IDENTIFICACIÓN DE UNIDADES TERRITORIALES ESTRUCTURANTES

We must first review the scholarship on William’s Eucharistic theology, before turning to other aspects of his theology. Of the books and articles on William’s

Eucharistic theology, Hallet’s short article on William’s Eucharistic theology adds little to the thinkers described below.8 Hontoir mentions William first in his catalogue of Cistercian devotion to the Eucharist, but offers little beyond the main themes appropriate for a catalogue entry.9 Dubois’ article on the Mass at Cîteaux in the twelfth century offers more insight into the liturgical-historical context in which William wrote, especially with respect to concerns about the proliferation of Masses offered.10 Macy identifies William as part of the medieval school of mystical approach to the Eucharist, yet correctly notes that he synthesizes spiritual and physical approaches to the Eucharist into a theology of his own.11 Châtillon’s article on William’s more scholastic treatises gives more

background to the De sacramento altaris, as well as William’s motivations for entering into more scholastic disputes.12 And John Van Engen provides further context for the De

7 _{The most recent full bibliography of William’s works can be found in Sergent et al., Unitas Spiritus and} the Originality of William of Saint-Thierry, 185–190.

8 _{Charles Hallet, “Aspectos de la Eucaristia en Guillermo de Saint-Thierry,” Cuadernos monasticos 11}

(1976): 77–82.

9

10 _{Marie-Gérard Dubois, “L’Eucharistie à Cîteaux au milieu du Xlle siècle,” Collectanea Cisterciensia 67}

(2005): 266–86.

11 _{Macy, The Theologies of the Eucharist, 96–98.}

12 _{Jean Châtillon, “William of Saint Thierry, Monasticism and the Schools: Rupert of Deutz, Abelard, and}

William of Conches,” in William, Abbot of St. Thierry: A Colloquium at the Abbey of St. Thierry, trans. Jerry Carfantan, Cistercian Studies Series 94 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1987), 153–80.

sacramento altaris in his study of Rupert of Deutz and article focusing on Rupert and

William.13

In her article on the Eucharistic spirituality of the Cistercian Fathers, Marsha Dutton argues that while William of Saint-Thierry, Baldwin of Forde, and Isaac of Stella wrote theological treatises on the Eucharist, “as the Fathers were not men of the schools, their inquiry into Eucharistic theology emerged not by and large in theological treatises but in their affective works, treatises, and sermons concerned with knowing God through love.”14 True to her word, she does not examine these treatises—indeed, she does not cite one once—but focuses on the writings of Bernard, William, and Aelred. There she finds questions posed about the Eucharist, which she divides according to whether they are asked by reason or love, a distinction that she adopts for the purpose of her study while acknowledging that it is “artificial and nonsustainable.”15 While a number of her insights are helpful for discerning the Cisercian Fathers’ understanding of the Eucharist, in particular for how it fits into their devotion to the humanity of Christ, some of the examples she cites are implausible.16 And while her framework may be helpful for understanding Bernard and Aelred’s infrequent reference to the Eucharist, it does not do justice to William’s more robust Eucharistic theology.

13 _{John H. Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); John H. Van}

Engen, “Rupert of Deutz and William of Saint-Thierry,” Revue Benedictine 93 (1983): 57–68.

14 _{Dutton, “Eat, Drink, and Be Merry: The Eucharistic Spirituality of the Cistercian Fathers,” 2.} 15 _{Ibid., 3.}

16 _{For example, Aelred writes in De institutione inclusarum, “Hasten, linger not, eat the honeycomb with}

your honey, drink your wine with your milk. The blood is changed into wine to inebriate you, the water into milk to nourish you” (CCCM I:671, 1188–90; CF 2, 90). Dutton comments, “In this passage the wine of the Eucharist is certainly Jesus’ blood: the receipient drinks Jesus himself. It is not, Aelred suggests, that the substance of the wine is changed into blood during the Mass, but that it was blood in the first place” (9). A few paragraphs later, Dutton writes, “[Aelred’s] explanation that at the crucifixion the blood and water are transformed into wine and milk to inebriate and nourish the lover of Christ may also be regarded as a response to one of the continuing Eucharistic questions, the relationship between the accidents and the substance of the Eucharistic species, between the sacramentum, the bread and wine, and the res sacramenti, Christ’s body and blood” (10). In both cases, it is more likely that Aelred is not making a statement about the nature of the Eucharist but rather describing spiritual union using scriptural metaphor.

Bouyer offers a richer treatment, linking William’s Eucharistic theology to that of Origen and looking at how it relates to the sacrificial life of the monk as a whole.17 He further explains that “it is the characteristic of the Third Person to be the fruit of that communion that exists between the Father and the Son by the first procession, that is, the eternal filiation. Thus our participation by grace in this filiation itself finds its realization in a participation of the Spirit.”18 He provides the first real connection between William’s Eucharistic and Trinitarian theology in secondary scholarship. Matthieu Rougé takes up this connection in his Doctrine et expérience de l’eucharistie chez Guillaume de Saint-

Thierry, the best scholarly account of William’s Eucharistic theology.19 There he examines all references to the Eucharist in William’s corpus, as well as the Eucharistic themes of food, sacrifice, and memory. Rougé also explores the Eucharist’s relation to William’s understanding of body, soul, and spirit. He concludes with an analysis of the role the Eucharist plays in William’s understanding of the Trinity and deification, where he fleshes out the connection Bouyer identified before him.

Because there has been so much scholarship on William, the remainder of this literature review will focus on those sources that are most pertinent to his Trinitarian and Eucharistic thought. Scholarship on William of Saint-Thierry in the early twentieth century was tied up with scholarship on Bernard of Clairvaux. For centuries, William’s works had circulated under Bernard’s name, and many scholars sought to extricate the former from the latter’s considerable shadow, beginning with André Wilmart.20 Étienne Gilson’s The Mystical Theology of St. Bernard, which argued that Bernard’s theology

17 _{Bouyer, The Cistercian Heritage, 107.} 18 _{Ibid., 118–119.}

19 _{Rougé, Doctrine et experience.}

20 _{André Wilmart, “La série et la date des ouvrages de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry,” Revue Mabillon 14}

was, in fact, theology with a real system and argument worth analyzing, gave only a small appendix to William.21 Thereafter a number of scholarly papers took the form of a comparison and contrast between the two to distinguish William from his better-known friend and set him apart as a theologian in his own right. We find a good example of this in Hourlier’s study of the two thinkers on love in the De contemplando Deo, De natura et

dignitate amoris, and De amore Dei.22 Around this time, Déchanet offered an

introduction to William that analyzed his theological works in light of his biography.23 The other major trend in scholarship on William is the debate over his sources. In the 1940s, Déchanet argued that William relied extensively on the Greek Fathers,

especially Gregory of Nyssa’s anthropology, which served as the foundation of his thought.24 More controvertially, Déchanet claimed that William drew on original Greek sources, not only Latin translations. Thus his theology bore certain characteristics that distinguished him from the main Augustinian current of Western thought. Others such followed in this line of argument, providing many Greek sources for different aspects of William’s thought. To give but one example, Brooke characterizes William’s

understanding of the Trinity and the economy of salvation as more Eastern, with the Holy Spirit as the last person in a sequence of salvific movement from the Father through the Son in the Spirit, instead of being the love substantially uniting Father and Son, as

21 _{Étienne Gilson, The Mystical Theology of St. Bernard, trans. A.H.C. Downes, Cistercian Studies Series}

120 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1990).

22 _{Jacques Hourlier, “St. Bernard et Guillaume de Saint-Thierry dans le ‘liber de amore,’” Analecta Sacri} Ordinis Cisterciensis 9 (1953): 223–33.

23 _{Jean-Marie Déchanet, Guillaume de Saint-Thierry: L’homme et son œuvre (Bruges: Éditions Charles}

Beyaert, 1942).

24 _{Jean-Marie Déchanet, Aux sources de la spiritualité de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry (Bruges: Éditions}

Augustine sees him.25 In response, many more scholars have argued that there should be a moratorium on the quest for William’s Greek sources. While they are important for his theology, he does not use them in their original Greek, nor do they form his theology as a whole. Rather, this argument continues, William receives Greek sources through Latin authors influenced by Augustine and fits them into a theological scheme that is

Augustinian and Western as a whole. Moreover, earlier investigations into William’s sources mischaracterized Augusine—forgetting his own Eastern influences—and Eastern authors. David Bell remains the most prominent proponent of this view, but he has been joined by Anderson and Cvetković, among others.26 Today the majority of scholars no longer hold Déchanet's stronger claims, but debate continues as to the extent of Eastern influence on William's thought.

Most authors writing on William focus on his Trinitarian theology and

understanding of spiritual union with the Trinity. Brooke’s essays are helpful for both, despite some mischaracterizations of patristic theologians, along the lines noted above. Bell’s work is essential for understanding William's theology, as well as its Augustinian roots. He also makes necessary corrections to Déchanet, Brooke, and others. Cvetković builds on Bell’s work and offers a full account of William’s understanding of the Holy Spirit, grace, and spiritual union, with reference to their Augustinian roots. Rydstrøm- Poulsen’s book on the influence of Augustine’s theology of grace in the twelfth century focuses on William’s Expositio super epistolam ad Romanos and is also essential in this

25 _{Odo Brooke, Studies in Monastic Theology, Cistercian Studies Series 37 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian}

Publications, 1980), 8, 76.

26 _{John D. Anderson, “The Use of Greek Sources by William of St. Thierry Especially in the Enigma}

Fidei,” in One Yet Two: Monastic Tradition East and West, Cistercian Studies Series 29 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1976), 242–53; David Bell, The Image and Likeness: The Augustinian Spirituality

of William of Saint Thierry, Cistercian Studies Series 78 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1984);

Carmen Angela Cvetković, Seeking the Face of God: The Reception of Augustine in the Mystical Thought

regard.27 Sergent traces the use of unitas spiritus in Western theology for Trinitarian and ecclesial unity, thereby underscoring the importance of William’s unique use of the term for personal union with God.28 Hastings argues that William’s understanding of the Spirit’s identity as the mutual love of Father and Son then allows the Spirit to serve as the means of incorporating human beings into that love.29 However, her term for the Spirit’s incommunicable identity, “facelessness,” derives from contemporary systematic theology and obscures the Spirit’s own real identity in William’s thought. The Spirit may be the love of Father and Son, but he is not thereby faceless, invisible, or a cipher. Moreover, as Tomasic notes, William views the structure of each person of the Trinity as

intersubjective,30 and therefore the Spirit is not especially “faceless” by comparison with the Father and Son.

Baudelet’s work on spiritual experience focuses on definitions of terms and offers a comprehensive distillation of William’s ideas on love and knowledge, as well as other aspects of his anthropology. It is most helpful for understanding the significance of memory in William’s thought.31 Déchanet likewise offers a comprehensive account of William’s understanding of love, knowledge, and their relationship in the spiritual life.32 Bouyer’s The Cistercian Heritage is also helpful in this regard. Blommestijn’s entry on spiritual progress in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité Ascetique et Mystique offers a

27 _{Aage Rydstrøm-Poulsen, The Gracious God: Gratia in Augustine and the Twelfth Century (Copenhagen:}

Akademisk Forlag, 2002), 251–307.

28 _{Sergent et al., Unitas Spiritus and the Originality of William of Saint-Thierry.}

29 _{Elizabeth Hastings, “William of Saint-Thierry on the Holy Spirit’s Personal Identity,” Cistercian Studies} Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2002): 145–51.

30 _{“The very structure of each person of the Trinity is now seen to be the very insinuation of the other}

persons, making, thereby, the essential and radical structure of the person intersubjective” (Thomas Michael Tomasic, “William of Saint-Thierry Against Peter Abelard: A Dispute on the Meaning of Being a Person,” Analecta Cisterciensia 28 (1972): 65.

31 _{Yves-Anselme Baudelet, L’Expérience spirituelle selon Guillaume de Saint-Thierry (Paris: Les Éditions}

du Cerf, 1985).

32 _{Jean-Marie Déchanet, “Amor Ipse Intellectus Est: La Doctrine de l’amour intellection chez Guillaume de}

thorough analysis of William’s map of spiritual progress.33 Campos’ dissertation on William’s Trinitarian theology is comprehensive, but does not advance a new argument beyond other existing scholarship.34 Some of the most helpful works come from

Verdeyen, chief among them La théologie mystique de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry.35 He offers an excellent synthesis of William’s theologies of the Trinity and deification and in subsequent works argues for William’s influence on the mystics of the Low Countries.36 He also belongs to the Origenist camp among William scholars and shows how Origen influences William’s theology of spiritual reception. Other scholars have pushed back on some of his claims: For example, McGinn writes that Verdeyen’s claim that William breaks with Augustine and Gregory to initiate a new Origenist mysticism continued in Rhineland mystics is exaggerated.37