An Unknown Demonologist at the University of Paris?

Fedor Nekhaenko
{"title":"An Unknown Demonologist at the University of Paris?","authors":"Fedor Nekhaenko","doi":"10.17323/2587-8719-2023-4-241-263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Though Daemonologia, like ontologia and anthropologia, is not genuinely medieval, but conceived in the Renaissance, it remains valid to apply such categories to the medieval intellectual culture. By doing so, we can restore the continuum of historical development. The present paper investigates the role of Hugh of Saint-Cher (ca. 1190–1263) within the domain of scholastic demonology. Specifically, it focuses on distinctions II.7–8 from Hugh's commentary on the Sentences (ca. 1231–1234)  which has been transcribed, collated, and translated by me for the first time. I begin by examining Hugh's forerunners among scholastics in order to ultimately pick out Alexander of Hales. He was the sole precursor who invested in pushing demonology beyond conventional boundaries. Onwards, I demonstrate the diversity of thematic issues Hugh addresses. His text aims at accommodating a rational explanation and critique of the demonic procreation, healing, body assumption, locution, and wonders. Notably, Hugh's work demonstrates a relatively limited influence of Aristotle. The Dominican instead endows Lombard's text with illuminating stories about Balaam, Simon Magus, Apuleius, and Bartholomew. Hugh's ideas would go on to serve as the cornerstone for further elaboration of the demonology in the 1230s and 1240s. Subsequently, I offer an extensive overview of Hugh's impact on the handwritten tradition, clearly discernable through critical reception in Richard Fishacre, John de la Rochelle, and Eudes Rigaud's writings. What is more, I point out alternative ways to entail demonology by drawing upon evidence from Roland of Cremona and Alexander of Hales. After all, I consider Aristotle's impact on early scholastic demonology between 1225 and 1245.","PeriodicalId":346906,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics","volume":"61 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/2587-8719-2023-4-241-263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Though Daemonologia, like ontologia and anthropologia, is not genuinely medieval, but conceived in the Renaissance, it remains valid to apply such categories to the medieval intellectual culture. By doing so, we can restore the continuum of historical development. The present paper investigates the role of Hugh of Saint-Cher (ca. 1190–1263) within the domain of scholastic demonology. Specifically, it focuses on distinctions II.7–8 from Hugh's commentary on the Sentences (ca. 1231–1234)  which has been transcribed, collated, and translated by me for the first time. I begin by examining Hugh's forerunners among scholastics in order to ultimately pick out Alexander of Hales. He was the sole precursor who invested in pushing demonology beyond conventional boundaries. Onwards, I demonstrate the diversity of thematic issues Hugh addresses. His text aims at accommodating a rational explanation and critique of the demonic procreation, healing, body assumption, locution, and wonders. Notably, Hugh's work demonstrates a relatively limited influence of Aristotle. The Dominican instead endows Lombard's text with illuminating stories about Balaam, Simon Magus, Apuleius, and Bartholomew. Hugh's ideas would go on to serve as the cornerstone for further elaboration of the demonology in the 1230s and 1240s. Subsequently, I offer an extensive overview of Hugh's impact on the handwritten tradition, clearly discernable through critical reception in Richard Fishacre, John de la Rochelle, and Eudes Rigaud's writings. What is more, I point out alternative ways to entail demonology by drawing upon evidence from Roland of Cremona and Alexander of Hales. After all, I consider Aristotle's impact on early scholastic demonology between 1225 and 1245.
巴黎大学的无名魔鬼学家?
尽管 Daemonologia 与本体论和人类学一样,并不是真正的中世纪,而是在文艺复兴时期构想出来的,但将这些范畴应用于中世纪的思想文化仍然是有效的。通过这样做,我们可以恢复历史发展的连续性。本文研究了圣切尔的休(Hugh of Saint-Cher,约 1190-1263 年)在学术恶魔学领域中的作用。具体而言,本文重点研究休对《句子》(约 1231-1234 年)的注释中的区别 II.7-8,这是我首次对该注释进行转录、整理和翻译。我首先考察了休在学者中的先驱,最终选出了黑尔斯的亚历山大。他是唯一一位致力于推动恶魔学超越传统界限的先驱。接下来,我将展示休所探讨的主题问题的多样性。他的文本旨在对恶魔的生育、治疗、身体假定、定位和奇迹进行合理的解释和批判。值得注意的是,休的作品中亚里士多德的影响相对有限。多明我会在伦巴第的文本中加入巴兰、西蒙-马格斯、阿普列乌斯和巴塞洛缪等富有启发性的故事。休的观点将成为 12 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代进一步阐述恶魔学的基石。随后,我对休对手抄本传统的影响进行了广泛的概述,通过理查德-菲沙克尔、约翰-德拉罗谢尔和欧德-里戈的著作中的批判性接受,可以清楚地看出休对手抄本传统的影响。此外,我还借鉴克雷莫纳的罗兰和黑尔斯的亚历山大的证据,指出了附会妖术的其他方法。总之,我考虑了亚里士多德对 1225 至 1245 年间早期学者恶魔学的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信