Thought

In the history of ideas the doctrine of universal hylomorphism is most often associated with the name of Avicebron: all beings other than God, as is frequently repeated in the Fons vitae, are composed of matter and form, even though it is impossible to find in simple, or spiritual, substances the same matter (corporeal matter) that characterizes composite, or sensible, substances. Yet how does Avicebron develop his thesis?

The Fons vitae is divided into five books that focus on the conceptual pair of matter and form, analyzed according to a progressive broadening of the field of enquiry: the first book establishes the metaphysical and cosmological premises necessary for the definition of universal matter and universal form; the second examines universal corporeal matter as a substratum of corporeal form; the third demonstrates the existence of simple substances; the fourth shows that these too are composed of matter and form; and the fifth analyzes universal matter and universal form in themselves. This is not all, however: looking at the different ways in which matter and form are present in the different levels of the universe, Avicebron offers the reader a path of progressive ascent from the sensible world to the ‘‘flowering garden’’ of the intelligible world, as the only means of finally achieving the happiness and the end for which man was created. In this sense, the expression evasio mortis et applicatio ad originem vitae with which the fifth book ends expresses in the most efficacious and suggestive way possible the idea that only those who have undertaken the route of self-purification can reach not only the afterlife, but also, and above all, the Fountain of life itself.

The overall scheme of the Fons vitae is typically Neoplatonic and therefore legitimates the general evaluation of Avicebron as the most important heir of the Neoplatonic tradition in Jewish philosophy. The universe is ordered hierarchically, descending from the First Cause, i. e., God, in less and less pure degrees of perfection, starting from which it is possible to reascend (and know), up to a certain point. The First Cause is in itself unknowable: the only access to it is represented by its effects, which depend on the Will, rather than the essence, of God. The presence of the Will as a link between the First Cause and Creation is indispensable to Avicebron’s cosmos, in order to preserve the purity and transcendence of God, since it is only one of his faculties (in Latin virtus), i. e., the Will, that comes into contact with all the rest.

So, if these are the general coordinates of Avicebron’s discourse, it is easy to conclude that the first effects of the divine Will are universal matter and universal form, purposely introduced as the ‘‘roots’’ of the whole universe or, in other words, as the principles from which every being is composed. These are followed, in descending order, by the Intellect (the Neoplatonic hypostasis Nous); the Soul, subdivided into rational, animal, and vegetable; and finally the Nature, which represents the lowest level of simple substances, from which corporeal substance originates. Of course, the term ‘‘matter’’, which the different substances in Avicebron’s cosmos have in common, takes on different meanings in reference to the various hierarchical levels of the real. It indicates, first of all, primary universal matter, which, at least potentially, is simple and devoid of form, and as such functions as a common substratum of the intelligible and sensible worlds; next, intelligible matter, which sustains the simple and spiritual forms of intelligible substances; corporeal matter emanating from Nature, which functions as a substratum of the forma corporeitatis and the form of quantity; then, in succession, the incorruptible matter of the heavenly bodies, the matter of primary elements, and finally, the matter of composite single substances.

The basic premises of the doctrine of hylomorphism are expounded by Avicebron mainly in the fourth book of the Fons vitae and can be summarized in the following three points:

•  The need to indicate as clearly as possible the difference between the absolute simplicity ofthe First Cause and the composite nature of every one of its effects (both intelligible and sensible).

•  The analogy between the inferior, or sensible, world, and the superior, or intelligible, one. The inferior world is made in the image of the superior one, and flows from it. Therefore, if the inferior world has a hylomorphic composition, then inevitably, the superior one has the same composition. In other words, the superior world cannot in itself be devoid of those properties that it communicates to what is inferior.

•  The absolutely innovative idea that matter, as the founding dimension of all reality, is not a principle of differentiation, as Aristotle maintains. If it is true that even spiritual realities differ, they evidently converge in something (in matter, to be precise) and are distinguished by their form. The conclusion is unequivocal: every level of reality is configured in the framework outlined by Avicebron as a progressive determination, or limitation, of primary matter, wrought by the different forms (whether spiritual or corporeal) that imprint themselves on this matter, establishing, in each case, its spiritual or corporeal nature.

To his disciple’s objection that if everything were effectively composed of matter and form, it would not make any sense to distinguish between simple and composite substances, Avicebron replies (once again in strictly Neoplatonic terms) that some things are called ‘‘simple’’ not in an absolute, but only in a relative sense: every being is simple in relation to that which follows it and composite in relation to that which precedes it, with the result that simplicity can coexist, without any inconvenience, with the composition of matter and form. Nevertheless, if this is still not sufficient to demonstrate the omnipresence of the two elements, we can also recall that matter does not exist without form, just as form does not exist without matter, not even in the twinkling of an eye (ictu oculi). Matter needs form in order to be actualized, just as form subsists only where there is a substratum to be in-formed. Therefore, given that matter and form are never present at different times (except in opinione), and that every substance is both simple and composite, the obvious consequence is that these two roots characterize every finite being and are found at every level of the universe.

The doctrine of hylomorphism became an important subject of debate in the Latin production of the thirteenth century. Certain Franciscan masters - for instance, Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure - while not referring directly to Avicebron, use the theory of hylomorphic composition in order to distinguish the First Cause from its effects, demonstrating thereby that it is only possible to predicate simplicity, in the full and perfect sense, of God. Angels, on the other hand, though they too are called ‘‘simple’’ in that they are incorporeal, nevertheless possess intelligible matter (and hence an element in potency).

The case of the Dominican masters (Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas) is the exact opposite. Avicebron is expressly indicated by them as the artificer of an unfounded and erroneous doctrine that needs to be radically contested. More precisely, the exigency underlying the doctrine of universal hylomorphism - i. e., the need to postulate a composition that distinguishes God from spiritual creatures - is recognized in all its importance, but is transferred to a deeper level. Indeed, Aquinas sustains the idea that the composition of finite beings is not the physical composition of matter and form, but rather the metaphysical one of essence and being, in which essence functions as a potential substratum and being functions as actuality; and since, in simple substances, essence coincides with form, the true metaphysical caesura is not to be sought between what is really immaterial and what is not, but instead between that which is above every form (God) and that which possesses at least a formal determination.

See also: > Alexander of Hales > Aristotelianism in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew Traditions > Bonaventure > Essence and Existence > Form and Matter > Philosophy, Jewish > Thomas Aquinas