SOURCE: Moran, Dermot. “Eriugena's Influence on Later Mediaeval Philosophy.” In The Philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena: A Study of Idealism in the Middle Ages, pp. 269-81. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

[In the following essay, Moran explores the question of the extent of Eriugena's influence on thinkers of the Middle Ages.]

How influential was Eriugena in the development of philosophy in the High Middle Ages?

It is notoriously difficult to measure the exact influence of one author on another in the mediaeval tradition. The main intention of mediaeval authors was to represent the truth as they saw it, and they frequently used ideas without crediting them or showing any awareness that they were in fact borrowing from a different (and sometimes conflicting) intellectual system. In the case of Eriugena, his Periphyseon, Homilia, and Dionysius translations seem to have followed different paths and to have been sufficiently separated that no sense of an “Eriugenian” tradition developed in the Middle Ages.

Eriugena's complex and difficult system was not easy to grasp. Furthermore, it is clear that his work may have provided inspiration with individual thoughts and ideas, but there seems to have been no recognition that his thought constituted a “system” (of course, I do not mean a rigid deductive system of the kind which was popular in the seventeenth century) and that the ideas could not be simply separated out at random.

It is clear that Eriugena was widely read by a circle of followers in the ninth century, although the names of most of his immediate followers would not strike a chord of recognition among present-day philosophers. We know little of Eriugena's cooperator in studiis Wulfad, other than that he was a cleric at the monastery of Saint-Medard in Soissons, and that Eriugena may have spent some time there in 856-7. He later was made archbishop of Bourges by Charles the Bald over the head of Hincmar, who objected to him as a monk who had been ordained by the rebel, deposed Bishop Ebbo. Nothing remains of Wulfad's works other than a well-known list of manuscripts in his library, which includes the Periphyseon. Marenbon suggests that a manuscript at the monastery of Saint-Medard, Mazarine 561, which was owned by Wulfad, contains annotations which may have been made by him.¹ Another close associate of Eriugena's at one time was Winibertus, who worked with Eriugena on the Annotationes, according to a letter contained in Laon manuscript 24. Contreni has identified this Winibertus as abbot of Schüttern in the diocese of Strasbourg. We think that Eriugena had a brother named Aldelmus, who is recorded as having at least copied a page of the Periphyseon. But we do not know of the intellectual labours of these associates of Eriugena's. On the other hand, we do have a wealth of anonymous ninth-century commentary on him, in the form of the additions and glosses to the Rheims, Bamberg, and Paris manuscripts of the Periphyseon. I discussed the nature of these additions in Chapter 5.

In the ninth century Eriugena's influence was regional—at Laon, Auxerre, and Corbie. The first person to follow him at Laon was Martin Hiberniensis, who used John's explanations of Greek terminology and quoted from his poetry, in a manuscript, Laon 444. Scottus also knew Sedulius Scottus, the poet and classicist, who was at the court of Charles and at Liège. Eriugena is known to have taught a certain Wicbald, who became bishop of Auxerre in 879, and to have educated him in the liberal arts. Another student of Eriugena's was Elias the Irishman, who became bishop of Angoulême. Other names associated with Eriugena are Almannus of Hautvillers and Hucbald of Saint-Amand, who made a florilegium of Eriugena's ideas.

Eriugena influenced (even if he did not directly teach) Heiric of Auxerre (841-c. 876), a younger contemporary of his who may have been a master at Laon, and Heiric's student Remigius of Auxerre, an Irishman (c. 840-c. 908). Heiric's De vita Sancti Germani owes a great deal to Eriugena, as does his Homiliary, which leans on Eriugena's Homilia. Heiric also comments on the pseudo-Aristotelian Categoriae decem and uses Eriugena's explanations and terminological elucidations. Thus Heiric adopts Eriugena's definition of nature as including all that is and all that is not.² He takes Eriugena's terms usia, dinamis, energia (Heiric's spelling) and sees usia as the highest category, which transcends everything else. Cappuyns says that Heiric was using Eriugena's Versio Dionysii in his life of Saint Germanus (PL CXXIV 1131-1208) before 873.³

Remigius of Auxerre incorporates Eriugena's concepts of dialectic in his commentary on Augustine's De dialectica. He also contrasts affirmative and negative propositions, and speaks of dialectic as a fuga et insecutio.⁴ Moreover, he identifies enthymema with the conceptio mentis, as Eriugena does in Periphyseon I.491c and De praedestinatione 391b.⁵ This originally is developed from Boethius's In Topica Ciceronis V (PL LXIV.1142a-1143c, especially 1142d, where Boethius says enthymema namque est mentis conceptio).

Eriugena had an influence on the circle of philosophers at Saint Gall in the late ninth century, especially concerning Latin translations of Greek terms. He also influenced the mysterious “Icpa,” who has now been tentatively identified as Israel the Grammarian. Icpa wrote glosses on Porphyry's Isagoge, in one of which he counselled lege Peri Physeon.⁶ It is clear that the kind of influence Eriugena had in the late ninth and tenth centuries was in the area of the Latin philosophical tradition of commentary, explication, and analysis of the meaning of dialectic as understood from the Categoriae decem. Eriugena was seen as a master-dialectician, well versed in the meanings of abstruse terms in Martianus, the Categoriae decem, and in Boethius. Eriugena's influence at this time consisted in providing technical terms, explanations, and a Greek-Latin glossary. (See Martin Hiberniensis in Laon 444, for example.)⁷ Eriugena's negative dialectics, his understanding of mystical theology, and his overall speculative division of nature seem to have been generally ignored or misunderstood. There are thus some grounds for believing that the Periphyseon was seen in those early years as a dialectical treatise on the categories—as some of the library catalogue entries seem to indicate. (See Chapter 5.)

In the eleventh century Fulbert of Chartres (d. 1028) wrote a letter to Abbo of Fleury in which he commented on Eriugena's concept of those things which are and those things which are not, esse and non esse.⁸ Fulbert realises that the things which are not can signify superessential reality, that is, God Himself. Thus the opening definition of nature in Eriugena's Periphyseon, which was excerpted in various florilegia, seems to have circulated quite freely in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Little more about Eriugena seems to have been known at that time.

The eleventh century produced some great philosophers, such as Lanfranc (c. 1010-89), Peter Damian (1007-72), and one of the greatest minds of the century, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). There is no evidence directly linking Eriugena with Anselm, although d'Onofrio suggests that Eriugena was known to Anselm's circle.⁹ Thus we have Gilbert of Nugent (d. 1124) using an Eriugenian gloss on Genesis 1.2 in his Moralia in Genesin I (PL CLVI.34d), which explains that the words inanis et vacua in the Latin translation of Genesis may originally have been invisibilis et incomposita. This is a reference to Eriugena's Periphyseon II.550b, where he uses exactly those terms to discuss inanis et vacua, explaining that these terms signify the primordial causes from which this world proceeds.

Despite the absence of evidence for direct influence, there is a striking similarity of ideas at some points between Eriugena and Anselm. Anselm uses a dialectical method of affirmation and negation, which Eriugena also uses, although this would have been a standard method of proceeding. In Monologion Chapter XV, Anselm argues that at times non-being may be better than being. Thus not to be gold is better for a man than to be gold. We know from Eriugena that dialectic employs precisely those instances where two sentences directly negate each other (e.g., “Socrates is a man” and “Socrates is not a man”) and seeks to find a mediating path. Anselm offers a mediation between being and non-being, by carefully qualifying his statements. He frequently discusses the relation between being and non-being in a manner which suggests an Eriugenian source. In his tract De Conceptu Virginali et de Originali Peccato, Chapter V, Anselm argues that evil is nothing at all and that man is punished in his will alone, which are ideas to be found in Eriugena's De praedestinatione (although there is no evidence that this was in circulation during the Middle Ages) and in the Periphyseon Book V.¹⁰ In the Monologion, Chapter XV, also, Anselm considers what kinds of things can be said of the supreme nature. Terms like “highest” do not directly describe its substance, since these are relative terms and, if no other substance existed, then the divine nature would still be there, although it would not be “highest or “better,” and so forth. In the Monologion, Chapter VIII, Anselm explains the various meanings of “nothing,” in order to explain the phrase ex nihilo. He distinguishes three ways of talking about “nothing,” which are highly reminiscent of Eriugena's Periphyseon Book III.

Also in the vein of the concept of being and non-being, an entry dating from the twelfth century in the library catalogue at Cluny refers to Dialogus Johannis Scoti de hiis que sunt et que non sunt, de distinctionibus, divisionibus et differentiis et ceteriis ratiocinationibus.¹¹ This indicates that Eriugena's primary division of nature into all things that are and all things that are not continued to be seen as a peculiarly Eriugenian doctrine, and to have fundamental significance for the science of dialectic.

In the middle of the eleventh century, a work by Ratramnus on the Eucharist, the De corpore et sanguine Domini, which took a spiritualist position on the Real Presence, circulated under the name of John Scottus (who actually held similar views; see Chapter 1) and was condemned at the Council of Vercelli in 1050.

The twelfth century was a great period of revival for John Scottus. He was still seen, in the traditional way, as a dialectician and liberal arts master by Hugh of Saint Victor (d. 1141), who mentions in his Didascalicon III.2 (PL CLXXVI.765c) written around 1125, the De decem categoriis in Deum of John Scottus, in a list of the great works on the liberal arts which includes Varro, Nicomachus of Gerasa, Boethius, and Pythagoras.¹² Hugh may also have been influenced by Eriugena's concept of nature and most certainly by the idea of primordial causes, for example, at Didascalicon I.6, where all things of nature are said to have a primordial cause and a perpetual subsistence.¹³ Hugh's statement that the word “nature” primarily signifies “that archetypal Exemplar of all things which exists in the divine mind”¹⁴ has Eriugenian echoes, although the remaining explanations of nature owe more to classical authors. Hugh also wrote a commentary, Expositio in Hierarchiam Coelestem Sancti Dionysii, which was influenced by Eriugena, although Hugh frequently criticised Eriugena's translations and his theological interpretations. Hugh, of course, would have used Eriugena's translation of Dionysius's text also.¹⁵ Hugh had read the Vox spiritualis, but again he found it full of theological errors, although he was using an anonymous manuscript and did not know he was reading Eriugena.¹⁶

In the twelfth century Eriugena also influenced Alain of Lille; William of Malmesbury, who edited the Periphyseon (see the discussion in Chapter 5); Suger of Saint-Denis, who adopted Eriugena's aesthetic concepts; and Honorius Augustodunensis, who wrote a summary of the Periphyseon called the Clavis physicae.

The Clavis physicae summarises Books I-IV of the Periphyseon and then gives a literal transcription of Book V. This work survives in nine manuscripts, four of which date from the twelfth century. Nicholas of Cusa possessed a copy of one of these manuscripts, which he annotated. Jeauneau says that although the number of manuscripts appears small, nevertheless it is a difficult work and would have been of interest only to philosophical spirits. We should not take the small number of manuscripts as an indication of lack of influence.¹⁷ The Paris Manuscript (Bibl. Nat. lat. 6734), which contains the Clavis, has some beautiful illustrations, especially folio 3v (see frontispiece), where a hierarchical ordering is given, starting with figures representing the primordial causes, Bonitas, Virtus, Ratio, Essentia, Vita, Sapientia, Veritas, Iustitia, and below them is a set of three figures representing Locus, Tempus, and Materia informis, which are entitled Effectus causarum; below them are four portraits of the men, birds, fishes, and so on, which are entitled natura creata non creans. At the bottom, God is depicted as drawing all together in the Finis.¹⁸ This is a figurative rendering of Eriugena's cosmological scheme.

The Clavis was written around 1125-30, with the aim of presenting the true meaning of Physica. As Stephen Gersh has stated, Honorius follows Eriugena faithfully in the description of the four divisions of nature, but omits some of the more complex aspects of the five modes of being and non-being.¹⁹ Gersh sees this omission as “relatively insignificant.” I believe, however, that it is central to the misunderstanding of Eriugena's philosophy current through the Middle Ages. There is no appreciation of him as a meontologist. Gersh says that Honorius did not understand the more complex dynamic relations between the four divisions of nature or the way in which they interweave subjectivity and objectivity (p. 166). Honorius also does not show an understanding of the Greek terminology of theological tradition, but contents himself with emphasising the aspects of Eriugena that are in line with Latin traditional dialectical themes. Honorius is especially interested in the doctrine of the primordial causes and also in the account of human nature that is set forth in Book II. Honorius's work lacks sophisticated metaphysical awareness; Gersh says it is almost a “bowdlerization” (p. 172). Honorius—unlike Nicholas of Cusa—avoids Eriugena's paradoxical formulations of the relations between Creator and created. Gersh points to a passage in Book III of the Clavis which discusses the manner in which God can be said not to be among the things that are created. Honorius comments on not-to-be and says not to be something is not the same as saying something does not exist. This is also found in Anselm's Monologion, as we have seen, and some scholars have suggested that Honorius may have been a student of Anselm's.

The twelfth century, in contrast to the darkness of the tenth and eleventh centuries, was a time of intellectual renewal and expansion. Many manuscripts of the Periphyseon date from the twelfth century, indicating a wide readership. But many of these manuscripts contain only Book I (e.g., Admont 678, Cologne, Stadtarchiv W. 40.225, Escorial P.II.4). Berne Burgerbibliothek 469 contains Book I and part of Book II. Avranches 230, on the other hand, contains the remaining part of the Periphyseon (Books II-V) missing from Berne.²⁰ Furthermore, the Periphyseon is mentioned in library catalogues at Cluny, Saint-Bertin, and Lobbes. In fact, at the time of Pope Honorius III's condemnation of the Periphyseon in 1225, he attests that the book “is being read by monks and students in many monasteries and other places” (“in nonnullis monestariis et aliis locis habetur” by “nonnulli claustrales et viri scolastici”).²¹ According to Jeauneau, the doctrine of the Periphyseon also received circulation through a compilation of excerpts from the work contained in the so-called Corpus Dionysii of Paris, a twelfth-century collection of translations of, and commentary on, Dionysius. These excerpts appear as glosses on the Dionysian text—including the discussion of reason and authority, the return of all things, and the nature of dialectic.²² One of the philosophers who used this collection was Albertus Magnus, whose work contains many of Eriugena's ideas on the nature of the angels, the primary causes, and the purpose of dialectic. Albertus seems to have been the source of Aquinas's knowledge of Dionysius.²³

According to Jeauneau the evidence is too meagre to suggest that Eriugena influenced Isaac of Stella (d. 1169), except that he knew Eriugena's definition of theophania, which, however, was fairly widespread by that time. Furthermore, Jeauneau denies that Eriugena influenced the Platonism of the philosophers associated with Chartres. There is no textual basis for a connection between Eriugena and Chartres. It was Jacquin who, in 1910, had suggested this influence, on the basis of a common “pantheism” to be found in these writers.²⁴ There are no references to Eriugena in the writings of Thierry of Chartres, Gilbert of Poitiers, or Clarembald of Arras, and it is not clear that Chartres actually possessed a copy of the Periphyseon.

In the early thirteenth century Eriugena was associated with the heresy of the followers of Amaury of Bène, who sought to defend their leader with references to the work of John Scottus. According to contemporary writers such as Martin of Troppau and Henry of Susa, Eriugena's Periphyseon was the source of Amaury's ideas (as we saw in Chapter 6); none of Amaury's writings are extant, however, and it is uncertain whether any such influence existed. It is even more unlikely that Eriugena influenced David of Dinant. Piemonte has argued that Eriugena also had an influence on the Cathars, and Gersom Scholem has argued that Eriugena may have also influenced the founders of the Jewish Cabala.²⁵

It is difficult to find persons who after the condemnation of 1225, openly acknowledged their debt to Eriugena. J. J. McEvoy has made a convincing argument for the influence of Eriugena on the first chancellor of Oxford, Robert Grosseteste (1168?-1253), a theologian who resisted Aristotle for a time and held fast to the older Parisian school of theology.²⁶ Grosseteste's De luce (c. 1225-30) puts forth a cosmology based on the expansion of light, which has Dionysian imagery and concepts, and which could well have been influenced by Eriugena's Vox spiritualis. It must be remembered that this latter work circulated in the Middle Ages under the name of Origen or sometimes John Chrysostom. Grosseteste's temperament aligned him with Christian Platonism. He translated and commented on the Pseudo-Dionysius, and may well have used Eriugena's Expositiones. Grossesteste designated God with the term forma omnium or essentia omnium, a terminology found in Eriugena and later echoed by Nicholas of Cusa.

Grossesteste wrote a short tract in the form of a letter entitled De unica forma omnium (c. 1226-9) which explains the term forma omnium in Augustinian terms.²⁷ In support of his interpretation he quotes from the De libero arbitrio II.16-17, in which the phrase does not occur, however. The phrase does appear in the Periphyseon I.520a, where the Word, which is forma and fons of all things, is itself described as formlessness, informitas (502a32). In discussing the phrase, the letter-writer and Grosseteste must have been thinking of Eriugena, who had been condemned only a year previously, in 1225, for being the source of this very heretical formula in Amaury of Bène. Nicholas of Cusa will later use the same phrase, and also write it in a margin of his copy of Book I of the Periphyseon, where he will note forma omnium Deus beside 501d.

Grosseteste corrects Eriugena's translation of Dionysius including his mistranslation of the adverb oukoun as non ergo, as John Saracenus had also done. He provides an explanation for why the older translator (Eriugena) made the mistake.²⁸

Aquinas refers to Eriugena directly only once, in connection with the controversy over the vision of God sicuti est, in his Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. He reports that Eriugena believes that we do not see God as He is. This he considers heretical. Eriugena indeed argued, as did Gottschalk, that man will not see God with his corporeal eyes, and that he will see Him spiritually only in theophanies. (See, e.g., I.448b-c.) Moreover, angels also will grasp God only through theophanies. This view that neither man nor angel will grasp God directly as He is was condemned at the University of Paris in 1241.²⁹ Aquinas was also aware of Eriugena's Vox spiritualis under the authorship of Origen, as he thought.

As I have argued in this book, Eriugena's closest intellectual followers come at the close of the mediaeval period and the birth of the modern age. Thus Meister Eckhart of Hochheim (c. 1260 - c. 1329) and Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64) are true followers of Eriugena's philosophy.

Eckhart knew of Eriugena's work at least through the Clavis physicae and possibly through the Corpus Dionysii of the University of Paris, as well as through the Homilia. Whether or not there is direct influence, however, Eckhart's interest in the Neoplatonic theme of exitus and reditus of cosmic reality has many Eriugenian echoes. It is true that many other Neoplatonic sources were available to Eckhart, including the Liber de causis; nevertheless, his articulation of the original hiddenness and transcendence of the Godhead, the concept of creation as divine self-manifestation, the original dwelling of the highest part of the soul with the Godhead, the fact that the soul can be spoken of as both created and uncreated, the term nonbeing applying to God, the original nothingness of the intellect, and the birth of the Word in the soul, offer a range of doctrines with which Eriugena would be in agreement. Eckhart was also accused of pantheism in his trial. More precise influence than that cannot be maintained given the present state of research in the area.

With Cusanus the situation is different, since we know that he owned a copy of the Periphyseon Book I and a copy of the Clavis physicae, and we also possess his annotations on these books.³⁰

Cusanus also refers directly to Eriugena at several places in his writings. In his Apologia doctae ignorantiae (1449), he refers to “Johannes Scotigena” along with Maximus Confessor, Hugh of Saint Victor, and Grosseteste as commentators on Dionysius. He cites these figures in defence of his teaching of the coincidentia oppositorum. In addition, Cusanus refers to “Johannes Scotigena” in a letter to Bernhard von Waging dated 9 September 1454, citing Eriugena as the person who first translated Dionysius in the time of Charles the Great (!): qui primo transtulit Dionysium tempore Karoli magni.³¹

Cusanus also knew the Homilia under the authorship of Origen, and cited it in his sermon Verbum caro factum est (1437-8).³² Cusanus and Eriugena accept the Dionysian view that God both transcends all things and is present in all things. Thus Cusanus cites the etymological explanation of the term Theos as deriving from theo and theoro, to run and to see, because God runs through all things and sees all things. This etymology is found in Eriugena in Book I.452c, and in Cusanus's De quaerendo Deum.³³ In the De coniecturis he calls God the entitas omnium and the quidditas quidditatum; in De visione Dei 9 God is the essentia essentiarum, and elsewhere Nicholas uses the term forma formarum. All these phrases echo Eriugena's view of God as the essence, form, and subsistence of all things (e.g., I.499a, I.502a) and are Latin formulations of Dionysius's remarks in De divinis nominibus (977c). As I mentioned earlier, Cusanus actually wrote the phrase forma omnium Deus in a margin of his copy of the Periphyseon at I.501d.

Like Eriugena, Cusanus sees God as the essence of all things, the Beginning, Middle, End, and principle of all things. But God is also absolutely above all things (e.g., De sapientia I). This also comes from Dionysius. Moreover, God is above all things that are and are not, which again derives from Dionysius (De divinis nominibus V.816b). For Cusanus, God is the coincidence of opposites, and he finds this doctrine in Eriugena since he notes deus contrariorum contrarietas at Periphyseon I.517b-c. But God is also above the coincidence of opposites; He is infinitas absoluta (De visione Dei 13). God is inattingibilis for Cusanus as for Eriugena and Dionysius. Cusanus does develop an original set of names for God to express the uniqueness of the divine nature, for example, Idem, Aequalitas, and of course the Non Aliud; but the basis for this kind of naming is found in Eriugena and in Dionysius.

Cusanus also agrees with Eriugena in seeing creation as a theophany or self-manifestation of God. Furthermore, created beings, considered in themselves, are nothing. This is expressed in De docta ignorantia II.3, for example. The being of the creature then is solely the being it receives from God, which is God's own self-externalisation. In the marginal comments on the Periphyseon, Cusanus writes quomodo Deus dicitur fieri beside an expression of this doctrine at I.516c. He took his concept of theophany from Eriugena, and also his view of the absolute unity of God.

Cusanus's general philosophy of explicatio and implicatio, of infinity and finitude, expresses in a different technical terminology some of the central insights of Eriugena's system. Of course, it is almost impossible to separate the Dionysian influence from what is purely Eriugenian, but we can say that Cusanus was Eriugena's greatest disciple, and that it was through Cusanus (and his admirers Bruno and Descartes) that Eriugena's thought came to affect the formation of the modern mind.

Notes

1. See J. Marenbon, From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 113. E. Jeauneau, on the other hand, in his article “Quisquiliae e Mazarinaeo codice 561 depromptae,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 45 (1978), pp. 79-129, thinks the annotations may be by Eriugena himself.

2. See J. Marenbon, Circle of Alcuin, who has given a partial edition of these glosses on pp. 185-6. Marenbon believes glosses on the Categoriae decem contained in a MS (Milan Ambrosiana B 71 sup.) may have been done under Heiric's direction, rather than by Heiric himself (p. 175). Heiric's commentary on the Categoriae decem is contained in the Paris MS 12949. See W. Beierwaltes (ed.), Eriugena Redivivus (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1987), p. 57 n. 37.

3. See Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erigène: Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensée (Louvain: Abbaye de Mont César, 1933), p. 240.

4. See G. d'Onofrio, “Die Ueberlieferung der dialektischen Lehre Eriugenas in den hochmittelalterlichen Schulen 9-11 Jh.,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, p. 57.

5. Ibid., p. 58 n. 43.

6. See Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erigène, p. 241, and C. Jeudi, “Israel le grammarien et la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Remi d'Auxerre à l'Ars Minor de Donat,” Studi Medievali, ser. 3a, 18 (1977), pp. 185-248. Also E. Jeauneau, “Pour le dossier d'Israel Scot,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 52 (1985), pp. 7-72.

7. See the excellent article by G. d'Onofrio, “Die Ueberlieferung der dialektischen Lehre Eriugenas in den hochmittelalterlichen Schulen 9-11 Jh.,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, pp. 47-76.

8. See Fulbert, Epistolae 2 (PL CXLI.190bc). See also A. Clerval, Les Ecoles de Chartres au moyen âge (Paris, 1895), pp. 118-9.

9. G. d'Onofrio's article in Eriugena Redivivus, p. 75 n. 110. See also A. Koyré, L'Idée de Dieu dans la philosophie de saint Anselm (Paris: Leroux, 1923), pp. 139-66.

10. See J. Hopkins and H. W. Richardson (eds.), Anselm of Canterbury. Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption: Theological Treatises. (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), pp. 45-6.

11. See Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erigène, p., 187, and d'Onofrio in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, p. 51.

12. See J. Chatillon, “Hugues de Saint-Victor critique de Jean Scot,” and P. Vignaux, “Jean de Ripa, Hugues de Saint-Victor et Jean Scot sur les théophanies,” both in R. Roques (ed.), Jean Scot Erigène et l'histoire de la philosophie (Paris: CNRS, 1977), pp. 415-432 and 433-440, respectively.

13. See J. Taylor (ed.), The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), p. 53.

14. See Didascalicon I.10, in Taylor, p. 57.

15. See H. Weisheiler, “Die Ps. Dionysiuskommentare ‘In Coelestem Hierarchiam’ des Skotus Eriugena und Hugos von St. Viktor,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 19 (1952), pp. 27-47.

16. See E. Jeauneau, “Le Renouveau érigénien du XIIe siècle,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, p. 45. In the margin of the Vox spiritualis Hugh of Saint Victor wrote, Hoc in omni lingua est arrianae perfidiae, and hoc catholici doctores reprobant.

17. Ibid., p. 30.

18. This page is reproduced in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, p. 129.

19. See S. Gersh, “Honorius Augustodunensis and Eriugena: Remarks on the Method and Content of the Clavis physicae,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, pp. 162-73.

20. See E. Jeauneau, “Le Renouveau érigénien du XIIe siècle,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, pp. 26-46. For the manuscript tradition of the Periphyseon, see Chapter 5 of this volume.

21. See Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erigène, p. 247.

22. See H.-F. Dondaine, Le Corpus dionysien de l'Université de Paris au XIIIe siècle (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1953).

23. See H.-F. Dondaine, “S. Thomas et Scot Erigène,” in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 35 (1951), pp. 31-3.

24. M. Jacquin, “L'Influence doctrinale de Jean Scot au début du XIIIe siècle,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 4 (1910), pp. 104-6. See also J.-M. Parent, La Doctrine de la création dans l'école de Chartres (Paris: Vrin, 1938), pp. 84-90. The actual concept of a Chartres school, so powerfully argued by Clerval in his Ecoles de Chartres au moyen âge in 1895, has been challenged by R. W. Southern in his collection of essays, Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), pp. 61-85.

25. See G. Piemonte, “Jean Scot et un opuscule hébreu pseudépigraphique,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, p. 280. See also G. Scholem, “Jüdische Mystik in West-Europa im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 4, Judentum im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1966), pp. 37-54.

26. On Grosseteste in general, see the excellent study of J. J. McEvoy, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). On p. 448, McEvoy says that Grosseteste resisted Aristotle until his mid-fifties, when be began the serious study of the Stagirite.

27. See J. J. McEvoy, “John Scottus Eriugena and Robert Grosseteste: An Ambiguous Influence,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, pp. 192-213.

28. Ibid., p. 197.

29. See D. O'Meara, “Eriugena and Aquinas on the Beatific Vision,” in Beierwaltes, Eriugena Redivivus, pp. 224-36.

30. Cusanus's annotations on the Clavis physicae are contained in Paris MS Bibl. Nat. lat. 6734ff. 6r-189v, and have been published by P. Lucentini in his Platonismo medievale: Contributi per la storia dell'eriugenismo (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1980), pp. 83-109. The annotations on the Periphyseon have been edited and published in Mitteilungen und Forschungsbeiträge der Cusanus-Gesellschaft 3 (1963), pp. 84-100.

31. See Beierwaltes, “Eriugena und Cusanus,” in his Eriugena Redivivus, p. 313 n. 5.

32. See E. Jeauneau, Jean Scot. L'Homélie sur le Prologue de Jean, SL no. 151. (Paris: CERF, 1969), pp. 146-8.

33. See C. Riccati, Processio et Explicatio: La Doctrine de la création chez Jean Scot et Nicolas de Cues (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1983), p. 36 n. 84. Cusanus says: theos dicitur a theoro sive theo, quod est video et curro.