1 Bonaventure, , In I Sent. , d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, resp. (1:72a): “Dicendum, quod, quia relucet causa in effectu, et sapientia artificis manifestatur in opere, ideo Deus, qui est artifex et causa creaturae, per ipsam cognoscitur.” References to Bonaventure's works in this paper, unless otherwise stated, are to the Opera omnia edited in ten volumes by the Fathers of the Collegium S. Bonaventurae (Quaracchi, 1882–1902). For this paper, I have drawn exclusively on works edited or composed while Bonaventure was regent master of the Franciscan Studium in Paris, especially Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarium magistri Petri Lombardi (1254–56), Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi (1254), and Breviloquium (1256–57).Google Scholar

2 In I Sent., d. 25, a. 2, q. 1, resp. (1:443a): “sicut modus regendi communis est nautae ad regendam navem, et doctoris ad regendas scholas, quia uterque debet esse non sorte, sed arte peritus.” Bonaventure uses the same example In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 3^m (1:72b). See also In II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (2:394b): “quaedam vero [similitudo est] secundum proportionalitatem, sicut nauta et auriga conveniunt secundum comparationem ad illa quae regunt.” Google Scholar

3 See In IV Sent., d. 1, p. 1, dub. 3 (4:29b). One thing may figure twice, as in A is to B as B is to C, but in that case one construes the two occurrences of the same thing as two terms, since the relations are different. Terms (termini), in this sense, are what are also known as the “extremes” of relations, i.e., the things from which and to which there is a relation.Google Scholar

4 See In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 3^m (1:72b), on whether God can be known through creatures: “Ad illud quod obiicitur de defectu communitatis, dicendum, quod non est commune per univocationem, tamen est commune per analogiam, quae dicit habitudinem duorum ad duo, ut in nauta et doctore, vel unius ad unum, ut exemplaris ad exemplatum.” Google Scholar

5 In I Sent., d. 7, a. un., q. 4, resp. (1:143b): “Quamvis enim Creator et creatura non habeant commune univocum, habent tamen analogum.” Google Scholar

6 The verb “to resemble” comes from the Old French resembler, which is in turn related to the Latin word simulare (and thus to similis). Hence the word “resemblance” is indirectly related etymologically to assimilari, which Bonaventure uses in the sense of “to be like” and “to become like.” But the term “resemblance” is useful here because it does not have the same complicated and context-dependent semantic field as similitudo, for which “likeness” is a conventional equivalent.Google Scholar

7 Boethius, , De topicis differentiis , 3 (PL 64:1197C, lines 12–13): “Similitudo est eadem rerum differentium qualitas.” Cf. Bonaventure, , In IV Sent., d. 6, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, quaestio incidens 1, arg. 6 (4:139b): “Similitudo est rerum differentium eadem qualitas.” Cf. also Categories 11a15, where Aristotle (in the Latin versions) states that “like” (similis) and “unlike” (dissimilis) fall under the category of quality.Google Scholar

8 De topicis differentiis , 2 (PL 64:1190D, lines 4–6): “similitudo aut in qualitate consistit, aut in quantitate; sed in quantitate paritas, id est aequalitas nuncupatur, in qualitate similitudo.” Google Scholar

9 Cf. Bonaventure, , QQ. disp. de scientia Christi , q. 2, arg. 4 contra (5:7b): “sicut aequalitas causatur ab unitate in quantitate, sic similitudo causatur ab unitate in qualitate.” Google Scholar

10 See Bonaventure, , De reductione artium ad theologiam , 8 (5:322a).Google Scholar

11 In II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (2:394b): “imago dicit expressam similitudinem.” Ibid., arg. 3 contra (2:394a): “non quaecumque similitudo est imago, sed similitudo expressa.” Cf. Alexander of Hales, Quaestiones disputatae “antequam esset frater,” q. 26, nn. 5 and 7 (Quaracchi edition, vol. 1 [1960], 469). See also John of La Rochelle, Summa de anima, 5, c. 32, resp. (ed. Bougerol, Jacques Guy [Paris, 1995], 102).Google Scholar

12 Augustine, , De diversis quaestionibus 83, q. 74 (CCL 44A:213–14). Cf. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa theologiae, I^a, q. 93, a. 1, resp. (Ottawa edition [1941], 572b).Google Scholar

13 In I Sent., d. 3, p. 2, a. 1, q. 2, resp. (l:83b): “imago attenditur secundum expressam conformitatem ad imaginatum … unde qui videt imaginem Petri, per consequens videt et Petrum.” The fact that the imago Dei is the subject that knows God as well as a mediating object of such knowledge considerably complicates Bonaventure's treatment of image, especially in the Itinerarium. Google Scholar

14 Cf. Augustine, , Quaestiones in Heptateuchum , 5 (Quaestiones de Deuteronomio), q. 4 (CCL 33:276–77, lines 30–32): “Quod intersit inter similitudinem et imaginem quaeri solet. Sed hic non uideo quid interesse uoluerit, nisi aut duobus istis uocabulis unam rem significaverit.” Google Scholar

15 See Markus, R. A., “Imago and similitudo in Augustine,” Revue des etudes augustiniennes 10 (1964): 125–43; and Sullivan, John Edward, The Image of God: The Doctrine of St. Augustine and Its Influence (Dubuque, Iowa, 1963), 3–37.Google Scholar

16 See, for example, Sententiae divinae paginae , in Bliemetzrieder, F. P., Anselms von Laon systematische Sentenzen , Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, 18.2–3 (Münster, 1919), 20–21; De conditione angelica et humana , in Lefèvre, Y., “Le De conditione angelica et humana et les Sententiae Anselmi,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 34 (1959): 249–75, at 258; De spiritu et anima, tr. 3, c. 2 (PL 176:91–92).Google Scholar

17 Lombard, Peter, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 2, d. 16, c. 3 (Grottaferrata edition, vol. 1.2, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 4 [1971], p. 408 n. 5).Google Scholar

18 See Hugh of St. Victor, , De sacramentis christianae fidei , 1, p. 6, c. 2 (PL 176:264C10–D6): “Factus est homo ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei, quia in anima … fuit imago et similitudo Dei. Imago secundum rationem, similitudo secundum dilectionem; imago secundum cognitionem veritatis, similitudo secundum amorem virtutis. Vel imago secundum scientiam, similitudo secundum substantiam…. Imago quia rationalis, similitudo quia spiritualis. Imago pertinet ad figuram, similitudo ad naturam.” Google Scholar

19 See Aquinas, Thomas, In II Sent., d. 16, q. 1, a. 1, ad 4^m (ed. Mandonnet, [1929], 398), where Thomas uses the portrait example in discussing the image of God. See also idem, Summa theologiae, II^aII^ae, q. 163, a. 2, resp., on equality of equiparance in the Trinity (Ottawa edition [1942], 2232a); and idem, In III Sent., d. 28, q. un., a. 3, ad 3^m (ed. Moos, [1956], 908): “amicitia non requirit aequalitatem aequiparantiae, sed aequalitatem proportionis.” Google Scholar

20 Summa fratris Alexandri, II-II, inq. 2, tract. 2, sec. 1, q. 1, tit. 1, a. 2, ad 1^m (Quaracchi edition, vol. 3 [1930], n. 73, 91a–b): “Quarta est similitudo aequiparantiae, qua dicitur Filius similis Patri vel Spiritus Sanctus similis Patri.” Google Scholar

21 Bonaventure, , In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 4^m (1:72–73), on the infinite distance between creatures and God: “aut quantum ad aequalitatem aequiparantiae; et sic verum est, quod sint infiniti [gradus inter creaturam et Deum], quia bonum creatum, quantumcumque duplicatum, nunquam aequiparatur increato.” Cf. In II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6^m (2:396), where Bonaventure argues that while creatures are infinitely distant from God inasmuch as distantia is opposed to participatio and adaequatio, they can be very close to him through relational and simple resemblance.Google Scholar

22 See Aquinas, Thomas, In III Sent., d. 5, q. 1, a. 1, qu^a 1, arg. 2 (185): “Unio est relativum aequiparantiae. Sed hujusmodi relativa similiter se habent ad utrumque extremum.” Ibid., ad 2^m (188): “unio potest esse relatio aequiparantiae in rebus creatis, sed non in Creatore et creatura.” Idem, In IV Sent., d. 29, q. 1, a. 3, qu^a 2, sed contra (Opera omnia, Parma edition, 7 [1857–58], 943a): “matrimonium est relatio aequiparantiae. Sed talis relatio est aequaliter in utroque.” Ibid., d. 27, q. 1, a. 1, qu^a 1, arg. 3 (926a): “conjunctio est relatio aequiparantiae, sicut aequalitas.” Google Scholar

23 Cf. Bonaventure, , In I Sent., d. 19, p. 1, a. un., q. 3, arg. 1 contra (1:346): “Omne relativum aequiparantiae denominat extrema secundum modum consimilem, sed aequalitas est relatio aequiparantiae.” See also the Quaracchi editors' comments on this text (ibid., 346 n. 5).Google Scholar

24 Bonaventure, , QQ. de scientia Christi , q. 2, arg. 3 contra (5:7b): “Item, similitudo est relatio aequiparantiae; sed inter Creatorem et creaturam nulla potest esse relatio aequiparantiae: ergo nec similitudo.” Google Scholar

25 See Philippe, M. D., “Analogon and analogia in the Philosophy of Aristotle,” Thomist 33 (1969): 1–74; and Owens, Joseph, The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics, 3d ed. (Toronto, 1978), 123–25. For Plato's similar use of the concept, see Timaeus 29c and Republic 533e–4a.Google Scholar

26 Aristotle, , Metaphysics 5, 1016b31–17a3. See also De partibus animalium 645b27–28 and 645b3–8.Google Scholar

27 Boethius, , De arithmetica, 2.40 (CCL 94A:172): “proportionalitas [i.e., analogia] est duarum uel plurium proportionum similis habitudo.” Cf. Aristotle, , Ethica Nicomachea 1131a31–32, trans. Grosseteste, , ed. Gauthier, R. A., Aristoteles Latinus 26, 1–3, fasc. 4 (Leiden and Brussells, 1973), 458: “Proporcionalitas [= analogia] enim equalitas est proportionis [= isolês logôn], et in quatuor minimis.” Google Scholar

28 See commentary on Boethius, , De arithmetica, 2.40, by J.-Y. Guillaumin in his edition and translation, Institution arithmétique (Paris, 1995), 215–16, p. 140 n.Google Scholar

29 On the history of scholastic analogy, see Lyttkens, Hampus, The Analogy between God and the World: An Investigation of Its Background and Interpretation of Its Use by Thomas of Aquino (Uppsala, 1953); Mondin, B., “Analogy, Theological Use of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st ed. (1967); Aubenque, Pierre, “Sur la naissance de la doctrine pseudoaristotélicienne de l'analogie de l'être,” Les études philosophiques 3–4 (1989): 291–304; de Libera, Alain, “Les sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l'analogie de l'être,” ibid., 319–45; Ashworth, E. J., “A Thirteenth-Century Interpretation of Aristotle on Equivocation and Analogy,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supp. vol. 17 = Bosley, Richard and Tweedale, Martin, eds., Aristotle and His Medieval Interpreters (Calgary, 1991), 85–101; idem, “Signification and Modes of Signifying in Thirteenth-Century Logic: A Preface to Aquinas on Analogy,” Medieval Theology and Philosophy 1 (1991): 39–67; idem, “Analogy and Equivocation in Thirteenth-Century Logic: Aquinas in Context,” Mediaeval Studies 54 (1992): 94–135; Park, Seung-Chan, Die Rezeption der mittelalterlichen Sprachphilosophie in der Theologie des Thomas von Aquin: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analogie (Leiden, 1999). The literature on analogy in Bonaventure is not extensive, but see Landry, Bernard, “La notion d'analogie chez saint Bonaventure,” Revue néo-scolastique de philosophie 24 (1922): 137–69; and Berti, Enrico, “II concetto di analogia in s. Bonaventura,” Doctor Seraphicus 32 (1985): 11–21.Google Scholar

30 See Bonaventure, , In I Sent., d. 1, dub. 5 (1:43); In I Sent., d. 14, a. 1, q. 2, resp. (1:248a); In II Sent., d. 25, p. 2, dub. 3 (2:626b); In II Sent., d. 35, dub. 3, resp. (2:837b); In IV Sent., d. 24, p. 1, a. 2, q. 4, ad 2^m (4:619b).Google Scholar

31 “Concept”: Greek, , logos ; Latin, , ratio. Google Scholar

32 Metaphysics 4, 1003a33–b10; ibid., 11, 1060b36–1061a7; Nicomachean Ethics, 1, 1096b26–29. On equivocals in Aristotle, see Owens, , Doctrine of Being , 107–35. On pros hen equivocation in Aristotle and Neoplatonic commentary, see Luna's, Concetta extensive remarks on Simplicius's commentary on Aristotle's Categories , trans. Hadot, I. (Préambule aux Categories: Commentaire au premier chapitre des Catégories, Philosophia Antiqua 51, fasc. 3 [Leiden, 1990]).Google Scholar

33 See Owens, , The Doctrine of Being , 117 and 121–23.Google Scholar

34 See Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotle's Metaphysics, 4.2, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca , 1, p. 241, lines 8–9 and 21–24; and Porphyry on the Categories, ibid., 4.1, p. 66, lines 15–21.Google Scholar

35 See Rosier, Irène, “Évolution des notions d'equivocatio et univocatio au XII^e siècle,” in L'Ambiguité: Cinq études historiques , ed. eadem (Lille, 1988), 103–66.Google Scholar

36 See Abelard, , Theologia christiana , 3, 126–34 (CCM 12:242–43); ibid., 4, 46 (285–86). Idem, Theologia “Summi boni,” 2, 71–78 (CCM 13:138–41).Google Scholar

37 See Valente, Luisa, “Doctrines linguistiques et théologie dans les écoles de la seconde moitié du XII^e siècle” (Ph.D. diss., University of Paris, 1999), ch. 2 (pp. 154–261). For a summary, see Valente's abstract (under the same title) in Bulletin d'information de la Société d'histoire et d'épistémologie des sciences du langage (S.H.E.S.L.) 42 (1999): 38–43, at 40–41. See also eadem, “Langage et théologie pendant la seconde moitié du XII^e siècle,” in Sprachtheorien in Spätantike und Mittelalter , ed. Ebbesen, Sten (Tübingen, 1995), 33–54, esp. 37–39 (on Augustine, Boethius, and Abelard) and 41–42 (on equivocity vs. univocity of the divine names in Alan of Lille, Praepositinus, and Stephen Langton); and Rosier, Irène, “Res significata et modus significandi: Les implications d'une distinction médiévale,” ibid., 135–68, at 141–44.Google Scholar

38 William of Auxerre, Summa aurea , 1, tract. 5, cap. 3 (ed. Ribaillier, Jean, Bonaventurianum, Spicilegium, 16 [Paris and Grottaferrata, 1980], 72–73). On the date of the work, see Ribaillier, J. in Summa aurea: Introduction générale, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 20 (Paris and Rome, 1987), 16; and Van den Eynde, D. and Van den Eynde, O. in Guy of Orchelles, Tractatus de sacramentis (St. Bonaventure, N.Y., 1953), xli. William probably composed his summa between 1222 and 1225, but in any case after 1215 and before 1229.Google Scholar

39 Summa aurea , 1, tract. 6, c. 2, sol. (ed. Ribaillier, , 83–84).Google Scholar

40 Ibid., tract. 5, c. 3 (72).Google Scholar

41 See Wolfson, Harry Austryn, “The Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic Philosophy, and Maimonides,” Harvard Theological Review 31 (1938): 151–73; reprinted in idem, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, ed. Twersky, I. and Williams, G. H., 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 455–77.Google Scholar

42 On ambiguity according to prior and posterior, see Alexander of Hales, Glossa in I Sent. , d. 5, n. 4c (Quaracchi edition, 1 [1951], 82); ibid., d. 26, n. 13 (258); Glossa in III Sent., d. 10, n. 4 (Quaracchi edition, 3 [1954], 115). Alexander composed his Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum ca. 1223–27 (see vol. 1, Prolegomena, 116∗).Google Scholar

43 Cf. Summa fratris Alexandri , 1, pars 1, inq. 1, tract. 4, q. 1, c. 2, resp. (Quaracchi edition, 1 [1924], n. 132, p. 203a): “Potentia non dicitur in Deo aequivoce … sed analogice, hoc est per prius et posterius secundum rationem intelligentiae.” Ibid., 1, pars 2, inq. 2, tract. 1, q. 3, c. 1, ad obiecta a–c (n. 366, p. 544b): “dicuntur analogice secundum prius et posterius.” The main parts of books 1–3 of this work were completed by 1245.Google Scholar

44 See Ashworth, , “Analogy and Equivocation” (n. 29 above), 112–14.Google Scholar

45 Nicomachean Ethics 1, 1096b26–29, trans. Ross, W. D., rev. Urmson, J. O., in Barnes, J., ed., The Complete Works of Aristotle , 2 (Princeton, 1984), 1733. For this passage according to the translatio Grosseteste, see Aristoteles Latinus 26, 1–3 fasc. 4 (n. 27 above), 381, lines 6–9: “Set qualiter utique dicuntur? Non enim assimulantur a casu equivocis. Set certe ei quod est ab uno esse, vel ad unum omnia contendere, vel magis secundum analogiam; sicut enim in corpore visus in anima intellectus et aliud utique in alio.” Google Scholar

46 See my article, “Analogy of Names in Bonaventure,” forthcoming in Mediaeval Studies. One can see the outlines of Bonaventure's theory in the following passages: In I Sent., d. 1, dub. 5, resp. (1:43); ibid., d. 25, a. 2, qq. 1–2 (1:442–5); In II Sent., d. 25, p. 1, dub. 3 (2:608–9); ibid., d. 25, p. 2, dub. 3 (2:626).Google Scholar

47 In III Sent., d. 34, p. 2, dub. 1, resp. (3:768a): “Ubi autem est analogia, ibi est comparatio ad aliquid unum secundum prius et posterius, maxime ubi est dicere proprie analogia.” See also in I Sent., d. 29, a. 1, q. 2, arg. 4 (1:510b): “ubi est analogia, ibi est prius et posterius.” Google Scholar

48 An exception occurs in In II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (2:394b), where Bonaventure uses the term proportionalitas to signify any relational resemblance, such as that between a sailor and a charioteer; but according to the apparatus (ibid., n. 9), several manuscripts have proportio instead. Later in the response, Bonaventure argues that rational creatures are expressly like God through convenientia proportionalitatis vel proportionis. See also in IV Sent., d. 1, p. 1, dub. 3, resp. (4:29b), where Bonaventure seems to use the terms proportio and proportionalitas to denote univocal and relational resemblance respectively.Google Scholar

49 In I Sent., d. 48, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (1:852b): “Alio modo contingit conformari aliquid alicui secundum consimilem habitudinem sive comparationem, quae potest dici proportio, cum est rerum eiusdem generis, et proportionalitas, cum est rerum diversorum generum sive non communicantium, ut fiat vis in verbo. Large tamen loquendo utraque potest dici proportio; et haec nihil ponit commune, quia est per comparationem duorum ad duo, et potest esse et est inter summe distantia.” Google Scholar

50 In III Sent., d. 29, a. un., q. 1, ad 2^m (3:639b).Google Scholar

51 See Bonaventure, , In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 3^m (1:72b), on whether God can be known through creatures: “Ad illud quod obiicitur de defectu communitatis, dicendum, quod non est commune per univocationem, tamen est commune per analogiam, quae dicit habitudinem duorum ad duo, ut in nauta et doctore, vel unius ad unum, ut exemplaris ad exemplatum.” Google Scholar

52 In I Sent., d. 25, a. 2, q. 1, resp. (1:443a): “Alii dicunt, quod duplex est communitas: quaedam secundum unitatem naturae absolutae, quaedam secundum similitudinem habitudinis comparatae. Communitas secundum unitatem naturae absolutae est humanitas respectu Petri et Pauli, quia una natura universalis reperitur in utrisque. Communitas vero secundum similitudinem habitudinis relatae est illa quae attenditur in consimili comparatione, sicut modus regendi communis est nautae ad regendam navem, et doctoris ad regendas scholas, quia uterque [homo?] debet esse non sorte, sed arte peritus.” Although Bonaventure is ostensibly reviewing the opinions of quidam (regarding the sense of the word “Person” as applied to God), he agrees with this opinion. Moreover, the quidam are probably Bonaventure himself! Google Scholar

53 In I Sent., d. 1, a. 3, q. 1, arg. 1 contra (1:38a): “Ubi est fruitio, ibi est delectatio; sed delectatio est coniunctio convenientis cum convenienti; Dei autem ad creaturam nulla est convenientia, immo summa distantia: ergo nec delectatio, ergo nec fruitio.” The definition of pleasure is often attributed to Avicenna. Cf. Avicenna, , Metaphysics, 8, c. 7, in Latinus, Avicenna, Liber de philosophia prima sive de scientia divina , 5–10, ed. Van Riet, S. (Louvain and Leiden, 1980), 432, lines 67–68: “delectatio non est nisi apprehensio convenientis secundum quod est conveniens.” Google Scholar

54 In I Sent., d. 1, a. 3, q. 1, ad 1^m (1:38b). Bonaventure usually uses the term participatio to denote univocal community, although following Augustine, he also uses it to characterize the relationship between the blessed and God.Google Scholar

55 Ibid. (1:38b–39a): “dicendum, quod est convenientia per unius naturae participationem vel per comparationem communem. Prima convenientia facit communitatem univocationis, secunda communitatem analogiae sive proportionis. Et haec est secundum triplicem differentiam: aut secundum similem comparationem duorum ad duo, ut sicut homo ad animal, ita albedo se habet ad colorem; aut secundum dissimilem comparationem duorum ad unum, ut animalis et cibi ad sanitatem; vel secundum comparationem duorum ad invicem, ut puta cum unum est imitatio vel similitudo alterius. Similitudo enim non convenit cum consimili in tertio, sed se ipsa.” Google Scholar

56 Ibid. (1:39a).Google Scholar

57 In I Sent., d. 48, a. 1, q. 1 (1:851).Google Scholar

58 Ibid., arg. 1 (1:851a).Google Scholar

59 Ibid., arg. 2 (1:851a): “Item, infinite distantium nulla est conformitas; sed Deus et homo distant in infinitum, cum unum sit finitum et aliud infinitum: ergo nulla est conformitas voluntatum.” Google Scholar

60 Ibid., resp. (1:852).Google Scholar

61 Ibid., arg. 3 (1:851): “si voluntas nostra conformatur divinae … in tertio: ergo divina voluntas et humana conveniunt in aliquo communi; et si hoc, ergo habent aliquid simplicius se; quod est inconveniens, maxime in divina voluntate.” Ibid., ad 1^m/2^m (1:852b): “hoc non impedit conformitatem comparationis, licet impediat conformitatem aequalitatis et univocationis.” Google Scholar

62 Ibid., resp. (1:852b): “De hac conformitate nihil ad praesens.” Google Scholar

63 Ibid.: “haec nihil ponit commune, quia est per comparationem duorum ad duo, et potest esse et est inter summe distantia.” Google Scholar

64 Ibid., arg. 3 (1:851).Google Scholar

65 Ibid., ad 3^m (1:852–53).Google Scholar

66 In III Sent., d. 34, p. 2, dub. 1, resp. (3:768a).Google Scholar

67 In II Sent., d. 16, a. 2, q. 3, resp. (2:405a): “similitudo vero [nominat] convenientiam in qualitate…. similitudo vero dicitur rerum differentium eadem qualitas.” Here Bonaventure is discussing likeness as the supernatural reformation of the soul.Google Scholar

68 In I Sent., d. 35, a. un., q. 1 (1:600); QQ. disp. de scientia Christi, q. 2 (5:6).Google Scholar

69 In I Sent., d. 35, a. un., q. 1, resp. (1:601a): “Deus cognoscit per ideas et habet in se rationes et similitudines rerum, quas cognoscit, in quibus non tantum ipse cognoscit, sed etiam aspicientes in eum.” Google Scholar

70 On connotation in the divine names (a twelfth-century notion that must have seemed old-fashioned by Bonaventure's day), see Valente, Luisa, “Iustus et misericors: L'usage théologique des notions de consignificatio et connotatio dans la seconde moitié du XII^e siècle,” in Vestigia, Imagines, Verba: Semiotics and Logic in Medieval Theological Texts (XIIth–XIVth century) , ed. Marmo, Constantino (Turnhout, 1997), 37–59. See also Rosier, , “Res significata et modus significandi” (n. 37 above), 144–46.Google Scholar

71 In I Sent., d. 35, a. un., q. 1, arg. 2 contra (1:600b).Google Scholar

72 Ibid., resp. (1:601a–b): “Similitudo autem dupliciter dicitur: uno modo secundum convenientiam duorum in tertio, et haec est similitudo secundum univocationem; alio modo est similitudo, secundum quod unum dicitur similitudo alterius; et haec similitudo non concernit convenientiam in aliquo communi, quia similitudo se ipsa est similis, non in tertio; et hoc modo dicitur creatura similitudo Dei, vel e converso Deus similitudo creaturae.” Google Scholar

73 Ibid., resp. (1:601b).Google Scholar

74 Ibid., ad 2^m (1:601b): “Similitudo participationis nulla est omnino, quia nihil est commune.” Google Scholar

75 Ibid. On the distinction between imitative and expressive likeness, see also QQ. disp. de scientia Christi , q. 2, resp. (5:8b–9a) and ad 5^m (5:9b).Google Scholar

76 QQ. disp. de scientia Christi , q. 2, arg. 2 contra (5:7b).Google Scholar

77 Ibid., arg. 3 contra. See the first section of this paper on relatio aequiparantiae. Google Scholar

78 Ibid., arg. 4 contra. Cf. Boethius, , De differentiis topicis , 3 (PL 64:1197C, lines 12–13): “Similitudo est eadem rerum differentium qualitas.” Google Scholar

79 QQ. disp. de scientia Christi , q. 2, resp. (5:8–9): “similitudo dupliciter dicitur: uno modo per convenientiam duorum in tertio, per quem modum dicitur esse ‘similitudo rerum differentium eadem qualitas.’ Alio modo dicitur similitudo, quia unum est similitudo alterius; et hoc est dupliciter: quaedam est similitudo imitativa, et sic creatura est similitudo Creatoris; quaedam autem est similitudo exemplativa, et sic in Creatore ratio exemplaris est similitudo creaturae.” Google Scholar

80 Ibid., ad 2^m (5:9b): “Ad hanc enim similitudinem non requiritur convenientia per participationem alicuius communis, sed sufficit convenientia ordinis secundum rationem causantis et causati, exprimentis et expressi.” Google Scholar

81 Ibid., ad 3^m/4^m (5:9b).Google Scholar

82 Ibid., resp. (5:9a): “quia unum est similitudo alterius.” Note that the sense of this clause is lost in the translation by Hayes, Zachary, in Works of Saint Bonaventure, 4, Saint Bonaventure's Disputed Questions on the Knowledge of Christ (Saint Bonaventure, N.Y., 1992), 90: “when one being resembles another.” Google Scholar

83 Ibid., ad 2^m (5:9b), quoted above n. 80.Google Scholar

84 In III Sent., d. 2, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2^m (3:38).Google Scholar

85 In III Sent., d. 29, a. un., q. 1, arg. 2 contra (3:638b).Google Scholar

86 Ibid., ad 2^m (3:639b): “Finis enim dignior est et excellentior et praeponitur his quae sunt ad finem, et quantum ad hoc attenditur ordo in caritate.” Google Scholar

87 Cf. John of Rochelle, La, Summa de anima , 5, cc. 27–31 (ed. Bougerol, Jacques Guy [Paris, 1995], 89–101). John wrote the Summa de anima between 1230 and 1235.Google Scholar

88 On Bonaventure's theory, see Szabó, Titus, De ss. Trinitate in creaturis refulgente: Doctrina s. Bonaventurae (Rome, 1955); Schaefer, Alexander, “The Position and Function of Man in the Created World according to Saint Bonaventure,” Franciscan Studies 20 (1960): 261–316, and 21 (1961): 233–82; and Solignac, Aimé, “L'homme image de Dieu dans la spiritualité de saint Bonaventure,” in Contributi de spiritualità Bonaventuriana: atti del simposio internazionale , ed. Zoppetti, Giorgio and Montagna, Davide Maria (Padua, 1974–75), 1:77–101. Bonaventure's chief discussions of the degrees of godlikeness (vestige, image, likeness) are as follows: In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 4^m (1:73); ibid., d. 3, p. 2 (1:80–93); In II Sent., d. 16 (2:393–97); Breviloquium, p. 2, cc. 9 and 12 (5:226–27, 230); QQ. disp. de mysterio Trinitatis, q. 1, a. 2, resp. (5:54b–55a); QQ. disp. de scientia Christi, q. 4, resp. (5:24); Sermo: Christus unus omnium magister, 16–18 (5:571–72); and Itinerarium mentis in Deum, cc. 1–4 (5:296–308). While the first seven texts, all edited or composed while Bonaventure was a master of theology in Paris (1254–57), establish his basic theory, the treatment in the Itinerarium, composed in 1259, after Bonaventure had left academic life behind him, is more adventurous. Since the Itinerarium would take us too far afield, I restrict my attention in this paper to the earlier, scholastic treatments.Google Scholar

89 Bonaventure summarizes the whole theory in Breviloquium , p. 5 (5:252–64), on the “grace of the Holy Spirit.” Google Scholar

90 Breviloquium , p. 2, c. 12 (5:230); QQ. disp. de scientia Christi, q. 4, resp. (5:24); Sermo: Christus unus omnium magister, 16–18 (5:571–72), or in Le Christ maitre, ed. and trans. Madec, Goulven (Paris, 1990), 48–58. See also In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 4^m (1:73b, differentia 2) on vestige and image as pertaining to God as cause and as object respectively.Google Scholar

91 In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 4^m (1:73).Google Scholar

92 On appropriations, see In I Sent., d. 34, a. un., q. 3 (1:592–93). See also De triplici via, c. 3, sect. 7, n. 12, in Bonaventure, , Decem opuscula ad theologiam mysticam spectantia (Quaracchi, 1965), 32–33, where Bonaventure singles out unitas–veritas–bonitas, potestas–sapientia–voluntas, and altitudo–pulcritudo–dulcedo as the most important appropriations.Google Scholar

93 In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 4^m (1:73b): “creatura ut umbra ducit ad cognitionem communium, ut communia; vestigium in cognitionem communium, ut appropriata; imago ad cognitionem propriorum, ut propria.” See also ibid., q. 4, ad 3^m (76b): “vestigium dicit distinctionem proprietatum essentialium, et huic respondet trinitas appropriatorum, non propriorum sive personarum.” Google Scholar

94 Ibid., d. 3, a. un., q. 4, resp. (1:76b): “Unde dico, quod philosophi nunquam per rationem cognoverunt personarum trinitatem nec etiam pluralitatem, nisi haberent aliquem habitum fidei, sicut habent aliqui haeretici…. Est alia trinitas appropriatorum, scilicet unitatis, veritatis et bonitatis, et hanc cognoverunt, quia habet simile.” Google Scholar

95 Ibid.: “pluralitas personarum cum unitate essentiae est proprium divinae naturae solius, cuius simile nec reperitur in creatura nec potest reperiri nec rationabiliter cogitari.” Google Scholar

96 Ibid., d. 3, p. 2, a. 2, q. 3, resp. (1:93b): “perfecta cognitio imaginis non habetur nisi a fide. Unde bene concedendum est, quod imago, perfecte cognita ut imago, ducit in cognitionem Trinitatis, non autem simpliciter.” Ibid., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 4, ad 4^m (1:76b): “est cognoscere animam secundum id quod est; et cognitio ista est rationis; vel secundum quod imago; et cognitio ista est solius fidei.” Google Scholar

97 QQ. disp. de myst. Trinitatis , q. 1, a. 2, resp. (5:55a).Google Scholar

98 In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, ad 4^m (1:73a): “imago ab ipsa veritate formatur et Deo immediate coniungitur.” See also In II Sent., d. 14, p. 1, a. 3, q. 1, ad 4^m (2:346); ibid., d. 18, a. 2, q. 3, resp. (2:453a, opinio 3); and In III Sent., d. 2, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2^m (3:38b). Cf. Augustine, , De diversis quaestionibus 83, q. 51, n. 2 (CCL 44A:80, lines 46–49): “Quare cum homo possit particeps sapientiae secundum interiorem hominem, secundum ipsum ita est ad imaginem, ut nulla natura interposita formetur, et ideo nihil sit deo coniunctius.” On the theme of the soul's immediate relation to God in Augustine, see Sullivan, , The Image of God (n. 15 above), 16–19.Google Scholar

99 In II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (2:394–95): “non habent ipsae creaturae irrationales immediate ad Deum ordinari, sed mediante creatura rationali. Ipsa autem creatura rationalis … nata est ordinari in Deum immediate.” See also In II Sent., d. 15, a. 2, q. 1 (2:382–84); Breviloquium , p. 2, c. 4 (5:222a); De reductione artium ad theologiam, cc. 2 and 8–14 (5:319–20, 322–23).Google Scholar

100 In II Sent., d. 15, a. 2, q. 1, resp. (2:382): “Quidam enim est finis principalis et ultimus, quidam vero est finis sub fine.” Google Scholar

101 See Sullivan, , The Image of God (n. 15 above), 115–62: while arguably limited in relation to Augustine's intentions and rhetoric, this is a rigorous and detailed analysis of the argument of books 8–15.Google Scholar

102 Ibid., 145–48.Google Scholar

103 In I Sent., d. 3, p. 2, a. 1, q. 2 (1:82–84).Google Scholar

104 Ibid., ad 5^m (1:84b): “Unde ratio imaginis quoad quid est plus in conversione ad Deum, quoad quid est plus in conversione animae supra se. In conversione ad Deum est plus, quia plus habet de ratione venustatis et conformitatis; in conversione ad se plus habet de ratione consubstantialitatis et aequalitatis.” See Juvenal Merriell, D., To the Image of the Trinity: A Study in the Development of Aquinas' Teaching (Toronto, 1990), 140–42. Merriell argues that the passage quoted above is the “clearest source” for Thomas's distinction (first made in the De veritate) between analogy and conformity in the image of God.Google Scholar

105 See In I Sent., d. 3, p. 2, aa. 1–2 (1:80–92): Bonaventure discusses the primary image (memoria, intelligentia, voluntas) in art. 1, and the secondary image (mens, notitia, amor) in art. 2 (1:88).Google Scholar

106 On how the image represents the relations of origin and consubstantiality, see ibid., d. 3, p. 2, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (1:81a), on memoria, intelligentia, voluntas; and ibid., d. 3, p. 2, a. 2, q. 2 (1:91–92), on mens, notitia, amor. Google Scholar

107 In IV Sent., d. 49, p. 1, a. un., q. 2, resp. (4:1003b).Google Scholar

108 Augustine, , De Trinitate 14.8.11 (CCL 50A:436, lines 11–12): “Eo quippe ipse imago eius est quo eius capax est eiusque esse particeps potest.” Peter Lombard quotes this passage in Sent., 1, d. 3, c. 2 ([n. 17 above], 72, lines 6–7). For Bonaventure's use of the dictum, see In I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. un., q. 1, arg. 1 contra (1:68b); ibid., d. 3, p. 2, a. 1, q. 1, arg. 2 (1:80a); In II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (2:395a); ibid., d. 26, a. un., q. 4, ad 1^m (2:640–41).Google Scholar

109 In I Sent., d. 3, p. 2, a. 1, q. 1, arg. 1 (1:80).Google Scholar

110 Ibid., arg. 2. Bonaventure identifies memory, insofar as it is a component of the image, with mental illumination and the “innate species”: see In I Sent., d. 3, p. 2, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3^m (1:81b). See also Solignac, Aimé, “Memoria chez saint Bonaventure,” in de Asís, Franscisco Blanco, Chavero, ed., Bonaventuriana: Miscellanea in onore di Jacques Guy Bougerol, Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani , 28 (Rome, 1988), 477–92.Google Scholar

111 Breuiloquium , p. 2, c. 9 (5:227a): “quia forma beatificabilis est capax Dei per memoriam, intelligentiam et voluntatem; et hoc est esse ad imaginem Trinitatis propter unitatem in essentia et trinitatem in potentiis.” Google Scholar

112 In II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (2:394–95).Google Scholar

113 Ibid., ad 2^m (2:395b): “similitudo, quae est in imagine, non attenditur per identitatem, aut eiusdem naturae participationem, sed per convenientiam in ordine et proportione; quae similitudo non exigit communicantiam in tertio, quia in convenientia ordinis unum est similitudo alterius; in convenientia proportionis non est similitudo in uno, sed in duabus comparationibus.” Google Scholar

114 Ibid., resp. (2:394–95).Google Scholar

115 Ibid., resp. (2:395).Google Scholar

116 In I Sent., d. 3, p. 2, art. 1, q. 2, ad 4^m (1:84a): “non dicimus imaginem in his potentiis secundum conversionem actualem, sed aptitudinalem, quae nunquam relinquit potentias: sicut gressibilis etiam dicitur homo, qui habet pedes truncatos, quamvis non graditur.” The objection concerns the survival of the image in sinners and even in the damned: see ibid., arg. 4 contra (1:83a).Google Scholar

117 In II Sent., d. 29, a. 1, q. 1, arg. 4 contra (2:695a).Google Scholar

118 I.e., is the genus of which image is a species: “express” is the specific difference.Google Scholar

119 Summa de anima, c. 32 (ed. Bougerol, [1995], 102–3): “Respondeo. Similitudo dicitur communiter qualiscumque conueniencia secundum aliquod genus, siue secundum substanciam, siue secundum quantitatem, siue secundum qualitatem, et sic commune est ad ymaginem; ymago autem est expressa similitudo de altero: que expressio intelligitur configuracio et secundum racionem quantitatis. Alio modo dicitur proprie conueniencia in qualitate, siue secundum modum qualitatis; et tunc similitudo consequitur ymaginem, sicut qualitas quantitatem; et est exemplum in ymagine Herculis, que, cum configurata est ad ymaginem uel ymitacionem Herculis, ymago est; sed non est adhuc similitudo nisi superaddantur colores per quas conueniat cum Hercule; sic naturales uires in anima dicunt ymaginem et configuracionem ad Deum; gratuita uero dicunt similitudinem quasi quidam colores superpositi.” Google Scholar

120 In II Sent., d. 16, a. 2, q. 3 (2:404–6).Google Scholar

121 Ibid., resp. (2:405a): “Dicendum, quod de prima nominis impositione differt imago et similitudo.” The term prima has a technical significance here. Cf. In II Sent., d. 16, dub. 4, resp. (2:407–8); and In I Sent., d. 29, a. 1, q. 2, resp. (1:511b). An analogical name first signifies a relationship per se, considered as an “intention” in abstraction from its actual setting: this significance is the ratio communis. Google Scholar

122 See Categories 10a11.Google Scholar

123 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis Christianae fidei , 1, p. 6, c. 2 (PL 176:264D, lines 5–6): “Imago pertinet ad figuram, similitudo ad naturam.” Google Scholar

124 See In I Sent., d. 48, a. 1, q. 1, resp. (1:852).Google Scholar

125 Cf. Allen, Reginald E., “Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues,” in idem, ed., Studies in Plato's Metaphysics (London and New York, 1965), 43–60, at 58: “Particulars are named after Forms because Forms are their causes. To say of anything that it is F is to say that it depends for its existence upon the F, that in virtue of which F-things are F. But the F is not merely a cause; it is an exemplary cause. Particulars not only depend on it; they are resemblances of it, as reflections are resemblances of their originals. Like reflections, they differ in type from their originals; they share no common attribute; and yet they exhibit a fundamental community of character. From this it follows that the names of Forms cannot be applied univocally to Forms and particulars, exemplars and exemplifications….” Google Scholar

126 See Ps.-Dionysius, , De divinis nominibus , 9.6–7 (PG 3:913C–916A; Suchla, B. R., ed., Corpus Dionysiacum, 1 [Berlin and New York, 1990], 211–12). Cf. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa theologiae, I^a, q. 4, a. 3, ad 4^m (Ottawa edition, 26b).Google Scholar

127 Turner, Denys, “The Logic of Typology,” chap. 5 in Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1995), 127–57. On Bonaventure, see ibid., 145–46. Google Scholar