Hugh of St. Victor's treatise analyzes Christ's volitional framework through a fourfold schema: the divine will (voluntas divinitatis) directed toward justice, the rational human will (voluntas rationis) aligned with divine purpose, the compassionate will (voluntas pietatis) oriented toward mercy, and the natural will (voluntas carnis) that responds to physical suffering. The text examines how these distinct operations function within orthodox Christology without contradiction.

I. The Four Wills in Christ: Hugh’s Central Theological Arguments

Enumerating Four Wills in the One Christ: In De IV voluntatibus in Christo, Hugh of St. Victor boldly posits that Christ, although a single divine person, experiences “four wills” (quattuor voluntates) operating without contradiction. He begins by affirming the traditional dyothelite doctrine – that because Christ is both true God and true man, a divine will and a human will are present in him (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Hugh stresses that by “human will” he means not a sinful will “such as fault and vice produce, but that which the nature of man requires” (non dico humanam quam culpa et vitium hominis facit, sed quam natura hominis requirit) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). In other words, Christ’s human will is the natural, unfallen will of his humanity. This human will, Hugh argues, operates in a threefold manner: “according to reason, according to compassion (pietas), and according to the flesh” (humana voluntas tripliciter consideratur: secundum rationem, secundum pietatem, secundum carnem) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Together with the single divine will, these constitute the “four wills” in Christ: voluntas divinitatis, voluntas rationis, voluntas pietatis, et voluntas carnis (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development).

The Divine Will and the Rational Will: The first two wills Hugh identifies correspond to Christ’s divinity and the highest aspect of his humanity. The divine will (voluntas divinitatis) in Christ “dictated justice,” willing in accord with God’s righteous plan for salvation ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). In the agony of the Passion, this meant willing that Christ should suffer and die as a just satisfaction for sin. Correspondingly, Christ’s rational human will (voluntas rationis) “approved and followed the divine disposition” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Out of obedient love, Jesus’ rational will freely consented to the Father’s will. Hugh, citing Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane, emphasizes that according to his reason and higher will, Jesus willed to undergo the Passion in submission to God: “Christ willed to suffer according to the divine will disposing in advance, and according to the rational will approving…what the divine will dictated” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). This rational will in Christ is fully consonant with orthodox Christology, since it is essentially the human will properly so called, freely assenting to the divine will and thus ensuring there is no conflict of wills in Christ’s moral choice. Hugh explicitly notes that nothing in Christ’s volition was sinful or rebellious: even when distinguishing multiple human willing “modes,” Christ remains the sinless God-man in whom the higher human will is perfectly righteous and aligned to God.

The “Will of the Flesh” (Voluntas carnis): In addition to the divine and rational wills which positively willed the Passion, Hugh identifies two modes of human willing that expressed negative or reluctant tendencies – yet without sin. One is the natural, fleshly will (voluntas carnis) by which Christ’s humanity shrank from pain. This is not “the flesh” in the Pauline sense of sinful nature, Hugh clarifies, but the body’s natural aversion to suffering, implanted by God ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Hugh cites Jesus’ own words, “the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41), to describe this will: “On account of the will of the flesh, which, fearing the suffering on account of weakness, resisted punishment, Christ said: ‘but the flesh is weak’” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). In Hugh’s analysis, the fleshly will “groaned over its own evil through suffering”, naturally recoiling from the pain and death of the Passion ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). This is the will evident when Christ prays, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” expressing a very real human dread of death. Hugh explains that “the weak flesh resisted suffering by means of the natural instinct (providentia naturalis) that caused it to hate its own harm” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Such a resistance to personal suffering is, in itself, blameless and “just, since it was according to nature” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). God himself instilled in human nature a self-preserving inclination. Therefore, Christ’s human nature “did not will to suffer” insofar as it was human (in quantum homo fuit), yet “this was not contrary to the divine will” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Hugh argues that even this apparent conflict is harmonious in a deeper sense: “even that very thing which [the will of the flesh] did not will was of the divine will that it should not will it” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). In other words, it was part of the divine plan that Christ’s true human nature would naturally shrink from pain. Thus, Christ’s voluntas carnis (will of the flesh) legitimately “refused punishment for itself” without accusing God’s justice ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS), expressing human vulnerability yet remaining sinless.

The “Will of Compassion” (Voluntas pietatis): The most distinctive contribution of Hugh’s treatise is his identification of a fourth will in Christ, the “will of pity” or compassion (voluntas pietatis). This denotes Christ’s deep human affective empathy for others’ suffering. Hugh describes this will in poignant terms: “Voluntas pietatis per compassionem in malo alieno suspirabat” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS)—“The will of compassion sighed deeply over the evil (misery) of another through co-suffering.” This voluntas pietatis is the movement of Jesus’ soul by which he grieves over human sorrow and “co-mourns with the miserable” (condoluit miseriae) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). It is, for example, the will manifested when “Jesus wept” at Lazarus’s tomb (John 11:35) or when he lamented over Jerusalem. Hugh notes that this term is multifaceted and difficult to render in simple English ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). He aligns it with what he elsewhere calls the “will of humanity” (voluntas humanitatis) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) – essentially the compassionate impulse proper to human nature. “For that tender pity is called humanity, because it is proper to man to be moved by pity” (quia hominis est pietate moveri) Hugh writes ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) (PL 176.843a). In Christ, whose humanity is complete and untainted, this compassionate will is especially profound. Hugh emphasizes that Jesus’ pietas was a true affective “co-suffering” (compassio) in the psychosomatic sense – an anguish of heart out of love for others ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Just as his flesh felt real pain, “he was weakened by co-suffering with another’s misery”, willingly allowing himself to sorrow for others ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). According to the voluntas pietatis, Christ “did not will the misery of others” (misery meaning their damnation or punishment) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). For example, even as divine justice decreed that unrepentant sinners be condemned, Jesus’ humane compassion prayed that the sentence of condemnation be mitigated for others ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). On the cross, this will of pity is evident in Christ’s plea, “Father, forgive them.” Thus, by the will of pietas Christ sorrowed over human perdition and desired mercy for sinners, even while knowing infallibly that not all would be saved ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS).

Harmony and Distinction of the Wills: Hugh is careful to show that these four “wills” are not four jarring disagreements within Christ, but distinct orientations that all fittingly belonged to him. Each will has its proper object or good that it seeks ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). He summarizes: “the divine will (voluntas divinitatis) [willed] justice; the rational will, obedience; the pitying will, compassion (misericordiam); the fleshly will, nature” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Because each will aims at a different rightful end, “one was not contrary to the others, but each desired its own proper object”, and thus “each was indifferent and unopposed to the others” in its own sphere ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). For instance, the voluntas carnis naturally seeks the preservation of Christ’s life (a good of nature) without directly intending to defy the divine plan; simultaneously the voluntas pietatis seeks the salvation of others (a good of mercy) without directly opposing God’s justice ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). There is an indirect tension (the divine will requires Christ’s death, which the fleshly will shuns; divine justice requires judgment on sin, which the pitying will laments), but no formal contradiction in Christ’s soul ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Hugh illustrates this delicate balance: “According to the will of tender pity, [Christ] co-mourned with the miserable ones without hating justice, just as according to the will of the flesh, he did not accuse justice, but refused punishment” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). In other words, Christ’s compassion never became a revolt against God’s righteous decree, nor did his instinct of self-preservation become a rebellion against the mission. Each will remains rightly ordered: the higher faculties (divine and rational will) rule, and the lower inclinations (fleshly aversion and merciful empathy) are freely embraced and moderated by Christ. Indeed, Hugh stresses that Christ chose to experience these human affective movements: “he gave himself over to commiseration” just as he willingly handed himself to his captors ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Thus, De IV voluntatibus argues that Christ could simultaneously will in different respects both to undergo the Passion and to abhor it, to damn sin in justice and to sorrow over sinners in mercy, all without inner division or sin. This nuanced account upholds Christological orthodoxy: Christ has a true human will (with all its sinless inclinations) alongside the divine will, and in him these operate in perfect harmony of purpose. Hugh concludes that nothing in the Christus homo was self-contradictory, for “according to true humanity he was moved by pity, and according to true divinity he was unmoveable in his resolve…in both respects he did what he ought” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS).

In sum, the central theological argument of De IV voluntatibus is that Christ’s single personhood encompasses a rich complexity of volitional life. By distinguishing four kinds of will in Christ, Hugh explicates how Jesus Christ can be at once the just judge and the compassionate savior, willingly obedient yet naturally hesitant toward suffering. Each “will” corresponds to a different aspect of his theanthropic identity, and all cohere in the one Christ without compromising the Chalcedonian and Constantinopolitan doctrine of two natures and two natural wills. Hugh’s exposition thus reinforces Christological orthodoxy—especially the full reality of Christ’s human soul and will—while deepening appreciation for the depths of Christ’s affective experience (compassio et passio) as both God and man ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS).

II. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Work

Early Christological Controversies and the Question of Wills

Hugh’s De IV voluntatibus must be understood against the backdrop of the early Church’s Christological debates, particularly the controversies over Christ’s wills. In the 7th century, the Church definitively rejected Monothelitism – the heresy claiming Christ had only one will – and affirmed that Christ, having two complete natures, also has two natural wills (dyothelitism) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). The Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) taught that the divine and human wills in Christ are distinct but not opposed: the human will conforms freely to the divine will. Hugh stands firmly in this orthodox tradition: he states emphatically that we must not doubt “diverse wills in Christ corresponding to the two natures, namely a divine will and a human will” (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). This echoes the patristic consensus from Pope St. Leo the Great onward that “as far as the distinction between God and man, so far is the will of God distant from the will of man;” yet in the one person of Christ the human will is perfectly subject to the divine (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development).

While Hugh does not explicitly cite the Constantinopolitan definitions, his work implicitly builds on them. In particular, his insistence on the natural (non-sinful) character of Christ’s human will reflects the arguments of St. Maximus the Confessor and others during the monothelite controversy. The Greek Fathers had distinguished the natural will (thelēma physikon) – an inherent faculty of each nature – from any sinful or “gnomic” will (involving fallible choosing), the latter of which Christ did not have. Hugh mirrors this by ruling out any culpable human will in Christ, focusing instead on what nature itself requires (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Furthermore, Maximus taught that Christ’s human will, though naturally averse to suffering, freely “recoiled and yet consented” in Gethsemane, without inner division. Hugh’s scenario of the voluntas carnis recoiling and the voluntas rationis consenting is conceptually akin to Maximus’s explanation, though Hugh likely encountered such ideas through Latin channels rather than direct reading of Greek theology. We see Hugh addressing precisely the biblical locus classicus of two wills: Christ’s prayer “Not my will, but thine be done” (Luke 22:42). By parsing “not my will” as Christ’s human will of the flesh and “thy will” as the divine will (which the rational will embraces), Hugh aligns himself with orthodox exegesis that sees Gethsemane as proof of two wills in Christ (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development).

It is noteworthy that Hugh goes beyond the early councils by speaking of “four wills,” which at first glance could seem unorthodox ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). However, he remains thoroughly Christologically orthodox. He does not mean four centers of volition as in four separate hypostatic wills, but rather one divine will and one composite human will analyzed into its different affective movements. His language of voluntas rationis, carnis, and pietatis can be seen as an extrapolation of the patristic understanding of Christ’s human experience. The earlier tradition, both East and West, acknowledged that Christ’s human will experienced natural human affectivity: fear, sorrow, compassion, etc., yet without rebellion. For example, Pope St. Gregory the Great taught that Christ’s soul felt grief and distress voluntarily, to show us his true humanity, even as he remained impassible in his divinity. Likewise, Augustine had commented on Christ’s grief at Lazarus and his shrinking from the “bitter cup,” affirming that these emotions proceeded from his human nature (the “private will” of the man) and not from defect of obedience (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Hugh’s treatise can thus be viewed as a scholastic systematization of these patristic insights. By the 12th century, the brute fact of two wills was long settled; Hugh’s concern is to delve into how Christ’s one human will could encompass such a range of seemingly opposed desires (justice vs. mercy, embracing vs. avoiding suffering) without sin or internal conflict. In doing so, he remains faithful to the early orthodox principle: “two wills in Christ, not in opposition, but in cooperation.” He even shows how the “negative” movements (aversion to suffering, sorrow over sinners) were in a sense willed by God to be present in Christ’s humanity ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) – a nuanced take on the patristic idea that Christ permitted his flesh to experience the blameless passions for our sake.

Augustinian and Victorine Influences

Hugh of St. Victor was an Augustinian canon, educated in the spirit of St. Augustine and the monastic school of St. Victor in Paris. Both Augustinian anthropology and the Victorine spiritual ethos inform De IV voluntatibus. From Augustine, Hugh inherited a deep concern for the will (voluntas) as a seat of love and choice. Augustine had taught that in Christ the human will was truly present and free – for instance, Augustine writes that Christ “showed a certain private human will, in which he figuratively represented both himself and us” when he prayed for the cup to pass (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). The quotation “quantum distat Deus ab homine, tantum voluntas Dei a voluntate hominis” (“as far as God is from man, so far is God’s will from man’s will”) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development), cited by Peter Lombard from Augustine, encapsulates the distinction Hugh assumes between the divine and human wills. Hugh’s innovation is to further distinguish within the human will itself, but even this move has Augustinian roots: Augustine recognized in the Garden scene both a human aversion to death and a higher submission to God, though he did not term them separate “wills.”

Moreover, Augustine’s reflections on the passions of Christ likely influenced Hugh’s positive valuation of compassion (misericordia/pietas) in Christ. In City of God XIV, Augustine argues that certain emotions (like mercy) can be virtuous in the righteous – an idea that paves the way for seeing Christ’s compassion as an expression of perfect charity rather than a defect. Hugh indeed calls Christ’s compassionate will the voluntas humanitatis, almost equating true humanity with the capacity for pitying love ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). This resonates with Augustine’s view that “to be moved by pity is human” (hominis est misereri) yet in Christ it was exercised impeccably. Additionally, the distinction between reason and lower appetite in the human soul – an Aristotelian idea known to the medievals through Augustine’s writings – is evident in Hugh’s division of the human will “according to reason” vs “according to the flesh.” Augustine often spoke of the conflict of flesh and spirit in humans (e.g. Confessions VIII describes divided human willing due to sin). Hugh transposes this anthropology to Christ, minus the element of sin: in Christ there is a distinction but no sinful conflict. Thus, one can argue that Hugh’s schema owes something to an Augustinian psychology of the will (higher vs lower inclinations) baptized for Christology.

The School of St. Victor itself encouraged an integration of rigorous theology with affective spirituality. Hugh’s mentor (perhaps the abbots of St. Victor or early Victorines like William of Champeaux) instilled in him a respect for traditional authorities but also a penchant for clarity and innovative teaching devices. The Victorines were steeped in lectio divina and often reflected on biblical narratives with an eye to their spiritual meaning. De IV voluntatibus shows this influence in the way Hugh carefully correlates his four wills with Scripture: the just will of God with God’s justice in Scripture, the rational obedient will with Christ’s “not my will but thine,” the fleshly will with “the flesh is weak,” and the will of pity with Christ’s tears and laments. The treatise almost reads like a meditation on Christ’s agony and compassion. Indeed, elsewhere in Victorine literature we find a triadic division of human will or love; for example, in De arca Noe Hugh speaks of different movements of the soul. One footnote in a modern study points out that Hugh discussed “three human wills” in De arca Noe (I.17) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS), which likely correspond to reason, emotion, and flesh – a conceptual precursor to the present treatise. This indicates that Hugh was developing a consistent framework for human psychology (and by extension Christ’s psychology) across his works. The Victorine emphasis on caritas (charity) as the form of virtues may also lie behind Hugh’s elevation of pietas (compassionate love) as a key feature of Christ’s humanity. In short, Hugh stands in the Augustinian tradition of affirming Christ’s true human affectivity and in the Victorine tradition of devout speculation – using intellectual analysis to illuminate the mystery of Christ in a way that also inspires devotion.

Twelfth-Century Scholastic Developments

Written in the early 12th century (Hugh died 1141), De IV voluntatibus in Christo emerges during the nascent period of Scholastic theology. The format and purpose of the work reflect the scholastic method that was taking shape in cathedral schools and nascent universities. By Hugh’s time, theologians increasingly dealt with focused quaestiones – specific theological questions or problems – outside of scriptural commentaries. Hugh himself composed a Summa sententiarum (a precursor to Peter Lombard’s famous Sentences), and a number of shorter treatises on disputed points (the treatise immediately following De IV voluntatibus in Migne is De sapientia animae Christi, on the knowledge of Christ’s soul). These works address particular doctrinal or speculative issues that required clarification as Christian thinkers synthesized patristic heritage with reason. Christ’s wills and knowledge were among such issues stirring inquiry in the 12th century.

The treatise’s historical context includes the fact that the explicit question of Christ’s emotional life and compassion had not been a major topic of standalone treatises before. By framing Christ’s compassio as a theological topic, Hugh’s work is, as modern scholars note, likely “the first medieval treatise devoted to the theme of Christ’s compassion.” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) This reflects a broader 12th-century trend: a growing fascination with Christ’s humanity and interior life. Devotionally, this era saw saints like Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) meditating on the sufferings and loving heart of Jesus; intellectually, it saw scholars like Hugh analyzing how Christ’s human nature functioned (knowledge, will, passions). There was no controversy or heresy in the West about Christ’s wills at this time – the doctrine was agreed – but there was a drive to understand and explicate it more thoroughly. In that sense, Hugh’s quaestio on the four wills is a product of scholastic curiosity and precision: it takes a tacit aspect of faith (Christ had a human will capable of fear and compassion) and makes it an object of disciplined inquiry.

Structurally, the work resembles the emerging genre of scholastic disputation or quaestio, albeit in a relatively simple form. It likely originated as Hugh’s response to a question posed by a student or colleague. In fact, the text opens in the form of an answer to an inquiry: “Quaeris de voluntate Dei, et de voluntate hominis…” (“You ask about the will of God and likewise of man…”) ([PDF] De Quatuor Voluntatibus In Christo Libellus). This indicates the treatise is framed as a clarification to someone’s doubt—very much in line with the disputed question style. Hugh then systematically addresses the issue by laying out distinctions (divine vs. human, and subdivisions of human) and resolving apparent contradictions. This method of distinguishing terms and senses (distinguo) to resolve theological puzzles is signature scholastic technique. Thus, De IV voluntatibus can be seen as an early scholastic theological disputation in miniature: it poses a problem (how many wills in Christ and how do they relate?), uses dialectical reasoning and authoritative sources (Scripture chiefly) to analyze it, and arrives at a coherent solution.

It’s also important to note the intellectual milieu of Paris in Hugh’s day. The Cathedral School of Notre-Dame and the School of St. Victor were vibrant centers where theology was becoming a scientia. Abelard had recently applied dialectic to doctrine (with controversial results), and Peter Lombard, Hugh’s younger contemporary, would soon compile the Sentences (c. 1150) organizing theological topics by distinctions. In Lombard’s Sentences Book III, distinction 17 deals with Christ’s wills, where he cites Church Fathers (Augustine, Pseudo-Athanasius, Bede) to affirm two wills in Christ and even acknowledges the distinction between the rational soul’s will and the “will of the flesh” or sense appetite (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Hugh’s treatment goes a step further by explicitly adding the affective will of compassion to the analysis – something Lombard does not mention in his more conservative summary. This shows Hugh’s work was somewhat pioneering; it did not immediately become textbook doctrine (the standard scholastic line remained two wills, corresponding to two natures). Nevertheless, his ideas percolated into scholarly discussion. We even find later 12th-century theologians (e.g. the Summa of Alan of Lille or others) and 13th-century Sentences commentators referencing Hugh’s fourfold scheme as one opinion to consider (Distinctio 17 - LombardPress). In this sense, De IV voluntatibus is a bridge between patristic theology and high scholasticism: it takes patristic content and reframes it in the analytical, question-oriented style characteristic of 12th-century scholastic development.

III. Style and Structure of the Work

Genre and Form: De IV voluntatibus in Christo is a brief treatise (occupying only about six columns in Patrologia Latina, roughly 5–6 pages) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Its brevity and focus suggest it is not a sprawling doctrinal treatise but a concise disputation or scholastic question on a single point of Christology. The opening words, as noted, directly address a quaestio (“You ask…”), indicating a question-and-response format. Unlike later scholastic summae, Hugh does not set up formal objections and counter-objections; rather, the work reads as a continuous explanatory essay. Nonetheless, we can discern a logical structure akin to a disputation: he states the problem, makes necessary distinctions, presents Scriptural evidence, and addresses potential concerns about contradiction between these wills.

Logical Flow: Hugh begins by laying down fundamentals (Christ has a divine will and a human will) and then introduces the tripartite analysis of the human will (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). The treatise then proceeds to examine each of the human “wills” in turn, using Scripture to illustrate: for the will of the flesh, Christ’s statement “the flesh is weak” and his prayer to remove the cup; for the will of reason, Christ’s obedience “not my will but thine”; for the will of pity, Christ’s weeping and his desire to spare others (Hugh brings in biblical examples such as Jesus’ tears for Lazarus and lament over Jerusalem, and even the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to contrast divine justice and mercy). There is a clear didactic tone – Hugh defines his terms and even uses analogy to explain why no contradiction arises (each will willing its own object, like lines that are parallel rather than intersecting) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Toward the end, he explicitly tackles the question that would trouble his contemporaries: “How can these wills be unified in one psyche?” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). His answer, as we saw, is that each will corresponds to a different affect and they are harmonized by the divine wisdom of Christ. This problem-solving structure is characteristic of a scholastic treatise addressing a subtle theological point.

Use of Authorities: The style of De IV voluntatibus is relatively sparing in direct references compared to later scholastic works that would heap up patristic citations. Hugh’s primary authority here is Sacred Scripture. Throughout the text, he weaves in biblical quotations: e.g. Christ’s words in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39, 42), “Spiritus quidem promptus est, caro vero infirma” (“The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” Matt 26:41) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS), Jesus’ tears (John 11:35), Jesus’ troubled soul (John 11:33; cf. PL 176.846a as Hugh notes how “he troubled himself when commiseration troubled him” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS)), the parable from Luke 16 (“Fili, recordare…” – “Son, remember that you received good things…” which Hugh uses to discuss the reversal of fortunes in justice and mercy), and perhaps allusions to Hebrews 5:7 (Jesus’ prayers with tears). This scriptural grounding gives the work a meditative, almost homiletic flavor, even as it is analytical. For example, Hugh’s poignant line that Christ bore compassion “so that he might weep for those who were going to perish” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) reads like a devotional reflection on John 11, yet he uses it to support his theological point about the will of pity.

In terms of patristic or extrabiblical sources, Hugh does not explicitly name-drop Church Fathers within the text, which is typical for a concise opusculum of this kind. He relies on the inherited theological vocabulary (e.g. using natura, voluntas, passio, misericordia) and the outcomes of earlier doctrinal decisions without retelling their history. The style is expository and clarifying rather than polemical. He assumes his readers accept the two-will doctrine, and now he leads them by reason and scripture into a deeper understanding.

Tone and Purpose: The tone is that of a teacher and spiritual theologian combined. Hugh’s language, while scholastically precise, also carries a reverent and empathetic tone when speaking of Christ. One senses that Hugh writes not only to solve a logical puzzle but to illuminate the mystery of Christ’s love. Phrases like “he was weakened by co-suffering for us…he wept for those who were perishing” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) show Hugh’s spiritual admiration of Christ’s compassion. This aligns with the Victorine approach where doctrinal theology is done in service of contemplative awe. Structurally, the treatise could be read almost like a sermon or spiritual reflection on Christ in Gethsemane, albeit couched in the scholastic question format.

There is likely a brief conclusion where Hugh recapitulates the four wills in unity. According to one analysis, Hugh “sums up: in Christ there was ‘a divine will dictating justice; a rational will approving justice; a human will, through which it willed evil for no one; a fleshly will through which it willed not punishment for itself’” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). This summation (paraphrasing PL 176.842d) shows the balanced structure of the whole work – two wills that will the redemptive suffering, and two that will against suffering (one for self, one for others), all held in concert. That closing synthesis gives the treatise a clear didactic structure: it begins with a question and ends with a fourfold answer, elaborated by scriptural and rational argument in between.

In conclusion, the style of De IV voluntatibus can be described as a short, scholastic treatise or disputative tract, with a structured and logical approach, yet infused with the Victorine spirit of devout contemplation. It does not have chapters, but we can perceive an introduction of the problem, an exposition of each part of the solution, and a concluding resolution. Its clarity and brevity would have made it accessible to students of theology, while its depth of insight into Christ’s interior life also serves a spiritual edification purpose.

IV. Sources and Theological Innovations

Use of Patristic and Biblical Sources: Hugh’s engagement with earlier tradition in De IV voluntatibus is both implicit and innovative. He stands on the shoulders of the Fathers, though he rarely quotes them explicitly here. For grounding, he relies most on Scripture, the source of Christological revelation. For instance, every key term he introduces is tied to a biblical scene or phrase: voluntas carnis (fleshly will) is elucidated by Christ’s words “caro infirma” in Matthew 26:41 ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS); voluntas rationis (will of reason) by Christ’s prayer of submission to the Father’s will; voluntas pietatis (will of compassion) by the episodes of Christ’s tears and by the general biblical notion of divine compassion (viscera misericordiae – “tender mercies” – a term Hugh invokes by noting the Latin suspirare has the resonance of viscera, the stirring of the heart ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS)). He also refers to the justice of God in punishing sin with texts like “Remember, O Lord, your justice” (likely alluding to Psalm 70:16 “I will remind them of Your justice alone”, or Isaiah 63:7). We see him subtly balancing verses about God’s justice with verses about God’s mercy. At one point, Hugh brings in the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:25) – “Son, remember that you received good in your life, and Lazarus evil” – to illustrate the principle of justice (the rich man justly punished, Lazarus rewarded), immediately followed by an evocation of Abraham’s pity for the rich man’s brothers (Luke 16:27-28) to show compassion for sinners even within the acceptance of justice. This creative juxtaposition of scriptures reveals Hugh’s mastery of biblical resources to support a nuanced theological argument.

In terms of patristic sources, Hugh likely knew the definitions of councils and the writings of Latin Fathers such as Augustine, Pope Leo, Gregory the Great, and others from standard compendia. While he does not name Augustine within the text, Augustine’s influence is discernible. For example, Hugh’s statement that the will of pity is called the will of humanity “because it is human to be moved by pity” (hominis est pietate moveri) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) could be an echo of Augustine’s understanding of compassion as a natural good (Augustine wrote that even pagan virtue acknowledges the goodness of mercy). It also parallels Augustine’s teaching in Enarrationes in Psalmos that Christ in Gethsemane represented our natural human will (“our weakness”) in order to teach us. Indeed, Hugh’s phrase about a “private will” in Christ that desired something different, yet was rightly redirected, strongly recalls Augustine’s exposition (cited by Lombard) that in saying “let this cup pass,” Christ “figured in himself a certain private human will… but then by saying ‘yet not what I will, but what You will,’ he taught us to rectify our will by subordinating it to God” (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Hugh does not quote this, but his whole argument is in concord with it – except that Hugh uniquely adds that Christ also willed out of pietas to spare others from the “cup” of wrath.

One can also detect resonance with St. John Cassian or John Damascene, who spoke of Christ having natural emotional arousals (like fear, sorrow) that he permitted in himself. For instance, Damascene said Christ “allowed his flesh to act what was proper to it” (e.g. fear in Gethsemane) but “not as if he willed it not” – a paradoxical phrasing that Hugh essentially unpacks by saying even Christ’s not-willing (his natural reluctance) was encompassed in God’s will ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). There is no evidence Hugh had direct access to Damascene’s De Fide Orthodoxa (which was translated into Latin only mid-12th century), but the ideas were circulating. We might surmise Hugh drew indirectly on patristic florilegia or the glosses of earlier scholars like Lanfranc of Bec or Anselm, who commented on such Gospel passages. For example, Anselm in Cur Deus Homo focuses on the necessity and voluntariness of Christ’s death; while not treating “four wills,” Anselm affirms Christ died of his own will, yet could feel the fear of death – a harmony Hugh further explicates.

Theological Innovation – “Four Wills” and New Vocabulary: The most striking innovation in Hugh’s work is precisely his categorization of four wills, especially the introduction of the term voluntas pietatis. Prior tradition spoke at most of two wills, or sometimes of two “parts” of the human will (reason and sensuality) in Christ. For instance, the Venerable Bede had commented on Luke 22:42 that Christ had an upper will willing to die and a lower will naturally recoiling – an idea Lombard includes (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Hugh not only adopts that duplex human will idea (rational vs fleshly), but adds a third: the compassionate will oriented to others. This appears to be Hugh’s own theological creativity. The term voluntas pietatis as a technical concept is first attested in this treatise and was not standard in patristic lexicon. Hugh himself uses a variety of expressions to elucidate it – affectus misericordiae, mentis pietas, voluntas humanitatis ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) – indicating he is feeling his way to articulate something new. He leans on the rich semantic field of pietas (which in Latin can mean compassion, familial love, or dutiful piety) and firmly defines it as compassion here: love grieving over another’s distress.

By calling this an actual “will” in Christ, Hugh expands the psychological portrait of Christ. It’s an innovation that risks misunderstanding (as if Christ had more than one human will faculty). Hugh seems aware of this, so he carefully clarifies that all these are modes of one human will. When he says “humana voluntas tripliciter consideratur” – the human will is considered in three ways (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development) – he signals that we are not to imagine three separate wills in the human soul, but one will under three aspects (secundum rationem… pietatem… carnem). This scholastic subtlety is an innovation in language but intended to safeguard traditional doctrine.

Another aspect of innovation is Hugh’s alignment of the wills with moral qualities: justice (divine will), obedience (rational will), mercy (pietatis), and natural self-love (fleshly will) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). By doing so, he forges a conceptual framework that connects Christology with ethics. It’s as if in Christ’s person the classic virtues meet: justice and charity kiss, and even the natural self-love (amor sui) proper to creatures finds its innocent place. This approach of marrying doctrinal theology with moral categories was forward-looking – later Scholastics like Aquinas would also speak of Christ’s will in terms of the will “as nature” (voluntas ut natura) versus the will “as reason” and the role of charity in Christ’s will. In fact, one historian notes Thomas Aquinas effectively equated Hugh’s “will of pity” with what he calls the voluntas ut natura (the will as inclined by nature/instinct) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). Thomas likely drew this from Hugh’s analysis, translating it into his own anthropological terminology. Hugh’s voluntas pietatis was essentially the will moved by the innate human affection of compassion (which can be seen as a natural inclination of a sinless soul toward sharing others’ suffering).

Hugh’s Latin terminology in the treatise deserves mention, as it shows both continuity and innovation:

Finally, Hugh’s approach is innovative in emphasizing Christ’s empathy as a theological locus. Earlier writers tended to emphasize Christ’s sufferings he bore for us, and his obedience, while Christ’s tears of compassion were more a matter for spiritual edification. Hugh elevates Christ’s compassionate feelings into the dogmatic discussion, identifying them as an integral will in the God-Man. This broadens Christology’s scope: it’s not only about natures and abstract faculties, but about affective movements having theological significance. In doing so, Hugh anticipated the later medieval devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus – the idea that Christ’s love and sorrow for humanity are of highest importance. In his 12th-century context, this focus on compassion is remarkable and new, yet fully continuous with the lex caritatis (law of charity) that Augustinians like himself saw running through all theology.

In summary, Hugh’s sources were primarily Scripture and the general Christological tradition he inherited; he innovated by crafting a new analytic language (four wills, will of pity) and by integrating concepts of justice, obedience, compassion, and natural aversion into a single coherent model. The Latin references above, such as “Voluntas pietatis per compassionem in malo alieno suspirabat” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS) and “Idcirco voluntas pietatis, voluntas humanitatis vocatur, quia hominis est pietate moveri” ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS), highlight how Hugh both coined phrases and echoed timeless truths (that Christ’s compassionate will is truly human). This blend of old and new is a hallmark of Hugh’s theological genius.

V. Reception and Influence in Medieval Christology

Hugh’s De IV voluntatibus in Christo, though a short treatise, had a noteworthy afterlife in medieval theology. Its influence can be traced in both the doctrinal discussions of later scholastics and the spiritual understanding of Christ’s human affections.

Contemporary and Immediate Reception: In the 12th century, Hugh’s ideas were likely disseminated through his students and through manuscript copying of his opuscula. The Abbey of St. Victor was a renowned school, and Hugh’s works were studied by contemporaries like Richard of St. Victor (who succeeded him as magister at St. Victor). Richard in his own Christological remarks (for example, on the Trinity and on the incarnation) continued Hugh’s balanced emphasis on God’s justice and mercy, though he did not explicitly replicate the four-wills schema. Outside St. Victor’s walls, the broader scholastic community certainly took note of Hugh’s contributions. Peter Lombard, in composing the Sentences (c. 1150), may have been aware of Hugh’s treatise – Lombard’s discussion of Christ’s wills (Sentences, Bk III, Dist. 18) does not mention four wills, but it does carefully note that Christ had both a will of reason and a natural will of sensuality, which is essentially two aspects of the human will much as Hugh described (minus the pietas aspect) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development) (Passions of Christ in High-medieval Thought : An Essay on Christological Development). Lombard cites authorities like Augustine and Bede rather than Hugh, but we see the language of distinguishing the affect of reason vs. affect of sensuality, which is very much in line with Hugh’s approach. It could be that Hugh’s treatment helped shape the way theologians framed the question, even if implicitly.

Manuscript evidence (as indicated by the presence of De IV voluntatibus in collected works of Hugh) shows it was read in the centuries following. The treatise often traveled with Hugh’s other short works in theology. For example, it appears alongside De sapientia animae Christi and other treatises in later collections (Hugo de Sancto Victore - bibliotheca Augustana). This suggests it was valued as part of Hugh’s authoritative voice on Christological matters. Medieval library catalogues (like that of the University of Paris or monastic libraries) list Hugh’s works under dogmatic theology, meaning his opinions carried weight.

Thirteenth-Century Scholastic Engagement: By the 13th century, the University of Paris became the center of theological debate, and Hugh’s four-will theory became one of the opinions to be considered when discussing Christ’s will. We find explicit references in the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas. In ST III, q.18, a.2 (which asks whether Christ had a human will besides the divine will), Thomas in one of the objeciones mentions: “Some posit a will of pity (voluntas pietatis) in Christ. But this can only be on the part of the reason; therefore there would be more than one human will in Christ, which seems problematic.” ([PDF] QUESTION 18 Christ’s Oneness with respect to Willing Next we …) (Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part III/Q18). Here Aquinas is directly alluding to the teaching of “some” – universally recognized to be Hugh of St. Victor – who divided Christ’s human will into a voluntas pietatis distinct from the will of reason. Aquinas’s reply (responsio) basically agrees there are not multiple human wills as separate principles; what Hugh called voluntas pietatis is for Aquinas simply the will as moved by the passion of mercy or by the instinct of nature (what he terms voluntas ut natura). Aquinas highly respects the content of Hugh’s idea: he effectively subsumes it by explaining that in Christ’s one human will there were different inclinationes – one according to reason and charity willing the Passion, another according to natural appetite desiring not to die (and this second, he notes, can be called voluntas secundum naturam, akin to a will of compassion in that Christ naturally loved his life and loved others) ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). So, Aquinas concurs with Hugh’s factual observation (Christ’s human will had different desires), while adjusting the terminology to fit Aristotelian faculty psychology (where will strictly refers to the rational appetite only). Importantly, Aquinas’s need to address Hugh’s view shows that by the mid-13th century, Hugh’s four-will doctrine was well known in scholastic circles – enough to be taught or raised as an objection in disputations.

Other scholastics also discussed it. For instance, William of Auxerre (d. 1231) in his Summa Aurea and Alexander of Hales (d. 1245) in his Summa likely reference Hugh’s opinion when distinguishing Christ’s sensual will and rational will. The Lombard Press edition of the Sentences commentary tradition confirms that multiple commentators cite “Hugo de Sancto Victore” on this question (Distinctio 17 - LombardPress). In a commentary on Lombard’s Sentences (Distinctio 17), a scholastic author writes: “In one way, will in Christ can be considered in regard to the mode of willing: in this way Hugh of St. Victor posits four wills in Christ, in the little book *De voluntatibus…”* (Distinctio 17 - LombardPress). This commentator then likely evaluates Hugh’s view alongside others. We see, therefore, that De IV voluntatibus became a reference point: later theologians either accepted Hugh’s distinctions in substance (while reinterpreting them) or debated them to clarify orthodoxy.

It’s worth noting that none of the major theologians accused Hugh’s view of being heretical; rather, they sought to incorporate his insights carefully. By highlighting Christ’s voluntas pietatis, Hugh had added a new dimension to Western Christology – one that Aquinas, Bonaventure, and others had to integrate with the more systematized Aristotelian view of the soul’s faculties. In many ways, Hugh’s teaching anticipated Aquinas’s doctrine that in Christ, besides the will of reason (which in Christ was supremely governed by charity), there was a “natural will” that includes the affectus of mercy and the affectus of self-preservation. St. Bonaventure likewise, in his Commentary on the Sentences, speaks of Christ having two kinds of affection in his human soul (one of benevolence aligned with charity, one of sensibility aligned with natural emotion), which is very close to Hugh’s rational vs. compassionate/fleshly distinction, though Bonaventure doesn’t enumerate four wills. Thus, Hugh’s influence is evident in the conceptual frameworks that later scholastics used to talk about Christ’s will and passions.

Influence on Devotional Theology: Beyond the academic realm, Hugh’s focus on Christ’s compassion contributed to a developing strand of medieval spirituality that emphasized empathizing with Christ’s humanity. The 12th century saw a turning point in affective piety – meditations on Christ’s feelings, his sorrow, his love. Hugh’s treatise provided a learned validation that Christ’s compassion is not only a subject for pious meditation but is grounded in his very will and nature. While it’s hard to draw a direct line from De IV voluntatibus to later spiritual writers, the general elevation of Christ’s misericordia that Hugh championed certainly harmonizes with devotions that blossomed in the 13th and 14th centuries (such as the prayers to the Holy Wounds, the rise of Passion meditations, and ultimately the focus on the Sacred Heart). Medieval mystics and preachers who stressed that “Christ willed to suffer for us out of love” and “Christ sorrowed over sinners” could find theological backing in Hugh’s analysis.

Within the Victorine tradition, Richard of St. Victor in his work “On the Passion of Christ” (if the attribution is correct) and the Mystic authors of the Netherlands (who were influenced by Victorine and Cistercian spirituality) carried forward an emphasis on God’s “pietas” and the soul’s call to compassion. It is telling that a 14th-century mystical author, Jan van Ruusbroec, for example, highlights the compassionate heart of Christ; indirectly, the climate fostered by pioneers like Hugh made this a natural theme.

Enduring Legacy in Later Medieval Christology: Though later medieval councils or magisterial documents did not specifically take up the terminology of four wills, the thrust of Hugh’s teaching – that Christ’s human will had both a natural affectivity and a rational charity, and that he experienced all blameless human feelings – became standard theological fare. By the time of the Council of Basel/Florence (15th century) and later Council of Trent, it was unquestioned that Christ in Gethsemane truly felt averse to death and truly felt sorrow for others, all in a sinless way. The harmonization of seemingly conflicting scriptural statements about Christ’s will that Hugh provided was absorbed into the general explanatory tradition. For instance, theological manuals would say: “Christ allowed his human nature to express a natural dread of death (Father, let this cup pass), but always subjected it to his higher will (not my will but thine).” This is essentially Hugh’s teaching without the technical fourfold schema.

Interestingly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) when discussing Christ’s human will, notes that Christ’s human will “does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will” (CCC 475) – a direct descendant of the Constantinople III formula. While Hugh’s name isn’t mentioned there, the detailed understanding built by medieval schoolmen like him undergirds that succinct statement.

In conclusion, Hugh of St. Victor’s On the Four Wills in Christ made a lasting impact by enriching the church’s understanding of Christ’s interior life. It reinforced orthodoxy against any lingering monothelite tendencies by vividly illustrating two true wills at work, and it also opened a path for later theologians to discuss Christ’s psychological experience with greater nuance. Aquinas and others “translated” Hugh’s insights into the language of faculties and inclinations, ensuring his insights were preserved in substance. In the grand tapestry of medieval Christology, Hugh’s treatise is a shining thread that helped weave together doctrinal truth and compassionate understanding of the Savior. As one modern scholar observes, “according to Hugh of St. Victor, there are four wills in Christ,” and this insight into Jesus’ “voluntas pietatis” as the signature of his true humanity became a treasured element of Christian theology ((PDF) HUGH OF ST. VICTOR ON JESUS WEPT: COMPASSION AS IDEAL HUMANITAS). The fact that centuries later theologians still speak of Christ’s human will embracing us in love and shrinking from suffering is, in part, a testimony to the profound and enduring influence of Hugh’s work.