Franciscan Studies

WHAT SAINT BONAVENTURE HAS GIVEN TO PHILOSOPHERS TODAY Of aU the works of the Seraphic Doctor, I suspect that philosophers have the greatest familiarity with the De reductione artium ad theologiam , at leastby title.Thereason for its familiarity, however, does not seem to come from any kind of universal acclaim. On the contrary, it seems to have become familiar because of a kind of notariety attached to the title. Unless I am mistaken, this opusculum of Saint Bonaventure has, at least in certain quarters, become a symbol of "a grevious sin against philosophy" — and a sign of impure thoughts against a metaphysics of being. Professor E. Gilson, for example, who unquestionably has a great admiration for the Seraphic Doctor, nevertheless, feels compelled to say the following in commenting on the De reductione: "Anyone with the slightest feeling for the value of the mystical life will immediately realize that Saint Bonaventure was fundamentally right. That, however, is not the question. If you want a theology in order to bring all the other sciences back to God, your first requisite is, of course, a theology; and if you want to refer your philosophy to God, what you need first is a philosophy — a philosophy, I repeat, that is wholly and exclusively, a philosophy, and which, because it is a philosophy, can be related to theology without being reduced to it. Despite his marvellous gifts as a theologian and as a philosopher, it must be said that Saint Bonaventure's remarkable achievements in both sciences would have been stiU greater had he not failed to perceive that difficulty." Now according to Gilson the difficulty which Bonaventure failed to perceive was the neccessity for keeping philosophy wholly and exclusively a philosophy — a philosophy which cannot be reduced to theology. But did Saint Bonaventure really fail to see the difficulty, or was this his answer to a difficulty which later philosophers have failed to see? The crucial term in this controversy, is, of course reductio. Gilson is weU aware that Bonaventure means by that term a taking back of things to God. Nevertheless, Gilson seems to insist that the taking back, the recursus, consists in some kind of untoward comprehension of the philosophic proprieties. And this certainly is debatable. If one sees Saint 1 Franciscan Studies 1959I 2 A. NEMETZ Bonaventure's program as a moment in an Augustinian history, then the proposed recursus or reductio in no way results in a compression, decimation or truncation of philosophy proper. On the contrary, as I understand Saint Bonaventure's program the purpose of the reductio is rather an exfoliation of philosophy. Perhaps the best way to explain my metaphor is to suggest a theological analogy. Since the days of the early church Fathers, there has been general agreement that the reading of Scripture can take two directions, that of a literal reading and a subsequent spiritual or figurative interpretation . And there is further agreement that to read Scripture according to the sensus spiritualis, in no way destroys or compresses the historical or literal meaning. Instead when applicable, a reading according to the sensus spiritualis perfects or completes what was first read historically. Now what I want to suggest is that when Saint Bonaventure proposes a reductio of arts to theology, what he has in mind can be paralleled by the twofold reading of Scripture. The arts, including philosophy, have a naturally historical and literal antinomy, in fact they have a temporal priority in the life of the wayfarer. The reductio therefore, in no way is a challenge or a threat to the antinomy of the arts. Instead, what the reductio proposes is precisely the opposite — the reductio proposes that the antinomy of the arts can be realized more fully when seen in relation to the "Father of lights", just as the significance, of an historical event made the Odd Dispensation, takes on an added significance when read allegorically. In short, I am suggesting that Bonaventure's proposal in the De reductione is to treat the activities and products of mind as capable of a double signification just as some historical events as recorded in Scripture are capable of a double signification. I could argue that the...