Jasper Hopkins, A Concise Introduction To Nicholas of Cusa PDF
Jasper Hopkins, A Concise Introduction To Nicholas of Cusa PDF
Jasper Hopkins, A Concise Introduction To Nicholas of Cusa PDF
v
vi Preface
INTRODUCTION 3
ABBREVIATIONS 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY 47
TRIALOGUS DE POSSEST 6 62
ON ACTUALIZED-POSSIBILITY 63
NOTES 157
INDEX 181
This page intentionally left blank
chRonoloqy of
nicholass major? woRks
XI
xii Chronology
1458 De Beryllo
1459 De Aequalitate
De Principio
1460 De Possest
1461 Cribratio Alkorani
1461-62 DeLiNonAliud
1462-63 De Venatione Sapientiae
De Ludo Globi
1463 Compendium
1464 De Apice Theoriae
A concise
introduction to the philosophy
ofnicholasof CUSA
This page intentionally left blank
intRo6uction
I
Nikolaus Krebs (1401-64) was born in the town of Cues,
situated on the Moselle River. Later called Nycolaus Cancer
de Coesse, Nicolaus de Cusa, and Nicolaus Cusanus, 1 he re-
ceived his early education from the Brothers of the Common
Life at Deventer in Holland, where he was exposed to such
pietistic and mystical themes as are expressed in The Imita-
tion of Christ, attributed to Thomas a Kempis. In 1416 he
entered the University of Heidelberg, thus coming under the
influence of Scholastic philosophy and theology. After a
year and a half, he left Heidelberg for Padua, where he studied
some mathematics and physics but mainly canon law, re-
ceiving his doctor decretorum in 1423. Following a sojourn
in Rome, he returned to Germany in 1425 for a year's study
of theology at the University of Cologne. During the next
decade he was engaged in various pursuits as a canon lawyer
and was sent to Constantinople in 143 7 by the minority party
of the Council of Basel.2 The purpose of this mission was
to invite the Greeks to attend, at Ferrara, Italy, a council
which would discuss the reunification of the Greek and the
3
4 Introduction
II
The speculative and highly metaphysical character of Nicho-
las's writings render them especially difficult to compre-
hend. Much of the trouble arises from the fact that they
veer from the method and the style of medieval Scholasticism.
Whereas Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William of
Ockham, and the others pay careful attention to articulating
philosophical and theological arguments, Nicholas advances
considerations so sweeping that they can scarcely be called ar-
guments. And even the few argument-approximations which
8 Introduction
Ill
Many of Nicholas's central doctrines emerge in conjunction
with his reading of Scripture. The doctrine of acquired ig-
norance is associated with I Corinthians 3:19: "The wisdom
of this world is foolishness with God." The doctrine that God
is all things is correlated with I Corinthians 15:28: "that God
may be all in all." The doctrine of the mystical vision is de-
veloped against the backdrop of II Corinthians 12:3-4: "I
know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body,
I know not: God knoweth): That he was caught up into para-
dise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man
to utter." And the via negativa is propounded in connection
with Ephesians 1:21, which teaches that God is "above all
principality and power and virtue and dominion and every
name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that
which is to come." Indeed, Nicholas teaches that insofar as
the existence and the nature of God can be apprehended
through symbolisms, they must be grasped by the route indi-
cated in Romans 1:20, a verse which he construes as: "The in-
visible things of Him, including His eternal power and divinity,
are clearly seen from the creation of the world, by means of
understanding created things."
Intermingled with considerations of faith, Nicholas's rea-
soning in De Possest is no more rigorous than it was in De
Docta Ignorantia, written twenty years earlier. He regards
the sensible world as finite, and therefore as existing from
another (ab alio), since it cannot fix its own limits. But this
other-from-which-the-world-exists exists from itself (a se),
since it is the Creating Power and since only what is created
Introduction 17
IV
Insofar as God is Actualized-possibility, he is distinct from
every other being (for these other beings are such that some
of their possibilities are never actualized). Yet Nicholas also
declares that God is all things and that in God all things are
God.109 By this formula, however, he does not mean that
God is identical with the sum total of objects which consti-
tute the created world. (Indeed, as stated earlier, he manages
to avoid pantheism.)110 As enfolded in God (complicata), all
things are God; but as unfolded in the created world (expli-
cata), these very things are the world.111 For example, God
may be said to be sun. But He is not the sensible sun which
was created by (i.e., unfolded from) Him. He is rather a sun
which is all that it can be. That is, He is a sun so great that
it cannot be greater, so small that it cannot be smaller, so
everywhere that it cannot be elsewhere —in short, a sun which
is "all things, so that it is not able to be anything other than
it is."112 But if God is a sun which is all other things, what
sense does it make to call Him sun? In fact, Nicholas seems
to suggest that it does not matter what we call God as long
as what we call Him is conceived to be all that it can be, i.e.,
insofar as we remove its limitations. Thus God is not sun inso-
far as sun is distinct from moon.113 Rather, He is sun insofar
as sun is not distinct from moon, insofar as it is unqualified
Being itself.
Similarly, if in God all things are God, it is misleading to
continue to refer to them plurally as all things; for in God
there is said to be no composition.114 In God nothing is
thought to remain individuated as itself.115 So when Nicho-
las states that "in the Eternal God any given being is both
God and all things,"116 he means that in God there is only
God—undivided Oneness. And when all created things are
Introduction 29
V
In terms of the history of science many of Nicholas's views
about the earth and the universe have been thought to be of
special importance. Some of these views, e.g., that there may
well be life on other planets, are easily graspable. Others,
e.g., the view that the universe is privatively infinite, are
more difficult to interpret. Nicholas is one of the first to
maintain that the earth is in motion, though he is not clear
about what kind of motion this is. In De Docta Ignorantia II,
12 he calls it circular—though not perfectly circular—motion.
In the judgment of Koyre "it is neither the daily rotation
[of the earth] around its axis, nor the annual revolution
around the sun, but a kind of loose orbital gyration around
a vaguely determined and constantly shifting center."121 In-
deed, the earth is said to have no center, i.e., no exact center.
For since the earth is not a perfect sphere, there cannot be
found an exact point equidistant from every point on the
circumference. Likewise, the heavens have no fixed poles;
and the sphere of fixed stars moves.122 The universe, or world
—which comprises everything except God—is itself without
a center. Not even the earth is to be regarded as its center,
though it seems to us more central than the other planets.123
It would be an exaggeration to claim, in any serious sense,
that Nicholas's theory about the earth's movement antici-
pates Copernicus's.124 (For Nicholas's view is stated vaguely
and without detail, rather than systematically and fully;
moreover, it is a part of an abstruse metaphysic rather than
Introduction 31
VI
Nicholas's teaching on universals has long been the sub-
ject of controversy. In De Docta Ignorantia II, 6 he writes:
Introduction 33
VII
Since every individual thing is to a greater or a lesser degree
a contraction of the universe: the question arises, Is some in-
dividual thing the most perfect contraction of the universe?
Nicholas regards human nature as elevated above all the works
of God and as slightly lower than the angels.1 2 If elevated
into a union with the Absolute Maximum, human nature
will become the fullness-of-perfection for each and every
thing.163 This union of the human and the divine constitutes
the God-man, who is both absolute and contracted, 1164 with-
out being a contraction of the Absolute. Since the God-man,
viz., Christ, is complete fullness: if we possess Him through
faith, we possess all things.165 Thus we are justified not
through ourselves but through faith in Christ. Nicholas con-
joins with his notion of justification by faith a modified
Anselmian theory of atonement, 1166 in accordance with which
the God-man is said to make satisfaction for man's sin.
Since human nature is a microcosm of creation: in any
human being's turning toward God creation itself can be said
to return to God, from whom it emanated. Yet this return is
Introduction 39
Conclusion
We now see that Nicholas's distinctive contribution to the
history of western philosophy arises from the inimitable way
in which he blends the theological, ontological, cosmological,
and mathematical —all in the service of devotio Christi. Hav-
ing rejected the disciplined method of the Scholastics, he
gives himself over to the spirit of speculation. His via specu-
lativa is not always a via intelligibilis. But believing, as he
does, that there is no proportion between the finite and the
infinite, he is intent upon maintaining that the nature of In-
finite Being is philosophically unknowable. This position can
best be appreciated, if at all, by contrasting it with Spinoza's
opposing verdict that God is knowable only philosophically.
In breaking away from William of Ockham and the via
moderna generally, Nicholas becomes a forerunner of the
dialectical tendencies in later German philosophy. His pen-
chant for paradoxical expression parallels his insistence up-
on the religious need for mystical vision, in which the prin-
ciple of noncontradiction becomes transcended. Those por-
tions of his philosophy which border upon metaphor often
aim to excite the imagination, so that it may more readily
soar beyond the confines of mere sensory reproduction. To
divorce his philosophy from its religious context is necessarily
to distort it. For to view his emphasis upon the dialectical
independently of his emphasis upon the mystical inevitably
leads to mistaking the former for incoherence and the latter
for Schwarmerei.
If we should not overrate the philosophical importance of
the writings of the man from Cusa, neither should we under-
42 Introduction
45
This page intentionally left blank
BlBllOQRAphy
I. Works by Nicholas
A. Major Latin Editions
Strasburg edition of 1488. (New reprinting in two volumes, ed. Paul
Wilpert. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966, 1967.)
Paris edition of 1514. (New Reprinting in three volumes. Frankfurt:
Minerva GmbH., 1962.)
Heidelberg Academy of Letters edition. Leipzig/Hamburg: Meine
1932-present. (Many of these texts are republished by Meiner
in the series Nikolaus von Kues, Schriften in deutscher Uber-
setzung.)
B. English Translations
The Idiot. Trans, anonymously 1650; preface by W. R. Dennes 1940.
San Francisco: California State Library (Sutro Branch), 1940.
(Occasional papers; Reprint series No. 19; mimeographed.)
Of Learned Ignorance. Trans. Germain Heron with an introduction
by D. J. B. Hawkins. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954.
The Single Eye, Entituled the Vision of God. Trans. Giles Randall.
London: Streater, 1646.
The Transalpine Thinkers: Selected Readings from Cusanus to Suarez
(vol. II of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. Herman Shapiro and Arturo
B. Fallico). New York: Modern Library, 1969. (Contains a trans-
lation, by the editors, of De Docta Ignorantia I, 1-12.)
Unity and Reform: Selected Writings of Nicholas de Cusa. Ed. John
P. Dolan. South Bend, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press,
47
48 Bibliography
1962. (Contains G. Heron's translation of Book 3 of Learned Ig-
norance, most of E. Sailer's translation of The Vision of God, and
Dolan's translation of De Sapientia, De Pace Fidei, andDeStaticis
Experimentis. Dolan's translations are based upon the Basel edi-
tion of 1565, which, though adding several mathematical treatises,
reproduces the Paris edition.)
The Vision of God. Trans. Emma G. Salter with an introduction by
Evelyn Underbill. New York: Dutton, 1928.
Metzke, Erwin. "Nicolaus von Cues und Hegel. Ein Beitragzum Prob-
lem derphilosophischenTheologie,"Kaw£-S£wcfew, 48 (1956-57),
216-34.
Meurers, Joseph. "Nikolaus von Kues und die Entwicklung des as-
tronomischen Weltbildes,"A4FCG, 4 (1964), 395-419.
Meuthen, Erich. Nikolaus von Kues, 1401-1464: Skizze einer Bio-
graphic. 2nd ed. Munster: Aschendorff, 1967.
Oedinger, K. "Idiota de sapientia. Platonisches und anti-platonisches
Denken bei Nikolaus von Cues," Tijdschrift voor Philosophic, 17
(1955), 690-98.
Peters, Johannes, "Grenze und Uberstieg in der Philosophic des Niko-
laus von Cues," Symposion. Jahrbuch fur Philosophic, 4 (1955),
91-215.
Platzeck, Erhard-W. "Randbemerkungen zur via antiqua und via
moderna im Spatmittelalter," MFCG, 6 (1967), 35-50.
Poppel, Karl G. Die Docta Ignorantia des Nikolaus Cusanus als Bild-
ungsprinzip. Eine padagogische Untersuchung iiber den Begriff
des Wissens und Nichtwissens (Heft 6 of Grundfragen der Pada-
gogik.) Freiburg, Lambertus, 1956.
Ranft, Joseph. Schopfer und Geschopf nach Kardinal Nikolaus von
Cusa. Ein Beitrag zur Wurdigung des Kardinals alsMystiker. Wiirz-
burg: St. Rita, 1924.
Reding, Marcel. Die Aktualitat des Nikolaus Cusanus in seinen Grund-
gedanken. Berlin: Morus-Verlag, 1964.
Rice, Eugene F. "Nicholas of Cusa's Idea of Wisdom," Traditio, 13
(1957), 345-68.
Ritter, Joachim. Docta Ignorantia: die Theorie des Nichtwissens bei
Nicolaus Cusanus. Leipzig: Tuebner, 1927.
"Die Stellung des Nicolaus von Cues in der Philosophie-
geschichte. Grundsatzliche Probleme der neueren Cusanus-Forsch-
ung," Blatter fur Deutsche Philosophic, 13 (1939), 111-55.
Rogner, Hildegund. Die Bewegung des Erkennens und das Sein in der
Philosophic des Nik'olaus von Cues. Heidelberg: Winter, 1937.
Rompe, Robert, and Hans-Jiirgen Treder. "Nikolaus von Kues als
Naturforscher,"D^4WB, pp. 15-22.
Rotta, Paolo. Nicolb Cusano. Milan: Fratelli Bocca, 1942.
Santinello, Giovanni. // pensiero di Nicolb Cusano nella sua prospet-
tiva estetica. Padova: Liviana, 1958.
Schanz, Paul. Der Cardinal Nicolaus von Cusa als Mathematiker.
Wiesbaden: Sandig oHG., 1967 (reprint of 1872 edition).
Schmitt, Paul. "Das Urbild in der Philosophic des Nicolaus de Cusa,"
Eranos-Jahrbuch (Zurich), 18 (1950), 291-321.
Schnarr, Hermann. Mo di essendi. Interpretationen zu den Schriften
De docta ignorantia, De coniecturis, und De venatione sapientiae
von Nikolaus von Kues. Munster: Aschendorff, 1973.
56 Bibliography
tRiAloqus 6e possest
This page intentionally left blank
pRAenotan6A
1. Where, for clarification, words from the Latin text are in-
serted into the translation, the following rule is employed:
When the Latin term is noted exactly as it appears in the
Latin text, parentheses are used; when the case endings of
nouns are transformed to the nominative, brackets are
used.
2. The numbering of the Psalms accords with the Douay Ver-
sion and, in parentheses, with the King James Version.
3. Quotation marks are employed when Nicholas mentions
a word rather than uses it. On occasion, however, he both
mentions and uses a word in the same sentence. In such
cases the word is italicized in the translation. (E.g., 65:3-4:
"Therefore, being which is Being itself names for us the
Form of forms.") N.B. In some passages italics are used
solely for emphasis.
4. At De Possest 18 the diagram in the Latin text is found
in the margin of Codex Cusanus 219. The corresponding
diagram in the English text is taken from p. 109 of the
notes which accompany Elisabeth Bohnenstaedt's Ger-
man translation (Vom Kbnnen-Sein. Vom Gipfel der
Betrachtung, published by Felix Meiner Verlag, 1947)
and is reproduced with the permission of the publisher.
5. The occasional appearance of brackets in the Latin text
indicates words or syllables which Renate Steiger believes
should be deleted, though they occur in Codex Cusanus
219.
6. The paragraph and sentence beginnings of the English
translation do not always coincide with those in the
printed Latin text. But a comparison of the printed Latin
text with Codex Cusanus 219 will show that these begin-
ning points are discretionary.
7. When words such as "beginning," "being," "truth," "ab-
solute," "wisdom," "form," etc., refer to God, they are
capitalized.
8. The numbers in the left-hand margins of the Latin text of
De Possest correspond to the folio numbers of De Possest
in the Paris edition of the Opera Omnia. The numbers in
the right-hand margins of the Latin text were assigned by
Renate Steiger to indicate section and line.
61
tmaloqus 6e possest 1
Ed.
Paris. 1
fol.
174«
BERNARDUS: Cum nobis concedatur colloquendi cardina-
lem dudum optata facultas nee sibi sit onerosum conceptum
diu pensatum propalare, velis, peto, mi abba Johannes, ali-
qua ex tuis studiis ipsum excitandi gratia proponere. Provo-
catus indubie grata nobis reserabit.
62
1 on actualized-possibility
63
64 Trialogus de possest
noil quod invisibilia dei sint quid aliud quam deus invisi-
bilis, sed quia plura in creatura mundi sunt visibilia, quorum
quodlibet sua adaequata ratione id est quod est, ideo de
qualibet visibili creatura docet ad cuiuslibet invisibile prin-
cipium ascendendum.
tion." [He did] not [mean this in the sense] that the invisible
things of God are something other than the invisible God.
Rather, [he said it] because in the mundane creation many
things are visible; and any one of them, by virtue of the form
[ratio] to which it corresponds, is what it is. And so, Paul
teaches that we must mount up from any given visible crea-
ture to its invisible Beginning.6
BERNARD: We duly understand all this—viz., how we are
aroused by created things so that we may behold their eter-
nal forms in their Beginning. This point could have been
stated just this clearly by the Apostle if he meant nothing
else. But if he intended to say something more fully to one
ardent with the desire to apprehend God, we ask that it be
disclosed.
5 CARDINAL:! think that very many [of these] things are
also very deep and lie hidden from me. But what I now be-
lieve is the following: The Apostle wanted to teach us how
we can invisibly apprehend in God those things which we see
in the creation. Assuredly, every actually existing created
thing is able to exist; for what is not able to exist does not
exist. So then, not-being is not a created thing; for if it were
a created thing, assuredly it would exist.7 Moreover, since
to create is to bring forth from not-being to being, assuredly
[the Apostle] indicates clearly that not-being is in no respect
a created thing. And to have apprehended this point is no
small matter.
6 But I add consistently: From the fact that every existing
thing is able to be that which it actually is,8 we perceive ab-
solute actuality, through which the things that actually exist
are what they are. (By comparison, when with the visible eye
we see white things, we intellectually behold whiteness, with-
out which a white thing would not be white.) Therefore,
since actuality actually exists: assuredly it is also able to exist,
because what is impossible to exist does not exist. Now, ab-
solute possibility is not able to be anything other than possi-
bility, even as absolute actuality [is] not [able to be] any-
thing other than actuality.9 This possibility which was just
now mentioned [viz., absolute possibility] is not able to exist
prior to actuality—unlike the case where we say that some
particular possibility precedes it actualization. For how
would [absolute possibility] have become actual except
68 Trialogus de possest
actu. Secus de sole. Nam licet sol sit actu id quod est, non 10
tamen id quod esse potest. Aliter enim esse potest quam
actu sit.
BERN: Grata sunt haec. Sed sicut video, nee nomen nee 10
res nee quicquam omnium, quae creatae magnitudini con-
veniunt, convenienter de deo dicuntur, cum differant per
infinitum. Et fortassis non solum in magnitudine hoc verum,
sed in omnibus quae de creaturis verificantur.
est anima mundi sicut anima hominis anima est, nee forma
alicuius, sed omnibus forma, quia causa efficiens, formalis 20
seu exemplaris et finalis.
BERN: Vultne Johannes evangelista dicere omnia sic in 13
deo esse vitam sicut de manu dixisti et anima?
way that the soul of a man is a soul. Nor is God the Form
merely of some thing; rather, He is the Form for all things,
since He is the efficient, the formal (or the exemplary), and
the final cause.
13 BERNARD: Doesn't John the Evangelist22 want to say —in
a way comparable to your statement about the hand and the
soul—that in God all things are life?
CARDINAL: I think that "life" there means "truth" and
"vitality." For since things do not exist unless they are formed
through a form, forms exist more truly and more vitally in
the Form of forms than in matter. For a thing does not exist
unless it is true and, in its own way, alive. When it ceases to
be true and alive, it ceases to exist. And so, it exists more
truly in the Form of forms than in itself; for in the Form of
forms it is true and alive.
JOHN: You teach us excellently, Father. You seem to me
to elicit all things from one thing. God, then, is all things,
so that He is not able to be anything else. He is so present
everywhere that He is not able to be present anywhere else.
He is to such an extent the most congruent measure of all
things that He is not able to be a more equal measure. The
same points can be made about form and species and all
other things. In this way it is not difficult to see that God is
free of all opposition, and to see how those things which seem
to us to be opposites are identical in Him, how in Him nega-
tion is not opposed to affirmation, and [so on for] every
such thing.
14 CARDINAL: Abbot, you have grasped the root of the matter;
and you see that this thought, which cannot be explicated
by means of many words, is enfolded in a very short word.
For let us agree that [there is a single] word [which] signi-
fies by a very simple signification as much as [is signified
by] the compound expression "Possibility exists" ("posse
est")— meaning that possibility itself exists. Now, because
what exists exists actually: the possibility-to-be exists insofar
as the possibility-to-be is actual. Suppose we call this possest
[Actualized-possibility] .23 All things are enfolded in it
[i.e., in Actualized-possibility]; and "Actualized-possibility"
is a sufficiently approximate name for God, according to
our human concept of Him. For it is equally the name (1)
of all names, (2) of each distinct name, and (3) of no name.
And so, when God willed to first reveal knowledge of Himself,
78 Trialogus de possest
IOH: Recte dicis. Nam si non est posse esse, nihil est, et 10
si est, omnia id sunt quod sunt in ipso et extra ipsum nihil.
Omnia igitur quae facta sunt in ipso ab aeterno necesse est
fuisse. Quod enim faetum est, in posse esse semper fuit,
sine quo faetum est nihil. Patet possest omnia esse et am-
bire, cum nihil aut sit aut possit fieri, quod non includatur.
In ipso ergo omnia sunt et moventur et id sunt quod sunt
quicquid sunt.
Is it not true that the faster the movable circle is rotated, the
less it seems to be moved?
BERNARD: It certainly seems true. And, as boys, [this is
how] we saw it.
19 CARDINAL: Suppose, then, that the possibility-to-be-moved
is actual in it; i.e., suppose that the top is actually being
moved as fast as possible. In that case, would it not be com-
pletely motionless?
BERNARD: Because of the rapid velocity, no change-of-
state could be observed. And so, indeed, the motion could
not be detected, since the change-of-state would have ceased.
JOHN: Since the motion would be of infinite velocity,
points b and c would be temporally present together at *
point d of the fixed circle—without its being the case that
point b was temporally prior to point c. (For if b were tem-
porally prior to c, the motion would not be maximal and
infinite.) And yet, there would not be motion but would be
rest, since at no time would points b and c move away from
the fixed point d.
CARDINAL: You speak correctly, Abbot. Hence the maxi-
mal motion would at the same time also be minimal motion
and no motion.
BERNARD: This seems to be necessarily so.
CARDINAL: In that case, just as the opposite points b and
c would be always at point d, would they not always also
be at the opposite point from d, viz., at e?
JOHN: Necessarily.
CARDINAL: Would this not likewise hold true for all the
intermediate points of the circle be"?
JOHN: Yes, likewise.
CARDINAL: Therefore, the whole of the circle (even if the
circle were maximal in size) would at every instant be simul-
taneously present at point d (even if point d were minimal
in size). And [the whole of the circle would be] not only at
d and e but also at every other point of the circle d e.
JOHN: So it would.
CARDINAL: Let it suffice, then, thatby means of this image
and symbolically we are somehow able to see that (if the
circle b c were illustrative of eternity and the circle d e were
illustrative of time)32 [the following propositions] are not
self-contradictory: "that eternity as a whole is at once present
at every point of time"; "that God as the Beginning and the
End 33 is at once and as a whole present in all things"; [and
so on for] whatever other such propositions.
86 Trialogus de possest
and all its points are one point —even though they appear to
be many when we look at circle d e ([which is illustrative] of
time) and at its points.
23 CARDINAL: Both of you are coming quite close to the the-
ology which is concise and most extensive, alike. We could
pursue still many other very appealing [illustrations] regard-
ing this motion of the top—e.g., (1) how a boy who wants
to enliven a dead top (i.e., a top without motion) impresses
upon it a likeness of his thought by means of a device con-
jured up from his intellect; and (2) how by both the forward
and the backward motion of his hands (i.e., by the motion of
both thrusting and pulling) he impresses upon the top a move-
ment over and above the top's nature. For the top, as a heavy
thing, had only a motion toward the center [of the earth.
But the boy] causes the top to be moved in a circular fashion,
as is the sky. Moreover, this moving power (spiritus movens)
is invisibly present to the top for a long or a short time, de-
pending upon the impression of the imparted force. When
this [power] stops turning the top, the top reverts (just as
was its original state) to motion toward the center [of the
earth]. Is this not a likeness of the Creator, who wills to
give the spirit-of-life [spiritus vitae] to what is not alive?
For just as He foreordained it to be done, so by means of
motion the heavens (which are instruments of His executing
will) are moved by a forward motion from east to west and
at the same time by a reverse motion from west to east (as
the astrologers are aware).37 And the spirit-of-life, impressed
from the living zodiac, enlivens that which of its own nature
lacks life; and it enlivens as long as the spirit lasts; and then
this thing returns to its earth. Such points (which do not,
however, pertain to the present investigation), along with
many others, are especially signified in [the example of] this
boys'-game. They have been recalled in this cursory way so
that you may observe (1) that even in a boys' device nature
shines forth (and in nature God) and (2) that the wise men
of the world who pondered this [matter] have attained unto
the truer conjectures about what is knowable.
90 Trialogus de possest
BERN: Quomodo?
IOH: Nam fides est invisibilium et aeternorum. Videre
ergo fidem est videre invisibile, aeternum seu deum nostrum.
On Actualized-possibility 105
BERN: Dum considero nihil concipi per nos posse uti est
179V conceptibile, clare mi|hi constat deum concipi non posse,
qui concipi utique non potest nisi omnis conceptibilitas
actu concipiatur. 20
CARD: Scimus quod omnis numerabilis proportio diametri 42
ad costam est inattingibilis, cum nulli duo numeri dari pos-
sent, qui praecise sic se habeant. Sed quibuscumque datis
habitude eorum est aut maior aut minor quam diametri ad
costam, et quibuscumque datis possunt dari numeri propin-
On Actualized-possibility 109
BERN: Cum omne quod per nos scitur non sciatur sicut 20
sciri potest — potest enim melius sciri —, sola scientia dei,
ubi omne posse est actu, est perfecta et praecisa.
see the possible and the existing rose in union. (For if the
union of the two were denied [of the rose], the rose would
not actually exist, since nothing actually exists unless it is
possible to exist and does exist. For actual existence pro-
48 ceeds from these two.) Thus I see a triune rose from a triune
Beginning.
However, I see that this Beginning is manifest in all things,
since nothing which is originated fails to be triune. But I
see that none of the things which have been originated are
a part of this Beginning, even though all things exist in it as
in their Cause and Form. Therefore, God is not [triune] as
a rose is triune. For an eternal Beginning has nothing from
what is originated; rather, it is absolute Triunity, from which
all triune things are what they are.
JOHN: [This point] seems to me the same as it seems to
you, Bernard. God from whom there is the possible rose,
God from whom there is the existing rose, and God from
whom there is the rose which is the union of the two are
not different gods. For the possible rose, the existing rose,
and the rose which is the union of the two are not different
roses but are a triune rose. Now, Christians distinguish the
following persons: (1) the person of Absolute Possibility
itself, whom we call the omnipotent Father; (2) the person
of Existence itself, whom —because He is of possibility it-
self—we call the Son of the Father-, (3) the person who is
the Union of both and whom we call the Spirit, since natural
love is the spiritual union of the Father and the Son. Al-
though [Christians make these distinctions], I do not discern
how I am supposed to see these differences of person by
means of a symbolism.
49 CARDINAL: On account of the infinitely perfect Trinity in
God, you are right, Abbot, in saying that the person of the
Father, the person of the Son, and the person of the Holy
Spirit are distinct. Nevertheless, the person of the Father is
not distinct by virtue of any otherness; for the blessed Trinity,
which is not from anyone else but which through itself is
what it is, transcends all otherness. And so, on account of
the identity of essence (or of nature) the Father is not some-
thing other than the Son; yet the Father is not the Son. That
the Father is not the Son is not on account of not-being; for
God is triune prior to all not-being. Rather, the reason is
that existence presupposes possibility (since it is not the case
120 Trialogus de possest
JOHN: Hence the things said95 by the saints are true. For
they say that God is quantitative [e.g., great] without quan-
tity, qualitative [e.g., good] without quality, and so on for
all [the other categories].
CARDINAL:So they say. But tell [me] how you construe
this [statement of theirs].
JOHN: I understand that God is the absolute truth of all
the things we see. Hence it is necessary [for us] to negate
the contractedness of what is contracted, in order that we
may attain to the Absolute. For, indeed, I observe how there
is true quantity in visible quantity. Therefore, I attempt to
behold in the Absolute the truth of this [true quantity] —
the truth through which this true quantity is true. And I see
that this truth is a quantity distinct from the kind of quan-
tity which, being bounded and limited in such and such ways,
I saw after not-being and which is designated by the name
70 "quantity." Therefore, I have to leave behind, on this side
of not-being, all those things through which quantity is quan-
tity rather than being all things. And so, I cast aside the name,
the definition, the shape, and all the things apprehended of
quantity by means of all sense, imagination, and intellect—
so that in this way I may arrive at the not-being of this
quantity. Thereupon, I behold the eternal Cause and Form
of that which I saw at first. Although this eternal Cause or
Form is ineffable and prior to every name, nevertheless I call
this Eternity by the name "Quantity without quantity"; for
it is the Form and the Truth of nameable quantity. But the
form of a quantity is not itself quantitative. Likewise, the
truth and the eternity [of a quantity] are not [quantitative]
—even as the from of time is not temporal but is eternal.
71 CARDINAL:! arn happy to have heard these things from
you. The points you have made will not seem surprising to
anyone who experiences for himself how heat-in-the-domain-
of-sensible-things is devoid of heat in the domain of the more
abstract cognitive powers. In the senses, where heat is sensed,
heat-which-is-not-devoid-of-heat is present; but in the imagi-
nation or in the intellect heat-without-heat is touched upon.
A similar point must be made about all the things with which
the senses make contact. For example, [in the imagination
or in the intellect there is contact with] a fragrance without
fragrance, a sweet without sweetness, a sound without sound,
and likewise for each distinct thing. Therefore, just as things
148 Trialogus de possest
Preface
1. "In many places, however, interpretation could not be com-
pletely withheld." See p. vii of NicolausdeCusa, Trialogusdepossest.
Dreiergesprach uberdas Konnen-Ist, trans. Renate Steiger (Hamburg:
Meiner, 1973).
N. B. The lines of the Latin text as printed in this Latin-German
edition differ in length from the lines of the Heidelberg Academy
edition. Accordingly, the line numbers in the two Latin texts do not
correspond exactly. The Latin text reproduced for the present English
edition was reprinted—with a few minor corrections—from the Latin-
German edition.
157
158 Notes
Introduction
1. On the other variants of Nicholas's name, see the second edi-
tion of Erich Meuthen's Nikolausvon Kues, 1401 -1464: Skizze einer
Biographic, 2nd ed. (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1967), p. 5.
2. His mission was approved by Pope Eugenius IV. Edmond Van-
steenberghe writes: Ce n'est pas le pape, en effet, qui envoya Nicolas
a Constantinople en recompense de sa defection, mais bien la minorite
du concile: les documents le prouvent; et a plusieurs reprises Nicolas
lui-meme a affirme, sans etre jamais contredit, qu'il fit le voyage
d'Orient sur 1'ordre du cardinal de Saint-Pierre. La verite est que son
depart pour 1'Italie ne signifiait pas encore une rupture complete avec
Bale: il laissait, en proie aux passions et a la violence, une assemblee
oil 1'on n'avail plus que faire de sa science et de sa calme raison; mais
il ne lui paraissait pas encore impossible que la minorite, lasaniorpars,
a laquelle il adherait, s'accrut assez pour devenir preponderate, et il
pouvait esperer que Cesarini, comme celui-ci 1'esperait lui-meme, reus-
sirait a ramener les peres vers la seul voie qu'il croyait compatible avec
la vie de 1'Eglise: celle de 1'union au pape."Le Cardinal Nicolas de Cues
(Paris, 1920; reprinted Frankfurt: Minerva GmbH, 1963), pp. 63-64.
See also Meuthen, Nikolaus von Kues, p. 49.
3. See (1) Paul E. Sigmund's discussion on pp. 246-49 of his fine
work Nicholas of Cusa and Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963); (2) Vansteenberghe, Le Car-
dinal Nicolas de Cues, p. 414; (3) Clemens Baeumker, "Das Pseudo-
hermetische 'Buch der vierundzwanzig Meister' (Liber XXIV philoso-
phorum). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Neupythagoreismus und
Neuplatonismus im Mittelalter," in Beitrdge zur Geschichte der
Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, 25 (1928), p. 214.
4.Pp.12-13.
5.NA 6(13:28-30).
6.NA 1 (5:13-14).
7. Vansteenberghe, Le Cardinal Nicolas de Cues, pp. 409-40.
Joseph Lenz, Die docta ignorantia oder die mystiche Gotteserkennt-
Notes 159
pp. 30-31) cites the ways in which his statements about the purpose
of the Koran are inconsistent.
24. DP 74:18. See also De Coniecturis II, 1 (78:13-14) and De
Venatione Sapientiae 22 (67:3-4).
25. De Visione Dei, chap. 9 (at the end).
26. Apologia 27:1-5. DIII, 5, (118:3-4).
27. Apologia 28:18; 29:4-5. DP 12:1-15. Cf. DP 72:7-9.
28. DI II, 5 (117:5-7). DP 74.
29. Wenck's text was edited by E. Vansteenberghe under the tide
Le "De Ignota Litteratura" de Jean Wenck de Herrenberg contre
Nicolas de Cuse, vol. 8, Heft 6 (1910) of Beitrdge zur Geschichte der
Philosophic des Mittelalters (Munster: Aschendorff, 1912).
30. De Deo Abscondito 2:4-5. DP 41:15. DI I, 1 (4:16).
31. These phrases occur respectively in Apologia 3:5; DI I, 2
(5:3); I, 2 (8 = 9); I, 17 (51:3). Note the use of "docti" in DI I, 3
(10:21). Duhem's translation of the phrase "De Docta Ignorantia"
as "L 'ignorance savante" represents, in last analysis, a wrong empha-
sis. See vol. 10 of his Le systeme du monde (Paris: Hermann, 1959),
pp. 251-52,272, 279, et passim.
32. De Ludo Globi II (84). DI II, 12 (162:15-17).
33. See p. 208 of Baeumker's "Das pseudo-hermetische 'Buch der
vierundzwanzig Meister.'" Also note pp. 147, n. 2, and pp. 172-73
of Dietrich Mahnke's Unendliche Sphdre und Allmittelpunkt (Halle:
Niemeyer, 1937), and pp. 141-44 (especially p. 141, n.49) of Her-
bert Wackerzapp's Der Einfluss Meister Eckharts auf die ersten phi-
losophischen Schriften des Nikolaus von Kues (1440-1450), in Bei-
trage zur Geschichte der Philosophic und Theologie des Mittelalters,
vol. 39 (Munster: Aschendorff, 1962).
34. Wackerzapp, Der Einfluss Meister Eckharts, p. 141, n. 49.
35. DI II, 12. See Karsten Harries's attempt to make sense out of
these formulas. "The Infinite Sphere: Comments on the History of a
Metaphor," Journal of the History of Philosophy, 13 (January 1975),
5-15.
36. Other examples of prima facie unintelligible statements are
found throughout Nicholas's writings: e.g., DP 59: "Sicut infinitas
in hoc mundo actu est impossibilis, sic magnitude cuius non est finis
est necessitas ilia, quae non-ens seu nihil ut sit necessitat"•. "Just as
in this world infinity is actually impossible, so endless magnitude is
the necessity which necessitates the existence of not-being, or noth-
ing." Or, again, DI II, 3 (110:11-12): "Non restat nisi dicere, quod
pluralitas rerum exoriatur eo, quod deus est in nihilo": "There re-
mains only to say that the plurality of things arises from the fact
that God is in nothing."
Of course, a la rigueur, some sense can be assigned to these state-
ments. For instance, if "endless magnitude" is taken to refer to God
162 Notes
92.Ibid.
93. Ibid. DIl, 26 (87:1). Apologia 9:3-10.
94. Apologia 8:15-16.
95. De Venatione Sapientiae 26 (77:6-7).
96. DP 41.
97. DP 47. In DP 74 Nicholas goes so far as to call God unintel-
ligible.
98. DP 26.
99. DP 30.
100. Cf. the discussion —toward the beginning of Section IV of
the Introduction—about the sense in which God is said to be sun.
101. For example, K. Oedinger ("Idiota de sapientia. Platonisches
und anti-platonisches Denken bei Nikolaus von Cues," Tijdschrift
voor Philosophic, 17 [1955], 690-98) considers Nicholas's affirma-
tion that God is entitas, unitas, actualitas, exemplaritas, etc., as bla-
tantly inconsistent ith his denial of the knowability of God.
102. DP 74.
103. W. P Alston makes a similar point against Tillich: "If being-
itself does not admit of any characterization as this rather than that,
there is no ground for considering one sort of attitude or feeling more
appropriate to it than another." See "Tillich's Conception of a Reli-
gious Symbol," pp. 18-19 in S. Hook, ed., Religious Experience and
Truth: A Symposium (New York: New York University Press, 1961).
104. DP 56. Cf. DP 12:12-15. Also note De Visione Dei 12 (50:
8-9): "Non es igitur creator: sedplusquam creator in infinitum. . . ."
105. Note the importance of the words "perse" in D I l , I I (30:8).
Also note NA 13 (28:28-30).
106. DP 74. For another example see R. Haubst, " 'Am Nichtteil-
nehmbaren teilhaben'. Zu einem Leitsatz der cusanischen 'Einheits-
metaphysik' und Geistphilosophie," pp. 12-22 in Norbert Fischer et
al., eds., Alte I''ragen und neue Wege des Denkens (Bonn: Bouvier,
1977).
107. DP 2.
108. DI I, 11 (30:4-7).
109.DP 1 2 : l - 1 5 ; 9 : 6 - 7 . C f . D / I , 16 (43:15);II, 3 (111:13-14).
Although Nicholas maintains that God is all things, he nowhere states
that all things are God. Instead, he repeatedly says that in God all
things are God. Mark L. Fuehrer's mistaken claim that for Nicholas
"everything is, in fact, God himself" stems from his mistranslation
of 1)1 I, 22 (69:3-4). See "The Principle of Contractio in Nicholas of
Cusa's Philosophical View of Man," Downside Review, 93 (October
1975), 290. Fuehrer also wrongly ascribes to Plato the view that "Soc-
rates exists as Socrates by participating in the universal 'Socrates' "
(p. 294).
110. Note DI II, 3 (11():4-5): "If you consider things apart from
Him [i.e., God], they are nothing-just as number apart from oneness
168 Notes
[is nothing]. If you consider Him apart from things, He exists and
the things are nothing." (Contrast Hegel's statement that ohne Welt
ist Gott nicht Gott.)
Passages such as the following, however, do convey the impres-
sion of pantheism: "What, then, is the world except the appearance
of the invisible God? What is God except the invisibility of visible
things . . . ?" (DP 72:7-9). Nicholas has often been referred to as a
pantheistic thinker. See, for example, Bertalanffy, ed., Nikolaus von
Kues, p. 21.
111. DP9-.6-7. Seen. 153.
112. DP 11.
113. DP 68.
114. Apologia 27:3-4.
115. "Temporal things [are present in God] nontemporally, for
[they are present] eternally; and corruptible things incorruptibly;
material things immaterially; and plural things nonplurally; numbered
things nonnumerically; composite things noncompositely; and similar-
ly for all things "(DP 71). In DP 74 Nicholas says that God is beyond
both everything simple and everything composite.
116. DP 69.
117. DP 65 and 73.
118. See DP 26, 68, and 73.
119.DPS.
120. Cf. DP 9 with DP 30.
121. Alexandre Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite
Universe (New York: Harper and Row Torchbooks, 1958), p. 15.
122. D7 II, 11.
1 2 3 . D / I I , 12.
124. Kurt Goldammer is certainly correct in maintaining that
"geocentrism is not at all clearly rejected, since the question of the
physical middle point remains completely open in Cusa" and that
"not the slightest trace of a heliocentric system is to be found." See
p. 30 of "Nicolaus von Cues und die Uberwindungdesgeozentrischen
Weltbildes," pp. 25-41 inAlte Probleme-Neue Ansatze. Drei Vortrage
von Fritz Krafft, Kurt Goldammer, Annemarie Wettley (Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1965). Also note A. Koyre, The Astronomical Revolution:
Copernicus-Kepler-Rorelli, trans. R. E. W. Maddison (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1973), p. 72.
125. See especially the last part of D/ II, 8.
126. DI II, 1 (97:18-19).
127. Dl II, 1 (97:5-6).
128. DI II, 4 (114:10-15).
129. DI II, 8.
130. DI I, 21 (65:1-8).
131. DI I, 21 (64:11-16).
Notes 169
tat esse aeternitatem. Inquantum igitur cadit sub tempore, non est a
deo, qui est aeternus. Quis igitur intelligit creaturam ab aeterno et
cum hoc temporaliter esse? Non potuit enim creatura in esse ipso in
aeternitate non esse. . . . " (Copleston does not cite this passage.)
Nicholas teaches that as enfolded in God creatures are God. This
statement (misleadingly) suggests that all things exist in God as their
finite selves. (But this is not what he means. See Dl I, 24 [77:1-7].)
Copleston might mistakenly want to interpret the passage in II, 2 as
teaching that as unfolded from God the creation is God's being. (But
cf. the passage in II, 2 with the statement in II, 8 [140:1-3] : "Unde
cum possibilitas absoluta sit deus, si mundum consideramus ut in
ipsa est, tune est ut in deo et est ipsa aeternitas.")
Seen. 153.
Copleston's mistake is shared by many others, including Vincent
Martin ("The Dialectical Process in the Philosophy of Nicholas of
Cusa," pp. 249, 252, 263, 266), Mark L. Fuehrer ("The Principle of
Contractio in Nicholas of Cusa's Philosophical View of Man,"p. 294),
and Mariano Alvarez-Gomez (Die verborgene Gegenwart des Unend-
lichen bei Nikolaus von Kues, p. 143). Martin also wrongly teaches
that, for Nicholas, "God is the material cause from which all the crea-
tures proceed" (p. 248). N. B. Apologia 26:10-25; 33:23-25.
158. Copleston, History of Philosophy, vol. Ill, p. 239.
159. In general, Nicholas's use of "ipse" is extremely casual; of-
ten "ipse" need not even be translated. Cf. Paul Wilpert's translation
of the passage in question: "Gott ist ndmlich das absolute Wesen der
Welt, d. h. des Alls. Das Allaberist eingeschranktes Wesen." Nikolaus
von Kues, Die belehrte Unwissenheit. Buch H. Trans. Paul Wilpert
(Hamburg: Meiner, 1967), p. 37. Note DI II, 4 (115:10) where in-
stead of stating that the universe is "ipsa quiditas contracta," Nicho-
las says merely that it is "quiditas contracta."
160. "Everything which actually exists is in God because God is
the actuality of all things." DI II, 5 (118:3-4).
161. See p. 12. Similarly, Nicholas calls man a created God (deus
creatus) and a God manque (deus occasionatus). See DI II, 2 (104:3,
6).
162. Cf. Heb.2:7.
163.07111,3(198).
164. DI III, 2 (192:4-9).
165. DI III, 7 (220:2-3).
166. See n. 13.
167. Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Phi-
losophy, p. 38.
168. DP 46.
169. NA 5 (13:4-10). Cf. DI I 9 (26:12-14).
170. DP 21.
171. DP 23.
172 Notes
172. DP 27.
173. DP 52.
\74.Sermo 8 (See vol. 16, fascicle 2 of Nicolai de Cusa Opera
Omnia [Hamburg: Meiner, 1973], p. 158, lines 14-15). The expres-
sion "desiderium devotissimum" occurs in DP 15.
175. Yet, notice Nicholas's request—reminiscent of Anselm — to
his interlocutors at the beginning of NA: "I shall speak and converse
with you, Ferdinand, [but only] on the following condition: viz., that
unless you are compelled by reason, you will reject as unimportant
everything you will hear from me."
Regarding the distinction between ratio (reason) and intellectus
(intellect, understanding), as operations of the soul: Nicholas's view
changes. In De Coniecturis a number of distinctions are made —one
of which is that whereas ratio adheres to the principle of noncontra-
diction, intellectus (which is said to be the unity of ratio) attains un-
to the coincidence of opposites. (This view is also later hinted at in
Apologia 15:8-16; 28:15-17.) There are different orders of intellects
— the human intellect being the lowest, and being joined to the body
through the intermediary of reason. However, no order of finite in-
tellect—but rather only ipse divinus absolutissimus intellectus—can
attain the ineffable and most precise truth.
In DI no uniform distinction is made between ratio and intellectus.
A distinction seems not at all to be present in Book I, to be only
hinted at in Book II, and to appear explicitly for the first time in
Book III. (See Hermann Schnarr, Modi essendi. Interpretationen zu
den Schriften De docta ignorantia, De coniecturis, und De venatione
sapientiae von Nikolaus von Kues [Miinster: Aschendorff, 1973], pp.
45-48.) In DI II, 2 (100:9-10) we are told that noster intellectus
nequit transilire contradictoria-. that our intellect cannot leap beyond
contradictions. But in De Coniecturis I, 6 (25:13-15) the intellect is
said to enfold opposites.
In DP Nicholas sometimes tacitly distinguishes between reason
and intellect (as at 15:2) and sometimes uses "intellectus" in the
accustomed way (viz., as signifying the soul's power to understand
a concept). There is no better example of Nicholas's fluctuating ter-
minology.
On Actualized-possibility
1. The incipit reads: "Here begins the dialogue (dialogus) on Ac-
tualized-possibility—a dialogue of the most reverend father-in-Christ,
Lord Nicholas of Cusa, cardinal of St. Peter in Chains. There are three
discussants."
2. Codex Cusanus 219 here has "Johannes" instead of "Bernar-
dus." But Codex Monacensis Latinus 7338 contains the obviously
correct reading.
Notes 173
3. Rom. 1:20 One difficulty with the Latin version of this text is
that the antecedent of "intellecta" is uncertain. Another is that "a
creatura mundi" may be construed temporally. Nicholas here takes
"intellecta" with "ea," though later he takes it with "creatura." He
always construes "a creatura mundi" nontemporally. See 3:6; 4:3-4;
15:10-ll;51:14-15-,73 : 4-5.
4. II Cor. 4:18.
5. Ibid.
6. "Beginning" is one of the names for God. See Rev. 22:1 3.
7. In this passage Nicholas implies that not-being does not exist.
Later, however, he maintains that not-being does exist. (See 25:12-
16. Cf. 27:22-23; 29:12-13; 59:18-20 ; 67:18; 73:18.) These passages
are not contradictory. For although not-being exists in God, it does
not exist as an object in the world: it is not a created thing. At times,
however, Nicholas does tend to reify not-being. Note NA 7 (15:26-
30): "If Not-other ceased, all the things it precedes would immediately
cease. And so, not only the actuality and the possibility of the beings
which Not-other precedes would cease but so also would the not-
being and the nothing of these beings."
8. Although a created thing is able to be that which it actually is,
it is not actually that which it is able to be —as Nicholas explains in
DPS.
9. I.e., absolute possibility is pure possibility; and absolute ac-
tuality is pure actuality. Nicholas does not make any systematic dis-
tinction between possibilitas, potentia, potestas, posse —nor between
actualitas, actus, and esse.
10. Nicholas contrasts the expression "posse fieri" with the ex-
pression "posse facere" (e.g., 27:6-7; 29:7) and with the expression
"posse esse" (e.g., 24:12-14). It may be translated in a variety of
ways: e.g., "to be able to be made," "to be able to be done," "to be
able to become," "to be possible to be made," "the possibility to be
made," and so on. See also 24:10; 28:1 -29:10. At 29:1 "posse fieri"
is associated with "posse creari" (28:1, 7). At 35:1 Nicholas uses "si
fieri posset" in the sense of "if possible"; and at 75:4-5 he uses "quan-
tum fieri potest" in the sense of "as much as possible." As a rule,
however, he does not in this dialogue use "posse fieri" to mean simply
"to be possible."
11. Eternity itself is God. Possibility, Actuality, and their Union
are the members of the Trinity.
12. (1) Sometimes Nicholas says that God is everything which is
able to be; (2) sometimes he suggests that God is everything which
He is able to be;and (3) sometimes—as in the present passage—what
he says may be construed either way, since neither the text nor the
context eliminates the ambiguity. As examples of /, note 73:12 and
8:6-7 ("It is necessary that the Creator be all the things which are
possible to be. . . ." "Since possibility and actuality are identical
174 Notes
sun actually moves among the stars from west to east (i.e., "counter
to the firmament"), making one complete circuit of the heavens in a
year. Because the sun changes its position in the heavens constantly
at a uniform rate, it requires a few more minutes than do the stars
to complete its daily apparent revolution about the earth. A similar
effect is generally true for the planets as well.
38. Nicholas uses "aenigma" in the sense of a "symbolism." Cf. I
Cor. 13:12.
39. See n. 7.
40. I.e., through God.
41. Matt. 11:25.
42. John 14:9.
43.Eph. 3:17.
44. John 14:17,26.
45. John 16:33.1 John 5:4-5.
46. I Cor. 1:20.
47. Ps. 83:8 (84:7)
48. Note the story about the blind man in John 9.
49. John 14:23.
50. Matt. 5:8.
51. Cf. Luke 10:27.
52. Eph. 3:17.
53. Ps. 32:9 ( 3 3 = 9 ) .
54. Acts 2:4.
55. Cf. Eph. 4:7.
56. In this sentence Nicholas uses "knowledge" in two different
senses: (1) our knowledge of God; (2) the knowledge by which God
created the world. In the present passage he implies that in the next
life believers will attain to the intellectual vision of God insofar as
they will attain to the vision of Christ. However, they will never at-
tain to the knowledge of God as He is in Himself. Cf. DP 40-41 and
D / I , 26 (18:16-17).
57.Heb. 11:1. II Cor. 4:18.
58. Cf. 62:14. See also De Coniecturis I, 11 (54:6-23). God can-
not exist differently than He does exist, since all possibilities are ac-
tual in Him. Nor can He (acceptably) be conceived to be otherwise
than He is.
59. See De Coniecturis 11, 1 (76:11 -18). Cf.Nicholas's Die mathe-
matischen Schriften, Germ, trans. Josepha Hofmann (Hamburg:
Meiner, 1952), p. 30. This example is also found in Aristotle's Meta-
physics I, 2 (983a!5 ff.).
60. Here Nicholas uses "ipsius posse" and "ipsius esse" in place
of "illius possibilitatis" and "illius actus." (Cf. 42:7;42:14-15; 42:
16-17.) I therefore rendered "esse" as "actuality."
61. Realia are contrasted with rationis entia.
62. Nicholas uses the notion of mathematical beginning as a basis
Notes 177
for inferring truths about God, who is "the most perfect Beginning
of all things" (45 = 13).
63. In Section 48 Nicholas (through John) identifies the Father
as absolute possibility, the Son as existence (or actuality), and the
Holy Spirit as the union of possibility and actuality. Thus, in the
passage about the rose, he formulates a symbolism which he will sub-
sequently use to elucidate the doctrine of the Trinity. For the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence.
64.1 Cor. 13:12.
65. Earlier, Nicholas denied that the sun is that which it is able
to be (8:10-11). In the present passage he asserts that every existing
thing, including the sun, is only that which is able to be. That is, it
is one of the many things which are possible to be, even though it is
not everything which it is able to be.
66. The Beginning has no beginning. That is, God is unoriginated.
67. Rom. 1:20. Seen. 3.
68. Viz., possibility, actuality, and their union.
69. Because the possibility and the actuality do not coincide,
Nicholas says that actuality is not present in the possibility. However,
both possibility and actuality are present in the motion.
70. I.e., in the existence would be possibility and the union; and
in the union would be possibility and existence. Note the previous
speech of the Cardinal.
71. Re translation of "abbrevtatum": cf. 54:7-8 with 57:1.
72. In the handwritten ms. (Codex Cusanus 219) the word "in"
appears as three strokes, with a light connecting line which forms the
letter "n". It is not set off—e.g., by enlargment or by spacing—from
the other words of the manuscript. Moreover, Nicholas adopts no
convention for distinguishing using the word from mentioning it.
(Similarly, the ms. does not capitalize or in any way set off the "e"
in "posse," "esse" or "nexus" — as occurs in section 57 of the printed
text.)
73. "Name" here translates "nomen sen relatio." For "relatio"
here also means name.
74. Nicholas here uses words beginning with "in": "inest," "im-
manet," "integral," "informat,"
75. For example, "in" operates as a negative when prefixed to
words such as "comprehensible" and "competent." But it has a posi-
tive force when prefixed to words such as "form" and "fuse."
76. Seen. 21.
77.ICor. 2:11.
78.1 Cor. 2:10.
79. Prov. 25:27.
80. The way of supereminence is illustrated by Nicholas's ex-
ample of in -. "Clearly, in is more than a limit or a boundary. Thus,
in in a limit does not cease to be a limit; rather, it is all the more a
178 Notes
181
182 Index