Language Without Voice: Locutio Angelica as a Political Issue

  • Ghislain Casas
Part of the The New Middle Ages book series (TNMA)


Angels are messengers. Their specific task is to bring messages from the heavens down to earth. From the Book of Genesis to the Gospel of Luke, biblical narratives abound with angels appearing to humans under the guise of human form, behaving like human beings and addressing them directly in a human language like alien visitors, or undercover agents. One might wonder, however, if angels, when they are not on missions, have lives of their own and a language of their own, and what they look and sound like when they talk to one another. One might in that case reasonably suppose that, granting that they do share a language, it does not quite resemble our own.


Political Life Spiritual Creature Domestic Sphere Temporal Power Linguistic Activity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    On the question of angelic bodies, see Marcia L. Colish, “Early Scholastic Angelology,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 62 (1995): 80–109;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. reprinted as Chapter 14 of Colish, Studies in Scholasticism (Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Variorum, 2006).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    See especially, Jean-Louis Chrétien, “Le langage des anges selon la scolastique,” Critique 35 (1979): 674–89;Google Scholar
  4. Irène Rosier-Catach, “Le parler des anges et le nôtre,” in “Ad ingenii acuitionem”: Studies in Honour of Alfonso Maierù, ed. Stefano Caroti et al. (Louvain-la-Neuve: FIDEM, 2006), 377–401;Google Scholar
  5. Theo Kobusch, “The Language of Angels: On the Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity of Pure Spirits,” in Angels in Medieval Philosophical Inquiry: Their Function and Significance, ed. Isabel Iribarren and Martin Lenz (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2008), 131–42;Google Scholar
  6. Bernd Roling, Locutio angelica: die Diskussion der Engelsprache als Antizipation einer Sprechakttheorie in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit (Leiden: Brill, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 3.
    For the epistemological aspects of this question, see, for example, Claude Panaccio, Le Discours intérieur: De Platon à Guillaume d’Ockham (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1999), 219–27.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    See Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universiy Press, 1959).Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    See Georges Duby, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 110–19.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Aristotle, Politics, I, 2, 1253a 7–18, trans. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998), 4.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    The double articulation of phonè/logos and zoè/polis in Aristotle is the starting point of a reflection on the link between sovereignty and biopolitics in Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), 1:90.Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    D. W. Hamlyn, De Anima, Books II and III with Passages from Book I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 33.Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    For an overview, see Serge-Thomas Bonino, Les Anges et les démons: Quatorze leçons de théologie (Paris: Parole et Silence, 2007);Google Scholar
  15. and Barbara Faes de Mottoni, San Bonaventura e la scala di Giaccobe: Letture di angelologia (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1995).Google Scholar
  16. 12.
    The main reference on the topic remains Berthold Vallentin, “Der Engelstaat: zur mittelalterlichen Anschauung vom Staate (bis auf Thomas von Aquino),” in Grundrisse und Bausteine zur Staats- und Geschichtslehre […], ed. Kurt Breysigetalia (Berlin: G. Bondi, 1908), 41–120.Google Scholar
  17. On William’s thought, see Roland J. Teske, Studies in the Philosophy of William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris, 1228–1249 (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
  18. On topics close to angelology, see William of Auvergne, The Providence of God Regarding the Universe: Part Three of the First Principal Part of “The Universe of Creatures,” ed. and trans. Roland J. Teske (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2007);Google Scholar
  19. and Thomas B. de Mayo, The Demonology of William of Auvergne: By Fire and Sword (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2007).Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    William of Auvergne, De universo creaturarum, IIae partis pars II, cap. CXLV, in Guilielmi Alverni Episcopi Parisiensis…Opera omnia …, Tomus primus (Paris: Andr æ am Pralard, 1674), 994 h.Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    See Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, “The Celestial Hierarchy,” in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 143–91;Google Scholar
  22. and David Luscombe, “Conceptions of Hierarchy before the Thirteenth Century,” in Soziale Ordnungen im Selbstverständnis des Mittelalters, ed. Albert Zimmermann (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 18.
    On angelic hierarchy as bureaucracy, see Giorgio Agamben, The Kingdom and the Glory: For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government (Homo Sacer II, 2), trans. Lorenzo Chiesa with Matteo Mandarini (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011), Chapter 6: “Angelology and Bureaucracy,” 144–64.Google Scholar
  24. 19.
    I allude here to Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community, ed. and trans. Peter Connor et al. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  25. 20.
    Detailed analysis of Giles’s theory can be found in Irène Rosier-Catach, “Une forme particulière de langage mental, la locutio angelica, selon Gilles de Rome et ses contemporains,” in Le langage mental du Moyen Age à l’âge classique, ed. Joël Biard (Louvainla-Neuve: Editions de l’Institut sup é rieur de philosophie, 2009), 61–93;Google Scholar
  26. Tiziana Suarez-Nani, Connaissance et langage des anges selon Thomas d’Aquin et Gilles de Rome (Paris: J. Vrin, 2002);Google Scholar
  27. and Barbara Faes de Mottoni, “Voci, ‘alfabeto’e altrisegni delgi angeli nella Quaestio XII del De cognitione angelorum di Egidio Romano,” in Medioevo 14 (1988): 71–105.Google Scholar
  28. For an overview of Giles’s position in the scholastic debate, see Bernd Roling, “Angelic Language and Communication,” in A Companion to Angels in Medieval Philosophy, ed. Tobias Hoffmann (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 223–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 21.
    Giles of Rome, In secundum librum Sententiarum, dist. 10, q. 3 (Venice, 1581), fol. 482.Google Scholar
  30. 23.
    Giles of Rome, De cognitione angelorum, q. 12, in Egidius Romanus: De esse et essentia, De mensura angelorum et De cognitione angelorum (Venice, 1503), 112 va–vb.Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    For these translations, see Aristotelis Politicorum libri octo: cum vetusta translatione Guilelmi Moerbeka, ed. F. Susemihl (Leipzig: Teubner, 1872);Google Scholar
  32. and Politica: libri I–II.11: translatio prior imperfecta interprete Guillelmo de Moerbeka, ed. Pierre Michaud-Quantin (Bruges and Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967).Google Scholar
  33. 25.
    On the difference between pre- and post-Aristotelian medieval political thought, see, The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350–c.1450, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),Google Scholar
  34. 27.
    For the original text by Seneca, see Letter VI, “On Sharing Knowledge,” in Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, trans. Richard M. Gummere, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917 ).Google Scholar
  35. 28.
    See The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981), 179.Google Scholar
  36. 29.
    Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan, Livre XVI: D’un autre à l’autre, 1968–1969, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2006).Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    On the theme of viva voce, see Mladen Dolar, A Voice and Nothing More (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), 107–12; cf. the essay by Bruno Lemesle in chapter 4 of this collection, especially as regards the role of voice in the construction of community.Google Scholar
  38. 33.
    Giles of Rome, On Ecclesiastical Power, Part III, Chapter III, in Giles of Rome: On Ecclesiastical Power: A Medieval Theory of World Government, ed. and trans. Robert W. Dyson (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 305–307.Google Scholar
  39. 35.
    Rancière, Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy, trans. Julie Rose (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Irit Ruth Kleiman 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghislain Casas

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations