Nicolaus Cusanus and Ramon Lull: A Comparison of Three Texts on Human Knowledge

NICOLAUS CUSANUS AND RAMON LULL: A COMPARISON OF THREE TEXTS ON HUMAN KNOWLEDGE By CHARLES H. LOHR Although the rich collection of Lull's works in the library of Nicholas of Kues1 testifies eloquently to the debt the German cardinal owed to the Catalan polymath, Ramon Lull, the extent of the cardinal's indebtedness was not properly appreciated until the study of Eusebio Colomer in Nikolaus von Kues und Raimund Llull (Berlin, 1961). The depth of Cusanus's engagement with Lull manifests itself especially in the excerpts from Lull's works made by him (now preserved in MS Cus. 83, fol. 93r-102r of the cardinal's library, and edited by Colomer, Nikolaus von Kues, 125-86). These excerpts have recently been reedited by Ulrich Roth2 and the original texts of most of the works of Lull that were excerpted by Cusanus published in the series, Raimundi Lulli opera latina (28 vols., Palma de Mallorca-Turnhout, 1957-2003).3 The original text of one of the most important of the works of Lull excerpted by Cusanus has, however, not yet been published. Here I would like to present the text of Lull's De potentia, obiecto et adu, as it was understood in the tradition leading up to Cusanus's excerpts. Lull's work is preserved complete in a rather late manuscript in Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vitt. Emmanuele II fondi minori 1832 (s. XV/XVI), fol. 519r-609v.4 The work is also found somewhat abbreviated in two manuscripts almost contemporary with Lull himself. J. N. Hillgarth first noted the presence of the work in the famous Electorium, a vast anthology of Lull's works intended for use in the university of Paris (Paris, BNF lat. 15450, fol. 99v-lllr);5 its companion manuscript, the magnificent Brevicu1 Jakob Marx, Verzeichnis der Handschriften-Sammlung des Hospitals zu Cues (Trier, 1905; repr. Frankfurt a. M., 1966). Cusanus's collection of Lull's works includes MSS 81-88, 37 (item 2), 118 (item 1). 2 I1IIi Roth, ed., Cusanus Texte: III. Marginalien, 4. Raimundus Lullus. Die Exzerptensammlung aus Schriften des Raimundus Lullus im Codex Cusanus 83 (Heidelberg, 1997), 24-88. 3 Cf. ibid., 12-14. 4 Carmelo Ottaviano, "Il perduto 'Liber de potentia, obiecto et actu' de Lullo in un manuscrito romano," Miscel.ldnea lul.liana (Barcelona, 1935) 97-108 = Estudis franciscans 46 (1934): 257-68. The complete transcription of the text from the Rome manuscript by the regretted Manuel Bauza, formerly member of the Raimundus Lullus Institut, Freiburg, has generally been followed below.° J. N. Hillgarth, Ramon Lull and Lullism in Fourteenth-Century France (Oxford, 1971), 354-55. 230TRADITIO lum, meant as a gift for the Queen of France, also contains the work (Karlsruhe , Landesbibliothek St. Peter perg. 92, fol. 18r-22r).fi The versions of De potentia in the Eledorium and Breviculum are virtually the same in both collections ; the principal difference between these versions and the manuscript in Rome consists in a modified order of the sensitive powers (dist. II) (MS: visiva, auditiva, odorativa, gustativa, tactiva; EIjBr. tactiva, gustativa, odorativa , visiva, auditiva) and the omission of the distinction III de quaestionibus in both collections. Cusanus's excerpts (cod. Cusanus, 83 fol. 98v-99v = Colomer 164-72 = Roth 63-71) are not complete and are dependent on a source different from both of these traditions. In the excerpts Nicholas opens with a sentence from the introduction and then copies virtually the entire distinction I (which gives the definitions of potentia, obiedum, and actus), but gives distinction II only in part (de potentia vegetativa and potentiva sensitiva up to de visu, following the order in the Rome manuscript); distinction III de quaestionibus is omitted entirely, as in the other manuscripts . The De potentia, obiecto et actu is certainly an authentic work of Lull; it is listed in the earliest catalogue of his works found in the Eledorium.7 According to the colophon in the Rome manuscript, the work was written in Rome;8 citations of parallel places in the text indicate further that the work was composed about the year 1296.9 The Eledorium and the Breviculum both seek in their own way to bring some clarity into Lull's chaotic...