¹ Cf. PL 188, esp. 1198, 1200–2, and M. van Lee, ‘Les idées d'Anselme de Havelberg sur le développement des dogmes,’ Analecta Praemonstratensia 14 (1938) 5–35. Cf. for further references on Anselm, Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) 413n.Google Scholar

² Henri de Lubac in his Exégèse médiévale II.1 (Paris 1961) 550 calls attention to Abelard's (PL 178.543) comment: ‘Potuit contingere ut quod tempore Hieronymi latuit incertum, postmodum revelante spiritu fieret manifestum.’ The classic text from St. Thomas is the proemium to his Contra errores Graecorum. Note the elucidation in Chenu, M., La théologie au douzième siècle (Paris 1957) 365. Cf. also St. Thomas’ comments in the De veritate q. 14, a. 12, and the Summa Theologica I, q. 32, a. 4; II-II, q. 1, a. 7. The question of development also came up in the Filioque debate at the Council of Florence. Cf. Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge 1959) 151–63.Google Scholar

³ Renaudet, A., Études érasmiennes (1521–1529), (Paris 1939) 168–73. The most striking single statement of Erasmus occurs in his letter of 1519 to Jacob Hochstrat in connection with his views on divorce: ‘Sed fieri potest ut non omnia semel aperuerit Christi spiritus Ecclesiae.’ Cf. Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami 4 (eds. Allen, P. S. and Allen, H. M., Oxford 1922) 48, no. 1006. But see also Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opera omnia 6 (Lugduni Batavorum 1705) 696, 699; 10 (1706) 1258, 1262, 1279, 1283, 1301, 1304, 1310, 1392, etc. For a criticism of Renaudet's tendency to see Erasmus’ ideas on development as a sign of heterodox Modernism, see Bouyer, L., Autour d’Érasme (Paris 1955) 129–33, and for a general criticism from a religious point of view of Renaudet's Erasmus, see H. de Lubac, op. cit. II.2 (Paris 1964) 467–71. Erasmus met Giles in Rome in 1509. Cf. Opus epistolarum 1 (1906) 62 and 7 (1928) 94–5.Google Scholar

⁴ Pozo, Candido, La teoría del progreso dogmatico en los teologos de la escuela de Salamanca, 1526–1644 (Madrid 1959).Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. 8. Cf. also Juan Alfaro, ‘El progreso dogmatico en Suarez,’ Analecta Gregoriana 68 (1954) 95–122.Google Scholar

⁶ Heinrich Böhmer dedicated a chapter to him in Luthers Romfahrt (Leipzig 1914) 36–76, and Hubert Jedin called attention to Giles’ importance in his Girolamo Seripando 1 (Würzburg 1937) 24–33, 80–95. For an excellent study of Giles’ fate at the hands of historians, see Martin, Francis X., ‘The Problem of Giles of Viterbo: A Historiographical Survey,’ Augustiniana 9 (1959) 357–79; 10 (1960) 43–60. Since the publication of this survey several important studies have appeared, two of them by Father Martin himself: ‘The Registers of Giles of Viterbo,’ Augustiniana 12 (1962) 142–60, and ‘Giles of Viterbo and the Monastery of Lecceto: the Making of a Reformer,’ Analecta Augustiniana 25 (1962) 225–53; Charles Astruc and Jacques Monfrin, ‘Livres latins et hébreux du Cardinal Gilles de Viterbe,’ Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 23 (1961) 551–4, and finally the pages dedicated to Giles by François Secret in Les kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance (Paris 1964) 106–26.Google Scholar

⁷ Mansi 32 (Paris 1902) 669. On the bishops’ attack and Giles’ defence, cf. his official register in the Augustinian general archives in Rome: Dd. 12, 71^r-v and passim 91^r-98^v. Cf. also in the Biblioteca Comunale, Siena, G. X. 26, 295–97; 324–32. Google Scholar

⁸ All three were published in Padua in 1493: Egidii Romani eremitae de materia coeli quaestio; Egidii Romani de intellectu possibili contra Averroim quaestio aurea; Egidii Romani commentaria in VIII libros physicorum Aristotelis. Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Jedin, H., loc. cit., and Secret, F., ‘Girolamo Seripando et la kabbale,’ Rinascimento 14 (1963) 251–68.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Scechina e Libellus de litteris hebraicis (ed. Secret, F., 2 vols. Rome 1959). The other two works are the incomplete commentary on Peter Lombard, of which one copy is in the Vatican Library, Vat. Lat. 6325; the other is his Historia XX saeculorum, of which there are two copies in the Angelica Library, Rome, Ang. Lat. 351 and Ang. Lat. 502. Eugenio Massa of the Scuola Normale Superiore and the University of Pisa has promised editions of both of these works.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. for the very interesting letter of Clement VII requesting Giles to write — ‘ut divino honori, ut animarum saluti, ut publicae utilitati … consulamus’ — Ossinger, J. F., Bibliotheca Augustiniana (Ingolstadt 1768) 191–3.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Scholem, G., ‘La signification de la Loi dans la mystique juive,’ Diogène 15 (1956) esp. 102–14, and by the same author, Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala (Berlin 1962) 407–19. On Giles and the Temunah, see Secret, , Scechina I.11–12, and Les kabbalistes 111. Pertinent to this question, but of a more general nature, is another article by Scholem, ‘Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der kabbalistischen Konzeption der Schechinah,’ Eranos Jahrbuch 21 (1952) 45–107.Google Scholar

¹³ Silvester Meucci da Castilione's Venice edition (1527) of Expositio magni prophetae Abbatis Ioachim in Apocalipsim was dedicated to Giles, and was actually undertaken at his prompting, as the dedication relates. The pseudo-Joachimite Undecim onera secundum Isaiam is among the manuscripts coming from Giles’ library now in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Lat. 3363, 79^r-149^r. Cf. on Joachim and doctrinal development, H. de Lubac, op. cit. 3 (Paris 1961) 550. One might here call attention to Marjorie Reeves, ‘Joachimite Expectations in the Order of Augustinian Hermits,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 25 (1958) 111–41. and to the reply by Adolar Zumkeller, ‘Joachim von Fiore und sein angeblicher Einfluss auf den Augustiner-Eremitenorden,’ Augustinianum 3 (1963) 382–8. Cf. on the affinity between certain Joachimite ideas and the cabala, Scholem, G., ‘La signification,’ 80; 103–4; 111–2.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Scechina I.89.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf., for example, Scechina I.70–75, and the discussion which immediately precedes the text, ibid., 88–89. Google Scholar

¹⁶ For instance, in his Commentarius in Apocalypsim, Vat. Lat. 5567, 4r: ‘Deus quippe, qui ad communem hominum salutem congruentia unicuique rei tempora statuit, noluit huiusce libri [Apocalypsis] mysteria uno tempore simul omnia patefieri, sed diversis ea temporibus prout ecclesiae suae expediret ad suorum salutem electorum paulatim revelari, ut unumquodque tempus propriis gauderet revelationibus.’ Galatinus is here speaking of the six ages contained within the framework of Christian Church history. Ibid., 128^r: ‘… omnia quae ecclesia a suae fundationis exordio usque ad saeculi consummationem passura erat in sacra scriptura … detinerentur.’ Cf. also ibid., 130^v: ‘Sicuti enim sacra scriptura non repente quoad omnium arcanorum revelationem aperta est, … ut ipsius ecclesiae eruditio et consolatio per singula eius tempora quasi per quaedam incrementa cresceret.’ Cf. also his De recta sacrae scripturae interpretatione, dedicated to Henry VIII, in Vat. Lat. 5580, e.g., 59^r-60^r. On this interesting figure, cf. Arduinus Kleinhans, ‘De vita et operibus Galatini, P. O. F. M., scientiarum biblicarum cultoris,’ Antonianum 1 (1926) 145–79, 327–56, and Secret, Les kabbalistes 99–106. Galatinus’ reliance on Joachimite ideas is heavy, e. g., Vat. Lat. 5567, 3^v; 18^v; 23^v-24^v.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The distinction, if there be one in this text, between ‘patrum senatus,’ ‘conventus,’ and ‘concilia’ is not altogether clear. By ‘senatus’ Giles regularly means the college of of cardinals. See, for instance, Ang. Lat. 502, 13^r; 154^v; 243^v; 244^r; 251^r; 314^r; 321^r; Scechina I.66; 210; and Mansi 32, 673; 676. Cf. also Vat. Lat. 6325, 40^r. On the other hand, cf. Scechina I.89. For late medieval theories concerning the college of cardinals, cf. Jedin, H., A History of the Council of Trent 1 (London 1957) 76–100. Cf. for Galatinus and the ‘Angelic Pastor,’ Vat. Lat. 5567, 21^v; 23^v; 29^v; 99¹; etc. He also has a separate work dedicated to this subject, Vat. Lat. 5578, 1^r-84^r. The ‘Angelic Pastor’ was the last in a long line of ‘doctores spirituales et sancti’ who have been sent to the Church in every age, Vat. Lat 5567, 29^v. Cf. on the ‘Angelic Pope,’ Secret, Les kabbalistes 102–3; 115, and Ludwig Pastor, The History of the Popes (London 1923) I. 151–6; V. 224–5; VIII. 449–50.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Scechina I.24; 31–2; 66; 69; 161–2; II.26. Cf. also Ang. Lat. 1170, 40^r; Ang. Lat. 688, 46^r; 49^v; 51^r; 59^v; Ang. Lat. 762, 7^v. But see also Scechina I.210. Google Scholar

¹⁹ This would be true even for Cajetan: ‘Aparece aquí la huella del planteamiento medieval con su consideración eminentemente moral de la herejía y su preocupación por las exigencias de la aceptación de la fe,’ Pozo, op. cit. 45. Cf. also ibid. 13, 42, 253. Google Scholar

²⁰ Scechina I.183. One can describe Giles’ expectations for the reform of the Church and the climax of history in terms of three plenitudes or fulnesses: plenitudo temporis, plenitudo gentium, and plenitudo doctrinate. For some historical instances of a correspondence between the question of development and reform ideologies, cf. Ladner, G., op. cit. 136–9, 147–50, 409–13.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. Scechina I.89, immediately preceding the text: ‘in Evangeliis perfecta est ac consumata [Lex Spiritalis].’ Light is thrown on this question by another text from the Scechina I.110: ‘Dices [Charles V], nonne in Evangelio monstrata sunt omnia? Sunt quidem monstrata omnia quae ad summum assequendum bonum pertinebant. At sacra docuerunt Evangelia multa superesse quae haud quaquam illi ferre tunc possent, ac proinde scrutandas iubent scripturas. Nec dictum usquam est, ‘Docui omnia,’ sed Ille docebit quae dixero vobis…. passurus veni atque ea praedicaturus sine quis [sic] homines salvi esse non poterant. Docebit ille vos omnia sine quis nec sacra scripta veterum neque haec nova plene intelligentur.’ Cf. also ibid., 67: ‘Sed nec id silentio involvam: innumerabilia contineri in sacris scriptis tam Prophetarum quam Legis quae hactenus latuerunt, ….’ The Johannine text (5.39), ‘scrutamini scripturas,’ was one of the dominant themes of Giles’ intellectual activity. Cf., e. g., Siena G. X.26, 54; Ang. Lat. 502, 194^v; Scechina I.85, 191; II. 42–3, etc. Giles held, moreover, an illumination theory of knowledge, Ang. Lat. 502, 161v-162r; Vat. Lat. 6325, 3^r; 198^r; 207^v; Scechina I. 41–2; 107–8. On the imprecise distinction in the Middle Ages between the idea of revelation and the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, cf. H. de Lubac, op. cit. II.1 (Paris 1961) 550, and also Joseph de Ghellinck, ‘Pour l'histoire du mot revelare‘, Recherches de science religieuse 6 (1916) 149–57, and ‘Patristique et argument de tradition au bas moyen âge,’ Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters (eds. Albert Lang et al., Münster 1935) 417–9.Google Scholar