Luận Án Đọc Hexaëmeral về Bonaventure's Breviloquium của Daniel Wade McClain

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA An Hexaëmeral Reading of Bonaventure’s Breviloquium A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By
Daniel Wade McClain Washington, D. 2016 An Hexaëmeral Reading of Bonaventure’s Breviloquium Daniel Wade McClain, Ph. Director: Joshua Benson, Ph. This dissertation examines the structure of Bonaventure’s Breviloquium, a brief synthesis of theology produced in 1257 at the end of his tenure as Master at the University of Paris.1 Previous studies of this text have complicated its structure by emphasizing a distinction in genre between the prologue and the “body,” and by reading the “body” either in terms of the Platonic scheme of procession and return, or in terms of origin, procession, and return, which is a scheme supplied by Bonaventure himself.2 While attending to Bonaventure’s unique theology of the Trinity and Christ as 1 Cf.

Jacques-Guy Bougerol, Introduction à Saint Bonaventure (Paris: J. Vrin, 1988), 197; Marianne Schlosser, “Bonaventure: Life and Works,” in A Companion to Bonaventure, ed. Hammond, Wayne Hellmann, and Jared Goff (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 24–26. 2 Pedro Bordoy-Torrents, “Técnicas divergentes en la redacción del Breviloquio de San Bonaventura,” Cientia Tomista (1940): 442-51; Paula Jean Miller, F.E, Marriage: the Sacrament of Divine-Human Communion (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1995); Dominic Monti, O., “Introduction,” in Breviloquium (St.

Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2005), xlviii-xlix; and Joshua C. Benson, “The Christology of the Breviloquium,” in A Companion to Bonaventure, 247–287. medium, these studies have overlooked significant resources in Bonaventure’s use of the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest which can help further illumine the structure of the Breviloquium. Indeed, from the resources that are available today, it appears that Bonaventure drew material and inspiration from commentaries on Genesis 1–2:4a, and synthesized them with his own distinctive theological program.

This at least seems to be the case from the evidence in the critical edition of Bonaventure’s works and from a comparison of the structure and content of the Breviloquium and those commentaries. This synthesis, as this dissertation argues, becomes particularly important in the relationship that Bonaventure draws between God’s operations in creation, restoration, and perfection and the division of the Hexaëmeron into creation, distinction, and adornment, formulated at least by Bede the Venerable and transmitted by theologians like Hugh of St. This study argues that this relationship helps to clarify the structure of the text and, moreover, offers to resolve the problem of the prologue’s relation to the body by appeal to the structure of the Hexaëmeron, as Bonaventure understands it. This dissertation by Daniel Wade McClain fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in Systematic and Historical Theology approved by Joshua Benson, Ph., as Director, and by Mark Clark, Ph., and Robert Trent Pomplun, Ph.

__________________________________________ Joshua Benson, Ph.D, Director __________________________________________ Mark Clark, Ph., Reader __________________________________________ Robert Trent Pomplun, Ph., Reader ii To Kate with all my heart iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE. x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. 1 Reception of the Breviloquium. 5 Analysis of the Structure of the Breviloquium.

11 Creation and Re-Creation in the Theology of the Breviloquium. 25 The Procedure of This Dissertation. 31 CHAPTER TWO: BONAVENTURE’S PROLOGUE IN LIGHT OF HEXAËMERAL LITERATURE. 38 Commentaries on Genesis 1–2:4a.

47 Philo and the De opificio mundi. 50 Origen and the De principiis and In Genesim homilae. 56 Basil of Caesarea and the Homilies on the Hexaëmeron. 60 Ambrose and the Exaemeron.

65 Augustine and De Genesi ad litteram. 68 Bede and In principium Genesis. 77 Hugh of St. Victor and the De sacramentis and De tribus diebus.

84 Peter Lombard and the Sentences. 93 Robert Grossetste and the Hexaëmeron. 95 Alexander of Hales and the Summa Fratris Alexandri. 98 Bonaventure’s Reception of the Hexaëmeral Genre.

100 CHAPTER THREE: HEXAËMERAL ORDER IN BREVILOQUIUM II. 112 The Procedure and Structure of Part Two .1—Divine Perfection and Created Order .2—The Hexaëmeron, Seminal Reasons, and Divine Perfections. 124 Divine Perfections in the thought of Hugh of St. Victor and Brev.

127 Hexaëmeral Operations: Creation, Distinction, Adornment. 130 The Theological Relevance of the Hexaëmeron. 138 CHAPTER FOUR: THE HEXAËMERAL STRUCTURE OF THE BREVILOQUIUM. 143 The Work of Distinction: Part One—the Trinity.

149 The Work of Distinction: Part Two—Creation. 153 iv Creation prefigures restoration: Brev. 156 Adornment is Prefigured in Distinction. 162 The Work of Distinction: Part Three—Sin.

168 The Work of Adornment: Part Four—the Incarnation. 174 The Work of Adornment: Part Five—Grace. 190 The Work of Adornment: Part Six—Sacraments. 201 The Work of Perfection: Part Seven—The Last Judgment.

216 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION. 219 Summary of the Argument. 219 Objections to the Thesis. 226 Problems in the Interpretation of the Breviloquium.

246 v PREFACE My argument in this dissertation is that the Breviloquium, a text which is ostensibly written for the sake of theological formation, and which was written at height of Bonaventure’s career as a Master at the University of Paris and in the same year that he became minister general of the Friars minor (1257), imitates, or takes as its structure a particular rendition of the structure of the Hexaëmeron, the six days of creation and seventh day of rest in Genesis 1–2:4a. This argument can make an important contribution to the study of not only the Breviloquium but also Bonaventure’s theology insofar as it attempts to locate the Seraphic Doctor within a tradition of Scriptural commentary, frame his theological synthesis in light of that tradition, and shed further light on what many take to be an esoteric and enigmatic aspect of his thought, namely his penchant for structure and number. Setting the context for Bonaventure’s use of the Hexaëmeron and hexaëmeral commentaries in structure of the Breviloquium, chapter one examines the text in light of Bonaventure’s life and other texts, and the various studies of the Breviloquium, and sets out the general contours of this tightly structured and argued text, as well as Bonaventure’s aims in writing it. While recent studies read the Breviloquium’s structure in terms of the procession from and return to God, chapter one proposes that Bonaventure’s language of creation and re-creation, or restoration, suggests a different vi orientation that allows him to concentrate on God’s operations of creation, redemption, and perfection.

Chapter two looks at Bonaventure’s use of the Hexaëmeron as a paradigm for understanding the length of Scripture, history, and the microcosm of the human person (Brev. 2), and contextualizes this usage with the genre of hexaëmeral commentary, from Philo of Alexandria to Alexander of Hales. Among the treatises in this genre, Bonaventure relies heavily on Augustine’s De genesi ad litteram, Bede the Venerable’s In principium Genesis, and Hugh of St Victor’s De sacramentis Christianæ fidei and De tribus diebus. He also utilizes Peter Lombard’s Sententiarum libri quattuor, the Summa Fratris Alexandri, and Robert Grosseteste’s Hexaëmeron to name just a few more sources certainly in his repertoire.

These texts provide Bonaventure with most of the building blocks for his understanding of creation. They also convey a tension between reading the six days of creation simultaneously or temporally.1 Chapter three shows that Bonaventure attempts to reconcile these tensions with his use of the Hugonian division of creation-distinction-adornment (Brev. He employs Hugh’s description of God’s threefold perfections of power, wisdom, and 1 It is also likely that Bonaventure employed Peter Comestor’s Historia Genesis. A final critical edition of this text is being prepared.

On Bonaventure’s library, cf. Marianne Schlosser, “Bonaventure: Life and Works,” 12. vii goodness, but modifies this description to emphasize God’s benevolence, by which God creates, restores, and perfects his creation.2 Chapter four argues for the importance of creation, distinction and adornment for understanding the hexaëmeral structure of the Breviloquium by setting this triad in light of his the further use of the triad of God as principium effectivum, refectivum, and perfectivum (Brev. Indeed, this triad of God‘s operations helps us to understand the full sense of the hexaëmeral structure, for it is the key to linking restoration (Brev.

4) and the operation of adornment (which begins on the fourth day). Moreover, this link provides a way to include earlier models of perfection under Hugh’s triad.3 Chapter five then presents this distinct combination of hexaëmeral themes in the Breviloquium as serving Bonaventure’s larger projects, including presenting theology as 2 Hugh of St. Victor, De tribus diebus, 27. Dominique Poirel, Corpus Christianorum Continuato Medievalis 177 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002).

English translation from Hugh of St. Victor, “On the Three Days,” in Trinity and Creation, ed. Boyd Taylor Coolman and Dale M. On Hugh’s use of power, wisdom, and goodness, cf.

the explanation in Dominque Poirel, Livre de la nature et débat trinitaire au XIIe siècle, Le De tribus de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), 368–82; Matthias Perkams, “The Origins of the Trinitarian Attributes: potentia, sapientia, benignitas,” Archa Verbi 1 (2004): 25–41; Coolman, The Theology of Hugh of St. Victor: an Interpretation, 86–87, and Boyd Taylor Coolman, “General Introduction,” in Trinity and Creation, ed. Boyd Taylor Coolman and Dale M. Hugh of St.

Victor, De sacramentis Christianae fidei 1.1 on the triad of creation- distinction-adornment. viii an affective science and Christ as the medium of creation. This dissertation concludes by proposing that this hexaëmeral reading allows one to solve the problem, inherent in earlier studies of the text, of the relationship of the prologue to the body of the text. Further, it allows us to see how the Breviloquium anticipates the Collationes in Hexaëmeron’s use of similar themes under the banner of the six days of creation.

ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The process of writing a dissertation can be an alienating one, and I experienced my fair share of loneliness, doubt, setbacks, and frustrations. I am happy to acknowledge, however, that the joys of community, fraternity, and solidarity abundantly outweighed the woes. I’d like to first acknowledge the depth of influence and impact made by Dr. Joshua Benson, my director, who has helped to cultivate my love for Bonaventure’s complex and rewarding theological style.

Benson’s tutelage, I came to recognize, appreciate, and feel at home amongst the many and subtle connections that run throughout Bonaventure’s prose, especially in the Breviloquium. Robert Trent Pomplun, has been a trusted mentor and an essential voice in my academic formation since I taught my first adjunct course at Loyola University Maryland in 2008. More recently, Trent stepped in at a crucial moment in the writing of this project, galvanizing the project with his wisdom and time—which also happened to be the beginning of his sabbatical. I am also grateful for Dr.

Mark Clark’s thoughtful and penetrating questions. My scholarship will undoubtedly be stronger and more precise because of his input. I would also like to recognize the positive contributions made by Fr., in the early stages of my research. x I would have never contemplated a dissertation on Bonaventure without the suggestion of Dr.

Chad, moreover, has been a tireless advocate and mentor to me. Frederick Bauerschmidt (Loyola University Maryland) and Dr. Kevin Hughes (Villanova University) both read drafts of this dissertation and offered invaluable feedback. I indebted to them for their insightful comments and conversation.

It is also deeply gratifying to know that in bringing together scholars like Fritz, Kevin, and Trent, I am participating in a small way in healing the divide between Thomist and Franciscan theology. I am also thankful for the friendship of Dr. John O’Keefe at Creighton University and Dr. Each offered constant encouragement, often at particularly difficult stages along the way.

Since 2012, I have been full-time at Loyola University Maryland, where I have been blessed by the scholarly support and friendship of outstanding colleagues like Joshua Brown, James Buckley, Daniel Castillo, Angela Christman, John Conley, S., Lesley DiFransico, Rebekah Eklund, Stephen Fowl, John Kiess, Claire Mathews McGinnis, Matthew Moser, Joseph Rossi, S., and Arthur Sutherland.