as well
as by John,54 Joseph of Egypt,55 Moses,55 and DanieI.57 But
the primary types are Benjamin-Paul and John. The connec-
tion between Benjamin and Paul is ancient, and Paul himself
had paved the way for it. 8M It is based on the parallel between
the Apostles and the twelve Partriarchs of Israel;"· it sees
Paul as the youngest, as the one born out of time, and as the
 Chapter I 4!
beloved of the Father. Besides this, Rachel, the mother of
Benjamin is the type of the vita contemplativa, as we have
already indicated; and Benjamin himself shares in this func-
tion. He thus contributes to the formation of the figure of
Paul into the new type of the contemplative life. In the con-
text of the typology of the Orders, it is only natural that
Benjamin, the child of the vita contemplativa, should be the
the type of that last Order which the Church brings forth on
her way through history: the or40 contemplativus. 70 But
Paul himself, by reason of his own personality, is a fitting
type of this new community. He is a man who could say of
himself, "We proclaim wisdom among the perfect; not the
wisdom of this world, but the secret and hidden wisdom which
no eye has seen, and no ear has heard, nor has it entered into
the heart of man; but it has been revealed to us by the Spirit
of God." 71 Such a man had no need of the mediatory figure
of Benjamin in order to be able to prefigure that Order in
which the long-hidden mysteries of wisdom should become
a public and revealed wisdom for a new age. The text of
11 Corinthians which describes the ecstasy in which Paul was
taken up into the third heaven was used to clarify this state-
ment about the wisdom of God,72 and it served to confirm the
view that the "revelation" on which the wisdom of the "per-
fect" is based is a revelation arising from mystical understand-
ing. Consequently, Paul appears as the anticipation and the
sign of the final age.
Here we see that it was not only the final Order that deter-
mined the way in which Paul was understood, but the figure
of Paul helped to form the concept of the final Order. Now
we can develop further the clarification which we gave above.
As a contemplative Order, the new Order will be also a com-
44 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
munity that enjoys the deepest and the final "revelation." It
is in this Order that the wisdom which had formerly been
limited to the circle of the pe,fecti will truly become "pub-
lic." 78 We have already touched on the axiom that stands be-
hind this application of the typology of Paul: the Final Age
= the First Age. This axiom predicts that at the end of time
there will be a full realization of all that was present for a
short time in the primitive community, and which pointed
toward the future. H
The other important type is the Iigure of the Apostle John.
In contrast to Pseudo-Joachim's Commenta,y on Je,emias,
Bonaventure sees this type to be identical with the type of
Paul. That is, the two ligures point not to two different
Orders but to one and the same O,do /1I111'lIs.1" Bonaventure,
like Joachim, conneets the typology of John with Jesus' state-
ment: "Sic eum volo manere, donee veniam" On.21,22).76
While this statement has no real meaning when it is applied
simply to the individual Iigure of John, it begins to take on
genuine significance when it is interpreted in terms of the
theology of history. It proclaims that the definitive form of
existence is presented in the Iigure of John, a form of existence
which will endure after the abrogation of all that is provi-
sional until the return of the Lord. It hardly needs to be
proved that John, who was known since the Patristic Age as
the "Eagle" among the Evangelists 77 because of his Gospel,
is a particularly apt type of the o,do (onlemplalivlls.
But for the concrete, historical localization, a third Iigure
is even more helpful than Paul or John. This is the Iigure of
St. Francis. To the two statements: "Paulus, per quem signi-
Iicatur ordo futurus", '" and "iste ordo intelligitur per Joan-
nem"," Bonaventure adds a third: "iste ordo iIIi (= beato
 Chapter I 45
Francisco) respondere debeat ... • o It is even stated that Francis
belonged to this Order: "De isto (Sc. ordine) videtur fuisse
Franciscus."" It is obviously an erroneous conclusion deter-
mined by an apologetic tendency when the Scholion of the
Quaracchi edition attempts to obviate this difficulty by saying
that "order" is apparently used here in a broader sense so that
it extends from the primitive church to the end of time; since
both John and Francis are presented as members of this
Order.8' We hope to have shown cleacly above that Paul and
John are prophetic, anticipatory types. (Such was joachim's
viewpoint as well.) But each individual text that treats of a
IU/flrus ordo shows with sufficient clarity that a new, future
state of salvation is intended, namely, the community of the
seventh day. This community, therefore, has a very definite,
delimited historical place. Furthermore, these texts show
clearly that we are not concerned with a purely spiritual com-
munity of mystics which would be extended over the entire
time of church history.
But it is not said that Francis is already the actual founder
of this Order; nor that his "empirical Order" - the Order of
Franciscans - is already this "eschatological Order" of the
seventh day. But 51. Francis must be placed in a different and
a more immediate relation to that future Order than John and
Paul simply on the basis of his place in history which we
attempted to determine above. In some way, the real historical
beginning of this Order is given with him.83 And so we come
back again for the last time to the question with which we
began this section: How is the "empirical Order of Francis-
cans" related to the "eschatological ordo IU/flrus?" We must
give our attention to this question.
46 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
b) The FranciJCall Order and the ordo futuruJ.
a) The diItinction between the two OrderJ.
The decisive thesis of the Spirituals involved the full identi-
lication of the actual Franciscan Order (esp. its Spiritual
branch) with the ordo of the final age. The proper, charac-
teristic attitude of the Spirituals is pointedly summarized in
this relationship which identifies the two Orders as promise
and fulfillment. The fact that Bonaventure was clearly op-
posed to the Spirituals at least at the beginning of his activity
as Generals, makes it probable from the start that he did not
accept this full identification. But as far as this question is
concerned, we do not have to be satisfied with suppositions.
There is one citation in which Bonaventure clearly and ex-
pressly distinguishes the two Orders from one another. This
is found in the schema in which he draws up the typological
parallels between the various hierarchies - the divine, the
"heavenly" (= the hierarchy of angels), and the various ex-
pressions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This schema, which
is built on the number 3, is the most important schema of the
entire H exaemeron with the exception of the seven-part his-
torical schema given above (p. 21). Because of Its special
importance, we present it here on a separate page (p. 47);
we have omitted the less important elements.
 HEX xxn 1-22, p. 437-M4a
xxn 2. p. 438a: Oportet ergo, quod ecclesia mllitaDs !labeat ordines correspondentes hierarchiae lllWitranll.
4
Distinguentur autem tripliclter: uno modo secundum raUonem processuum; alia modo secundum raUonem 81
censuum, tertia modo secundum raUonem exercltiorum.
Ascensus Exercitia
Processus vita aeliva-Pater (16)
purgativi ~rda laicus
(ecclesia) in tempore nascitur et procedit (3) oatiarii -Angeli plebes -Angell
1..lores -ArchangeJi consules -ArchangeIi
ordln.. fundamentaJes -Pate1" (5) exorclstae
-Principatusprincipes -Principatus
patrlarchalls (Pater in se --Throm -fides pennixta-FiIiUl (16)
propbetalls inFillo - -Cherubim -illuminatlo illuminativi orda
+prophetla acolythi -Potestates clericalis
apoltolieua in SpS) - -Seraphim -caritas subdiaconi -Virtutes ministerialis -Potestates
levitae -Domina- sacerdotalls -Virtutes
promoventes -Filitu (5) liones pontificalis -Domina-
martyres (Filius in Patre - -DominaUones tiones
confessores Inae --Vlrtut.. perfectivi contemplativ8
virgin" In SpS) - -Potestates sacerdoles -Throni -Spiritm S. (16)
f...
episcopi -Cherubim ordo
consummantes -Spiritu. Sa.nctUI (5) patriarchae --seraphim monasticus
praesidentes (SpS In Patre - -Prlnclpatus supplicatorii -Throni
magistratus in Filla - -ArchangeU 'l~i autem sic esset or-speculativi ---cherubim
regulares In se) --Angeli ainslio interius sieut ex-sursumactivi-8eraphim
ledus. optima esset". net in his consummabi-
Nr. 15 tur ecclesia" 22
Nr. 9: . . . oportet, quod (ecclesia) ••. compleatur per Spiritum Sanctum. 20-22 names the orders which are
Per ordinem regulantium et regulatorwn comprehenditur vita monas- concretely intended:
tical et istl sunt ultimi, quia oportet mundum consummari in castitate. SuppUcatorii -the orda mon-
saticus sive albus sive niger;
Regarding the relation between the apGItoli-.erophim with the regulaTe.- speculativi -
a.ngeli, see what has been said and will be said about the axiom, ''Beginning Praedicatores et Minores;
= End." as well as the rest of this schema. (Compare Nr. 9 with. Nr. 22- sursumacUvi-the orda ulti-
in the ten) mus.
~8 Theology 0/ Hislory ill SI. BOlluvelllure
The importance of this text is obvious at first sight. We
have already rejected the notion that Bonaventure opposed
the Augustinian schema of seven ages to the schema of the
three ages. As we have seen, Bonaventure accepted the double-
seven schema of Joachim and inserted this into the very center
of his theology of history in place of the simple seven-schema
of Augustine. These two schemata must be clearly distin-
guished. The text before us now shows that the other part
of the rejected opinion is also incorrect, for here we find a
trinitarian structure of history. Following the example of
Joachim, this would envision three stages in history related
to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. There is an antithesis
and a synthesis between Joachim and Bonaventure which is
far mOre subtle than a quick glance at the text might indicate.
It would go beyond the limits of our study if we were to work
out in detail how this text implies both Yes and No to Joa-
chim."" We simply point out that this schema does not con-
tain any chance elements. In as far as it presents the three
different forms of hierarchy each with its own levels, it indi-
cates three different aspects, none of which can be bypassed
without doing harm to the truth. There is, first, the aspect of
ecclesiastical office ;'" here the official clerical church is and
remains the highest level in the hierarchy. This aspect, which
pertains more to the externals of the Church." 1 is necessary
and justified; but it is not the only one. It must be supple-
mented by another aspect which we can call "pneumatic."
(This points to the fundamental problem of Office and
Pneuma which was brought to a crib.al state in the Spiritualist
controversy.HH) Here it is true to say: "Though the position
of the prelates is at the highest point in the order of ascent,
yet it is only in the center as regards the order of activ-
 Chapler I 49
ity .. :·.0 These two schemata, which attempt to achieve a
balance between Pneuma and Office, are finally drawn into a
historical framework by the first schema. But this historical
construct brings about a reversal of the relations. The Regll-
lares are historically the novissimi; but as regards their rank,
or more precisely because of their rank, they remain primi. oo
For the present, we must bypass the other problems of this
text which offers a synthesis of history, office, and Pneuma
that is structured in terms of the Trinitarian order described
earlier.
We will now return to our question and study the relation-
ship between the Order of Franciscans and the eschatological
Order of Francis on the basis of this citation.
In the light of the schema given above, this question is very
easy to answer. In the third column, under I'ita contemplativa,
the individual Orders are given by name and placed in the
hierarchy. The ancient monastic Orders are placed in the
lowest group, which corresponds to the choir of Thrones in
heavenly hierarchy. This includes the Cistercians, the Premon-
stratensians, the Carthusians, etc. The Cherubic Order, whose
proper characteristic is speclliatio, is represented by the Fran-
ciscans and the Dominicans. The coming final Order will
correspond to the Seraphim; it will be "Seraphic:· The ques-
tion as to whether it has already begun or whether it is entirely
of the future is expressly left open. 01 This amounts to an
express denial of the identity between the Order of Francis-
cans already in existence and the Order of Francis, which is
eschatological. Here we have Bonaventure·s answer to the
Spirituals; but in order to avoid a gross over-simplification,
we must be fully aware of the fact that Bonaventure is defi-
nitely of the opinion that the eschatological Order must be an
50 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
Order of Francis. This Order will see and venerate in Francis
its true beginning; and Francis himself belongs entirely to the
ordo JeraphiclIJ and not to the ordo cherllbiclIJ.oo Bonaven-
ture is also of the opinion that the concrete Order of Francis-
cans is only cherllbiclIJ and not JeraphicIIJ. This means that
the present Order of Franciscans is not yet the true Order of
Francis. 03 In his own person, Francis anticipates the eschat-
ological form of life which will be the general form of life
in the future.
This realistic distinction between Francis and Franciscanism
is not a new discovery of the liberal school of Franciscan re-
search. 04 It had already been expressed by the great Francis-
can General of the thirteenth century. In it we find not only
Bonaventure's answer to the Spirituals, but also the key to
understanding his conduct as General and his own personal
manner of life as a Franciscan. Gilson has already pointed
this out in a different context and with a difference of em-
phasis." G In carrying out his office as General and in living
his own personal life, he could set aside the Jine gloJJa which
he knew from the Testament of Francis to be the real will of
the Founder. He could do this because the proper historical
hour for such a form of life had not yet struck. As long as
it is still the sixth day, the time is not yet ripe for that radi-
cally Christian form of existence which Francis was able to
realize in his own person at the divine command. Without
feeling any infidelity towards the holy Founder, Bonaventure
could and had to create institutional structures for his Order,
realizing all the while that Francis had not wanted them.""
It is a too facile and, in the final analysis, an unlikely method
to see this as a falsification of true Franciscanism. In reality,
it was precisely the historical accomplishment of Bonaventure
 Chapter 1 51
that he discerned the true historical situation in the contro-
versy between the visionaries and the laxists and that he sub-
mitted himself in humble recognition of the limits demanded
by reality. Bonaventure recognized that Francis' own eschat-
ological form of life could not exist as an institution in this
world; it could be realized only as a break-through of grace
in the individual until such time as the God-given hour would
arrive at which the world would be transformed into its final
form of existence. Everything else is naively visionary. Bona-
venture was able to give the Order a form that could be
realized in this world because he recognized this fact and had
the courage to accept it. His first concern in doing this was
to preserve whatever could be preserved of that radically
eschatological character.· 7 Since the beginning of the liberal
school of research, we have become accustomed to academic
protests against what is felt to be a watering-down of Francis-
canism. There is a destructive quality in these complaints,
for they lack the seriousness required in such an important
issue. Generally they do not arise from a desire for the real
renewal of the eschatological form of life. Rather, they stem
from the mere deSIre for criticism. The more such criticism
fails to assess the limits of possibility, the more it loses in
significance.

b) The stages of approach.

We have already stressed that Bonaventure attempted to
preserve whatever could be saved of the eschatological char-
acter and task of the Franciscans in as far as this was possible
within the limits demanded by the given historical situation.
This can be seen already in the schema given above. As we
have said, the difference between the ordo seraphicIIs and the
52 Theology 01 Hi,/ory in SI. Bonaven/ure
ordo cherubicus can be seen in their proper activity; that of
the ordo cherubicus is specu/atio; that of the ordo seraphicus
is sursumactio. Both the Dominicans and the Franciscans be·
long to the ordo cherubicus, but they stand on different levels.
For the Dominicans, the primary emphasis is on specu/atio
while u/wio holds a secondary place. For the Franciscans,
it is just the reverse; for them, u/lClio has primacy over spec-
u/alio. d. Here they clearly stand at the bridge to the final age.
In an obvious reference to the letter of St. Francis to Anthony
of Padua, DO Bonaventure says that St. Francis was willing to
have his Brothers cultivate learning; but they must first do
that which they teach. "For of what use is it to know much
and to savor nothing?"IOO This passage is of significance also
because it indicates that Bonaventure identifies the Franciscan
and Dominican Orders with the two Orders of Joachim which
stand at the transition from the second to the third age, and
yet belong to the second age. They are very much concerned
with the guslare, and yet cannot do without the sludere. lol
Here as in many other points, the solution of Joachim is taken
over substantially.

Two other considerations are perhaps more important. We

must consider the fact that within this schema there are paral-
lels also on the horizontal level. The Apostles are parallel
to the Seraphim; so is the ordo u/limuI. Consequently, we
find the further parallel, ordo II/Iimus - aposlo/i. The apos-
tolic life will be restored in the men of the final Order:
The end and the beginning coincide. But the primary char-
acteristic of the apostolic life is poverty.'02 On the other
hand, Bonaventure is untiring in his efforts to inculcate pov-
erty as the essential characteristic of the concrete Order of
 Chapler 1 5~
Franciscans. "" Would not this naturally involve a close re-
lation between the two Orders?
For the second consideration, the same horizontal parallel
is of importance. If the seraphici and the aposlo/i are parallel
to each other, then the pro phela. and the cherubici are as
well. This parallel is worked out expressly in another passage.
OT NT
tempus quartum tempus quartum
iIIustrationis prophetarum religionum multiplicationis,
quod respondet . . . maxime
Rechabitis . . . qui pauperes
erant. l04
From a functional viewpoint, the reve/alio which is attri-
buted to the cherubici in the hierarchic schema (p. 47) cor-
responds to the vila propbelica.",n But in the seven-fold
schema (p. 21) and elsewhere, reve/alio is seen to be the
privileged possession of the final age and of the new Order.loo
Anyone attempting to interpret this text might conclude to an
identity between the Orders if it were not for the fact that
the opposite view is expressly stated elsewhere. But perhaps
we would have to reckon with the possibility that the sche-
mata used by Bonaventure originally presupposed an identity
and only later had to be reworked in another sense. This
would also help to clarify a series of lesser inconsistencies.' 07
c) The Iheory of defeclion.
Many texts seem to indicate that Bonaventure believed that
the Franciscan Order was originally determined to be the final,
eschatological Order immediately, and was to bring about the
beginning of a new era. In this case, it would have been the
failure of its members that impeded the realization of this.
54 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
Now the Order would have to be purged by another final
tribulation before it would be able to find its true and final
form.' 08 As a matter of fact, it may have been precisely this
idea that provided Bonaventure with a bridge to the view that
affirmed the factual separation of the two Orders without a
basic rupture between them. Here at the end of our search
through the Bonaventurian prophecy of history we give the
primary text that seems to be closely related to this idea:." ...
He (=Bonaventure: the Reportator speaks) added: Give
heed to your calling (1 Cor. 1,26); it is a great calling. And
he said that God will judge the poor according to their tribu-
lations (Jb. 36, 6): they "shall judge the twelve tribes of
Israel" (Lk. 22,30). For such people, contemplation is in
place in this life. Such contemplation, however, can be attain-
ed only through the greatest simplicity; and this simplicity is
possible only together with the greatest poverty. And this
will be the characteristic sign of the final Order. The inten-
tion of St. Francis is directed to perfect poverty. He (= Bon-
aventure) said also: We have departed far from our original
state. Therefore God allows tribulation to come upon us so
that we may be led back to that state which holds the Land
of Promise ... '" O.

c) Summary.
If we may attempt to give a brief summary of Bonaventure's
view of the historical situation of his own times on the basis
of what has been said up to now, we could state it as follows.
In the eyes of Bonaventure, the situation of peace before the
final storm indicated in Apocalypse 7 has begun with Francis.
Francis is the apocalyptic angel of the seal from whom should
come the final People of God, the 144,000 who are sealed.
 Chapter 1 55
This final People of God is a community of contemplative
men; in this community the form of life realized in Francis
will become the general form of life. It will be the lot of this
People to enjoy already in this world the peace of the seventh
day which is to precede the Parousia of the Lord.
Though this new People of God may rightfully be called
Franciscan, and though it must be said that it is only in this
new People that the real intention of the Poverello will be
realized, nonetheless, this final Order is in no way identical
with the present Order of Franciscans. It may be that the
present Order was originally destined to inaugurate the new
People immediately. But even if this had been the case, the
failure of its members has frustrated this immediate deter-
mination. For the present, the Dominican and the Franciscan
Orders stand together at the inauguration of a new period for
which they are preparing, but which they cannot bring to
actuality by themselves. When this time arrives, it will be a
time of contemplatio, a time of the full understanding of
Scripture, and in this respect, a time of the Holy Spirit who
leads us into the fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ. 11 0
 CHAPTER II

THE CONTENT OF BONAVENTURE'S

HOPE FOR SALVATION.

#6. The Grace. of the Final Aga: Pax and Revalallo.

From the treatment given thus far, it should be sufficiently
clear that Bonaventure's theology of history culminates in his
hope for an age of God-given Sabbath-Rest within history. The
real content of this age is described with the word "Peace."]
This idea offers no difficulties. Every hope of salvation in this
world must view "Peace" as the first and most necessary pre-
supposition of a better age, If we rellect further on the tem-
pestuous age in which the work of Bonaventure originated,2
on the promises of peace found in Isaias and Ezechiel on which
Bonaventure relies,8 on Joachim's renewal of these promises,.
on the basic significance which Francis himself gave to the
greeting of peace, as well as on the primary position which the
message of peace held within the Order, ii then we would hard.
ly have to search further for an explanation.
But there is another aspect which is more difficult. The
final People of God (the "New Order") is described as an
eu/esia cOlllemp/aliva." The meaning of this is clearly stated
elsewhere in as far as it is said that there will be a reve/alio.
What is the meaning of this? Is this a resurgence of the idea
of an elJal1ge/illm aelernllm rejected by the Church? And if
not, then what does it mean? This question must now be
clarified.
56
 Chapler /I 57
# 7. Basic Considerations concerning revelatio.
1. General limits of Bonaventure's statements
on revelation.
In order to gain some insight into the difficult problem that
arises here, we will first make some general observations' con·
cerning the notion of revelatio in the thought-structure of
Bonaventure without in any way coming close to a clarifica-
tion of the whole of this difficult problem. This must be
reserved for a later work; what is said here is admittedly
provisional.
First, it must be emphasized that Bonaventure did not know
the question concerning the nature of revelation in the same
sense in which it is treated by our current fundamental theol-
ogy in the tract De revela/iolle. This would seem to be the
clear conclusion from an exact study of the Smtmce Com-
melltary. the Quaestiolles dispu/a/ae, as well as commentaries
on Scripture, and those works which may be called Franciscan
in a narrower sense. We could say that Bonaventure does not
treat of "revelation" but of "revelations.'" Or to express this
more in line with Greek thought, Bonaventure recognizes and
deals with the many individual revelations which have taken
place in the course of history; but he never inquires about the
one revelation which has taken place in these many revelations.
It is primarily the latter which our current theology attempts
to treat in the tract on revelation. In Bonaventure, we find
clear and detailed analyses concerning the process of revela-
tion;" but all these texts treat the individual acts of revelation
which can be repeated, and which in fact are often repeated
by God. In these acts, God turns toward the individual recipi-
ent of the revelation. But we do not lind a treatment of that
58 Theology of Hislorv in SI. BOlUlvenlure
unique revelation which stands behind all the IOdividual, re-
peated instances of revelation. Naturally, however, the ele-
ment of uniqueness and permanence which is essential to
Christianity is thoroughly recognized. It is expressed in such
concepts as Ch,isllIS in(arnaIIlS, s(fipllI,a, dO(I,ina, and fides. 8
Nonetheless, there is no easily determined, systematic unity
between these two types of statements.
This means that the Bonaventurian concept of ,eve/alio
(and inspi,alio, maniteslalio, apertio) 4 is not immediately
comparable with similar concepts of modem theology. It is
only with this express reservation that the following state-
ments can be made. We deliberately avoid any attempt to
compare these notions with those of modem theology even
though such a comparison would be possible. Instead, we will
merely try to present the ideas of Bonaventure as they stand.
In the following development, when the word reve/alio is used
side by side with the English word "revelation," it is always
done under these limitations.

2. Terminolollical considerallons.
The basic affirmation that ,eve/alio generally refers to the
individual act of revelation and not (or at least not immedi-
ately) to revelation in its totality and unity must now be
amplified by a more precise treatment of the special termi-
nology of the Hexaemeron. In general, the basic meaning is
"the un'veiling of the hidden." r. This general meaning can be
specified in three directions:

a) At times in the Hexaeme,on, ,evelalio means the unveil-

ing of the future. o
 Chapter II 59
b) More often, it is the hidden "mystical" meaning of Scrip-
ture that is referred to as the hidden mystery of reve/lllio. 7
Reve/atio, therefore, effects a pneumatic understanding of
Scripture. As will become clear, this line of thought is espe-
cially open to the acceptance of the notions of Joachim.

c) Finally, ret'e/alio can also refer to that imageless un-

veiling of the divine reality which takes place in the mystical
ascent.' Here the inlluence of the theology of Pseudo-Diony-
sius, the Areopagite, is especially obvious. In the following
discussion, we will be concerned WIth the inner richness of
the problem which lies hidden behind the levels of these
terminological elements.

#8. The theological Place of Bonaventure's Hope of Revelallon

In 'he Four-fold Concept of Wisdom In the "H.xa..... ron."

In Collatio II, the Hexaemeron provides us with a basic

text to help establish the broader theological context in which
Bonaventure's hope for a new, final "revelation" stands. In
this text, the inner unity and the common root for all the
following statements concerning this point may be clearly seen.
For this reason, we will sketch the basic lines of this text.
This will provide us, at the same time, with the themes for
the further development of this chapter.
In this lecture, Bonaventure presents the goal of Christian
learning. The goal is: Wisdom; a wisdom which can never
be attained by learning alone, but ultimately only through
sanCtity.' This wisdom has various degrees. It can be divided
into:
60 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
sapientia uniformis
multiformis
omniformis
nulliformis. "
The "uniform wisdom" lIashes forth in the knowledge of
the eternal rules, those basic principles of all knowledge. We
do not judge about these principles; rather we are capable of
judging by them. At this level of wisdom, therefore, man
grasps those basic truths which are simply given and which
one can contradict only "ad exterius rationem." These rules
and the wisdom corresponding to them are rooted in God and
lead to God; but He is not grasped immediately with them. "
Moses is the type of this wisdom.' This first stage of sapimlia
may be omitted from our treatment since it obviously has to
do with that wisdom proper to philosophy; that is, with a wis-
dom "sola ratione," if we might phrase it this way."
In comparison with this first stage, the sapienlia mlllliformis
represents a significant step forward. Bonaventure takes this
concept from the Epistle to the Ephesians, where we read:
.'Yes, to me, the very least of all saints, there was given this
grace, to announce among the Gentiles the good tidings of the
unfathomable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all men as
to what is the dispensation which was hidden from eternity
in God, who created all things; in order that through the
Church there be made known to all the Principalities and the
Powers in the heavens the manifold wisdom (mlllliformis
sapienlia) of God ... (Eph. 3, S-lO)." Paul here acknowledges
himself as the "professor" of this wisdom which consists in
an understanding of the mysterious language of Holy Scrip-
ture. 1 Scripture speaks in images and parables; it is "veiled"
( ,}elala) for the proud and revealed (revelala) for the little
 Chapter 11 61
ones and the humble. He who possesses this wisdom has the
"facies revelata" about which the Apostle speaks (2 Cor. 3,
18); or in a word, this wisdom is a wisdom from revelation.
Hence, as the sapientia uni/ormis is a wisdom from certain
rational truths, so the sapientia mulli/ormis is a wisdom that
arises from divine revelation.' We will have to examine this
more precisely in what follows.
In the third place, Bonaventure names the sapientia omni-
/ormis. This is that wisdom which discovers in all things the
rellection of the Creator and follows His traces through all of
creation. Solomon is the type of this wisdom. The Philoso-
phers also are representatives of this wisdom although they
often stand in danger of remaining with created things them-
selves instead of finding their way back to the Creator by seek-
ing His traces in creatures. Thus their wisdom becomes folly.·
This wisdom also is based on revelation; on that revelation,
namely, which Paul has in mind in Romans when he writes:
Deus enim illis revelavit (Rm. 1, 19).10
Till now we have found an increasing fullness of forms
from the sapientia uni/ormis to the sapielllia mulli/ormis and
to the omni/ormis. But at the high point of this movement
there is a reversal to total formlessness in the sapielllia nu/li-
formis. Here the mystic approaches in silence to the very
threshold of the mystery of the eternal God in the night of
the intellect whose light is extinguished at such heights. It is
true here more than on the two preceding levels: Non est
cuiuslibet, nisi cui Deus revelat. II This is the wisdom that
Paul had taught to the Perfect - Timothy and Dionysius-
but had kept hidden from the ordinary faithful. For them,
he was a teacher of the sapienlia mulli/ormis only, while
the sapienlia nulli/ormis remained limited above all to the
62 Theology 0/ His/ory in St. Bonaven/ure
small circle of the elect, as is clearly stated in 1 Cor.:
Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos . . . sapientiam abscon-
ditam, quam nec oculus vidit nec auris auwvit nec in cor
hominis ascenwt; nobis autem revelavit Deus per Spiritum
suum (1 Cor. 2, 6-10).'2 In the writings of the .Areopagite
we discover who these Perfect are to whom the nobis alllmz
,eve/avil applies. .As we have already indicated, besides Paul,
Timothy and especially Dionysius himself are meant here.
There is a double revelation, therefore, at the inception of
Christianity. The entire dynamic of Bonaventure's theology
of history arises from the separation of these two revelations
and from unification of them which is hoped for but not yet
realized. Here, for the first time, we stand at that point at
which we can clearly see the historico-theological tension
which must have arisen for Bonaventure from his unique un-
derstanding of the concept of reve/afio. With this text as a
point of departure, we will now examine more closely the
three forms of the wisdom arising from revelation: sapientia
mll/fitormis (#9 and 10), sapienlia omniformis (#ll),
sapienlia nlilliformis (#12).

#9. The saplentla multlformls: Revelation as the Allegarlcal

Understandinll of Scripture.
I. "Revelatlan" = the spiritual .. n.. of Scripture .
.As far as I can see, at no time does Bonaventure refer to the
Scriptures themselves as "revelation. '" He speaks of reve/are
and facies reve/ala primarily when a particular understanding
of Scripture is involved, namely that "manifold divine wis-
dom" which consists in grasping the three-fold spiritual sense
of Scripture - the allegorical, the anagogical and the tropo-
 Chapter II 63
logical. These three are understood in analogy with the three
divine virtues of faith, hope, and love." Not only in the
Hexaemeron, but just as much SO in the short dogmatic treatise
known as the Breviloquium and in the Redurtio artium ad
theologiam, it is expressly stated that we grasp that which we
are to believe not from the letter of Scripture, but first of all
by the use of allegory." The letter by itself is merely the water
which is transformed into wine in the spiritual understand-
ing;4 the letter is a stone, which must be changed into bread; n
or as Bonaventure says together with Joachim, the letter is the
skin around the tcue fruit. II Indeed, the letter is (as we will
clarify later) the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
which became a disaster for the Jews and banned them from
the Paradise of the primitive Church; it is in the spiritual un-
derstanding that Scripture becomes the Tree of Life. 7 Conse-
quently, it is the Judaeus and not the Christianus who corre-
sponds to the letter regardless of whether it is a question of
the letter of the Old or of the New Testament." In other
words, where there is only the letter, there we find the Old
Testament and Judaism, regardless of whether we call this
letter "New" or "Old" Testament. The mere letter is not
"New" Testament; the New Testament is truly present pre.
cisely where the letter has been surpassed by the Spirit. Con-
sequently, that which is properly New Testament does not
consist in a new book, but in the Spirit who makes these books
full of life. Here, therefore, "revelation" is synonymous with
the spiritual understanding of Scripture; it consists in the God-
given act of understanding, and not in the objective letter
alone. Only those who understand Scripture spiritually have
a "facies revelata.""
64 Theology 0/ History ill St. Bonaventure
II. "Revelation" and the inspiration of Scripture.
In a study of the exegetical principles of Bonaventure, P.
Dempsey points out that the Seraphic Doctor uses the notions
rev.lalio and illspiralio interchangeably and that he fails en-
tirely to distinguish between "inspiration" and "revelation:'10
After all that has been said above, this should not be surpris-
ing. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the definition of
prophecy lirst given by Cassiodorus and generally accepted by
Medieval theology clarifies prophecy as "inspiratio vel revel-
atio. "1\ Here all three concepts are brought into a remarkably
close relationship and remain this way for the time being.
Bruno Decker has undertaken a very careful study of the mat-
ter, and more recently, Hans Urs von Balthasar has taken up
the line of thought initiated by Decker. In their studies, they
have clearly pointed out the relation between the individual
theologians on the question of "prophetic inspiration" as re-
vealed in the critical study of the original sources, They have
succeeded in presenting an extensive, common basic structure
which is involved in the opinions of these theologians. 1, Here
we will give the fundamental idea on the basis of a text of
Rupert of Deutz which has been emphasized by Wilhelm
Kamlah;"" for here the problem emerges with special clarity.
Following Augustine, I < Rupert distinguishes three types of
vision:

The visio corporalis- corpus, (external, bodily process

of sight)
The visio spirilualis - spirilus (internal power of imag-
ination - dream: Pharao, who has a dream but does
not understand its meaning)
 Chapter 11 65
The V/JIO illlelleclualis - Mens Dei spiritu illuminata
(Joseph, who understands the dream in spirit
through divine illumination.)

We can speak of revelalio only in the case of the third visio.

This third spiritual vision is identical with the "third heaven"
to which Paul was taken up. Augustine already had made this
identilication.' 0 Furthermore, we must say that while only
Paul speaks expressly of being taken up into the third heaven,
this was not a privilege of Paul alone. Rather, it was granted
to all the Apostles and inspired writers of Scripture; for it is
identical with the process of inspiration. 1 " This means that
since Scripture is born from a mystical contact of the hagio-
graphers with God, it can be understood ultimately only on a
level which must be called "mystical." It is clear that the
meaning of Scripture lies on the level of the llisia ill/elleclual-
is/ anyone who approaches Scripture on the level of the vi.ria
corporalis or spirilualis will necessarily miss its meaning.
Regardless of all the individual elements that may distin-
guish Bonaventure's theory of revelation from this text, the
Seraphic Doctor does have the same formal basic structure
which we find in Rupert and Augustine. He distinguishes the
three visiolles" just as they do. A series of texts shows that
the process of "revelation" which takes place through "inspi-
ration" is understood to be a llisio illlelleclualis, i.e. a pene-
tration through all the peripheral elements to the spiritual
core. Ultimately it has a mystical status." Certainly it is not
unconditionally necessary to connect this with any judgment
concerning the personal sanctity of a hagiographer; Bonaven-
ture leaves room for border-line cases of "revelation" to sin-
ners and through sinners. As examples, we have Bileam, Saul,
66 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
and the sinful Solomon. I" But even here, reve/alio IS under-
stood as a penetration through the peripheral-sensible to the
spiritual and the real; it is a new seeing and understanding of
what is given from out of its true depth of meaning. That is,
it includes a visio inlelleclualis."o
From this perspective, we can now understand in a new way
why Bonaventure holds that the content of faith is found not
in the letter of Scripture but in the spiritual meaning lying
behind the letter. Furthermore, we can see why it is that for
Bonaventure, Scripture simply as a written document does not
constitute revelation whereas the understanding of Scripture
which arises in theology can be called revelation at least indi-
rectly."' We can easily understand this in view of the process
of revelation itself; for in this process, "revelation" is under-
stood to consist precisely in the understanding of the spiritual
sense. But there is another reason for this prior to the fact
that the "quid credendum" is to be found not in the literal
but in the allegorical sense of Scripture; namely, the fact that
the process of inspiration includes a penetration through the
mundus sensibilis to the mundus inlelligibilis. It is precisely
in this penetration that inspiration lays claim to its special
status as revelation (reve/alio = unveiling!). Obviously this
notion necessarily leads to what we have already said about
the content of faith . For the inspired writer cannot relate his
visio inlelleclua/is in its naked spirituality; he must wrap it in
the "swaddling clothes" of the written word."" This means
that that which truly constitutes revelation is accessible in the
word written by the hagiographer, but that it remains to a de-
gree hidden behind the words and must be unveiled anew.
Here we could easily fall into a misunderstanding. We
might well ask whether such a view would not destroy the
 Chapter /1 67
objectivity of revelation in favor of a subjective actualism. Such
an idea has no foundation in the intellectual world of Bona-
venture. For the deep meaning of Scripture in which we truly
find the "revelation" and the content of faith is not left up to
the whim of each individual. It has already been objectified
in part in the teachings of the Fathers and in theology so that
the basic lines are accessible simply by the acceptance of the
Catholic faith,'" which - as it is summarized in the Symbolum
- is a principle of exegesis." Here we gain a new insight
into the identification of Sacra !Criplura and Iheologia. 24 • Only
Scripture as it is understood in faith is truly holy Scripture.
Consequently, Scripture in the full sense is theology, i.e. it is
the book and the understanding of the book in the faith of
the church. On the other hand, theology can be called Scrip-
ture, for it is nothing other than the understanding of Scrip-
ture; this understanding, which is theology, brings Scripture
to that full fruitfullness which corresponds to its nature as
revelation. Now we can also understand why it is that in the
programmatic introduction to the SeIIlence Commenlary Bona-
venture refers to the theologian as the rel'elalor abscondilorum
and to theology as the corresponding revelalio absconditor-
um. ,." In the light of this, it should be obvious enough
what a difference lies between Bonaventure's view and any
actualistic misinterpretation of it. We can express this differ-
ence as follows. The understanding which elevates the Scrip-
ture to the status of "revelation" is not to be taken as an affair
of the individual reader; but is realized only in the living un-
derstanding of Scripture in the Church. In this way the objec-
tivity of the claim of faith is affirmed without any doubt. If
we keep this in mind, we can say that without detriment to
the objectivity of the faith, the true meaning of Scripture will
68 Theology 0/ His/ory in St. Bonavell/llre
be found only by reaching behind the letters. Consequently.
the true understanding of revelation demands of each individ-
ual reader an attitude which goes beyond the merely "objec-
tive" recognition of what is written. In the deepest sense. this
understanding can be called mystical to distinguish it from all
natural knowledge. In other words. such an understanding
demands the attitude of faith by which man gains entrance
into the living understanding of Scripture in the Church. It is
in this way that man truly receives "revelation:'
With this. the historico-theological consequences begin to
emerge more clearly. For it is obvious that mere faith is only
the lowest level of such a mystical penetration into Scripture.""
The stages of faith are also stages of mysticism; and in such a
viewpoint. they are seen naturally as stages of reve/alio as
well. Ret'e/a/io refers not to the letter of Scripture. but to the
understanding of the letter; and this understanding can be
increased."" If now we were to assume a period of time in
which the power of true mystical elevation were granted to
all men. then - in this view of things - we could refer to
such a time in an entirely new way as a time of revelation.
On the other hand. we would have to admit that the real
meaning of the age of the New Testament. which consists in
reve/alio. has been realized up to now in a limited degree.
It is clear that Bonaventure does not view this final future
revelation to consist in a new Scripture as had been the case
in the primitive view of Gerard of Borgo San Donnino.27
Instead. it will consist in a new understanding of the old and
enduring Scriptures. which would be closer to the meaning of
Joachim himself. For this reason. in contrast to both Gerard
and Joachim. Bonaventure can emphasize the definitive char-
acter of the New Testament despite, or rather. precisely be-
 Chapter II 69
cause of his hope for a new revelation. "Post novum testa-
mentum non erit aliud, nec aliquod sacramentum novae legis
subtrahi potest, quia illud testamentum aeternum est."""

III. The different forms of understonding the Scriptures.

It is now clear that the spiritual understanding of Scripture
is understood to be "revelation." Furthermore, we have tried
to show the relation between this notion and Bonaventure's
concept of inspiration. After these basic statements, it remains
for us to give a deeper treatment to a question already touched
upon previously, namely: how does Bonaventure view this
spiritual understanding of Scripture concretely? His answer
to this question is not entirely consistent. It wavers between
two poles; one which is more academic and scientific and the
other which is more prophetic.
On the One hand, there is the statement that the reve/ttla
!ttcies is the result of that speculation in which the credibi/e
moves in the direction of the illielligib/e."" This thesis was
expressed above all in Collalio X; and it returns again, espe-
cially in the great hierarchical schema given on p. 47 above.
Here the peculiar charism of specu/alio is attributed to the
second-last level of the hierarchy, i.e. to the ordo ,herubicus,
or concretely, to the Franciscan and Dominican Orders. At the
same time, the proper gift of this hierarchical level is reve/-
alio;'" consequently, "revelation" is, for the most part, iden-
tified with the speculative-scientific exegesis of Scripture. In
this context, we must point out that for the Scholastics pro-
phecy is often identified with the gralia illierpreialldi."' Cer-
tainly, especially in the case of Bonaventure, it is never entirely
forgotten that this specu/atio is truly a gratia; hence the char-
ismatic-mystical characteristic is never completely lost.
70 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
According to the view of Bonaventure, the hope for a
greater fullness in the sort of revelation described above is
already realized in \he Franciscan and Dominican Orders. a.
It is not difficult to understand this if we think of the tremend-
ous upsurge of theological science and of preaching which
these two Orders had brought about in the short time since
their founding.· a Bonaventure himself had been a witness as
well as a partial cause of this phenomenon. Likewise, it is
not difficult to understand that Bonaventure could see this not
merely as a natural progress of science but as a divine sign to
the Church which was drawing near to the final age. On the
other hand, if we keep in mind the profound inadequacy which
Bonaventure experienced in all academic science, especially
toward the end of his life (Ch. 4), we will also understand
why he awaited a new and purer relle/alio which could become
a reali\y for all practical purposes only in the Ordo of the
final age. a. He does not give enough indications to enable
us to form a complete picture; and practically, we arrive at
nothing more than assumptions. Nonetheless, two streams of
thought seem to play a role here. The reve/alio of the final
age leads beyond the sapienlia mll/litormiJ of the present time.
It tends more in the direction of the sapienlia nllllitormis de-
scribed above all by Pseudo-Dionysius. If Augustine is the
Father of the present age and of the present state of revela-
tion because of his character as the normative master of aile-
goria, SO Dionysius is related to the future.'" However it is
not only Dionysius but Francis as well who stands as an anti-
cipation of this new state of revelation. ( How could we have
expected otherwise?) That which has become visible in him
is a movement beyond the discursive thinking of the present
exegesis in favor of a simple, inner understanding in accord-
 Chapter II 71
ance with the statement of the Lord: "I praise you, Father,
Lord of heaven and of earth, that you have hidden these
things from the wise and the clever, but have revealed them
to the humble" (Mt. 11,25).''''
This statement of the Lord plays no outstanding role in the
Scripture commentaries of Bonaventure, and it does not ap-
pear at all in his Sentence Commentary. But it appears with
greater frequency from the time of the Quaestiones de perfec-
tione evange/ica; and precisely in his interpretation of Francis,
it plays a significant role. Francis appears over and over as
the exemplary parvu/us in whom this word of the Lord is ful-
filled in a particularly noticeable way.87 So, in accord with
the view of the Seraphic Doctor, we can say that, according
to the word of the Lord, there is in general an essential rela-
tionship between humi/itas and reve/atio. This .relation is of
such a sort that anyone who is entirely lacking in humi/itas
is also incapable of receiving any knowledge of revelation. 88
The degrees of humilitas indicate also the degrees in the un-
derstanding of revelation. 89 Thus, that age in which the
humility of St. Francis shall have become the universal form
of life will naturally also appear as an age of reve/atio.· o The
revelation of the final age will be distinguished from the form
of revelation already realized in the present age in the Fran-
ciscan and Dominican Orders in that it will be non-discursive
and non-scholastic in character. It will be a simple, inner
familiarity with the mystery of the Word of God. 41

IV. Th. mediation of rev.lotlon.

In the light of what has been said, reve/atio must always be
understood as a gratia gratis data, and thus as the working of
God on the individuaL'" Yet it would be false to conceive of
72 Theology of Hislory in 51. Bonavelliure
this reve/a/io in purely individualistic terms somewhat in the
sense of an exclusive I-Thou relation. Rather it stands in a
great cosmic-hierarchical context. Not only is the divine Spirit
involved in it, but in some way the entire cosmos of Intelli-
gences takes part in it. These Intelligences stand between God
and man in the order of essence. But over and above this,
they have a factual mediatorial function. <8 In order to clarify
this point, which is not without importance for Bonaventure,
we must indicate at least briefly the broader context in wruch
this question stands.
The problem ot the part played by the angels" in human
knowledge became acute first from a philosopbical aspect. At
the very beginning of High Scholasticism, a theory which was
not unlike the view of the later Latin Averroism, had been
developed on the basis of Avicenna. This theory has been
called by Gilson "augustinisme avicennisant,"'r. for it is an
attempt to synthesize the Augustinian and the Avicennan
theories of knowledge. In this synthesis, the cosmic-apersonal
thought of Arabian nec-Platonism is joined with the thought
of Augustine in such a way that Illumination appears as a
share in the cosmic spheres or Intelligences. It is significant
to know that John of Rupella, who was one of the prede-
cessors of Bonaventure on the Franciscan Chair at the Univer-
sity of Paris, had adopted this doctrine. His viewpoint on this
question is summarized pointedly as follows: "bl/el/ec/us
age11s is God Himself for those objects of knowledge that lie
mpra in/el/ec/um, that is, for the knowledge of God; for
those truths which the soul knows ;ux/a Ie and which are
related to the angel-world, the in/el/ec/us agem is an angel.
Finally, the in/el/ec/us age11s is a power of the soul itself in
relation to all those insights which the soul achieves infra or
 Chapter 11 78
infra !e .... 6 The difficulty which this theory had attempted
to solve had arisen together with the attempt to unite the
Arabian-Aristotelian theory of the illle/leetlll agtnI with the
Augustinian theory of Illumination which in itself has no
place for an intel/eetlll agenI.
In contrast with this, Bonaventure, like Aquinas, had tried
to achieve a synthesis of Aristotle and Augustine on this
point. H He had grasped the decisive point of the Augustinian
Illumination theory with great sensitivity: the immediacy of
the human spirit to God. He emphatically holds the immedi-
ati' divine illumination of the human spirit.. S The reduction
of all degrees of certitude to the illumination of the divine
light is not directed in the lirst place against Aristotle. Boria-
venture believed himself to be at lirst in full agreement'· with
Aristotle and later in at least partial agreement GO with him.
Actually it is directed against the Avicennan obfuscation of
Christian doctrine which had been represented by some of the
Magilfri long before the appearance of the so-called Latin
Averroism."'
While In this way the immediacy of the human soul to God
was fully assured for Bonaventure in the area of the so-ca1led
natural knowledge, the problem in the area of revelation was
remarkably much more difficult for him. This was caused by
the fact that on this point he had to reckon with the authority
of Pseudo-Dionysius. The basic hierarchical law of Dionysius
authoritatively demanded a cooperation of the angels in the
process of revelation. God, angels, and man are litted into an
inflexible schema as hierarchia IlIpercae/eIlis, hierarehia cae/-
eltis, hierarchia IlIbeae/eItis. This schema allows of no excep-
tions. Thus it is an inviolable law that any higher order can
exercise an influence only on that order which follows it im-
74 Theology 0/ Hulory in 51. BOlUwenlure
mediately. The higher order cannot reach downwards by by-
passing any intervening orders. This mems that only the
angels of the lowest choirs can work upon the world of man;
the Seraphim, Cherubim, etc. cannot do so." "It is the spirits,
placed in a hierarchy through glory (i.e. the angels and the
blessed) who first receive the (divine) illumination, because
that (divine) sun first illumines them and, through them, us.
For order demands that illumination should first come to those
who are nearer to and more similar to the sun:'·' "Note that
the first hierarchy receives its origin and illumination from
God alone; the middle hierarchy receives it from God and
from the higher hierarchy; the lower hierarchy receives it from
God, from the higher and from the middle hierarchy; the
ecclesiastical hierarchy receives from all the above. Indeed,
the ray of the eternal sun illumines first that hierarchy which
lies nearest to it and sets it up in a hierarchical structure as
a reflection of itself. Then the ray comes through this first
hierarchy to the middle hierarchy; through both of these to
the lowest; and through all of these to the ecclesiastical hier-
archy . . .".. We are almost tempted to ask whether there
is not a serious danger that the evil spirit of Averroism which
had been exorcised on the philosophical level does not return
in a worse form on the theological level; for here a subtle
system of manifold cosmic mediations is inserted between God
and the human soul. In the final analysis, this system has a
pagan quality.·· Nevertheless, the thesis of Augustine re-
mains: "Inter mentem et Deum nihil cadit medium."08 Like
all his contemporaries, Bonaventure adopts the notion that the
angels are involved in a mediatorial way in all revelations.· 7
But they are never the cause of revelation. The only source
of revelation is the divine ray of light. The light which illu-
 Chapter II 75
mines us immediately is the divine light. In the process of
revelation, the angels act only o((asionaliter like a man who
opens the window and lets in the light though he himself is
neither the source nor the cause of the light."' In this way
revelation remains, on the one hand, entirely the work of God;
on the other hand, it is withdrawn from all individualistic
isolation and is placed in the context of the divine activity
which embraces the world. In this context, every creature, as
a part of the "hierarchy," is engaged in a holy work which
takes its origin from God and leads back to God hy way of
fellow creatures.

# 1O. The Hllforlcol Character of Scripture and ito Revelotlon.

Now let us return again to the sapientia multi/ormis of

Scripture. Bonaventure believed that there was a gradual,
historical, progressive development in the understanding of
Scripture which was in no way closed. In order to understand
his peculiar, dynamic viewpoint, we must now sketch briefly
the hermeneutical situation in which this surprising notion has
its place. Corresponding to the object of this study, we will
limit ourselves to the more precise question: How did Bona-
venture present the relation between Scripture and history?
We will attempt to point out the more important lines of
thought which had an inftuence on the Seraphic Doctor in this
question.

I. The Influence of the unhlstorlcal thought

of Scholasticism.
The ancient concept of history was inherited by the Middle
Ages from St. Augustine. According to this view, history is
a flow of individual events; that which is common or general
 76 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
in these events is not known. Consequently, there can be no
real science of history; for science treats precisely the univer-
sal. Thus, Augustine writes in his book of 83 Questions:
"Alia sunt, quae semper creduntur et nunquam intelliguntur,
sicut est omnis historia temporalia et humana gesta percur-
rens:'1 We must say, then, that whatever is historical can
only be "believed" and cannot be "understood," because in
the historical there is only a purely external reality and no
inner intelligibility. Certainly in Christianity this unhistorical
mode of thought necessarily had a limited applicability from
the very start because of the prophetic interpretation of the
Old Testament history given in Scripture. Like a light, this
interpretation penetrates into the context of the historical
happenings and clarifies their inner unity and significance,
From the start, this fact influenced the concrete evaluation of
the historical which played such an important role precisely
in Augustine. But it was not able to destroy the fundamental
judgment concerning the status of history cited above."
Consequently the predominant impression remained that
history lay outside the limits of that which is properly intelli-
gible and thus below the proper area of concern for theology.
This notion was able to assert itself even in Bonaventure's
H exaemerol/ where it appears together with the Augustinian
concept of inspiration and of revelation side by side with quite
different tendencies which we will treat immediately. There
we read: "Nota etiam, quod quaedam sunt credibilia, non
tamen intelligibilia per rationem, ut 'Abraham genuit Isaac'
sive facta particularia; quaedam autem credibilia sunt intelli-
gibilia, et quando intelliguntur, rationes solidas habent.'"
 eJuzpler II 77
II. The InfluBnce of symbolic thought forms.
In the Hexaemeroll, the symbolic mode of thought is em-
ployed even more emphatically than the rational-scholastic
concept of Scripture and history which we have just treated and
which can be related to Augustine with a rather limited degree
of justification. The symbolic approach dominates the entire
concept of history in this work. Certainly it is not presented
uniformly. In the context of the present question, which is
not a question of the division of history as such but a question
of the relation between Scripture and history, it seems to us
that two principle directions are clear. On the one hand, there
is the tendency of early Scholasticism to look backwards. This
is especially the case in Hugo of St. Victor. This view tends
toward a certain canonization and fixation of the patristic
symbolism. On the other hand, there is the tendency of Joa-
chim to look forward to the future. This tendency does not
shrink back from the task of transforming and reformulating
because it is convinced that in the present moment we can
affirm things which were not yet known to the Fathers. 4

1. The "Canonization" of the Fathers: Hugo of SI. Victor

and other early Scholastics.
We have already seen that the true meaning of Scripture
is found only when it is understood spiritually. He who does
not understand Scripture spiritually does not understand it at
all. He is a /udaeuJ. We have attempted to uncover the roots
of this thesis in Bonaventure's concept of revelation and inspi-
ration. We must now make some important additions to this
thesis. "By himself, man cannot come to this (spiritual) un-
derstanding (of Scripture). He can do this only through those
78 TheoloBY 01 History in St. Bonaventure
to whom God revealed it, i.e. through the writings of the
Saints such as Augustine, Jerome, and others."· This means
that the spiritual understanding does not arise purely and
simply as a penetration from letter to spirit which, as spirit,
would lie beyond the world of mere words and as such could
be grasped only in individual cases. Rather, it has already
found its binding rules and even its content in the writings
of the Fathers. This understanding, which cannot be reached
by man alone, was "revealed" to them once and for all. Thus,
in an entirely unforeseen way, the ground is prepared for a
concept of revelation which understands "revelation" as a uni-
que, delimited, and objectified reality which has been given
its written fixation in the exegetical works of the Fathers.
With this fixation of the pneumatic exegesis to the writings
of the Fathers, Bonaventure opts for that concept of Sacred
&ripture which had been developed above all by Hugo of
St. Victor and by Robert of Melun, who was influenced by
Hugo as well as by Abelard and finds his place here despite,
or rather precisely because of his struggle against the unlimited
domination of the GloIIa. In its basic lines, this view was,
indeed, common to the greatest part of early &holasticism.
As Grabmann has expressed it, for Hugo, &ripture and the
Fathers How together into one great Seriptura Sacra. 6 This
basic orientation appears even more clearly in Robert of
Melun, who distinguishes four types of auetoritas in the Pro-
logue to his Commentary on the Sentences; there are, then,
four types of writings that have the rank of auetoritas:
a) Writings which have auetoritas by reason of their writer
= writings of the prophets and the Apostles.
b) Writings which have auetoritas by reason of aeeeptio by
posterity, e.g. the Book of Job.
 Chapter II 79
c) Writings which in themselves are heretical; but by reas-
on of later acceptance in many points have a certain
degree of allelorilas, e.g. the writings of Origen.
d) Writings which have auetoritas primarily by reason of
aeeeplio, secondarily by reason of the writer; e.g. the
works of Augustine, Jerome, etc. 7
If we compare the second and the fourth group with one
another, it becomes clear that the concept of the canon has not
yet been fixed in our sense and that the Fathers are indissol-
ubly connected with Scripture; they stand on an equal footing
with many pacts of the Sacred Book, which as yet is not under-
stood to be a unified book. Not long before this, we find an
even more variegated mixture of the works of Scripture and
those of the Fathers in the Ars leetoria written by Aimeric
of Angouleme in 1086. He distinguishes four levels of auctor-
itas according to the four metals: gold, silver, tin (stagnum),
and lead. As silver, he reckons, among others, the Book
of Daniel, the Wisdom of Solomon, the two Books of the
Maccabees, the Epistle to the Hebrews; the Letters of Cyprian,
the writings of Ambrose, Jerome, Hilary, Augustine, Gregory;
the Canons of the four major Councils." The results are the
same. There is as yet no boundary line drawn between Scrip-
ture and the Fathers. Or, in other words, because of their
great respect for the Fathers, the men of the Middle Ages
were confronted anew with the problem of the Canon which
had been basically determined already in Christian antiquity.
This new determination of the Canon which acquired decisive
significance for the formation of the Catholic concept of tra-
dition is a fact that has received little attention up to the
present. For the most part, the decision on this matter had
already been made when Bonaventure held his lectures on the
80 Theology 0/ His/ory ill St. BOlluvell/ure
Hexaemeroll. Essentially, the Canon was already set down for
him as it stands today." But the Fathers are not simply elim-
inated from the picture. They are the bearers of a new spirit-
ual "revelation," without which the Scriptures simply would
not be effective as revelation. lo
Our reason for treating this problem in this context consists
first of all in the fact that here a fixation of the symbolic
interpretation of Scripture has taken place, it is with this type
of interpretation that we are here concerned. Secondly, it
should be pointed out that we have here an extension of the
age of revelation far beyond the time usually ascribed to it
when we see the end of the time of revelation to coincide with
the death of the last Apostle. The entire concept of the Canon
which we find here is thinkable only on the presupposition of
a dynamic understanding of revelation which cannot be given
a definitive, temporal fixation. Certainly, here there is such
a fixation, but it carries within itself the seed of its own de-
struction. If we are aware of this situation, then the rise of
Joachim will not appear so unmotivated and so unintelligible
as it had generally seemed to be in previous investigations.
2. Th. pro.N .. iVII line of Jouhlm .
• ) Th. new .....ticiIIl litut •• lon ere.t.d by the ... n' of Francis.
The patristic exegetical tradition, which had seemed to be
so solid up tiII that time, was now abruptly thrown into ques-
tion by the event of St. Francis. Francis had dared to make
the unheard of attempt to translate the word of the Sermon
on the Mount into the living work of his own life, and tn
make the spirit of Jesus Christ and the immediate demand of
the Gospel into the only norm for Christian living. His Rule
was intended to be nothing but a summary of the Sermon on
the Mount, a summary of the central elements of the Gospel."
 Chapter 11 81
Thus, the event of Francis effectively shattered a concept of
tradition which had become too canonical. Francis' own life
had developed from an immediate contact with the Scriptures,
which he desired to understand and to live literally sine glossa
in an immediate encounter with the Lord Who speaks to us
in the Sacred Writings.'" An echo of this spirit can be dis-
cerned in the remark of Bonaventure: "Unde rationes, exem-
pIa et auctoritates concedenda sunt ad istam partem, ad quam
suflicientissime astruendam una sola auctoritas expressa ex ore
Christi consulentis dimittere omnia esset suflicientissima etiam
si multa glossarum et expositorum dicta viderentur con-
traria. "13 All tradition is of no avail against the immediate
word of the Lord; this is the bold wisdom of the word with
which Bonaventure discovered th~ break-through to the im-
mediate encounter with Scripture, following in the foot-steps
of his master, Francis.
This new-tound readiness to accept the literal meaning of
Scripture certainly had to be justified in the eyes of their con-
temporaries, and it paved the way for a new understanding of
the concept of "tradition." Till that time, the Scholastic de-
bate had been a dispute between the Dialecticians and the
anti-Dialecticians.'· But new lines of combat were drawn up
in the debate On poverty, which must be understood precisely
as a struggle for the proper understanding of Scripture and
tradition. Here it became a question of the meaning of Scrip-
ture itself and of the manner of its explanation. The Mendi-
cants, and especially the Franciscans, pointed to the fact of
the vila apostolica, which had become a reality in Francis.
In this way, they sought to lend legitimacy to their understand-
ing of Scripture, which stood in contrast with the then current
theology. But when the question was raised as to whether
82 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
this really was the vila aposloliea, it became necessary to pro-
vide a foundation adequate to confinn the Mendicants' inter-
pretation. Such a foundation was found in the Church and in
the sedes aposlo/iea which had canonized Francis and Dominic
and approved their Rules. lfi To fight against the Franciscan
form of life, therefore, is to fight against the Church itself,
and to declare the Church guilty of error. "We would have
to conclude . . . that the entire, universal Church has erred
and has fallen into a deception; and that all who have taken
on this fonn of life have succumbed to damnation. But the
assumption that God has thus allowed His entire holy People
to err is despicable and entirely incredible ... "16 The "Holy
People of God" which is the Church of the present, is here
placed side by side with the classical "Saints" of theology,
that is, with the Fathers of the Church; and the Church of the
present is understood to be a new criterion of interpretation
with equal rights. With this, the purely retrospective allegory
of early Scholasticism is limited by a principle of interpreta-
tion which shows a decidely progressive character.
Furthermore, in his polemic against the opponents of the
Mendicants, the Seraphic Doctor not only places the populus
sanelus of the present alongside the saneli of the past, but he
also brings in Francis and Dominic as witnesses in his proof
from tradition since the sanctity of both had been guaranteed
by the judgment of the Church. '1 Thus we perceive a history
of the saints themselves. Here Joachim's notion of a progres-
sive history of the church finds some clarification almost
naturally. Already the Quaestiones dispulalae indicate an
initial contact with the ideas of Joachim when they present
a division of the Church into ecdesia prima, media, and
fina/is.'· Even today the comparison of the Francis-event with
 Chapter JI 83
the prediction of Joachim is puzzling enough for the historian
and helps him but little in understanding the joyful amazement
of the Franciscans who saw in this identification a definite con-
firmation of the place of Francis' work in the history of sal-
vation, t" It was in this way that the progressive exegesis of
Joachim found its way into the work of Bonaventure.
b) lelief lin the pr•• ,... I.,., hls'llrlc.1 develop,.,... .f Scrlptur•.
We have already described (#4 and #5) the influence of
Joachim's exegesis on Bonaventure's understanding of Scrip-
ture and the theology of history that arises from it. The key
hermeneutical concept was seen to be that of the theoriae with
which Bonaventure adds a new historical-typological and pro-
phetic exegesis to the old allegorical and typological under-
standing. He himself attempts to clarify this with the concept
of the ratiol/e.l· Jemil/ales, Scripture is full of hidden seeds
which are developed only in the course of history and there-
fore constantly allow new insights which would not have been
possible for an earlier age (#2), The relation between Scrip-
ture and history can now be summarized in the two following
statements:
a) Scripture has grown in an historical way, Only he
who knows its history knows its meaning, History is
a structural element of Scripture'S intelligible form.
"Scripturae intelligi non possunt nec mysteria, nisi
sciatur decursus mundi et dispositio hierarchica." 2.
b) Scripture, however, is not simply a product of a past
history, but is simultaneously a statement about and a
prediction of the future. Since the Scriptures were
written, part of this future has already become past,
while part of it still remains future." t This means
that the total meaning of Scripture is not yet clear.
Rather, the final .. revelation, " i.e. the time of a full
 84 Theology 0/ Hislory in 51. Bonavenlure
understanding of revelation, is yet to come. "
Isaias: Repleta est terra scientia domini sicut aquae
maris operientis (ls.11,9) ... Et hoc potissime refer-
tur ad tempus novi testamenti, quando scriptura mani-
festata est et maxime in fine, quando scdpturae intel-
ligentur, quae modo non intelliguntur. Tunc 'edt
mons'; scilicet ecclesia contemplativa, et tunc 'non
nocebunt', quando fugient monstra haeresum sapien-
tiae usura. Sed hodie mons Sion propter vulpes dis-
pedit (Thren. 5,18.) i.e. propter expositores versipel-
les et foetidos."" Bonaventure's hope for revelation
thus arises organically out of the hermeneutical
streams of thought into which his own times had
implanted him.

# 11. The lapientia omniformis: Creation and Ravelation.

In the second lecture on the H exaemeron Bonaventure in-
serts the sapientia omni/ormis between the two fundamental
forms of divine revelation which are expressed in sapientia
multi/ormis and nfflli/ormis. It is in the sapientia omniformir
that the letter of creation becomes understandable and speaks
to us of the glory of the Creator. Since this sapimtia omni-
/ormis may be reckoned as one of the essential elements of
the Franciscan understanding of the world,' we cannot bypass
it entirely in our presentation.
As regards this form of wisdom, Bonaventure speaks also
of a "revelation";" and significantly, this revelation also is
realized as an understanding of a given "letter." Like Scrip-
ture, the things of the world have a "literal" external side.
And as in the case of Scripture, here also we are threatened
with the danger of remaining with the letter and of thus over-
looking the true sign-value of things. Because of our situation
 Chapter 11 85
in salvation history, this danger has become particularly acute.
Indeed, wisdom raises its captivating and inviting voice in all
things. But "we do not lind her (wisdom), just as the un-
lettered layman is not interested in the contents of the book
that he holds in his hands. So it is with us. The language of
the universe has become like Greek, Hebrew, or some bar-
barous language; it has become fundamentally unknown."·
So there is a striking parallel between the revelation of
Scripture and that of creation. In both cases, the revelation is
hidden behind the letters that veil it; in both cases, the unveil-
ing of the revelation is the task of the Spirit who transcends
the level of the literal in a living. existential movement which
penetrates into the realm of the intellectual-spiritual. In both
cases, there is also the danger of becoming imprisoned by the
letters. It is from this danger that the two basic religious
errors arise. As regards the understanding of creation, the
philosopher who forgets or even denies the possibility of reduc-
ing things to their true meaning represents that which the Jew
represents relative to Scripture.' It is the viewpoint of Bona-
venture, which he had already developed extensively in his
COll1l11e1Jtary 011 the Sentencel.' that the contemplative power
in man has been extinguished in the present historical situa-
tion" so that the understanding of the book of creation will
be inaugurated only with the healing and helping revelation
of grace.
This conviction of the sign-character of the entire creation
is the root of the Bonaventurian symbolism of creation which
Gilson has beautifully described in his book on Bonaventure.
The most important document giving expression to this under-
standing of creation is the Itillerarillll1 1/1e1/tiI ill Dellll1. Like
the Francis of the Celano Legel1da. this work attempts to con-
 86 Theol08Y 0/ History in St. Bonavellture
struct a "ladder" to the Creator from all the things of this
world. "He who does not allow himself to be illumined by
the glory of created things, is blind; he who does not awaken
to their call is deaf; he who does not praise God for all His
works is mute; he who does not discover the First Principle
from all these signs is a fool. Therefore, open your eyes, call
upon your spiritual ears; loosen your lips and apply your heart
50 that you may see, hear, praise, love, serve, glorify, and
honor your God in all creatures, lest the entire universe raise
itself up against you. For therefore the earth will rise up to
to struggle with those who do not understand (Sap. 5,21);
but it (the earth) will be the foundation of glory for the wise
who can say with the Prophet: "For you have made me glad,
o Lord, by your work!; of the deeds of your hands I joyfully
sing. How great are your deeds, 0 Lord. In Wisdom you
have made them all; the earth is full of your creations"
(Ps. 91,5; 103,24).7 This text shows more clearly than any
analysis we might attempt how far Bonaventure has aban-
doned anything that might be called merely a Greek "physical-
theology" such as that which is often attributed to the unbibli-
cal renewal of the Catholic theologia natura/iI." Bonaven-
ture's hymn of praise to the creator-God lives entirely from
the spirit of the psalms. He does not deny the inheritance
coming from Greece, but this heritage here enters fully into
the service of the Christian faith .

# 12. The sapl.nlla nulliformls: Mysliclsm and Revelallon.

According to Bonaventure, the "manifold wisdom" of the

allegorical interpretation of Scripture is superseded by the
"formless wisdom" of the most interior mystical contact with
 Chapter 11 87
God taught by Dionysius the Areopagite. 1 Since this wisdom
arises from "revelation," and since it is therefore "revela-
tion,"" and since the "revelation" of the final age clearly must
be conceived in terms of this form of wisdom;' we must now
determine its place more clearly within the whole of Bonaven-
ture's historical thinking. This will simultaneously involve a
clarification of the role which Bonaventure ascribed to Pseudo-
Dionysius within theology.
1. The Dionysiu.-Renaissance of the 13th Century.
It is one of the most well-known facts of medieval cultural
history that the general intellectual picture of the thirteenth
century was influenced in a decisive way by the discovery of
the whole of Aristotle's works which had become accessible
since the middle of the twelfth century. This was a fact that
left a decisive imprint on the intellectual debates of High
Scholasticism. < Up till the present, we have given less atten-
tion to the fact that at the very same time the discovery of
Pseudo-Dionysius took place, and that the Dionysius-renais-
sance which arose from this fact was also of great significance
for the reformulation of theology. The fact that already in
the ninth century John Eriugena had produced a translation
of the works of Dionysius can easily mislead us. For the most
part, this translation remained ineffective like the work of the
great Scot in general. r. So at the beginning of the twelfth
century, John Sarracenus was led to say in the Prologue to
his new translation of Dionysius that the works of the Areo-
pagite "prae nimia difficultate intelligendi vix legantur ab
aliquo,"· that they had till then produced "parum aut nihil
utilitatis," 7 and that the works of Dionysius were to be found
"rarius,"8 Thomas Gallus speaks in a similar vein in the pre-
88 Theology 01 His/ory in St. BOMven/ure
face to his compendioIa ex/rac/io. o It is obvious that this is
not an exaggeration if we keep in mind the fact that apparent-
ly Abaelard and Peter Lombard knew Dionysius only from
references found in Gregory the Great.' 0 As a matter of fact,
John Sarracenus and Thomas of Vercelli succeeded in opening
the doors of Latin theology to a considerable extent to Diony-
sius. Already the Summa Ha/mIiI cites Dionysius for the most
part from the translation of Sarcacenus." Even more so is
this the case with Bonaventure. This is a fact that escaped
the editors of his works, for the translation of Sarracenus was
apparently unknown to them.' 2 Even the works of the Abbot
of Vercelli were apparently known to the Seraphic Doctor."
Vercefli's text was like a Targum. It was an expansion of the
original which in itself was all too brief and unclear. For this
reason, the Vercelli text must have made a considerable con-
tribution in making Dionysius understandable and thus in aid-
ing the spread of his ideas.' 4
These prefatory remarks concerning the literary-historical
problem were necessary to help us place in proper perspective
the general significance which Pseudo-Dionysius had for the
thirteenth century and to clarify the picture of the thirteenth
century as such in as far as it concerns us here. This confirms
again a fact which we have already treated (#9, IV), namely
that the mere opposition between Aristotelianism and Augus-
tinianism does not suffice to explain this tumultuous century.
We will have to refer to this fact again for the general evalu-
ation of Bonaventure.
2. The theology of Dionysius in the work of Bonaventure.
It would require a complete monograph to give a detailed
presentation of the influence of the Areopagite on Bonaven-
 Chapter 1/ 89
ture. Here we are merely concerned with pointing out the
principal areas of influence and to show how the Dionysian
theology of Bonaventure comes more and more to a head in
the concept of revelation. Originally the two had nothing to
do with each other, but in the end, the Dionysian theology
made an essential contribution to the concept of revelation.
In his Commentary Oil the Sentences, it seems that Bona-
venture knew Dionysius only from the perspective of the
School-theology. That is, he knew the Areopagite primarily
as the originator of the doctrine of the hierarchy which was
developed in rather close contact with Peter Lombard.'" At
this period one thing stands out: From the very beginning
Bonaventure's image of the world is dominated by the paired
concepts of egressio-reductio which remind us strikingly of the
thought-forms of the Areopagite. The same is true later of
the world-view of Thomas Aquinas.'· At the same time, we
are not justified in concluding that Bonaventure had a personal
contact with the works of Dionysius beyond what would norm-
ally be the case at that time. It must remain an open question
as to how this pair of concepts attained such a dominant role.
This contact is perceptible as a new intellectual line for the
first time at the end of Bonaventure's activity as Magister, and
appears simultaneously in the Quaestiolles de perfectione
evangelica and in the Quaestiolles de scielltia Christi and De
mysterio trinitatis as well as in the Breviloqlliu/ll. While it is
only the doctrine of the hierarchy that is developed further
and made more precise in the questions on poverty,' 7 two
other elements come to light in the later works. In the first
place, the Dionysian concept of "theology" acquires a new
accentuation which we cannot treat in detail at the present.'s
Furthermore, the mysticism of Dionysius acquires an astound-
90 Theology 0/ Hislory in SI. BOllavenlure
ing degree of significance. This should not be understood to
mean that we can show any noteworthy change in content in
the mystical theory of Bonaventure. There had always been
sufficient reason for the Seraphic Doctor to agree with a doc-
trine which saw the highest summit in the creature's ascent
to God to consist in a contact with God that would be fully
free of knowledge and would therefore be super-intellectual.
He was encouraged in this view not only by the often cited
statement of Pseudo-Bernard that "love reaches further than
the power of sight"; 1 0 he would have been inclined in this
direction already by reason of his Franciscan view which attri-
buted a higher value to the affectus rather than to the intellec-
tus. 20 Thus, already in his Commentary on the Sentences he
speaks of an ignote ascendere, n of a dOCfa ignorantia;" and
even before this, in the early Commentary on John he speaks
of a knowledge of God in caligine which is more a sentire than
a cognoscere.'·
But these remained merely scattered texts; they pointed in
some way to a border-line area of that which was possible,
hut they did not seem to be of any particular importance for
the actual course of events. But this begins to change from
about the time of the Quaestiones disputatae de seienlia
Christi. Here to an increasing degree the dominating force is
found in the idea of a knowledge of God in that area which
is characterized in the following words: "Sola affectiva vigilat
et silentium omnibus aliis potentiis imponit.""· We point out
again that there is not a change in content; but there is a
change of emphasis within the whole. It is this new emphasis
which gives a new meaning to the entire structure of Bona-
venturian theology.
 Chapter II 91
Another factor must be added here in order to bring out the
full significance of what has been said. First in the Itinerarium
mentis in Deum and then again with renewed emphasis in the
Hexaemeron this mystical contact is called "revelation."2'
Before we attempt to determine more definitely the new sig-
nificance which this has for the concept of revelation, we will
allow ourselves to make one more short remark about the his-
tory of ideas which is in place here. Since the work of Max
Scheler, it has become customary, to some extent, to speak of
the primacy of love in the thought of St. Augustine just as
previously it had been common to speak of the primacy of
the will. Indeed, even the notion that love precede. knowl-
edge was traced back to Augustine.""

Those who know Augustine himself realize that such

notions have no place in his work. 27 Their true father is not
Augustine but Pseudo-Dionysius. And even in Dionysius him-
self, I have found no citation in which he expressly speaks of
the priority of love over knowledge. It seems that this formu-
lation occurs for the first time in Thomas of Vercelli. It is a
formulation which he comes upon while tracing the thought
of Dionysius almost, as it were, in passing, when he says:
" ... per unitionem dilectionis (quae elfectiva est verae cogni-
tionis) unitur Deo intellectualiter ignoto."28 It is in this
mysticism that we find, in fact, the original and precise point
of origin for the concept of a love which creates· knowledge
in the darkness of the intellect.
 92 Theology 0/ Hislory in SI. Bonuvenlurc
3. The synthesis of the mystical, cosmic-hierarchial and histor-
ical order in Bonaventure's concept of revelation in the
final age.
Now we are in a position to understand the decisive syn-
thesis from which Bonaventure builds up his hope for a final
revelation as well as the concept of revelation that lies be-
hind it.
a) The original notion of the cosmic hierarchy of Dionysius
is transformed historically in the hierarchical schema of the
Hexaemeron (vide p. 47). That is, we have not only a static
hierarchy structured from above to below, but we have also
a hierarchical development of history which is indicated in
this schema. When this is viewed in relation to the Church,
the full form of the hierarchy of the nine choirs is not simply
given in its finished form at the beginning; rather it is the
result of an historical ascent which takes place in the course
of the time of salvation.
b) Corresponding to this historical-hierarchical develop-
ment, which is a reRection of the heavenly hierarchy, there is
also a development of knowledge which reaches from the
lowest level of knowledge to the highest form of super-intel-
lectual aJtective-mystical contact with God_ The historical
ascent of the Church from the Patriarchs at the beginning to
the People of God of the final days is simultaneously a
growth of the revelation of God_ In other words, it is not
only the hierarchical thought-pattern that is transformed in
terms of history, but mysticism as well. Mysticism is not a
grace given in isolation and independently of time; it is, ra-
ther, conditioned by the historical development of the divine
revelation. 2o The mysticism which was described by Diony-
sius and which was granted to the Apostles as to the "perfect"
 Chapter 11 93
depicts the stage of revelation of the final Church which is to
be a Church of the perfect. "n With this it becomes decisively
clear that the revelation of the final age will involve neither
the abolition of the revelation of Christ nor a transcendence
of the New Testament. Rather, it involves the entrance into
that form of knowledge which the Apostles had; and thus it
will be the true fulfillment of the New Testament revelation
which has been understood only imperfectly up till now."'
And so the final age will be truly and in the full sense of
the word the "New Testament."".
c) The concept which grounds and supports this extensive
synthesis seems to me to be that of the Seraphim. The cruci-
fied Christ had appeared to St. Francis in the form of a Seraph.
From the time of his own meditation on Mount Alverna, this
vision had never lost its power over Bonaventure~3 To the
meditating spirit of the theologian, it must have seemed be-
yond doubt that the essence of the mysterious event was indi-
cated here: the comprehension of Christ was realized here on
the highest level of love, on the level of the Seraphim. There-
fore, as the stigmata single out the Poverello as the tlllge/lJs
CIJIIl sigllo Dei vivi, so the seraphic form of the Lord who
appeared to Francis points to the hierarchical position of the
Saint and to his historical position. Accordingly, he must be-
long to the seraphic Church of the final age. Thus an exten-
sive synthesis of hierarchical thought, mysticism, and history
is revealed in the unusual double-form of that vision. It is a
synthesis in which Bonaventure attempts to come to terms
with the theological and religious heritage of his age."'
d) Finally, the hierarchical structure remains effective even
in heaven and in the eternity of God. For there, men will be
distributed among the various angelic choirs according to the
94 Theology 01 His/ory in St. Bonaventure
level of their being; they will fill up the gaps which resulted
from the fall of the evil spirits. And those men whose merits
have not reached the requisite level will form a tenth choir
with which the tenth cosmic sphere will be filled up.'"
This theory, which was known to Scholasticism generally;'"
is here placed into a new light by reason of the new context.
It now states clearly that the historical situation of the indi-
vidual will in some way co-condition his place for eternity.
Benz even claims that in his Legenda of St. Francis, Bonaven-
ture holds the opinion that the heavenly place of the proud
Lucifer was reserved for the humble Saint of Assisi. In this
way the fall of the Prince of Darkness would have been re-
paired in Francis, and with this the history of salvation would
truly have COme to its goaL:17 Actually, this idea is found only
in the Speculum perlee/ianis which is not a work of Bona-
venture.·" But it is certainly true that for Bonaventure the
hopeful dawn of a new age had broken through in Francis,
who bore the wounds of Christ's passion and thus bore the
"seal of the living God" (Apoc. 7, 2). This would be that
age in which "Nation would rise against nation" no longer
(Jes. 2,4). Of such a time one might be able to say: "And
then there will be peace."·"
 CHAPTER III

THE HISTORICAL SEmNG OF BONA·

VENTURE'S THEOLOGY OF HISTORY

After delineating the external structure of Bonaventure's

vision of history in general and of history's approaching end
in particular, we have another and no less difficult task;
namely, to uncover the basic forces of this vision of history
and to determine its position relative to the Christian concept
of history. We cannot do this meaningfully unless we first
brielly describe the pre-history of the Bonaventurian structure.
The most important material for this purpose has already been
gathered and examined in Dempf's Sa&rum imperium. 1 Other
important material will be found in Kamiah's Apokalypse una
Geschichtsthe%gie 2 and in Hipler's Die christliche Ge-
schichtsau!Jasung,· which is still a valuable book. We are not
here concerned with discovering new material. Rather, our
intention is to draw out the theological line of development
more precisely than has previously been the case.

# 13. The Pre-Bonaventurlon Dev.lopment of the Medieval

Theology af History.
I. The theology af history In the Fath.... Its reformula-
tion in Rupert of Deutz.
We can observe two directions of thought among the
Fathers concerning the orders of this world. On the one hand,
95
96 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
there is an "imperialistic theology." As a theology of Chris-
tian world-formation, this view involves an emphatic "Yes"
to the orders of the world. Since Eusebius, it has become quite
common in the East; in the West, it is represented by Orosius.'
On the other hand, there is the "pneumatic" theology which
emphasizes the Christian conquest of the world understood in
the New Testament sense. This view found its most impor-
tant representative in Augustine. 2 While the first view trans-
plants something of the theocratic spirit of the Old Testament
into a new era, the second view preserves the eschatological
heritage of the New Testament, even though with many
changes. Despite the different attitudes toward the world and
despite the different ways in which Christianity consequently
is translated into concrete reality, nonetheless a common his-
torical consciousness remains alive. And this consciousness
affirms: Christ is the end of the ages; His birth coincides with
the "end of the times:" On the basis of this axiom, both
Chiliasm and Montanism were declared heretical and were
excluded from the universal church; for they both denied this
vision and awaited still another period of more definitive sal-
vation to follow after the age of Jesus Christ. Augustine's
doctrine of the six ages, which placed the coming of Christ
in the final age of a mUllduJ JeI1eJCenJ,· was simply another
expression of the viewpoint which was able to establish itself
as the correct one in the wake of these debates. From Augus-
tine, this trpe of historical understanding passed over to the
Middle Ages where it was received as a heritage of obligatory
character. The Middle Ages did not attempt to undermine
this heritage, but tried instead to create from it a new and
living feeling for the proximity of the end.
 Chapter 111 97
We can sense the first impulse toward a change in the work
of the abbot, Rupert of Deut2 (1070-ca.1135).' He himself
stands entirely within the patristic vision on this point; in fact
he leads this formulation to a new and surprising high-point
of development." At the same time, a new tendency begins
to manifest itself in his thought, even though unwillingly.
As a thinker, Rupert has received too little attention in the
past. 7 In a way that is somewhat foreign to the academic
science of his own times, he attempted to penetrate to the
spirit of Scripture by way of meditation rather than by way of
Scholastic methodology. In this respect, he is closely related
to Joachim of Fiore, another abbot who contributed much to
the decisive reformulation of the theology of history. In his
extensive work, De sancIa Irinilale el operibllS eius, Rupert
takes up again the attempt which Augustine had made in his
CivilaJ Dei, but now with an even greater energy in his his-
torical thinking. He treats history in its entirety from creation
to the final judgment, and attempts to give it a theological
interpretation based on Scripture. Like the Fathers, he also
constructs his historical typology on the creation-account; but
unlike the Fathers, he attributes to this account a three-fold
historical meaning instead of the two-fold meaning. First of
all, this account indicates the work of creation itself, which is
the work of the Father. It indicates further the history of sal-
vation which was worked out in the well-known six ages
of history; this is the work of the Son. And finally, as a new
dimension, it points to the history of salvation determined by
the Holy Spirit in the world-epoch of grace opened by Christ. 8
Thus there arises a trinitarian super-structure above the seven-
part patristic schema. The time of the Father reaches from
the first "Let there be" to the Fall; the time of the Son ex-
98 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
tends from the Fall to the completion of His saving work on
the Cross. With the resurrection, the time of the Holy Spirit
begins; and it reaches to the end of the world. n The eschato-
logical character of the age of the Spirit is expressly maintain-
ed. It is called the time of the resurrection, following the
inspiration of St. Augustine. First, there is the resurrection of
souls; then follows the resurrection of bodies.' 0
The special character of this period is also preserved in
another way; for it is no longer time in the proper sense.
Rather, it is the fulfillment and the perfection of all that is
hoped for and awaited in all the ages. Here again a series
of seven arises which is naturally presented in relation to the
seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. But here precisely in relation
to the series of seven, it is emphasized several ·times that the
works of the trinity cannot be separated, and that in fact there
is an interpenetration of the persons of the trinity as well as
of the periods of history related to them. So behind the seven
days of creation stand the seven gifts of the Spirit; they are
also hidden in the six (or seven) periods of Christ-history in
the Old Testament."
Yet there is a difference. The axiom: " ... inseparabilis
trinitas un us Deus inseparabiliter operatur·· is complemented
by two other principles: " ... sola Filii persona est, <Juae came
induitur" and ". . . propria Spiritus Sancti persona ... gratia
est:· This makes it possible to say that an aclio propria cor-
responds to a pro prielas personae, and that each of the three
works - creation, salvation, sanctification - is a proprium
opus of that person to whom it is appropriated. l " From this
it follows that there is a proper time of the Holy Spirit, and
that the history of the world can be divided into three world-
weeks. each of which is divided into seven parts. There is the
 elwpler III 99
week of creation about which the creation account speaks in
the literal sense; there is the week of redemption which is
spoken of in the historical division of the Fathers; and there
is the week of grace which is divided according to the seven
gifts of the Holy Spirit. I.
This third week is of special interest to us here. It is worked

of the Passion of Jesus Christ. I.

out as follows. The spirit of wisdom is revealed in the· mystery
The tearing of the veil of
the Temple (Mt.27.51). was an image of the covering that
was torn away from the face of Moses (vide Ex. 34.33.35
and 2 Cor. 3. 12.18). It was also an image of the understand·
ing of Scripture which poured into the hearts of the Disciples
because of the fact that they were lilled with the spirit of
understanding. 1 :; The spirit of divine counsel is manifest in
the rejection of the Jews. In the struggle and victory of the
martyrs we see the spirit of fortitude. The spirit of knowledge
is recognized in the holy Fathers who followed after the period
of the martyrs. 1 II The spirit of piety points toward the future
conversion of the Jews at the end of history." And. finaUy.
the spirit of the fear of the Lord announces the linal hour of
inner·worldly history: the linal judgment. On the basis of this.
we lind the following schema of the third world·week presen·
ted in the history of the Church:

Spiritus sapientiae .. .. passio

intellectus .....•.........._intellectus scripturarum apostolis datus
consilii .........................caecitas in Israel
fortidudinis ................ tempus martyrum
scientiae .....•................tempus doctorum.
pietatis .•.•.................•.. conversio Israel
timoris Domini ........ ultimum iudicium
) 00 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
It is clear, on the one hand, that the eschatological character
of the Church is fully preserved. 1 " and, on the other hand.
that something new has already begun in the Church. In it-
self, the number seven used to designate the gifts of the Holy
Spirit is not a schema of history. It would be more exact to
see this number as indicating the unfolding of the one Spirit
in seven forms. Consequently this use of the number seven
differs from the previous seven-fold division of history. Basi-
cally it does not divide history but emphasizes the oneness of
the Spirit. In fact, it indicates that with the outpouring of the
Spirit. the division of the ages is transcended and that the new
era of the resurrection - the gem ina relurrectio - has begun;
an era in which there will no longer be any succession of
periods but only the seven gifts of the Spirit, which, taken
together, represent the one Spirit. Here again, in a new and
creative way, the unity of the sixth age and its final character
are brought OUt."1
On the other hand, the schema of the seven gifts acquires
a more historical meaning by reason of its relationship to the
creation account and to the six ages of Christ-history. While
the schema, in itself, retains the seven gifts in a unity, the new
historical interpretation of the gifts tends somewhat to dis-
solve the unity of the Spirit. It is impossible to hide the fact
that the historical parallels with which the dona Spiritul are
clarified do indeed involve a division of Church history into
periods. The order in which they stand corresponds to the
traditional schema of the gifts. and as yet shows no traces of
the later ]oachimite expectations. Their path does not lead
from a primeval age of perfection through ages of imperfec-
tion to an age of perfection within history. Instead, the entire
period of time from the passion of Christ to the final judg-
 t'!rupler 11/ JOJ
ment is of the same character; it is the "time of the Spirit,"
a time of the greatest fulfillment. If we were to view anyone
of these periods as especially singled out, then it would have
to be the time of the intellecruI, that is, the time of the Apos-
tles; for this age is seen to be normative by reason of the gift
proper to it. Moreover, the periodization of history is over-
come and drawn up into a unity by the fact that the interpre-
tation of these periods is made precisely in terms of the gifts
of the Spirit. For this means that these periods are only
apparent perIOds; in reality, they are forms of the unfolding
of the one Spirit. But as soon as we set aside the gifts of the
Spirit or make use of another typology, as we might easily be
tempted to do, then the entire interpretation is destroyed.
In place of the unity of the Spirit, we will then have a
temporal sequence. Church history then becomes simply one
period of time that takes its place among the other periods
of history; it is no longer the final age. Instead, it is simply
the second age which comes after the first age of the Old
Testament history. At the same time, the unity of the time
of Christ, which Rupert had maintained. is destroved.20
But the path towards Joachim' s solution can already be
clearly seen. If we wish to preserve the schema of the three
world-weeks and with it the notion of a time proper to the
Spirit which is truly a time of fulfilled promises; and if we pre-
suppose, on the other hand, a temporal periodization of the
Church as the real time of Christ, then naturally the prophecy
of a Spirit-church of the future arises. Thus Rupert synthe-
sizes the theology of the past, but at the same time all the
seeds of the future development are already perceptible in
his work.
102 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
II. The transformation of eschatological consciousness in
Hono,lus of Autun and Anselm of Havelb.,g.

1. Hono.ius of Autun.

Though we cannot determine exactly the dates of the life-

time of Honorius of Auhm, he did know and respect Rupert
of Deutz. 2L It was Honorius who undertook the step indi-
cated above. Rupert's strict division of history with its subtle
synthesis of trinitarian thought and patristic historical typol-
ogy is left behind. Instead, history is set up perhaps for the
lirst time as a continuous line from Adam up to the present
in such a way that there are five ordines (Jlallls) before Christ
and live after Christ. These can be seen as the decem SlatllS
ecelesiae." The patristic notion of the .celesia ab Abel 2 •
now shows its inner tendency to bring about uniformity. It is
brought into harmony with the eschatological notions in as
far as the appearance of Jesus Christ is connected with the
idea that the church, which till then had been hidden, now be-
comes visible." There thus arises a one-lined concept of
history which not only fails to take account of the understand-
ing of the church as the end-time, but over and above this,
makes the incarnation of the Logos practically meaningless
for the total picture of history.'· Certainly this presentation
of history in Honorius is only a chance by-product of his alle-
gory.2. By and large, it does not playa great role. But the
fact that this new step is made almost naturally is a sign of
the intellectual character of an age in which the patristic struc-
turing of history is now passed on only like an old garment
behind which a new form has been built up almost unnoticed.
 Chapter III 103
2. Anselm of Havelberg (d. 11 58).
In Anselm of Havelberg"7 this new element takes on much
more precise contours. Anselm proceeds from a question which
must have concerned him precisely as a member of the newly-
founded Order of Premonstratensians. He remarks that a
question is being raised not "manifeste, sed latenter et insidi-
ose." What are all the innovations in the church supposed to
mean? What is the meaning of the new Orders which seem
to threaten the unity of religion by their multiplicity. They
shatter any confidence in the dependability and the truth of
this religion."" The answer is based on the concept of the
ecc/esia ab Abel. If the church has existed already since the
time of Abel and not only since the time of Christ, then it is
dear that mutaJio belongs to the essence of the church. It is
no longer difficult to show "quomodo ecclesia Dei sit una in
se et secundum se et quomodo sit multiformis secundum filios
suos, quos, diversis modis et diversis legibus et institutis in-
formavit et informat, a sanguine Abel iusti usque ad novis-
simum electum."20
At the very inception of this presentation, we find the affir-
mation of the temporal-historical growth of the church. This
is illustrated by a first example according to which the Old
Testament openly proclaimed the Father alone while it spoke
of the Son only in a hidden way. On the other hand, the New
Testament spoke openly of both the Father and the Son; but
it left the Spirit in darkness. Knowledge about the Holy
Spirit has developed only gradually. "n But the mutatio ecc/e-
siae is expressed above all in that the seven seals of the
Apocalypse are intepreted as the seven historical periods of
time after Christ.
104 Theology 01 Hislory in 51. Bonavenlure
The white horse ._..... Christ
The red horse ................. Time of the Martyrs.
The black horse ......._ Time of the Heretics (Arius, Sabellius,
Nestorius, Eutyches, etc.)
The pale horse .............. False Christians; at the same time,
the founding of Orders (present.)
The call of the Saints under the altar
earthquake .....__ ......_ persecution by the anti·Christ
silence ............ _ ......_ .. eternal vision.at
We could hardly deny that there is a certain amount of
dependence on Rupert of Deutz. But here something has taken
place quite decisively, while it had appeared as mere chance
in Honorius and as practically nothing more than a possibility
in Rupert. The history of the church is depicted as a time of
a developing history of salvation. This history does not find
its end in Christ but enters into a new stage with Him .• '
Thus a very significant change in the actual historical con ..
sciousness has taken place in the development of Rupert,
Honorius, and Anselm under the cover of the Augustinian
historical schema a" which is retained even by Anselm. The
significance of this change for the concept of tradition and
revelation as well as for the notion of eschatology and salva..
tion history has not yet been given a full evaluation in studies
on the history of dogma."·

III. Th. new .schatological consciousn ... of Joachim of

Fiore (d. 1202)
1. Joachim's influence on Bonaventure.
It cannot be determined with certainty whether Joachim of
Fiore was aware of this development. 'Ii'
But it is possible or
even probable that he knew the views of Anselm of Havel..
berg. an It is not necessary here to present the details of his
 Cllapter III ) 05
teaching. The extensive literature on Joachim provides us
with better information today than anything which could be
offered here within the limits demanded. 87 Bonaventure's
dependence on the Calabrian Abbot has already been pointed
out as regards particular points. This dependence is related
essentially to the following thoughts:
a) The acceptance of the two-fold application of the six
days of creation to the Old Testament and to the history of
the church. Together with this, a double-seven series is set up
instead of the simple seven-schema of antiquity.
b) The acceptance of the notion of the 1Z0VUS or"o together
with a series of allegorical interpretations of &ripture pertain-
ing to this.
c) The acceptance of the expectation of a time of salvation
within history which is understood to be a state of full redemp-
tion yet to be achieved within history.
But in all three cases, it would be incomplete to see Joachim
as the only source. There must have been other intermediary
figures between Joachim and Bonaventure who are lost to us
at least in part. These may well have already accommodated
this material to the contemporary situation. Above all, they
would have applied these ideas to Franciscanism.88
The following ideas of Joachim and the pre-Bonaventurian
Joachimites are rejected:
a) The limitation of the New Testament and the time of
Jesus Christ to the second age. The New Testament is the
testamentum aeternum.
b) The trinitarian division of history is accepted in a very
limited way (vide p. 47).
With this, the notions of the Calabrian Abbot which were
to be of the greatest significance for the future have already
106 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
been outlined. We have yet to ask what was the decisive
characteristic of his historical consciousness.

2. The historical consciousness of Joachim.

In the case of Joachim the idea of the parallel betweeen the
Testaments appears in full clarity. This notion had already
been present in Rupert, while in the case of Honorius and
Anselm it slipped into the background again. But Joachim's
development is different from that of Rupert. Joachim under-
stands the time of the New Testament with full seriousness
as a temporal, progressive history of salvation parallel to that
of the Old Testament. Here something new takes place; the
Old and the New Testaments appear as two halves of IUstor-
ical time. These halves are structured parallel to one another,
and Christ appears as the turning-point of time. He is the
center and the turning-point of history. With Him the course
of the world begins again, as it were, on a new and higher
level. For this reason, it is not entirely exact when Kamiah
says that Christ is no longer the "axis of world history" in
Joachim as He had been in Rupert, but rather "one dividing
point among many;"'" for the idea of viewing Christ as the
axis of history was as foreign to Rupert as it was to the entire
first Christian millenium"" For the first thousand years of
Christian theology, Christ is not the turning-point of history
at which a transformed and redeemed world begins, nor is
He the point at which the unredeemed history prior to His
appearance is terminated. Rather, Christ is the beginninng of
the end. He is "salvation" in as far as in Him the "end" has
already broken into history. Viewed from an historical per-
spective, salvation consists in this end which He inaugurates,
while history will run on for a time, so to say, per ntfas and
 Chapter III 107
will bring the old aeon of this world to an end. The idea of
seeing Christ as the axis ot world history was prepared for by
Rupert, Honorius, and Anselm. But it appears clearly for the
first time in Joachim; and even here it is somewhat hidden at
first by the fact that the history of the world has not one but
two axes, and that it is made up not of two but of three great
periods. The rejection of this latter notion was effected for·
cibly by the triumph of orthodox dogma; but the other idea
remained. Consequently Joachim became the path-finder within
the church for a new understanding of history which to us
today appears to be so self·evident that it seems to be the
Christian understanding. It may be ditlicult for us to believe
that there was a time when this was not the case. It is here
that the true significance of Joachim is to be found. And in
the face of this, even the indisputable significance which the
later history of Joachim's thought was to have in Franciscan
Joachimism recedes into the background. <, In fact, we must
say that even this later history is important above all because
it brought about the acceptance of this new historical con-
sciousness by forcing the issue to the point of a polemic that
exposed a false Joachimism. It should be clear that the church
and redemption are rendered historical in an entirely new way
which cannot be a matter of indifference for the history of
dogma nor for systematic theology.
If, therefore, Joachim attributes an historical significance to
the work of Christ in an entirely new sense, it is no longer
viewed as the incipient suppression of history. Instead the
work of Christ is seen to be firmly rooted in history. Never·
theless a new eschatological consciousness develops here, and
it is demanded precisely by the new manner in which the
church as it has existed up to the present is interpreted histor·
108 Theology 0/ His/ory in St. Bonaventure
ically. This does not mean that Honorius of Autun and An-
selm of Havelberg had fully extinguished the feeling for the
proximity of the end. Both of them had constructed their
historical schemata in such a way that they themselves and the
period in which they lived stood at the end of history. The
distinction between their view and that of the patristic age is
found simply in the fact that neither Honorius nor Anselm
understood the end to have been ushered in with Christ. It
arrives only after another lapse of time. <" On the other hand,
Joachim concludes that a truly good and redeemed history is
yet to come since an unredeemed and defective history contin-
ues after Christ. But this redeemed history is now at hand,
as he understands it with gratification. Indeed, it has been
growing for a long time in a hidden way, and it must soon
burst forth in the open. <" It is in this imminent event that
the Calabrian Abbot places his hopeful joy and his contident
expectation, and this is the signiticant thing about it. It is
really possible to look toward that future with the joyful hope
that once sounded in the Maralla rha of the first Christians
who awaited the fullness of salvation with the return of the
Lord. In the meantime this joy had long been disturbed by
the fear of the terrible day of judgment which was to precede
the dissolution of the world. Nn such fear lay between the
present time and the coming salvation. H Now again a true
expectation of the end was possible; an expectation which was
penetrated entirely with the spirit of hope.
 Chapter III 109
# 14. The Historical Consciousness of Bonaventure.
I. The double development of Bonaventure', historical
thought in the period of his Magi.terium.

1. The recosting of the doctrine of the six ages by the con-

cept of medietas.
Before Bonaventure came upon Joachim's theology of his-
tory.' he himself had already taken a path which had inclined
him in this direction and had created a degree of openness for
the ideas of Joachim. In his Commentary on the Sentences he
still makes reference exclusively to the patristic understanding
of history. He does this with a slight, time-conditioned nuance
that still leaves untouched the peculiar character of the patris-
tic viewpoint: Christ became man "quasi in fine temporum.'"
The affirmation of "Christ as the end of time" already under-
goes its first limitation by the insertion of the word quasi,3
but by and large it remains intact. The Breviloquium, which
was written at the end of his Magisterium, still presents the
doctrine of the six ages;' neither Joachim nor Bonaventure
gave it up completely, for it apparently had a quasi-dogmatic
value. Co But here it is given a new tone which significantly
comes entirely from Bonaventure's own world of thought and
can apparently be traced to no outside influence. "That is why
the coming of the Son of God marks the fullness of time:
not because time ends with His coming, but because the hid-
den prophecies of all ages have been fulfilled. Had Christ
come at the beginning of time, He would have come too soon;
and had His corning been delayed until the very end, He would
have come too late. It belonged to Him as the true Savior to
provide a time of healing right between the time of sickness
and the time of judgment; as the true Mediator, to come mid-
110 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
way, some of His elect preceding and others following Him."·
Almost imperceptibly something new is created here out of
the old Scholastic concepts that had served to clarify the
plenillido lempo'lIm. 7 This is found in the statement that
the "fullness of time" is simultaneously the "center of time."
Even the concept of Mediator, which in itself has an entirely
different meaning, is employed here to provide a basis for this
statement. The concept is here understood not simply in the
sense of mediating salvation, but in the sense of standing in
the center of time. Furthermore, this use of the concept of
mediator helps clarify the way in which the reformulation of
the understanding of history came about. Without a doubt,
it proceeds from Bonaventure's preference for the concepts
of the center and the mediator. Both Guardini and Silic have
studied the significance of these notions in Bonaventure's
work.' It is precisely the figure of Jesus Christ, the middle
person in the Trinity as well as the mediator and middle be-
tween God and man,o who gradually becomes the synthesis
of everything that is expressed for Bonaventure in the concept
of center. Christ becomes the center.' 0 And as a consequence
of this general interpretation of Christ from the notion of
center, He becomes also the "center of time." It is quite ap-
parent that this idea, which was originally Bonaventure's own,
must have created almost naturally a certain openness to Joa-
chim's double-seven schema. With the elimination of an inde-
pendent time of the Spirit, this schema offered a vivid descrip-
tion of Christ's central position in time.
2. The development of Q living consciousness of the end in
the controversy about poverty.
Hand in hand with this development, which seems at first to
promote the de-eschatologizing (M. Werner) of Christianity,
 Ch"pler III III
there is another line of development. At the very same time,
that is, toward the end of Bonaventure's university career,
there appeared a very strong consciousness of the end-time
which had ~en unnoticeable only shortly before in the writ-
ing of the Commenlar, on Ihe Senlenus_ At any rate, the
doctrine on the last things had been treated there in a strictly
academic way; and Bonaventure had made no remarks which
would ~tray a feeling that the end was very near.lI
A basic change sets in with the ~ginning of the controversy
on poverty in which William of St. Amour first sounded the
eschatological theme. William's view stood in sharp contrast
with that of Joachim and the notion of the Evangelium aeler-
nllm, the condemnation of which he had helped to bring
about. " He emphasized the fact that we live in the Jexla el
'
II/lima aelas. The proximity of the end arises naturally from
this: " ... ista aetas iam plus duravit quam aliae; quae currunt
per millenarium annorum, quia ista duravit 1255 annos; veri-
simile ergo est, quod nos sumus prope finem mundi."13 So
he could say that the finalis ecc/esia, the Church of the final
age, is drawing near. ,. In the case of William, this proof of
the eschatological character of his OWn era served the cause
of his polemic against the mendicant Orders. With it he
proved that the dangers which burdened the Mendicants be-
longed to the pericliia novissimorllm lem porllm; they should,
therefore, be combatted with special vigor.'" Naturally we
can ask to what degree a truly serious eschatological expecta-
tion is involved here, and to what degree it is a question of
a polemic style. Dempf is of the opinion that the controversy
was "in no way intended to be eschatologically serious.""
Bierbaum holds a similar though less incisive view. 17 A more
precise judgment is now possible on the basis of a text edited
112 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
by Faral. This is the text of William's self·defense before
a commission of Cardinals. 1 • William's proclamation of the
anti·Christ had provoked the dissatisfaction of the ecclesiasti·
cal authorities. In the text of his self·defense, William ad·
mitted expressly that it is not yet the final age. He justified
the eschatological tone of his proclamation in the following
way. "Sic ergo patet, quod pericula praedicta, contra quae
praeparanda est ecclesia et modo sunt praedicanda et semper
a tempore apostoli fuerunt instanter praedicanda."'o This
means that eschatological preaching is justified because, in the
Church, the fineI Iaeculorum has arrived."" Consequently,
since the days of the Apostles themselves, it is always well
to be vigilant because the anti·Christ threatens the Church at
all times. Here the eschatological attitude is seen as the com·
mon Christian disposition. In no way need it necessarily in·
clude the expectation that the end is near in a temporal sense.
Therefore, when William treats the notion of the temporal
proximity of the end in his Liber de anlichriIto el eiuI mini·
Itris, it is possible to understand this only as a polemic style. 21
It is in a similar sense that we should und~rstand the eschato·
logical references in the answer of St. Thomas found in the
Conlra impugtlantes Dei cullum el religionem. 22 Thomas
makes use of such remarks less frequently by far than does
his opponent. 2 •
William's view can be seen as a polemic with an eschato·
logical character conditioned by the times. But it evokes a
genuine eschatological consciousness in Bonaventure; it brings
out into the open the consciousness of the proximity of the
end which lay at the roots of the original Franciscan experi.
ence. So, for the first time, in the Quaesliones de perfeclione
evangelica a type of historical thought appears which clearly
 Chapter III 113
betrays the traces of the Joachimite.eschatological interpreta-
tion of the Order of Francis"· To the objection that it is
better to follow the example of approved men of earlier ages
than to assume a new form of life"" Bonaventure answers
that the wisdom of God has willed an order of things that
involves a temporal succession. Accordingly in the Church
there first arose men who were powerful in working wonders
and signs. In the "central time" of the Church, men of great
learning followed. In the final age, God has sent men who
freely chose to be beggars and to be poor in earthly possess·
ions. These men have been sent against that spirit of covetous·
ness which was to achieve its greatest force at the end of the
world. Furthermore, poverty arose at the very beginning of
the Church (in the community of Jerusalem) ; it now blossoms
again at the end of the Church. So Jerome's statement is
shown to be true: "Omega revolvit ad alpha." In the end,
the circle closes itself on its beginning."" Shortly thereafter,
the Dominicans and the Franciscans were designated as the
two last Orders sent mto the world by God." r This is appar-
ently based on the ideas of Joachim. The task of these two
Orders is to sign the servants of God on the forehead with
the seal of the living God."" This is clearly a beginning of
the apocalyptic interpretation of Francis which develops from
this point onward until it finds its way into the very center of
Bonaventure's thought in the Col/atinnes in Hexaemeron.""
On the basis of the texts, therefore, there can be no doubt
that for Bonaventure there is a genuine eschatological con-
sciousness which appears already in the Quaesliones de per.
feclione evangelica. Already at this point, he has been im·
pressed by that mysterious "soon" with which the Apocalypse
closes (22,20.) This means that at one and the same time
114 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
in his life, the concept of Christ as the center of time was
ripening from the logic of his own thought; the older concept
of Christ as the end of time was done away with; and Bona-
venture's Own consciousness that "the end is really at hand
now" arises in contrast to the usual academic indifference
relative to the actual temporal fixation of the end. It should
be clear by now that these two lines of development are only
apparently contradictory. For the reality of an eschatological
expectation can increase anew in urgency precisely in that
moment in which one overcomes the lack of clarity which
arises when one refers to the entire Christian history as the
final age. Nonetheless, this form of eschatological thought
is not identical with that of the New Testament. It may be
just as far removed from that of the New Testament as is
that of William of St. Amour and Thomas Aquinas. For in a
certain sense, a new, second end is set up next to Christ. Even
though Christ as the center is the one who supports and bears
all things, still He is no longer simply the Ie/os in whom all
things flow together and in whom the world is ended and
overcome. 8 0

II. The historical con.aau.neu of the "Hexa.maran" and

that of Thoma. Aqulna •.
In the foregoing, the basic evaluation of the historical con-
sciousness that lies at the basis of the H exaemeron has already
been worked out. But a further clarification can be found if
we study this vision in contrast to that of Thomas Aquinas.
This procedure may be seen to be justified in as far as Ernst
Benz, in a series of articles dealing with the problem of Joa-
chim, has devoted a special, detailed study to Thomas' critique
of Joachim.· ' He arrives at the surprising conclusion that
 Chapter III 115
it is precisely in this critique that the victory of juridical
thought over the original eschatological attitude of Christianity
becomes apparent, and with it the Church's capitulation to the
spirit of the anti-Christ. This betrayal is supposed to have
been carried out in the course of the ecclesiastical rejection of
the "Franciscan reformation."" On the basis of what has
already been said above, two objections can be raised against
this explanation. First, it should be adequately clear that we
cannot equate the eschatological notions of Joachim with the
eschatological attitude of Christianity itself. Consequently, the
rejection of Joachim's view may not at all involve the rejec-
tion of the eschatological attitude of Christianity. Furthermore,
we have already seen that within the Catholic Church we find
not only Aquinas' anSwer to Joachim, but Bonaventure's an-
swer as well.
And Bonaventure's answer takes up the basic themes of
Joachim and relates them to the thought of the Church with-
out any loss of the living eschatological tension. Here we
merely want to indicate the theological point of departure
from which Thomas' critique proceeds. It is found in one
citation which Benz has bypassed in his extensive study. The
notion that appears here will permit us to draw a final char-
acterization of the theology of history found in the Hexaem-
eron. This also is missing in Benz's treatment. 88

1. The central point of Aquinas' critique of Joachim.

Strange to say, Thomas entered into the theological contro-
versy with Joachim earlier than did Bonaventure. In his
Commentary on the Sentences Bonaventure never mentions the
problem raised by Joachim's prophecies. On the other hand,
Thomas devotes an entire quaestiuncu/a to the problem and
116 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
deals with it in some detail."' The question of the time of the
resurrection was usually handled in the doctrinal treatment of
the last things. Within the framework of this question Thomas
introduces his treatment of the problem with the objection:
"Videtur, quod tempus illud non sit occultum."3r. One of the
reasons for this objection is: "Status novi testamenti praefi-
guratus fuit in veteri testamento . . . Sed scimus determinate
tempus, in quo vetus testamentum statum habuit. Ergo .. ."3a
To this Aquinas answers that the way in which the New Testa-
ment is prefigured in the Old Testament should not be under-
stood as though any particular element of the Old Testament
pointed toward a particular aspect of the New Testament,
but rather in the sense that the entire Old Testament points
to Christ "in whom all the types of the Old Testament are
fulfilled." With full justification, Thomas refers to Augus-
tine's Civitas Dei which had rejected the application of the
plagues of Egypt to the Christian persecutions. This is, in fact,
a rejection of that form of exegesis which is basic to the entire
Joachimite theology of history.87 Concerning Joachim himself,
Aquinas says that his work must be judged in the light of the
fact that some of his predictions are true, but that in other
matters he had deceived himself. a - But the central point of
the critique lies in the rejection of the historical-allegorical
exegesis which Joachim applied to the Old Testament. The
signs and the periods of the Old Testament do not point to a
similar course of events in the New Testament, for such a view
would necessarily involve the suppression of the New Testa-
ment by the Old Testament. Instead, the signs and periods of
the Old Testament point to Christ who is the fulfillment and
the fullness of the Old Testament. In Him and in Him alone
do we find the whole of the New Testament. Therefore it is
 Chapl.r III 117
in Him alone that prophetic power of the Old Testament is
fulfilled. Is this thesis unchristian or anti·Christian? If it is,
then the same is true of the exegesis of Augustine and of the
ancient church, and even of the exegesis of St. Paul himself.
The truth of the matter is that Thomas Aquinas does not set
up an opposition between the eschatological view of Joachim
and the juridical thinking of a church which is assumed to have
been untrue to her mission. Rather he places the Christo·
centric view of Scripture and of the Fathers in opposition to
the historical speculation of the Calabrian Abbot. His solu-
tion to the problem is simply "Christ." In Him and in Him
alone is the Old Testament fulfilled.

2. The central point of Bonaventure's critique of Joachim.

In contrast with Aquinas, Bonaventure expressly recognized
Joachim's Old Testament exegesis and ;.dopted it as his own,
as we have already seen. In this case, therefore (and not only
in this case), Thomas is more an Augustinian than is Bonaven-
ture.· o In contrast with Aquinas' clear and decisive critique
of Joachim, that of Bonaventure seems at first to touch only
peripheral points. It seems to involve nuances that are hardly
noticeable, and which would seem to have developed quite
naturally with the mere passing of time" 0 But the difference
that separates Bonaventure from Joachim is greater than it may
seem at first. Basically he is in agreement with the Thomistic
critique, for he also affirms a Christo·centrism. Bonaventure
does not accept the notion of an age of the Holy Spirit which
destroyed the central position of Christ in the Joachimite view.
Certainly the two final ordilleJ are orders of the Spirit; and
the Spirit certainly achieves a particular power in the final age;
but this age, as such, is an age of Christ. It remains the
118 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
septima aetas of the New Testament Christ-time which endures
up to the end. H It is precisely in the Hexaemeron that the
notion of "Christ as the center of all" reaches its highest
development. 40 If it is justified to say that for Joachim, Christ
is merely one point of division among others! 8 it is no less
justified to say that for Bonaventure, Christ is the "axis of
world history," the center of time. Even though Bonaventure
accepts and affirms the parallel structure of the ages which
had been rejected by Thomas, he is led in this by a completely
different tendency than that which led Joachim to his structur-
ing of time. If Joachim was above all concerned with bringing
out the movement of the second age to the third," Bonaven-
ture's purpose is to show, on the basis of the parallel between
the two ages, that Christ is the true center and the turning-
point of history} r. Christ is the center of all. This is the
basic concept of Bonaventure's historical schema, and it in-
volves a decisive rejection of Joachim. In the final analysis,
he is closer to Thomas than to Joachim.
 CHAPTER IV

ARISTOTELIAN ISM AND THE

THEOLOGY OF HISTORY.

The phllosophicol position of Bonaventure's theology of history.

In the foregoing, we have attempted to present the back-

ground from which Bonaventure's theology of history grew.
In order to achieve a full understanding and a balanced eval-
uation, we must look also at the antithesis of this view; for
Bonaventure's own approach is reflected in a new way precisely
in his rejection of the antithetical view. Here we are confront-
ed with the problem of Aristotelianism and Bonaventure's
position relative to it. As we will see, his rejection of Aristotle
is not primarily metaphysical nor epistemological; rather, it
involves /irst and foremost the question of the theology of
history. Since the question of Bonaventure's anti-Aristotelian-
ism has become one of the principal points of dispute in the
modern study of Bonaventure, we will /irst present the devel-
opment of this controversy and its present state at least briefly
in its basic lines. Finally, on the basis of the texts themselves,
we will attempt to develop the problem anew and to give an
answer from a new perspective.

119
120 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
# 15. The Mod.rn Controversy concerning Bonaventure's anti-
AristoteUanism.
1. The the.i. of GiI.on and hi. follower" Bonaventure, the
Augustinian.
It is to the credit of Jules d'Albi' that he was the first to
have pointed out clearly the anti·Aristotelian and anti-Thomis-
tic tone of Bonaventure. Somewhat later, Gilson undertook
the task of interpreting the entire work of Bonaventure from
the aspect of his anti-Aristotelian ism. He attempted to follow
the traces of this anti-Aristotelian tone, and has demonstrated
a masterful command of the texts down to the most subtle
ramifications of Bonaventure's thought." Naturally even Gil-
son could not overlook the fact that there is no noticeable
anti-Aristotelianism in the works of Bonaventure's Magister-
iUIIl. These works may be called "scholastk" in the stricter
sense. It has been pointed out that in the first period of
Bonaventure's scientific activity, which lasted until 1257, there
are over four-hundred citations in which Aristotle is treated
expressly in a friendly manner;' and we have found no text
which would indicate the opposite. During this period, Aris-
totle is the Philosopher for Bonaventure just as he would
always be for Thomas."" Thus, Gilson speaks of a "certain
moderation" with which Bonaventure treats Aristotle in the
peaceful time of the Comlllelltary on the Sentences. 4 He speaks
of the "obvious forebearance" which is apparent in this work
relative to Aristotle while a far less benign attitude is extend-
ed to Plato.' Nonetheless, the same basic viewpoint which is
present in the later Col/aliolles ill Hexaellleron is found already
in the Comlllelliary all Ihe Sentences. "In the year 1273 Bona-
venture was better informed about the persons and their
responsibility. He no longer saw a praiseworthy consistency
 Chapter IV 121
in the position of Aristotle; it now appears to be a blind
obduracy in error. On the other hand, he praises Plato as the
first to have taught the creation of the world in time. There
is no change in Bonaventure's thought at the basis of this new
evaluation of the persons. The Hexaemeron simply applies a
judgment which had been made long ago in the Sentence
Commentary... • The reverse side of this thesis, which sees
Bonaventure simply as the great adversary of Aristotle in the
Middle Ages, can be summarized briefly in the formula:
Bonaventure, the Augustinian. It is supposed that Bonaven-
ture's work is the great mediaeval synthesis of Augustinianism;
that it breathes the spirit of Augustine. It is assumed that the
work of Bonaventure lives as totally from the work of Augus-
tine as the work of Thomas lives from that of Aristotle.
Briefly, this thesis holds that the clear Augustinian tone of the
Seraphic Doctor is the genuine and authentic basis of his anti-
Aristotelianism. 7
In this way, a new image of Bonaventure was created. For
the thesis of Gilson, which saw Bonaventure as the Augustin-
ian, is basically different from that of Ehrle, 8 even though
Ehrle's thesis may sound very similar on the surface, and even
though Gilson's thesis would have been unthinkable without
that of Ehrle. For Gilson, Bonaventure is not an Augustinian
in the sense that he belonged to a traditional Augustinian
tendency and developed this direction of thought more fully.
This had been the case in Ehrle's thesis." Instead, he is now
seen to be an Augustinian in the sense that he created an
integral anti-Aristotelian Augustinianism as a new synthesis
directed against the threat to Christian thought represented by
Aristotle. To put it in other words, according to Gilson, it was
not only the one great synthesist, Thomas Aquinas, who off-
122 Theology of History in SI. Bonaventure
ers an answer to Aristotle in the cultural milieu of the thir-
teenth century. Actually, there were two great answers given
to Aristotle at the same time; that of Thomas Aquinas and
that of Bonaventure, This means, according to Gilson, that
the work of Bonaventure would be an answer to Aristotle in
the same sense as is the work of Aquinas. Just as we must
take the work of the great Dominican as a whole and under-
stand it as a painstaking and fundamental discussion with the
Stagirite, we should understand the work of Bonaventure in
the same way. Or to put it in yet another way, in the con-
frontation with Aristotle, the Christian spirit brought forth
not only the one synthesis of Thomas, but two syntheses of
equal stature. Certainly they differ from one another. The one
is pro-Aristotelian in as far as this is possible for a responsible
Christian thinker; the other is just as clearly anti-Aristotelian,
and it forms a different system which makes use of certain
Platonic structural elements which had already been refash-
ioned in a Christian way by Augustine.''' According to this
viewpoint, Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure stand as two
higb-points in Scholasticism and enjoy equal rights. l I In as
far as this presentation corresponds to the facts, all the force
was taken out of the argument of those who held that the
Augustinianism of Bonaventure, which must be acknowledged
to some degree, is to be traced to an ignorance of Aristotle's
work, and that for this reason, Bonaventure could be rejected
as antiquarian."
It is clear that a thesis which had been presented with so
much spirit and warmth together with such an extensive
knowledge of the sources could not die away unheard.
P. Robert speaks of a concert de /ouange! that was evoked
by Gilson's book.'· In Germany, the agreement with this
 Chapter IV 123
thesis was even more unanimous and undivided than in France
where P. Mandonnet objected sharply to Gilson. But Man-
donnet's po/emiqlle d/eb,el< gained scant attention in Ger-
many. Gilson's image of Bonaventure gained something of a
classic stature. It found approval by research scholars such as
Longpre,15 Squandrani,16 Thonnard.17 G. H. Tavard,18 Rosen-
moeller,1U Auer,"U and Dempf"l among others. P. Robert 2 '
and L. Veuthey 23 also stand on Gilson's side, though with
some reservation. Also, B. Geyer,24 H. Meyer,25 and J. Hirsch-
berger26 adopted the position of Gilson in their works on the
history of philosophy.
On the other hand, as might be expected, the School of
Louvain did not concede the point without a fight. This
School had never been able to warm up to the concept of a
medieval "Augustinianism," and preferred to speak of an
"aristotelisme eclectique,""7 or as Smeets expresses it in his
article on Bonaventure in the Dicfionnaire de the%gie Catho-
/iqlle, of "peripatetisme nuance d·augustinisme..... But after
the unsuccessful objection of Mandonnet, the real counter-
attack was relatively slow in coming. It was brought forward
clearly for the first time in 1942 in the second volume of
F. Van Steenberghen's Siger de Brabant,"" and was developed
further in his study A,istote en Ouident.· u In the thirteenth
volume of Fliche-Martin's church history, Van Steenberghen
has taken over the treatment of the thirteenth century. There
he again gives a detailed presentation of his notion concerning
the development of Aristotelianism and Augustinianism in the
High Middle Ages. 8 J As far as I can see, the discussion of
his viewpoint has hardly begun in Germany.3' Consequently,
we will present his thesis in some detail.
124 Theology 0/ Hislory in SI. Bonavenlure
2. The thesis of Von Steenberghen: Bonaventure. the
Augustinizing Aristotelian.
Van Steenberghen places the problem of Bonaventure in the
total context of the intellectual development of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries. The strength of his thesis lies in this
fact. In this way, he overcomes the illusion of the historians
of philosophy which has recently been criticized sharply by
Gilson;" an illusion that would like to establish one consis-
tent line of philosophical thought in the Middle Ages. It over-
looks the fact that in the Middle Ages. there is only the one
Christian wisdom of the Scriptures and of positive theology
respectively; from this, gradually an independent philosophy
was able to disengage itself. 34 "First of all at the beginning
of the thirteenth century in Paris there are no definite philo-
sophical lines of thought. There was a movement of logical
studies which were based primarily on the Organoll of Aris-
totle. There was also a movement of theological studies which
was nourished from varied sources in as far as it made use of
the speculative method at all. These sources were above all
Augustine, Aristotle, and Pseudo-Dionysius_ But at this time,
neither Augustinianism nor Aristotelianism exist as philosoph-
ical systems or even as distinct doctrinal tendencies. "3r. It is
clear that at this time there could be no contlict between philo-
sophical tendencies nor any real contlict between the philo-
sophical and the theological faculties. At most there would
have been a lack of unanimity on the question as to how far
dialectics should enter into theology.Bo But from about the
year 1200, the intluence of Aristotle increased constantly.
Already for Simon of Tournai, the JoClrilla a,isloleliea is
synonymous with philoso phia. a1 The nwnber of citations
from Aristotle increases from author to author.38
 Chapter IV 125
The early Franciscan Masters, Alexander of Hales and John
of Rupella, all lit into this line of development. " ... having
been educated in the Arts Faculty, their minds were trained in
Aristotle's logic and they had absorbed many metaphysical
doctrines at the same time as this logic; psychological and
moral doctrines had been taught to them while they were
studying the Ethics of Aristotle; these philosophical studies
had aroused their curiosity and they completed their training
by the personal reading of Aristotle... Here we stand before
a more or less developed form of eclectic Aristotelianism. Its
nuances and inner coherence cjilfer from case to case:'· 0 As
we can see, it is at this point that the term aristore/iJme k/ec-
tique enters into the picture. And we can hardly deny that the
logic of the historical argument that leads to the formulation
of this term is convincing in this context. As an almost natural
conclusion from this line of thought, Van Steenberghen adds
that "the notion of a conllict between an 'Augustinian philos-
ophy' and an 'Aristotelian philosophy' is absolutely foreign to
these theologians (absolument etrangere). For them, philos-
ophy meant the knowledge passed on by Aristotle and the
other pagan philosophers. This knowledge was now taught
by the Faculty of the Arts. If they envisioned any possibility
of a conllict ... it would be between this philosophy with its
pagan origin and the Christian wisdom of the Fathers which
had been developed further by the theologians .. :.... And
so the situation remains: "On the philosophical level during
the first half of the thirteenth century, Augustinianism is non-
existent:'·' Taking philosophy and theology together, we can
say: "On the whole, the general philosophical-theological
direction of thought (Ie mouvement philosophico-theologi-
que) before 1250 was neither traditionally nor essentially
126 Theology 0/ Hiswry in St. Bonaventure
Augustinian. This movement began around 1225 under the
inlluence of the new literature. It was a question of a neo·
Platonizing Aristotelianism which lacked homogeneity. The
theologians joined this with the traditional doctrines of Latin
theology for which Augustine was the main source. Brie8y,
that which we generally refer to as pre·Thomistic Augustin·
ianism is the doctrinal form of the theological faculty as it
was built up under the inlluence of philosophy around the
year 1230."<8
According to Van Steenberghen, Bonaventure remains basi·
cally within the neo-Platonizing Aristotelianism adopted by
his Franciscan Masters and develops it further. Consequently,
as far as his work is concerned, we must reject not only the
designation "Augustinianism," but also the notion of "Aris·
totelianizing Augustinianism." Somewhat more precise would
be the designation "Augustinizing Aristotelianism." But the
most precise formulation would seem to be "aristotelisme
eclectique neoplatonisant et surtout augustinisant."" "The
philosophy of Bonaventure and that of Thomas do not stand
opposed to one another as an Augustinian system against an
Aristotelian system, but rather as two forms of neo·Platoniz·
ing Aristotelianism which have not been equally developed.
It remained more eclectic in the case of the Franciscan master,
while in the case of St. Thomas, it has acquired the form of a
strong, seamless synthesis."· r. The synthesis of the Dominican
master found no recognition among the disciples of Bonaven·
ture, for they believed that they had to retain the characteristic
theses of eclectic Aristotelianism at any price. To them, this
appeared to be the traditional doctrine of the Church, while
the Thomistic synthesis looked like a dangerous peace·
overture toward the heretical Aristotelianism taught by the
 Chapter IV 127
Faculty of the Arts.4' In order to give their system greater
unity and cogency, these theelogians call upon Augustine as
the primary witness. And thus the so·called medieval "Augus.
tinianism" arises from the opposition between a less developed
form of neo.Platonizing Aristotelianism and the more highly
developed Thomistic form. "Before the year 1270 there is no
Augustinianism in the strict sense of the word, and there is no
Augustinian school"' - this is the simple conclusion which Van
Steenberghen draws from his presentation. f7
In view of this, the Belgian philosopher holds it correct to
speak not of Augustinianism but of nee·Augustinianism. He
suggests this in order to emphasize two essential characteristics
of this movement. "On the one hand, this stream of thought
deliberately adopts Augustine and Augustinian doctrines
which had already won the right of domicile in Western the.
ology; . . . but on the other hand, it is obviously a nee·
Augustinianism, for this philosophy adopts a considerable
number of elements which have no historical connection with
the original Augustinianism including Aristotelian doctrines as
well as concepts of Jewish (Avicebron) or of Arab (Avicen.
na) origin:'4" In this connection, Van Steenberghen differs
radically from the view of Gilson 4" and P. Thonnard,"· and
agrees with the position of M. de Wulf: "The essential
theories of philosophical Augustinianism are foreign to the
spirit of Augustine."
And so the question remains: What position does Bonaven·
ture himself take relative to this neo·Augustinianism which
had developed in the controversy with Thomas and which
Bonaventure himself had experienced? According to the stud·
ies of d'Albi and Gilson, there can no longer be any doubt
that, at least in his later development, Bonaventure had taken
128 Theology 0/ History ill St. Bonoventure
a position against the Aristotelianism of Thomas. Van Steen-
berghen does not deny this. Bonaventure was in fact the first
to raise his voice against the threat of a radical Aristotelian-
ism. "It seems to be beyond doubt that the doctrinal innova-
tions of Thomas Aquinas seemed dangerous to him, and that
Bonaventure encouraged Peckham and his party in their oppo-
sition to Thomism. In this sense, he can be seen as the inspi-
ration of neo-Augustinianism. But he is not its founder in the
strict sense of the word; for his intervention in the scientific
debates in the year 1270 was on the religious level, and his
much different preoccupation at that time did not permit him
to enter the discussion immediately on the philosophical level.
John Peckham is the true founder of the Augustinian school
_ .. "., This school shows a considerable inconsistency in its
doctrines, many of which seem to have been antiquated already
at the beginning of the school. It lasted hardly thirty years,
only to be superseded by Scotism."O While the thesis "Bona-
venture, the Augustinian" is still respected here in a certain
sense, it has taken on a completely different meaning than it
had in the case of Gilson. Now it means that at the end of
his life Bonaventure provided the impulse that led to the for-
mation of neo-Augustinianism, which actually was not much
more than an inconsistent anti-Thomism_

3. A provisional position relative to these two views.

This presentation did not go unchallenged. Certainly Van
Steenberghen had brought to light some indisputable facts.
But the followers of Gilson's Augustinian interpretation
attempt to give a different interpretation to the facts. It must
be conceded to Van Steenberghen that there is much Aristote-
lian material in Bonaventure. But Van Steenberghen's oppon-
 Chapter IV 129
ents argue that the spirit of the entire work of Bonaventure
is Augustinian. The Swiss Conventual friar, L. Veuthey,
for example, accuses the Belgian philosopher of looking only
at the formulae and not at the spirit. ron P. Alszeghy says that
Van Steenberghen has given too much emphasis to the analy-
sis of the Sources and too little to the modlls phi/oso phandi
and to the modlls realitatem explicalldi. ro4 Furthermore, even
in the analysis of the sources, he says, Van Steenberghen has
based himself too one-sidedly on the Commentary 011 the Sen-
tences.GG Da Vinca makes a similar evaluation. According to
him, Bonaventure's philosophy can be called Aristotelian
aliqllo modo if we consider it materia/iter. But as SOOn as we
approach it forma/iter, we would have to call it radically anti-
Aristotelian. roo We may certainly be tempted to ask whether
it is allowed to place so little value on the problem of the
sources, and whether the question of Augustinianism is not in
fact a question of the sources to a very great extent. As far
as this question is concerned, we cannot limit ourselves to a
consideration only of Aristotelianism, which had already be-
come so influential. We cannot allow ourselves to be deceived
any mOre concerning the multiplicity of influences from which
medieval Platonism was formed. In this process, Augustine
was merely one source among many."7
Let us by-pass this objection for the moment in order to
ask another question. In what would the formal Augustinian
element consist which would make it necessary to speak of
Augustinianism despite the Aristotelian material? There are
two principal answers to this question . Thonnard, G8 Veuthey
and Alszeghy see the essence of Augustinianism in the thee-
centric approach and in exemplarism. Van Steenberghen
answers this justiliably by affirming that these are basic tencl-
130 Theology.o/ His/ory in SI. Bonaven/ure
encies which are to be found in all creationist systems and
which are objectively rooted in any creationism. Historically
they may be traced to two sources. There is a religious source,
which is the Judaeo-Christian Revelation; and there is a philo-
sophical source, which is found in Platonism. All the great
Arab, Jewish and Christian thinkers, including Augustine, are
dependent on these two sources. 69 "What all these authors
(Veuthey, etc.) understand by the 'Augustinian spirit' is none
other than the Christian spirit, which emphasizes the superi-
ority of divine Revelation to reason, of Christian doctrine to
that of philosophy, and of sacred to human sciences. This is
found in Thomas just as well as in St. Bonaventure. It is not
specifically Augustinian. ".0 The second answer, represented
especially by Gilson and Brounts, is a more significant answer.
According to them, the decisive point is that Bonaventure
rejected the autonomy of reason including the relative auton-
omy of Thomistic Aristotelianism. He demanded a philosophy
that would be radically Christian, that is, a philosophy cen-
tered on Christ and worked out from Christian Revelation.·'
Van Steenberghen's answer to this suffers from rather obvious
weaknesses. He says that a philosophy is present potentially
in Bonaventure's theological works; and if we were to disen-
gage it, it would be simply "a collection of purely rational
doctrines, which, as such, are foreign to the properly Christian
spirit... •• Even Van Steenberghen himself has to admit that
such a construct would be completely artificial; it would be
a body without a soul. 8. But does this not mean, in the final
analysis, that in the case of Bonaventure, philosophy is united
with theology as the body with the soul and that we may not
legitimarely separate them and disengage the philosophy;
whereas in the case of Thomas Aquinas, it is fundamentally
 Chapter IV 131
possible and justified to disengage a relatively independent
philosophy from the whole, even though this philosophy must
be drawn from his theological works to a great extent?
Actually, it seems to me that Van Steenberghen is some-
what inconsistent with the results of his own studies when he
defines Gilson's concept of "Christian philosophy" and when
he expressly affirms the fundamental possibility of separating
philosophy and theology in Bonaventure;·· for his own pre-
sentation of the history of philosophy indicates that the so-
called Augustinianism arises from the problem of the relation
of philosophy and theology and that it is the result of a process
of development in which this philosophy is actually being
formed. It is his own presentation of the history of this period
which indicates that the real question in the great disputes of
the thirteenth century was not simply a philosophical fight
within an already existing philosophy. Rather it was a ques-
tion of Christian philosophy and Christian wisdom as such.
This becomes clear, for example, in the evaluation of the
decree in which Stephen Tempier expressed the ecclesiastical
condemnation of Aristotelianism. "Since the studies of Ehrle
this has often been called a reaction of Augustinianism against
Aristotelianism. But this would involve a judgment of the
question from a secondary aspect. Actually, this was a momen-
tous decision ... in a crisis for the Christian intellect which had
been brought about by the massive inllux of pagan science.
Its symptoms had already been noticeable as early as 121O."6G
If we view the matter from this perspective, then the problem
of Augustinianism and Aristotelianism is not a purely phil-
osophical problem. It cannot be treated at all if we abstract
from theology, and every presentation that attempts to do so
overlooks the decisive point at issue.
IS2 Theology a/ Hi.tory in St. Bonaventure
This understanding of the historical hne of development
seems to be well established by an impressive number of
facts."" If we accept this thesis, then Bonaventure's work must
be seen to have its place in the controversy concerning tht
unity of Christian wisdom and the duality of philosophy and
theology. This controversy had not yet been brought to its
conclusion at the time of Bonaventure. Furthermore, it means
that the so<alled Augustinianism (and neo-Augustinianism)
is a decision against the Thomistic solution to the problem and
naturally against the solution of Siger of Brabant. It then
becomes understandable that the anti-Aristotelianism of Bona-
venture is directed not primarily against the content of Aris-
totle's statements but rather against the attempt to make phil-
osophy independent, This effort arises from the Aristotelian
influence. Because of the fact that the lines had not been
drawn up in this way until the year 1267 (vide #16,A), there
waS no real anti-Aristotelianism in Bonaventure before that
time, The question remains: Can we see Bonaventure's
thought as an "Augustinianism" in opposition to the "Aris-
totelianism" of St. Thomas by reason of the fact that he reject-
ed the Thomistic separation of philosophy and theology which
had been worked out from an Aristotelian background? Cer-
tainly we cannot and should not speak of an Augustinian
philosophy in opposition to an Aristotelian philosophy, for
this would mean that we would miss the heart of the question.
On the other hand, the notion of the undivided unity of Chris-
tian wisdom is a genuinely Augustinian Concern and not simply
a Platonic idea. It was this notion that Bonaventure defended
against the new Aristotelian understanding of the Christian
mode of thought. Nonetheless, it would seem to me to be an
over-Simplification if we should want to designate the entire
 Chapter IV 133
structure of Honaventurian thought as an "Augustinianism"
on this basis alone. This would involve a failure to recognize
the multiple intellectual inRuences that enter in here as well
as the basic intellectual point of departure which is not pre·
cisely "Augustinian" but rather medieval; it belongs to the
peculiar situation of the thirteenth century.
Consequently, in the hnat analysIs, we must admit that Van
Steenberghen is correct to a great extent as regards the ques-
tion of Bonaventurian Augustinianism." 7 But the anti-Aris-
totelianism of the Seraphic Doctor has much deeper roots than
the Belgian philosopher is willing to admit; and this anti-
Aristotelianism is connected very closely with an Augustinian
concern, as we have indicated above. In Van Steenberghen's
work, there is one point that is not clarified. How does it come
about that Bonaventure, the Aristotelian eclectic, becomes the
inspiration of an anti-Aristotelian neo-Augustinianism? This
must remain inexplicable for him for two reasons. First, in his
one-sided evaluation of Gilson's view, he attributes to the
Seraphic Doctor an understanding of the relation between
philosophy and theology which is conceived too much along
Thomistic lines. Here he fails to recognize the basic concern
of Bonaventure's concept of wisdom. Secondly, we must recog-
nize (more than Gilson has done) that the elaboration of this
ideal of wisdom in Bonaventure is not at all self-evident. In
the QuaeJliol1eJ diIpulalae of his period as Magister, his
thought had taken a path which would have led him in a
direction similar to that of Thomas if he had developed it
consistently to the end. "" The fact that he took up the Augus-
tinian ideal represents a decision which cannot be convincingly
shown to have arisen only from the Scholastic work of Bona-
venture, It is very closely connected with the historico-
154 Theology of His/ory in 5/. Bonaven/uro
theological thought of the Seraphic Doctor, and this historical
concern also contributes much to the characteristic quality of
Bonaventure's anti-Aristotelianism. We will now develop
these points.

# 16. Th. Hlltoric....Th ...loglcal Significance of Bonaventure's

ant1-Arlstotellanlsm.
A. The development of onti·Aristotelianism in Bonaventure's
work.
Bonaventure's anti-Aristotelianism appears in the Colla-
tiones de decem praeceptis which he held in Paris during lent
of 1267. Here he rejects two theses: the eternity of the world,
and the doctrine of the unity of the intellect in all men.' From
this point onward, the polemic against Aristotelianism becomes
a recurring theme in his sermons and lectures." One year later,
Bonaventure presents a finished canon of anti-Aristotelianism.
In the Collationes de donis Spiritlls Sancti, he extends the num-
ber of errors from the two of the previous year to three: the
eternity of the world, the necessity of fate, and the unity of
the intellect in all men. Corresponding to the current tendency
to systematization, he treats this triad of errors systematically.
There is a violation of the callsa essendi in the doctrine of the
aeternitas mllndi; there is a violation against the ratio intelle-
gendi in the thesis of the IInitas intellectlls; finally, there is a
violation against the ordo vivendi in the affirmation of the
necessitas fatalis. a Thus, the triad of errOrs violates the three
basic forms of truth to which the three primary philosophical
disciplines-physics, logic, and ethics-are ordered. 4
The rejection of Aristotelianism, therefore, has already
acquired something of a logical, systematic form. The appar-
ently deliberate construct which Bonaventure sets up here in
 Chapler IV ISS
order to uncover Aristotelianism as the enemy of the basic
truths of human life would already reveal something of Bona-
venture's apocalyptic convictions, even though he himself had
not expressed them immediately in this context. G The point
of the systematization of his polemic was to bring out the
eschatological character of the attacks being made at the pres-
ent moment against the decisive elements of Christianity and
against the whole of Christianity. While the professors of
Paris had spoken shortly before this of the "pericula novis-
simorum temporum" in relation to the question of the Mendi-
cant Orders, now Bonaventure, as the Franciscan General,
points clearly to the real source of these dangers. They are
dangers which should characterize the final age of history, and
they are evident precisely at the UniveNity of Paris which was
persecuted by the devil in a special way because it was a source
of genuine learning." To the end, Bonaventure firmly main-
tained the canon of anti-Aristotelianism which he had formu-
lated. Five years later, in the Collationes in Hexaemeron, he
speaks again in the very same terms of the "triplex caecitas,
scilicet de aeternitate mundi, de uOltate intellectus, de poena
et gloria."7 Certainly this canon is developed further in as
far as these three errors are traced to an antecedent error which
consists in the denial of the exem plaritas divina. The rejection
of the doctrine of the Ideas, again, involves a three-fold error,
namely the neglect of the exem plaritas, of the divina pro vi-
dentia, and of the dispnsitio nUll/dana." This extension of the
anti-Aristotelian canon is connected with the development of
new systematic motifs in Bonaventure's work. In the Colla-
tiones in Hexaemeron, the concept of the center achieves its
most extensive development. Christ is now understood as the
center of all things in the most radical sense. Naturally, there-
136 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventur.
fore, the final assault of the powers of darkness is understood
as an assault against the "Center," that is, against Christ who,
as the "middle person" of the Trinity, appears as the one who
hears the divina exemplaritas mundi."
If we are to understand the true character of Bonaventure's
anti-Aristotelian ism, we must see clearly the limits of his view
which we have sketched here in its broader dimensions. First
we must realize that Bonaventure's polemic is directed not
primarily against Aristotle hut against the Aristotelians of his
age. 10 The Seraphic Doctor always maintained a certain
reserve in evaluating the historical Aristotle. This is apparent-
ly rooted in the fact that he knew Aristotle not from his own
readings, hut only from the Scholastic tradition." But above
all, the concrete eschatological threat for Christianity arises
not from Aristotle, hut from the apparently Christian Aristo-
telians. We could perhaps say that Aristotle would he related
to them as Paul and John are related to the eschatological
ordo futurus. This statement is not found expressly in Bona-
venture. But we will see that the parallel construction set up
between the philosophical Unheilsgeschichte and the ecclesi-
astical Heilsgeschichte readily leads to such an interpretation.
There is another factor which is perhaps more important.
None of the main ideas of Bonaventure's anti-Aristotelianism
can he called expressly anti-Thomist;"& not even the attack
against the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Bonaventure
expressly admits Thomas' distinction between the philosoph-
ical and the theological orders when he says: De aeternitate
mundi excusari posset, quod intellexit hoc ut philosophus,
loquens ut naturalis ... "10 Ahove all, the doctrine of illum-
ination is entirely ahsent in the canon of anti-Aristotelianism.
This doctrine is often seen to he the central difference between
 Chapter IV 137
Augustinianism and Aristotelianism. It is not mentioned at
all in the entire controversy. As a matter of fact, for Bona-
venture it was not a decisive question in the matter of Aristotle
and Augustine. Two things are clear from the Commentary
all the Sentences and the Quaestiones disputatae. First, Bona-
venture sees Aristotle also as a witness for the doctrine of
illumination; second, the Seraphic Doctor sees the epistemo-
logical theory of Aquinas to be a form of illumination. It is
a form which Bonaventure himself rejects, but which nonethe-
less remains within the framework of theological possibili-
ties." In this matter, Bonaventure sees an inner-scientific point
and not a religious question like the problem that was raised
by the heretical Aristotelianism and the radical threat to Chris-
tianity which it brought with it. The fact that this problem is
passed over in silence in all the later discussions is a sure sign
that Bonaventure never changed his viewpoint on this question.
Would we then say that there really is no serious anti-
Thomism in the work of Bonaventure? No. There certainly
is, but it is situated differently than we had accustomed our-
selves to think of it. In the Hexaemeroll, Bonaventure express-
ly criticizes three theses of St. Thomas: the doctrine of the
non-composition of substalltiae separatae; the affirmation of
the real distinction between the soul and its faculties; and,
finally, the thesis that the potestas illlelleetiva is the primary
seat of beatitude." None of these points is taken up in the
actual controversy about Aristotelianism. But Bonaventure
does see a connection with Aristotle. In his rejection of the
Thomist viewpoint concerning the relation of the soul and its
faculties, he adds the unmistakable side-remark: "licet philo-
sophus dicat." tr. The point of this remark is obviously that
Thomas should be warned against too close a bondage to
158 Theology 0/ History in SI. BOllaventure
Aristotle. But the tone of the entire section is without a doubt
symptomatic of Bonaventure's general attitude relative to
Thomas Aquinas. He does not include Aquinas himself among
the Aristotelians with whom he differed. No text can be found
to provide any serious support for the opposite view.
However, Bonaventure does see in Thomas the danger of
putting too much confidence in Aristotle, and he feels seriously
obliged to issue a warning against this. In his eyes, every con·
cession in such a matter would be dangerous because it does
not recognize the seriousness of the danger and it favors the
opponent. It is because of his viewpoint concerning the final
age that Bonaventure speaks out against the opposition with
such an uncompromising sharpness. Because of this back·
ground, even the concession which Aquinas makes to Aristotle
on such a decisive question as the eternity of the world could
seem highly suspicious to Bonaventure. Finally, he must have
heard the warning of Pseudo-Joachim: "Verum caveat sibi
ordo postremus (= Franciscans), ne persequatur ab alio
(= Dominicans) et occurrant sibi cum exercitu magistrorum
confidentium in armis disputationum Aristotelis et subvertat
eum in filiis datis sibi. "IR

B. The two main forms of Bonaventure's anti·Aristotelianism.

I. Antl·A,I,'aNII.nl.m In th••trullgl. fa, • Chril"a.. und.nt.ndln. af tim •.

In his anti·Aristotelian canon, Bonaventure set up a certain

hierarchy of errors, if we might use the term in this context.
This permits us a better insight into his own position. Accord·
ing to this hierarchy, the rejection of the doctrine of Ideas is
the first cause of the following errors. These, in turn, stand
in a certain casual relation to one another in such a way that
the doctrine of the eternity of the world necessarily gives rise
 Chapter IV 139
to all the other erroneous doctrines. Already in his Commen-
tary on the Sentenets, Bonaventure had upheld the thesis that
the affirmation of an eternal world brings along with it a
whole host of errors. It is therefore the real objective point of
departure for an anti-Aristotelianism which could develop as
soon as this doctrine was traced to Aristotle with certainty.17
This means that the point of departure for Bonaventure's
criti'lue of Aristotle is to be found in the notion of the tem-
poral character of the world; it is related, therefore, to the
'luestion of the philosophy or the theology of history.
This is most clearly expressed in one of Bonaventure's argu-
ments which Gilson had already emphasized and which gives
us the best insight into Bonaventure's concept of time. At the
same time, it clearly delineates the way in which Bonaventure
stands apart from both Aristotle and from Thomas A'luinas.
Here Bonaventure affirms that it would be impossible to give
order to the infinite. But if there were not a first movement
at the beginning of the world, then the world and its move-
ments would be infinite. I. Practically, this is an allusion to
the rejection of the regrewI! in infinitum found both in
anti'luity and in Scholasticism. But as Bonaventure well knows,
Aristotle and Thomas see no contradiction in an infinite series
of movements in the heavenly bodies, even though they also
hold the impossibility of an infinite regress. Their argument
runs as follows. The regreuus in infinitum is impossible only
in the ordo causa/itatis but not on the level of objects of like
rank whose se<Juence is merely accidental. St. Thomas clarifies
this with the following example. It is impossible that a stone
be lifted by a stick, that the stick be lifted by a hand, and that
such a causal series be continued infinitely. In such a case,
there must be a first cause. But it is possible that a sculptor
140 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
whose hammer breaks could throwaway one hammer after
the other, so that finally he uses an infinite number of ham-
mers. Here the unity of the cause is preserved in such a way
that the regreHus il1 infinitum is broken off. A mere accidental
infinity of such instrumental causes following one another
does not constitute a regrewlJ in in/Illi/um.!" When applied
to the question at hand, this means that the rejection of an
infinite regress demands a first only in the order of causes on
the vertical level running from above downward. Here we
must accept a primus /IIovellJ in which the series terminates.
But on the horizontal level of causality among created things
we have only an accidental order of causes. In such a case,
we may easily hold an infinite series; for the unity of cause
is already fully maintained with the affirmation of the highest
primus movens. But this series of infinite duration is actually
"finite" in the sense demanded here simply by reason of the
vertical order of causes. We can see this clearly in the follow-
ing diagram.

primu~movens
i JAccidental infinity
Ordered hierarchy of causes.
If we apply this to the problem of history, it means that
history takes place on the level of accidentally ordered causes
and pertains to the realm of accidental infinity. Consequently,
it is not really a part of the genuinely ordered cosmOS of causes;
for this causality lies in a different direction. This notion con-
forms accurately with the concept of history which we find in
antiquity and to a degree also in Scholasticism. History is the
realm of chance. It cannot be treated in a truly scientific man-
ner not only because of the mystery of human freedom that
 ehDpler IV 141
is at work in history, but because hIstory as such belongs to
the realm of accidently ordered causality found in created
things. With keen perception, Bonaventure sees that this con-
cept of history is incompatible with the Christian view. He
demands an ordering of causality also on the horizontal level
of world events and their temporal sequence."O He must make
this demand because he sees an entirely different form of
world-history. For him, the history of the world is ordered
in an egreJSlls and a "greJSlls; In the center of these stands
Christ. 2L
/Deus-.............
regressus ~ressus

"-...Christuso('"
Any form of "infinity" in this closed and ordered movement
is unthinkable from the very start. In this context, we can
understand Bonaventure's own concept of time. For Aristotle
and Thomas, time was the neutral measure of duration, "an
accident of movement.""" For Bonaventure, it is not merely a
neutral measure of change. Together with the caeillm empy-
rellm, the angelica llaillra, and the maleria, time is included
among the four realities which were the first to be created.
These are the four structural elements from which the entire
world is built. Time especially had to be created in the first
place "quia non tantum dicit mensuram durationis, sed etiam
egressionis."28 It is not only the measure of inner-wordly
processes; but it is above all the "time of creation," which
measures the ordered emergence of things from the creative
power of God. In as far as it is ordered to egreJSio, it is inte-
grated right from the start into the great Bonaventurian vision
of the world; for wherever we speak of egreJSio, we affirm a
regreJSio together with it. Time, therefore, is understood
142 Theology u/ Hi.lury ill St. IJunuvenlure
right from the start to be saving time. The neutrality of a
mere 11lel1sura durationis is removed from the very beginning,
and the thought of an infinite duration of time is nonsensical
in this context. On this point Gilson's judgment is correct:
"The root of the matter is that St. Bonaventure's Christian
universe differs from the pagan universe of Aristotle in that
it has a history."24
In this framework, we can understand in a new way the
very different positions taken by Bonaventure and Thomas
relative to the problem of the theology of history in Joachim
of Fiore. As we have seen, Thomas rejects the speculation of
the Calabrian Abbot for theological reasons; and he draws his
grounds from the Civitas Dei of Augustine and from Holy
&ripture. But he has already taken a position prior to this
in the realm of philosophy which is perhaps no less important
for his view. Thomas clearly emphasizes that we have no
revelation concerning the time of the end of the world. But
he adds that we cannot figure out the time of the end naturali
ratione because the movement of the world and the measure
of that movement, which is time, "secundum naturam suam
possit in perpetuum durare. "2. Here is an indication that it
was not only Augustine and the Scriptures that led Aquinas
to reject Joachim's orderly systematic view of history, but Aris-
totle as well, even prior to the others. Such a system of history
is impossible for him because of the notion of the accidental
ordering of historical events. In contrast with this, Bonaven-
ture's own very different concept of history makes it under-
standable that he should take a more positive attitude toward
the theology of Joachim. For Bonaventure, history consists of
two corresponding movements from the very beginning-
egreJIus and regreJIlis. Christ stands as the turning point of
 Chapter IV 145
these movements and as the center who both divides and
unites. Would not the theology of Joachim with its parallel
structure of the two Testaments have seemed the ideal repre-
sentation and concretization of that schema which Bonaventure
himself had always had before his eyes? Here was the two-
fold division into seven ages with Christ standing in the mid-
dle. Obviously a very surprising agreement actually arose when
the age of the Spirit was struck out precisely as. an age of the
Spirit and was integrated into the seventh period of the time
of Christ. In this wayan inner unity appears between Bona-
venture's late work and his earliest sketches_

We have accustomed ourselves to see the circle as the char-

acteristic symbol of the pagan understanding of time, and the
line as the appropriate symbol of the Christian notion. 20
I have no intention of questioning the correctness of this sym-
bolism. We will see that Bonaventure himself had similar
notions. Nonetheless, we should not forget that this is only a
question of symbols that express a reality which may be sepa-
rated from this particular symbolic manner of expression and
can possibly be expressed in other images. The basic fact con-
sists in this, that the Christian concept of time involves limita-
tion at both ends; what happens in history is done but once
and cannot be repeated. For the pagan, on the other hand,
time is a circular movement; it is a continuous repetition of
the same; therr are no clear limits as regards the beginning
or the necessity of an end. In trying to make a judgment on
the position of any individual thinker, we must always return
to this basic fact.
IH Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
We have already seen that, in a certain sense, Bonaventure
sees Aristotle's concept of time to be linear; it is an infinite
line without inner ordering. In contrast with this, Bonaven-
ture holds a type of circular movement as the image of the
Christian understanding of time; the double movement of
egressus and regressus, Here the two symbols seem to be
directly reversed when compared with our customary under-
standing. But the real, objective difference is preserved. For
the characteristic of Christian time is the unrepeatable charac-
ter of that which takes place, while the characteristic of the
pagan notion is that of an unordered infinity. We must now
clarify more precisely this notion of time as one unrepeatable,
orderly circular motion which we have provisionally extracted
from Bonaventure's general division of time into egressus and
regressus.
1. God •• ,he .phaere int.lIIglbill,.

The circular concept of Bonaventure is rooted first of all in

his concept of God. Basing himself on the Pseudo-Hermetic
book of the 24 Masters" and the Regulae theologiae of Alan
of Lille,"· Bonaventure defines God as "sphaera intelligibilis,
cui us centrum est ubique ct circumferentia nusquam."'· Or in
another place, on the basis of Pseudo-Dionysius, he calls the
divine love a "cyclus aeternus, ex optimo, per optimum et in
optimum." a 0 For Bonaventure, the first definition is far more
than a mere play On words. It is a fitting expression of the
real, good infinity of God which stands in opposition to the
orderless infinity which Aristotle ascribes to the world and to
which we may easily be tempted to apply Hegel's concept ot
a "bad infinity." Bonaventure emphasizes that we have not yet
properly expressed the essence of eternity simply with the con-
 Chapter IV 145
cept of illlermillabil,las. Certainly the lack of limitation be-
longs to eternity. This is expressed in the circumference of the
circle which has neither a beginning nor an end. But the mere
lack of limitations would be a "bad infinity" (to retain this
expression) and not genuine eternity. llllermillabi/ilas in itself
does not constitute eternity as such; simll/tas is involved here
also. Simll/tas refers to the inner concentration and unity.
It is expressed in as far as God is referred to simultaneously
as the Celltrllm, that is, the center of the circle in which the
radical, inner unity of the circle is expressed. This clarification
of the circle-motif by means of the concept of the center must
be kept in mind especially when this motif is transferred to
creation.

2. The circle of time: From God. through Christ, to God.

With great consistency, Bonaventure transfers the notion of

the circll/lI.f illle//igibi/is from God first of all to man, the
image of God. ". . . vita aeterna haec sola est, ut spiritus
rational is, qui manat a beatissima trinitate et est imago trini-
tatis, per modum cuiusdam circuli intelligibilis redeat per
memoriam, intelligentiam, per deiformitatem gloriae in beatis·
simam trinitatem."", Here the dynamic of the individual
spirit is described as a circular movement from God back to
God. But like the Fathers, Bonaventure recognizes the typo-
logical correspondence between the individual man and the
whole of mankind. "" Therefore it is a very natural step to
transfer the circular concept of the individual to a circular
concept of the history of the world. This is al ready hinted
at elsewhere when he says that it is through man and through
the grace that sanctifies man that the world must be drawn
back into the circllllls aelernilalis."" In two places, namely in
146 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
the Brevi/oqllim and in the De redllctiolle ar/illm ad /he%-
git/m, he states clearly that the duality of egresslls and regres-
SIIS makes the history of the world into a great circular
movement which proceeds from God and returns again to
God. "Et ideo ibi completus est circulus, completus est senarius
et propterea status."'·
In the light of this, another citation which is peculiar to
the Hexaemeroll becomes clear. There Christ is presented as
the center of all things. He is, therefore, also the center of
all the sciences in as far as we must go on beyond the "literal
sense" of the individual sciences to the hidden, deeper mean-
ing much as we see it worked out in the De redllc/iolle ar/illm
ad /he%giam. ar. In this vision, it is true to say that Christ,
among other things, is the medillm dis/all/iae; that is, He is
that center that is the concern of the mathematician, and He
is this medillm precisely in His crucifixion. Here we can by-
pass Bonaventure's detailed treatment of this theme. It can be
easily understood from what has already been said. We are
concerned only with the curious conclusion of this section:
"Medium enim, cum amissum est in circulo, inveniri non potest
nisi per duas lineas se orthogonaliter insectantes."no The lost
middle of the circle is found again by means of two lines that
intersect at right angles, that is, by a cross. This means that
by His cross, Christ has definitively solved the geometry-prob-
lem of world history. With His cross He has uncovered the
lost center of the circle of the world so as to give the true
direction and meaning to the movement of the individual life
anG to the history of mankind as such.
There is still another transformation of the circular concept
of salvation history to be found in the Hexaemeroll. The
typological interpretation of the Cleation-account which leads
 Chapter IV 147
to a division of history into two parallel parts apparently rests
on the notion that the pattern typified in the creation-account
is to be repeated twice, each time on a higher level. Further-
more, several times the idea emerges that the eJld involves a
certain return to the beginning." 7 As a result, we could be
tempted to speak of three circles. But this manner of expres-
sion would not be true to the facts if it were to evoke the
notion of a two-fold circular return of the same. Actually, it
is not a 'luestion of a returning movement, but of a unified,
progressive, ascending movement. But the ascent of this move-
ment is realized in such a way that the basic structural law of
the earlier level is repeated On the higher level. So we might
be justified in speaking of a spiral, and here we would find an
indication of the connection between the idea of a circle with
the idea of a progressive line. Bonaventure always remains
conscious of the unique and unrepeatable character of that
which takes place in history.

3. The felae doctrine of th. philosophers concerning the eternal circle.

What we have just said about Bonaventure's understanding
of the unrepeatable character of history is confirmed by the
fact that he himself saw the principle error of the philosophers
to consist in the doctrine of the eternal circle. He even de-
scribes this doctrine with apocalyptic terminology; it is the
sign of the Beast. The errOrS we have already pointed out,
namely, the eternity of the world, the necessity of fate, and
the unity of the intellect, "are indicated in the Apocalypse in
the number of the Beast." According to this book, the number
of this name is 666. It is a cyclic number. Here Bonaventure
makes a free applicatIOn of the concept of the cyclic number
with which the School of his time desiJlnated s'luare-numbers
148 Thrology 0/ HisIory in SI. Bonavenlure
in relation to a base?" As regards the work of creation, the
number six has the meaning of a circle that is perfectly closed.
The number 666 appears when the number six reaches its
highest intensity. It is thus a cyclic number in a very special
sense. 89 The three-fold cyclic number expresses the three-fold
heretical doctrine of the cycle which is the sum of all heresies:
the affirmation of the eternal world is based on the notion of
the cyclic movement of time; the thesis of the necessity of fate
is based on the cyclic movement of the celestial bodies; and
the third doctrine is based on the concept of a common (cos-
mic) Intelligence that migrates from body to body. This
clearly recalls what we said earlier concerning the fact that
the last two errors proceed from the /irst.· o It is clear that
the theory of the cycle of time is exposed as the primordial
heresy and as the very essence of the apocalyptic monster.
II. 'roph.tic..sch.tololical .",I·ArI.toteN.nism.
1. A comp.rlson of two line. of Bon.venture'. anfj.Arlstotelianllm,

These last remarks have brought us back again to our real

theme, that is, the question of Bonaventure's anti-Aristotelian-
ism. We must l]OW state that there are two distinct lines of
anti-Aristotelianism in Bonaventure. Recent research has not
given sufficient attention to this fact, and consequently there
is considerable confusion on the point. We have already
worked out the /irst line of thought, which has to do with the
objective-metaphysical opposition separating Bonaventure from
ArI'stotle from the very start. This consists in the /irm rejection
of the doctrine of the eternity of the world. The development
in Bonaventure's thought can be clari/ied as follows. In the
beginning he wavered somewhat in attributing this doctrine
to Aristotle; for the concept of the eternity of the world
seemed to be absurd, and he saw Aristotle as a great man who
 Chapter IV 149
was to be respected. But from the year 1267, that is, from the
beginning of Latin Averroism, he could no longer have any
serious doubt. His fundamental conviction on this point how-
ever, did not actually change.
Nonetheless, the new understanding gained in the year 1267
is neither meaningless nor extrinsIC to the question. In its
wake, a new, second line of anti-Aristotelianism begins to
develop in Bonaventure. This second line remains quite dis-
tinct from the first even though the first does not die out.
I would like to call it the prophetic-eschatological line; or,
following a suggestion of G. Soehngen, the line of apocalyptic
anti-Aristotelianism. The first line involves an objective differ-
ence of viewpoint which was present from the start. The
second line consists simply in the fact that after the rise of
Latin Averroism, Bonaventure saw an eschatological phenom-
enon in Aristotle, or in heretical Aristotelianism. Here was
the Beast that was to rise from the abyss (vide illpra). As
such, it was the negative sign that stood in opposition to the
positive sign of St. Francis. But nothing had been said about
this in the Commentary on the Sentencei. It represents a new
line of thought, and it develops gradually along with the devel-
opment of his theology of history, both of which reach a high-
point in the Col/a/ione! in H exaemeroll. The two lines must
be clearly distinguished from one another, for the first involves
an objective contradiction while the second soon breaks
through the limits of a mere anti-Aristotelian ism and becomes
an affirmation of far greater significance.

2. The IndiVidual matlfa af .poc.lvptk: .ntJ.A,hlalall.nism.

In Bonaventure's later sermons and lectures (from 1267)

and particularly in the Hexaemeron, philosophy and the exer-
 150 Theology 0/ History ill St. Bonaventur.
cise of reason in general are presented in a series of images
which seem to approach a total condemnation of both. We
will study these images individually so as to find their basic
significance.
• ) The Image of Ph.rlo', magicians,
Traditional exegesis had explained the failure of Pharao's
magicians on the occasion of the third plague (Ex. 8, 14f) as
an allegorical indication of the failure of the philosophers and
natural reason to come to the mystery of the Trinity.4l Bona-
venture also sees the magicians of the Pharao as a type of the
philosophers, but he changes the explanation of their failure
to some extent. The two things which Exodus attributes to
them, writes Bonaventure, refer to the knowledge of God from
the "book written within and without," that is, from spiritual
and material creation. The book which is used here as a type
is that of Apocalypse 5, 1; as a type it is used with extra-
ordinary variability. The third element which was lacking to
them was the knowledge of God from Scripture. '" Conse·
quently, they were lacking in the most important thing; and
despite all the light which they may have succeeded in enkind·
ling, they still remained in darkness. They were not capable
of discerning the three decisive facts of human life: "animam
ordinare in firiem"; "rectificare atfectus animae"; "sanare mor·
bidos."48 Above all, this third and final task escaped them
completely, for they knew nothing of man's sickness and its
cause; even less did they know the Physician or the cure. H
Thus, on the basis of a brilliant passage from Joachim's COI/'
cordia, Bonaventure formulates the significant statement:
"Fides ergo sola divisit lucem a tenebris.'" r-
Bonaventure gives a typological interpretation to the failure
of the magicians at the tenth plague as well (Ex. 11, 29-36).
 Chapter IV 151
It indicates that the philosophers "were able to give us the
nine sciences. But they could not give the tenth, which is no
longer science but wisdom. In as far as it is wisdom, it is
ultimately beatitude."'" This holy wisdom which transcends
the powers of the philosophers is that It/pielliia md/ilormi.r
in which the intellect is silenced and darkened by the mystical
power of the divine mystery. Only love is awake and comes
immediately into contact with the heart of the eternal God.
In this cootext, the image changes again. The intellect itself
is the Pharao's magician who is forced to step back in silence
and who is not able to touch the linger of God."
If we overlook this last image for the time being, we can
see a very important conclusion emerging from our study.
The statements in question are in no way decisively anti-
Aristotelian; they are simply anti-philosophical. The state-
ment, "Iides ergo sola divisit ... " points to the fact that every
philosophy is inadequate. It is a question of showing that even
the phi/OIOphi nobi/es, who did not share in the errors of Aris-
totle, remained in darkness and did not lind that light which
faith alone can give. This notion is applied in a more general
way in the final citation where the intellect itself is identilied
as the Pharao's magician. Here we have a simple anti-intellec-
tualism which is convinced that it must raise a warning voice
against the tendency to place too much conlidence in the intel-
lect as such.'"

b) Philoaophy •• the lignum "ientlN bonl I!t I'NII.

Though the anti-philosophical polemic just sketched moves

within rather moderate limits, it clearly becomes much more
pointed in the designation of philosophy as the lignum Icim-
liae boni el rna/i. "He who is concerned only with knowledge
152 The%gy 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."'" We can
assume from the start that a particular understanding of his-
tory is involved in this application of the image of the tree.
This becomes fully certain when we compare the statements
of a sermon held' in Advent, 1267, with the corresponding
citation from the great schema of history in the Hexaemeron.
There it is stated that in the early church there were two trees,
just as there had been in Paradise; the tree of life, and the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life is Christ
Himself."U This tree becomes accessible in the spiritual un-
derstanding of Scripture. But he who understands the Scrip-
tures only in the literal sense eats of the tree of knowledge. 51
This application of the images of the trees to the two under-
standings of Scripture is the exegesis which Bonaventure had
originally applied to the two trees. In no place is it ever
revoked. Apparently Bonaventure was not the first to come
upon this exegesis, r." but his understanding of history allows
him to take it a step further. First, the events of Paradise are
repeated on a higher level in the history of the early Church.
The Judaizers could not bring themselves to give up the literal
exegesis of Scripture. For this reason, they ate of the tree of
knowledge (see Rm. 7,7). The fact that they were driven
from the Paradise of salvation in Christ was the necessary con-
sequence. Thus the heresy of the Ebionites arose."3 And this
event is now repeated again in the final age, but on a higher
level. "It is written that Adam ate from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil and was driven from Paradise.
Today this is fulfilled in Our teachers. The spiritual under-
standing is the tree of life; the literal understanding is the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil . . ." He who loves Scrip-
ture, loves philosophy as well; for with it he can strengthen
 Chapter IV 155
his faith. But philosophy is the tree of knowledge of good and
evil since truth and falsehood are mixed together in it. If,
however, you are a fanatic for philosophy, then you say:
How can Aristotle be mistaken? Then you do not love Scrip·
ture and you necessarily fall from the faith:·r.4 The vision of
history that lies at the root of this is clear. Just as there was
a decision and a division because of the two trees in Paradise
and in the early Church, so there is now in the Church of the
final age. For Bonaventure, the eschatological process of
division had already begun with the events which were taking
place at the University of Paris. If anyone gives philosophy
final and definitive validity and does not use it simply as a
means, he eats of the tree of knowledge and he "falls from
the faith."
It is obvious that this is not precisely a question of anti·
Aristotelianism, but a limitation on the claim of philosophy
as such. The fact that Aristotle may be named expressly does
not change this fact. It simply indicates that at this time Bon·
aventure saw Aristotle to be the Philosopher. When he criti·
cizes Aristotle, he does not do so with the intention of recom·
mending Plato or some form of "Augustinian" philosophy;
such notions would have been foreign to him. Rather, his
concern is to criticize philosophy as such. But it remains tcue
that "He who loves Scripture, loves philosophy as well ... "
even Aristotle. This anti· philosophical attitude, which is iden·
tical with anti-Aristotelian ism. is limited and not total. It is
directed against a philosophy which fails to recognize its true
function; which makes itself self-sufficient and thereby becomes
an eschatological sign of perdition. Obviously this develop.
ment in Bonaventure would be unintelligible to anyone who
presupposes an already existing form of Christian philosophiz.
 154 Theology 0/ Hislory in SI. BOl!avenlur~
ing, whether this is seen to be Aristotelian or Augustinian in
tone. This is not a problem .... ithin an already existing philos-
ophy, but a problem of the rise of a philosophy. It is on this
level that Bonaventure takes his stand. For the Christian, he
rejects any phiolosophy that is not ready to be integrated into
the orderly structure of Christian wisdom. r.r.
c) Philosophy, the Bellt from the Abyss.

From this perspective, we can now understand the exact

meaning of those texts which interpret the radical Aristotelian-
ism of the University of Paris as the fulfillment of the apoca-
lyptic prophecies of disaster. We have already pointed out
the citation in which this heretical Aristotelianism is identified
with the Beast of Apocalypse 13, 11-18; its number is 666.··
In the Hexaemeron, Bonaventure uses another citation from
the Apocalypse. The abyss which had been opened by the fifth
angel and which emitted smoke and darkness still stands open
(Apoc. 9, 1ff) . The heretical Aristote1ianism is the smoke
from this abyss; it is the Egyptian darkness.',7 The relation
between the different series of images involved here indicates
that it is not a question of an exact historico-typological exe-
gesis as we had in the great historical schema of Hexaemeroll
XVI. It is far more a question of lIuctuating pictorial images
which single out one appropriate element from the whole.
The actual significance of these images apparently does not
differ from what we have presented above. Again, here it is
not a question of anti-Aristotelianism, but of that form of anti-
philosophical attitude which we attempted to describe earlier.
d) Reeson, the Hatlor, and similar image •.

Only if we keep all this in mind can we correctly understand

the most pointed anti-philosophical statements of Bonaventure.
 Chapter IV 155
The image of reason as a harlot was later to become famous.
For Bonaventure it signifies a self-sufficient philosophy, a phi-
losophy that attempts to draw uS from the hands of the royal
bride that is Christian wisdom. "The Jews would not hear
wisdom from the mouth of Wisdom. But we have Christ in
us and still do not desire to hear His wisdom. It is a frightful
abomination that the fairest daughter of the king should be
offered to us as our bride; but we prefer a despicable servant
girl as our wife, and we prefer to prostitute ourselves with her.
We would rather return to the miserable flesh-pots of Egypt
than allow ourselves to be refreshed with heavenly food .....
"You should not love the prostitute and dismiss your bride
for her sake:" " If we keep in mind that formulations of this
type were quite common in the traditional language of theolo-
gians,6. though not perhaps of such prophetic sharpness, it
looses a bit of its impact. We should also keep in mind the
parallel already cited between Judaism and Aristotelianism
which is centered around the image of the two trees of Para-
dise. In this way the deep historico-theological conviction be-
hind these images becomes clear. It is a vision which sees the
heretical Aristotelianism of the Faculty of the Arts as a phe-
nomenon of the eschatological fall from the faith; but it does
not intend to condemn a philosophy which is used properly.
In particular, it does not intend to condemn the proper use of
Aristotle. The image of the return to the flesh-pots of Egypt 6 '
and the designation of the philosophers as /urijerialli 62 must
be judged in the same way.

~) The propheey of the end of retionel theology.

A genuinely new aspect becomes clear at the end of a lecture

in which Bonaventure treats of the exegesis of &ripture and
156 Theology 0/ Hislory ill SI. Bonavenlure
particularly of the fruitfulness of Scripture for the intellect.
Here he says: "Believe me, a time will come when the 'gold
and silver vessels' (Ex. 3, 22; 12, 36) i.e. rational arguments,
will no longer be of value. There will no longer be any justi-
lication of faith by reason, but only by auclorilas. As an indi-
cation of this, in His temptations the Redeemer defended
Himself not with rational arguments but with arguments from
authority, even though He certainly must have known the
arguments of reason well. In this way He predlned what
would take place in His Mystical Body in the coming tria1. .. ·~
Here he not only questions the justilication of any "separate
philosophy;' but he predicts the end of all rational theology;
that is, the end of that speculative-philosophical thought which
recognizes its true function and is integrated into theology.
A time will come in which the division proceeding from the
lignum scienliae and the lignum "ilae will reach its extreme
point. Then there will be no more possibility of a pact between
reason and faith. Ralio and auclorilas will stand apart, cleanly
separated and in opposition to one another. Naturally, this
vision of the future overshadows Bonaventure's general atti-
tude toward reason. Without a doubt it is one of the reasons
for the amazingly sharp language which he frequently uses.
Regarding our question, this prophecy of Bonaventure is
signilicant in several ways. First of all, it again conlirms the
fact that for Bonaventure the whole question is not simply a
matter of an opposition to Aristotle, for this would make it
practically an inner-philosophical question. It is precisely that
vanishing-point toward which his historico-theological line of
thought is tending which proves anew that far more is intend-
ed here. It shows that we are dealing primarily with a limited
anti-philosophical attitude which ultimately develops into an
 Chapter IV 157
anti·dialectical and anti·scholastic mentality. This, of course,
is not yet suitable for the present situation, but it will become
necessary in the future. ft. This is in close agreement with
Bonaventure's statement that the present Order of Franciscans
is related to the Cherubim, Because the present Order is only
a temporary state of affairs, speculative science is still allowed
for it. But the eschatological Order of Francis is related to
the Seraphim, and it will be taken up completely with contem·
plative love, ur. Bonaventure admits often that his scholastic·
scientific Franciscanism has nothing definitive about it. It is
only in the Church of the final age that St. Francis' manner
of life will triumph. As the limp/ex and idiola, Francis knew
more about God than all the learned men of his time-because
he loved Him more." a
The recognition of this context is significant because it
allows us an insight into the problem of the sources of this
citation and of the entire line of thought which finds its climax
in this text. Apparently the development from an anti·intellec·
tual attitude to a general anti·Scholastic mentality in Bonaven·
ture is conditioned by a growing insight into the primitive
Franciscan ideal which would seem to involve almost necess·
arily a certain anti·intellectual e1ement. a7 Bonaventure's
Franciscan anti·intellectualism acquires its concrete form from
the historico·prophetic anti·intellectualism of Joachim and
Pseudo.Joachim. "" And finally, a third source is the influence
of the anti·intellectual mysticism of Pseudo·Dionysius. We
have already evaluted the significance of this in detail in rela·
tion to Bonaventure's concept of revelation. Augustine, the
witness of Christian science and Christian intellectual life,
plays no role here. Bonaventure himself knew this clearly. At
one time, he set up a sort of short salvation.history of theology
158 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
In which he related Augustine to doclrina and Gregory the
Great to the preachers; but Dionysius he saw as the patron of
the ecclesia cOlllemplalit'a, the Church of the final age. fI"
Bonaventure had never set out to be an "Augustinian." His
intention had been merely to give that place to Augustine
which he deserved just as he wished to give to Aristotle the
place he deserved. In the great hierarchical structure of Chris-
tian wisdom, it is not only Aristotle who has a subordinate
and ministerial position, but Augustine as well. Certainly
Augustine stands above Aristotle; but he must be satisfied
with the second place. He stands far too dose to the philos-
ophers to succeed in arriving at the tirst place. Already in his
Commenlary on Ihe Senlences,'· Bonaventure had made this
accusation. In fact, in this work we find that Bonaventure is
quite capable of very critical observations about Augustine. 71
Consequently, it is not surprising that even Augustine becomes
"dangerous" as soon as he departs from his proper place.
In such a case, the difference between Augustine and Aristotle
would consist in the fact that Augustine would be aware of
the danger and would warn us: "When you give up Scripture
and study the books of Augustine instead, he (Augustine,
himself) says that this is not good."'"
Let uS now return to our point of departure, that is, to
Bonaventure's prophecy of the end of rational theology. The
thought which leads him on, and which we have attempted
to develop here, is summarized in a classical manner in the
following citation from the Hexaemeroll. "Note this about
SI. Francis, who preached to the Sultan. The Sultan told him
that he should dispute with his priests. But Francis responded
that it was not possible to dispute about the faith by means
of reason because faith was above reason. Nor was it possible
 Chapter IV 159
to dispute with them by means of Scripture, because they did
not recognize Scripture. But he requested that a fire be started;
he and they would walk into it. One should not, therefore,
pour too much philosophical water into the wine of Sacred
Scripture lest the wine be changed into water. This would cer-
tainly be a very evil miracle, for we read that Christ changed
the water into wine and not the reverse. From this it is clear
that all those who believe shall derive the proofs of their
faith not from reason but from Scripture and miracles. In the
primitive Church, they burned the books of the philosophers
(Apoc. 19, 19) . Indeed, one should not change bread into
stones." 7:1 This fact from the history of the primitive Church
is a prophetic type of that which is to be realized in the final
Church inaugurated with Francis. The end of rational theolo·
gy is coming.

III. s.mm.,y.

On the basis of the material we have studied, we are now in

a position to define the general picture of Bonaventure's anti-
Aristotelianism more precisely than Gilson and Van Steen-
berghen have done, In the light of what has been said, we can
distinguish three levels of anti-Aristotelianism of quite distinct
significance.
I. From the beginning, Bonaventure differs with Aristotle
objectively by reason of an entirely different concept of time
which allows the Seraphic Doctor to deny the eternity of the
world emphatically, But this objective difference does not keep
Bonaventure from holding Aristotle in high regard nor from
granting a basic recognition to the Aristotelian philosophy.'.
2, The historico-theologlCal anti-Aristotelianism which de-
velops after 1267 must be clearly distinguished from this
160 Tlleology 0/ History in SI. Bonaventure
objective anti-Aristotelianism. This second development is
directed not primarily against the historical Aristotle but
against the contemporary form of Aristotelianism. It is a
battle against a self-sufficient philosophy standing over against
the faith. Thus, his anti-Aristotelian ism develops here into
a general anti-philosophical attitude. In this case, the rejection
of Aristotle is the rejection of a self-sufficient philosophy.
This does not, however, exclude the recognition of philosophy
and of Aristotle in their proper place. Philosophy must be
integrated into the truth coming from Revelation.
The codification of anti-Aristotelianism found in the presen-
tation of the three basic errors is, in a sense, a development
of the objective anti-Aristotelianism which had been present
already in the Comlllell/ary 011 the Sen/ellees. But, as we have
seen, it develops in an historico-theological direction and is
basically a protest against a self-sufficient philosophy. Here the
necessary errors of such a philosophy can be seen. In this way
it is not only anti-Aristotelian, but anti-philosophical in the
sense indicated. But we must emphasize again that the rejec-
tion of philosophy and of Aristotle is directed only against a
philosophy separated from theology. It is not, therefore, anti-
philosophical in an absolute sense. Rather, it allows for philo-
sophical thought in as far as philosophy is integrated into and
is subordinate to theology.
3. Finally, in the Hexaemerol1 we find the final develop-
ment of this anti-philosophical attitude which here becomes a
prophetic anti-Scholasticism in which Franciscan, Joachimite,
and Dionysian themes merge. Rational theology is seen to be
merely provisional. For the final age which is to come he
predicts a theology based only on authority. Here an historical
dimension is inserted into the anti-philosophical mentality.
 Chapter IV 161
For the present, speculative thought-philosophical and theo-
logical-is justified. But in the higher state that is to come,
this will be transcended and will become superfluous.
From this, the meaning and the extent of Bonaventure's
anti-Aristotelianism should be clear. We cannot, therefore,
agree with Gilson who interprets the entire work of Bonaven-
ture as anti-Aristotelian on the basis of certain texts in the
H exaemeron and the late sermons. Nor can we agree entirely
with Van Steenberghen and Robert, who work from the
Commenlary 011 the Sentences and the Qllaestiones dispillalae
and see the Hexaemeron to represent a new rhetoric but not
a new position. 7;; Actually something new has happened in
the Hexaemeron and in the sermons dating from 1267. But
neither would I like to take my stand with Veuthey, who holds
that Bonaventure changed from Aristotelianism in the Com-
mentary on Ihe Sentences to neo-Platonism in the Hexaemer-
011. 7 • Such a viewpoint can be justifiably rejected, for it misses

the point. 77 Actually in the case of the later Bonaventure,

practically nothing has changed as regards the inner under-
standing of the philosophical and theological problems. In as
far as he philosophizes and theologizes, he does so with the
same materials and the same methods as he had used earlier. 7 S
But there is a new element involved which may be called extra-
philosophical, or extra-theological if we understand theology
in the restricted sense of speculative-Scholastic, systematic
theology. This new element allows us to gain a new perspec-
tive and to see anew the historical orientation of the whole
question. We could also say that the change does not take
place within the Scholastic, systematic framework. Rather,
with his roots in the ground of Franciscanism, Bonaventure
sees the entire phenomenon of Scholasticism and of scientific
162 Theol08Y of History in St. Bonaventure
thought in a new and different way. He does not cease to
recognize its great value for the present time; he himself does
not cease pursuing it and loving it; he does not give up his
concern for its correctness. But at the same time, he sees that
it is not final in itself. One day the form of life of St. Francis
will become the universal form of the Church-the simplex et
idiota will triumph over the greatest scholars, and the Church
of the final age will breath the spirit of his spirit. 79

CONCLUSION

Like so many other masterpieces of scholarship, Bonaven-

ture's interpretation of the creation-account has remained
incomplete. Neither he nor Aquinas were permitted to finish
the real Summa of their lives. And so a saddened disciple of
the Master had to write in regret at the end of the unfinished
course of the collations: "Sed heu! heu! heu! superveniente
statu excelsiori et vitae excessu domini et magistri huius
operis, prosecutionem prosecuturi, non acceperunt."t None-
theless, it does form a unified whole, and the basic lines in-
tended by Bonaventure are unmistakable. At the vanishing-
point of his theology of history we find the very same word
which Augustine had used at the close of his City of God,
which in itself is so different from the work of Bonaventure.
That word is peace: "And then there will be peace." But for
Bonaventure, this peace has come closer to earth. It is not
that peace in the eternity of God which will never end and
which will follow the dissolution of this world. It is a peace
which God Himself will establish jn this world which has
seen so much blood and tears, as if at least at the end of time,
God would show how things could have been and should have
been in accordance with His plan." Here the breath of a new
 Chapter IV 163
age is blowing; an age in which the desire for the glory of
the other world is shaped by a deep love of this earth on which
we live. But despite the difference that may separate the work
of these two great Christian theologians, still there is a basic
unity; both Augustine and Bonaventure know that the Church
which hopes for peace in the future is, nonetheless, obliged
to love in the present; and they both realize that the kingdom
of eternal peace is growing in the hearts of those who fulfill
Christ's law of love in their own particular age. Both see
themselves subject to the word of the Apostle: "So there
remain faith, hope, and love, these three. But the greatest
of these is love" (1 Cor. 13,13).
 NOTES
Notes to Introduction
1. Cfr. the survey of the development of the philosophy of history
in K. Lowith, Weltge8chichte und Heillll6schehen, Stuttgart,
1963~. Also informative is H. Ott, Neuere Publikationem rum
Problem V01'l Geschichte "nd GeschichUichk.it, in: Theol. Rund.
schau 21 (1963) 62·96. Cfr. also the statement of H. J. Manou,
who introduced his paper "La theolocie de l'histoire" at the in-
ternational Congress on Augustine in 1954 with the remark:
Aurait on conaaen! a ce Bujet une seance de discussion dans un
des Congres Augustininens tenus en 19301 . . . 11 faut certaine-
ment mettre ce renouveau en rapport avec l'aggravation de I.
erise 6u se debat 1. civilisation occidentale . . ." (Printed in:
AugUltinu.a Mag;.ter, Paris, 1964, Vol. III, p.193.)
2. There is a vast literature on the Civita. Dfli. efr. Altaner, Pa ..
troioll'J/, 1968 (English trans.) p.487f; AUlluatinua Mal1uter III,
p.193·204; as well as the bibliographies in: Revue de. Etude.
Auqudinienne., Paris, and Augultiniana, HeverJe-Louvain.
There is also an excellent bibliography in the edition of the
Civita.a Dei of the series: Corpua Chri.tianorum, Series Lat. Vol.
47 IX·XX, Turnhout, 1955 (Text according to Dombart-Kalb.)
3. A survey of the elforta to penetrate history from a philosophioal
or a theological perspective from the time of Augustine to the
High Middle Ages can be found in A. Dempf, Sacrum Imperium
(Darmstadt, 1964') p.133.284. Material on the New Testament
understanding of history oan be found in O. Cullm8l1D, Ohmt
and Time Philadelphia, 1964 (English trans.) j H. Conzelmann.
The Theo lOl/~ of St. Luke, N.Y., 1960. Especially important is F.
Holmstrom, Da. e.chatololluch8 Drnken dfJr GellfJn.wart (German
by H. Kruska) Guteraloh, 1936, together with the critical survey
on this work by F. M. Braun, Neue. Licht auf die Kirch8, Ein-
.iedeln, 1946, p.103·132. Cfr. also W. Kamiah, Ohmtentum und
Gs.chichUichkoit, Stuttgart, 1961.
4. For detail8 on this. Bee Ch. 1 and 3. Pioneering work in the re-
discovery of J oaehim is found in the works of Denifle (Da.a
Evan/lelium aetemum ••• in: ALKG I (1886) p.49·142. Other
avanable material is found in Ebrle's article, Joachim 11011. Floria,
in: Wetzer und Weltas Kirch ...lazik.n'VI 1471·1480; and eape-
eia11y in the studies of Grundmann, Bondatti. Buonaiuti, Dempt,
Benz, Huek. Tondelli (efr. Literature). A unique attempt to
renew Joaohimite thought for the present i. olfered by A. Rosen·
ber~lI: Joachim von Fiore. Dill R,icI& dIe hlg. G.iat", ed. A.
Rosenberg, Munich, 1956. Here a selection of texts from Joachim
is given in German.
165
\66 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
6. These notioDs, whleh may seem to be truly remarkable at times,
are presented by E. Benz, Eccl'fta .pirit1l4lia, Stuttgart, 1934,
esp. 3-174. (Even the titles are aignifieant; Part I Die Ver~
belaaung, Die prophetiache Ver!tundigung des Ables Joaehim de
Fiore; Part II and III Die Erflillung). Cfr. alao Dampf, Sa .....m
Imperium, p.269-884.
6. For the baai. of this the.I., confer what i. eaid In #1.

Notes to Chapter I
1. Regarding the dating, confer the Prolegomera of the Opera.
Omnia, Vol. X, e VI #1, XXXVIb - XXXVIIa; Delonne, S.
Bcm4vent"ra.e CoUtstion, • .. or Praefatio, XIVf; P. Glorieux, LtJ
clot, du Collation,. de S. Bonaventure', in: Arch.. FrGnc. Ritt.
1929, p.267-272. Here on page 270·272 then! i. a valuable table for
the dating of the various "Collationes" and some of the sermons
of Bonaventure.
2. Confer note 6 for the ehronology of Bonaventure'. life. RelanUnc
the resignation of John of Panna confer the Catalog'UI Mini-
do"(m genet'cdium ordinu jratntm. mmoM&m of Bernhard of
Beau, ed. by Ehrle in: Zk Tn 7 (188S) p.8S8·852; John ia
treated e.peeially on p. 842-S44. On page 348 we ftnd an in-
teresting version of John's resignation from the Chronicle of
the XXIV General. (Hen! a report of PeregrinUB of Bologna):
nFr. tamen Peregrinus de Bonooia in Bua Chronica dicit: quod
hie Generalis, poatquam de legatione Graeciae fuit revenue,
.emulia ipaiuB, qui multi erant, ac:cullantibu8 eum Domino Papae
Alexandro, idem Papa awi (i.e. ei - inserted by Ebrle) pra&-
cepit in secreto, quod renuntiaret officio et quod nullo modo &saen-
tiret, si miniatri eum vellent in officio retinere. Et ego, inquit, in
Capitulo fui mediator inter ipaum et miniatroa et hoc babeo ex
ore eins."
8. Cfr. the preaentation and the edition of the report of Anagol
given by Denifte in ALKG I (1886) p.49.142. The .triet meaaureo
whieh Bonaventura took apinst his predec:esaor are known. In
1262, John was summoned before an ecclesiastical court to
anawer the charge of Joaehimi.m. He wa. found guilty and
apent moat of what remained of his life in a hermitage at
Greeeio. Cfr. J. Cambell, in LThK V 1068-1069: E. Gilaon,
B.Mvrntu. p. 18f. Obviou.ly thi. way of handling thmgo drew
down the wrath of the Spirituals on Bonaventure. efr. Angelo
Clareno, Hutoria. ••ptem tribulationum, ed. by Ehrle in: ALKG
II, p. 127-156 and p. 266·827, eap. p. 284-286. Even the moderate
Fioretti render a aamewhat hanh judgment in thia matter. Ofr.
the viaion of James of Maaaa, ed. Sabatier, c..f.8, 194·200, eap.
197f.: Prae omnibus sulem, qui erBnt in arbore, lucebat et
.plendebat frater Johannes • • • Qui dum Bibl ip.i totu. vigil
attenderet, fratri Bonaventurae, qui ascendent locum, unde

'.
 Notes 167
ipse des~enderat . . . datae Bunt ungues ferreae acutae ut nova-
eularum acies radentium pilos. Qui movens se de IDeo BUD cum
impetu irruere volebat in fratrem Johannem. Quod frater Jo-
hannes videns clamavit ad Dominum et Christus ad clamorem
fratris Johannis vocavit sanctum Franciscum . . . Et venit
&anetu! FranciscWl et succidit ungues femas tratri. BonaveD-
turae. Et sic frater Johannes stetit in loco 8UO fulgene ut 801.

Th. Littl. Flow ... 0'

Tranalation by Sehonhiifter, e. 47, p. 123-126. Cfr. also R. Brown,
St. Francis, New York, 1968, p. 161f. and
p. 342. Concerning Olivi's stand relative to Bonaventure, confer
Gilson, op. cit. p. 489.
4. efr. W. Nigg, Datf Gelleimnu der Moncke, Zurich-Stuttgart, 1965.
p. 249-286; K. Balthasar, Ge.chkhte de. Armuutr4tiu. im Frofl.-
zi.ka.'Ju!lTorden, 1911. The S~culum perfectioni. takes a sharp
stand against an assimilation to the older Orders. Cfr. esp. C III
(IV) e 41 ed. Sabatier, 106 Nr. 3 and e 68, 194-198.
6. In the Prologue to the Itineranum Bonaventure refers to him·
self as the "sep'timua in rener.Ii fratrum ministerio." (itin. prol.
2 Vol. V 296 •. ) This may have some aUeeorieal me.ninr. Ac-
cording to other reckoninl'8, he appears as the ninth or even lUI
the tenth Minister General of the Order, Cfr. De iJita. nr. dact.
c 3, 1 Vol. X of the Opera Omnia, 47 b and note 1; al80, 46f for
the account of the election to oftiee.
6. The original agreement concerning the chronolol'Y of the life
of Bonaventure which placed his entrance into the Order in
1238 was fll'llt questioned by F. Pellter, LiI.....rg..chichtlic1&.
Problem. illl AfUlchlu'8 an die . Bonal1entuTa.Au'gabf! 'Von
Q""raechi In: ZkTh 48 (1924) p. 600-632. As new dates, Pelater
suggested: 1244 for the entranee into the Order, 1261 tor Bona-
venture's time as Sententiariu8, 1264 Magister, 1266 for his
departure from the University, return already in 1256. Further
reaarch has led to the following chronology which is quite
generally a ..epted. (In the Arch. FrtUtc. Hial. 28 £19331, p. 268
Glorieux cans it "solidement et&blielt ) : 1243 entrance into the
Order, 1248 Baccalaureua biblicus, 1250 Daccalaureus senten-
tiariu8, 1253 Magister, February 2, 1267 General. Cfr. G. Abate,
Per ICl .toria e la cronolol1ia di .4n Bonaventura. O. Min. (e.
1217-1274); E. Longpre, Art. Bonaventure, in: Dict. d'hut. at
<h l1io/ll'•• cc~ IX (Paris, 1937) p. 746f; P. G10riewe Emu .ur fa
chronologie de aaint Bonaventure, in: Arch. Franc. Hut. 19
(1926) p. 146-188; Glorieux, D'AI."4ndr. d. Hid •• a Piarr.
Auriol. La .uite de. Maitre. lranciacain. de Pa.ri. au XIII
';';cl., in: Arch. F ....nc. Hiat. 26 (1983) p. 267-281, esp.
p. 268. AIBO A. Tectaert, L. repertoire d., maure. en theologi.
de Pa.rit. QU4lque. remarque, et cOTT.ctioM, in: Eph. TMOL
lAv. 10 (1934) p. 817/24; C. A. Callebau\, L'onlri. d. S. Bona-
venture da.n. rOmr, d •• FrJre. Mineur. en 1234, in: lA Fra.nc,
Franci.c4;". V (1921) p. 41-61. An untenable pOlltion is held

J
 168 Theology oj Hislory in 51. Bonaventure
by O. Righi, S. Bona.H7Itu-ra. entro neW Online IT4nciacano in
Pangi 0 nella Provincia Roman,,' in Muc. Franc. 88 (1986) p.
606·511. Righi's view is baaed on a loe.! legendary tradition;
he attempts to pro'fe that Bonaventure did not enter the Order
in Paris but in Bagnor... There are no seriouB historieal
grounds to support luch a view.
7. Prooem in II S.,.t. la and 2a, and II S ...I. d.2S, •. 2, q.8, ad 7 p.
647; Cfr. Pelster, op. cil., p. 682. As far as the disputed question
of the authenticity of the Prooem. is concerned, we may can·
sider this to be definitively decided in the affinnative by F. Hen-
quinet, Troi8 petit. icriu theolol1iques de "aint Bona.venture a
La 'umier, d'un quatriem" inidit, in: Milange. AUl1ulte Pelzn",
Louvain 1947, p. 196-216. The text whieh is erroneously ealled
the Praelocutio in II Sent. is actually to be seen as an Epilogua
to the I Sent. which Bonaventure had later removed and re·
placed with a text which is in the tod. Au. 183 f 273v. Henquinet
has brou/rht this text to Ii/rht. At the same time, he has shown the
authentieity of the disputed Epil. in I Sent. Cfr. J. Fried.rieb,
Zum "Vonuort cU. hI. Bcmallmturd" (Opera om. 11 1/3) in:
FTBnz. Sludi.,. 29 (1942) p. 78-89.
8. efr. the excellent treatment of Gilson, Bonal1enturd, p. 40f. Eap.
p. 72: IIBut for all that, he could love God in his own way and
that way was the way of the learned. All happened as though
ecstaay, conceded gratuitously by God to the perfection of certain
simple souls, had remained for the illustrious Doetor an ideal only
to be reaehed by the long and windin/r paths of learning." p. 74:
"The absence of asceticism ia not suffieiently explained by his
physical weakness. St. Bernard or St. Franeis, emaciated and al-
most destroyed by maeerations, yet found means to impose new
sufferings upon themselves, thus showing by their example that
there always remains enough strength to become an ascetic when
a man's mind is truly set upon it." There is a eharm about that
which Gilson writes concernin" Bonaventure's attitude toward
lendin, books. On page 66 we read that be composed a determi-
natio uwhich to this day constitutes a perfect wmma. of the reaa-
ons againat lending books,"
9. As an example, dr, Gilson, p. 66. After the presentation of the
detsrminatio on books, Gilson adds: "All this is perfectly true
and admirably analyzed. Yet we cannot forget that St. Francis
had another manner of loving books, that when one day he found
a gospel he distributed its pages among his companions 50 that
they might all at once enjoy iL"
10. It is signiileant that in the treatment of Esehatology in his Com-
1nmlta.T1I on tile Sentmlt:u Bonaventure makes no mention of the
problem of Joachim. Far different was the case of Thomas
Aquinas. Concerning the different attitudes taken by Thomas
and Bonaventure toward the work of Joachim confer #14, II.
11. Cfr. Iii"., prol. 2, Vol. V, 296a-b.
 Noles 169
12. W. Nigl', Gront Hftliqe, Zurich" 1962. Francia of Assisi is
treated on p. 36-102. Cfr. a100 W. Nilrlr, Yom G.h.imn;' d.r Mon-
ch., Zurich-Stuttgart, 1953, p. 249·286.
13. For the dating of this work see W. Gob, Die Quellen %ur Ge,&
c1tichu do heiligm Frentz "n A.mi, Gotha, 1904, p. 248. Accord·
tng to Gotz, the Vita would have been finished in 1260, presented
to and approved by the General Chapter in 1263, and e.tabliohed
finally to replace the others in 1266.
14. See the eompilation given by Guardini, Die Lehr6 des hili. Bona..
-ventura von deT Erloav:ng, p. 7f. (Opera. Omnia, Vol. VIII).
16. efr. the eompilation of texts pertaining to this question in Jull!R
d'Albi, L •• I.tt .. doctrinal.. .• p. 208-227.
16. Concerning the question of authenticity, elr.: Opera Omnia, Vol.
V, Prol. c 6 ##1 and 2, XXXVlff.
17. The concept Udeutscher Symbolismus" has been coined by Dempf
in: Sacrum imperium, Ch. 6, p. 229ft. See esp. p. 231: "As an
exegesis of Scripture and the world in accordance with the cate-
gories of cause and finality, Scholasticism is a scientific meta-
physics that arises from indirectly religious motives. What we
call symbolic (SymboUk) is an immediate spiritual-religious atti-
tude; it becomes symbolism (Symbolismus) when the Intention to
penetrate to the one and only meaning of the world enters into
the picture so that one interprets the world exclusively in a sym-
bolic manner." For the efforts of Bonaventure, cfr. p. 292f; p.
368t. Leclerq haa presented his thesis concerning the two views
of the Middle Ages in: Bull.tin thomi". VII (1943-46) p. 69-67,
..p. p. 62.
18. Jules d'Albi, Saint Bona.lIcmture et Ie. luttn doctrinalee de 1267-
1277, Paris, 1923, p. 63.
19. Ibid., p. 222.
20. M.tGphU.ik d•• Mitt.IIIlt.ro, p. 119.
21. Sacrum imperium, p . mf.
22. J. '!'inlvella, De unpoaaibili .apientiatJ iUUptione. in: Antonianum
11 (1936) p. 33-43. Cfr. Guardini, Erloaunllal.hre, p. 6: "The
Collatione. are replete with deep thoughts, Certainly the con-
struction of the whole is very complex, and many sections are
puzzling." Tinivella attempts to bring 80me aid to this unfort-
unate situation. Actually he goes no farther than a presentation
of the philosophy of the H ezaem~on, 80 that the real problems
are not treated. Consequently, he has placed himself among those
who u e via tantum • • . flosculos • • • collegerunt, at ... prae-
terierunL" We find that Dempf goes too far when he lays that the
Illunl.inationes eccisaiae ( =Hea:aemeron) are quite unjustly con-
sidered to be undear. (M.taphy.ik de. Mittolalt.r., p. 119.) But
we muat add that Dempf'.s Sacrum imperium has actually contri-
buted much important material for the clarification of the Hez-
aemeron.
170 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
23. Crr. Ope", Omnia, Vo!' V. pro!. 0 6 #1, XXXVlb. Following this,
Dampf regularly refers to the work 8S the Illuminatione. fie·
elenae. I will make U8e of the ordinary title used in the editions
of this work. This title also correctly emphasizes the basic sehema
of the work which i8 an explanation of the Hexaemeron. But even
more eo, this title indicates that the work belones to the genns
of historico.theological explanations of the Hexaemeron.
24. F. Delorme, S. Bonal1enturae Collationes in Hezaent.eTon fit Bon·
Cll1enturiana quaedam .electa, BFSchMA, VIII, QuaraccAi, 1934.
26. Cfr. the Additamentum in Delorme, p. 276; Op. Omnia, V,
XXXVII. and 450 a-b.
26. Cfr. the treatment of the center of the circle, Prine Coli, 1,#3,
24,p.ll; concerning the syllogism, ibid., #4,26,p.12fj the use of
the Dismas-Gesmas legend, ibid, 26, p.13 and many other points.
27. For further material concerning the relation of the texts, tonier:
Tinivella, op. eit., 33·43 i Delorme, Praefatio, XIV - XVI. Del·
orme .summarizes his viewpoint in the following way: uSi autem
A (= Delorme) consideretur separatim, ex epilogo reportatoris,
ex examine operis interno et ex parvo eodicum numera concludi·
tur quod fuetit labor indlviduus et privatuB,,ai vera B (= Opera
omnia) attendatur, libenter suspicabitur quis quod sit ill. repor·
tatio quam "alii duo socii" notabant, quam postea redegerint
insimul, usi notis propriis et aliis reportatoris A, quamque, visa
codicum numero maiari et ejus forma melion, visa etiam addita·
mento, de quo fuit quaestio, S. Bonaventura ipse sua auctoritate
recognoverit et authenticaverit. Haec dicta Bint non absolute
sententiando. Cuicumque tamen grati erimus, qui ex dictis lUmens
oceasionem novi studii, propius ad veritatem accesserit."

Notes to Chapter I, #2
1. XXII, 3,P.43Ba: . . . in tempore naseitur et proeedit (se. ec·
clesia militans), non sieut angeli, qui subito ereati sunt et simul
ftrmati. Ofr. XIV, 6.6, p.393fi II 17, p.339a: Scripturae intel-
ligi non possunt, nisi sciatur decuraus mundi et dispositio hier·
archiea.
2. II Sm!, 13-17, p.338b-339a; He"" XIII 2+11-38, Vol. V, p.388a+
389ff; Brav., pro!. #4. Vol. V, p. 206-206; De red., 6, p. 321b.
For the earlier history of this theory confer: E. Dobschutz, Yom
1Ji~rlaehen Sehnlt_inn, Hamack·Ehrung, 1921, p.1·13; Grund·
mann, Joachim I, p.27fi also important is: H. de Lubae, "TJlp.
ologi~" d "Allel1omme," in: R~c". th. anc. mid. 34 (1947) p.180·
226, esp. p.217·218; M. D. Chenu, Theologie _J/mbolique of e%egbe
acolaatique a.u XlI·XlIl aiiele, in: Milangea J. de Ghellinek 2,
1961, p.609·626. We cannot and should not relate this to the ex·
tenaive modern discussion of the spiritual meaning of Scripture.
3. XIII,2,p.388a for the program; 0011. XIV and XV, p.392-402 for
the execution of the program.
 Noles 171
4. XIII,2, p.SSS •. For the concept of the Theon«" aee also: Gilson,
BonavmtuTe, p.212f. Here, of course, it is not treated fully; nor
is ita significance for the theology of history pointed out.
6. XV, 10, p.400a: Intelligentiae enim prineipales et figurae in quo·
dam Dumero certo 8unt, sed theori.e quasi inftnitae.
6. efr. II, 17, p.339a; XV, p.400a: • . . et qui tempora ignarat is-
w scire non potest . . . Unde copito futurorum dependet ex
cognitione praeteritorum.
7. efr. Grundmann, Joachim I, p.40-53; Dempf, Sacrum imperium,
p.275tf., esp. p.278.
8. XIII, 2, p.388o; XV, 10, p.400a.
9. XV, 12,p.400a: Hae 8unt rationes seminalea ad cognoscendum
acripturaa (Delorme, Vi •. 111 c III #1,12, p.173: Et hoe fuerunt
rationes seminales ad cognoscendum 8cripturas). This notion of
Bonaventure need not be seen as entirely new. There was a work
called De .emine acriptuTllrum which, according to B. Hirsch-
Reich, does not go hack to Joachim of Fiore as Tondelli had be-
lieved, but was writ~n already in 1204 by an anonymoWJ monk
from Bamberg. Cfr. Roc". tho anc. mod. 21 (1954) p:147: Un-
fortunately I was not able to find Ihia work.
10. In a number of instances, Bonaventure leaves the question open
as to whether something is already past or is still to come. E.g.
XVI, 29, p.400b: Necesae est enim, ut aurgat unus princeps zela-
tor eecleaiae, qui vel erit vel iam fuit et addidit: Utinam iam non
fuerit • . • i XXII, 22, p.441a: Quis autem ordo iate futurus sit
vel iam lIit, non est facile &eire.
Notes to Chapter I, #S
1. Thi. had been correctly aeen already by H. Scholz, Gl4ub. und
Unlllaube in der Weltlle,ehichte, Leipzi" 1911, e8p. p.182.
2. XIV, 17, p.396a. Confer also the atructure of XIV and XV, 1-9.
3. For the difference between the two concepts, see Grundmann,
Joa.chim, I, p.S6f.; also the article of Lubac mentioned above, #2,
note 2.
4. Augustine's work is subsumed under the fil1urae .acro:mentale.
in: XIV, 17 p.396a. Consequently it is necessarily excluded from
the theoriee multi/orme. which are developed from XV onward.
6. XV, 12-18, p.400a-b. For the related teaching in AUlUstine'a
Civita. Dei dr.: H. Scholz, Gla.ube 'Und Un,lcube • . . p.I54-
166. Concerning the extent of this idea in Augustine, dr.: H.
Rondet, Le theme de. deu.:e cit'., in: Etude. d.Ulluatinimne" publ.
by H. Rondet, Paris, 1964.
8. In Evanl/. I "om. 19,1 PL 76,1054.
7. XV, 19, p.400f. On this point, Bon.venture expreuly appeal8 to
"othen" (Cfr. p. 400b); a division into five is fOWld, for exam-
ple, in Honoriull of Autun. dr. Ch. 3, #13.
B. XV,20, p.401a.
9. XV, 21, p.401a.
172 Theology 0/ Hislory in SI. Bonavenlure
10. D. <i.itat. D.i, XVIII, 52, CC 48, p.650 If. (PL 41,6Uf.); dr.
#14 11,1. The entirely different position of Bonaventure is clear
in XV,ll, p.400a; 12 - 18, p.400j 22, p.401j dr. also the great
schema in XVI.
11. XV,22,p.401b.
12. XV, 23, p.401b. Cfr. the following.
13. XV, 23, 401b. elr. XVI, 3, p.403b. Since this is a question of tra-
ditional materials, we can already find many parallels in Sent.
We would like to call attention to the beautiful text of II Smt.
d.14,p.2, dub.4 r, p.S69b, where the relation synagop - tenebrae
ecclesia -lumen is given a liturgical interpretation.
14. XV, 24, p.401b.
16. Ibid. Cfr. Delonoe, Vi •. III, c III, #2,24-26, p.177,: Et sequitur:
Non levabit gena contra gentem gladium. Sed contra hoc dicunt
Judaei uSi haec prophetia per Christi nativitatem est impleta
... , quare ergo non est modo pax in ecclesia talis?" Ad hoc rea--
pondendum quod ita esse deberet secundum evangelii doctrinam;
vel dicendum quod intelligitur prophetia de tempore post mor-
tem Antichristi et post vocationem ultimam Judaeorum. Accord-
ing to Benz, Eecle~a .pirituali., p. 234, the imperial th~logians
of the Hohenstaufen party related the text of Is. 2,4 to the time
of Frederick II.
16. XV,26, p.402a - b. This tri-partite schema is probably involved
in 1I,14,p.338b, where we read of the eeclesia prima, media, et
ultima.j cfr. also De perl ev., q.2,a.2,ad 20, p.147f., ibid., p.160a..
The Lea-Rachel typology plays a big role in the writings of Joa-
chim and in the Pseudo-Joachim literature. Cfr. Cone. V, 16f,68r;
c 18f,69v: Natis enim sex fUiis Liae quasi in sex tamporibu8, mox
circa finem editus est Joseph, qui praefuit suls. c 20f,70r . . .
Rachelis et Liae, quarum alteram terrenam et corpore.m vitam,
alteram spiritu.lem et caelestem vitam design at. Ps.-Joachi~ In.
Jm-emiam, Praef. (f not numbered): • . • Beniamin . . . qui
religionem et vitam e.xtremi ordinis significat in proximo revel-
andi et naacendi Racheli, i.e. ecelesiae generali. Examples could
be multiplied; efr. #12 and #16, II,2,e.
17. XV,28, p.402.

Notes to Chapter 1, #4
1. Cfr. A. Wikenhauser, Ollenbarun/l de. Johannes, Reeensburg,
1949 (R"Jr.'!n.burger NT, Vol.9) p.128f.; P. Volz, Di. E.chatolo-
/lie der judischen. Gemeinde im neute.tMnentlichen Zeitalterl, 1934,
p.143f. InterestinK' material pertaining to this may be found in
M. Werner, Die Entstehun/l deB christlichen DogmtUI (Bern-Tub-
ine-en, 1941) p.83-88. At first, the death of Jesus was placed in
the year 6000, for this was understood to be the time for the end
of the world. Afterwards, it was drawn further and further back
80 a8 to preserve the schema of the 6000 years which had been
 Noles 173
drawn from the Hexaemeron and is found expressly for the first

2.
time in the Epistle of Barnabas.
There appears to be no clear harmonization of the two schemata
in Augustine.
•
3. He"'. XV, 18, p.400b; also, XV,12,p.400a and XVI, 2, p.403b. 11
Also Bre •• prol. #2, Vol.V, 203b; Cfr. Rupert of Deua, De Inn.
et op. fJ'iUlJ, p.2 in vol" evang. c 29 PL 167,1668: Septima Mundi I~
aetas non pro tempore vel temporum ordine aetas dicitur aut
septima nuncupatur. Neque enim quomodo quinta quartae, quo·
modo !lexta quintae, sic m. huie aextae temporaliter suceedit, Bed
coniuncta velut ex latere usque ad finem saeculi, usque ad uni-
versalis diem relurrectionis cum ea currit. Hipier, Die chrilttliche
Ge.chicl!t.BufasBunq (Cologne, 1884) p.39 indicates that this con-
cept is found already in John Scotus EriuKena.
4. Cfr. the texts given in the note above.
5. He"" XV, 12 and 18, p.400a and b.
6. NaturallY, the acceptance of this schema does not yet involve a
decision concerning the status of the souls of the deceased in the
heavenly Church of the seventh age. It does not yet determine
whether we should attribute to them the full MO or a provisional
state of beatitude. The development of this question does not
immediately touch on the form of the historical schemata. The
two pointa must be distinguished clearly. Cfr. H. X. Le Bachelet,
Benoit XII, Conltitution Be'Jtedictu8 DelLI, in: DThC, II, 667~
696, esp. 677ft.
7. Nr. 4, p.453b.
8. On the basis of studies such as Cul1mann's Chri.t and Time and
Conzelmann's Theolol1Y of St. Luke (efr. Literature) we may well
ask whether the NT itself already understood the time of Christ
88 the Ueenter," But despite the untenabUlty of many individual
aspects of M. Werner's work (Die Entstehulll1 de. chri.tlichtm
Dogma.a) I he has succeeded in showing in a clear and decisive
way that early Christianity never understood the Christ· Event as
the 'center' of time but rather as the 'fullness' of timej that is, as
the fundamental 'End' of the age•• In #13 and 14 we will trace
the gradual development of the concept of the center. If, none·
theless, one still wishes to work in S5 and in the Fathers with
the notion of a central period of time, then this can mean at
most a time which is outstanding and normative; it cannot be
understood as the beginning of a new age, for thjs notion did
not yet exist. For this reason, it would be better to give up the
concept of the center if we wish to give a clear presentation of
the historical understanding of the NT and the Fathers.
9. Cfr. Grabmann, Die Lehre des heiligen Thoma. 110n Aquin 110n
der Kirche a.l. Gotte,w8Tk, Regensburg, 1903, p.160. Grabmann'a
judgment is taken over by H. Berresheim, Chmtta au Haupt
der Kirch" ?tach dem. heiligen Bonal1entura, Bonn, 1939, note 161,

r~~----------~.----~
II
II.
174 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
p.197-199. efr. p.327 where the author proves the distance sepa~
rating Bonaventure from Joachim by the fact that the Seraphic
Doctor rejected Joachim's doctrine of the Trinity in I Smlt. d.6,
dub.4 r p.121at Gilson comes to a aimiJar judgment in B01lClum-
turf, p.IS: "Later OD, when he in his tum took up the problems
of the philosophy of history raised by the Abbot of Flora, he
answered them in a totally different sense, returning to the divi-
sions of history made by 8t. Augustine. 1t More cautious is G.
Bondatti, GiotlCII.inufM e Francflc4netimo nel Dugmto, Pont-
uneole, 1924, p.137: Negli BCritti polemici di S. Bonaventura in-
contriama espressioni che a prima vista sembrano avere una certa
amnit! e forse l'hanno, colle speculazioni di Gioacchino, cioe at-
t&ndole 0 riducendole a forme ortodoase . • . p.138: t vero, che
preaso di lui troviamo immagini ed cspressioni che sono proprie
de Gioaechino, ma Bonaventura ae ne serve in senso giusto e
generalmente intelligible. - Not even Bondatti is free of un~
justifted attempts to tone down the inftuence of Joachim. As far
as 1 can see, the adual inftuence of Joachim on Bonaventure is
recognized only in: Dempf, Sacrum impmum, esp. c.7 and 10,
and in L. Tondem, II libro delle figure delr abate Gioachino da
Fioro I (Torino o.J. 1939), p.21-224. We could do well to compare
the judgment of Tondelli (p.215) with the view. of Grabmann
and Gilson elven above: Nello stesso tempo pero it Dattore Sera·
fico si studia di eon.aervare dell' opera di Gioachino quanto aia
utilizzabile nella ortodoaaia della fede. Questi eontatti 1I0no nor·
mal mente sfuggitti agli studiosi: tanto che uno atudioso pro--
fondo di Gioachino e dei 8uoi inftU81i storici quale it Buon8iuti
puil pensare ancora che S. Bonaventura foslSe del tutto impervio
at pensiero ed ane attese di lui. Againat Gilson, Tondelli aay.
with juotifteation (p.224): Certamente: nulla che non .i.orto-
doS!() nelle dottrine del Santo. Egli non accetta un VaDgelo nuovo,
l'evange!o eterno: rna non si e troppo lantana dal vero quando si
atrenna che l'escatologia bonaventuriana non ha nulla eli com ..
mune con Gioachino da Fiore? Cfr. also #13,111.
10. XVI, 11-13, p.405a and XVI, 30, p.408b. Tondelli all.o is inexact
on this point. He overlooks the difference between the double.
seven schema and the lIimple~8even schema. As for the axiom:
uaeptima aetas cunit cum sexta," he sees this as the Joachirnite
influence in the work of Bonaventure (p.218.) Actually this ax-
iom belongs to the Augustinian elements, whereas the Joachim·
ite influence ia Been in the fact that Bonaventure develops the
notion of a aeventh period within history. For the relation be·
tween the two Hnes of influence, confer the schema given in the
text. Furthermore, Joachim never totally discarda the August·
inian doctrine of the ages of hiatory. He presents it in his
CO'tIcordia V, 0-24-30 (f 72 f) a. the ..venth or the fourth
explanation of the Hexaemeran. (c.30.) While the divialon of
history into three periods is related to the Persona of the Trini·
 Noles 175
ty, the simple reckoning of time is reJated to the una deita •.
"Haec de intellectu generali, qui pertinet ad unitatern deitatis
eo quod temp~ra trium statuum comprehendat sub uno . • ."
c 30 f 73 r. A similar idea occurs even before this in V 18 f
69v: Quamvis Butem uRivers. aetas iata, quae vacatur sexta,
sub qua continentur septem tempora iet. . . . On the other
hand, Joachim knows a continuous numbering also with Christ
in the center between the third and the fourth periods: Tandelli,
up, cit., II (edition of text of Liber figurnrum), tav.XVIII. But
this seems to be an exceptional case i the construction of the
C01tt!ordia given above seems to be the dominant one.
11. Cfr. the schema on p. 21 for the content of the periods in the
double·seven division. For a summary treatment of Joachim's
historical schemata, confer: M. Reeves-B. Hirsch-Reich, Th~ Sev-
tm. Saal. in the Writing. 0/ Joachim 0/ Fiore, in: Reck. tho d.Jtc.
med., 21 (1954) p.21l-247.
12. XVI, 7, p.404a: Septenarius secundum Gregorium est numerus
universalitatis. Cfr. also IV Sent. d.40, dub.r,p.853a: • • • in
septenario universitas totius vitae concluditur. Note 6 indicates
much related patristic: matirial. Cfr. also Cotnm. in Eccie., c: 39,
Vol.VI,32b: Septenarium, qui est universitas temporis. Another
idea is expressed in Comm. in Luc., c.l,8 (to V 6) Vol.VII, 148:
. • . quia per octo novum testamentum intelligitur, aicut per
septem vetus.
13. XVI, 7 -10, p.404a-406a. Cfr. alllG !tin: 2,2-4, Vol. V, 300.
14. Concerning the theme of the cosmic harmony see: I S~t, d. 44,
a.l, q.3, c p.786b: . . . universum est tamquam pulcherrimum
carmen, quod decurrit secundum optimas consonantias, aHis par-
tibus suecedentibus aliis, quousque res perfecte odinentur in
finem; II Smtt. d.13, a.l, q.2, ad 2, p.316a: Divinae autem dis-
positioni placuit, mundum quasi cannen pulcherrimum quodam
decursu temporum venustare.

Notes to Chapter I, #5
1. XVI, 30, p.408b. Delorme V III c IV, III 30, p.19S: latiua enim
visionia decenaua est finalis conformatio ecclesiae militantis cum
ecclesia triumphante, scilicet quando militans ita triumphanti
conformatur quod ab ea dicitur descendere. In line with the gen-
eral tendency of the Delorme text to tone certain things down,
we find that in this case it weakens the Joachimite tone consider-
ably in comparison with the text of the Opera. omnicJ.
2. Ctr. XV 24 and 26, p.40If.; also note 16, #8 above:
3. The most important of Gerard's statements are available in the
protocol of the commission in Anagni, ed. Denifle in ALKG I 99-
142. Ctr. p.99f. (Nr:9Ia): Quod liber Concordiarum vel Con-
cordie veritatis apellaretur primus tiber evangelii eterni . • •
Quod liber iste, qui dicitur Apocalipsis nova, appellaretur seeun-
176 Theology 0/ Hislory in SI. Bonavenlure
dUB tiber eiusdem cvnngelii . . . Similiter quod liber, qui dicitur
Psalterium decem cordarum, sit tercius liber eiusdem evangelii
. . . comparat vetus testamentum primo eelo, evangelium Chri8~
ti secundo eela, evangelium eterDum tereio eela. Et expressius
XXV capitulo, ubi camparat vetus testamentum c1aritati stel·
larum, novum testamentum claritati lune, evangelium eternum
sivi spiritus sandi claritati solis. Item XXVII capitulo comparat
vetus testamentum atria, novum aaneto, aeternum saneto sane-
torum. Item XXX g. comparat vetus testamentum cortiei, novum
teste, evangelium eternum nueleo. In his study, DBlI Evanllelium
aeternum und difJ Commillion zu Anagni, ALKG I 64, Denifte
has shown that this doctrine does not agree with the intention of
Joachim nor with that of the Joachimites who followed Joachim
rather than Gerard. Cfr. also Grundmann, Joachim, I; 17. 1 can~
not endorse the view of Dempf, who opposes Denifte on this point
in his Sacrum Imperium 304ff. As interesting as his theory may
seem to be, we find no concrete indications of the followers of
Gerard. Against Dempf we can say the same thing that Denifle
said to Reuter: "What is the situation with the followers of
Gerard? Were there any? Did Gerard have a fonowing, a group
of disciples? I believe there were hardly more than two . . •
What Gerard did should not be attributed to the Joachimites."
(Op. cit. 64.)
4. Cfr. Denifle, op. cit., 88ff.
6. He". XVI, 2, p.403b.
6. Thus Gilson, Bonaventure, p.1Sfj Hipler, Die chmtliche Ge·
.chichtlJa.uffanung, p.66 (see esp. 63·66). In treating this matter,
the Scholion of the Quaracchi edition refers to Hipler, He%. p.463b.
7. The parallel text of XVI, p.406a should also be compared. It of-
fers nothing essentially new.
S. Frederick 1 is expressly distinguished from Frederick 11 in the
text of Delorme, V 111 c IV, III 29, p.192: N am tempore Henrici
quarti fuerunt diu duo papae et tcmpori Frederici magni. Simi·
liter et iate ultimu! li'redericus, ai potuis!et, omnino exterminas·
set ecclesiam, sed angelus domini clamavit ne noceret etc. The
strong position against the German emperor is understandable
if we recall that, at least for a time, Joachim saw in the Ger-
mans the new Babylon which was rising up against the new
Jerusalem, i.e. Rome: See Grundmann, Joachim, II p.64-67.
Even if we assume that Bonaventure was friendlier toward the
German emperor (efr. Tondelli, op. cit. 1,223), nonetheless Joa·
chim's view may well reflect a feeJing in ecclesiastical circles from
which Bonaventure was not entirely free.
9. Related to this is the Franciscan view of the anti·Christ which
would quite definitely see Frederick II as the anti·Christ. See
Benz, Eccleaia. 8piritwliiIJ, p.206~234; Dcmpf, Sacrum lmperiunt,
p.317·334. Also E. Kantorowicz, FJ'edrich II, BftTlin.2 , 1931. Wil-
liam of St. Amour also judges Frederick severely when he writes
 NOles 177
in his LibsT de anlichristo • . . PIc: 3, 2 (ed. Marlene-Durand
Sp.1238 E): • . . Romanorum (se. regnum) . . • usque ad
Frederici quondam Romani imperatoris condemnationem se
extcndit, in quo Rom.num cusasse videtur imperium . • •
10. H.~. XVI, 20, p.406.
n. For this reason, in XVI,29,p.408b, it is expressly emphasized that
the angel of Philadelphia is the sixth of the entire series. Similar-
ly, the number six itae}! is emphasized each time it appears.
12. XVI,31,p.408b: Et sic patet, quomodo scriptura describit BOC-
ceaiones temporum; et non Bunt a casu et fortuna, sed mira lux
est in eis et muttae intelligentiae spiritualea. XVI, 16,p.405b:
Et frequentiuime intulcabat, quod non sunt a casu et a fortuna
ista et consimili. posita in scriptura, sed maxime ratione et max-
imo mysterio j sed qui non considerat nihil intelligit.
13. See the »arallel texts given above.
14. Ctr. p. 20. above.
16. XX,29,p.430b: here note 7 indicates the source: Haymo,l. E:x:po·
.itio in Apoe.,3,7. Regarding the question of Haymo, cfr.: W.
Kamiah, ApokaltlPse und Gesehiehtstheologie, Berlin, 1936. Also,
compare the evaluation of this statement and the combination
with the Joseph-typology in XXIII,29, p.449. As regard. the con-
crete opinion of Bonaventure, XXIII, 26, p.448f. is very helpful.
16. XXIII,4,p.445b.
17. XX, 29, p.430b. The fact that the ostmno ci"itatis already points
to the seventh age i. pointed out in XVI, 30,p.408b. To me it
seems beyond doubt that the Ezechiel·vision of the new Jerusalem
(Ez.40ff.) is combined with the corresponding Apocalypse-vision
(0.21 fl. Cfr. XVI 19 where Apoc. 10,6-7 i. expreoaly related to
the beRinning of the seventh age.
18. XVI, 31, p.408b.
19. For the application of the ancient henneneutic rule concerning
the traJIBfer from Head to Body, see XVI, 21, p.406b. Compare
XVI. 17, p.3g6a. The text which we treat in the following is found
in XVI, 29, p.408a: confer p. 26 above.
20. Greater clarity i. found in the Delonne text V III C IV, III 29,
p.1e2: Altemationes iatae in ecclesia quantum ad pacem et trib-
ulationem elegantisBime signiftcantur per hoc quod, Christo in
cruce pendente, primo fuit lux sive dies, deinde tenebrae in uni·
versa terra et iterum adhuc eo pendente lux rediit. Even here
one can hardly avoid the impre88ion that this is artificial. There
seems to be a clear dependence on Joachim: Cone. 1 III » 2,c
6 f 41 v: Verum tempus sextum duplex esse praediximus, liquet,
quod inter duas illas tribulationes futurum esL Haud diutinum
spatium quantulaecumque pacis, ut qui poterint temporis per-
transire supplieia, queant resumptis viribus tolerare sequentem.
21. IX, 8, p.374a; XV, 28, p.402b; XVI, 19, p.406a. In the primary
text, XVI, 29, p.498b, the notion of the ultimCJ tribulatio ia devel·
oped exclusively from the Apocalypse.
178 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
22. Naturally, this refers to a new zealot for the eauae of the Church
rather than to a major persecutor of the Church as Dempf erron-
eously understands it; Sacrum Imperium, p.S70. In hill book, TM
Spirit 0/ Medieval Philo80ph", Gilson translatea this correctly as
a defender of the Church (p.398). Cfr. also Tondelli, 11 libro
fhU. figure, I, 223. Both Gilson and Tondelli are imprecise in the
more pointed determination of this figure.
23. XXII, 22, p.441a: Quia autem ordo iste futUruB lit vel iam sit,
non eat f-,cile scire. The Quaracchi Scholion simplifies the prob-
lem by simply stating: Quia autem, ait, iate futurus lit, non eat
facile eelre (p.458b).
24. Here It should be pointed out that there is a theological treatment
of Francia only in the later works of Bonaventure. In the Sm-
tmce CommmtaTll, Francis is mentioned only once (Ill, d 28 • un
q I e p.622b; II d 44 a 3 q 2 p.1014b speaks of the reaula beati
Franciaci and not of Francis himself.) And even in the one in.
atance in whjch Francia ia mentioned, it ia in a sense that is
theologically neutral. This fact is not without importance: JUlt
&8 we cannot derive an understanding of Bonaventure's treatment
of Frane:ia only from the Smltence Commenta'1l, so we cannot
detennine his relation to J oae:him only on the baais of the first
judement made in this work.
26. Bonaventure, Legrmda maioT 2,6. Vol. VIII, 609a; Praec:o sum,
inquiens, In&l11i regis. For the aource-value of the Legmda, see:
W. Goetz, Die Quellen %UT Ge.ckickte de. AlIT. Fronziaku. 'Von
A ..ih, p.248; "Almost as much as nine-tenths of Bonaventure's
artistic mOliac is derived from these four sources - Vita prima
(i.e. of Celano), Julian (of Speyer), Vita secunda (Celano) and
Tractatus (de miraeulis of Celano)." I will give the parallel texts
from the other Lel1m.da only in 8S far as it is neeeasary for the
development of the historico.theologieal understanding of Francia.
Unfortunately the Quaracchi edition does not provide a clear in-
dication of the sources of the MI1mdtJ., just as it does not clearly
show the relation of the Hezaemeron to Joachim.
26. Leganda, Prol. 1, p.604 a-b; c 4, 5, p.514aj c 11, S, p.637a (Eli-
seus) j C 11, 14, p.638b (curru igneo) i 12, 2, p.639bj 12, 7, p.640b
(ignis ardens); c 12, 12, p.542.-bi Lellendm minOT, Lec 1, p.566a
makes Use of Francis' original name, John, in this \\I'8y. Cfr. II
Celano, c 1, 3 ed. Aleneon, p. 169f: Joannil proinde nomen ad
opua minilterii pertinet quod suscepit, Franciad vero ad dilata-
tionem famae auae, quae de ipso, iam plene ad Dewn converso,
ubique cito perveniL The Elias-theology is also in I Celano, c. 10,
23, ed. Alencon, p.26: Erat verbum eius velut ipil ardena. See
also c 18, p.49-63 which treats of the vision of the fiery eharioL
I could find no indications of these ideas in the Speculu.m. per/ec-
tionia.
21. This places a limit on the tendency to draw too strict a parallel
between Francis and Christ which appeared at times. The final
 Noles 179
results of such a tendency is the Liber de conformitate vitae beau
Franciaci ad vitam domini Jelu of Bartholomew of Pis.. Cfr.
Dempf, Sacrum imperium, p.St6, and Dempf, Ecclesia. ,piritualia
oder Sc/twarmgeillterei?, in: Hochland, XXXII 2 (1936) p.172.
Dempf here take. a stand relative to the tendentious view of Benz
concerning the book. In Bonaventure, the Christ-Francie parallel
is used with great moderation. Cfr. S III De II. Patre Rostra
Franc., Vol. IX, p.684a: Item, beatu! Franciscu! fuit creatuB ad
similitudinem humanitatis Christi, videlicet quantum ad tria,
quantum ad vitam, quantum ad pasaionem et quantum ad reaur-
rectionem.
28. XV, 28, p.402b. See also Joachim, Concord;~ 1 IV • 36 f 57v:
Igitur. prout ego arbitraT, in tempore, quo venturi Bunt, aicut
tenet ecc:lesi., Enoch et BelislI, eligendi aunt duodecim, viri similes
patriarcharum et ad praedicandum J udaeis. (See also the Fior-
etti where emphasis is placed on the fact that the original Fran-
ciacan community consisted of twelve. For the question of the
conversion of the Jews in Bonaventure, see He% XV 24, p.401b).
Eliu playa a significant role in the Liber fil1uroruftt. Of rignifi·
canee is Tall XIV, back·side col 3a (ed. TondeJli): UnWl enim
Helias premissus est a Domino, et tamen duo venturi erant, quor-
um singulus dicebatur ReliaB. Also Ta,l1 II and TQlI IV col 3
rAV VII. In Ps. Joachim, Super E.oia", p 6 f 6Hv, we read:
In tertio, cuius initia iant tenemus angelo amicto nube dabitur
liber apertus, &c. patelactio scripturarum. Duo alii ac si testes,
quos in Henoc:h et Heliam, sed et melius in Moyse et ReUa . . .
praedicabunt labentis orbis pericula . . . There is a different
significance given to the type of Elias in Joachim, Coftt!ordia. V 16
f 67v: EU ... and EIi.eus had divided the OT a. the .rdo herem;-
tiCU8 and l1irl1ineutl divide the NT. P5. Joachim, In Jeremiam de·
veloped this schema most consistently (Benz, Eccl•• piritualu,
182f.) It i. remarkable that we do not find the pair EUa.-Henoeh
in this book. contrary to Dempf, Saer. imp. p.334, who attributes
this pair to the J eremia,1commentaT1/. I could not find this pair
anywhere in the book.
29. Cfr. Wadding, Annale• . . . I Praef #2, IV, p. 16, Nr. 14: Prae-
clarum est illud Joannis Apostoli de Francisco vaticinium, dum
sub senD sigmo ait se " vidisse alterum angelum aacendentem ab
ortu Balis, habentem signum Dei vivi." (Apoc. 7, 2). Subiungo
huius visionis ex Bonaventura expositionem. Nr. 16, p. 16: Nihil
autem mirum, 8i Seraphicus Doctor ita inteUigendum eSH hunc
locum indubitabili fide se co11igere dicat, dum, ut refert Pisanus,
id per revelationem sibi factam in aedieul. Portiuneulae • . .
eoncepit. Nec sibi soli, verum et aliis hoc certo revelatum esse
testatus est in Comitiis generalibus Fratrum Parisiis, si Bernar·
dina Senensi credamus. Later it is said: . . . asseruit, se cenis.
sime scire ·per revelationes indubitabiles et aolemnes factas talibu8
personis, quae de hoc non poterant dubitare, quod B. Franciscus
180 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
erat singulariter Angelus sexti sign.culi • . . err. Benz, Eeel.
spiro p. 318. Accordinl' to Dempf, Sacrum imTJerium, p. 291f. and
303, John of Parma had already made this exegesis into a common
teaching in the Order. Yet we do not find this interpretation of
Francis in the letter of John of Parma and Humbert of Romans
which dates from the year 1266, and to which Dempf makes refer-
ence (Wadding, Annal•• II, Lyon, 1628, p. 108-110.) See .IBo: G.
Bondatti, Gioachinum" eo Franc.,.ca:ni!t~imo nel Duqento, 1924,
p. 139 A 4. For the present, it seems that the oldest literary wit-
nesses for this interpretation are Bonaventure and the Liber in-
trocluctoriu8 of Gerard of Borgo San Donnino.
30. q 2 • 3 ad 12, Vol. V, p. 164b. For the d.ting of this work see
the Prolegomena of the Quaracchi edition c II #2, p. VIIb-VIIla.
31. Prol. 1 and 2, Vol. VIII, p. 604b; c 13, 10, p. 645b. Also the paral-
lels in the Lellrnda. minor, De transitu 1, p. 577b, 1, 8, p. 679b.
The citation is used with relative frequency (six times) in 8er~
mons which cannot be dated exactly. Earlier stages in It. prol 2
Vol. V, 295b and De sex alis Ser c I, 4, Vol. VIII, p. 133.
32. Cfr. note 26 above.
33. XV, 28, p. 402b. See note 28 above.
34. Cfr_ texts on p. 26.
36. Less important is XV. 16, p. 405b. XXII, 23, p. 441a gives only
an indirect reference.
36. We mention only in passing that there is another line of theo~
logical interpretation ot Francis to be found in Bonaventurej
this one also is related to Joachim. Bonaventure sees in Francia
"another Job" (Leg. maior, 14, 2, p. 646&.) Cfr. Joachim, Cone'.
V 86f 114r: Quod autem completa tentatione restituta sunt omnia
quae p08sederat: signifieat refonnari statum ecelesiae in eum
gradum et similitudinem in quo fuit tempore apostolorum. See
also, Dempf, op. cit., p. 279. Naturally there are other compari-
sons that are used at times. For example, Francia is compared
with Moses. But these are not applied with frequency, and they
do not acquire an independent meaning. The Job-typology is
found in S II de B. P. nostro Franc. I Vol. IX, p. 576b. See .Iso:
Benz, EceL .pir., p. 28.
37. Apparently Dante has taken up the idea of the "ap' anatoles"
of the text in the Apoe:alypse. Div. Como, Paradito, Canto XI
52ft: Per. chi d'eeso loco fa parole/Non dica A"" .. I, eM direbbe
eorto/Ma Oriente, Be proprio dir vuole. For the relation between
Dante and Bonaventure, see: Leone Cicchitto, L'eltca.toiollia. di
Dante e ii/rance.canerimo, in: Misc. Franc. 47 (1947) p. 217·
231 j L, Ciochitto, Podille bonaventuriano..fianteaehe, 1940. An
important source for the relation between the Franciscan (Joa-
chimite) theology of history and that of Dante is: L. Tondelli, Il
libro delle figure deU' abate Gioachino do Fiore, I. Introduzione
e commento. Le sue rivelazione dantesche. Torino (1939). It
would seem that some relation between Dante and Joachim can
 Notes lSI
hardly be denied. efr. Grundmann, Joachim II. Gilson, D41tte
'und die Philosophi" (FriebuTI1, 1953) throws new light on the
problem. Gilson calls attention to two apparently paradoxical
pairs. The relation between Bonaventure and Joachim is para}.
leI to that between Thorn ... and Siger of Brabant. In both casea
it would seem that a great teacher of the Church appears with
his own heterodox shadow. For Gilson, the relation of Thomas
with Siger would have been solved if the texts oC Siger which
were discovered by Grabmann and edited by Van Steenberghen
had been genuine. But this has been contested by Mandonnet.
The solution to the Bonaventure·Joachim problem is especially
difficult for Gilson, aince he is finnly convinced that Bonaventure
remained to the end a radical opponent of Joachim in all points.
In the light of the present studies, I believe it is impossible to
hold such a view. It would seem that Bonaventure aecepted
Joachim in as far as this was possible. It any of the great
Scholastics should form a heavenly pair with Joachim, this would
be, without a doubt, Bonaventure. If Dante seems to be well in.
formed on the matter, then this can throw some light on the
question of the other pair, Thomas.Siger. This can hardly be
called arbitrary. Furthermore it confirms, to a degree, the image
of Siger drawn up by Van Steenberghen.
sa. Cfr. the text of the uCartula" and the remarks of Brother Leo In:
H. Bohmer, Anal,ktm zur G,.chicht, dee Frana.mu 110n A.mi.
Tubingen-Leipzig, 1904, Nr. 17, p. 71, and the introduetion, p.
XIII. Also, Hardick·Esser, Di, Schrift,n de. hl. Fra.nzi.kWl 110n
Auiaei, p. 129ff. and p. 17. p. 130: "Unter dem Ziechen ist mit
Tinte eine heute nahezu unkenntliche Zeichnung (ein Kopt?)
angebracht. Bruder Leo schreibt zu diesem Zeichen: Ebenso
zeichnete er dieseB Zeichen Tau mit dem Kopf eigenhindig."
(Simili modo fecit istud signum tau cum capite manu sua:
Bohmer, loco cit.) Hardick-Esser (p. 131) relates this immedi-
ately to Apoc. 7,3 j but I believe that we should see it in relation
to Ez. 9, 4. Significantly, Hardick·Esser states: "We may well
draw the conclusion that St. Francis saw this sign as the coat
of arms for the Friars Minor on the basis of: Thomas of Celano.
Tra.ctatua dtJ miracuU, S. Franc1.aci, nr. 3; Bonaventure, LegenM
maior, tr de miracuBs, #10, nr. 7 . . ." Cfr. also Leg. 1tl4i., 4, 9,
Vol. VIII, 516a-b, Prol. 2, p. 504b. Interesting in this context is
Joachim, Concordia, lei r Iv: The text of Ez. 9, 4 - et signa
Thau in frontibus virorum gementium et dolentium super cundie
abhominationibus - is related to the coming tribulations.
39. This amazing coincidence of promise and fulfillment is impres.
sively treated by Benz, Eccla.ia .piritualis.
40. Concordia, IV 31 f 56r: In qua igitur generatione (= in the 42.)
peraeta prius tribulatione generaIi et purgato diligenter tritico
ab univerais zizaniis ascendet quasi novus dux de Babylone,
univers.lis scilicet pontifex novae Hierusalem. i.e. SaDctae matris
182 Theology 01 His/ory in 5/. Bonoven/ure
ece1eaiae. In cuius typo scriptum est in apoealypsi: vidi angelum
ascendentem ab onu solis, habentem signum Dei vivi et cum eo
reliquiae eXCUS8orum. Ascendet Butem non gressu pedum aut
immutatione Iocorum, sed quia dabitur ei plena libertas ad in-
Dovandam christianam religionem ad praedicandum verbum, in·
cipiente iam regnare domino exercituum super omnem terram .•.
efr. Dempf. Sacrum imperium, p. 273. We cannot aeeept Dempf's
interpretation which eees this "angelus ascendens ab ortu solis" to
be the reappearance of the homo Chri.tU8 in the third age. Cfr.
TondeJU, II libro delle figure • .. p. 160A 1: Gioachino non ha
mai posto all'inizio della terza etA una riapparizione dell'homo
Chri.tus. The parallel to Chri.t involved the idea that that
wbich had been present in Cbri.t would be fulfilled on a higher
level. This fulfillment, according to Joachim, was to be realized
not in an individual, but in the new People of God, the no171U
ordo. This notion is compatible with the patristic view in which
the ChNto, pneumatiko, (i.e. the Church) i• •et above the
historical CAm to••arkiko.. When he relates the Christ-likeness
of this new people in a special way to the Prelates, Joachim gives
this concept an emphatically ecc:lesial tone which is foreign to
the Fathers. "Quia idem ordo non erit absque praelatis, qui
gerant in eo vice Christi. Et si eeneralia intellectus totum ipsum
ordinem tangit spiritualiter, tamen ip!Os praeiatos, in quibus
repavit Christus Jesus, quem opus dominari et regnari, donee
ponat omnes inimico8 suoa rub pedibua fluis (Pa. 109, 1) •••"
C""" V 18 f 69v; c 66 t 96v and 96r. Note alao that the notion
of the 42 generation, which was 50 important for Joaehim, ~
turns in Bonaventure. Hd~ XVI 31 p. 408b: lsitur cum sint
septem tem.pora et in veteri testamento et in novo, et quodlibet
tmorme, vel in quolibet tria sint; aeptenarius multiplicatus per
ternarium bia, quadral'inta duo facitj et istae sunt quadraginta
duo mansiones, quibus pervenitur ad terram promiaaioni!l.
41. This relationship goee 10 far that Bonaventure completely inter-
twines the event of Francis with the words of Scripture, as in
HdZ XXIII 14, p. 447a: Huic anpIo apparuit signum expressivum
• • • Scripture says nothinl' about a sign appearing to the an&'81,
but apparently Bonaventure felt justified in expanding Scripture
in the light of the evento that had taken pI .....
42. Already in the Sent.mce CommentG.11f the lIotion of uexpreaaio"
played an important role in Bonaventure. Cfr. GUSOD, Bona."m-
tu.re, p. 127ff. On p. 148 Gilson speaks of an "expresaionism" in
the case of Bonaventure. There are three steps involved here:
expressivum-impressum--expressum.
43. Ctr. texts on p. 36 above; esp. XXII 23, p. 441 and parallelo.
In this instance, the Delonoe text is very much shorter. But the
dec:i.ive idea i. preaerved: V IV Coli III #3, 20-22, p. 266:
Tertius ordo contemplantium est eorum, qui 8unumaguntur in
Deum: De quo videtur fuiase sanctos Franciscus, qui in fine
 Notes 183
apparuit. To me it seems certain that the text of the Opera.
omnia (XXII 23) is authentic, and that the Delorme text re-
presents a tendency to tone down the problems. This seems to be
especially clear when we see the parallels to this text (XXII 23)
in the Sermons: S. I de patre n. Francisco II. Vol. IX, p. 674b-
5768: Item, expressum per exemplum perfectae virtutis . . .
expressivum per zelum 8upernae Balutis, secundum ilIud Apoc-
atypsis: Vidi atterum angelum ascendentem ab orlu solis, ha-
bentem signum Dei vivie Hoc quidem signum est zelus humanae
salutis; unde in Ezechiele: Signa thau super frontes virorum
gementium et dolentium super cunetis abominationibus etc. Hine
etiam est, quod in Aegypto percussit eos, qui hoc signo caruerunt.
44. Cfr. Cone. V 16 f 67v; 18 f 69v: Futurus est enim, ut urdo unU!
convalescat in terra similis Joseph et Salomonis • ut compleatur
0 OJ

in eo promissio illa psalmi dicentis: et dominabitur a mari usque

ad mare et a ftumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum Hic 0 0 0

est populus ilIe sanetus, ordo sc. iustorum circa finem futurus,
de quo in typo Salomonis dictum est 0 Ego ere illi in patrem
0 0

et ipse erit mihi in filium (2~reg 7, 14). C 65 f 95r: Beatus est

autem aut erit ordo ille, quem dominus diliget super omnes,
utpote qui visione paeis fruiturus est et dominaturus a mari
usque ad mare 0 •c 66 f 96r sets up the following relations:
0

Saul = populus primi status Zacharias =li

David = 2i Johannes =2i
Salomon = 3i Christus homo = 3i
The other works of Joachim provide ample material on this
point. Cfr. Grundmann, Joachim I, p. 112ff; Dempf, Sacn.t.m
imperium, Po 271, 278; Benz, Eccleaia spirirualu, p. 11ft. Of
special interest is the draft of the constitution for the nOl1U8 ordo
whicl.l has come to light in the Liber fi,1uran.t.m edited by Ton-
delli and printed again in Grundmann, Joachim II, p. 116-121
with detailed commentary on p. 86-115. Above this draft, Joachim
writes: "Dispositio novi ordinis pertinens ad tercium statum ad
instar superne Jerusalem." The basic line of thought in this
draft may be found already in Cone. V 22-23 f 7lv-72r.
46. EccleBia spiritualis, p. 67. As can be seen in the texts already
given, Joachim frequently uses "ordo" as equivalent to
upopulus." Cfr. Bonaventure, Hex. XXII 17, p. 440a, where the
Seraphic Doctor distinguishes between the ordo monasticus-
laicus-clericalis. A more detailed study of the use of this word
would certainly be valuable. Certainly the explanation given to
the concept "ordo" in the Quaracchi-Scholion, Po 458b, is false.
46. The best source for the evaluation of the quality and sequence of
the Legenda is still: W. Goetz, Die Quellen zur Geachichte de••
Franz 1101'& A.M, p. 67.
184 Theol08Y 0/ Hislory in 51. Bonovenlure
47. In support of this view we have not only the writings of Francia
himself, but also his UBe of the letter tau: dr. n. 38 above. From
among the LegcmcU, the strongest evidence is found in the
Speculum perfectioni. (for the question of the 8ourc:e·value see:
OPe cit., p. 216.221. The final redaction dates form the year
181S (p. US), but it involves material that goes back to Brother
Leol. C I (II) c 26, ed. Sabatier, p. 72ft': Quadam vice dixit
Beatul Franeiscus.: uBeligia et vita iratrum Minorum eat quidam
pusillus grex, quem Filius Dei in hac naviasim. hora postulavit
patri IUO eaelesti dicens: 'Pater, vellem qUQd laceres et dares
mihi unum novum et humilem populum in hac noviasima hora
o • . ' .. elr. also: I Celano p. 2 c 1, 89 ed. Alenean, p. 92: Nam
cum doctrina evangelica, esti non partic.utatiter, lied generaliter
ubique muttum per opera defecisset, missus est hie a Dea, ut
univeraaliter per tatum mundum. apostolorum exemplo, per·
hiberet testimonium veritati •.• Quoniam in novissimo tempore
novus evangelista, quasi unus ex paradisi ftuminibu8, in toto
terr.rum orbe fluenta evangelii pia irrigatione diffudit .•.
48. Clr. the Synoptic commentaries 01 J. Schmid in the Regen.-
burger New Testament. As a systematic study by a Catholic
author, we cite: M. Schmaus, Du E.cha.tologiacM im Chriaten p

tum, in: Au der Theol. der Zeit, ed. G. Sohngen, Regensburl',

1948. p. 66·84 i M. Schmaus. Von dtm letzten Dinl1tm, Munster,
1948; J. Auer, Daa Eschatologi8che nne chriatliche Gru.nc&.
be/indlichkeit, in: Fe.t.chrift fur Kardinal Faulhaber, Municl1,
1949, p. 71-90; M. Schmaus, Dogmatik, IV, 2 for further literature.
49. For the understanding of the essence of Franciscanism, see: M.
Bierbaum, B.tu/ord." und W.IIIINt/icnks't, p. 89Sft'. Bierbaum
gives the interpretations of L. Braealoni (Arch Franc Hist, VIII,
p. 467-481), A. de Sorent, op. cit., p. 44S-466, and E. d'AJencon,
L' o.me /ranciaccine, Paris, 1913. Bracaloni sees the essence of
Franciaeanism to lie simply in love in the broadut sense. De
Serent seee it to lie in poverty, sineerity, and kindness. Only
d' Alencon singles out the historical element when he writes:
C'est un esprit de retour i I'observance primitive du saint
Evanaile ••• ; c'eat un amour personnel et passione de I'humanile
de Jeaus-Christ voila l'eIement materiel,-le tout anime d'un
esprit de detachement absolu pouue juaqu'a I. pauvrete Ia plus
extreme-voila l'~h!ment formel. A. Gemelli emphasizes poverty
and love (The Francacan Me.,ag~ to the World, London, 1936,
p. 23ft'.). On p. 39ft'. poverty-obedience-Iove are presented as
the main pillars of Franciscaniem. Valuable observations may be
found also in: NigS', Das Geheimnia der Monche, p. 249~286, esp.
p. 2&4ff. See also: W. Esser, M".teJ;um paupertatia. Die
Annuuaula.m"'11 de. hlg. Franzi.kua 1107l Asaiai, in: Wi..en-
ch~ft und W ... hoit 14 (1961) p. 177-1S9. The eschatological
meaninl' of poverty is treated on p. 187~189.
 Notes 185
50. Esp. the Regula non bullata; Analekten zur Geschichte des Fran-
NeIlS von Assisi, ed. Bohmer. p. 1: Bee est vita evangelii Jesu
Christi . . . j esp. Nr. 14, p. 13i: Quando fratres vadunt per
mundum, nihil portent in via "neque sacculum neque peram
neque pecuniam neque virgam" (Lk. 9, 3). Et (Lk. 10, 4) uin
quameumque domum intraverint primum dicant: Pax huic domui
.•• "Non resistant malo (Mt. 6, 39), sed si quis eos in maxillam
percu8serit, prebeant ei et alteram; qui aufert eis vestimentum,
eUam tunicam non prohibeant. Omni petenti se tribuant; et qui
aufert, que sua sunt, non repetant (Lk. 6, 29-30). Ofr. nr. 22,
p. 22 and espeeiaUy the Testamentum, .p. cit., p. 36-40. The
well-known citation in Nr. 12, p. 39: Et omnibus fratribus meis
clerida et laycis precipio firmiter per obedientiam, ut non mittant
glosas in regula neque in istis verbis dicendo: "Ita volunt in~
telligi." Sed sicut dedit michf Dominus simpliciter ••. scribere
• . ., ita • • . sine glossa intelligatis. Cfr. I Celano (ed.
Alencon) c 9, 22 p. 26; c 13, 32, p. aSj Speculum perfectionis, ed.
Sabatier c I, 8, p. 2; C I (II) c 3, 10, p. 11. Hardick-Esser
gives reliable information concerning the various rules of Francis
(op. cit., p. 2~8) and emphasizes the unrealistic nature of these
rules (p. 4 and 6). Here we read of the "Wirklichkeitsfremdheit
dieses in der Liebe verlorenen Berzens" (p. 6). Actually, the
rule of Francis raises the same problem as the Sermon on the
Mount and cannot be realized in an institutional form.
61. Specu!um per/ectionia, ed. Sabatier c 26, 2 p. 72: • • . unum
novum et humilem populum . . • j c 26, 13, p. 76: unum novum
et parvum populum. The fact that the early Franciscan com~
munity was conscious of being the People of God is clear in I
Celano c 11, 27, p. 29; II Celano c 117, 158, p. 288f.
62. Yom Geheimnia der M onehe, p. 273.
63. Benz, EcelesUr. 8piritualis, p. llf.
64. Testamentum, nr. 12 ed. Bohmer, p. 39.
66. See note 50 above.
66. Super Hieremiam, Venice, 1616, esp. c 4 f 12v~f 13r; c 8 f 18v;
c 12 f 23v. Cfr. Benz, Eeeleaia spirit:ualiB, p. 182f; Dempf,
Sacrum imperium, p. 334.
67. Cone. V 38 f 76v, cited by Grundmann, Joachim II, p. 108. On
page 96f, Grundmann indicates other significant texts. I have
already called attention to the text of Cone. V 16 f 67v in another
context.
68. Cited by Grundmann, Joachim II note 2, p. 109f and by Tondelli,
op. cit., I, p. 164. The following citations are related to this text.
69. Also in Ps.-Joachim, to be sure, there are indications of the
opposite tendency, namely, to attribute a definitive character to
only one Order. In Super Hieremiam c 13 f 25v we read: Tandem
vero rediens Esau, ordo alter, dolebit de primogenitis clericorum
sublatis, de benedictione praedicationis et eruditionis eorum et
invidebit alteri, nesciens, quia (quod?) primi erunt novissimi et
186 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
novissimi primi. The real difference would seem to lie in the fact
that Joachim proceeds from the triple-schema Zachary, John the
Baptist, homo Christu! JesWI (e,g. Cone. IV 36 f 67r; V 66 f
98r) i from this basis he can ascribe a truly definitive character
to only one Order. Ps.-Joachim, on the other hand, begin!' with
& two-fold schema from which, eventually, one member is dropped.
The relation between Joachim and P8.-Joachim is in need of more
precise study.
60. Cfr. Bonaventure, He% XXII, 21.22, p. 440f. Here the relation
between the ardo cherubicus and the eschatologieal ordo .enz,...
phieua is treated in a very similar way.
61. Esp. XXII 22, p. 440f (Delonne V IV C III #3, 20.23, p. 256),
and all the other eitations that treat DC the ordu /ut'UTWI (p. 37ft'.
above.)
62. XII 29, p. 40Sb; XX 29, p. 430b. Cfr. Ch. 2.
68. III 23, p. 347a; XIV 28, p. 397b; XV 26, p. 402b; XVIII 24, p.
418a; XXIII SO, p. 449b; in II 28, p. 341a this is joined with
idea. from the mysticism of Pseudo-Dionysiu8. elr. the evalua-
tion ot St. Paul in III Sent. d 26 a I q 1 c 1 p. 684b.
64. III 23, p. 347a; XIII 14, p. 390a; see abo XV 3, p. 399a in re-
lation to III 28, p. 347a; also I Sent. d 27 p 2 a un c p. 490b.
66. III 23, p. 847a; XV 26, p. 402b; XXIII 29, p. 449a; dr. ApoL
PIlU!> 12, 2 Vol. VIII B16b.
66. Serma de traDalatione S. Francisci Vol. IX, p. 684b; for the
evaluation of the figure of Moses, He:c I 10, p. 381a; S. Christus
unus omn mal' 19, Vol. V, p. 572b.
67. III 23, p. 347a.
68. Rm. 11, 1 and Phil. 3, 6. Here Paul emphasize. hia oncin from
the tribe of Benjamin. In I Cor. 16, 8 he can. hlmaelf tho 1aat
of the Apostles. From among the Fathers, Augustine refers to
this tact In Sermo 279 (a 14 de sanetia) 1, 1 PL 38, 1276.
69. There seems to be no doubt that the tact that there were twelve
Apoatlea and seventy-two diaciples (LIe. 10, 1 i dr. Ex. 1, 6) in
the NT i. related to the eorreaponding OT number&. Cfr. F. 14.
Braun, N~e. Licht auf die Kirche, p. 71f for farther literature.
The further development of these parallels was a &elf-evident
atep for later theology.
70. XV 26, p. 402b, XXIII 30, p. 449b (almost literal corr..pondence
in the text of Delonue V IV C IV #2, 30, p. 273.)
71. I Cor. 2, 6-10. Bonaventure cites this freely in Be,; II 28, p. 3401.
72. 2 Cor. 12, dr. H.z II 30, p. 341; XXIII 12, p. 447a; Traet de
plant par 3 Vol. V, p. 676b; dr. II Sent. d 28 a 2 q 8 c, p. 644b;
further material in: K. Rahner, Der Begri6 thr ecatrJria bei
Bonllv.ntuTIl, ZAM IX (1934) p. 1·19 and the literature indicated
there, esp. the works of Longpre, Grunewald, RolentnOlIer.
73. Cfr. the texts in note 62.
74. H.z XVI, 22, p. 406b; XVIII 7, p. 416b; III 31, p. 348b; esp.
D. perf ev q 2 a 2 ad 20, p. 148a. See also, Joachim, ConcordiG
 Noles 187
IV 39 f 69 v: N..,es... quippe est, ut au""edat aimilitudo vera
apostolieae vitae ••. Cfr. also IV 40 f 80r; and Grundmann.
Joachim I. p. 104 f.
'76. Thill is clear in the comparison of XIV 28, p. 397b with XX 29,
p. 430b. In XIV 28. we read: . . . In Paulo. in quo con81lJllJll&Jltur
actus apoatolorum . . . nee mirum, quia ipse fuit Benjamin, et
'lupus rapax', (Gen. 49,27), ultimu. apoatolorum, per quem signi-
ftcatur ordo futuroB. XX 29: Et I.te ordo Intelliptur per Joann.....
See also XIII 14. p. 39Gb: . . . •t dixit hic: i.te (=Johann..)
est iatins ordinis Bpecialiter. On tho other hand we find In Pa.-
J oa.him. Super Hi.......i .... • 8 f 18v: . . . apparentlbna duobua
alii. (ee ordinibna) in ftne oeeundi et Initlum tertii. qnemaelmo-
dum Christua apparuit in fine primi et in initio secundi, designa-
tur in bove et lUIino . . . in Moyse et JOIue, in Paulo et JoaDDe
evangeliata. But also in Pl.- Joachim the relation of Peter-Jobn,
which is found in Joachim, ia more common. efr. the praefatio
(not numbered in the folio); c 4 f 12 v. In c 12 f 18 r John is
presented as Benjamin; Joanne8 alter ordu minor, qui .b ipsil
Angelis minorabatur paulo, quia noviuimua . . . late est frater
Benjamin minimus. f 13 v Bwitches to Paul: Paulus quoque mini-
mus apostolorum Be fatetur et tamen plus omnibus laboravit. It
would seem that there is no fully consistent understanding.
78. XX 29. p. 480b: Et iste ordo intelllptur per Joannem. cui elictum
eat: &taic eum volo manere, donee veniam" (In. 21,22). Ofr. Joa-
chim. Libtn' fillurarum. eeL Tondelll (n Jibra delle 8gure II) tav
XIX; Grundmann, Joachim II, p. 103ft'.
77. Hieronymus. Adv. Jovinianum I 28 PL 28. 248A.
78. XIV 28. p. 897b.
79. XX 29. p. 480h.
80. XXII 28. p. 44la.
81. XXII 22. p. 440b.
82. Vol. V. p. 453b (nr. 4). Similar In Glloon. B ......_ ..r•• p. 18:
". . . And if he (=Bonaventure) grants that a new apiritual
order muat come into being, he haa in mind Dot • re1iaioUl order
as an organized body, but an ideal order of perfect lOuIe, to what.-
ever relitrious order they may happen to belong."' This mistake is
eimilar to the error which I have pointed out eIaewhere in the
interpretation of the Ci1riI4.-D.i. It i. correctl7 rec:ocnized that
the "empirical" interpretation is not correct. U ODe overlooks the
category of the pneumatic, which is actually the point here, then
one reaches immediately to the cateeory of the idealietie. efr. J.
Ratzinger, Herkun/t und Sinn d.r Civital-L.hre Auquatm., in:
A"/IlUlinuo Mallial .... II. Pari•• 19&4. p. 96&-979.
83. XXII 23, p. 441a: late orda non ftorebit, nisi Christus appareat et
patiatur in corpore 8UO myatico. Here the text dearly speaka of a
··ftorere" relative to this ordo, indic.atlng an historical time which
is yet to come. This would seem to be implied in the designation
of this order &8 the ordo ultimua as well as in a whole aeries of
188 Theol08Y 0' Hislory in SI. Bonavenlure
texts which will be treated. Furthermore, the context seems to in-
dicate the probability that Bonaventure saw this appearance,
which is demanded (or historico-theological reasons, to have taken
place already in the appearance of the Crucified Christ to Francis.
Furthermore, XX 16, p. 428a and XV 28, p. 402b indicate that
Bonaventure considered it possible that history had already moved.
into the final tribulation, or was very near to it. XVI 29, p. 408b
is dubioUR.
84. Cfr. #1, n. 3 above concerning the attitude of Bonaventure relative
to J abn of Parma. Angelo of Clareno Bees here the quarta. PW8'-
cutio of the Order. He writes about Bonaventure: "Tunc enim
sapiencia et sanctitu fratris Bonaventure eclipsata paluit et ob-
scurats est, et eius mansuetudo ab agitante spiritu in furorem et
iram converBa defecit in tantum, ut diceret: 'Si ordinis non respia
cerem honorem, aicut hereticum eum facerem manifeste puniri.' fI
(Ed. Ehrle, in: ALKG II, p. 286.)
86. Dempf points out in Sacrum imperium, p. 241, that an interpre-
tation of-the hierarchical schema very similar to that of Bonaven-
tUre is found already in Honorius of Autun, L XII quaestionum
• 8 PL 172, 1182.
86. We would be tempted to say the "hierarchical aspect" if it were
not for the fact that Bonaventure uses a wider meaning of uhier-
archy" whereby he refers to the entirety as "hierarchical."
87. Cfr. the text in the central column of the sehema, nr. 16, p. 440a.
88. For more material on this, see: Benz, Ecd,.» lJpiritualu. Benz
structures his entire book from this perspective and eonaequenUy
overaemphaaizea it.
89. XXII 16, p. 4400; Delorme V 1V Coli 111 #3, 16-17, p. 266.
90. The statement concerning the primi and the nomlJlimi (Mt. 19,80)
is not found here expressly, but it appears unmistakably from the
entire schema. The axiom of Hez III 13, p. 345b, is applied to
Christ: Hoc est maximum miraculum. ut quod Deus sit homo,
primus sit novissimus. Cfr. Ps.aJoachim, Super Hieremiam c 4
f13r:Joannes alter ordo minor ... Sic revera crunt primi novissimi
et noviseimi primi. c 18 f 26v: Tandem vero rediens Esau, ordo
alter • • • invidebit alteri nesciens, quia (quod) primi erunt
noviuimi et noviseimi primi.
91. XXII 22, p. 441a: quia autem ordo iste futut'U8 sit vel iam sit, non
est facile scire. Concerninlt the ordo che?"Ubieua, see nr. 21, p. 440b.
92. XXII 22 and 23, p. 440f.
93. Similarly, Gilson, Botttlventur~, p. 76ff. On p. 76: "In a text of
capital importance . . . he places himself and the other memben
of the Order on a plane other than that of 8t. Francis. p. 77ff:
"Thus St. Bonaventure's state of perfection is that of speculation,
St. Franeis' that of ecstasy." Without doubt. these pages are
among the beat in Gilson's book.
94. This development found its high point in the biography of Francis
written by Sabatier (Vie de .mint Fruncoil, Paris, 1898j 1902).
 Noles 189
The exaggerated views of Sabatier were redueed to proper pro-
portions already by W. Goetz, Die Quellrn ruT Gellchichte de. heili·
1IfJ'R Franz von A.sui, Gotha, 1904. S. Clasen, Franz 'Von A,mi
unci Joachim 'VOn Fiore, in: Wiuen.chaft und WeiaMit, 1939,
p. 88-83 writes against the unscientific rejuvenation of these views
by D. Mereschkowski (Franz 110n A,M. Tr. E. Kaerrick, Mun·
ich, 1938). Among current Catholic authors the actual difference
between Francis and Franc:iscanism, which Bonaventure openly
admitted, is often glossed over. Guardini makes Borne valuable re-
marks on the question in his epilogue to Ruttenauer's translation
of the Speculum perfectioni. (Munich, 1953, p. 246..269). An
""""lIent treatment of the problem i. found in O. Engelbert, Se.
FrtlftN of A",Ui, Chicago, 1966.
96. elr. n. ua. Gilson's treatment is not oriented to the 8trict historica.
theological question.
96. We need only think of the detailed E:r:poritio ftlpsr TOgW- If.
Minorum. Vol. VIII, p. 391 ..437, a "glollS" of alm08t disturbing
subtlety; or of the extensive Determina.tionea qU4estionum, Vol.
VIII, p. 337-374. Cfr. Gilson, Bonaventure, p. 48 .. 67, where we find
a number of detaUe of thie aort. Eepecially interestine ie the cue
described on p. 66.
97. Cfr. what will be said under 3.
98. XXII 21, p. 440b.
99. Text in Bohmer, Analekten, p. 71: • . . Placet mihi, quod sacram
theologiam fratribus legas, dummodo propter huiua studium
sanctae orationis et devotionia spiritum non eXtinguant, sicut in
regula continetur. Vale. As regards the authenticity of this text.
Bohmer remains undecided (p. XXX). GilBOR decid.. apinat the
authenticity of the letter (Bona.ven.ture, p. 464). Goetz seems to
favor it (op. cit., p. 65.) Hardick-E •••r, Schnlten d", heilig...
Franzuku.a, p. 14 takes a positive position: "For a long time this
little letter was a subject of controveny as regards its form. But
recent research has shown it to be a genuine work of St. Francis
as regards its content and its fonn." Hardick..Esser refers to K.
Esser, Der Briel de. heiligen Fra.nziltku. an den heiligen Antoni",
110" Padua, in: Franz. Studio .. 31 (1949) p. 186-161. I believe we
can follow this iudgment. Cfr. •1.. the detailed study of J.
Cambell given in the list of literature. Recently O. Bonmann has
taken a stand against its authenticity (efr. literature.)
100. XXII 21, p. 440b. See the beautiful text in the V.rba admon"
tioni. of St. Francis: "Et illi religiosi sunt mortui a littera: qui
spiritum divine littere nolunt aequi t sed 801a verba magis cupiunt
scire et alii.!! interpretari. Et illi sunt viviftcati a spiritu divine
Iittere, qui omnem litteram, quam sciunt . . . verbo et exemplo
reddunt • . . altiasimo Domino Deo • . . (Nr. 7, BOhmer,
Analekten 44.) Cfr. Regula non buliata, Nr. 17, op. cit., p. 16.
Sp~culum per/ectionia c III (IV) c 69, I, ed. Sabatier, p. 199.
II Celano p. 2, c: 32 6, ed. Alencon, p. 217.
190 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
101. Cfr. p. 41.
102. XVIII 7, p. 415b; XVI 22, p. 406b; XV 28, p. 402b. Likewil.
already in Joachim, Concordia IV c 39 f S9v: Necesse quippe CIt,
ut Buc:cedat similitudo vera apostolicae vitae, in qua Don acquire-
batur po8Bessio terrenae hereditatis, sed vendehat potiua, lricut
aeriptum est. In Sacrum imperium, p. 263, Dempt says that the
prophecy of a poor church of monks is found already in Gel'hoh
von Reichenberg, and that here also it ia eonnected with a dis-
tinction between Petrine and Johannine Chriltianity.
108. Cfr...pecially tbe Q......tio" •• d. p.T'.ctio"••• B"II.1icB (q. 2)
and the Apologia pauperum. In both worka, Bonaventure empha-
sizes that Franciscan poverty is a poverty "tam in communi quam
in privata." Bonaventure never accepted the loose notion of pov-
erty of the Conventuals. Cfr. the clear caU to poverty in He%
XX 80, p. 480f; this will be treated later.
104. XV 28, p. 402b. Also, XVI 29, p. 408. See the ..bema given above,
p. 21.
105. XXII 27, p. 44tb.
106. XVI 29, p. 408b. See also, XX 29, p. 4S0b.
107. Above all the near-eschatology of XX 15, p. 428a and XV 28,
p. 402b. This would Beem to have been obsolete at the time of the
He2:aemeron.
108. Esp. XX SO, p. 480f, and XXIII 26 and 29, p. 448f.
109. XX 80, p. 480f. Concerning the anti-Aristotelian polemic see Ch. 4.
110. See the following chapter.

Notes to Chapter 2, #6
1. H." XV 24, p. 401b: ... tunc Impletum erit iIIud Iaaiae: Non
levabit gena contra gentem gladium, nec exercebuntur ultra ad
proeliumj quia hoe nandum adimpletum est, cum adhuc vieeat
uterque gladius; adhuc Bunt disceptationes et haereses . . . AIIO,
XV 25, p. 402&; XVI 18, p. 405a: In novo testamento similiter
aunt aeptem tempora: ... pacis poatremae (as seventh); XVI 30,
p. 408b: In septimo tempore .. imus quod haec facta sunt: reaedl-
ftc.tio templi, restauratio civitatis et pax data. Similiter in tem-
pore septima futuro ent reparatio diviai culm et reaedifteatio
e.ivitatia. . . et tunc pax erit.
2. EDglebert gives a lively picture of the turmoil and strife of the
time in St. Franci8, p. 41ft. The confusion of the period of FredA
erick II and the intettegnum added to the problem. Bonaven-
ture's He:tClemeron dates from the year in which the interregnum
was ended by the election of Rudolph of Hapsburg.
8. XV 24,p.401b and 25,p.402a. Here reference is made to 10.2,4
(Non levabit gena contra gentem «tadium, nee exercebuntur ultra
ad proelium); XVI 80,p.408b is based on Ez.40ft'.
4.. See. Cone 1 V c 86 96r: Beatua eat autem aut erit ordo ille.
quem dominus dUiget suPer omnes, utpote qui v1aione pacis
 Notes 191
fruiturus est et dominaturus a marl usque ad mare Similar
in c 18 f 69v.
6. elr. the Franciscan greeting, about which Francis says in his
Testament: Salutationem micbi Dominus revelavit t ut diceremus:
Dominus det Ubi pacem.. (Dr.6,ed. Bonmer, p.38). Bonaventure
emphasizes this basic charader of the Franciscan message in:
It proll Vo1.V,p.296a: • . • quam pacem evangelizavit et dedit
dominus noster Jesus Christu8j cuins praedicationis repetitor
fuit pater noster Franciscu!, in omni sua praedicatione pacem
in principia et in fine annuntians, in omni salutatione pacem
optans t in omni contemptatione ad ecstaticam pacem 8uspirans,
tanquam civis illius J erusalern, de qua dicit vir ille pacis, qui,
ileum his qui oderunt pacem, erat pacificus: Rugate quae ad
pacem sut Jerusalem" (Ps 119,7 and Ps 121,6). Sciehat enim,
quod thronus Salomonis non erat nisi in pace, cum scriptum sit:
"In pace factus est locus eius, et habitatio eius in Sion" (Ps.76,
3). Cfr. Jorgensen, St. F1'ancis 0/ Aeeui,p.61: "What he said
was very simple and without art, - it only concerned one thing,
namely, peace as the greatest good for man. • ."
6. He:& XXIII 4, p.446: Sex sunt tempora, quorum sextum tempus
habet tria tempora cum quiete. Et sicut Christus in sexto tempore
venit, ita oportet, quod in fine generetur Ecclesia contemplativa.
Ecclesia enim contemplativa et anima non differunt, nisi quod
anima totum habet in se, quod Ecclesia in multis. Quaelibet enim
anima contemplativa habet quandam perfectionem ut videat vi-
lsiones Dei. The Delorme text brings out more clearly Bonaventure's
division of history on the basis of the double-seven-schema when
it state. in V IV C IV, II # l,4,p.265: In quibuB etiam intellige
signari sex tempora; et sextum tempus habet septem tempora
cu~ quiete. Et sicut sex diebus factus est mundus et sexta aetate
venit Christus, ita post sex tempora Ecclesiae in fine generabitur
Ecclesia contemplativa • . • Cfr. Hex XX 27,p.430a: Unde non
habetur illuminatio, nisi quando Ecclesia consideratur secundum
sua tempora; Rachel adhuc concipiet et parturiet, et Benjamin
nascetur.

Notes to Chapter 2, #7
1. This thesis cannot be based on positive citations; it can be justi-
fied only negatively, i.e. on the basis of the lack of statements
that treat of urevelatio" as understood in our modern sense. The
thesis is confirmed from another perspective by the important
study of J. de Ghellinck, Pour I' hietoire du mot urevelare," in:
Reck.ec. reI. 6 (1916) p.149-157; and indirectly by B. Decker,
Die Entwicklunll der Lehre von der prophetiechen Offenbarunll
von Wilhelm von AIU.erre bi. zu Thoma. von Aquin, Breslau,
1940. Decker treats of the area within which the most important
authors of High Scholasticism apply the notion of ureve1are"
192 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
without finding it neC:~8sary to treat of the problem of lI one reve-
lation." Beyond this, I know of no study that attempts to estab-
lish this theme.
2. elr. B. Decker, op.tit., p.134-164, where manuscript material
is given.
3. Esp. the impressive treatment in Senna Chn.tua 'Unu.r omnium
magister, 2-6, Vol.V, p.668a-b, nr.2:Christus namque secundum
quod via est magister et principium cognitionis, quae est per
fidem. Haec enim cognitio duplici via habetur, videlicet per reve-
lationem et per auctoritatem . • . Cum igitur his duabus viis
contingat devenire ad cognitionem ftdelem, hoc: non patest esse
nisi per Christum datorem, qui est principium omnia revelation;s
secundum adventum sui in men tern, et firmamentum omnis
auetoritatis secundum adventum sui in camem. Nr. 3: Venit
autem in mentem ut lux revelativa omnium prophetalium vision-
urn . . • Nr.4: Venit etiam in carnem ut verbum approbativum
omnium prophetalium locutionum . . . Nr.6: Et ideo tota Scrip-
tura authentica et eius praedicatores aspectum hahent ad Christ-
urn venientem in camem tanquam ad fundamentum totiua fidei
christianae . • . . The most frequently used expression for the
objectively enduring element is indeed 'faith.' Clr. I Sent, d 2
a un q 4 c,p.57a (fides catholica doeet); ibid. d 6 a 1 q 1 c, p.1t2b
(fides Vera dicit) j ibid. d 19 P 2 a un q 2, p.358a (fides nostra
ponit); ibid. d 11 a un q 1 c,p.21tb (fidei verita! est) etc:. Many
such examples ean be given. or special significance for the re-
lation between the objective 'fides quae creditur' and the sub-
jective jfides qua creditur' is III Smt. d 26 a 1 q l,p.636ft.
4. Concerning inspiration elr. III Sent. d 26 a 1 q 2 ad 6, p.64Ib:
At times when the 'revelatio aperta' of prophetism was lacking it
did not follow that 'inspiratio' for the individual was lacking. A
more general formulation is found in III d 19 a 1 q S c, p.40Sa:
Apparuit autem lumen veritatis et interius per divinam inspira-
tionem et exterius per humanam instructionem. In relation to
this, .t he Brev p 4 c 1, Vol.V, p.242a and p 5 c a,p.259b distin-
guishes between the 'verbum inearnatum' and the 'verbum
inspiratum.' Regarding 'manifestatio' see I Stmt d 16 P I a un
q 3 c,p.268b and especially II Sent d 10 a 3 q I c,p.268f. In gen-
eral, the meaning of 'manirestatio' seems to be broader than
'revelatio.' Concerning 'apertio' see He~ XX 29,p.430b; XVI
29,p.408b; XX 16,p.428a.
6. This meaning is practically always involved. Without refering to
the special usages for the moment, this meanine appears. in He~
III 2;22;82 p. 348a; ~47a; 348b; XXI 20; 26; 38,p.434b;436b;
487b.
6. He: XIII 17, p.390b; XIV 14, p.396a; XIV 25, p.S97a; XIV 7 and
IO,p.394f. The same meaning appears in the texta civen by B.
Decker (op.cit.) from the still unedited questions De propheti.,
De raptu, De visione intellectuali et corporali, De divinatione.
 Notes 193
7. Since Hex XVI 29, p.408b, connects the three words: intelligentia
scripturae - revelatio - c1avis David - with the word uvel," they
seem to be practically synonymous for Bonaventure. 'Revelatio'
is Wlderstood in the same sense in XXII 27,p.441b. For the inter-
pretation of this text, see also XXII 21,p.440b and XV 28,p.402b;
as well as II 12 and 19, p.338b; XIX 10,p.421b.
8. II 30,p.341a-b; XVIII 24,p.418a. Cfr. also #12.

Notes to Chapter 2, #8
1. Hex II 6, p.337a: Sine sanctitate non est homo sapiens
Sanctitas immediata dispositio est ad sapientiam.
2. II 8,p.337b.
3. II 9 and 10, p.337f. Bonaventure bases himself expressly on
Aristotle. The Delorme text, Prine II Coli II #1,9 and 10, p.23f
is more explicit than that of Opera omnia.
4. II 19, p.339b.
6. This is intended merely to establish that this wisdom belongs
basically to ratio as such. The question raised by Gilson (up.
cit., p. 341ft'.). Van Steenberghen (Le mouvemcmt . . . 226ff.),
Rohert (Le probleme de la philo8ophie bonaventurienne, in:
Laval phiL ot the.I.VII, 1961,9 - 68) as to how far this wisdom
may be pursued by reason alone is not the object of this study.
6. II ll,p.338a.
7. II 19,p.339b.
8. II 12; 19,p.338b; 33gb.
9. II 21,p.340a.
to. V 22,p.367b; II 20,p.339f.
n. II 30,p.341b; cfr. the entire section Nr.28 - 34,p.340ff.
12. II 28,p.340f; II 60,p.341 a - b.

Notes to Chapter 2, #9
1. This is not changed by the fact that, according to Bonaventure,
the New Testament brings a new revelation of the meaning of
the Old Testament. Cfr. III Sent. d 13 a 2 q 3 ad 6, p. 290b; d 26
a 2 q 2 e,p.548b; d 26 a 2 q 3 e,p.660b; IV Sent d 8 p 2 a I q 2
ad 9 and 10,p.194b. Not only is the word 'revelatio' lacking here,
but furthermore the meaning is not that the text of the New
Testament is a deciphering of the text of the Old Testament,
but that the New Testament is a time of understanding, of 'reve-
lata cognitio', after the time of darkness. 'fherefore, here also
urevelation" is not a book, but the inner understanding.
2. H.", II 13-17,p.338f. A different and highly individual explan-
ation of the four senses of Scripture is found in Eucherius, LAber
IJpirituali. intelligentiae, Praef CSEL 31,p.3-G, esp.4f. This writer
connects them with the so-called Platonic scientific schema,
which actually appears for the first time in Xenocrates. The fol-
lowing schema emerges:
194 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
Pi YBie8 EtriCS Lot
B1 dY sot Spirit

Litter. senSUB
(moralis tropicU8)
'Pi~tU8
in superiore
I(hiatorla)
intellectu = analOgical
quartuslocus:
allegoria - the 'narratio gestorum' is understood as 'umbra
futurorum.'
efr. Grundmann, Joachim 1,28. Especially from p.2S.... 0 we find
important material on the general problem of Medieval exegeaia.
For the earlier history of the triple sehema of the sciences aee
Grabmann, Gesch. der echol. Methode II, p.30 and especially
Bauf. Dominicu.r Gundi••alinu., p.194.
3. H." II 1S,p.S3Sb; XIII H,p.389b: triplex intelligentla apiritualia:
allegoria quid credendum; anagogia quid exspectandum i tropo)o-
gia quid operandum . . • XX 15,p.428a; D. rod 6 Vo1.V,p.S21b:
. • . allegoria . . . • secundum quod credendum est. See also
the above references to Grundmann j also Lubae, uTJ/pologie" et
UAliegomme", in: Reck th ana med 14 (1947) p.180·226j M.D.
Chenu,Thiologie s1/mbolique et e:cillese .colastique au XlI et
XlII .tlcle, in:Melanlles Jo.eph de Ghellinck, Gembloux, 1961,
Vo1.II, p.609-626, esp. p.616 and 619. On p.619 we read: L' edifice
de la pensee chretienne se cOn!struit done Bur 1& bue des textes
&cripturaires, maia a' eU~ve et ae fabrique par la methode 811el'Or-
Ique.
4. H." XIX S,p.421b.
6. Delorme, Hex 'V III Col VII #1,14,p.217.
6. Hex XIX 9,p.42Ibj Dre" prol #4,p.206a. Cfr. Joachim, Cone V
9 f 66v: Haec de primo iDtellectu breviter dicta aasirnata sunt
quoquo modo in cortiee exteriore • . • It may be that the image
wu taken by loachim from an already common usage.
7. See #16 B II 2b. Also, Sermo 2 in dom III adv. Vol.IX,6Sa.
S. Hu XIX 9,p.421b; XVI 23,p.407a; alao XX 16,p.428a. For the
notion of the 'Judaeus' see III 4,p.344a.
9. H." II 19,p.339b and the other texts of the H.~ that make use
of 2 Cor.S,lS.
10. P. Dempsey, De principiis s:celleticU S. Bonaventurae, Rome,
1946,p.l0·11. Dempsey bases himself on the unedited qU4e.tiolle.
de prophetia and de visione intelleetuali et corpora.li. Unfortu-
nately, despite much effort, I was unable to find a copy of Demp-
sey's work. The references given here are taken from the de-
tailed review of Dempsey's book by Th. ab Orbizo, in Coil Frane
XV (1946) p.240f.
11. Cassiodore, Expo. in P•. , Prol,PL 10,12 B. This is taken over by
the Glossa ordinaria and by Peter Lombard (PL 191,68 B). On
 Notes 195
this point, see the German 'Thomasausgabe', Vo1.23: Special gifts
of grace and the two ways of human life, with commentary by
H. U. von Balthasar (1954), p. 6 (II-II q 171 a I opp 4 and ad 4)
and p.296f.
12. According to Decker, up. cit., Bonaventure is dependent on
Alexander of Hales, William of Auxerre, and Philip the Chancel-
lor; and very probably on Albert the Great or on a third source
from which they both work. (Cfr. p.135; 143f; 164.) He in turn
had influence on Thomas Aquinas (p. 161). Also the studies on
the ancient, patristic, Judaic, and Arabian sources for the Schol-
astic doctrine of revelation indicated on p.6 - 38 are important.
In his important development in Vol. 23 of the Deutsche Thom-
a.a1UJgabe, p.293f., Balthasar points out a very important schol-
astic source which was not available to Decker, namely, the
Quaeationes of the Manuscript of Douai 434 (Cfr. Glorieux, LeB
572 questionlJ de manulJcrit de Douai 434, in: Rech th anc med 10
(1938) p.128-152;225-267). Here we find several groups of ques-
tions on prophecy.
13. Rupert of Deutz, Comm in Apoc I c I PL 189,85lfj Kamiah,
ApokalypIJ6 und Ge8chicht6theologie, p.l05 - 114. Besides pro-
viding a brief statement of the most significant Scholastic mater-
ial on this point, the text has the further advantage of standing
in the precise direction of historical thought which was to be
characteristic of the later Bonaventure. See Ch.3,#13.
14. n. uen ad litt XII 6 - 34,PL34,468-480. Also S. Zarb, L. font.
agostiniane del trattato atUlla pro/eria di S. TomaIJo d' Aquino, in:
Anu.licum 15 (1938)p.169-200; Decker, op. cit., p.6-9; H.
Sasse, Sacra Scriptura. Bemerkungen zur In.piration.lehre
A ugwJtinlJ, in: Festschrift F. Dornseiff zum 65. Geburtstag, Leip-
zig, 1953, p. 262-273. Sasse insists strongly, indeed too strong-
ly, on the pagan-apologetic origin of Augustine's mystical
doctrine of inspiration.
15. Rupert, op. cit., 851 j Augustine, op. cit, c 28, 56,478.
16. Rupert, op. cit., 851 D - 852A. This idea seems not to have an
exact parallel in Augustine.
17. Clr. Decker, op. cit., p.134-164, and Dempsey, up. cit., for the
texts. The three 'visiones' are named expressly in Hez III 23,
p.347aj Brev p 5 c 6, VoI.V,p.260a.
18. H.z III 22 and 23, p.347a: (22) Tertia clavis est intelleetus verbi
inspirati, per quod omnia revelantur; non enim fit revelatio nisi
per verbum inspiratum: Daniel inteUexit sermonem. Intelligentia
enim opus est in visione. Nisi enim verbum sonet in aure cordis,
splendor Iuceat in oculo, vapor et emanatio omnipotentis sit in
ollado, suavitas in gustu, sempitemitas impleat animam j non
est homo aptus ad intelligendas visioDes. Sed "Danieli dedit Deus
intelligentiam omnium visionum et somniorumlt (Dan 1,17). Per
quid? Per verbum inspiratum. (23) Visio autem est triplex, ut
communiter diciter: corporafis, imaginaria, intellectualis. Duae
196 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonuvellture
primae nihil valent sine tertia. Unde parum valuit Balthasari
visio carpar.lis in visione manus .•. et Pharaoni visio in spicis et
hobus, sed Danieli et Joseph. Joseph respondet Joanni, Daniel
Paulo. Cfr. the entire Collatio III; II 34, p.342b (revelation to
Moses) i Serma IV Christu8 unus omnium magister 2 - 3, Vo1.V,
p.668f.
19. I Smt d 16 a un q 1 ad 2, p.271a (Saul; Co",,,, in Eccli Prooem
q 4 Vol.VI p.Sh (BHeam. Solomon); See also C. van den Borne,
Doctrina. Saneti Boncl1,enturae de inapiratione cst inerrctntia sac·
TlkI scripturae, in: Antonianum 1 (1926) p.312f. It is clear that
Bonaventure held this as an exceptional case i elr. I Sent d 16
a un q 1 ad 2, and especially ad 3, p.271a.
20. 11 Smt d 4 a 2 q 2 c, p.138a: . . . praedicere . . . quod non
voco revelere, sed certam interius illuminationem dare . . . ,
hoc voco revelationem. In ad 1 it is said that as far as the recipi ~
ent of revelation is concerned, revelation involves a usimplieiter
intelligere." Van den Borne, 01'. cit., p.312, speaks expressly of
the identity of inspiration and revelation in Bonaventure. The
visionary character of Bonaventure's notion of trevelatio' arises
from the essentially Platonic basis of his doctrine of being and
knowledge, for here the inner truth is grasped not in discursive
thought but in an illuminative vision. Cfr. B. A. LU1cla, DifJ
Erkmntftialehre Bon""efttura.. . . . p.124.
21. See the treatment below on page 69, especially n.32: and also
what was said above, page 62.
22. . . . ut aieut Christus fuit panniculis involutus, ita sapientia
Dei in scripturis figuris quibusdam humilibus involveretur. Bre"
prot #4, Vol.V,p.20Ga; van den Borne, 01'. cit., p.Sll. We find
the same idea in Luther, VorretU a.uf da.1J AUe TfJ.tament, 3
(cited by W. Vischer, Da. Chriatu.zfJUI1ftia de. Alten Te.tammlts,
Vo!.I, Zurich 1946,p.17):" . • . this is the Scripture which can·
founds the wise and clever, and which stands open to the small
and the simple. Here you find the swaddling cloth .. and the
crib wherein Christ lies, and to which the angel directs the shep-
herds. The swaddling clothes are poor and base. the treasure
that lies within is precious; it is Christ."
23. !iee # 10 II 1, p.72tf. Cfr. J. Rat,lnger, O/fenbarunfl-Sckri/t-
UberlifJferung, ein Tezt d,s hL Bonavcmtur4 und ,ein, BecUutung
lur die IItJlltJnwartig, Thflololli" in: Trierer Theologisch, Zeit-
«krilt 67 (1968) p.13-27.
24. D. don Sp coli IV 13ff., Vol.V, p.476: in nr. 13 he says that the
'scientia theologica', which thereafter is referred to as 'sacra
scriptura', is 'super fidem fundata.' Here, as elsewhere, he under-
stands the 'fides' to be that which is contained in the Symbolum:
sicut acientiae philosophicae super prima principia sua fundantur,
ita scientia scripturae fundatur super articuloa fidei, qui sunt
duodecim fundamenta civitatis. See III Sent d 26 a I q I, p.634ff.
It is from this viewpoint that we must understand the pair 'fides
 Noles 197
- scriptura' that occurs so frequently in Bonaventure, e.g. I
Sont d 13 dub 6 r,p.241a; I d 27 p I a un q 4 c,p.478a; II d 30
a I q I c,p.715b; III d 3 p l . I p I q I Epil,p.64a; IV d 44 p 2
a I q I c,p.921b.
24& This we find consistently and expressly in the Prologue to the
BrBV. For the previouB history see lH!low #12, R.18, p. 90 and 206.
24b Prooem Vol. I, 4 band 5 b.
25. As the lowest level parallel to "revelation" to sinners We have the
'fides informis.' I Ssnt d 16 a un q 1 opp 4',p.270.
26. These stages of faith, which are also stages of mystical vision
and thus stages of revelation, form the structure of the H8%6
a6meron which recognizes a "visio inteJJigentiae per contempt_-
tionem suapenaae, per prophetiam ilIustratae, per raptum in
Deum absorptae" beyond the "visio intelligentiae per naturam
inditae, per fidem 8ubtevatae, per scripturam eruditae." III 24,
p.347a. See also the treatment in the following paragraphs.
27. Denifte, Da.. Evangelium aeternum und die Commisaion %"U Analli,
ALKG I 60: uGerard considers the three principle works of
Joachim to be the canonical works of the third age. He considers
them all together under the word u opus", and calls Joachim the
·scriptor buius operis' • . . Thus, Joachim would be the evange.
list of the third age." Concerning the viewpoint of Joachim him-
self, we read on p.66f.: lilt is clear that Joachim did not consider
the Evangelium aeternum to be a written gospel . . . The tea-
cher would be not a book nor a writing, but the Holy Spirit
Himself. In relation to this point, Joachim applied the Victorine
doctrine of contemplation to his own theory of the third age,
which was unknown to the Victorines." Denifte, ibid., points
out that Joachim designates the notJu.a ordo as ecc1esia contem-
plativa, ecclesia contemplantium, ordo contemplantium, viri
apiritualea. All these notions are found in Bonaventure, at times
literally and at times by way of allwoion.
28. XVI 2 p.403b. It is exp ..... ed in briefer form in Delorme V III
C IV 2 p.180: • • . post Novum autem Testamentum non suc-
cedet aliud, quia aeternum est.
29. He:c X 3 and 4 p.377, and the entire Coll X in general.
ao. Ho", XXII 21 and 22 p.440f; Nr.27 p.441b; XXI 20 and 26 p.434b
and 435b; Nr. 23 and 33 p.435 a and 436b.
31. H. U. von Bauthasar &lve!! numerous references in the DautachfJ
Thomtuau'llaba, Vo1.23 p.280. Here we single out only Abaelard,
E:cp. in Pauli ad Rom lib IV PL 178, 989, where the gratia inter·
pretandi is used as a definition of prophecy.
32. Cfr. the texts indicated in foot;.note 80 above whieh clearly ex-
press this conviction. See also, XV 28 p.402b.
38. The reader is referred to the competent presentations of the his-
tory of philosophy. The rapid up.urge of theology i. presented
well by O. Englebert, St. Francia 0/ AI.m, p.271ff. On p.276 we
read: 'I And Dominic succeeded 80 well in his purpose that half
198 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
a century after his death his Order possessed around seven hun-
dred doctors of theology; whereas in 1220 one could not have
found more than a hundred in all Christendom."
84. XX 16 p.428a: Et Ideo figurae nondum explanatoe aunt; aed quan-
do luna erit plena, tunc erit apertio Scriptararum, et liber
aperietur, et aeptem sigilla 8OlveDtur, quae aclhuc non Bunt _pert&.
-Credite mihi, tunc: videbimua quasi per plenilunium, quando leo
noster de mbu Juda surget et aperiet Ubrum, quando consum-
mabuntur passiones Christi . . . The time of the full moon ill
not the time after the Parouaia, for that will be the time of the
aUD and not of the moon. Rather, the period indicated here is the
inner-historical time of the eccleria cont,mplativCl, as is clear
from the text of Coli XX. See also XX 27-29 p.430a-b; xxn 22
and 23 p.440ff; XXIII 2 - 4 p.446 a - b; In a certain ..n .. the
text of XV 28 p.402b belongs here alao. (Cfr. #6, the eneL)
86. Of all the texts indicated already, Ho~ XXII 22 and 23 p.440ff
gives the clearest expression of the orientation of the tinal reve-
lation which lies in the direction of the Dionysian. l4,mntia. md-
lifo",,;'. This muat be compared with XXI SS p.486b, and above
all with II 30 - 31 p.341a-b, which i. the primary text on the
8<>piontia. "ulliformis. Alao, XXIII 30 p.449b. Already In the D.
rod 6 Vol.V 321b, Dionyalua i. preaented a. the Father of the
final age. Here Bonaventure attempts to give a theological mean-
ing to the hiatory of theology: Circa primum (=8en8um allell"'ri-
eurn scripturae) tnludare debet atudium doetorum, eirca secun-
dum, (=aenlum moralem) atudium prae1atorum, eirca tertium
(=aensum anagogic:um) stadium contemplativorum. Primum
maxime docet Auguatinu8, secundum maxime dacet GregoriU8,
tertium vero dacet Dionysiua. The aituation indicated at the con-
clusion of #8 works itself out naturally here. According to Hez
II SO, Bonaventure held a double "revelation" at the beginning
of Christian history: a general one, and one granted only to the
_focti. The tenalon between the.e wilJ be re!Olved at the end
of time in that then there will be only the perfocli. We find the
..me approae.h to the concept of revelation already in PaeudG-
Dionyaius: Epiat IX ad Tit #1 PG 8,1106 D; in the tranalation
of Eriugena (PL 122 1189 C-D) we read: Sed itaque et hoc
inteUigere oportet, duplicem esse theologorum tradttionem: unam
quidem are&nam et mysticam, alteram vera manifest&m et notiura
em: et earn quidem aymbolicam et perfectivam, hane vera
philoBophicam et approbativam, et complectitur elfabili ineffabile.
In the extract of Thoma. Gallu. (Dio"lI,;ap' I p.716a) the text
reads as follows: . . . ad excuaationem sensibilium signorum
attendendum eat quod duplex traditio eat theologorum de dlvinia
in sacra sc:riptura . . . una . . . secreta et claus•. Alia autan
evidens et notiar eat . . . The translation of John SarracenU8:
Dionlltiac,. p.687 b,c. U we wiah to understand both of these
texta proper1y, we must keep in mind that Dionyaiua does not
 Notes 199
use the word utheologi" in the modem sense. Rather, for him it
signifies the sacred writers themselves; and in accordance with
this, he understands traditio differently. Cfr. J. de Ghellinck,
Le mOUV61?1ent thiolol1ique du XII Siecle, 1948 2, poUl-DS; R.
Roques, L' univerIJ dio7l.1Isien, Paris, 1964, p.20D·284; R. Roque5,
Note Bur la notion de uTheolol1ia." .elon Ie Paeudo-DtmlllJ, in:
Melanll" Marc.l Viller (RAM 25, 1949) p.200-212.
36. Francis 8S the type of the final state of revelation. HetA: XXII
22-23 p.440f. (It is briefer but no less olear in Delorme V IV C
III #3,20-23 p.256) ;cfr. also XIX 14 p.422b in comparison with
XVII 28 p.414b; XXIII 14 p.447b in comparison with XXII 23
p.441a and Lell rnai Prol, Vol. VIII 504b (see the explanation of
this text given above p. 32f.). Mt.ll,25 is used expressly in rela-
tion to the concept of revelation in II 12 p.338b. For Bonaven-
ture's attempt to apply the text to Francis, see the following
foot-note.
37. Lell mat c 11,14 Vol.V1I1 538b; Lell Miracu/a #X 8 p.564; S. I
de a.p.". Franci..o I. Vol. IX 573b; S. V, I Vol. IX 593a. The
same text is applied not directly to Francis, hut clearly to Fran·
ciscanism in Apol paup c 9, 26 Vol. VIII 302£. Note also the
peculiar double-.concept of humilitatJ which Bonaventure develops
in De perf twang q 1 c Vol.V 1228. In this context, there is a
duplex esse - esse naturM and esa" moris et IlrBtiru; correspond·
ing to this, there is a duplex nihilitas - nihilitCUJ veritatia and
nihilitcu severitatil, and thus a duplex actus humilitatis.- humil-
itas interior and h'umiliatio e:r:terior. A higher form of humility
is here added to that ontologically grounded humilitaa vsTitGti.
which is proper to human existence as an existence mixed with
nothingness. This new form is determined by saving history and
is made possible only through Christj it is the humilitatJ aeveri·
tatia. The historical determination of this type of humility is
clearly stated in ad 1 p.123a: Hic autem actus humilitatis funda-
tur in fide Jeus Christi, qui est actus super rationem et excedit
tenninos naturae. Similarly in ad 3 p.123a, ad 6 p.l23b, ad 8
p. 124a. The peculia.r relationship of the Franciscan Order to hu-
militas becomes clear when we see how Bonaventure understands
the fadual realization of this humilitas aeveritatia to take place
in the act of humiliatio exterior; this in turn is seen as the pro-
per possession of the Mendicant Orders and is to be defended as
such; and particularly is this true of the Franciscan Order which
is called to follow Francis.
38. Hex II 12 p.338b; also in the texts indicated in note 37. Similar-
ly already in the Comm in aap c 6 to 5,24 Contra Vol.VI 150b:
Item, abscondenda !luperbis sapientibus, sed revelanda parvulis
humilibus . . .
39. See particularly the texts in note 37 that relate to St. Francis.
40. Cfr. note 35.
200 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
41. Besides the texts indicated in note 36, we must also keep in mind
the texts which are yet to be analyzed in #16 in which Bonaven-
tUre predict. the end of Scholasticism: XIX 14 p.422b; XVII 28
p.414b.
42. C. van den Borne, Doctrina S. BOn4t1entuT4e de impiratione,
p.315,326. H.U. von Balthasar, Deuuch, Thom.a44U11I1GbfJ Vol.23,
p.276ff.
43. Balthasar, 01'. cit., p.310-320 together with the literature indi-
cated there.
44. Balthasar, up. cit., p.317 provides important material for the
proper understanding of the multiple aspects of the concept in-
volved here which is inadequately covered wltb the notion
of uangel."
46. E. Gilson, La philo.aphis au mOJlen age dell origin,. pa.tmtique.
d. 14 fin du XIV riiele, Paris, 1947, p.382:Nous retrouverons
plusieufs fois ad XIII siecle, cette subordination de la noetique
d'Avieenna i eelle de saint Augustin, que I'on a design4 par la
formule, plus respectueuse de la complexite du :fait, ud'augustin~
isme avicenniaant." One might get the impression that Gilson
found the expression ready~made. But Van Steenbergben (Le
,""uvlm""t . • • 295 Note 1 to p.294) points out: Or M. Gilson
a eree lui-meme 18 formule "augustinisme aviceRniaanL" AIBo,
ibid., 202. Van Steenberghen would like to see this eoncept ap-
plied to the theory of William of Auvergne, who had held God
Himself to be the intellect.ult alltmlJ for man. But in a wider sense,
we would without doubt have to eonsider all those theories which
arise from the same problem and which attempt to form a syn-
thesis between the epistemology of Augustine and that of
AvicennA.
4.6. O. Keicher, Zur Lehre dttr iilteren Franz1lJka.nertMologen 110m
"intellectu. agm.," in: Ablaandill. au dent Gebiet thr Phil. und
ihrer G",hichte. Festgabe zurn 70. Geburtatag G. v. Bertling,
p.178. Conceming Rupella, dr. D.H. Salman, Jean de La Rochelle
dt Ie. dfibut, de I'CJ"eTToiame latin, in: Arch Hiat Doctr Litt MA
16 (1947/48) p.133-144. Salman'. treatment confirms the thesis
that there was already an incipient Averroism in Rupella'a treat-
ment of the soul. Concerning the so-called Su-mma. Ha.lmrie, elr.:
M.M. Curtin, The "Intellectua Allen." in the Summa 0/ Al.za.n-
der 01 Hal •• , in: Franciocan Studi•• 5 (1945) p.418-433. Alfredu.
Anglicua can be seen as a predecessor of Rupe1la in the theory
of mediate illumination j cfr. De 1notu cordia, ed. Cl. Baeumker,
Munster, 1923 (=Baeumker-Beitrage XXIII, 1-2). Prot. l,p.2f.:
in se enim considerata (anima) substantia est incorporea, intel-
leetiva, illuminationum quae a primo sunt, ultima relatione per-
ceptiva. This definition, which Baeumker sees as undoubtedly
Arabian, is found also in Rupella, Summa. d. o.nima, ed. Domen·
ichelli (Prato, 1882) p.l06. There are also indications of it in
the Summa Halff11.8ia 1/11 inq 4 tr 1 sect 2 q 3 tit 1 membr 2 c 2
 Noles 201
a 2 sol and ad 1.2. Vol. II,p.462b. In the case of Bonaventure, It
appears in the oppoaition• ., II Smt d 10 a 2 q 2 opp 2 p.266a.
Furthennore, Alfredu! bases himself justifiably on Pseudo-Diany-
sius, whose influence on this question will be treated immediately.
47. For the entire question of the inferior knowledge, Bonaventure
simply took over the Aristotelian theory of abstraction. efr. B.
A. Luyckx, Erkennt11.islehre Bonaventura8, esp. p.124 and 197.
For a good summary with indications of the most important cita-
tions, efr. Geyer, OPe cit., p.390-393.
48. Q. diap. de aci Chriati q 4 VoJ.V p.23a: Et ideo dicere, quod mens
nostra in cognoscendo non extendat se ultra inftuentiam lucia in-
creatae, est dicere, Augustinum deceptum fuisse, cum auctoritas
ipaiuB exponendo non sit facile ad istum sensum trahere; et hoc
valde absurdum est dicere de tanto patre et doctore maxime au-
thentico inter omnes expositores sacrae scripturae.
49. II Smt d 24 P I a 2 q 4 c p.668/70, where Bonaventure clearly
rejects the notion of God as the inteliectUIJ agen8 which could still
be found in the Summa Halenaia, and develops a theory of the
intellectus agent which is quite thoroughly Aristotelian; from
this point on, Aristotle remains for him the genuine authority in
this area. "Et jste modus dicendi verus est et super verba philo--
..phi fundatus"(p.669a). Cfr. also: III Sent d 89 a I q 2 p.904b:
IV Smt d 6 a 8 q 1 ad 3 p.l28b -129a. The fact that there is
no strict Aristotelianism present here does not do away with the
fact of the clear intention to follow Aristotle on this point which
is obvious in these citations.
60. Q. 4 d. sci Chri f 16 Vol. V p.18b-19a where Aristotle is pre-
sented as a witness for theory of Dlumination. The opporitione.
are not emphatically based on Aristotle; rather, in accordance
with the Scholastic method, they take their proofs from the same
authors as do the lundamenta: Augustine (4 times), Gregory (1
time), Dionysius (1 time), Aristotle (2 times). In the Corpus,
Bonaventure gives a rather sharp critique of the Thomistic theory
of knowledge, which would have already been worked out by this
time (efr. note 4@) ; he views it as a variant of the Dlumination-
theory and rejects both the Thomistic theory and radical August-
inianism(cfr. note 48 above).
51. Therefore, Gilson's observation must be somewhat limited when
he says: uIn 1250 there was nothing to foreshadow all the trou-
bles of the Averroist movement" (p.4). Actually the Averroism
of Siger was still a thing of the future. But, as we have seen.
there were already some related phenomena operative here.
62. Bonav. 11 Smt d 9 praenot p.240a: II Smt d 10 a 1 q 2 p.261ff
Hex XXI 16.20.21.30 p.434-436; Ps. Dionysius, De coel hier c
6 #2 PG 3,200-201: c 13 #2 col. 300. The theological problem in-
volved here is indicated, for example, by 0 .. Semmelroth, Die
Lehre de. P8. Dionll.iuB Areopagita -vom Au/dieg der Kreatur
""m /lottlichen Licht, in: Scholastik 29 (1964) p.24-62. On p.26
 202 Theology 01 Hislory in SI. Bonavenlure
we read: uDoes not Dionysiu8 attempt to reconcile two contra·
dietary things when he detennines the task of all ereatures in
such a way that they are called into beinl' for the purpose of
participating in the divine goodness, and yet each of the existing
beings is limited eorresponding to its proper analogy? How can
a creature rise to communion with God when it is determined In
lIucb a way u to remain always on ita proper analogical leven"
Cfr. ibid., p.2'1 for the IIOlution.
53. H.z XXI 16 p.434a; Po. Dionysiu8, n. e••1 hi.. c 4 #2 PG, 180
A-B.
&4. H.z XXI 21 p.435a and the texts of Dlonyslu8 indi.ated.
66. 1 do not desire to enter into the controversy concerning Dionysius
himself but merely to point out to what dangers his influence eave
rise independently of the problem of his own theology, As i8
well known, there is no unanimity concerning DionysiuB himself.
Strongly on the positive side is E. von I vanka, La .ignifica,tion
""t~ du "Corp," a.nopGgiticum", in: R .c reI 86 (1949)
p.6~24. Iyanka attempts to show that Pseudo--Dionysius did not
intend to neo--Platonize Christianity, but, on the contrary, was
engaged in polemics against neo-Platonism which was stilt felt
to be a danger. Indeed, it was an inner polemic in which the ex-
ternal fonn was taken over so that the danger could be overcome
preci8ely from within. He himself state8 that this i8 his intention
in the sixth letter when he says: qu'une representation eonval-
cante de la verite, san8 polemique explicite, eat une m.eilleure
mutation de I'erreur qu'une attaque direc:te (p.l9). The im-
mediacy of man to God is fully preserved, for the diminishing
degrees of the neo-Platonic participation become, for Dionyaius,
uune multiplicite des formes de la participation immediate au
divin" (p.l8). Nevertheless, Ivank. allows for the possibility
that the influence of Dionysius took quite a different course.
tToute tentative d'introduire de pareUa etrea intennediaires con-
tredit • . • i I'intention de Denys, et si una semblable tentative
8e fer~r a Denys, elle Ie fait absolument a tort.'" Semmelroth·.
evaluation is not so po8itive, op. cit., p.86. To me, the judgment
of R. Roques seems to be the most sober i it seems to come to
terms with the complexity of the 8ituation more adequately
(L'univerB diO'ltJlfteR, Paris, 1964, p.3a9). Le syncretisme et Ie
coDcordisme diony.ien decevront toujoun parce qu'ils ant retenu
trop d'eIements radicalement inassimilables au platoni.me, et trop
d'autres elements profondement etranger. au christianisme. Mais
1& confrontation pn~reuse pour IaqueUe Denys s'est passionne, la
fermete de ses positions essentieUes, dans la pleine et loyale con·
science des vrai. desaccords, doivent' imposer a notre intention
et a notre respect: "Qu'on dise: i1 osa trop, mais )'audace etait
belle."
68. In this aellle Bonaventure gives numerous citations, e.g.: II Sent
d 1 P 2 opp 1 p.45b; II Smt d 10 a 2 q 2 f 1 p.265a; II 8mt d
 Notes 203
23 a 2 q S ad 7 p.646b ("cum ipse sit immediatuB rationali crea-
turae") ; III Sent d 1 a 1 q 1 ad 4 p.ll . • . pro eo,quod natura
rationalis, eo ipso quod est imago Dei, nata ordinarl ad ipsum
immediate . . • ). The citations from Augustine that lie at the
basis of this are noted in Vol. II,1!.46 A 6; of particular signifi·
cance are: De vera relil1 c 66, 113 PL 34/172i En in p. 118 8
18,4 PL 37,1553; Ps-Auguatine (Aicher of Clairvaux), De .pir et
an c 10 f PL 40,785ff.
67. Cfr. the remarks of B.U. von Balthasar, Deutache Thoma,am-
gabe, vol.23,p.318f. Balthasar indicates that this notion can be
found already in Augustine (p.318), but he does not fail to point
out the dang1!r of this idea (p.318).
58. He", III 32 p.348b; De don Sp.S. VIII 15 Vo1.V 497a. For parallels
from other Scholastics, elr. Balthasar, op. cit., p.StS.

Notes to Chapter 2, #10

l. L de div qu 83, q.48 PL 40,31.
2. In my study Yolk und HaUl Goll.. . . . I have attempted to
clarify in detail how the early approach of Augustine, which 'Was
almost purely ontological, gave way more and more to historical
thinking. In this context, Do civ Dei XVII 3 CSEL 40,2,p.207ff.
is worthy of note. Here three levels of prophetic sayings of the
OT are set up: they are to be understood partly in a purely spir-
itual senae; partly in a purely earthly sense; but also partly
ttad utramque pertinere intelliguntur." Is there not already in
this third ~up of !ayings a remarkable penetration of history
and intelligibility'! Regarding the problem of categorizing the
historical, Alexander is important, S Theol, tr intr c 1 q 1 ad 1
and 2,21. These statements are taken up by Bonaventure in QD
de theololTi" q 1 ad 4,ed. Tavard, R thool "ne mod XVII (1950)
213. Concerning Augustine's position on the problem of histor-
ical understanding, aeej H.J. Marrou, Th., Meaning 0/ Hutof'J/
(Baltimore, 1966). For further treatment of the entire problem-
atic, see: J. de Ghellinek, Patriatique et argument de tradition
au bas mOJ/en uge, in: Grabmannfestsehri/t,p.403-426j Ghellinek,
Pour l'hiatoire de mot 'revelare', in: Rech se rel VI (1916) p.149-
167j P. de Vooght, Le. sources de lao doctrine ehretienrie d'Gpre.
lee thiologicms du XIV siicls • . . Pari., 1964.
8. He,; X 4 p.377fj a somewhat different accentuation is found in
XII 17 p.387b.
4. See the powerful Pradatio to the Concordia. The same thing is
expressed clearly and often in the text 8S well.
5. He", XIX 10 p.421b.
6. Methode II, p.210 with a reference to De .aa· pro) c 7 PL 176,186;
in the same place, Grabmann points out the opposite position
of Abaelard.
204 Theology of Hislory in 51. Bonavenlure
7. Grabmann, Methode II, p.346-349; alao, the texts bere which are
taken from the Prologue of the Book of Sentenees. Concerning
Robert, see: Landgraf, Ein!uhn.tnu, p.69ff; Geyer, p.276-278.
Geyer emphasizes more the relation between Robert and Hugo,
while Landgraf emphasizes the fact that they belong to the
school of Abaelard. For the text itself, efr: R.M. Martin, Oeu.'PTIIJ"
de Robert de Melun III,p.19,19-21,20. The text is worked into the
treatment of the value of the Glo.sa, which begins on p.9.
S. The text is given by Ghellinck, Le mquvemrnt theologique . . .
51Sf and by Ch. Turot, Compte. Tmdtu de, ssanee. de l'ru:adimie
dn Imtriptiona fit BelletJ.lAttre8, nouvall" .irie t VI,1870 p.249-
260. Concerning Almeric, see: Ghellinek, PatmtiqutJ st argument
. . . p.420. It is well known that., besid9 these fundamental
problems concerning the Canon, the concrete determination of the
canonical books remained unresolved during the whole of the MA.
The canon of Hugo of St. Victor, for example, (Dd _aCT prol c
7 PL 176,186) is more limited than that of Trent, while Bona-
venture's is more extensive (Brdv prol #1 Vol V 202b and nate
10 with the reference to the pseudo-Bonaventurian Centiloquium).
In both cases, a number-speculation plays a great role. For the
history of the Canon, efr.: B. Walde, LThK V 776ff; Bertholet
RGG I 976ff.
9. Cfr. the text of the BrdV given above and P. Dempsey, op. cit.,
though he does not seem to be free of apologetic tendencies (dr.
the review of Fr. r.. Frins in Franz Studien 32 [1960 1 p.427f).
10. H8% XIX 10 p.421b. Furthermore, it amounts to essentially the
same thin&, when Trent (D.786 and 786) and a series of later
ecclesiastical statements (esp. the Syllabus of Piua X, D.2001ff)
declare the exeeeais of the Fathers to be a normal principle of
Scriptural exegesis as such. Such statements can hardly be re-
lated meaningfully to the literal explanation, i.e. to the purely
hiatoriral exegesis. they are concerned rather with that 'alJelOria'
which has as ita object the 'quid credendum' (Bonav D, red 6).
In other words, it has to do with the dogmatic-ecclesial exegesis.
Only when they are thus understood do these statements have
a consistent meaning.
11. Cfr. the beginning of the Regula non bullata: Bee est vita evan-
gelii Jesu Christi (Bohmer, Analekten, p.l). Nr.22: Theneamus
vitam et doctrinam et sanctum eius Evangelium (op. cit.,p.22).
Testamentum Nr.4: . . . nemo ostendebat michi, quid deberem
facere, sed ipse Altissimus revelavit michi, quod deberem vivere
serundum formam sandi Evangelii (op. cit., p.!7). Also, I
Thomas of Celano c 9,22,ed. Alencon,p.26: Non enim t'uerat evan-
celii surdus auditor, sed laudabili memoriae, quae audierat cuncta
commendens, ad litteram diHgenter implere curabat. In a Se-
quence written by Thomas of Celano it is stated: Novus ordo,
nova vita/mundo surgit inaudita;/restauravit lex saneita/statum
evangelicum (Alencon. 0". cit., p.446). Also, Bonaventure, Apc:Jl
 Notes 205
paup c 3, 8-10 Vol. VIII 246f; c 8, 19.20,p.293a; c 10,4,p.306a.
Here Bonaventure acquiesces to the uad litteram" of the Spirit.-
uals • . . nudia pedibus incedunt . . ., ut illud evangelii verbum
ad litteram impleant . . . Cfr. Hardick-Esser, Die Schri/te7f.
de. heiligen Franziakus von A.aiai,p.4j Jorgensen, op. cit., p.78;
W. NittI Yom Geheintni. dar M3nche, p.264, as well as the litera-
ture on Francis in general. See abo #6, note 51 above.
12. Especially the text of the Testamentum just cited (4,Bohmer,
p.37).
13. D. p.rf .v q 2 a 1 c Vol. V 130b.
14. This view should be held in preference to the widely circulated
but false notion that already the pre-Scholastic period and the
period of early Scholastici8m were determined by the controversy
about universals. Cfr. Grabmann, Methode I, p.216; J. de Ghel-
linck, LfJ mouvement theoloqiqu8 • . . p.68-71; Geyer, up. cit.,
p.181ff.
16. De perl el1 q 2 a 2, adv obi postea faetas IV ,p.153a: Apol paul'
c 10,4 Vol. VIII, p.306a: Quod si verum cst, per omnem modum
apostoliea erravit ecelesia . . . i esp. c 11,15-17, p.StS!. Nr.
16 :Te igitur, sacrosaneta Romana Ecclesia, tamquam alteram
Esther elevatam in populis ut Ecc1e!iarum omnium matrem.
reginam atque magistram . . . fidueialiter interpellat tuorum
pauperum coetus, ut quos genuisti ut mater, educasti ut nutrix,
nunc etiam ut regina potenter ac juste defendaa • • . Nr. 17:
Sed et tu, Regina mundi dignissima, defensatrix pauperum et
humilium. advocata, lange subJimius quam Esther exaltata in
populia et praeparata in tempore, Mardochaei tui, Francisci
videlicet, exeitare c1amoribus . • .
16. D. porf ev q 2 a 2 adv obi postea factaa IV Vol.V, p.163a.
17. n. porf ev q 2 a 2 f 22 and 23 VoJ.V,p.188b. The sanctity of the
founders of the Orders was admitted even by those who opposed
the Mendicants. As Bierbaum points out, Nicholas of Lisieux
refers to Dominic and Francis as ugloriosi sancti" (01'. cit., p.366).
The position of William of St. Amour is not as clear; dr. hi8
Annotatione8 to Bonaventure, Quaestio rcportata de mendicitate,
(to ad 17 end),ed. Delorme, 01'. cit., p.339. In contrast, Gerard
of Abbeville has a thoroughly positive image of Francis; dr. his
Tract UContra adv perf Christ",ed. Clasen AFH 32 (1939)
p.89·200; I II p I, p.91,14ff; III P 4,p.132,34ff.
18. De perl ev q 2 a :.:! ad 20,p.147f; ibid., adv obi postea faetas I,
p.160a; ibid., V p.155b. Cfr. #14 below.
19. Cfr. # #5 and 14.
20. H.z II 17,p.339a. Also, XV ll,p.400a and XV 20,p.401a.
21. See the schemata from H .., XV and XVI given in #5.
22. Hez XIII 6 and 7,p.388b and 389a. Significantly in the parallel
text of the Delorme recension (V III Coli I #1,6 and 7,p.148)
the esehatological outlook is entirely absent; the New Testament
as such is seen 8S the fulfillment of this prophecy. The fact that
206 Theology 01 His/Dry in 5/. Bonaven/ure
we have genuine Bonaventurian thoucht in this case can be seen
by the parallel. in the text of the Opera. omnill (XVI 29,p.408b;
XX 29,p.480b) as well as by a text which has remained in the
Delorme recension: V III Coil IV 29,p.192: . . • in quo tempore
dabitur uni personae vel multitudini . . . 8cientia et revelatio
sive davis David et intelligenti. scripturae. - The text of HGZ
XIII 6 and 7 provides a vivid example of Bonaventure's often
sharp eschatological critique of timei dr. XII 11, p.4S9ai •• •
in ecclesia primitiva, quando ecclesia optime erat disposita; sed
modo porcus et canis intrant. V 9,p.S66bj V 19,p.367aj XXII
18,p.440b; D. don Sp S . III 9 Vol. V ,p.470b: Ubi est pietas hodie?
Non est mediwn, quia Deus abstulit extremaj tanta est hodie
crudelitae, quod homo non patest aatieri de vindicta, regnat bodie
impatienta et iracuDdia : male iudicat homo: etiarn Ii non otfendit
me homo, malt! tamen iudicabo de ipso. De don Sp S. VII 17,
p.492a-b; Serm. V in dom 11 po.t Pase"" 11 Vol IX,p.304b; S fer-
ia II post Pascha Vol.IX,p.281b: Et ideo ego valde invitus praedi-
co, quia u non est bonum 8umere panem filiorum et mittere cani-
bus" (Mt.16,16) ad manducandum, quia ea, quae rec:te dicuntur,
quidam prave et perver8e interpretantuf; p.287b : • . • in dom-
ibus scholarium varia fercula et vina sunt, ita ut non clerici,
sed emptores vinorum iudicentur (efr. J. d'Albi, op. cit., 23 Note
146), ete.

Notes to Chapter 2. #11

1. Cfr. II Celano c 124, 166 (ed. Aleneon 293): Per impres.. rebwo
vestigia insequitur ubique dilectum, facit sibi de omnibus sealam,
qua perveniatur ad Botium. Gilson, BonavmtuT"p.64; esp. 186-
214 where the formation of the Bonaventurian image of the
world is sketched from the general symbolism indicated here.
Regarding Francis' relation to the world of nature, dr. W. Nige,
Gro.., H,ililJe, p.91f.
2. Hez II 20,p.889f and V 22,p.867b.
8. II 20,p.S40a.
4. The parallel between the 'Judaeus' and the 'Philosophus' is clearly
emphasized in those ploces that work with the imagery of the
"!imum scientiae boni et mali." See #16 B II 2 b belowi Gilson,
Bonaventure, p.206.
6. Comm in JOIl 1,43 (to verse 18). Vol. VI 266b-266a: . . . est
cognoscere Deum in Be et in suo effectu. Et cognoscere Deum in
effectu, hoc est videre per speculum, et hoc dupliciter: aut per
speculum obscuratum et sic videbat primus homo ante Iapsum ;
aut per speculum obscuratum et sic videmus nos modo, quia prop-
ter peccatum et oculi nostri caligaverunt et omnes ereaturae
obtenebrat&e sunti unde videmus nunc. per speculum in aenig-
mate, primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio. Cfr. the schema of
the Hez eoll III 24 - 31,p.347f; also, Hez XIII 12,p.389f; S Chr
unU8 omn mag 2 - 6 Vot.v.p.668.
 Noles 2(11
6. Hu, V 24,p.368a; B.-v p 2 c 12,p.230b.
7. /tin c 2,16 Vol. V,P.299b. Also, E. Sauer, Die Telil1ioae Wertung
in BonBventura.s Itinerarium mmttia in D'tLm, Werl i.W. 1937.
Creation as a uladder" to God,e.g. also in: I Sent d 3 a un q 3
arg neg 2,p.74b; Itin c 4,2,p.S06a; c 7,lp.812b. Cfr. alao #1,
note 18 above for the citation from Thomas of Celano.
B. A few examples of this: R. Bultmann, Die Frage der 1I.4tUrlichen
O/lenbfM'Ung, in: Gl"ub... und Verstehen II Tiibingen, 1962,
p.79·104; O. Cullman, Christ and Time, p.177ff; A. Nygren, neT
R4merbrie/, Gottingen, 1961, p.76-8S. Cfr...pecially G. S3hngen's
discussion with K. Barth and E. Brunner (G. Sohngen, Die Ein·
hoit in dey Th«rologie,p.212-264); also, H.U. von Balthasar, Kcwl
B"rth,p.148-168, and esp. p.314 - 355. The danger which Pro-
testants fear is well expressed by Oepke in his somewhat over-
stated formulation: "According to the Greek concept, man reveals
God; but according to the biblical concept, God reveals Himself
to man. On the one side stand the proofs of God's existence and
the glory of man; on the other side stands the glory of God!"
(Th WIll 576,28ff; 576,19ff).

Notes to Chapter 2. #12

1. H u, II, 28-34,p.340-342.
2. Esp. II 30,p.341b: • . . non est cuiuslibet, nisi cui Deus revelat.
3. Crr. texts indicated in #9, note 32.
4. The gradual development of Arilltotle'll influence is depicted well
in Geyer, 01'. cit., p.342 - 351. efr. also the various writings of
F. Van Steenberghen, especially Aristote 611. Occident, Louvain,
1946.
5. CoDcerniDg the scattered effects of the systematic works of Eri-
ucena, see: Grabmann, Methode I,p.206f1': Geyer, op. at., p.176.
See the following notes concerning his translation of Dionysiu8.
6. Prol 0/ Hier cae', ed. Grabmann, in: Mittelalterliches Geistes-
l.ben,I,p.459.
7. Ibid.
8. John Sarracenus wriUJ thus in the letter with which he sent
his translation of the De divini. nominibut to Abbot Odo of St.
Denis. efr. Grabmann, op. cit., p.456.
9. In: Dioltll.iaca I,p.CIX; printed again in H.F. Dondaine, Le coy-
pu. DionJl.ien de l'univer.ite de Pflm au Xill .tecl. (Rome,
1953) p.S1, note 27.
10. Dondaine, op. cit., p.29 (the text of Gregory involved here is Hom
S4 in .v"nq PL 76,1254 B). We cannot agree with Grabmann
when he says that the translation of John Scotus Eriugen. had
a great inftuence on early Scholasticism as well as on the High
Scholasticism of the thirteenth century (Die mittelaltulichen.
iJber,etzungen der Schrilten dfJ' P,eudo .. Diont/.iu. ArfJopaqita,
Mittelalterl. Gcistesleben,I,p.464). Regarding High Scholasticism,
208 Theology 01 History in 51. Bonaventure
see note 11 and 12, to what has already been said concerning
early Scholasticism we must add that Grabmann himself indi·
cates (01'. cit., p.460) that the commentary on DionyaiuB by Hugo
of St. Vidor is the only one of the entire twelfth century. Fur-
thermore, Hugo did not use the translation of Eriurena, but a
new recension which possibly was his own work; efr. Dondaine,
op. cit., p.7~f.
11. P. Minges, Uber Vciterzitate bei den Seholaatikern, Munich, 1923,
p. 17, and Dondaine. (lp. cit., p. 108, note 99.
12. Minges, op. cit., p.17 i Dondaine, 114 note 121. Even before read-
ing Minges and Dondaine, I myself undertook a comparison of
texts which indicated that Bonaventure frequently cites the text
of Sarracenus literally or almost literally; e.g. De lei Chr q 'l
c Vol. V 40 a = Dionlllliaco. I 386i; ibid. q 3 opp a,p.lla = Dionfl ~
aiaca I 360 a-Cj He% III 32,p.342b = Dian. I 313i at times with
suggestions of Hilduin, e.g. De aci Chr q 4 opp 6,p.21b= Dion
606d - 607b (cfr. Dondaine 114 note 121).
Naturally there are also texts that use the version of Eriu-
gena. Reprding these, one must be careful &8 the following re-
marks will indicate: !tin c 7,6 Vol V 318a uses texts from the
translation of Eriugena, but the Quaracchi editors themselves
point out that they have improved the text of Bonaventure ac-
cording to the text of Eriugena; Hsz III 32,p.842 a-b makes use
of the same texts, and this time clearly according to the recen-
sion of Sarratenus. This should not be taken as a denial of the
fact that Bonaventure used Eriugena also; dr. the schematic
presentation of the Corpus Dionysiacum of the University of
Paris in: Dondaine, op. cit., p.'l2.
13. III S6nt d 1 a 2 q 2,p.24,note 8; He", XXII 24, p.441a.
14. Text In: Dionllsiaca I,p.673-717.
16. II Smt d 9,p.237-267. There would seem to be also sorne aware-
ness of the basic lines of the mysticism of Dionysius; but this
likewise does not exceed the limit.! of the School Theology and
reveals no more intimate knowledge of the works of the Areo~
pagite. Cfr. note 18.
16. See the schematic presentation of the structure of the Summa in
A. Walz, Thomaa 'Von Aquin, Lebtmagang und Lebenawerk dee
Furden der Scholaatik, Basel, 1963, p.86.
17. De perf ev.q 4 a 3, VoI.V,p.189-198.
18. For the Dionysian concept of theolorY see: J. de Ghellinck:, Le
mou'Vemen.t . . • p.91; R. Roques, Note eur la notion. de "Theolo-
gial' .. Ion Ie Pseudo-Denys, in: RAM 25 (1949) p.200-212. In
general, Pseudo-Dionyeius understands the term "theologia" to
refer to the Sacred Scriptures. The equation of theologia=sacra
scriptura is miMing in the Sentence Commenta71l of Bonaventure.
However, it does appear in the Quautionea diaputatae de theolo-
giG from the year 1266, which have been edited by Tavard; and
especially in the Breviloquium which comes from the same period.
 NOles 209
The Breviloquium usea the equation throughout the entire Pro-
lope (dr. the very beginning, Vol. V,p.201a: . . . aacrae scrip-
turae, quae theologia dicitur . . .), whereas the Quaestiones at.
tempt to strike a balance with the U!lual concept of theology as
found in the Sentllttlce CommentaTJI: Ad ultimam quaestionem,
utrum scilicet sit idem Bubjectum vel materia hUjU8 libri et Sac:-
rae Scripturae, poteat dici, quod sic, secundum Magiatrum, qui
dicens in principio libri (d 1 n 1) quod "tota continentia Novae
et Veteris Legis est de rebus et signis," in fine eiusdem c:apiti.a
dicit quod de eisdem vult dicere, ita tamen quod illa, prout habet
rationem credibilis, sunt subiectum Sacrae Scripturae, sed, prout
ulteriu8 habent, vel tranaeunt in rationem inteUigibilis, 8unt subi-
eetum huius libri. This concept of theology is still influential in
He~ I l,p.329a: • • . quibus debet loqui: qui. ecclesiae; non
enim dandum est sanctum canibus, nec margaritae spareendae
sunt ante porco•. We lind a clear parallel to thia theolorical dUci-
plina aTcani in a text of an anonymous Dionysian theologian
from the cilde of Alan of Lille, which haa been edited by Parent.
Cfr. Parent, Un nouveau timoin de l4 thlologi, dionll.ftenne au
Xli .iecl~, Grobma:nnfutachrift, p.298. A reading of Bonaven-
ture's sennon! indicates that his own position arises from a very
concrete background; e.g. in feria II post Pascha, Vol.IX,p.28lb;
Bee also J. d'Albi, 01'. cit., p.122, note 146 and 226-227.
19. Ps.-Bernard, Trmct.. de contemplando Deo c 8 Jl 17, cited in II
S~I d 23 a 2 q 8 ad 4, p.646b; also note 6 (the real author ia
William of St. Thierry, aee the text in PL 184,876).
20. III Sent d 27 a 1 q 8 c, p.697a: . . . cum ipsa voluntas sit su-
premum in anima. III S.nt d 17 a 1 q 1 opp 4 indicates the same
thing when compared with ad 4, p.364. Regarding the problem of
the Bonaventurian voluntarism, see: Gilson, Bonaventure, p.164.
21. II SimI d 28 a 2 q 3 c, p.644b.
22. Ibid., ad G,p.64Ga.
28. Comm in J04 c 1,43 r Vol.VI,p.266a. Cfr. K. Rahner. D.,. B.grill
der ecata.ais bei Bonal1entura, in: Zeitachrift f. Anese und MJ/atik
9 (1934) p.I-19; against Rahner, Grunewald, Zur My.tik de.
hlg. Bonaventura, op. cit., p.12.-l42; 219·232. Also the works of
Gillon, Longpre, Rosenmoller indieated in the literature in this
study.
24. H.", II 30, p.341b; dr. Nr.33 and 34, p.342b; other material in
Rahner and Grunewald, ibid.
26. /tin 7,4. Vol. V, 312b; H.", II 30, p 341b; dr. Delorme, Prine Coli
II 30,p.30.
26. M. Seheler, Moralia, LeipZig, 1923, p.140, cited by Schmaus, Die
p."cholog'ische Trinitiltslahre de, hlg. Augwtinue, p.876.
27. Against Scheler, see Schmaus, op. cit., Harnack, DG III 121
note 1 i favorable towards the voluntaristic interpretation of
Aupstine, Bee: Seeberg, DG II 433ft'. It is generally recognized
that the theses of Scheler lack textual foundation.
 210 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
28. Paraphrase of the thtologia mtlstica, c 1, DionJ/.iactl 1,7108.
29. Benz has shown well the connection between mystic:ism and sal-
vation history in the case of Olivi (Ecclesia .pirituali.,p.268).
The aame thing can be !laid in the case of BODaventure. When
nothing to the contrary is said, the textual basis for what is
developed here is to be found in the ..hema of H.~ XXII given
above, p. 47.
30. The pre-eminence of the Apostles is preserved by means of the
connection between the processus-Ichema and exereitia-schema;
the church of the final age is of identical rank with the primitive
church, and is seen as the definitive, pneumatic rec:urrence of
the latter.
31. This idea is jeopardized by the notion of the inteU..tual ""Ui-
/ormitcu of that hirhest form of mysticism which will dominate
in the ehurch to come. Without a doubt Bonaventure did not see
this contact with God to be an enduring state for the church
while stiIJ in history (XVI 80,p.408b); rather we must keep in
mind what has just been said (note 28 and text) about that love
which uefl'eetiva est ven.e cognitionis. u Res XXII 22 and 2S,
p.440f provides the justifieation for conceiving the form of live
in the seventh age in terms that would be paralJeI to the life of
Francia. Cfr. Leg mai c 11, 2 Vo1.VIII,p.536a concerning the
character of the theological thinking of Francis i al80, De aci
CAr q 7 ad 19.20.21 Vo\.V,p.48a: . . . qui quidem ""c"sus .st
ultimua modus cognoscendi et nobiIiuimus, quem in omnibus Ii-
bris sui§ lauelat Dionysiu8 . . . De quo etiam mystice eat tota
acriptura divina et de quo Apoc:alypsis secunda: Dabo ei calcu-
lum et in calculo nomen novum scriptum, quod nemo scit, nisi qui
accipit (Apoc. 2,17) . . • It is clear that all one has to do is add
the precise historical detennination in order to arrive at the fin-
ished doctrine of the H e::caemeron.
32. H.", XV 24,p.401b. Here the distinction between Bonaventure and
Joachim becomes clear. Joachim described this time as "Finia
novi testamenti": Liber jigurarum, ed. Tondelli, t IV,col 3. For
Bonaventure, the New Testament is in the process of coming to
ita true fullness; for Joachim it is in the process of passing away
in order to make place for a greater one.
3S. ltin, Prol 2 Vol.V,p.295a-b. From here onwards, the vision is fre-
quently mentioned; aside from the well known seetiona of the
iAgmdts and the He:tumeron, err. also: De HZ alia Ser c 1,4
Vol.VIII,133; Apol paul' c 3,10 Vol.VIII 247&; S. IV d • •• p.n.
Franc II Vol. IX,p.589b; S. V d. ..p.n. Franc I Vol.IX,p.598b.
34. It is not yet fully clear how Bonaventure arrived at such a lIyn-
thellil. Certainly both Joachim and Pseudo-Joachim contributed
lIignificantly (dr. PI•..Joaeh" Su.per Hieremiam c: 20 f 44v! uMa._
mdu," est ordo serapbicua in ecclesia oriundus; see also wha~ ie
said below in #13 concerning Honorius of Autun. followlnl'
Dempf, Sacrum imperium,p.241.) It is interestinl' to note that
 Noles 211
every indication of the extension of this idea to the historieal is
absent in the primary texts concerning the concept of the hier-
archy in the Sent""". CommentaTl/: II Sent d 9; IV Sent d 18 P
I B 8 q 2,p.480ff; IV Sent d 24 P 2 B 2 q 4,p.884lf.
36. II Sent d 9 B un q 6 c,p.250b; q 7 c,p.253f. In q 6 f 4,p,l!50a we
find the first indication of the later Franeisean concept of the
Seraph. As far as I can see, this is the only instance in the Stm-
tmce Commenta.rtI: • . . in via videmu8, quod aliqui 8ssimiIan-
tur Seraphim in usu gratiae, aliqui Cherubim et sic de aHis. In
the Hezaemeron, this notion of a lUDetional ordering uin via" is
expanded while the idea that the.e men will be distributed amon&"
the corresponding choirs of aDrels in heaven is no longer men-
tioned. But there is no reason to assume that this idea haa been
abandoned in the meantime; rather, it is presupposed as selt·
evident since it corresponds to a generally recognized tradition:
dr. the following note.
36. Lombardus, II Sent d 9 c 6 and 7,p.236f.
37. Eccle6iu. Bpiritualu. p.8S.
38. Sp.culum p.T/.ctionis C III (IV) c 60, ed. Sabatier, p.165-167;
De visione fratris Paziftc:i quam vidit et audivit sedem Luciferi
reaervari humili Franciac:o. Nr. 8, p.166 the basic text states:
UHaee aedes fuit Luciferi; et loco illiua sedebit in ea FranciseuB
humilie." Certainly Bonaventure is aware of the tradition. but
he tones it down to such an extent that the real point is lost and
he is able to take a position against rather than in favor of this
ide.: Log rna; c 6,6 Vol. VIII p.521a-b. Here we find a parallel to
the text just cited: HSedes ista uniWl de ruentibus fuit, nunc
humili servatur Francisco."
39. Hez XVI 30,p.408b; XV 24,p.401b; dr. #6 above.

Notes to Chapter 3, Introduction

1. P.229-398.
2. W. KamIah. Apokalt/p8' und GdBchichtstheologi,. Di, mitteldl·
terlich. Aml,gung d,r Apokalllp8' 1101" Joachim· \Ion Fiore. Ber·
lin, 1935.
3. Cologne, 1884, e.p. p.32-56. Alao, H. Meyer, G••ch. dOT ab ...dl.
W.lta,.,chauung Vol.I1I p. 140-153. Valuable material ia found
also in: Erich Seaberg, Gottfried Arnold, Die Wi8srflBchaft und
di, Mllatik nin,r Zeit, Meerane, 1923, esp. p.267-280 for a Btudy
of the notion of decadence. Also, J. Sporl, Grundlormm hoch.
miUeloltftTliche-r G'BchichtllanBchauung, Munich, 1935.

Notes to Chapter 3, #13

1. efr. references in my article, HftTkunft und Sinn der Citrit48-
Lehr, AugUltin8, in: Auguatinus Magi.ter II, p.986 note 3, espe-
cially the work of E. Peterson. Der Monothl!i.mu8 all politischdl
Problem, in: Thl!ol. Traktate, Munich, 1961. p.46-117; also, K.A.
Schondorf, Die G'8chicht8theologie des OroeiuI, Munich, 1961
212 Theology 0/ His/ory in St. Bonaven/ure
(Diss.). Concerning the notions of a 'TheoJogie der Welt~ta)­
tung', and 'Weltiiberwindung' together with a basic evaluation,
see: G. Sohngen, ZU1' Frape mne' uchri.tlichen Sozialumua", in:
Pnlit.i8<he Stud;en 5 (1964) p. 6·20, .. p. 161f.
2. efr. my above-mentioned article. Important material is to be
found also in: W. KamIah, Chri.tentum und Gelchichtlichkeit,
Stuttgart, 1951; I have discussed his view at length in the ar-
ticle indicated.
3. M', Werner, Die Ent.tehu'ttl1 de. chmtlichen DOlJmOA, Bern-
Tiibingen, 1941, p.82tf. Werner points out how this idea was rein-
terpreted and practically done away with already in the work of
Eusebiu!; but it was not until the Latin Middle Ages that these.
early beginnings became fully effective.
4. De cat rod c 22, 39 PL 40,338£; D. lien contr Mwn I 23, 35·24,42
PL 34,190ffj and the well-known texts of De ci'v. Dri.
5. For general orientation on Rupert, aee: LThK IX,15·16 (.A.
Manser); Grabmann, Methode II 100-104; J. Beumer, RU4>ert
VOn Deutz und seine uVermittlunl1atheolol1ie", MThZ IV (1963)
p.256-270. For material more pertinent to the present question,
see: Grundmann, Joachim It 91; Demp!, Sacrum. Imperium, p.23s..
238; P. Sojourn';, Rupert d. D.utz, in: DThC XIV (1939) p.169.
205, though Sejourn~ does not treat the theology of history
8S Buch.
6. I cannot agree fully with GrWldmann (Joachim I 91) when he
f01l0wa Hauck (Kirchenll ••chicht. Deutochlande IV 4361f) in
saying: Rupert did not possess any great Ideas, but he !louebt
them. Without a doubt Rupert's importance lies more in the seek-
ing than in the finding; it was a seeking of unique pawer and
genuine greatness.
7. For example, in Geyer's outstanding presentation of the history
of Medieval philosophy, Rupert of Deutz and Anselm of Havel-
berg are not treated while a figure of lesa significance soeh as
Otto of Freising receives a relatively detailed treatment on
p.24lf. Here again we ean see how a primarily philosophical
orientation can threaten to distort the perapeetive. Also in Land-
graf's Ein!ilhrunl1 Rupert of Deutz is not treated.
8. De ,aneta trin, prol PL 167, 197 -200.
9. PL 167,199.
10. Col. 200; P 3 I I c I Col. 157lf. Augustine, D. ci. Dei XX 6 and
7 CC 48,p.706-712. Further material in: Ratzinger, Yolk unci
Hatu Gottn, p.232, note 44. From Augustine onward, this doc-
trine beeame traditional. We find it, for example, in Bonaven-
ture, IV Sent d 43 a I q 4 ad l,p.887b.
11. De .aneta trin, prol col.197j p 1 I 3 c 36 eot.324ft'.
12. Prol col. 199·200.
13. Co1.200.
 Noles 213
14. P. 3 I 1 0 31 001.1603. The text of I 2 c 24 and 25 col 16301f. 0
24 contains the following caption: Quomodo eadem aapientia
lusit hie et illic, et quod luait nuc bene coram domino, sed hie
melius, ubi sic iIlusit coram Deo, ut illuderet diabolo. This is rem-
iniscent of a text DC Se. Bernard of Clairvaux (Epi.t 87, 12 PL
182,217 C) to whioh Bonaventure refers in the Q. do perl." q
1 sol end Vol V, p. 122: "Ludam et viliar flam" (2 Kg.6,22), lu-
dam scilicet et illudar. Bonus Iudus, quo Michal iraseitur et Deus
deJectatur: bonus ludus, qui hominibus ridiculum, sed angelis
spectaculum praebet; bonus inquam Iud us, in quo efficimur "op-
probrium abundantibus et despectio superhis" (Ps.122,4). Hoc
casto et religioso ludo ludebat, qui dicebBt: USpectacuJum facti
sumus huic mundo et angelis et hominibus" (I Cor.4,9). Hoc Iudo
eUam nos interim Iud.mus, ut illudamur et eonfundamur et hum-
iliemur, donee veniat qui "potentes deponit ct exaltat humiJes"
(Lk.1,62), qui nos laetificet, exaltet et gloriftcet in aetemum.
Cfr. also H. Rahner, Man at Plall (Westminster, 1967).
15. Col.1604. There and all that follows.
16. Especially the two ohepter. on Jerome and Augustine: P 3 I 7
c 18 and 19 col.17811f.
17. Dempf, SaCMtm imperium, p.236 says that the sixth age compre-
hends the decline from the cultural heights of the Church Fa-
thers to the simplicity of the migration of nations. But in the
text of Rupert I cannot find any foundation for this statement.
Cl•• the lollowing note.
18. This conception of the church is not identical with what Dempf
calls the descending Augustinian line of Rupert's understanding
of the world (Sacntm imp, p.238). Accordinrr to Dempf, Augus-
tine would have replaced the original faith in progress by the
pessimistic picture of a declining worldj and only in Anselm of
Havelberg would the original optimism have ~asserted itself
(op. cit., p.241). We cannot treat the details of the problem herej
but it is dear that this view involves a simpUftcaion of a complex
situation. We would simply point out that the Augustinian con-
sciousness of the end age is in no way necessarily connected with
a pessimistic notion of decadence. Precisely the opposite is the
case in Rupert of Deutz. Presumably Dempf develops his position
from the text of De saneta trin p 3 1 1 c 31 col.1804 where we read:
Nam in illis ( = in the seven ages before Christ) a timore ad
aapientiam asc:endebamus. hic (= in the seven ages after Christ)
autem a aapientia ad timorem descendimus . . • The declining
line of the gifts of the Spirit is in no way simply identical with a
declining line of history. Indeed, history is moving toward an
end j but the final age is precisely the fullness of time, the time of
maturity and wisdom: it alone is the true time of the Spirit; it
is in this age alone that all which was indicated figuratively will
be given truly: II •••Hlie tanquam in imagine, hie autem in re
ipsam nobis adeaae intuemur personam Dei saneti spiritus."
214 Theology 0/ Hi,lory in 5/. BOMven/ute
19. I do not wish to decide on an answer to the question as to how
far Rupert could base his view of Ws type of theology of history
on predecesaors. It would be necessary to study the early Schol-
astic literature on the Bexaemeron in order to deeide this.
20. Do "i<l"';" "orbi Dol XII 6 and 6 PL 169,1490[ for Rupert's COD-
cept of history and its understanding of the ft.nal age. Also,
Demp!, Saer Imp, p.238. For a full evaluation of Rupert's the-
ology of history, it would be necessary to give a detailed treat-
ment to: D, 111orijiccJtioflfJ trinita.tit et prOCfJ'lU .piritua .ancti
(PL 169,18-202; Dempf,p.287) and his commentary on the Apo-
calyp.. (PL 169, 827-1214). This would take UB too far afield
for our present purpose.
21. Damp!, 01'. tit., p.240 speaks of "Rupert, whom Honorius still
revered B8 one per visionem illuminatu8 • . ." For the life of
Hanorius, lee : Geyer, op. cit., p.20S (concerning his doetrine,
p.203-206); Also the detailed monograph of J .A. Endre., Honor-
iu A -ul1ustodun8'M'i8, Kempten-Munich, 1906.
22. Ezpo. in co.nt ca.nt c 7, 5 PL 172,460f; Dempf, 01'. cit., p.240;
Grundmann, Joachim l,p.90.
28. For the history of this Ide. from the beginninc to the p .......t,
dr : Y. Conpr, Eccln;" lib Abel, In: Abhandlun""" lib ... Tkeolo-
vie und Kirche, Fed.chrift /. K. Adam, ed. by Elfers-Hofmann,
Dilsseldorf, 1962, p.79-108.
24. In the case of Augul'tine, for example. efr. J. Ratzinger, VoLk
ulld Hc>... Gott." p.296ff.
26. E~po. ift cant cmtt, col. 460: Per d~arium quippe notantnr dec-
em status ecclesiae, quorum quinque erant ante adventum Christi,
quinque post eius adventum. ThUl, in fact, Christ appears as
tbe turn of the ages. But it remalM merely a fact. The detailed
enumeration that follow8 simply runs from beginning to end; it
seems to be mere chance that the sixth period was "sub evang-
elio," "sub quo ab ipso aponso Christo . . . ad nuptias api in-
vitabatur • . . n: This is one event amonl' many; apparently
history continues after this event without entering a new level.
26. ThiJ arises from an interpretation of the members of the bridej
dr. the interpretation whieh precedes this one: c 7, 1"', eol.455-
469. Col. 466: Antichristus • . • eum decem regibus eee1eaiam
impugnabit, contra quem haec Sunamitis bellum sU8cipiens, decem
ordinea iustorum . • • ordinabit . . ., qUai ordine rex enomer-
at, dum decem membra Sunamitis laudat . . . Other treatments
of Honorius are given in Dempf, op. cit., p.240.
27. Concerning the following presentation, dr. Dempf, Sacr Imp.,
p.241-243. The important data of Anselm's life are given on p.241.
efr. also: Grundmann, Joaehim, I,p.92-96. On p. 92, Grundmann
points out that Anaelm was in contact with the Greek Church
just as was Joaehim. efr. : M. van Lee, Ln id," tJ:Annl7M eM
Ha.vslbsrl/ .ur Ie divsloppement dee dOl/1ft", in: AnalClcta. Prae-
mcnutra.temia, 1938, p.6-36; G. Schreiber, Studien. uhClr Antelm
 Notes 215
11011 Havelberg zur Gei8teBgescitichte des Hochmittelalterll, in:
Analecta Praem., 1942,p.1-90; G. Schreiber, Anselm von Havel,..
berll und die Ostkirch., in: ZKG 60 (1942) p. 354-411; SplM,
Grund/armen hochmiUelaltctrlicher Geachichtaanacha.uunl1,p.18-S1.
28. Dialogi 1 1 (De unitate fidei et multiformitate vivendi ab Abel
iusto usque ad novissimum electum) c 1 PL 188,1141-1143.
29. Ibid., c 2 co1.1143f; dr. c 6 co1.1147: •.. In istis duabus trans-
positionibu8 sive mutationibus divina sapientia tanta varietate
paulatim usa est . . . c 6 co1.1149: . • • per diversos status
sibi invicem paulatim suecedentes usque in hodiernum diem sicut
iuventus aquilae renovatur et semper renovabitur. Also, c 10
col.1157.
30. Ibid., c 6 col.1l47f. efr. 1 2 (De processione Spiritus sancti) e
28, col.1200-1202.
31. L 1 c 7-13, col.1149-1160. On the basis of the texts, it cannot be
clearly determined whether Anselm identifies the present with
the fourth or fifth period. They cannot be clearly distinguished
from one another in a temporal sense; rather, they involve dif~
ferent orderings of reality. Dempf, Saer. Imp., p.242 takes a
position which identifies the present with the fifth age. We find
almost the same historical schema in a work written by William
of St. Amour after 1257, De antichrido et enus miniatria P 2 c
1 Nr. 5-12. Nr. 5 (ed. Martene-Durand, col.1836 E): Equus al-
bus ecclesia in baptismo, secundum GloBsam, dealbata . • • Nr.
6 (co1.l337 B): • . . per ruium enim equum aperti ecclesiae
persecutores et sanguinolenti figurantur . • . Nr.7 (co1.1337 E) :
Per equum nigrum illi haeretici designantur, qui numquam fidei
sacramentum susceperunt (Porphyrius and the Platonists of his
time are given as examples). Nr.8 (co1.1888 C): Per pal\idum
ergo equum signati sunt hypocritae . . . (e.g.: Arius, Macedon-
ius, the Manichaeans). Nr. 14 (col.1340 A): In hac ergo aigi11i
quinti apertione persecutores praemittit in fine scilicet huius paeis
ecclesiae (which, according to Nr. 10-12 co1.1339 should come
first), qui exercitum eius congregent . . . In PIc 1 col.1277ff,
William presents quite a different typology of history on the ba-
sis of his typological interpretation of the temptations of the
Lord. When we see how William, who was an avowed opponent
of Joachim's theology of history, uses divisions of history in his
own polemic which are not unlike Joachim's, then it is not sur-
prising that a Franciscan like Bonaventure could have felt justi-
fied in making even more extensive use of Joachim's ideas. We
do not yet have an exact dating of the work of William. But on
the basis of a number of texts, I hope to show that it must be
placed in 1268/64.
32. This sacrifice of eschatological thought is to be identified with
what Dempf (op. cit., p.242) has called the "progressive philos-
ophy of culture" no more than the eschatological attitude is to
be equated with pessimism(cfr. note 18). We do not mean to
216 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
deny that, in 80me sense, the idea of progress is present in An·
selm (lIe 6 col. 1149; c 10 col. 1167).
33. Op. cit., lIe 6 col· 1148: ..• ab adventu Christi usque ad diem
iudieii, quae sexta aetas distinguitur . . .
34. We cannot take up the important statements of the brothers
Gerhoh and Arno von Reichenberg. Cfr. Hippler, op. cit., p.40fj
Dempf, Sacrum Imp., p.262-264 i also the related articles in LThK
(l 688f: M. Schmaus; IV 421f: V.O. Ludwig). Literature in
Landgraf, Ein/ilhnmll. p.109f.
35. Dempf's statement that J oaehim was a guest of the Prior Ebbo
of the Cistercian house at Eberhach near Bingen (Sacr. Imp.,
p.268) and made trips through France and Germany (p.269) is
untenable. Cfr. Grundmann, Joachim II, p.7S, note 1.
36. Grundmann demonstrates this in opposition to the Italian re·
search on Joachim which had denied it.
37. Cfr. Grundmann, Joachim II for a compilation of the most im-
portant materials. Also, Francesco RUB80, Baggio de bibliogra/ia
l1ioruhimita, in: Arehivio storico pn- la Calabria e La. Lucania
VI (1936) p.102-141.
38. It is certain that there were such intermediary figures. We need
only think of the unfortunate attempt of Gerard of Bargo San
Donnino j of John of Parma and his circle of followers; and of
the pseudo-Joachimite literature. Cfr. especially J. Chr. Huck,
Joachim 'Von Flori, und d1'e ;oachiti,che Literatur (Freiburg,
1938) p.190-226, where the author treats a number of lesser
known and partly unpublished pseudo-Joachimite texts. Another
line of tradition haa become accessible in the new publication in
the Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Alexander Minorita, E~­
poaitio in Apoealypaim. Ed. by A. Wachtel (MGH Q",,zl,,,, zur
Gsiste,ge,chichte de. Mittelalten, Vol. 1) Weimar, 1966; see
the review of the same by J. Koch, in: Theol. Revu. 63 (1967)
p.119-126j also, A. Wachtel, Die weltge,chichtliche ApokalJ/p,e-
Aualegunl1 de. Minoritcn Alexander von Bremen (Franz Stud
24, 1937). From 1249, the Franciscan author of this commentary
on the Apocalypse worked pseudo-Joachimite material into his
work (MGH, op. cit., XXXff). The fact that Bonaventure indi-
cates historicld details in his great historical schema that find no
parallel in Joachim himself also servea as a sure indication that
he was aware of such sources. Cfr. also note 107 #6.
39. ApokaltlPse und Geachichtatheologie, p.1l7. KamIah takes a dif-
ferent position in UChristentum und Geschiehtliehkeit", p.1l1
note 196, where, in opposition to Cullmann, he clearly rejects the
idea of Christ as the center of the aReS. Cfr. the following note.
40. We refer here to the fact, which Cullmann points out on p.17 of
Chrillt and Time, namely, that the reckoning of time as ubefore
the birth of Christ" became common only in the 18th century.
Hipler. op. cit., p.87f. names some precursors of this practice.
According to Hipler, John Naukleru. (d.1510) would seem to
 Notes 217
have been the first to have divided his world chronicle into time
before and after the birth of Christ. On the other hand, the reck-
oning of time from the birth of Christ onward - that is, the
determination of years "after the birth of Christ" - is much
older j and, according to Hipler, p.36, is found for the first time
in the case of Bede: . . . . . for the first time, Bede took the de-
ciaive step of dating the events of the sixth age not only accord-
ing to the years since the creation of the wvrld, but according
to the years since the birth of Christ as well . . ." In view of
these circumstances, it is surprising that Cullmann should see
this to be a fitting reflection of the New Testament consciousness
of time and history (op. tit., p.19j dr also p.81ft'j also, Kaml.h's
critique of Cullmann indicated in note 39 above). For related
theses, see: H. Conzelmann, Th~ ThdoloQ'II 0/ St. Lukd. N.Y., 1960
and the critique by P. Winter, in: Theol. Lit. Zt/l. 81 (1966)
p.86-39.
41. On this point, dr. Benz. Et!c.leaia spiritualia. This viewpoint is
preferable by far to that of Grundmann (Joachim, I,p.186ff.)
according to which the real influence of Joachim is not to be
found in the circles of the Franciscan Spirituals related to him
from a literary viewpoint, but in the various free-thinking sects
which involve a break with Christian relieiosity as sueb. This is
related to the core elements of Grundmann's interpretation of
Joachim. According to Grundmann, the central idea of Joachim
would be the notion of a 'liberation' of religion 'from all rules
to a life of the spirit,' (p.187). Later, foUowinlr Tondelli, Grund-
mann practieally admits that this interpretation is no longer
tenable (Joachim, II,p.l03ff). Those texts which seem to prophecy
the dieolution of the hierarchical church (Cone II 1 c 28f 18r;
p.l03 note 1), can well be explained in another way; indeed, they
must be given a ditferent interpretation since Joachim expreasly
says the opposite on a number of oceasiona and with full clarity.
(Cfr. esp. Cone V c 18 f 69v: . . . quia idem ordo non erit
absque praetatis, qui gerant in eo vice Christi. Other texts can
be found in Tonde1li and in Grundmann himself). Another fact
is of significance here. In JOdchim I, Grundmann sees the differ~
ence between Joachim and the Franciscans (whom he treats with
some disdain because of their strict Christian-ecclesial religious
spirit) above all in the ract that Joachim sought the int~llectua
spiritualia while the Franciscans made the "ad litteramn their
motto. But this contradiction is only apparent. The same Fran·
cis who was so insistent on the uad litteramn writes in the Verba
admonitionia Nr.7 (BODmer, Anmidktcm, p.44): Dicit apostolus
(2 Cor.a,6): ULittera occidit. spiritus .utem vivificat." TIn sunt
mortui a litter., qui tantum sola verba cupiunt scire • • . Et
illi religiosi sunt mortui a littera: qui spiritum divine littere no~
lunt sequi . . . Et illi aunt viviftcati a spiritu divine littere, qui
omnem litteram, quam sciunt et eupiunt scire, non attribuunt
218 Theology 0/ History in 5/. Bonaven/ure
carpori, sed verbo et exemplo reddunt ea altissimo Domino Dea,
cuius est omne bonum. On the other hand, J aachim, the defender
of the intell~ctulJ .pirituali8 maintains that in the church of
the Spirit, the Sermon on the Mount will be fulfilled "sine glo..a"
(Benz, Eeet ."ir., p.llf). Certainly there are differences and
problema. But at least it is clear that we may not understand the
intellectJU .piritualu in an idealistic sense. Here again we come
up against a mistake which we have already pointed out: the
lost category of the "pneumatic" is confuaed wiUt the category
of the Idealistie 80 that they become identift.d. In my opinion,
it. is only with great reserve that we can accept KamIah's thesis
(ApokaIIlP'o und Go.chich!B!hoolol/io, p.117) that Joaehlm intro-
duced the secularization of eschatological hope which led to the
epochal comlciobsnes8 of the Renaissance and the modem age. It
is correct to say that in the case of Joachim a change in the
atehatological hope did take place; but we would have to be very
cautious in any attempt to see as the initiator of the Renais-
sance such a man of contemplation who prophecied a contempla-
tive and monastic ace of pure interiority.
42. In a certain sense, this happened quite naturally already in the
Patristic writers. But, while in the earlier period, it we purely
a factual thinl', in the later development it becomes a basic theory.
43. Cfr. the distinction between initiatio and /ructi/icatio (e.g. Cone
IV e 33 and 34 f 56v and 57r; e 36 f 57v). According to this,
the third age is under way since the time of Benedict. Cfr. Dempf,
S~rum. Impr., p.274f. and the literature on Joachim.
44. One limitation remains also in the interpretation of Joachim:
the persecution of the Anti-Christ must precede the tertius .ta-
!UB: Tondelli, II libro d.lI. /il/ure II Tav IV eol 3: Sub eiusdem
apertioRe aigilli continetur validlasima Anti Xristi tempestas.
Finis non testamenti. HeBaa cum venerit ipse restituet omnia.
Tav VII presents the following schema, which we give here in
very simplified form:

Adam Oziu
Noe Zorababel
Jaeob Xriatua
David Silvester Papa
Ezechiaa Zacharias Papa
p p
Johannes Baptista Helias propheta
(In the Dresden mo.,
P=persecutio Babilonis Persecutio Babilonis nove).

Regardinl' this text, B. Hirsch-Reich points out (Rech th anc

mod 21 [19541 p.1(7) that in both eas .. the better Oxford manu-
script has Percus.io instead of Per.ecutio.
 Note. 219
Notes to Chapter S, #14
1. At the time of his S~ntence Commenta.TJ(, Bonaventure seems not
to have known Joachim, but to have satisfied himself with the
general judrment of the Scholastics that Joachim had spoken
Uignoranter" (I Sent d 6 dub 4 r ,P.I21a).
2. III Sent d 1 a 2 q 4 c, p.32a; IV Sent d 2 a 1 q 2 c.p.5la-b.
3. Also, dub 1 (III Sent d l,p.3Sa-b). We will come back to this
again.
4. Prol #2, Vol. V,p.203b; p 2 c 5,p.223b; p 4 c 4,p.245a.
6. Hipler, Ope cit., esp. p.34.
6. BrtJ1J p 4 c 4,p.246a i elr. p 6 e 4,p.269a: Media autem tempore et
fuit regeneratio et eccJesiae ardinatiD et spirituaJis cibatio • • . j
Hez I 20,p.333a. Tandelli, Illibro delltJ figl(Te l,p.217 tries to show
that the Breviloquiu'Jn already is related to Joachimj it seems
questionable whether the material at hand is adequate to support
8uch a thesia. In S Th III q 1 a 6, Aguinas does not use the ex·
pression "Christ the center of the agest" but actually he &ee1tU'
to sacrifice the interpretation of Christ as coming at the end of
time even more deciSively than does Bonaventure. An indication
oC this may be aeen in the question: Utrum incarnationis opus
dift'erri debuerit usque in finem mundi. Bre1J p 4 c 4,p.246a is
of aipificance. Here the time of Christ alone is designated as
the tempU8 Temedii while in IV Sent d 2 a 1 q 1 c,p.49b we read:
. . . tempua remedii incepit a Japsu et profecit in lege et con·
summatum est in evangelio . . . As long as the Christ.event is
seen as the end of the ages, the whole of time can be seen as
--tempus remedii", even though with a difference of intensity.
But 88 soon a8 Christ is seen as the eenter of time, then we find
the well-known division of the ages which affirms a time of sin
and darkness next to a time of redemption and light - a schema
which can find no adequate support in the faets of history.
7. III Sent d 1 dub 1 r,p.32f.
8. R. SUic, Cltri.tm und die Kirche. tllr Vflrhiiitni, nach dtr Lehre
de. hlg. Bona1Jentura, Breslau, 1938, p.76-89, and Guardini, Die
Lehre deB hlg. BOn41Jentura 1Jon der ErlOltunll. paasim. A. Stohr,
~ Trinitat.lehre th_ hill. Bona1Jentura, p.l90, sees the real
significance of Bonaventure to lie in the way he worked out and
developed the opinio media et ,obria.. As a matter of fact, it is
one of Bonaventure's heuristic principles that the truth lies in

chosen. III Sent d 5 a 2 q 2 <, p.133a; De p ...' e.

medio, and that when other criteria fail, the via media is to be
q 2 a 3 c Vol.
V,p.l60a; I Sent d 32 a 1 q 1 c,p.558a, ibid., q 2 c,p.560b and
frequently. H." I IO-39,p.330 - 335b brings the development of
the Medium·idea to a high point.
9. 81'e1J p 4 c 2 Vo1.V,p.242a: . . . Mediatoris namque est esse me..
dium inter hominem et Deum ad reduc:endum hominem . • . Nul..
lum autem ma~is deeet esse medium quam personam, . . . quae
 220 Theol08Y 0/ Hislory in SI. BOlluvenlure
est media trium personarum . . . Here the medillting position
of the Lord in the history of salvation is related to the trinitar-
ian middle-position of the Logosj in He:x: I 12-17, p.33lf the medi-
ation relative to creation developed from the doctrine of ideas
is brought into the same context. Nr. 14,p.331f: btud est medium
personarum necessario: quia, si persona est, quae producit et
non producitur, et persona, quae producituf et non producit,
necessario est media, quae producitur et producit. In I Seflt d
27 P 2 a un q 2 ad 6,p.486b the following i. said about the Son
and the Spirit, namely, that they "secundum rationem intelligendi
et appropriandi quasi medium sunt inter nos et Deum." The con-
cept of the verbum medium which is developed in the ahove-men-
tioned Quaestio is of great importance for the entire line of,
thought, and it betrays a strongly economical tone in Bonaven-
ture's trinitarian theology. Concerning the historical context and
the peculiar characteristics of Bonaventure's trinitarian theolo-
gy, dr. the work of A. Stohr indicated above in note 8.
10. Cfr. the doctrine of the seven-fold mediation of Christ in Ht:e I,
10-39, p.330b - 835b.
11. IV Sent d 48 a 1 q 4, p.988f (the place where Thomas speaks of
the problem of Joachim while Bonaventure says nothing). The
QUfld.tiolld. dd novi••imi. edited by Glorieux are from the year
1255-56 (Glorieux, p.XXVII), and as regards their content they
are dose to the Sentencd Commenta", just as we would expect
(see the comparison of texts on p.XII-XVIII). On this point,
the Quae.tiones offer nothing new.
12. Denitle, Das EV4nUdlium aeternum u7Jd die Commi..ion %U Anag-
ni, p.84ff. Also, E. Faral, Les uRe.ponsionc." de Guill4ume dd
Samt AmouT, Arch. hiot. doctT. 26/26 (1950/61) p.346f ( = III
15); E. Aergerter, L'a/Jaire du De perculiB novi'Bimorum tdmpor-
um, in: Rev. del'hi.t de rei 66 (1935) p.242-272i all the works
of William, especially the late De antichristo, are characterized
by a sharp polemic against Joachim.
13. Tract«tus brevi3 de periculis noviasimorunt temp0'Ml.7ll, ed. Bier-
baum, c 8 p.19; also p.20 and 21. Cfr. Bierbaum's commentary.
p.262-267.
14. Ibid., prot p.2, ibid" c 1 p.6 ("appropinquante finali ec:clesia").
16. This is the general tendency of the entire tract De periculia novia-
aimorum temporum: efr. esp. c 8 p.2lf. Also, in the editions of
Faral cited above: Responsiones V,p.356·359.
16. Sacrum Imperium, p.336.
17. Op. cit., p.267. Faral'a judgment (p.384·387) is somewhat cau·
tious. Aegerter shows great sympathy for William (p.272), and
summarizes his view as follows: Void done queUe fut son oeuvre
veritable: ta defense, Ie renforcement d'un esprit universitaire.
Certes, l'Universite de Paris rut longtemps impregnee d'une ten-
dance au eonservatisme, mais iIIe montra aussi un sens tres vif
de son autonomie spirituelle. Et dans son developpement ulterieur
 Notes 221
il y eut toujours un peu de ). libertd v~hl!mentet de l'inde-
pendance serieuse que d~f'l!ndit par I. parole, par l'ecrit, et au
detriment de sa reussite temporelle, l'auteur du De periculis. In
reality, it would be difficult to come to an unbiased conclusion.
It can hardly be denied that William was lead by a genuine con-
viction for which he paid with the loss of his position (efr. in
the "Rcsponsiones" III 36, up. cit., p.362: . • . scit se passu-
rum multa ct gravia . . . pro hUs quae praedicat; sed non
curat, • . . quia paratus est mori pro ista veritate). On the
other hand, if the tendency to play with the eschatological ter-
minology often reveals a considerable lack of seriousness, we
cannot in justice forget that to a degree even a man 8uch 8S
Thomas Aquinas allowed himself this type of play in his answer
(cfr. note 22 and 23).
18. Concerning the literary form and origin of the text, dr. the com·
mentary of Faral, op. cit., p.361-368.
19. V,p.367. For the entire section of the text, p.36G·369j also IV
3D,p.354; III 34,p.352; III 21,p.348.
20. De per nov temp (! 8, Bierbaum, p.19: Nos sumus, in quos fines
saeculorum devenerunt (1 Cor 10,11); glossa: "quia in ultima
aetate aaecuJi sumus"; post istam vero sextam aetatem, u quae
est pugnantium," cum qua currit septima aetas, "quae est quies-
centium," non est ventura aetas alia nisi octava, uquae est resur-
gentium." Ergo nos sumus in ultima aetate huiu8 Mundi • • .
The idea expressed here is really the same as what is found in
the texts edited by Faral i it is presented more clearly in FaraPs
texts. It can hardly be denied that this represents a faithful ex-
pression of the Bententia communis ecclesiae of that time.
21. In De antichristo the temporal proximity of the end is eVen sup-
ported by elaborate historical schemata: efr. note 31 #13 for
the texts.
22. Esp in the Prooemium (. . . qui prius occulte contra te loque-
bantur, nunc in publico loqui non formidant. Ut enim dicit glosSA,
novissima tempora Antichristi designat, Quando hi, qui modo
premuntur metu, in liberam voeem erumpent; and similar state·
ments.).
23. Bierbaum, 0". cit., p.270. The most reserved on this question is
Thomas of York (Ps.-Bertrand of Bayonne; concerning the
authorship of this work, efr. M. Bihl, in: LThK II 233 and M.
Grabmann, LThK X 136) (op. cit., p.269. Text, p.37-168); cer-
tainly his reasons for reserve are not always the best. The Jo-
achimite influence indicated by Bierbaum (p.286) I see as un-
proven. In the text of the Master of Gerhard of AbbeviJle (p.16D·
2(7) eschatoJogical statements are more frequent, but the ques-
tion is not touched in the text of Nicholas of Lisieux (p.220-234).
24. This is not intended as an answer to the question as to when a
direct literary awareness of the works of Joachim is present.
25. De per' ev q 2 a 2 opp 20,p.136a.
222 Theology 0/ His/ory ill St. BOllaven/ure
26. Ibid.. ad 20, p.148a efr. Delorme, up. cit., for the Quae.tio reA
portota de mtmdicitate cum annotationibuB Guilelmi de S. Amore
(for literary-critical remarks, see Delorme XXIV-XXVI). Ad
ll,p.362f! Similiter dieo quod primitiva ecclesia fuit in maxima
paupertate per voluntatem Dei, deinde media tempore ditata
Sando Spiritu operante, lied in fine revolabit omega ad alpha.
aeilicet ecclesi. in Quibusdam erit in maxima paupertate et hoc
similiter operatione spiritus saneti. On this point, further, the
marginal gloss of William: Vide periculo8um verbum et auspi-
eione non carens, quod dicit, eccJesiam redituram in quibusdam
ordinibus ad pristinam paupertatem. Hoc enim 8apit sententiam
Joachim, qui ponit imperium Petri et ecc1esiae Roinanae imper-
ium babylonicum eo quod ditata est ecclesia et imperium Ro·
manum habere meruit. In contrast with the De perf etl, the
eschatological theme recedes into the back&'TOund in the Apolo.
,ia. pauperum. It is hardly possible to decide whether the ire·
quently occuring "diebu8 istis novissimis" (pro! 2 Vol VIII,
p.233b; c l2,l,p.3l6a) i. Intended to be eschatological or whether
it merely means "in days recently paat." Relevant passages in
D8 perl etl are q 2 a 2 adv obi postea faetas l,p.160.; q 2 a 3
ad l2,p.l64. The eschatological statements In D. dcm S1' S. III
7 Vol.V,p.469b; coil VII 17, 18, p.492f are also a development
from the thematic of the poverty controversy.
27. D. perf .~ q 2 a 2 adv obi postea factas V,p.166b.
28. Ibid. q 2 a 3 ad l2,p.l64b.
29. In D. perf .v the eschatological thought is still quite limited by
the idea that the Church presently lives Ifin pace": q 2 a 1 ad
2, p.lSlb; q 2 a 2 f 3,p.l86b. The eschatological feeling acquire.
ita full concrete quality only after the rise and development of
a very sharp criticism of time which we can see refteeted in the
Coll d, decem praec and in the Coll de don Sp S.
30. Certainly one should not overlook the fact that de facto the
eechatological eonselousnesB fades into the background in the
work of Thomas; efr. note 6.
31. ZKG 68 (1984) p.62-116: Joachimstudien III. Thoma. von Aquin
Dnd Joachim von Fiore. In ZKG 6O,p.24ff., we find the first arti·
cle in this series: Die Kategorien der religiosen Geschichtsdeu·
tung Joachimsi ZKG 61,p.416ff: Joachimstudien II: Die E:uerpt·
satze aUB dem Evangelium aeternum; Cfr. also ZKG 62,p.90·
121: Die Geschichtatheologje der Franziskanerapiritualen des
18. und 14. Jahrhunderta nach neuen Quellen. The essential ideas
can be found in Benz, Eccle.ia .piritualis.
32. ZKG 63, esp. p.1l6. The book, Eccleeia. 'piritualie, above all is
formed on the basis of this notion. For a critique, dr. A Dempf,
EcclenG. .piritualu odeT Schwarm,eieteTei'!, in: Hochla.nd 32,2
(1936) p.170·173; A. Mireeler, Ernst Benz, Eccle.ia. .piritualu,
in: ZKG 66 (1936) p. 286-294. Here Benz'. the.is is rejected on
good grounds from the viewpoint of systematic theology.
 Noles 22S
33. The theses which Benz offers about Bonaventure in Eccl~8ia .pir-
itualia are based exclusively on the Legenda and overlook the
He:raemeron completely.
34. IV Sont d 43 a 3 q 2 and 801 2. As Hipler shows (op. cit., p.52) ,
Aquinas had already come to know the works of Joachim in Italy
in the year 1250. efr. Dempf, Sacrum imperium, p.281. On p.6l-
63 Hipler gives a brief but pointed statement concerning Thomas'
position toward Joachim.
35. 0". cit., q 2 opp 1.
38. Ibid. opp. 3.
37. D. civ Dei XVIII 52 CC 48,p.S50.S52.
38. Sol 2 ad 3. It is significant that even Thomas had to admit that
part of what Joachim had predicted had alr..dy happened.
39. It is recognized, for example, that in trinitarian theology Thom-
as rep~enta a purer uAu&'Ustinianism" than Bonaventurei dr.
Stohr, op. cit., p.ISS.
40. efr. the summary presentation which 1 have attempted to give
on p. 1041 above. According to the source material, it seems in no
way possible to deny all relationship between Bonaventure and
Joachim as S. Clasen has attempted to do (Die S.,.dung de. Alg.
FranzitkulJ. lhre heil.ge.chichtliche D,utung durch Bonaventura,
in: Wi...nIl.hmft und W.isheit 14 (1951),p.212-225). For all the
patri8tic texts which Clasen points out cannot clarify the decisive
and the peculiar character of the He:ra,meron; this -becomes un·
derstandable only in relation to Joachim. Therefore, the summary
statement of Clasen's position (p.222) overlooks the real char-
acter of these texts: "Therefore, though both Joachim of Fiore
and Bonaventure work from the same tradition of the Fathers,
each of them has developed an independent theology of history
from this tradition . . ." Such a position becomea impossible as
soon u we call to mind the basic difference between the simple
Beven-schema of the Patristic period and the double-seven schema
of Joachim.
41. Clr. #4. See the text of H.x XVI 2,p.408b.
42. Collatio I, ll-end, p.331-885.
48. Kamiah, Apokalllp.e ttnd Ge.t!hit!htatheologie. p.ll7. See al80
what was said above on page 106.
44. Cfl'. the schema in Dempf, Saer. Imp., p.274. The distinction be·
tween initiatio and fructificatio is entirely lacking in Bonaventure.
45. The parallel treatment of the two periods of the OT and the NT
is more consi8tently developed by Bonaventure on the basis of
thEt notion of the middle than it. is in Joachim.

Notes on Chapter 4, #15

1. J. d'Albi, Saint Bonavmture et Ie. lutte. doctrinale. de 1267·
1277. efr. Revue d'hi.toire jranci.cain, 1926, p.506·510 j Gilson,
Bonaventure, p.427j F. Tinivella, De impollibili .a.pifmticu adep-
tion.. . . ., in: Antonianum 11 (1936) I esp. 154·163. One could
224 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
be tempted to say that the credit goes not to d'Alhi but to Ehrle.
To this we would have to say that Ehrlc did indeed point out
Bonaventure's "Augustinianism," but not his anti-Aristotelian-
ism. In line with Ehrle's understanding of Augustinianism, these
would be two quite different things. Ehrle never speaks of an
express anti-Aristotelian ism in Bonaventure, efr. note 9 and 12.
A good treatment of the development of the understanding of
this question together with further literature may be found in:
F. van Steenberghen, The philosophical movement in .the thiT-
teentl, centurJI. 1936, p.3-18.
2. Gilson, The Philosophy of St. Bonatlenht"l'e. New York, 1938. This
book was originally written in French and published in Paris in
1924. The second French printing which appeared in Paris in
1943 left the text essentially unaltered and added an appendix
with a discussion of the new literature. The work appeared in
Gennan in a translation by Philotheus Bohner in 1929. A second
German translation by Paul Alfred Schluter appeared in 1960.
This version is based on the third French printing of 1963, which
is an unaltered reprinting of the second French printing. The
first English translation appeared in 1938, and was the work of
F. Sheed and Illtyd Trethowan; it is based on the first French
edition. In 1966, this English translation was reprinted by St.
Anthony Guild Press as a volume in theiI Bonaventure series. It
is unaltered; and the reader is referred to the Introduction to
the WorkB 0/ Bonaventure by J. Guy Bougerol in the same series
for the latest bibliographical research.
3. Angelo da Vinca, L'ABpetto filoBofico dell'ariBtoteliBmo di S. Bon-
aventura, in: Coli Franc XIX (1949) p.41.
3a.Van Steenberghen, The philoBophkal movement . . . p.60: "In
short, the attitude of St. Bonaventure towards Aristotle in the
Sentences was not essentiaUy different from that of all the great
theologians of the thirteenth century. and, in particular, from
that of Albert the Great or Thomas Aquinas . . . Now, the ex-
amination of his Commentary leads to this conclusion. St. Bona-
venture retained a very large part of the Aristotelian heritage."
Cfr. also p.59 and 68.
4. Op. cit., p.169.
5. Ibid., p.170.
6. P.178.
7. Especially the final chapter, "The Spirit of St. Bonaventure."
8. Esp. F. Ehrle, Beitrag6 Ztlt· GeBchichte der mittelalterlichen
ScholaBtik II: Der AuguBtini8muB und der Anstoteli.mus in del
Sehola,tik lIellen End. de, 13. Jahrhund.rtB, in: ALKG V (1889)
p.603·635 i Ehrle, Zur Geschichte der ScholaBtik im 13. Jahr-
hundert, in: ZkTh 13 (1889) p.172·193. Ehrle, L'Ago,tini.mo •
l'Ariatoteli.mo nella Bcolastica del Becolo XIII. Ulteriori discus-
sione e materiali, Xenia Thornastica III (1926) p.617-688; Ehrle,
Der hi. Bonaventura, Beine Eil1enart und .eine drei LebenBau/-
 Notes 225
/lab.". Franz Stud 8 (1921) p.109-124. A brief treatment may be
found in the article on Augustinianism by J. Koch in LThK I
826f.
9. Ehrle clearly states that this is the way he wants to be under-
stood; <fr. the first artiole cited above in ALKG V p.603-635. On
p.606f, EhrJe describes the Augustinianism of Alexander of Hales
and the influence which he had on the Franciscan ac:hool. Thus,
when Bonaventure comes on the scene, he and his disciples devel-
op this already present Augustinianism to a climactic point.
Ehrle concludes that the rise of the Franciscan school in Paris
did not create a new direction of doctrinal development (. . .
kein~ neue Lehrrichtu'lta [emphasis by Ehrle himself]), but mere-
ly gave a new representative to the already dominant Augustin-
ianism. The same idea can be found on p.606, 607, 609, as well
as in the other articles indicated above.
10. Gilson presents his new conception of Bonaventure at the very
beginning of his book. p.3: USt. Bonaventure, say they, differs
from St. Thomas only because he built up his doctrine on nar-
rower foundations and could never command the time necessary
to work it out in eomplete detail. This is why the state of his
thought has been up to the present eomparatively neglec:ted. If
he is only a potential and incomplete St. Thomas, to study him
would be a futile oecupation . . . Now it will be one of my duties
to examine whether the fact that he had to govern his Order
really prevented St. Bonaventure from reaching his full intel-
lectual development and bringing his doctrine to completion. But
right at the beginning it is important to realize that 81. Bona-
venture did not set out upon a way that would have led to Chris-
tian Aristotelianism if he had not stopped too soon. The truth is
that from the first he had attached himself to a doetrine which
was its radical negation. It was neither through ignorance nor
by reason of a mere chronologieal cl1ance that he did not become
Aristotelian . . ." p,4. ffSt. Bonaventure was never to forget
his lesson. He knew Aristotle well, quoted him constantly, adopted
a large part of his technical vocabulary. he admired him sincerely
and regarded him as the man of knowledge par e%cellence . . .
but did not place him on a pedestal, nOr suppose for a single in-
stant that true philosophy must coineide with his teaching, nor
that theology, the guardian of faith, must modify itself by a
hair's breadth to come into harmony with him. From his first
contact with the pagan thought of Aristotle, St. Bonaventure is
as one who has understood it, seen through it, and passed be-
yond it. . • II p.33. uFrom the moment of this ehange (= hiB
appointment as General), St. Bonaventure's thought appears as
if bent with all its powers towards the creation of a new synthe-
sis, 8 synthesis wherein he shDuM find a place for aU the phiJo-
sophical and religiDus values of whieh he had had living experi-
ence . . ." Similar texts can be found in great numbers through-
2'l6 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
out Gilson's book which is based on this fundamental concept. Cfr.
especially the final chapter, liThe Spirit. ." p.440ff:
uIn order to make clearer the line of our argument, we may con·
trast two different interpretations of the evolution of philosophy
in the thirteenth century. One, which we may consider clusic,
sees all that took place in the perspec.tive of Thomiam! the thir·
teenth century began with the Augustinian tradition. but threat-
ened by the invasion of A verroism and reacting with AlbertuB
Magnus against this invasion, absorbed from it all that was true
in the system of Aristotle. The thesis of the anarchy of August-
inianism is necessarily involved in this, since obviously, if Au-
gustinianism had been adequate, Thomism would have had no
reason to exist. The second interpretation sees the scholasticism
of the thirteenth century as reaching its height in two summits;
the powerful movement at work within Christian thought threw
up two high peaks, to say nothing of the secondary heights which
formed a double chain a60ut them: of these two peaks one is the
doctrine of St. Bonaventure; the other, that of St. Thomas Aquin-
u. We have said elsewhere what the signification of the second
has appeared to us to be i here we should like, in the light of the
study made in this book, to insist upon the historic significance
of the first . • . p.445: And in this sense it may be said that
if the success of Thomism seems at a distance to have brought
the development of mediaeval Augustinianism to an end, it may
be simply because with St. Bonaventure the mystical synthesis
of medieval Augustinianism was fully formed, just as that of
Christian Aristotelianism was fully fanned with St. Thomas."
11. Gilson, 01'. cit., p. 449;". . . that both men were involved in the
construction of the scholastic synthesis of the Middle Ages and
that today both meD must be seen as representing it: 'duae olivae
et duo candelabra in domo Dei lucenti •. '"
12. Gilson, op. cit., p.440 as cited above. Here again we can see clear-
ly the distinction between Gilson and Ehrle. Ehrle had helped
in the creation of the very concept that GilBOn 80 emphatically
rejects; the notion of an Augustinianism which ultimately rests
on an ignorance of Aristotle (and hence cannot be an anti-Aris-
totelianism). Thus, for example, Ehrle writes that, unfortunate-
ly, Bonaventure was elected to the office of General already in
1257 and thus was drawn out of his se:ientific work. He was, then,
only about 36 years old when he began the almost uninterrupted
travelling which was demanded of him by his new position. The
difference in the life of the two men (Thomas and Bonaventure)
becomes clear, and the facts of Bonaventure's life must be taken
into account in an evaluation of his writings. (efr. Ehrle, ner
"eilige BOnal18ntura, uinf! EigffRart und .eine drei Lebf!n'rlu/-
gall .... in: Fra". Siud 8 (1921) p.109-124.)
13. P. Robert. Le probldme de la 'Philo,o'Plt.ie bona'llffRturien:ne, in ;
Laval phil 01 IhooL 6 (1950) p.147.
 Noles 227
14. This expression in ~". van Steenberl'hen, SIgel' de lIrabant II,
p.459j also P. Robert, ap. cit., p.147f.
16. Esp. the valuable article on Bonaventure in: Diet. d'histoire et
de giographie ecclesitutiques T IX Paris, 1937,p.741-788. P.76lf:
Au confluent de tous eea courants d'idees, tres jnforme Bussi de
I. pemu!c d'Aristote et des philosophe!, qu'il utilise largement
. . . saint Bonaventure a elabore 1. synth~se definitive de
l'augustinisme medit!val SOU8 Ie signe d'Assise. p.786f: M~ta­
physicien i. regal des princes de la scolastique, il a conatitne la
synthese definitive de l'augustinisme medieval ou triomphent 1&
metaphysique de l'exemplarisme et de l'analogie universe} et
.'idee du Christ centre de tout et ma1tre unique du savoir . . .
See also, Longpre, Saint A ugu8tin et In pen.ee franci.caine.
Paris, 1932, and the other works of Longpre.
16. J. Squandrani, S. Bonavenlura ehrietiafllc.B phila8op/uu, in: An-
lonia"um, 1941, p.103-130 and 253-304.
17. F. J. Thonnard, Augu8tini811le et ari8toteli81Jle au XIII 8iiele,
in: L' an"ee Ihe.l. 4 (1944) p.442-466.
18. G. H. Tavarel. Transiency and perman8nce. 1964, esp. p.163-166.
19. B. Rosenmol1er, Rdillio8e Erkenntnit nach Bonaventura, Munich,
1925.
20. J. Auer, Die Entwicklunll der Gnadcnlehre in der HochBchola8tik
Y. Freiburg in Breisgau, 1942 j 11,1961. Esp. I,p.25 note 9. Also
worth reading is L. Meier, Bonaventura8 Selb8tzeullni8 I1ber
uinen Augu8tini.nrus, in: Franz. Stud. XII (1930) p.342-366,
where the critical reservations of Bonaventure relative to Au-
gustine are well treated.
21. A. Dempf. Metaph1lsik deB Mittelaitera, Munich-Berlin, 1930,
p.ll0-119; also, Dempf, Etienne Gilson, in: Phil Jahrbuch der
Gorr..ge•• ,uchafl 62 (1953) p.253-266.
22. P. Robert, Le probltme de 10. philo.ophie bonavnturienn6, in:
Laval Ihe.l 61 phil 6 (1950) p.145-163; 7 (1951) p.9-58. Also,
P. Robert, St. Bonaventure, Defender of Chriltian Wi,dam, in:
Franc. Slud III (1943) p.169-179. Confer the end of this section
for a more precise determination of Robert's position.
23. L. Veuthey, Sandi Bontlventurtle philo80phia chri,tialla. Rome.
1943. Cfr. note 76 to #16.
24. B. Geyer, Die patriBtiBchc ltnd d1'6 schalastische Philosophie,
p. 386-396.
26. Go.ch. dOT abendl. W.Uan8chauung III, p.256-272.
26. Ge.chichte der Philosophie I, p.380-S83. Only Gilson is named in
the literature on Bonaventure. Accordin&, to Van Steenberghen,
The philosophical movement . . . p.62, the thesis of Gilson was
quite generally accepted by the Franc:iscans.
27. Compare the expression of the Louvain school, above all: M. de
Wulf, History 0/ Msdieval Philo80phy, Vol. II, 1937 (Bonaven-
tUre on p. 79-93). Concerning De Wulf, see: Van Steenberghen,
The Philosophical Movement . . . p.7.
228 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
28. Vol. II, 979. Following De Wulf, he says that Bonaventure "mal-
gr~ des sympathies augustiniennes non dissimulees . . . lui
Bussi est peripateticien dans Ie sens scolastique du mot."
29. F. van Steenberghen, SiDer de Brabant d'apres Bea oeuvres in-
'dites I 1931; II 1942. Concerning Bonaventure, Vol. II, p.446-
464. In the second edition of his book on Bonaventure, Gilson
takes a positlon relative to Van Steenberghen's view, but does
not give up his original thesis.
30. An.tote"' en Occident. Lea origine. de l'aristotelisme parisien (Es-
sais philosophiques 1), LOllvain, 1946. Unfortunately. I was un-
able to find this book at any library that I consulted.
31. A. Forest-F. van Steenberghen-M. de Gandillac, Le mouvement
doctrinal du IX aU XIV siocl•. Paris, 1961. efr. p.179-306. Fol-
lowing the view of Van Steenberghen is A. Hayen, Thoma. 'Von
Aqlth, geatern und heute (German by R. Scherer), Frankfurt,
1963. Similarly, D. A. Callus, La conde-nodon de Sto. Thoma. en
O%/ord, in: R.villta di Filoaofia VI (1947) p.347-416. Regarding
the general understanding of the line of development, CaUus
agrees with Van Steenberghen. On the other hand, there is the
out-dated thesis of R. Lazzarini, S. Bonaventura filoBofo e mi.·
tieD del Chri8iane.imo, Milan, 1946. This thesis is rejected by
Z. Alszeghy, Studio. Bonaventuriana, in: Gregorianum 29 (1948),
p. 142-151. Alszeghy, however, takes exception to Van Steenber-
ghen's view as well.
32. The only exception sO far, to my knowledge, is the book on Thom-
as Aquinas by A. Hayen translated from the Freneh (efr. note
31). The fact that a eritieal diserepaney has arisen is not even
mentioned by A. Dempf in hiB artie1e: Etienne Gilson, in: Phil.
Jahruuch der G6rr'.I1 ...11acha/t 62 (1963) p.263-266. He speak.
of Gilson's Bonaventure-study on page 267f.
33. E. Gilson, Die histoM'Sch-kritische FOT8chung und die Zukun/t
der Scholastik, reprodueed by A. Hayen, op. cit., p.103-119 (first
printed in: Antoniauum XXVI (1951), p.40-48), esp. p.ll8f.
34. Van Steenberghen, Le mou-vement . p.189-191, 219-221.
36. Op. cit., p.190r.
36. Op. cit., p.191.
3'1. P.201. Also in Grabmann, Methode II, p. 651. It is not quite
enough when Gilson deseribes the situation in the year 1250 as
follows: uThe Masters in the Faeulty of Arts had not yet taken
the step of declaring that Aristotle's philosophy was equivalent
to Philosophy itself . . . " (p.3)
38. Van Steenberghen, op. cit., p.201. He writes that in the case of
William of Auxerre Aristotle is cited around 100 times; in the
case of Philip the Chancellor, already ahout 300 times; in the
case of William of Auvergne, the citations are 'innombrables.'
39. Op. cit•• p.203.
40. P.204.
 Noles 229
41. Ibid., also, Siger de Brahant II, p.730j and, Th" Ph.ilosophical
Movement, p.St.
42. P.205.
43. P.206f. Also, Ari3totit in the Wrst • .. p.130- The philosophi-
cal movement . . . 54: . . . which Maurice de Wulf called "pro-
Thomistic' or 'ancient scholasticism,' was not an Augustinian
current, as Mandonnet believed, nor even a traditional current,
going back through the twelfth century to St. Augustine and
Plato. It Was a new and Aristotelian current . . .
44. P.233. Prof. S5hngen has pointed out to me that Richard Harder,
a man so thoroughly conversant with Platinus, has rejected the
term "neo·Platonism;" for he sees in this term a distortion of the
historical and philosophical situation relative to Platonism. It is
possible to conceive of something rather definite under the term
"aristot~lisrne augustinisant" but not under the term "aristotel-
iame neoplatonisant", for this was already an essential aspect of
ancient neo-Platonism. Actually, it is difficult to see the rather
monstrous formula as especially fortunate. Nevertheless, despite
the evident terminological weakness of the formula. it seems to
me that the meaning he is trying to express does come through,
and that this meaning actually corresponds to the historical facts.
Perhaps there is an improvement in: The philosophical move-
ment . . . p.61 where we read: . . . the philosophy of St. Bon-
aventure is an eclectic and neoplatonic Aristotelianism, subor-
dinated to an Augustinian theology. In philosophy Augustinian-
ism is one of the sources of his thought, but is a secondary source,
compared with Aristotelianism.
45. P.296.
46. P. 296. Esp. see what is said about Thomas on this page in the
section on neo-Augustinianism: . . . par ses remarquables com-
mentaires sur Aristote et par une serie d'options philosophiques,
it apparait BUX yeux des theologiens (et aussi des artiens) comme
un partisan du peripatetisme, comme I'Bllie des philosophes et
comnie I'adversaire de la theologie traditionelle.
47. P.297.
48. P.297. We could be tempted to raise the same objection to the
concept of a neo-Augustinianism as is raised against the notion
of a neo-Platonism. But here there is a different situation. Neo-
Augustinianism is realJy not an "Augustinianism"; it is not a
new, creative development of Augustinian thought, but merely a
restoration, and in this sense a "Neo-Augustinianism!"
49. P.299 and 298.
50. P.232f.
61. P.300. The Correctoriltm fratris Thomae of William of Mare is
called a codification of neo-Augustinianism.
62. P.30l.
63. Van Steenberghen, Tlte philolJophical movement . . . p.S6. Cfr.
the work of Veuthey cited in foot-note 23.
230 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
54. In: Grellorianum 29 (1948) p.142-151.
55. Alszeghy dj3tinpishe~ between the S~tence CommentaTtl and
the ufree writings" of Bonaventure as GU8rdini already had done
(Guardini, Er168ungaleh.re). But A. Stohr had shown that this
distinction was untenable (Die Trinitet.lehre . . . p.Z.. 6). In
the light of a further group of "free writings" which have been
published, it has become clear that this distinction simply canw
not be maintained. The Qu. di.p. De prophetia, DB raptu, De
visione intellectuali et corporali, DB divinations edited by B.
D~ker, as well as the Qu De theologia edited by G. H. Tavard,
and the Qu De caritate and De novls,imis edited by Glorieux
show a stronger Aristotelianism than does the Sentence Com-
menta",. They clearly show that Bonaventure does not break the
line of development leading to Thomas, but rather, that he devel~
opa it consistently further and shows a very close approximation
to the position of Thomas. It is surprising that these Qua,.tione.
have not been brought into the discussion thus far. In my opin·
ion, they are sufficient to decide definitely in favor of Van Steen·
berghen's view concerning Bonaventure's position prior to 1267.
66. L'A.potto liw.olico . . . Call Franc X1X (1949) p.40, see sum-
mary on p.42.
57. Ctr. the studies of BaeQmker (cfr. Literature) and R. Klibansky
on Medieval Platonism; for example, Klibansky, The Continuity
0/ the Platonic Tradition during th, Middle Agill•• Outline of a
"Corpus P1atonicum Medi Aev;" 1939. Also in agreement with
this is a statement made in a quite different context by Th. Crow·
ley (in: Rev. Neo.c. de Phil. 1939, p.648~50; cfr. Van Steenber·
ghen, Ari.totl, in the West, p.llS): The term Augustinianism
cannot be used to describe the philosophical teaching of the per·
iod prior to St. Thomas. The inftuence of 8t. Augustine on Bacon
is practically absent • . .
58. A uguetini.me et a:ristoteli.me au XIII sUcle, in: L'annde thllloL
4 (1944) p.442-466.
fi9. ThtJ philo.ophical tn01lement . . . p.71. Van Steenberghen's an·
swer to his critics, ibid., p.68·73.
60. Ibid., p.73.
61. Gilson, Bull,tin thomi.ttJ, Vol. 6 (seriea Dr. 17·19, 1940·1942),
p.6.22; S. BrouDts, Siger von Brabant en de wij.getJrige .troom·
ingen aan de Parij..che Univereiteit in de XIII tJtJuw, in: TlId·
.chrilt Voor Philo.ophi. 8 (1946) 317/48, e.p. 323f.; Van Steen-
berghen, Tit, philolophieal movillment . . • p.63f.
62. ThtJ philosophical mot1em,nt . p.7a.
63. Ibid.
84. The philo.ophieal movemtJ7lt . p.112fj Le mouvement . . .
p.221 note 1; p.224f.; p.226 note 1. Indeed, Van Steenberghen also
recognizes that the unity of Christian wisdom is a central theme
of Bonaventure's thought. E.g. Le mouvillment . . . p.220f.; 227.
 Notes 231
66. Le mouventent . . p.303; The philosophical movement
p.IOOf.
66. Aside from the general presentation of Le 1Il0UV6ment, it seems
to me that this line is drawn out clearly in The philoBophical
movement, p.19-37 (liThe organization of studies and its reper-
cussions on the philosophical movement"). On p.62 Van Steen-
berghen remarks that M. Grabmann and O. Lottin also had seen
the development in this way.
67. In this context, see the position of such an outstanding scholar as
P. Robert. He began his series of articles uLe probleme de In
philosophie bonaventurienne" (Laval phil. et theol. 6 £1950],
p.145-163; 7 119511 p.9-58) with the intention of defending Gilson
against Van Steenberghen in the essential lines of his thought
even if not without reservations (esp. 1950,p.162 to end; 161:
Dans l'esprit de saint Bonaventure, it existe manifestement une
philosophic augustinienne . . .) The situation changes, however,
in the course of the presentation; the second series is a sharp
critique of Gilson. The concept of "Augustinianism" is only very
cautiously defended: "Jusqu A. plus ample informe, on nous
permettra donc de considerer la philosophie de saint Bonaventure
essentiellement et fondamentalement comme un augustisme medi-
eval, sans aucun doute fortement influence par l'aristotelisme
DE!oplatonisant de son milieu doctrinal, mais non specifiquement
caracterise par lui." (1951, p.67). An essential step further is
taken in the "Note additionelle" appended to the article (p.68):
"Cet article etait dejA sous presse lorsque, grace a l'airnable
cDursoisie de M. Van Steenberghen, nous avons pris connaissance
des pages suggestives consacrees a la doctrine de Docteur Sera-
phique dans l'important ouvrage qu'il vient de publier avec MM.
A. Forest et M. de Gandillac ... Nous constatons avec plaisir
que cette etude confinne pleinement la critique que nous venons
de faire de l'ouvrage de M. Etienne Gilson . . . Nous ne crayons
pas qu'il existe entre nous aueun desaccord irreductible sur les
autres points de son interpretation."
6B. Cfr. the texts cited in foot-note 66. The Qu D de theologia seem
to me to go the furthest in this direction. For example, in Qu
1 I it is said that there are sciences which proceed ex principiis
notis solo lumine naturali intellectus sicut arithmetica, geometria,
et huiusmodi; quaedam vera procedunt ex principiis notis et noti-
ficatis lumine superioris scientiae sicut perspectiva . • . Et hoc
modo Sacra Scriptura est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis
notis lumine superioris scientiae, scilicet Dei et beatorum . • .
(ed. Tavard, p.212). Similar notions can be seen in the other
texts cited in note 66. B. Decker, Die Entwicklung der Lehre von
dfW prophetischen Offenbarung . . . p.161 says that, in his anal-
ysis of prophetic knowledge in the Qu de prophetia and De vis-
ione intellectuali st corporali, Bonaventure is closer to Thomas'
analysis of revelation than all the pre-thomistic theologians.
2~2 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
Notes to Chapter 4, #16
1. De decem praec II 26 and 28, Vol. V,p.614f. Nr.28,p.616: Audivi,
cum lui schularis, de Aristotele, quod posuit mundum aeternum i
et cum audivi rationes et arguments, quae tiebant ad hoc, incepit
coneuti eor meum et incepit cogitare, quomodo poteat hoc esse?
Sed haec: modo sunt ita manifests. ut nullus de hoc possit dubi-
tare. efr. also Gilson, Bonaventure, p.486ft'; J. d'Albi, op. cit.,
p.1451f.
2. Comprehensive presentation of material in d' Albi, ap. cit., p.l90-
227.
3. Coli Vill 16, VoI.V,p.497.
4. A comparison of this citation with De Ted" Vol.V,p.320b indi-
cates an exact agreement with the scientific-theoretical structure
of Bonaventure.
6. Op. tit., Isti errore! significantur in Apocalypsi in numero bestiae.
Cfr. below, II.
6. Sm-mo 1 de sa.ncto Man:o II Vol. IX, p.624a. D'Albi takes a con-
vincing position contrary to that of the Quaracchi edition con-
cerning the dating of this sermon in 1266 (op. cit., p.226·227).
J. d'Alhi dates it in the year 1273j in any event it comes from
the period after 1267.
7. Hex VIII, p.365a.
8. Hex VI 3, p.361a.
9. Hex VI 2, p.360f and Nr.6,p.361b. The same Apocalyptic expres-
sions which arp here referred to Aristotelianism are applied to
the opponents of the Mendicants in Apol paup, prot 2, Vo1.VIII,
p.234a, 80 that we must say that, at least in part, they belong
to the cliche-material of the literature concerning controversial
questions. In the instance just cited, it says: . • . dogma quod-
dam pullulasse iamque in scriptis redadum comperimuB, quod
tamquam fumue teter et horridus a pueto abyssaIi prorumpens
ipsiusque solis justitiae splendentibus radiis se directe obiiciens,
christiana rum mentium hemisphaerium obscurare contendit . . •
We have already shown that in the case of Bonaventure it is not
merely a question of cliche, but a ca!le of genuine eschatologi.
cal conviction.
10. Van Steenberghen, Ls ntoutlmeent . . . ,p.22.9: L'attitude de
notre docteur Be modifie vera la fin de sa carrihe . . . Mais
meme II cette epoque Phostilite de saint Bonaventure va bien plus
BUX disciples chretiens d'Aristote qu' a Aristote lui·mame.
11. Van Steenberghen, ibid., On this, P. Robert is in agreement with
Van Steenberghen against Gilson: La'llal tlttlol tit phil 1960, p.16D:
. . . la connaissance que Bonaventure avait d'Aristote • . .
etait assez etendue, mais peu approfondie. Bonaventure himself
never hid this, but expressed it openly i dr. II Sent dip I a 1
q 2 c,p.22f: concerning the various interpretations of Aristotle,
he says expressly on p.23a: Quod horum magis verum sit, ego
 Notes 233
nescio, etc.; the same thing is practically repeated in Hex VII
3,p.365b: Sed quidquid senserit . • •
11a Following a suggestion of Prof. Sc3hngen, the author uses the
German terminology 'thomanisch' and 'antithomanisch' to refer
to Thomas himself and not to Thomism. For the substantive form,
the word U Antithomismus" is used since it would be difficult to
find another form and the context makes it clear where it is a
case of Thomas or of Thomism in individual instances. In the
translation we have used the terms "Thormat" and "anti-Thom-
iet" to correspond to the German usage of "Thomanisch" etc., as
referring to Thomas; and the terminology of uThomistie"etc., to
refer to Thomism.
12. Hex VII 2, p.366b.
13. Esp. De sci Cltr q 4 c, Vol.V,p.2aa.
14. Hex II 22-29, p.340f. Also, J. d'Albi, op. cit., p.231-238.
16. Hex II 26, p.340b. Also, Hex IV 10, p.36lf.
16. Super Hieremiam c 13 f 25v. In general, regarding the question
of Bonaventure's anti·Thomist view, F. Tinivella is correct when
he says: Ila) Factum datur, Collationes in Hexaemeron positiones
aliquas doctrinales adversantes thomismum defenderc. b) Prob·
abilius Seraphicus solummodo data occasione hoc fecit, non ex
professo et multo minus ex intentione thomismum aggrediendi
. . ." (Antonianllm 1936.p. tRa.)
J7. II Sent dip 1 a 1 q 2, p.23a. We would have to agree with Gil·
son when he says that Bonaventure's position on this point was
objectively anti·Aristotelian from the start.
18. II Sent dip 1 a 1 q 2 f 2,p.21a. Gilson, Bonaventure, p.171ff.
19. S Theol I q 46 a 2 ad 7.
20. II Sent, ibid., p.21a. Also, Gilson, Bonaventure, p.17Uf.
21. I Sent d 37 pia 3 q 2 c, p.648b; IV Sent d 43 • 2 q 2 c,p.898a;
q 3 c,p.898f.
22. Thomas, II Sent d 1 q 1 a 5 arg 7: . . . quia tempus accidens
motus. Also, arg 5 and 6.
23. II Sent d 2 pia 2 q 3 c, p.G8a. As far as I have been able to
determine, the question as to what was created first is not even
asked by Thomas. We merely indicate in passing such important
texts as II Sent d 2 pia 1 q 2 c,p.59f (unity of time, distinction
between physical .and cosmic time), a 2 q l,p.64f (four·fold con-
cept of time), q 2 c,p.6Gb (the usaeculum" as properly human
time), d 2 P 2 a 2 q 1 c p.76C (the time oC the angels as bound
up with person, the time of man as cosmic time). Cfr. P. Robert,
Hyle·morphisnle et Devenir chez St. Bonaventure, Montreal, 1936.
24. Gilson, Bonaventure, p.174.
26. Thomas, in IV Sent d 43 q 1 a 3 sol 2. Thomas takes a position
against the authority oC Augustine who explains the indetermi-
nability of the duration of the world by means of the indetermi·
nability of the years of old age. Thus Augustine employs a con-
cept of timp which involves limits as an essential element.
234 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
26. Prof. Sohngen has pointed out to me that this eternal circle of
time is most clearly expressed in 1. Logos, 1. half of the Platonic
uPhaidon," following the lead of Heraclitus. All the essential
texts that express this circular understandinlr of time are to be
found in K. Lowith, WeltgeBchichte und Heil'116.chehen, Stutt·
gart, 1968, p.223 note 16. See also, Cullmann, Chri,t and Time,
p.61 and 61. The notion of the circulus intellil1ibili. in Bonaven-
tUfe is pointed out by R. Guardini, Eine Denkerl1e.talt de. "ohen
Mittelalt.r.: Bonat/mtura, in: Unter.cheidu11.11 deB Chmtlichn,
Mainz, 1936 (p.389-403), p.402. B. Rosemmoller, Religion Er-
kenntni. . . • p.36 speaks of express references on this point
in Guardini's unpublished Habilitatiotlarlrbttit. but they seem to
stand in a different context.
27. Newly edited in: Cl. Baeumker, Studitm und CharaJctemtiken
zur Ge.ch. der Phil., iMbe•• de. MiUelalter•. Edited by M. Grab-
mann, Baumker-Beih'lige XXV, 1-2 (1927) p.207-214, Commen-
tary, p.194-207. Bonaventure mentions this W'Ork expressly in I
Stmt d 87 pIa 1 q 1 ad 8. p.369b to the surprise of the Quarae-
chi editors who did not know of it. There seem to be some indi-
cations of it also in II Sent d 2 P 2 a 2 q 1 c,p.76b below and 77a
aboVe! (Ofr. P•.-Herme. III, ed Baeumker 208) i otherwise, as far
as I can aee, it is only the propottitio II that is cited: but it is
cited very frequently.
28. ROil 7 PL 210, 627 A. Cfr. Geyer, p.247.
29. p.-Herme., prop. II op. cit., p.208. efr. Bonaventure, I Sent d 37
pIa 1 q 1 ad 3, p.639b; Do my.t tnn q 5 a 1 ad 7,8 Vol.V 91b;
Itin c 6,8, Vol.V 310aj Sermo IV in vig nat DDi, Vol IX, p.94a.
30. I Sent d 46 a 2 q 1 c, p.804f. Ps. DionysiuB, De div nom c 4 #14
PL 3, 713.
31. Do my.t trin q 8 ad 7 Vol. V,U5b.
32. Thi. is developed extensively in He", XXII and XXIII, p.437-
449; eap. XXIII 4,p.446b. Concerning the patristic: teaching see:
J. Ratzin",r, Volk und Ha ... Gott.. . . . p.197-218.
38. Brev p 6 c 1 end, Vol. V, p.263a; p.6 c 3,p.267a.
34. De red 7, Vo1.V,p.322aj Breu p 2 c 4,p.221b.
36. Actually the meaning of De red and He2:. I is understandable only
if it is seen as an allegory which clarifies the deeper meaning of
things which is seen first in faith.
36. H ..: I 24, p.333b. Cfr. Delorme, Prine ColU # 3,24,p.ll. In lin.
with the character of the Delorme text, the mathemat1cal problem
is treated more extensively here than in the Opera. omnia j the
theolocical meaning remains the same.
37. D. per! ev q 2 a 2 ad 20, p.148a; H.", XVI 22, p.406b.
38. De don Sp S, VIII 16, Vol V., 497b. For a clarification of the no-
tion of the "numerus cyclicus", see the text of Boethius, II A rith-
met. c: 30 PL 63,1137, which is given in note 6.
39. For Bonaventure's jnterpretation of the number six, dr. I Sent
d 2 a un q 4 c. J'I.fi7b: Renarius autpm dic:itur primus perfectorum,
 Noles 235
quia constat ex omnibus partibuB Buis aliquotie, scilicet mbus,
duobus et uno; included in the interpretation of the number ten,
IV Senl dIp 2 a 1 q 3 c, p.36b; Bre. p 6 c 12, Vo1.V, p.278b:
quia senarius est primus numerus perfectus; De 88% alia Ser c
1,4 Vol. VIII, ,p.132b; aleo important is Apo/paup' c 3,8, Vol.VIII,
p.246b and Apol paul' c 7, 40, p.285b. The texts of Richard of
St. Victor and Rupert of Deutz given by the Quaracchi edition
do not make an interpretation possible (Vol. V,p.497b). The text
can be understood only in relation to the parallels in Bonaven-
ture's own work. Without a doubt, the meaning of Bonaventure
is: the number six is, in itself, a perfeet number - it is a cyclic
number; placing this cyclic number three times in succession
produces 8 number of more intense cyc:1ic character; further-
more, it points very concretely to the threefold heretical teRch-
in&, of the philosophers who have created a triple heretical circle
with the affirmation of the aeternitaa mundi, the necessitas fatal-
is, and the unitas intellectus.
40. Hez VI 4, p.361a. Also, II Senl dIp 1 a 1 q 2 c,p.23a.
41. Peter Lombard, I Sent d 3 pIc l,p.6ab i Bonaventure's com-
mentary on this in d a a un q 4 opp 2,p.76b and ad 2,p.76b; also,
William of St. Amour, De periculi. nov temp c 11, ed. Bierbaum,
p.26.
42. Hex XII 16 and 17, p.3S6f. For the notion of the "liber scriptus
intus et foris" see Brev p 2 c 11, VoI.V,p.229a; also the indica-
tion eiven there concerning the origin of the idea in Hugo of
st. Victor, De 'ac!·. I p 6 c 5 PL 176,266f.
43. H.z VII 6,p.366a.
44. H .., VII 81f, p.366f.
45. H.z VII IS,p.367b; also Joachim, Conc V 11 f 66r: Secundo
tempore factum est firmamentum in medio aquarum. Firmamen-
tum est ecclesi. Petri, qt..i specialiter assumpta cruce 5eCutUI
est Christum • • • Aquas enim ab aquis firmamentum divisi~
quia fideles ab infidelibus mater ecclesia eegregavit . . . G.
S6hngen refers to the citation from Bonaventure in: Die bibliache
Lehre von der Gottebenbildliclakeit de. M m.chen, in: Die Ei,,-
laeit in der Theal, p.210.
46. He!t IV l,p.349aj V 22,p.367b. Actually the Bonaventurian
schema of sciences embraces 3 x 3 ~iencea, which are not reduced
immediately to ubeatitudo", but find their reduction by way of
Scripture. If we may be allowed to take this into consideration
in this context, then the two interpretations of the magicians of
the Pharao are identical at least in their basic structure. Ofr.
the schema of the sciences in De r,ductione, Vol. V, p.319ff.
47. Hex II 30, p.341bj dr. Nr. 32~34Ip.342. See what was said above
in #12.
48. The minor side-remark against Thomas does not change this.
Bonaventure rejects Thomas' concept of beatitude, which is pri-
marily intellectual (II 29,p.341a: Unde patet. quod non est tota
236 Theology 0/ His/ory in S/. Bonaven/ure
beatitudo in inteUectiva). But the total direction is not anti-
Thomist, but anti·intellectual in 8 very general sense.
49. Hex XVII, 27, p.413b. Significantly the decisive second sentence
of this section is missing in Delorme (V III CoIl V #2, 27,p.201).
But the idea can be seen to be genuinely Ronaventurian because
the motif appears frequently in the work of the Seraphic Doctor;
other indications in the Delorme text point in this direction as
well. See the fonowing. Furthermore, the first inspiration for
this interpretation goes back to Francis himself. He says in the
Verba admonitioni. 2 (Bohmer. Analekten, p.42): Ille enim
comedit de ligno boni et mali, qui sibi 8U8m voluntatem appro-
piat et se exaltat de bonis, que Dominus dicit et operatur in
ipso; et sic per su~gestionem diaboli et transgressionem mandati
factum est ei pomum scientie mali; unde oportet, quod sustineat
penam. Cfr. Nr. 7 (Bohmer, p.44) : Illi sunt mortui a littera, qui
tantum sola verba cupiunt scire, ut sapientiores inter alios tene~
antur . . . Related to this also is Bonaventure's Senno V in
dom 11 post Prucha II, Vol. IX, p.304b: Quid igitur valent omnes
aliae scientiae, nisi ad istam (sc. sapientiam salutarem) ordin-
entur? - Vae illisl qui toto tempore vitae suae student in logica,
physica vel in decretis et nihil aaporis in ista acienaa inveniunt;
si in ligno crucis studerent, scientiam salutarem ibi invenirent;
est enim lignum vitae • . . Also. J. d'Albi, Le. luttes doctrin~
ales • . . 207. In Hex XIV 17, p.396a the image is used in a
wider sense to symbolize the church of the anti~Christ as such.
60. Tract d. plant par 8 VoI.V, p.677B.
61. Hu XVI 22 and 23, p.406f.
62. Unfortunately I was not able to determine the source for this
interpretation. Most likely we would not be entirely wrong if we
were to think of Joachim. But perhaps the history of the idea
goes back further. The statement of St. Francis given above
would seem to indicate this. for it was certainly formulated un~
der the influence of some traditional view.
68. Ji.% XVI 23, p.407a.
64. Sermo 11 in dam III adv, Vol. IX 63a. Cfr. J. d'Albi, op. cit.,
p.IU3-196.
66. See #16, 3 above
66. D. don Sp S VIII 16, Vol. V, p.497b.
67. Hex VI 6, p.361b. The formulation of this text in Delorme is
significant, V I Coll III #1,6,p.92: Hi ergo taliter ponentes inci-
derunt in hos errorcs, quorum intelligentia dauditur clave putei
abyssalis, unde nimia caligo aseendit. Cautius ergo est dicere
quod Aristoteles non senserit mundum aeternum, sive senserit
sive non, quia tantu8 fuit quod omnes ipsum sequerentur et
assererentur idem dicere; sic omnia lux determinata in praece~
dentibus cxtingueretur. Sequamur autem nos eum in quibus bene
dixit, non in eis in quibu.s fuit tenebrO!UB, quae nescivit vel quae
celavit. Unde in hac Vlta Bunt homines in praedpitio infinito.
 Not.s 237
68. Hex 11 7,p.337b. Again, the formulation in the Delorme text is
weaker j Prine Coli II,II 7,p.22f.
69. Hex XIX 18,p.423a. Prof. Sohngen has made the following re-
marks on this point: By way of comparison. it is enlighten.
ing that Luther's "alte Vettel und Hure Vernunft" is directed
not against reason itself, but against a reason that desires to
have and actually does have the decisive word in theology. But
in the case of Bonaventure, we see how diffi~ult it is to succeed
in placing the proper limits on such images. Apocalyptic images
are like a torrent of water that overflows the banks and is dif-
ficult to keep in bounds. And regardless of all efforts to mollify
the imagery, the apocalyptic: tone predominates. Even a Mozart
cannot make a trumpet forget to sound like 8 trumpet!
60. G. Sohngen, Die The%gie int "Streit der Fakultliten/' in: Die
Einheit tn der Theolouie, p.13f. Therefore, when Dempf (Meta.-
phJ/.ik de. ilfittelaiten, p.ll2) says that Luther's statement con-
cerning the "prostitution with the Aristotelian reason" is found
already in the case of Bonaventure, we must add that the pre-
vious history of this statement is actually much older.
61. Hex II 7 end, p.337b and Hex I 9,p.330b.
62. He% IV l,p.349a: . . . superbientes de sua scientia luciferiani
facti. He% XXII 42, p.444a-b applies the designation of "luci-
ferianus" to the proud contemplative.
63. He% XVII 28, p.414.b. It is significant that this is missing in
Delorme. This seems to be another text which is based on a
statement of St. Francis, or on a statement attributed to him.
Speelllum per/ectionis C III (IV) c 69,4 (ed. Sabatier, p.200):
Nam et ventura est tribulatio, qua libri. ad nihilum utiles, in
fenestris et latebris proiicientur.
64. This distinction between the present and a coming, but not yet
present, eschatological situation corresponds to the position which
Bonaventure assumed relative to the problem of the Order as
such in as far as he distinguishes between the present Francis-
can Order and the eschatological Order of Francis (dr #6).
This remains the real distinguishing characteristic of Bonaven-
ture's view, setting him off from the Spirituals who desired to
have in the present what Bonaventure reserved for the future.
For this reason, such anti-Aristotelian statements as were com-
monplace for Olivi would have been impossible for Bonaventure.
Olivi, for example, says: ". . . Iicet eius auctoritas mihi valde
displiceat" (ed. Jansen, I, 648); II • • • licet mihi non sit cura
quid hie vel alibi senserit" (ibid. 337) j dr. Vol. III, Index C
(Allegationes philosophorum), Aristoteles F (De auctoritate
Aristotelis Aristotelicorumque et generatim philosophorum) p.678
ff. For Bonaventure, Aristotle is really an authority now, and
his opinion is in no way a matter of indifference. In as far as
Olivi draws the eschatological tlthen" of Bonaventure into his
own "now", he destroys the real eschatological anti-philosoph i-
258 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
cal attitude of Bonaventure and reduces it to an inner-philoso-
phieal dispute. Unfortunately, a number of scholars have not
escaped the danger of placing Bonaventure in the same tracks
as Olivi and of attributing to him a form of anti-Aristotelian-
ism which he actually never held. See what follows.
tS5. Hea: XXII 21 f,p.440f; see the previous note. This final position
of Bonaventure is clearly different from the position which he
held at the end of hi! Magisterium and at the time when he be-
gan to be more intensively interested in the historical problem
in Epist de 3 quaest 13 Vol. VIII, p.336: "Fateor coram dea,
quod hoc est, quod me fecit vitam beaU Francisci maxime diU-
gere, quia similis est initio et perfectioni ecc1esiae, quae primo
incepit a piscatoribufl simplicibus et postmodum profecit ad
doctores clarissimos et peritissimos; sic videbis in religione beati
Francisci, ut ostendat Deus, quod non fuit per hominum pru·
dentiam inventa, sed per Christum; et quia opera Christi non
deficiunt, sed proftciunt, ostenditur hoc opus fuisH divinum,
dum ad consortium virorum simplicium etiam aapientes non sunt
dedignati descendere . . ." This development was overlooked
by P. Robert, who has produced an otherwise outstanding analy.
sis of the essential contents of this epi,tola (Laval theol. fit phil.
1950, p.157ff).
66.. See the Testamentum. of St. Francis Nr. 4 (Bohmer, Analekten,
p.37): Et eramus ydiotae et subditi omnibus. Similarly in the
epist ad cap lJen c 5 (BBhmer. 61): quia jgnorans sum et idiota.
Also, the introduction by B6hmer, p.XI. I~jkewise, II Celano p
2 c 146, 193, ed. Alenean, p.314: Volebat denique religiorem pau-
peri bus et miteratis, non solum divitibus et sapientibu8 ease
communem. Similarly, Speculum rwrl C IV (V) c 81,4, ed. Saba-
tier, p.239: Et statim dixit illi Dominus: uDic mihi, 0 simplex
et idiota homuncio, quare tantum contristaris . . . " c 81,7: Sed
elegi te sjmplicem et idiotam, ut scire valeas, tam tu, quam alii,
quoniam vigilabo super gregem meum. Also, c 46,3, p.ll8 and
68,6,p.196. See also the fragment of the Tres socii given by Sab-
atier, op. cit., p.290 note 3: Sic et multa alia verba simplieia in
fervore spiritus loquebatur, quia idiota et simplex electuB a Dec
non doctis humanae aapientiae verbis, sed simpliciter in omni-
bus ae habebat. Bonaventure, H~% XVIII 26, p.418b: Sic ecce,
quod una vetula quae habet modicum hortum, quia solam carita-
tem habet, meliorem fruc:tum habet quam unus magister, qui habet
maximum hortum et scit mysteria et naturas rerum. Here the
Delorme text ia clearly weaker (V III C VI #3, 26,p.211). See
also, J. Jorgensen, St. Franci, 0/ A"i8i, p.236; here the text is
clarified by means of a conversation between Brother Giles and
St. Bonaventure taken from the Chroniea XXIV Gen.Min. (Ana-
iecta Franciacanll .111, p.101).
Cfr. the sigh of Br. Giles recounted on p. 238: "Our ship leaks
and must sink: Jet him flee who can I Paris, Paris, thou ruinest
 Note. 239
8t. Francis' Orderl"; also the statement of Jacopone da Todi
which is quoted at the same place: uParis, thou hast ruined As-
sisi." Similarly. Gilson, Bonaventure, p.40ff and p.464ff. Thus
William of 8t. Amour adroitly makes use of genuine Francis-
can material when he says: "Similiter non Heet eis procurare ut
ftant magistri, quia magisterium honor est." (Re,ponnones It
2 ed. Faral, ap. cit., p.340.)
67. Cfr. the previous foot-note, especially the reference to GilBOn
where we find a discussion together with the pertinent literature.
68. Benz, EecleB'ia .piritual;', p.38ff., esp. p :39; also the texts given
in Grundmann, Joachim, II, p.109f. See also the treatment by
Salimbenes which i8 based on Ps.-Joachim, and which is given
by Gilson, Bonaventure, pA66.
69. D. rod 6 Vol.V, p.32Ib. The relation of Gregory to Bernard which
is expresaed in this text is found also in J ahn of Salisbury, Hi.-
taria pontijicalu., M.G.SS. 66 XV, 626; See: Grabmann, Metkode,
II, pAllf. Without a doubt, Bonaventure could have made use
of many predecessors in drawing up his Rchema.
70. Jl S~t. d 1~, a 1, q ~ C, p.4!Ytib: ~uidnam enim sandi in hac
quaestione magis secuti sunt viam theologicam, trahentes ra-
tionem ad ea quae sunt fidei. Quidam vera, inter quos praecipuUB
fuit Augustinus, magis secuti sunt viam philosophic:am, quae
illa ponit, quae magis videntur rationi consona . . • Et haec
positio multum fuit rationabilis et valde lIubtilia. Verumtamen,
quia ad hane positionem videtur intellectu,s scripturae distrahi,
et seeuriuB est et magis meritorium, intellectum nostrum et ra-
tionem omnino seripturae aupponere, quam ipsam aliquo modo
diatrahere: ideo communiter alii doctores et qui praecesserunt
Auruatinum, et Qui aecuti, lic intellexerunt . . • Should we try
to clarify this text on the basis of the fact that the CommentllTJI
was not intended to be an "independent writing?"
71. II Sm" d 13, a I, q I c, p.312f; II d 33 • 3 q 1 c, p.798f, (also,
Brov p 8 c 6,Vol.V,p.236a); IV S... t d 44 P 2 a I c,p.9Ua; II
Sent d 8 pIa 1 q 1 c, p.211a. Cfr. also L. Meier, Bona.venturo.a
Selb.tzeugni, ",ber ,einen AuguatiniamUl. in: Fran: Studien 17
(1930) p.342-366, where the limits of this Augustinianism are
clearly indicated.
72. H.~ XIX 10,p.422a; Delorme, V III C VII #1 10-11, p.216.
73. H.~ XIX 14, p.422b. The encounter with the Sultan is treated
at greater length in Senna II de a. P. n. Franc II, Vol.IX, p.579b-
680a. We find an interesting addition in Delorme, op. cit., 14,
p.217: . • . eeclesiae primitivae, quando clerici de novo conversi
ut Dionyaiu8 libros philosophorum dimisit et libros aacrae scrip-
tUrae assumpsit. On the other hand, the statement about burn-
ing philosophical books is missing.
74. II 8tmt d 1 pIa 1 q 2 c. p.22b: . . . etiam ille excellentior in-
ter philosoph08, Aristoteles . . . i also, He~ VII 2, p.363b. This
is expressly admitted by P . Robert (0". cit.) Bnd strengthened
240 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
wIth new arguments j cfr. esp. p.162: AI' encontre de ce que
sDutient M. E. Gilson, l' aristotelisme Dr est done pas uniquement
pour Ie Docteur Seraphique 'une doctrine condamne' ou 'une erre-
ur qu'U juge," L' aristotelisme est en elfet beaucoup plus que
eela pour lui. 11 est 1& plus haute expression de la pensee antique
et I. plus panaite explication de l' univers jamais coneue par
la raison hum sine laissee a Be! Hules lumH~res. It seems to me
that there is no longer any possibility for doubt in this matter.
76. Gilson, Bonavrnture, p.26: lilt was not St. Bonaventure who
changed, but the world that changed about him." Similarly, p.178
and elsewhere. F. van Steenberghen, Lfl mouvement . . . p.22Sf
and 228ff. P. Robert, in: Laval phil e! theol. 7 (1961) p.S6-56.
76. L. Veuthey. Sancti Bonaventurae philoBophia christiana, Rome,
1943.
77. Compare with the conclusion of G.H. Tavard, Tran.ienC'J/ and
Permanence, p.164: This'can be dismissed as extravagant.
78. This is the indisputably correct point to which the works of
Gilson, Van Steenberghen, and Robert (note 75 above) point,
each from a different perspective. In this respect, the judgment
of the 8cholion-writers of Quaracchi is also correct when they
say: "Sandu! Bonaventura semper sibi constans ubique fere
utitur eadem doctrina vel saltern iisdem principiis" (Vol.I,
p.XXXVI. This is cited with emphasis by B.A. Luyckx, op. cit:
p.234 and 288). Concerning less significant developments on indi-
vidual points in the thought of Bonaventure even within the in-
ner-Scholastic framework, see the list of literature for the works
of R. Silk and F. Henquinet.
19. Cfr. the indications in #6 above.

Conclusion
1. Delorme, p.276; Op. omnia, Vo1.V,p.449f. additamentum (p.460a,
bottom).
2. These ideas are indicated by the Delono. text: V III Coli III #2
24-25,p.177: . , ita esse deberet secundum Evangelii doc-
trinam.
 LITERATURE
Articles from the LThK as well as other literature that is not re-
lated to the work as.8 whole will be indieated at the proper places and
will not be repeated here.
1. GcnSTal Work.
Bach, J. DOllmenge.cltichte dea Mittt:la.lter. 110m chrutolouUchen
Standpunkt, 2 vol. 1873-1875.
Cayre, F. Patrologie et hiltoire de la. theologie, vol. 2, 3. ed., Paris,
1947.
Copleston, F., A Hi,tory 0' Philo.ophll. Vol. II. Medieval Philosophy.
Augustine to Scotus. London, 1950.
Curtis, S.J., A Short Hi.torJ/ 0/ We,te,.,. Philo.ophll in the Middle
Agel, London, 1960.
Dekkers, E., Clavi. Patro.tn Latinorum. Bruge!, 1961 (Sacri! Eru-
diri, Vol. III).
Forest, A. -Van Steenberghen, F. -Gandillac, M. de, Le mOUlIement
doctrinal du IX" au XIV" aidele, Paris, 1961 (= A. Fliche-V.
Martin, Hi8toire de It 1111ufJ • • • Vol. 13), cited: Van Steen-
berghen, Le mouvement.
Geyer, B., Die patTistische und sckolCUltache Philosophie, ~a8el 1961
(unaltered reprint of the 1927 edition) = Vol. 2 of Uberweg'.
Grund";.. der Gesch. der Phil., cited: Geyer.
Ghellinck, J. de, Litterature latine au mOl/en age (Biblioth~que catho-
lique de! sciences religieuaes), 2 vo1., Paris, 1939.
Gilson-BOhner, Cnristliche Philosophie \Ion inren A n/anllen biB Niko-
laUi 1Ion Oue•. Paderhorn, 19648 •
Grabmann, M., Die Geschichte der scholutischen Methode. 2 vol.
Freiburg, 1909-1911, cited: Methode (unaltered reprint Darm-
stadt, 1966).
Harnaek, A. von, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 3 vol. Tiibingen,
1931-32' (unaltered reprint of the 1909-1911 edition), cited: DG.
Hirschberger, J., Gtllchichte dey Ph1lo.ophie, Vol. I, Altertum und
Mittel.Iter, Freiburg, 1949.
Landgraf, A.M., Ein/uhrung in die Ge.chichts der theol. Literatur der
Frilh8cholCUftik, Regensburg, 1948, cited: EinH1hrunll.
Dogm61tg8lchichte der Fmh.chola.tik. Vol. I-IV, Regensburg,
1952-1956, cited: DG.
Meyer, H., Geschichte der abendUinduchen WeltaMchauung, Vol. III:
Die Weltanscrauung des MittelaItera. Wiirzburg, 1948.
Wulf, M. de, Histoire de la philo.ophie m.dievale, Vol. II, Louvain-
Paris, 19360. Also, the English: His'o11/ 0/ Medieval Philosophll,
Vol. II, 1937.
2. Monographs and article.
Abate, Gius., Per la storia e la cronologia. dt San Bonaventura, O.
Min. (c. 1217-1274), Rome, 1950.
241
242 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
Aegerter, E., L' aDaire du De p,ntulia no-viuimonltrl t~porum,
R Hillt R.I 112 (1935) p.242 - 272.
Albi, J. d' Saint Bona.v.mtuT4!I at Ie. lutte. doctrinal •• de 1267 -1277,
Paris, 1923.
Aleneon, E. d', art. Fr'res mineur•. DrhC VI 1 eol. 809/16.
Alszegby, Z., Studio. Bonaventuriana, in: Gr'lIorianum 29 (1948)
p.142-151.
Andrew, I. Me., The TheOT'll 0/ Divinfl lUumination in St. Bonatlm..-
ture, in: New Schokuticiwm 1932, p.32-50.
Auer, J'., Die Entwicklunll deT Gnadmlehre in der Hochackola.tik, 2
vol., Freiburg, 1942 and 1951 (Freiburger theol. Studien, Vol.
62 aod 64).
Auguatbnu Mag;.,ur, Congrh international avauatinien. 3 vol. Paris,
1954.
Balthasar, H. U. von, Die deutsch, Thoma,c"u'l1abe, publ. by the AI-
bertuB-MagnuBakademie Walberberg bei KOIn, vol. 23, 1954 (The
special gifts of grace and the two ways of human life, S Theol
II-II, p.171-182).
Baeumker, el., Studien und CAarakteristiken %ur Geschichte dctr Phi-
lo.ophis, insb. dSB Mittelalters, pub!. by M. Grabmann. Munster,
1927 (Baeumker-Beitri:ge XXV I - 2), ..p.:
Geist und Form d. mittelalterl. Philo•. p.68 - 100;
From the annual reports on Western philosophy in the Middle
Aces, p.l01-189;
Der PlatoniBm im Mittelalter, p. 139-179.
Witslo, Ein Philo,oph "nc( Naturforlfchsr des 13. Jahrh., Munster,
1908 (Baeumker-Beitrage III 2).
Studisn zur Gs.clichte dsr Philo.ophie, Festgabe zum 60. Ge-
buratag CI. Baeumker, Munster, 1913 (Baeumker-Beitrige,8uPPl.,
vol. 1) cited: Baeumkerfestschrift.
Baur, L., Das Licht in dST Naturphilosophie des Robert Grosset,.te,
in: Hertling/esuchri/t, p.41-65, Freibur¥" 1913.
Dominieus GundisaaHnu8, De division, "hiloBophulfJ. analyzed
from the perspective of the history of philo8ophy and pub), by
L. Baur, MiinBter, 1903 (Baewnker-Beitr6ge IV 2-3).
Benz, E., EccleBia .p1rituali.: Kirchenidee und Geschichtstheologie
der franziakanisehen Relnnnation. Stuttgart, 1934.
Die GeschichtBtheologie d'T Franziakansrspiritualen des 13. und
14. Jahr/tllnd<rt. nach ".uen Quellen, in: ZKG 52 (1933) p.90
-121.
Joachi....tudi." I - III, in :ZKG 50 (1931) p.24 -111; 51 (1982)
p.416-455; 53 (1934) p.52-116.
Bernardini, L.M., La. nonon, del .opranaturale nell' antica Scuola.
FrancsBcana, Rome, 1943.
Berreaheim, H., Christue als Haupt IUT Kirchs nach de", ilL Bona-
vrntura. Bonn, 1939 (Grenzfragen zwischen Phil. nnd Theol.
Vol. 9).
 Literature 24~
Bettoni, E., II problem4 della. cono8cibilita di Dio nella .cuola Iran-
ce.cana, Padua, 1960.
Beumer, J., Rupert von Deub und nine UVennittlungatheologie," in:
MThZ 4 (1953) p.255 - 270.
Beyschlag, K., Die Berllpredillt und Franz von A.1tiai. G6.terslob, 1966.
Bianchi, P., Doctrina S. Bonovmturae de analogia univflr.ali, Zan,
1940.
Bierbaum, M., Bettelorden und Weltl1ei.tlichkeit an deT Universi-
tat Paris. Texte uDd Untersuchungen zurn literarischen Annuts-
und ExemUon.streit del 13. J ahrhunderts (1255 -1272) Mun-
ster, 1920 (Franz. Stud., 2 Deiheft).
Bignami-Odier, J., Note. aUT deu% manwrcMt. de ta Biblio.theque du
Vaticcm contenant de. tratte. inedit. de Joachim de Flore., in:
Melanl/tl. d' CJrcheolollitJ fit d' Hiatotr" (Ecole francaise de Rome)
LIV Paris, 1937.
Bissen, J.M., L' e:remplamtne dlvin seion S. Bonavrnture, Paris, 1929
(Etudes IX).
Blumenkranz, M., La Ifu,,,ie medievale de ,aint Auguatin a traver•
... apoCf'l/phe., in: Augustinu. Magi.ter II, 1003 -1018.
Bondatti, G., GioGChininno e France.canetimo nel DUIle71to, Assisi,
1924.
Bonmann, 0., De 4utlumticitate epiatolae S. FrRncisci ad S. Antoni-
um Padovinum. QuaTaeehi. 1952.
Bonnefoy, J. Fr., Le Satnt E.prit et
ture, Paris, 1929 (Etudes X).
.e. Don .elon Saint Bonaven-

Art. Bonaventura, in: Enciclopedia. caUolica, Vol. 11,1837 -1846

(Rome, 1949).
Borne, C. van den, Doctnna Sa:neti Bonaventurae de inspiratione et
inerrantia Sacrae Seripturae, in: Antonianum 1 (1926) p.309-
326.
Brezzi, La eoncez1one agostiniana della citta. di Dio, Galatina, 1947.
Brown, R., Tlte Little Flower. of St. Franci., New York, 1968.
Brunner, P. N~eTe Bonaven.tura-Forsehunl1en, in: Theol. Bundlcha.u,
1930.
Callebaut, C.A., L' entrJe de S. Bonaventura da.nB l' Ordrs de. Frere.
Mineur. en 1243, in:La France Fr4nci.caine V (1921) p.41-51.
Callus, D.A., The Date of GrOB.ete.ta. Translation and Commentaries
on Pseudo-Dionll.iu. and the Nichomachean Ethic., in: Reeh Th
Anc Mad 14 (1947) p.186·210.
La. condMlacion de Sto. Toma. en Oz/ord, in: Relluta de Fila-
sofia VI (1947) p.377-416.
Cambell, J., Le. ecrit. de Saint Francou d' A•• iaa dev4nt la critiqUft,
in: Franz. Stud.36 (1954) p.82 - 109; p.205 - 264.
Casutt. L., Die alteste franzi.kani.eke L,ben'form. Untersuchungen
zur regula prima sine buHa. Graz-Wien-Koln, 1955.
Carr, A.• PovsrtJl in Perfection A.ccording to St. Bon4v,nturs, in!
Franc. Stud. VII (1947) p. 313-323; 416-425.
244 Theology 0/ His/ory in St. /Jonu.ell/ure
Chenu, M.D., Introduction a I' itude de Saint Thomtul d' Aquin. Mon-
treal and Paris, 1960.
La, thJologie comme .ciellce aft XIII necle, Paris 1943:':, pro man-
uBcripto (First edition in Arch hist doctr Utt m a 1927 (II)
p.31-71.
TheologilJ .~mbolique et e:dgs88 8colaatiqufJ ClU XIl st XIlI m-
cle., in: MJlanl1fJ. Joseph de Ghellinck S.J., Vol. II, p.609-626
(Gembloux, 1961).
Cichitto, L., L' Bacatolouia di Dante e it france.caneBimo, in: Misc.
Fr«ne. 47 (1947) p. 217-231.
Postille bonaventuriano·dantnche, Rome, 1940.
Clasen, S., Kritilchs8 ZUT neueren Franziskuslit.ratur, in: Wia.m-
..haft und Weisheit 13 (1950) p. 161-166.
Franz von A.Bi"i und Joachim von Fiore, ibid., 6 (1939) p.68-83.
Die Sendung de. hI. Franzi.kl~. Ihre heilsgeschichtliche Deutung
durch Bonaventura, ibid., 14 (1951) p.212/25.
Der heilille Bona.ventura. und daB Mendikantentum, Wert, 1940.
Clusone, V. da, Cultura tJ ptJnsiero di S. Fra.nce8co d' AssiBi, Modena,
1962.
Conzelmann, H., ThtJ ThtJololIY 0/ St. LuktJ, tr. G. Buswell, N.Y., 1960.

Cullmann, 0., Chmt and TimtJ, tr. F. Filson, Philadelphia, 1964.

CurtiU8, E.R., Europa:ischtJ Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter,
Bern, 1948.
Dady, M.R., Th, Th,orJI 0/ Knowledge 0/ St. B01IavtJntuTtJ, Washing-
ton, 1939.
Danielou, J., Lord 0/ Hillto"" tr. N. Abercrombie, Chicago, 1968.
Decker, B., Die Entwicklung der LehrtJ 110n der propiletiBchen Offen-
barunll von Wilh. 'Von A u:terre bis zu Thoma. von Aquin, Bres-
lau, 1940 (BreslBuer Studien zur historischen Theol., Neue Folge,
voI.VII).
Die Analyse de. OJ/enbarung8vorllange. him hlg. Thomcu im
Licht vorthomiatischer Prophezietraktate, in :Anllelicum 1939,
p.195-244.
Delorme, efr. Sources under Bonaventure.
Dempsey. P., DfJ principiis u:egeticis S. BonaventurafJ, Rome, 1946.
Dempf, A., .sacrum Imperium, Darmstadt, 1964:.: (unaltered reprint
of the original 1927 edition.)
MtJta.phJlsik des Mittelaltera (in the Handbuch der Philosophie),
Munich,-Berlin, 1930.
Ethik de" Mittelalter., ibid., 1927.
Eeelesia spiritualia oder Schwarmllei&tereil in: Hockland XXXII
2 (1936) p.170-173.
DiU Dritte Rmch. Schicksale einer Idee, in :Hochland XXIX 1
(1931/32) p. 36-48 and 168-171.
Etienne GilAon, in: Phil. Jahrlrucla. der Gorreagea.llAcha/t 62
(1963) p.263-266.
Denifte, Daa Evanl1tJlium aeternum und die Commission zu Anagni,
in: ALKG I p.49-98.
 Literature 245
Detloff, W., Die Geistillkeit des hlg. Franzi.kuB in der Theolollie der
Frannskaner, in: Wi88enschaft und TVtti.heit 19 (1966) p. 197-
211.
IIChristua tenens medium in omnihWf." Sinn und Funktion de,'
Theolollie bei Bonaventura, ibid., 20 (1967) p.28-42; 120-140.
Dobbin8, D., Franciscan Mystici.m. New York, 1927 (Franciscan
Studi•• N,·.6).
Dobschutz, E.v., Yom vicr/ac1ufn SchMltainn, in: Harnack.Ehrunl1,
Leipzi.r, 1921, pol-IS.
Doctor Seraph-ieUB • . . door V.M. Breton, A. Epping, B. van Leeu-
wen, N. Sanders. Collectanea FranciRcana Neerlandica VII 3,
's Hertogenbosch, 1960.
iJondaine, H.J 0, Le corpu. DiOflJl.ien de I' 'univer.ttcf de f'al'1' au
XIII eieele, Rome, 1963 (Storia e letteratura 44).
Doucet, V" De natu-Tali .fHL innate Bupernaturalis beatitudini. de-
.idfJrW iuxta ThfJolol1o. a .afJculo Xll/u.que ad XX. in: Antoni-
anum 3 (1928) p.167-208.
Quae.tione. centum ad .cholmn Franci.cananl .aec. XIII ut plw··
imum .pectante. in cod. Florentino Bibl. Laur. Pluto 17 sin. 7.
Appendix: De quaestionibus S. Bonaventurae adscriptis in cod.
Vaticano Palat. lat. 612, AFH 26 (1938) p.183-202, 474-496 (Ap-
pendix p.487-496).
De.eriptio codici. 172 bibliothecae cOfJl1l11mali. ABBiaienBi., ibid.,
25 (1932) p.257-274; 378-389; 502-524.
Duhem, P., Le BYBteme de monde; histoire des doctrines cosmologiques
de Platon a Copernic, 6 val., Paris, 1913·1917.
Ehser, K., Zu der "Epi.tola de tribtut quae8tionibu." deB hlg. Bona·
"mtura, in: Franz. Stud. 27 (1940) p.149-169.
Ehrle, F., Dar heilille Bonaventura. Seine Eigenart und seine drei
Lebensaufgaben, in: Franz. Stud. 8 (1921) p.109-124.
Beitrl1116 zur GeBchichte der mittdalterlichen Scholtllttik II: Der
Augustinismus und der Aristotelismus in der SchoJastik gegen
Ende d .. 13. Jahrhunderts. in: ALKG V (1889) p.603-635.
Zlt1' Ge8chichte der SchoJa.tik im 13. Jahrhundert, in: ZkTh 13
(1889) p.172-193.
Die Spiritualen, ih,' Verhtiltni. zum F"anciBcanel'ordcm 1t11d Z'U
den FraticeUen, in: ALKG II (1886) p.107-164.
Die 'historia Beptem tribulationum ordini8 minormn' de. fro A n-
lIelu de Clarino, ibid., p.249-336.
Zur Quellenkunde deT alteren Fra.nzi8kanerge.chichte. Der Cata-
logus ministrorum generalium des Bernhard von Bessa, in: ZkTh
7 (1883) p.323-352.
Dall Studium der Handschriften dor 11littelalterlichen Scholalltik
mit bellonderer Beruckllichtigunll dar Sclt111e de. hili. Bona.ven-
tura, in: ZkTh 7 (1883) p.1-51.
Engemann, A., ErleuchtungBlehre ala Re8olutio und Reductio nach
Bonaventura, in: Wissen8chaft und Wei,heit I (1934) p.211·242.
246 Theology of Hislory in 51. Bonavenlure
Enclebert, 0., St. Francia of Alli.i, tr. by E.M. Cooper, second ed.
I. Brady and R. Brown, Chicago, 1966.
Elser, K., MJ/.terium pa.'pntati.. Die Annutsauft'as8ung des hI.
Franziskus von AMisi, in : Wi8•• u'ltd Wei.heit 14 (1961) p.177-189.
Faral, E., see Sources under William of St. Amour.
Felder, H., Ge.ckichte ddT will.en.cha/tl. St1ldien im Franzis.kaner-
orden bis um die Mitte de. 13. Jahrhundttrt., Freiburg, 1904.
Fortini, A" 1 documenti degli 4rchivi auirani e aieuni punti contro-
ve-rai della.,vita di San FrancfI"co, in: AFH 43 (1960) p.3-44.
Fournier, P .• Etude. rur Joachinl de Fiord et .ell doctrine •. Paris,
1909.
Friedericha, J" Zum "V nTWort de. hll/. Bonaventura" (Op. omn. II,
1-3), FraTlZ. Stud. 29 (1942) p.78-89.
Die Theologie cia spekulativtJ und prakt~chtl Wi.senschalt nach
Bonav61Itura und Thoma.. von Aquin, Bonn, 1940.
Gus-Nitzach. Art. Bonaventura, in: RE III, 282-287.
Gemelli, A., Me8lJage 01 St. Franci., Chicago, 1963.
Gennaro, G., France.co Cherubico. Commerito alia spiritualita di S.
Francesco. Rome, 1966.
Geyer, B., D,r viertd Band d,T Summa de. Al,zander HalfluJu, in:
Fran,. Stud. 31 (1949) p.1-14.
D,r Begriff der .chola,ti,ch,n Theolollie, in: Spthesrn. Fest-
schrift fur A. Dyroff, 1926, p.112-125.
GhelIinck, J. de, L, mouv,m".,t thiolollique du XII .lAcle. Set:ond
printing, Bruaaela, 1948 (Museum Lessianum, Sect. hiat. Nr. 10).
PatT~tique dt 4rllumrnt de tradition an bas moyen all" in:
Grab"",n"f..e.chrift, p.403-426.
Pour I' hi.toir. du mot ur,v.lare", in: R,ch BC 1'.1 VI (1916)
p.149-157.
MllangeB J. d. Ghellinck, S.J., 2 vol., Gembloux, 1961, (Museum
Lessianum, Sect. hiat. Nr. 14).
Gilson, E ., Th, Philo.ophy 01 St. Bonavtl1lture, tr. Trethowan &; Sheed,
Paterson, 1966.
The Spirit 01 MiSdieval Phil080phy, tr. Downes, New York, 1936.
L, philo.ophie 411. mOJ/en tille, second printing, Paris, 1944.
R,a,on and Rev.lation in th(J Middle Agel, New York, 1938.
Dante lionel die Philo.ophie, Tr. E. Sommer-von Seckendorff, Frei-
burg, 1953.
Glorieux, P., Repertoire de. maitre. 611 t/teologte diS Paris a1t% XIII
Bilel., 2 vol., Paris, 1933-1934 (Etude. 17 and 18).
D' Ale:tandre d(J HaUs 4 Pierre Auriol. La suite de Maitres fran-
ciscains de Paris au XIII si~de, in: AFH 27 (1934) p.257-281.
EBBai .ur la chronologie de .aint Bon4venture, ibid., 19 (1926)
p. 145-168.
La colll!!!ction authentique de. If8'rmOnB de .aint Bonavmtur" in:
R the ane mod 22 (1965) p. 119-125.
L" polimique. Ucontra Geraldino.," ibid. 8 (1934) p.6-41.
 Literature 247
La date diU) Collationes de S. Bonaventure, AFH 22 (1929)
p.257-272.
Goetz, W., Die Quellen %1(T GeBchichte des hi. Fra.nz von Aaaisi, Gotha,
1904.
Grabmann, M. t Mittelalterliches Geistesleben. Abhandlungen zur
Geschichte der Scholastik und Mystik. 2 vol. Munich, 1926 and
1936. See especially I, p.1-49, on the methods and aims of re-
search in the area of Medieval Scholasticism and mysticism.
l,p.66-10a on the natural law from Gratian to Aquinas.
I,p.449-468 on the medieval Latin translations of the writings
of Pa. DionysiuB.
Die philosoph. und tlteolog. Erlcenntnislehre des Kardinals Mat-
thiiu8 von Aquu6parta, Vienna, 1906. (Theol. Studien der Leo-
Gesellschaft, publ. by A. Erhard-J.M. Schindler, Vol. 14).
Die L6wentT Neu8choiCUltik und die ge8chichtl. Darstellung und
ho.ndschri/tliche ErfoTBchunll der mittelalterlichen Philo8ophifl
im Licht neue8ter Verojfentlichungen, in: PhiloB. Jahrbuch de:-
G';rresg.s.Uschaft 51 (1938) p.129-154.
Die theologi8che Erkenntnis- und EinleitungBlehre deB hill. Thom-
aB von Aquin cru! Grund 8einer Schri/t, 1I1n Boethium de Trini-
tate" im ZUBammenhang der Schola8tik deB 13. und beginnenden
14. Jahrhunderts dargestellt (Thomistische Studien 4) Fribourg,
1948.
Aus der Geisteswelt des MittelalterB. Martin Grabmann zum 60.
Geburtstag, publ. by Schmaus-LAng-Lechner (Baeumker-Beitrage
supplement-volume III), Munster, 1935; cited: Grabmann/eBt-
schrift.
Grundmann, H., Studien ilher Joachi'm. von Floris, Leipzig, 1927, (Bei-
trage zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance,
publ. by W. Goetz, vol. 32) Cited: Joachim I.
Neue Forschungen «ber Joachim von Fiore, Marburg, 1950,
Miinstersche Forschungen, ed. J. Trier and H. Grundmann, vol.
I, cited: Joachim II.
ReligiiJse BewellungtnJ im Mittelalter, Berlin, 1933.
Grunewald, St., FranziBkanische MlIstik, Munich, 1932.
Zur MU8tik des. hill. Bonaventura, in:ZAM 9 (1934) p.124-142;
219-232.
Guardini, R., Dic Lehre des hlg. Bonaventura von der ErlOsung, Dus-
seldorf, 1921 (cited: ErllJoungslehr.).
Eine Denkerge.talt deB hohen MittelalterB: Bonaventura, in:
R. Guardini, Unterscheidung aes ChriBtlichen, Mainz, 1935, p.389-
403.
Die Ojfenbarung, ihr Wesfln und ihre Formen, Wii.rzburg, 1940.
Hardick-Esser, Die Schri!ten deB hlg. Franziskus von Assisi, Wert,
1951, (Franziskan. Quellenschriften, vol. 1), cited: Schri.lten.
Hartnett, J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deilormitate. Mundelein,
Ill., 1936.
248 Theology 0/ Hislory in 51. Bonavenlure
Hayen, A., DdT hill. Thoma. von Aquin Ile,tern und Iteute, Tr. R.
Scherer, Frankfurt, 1963.
Healey, E.T.H., S. Bonaventure's De reductione artiu1Il ad theolo.
giam. Commentary with introduction and translation, New York,
1940.
Henquinet, F .M., Troit petit. Bcrit. the~olol1iq"e. de saint Bonavna·
ture h la '"miin d' un quatridme, im!dit, in: Melanges Au~&te
Pelzer, Etudes d' hiatoire litteraire et doctrinale de la scholastique
medievale • . . Louvain, 1947, p.195 - 216.
Un recueil de queltion. annotl' par saint BonaventuT«, in: AFH
25 (1932) p.553-555.
De cc£usalitate Sacramentorum. iuxia eodieem autographu", S.
Bonaventurae, in: Antoninum 8 (1933) p.377-424.
Bertling: Abhandlungen au.! dem Gebiet deT Philo.ophiB und ihTer
Gellchichte. Eine Festgahe zum 70. Geburtstag Gg. Frh.v. Hert~
ling, Freiburg, 1913 i Cited: Hertling!eetechrl!t.
Hipler, F., Die chmtliche Geecl,ichuau!a..unD, Cologne, 1884.
B. Hirsch-Reich, Dati Fioltre1lbuch JoaelufnII von Fiore, in: Rech th
unc mod 21 (1954) p.144-147.
Hirachenauer, F., GTUndlaDtn. und Grund/ragett dea Pamer Mendi-
kant.natTOit .., In: ZAM 10 (1935) p.221-2S6.
Hoffmann, A., Die Lekre von der Gottebenbildlichkeit dell Memchen
in der neueren proteetantiachen Theolollis und bei Thoma. von
Aquin, in: DivlUI Thotnae, 1941, p.3-35.
Holzhey, K., Die Inspiration der hlg. Schri!t in der Anechauung de.
Mittelalterll. Von Karl d. Gr. bis zum Konzil von Trient. Munich,
1895.
Huck, J. Chr., Joru:him von Floris und die ;oaehitiache Literatur.
Freiburg, 1938.
Janaen, B., Der AUlluatiniemu. dea Petru. Johannie OUvi, in: Grab-
mann/eatacltrllt, p.878-895.
Imle, F., Die Gabe de. Intellekta naelL dem hl. Bonaventura, in:
Frun •• Strul. 20 (1933) p.34-50.
Die Theologie de. hili. Bonaventura. Werl, 1931.
Joachim von Fiore, Dcu Reich dea ht. Geittea. ed. A. Rosenberg,
Munich, 1955.
Jorgensen, J •• St. FrancU fJ/ A8nn. tr. T. Sloane, London, 1913.
Ivanka, E. von, La .1l1ni/ication hiatorique du "Corpu. arsopGlI!ti.
cum," in: R ae rei 36 (1949) p.5-24.
Kamiah, W., ApokalJlpn und Geechichtetheolol1ie. Die mittelalterliche
AU81egung der Apokalypse vor Joachim von Fiore. Berlin, 1925
(Historische Studlen, pub!. by E. Ebering, vol. 285).
Chrietentum und Ge.chichtlichkeit, Stuttgart-Cologne, 1951!!.
Kaup, J., Christu. und die Kirehe nach der Leltre de•. hi. Bona.ven.
tura, in: Fran •. Stud. 26 (1939) p.333-344.
Zur Konku.ralehre dee Petrus Olivi und dee AlII. Bonaventura,
ibid. 19 (1932) p.315-S26.
 Literature 249
Die theologi.che TUI/tmd der Liebe nach der Lehre dll hll/. Bona·
ventura, MUnster, 1927.
Keicher, 0., ZUT Lehre des altaran Franzukanertheologen vom "intal·
lsetm agan." in: Hertlinllla.tschrilt, p.173-182.
KrizovJjan, H.B, ControtJer.iQ doctrinali. inter 17talliatros /ranciBcano •
• t Sill.run, d. Brabant, in: Coli. Franc. 27 (1957) p.121-165
(Bonaventure, p.127-142.)
Lee, M. van, Le. idtes d' Ansahne de Havelberg aur Ie diveloppement
deB dogma., in: Analacta Praemon.tratan.ia, 1928, p.6-35.
Lemaitre, H. -Masseron, S., Saint Francoi. d' A.si.e. Son oeuvre, son
inftuenee, Paris, 1927 (With contributions by other authors).
Lemmens, L., Der heilille Bonaventura.. Kempten-Munich, 1909.
Leon, A., Sa.int Francou d' A.si.e et .on oeuvre. Paris, 1928.
Longpre, E., La thiologie mlldique de S. Bonaventurl!l, AFH XIV
(1921) p. 36-108; also (Quaracchi, 1921).
Art. Bonavl!lnture, in : Dict. d t histoire et de g/ollra,phie eccle.i-
a.stique., T IX, Paris, 1937. p.741-788.
S. Bonaventure: et Cologne, in: Willenschalt und Weisheit (1934)
p.289-97.
Lubac, H., 'TVpologie' et 'Alll!Igol-isme' in: Rech Th anc med. 14
(1947) p.180-226.
Luyckx, B.A., Die Erkenntnillehre Bonaventuras, Munster, 1923
(Baeumker-Beitrage, XXIII, 3-4).
Macdonald, J., A uthorit" and Regon in tit, Earl1/ Middle Age., Ox-
ford, 1933.
Marrou, H.J" Saint Augu.tin ,t 10 fin de Ia. culture antique. Paris,
1938. Retractatio, Paris, 1949.
The Mea.ning 0/ HistoT1/, tr. R. Olsen (Baltimore, 1966).
La thtologic de I' hi.toire:, in: Augu.tinus Magister III, p.193-
204.
Meier, L., Bonaventura. Selbatzeugni. tiber .einen Augn.tinisJnus,
in: Franz. Stud. 17 (1930) p.342-365.
St. Bona.ventura. ein Mei.ter der Sprache," ibid, 16 (1929) p.16-28.
Milano, Giov. da, La dottrina del miracolo neUe opere di San Bona-
ventura, Milano, 1938.
Mirgeler, A" Ern.t Benz: Ecdesia spirituolis ... in: ZKG 66 (1936)
p.286-294.
Mondreganes, P.A., De Ulundi cre:atione ad mentefll Sancti Bonaven-
tura., in: Coil. Fran<. I (1931) p.3-27.
Moormann, J., The Source. lor the Lile 01 S. Francis 1)1 ABBiai, Man-
chester, 1960.
Nigg, W., Groue Heilige, Zurich. 1962".
Yom Geheimnia de:r Monche, Zurich-Stuttgart, 1962.
Nitzsch, see under Gass.
Oepke, A., Art. Apokalyplo in: Th.W. III 665-697.
Ott, L., Petru. Lombard"•• Personlichkeit und Werk, in: MThZ 6
(1964) p.99-113.
250 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
Papani, Go, Conh'ibuti alia question. d~i Fioretti d. S. Francesco,
in: AFH 49 (1956) p.3-16.
Pare, Th., LtJ nom de la'mille de S. Bonaventura, in: Franc. Stud. 11
(1951) p.347-363.
Pelster, F., Literargeschichtlich. Probl.me im An"chlu.. an die Bona-
" ...tura- A ...gab. "on Quaracchi, In: ZkTH 48 (1924) p.500-532.
Literaturl1.schichtUch •• :ur Pari.er theolol1ischen Schule aua den
Jahron 1230-1268, in: ScholtUtik 6 (1930) p.48-78.
Pergamo, B., D. qrlQ,ationbu, mediti. Fr. Odonu Rigaldi, Guilelmi
de Melitona ot Codicis Vat. lat. 782 circa natuTam theolol1iatJ
deque .arum r,latione ad Summa,n theolol1icam Fr. Alezandri
Hal"";', in: AFH 30 (1937) p. 3-64 and 301-364.
Quaglia, A., PeTch' manca un' edizione critic« del Fioretti di San
Franc ..co, in: Studi Franc. 52 (1955) p.216-223.
Rahner, K., Der S.griD der le.taBu bei Bonaventura, in: ZAM 9
(1934) p.1-19.
R.binger, J., Yolk und Haus Gotte, in Augu.. titfs Lehn lIon der
Kirch., Munich, 1954(MThSt II 7), cited: Volk 'und Hu.... Gott •••
Herkun/t und Sinn der Civita.-Lehre Augu.tins. Begegnung und
Auseinanderaetzung mit W. KamJab, in: AUVlLltim Magt.t~
II 965-979.
Reeves, M., Hirsch-Reich, B., The Seven Seals in the Writing. 0/ Jo-
achim of Fiore, in: Reck th anr m.d 21 (1964) p.211-247.
The Figurae 0/ Joachim 0/ Fiore. Genuine and Sf1Urious CoUec-
tions, in: Medieval and RenaiucTlce Studi,. 3 (1954) p.171-199.
Reeves, M., The Libm- Figura"(m of Joachim 0/ Fiore, ibid., 2 (1960)
p.67-81.
Righi, 0., II pm.iero e l' opera d, San Bonaventura, Florence, 1932.
S. Bonaventura cmtro nell' Ordin. /ranci.cano in Pangi 0 nella
provincia Romana, in: Miac. Franc. 36 (1936) p.506-611.
Robert, P., HI/lemorphisme et Devenir chez S. Bonaventure. Mon-
treal, 1988.
Le problems de La philo.ophie bonavcmturienne, in: Laval theolo-
l7iqu•• t I'hilo,ol'hique 6 (1960) p.145-168 and 7 (1961) p.9-68.
St. Bonaventure, Defender 0/ Chri.tian Wi.dom, in: Franc.
Stud. 3 0943) p.159-179.
Rondet, H., Etudes A ugu.stinie11.ne" Paris. 1953.
Roques, R., La notion de hierarchie .elon ie P,~do-DenJls, in: Arch
hiet doctr litt m a 24 (1949) p.183-222; 26/26 (1960/51) p.6-44.
L' uniilers dionll.1en. Paris. 1954.
Rosenberg, see under Joachim of Fiore.
Roaenmoller. B., Religiose Erkenntnis nach Bonaventura. Munster,
1925 (Baeumker-Beitrige XXV 3-4).
Russo. F., Sagllio di bibliolJTa/ia gioachimita, in: Archivo .tmca fH1'
I.. Calabri .. • la Lucani. VI (1936) p.102-141.
Bibliografia Gioachimita (Biblioteca de Bibliografta italiana 28).
Florence, 1954.
 Literature 251
Salman, D.H., Jean de ltl Rochelle et Ie. debut. de l' tJveTToinne latin,
in: Arch hiot doctr litt m a 22123 (1947148) p.133-144.
Searamuzzi, D., L' immaginfJ de Dio nell' uomo nell ordine naturale
secondo San Bonaventura, Padua-Milan, 1942.
Sauer, E., Die religiose Wertun, dttr Welt in Bonaventura. Itinere".
um mrntil in Deunl, Werl, 1937 (Franziskanische Forschungeo,
vol. 4).
Sciamannini, R., Allegon.tuo dinamico in San BOna11Mlt'ura, in: La,
citt" di Vita I (1946) p.446-451.
Schmaus, M., Der liber propugnatorius de. Thoma. Anglicu. und die
uhrunter.chiede z'Wiaclten Tholn" von Aquin und DUM Scatu.
II. T.,il. Die trinitiruchm Lehrdiffennf. (Baeumker-Beitrige
vol. XXIX), Munich, 1930.
Scholz, H" Glaube und Unl11aube in dey Weltge,chichttJ. Ein Kom-
mentar zu Augustins de civitate dei, Leipzig, 1911.
Schlinhoft'er, Die Fioretti oder Blumlein de. hili. FraM.ktu. Auf
Grund lateiniacher und italienischer Texte, ed. H. Schonhoifer,
Freibur&,. 1921 (valuable because of the use of manuscripts).
Schorn, A., lIber die Gabe der Wei6heit l'lQch B07Iovmturo, in: Wi.t-
omochalt 'Und Wei.heit 9 (1942) pAl-54.
Schreiber, G., Studim ilber Anselm von Havelberll zur Gei,te'lIe-
.chichte de. Hochmittelalter., in: Anal Praem 18 (1942) p.l-BO.
A ..... lm von Ha ..elbor/l und die Ootkirche, in:ZKG 60 (1942)
p.354-41l.
Semmelroth, 0., Die 'theolugia IJImbolike' de8 PII. Dionfllrius Areo-
""/lita, in: Schola8tik 27 (1952) p.l-ll.
Die Leh:re de. P,.-Diony.ius AreoptZgita "om AuflJtieg der Kr,a,..
tur rum /lottlich.n Licht, ibid., 29 (1954) p.24-52.
Sepinski, A., La p."chololli, du ChrilJt chez S, Bonaventure, Paris,lB48.
Seppelt, Fr. X., Der Kampf der Bettelorden an der Univertritilt Pam
in fUT Mitte des 13. Jahrhundert., I. Teil, Kirchengeschichtliehe
Abhandlung1!n, publ. M. Sdralek III 1905, p.197-241; II Teil,
ibid., VI 1908, p.711-140.
Silic, R., Christw und di, Kirehe. Ihr Verhaltnis naeb der Lehre dee
hi&,. Bonaventura. 1938 (Breslauer Studien zur hilt. Theo!.,
Neue Folge, vol. 3).
Smits Cr. -Sagaert, O. - Lampen, W.,-Soens, M., No.tuur m. Boven-
natuur. Collectanea Franci.cana Neerlandica III 3. '. Hertogen-
boaeh, 1937.
Smeets K., Art. Bona.....ture in :DThC II, p.962-986.
Sohngen, G., Bonaventura. allJ KlaIJlriker <leT o.no.lollio. fidei, in: Wis-
o.nocha/! und Weioheit 2 (1935) p.97-111.
Die Einh~it in der Thltologie, Munich. 19152.
Soiron, Th., Vom Geist der ThltoloDie Bono'tlsnturas. in: Wiesen.chalt
""d W.iah.it I (1934) p.28-38.
Spargo, E.J.M., The Co.tellOTJl 0/ the Ae.thetic in tlte Philo,oph" 0/
St. Bonaventu.re. New York (and F. Schoningh, Paderbom)
1953 (Franciscan Institute Publ .. Philosophy Seriea, No.ll)
252 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
Spick, C., E.qui,se d' un., HutoirtJ de l' E%el1~.e latin au MOllen Age,
Paris, 1944.
Sport, J., Grund/onnen hochmittelalterlichttT GtJtJchichts4n.chCtuunu,
Munich, 1936.
Squadrani. J' S. BonaventuT4 christianu. philo8ophu., in: Anton-
t

ianum 16 (1941) p.10S·130 and p.253·304.

Stohr, A" Die Trinitat.lehre Bonaventura•. 1 TeiJ. Die wissensehaft-
liche Trinititslehre. Munster, 1923 (Miinsterische Beitrage,
vol 3).
Szabo, J., De aI. Trinitate in creaturi. TtJ/Illgente doctrina. S. Bona-
vcmturae. Rome, 1966.
Tavard, G.H., St. DonaventuTtJ', Disputed Que.tions "De theolol1io"
.•. see Sources under Bonaventure.
La tlufologie d' apr•• ld "Breviloquium" de 'Bint Bonaventure, tn:
L' ann". tMol. 10 (1949) p.201·214.
Tr4miencJl and PeMnanence. The nature of theology according
to SL Bonaventure, New York (Paderborn) 1964.
Thomas of Celano, Leben und Werke de. hi. Franziku. 1I0n A.Ii.i.
Introduction, tranalation, and notes by P. E. Grau, OFM., Wert,
1965.
Thonnard, F.J., Augu.tini.nre et an.tottH.me au XI/I .iide, in:
L' annie theol. 4 (1944) p.442·466.
Tectaert, A., Le Repertoire de. ma1'tre. en theologie de Pari•• Quel-
ques remarques et corrections, in: Eph Th fAlI l0(1934)p.617-624.
Thery, P.G., Tho1llBa GalllUl 1ft lea concordance. bibliqu", in: Grab-
mann/e.tlChrift. p.427·446.
Thoma. Gallus, in: Arch hi.t doctr nt a 14 (1989) p.141·208.
Chronologie de. oeuvre. de Thoma. Gallu., abbi de Verceil, in:
Div ... Thoma.o, Piacen.. 37 (1934) p.266·277; 366·886; 469·496.
Document. concernant Jean Sarrazin. Revilfeur de 14 traduction
irigcfnieJl1te du Corp",. Dionlla1aCUm, in: Arch hist doctr litt m a
25/26 (1960/51) p.45·87.
Tinivella, F., De impo"ibili .apientiae odeptionc in philo.ophia. po-
gana iuzta Collationes in Hexaemeron S. Bonaventurae, in: An-
tonianum XI (1936) p.27·50; 136·186; 277·318.
Tondelli, L. t Il libro delle figure dell' abate Gioachino da Fiore. Vol.
I Intl"Oduzione e commento. Le sue rivelazione dantesche. Vol. II
Testo e XXIII Tavole (X a colori). Torino, o. J. (1939); second
edition, 1963 (Citationa according to the first edition since the
second was unfortunately unavailable).
Van Steenberghen, F., Le mouvem81lt . • . see under Forest, (Gen-
eral Work.).
Siger d, Brabant d' apr~8 Belf oeuvre. inedite•. Vol. I Les oeu-
vres inedites, Louvain, 1931 i II Siger dans I' histoire de l' aria-
toteli.me. 1942 (Lo. Philosophe. Belges, Vol. XII and XIII).
An.totle in the WtI.t. The origins of Lat\n Aristotelianism, Lou-
vain, 1966.
 Literature 253
Th.e Philosophical Movcmffnt in thtJ Thirteenth Century. Belfast.
L""tures. Edinbur~h. 1955.
Veuthey, L. t Bonaventurae philoBop/ua. chn,ttana. Rome, 1943.
Scientia et .apirntio. in. dodrina SancU Bonaventunu, in: Misc.
Franc 43 (1948) p.I-13.
Vinca, A. dB, L' A.petto jiloBojico dell' ari.totf!iiBnlo di San Bonavmt-
lura, in: Coli. Franc. 19 (1949) p.5-44.
Werner, M., Die Entstehung de. cltriBLlicken. Dogma... Bem-Tubingen,
1941.
Zarb, S., Le jonti agostiniane del trattato Bulla prn/Brio. di S. T01Jlttao
d' Aquino, in: Ang.licum 15 (1938) p.169-200.
Zieache, K., Die Naturleltre Bonaventuras, in: Phil. Jaltrbtfch der
Gorre.g...llochaft 21 (1908) p.56-89; 159-189.
 SOURCES
AIcher of elairvaux ( = Ps.·Augustinus), De apiritu fit anima, PL 40,
779-832.
"Alexander of Hales", Summa theologica, Vol. I·IV, Quaracchi, 1924·
1948 (Vol. I 1924, II 1928, III 1930, IV 1948; Prolegomena, 1948;
brief remarks on the problem of authenticity by Geyer in Franz.
Stud. 31 [19491 p.I-14).
Angelo of Clareno, Hiltoria septem. tribulation'u1U ordinis minonttn,
text of the third and seventh tribulatio edited by F. Ehrler in:
ALKG II (1886) p.127-164, 256-336.
Anselm of Havelberg, Dialo/li PL 188,1139 -1248.
Augustine, Opera omnia PL 32-46; CSEL in as far as it is available
(cfr. Dekker., Clavis patrum ..• 60ff).
TrClctatu. in Joannem and
De civitate Dei according to CC (Tumhout, 1954f).
Bernard of Bessa, Catalogu8 Mi1tilltrorum Qtmeralium ordinia Irat·
rum minorum, ed. Ehrle in: ZkTh 7 (1883) p.338-352.
Bonaventure, Opera omnia, 10 vol. Quaracchi, 1882·1902.
Collationes in He~aenleTOn et Bonav87I.turiana quaedam .electa,
ed. F. Delorme. BFSchMA VIII, Quaracchi 1934 (contains an-
other recension and other works which have been unavailable in
print), cited: Delorme.
Quae.tiones duputatae de theologia = G.H.Tavard, St. Bonaven-
ture'. Di8puted Questiona IIDe theolol1ia", in: Reeh th ane med
XVII (1960) p.187-236. text p.210-236.
(Saint Bonaventure,) Que.tions Duputees "De earitate, De novis-
mmu.." Edition critique par P. Glorieux, Paris 1960 (La France
Franciscaine, Document II).
Quaestiones de prophetia, Codex 186 01' the Bibliotheca commu-
nale of Assisi f 10 v b-13 v a; ibid. f 30 ra-31 ra, 31 va-
32ra.
Quaestiones de vision-e intf!ileetuali et eorporali et de divinatione;
extensive excerpts in B. Decker, Die Entwicklunl1 der LeAre ..•
(dr. literature) ; concerning other unedited Quaestiones of Bona·
venture, cfr. G.B. Tavard, op. cit., and the work of Doucet and
Henquinet listed under literature.
Dante Alighieri, La divino. Commedia, ed. L. Olschki, Heidelberg, 1918.
Ps. Dionysius Areopagita, Opera omnia PG 3; see below under Jo-
hannes ScotU! Eriugena and Thomas of Vercelli.
Dionuliaca, Recueil donnant I' ensemble de traductions latines des
ouvrages attribues au Denys de r Areopage • . . ed. by Ph.
ChevaUier and others. 2 vol. Pari. 1937 and 1950. Cited: Dionl/-
maca I and II.
Floretum .ancti Franciad A.smensi8. Liber aureus qui italice dicitur
i Fioretti di san Francesco, ed. P. Sabatier, Paris, 1902. See liter·
ature under Schonh&fI'er.

255
256 Theology 0/ History in St. Bonaventure
Franziskus, Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi. Pub),
by H. Bohmer, Tiibingen-Leipzig, 1904. See literature under Har-
dick·Esser.
Gerard of Borg3 San Donnino, Erhaltene Reste de, lntroductoriw in
EvangeliufII «etemu.", im Protokoll dey C01Rmiuion %1( AnClgni,
pub!. by H. Denifte. in: ALKG I (1885) p.99-142.
Gerard of Abbeville, Giraudi .ermo /actlU upud Fratrn Minor"., in:
Bierbaum, Bettelordm und Weltllei.tlichkeit • • . p.20B-219.
Objections against the tract "Manus que contra Omnipotentem",
etc.. ibid. p.169-207.
Tractatu8 Gerardi de Abbatavilla "Contra adver.ariu1n -perfec-
ti.nia chrilotiana•• " pub!. by S. CI ....n. in: AFH 31 (1938) p.284-
329 and AFH 32 (1939) p.89-200.
Ps. Hermes, Lib,w XXIV philo.ophorum.. Ed. by Cl. Baeumker, in: Cl.
Baeumker, Studitm und Charakterietiken .fur Ge.chicltte der Phi-
loaophi" inabea. de, Mittdalters, pub}, by M. Grabmann, Baeum-
ker-Beitr!ge XXV 1-2. Munster. 1927. p.194-214.
Honorius of Autun, Ezpo.itio in Cantica canticorum, PL 172,847-496.
HUg<> of St. Victor. Opera. PL 175-176.
Johannes ScotU8 Eriugena, Venio opencm S. Dion".ii Areop4gitae,
PL 122. 1023-1194.
Joachim of Fiore: Divini vatia Abbati.! Joachimi liber concordiae
novi ae vderia Teatamenti. Venice, 1619.
Ezpo.itio in apocalJlPsin. Venice, 1627.
P.alterium decem chordarum. Venice, 1627.
Liber jiDurarum, ed. L. Tondelli (see literature under Tondem).
(Gioacchino da Fiore) Tructatu. super quatuor evanDelia, ed.
Ernesto Buonaiuti. Fonti per la Storia d' Italia Sc:rittori sec:olo
XII Rome. 1930.
De articuli.! fidei, ed. Buonaiuti, ibid., Rome, 1936.
Joachimi Abbatis fiber contra Lombardum (Scuola di Gioacchino
da Fiore). ed. Carmelo Ottaviano. Rome, 1934.
Ps. Joachim of Fiore, Scriptum .uper Hieremiam prophdam, Venice
1516.
Scriptum .upet· E.aiam pl'ophetam. Venice, 1617.
N itolas of Lisieux, Liber de ordine praeceptorum ad consilia, in:
Bierbaum, Bettelorden und Weltgeiatlichkeit ... p.220-234.
Peter John Olivi, Quae.tione. in lecundum librum Smtentiarum, ed.
B. Jansen. 3 vol. (BFSchMA IV-VI). Quaracchi. 1922-1926.
Peter Lombard, Libri IV Sentetttiarum, in: Bonaventurae opera om-
nia, Vol. I-IV.1
Robert of Melun: Del/1Irftll de Robert de Melun, ed. by R. M. Martin,
1 After much thought, I have decided that it would be proper in a
study on Bonaventure's thought to cite the same text of Lombard's
Sentence. which is given in Bonaventure's works. For another text,
dr. the two-volume edition which appeared in a second printing by
Quaracchi in 1916.
 Sources 257
Vol. III Senten tie. Vol. 1, Louvain, 1947; Vol. 2, Louvain, 1962
(ed. R.M. Martin and R.M. GaUet).
Rupert of Deutz, De sancta trinitate et operibu8 eru8. PL 167.
Com.mentariu1Il in Apocalypsin. PL 169,827 - 1214.
Speculum perfectionis au memoire de frere Dion. Tome I: Texte latin j
preparl! par P. Sabatier. Manchester, 1928 (British Society of
Franciscan Studies, vol. 13).
Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Bibliotheca de autores Cristianos,
Madrid, 1961-1962 (Text of the Leonine edition). Cfr. literature
under Balthasar.
Scriptum in libro8 Sententiarum. Venice, 1747-60.
Quaestiones di8ptttatae, ed. Mandonnet, Paris, 1926 (3 vot).
OPU8CUla, Vol. 4, ed. Mandonnet, Paris, 1927. (Contains the Liber
contra im11ugnante8 Dei cultum d religionem).
Thomas of Celano, Saneti FranciHci ABBiBien.iB vita d miracula ad-
ditis optuJculis liturllici8, ed. Eduardus Alencon. Rome, 1906.
Thomas of Vercelli, (Thomas Gallus), Paraphrase of the works of
Dionysius Arcopagita, in: DionYBiaca I, p.673-717.
Thomas of York, Traktat rur Verteidigung der Mendikanten gellen
Wilhelm von Saint-Amour (Inc Manus. que contra omnipotentem
tenditur), attributed to Bertrand of Bayonne ed. by Bierbaum,
Bettelorden und Weltlleiatlichkeit .•. p.87- 168. Concerning at-
tribution of the work to Thomas of York, see: Pelster in AFH
1922, p.3 - 22 and Longpre, AFH 1926, p.875-930).
William of St. Amour, TractatuB breviB de periculia noviBBimonun
temporum, in: Bierbaum, Bettelorden und WeltgeiBtlichkeit
. . . p.1-30.
RelJponBioneB. Cfr. E. Faral, LeH "RcBponsiones" de Guillaume
de Saint-Amou,." in: Arch hi8t doctr litt m a 26/26 (1950/61)
p.337-394, text p.340-361.
Annotatione. zu BonaventuraB Quae8tio rellof·tata de mendicitate,
in: Bonaventu1'a, Collatione8 , • • et Bonaventuriana quaedam
Belecta, ed. F. Delorme (efr. above) p.332-356.
Liber de antichristo et eiftlJ miniBtri8. printed under the name of
Nicholas of Oresme by E. Martene-U. Durand, Veterum IfCrip-
to",m et monumentoTUm . . • ampli881'ma coUectio. Tomus IX,
p.1271 - · 1446, Paris, 1733.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AnalPraem = Analecta Praemonstratensia
AFH = Archivum Franciscanum Historicum
ALKG = Archiv fur Literatur· und Kirchengeschicte
des Mittelaltero. ed. by Denifte und Ehrle,
Berlin, 1885 If.
=
Aroh hi.t doctr \itt m a Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire
du moyen age
Baeumker.Beitrige = Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie des
Mittelalters. Texte und Untersuchungen,
begrundet von Cl. Baeumker, Munster i. W.
1891 If.
BFSohMA = Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii
Aevi, Quaraoohi 1908 If.
ee = Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, Turn-
hout 1958 If.
Coli Frano = Collectanea Franciscana.
eSEL = Corpus scriptorum ecc1esiasticorum Latin-
orum. Wien 1866 If.
DThe = Didionnaire de theologie catholique.
EphThLov = Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses.
Etudes = Etudes de la philosophie me:dievale. Direc-
teur E. Gilson.
FranoStud = Franciscan Studies. Published by the Fran-
ciscan Institute St. Bonaventure University,
St. Bonaventure, New York.
Franz Stud = Franziskanische Studien.
Forachungen = Forschungen zur christl. Literatur- und
Dogmengesohiohte, ed. by A. Ehrhard u. J.
P. Kirsch, Paderborn.
LThK = Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, ed. by
M. Buohberger.
MiscFranc = Miscellanea Franciscana.
MThSt = Miinchener theoldgische Studien, ed. by F.
X. Seppelt, J. Pasoher, K. Morsdorf.
MThZ = Miinchener theologische Zeitschrift.
New Soh.last = The New Scholasticism.
PG = Migne, Patrologia Graeca.
PL = Migne, Patrologia Latina.
RAM = Revue d' Ascetique et de Mystique.
RE = Realencyklopadie fUr protestantische The·
ologie", ed. by A. Hauok, Leipzig, 1896 If.
RGG" = Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2.
Auft., ed. by Gunkel-Zsoharnaok, 1927 If.

259
260 Theology 01 History in St. Bonaventure
Rech .. rei = Recherches de science relieieuse.
Rech Th Anc Med = Recrerehes de theologie ancienne et med.
jev.le.
RHiotRel = Revue de l'histoire des religions.
ThW = Theologiscb.. Worterbucb zum N. T., be-
grlindet von R. Kittel, Stuttgart, 1933 11'.
ZAM = Zeiuehrift fur Aazese uDd Mystik.
ZKG = Zeitacbrift fur Kirchengeacbicbte.
ZkTh = ZeitBcbrift fur katbolische Theologie (Inno-
bruck).
For citations from aource-material, the ordinary abbreviations are
used. In the ease of citations from the Srntmce Commentafll of Bona-
venture, the number of the volume in the Quaracchi edition is not
indicated since the volume number corresponds to the number of the
book of 8m!me.. involved (I Sent = Vol. I, II Sent = Vol. II, etc.).
 INDEX OF NAMES

Abate, G., 167' Baeumker. C\.. 234"

Abelard, 78, 88, 197," 203,' 204' Balthasar, H. U. von, 64. 195,lI.1:!
Aegerter, E.. 220 12 ,17 197,31 200,":' f3,+' 203.~1. 58 207s
Aimeric of AngouJcme, 79 Balthasar, K., 167"
Alan of Lillo, 144, 209" Barth. K .• 207'
Albert tho Great, 195," 224" Bartholomew of Pisn, 179:: 1
Albi, J. d', 120, 127, 169," 206," Baur. L .• 194'
209,18 223,1 232,1. : .• 236f • Bede, 216'0
AIcher of CI8irvaux (Ps. Augustine) . Benz, E .• 39, 94, 114, lIS, 165.' 166.'
203 116 172,tII 176,11 179,:1,:6 lSO,:!1I,3U
Alencon, E.• 178,2' 184,41.49 185,110 181,:111 183,H 185,:13, lUI 188,88
204 11 206' 210,:0217,41 222,31,3: 223,3.1 239 08
Alex8~der of Holes (also: Summa Bernard of Bessa, 1662
Ha/ensis). 2, 88, 125, 195,12 200,46 Bernard of Clairvaux, 213 14
201," 225" Berresheim, H., Inti
Alexander Minorita, 216 88 Bertholet. A., 204'
Alfredus Anglicus. 20048 Beumer, J" 21211
Alszeshy, Z., 129, 228," 230" Bierbaum. M., III, 184,4u 205,11
Altaner, B., 165' 220,1:1 221,20.::3 23541
Ambrose, 79 Bihl, M., 221"
Angelo of ctareno, 166,' l88 s4 Boethius, 23438
Bohmer. H., 181,38 185,110,53.11"
Anselm of Havelberg, 103,106, 107, 189,09. lOtI 191,5204,11 205,12 217,,11
108, 212,' 213 18 236,40 2381116
Anthony of Padua, 52
Aquinas, Thomas, ii. iv. 73, 89, 112, Bondatti. G., 165.' 174,' 180"
114f., 120, 121,122, 126, 128, 130. Bonmann, 0., J8911u
Borne. C. van den, 196,111. :0, zoo! 2004 :
133,137,138, 139,141,142.195,"
229,.' 23S ts Bougerol. J. G., iii, 224'
Aristotle, 73. 87, 119, 120, 121, 122, Bracatoni, L., 184 n
124, 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 144, Braun, F. M., 165,3 186811
Brounts, S., J30, 230 8 \
148, 149, 153, 156. 158, 201"
Brunner, E., 207 6
Ariu!, 104
Arno of Reichersberg, 2163 ..
Bultmann, R .• 207'
Auer, r., 123. 184,48 227 20
Buonaiuti. G., 165 4
Augustine, ii, vi, 9, 10, 11. 12. 17, Callebaut, C. A.. 167"
64, 65, 70, 72, 73. 75·79, 91. 96· Callus. D. A., 228"
98, 116, 117, 121, 122. 124-126, Cambell, J., 166.' 189'"
129, 130, 137, 142, 157. 158, Cassiodorus, 64, 19411
195,1,.. U, 10 200n Celano. Thomas of, 178,::II,:!6 181,:18
Avicebron. 127 184,f1 185,110, III 189,tnO 204,11 206,1
Avicenna, 72. 127, 200~'; 207'

261
262 Theology 0/ Hi,tory in St. Bonaventure
Charlemagne. 29. 30 Faral. E.• 112.220.",10 221." 239"
Chenu. M. D .• 170.' 194' Fllche·Martln. 123
Cfcchito, L., ISOST Forest, A.• 228 31
Clasen, S., 189.'40 205,11 223",0 Francis of Assisi, vi, 2. 3. 31. 32f.,
Congar. Y. M.• 214" 38. 39. 44. 45. 50. 56. 70. 71. SO.
Conzelmann. H .• 16S.' 113.' 217" 82. 83. 93. 113. 149. 158. IS9.
Crowley. Th., 23011' 169,12 J78.~.. ·27 180,38 181,3t1
Cullmann, 0., 165,3 173,8 207,' 184,4.1 199,n 210"
216...... 234" EredericLI.J9...JO. 176'
Curtin. M. M•• 200" Frederick II. 172." 176.' 190'
Cyprian. 79 Friederick. J.• 168'
Frin&, Fr. C., 204D
Dante, 180111
Decker, B" 64, 191,1 192,2,8 GandiUac. M. de. 228"
195,12, H.lT 230,15 231" Gemelli, A., 184411
Delonne, P., 4. 5, 6, 166,1 170,it. ZT Gerard of Abbeville. 2OS." 221"
172,11 182," 186,11. TO 188,88 191,- Gerard DC Borgo san Donnino, I,
193,- 194,· J99,3I 205,17,2J 209.2ti 23, 24, 68, 175,3 tSO,2t 197,21
222,31 234,401.111 237,11.81 238,68 216"
240 1,2 Gerhoh of Reichenberg, 21634
Dempf. A.. 4. 95. til. 123. 16S.'.• Geyer. B., 123, 201,41 204,1 207 .... a
166,. 169,11.22 170,23 174,8 176," 212,' 214." 227"
179,21.28 180,29 182,.0 185,61 Ghellinck. J, de. 170.' 191.' 199."
188," 210,14 212,' 213,11.111 203,2 204,1 205,14 208te
214,20.13.,22.28,21 215,11.1:1 Giles. Brother. 238"
216,1t· II 21B," 222,32 223,'" Gilson. E.• SO. 72. 85. 120-123. 124.
227,11 228,12 23710 127. 128. 130. U1. 133. 139. 161.
Dempsey, P., 64, 194,10 195,11 204' 166,' 168.1 .• 171,4 176,1 178,22
Denine, H., 165,4 166,' 175,' 176,4 181,&1 182,402 187.82 188,'3
197,27 22012 189,g~· Ge. 89 193,' 2OO,.fII 20t."1
Dab.chillz. E.. 170' 206,1.4 209,20.21 223,:1 224,2 225,10
Dombart, B., 165 2 226.",12 227." 228.",'" ....T
Domenichelli, 20041 230,11 231,11 232,1 233,11,18.20. 2f
Dominic. 33. 82 239,M. 81. 68 24014.11
Dondaine, H. F., 207,,·:10208:12 Glorieux, P., 166,1 167,' 195,12
Durand, cCr. Mart~ne 220,11 230Dt
Gotz, W., 169,13 178,2& 183,41
Ehrle, F.. 121, 131, 166.' 188." 189°4 , "
224,1.1 225.' 22612 Grabmann, M., 78, 173,' 194,2203,'
Elfen. H .. 214" 204.1 205,14 207,&.1 212,5 221,23
Ella•• IS. 32. 33. 34. 4. 228.11 231," 234,21 239 88
Endres. J. A.• 21421 Gregory the Great. 11. 79. 88. IS8.
Englebert, 0., 189,'" 190,2 197 83 239'1
Elser. W., 184 49 Grundmann, H., 165," 170,2 171,1.3
Eucberlu. of Lyons. 193' 176,1 181,11 183,"4 185,11 187,14.10
Euseblu •• 96. 212' 1 94 ,2,' 2 1 2,'" II 2 t 4 ,'r1.. 27
Eutyches. 105 216."",,., lIT 217." 239"
Ezechias, 29 GrUnewald, St., 186,n 209 23
 Index of Names 263
Guardini, R., 110, 169," 169," John of Salisbury, 239"
189," 219,' 230," 234" John Peckham, 128
John Sarraccnus, 87, 88, 198,35 2078
Harder, R. 229 U
t John Scotus Eriugena, 87, 173,3
Hardick. L.. 181,38 185,60 189,811 207,'0 20812
205" J6rgensen, J., 191,' 238"
Harnack, Adolph von, 170,' 209"
Hauck, A., 212 8 Kaerrick, E., IS9940
Hayen. A" 228 111 Kalb, A., 165'
Haymo, 27. 177 5G Kamiah, W., 64, 95,106,165,' 177,"
Hegel, G. W. F., 144 195,13 211,2 212.2 216,39 217,40
Henquinet, F .• 168,1 24078 21Su 223 45
Henry IV, 29, 30 Kantorowicz, E., 1760
Heraclitus, 23426 Keleher, 0., 200"
Hilary, 79 Klibansky, R., 230"
Hilduin, 208 12 Koch, J., 216," 225'
Hipler. F., 95, 173,3 176,6 216,84."0 Kru,ka, H., 165'
219,' 223" Landgraf, A., 204,' 212,' 216"
Hirschberger, J., 123 Lazzarini, R., 22S 51
Hlrsch·Reich, B., 171,· 175," 218" Lea, 14, 17216
Hofmann. F., 214 28 Le Bachelet, H. X., 173"
Holmslr6m, F., 165' LecIerq, J., 4, 169 11
Honarius of Autun, 102, 104, 106, Lee, M. van, 21421
107,108, 171,' 188," 210," 21421 Leo, Brother, 35, ISI,38 IS4f07
Huck, J. Chr., 165,' 216" Longpn!, E., 123, 167,' 186," 209,"
Hugo of St. Victor, 77, 78, 204,' 227"
208," 235"
Humbert of Romans, 180211 Lattin, 0 .. 231 66
L6with, K., 165,1 234"
Ivanka, E. von, 20256 Lubac, H. de, 170,' 171,' 194'
}aeapone da Todi, 23980 Ludwig, V. 0., 216"
James of Massa, 166 8 Luther, i, 196,22 23760
Jansen, B., 237 84 Luyckx, B. A., 196.20 2ot,f07 240 18
Jerome, 78, 79, 113, 187" Macedonius. 21531
Joachim of Fiore, iii, iv, vi, 1. 8, Mondonnet, P., 123, 229 403
II, 17, 18, 23, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, Manser, A., 21211
~.«.~,~.~.~.~,~.77. Marrou, H. I., 165,1 203'
80, 82, 83, 97, 101, 104, lOS, Martene-Durand, 177,9 215 31
106-108, 109, 110, III, 113, 114- Martin, R. M., 204 1
118,142, 143, ISO, 157, 165,' 166,' Martin, V., cfr. 'fliche·Martin
168,10 171,1.9 174,11 175,'0 176,3,11 Meier, L., 227,20 239 11
178,2t 179,28 180,38 183,u 210,32 Mereschkowski, D., IS9940
215,31 235,44 236112 Meyer, H., 123, 211'
John Nauklerus, 216" Minges, P., 20S,11.12
John of Parma, t. 3, 166,2.3 IS0,29 Mlrgeler, A., 222"
ISS,840 216 88
John of RupeUa, 72, 125, 200" Nestorius. 104
264 Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
Nicholas of Lisicux. 205,11 22t~3 226,13 227,u.:!:! 231,01 233,23
Nigg, W., 40, 167,' 169," 184," 238,85 239,H 2401:1,111
205,11 206t Rondet, H., 171'
Nygren, A., 207' Roques. R.o 199.l !l 208 111
Rosenberg, A., 165'
Oepke, A., 207' RosenmoIlcr, B., 123, 186,T:! 209,23
Olivi, Peter lohn, 167,' 210," 237," 227," 234"
167' Rupert of Deuty, 64, 65, 95, 101,
Orbizo, Thomas of. 194 10 102, IOf, 106, 107, 173,' 195.'3.1>·"
Origen, 79 212,5.1 213,11 214.1'. 20,:n 235" V
OrosiU5. 96, 2111 Russo, F., 21637
Ott, H., 165' RUticnauer, E., 189v4
Otto of Freising, 212'
Sabatier. P.• 166,3 184,<1'1' ISS,IIU,IU
Parent, J. M., 209" 188,140 189,100 211,38 21711l
Pelster, F., 167," 168' Sobellius, 104
Peregrinus of Bologna, 166' 5alimbene, 239 1111
Peter of Lombard, 88, 89, 194,11 Salman, D. H. 200 46 t

211,3t 235 tl Sasse, H. t 195 14

Peterson. E., 2111 Sauer, E., 207 f1
Philip the ChanceJlor, 195," 228" Scheler, M.. 91. 209:16.21
Plato, 120, 121, 153 Scherer. R. 228 31
t

Platinus, 229'" Schmaus. M., 184,"8 209,::6.:11 216 3 -1

PorphyrY, 215" Schmid, I.. 184"
Pseudo-Bernard. efr. William of St. Scholz, H., 171'"
ThierrY Schondorf, K. A .. 211'
Pseudo-Bertrand of Bayonne, efr. Sch8nhoffer, H .. 167'
Thomas of York Schreiber, G .. 214"
Pseudo-Dionysius, 59, 62, 70, 73. Seeberg, E., 211'
87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 124, 144, 157, Sec berg, R. 209 21t

158, 186,83 198,35 202,5I·&s·s4. ..n SOjourn., P., 212'

234:18 Semmelroth, 0 .. 201/,2 20235
Pseudo-Hennes, 144. 234 27 .:!8 Serent, A. de, 184"
Pseudo-Ioachim, 40, 41, 42, 44, 139, SiBer of Brabant, 132, 181,31 228:!D
157, 172,11 179,211 185,:u, 187," Silic:. R. tlO, 219,8 240 18
t

188.PO 210,34 239 811 Simon or Tournai. 124

Smcels, E., 123
Rachel, 14, 43, 172 16 Sohngen, G., iv, 149, 207,' 212,'
Rahner. H., 213 14 229,440 233,11 234,28 235,.5 237 31 • 60
Rahner. K.. 186,7: 209 23 ,24 Sparl, I., 211'
Rotzinger, I., 187," 196," 21 I.' Squadrani, I., 123, 277"
212,10 214,:4 234 3 :: Stephen Tcmpicr. 131
Reeves. M.. 175 11 Stohr, A., 219,' 220,' 223," 230"
Reuter, H., 176 3
Richard of St. Victor, 235:10 Tavard, G., 123, 203,t 208,11 227,1.\1
Righi, 0., 168" 230,55 240TT
Robert of Melun, 78 Teetaert. A.• J671i
Robert, P., 122. 123, 161. 193.' Thomas of Celano. efr. Celanu
 Index 0/ Names 265
Thomts of Vcrcelli( Oullu,), H7, Volz, P .. 172'
88, 91, 198'''' Vooght, p, de, 203'
Thomas of York. (Ps. Bertrand). Wachtel, A .• 216:111
221" Wadding, L., 179"
Thonnard, F., 123, 127, 129, 227" Walde, B., 204'
Tinivclla. F., 4, 169,!Z 170,21 223,1 Walz, A., 208 10
233 18 W~m.r, M.. liD, 172,' 173,' 212'
Tondelli, L., )65,' 171," 174,°, '" Wlkenhauser. A.. 172'
176.~ 178,11 179,211 180,31 182,",0
William de lu Mare. 229 53
183,401 185,1>" 187,;& 210,3:: 217;" W~II!8m of Auvergne, 2OO,u 228ld
218," 219' Wilham of Auxerre. 195,1:: 22838
Turot, Ch .. 204' William of St. Amour, 111-114,
Von Steenberghen, F.. iii, 123, 124f.. 176," 205,17 215,31 235,41 239 60
161, 181,:17 193,:1 200;'" 207,4 William of St. Thierry (Ps. Ber-
224,1.;S& 227,'Je, 'JT 228,211.31. :14. SH nard). 90. 209 11t
229,0:$ 230,61. lUI. 6" 232,10.11 2407Utl Winter, P.. 217 4U
Veuthey, L., 123, 129, 161, 227," Wulf, M. de, 127,227," 228," 229"
229,IU' 24010 Xenocrates. 193 2
Vinca, A. da, 129, 224'
Vischer, W., 196" Zarb, S., 195 14
 INDEX OF TOPICS

Actualism, 66f. Exegesis, 7·9, 67. 69, 78, 83, 170,::

Allegory, 7, 10, 62f., 66, 70, 82, 83, 194'
86, 102, 116, 170,' 194' Exemplarity, 135, 136f.
Alvema, 2, 93
Angels, 72, 74 Franciscanism. 2, 39£., 40, 50, 112.
Anti·Aristotelianism, 120f., 131·162, 113
224' Hellenism. i, iii
Anti·Christ, 7, 10, 112, 115, 176,'
Hermeneutics. 7·9, 75f., 83, 84
21428
Hierarchy, 46, 48, 72, 73, 74, 89, 92
Anti·Thomism, 120, 128, I 36ff.
History, 75f.. 138f., 145
Arabian science, iii Hope for salvation (inner·historic-
Aristotelianism, 88, 119f.. 124f., 125· al), 14f., 19f., 22, 29, 30, 39, 45.
134, 137, 154
Augustinianism, 711., 88, 12IJ.123, 56f., 83, 92, 105
124, 125·134, 137, 224' Illumination, 72, 73f.. 136, 201'"
Averroism. 72. 74. 149. 200'° Imperialistic theology. 96
Book, 150 Inspiration, 64. 66, 69, 196 111
Intellectus ageDs. 72. 73. 20aH, ·u;
Canon,77r. 1ntemgences, 72
Center of time, 17, 106, 100f., 114,
118 Joachimism 3, 6, 56, 59, 105, 107,
Chilia.m, 96 166'
Chronology of Bonaventure, 2,
166,1,2 1676 Love, primacy of, 91, 151, 157, 1&3
Civitas Dei, vi, 9, la, 11, 97, 116, Montanism. 96
142, 165,' 171,' 187" Mysticism, 38, 45, 59, 61, 65, 68, 89.
Oe-eschatologizing, 100.104, 106r., 91, 92, 208"
110 NecrPlatonism. 202':':' 229,H 230:';·
Oefection, theory of, 53f.
Office, ecclesiastical, 48, 49
Ecclesia contemplativB, 38, 39, 43, Ordo futuru., 29, 30. 31, 42f.. 44
56, 84, 15g, 198"
Eschatology, iii. vi, 16, 29, 31, 32, Pessimism, 213,18 215 32
39, 40, 49, 50, 98, 100, 104, 107, Physical theology, 86
III, 115, 135 Poverty, 52, 81, 1I0f., 167,' 184'"
Eternity, l44f. Progress, idea of, 215,32 238°:1
Evangelium aeternum, 1. 23, 24, 56, Prophecy, vi, 9f.. 19r., 29f., 54f ..
111 62f.

267
 268 TheoloBY 01 History in St. Bonaventure
Rationes seminates, 9, 83, 111 u Symbolism, 4, 771., 80, 85, 170,'
Regressus in inCinitum, 139(, 194'
Revelation, ii, 23, 42, 43, 44, 53,
56, 57f.. 621., SO, 84, 91, 92, 93, Theology, 67, 70, 76, 89, 208"
104, 191' Theories (theoriae), 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 83, 111'
Schema (seven·fold), II, 15f" 48, Time, 141, 143f.. 1471.
98, 110 Tradition, 79, SI, 104
Uri·partite), II, 14f., 16f., Tree, or knowledge or good and
46f.. 98, 100, 105 evil, 151
Sehcmata (of history) 121. Typology, 10,28, 30, 31, 43, 46, 83,
Scholasticism. 2. 4. 75, 77, 81, 82, 102, 170'
94, 139
Sensus ecclesiae. 67 Vita activa, 14
Six (85 a symbolic number) 24£., Vita contemplativa, 14, 41-45.
147f. Voluntarism, 209 20
Spiritual movement (Spiritualism). Wisdom, 6, 43, 44, 59-62, 62f" 81,
1. 3, 6, 46, 48, 49, 50 84, 133, lSI, 154, ISS, 158