Tracing Nicholas of Cusa’s Early Development: The Relationship between De concordantia catholica and De docta ignorantia (review)

According to the author of this careful study, the key to unlocking the controversy of Nicholas of Cusa’s development prior to his 1440 treatise, De docta ignorantia, is to challenge the dichotomy between political philosophy and theology. Cusanus wrote a lengthy conciliarist treatise in 1433 during the Council of Basel, De concordantia catholica, but thereafter produced mostly philosophical and mystical works. But as Miroy points out, this shift in genre should not prejudice readers against seeking out the philosophical foundations of the cardinal’s ecclesiological positions or the political implications of his later writings. The first chapter is an astute outline of late-medieval conciliar theory, followed by three chapters analyzing the political philosophy informing De concordantia catholica and two chapters sketching a “political reading” of De docta ignorantia and the Letter to Rodrigo de Arévalo of 1442.

In the Dionysian vision of De concordantia catholica, the Church’s unity is expressed through linked hierarchies emanating from the divine origin. Miroy argues that Cusanus’s distinctive “metaphysics of concordance” is the true theoretical fulcrum of his conciliarism and that the cardinal used a more scriptural and theological mode of argument than others using canon law alone. After weighing the term’s nuances, Miroy defines concordance as “harmony among unequal members” (p. 105). Miroy therefore disagrees with Paul Sigmund’s view that the treatise attempts to harmonize equality and hierarchy. Rather, equalitas plays little role in the text, and it is concordantia that keeps hierarchy from becoming anti-egalitarian. Since equalitas figures prominently in later Cusan works, Miroy’s insight here is valuable.

Miroy thinks that the conciliarist ecclesiology centered on concordantia betrays certain philosophical predilections. Its principled theological objections to papal supremacy reveal a general suspicion about the localization of any absolute. “Cusanus robbed the pope of plenitude of power, but not merely to transfer that to the council. Cusanus knew that no finite reality could have fullness of power, and so he established a true seat of absolute power, namely, the absolute itself” (p. 126). This attitude toward absolutes resonates with the philosophy of De docta ignorantia.

The final chapter on De concordantia catholica has two parts. The first details the powers distributed to pope, council, and empire, and will interest students of medieval political theory. The second denies that Cusanus was an eccentric outlier at Basel by comparing him to two prominent conciliarists, Heimericus de Campo and John of Segovia. This interesting section would have enriched the introductory discussion of Basel in chapter 1. The curious nexus between Cusanus’s early development and his relationship with Heimericus deserves further study. Miroy’s contribution would be enhanced by incorporating Florian Hamann’s recent scholarship.

In chapter VI, Miroy locates conceptual continuities between concordantia in 1433 and the new terms (contractio and coincidentia among others) appearing in 1440. In the earlier treatise, concordantia names the harmonious unity within God that enables harmonious unity within cosmic and ecclesial hierarchies. In the later treatise, God enjoys a unique kind of coincident harmony, and the cosmic hierarchies achieve their harmonious diversity through their contracted nature. Whether these similarities represent two examples of Cusanus’s abiding interests in dialectical unity, or an authentic conceptual “development,” is difficult to say and would require further analysis.

Miroy’s explanations of difficult terms frequently condense pages of Cusan obscurity into brilliantly lucid formulae. Although further revision might have obviated repetitions and focused attention on the most central material, this fine book will be important reading for students of Cusanus.