Dominicus Gundissalinus (ca. 1115-post 1181) is one of the most prominent
figures of the Toledan translation movement, as well as an original
philosopher. In collaboration with the Jewish philosopher Abraham Ibn
Daud and Iohannes Hispanus, he translated over twenty Arabic works into
Latin. These translations are used by the Toledan philosopher as main
sources for his original speculation, concretized in five philosophical
treatises which show Gundissalinus' conviction of the strong coherence
between Christian, Islamic and Jewish philosophical traditions. These works
are the first Latin treatises to analyze the main Arabic and Hebrew
philosophical doctrines that will constitute the theoretical basis for Latin
speculation in the thirteenth century.
After a brief examination of Gundissalinus' biography and his work as
translator in Toledo, this dissertation focuses on Gundissalinus'
metaphysical reflection, as it is presented in his original treatises. The
method used herein is the doctrinal and genetic analysis of the writings,
dealing with the three main aspects of Gundissalinus' metaphysical
speculation: the being of God, the creatural being, and the cosmogonic
causation. The aim of this study is to delineate the theoretical structure by
which Gundissalinus' original ontology is built on his peculiar use of the
Arabic and Hebrew works he translated and how this structure is explicitly
interpreted by Gundissalinus as doctrinally coherent with the Latin
philosophical tradition he aims to update. In this respect, this analysis is a
comparative examination – both doctrinal and textual – of Gundissalinus
and his Arabic-Hebrew sources: Avicenna, Ibn Gabirol, al-Ghazali and Ibn
Daud, and his main Latin sources: Boethius, Calcidius, Thierry of Chartres,
William of Conches and Hermann of Carinthia.
1. The Biographical and Philosophical Context of Gundissalinus' Work
Gundissalinus is first attested in the capitulary archives of Segovia's
cathedral in 1148, as archdeacon of the small town of Cuéllar. These
documents show that Gundissalinus spent at least fourteen years in Segovia
or Cuéllar, as he first appears in the Toledan chapter in 1162. It is likely that
his activity as a translator began in this year, an undertaking sponsored by
the Toledan archbishop John II and strongly linked to the presence of
Abraham Ibn Daud – or «Avendauth» – in the Castilian capital. In the scientific and philosophical context provided by the so-called
«Gundissalinus' circle», Abraham Ibn Daud, Iohannes Hispanus and
Gundissalinus translated more than twenty philosophical works from Arabic
into Latin, including Avicenna's Metaphysica and De anima, Ibn Gabirol's
Fons vitae, and al-Ghazali's Summa theoricae philosophiae. Concurrently,
Gundissalinus and Ibn Daud created an original philosophical speculation
on many issues found in the texts they translated. The results of this
reflection have been concretized in five philosophical treatises – De unitate
et uno, De scientiis, De anima, De divisione philosophiae, and De
processione mundi – written by Gundissalinus during the second half of the
twelfth century.
In these writings, the archdeacon of Cuéllar shows his deep syncretism
towards different, and often divergent, philosophical traditions. Using
mainly the the Arabic-Hebrew speculations to which he had access,
Gundissalinus built an original doctrinal system where many core
theoretical concepts, such as Avicenna's Active Intellect or Ibn Gabirol's
universal hylomorphism, are thematized in the horizon offered by the Latin
tradition, especially the Chartrean speculation, the Weltanschauung through
which Gundissalinus interprets his sources.
Gundissalinus’ debt toward Chartres leads our study to a preliminary
acceptation of the hypothesis, proposed by many scholars, regarding his
presence there before appearing in Segovia in 1148. For this reason, the
Chartrean masters are examined as main sources for Gundissalinus'
metaphysics in this study: only at the end of this work will it be possible to
come to a definitive conclusion regarding this fascinating hypothesis.
The second part of the dissertation's first chapter examines the philosophical
corpus produced by Gundissalinus, which illustrates the coherence of the
metaphysical program presented in the De scientiis and the De divisione
philosophiae and analyzed in the De processione mundi. This
comprehensive examination of Gundissalinus' philosophical production
likewise offers the means of establishing the main theoretical bonds that
link the De unitate et uno, the De anima and the De processione. The
chapter ends with a specific analysis of the metaphysical works composed
by Gundissalinus – the De unitate and the De processione – as preliminary
illustrations of the main themes discussed in subsequent chapters.
2. The Thematization of God's Being
The first metaphysical aspect of Gundissalinus' reflection analyzed herein is
his thematization of God's being as ontologically different from the creatural
one, a viewpoint which indicates a primary doctrinal shift. In the De unitate,
God is primarily characterized as the metaphysical One, the absolute and
perfect Unity from which the ontological unity that constitutes creatures'
being is derived. However, in the De processione, this first divine attribute
has less significance, as the primary characteristic of God is found in the
causal and modal ontology elaborated by Avicenna. In this perspective, God
is the Necessary Existent, the self-sufficient being that causes the being of
every subsequent existent. These created beings have in themselves a
possible being – neutrally liable of existence as well as non-existence – that
constitutes the being they are entitled to and which become a necessary
being only through the causal intervention of the Necessary Existent. In this way, there is a fundamental distinction between God and these beings: God
is the Necessary Existent per se, while the other beings that actually exist
are necessary per aliud only, i.e. thanks to their ontogenetic cause.
While the doctrine of necessary and possible being offers the main
characteristics of God's being, the De processione mundi further develops
His divine attributes. Apart from His necessity and metaphysical Unity, God
is also characterized as pure Act. It is the Goodness in se that, through its
will and its wisdom, establishes the world in an act of creation ex nihilo, that
by Gundissalinus' intention, avoids any misinterpretation of God's action as
a demiurgic ordination of primordial chaos.
In the second part of this chapter, these aspects of Gundissalinus'
thematization are analyzed through the doctrinal comparison with its
sources, beginning with Avicenna. From his Metaphysica, Gundissalinus
receives the aforementioned doctrine of necessary and possible being and
quotes a long excerpt from this text in the De processione mundi.
Nevertheless, the reception of this theory, along with a lack of reference to
other Avicennian doctrines regarding the analysis of God, is crucially
influenced by two writings directly related to Avicenna: al-Ghazali's Summa
theoricae philosophiae and Ibn Daud's ha-Emunah ha-Ramah. These two
treatises play a decisive role in Gundissalinus' hermeneutics, as they lead the
Toledan philosopher to propose a clear link between the doctrine of
necessary being and that of act and potency. However, many aspects of
God's thematization exposed by al-Ghazali and Ibn Daud have no place in
Gundissalinus' reflection, showing his lack of interest in the traditional
Islamic and Hebrew doctrines concerning God's attributes.
Gundissalinus’ conceptualization of God as pure and absolute Unity derives
from a wider range of authors, who directly and indirectly influence his
works. Textual analysis shows the main source for both the De unitate's and
the De processione's treatment of this concept is Ibn Gabirol. Gabirol’s
Fons vitae provides the basis of Gundissalinus’ conception of the role of
God's will and wisdom in the cosmogonic dynamics, asserting the first
joining of matter and form – the former derived from God's essence, the
latter from his wisdom – is operated by the divine will.
Nevertheless, other sources of these features can be detected in the Latin
philosophical tradition, beginning with Boethius's De Trinitate and De
hebdomadibus, both examined further in detail herein. In this viewpoint, the
doctrinal analysis of Thierry of Chartres' speculation, especially his
Commentum super Arithmeticam Boethii, sheds light on another important
and peculiar aspect of Gundissalinus' metaphysics. Indeed, examination of
these writings show strong similarities in the methods (the
compositio/resolutio procedure) and sensibilities (in particular, the
numerological and arithmological approach) between the two authors. This
connection is further supported by a direct quotation from Thierry's
Commentum on the De arithmetica in the De processione, as well as
Gundissalinus' adherence to numerous outcomes of Thierry's numerological
doctrine.
William of Conches likewise plays an important role, particularly regarding
the explanation of the creative role played by the Trinity. Initially,
Gundissalinus’ metaphysical treatises seem reticent on this fundamental
doctrine of Christian theology, but a deeper examination of the writings shows an affinity with William of Conches' treatment of Trinity, which is
thematized by the Chartrean master through its specific causality on the
world's creation. This rendering was sharply attacked by William of Saint-
Thierry in the mid-twelfth century, and the problems arising from this
position of divine Trinity as only in reference to creation seem to explain
Gundissalinus' reticence on this issue.
3. The Ontological Composition of Creatural Being
The third chapter of this dissertation concerns the ontological composition
of creatures' being and its primary feature: the universal hylomorphism.
Gundissalinus received this fundamental doctrine from Ibn Gabirol's Fons
vitae, and his strong adherence to this doctrine is found throughout his
works. Albeit Gundissalinus’ reception of the hylomorphic composition of
spiritual substances, he shows a progressive criticism of some of the
features that accompany the Gabirolian doctrine. In the De processione
mundi, Gundissalinus abandons the idea of the circular functionality of
matter and forms, used by Ibn Gabirol in his explanation of the various
levels of reality's genesis. Gundissalinus’ rejection of this feature is related
to his attempt to overcome the problem, directly implied by the circular
functionality, of the functional and non-intrinsic determination of the two
ontological constituents, upon which every level of reality is based on a
«materialization» of form and a «formalization» of matter.
This change of perspective in Gundissalinus' reflection is due to an overall
problematization of his previous positions on ontology – as expressed in the
De unitate and the De anima – that operates through the reading of and the
adhesion to some Avicennian theories, which are extremely divergent from
Ibn Gabirol's. The doctrine of necessary and possible being also plays a key
role in the thematization of creatural being. Gundissalinus interprets the
hylomorphic composition as directly related to the intimate and intrinsic
possibility of being proper of matter and form before their mutual union and
the actual necessity per aliud of the hylomorphic composition. As for the
treatment of God's ontology, this peculiar hermeneutics – the core of
Gundissalinus' ontology – is taken from al-Ghazali's and Ibn Daud's
positions on spiritual substances. As stated in the treatises of these two
authors, the being of spiritual substances is composed by something
analogous, but not coincident, with matter and form, i.e., the possibility and
the mediated necessity of their being. Ibn Daud’s influence appears
particularly strong here, as in his philosophical treatise the Jewish
philosopher harshly attacks the very fundaments of Ibn Gabirol's ontology,
pointing out six main theoretical mistakes that supposedly deprive Ibn
Gabirol's outcomes of any philosophical reliability. Curiously, a response to
this attack is found in Gundissalinus' De processione, another attestation of
Ibn Daud's leverage towards his Toledan colleague.
Thierry of Chartres also broaches the problem of spiritual substances'
composition. In the Commentum to Boethius' De arithmetica, Thierry
provides a peculiar solution that views composition of spiritual substances
as made of identity and difference, while the corporeal substances consist of
matter and form. However, it is likely that Thierry was not satisfied by this
solution, since the problem is not further analyzed in his subsequent works,
apart from a synthetic reference in the Glosa, where the Chartrean master proposes a composition of spiritual substances made of pseudo-matter and
form, a similar position to those of al-Ghazali and Ibn Daud.
The analysis of Gundissalinus' and Thierry's positions shows not only the
similarity of approach, but also the Gundissalinus’ effort to solve Thierry's
unsuitable solution to the composition of spiritual substances, an effort
based on the de-corporeization of matter, through which a universal
hylomorphism can be affirmed without entailing the corporeity of spiritual
creatures.
A different answer to this same question can be found in Hermann of
Carinthia's De essentiis, one of Gundissalinus' major sources. While it is
possible to underline many doctrinal similarities with Gundissalinus'
metaphysics, Hermann remains grounded on Timaeus' cosmology, and even
where a universal hylomorphism can be supposed, it is unconscious on the
part of Hermann himself. Indeed, the context of his analysis of matter and
form is far from Gundissalinus', exactly for his Platonic context and his
astronomical interest. This becomes particularly evident through the
doctrinal and textual examination of Calcidius' commentary on Timaeus,
which shows how far apart Calcidius' and Gundissalinus' perspectives are.
Even when a cursory presence of the Commentarius can be seen in
Gundissalinus' texts, it is always mediated, mainly by Thierry, Hermann,
and William of Conches.
The chapter closes with a theoretical analysis of William's hylomorphism,
which displays differences between Gundissalinus and the Chartrean master
on creatural ontology. Indeed, William rejects all possibility of a spiritual
composition of matter and form, as well as a potential state of the form
before its union with matter. Nonetheless, the speculative distance
established by this comparative analysis is diluted by Gundissalinus' direct
quote of a passage from William's Glosae super Platonem.
4. Cosmogenesis and Progression of Beings
The last chapter of this study examines the creation of the Universe and
Gundissalinus' cosmogonic description of the order in which the different
substances came to be. Here also, a discrepancy in Gundissalinus' treatises
can be found. In the De unitate, Gundissalinus accepts and illustrates an
emanative process through which different hypostasis – intelligence,
rational, animal, and vegetative souls, nature – are borrowed by Ibn Gabirol
and presented without any significant doctrinal alteration. By contrast, in the
De processione, Gundissalinus proposes a different and original
cosmogonic description, where creation is resolved on the causation of
matter and form and their first composition. This first union gives birth to
the first composed beings – angels, celestial spheres, and elements – that
will act as secondary causes for the cosmic institution.
The doctrinal analysis of Gundissalinus' systems shows, on the one hand,
the different specification of cosmogonic causality (i.e., creatio, compositio
primaria and secundaria, generatio), derived from the De essentiis, albeit
Gundissalinus’ alternations to Hermann’s doctrine. Gundissalinus is
likewise indebted to Hermann’s treatise on the subject of cosmic creation.
Nevertheless, examination of the Chartrean hermeneutics of genesis, which
is seemingly close to Hermann's, shows a large divide between these
biblical reflections and Gundissalinus, as his interests are focused on different aspects of the cosmogenesis. There is one feature, however, that is
directly linked to the Chartrean biblical hermeneutics, and which finds
specific treatment in the De processione: the doctrine of primordial chaos.
There, Gundissalinus quotes a large excerpt from Hugh of Saint-Victor's De
sacramentiis, as an example of Timaeus' theory of God's ordination of a
primordial elementary chaos. The Toledan philosopher rejects this idea,
using some of William of Conches' arguments, while exceeding his source,
since the solution proposed by Gundissalinus is based on the universal
hylomorphism. In this sense, the refutation is an attempt to finally resolve
the problem of primordial chaos, harshly debated in France at the time, due
to this «new» ontological theory.
Finally, a deeper analysis of the text allows us to clarify some more
ambiguous aspects of Gundissalinus' speculation, chiefly his abandonment
of Gabirolian cosmology. This change in Gundissalinus' perspective is
referred to his acceptation of Avicennian cosmology, and it helps further
illuminate obscure passages of the De processione mundi, for example, the
«intelligence's mediation», that should be identified as the causal mediation
acted by the first intelligence of Avicenna's cosmology. Nevertheless, as
previously mentioned regarding his ontology, Gundissalinus' Avicennism is
crucially influenced by al-Ghazali and Ibn Daud, especially the latter. The
analysis produced at the end of this chapter shows that Ibn Daud's ha-
Emunah ha-Ramah presents many fundamental aspects that directly
influenced Gundissalinus' De processione mundi, in particular his
description of the causality performed by the angelic creatures and the
doctrinal link that individuates the secondary causation of nature with the
elements.
Conclusions
The genetic-doctrinal analysis provided herein, along with the comparative
examination of Gundissalinus' metaphysics with his main Arabic-Hebrew
and Latin sources, allows for some significant conclusions. First,
Gundissalinus’ indebtedness to his sources must be stressed, without,
however, entailing a complete specularity, as if he were a mere epigone of
his sources. The outcome of Gundissalinus' reflection on metaphysics
remains an original development, and it constitutes a philosophical system
that can never be resolved in any of his sources; in other words, while
deeply dependent on their sources, neither the De unitate et uno nor the De
processione can be qualified as «collationes».
On the contrary, Gundissalinus' approach to his sources is aimed at an
intense syncretism and a deep-rooted belief in an overall coherence between
philosophical traditions that allows him to use authors and text derived from
two main perspectives – Platonic and Aristotelian – and from three cultures
and religions. In his approach, Gundissalinus is well aware of the
consequences this choice potentially entails; many results proposed by the
Arabic and Hebrew authors he uses are very difficult to integrate in the
Latin philosophical tradition he is willing to innovate.
Moreover, when compared, the doctrines Gundissalinus receives from his
sources are often contradictory, exemplarily testified by the opposition
between the Avicennian and the Gabirolian ontologies. Notwithstanding
these theoretical oppositions and doctrinal contradictions, Gundissalinus proposes a coherent, original and mature metaphysical system as it is
presented in his De processione mundi.
Passing over the influences of this source, the analysis presented here
corroborates the hypothesis regarding the supposed bonds between
Gundissalinus and Chartres. In his treatises, the Toledan philosopher shows
a deep knowledge of Chartrean philosophy and of the problems related to
some of its doctrines, as well as the works by Chartrean masters that
mediated by Calcidius’ and Boethius’s influences found in Gundissalinus.
Furthermore, the specific community of approaches and interests between
Gundissalinus and Thierry that has been detected, particularly the
peculiarities of Gundissalinus’ use of Hermann's De essentiis – seems to
testify in favor of the hypothesis denoting Thierry as direct master of
Gundissalinus, a supposition that will inevitably require further evidence.
By all means, the philosophical perspective elaborated in Chartres in the
first half of the twelfth century constitutes the theoretical lens through
which Gundissalinus reads and interprets the Arabic-Hebrew writings he
uses to propose his own ontology and cosmology.
Regarding the Arabic and Hebrew sources used by Gundissalinus, the
results proposed by this dissertation are, on the one hand, support for
Avicenna’s and Ibn Gabirol’s key role in metaphysics and ontology. On the
other hand, Gundissalinus consistently problematizes Ibn Gabirol's ontology
and cosmology, partly as a result of a deeper knowledge and acceptance of
Avicennian metaphysics. The Avicennian corpus used by the Toledan
philosopher is read through the peculiar hermeneutics provided by al-
Ghazali's Summa and, even more, by Ibn Daud's speculation, with which
Gundissalinus tries to solve some problematic aspects of Gabirolian
metaphysics that strongly influenced his speculation. These remarks further
shed light on the key role played by Abraham Ibn Daud, regarding both the
Toledan translation movement and the same philosophical reflection of
Dominicus Gundissalinus, regarding his ontology and cosmology.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TDX_UAB/oai:www.tdx.cat:10803/322815 |
| Date | 09 November 2015 |
| Creators | Polloni, Nicola |
| Contributors | Crisciani, Chiara, Fidora, Alexander, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Departament de Filosofia |
| Publisher | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Source Sets | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Language | Italian |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| Format | 415 p., application/pdf |
| Source | TDX (Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa) |
| Rights | ADVERTIMENT. L'accés als continguts d'aquesta tesi doctoral i la seva utilització ha de respectar els drets de la persona autora. Pot ser utilitzada per a consulta o estudi personal, així com en activitats o materials d'investigació i docència en els termes establerts a l'art. 32 del Text Refós de la Llei de Propietat Intel·lectual (RDL 1/1996). Per altres utilitzacions es requereix l'autorització prèvia i expressa de la persona autora. En qualsevol cas, en la utilització dels seus continguts caldrà indicar de forma clara el nom i cognoms de la persona autora i el títol de la tesi doctoral. No s'autoritza la seva reproducció o altres formes d'explotació efectuades amb finalitats de lucre ni la seva comunicació pública des d'un lloc aliè al servei TDX. Tampoc s'autoritza la presentació del seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant als continguts de la tesi com als seus resums i índexs., info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0163 seconds