Philosophy and Theology in an Oral Culture
1Sermons were an essential part of a dynamic oral culture of the Renaissance, where we find a blend of traditional and new forms such as public speeches for different occasions, introductory lectures for university courses, public debates in the universities, in the houses of learning of the differe...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin
2014
|
| In: |
Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques
Year: 2014, Volume: 98, Issue: 3, Pages: 479-496 |
| Further subjects: | B
Giovanni Caroli
B Humanistes de la Renaissance B Scolastiques de la Renaissance B Jean Pic de la Mirandole B Renaissance humanists B Renaissance scholastics B Giovanni Pico della Mirandola B Sermons |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | 1Sermons were an essential part of a dynamic oral culture of the Renaissance, where we find a blend of traditional and new forms such as public speeches for different occasions, introductory lectures for university courses, public debates in the universities, in the houses of learning of the different religious orders and in private palaces and villas, and special sermons delivered in the many different religious confraternities. This is the proper historical context for understanding the role of sermons in the Renaissance ; in many cases these sermons reflect important aspects of the new cultural atmosphere we call “the Renaissance”, which does not always correspond to some popular and old historiographical images of a secular and anti-religious movement [1]., 2We can still find in the Renaissance a tendency towards the convivio and the more open and less academic and formal debates. One example for this can be found in Nicolaus de Mirabilibus, a Dominican (who was regarded by Ficino as « a living statue of Thomas ») who participated in an important public debate which took place in Florence in 1489. On the last page of his written account of the debate, Nicolaus regards the event which took place in Lorenzo de Medici’s palace as a quaestio disputata [2]. This is the technical scholastic or academic term. But in his short opening section, while addressing Lorenzo, to whom he dedicated his account, he is using a more general term which is much closer to Lorenzo’s Platonic circle : convivium [3]. There is nothing strange here : the participants who were invited by Lorenzo to his palace enjoyed his generous hospitality before going on with the debate. On the next page Nicolaus mentions Plato’s ideal of combining political power and wisdom while praising Lorenzo for his initiative of both the convivium and the disputatio. The analogy between Plato’s philosopher-king and Lorenzo is explicitly pointed out. What is also obvious is that Nicolaus is well aware of the humanist fashion in Florence, just as Poliziano, Ficino, and Pico for instance, were interested in this scholastic debate. Combining a convivium and a disputatio seemed perfectly reasonable for the participants and part of their intellectual environment. Let us say something more about this environment., 3Some long-standing scholarly views concerning Renaissance humanism have been revised in recent years. Ronald Witt’s volumes revising the starting-point of the humanist movement and fashion in Italy (around the middle of the thirteenth century instead of the mid-fourteenth century - that is, two generations before Petrarch, the so-called “father” of Renaissance humanism), and dealing with the most crucial discipline for this starting-point (grammar instead of rhetoric) is one obvious example for this [4]. Another is the view concerning the relations between Renaissance humanism and the humanists on the one hand and philosophy on the other. In this case as well, more adequate scholarly accounts were needed in order to revise some so-called “standard” views [5]., 4And what about the humanists and theology ? Many historians of Renaissance humanism still ignore one crucial phenomenon, the religious confraternities, where humanists were active and delivered sermons to their members, sermons which were steeped in humanist culture. Let us examine now a few sermons by humanists found in MS Riccardiana 2204. This manuscript was used e.g. by Cesare Vasoli for his 1973 edition of the first five sermons of Giovanni Nesi [6], but it also contains other sermons which can be used to further our study of the connection between humanists and theology., 5In a sermon entitled Exortatio ad osculum crucis, delivered by Francesco Berlinghieri to the confraternity of St Vincentio in 1476, we find the usual mixture of Neoplatonism, theology, and the Scriptures [7]., 6In another sermon, on Christ’s body, delivered by Giovanni Cocchi to the confraternity della nativita di cristo in March 23, 1474, we find an account of the Eucharist and of the limitations of language :, 7, , 8The phrase « mortal language » borrowed from Thomas becomes relevant in the context of humanist theology, in which there is a sharp distinction between language, as a human product, and religious truth, which means that the study of language and philology cannot deal with religious truth. This can be seen from the sermon by Christoforo Landino on Christ’s body delivered to the confraternity of the Magi, where we find the same phrase :, 9, , 10The Divine cannot be expressed by means of a mortal language on account of its mortal nature ; language therefore becomes part of history and the human sciences. The separation between humanity and divinity is an instrument employed by humanists to establish new methods and a new rhetoric in theological discussions, as well as a new and more practical religious life. This obvious distinction - so common in the theological investigations of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church - takes on a new meaning in the context of the development of humanist methods and the humanist critique of scholastic theology. Landino, like other humanists, criticizes the methods of scholastic theology : syllogisms, logical arguments, and demonstrations, which, he says, belong to the via naturale ; in confronting the mysteries of faith, however, we should instead contemplate the mysterious Sacrament by means of the sopranaturale via [10]. He, too, thus emphasizes the gap between the finite and infinite, and the need for the practice of devotion in order for finite man to feel closer to the divine. It is important to note that Landino does not mention any Doctor of the Church., 11Donato Acciaiuoli, in a sermon on Christ’s body, delivered to the confraternity of the Magi in 1468, expresses the same idea of a gap between human intelligence and divine matters :, 12, , 13Acciaiuoli also shares the tendency common in the sermons of many humanists of translating, and thus disseminating, Latin citations for his listeners. He mentions Jerome and Augustine, but no Doctors of the Church. Jerome and Augustine are quoted by other humanists, probably because of their special status as the translator of Scripture and the most influential and most widely read Church Father. But did all the humanists and Renaissance philosophers share this view of criticizing scholastic theology and restricting philosophical terminology and practices in theological discussions ?, 14One of the most famous documents in our Renaissance legacy is a speech which was never delivered : Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s opening speech for his intended public debate on his 900 theses, written in 1486 and later known as Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man [12]. As we shall shortly see Pico held other views regarding scholastic philosophy and theology and regarding the proper relation between philosophy and theology., 15Pico’s statement that we emulate in our present life the cherubic life (nos cherubicam in terris vitam aemulantes…) is a reference to the opening section of the Oration (where Pico discusses the place of man in the cosmos) but it also reflects the crucial role of philosophy according to Pico. He uses the phrase « we should purify the soul » (animam purgemus) as an image, expressing the improvement of our moral behaviour and intellectual abilities. Immediately next in the order of progression - and it should be clear by now that Pico is intentionally employing an admixture of theological images and standard philosophical distinctions, using the discourse of spiritual progression as an analogy for philosophical progression - comes the light of natural philosophy which we should imbue (perfundamus), and at last (postremo), the understanding of that part of philosophy which deals with divine matters which we should perfect (perficiamus) [13]. Interestingly, the second stage, being imbued with the light of natural philosophy, is not entirely the same as being illuminated, and it shows that Pico is aware of the potential tension between theological and philosophical speculations., 16Further evidence for Pico’s awareness of the theology-philosophy tensions, and for his intention to move away from a too strict distinction between “theology” and “philosophy”, is provided in his statement that the philosopher Empedocles should interpret for us the words of Job the theologian. This is somehow justified by a hermeneutical practice according to which the order in the middle (medius ordo) should interpret for those in the lower place the teachings (monita) of the supreme order. Pico is turning these institutional tensions between the two disciplines into an inner tension which originates from human psychology, which, according to Empedocles, contains a double nature (duplex natura) : one which drags us to celestial matters, and another which pushes us downwards towards lower things. The result of having these two contrasted natures is either having a war a ... Dans cet article nous examinons les tensions dialectiques entre les humanistes renaissants et les scolastiques renaissants telles qu’elles sont représentées dans la culture orale des sermons, des conférences universitaires et des débats publics à Florence à la fin du Quattrocento. Nous tâchons de montrer comment cette culture orale reflète d’importants aspects de ce nouvel environnement que nous intitulons « la Renaissance » et qui ne correspond pas toujours à certaines notions historiographiques populaires surannées d’un mouvement laïc et antireligieux. Les sermons prononcés au sein des fraternités religieuses par des humanistes tels que Francesco Berlinghieri, Giovanni Cocchi, Christoforo Landino, entre autres, constituent le principal objet d’étude de notre première partie ; nous examinons ensuite l’un des documents les plus importants de la Renaissance : De la dignité de l’homme de Pic de la Mirandole. Dans notre deuxième partie nous nous penchons sur la réaction de Giovanni Caroli au projet de Pic et dressons une comparaison entre les deux en abordant les intentions et méthodes qui distinguent leurs approches respectives de la philosophie et de la théologie. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2118-4445 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3917/rspt.983.0479 |