Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval 26/1 (2019) by Nicola Polloni

REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE FILOSOFÍA MEDIEVAL

UCOPress - EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE CÓRDOBA UNIVERSIDAD DE CÓRDOBA Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval 26/1 (2019) — Córdoba 2019 ISSN: 1133-0902

REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE FILOSOFÍA MEDIEVAL Número 26/1. Año 2019

DIRECTORES / EDITORS Alexander Fidora Riera, ICREA – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Nicola Polloni, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. Pedro Mantas España, Universidad de Córdoba. EDITORA EJECUTIVA / EXECUTIVE EDITOR: Celia López Alcalde, Universidade do Porto. CONSEJO DE REDACCIÓN / EDITORIAL BOARD: Rafael Ramis Barceló, Universitat de les Illes Balears, ES. Amos Bertolacci, Institute of Advanced Studies, IT. Thérèse Cory, University of Notre Dame, US. Alfredo Culleton, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, BR. Ann M. Giletti, University of Oxford, UK. Martín González Fernández, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, ES. Idoya Zorroza Huarte, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, ES. Manuel Lázaro Pulido, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, ES. Jau-me Mensa i Valls, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, ES. Paula Oliveira e Silva, Universidade do Porto, PT. CONSEJO ASESOR / EDITORIAL ADVISER: Francisco Bertelloni, Universidad de Buenos Aires, AR. Mauricio Beuchot, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MX. Charles Burnett, The Warburg Institute, UK. Francisco Castilla Urbano, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, ES. Claudia D’Amico, Universidad de Buenos Aires, AR. Cristina D’Ancona, Università di Pisa, IT. Fernando Domínguez Reboiras, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, DE. José Luis Fuertes Herreros, Universidad de Salamanca, ES. Yehuda Halper, Bar-Ilan University, IL. Katja Krause, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, DE. Andreas Lammer, Universität Trier, DE. Luis Xavier López Farjeat, Universidad Panamericana, MX. José Meirinhos, Universidade do Porto, PT. Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, Universidad de Córdoba, ES. Francisco O’Reilly, Universidad de Montevideo, UY. Gregorio Piaia, Università di Padova, IT. Pasquale Porro, Université Paris-Sorbonne, FR. Rafael Ramón Guerrero, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, ES. Andrea Robiglio, KU Leuven, BE. Juan Fernando Sellés, Universidad de Navarra, ES. Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University, US. John Tolan, Université de Nantes, FR. Michael McVaugh, University of North Carolina, US. Ignacio Verdú Berganza, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, ES. Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval es una revista bianual desde 2019, editada por la Sociedad de Filosofía Medieval y distribuida a través de UCOPress. Editorial Universidad de Córdoba. Campus Universitario de Rabanales - Ctra. Nacional IV. Km.396-14071 Córdoba (España). T: +34 - 957 21 81 26 (Adm.), +34 - 957 21 81 25 (Producción), +34 - 957 21 21 65 (Distribución). Editorial Sindéresis, oscar@editorialsindereis.com Precio del número: 10 Euros / Subscription rates: Foreign countries: 10 EUR or 10 US$. Esta Revista cuenta con la colaboración del Vicerrectorado de Investigación y del Departamento de Filosofía de la Universidad de Córdoba. ISSN: 1133-0902 Depósito legal: Z-1262-93 Imprime: Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Córdoba

Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval Vol. 26/1 (2019)

RESPONDING TO THE QUR’AN: CUSANUS, HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND SUCCESSORS Edited by Donald F. Duclow, Rita George-Tvrtković, and Thomas M. Izbicki

ÍNDICE / CONTENTS PRESENTACIÓN EDITORES / EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION Donald F. Duclow, Rita George-Tvrtković, Thomas M. Izbicki ARTÍCULOS / ARTICLES Pim Valkenberg, The Missionary Purpose of the Cribratio Alkorani Maarten Halff, Did Cusanus Talk to Muslims? Revisiting Cusanus’ Sources for the Cribratio Alkorani and Interfaith Dialogue José Martínez Gázquez, «Eum mori oportebat» en las glosas de Nicolás de Cusa al Alkoranus Latinus (Vat. lat. 4071) Jesse D. Mann, Throw the Book at Them: John of Segovia’s Use of the Qur’an Thomas M. Izbicki, Juan de Torquemada, Nicholas of Cusa and Pius II on the Islamic Promise of Paradise

29 59 79 97

Nathan Ron, Erasmus’ attitude toward Islam in light of Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani

113

Walter Andreas Euler, Nicholas of Cusa and Martin Luther on Islam

137

RESEÑAS DE LIBROS / BOOK REVIEWS Sara L. Uckelman, BÖRJE BYDÉN and CHRISTINA THOMSEN THÖRNQVIST (eds.), The Aristotelian Tradition: Aristotle’s Works on Logic and Metaphysics and Their Reception in the Middle Ages, (Papers in Medieval Studies 28), Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2017 David Arbesú, MANUEL LÁZARO PULIDO, FRANCISCO LEÓN FLORIDO, ESTÍBALIZ MONTORO MONTERO (eds.), Pensar la Edad Media cristiana: la presencia de la teología medieval en el pensamiento moderno, Madrid, Sindéresis, 2018 Carlos Ortiz de Landázuri, THOMAS WILLIAMS (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Ethics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018 Alexander Westenberg, RICHARD CAMPBELL, Rethinking Anselm’s Arguments: A Vindication of his Proof of the Existence of God, Boston, Brill, 2018 Carlos Ortiz de Landázuri, RABÍ JOSEPH B. SOLOVEICHIK, Maimónides, entre la filosofía y la Halajá, traducción de Javier Guerrero, Barcelona, Alpha Decay, 2018 Víctor Zorrilla, BARTOLOMÉ DE MEDINA, El tratado «De dominio» en la Escuela de Salamanca, vol. III: Bartolomé de Medina, De dominio/Sobre el dominio, ed. Augusto Sarmiento, Colección de Pensamiento Medieval y Renacentista n. 173, Pamplona, Eunsa, 2017 Francisco Castilla Urbano, MARÍA MARTÍN GÓMEZ, La Escuela de Salamanca, Fray Luis de León y el problema de la interpretación, Pamplona, Eunsa, 2017

155

159 162 164 167

169 171

PRESENTACIÓN EDITORES / EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION Donald F. Duclow, Rita George-Tvrtković and Thomas M. Izbicki

In the long, conflicted history of Latin Christendom’s relations with Islam, R. W. Southern describes a «moment of vision» in the years following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. In their correspondence and actions, four men achieved a vison of Islam that was «larger, clearer, and more lifelike than at any previous moment, or any later one for centuries to come».1 Of these four, Juan de Segovia and Nicholas of Cusa stand out for their refusal to call for another Crusade and their intense efforts to understand the Qur’an. Segovia worked with a Muslim from Spain to translate the Qur’an into Castilian and Latin, and wrote against crusading until his death in 1458. In this special issue, Jesse Mann treats the ways in which Segovia used biblical texts in his writings on Islam. He advances the idea that Juan was trying to educate Christians, preparing them to enter into dialogue with Muslims. Cusanus’ story is more ambiguous. He wrote De pace fidei (1453), a heavenly dialogue where the wise men of the earth’s nations seek to end religious violence and affirm «una religio in rituum varietate» – «one religion in a diversity of rites».2 In 1461 Nicholas composed a very different work, Cribratio Alkorani, a detailed commentary that sought to confirm the presence of the Gospel within the Qur’an itself.3 As Pim Valkenberg notes, both works share the «missionary purpose» of converting Muslims to Christianity. While De pace fidei, with its apparent thrust toward tolerance and a universal religion, has been widely discussed, the Cribratio has received less attention, and therefore is the focus of these essays. Nicholas addressed this work to Pope Pius II – another of Southern’s visionaries – who was drafting a letter urging Constantinople’s conqueror, the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II, to convert to Christianity, while simultaneously working toward a new Crusade against 1

Southern, R.W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 103. 2 Nicholas of Cusa, De pace fidei, eds. R. Klibansky and H. Bascour, in Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis, vol. 7, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1959, p. 7, n. 6. 3 Nicholas of Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, ed. L. Hagemann, Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis, vol. 8, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1986, p. 11, n. 10.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 9-11

INTRODUCTION

him. Thus, as Nathan Ron and Walter Andreas Euler discuss, the Cribratio indicates Cusanus’ sharpening opposition to Islam and his increasing support for Pius II’s Crusade. Cusanus’ interest in Islam as displayed in the Cribratio was heavily based on texts. Maarten Halff demonstrates that Nicholas sought out copies of the Qur’an during his 1437-38 mission to Constantinople. Although he never actually spoke with Muslims, Nicholas did identify one of his informants on Muslim beliefs: the Bolognese merchant Balthasar Lupari, who worked with Cusanus during his time in Constantinople. José Martínez Gázquez recently discovered a manuscript of the Latin Qur’an which he believes Cusanus consulted to write the Cribratio; this manuscript, housed at the Vatican, is different than the one at Kues which Cusanus used earlier in his career.4 Here Martínez Gázquez connects Cusanus’ notes in the Vatican manuscript with the doctrines advanced in the Cribratio. To widen the frame, we shall also consider Nicholas’ contemporary Juan de Torquemada, and two of their successors in confronting Islam: Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther. Torquemada wrote a scorching polemic against Islam which illustrates more traditional Western criticism of the Prophet and his “law”. Thomas Izbicki examines one aspect of the polemic, rejection of the Islamic vision of paradise. Torquemada treated it as carnal, comparing it unfavorably with the Christian vision of glorified bodies in a spiritual paradise – a critique shared by Cusanus, Pius II, and many earlier medieval Latin Christians. Nathan Ron shows the difference between Cusanus’ idea of dialogue in De pace fidei and Erasmus’ dismissal of Muslims as semichristiani. But Erasmus’ views are closer to Nicholas’ critique of Islam in the Cribratio. Erasmus rejected the Crusade but left no room for discussions with the Ottoman Turks. Walter Andreas Euler notes that Martin Luther wrote on Islam in the context of the continuing Ottoman threat. Although he rejected the medieval idea of Crusade as a religious war, he wrote to support military resistance to Ottoman aggression in Europe, and to encourage Christians held captive by the Turks. Although Luther knew Cusanus’ Cribratio, he did not follow Nicholas’ attempts to build bridges with Muslims in De pace fidei’s dialogue and the Cribratio’s unearthing of Gospel truths within the Qur’an. Rather, Luther limited himself to contrasting the Gospel with the message of Muhammad. This issue of the Revista Española de Filosofia Medieval springs from a symposium on «Cusanus, the Qur’an, and the Cribratio Alkorani» at United 4

Martínez Gázquez, J. «A New Set of Glosses to the Latin Qur’an Made by Nicholas of Cusa (Ms Vat. Lat. 4071)», Medieval Encounters, 15 (2015), pp. 296-309; and «Corrigendum», Medieval Encounters, 15 (2015), pp. 541-542.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 9-11

PRESENTACIÓN

Lutheran Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, September 29-30, 2018. The symposium was sponsored by the American Cusanus Society and the International Seminar on Pre-Reformation Studies. We thank the Seminary for its generosity in hosting the symposium, and Gerald Christianson and Margaret Folkemer for expertly managing all of the weekend’s practical details. We also thank Nicola Polloni for inviting us to publish these articles from the Symposium in Revista Española de Filosofia Medieval. Donald F. Duclow donduclow@gmail.com Rita George-Tvrtković RGeorge-Tvrtkovic@ben.edu Thomas M. Izbicki tizbicki@libraries.rutgers.edu

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 9-11

ARTÍCULOS/ARTICLES

THE MISSIONARY PURPOSE OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S CRIBRATIO ALKORANI Pim Valkenberg The Catholic University of America

Abstract This article discusses the final purpose of the Cribratio Alkorani by Nicholas of Cusa. He offered it to pope Pius II as an instrument for the conversion of the Muslims. In conversation with Juan de Segovia, Nicholas developed the idea to «show the truth of the Gospel from the Qur’an» by giving a theological interpretation of this book that remained faithful to the principal tenets of the Christian faith while at the same time doing justice to the God-centeredness of the Qur’an. Keywords Qur’ān; Gospel; mission; interpretation; Christ

Among the many works written by Nicholas of Cusa, his Cribratio Alkorani or «Sifting of the Qur’ān» stands out as one of the most enigmatic treatises. His discussion of the book that Muslims consider the foundation of their religion revealed by God to the prophet Muhammad is so extensive and detailed that this work can legitimately be considered as a precursor of the contemporary genre of comparative theology. At the same time, Cusanus seems to oscillate between different approaches to this book and its authorship, and therefore his work can be characterized differently as a bridge between Christianity and Islam or as a traditional piece of Christian apologetics. In this article, I will discuss the missionary purpose of the Cribratio as a work that tries to show how the Qur’ān contains the truth of the Gospel, so that it can be used to convince Muslims of the truth of Christianity. It does so, however, in a way that is respectful of the God-centeredness of the Qur’ān to such an extent that it can indeed be used as a precursor to contemporary Christian theological approaches to Islam. My interest in Nicholas of Cusa started in an interreligious context when I was asked to participate in a dialogue event in Tantur near Jerusalem on the ________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

PIM VALKENBERG

topic of «Learned Ignorance» in 2007. 1 Since I was one of the Catholic participants in this event with some knowledge of medieval theology, I thought it would be a good moment to start reading and analyzing Nicholas of Cusa. One of my colleagues at that time at the Radboud University of Nijmegen was Wilhelm Dupré who is a scholar of Nicholas of Cusa, and one of his students, Inigo Bocken, is now a professor at the Cusanus Hochschule in Bernkastel-Kues. 2 So I was in some good company when I started my adventures by trying to connect the idea of docta ignorantia with the hermeneutical principle of pia interpretatio which I propose to translate as «faithful interpretation.»3 I am particularly interested in his approach to the Qur’ān since I have developed some knowledge of the Qur’ān myself as a Christian comparative scholar of Islam and the case can be made that Cusanus’ approach to the Qur’ān has quite a bit in common with what is now called comparative theology.4 Even though my background is in Thomas Aquinas, I think that Nicholas of Cusa was able to approach Islam at a theological level, something that Thomas was not yet able to do, mainly because he noticed that because of the doctrine of taḥrīf («corruption») Muslims do not in fact accept the Christian Scriptures, so that there can be no proper theological communication, only philosophical communication.5 Against this background, it is interesting that Nicholas of Cusa apparently accepts the Qur’ān as basis for a Christological interpretation. I have always been fascinated by some of the strong texts that the Qur’ān devotes to the idea that we can learn from the differences between us. In sūrat al-mā’ida (Q.5:48) the Qur’ān suggests that God could have created us as one community but instead chose to give each nation a law and a way. Nicholas of Cusa quotes this text as a Muslim argument, and in fact it forms, through its use in the Latin translation in the Toledan collection of the kitāb al-masā’il 1 See Heft, J.L., Firestone, R., and Safi O., (eds.), Learned Ignorance: Intellectual Humility among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2011. 2 Inigo Bocken published an article in a volume that I co-edited on Medieval dialogues: «Nicholas of Cusa and the Plurality of Religions,» in B. Roggema, M. Poorthuis, and P. Valkenberg (eds.), The Three Rings: Textual Studies in the Historical Trialogue of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Leuven, Peeters, 2005, pp. 163-180. 3 Valkenberg, P., «Learned Ignorance and Faithful Interpretation of the Qur’an in Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)», in Learned Ignorance, op. cit., pp. 34-52. 4 Cf. Schmidt-Leukel, P., Religious Pluralism & Interreligious Theology, Maryknoll N.Y., Orbis Books, 2017, pp. 150-51. 5 Valkenberg, P., «Can We Talk Theologically? Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Cusa on the Possibility of a Theological Understanding of Islam» in A.K. Min (ed.), Rethinking the Medieval Legacy for Contemporary Theology, Notre Dame IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2014, pp. 131-66.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

THE MISSIONARY PURPOSE OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S

attributed to Abdullah ibn Salam, one of the most important sources of Nicholas’s famous expression, una religio in rituum varietate.6 It seems as if Nicholas is a precursor of present-day pluralists, but that would be an anachronistic reading.7 Yet it does show that Nicholas of Cusa really wanted to understand this Lex Mahumetorum, the source of the religion of the Muslims. While we will hear more about the way in which he studied the Qur’ān later in this volume, I will concentrate on the question as to why he did so. What motivated him to pay such detailed attention to the Qur’ān? 1. Two Works, One Program It makes sense to start with a comparison between two of Cusanus’ works, De Pace Fidei and the Cribratio Alkorani since both works can be connected with the «Fall of Constantinople» or, from a different perspective, the «Conquest of Istanbul» by Sultan Mehmet II in 1453. It seems that these two works do not only represent two very different literary genres but also different views on the possibility of interreligious collaboration, even though this is of course an anachronistic term. The work on the Peace of Faith, written immediately after the fall of Constantinople, is a work of fiction in which representatives of the different nations come together to discuss the possibility of a peaceful agreement. Nicholas might have taken as a frame of reference his own experiences at the Council of Basel (1431), and his attempts at the reunification between the Western and Eastern churches (1437) when Nicholas visited Constantinople. In the first section of De Pace Fidei he describes his own mood as «inflamed with zeal for God as a result of those deeds that were reported to have been perpetrated at Constantinople most recently and most cruelly by the King of the Turks».8 He beseeches the heavenly king to «restrain the persecution that was raging more fiercely than usual on account of the difference of rite between the |two| religions» and in answer he receives the vision of this council on the peace of faith, which he wrote down so that it «might one day become known to those who have a say in these especially important matters».9 So we may think of De Pace Fidei as a 6

Valkenberg, P., «Una Religio in Rituum Varietate: Religious Pluralism, the Qur’an, and Nicholas of Cusa», in I.C. Levy, R. George-Tvrtković, and D.F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, Leiden, Brill, 2014, pp. 30-48. 7 Valkenberg, P., «One Faith, Different Rites: Nicholas of Cusa’s New Awareness of Religious Pluralism», in P.C. Phan and J.S. Ray (eds.), Understanding Religious Pluralism: Perspectives from Religious Studies and Theology, Eugene OR, Pickwick, 2014, pp. 192-208. 8 Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani: Translation and analysis by Jasper Hopkins, Minneapolis, Arthur J. Banning Press, 2nd ed. 1994, p. 33. 9 Ibid., no.1.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

PIM VALKENBERG

utopian dream that was meant to influence religious leaders to a more peaceful collaboration. Again, these are anachronistic terms but they show how Nicholas of Cusa and his De Pace Fidei may still be seen as an exceptional voice among Catholics, for instance by pluralist theologians Paul Knitter and Perry Schmidt-Leukel.10 In this respect, Cribratio Alkorani, written eight years later, seems like a totally different work. It is not a literary utopia but a very scholarly approach to the Qur’ān. Yet it is still part of the same trajectory that Cusanus started with the Peace of Faith: to reply to the Fall of Constantinople using words instead of the sword. As Marica Costigliolo summarizes: «Religious conflict is the central theme of De pace fidei, and all the efforts of the author are addressed to find peaceful solutions. The Cribratio Alkorani pursues the same goal, despite its profound difference from the point of view of style and contents».11 Recently, John Monfasani has argued that the usual positive reception of the utopian Peace of Faith and the more negative reception of the apologetic Sifting of the Qur’an should in fact be reversed: he characterizes the former as a not very successful thought experiment and the latter as a serious work of refutation.12 So what happened to explain the difference between the two works? We are fortunate to have some insights through the correspondence between Nicholas of Cusa and his contemporary Juan de Segovia who had met Nicholas at the Council of Basel. At the beginning they were both among the conciliarists but later Nicholas changed allegiance to the papal party. Nevertheless, they had enough in common to entertain a long friendship. A common interest in the Qur’ān was one of the driving forces shaping this friendship, since Anne Marie Wolf tells us that Juan borrowed a copy of the Qur’ān from Nicholas when they both were in Basel in 1437.13 When he heard of the fall of Constantinople, Juan de Segovia decided to react in a way similar to Nicholas of Cusa. He tried to find the best way toward peace with the Turks, 10

Knitter, P., «Nostra Aetate: A Milestone in the History of Religions? From Competition to Cooperation» in C.L. Cohen, P.F. Knitter, and U. Rosenhagen (eds.), The Future of Interreligious Dialogue: A Multireligious Conversation on Nostra Aetate, Maryknoll N.Y., Orbis Books, 2017, pp. 45-58, at p. 45; P. Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology, Maryknoll N.Y., Orbis Books, 2017, p. 151. 11 Costigliolo, M., The Western Perception of Islam between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: The Work of Nicholas of Cusa, Eugene OR, Pickwick Publications, 2017, p. 4. 12 Monfasani, J., «Cusanus, the Greeks, and Islam», in T.M. Izbicki, J. Aleksander, and D.F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Times of Transition, Leiden, Brill, 2018, pp. 97-112, at 98, 104. 13 Wolf, A.M., Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace: Christians and Muslims in the Fifteenth century, Notre Dame IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2014, p. 118.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

THE MISSIONARY PURPOSE OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S

but he thought that a different attitude from the side of the Christians was necessary for that as well. Let me quote Anne Marie Wolf: [he] shared with the more traditionally inclined humanists the view that the problem with the Turks was a religious one […] but he rejected the crusade as the appropriate religious response and offered a different solution no less based on religious ideals. His primary aim was to convert fellow Christians to what he saw as greater faithfulness to the gospel, which would be manifested by seeking peace rather than war.14

On the one hand this sounds rather revolutionary. On the other, it is certainly not pacifism in the modern sense of the word, but peace as a means to convert the Muslims. So, Christians need to be converted to a peaceful solution, in order that the spirit of the Gospel be allowed to convert the Muslims to Christ. This is expressed in the title of a work that Juan de Segovia wrote in these days: De gladio divini Spiritus in corda mittendo Saracenorum («On putting the sword of the divine Spirit in the hearts of the Saracens»). I’m reminded here of another traditional humanist who trusted the power of the Gospel to prevail against the Turks: Erasmus of Rotterdam, writing after the siege of Vienna in 1529. 15 On the one hand these authors can be called relatively enlightened and part of the humanistic tradition, yet on the other hand their goal is not universal world peace but the survival of the Christian tradition in a purified form. In other words: they want a reform of Christianity in order for the Muslims to be converted by the Gospel of Christ. John Monfasani argues that Nicholas of Cusa’s missionary purpose clearly shines through in his letter to John of Segovia: It is a matter of discussion whether this is true for De Pace Fidei as well – I do think this is the case if one reckons with the utopian nature of the work.16 Now the interesting thing is that both Juan de Segovia and Nicholas of Cusa found it necessary to study the Qur’ān more closely in order to achieve this goal of converting Muslims to Christ. It would be interesting to compare the two scholars further on this point but that is not my task today, and elsewhere in this volume Jesse Mann will delve more deeply into Segovia’s work. So let me go to the Cribratio Alkorani and try to explain why I think its purpose is missionary in nature. 14

Ibid., p. 131. Erasmus’s earlier writings, Dulce Bellum Inexpertis (part of his Adagia, published 1500) and his Querela Pacis (1517) may be compared to Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei, while his Utilissima Consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo (1530) may be compared to Juan’s De gladio. In both cases the primary goal is that Christians live more in conformity with the Gospel. 16 So I disagree with Wolf when she writes that in De Pace Fidei, Nicholas of Cusa went well beyond this aim and called for one universal religion (Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, p. 139). 15

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

PIM VALKENBERG

2. The Missionary Purpose of the Cribratio Alkorani At the beginning of his prologue, Nicholas makes clear that his primary goal is «to understand the book-of-law of the Arabs».17 In his possession, he had the translation commissioned by Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, but he gave his copy to Juan de Segovia and tried to obtain better documentation when he was in Constantinople. He found a Qur’ān in Arabic and another copy of the same Latin translation by Robert of Ketton, and he asked around to find out whether Christians in the East or in the West had written treatises against «these foolish errors». In the end, he decided to write his own book, applying his mind «to disclosing, even from the Koran, that the Gospel is true».18 At the end of this prologue, he repeats: my intention is as follows: having presupposed the Gospel of Christ, to scrutinize the book of Muhammad and to show that even in it there are contained those |teachings| through which the Gospel would be altogether confirmed, were it in need of confirmation, and that wherever |the Koran| disagrees |with Christ|, this |disagreement| has resulted from Muhammad’s ignorance and, following |thereupon|, from his perverse intent.19

A double observation needs to be made here. In the first place, Nicholas describes his search for proper documentation: he is looking for a good translation of the Qur’ān, supplemented by Christian polemics against this book. Besides John of Damascus and Thomas Aquinas, he noticed Ricoldo de Monte Croce’s Contra Legem Sarracenorum and Juan de Torquemada’s Contra Principales Errores Perfidi Machometi (1459). Moreover, he asked Dionysius the Carthusian (1402-1471) to write a work as well and send it – Contra perfidiam Mahumeti – to the pope. In the midst of all these contrarian works, it is remarkable that Nicholas does not write against the Qur’ān or Muhammad, 17 Translations are from Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani: Translation and analysis by Jasper Hopkins. Original texts are quoted with book, chapter and paragraph numbers, and followed by page numbers from the critical edition in Nicolai de Cusa Cribratio Alkorani. Edidit commentariisque illustravit Ludovicus Hagemann. Opera Omnia, vol. 8, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1986. «Feci quam potui diligentiam intelligendi librum legis Arabum quem iuxta translationem per Petrum abbatem Cluniacensum nobis procuratam Basilieae habui… (prol.2) » 18 «Ego verum ingenium applicui, ut etiam ex Alcorano evangelium verum ostenderem.» Prol. 4, ed. Hagemann, p. 7, transl. Hopkins, p. 76. 19 Prol. 10: «Intentio autem nostra est praesupposito evangelio Christi librum Mahumeti cribrare et ostendere illa in ipso etiam libro haberi, per quae evangelium, si attestatione indigeret, valde confirmaretur, et quod, ubi dissentit, hoc ex ignorantia et consequenter ex perversitate intenti Mahumeti evenisse», ed. Hagemann, pp. 11-12, transl. Hopkins, pp. 78-79.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

THE MISSIONARY PURPOSE OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S

but wants to separate the truth in this work from the errors. All of this shows an effort at scholarly approach, starting with the right texts.20 On the other hand, the purpose of this work is not purely academic but it is an apologetic or rather missionary purpose: to show the truth of the Gospel by means of the Qur’ān. Let me pause here for a moment and explain why I assert that the Cribratio Alkorani has a missionary purpose. In his survey of Medieval Western Christian approaches to Islam, John Tolan writes about the difference between approaches to Islam in the twelfth century and before, and approaches in the thirteenth century and after. Of course this is a gradual shift, from largely «defensive reactions of Christians confronted by the power and prestige of the Muslim world» to «a significant effort to convert Muslims to Christianity through mission». 21 The two Mendicant orders that originated in the thirteenth century each had their own way of approaching this mission: for the Franciscans, the missionary purpose was to travel to Muslim lands and preach the Gospel, often in hopes of martyrdom. For the Dominicans, such preaching should be preceded by study of languages and sources in order to be able to prove the superiority of Christianity to Muslims. One century later, Ramon Llull added his own voice to these missionary purposes, stressing the cogency of argumentation, rather than the use of authorities, as a way to convince Muslims.22 It might be my preoccupation with these Mendicant missionary methods, but I cannot help recognizing two of the central Mendicant elements: first, the idea of the truth of the Gospel that can be discerned in the Qur’ān; this matches with Nicholas’s largely Christological approach in his Cribratio, and with his own conviction that showing this truth to Muslims will be sufficient to convert them. Second, the emphasis on learning as a prerequisite to such missionary work matches with the care that Nicholas of Cusa took to get the proper sources and an adequate translation of the Qur’ān.

See Monfasani, «Cusanus, the Greeks, and Islam» op. cit., p. 107. The same is true for Juan de Segovia who even engaged a Muslim scholar, Yça Gidelli, to help him translating the Qur’ān. See Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., p. 188. One is also reminded of Thomas Aquinas who is reported to have favored a proper text edition of John Chrysostom’s sermons above the city of Paris. 21 Tolan, J., Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination, New York, Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 171, 172. 22 Ibid., p. 172. For Llull’s critique of Dominican methods and Raymond Martin’s missionary method in particular, see S. Wiersma, Pearls in a Dunghill: The Anti-Jewish Writings of Raymond Martin O.P. (ca.1220 – ca. 1285), PhD dissertation, Tilburg University, 2015, pp. 114-20.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

PIM VALKENBERG

Now let us look somewhat closer at how Nicholas of Cusa develops this idea of showing the truth of the Gospel from the Qur’ān. In my opinion, one of the most important elements in his hermeneutical approach is characterized by the famous words pia interpretatio («faithful interpretation») that sound almost like a principle of modern comparative theology: can we find an interpretation of a sacred text from another tradition that does justice to this tradition while at the same time remaining faithful to the principles of my own faith? In an earlier publication I have tried to elucidate the seemingly incoherent approach by Nicholas of Cusa in his Cribratio Alkorani as a combination of two hermeneutical approaches: on the one hand there is the traditional polemical approach that he inherited from most of the authors that he consulted in the Toledan collection and elsewhere. On the other hand there is the new desire to understand the «book-of-law of the Arabs» better by applying his faithful interpretation according to which the Qur’ān is true insofar as it confirms the truth of the Gospel.23 Walter Andreas Euler has observed that Nicholas of Cusa uses this hermeneutical principle of pia interpretatio only in the second book of his Cribratio Alkorani, and I think that this indicates the experimental nature of this hermeneutical approach; it is almost as if he looks how far he can get with this benevolent interpretation.24 The first text in which Cusanus applies this principle discusses the Trinity and states that «on a devout interpretation the Koran does not contradict [the doctrine of] the Trinity in the sense in which we who adhere to the Gospel speak of Trinity».25 The second text is related to the Qur’ān’s denial of the crucifixion of Christ. Cusanus explains that Muhammad in fact knew better, but decided not to affirm the crucifixion because this would be seen by the Arabs as detrimental to the honor of Christ as prophet.26 It is interesting that what 23 Valkenberg, P., «Sifting the Qur’an: Two Forms of Interreligious Hermeneutics in Nicholas of Cusa», in: D. Cheetham, U. Winkler, O. Leirvik, and J. Gruber (eds.), Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe: Between Texts and People, Amsterdam – New York, Rodopi, 2011, pp. 27-48. 24 See Euler, W.A., «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’s Writings on Islam» in Nicholas of Cusa and Islam, op. cit., pp. 20-29, at p. 27 nt. 26. «Benevolent interpretation» is Ludwig Hagemann’s translation of pia interpretatio. 25 Cribratio Alkorani II.1.86: «ostendamus Alkoranum pia interpretatione non contradicere Trinitati, modo quo nos de ipsa loquimur, qui evangelio inhaeremus.» Ed Hagemann, p. 72; transl. Hopkins, p. 115. «Devout interpretation» is Hopkins’s translation of pia interpretatio. 26 Cribratio alkorani II.13.124: «Certum est igitur quod Alkoranus illis Arabibus, si sine mysteriorum apertione Christum crucifixum aperte asseruisset, Christum in eorum mentibus non magnificasset. Voluit igitur secundum piam interpretationem occultare

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

THE MISSIONARY PURPOSE OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S

Cusanus ascribes here in a faithful interpretation of the Qur’ān comes close to the principle of a divine pedagogy that Christians have often applied to their reading of the Old Testament. Nicholas of Cusa clearly makes a distinction between a level of understanding of the regular people and the understanding of wise people. He explicitly connects this with the idea of a faithful interpretation of the Qur'ān in the next text, in the context of the same discussion of Christ’s crucifixion: «Hence it is evident according to a devout interpretation that the Koran meant to reveal these secrets only to the wise».27 Cusanus explains that if Muhammad had preached the Gospel, the Arabs would not have accepted it. Therefore, he told them that they were Ishmaelites, hoping to bring them to the Gospel: «Therefore Muhammad hid from the Arabs the secrets of the Gospel, believing that in the future |these secrets| could become known by the wise».28 In this interpretation the truth of the Gospel is indeed hidden in the Qur’ān and if a wise person approaches it with a faithful interpretation, he or she will be able to discover it. He adds that Jesus spoke similarly in parables. This does not only elucidate the title of the work, Cribratio Alkorani or the Sifting of the Qur’ān, but also the way in which Cusanus thinks it can be used to convert Muslims: if they can be shown that the truth of the Gospel is hidden in it, they will accept it. So, this seems to be the strategy in the second book of the Cribratio. Yet toward the end of the book the strategy fails. What could be established when discussing Trinitarian theology and Christology collapses when discussing eschatology. So, in chapter 18 of the second book Cusanus says that he noticed, when reading the Qur’ān, how it uses likenesses (similitudines) to describe the day of judgment, paradise and hell, not dissimilar from what we read in the Gospel and the Old Testament. So – says Cusanus – «I told myself that this |befiguring in the Koran| could be excused because of the devout interpretation by the followers of |that| book».29 It is interesting to see how the pia interpretatio this time is not given by Christians but by followers of the Qur’ān. At the same time Cusanus seems to be upset by what he calls the

ipsis vilem mortem et quod adhuc viveret et venturus esse affirmare.» Ed. Hagemann, p. 99. 27 Cribratio Alkorani II.12.119: «Unde patet secundum piam interpretationem Alkoranum haec secreta non nisi sapientibus voluisse revelare.» Ed. Hagemann, p. 95; transl. Hopkins, p. 129. 28 Cribratio Alkorani II.12.120: «Quare Mahumetus ipsis secreta evangelii occultabat credens, quod sapientibus in futurum patescere possent.» Ed. Hagemann, p. 96; transl. Hopkins, p. 130. 29 Cribratio Alkorani II.19.154: «intra me admittebam posse illa sequacium libri interpretatione excusari.» Ed. Hagemann, p. 125; transl. Hopkins, p. 147.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

PIM VALKENBERG

vileness of the language about maidens and breasts and bestial copulation.30 Yet, at the end he admits that God almighty willed that amid all these filthy and vain things, and things such as are abominable to the wise even among the Arabs, there also be inserted things in which the splendor of the Gospel was so contained as hidden that it would manifest itself to the wise if it were sought with diligent effort.31

Three things are interesting in this quotation. In the first place, it seems to assume that God wanted to reveal the splendor of the Gospel even in the Qur’ān. In the second place, there is a kind of harmony between the wise among the Arabs – Cusanus clearly thinks about people such as Ibn Sina who give a spiritual interpretation of the likenesses – and the wise to whom God manifests the splendor of the Gospel if they study the Qur’ān with due effort (diligenti studio). Third, and finally, this diligent effort seems to be a parallel with the pia interpretatio mentioned before. Thus far, I have mainly concentrated on book II of the Cribratio. One can make the case that this book forms the theological core of the work, discussing God and Trinity, Christ and salvation, resurrection and the afterlife. In this book, Nicholas gives his faithful interpretation of those creedal statements in which the Qur’ān seems to deviate from the truth of the Gospel, yet on a faithful interpretation can be shown to confirm this truth. The first book is of a more heresiological nature, following the speculation in the additional prologue, based on the Latin translation of al-Kindi’s apology of Christianity, known as Rescriptum Christiani. This source tells us that Muhammad came under the influence of Sergius Bahira, a Nestorian monk, and converted to this form of Christianity. Yet the Qur’ān as Muslims have it was corrupted by two Jews after the death of Muhammad. This story combines two Christian counter-narratives: the first inverts the confirmation of Muhammad’s prophethood by Bahira (associated with the «seal of prophethood») to show Nestorianism as a source of his heretical Christology.32 The second inverts the Islamic doctrine of taḥrīf or corruption, stating that 30

Cribratio Alkorani II.19.154: «et stupebam de eo, quod saepe de puellis et earum papillis et bestiali concubitu in paradiso totiens replicavit.» Ed. Hagemann, p. 125. 31 Cribratio Alkorani II.19.158: «Tamen omnipotens deus inter omnia illa spurca et vana et sapientibus enim Arabum abominabilia talia etiam inseri voluit, in quibus evangelicus splendor sic lateret occultatus, quod sapientibus diligenti studio quaesitus se ipsum manifestaret.» Ed. Hagemann, p. 128; transl. Hopkins, p. 149. 32 On this, see Roggema, B. The Legend of Sergius Baḥīrā: Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic in Response to Islam, Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2007, pp. 14144.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

THE MISSIONARY PURPOSE OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S

Jews and Christians changed the letter or the meaning of the revelation that they received from God. Eastern Christian sources such as al-Kindī state that it is not the Gospel but the Qur’ān that is corrupted under the influence of a Nestorian monk and two Jews who manipulated the text of the Qur’ān.33 Book three comes back to this theme of the ambiguities in the Qur’ān: on the one hand it seems to indicate that Christ is the greatest prophet, yet at the same time the Qur’ān tries to accommodate all different belief systems. In chapter three Cusanus tells us that Muhammad was not able to convince Jews and Christians of his prophecy and therefore ultimately justified himself by the use of the sword.34 So violence is the outcome of desperation because of the lack of truth. This becomes the main theme from chapter six onwards: despite the fact that God told him not to use violence, Muhammad has waged war and used violence against the unbelievers. Even though he knows that Christians have faith in the one God, he goes against them with the sword. At this point, Cusanus addresses Muhammad as follows: «Why, in Christians, do you oppose Christ to such an extent that you persecute those whom you do not deny to be saved through their own law?»35 And a little further on: «Why do your followers persecute Christ in order to do away with His acquired people?» So, if you honor Christ, you cannot persecute his followers. One would expect Nicholas of Cusa to continue in this vein when, at the end of the third book, he addresses the «Sultan of Babylon», imploring him to honor Christ and stop the violence. Yet he builds upon another similarity between Muhammad and his powerful follower: he was a Christian but became a Muslim in order to gain power. Elements of the additional prologue are mentioned once again here: Muhammad was deceived by the Jews, but it is possible to return to the true and pristine faith. Consequently, Nicholas asks the Sultan to honor Mary as Theotokos and to return to the original faith of the

See Keating, S.T., «Manipulation of the Qur’an in the Epistolary Exchange between al-Hāshimī and al-Kindī» in M. Beaumont (ed.), Arab Christians and the Qur’an from the Origins of Islam to the Medieval Period, Leiden, Brill, 2018, pp. 50-65. 34 Cribratio Alkorani III.3.168: «Postquam Mahumetus vidit se deficere in veritate et mendacia, quae ex testamento et evangelio allegabat, rudi et ignoranti populo non posse diu occultari Christianis et Iudaeis hoc verum negantibus, cum nec in ambobus nec in altero librorum allegatorum mentio fiat aut nominetur Mahumetus, ad arma se transtulit.» Ed. Hagemann, 136. 35 Cribratio Alkorani III.6.180: «Cur Christo in Christianis in tantum adversaris, quod eos persequeris, quos non negas in sua lege salvari?» Ed. Hagemann, 145; transl. Hopkins, p. 160.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

PIM VALKENBERG

Gospel. Rita George-Tvrtković is right that this is a somewhat strange but not unusual request.36 In the end, Nicholas says the following: The law of the Arabs came as someone unwilling to consent unto the faith |of the Gospel], and it led the Arabs to the worship of one God; nevertheless, the Gospel was secretly approved |by the Koran|. And now it has pleased God that the approved Gospel, covered over in the Koran by many foolish things, should come to light, even as it was often approved of in |that| same book. In this way, those who previously were the most strongly resistant will be led from the law of the Arabs unto the Gospel – |led| for the glory of the Great God, the King of kings, the Creator and Lord of the universe.37

So, the final purpose of the Cribratio Alkorani is to serve as an instrument for the conversion of the Sultan, and, following him, the Muslims. Yet what makes this conversion possible is the power of truth that comes to light if the Qur’ān is read as leading toward the Gospel. This trust in truth as mode of conversion makes Nicholas of Cusa thoroughly modern yet at the same time thoroughly traditional. He is modern in his trust that «the truth will set you free» (John 8:32), and that it will work better to convert the Muslims than the sword. But maybe I should say that this is the typical approach of the scholar who thinks that people will recognize the truth when they see it. At the same time, his mentality is far away from the practical engagement of the missionary orders and congregations who went to the Muslim world in order to meet Muslims and engage with them. This reminds me of a remark made by Robin Vose in his book on Dominicans, Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of Aragon, namely that the conversion of Muslims was an important goal for the Dominican friars, yet this was a theoretical goal in the sense that they were more likely to «preach about the errors of the ‘infidel’ (for the benefit of the faithful) than they were to preach to real Jews or Muslims.»38 In a similar way, Nicholas of Cusa wanted to convert Muslims by showing how the Qur’ān can be read in such a way that it confirms the 36

George-Tvrtković, R., Christians, Muslims, and Mary: A History, New York – Mahwah NJ, Paulist Press, 2018, p. 66. 37 Cribratio Alkorani III.17.223: «venit lex Arabum quasi nolens consentire in ipsam et ad cultum eos unius dei approbato tamen occulte evangelio conduxit. Nunc placuit deo, quod approbatum evangelium coopertum multis ineptiis in Alkorano, quemadmodum approbatur saepe in eodem libro, in lucem veniat. Ita ducentur de lege Arabum ad evangelium prius fortissime resistentes ad gloriam magni dei, regis regum, creatoris et dominatoris universi.» Ed. Hagemann, 178; transl. Hopkins, p.181. 38 Vose, R., Dominicans, Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of Aragon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 15.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

THE MISSIONARY PURPOSE OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S

truth of the Gospel, but he did not care to engage in practical efforts at conversion other than to include the letters to the Sultan of Babylonia and the Caliph of Baghdad in the third book.39 Even Pope Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini) wrote a long letter to Sultan Mehmet in which he asked him to convert, but it seems that the Pope did not care to translate it and the Sultan never received it. 40 Again, supporting fellow-Christians by telling them about the truth seems more important than actually preaching this truth to Muslims.41 Yet, at the same time, discovering the truth in the tradition of the other requires scholarly work and knowledge of the pertinent sources and languages. In order to convince the other, we need to try to gain a better understanding of that other. That is why the Cribratio Alkorani is a work of great scholarship despite its evident failure to convince the Sultan about the truth of the Gospel confirmed in the Qur’ān. That is also why it comes close to the modern academic field of comparative theology despite its clear apologetic purpose.42 Reading and studying Nicholas of Cusa’s «Sifting of the Qur’ān» requires quite a bit of intellectual agility since the author changes perspectives quite often in his sometimes long-winded journey through the foundational text of the religion of Islam. Historically speaking the work never came close to fulfilling the goal for which Cusanus had written it, and it is useless as a manual for the conversion of Muslims. Yet it shows glimpses of excellence in its theological goal of proving the truth of the Gospel by sifting through the Qur’ān, and in its method of faithfully interpreting the text in a way that does justice to its God-centeredness while not deviating from the truth of God’s self-revelation in Christ. It is this truth of God’s revelation that is still at the center of respectful apologetics and dialogues between Christians and

It is not clear whether Nicholas thought that these were two different persons. He addresses the Sultan of Babylon (Soldanus de Babylonia) in book III chapter 17, and the Caliph of Baghdad (Califa de Baldach) in chapters 18-21. 40 Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., pp. 150-51. 41 This is a general characteristic of apologetic writings: they are directed toward fellow-believers rather than to outsiders even though they are addressed to them. See Valkenberg, W.G.B.M., «Polemics, Apologetics, and Dialogue as Forms of Interreligious Communication between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages» in T.L. Hettma and A. van der Kooij (eds.), Religious Polemics in Context, Assen, Royal van Gorcum, 2004, pp. 376-83. 42 Valkenberg, «Sifting the Qur’an: Two Forms of Interreligious Hermeneutics in Nicholas of Cusa», op. cit., p. 46.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

PIM VALKENBERG

Muslims. The ultimate goal of these conversations is not to convert the other but to help one another to grow in learned ignorance about God. Pim Valkenberg valkenberg@cua.edu Fecha de recepción: 20/01/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 01/03/2019

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 15-28

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS? REVISITING CUSANUS’ SOURCES FOR THE CRIBRATIO ALKORANI AND INTERFAITH DIALOGUE* Maarten Halff Independent researcher

Abstract While Cusanus’ literary sources for his engagement with Islam have been closely studied, questions about possible personal encounters with Muslims, and the role of non-literary sources in developing his concept of interreligious dialogue, remain largely unaddressed. This paper presents original archival research to identify the only person whom Cusanus mentions in the Cribratio Alkorani by name as an oral source about Muslim beliefs – an Italian merchant active in Constantinople at the time of Cusanus’ visit in 1437. In doing so, it casts new light on Cusanus’ treatises on Islam and on his interaction with Muslims. Keywords Nicholas of Cusa (Cusanus); Cribratio Alkorani; Balthasar Lupari; Christian-Muslim relations; Italian merchants in Constantinople; Cristoforo Garatone; silk industry; Venice; Bologna

Sometime in 1461 or 1462,1 perhaps while studying a Latin translation of the Qur’an, Nicholas of Cusa’s thoughts drifted back to conversations he had * An earlier, shorter version of this essay was presented at the Gettysburg symposium of the American Cusanus Society, on 29 September 2018. The paper may not have been written had it not been for Gerald Christianson and Nancy Bisaha. I am deeply grateful to each for their advice and encouragement, and the generosity with which these were given. They both are, of course, free of any responsibility for remaining flaws. I thank the two anonymous reviewers of the draft manuscript for their very thoughtful comments, which helped me strengthen the paper. I also thank the staff of

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

had some 25 years earlier in Constantinople. These were not debates with famous Greek scholars, church leaders or members of the Byzantine imperial court with whom he crossed paths. Instead, Cusanus was thinking of his discussions with an Italian merchant. The two had spoken more than once about Islam and Muslims. Their conversations must have been of profound importance to Cusanus. In his prologue to the Cribratio Alkorani, his scrutiny of the Qur’an in which he set out to apply a method of pia interpretatio, or «pious interpretation», to Muslim doctrines, Cusanus made a point of explaining in some detail that: At that time there was in Constantinople a merchant, Balthasar de Luparis, who, seeing that I was concerned about the aforesaid matters, told me the following: that one of the most learned and most eminent of the Turks, having been secretly instructed at Pera in the Gospel of St. John, proposed going to the Pope — together with twelve [other] eminent men — and becoming fully instructed [by the Pope] if I would secretly provide them with transportation.2

Cusanus verified the story with the resident friars in Pera, the Genoeseadministered town on the opposite shore of the Golden Horn from Constantinople. Satisfied that the information was correct, he made arrangements for the requested transportation. In the meantime, however, the «Turk», who, Cusanus adds, was in charge of the hospitals in Constantinople, reportedly died of the plague before he could set sail to Italy, and nothing else came of the matter. But there was more for Cusanus to say: «Lord Balthasar, who presently is a soldier in Bologna, quite often recounted to me that all their the Archivio di Stato di Bologna and of the Archivio di Stato di Venezia for kind assistance provided during my research. 1 1460-1461 has traditionally been accepted as the period in which Cusanus wrote the Cribratio Alkorani. The completion date should now be adjusted to 1462, based on the identification, by José Martínez Gázquez, of glosses by Cusanus in the margins of a Latin translation of the Qur’an. Cusanus presumably used this manuscript in the writing of the Cribratio, and his glosses includes this note: «Sunt nunc 1462». See: Martínez Gázquez, J., «Las glosas de Nicolás de Cusa al Alchoranus Latinus en el ms. Vat. lat. 4071. Nuevos datos para la Cribratio Alkorani», in Niccolò Cusano. L’uomo, i libri, l’opera. Atti del LII Convegno storico internazionale. Todi, 11-14 ottobre 2015, Spoleto, Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2016, pp. 473-492, here p. 474. Martínez Gázquez also presented his findings at the Gettysburg symposium of September 2018; his revised article, «‘Eum mori oportetbat’ en las glosas de Nicolás de Cusa al Alkoranus Latinus (Vat. Lat. 4071)», appears in this issue. 2 From Jasper Hopkins’ English translation of the Cribratio Alkorani: Hopkins, J. (ed.), Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani: Translation and Analysis, Minneapolis, Arthur J. Banning Press, 1994, here p. 76.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

learned [men] loved the Gospel exceedingly and preferred it to their book of law».3 Who was this Balthasar Lupari, and why would Cusanus cite an unknown merchant as a source in an analysis of the Qur’an? Scholarship has not paid much attention to this remarkable passage – one of the very few autobiographical details Cusanus left about his journey to Constantinople. Beyond snippets of information gleaned from records relating to the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), Balthasar Lupari has hardly been studied. As a result, his significance for Cusanus’ understanding of Muslim beliefs has remained almost completely unexamined. This paper offers findings from original archival research to construct a picture of Lupari’s life and career, including his experience in Constantinople. It brings to light, for the first time, a crucial source of information for Cusanus’ writings on Islam. These findings show that, to complement his extensive readings about the Qur’an, Cusanus did not rely on Greek scholars with whom he may have crossed paths or on conversations with Muslims, but on a secular, mundane Italian source. An overlooked source We know from the published collections of sources on the Council of Ferrara-Florence,4 as well as the studies by Joseph Gill,5 that Balthasar Lupari was given an important role in the preparations for the council of union of the Catholic and Greek churches: Pope Eugenius IV appointed him, as well as a Michele Zeno or Zono, to raise and administer the cash needed to bring the Greek emperor and his large entourage to Italy. The relevant papal letter refers to him as a citizen of Venice.6 In an accompanying safe-conduct for his mission, Eugenius calls him a citizen of Bologna.7 The editors of the Acta 3

Ibid. For example, Cecconi, E., Studi storici sul concilio di Firenze, vol. I (Antecedenti del concilio), Firenze, 1869, docs. CXLI and CXLII. See also E. Meuthen et al. (eds.), Acta Cusana. Quellen zur Lebensgeschichte des Nikolaus von Kues, vol. I/2, Hamburg, 1983, nos. 78, 295a and 332, and footnotes there; also Mercati, G., Scritti d’Isidoro, il cardinale ruteno, Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1926. 5 Gill, J., The Council of Florence, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1959, pp. 79 and 101; Gill, J., «The Cost of the Council of Florence», in J. Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence and Other Essays, New York, Barnes & Noble, 1964, pp. 186-203, with reference to Lupari on p. 188. See now also the extensive study by Sebastian Kolditz, fn.13 below. 6 Cecconi, Studi storici, op. cit., doc. CXLI. 7 Ibid., doc. CXLII. Also in Meuthen et al., Acta Cusana, op. cit., vol. I/2, no. 78. 4

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

Cusana concluded that he was a «Venetian banker from Bologna»8 – without resolving the apparent discrepancy – and that he was «clearly highly educated».9 Within Cusanus scholarship, and scholarship dealing with the history of Western dialogue with Islam, research on his identity has not moved beyond this point. Jasper Hopkins, for example, in his translation of the Cribratio – the only English translation available – adds no explanatory footnotes to the paragraph cited above.10 A 2013 Spanish translation of the Cribratio by Victor Sanz Santacruz provides only a brief annotation to Lupari by drawing on the established knowledge already gathered in the Acta Cusana.11 Within scholarship in French, a 2017 comparative study of 15th century thinkers on Christian-Muslim dialogue by Tristan Vigliano suggests that Lupari must have been something of an aventurier and that Cusanus may have been too gullible. But Vigliano does not point to sources from which to draw such conclusions with certainty.12 The recent research by Sebastian Kolditz on the Council of Ferrara-Florence, which closely examines Balthasar Lupari’s role in the financial aspects of the preparations for the Council, has to my knowledge not yet been taken into account in published work on Cusanus.13

8 Meuthen et al., Acta Cusana, op. cit., vol. I/2, no. 295a, fn. 6, and index to vol. I, sv. Lupari. Similarly, Crowder refers to Eugenius’ «papal bankers», albeit without mentionning Lupari by name: Crowder, C.M.D., Unity, Heresy and Reform 1378-1460. The Conciliar Response to the Great Schism, London, The Camelot Press, 1977, pp. 33-34. 9 Meuthen et al., Acta Cusana, op. cit., vol. I/2, no. 332, fn. 4. The Heidelberg critical edition of the Cribratio refers back to the Acta Cusana, and describes Lupari, again, as «argentario, viro doctissimo»: Nicholas Cusanus, Cribratio Alkorani, ed. L. Hagemann, Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia. Iussu et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Heidelbergensis, Leipzig and Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1986, vol. VIII, p. 6. 10 Hopkins, De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., p. 76. See also the literature referred to in fn. 52 below in relation to the question whether Cusanus spoke with Muslims; none of the essays or works cited there discuss Lupari. 11 Sanz Santacruz, V., Nicolás de Cusa. Examen del Corán. Estudio preliminar, traducción y notas de Víctor Sanz Santacruz, Pamplona, EUNSA, 2013, p. 77 fn. 10. 12 Vigliano, T., Parler aux Musulmans. Quatre Intellectuels Face à l’Islam à l’Orée de la Renaissance, Genève, Droz, 2017, p. 180. 13 See Kolditz, S., Johannes VIII. Palaiologos und das Konzil von Ferrara-Florenz (1438/39), Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 2014, pp. 248-250 and 253-256. I learned of the information on Lupari gathered by Kolditz after the presentation of this paper at the Gettysburg symposium. Kolditz briefly mentions the episode with the «Turkish» physician recounted by Cusanus (p. 256). But his focus is on the Council of Ferrara-Florence and its preparations, not Cusanus or his engagement with Muslims. Kolditz draws on many, but not all, of the archival resources that I have used in the present essay. He reaches similar conclusions

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

Beyond Cusanus studies, the episode has been noted in essays on Byzantine medicine and on the plague in the Middle Ages, without, however, giving attention to Balthasar Lupari.14 In one of his detailed works on the silk industry in late medieval and early modern Italy, Luca Molà identified an archival reference to a person who was probably Balthasar’s father, Venturino Lupari,15 but no other Lupari appears in his studies. In addition to the limited research into the identity of Balthasar Lupari, there has also been very little discussion of the role he played as an oral source on Muslim beliefs– in contrast to the extensive literature on Cusanus’ written sources on the Qur’an and Islam.16 No more than perhaps three studies have evaluated the importance of Lupari from this perspective: Georges Anawati briefly retold the episode of the «Turkish» converts in the preface of the Cribratio. He judged its veracity as relayed by Lupari to be suspicious, but he reached that conclusion without examining primary source material.17 Tristan Vigliano, in his aforementioned study, briefly weighed the relevance of Lupari as an oral source and, like Anawati, questioned his credibility.18 In another recent study, Davide Scotto duly highlighted the episode, underlining its specificity and its literary importance in the Cribratio as a recollection of an actual event. But Scotto included no information about Lupari beyond that given by Cusanus himself, and does not go further in assessing Lupari as a source of knowledge for Cusanus.19

in regard to the connection to Venice and Pope Eugenius IV, and Lupari’s activities in Constantinople, see below. 14 See for example Miller, T.S., The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire, Baltimore and London, 1997, p. xvii; Congourdeau, M.H., «La Peste Noire à Constantinople de 1388 à 1466», Medicina nei secoli, 11/2 (1999), pp. 149-163; Congourdeau, M.H., «Medical Art, Erudition, and Practice in the Byzantine Capital», in B. Pitarakis (ed.), Life is Short, Art Long: The Art of Healing in Byzantium / Hayat Kisa, Sana Uzun: Bizans’ta Sifa Sanati [exhibition catalogue], Istanbul, Ege Yayınları, 2015, pp. 90-103. 15 Molà, L., La Comunità dei lucchesi a Venezia. Immigrazione e industria della seta nel tardo medioevo, Venezia, Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1994, pp. 249-250: presence of a Venturino Lupari in Bruges, as agent of a Venice-based Lucchese trading company. 16 See fn. 95 through 107 below. 17 Anawati, G.C., «Nicolas de Cues et le problème de l’Islam», in Nicolò Cusano agli inizi del mondo moderno (Atti del Congresso internazionale in occasione del V Centenario della morte di Nicolò Cusano. Bressanone, 6-10 settembre 1964), Firenze, Sansoni, 1970, pp. 141-173, here pp. 154-155. 18 Vigliano, Parler aux Musulmans, op. cit., p.180 and p. 192. 19 Scotto, D., «Sulla soglia della Cribratio. Riflessi del’Islam nell’esperienza di Niccolò Cusano», Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa, 45/ 2 (2009), pp. 225-282, here pp. 243-244.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

The Lupari roots: from Lucca to Bologna From records in the State Archives of Bologna and the State Archives of Venice, as well as from other contemporary sources and 16th, 17th and 18th century chronicles of Bologna, I have been able to establish a fuller picture of Lupari’s life and career. Balthasar’s father Venturino was a silk merchant, from a family of silk entrepreneurs, or setaioli, whose ancestor Luparo Lupari had fled Lucca and settled in Bologna in the early 14th century.20 The influx of political refugees at the time from the Guelph–Ghibelline conflict in Lucca, including presumably the Luparis, contributed directly to the rise of silk production in Bologna.21 Key to Bologna’s success was the abundance of waterways and streams, which helped power the throwing mills used in silk production: the mills were a technical invention of the Lucchesi in the 14th century.22 In 1393, Venturino was granted permission in Bologna to marry Gioanna, daughter of Gianni di Rapondi of Lucca. 23 Balthasar was probably Venturino’s second son, and certainly not his first, as various notarial acts suggest that 20 The 16th century Bologna chronicler Cherubino Ghirardacci notes: «Luparo Lupari Signore di Menabbio, Liniano, Cusole, & Vico Pancelloro Castelli, già Consigliero di Castruccio da Lucca, essendosi con esso lui sdegnato, perche gli addimandò certa somma di denari prestatigli, fù di maniera da Castruccio perseguitato, che con li’figliuoli, & la familia venne ad habitare in Bologna», see Ghirardacci, Ch., Della Historia di Bologna, Parte Prima, Bologna, 1596, p. 574. See also: Dolfi, P.S., Cronologia delle famiglie nobili di Bologna con le loro insegne, e nel fine di cimieri, 1670, pp. 482-483. Similarly, the 18th century history of properties and cadasters in Bologna by Giuseppe Guidicini refers to members of the Lupari line, and their role in the silk industry: Guidicini, G., Cose notabili della città di Bologna, ossia Storia cronologica de suoi stabili sacri, pubblici e private, Vol. II, Bologna, 1869, pp. 329-330. 21 Molà, L., The Silk Industry of Renaissance Venice, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, 2000, p. 15, lists Bologna as one of five classic centers of Italian silk production. See also his essay: Molà, L., «The Italian Silk Industry in the Renaissance» in S. Rauch (ed.), Le mariegole delle arti dei tessitori di seta: i veluderi (1347-1474) e i samitari (1370-1475), Venezia, Il Comitato Editore, pp. LII–LXXXV. Furthermore, Righi, L., «Produzione di seta e trasferimenti tecnologici tra legislazione e frodi: il caso di Bologna dal XIV al XVI secolo», Archivio Storico Italiano, Vol. 174 (2016), pp. 639-668. 22 See Molà, L., «The Italian Silk Industry in the Renaissance», p. LXVIII-LXIX. Also Lopez, R.S., «The Trade of Medieval Europe: The South», in M.M. Postan and E. Miller (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. II, Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 306-401, here p. 370. 23 Archivio di Stato di Bologna (hereafter ASBo), Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 48, 6 February 1393.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

one brother, Gasparo Lupari, was older. The earliest mention of Balthasar in the Bologna archives is a record of a purchase of three slaves by Balthasar in 1411.24 From these references, it may be reasonable to conclude that Balthasar Lupari was born in approximately 1394, making him only a few years older than Cusanus. Records of the silk merchants’ guild in Bologna indicate that by 1420 at the latest, Balthasar, like his father, had entered the silk business.25 There are no records of activities on his part in Bologna between the second half of 142826 and 1440, suggesting he may not have been resident. From 1440, the references in Bologna pick up again, particular showing him, in particular, as a frequent member of city councils, including of the «Council of 120» in 144027, and of the Anziani, one of the key civic magistracies, at various times from the mid-1440s.28 The last documents in the Bologna archives that refer to Balthasar are from 1462,29 from which I conclude that he died in or shortly after that year. I have not come across any archival evidence that Balthasar Lupari had children. Traveler to the East Archival and other primary sources show that Balthasar Lupari was a frequent visitor of Constantinople – quite possibly a longer-term resident at times – and that he was integrated into the commercial fabric of the city. A contemporary notarial record in the Bologna archives refers to a purchase of

ASBo, Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 48, no. 43, 18 September 1411. Also discussed further below. 25 Two references to Balthasar Lupari for 1420 in ASBo, Miscellanea delle Corporazioni d’Arte, A) Arte della Seta, no. 1, 9 January 1420, and ibid., 3 December 1420. 26 The latest references to Balthasar Lupari that I found in the records of the silk guild are for the year 1427: ASBo, Miscellanea delle Corporazioni d’Arte, A) Arte della Seta, no. 1, 23 February 1427, and ibid., 6 March, 2 April and 23 July 1427. Kolditz points to records of commercial transactions involving Balthasar – and suggesting that he was in Bologna – as late as April 1428, see Kolditz, Johannes VIII., op. cit., p. 249, fn. 400. 27 Dolfi, P. S., Cronologia delle famiglie nobili, op. cit., p. 482. 28 In the periods May and June 1445, January and February 1448, May and June 1452, March and April 1453, and March and April 1455, see ASBo, Comune Governo, Consigli ed ufficiali, Magistrature ed ambascerie, no. 67, c.76, Estrazioni di Anziani, Gonfalonieri del Popolo e Massari delle Arti. 29 This includes a document setting out arrangements among Balthasar and a younger brother of his, as well as three nephews, regarding their silk company: ASBo, Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 53, c. 45, 29 July 1462.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

three slaves by Balthasar, effected in Pera, as early as 1411.30 A subsequent purchase of a slave is recorded for 1426 from a citizen of Caffa, the Genoese colony on the Black Sea, although the location of the transaction is not clearly indicated.31 Another attests to a possibly longer stay in Constantinople on business in 1430 and possibly 1431, at least long enough to receive correspondence from a Venetian commercial partner in Tana.32 Lupari’s presence in Constantinople is also clearly substantiated by transactions recorded for the years 1438 and 1439 in the detailed commercial accounts – the Libro dei conti – of the Venetian merchant Giacomo Badoer, who resided in the city from 1436 to 1440.33 The events described in the preface to the Cribratio, too, suggest a person intricately connected to the city and its inhabitants, moving around in networks of not just merchants but also of professionals – such as here, a physician. Balthasar Lupari was educated and literate, as he is referred to in a number of the records as ser and occassionally misser, pointing to a notarial training.34 But did he speak foreign languages? The episode in the Cribratio leaves significant room for doubt as to how, and in what language, Lupari would have conversed with the eminent «Turk» of the story – if indeed it had been unaided by any interpreter. This is in part because it cannot be concluded with sufficient certainty whether Cusanus used the term «Turk» here as an indicator of birth identity (that is, a person of the Turkish nation, and hence a Turkish speaker, but not necessarily an Ottoman: it could also 30

See the above-mentioned record of a purchase of three slaves from Lisabeta Borghi of Pera, fn. 24 above. 31 ASBo, Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 49, 10 October 1426. 32 ASBo, Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 50, no. 1, 14 March 1431. “[…] Cum ut rectiller prudens vir s(er) baldisara lupari q(uondam) d(omi)ni venturini h(ab)itator venetiar(um) in (con)trata sancti Augustini de anno d(omi)ni 1430 existens in constantinopolim ip(s)e h(ab)uit et recipit una(m) l(e)ttaram familiarem. a nobile viro s(er) francisco (con)tarino [etc].” 33 Giacomo Badoer, Libro dei conti, ed. V. Dorini and T. Bertelè, Il libro dei conti di Giacomo Badoer (Costantinopoli 1436-1440), Rome, Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1956. Entries for Lupari in Badoer’s accounts on pp. 587, 590, 715, 730, 738, 739 and 764. See also Bertelè, G. (ed.), Il libro dei conti di Giacomo Badoer (Costantinopoli 1436-1440). Complemento e indici, Pavoda, Esedra, 2002. 34 His autograph can also be identified: a 1449 agreement on the division of Venturino Lupari’s properties among his male heirs, drawn up in Italian, is signed by each party to the agreement in the first person (including «Io Baldissera Luppari [etc.]») and each in a different hand, from which I conclude that Balthasar signed it himself. ASBo, Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 52, 16 August 1449.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

have been a Karaman or Seljuk Turk, for example), or an indicator of political allegiance (a subject of the Ottoman state, but not necessarily a Turkishspeaker), or simply as a synonym for a person of Muslim faith. There are surprisingly few instances in the Cribratio in which Cusanus directly refers to Muslims as a group: when at all, he most often speaks of «Arabs», or those «following the law of the Arabs», or «followers of Muhammad» - a usage which could suggest that «Turk» was not a primarily religious identifier in the prologue.35 In his De pace fidei, too, Cusanus appears to use the term «Turk» - as well as all the labels of other participants in the dialogue - as a marker of nationality rather than primarily of belief. Thus, a Turk appears in the discussion of De pace fidei in addition to a Persian and an Arab, while Cusanus makes a number of speakers refer to Islam as the «sect of the Arabs».36 On the other hand, in a letter he wrote about dialogue with Muslims to the Spanish theologian John of Segovia in December 1454, discussed further below, Cusanus does seem to use the term «Turks» as indicator of religion, for example when he refers to them along with «Jews» in the very same sentence.37 All that one can say with adequate certainty is that, irrespective of his nationality and language, the «Turk» in Cusanus’ prologue of the Cribratio was understood by Lupari and Cusanus to be a person of Muslim faith. There are no indications that knowledge of Turkish or Arabic was a prevalent skill among Italian officials or merchants in the East before 1453. Frequent interaction could, of course, have provided an opportunity to learn. As discussed further below, primary sources clearly attest to the presence of both Turks and persons with Muslim names in Constantinople in the period around 1437. Some merchants and other travelers may have made an effort to learn. The Burgundian Bertrandon de la Broquière, for example, travelling by land from Damascus with a group of Muslim pilgrims returning from Mecca to the Ottoman capital Bursa in 1432, drew up a «Tartar»-Italian glossary with the help of a Jewish trader from Caffa. This turned out to be of little use in interacting with his Turkish companions, who then began teaching him to speak their language. At the end of the journey, he says, he was able to express in Turkish «everything necessary for myself and my horse».38 The 35

Cusanus, Cribratio Alkorani, in Hopkins (ed.), De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., for example: p. 86 («followers of Muhammad»), p. 87 («Arab believer»), p. 88 («among both Arabs and Christians»). 36 Cusanus, De pace fidei, in Hopkins (ed.), De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., pp. 40-41 (an Arab), pp. 49-55 (a Persian), p. 58 (a Turk). Religious identifiers: p. 47 («Arabs and Jews deny the Trinity») and p. 55 («the sect of the Arabs»). 37 See below. 38 Schefer, C.H.A (ed.), Le voyage d’outremer de Bertrandon de la Brocquière, [i.e., add accent grave for correct French spelling] Paris, E. Leroux, 1892. English translation in

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

development of language skills often appears related to the length of residence abroad. For example, during his ten-year captivity in Turkish hands, from 1472 to 1482, the Venetian Giovanni Maria Angiolello learned Turkish and other languages, and was later dispatched as Venetian envoy to the East based on his linguistic skills and local knowledge.39 In an anonymous account by another Venetian of a journey from Aleppo to Tabriz in 1498, the author highlights his long experience in the East and his knowledge of foreign languages.40 The Dominican friar Riccoldo da Montecroce became proficient in Arabic during his years of residence in Baghdad in the late 13th century, and he was able to read the Qur’an in its original language.41 There were also occasional efforts to register and pass on acquired knowledge. The so-called Codex Cumanicus, believed to have been compiled in Genoa at the beginning of the 14th century, provides terms that would have been of use to merchants and missionaries in Latin, Persian and Cumanic, a Turkish language spoken along the northern, western and eastern coasts of the Black Sea.42 On the other hand, an early 15th century naval manual, the socalled Book of Michael of Rhodes – a mariner in Venetian service who was on the very convoy that brought Cusanus to Constantinople in 1437 – is entirely silent on foreign phrases or languages.43 And even in the century after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, Venetian resident representatives there

Wright, T. (ed.), Early Travels in Palestine, London, 1848, p. 283-382, here pp. 305-306. A more recent English translation in Kline, G.R. (ed.), The Voyage d’outremer by Bertrandon de la Broquière, New York, Peter Lang, 1988. For the importance of de la Broquière in the history of Western interaction with Muslims see Tolan, J., «Bertrandon de la Broquière» in D. Thomas and A. Mallett (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, Vol 5 (1350-1500), Leiden, Brill, 2013, pp. 443-46. 39 Pinto, O., «Viaggiatori veneti in Oriente (secoli XIII-XVI)», in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e l’Oriente fra tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento, Venezia, Sansoni, 1966, pp. 396-397 40 Mentioned in Howard, D., «Archival Evidence in the Study of Cross-Cultural Artistic Connections», in G. Ortalli and A. Sopracasa (eds.), Rapporti mediterranei, pratiche documentarie, presenze Veneziane: le reti economiche e culturali (XIV- XVI secolo), Venezia, Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2017, p. 278 41 See George-Trvtković, R., A Christian Pilgrim in Medieval Iraq. Riccoldo da Montecroce’s Encounter with Islam, Turnhout, Brepols, 2012, and further works cited below. 42 Lopez and Raymond (eds.), Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean World, op. cit., p. 342, and excerpts on pp. 346-348. See also the entry by Peter Golden on Cumans in Friedman, J.B., and Mossler Figg, K., (eds.), Trade, Travel and Exploration in the Middle Ages. An Encyclopedia, New York, Garland Publishing, 2000, pp. 143-144. 43 Long, P.O., McGee, D., and Stahl, A., (eds.), The Book of Michael of Rhodes. A Fifteenth Century Maritime Manuscript, Cambridge, MA, – London, MIT Press, 2009.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

continued to rely on interpreters and translators, often Catholic residents of Pera who were subjects of the Ottomans.44 It is possible that the «eminent Turk» of Cusanus’ episode may have been conversant in Greek (or even a Greek by birth, and Muslim by faith): after all, he is said to have had a supervisory function with respect to the hospitals in the Byzantine capital.45 There is a hint in Venetian records that Ottoman officials began to rely on Greek as the language of diplomacy in the years before the conquest of Constantinople. In 1431, the Venetian resident representative in Negroponte reported that he was increasingly receiving documents in Greek, not only from the local Greek authorities, but also from Turkish officials; furthermore, he wrote, Byzantine and Turkish ambassadors were presenting their petitions to him in Greek – although it is not said whether these were oral presentations.46 On the part of Venetians, too, knowledge of Greek was a highly prized skill for administrative officials who were sent on assignment to Constantinople or to the Venetian possessions in formerly Byzantine territories.47 This may also have been the case among the Venetian merchant class to which Lupari belonged. These few selected references give some indication of the linguistic context in which Balthasar Lupari worked, but they can do no more than open the possibility that he would have spoken with Muslims in Constantinople in their own language, whichever language that was. There is no concrete evidence that he indeed acquired foreign language skills on his travels to Constantinople.

44 Dursteler, E.R., Venetians in Constantinople. Nation, Identity, and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 35 and 145. Dursteler notes two cases in which a Venetian official learned Turkish, Ibid., p. 35 and 46, but both are from the 16th century, and Dursteler underlines their exceptional nature. 45 On Byzantine hospitals, including the passage from the Cribratio, see the studies cited in footnote 14 above. 46 Thiriet, F. Régestes des Délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, Paris and Den Haag, Mouton, 1961, vol. III, p. 10. 47 The extracts from Venetian state records compiled by Freddy Thiriet contain a number of examples of persons being selected for state functions in the East for their Greek language skills and local knowledge, see Thiriet, F. (ed.), Délibérations des Assemblées Vénitiennes concernant la Romanie, Paris Den Haag, Mouton, 1971, vol. II, for example: p. 141 (no. 1226, selection of chancellor for Coron in 1417); p. 144, (no. 1243, chancellor for Modon in 1420); p. 166 (no. 1345, chancellor for Modon in 1434)

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

Knight of Bologna Another critical finding for the study of the Cribratio and Lupari’s significance for Cusanus is that Lupari was knighted in January 1452, along with a few other citizens of Bologna, by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III, during a brief stop in the city.48 At the time of his stay in Bologna, Frederick III was on his way to Siena for his marriage to Leonora of Portugal, and subsequently to Rome, where he was crowned emperor by Eugenius IV.49 The Bologna chronicles give no explicit indication why Balthasar Lupari was given this distinction. Nevertheless, a closer look at the other seven persons who were knighted by Frederick III on the same day sheds possible light. The list included Giovanni, son of Annibale Bentivoglio, the former signore of Bologna who had been assassinated in 1445.50 Giovanni – later known as Giovanni II when he became sole ruler of the city in 1463 – was nine years old at the time of his knighting, which became the start of his political career.51 A further indicator of a possible political alignment of Balthasar with the powerful Bentivoglio family arises from the fact – as noted above – that, starting in 1428, no references to Balthasar can be found in the Bologna archives for a period of some 12 years. This coincides with the expulsion from Bologna, in 1429, of Antongaleazzo Bentivoglio, father of Annibale, along with some 80 bentivoleschi.52 Furthermore, Balthasar’s service in the city council of the Anziani started in 1445,53 that is, only after Annibale Bentivoglio’s return to the city in 1443.54 Whatever Lupari was being recognized for, the distinction was clearly considered an important one, as archival references to him carry the title 48

See Ghirardacci, Ch., Della historia di Bologna, Parte Terza, Vol. 1. For this third part of Ghirardacci’s chronicle, I have relied on the manuscript copy in the Biblioteka Jagiellońska, Berol. Ms. Ital. Fol. 168 (1734). On folio 585v: grand entry of Emperor Frederick III into Bologna on the evening of 25 January 1452. On f. 585v - 586r: Lupari and seven others are knighted by the emperor the next day. The chronicle by Dolfi also refers briefly to Lupari’s knighting in 1452: Dolfi, Cronologia delle famiglie nobili, op. cit., pp. 482-483. 49 Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, the later Pope Pius II, gave a first-hand account of these imperial events, see Meserve, M. and Simonetta, M. (eds.), Pius II Commentaries, Vol. 1, chapter 23, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, pp. 112-117. 50 For the tumultuous politics of Bologna in the 15th century, see Duranti, T., «Libertas, Oligarchy, Papacy: Government in the Quattrocento», in S.R. Blanshei (ed.), A Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Bologna, Leiden, Brill, 2018, p. 276. 51 Duranti, «Libertas, Oligarchy, Papacy», op. cit., p. 276. 52 Ibid., pp. 262-264 and 269. 53 See above, fn. 28. 54 Durani, «Libertas, Oligarchy, Papacy», op. cit., p. 272.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

miles starting immediately after this date.55 This is also the term that Cusanus used to refer to him in his prologue («Lord Balthasar, who is now a miles in Bologna»).56 I believe that modern studies of the Cribratio have overlooked the correct meaning of the key term miles. In Italy, this had evolved from a military term in classical Latin, to a chivalric, honorific connotation in the high and late Middle Ages. 57 In the Bologna of the 15th century, knighting was an important tool of political patronage; members were referred to as milites.58 In other words the term miles in the Cribratio should be translated as «knight», not «soldier». In addition to the well-established pattern of usage of the term in this period, the reading of miles as an honorific term is further supported, in the specific case of Lupari, by the aforementioned direct evidence in the chronicles of his knighting, by the fact that Cusanus refers to him as domus, and by the absence of any indication in the records that Lupari had a military career. Cusanus reference to Lupari’s status as a knight – and the fact that it was Emperor Frederick III who knighted him – acquires further significance when one recalls that Cusanus addressed the Cribratio to Pope Pius II. Aeneas Sylvius 55

Cf. the notation of Lupari’s membership of the Anziani in May and June of 1452, «.d. Baldassar d. Luporis miles», with that of his earlier tenure in January and February 1448, «d. Baldasar d. Luporis» (i.e., no title), both in ASBo, Comune Governo, Consigli ed ufficiali, Magistrature ed ambascerie, no. 67, c.76, Estrazioni di Anziani, Gonfalonieri del Popolo e Massari delle Arti. Dolfi, Cronologia dell famiglie nobile, op. cit, p. 482-483, writes that Balthasar’s brothers Francesco, Marco and Bartolomeo were also knighted on this occasion. None of the other chronicles refer to his brothers in this context and, in contrast to Balthasar, I found no reference in guild or civic records that these other brothers ever carried the title miles. 56 Cusanus, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., 3, line 10. 57 On the etymology of the word miles, see Böninger, L., Die Ritterwürde in Mittelitalien zwischen Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1995. Like Hopkins in his English translation (Hopkins, Cribratio, op. cit, reproduced at the beginning of this paper), other modern translations of the Cribratio in other western European languages and related commentaries that I have consulted have also overlooked this aspect and give miles a military meaning, e.g., in French, Anawati calls him a militaire, Anawati, «Nicolas de Cues et le problème de l’Islam», op. cit.; the term «im Heeresdienst» is used in the German translation of the Cribratio in L. Gabriel and W. Dupré (eds.), Nikolaus von Kues. Die Philosophisch-Theologischen Schriften, Wien, Herder, 1989; a recent Italian essay of 2009 speaks of Lupari being «impiegato come militare», see Scotto, «Sulla soglia della Cribratio», op. cit.; and one finds soldado in the Spanish 2013 translation by Sanz Santacruz, Examen del Corán, op. cit., p. 77. 58 Gardi, A., «Making of an Oligarchy: The Ruling Classes of Bologna», in Blanshei (ed.), Companion to Bologna, op. cit., pp. 310-354. In particular, Ibid., p.321: at least 54 knights created between 1446 and 1506.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

Piccolomini, as the later Pius II had previously been known, had been in the service of Frederick III for many years, starting as secretary in the imperial chancery in 1442, and rising to become a councilor to the emperor, for whom he undertook a number of high-level diplomatic missions.59 In 1452, Piccolomini, then bishop of Siena, accompanied the emperor as part of his innermost circle on his journey through Italy, as he had played a key role in arranging for Frederick III’s marriage to Leonora of Portugal – events which Piccolomini described in his autobiographical Commentaries. From his own account, we know that Piccolomini was not in Bologna at the time of Lupari’s knighting, which occurred at the beginning of the emperor’s itinerary through Italy. Piccolomini was part of the official welcoming party for the emperor’s bride, waiting for her arrival in Siena and in the port of Talamone, then under Sienese control, while Frederick was traveling south from his residence in Austria, via Ferrara and Florence.60 Neither in his Commentaries nor in his other writings does Piccolomini refer to the honors bestowed in Bologna in 1452, or indeed on Lupari. And Cusanus gives no indication in the Cribratio that Pius II would have known or remembered Lupari – or that Cusanus would have been aware of an acquaintance between the two. Nevertheless, the allusion to a person’s knighting by the emperor is likely to have been a marker of credibility and importance for Pius II, given his previous service with Frederick. Piccolomini himself was no stranger to referring to a person’s status to appeal to a reader’s trust. In relaying a curious story about a «battle of ants» near Bologna, for example, Piccolomini emphasized that the source who had reported it to him was credible because «he said he witnessed it» and because he was «an expert in both fields of law who was then representing [...] the Bishop of Siena in the papal army».61 This new interpretation of the term miles provides evidence that Cusanus had received news of Lupari after January 1452. We know that Cusanus, on his way from Bruneck to Rome in May 1460, so some months before he completed the Cribratio, passed by Bologna.62 Lupari was still alive, as the archival record 59

The literature on Pius II/Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini is extensive. I have relied on the biographical introduction in Izbicki, T.M., Christianson, G., and Krey, P., (intro. and transl.), Reject Aeneas, Accept Pius. Selected Letters of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 2006, in particular pp. 26-49 for the years c. 1442-1453. 60 Meserve and Simonetta (eds.), Pius II Commentaries, vol. 1, pp. 103-111. 61 Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Europe (c.1400-1458), trans. R. Brown, intro. and annot. N. Bisaha, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 2013, p 239. 62 Meuthen, E., Die Letzten Jahre des Nikolaus von Kues. Biografische Untersuchungen nach neuen Quellen, Köln and Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1958, reconstructs Cusanus’

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

shows. Cusanus seems not to have entered the city itself, staying instead in a small town just outside of Bologna, possibly even for two nights on an otherwise-rapid march southwards. Could an encounter with his old companion from Constantinople have refreshed Cusanus’ memories of their conversations about Muslims? This is a tantalizing possibility, but cannot be proven on the basis of the evidence available. Merchant of Venice, man of the Pope A further notable point that emerges from the archives is Balthasar’s connection – and that of some of his brothers – to Venice and to Pope Eugenius IV, i.e., the Venetian Gabriele Condulmer. Eugenius’ letter commissioning Lupari refers to him as a Venetian resident or citizen, as do a few of the archival sources.63 Indeed, Venetian records provide direct evidence that Balthasar and his brothers were granted Venetian citizenship in 1430, a status typically bestowed after a lengthy and continuous residence and the payment of taxes.64 The Luparis were given the fullest citizenship status in the Venetian system, that of cittadini originarii, i.e., citizens by birth, who were entitled to participation in international maritime trade, a privilege otherwise reserved for Venetian patricians. The records indicate that citizenship was granted to the Luparis, based on their «devotion to Venice», but offer no further details. There are, nevertheless, records of a number of transactions indicating that Balthasar and some of his brothers were commercially active in the city throughout the 1430s.65 journey to Rome in detail, here: pp. 58-59, 215-216 and 315; Vansteenberghe, E., Le Cardinal Nicolas de Cues (1401-1464). L’Action – La Pensée, Paris, 1920, p. 198 fn. 1, citing a dated letter from Cusanus to Simon von Wehlen in Codex Cusanus 221, p. 210. 63 Cecconi, Studi storici, op. cit., doc. CXLI. 64 For the decision granting the privilege: Archivio di Stato di Venezia (hereafter ASV), Cassiere della bolla Ducale, Grazie, reg. 22, f.44r, and ASV, Senato, Privilegi, reg. 2, f. 33r. These sources were identified through the online Cives Veneciarum database of Venetian citizenship privileges, established under the supervision of Reinhold Mueller. The entry for the Luparis is as follows: Gaspar et Franciscus et Baldesar et Bartholomeus et Marcus, fratres, Lupari qd Venturini, Cives Veneciarum, http://www.civesveneciar um.net/ dettaglio.php?id=1249, versione 56/2017-02-01, accessed on 23 November 2018. For a detailed study of migration and citizenship issues in Venice up to 1500, based also on this database, see Mueller, R., Immigrazione e cittadinanza nella Venezia medievale, Roma, Viella, 2010. 65 Among other transactions notarized in Venice, see: ASV, Cancelleria inferiore, Notai, b. 148 (Vettore Pomino), 1433-1438, f. 7v, dated 27 July 1434, commission for Balthasar Lupari as agent for Giovanni Soranzo; ASV, Cancelleria inferiore, Notai, b. 148,

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

In February 1434, Balthasar and his brother purchased a house in Venice for a modest sum of 200 ducats, at the heart of a Lucchese quarter of the city, near the church of San Giovanni Crisostomo.66 This house was still part of the family property in 1449, when the brothers drew up an agreement in Bologna dividing the various possessions.67 The location of their house, amidst the Lucchese community of Venice, offers a further indication of the family’s commercial activities: the silk trade in Italy in the 14th and 15th century relied on a triangular network between Lucca, Bologna and Venice, with a dominant role played by the Lucchesi.68 There may have been more than one family property in the city at some point, as Balthasar is identified in a record of 1431 as a resident of a different contrada in Venice, that of Sant’Agostino.69 Pope Eugenius IV, in both his commission and the safe-conduct for Lupari’s mission to Constantinople in 1437, also referred to Balthasar as a familiaris – a member of his household.70 I have not yet been able to determine how or when Lupari entered the pope’s circle. Eugenius may have known the Luparis from their work and residence in Venice. The connection could have been a commercial one. We know that Gabriele Condulmer was active in the business of the family at an early age.71 And there are records in Venetian archives of joint ventures between a Marco Condulmer (whose relationship to Gabriele has not yet been established) and merchants of the small, cohesive 1433-1438, f.33v, dated 26 July 1436, a trade partnership involving Francesco Lupari, a younger brother of Balthasar, and Antonio Serafino; ASV, Cancelleria inferiore, Notai, b. 148, 1439-1442, f.30r, purchase of a slave by Gasparo Lupari, March 1440. 66 ASV, Cancelleria inferiore, Notai, b. 149 (Vettore Pomino), 1433-1438, f.1r. Balthasar Lupari and his brother Francesco are present. The document is dated 22 February 1433, i.e., 1434, as in the Venetian reckoning the calendar year was considered to start in March. 67 See the aforementioned agreement of 1449 among the male heirs of Venturino Lupari on the division of his estate: ASBo, Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 52, 16 August 1449. 68 See Molà, L., La Comunità dei lucchesi, op. cit., in particular pp. 221-236. Older but still relevant is Bini, T., I lucchesi a Venezia. Alcuni studi sopra i secoli XIII e XIV, Lucca, Felice Bertini, 1853. On the location of the church of San Giovanni Crisostomo and its role in the life of the Lucchese community in Venice, see the cited works by Molà, La Comunità dei lucchesi, op. cit., p. 74 and pp.106-107, and Bini, I lucchesi a Venezia, op. cit., p. 178 and pp. 202-205. 69 See fn. 32 above. 70 Cecconi, Studi storici, op. cit., docs. CXLI and CXLII. 71 For Gabriele Condulmer’s early commercial activities, see Mueller, R.C., «Sull’establishment bancario veneziano. Il banchiere davanti a Dio (secoli XIV-XV)», in G. Borelli (ed.), Mercanti e vita economica nella Repubblica Veneta (secoli XIII-XVIII), vol. I, Verona, Banca Popolare di Verona, 1985, pp. 47-106.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

Luchese community in Venice at the beginning of the 15th century.72 Gabriele Condulmer could also have crossed paths with the Luparis during his time as papal governor of Bologna in 1423,73 or later, during his two-year residence in Bologna starting in 1436, after his flight from Rome.74 Alternatively, the connection could have been established in Constantinople through the Trevisan Cristoforo Garatone, bishop of Corone and nuncio on the same papal delegation in 1437 of which Lupari formed part. Garatone had worked as chancellor to the Venetian representative in Constantinople in the 1420s, and had become Eugenius’ main negotiator with the Greeks, serving as his nuncio to Emperor John VIII Paleologos and the Greek Patriarch on three occasions prior to 1437.75 Eugenius’ commission of July 1437 to raise, in Constantinople and elsewhere, the necessary funds to bring the Greeks to Italy, was addressed to both Balthasar Lupari and a Michele Zeno, or rather Zono.76 The commission includes specific references to the costs of the galleys needed for the transport, and of the archers for the defense of Constantinople. Recent research has provided important new insights into the role of Lupari and, in particular, Michele Zono in the myriad transactions in Constantinople, and the recorded costs of the Council of Ferrara-Florence overall.77 While the 72

Molà, La Comunità dei lucchesi, op. cit., p. 238n and p. 258. On his time as governor of Bologna in 1423, then still as Gabriele Condulmer, Cardinal of San Clemente, see Gill, J., Eugenius IV. Pope of Christian Union, Westminster, MD The Newman Press, 1961, pp. 33-34. 74 For Eugenius’ whereabouts in these years, see: Diener, H. and B. Schwarz, «Das Itinerar Papst Eugens IV. (1431-1447)», Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 82 (2002), pp. 193-230, here pp. 216-217 and p. 226. Also: Gill, J., Eugenius IV, op. cit., p. 83. Eugenius was still residing in Bologna when he received Cusanus and the other minority representatives from the Council of Basel in May 1437 and dispatched his delegation to Constantinople: Bond, H.L., «Nicholas of Cusa from Constantinople to ‘Learned Ignorance’: The Historical Matrix for the Formation of the De docta ignorantia», in: G. Christianson and T.M. Izbicki (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa on Christ and the Church: Essays in Memory of Chandler McCuskey Brooks for the American Cusanus Society, Leiden, Brill, 1996, pp. 135-163, here p. 138-139; Gill, The Council of Florence, op. cit., p. 7778. 75 The principal study on Garatone is Pesce, L., «Cristoforo Garatone trevigiano, nunzio di Eugenio IV», Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, 28 (1974), pp. 23-93. 76 Cecconi, Studi storici, doc. CXLI; Hofmann, Epistolae, no. 77. Kolditz has shown to the family name should be read as Zono, see Kolditz, Johannes VIII., op. cit., p. 246. 77 Kolditz has followed the money in the archival records in great depth, including the roles of Zono and Lupari as evidenced in notarial acts, account books and legal proceedings from after 1437, see Kolditz, Johannes VIII., op. cit., in particular pp.244-254, thereby expanding on the earlier study by Gill, J., “The Cost of the Council of Florence”, 73

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

financial intricacies in Venice and Constantinople, and thereafter in Ferrara and Florence, are still not fully understood, it is clear that the two men were not bankers in any modern sense. Instead, the records show a diversity of transactions in which they sometimes put up some amounts of money themselves, but more frequently acted as middlemen between various Venetian lenders in Constantinople and the papal treasury, through the use of letters of exchange. 78 Their use would have required trusted, personal contacts in Constantinople. And indeed, for Michele Zono, too, previous experience in Constantinople and access to an influential, international network there can be established from archival records in Venice.79 Striking about the profiles of both men, in addition to their experience in the East and their roots in Venice and Venetian affairs, is that Eugenius gave such critical roles in the geopolitics of their day to non-patricians. The relationship between Eugenius and Lupari and his brothers did not come to an end with the mission in 1437. In 1445, Eugenius granted Balthasar the honorific title of comes palatinus, or palatine count, possibly on account of his services in connection with the Council of Florence.80 His older brother Gasparo, too, was appointed by Eugenius to this honorific order in the same year, for unspecified services and «loyalty to the church in difficult times».81 Overall, the Luparis appear to have been successful businessmen, originally of non-patrician stock. Various male members of the family were active in both commercial life, in Bologna and in Venice, and in Bologna’s city in J. Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence and other Essays, New York, Barnes & Noble, 1964, pp. 186-203. 78 Kolditz, Johannes VIII., op cit., p. 254. Eugenius’ commission of 7 July 1437 referred to such letters of exchange. 79 A discussion of material with respect to Michele Zono and his significance to Eugenius IV goes beyond the aims of this paper, and will be addressed in a separate essay. Briefly, evidence of Zono’s residence in Constantinople before 1437: a transaction in Constantinople dated July 1426 recorded by Francesco Filelfo (!), apparently still affiliated with the chancery of the Venetian bailo at the time: ASV, Duca di Candia, b.1, fasc.13, f.19v. And in 1431, Michele Zono was one of the four witnesses on the Venetian side to the extension, prepared and signed in Constantinople, of the state treaty between the Venetian Doge and the Byzantine emperor, see Thomas, G., (ed.), Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, vol. II, Venezia, 1899, p. 346. 80 Kolditz, Johannes VIII., op. cit., p. 256 and fn. 429, citing a register in the Vatican relating to Eugenius, ASVat, Reg. Vat. 382, fol. The family archive in Bologna does not appear to contain a copy of this act. 81 ASBo, Comune Governo, Feudi e cittadinenza, no. 428, 23 May 1445. A copy of a document prepared by none less than Flavio Biondo. I am grateful to John Monfasani for his help in interpreting this manuscript.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

politics and civic institutions.82 They invested earnings in real estate, and by the time of Balthasar’s father’s death, before the middle of the century, the family boasted a number of properties, including houses, mills and warehouses.83 But there is no indication of extreme wealth, or of being professional bankers. The original family house in Bologna,84 which can still be seen today, shows no signs of overstated opulence.85 The evidence for the political importance of Balthasar and other male members of the family is also difficult to assess. On the one hand, their names emerge only occasionally in the Bologna chronicles, in minor roles. On the other hand, Balthasar had played a key part in an international undertaking of the utmost importance to the pope, and was considered part of his household. The honorific titles granted to Balthasar and his brother Gasparo also suggest political activities that were of sufficient importance to be recognized at the highest level. Their younger brothers, Francesco and Marco, too, were given the title of comites palatinos as early as December 1437, by Frederick’s predecessor as Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund.86 Furthermore, an indication of rising status can be seen in the marriage, at an unknown date, of a niece of Balthasar to Tommaso Tebaldi, a prominent member of Bolognese nobility and a trusted member of the inner circle of Filippo Maria Visconti of Milan.87 82 In addition to Balthasar’s membership of the city’s «Council of 120» and the «Anziani», cited above, fn. 27 and 28, his older brother Gasparo was a member of the council of the «Anziani» in 1429, see Dolfi, Cronologia, op. cit., p. 484. The archival records in Bologna contain a few additional examples of the civic engagement of Venturino’s sons. 83 As evidenced by the already mentioned 1449 agreement among the surviving (male) descendants of Venturino on the division of the latter’s properties: ASBo, Archivio Malvezzi-Lupari, Serie III, Istrumenti e Scritture Lupari, b. 52, 16 August 1449. Notarial acts in the family archive point to numerous purchases of real estate over the years by the Lupari brothers. 84 Acquired after the death of their father by one of Balthasar’s brothers, according to the above-mentioned 1449 agreement. See also the above-mentioned entry, fn. 20, for «Via del Luzzo» in Guidicini, G., Cose notabili, op. cit., pp. 329-330. 85 The house, at Via dal Luzzo no. 4, in the medieval heart of the city, carries a modern plaque designating it as «Casa Lupari» and noting its completion in 1449 at the behest of Venturino Lupari. 86 Kolditz, Johannes VIII., op. cit., p. 250 and fn. 406, citing a document from the family archive in Bologna. 87 In a letter dated 4 April 1456 from Jacopo Lupari – son of Gasparo Lupari, Balthasar’s oldest brother – to Giovanni de Medici, son of Cosimo the Elder, Jacopo refers to Tommaso di Tebaldi of Bologna as «mio cognato», see Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Mediceo avanti il Principato, filza 9, f. 202r. I thank Marcello Simonetta for this reference. Lodovico Frati notes from other sources that another son of Gasparo, Filippo

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

Balthasar Lupari as model and as source for Cusanus To sum up so far: in his introduction to a treatise on the Qur’an, Cusanus invoked more than one conversation he had had with a merchant, who had since been knighted; a commercially successful and well-travelled trader, who seems to have risen to some prominence in the politics of his day in Bologna; with roots in Venice and connections to at least one prominent family there (without being born into a noble family himself); and a frequent visitor to Constantinople, residing there or frequently visiting between approximately 1430 and 1440, and connected to its multicultural mercantile and professional networks, including Muslims. I would like to suggest that this profile – now that it has been more fully established through the archival research presented here – has echoes in the letter that Cusanus wrote to John of Segovia in December 1454.88 In this letter, Cusanus gave thought on how to effectively hold the kind of conversations with Muslims about which Segovia had written to him.89 Cusanus suggested that such an initiative ought to be led by secular leaders rather than priests, because the Turks would prefer speaking to laymen. An important role would be played by Christians living in Muslim-held territories, who were familiar with Muslim rituals and beliefs, and willing to engage with them on matters of faith. Merchants, too, could play a role in bringing such people together. While Cusanus explicitly refers to Christians in Cairo, Alexandria and Caffa – Lupari (i.e., brother of Jacopo) is also referred to as a brother in law of Tommaso di Tebaldi, see Frati, L., «Due umanisti bolognesi alla Corte ducale di Milano», Archivio Storico Italiano, Serie V, Vol. 43, no. 254 (1909), pp. 359-374, here p. 364. Frati concludes, based on further evidence he cites, that the relationship was probably referred to as such because a sister of Filippo (and of Jacopo) Lupari was married to Tommaso, but he does not note the evidence from the Archivio di Stato di Firenze. 88 Nicholas Cusanus, Epistola ad Ioannem de Segobia, ed. R. Klibansky and H. Bascour, Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia. Iussu et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Heidelbergensis, Leipzig and Hamburg, Felix Meinder, 1959, vol. VII, pp. 93-102. I have relied on the translations in W.A. Euler and T. Kerger (eds.), (eds.), Cusanus und der Islam, Trier, Paulinus, 2010, pp. 65-77; and in Sanz Santacruz, V., Nicolás de Cusa. La Paz de Fe. Carta a Juan de Segovia, Pamplona, EUNSA, 1996, pp. 91-98. 89 Discussions of their correspondence in Euler, W.A. and Stammkötter, F.B., «Johannes von Segovia und Nikolaus von Kues im Gespräch über den Islam», in Euler and Kerger (eds.), Cusanus und der Islam, op. cit., pp. 49-63; Wolf, A.M., Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace. Christians and Muslims in the Fifteenth Century, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2014, pp. 136-139; Mann, J.D., «Juan de Segovia on the Superiority of Christians over Muslims: Liber de magna auctoritate episcoporum in concilio generali 10.6», in I.A. Levy, R. George-Tvrtković and D. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2014, pp. 145-159.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

and not Constantinople – Lupari may well have stood model: as a layman who had resided in the East, who had interacted with Muslims as business partners, and who was familiar with the beliefs of Muslims. Someone, in short, who could be of practical value in laying the groundwork for interfaith engagement. Furthermore, with a better understanding of who Lupari was, I believe that Cusanus’ goal in citing him in the Cribratio – and in relaying with remarkable detail the «converted Turk episode»90 – also becomes clearer. By emphasizing his informant’s identity, and by including the specifics of an actual exchange, Cusanus wanted to underline that the information he provides was obtained from a credible source, invoking both his source’s experience of living in the East alongside Muslims and his subsequent elevated status.91 Cusanus thus presented us with what he saw as evidence of the viability of the agenda at the very heart of the Cribratio and of the correspondence with John of Segovia: that learned Muslims could «be taken by the hand» to realize that the Truth of the Gospel can be found even within the Qur’an; that there were in fact already wise Muslims who had done so; furthermore, that learned Muslims secretly read the Gospel and preferred it to the Qur’an. This claim appears one more time later in the text, 92 and it seems reasonable to assume that Cusanus was drawing on the information obtained from Lupari, as none of his other cited sources make a similar assertion. It is notable that Cusanus turned to a non-written source to make such a point. After all, for proof of the viability of persuading Muslims, Cusanus could have pointed to a written authority in his possession: William of Tripoli’s De Machometo et de libro legis Sarracenorum, of around 1270. The manuscript, now in the British Library (MS Add. 19952) was once part of Cusanus’ collection, as confirmed, among other things, by his marginal notes. James Biechler observed that since the author of the manuscript «seemed to write from personal experience, it reinforced Cusanus’ belief that many people were Muslims not out of conviction but because of coercion, that Islam bears witness to some fundamental Christian truths and that many Muslims could 90

Note, however, that Cusanus does not use the word «conversion» anywhere in this context. I believe this is consistent with his premise that the truth of Christianity is already contained in the Qur’an, i.e., the attainment of that truth is not a matter of changing faiths, but of properly «sifting» and interpreting the Qur’an’s words. 91 Note also Cusanus’ statement in the prologue, for additional credibility no doubt, that he sought and obtained confirmation from «the brothers» that Lupari’s story was true: Cusanus, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., 3, lines 7 – 8. For reasons to be set out in a separate paper, I interpret this to be a reference to the Dominicans rather than the Franciscans whom he had also met with. 92 Cusanus, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., 37, lines 5 – 7.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

easily be persuaded of the truth of Christianity if it were presented in rational form».93 Cusanus’ reliance on a person rather than a text in this particular part of the Cribratio must, therefore, be taken as something of significance. «Even if I am about to present a theological treatise based on my reading of the Qur’an and other writings» – Cusanus seems to be saying – «this is by no means just a hypothetical, textual undertaking». Cusanus’ aim in invoking an oral source contrasts, therefore, in two respects from the other elements of the preface to the Cribratio. The latter seem designed to establish in the reader’s mind the sophistication of his knowledge of the Qur’an, his efforts to understand its contents, his erudition. These passages, placed immediately before and after the episode involving Lupari, are all about books and manuscripts. Ever the bibliophile, Cusanus records how he obtains them in Basel, finds more in Constantinople, speaks to Franciscans about the contents of the Qur’an, asks about writings by Greeks, gives encouragement to write a book against Islam, then finds some more books, and so on. With Lupari, in contrast, Cusanus is able to present a witness to the fact that Muslims could be brought to embrace Christianity - living proof for the convictions that Cusanus had arrived at through reading his texts. Not only is Cusanus alternating textual and oral sources here: his prologue also oscillates, to use the terminology of Thomas Burman, between philology and polemic.94 Conversations with Muslims Why did Cusanus not mention, in the Cribratio, any conversations with Muslims he may have had himself? Is it because he simply never spoke to a Muslim? The question has not yet been considered in depth. Scholars face a major challenge in that so little is known of Cusanus’ activities in Constantinople, and that Cusanus left only fragments of information about his time there. This obstacle was, perhaps, part of the reason why significant 93

Biechler, J.E., «Three Manuscripts on Islam from the Library of Nicholas of Cusa», Manuscripta, 27 (1983), pp. 91-100. A remarkable conclusion found in one version of the work – that «by simple preaching of God and without philosophical arguments, [Muslims] will, like simple sheep, seek the baptism of Christ and enter the flock of God. This said and wrote he, who by the instigation of God has already baptized more than a thousand» – has been shown to be an unwarranted addition of a contemporary compiler. See Jensen, K.V., «William of Tripoli (fl. late 1200s)» in Friedman and Mossler Figg (eds.), Trade, Travel and Exploration in the Middle Ages, op. cit., pp. 648-49, and the literature cited there. 94 Burman, T.E., Reading the Qur’an in Latin Christendom, 1140-1560, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007, pp. 186ff.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

biographies like those of Edmond Vansteenberghe95 and Erich Meuthen,96 the collection of biographical notices by Morimichi Watanabe,97 as well as the respective essays on Cusanus’ engagement with Islam by Thomas Izbicki98 and James Biechler99 did not address the issue of actual encounters with Muslims.100 Other scholars have suggested answers, but also grappled with the very limited evidence. Pauline Moffit Watts, for example, referred to «the indications that Cusanus’ views on non-Christian others, in contrast to Llull, were formed mainly through readings, and exchanges with other Christian theologians», but did not highlight what these indications might be.101 Similarly, Rita George-Tvrtković noted that he had «little if any exposure to non-Christians» during his brief time in Constantinople, but did not elaborate.102 Nancy Bisaha, in contrast, assumed that Cusanus and John of Segovia had both «come in extended contact with Muslims, providing them ample opportunity to discuss matters of faith and to form positive impressions of the so-called Infidel on a first-hand basis», and pointed, in support of this conclusion, to Cusanus having spent time in Constantinople, but not to actual encounters.103 Most recently, John Monfasani wondered where Cusanus might

Vansteenberghe, Le Cardinal Nicolas de Cues, op. cit. Meuthen, E., Nicholas of Cusa. A Sketch for a Biography, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2010. 97 See the entry on Islam in Watanabe, M., Nicholas of Cusa – A Companion to his Life and Times, Farnham, Ashgate, 2011, pp. 51-56. 98 Izbicki, T.M., «The Possibility of Dialogue with Islam in the Fifteenth Century», in G. Christianson and T.M. Izbicki (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa in Search of God and Wisdom, Leiden, Brill, 1991, pp. 175-183. 99 Biechler, J.E., «A New Face Toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia» in Christianson and Izbicki (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa in Search of God and Wisdom, op. cit., pp. 185-202. 100 I have also consulted Costigliolo, M., The Western Perception of Islam between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Work of Nicholas of Cusa, Eugene, OR, Pickwick Publications, 2017, as well as the essays in I.C. Levy, R. George-Tvrtković, R., and D.F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam, op. cit.., and those in Euler and Kerger (eds.), Cusanus und der Islam, op. cit., all with similar results, further confirming that the question remains to be explored. 101 Moffit Watts, P., «Talking to Spiritual Others: Ramon Llull, Nicholas of Cusa, Diego Valades», in Christianson and Izbicki (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa in Search of God and Wisdom, op. cit., pp. 203-218 102 George-Tvrtković, R., «After the Fall: Riccoldo da Montecroce and Nicholas of Cusa on Religious Diversity», Theological Studies, 73 (2012), pp. 641-662, here p. 646. 103 Bisaha, N., Creating East and West. Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, p. 147. 96

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

have had opportunity to hold religious debates with Turks, and allowed Constantinople as a possibility, as well as other larger cities.104 Cusanus’ reticence on this matter certainly stands in sharp contrast to others who had written about their experience in speaking with Muslims, and whose work he knew, in particular John of Segovia,105 Ramon Llull,106 and Riccoldo da Montecroce.107 It would clearly have been possible for Cusanus to interact with Muslims in Constantinople.108 He could also have done so later, in other cosmopolitan European cities such as Venice,109 but Constantinople 104

Monfasani, J., «Cusanus, the Greeks and Islam», in T.M. Izbicki, J. Alexander and D.F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Times of Transition: Essays in Honor of Gerald Christianson, Leiden, Brill, 2018, pp. 90-112. 105 See now in particular Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., in particular pp. 61-94 and pp. 175-222, on the subject of his engagement with, and conversion of, Muslims. 106 Among the extensive literature on Ramon Llull’s engagement with Islam, and Cusanus’ engagement with Llull’s writings, see in particular the essays in Bidese, E., Fidora, A., and Renner, P., (eds.), Ramon Llull und Nikolaus von Kues: Eine Begegnung im Zeichen der Toleranz – Raimondo Lullo e Nicolò Cusano: Un incontro nel segno della tolleranza: Akten des Internationalen Kongresses zu Ramon Llull und Nikolaus von Kues (Brixen und Bozen, 25.-27. November 2004), Turnhout, Brepols, 2005. 107 See, foremost, George-Trvtković, R., A Christian Pilgrim in Medieval Iraq. Riccoldo da Montecroce’s Encounter with Islam, Turnhout, Brepols, 2012. 108 For the presence of Turks and possibly Muslims of other origin see, in addition to the sources cited further below, the discussion and some additional evidence in Necipoğlu, N., Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins. Politics and Society in the Late Empire, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 200-209. Necipoğlu does not discuss the evidence presented by the prologue to the Cribratio itself, in that a Turkish physician was «in charge» of the Byzantine hospitals. Also: Harris, J., «Constantinople as City-State, c.1360-1453», in J. Harris, C. Holmes and E. Russell (eds.), Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean World after 1150, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 119-140, here p. 124. Matschke, K. P., «Some Merchant Families in Constantinople before, during and after the Fall of the City 1453», in Balkan Studies 38/2 (1997), pp. 21938; and Necipoğlu, N., «Ottoman Merchants in Constantinople during the First Half of the Fifteenth Century», in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 16 (1992), pp. 158-169. Reinert, S.W., «The Muslim Presence in Constantinople, 9th-15th Centuries: Some Preliminary Observations», in H. Ahrweiler and A. E. Laiou (eds.), Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire, Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks, 1997, pp.125-150, provides an overview but no additional evidence for the period in question beyond that gathered by Necipoğlu. 109 Within the rich scholarship around minorities in Venice, research on the longterm presence of Muslims in the city before 1453 is scant. See, among many other studies, Imhaus, B., Le minoranze orientali a Venezia 1300-1510, Roma, Il Veltro, 1997, and

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

seems the most likely place to have offered opportunities for dialogue, as there is clear evidence for the presence of Muslims in the decades before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. For one, Cusanus could have drawn on Lupari’s connections, including the central ones indicated in the Cribratio, who are key to Cusanus’ message, i.e., the group of «Turks» who Lupari claimed wanted to become Christians. The account book of Giacomo Badoer for his family company’s activities in Constantinople110 also illustrates the kind of international milieu that Lupari and, therefore, Cusanus, by only one degree of separation, moved in. Badoer’s trading partners included a number of resident merchants with Muslim names.111 Other contemporary sources also show that the presence of Turkish Muslims in the city in the 1420s and 30s was continual and significant. The Burgundian Bertrandon de la Broquière, reporting on a stay in 1433 – so only four years before Cusanus – mentions that there was a Turkish official based in Constantinople, with similar autonomous jurisdiction to that of the Venetian bailo, who looked after the interests of Turkish merchants in the city.112 This Turkish official was presumably an Ottoman kadi.113 Johann Schiltberger, a former German soldier taken captive by Ottoman forces who found refuge in Constantinople in 1427, was warned by his Greek hosts not to leave the house, for fear that he might be recognized by «the Infidels» in the city and brought before the emperor, who would then have been bound to surrender him to them.114

Ravid, B.C.I., «Venice and its Minorities», in E. Dursteler (ed.), A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797, Leiden, Brill, 2013. Any Muslims in Venice before 1453 are likely to have been either Ottoman or Mameluk emissaries on a brief visit, or workers and slaves. 110 Badoer, Libro dei conti, op. cit. 111 See, in particular, Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, op. cit., pp. 200-209; and Matschke, «Some Merchant Families», op. cit. Turkish or other Muslim merchants in Constantinople are identified in the indices to Badoer’s Libro dei conti prepared by Bertelè, Badoer. Complemento e indici, op. cit. 112 The Voyage d’outremer by Bertrandon de la Broquière, translation in Wright, Early Travels in Palestine, op. cit., p. 341. 113 See Matschke, K.P., «The Late Byzantine Urban Economy, Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries» in A.E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Washington, DC., Dumbarton Oaks, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 463-495, here p. 478. 114 Buchan Telfer, J. (ed.), The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427, London, Hakluyt Society 1879, p. 81. Bertrandon de la Broquière also noted the norm by which the Greek emperor was obliged to return Christian slaves seeking refuge in Constantinople to their Turkish owners.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

Nowhere, in all his written work, does Cusanus explicitly state that he spoke to Muslims. Cusanus’ clearest allusion to what may be his own interaction with Muslims is in the letter to John of Segovia of December 1454. And even here there is ambivalence. He says that in «[his] experience» it is not difficult to persuade Jews and Turks, i.e., Muslims, of the Trinity.115 Frustratingly for scholars, he does not clarify what this «experience» may have consisted of. Is this from an actual instance, or more than one, in which Cusanus personally convinced a Muslim? Or is it a coy reference to having heard about such an exchange from others, veiled by a vague turn of phrase so as to leave his reader with a particular impression? All this ambiguity is quite different from the assertive tone he used in Sermo I, delivered much earlier, in 1430, when he portrays himself actively debating and convincing learned Jews (not Muslims) of the truth of the Trinity.116 Subsequent phrases in the letter to Segovia of 1454, in which Cusanus discusses engagement with Muslims on aspects other than the Trinity, sound even more tentative, for example when he writes: «it seems this is how one could convince them».117 This does not sound typical of someone who has had an actual conversation, at least not on these topics. There is a further detail in the letter to Segovia that suggests – although it does not prove – that Cusanus did not have effective examples from his own experience to offer. Cusanus mentions that he asked certain «others» whether one could deduce from the Qur’an whether it is conceivable that anyone might be considered above Christ. These interlocutors told him that this could not be, since Christ was the highest Son of God.118 From the text itself, it is possible that Cusanus was referring to Muslims. It seems possible in the context. But it seems odd, if the goal was to persuade Segovia that the agenda of conversion they were discussing was feasible, not to state this more explicitly if it had been the case. And ultimately these <others> cited by Cusanus could only have been Muslims if something truly vital had been lost in translation about their views of Jesus (and it is admittedly not the only instance in which Cusanus writes of his erroneous belief that Muslims accepted the concept of a son of God).

115

Cusanus, Epistola ad Ioannem Segobiam, op. cit., 98, lines 4-5: «Expertus sum tam apud Iudaeos quam ipsos Teucros non esse difficile persuadere trinitatem in unitate substantiae». 116 German translation in Müller, T., Der Junge Cusanus. Ein Aufbruch in das 15. Jahrhundert, Trier, Paulinus, 2014, pp. 136-150, here p.141. Müller points to two slightly variant readings of this sentence in different manuscripts: p. 181 fn.583. 117 Cusanus, Epistola ad Ioannem Segobiam, op. cit., p. 99, lines 8-9: «Et visum est mihi tali modo posse persuaderi ipsis». 118 Ibid., p. 98, lines 19-21.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

Neither does Cusanus’ earlier work touching on interreligious dialogue, the De pace fidei, written shortly after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, offer much of a foothold to find evidence of an actual experience. Numerous scholars have pointed to its fictional, aspirational nature.119 The interlocutors in the staged dialogue, including the Arab, the Turk and the Persian, rather unrealistically follow, and let themselves be persuaded by, the reasoning provided by the Christian «Word». Cusanus’ discussion of Muslim rituals – both in De pace fidei and in the Cribratio – remains on the surface, and does not point to information gathered first-hand.120 In this light, then, Cusanus’ assertion in De pace fidei that Muslims are facilius – more easily – converted should perhaps not, in the absence of evidence for concrete instances, be taken as a reflection of actual experience.121 On balance, the evidence that Cusanus presents for any real dialogue is rather thin and garbled – to the point that it seems deliberately obfuscated. Perhaps he had some conversations with Turks or other Muslims, either in Constantinople or – less likely – elsewhere. Clearly the scant evidence does not allow us to rule it out altogether, and one may recall that Cusanus’ inte-rest in Islam and the Qur’an predated his journey to Constantinople.122 The conversations he recorded as having taken place in Constantinople – those with Lupari, but also with the Dominicans and Franciscans – show that already then he was actively gathering material. But it is precisely the eagerness to collect information, fed by the opportunity to do so while in Constantinople, that stands in such contrast to the lack of insight he gives us about any encounters with Muslims. Ultimately, Cusanus’ ambiguity – if not silence – on the matter strongly suggests that if a conversation with a Muslim ever took place, he must have concluded that it was simply not adequate for what he wanted to demonstrate in the Cribratio. And so, when Cusanus was consi-dering, sometime in 1461 or 1462, how to demonstrate that Muslims could be persuaded of the 119 Most recently, for example, John Monfasani refered to PDF as De pace fidei to «a thought experiment, and not an especially successful one», see Monfasani, J., «Cusanus, the Greeks and Islam», op. cit., p. 98. 120 Rita George-Tvrtković, in comparing Cusanus’ De pace fidei to the work of Riccoldo da Montecroce, draws attention to Cusanus’ confidence in the persuasive power of dialogue in light of Riccoldo’s far more complex attitude; the latter’s skepticism, in contrast to Cusanus, no doubt reflecting actual interreligious encounter, which sometimes leads to increased understanding, but sometimes does not: George-Tvrtković, R., «After the Fall: Riccoldo da Montecroce and Nicholas of Cusa on Religious Diversity», Theological Studies, 73 (2012), p. 661. 121 On this assertion by Cusanus, see also Euler, W.A., «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’ Writings on Islam», in Levy, George-Trvtković and Duclow, Nicholas of Cusa and Islam, op. cit., p. 25. 122 Biechler, «Three Manuscripts on Islam», op. cit.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

central teachings of Christianity, the most compelling expe-rience that came to mind was from a conversation, held more than two decades before, with an Italian merchant in Constantinople, who was now a knight in Bologna. Conversations with others in Constantinople? Balthasar Lupari is the only oral source in Constantinople whom Cusanus mentions by name in the Cribratio. But from his prologue we know that Cusanus also spoke with members of the Franciscan and Dominicans orders based in Pera, although these remain unnamed:123 the respective friars resident in Constantinople or Pera in 1437 have not yet been identified through other sources.124, 125 The library at the Franciscan convent, according to Cusanus, held a copy of the Qur’an in Arabic. Cusanus asked the friars to explain certain points to him from the text, strongly suggesting they were able to read it in the original language. At the Dominican house, Cusanus also inquired about the Qur’an, and was shown a Latin translation, similar to the translation that he had left in Basel. Furthermore, he asked the Dominicans whether «any of the Greeks had written 123 All references hereafter to the Cribratio are from: Hopkins, De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., p. 75-76. The text suggests that the Franciscan convent was in Constantinople, not in Pera. This would be of note to late Byzantine topography, as there is currently no confirmation of a Franciscan convent in Constantinople itself as late as the early 15th century, see Janin, R., La Géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin. Première partie: le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Oecuménique. vol. 3, Les Églises et les monastères, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1969. pp. 577-578. Nevertheless, for other possible references to a Franciscan house in Constantinople at that time, see Paribeni, A., «Iconografia, committenza, topografia di Costantinopoli: sul cassone di Apollonio di Giovanni con la ‘Conquista di Trebisonda’», Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, 56 (III Serie, XXIV), 2001, pp. 255-303. 124 Relevant studies on the convents include Loenertz, R. «Les établissements dominicains de Péra-Constantinople (Origines et fondations)», Échos d’Orient, vol. 34, no. 179, 1935, pp. 332-349; Matteucci, G., Un glorioso convento francescano sulle rive del Bosforo: il S. Francesco di Galata in Costantinopoli, c. 1230-1697, Roma, Studi Francescani, 1967; Tsou-garakis, N.I., The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, 1204-1500, Turnhout, Brepols, 2012. 125 It is possible that at the time of Cusanus’ visit, Nicholas of Ferrara, the vicar general of the Dominican Society of Pilgrim Brothers, who had been charged by Pope Eugenius IV in June 1437 with reforming the convent, would have been present, as his instructions were issued at the same time as those to the papal legation, which Cusanus accompanied as representative of the Council of Basel minority faction, and which left for Constantinople shortly thereafter, see Hofmann, G. (ed.), Epistolae Pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum Spectantes, vol. I, part 1, Roma, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1940, no. 73, 2 July 1437.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

DID NICHOLAS OF CUSA TALK WITH MUSLIMS?

against these foolish errors», that is, in his opinion, Islam. He was referred to the work of the 7th/8th century Greek Father John of Damascus.126 Finally, he asked for confirmation of the story of the group of Turkish (or Muslim) men who wanted to travel to Rome, as relayed to him by Lupari. The Dominicans corroborated the account, no doubt because they had been involved in the Christian education or even conversion of these Turks. If he made other inquiries with the friars, or if he was given further insights by them into the Qur’an or Muslim practices, Cusanus does not explicitly say so in the Cribratio. The absence of references to Greek works other than that of John of Damascus, or to information about Muslims that he could have otherwise obtained from Greek sources, is also remarkable. The Dominican convent in Pera was known for its contacts with Greek scholars.127 Furthermore, as member of a high-level delegation sent by Pope Eugenius IV to the Byzantine court, Cusanus would have had numerous opportunities to speak with Greek scholars and to consult Greek texts (perhaps with the aid of a translator).128 For centuries, the Byzantine empire had been on the forefront of Christianity’s military, commercial, intellectual and religious engagement with the Muslim world. The Greeks had engaged with various dynasties of Persian, Arab and Turkish nations, including the Abbasids, Fatimids, Seljuks, Timurids, Mamelukes, and Ottomans. Furthermore, the notion of dialogue between Christians and Muslims was well established in Byzantine writing by the time Cusanus was in Constantinople, and not just as a purely literary device: conversations about faith had actually taken place. Gregory Palamas, for example, writing in the late 14th century, gave a firsthand account of his debates with Muslims in the presence of the Ottoman sultan after his capture by Turks in 1354.129 As represented by Palamas, the discussion touched on a number of differences between Christian and Muslim beliefs, including the Christian concept of the Trinity, and the Muslim practice of circumcision. Emperor Manuel II Paleologos, the father of John VIII, emperor at the time of Cusanus’ mission in 1437, had written a Dialogue with a Persian, drawing on conversations he had held with an Islamic scholar in 1391 and, like Palamas’ 126

This was a reference to what was known in the West as De haeresibus, written in the late 7th or early 8th century. 127 Tsougarakis, Latin Religious Orders, op. cit., p. 189. 128 For the most recent contribution on the question of whether Cusanus was proficient in Greek, at least in his later years, see Monfasani, J. «Nicholas of Cusa, the Byzantines and the Greek Language», in M. Thurner (ed.), Nicolaus Cusanus zwischen Deutschland und Italien, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 2002, pp. 215-252. 129 Excerpts in Geanakoplos, D.J., Byzantium. Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1986, pp. 385-386. Discussed in Pahlitzsch, J., «Gregory Palamas», in Thomas and Mallett (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations, op. cit., pp. 101-108.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

MAARTEN HALFF

work, also touching on Christian and Muslim teachings, as well as Muslim practices.130 Of a more literary, fictitious nature was the Dialogue with a Muslim written by the monk Joseph Bryennius between 1420 and 1431, in which he presented an affirmation of Christian faith against the backdrop of Muslim expansion. The tone is conversational, rather than polemic, suggesting perhaps that Bryennius believed that dialogue between Christians and Muslims was possible.131 It is striking that these and other works were not known to the friars in Pera, or that Cusanus did not otherwise obtain access to them during his time in Constantinople. Given the seemingly comprehensive discussion in the prologue of how he gathered his information for the Cribratio, the virtual absence of Greek sources from the text points, perhaps, to at least one conclusion: that Cusanus did not raise his interest in Islam with any of his Greek interlocutors. Conclusion This article has identified a crucial source of information for Cusanus’ views on Muslims and their beliefs. In addition to his literary sources and discussions with Latin friars in Constantinople, Cusanus relied not on conversations with Muslims or Greek scholars, but on a merchant of Venice who has eluded historical attention so far. Balthasar Lupari’s experience in Constantinople substituted for Cusanus’ own lack of a meaningful exchange with Muslims. In addition, he served as an inspiration for Cusanus’ idea that laymen could play a critical role in interreligious dialog. With Pope Pius II, and presumably also a wider readership, in mind, Cusanus presented the testimony of Lupari in his Cribratio as a way to demonstrate the viability of his agenda and to burnish his credibility as a commentator on Islamic beliefs. Maarten Halff maarten_halff@hotmail.com Fecha de recepción: 09/02/2019 Feha de aceptación: 04/04/2019 130 Todt, K.P., «Manuel II Palaeologus», in Thomas and Mallett (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations, op. cit., pp. 314-325. 131 Salzmann, M., «Joseph Bryennius», in Thomas and Mallett (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations, op. cit., pp. 334-338.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 29-58

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA AL ALKORANUS LATINUS (VAT. LAT. 4071)∗ «Eum mori oportebat» in Nicholas of Cusa’s Glosses of the Alkoranus Latinus (Vat. Lat. 4071) José Martínez Gázquez Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona

Resumen Nicolás de Cusa redactó dos conjuntos de glosas que comentan importantes temas del Alkoranus Latinus, la primera traducción del Corán, que tradujo Robert de Ketton en el año 1143 en la Península Ibérica. El primer grupo de glosas, usadas para redactar el De pace fidei en 1453, se encuentran en el manuscrito de la Biblioteca St. NikolausHospital (Bernkastel-Kues), K 108. El segundo Corpus de glosas, identificado recientemente en el ms. Vat. Lat. 4071 de la BAV, para la redacción de la Cribratio Alkorani en 1462, presenta amplios tratados doctrinales sobre les temas coránicos en la preparación de esta obra de refutación del Corán. Encontramos entre otros la consideración de la necesidad de la muerte de Cristo para la redención del género humano. Palabras clave Alkoranus; glosas; Cribratio Alkorani; Nicolás de Cusa Abstract Nicholas of Cusa wrote two sets of glosses that comment on important themes of Alkoranus Latinus, the first Latin translation of the Qur'an done by Robert of Ketton in the year 1143 in the Iberian Peninsula. The first group of glosses, used to write De pace fidei in 1453, are found in the Bernkastel-Kues Bibliothek, manuscript Kues 108. The ∗ Este trabajo se ha realizado en el marco de los proyectos FFI2015-63659-C21-P, MINECO-FEDER, UE y 2017 SGR 1787 del que es Investigador Principal la profa. Cándida Ferrero Hernández.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

second set of glosses, recently identified in manuscript 4071 of the Vatican Library, and used to write Cribratio Alkorani in 1462, presents extensive doctrinal treatises on Quranic subjects. We find, among others, the consideration of the necessity of the death of Christ for the redemption of the human race. Keywords Alkoranus; glosses; Cribratio Alkorani; Nicholas of Cusa

Una parte importante de los manuscritos en los que se copiaron las traducciones latinas del Corán presenta glosas de diverso tipo y contenido, marginales e interlineares, que recogen las reflexiones de los lectores cristianos y sus reacciones ante el texto del Corán en sus alusiones a las realidades bíblicas y doctrinas judeo-cristianas recogidas y alabadas o denostadas en el Corán. Entre los lectores del libro sagrado del islam destaca Nicolás de Cusa, quien en el Prologus de la Cribratio Alkorani1, explica las diversas circunstancias en las que se interesó por el Alkoranus Latinus. Cribratio Alkorani Prologus 2. Feci quam potui diligentiam intelligendi librum legis Arabum quem iuxta translationem per Petrum abbatem Cluniacensem nobis procuratam Basileae habui cum disputatione eorum nobilium Arabum, quorum unus socius Mahumeti nisus fuit alium trahere, qui doctior et magnus inter Arabes Christianam fidem, quam zelose coluit, ostendit potius tenendam. Erant etiam alia quaedam opuscula de Generatione Mahumeti et duodecim successoribus eius in regno et de ipsius Doctrinis ad centum quaestiones. Dimisi librum apud magistrum Iohannem de Segobia et ad Constantinopolim perrexi, ubi apud Fratres Minores habitantes ad sanctam crucem repperi Alkoranum in Arabico, quem mihi in certis punctis fratres illi, prout sciuerunt, explanarunt. In Pera autem in conuentu sancti Dominici erat translatus modo, quo Basileae dimisi. Quaesiui, si quis Graecorum scripsisset contra illas ineptias; et non repperi nisi Iohannem Damascenum, qui parum post initium illius sectae fuit, pauca ualde scripsisse, quae habentur.

Esta dedicación al estudio del Corán fue una tarea intelectual que se propuso a lo largo de su vida en función de su interés por las relaciones entre

Usamos para citar la Cribratio Alkorani la edición: Nicolai de Cusa, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Heidelbergensis ad codicum fidem edita. VIII Cribratio Alkorani, edidit commentariisque illustrauit L. Hagemann, Hamburg, Meiner, 1986.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA

musulmanes y cristianos2 y cuyo fruto intelectual más logrado fue la redacción de dos de sus obras dedicadas al estudio del islam y del Corán, De pace fidei en 1453 y Cribratio Alkorani en 1462. En su elaboración se ayudó en cada una de ellas respectivamente de uno de los dos conjuntos de glosas, escritas en los manuscritos Kues 108, un conjunto de menor entidad, y Vat. Lat. 4071 con numerosas glosas que tocan varios e importantes temas teológicos y doctrinales con gran amplitud y profundidad3. La Cribatio Alkorani, elaborada para servir al Papa Pio II en su propósito de buscar la alianza con el Sultan turco Mehmet II, se puede considerar una obra inserta en la tradición de la apologética cristiana y la literatura de refutación del islam, que Th. Burman considera la respuesta que Nicolas de Cusa ofrece trescientos años más tarde, a la invitación hecha a Bernardo de Clairvaux por Pedro el Venerable, para que hiciese una refutación teológica e intelectual profunda del Islam4. Hasta ahora se había mantenido que las glosas redactadas en el manuscrito de la Biblioteca de Kues 108 habían servido al autor para la redacción de ambas obras. Así J. E. Biechler5, pensando en una doble lectura del manuscrito en los diversos momentos de redacción de cada una de las obras, llegó a conjeturar 2

Euler, W.A., «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’s Writings on Islam», en Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, edited by I.Ch. Levy, R. GeorgeTvrtković, D.F. Duclow, Brill, Leiden, 2014, p. 20; Watanabe, M., «Cusanus, Islam and Religious Tolerance», en Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: op. cit. p. 13; Scotto, D. «Sulla soglia della ‘Cribratio’. Riflessi dell'Islam nell'esperienza di Niccoló Cusano» en Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, 45/2 (2009), pp. 226-228, 242 y 256.; Sanz Santacruz, V., «Juan de Segovia y Nicolás de Cusa frente al Islam: su comprensión intelectualista de la fe cristiana», Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia, 16 (2007), p. 183; Biechler, J.E., «Interreligious dialogue», en Introducing Nicholas of Cusa: A Guide to a Renaissance Man, eds. C.M. Bellitto, T.M. Izbicki, and G. Christianson, Paulist Press, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2004, pp. 270-296. 3 Para la justificación de la autoría de Nicolás de Cusa de las glosas del ms. de la BAV Vat. Lat. 4071 véanse Martínez Gázquez, J., «A New Set of Glosses to the Latin Qur’ān Made by Nicholas of Cusa (MS Vat. Lat. 4071)», Medieval Encounters, 21 (2015), pp. 295309; Idem, «Las glosas de Nicolás de Cusa al Alchoranus Latinus en el ms. Vat. lat. 4071. Nuevos datos para la Cribratio Alkorani», Nicoló Cusano, l’uomo, i libri, l’opera: Atti del LII Convegno storico internazionale Todi, 11-14 ottobre 2015, Spoleto, Centro Italiano di Studi sul Basso Medioevo - Accademia Tudertina, 2016, pp. 473-491. En donde se muestran el análisis y verificación paleográfica y de contenido de las glosas para su atribución a Nicolás de Cusa. 4 Burman, T.E., «Nicholas of Cusa and Peter the Venerable's Request», en Nicholas of Cusa and Islam, op. cit., pp. XIII-XX. 5 Biechler, J.E., «Three Manuscripts on Islam from the Library of Nicholas of Cusa», en Manuscripta, 27 (1983), p. 91.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

dos niveles de glosas detectados a través de algunos rasgos de la escritura de Nicolás de Cusa en las glosas del manuscrito 108, los cuales podrían corroborar la diferente cronología de la redacción de esas glosas. De este modo los posibles cambios llevan a J. E. Biechler a concluir que con posterioridad a 1453, fecha de la redacción de De pace fidei, Nicolás de Cusa debió estudiar y anotar de nuevo dicho manuscrito para la redacción de la Cribratio Alkorani a partir de 1461. J. E. Biechler también aceptaba la posibilidad, sugerida por L. Hagemann en su edición crítica del texto de la Cribratio Alkorani, que las variantes del texto del Alkoranus Latinus, con respecto al ms. Kues 108, pudieran atribuirse a que Nicolás de Cusa habría consultado posterioriormente una segunda copia del Alchoran Latinus de Robert de Ketton. Ciertamente así debió suceder, ya que Nicolás de Cusa, en los años de su estancia como Cardenal consejero de Pio II en el Vaticano, tuvo a su disposición en la Biblioteca Vaticana el manuscrito Vat. Lat. 4071, que transmite un gran Corpus de glosas escritas por el Cardenal que fueron utilizadas en la redacción de la Cribratio Alkorani, que finalizó en el año 1462, como consta en la última de sus glosas al Explicit del Alchoran de Robert de Ketton. Este explicit asegura que Pedro el Venerable mandó traducir el Corán «anno Domini millessimo centesimo quadragessimo tertio». Nicolás de Cusa apostilla en su glosa, «nota quando liber fuit translatus 1143, Sunt nunc 1462»6. Analizando y comparando las variantes textuales entre ambos manuscritos con las que aparecen en la Cribratio Alkorani, no queda duda de sus coincidencias con las glosas de este segundo manuscrito, Vat. Lat. 4071, preparadas para la redacción de su obra. Un fragmento que consideramos, entre muchos posibles, nos permite constatar la evidencia clara de este uso, ya que al copiar el texto coránico se mantienen sus variantes textuales en el texto resultante de la Cribratio Alkorani. Para ejemplificar este proceso comparamos el fragmento de la sura IV 157159 del ms. 1162 de la Biblioteca del Arsenal (BNF), el texto más fiable de la tradición textual del Alchoran Latinus de Robert de Ketton, recogido en los mss. Kues 108 y Vat. Lat. 4071, y que queda, tambien, integrado totalmente en la redacción de la Cribratio Alkorani. El ms. 108 de la Biblioteca de Kues ofrece en este caso cuatro variantes, tres omisiones y un illi por ille no integrable en el texto que lo excluye formalmente de ser considerado fuente tenida en cuenta por Nicolás de Cusa.

Esta anotación del annus praesens de 1462 debería tomarse en consideración como término post quem para la redacción de la Cribratio Alkorani por parte de Nicolás de Cusa.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA Ms Arsenal 1162 Alkoranus IV 157159 Sed eum nullatenus interfecerunt, quia Deus incomprehensibilis et sapiens eum ad se transmigrare fecit, in quem uiri legum ueraciter ante mortem credent et eorum seculo futuro testis astabit ille.

Glossa Ms. Kues 108

Glossa Ms. Vat. Lat. 4071:

Sed [eum] nulla [tenus] interfecerunt, quia Deus [in]comprehensibilis et sapiens eum ad se transmigrare fecit, in quem uiri legum ueraciter ante mortem credent et eorum seculo futuro testis astabit illi.

Sed eum nullatenus interfecerunt, quia Deus incomprehensibilis et sapiens eum ad se transmigrare fecit, in quem uiri legum ueraciter ante mortem credent, et eorum seculo futuro testis astabit ille.

Cribratio Alkorani II XII 115 Sed Christum «nullatenus interfecerunt, quia Deus incomprehensibilis et sapiens eum ad se transmigrare fecit, in quem uiri legum ueraciter ante mortem credent; et eorum saeculo futuro testis astabit ille».

Texto Alkoranus IV 157-159 Ms Arsenal 1162, Glossae K 108 et Lat. Lat 4071, Cribratio, Sed eum nullatenus interfecerunt, quia Deus incomprehensibilis et sapiens eum ad se transmigrare fecit, in quem uiri legum ueraciter ante mortem credent et eorum seculo futuro testis astabit ille eum om. K

tenus om. K

incomprehensibilis om. K

ille: illi K

1. Muerte y resurrección de Cristo Nicolás de Cusa comenta en sus glosas los temas más importantes y relevantes en la confrontación del islam y el cristianismo7. Entre ellos Nicolás de Cusa da gran importancia al análisis de la necesidad de la muerte de Cristo y su carácter de muerte voluntaria para la redención del género humano frente a su negación, como se señala en el Corán. En él se subraya que no le dieron muerte, sino que fue sustituido por otra persona semejante a él y Dios le hizo transmigrar a su seno. Las amplias glosas que redacta el Cardenal para 7

Hagemann, L., Christentum contra Islam. Eine Geschichte gescheiterter Beziehungen, Darmstadt, Primus Verlag, 1999, pp. 68-95 analiza detalladamente algunos de estos temas, como Jesus Christus: «Wort Gottes»; Jesus Christus: «das Antlitz aller Völker»; Jesus Christus: «der grösste Gesandte Gottes»; Jesus Christus: «Mittler und Erlöser». Véase también Hagemann, L., Der Kur'an im Verständnis und Kritik bei Nikolaus von Kues. Ein Beitrag zur Erhellung islamisch-christlicher Geschichte (Frankfurter Theologische Studien. 21), Frankfurt, 1976.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

mostrar las características de su misión en este mundo, incluyendo su muerte y resurrección, al igual que en otros muchos temas, le sirven a Nicolás como material preciso en la redacción de la Cribratio Alkorani, para resaltar la grandeza e importancia de las grandes verdades de la fe cristiana negadas o distorsionadas en su presentación en el Corán. Las glosas subrayan que el Corán presenta un ardid en el que Cristo es liberado del castigo de la cruz y el crucificado es un hombre semejante a él. De acuerdo con sus eternos designios, Dios mantiene su protección sobre Cristo en el día de su nacimiento y de su muerte y le hace transmigrar a la vida eterna sin pasar por la muerte de cruz, y sin que se apercibiesen de ello los hombres. Ya en las glosas a IV 157 en el ms. de la Biblioteca de Kues 108 resaltaba brevemente la negación de la crucifixión, «Nota dicit quomodo Deus Christum uiuum recepit et negat crucifixionem». En el ms. 4071 de la Biblioteca Vaticana Nicolás de Cusa reivindica la figura de Cristo redentor a través de su muerte en la cruz y a esta reivindicación dedica los comentarios más amplios y profundos de cuantos presenta en este manuscrito. Cfr. fig. 1. Recogeremos los comentarios más sobresalientes en los que Nicolás de Cusa expone directamente en la Cribratio Alkorani la doctrina que se encuentra en las glosas. El Corán subraya que estaba en los designios de Dios, incomprensible y sabio, que Cristo fuese liberado de la muerte de cruz y transmigrase directamente al seno de Dios. Para ello en el momento de la crucifixión fue sustituido por otra persona semejante a él.

Alkoranus III 55 Quem creator taliter affatus est: «Ego tuam ad me reducens animam et exaltans et ab incredulis te liberans, eos qui te secuti sunt, eis qui tuo uerbo non crediderint usque ad diem publice resurrectionis superponam, et tunc ad me

Glossa Vat. Lat. 4071, fol. 33r: (In marg. superiore) III 55 Nota ipse Mahmet uidetur tenere animam cum corpore mori et demum etiam resuscitari. Christum autem tenet secundum animam non fuisse mortuum, sed exaltatum et ad Deum reductum, unde et si in cruce uisus est mori, secundum istum non tamen est mortuus, sed secundum animam ad Deum exaltatus. Glossa Vat. Lat. 4071, fol. 33r: III 55 Nota ego tuam ad me reducens animam et exaltans. Quomodo Deus Christum alloquitur: Ego tuam ad me reducens animam, et oportet igitur ut XI capitulum sic intelligatur, scilicet, quod in cruce

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA tuo reditu facto, controuersiam tuam atque litem discutiam».

suspensus non esset secundum animam mortuus et cetera. Glossa Quod Christus in resurrectione generali redibit ad Deum

Nicolás de Cusa en sus glosas insiste en la imposibilidad de esta sustitución y la coherencia de Cristo en su naturaleza mortal que pasa a la inmortalidad a través de la muerte en la cruz. Es la obediencia de Cristo a los planes de Dios sobre su muerte y resurrección la que impulsa de forma totalmente voluntaria el sacrificio de Cristo a favor del género humano. Alkoranus IV 156 - 159 Vnde Marie blasfemiam atque immoderatam contumeliam inferunt, 157 seque Christum, Marie filium, Dei nuntium, peremisse prohibent, sed nequaquam eum, immo sui similem, suspendentes interfecerunt. Profitentes etiam se sue cedis auctores cordibus suis non minimam ambiguitatem inde gerunt, sed eum nullatenus interfecerunt, 158 quia Deus incomprehensibilis et sapiens eum ad se transmigrare fecit. 159 in quem uiri legum ueraciter ante mortem credent et eorum seculo futuro testis astabit ille

Glossa Vat. Lat. 4071, fol.41r (Fig. 1) (in marg. super.) IV 155-158 Christus mortalis secundum istum, Deus autem inmortalis, quod igitur Deus nec inmortalitas ipsa, quomodo igitur hic dicit Christum mortalem transmigrasse ad Deum seu inmortalitatem. Omnis enim qui est mortalis non potest transire ad inmortalitatem nec per mortem, que moriendi possibilitatem tollit, precedit igitur mors transmigraturum ad Deum et inmortalitatem, sed cur dicit hic Christum nondum mortuum, ideo, scilicet, quia per Iudeos non potuit uiolentari et quia in ipsum uiri legum ueraciter ante mortem credent, et eorum in seculo futuro testes eritis uerum* est in Deo. ... (in marg. later.) Sed hec mors eius per

Cribratio I IX 52 Nonne secundum Alkoranum Christus est in carne mortali vivus in quodam loco amoeno aquis irriguo et ait ipsum venturum denuo in hunc mundum demum moriturum et resurrecturum et in iudicio futuro rationem operum suorum redditurum? Cribratio II XII. Christum veraciter fuisse mortuum et crucifixum. 115. Scribitur enim in Alkorano capitulo XI Christum non fuisse mortuum, sed alium quendam Christo similem Iudaeos suspendisse sed Christum «nullatenus interfecerunt, quia deus incomprehensibilis et sapiens eum ad se transmigrare fecit, in quem viri legum veraciter ante mortem credent, et eorum saeculo futuro testis astabit ille.» Haec ibi. 116. Sed evangelium et cunctae scripturae alborum seu discipulorum

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ hunc librum nominatur trasmigracio quia non fuit nisi de mortali uita ad inmortalem transmigracio. Natura enim humana mortalis per obedientiam perfectissimam usque ad mortem crucis exaltata est ad inmortalem uitam, sicut qui de morte amplius non morituri resurgunt nec hoc obstat quod uiri legum ante eius mortem in ipsum credentes, nam aduentus eius qui erit ante diem iudicii de quo iste loquitur, quando, scilicet, omnes uiri legum ad ipsius fidem conuertentur, non erit in carne mortali, sed in ueritate. Cognoscetur enim per omnes uirtus euangelizata et credetur ei, eo modo uiuit et est cum omnibus ewangelistis uiuis usque ad consumationem seculi.

atque historiae temporum concorditer affirmant non solum Christum mortuum, sed etiam secundum scripturas prophetarum de Messia taliter, ut praedictum reperitur, mortuum esse. Et quia secundum libri sequaces Alkoranus non debet intelligi, quasi sibi contradicat,... Cribratio II XIII 121 Nunc aduertamus, ut mysterium eliciamus mortis Christi, quomodo intelligendum sit Christum non fuisse in cruce mortuum. 122 Adhuc considera, quomodo Christus ante mortem sic se in cruce moriturum suis discipulis praedixit.

Cribratio II XIV. Quomodo deus animam Christi ad se reduxit, ipsum transmigrari fecit et assumpsit. 125 Alkoranus recitat: Quod cum increduli fraudulenter cum Christo agerent, scilicet studentes ipsum per mortem exstinguere «delusi sunt, quem creator taliter affatus est: Ego tuam ad me reducens animam et exaltans» ab incredulis te liberavi. Post hoc alibi dicit, quomodo deus ipsum Christum «ad se transmigrare fecit.» Iterum alibi dicit Christum per deum ad se assumptum. 126 Negat autem Mahumetus Iudaeos eum peremisse, sed dicit alium sibi similem ipsos suspendisse nullam faciens umquam de cruce mentionem. Adverte Mahumetum sic forte arguere velle: Christus vivit, ergo per Iudaeos non est peremptus. ... Ante illum diem omnia, quae vitam habent, sive angeli

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA

sive homines sive alia animalia exstingui necesse est, ut omnium resurrectio et reditio fiat. Christus igitur, qui vivit, quod certum est, numquam fuit peremptus; morietur tamen tandem et in die resurrectionis resurget. Haec est Mahumeti persuasio, quae in Alkorano licet sparsim continetur. Tamen capitulo XLVIII dicit: 67 Primo quidem buccinae sonitu morti succumbunt omnia nisi quae Dei dextera protexerit. 68 Secundo sonante singula reuiuiscunt. (reuiuescent mss.)

Los capítulos XII a XVII del libro II de la Cribratio Alkorani recogen todos los aspectos tocados en las glosas sobre la muerte de Cristo de manera reiterada y exhaustiva, examinando los textos evangélicos y contrastándolos con el relato que aparece en el Corán. Sus mismos títulos son un resumen fiel de la doctrina reflejada en ellas. Son los siguientes: XII. Christum ueraciter fuisse mortuum et crucifixum, XIII. Quod crucifixio sit Christi exaltatio et glorificatio. XIV. Quomodo deus animam Christi ad se reduxit, ipsum transmigrari fecit et assumpsit. XV. De resurrectione Iesu Christi. XVI. Mysterium natiuitatis et mortis Christi. XVII. De fructu mortis Christi. Nicolás de Cusa reitera sus consideraciones en relación a la redención y subraya en Cribratio II XIV 128 que que todos los hombres han de morir para llegar a recibir la recompensa de Dios en el mundo futuro de acuerdo con sus propias obras. Alkoranus III, 185 -186 185 Omnis homo mortem gustabit, nec alias quam seculo futuro mercedem habebit, illeque solus, felix quem Deus ab igne liberans paradisso locabit. Illa namque firma, hec uero uita, omniaque mundana fortuita sunt. 186 Vestrorum corporum detrimentum dampnumque pecuniarum incurretis et a uiris legum contumelias atque conuicia

Glossa Vat. Lat. 4071, fol. 36r: III 185 Differentia inter uitam futuri seculi et istam. Omnis homo mortem gustabit.

186 Eterni gaudii premium

Cribratio II XIV 128 Unde licet dicat: «Omnis anima mortem gustabit», tamen cum evangelium dicat non debere timeri eos, qui, cum corpus occiderint, non habeant quid amplius faciant, quia animam occidere non possunt, sed eum, qui etiam ultra hoc potest animam mittere in gehennam. Ideo secutus est evangelium et libros sapientiae, quomodo iusti licet oculis insipientium videantur mor|tui, sunt

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

sepius audietis, sed si pacientes et fortes Deumque timentes perseueraueritis, eterni gaudii premium possidebitis. Alkoranus XXI 35 Omnis enim mortem gustabit. Et uobis omnibus ad me redituris quibusdam bonum quibusdam malum inferam. Alkoranus XIX 57 Omnis enim anima mortem gustabit et nos deinde uisitabit.

tamen vivi et in pace. Et nihilo minus animas talium demum mortem gustaturas affirmat, ut resurgant in generali resurrectione, quam appellat diem veritatis. Cribratio III IV 172, ... utique deus Alkorani est absolutus et imparticipabilis et deus, de quo ille deus loquitur, est immersus rebus et diuisibilis, igitur et corporalis et ita cum «omnis ‹..› anima mortem gustabit», ut dicitur in Alkorano capitulo XXXVIII, et anima sit ipsius, quae est et omnium, ipse mortalis est.

2. Necesidad de la muerte de Cristo para la redención de los hombres Las reflexiones de Nicolás de Cusa consideran importante y tratan con detalle esta temática, de lo que da buena prueba el hecho de que desarrolle esta cuestión en varias glosas dispersas y en exclusiva en las glosas que cubren todo el espacio de los márgenes del fol. 41r del manuscrito. Mahoma declara en el Corán que Cristo no murió en la cruz, sino que fue sustituido y llevado al Paraíso y exaltado por Dios. Discute Nicolás de Cusa a Mahoma que parece creer que el alma muere con el cuerpo y resucita posteriormente. Sin embargo, afirma el Cardenal, en Cristo murió su cuerpo en la cruz, pero no su alma que fue exaltada hasta Dios. Alkoranus XXXIX 66 Ipsum igitur adoro, illi gratias reddo. 67 Primo quidem buccine sonitu morti succumbent omnia, nisi que Dei uoluntas protexerit. 68 Secundo sonante singula reuiuescent Deique splendore, celi terraque splendescent.

Glossa Vat. Lat. 4071, fol. 41r: IV. 157 Quodque illa acquiritur per illum qui Deo usque ad contemptum huius mundi uitam obedit, et cum ipse hoc in se ipso ostendere debuit ideo eum mori oportebat, et summus enim nuncius uerbo et exemplo Dei mandatum complere debuit, et hoc aliter fieri non potuit, ideo turpissima morte est mortuus

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA

En la Cribratio Alkorani se subraya que el ángel Gabriel, como anunció el profeta Daniel, había revelado que Cristo debía morir y no es posible que Gabriel mintiese revelando lo contrario a Mahoma. Cribratio II XIII. Quod crucifixio sit Christi exaltatio et glorificatio. ... 122 Et attendendum puto quomodo Gabriel angelus Danieli prophetae reuelauit post LXII hebdomadas Christum occidi debere, ut legitur Danielis IX capitulo, quemadmodum et factum fuit. ... quod Gabriel iussu dei mortem Christi prophetae praedixerit et idem lapso tempore illo prius per ipsum praedicto dicat ipsum non fore mortuum, deum et se mendaces faciens? Cribratio II XV. De resurrectione Iesu Christi. 130 Quod autem Christus expers malorum mortuus et sua uirtute iterum uiuus accessit, ex capitulo XXVIII medio scilicet Alkorani uidetur manifeste haberi, ubi Christus post multa sic scribitur locutus: Deus «me uirum non difficilem, sed malorum expertem creauit et super me est diuina salus in die meae natiuitatis et mortis, a qua uiuus iterum accedam. Hoc est de Christo, Mariae filio, uerbum uerax, in quo tamen plurimi dissentiunt». Ecce dicit de die mortis et non de die generalis resurrectionis, sicut dicit alibi de Iohanne Zachariae, ubi dicit, quod diuina salus super ipsum Iohannem die natiuitatis mortis et resurrectionis. Et ideo intelligo Christum ante illum diem mortuum et iterum uiuum accessisse, modo quo euangelium hoc recitat. Unde non est uerum Christum et omne uiuum mori sonante buccina aut per Adrielem, mortis angelum, ut in Doctrinis Mahumeti legitur. Ideo pro correctione illius assertionis capitulo XLII addicitur omnia morti succumbere, «nisi quae dei dextera protexerit». Et si aliquis sit illa protectione dignus, utique Christus erit quo nullus dignior, immo ipse est illa dei manus dextera seu potentia, per quam deus fecit et facit atque faciet omnia. Facit ad hoc id, quod legitur in Chronica Mahumeti et suorum successorum regum, Mariam matrem Iesu post ipsum quinque annis superstitem fuisse et LIII annos uixisse. Cribratio II XVI. Mysterium natiuitatis et mortis Christi. 137. Et post multa signa et miracula, ut ostenderit hanc uitam propter ueritatem et regnum immortalis uitae contemnendam et deo usque ad mortem etiam crucis turpissimam oboediendum, ipse, qui esse potuit immortalis, si uoluisset, mortuus est sic deum patrem suum, qui ita uoluit, clarificando et morte sua innocentissima omnibus hominibus ipsum per fidem recipientibus et indutis aeternam secum uitam promerendo. 138. Meruit enim consummata mors innocentissimi unigeniti filii dei, quam in humana natura passus est, redemptionem omnium captiuorum per Satan mortis auctorem, in qua Christi morte quisque eidem incorporatus mortuus est et uitam meruit. In morte igitur crucifixi Messiae commortui omnes fideles meruerunt uitam sibi perpetuam in Christo retribui. Resurrexit autem

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ die tertia propria uirtute, qui habuit potestatem ponendi animam in morte et iterum sumendi eam in resurrectione. Cribratio II XVII. De fructu mortis Christi. 143. Si igitur hunc suum dilectissimum primogenitum et unigenitum filium deus dedit pro salute mundi, utique maxime mundum dilexit. Quod autem hoc fecit, attestatur euangelium quod dicit: «Sic enim deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret, ... etc».

3. Voluntariedad de la muerte de Cristo Insiste el Corán en la justificación de que Cristo fue librado del suplicio de la cruz y llevado directamente hasta el seno de Dios. Nicolás de Cusa redacta un amplio excursus sobre la muerte de Cristo hombre y su inmortalidad como dios, tomando en consideración la importancia de la voluntariedad de su muerte por parte de Cristo para dar cumplimiento a los planes de la redención de los hombres. Esta redención no se habría llegado a cumplir sin la venida de Cristo al mundo como Mesías y el plan divino de la redención del género humano por su muerte en la cruz, sin la que el hombre habría quedado abandonado a las consecuencias del pecado original. Sin muerte no hay redención. Cristo cumplió la misión de redimir al hombre aceptando su muerte y muerte de cruz. Una muerte voluntariamente aceptada para obedecer el mandato de Dios Padre y cumplir su voluntad, «ideo eum mori oportebat, et summus enim nuncius uerbo et exemplo Dei mandatum complere debuit». Por ello su naturaleza humana fue llevada a la inmortalidad, «ob oboedientiam dei passus est, fieri amplius immortalis». Glossa 4071, fol. 41r: I V. 157 Non potuisse illum in quo potentia diuina uiolentasse ut moreretur nolens sicut alium aliquem hominem ei similem suspendentes, sed Christus non fuit ut alius quisquam mori nolens, sed mori uolens ut adimpletur iussionem Dei, et sic transmigraret ad Deum. Nuntius enim non reuertitur nisi eo expedito propter quod mittitur et compleat misterium, sed Christus uerax et summus nuntius non nisi morte complere potuit sibi commissa. Nam ad ewangelizandum regni celorum, scilicet, futuri seculi uitam aduenit. Quodque illa acquiritur per illum qui Deo usque ad contemptum huius mundi uitam

Cribratio III XX Ostensio Christum meruisse Christianis immortalitatem. 232 Intellige, Califa, quod Christus meruit hoc regnum immortalitatis in humana natura assumpta de uirgine, quia in radice seu hypostasi fuit immortalis per naturam. Vnde sicut ipse secundum hypostasim diuinam fuit naturaliter immortalis, ita in assumpta humana natura meruit, ut esset immortalis. Natura igitur humana in ipso non est facta immortalis solum ex gratia unionis eius cum diuina hypostasi, sed etiam ex exercitio uirtutis; meruit enim deposita

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA obedit, et cum ipse hoc in se ipso ostendere debuit ideo eum mori oportebat, et summus enim nuncius uerbo et exemplo Dei mandatum complere debuit, et hoc aliter fieri non potuit, ideo turpissima morte est mortuus.

mortalitate per mortem, quam ob oboedientiam dei passus est, fieri amplius immortalis.

4. Jesus Christus Mediator et Saluator Sin duda la mediación de Cristo para la redención y salvación del hombre está íntimamente unida a la muerte y resurrección de Cristo Salvador y Nicolas de Cusa la pone de relieve en varias ocasiones en sus glosas y en la Cribratio Alkorani. En el texto coránico al establecer la alianza Abraham pide a Dios un profeta mediador que nazca de su descendencia. Nicolás de Cusa, siguiendo la doctrina de San Pablo acerca de este mediador de la estirpe de Abraham, subraya que estas palabras deben ser entendidas en referencia a Cristo y no a Mahoma8. También señala pormenorizadamente la anterioridad en el tiempo de Cristo sobre Mahoma y principalmente su descendencia directa de la descendencia de Isaac el verdadero hijo de Abraham en palabras de san Pablo en las Epístolas a los Gálatas y a los Romanos, pues descendiendo los musulmanes de Ismael, hijo de Agar la esclava, Mahoma no puede ser el mediador de los hombres ante Dios que pide Abraham para su legitima descendencia. Mediator En la Cribratio Alkorani Nicolás de Cusa reitera en varios capítulos la importancia de la mediación de Cristo entre el hombre y Dios y en que esta función mediadora solo está encomendada a Cristo, el Mesías mediador y salvador que vendría al mundo para unir de nuevo a los hombres con Dios Padre9. Referente a la mediación de uno de los hijos de la descendencia de Abraham, anunciada en la alianza de Dios y el Patriarca, subraya Nicolás de 8

Cfr. en Nicolai de Cusa, Opera omnia vol. 8, nota 186, pag. 258 L. Hageman señala: «Muslimi Abraham his uerbis a deo precatum esse, ut posteris Mahumetum uatem mitteret, opinati sunt, ut Christus ueniret, Nicholaus». 9 Hagemann, L., Christentum contra Islam. Eine Geschichte gescheiterter Beziehungen. Darmstadt, 1999, pp. 73ss. en el apartado d) Der Koran in cusanischer Deutung analiza los temas: Jesus Christus: «Wort Gottes»; Jesus Christus: «das Antlitz aller Volker»; Jesus Christus: «des grösste Gesandte Gottes»; Jesus Christus: «Mittler und Erlöser»...

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

Cusa que Abraham pide a Dios un mediador profeta nacido de su prole y, siguiendo a san Pablo, esta profecía debe entenderse como referida, no, a Mahoma, como aseguran los musulmanes herederos de Ismael hijo ilegítimo por hijo de Agar la esclava de Abraham, sino a Cristo, que será el profeta mediador nacido de Isaac, la descendencia legítima del Patriarca. Alkoranus II 127-129

Glossa 4071 fol. 26u: II 129

127 Cuius fundamentum Abraham statuens inquit: «Creator optime, locum istum tibi sanctifica, ipsum asilum constituens et nos filiosque nostros in te credentes edocens». 128 Quid hic boni gerendum sit ueniamque tribuens ut misericors atque piissimus,

Nota nexum ubi signantur manus maxime ibi ubi Abraham ad creatorem dicebat nostre prolis filium mediatorem prophetam excita. Ceteris gerenda uirtutesque tuas scripto notifica et cetera. Utique hec ut sanctus Paulus exponit de Christo intelligi debent, et cetera. Videtur tamen quod de se locutus sit Mahomet ut in sequenti azora ad signum maius ubi quasi similia uerba ponuntur, sed primum uerius quia dicit hic mediatorem. Mediatorem prophetam.

129 nostre prolis filium, mediatorem prophetam excita, ceteris gerenda uirtutesque tuas scripto

Cribratio III XIV. Quod pactum dei et Abrahae excludit Ismaelitas et in Christo mediatore concluditur. 209. Nunc attendite, uos Arabes, quomodo uos ex Ismaele secundum carnem geniti non estis in foedere et pacto Abrahae cum deo sicut filii promissionis ex Isaac, et nullam habetis partem hereditatis Abrahae, quia ex ancilla Agar10 geniti et aduersarii spiritus, sicut caro semper est contra spiritum, et non potestis esse benedicti in semine Abrahae, nisi sitis filii Abrahae in spiritu per fidem... 210 Legitur autem in primo capitulo Alkorani Abraham sic orasse: O deus, «nostrae prolis filium mediatorem

Gn. 21 10 «Eice ancillam hanc et filium eius; non enim erit heres filius ancillae cum filio meo Isaac»; este fragmento lo recoge también san Pablo, Ad Galatas 4 22: «Scriptum est enim quoniam Abraham duos filios habuit, unum de ancilla et unum de libera. 23 Sed qui de ancilla, secundum carnem natus est; qui autem de libera, per promissionem. 24 Quae sunt per allegoriam dicta; ipsae enim sunt duo Testamenta, unum quidem a monte Sinai, in servitutem generans, quod est Agar. 25 Illud vero Agar mons est Sinai in Arabia, respondet autem Ierusalem, quae nunc est; servit enim cum filiis suis. 26 Illa autem, quae sursum est Ierusalem, libera est, quae est mater nostra; 27 scriptum est enim: «Laetare, sterilis, quae non paris, erumpe et exclama, quae non parturis, quia multi filii desertae magis quam eius, quae habet virum». 28 Vos autem, fratres, secundum Isaac promissionis filii estis. 29 Sed quomodo tunc, qui secundum carnem natus fuerat, persequebatur eum, qui secundum spiritum, ita et nunc. 30 Sed quid dicit Scriptura? «Eice ancillam et filium eius; non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio liberae».

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA notificantem eisque benedicentem, cum tu sis doctor excelsus, omnia sciens et audiens.

prophetam excita ceteris gerenda uirtutesque tuas scripto notificantem eisque benedicentem, cum tu sis doctor excelsus omnia sciens et audiens.» Ecce quomodo de Christo mediatore inter deum et hominem Abraham loquens sic orat; nec potest de alio intelligi, cum loquatur de propheta filio prolis eius scilicet Isaac, quem deus nominat unigenitum eius. Et hic mediator est inter deum et hominem, quia ipse solus est, inter quem et deum nullus mediat, cum sit altissimus propheta Christus, qui solus est deum patrem notificans.

Cribratio III XV 214 Vidit igitur prophetico spiritu ipsum Messiam mediatorem et saluatorem aliquando in mundum uenturum, sine quo nec se nec quemquam ad deum patrem accessum habiturum credidit. Cribratio III XX Ostensio Christi meruisse Christianis immortalitatem ... 233 Iam clare conspicis Christum esse mediatorem Dei et hominum et nullum hominem fide et operibus nisi per ipsum mereri aeternam uitam. Ipse est heres regni dei immortalis, quod solus deus inhabitat, ad quod omnes homines aspirant.

Saluator La importancia que tiene en la doctrina cristiana la figura de Cristo Redentor, ya venía recogida en las enseñanzas de las profecías hechas por Dios a los Patriarcas del Antiguo Testamento que a lo largo de los siglos transmitieron a los creyentes que Dios enviaría al mundo un Salvador. Nicolás de Cusa reitera y prueba que ese Salvador máximo y supremo es Cristo mismo al que Dios otorgó el Evangelio a través del cual los hombres alcanzasen el amor y gracia de Dios.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

Alchoranus LVII 26 -27 Noe iam et Abraham nuntios misimus et eisdem filios prophetas dedimus, per quos librum misimus, eorum tamen quidam boni, plures autem fuerunt increduli. 27 Post illos rursus aliis nuntiis misis tandem Christo, Marie filio, misso, cuius sequaces ipsi penitus obedientes corda constantia et humilia atque fidelia gesserunt. Nos Euangelium dedimus, non ob aliud nisi ut per ipsum Dei dilectionem atque gratiam assequerentur, sed non ut dignum erat obseruauerunt. Sed licet plures eorum sint increduli, eorum tamen credentibus meritum debitum et maximum tribuimus.

Cribratio I XV 65 Ab initio mundi prophetatum est deum Messiam saluatorem in mundum missurum. ... utique ille Messias, qui ut omnium supremus et maximus saluator exspectabatur, dei filius fuit aliud a patre ipsum missuro. Cribratio II XVI Misterium natiuitatis et mortis Christi. 135 Et inter omnes prophetias omnium saluator Messias a deo mittendus sibi praenuntiatus est aliquando uenturus, qui uirtutem dei habens complete ipsum dei populum reformaret et saluaret. Cribratio III XIII De repromissione facta Abrahae fideli 207 Et Zacharias propheta, pater Iohannis Baptistae, de Iesu dicebat ipsum esse «cornu salutis» erectum «in domo Dauid», scilicet, Messiam saluatorem, «sicut locutus est per os sanctorum, qui a saeculo sunt , ... et secundum ius iurandum, quod iurauit ad Abraham patrem nostrum, daturum se nobis». Cribratio III XV 214 Ita legitur Christum in euangelio dixisse: «Antequam fieret Abraham ego sum». Vidit igitur prophetico spiritu ipsum Messiam mediatorem et saluatorem aliquando in mundum uenturum, sine quo nec se nec quemquam ad deum patrem accessum habiturum credidit. Cribratio III XIX 231 Ideo intelligimus per angelicam Gabrielis adnuntiationem Mariae uirgini factam in euangelio scriptam ipsum Iesum a deo nominatum, quia saluator saluum faciens populum suum, et Messiam siue Christum regem esse, de cuius regno sunt omnes, qui aeternam et immortalem uitam assequentur.

Por efecto del pecado original el hombre, arrojado del Paraiso, perdió los privilegios del Paraiso Terrenal y recibió el castigo de la muerte, de la que solo Cristo le librará al final de los tiempos.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA Alchoranus II 35 - 41 II 35 His omnibus sic ex ordine gestis, Ade preceptum huiusmodi fecimus: «Tu mulierque tua Paradiso maneatis, quantum et quodcumque libuerit, nisi de hac arbore solum comedentes. 36 Quos ab hoc consilio diabolica suggestio se mouens, eosdem eiciendos a paradiso prostituit. Unde Deus illis preuaricatoribus sue legis inquit: «Aduersantes alter alteri ad terram, ibi locum horalem pro uelle meo, scilicet, habituri descendite. 37 Deinceps item Ade adepto donum pietatis et uenie, 38 sic Deus inquit: «Vos ambo meam mihi paradissum relinquite uite uiam a me sumentes, cuius omnis imitator, nil periculi seu timoris deuius 39 et contradicens, ignem infernalem finis nescius inibit. 40 Vos item filii Israel bonorum, que uobis contuli reminiscentes, federis inter nos constituti dissolutionem uitate, 41 meque super omnia timentes, hunc librum mee legis a me celitus missum, uestre legis firmamentum esse cognoscite. VII 23 Responderunt illi: «O Deus, nos nostris animabus nocuisse confitemur. Unde nisi parte data uenia perdendi peribimus». 24 Quibus Ipse: «Aduersantes alter alteri, ad terram usque descendite, moram horalem illic habituri. 25 Ibique uite uestre peracto spatio moriemini et deinde uos resuscitabo». X 115 Hoc quoque prius Ade precepimus, cuius ipse prorsus oblitus in nostris mandatis minime perseuerans repertus est. 116 Cui tamen ut angeli se subicerent nobis iniungentibus omnes preter Belzebub paruerunt. 117 Quem Ade mulierique sue pessimum hostem futurum ego patefaciens persuasi ne illos educeret a paradiso, 118 ubi nec fames

Cribratio II XVII 144-145 144 Ait enim Alkoranus, quod Adam a deo praeceptum minime operatus ius mortale subivit. Unde totum genus humanum ob peccatum primi parentis spoliatum innocentia, quae sola in regno caelorum locum habet, subditum principi huius mundi, aeternaliter damnatum ad privationem visionis gloriae dei, quae mors est intellectualis naturae, solvit debitum in morte unigeniti filii, qui pro omnibus ipsum ut Messiam et regem intellectualis vitae recipientibus mortuus est; sic omnes in eius morte mortui satisfecerunt et liberati sunt a servitute principis mortis. Mors enim unigeni|ti, qui plus omnibus diligebatur a deo, pretiosissima abunde ideo satisfecit, quia fuit mors praescientis dolorem mortis, ut ait propheta, quem omnes morientes ignorant. Quare dicit idem: «Vere languores nostros ipse ‹...› portavit». Et dum ad fidelem fidei patrem Abraham respicimus, quantum ipse meruit, quia filium suum unigenitum Isaac, ut deo placeret, in mortem tradere voluit, statim videmus, quid meruit Messias se ipsum in mortem tradens, ut deo placeret in redemptione generis humani. Glossa 4071 fol. 50r: VII 25 Nota ob peccatum mors intrauit 145 Vide ineffabilem laudem dei patris in eo, quod «filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis ‹..› tradidit illum». Nonne meruit habere innumerabilem multitudinem filiorum et heredum regni sui caelestis quemad modum Abraham? Et quid meruit Iesus realiter turpissima et dolo rosissima morte mortuus, quae omnes dolores morientium excedit? Certe quia vitam dedit, resurrectionem a mortuis meruit pro se et fratribus suis patri

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

nuditasue 119 seu sitis aut feruor accidet. Sic enim illis labor inmensus incumberet. 120 Diabolus autem eos e contra sic affatus est: «Ego te quidem Adam ad eternitatis et imperii numquam senescentis arborem, inde comestum adducam.» 121 Unde cibatis illis membra genitalia patuerunt, que de paradisi foliis sumptis tegere nitebantur. Sic igitur Adam a Deo minime preceptum operatus, ius mortale subiuit. 122 Illis tamen deinceps ad amorem Dei redeuntibus, prius male peracta Deus condonauit, uiam insuper rectam patefaciens. 123 Unde licet eis iniunxisset ut omnis aduersans alii descenderet illinc, uerum eis uie dogma patefecit. Huius autem uie omnis imitator hic seculoque futuro timoris omnis expers permanebit.

acquisitis, inter quos ipse est ut primogenitus in multis fratribus principatum tenens

Nicolás de Cusa señala de manera explícita sus objetivos en el Prologus al escribir la Cribratio Alkorani, y para cumplir ese propósito ha releido el Corán y sacado de su lectura reiterada anotaciones que hace servir al diseñar y mostrar los medios que pueden ayudar a comprender que el islam puede servir para confirmar las verdades de la fe cristiana si es que hiciese falta esa confirmación. Prologus 4 Ego uero ingenium applicui, ut etiam ex Alkorano euangelium uerum ostenderem; et ut hoc faciliter fieri possit, compendiosum meum conceptum paucis praemittam. 10 Intentio autem nostra est praesupposito euangelio Christi librum Mahumeti cribrare et ostendere illa in ipso etiam libro haberi, per quae euangelium, si attestatione indigeret, ualde confirmaretur, et quod, ubi dissentit, hoc ex ignorantia et consequenter ex peruersitate intenti Mahumeti euenisse Christo non suam gloriam sed dei patris et hominum salutem, Mahumeto uero non dei gloriam et hominum salutem sed gloriam propriam quaerente.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

«EUM MORI OPORTEBAT» EN LAS GLOSAS DE NICOLÁS DE CUSA

JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ

Así se explica su forma de proceder en la redacción de su obra a través del análisis y criba del Corán, para confirmar la verdad del evangelio y su superioridad sobre el Antiguo Testamento y el Corán con la prevalencia de la doctrina de Cristo sobre Mahoma, que en lo que disiente del evangelio actúa con ignorancia y perversidad. Y quiere también el Cardenal que la lectura de la Cribratio Alkorani sea un medio para entender y poner de relieve los puntos comunes y la posibilidad de una comprensión del evangelio a partir del conocimiento del Corán. José Martínez Gázquez Jose.Martinez@uab.cat Fecha de recepción: 29/01/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 16/03/2019

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 59-78

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM: JUAN DE SEGOVIA’S USE OF THE QUR’ĀN Jesse D. Mann Drew University

Abstract This essay investigates how Juan de Segovia (d. 1458) used the Qur’ān in his engagement with Islam. The essay has three principal aims. First, it identifies certain distinctive aspects of Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān. Second, it examines his treatment of sacraments and soteriology in the Qur’ān. Third, it considers Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān in light of David Bertaina’s recent analysis of Christians and the Qur’ān. It is argued that, just as Segovia read the Qur’ān in various ways, he also used or cited the Qur’ān in various ways, for various ends and even for various audiences. Keywords Juan de Segovia; Qur’ān; interreligious dialogue; medieval Christian-Muslim relations

That Nicholas of Cusa and Juan de Segovia shared a keen interest in Islam and, more specifically, in the Qur’ān is not news. Scholars have long recognized this common interest.1 As students of medieval Christian-Muslim 1

See, e.g., Haubst, R., «Johannes von Segovia im Gespräch mit Nikolaus von Kues und Jean Germain über die göttliche Dreieinigkeit und ihre Verkündigung vor den Mohammedanern», Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift, 2 (1951), pp. 115-129; Nicolaus de Cusa, De pace fidei cum epistula ad Ioannem de Segobia, eds. R. Klibansky and H. Bascour, in Nicolai de Cusa, Opera omnia, vol. VII, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1959, pp. xlv-lii; Southern, R.W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1978; Biechler, J., «A New Face toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia», in G. Christianson and Th.M. Izbicki (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa in Search of God and Wisdom, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 45, Leiden, Brill, 1991, pp. 191- 200; Álvarez-Gómez, M., Über die Bedingungen des Friedens im Glauben bei Johannes von Segovia und Nikolaus von Kues, Trier, Paulinus, 2003; Cabanelas Rodríguez, D., Juan de Segovia y el

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

interaction well know, Cusa and Segovia developed their mutual interest in matters Islamic while at the Council of Basel in the 1430s. In the first prologue to his Cribratio Alkorani, Cusa recounts how he lent a copy of the Qur’ān to Segovia prior to departing for Constantinople in 1437.2 And, in his letter to Cusa dated 2 December 1454, Segovia not only gratefully recalls that loan, he also remembers how the two men had, in their Basel days, often discussed Islamic «rites, observances, and customs, as well as the ways by which Muslims might be converted to Christianity».3 Although it is noteworthy that Segovia recalls discussing Muslim practices, in addition to doctrines and texts, the focal point of his interest remained the Qur’ān itself. Thanks to the work of scholars such as José Martínez Gázquez, Davide Scotto, and Ulli Roth,4 we now know more about Juan de Segovia’s tri-lingual problema islámico, Granada, Editorial Universidad de Granada, 2007; Sanz Santacruz, V., «Juan de Segovia y Nicolás de Cusa frente al Islam: su comprensión intelectualista de la fe cristiana», Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia, 16 (2007), pp. 181-194; and Wolf, A. M., Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace: Christians and Muslims in the Fifteenth Century, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2014. 2 Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, ed. L Hagemann, in Nicolai de Cusa, Opera omnia, vol. VIII, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1986, p. 2: «Dimisi librum apud magistrum Iohannem de Segobia et ad Constantinopolim perrexi... ». See also Johannes von Segovia, De gladio divini spiritus in corda mittendo Sarracenorum: Edition und deutsche Übersetzung mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen, ed. U. Roth, 2 vols., Corpus Islamo-Christianum, Series Latina 7, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2012, vol. 1, p. XXXVI; and Roth, U., «Juan of Segovia’s Translation of the Qur’ān», Al-Qantara, 35/2 (2014), p. 562. James Biechler has noted some confusion among scholars (Hagemann and Raeder) about who introduced whom to the Qur’ān and to the Corpus Toletanum. See Biechler, J., «Nicholas of Cusa and Muhammad», Downside Review, 101 (1983), p. 52 n. 8; and Biechler, «A New Face toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia», op. cit., p. 189, n. 13. Echevarria, A., The Fortress of Faith: The Attitude Towards Muslims in Fifteenth Century Spain, Medieval Iberian Peninsula 12, Leiden, Brill, 1999, p. 88 contributes to this confusion. On Cusa and Constantinople, see Watanabe, M., Nicholas of Cusa: A Companion to His Life and Times, Farnham, Ashgate, 2011, pp. 284-93. 3 See Sanz Santacruz, «Juan de Segovia y Nicolás de Cusa frente al Islam: su comprensión intelectualista de la fe cristiana», op. cit., p. 182, n. 4. I have not been able to consult D. Scotto’s edition of Segovia’s correspondence. See Scotto, D. «Via pacis et doctrine: le Epistole sull’Islam di Juan de Segovia», Ph. D. diss, Università di Firenze, 2012. The publication of Dr. Scotto’s work is, however, imminent. 4 See Martínez Gázquez, J., «Trois traductions médiévales latines du Coran: Pierre le Venerable-Robert de Ketton, Marc de Tolède et Jean de Segobia», Revue des Études Latines, 80 (2002), pp. 223-236; idem, «El Prólogo de Juan de Segobia al Corán (Qur’ān) trilingüe (1456)», Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch, 38 (2003), pp. 389-410; Scotto, D., «‘De pe a pa’: Il Corano trilingue di Juan de Segovia (1456) e la conversione pacifica dei musulmani»,

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

Qur’ān, produced in 1455-56 with the help of Iça de Gidelli,5 faqīh from Segovia.6 These scholars, as well as others, have underscored Juan’s desire for an accurate qur’ānic text and for a more reliable translation than Robert of Ketton’s paraphrase. And thanks to Thomas Burman and Anne Marie Wolf, we now know more about how Segovia read the Qur’ān, about his oscillation between philology and polemic, appreciation and disdain.7 My purpose here is to consider how Segovia used the Qur’ān. Of course, how one uses a text is closely related to how one reads it: both actions involve, or at least imply, evaluation and interpretation. Perhaps we can say that using a text — citing or alluding to it — is putting one’s reading to work, making that reading manifest. For this brief reflection on how Juan de Segovia used the Qur’ān, I will rely mainly on two of his post-conciliar writings, namely the Liber de magna auctoritate episcoporum in concilio generali, an ecclesiological work,8 and the De gladio Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, 48 (2012), pp. 515-77; Roth, U. and Glei, R., «Die Spuren der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia – alte Probleme und ein neuer Fund», Neulateinisches Jahrbuch, 11 (2009), pp. 109-154; Roth, U. and Glei, R., «Eine weitere Spur der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia», Neulateinisches Jahrbuch, 13 (2011), pp. 221-228; and Roth, «Juan of Segovia’s Translation of the Qur’ān», op. cit. 5 On Gidelli, see Wiegers, G.A., Islamic Literature in Spanish and Aljamiado: Yça of Segovia (fl. 1450), His Antecendents and Successors, Medieval Iberian Peninsula: Texts and Studies 8, Leiden, Brill, 1994. 6 On the term faqih, see ibid. pp. 82-84. See also Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v., «Fakīh». 7 Burman, Th.E., Reading the Qur’ān in Latin Christendom, 1140-1560, Material Texts, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007; Wolf, A.M., «Precedents and Paradigms: Juan de Segovia on the Bible, the Church, and the Ottoman Threat», in Th.J. Heffernan and Th.E. Burman (eds.), Scripture and Pluralism: Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 143-60; idem, «Juan de Segovia and the Lessons of History», in S.R. Doubleday and D. Coleman (eds.), In the Light of Medieval Spain, The New Middle Ages, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, pp. 33-53; and idem, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit. 8 On this work, see Hernández Montes, B., «Obras de Juan de Segovia», Repertorio de Historia de las Ciencias Eclesiásticas en España, 6 (1977), pp. 305-306; Krämer, W., Konsens und Rezeption: Verfassungsprinzipien der Kirche im Basler Konziliarismus, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Neue Folge 19, Münster, Aschendorff, 1980, pp. 248-51; Sieben, H.J., «Basler Konziliarismus konkret (II). Der ‘Liber de magna auctoritate episcoporum in concilio generali’ des Johannes von Segovia», in H.J. Sieben (ed.), Vom Apostelkonzil zum Ersten Vatikanum. Studien zur Geschichte der Konzilsidee, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1996, pp. 157-195; and Prügl, Th., «Herbst des Konziliarismus? Die Spätschriften des Johannes von Segovia», in H. Müller (ed.), Das Ende des

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

mittendo in corda sarracenorum,9 a much-revised and reworked text that defies easy characterization in terms of genre but that represents Segovia’s programmatic statement on how to address the «Islamic question». That these two works now exist in admirable critical editions facilitates my task considerably.10 In considering how Segovia used the Qur’ān in his Liber de magna auctoritate (henceforth: LMA) and in his De gladio, I have three principal aims. First, I will identify certain distinctive (but not necessarily unique) aspects of Segovia’s use of Islam’s holy book. To do so, I will have to compare Segovia, albeit cursorily, with contemporaries such as Cusa and Heymericus de Campo. Second, drawing on suggestions in the work of Santiago Madrigal and Ulli Roth, as well as on my own previous work, I will emphasize the fundamentally soteriological concerns that lie at the heart of Juan’s engagement with Islam. I will do this by addressing his discussion of sacraments. Finally, I will connect Segovia’s use of Quranic texts with David Bertaina’s recent analysis of Christians and the Qur’ān.11 Although the fall of Constantinople in 1453 obviously intensified Latin Christendom’s engagement with Islam, for Juan de Segovia and Nicholas of Cusa, as noted above, interest in Islam predated that momentous event. In Segovia’s case, we know that he was already thinking and writing about Muslims during his teaching days at the University of Salamanca in the 1420s. As Santiago Madrigal, Anne Marie Wolf, and Davide Scotto have shown, Juan’s early university writings, most notably his Repetitio de fide catholica from 1427, address Islam and religious alterity.12 Importantly for our purposes, however, konziliaren Zeitalters (1440 - 1450): Versuch einer Bilanz, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 86, München, Oldenbourg, 2012, pp. 153-174. 9 On this work, see Hernández Montes, «Obras de Juan de Segovia», op. cit., pp. 31013. 10 See Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate episcoporum in concilio generali, ed. R. de Kegel, Spicilegium Friburgense 34, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1995; and idem, De gladio divini spiritus in corda mittendo Sarracenorum: Edition und deutsche Übersetzung mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen, op. cit. 11 Bertaina, D., «Christians and the Qur’ān» in D. Thomas (ed.), Routledge Handbook on Christian-Muslim Relations, New York, Routledge, 2018, pp. 279-87. 12 Madrigal Terrazas, S., «La Repetitio de fide catholica de Juan de Segovia», Estudios eclesiásticos, 78 (2003), pp. 271-299; Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., pp. 74-94 and Scotto, D., «Inseguire l’Islām tra memoria e teologia spigolature su Juan de Segovia intorno al 1427», in D. Rando, P. Cozzo, and D. Scotto (eds.), Ottant’anni da Maestro: Saggi degli allievi offerti a Giogio Cracco, Roma, Viella, 2014, pp. 101-139. On the Repetitio, see Hernández Montes, «Obras de Juan de Segovia», op. cit., pp. 271-72. For an «edition» of the text, see Madrigal Terrazas, S., El pensamiento eclesial de Juan de Segovia

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

these early writings touching upon Islam make little specific reference to the Qur’ān. Rather, Segovia’s first use of specific qur’ānic texts seems to stem from his work related to the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the 1430s.13 To wit, in support of his pro-Immaculist stance in his Allegationes pro sancta conceptione from 1436, Segovia cited a passage from Sura 3 that he found in Nicholas of Lyra’s Libellum contra quemdam Iudaeum.14 Importantly, this citation is indirect; it does not derive from Segovia’s own reading of the Qur’ān. However, two (1393-1458): La gracia en el tiempo, Estudios Universidad Pontificia Comillas 90, Madrid, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2004, pp. 193-225. 13 See Roth, U. and Scotto, D., «Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran: Die Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis des Juan de Segovia», Neulateinisches Jahrbuch, 17 (2015), pp. 188-92. For background on the use of Islamic theology in support of the Immaculate Conception, see Gay-Canton, R. «Lorsque Muhammad orne les autels: Sur l’utilization de la théologie islamique dans la controverse autuor de l’immaculée conception de la fin du XIVe au début du XVIIIe siècle», Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 94/2 (2010), pp. 201-48. On the role of Mary in Christian-Muslim dialogue, see George-Tvrtković, R., Christians, Muslims, and Mary: A History, New York, Paulist Press, 2018. On the discussions regarding the Immaculate Conception at Basel, see Helmrath, J., Das Basler Konzil 1431–1449. Forschungsstand und Probleme, Kölner historische Abhandlungen 32, Köln, Böhlau, 1987, pp. 383-94; and Izbicki, Th.M., «The Immaculate Conception and Ecclesiastical Politics from the Council of Basel to the Council of Trent: The Dominicans and Their Foes», Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 96/1 (2005), pp. 145–170. 14 See Johannes de Segovia, Ioannis de Segovia ... septem allegationes et totidem avisamenta pro informatione Patrum Concilii Basilëensis ... circa Sacratissimae Virginis Maria Immaculatam Conceptionem ejusque praeservationem a peccato originali in primo suae animationes instanti, ed. P. de Alva y Astorga, Brussels, Balthasaris Vivien, 1664, pp., 75-76 (cited in Roth and Scotto, «Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran: Die Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis des Juan de Segovia», op. cit., p. 188 with n. 17). For more on Segovia’s work on the Immaculate Conception, see Alcántara, P. de, «La redención y el debito de María según Juan de Segovia y Juan de Torquemada (Concilio de Basilea)», Revista Española de Teología, 16 (1956), pp. 3-51; Martín Palma, J. «María y la Iglesia según Juan de Segovia y Juan de Torquemada», Estudios Marianos, 18 (1957), pp. 207-30; and Basilio Ricossa, L., Jean de Ségovie. Son office de la conception, 1439: étude historique, théologique, littéraire et musicale, Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXXVI: Musikwissenschaft 113, Bern, Peter Lang, 1994. According to Gay-Canton, «Lorsque Muhammad orne les autels: Sur l’utilization de la théologie islamique dans la controverse autuor de l’immaculée conception de la fin du XIVe au début du XVIIIe siècle», op. cit., p. 215, Lyra took his qur’ānic texts from the admixture of qur’ānic verses and hadith found in Ramón Martí. On Lyra and Islam, see Krey, Ph. «Nicholas of Lyra and Paul of Burgos on Islam», in J.V. Tolan (ed.), Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam: A Book of Essays, Garland Medieval Casebooks 10, New York, Garland, 1996, 153-74.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

years later, in the elaboration of his pro-Immaculist position, Segovia returned to that same qur’ānic passage, but this time did so citing not only Lyra but also a more accurate version of the text secundum aliam translationem.15 What had changed? Between 1436 and 1438, Segovia had obtained two copies of the Qur’ān in Ketton’s translation. His careful study of that work resulted in a new and improved citation — a citation that even included a reference to what we might call «chapter and verse».16 Interestingly, Segovia used this text to support an a minori ad maius argument: if even infidels recognize Mary’s unique status, how much more should believers do so.17 Segovia thus employs the Qur’ān to shame his fellow Christians. By the time Segovia composed his LMA sometime between 1449 and 1453, he had gained significant first-hand knowledge of the Qur’ān. He demonstrates this knowledge in that text by including roughly twenty citations — some direct and verbatim; some just allusions — from the Qur’ān itself.18 After 1453, when Segovia was working on the De gladio and initiating his well-known correspondence with Cusa and Jean Germain,19 such citations and allusions flow frequently from his pen. The De gladio in particular is replete with qur’ānic references. It is important to emphasize that in all these 15

See Roth and Scotto, «Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran: Die Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis des Juan de Segovia», op. cit., p. 190. 16 Johannes de Segovia, Ioannis de Segovia ... septem allegationes et totidem avisamenta, op. cit., p. 429: «Quantum ad primum dictum hic allegatum in Alchorano secundum aliam translationem sic dicitur: ‘Angeli rursus Mariam alloquentes inquiunt: O Maria omnibus viris et mulieribus splendidior et mundior atque lectior soli Deo perseveranter studens ipsum cum humilibus genuaque Deo flectentibus adora’. Haec habentur et Zoara cap. 5 et intitulatur: ‘De gente Joachim ducentorum verborum». Segovia was apparently quite interested in the divisions of the Qur’ān. On this point, see Burman, Reading the Qur’ān, op. cit., p. 182. 17 On this argument, see Roth and Scotto, «Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran: Die Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis des Juan de Segovia», op. cit., p. 191. 18 See De Kegel, R. «Johannes von Segovia und die verfassungsmäßige Vereinbarkeit von Papst und Konzil, in: J. Dendorfer and C. Märtl (eds.), Nach dem Basler Konzil: Die Neuordnung der Kirche zwischen Konziliarismus und monarchischem Papat (ca. 1450 – 1475), Pluralisierung und Autorität 13, Berlin, LIT, 2008, p. 63. See also Mann, J. D., «Juan de Segovia on the Superiority of Christians over Muslims: Liber de magna auctoritate episcoporum in concilio generali 10.6», in I. C. Levy, R. George-Tvrtković, and D. F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 183, Leiden, Brill, 2014, p. 148. 19 On this correspondence, see ibid., p. 145 with n. 1; and especially Scotto, «Via pacis et doctrine», op. cit.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

instances the Qur’ān Segovia is citing is Ketton’s translation. After 1455, Segovia apparently began to revise the De gladio, correcting and replacing Ketton’s translation with his own recently completed rendering, but he abandoned that onerous and time-consuming task due to poor health and a heavy workload.20 From the 1430s to the 1450s, then, Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān evolved and deepened. If he began by using the Qur’ān to support and defend a specifically Christian doctrine, namely the Immaculate Conception — thereby showing how the «other’s» sacred text might serve an intra- rather than inter-religious purpose21 — his subsequent use of the Qur’ān reflects a greater variety of strategies and aims. In his landmark book on the medieval image of Islam, Norman Daniel observes that Christian use of the Qur’ān in the Middle Ages was highly selective. Daniel writes, «...it is not surprising that the wealth of material in the Qur’ān... should have been ignored except in so far as it could

See Roth, «Juan of Segovia’s Translation of the Qur’ān», op. cit., p. 559. On Segovia’s marginal annotations and additions to the sole surviving «complete» MS of the De gladio, see Roth, U. and Glei, R., « Die Spuren der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia – alte Probleme und ein neuer Fund», op. cit. ; and Roth, U. and Glei, R., «Eine weitere Spur der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia», op. cit.; Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, op. cit., vol. 1, p. LIX and Scotto, «‘De pe a pa’: Il Corano trilingue di Juan de Segovia (1456) e la conversione pacifica dei musulmani», op. cit., p. 519. 21 On the intra-religious purposes of seemingly inter-religious polemic, see Valkenberg, W.G.B.M., «Polemics, Apologetics, and Dialogue as Forms of Interreligious Communication between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages» in T.L. Hettema and A. Van der Rooij (eds.), Religious Polemics in Context, Studies in Theology and Religion 11, Assen, Royal Van Gorcum, 2004, p. 378.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

be brought into service».22 We turn now to some of the ways Juan de Segovia brought the Qur’ān into service.23 Of course, Segovia repeats much of the standard medieval Christian polemical line against the Qur’ān: its demonic inspiration, its errors, distortions and misrepresentations, its internal contradictions. 24 The most frequently cited qur’ānic passage in the De gladio comes from Sura 33:40, where Muhammed is called the «seal and culmination of the prophets». 25 Not surprisingly, Segovia cites this passage in order to refute it. Like his contemporaries, Segovia used the Qur’ān to denigrate Muhammed and to show how and why the Qur’ān was flawed. «A true seal», Segovia writes, «confirms rather than annuls scripture».26 Muhammed does not confirm Scripture, ergo... In the LMA (10.42.10) Segovia invokes Sura 12:8 according to Ketton’s rendering (he cites chapter and verse explicitly) in order to advance a related point: by asserting that it simultaneously encompasses both preceding 22

Daniel, N., Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, Rev. ed., Oxford, Oneworld, 1993, p. 286. For a critical assessment of Daniel’s work, see Blanks, D., «Western Views of Islam in the Premodern Period: A Brief History of Past Approaches», in Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Perception of Other, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1999, pp. 24-29; and Tolan, J.V., Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination, New York, Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. xv-xvii. Bobzin, H. «A Treasury of Heresies: Christian Polemics against the Koran», in S. Wild (ed.), The Qur’ān as Text, Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science Texts and Studies 27, Leiden, Brill, 1996, p. 167, refers to the «instrumentalization» of the Qur’ān. Importantly, Muslims criticized this selective use of the Qur’ān. See, e.g., Paul of Antioch’s opposition to the Muslim argument that proof-texting required Christians to accept all qur’ānic verses (cited in Bertaina, «Christians and the Qur’ān», op. cit., p. 280). 23 For background, see Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., pp. 187-98. Madrigal Terrazas, S., «Judios, moros y cristianos. La visión teologica de Juan de Segovia (1393-1458) acerca de las tres culturas ibericas», in M. Tischler and A. Fidora (eds.), Christlicher Norden - Muslimischer Süden: Ansprüche und Wirklichkeiten von Christen, Juden und Muslimen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter, Erudiri Sapientia 7, Münster, Aschendorff, 2011, p. 500, enumerates some of the ways in which Segovia uses the Qur’ān in the LMA. 24 See Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., pp. 194-95. LMA 10.6.8: « ...loquitur (i.e. liber Alchurani) ita equivoce et multipliciter, ut sepissime sibimet contradicit... » (Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate, op. cit., p. 380). 25 See Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 937, where editor U. Roth lists five references to this passage. Admittedly, some of these references are allusions rather than direct or verbatim citations. 26 Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, 31.418-19, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 702: «Sigillum namque confirmat potius quam annullat scripturam, cui additur, si verum sigillum est... »

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

testaments, the Qur’ān misrepresents the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament and between these Scriptures and the Qur’ān itself.27 As Santiago Madrigal has emphasized, in making this claim Segovia endeavors to place Islam within a trajectory of salvation history that moves from natural law to the Mosaic law to the law of grace or Gospel.28 Interestingly, Segovia uses the qur’ānic text not only to locate Islam in his vision of heilsgeschichte and to criticize the Qur’ān itself, but also to challenge Christian theologians to prepare themselves more adequately for debate with Muslims who misconstrue the relationship between Law and Gospel.29 As is well-known, desire for peaceful interaction with Muslims characterrized Segovia’s engagement with Islam. Accordingly, he uses the Qur’ān to support his irenic via pacis et doctrinae. For example, toward the beginning of the De gladio, he writes: One should not doubt that the Saracens themselves are eager for those things that treat of peace, since their own law enjoins them to seek peace. For it [i.e. the Qur’ān] says: «Do not be despisers, but love peace and invite peace, for in that way you will be worthier and more powerful».30

The reference is to Sura 47:35-36. Segovia includes a nearly identical statement with the very same citation from the Qur’ān in his letter to Cusa in 1454.31 Since this passage is seemingly at odds with the numerous qur’ānic texts Segovia marshals to illustrate how the Qur’ān encourages violence and aggression,32 this reference to Sura 47 underscores Segovia’s ambivalence

See Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate, 10.42.10, op. cit., p. 496. See Madrigal Terrazas, S., «Lex Christi, lex Moysi, lex Machometi: Juan de Segovia y la polémica anti-islámica», in P. Rodríguez Panizo, S. Castro Sánchez, and F. Millán Romeral (eds.), Umbra, imago, veritas: homenaje a los profesores Manuel Gesteira, Eusebio Gil y Antonio Vargas-Machuca, Madrid, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2004, pp. 339-365; and idem, «Judios, moros y cristianos», op. cit. One finds the same trajectory in other medieval authors, notably Hugh of Saint Victor, On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (De sacramentis), transl. R.J. Deferrari, Cambridge, MA, Medieval Academy of America, 1951, p. 149. 29 See Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate, 10.42.10, op. cit., p. 496. 30 Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, 3.71-74, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 60: «Nec diffidendum est Sarracenos ipsos audire velle ea, quae pacis sunt, quoniam, ut ad pacem intendant, lex praecipit eorum. Dicit namque: ‘Non sitis contemptores, sed pacem diligite eamque vocate, quoniam vos digniores et potentiores Existitis’». See also Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., p. 179. 31 Cited in ibid., p. 192. 32 See, e.g. Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, 10, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 178-92; and Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate, 10.6.2, op. cit., p. 378. 28

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

toward Islam and the Qur’ān. 33 He knows and repeats the commonplace Christian view of the violent Muslim, but his plan for peaceful exchange nonetheless drives him to identify and deploy a peace-loving passage that strengthens his case. Intriguingly, Segovia does not use this text, as Petrus Alfonsi might have done, to emphasize the internal contradictions within the Qur’ān.34 Rather, as Anne Marie Wolf has rightly argued, Segovia uses this text primarily to persuade Christians of the possibility for pacific interaction with Muslims and perhaps also to remind Muslims themselves of this aspect of their own scriptural tradition.35 As an integral part of pacific interaction,36 Segovia envisions a theological exchange between Christians and Muslims that he occasionally calls contraferentia or sometimes collatio.37 Here again he uses the Qur’ān to justify and support his vision for interreligious dialogue. 38 Toward this end, Segovia shows a notable fondness for Sura 29:46 — a passage he cites explicitly and verbatim in several different writings.39 Translated from Ketton’s Latin this 33

On this ambivalence, see Burman, Reading the Qur’ān, op. cit., p. 193. For examples of similar ambivalence in other medieval authors, see George-Tvrtković, Christians, Muslims, and Mary, op. cit., chap. 4. 34 See Monnot, G., «Les citations coraniques dans le ‘Dialogue’ de Pierre Alfonse», in H. Gilles et al. (eds.), Islam et chrétiens du Midi (XIIe – XIVe s.), Cahiers de Fanjeaux 18, Toulouse, E. Privat, 1983, p. 265: «Après avoir vilipendé la violence, il [i.e., Petrus Alfonsi] s’emploie par des citations coraniques précises, explicites et multipliées, à souligner que cette violence est opposée à la doctrine même du Coran. Il y a donc contradiction à l’interieur de l’Islam». 35 See Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., pp. 192-93. 36 In contrast to Cabanelas, Wolf, ibid., pp. 176ff. argues against an «ordered process» in Segovia’s «plan» for such interaction. 37 On Segovia’s occasional and inconsistent use of the term contraferentia, see ibid., pp. 177-78. The term collatio appears, e.g., in Johannes de Segovia, De gladio, 3.76, op. cit., p. 60; and ibid., 7.185, op. cit., p. 144. 38 Segovia’s plan for such dialogue seems to me to belong to the «culture of disputation» described by Alex J. Novikoff. See Novikoff, A.J., «Toward a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation», American Historical Review, 117/2 (2012), pp. 331-64; and idem, The Medieval Culture of Disputation: Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Novikoff provides a potential precedent for Segovia’s use of the term collatio in the work of Peter the Chanter (d. 1197) who «urged fellow theologians to fashion their debates not into altercations (altercationes) but into more productive conversations (collationes)». See Novikoff, «Toward a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation», op. cit., p. 349. 39 See Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate, 10.6.5, op. cit., p. 379; De gladio, 3.79-81, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 60; and Replica magne continencie (= Letter to Germain; cited by U. Roth in Johannes de Segovia, De gladio, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 61, n. 29). U. Roth (ibid.) has

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

passage reads, «You [i.e. the Muslim] should speak with all men of laws [a common qur’ānic expression for Christians], except for the evil ones, and always debate with them using honest or sincere words».40 Clearly Segovia saw in this verse qur’ānic approbation of his plan for interreligious dialogue. When citing Sura 29 in the LMA, Segovia acknowledges that many people (he may have Riccoldo da Montecroce in mind) wrongly think that the Qur’ān prohibits such dialogue.41 Segovia’s citation disproves this perception — at least to his own satisfaction — such that he must find other reasons, notably fear of being bested, for what he considers the Muslim reluctance to engage in theological disputation.42 Once again, Segovia cites the Qur’ān to persuade both Christians and Muslims, and in that order. Like his contemporaries, Segovia could use the Qur’ān to rehearse medieval anti-Islamic commonplaces, but he also invokes qur’ānic authority to buttress a distinctive approach to Christian-Muslim relations. Thus, while contemporaries such as Heymericus de Campo might use the Qur’ān to support conciliarist ecclesiology, 43 and others such as Nicholas of Cusa employed pia interpretatio to turn the Qur’ān into a source for Christian doctrine,44 Segovia uses the Qur’ān, admittedly among other uses, to endorse his way of peace and doctrine. Common to all, of course — as Norman Daniel noted — is the assumption that qur’ānic authority can and should serve Christian ends.

recognized the importance of this passage for Segovia. This is an appropriate place to note that this text is mistranslated in my «Juan de Segovia on the Superiority of Christians», op. cit., p. 155. 40 «Omnes viri/homines legum preter malos honestis verbis disputando semper alloqui ...». Some authors understood viri legum as referring to Jews as well as Christians, see Daniel, Islam and the West, op. cit., p. 347. 41 Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate, 10.6.5, op. cit., p. 379 («ut multi putant»). On Riccoldo’s view, see Riccoldo da Monte di Croce, Contra legem Sarracenorum, c. 15, ed. J.M. Mérigoux, «L’ouvrage d’un frere precheur florentin en orient a la fin du XIIIe siècle», Fede e controversia nel ‘300 e ‘500: Memorie Domenicane, 17 (1986), p. 133. See also Tolan, Saracens, op. cit., p. 253. 42 See Johannes de Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate, 10.6.5, op. cit., p. 379. 43 See Hamann, F. «Der Koran als ekklesiologische Autorität bei Heymericus de Campo (†1460)», Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, 50 (2003), pp. 150-62; and idem, «Koran und Konziliarismus: Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis von Heymericus de Campo und Nikolaus von Kues», Vivarium, 43/2 (2005), pp. 275-291. 44 On pia intepretatio, see Hagemann, L. Der Kur’ān in Verständnis und Kritik bei Nikolas von Kues: Ein Beitrag zur Erhellung islamisch-christlicher Geschichte, Frankfurter Theologische Studien 21, Frankfurt am Main, Josef Knecht, 1976, p. 72; and Biechler, «A New Face toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia», op. cit., pp. 199-200.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

Although Segovia sometimes employs the language of elimination or extermination in relation to Islam,45 his ultimate goal was to convert Muslims in order to save their souls.46 Soteriology was thus fundamental to Segovia’s project. While salvation for Segovia meant recognition of and assent to essential doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, it also involved acceptance of and engagement with practices — practices aimed at remedying sin and communicating grace. 47 In Consideratio 16 of the De gladio, Juan addresses Islam’s lack of sacraments and the corresponding hopelessness resulting from this lack. As he puts it, «it is clear from their law that the Saracens have no sacrament the observing of which would allow them to rejoice as participants in divine grace...».48 Segovia’s subsequent discussion of baptism, penance and the Eucharist — Christian sacraments that involve respectively remission of sins, absolution of sins committed after baptism, and spiritual nourishment as support against sin — contrasts the two religions by juxtaposing their sacred texts. Much is traditional here.49 The contrast takes Christian practice as normative and 45

For this extermination language, see, e.g., Segovia’s letter to Cusa (cited in ibid., p. 191 n. 18). 46 See Mann, «Juan de Segovia on the Superiority of Christians», op. cit., p. 152. 47 On the growing importance of sin and salvation in Segovia’s thought as a result of his qur’ānic studies, see Roth and Scotto, «Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran: Die Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis des Juan de Segovia», op. cit., p. 202. On the particular focus of Spaniards on Islamic practices, see Bunes Ibarra, M.A. de, «La evolución de la polémica anti-islámica en los teólogos españoles del primer Renacimiento», in H. Santiago-Otero (ed.), Diálogo filosófico-religioso entre el Cristianismo, Judaísmo e Islamismo durante la Edad Media en la Península Ibérica, Brussels, Brepols, 1994, pp. 414-415. Daniel, Islam and the West, op. cit., p. 253, suggests that the Christians who cared about Muslim practices were those who had actual contact with Muslims. On Segovia’s experience with Muslims, see Álvarez-Gómez, Über die Bedingungen des Friedens im Glauben, op. cit., pp. 15-16; and Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit. For further background on medieval religious practices from an interreligious perspective, see Martínez Gázquez, J. and Tolan, J.V. (eds.), Ritus infidelium: Miradas interconfesionales sobre las prácticas religiosas en la Edad Media, Collection de la Casa de Velázquez 138, Madrid, Casa de Velázquez, 2013, especially the essay by Antoni Biosca i Bas (pp. 29-44). 48 Johannes de Segovia, De gladio, 16.7-8, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 328: «[Sarraceni]..., quantum apparet ex lege eorum, nullum habent sacramentum, quod observantes Gloriari possint divinae gratiae fieri participes... ». Bobzin, H. «A Treasury of Heresies: Christian Polemics against the Koran», op. cit., p. 168, notes the conviction, present in Luther and more recent Christian commentators, that «Islam is barely anything other than ritual, but a ritual without mysteries and sacraments». 49 On the traditional Christian polemic against Islam’s pseudo-sacraments or lack of sacraments, see Daniel, Islam and the West, op. cit., pp. 220-254.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

assumes its superiority. Segovia thus cites the Qur’ān in this context in order to reveal Islam’s inadequacies. Of course, practice implies or perhaps provokes a theology. Not surprisingly, Segovia begins his examination of sacrament by invoking a classic medieval definition from Augustine by way of Peter Lombard: «a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace».50 When Segovia then cites Sura 4:43 and 5:6 verbatim, he does so to conclude that the Islamic ablutions described in these suras do not move beyond common external washing and thus do not rise to the level of sacrament.51 Relatedly, according to Segovia, the qur’ānic text demonstrates that Muhammed neither employed the proper form nor displayed a proper sacramental intent when he enjoined such washing. In contrast, Jesus’ institution of baptism in John 3:5 («unless a man be born again of water... ») includes proper form, intent, and salvific purpose.52 Similarly, in the case of penance, Segovia contrasts John 20:23 (in a conciliarist or at least non-Petrine interpretation) with Sura 5:39-40 to show that while Muhammed only gave general advice about forgiveness in his law, Jesus established the specific authority to forgive sins.53 Moreover, citing Sura 5:7-8 and Sura 9:102-105, Segovia criticizes the qur’ānic notion of confession as fundamentally different from and inferior to Christian confession, as exclusively internal not oral, and as altogether too easy.54 In turning to the Eucharist, that sacrament of most singular grace, Segovia notes that Islam has nothing similar and, in fact, he recalls from personal experience that Muslims mock Christians for eating their God.55 Because the Eucharist is a sacrifice as well as a sacrament, Segovia here uses the Qur’ān, notably Sura 22:26-30, to discuss Muslim sacrifices. These he connects with the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Mosaic Law. Particularly noteworthy is Segovia’s interest in Muslim practice around animal sacrifice. Citing a certain 50

Johannes de Segovia, De gladio, 16.28, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 330: «... quod sit invisibilis gratiae visible signum...». Cf. Peter Lombard, The Sentences, 4.1.2 transl. G. Silano. 4 vols., Mediaeval Sources in Translation 42-43, 45, 48, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007-2010, vol. 4, p. 3. 51 Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, 16.30, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 330. 52 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 328-30. See also Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, op. cit., pp. 288-293, 301. 53 Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, 1648ff., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 332. For background, see also Wei, J.C., Gratian the Theologian, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 13, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2016, p. 71 with n. 2. 54 Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, 16, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 332-34. 55 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 334-36.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

gloss to Sura 22, he observes that Islam sometimes permits camel sacrifice even while the Mosaic Law (Lev 11:4) views camels as unclean. He writes that, «from the beginning of my qur’ānic studies and in all the intervening years, I could not find any Muslim or anyone knowledgeable about Islamic ceremonies who could tell me whether and how this camel sacrifice occurred».56 That he even sought such an interlocutor is itself telling. Segovia’s treatment of these three salvific sacraments provides a fine illustration of his polemical purpose as well as his underlying soteriological concerns. He concludes his discussion by saying that Muslims have no hope of salvation in part because they haven’t a single sacrament «by which they can be certain to receive forgiveness of their sins». 57 Although not exactly presented in dialogue form, Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān in this discussion and his very juxtapositioning of qur’ānic and biblical texts may also be seen as rather unexpected examples of interreligious dialogue. In this case, the dialogue partners are simply texts, not people. As Averil Cameron has argued, commentary and exegesis are themselves forms of dialogue,58 and Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān in the De gladio may rightly be considered scriptural commentary or exegesis. This reliance upon scripture, be it qur’ānic or biblical, should remind us that, despite his well-known confidence in natural reason’s role, Segovia also

Ibid., vol. 1, p. 336: «Sed utrum hoc et quomodo fiat, non affirmatur. Nusquam enim post coeptum studium huius libri nec a pluribus citra annis horum scriptori avisamentorum opportunum se obtulit de materia sectae huius conferre cum aliquo ex Sarracenis vel alio sciente caeremonias eorum». 57 Ibid, vol. 1, p. 340: «Quocirca per supra exposita patet Sarracenis nullam esse spem beatitudinis obtinendae a deo... quia nullum sacramentum penes se habent, susceptione cuius certi esse possent remissionem habere peccatorum...». The focus on certitude of forgiveness and thus certitude of salvation presages 16th-century debates between Catholics and Protestants. See Schreiner, S., Are You Alone Wise?: The Search for Certainty in the Early Modern Era, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011. 58 Cameron, A. «Can Christians Do Dialogue?», Studia Patristica, 63 (2012), p. 107. For contemporary examples of a somewhat similar side-by-side presentation and examination of qur’ānic and biblical texts, see Lodahl, M., Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur’ān Side by Side, Grand Rapids, MI, Brazos, 2010; and Ipgrave, M. (ed.), Scriptures in Dialogue: Christians and Muslims Studying the Bible and the Qur’ān Together, London, Church House Publishing, 2004. Of course, the assumptions and attitudes of these modern efforts at dialogic reading differ significantly from those of Segovia and all other medievals.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

recognized the value of scriptural authority in interreligious dialogue.59 Of course, the twist that Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān introduces is that the scriptural authority he invokes is the scripture of the other. Cusa similarly recognized the authority of the Qur’ān among Muslims. As he wrote to Segovia, «thus it seems that we should always strive to invoke this book [i.e., the Qur’ān], that has such authority for them, in ways favorable to us».60 I’d suggest that in recognizing and invoking the authority of the Qur’ān, Segovia (and perhaps Cusa too) is simply following the rules of academic theological debate as he knew them. According to Thomas Aquinas, for example, «in such theological disputation one must most especially make use of authorities that one’s interlocutors accept», particularly when one’s aim is to remove doubt about the matter in question.61 We can thus attribute a pedagogical purpose to Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān. However, we might rightly ask just who his students should be. In the Summa contra Gentiles — a work Segovia sometimes drew upon but apparently did not own — Aquinas asserts that when presenting supra59

On reason in Segovia, see Biechler, «A New Face toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia», op. cit., p. 193; Sanz Santacruz, «Juan de Segovia y Nicolás de Cusa frente al Islam: su comprensión intelectualista de la fe cristiana», op. cit., pp. 191-93; and Álvarez-Gómez, Über die Bedingungen des Friedens im Glauben, op. cit., pp. 12-13. On the use of scripture in medieval Christian-Muslim debate, see Griffith, S., «Arguing from Scripture: The Bible in the Christian-Muslim Encounter in the Middle Ages», in Th.J. Heffernan and Th.E. Burman (eds.), Scripture and Pluralism: Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 29-58, especially, p. 45, where Griffith writes that «...in addition to claiming the authority of the Bible for the positions they espouse, some Christian writers also laid claim to the authority of the Qur’ān...». On Aquinas’s exclusive reliance on natural reasoning in interreligious dialogue, see Valkenberg, «Polemics, Apologetics, and Dialogue as Forms of Interreligious Communication between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages», op. cit., pp. 381-82. 60 Nicolaus de Cusa, De pace fidei cum epistula ad Ioannem de Segobia, op. Cit., p. 99: «Unde videtur quod semper ad hoc conandum sit quod liber iste, qui apud eos est in auctoritate, pro nobis allegetur». 61 Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones de quolibet 4.9. a.3, ed. Fratres praedicatorum, in Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia, vol. 25/2, Roma, Commissio Leonina, 1996, p. 339: «...in tali disputatione theologica maxime utendum est auctoritatibus, quas recipiunt illi cum quibus disputatur...». On this passage, see Jordan, M. D. Teaching Bodies: Moral Formation in the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, New York, Fordham University Press, 2017, pp. 76-77. In this text, Aquinas gives the example of using the Old Testament when debating with Jews. See also Valkenberg, «Polemics, Apologetics, and Dialogue as Forms of Interreligious Communication between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages», op. cit., p. 378.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

rational truths one might adduce certain arguments that are not intended to convince one’s adversaries but rather «to exercise and console the faithful».62 Although the specific context may differ, Segovia’s pedagogical purpose clearly shares this aim and audience. That is, in his use of the Qur’ān, Segovia seeks above all to instruct Christians and to prepare them for disputational engagement with Muslims. Mark Jordan’s comment on the passage from Aquinas is relevant here: «Resolving doubts by disputation not only strengthens conviction, it stretches memory and builds capacity for recognizing truth across topics and language... Disputation through authorities must also count as consoling meditation on divine truth...».63 Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān serves both to stretch and console his coreligionists. Whether his invocation and application of qur’ānic authority should prove convincing to Muslims is obviously a different matter, even assuming that Juan thought it would be convincing to them. Of course, defining the self requires encounter with the «other».64 According to David Bertaina, in his recent discussion of Christians and the Qur’ān, «Christians have appropriated qur’ānic authority for a variety of usages including apologetics, polemics, translation, theological reflection, evangelization, and academic purposes». 65 Given his aim, Bertaina understandably presents these as discrete usages or approaches. Interestingly, however, Segovia’s engagement with the Qur’ān — even within a single text, the De gladio — includes almost all of these strategies, though admittedly not all to the same extent. Like an apologist, he «cites the Qur’ān as an authority 62

Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles 1.9, ed. Fratres praedicatorum, in Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia, vol. 13, Roma, Typis Riccardi Garroni, 1918, p. 22: «Sunt tamen ad huiusmodi veritatem manifestandam rationes aliquae verisimiles inducendae, ad fidelium quidem exercitium et solatium, non autem ad adversarios convincendos». On Segovia’s use of this Summa, see Scotto, «Inseguire l’Islām tra memoria e teologia spigolature su Juan de Segovia intorno al 1427», op. cit., pp 117-18. This work is not included in Segovia’s library; see Hernández Montes, B., Biblioteca de Juan de Segovia: Edición y comentario de su escritura de donación, Bibliotheca theologica hispana. Serie 2a, Textos 3, Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Francisco Suárez, 1984. 63 Jordan, M. D., Teaching Bodies: Moral Formation in the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., pp. 87-88. 64 See Valkenberg, «Polemics, Apologetics, and Dialogue as Forms of Interreligious Communication between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages», op. cit., p. 383: «......the formation of the self requires the presence of the others». Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., pp. 206-207, argues that Segovia was genuinely interested in conversion and not merely in the fortification of Christians’ confidence or pride. 65 Bertaina, «Christians and the Qur’ān», op. cit., p. 279.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM

to demonstrate that Christian faith and practice agree with Qur’ānic interpretation».66 As we have seen, and like a polemicist, Segovia claims that «the Qur’ān is flawed» in various ways. 67 In keeping with the work of other Christian translators, Segovia produces a tri-lingual translation «in order to understand the Qur’ān properly and to refute its content».68 His is certainly «an attempt to be as accurate as possible in its renderings of lexical and linguistic meanings of the Arabic».69 Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān also involves theological reflection — on the nature of religious practices for example. But unlike the modern theological investigation Bertaina refers to, Segovia’s theological investigation of the Qur’ān does not «seek to understand the text fully on its own terms».70 Although famously skeptical about the efficacy of missions,71 Segovia envisions an intellectual mission or mission of intellectuals ultimately aimed at learned Muslims, and his use of the Qur’ān, notably the frequent juxtaposition of qur’ānic and biblical texts, serves as preparation for that mission. As regards academic purpose, one cannot attribute to Segovia the supposed academic objectivity of subsequent centuries, but one can see how his criticism of the Qur’ān’s inconsistencies and his desire for philological accuracy could contribute to the so-called «higher criticism» of sacred texts.72 In sum, Juan de Segovia’s use of the Qur’ān suggests or exemplifies each of Bertaina’s several strategies for Christian engagement with the Qur’ān. Not surprisingly, just as he read the Qur’ān in various ways, Segovia also used or cited the Qur’ān in various ways, for various ends and even, at least potentially, for various audiences. We end, then, with three summary conclusions. First, Segovia saw in the Qur’ān some justification for his distinctive approach to Muslim-Christian relations, and he cites the pertinent qur’ānic passages to support his position. Second, as he became increasingly concerned with sin and soteriology in connection with Islam, Segovia used a comparison of qur’ānic and biblical texts about practices or sacraments to underscore 66 Ibid., p. 283. See the title of Johannes von Segovia, De gladio, 7, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 130: «Septima consideratio de spe multitudinis convertendae Sarracenorum eorum lege plurimas, quae inseruntur, affirmante veritates catholicae fidei, quantum vero ad mores virtutes quam plurimas in evangelio contentas persuadente». 67 Bertaina, «Christians and the Qur’ān», op. cit., p. 283. 68 Ibid. See Burman, Reading the Qur’ān, op. cit., pp. 178-197. Interestingly, Bertaina does not include Segovia’s work is his list of Christian translations, perhaps because the text has not survived. 69 Bertaina, «Christians and the Qur’ān», op. cit., p. 283. 70 Ibid., p. 284. This is not to deny that Segovia occasionally showed significant interest in, and appreciation for, Muslim interpretation of the Qur’ān. 71 See, e.g., Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace, op. cit., pp. 153-54. 72 See Burman, Reading the Qur’ān, op. cit., p. 195; and Lazarus-Yafeh, H., Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JESSE D. MANN

what he perceived to be Islam’s inadequacy around forgiveness of sins. Third, Segovia recognized the importance of scriptural authority as well as reason in interreligious dialogue. His invocation of qur’ānic authority was intended at least as much to educate and prepare Christians for that dialogue as it was to persuade possible Muslim dialogue partners. The title of a key source for this brief paper, De gladio, may rightly remind some (especially those who cannot quote Ephesians 6:17 or Hebrews 4:12 from memory) that «the pen can be mightier than the sword».73 In keeping with this adage and its biblical precedents, Juan de Segovia’s varied use of the Qur’ān illustrates how texts, above all sacred texts, can indeed be weaponized, even for peaceful purposes. Jesse D. Mann jmann@drew.edu Fecha de recepción: 03/02/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 16/04/2019

This phrase may be traced to Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s 1839 play Richelieu, Or the Conspiracy, but its roots lie even earlier. See https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/thepen-is-mightier-than-the-sword.html.

___________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 79-96

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND PIUS II ON THE ISLAMIC PROMISE OF PARADISE Thomas M. Izbicki Rutgers University

Abstract Western Christianity had a long history of polemics against Islam. That included rejecting Muhammad’s idea of paradise as excessively «carnal». In the mid-15th century, three members of the Roman curia took differing approaches to the Otto-mans as Muslims. Pius II tried to persuade the sultan to give up Islam, offering him a «better» paradise. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa sought evidence of the gospels in the Qur’an, but he rejected the Prophet’s «carnal» view of the afterlife. Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, a Dominican, offered a more thorough and negative view of Islam, denouncing carnality but also treating the Qur’anic description of paradise as impossi-ble, requiring an unending multiplication of locations in the afterlife for devout Muslims. Torquemada also offered a Thomistic view of the risen body as incapable not just of sexual pleasure but a free from worldly suffering. Keywords Juan de Torquemada; Nicholas of Cusa; Pius II; paradise, Islamic belief; Christian polemics against Islam

By the mid-fifteenth century, the Ottoman Turks were a serious threat to Western Christendom, militarily, religiously and culturally. The Turks were Muslims and, from a Western viewpoint, barbarians.1 Moreover, the religion they embraced, Islam, was seen as a threat to Christian values, promising

1 Bisaha, N., «’New Barbarians’ or Worthy Adversaries? Humanist Constructs of the Ottoman Turks in Fifteenth-Century Italy», in D.R. Blanks and M. Frassetto (eds.), Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Perception of the Other, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1999, pp. 185-205; Meserve, M., Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2008.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

believers a paradise of delights.2 Thus apologists for Western European values felt compelled, as we shall see, to denounce the Islamic view of the afterlife of luxury and sexual indulgence. They also argued, whether in a rhetorical or a theological mode, that the Christian idea of the afterlife was superior, offering intellectual pleasure and a glorified body, much better than bodily pleasure. In 1453 the forces of Sultan Mehmed II captured Constantinople, which became their capital, Istanbul. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini described this capture as «another death for Homer», as well as a threat to Western Christendom.3 The Ottoman sultan did not stop there, expanding through the Balkans until forced by a crusading host to retreat from Belgrade in 1456.4 This is where matters stood when Callixtus III died in 1458, leaving the leadership of Christendom in doubt. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini was elected to succeed him as Pius II. Some cardinals resisted Piccolomini’s candidacy on the grounds that his ill health would hinder the conduct of a crusade to turn back the Turks.5 Perhaps because of the opposition to his candidacy, Pius II made the crusade a large part of his papal policy.6 The first step toward a crusade was the effort to mobilize the princes of Europe at the Congress of Mantua (1459). The princes, who had their own agendas, greeted the pope’s policy, presented in one of his Latin orations, with 2

Southern, R.W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1962, pp. 27-32, 37-42; Daniel, N., Islam and the West. The Making of an Image, rev. ed., Oxford, One World, 1993, pp. 302-337. 3 Runciman, S., The Fall of Constantinople 1453, repr. ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990; Babinger, F., Mehmed the Conqueror and His Times, trans. R. Manheim, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 87-101. Izbicki, T.M., Christianson G., Krey Ph. (eds.), Reject Aeneas, Accept Pius. Selected Letters of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2006, pp. 306-318. 4 Inalcik, H., «The Ottoman Turks and the Crusades, 1451-1522», in ed. H.W. Hazard and N.P. Zacour (eds), A History of the Crusade, vol. 6, Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press, 1989, pp. 311-353 at pp. 322-324; Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Times, pp. 137-150. 5 For Piccolomini’s presentation of his success, see Pius II, Commentaries, trans. M. Meserve and M. Simonetta, vol. 1, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2003, pp. 176-203. A more wide-ranging analysis is presented in Baldi, B., Pio II e la trasformazioni dell’Europa (1457-1464), Milano, Unicopoli, 2006, pp. 3-28. On Torquemada, see Izbicki, T.M., Protector of the Faith. Cardinal Johannes de Turrecremata and the Defense of the Institutional Church, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1981. 6 O’Brien, E., The Commentaries of Pope Pius II (1458-1464) and the Crises of the FifteenthCentury Papacy, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2015; von Martels, Z., «More Matter and Less Art’. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini and the Delicate Balance between Eloquent Words and Deeds», in von Martels, Z., and A. Vanderjagt (eds.), Pius II, «El Piu Expeditivo Pontefice», Leiden, Brill, 2003, pp. 205-227.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA

little enthusiasm. Pius later complained that most of his cardinals were not supportive. Among the cardinals, a Greek (Bessarion of Nicaea) and a Spaniard (Juan de Torquemada), once his opponents in the conclave, did back him.7 The remainder of Pius’ pontificate would see efforts to win the religious conflict by warfare, propaganda or religious diplomacy.8 The chief crusade apologists in this period were Pius himself, Juan de Torquemada, and Nicholas of Cusa. They wrote about Islam in different ways with different outcomes in mind, although, as will be shown, they shared common ground. Pius II was a man of letters, master of a pungent Latin style. He wrote a letter, addressed to Mehmed II with which he may have hoped to persuade the sultan to convert.9 It is more likely that the pope was engaging in crusade polemic, hoping to shame Europe’s princes to give up selfish advantage in the cause of Christendom. Whatever his motivation, Pius left the work unpublished at his death in 1464. The text itself is a mixture of persuasion and diatribe, possibly reflecting its author’s mixed motives or a desire to show Mehmed the advantages of converting and the disadvantages of remaining a Muslim.10 At the Council of Basel, Cusanus shared study of Islam with the Castilian theologian John of Segovia, who commissioned a trilingual translation of the

Russell, J.G., Diplomats at Work. Three Renaissance Studies, Stroud, Alan Sutton, 1992, pp. 51-93; Baldi, Pio II, pp. 147-170. Bessarion and Torquemada had resisted Aeneas’ election because of their desire for a healthy crusading pope; see Pius II, Commentaries, vol. 1, pp. 182-183, 194-197. On their support of the crusade, see Pius II, Commentaries, vol. 2, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2007, pp. 10-11. 8 Pius’ pontificate was not entirely devoted to opposing the Turks. He also was involved in Italian politics and trying to secure revocation of the French Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1439), which imposed reforms on the Church in the interest of royal power. Baldi, Pio II, pp. 107-146; Lewis, P.S., «The Concordat of 1472. An Essay on the Relations between Louis XI and Sixtus IV», in Lewis, P.S., (ed.), The Recovery of France in the Fifteenth Century, New York, Harper and Row, 1972, pp. 102-184. 9 Mehmed was known to have devotion to Mary; see George-Tvrtković, R., Christians, Muslims, and Mary. A History, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2018, p. 48; George-Tvrtković, R., «Bridge or Barrier? Mary and Islam in William of Tripoli and Nicholas of Cusa», Medieval Encounters, 22 (2016), pp. 307-325. Cusanus urged Christians to pray for the sultan’s conversion; see George-Tvrtković, R., Christians, Muslims, and Mary, op. cit., p. 104. 10 Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Epistle to Mohammed II), ed. and trans. A.R. Baca, New York, Peter Lang, 1990. Mercan, O., Constructing a Self-Image in the Image of the Other. Political and Religious Interpretation of Pope Pius II’s Letter to Mehmed II (1461), Budapest, Central European University, 2008; Bisaha, N., «Pope Pius II’s Letter to Sultan Mehmed II. A Reexamination», Crusades, 1 (2002), pp. 183-200.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

100

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

Qur’an (now lost).11 When Cusanus left Basel, he voyaged to Constantinople in support of Eugenius IV’s council of union with the Greeks. In Pera he was shown an Arabic text owned by the Franciscans, and he found a copy of Robert of Ketton’s Latin text at the Dominican convent. After returning to Italy, Cusanus would annotate two copies of the Qur’an in hope of better understanding Islam.12 After the fall of Constantinople, Nicholas would hypothesize a celestial gathering which would find common ground among the world’s religions.13 Later, Cusanus would employ his study of Islam in a detailed exegetical study of the Qur’an, the Cribratio Alchorani, which he addressed to Pius II, saying he hoped to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel from the Qur’an.14 The Cribratio was not the first curial writing against Islam written during Pius’ pontificate. In the preface of the Cribratio, Nicholas mentioned Juan de Torquemada, the Cardinal of San Sisto, «who with cogent reasons refutes the heresies and the errors of Muhammad.» Torquemada too addressed his tract, Tractatus contra principales errores perfidi Machometi, to Pius II. Completed in 1459, it must be understood in the context of the failed Congress of Mantua. Torquemada referred to this meeting as a forthcoming dieta located near enough to the Alps for the Ultramontane princes to be represented there: «Many other places being inconvenient to accommodate it, the diet will be celebrated at a time in a certain place near the Ultramontane provinces, with the coming there of the princes to whom the protection of the Church was assigned long ago».15 He described the savaging of Christian peoples «disturbed,

Roth, U., «Juan of Segovia’s Translation of the Qur’ān» al-Qantara. Revista de estudios árabes, 35 (2014), pp. 555-578. 12 Martínez Gázquez, J., «Nicolás de Cusa y las glosas del ms. Vat. Lat. 4071 para la redacción de la Cribratio Alkorani», Bulletí de la Real Acadèmia de Bones Lletres de Barcelona, 54 (2013-2014 [2016]), pp. 103-116; Martínez Gázquez, «A New Set of Glosses to the Latin Qur’an Made by Nicholas of Cusa (MS Vat. Lat. 4071», Medieval Encounters, 21 (2015), pp. 295-309; Biechler, J.E., «Three Manuscripts on Islam from the Library of Nicholas of Cusa», Manuscripta, 27 (1983), pp. 91-100. 13 Nicolai de Cusa Opera Omnia, vol. 7, De pace fidei; Hopkins, J. (trans.), Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, 2 vols., Minneapolis, Banning 2010, vol. 1, pp. 631-676; Nicholas of Cusa on Interreligious Harmony, ed. J.E. Biechler and H.L. Bond, Lewiston, Edwin Mellen, 1990. 14 Martínez Gázquez, «A New Set of Glosses to the Latin Qur’an», op. cit., p. 299. On the dedication of the Cribratio, see Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 8, pp. 5-6; Hopkins, Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 965-966. 15 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 57r-150r at fol. 57r, «Aliisque incomodis multis certo loco propinquo ultramontaneis prouinciis pro tempore acomodare. Ubi aduenientibus christianis principibus quibus tutella ecclesie diutius est consignata celebraretur dieta.»

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA

101

molested» by the Turks in hope of mobilizing lay support for the crusade.16 The cardinal also hoped that a crusade would promote the internal peace of Christendom.17 Like many other polemics against Islam, this tract depended on the Christian sources and a Latin Qur’an, in this case probably the less-known translation by Mark of Toledo. Torquemada made direct use of this text, as can be demonstrated from his reference to «chapter twenty-four» concerning the unwillingness of angels to reverence men because they were born of fire but humanity from mud.18 The author’s approach, as noted above, was relentlessly systematic; and its tone was harsh, frequently calling the Prophet «bestial». Taking up past terminology for Muslims, the tract refers to the Turks as Saracens.19 Toward the end of his tract, Torquemada urged the princes of Europe to take up the cross and defeat the Ottomans.20 Torquemada had not previously focused on Islam in his writings. His previous targets included not just conciliarists and Hussites but the Old Christians of Toledo who had attacked Jewish converts as incapable of being true Christians.21 Torquemada would not write another tract on Islam after 16

The dedication to Pius II speaks in general terms of the Turks persecuting Christians, but there is no mention of Constantinople or other Turkish conquests; see Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 57r, «per diuersas orbis prouincias Christianum populum Turchus perturbat & infestat ut demolire eum festinet» The text goes on to speak of Ottoman territorial ambitions. For a suggestion that Pius II commissioned the tract, see Echeveria, A., The Fortress of Faith. The Attitudes toward Muslims in Fifteenth-Century Spain, Leiden, Brill, 1999, p. 45. 17 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 57v. Torquemada urged Pius to light a flame not just to defend the faith, but «Ad pacem et quitem populi christiani incencederit»; see fol. 57r. 18 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 111v. Burman, Reading the Qur’ān, op. cit., pp. 17-18, 23-24, 40-41, 44, 123-133. The author owes his reference to Mark’s translation to Rita George-Tvrtković. 19 Adeva, I., «Juan de Torquemada y su Tractatus contra principales errores perfidi Machometi et Turcorum sive Saracenorum (1459)», Anuario de historia de la iglesia, 16 (2007), pp. 195-208; Cantarino, V., «Juan de Torquemada’s Crusade against Islam», in B. Lewis and F. Newöhner (eds.), Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1992, pp. 237-250. The text survives in fourteen manuscripts and four early editions; see Kaeppeli, T., Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum medii aevi, vol. 3, Roma, Ad S. Sabinae, 1980, pp. 38-39 no. 2732. 20 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 145v-149v. 21 Juan de Torquemada, Tractatus contra Madianitas et Ismaelitas (Defensa de los Judios Conversos), ed. N. Lopez Martinez and V. Proaño Gil, Burgos, Hijos de S. Rodríguez, 1957. Izbicki, T.M., «Juan de Torquemada´s Defense of the Conversos», Catholic Historical Review, 85 (1999), pp. 195-207.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

102

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

1459, but he did write two years later to instruct the Bogomils of Bosnia in the true faith. This tract fit into Pope Pius’ efforts to win the Bosnians to orthodoxy just as they were in danger of being overrun by the Ottomans. However, it makes no mention of the Ottoman threat. Despite this silence about the Turkish menace, Bosnia’s fortunes turned for the worst, with Mehmed II overrunning the kingdom two years later.22 However, in his last years, during the pontificate of Paul II, Torquemada would write a collection of questions based on Gospel readings from the liturgical lectionary. Treating the celestial banquet described in Luke 14, he argued that the feast would be spiritual, not corporeal. In this context he criticized the Epicureans and Muhammad for embracing bodily pleasures. This he contrasted not just with Christian belief, but with the opinions of most philosophers: «Therefore, it is necessary to posit that blessedness is in the soul according to the philosophers, although some, like the Epicureans and Muhammad posit blessedness in the good things of the body».23 Once again, the Prophet was denounced as «stupid», the life he promised as «bestial», «not of human beings but of sheep». Torquemada cited Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in support of this argument.24 The Cardinal of San Sisto cut this polemical excursus short with a reference to his 1459 work, «We reproved this error in our tract against Muhammad».25 The tract by Torquemada opened with a diatribe against the character traits of Muhammad. One of these was carnality, a trait the opposite of Christian 22

Juan de Torquemada, Symbolum pro informatione Manichaeorum (el Bogomilismo en Bosnia), ed. N. Lopez Martinez and V. Proaño Gil, Burgos, Hijos de S. Rodríguez, 1958. Torquemada referred to each Manichaean error of the Bosnians as a «stupidity» (stultitia). 23 Juan de Torquemada, Quaestiones evangeliorum tam de tempore quam de sanctis, Nürnberg, Creusner, 1478, in dominica secunda post Pentecostem q. 1, «Vnde necesse est beatitudinem ponere in bonis anime etiam secundum philosophos. quod autem aliqui vt epicuri & machometus in bonis corporis beatitudinem posuerunt» (emphasis mine here and in the next two notes). 24 Juan de Torquemada, Quaestiones evangeliorum tam de tempore quam de sanctis, loc. cit., «Respondeo dicendum. error fuit stulti machometi qui posuit felicitatem & beatitudinem futuram in corporalibus delectationibus ciborum & potum et venereorum. qui error non solum apud cristiane religionis cultatores. sed etiam apud gentiles philosophos qui beatitudinem nouerunt in operibus intellectiue partes consistere iudicatur bestialis. vitam huiusmodi voluptuosam non hominum sed pecudum esse asserentes. vt patet .i. ethicorum.» In response to an argument he was refuting, Torquemada described such physical pleasures as befitting pigs (porcis). 25 Juan de Torquemada, Quaestiones evangeliorum tam de tempore quam de sanctis, loc. cit., «Multis autem rationibus reprobauimus hunc errorem in tractatu nostro contra machomentum nunc breuiter sufficient».

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA

103

emphases on asceticism and the glorified body, not just of the risen Christ but of the saved when they rose at the Second Coming.26 This trait Torquemada connected to Muhammad’s own nature: «For he was luxurious and inflamed by the ardor of lust more than other men of the eastern region».27 Torquemada went on to say that Muhammad claimed permission to sleep with all women (concubere posset cum omnibus mulieribus), and he noted that the Prophet had fifteen wives and two «maids» (ancillas), probably meaning concubines.28 The Qur’an (nephariam scripturam) he described as made up from Jewish and heretical sources «in his barbarous way» (barbaro illo suo modo).29 In Muhammad’s «law» the obstacles to luxury and voluptuousness were removed. This, in turn, helped him expand the borders of his «sect»: The fourth proof was because he gave a carnal law, relaxing the restraint on luxury and voluptuousness, which carnal men, corrupted in the mind, freely embraced. And so, it is obvious that he was most studious in expanding his sect and doing wicked things.30

(An irony of this polemic is that, for all its criticisms of Muslim carnality, it treats the Prophet’s rejection of wine drinking as one of his errors.31) Torquemada dealt with this charge of carnality more than once, claiming that Muhammad sanctioned «adultery» and sins against nature, while offering his followers a paradise full of fleshly delights. The section on adultery actual focuses more on fornication, making war captives into concubines and 26

The emphasis on the glorified bodies of the saved was reached in lively debates in the medieval West; see Bynum, C.W. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 2001336, New York, Columbia University Press, 1995. The glorified body of Christ was believed to be present in the Eucharist on many altars at the same time; see Adams, M.M., Some Later Medieval Theories of the Eucharist. Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Duns Scotus and William Ockham, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010. 27 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 59v, «Nam fuit luxuriosus et libidinis ardore succensus super omnes homines orientalis regionis.» Torquemada’s described this and other «traits» of Muhammad in terms derived from the book of Revelation. 28 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 59v. 29 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 61r. 30 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 61v-62r, «Quarta cautella fuit quia legem dedit carnalem laxans frena luxurie et voluptati quam homines carnales mente corrupti libenter amplecturi. Et ita patet qualiter in dilacione sue secte et malis operandis fuit studiosissimus.» 31 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 130v-132v. Cusanus also noted this prohibition; see Martínez Gázquez, «A New Set of Glosses to the Latin Qur’an», op. cit., p. 306.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

104

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

polygamy. Torquemada quoted «chapter 32» of the Qur’an as saying: «Observe chastity unless with one’s own wives or subjects or serving maids».32 The cardinal argued that Christianity had a better model of family, supporting not pleasure but procreation and raising of children (procreanda et educanda).33 Muhammad, he said, «placed his pleasure in intercourse». Thus, he permitted having concubines, which Torquemada said was «contrary to the law of nature”, since a man went to bed with women not bound to him by marriage.34 Looking at the evidence of polygamy in the Bible, the cardinal quoted Aquinas as saying these men treated their concubines «with marital affection» (uxoris affectu); therefore, they did not endure «the brutal liberty which Muhammad salaciously conceded to his followers».35 Torquemada was vague about what he meant by sins against nature, except the claimed that the Prophet said you could treat your women «as you wish» (ut vultis). However, he cited the punishment of the men of Sodom, «the worst of men» (pessimi homines) without further explanation of their fatal actions.36 Torquemada’s criticism of the Islamic view of paradise was much more extensive, and it reached beyond sex to a wider view of the carnal pleasure promised to Muslims. It encompassed food and drink, clothing and non-sexual pleasurable acts. His opening summary of these promises bears quoting: «In another life, after the resurrection, there will be use of foods, clothing and venereal pleasures, as he often says in his book».37 This attitude he compared with heretics denounced by Augustine for their belief that the risen will enjoy unlimited «carnal» foods and drinks (cibis et potibus carnalibus).38 In contradiction, Torquemada cited Jesus’ reply to the Sadducees (Matthew 22), that 32

Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 122r, «Castitatem nisi cum propriis uxoribus seruate aut sibi subiectis et ancillis obseruientibus.» 33 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 122v. Torquemada cited book eight of Aristotle’s Ethics as an obligation of parents. 34 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 122v, «posuit delectationem in coitu… patet quod contra legem nature sit accedere ad concubinam non coniunctam sibi matrimonio que concubina vocatur.» 35 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 123r, «Unde in illis non fuit brutalis libertas quam Machometus concessit suis.» 36 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 123r-v. One of Cusanus’ glosses on the Qur’an cites Riccoldo da Monte Croce and Robert of Ketton as understanding such passages to permit sodomizing women; see Martínez Gázquez, «A New Set of Glosses to the Latin Qur’an», op. cit., p. 302 n. 16. 37 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 123v, «in alia uita post resurrectionem usum esse ciborum uestimentorum et uenereorum sicit sepe in suo libro ostendit.» 38 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 123v, citing De civitate Dei, book 20 chapter 7.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA

105

after the resurrection there would neither be marrying of men nor giving in marriage of women. «Human beings will not rise to a mortal life, using food and sex, but they would be like the angels».39 Eating and having sex belonged to the corruptible present life, not to the incorruptible future life. Food would not need to be ingested or digested.40 Likewise, sex would not be necessary in paradise. Sex, in Torquemada’s polemic, was for procreation. In paradise, there would be no need to procreate. In a literal-minded slap at Islam, he considered what would happen if procreation occurred after the resurrection of the dead. The cardinal argued that, with death no longer holding sway over humanity, procreation would cause paradise to become overpopulated. «In a short time, it would be necessary for many to leave paradise», perhaps to some new region created for them, a process which would continue ad infinitum.41 Furthermore, there would be no need to increase the population. This left unceasing sexual delight as a part of «the ultimate reward» (ultima remuneratione) Muhammad promised his followers, an idea Torquemada found in the Doctrina Machometti, a work included in the Toledo corpus.42 His opinion on the role of pleasurable acts in life was that nature instituted them so that animals would not cease performing necessary labors.43 Torquemada’s polemic included a list of three pleasures the Prophet was not ashamed to promise to his followers. All these he rejected as carnal and filthy: «Through the whole of his Qur’an, he was not ashamed to promise carnal and filthy happiness in another life.»44 Although we most often focus on the sexual aspects of Muhammad’s paradise, the cardinal’s list of the Prophet’s errors is longer. These errors include fine food and precious clothing.45 Only in 39

Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 123v, «quia homines non resurgent ad uitam mortalem cibis et uenereis utentes sed erunt sicut angeli.» He added a quotation from the Ordinary Gloss they would enjoy the divine vision sine labore et corruptione. 40 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 124r-v. 41 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 124v, «quare breui tempore necesse habebit exire magna pars populi illius de paradiso. Et creari necesse erit eis regionem aliam ad habitacionem et non unam solam sed etiam infinitas.» On the abolition of death, which was brought on by Adam’s sin; see op. cit., fol. 125r. 42 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 124v, «ne aliqua delectatio in ultima remuneratione hominis desit sicut expresse dicit Machometus in libro de sua doctrina.» 43 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 125r. 44 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 125v, «per totum suum Alchoranum carnalem et spurcissimum felicitatem sue genti in alia vita promittere non pudit.» 45 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 125v, 126v. in the latter place the cardinal treated the promise of fine goods in detail as a «better» form of the pleasures of this life.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

106

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

third place did the cardinal list sexual delights found with concubines and other women.46 One of his more rhetorical arguments offered a treatment of the numerous things necessary for the human pleasures the Prophet promised, even including horses for jousting.47 Torquemada accused Muhammad of following the Epicureans (epicurios) in a belief in such human felicity. Felicity, he argued, lay instead «in the act of the superior, intellective part, with respect to its most noble object, which is God».48 The vision of God, Torquemada wrote, was the supreme happiness of men and angels.49 This pertained to the intellect, the most noble aspect of humanity.50 What Torquemada was addressing in his critique of Islam was not just concerned with denying the risen bodies the pleasures of bed and board.51 He was advancing a theological opinion about the glorified bodies of the saved. This required that he consider, first of all, Christ’s risen body. Its perfection was such that no alimentation was needed. Christ ate «not because of necessity but to demonstrate His resurrection».52 (In a commentary on Psalm twenty-nine, in another work addressed to Pius II, Torquemada had Jesus say that He was raised «in a body glorified and immortal» [glorioso et immortali].53) Following the opinions of earlier Scholastics,54 Torquemada reminded his readers that the faithful, sharing their Savior’s triumph, also would have glorified bodies. These bodies would have four qualities, none related to their bodily life before death 46

Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 125v. Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol, 129v-130v. 48 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 125r,-v, «sed in actu superioris partis intellectiue in respectu nobilissimi obiecti quod est deus.» A list of biblical proofs follows. 49 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 126r, «et hec visio diuinitatis est summa Felicitas hominum et angelorum.» 50 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 127r, «sed id quod nobilissimum in eo quod est intellectus.» Torquemada followed this with dismissal of carnal delights as inferior. 51 The cardinal reminded his readers that the Prophet was offering pleasures related to sustaining mortal life; see Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 128r. 52 Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 125v, «quem christus post resurrectionem non propter neccessitatem sed ad monstrandum sue resurrectionis.» In a question on the gospel for the second Sunday of Advent, Torquemada repeated an opinion of Thomas Aquinas that, at the Second Coming, both the saved and the damned will see the glorified body, but the latter will suffer when seeing it in Torquemada, Quaestiones evangeliorum, Second Advent q. 2, citing Aquinas on the Sentences Lib. IV Dist. 48 q. 1 art. 2. 53 Juan de Torquemada, Expositio breuis et vtilis super toto psalterio, Mainz, Schaeffer, 1474, Psalmus xxix. 54 Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, pp. 210-211, 253-254. 47

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA

107

and resurrection, just as the saints received these gifts: «The learned [say there will be] something like four gifts of the glory of the bodies of the saints, which are clarity, impassibility, subtlety and agility». The resurrection of the human race would involve raising both men and women with all their bodily parts, although not for use in procreation.55 The issue of a carnal paradise does not loom as large in the writings of Cusanus and Pius as it does in Torquemada’s tract, although both addressed it in the context of the crusade. Evidence for Cusanus’ support of the anti-Turkish crusade following 1453 is sparse. He preached in the diocese of Brixen on the occasions of two processions ordered by Callixtus III invoking divine aid against the Turks. Two of these, in August of 1456, celebrated the triumph of Christian arms at Belgrade.56 The third, preached in October of the same year, said the Turk wanted to exterminate any power contrary to his.57 Cusanus was at Mantua briefly, probably before taking his place as papal vicar in temporalibus for Rome in 1459. While there, he gave a warm welcome to Albert Achilles of Brandenburg, thanking him for his willingness to support the crusade.58 This may have encouraged the pope to commission Cusanus to write on Islam, the result of which was the Cribratio. We do not know how Pius reacted to a text less polemical than exegetical, seeking to find common ground, however limited, with Muslims. The Cribratio treats the Islamic view of paradise at the end of book two, following extensive discussions of Christology and heaven.59 Cusanus has a 55

Madrid Universidad Complutense E3 C4 N6, fol. 130v, «beatitudo enim corporis humani non in hiis consistit. si ex redundancia beatitudinis anime in ipsum corpus, ipsum glorificabitur, cuius glorificacio quattuor continebit, dotes tamquam quattuor partes glorie corporum sanctorum, que sunt claritas, impassibilitas, subtilitas et agilitas…. Ceterum sexum et membrorum varietas post resurrectionem non erit frustra cum sit ad nature humane perfectionem reintegrandam in specie et indiuiduo quamuis animales operaciones desint» [translation mine]. 56 Sermones 140, 241 and 248 in Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 19, pp. 228-242, 298-306. Cusanus added a note to a sermon in the Brixen years identifying Mohammed as born in Corozain, a place legend identified with the birth of the Antichrist; see Sermo 210 (1455), op. cit., vol. 19, p. 39. 57 Sermo 248 in Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 19, 298. 58 Pius II, Commentaries, vol. 2, pp. 190-193. For Cusanus’ role in Rome in Pius’ absence, see Meuthen, E., Die letzten Jahre des Nikolaus von Kues. Biographische Untersuchungen nach neuen Quellen, Köln, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1958, pp. 28-52. 59 Book two was concerned with heaven in general, not just with the Islamic on paradise; see Costigliolo, M., The Western Perception of Islam between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Work of Nicholas of Cusa, Eugene, OR, Pickwick, 2017, pp. 91-93. Cusanus drew on Riccoldo da Montecroce and William of Tripoli in his composition of this work;

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

108

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

hypothetical Arab say Islam promises «the fulfillment of all desires» to «believers and keepers of the law». This Arab adds that the Gospel only promises «intellectual happiness». Cusanus replied with a claim that intellectual and invisible things are both eternal and superior to physical things.60 Nicholas partially excused this «inferior» vision of the afterlife by saying the Prophet was persuading uneducated Arabs. The believers were promised a life better than the present one. Sura 51 was quoted on believers possessing «the most beautiful places in Paradise».61 This promise of sensible things included «very lovely and very pure women», as well as pure water and varied produce. Seeking a favorable approach to such texts, Cusanus said the goods of the future age are superior to those of the present life.62 He also cited Avicenna as dismissing Muhammad’s view of paradise in favor of intellectual happiness described by «the wise». Then Nicholas concluded that the Qur’an occasionally promises «knowledge of God and Wisdom» to the truly wise. This wisdom Cusanus identified with the Son of God, Christ.63 In the following chapter, Cusanus engaged in a polemic against the promises of maidens and copulation found in passages like Sura 87. He also noted the acceptance of polygamy by the Prophet, who said it was according to the divine will.64 The second book see Costigliolo, Western Perception of Islam., pp. 85-91; George-Tvrtković, Christians, Muslims and Mary, op. cit., pp. 65. 60 Hopkins, Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, vol. 2, p. 1043; Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 8, p. 121, «Diceret Arabicus aliquis: Remota sunt illa, quae de paradiso in Alkorano leguntur, et ea, quae evangelium promisit. Alkoranus enim decideriorum omnium complementum credulis et legem servantibus promittit describitur illa desideria, quae communiter appetuntur per voluptuosos, sed evangelium solum promittit intellectualem felicitatem, quae est in visione intellectuuali et scientia, sapientia et cognition.» Sermo 240 in Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 19, p. 229, says that Islam promises a false paradise. 61 Hopkins, Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, vol. 2, p. 1044; Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 8, p. 121, «Respondemus semper nobis apparuisse tantum inter paradisum Mahumeti et Christi interesse, quantum inter sensibilia et intellectualia aut inter visibilia, quae sunt temporalia et invisibilia, quae sunt aeterna.» Costigliolo, Western Perception of Islam, pp. 115-116. 62 Hopkins, Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, vol. 2, p. 1044-1045; Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 8, pp. 122-123. 63 Hopkins, Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, vol. 2, p. 1045; Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 8, p. 124, «Sed Alkoranus, licet minus extense, perfectam felicitatem sapientum ponat in notitia dei et sapientiae, quae est filius dei secundum praemissa, quemadmodum et evangelium ex Christi perfectissima doctrina.» 64 Hopkins, Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, vol. 2, pp. 1046-1047; Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 8, pp. 126-127. Cusanus’ glosses on Qur’an manuscripts presented an old argument that Muhammad forbade fornication in temples but

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA

109

concludes with questions addressed to Mohammed, asking why he spoke against the Scriptures, teaching a new law, when he knew the truth of the Gospel. What Muhammad offered instead of the «light of the gospel» was appealing to «bestiality and animality» in his followers. However, God permitted an admixture of light to reach the wise through this channel. Book two of the Cribratio ends with a dismissal of the Prophet’s teaching as offensive, especially to the wise.65 Different opinions exist not just about the purpose of Pius II’s letter to Mehmed II, but about the sources on which he drew. Both Torquemada and Cusanus have been identified as sources.66 Pius’ rhetoric differs from the approach of either author, being neither Scholastic nor exegetical. Moreover, the mixture of persuasion and polemic in the letter complicates the picture, unless one posits that the pope drew on both authors depending on where his argument would turn next. Since the letter never was sent to Istanbul or divulged in the West in Pius’ lifetime, consequently receiving no criticism by Muslims of Christians, some doubt must remain in this matter. The letter of Pius is well-known for its promises to Mehmed II, saying baptism would bring him everything he sought by force of arms, including the loyalty of his Christian subjects.67 Pius added examples of rulers who prospered after converting. Among them are Constantine and Clovis.68 The pontiff added a philosophical turn to his text by citing the ideas of the Peripatetics and Stoics, especially the latter, on the elevation of the soul as the greatest human permits it in paradise; see Martínez Gázquez, «A New Set of Glosses to the Latin Qur’an», op. cit., pp. 304-305. 65 Hopkins, Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 1047-1048; Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 8, p. 128, «Tamen omnipotens deus inter omnia illa spurca et vana et sapientibus etiam Arabum abominabilia talia enim inseri voluit, in quibus evangelicus splendor sic lateret occultatus, quod sapientibus diligenti studio quaesitus se ipsum manifestaret.» Cusanus, loc. cit., said the wise found the Prophet’s teaching «obscurum, inordinatum, tenebrosum, mortiferum et intellectuali naturae abominabile, licet bestialitati et animalitati, quae est de hoc sensibili mundo, sapida videatur.» 66 Babinger, F., «Pio II e l’Oriente maomettano», in Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Papa Pio II, in Maffei, D. (ed.), Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Papa Pio II, Siena, Accademia Senese degli Intronati, 1968, 1-13. Gaeta, F., «Alcune osservazione sulla prima redazione della lettera a Maometto», in op. cit., pp. 177-187; Costigliolo, Western Perception of Islam, op. cit., 140-141. 67 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Epistle to Mohammed II), Einleitung, kritische Edition, Ubersetzung und ed. R. Glei, Trier, WVT, Wiss. Verl. Trier, 2001, pp. 17-21, 24, 121125, 129. Cusanus offered some of the same arguments; see George-Tvrtković, Christians, Muslims and Mary, op. cit., pp. 65-66. 68 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II, op. cit., pp. 25-28, 129-133.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

110

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

good, compared to the bodily and the external. Even then, the theological virtues were necessary to complement the cardinal virtues to «bestow a tranquil mind.»69 Later in the letter, Pius addressed the nature of the «highest good» (summum bonum). In that context, the text compares the Christian and Muslim ideas of this human good. This discussion begins with a swipe at the «nonsensical features» of Islam lacking foundation in Scripture or philosophy. The creator was not a corporeal being and, in His providence, cared for all creation.70 It is the soul, not the body, which is created in the divine image.71 Pius was able to pass from these generalities to an attack on polygamy as against «natural liberty.» God, he said, would not have created a single helpmate for Adam if polygamy were divinely approved. Moreover, he argued that this limited the number of potential wives. Some men «in one and the same city enjoy polygamy and others must live in solitude.» These unmarried men would produce no offspring.72 Having attacked polygamy, Pius promised Mehmed that baptism would make him «powerful while you are alive and blessed after death while you are in heaven.»73 After making these promises, Pius segued into an attack on the Prophet as clever but not good. «All his law is artifice and fraud.»74 Muhammad 69

Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 28, 133, «Philosophi, quod peripateticos vocavit antiquitas, tria bonorum genera posuerunt: et alia esse animi dixerunt, alia corporis, alia externa. Stoici ea dumtaxat, bona existimarunt quae animum excolerent: hoc facit iustitia, prudentia, moderatio, fortitude et quae sunt aliae in animo dotes… Sed neque illae quattuor virtutes, quae principales existimarunt, tranquillam homini mentem reddunt, nisi aduniantur aliae tres, quae theologicas appellant, et in animo sitae sunt: spes, fides, caritas.» 70 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 67-68, 173-174. 71 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 69, 175. 72 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 69-70, 176, «Nec propterea numerus hominum augetur, quia plures uni nubant feminae: nam totidem viri private coniugio sine prole decedent et praesertim cum mulieres numero pauciores existant. Iniqua insuper res videtur et naturali adversa libertati unius urbis civium alios multiplici matrimonio uni, alios in solitudine degree.» 73 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 74, «Age igitur: accipe Christianos socios, accipe fidem et baptismum, qui te hic in terries faciet magnum quoad vixeris, et post obitum in caelo beatum reddet.» Pius also said there were few illustrious Muslims, like Saladin, but many renowned crusaders; see op. cit., pp. 74, 180. On the Western view of Saladin, see Tolan, J.V., Sons of Ismael. Muslims Through European Eyes in the Middle Ages, Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 2008, pp. 79-100. 74 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 75, 181, «Tota est artificiosa et fraudulentia lex eius.»

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

JUAN DE TORQUEMADA, NICHOLAS OF CUSA

111

promised a law «laxer than the Christian» (laxiori lege tenerentur quam Christiani), which commended continence, not the «attractive pleasures» (voluptatem … amicam) promised by Islam. This won over many, whereas even the pagan philosophers were «lovers of virtue» (virtutis amatoribus).75 Pius blamed the growth of Islam on «license given to vice.» This covered polygamy and men «sending away [those wives] who displeased them». He also denounced indulging the mouth «with everything except wine.» In hot Arabia, they could have “cool drinks” instead.76 The pope dismissed street corner preachers and pseudo-prophets – implying that Muhammed was one of them. Resorting to Roman history, Pius referred to the Bacchanalians of ancient Rome, who were inclined to lust: «Deceivers and false prophets preach on street corners and wish what they say to remain hidden, and they exact oaths of silence. This is just like what happened at Rome where those who celebrated the Bacchanalia, sacrificing to their god in secret, omitted no outrage of lust».77 Pius summarized by saying: «The Law of God is pure because it excludes every sort of evil and does not admit any lust or foul thing… But how can the law of Mohammed be pure which allows foul practices, adultery, everything lustful and foul?»78 Pius added a contention that only Muslim lawgivers «have placed adultery, fornication, serving the belly, living in filthy pleasures, among good things.» Pius also compared Mohammed with heretics, who mix good things in with the bad in order to deceive: «Only Mohammed promotes turpitude and only he advances shameful practices, even mixing the good with the bad, the way heretics do, in order to deceive more easily.»79 75

Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 75, 181. Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 75, 181, «Crevit igitur secta Saracenorum licentia vitiorum: placuit uxoris decere quot mallent easdemque dimittere quam cum displicere coepissent, habere concubinas quam plures et omne libidinis genus posse prosalvi; indulgere ventri cuncta quae vellet et ori, praeter vinum, et universis immerge voluptatibus.» Pius added that Muslim fasts only increased the pleasures of feasting and drinking at night. 77 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), «Deceptores et pseudoprophetae in angulis praedicant et volunt occulta esse, quae dicunt, et iuramenta taciturnitas exigunt. Sicut Romae accidit in his, qui Bacchanalia celebrant: in occulto enim deo suo sacrificantes nullum flagitium libidinis omittebant.» 78 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 88, 195, «Immaculata est lex Domini, quia mala quaeque excludit, neque libidem neque turpitudinem ullam admittit…. At quomodo Mahumetes lex immaculata, quae sturpra et adulteria et omnes libidum maculas et foeditates admittit?» 79 Piccolomini, Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Glei), pp. 89-90, 196, «Solus Mahumetes est qui turpia docet et flagitia praecipit, quamvis haereticorum more, ut facilius decipiant, bona simul et mala commiscet.» 76

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

112

THOMAS M. IZBICKI

The three curialists we have studied all dismissed Islamic ideas of paradise as lustful and filthy. Torquemada was the most forthright in his condemnation of Islam. He found little good in the texts he had read about Islam. Cusanus tried harder to find Gospel truths in the Qur’an. Pius combined persuasion with outright polemic in a way that was unlikely to move the Ottoman sultan to convert. (Even John of Segovia, a well-known advocate of dialogue with Muslims, was dismissive of the perceived carnality of Muslims and their view of the afterlife as full of creature comforts.80) These writers shared a cultural background which made their polemics possible, viewing human happiness as intellectual or spiritual. Their idea of heaven treated the eternal reward of the just as the vision of God, the Beatific Vision. Even the resurrected body, although completely human, including the two genders, was possessed of characteristics like impassibility, an opinion which left no room for the more bodily paradise promised by the Prophet.81 Cusanus tried to find the Gospel hidden in the Qur’an, and Piccolomini tried persuading Mehmed II to embrace the Christian faith by offering him heaven and earth. Only Torquemada adhered to the most negative line in the long-time Christian rejection of Islam, and that dismissal of the Prophet and his teachings would have a long subsequent history even among those who had not read the Dominican cardinal’s polemic. Thomas M. Izbicki tizbicki@libraries.rutgers.edu Fecha de recepción: 05/01/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 16/03/2019

John of Segovia, De gladio divini spiritus in corda mittendo Sarracenorum, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 740-741, 846-847, 862-865. Mann, «John of Segovia», op. cit., pp. 150, 153. 81 Augustine, who thought late in life that the resurrected body of Jesus had flesh and bones, said risen bodies would have youth and beauty but no need to eat for sustenance; see McDannell, C., and B. Lang, Heaven. A History, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1988, pp. 6162. The Beatific Vision was discussed by the Scholastics and medieval mystics; see op. cit., 89-91, 93, 101-102, 106.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 97-112

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S DE PACE FIDEI AND CRIBRATIO ALKORANI Nathan Ron The University of Haifa

Abstract Reading Nicolas of Cusa’s works on Islam reveals a sharp distinction between his De pace fidei (1453) with its tolerant attitude and his Cribratio Alkorani (1461) with its much less tolerant approach. Some eight years passed from the appearance of De pace fidei until the publication of Cribratio Alkorani. I argue that in the period between the appearances of these books, Cusanus changed his attitude to Islam, and the Turkish threat may have been the reason. Certain historians have pointed to Desiderius Erasmus’ objection to the waging of crusades and to the term semichristiani, which Erasmus occasionally used in reference to Muslims. According to these historians, the term semichristiani echoed Cusanus’ optimistic view according to which the Turks were «half-Christian». However, I found that Cusanus never used this term in any of his writings, and that the term sits in Erasmus’ writings side by side with manifest contempt and degradation expressed toward the Turks. Thus, Erasmus’ rhetoric and hostile attitude toward the Turks and Islam was far from the moderation and toleration which Cusanus presented in his De pace fidei. In its attitude and spirit Erasmus’ De bello Turcico should be compared to Cusanus’ Cribratio Alkorani rather than to De pace fidei. Keywords Cusanus; Erasmus; Islam; Turks; ‘Semischristiani’; crusade

Introduction In his Complaint of Peace (Querela pacis, 1517) Erasmus described France as the purest Christian land: «The law flourishes as nowhere else, nowhere has religion so retained its purity without being corrupted by commerce carried ________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

114

NATHAN RON

on by the Jews, as in Italy, or infected by the proximity of the Turks or Marranos, as in Hungary and Spain».1 Erasmus expressed the same idea in a letter of March 10th, 1517: «Only France is not infected with heretics or Bohemian schismatics nor Jews or half-Jew Marranos, and there are no Turks to be found in its vicinity».2 Erasmus presented a correlation between the prosperity of a Christian country and the exclusion of non-Christians from its territories. Undoubtedly, Erasmus’ rhetoric of purification and purgation had little in common with the idea of «one religion in a variety of rituals» (una religio in rituum varietate), which illuminates De pace fidei.3 It is not that Erasmus did not wish for the conversion of Jews and Muslims to Christianity, but that his rhetoric in this regard was often harsh and racial by its implications.4 Thus, while Erasmus’ rhetoric of an idyllic vision of Christendom is often exclusivist, Cusanus presents in his De pace Fidei a model which, both in content and in rhetoric, may be defined as positive and as «inclusion instead of exclusion».5 Conversely the shift in Cusanus’ attitude toward Islam implied in his later

1 CWE 27, p. 306; ASD IV-2. p. 80: «florent leges nusquam illibatior religio, nec commercio Judaeorum corrupta, velut apud Italos, nec Turcarum vel Maranorum vicina infecta». 2 CWE 4, p. 279, Ep 549: 11-13: «Sola Gallia nec haereticis est infecta nec Bohemis schismaticis nec Iudeis nec semiiudeis Maranis, nec Turcarum confinio afflata». 3 The next chapter of the article deals with that. 4 Erasmus’ future vision (Ep 1800, 236-247, a letter sent to João III king of Portugal): «[…] the world will not be shaken by so many wars, or so many differences of ideas, and we will be free both of Judaism and paganism; and Christ will reign over us and under his standard we will prosper happily and peacefully. Finally, the limits of Christian rule will extend over distances». For his harsh and often racial expressions, see Oberman, H.A., The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, trans. Porter, J.L., Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1984, pp. 38-39; idem, The Impact of the Reformation Grand Rapids, MI, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1994, p. 103; Pabell, H., «Erasmus of Rotterdam and Judaism: A Reexamination in Light of New Evidence», Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 87 (1996), pp. 9-37; Ron, N., «Erasmus Ethnological Hierarchy of Peoples and Races», History of European Ideas, 44 (2018), pp. 1063–1075. 5 For «positive», see: Volf, M., Allah. A Christian Response, New York, HarperOne, 2011, pp. 40–59; Valkenberg, P., «Una religio in rituum varietate: Religious Pluralism, the Qur’an, and Nicholas of Cusa», in I.C. Levy, R. George-Tvrtković and D.F. Duclow (eds.) Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Age, Leiden, Brill, 2014, p. 30. For «inclusion instead of exclusion», see Euler, W.A., «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’ Writings on Islam», in op. cit., pp. 20-29 at pp. 22-23.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

115

Scrutiny of the Qur’an (Cribratio Alkorani, 1461), could be defined as «exclusion instead of inclusion».6 The Cribratio presents a completely different, negative approach by Cusanus, which does not allow us to ascribe to him an attempt at a dialogue with Islam, whether theological, religious, or political. An important aspect of such a dialogue is studying the basic texts of the «Other». But studying the language or texts of the «Other» and understanding the «Other», cannot necessarily be considered as an attempt at creating a dialogue of peace. It might instead be intended as a tool for getting to know the enemy in order to overcome him. Luther’s interest and his various involvements in the study of Islam clearly demonstrate this.7 Cusanus did study the fundamentals of Islam, and with some profundity, on several occasions during his lifetime (but not the Arab language), and his De pace fidei can be considered an attempt at a religious dialogue. By contrast in the Cribratio, Cusanus used his knowledge of the Qur’an not to draw rival religions closer together but to establish the superiority of one (Christianity) over the other (Islam). Cusanus’ attempt at creating a dialogue between conflicting religions, and his study of the Qur’an in order to compose an «inclusive instead of exclusive» work deserves praise, unlike his efforts to establish Christian superiority over Islam in Scrutiny of the Qur’an.8 Ironically, Erasmus, the prince of humanists, did not trouble himself with studying Islam or the Qurʾan, although he wrote a treatise dedicated to the Turkish issue, namely A Most Useful Discussion Concerning Proposals for War Against the Turks (Utilissima consultatio de bello Turcis 6

Euler (op. cit.) coined «Inclusion instead of exclusion» regarding De pace fidei. He explains how this attitude changed and reversed as Cusanus proceeded with his writings. 7 Luther was interested in learning about Islam and complained of the insufficient knowledge of Christians on the enemy of Christianity. The case of Erasmus reaffirms that. For Erasmus the Turks or Islam were not a subject for study, not even as «know your enemy». See CWE 64, p. 258, n. 236; Francisco, A.S., Martin Luther and Islam: A Study in Sixteenth-Century Polemics and Apologetics, Leiden, Brill, 2001, p. 1; Miller, G.J., «Luther on the Turks and Islam», in T.L. Wengert (ed.) Harvesting Martin Luther's Reflections on Theology, Ethics, and the Church, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2004, pp. 185-206 (first published in Lutheran Quarterly, (2000), pp. 79-97); Schwoebel, R., The Shadow of the Crescent. The Renaissance Image of the Turk 1453-1517, New York, St. Martin´s Press, 1967, pp. 208-209. 8 On his study of the Qur’an: Biechler, J.E., «Three Manuscripts on Islam from the Library of Nicholas of Cusa», Manuscripta, 27 (1983), pp. 91-100; Euler, W.A., «An Italian Painting from the Late Fifteenth Century and the Cribratio Alkorani of Nicholas of Cusa», in P.J. Casarella (ed.) Cusanus. The Legacy of Learned Ignorance, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2006, p. 142; M. Watanabe, «An Appreciation», in C.M. Bellitto, T.M. Izbicki and G. Christianson (eds.), Introducing Nicholas of Cusa: A Guide to a Renaissance Man, Mahwa, NJ, Paulist Press, 2004, p. 8.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

116

NATHAN RON

inferendo, 1530), also known as De bello Turcico.9 It was published in March 1530, shortly after the Turks raised their siege on Vienna, and written very much as a response to Martin Luther’s stance on the issue of war against the Turks. Luther principally opposed fighting the Turks and Erasmus meant to dispute that. Meanwhile Luther changed his mind in favor of fighting the Turks. Erasmus, who learned about it with some delay, wrote his treatise irrespective of Luther’s change of mind.10 Unlike Christian polemics against Islam, Erasmus’ moral goal in this treatise was to sound an alarm call to Christians to change their ways.11 Finally, the treatise has a fundamental element that does not match classic antiIslamic polemics: Erasmus’ opposition to the institution of crusade, namely a war initiated and sponsored by the Church, whether against the Turks or others. «We have heard so often of crusading expeditions, of recovering the Holy Land; we have seen so often the red cross emblazoned with the triple crown, and the red chest beside it [...] and the only thing to triumph has been money [...] how can we, who have been misled thirty times over, believe any more promises [...]»12 Although not a Christian polemic against Islam, the treatise make use of harsh and blatant anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim rhetoric. It contains Erasmus’ only written reference relating to the essence of Islam: But what shall I say about their system of government? Where is the rule of law among them? Whatever pleases the tyrant, which is the law. Where is the

For the Latin text: ASD V-3, pp. 32-82 (ed. A.G. Weiler). For the English translation, see Heath, M.J., (translator) A Most Useful Discussion Concerning Proposals for War against the Turks Including an Exposition of Psalm 28 (Utilissima consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo, et obiter enarratus psalmus 28), in CWE vol. 64 (Expositions of the Psalms). 10 Rummel, E., (ed.), The Erasmus Reader, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1996, 315; Heath, M.J., Introduction to «A Most Useful Discussion Concerning Proposals for War against the Turks Including an Exposition of Psalm 28» (Ultissima consultatio de Bello Turcis inferendo, et obiter enarratus psalmus 28), in CWE 64 (Expositions of the Psalms), 205. 11 See Weiler, A.G., «The Turkish Argument and Christian Piety in Desiderius Erasmus’ ‘Consultatio de Bello Turcis inferendo’ (1530)», in W.J. Sperna and W.T.M. Frijhoff (eds.), Erasmus of Rotterdam the Man and the Scholar, Leiden, Brill, 1988, pp. 30-39. 12 CWE 64, 246; ASD V-3, 64. For Erasmus’ anti-Crusade attitude as allegedly indicating moderation, see Bisaha, N., Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists, and the West, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967, 175; Schwoebel, R., The Shadow of the Crescent: The Renaissance Image of the Turk 1453-1517. New York, St. Martin´s Press, 1967, 225. As argued further on, despite his objection to the institution of Crusade, Erasmus’ attitude toward Islam was not necessarily moderate. On this issue, see Ron, N., «The Christian Peace of Erasmus», The European Legacy, 19 (2014), pp. 27-42.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

117

power of a parliament? What room is there for philosophy? For schools of theology? For holy sermons? For true religion? Their sect is a mixture of Judaism, Christianity, paganism, and the Arian Heresy. They recognize Christ just as one of their prophets [...] Do they prefer the sordid and wicked man that Muhammad over Jesus, for which each bow in heaven, on earth and in hell?13

Muhammad is mentioned once more in this treatise: «[...] they rule due to God’s anger, they fight us without God, they have Muhammad as their savior, we have Christ».14 The word «they» refers here to the Turks. As a rule, Erasmus did not deal with Islam, focusing rather on the Turks. The aforesaid paragraph is thus a rare exception as far as Erasmus’ writings are concerned, because it does reveal his attitudes to Islam. Even though Erasmus believed that the conversion of the Turks should be secured through non-brutal means, he nonetheless thought that it would require using the power of the state machinery; non-brutal, perhaps, but nevertheless an enforcement of Christianity. The best solution of all would be to conquer the Turks’ empire in the way in which the apostles conquered all the peoples of the earth for their master, Christ; but the second alternative must be to have as the chief object of an armed campaign that the Turks will be glad to have been defeated. This task will be made easier if, firstly, they see that Christianity is not mere words, and can observe that our deeds are worthy of the Gospel; secondly, if honest preachers are sent in to reap the harvest, men will further Christ’s interests, not their own. Thirdly, if any infidel cannot so quickly be persuaded, he should be allowed to live under his own laws, until gradually he comes to agree with us. Long ago, Christian emperors used this method to abolish paganism in degrees. At first, they allowed the pagans to live on equal terms with our Christians, in such a way that neither interfered with the others. Then they deprived the idolaters’ temples of their privileges, and finally, after forbidding the sacrifice of victims in public, they abolished the worship of idols completely. In this way

CWE 64, 258-259; ASD V-3, 76: «Quid autem dicam de politia? Quae legume aequitas apud illos? Quidquid tyranno placuit, lex est. Quae Senatus auctoritas? Quae Philosophia locum illic habet? Quae Theologorum scholae? Quae sacrae conciones? Quae Religionis sinceritas? Sectam habent ex Judaismo, Christianismo, Paganismo et Arianorum haeresis commixtam. Agnoscunt Christum ut unum quempiam ex Prophetis [...] Quid, quod pestilentem ac scelerosum hominem Machumetem Christo, in cujus nomine flectitur omne genu coelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum, praeferunt?» See also Ron, «The Christian Peace of Erasmus», op. cit., pp. 32, 34-38. 14 CWE 64, 231; ASD V-3, 50: «Regnant irato Deo, pugnant adversum nos sine Deo, illi Mahometem habent propugnatorem, nos Christum».

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

118

NATHAN RON our religion gradually grew stronger, paganism was stamped out, and the signs of Christ’s triumph filled the world.15

This, Erasmus thought, was how peace with the Turks should be achieved, by converting the Turks to Christianity. Notedly, not by using brutal force against them, but, if necessary, by taking measures such as the Roman emperors, in particular Theodosius, took against pagans. 1. Two Books, Two Views Cusanus’ De pace fidei appearance in 1453, shortly after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans, may be considered as one of Cusanus’ responses to that catastrophe.16

CWE 64, 265; ASD V-3, 81: «Illud in primis erat optabile, si liceat Turcarum ditiones ita subigere, quamadmodum Apostoli cunctas mundi nationes subegerunt Imperatori Christo: proximum esto votum, sub armis hoc pottissimum agere, ut se victos esse gaudeant. Ad id praecipue conducet, si viderint Christianismum non esse verba, sed in nobis conspexerint mores Evangelio dignos. Tum, si mittantur in messem integri Praecones, qui non quaerant quae sua sunt, sed quae Jesu Christi. Postremo, si qui nondum possunt allici, sinantur aliquamdiu suis vivere legibus, donec paulatim nobiscum coalescent. Sic olim Imperatores Christiani paulatim aboleverunt Paganismum. Initio patiebantur illos aequo cum nostratibus Jure vivere, sic ut neutri alteris facesserent negotium. Deinde, templis idololatrarum ademerunt sua privilegia. Postremo, victimas ab illis immolari palam, vetuerunt, mox omnem simulacrorum cultum submoverunt. Ita sensim invalescente nostra Religione, Paganismus extinctus est, et Christi trophea mundum universum occuparunt». Erasmus finds no fault in Theodosius’ systematic persecution of pagans and heretics, particularly Arians. According to Erasmus, the Arians were not just heretics, blatantly sacrilegious, but also rebels who threatened the political order; therefore, their persecution and execution was justified. Theodosius’ Imperial edicts, issued from February 380 onward, were essentially, as can also be concluded from their phrasing, nothing less than the expression of imposed Christianization on various populations. This was justified, and even glorified, by Erasmus. For the texts of the Theodosian edicts: Peters, E., (ed.), Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe. Documents in Translation, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980, pp. 42-47. See also Williams, G.F. and S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 53-56; Wilken, R.L., John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1983, pp. 13-32. 16 Watanabe, M., «Cusanus, Islam, and Religious Tolerance», in I.C. Levy, R. GeorgeTvrtković and D.F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Age, Leiden, Brill, 2014, p. 9; Euler, W.A., «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’ Writings on Islam», in Levy, George-Tvrtković and Duclow (eds.) Nicholas of Cusa and Islam, op. cit., p. 21.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

119

Though Cusanus axiomatically presupposes the greater truths and weight of Christianity over other faiths, De pace fidei signified a belief in the close relationships of all faiths, predominantly Christianity and Islam. Furthermore, in this work Cusanus considered the formation of a universal religion, one that all believers could accept. […] and all [men] will know that there is only one religion in a variety of rites. But perchance this difference of rites cannot be eliminated; or perhaps it is not expedient [that it be eliminated], in order that the diversity may make for an increase of devotion, since each region will devote more careful attention to making its ceremonies more ‘favorable,’ as it were, to You, the King. If so, then at least let there be one religion - just as You are one - and one true worship of You as Sovereign.17

The different speakers in the De pace fidei are a Greek, an Italian, an Arab, an Indian, a Chaldean, a Jew, a Scythian, a Frenchman, a Persian, a Syrian, a Spaniard, a Turk, a German, a Tartar, an Armenian, a Bohemian, and Englishman. Together they conduct a non-polemical philosophical and theological discussion (not a debate), in which spirits of positive inclusiveness, tolerance and optimism are predominant. Thus, when the issue of the acceptance of the holy trinity by non-Christians is discussed, even the Jew, who represents the most stubborn of all nations, responds with the following positive words: «The Super-blessed Trinity, which cannot be denied, has been explained very well…And although Jews shun the [doctrine of] the Trinity because they have considered the Trinity to be a plurality, nonetheless once it is understood that [the Trinity] is most simple fecundity, [the Jews] will very gladly give assent».18 At most, even if they will not accept the new religion, «the Jews will not impede harmony, for [the Jews] are few in number and will not be able to trouble the whole world by force of arms».19

Hopkins, J. (trans.), Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, 2 vols., Minneapolis, Banning, 2001, p. 635; De pace fidei, I, 7, 10-15: «[…] et cognoscent omnes quomodo non est nisi religio una in rituum varietate. Quod si forte haec differentia rituum tolli non poterit aut non expedit, ut diversitas sit devotionis adauctio quando quaelibet regio suis cerimoniis quasi tibi regi religio et unus latriae cultus». 18 Hopkins, p. 646; De pace fidei, IX, 26, 4-10: «Optime explanata est super-benedicta trinitas, quae negari nequit […] Et quamvis Iudaei fugiant trinitatem propter hocquia eam putarunt pluralitatem, tamen intellecto quod sit fecunditas simplicissima perilbenter acquiescent». 19 Hopkins, p. 654; De pace fidei, XII, 39, 13-15: «Haec tamen Iudaeorum resistentia non impediet concordiam. Pauci enim sunt et turbare universum mundum armis non poterunt».

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

120

NATHAN RON

Finally, in his concluding lines, Cusanus linked his universal religion to perpetual peace, since such a religion is to end religious conflicts and wars and to establish concord and consensus instead. Moreover, [He commanded] that thereafter [these wise men], having full power [to speak] for all [in their respective nations], assemble in Jerusalem, as being a common center, and in the names of all [their countrymen] accept a single faith and establish a perpetual peace with respect thereto, so that the Creator of all, who is blessed forever, may be praised in peace.20

In Joshua Hollman’s Religious Concordance, he emphasizes the centrality of peace in Cusanus’s De pace fidei: «De pace fidei expounds Cusanus’s Christocentric and Platonic-panoramic prayer for religious peace».21 Cusanus believed that the different rituals and practices of the various religions had a common core of divine doctrine, which was shared by believers of all religions. De pace fidei set a standard of religious inclusiveness which was innovative and tolerant for its time and promoted interfaith dialogue. But when ascribing any degree of religious toleration to Cusanus, we should remember to conceptualize it in terms of his own time and reality, which was extremely intolerant fifteenth-century Europe. The modern idea of religious toleration can be equated with ideas of religious freedom, or religious pluralism, which started to evolve in sixteenth century Europe following the execution of Michael Servetus (1509 or 1511-1553).22 Furthermore, as Aikin and Aleksander point out: «Nicholas is a theological exclusivist who attempts to accommodate a degree of religious pluralism on behalf of the practical aim of promoting interreligious toleration».23 20

Hopkins, p. 670; De pace fidei, XIX, 62, 20 – 63, 5: «Et mandatum est per Regem regum ut sapientes redeant et ad unitatem veri cultus nationes inducant, et quod administratorii spiritus illos ducant et eis assistant et deinde cum plena omnium potestate in Iherusalem quasi ad centrum commune confluant et omnium nominibus unam fidem acceptent et super ipsa perpetuam pacem firment, ut in pace creator omnium laudetur in saecula benedictus. Amen». 21 Hollmann, Religious Concordance, op. cit., p. 177 (for the citation). 22 On the evolvement of religious toleration in 16th century Europe. See Guggisberg, H.R., Sebastian Castellio, 1515–1563. Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration in a Confessional Age, trans. B. Gordon, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2003; Guggisburg, H.R., «The Defence of Religious Toleration and Religious Liberty in Early Modern Europe: Argument, Pressures and Some Consequences», History of European Ideas, 4 (1983): pp. 36, 38; Zagorin, P., How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the World, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2003, p. 6. 23 Aikin, S.F., and Aleksander, J., «Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace ﬁdei and the MetaExclusivism of Religious Pluralism», International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 74 (2013), p. 219.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

121

De pace fidei was probably the first Christian work which openly coped with the issue of a universal religion without suggesting conversion to Christianity as a solution.24 Even Norman Daniel, who criticizes Cusanus for not being an expert on Islam, recognizes in him the outstanding figure of his time for his conception of humankind.25 Some Cusanus scholars, such as James E. Biechler and H. Lawrence Bond, locate De pace fidei within «the literature of utopia».26 And Cusanus’ vision is indeed utopian and irenic by its implications, aimed at the improvement of human relations by presenting a vision of a universal religion achieved by peaceful agreement between Muslims and Christians and based on the acceptance of ritual differences within the framework of that religion. Once implemented, the outcome of this inspiring ideal would be, as Cusanus proposed, the existence of an idyllic perpetual peace. This vision is to be linked with Cusanus’ support of Conciliarism, the movement for a more open and self-critical Church. Cusanus was active at the Council of Basel (1432-1437), and he considered the Council a tool for holding deliberations attended not just by Christians, but by Christians and Muslims. If such a council was effective in dealing with major Christian issues, then why not try such a model for improving Christian-Muslim relations?27 In modern terms one may think

Hopkins, pp. 4-7; Biechler, J.E., «Christian Humanism Confronts Islam: Sifting the Qur’an with Nicholas of Cusa», Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 13 (1976), p. 8; Biechler, «A New Face Toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia»; Izbicki, T.M., «The Possibility of Dialogue with Islam in the Fifteenth Century», in G. Christianson and T.M. Izbicki (eds.) Nicholas of Cusa: In Search of God and Wisdom. Essays in Honor of Morimichi Watanabe by the American Cusanus Society, Leiden, Brill, 1999, pp. 187, 176 (respectively); Biechler, J.E., «Interreligious Dialogue» (ch. 9) in C.M. Bellitto, T.M. Izbicki and G. Christianson (eds.) Introducing Nicholas of Cusa. A Guide to a Renaissance Man, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2004, p. 274. 25 Daniel, N., «The Image of Islam in the Medieval and Early Modern Period», in A. Nanji (ed.) Mapping Islamic Studies. Genealogy, Continuity and Change, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1997, pp. 139-140; Francisco, Martin Luther and Islam, op. cit., pp. 17-18. 26 Biechler, J.E., and Bond, H.L., Nicholas of Cusa on Interreligious Harmony. Text, Concordance and Translation of De Pace Fidei, Lewiston, NY, Edwin Mellen Press, 1990, pp. xxvi-xvii; Gandillac, M. de, «Una religio in rituum varietate», in R. Haubst (ed.) Nikolaus von Kues als Promotor der Oekumene, Mitteilungen und Foerschungbeitraege der CusanusGesellschaft, 9 (1971), p. 204; Valkenberg, «Una religio in rituum varietate», op. cit., p. 32. 27 Southern, R.W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 86; Bisaha, N., Creating East and West, Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, p. 145.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

122

NATHAN RON

of the League of Nations or the United Nations as an equivalent realization of such a council.28 Cusanus’ Scrutiny of the Qurʾan is a very different kind of text. It is basically an attempt to confirm Gospel truths through a critical reading of the Qurʾan and a dismantling of its teachings by means of logical arguments. In the first book of the Cribratio, the oneness of God is emphasized, and criticism of, Islam does not take up much of the text. Nevertheless, already in Chapter I (book I), Cusanus denounces the Koran: «For in the book there are contained teachings which – because of their turpitude, injustice, and flagrant lies and contradictions — cannot without blasphemy be ascribed to God».29 By implication Satan must have delivered the Koran to Muhammad, and therefore all those prima facie praiseworthy references to Christ and the Gospels in the Koran, are essentially deceitful. Cusanus says in the same Chapter: And although [the Koran] is seen to contain many testimonies of praise for the Testament, for the Gospel, and for the Prophets Abraham, Moses, and especially Jesus Christ, the son of the Virgin Mary, nevertheless since it contradicts all these [writings and writers] with respect to [its account of] the true and salvific end (as will be evident subsequently), these praises are [best] believed to have been placed [in the Koran] in order to deceive.30

In the latter part of the work, particularly in Chapter 19 of Book II, entitled «An Invective against the Qurʾan», a change takes place and harsh criticisms of the Qurʾan become frequent.31 Among the chapter-titles of part III, in the prologue, the following stand out: II. Muhammad did not know what ought to be done and what ought to be believed; and he left behind nothing firm. III. Why those who believe the Koran are called «saved ones»; and that the sword is teacher. VIII. The goal of Muhammad’s work was his own exaltation. IX. At times Muhammad writes that Christ is God and man; at times, that He is only a man. Similarly, at times [he writes] that God is one; at times, that He is more than one. X. Muhammad 28

Valkenberg, «Una religio in rituum varietate», op. cit., p. 32. Hopkins, p. 975; Cribratio Alkorani, I, p. 23, 18-20: «[…] cum illa in libro contineantur, quae ob suam turpitudinem iniustitiam et notorietatem mendacii et contradictionis deo sine blasphemia adscribi nequeant». 30 Hopkins, p. 976; Cribratio Alkorani, I, p. 24, 14-18: «Et licet multa videatur testimonia continere delaude testamenti et evangelii et prophetarum Abrahae, Moysi et maxime Iesu Christi filii Mariae virginis tamen cum illis omnibus quo ad verum et salutarem finem contradicat, ut infra patebit, potius addecipiendum haec laudes positae credentur». 31 Hopkins, pp. 1045-1048; Cribratio Alkorani, II, 124, 2 – 158, 15 (Invectio Contra Alkoranum); Watanabe, «Cusanus, Islam, and Religious Tolerance», op. cit., p. 13. 29

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

123

continually changes [his views], as [is instanced] in his examples. XIV. The covenant between God and Abraham excludes the Ismaelites, and it concludes in Christ, the Mediator. XV. Only the Christian, who adores Trinity-inoneness, can be a descendant of Abraham. XVI. Arabs are altogether ignorant of the law of Abraham, and they are persecutors of it.32

Unsurprisingly, the conclusion of Cusanus’ scrutiny is that the Qurʾan, as opposed to the scriptures, is neither intelligible nor divine.33 The Cribratio reflects Cusanus’ hardening line toward Islam at that time. From a theological point of view, one can say, just as Walter A. Euler summarized, that in De pace fidei Cusanus ignored the anti-Christian side of Islam and presented it instead as a misunderstanding. However, in his letter to John of Segovia, (December 29, 1454) Cusanus implied that he was aware of the ambivalence of the Qurʾan toward Christianity,34 which in Cribratio he discusses extensively, and this letter may offer up evidence of an intermediate step in his thinking.35

32 Hopkins, pp. 973-974; Cribratio Alkorani, prologus, pp. 19-20, 4-30: «II. Quod Mahumetus ignoravit, quid agendum et sentiendum, et nihil firmi reliquit. III. Cur dicuntur salvati credentes Alkoranum; et quod gladius est magister. VIII. Quod finis operis Mahumeti fuit sui exaltatio. IX. Quod Mahumetus nunc scribat Christum deum et hominem, nunc hominem tantum, sic nunc singularem deum, nunc pluralem. X. Quod Mahumetus continue variat, ut in exemplis. XIV. Quod pactum dei et Abrahae excludit Ismaelitas et in Christo mediatore concluditur. XV. Quod non nisi Christianus trinitatem in unitate adorans Abrahae filius esse possit. XVI. Quod Arabes legem Abrahae penitus ignorent et eius sint persecutores». 33 Cribratio Alkorani, XIX, p. 71, 13-14: «[…] ut sic de Alkorano recedant ad evangelium Christi totum intellectuale et divinum». Hopkins, p. 1005: «[the less well educated among the Arabs] may pass from the Qurʾan to the whole Gospel-of-Christ which is intelligible and divine». 34 At the council of Basel, Cusanus was engaged in discussion with John of Segovia, who in addition to being a Spanish delegate to the Council was also a theologian at the University of Salamanca. His contacts with the Moors, brought him to examine the claims of the Qur’an, and his association with Cusanus served to stimulate the latter's own interest in Islam. See Hopkins, «Introduction», p. 14; Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, op. cit., p. 92. On the aforesaid letter of Cusanus to John: Biechler, J.E., «Correspondence with John of Segovia»“ in Ch.M. Bellitto, T.M. Izbicki and G. Christianson (eds.) Introducing Nicholas of Cusa: A Guide to a Renaissance Man, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2004, pp. 280-284; Euler, «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’ Writings on Islam», in Levy, George-Tvrtković and Duclow (eds.) Nicholas of Cusa and Islam, op. cit., pp. 26-27. 35 Ibidem, p. 29.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

124

NATHAN RON

The Cribratio was dedicated by Cusanus to Pope Pius II when he was engaged in desperate efforts to wage his crusade against the Turks. A paragraph in Cusanus’ preface of the Cribratio is telling. It praises Pius II for his stance against Islam, comparing him to «threefold holy» Pope Leo I «who with angelic genius and eloquence condemned the Nestorian heresy» of the 5th Century Patriarch of Constantinople: «you show through the same spirit, and with equal genius and eloquence, that the Muhammadan sect (which has arisen from this heresy), is in error and is to be repudiated».36 Euler claims, based on this paragraph, that the Cribratio was intended by Cusanus to serve Pius II «as a collection of material for his letter to Sultan Mehmed II, the conqueror».37 In 1461, Pius II wrote a letter, which was never sent, to the Sultan Mehmed II. It suggested the Sultan convert to Christianity, the desirable outcome of which would result in his recognition by both Christians and Muslims as emperor of the East.38 Euler could be correct in 36

Hopkins, p. 965; Moudarres, A., «Crusade and Conversion: Islam as Schism in Pius II and Nicholas of Cusa», MLN 128 (2013): 45; Cribratio Alkorani, p. 3, 1-10: «Sume, sanctissime papa, libellum hunc per humilem servulum tuum fidei zelo collectum, ut, dum more ter sancti Leonis papae praedecessoris tui Nestorianam haeresim apostolico spiritu, angelico ingenio divinoqu eloquio damnantis tu Mahumetanam sectam de illa exortam eodem spriritu, pari ingenio facundiauqe aequali erroneam eliminandamque ostendes, cito quaedam rudimenta scitu necessaria ad manum habeas». 37 Euler, «An Italian Painting from the Late Fifteenth Century», op. cit., pp. 127-142 at p. 131. 38 Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Epistle to Mohammed II), ed. and trans. A. Baca, New York, Peter Lang, 1990, pp. 17-18 [121-122: Opera, pp. 872-904 at p. 874): «Si vis inter Christianos tuum imperium propagare et nomen tuum quam gloriosum efficere, non auro, non armis, non excercitibus, non classibus opus est. Parva res omnium qui hodie vivunt maximum et potentissimum et clarissimum te reddere potest […] id est aquae pauxillum, quo baptizeris et ad Christianorum sacra te conferas et credas Evangelio. Haec si feceris, non erit in orbe princeps qui te Gloria superset aut aequare potential valeat. Nos te Graecorum et Orientis imperatorem appellabimus et quod modo vi occupas et cum iniuria tenes possidebis iure». - «If you want to extend your power over Christians and render your name as glorious as possible, you do not need gold, weapons, armies, or fleet. A little thing can make you the greatest, most powerful and illustrious man of all who live today […] it is a little bit of water by which you may be baptized and brought to Christian rites and to the belief in the Gospel. If you receive this, there will not be any leader in the world who can surpass you in glory or equal you in power. We will call you ruler over the Greeks and the East; what you now hold by force and injustice, you will rightfully possess». Arguing for the Pope’s sincere intention to make the Sultan convert to Christianity: Babinger, F., Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 198-199; Hankins, J., «Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literature in

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

125

arguing that Cusanus’ Cribratio was to serve Pius II as a collection of material for this letter. However it seems doubtful that Cusanus’ harsh anti-Islamic polemic, and in particular his definition of Islam as the religion of the sword,39 would persuade Mehmed the conqueror to convert. Meanwhile, Hollman’s treatment of De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani as a dialectical synthesis (coincidentia oppositorum) enabling «even the complicated connection of crusade and dialogue» seems like an attempt to square the circle. Hollman himself, while referring to Cusanus’ notes on a copy of Robert of Ketton’s translation of the Qurʾan, half-heartedly admits that these «pastiche of references to peace fails to cover some of Cusanus’s more polemical points on Islam in the Cribratio Alkorani, it nonetheless behoves careful readers to place condemnations of Islam in the context of the belligerent times […]”40 Hollman thus skirts over the problematic issue of Cusanus’ polemical rhetoric. 2. Religion of the Sword Cusanus stressed Muhammad’s ignorance and claimed «that ignorance was the cause of [Muhammad’s] error and malevolence», as well as sheer personal ambition, «For whereas Christ sought not his own glory but the glory of God-the-Father and the salvation of men, Muhammad sought not the glory of God and the salvation of men but rather his own glory».41 Unequivocally Cusanus states: «The Qurʾan is devoid of faith where it contradicts the Sacred Scriptures […] The Gospel is to be preferred to the Qurʾan […] Arabs must confess the Trinity […] Muhammad did not know what ought to be done and what ought to be believed; and he left behind nothing firm […]».42 the Age of Mehmed II», Symposium on Byzantium and the Italians, 13th-15th Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 49 (2014), pp. 129-130. Ascribing other intentions to the pope: Bisaha, N., «Pius II’s Letter to Sultan Mehmed II: A Reexamination», Crusades, 1 (2002), pp. 183-200; Bisaha, Creating East and West, pp. 86-87, 147-152. 39 Euler, «An Italian Painting from the Late Fifteenth Century», op. cit., pp. 127-142 at p. 131. 40 Hollman, Religious Concordance, pp. 179-180, 190 (the citations are on pp. 179, 190 respectively). Just one such polemical issue is cited (p. 190, n. 82), but not discussed. 41 Hopkins, pp. 968-969; Cribratio Alkorani, prologus, pp. 11-12, 7: «Tenendum credimus ignorantiam erroris et malivolentiae causam esse». Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 49 (2014): «[…] Christo non suam gloriam sed dei patris et hominum salutem, Mahumeto vero non dei gloriam et hominum salutem sed gloriam propriam quaerente». 42 Hopkins, pp. 971-973; Cribratio Alkorani, alius prologus, pp. 18-19, 5: «IV. Quod Alkoran fide careat, ubi sacris scripturis contradicit. V. Quod evangelium sit Alkorano

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

126

NATHAN RON

This essentially relates to those sections of the Qur’an which do not match or contradict Christian truths which Cusanus was eager to illuminate. Cusanus was averse to the idea of carnal pleasures in paradise, and he blamed Mohammed for introducing them into the Qur’an, directly accusing the prophet, «For no one speaks so vilely of such vile things unless he is full of all such vileness; for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks».43 Most discreditable, in Cusanus view was that Islam was a «religion of the sword» and Cusanus explicitly persisted with this notion and saw Mohammed as responsible for this. His chapter-titles include one with the statement «[…] and that the sword is teacher».44 Thus, Muslims enforced their religion on Christians by the threat of the sword: «And countless apostate Christians and Arab Christians and Christians who being of the same law as the Arabs pretend to be of the Arab sect because of fear of the sword».45 Cusanus went as far as proclaiming «Therefore, the sword is the final decisive proof of whatever is read in the Qurʾan [...] [Muhammad] replied: «We have destroyed, says God, cities before the eyes of those who have not believed. And neither would you believe miracles, except by the sword […]”.46 As Cusanus saw it, Islam’s ultimate goal was domination. But you have seemed to me, Oh Muhammad, to have sought–under the pretext of religion–the power of dominating. For you reduce all [matters] to the sword; and even by the sword you strive to obtain tribute… Does anyone fail to understand that the goal of your religion–that your zeal and the rite [prescribed] by your law–tends only toward your dominating?47

praeferendum […] XI. Necesse est Arabes fateri trinitatem […] II. Quod Mahumetus ignoravit, quid agendum et sentiendum et nihil firmi reliquit». 43 Hopkins, p. 1046; Cribratio Alkorani, II, p. 126, 6-8: «Nam tam turpia ita turpiter nemo loquitur nisi plenus omni tali turpitudine, ex abundantia enim cordis os loquitur». 44 Hopkins, p. 973; Cribratio Alkorani, alius prologus, p. 19, 6: «[…] et quod gladius est magister». 45 Hopkins, p. 979; Cribratio Alkorani, III, p. 29, 15-17: «Multi etiam Christiani sub principibus sectae Arabum Christo devotius serviunt et infiniti Christiani renegati et Arabes et eiusdem legis cum ipsis timore gladii [...]». 46 Hopkins, p. 1061; Cribratio Alkorani, p. 137, 1-2: «Est igitur ultima resolutio probationis omnium, quae in Alkoran leguntur, gladius […] Respondit: Destruximus – inquit deus – civitates ante eos, qui non crediderunt; nec etiam vos miraculis crederetis nisi per gladium etc». 47 Hopkins, p. 1068; Cribratio Alkorani, VIII, p. 148, 1-9: «Sed visus es mihi, o Mahumete, praetextu religionis dominandi potentatum quaesivisse; omnia enim in gladium resolvis et gladio saltem ad tributum pervenire contendis. Persuasisti quemlibet in sua lege salvari posse ac quod deus fidelium constantiam diligat, variantes vero nequaquam. Deinde accipis gladium quasi illos velis ad varietatem compellere, quos

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

127

Thus, Cusanus presented Islam in his Cribratio as a violent sect, a religion whose existence is no more than a pretext to exercise of the sword. Cusanus’ extremely intolerant definition of Islam as «religion of the sword», clearly indicates a change of mind experienced by Cusanus, one that presumably reflects his growing fear of the Turkish menace, and the fear that Islam will take over. How to reconcile this fearful view of Islam with Cusanus’ more benign attitude elsewhere in his work? Jasper Hopkins explains that by pia interpretatio or benevolent interpretation, Cusanus sought to render the Qurʾan consistent with the Gospel. «If viewed secundum piam interpretationem, the Qurʾan can be seen to approve the Gospel».48 Thus «Some of the Qurʾan’s selfcontradictions, as well as some of its inconsistencies with both the Gospel and the Old Testament, are only apparent. They can be explained away by pia interpretatio».49 If positive references to Christian basics are to be found in the Qurʾan, then it cannot be completely bad, and there must be a way of scrutinizing it adequately, to the advantage of Christianity. But it seems naive to regard this as a sign of moderation, or religious toleration on Cusanus’ part. Pia interpretatio was an instrumental way of reading of the Qurʾan and subjectively interpreting it with the aim of ultimately demonstrating the overall superiority of Christianity in general, and over Islam in particular. But as Hopkins points out, Cusanus does this in quite a «complex» way: presenting the Qurʾan and Mohamad’s faults and discrepancies in a harsh manner; without completely ruling out the Qurʾan. After all, if traits of the true faith, i.e. Christianity, can be traced in the Qurʾan, why reject it all together?50 I would argue that it is not just complex but highly sophisticated as well, much more than the total or blunt rejection of Islam of most Christian polemicists treating Islam before Cusanus. Yet, Cusanus’ methodology and attitude with regard to the Qur’an should not be misinterpreted as moderate or tolerant. Cusanus’ Cribratio presents a completely different line of thought from that demonstrated in his De pace fidei. While, with its impressive utopian

animasti constantes manere, sed das optionem ipsis, ut vel varient vel tributum solvant. Quis non intelligit finem tuae religionis zelum et ritum tuae legis tantum ad hoc tendere, ut domineris» See Aikin and Aleksander, «Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace ﬁdei and the Meta-Exclusivism of Religious Pluralism», p. 223. 48 Hopkins, «Introduction», op. cit., 24. See also Hopkins, J., «The Role of Pia Interpretatio in Nicholas of Cusa’s Hermeneutical Approach to the Koran», in G. Piaia (ed.) Concordia Discors. Studi su Niccolò Cusano e l'umanesimo europeo offerti a Giovanni Santinello, Padova, Antenore, 1993, pp. 251-273. 49 Hopkins, «Introduction», p. 24. 50 Ibidem.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

128

NATHAN RON

scheme, De pace fidei, may certainly be described as a form of dialogue with Islam, the Cribratio «does not offer a satisfactory solution for dialogue with Islam in religious and political terms».51 Thus, Nancy Bisaha’s emphasis on an ideological gap supposedly existing between the Pope and his Cardinal,52 should be modified if not considerably revised. A gap between Piccolomini’s crusading tendency and Cusanus’ De pace fidei irenic attitude did conspicuously exist. However, the ideological gap between the two diminishes or even wholly disappears once a comparison is made between Piccolomini’s crusading inclinations and Cusanus’ Cribratio Alkorani. 3. Cusanus’ Swerve Cusanus’ stance regarding Pius II’s planed crusade is significant. The Cardinal was supportive and involved in the efforts the Pope invested in setting the crusade in motion.53 Although nominated papal legate in Rome, Cusanus was in Mantua during the congress convened by Pius II (1459), or at least at a certain stage of that congress. According to a description by the Pope, Cusanus took part in welcoming Albert, margrave of Brandenburg, a glorified combatant and general (the «German Achilles»), who was about to join Pius II’s military planned expedition. Albert’s arrival to Mantua was an important step towards the fulfilment of Pius II’s crusading plan, which Cusanus supported in practice and, so it seems, in spirit too. Cusanus 51

Euler, «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’ Writings on Islam», op. cit., 29. Bisaha, Creating East and West, pp. 150-151. 53 See Housley, N., «Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, Nicholas of Cusa, and the Crusade: Conciliar, Imperial, and Papal Authority», Church History, 86 (2017), pp. 657-660, who attributes to Cusanus a crusading desire before and after 1453 (pp. 664-665). Crusades were largely financed by papal indulgences. Izbicki, T.M., «The Legate Grants Indulgences: Cusanus in Germany in 1450–1453», in Izbicki, T.M., J. Aleksander and D.F. Duclow (eds.) Nicholas of Cusa and Times of Transition. Essays in Honor of Gerald Christianson, Leiden, Brill, 2019, pp. 81-95, studied Cusanus’ active role in the distribution of papal indulgences in Germany during the early 1450’, based on Acta Cusana (Edited at present by J. Helmrath and T. Woelki, formerly by E. Meuthen and H. Hallauer). Izbicki concludes (p. 95): «There was no evidence that Cusanus ever questioned the actual value of indulgences. Instead, his proclamation of spiritual favors contributed to negative comment on these concessions and their financial aspects. In the long run, the German sense of grievance over indulgences as sources of papal revenue, and the poor reputation of the Roman curia north of the Alps provided fertile ground for Martin Luther at the outbreak of the Reformation». So far we have no evidence pointing to the involvement of Cusanus in the distribution of indulgences for financing Pius II’s crusade (bearing in mind that Acta Cusana has not yet reached documentation of the years 1458 et seqq). 52

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

129

demonstrated this with a gesture. When Albert came to Mantua «the cardinal of San Pietro left the ranks and went out to meet him», while the Pope praised Albert «for his prompt and generous promises of support against the Turks» and endowed him with money and expensive gifts.54 Cusanus was about to join Pius II in Ancona when he died in Todi on August 11, 1464. The Pope died in Ancona three days later while vainly awaiting the launch of his crusade. Morimichi Watanabe wonders what Cusanus would have done had he arrived in Ancona. «Could he willingly support the crusade, though he had always believed in peace? If so, how would he have convinced himself to take such a position? Many questions remain unanswered; in history, ironic turns of events often occur».55 Yet Watanabe himself came up with some plausible explanations as to why Cusanus changed his mind.56 Firstly he suggests that Cusanus may have acquired a deeper understanding of Islam and the Qur’an and where it diverged from Christian doctrine, in particular in denying Christ as Son of God, the crucifixion and in the doctrine of the Trinity. Secondly Cusanus’ move to Rome and acceptance of an official position as representative of Pope Pius II may have obliged him to adopt a more orthodox line, defending Christendom and attacking Islam. Thirdly, he developed a close personal friendship with Pope Pius II, and his desire to support him in his crusade against the Turks as declared at the Congress of Mantua may have influenced his attitude to Islam. And finally Watanabe points out that Cusanus was working from a translation of the Qur’an completed by Robert of Ketton in 1143, which contained several errors, and thus Cusanus could have misunderstood parts of the text.57 These distinctive explanations are significant, yet they do not enable us to reconstruct the process through which Cusanus’ mind went. In contrast to Watanabe’s proposed explanations, certain researchers emphasize the crusade-oriented connection, which existed between the Pope and the cardinal, concluding that «The two old warriors […] ended their lives away from Rome pursuing another ideal, a crusade in defence of Christendom».58

Comment. III, 45, 3: «Huic Mantuam venienti cardinalis Sancti Petri extra ordinem occurit […] laudavitque magnificis verbis, qui sua opera contra Turchos alacri et magno animo promisisset». The gifts are mentioned here too. 55 Watanabe, «Cusanus, Islam, and Religious Tolerance», op. cit., p. 16. 56 See n. 54. 57 Watanabe, «Cusanus, Islam, and Religious Tolerance», op. cit., pp. 13-14. 58 Izbicki, T.M., Christianson, G., and Krey, Ph., (ed. and trans.) Reject Aeneas, Accept Pius. Selected Letters of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2006, p. 53.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

130

NATHAN RON

For historians such as Hankins and Bisaha, who do not treat De pace fidei as a utopian vision, but as a sophisticated strategy intended to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, Cusanus did not really change his mind. Hankins explained that «Cusanus developed a highly original ecumenical strategy that involved showing Jews, Muslim, Hindus, and others that their religions […] contained all the essential truths of Christianity […] This strategy he set out in his De pace fidei […]».59 Nevertheless, De pace fidei has a significant utopian notion which must not be overlooked or belittled, and the gap between its universal and pacifistic essentials and the conspicuous polemical elements of the Cribratio are not easily reconciled, if at all. During the eight years that passed between the appearance of De pace fidei (1453) and the publication of Cribratio Alkorani, Cusanus did change his mind concerning Islam. How early might that have happened? Cusanus’ references to the Turks and Islam, in a sermon which he composed in praise of the victory over the Turks near Belgrade in the summer 1456, are telling. First he explicitly links Christ’s suffering to then enemies of Christendom, the Turks: «Christ suffered many persecutions in his mystic body, and much by that most savage Mehmed the Turk, the despiser of the cross of our Christ». Then he characterises apostate Christians who have converted to Islam as «spiritless» and ruled only by the senses. He then describes Mohammed as a «pseudoprophet» and explains the positive references to the Gospels in the Qur’an as the beguiling deception of Satan, emphasizing the doctrinal divergence of denying the crucifixion. Thus, he praised Christ and the Gospel, but posited false insights while promising paradisiac lust of flesh and body. And since the cross of Christ is the ultimate spiritual testimony of conceiving the Gospel […] therefore it seems that Satan induced Mohamed’s doctrine to people so that the head of evil, the son of perdition, will spring out of it and constitute himself as the enemy of the cross of Christ. Finally, he explicitly links this deception and battle between good and evil to contemporary historical events, associating victory in this battle with the prospective re-conquest of Constantinople: But God permitted that the persecutor of the cross reigns until Constantinople, the new city of Rome with its plenty of sacred temples, could be regained. As for those inhabitants who schismatically deserted the unity of Catholic faith and the procession of the Holy Spirit they did not keep their secret promise of fidelity finally made at the synod of Florence to lend help

Hankins, «Renaissance Crusaders», op. cit., p. 128; Bisaha, Creating East and West, op. cit., pp. 144-147.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

131

for the purpose of fighting the Turks. Their choice to follow temporal convenience is a deceitful act.60

In this text Cusanus wishes for the regaining of Constantinople from the Ottomans by war. This and the harsh language in referring to Islam and Mohammed make it clear that Cusanus’ approach to Islam resembled no more De pace fidei, but was already very much in the denigrating terms and spirit of the Cribratio Alkorani. Thus, the sermon might be the key to understanding the essential difference between De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani. In 1453, after the fall of Constantinople, Cusanus inclined toward appeasement and toleration. Three years later Cusanus’ mind concerning Islam and the Turks seems to be different. The sermon provides key evidence that the geo-political situation of the time was of great importance. The fear that Mehmet II would take over Hungary, and perhaps proceed as far as Vienna (as Suleiman I did in 1529) was not baseless. What would have happened if Mehmet II was not stopped at Belgrade? Speculations aside, the Turkish menace was tangible and fearinspiring. Although defeated in Belgrade (July 22, 1456), Mehmet II took over

Sermo CCXL Laudans invocabo Dominum at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 1245 (the translation to English is mine): «Passus est Christus multas persecutiones in corpore suo mystico, maxime autem per saevissimum istud, Mahometh Turkum contemptorem crucis Christi nostri. Multi quidem Saraceni a fide Christi abierunt, quia animalis homo quae sunt spiritus Dei percipere nequit I Cor 2,14. […] Et quia homo animalis non concipit vitam laetam nisi animaliter et sensibiliter, diabolus subtiliter inficere volens evangelium introduxit pseudoprophetam Mahometh quasi sciolum evangelii et scripturae, ut daret intellectum animalem, qui gratus est homini animali. Sic laudavit Christum et evangelium, sed apposuit falsum intellectum promittens paradisum voluptatis secundum carnem et delicias corporales. Et quoniam crux Christi est ultimum testimonium spiritualis intelligentiae evangelii […] ideo doctrinam Mahometh diabolus videtur hominibus persuasisse, ut ex ipsa veniret caput malitiae filius perditionis, qui se inimicum crucis Christi constitueret. Permisit autem Deus regnare persecutorem crucis quousque illam magnam novam Romam civitatem Constantinopolitanam plenam templis sanctissimis occuparet. Nam illi inhabitatores ab unitate fidei catholicae quoad processionnem Spiritus Sancti scismatice recesserunt et demum fidem subdole promissam in synodo Florentina ad finem habendi contra Turkum adiutorium non servaverunt. Non enim nisi delusorie accesserunt ad finem, ut temporale commodum assequerentur». See also Hankins, «Renaissance Crusaders», op. cit., p. 128 (n. 49); O’Malley, J.W., Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome. Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, c. 14501521, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1979, p. 234 nn. 156-157; Euler, «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’ Writings on Islam», op. cit., p. 27.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

132

NATHAN RON

Serbian territories and means of self-governing during 1454-1456.61 The expansion of Ottoman power over the Balkans, posing a threat to Hungary and Austria, might have caused Cusanus to reject his tolerant De pace fidei attitude and adopt a stronger tone. But there is also evidence that the shift in Cusanus’ thinking began slightly earlier. Euler noticed that in his letter to John of Segovia (December 29, 1454), Cusanus adds a remark which testifies to a certain change of his mind. Though the letter is predominantly tolerant and appeasing, De pace fidei style, the remark reads: «It seems as if we are obliged to keep trying to interpret that book [the Qurʾan], so important to them, as being commissioned for our sake. For we find things in it that are useful to us, and we will interpret all the others which are contrary according through the first ones».62 Euler claims that these words are Cusanus’ first expression since De pace fidei, of his new attitude toward the Qurʾan – or parts of it, at least – as contradictory to Christianity. Moreover, these words also demonstrate Cusanus’ insistence on taking advantage of other parts of the Qurʾan to be used in favour of Christianity – by way of faithful interpretation (pia interpretatio). According to Euler, Cusanus’ change of mind took place during the fifteen months that lay between the composition of De pace fidei and Cusanus’ letter to John of Segovia. It seems that the transition was a gradual process over time which started, as Euler points out, sometime after Cusanus wrote his De pace fidei and before he composed his letter to John of Segovia. The process was completed by 1456, as the sermon shows. By that point, Cusanus’ outlook had completed a swerve: the De pace fidei spirit had faded away and given way to a Cribratio Alkorani approach.

For restoration of events and dates of Mehmed’s military steps after he conquered Constantinople, see: Inalcik, H., «Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time», Speculum, 35 (1960), pp. 408-427; Inalcik, Essays in Ottoman History. Istanbul, EREN, 1998, pp. 87-110. 62 Epistula ad Ioannem de Segobia in Nicolai de Cusa De pace fidei. Cum epistula ad Ioannem de Segobia, ed. Raymundus Klibanky and Hildebrandus Bascour, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1959, Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia, vol. 7, p. 99, 22-25: «Unde videtur quod semper ad hoc conandum sit quod liber iste, qui apud eos est in auctoritate, pro nobis allegetur. Nam reperimus in eo talia quae serviunt nobis; et alia quae contrariantur, glosabimus per illa». Euler, «A Critical Survey of Cusanus’ Writings on Islam», in Levy, George-Tvrtković and Duclow (eds.) Nicholas of Cusa and Islam, op. cit., pp. 26-27.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

133

4. Semichristiani Erasmus uses the term Semichristiani twice in his essay War is sweet to those who never experienced it (Dulce bellum inexpertis, 1515): «Indeed, those who are called Turks by us are largely half-Christians […]», and «We are preparing to quench the whole of Asia and Africa with the sword, though most of the population there are either Christian or half-Christian».63 And again, in his De bello Turcico: «They are ﬁrst of all human beings, then half-Christians».64 In the same work, Erasmus states: «The blessed Paul pointed out to us the good hope that the day will come when the stubborn Jewish nation will convert to Christianity and recognize the one and only Jesus Christ as our shepherd. Besides, there is hope that the Turks and other barbaric nations, which, as I hear, are not pagans but half-Christians in their faith».65 In the epilogue of her Creating East and West, Nancy Bisaha argues that Erasmus’ definition of Muslims as «half-Christian» echoes Nicholas of Cusa’s optimistic view of the Turks».66 However, Cusanus never used the term semichristiani in his writings, either in his De pace fidei or in his Cribratio Alkorani or any other writing. As for Cusanus’ optimism, this is certainly valid as far De pace fidei is concerned, but not as regards Cusanus’ later Cribratio, as already demonstrated.67 Undoubtedly, the term semichristiani expressed the recognition by Christians that Islam acknowledged the revelations of God at the basis of Judaism and Christianity, whether to Abraham, Moses, or to Jesus.68 Erasmus saw little to be impressed by in this. «They acknowledge Christ as just one of

63 CWE 35, 433; ASD II-7, 39–40 (Adagia IV, i1; no.3001): «Atqui quos nos vocamus Turcas, magna parte semichristiani sunt […] Nos totam Asiam et Africam ferro paramus extinguere, quum plurimi sint illic vel Christiani vel semichristiani». 64 CWE 64, 233; ASD V-3, 52: «[…] illos primum esse homines, deinde semichristianos». 65 CWE 64, 243; ASD V-3, 62: «Nam beatus Paulus nobis spem bonam ostendit, fore, ut aliquando Judaeorum pertinacissima natio ad idem ovile congregetur, ac nobiscum agnoscat unum Pastorem Jesum. Quanto magis id sperandum de Turcis reliquisque barbaris nationibus, quarum, ut audio, nulla colit Idola, sed dimidiatum habent Christianisimum». 66 Bisaha, Creating East and West, op. cit., pp. 174-175. On Erasmus’ Muslims as «halfChristians», see: Hampton, T., «Turkish Dogs: Rabelais, Erasmus, and the Rhetoric of Alterity», Representations, 41 (1993), pp. 62-63. 67 See pp. 6-14. 68 Williams, G.H., «Erasmus and the Reformers on Non-Christian Religions and Salus Extra Ecclesiam», in T.K. Rabb and J.E. Seigel (eds.), Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe. Essays in Memory of H. Harbison, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1969, p. 332.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

134

NATHAN RON

their prophets. The Jews do the same»,69 and he goes on to denounce the Turks and the Jews for their false faith. «Their sect», Erasmus writes of Islam, «is a mixture of Judaism, Christianity, paganism, and the Arian Heresy».70 In his analysis of Islamic essence, Erasmus uses the term «half-Christian» not with Cusanus’ De pace fidei optimism, but a rather typical medieval perspective which matches closely with Piccolomini’s description of «[…] Muhammad, an Arab steeped in gentile error and Jewish perfidy, who received instruction in the Nestorian and Arian heresies».71 Erasmus used the term semichristiani within the framework of a Christian moral rhetoric emphasizing a need for a correction of Christian life (correctio vitae).72 Christians, not Turks, were Erasmus’ concern. Erasmus deliberately uses rhetorical exaggeration in describing the Turkish evil in his writing with the intention of stressing that the Turks, although corrupt and cruel, were better than the Christians. In this way, Erasmus added greater urgency to his call of alarm for a Christian correction of life. Additionally, Erasmus’ definition of the Turks as «half-Christian» can be seen as an expression of wishful thinking, a will to convert them to Christianity.73 Erasmus had a conception of the Turks becoming Christians, who would follow the supposedly moral Evangelical examples set by emissaries who would be sent to the Ottoman Empire and this informs his use of the term semichristiani. It meant that cruel, blood-thirsty and immoral as they were (in Erasmus’ view), the Turks were capable of understanding and being influenced by the moral examples such emissaries would be expected to set forward. As already pointed out, Erasmus demonstrated a hostile attitude toward Islam, derogatory towards the Turks. His De bello Turcico consists of harsh and abusive references not just concerning the Turks but also regarding the essence of Islam and Mohammed. Erasmus used his characterization of genus Turcarum to 69

CWE 64, p. 259; ASD V-3, p. 76: «Agnoscunt Christum ut unum quempiam ex prophetis». 70 CWE 64, pp. 258-259; ASD V-3, p. 76: «Sectam habent ex Iudaismo, Christianismo, Paganismo et Arianorum haeresis commixtam». 71 Comment. II, I, 5, (p. 211): «[…] Mahumetem […] qui fuit Arabs gentili errore et Iudaica imbutus perfidia audivitque Christianos, qui Nestoriana et Ariana labe infecti errant». See: Moudarres, «Crusade and Conversion», op. cit., pp. 43. 72 On the moral meaning of the war against the Turks: Weiller, A.G., «The Turkish Argument and Christian Piety in Desiderius Erasmus’ Consultatio de Bello Turcis inferendo (1530)», in W.J. Sperna and W.T.M. Frijhoff (eds.), Erasmus of Rotterdam the Man a and the Scholar, Leiden, Brill, 1988, pp. 30-39. 73 Erasmus’ suggestions for converting the Turks: CWE 64, p. 265, ASD V-3 81; CWE 66, pp. 10-11; Ep. 858, 103-107.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

ERASMUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD ISLAM IN LIGHT OF NICHOLAS

135

embody all that was wrong with the Christian world: «If we really want to heave the Turks from our necks, we must first expel from our hearts a more loathsome race of Turks, avarice, ambition, the craving for power, self-satisfaction, impiety, and extravagance, the love of pleasure, deceitfulness, anger, hatred, and envy.» 74 In Erasmus’ mind, corruption and immorality was the Turkish essence and for him the Turkish race represented a form of inhumanity, expressed by the term Immanitas Turcarum. As Hankins interprets, «Immanis was the very word that the humanists used over and over again to describe the Turk. It is the lexical opposite of humanitas, the word that expresses the Renaissance ideal of culture. In humanist histories and orations, immane genus replaced infideles as the preferred epithet for the Turks».75 This overshadows any moderation or toleration attributed to Erasmus due to his definition of Muslims as semichristiani. Consequently, it should be recognized that Erasmus’ anti-Turkish/Muslim attitude was far from the moderate and tolerant and attitude toward Islam and the Turks expressed in Cusanus’ De pace fidei. Morover, Erasmus’ vision of inter-religious relations was fundamentally different from Cusanus’ universal «one religion in different rituals» expressed in his earlier work. However, similarities of polemical elements concerning Islam can be found between Cusanus’ much less moderate or tolerant Cribratio and Erasmus’ De bello Turcico. Erasmus’ attitude towards Turks and Islam is similar to Cusanus’ attitude expressed in Cribratio, when he writes of convincing the Muslims to convert by explaining and proving to them that Christianity is superior to Islam. Erasmus’ future vision is telling. «The name of Christ […] will be recognized, celebrated and worshipped throughout the whole world, as the psalm says: that all nations, in different tongues but with a single voice, in one single temple, one united church, shall sing glory to their redeemer».76 Erasmus envisaged the existence of one religion, which would be embodied by a uniform monolithic church and would not recognize a variety of rituals. But this was also Nicholas of Cusa’s wish – Cribratio’s aim was, in the final analysis, to argue for Christian superiority over Islam in order to make Muslims convert to Christianity, just as Pius II suggested to the Sultan in his famous unsent letter.

CWE 64, p. 242; ASD V-3, p. 62: «Si nobis succedere cupimus, ut Turcas a nostris cervicibus depellamus, prius teterrimum Turcarum genus ex animis nostris exigamus, avaritiam, ambitionem, dominandi libidinem, nostri fiducia, impietatem luxum, voluptatum amorem, fraudulentiam, iram, odium, invidiam». 75 Hankins, «Renaissance Crusaders», op. cit., 122. 76 CWE 64, 243; ASD V-3 62: «[...] Christi nomen […] per universum terrarum orbem agnosci, celebrari, adoriri, juxta Psalmum. Universas nationes variis linguis, sed concordibus in eodem templo, hoc est in unitate Ecclesiae Redemtori suo canere gloriam».

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

136

NATHAN RON

Conclusions Any observation of an ideological linkage that might have existed between Cusanus’ outlook and others, such as Pius II or Erasmus, must take into account the distinction which exists between Cusanus’ early De pace fidei utopian-irenic vision and his later instrumental scrutiny of the Qurʾan. The passion for crusading and Cusanus’ De pace fidei irenic attitude are completely incompatible, while religious warlike passion and Cusanus’ Cribratio approach are quite consistent. In essence, the Cribratio should be interpreted as reflecting the later Cusanus’ ideological affinity, if not identity with Pius II as far as the Turkish threat was concerned. As for defining Erasmus’ attitude toward the Turks as moderate or tolerant based on his characterization of Muslims/Turks as «half-Christian», echoing Cusanus’ optimistic view of the Turks, this should be rejected in light of the following findings: Cusanus never used the term semichristiani in his writings. The term semichristiani sits in Erasmus’ writings side by side with manifest contempt and degradation in relation to the Turks. Erasmus’ rhetoric and hostile attitude toward the Turks/Islam are far from the moderation and toleration which Cusanus presents in his De pace fidei. As far as Erasmus’ concordia was concerned, namely his notion of an exclusively Christian peace which did not include Turks and Jews (unless they converted), Erasmus was consistent and unequivocal throughout his writings.77 In contrast, Cusanus’ De pace fidei was not exclusivist but containing and tolerant. However, his Cribratio presents quite a different attitude toward Islam, much closer to Erasmus’ De bello Turcico. Nathan Ron nron2@staff.haifa.ac.il Fecha de recepción: 23/01/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 16/03/2019

Turchetti, M., «Religious Concord and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century France», Sixteenth Century Journal, 22 (1991), pp. 15-25. Turchetti observes that Sebastian Castellio’s willingness to recognize other religions in Europe beside Catholic Christianity was in no way influenced by Erasmus who profoundly believed that Catholic Christianity was the one and only true religion. Admittedly, Erasmus never called for religious freedom or religious pluralism: Ron, «The Christian Peace of Erasmus», op. cit.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 113-136

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM Walter Andreas Euler Faculty of Theology, University of Trier

Abstract The article compares for the first time Luther‘s reflections on Islam with Cusanus‘s. Both thinkers did not engage in Islam on their own initiative, but because they were prompted by political developments. Luther‘s writings on Islam are mostly authored in German. He addresses the public in the empire and tries to encourage Christians challenged in their Christians faith, especially those who are in Turkish captivity. Nicholas of Cusa addresses also Islamic receivers in his Cribratio Alkorani. Luther stresses the contrast between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the message of Muhammad, whereas Cusanus tries to build theological bridges between Christianity and Islam. Keywords Koran; Muhammad; defense; apocalyptic threat; exclusivism; integration

Europe’s intellectual elites, in the transition from the late Middle Ages to the early modern period, generally did not engage in Islam on their own initiative, but because they were prompted by political developments. In the 15th and 16th century, the Ottoman advance shocked Westerners, so that Islam is increasingly called the Turkish religion during this period. Although Nicholas of Cusa had already dealt with Islam at the time of the Council of Basel, it was the fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, which led him to write De pace fidei. This turning point in world history prompted Juan de Segovia to write a letter to Nicholas on the subject of Islam, which he answered on December 29, 1454. In his 294 sermons,1 he comes only once more to speak at

293 of Cusanus’s sermons have been edited by R. Haubst, et al. in: Nicolaus de Cusa, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis, vols. XVI, XVII, XVIII,

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

WALTER ANDREAS EULER

138

length on Islam, in the first part of the Sermo CCXL, which was given in a procession in thanksgiving for the victory over the Turks at Belgrade on August 24, 1456. Also Cribratio Alkorani was known to be motivated by an external impulse, namely the intention of Pope Pius II, to convince Sultan Mehmed II by a teaching letter on the truth of the Christian faith.2 While in Central Europe the conflict over the right understanding of the Christian faith gradually led to the dissolution of intra-Christian unity, Sultan Suleiman I, the Magnificent, took up the military successes of Mehmed II. In 1521 Belgrade was conquered, in 1526 the Hungarian army was defeated, and in autumn of 1529 the Turks besieged Vienna. In view of the increasing threat for the empire by the Turks, the reformer Martin Luther was forced, as he himself states, to give a detailed statement on Islam. The title of this first book on the Turks («Türkenbuch») of Luther in April 1529 reads: Vom Kriege wider die Türken (On War against the Turk). In 1530 appeared Eine Heerpredigt wider den Türken (An Army Sermon against the Turk). These two writings, as well as most of Luther’s later statements on Islam, were written in German. Luther addressed himself to the public in the empire, where he had been declared by his opponents, especially from the Catholic camp, to be responsible for the advance of the Turks.3 Luther declares at the beginning of On War against the Turk: Serene, highborn prince, gracious lord, for the past five years certain persons have been begging me to write about war against the Turks, and to arouse and encourage our people. Now that the Turk is actually approaching, even my friends are urging me to do this, especially since there are some stupid preachers among us Germans (as I am sorry to hear) who are making the people believe that we ought not and must not fight against the Turks. Some are even so foolish as to say that it is not proper for Christians to bear the temporal sword or to be rulers. Furthermore, some actually want the Turk to come and rule because they think our German people are wild and uncivilized – indeed, that they are half-devil and half-man. The blame for this wicked error among the people is laid on Luther and must be called ‘the

and XIX, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1991-2008. Another sermon was recently discovered by Marco Brösch. 2 Euler, W.A., and Kerger, T. (eds.), Cusanus und der Islam, Trier, Paulinus, 2010; Euler, W.A., «A Critical Survey of Cusanus‘s Writings on Islam», in I.C., Levy, R. GeorgeTvrtković and D.F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam. Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2014, pp. 20-29. 3 Francisco, A.S., Martin Luther and Islam. A Study in Sixteenth-Centure Polemics and Apologetics, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2007.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM

139

fruit of my Gospel,’ just as I am blamed for the rebellion, and for every bad thing that happens anywhere in the world. 4

In the various indices of the large critical edition of Luther’s works, letters and Table Talk («Tischreden»), we can see that topics like «Turkey, Turk, Turkish, etc.» played a great role for him and his environment.5 The idea of comparing for the first time Luther’s reflections on Islam with Cusanus’s goes back to a lecture entitled: «Die Einstellung der Reformatoren des 16. Jahrhunderts zu Nikolaus von Kues» (The Attitude of the Reformers of the 16th Century to Nicholas of Cusa), which I delivered last October on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, in the birthplace of Cusanus in Bernkastel-Kues. In preparing this article I have been reminded that Luther once referred to Cusanus. This happened in the foreword to the Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum (Tract on the Religion and Customs of the Turks), which Luther published in 1530. This fifteenth-century work is a report by a Dominican friar from Transylvania, Georgius de Hungaria, who spent 20 years in Turkish captivity. Luther writes in his Latin preface that he desperately wants to know the religion of the Turks, but he has found until that moment only two writings on the subject: a certain Confutatio Alkorani and the Cribratio Alkorani of Nicholas of Cusa (Cribratio Alkorani Nicholai de Cusa). He did not yet know the Koran at that time. So Luther knew the most important work of Cusanus on Islam and the name of its author. But he had great reservations about the two writings he mentioned. They seemed to him to be less reliable than the book of Georgius de Hungaria, as we see in the following quote: I gladly accepted this little book on the religion and customs of the Turks when it was offered to me. Now I have decided to publish it, not without good reason as it seems to me. Although I have eagerly desired for some time to learn about the religion and customs of the Muhammadans, nothing has been available to me except a certain Refutation of the Alcoran and the Critique of the Alcoran by Nicholas of Cusa; I have tried in vain to read the Qur‘ān itself. The authors of the Refutation and the Critique seem to have intended through pious examination to frighten sincere Christians away from Muhammadanism and hold them secure in their faith in Christ. Still, while they eagerly take pains to excerpt from the Qur‘ān all the most base and absurd things 4

Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, ed. R. C. Schultz, in Luther’s Works, vol. 46, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1967, pp. 161-205, at p. 161; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, eds. F. Cohrs and A. Goetze, in Luther, M., Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 30/2, Weimar, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1909, pp. 107-148, at p. 106,6-20. 5 Brecht, M., «Luther und die Türken», in B. Guthmüller and W. Kühlmann (eds.), Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer, 2000, pp. 9-27, at p. 9.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

WALTER ANDREAS EULER

140

that arouse hatred and can move people to ill-will, at the same time they either pass over without rebuttal or cover the good things it contains. The result is that they have achieved too little credibility or authority, as it were cheapening their work either because of hatred of the Turks or because of their own lack of powers of refutation.6

This characterization corresponds more to the first work called by him Confutatio Alkorani, also known under the title Contra legem Sarracenorum, a work of the Florentine Dominican friar and Orient Missionary Ricoldo da Montecroce (1243-1320) than to the Cribratio Alkorani of Nicholas of Cusa. Incidentally, Luther revised his judgment thoroughly in relation to Ricoldo’s writing. In 1542 he published his own German translation of the book – with extensive cuts on the one hand, and his own additions on the other – under the title Verlegung des Alcoran (Refutation of the Koran). Luther read the Koran in the Latin translation of Robert of Ketton on Shrove Tuesday in 1542. Thus he came to the conviction that those things that Ricoldo, who was called by him Brother Richard, had to criticize about Islam, were not too negative, but fully corresponded to the statements of the Koran. He writes: This book by Brother Richard of the Order of Preachers, entitled Refutation of the Koran, I had read several times before, but I could not believe that there were rational human beings on this earth who could be persuaded by the Devil to believe such shameful things. … But now, this past Shrove Tuesday, I have seen the Koran in Latin, though so poorly translated that I still hope to see a clearer one. But from it I observed, at least, that this brother Richard did not make up the material in his book; rather, it corresponds to [the Koran] exactly.7

As for the appreciation of the book of Ricoldo da Montecroce, Cusanus agrees with the judgment of Luther in 1542. The cardinal mentions his sources in the first prologue of the Cribratio and emphasizes in particular Ricoldo’s book: «Thereafter, in Rome, I saw the book of Brother Ricoldo, of the Order of 6

Henrich, S. and Boyce, J.L., «Martin Luther – Translations of Two Prefaces on Islam: Preface to the Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum (1530) and Preface to Bibliander’s Edition of the Qur‘ān (1543)», Word & World, 16 (1996), pp. 250-266, at p. 258; Luther, M., Vorwort zu dem Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum, ed. O. Clemen, in Luther, M. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 30/2, Weimar, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1909, pp. 205-208, at p. 205,2-15. 7 Luther, M., Preface and Afterword to Brother Richard O.P. [Riccoldo da Monte di Croce], Refutation of the Koran, ed. A. S. Francisco, in Luther’s Works, vol. 60, ed. C. B. Brown, Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 2011, pp. 253-266, at pp. 253-254. Luther, M., Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi, Prediger Ordens, eds. H. Barge and O. Brenner, in Luther, M., Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 53, Weimar, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920, pp. 272-396, at p. 272,3-6.16-19.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM

141

the Preachers, who studied Arabic in Bagdad; this [book] was more gratifying than the others.» 8 In the course of the writing Ricoldo is repeatedly mentioned with praise. Cusanus calls him «a certain wise man»9 and «a certain devout man knowing Arabic»10. The «Index auctorum» of the critical edition of the Cribratio shows how often Nicholas refers to Ricoldo’s book Contra legem Sarracenorum.11 The question why Luther worked much less with the book of Nicholas of Cusa than with that of Ricoldo da Montecroce cannot be answered, because Luther does not comment on this subject. Cusanus’ approach of sifting the Koran critically or rather to read it dialectically – at once with a view to the positive, but also with a sharp emphasis on the negative aspects – makes it difficult to use his book as a basis for a clear judgment. Even Pope Pius II doesn’t refer to the Cribratio in his letter to Mehmed II, although this work was written for him. In the critical edition of the Verlegung, however, it is pointed out, among other things, that Luther’s marginal note «Hic Sergius Monachus»12 goes back to the Cribratio Alkorani.13 This shows that the reformer can not have read Cusanus’ writing only superficially. Let us now take a look at the theological conceptions of Cusanus and Luther towards Islam: Why does God allow that there could emerge a new religion and political as well as military power in Arabia 600 years after the death of Christ on the cross, a new religion which causes so many difficulties for the true Christian religion? This question tormented the theologians of the Middle Ages more than those of today. The most convincing answer according to them, especially on the basis of the Old Testament and the behavior of the ancient people of the God of the Israelites, is the one we find in different variations also in Nicholas of Cusa and Martin Luther. Islam is a rod of God to punish the transgressions of the Christians, and at the same time a tool of the devil.

Hopkins, J., Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani: Translation and Analysis, Minneapolis, The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1994, p. 76; Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, ed. L. Hagemann, in: Nicolaus de Cusa, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis, vol. VIII, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1986, # 4,3-5 (p. 6). 9 Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., p. 89; Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 29,2 (p. 29). 10 Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., p. 93; Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 37,6 (p. 35). 11 Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., pp. 311-313. 12 Luther, M., Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi, Prediger Ordens, op. cit., p. 288,25. 13 Ibid., pp. 288-290 (note 8); Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op.cit., # 11,2-4 (p. 13).

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

WALTER ANDREAS EULER

142

In his letter to Juan de Segovia, Cusanus notes that scourges often occur when tepiditas, lukewarmness creeps into the church. He cites as an example the plundering of Rome by the Saracens in 846. God hates lukewarmness because he is a jealous God. If the lukewarmness were eliminated, the plagues would disappear. The Cardinal concludes: «I firmly believe that the persecution is not permitted for death, but for life, not for annihilation, but for the glorification of the faith. Because the church has this peculiarity that it shines out under the persecution.»14 In sermon CCXL, Cusanus says the «fraudulent schismatics», which means the Orthodox Christians, who did not support union with the Latin Church, which had been declared in 1439 at the Council of Florence, would be restored to the right path by the fall of Constantinople, and the good people who were driven out would drive the Christians out of their lukewarmness. 15 The Turkish scourge would wake the drowsy Christians. Cusanus concludes the part of the sermon that deals with the Belgrade victory by saying: «God will prove to be the loyal guardian of us Christians if we, filled with faith, seek refuge in him, knowing that we will undoubtedly be saved16 if we trust in his protection, willingly and with all our heart.»17 In his Cribratio Nicholas refers to the devil in one place explicitly as the author of the Koran: 14

Nicolaus de Cusa, Epistola ad Ioannem de Segobia, eds. R. Klibansky and H. Bascour, in Nicolaus de Cusa, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis, vol. VII, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1959, pp. 93-102, at p. 100, 16-25: «Nam pluries tepiditate Ecclesiam subintrante excitata sunt flagella. Venerunt Romam aliquando Sarraceni et Ecclesiam sancti Petri depraedarunt; excitata dormiens Ecclesia ad Dominum habuit refugium. Odit Deus tepiditatem, quia Deus zelotes. Unde, si occasiones tollerentur quare contra nos sed pro nostra salute et decore Ecclesiae Christus ista permittit, esset infallibile remedium. Ego firmissime credo non ad mortem sed vitam, non ad suppressionem sed exaltationem fidei persecutionem permitti. Ecclesia hoc proprium habet quod sub persecutione splendescit.» 15 Nicolaus de Cusa, Sermo CCXL, eds. W. A. Euler and H. Schwaetzer, in Nicolaus de Cusa, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis, vol. XIX, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 2002, pp. 228-234, # 4,1-4 (p. 229). 16 Here, Nicholas alludes not only to the eternal salvation, but also to the rescue from the threat of the Turks. 17 Nicolaus de Cusa, Sermo CCXL, # 5 (pp. 230-231): «Haec est dies boni nuntii, in quo recepimus plures litteras huius miraculosae victoriae. Quapropter convenimus, ut laudemus Deum, qui mirabili ordine memoriam crucis renovavit, agente hoc per flagellum, quo somnolenti excitaremur ac quod invocemus eum, qui ostendit se pium protectorem, quando tota fide ad ipsum recurrimus, scientes quia indubie salvi erimus, si ex toto corde nos suae tuitione commendaverimus.»

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM

143

The author of the book [= the Koran] will be someone other than the true God; but he cannot be anyone except the god of this world. For this god is he who blinds the minds of unbelievers, so that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, does not shine in them; … This god, or prince, of this world, who from the beginning is a liar, encountered the man Muhammad through the person of one of his own angels who assumed the appearance of light and perhaps the name ‘Gabriel’. This god found that the idolater Muhammad, who was worshipping Venus and lusting after all the things of this world, was most suitable for his purpose. And through Muhammad, chiefly, and his successors he put together the deceitful Koran.18

Luther is certain that Islam or the «Turk» is the scourge of God and at the same time a tool of the devil. In his theocentric view of the world, in pestilence, war, riots, earthquakes, murders, Turks, and Tartars, the will of God is expressed, thus punishing his unruly people in the sense of Isaiah 10:5. The thesis that God uses the infidels, specifically the Turks, to chastise his people, already offered Luther the opportunity in 1518, even before the ultimate break with Rome, for a church-critical update: Many in the Church, especially the powerful, and mainly the Pope, would propagate crusades against the Turks. This means that they would rather fight against the divine rod, with which God punishes the sins, than against the misdeeds themselves.19 To avoid this mistake, Luther emphasizes in his book On War Against the Turk: Since the Turk is the rod of the wrath of the Lord our God and the servant of the raging devil, the first thing to be done is to smite the devil, his Lord, and take the rod out of God’s hand, so that the Turk may be found only, in his own strength, all by himself, without the devil’s help and without God’s hand. This should be done by Sir Christian, that is, by the pious, holy, precious body of Christians. They are the people who have the arms for this war and they know how to use them.20

The weapons of the true Christians, with which they appease God and conquer the devil, are unconditional faith in the salvific act of Christ in conjunction with change, repentance and prayer. In a 1542 Table Talk, Luther said that the prayer of the poor children, especially their Lord’s Prayer helps better in the face of the Turkish threat than protective walls, rifles and the 18

Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., 86; Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 23,1-2.5-10 (pp. 23-24). 19 Kaufmann, T., «Türckenbüchlein». Zur christlichen Wahrnehmung «türkischer Religion» in Spätmittelalter und Reformation, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, p. 73. 20 Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 170; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., p. 116,26-32.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

WALTER ANDREAS EULER

144

actions of all princes.21 The military struggle against the Turks is legitimate for Luther, and indeed a civic duty, if the Turks invade as foreign aggressors. This fight must be ordered and directed by the rightful secular authority, Emperor Karolus (= Charles V), according to the two-kingdoms-doctrine. Luther rejected without compromise the medieval idea of the crusade, that is to say, a war that serves religious purposes and promises salvation for serving the Christian cause. He was convinced that there was no justification for the war against the Turks if they did not pose a threat. One must bear their erroneous beliefs as well as those of the bad Christians, among whom Luther, of course, counted his Roman opponents, but also many of his followers and sometimes even himself. «Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy and other false Christians live. The emperor’s sword has nothing to do with the faith.»22 In the Army Sermon Against the Turk, Luther urges Christians, who have fallen into Turkish captivity, to obey their Islamic masters unless they force them to renounce the Christian faith and fight against Christians themselves. The most interesting aspect of this work is Luther’s advice that Christians who find themselves in Ottoman lands should not attempt to flee, but rather they should accept their fate and, while constantly reminding themselves of their righteousness before God in Christ, should strive to do their best to love and serve the Turks.23 Sermo CCXL makes clear that Nicholas of Cusa also supported the idea of military resistance to the expansion of the Turks. In his letter to Juan de Segovia, he writes that defense alone is without danger for the Christians.24 As cardinal of the Curia, Cusanus served from 1458 onwards under Pope Pius II, who saw it as his most important task to initiate a pan-European crusade against the Turks. Whether Nicholas of Cusa supported this idea of the head of 21 Luther, M., Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischreden, vol. 5, Weimar, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920; # 5398 (p. 127). 22 Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 186; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., p. 131,6-9. 23 Francisco, A.S., «Luther, Lutheranism, and the Challenge of Islam», Concordia Theological Quaterly, 71 (2007), pp. 283-300, at p. 290; Luther, M., Heerpredigt wider den Türken, eds. F. Cohrs and A. Goetze, in Luther, M., Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 30/2, Weimar, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1909, pp. 160-197, at pp. 185-195. 24 Nicolaus de Cusa, Epistola ad Ioannem de Segobia, op. cit., p. 97,5-11: «Assentio igitur rationibus vestris fundatissimis tam in iure divino quam humano; quia si iuxta doctrinam Christi processerimus, non errabimus, sed spiritus eius loquetur in nobis, cui non poterunt omnes adversarii Christi resistere; sed si invasionis gladio aggressionem eligerimus, formidare habemus ne gladio pugnantes gladio pereamus. Unde sola defensio sine periculo est Christiano.»

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM

145

the church on the basis of his own conviction and not only by virtue of his office, cannot be determined. With regard to the Koran and the person of Muhammad, Cusanus in his Cribratio is much more detailed and differentiated than Luther in his writings on the Turks. Although Nicholas of Cusa was convinced that the devil was the author of the Koran, his judgment on the «book of Arab law»25 or the «Book of Muhammad»26, as he names the Koran, is by no means only negative. Pia interpretatione, due to pious, Christian interpretation, the Koran could be considered as a secret Gospel,27 yet it is the product of a debauchee who only ever cared for glory, might and wealth. In succession of the older Christian apologetic, Cusanus claims that Mohammed died as a heretic Christian.28 His knowledge of the truth was contaminated by ignorantia, ignorance, and perversitas intentionis, perverse intentions.29 Moreover, tres astutissimi Judaei, three extremely sly Jews had added anti-Christian amendments to the Koran,30 resulting in an even further alienation from Christianity. Thus, in Cribratio Alkorani Cusanus considers the holy book of the Muslims to be a book containing contradictory tendencies regarding its content, as well as a confusissimus liber concerning its form, a highly abstruse creation because every single chapter has to be analysed separately, as the different paragraphs were not coherently connected with each other. Nicholas of Cusa says forthrightly at the end of his second preface that he did not succeed in discerning a clear order in the Koran. That was why his interpretations of the text were rather confusing too.31 The difference between Christianity and Islam is for Cusanus that of primitive animality on the one hand and spirituality which overcomes sensuality on the other. Nicholas of Cusa clearly emphasizes this difference in the sermon CCXL, which, unlike the Cribratio, applies to a sole Christian group of addressees: The law of Christ is the law of the Spirit, which speaks of the love of the Spirit, through which love our spirit is intimately bound to the Spirit, who is 25

Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 20,3 (p. 21): «Est liber legis Arabum Alkoranus ob praeceptorum collectionem». 26 Ibid., # 10,1-2 (p. 11): «Intentio autem nostra est praesupposito evangelio Christi librum Mahometi cribrare». 27 Cusanus uses the term pia interpretatio only in the second book of Cribratio Alkorani: Ibid., # 86,4-6 (p. 72), # 119, 1-2 (p. 94); # 124,3-4 (p. 99); # 154,8-9 (p. 125). 28 Ibid., # 11 (p. 13). 29 Ibid., # 9-10 (pp. 11-12). 30 Ibid., #11, 8-10 (p. 11). 31 Ibid., # 16,3-10 (p. 17).

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

WALTER ANDREAS EULER

146

God, nourished and animated with indescribable and immortal joy. Since the animal-like man can understand the happy life only in an animal-like and sensuous way, the devil, who wanted to poison the gospel in a subtle way, presented the pseudo-prophet Mohammed as an expert of the Gospel and the Holy Scripture, so that he gives him an animal-like understanding, which is pleasing to the animal-like man. Therefore, he (= Mohammad) praised Christ and the Gospel, but he added to this a false understanding by promising a paradise of lust according to the flesh and bodily pleasures.32

In the Cribratio Cusanus’ argument in the beginning is quite similar.33 But he offers his readers in this document with reference to «some who want to excuse the author of the Koran» a far more sophisticated interpretation of the Islamic conception of paradise.34 Martin Luther has systematized his criticism of the Koran, which often coincides with that of Cusanus, in a remarkable way in On War Against the Turk. For him, Islam is a kind of patchwork religion that feeds on Jewish, Christian and pagan traditions, 35 but ultimately pursues three clearly identifiable purposes. Islam wants to destroy the Christian religion, the public order as well as marriage and family, i.e. the three cornerstones on which the society is built. The destruction of the Christian faith is reached by the fact that the Koran praises Christ indeed, but regards him only as a prophet like Jeremiah and Jonah, whose task ended with his death. Conversely, it is clear: «Mohammed’s office is still in force».36 Secondly, Islam is destroying «the whole temporal government», («das gantz weltlich Regiment»),37 i.e. the political or public order. Luther’s reasoning for his thesis is: «Mohammed … commands that ruling is to be done by the sword, and in his Koran the sword is the commonest and noblest work.»38 With reference to Augustine and several passages in the Holy Scripture, Luther makes clear that political power is often associated with criminal violence, but unlike any other kingdom in the world, it is the Turks’ practice to commit crimes as divine commandments. 32

Nicolaus de Cusa, Sermo CCXL, # 2,8-22 (pp. 228-229). Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 149-150,4 (p. 121). 34 Ibid., # 150,5-152,3. 35 Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 177; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., pp. 122,29-123,5. 36 Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 177; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., p. 122,14-15. 37 Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 178; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., p. 123,20. 38 Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 178; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., p. 123,21-22. 33

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM

147

The essential task of the state to serve the inner and outer peace is rendered impossible by the instructions of the Koran. Luther writes: Never has any kingdom come into being and become so mighty through murder and robbery as that of the Turk; and he murders and robs every day, for robbing and murdering, devouring and destroying more and more of those that are around them, is commanded in their law as a good and divine work; and they do this and think that they are doing God a service.39

Thirdly, Islam also destroys the marital estate by allowing a man to marry several women and to get divorced from his wife at any time. Luther remarks very astutely: Although there may be some few who do not take advantage of this law40, nevertheless, this is the law and anyone who wants to can follow it. That kind of living is not and cannot be marriage, because none of them takes or has a wife with the intention of staying with her forever, as though the two were one body, as God’s Word says in Genesis 3 [2:24], «Therefore a man cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh.»41

Luther’s fundamental criticism of Islam goes beyond the conception of Cusanus with reference to the second and the third point. Of course, the Cardinal also criticizes the affinity to violence in Islam («the sword is the final decisive proof of whatever is read in the Koran» he writes in the Cribratio42). He condemns as well the Islamic practice of polygamy.43 On the other side he praises the prohibition of adultery and of the desire for the wife of someone else in the Koran.44 Luther, who has been married since 1525, is outraged by the attitude of Muslims on this issue, and increasingly as he grows older. In the text Martin Luther’s Refutation, an afterword to Ricoldo’s Verlegung des Alcoran, he states that the Islamic understanding of marriage must not only be rejected by pious Christians, but also by respectable pagans. The Islamic marriage is called an «eitel frey Huren leben», a very free living together with whores, because the husband could according to Luther's knowledge marry women at will, cast out and marry again. Such a husband is a «Huren wirt oder Hurn jeger», a host or 39

Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 178; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., p. 123,30-33. 40 Luther refers to the permission to polygamy and divorce. 41 Luther, M., On War Against the Turk, op. cit., p. 181; Luther, M., Vom Kriege wider die Türken, op. cit., p. 126,26-31. 42 Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., p. 155; Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 170,1-2 (p. 137). 43 Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 156 (pp. 126-127). 44 Ibid., # 41,8-9 (p. 38).

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

WALTER ANDREAS EULER

148

hunter of whores, because his wife is de facto degraded to a kind of goods. This treatment of women violates reason, the law of Moses and the Gospel. Luther calls the Islamic marriage in his typical rough way of expression a «Hunde und Sew Hochzeit», the marriage of dogs and sows.45 On the other hand, the reformer also knows many details of daily life and of the religious acts of the Muslims, which he presents as exemplary in comparison to the conditions in the Christian West. He deals with this aspect of Islam several times in relative detail, unlike Cusanus, who deals with this point only casually. So Luther writes in the foreword to Georgius de Hungaria Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum: From this book, accordingly, we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies – and, I might almost say, in customs – than ours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplicity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, prayers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seen among us – or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. … Our religious are mere shadows when compared to them, and our people clearly profane when compared to theirs. Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display. This is the reason why many persons so easily depart from faith in Christ to Muhammadanism and adhere to it so tenaciously.46

Regarding the military successes of the Ottomans and the supposedly more convincing outward appearance of the Islamic religion, of which not only Georgius de Hungaria knew to report, Luther was extremely worried. He increasingly felt the «Turks», i.e. Islam, as an apocalyptic threat. In this sense the Army Sermon against the Turk, written shortly after the siege of Vienna ended, interprets the almost unstoppable expansion of the Ottomans in the sense of Daniel 7 as a sign of the near end of the world.47 In Wittenberg the

Luther, M., Preface and Afterword to Brother Richard O.P. [Riccoldo da Monte di Croce], Refutation of the Koran, op. cit., p. 262; Luther, M., Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi, Prediger Ordens, op. cit., p. 393,9-18. 46 Henrich, S. and Boyce, J.L., «Martin Luther – Translations of Two Prefaces on Islam: Preface to the Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum (1530) and Preface to Bibliander’s Edition of the Qur‘ān (1543)», op. cit., p. 259; Luther, M., Vorwort zu dem Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum, op. cit., p. 206,3-8.12-15. 47 Luther, M., Heerpredigt wider den Türken, op. cit., p. 162,15-30.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM

149

Antichrist is represented since 1529 as a being with two heads, that of the Pope and that of the Turk.48 Both the Pope and the Turk rely on outward appearance, on works, ceremonies and religious exercises, not on the faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which, according to Luther, alone makes us blessed. In his writings on interreligious questions Cusanus’ argumentation resembles that of Luther. In chapter 16 of De pace fidei the Apostle Paul demonstrates to the wise Tartar in detail, that salvation can only be achieved by faith, not by the merit of religious works.49 Because of his early conciliarist ideas and especially his reasoning in chapter 16 of De pace fidei, Cusanus was included in the famous Catalogus testium veritatis of the Lutheran theologian Matthias Flacius, published 1556. This is an index of statements of ancient and medieval theologians, which should demonstrate that the Protestant ideas are well rooted in the tradition of the church. Concerning Nicholas of Cusa, Matthias Flacius writes: «In libro de Pace Fidei probat nos sola fide iustificari non ex merito operum. - In his book on peace in faith he demonstrates that we will justified by faith alone, not by the merit of works.»50 Luther’s writings on the Turks encouraged those Christians challenged in their Christian faith, especially those who are in Turkish captivity, to understand that only trust and faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who died for their sins, counts before God. Luther hoped, at least in times when his optimism was stronger than his despair, 51 that some Turks would be converted to Christianity by the prisoners. He writes in the foreword to the edition of the Latin translation of the Koran by Theodor Bibliander, which was printed in Basel 1543 due to his intervention: Daniel and other captives brought the king of Babylon and a multitude of others to the true knowledge of God [Dan 2:47; 3:28-29]. The victorious Goths, Vandals, and Franks were converted to God by their captives. So perhaps God

Kaufmann, «Türckenbüchlein». Zur christlichen Wahrnehmung «türkischer Religion», op. cit., op. cit., p. 47 and pp. 192-194. 49 Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., pp. 62-66; Nicolaus de Cusa, De pace fidei, eds. R. Klibansky and H. Bascour, in Nicolaus de Cusa, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis, vol. VII, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1959, pp. 3-63, at pp. 51-56. 50 Flacius, M., Catalogus testium veritatis, Stella, Basel, Oporinus, 1556, p. 958. 51 Rajashekar, J.P., «Luther and Islam. An Asian Perspective», Lutherjahrbuch, 57 (1990), pp. 174-191, at p. 187.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

WALTER ANDREAS EULER

150

will also now call some from among the Turks out of that darkness by means of learned captives.52

Unlike Luther, Cusanus addresses also Islamic receivers in his Cribratio. I agree with John Monfasani that Mehmed the Conqueror, about whom Nicholas said that he was a Christian in his youth,53 is the true addressee of the book. 54 Incidentally, this assumption certainly fits in with the «official» intention of the work, which was to supply material for Pope Pius II for a teaching letter to Mehmed. Above all it seemed clear to Cusanus, that the more knowledgeable and sensible Muslims were aware of the obvious deficiencies of both Muhammed’s character and of the Koran, and therefore merely pretended to believe in the teachings of Islam out of fear of persecution and death.55 The Cribratio is thus also directed to «the wise even among the Arabs»56 and the «teachers of the law of the Arabs»57 who have the capacity of discernment. It is to these readers that the Cribratio hopes to reveal the difference between the Koran and the Gospel, whose truth, Cusanus believes, they themselves are seeking. For this reason, Nicholas also tries in the second book of Cribratio to justify the most important Christian doctrines in detail, especially the Trinity and the Christological dogmas – a task that Luther doesn’t undertake in his writings on the Turks. In respect to theological questions the Reformer argues on the basis of the Bible, whose truth he presupposes, as guaranteed by God’s revelation. Luther interprets the whole of reality through Scripture. In this regard, he attained a unique mastery. He rejects abstract philosophical attempts to justify Christian doctrines. The biblical orientation of his thinking led Luther to a strict exclusivism. He saw the representatives of true Christianity virtually surrounded by 52 Luther, M., Preface to Theodor Bibliander’s Edition of the Koran, ed. A.S. Francisco, in Luther’s Works, vol. 60, ed. C. B. Brown, Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 2011, pp. 289-294, at p. 293; Luther, M., Vorrede zu Theodor Biblianders Koranausgabe, eds. O. Clemen and O. Brenner, in Luther, M., Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 53, Weimar, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920, pp. 569-572, at p. 571,34-38. 53 Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 220,5 (pp. 174-175). 54 Monfasani, J., «Cusanus, the Greeks, and Islam», in T.S. Izbicki, J. Aleksander, and D.F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Times of Transition. Essays in Honor of Gerald Christianson, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2019, pp. 96-112, at p. 107. 55 Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 28,15-18 (p. 29). 56 Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., p. 149; Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 158,5-6 (p. 128). 57 Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., p. 136; Nicolaus de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, op. cit., # 131,1 (p. 105).

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND MARTIN LUTHER ON ISLAM

151

enemies who were active in the service of the devil.58 As mentioned in his preface to Bibliander’s edition of the Koran, he included not only the Turks, but also «the defenders of the pope’s idols, the Jews, a multitude of Anabaptist monstrosities, the party of Servetus, and others.»59 In the whole corpus of Luther’s writings on Islam I have not been able to discover any attempt to integrate or to include Islam theologically. The gospel of Jesus Christ and the message of Muhammad are always portrayed as totally opposite. Behind the doctrine of Christ God is present, behind that of the Islamic prophet the devil. Nicholas of Cusa, on the other hand, often seeks to build theological bridges between the gospel and the Koran, Christianity and Islam, however shaky some of the pillars on which these bridges are built may appear. Walter Andreas Euler euler@uni-trier.de Fecha de recepción: 06/02/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 20/04/2019

Luther, M., Preface to Theodor Bibliander’s Edition of the Koran, op. cit., p. 294: «We must fight everywhere against the armies of the devil. How many different enemies have we seen in our own time?» Luther, M., Vorrede zu Theodor Biblianders Koranausgabe, op. cit., p. 572,10-11. 59 Luther, M., Preface to Theodor Bibliander’s Edition of the Koran, op. cit., p. 294; Luther, M., Vorrede zu Theodor Biblianders Koranausgabe, op. cit., p. 572,11-12.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 137-151

RESEÃ&#x2018;AS DE LIBROS/BOOK REVIEWS

BÖRJE BYDÉN and CHRISTINA THOMSEN THÖRNQVIST (eds.), The Aristotelian Tradition: Aristotle’s Works on Logic and Metaphysics and Their Reception in the Middle Ages, Papers in Medieval Studies 28, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2017, 395 pp., ISBN: 9780888448286 Reseñado por SARA L. UCKELMAN, Durham University s.l.uckelman@durham.ac.uk This book brings together twelve articles on the topic of the interpretation and reception of Aristotle’s works on logic and metaphysics in the Middle Ages. After outlining a brief history of Aristotelian transmission and commentary from Aristotle’s successor, Theophrastus, up through to the 19th century, the introduction makes precise the scope of the volume. The primary focus is from the early 12th century up through the first half of the 15th century, in the Latin, Arabic, and Greek traditions. In the Latin tradition, emphasis is placed on the pre-Thomistic/Albertine reception of Aristotle, with chapters by Julie Brumberg-Chaumont, Sten Ebbesen, Heine Hansen, Simo Knuuttila, Ana María Mora-Márquez, and Christina Thomsen Thörnqvist, demonstrating the rich textual and conceptual developments that went on in that period, though Aquinas and his successors are not neglected, being discussed in chapters by Fabrizio Amerini and Jakob Leth Fink. Unsurprisingly, the forerunner in the discussion of the Arabic tradition, in Amerini’s chapter, is Averroes (ibn Rušd); somewhat surprisingly, there is no chapter devoted to Avicenna. The Greek tradition is discussed through the lens of the works of George Gemistos (Plethon), the focus of chapters by Börje Bydén, and Bydén, Ebbesen, Fink, Hansen, Katerina Ierodiakonou, Mora-Márquez, and Miira Tuominen. Finally, there are two chapters, by David Bloch and Michail Peramatzis, which focus directly on Aristotle interpretation, rather than reception and which do not fit neatly into any of the three main traditions. Rather than discussing the chapters as they are ordered in the book, I’ll bring them all together under each of these three distinct traditions, after first covering Bloch’s and Perematzis’s, which fit into none of the traditions. Modern Aristotelian exegesis Two chapters are concerned predominantly with the interpretation of Aristotle, rather than it's transmission or reception. In his chapter, «Aristotle on the Exactness or Certainty of Knowledge in Posterior Analytics I.27» (pp. 151-161), Bloch attempts to elucidate one of the «most enigmatic passages in the Corpus Aristotelicum» (p. 151) which attempts to relate analyses of facts and causes to the relative exactness of sciences, 87a3133. Appealing to the medieval tradition in which James of Venice translated ακριβέστερα as certior, Bloch argues that centuries of modern commentators have missed the mark, and that Aristotle is not talking about the exactness of the sciences but of their certainty. Peramatzis also takes up a topic of Aristotle interpretation in his chapter, «Aristotle’s ‘Logical’ Level of Metaphysical Investigation» (pp. 81-130), focusing on the translation of

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

156

REVIEWS

λογικως in Metaphysics Ζ. The narrow goal of this rather long chapter is «to specify the salient features of a particular type of case, the metaphysical ‘logical’ inquiry carried out in Metaphysics Ζ», starting with Ζ4, without «characterizing the sense of λογικως quite generally or even offering its meaning within the limited context of this book» (p. 85). One consequence of this specification is the important recognition that «what is λογικως in the Metaphysics, then, may differ significantly from what is λογικως in the Analytics» (p. 96). The Latin tradition Opening the book is Hanson’s chapter «Accounting for Aristotle’s Categories: Some Notes on the Medieval Sufficientiae Praedicamentorum before Albert the Great» (pp. 16-48). Hanson tackles a perennial question in Aristotle interpretation: Why these ten categories? Post-medieval scholars such as Kant and Mill denigrated Aristotle’s choice of categories as being unmotivated or incomplete (pp. 16-17). However, many medieval Aristotelian commentators, especially those before Albert the Great, attempted to show «that the list is neither redundant nor defective, but exactly as it should be» (p. 17) via the method of the «sufficiency of the predicaments». One of the most influential Aristotelian texts, after it’s re-dissemination in the 12th century, was the Sophistical Refutations. Ebbesen in his chapter «Demonstrative Disputation – A contradiction in adiecto? Medieval and Recent Commentators on Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations, Chapter 2» (pp. 162-187) attends to a close reading of this text, and categorises different ways in which medieval and modern commentators attempted to understand the notion of a «demonstrative disputation» – a seemingly contradictory combination which Aristotle himself explicitly excludes in the Prior Analytics (p. 165). The responses to the worry that a demonstrative deduction is not a disputation included not only solutions but also further problems, such as «a worry whether there is any way at all that the four types [of disputation] can be made into species of the same genus» (p. 181). One common topic for commentary, whether ancient, medieval, or modern, is Aristotle’s modal syllogistic as presented in the Prior Analytics, its seeming inconsistency and unsystematicity making it ripe for revision. This is the subject of Knuuttila’s chapter, «Early Medieval Discussions of Modal Syllogistic» (pp. 214-227), where he takes us on a tour of reactions to the topic from Alexander of Aphrodisias and John Philoponus all the way up to Campsall, Ockham, and Buridan, with a brief (one paragraph only) digression on Avicenna and Averroes along the way. From the point of view of textual transmission, it is interesting to note that Knuuttila thinks that if Kilwardby did not have access to the Anonymus Aurelianiensis III (the oldest known Latin commentary on the Prior Analytics), then both he and the anonymous author had access to another text, perhaps «a Latin translation of a lost sixth-century Greek commentary or a later Byzantine compilation of scholia» (p. 223). Both the late antique commentary tradition and the syllogistic are taken up in Thörnqvist’s chapter, «Bridging the Beginner’s Gap: Apuleius, Boethius, and Porphyry on the Categorical Syllogism» (pp. 228-248). Thörnqvist questions the traditional story, in

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

157

which Boethius drew upon Apuleius’s Peri hermeneias when writing his De syllogismo categorico, and «propose a different explanation and discuss its implications for previous theories on the possible sources and overall aim of Apuleius's work» (p. 228). While Boethius's and Apuleius’s works share many similarities, it is more likely that they were ultimately drawing from a common source than that Boethius was directly working with Apuleius (p. 245). Furthermore, she identifies Boethius’s model as «Porphyry’s lost introduction to the categorical syllogism» (p. 247), and the similarities between Porphyry and Apuleius are due to the two of them sharing a source (p. 2460. The final chapter devoted to the syllogism is Brumberg-Chaumont’s, «Form and Matter of the Syllogism in Anonymus Cantabrigiensis» (pp. 188-213). The Anonymus Cantabrigiensis text, written at the turn of the thirteenth century, is closely associated with two slightly earlier texts, the Anonymi Aurelianenses I and II. Brumberg-Chaumont argues that taken together, these three texts and their discussions of the form-matter distinction with respect to syllogisms represent «a decisive turning point in the tradition of commentaries on the Sophistical Refutations» (p. 189), as it is in these texts, and most especially in AnCant, the most well-developed and coherent of the three, that «the formmatter distinction becomes for the first time actually instrumental in the analysis and classification of the thirteen fallacies in the Sophistical Refutations» (p. 189). Aristotle’s importance in the Latin philosophical tradition can be found not only in the texts that comment directly upon the corpus, but also by the ways in which Aristotelian views were incorporated into distinctly medieval developments. Such can be found in Mora-Márquez’s chapter «Aristotle’s On Interpretation I, 16a3–9: A New Perspective on the Origin of the Debate on Signification at the End of the Thirteenth Century» (pp. 249-266), an earlier version of her 2015 book The Thirteenth-Century Notion of Signification: The Discussions and Their Origin and Development. Though the primary focus of this anthology is the Middle Ages, Fink in his chapter «Coming to terms with Wisdom: Suárez on Aristotelian Wisdom» (pp. 131-150) brings us up to after the Renaissance and into the early modern era. Here his goal is not to engage «primarily with the philosophy of Suárez» (p. 131) but instead to offer a Suárezian reply to a worry that modern interpreters have concerning how the term ‘wisdom’ or σοφία is used in Metaphysics A1-2. We can solve the apparent discrepancy in how ‘wisdom’ is used in these two chapters by applying a «psychological, developmental account of the coming about of wisdom» (p. 134). The Arabic tradition Our one peek into the reception of Aristotle in the Arabic tradition comes in Amerini’s chapter, «Averroes and Aquinas on the Primary Substantiality of Form» (pp. 49-80). The central question of this chapter is whether Aristotle «change[s] his mind on what primary substance is when he moves from the Categories to the Metaphysics» (p. 49), in light of the seeming incompatibility of the two accounts. Amerini argues that rather than trying to decide for one or the other account, medieval commentators were «generally more inclined to reconcile possibly conflicting claims found in [Aristotle's] writings than to

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

158

REVIEWS

decide for one or the other» (p. 51), and, for Amerini, Averroes and Aquinas both represent two distinct approaches to this reconciliation. Nevertheless, Amerini is careful to stress that «the question here is not what the Arabic Averroes really said or thought, but what the Latin Averroes says» (p. 52), which places further limits on the extent to which the reception of Aristotle in the Arabic tradition is treated. The Greek tradition Two chapters make up the collection’s contribution to our understanding of the reception in the later medieval Greek tradition. The first is Bydén’s new partial edition of the Greek text of George Gemistos (Plethon)’s «On Aristotle’s Departure from Plato 0-19» (pp. 270-282), along with a literal English translation (pp. 283-296). The Departure was written in in 1439 (p. 267), and in it, Plethon diagnoses Averroes as the reason why Aristotle is held in higher esteem than Plato. Ultimately, Plethon comes down firmly on the side of #TeamPlato, showing that «Aristotle is ignorant» (p. 296). The companion piece is a commentary by Bydén, Ebbesen, Fink, Hansen, Ierodiakonou, Mora-Márquez, and Tuominen (pp. 297-344), intended to «elucidate and evaluate Plethon's arguments in each of sections 0-19» (p. 297). The notes were indeed immensely helpful, but one thing I was missing was a discussion of the wider context in which Plethon was writing and working; in the end, the picture of the Greek tradition isn’t even a snapshot; it's a camera obscura through a window slit. This was a wonderfully interesting book, both philosophically and historically, and philosophers and historians alike will find reading it a valuable enterprise. It is made more accessible to those who are not necessarily trained in medieval philosophy with primary sources in Latin and Greek quoted both in the original language and in English translation; unfortunately, primary sources in other languages (e.g., French, German) are not translated. This makes up one of the three complaints that I have about the book. The next, and most significant, complaint is that the tradition is not treated evenhandedly; as is clear from the foregoing, substantial emphasis was placed on the Latin tradition, to the detriment of both the Greek and Arabic traditions. As a result, the volume fails to be a comprehensive addition to the study of Aristotelian reception, and leaves a large gap to be filled. The final complaint is that there is not separate bibliography, only in-footnote references in each chapter, and the index nominorum does not index those footnotes. Notwithstanding these issues, the book provides a rich plethora of material, greatly supplementing our understanding of Aristotle in late antiquity and the Middle Ages.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

159

MANUEL LÁZARO PULIDO, FRANCISCO LEÓN FLORIDO, ESTÍBALIZ MONTORO MONTERO (eds.), Pensar la Edad Media cristiana: la presencia de la teología medieval en el pensamiento moderno, Madrid, Sindéresis, 2018, 425 pp., ISBN: 9788416262069 Reseñado por DAVID ARBESÚ, University of South Florida arbesu@usf.edu Este nuevo volumen de la Colección Biblioteca de Humanidades Salmanticensis (Serie Filosofía) es el segundo de una serie de libros sobre filosofía medieval cuyo título comienza por Pensar la Edad Media cristiana. El primero de ellos, aparecido en 2016 y en el que colaboraron también como editores M. Lázaro Pulido y F. León Florido, estuvo dedicado a La querella del imperio y el pensamiento político XIV-XV (y otros estudios). Dichas publicaciones están adscritas al equipo de investigación sobre «Filosofía y teología en la Europa de la Edad Media: Atenas, Córdoba, París» de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, grupo cuya actividad es tan fructífera que ya se han proyectado los que serán los dos siguientes volúmenes de la serie: uno dedicado a San Buenaventura de Bagnoregio (12171274) y el siguiente a los Espacios de la filosofía medieval: Córdoba, Toledo, París. Como cabía esperar, pues, los dieciocho artículos recogidos aquí son el resultado de las presentaciones de sus autores en los Encuentros de Filosofía Medieval organizados por dicho grupo. En la Introducción al volumen, firmada por sus tres editores, cabe distinguir la presentación del tema general del libro – «el objetivo propuesto a los investigadores es el de ... reflexionar sobre las ideas y doctrinas teológicas medievales que han servido de tránsito desde la Edad Media a la Modernidad» (p. 10) – y el resumen de cada uno de los dieciocho artículos que lo componen. El objetivo y mínimo común denominador de estos trabajos es, pues, el hecho de que todos «muestran la vitalidad del pensamiento filosóficoteológico de la Edad Media y su significación en la construcción de la Modernidad» (p. 14), o, en otras palabras, que vienen a establecer que no ha habido tanta refutación del pensamiento medieval como a menudo se cree y que las ideas maceradas en la Edad Media han servido de puente al futuro. Esta máxima es aplicable a la práctica totalidad de los trabajos aquí presentes, que por lo general orientan su temática a este puente entre épocas, aunque – como es lógico – en un volumen con tantas contribuciones hay de todo, y en algunos esta conexión es mucho más evidente que en otros. Un buen ejemplo del espíritu general del volumen es el primero de los artículos, firmado por uno de los editores del volumen, León Florido, que conecta perfectamente con lo dicho en la Introducción y que versa sobre la presencia de la teología crítica escolástica en el racionalismo moderno, sobre todo al incidir en una cuestión sabida pero pocas veces desarrollada. Si bien es lícito considerar a René Descartes (1596-1650) el fundador del pensamiento moderno, no lo es menos el hecho de que su ruptura con el saber tradicional no fue tan brusca como en general se considera. Así, basándose en tres estructuras conceptuales básicas, la distinción formal ex natura rei, la doctrina del ser objetivo (esse objectivum) y la hipótesis del poder absoluto de Dios (de potentia absoluta Dei),

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

160

REVIEWS

León Florido hace un recorrido por estas estructuras que vuelve la vista atrás a Santo Tomás de Aquino (1225-1274) y concluye con el cumplimiento moderno de esas estructuras subyacentes con la filosofía de Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) para demostrar, así, que las diversas vías que conducen al escepticismo moderno tienen su origen en la crisis de la teología tradicional. Un planteamiento similar tiene otro contundente artículo de J. C. Utrera García, quien cuestiona ahora la pretendida ruptura de Martín Lutero (1483-1546) con el pasado y demuestra que, al contrario, todo su pensamiento religioso y político, lejos de apartarse de la teología voluntarista, más bien la consuma. El puente entre dos épocas muy distintas es evidente, por ejemplo, en el artículo de F. Bertelloni sobre el casus imminens descrito en la obra De eclesiastica sive summi pontificis potestate (1301) de uno de los discípulos más aventajados de Santo Tomás en París, Egidio Romano (1247-1316), y el concepto de Ausnahmezustand del politólogo y filósofo alemán Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), estableciendo así una muy apropiada conexión entre dos conceptos desarrollados en siglos tan dispares como el XIII y el XX y que, sin embargo, pueden considerarse de manera conjunta. También así el trabajo de V. Llamas Roig sobre el método fenomenológico de Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), preceptor de la tradición filosófica continental, que viene a incidir en la influencia de la filosofía medieval sobre la contemporánea, o el de I. Verdú Berganza, quien analiza magistralmente la presencia del pensamiento del franciscano Thomas Bradwardine, sobre todo la desarrollada en su obra De causa Dei et de virtute causarum, en la filosofía de los siglos XVI al XVIII. Siguiendo en la misma línea, el trabajo de M. González Fernández analiza la obra de Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) en cuanto se constituye como diálogo con Juan Duns Scoto (1266-1308), aunque sea para polemizar con él, acercamiento que comparte con el artículo de R. Lázaro Centero sobre el diálogo entre Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) y el filósofo barcelonés Ramón Sibiuda (1385-1436). Con un sugestivo título, M. I. Zorroza Huarte diserta sobre los «Orígenes teológicos de la noción moderna de propiedad» y V. Fernández Polanco hace un repaso – de carácter más historiográfico – por la obra del investigador suizo André de Muralt (1931-) sobre el pensamiento de la filosofía medieval. Algunos trabajos están más centrados en un solo concepto o época concreta. M. Cabré Durán analiza con acierto la influencia en la medicina moderna de Arnau de Vilanova (ca. 1240-1311), médico y teólogo valenciano acusado de herejía y condenado por la Universidad de París, aunque en puridad el artículo se centra en la popularidad de sus obras durante el Renacimiento. M. Lázaro Pulido, otro de los editores del volumen, analiza la influencia de las ideas apocalípticas del Nuevo Testamento en la obra Apocalypsis nova de Amadeo de Silva (1420-1482) a través del calabrés Joaquín de Fiore (1135-1202), centrando la pieza en torno a los «mundos emergentes» en Europa y América tras el descubrimiento del Nuevo Mundo y la Reforma Protestante. E. Lacca diserta sobre la recepción de la escolástica medieval por los filósofos y teólogos de la Escuela de Salamanca, en concreto por los escritores Juan Sánchez Sedeño (1552-1615) y Diego de Zúñiga (1536-1597), M. Beltrán centra su contribución en la figura de Abraham Cohen de Herrera (1570-1635), haciendo guiños a la filosofía de Duns Scoto y Tomás de Aquino, y C. Díaz de Rábago firma

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

161

un trabajo en el que se analiza cómo la física moderna ha llegado, por caminos distintos, a las mismas conclusiones respecto a la materia que los filósofos medievales (la negación de la materia como entidad), aunque le falta algo de espacio para ahondar en sus explicaciones. Por último, hay un grupo de artículos algo más breves y centrados en un único autor. C. Teleanu aporta su granito de arena con un artículo sobre la obra de Ramón Llull (12321316), A. Aparicio Marcos hace lo propio con Guillermo de Ockham (1285-1347), M. Méndez Alonzo con el florentino Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540) y G. Colacicco con el teólogo Francisco Suárez (1548-1617). El objetivo del volumen se cumple con creces. Impresiona ver la cantidad de autores y temas tratados en sus más de cuatrocientas páginas, sobre todo teniendo como guía un tema tan complicado (e interesante) como la continuación del pensamiento medieval en la época moderna. En este sentido hay que advertir, como ya se habrá comprobado, que el término «modernidad» se entiende aquí en un sentido muy amplio, es decir, se construye sin límite de tiempo en oposición a la Edad Media o – mejor – a ese período de «dos mil años de estabilidad filosófica propiciada por la conservación de la estructura conceptual greco-cristiana» (p. 27). Así, mientras que algunos artículos están centrados en una única época, en otros se establecen puentes entre autores de siglos consecutivos y en otros se hace un recorrido que va desde el siglo XII hasta nuestros días. Por lo general bien editado, se echa en falta algo más de revisión por parte del equipo editorial. Como es habitual en este tipo de volúmenes hay ciertas incoherencias que podrían haberse evitado fácilmente (uno de los artículos está en francés, frente a los otros diecisiete en castellano), hay erratas importantes – como al inicio del artículo de Díaz de Rábago, donde se repiten las dos primeras líneas (p. 45) –, algunos párrafos de autores cuya lengua materna no es el español son bastante complicados de entender, y en los resúmenes de la Introducción pasamos de la tercera a la primera persona, evidenciando así que han sido escritos por los propios autores y después más o menos editados por el equipo editorial. De manera más importante, sobre todo en este tipo de libro hubiera sido muy deseable un índice onomástico y temático, aunque solo sea por facilitar la consulta de la riqueza y variedad de temas tratados en sus páginas. Con todo, La presencia de la teología medieval en el pensamiento moderno es un interesante (y muy recomendable) volumen que será de utilidad a todos los interesados en el campo. No se equivocan los editores cuando recalcan la necesidad de este tipo de estudios. Los primeros intelectuales modernos, como bien se afirma en el libro, intentaron borrar en su producción «las huellas de un pasado que han denunciado por su clericalismo y oscuridad» (p. 10), con lo que es necesario profundizar en sus ideas para demostrar que, en la mayoría de ellos, no hay ruptura, sino continuidad con el pensamiento filosófico medieval.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

162

REVIEWS

THOMAS WILLIAMS (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Ethics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, 420 pp., ISBN: 9781316618110 Reseñado por CARLOS ORTIZ DE LANDÁZURI, Universidad de Navarra cortiz@unav.es Thomas Williams es el editor de diversos artículos dedicados a la Ética Medieval. Un ámbito poco estudiado, a pesar de ocupar un lugar preferente en el interés de los filósofos de la época. La obra se divide en dos partes y 16 capítulos. La primera parte, Historia, se divide en cinco capítulos. En el capítulo 1, «Desde Agustín hasta Eriúgena», Kenyon enfatiza el carácter práctico del pensamiento ético en los inicios del pensamiento medieval, tratando de reorientar la vida humana hacia la consecución de los bienes eternos. Especialmente se analizan Las confesiones de San Agustín y La consolación de la filosofía de Boecio, poniendo de relieve el carácter literario que en este periodo adquiere el discurso filosófico. En el capítulo 2, «Desde Anselmo hasta Alberto El Grande», Wilks reconstruye el tránsito desde el planteamiento más personal de la ética hasta los planteamientos de tipo escolástico que caracterizarán el siglo XIII y XIV. En este período medio se interesan por la estructura del acto moral y se reflexiona sobre las relaciones entre la ley de Dios y la ley natural. Por su parte, Pedro Abelardo desarrolla una versión muy provocativa de la ética de San Agustín, y Pedro Lombardo elabora Los cuatro libros sobres las sentencias, que se convertirá en el libro de texto de las siguientes centurias. Finalmente, Alberto El Grande ejercerá una gran influencia como introductor de Aristóteles y a través de su discípulo, Tomás de Aquino. En el capítulo 3, «De Tomás de Aquino hasta 1350», Hagedorn proporciona una visión general de pensamiento ético tomista, centrándose en la ley natural y en la teoría de la virtud, así como en el análisis del acto moral. Se analizan la influencia de las condenas de 1277 en el pensamiento posterior, así como tres debates que se originaron a este respecto: el estatus modal de las verdades éticas, sobre la naturaleza de la virtud y sobre la pobreza franciscana. En el capítulo 4, «La ética islámica», McGinnis ofrece una panorámica de los sistemas éticos de las filosofías y teologías islámicas desde el 850 al 1200. Se analizan aquellos sistemas metafísicos y de psicología moral que enfatizan el papel de la virtud y de la felicidad, así como el problema teológico acerca de la posibilidad de una ley natural o de la capacidad de discernimiento de la razón sin ayuda de la revelación respecto de las obligaciones morales. En el capítulo 5, «La ética en la filosofía judía medieval», Rudavsky analiza como los pensadores judíos se apropiaron creativamente del pensamiento eudomonista aristotélico y de la ética de la virtud. No se aborda el tema de la ley natural en cuando tal, pero sí muchos de los problemas con ella relacionados, como la naturaleza de la razón, la relación entre la razón y la revelación, o si las cuestiones morales se pueden resolver exclusivamente a partir de la razón. La segunda parte, Conceptos y temas, se compone de once capítulos. En el capítulo 6, «Felicidad», Steele comprueba la presencia de la ética eudemonista aristotélica en San

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

163

Agustín, Boecio, y Tomás de Aquino. Todos aceptan su estructura formal de argumentación y que la felicidad solo se alcanza en la otra vida, aunque cada uno sigue diversos caminos para llegar a esta conclusión, según adopte una postura voluntarista o intelectualista. Por su parte Duns Scoto romperá este consenso de sus predecesores y separará claramente la felicidad y la moralidad. En el capítulo 7, «Virtud», Osborne analiza las fuentes escriturísticas, patrísticas y clásicas en el desarrollo de la respectiva teoría de la virtud. Se analizan especialmente sus clasificaciones y el lugar de las virtudes cardinales, las conexiones entre ellas y el debate acerca de las facultades psicológicas a las que pertenecen. En el capítulo 8, «La ley», Porter examina las propuestas escolásticas acerca del derecho y la ley natural, tanto en el ámbito de la racionalidad filosófica como de la fe revelada, estableciendo una complementariedad entre ellas. También se analiza el uso práctico de la ley por parte de las instituciones civiles y eclesiásticas en la correspondiente práctica social, especialmente con relación a la propiedad privada y a la moral sexual. Al capítulo 9, «Libertad sin capacidad de elección. Teorías medievales acerca de la esencia del libre arbitrio», Hoffmann hace notar cómo la mayoría de los autores medievales aceptan esta noción, aunque muchos de ellos opinan que es de imposible realización práctica. Se señala también el precedente agustiniano de esta cuestión, así como algunos progresos habidos durante los siglos XIII y XIV. En el capítulo 10, «Razonamiento práctico», Dougherty analiza diversos puntos de vista acerca de los distintos modos cómo se puede llegar a conocer el deber moral y las formas de error, o la simple confusión que puede darse al respecto, especialmente cuando se genera una situación de perplejidad por no haber ninguna opción legítima en el ejercicio del libre arbitrio. En el capítulo 11, «Voluntad e intelecto», Williams argumenta la diversidad de significados que adquirió la noción de voluntad desde Agustín hasta Ockham. De ahí que ahora se centre exclusivamente en los debates que hubo en el siglo XIII y XIV al respecto. En el capítulo 12, «Emociones», Pickavé analiza la naturaleza, el fundamento psicológico, las facultades donde se alojan las emociones o pasiones, su contribución al proceso de la acción, ya sea que desempeñen un papel fundamental o sean objeto de un control racional y puedan ser dignas de elogio o de culpabilidad. En el capítulo 13, «Misticismo medieval islámico y cristiano y el problema de la ética mística», Griffioen y Sadeg Zahedi argumentan la dimensión ética que suelen tener las actitudes místicas, así como su referencia al fin más alto, a las virtudes y vicios y a la perfección o al bienestar. Sin embargo, su actitud apofántica respecto de lo divino y su elitismo respecto de lo ordinario hacen que den lugar a un tipo especial de ética. En el capítulo 14, «Etica económica», Lambertini analiza la dimensión ética de la actividad económica. Se pone así de manifiesto cómo los cambios sociales y políticos pueden acabar teniendo repercusiones éticas, especialmente en el ámbito de los negocios e inversiones privadas, como ocurre en el caso de los préstamos. En el capítulo 15, «Autointerés, autosacrificio y bien común», Marenbon analiza el egoísmo psicológico y ético desde el punto de vista de una racionalidad ética abierta al autosacrificio en favor del bien común. A su vez se comprueba que la recuperación de la Ética de Aristóteles tuvo en el desarrollo de estos temas. En el capítulo 16, «Pecado y gracia», Sweeney comprueba

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

164

REVIEWS

cómo la noción de pecado afecta al carácter de las personas, tanto en su dimensión moral como psicológica, de igual modo que la noción de gracia afecta a la responsabilidad moral Para concluir, una reflexión crítica: evidentemente, las cuestiones éticas no tienen en la historiografía medieval el peso que merecen, constituyendo una asignatura pendiente que se hace necesario subsanar. Sin embargo, a las propuestas que ahora se formulan cabe hacerles una objeción. ¿Hasta qué punto las cuestiones éticas están condicionadas por una previa interpretación histórica de la noción de progreso, que ahora se sobreentiende, pero no se termina de justificar? Por ejemplo, cuando se sitúa a Agustín y Boecio en una primera fase de la filosofía medieval, en razón del estilo literario personal de su pensamiento, mientras que la filosofía escolástica del siglo XIII y XIV ya sería una filosofía académica mejor formalizada, que no necesitaría recurrir a este tipo de estrategias literarias. Realmente, ¿una recuperación de las cuestiones éticas por parte de la historiografía medieval debe comenzar relegando a un periodo todavía no consolidado las grandes aportaciones de Agustín de Hipona?

RICHARD CAMPBELL, Rethinking Anselm’s Arguments: A Vindication of his Proof of the Existence of God, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2018, 535 pp., ISBN: 9789004363663 Reseñado por ALEXANDER WESTENBERG, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney/University of Notre Dame Australia al.westenberg@gmail.com Since Anselm first published his Proslogion in in the late 1070s, two things have generally been assumed: first, that his argument for the existence of God is a form of what later became known as an ontological argument; and, second, that this argument resided in Chapter 2 of a 26-chapter work. Campbell’s latest book challenges both of these, demonstrating with convincing force that the latter is false and the former unlikely. Consequent to this challenging of the status quo, as the book’s subtitle suggests, Campbell provides a persuasive vindication of Anselm’s arguments, to the point of declaring them a valid proof for the existence of God. Of course, at least part of this argument is not new. Over forty years ago Campbell himself published From Belief to Understanding, which articulates the theory that Anselm’s argument is not to be found in chapter 2 (I will refer from now on to Anselm’s chapters as P2, P3, etc.) alone – and in this he was not entirely alone.1 We should not make the mistake, however, of thinking that the present book is either a re-statement of the argument of From Belief, nor is it a sequel, so to speak, that builds upon the first. It is, instead, better

La Croix, for instance, suggests that not only is the work not contained within the second chapter, but that it is found within the entire work. Cf. R. La Croix, Proslogion II and III: A Third Interpretation of Anselm’s Argument, Leiden, Brill, 1972. 1

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

165

thought of as a completely new enterprise in its own right, though not without reference to the former. The book begins with a complete translation of P2-4, a nice point of reference for the discussion that follows. This is particularly useful given the density and length of argument and analysis throughout the majority of the book, providing a frame of reference to which both author and audience can connect at each point. Having given the text of P2-4, Campbell then embarks on a step-by-step analysis of each line of Anselm’s original argument, expounding and examining each in great detail, in search of the argument as intended. Along the way he is careful to refer to alternative views, translations, and interpretations given by other commentators, and does not shy away from addressing head on the differences of interpretation. Chapter 3 outlines the structure of Anselm’s argument as a three-stage argument: stage one (found in P2) argues that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in reality; stage two (first half of P3) concludes that this same thing exists so truly it can not be thought not to exist; and stage three (second half of P3) identifies this thing with God. This structure is then elucidated and analysed in the remaining chapters 4 and 5 given to the first stage, 6 and 7 to the second, and chapter 8 to the third. Campbell then turns to Anselm’s critics, addressing Gaunilo’s famed ‘lost island’ critique (Ch. 9), before considering the validity of the slightly different argument Anselm gives in his reply to Gaunilo (Ch. 10). If we take these last two endeavours as building on the first – and I think we are justified in doing so – we can see that the task of fully two thirds of the book is given over to a demonstration of the validity of Anselm’s argument. An herculean task, which Campbell accomplishes admirably. Campbell’s argument so far is plausible, and so one is necessarily drawn to consider whether Anselm’s premises are themselves reasonable. This is the natural next step for Campbell, since he has been at some pains to show the validity of Anselm’s argument, and so the question of the plausibility of the premises must be considered if Campbell’s proposed vindication is to be successful. Having argued for their plausibility in chapter 11, the last two chapters respectively consider the character of Anselm’s argument and give an overview of the remainder of the Proslogion. This discussion is inevitably wide-ranging, touching upon such corners of philosophy as Keith Donnellan’s critique of Russell’s theory of definite descriptions (Ch. 4) and W. O. Quine’s critique of second-order logic (Ch. 11), but at no point does the reader feel the argument has strayed from the point, an impressive feat in any circumstance. Given this breadth of discussion, however, it is impossible to give a summary of all the ins and outs of Campbell’s arguments, and so I restrict myself here to three aspects of the book which I think worthy of note. Crucial to Campbell’s argument is his claim that the argument for the existence of God is to be found not in P2, but in the subsequent chapter as well. In order to argue this, Campbell gives a commendable consideration to Anselm’s position as a monk, and to his work as being formally structured as a prayer to God. This allows Campbell to notice that

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

166

REVIEWS

when, at the end of P2, Anselm shifts from talking in the third person to the first, that this does not precipitate an end of argument. But neither does Campbell fail to notice that there is also a subtle shift of perspective as Anselm moves from speaking of what is in the Fool’s mind to what is in his. Highlighting this shift, Campbell shows that, far from being a form of argumentative sleight of hand, it is both valid and plausible, since the Fool’s statement is the beginning of an argument made by Anselm himself, a point crucial to Anselm’s line of thought. Following on from this, Campbell argues that, for Anselm, it matters that the propositions considered are in fact thought and/or believed. This is important because it grounds Anselm’s argument in reality by taking as its foundation actual beliefs and thoughts. This means that when, in the penultimate chapter, Campbell turns to the suggestion that Anselm’s argument is not an ontological argument, but in fact a cosmological argument, the stage is already set. Campbell’s argument is essentially that certain premises of Anselm’s argument hinge on whether they are actually being thought. Thus a proposition to the effect that x can not be thought to exist is empirically verifiable or falsifiable. So too is the claim that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-bethought cannot be thought not to exist’ (p. 441). Campbell then demonstrates that Anselm’s claim that whatever is other than God can be thought not to exist is both crucial to his argument, and a posteriori. He then shows, on pages 439-445, that this renders the entire argument a unique form of the cosmological argument, repudiating nearly a thousand years of interpretation of Anselm’s argument as ontological. This is perhaps the most fascinating point in Campbell’s work, but it is also inextricable from the rest of the work, relying as it does on the assumption that Campbell is correct in saying Anselm’s original argument continues from P2 through to P4. The book should also be praised for its appendix, which brings together Anselm’s inferences in their entirety, providing both a handy and necessary reference point for an argument spread out across five or so chapters. There is little to be unhappy with in this book, though the typographical errors are frequent enough to be irritating. I have only two minor quibbles, neither significant. The first is that, given Campbell’s frequent recourse to Anselm’s original Latin – and given the translations are usually either his or his variation on another’s translation – it would have been beneficial to provide the full Latin text of P2-4 alongside the full English, for reference and comparison by the reader. The second quibble is that, at times, the argument becomes so far-ranging it could be plausibly suggested that Campbell’s vindication of Anselm is a vindication by means of Campbell’s own argument, not an elucidation of Anselm’s own thought. This is, I believe, not the case, since Campbell takes great pains to link his own argument to Anselm’s actual thinking, and at any rate this is the danger for any and all commentators, so too much should not be placed on this comment. On the whole the book is impressively thorough for a topic so large and a book just topping five hundred pages. Reading the introduction one finds that the book originated in an attempt to write a journal article reflecting on the state of Anselm studies forty years after his original book on the subject, and is immediately reminded of Locke’s intention

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

167

to put a few thoughts together and ending up with his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. It is conceivable that the present work will share with Locke’s ‘few thoughts’ not just the circumstances under which it was begun, but the popularity and influence within its discipline – no less is deserved.

Rabí JOSEPH B. SOLOVEICHIK, Maimónides, entre la filosofía y la Halajá, traducción de Javier Guerrero, Barcelona, Alpha Decay, 2018, 347 pp., ISBN: 9788494821028 Reseñado por CARLOS ORTIZ DE LANDÁZURI, Universidad de Navarra cortiz@unav.es La obra tiene un doble interés: conocer una etapa hasta ahora desconocida del rabino Soloveichik (1903-1933) y aproximarse desde un punto de vista fenomenológico a la vivencia personal de lo divino (la halajá) en Maimónides (1135-1204). Por su parte Gerard Homnick recopiló en un cuaderno de 375 páginas las anotaciones tomadas durante el curso sobre la Guía de perplejos impartido por Soloveichik en la Revel School, mientras que Lawrence J. Kaplan habría ordenado y presentado la primera parte de dichas anotaciones en el marco evolutivo del pensamiento de Soloveichik. Especialmente se resalta su tránsito desde considerarse un experto en la Torah y el Talmud, hasta su interés por la filosofía de la religión en clave fenomenológica a partir de Kant y el idealismo cognitivo, como fue el caso de Solomon Mainon o Hermann Cohen. Todo ello justica el interés mostrado en el curso 1950-1951 por el considerado mejor representante del pensamiento judío, que habría sabido distanciarse de los planteamientos convencionales de otras religiones relativos a las relaciones entre la fe y la razón, anteponiendo la propia autenticidad personal. Después, en los años 60, pasaría a interesarse casi exclusivamente por el pensamiento existencial de Kierkegaard y de Heidegger. Según Soloveichik, la vivencia espiritual de la halajá se sitúa por encima de los criterios meramente culturales del saber estrictamente científico, filosófico o incluso religioso. De este modo al final es posible postular una superación por elevación de las aparentes contradicciones que puedan surgir entre las verdades religiosas y las científicas, sin necesidad tampoco de tener que defender una teoría de la doble verdad o de la eternidad del mundo. Especialmente cuando se comprueba que la vivencia espiritual de la halajá pertenecería a un ámbito de creencias personales con un valor fenomenológico muy superior, mientras que la religión, la filosofía o la ciencia serían productos culturales con un valor muy relativo. De ahí que Maimónides o el propio Soloveichik, pudieran ser enormemente críticos respecto de todo este tipo de saberes, sin por ello tener que cuestionar los principios básicos desde los que la halajá interpreta la Torah y el Talmud. Soloveichik nos presenta así a un doble Maimónides: Por un lado, el practicante de la Torah y del Talmud desde la vivencia espiritual personal de la halajá; y, por otra, el científico y filósofo aristotélico enormemente crítico con sus propias propuestas, pero

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

168

REVIEWS

que acabaría postulando un sincretismo entre el aristotelismo y el judaísmo. Especialmente cuando Maimónides acepte de Aristóteles el principio fundamental de que Dios es el intelecto, el inteligible y lo inteligible (Guía, I, 68), así como el principio agente, la forma y el fin del mundo (Guía 1, 69). Maimónides habría aceptado así una justificación de la religión judía desde una metafísica y ética aristotélica, sin advertir que pertenecen a dos ámbitos culturales completamente distintos. Sin embargo eso no es inconveniente para que Solovieichik siga justificando el uso que Maimónides habría propuesto de la vivencia espiritual de la halajá; le habría permitido seguir mostrando la superioridad de la Torah y el Talmud respecto del relativismo cultural que se acabaría haciendo presente en las propuestas metafísicas y éticas de Aristóteles. Este recurso a la halajá habría permitido que Maimónides introdujera una noción de bondad como sobreabundancia cuyo origen se retrotrae a la noción de creación como emanación a partir del propio ser divino. En este contexto la creación aparece como un acto también ético que, según la Guía, debería ser imitado por el hombre. La halajá hace que el hombre se muestre perplejo ante esta oferta divina, dado que nunca hubiera esperado que se le hiciera una oferta tan ambiciosa. Esto explica el ritmo musical con que se formulan sus propuestas sin tampoco seguir un orden sistemático preestablecido. Igual sucede con otros puntos centrales de la visión del hombre por parte del judaísmo. Especialmente la transformación experimentada por Adam; se pasa de asignarle una condición científica a atribuirle un ser moral, después de perder la perfección originaria que inicialmente poseía. De ahí que ahora se separe una ética preteórica y aquella otra posteórica, según el papel desempeñado por la vivencia espiritual de la halajá en el conocimiento estrictamente científico de la experiencia aristotélica. Es decir, según se afirme la supremacía del mensaje de la Torah desde la halajá, sin reducirla a un simple formalismo cultural de carácter religioso. En este sentido los principios morales adquieren un carácter supracultural y «se refieren a la relación del hombre con su vecino, otorgándole una perfección en beneficio de la humanidad» (Guía, 3, 54). Sin embargo, «la perfección de las virtudes morales constituye una preparación para las virtudes racionales» y, en este sentido, «la ética preteórica es inferior al logos», o ética posteórica que ahora se afirma como un fin en sí mismo (Guía, 1, 34) Por su parte, Maimónides también habría distinguido entre el conocimiento intuitivo y profético con rasgos claramente antitéticos. En un caso la razón, la ciencia y, en definitiva, la filosofía o la propia religión se legitiman desde una actitud meramente cultural; en cambio, el saber auténtico se funda en la halajá y, en definitiva, en el corazón. Por otro lado, algo similar también ocurre con la separación que ahora se establece entre el amor especulativo y el temor práctico de Dios; el primero adopta una actitud de aceptación teórica de los principios filosóficos sobre los que se fundamenta la acción creadora divina; el segundo, en cambio, promueve el seguimiento práctico de las propuestas concretas promovidas por la Torah. «Aquí la Torah, la norma ética, el cosmos y la voluntad de Dios se funden en un todo» (Guía, 3, 52). Para concluir con una reflexión crítica: evidentemente, no se trata ahora de discutir el lugar tan destacado que ocupó Maimónides en el posterior desarrollo de la filosofía

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

169

medieval, moderna o contemporánea, desde Tomás de Aquino a Espinoza, Kierkegaard o Heidegger. Sin embargo, el ejercicio de un auténtico servicio en favor de la humanidad, ¿no se debería ejercer en nombre de la propia responsabilidad, sin que el recurso halájico a la Torah o filosófico a Aristóteles pueda cumplir sus veces, como ahora se pretende?

BARTOLOMÉ DE MEDINA, El tratado «De dominio» en la Escuela de Salamanca, vol. III: Bartolomé de Medina, De dominio/Sobre el dominio, ed. Augusto Sarmiento, Colección de Pensamiento Medieval y Renacentista 173, Pamplona, EUNSA, 2017, 251 pp., ISBN: 9788431331795 Reseñado por VÍCTOR ZORRILLA, Universidad de Monterrey victorzorrillagarza@gmail.com Este libro forma parte de una serie de tres volúmenes de comentarios salmantinos a la cuestión del dominio en la II-II de la Summa Theologiae de Tomás de Aquino. Los otros dos volúmenes de la serie se consagrarán a los comentarios de Francisco de Vitoria y Melchor Cano. El que aquí se reseña consta de una introducción de Augusto Sarmiento y el texto latino, con su versión castellana, de una parte del manuscrito MCP5 de la Catedral de Palencia. Este manuscrito es el único que nos transmite las lecciones que Mancio de Corpus Christi y su sustituto Bartolomé de Medina impartieron sobre las cuestiones de la Summa relativas a la justicia durante los cursos 1564-1565 y 1565-1566. La edición contiene la sección del manuscrito correspondiente a las lecciones de Medina sobre la cuestión 62 de la II-II. Se trata, como era frecuente, de los apuntes tomados por un alumno aventajado. Las exposiciones del profesor, que prácticamente tomaban la forma del dictado, permitían a los alumnos tomar notas que reflejaran fielmente el texto que él había preparado. El dominico Bartolomé de Medina (ca. 1528-1580) es conocido principalmente como iniciador del probabilismo. Su obra más famosa es la Breve instrucción de cómo se ha de administrar el sacramento de la penitencia (Salamanca, 1579), que constituye todo un tratado sobre la conciencia. Recientemente, Stefania Tutino ha puesto de relieve el aporte de Medina como fundador del probabilismo en su extenso y erudito libro Uncertainty in PostReformation Catholicism: A History of Probabilism (Nueva York, Oxford University Press, 2018), donde la autora sitúa a Medina en el contexto de la teología moral tridentina. Si bien el texto reseñado trata no de la confesión sacramental sino de temas relativos al dominio, en él se deja entrever la preocupación de Medina por los casos de conciencia dudosa, especialmente en relación a la prescripción. El texto se estructura en cuatro partes: (1) la definición del dominio, (2) la división del dominio, (3) el cambio de dominio y (4) el dominio como potestad gubernativa. Así, Medina considera el dominio según su división clásica en dominio de propiedad y dominio de jurisdicción, dando mayor relieve al primero. Merece destacarse la discusión que

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

170

REVIEWS

Medina introduce a propósito de las condiciones necesarias para la prescripción legítima, las cuales — según el autor — se reducen a dos: que el poseedor lo sea de buena fe — «llamo buena fe a la que es íntegra, correcta y que no ofrece dudas» (p. 135) — y que la buena fe se mantenga todo el tiempo determinado por la ley. Medina suscita la cuestión de si el poseedor que duda si la cosa es suya goza del beneficio de la prescripción. Al respecto — señala Medina — hay tres posturas: la primera sostiene que el poseedor dudoso sí goza de la prescripción, pues al que duda no le consta que la cosa sea ajena — en cuyo caso, no prescribiría —. La segunda opinión es de Adriano, quien niega que el que duda pueda poseer y prescribir. Adriano concede, sin embargo, que el poseedor dudoso pueda guardar la cosa para el verdadero dueño, siempre y cuando ponga la diligencia debida para salir de la duda. Una vez hecha la averiguación sin éxito, el poseedor prescribe legítimamente, porque entonces ya tiene buena fe. La tercera opinión es de Domingo de Soto, quien acepta que el poseedor dudoso puede defender su posesión hasta que se le convenza en juicio, pero sin prescribir, pues si descubre que la cosa es ajena, debe devolverla a pesar de la prescripción. Para aclarar el problema, Medina distingue entre tener una conciencia laxa y dudar. La conciencia laxa va siempre acompañada de pecado. La duda, en cambio, implica incertidumbre, que no es lo mismo que laxitud de conciencia. Ahora bien, en caso de duda, es mejor la condición del que posee, de acuerdo con el principio jurídico recogido en el Digesto (in dubiis melior conditio possidentis). El poseedor dudoso puede, por ello, defender su posesión hasta que se le convenza en juicio, aunque no puede prescribir. Lo anterior presupone que el poseedor ha puesto la diligencia necesaria para salir de la duda. En caso contrario, tampoco puede poseer, al faltarle la buena fe. En su teoría política, Medina sigue la línea más autorizada de la tradición salmantina al afirmar el origen natural y divino de la potestad gubernativa y aceptar la doctrina del poder indirecto. En la Introducción, además de explicar y resumir los temas tratados en las lecciones, Augusto Sarmiento analiza detalladamente de las fuentes de Medina, comparándolas con las fuentes que Vitoria y Soto usan al tratar del dominio. La edición reproduce, en notas finales, los pasajes aludidos por Medina; cuenta, además, con sendos índices de autores y de términos. El principal aporte científico de este trabajo consiste en ofrecer al estudioso un texto inédito de Medina con su traducción. Ya se ha publicado previamente en esta colección la sección del manuscrito MCP5 de la Catedral de Palencia con el comentario de Mancio y Medina a las cuestiones 57 a 60 de la II-II (Mancio de Corpus Christi y Bartolomé de Medina, De iure et iustitia. El derecho y la justicia, Pamplona, Eunsa, 2013). Huelga decir que publicaciones como esta son necesarias para completar el panorama de la obra de Medina, además de que contribuyen a afinar nuestro conocimiento del pensamiento clásico español. Queda esperar la publicación proyectada de los comentarios de Vitoria y Cano sobre el dominio que formarán parte de la serie.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

171

MARÍA MARTÍN GÓMEZ, La Escuela de Salamanca, Fray Luis de León y el problema de la interpretación, Pamplona, EUNSA, 2017, 151 pp., ISBN: 9788431331900 Reseñado por FRANCISCO CASTILLA URBANO, Universidad de Alcalá Francisco.castilla@uah.es Los numerosos estudios que continuamente se dedican a la Escuela de Salamanca demuestran que el interés de sus ideas está lejos de agotarse. No solamente quedan por dilucidar aspectos relevantes del pensamiento de sus autores más conocidos, sino que también está pendiente en gran parte el análisis de las aportaciones de miembros de la Escuela que no ocuparon la primera fila, pero cuyas contribuciones – por uno u otro motivo - no carecieron de algún interés. A ello debe unirse la actividad editora de fuentes, que todavía tiene un amplio camino por recorrer, aunque lo publicado en los últimos treinta años haya sobrepasado en cantidad y calidad a lo aparecido en el resto del siglo XX. Cabe, además, añadir a estas tareas nuevos campos de estudio, hasta ahora dejados de lado por la prioridad de la que han gozado los que han acabado por convertirse en tradicionales, como el jurídico, político, moral, económico o teológico, pero que parece llegado el momento de abordar. En esta línea se inserta el libro que comentamos, al ocuparse del problema de la interpretación. No es la hermenéutica del siglo XVI un campo que haya sido muy transitado hasta el presente, y en el caso de fray Luis de León, que es el objeto central de este trabajo, ha recibido más atención de filólogos y estudiosos de la literatura que desde la filosofía o la teología. Quizá no se deba mirar al pasado y considerarlo una carencia, sino observar el horizonte y valorarlo como una oportunidad de abrirse a nuevas posibilidades, que es lo que ha hecho la autora de este libro, la profesora de la Universidad de Salamanca María Martín Gómez. Su libro, parte de su tesis doctoral, se presenta dividido en tres capítulos. El primero de ellos, tras una breve presentación, se dedica a la Escuela de Salamanca; el segundo se centra en Fray Luis de León; el tercero contiene un detallado seguimiento de la polémica sobre la autoría del tratado De sensibus Sacrae Scripturae, que culmina con las aportaciones de la misma María Martín para inclinar la balanza a favor del fraile agustino. Se cierra la obra con un apartado bibliográfico que demuestra la variedad de registros que ha tenido que utilizar la autora en su investigación. El capítulo dedicado a la Escuela de Salamanca comienza planteándose la aportación de sus miembros más distinguidos al debate hermenéutico de la época. A su fundador, Francisco de Vitoria, reconoce María Martín que «nunca le interesó substancialmente el problema de la traducción e interpretación de las Sagradas Escrituras» (p. 12). Sin embargo, no dejó de tener en cuenta en sus escritos a Erasmo y Lutero, verdaderos renovadores de la interpretación bíblica en su época. Aunque Vitoria no los equiparó, como fue frecuente en la Italia contemporánea del dominico, se apartó de ambos por su resistencia a las traducciones del texto sagrado a las lenguas vernáculas. El temor al desvío

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

172

REVIEWS

ideológico, a interpretaciones ligeras de asuntos tan profundos, con la consiguiente caída en la heterodoxia, constituyó un sentimiento arraigado en muchos católicos de ese período, que se vería confirmado por las decisiones adoptadas en Trento, pero que ya Vitoria vio venir. En otros asuntos, el dominico supo ver las diferencias entre Erasmo, al que realiza una oposición mucho más matizada y variada según lo tratado, de la de Lutero, cuyas propuestas siempre fueron objeto de su crítica. En este sentido, teniendo en cuenta sus devaneos erasmistas en París, no habría que situar a Vitoria frente a Erasmo prestando atención únicamente a las menciones de sus desacuerdos, como ha sido frecuente en muchos de los estudiosos del dominico desde hace décadas. Bastaría recordar no solo la moderación de Vitoria en la Conferencia de Valladolid, ya señalada por Bataillon, sino también que, como indicara Miguel Avilés (1986), muchos de los que allí participaron se definieron no tanto en términos estrictamente teológicos como por afinidades de grupo; aunque no deja de tener su importancia, no es, por tanto, del todo significativo que Vitoria se alineara en aquella ocasión con los críticos del holandés. Así, pues, se hace necesaria una revisión de su posición no solo basada en sus declaraciones, sino también en los contextos y situaciones donde se hacen las mismas; esto es, que, sin negar su importancia y la prioridad de la que deben gozar, no debemos quedarnos solo en la superficie de las afirmaciones a la hora de valorar la ideología favorable u opuesta de un autor, sino acercarnos también a sus silencios, a las circunstancias y a la profundidad de sus ideas y actitudes ante los temas en discusión. Entiendo que algo así es lo que viene a reivindicar María Martín cuando indica que «todavía se echa en falta un trabajo exhaustivo sobre el posible «erasmismo» de Francisco de Vitoria» (p. 14). Como buen discípulo de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto continúa su línea ideológica, aunque sus trabajos específicos sobre la interpretación de la Biblia (De semsibus Sacrae Scripturae, De sacro canone et de eius sensibus y De catalogo librorum Sacrae Scripturae) hablan a las claras de una atención más específica al asunto. María Martín comienza por señalar que la diversidad de intereses de Soto, desde la teología al compromiso social con los pobres, la revisión de las teorías físicas aristotélicas hasta anticipar la explicación de la caída de los graves de Galileo – como ya viera P. Duhem hace más de un siglo y estudiara Wallace desde hace medio -, el derecho a la conquista, sus trabajos prácticos al frente del convento de San Esteban, sus servicios a la Inquisición, su asistencia como confesor del Emperador, sus intervenciones en Trento, etc., hacen de él «un humanista en el sentido más amplio de la palabra» (p. 20). A pesar de esa amplitud, su obra se sitúa en el ámbito de un escolasticismo que no se aparta de las formas que tanto repudiaban los amantes de las bellas letras. Al menos desde ese punto de vista, es difícil poner a Soto en la misma posición que a Erasmo y sus seguidores. Lo importante, en cualquier caso, es que el dominico también se muestra contrario a la traducción de la Biblia en romance, para evitar errores y desviaciones de la doctrina oficial de la Iglesia. En De sensibus Soto distingue dos sentidos en la Sagrada Escritura: el literal y el místico o espiritual, dividido a su vez en alegórico, anagógico y moral o tropológico. Es decir, Soto recoge los cuatro sentidos de la Escritura que formaban parte de la exégesis medieval (H. de Lubac, 1959), y que durante el siglo XVI eran de uso común entre los teólogos

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

173

escolásticos, hasta que el método humanista hiciera burla de una alegoría que se usaba para disfrazar la ignorancia de las lenguas o las dificultades de interpretación. Ante la diversidad de interpretaciones y la posible desviación doctrinal de algunas de ellas, defiende Soto la primacía de la Iglesia y de los teólogos para extraer el significado correcto de un texto como el bíblico, que es para todos los fieles, pero que – en contra del supuesto luterano de que todos los creyentes lo pueden leer - no todos están en condiciones de conocer directamente en su totalidad. Por su parte, Melchor Cano, en quien María Martín reconoce «uno de los miembros de la Escuela de Salamanca que más conciencia muestran ante nuestro problema interpretativo» (p. 30), representa muy bien la radicalización de la Escuela ante lo que es percibido como un grave problema de heterodoxia. El mismo Melchor Cano, que participaba de los afanes reformistas de la Iglesia a través de la influencia de Savonarola (V. Beltrán de Heredia, 1941 = 1972), traduce, adapta y publica el Tratado de la victoria de sí mismo, obra de Juan Bautista de Crema compendiada por el canónigo Serafín de Fermo, en 1551. En esta misma obra (cap. XI, p. 64, ed. 1860) se compromete también a trabajar para que se «traslade en nuestra castellana [lengua]» el Espejo interior, del mismo autor, lo que no llegó a cumplir, tal vez porque su preferencia por esta literatura espiritual se transformará a finales de esa década en actitud condenatoria, de la mano de su censura del Catecismo de Bartolomé de Carranza y de su persecución por el inquisidor Fernando de Valdés. No hay que descartar que la enemistad de años de Cano y Carranza jugará su papel en la calificación de la obra del Obispo, pero, como ha señalado uno de sus principales estudiosos (J. Belda Plans, 2013), la sentencia de Roma, tras 17 años de proceso, venía a dar la razón «de alguna manera» a Cano. Este mantuvo en sus últimos años – influido sin duda por el descubrimiento de los focos luteranos españoles - una actitud mucho más sensible a cualquier desviación doctrinal que ningún otro discípulo de Vitoria. Compartía con sus antecesores la oposición a la traducción de la Biblia a la lengua vulgar, y alertó en su De locis theologicis contra las consecuencias de las posiciones de Erasmo, Lutero y Calvino, pero lo que temía especialmente era el influjo de la lectura libre de las Escrituras sobre los fieles menos preparados. Desde su punto de vista, dar rienda suelta a la interpretación solo podía llevar a la herejía. En este contexto de vigilancia y recelo ante la interpretación libre de la Biblia se sitúa el proceso contra fray Luis de León y sus compañeros hebraístas de la Universidad de Salamanca Martín Martínez de Cantalapiedra y Gaspar de Grajal. Al dedicar el capítulo segundo de su libro al agustino, María Martín comienza por distanciar a este de la Escuela de Salamanca, en la que tantas veces se le ha incluido: «deberíamos reconocer que fray Luis de León quedaría fuera de este círculo» (p. 37). Sus ideas sobre la traducción e interpretación de la Biblia quedarían al margen de las doctrinas de los principales representantes de la Escuela. Aunque no desconocía los peligros de la herejía, que para su época ya habían añadido a las tradicionales sospechas sobre los conversos judíos o moriscos, las que provocaban los alumbrados y los más recientes focos luteranos, entre los cuales no faltaba algún que otro erasmista, fray Luis se muestra partidario de difundir la palabra de Dios entre los menos cultos de la sociedad. Con esa finalidad, realiza la

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

174

REVIEWS

traducción del Cantar de los Cantares y defiende, en De los nombres de Cristo, la difusión de la Sagrada Escritura a las lenguas vernáculas. La interpretación deberá ser guiada e incluso controlada, pero la lectura solo puede contribuir a mejorar la naturaleza humana. De aquí parte fray Luis para, con determinación de filólogo, preocuparse por las mejores versiones del texto. Surge así la necesidad de ir más allá de la Vulgata, en la que son notorios algunos errores, tal y como habían señalado Valla, Nebrija o Erasmo, por citar a los más célebres antes del agustino. El Concilio de Trento, sin embargo, consideró la traducción de san Jerónimo como la «auténtica» de la Iglesia, no sin cierto disgusto de Roma, más dispuesta a una revisión de su texto que los legados del Concilio (E. Asensio, 1985 = 2005). Será esa declaración de autenticidad la que dará pie a fray Luis a aclarar qué se quiso decir exactamente con ese adjetivo desde el momento en que existen varias lecciones de algunas partes de la misma. Corregir la Vulgata revela, para fray Luis, la necesidad de ir al texto hebreo, ya utilizado en su momento por el propio san Jerónimo. Pero este recurso era criticado por quienes sospechaban que tras esa revisión podía esconderse la pretensión de los rabinos de corromper las fuentes bíblicas. A ello debe unirse la facilidad para acusar de judaizantes a quienes así piensan. El proceso inquisitorial posterior demostraría la dificultad de los hebraístas de la época para llevar adelante su tarea, aunque no habría que recurrir casi con automatismo, como se hace tantas veces, a esta constante amenaza hacia los filólogos bíblicos. La Inquisición regía para todos y muy pocos eran los que se abstenían de recurrir a sus procedimientos cuando podían serles favorables. El perjudicado fray Luis no dudó en denunciar como heréticas las opiniones sobre la gracia de Domingo Báñez, con quien mantenía una enemistad manifiesta (V. Beltrán de Heredia, 1928 = 1972). Como señala María Martín, fray Luis no fue un teórico de la traducción, aunque no faltan en sus obras reflexiones sobre la misma (p. 58). Son estas las que estudia la autora, especialmente las que aparecen en los prólogos y dedicatorias de las obras castellanas del agustino, donde comenta las dificultades interpretativas que le han ido apareciendo. Tras un detallado análisis de estas aportaciones, María Martín resume (p. 69) lo que puede considerarse el método para la traducción de fray Luis, donde se combinan la defensa de una traducción literal para los textos bíblicos y una traducción más libre, con paráfrasis que faciliten su comprensión, cuando en vez de verterlos al latín se trata de expresarlos en castellano. Para alcanzar su objetivo fray Luis advierte la necesidad de que el intérprete posea tanto los conocimientos filológicos propios del humanista como el saber teológico característico de los escolásticos. Se podría decir que se trata de una síntesis de los saberes de Erasmo y Melchor Cano, pero en realidad, la reclamación de saberes del traductor por parte de fray Luis es tan amplia que convierte al intérprete en un sabio al que ningún conocimiento le es ajeno. Desde este presupuesto se comprende que el agustino reivindique tanto el sentido literal, al que da prioridad, como el espiritual o alegórico de la Biblia, para el que advierte de la necesaria precaución en su uso, pero que no puede ser dejado de lado.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

RESEÑAS

175

En el capítulo tercero de su libro («El tratado De sensibus Sacrae Scripturae. Polémica de una autoría»), María Martín recopila, por una parte, toda la discusión sobre la autoría y la fecha de redacción del manuscrito desde su primera publicación en 1957, y, por otra, en una labor casi detectivesca por la búsqueda de indicios y recogida o aclaración de datos que habían pasado desapercibidos o habían sido mal interpretados con anterioridad, aporta sus propias conclusiones. Es así como se descarta que el tratado sea obra de Gaspar de Grajal, a quien se atribuyó en algún momento, y se defiende que fray Luis pudo haber leído el tratado en su cátedra de Biblia hasta el 7 de septiembre de 1581, lo que vendría a coincidir con el año que figura en el manuscrito. En definitiva, estamos ante un libro que estudia un tema poco frecuentado hasta ahora por los filósofos y que – con toda seguridad - dará pie en el futuro a nuevas investigaciones sobre fray Luis y otros autores de similar línea, por lo que no podemos dejar de felicitar a su autora.

________________________________________________________________ Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISSN: 1133-0902, pp. 155-175

GUÍA PARA LOS AUTORES – NORMAS DE PUBLICACIÓN Requisitos Los artículos deben enviarse a través de la Plataforma OJS de la Revista. Enlace: https://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index.php/refime/login/signIn El autor deberá registrase como «autor» en la web de Revista en el siguiente enlace: https://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index.php/refime/user/register Ante cualquier eventualidad en relación con dicha plataforma o con la información del proceso editorial, los autores pueden contactar con el Comité editorial a través del correo electrónico refime@uco.es Los originales deben respetar los siguientes requerimientos: Idioma – Se aceptan contribuciones en español, inglés, francés, italiano, alemán y portugués. Extensión máxima – Artículos: 25.000 palabras; Notas: 10.000 palabras; Reseñas: 3.000 palabras; Informes de Congresos, Coloquios, etc.: 4.500 palabras. Estilo – Por favor, siga las normas de presentación que se indican en la sección «Estructura formal de los originales», que puede descargase desde la plataforma OJS de la Revista. Aquellos trabajos que no sigan estas normas podrían quedar excluidos del proceso editorial. Parámetros generales El manuscrito debe enviarse en formato con extensión .doc o .docx –otros formatos, como.odt, .pdf,.tex, etc., no serán aceptados– debiendo evitar cualquier formateo especial que no sea el estándar: fuente Times New Roman (tamaño 12 para texto, 11 para citas, 10 para notas); espacio interlineal 1; márgenes 2.5 cm; no usar sangrado. Cuando el original no esté en inglés, el título del artículo debe acompañarse de su correspondiente título en inglés, que aparecerá escrito debajo del título original. El manuscrito debe incluir un Resumen y hasta 5 Palabras clave en la lengua en que está escrito el original; además, debe incluir una versión en inglés del Resumen y Palabras clave en inglés (Abstract y Keywords). El Resumen/Abstract no podrá exceder las 100 palabras. La primera línea bajo el nombre del autor de la contribución debe incluir la afiliación del autor. Si el autor desea realizar algún reconocimiento, éste deberá hacerse en forma de nota a pie marcada con un asterisco. La Bibliografía final sólo puede incluir las obras citadas en las notas a pie de página, siguiendo el formato que se indica más abajo. Recuérdese que esta bibliografía no se incluye en el manuscrito que se envía sino que se introduce en el proceso de «Nuevo envío» al que se accede tras iniciar sesión en la web de la revista y conectar con este enlace: http://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index.php/refime/author/submit/1 Citas La Revista emplea comillas francesas («…»). Para las citas dentro de un texto citado que incluya comillas francesas, se utilizará cursiva. Las citas de más de 3 líneas deben quedar separadas del texto principal mediante una línea en blanco antes y después del texto citada, tamaño de la fuente 1, justificación derecha de 1.5 cm para todo el párrafo citado.

Referencias bibliográficas Libro (Monografía) Primera vez: Burnett, C., The Introduction of Arabic Learning into England, London, The British Library, 1997, pp. 23-31 [si se citan páginas específicas] Posteriormente: Burnett, The Introduction of Arabic Learning, op. cit., pp. 23-31. Capítulo de libro Referencia citada por primera vez: Hasse, D.N., «Avicenna’s ‘Giver of Forms’ in Latin Philosophy, Especially in the Works of Albertus Magnus», en D.N. Hasse y A. Bertolacci (eds.), The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna’s Metaphysics, Berlin – Boston, De Gruyter, 2012, pp. 225-250. Posteriormente: Hasse, «Avicenna’s ‘Giver of Forms’ en Latin Philosophy, Especially in the Works of Albertus Magnus», op.cit. Artículos Referencia citada por primera vez: Rampling, J.M., «John Dee and the Sciences: Early Modern Networks of Knowledge», Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43/3 (2012), pp. 432-436, en p. 435. Posteriormente: Rampling, «John Dee and the Sciences: Early Modern Networks of Knowledge», op. cit. Ediciones críticas Edición en un libro: Al-Ghazali, Summa theoricae philosophiae, ed. J.T. Muckle, Algazel’s Metaphysics. A Medieval Translation, Toronto, St. Michael’s College, 1933. Edición en un artículo: Gundissalinus, De anima, ed. J. T. Muckle, «The Treatise De anima of Dominicus Gundissalinus», Mediaeval Studies, 2 (1940), pp. 23-103. Edición en un volumen: Grosseteste, De luce, ed. C. Panti, Robert Grosseteste’s De luce. A Critical Edition, en J. Flood, J.R. Ginther, y J.W. Goering (eds.), Robert Grosseteste and His Intellectual Milieu. New Editions and Studies, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2013, pp. 193-238. Referencias posteriores: Grosseteste, De luce, op. cit., pp. 234-235. Si una referencia de cualquier tipo sigue directamente a una referencia de la misma obra, indíquese tan sólo: Ibid., p. o pp. Otras consideraciones Para cuestiones de estilo en inglés, el Chicago Manual of Style, debe emplearse como guía. Por favor, preste atención a estas normas: cuando se hace referencia a títulos en inglés, DEBEN seguirse las reglas de las mayúsculas. Para una guía completa de las normas de estilo, por favor, consulte la web de la Revista: http://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index.php/refime/index

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES – PUBLICATION RULES Submission Requirements Papers must be submitted through the Open Journal System platform of the journal. Link: https://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index.php/refime/index. The author must create an account as ‘author’ at the following link: https://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index.php/refime/user/register For any inconvenience within the platform, or information regarding the entire editorial process, authors can contact the editorial committee writing to refime@uco.es. Submitted manuscript must meet the Following requirements: Language - Contributions are accepted in Spanish, English, French, Italian, German and Portuguese. Maximum length - Articles: 25.000 words; Research Notes: 10.000 words; Book Reviews: 3.000 words; Reports of Conferences, Workshops, etc.: 4.500 words. Style – Please, carefully follow the guidelines expounded in the section ‘Manuscript Structure’ of the present text. Manuscript not strictly following the journal guidelines may be excluded from the editorial process. Failure in complying with these requirements may result in the inadmissibility of the paper submission. General Parameters The manuscript must be a .doc or .docx file (this means that files submitted in .odt, .pdf, .tex or any other file extension rather than .doc will not be accepted), and it must be written avoiding any special layout other than the standard plain text. The title of the article must be accompanied by a reliable English translation of it, which will appear right below the original title. The manuscript must also include an abstract and up to 5 keywords in the language in which the article is written plus an English version of those same abstract and keywords. The abstracts should not exceed 100 words. The first line below the author’s name in the first page of the submitted paper must contain the academic affiliation of the author. If an author wishes to give acknowledgements, these should be placed in the first footnote marked by an asterisk. After the conclusive remarks/section, the author must include a bibliography of the entries quoted in footnotes, written following these guidelines. Please notice: only elements referred to in the paper can be included in the final bibliography of the article. Bibliography must not be added to the manuscript, but uploaded on the OJS platform during the submission process, following this link (after having logged in): http://www.uco.es/ ucopress/ojs/index.php/refime/author/submit/1 Quotations The journal only uses French quotation marks («…»). Quotations inside a quoted text enclosed by French quotation marks should be in italics. Quotations larger than 3 lines must be separated from the main text through three specific tools: blank line above and below the quotation, font 11, right indentation of 1.5 for the entire paragraph of the quotation.

Bibliographical References Book (Monograph) First reference: Surname, First Name’s Initial., Title, Place of Publication, Publisher Name, Year, in case pp. Further references: Surname, Abbreviated Title, op. cit., pp. Book Chapter First reference: Surname, First Name’s Initial., «Chapter’s Title», in First Name’s Initial and Surname of the author/s (ed. or eds.), Title of the Volume, Place of Publication, Publisher Name, Year, pp. Further references: Surname, «Chapter’s Title», op. cit., specific reference to pp. Articles First reference: Surname, First Name’s Initial., «Article’s Title», Title of the Journal, Issue/Number (Year), pp. Further references: Surname, First Name’s Initial., «Article’s Title», op. cit., specific reference to pp. Critical Editions Edition in a Book: Author, Title of the work, ed. Initials and Surname of the editor (eds. if more than one), Title of the published work where the critical edition is located (if different from the author’s work), Place of publication, Publisher Name, Year, pages if there is more than one work in the published book/volume. Edition in an Article: Author, Title of the work, ed. Initials and Surname of the editor (eds. if more than one), Title of the article (if different from the author’s work), Issue (Year), pp. Edition in a Volume: Author, Title of the work, ed. Initials and Surname of the editor (eds. if more than one), Title of the published work where the critical edition is located (if different from the author’s work), in Initials and Surname of the volume’s author/s, Title of the Volume, Place of publication, Publisher Name, Year, pp. Further references: Author, Title of the work, op. cit., pp. page,line-page,line (or just pages) Please notice: if a reference of any kind directly follows a previous reference to the same work: Ibid., p. or pp. Further Aspects For all other matters of style while writing (or referring) in English, the Chicago Manual of Style should be used as a guide. Please pay attention to the capitalization rules: when referring to English titles, English capitalization rules must be observed. It is important to remind that these capitalization rules must not be extended to titles in languages other than English, and never applied to Latin titles. A complete guide for authors is available online: http://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index. php/refime/index