**AVIAT, FRANÇOIS DE SALES.** – Born at Sézanne on 16 Sept. 1844, died at Perugia on 10 Jan. 1914. Educated by the Sisters of the Visitation at Troyes under the guidance of Fr. Brisson and La Chappuis (q.v.), in 1868 she founded the Oblates of St Francis de Sales (q.v.) to assist young working women, and sustained many struggles for this work, distinguishing herself by wisdom and prudence. Her cause of beatification is underway. Silverio Mattei.
I AVICEBRON. – Jewish poet and philosopher of the 11th century. It is only about a century (1846) since, thanks to S. Munk, the mysterious A. (or Avenecbron) of the scholastics was identified as the Hispano-Jewish poet Sëlômôh ibn Gébîrôl, who lived around the years 1020–1059 (or 1070?). His thought, already announced in the poem *The Royal Crown*, took systematic form in the work *Fons Vitae*, a great dialogue between master and disciple on true wisdom. Of this work, since the original Arabic appears to have been lost, extensive extracts from the Hebrew version by Ibn-Falagera, discovered and published by Munk, and the medieval Latin version by John of Spain and Gundissalinus from the first half of the 12th century are preserved; the latter has now been published in full by C. Baeumker.
Judging from the title (*Liber Fontis Vitae*, *de prima parte sapientiae*), *i.e.* science of matter and universal form, the treatise formed the first part, dedicated to creation, of a larger work that was to have two other parts devoted to the science of the will and of the divine essence, but of which no trace remains. The *Fons Vitae* consists of 5 treatises arranged as follows: I, *De materia et forma universali*; II, *De substantia quae continet corporeitatem mundi*; III, *De assertione substantiarum simplicium*; IV, *De inquisitione materia et formae in substantiis simplicibus*; V, *De materia universali et forma universali per se*. The division into chapters is by Baeumker. There is still no perfect agreement regarding the immediate sources and the specific nature of A.’s thought: whether it is to be considered Aristotelian (Neumark), Neoplatonic (Charles, Joel), or creationist (Masnovo). In reality, it is a grand speculation that does not directly link to any particular school and which assumes the most varied and contrasting aspects, fused into a new synthesis that must be taken as it is: an exaggerated realism, filtered through a decadent Neoplatonism against the backdrop of rigid Jewish monotheism, even though not a single verse of the Bible or citation from the Talmud appears anywhere in the work.
The medievals attributed to A. the paternity of the following doctrines: the universality of matter, the multiplicity of substantial forms, the denial of the activity of bodies, and voluntarism. Only God is the One, a purely spiritual essence, absolutely simple. Every created substance, instead, consists of two “essences,” matter and form (I, 5), that is, a principle in which all creatures share and which is like their bond, and a principle that diversifies them (I, 6), a sustaining and a sustained principle (IV, 1). What is most important is the distinction of the kinds of matter, which in this philosophy constitute the true pillars of the real: 1) a particular natural matter, common to artificial bodies; 2) a universal natural matter, common to natural bodies; 3) a universal corporeal matter, common to the elements and natural bodies; 4) and an incorruptible matter, common to celestial bodies. Characteristic of A.’s philosophy is the admission of a fifth kind of matter, the “spiritual matter,” common to souls and separated substances. The decisive argument is drawn from the philosopher’s exaggerated realism, according to which there is a direct correspondence between the logical order of concepts and that of the constituents of the reality of things (D. “Quod est signum quod intellectus non apprehendit nisi rem constantem ex materia et forma?” M. “Signum huius est quod ultimum ad quod intellectus apprehendendo pervenit, hoc est apprehensio generis et differentiae; et in hoc est signum quod materia et forma sunt finis rerum,” IV, 6; cf. III, 18). To the hierarchy of matters corresponds a hierarchy of forms, which, each united to its respective matter, actualize the five degrees of finite reality: universal matter, universal form, universal nature, universal soul, universal intelligence. Above all stands the “divine will.” Indeed, the union of matter and form gives substance, and the lower substance is like matter with respect to the higher form upon which it depends in being and acting; the ultimate form would be the divine essence, but God cannot come into any contact with the creature. Hence the intermediary of the “divine will,” a divine power that first creates matter and form and then binds them together, diffused everywhere, that moves and disposes all things (V, 38–42).
Its modes are “movement” in bodies and the “intelligible word” in spiritual substances, and movement is included in the word, just as every inferior causality is included in the superior one (V, 35), in a universe of concentric circles penetrated by the divine will, a universal energy that A. assimilates to light. A.’s influence on Jewish thought was negligible (Hasdai Crescas, Leone Ebreo), when it was not also harshly criticized (Ibn Dâwud, Almosnino). Otherwise in the Latin world, where his appearance was decisive for the formation and differentiation of the most prominent speculative systems (Augustinianism, Thomistic Aristotelianism).