Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:43:18.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kingdom and Polity in Eusebius of Caesarea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

F. Edward Cranz
F. Edward Cranz
Affiliation:
Connecticut College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Eusebius of Caesarea occupies a unique position in ancient Christian thought. His central problem is to explain and justify a Christian society which is to transform the Roman Empire and which will become the new world civilization supplanting Hellenism and Judaism. Earlier thinkers do not face this problem. The Roman Empire is for them one of the powers ordained of God, but it is pagan and they expect it to remain so. Consequently the question of human government is only peripheral to their thought. Nor do later thinkers see the problem quite as Eusebius does. In the East, for example in Pseudo-Dionysius and John of Damascus, the question of human government again becomes peripheral to Christian thought, and Eusebius has no successor as a “political theologian.” In the West, Augustine gives a general answer to the problem of a Christian society in a Christianized Empire, but his solution contradicts that of Eusebius. To Augustine, the structure of the Christian Roman Empire is still that of Babylon, and human society is still a mixture of two opposed cities, the earthly city and the city of God.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1952 , pp. 47 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This viewpoint is epitomized in the well-known remark of Tertullian: Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent necessarii saeculo, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares. Apologeticum XXI, 24 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum LXIX, 58–59). For a fuller statement, cf. Origen, Contra Celsum VIII, 72f. (ed. Koetschau, P. in: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, Vol. II, 288f. Leipzig, 1899Google Scholar).

2 For a statement of Augustine's position and a preliminary comparison with Eusebius, cf. Cranz, F. E., “De Civitate Dei XV, 2, and Augustine's Idea of the Christian Society,” Speculum XXV (1950), pp. 215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Baynes, N. H., “Eusebius and the Christian Empire,” Mélanges Bidez (Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales, II, Brussels, 1934), pp. 13–18Google Scholar.

4 Straub, J. A., Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike (Forschungen zur Kirchenund Geistesgeschichte XVIII, Stuttgart, 1939), p. 113fGoogle Scholar.

5 Peterson, E., Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Leipzig, 1935), p. 71fGoogle Scholar.

6 Opitz, H.-G., “Euseb von Caesarea als Theologe,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft XXXIV (1935), pp. 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 H. Eger, “Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea,” ibid. XXXVIII (1939), pp. 97–115. Cf. also Eger, H., “Die ersten Ansätze zu einer politischen Theologie in der christlichen Kirche,” Deutsche Theologie II (1935), pp. 272–281Google Scholar.

8 Berkhof, H., “Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea,” Amsterdam, 1939Google Scholar.

9 For a general account of the writings of Eusebius, cf. the article by Schwartz, E. in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyklopädie, Vol. VI (1909), 1370–1439Google Scholar; Christ, W. v., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (6th ed. by W. Schmid and O. Stählin, München, 1924)Google Scholar, Zweiter Teil, pp. 1359–1372. A brief account with recent bibliography may be found in Altaner, B., Patrologie (Freiburg, 1950), pp. 195–201Google Scholar.

10 Ed. T. Gaisford, Oxford, 1842; reprinted in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca (hereafter cited as PG) XXII, 1017f. The Eclogae Propheticae were originally Books VI–X of the Generalis Elementaria Introductio, now lost except for a few fragments and the Eclogae. There is a considerable lacuna in Book II of the Eclogae; on it cf. Mercati, G., “La grande lacuna delle Ecloghe Profetiche di Eusebio di Cesarea,” Archives de l'orient Chrétien (Mémorial Louis Petit), I (1948), pp. 1–3Google Scholar.

11 Ed. with an English translation by E. H. Gifford, 4 vols., Oxford 1903. A new edition is in preparation by Mras, K.; cf. his remarks, “Ein Vorwort zur neuen Eusebius-Ausgabe,” Rheinisches Museum XCII (1944), pp. 217–236Google Scholar, and “Meine Eusebiusausgabe,” Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien LXXXIV (1947), pp. 115–120Google Scholar.

12 Ed. I. A. Heikel (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller (hereafter cited as GCS) XXIII, Leipzig, 1913). There is an English translation by W. J. Ferrar, 2 vols., London, 1920.

13 The De Theophania is preserved complete only in a Syriac version, edited, together with a German translation and the Greek fragments, by H. Gressmann (GCS XI, 2, Leipzig, 1904). An English translation was done by S. Lee, Cambridge, 1843. Eusebius also wrote a De Secunda Theophania dealing with Christ's Second Coming; on it cf. E. Schwartz, op. cit., pp. 1431–1433. Only fragments survive, and these are found, though without adequate identification, in A. Mai's edition of the Greek fragments of the De Theophania, reprinted in PG XXIV, 607–690, and in his edition of the so-called Commentaria in Lucam (reprinted in PG XXIV, 527–606).

14 Ed. B. Montfaucon, PG XXIV, pp. 77–526. The material collected by Montfaucon comes from various “chains” on Isaiah, but while incomplete it is in general authentic. Cf. Devreesse, R., “L'édition du commentaire d'Eusèbe de Césarée sur Isaïe,” Revue Biblique XLII (1933), pp. 540–555Google Scholar. Recently almost the entire Commentaria in Isaiam has been discovered, but it is not yet published, cf. Möhle, A., “Der Jesaiakommentar des Eusebios von Kaisareia fast vollständig wieder aufgefunden,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft XXXIII (1934), pp. 87–89Google Scholar, and “Ein neuer Fund zahlreicher Stücke aus der Jesaiaübersetzung des Akylas, Symmachos, und Theodotion,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft LII (1934), pp. 176–183Google Scholar.

15 The printed material of the Commentaria in Psalmos varies greatly in value. B. Montfaucon first published a connected commentary on Psalms LI–XCV, 3 and used material from chains for Psalms I–L and XCV, 7–CXVIII (PG XXIII, 65–1396). A. Mai found some scattered material on CXIX–CL (PG XXIV, 9–76). Finally some very dubious additions on Psalms I–CXVIII were supplied by Pitra, J. B., Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi Parata (Venice, 1883) III, 369–520Google Scholar. All of these published Commentaria in Psalmos must be used with caution: cf. Devreesse, R. in, Dictionnaire de la Bible (ed. Vigoroux, F., Paris, 1895–1912) Supplement I (1928), pp. 1122–1124Google Scholar and “La chaine sur les Psaumes de Daniele Barbaro,” Revue Biblique XXXIII (1924), pp. 65–81Google Scholar. G. Mercati long ago discovered a good manuscript (Bibliotheca Ambrosiana F 126 sup.) for the commentary on Psalm XCVIf., but it has not been published; cf. Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo, ser. II, Vol. XXXI (1898), 1036f.

16 The title “Commentaria in Lucam” was given by A. Mai to a group of fragments first published by him (PG XXIV, 527–606). The title is a misnomer, and if the fragments belong to a single work, this must be the De Secunda Theophania (cf. note 13, above).

17 Ed. I. A. Heikel (GCS VII, pp. 1–148, Leipzig, 1902); cf. also the additions in I. A. Heikel, Kritische Beiträge zu den Constantin-Schriften des Eusebius (Texte und Untersuchungen 36, 4 (1911) ). There is an English translation in : Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd Series, Vol. I (New York, 1890), pp. 481–559. The authenticity of the Vita Constantini has been attacked in recent years, most aggressively by H. Grégoire in numerous articles, e.g. “Eusèbe n'est pas l'auteur de la “Vita Constantini” dans sa forme actuelle et Constantin ne s'est pas converti en 312,” Byzantion XIII (1938), pp. 561–583. Grégoire declares (p. 562) that while the work may contain a Eusebian kernel, “Mais ce qui est sûr, c'est que des vastes parties … sont d'une époque bien plus tardive que celle d'Eusèbe.” For some typical discussions of the Grégoire thesis cf. Vogt, J., “Streitfragen um Konstantin den Grossen,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts, Röm. Abt. LVIII (1943), pp. 198–203Google Scholar; Piganiol, A., “L'état actuel de la question constantinienne 1930–49,” Historia I (1950), pp. 82–96Google Scholar, part. 82–84; and Karpp, Heinrich, “Konstantin der Grosse und die Kirche,” Theologische Rundschau XIX (1951), pp. 1–21Google Scholar, part. 6–7. The present writer is not convinced that the existence of extensive interpolation has been proven, but when use is made of parts of the Vita Constantine which have been declared non-Eusebian, that fact will be noted.

18 Ed. I. A. Heikel (GCS VII, 195–259, Leipzig 1902); cf. the additions in Heikel, I. A., Kritische Beiträge zu den Constantin-Schriften des Eusebius (Texte und Untersuchungen XXXVI, 4 (1911)Google Scholar. There is an English translation in: Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd Series, Vol. I (New York, 1890), pp. 581–610. The Laus Constantini is composed of two distinct parts. Chapters I-X are the Tricennalia delivered on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's accession to power; Chapters XI–XVIII are a brief apology of Christianity in defense of the Emperor's building activities in Palestine. On the problem cf. the edition by Heikel, pp. civ–cvi, and his Kritische Beiträge, pp. 81–87.

19 Ed. E. Schwartz (GCS IX, Leipzig, 1903–09). There is an English translation by K. Lake and J. E. L. Oulton in the Loeb Classical Library (2 vols., London, 1926–32).

20 Ed. E. Klostermann (GCS XIV, pp. 59–182, Leipzig, 1906).

21 Cf. in Psalmos XIV, 1 (PG XXIII, 149D); ibid. LXIV, 23 (PG XXIII, 625B–C).

22 On the early Christian use of “kingdom” cf. Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. G. Kittel, Stuttgart, 1933– ), Vol. I, pp. 562–595; Frick, R., Die Geschichte des Reich-Gottes-Gedanken in der alten Kirche bis zu Origenes und Augustin (Beiheft VI, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft), Giessen, 1988Google Scholar. Some interesting notes on the concept of kingdom in the Greek fathers by Lampe, G. W. H. may be found in the Journal of Theological Studies XLIX (1948), pp. 58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Laus IV, 2 (GCS VII, 203). Cf. also Laus III, 5 (GCS VII, 201); III, 6 (GCS VII, 202); DE IV, 6, 7 (GCS XXIII, 160); In Psalmos VIII, 7–9 (PG XXIII, 129C–D). For a close parallel to the last passage, cf. the Commentaria in Psalmos ed. Pitra: VIII, 6 (Vol. III, 390).

24 De Ecclesiastica Theologia III, 18 (GCS XIV, 179).

25 De Theophania I, 37 (GCS XI, 2, p. 55); ibid. I, 40 (GCS XI, 2, p. 58).

26 De Theophania I, 66–77 (GCS XI, 2, pp. 70–79).

27 De Theophania, I, 78–79 (GCS XI, 2, pp. 79–80) and I, 39 (GCS XI, 2, p. 57); Laus V, 2 (GCS VII, p. 204). The description of fallen man and his society as animal-like is common in Eusebius: e.g. DE VIII, Pr. §6f. (GCS XXIII, p. 350f.); Laus VII, 2 (GCS VII, p. 212); Historia Ecclesiastica I, 2, 18f. (GCS IX, 1, p. 20f.); PE II, 5 (ed. Gifford I, p. 94).

28 Eclogae Propheticae I, 12 (PG XXII, 1068B); In Psalmos LXXXVI, 2–4 (PG XXIII, 1045D); Historia Ecclesiastica I, 3, 7f. (GCS IX, 1, p. 32).

29 De Ecclesiastica Theologia II, 22 (GCS XIV, pp. 132–133); PE I, 1 (ed. Gifford I, pp.4–5).

30 Vita Constantini III, 15 (GCS VII, p. 84). χριτοῦ βασιλείας ἔδοξεν ἄν τις Φαντασιοῦσθαι εὶκόνα, ὄναρ τ᾽εἶναι ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὔπαρ τὸ γινόμενον.

31 Laus I, 6(GCS VII, p. 199).

32 Laus III, 5 (GCS VII, p. 201).

33 Laus III, 6 (GCS VII, p. 202).

34 Laus IV, 2 (GCS VII, p. 203).

35 Laus V, 2 (GCS VII, p. 203).

36 Laus V, 4 (GCS VII, p. 204).

37 Laus V, 5 (GCS VII, p. 204).

38 For a general discussion of Christian views of Roman history and its relation to Christianity, cf.Peterson, E., Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Leipzig, 1935). p. 59fGoogle Scholar.

39 The main texts may be found in Peterson, op. cit. p. 71f. Cf. also In Psalmos II,9 (PG XXIII, 89A); XLV, 9–10 (PG XXIII, 412B–C); LXXI, 6–8 (PG XXIII, 301D–304A).

40 Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum II, 30 (GCS II, p. 158).

41 E.g. PE I, 4 (ed. Gifford I, pp. 12–13); DE III, 7, 30f. (GCS XXIII, p. 145f.).

42 Laus XVI, 6 (GCS VII, pp. 249–50). Cf. De Theophania III, 2 (GCS XI, 2, pp. 127–128).

43 Laus XVI, 6 (GCS VII, p. 250).

44 For Eusebius' account of the first visions, cf. Vita Constantini I, 28–30 (GCS VII, p. 21). The account has been declared pseudo-Eusebian (cf. note 17 above), e.g. by Grégoire, H., “La vision de Constantin ‘liquidée’,” Byzantion XIV (1939), pp. 341–351Google Scholar. But cf.Vogt, J., “Berichte über Kreuzerscheinungen aus dem 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.” Annuaire de l'Inst. de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves IX (1949), pp. 593–606Google Scholar. For frequent divine revelations to Constantine, cf. Laus XI, 1 (GCS VII, pp. 223–224) and XVIII, 1–3 (GCS VII, p. 259).

45 Vita Constantini I, 12, 2 (GCS VII, p. 13).

46 Laus, VII, 12–13 (GCS VII, p. 215). H. Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939), p. 58 points out that in the parallel argument of the De Theophania II, 83 (GCS XI, 2, p. 119) it is the Logos-Christ, not Constantine, who wins this victory.

47 Cf. In Lucam XIV, 16 (PG XXIV, 576D). Ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐκ ἀλλοτρία τυγχάνει οὐδ᾽ αὔτη ηῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὑρανῶν περὶ ἦς ἠμῖν ὁ πᾶς ἐνέστηκε λόγος.

48 In Psalmos LXXXVI, 2–4 (PG XXIII, 1045c).

49 In Lucam XI, 21 (PG XXIV, 533B).

50 De Theophania I, 72 (GCS XI, 2, p. 73).

51 On the potential participation of the Jews in the kingdom of heaven, cf. In Lucam XIII, 20 (PG XXIV, 569B). On the loss of it, cf. De Theophania (= De Secunda Theophania) ed. Mai, Fragment VI (PG XXIV, 637D–640C). On the lack of knowledge in the masses of the Jewish nation, cf. De Ecclesiastica Theologia II, 20 (GCS XIV, p. 127f.); De Theophania (= De Secunda Theophania) ed. Mai, Fragment XVII (PG XXIV, 673C); and the passages cited in Note 28, above.

52 In Psalmos LXIV, 2–3 (PG XXIII, 625B–C) … ἡ καταγελλομένμ τοῖς τὸ Ἐυαγγέλιον παραδεχομένοις βασιλεία οὑρανῶν. Ἐικὼν δ᾽έκείνης ἠ ἐπὶ γῆς γένοιτ᾽ άν Ἐκκλησία

Eusebius only rarely calls the ecclesia a kingdom (cf. In Isaiam XXXII, 1–2 (PG XXIV, 317A)), and is very cautious in speaking about Christ's kingdom on earth: Eclogae Propheticae I, 13 (PG XXII, 1069C); De Ecclesiastica Theologia III, 15 (GCS XIV, p. 172). Indeed, from the standpoint of the properly “royal” Second Coming, he sometimes denies that Christ now exercises any kingdom on earth: e.g. De Theophania (= De Secunda Theophania) ed. Mai, Fragment XXII (PG XXIV, 688Cf.); in Lucam XIX, 12 (PG XXIV, 588D–589A); Eclogae Propheticae II, 2 (PG XX, 1093B) ; Historia Ecclesiastica III, 20, 4 (GCS IX, 1, p. 234), III, 39, 12f. (GCS IX, 1, p. 290f.).

53 In Lucam IX, 1 (PG XXIV, 544A).

54 In Lucam, IX, 26 (PG XXIV, 548D–49A); cf. also De Ecclesiastica Theologia III, 10 (GCS XIV, p. 166); Laus IV, 2 (GCS VII, p. 203).

55 In Lucam XIII, 20 (PG XXIV, 569A).

56 Eusebius' view of the natural in relation to the Christian cannot be discussed here, but it may be noted that in In Lucam VII, 29–30 (PG XXIV, 540Df.), the nations are called by natural laws into the vineyard which is the godly polity and through which they may attain the kingdom of heaven.

57 De Theophania (= De Secunda Theophania) ed. Mai, Fragment XVII (PG XXIV,673D–676A).

58 In Lucam XIV, 18 (PG XXIV, 580D).

59 In Isaiam XXV, 6–7 (PG XXIV, 268B–C).

60 De Solemnitate Paschali IV–V. (PG XXIV, 697C–700C).

61 Cf. note 30 above.

62 In Psalmos II, 9 (PG XXIIII, 88D–92A); Laus XVI, 4f(GCS VII, p. 249).

63 For the earlier history of the Christian society as polis and as Jerusalem, excellent accounts may be found in K. L. Schmidt, Die Polis in Kirche und Welt, Basel, 1939, and “Jerusalem als Urbild und Abbild” Eranos-Jahrbuch XVIII (1950), pp. 207–248.

64 E.g. DE VIII, 2, 103 (GCS XXIII, p. 386); In Isaiam XL, 1–2 (PG XXIV, 364D).

65 E.g. In Isaiam LI, 17 (PG XXIV, 449C); In Isaiam I, 27 (PG XXIV, 100); In Psalmos XLV, 4 (XXIII, 408D). For the meaning of politeuma in earlier Greek cf.Ruppel, W., “Politeuma. Bedeutungsgeschichte eines staatsrechtlichen Terminus” Philologus LXXXII (1926–27), pp. 268–312Google Scholar ; 434–454.

66 E.g. DE IX, 6, 6 (GCS XXIII, 417); In Isaiam XXII, 10–14. (PG XXIV, 248D.)

67 For illustrations of the less social sense cf. DE I, 6, 1 (GCS XXIII, p. 23); DE I, 9, 10 (GCS XXIII, p. 41) ; Schwartz, Index to Historia Ecclesiastica (GCS IX, 3, p. 198). The less social sense is more common with politeia than with politeuma. Both words occasionally have the special sense of classes or orders in the ecclesia: In Isaiam XIX, 18 (PG XXIV, 232C); XLII, 11 (PG XXIV, 392A); XXV, 2 (PG XXIV, 265c).

68 De Theophania I, 40 (GCS XI, 2, p. 58).

69 In Psalmos LXIV, 2–3 (PG XXIII, 625B).

70 In Isaiam XLIX, 13 (PG XXIV, 436C); XXVI, 1 (PG XXIV, 272A); XLIX, 11 (PG XXIV,436B).

71 In Psalmos LXIV, 2–3 (PG XXIII, 625c).

72 In Psalmos LXXXVI, 2–4 (PG XXIII, 1045B).

73 In Psalmos L, 21 (PG XXIII, 441B).

74 Various phrases are found. Perhaps the most common when Eusebius is working out his own ideas is τὸ θεοσεβὲς πολίτευμα e.g. DE VI, 24, 6 (GCS XXIII, p. 293); VIII, 4, 25 (GCS XXIII, p. 399); De Theophania (= De Secunda Theophania) ed. Mai, Fragment VI (PG XXIV, 637B); in Isaiam XLIX, 11 (PG XXIV, 436B); LI, 17 (PG XXIV, 449C); LII, 7 (PG XXIV, 453B); In Psalmos XLVII, 2–3 (PG XXIII, 420D); XLVII, 13–15 (PG XXIII, 428C). There are numerous closely allied expressions e.g.: ἡ θεοσεβὴς πολιτεία. In Isaiam LIV, 3 (PG XXIV, 464B); DE III, 3, 3 (GCS XXIII, p. 109). τὸ κατὰ θεὸν πολίτευμα. Historia Ecclesiastica, V, Pr. 4 (GCS IX, 1, p. 400), where Eusebius declares that this godly polity is the subject of his history. τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας πολίτευμα DE IV, 17, 21 (GCS XXIII, p. 199); V, 4, 2 (GCS XXIII, p. 224).

For the equivalence of godly polity, city of God, and ecclesia, cf. the following passages as examples: In Isaiam XXXI, 9 (PG XXIV, 316D); LIX, 14–20 (PG XXIV, 488C); LX, 12–13 (PG XXIV, 496A); LXVI, 7–8 (PG XXIV, 517B); In Psalmos LIX, 11 (PG XXIII, 572C); LXXI, 16–17 (PG XXIII, 816D); LXXXVI, 2–4 (PG XXIII, 1045A–D).

75 DE VI, 24, 6 (GCS XXIII, p. 293); cf. also In Isaiam XXII, 1 (PG XXIV, 245A); XLIX, 11 (PG XXIV, 436A–B); LIV, 6–10 (PG XXIV, 464D–465A). In the commentary of Chapter XLIX, Eusebius apparently refers back to portions of the work not found in the printed editions.

76 E.g. In Psalmos LXXIII, 2–7 (PG XXIII, 856C); Eclogae Propheticae III, 22 (PG XXII, 1145C). Eusebius never explains just how the two “godly polities” of the Jews and the Christians differed. Apparently he expects us to understand the difference in terms of the general contrast he makes between Judaism and Christianity. Sometimes he calls Judaism merely an image; then Christianity appears as truth and reality. Sometimes he starts from Christianity as image, and then Judaism appears as shadow and riddle.

77 In Psalmos LXXII, 18–20 (PG XXIII, 845Af.); In Lucam VII, 29–30 (PG XXIV, 540D–541B); De Theophania (= De Secunda Theophania) ed. Mai, Fragment VI (PG XXIV, 637B–640C).

78 For the contrast between the three polities of Christianity, Judaism, and Hellenism, cf. DE I, 2 (GCS XXIII, p. 7f.). On the atheistic polity of the pagans cf. In Isaiam XXV, 2 (PG XXIV, 266C), and PE X, 4 (ed. Gifford II, p. 18f.).

79 In Isaiam XIX, 1f. (PG XXIV, 220f.).

80 In Isaiam XIX, 18 (PG XXIV, 232B–C).

81 In Isaiam I, 27 (PG XXIV, 100B).

82 The following remarks on Nicholas of Cusa do no more than pick out one aspect of his thought. For a general treatment, cf. K. Vorländer, Geschichte der Philosophie (9th ed. by E. Metzke, Hamburg, 1949), Vol. I, pp. 390–412; Ritter, J., “Die Stellung des Nicolaus von Cues in der Philosophiegeschichte,” Blätter für deutsche Philosophie XIII (1939), pp. 111–155Google Scholar. On his social thought cf. E. Bohnenstädt, Kirche und Reich im Schrifttum des Nikolaus von Cues (Sitzungsberichte, Heidelberg, Phil.-hist. Kl., Jahrg., 1938–39, Abh. I) Heidelberg, 1939; G. Kallen “Die politische Theorie im philosophischem System des Nikolaus von Cues,” Historische Zeitschrift CLXV (1941–42), pp. 246–277.

83 The main evidence will be found in the De Concordantia Catholica, in the Opera Omnia (Basel, 1565), p. 685f. Books I and II only have been edited in the critical edition of the Opera Omnia (Leipzig, 1932– ), Vol. XIV (1939– ).

84 E.g. the Idiota, ed. L. Baur (Opera Omnia, Leipzig, Vol. V); De Visione Dei (Opera Omnia, Basel, p. 181f.) ; De Pace Fidei (ibid., p. 862f.)