In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE SO-CALLED APOLOGIA DE VERBO INCARNATO The time-honoured title Apologia de Verbo Incarnato is not found in anyknown manuscript ofthe following christologicaltreatisewhose original title reads: Objectiones contra eos qui dicunt quod Christus non est aliquid secundum quod est homo. The name of its author is still unknown and a recent attempt1 to identify him with the author of the Quaestiones in epístolas Pauli (PL 175, 431—634) and of the equally anonymous Commentary on Sentences, preserved in Ms. Luxembourg, B. N., lat. 65, fols, ?—244v, has met with a prompt and justified disapproval .2 There is, however, an undeniable literary relationship between the commentary on Sentences and the Apologia. This has been clearly established by A. M. Landgraf by means of a text concerning the various types of composition. The Apologia (No. 41 in this edition) claims: Sciendum est plura genera esse compositionis. Aliter enim domus . . . sine versibilitate et confusione. The corresponding text in the anonymous commentary on Sent. Ill, 7, 1 deals with the same question in the same terms, noted by italics in the following transcription: Componi quippe pluribus modis accipitur. Aliter enim componitur domus ex suis partibus, aliter statua ex auro et argento,3 aliter panis ex aqua et farina, aliter homo ex corpore4 et anima. Hic igitur hypostasis dicitur ex duabus naturis composita: non quod ex ipsis constet tamquam ex partibus. Sed quia duae naturae in una persona6 unitae sunt sine confusione vel versibilitate sui, dicunt ipsi hominem Christum compositum quoddam esse cujus pars est divinitas.6 To this we can add another chapter which provides equally strong evidence of a literary interrelation between our two works. The commen1 P. Glorieux, 'Essai sur les "Quaestiones in epístolas Pauli" du Ps.Hugues de Saint-Victor,' RTAM XIX (1952), 48—59. 2 A. M. Landgraf, 'Der Verfasser der Sentenzenabbreviation des Cod. lat. 65 der Bibl. Nat. in Luxemburg', Anal. Franc. XXIII (1953), 5—16. Cf. ídem, 'Frühschol. Abkürzungen der Sentenzen des Lombarden', Studia Mediaevalia in hon. Y. J. Martin (Bruges, s. a.), pp. 171—193. 3 The Apologia reads: ex materia et forma. 4 The Apologia reads: carne.6 I have supplied the word persona. 6 Copied from A. Landgraf's article in Studia Med., p. 183. 102 Apologia de Verbo Incarnate103 tary on Lombard's Sentences continues as follows : Sed illud compositum creatura est, quia non semper fuit. Ergo Creator est pars quaedam creaturae , quod nefas est dicere. Rursus omne totum majus est qualibet parte sua. Ergo si divinitas pars est alicujus, oportet quod ipsa sit minor eo, cujus est pars. Vel si1 ipsa major est omni re, major est eo, cujus est pars. Et sic vel ipsa suo toto jus aufert totalitatis vel ipsa circumscribitur toto. Rursus nulla pars intelligitur et suum totum. Sed divinitas est ubique. Ergo et illud compositum, cujus pars dicitur, est ubique. His et aliis modis potest opponi huic sententiae et multis auctoritatibus improbari.8 The reader may compare this exposition with the corresponding text in the Apologia (No. 39) to convince himself that our authors either relied on a common source or copied from one another. Assuming that they did not borrow from a common source, the question still remains: who copied from whom? The concluding sentence of the passage just quoted indicates that the writer of the commentary had before him a work which could have furnished him with other arguments and "many authorities." This would confirm Landgraf's contention that the commentator used the Apologia.9 The anonymous commentary agrees with the Apologia with regard to the explanation of human personality which we may quote to show how its author made use of his source. The commentator states: Neque ex humanitate (Christus) causam personalitatis suae contrahit. Omnis enim natura,10 quae persona dicitur, ab eo quod dignius est vel superius in eo personalitatem contrahit. Revera si tantum homo esset et non Deus, ab eo quod superius in homine est, scilicet a ratione, suam personalitatem contraheret. Sed quia lux ei suae divinitatis infudit quod majus est, non jam a ratione sed ab eo quod superius i. e. a divinitate sua personalitatem contrahit.11 The Apologia (No. 28) offers the very same doctrine in a...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 102-143
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.