/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:08:12 PM

VIVARIUM
An International
and Intellectual
Journal
forthePhilosophy
LifeoftheMiddle
Agesand Renaissance
Aimsand Scope
Vivarium
is an international
ofphilosophy
and
journaldedicatedto thehistory
thehistory
ofideasfromtheearlyMiddleAgesto theearly-modern
It
period. is
as an unrivalled
resource
forthehistory
of logic,semantics,
widelyrecognized
and metaphysics.
It publishesphilosophical
epistemology
analysesas well as
historical
studiesof ideas,textsand theinstitutional
contextof medievaland
andlearning.
Italsowelcomes
editions
oftexts.
Itpublishes
early-modern
thought
a specialissuedevotedto a particular
themeorphilosopher.
annually
Editor
L. W. Nauta (Groningen)
EditorialBoard
P.J.J.M. Bakker(Nijmegen)
L. Bianchi (Vercelli)
E. P.Bos (Leiden)
H. A. G. Braakhuis(Nijmegen)
A. D. Conti (L'Aquila)
W.J.CouRTENAY
(Madison)
C. Fleler (Fribourg)
S. Gersh (NotreDame)
D. N. Hasse (Wrzburg)
M. J.F.M. Hoenen (Freiburg)
C. H. Kneepkens(Groningen)
C. Leijenhorst(Nijmegen)
J.Marenbon(Cambridge)
C. Marmo(Bologna)
R. Pasnau(Colorado)
D. Perler (Berlin)
I. Rosier-Catach(Paris)
C. Schabel (Nicosia)
Honororymember
L. M. de Rijk
Instructions
forAuthors
Contributions
shouldbe sentas an e-mailattachment
and paperversionto
ProfLodi Nauta, Facultyof Philosophy,
of Groningen,Oude
University
The Netherlands
52, 9712 GL Groningen,
Boteringestraat
(l.w.nauta@rug.nl).
Contributions
shouldbe accompanied
and 2-6 keywords.
bya 10-lineabstract
Beforesubmitting
theircontribution,
authors
arerequested
to consultandadopt
thestylesheetavailableat brill.nl/viv.

15:08:12 PM

(itv
BRILL

Balliol

VIVA
RI UM
brill.nl/viv

Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406

63 and Parisian

Theology

around

1320*

WilliamJ.Courtenay
Madison
University
ofWisconsin,
Abstract
ofBalliolCollege63,withspecialattention
a survey
ofthecontent
Thearticle
provides
inthefirst
half
thatmanyofthetexts
ofGerard
ofSiena.Itestablishes
tothequestions
written
atParisinthe1317-1321
versions
ofthemanuscript
(ff.lr-88v)arepre-edited
of
on whether
thearticles
ofSiena'squestion
To illustrate
thatpoint,Gerard
period.
initspre-edited
iseditedintheappendices
oftheology
faith
aretheprinciples
(Balliol
inthe1320s.
as editedbyGerard
63) andfinalform
Keywords
de
ThomasWylton,
ofSiena,Peter
BalliolCollegeMs. 63, Gerard
Auriol,
Dionysius
oftheology
articles
offaith,
Henricus
deAlemania
subject
junior,
Burgo,
ofscholarsofmeditheattention
BalliolCollegeOxfordcod. 63 hasattracted
evalphilosophyand theologyformorethana century,
largelybecauseof the
in it.1The most
Thomas
contained
and
of
Peter
Auriol
Wylton
questions
have been devotedto
recentadvancesin our knowledgeof thismanuscript
thoseveryquestions,someofwhichwereeditedbyLaugeNielsenin Vivarium
has a richarrayof othertextsworthyof
not long ago.2Yet the manuscript
*} I amindebted
visits
forallowing
mefrequent
ofBalliol
Oxford
toPenelope
Bulloch
College
inthat
I would
alsoliketothank
collection.
other
tostudy
Balliol
63andseveral
manuscripts
Passofthe
ofChicago
inSpecial
Collections
attheUniversity
DavidPavelich
Library,
Gregory
in
Rome
for
inSt.Louis,
andthestaff
oftheBiblioteca
FilmLibrary
Vatican
Angelica
granting
totheother
usedinthis
meaccess
study.
manuscripts
0 N.Valois,
inHistoire
littraire
delaFrance
frre
"Pierre
, 33(1906),479-528,
mineur,"
Auriol,
vol.I (Rome,
A.Maier,
at502,507-508;
Mittelalter,
1964),pp.15,92;B. Nardi,
Ausgehendes
Studi
suPietro
1965),pp.340-48.
(Florence,
Pomponazzi
2)L. O. Nielsen,
and
onTheology
Peter
Auriol
andThomas
"TheDebatebetween
Wylton
Vivarium
, 38(2000),35-98.
Virtue,"
Brill
Koninklijke
2009
Leiden,
NV,

DOI:10.1
163/004275409X12482627895203

15:08:33 PM

376

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

de animaand Dionystudy.A fewof them,suchas Johnof Lanas Questiones

on theSentences
siusde Burgos openingquestionfromhiscommentary
, areso
in themanuscript
but remainlargelyunstudied.Manyothertexts
identified
Workon themanuscript
has beenslowedand at timesdisareanonymous.3
in deciphering
thesmallscribalhand,muchof it
couragedby thedifficulty
format.
The significance
ofthe
fadedand tightly
packedin itsdouble-column
additionaltreaand thepossibility
of uncovering
contentsalreadyidentified
sureshaskeptit in thesightsofnumerousscholarsacrosstheyears.
of the manuscript
was providedby Henry
The firstdetaileddescription
in Oxfordcolleges.4
OctaviusCoxe in his catalogueof manuscripts
Among
itemshe noted,includingthequestionsbyAurioland Wylthetwenty-two
in themanuscript,
suchas
ton,Coxe listedworksand authorsso identified
what
he
and
of
Giles
of
Rome,JohnBeverley,
Dionysiusde Burgo,John Lana,
thoughtwas a workauthoredbyWilliamWoodford,as wellas thenamesof
authorscitedin thoseand in otherworksthatwereanonymous.He even
of theauthorof a groupof questions(60roffered
a guessas to theidentity
in
the
to
attributed
66r)
margin Ger' whichhe thoughtmightbelongto
Gersonor GerardofSiena.
hisconjectures
werepassedoverin silencebylaterscholars.
Unfortunately,
VictorinDoucet notedthatthefirst
questionin thatgroup,"Utrumdeussub
has an almostidentical
absolutarationedeitatissitsubiectumin theologia,"
titleas a questionin thelastpartofAmiens234, whichalso containsa questo Gerardof St. Victor.5ConsequentlyDoucet rejectedBartionattributed
3)F.Stegmller,
Petri
inSententias
Lombardi
Commentariorum
1947),
(Wrzburg,
Repertorium
of
and1199.1),
some
included
sixgroups
ofanonymous
(nn.1196-1200,
questions
pp.481-82,
with
which
cannowbematched
authors.
4)H. Coxe,Catalogus
vol.I,
Oxoniensibus
hodie
codicum
mss.,
adservantur,
quiincollegiis
aulisque
mss.
Balliolensis
section:
codicum
16-17.
1852;
1972),
(Oxford,
pp.
repr.
Catalogus
Collegii
5)V.Doucet,
auRpertoire
deM.Frdric
Commentaires
surlesSentences.
Stegmueller
Supplment
from
Archivm
Franciscanum
47 (1954),66Historicum,
1954,reprinted
(Firenze-Quaracchi,
etdeceluid'Amiens,
ol'onretrouve,
dums.Balliol
170,400-427),
p.33:"Lerapprochement

cesfragments
la
invite
voir
dans
lamme
sur
de
semble-t-il,
question l'objet thologie, plutt
estdumoins
intressant
deGrard
deS.Victor.
Cerapprochement
desextraits
duCommentaire
seeE. Coyecque,
CataloFora description
oftheAmiens
etmritait
d'tre
manuscript
signal."
de
France.
tom.
Amiens
Manuscrits
des
Gnral
des
19:
Dpartementsi
Bibliothques
Publiques
gue
inAmiens
1893),pp.114-15;
isshelved
under
themanuscript
D.234.Thequestion
(Paris,
today
intheologia,"
sitsubiectum
ratione
suedietatis
etessentie
deussubabsoluta
D.234,"utrum
occurs
andthemention
ofGerard
ofSt.Victor
onfol.296r(53rinoriginal
numbering),
begins
andDoucet.
on283r(40r),
not282rasinCoyecque

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

li

thatquestionsattributed
to 'Gerardus'in
tholomaeusXibertashypothesis
Balliol63 mightbelongto theCarmelitemaster,
GerardofBologna,and proposed insteadthatthoseon 60r-66rbelongedto the Parisiantheologian,
Gerardof St. Victor,O.S. A.6 A closerexaminationof both Balliol63 and
and morecomplextextuallandAmiens234, however,
revealsa verydifferent
one ofCoxes
a
a
half
of
other
After
and
candidates,
century
proposed
scape.7
twoguessesturnedout to be correct.
The authorof thequestionson 60r-66r
is GerardofSiena,O.E.S.A.
In workingwiththemanuscript
MichalskinotedthattheverKonstanty
in Balliol63 was shorter
sionofAuriolsquestionson bookII oftheSentences
thanthatoftheprintedtext,and was therefore
eithera primitive
redaction
or
a laterabbreviation,
but probablynot an officialreportatio
.8 Michalskifirst
favored
becausethemanuscript,
redaction,
especially
viewingitas a primitive
in thefirst
written
halfofthefourteenth
alsocontainsa rareexchange
century,
- theques("uniqueen songenre")betweenPeterAuriolandThomasWylton
tionseditedbyNielsen.9In theend Michalskicalledit an abbreviation,
and
he
that
the
occurred
when
Auriol
and
Wylton
although recognized
exchange
in theology,
wereregentmasters
he mistakenly
locatedtheexchangeas taking
placeat OxfordratherthanParis.
Further
workon themanuscript
was undertaken
by FranzPelster.In the
first
ofthreearticleshe calledattention
to thefactthatmanyofthetextsin the
first
halfofthemanuscript
werebyAugustinin
Hermits.10
Thiswasobviously
trueforJohnof Lana and Dionysiusde BurgoSan Sepulchro,but Pelster
ascertained
thatit was also truefortheanonymousquestionson ff.57r-60r
he identified
the"questioGerardiin principiotertii"
and 67r-85v.Moreover,
6)FortheGerard
ofBologna
seeB.M.Xiberta,
DeScriptoribus
saec.
XIV
scholasticis
hypothesis,
exordine
n.
2.
Carmelitarum
was
to
two
later
78,
Xiberta,
however,
(Louvain,
1931),
p.
referring
inBalliol
toGerard,
from
a commentary
onbooksIII andIV ofthe
63 attributed
questions
Sentences
below.
, tobediscussed
7)OntheAmiens
seeW.J.Courtenay,
"Gerard
ofSt.Victor
andAmiens
234,"to
manuscript
in
Bulletin
de
51
Mdivale,
(2009).
appear
Philosophie
8)K. Michalski,
"Lecriticisme
etlescepticisme
dansla philosophie
duXIVsicle,"
Bulletin
del'Acadmie
desSciences
Polonaise
etdesLettres.
Classe
d'histoire
etdephilosophie
, anne1925
inMichalski,
at43;repr.
Laphilosophie
auXIVesicle.
Sixtudes
, ed.
(Cracow,
1926),41-122,
K.Flasch
at70.
(Frankfurt,
1969),67-149,
}) Seeabove,
note2.
I0)F. Pelster,
"Zurberlieferung
desQuodlibet
undanderer
Schriften
desPetrus
Aureoli
Franciscan
Studies
398-406.
O.F.M.,"
, 14(1954),392-41
1,at395-96,

15:08:33 PM

378

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

on 87v as possiblybelonging
to GerardofSiena.In hissecondarticlehe added
thepossibility
thatthequestionson ff.60r-66rwerealso byan Augustinin
Hermit(butwithoutconjecturing
anyspecific
person),and thattheAugustinin authorof the questionson ff.67r-85vwas Englishbecause he cited
Williamof Wareand RobertCowton,whomPelsterbelievedonlytaughtat
was
Oxford,and becauseScotuswas citedas Duns.11This stageof research
in
a
detailed
reexamination
of
the
content
of
the
broughttogether
manuscript
by R.A.B. Mynors,who includeda helpfulanalysisof its quirestructure.12
Becauseof theinclusionof textsbyJohnBeverley
in
and RobertWinchelsey
thelatterpartof themanuscript
as wellas his beliefthattheearlypartcontainedtextsbyGerardof St. Victoror Gerardof Bologna,Mynorsdatedthe
contentsofthemanuscript
to thefirst
twodecadesofthefourteenth
century,
and themanuscript
itselfbetween1320 and 1350.
In recentyearsconsiderable
hasbeenmadein deciphering
theconprogress
tentof Balliol63. Througha reexamination
of the manuscript
JohnClark,
identified
Gerardof Siena as theauthorof thequestionson ff.60r-66rand
of thequestionsof the
provideda detailedanalysisand partialtranscription
on ff.67r-85v.13
articles,
anonymous
Augustinin
LaugeNielsen,in numerous
hasfurther
advancedourknowledge
ofsectionsofBalliol63 and reopenedthe
thatsome of the textsare pre-publication
versionsof questions
possibility
ratherthanlaterabbreviations
afterpublication.14
10F.Pelster,
"Zurersten
Polemik
Aureoli:
O.P.,seineQustionen
Raymundus
gegen
Bequini
undseinCorrectorium
Petri
DasQuodlibet
desJacobus
deApamis
O.E.S.A.FrancisAureoli,
canStudies
at31. SeealsoPelster,
"Kleine
zurLiteraturgeschichte
der
, 15 (1955),
30-47,
Beitrge
Scholastik.
Cod.739derStadtbibliothek
Toulouse
mitteilweise
unbekannten
des
Qustionen
Thomas
vonSutton
Romanus
undHeinrich
vonFriemar
O.P.,Aegidius
O.E.S.A.,"
Scholastiky
32(1957),247-255.
I2)R. A. B. Mynors,
(Oxford,
1963),
Catalogue
oftheManuscripts
ofBalliolCollege
Oxford
onMynors,
Francis
The
Austin
1249-1538
Roth,
Friars,
,vol.I (New
pp.43-49.Drawing
English
theAugustinin
authors
inthemanuscript.
York,
1966),pp.598-599,
highlighted
13)J.P.H.Clark,
in
Ms.
Balliol
Analecta
Oxford,
63,"
(hence"Authorship
College,
Augustiniana
forth
A4),54(1991),81-114.
14)Inaddition
tothearticle
inVivarium
cited
innote2,seeL.O. Nielsen,
above
"TheIntelligiof
Faith
and
the
Nature
of
Peter
Auriol
sTheological
Studia
Theobility
Theology
Programme,"
sWay
with
Words.
TheGenesis
ofPeter
Auriols
Commentaries
, 53(1999),
26-39;"Auriol
logica
onPeter
Lombards
First
andFourth
BooksoftheSentences
Commentaries
on
,"inMediaeval
^SentencesofPeter
Lombard.
Current
vol.1,ed.G. R.Evans
Research,
(Leiden-Boston-Kln,
"TheQuodlibet
ofPeter
in Theological
intheMiddle
Auriol,"
2002),pp.149-219;
Quodlibeta
The
Fourteenth
ed.
C.
Schabel
at267-71.
,
267-331,
(Leiden-Boston,
2007),
Ages.
Century
pp.

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

379

In orderbetterto determine
thedate,context,
and character
ofthetextsin
thismanuscript,
of
we
to expandon
those
Auriol
and
need
Wylton,
including
thecodicologicalapproachtakenby Coxe, Pelster,
Clark.The
and
Mynors,
of
the
article
is
to
a
more
detailed
of
survey theconpurpose
present
provide
tentof thefirsthalfof Balliol63, whichonce circulatedseparately
fromthe
laterquires,to identify
moreof theanonymousauthorsand thosecited,to
in whichthesequestionswerewritten
establishthetime-frame
and collected,
and to presentevidencethatseveralof thetextsincludedin themanuscript,
versions.It will also be shownthat
perhapsmost,are early,pre-publication
halfofthemanuscript
wereAugustinin
Hermanyoftheauthorsin thefirst
mits,as Pelsternoted,thatthepersonwhocollectedthetextswasprobablyan
tenquiresofthemanuEnglishAustinFriar,and thatall thetextsin thefirst
with
the
of
some
of
script(lr-88v),
exception
questions GilesofRomeon one
folioand perhapsthequestionson ff.67r-85v,can now be datedto 1317Beforediscussing
theseissues,an overview
of
1321 andcopiedsoonthereafter.
thestructure
willbe useful.
and contentofthemanuscript
Balliol 63
The manuscript
once belongedto theprivatelibrary
ofWilliamGray,bishop
of Ely,and was bequeathedto Balliol College afterGraysdeath in 1478.
Mynorsmade a carefulanalysisof the contentsof thismanuscript,
noting
missingleaves,whichhe presumedwerecut out becausetheywereblank.
thatboththedouble-column
Mynorsrecognized
portionsas wellas thesinsection(ff.67r-85v)insertedintothatstructure
werein an Enggle-column
lishscribalhand.He also notedthehighproportion
oftextsfromAugustinin
on earlierbyFranzPelster,
Hermits,remarked
pointingto an EnglishAugustininprovenance
forthemanuscript.
Quires1-2 (ff.lr-18v):
ff.1ra-17vb:"Conclusionesmag.PetriAureolysupersecundumSententiarum,"in a tinyhandin twocolumns,
ff.18ris blankand 18v containsthetabulaquestionum
forAuriolsquestions.
3
(19r-23v):
Quire
ff.19ra-19va:"Utrumvirtus,in quantumvirtus,sit ens per accidens"
of Auriol,latercirculatedas Quodlibet
(Determinano
, q. 11, editedby
Nielsen,"TheDebate,"pp. 65-75).

15:08:33 PM

380

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

ff.19va-20rb:"Utrumhabitustheologicussit practicusvel speculativus"

(ThomasWylton,disputedquestion,editedby Nielsen,"The Debate,"
pp. 76-89)
ff.20va-21vb:PetrusAureoli,Questiones
quodlibetales15
a forma
ff.20va-20vb:Auriol,Quodlibet
, q. 2: "Utrumactio diffrt
res
alia."
agenditamquam
etspecff.21ra-21va:Auriol,Quodlibety
q. 15: "Utrumhabituspracticus
activumet non
ab invicemperesseprincipium
ulativusdistinguantur
esse principiumactivumin ipso sciente."(editedby Nielsen,"The
Debate,"pp. 90-98)
ff.21va-21vb:Auriol,Quodlibet
, q. 5: "Utrumsola distinctiorationis
ad tollendumomnemcontradictionem
factaperintellectum
sufficiat
in divinis."
ff.2 Ivb: Auriol,Quodlibety
requiq. 8: "Utrumad visionembeatificam
ratursimilitudocreata."
ff.22ra-22vb[Stegmller,
, nr. 1196]. Top marginof 22ra:
Repertorium
Text:"Quia supponiturin lecSententiarum."
"Questiosuperprimum
tionequod deussitsubiectumin hac scientia,ideo querode rationeforet estquestioista:Utrum
malisub qua deushabeathic poni subiectum,
deus sithic subiectumsub alia rationemagisspecialiet magiscontracta
quam sitabsolutaratiodeitatis.Quod sic,quia absolutaratiodeitatisest
formaliter
infinita;igitursub illa non est deus subiectum.Antecedens
infinitum,
quia illud est formaliter
quia omne sibi annexum
probatur,
theopinionof Gilesof Rome,referred
facitinfinitum."
Citesfavorably
from
to in thetextas "opiniodoctoris."The textof thisquestiondiffers
thestructure
and contentof a similarquestionby Gerardof Sienalater
in thismanuscript
(60ra-60rb),and fromthequestionon thesamesubin
ject Dionysiusde Burgo Sancti Sepulchri,Sent. I, Prologue,q 2:
"Utrumdeussitsubiectumsub rationecontracta."16
omnia
terpervenire
ad cognoscendum
ff.23ra:"Utrumviatorpossit naturali
Et probaturquod sic,quia activonaturaliet passivo
salutisue necessaria.
15)Fora discussion
seeNielsen,
"TheDebate,"
ofthese
35-98.
questions,
16)Thisisthetitle
"TheQuaestiones
ofDionysius
deBurgo
O.S.A.,"
byDamasus
Trapp,
given
inthebody
of
handled
that
at64.Dionysius,
however,
, 3 (1963),63-78,
subject
Augustinianum
in
2
of
his
CA
and
the
second
131,
12ra,
Erfurt,
1,
"Quiain
begins:
quest.
question prologue
et
intheologia
subratione
contracta
estquoddeusestsubiectum
dictum
questione
precedenti
subratione
ideoqueritur:
Utrum
hic[deus]
sitsubiectum
nonabsoluta,
absoluta,
quiaprima
estprima
subprima
sedtheologia
scientia
habere
subiectum
debet
ratione;
scientia;
primum
etc."
ergo

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

381

adinvicemetnonimpeditis
sequituractio.Sed activumresapproximates
omnis
omnes intelligibiles
est intellectus
pectu
agens,et passivumest
in anima,necsuntimpedita;
intellectus
et istasuntnaturaliter
possibilis,
secundum
Philosophum,3 De
igiturrespectucuiuscumque,quia
"
anima
Afterthree-fourths
ofa columnthetextbreaksoff:"Et secunUno modo secundum hoc possumusloqui de adequationedupliciter.
dum potentiamnaturalem,et sic loquendo dico quod obiectum
nostri"
adequatumintellectus
ff.23rb-23vb:Principiaisermon,or Lectioin librumEcclesiastes
: "Vanitas
vanitatumetc. [Eccle. 1:2]. Secundumquod dicitbeatusAugustinus,
secundolibrode doctrina
Christiana
. . . Quorumconsorcionosconiungat
rexomniumseculorum.Amen."Mynorsgivesadditionaltranscription.
Thisis not theprincipiaisermonforDionysiusde Burgo,who choseas
histextAct. 10:9: "Ascendit
Petrusad superioradomus,etc."
4-6
(ff.24r-33v,34r-45v,46r-56v):
Quires
ff.24ra-26rb:in top marginof24ra: "FraterDyonisiusde BurgoOESA."17
in via sitamaredeum.Et arguiText:"Utrumfinisperse sacrescripture
turquod non,quia in scientiatheologieestdeussubiectumsub absoluta
. . ." The questionis onlytwo-thirds
ratione,igitur.
complete.Thereare
marginalcitationsto Henricus[de Gandavo],Egidius,Herveus,[RoberH. de Almanniain prologolibri
tus]Couton,Scotus,Thomas,Albertus,
ethicorum[i.e., Henryof Friemar,senior],W. de Alnewyk,and 'Go.'
a referas "Godeham?",butis almostcertainly
[whomMynorsidentified
enceto Godfrey
ofFontaines].WiththeexceptionofThomasandAlbert
Albertis beingcited),theseare all authorsactiveat
(unlessa different
Parisat somepointin thefirst
twodecadesofthefourteenth
century,
ff.26v-27rblank
f.27va: IndexofquestionsofJohnde Lana
f.27vb: "ConclusionesAureolide tempore"
ff.28ra-51va:"Fratris
de Lana de Bononia[Bologna],bacellariiin
Johannis
sacrapaginaordinisfratrum
heremitarum
sanctiAugustini,
Questiones
de anima."On a cdulain thesamehandas thetextand inserted
between
and
is
an
that
is
identified
as
that
of
30r
29v
F[ratris]
Johannes
argument

,7)Dionysius
deBurgo
Sancti
camefrom
nearArezzo.
The
Sepulchri
presumably
Sansepolcro
inBalliol
hiscommentary
onSent.
63isfrom
I,Prologue,
1,andisincomplete.
question
quest.
Theonlyother
ofDionysius'
isErfurt,
Wissenschaftliche
manuscript
commentary
AllgemeinCA2 131,ff.lr-153v.
Bibliothek,

15:08:33 PM

382

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

de Roma.18
And in themarginof35rathereis anothernote:"Notaistam
et
imaginem estJohannisde Roma."Anothernoteat bottomof 31rb,
whichbegins:"Adistamconclusionem
arguitHarkelaysic: ilia necessi"
tate qua deus est deus, est trinitatis
. . ends with - R[esponsio?]
Vasconis."19
which
And on 4lv, bottommargin:"[opinio] Paynotis,"
is a reference
to JohannesPagnotta,or Paignote,de SanctaVictoria,
O.E.S.A.20Finally,
on thebottommarginof49v is thename"Glatton,"
whichMynors,p. 45, tookto be thenameof therubricator,
butwhich
refer
to
Glatton
Roth,p. 598,suggested
(Glacton),O.E.S.A.,
might
Roger
DTh at Cambridgeand PriorProvincial
in Englandin 1334.21
in themarginof a textthatfollows
ff.51va-51vb:"Lectioin Sententias"
after
Lana
text.
is a principiai
whichbegins:
the
This
sermon,
immediately
"Fluviusegrediebatur
loco
ad
de
vo[luptatis] irri[gandum]
parad[isum]
in quatuorcap[ita].Gen. ii [2:10]. BeatusGregorius,
qui indedividitur
18 MoraliumsuperilludJob28 [28:11]: profundaquoque fluviorum
"
etc.'
Explicit:"... ad irrigandum,
ipseenim'facitmagnaet inscrutabiliaabsquenumero,qui datpluviamsuperfaciemterre,et irrigat
aquis
universa,'
Job 5[:9-10], et non cuiuscumqueaquis, sed illisde quibus
18)Johannes
inthelectorate
in1298Parentii
deRoma,
dictus
wasatParis
Cacantius,
program
with
Gentiiis
de
1301[AA2 (1907-1908),
Johannes
pp.436,481,483],nottobeconfused
oftheRoman
oftheOrder,
whodiedin1303[AA
bac.Parisien,
andprovincial
Roma,
province
deRomawassententiarius
atParis
c. 1307-1308,
subseParentii
3 (1909-1910),
p. 53].John
in
at
General
at
Padua
was
chosen
to
was
elected
Prior
and
the
131
5
Provincial,
quently
Chapter
onNovember
return
toParis
forthemagisterium,
which
heobtained
30,1319[AA3,54-56;
theJohannes
whoin
He ispresumably
identical
with
5 (1913),205-206].
Parentii,
O.E.S.A.,
Itisunclear
inAvignon
alsoserved
asa papalscribe
1329while
#887].
[CUPII,pp.321-322,
inBalliol
inhisquestions
ontheSentences
whether
heiscited
63for
or,more
opinions
expressed
in1319-1320.
forthose
asregent
master
likely,
expressed
19)Possibly
whoread
dePergamo
a reference
toGerardus
deVasconibus
O.E.S.A.,
(Bergamo),
in1332or1333.Butif'Vasconis'
theSentences
atParis
intheearly
atParis
1320sandincepted
before
havetobebefore
wasreplying
toHarclay,
itwould
1312atParis
or,ifatOxford,
directly
to
isa spelling
variant
for'Baconis',
isthat
thename
1317.Another
possibly
referring
possibility
atParis
in1319-1320
whoisoften
cited
that
John
wayandwhoreadtheSentences
Baconthorp,
On
that
haddefended
earlier.
becritiquing
a position
or1320-1321,
andmight
Harlcay
simply
see
De
168-172.
,
Xiberta,
pp.
Baconthrop
Scriptoribus
20)Pagnotta
andwascited
deReggio-Emilia;
atParis
c. 1306-1307
readtheSentences
byProsper
havebeenregent
c.November
hewasapparently
tothemagisterium
1317andwould
promoted
inBalliol
iftheopinion
cited
itisuncertain
in1318-1319.
Aswith
master
there
Parentii,
John
master.
SeeI.Armburu,
"De
histime
asregent
hisquestions
ontheSentences
orfrom
63isfrom
141-168.
AA
S.
Victoria
fratre
de
19
O.E.S.A.,"
(1943-1944),
Joanne
Pagnotta
21)Roth,
Austin
Friars
, pp.58,278,542.
English

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

383

diciturqui creditin me, fluminade ventreeius fluentaque vive,'Joh.

7[:38], aqua enim quam ipse dabitei, fietin eo fonsaque salientisin
vitameternam.'
Joh.4[: 14], quam etc."
ff.52ra-53rb,incompletequestionof ThomasWylton:"An <animam>
intellectivam
esseformam
corporishumanipossitrationenecessaria
probariet convincievidenter."22
ff.53v-54r:blank
ff.54va-56vb:PetrusAureoli,Sent.I, dist.33: "Circasecundumveroconsiderandum
etessentiasunt
quod aliquidicerevoluerunt
quod proprietas
"
rem
secundum
quid
Quire7 (ff.57r-66v)
ff.57ra-58ra[Henricusde Friemarjunior?],"Recollectiones
supersecundum Sententiarum"23
57ra: "Utrumex ordineentiumin ultimumfinempossitconcludiproductioeoruma deo."
creature
habuisseistomodoessea deo ab eterno."
57rb:"Utrumrpugnt
realiteresse ab
57rb: "Utrumcreatioesset possibilis,si non differret
essentia."
virtuscreandi."
57va: "Utrumcreature
possitcommunicari
realiter."
57va: "Utrumcreatioet conservadodiffrant
ab anima."
57vb:"Utrumtempushabeatcomplementum
in
maneat
nunc
toto
idem
57vb:"Utrum
tempore."
ff.58ra-59rb:Questioned
22)AlsoinPelplin,
Seminarium
edited
53 (102),ff.217vb-223rb,
byW.Senko,
Duchownego
deanima
Studia
Seealso
intellectiva,"
, 5 (1964),75-116.
"Quaestio
Disputata
Mediewistyczne
"Laquaestio
deanima
intellectiva
deThomas
danslems.53/102
dela
Senko,
Wylton
disputata
inDieMetaphysik
imMittelalter
dugrand
sminaire
dePelplin,"
, ed.A.ZimmerBibliothque
2 (1963),pp.464-471.
Miscellanea
Mediaevalia
mann,
23)Listed
inStegmller,
"Zurberlieferung,"
, nr.1197,as anonymous.
Pelster,
Repertorium
that
these
were
since
theauthor
refers
toGiles
400,recognized
friar,
byanAugustinin
questions
ofRome
as"doctor
noster".
"TheIntelligibility
ofFaith,"
oneofthe
that
Nielsen,
28,discovered
isattributed
Auriol
toa "Henricus".
This
bytheauthor
byAuriol
opinions
expressed
against
makes
itlikely
that
these
toHenricus
deAlemania
alsoreferred
tointhe
questions
belong
junior,
asHenricus
literature
deVrimaria
Thisisanimportant
[Friemar]
secondary
junior.
discovery,
sinceuntil
nowtheonlyportions
ofHenrys
wehadarehisAdditiones
inlibros
commentary
Sententiarum
with
in
Giles
of
Rome's
the
Basel
of
edition
and
,printed
1497,
commentary
along
ofHenry
s commentary
onbookIVoftheSentences.
numerous
manuscripts
24)Pelster,
"Zurberlieferung,"
these
with
thefollowing
400,initially
placed
questions
group,
butinhis"Kleine
those
on58r-60r
asGilesof
251,hedescribed
58r-59r)
(actually
Beitrge,"
De compositione
asbeing
described
them
Rome,
Coxe,Catalogas
, p. 17,hadalready
angelorum.

15:08:33 PM

384

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

58ra: "Modus ymaginandieternitatem

motus,secundumquod earn
et
Commentator
et alii peripatetici."
posueruntPhilosophus
58va: "Utrumangelussitcompositusex materiaet forma."
58va: "Utrumin angelissitcompositioex genereet differentia."
58vb:"Utrumin angelissitindividuado."
59ra:"Utrumquicunqueduo angelidiffrant
specie."
malus."
59ra:"Utrumdemonin eiusinitiofuerit
ff.59rb-59vb:Principium
in Sententias
, includinga sermon(59rb-59vb)
based on Esth. 8:4: Sceptrumaureumprotenditmanu..., followedby
twoshortcomments(59vb) on thesametext,thefirstofwhichbegins:
"
"Quia sicutpatuitin precedenti
principioprimilibri
ff.60ra-66rb:Gerardus[de Siena],Questiones
inprimolibroSententiarum'P
ff.60ra-60rb:"Utrumdeus sub absolutarationedeitatissit subiectumin
theologia,ubi estprimovidendum:Utrumsub illa rationesitinfinitus."
Gerardof Siena, Sent.I, Prologue,quest. 2, art. 3: "Utrumdeus sub
absolutarationedeitatissitinfinitus,
et utrumsub talirationesitsubiectumin theologia."[Rome,Bibl.Angelica338, lOra;Chicago,Univ.Lib.
22, 6vb]. Forthecomparisonoftexts,se below,note30.
ff.60rb-60vb:"UtrumVeritas
continquam scimusde deo pertheologiam
eatursub obiectoadequatonostriintellectus."
Gerardof Siena,Sent.I,
art.
4:
"Utrum
Veritas
scimus
de deo pertheolo2,
Prolog.,quest.
quam
contineatur
sub
obiecto
nostri
intellectus."
giam
[Angelica338, 12rb;
Chicago22, 8ra]
f.60vb: "Utrumarticulifideisintprincipiain theologia."Gerardof Siena,
Sent.I, Prolog.,quest.3, art.1: "Utrumarticulifideisintprincipiaistius
scientie."[Angelica338, 13vb;Chicago22, 9ra] For thecomparisonof
texts,see below,appendicesI and II.
f.6 Ira: "Utrumhecscientiasubalternetur
scientiedeietbeatorum."
Gerard,
Sent.I, Prolog.,quest.3, art.2: "Utrumcertitudo
in istascientia
veritatis
GilesofRome,
deangelis
were
discussed
"Di alcune
, andthey
Bruni,
Quaestiones
byGerardo
e dubbie
inedite
diEgidio
Recherches
dethologie
ancienne
etmdivale
7 (1935),
Romano,"
opere
at177,andBruni,
Leopere
diEgidio
Romano
174-196,
(Firenze,
1936),pp.125-126.
25)Pelster,
"Zurberlieferung,"
these
asbelonging
toa commentary
400,identified
questions
on thefirst
bookoftheSentences
"Zurersten
, butinhissubsequent
article,
Polemik,"
31,
hesurmised
theauthor
wasanAugustinin
hemistakenly
ita commencalled
Hermit,
although
onthesecond
bookoftheSentences.
Clark
identified
them
asbelonging
toGerard
tary
correctly
Inreferring
ofSiena.
totheparallel
inGerard,
I havefollowed
thestructure
usedinall
questions
intosubquestions
called
ofGerard
divided
nottheform
used
articles),
manuscripts
(questions
divided
intoquestions).
(articles
byClark

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

385

dependeata superioriseientia sicut a subalternante."

[Angelica338,
l4vb; Chicago22, 9vb]
in istascientiaaddataliquidsupra
ff.61ra-6lrb:"Utrumcertitudo
veritatis
certitudinem
fideirationecuius additifaciatadhesionemfideifirmiorem."GerardofSiena,Sent.I, Prolog.,quest.3, art.3: "Utrumcertitudo
veritatis
in ista scientiaaddat aliquid supercertitudinem
fideiratione
cuius certitudinis
faciatadhesionemfideifirmiorem."
[Angelica338,
16ra;Chicago22, lOvb]
ff.6lrb-6lva: "Utrumtheologiapossitdiciscientia."GerardofSiena,Sent.
I, Prolog.,quest.3, art.4: Utrumistascientiahabeattantamcertitudinemquantamhabentalie seiendehumanitusadinvente.[Angelica338,
17va;Chicago22, llvb] Cf. a similarbutnotidenticalquestionbelow,
ff.67r-67v.
ff.61va-61vb:"Utrumfideset scientiapropriedictacompaciantur
se in
eodemet respectueiusdem."GerardofSiena,Sent.I, Prologue,quest.4,
art.1: "Utrumcognitioveritatis
se cum enigma
theologicecompaciatur
fideiet evidentiam
seiende."[Angelica338, 19ra;Chicago22, 12va]Cf.
a similarquestionbelow,ff.71v-72r.
ff.6lvb-62va: "Utrumdeus possitdareviatoriscientiamabstractivam
de
veritatesue essentie,que simulstaretcum fide,ita quod non traheret
viatorem
extrastatumvie."GerardofSiena,Sent.I, Prolog.,quest.4, art.
de veritate
sue
3: "Utrumdeuspossitdareviatoriscientiamabstractivam
essentieque simulstaretcum fide,ita quod non traheret
viatoremextra
statumvie."[Angelica338, 2 Ivb; Chicago22, I4rb]
ff.62va-62vb:"Utrumdistinctio
a practicosumaturex obiecto."
speculativi
Gerardof Siena, Sent.I, Prologue,quest. 5, art. 1: "Utrumdistinctio
a practicosumaturab obiecto."[Angelica338, 25rb;Chicago
speculativi
22, I6rb]
ff.62vb-63ra:"Utrumdilectiodei debeatreduciad speculationem
vel ad
praxim,velsitcollocandoin quodamtertiogenere."Cf. GerardofSiena,
Sent.I, Prologue,quest.5, art.6: "Utrumtalisdilectiodebeatreduciad
velad praxim,vel sitcollocandoin quodamtertiogenere
speculationem
distinctum
ab ipsis,et perconsequensutrumsitdenominandadilectiva
siveaffectiva."
[Angelica338, 33ra;Chicago22, 2 Ira]
ff.63ra-63rb:"Utrumobiectumbeatificum
habeatpluresradonesfruibiles,
ita quod voluntaspossitfruieo secundumunam earumnon fruendo
secundumaliam."Cf. Gerardof Siena,Sent.I, dist. 1, quest.2, art.3:
"Utrumsummumbonum habeatpluresradonesfruibiles."[Angelica
338, 38va; Chicago22, 24vb]

15:08:33 PM

386

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

velab obiectis."Gerardof
actuumsita potentiis
f.63rb:"Utrumdistinctio
art.
2:
"Utrum
distinctioactuumsit a
Sent.
dist.
Siena,
I,
1, quest.3,
velab obiectis."[Angelica338, 4 Ivb; Chicago22, 26vb]
potentiis
obiciatse voluntadad fruendum
ff.63rb-63va:"Utrumobiectumfruitionis
et intellectui
ad videndumsub eademratione."Gerardof Siena,Sent.I,
obiciatse voluntad
dist.1, quest.3, art.3: "Utrumobiectumfruitionis
et intellectui
ad videndumsub eademratione."[Angelica
ad fruendum
338, 42va; Chicago22, 27rb]
sint<sio in
attributalium
ff.63va-64ra:"Utrumpluralitasperfectionum
GerardofSiena,
omnioperationeintellectus."
deo realiter
circumscripta
istarumperfectionum
Sent.I, dist.2, quest.2, art.2: "Utrumpluralitas
omni operationeintellectus."
sitin deo realiter
[Angelica
circumscripta
338, 53ra;Chicago22, 34va]
ff.64ra-64va:"Suppositoquod interattributasit sola distinctiorationis,
sitsumptaab intravel ab extra."Gerard
queritur:Utrumistadistinctio
attributoofSiena,Sent.I, dist.2, quest.2, art.3: "Utrumistadistinctio
rumsecundumrationemsit conceptaet sumptaab intravel ab extra."
[Angelica338, 56rb;Chicago22, 37rb]
situna ratiocomff.64va-65rb:"Utrumratioentisdictade deo etcreaturis
munis."Gerardof Siena,Sent.I, dist.3, quest. 1, art. 1: "Utrumratio
situna comunisratio."[Angelica338, 62ra;
entisdictade deo etcreaturis
4
22,
lva]
Chicago
ff.65rb-65va:"Utrumcognoscamusde deo in via quid est."Gerard,Sent.
I, dist.3, quest.2, art.2: "Utrumde deo in via cognoscamusquid est."
[Angelica338, 57rb;Chicago22, 45va]
Gerardof Siena,Sent.I,
f. 65va: "Utrumdeum esse possitdemonstran."
dist.3, quest.2, art.4: "Utrumdeumessepossitdemonstran."
[Angelica
338, 69rb;Chicago22, 47ra]
nostrositaliquod
ff.65va-65vb:"Utrumprimumcognitumab intellectu
Sent.
dist.
of
Gerard
universale."
I,
3, quest. 3, art.4: "Utrum
Siena,
nostrositaliquoduniversale."
[Angelica
primumcognitumab intellectu
338, 72va; Chicago22, 49rb]
s potueritincarff.65vb-66rb:"Utrumsola personafiliisinealiispersoni
nari."This probablybelongsto Gerardof Siena, Sent.Ill; see below,
87v
f.66v: blank
Quires8-9 (67r-78v;79r-85v):
ff.67r-85v[Stegmller
1199]: anonymouscomm.on Sent.I. Thisis a separatesection,composedof two quiresand writtenin a single-column

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

387

format.
fromtheotherfoliosin themanuAlthoughthatformatdiffers
if
script,thescribalhandis similar notidenticalwiththatoftheprevious
The authorcitesThomas(69r,72v,73r,82v,84r [doctorcomfolios.26
munis]),Henryof Ghentas 'Gan (69r,71r,73r,79v,80v,81r,82r),
Godfredus(72v),27Egidius(70r,73r,79v, 81r,82v), Ware (69r, 82r),
Scotusin marginand 'Scotus, 'Duns, or 'ille doctor in text(68r,70v,
71r,73r,73v, 79v, 80r,81r,82r), Elpedius [Alexanderof San Elpidio
OESA] (73r, 82v), Couton [RobertCowton] (67v, 82r), Aureolusin
margin,quidammodernus'in text(69r,69v), Gerardus(67v,70v,71r,
81r), Bernardus(69r,72v),28Pulton(75r),29Houtton(81r,81v),30and
"contraformalitates"
and the
Aristotle,
(79v). He also citesAugustine,
Commentator
Averroes
and
Avicenna
(82r,84r),
frequently, occasionally
Anselm(77v,82r),Rabimosses[Maimonides](78r),Richardus[Richard
ofSt.Victor?](79r),and Lincolnien.[RobertGrosseteste]
(82v). Unforthe
have
been
in thelossof
outside
trimmed,
tunately
margins
resulting
26)Itisoften
stated
that
themanuscript
iscomposed
ofseveral
different
scribal
which
in
hands,
istrue.
Butthedifferent
format
ofif.67r-85v
asopposed
todouble-colgeneral
(single-column
hasperhaps
ledtotheassumption
that
thescribal
handalsodiffers
from
those
intheearlier
umn)
ofthemanuscript.
distinctive
characteristics
area second
form
of
part
Among
identity
favoring
a 'd'atthebeginning
ofa word,
whose
stroke
slants
to
the
it
forward
next
an
letter,
top
giving
similar
totheEnglish
cursive
stroke
onthebottom
oftheY
V; a curved
appearance
pendant
a rounded
suchas o' 'p',or'q';anda slanted
lineusedtodot'is,which,
ona
letter,
following
final
itlooklikea gothic
V.
'i',canmake
27)Somepositions
toGodfredus
attributed
andattributed
(79v,81r)arestruck
initially
through
toEgidius.
28)On72v,opposite
'Ber.'inthemargin,
thetext
reads:
"Bernardus
contra
PelH[enricum?]".
ster
this
beBernardus
Lombardi
atParis
in1327O.P.,whoreadtheSentences
conjectured
might
Oliverii
whoreadatParis
between
bea
1310and1318,might
1328,butBernardus
O.E.S.A.,
better
candidate.
29)Possibly
dePolton,
sometimes
anAugustinin
friar
attheOxford
conPulton,
John
spelled
ventatvarious
times
between
1319and1347;seeA. B. Emden,
Register
Biographical
ofthe
toA.D.1500, vol.Ill (Oxford,
inthe
1957),p. 1493.Hisnameappears
University
ofOxford
the
author
s
discussion
of
a
from
book
two
of
Aristotle's
No
margin
opposite
passage
Physics.one
isbeing
cited
atthatpoint
other
than
butPulton
be
the
author's
source
forhis
Aristotle,
may
argument.
30)Possibly
Thomas
deHothom,
sometimes
a fellow
ofMerton
in1306,
Hotton,
spelled
College
DThby1326,andchancellor
ofOxford,
seeEmden,
vol.II,
1327-1328;
Biographical
Register,
survive
in Paris,
Bibl.Nat.,lat.15.805,f.53r;see
p. 970.Oneormoreofhisquestions
K.Tachau,
"Richard
asa Theologian:
inHistoria
NewEvidence,"
Medii
Campsall
Philosophiae
Aevi.
Studien
zurGeschichte
derPhilosophie
desMittelalters
2 vols.
andO. Pluta,
, ed.B.Mojsisch
at983-985.
Theportion
ofthis
in
1991),II,pp.979-1002,
(Amsterdam-Philadelphia,
question
Balliol
with
Houtton
hasbeentranscribed
atlength
63concerned
98-105.
Clark,
by
"Authorship,"

15:08:33 PM

388

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay
some of the marginalia.These questionswereascribedto an English
friarby Pelster31
on thegroundsof citingGilesfrequently,
Augustinin
as affective,
defining
theology
citingScotusas Duns, and citingWareand
thattheywereonlyat Oxford,whichmay
Cowton,presumably
thinking
notbe thecase.Wareand Cowtonwerecitedat ParisbyProsperde Reggio Emilia and othersbefore1314, and it is possiblethatPultonand
Houtton,likeAlnwick,
Wylton,and Burley,
mayhavetakenpartoftheir
studiesat Paris.On balance,however,
thecombinedevidenceplacesthe
at OxfordratherthanParis.
commentary
Becausemarginalcitationsto "Ger."correspond
to first-person
statementsin thetext,e.g. "dico quod" and "Nunc ponam"(67v), "solutio
propria"in marginand "Dico igituraliter"in thetext(70v), "ideo dico
concedendo"(7 Ir), and "dico quod per distinctionem
rationis"(8 Ir),
Clarksuggestedtheauthorof thesequestionswas named'Gerardus'.32
While possible,such a marginalidentification
of the authorwould be
unusual.Evenifwe assumethescribeis nottheauthor,it is morelikely
thatthe marginalname identifies
a sourceforthe authorratherthan
himself.
Gerard
of
Chronologically
Bergamo,O.E. S.A.,wouldwork,but
thatwould almostcertainly
requirea Parisiancontextand place Pulton
and Houttonat Paris.
ff.67r-67v:"Utrumtheologiasit propriescientia.Quod non, quia est
propriesapientia."<Cf. above,ff.6lrb-va>
velpractica.Quod
ff.67v-69v:"Utrumtheologiasitscientiaspeculativa
"
non speculativa,
quia habetobiectumattingibile
ff.69v-70r:"Utrumtheologiaviatorissubalternetur
theologiebeatorum."<Cf. above,f.61ra>
ad
ff.70r-71v:"Utrumperdonumsupernaturale
possithomo attingere
veritatem
ad
non
quam attingere potestper
cognoscendamaliquam
dona naturalia."
ff.71v-72r:"Utrumfideset scientiapropriedietapossintsimulstare."
<Cf. above,ff.61va-vb>

31)Pelster,
Polemik
"Zurersten
30.
Aureoli,"
gegen
32)Clark,
inArticle
14[i.e.,67rinmind
that
thequestions
107-108:
"Authorship,"
"Bearing
14match
inArticle
andthat
noneinArticle
with
those
13[i.e.,60r-66v],
85v]arenotidentical
work
onthefirst
bookoftheSentences
intheChigi
ms.ofGerardus
deSenis'
those
tobefound
,
anEng'Gerardus'.
'Gerardus'
isnotcommonly
itwould
seem
that
wehavea new,
unidentified
atParis
forhim,
rather
thanat
instance
fora location
lishname,
lookinthefirst
andwemight
who
at
Paris.
then
be
an
studied
Houtton
Oxford
(orCambridge).
English
Augustinin
might
interra
."
Butwearehere
incognita

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

389

ff.72r-73r:"Circadistinctionem
primamprimoquerendumestde frui,
et hoc primode fruiin se, et eritquestioista:Utrumfruisit actus
vel sitintellectus.
voluntatis
Secundo,de fruiin ordinead eiusobiecsintdistintum,et suntdue questiones.Prima:An in obiectofruibili
Secunda: An obiectumfruibilese obiciat
cte radonesfruibilitatis.
et voluntatisub eademratione.Et tertioqueramde fruiin
intellectui
et estquestioista,scilicet:An voluntasde necesordinead potentiam,
sitatevelitultimumfinem.Et quartoqueramde fruiin ordinead
An sintdistincti
actusvel non. Et sic sunt.5. questiodelectationem:
actusvoluntatisvel
nes. Primaigiturest: Utrumfruisit formaliter
intellectus."
An in obiectofruibili
radosintdistincte
ff.73r-74r:"Secundoqueritur:
nesfruibilitatis."
ff.74r-74v:"Utrumobiectumfruitionis
sub eadem rationese obiciat
etvoluntati."
intellectui
et primo:An
ff.74v-76r:"Modo querode fruiin ordinead potentiam,
velitultimumfinem."
voluntasde necessitate
ff.76r-76v:[inmargin:5 questio]:"Modo querode fruiin comparatione
ad delectationem:
Utrumscilicetdilectioet delectatiosintactusrealiterdistincti."
ff.76v-77r:"Circa distinctionem
secundamqueriturprimode unitate
Circaprimumquero.3.
obiectifruibilis;
secundode eiusdemtrinitate.
entiumsitdarealiquidsimquestiones.Prima:Utrumin universitate
Utrum
sit infiniSecunda:
primumens simpliciter
pliciterprimum.
tum.Et tertia:Utrumprimumsittantumunum.De primaquestione
"
arguiturquod non
sitinfinitum."
ff.77r-77v:"Utrumprimumenssimpliciter
ff77v-78r:"Utrumsittantumunumprimum."
ff 78r-78v:"Circa secundampartemsecundedistinctionis,
scilicetde
trinitate
personarum,
queroduo. Primo:Utrumin deo sitaliqua productiorealiter
ad intra.Secundo:Utrumsitibitantumunavelplures."
ff.78v-79v:"Utrumin divinissintpluresproductisrealiter
ad intra."
ff 79v-82r:"Quesitode pluralitate
emanationum
divinarum,
quero de
distinctione
et pluralitate
rationumattributis:
Utrum,scilicet,attributain deo sintdistincta."
ff.82r-83r:"Circadistinctionem
tertiam
Utrumanimasitidem
queritur:
realiter
sue
quod
potentie."
ff83v-84v:"Utrummemoriasitponendain parteintellectiva
proprie."
ff.84v-85v:"Utrumrelatiositalia resa fundamento."
(incomplete)

15:08:33 PM

390

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

Quire 10 (86r-88v):
ff.86ra-87rb:PetrusAureoli,Questiones
quodlibetales
ff.86ra-va:"Utrumvidensdeumvideatomnia,que in ipso representantur."(Auriol,Quodl., q. 10)
sit necessarium
ff.86va-87rb:"Utrumad visionembeatificam
aliquod
ultralumenintellectus
lumensupernaturale
agentis."(Auriol,Quodl.,
q. 9)
ff.87rb-87va:Questiones
ad actum
ff.87rb-87va:"Utrumgratiaet caritasnecessariorequirantur
habitus."
meritorium
tamquamduo distincti
verbi."
se habeatactivein formatione
ff.87va-87va:"Utrumintellectus
ff.87va-88ra:Gerardus[ofSiena?],Sent. Ill: "QuestioGerardiin principio
tertii."
ff.87va-87vb:"Utrumuna personapossitincarnari
absquehoc quod alia
Cf. lastquestionof thepreviousGerardsection,ff.65vincarnetur."
66r
f. 87vb: "UtrumfuitnecesseChristumpati pro redemptione
generis
humani."
ff.88ra [GerardofSiena?],Sent. IV:
altarissinesui
f.88ra:"UtrumcorpusChristipossitessesub sacramento
mutatione."
f.88ra:"Utrumanimabeataappetatreuniricorpori."
f.88rb:blank
Sententiarum
ff.88va-88vb:anonymous
sermon;not
[principiai
Principium
de medioduorummontium.
a question]:"Ecce 4 quadrigeegredientes
Zacis 6 [Zach. 6:1]."
O.F.M.33
Quire 11 (89r-99v):RobertusBeverley,
"Utrumdeussittrinuset unus."
"Utruma quacumquecreaturarationalisolus deus sit propterse finaliter
(incomplete)
diligendus."
One or morequireslost,accordingto Mynors.
Quire 12 (lOOr-lllv): Gerardusde Bononia [Bologna],O.Carm., Quodlibet
II, qq. 1-7.34
33)Beverley
areina different
c. 1305.Thisandthefollowing
master
atOxford
wasregent
quires
ofthefourdecade
tothefirst
andParis
Oxford
texts
from
handandcontain
scribal
belonging
a separate
constitute
Tothat
extent
teenth
manuscript.
they
century.
34)On fol.lOOr,
de
Willelmi
to Mynors:
5 fratris
in bottom
"Quaterni
according
margin,
Palmon
which
but
to
refer
to
he
understood
2
which
Woodford
sol.,"
iunioris,
ownership,
prec.
the
whotranscribed
La Littrature
, vol.II (Paris,
1935),pp.127-28,
Glorieux,
Quodlibtique

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

391

f. lOOr:"Utrumpossitvideridivinaessentiaita quod non videaturpersona."

infinitam."
f. lOlr: "Utrumdeuspossitfaceremultitudinem
sinepropriesubstanf. 103r:"Utrumdeuspossetfaceresubiectumexistere
tiepartem."
f. 107r: "Utrumde essentiaeius quod est principiumelicitumactus sit
inherere."
sit aliquid positivmper quod
f. 108r: "Utrumin supremaintelligentia
a causaprima."
differ
datur
f. 109v:"Utrumangelusex hoc quod cognoscataliuma se intuitive,
existt."
alius
quod
reales."(incomplete)
f. 11Ir: "Utrumin Christosintdue filiationes
ofthemanuscript
The remainder
(ff.112ra-l69vb)containsquodlibetalquesDTh and chanceltions,mostofthembelongingto RobertofWinchelsey,
s
before
lorat Oxford,and date to thelatethirteenth
Winchelsey
century,
a
For descripofCanterbury.
careerthatledto thearchbishopric
ecclesiastical
tionofthisportionofBalliol63, see Mynors,Catalogue
, pp. 48-49.
In the foregoing
analysistwo groupsof questions,long consideredanonyThose
fromothermanuscripts.
or confirmed
mous,havenowbeenidentified
on ff.60r-66rand probablythoseon ff.87va-88rabelongto GerardofSiena,
Thislastgroupofquestionson booksIII
O.E.S.A., as Clarkalso maintained.
sincetheyareuniqueto this
areparticularly
and IV oftheSentences
important,
his questionson book
for
circulation
Gerard
edited
and
only
manuscript,
I and thefirstthirdof thoseon book II. The questionin Amiens234 witha
titlesimilarto Gerard'squestionon whetherGod is thesubjectof theology
"sub absolutarationedeitatis"is a different
questionand not by Gerard.It
toauthorship,
without
torefer
understood
Villielmi
deWodeford
noteas"Responsio
junioris,"
inLaLittrature
ofquestions
hehadattributed
thesamegroup
that
,vol.I
Quodlibtique
noting
this
toidentify
declined
toGerard
ofBologna.
(Kain,1925),pp.129-30,
Mynors
Although
on
of
Franciscan
with
thelatefourteenth-century
William
Woodford
Wyclifthe
opponentJohn
totheearly
as
well
as
the
scribal
hand
of
the
that
the
other
contents
belong
manuscript
grounds
because
thenoterefers
inquestion
wellbetheFranciscan
theWoodford
fourteenth
may
century,
handofthenotecoulddate
notthecostofcopying,
andthescribal
offive
tothepurchase
quires,
in
transcribed
theminums
Glorieux
and
of
the
fourteenth
tothethird
Mynors
century.
quarter
as"Quaterni
better
betranscribed
as'iunioris,
butthenotemight
theword
after
'Woodford'
5
that
these
2 sol."Ithassince
beenconfirmed
fratris
Willelmi
deWoodford
minoris,
quesprec.
"Carmelite
Fora recent
seeC. Schabel,
toGerard
ofBologna.
tions
discussion,
Quodli'belong
at
The
Fourteenth
in
in
the
Middle
betal Theological
Quodlibeta
Century,
pp.493-543,
Ages:
505-514.

15:08:33 PM

392

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

in theyearsimmediately
beforeorafter
written
merits
studyandwasprobably
to identify
Nielsen
was
able
ff.
that
The
on
1300.35 questions
57ra-58ra Lauge
as belongingto a 'Henricus'almostcertainly
belongto Henricusde Vrimaria
additionto hisknown
an
O.E.
S.A.
and
[Friemar]
represent important
junior,
work.
A comparisonof the questionsof Gerardof Siena and the questionof
Dionysiusof Burgowith the versioneditedforcirculationby those two
answerto thequestionraisedbyMichalski
authorspermitsa moredefinitive
halfofBalliol63 areearly,
and Nielsen,namelywhetherquestionsin thefirst
ForGerardand Dioversionsofthosetextsor laterabbreviations.
pre-edited
Nielsen
what
are
versions,
suspectedwas
confirming
nysiusthey pre-edited
thecaseforthequestionsofAurioland Wylton.In all casesthequestionsare
as
thesame structure
shorterin theBalliol63 version,sometimesfollowing
theexpanded,editedversion,and sometimes
Dionysius'
question
rearranged.
in bothversions,althoughmorebriefly
has thesame structure
expressedin
36
in
Balliol63.37
of
Gerard
with
the
first
Balliol63. The sameis true
question
35)Fordetails,
ofSt.Victor
andAmiens
seeCourtenay,
"Gerard
234".
36)Dionysius
finis
Inprimm
Sententiarum
deBurgo,
63,f.24ra):"Utrum
, q. 1 (Balliol
perse
in
est
scientia
in
Et
via
sit
amare
deum.
sacre
non,
theologiedeus
quod
quia
arguitur
scripture
Antecedens
non
est
finis
eius.
dei
dilectio
subabsoluta
subiectum
ratione;
quia
probatur,
igitur
dedeosub
haberi
esset
sinon,sequitur
ista,
queesset
prior
aliquatheologia
possible
quodviatori
Hocestinconveniens;
contracta.
ratione
absoluta,
relinquitur
igitur
queestprior
quamratio
amare
nisiostenhabet
etc.Consequentia
persefinem
probatur,
quianullascientia
quoddeus,
boninon
ratio
vero
amabilis
est
ratio
ratio
subratione
datsubiectum
boni;
amabilis,
pure
quia
CA
conclusio."
bona.
absoluta
sedcontracta;
estratio
Erfurt,
sequitur
Igitur
consequentia
igitur
inviasitamare
Etarguitur
deum.
finis
2o131,f.2rb:"Utrum
quodnon,
scripture
persesacre
dilectio
deinonestfinis
subratione
estdeussubiectum
absoluta;
igitur
quiainscientia
theologie
in
viesubiectum,
non
esset
absoluta
sub
ratione
si
deus
Antecedens
eius.
theologia
probatur,
quia
esset
de
deo
subratione
alia
haberi
viatori
esset
ista,
prior que
theologia
possible
sequeretur
quod
contracta.
Hocestinconveniens;
absoluta,
relinquitur
igitur
prior
quamsitratio
queestratio
ratione.
sitdeussubabsoluta
quianullascientia
Consequentia
probatur,
quodeiussubiectum
sedratio
obiectum
subratione
nisiostendat
amare
habet
absoluta,
amabilis;
puta
persefinem
ratio
vero
est
ratio
amabilis
ratio
nonincludit
rationem
ratio
boni,
amabilis,
deitatis,
quia
pure
vera
etconsequens
sedcontracta;
velratio
deitatis
boninonestratio
absoluta,
consequentia
ergo
conclusio."
37)Gerard
ratione
deussubabsoluta
ofSiena,
63,f.60ra:"Utrum
Prol.,
q. 2, a. 3, inBalliol
sit
subillaratione
videndum:
utrum
intheologia,
ubiestprimo
sitsubiectum
deitatis
[deus]
Contradeitatis.
annexa
rationi
estsolum
Hicvolunt
infinitus.
quodnon,sedinfinitas
quidam
infinitatis
ratio
eummagis
secundum
immo
huius
vultfrater
tamen
rium
explicatur
Egidius,
infiniincludit
in
intellectu
infinitas
suo
si
nomine
nomine
deitatis
infinitatis,
quapropter
quam
deus
"Utrum
f.
lOra:
in
And
tam
includet."
et
deitas
multo
338,
Rome,
tatem,
Angelica
magis
intheologia.
sitsubiectum
subtaliratione
etutrum
sitinfinitus,
deitatis
ratione
subabsoluta

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

393

In otherquestions,however,forexampleGerard,Prol. q. 3, a. 1, whichis
editedin thetwoversionsin appendicesto thisarticle,earlyand laterarguorderin manuscripts
of Gerard'sedited
mentsin Balliol63 appearin reverse
question.
In theBalliol63 version,Gerardbegan(AppendixI, lines3-10) withArisin thefirst
bookofhisPosterior
totle'sdiscussionofscientific
Analytreasoning
icsbasedon threedifferent
of
evidence:
axiomatic
(<
),
types
dignitateshypotheses
or
or premisesderivedfromthoseprinciples(.suppositiones
), and assumptions
. Againstthatbackgroundhe set forthhis own position
opinions(petitiones)
thattheprinciplesin theologyin via are sometimesaxiomsand sometimes
truthsderivedfromthoseaxioms,but neveropinionsor illegitimate
postuon thePosterior
lates,usinga passagefromGrosseteste's
commentary
Analytics
(AppendixI, lines 13-16) in supportof his argument.A statementfrom
whosetextuallocationis notidentified
(AppendixI, lines29-31),
Augustine,
is also used as one of his supporting
authorities.
thescribeor
Subsequently
collector(perhapsone and thesame)insertsa noteintoGerard'stextexpressview (AppendixI, lines 36-37), and directsthe readerto
ing a different
on whethertheologyis practicalor
Wylton's
questionin thesamemanuscript
ff.
(Balliol63, 19va-19vb).
speculative
In theversionofthisquestionthatwaseditedforcirculation,
Gerardbegins
withAuriol'spositionthatthearticlesoffaitharenottheprinciples
of theollines
The
from
in the
which
2-23).
ogy (AppendixII,
passage
Augustine,
Balliol 63 versionwas used as evidenceforGerard'sown position,is now
fromwhichGerardprobablytookit,and is
placedwithinAuriol'sargument,
as
from
De Trinitate
identified
, book IV [actuallyXIV],
specifically
coming
1
Gerard
then
chapter (AppendixII, 19-23).
presents
arguments
againstAuriol's position(AppendixII, lines24-59) beforeturningto his own position
(AppendixII, lines60-163). It is in thislastsectionthathe introducesand
Posterior
expandson Aristotle's
(AppendixII, lines63-75) and incorAnalytics
poratesthepassagefromGrosseteste
(AppendixII, lines79-82).
The editedversionofthisquestionis almostthreetimesas longas theversionin Balliol63. It is betterstructured
and moreeffectively
argued.And the
of
the
elements
is
I think,thatin
It
particularly
rearrangement
telling. reveals,
adistum
articulum
videntur
veliequidam
: Henricus,
12,quest,
[margin
Quantum
Quodlibet
absolute
non
in
includit
suo
intellectu
immo
infinitatem,
prima]
quodratiodeitatis
sumpta
secundum
eosinfinitas
estquedam
ratiosibiannexa.
Contrarium
tamen
vultfrater
Egidius,
immo
secundum
eummagis
infinitas
nomine
deitatis
infinitatis,
explicatur
quamnomine
quasi
insuointellectu
infinitas
includit
rationem
multo
Etquia
deitas.
infiniti,
propter
magis
ipsa
dicta
conclusio
mihi
rationalis
etbona, "
apparet

15:08:33 PM

394

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

theBalliolversionwe arelookingat a pre-edited

version.It is implausible
that
someoneabbreviating
a questionafterits initialcirculation
would alterthe
structure
so radically.
On theotherhand,it is notuncommonforauthorsto
in a revisedredactionof a question.
restructure
and expandtheirarguments
Whatwe havein thequestionsofGerardofSienathatwereselectedforinclusion in Balliol63 is a recordof theiroral version,copied by someonewho
attendedhislectures,
no doubtleavingout phrasesin therushto capturethe
basic arguments
and conclusions.These questionsare not the workof an
officialreportator
, who would haveproduceda fullerand cleanertextto be
reviewed
and revisedbytheauthor,and whowouldhavebeencommissioned
to copyall thequestions,notsimplya selectedgroup.Yet,forthatveryreason,
thequestionsin Balliol63 takeus muchcloserto theoralversionofa lecture
and perhapseventhan
thantheversioneditedforcirculation,
or disputation
what
is
of
the
have.
And
true
an official
questionsofGerard
reportatio
might
in Balliol63 is probablytrueof thosefromWyltonand Auriolin thesame
betweenthe
as Nielsensuspected.Rothnoteda similardifference
manuscript,
de anima in Balliol63 and theform
versionofJohnof BolognasQuestiones
in othermanuscripts.38
circulated
In all probability
thisfirsthalfof Balliol63 is a worksimilarto Vat. lat.
1086,Prosperde ReggioEmilias"notebook"inwhichtextsandquestionsthat
were
thecollectorand copiedat thetimeoftheiroralpresentation
interested
be
the
of
what
Sentences
with
the
first
assembledtogether,
may
part
along
in quesinterested
The collectorwas especially
ofthecollector.39
commentary
and relatedissuesthatweretradiwiththenatureoftheology
tionsconcerned
As has been
commentary.
tionallytreatedat the beginningof a Sentences
in
ten
of
Balliol
of
the
texts
the
first
most
63 arethework
quires
suggested,
was
one scribe.It is possiblethatthisscribeofthisportionofthemanuscript
who
in
the
all
cases
have
been
he
not
also thecollector,
person
although may
into
The scribeinserted
ordisputations.
on thelectures
attendedand reported
of
to a question Wylton
thequestioneditedin AppendixI a cross-reference
also includedin Balliol63.40The scribewas certainly
Englishbutwas copying
tookplace.
his quiresat Paris,whichis wherethelecturesand disputations
or
was
with
the
scribe
whether
identical
the
not,
Moreover, collector,
probably
38)Roth,
Austin
Friars
, p.598.
English
39)On Vat.lat.1086,seeW.J.Courtenay,
of
"Reflections
onVat.lat.1086andProsper
Fourteenth
The
intheMiddle
inTheological
O.E.S.A.,"
,
Emilia,
Quodlibeta
Century
Ages.
Reggio
pp.345-57.
40)SeeAppendix
inthefirst
ofquestions
ofthegroups
totheunity
43-44.Thisattests
I, lines
a reasoned
collection.
which
form
inthedouble-column
ofBalliol
half
63,atleast
portions,

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

395

an Augustinin
friar.
ApartfromWyltonand Auriol,thetextscollectedhere
arebyAugustinin
on ff.67r-85v.
authors,as is theSentences
commentary
The most obviouscontextin whichan AugustininfriarfromEngland
would be at Parisin thisperiodwould have been in thelectorateprogram,
ofthepresence
ofa moreadvanced
althoughone cannotruleoutthepossibility
Studentssentto Parisfor
Englishtheologicalstudentat theParisconvent.41
thelectorate
their
were
not
province
Theyhad already
programby
beginners.
had theirbasictheologicaltraining
and werecompleting
theirpreparation
to
becomelectorsin theconventsand studiaof theirprovince.While abroadit
was notuncommonto collectcurrent
or important
scholastictextsand bring
thembackto a conventor studiumin ones own province.42
Beforeincepting
in theologyat ParisProsperof Reggioreportedor summarizedquestions,
whichhe tookto Italywhenhe returned
therein 1318.43The ItalianFrancislectures
anddisputations
he heard
can,NicholasCompariniofAssisi,recorded
at Norwichand Oxford,and whichhe or a confrere
tookbackto Assisiin or
after1338.44The textsin Balliol63 werecopiedat Parisand probablybrought
to England,wherethemanuscript
fora timebeforebeingacquired
circulated
William
in
the
fifteenth
by
Gray
century.
When werethetextsin thisfirsthalfof Balliol63 copiedand assembled?
The disputedquestionsbetweenWyltonand Aurioltookplacebetween1318
and 1321.45Dionysiusde Burgocompletedhis lectureson book I of the
inJanuary
Sentences
much
1318,and theopeningquestionofhiscommentary,
ofwhichis includedin Balliol63, wouldhavebeengivenin October1317.46

41)Onthelectorate
oftheAugustinin
seeE.Ypma,
"Lapromotion
aulectorat
Order,
program
chezlesAugustins
etle De lectorie
d'Ambroise
de Cora,"
13 (1963),
gradu
Augustininy
391-417.
42)A lateexample
isRome,
Bibl.Angelica
Gerard
ofSienascommentary
on
101,containing
bookI oftheSentences
Ambrose
ofCoraO.E.S.A.
atParis
when
hestudied
there
,which
acquired
inthelectorate
estadususfratris
Ambrosii
deCora,quememit
(f.239v:"Isteliber
program
Parisius
dumibieratinlectoria.")
43)Courtenay,
"Reflections
onVat.lat.1086".
44)Fordetails,
seeW.J.Courtenay,
"Nicholas
ofAssisi
andVat.Chigi
B V 66,"Scriptorium
, 36
260-63.
(1982),
45)Auriol's
dates
between
"TheQuodlibet
ofPeter
1318and1320;seeNielsen,
Auriol,"
Quodlibet
pp.267-68.
46)Theexplicit
toBookI ofDionysius'
ontheSentences
inErfurt,
Wissenschaftliche
questions
CA2.131,f.96r,reads:
lectura
libri
sententiarum
editaa fratre
Bibl.,
"Explicit
primi
Dionysio
deBurgo
ordinis
heremitarum
Parisius
annodomini
1317die12mensis
Januarii,"
quamfinivit
which
means
tothemodern
1318according
calendar.

15:08:33 PM

396

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

We are less knowledgeable

about the datesforJohnof Lanas career.47
It is
assumed
he
the
read
Sentences
at
Paris
around
and
his
1316,
Questiogenerally
nesde anima werecomposedafterthatearlieracademicexercise,since he
was a formedbachelorat thetimehe wrotethislaterwork.48
It therefore
most
to
the
de
or
1318-1321
likelybelongs
period.Henry Alemania, Vrimaria,
at Parisaround1318-1319and was one oftheearly
juniorreadtheSentences
Augustinincriticsof Auriol,as the textin Balliol 63 shows.49Initiallyit
lookedas ifthepresenceof questionsbyGerardof Siena mightdatethefirst
halfofBalliol63 to thelate1320sorlater,sinceithasbeenassumedbyearlier
scholarsthatGerardread the Sentences
at Parisaround 1326. Workon his
has
two
thatspecifically
uncovered
datehis sentential
however,
manuscripts,
lecturesat Paristo 1319-1321,and he wouldhavecompletedhislectureson
50
book I oftheSentences
earlyin 1320.
Thefirst
halfofBalliol63 is a remarkable
windowintothelecturehallsat Paris
in a relatively
briefmomentin time,1317-1321.To thatdegreeit complimentsVat. lat. 1086, whosecompiler,Prosperde ReggioEmilia O.E.S.A.,
at Paristhatoccurredin 1310-1316,recording
themin a
copieddisputations
in
version
most
the
version.
Since
the
textsin
and,
cases, only
pre-publication
thefirst
halfof Balliol63 arein a pre-edited,
formrepresentpre-publication
an
unofficial
of
the
oral
as
with
theedited
event,
comparisons
ing
reportatio
versionshowwithAuriol,GerardofSiena,and Dionysiusde Burgo,itcan be
versions
presumedthattheothertextsprobablyalso represent
pre-publication
and dateto thissameperiod.And despitethefactthatmostof thequiresin
themanuscript
werecopiedbyan Englishscribeand thatthesingle-column
Sentences
on ff.67r-85vmayhavebeenwritten
and deliveredat
commentary
in thefaculty
oftheology
at Paris
intellectual
Oxford,thetextsreflect
activity
in 1317-1321- a rareexampleoftheological
and philosophical
and
thinking
scholars
at
one
time.
interaction
mendicant
and
secular
and
place
among
47)C. Schabel
inTheological
after
GilesofRome,"
andW.J.Courtenay,
Quodlibeta
"Augustinin
intheMiddle
The
Fourteenth
at556-57.
, pp.545-68,
Quodlibeta
Ages.
Century
"
48)Balliol
insacra
deLanadeBononia,
bacellarii
63,f.28ra:"Fratris
Johannis
pagina
49)Schabel
Forthediscovery
that
andCourtenay,
,"pp.550-52.
Quodlibeta
opin"Augustinin
"The
IntelionsinBalliol
were
attributed
Auriol
to
a
see
Nielsen,
63,ff.57r-58r
'Henricus',
by
28.
ofFaith,"
ligibility
50)Gdansk,
libri
sententiarum
lectura
Bibl.Akad.Nauk,Mar.F 199,f.171r:"Explicit
primi
annodomini
baccelario
sancti
a fratre
sacre
ordinis
edita
Gerrando
(!)deSenis
Augustini
pagine
aswasnormal,
would
ifhecompleted
hislectures
onbookI inJanuary,
MCCCXVIIII,"
which,
libri
lectura
tothemodern
calendar.
Vat.lat.4291,f.79ra:"Explicit
mean
1320according
primi
heremitaordinis
fratrum
deSenis,
sacre
sententiarum
editaa fratre
Gerardo
bacellario,
pagine
CCCvicsimo
Deogratias.
Annodomini
millesimo
rum
sancti
[1321].
primo
augustini.

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

397

APPENDIX I
GerardofSiena,In PrimumSententiarum,
Prol.,q. 3, a. 1
Oxford,Balliol63, f.60vb
Utrumarticulifideisintprincipiain theologia.Pro quo est sciendumquod
hoc estloquendumde principiis
non quocumquemodo,sed solumde princisunt
causa
veritatis
in scientiaaliqua,et sic
omnium
piisque
complexionum
tria
inveniuntur
sicutpotesthaberiArist.,
loquendo
generaprincipiorum,
5 primo Posteriorum
, nam quedam sunt principiaque vocanturdignitates,
et quedampetitiones.
Estauteminteristahec differenquedamsuppositiones
nam
sunt
nulla
ratione
tia,
evidentiam,
dignitates que
indigentad sueveritatis
que per seipsasnate suntvideri.Suppositioautemproprievocaturilla que
inaliquascientia,
tamenab adiscentesinedemonpotestdemonstran
accipitur
etsupponitur
10 statione,
Sed
tamquamprobabilis. petitioproprieestiliaque est
contraria
etideopriuspetitur
eiusconcessio,quam exipsa
opinioniadiscentis,
ad aliquidaliud.
procedatur
Ad propositumdico quod articulifideisunt principiatheologiealiquo
modo sicutdignitates,
et aliquo modo sicutsuppositiones,
nullomodo sicut
15 petitiones.
Primumpatet,quia uttactumperAristotelem
patetquod dignitate
non indigentetc.VerodicitLincolnien.quod "sicutlucidumvisibilenon eget
nisivisuexteriori
cadentesuperipsum,sicdignitasad hoc,utsciatur,
noneget
nisi ratione,que est aspectusmentissuperipsam cadente."Constatautem
quod articulifideimaximesuntintelligibiles
perse ipsoset maximeevidentes
20 in sua veritate,
edam
a
quantum
parteipsorumarticulorum.
secundum
sic
cumsuppositionibus,
Item,patet
quod habentsimilitudinem
namsicutsuppositiones
nonhabentevidentiam
exvirtute
scientiein qua supsed
ex
virtute
scientie
a
sicet in proposito.
ponuntur
superiorisqua capiuntur,
Et ad probandumistamconclusionem
inducoaliud.Primumsic:illeproposide subiectoalicuiusscientie,et non possunt<probari>
25 tionesque formantur
per aliquas a prioris,suntprincipiain scientiaista.Sed articulisunthuiusmodi. Minorpatetde se. Maior patet,nam propositiones
de
que formantur

4-6Aristotle,
Posteriora
, ed.L. Minio-Paluello
1954)I, c. 10,pp.295-296;
Analytica
(Bruges,
also'mAristoteles
Latinus
andB.G. Dod(Bruges-Paris,
IV,ed.L. Minio-Paluello
1968),pp.24
ofJames
ofVenice)
and296(translation
ofWilliam
ofMoerbeka);
(translation
edition,
[Bekker
16-18Robert
Commentarius
inPosteriorum
libros
76b].
Grosseteste,
, ed.
Analyticorum
P.Rossi(Firenze,
1981),p. 158.

15:08:33 PM

398

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

subiectoalicuiusscientievel pertinentad istamscientiam,sicut principia

vel sicutconclusionesex principiisdeducte;non potest
primoconsiderata,
sicutconclusiones,quia suppositumest quod 30
dici quod articulipertineant
eas probaria
necvaletsi dicaturquod sufficit
non possuntdeduciperpriores,
scientie
cuiuslibet
si
hoc
tunc
sufficeret, principia
possentdici
posteriori,
quia
et conclusiones
conclusiones,
principia.
ad
Item,hoc patet,quia articuliincluduntomnesveritates
que pertinent
sicutAugustinus,quod non 35
scientiam,et excluduntomnes impertinentes,
sed illud "tantumquicquidsciripotestab hominehuic scientieattribuitur,
etc.
modo quo fidessaluberrima,"
et regulaturtota consideradotheologie;
Item,per articulosmensuratur
undenonperaliudcogitatur
quandoaliquisprocessusin teologiaestveridicus
40
fidei,et prooppositumsi discordt.
quia concordatarticulis
Item,ad articulosstatultimaresolutiototiusconsiderationis
theologice,
etc.
ergo
tamenaliquiquod nonpossuntistastare,etvideradoneseorum
/Arguunt
secundumThomamde Wilton/Est
in questionede practicoet speculativo
tamenpresensdificultasque tangereab eis arguuntsic. Illa que in aliqua 45
sed principia
non suntprincipia,
et probantur
declarantur
scientiaqueruntur,
Solutio:
Sed articulifideisunthuiusmodi.
Quererede principiis
supponuntur.
et ista
de eorumveritate,
essepotest.Uno modo itaquod dubitetur
dupliciter
modo maiorestveraet falsaest minor.Alio modo non quod dubeteturde
in 50
eorumveritate.Sed quod dubitarcide modo apprehendiillamveritatem
specialique potestbene et male apprehendi.Si enimVeritasquorumcunque
in scientiaaliqua semperbeneapprehenderetur,
numquamfieprincipiorum
intellectis.
Unde
male
ex
retsillogismus
qui procedit principiis
falsigraphus,
omnibuscatholicisapprehendatur
quamvisin generaliVeritasarticulorum
uno modo, nec quantumad hoc cadat ibi dubitatiovel questio,in speciali 55
tamenpossetapprehendidiversismodis,et ideo quantumad hoc caduntin
Veritas
etformantur
dubitationes,
explanatur
questionesperquam solutionem
articuliin speciali.
tamenquod in tototaliprocessuipsemetarticulusestprinIntelligendum
nam
quedamalia ad declarado- 60
quamvisin taliprocessuassumantur
cipium,

De Trinitate
35-37Augustine,
, XIV,c. 1 (CCh,ser.Lat.,50 A,p. 424;PL 42,col.1047).
inBalliol
velspeculativus,"
sitpracticus
"Utrum
habitus
63,
43-44Thomas
theologicus
Wylton,
Thomas
and
Peter
Auriol
Debate
between
"The
O.
edited
ff.19va-19vb,
Nielsen,
WylbyLauge
at76-89.
Vivarium
andVirtue,"
tononTheology
, 38(2000),35-98,

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

65

399

nem articuli,nihilominussempersupponiturVeritasarticuliin generali

secundumquod estnobispropositapersacramscripturam
tamquamregulaet
mensuratotiusprocessus,cuiussignumest,quia quando volumuscertifican
utrumexplicatiofactade articuloin specialisitvera,statimaspicimusad veriin generalis
Et si videtatemarticulinobispropositam
persacramscripturam.
nobisproponitin
mus quod concordetveritatiarticuliquam sacrascriptura
factam
et si discordaveram;
tamquam
generali,approbamusexplicationem
et
sicut
falsum
et
erroneam.
Sicut
rnereprobamus condempnamus
ergopatet
quid dicendumestad istamquestiunculam.

15:08:33 PM

400

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay
APPENDIX II
GerardofSiena,In PrimumSententiarum,
Prol.,q. 3, a. 1
A = Angelica338, fol.13vb-l4vb,B = Balliol55, fol.17vb-19rb,
C = Chicago22, fol.9rb-9vb

utrumarticulifideisintprincipiatheologie,
Quantumad primumarticulum,
volunt
quod quidam
intelligendum
[opinioAureoli]quod articulifideinon
sintprincipiaistiusscientie,quod videnturprobaredupliciter.
Primosic: ista
et posteaprobanturet concluduntur,
non
que in aliqua scientiaqueruntur,
suntprincipiailliusscientie;sedarticulisunthuiusmodo;ergo.Maiorpatetin 5
nullaenimscientiaqueritde suis | principiis,
immoea supA,fol.I4ra singulisscientiis,
B,fol.18ra ponit,et ex eis proceditad declarandumet ad concludendum| alia. Minor
exprincipiis
omniumdoctorumistiusscientie,
tamsanctorum
probatur
quam
omnes
enim
aliorum,
quoruncumque
proceduntquerendo questioneset
inducendodubitationes,
que acciduntde ipsisarticulis,posteanitunturad 10
eorumprobationem
et declarationem
quantumeis estpossibile.Ita namque
facitbeatusAugustinusin libroDe Trinitate
, ubi nititurprobarearticulum
trinitatis.
Idem facitin libroContraFaustum
, ubi nititurprobarecontraeum
duos articulos,scilicet'Christumesse natumex Maria Virgine'et 'Spiritum
Sanctumfuisselocutumperprophetas'.
Istumeundemmodumservant
docto- 15
resmoderniin suisscriptis,
ex quibusomnibusconcluditur
articuli
fidei
quod
non suntprincipiaistiusscientiesed conclusiones.
Secundoad idemsic: nullascientiaordinatur
ad defensionem
et roborationemsuorumprincipiorum;
sed hec scientiaordinatur
ad defensionem
articulorumfidei;ergo.Maior patet,quia quelibetscientiautitursuisprincipiis
ad 20
veritatesconclusionum.Minor probaturper
roborandumet defendendum

2-26Peter
Sententiarum
vol.I (St.BonavenAuriol,
, ed.E.M.Buytaert,
Scriptum
super
primum
12Augustine,
De Trinitate
sect.1,pp.139-40.
ture,
N.Y.,1953),Prooemium,
, I, c. 4
Contra
Faustum
13-15
,III.6(CCh,ser.Lat.,50,pp.34-36;PL42,col.824).
Augustine,
PL42,cols.217-220).
IV.2(CSELXXV,
6.1,pp.267-271;
1 theologie]
ABistius
C
2 fidei
om.C | nonom.B
fidei
scientie
3 istaABillaC
aliorum
AC
ABillius
C
om.C
8istius
9quorumcumque
7ad2om.C
5scientie
AB
A
16
B
ABItem
C
doctorum
13Idem
15locutum
quibus quo
BCloquntur
om.C
C
20ergo

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

25

30

35

40

45

50

40 1

id
4 De Trinitate^
cap. 1, ubi dicitquod "huicseiendetribuitur
Augustinum,
Conet
roboratur."
tantummodo
defenditur,
nutritur,
quo fidessaluberrima
estde ipsisarticulisrelinquitur,
statautemquod fidessaluberrima
ergoquod
et per consequensnon erunt
ad eorumdefensionem,
hec scientiaordinetur
principiaipsius.
[ContraAureolumquadrupliciratione]Istemodusomninodeviata veritate,etideosimularguocontraeum,etprobooppositamconclusionem
quadalicuius
formantur
de
subiecto
Primo
sic:
ille
que
propositiones
rupliciter.
seiende,et non suntpossibilesprobariperaliquasaliasa priori,suntprincipia
vereformatede
in istascientia;sed articulifideisuntquedam propositiones
subiectotheologie,nec possuntprobariperaliquasaliasa priori;ergo.Minor
est de se nota. Probo maiorem,nam omnes propositiones,
que formantur
ad illamscientiamsicutprincipia
de subiectoalicuiusseiende,vel pertinent
in
vel
sicut
conclusionesque ex principiis
illa
considerata
scientia,
primo
Non potestautemdiciquod articulisinttalespropositiones
deducuntur.
quod
ad istamscientiamsicutconclusiones,
quia suppositumest quod
pertineant
non possuntdeduciperaliquasaliasa priori;necvaletsi dicaturquod sufficit
tuncprincipiacuiuslieas deducietprobaria posteriori,
quia si hoc sufficeret,
edam principia.
et conclusiones
betseiendepossentdiciconclusiones,
Secundoad idemsic:iliasuntprincipiain aliquascientiaque in suo ambitu
includunt| omnesveritatesque pertinentad illam scientiamet excludunt B,fol.18rb
sed articulifideiincluduntomnesveriomnesillasque ad earnnon pertinent;
tatespertinentes
ad theologiamet excluduntomnesimpertinentes;
ergosunt
in
scientiis.
Minorem
Maior
inductionem
patet
per
principiaipsius.
singulis
probo per Augustinumsuperiusin contrariumallegatum,ubi dicit quod
"tantummodo
huic seiendeattribuitur
etc.,ex quibus
quo fidessaluberrima"
verbishabeturmanifeste
quod ille veritates,
que suntextraneea fideet ab
articulisfidei,non pertinentad theologiam;ille vero,que possuntreduci
ad considerationem
ad artculosfideialiquo modo, omnespertinent
ipsius,
ergoetc.
De Trinitate
22-23Augustine,
, XIV,c. 1 (CCh,ser.Lat.,50 A,p. 424;PL 42,col.1047).
De Trinitate,
above.
46-47Augustine,
XIV,c. 1, cited
22huic
AChuius
B | idABillud
C
ABillaC
23quoABquodC | etACacB
31ista
. . priori
om.B
om.
34 seiende
31-32sunt.
32 necC nonAB 33 deABperC
ABprima
C
C
om.B | articuli
sintom.B
om.
35primo
36autem
38deduci
A
C I aliquas
BC aliquis
40 conclusiones2
om.C
AB omnibus
C
45 singulis
46dicit
ABdicitur
C
B
50aliquomodoACalioquomodo

15:08:33 PM

402

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

totaconsideratio
et mensuratur
Tertioad idem sic: ilia per que regulatur
tota
consideratio
in
sed
alicuiusseiendesuntprincipia ilia scientia;
theologie
Probo
Maior
est
evidens.
artculos
mensuratur
minorem,
fidei;
quia
ergo.
per
veriin
55
ea
fundatur
to
et
tus
scientie
istius
tota
consideratio
fol.
I4rb
A,
| super
processus
licet
non
deviare
a
et
mensura
tatearticulorum
qua
tamquamsuperregula
unum;et tunccognoscimus
aliquemprocessumin illascientiaesseveridicum
econtratunccognoscimus
articulorum;
ipsumesse
quando concordatveritati
omnia
veritaautem
Hec
discordt.
articulorum
a
veritate
erroneum
quando
60
in
ista
scientia.
articuliprincipiaessent
nisiprefati
temnon haberent
Quartoad idemsic: illa ad que statultimaresolutiototiusconsiderationis
suntprincipiatheologie;articulifideisunthuiusmodo;ergo.Maior
theologice
videmusenimin quacumquescientiaquod termiin
C,fol.9va patet singulis| scientiis,
ad sua principia,ultraque transir
statin resolutione
nus sue considerationis
non habet.Minoremprobo,quia in theologianon apparetin quo stettermi- 65
nisiarticulifidei;ergo.Relinquitur
nus sue considerationis
perresolutionem
quod articulifideisintprincipiaistiusscientie.
per quem
[Quid sibi videturdicendum] Ut tamenmeliusintelligatur
modumarticulisuntprincipiatheologieestsciendumquod nos loquimurde
principiisnon quoeumquemodo,sed solumde illisque suntcausa veritatis 70
in aliqua scientia,et loquendo istomodo triasunt
omniumcomplexionum
sicutpotesthaberia Philosopho,primo
in
generaprincipiorum aliquascientia,
sunt
nam
Posteriorum
,
quedam
principiaque vocanturdignitates,
quedam
interque
etquedamaliavocanturpetitiones,
veroaliavocantursuppositiones,
triadignitates
quia ad ea statresolutioomnium 75
potissimevocanturprincipia,
in omnibuscomplexionibus
veritatis
causa
sunt
et
fol.
I8va
veritatum, ipsa | simpliciter
B,
sunt
illiusscientie,cuius
dignitates.

ed.L.Minio-Paluello
ticaPosteriora,
1954)I,c. 10,pp.295-296;
72-73 Aristotle,
(Bruges,
Analy
andB.G.Dod(Bruges-Paris,
Latinus
1968),pp.24
alsomAristoteles
IV,ed.L. Minio-Paluello
ofMoerbeka);
ofWilliam
edition,
and296(translation
ofVenice)
ofJames
[Bekker
(translation
76b].
ABveriB
ACmensurantur
55-56veritate
B | mensuratur
ACregulantur
52regulatur
om.B
. . cognoscimus
57iliaABista
57-58aliquem.
tatem
C
57etom.C
AC
61 resolutio
C
ABhabent
60 haberent
C
ABveritatis
C
58 veritati
66
conB
om.
.
.
.
considerationis
stat
64-66
C
om.
enim
B
consideratio 63
BC loquimus
69 loquimur
68 tamenom.C
C
AB resolutionis
siderationis
C
ABistius
add.modoC
77illius
A
70solum]

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

80

85

90

95

100

403

Est autemhec differentia

interdignitates
et suppositiones,
sicutdeclarat
ibidemAristoteles,
non
veritate
exterius
ad sui
quia dignitates indigentaliqua
veritatis
evidentiam,
quia per se magissuntnate videri.Suppositioquippe
vocaturipsa que potestdemonstranin aliqua scientia,accipiturtarnenab
addiscentesine demonstratione,
et supponiturtamquamprobabilis.Petitio
autemproprieestillaque estcontraria
etideopriuspetiopinioniaddiscentis,
tureiusconcessio,quam ex ipsa procedatur
ad aliquidaliud.Ex quo apparet
et suppositione.
quomododiffert
petitioa dignitate
Ad propositumergodescendendodico quod articulifideisuntprincipia
et aliquo modo sicutsuppositiones;
nullotarnen
aliquo modo sicutdignitates
modosicutpetitiones.
Nam quod sintprincipiasicutdignitates
probatur,
quia
ut tactumest per Aristotelem,
dignitatesnon egentrationeextrademonstrate,ut dicitLincolniensis,
quod "sicutlucidumvisibileut videaturnon
cadentesuperipsum,sicdignitas,
utsciatur,
noneget
indigetnisivisuexteriori
nisiratione,
est
Ex
cadente."
mentis,
que aspectus
simpliciter
superipsa
quibus
nobis statimpatetquod omne illud quod in generecomplexorumest per
itaquod non indigetrationedemonstrante,
seipsumintelligibile,
eoipsohabet
rationemprincipiiet dignitatis.Constatautemquod articulifideimaxime
suntintelligibiles
in sua veritate,
et quamvisa
perseipsoset maximeevidentes
nobisnon intelligantur.
Hoc tamennon obstatquando debeantdici theologieprincipia,sicutdigsed ex
nitates,propterduo. Primoquia hoc non est ex partearticulorum,
nostra.
Sicut
non
obstante
alicuius
scientie
humaniparte
quod principia
ergo
tus adinventenon intelligantur
ab istovel ab ilio, nihilominustamenvere
suntprincipiaillius,quia verein se suntintelligibilia
et intelliguntur
ab illis
qui perfectehabentillam scientiam.Ita etiamnon obstantequod articuli
fideia nobisnon intelliguntur,
nihilominus
tamenveresuntprincipiaipsius

79-80Ibid
89-90Ibid.
90-92Robert
Commentarius
inPosteriorum
Grosseteste,
libros
P.
Rossi
ed.
158.
,
(Firenze,
1981),
Analyticorum
p.
ABveritatis
C
79veritate
81ipsaA illaBC
81 tamen
A cumB
A
89extra
exnatura
B
Aeget
B
91indiget
ACdignitates
B
91dignitas
om.
92mentis
B
93 nobisom.B
AB intelligendum
94 intelligibile
C
98 theologie
A principia
B
99 primoquiaA quiaB | sedA si B sicutC
principia
theologie
101intelligantur
B intelligatur
A
101velACetB
102illius]
add.scientie
C | vere
om.C
102intelliguntur
B intelligunt
A
104intelliguntur
B intelligantur
A

15:08:33 PM

404

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

B,fol.18vb theologie,quia verein se suntintelligibiles

ab eis qui
| et vereintelliguntur
habent
scientiam
sicut
sunt
beati.
perfecte
theologie,
Ulteriusapparethoc secundoex eo quod istatheologiautituristisprincipiis
etregulando| totamsuamconsiderationem,
A,fol.I4va mensurando
quemadmodumseiende humanitusadinventeutunturipsis dignitatibus
regulandoet mensurandototumsuumprocessumpereas; quapropternon obstantequod prefati
articulinon intelligantur
a theologo,nihilominus
tarnenveresuntprincipia
ratione
eis
utitur
usus,
theologie
quia
tamquamdignitatibus.
Ulterius,dico quod possuntdici principiatheologietamquamsuppositions quia habentaliquamsimilitudinem
cumsuppositionibus.
Nam sicutsupex virtutescientiein qua supponuntur
sed
positions non habentevidentiam
ex virtutescientiesuperioris
a qua accipiuntur,
ita articulifideinon habent
evidentiamex virtutetheologienostrein qua supponuntursed ex virtute
scilicetDei et beatorum,a qua accipiuntur.
Et hincest
theologiesuperioris,
nostra
non
sit
subalternata
Dei
et
beatorum
quod quamvistheologia
theologie
est
tamen
ibi
similitudo
sicut
subalternationis,
proprieloquendo,
aliqua
patebitin sequentiarticulo.
Concludoergoquod articulifideisintprincipiatheologieetsicutdignitates
etsicutsuppositiones,
Nam sicuttangebanullotamenmodosicutpetitiones.
tursuperius,petitioest contrariaopinioniaddiscentis,et ideo petitureius
concessio.Articuliautem fideinon sunt contradiaddiscentitheologiam,
immosi essentcontrarii
ei, nullomodopossetdisceretheologiam,
quapropter
debentsupponi,sicutperse nota.
noncogunt,namcumprimo
Motivaautemsuperiusinductain contrarium
diciturquod nullascientiaqueritde suisprincipiis
sed supponitet ex eis proceditad concludendumalia, dico quod quererede principiispotestintelligi
et ilio modo nullascientia
Primout dubitetur
de eorumveritate,
dupliciter.
scientia
nec
de
suis
querit
principiis,
quia quelibit
supponitea esseverissima,
scilicetde articulifidei,
edam istomodo theologiaqueritde suis principiis,
eos
habere
infallibilem
veritatem.
quia supponit

105

110

115

120

125

130

A
AB intelligibilia
C | intelliguntur
BC intelligunt
107hocBC
105 intelligibiles
B
111 intelligantur
AC intelliguntur
et C
huiusA
108suamAB scientiam
ABevidentias
116nonAC
C | sedACsiB
113quodABquiaC
115evidentiam
ACtheologie
Deietbeatorum,
a quaaccipiuntur
118theologie
scilicet
siB
superioris,
A
126eiom.
B
124contraria
B econtraria
a quaaccipitur
accipiuntur
superioris
AC superioris
128superius
AB adiscere
C
BC I discere
127notaB notiAC
B
132necACutB
131ilioA istoBC

15:08:33 PM

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay
135

140

145

150

155

160

405

Secundomodo potestintelligiquod fiatquestiode principiis,

| non quod B,fol.19ra
in C,fol.9vb
illamveritatem
sed de modo apprehendendi
dubitetur
| de eorumveritate,
Veritas
si
enim
et
male
bene
quorundamprinapprehendi;
speciali,quia potest
numquam
cipiorumin quibusdamscientiissemperbene apprehenderetur,
artismaleintellectis.
fieret
quo proceditex principiis
falsigraphus
sillogismus
beneet maleintelSicutergoin scientiishumanispotestaliquodprincipium
in
existimare
in
ita
et
propositode articulis
ligi apprehendi speciali, possumus
ab
omnibuscatholicis
articuli
Veritas
unius
fidei,nam quamvisin generali
uno modo,nec quantumad hoc cadatibi dubitationec quesapprehendatur
tio,in specialitarnenpotestapprehendidiversismodisquorumaliqui repuget ideo quantumad hoc
et aliqui concordarent,
narentveritatiarticulorum
tarnenquestionesperquarumdiset indeformantur
caduntibi dubitationes,
in speciali.
articulorum
Veritas
solutionemdeclaratur
tamenquod in tototaliprocessuipsemetarticulusestprinIntelligendum
quedamalia ad declaratiocipium,nam quamvisin taliprocessuassumantur
articuliin generalisecundum
Veritas
nemarticuli,sempertamensupponitur
sacram
est
nobis
tamquamregulaet mensura
scripturam
propositaper
quod
utrum
cuius
totiusprocessus,
signumest,quia quando volumuscertifican
explicatiofactade articulosit vera,statimaspicimusad veritatemarticuli
Et si videmusquod
propositamnobis in generaliper sacramscripturam.
concordetveritatiarticuliquam sacrascripturaproponitnobis in generali,
factamin specialiapprobamustamquam
et applicationem
tunccognoscimus,
et con- A,fol.I4vb
veram;cum verovidemusquod ab | ea discordt,tuncreprobamus
formam
ad
Dico
falsam.
earn
argumentiquod
ergo
tamquam
dempnamus
istomodononrpugnt
quia potestcompetere
theologie,
quererede principiis
aliisscientiis.
Secundumetiammotivmest modici ponderis,nam cum dicuntnulla
dico quod ista
scientiaordinaturad defensionemsuorumprincipiorum,

om.B
138apprehendeC | semper
ABquedam
om.C
138quibusdam
137potest
C
B apprehenduntur
139 quo A quia B | artisom.B
A apprehendere
retur
B
A indubitado
om.C
141 existimare
143 ibi dubitatio
140 Sicutom.B
ibi
B
formantur
A
inde
formantur
tamen
146indeformantur
questiones
questiones
questiones
semtamen
ACnihilominus
tamen
C
ABveritates
147Veritas
150semper
indeC
A
152certifican
B
Veritas
Aproposita
152estom.AB
151proposita
perB
factaC
B de taliarticulo
A factaperarticulum
B
certis
153 factade articulo
A
BC repugnant
B
ACreprehendamus
157reprobamus
159rpugnt

15:08:33 PM

406

/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay

defenditsua
propositiovideturesse falsa,nam videmusquod metaphysica
ex
sicutpatet quartoMetaphysice
etprincipia
omniumscientiarum,
, et
principia
immode qualibetscientiapotestdici
totusunus tractatus
ad hoc ordinatur;
saltemimplicite,
nameo ipsoquod
sua
modo
defendit
principia,
quod aliquo
fol.
edam
et ipsa principia,
19rb
elici
tas
ex
defendit
defendit
conclusiones
B,
|
principiis,
quia si quis negaretconclusiones
negaretedam et ipsaprincipiaimplicite.
de scienUltimuspotestdiciquod prefata
propositiosolumestintelligenda
eis sua
tiisspecialibusquarumconsideradosic estartata,quod si negarentur
principianon habentulteriusviam ad aliquid probandumet declarandum.
bene possunt
Seiende tarnenconclusionessicutsuntlogica et metaphysica
earum
considerado
sic
est
sua principia,
defendere
ampia,quod quicquid
quia
totumestde earumconsideratione,
quapropnegaturetquicquidconceditur,
et per
contranegantessibiprincipia,
tersemperhabentviamad disputandum
et
roborandum.
ad
ea
declarandum
consequens
Itaergopoteritdiciin propositoquod consideradotheologieestamplissima
ad cognamconsidrt
de totoentein quantumpotestdeservire
scientiarum,
eorumque suntfidei.Et ideo quamvisnon
nitionemDei et ad defensionem
a
vel a priori,sicutnec metaphysica,
possitsua principiaprobarea superiori
considex
nulla
est
sibi
clausa
cum
sua
tamen
via,
parte
posteriori
potest,quia
erado sit aliquo modo de totoente,ut dictumest. Patetergoquod articuli
fideisuntprincipiaistiusseiende.

165

170

175

180

164Aristotle,
, IV,esp.eh.3 (1005a-b).
Metaphysica
B negetur
AB| negarentur
C quorum
168etiam
om.C
164exom.C
170quarum
AB eorum
C
A negantur
C
177ItaBC IstaA | quodBC quia
173earum
A ad quantum
deservire
A
178namom.B | enteom.C | inquantum
poterit
potest
om.AC | velom.C
om.C
180 a superiori
B
servire
179 ad defensionem
A
BC illius
183istius

15:08:33 PM

c"1"'
{iUt

BRILL

Nikolaus

VIVA
RI UM
brill.nl/viv

Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

von Autrecourt

ber das erste Prinzip

die Gewiheit von Stzen

und

AndrejKrause*
Seminar
Universitt
fiirPhilosophie,
Halle-Wittenberg
Abstract
in hissecondletter
to Bernard
ofArezzothatwith
NicholasofAutrecourt
maintains
ofthecertitude
offaith,
there
is no othercertitude
butthecertitude
of
theexception
thelawofnon-contradiction,
ortheonethatcanbe resolved
to thislaw.Thearticle
isnotpossible.
Itcomes
examines
thisstatement,
whichimplies
thatnatural
theology
totheconclusion
Nicholasinhisletter
seemstoidentify
therelation
that,ingeneral,
"...can be resolved..."
between
twocertain
sentences
withtherelation
"...follows
from
. . .".Thisidentification
leadstoproblems
whicharediscussed.
Nicholas
Further,
validinference
theconsequent
is identical
withtheantecedent
oris
saysthatinevery
intwoways.
partofit.Thiscanbe understood
Keywords
NicholasofAutrecourt,
first
lawofnon-contradiction,
certitude,
principle,
primurn
principium
Nikolausvon Autrecourt
Denkerdes Mittelalgiltals einerderoriginellsten
ters.In Studienzur mittelalterlichen
zur mittelalPhilosophie,insbesondere
terlichen
findeter immerwiedergroeBeachtung.1
Seine
Erkenntnistheorie,
Dieser
Aufsatz
istMatthias
Kaufmann
Vormehreren
durfte
icheinvonihm
Jahren
gewidmet.
anderUniversitt
Oberseminar
zuNikolaus
vonAutrecourt
besuHalle-Wittenberg
geleitetes
chen.
Dafr
seiihmundauchdenanderen
Seminarteilnehmern
herzlich
gedankt.
1}Vgl.KurtFlasch,
Dasphilosophische
Denken
imMittelalter
1987),J.M. M. H.
(Stuttgart,
'The
for
Certain
in
the
Fourteenth
Nicholas
ofAutrecourt
Thijssen, Quest
Knowledge
Century:
inAncient
theAcademics',
andtheSceptical
Tradition
,ed.J.Sihvola
(Helsinki,
against
Scepticism
Dominik
undGewiheit.
Debatten
imMittelalter
Perler,
2000),199-223,
Zweifel
Skeptische
amMain,2006),Christophe
etsavoir.
Croire
Lesprincipes
delaconnaissance
Grellard,
(Frankfurt
selon
Nicolas
Autrcourt
Demonstration
andtheInfinite
(Paris,
2005),ders.,
'Scepticism,
Koninklijke
Brill
DOI:10.1
2009
NV,
Leiden,
163/156853409X417917

15:08:39 PM

408

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

und verurteilt
erkenntnistheoretischen
Thesen,die zumTeilAnstoerregten
seinzweiter
von
denen
formuliert,
wurden,hatervorallemin einigenBriefen
ist.2Dort gibter unter
Briefan Bernhardvon Arezzowohl derberhmteste
Er
an.
anderemeine bemerkenswerte
sagtnmlich,da es neben
Einteilung
Glaubensnurnoch die Gewiheit
der Gewiheitder Stzedes christlichen
des erstenPrinzipsund die GewiheitderjenigenStze,die auf dieseserste
Aufwerdenknnen,gebe.3Das Ziel desvorliegenden
Prinzipzurckgefhrt
Briefes
aufderGrundlagedesgenannten
satzesistes,dieseEinteilung
genauer
in zweiTeilen.Im erstenTeilwirddie GewiDies geschieht
zu untersuchen.
Bei diesemPrinziphandeltes
erstenPrinzipsdiskutiert.
heitdes sogenannten
aber
es findetsichbereitsbeiAristoteles,
sichum den SatzvomWiderspruch,
lassensichjeweilsverschiedene
sowohlbei Nikolausals auch bei Aristoteles
des
GemdenAusfhrungen
frdiesesPrinzipnachweisen.
Formulierungen
in
zweifacher
erstes
Briefesist der Satz vom Widerspruch
Hinsicht;
Prinzip
wirdnun
blicherweise
zu analysieren.
dieseHinsichtengiltes im folgenden
des
ersten
Gewiheit
da die
NikolausdieAuffassung
Prinzips
zugeschrieben,
ist.4Der Aufsatzwird
andererStzenotwendig
fiirdie Gewiheitbestimmter
hinreichend
da die GewiheitdiesesPrinzipsjedenfalls
dafrargumentieren,
im zweitenTeildesAufsatzes
frdieseStzeseinsoll.5Dies wirdvornehmlich
derdie Thesendes BriefesbezglichderGewiheitderaufdieses
geschehen,
Stze besprichtund nach ihrerPlausibilitt
erstePrinzipzurckfuhrbaren
TheoriederHalbordnungen
mathematischen
aus
der
sich
wobei
einige
fragt,
in Vivarium
andJohnBuridan)',
ofAutrecourt
45 (2007),
(Nicholas
Regress
Argument
Autrecourt.
SeinLeben,
Nicolaus
von
Arbeiten
von
bereits
die
auch
328-342.
Lappe,
Joseph
Vgl.
Nicolaus
seine
, seine
1908),undJulius
(Mnster,
of
Rudolph
Weinberg,
Schriften
Philosophie
PrincederAusgabe
A Study
inI4thCentury
Autrecourt.
1969;Nachdruck
(NewYork,
Thought
'Nicolas
finden
sichinZ. Kaluza,
zuNikolaus
ton,1948).Ausfhrliche
Angaben
biographische
42/1(1995),1-233.
delaFrance
littraire
inHistoire
Amidelavrit',
Autrcourt.
2)FrM.Kaufmann,
Giles
and
Master
with
HisCorrespondence
ofAutrecourt,
'Review
(Nicholas
the
Brief
inVivarium
Bernard
36(1998),264-266,
265,istbesagter
"probably
sogar
ofArezzo)'
im
werde
Ad
Bernardm
Secunda
Dieser
die
desNikolaus.
,
text"
mostfamous
Brief,
Epistola
His
Nicholas
of
nach
II"
und
mit
Autrecourt,
Correspondabgekrzt
folgenden"Correspondence
ed.L.M.deRijk(Leiden-New
andBernard
York-Kln,
Master
Giles
ence
with
1994),
ofArezzo,
wird.
dieser
dieSeitenzahl
inKlammern
wobei
zitiert,
58-75,
Ausgabe
angefhrt
jeweils
3)Vgl.Correspondence
nisicertinullaestaliacertitudo
certitudine
fidei,
II,7 (62):"Excepta
ist
Diese
resolvi."
in
vel
tudoprimi
gleichBehauptung
potest
principium
principii,que primm
vondeRijk,
B derAusgabe
172.
Artikel
desNikolaus.
einer
derverurteilten
Vgl.Appendix
zeitig
4)Vgl.Weinberg,
and
ofAutrecourt
'On Nicholas
Nicolaus
, 14,L. Groarke,
ofAutrecourt
und
in Dialogue
23 (1984),129-134,
129,Perler,
theLawofNon-Contradiction,
Zweifel
, 344.
Gewiheit
5)Indiesem
mitdieser
Grellards
wird
auchdieDeutung
Interpretation
verglichen.
Zusammenhang

15:08:39 PM

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

409

bekannteBegriffe
als ntzlicherweisen
werden.Nikolaussagtin diesemKontextauch,da jederFolgesatzeinTeil seinesVordersatzes
oderidentischmit
ihmist.Der dieserBehauptung
des
zugrundegelegteBegriff Teilessollgenauer
untersucht
werden.Es bietensichzwei Deutungenan, derenImplikationen
starkeinsichtigsind. Abschlieendwird errtert,
jeweils unterschiedlich
ob angesichtsder genanntenDreiteilungeine natrlicheTheologienoch
mglichist.
1. Die Gewiheitdes erstenPrinzips
Stze,die gewisind- diese Stze mgenim folgenden
g-Stzeheien- ,
sind Stze,die man fiirwahrhlt und in derenFr-wahr-halten
man sich
nichttuschenkann.6Jederg-Satzistwahr,da mansichnurdannin demFrwahr-halten
einesfrwahrgehaltenen
Satzesnichttuschenkann,wenndieser Satz wahrist.Andererseits
mu nichtjederwahreSatz ein g-Satzsein,
denn es knntewahreStze geben,die man frfalschhlt oder bezglich
dererman sichnichtentscheiden
kann,ob sie wahroderob sie falschsind.
Das sogenannte
erstePrinzipsoll ein solcherg-Satzsein.Dieses Prinzipwird
in besagtemBriefso formuliert:
sindnichtzugleichwahr.7
(P) Zwei Stze,die einanderwidersprechen,
Man siehtsofort,
da P derSatzvomWiderspruch
ist.In dieserFormulierung
lt er sichbereitsbei Aristoteles
nachweisen.8
Nikolauszufolgekannkeine
- P- falschist.9
Macht bewirken,da der Satz vom Widerspruch
Folglich
kann auch Gott P nichtauer Kraftsetzen,er kann beispielsweise
nicht
da es gleichzeitig
wahrist,da ein Gegenstand
existiert
und
bewirken,
jetzt
nicht
existiert.
Da
Gott dies nichtkann,wirdvorNikolausetwavon
jetzt
6)Dieses
Verstndnis
vonGewiheit
findet
sichbereits
beiAristoteles,
IV,3 (1005b
Metaphysik
11-12).
7)Vgl.Correspondence
nonpossunt
simul
essevera."
II,2 (58):"Contradictoria
8)Vgl.Aristoteles,
Inanderen
Texten
fiihrt
Nikolaus
IV,6 (1011b 13-14).
daserste
Metaphysik
wiegesagt,
abweichend
ein.Vgl.Groarke,
'OnNicholas
ofAutrecour,
Perler,
Prinzip,
Zweifel
undGewiheit
Auch
beiAristoteles
esverschiedene
,340f.
FreineAnalyse
gibt
Formulierungen.
ber
denSatzdesWiderspruchs
beiAristoteles
ZrichNew
vgl.JanLukasiewicz,
(HildesheimYork,
1993).
9)Vgl.Correspondence
facere
II,5 (60):".. .necaliquapotentia
sint
potest
quodcontradictoria
simul
vera."

15:08:39 PM

410

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

P istfrNikolausnichtnurein frwahr
ThomasvonAquinangenommen.10
sondern
ein
Satz,
gehaltener
sogar g-Satz,es sollunmglichsein,sichim Frvon P zu tuschen,es soll daherauch unmglichsein,da P
wahr-halten
falschist.Da P eing-Satzist,leuchtetein,dennwreP falsch,gbees Stze,
die einanderwidersprechen
und die zugleichwahrsind.Diese Konsequenzist
P wahr
offensichtlich
absurd.Auerdemmte,wennP falschist,gleichzeitig
sein,es sei denn,es gbe andereGrndedafr,warumes sichbei P und - iP
nichtum Stzehandelt,die gleichzeitig
wahrsind.WelcheGrndesolltendas
abersein?
Nun solles sichbei P nichtnurumeinenbeliebigen
g-Satz,sondernumein
in bestimmter
und
zwar
soll
Weiseerstes
handeln,
Prinzip
gelten:11
als P ist.
(1) Es gibtkeinPrinzip,das frher
alsjedesanderePrinzip.
(2) P istfrher
Weisender
Da es grundstzlich
sinnvollist,die in (1) und (2) formulierten
Erstheitzu unterscheiden,
wird an folgendemBeispielklar: Eine Mauer
Diese seiendie einfachsten
TeiledieserMauer.Die
besteheaus Ziegelsteinen.
sei die Relation"... istTeil von. . .". z sei ein belieRelationdes Frherseins
derMauer.Nun istz zwarin demSinneErstesgemdieser
bigerZiegelstein
derMauergibt,derTeilvonz ist,nichtaber
Relation,als es keinenZiegelstein
istz kein
als z Teil jedes anderenTeilsderMauer ist.Insbesondere
insofern,
derMauer.Aus demVorliegendererstenWeise
Teil deranderenZiegelsteine
allerderzweitenWeisederErstheit,
derErstheit
folgtalsonichtdasVorliegen
Erstheit
zweiten
Weise
der
das
der
die
d.
h.,
Vorliegen
dingsgilt Umkehrung,
wennmanvoraussetzt,
das Vorliegen
dererstenWeisederErstheit,
impliziert
ist.
da die Relationdes Frherseins
asymmetrisch Allgemein:x sei in einer
RelationR erstesElementim
MengeM miteinergegebenenasymmetrischen
Elementy aus M sei
SinnederzweitenWeise,d. h.,jedesvon x verschiedene
von R keiny aus
der
x
kann
es
R.
Dann
als
wegen Asymmetrie
gem
spter
x
erstes
Elementim
x
R
ist.
Somit
ist
auch
M geben,das frherals gem
Sinne der erstenWeise. Daher mu, im speziellenFall, (1) aus (2) folgen,
10)Vgl.z.B.Thomas
aberauch
I q. 10a. 5 ad3.ZurAufwertung,
Summa
vonAquin,
theologiae
Scholastik
indermittelalterlichen
desWiderspruchsprinzips
vgl.R.Schnberger,
Relativierung
inPhilosophiumdaserste
Diskussionen
Zumittelalterlichen
'Evidenz
undErkenntnis.
Prinzip',
102(1995),4-19.
sches
Jahrbuch
n) Vgl.Correspondence
estpriestquodistud
duo.Primm
II,2 (58):"Circa
quodoccurrunt
Secundum
estprius'.
mmprincipium,
quod
quo nichil
exponendo:
<'primum'>
negative
alioprius'."
velpositive:
affirmative
estprimum
occurrit
estquodistud
quodestquocumque

15:08:39 PM

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

4 11

als jedes anderePrinzipist,mu folgen,da kein

d. h., daraus,da P frher
P
als
ist.
Dies
nimmtNikolaus implizitauch an, wenn er
frher
Prinzip
"
estpriusomnialio quodnonestipsum'ergo[meine
schreibt:Istud[principium]
12
isthieraber
nichil
est
eo
prius? WelcheArtvon Frhersein
Hervorhebung]
Relationen
zwischen
soll
es
sich
nicht
nur
um
Jedenfalls
Prinzipien,
gemeint?
die gewi sind, handeln,sondern,allgemeiner,
um Relationenzwischen
Diese legennmg-Stzen.Das ergibtsichklaraus Nikolaus'Ausfuhrungen.
lichfolgendeDefinitionnahe.13
als q genaudann,wenndie
(D) p und q seienzweig-Stze.Dann istp frher
werdenkann.
Gewiheitvon q aufdie Gewiheitvon p zurckgefhrt
In diesemZusammenhang
scheintNikolauszu unterstellen:
(3) Die Gewiheitvon q kanngenaudannaufdie Gewiheitvon p zurckwerdenkann.
werden,wennq aufp zurckgefhrt
gefhrt
WennNikolausebenfallssagt,da die Gewiheitvon g-Stzenauf P selbst
zurckfhrbar
so meinterdamit,da die GewiheitdieserStzeaufdie
ist,14
von P zurckfhrbar
ist,bzw.,wegen(3), da diese Stze auf P
Gewiheit
zurckfhrbar
sind.Legtman die genannteDefinitionzugrunde,so ergeben
sichfir(1) und (2) folgendeLesarten:
(4) Es gibt keinenvon P verschiedenen
g-Satz,auf dessenGewiheitdie
Gewiheitvon P zurckgefhrt
werdenkann.
(5) Die Gewiheiteinesjeden von P verschiedenen
g-Satzes kann auf die
Gewiheitvon P zurckgefhrt
werden.
kann aber die Gewiheiteines g-Satzesauf die Gewiheiteines
Inwiefern
andereng-Satzes zurckgefhrt
werden?
Was meintNikolausalso mit"zurckfhren"?
Zunchsteinmalsetzteres mitdemZurckfhren
einesFolgesatzes
"
aufein Prinzipgleich, resolvitur
in aliudsicutconclusio
inprincipium'
.15Man
12)Vgl.Correspondence
II,3 (60).
13)Vgl.Correspondence
II,7-10,20 (62,64,70).
14)Vgl.Correspondence
II,3,6 (58,60).
15)Vgl.Correspondence
a nobis
certitudo
habita
resolvitur
inistud
II,3 (58):"Omnis
principium.Etipsum
nonresolvitur
inaliquod
inprincipium
aliudsicut
conclusio
suum."
CorrespondenceII,3 (60):".. . innostrum
dictum
omnis
nostra
certitudo
resolvitur.
Et<quod>
principium
nonresolvitur
inaliudsicut
inprincipium
conclusio
. . ."
ipsum

15:08:39 PM

412

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

kanndiesso verstehen,
alsseidiesesPrinzipnotwendigem
denFolgesatz.Dann
mteman (1) und (2) bzw.(4) und (5) so interpretieren:
(6) Es gibtkeinenvon P verschiedenen
g-Satz,dessenGewiheitnotwendig
frdie Gewiheitvon P ist.
furdie Gewiheitjedes von P ver(7) Die Gewiheitvon P ist notwendig
schiedeneng-Satzes.
derPositiondes NikoInsbesondere
(7) istTeil einerblichenBeschreibung
laus.16Sowohl(6) als auch (7) sindjedenfallsgltigeAussagen,dennes gibt
keinenvon P verschiedenen
g-Satz,dessen Gewiheitnotwendigfrdie
frdie GewiGewiheitvon P ist.Auchistdie Gewiheitvon P notwendig
manP,httedie RedevonderGewiheitderandereng-Stze,dennbestritte
heitvonStzenkeinenSinnmehr.Nikolaussolltealso (6) und (7) akzeptieren.
des
Nun scheinteraber,wennerbetont,da die g-StzeihreGewiheitkraft
sich
die
da
erstenPrinzips(virtute
primiprincipii)haben,17anzunehmen,
Dieses bertragen
Gewiheitvon P aufdie Gewiheitderg-Stzebertrgt.
fr
derGewiheitvon P aufandereStzesetzter auch in seinemArgument
davonaus,da erst
von (5) voraus,18
dennergehtdortoffenbar
die Gltigkeit
der
P sicherstellen
kann,da das,was derFallzu seinscheint,auchtatschlich
einesFolgesatzes
Fall ist.Fernerdrftees sichbei dem Zurckfuhren
auf ein
einesFolgesatzes
auf seinen
Prinzipum einenSonderfalldes Zurckfuhrens
ihre
sie
aber
Vordersatz
handeln.Vorderstze
Folgestze, sind fiir
implizieren
Somitmteman (1) und (2) bzw.(4) und (5) so lesen:
letztere
hinreichend
(8) Es gibtkeinenvon P verschiedenen
g-Satz,dessenGewiheithinreichend
fiirdie Gewiheitvon P ist.
fiirdie Gewiheitjedesvon P ver(9) Die Gewiheitvon P isthinreichend
schiedeneng-Satzes.19
16)Vgl.Funote
dieses
dieErstheit
4.Bereits
IV,3 (1005b6-34)scheint
Aristoteles,
Metaphysik
sozuverstehen.
Prinzips
17)Vgl.Correspondence
II,5 (60).
18)Vgl.Correspondence
II,3 (58,60).
19)FrKurtFlasch,
Mittelalter
undDarstellung.
in Text
derPhilosophie
Geschichte
(Stuttgart,
derevidenten
derGrund
derSatzvomWiderspruch
Urteile,
1999),482,istnachNikolaus
DasPariser
hnlich
wasermit"Grund"
erlutert
Flasch
meint,
nicht,
Paqu,
Ruprecht
allerdings
derneuzeitlichen
desRealittsbegriffi
ZurEntstehung
Nominalistenstatut.
(BerNaturwissenschaft
lin,1970),171.

15:08:39 PM

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

413

Nun ist(8) zwarplausibel,da es in derTat keinenvon P verschiedenen

g-Satz
(9) aber ist falsch.
gibt,dessenGewiheitdie Gewiheitvon P impliziert,
Denn beispielsweise
die Gewiheitvon P nichtdie Gewiheiteines
impliziert
mathematischen
g-Satzes,etwades Satzes,da die Summezweier
beliebigen
Zahlen
stets
geradeist. Dafr,da diesermathematische
beliebigergerader
Satz gewiist,reichtes nichtaus, da P gewiist.Auch frdie Gewiheit
einesSatzes,der die Existenzeinesextramentalen
behauptet,
Gegenstandes
von P
reichtdie Gewiheitvon P nichtaus. Wennmandaherdas Frhersein
frdas Sptereist,ergibtsichdie
so interpretiert,
da das Frherehinreichend
da
da (2) bzw.(5) unplausibelsind.Man knnteeinwenden,
Schwierigkeit,
derAnsichtendes Nikolaus
es sichbei (8) und (9) um Fehlinterpretationen
handelt.Nikolausmeinemit(1) und (2) bzw.(4) und (5) keinesfalls
(8) und
20
(9), sonderneben (6) und (7). Gegen diesenEinwandsprichtaberneben
und
den bereitsgenanntenGrnden,da Nikolauszwischenmittelbarem
und sichhierbeiaufdas VorgeZurckfuhren
unterscheidet
unmittelbarem
Dies sollim folgenden
werden.
henderGeometrieberuft.
genauererlutert
Stze
2. Die Gewiheitder auf das erstePrinzipzurckfuhrbaren
Da das Zurckfuhren
derg-StzeaufP im Sinnevon (9) zu verstehen
ist,
sich
aus
Zitat:
folgendem
ergibt
20)Grellard,
Weisen
an:
derErstheit
339,gibtfrdiebeiden
'Scepticism',
folgende
Deutung
ofthefirst
inthewaythatNicholas
thenegative
"Buridan
therefore
primacy
principle
accepts
it(thefirst
isnottheconclusion
ofa demonstration),
butnotthepositive
understands
principle
first
is
the
of
demonstration."
Grellard
(the
(4)und
primacy
interpretiert
principle premissevery
wiefolgt:
(5)demnach
eines
Beweises/in
einem
Beweis.
derFolgesatz
(G 1) P istnicht
P
ist
Prmisse
eines
Beweises/in
einem
die
(G2)
jeden
jedenBeweis.
Es istmglich,
dadieseInterpretation
Grellards
mitdervonunsvorgeschlagenen
bereinfalls
nmlich
P ist,und
daeskeinen
derhinreichend
fiir
stimmt,
(G 1) besagt,
g-Satz
gibt,
daP hinreichend
fr
ist.Dafr
knnte
Croire
daGrellard,
(G2) besagt,
jeden
sprechen,
g-Satz
etsavoir
daderSatzvomWiderspruch
beiNikolaus
Gewiheit
, 7Of.,
74,sagt,
jegliche
garantiert.
Sollte
in(G 2) jedoch
ermitdemWort
"Prmisse"
daP einenotwendige
meinen,
(und
- entgegen
keine
fiir
ist,dannwre
hinreichende)
(G 1)Bedingung
jedeng-Satz
jeder
g-Satz
fiir
P.Nunschreibt
hinreichend
Artikel
aberauch:"Nicholas
er,'Scepticism',
336,inbesagtem
admits
theprinciple
ofnon-contradiction
because
it
is
a
condition
Her[meine
simply
necessary
fordebate."
vorhebung]

15:08:39 PM

4 14

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420
Entweder
werden
also
. . .jedeGewiheit
erste
wirdaufdasselbe
Prinzip
zurckgefhrt.
unmittelbar
aufdasselbe
erste
Prinzip
zurckgejeneersten
gleich
Schlufolgerungen
unmittelbar
Aber
dasbiefhrt.
. .; oderdieeinewird
dieandere
mittelbar,
zurckgefhrt.
aufdaserste
tethierkeineSchwierigkeit,
dennwennwireineRckfhrung
Prinzip
ingleicher
Weise
wiederGeometer
wiederanderen
sindwirdereinen
vollziehen,
gewi,
wiederersten,
undsoderdritten
und
ebenso
sicher
eristderzweiten
Schlufolgerung
sagt;
derbrigen
. . .21

odermittelbar
aufP zurckunmittelbar
Demnachsolljederg-Satzentweder
sein.Fernersoll es frdie Gewiheiteinesg-SatzeskeineRollespiefuhrbar
oder mittelbar
auf P zuriickfiihrbar
ist,alle g-Stze
len, ob er unmittelbar
das Zurckfuhren
sollenim gleichenMae gewisein. Nikolausvergleicht
aufP zurckfiihrbaren
dermittelbar
g-StzemitdemVorgehenderGeomeda sichdie GewiheitvonP auf
trie.Er tutdies,um dafrzu argumentieren,
aufP zurckfiihrbaren
die unmittelbar
g-Stzeundvondortaufdie mittelbar
- bertrgt:
- ohneVerlust
.
aufP zurckfuhrbaren
g-Stzejeweilsvollstndig
im gleichenMae gewi
Denn auchderGeometersei sichseinerGrundstze
In derGeometrieund in jedem
oderFolgestze.
wie seinerSchlufolgerungen
Theoreme
nunaberinsofern
sind
die
anderenaxiomatischen
System
genauso
wenn
die
.
Daher
mu
es
sie
aus
diesen
wie
als
die
sich,
Axiome,
folgen
gewi
P
ein
auf
um
eines
beim
Zurckfuhren
g-Satzes
Analogiegltigsein soll,
handeln.AuerdemsprichtNikolausim
aufeinen Vordersatz
Zurckfuhren
, sind,die aufP unmittelbar
Folgestze
obigenZitatdavon,da es conclusiones,
sind.Entferntere
zurckfuhrbar
odermittelbar
FolgestzewerdendannsinnDas Rckfuhrungsverhltnis
von nherenFolgestzenimpliziert.
vollerweise
zwischenihnenbestehtalso darin,da derfrhere
g-Satz(deran P "nhere")
. Analogbestehtdas
den sptereng-Satz(denvon P "entfernteren")
impliziert
P
unmittelbaren
und
den
zwischen
darin,
Folgestzen
Rckfuhrungsverhltnis
AuchwenigspternimmtNikolausan, da
da P dieseFolgestzeimpliziert.
sie
zurckfiihrbar
es conclusiones
sind,22
, Folgestze
, gibt,die aufP unmittelbar
man
NikoP
Somit
darf
aus
als
sie
sollenalso insofern
folgen.
Folgestzesein,
lausdieAkzeptanzvon (9) bzw.derfolgenden
Behauptungunterstellen:
21)Vgl.Correspondence
inidemprimm
reducitur
certitudo
II,6 (60,62):".. .omnis
princip. . . Vel
in
idem
reducuntur
immediate
illeconclusiones
ium.Veligitur
primum
principium
eque
inprimum
facta
hocnonobstat,
etadhuc
etaliaimmediate;
unamediate
prinquia,reductione
desecunda
seesseitacertum
dicit
dealia.Utgeometra
sumus
deunasicut
equecerti
cipium,
in
v.Perler,
etsicdealiis. . ."Deutsche
etitadetertia
deprima,
conclusione
sicut
bersetzung
u.
D.
Perler
19.
Imbach
/
17
R.
ed.
vonAutrecourt,
Nicolaus
1988),
lat.-dt.,
,
(Hamburg,
Briefe
22)Vgl.Correspondence
II,8 (62).

15:08:39 PM

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

415

(10) Jedervon P verschiedene

g-Satzfolgtaus P.
Daher mu die zitierteBemerkung,
nach derjederg-Satzunmittelbar
oder
mittelbar
auf P zurckfhrbar
werden,da jederg-Satz
ist,so interpretiert
unmittelbar
odermittelbar
aus Pfolgt
. Die Verbindung
derg-Stzegemder
Relation"... ist zurckfuhrbar
auf.. ." ist dann eine Verbindung
gemder
Relation"... folgtaus. . .". FrNikolausistdie Relation"... istzurckfuhrbar
auf.. ." sichertransitiv,
d. h.,wennq aufp undraufq zurckfhrbar
ist,dann
sollr aufp zurckfhrbar
sein.Sie solljedochnichtkonnexsein,d. h., es soll
nichtso sein,da zweibeliebig
herausgegriffene
g-StzegemdieserRelation
in Beziehungzueinanderstehen,es sollensichalso g-Stzefindenlassen,die
nichtgemdieserRelationin Beziehungzueinanderstehen.Folglichsoll es
aufp2"noch "p2ist
g-StzePj, p2geben,so da weder"pl istzurckfhrbar
zurckfhrbar
aufp" gilt.Nikolauswrdeauerdembestreiten,
da g-Stze
aufsichselbstzurckfhrbar
sind,frihn wredie Relation"... istzurckfhrbar
auf.. ." irreflexiv.
Fernerwrdeer annehmen,da sie asymmetrisch
da dann,wenneing-Satzp aufeinenandereng-Satz
ist,erwrdebehaupten,
zurckfuhrbar
nicht
aufp zurckfuhrbar
ist.WegenihrerAsymmetrie,
ist,
q
q
Irreflexivitt
und Transitivi
tt ist die Relation"...ist zurckfhrbar
auf..."
eine irreflexive
Halbordnung,wegender fehlendenKonnexittist sie keine
Ordnung.23
AnalogeAussagenfrdie Relation". . .folgtaus. . ." sind falsch,
dennnichtnurdie Formelp - p istgltig(gegendie Irreflexivitt),
sondern
auch FormelnderArtp <- q knnengltigsein (gegendie Asymmetrie).
WennNikolausalso die Relation"... istzurckfhrbar
auf.. ." mitderRelation "...folgt aus..." identifiziert,
so darfer das nur frdie Flle tun,die
Reflexivitt
und Symmetrie
ausschlieen.Wegen (4) enthltdie durchdie
Relation"... istzurckfhrbar
auf.. ." halbgeordnete
Mengeder g-Stzeein
minimales
ist
dieses
Element
Element,
(5)
sogenanntes
wegen
sogarein sogenanntesMinimum.Jederg-Satzsoll in nur endlichvielenSchrittenauf P
Dies
sein,er soll aus P in nurendlichvielenSchritten
zurckfuhrbar
folgen.14
ist insofernplausibel,als auch in klassischen
axiomatischen
Theorienjedes
TheoremnachnurendlichvielenSchritten
aus dengegebenen
Axiomenfolgt.
Ob die Folgerungsmenge,
d. h. die Menge der g-Stze,die unmittelbar
odermittelbar
aufP zurckfhrbar
nicht
sind,endlichist,istdamitnatrlich
ausgesagt.
23)Zurmathematischen
indie
Terminologie
vgl.etwaHeinz-Dieter
Ebbinghaus,
Einfiihrung
1994).
Mengenlehre
(Mannheim-Leipzig-Wien-Zrich,
24)Vgl.Correspondence
II,8 (62).

15:08:39 PM

416

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

Da die Akzeptanzvon (10) problematisch

ist,zeigtesichbereitsbei der
DiskussionderThesen(8) und (9). AusP alleinfolgtnmlich
. Pfastnichts
formal: i(p a ip) impliziert
lediglichStze,die mitP logischquivalent
ob ein Satz mitP logischquivalentist,
sind,aberselbstum zu entscheiden,
P
man
von
nichtimpliziert
die
werden.So knnteder
Prinzipien,
bentigt
Satz 1( ip a p), der,so wrdeman sagen,mitP quivalentist,etwavorausist.Es scheintschlechterdings
keinennichttrivialen
setzen,da a kommutativ
P
zu
der
aus
unmittelbar
Dann
g-Satz geben,
folgt.
folgtaus P auchkeinSatz
so
die
bzw.
da
mittelbar,
gesamteFolgerungs- Rckfuhrungskette
gleichsam
ohneFundamentist.Jedenfalls
sei festgehalten,
da sichdie Gewiheitvon P
aufalle andereng-Stzenbertragen
soll,und zwarentwederunmittelbar
mittelbar
diese
Stze
mitteldieseStzesindunmittelbar
oder
sind
gewi
bar gewi. Dennoch sollen die unmittelbar
gewisseng-Stzeim gleichen
Mae gewiseinwie die mittelbar
Die Gewiheiteines
gewisseng-Stze.25
von
der
AnzahlderFolgees
soll
nicht
von
der
g-Satz
logischenEntfernung
ihm
P
zwischen
Wenn
und
und abhngen.
p
q zwei g-Stze
rungsschritte
aus p folgt,so sollenp und q
sindundp unmittelbar
aus P undq unmittelbar
im gleichenMae gewisein,p soll nichtgewisser
als q sein,nurweilp, im
P
aus
Stze
sind
frNikolausentweder
zu
unmittelbar
folgt.
Gegensatz q,
gewiodernicht,sie sindnichtmehroderwenigergewi.Da g-Stzegenau
so gewisindwie P,sindsie schlechthin
gewi.WennNikolausschreibt
mit
desFolgesatzes
Durch
keine
Macht
knnte
esgeschehen,
dadasGegenteil
gleichzeitig
so
wie
keine
Macht
bewirken
da
demVordersatz
knnte,
kann,
Gegenstzliches
gelten
ist.26
wahr
gleichzeitig
frdie materiale
so verwendet
erhiereinequivalenteFormulierung
Implika- <-> tion,denn fiirbeliebigeStzep, q giltbekanntlich
(p
q)
i(p a iq),
q dannund nurdann,wennes nichtderFallist,da p zwargilt,
p impliziert
ableitnichtaberq. Ein vonP verschiedener
g-Satz- einaus einemVordersatz
barerFolgesatz kann,das behauptetNikolausim Zitat also, ebensowenig
falschseinwie P. Insofernistdie Gewiheiteinesjeden Folgesatzes
genauso
von
P.27
wie
die
Gewiheit
gro
25)Vgl.Correspondence
Utsisintdueconnonhabet
evidentie
II,6 (60):"Certitudo
gradus.
certi
deunaquamdealia."
certi
nonsumus
sumus
clusiones
dequarum
evidenter,
magis
qualibet
26)Vgl.Correspondence
fieri
II, 5 (60):"Necperaliquam
posset
quodoppositum
potentiam
facere
nec
sicut
simul
cum
staret
antecedente,
quodcontraaliquapotentia
potest
consequentis
in
von
Nicolaus
v.
17.
sint
simul
vera."
Deutsche
dictoria
Autrecourt,
Perler,
Briefe,
bersetzung
27)Thijssen,
Funote
ausdieser
Textstelle
Certain
'TheQuest
for
213,versucht
26)
(vgl.
Knowledge,

15:08:39 PM

/Vivarium
A.Krause
47 (2009)407-420

4 17

Alle von P verschiedenen

g-StzesollenFolgestzesein,weil sie entweder
aus P folgen,
aus P folgen.Wenn sie mittelbar
oder mittelbar
unmittelbar
fr
aus einem andereng-Satz.Nikolaus formuliert
folgensie unmittelbar
und
zwischen
Vordersatz
einen
Folgesatz,
Zusammenhang
beliebigeg-Stze
aufP,als
sowohlfrden Fall,da derFolgesatzunmittelbar
deroffensichtlich
werden
aufP zurckgefhrt
auchfrden Fall,da derFolgesatznurmittelbar
sei,da ein Satz nurdann ein Vordersatz
kann,geltensoll,wobei unterstellt
aus demVorderfiireinenFolgesatzist,wennderFolgesatzauch tatschlich
satzfolgt:
einesFolgesatzes
(11) Wennp derVordersatz
q ist,dannistp mitq identisch
oderq istTeilvon p.28
Was NikolausmitdemAusdruck"Teil"meint,sagter hiernichtexplizit,an
zweiDeubietensichgleichwohl
Hand von Beispielen,die erspteranfhrt,
tungenan.
wird durch folgendesBeispiel
/: Diese Interpretation
Interpretation
nahegelegt:29
Vordersatz:
Folgesatz:

Das Haus existiert.

Die Wand existiert.

als der
Teil des Vordersatzes,
In dieserAbleitungist der Folgesatzinsofern
bezeichnet
derdurchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes
wird,ein mateGegenstand,
riellerTeil des Gegenstandesist, der durch das Subjektdes Vordersatzes
und Folgesatzidentisch
bezeichnet
wird,wobeidie Prdikatevon Vordersatz
im allgemeinenfalschist,ist unmittelbar
sind. Da (11), so interpretiert,
die nichtdie in (1 1) formuklar,dennes gibtzahlreiche
gltigeAbleitungen,
Menschiststerblich"
also
etwadieAbleitung"Jeder
lierteBedingungerfllen,
tothe
zufinden:
"Reduction
"Rckfhren
aufdaserste
eineErklrung
frdenBegriff
Prinzip"
an
have
to
contraof
the
of
inference
would
means
that
the
first
consequent
principle
negation
with
notfollow
ofthat
inference:
theconsequent
would
dicttheantecedent
otherwise,
certainty
kann
nachdem,
wasobengesagt
nicht
befriefrom
theantecedent."
DieseInterpretation
wurde,
a
es
kein
nicht
nur
Ferner
wrde
sich
da
da
daraus,
ist,
Widerspruch p -iqgilt,
ergedigen.
withcertainty
mitGewiheit
ausp folgt
wouldnotfollow
ben,daq nicht
("the
consequent
eswrde
sichbekanntlich
diewesentlich
strkere
from
theantecedent"),
sondern
Behauptung
nicht
ausp folgt.
daq gewi
ergeben,
28)Vgl.Correspondence
II,9f.(62,64).
29)Vgl.Correspondence
II, 17(68).

15:08:39 PM

418

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

von (11) in Bezug

scheintdie Umkehrung
"Sokratesiststerblich".
Allerdings
Teilvona ist,so folgtaus
aufExistenzstze
zu gelten,d. h.,wennb materieller
von
Im allgemeinengiltdie Umkehrung
"a existiert"
der Satz "b existiert".
(11) jedochnicht,dennin den beidenStzen
(i) Das Pferdistvierbeinig.
istvierbeinig.
(ii) Der Pferdekopf
derdurchdas Subjekt
Teil von (i), als derGegenstand,
ist (ii) zwarinsofern
Teil
ein materieller des Gegenstandes
von (ii) bezeichnetwird(Pferdekopf),
wird(Pferd).Dennochfolgt(ii)
ist,derdurchdas Subjektvon (i) bezeichnet
keineBeinehaben.
nichtaus (i), da Pferdekpfe
wirddurchein von Nikolaus
II: Auch diese Interpretation
Interpretation
zitiertes
Beispielnahegelegt:30
Vordersatz:
Folgesatz:

JedesLebewesenrennt.
JederMenschrennt.

als derGegenstand,
TeildesVordersatzes,
HieristderFolgesatznichtinsofern
wird(Mensch),einmaterielbezeichnet
derdurchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes
bezeichlerTeil des Gegenstandes
ist,derdurchdas SubjektdesVordersatzes
net wird (Lebewesen).Vielmehrist jetzt der FolgesatzinsofernTeil des
definierte
als die durchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes
Vordersatzes,
Mengeeine
definierten
derdurchdasSubjektdesVordersatzes
Mengeist,wobei
Teilmenge
sind.Man hates alsostattmiteinermatebeiderStzeidentisch
die Prdikate
mit einerTeilmenge-Obermenge-Beziehung
riellenTeil-Ganzes-Beziehung,
mandenTeilbegriff
zu tun.Versteht
so, dannist(1 1) jedenfallsplausiblerals
won (11) gltig
I. Auerdemscheintdann die Umkehrung
bei Interpretation
zu sein.
ad
isteine reductio
Nikolausversucht(11) zu begrnden.Sein Argument
lt:31
so
schreiben
halbformal
sich
absurdum
, die
(A) q folgtaus p. (Annahme)
(B) Es istnichtderFall,da p mitq identischistoderq einTeil von p ist.
von (11), Annahmedes indirekten
Beweises)
(Verneinung
30)Vgl.Correspondence
II, 16(68).
31)Vgl.Correspondence
immediate
evidens
tuncnonesset
II,9 (62):".. .quia,sisicnonesset,
inveritate."
stare
simul
etoppositum
antecedens
consequentis
possunt
quinsinecontradictione

15:08:39 PM

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

4 19

da p zusammenmit- qgilt,(aus (B))

(C) Es istnichtwidersprchlich,
(D) (C) istfalsch,(aus (A)).
(E) Also ist(B) falschund somit(11) wahr,(aus (D)).
Was istzu diesemArgument
zu sagen?Sicherlichist(D) wahr,dennwennq
aus p folgt,ist es widersprchlich,
da p zusammenmit- q gilt.Inwiefern
Wenn es widerfolgtjedoch (C) aus (B)? Nikolausscheintso zu berlegen:
da
nicht
aber
dann
mit
mu
ist,
sprchlich
p vorliegt,
q,
q
p identischoder
ein
Teil
von p sein,dennwarumsolltees sonstwidersprchlich
wenigstens
nichtaberq? Diese berlegung
wrezwarplausibel,ohne
sein,da p vorliegt,
zustzlicheGrndejedoch nurfrderartige
Flle,in denenq ein materieller
oderrumlicher
Teilvon p ist.q soll aber,wie klargewordenseindrfte,
nur
in einemschwachenSinn ein Teil von p sein,nmlichnurinsofern,
als der
der
durch
das
von
bezeichnet
ein
materieller
Teil
wird,
Gegenstand,
Subjekt
q
des Gegenstandes
wobei
die
ist,derdurchdas Subjektvon p bezeichnet
wird,
PrdikatebeiderStzeidentischsind (Interpretation
als die
I), oderinsofern,
durchdas Subjektvon q definierte
MengeeineTeilmengederdurchdas Subjektvon p definierten
Mengeist,wobei auch hierdie PrdikatebeiderStze
identisch
sind(Interpretation
ein,
II). Dann aberleuchtetnichtohneweiteres
wieso (C) aus (B) folgensollte.Ferneristes sicherproblematisch,
(11) auch
frden Fallzu akzeptieren,
da es sichbei dem dortgenannten
Vordersatz
p
um P handelt.Inwiefern
solltenmlichirgendein
aus P ableitbarer
Folgesatz
einTeilvonP sein?Allerdings
wurdebereitsdaraufverwiesen,
da aus P allein
sowiesofastnichtsfolgt,so da (1 1) frden Fall,da es sichbei demVordersatzum P handelt,irrelevant
seindrfte.Eine unmittelbare
Konsequenzaus
da
aus
dem
"a
existiert"
nur
dann
der
"b
(11) ist,
g-Satz
g-Satz existiert"
folgt,
wennderSatz"b existiert"
einTeildes Satzes"a existiert"
ist.Versteht
mandie
im Sinnevon Interpretation
I, so heitdas, da aus
Teil-Ganzes-Beziehung
derTatsache,da ein Ding existiert,
nichtgeschlossen
werdenkann,da ein
anderes
existiert.
Diese
letzte
vllig
Ding
Behauptungfindetsichexplizitbei
Nikolaus.32
Was sichdarausfrden Kausalittsbegriff
ergebenknnte,istin
derLiteratur
zu Nikolausoftuntersucht
worden.33
Abschlieendsei noch einmalauf die zu Beginndes Aufsatzesgenannte
Einteilungaufmerksamgemacht.Sie enthltdie Behauptung,da die
GewiheitderStzedes christlichen
Glaubensnichtaufdie Gewiheitvon P
32)Vgl.Correspondence
essichauchumeinen
derverurteilten
Artikel.
II,11 (64).Hierhandelt
B
der
von
de
170.
Vgl.Appendix Ausgabe
Rijk,
33)Vgl.bereits
Nicolaus
von
11-16.
Autrecourt,
Lappe,

15:08:39 PM

420

A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420

zurckfhrbar
ist.Diese StzesollenihreGewiheitdemnachaus derTatsasie
da
che,
wurden,beziehen,und nur daraus.Entwederalso
geoffenbart
istein Satz gewi,weil er aus P folgt(oderP ist),oderer istgewi,weil er
wurde.Er kannnichtgewisein,weiler aus P folgt,und gleichgeoffenbart
wurde.Dann aber mte Nikolaus
zeitiggewi sein, weil er geoffenbart
Glaubensstzegibt,die auch mit der natrda es geoffenbarte
bestreiten,
Stzehttenihre
werden
lichenVernunft
knnen,dennderartige
eingesehen
Gewiheitgleichsamzustzlichaus P. Eine natrliche
Theologieistin diesem
Fallnichtmglich.
3. Fazit
In seinemzweitenBriefan Bernhardvon ArezzobehauptetNikolausunter
verschieda die GewiheiteinesjedenvomSatzdesWiderspruchs
anderem,
zurckfuhrbar
deneng-Satzesaufdie Gewiheitdes SatzesvonWiderspruch
da die Gewiheitdes Satzesvom Widerist.Man kanndies so verstehen,
fiirdie Gewiheitjedesandereng-Satzesseinsoll.Der Aufspruchnotwendig
da Nikolausjedenfallsauch derAuffassung
satzhatdafrargumentiert,
ist,
hinreichend
fiirdie Gewiheit
da die GewiheitdesSatzesvomWiderspruch
jedesandereng-Satzesist.Diese ThesedesNikolaushatsichalsproblematisch
die Relation"... istzurckfuhrAuchwenner im allgemeinen
herausgestellt.
scheinter in
bar auf..." mit der Relation"...folgt aus..." identifiziert,
denndie ersteRelationistim
FllenUnterschiede
bestimmten
anzunehmen,
Halbordnungin derMengederg-Stze,die
Gegensatzzu diesereineirreflexive
mitdemSatzvomWiderspruch
sogarein Minimumenthlt.WennNikolaus
mitseinem
da in einemgltigenSchlujederFolgesatzidentisch
behauptet,
odermiteinemTeil seinesVordersatzes
Vordersatz
ist,so kanndieszweierlei
derdurchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes
bedeuten:EntwederistderGegenstand,
Teil des Gegenstandes,
derdurchdas Subjekt
bezeichnet
wird,ein materieller
bezeichnet
des Vordersatzes
wird,oderdie durchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes
definierte
Menge ist eineTeilmengeder durchdas Subjektdes Vordersatzes
derobigenBehauptunghngtdannvon
definierten
Menge.Die Plausibilitt
Glaudie Stzedes christlichen
ab. Da, ferner,
dergewhltenInterpretation
bensihreGewiheitnuraus derTatsache,da sie geoffenbart
wurden,bezienicht
hensollen,isteinenatrliche
mglich.
Theologie

15:08:39 PM

KtG/
')'68i
BRILL

Psychology

VIVA
RIUM
brill.nl/viv

Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

and the Soul in Late Medieval

Erfurt

PekkaKrkkinen
University
ofHelsinki
Abstract
wasoneof
theUniversity
ofErfurt
centuries
In thelatefifteenth
andearlysixteenth
examines
howthis
inGermany.
Thepresent
article
thestrongholds
oftheviamoderna
in
indiscussions
on thesoulanditspowers,
wasmanifested
school's
engaged
identity
Trutfetter
and
Carnificis
deLutrea,
Erfurtian
Jodocus
Johannes
bythree
philosophers:
In thevariousforms
oftheirexpositions
these
Arnoldi
de Usingen.
Bartholomaeus
Theirpositions
are
stanceconcerning
doctrinal
issues.
reveal
a rather
uniform
authors
back
to
the
fifteenth
of
the
via
moderna
based
on
the
tradition
early
going
largely
fromthis
is deeplyboundto theproblems
andtheirargumentation
arising
century,
show
concurrent
Thomist
and
Scotist
sources
with
school'sposition.
Comparisons
ofotherschoolsin an appropriate
describe
thepositions
thattheErfurtians
manner,
fromthe
forandagainst
thesepositions
areoftenborrowed
thearguments
although
ownschoolrather
thanfrom
discussion.
authorities
oftheir
contemporaneous
Keywords
viamoderna
commentaries,
Erfurt,
, De anima
, Aristotle
psychology
1. Introduction
As we mayseefromtherecordsofthefamousErfurtian
collectionofmedieval
theBibliothecaAmploniana,almosteverymajorwesterncommanuscripts,
Aristotle's
On theSoul was alreadyto be foundin Erfurtby the
on
mentary
Severalnewcommentaries
fifteenth
werealsowritten,
early
century.1
manyof
form.Theseincludecommentaries
whichstillexistin manuscript
Henricus
by

^ Boththeuniversity
andtheAmplonian
collection
ofa considerable
consisted
amount
library
I (Leipzig,
ofitems.
SeeErich
Universitas
Studii
361-3.
Kleineidam,
19852),
Erfordernis
Koninklijke
Brill
2009
Leiden,
NV,

DOI:10.1
163/004275409X12482627895168

15:08:48 PM

422

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

Tokeof Brema,2
Johannes
Johannesof Zelandia4and the
NaylofWartburg,3
fromErfurtand has been
Exercitium
circalibrosde anima,5whichoriginates
attributed
to HenricusofHildesheim.6
Erfurt
was
resourceofAristotelian
Havingsucha remarkable
psychology,
. As
also one ofthestrongholds
ofthelatemedievalschoolofthevia moderna
has also received
thealma materof theyoungMartinLuther,theuniversity
for
contextoftheLutheranReformation.
attention
as thescholastic
Therefore,
in
the
sixteenth
ofAristotelian
thestudyofthedevelopment
early
psychology
of theimporcase fortheobservation
Erfurt
century,
providesan interesting
on the
fortheteachingof Aristotelian
tanceof schoolidentities
psychology
threshold
oftheRenaissanceand theReformation.
ofAristotelian
The presentstudyinquiresintothecommentaries
psycholand
whichare available
between
1482
and
which
were
1517
published
ogy
de
librorum
onlyin printedform.The firstto be printedwas theExercitium
ofLutrea(Kaiserslautern)
animabyJohannesCarnificis
(d. 1479) who was a
licentiateof theologyfromErfurtand laterarchdeaconof Mainz.7Lutreas
2) Tractatus
SeeErich
cms1374,ff.25r-78v.
deanima(1414),Leipzig,
Universittsbibliothek,
Universitas
/,290.
Kleineidam,
3) Quaestiones
Stiftsbibliothek
desSchottenklos/-///
'Deanima'
libros
Vienna,
Aristotelis,
super
inthearts
in1398,andtaught
a master
ofarts
ff.116r-196r.
became
ters
cms301/241,
Johannes
an
'Dieersten
the1430s.
SeeMieczyslaw
until
Markowski,
philosophischen
Strmungen
faculty
Ihre
inBibliotheca
imLicht
Universitt
desAristoteles-Handschriften
derErfurter
Amploniana.
undHumanismus
Nominalismus
vonAristotelismi,
imSpannungsfeld
, ed.Andreas
Bedeutung
Miscellanea
Mediaevalia
23(Berlin,
1995),33-4.
Speer.
4) Quaestiones
Stiftsbibliothek
desSchotAristotelis
/-///
'Deanima
libros
(1425),Vienna,
super
Dieersten,
227V.
ff.197va-223r,
SeeMarkowski,
43.
tenklosters
cms301/241,
5)HalleUB,cmsY.g.Qu30,70r-l43v.
Universitas
SeeKleineidam,
I, 143,fn.788;Markowski,
inTraditio
Aristode
Commentaries'
Latin
30(1974),137.
'Medieval
Dieersten,
37;Charles
Lohr,
6)Tothese
UBcmsFol.567,
onDeanima
beaddeda commentary
should
(Mnchen
perhaps
See
ofWesel.
toJohannes
Rucherat
which
isattributed
clm6971,ff158ra-194vb)
ff.122r-192v;
seinem
Buridan:
Studien
zu
Leben,
See
also
Bernd
Die
49.
Michael,
Markowski,ersten,
Johannes
desMittelalters
Theorien
imEuropa
353for
seiner
Wirken
undzurRezeption
seinen
1985),
(Berlin,
ofErfurt.
totheuniversity
commentaries
related
twoadditional
7)Johannes
deanima(Erfurt,
librorum
Exercitium
deLutrea,
Carnificis
1482).Asarchdeacon,
his
former
inthejudicial
Lutrea
wasmadetoparticipate
Johannes
colleague
process
against
commenInaddition
tohisDeanima
ofheretical
whowasaccused
Rucherat
ofWesel,
teaching.
of
a collection
deHornbach,
Wider
in 1482byPaulus
inErfurt
posthumously
tary,
printed
Some
hiswritings.
from
in1472havesurvived
ofa Mainzer
anda description
sermons
synod
andhasbeenedited
hasalsosurvived,
ofWesel
andJohannes
between
Lutrea
by
correspondence
II
Studii
Universitas
seeKleineidam,
lifeandwritings
Gerhard
Ritter.
On Lutreas
Erffordensis
St.Mardesehemaligen
Ott,DieHandschriften
312;Joachim
19922),
Fraterherrenstifts
(Leipzig,
2 (Giessen,
inderUniversittsbibliothek
kuszuButzbach
Giessen,
2004),271-2.
part

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

423

waslatersucceededbyseveralexpositions
on naturalphilosophy,
commentary
whichregularly
also includeda sectionon philosophicalpsychology.
These
werewrittenby two authors,JodocusTrutfetter
of Eisenachand BartholomaeusArnoldiofUsingen.
(d. 1519) was probablythemostrespectedErfurtphiJodocusTrutfetter
losopherofhis time.His majorworkwas a largetextbookof logic,theSummuletotiuslogice
.8Apartfromotherworkson logic,he,beingalreadya doctor
of theology,
also publishedlatein lifea textbookon naturalphilosophy,
the
Summain totam
whose
book
deals
with
Aristotle's
De
anima
,
physicen
eighth
and Parvanaturalia?
Bartholomaeus
Arnoldiof Usingen,usuallycalledUsingenafterhis birthwas
Trutfetter
s youngercolleagueat theFacultyofArts.He published
place,
textbooks
severaltheological
solelyon philosophyuntil1516, and thereafter
treatises.
LikeTrutfetter,
he attaineda doctorsdegreein theology,
but only
afterjoiningthe Orderof theAugustininHermits.Most of his workson
naturalphilosophyincludea sectionon psychology,
and one of thesewas
as lateas 1543 to be used in theteachingof naturalphilosophyin
reprinted
Erfurt.10
Aftera fewintroductory
remarks
on availabletextualsourceson psychology
in latemedievalErfurt,
I willdelineatesomeoftheformative
elementsofthe
ofthevia moderna
in an Erfurtian
context.The Erfurt
authorsofthe
identity
themselves
to
be
adherents
of
the
via
moderna.
However,
periodprofessed
they
also discussedthe opinionsof otherschoolsof thoughtin theirworks.My
mainobjectivewill be to showto whatdegreethelocal traditionof the via
modernadetermined
the Erfurtians'
positionsin the the materialdiscussing
as
a
science
as
well
as
some
psychology
generalissuesconcerningthe soul.
I will also comparetheirideaswithcertainconcurrent
Thomistand Scotist
authorsdealingwiththe same subjects.This,I think,will enableus to see
moreclearlythedistinctive
contribution
oftheErfurt
via moderna
to psycholin
the
sixteenth
German
context.
ogy
early
century

8)Jodocus
Summule
totius
Trutfetter,
(Erfurt,
1501).
logice
9)OnTrutfetter
slifeandworks
seeKleineidam,
Universitas
Studii
//,153-4;290-2;
Erfordernis
in Groe
Trutfetter'
Denker
undderErfurter
Universitt
Pilvousek,
Josef
'Jodocus
, ed.
Erfurts
Dietmar
vonderPfordten
2002),96-117.
(Gttingen,
10)OnUsingen,
seeKleineidam,
Universitas
Sebastian
Secundum
viam
II,298-301;
154-7;
Lalla,
modernm.
Nominalismus
beiBartholomus
Arnoldi
vonUsingen.
2003),
Ontologischer
(Wrzburg,
15-22.

15:08:48 PM

424

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

2. Sources
in Erfurt
written
was
The earliestprintedworkfortheteachingofpsychology
de
anima
from
1482.
It
is
in
libros
Aristotelis
of
Exercitium
Lutreas
Johannes
since
its
author
had
died
not clearwhatperiodof timeits contentsreflect,
alreadyin 1472 and his teachingactivitycould have takenplace anytime
as a masterofartsin 1456 and hisbecominga licentibetweenhisgraduation
ate of theologyand archdeaconin 1466. Nor can a possibleredactionof the
commentary
bya secondhandbe ruledout.A similartypeofworkwas pubde anim)}1
ofUsingen(Exercitium
lishedin 1507 byBartholomaeus
both
consistof quesare
identical.
the
two
exercitia
They
nearly
Formally,
1
ofthequestion;
.
title
to
a
uniform
tionswhicharetreatedaccording
pattern:
divisionsand definiwhereterminological
2. a varyingnumberof notanday
tionsarepresented;
3. answersto thequestionsfollowedbyconclusionsand
In the
theirproofs;4. arguments
againsttheconclusionsand theirresponses.
betweenLutreaand Usingen:theforfourthpartthereis a minordifference
whereasthe
aftertheindividualarguments,
merpositstheresponsesdirectly
and responsesintosmallgroups.Both exercitia
lattergathersthearguments
De animathequestionsarerelatedto.
announcewhichpassageofAristotle's
oftheindividualquesLutreadoes thisonlybyshortnoticesat thebeginning
he adds the divisionof books and tracts
tions.Usingenis moresystematic:
s textbeforeexamofAristotle
in theheadings,and alsogivesshortsummaries
iningindividualquestions.Regardingthecontentsof thequestions,signifiexist.As a generalnotionone could say thatthe number
cant differences
is considerably
in Usingensexercitium
of counter-arguments
higherthanin
in Lutreas
In orderto elucidatethepositionofthevia moderna
Lutreaswork.12
it is helpfulto comparethemwitha similar
and Usingenscommentaries
school.In his Cursus
froman authorofa different
treatise
philophilosophical
ofWunsiedelprovidesus witha fairly
, ErasmusFriesner
contemporasophicus
ofa similarkind.13
neousexampleofa Thomistcommentary
n) Bartholomaeus
Exercitium
deanima
Arnoldi
deUsingen,
(Erfurt,
1507).
12)A similar
asmaybe
inearly
fifteenth
wasusedalready
ofquestions
Erfurt,
century
pattern
de
Thuonis
Tabarroni.
See
Andrea
edited
onMetaphysics
commentaries
twoErfurt
seenfrom
by
Andrea
Ebbesen
Sten
Tabarroni
and
Andrea
ed.
XIX;
1998),
,
(Copenhagen,
Vibergia
opera
deCopenhague
in Universit
AnEdition
'Henricus
Tabarroni,
Metaphysicae.
Ruyn,
Disputata
ofexerOntheliterary
61 (1991),185-428.
etlatin
dumoyen-age
cahiers
del'institut
genre
grec
arts
au
des
dans
les
Facults
La
see
2002),
cises, OlgaWeijers, 'disputano'
moyen
ge(Turnhout,
312-3.
13)Erasmus
ofa
Cursus
Friesner
deWunsiedel,
1509).Asanexample
(Frankfurt,
philosophicus
textuali
naturalis
s Parvulus
setofquestions,
, cumexpositione
Scotist
JanzeStobnicy
philosophie

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

425

Besidestheexercitia
thereis yetother,but morevariant,typeof commenwhere
called
, whichincludesroughlyall otherexpositions
tary,
compendium
thecontentsoftheDe animaaretreatedin Erfurt.
It has beensuggested
that
theseemergedout oftheneedofeveryoungergenerations
ofstudentsto fully
thedifficult
understand
lectureson Aristotle
s naturalphilosophy.14
naturalisfromtheyear1499 is formally
a
UsingensParvulusphilosophie
on an earliertreatiseof a similartitle,writtenprobablyby the
commentary
earlyfifteenth
centuryauthorPeterGerticzof Dresden;Usingenadded his
in themidstof Peterstextprintedin boldface.15
own commentary
The work
consistedof threeparts(tractatus
): twoon physicsand one on thesoul. This
would mean thatit was writtenforbaccalaureate
studies,becausethe areas
for
the
masters
level
were
required
missing.16
For the purposeof comparisonit is fortunate
thatanothercommentary
on Peterof DresdensParvulushas survived,
also printedin Leipzigin 1499,
naturalis
WhereasUsingen
Johannes
namely
Peyligks
Philosophiae
compendium.
had writtenhis textbookin thespiritof theErfurtian
via moderna
, Peyligk,
who was activein Leipzig,followedThomasAquinas and Giles of Rome
In additionto Usingenand Peyligk,
instead.17
a further
exampleoftheParvulusgenreofcommentaries
willbe usedbelow,theParvulus
naturaphilosophie
lisbytheKrakowScotistJanze Stobnicy.
Thiscommentary
providesus with
a contemporaneous
Scotistperspective
on Peterof Dresden'sParvulusand is
therefore
the positionsof the main philosophical
helpfulin differentiating
schoolsofthetime.18
acdubiorum
necessariorum
dissolutione
ad intentionem
Scoti
instudio
Cracoviensi
magis
congesta
first
inCracow
in 1507)although
a compendium,
willbe
1516;
(Basel,
publication
formally
usedbelow.
OnStobnicy,
see'Jan
zeStobnicy
lub1519)',in700latmysli
(1470-1518
polskiej.
i mysl
XIII-XV
wieku
, ed.J.Domaski,
(Warszawa,
1978),477-8.
Filozofia
spoleczna
14)Kleineidam,
Universitas
II, 155-6.
15)Bartholomaeus
Arnoldi
deUsingen,
Parvulus
naturalis
of
1499).Peter
philosophie
(Leipzig,
Dresdens
Parvulus
naturalis
was
a
concise
of
the
main
contents
of
Arisphilosophiae
exposition
totelian
natural
On Peter
ofDresden's
treatise
andUsingens
useofit,seeLalla,
philosophy.
Secundum
, 77-86.
16)Ithasbeenmaintained
thatPeter
ofDresden's
Parvulus
waswidely
usedinthecity
schools,
sothatthere
would
bea continuity
withthematerial
usedalready
before
academic
It
studies.
cannot
bedetermined
ifitwasintended
thatthegraduated
masters
wouldbesoequipped
to
lecture
onPeter
ofDresden's
intheschools.
Parvulus
SeeKleineidam,
Universitas
//,156.
17)Johannes
naturalis
1499).Usingens
Peyligk,
Philosophiae
compendium
(Leipzig,
commentary
wasprinted
Bachelor
ofArts
onthe23rdofFebruary
Stockei
andPeyligks
byErfurtian
Wolfgang
Lotter
onthe12thofSeptember.
byMelchior
18)Stobnicy,
Parvulus.

15:08:48 PM

426

P.Krkkinen
Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

Usingenalso publishedanotherexpositionof the De anima, whichwas

naturalis
includedas a partofhis Compendium
1505-7).It
(Erfurt,
philosophie
deals withsubjectmatterbroaderthanwhat the Parvulusdeals with,and
et corruptione
containstractsof theDe generatione
, Meteoraand De somnoet
in
master
s studies.On theother
used
the
which
were
, amongothers,
vigilia
oftermsand thedivisionsoftheirdifferhand,it containedonlyelucidations
ent meanings;the largequestionspresentin the Parvulusare missing.This
maybe partlydue to thefactthatin 1507 UsingenpublishedhisExercitium
de anima, whichconsistedsolelyofquestions.19
forthemostparttheform
resembles
s Summain totamphysicen
Trutfetter
ofUsingens Parvulus
, beingmadeup oflecturetextand questions.Thereare
naturalis
stilltracesofthetextoftheParvulus
byPeterofDresden,
philosophie
in the
printedin boldfacetype,but one cannotconsiderit a commentary
and De
to thePhysics
propersense.The scopeofthetextbookis notrestricted
anima, as thetopicsdiscussedin mastersstudiesare coveredalso. In several
variousopinionson thematters,
describes
casesTrutfetter
althoughthemain
) is to describe"in a simplemannerofexpopurposeofhishandbook(epitome
sitionand in a plainstylethepositionofthosewho arecallednominalists."20
3. Authoritiesand School Identity
of
thetradition
in thelateMiddleAgesrepresented
of Erfurt
The University
thevia moderna.
Despitetheobviousfreedomof theirconceptionof thevia
themselves
of Erfurtprofessed
academics
the
moderna,
largelyas teachersof
were
fromthebeginning
in
Erfurt
moderna
to
the
via
thisschool.21Central
and rejection
twonotionsaboveall: therejectionof therealismof universais
were
formsin thesamesubject.Thesedoctrines
ofsubstantial
oftheplurality
in
statutes
coeli
the
Porta
the
of
members
for
the
at
least
collegium
prescribed
collewritten
byAmploniusRatingof Bercka,thefounderof thisinfluential
oftheHussiteheresy,
withtherejection
together
gium.Thesewerementioned
seento be connected.
realismwas apparently
to whichthenotionofuniversal
Yettherealismwas definedas "thePlatonists
presentit",whichlefta certain
thatthescholars
also
Amplonius recommended
vaguenessto theformulation.
19)Ondifferent
seeLalla,Secundum
ofnatural
,
ofUsingens
versions
philosophy,
compendium
408-9.
87;402-4;
20)Jodocus
intotam
Summa
1514),f.a5r.
(Erfurt,
Trutfetter,
physicen
21)Kleineidam,
Universitas
/,179-89.

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

427

takeintoaccount,in additionto the"modernos",

suchteachersas Albertthe
Great,ThomasAquinas,Giles of Rome,Alexanderof Hales and Henryof
Ghent.22
Fromsuchwriters
as JohannesRucheratofWeseland Johannesof Lutrea
we findmorespecificdescriptions
ofthestatusofuniversais,
and thesewriters
theunityofthesubstantial
form.23
ForJohannes
of
also affirm
unequivocally
Weseltherejectionof realismimpliedthatthereis no resuniversale
a
; rather,
is an conceptformedin a createdmindto represent
universal
manysingular
entitiesin theworld.To Wesel,universalconceptsrepresented
theobjectsof
and confusedmannerthathewouldnotaccept
cognitionin suchan imperfect
thatsuch universais
existas ideas of speciesor generain thedivinemind.24
he
does
not
God has
However,
rejectthenotionof ideasin God altogether:
ideasof creatures,
sincethedivineessence"represents
all things,whichhave
beenproducedbyGod insofar
as theyimitatethedivineessence."25
Eventhese
ideasare distinctfromeach othermerelyon thebasisof theirdifferences
in
the human mind. In the divinemind thereare no principlesof diversity
betweenideas.However,theuniversal
conceptsarenotfictawithoutanycorto
the
external
insofar
as theirreferents
aresingular
world,
respondence
beings,
whichare conceivedin a universalmanner,viz. withouttheirindividuating
Lutreaexpressedbasicallythe same convictionby statingthat
properties.26
thereis no universale
in essendo
, thatall entitiesare singularin theirbeing,
22)Kleineidam,
Universitas
I, 182-3.
23)Onthequestion
oftheunity
ofthesubstantial
seeHans-Ulrich
'DerNominaform,
Whler,
lismus
desJohannes
vonWesel',
inBibliotheca
Rucherat
IhreBedeutung
imSpanAmploniana.
vonAristotelismus,
Nominalismus
undHumanismus
Miscellanea
, ed.Andreas
nungsfeld
Speer.
Mediaevalia
21r-2v.
23(Berlin,
Ex.,ff.
1995),378fn.54;Lutrea,
24)OnWesels
nominalism
ingeneral,
seeWhler,
DerNominalismus,
ad
367-80."Quantum
articulum
sciendum:
secundum
viammodernm
nullaesuntresnisisingulares
et
quartum
universalia
nonsuntnisientiafabricata
inanima
multae
confuse
etimperfecte
creata,
quibus
etrepraesentantur,
indivina
mente
nonestponere
tales
universales
intelliguntur
quare
cogitationespropter
edam
non
videntur
ideae
in
mente
divina
imperfectionem;
quare
ponendae
specierum
etgenerum.
Sedsolum
ideaesuntsingularium
rerum
a divina
essentia."
producibilium
Citedaccording
toKleineidam,
Universitas
DerNominalismus,
23fn.173.SeealsoWhler,
//,
371fn.20.
25)Johannes
Rucherat
deWesalia,
Lectura
Ioannis
deWesalia
Secundum
etTertium
Primum,
super
Sentantiarum
cum
Kiliano
Staatsbibliothek
Preuischer
Ms.
, Berlin,
Kulturbesitz,
super
quartum
Theol.Lat.Fol.97,f.80va: . .ideosequitur
divina
quodideanihilaliudsitquamessentia
omnium
sunta deotamquam
imitantia
inquantum
ipsaestrepraesentativa
quaeproducibilia
essentiam
divinam."
Citedaccording
toWhler,
DerNominalismus,
375fn.41.
ipsam
26)Whler,
DerNominalismus,
371.

15:08:48 PM

428

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

in thesenseof universaltermsor mentalconalthoughthereare universais

that
is
to
universales
in significando?7
cepts,
say
In theworksofJodocusTrutfetter
we finda mostdetailedaccountofwhat
excludes.He makes
modelsof thoughtthenominalist
positionon universais
it explicitthat"ourposition"is thatofthenominalists
{nominales),
according
in thingsthemselves,
to whichthereis no universality
and it is onlysigns
whichhavethisproperty.
views,whichhe describes
Contrary
largely
following
in 1 Sent.d. 2, are to be labelledas thepositionsof the
Ockhamscriticism
realists(realistas).1*
LikeWesel,Trutfetter
versionofnomirejectstheextreme
'
wereonly ficta, withoutanycorresponnalism,accordingtowhichuniversais
dencein thethings(sinereirespondentiaThisdoesnotimply,as someofthe
realistcriticswould maintain,thatthenominalist
positionas suchwould be
in beings.Trutfetuntenableorthatthereshouldbe anyrealcommunicability
is directedagainstviewswhichseemto implyany
ters mostseverecriticism
ofuniversal
natures.
kindofrealcommunicability
Accordingto him,theidea
which
of a realunityof universalnaturesis connectedto theHussiteheresy,
reveals
of
Constance.
This
remark
at
the
Council
theChurchhad condemned
a matterof a particular
was fortheErfiirtians
thatthequestionof universais
a
to
discussion.29
rather
than
tradition
scholarly
topicopen philosophical
27)Lutrea,
inthedivine
mind
isnot
aresuchuniversais
ornotthere
Ex.,ff.10v;llv.Whether
to
which
the
tothat
ofWesels
a position
similar
clear
toLutrea.
Heseems
toendorse
according
that
the
of
ideas
of
so
isonesimple
ideaofcreated
divine
mind
diversity
beings
singular
things,
SeeLutrea,
tothedivine
mind.
isnotina proper
sense
attributed
Ex.,f.52r:"Etsicdeusprimo
etideasomnium
alium
invenit
similitudines
seetinhocquodintelligit
rerum,
se,tunc
intelligit
estideareicausatae,
exeo quiaincausasemper
divina
estideaomnium
rerum,
quiaessentia
seem
rerum."
Both
Wesels
andLutreas
estcausaomnium
aliarum
modo
essentia
divina
wording
asMarsilius
mind
theideastothedivine
toimply
that
were
did,rather
Inghen
they
attributing
OnthediffeasdidOckham.
them
tocreatures
than
mind)
(asknown
bythedivine
attributing
Marsilius
seeMaarten
andMarsilius
rence
between
Ockhams
J.F.M. Hoenen,
of
positions,
also
Whler
See
in
Late
Medieval
Divine
153-6.
{Der
(Leiden,
1993),
Thought
Inghen: Knowledge
view.
Marsilius'
butdoesnotdiscuss
forOckhams
whoargues
influence,
Nominalismus,
375-7),
in
DerNominalismus
onWesel,
seeWhler,
influence
OnMarsilius'
, 379andonmetaphysics
ofInghen
andMarsilius
seeE. P.Bos,"IhuoofViborg
Erfurt
before
, inMedieval
Wesel,
AnalyPhilosoSchool
"The
andCognition.
Acts
sesinLanguage
ofMedieval
Copenhagen
ofthesymposium
and
R.
L.
Friedman
S.
Ebbesen
ed.
523-39.
10-13,
1996,
1999),
(Copenhagen,
phy
January
28)Trutfetter,
KaufseeMatthias
f.D2V.
OnOckhams
A4r
ff.
Veteris
criticism,
artis,
v;Summule,
vonOckham
undWahrheit
beiWilhelm
1994),55.
mann,
(Leiden,
Referenz
29)Trutfetter,
suchanideaof
hadalready
ff.D2v-D3r;
D5r.Wesel
Summule,
rejected
explicitly
of
DerNominalismus,
SeeWhler,
371.Theappealtothecondemnation
natures.
universal
'
andvia
intheWegestreit.
SeeMaarten
wasnotunusual
J.F.M. Hoenen,Viaantiqua
Wyclif
in
Factors
Political
andChurch
intheFifteenth
moderna
Institutional,
Doctrinal,
Century:

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

429

The onlyplausiblewayto posituniversal

naturesin theextramental
world
wouldbe, accordingto Trutfetter,
to interpret
individualnaturesas universal
in a weakersense,thattheiruniversality
is not realizeduntilthe intellect
themas universal.
The Scotistview,whichpositsa commonintenrecognizes
tion in the thingsthemselves,
could be toleratedif the commonintention
was to be understood
merelyto meanthatthereis someobjectiveprinciplein
the singularsubstanceof its being knownas a universalnature,and that
thisprincipleresidesin thethingitselfpriorto anyoperationoftheintellect.30
The Thomistview,however,
seemsforTrutfetter
not liableto err.Trutfetter
describes
itas something
whichdoes notposituniversal
naturesthatarereally
or formally
distinctfromindividualsin the extramental
world,but rather
whereuniversalnaturesare onlyrationally
distinguished
throughtheoperationoftheintellect.31
It is worthnotingthatTrutfetter
s analysisaccommodates
twomajortraditionsof the rivallingrealistschools,the Thomistand the Scotist;theseare
acceptedwithinorthodoxChristiandoctrinewithoutendorsingtheirpositionsas such.On theThomistviewhe evennotesthatit does notdiffer
subfrom
the
nominalist
that
and
the
differences
consist
of
the
view,
stantially
modeofspeakingand theuseofsometerms.It remainsas themaindifference
in TheMedieval
theWegestreit',
inEarly
Modern
andModalTheory
, ed.
Heritage
Metaphysics
L. Nielsen
andR.Friedman
Trutfetters
intention
doesnot
(Dordrecht,
2003),20-2.However,
seem
tobeonly
since
herefers
alsotoThomist
whodeny
therealcommuniwriters,
polemical,
ofbeings.
cability
30)Trutfetter,
Summule
anteomnem
, f.Drr:"Haecsiintelliguntur,
quodinreipsaexsuanatura
intellectus
sitratio
obiectiva
intentionis
sicquodresipsaexnatura
sua
communis,
operationem
communiter
velconcipi
etrespondere
huiccommuni
tolerari
simodo
intentioni,
possit
possunt,
saneintelligantur."
SeealsoTrutfetter,
Summule
Veteris
artis
Trutfetter
men, if.D4r-D5r;
, f.A4V.
tions
Scotus
himself
andtheScotist
Antonius
Andreae
asproponents
ofthis
view.
31)Trutfetter,
Veteris
artis
v:"Caeteris
visum
estnaturam,
,f.A4r
quaealiquomodoetincomplete
estuniversalis,
esserealiter
insingularibus,
necrealiter
sedratione
solum
etconsideratione
intellectus
ab illisdistingui,
itaquodeademressecundum
essesuumestsingularis
etsecundum
esseintellectus
velutaliidicunt,
subunoconceptu
universalem
etaliosingulrem,
universalis,
cumquibus
sentit
Thomas
utdiximus."
SeealsoTrutfetter,
Summule
D5r, ff.
D2v-D3r;
Aquinas
D6V.
Trutfetter
s knowledge
Thomist
views
inaddition
toAquinas
himself,
concerning
depends,
ona number
ofsources.
He explicitly
names
Durandus
ofSaint-Pourain,
Peter
ofPalude,
Thomas
Bernardus
Hervaeus
Petrus
Guilhelmus
de MariSutton,
Lombardi,
Natalis,
Niger,
andevenRobert
Holcot
asproponents
ofthisview;
calmo,
healso
Johannes
Capreoli
perhaps
hasSilvester
inmind(cf.thelistofsources
Prierias
inTrutfetter,
Summule
, f.A4r
v).Trutfetter
refers
toAquinas'
De ente
etessentia
aswellashistractates
onuniversais.
OnAquinas'
viewin
theDe ente
etessentia
TheMetaphysics
St.
Thomas
, seeL.J.Elders,
(Leiden,
ofBeing
of
Aquinas
1993),211.

15:08:48 PM

430

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

to thingsin the manner

thatwhereasthe Thomistsattributeuniversality
to
it
attribute
describedabove,thenominalists
only signs.32
theirmost
ConcerningErfurtiansteachingof philosophicalpsychology,
ofnaturalphiis to be foundin theBuridaniantradition
evidentbackground
losophy.This can be clearlyseenevenin theearliestof our sources,Lutreas
to othersimilarcollections
Its titlesof thequestionscorrespond
Exercitium.
. The sameappliesto
de
anima
of
Buridans
the
Questiones
following example
de
anima?0
Exercitium
Usingens
It is noteasyto pointout whichofthequestioncommentaries
amongthe
on Lutreaand Usingen.One cannotreject
had a directinfluence
Buridanians
in fifteenth
of a continuousBuridaniantraditionof exercitia
the possibility
of theDe
fifteenth
In
Erfurt.
fact,manyearly
centurymanuscripts
century
titlessugsome
of
their
and
havesurvived
fromErfurt
animacommentaries
likeLutreasand Usingens
questioncommentaries
gestthattheyareformally
?A
exercitia
Even when Buridansdirectinfluenceis not evident,one maycounthis
influde animaas one of theworkswhichhave,at leastindirectly,
Questiones
.35Amonglaterauthorswho belongto theBuridaencedthesetwo exercitia
de anima, onlyLawrenceof Lindoresis explicitly
of questiones
niantradition
32)Trutfetter,
et
Thomae
inter
sententiam
dilucide
Summule
,f.D6V:"Quibus
Aquinatis
sequitur
fere
esse
in
nullam
hac
re
modernos
diversitatem,
recentiorum
vocamus,
quos
philosophorum,
reiex
Namquodilleattribuit
terminorum.
etusuquorundam
inmodoloquendi
sedsolum
talimodosignificanti,
rem
intendentes
himagis
modoconsiderando
sermonis,
signo
proprietati
sic
etaliauniversalem
Namutilleremsubunaconsideratione
attribuunt.
appellat,
singulrem
Thomist
the
to
seems
understand
consideratione
hisignum
subeiusmodi
Usingen
significans."
oftheScotist
thefavourable
ina similar
andScotist
manner,
interpretation
endorsing
positions
totius
Summa
SeeUsingen,
, (Basel,1507),f.c7v.On Usingens
logice
compendiaria
position.
ofUsingens
On theproblems
ingeneral,
seeLalla,Secundum,
, 278-85.
conceptualist
position
Secundum
seeLalla,
forhissemantics,
anditsconsequences
, 357-370.
position
33)Ontheimportance
inErfurt,
seeMichael,
ofphilosophy
totheteaching
ofBuridan
Johannes
349-53.
Buridan,
34)Cf.thetwoearly
libros
circa
Aristotelis
andExercitium
"Deanima"
/-///
libros
Quaestiones
super
in
and
footnote
above
5.
mentioned
3
anima
de
35)Inwhat
and
third
ofBuridans
tothequestions
I shallrefer
ifnotnoted
otherwise,
follows,
Buridan
ontheSoul
Gordon
in:Peter
ontheDeanima
Sobol,
final
lecture
John
(=QDA)edited
an
BookontheSoulwith
onAristotle's
II ofHisCommentary
AnEdition
andSensation.
ofBook
Indiana
Sensible
18
on
1984)
andaTranslation
Introduction
(Diss.
University,
Species.
ofQuestion
andTranslation
Buridans
Alexander
andJohn
of
John
ofMind:AnEdition
Philosophy
Zupko,
andCritical
with
DeAnima'
III ofHis'Questions
Book
Redaction),
(Third
Commentary
ofAristotle's
andInterpretative
1989).
(Diss.Cornell
University,
Essays

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

43 1

s viewsin thecormentioned
Lutreadoes notrefer
to Lawrence
byUsingen.36
responding
passages,althoughhe also mentionsthe same authorin a place
whereUsingendoesnot.37
Lutreais alsomissinga questionfoundin Lawrence
animalissit animal"),whichappearsin
("Utrumquelibetpars quantitativa
Exercitium
.38
This
would
Usingens
implythatUsingenreliesmoreheavily
thanLutreaon Lawrence
s Quaestiones
in
deanima, althoughitwasno novelty
histimeand had beenavailablein Erfurt
It
sincetheearlyfifteenth
century.39
to notethatthequestion"Utrumquelibetparsquantitativa
is interesting
animalissitanimal"appearsagaininTrutfetter
s Summa, althoughhe nevermentionsLawrenceofLindoresbyname.40
A numberofreferences
to earlierauthorsin Lutreasand Usingensexercitia
be
back
to BuridansQuestiones
traced
de animaas theirimmemay plausibly
diatesource.Thesewouldincludenumerousreferences
to theArabicphilosoAverros
and
and
references
to Albertthe
Avicenna,
further,
phers,mainly
Greatand ThomasAquinas.41
whichformsthebasisof theexerApartfromtheBuridanianbackground,
citia, is a growingnumberof otherauthorswhoseworkshaveobviouslyhad
someinfluence.
Firstof all, thegeneralinfluence
ofAlberttheGreatshould
be mentioned.
Thiswas mediatedaboveall throughthecompendia
on natural
philosophy.The most importantof thesewas the Historianaturaliumor
36)Usingen,
Ex.an., f.H3V.Thecontext
ofthisreference
thatitrefers
toLindores
s
suggests
onDeanima.
commentary
37)Lutrea,
where
Lindores
ismentioned
theposition
oftheArabic
Ex.,f.38v,
sharing
philosopher
Avempace
(Ibn-Bajja).
38)Usingen,
Ex.an.,ff.E6V-F1V.
39)SeeWilhelm
Beschreibendes
Verzeichniss
derAmplonianischen
Schum,
Handschriftensammlung
zuErfurt
no.343,which
isanErfurtian
s Quaesti(Berlin,
1887),manuscript
copyofLindores
ones
from
theyear1436.
dating
40)Forananalysis
ofthequestion
inTrutfetter
s Summa
'Nature
and
, seePekka
Krkkinen,
inJodocus
Individual
Trutfetter
s 'Summa
intotam
inWas
istPhilosophie
imMittelalphysicen",
ter
A.Aertsen
undAndreas
Miscellanea
Mediaevalia
26(Berlin,
On
,ed.Jan
1998),824-8.
Speer.
thetreatment
ofthequestion
and
see
also
Pekka
'On
Lutrea,
Trutfetter,
Krkkinen,
by
Usingen
theSemantics
of'HumanBeing'andAnimal'
in early16thCentury
Vivarium
42
Erfurt',
(2004),237-56.
41)Theuseofsuchauthors
asAlbert,
andGilesofRome(among
inaddition
to
others)
Aquinas
thenominalist
wasprescribed
tothemasters
the
status
of
the
Porta
coeli
footnote
(see
position
by
22above
forreference).
Tabarroni
andEbbesen
criticize
theviewsupported
that
byKleineidam
theimpact
ofthese
wasdecisive
intheworks
oftheearly
Heinrich
of
prescriptions
collegiates
Runen
andThuoofViberg.
SeeKleineidam,
Universitas
'Intro/,182;185;Andrea
Tabarroni,
duction
andStenEbbesen,
in Thuonis
'Introduction'
deVibergia
1998),
opera
(Copenhagen,
XX;XXXII.

15:08:48 PM

432

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

, as itwas also called.ThisexpositionofnaturalphilosoPhilosophia

pauperum
attributed
to Albertthe Great,was compiledout of Alberts
phyalthough
on naturalphilosophyapparently
by anotherauthor.This tractdid
writings
in Erfurt,
as itdid in severalotherGermanunivernothavea directinfluence
sitiesin thelate MiddleAges.However,it servedas a basisfortheParvulus
naturalisby PeterGertitzfromDresden,to whichUsingenpubphilosophie
on natural
in 1499. It also appearsthatlaterexpositions
lisheda commentary
or
less
from
the
Parvulus
text
more
extracted
their
basic
, modifyphilosophy
the
As
of
the
nominalist
doctrines.
it
to
fit
the
well, Tractatus
requirements
ing
to byUsingen,
referred
de animaby PierreAilly,whichis not infrequently
as a source.42
Historianaturalium
usedthepseudo-Albertinian
in theParvulusUsingenrefersto certaintheologicalworks
Furthermore,
thatwerenot mentionedin LutreasExercitium.
Amongthese,theSentences
ofRiminias wellas Ockhams QuodofOckhamand Gregory
commentaries
Biels Collectorium
libetaalsobelongto thesourcesofPierred'Aillys Tractatus.
not
until
which
was
in quattuor
librosSententiarum
1501,wasreferred
,
printed
in 1507,whenUsingenutilizeditrather
timein theExercitium
to forthefirst
extensively.43
usesalmost
In thelatestofthesources,Summain totam
, Trutfetter
physicen
and
Lutrea
in
the
earlier
all theauthorsmentioned
Usingen,
expositionsby
cannotbe overestiand amongthesethe importanceof Biels Collectorium
to a numberofworksnotmentionedby
mated.In additionto this,he refers
Lutreaor Usingen.Theseincludea medicalwork,Conciliator
differentiarum
etmedicorum
bytheItalianPietrod'Abano;worksoftheAugusphilosophorum
AlfonsoVargasofToledo;and a contemporary
tinintheologian
compendium
was even
Reisch.
Trutfetter
of philosophy,
,
Margaritaphilosophicaby Georg

42)SeeKatherine
and
inAlbertus
onLateMedieval
s Influence
'Albert
Park,
Magnus
Psychology',
Texts
Studies
and
A.
49
ed.
Commemorative
theSciences.
(Toronto,
1980,
James
Weisheipl.
Essays
zur
Studien
vonAilly
desPeter
Diephilosophische
, Bochumer
1980),521;OlafPluta,
Psychologie
6 (Amsterdam,
1987),30-1.
Philosophie
43)See,for
refers
even
to
ff.83r;86v;95r.IntheExercitium
Parvulus,
Usingen
example,
Usingen,
translations.
Renaissance
first
in
Latin
were
available
whose
works
Laertius,
through
Diogenes
was
in1497,which
inthequodlibetal
Ex.an.,f.Qlr.Inhisquestion
SeeUsingen,
disputation
intherest
whodonotappear
authors
several
toParvulus,
asanappendix
Usingen
quotes
printed
Petrus
Marsilio
ofStrasbourg,
Thomas
include
PaulofVenice,
These
Ficino,
ofhisworks.
Nigri
continue
dequiditate
SeeUsingen,
ofWesel.
Rucherat
andJohn
Questio
quantitatis indisputainBochumer
Whler
A.D. 1497determinata
dequolibet
tione
, ed.Hans-Ulrich
philosoErffordie
G(2001),162;167;180.
Antike
undMittelalter
Jahrbuch
fiir
phisches

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

433

in theChurch,and couldthusin 1514 refer

awareofthelatestdevelopments
to thelatestdecreesoftheongoingFifthLateranCouncil.44
4. Psychologyand theSoul in General
4. 1. Psychology
as a PartofNaturalScience
The Erfurtnominalists
Lutreaand Usingendiscussthescienceof thesoul in
theinitialquestionsoftheirexercitia.
Theirpositionis thatas a naturalscience,
scientiade anima concernsknowledgeof singularextramental
entitiescalled
is aboutres, and logicis aboutsigns.However,
souls,sincenaturalphilosophy
scientia
deanimaalso consistspartlyofknowledge
ofsigns,suchas theuniversal termsoul'. Bothkindsof knowledgearebasedon theconclusionswhich
formthematerialbasisofthisscience.Theseconclusionsareconsideredto be
and knowledgeofthemis,accordingto Lutreaand Usingen,
truths,
necessary
whatAristotle
meantin hisremarkthatknowledgeconcernsnecessary
truths
An.
Post.
of
means
this
construction
Lutrea
Aristotle,
(cf.
1). By
conceptual
and Usingencould maintaintheirnominalistconvictionthatthereare no
universaland necessaryfeaturesin extramental
and that
thingsthemselves,
in
manifests
itself
the
mind
universal
universality
only
through
conceptsand
thenecessary
features
of
them.
scienceconnatural
Nonetheless,
predicated
sistsof a knowledgeof extramental
entitiesand universalinvariances
at the
sametime.Lutreaadmitsthatthedistinction
betweenthementaland extramentalobjectofscientific
ofthevia
knowledgederivesfromthephilosophers
moderna.
Similarproblemsdo notariseamongphilosophers
oftherealistvia
oftheinvariantiqua, who considernaturalscienceas a pursuitofknowledge
able universal
features
ofbeingsin theextramental
world.45
44)Trutfetter
seems
tobethefirst
ofthese
authors
toquoteBiel,which
hedidina retrospective
of
a
in
in
his
in
Summule
There
hequotes
Biels
1501.
1497,
description quodlibet
printed
Canonis
misse
SeeTrutfetter,
Unaconclusio
cumcorollariis
indisputatione
dequolibet
expositio.
A. D. 1497posita
inBochumer
Whler
, ed.Hans-Ulrich
Jahrbuch
Erffordie
philosophisches
fr
Antike
undMittelalter
G(2001),160.Thereference
totheFifth
Lateran
Council
isfound
inthe
Summa
, f.Y4r.
45)Lutrea:
"Utrum
deanima
sitscientia
deobiecto
etadacquato
illius
scientanquam
proprio
tiae. . . undetriplex
estscibile.
estquodpropinquius
termint
actum
assensivum
Propinquus
intellectus
utestconclusio.
Remotum
estquodremote
termint
actum
assensivum
ipsius
ipsius
intellectus
utestterminus
conclusionis.
Remotissimum
estquodremotissime
termint
actum
assensivum
intellectus
utestres,quiaresestextra
actusautem
in
assensivus
animam,
ipsius
anima
est. . . Sequitur
estinter
scibile
etpropinquum.
Resenim
bene
quoddifferentia
primm

15:08:48 PM

434

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

As Lutreasremarkwould suggest,a ThomistlikeJohannesPeyligkis not

and
features
likelyto separatetheobjectofnaturalsciencefromitsimmutable
an equivocalconceptof theobjectof sciencein
does not haveto construct
theobjectofnaturalscithediverserequirements
orderto satisfy
concerning
evenPeyligk
hasto explainhowan objectofnaturalscience
ence.Nonetheless,
and
can be an entityof theextramental
world,whoseexistenceis contingent
time.
At
the
at
same
features
the
universal
and
beginning
necessary
possesses
of his treatiseon naturalphilosophyhe discussesthe questionof whether
and
naturalscienceis possible,sincescientific
knowledgeconcernsnecessary
immutabletruths.His answeris thatalthoughtheexistenceand severalfeacan be made
turesof naturalentitiesare contingent,
necessary
predications
even
of
these
these.
The
truth
dependson theexispredications
concerning
to
it
is
tenceof singularentitiesof nature,but
important notethatscientific
truthof conclusions,but rather
knowledgedoes not concernthe necessary
entities.Moveoftheextramental
ofthefeatures
whattheconclusionsaffirm
ofsomeonewalking,evenifit is onlycontingently
feature
mentis a necessary
remains
withUsingensvia moderna
truethatSocratesiswalking.The contrast
extrais
about
that
also
thinks
since
moderate,
knowledge
Peyligk
surprisingly
of
a
of
it
consists
and thattheimmutable
mentalentities,
propositionally
part
explicatedrelationbetweena subjectand itspredicates.However,he quotes
scibile
Resdicitur
scibile
sednondicitur
dicitur
scibile
primus
quiaprimo
propinquus.
primus
Et
reflexe
sciuntur.
et
conclusiones
termini
sed
modm
obiecti
directe
scitur
scitur,
per
quiaipsa
habet
ortum
exviamoderna.
etremotissimum
inpropinquum
etremotum
scibilis
illadistinctio
deiliositscientia
illamdistinctionem
noncurant
quod
quodsolum
quiaipsidicunt
Antiqui
sesuper
hocquiascientia
Etfondant
universalibus.
utderebus
etspecies
pergenera
significatur
illasunt
Modoomnia
aliter
sehabentium.
aeternorum
necessariorum
estverorum
impossibiliter
omnibus
nos
de
Sed
dicimus
et
ea
quod
species.
pergenera
corruptibilia
praeterquisignificantur
necessariorum
estverorum
etscientia
detriplici
etdistinguimus
sitscientia
rebus
mundi
scibile,
nonautem
scibilium
aliter
se habentium
aeternorum
propinquorum
tanquam
impossibiliter
notitiae
est
subiectum
anima
adquaestionem
. . . respondetur
remotissimorum
praesentis
quod
"Utrum
ff.
remoto
et
remotissimo."
scibili
de
etdeeaestscientia
P-4r;
Ex.,
Usingen:
tanquam
A2r-A4r.
Similar
Ex.an., ff.
subiectum"
etadaequatum
anima
sitproprium
scientiae
deanima,
a separate,
devotes
Summa.
Lutrea
ofTrutfetter's
inthepreface
ideascomeacross
very
although
and
ofRimini
asformulated
ofcomplexe
tothedoctrine
short,
byGregory
significabilia
question
the
doctrine
whereas
which
he
of
only
briefly
against
Usingen
argues
Henry Langenstein, rejects,
ofhisExercitium
intheopening
atlength
more
andslightly
inhisfirst
phisiquestion
question,
sintponenda"
Ex.,f.I4r;
Lutrea,
corum
1507).See"Utrum
(Erfurt,
complexe
significabilia
Ex.an., f.A2r.seealsoParvulus
, seeLutrea:
Ex.phis.,
f.A3r,
, f.7y.On theantiqui
Usingen,
ilio
sit
scientia
solum
de
dicunt
illam
non
curant
distinctionem,
quod
quod
quiaipsi
"Antiqui
doesnot
universalibus."
utderebus
etspecies
Ex.,f.lr.Usingen
Lutrea,
pergenera
significatur
viewoftheviaantiqua.
therivalling
mention
explicidy

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

435

thatit wouldnot include

Aquinas,who notesthat"nothingis so contingent
somenecessity."46
Iftheviewoftheextramental
was to dividenominalobjectofpsychology
istsfromtheirThomistcounterparts,
anotherproblemconcerning
theobject
ofpsychology
them
Both
the
view
that
the
defend
brought
together.
objectof
thisscienceis thesoul,in contrast
to theview(supportedbyAlberttheGreat,
Gilesof Rome and theScotists)thattheobjectwouldbe theensouledbody.
The borderline
does notin thiscase lie betweenthecampsof thevia antiqua
and via moderna
of the via antiqua.
, but ratherbetweenvariousauthorities
Therefore
itis notunnatural
thatPeyligk
in thetopicthan
showsmoreinterest
hiscolleagueUsingenin Erfurt.
two
for
his
viewaresimiPeyligks arguments
larto thosefoundin theErfurtian
exercitia.
Theseincludethedefenceof the
ideathatthesoul,and notonlythesoul-bodycomposition,
can be considered
as thesubjectofvitaloperations,
as wellas theargument
basedon thedistinctionbetweenthesoul as a subjectin whichall knowledgeinheresand as the
scienceof psychology.
the
subjectof a particular
Usingenevenuses literally
samedistinction
subiectum
inhesionis
vs.attributions
as Peyligk
in hisresponse
to thecontrary
ErasmusFriesner
devotesa questionto thetopicof
argument.
whether
therecan be a scienceofthesoul,butonlybriefly
addressestheargumentthatthesoul itselfcannotbe thesubjectofscience.47
The ScotistJanze Stobnicyarguesthattheobjectofthisscienceis thecompositionofsoul and body,althoughhe mentionsit onlyas the"moreprobable"viewand thatit is "commonly
held amongtheScotists."He introduces
threearguments
in favourof thisposition:(1) theremustexista coherence
betweenthe objectof thisscienceand naturalsciencein general,and since
naturalscienceconsidersthemovingbodyas such,theobjectof psychology
mustbe theensouledbody,(2) thecompositionis morethananyofitsparts,
46)Peyligk,
Seeespecially
f.A3V:
"Sedcontra:
scientia
estverorum
A3rv.
, ff.
Compendium
perpetuorum
resautem
naturales
sunt
Posteriorum),
(primo
corruptibiles
quiaexcontrariis
composiDicendum
ad maiorem
nondicitur
tae,ergoipsarum
nequitessescientia.
quodscientia
extrema
conclusionis
ut
subiectum
et
eiinesse
demonstratae,
perpetuorum,
quia
ipsius
passiones
sintperpetuae,
nonposset
essescientia
eo quod
demonstratae,
quiautsicdehisinferioribus
nullum
estperpetuum
. . . seddicitur
scientia
ratione
habitudinis
ipsorum
perpetuorum
propriae
adsubiectum
etecontra,
sufficit
adscientiam
decorruptibilipassionis
quae,quiaestperpetua,
bushabenda.
Similiter
dicatur
deomnibus
dicuntur
necessariis,
propositionibus
quaeperpetuae
veritatis
a solahabitudine
nonabextremis.
Dicente
siveSocrates
extremorum,
sit,
Porphyrio:
sivenonsit,semper
estrisibilis
ethomo.
beati
Thomae:
nihil
estadeocontingens,
Regula
quin
necessitatis
includit."
aliquid
47)Peyligk,
Cursus
, ff.I5v-6r;
Friesner,
, f.aaar.SeealsoLutrea,
Ex.,
Compendium
phihsophicus
f.2r;Usingen,
Ex.an ff.
v.
A3r

15:08:48 PM

436

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

whichrenderstheensouledbodymoresuitableas theobjectof thisscience

thanthesoul alone,and (3) thecomposition,
and not thesoul alone,is the
propersubjectof thevitaloperations.Argument(1) arisesfromthe Scotist
notionof the objectof naturalscience,whichis not sharedby Aquinasor
Buridanwho defineit as ensmobileinsteadof corpusmobilefoundin Scotus.
thenominalist
Therefore
and Thomistauthorsdo notobjectto thisparticular
in
but ratherto anotherrelatedone
the
discussion
on psychology,
argument
whichstatesthatthehumanintellectual
soulcannotbe theobjectofpsychol(3) is identicalto thefirstobjectionin
ogy,sinceit is immovable.
Argument
nominalPeyligksdiscussionand is also foundin thediscussionoftheErfurt
istsas notedabove.48
A considerable
numberofpagesaredevotedto thefirstbook ofDe anima
in thequestion-commentaries.
Afterthetreatment
of theobjectof psycholcertain
exercitia
discuss
Lutreas
and
questionsarisingfromthe
Usingens
ogy,
and goodnessof
first
bookoftheDe animaTheseincludethehonourability
of
thepriority
and
of
the
science
thedignity difficulty
psychology,
knowledge,
ofaccidentsto theknowledge
ofuniversais
vs. singulars
and thecontribution
Friesner
discussesin hisThomistcommentary
of substances.In comparison,
ofpsychology
and of thecontributhequestionof thedignityand difficulty
discusses
tion of accidentsto the knowledgeof substances.He additionally
whethertherearesome
commentaries:
twoquestionsnotfoundin theErfurt
the
to thebodyand whether
wherethesoul does notcommunicate
functions
arevoid.50All thesethemesare absentfromUsingens
dialecticaldefinitions
s Parvulus
Parvulus
and Compendium
, whichall begin
, as wellas fromStobnicy
witha definition
of thesoul (Stobnicyafteran initialquestheirexpositions
48)Stobnicy,
tribus
libris
de
naturalis
"Tractatus
tertius
Parvulus
93v-4r:
, ff.
parvuli
philosophiae
estcorsecundum
anima
Aristotelis
cuiussubiectum
opinionem
probabiliorem
correspondens,
etanima
etnonipsaanima.
excorpore
hocestcompositum
Quodprobatur
pusanimatum,
. . . Secundo:
ita
subiectum
adsubiectum
habet
scientia
ad
Primo
sic:
sicut
se
scientiam,
tripliciter.
inter
omnia
honorabilius
habere
subiectum
naturales
debet
inter
scientias
scientia
honorabilior
iniliascienconsideratae
scientiae
dequopassiones
. . .Tertio:
illudestsubiectum
entia
naturalia
hancopiniosecundum
omnibus
... Exquibus
etprincipaliter
dicuntur
tiaeprimo
concluditur,
non
haec
scientia
tractat
de
tenent
nemquamcommuniter
anima,
Scotisantes,
tanquam
quod
Cf.Lutrea,
formali
subiecti
deprincipio
seuadacquato,
sedtanquam
desubiecto
primi."
primo
f.aaar.
Cursus
Ex.an ff.
Ex.yif.2v-3r;
A3r
v;Friesner,
philosophicus,
Usingen
49)Heretheorder
See
s commentary.
Lawrence
ofLindores
follow
ofthequestions
andtitles
in
mediaevalia
Classica
et
onLifeintheLiving
'Lawrence
ofLindores
Lawrence
Moonan,
Being',
27(1966),371.
50)Friesner,
f.2ra
b:"Utrum
if.aaalra-2rb.
Seeespecially
Cursus
operationes
aliquae
philosophicus,
sintcassae
dialecticae
. . .Utrum
diffinitiones
animae
corpori
quasnoncommunicat
propriae
etvanae."

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

437

tionaboutthescienceof thesoul),withPeyligkbringing
intothediscussion
thedignity
ofpsychology.
takesnoticeofthefirst
bookofDe anima
Trutfetter
the
of
the
ancient
viewsofthe
Reisch)
bydiscussing
(following example Georg
natureof the soul presentedby Aristotlebut no othertopicsconnectedto
Aristotle's
first
book.51
4.2. GeneralQuestions
theSoul
Concerning
At the beginningof the treatment
of the secondbook, the Erfurtexercitia
the
of
whether
the
is a substancein advanceof thequessoul
posit
question
tionsaboutthedefinition
of thesoul. The soul is designatedas a substance,
sincetheessentialpartsofthesubstances(formand matter)aresubstances
in
a propersense.Accordingto Usingen,the quantitative
of
parts substances,
suchas head or arm,arealso calledsubstances;Lutreamentionsonlymatter
and form.52
The discussionof the souls definition53
and of the plurality
of
forms54
as wellas thedistinction
of potencies55
takesplace in all theexpositions.The answerto thesefollowthepositionoftheBuridanianvia moderna
:
thereis onlyone substantial
formin a humanbeing,whichis theintellectual
soul and thereis no realdistinction
betweenitspotencies,nor betweenthe
souland itspotencies.56
51)Thecompendia
follow
thestructure
ofPeter
ofDresden's
Parvulus
naturalis
,which
philosophie
isgenerally
similar
tothestructure
ofPierre
s Tractatus
deanima
bothderive
, since
very
d'Ailly
much
oftheir
structure
from
thepseudo-Albertinian
Summa
naturalium.
TheErfurt
,
compendia
aswellasDresden's
andd'Aillys
earlier
witha definition
ofthesoulandthen
treatises,
begin
todiscuss
thevarious
ina fairly
manner.
Itmaybenoted,
proceed
potencies
systematic
though,
that
thelater
writers
ofthecompendia
donotsystematize
their
material
totheextent
thatthey
would
treat
habits
andactsseparately
from
thetreatment
ofdifferent
asdid
species,
potencies,
discusses
and
on
the
habits,
d'Ailly.
passions
Usingen
briefly corresponding
commenting
passage
inPeter's
Parvulus
devotes
topassions
andhabits
after
thetreat, butTrutfetter
longer
passages
ment
ofvarious
which
theinfluence
ofPierre
Tractatus.
Neither
potencies,
mayindicate
d'Aillys
ofthem
discuss
actsdistinct
from
therespective
SeeUsingen,
Parvulus
, ff.112v-3r;
potencies.
ff.
Reisch,
Summa,
Trutfetter,
(1508),f.e4r;
Georg
Margarita
philosophica,
Gg4r-Hh4r.
52)Lutrea,
Ex.an.,f.C5r.OnUsingens
view
ofsubstance,
seealsoKrkkiEx.,f.16V;
Usingen,
248-50.
nen,'OntheSemantics',
53)Lutrea,
Parvulus
Ex.an., ff.C6r-D2v;
f.K3rv;
Ex.,ff.17v-20v;
, ff.80v-2r;
Usingen,
Comp.,
ff.
X4V-6V.
Summa,
Trutfetter,
54)Lutrea
Ex.,f.21r;Usingen,
Parvulus
Ex.an.,f.D3V;Comp.,
f.K3r;
Summa
, f.88r;
Trutfetter,
,
f.Ylv.Onthis
inUsingen,
seeLalla,
Secundum
, 169-80.
subject
55)Lutrea,
Ex.,ff.23r-6r;
Parvulus
Ex.an.,ff.Elv-E5r;
f.K4r;
Trut, ff.82V-4V;
Usingen,
Comp.,
Summa
fetter,
, ff.
Ylr;X3r-4r.
56)Seeforexample:
adquestionem,
est
Lutrea,
Ex.,f.21v:"Respondetur
quodinunohomine
tamen
unaforma
substantial
etnonplures,
inseomnes
omnium
quaeclaudit
perfectiones

15:08:48 PM

438

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

also describecompetingpositionslike thoseof

The Erfurtcommentaries
The
theThomistsor Scotists. comparisonbetweenthediscussionon thedisComtinctionbetweenthesouls potenciesin Usingens Parvulusand Peyligk's
understood
was
Thomist
of
the
the
that
shows
position
description
pendium
werechosenin a different
in a similarwaybybothauthors,butthearguments
sincein the
manner.This mightwell be due to theprocessof abbreviation,
it was not possibleto presentthevariousarguments
comprehencompendia
refer
to
if
both
authors
Even
reasons.
more
obvious
to
be
seem
Yet
there
sively.
1
in
the
a.
in
the
Summa
77
co.)
(I q.
descriptheologiae
Aquinas'mainproof
tion of the Thomistposition,theirsourcesvarywhen theypresentfurther
The choiceofsourcesis relatedto theirgeneralaimto presentand
arguments.
oftheThomistposition
defendtheirownschoolspositions.In hisdescription
in favourof thisposition,which
Usingenfirstmentionsall the arguments
of Riminialso mentionsin his discussionofAquinas'position,and
Gregory
adds some otherswhichare forthe mostpartalso foundin Rimini'ssame
However,he mentionsRiminionlywhendiscussquestionwithrefutations.
againstthe
ing the opinionof the via modernaand the counter-arguments
of
a
wider
refers
to
Thomistposition.57
range worksby
Contrarily,
Peyligk
treatment
of
the
the
and
of
Giles
and
Rome,
presents
despite brevity
Aquinas
not foundin Usingen,such as: "NothingexceptGod operates
arguments
itseemsclearthatin theParvulusUsingen
Therefore
hissubstance".58
through
Thomists,but rather
is not involvedin an argumentagainstcontemporary
thetraditional
againstAquinasfromhisimmediate
argumentation
reproduces
sources.
formsbesidesthe
On thequestionofwhetherthereexistothersubstantial
not
contradicts
moderna
via
Erfurtian
the
in
human
soul
intellectual
beings,
existthe
which
affirms
theThomistbuttheScotistview.The Scotistposition,
is describedin similartermsin Usingens
enceofa separateformofcorporeity,
worth
It
is
.
and Stobnicy's
notingthatwhereasUsingendisperhaps
parvuli
the
offorms,
the
cussesthequestionconcerning plurality
Stobnicyformulates
Usingen
questionto askwhethertherearethreedistinctsouls.Consequently,
with
theScotistviewas wellas thatofOckham,bothofwhichdisagree
refutes
inhoc
Aristotelis
estbeatiThomae,
Illaresponsio
Marsilii,
formarum.
inferiorum
Byridani,
necab
tantum
sunt
animae
f.23v:"Respondetur
De anima";
secundo
quinqu,
potentiae
quod
distinctae."
serealiter
necinter
anima
57)Usingen,
Sententiaetsecundum
Lectura
ofRimini,
82V-4V;
Parvulus
,ff.
super
primm
Gregory
view
On
369-70.
ed.
16
et
355-6;
2
d
sent
17
rum
1979),
(Berlin,
Usingens ofthe
,
q 3, Trapp
Secundum
seeLalla,
thesoulspotencies,
, 205-15.
between
distinction
58)Peyligk,
ff.K1V-K2V.
Comp.,

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

439

view(and,bytheway,theThomistviewas well).Stobnicy
hisownBuridanian
stresses
thathisposition,whichpositsonlyone soul,agreeswithalmostall the
whichin factdoes not include
writersexceptOckham "and his followers",
view.
does he mentiontheoriginality
Buridanian
Onlyincidentally
Usingens
of theScotistposition,whichadmitstheexistenceof a separateformof corIt looksverylikelythatthe choiceof questionmakesbothwriters'
poreity.
ownpositionsappearmorewidelyaccepted.59
Usingenschoiceof arguments
of
forand againstthe Scotistview revealsagain his debt to the authority
fortheviewand theirrefutations
date
Gregoryof Rimini.Both arguments
to
back to Gregorystreatment
of the question.Apartfromthe reference
arenotfoundin Stobnicy
s Parvulus.
Christsbodyin thegrave,thearguments
thepositionof the via
Again,Usingensdiscussionis focusedon reaffirming
moderna
withhiscontemporaries.60
, noton arguments
treatThe two questionsdiscussedabove finda farmorecomprehensive
mentin theexercitia
ofLutreaand Usingen.One couldexpectthattheviews
oftherivalling
schoolsmightalso be treatedin a moreadequatemannerthan
in UsingensParvulus.Concerningthequestionoftheplurality
ofsubstantial
formsbothLutreaand Usingenlistseveralmoreviews,but themostimportantarethethreealso mentionedin theParvulus.The remaining
onesdo not
reflect
anycontemporaneous
positions:theyincludethreehistorical
positions
Plato
and
and
two
views
discussed
Averros)
by Gregoryof
(Anaxagoras,
Rimini(JohnofJandunand WilliamofAuvergne).Furthermore,
thediscussion is not focusedon contemporary
The same appliesto the
arguments.61
the
of
distinction
between
the
souls
question
powers,whichin the argumentationagainstthe Thomistpositiondoes not significantly
differfrom
Parvulus.61
Usingens
questionssomedifferences
appearbetweenthe
Followingthesepreliminary
themesdiscussedin the varioustypesof expositions.The Erfurtexercitia
discussthe questioncommonin the Buridaniantraditionof whetherthe
soulis presentas a wholein everypartofthebody.63
Usingenalso hasanother
taken
from
Lawrence
of
s De anima, namely
Lindores
question,apparently
59)Usingen,
Parvulus
Parvulus
, ff.86r-6r;
, f.96rv.
Stobnicy,
60)Usingen,
Parvulus
86rv;
f.96V.
SeealsoLalla,
Secundum
, ff.
87v-8r;
Parvulus,
, 174-5.
Stobnicy,
61)Lutrea,
Ex.,f.21rv;Usingen,
Ex.an.,f.D3rv.
SeealsoGregory
ofRimini,
2 dist16et
Lectura
seeLalla,
17q 2,ed.Trapp
177-180.
332,24-30.OnUsingens
discussion,
Secundum,
62)Lutrea,
Ex.an.,ff.Elr-E4r.
On Usingen,
seeLalla,Secundum,
Ex.,ff.23r-24v;
Usingen,
207-15.
63)Lutrea,
Ex.an.,ff.
E5r-6V.
Ex.,ff.
26r-8r;
Usingen,

15:08:48 PM

440

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

Lutreadiscusses
"Whethereveryquantitative
partof an animalis animal".64
thesouls presencein thebody.Both
thesametopicin hisquestionconcerning
of an animaland therefore
fulfil
the
definition
affirm
thatquantitative
parts
that
the
term
animal'is thentakenin
are
animal.
they
Usingennotes,though,
an
thenatureratherthan individual.65
an absolutesenseas signifying
fromthequestionsconcerning
In hiscompendia
directly
proceeds
Usingen
and divisionof the potenciesto thoseconcerningthe
the souls definition
dispassageofhisSumma, Trutfetter
potency.In thecorresponding
vegetative
and sensitivesouls,suchas
theintellectual
cussesseveralthemesconcerning
He
on
their
nature
and
origin. especiallyemphasizesthe Catholic
opinions
Christianviewoftheintellectual
soul,whichis describedin theformofdocThen he also takesup bothof thequestionsdiscussedby
trinalsentences.66
soul in the body,and
Usingenconcerningthe presenceof the intellectual
while
the
into
extensive
a
rather
problemofindividuation
digression
presents
to
ask
the
final
does
he
return
then
the
latter
quesOnly
question.67
discussing
ofthepotencies.At theend ofthechapterhe
thedistinction
tionsconcerning
ofthe
whowouldquestiontheimportance
forthetheologians
writesa remark
between
the
refers
to
the
traditional
matters.
There
he
of
such
analogy
study
been
have
wherethe different
humansoul and the Holy Trinity,
potencies
to standforthedifferent
understood
personsoftheTrinity.68
Lutreadevotesto it
soul is hardlydiscussedin theexercitia.
The vegetative
divisionbetween
of
the
about
the
which
asks
one
justification
only
question,
thequestion
thethreenutritive
potencies.69
Usingenadds in his Exercitium
of a beinglikeoneselfis a naturaloperationof a
of whetherthegeneration
soulis
ofthevegetative
thetreatment
As well,in thecompendia
livingbeing.70
(A)Seethetable
Lawrence
inLawrence
ofquestions
, 371.
Moonan,
ofLindores
65)Usingen,
'OnSemantics'.
seeKrkkinen,
E6V-F1V.
Onthequestion,
Ex.an.,ff.
66)SeePekka
oftheSoulintheLateVia
andImmortality
Krkkinen,
Philosophy
'Theology,
Vivarium
ofErfurt',
Moderna
43 (2005),337-60.
67)SeeKrkkinen,
andIndividual'.
'Nature
68)Summa
of
seePekka
s remark,
ofTrutfetter
Onthecontext
Krkkinen,
,X4r.
'Interpretations
West
ed.
intheMedieval
toBiel',in Trinitarian
from
Theology
Aquinas
Psychological
Analogy
P.Krkkinen
2007),256-79.
(Helsinki,
69)Ex.,ff.
29v-30v.
70)Ex.an.,ff.F1V-F4V.
lectura
deanima
SeealsoBuridan,
, Deprima
Quaestiones
'=QDAj),ed.
mdivaux
29 (Louvain-laLe trait
del'medeJeanBuridan.
inPatar,
B. Patar
Philosophes
text
seeJ.M.M.H. Thijssen,
oftheedited
Onthedubious
Neuve,
1991,288-92).
authenticity
deThologie
Recherches
in
Trends
Recent
Some
Natural
'Late-Medieval
Scholarship',
Philosophy:
Mdievales
etPhilosophie
Gl(2000),190.

15:08:48 PM

/Vivarium
P.Krkkinen
47 (2009)421-443

44 1

short.Usingenpresentsin theParvulustwo questionsconcerning

relatively
theaugmentative
potency.71
5. The Legacyof ErfurtianPsychologyin Wittenberg?
of the via moderna
Littleis knownabout the relevanceof the psychology
to the
in
This
laterdevelopments psychology. appliesin particular
regarding
of the Erfurtians.
JohannEck is one of the authorswho has
psychology
How muchthisappliesto hispsychology
to
Trutfetter.
his
debt
acknowledged
on laterpsychology
Anotherauthor,whoseinfluence
has notbeenstudied.72
in a
s naturalphilosophy
also mentionsTrutfetter
was particularly
important,
de animafrom1540,
manner.In theprefaceto his Commentarius
favourable
in addihis studentsto studyTrutfetter,
PhilippMelanchthonrecommends
of
Feldkirch
Vives
and
Bernhardi
from
Luis
tionto similarworks
Johann
Juan
s colleague
The latterwas Melanchthon
Velcurio).73
(also knownas Johannes
in Wittenberg
beforehis earlydeathin 1534, and the workMelanchthon
which
to is probablythepsychological
refers
partof his naturalphilosophy,
in 1537 and subsequently
becamea rather
was firstpublishedposthumously
s
remark
wouldthus
Melanchthon
textbook
several
reprints.
popular
through
with
the
and
other
Erfurtians
to
Trutfetter
us
psychology
compare
encourage
himself.
Bernhardi
and Melanchthon
oftheWittenbergians
andWittenbergians
weretobe observed,
Ifcontinuity
betweentheErfurtians
in
transmitted
that
natural
wouldthatfurther
imply
philosophy Wittenberg
intoearlymodernnatural
someideaswhichoriginated
fromthevia moderna
it is
This seemsto be trueat least to some degree.Therefore
philosophy?
related
to
whether
the
continuities
are
also
to
determine
important
alleged
via
not
to
common
scholastic
of
the
moderna
and
merely
specificpositions
views.74
71)"Utrum
inqualibet
dabilis
sit
and"Utrum
quaelibet
parsaucti
species
quantorum
augeatur"
in
similiter
minima
sub
forma
stare
materia."
Parvulus
,
maxima,
quantitas, qua
potest
Usingen,
ff.90v-lr.
the
latter
in
the
Exercitium
E6r-F2r.
See
also
discusses
,
question
phisicorum
Usingen
Summa
, f.Dd3r.
Trutfetter,
72)Arno
Scholastik
undHumanismus
zwischen
Seifert,
(Mnchen,
1978),17-8.
Logik
73)Philipp
Commentarius
deanima
f.a5r,
seealsoKusukawa,
Melanchthon,
1540),
(Wittenberg,
TheTransformation
1995),86.
ofNatural
Philosophy
(Cambridge,
74)Thefullimplications
ofsucha transmission
ofideaswould
a thorough
ofthe
require
study
ofthereception
ofMelanchthons
andBernhardi
s psychological
ideas.
Forpresent
history
puritisworth
that
s definition
oftherational
Bernhardi
soulandthesummary
of
poses
mentioning
itspowers
wasquoted
thesource)
even
aslateas1621byRobert
in
Burton
(without
mentioning

15:08:48 PM

442

/Vivarium
P.Karkkinen
47 (2009)421-443

some
Humaniststyleof theWittenbergians,
Despitethemoreconsciously
can actuallybe found,evenconcerning
withErfurtian
similarities
psychology
thesubjectof
the themesdiscussedabove.Accordingto JohannBernhardi,
is onlyone
he
states
that
there
is
itself.75
the
soul
Furthermore,
psychology
and
that
it
is
rational
in
and
soul a humanbeing,
responsibleforsensory
ac vegetativae
and vegetativefunctions(fungentem
officiis
quoque sensitivae
and will,
animae);76in a similarway,thepowersof therationalsoul,intellect
functo
their
with
but
arenotessentially
distinct, distinguished
only
respect
of
the
Erfurwiththeposition
Theseformulations
tions.77
pointto an affinity
doesnotdiscussin detailthedistinction
tianvia moderna
, althoughBernhardi
kindsofsoulsor thesouls powers.
betweendifferent
de animafrom1540 thedisMelanchthonmentionsin his Commentarius
cussionoftheunityofthehumansoul. He findsit acceptableto talkofthree
soulsin a humanbeingand evenmentionsOckhamas an exampleofsucha
oftheAristotelian
viewarisesfromhisinterpretation
position.Melanchthons
whichaccordingto himis only
ofbodilymovements,
as a principle
entelekheia
an
soul. In hisview,therefore,
not
the
rational
and
to
the
sensory
applicable
is made betweensensoryand rationalsouls.The former
essentialdistinction
like
entelekheia
is an Aristotelian
, whichis a formofthebodyand corruptible
The rationalsoul is,on theotherhand,an immortal
all formsofmatter.
spirihuman
of
a
the
substance
with
the
whichforms,
tualsubstance,
body,
together
his positionaftera discussionon
being.AlthoughMelanchthonformulates
to note that
and Galen's,it is interesting
ancientviewssuch as Aristotle's
of the via
he findssupportforhis viewin Ockham,the venerabilis
inceptor
moderna
.78
towards
thereis a tendency
Theseexamplesshowthatat leastin Bernhardi
is confirmed
This impression
foundin Erfurt.
thetypeof psychology
by the
vol.1.
andR. L. Blair,
N. K. Kiessling
1.1.2.9ed.T. C. Faulkner,
hisAnatomy
ofMelancholy,
in
also
B.
See
,
Burton,
Anatomy
1989),157,24-35.
commentary
J. Bamborough's
(Oxford,
vol.4 (Oxford,
192.
186;
1998),
75)I refer
Aristoteli^
inuniversam
Commentarii
ofFeldkirchs,
, IV,
Bernhardi
toJohann
physicam
the
which
contradicts
f.171r,
inErfurt,
6 (Tbingen,
1537/38),
1544,first
printing
praefatio
the
Scotist
also
above.
Cf.
as
discussed
Thomist
with
the
in
is
but agreement
Scotist
view,
view,
Aristotelis
necnonMetaphysica
naturali
tota
ofPierre
Tartaret,
philosophia
super
Expositio
position
in
of
natural
in
the
was
used
Tartaret
fol.
cumtextu
107v.
1498/99),
philosophy
teaching
(Lyon
SeeKusukawa,
theReformation.
before
, 50.
Transformation
Wittenberg
76)Bernhardi,
f.199r.
Commentari
i,IV.3.1,
77)Bernhardi,
Commentari
/,IV.18.2,f.230rv.
78)Melanchthon,
Commentarius
, f.15r-6v.

15:08:48 PM

P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443

443

whichfollowsmoreor lesstheoutlineofPierre
generaloutlineofhistreatise,
de anima or the psychological
s Summa
Aillys Tractatus
partof Trutfetter
in totam
In
of
the
of
the
addition,
question
multiplicity
physicen.
concerning
this
souls,Bernhardipresentsa positionsimilarto the Erfurtians,
although
was sharedby otherschoolsas well. Contrarily,
Melanchthonactuallydisawho rejectOckhamsposition.79
However,theomisgreeswiththeErfurtians
sionofdetailedquestionsmakesit extremely
difficult
to relateBernhardi
s or
Melanchthonstreatises
to different
scholasticschools.Still,giventheexamtaskforfutureresearch.
plesabove,thislookslikea possiblyrewarding
6. Conclusions
The Erfurtian
authorsdiscussedaboveseemto havea rathersolididentity
as
ofthevia moderna
. In thevariousformsoftheirexpositions
philosophers
they
reveala ratheruniform
stanceconcerning
doctrinalissues.Theirpositionsare
largelybasedon thetraditionof thevia moderna
goingback to theearlyfifteenthcentury,
and theirargumentation
is deeplyboundto theproblemsarisThomistand
ing fromthisschools position.Comparisonswithconcurrent
ScotistsourcesshowthattheErfurtians
describethepositionsofotherschools
in an appropriate
forand againsttheseposimanner,
althoughthearguments
tionsareoftenborrowedfromtheauthorities
oftheirownschoolratherthan
fromcontemporaneous
discussion.

79)See,forexample,
Summa
Trutfetter,
, f.Y2r.

15:08:48 PM

KlC'/>
C*)
'V
BRILL

VIVA
RIUM
brill.nl/viv

Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

Ten Arguments in Search of a Philosopher:

Averroes and Aquinas in Ficino's Platonic Theology

BrianCopenhaver
UCLA

Summary
In book15 ofhisPlatonicTheology
on theImmortality
oftheSoul,MarsilioFicino
he doesnotsaywhich
namesAverroes
andtheAverroists
as hisopponents,
though
in
The
Averroists
he
has
mind.
that
Ficinoattributes
to
keyposition
particular
- thattheIntellect
- is notonethat
form
Averroes
is notthesubstantial
ofthebody
Averroes
he doesclaimexplicitly
thattheIntellect
is nota
holdsexplicitly,
though
or
in
of
what
Averroes
a
a
Ficinos
account
said
about
the
souls
body
power body.
not
from
Averroes
but
from
made
comes
texts
written
immortality
by
arguments
Averroes
contra
byThomas
AquinasintheSumma
gentiles.
against
Keywords
Renaissance
soul,intellect,
Averroism,
immortality,
Neoplatonism
1. Introduction:High Stakes
in thefifteenth
book of MarsilioFicinos Platonic
Who or whatis 'Averroes'
first
?
here
for
the
answer
offered
time,as faras I know- is that
My
Theology
thathe assembledfromhisstudyof
Averroes'
is Ficinos namefora construct
Beforegivingevidence
theSummacontra
ThomasAquinas,especially
gentiles.
I hopeto clarify
thequestionbyputting
to supportmyanswer,
and arguments
la longuedure
ofphilosophy
itin thebroadercontextofthehistory
, and for
thatpurposeI shallbeginwithDescartes.
"Thehumansouldoes notperishwiththebody":provingthisclaimis one
betterdonebyphilosophy
to humanity
oftwotasksofparamount
importance
- theotherbeingtheproofof Gods existence.This is the
thanby theology
of RenDescartesto thetheological
theMeditations
messagethatintroduced
in
"As
for
the
1641.
of
the
Sorbonne
Soul,"he wrote
faculty
Brill
Koninklijke
2009
Leiden,
NV,

DOI:10.1
163/004275409X12512583682231

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

445

some
thatitsnature
cannot
befound,
andthough
eventhough
havejudged
easily
many
with
thebodyand
haveevendared
tosaythat
reasons
thatitperishes
human
urge
along
theLateran
Council
held
thatthecontrary
viewisheldonlythrough
faith,
yet,because
Christian
to
under
LeoX... condemns
these
and
people expressly
philosophers
charges
to
refute
their
thetruth
asmuch
asthey
andestablish
can,I havenothesitated
arguments
thisaswell.1
attempt
Currentopinionis thatthe attemptwas not successful.2
But whatwas its
motivation?
Despitethepresenttenseof"condemns,"
Pope Leo X had diedin
1521, and theFifthLateranCouncil endedin 1517. What made Descartes,
theprophetofmodernphilosophyand no friendofhistory,
thinkof thedistantpastat sucha moment?
In the yearsbeforehe publishedthe Meditations
, Descarteswas not the
in France.He was livingin theLow Countries,of
mostfamousphilosopher
course,and thathonorbelongedto an ItalianDominican,TommasoCamsince1634 and died there
panella(1568-1639),who had beenin thecountry
fiveyearslater,havingspentmostof his lifein papal prisons.Even in jail,
he wroteendlessly,
and some
Campanellahad beenan international
celebrity:
of his books got into print.One was an Apology
Galileo
(1622) that
for
defendedhis countryman's
claimsforthe Copernicansystem,but tenyears
later,aftertheDialogueon theTwoChiefWorldSystems
provokedtheVatican
Galileo
needed
than
defenders
more
ever.3
When
Galileo
s disgraceconagain,
vincedDescartesnot to publishhis own workon naturalphilosophy,
which
was readybytheearly1630s,he was notbeingcoyor timid.4His philosophical writings
fillelevenvolumes,and he would
and letterswould eventually
- ifnot audacity.He was a prudent
takepublicpositionsof greatoriginality
man, however,not reckless,and he had good reasonto worrythatnovel
answersto physicaland metaphysical
questionscouldbe mortally
risky.
]) Charles
AdametPaulTannery,
deDescartes
Oeuvres
Vrin,
VII,2-3;forthe
(Paris:
1908-57),
Councils
decree
onimmortality
andphilosophy,
seeSessio
LateVIII,19Dec.1513,Concilii
rensis
oecumenicorum
decreta
etal.,(3rded.;Bologna:
Istituto
V,inConciliorum
, ed.J.Alberigo
I amgrateful
andcriticisms,
toMichael
1973),
perlescienze
religiose,
pp.605-6.Forcomments
Rebecca
SeanKelsey,
Allen,
Carriero,
Hankins,
John
James
John
Copenhaver,
CraigMartin,
Calvin
Carlos
andthereaders
forVivarium.
Monfasani,
Normore,
Steel,
2)Edwin
"TheImmortality
oftheSoulinDescartes
andSpinoza,"
Curley,
Proceedings
ofthe
American
Catholic
75(2001),27-41.
Association,
Philosophical
3)Stephen
Descartes:
AnIntellectual
Clarendon
Press,
(Oxford:
1995),
Gaukroger,
Biography
Germana
"Tommaso
xvi-xvii,
293-53;
Ernst,
pp.
Campanella,"
Stanford
Encyclopedia
ofPhiloso://plato.
Stanford,
edu/
entries/
phy,
http
campanella.
4)Gaukroger,
Descartes
, pp.290-2.

15:08:57 PM

446

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

hisdismaywhen
"Allcoherence
gone":thatwashowJohnDonne expressed
the
universe
inside
out.5Soon
the
evidence
that
turned
Galileofirst
presented
of 1610 spreadtheshockingnewsthroughEurope,
aftertheStarry
Messenger
theyoungDescarteswitnesseda strangeresponseto it- in versenotas good
ofHenri
oftheassassination
as Donnes. Mayof 1611 wasthefirst
anniversary
IV, the King of Francewho had leftthe Huguenotfaith(a thirdtime)for
Catholicismbecause"Parisis wellwortha Mass."6lhe King,murdered
bya
fanaticwhomtheJesuitswould not admitto theirSociety,was honoredat
theirnew collegeof La Flchebycommemorative
poems,ofwhichone was
"On theDeath of KingHenritheGreatand on theDiscoveryof Some New
Made thisYearby Galileo."7DesPlanetsor StarsMovingAroundJupiter,
thisodd memorial.He was onlyfifteen
carteshad specialreasonto remember
for
at the time,however,so it maynot have been the late Kings affection
his schooland his teachersthatmovedhim.Althoughan earlierattempton
to be expelledfromParisin 1595, theKing
Henrislifehad causedtheJesuits
in
He
also
recalledthem 1603.
gavethemthepalacethatbecameLa Flche,
of educafavoredtheSocietyas a nationalinstrument
and he systematically
his
honoredhimbyburying
theJesuits
tion.AppalledbytheKings murder,
in Paris.Of thetwentyheartat theirCollegetwoweeksafterthestatefuneral
in theburialrites,one was Descartes.8
fourboyschosento participate
at a timewhen
The regicideof 1610 was an immensepoliticalconvulsion,
In 1618,thewarsofreligion
fornearlya century.
allpoliticshad beenreligious
thathad keptEuropeso long in turmoilenteredtheirlastcalamitousphase,
and the youngDescarteswould soon enlistto fightin the long struggle
after
warbrokeout,and
YearsWar.Meanwhile,shortly
thatbecametheThirty
- in Toulouse,not in Rome- Giulio CesareVaniniwas
on Frenchterritory
burnedatthestakein 16 19 forhisphilosophical
opinions.Itwasnotyettwenty
of the period- the
execution
most
the
since
years
shockingphilosophical
burningofGiordanoBruno- haddefiledtheholycity.Brunoandhishorrifying deathwerestillnotoriouswhenVaniniwas brutallykilled.The Bruno
scandalwas muchon themindof MarinMersenne,Descartes'mostprolific
in 1623.
whenhe publishedhisimmenseGenesiscommentary
correspondent,
Like Descartes,Mersennehad studiedwiththeJesuitsof La Flche,but he
5)John
11.205-18.
TheFirst
"AnAnatomy
oftheWorld:
Donne,
Anniversary,"
6)"Paris
ontheoccasion
toHenri,
attributed
areonly
words
famous
these
vautbienunemesse":
inorder
togainthethrone.
in1593toconvert
ofhisdecision
7)Gaukroger,
Descartes
, pp.38-61.
8)Gaukroger,
Descartes
, p.43.

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

447

thathe was very

had also becomea priestin 1613, so it is not surprising
hardon Brunoand otherinnovators
whomhe sawas dangersto thefaith.One
ideas
suchwas Vanini,a Carmeliteand a recantedapostatewhoseunoriginal
in
from
which
Camthe
same
contentious
circumstances
Bruno
and
emerged
Della Porta,Bernardino
Telesioand other
panellacameto grief.Giambattista
in thisinnovating
also
traditionof anti-Aristotelian
naturalism
philosophers
felttheChurch'swrath,butwithlesserconsequencesthanin Brunos case or
Vanini's.9
Brunoand Vaninisuffered
notjustfornewideasbutalso forrecklessness.
Vaniniadvertised
himselfflamboyantly
as an acolyteof PietroPomponazzi,
who had died in 1525 butremainednotoriousas a criticofthesouls immortality.In 1311-12, the Council of Vienne had made thisancientbeliefan
officialarticleof faith,and in 1513 the FifthLateranCouncil ruledthat
is a truththatphilosophers
mustteachand makeclear.Meanwhile,
immortality
an incompatible
viewwas in themakingbyPomponazzi,theleadingAristotelian philosopherof the day,who finishedhis treatiseOn theImmortality
of
theSoul in 1516, puttingproofof immortality
the
reach
of
Aristotebeyond
lian naturalphilosophy.
AftertheCouncil spoke,Pomponazzicontinuedto
untilhe diedin 1525, buthe neverletanotherbook
philosophize
productively
ofhis be printed.Throughthesixteenth
however,
century,
philosophers
kept
s
in
them
circulation
Vanini
for
to
redisviews,
debatingPomponazzi
keeping
coverwhenDescarteswas a boy.And in moderntimesPomponazziwould
whenErnestRenanpublishedhisAverros
et l'Averroisme
regainhis celebrity
butalso a polemicaboutreligion,
science
(1852), an originalworkofresearch
and secularism.10
The polemicizing
had been goingon fora long time:sincethethirteenth
who questionedthe immortality
of the soul, or held
century,
philosophers
variousotherviewsoffensive
to thefaith,had been called'Averroists,'
sometimescorrectly,
sometimesincorrectly,
sometimesfor substantivereasons,
9)DidierFoucault,
Unphilosophe
libertin
dansl'Europe
Giulio
Cesare
1585Vaniniy
baroque:
"The
Occultist
1619(Paris:
Tradition
and
its
in
the
Critics,"
2003);
Champion, Copenhaver,
andD. Garber
, ed.M.Ayers
Cambridge
History
ofSeventeenth
Century
Philosophy
(Cambridge:
andCharles
A History
Press,
1998),pp.465-79;Copenhaver
Schmitt,
Cambridge
University
III: Renaissance
Oxford
Press,
(Oxford:
1992),
ofWestern
Philosophy,
Philosophy
University
pp.285-328.
10)Martin
Radical
Pine,Pietro
(Padua:Antenore,
Pomponazzi:
Philosopher
oftheRenaissance
Averros
etlAverrosme:
Essai
Michel
Renan,
1986);Ernest
(2nded.;Paris:
1861),
Lvy,
historique
Renaissance
Intellectual
419-24;CraigMartin,
Averroism,"
pp.355-66,
"Rethinking
History
Review
andSchmitt,
Renaissance
, 17(2007),3-28;Copenhaver
Philosophy,
pp.103-12.

15:08:57 PM

448

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

- in thewaythatpeoplewerecalled communists'
in the
sometimes
vacuously
or
Leninist
with
or
attachment
to
Marxist
without
1950s,
politics.By the
was alreadyso prominenta targetthatpoets
fourteenth
Averroism
century,
tookaim at it- evenDante and Petrarch.
and critics,notjust philosophers,
The eventualresultwas thatformaligndestructive
force,theterm'Averrois
FromSigerofBrabantin the
ofphilosophy.11
has had no equal in thehistory
in
Vernia
theRenaissanceto Vaniniat
Nicoletto
Middle
high
Agesthrough
or
accusedofAverroism
thedawnof theScientific
Revolution,
philosophers
or silencedor killed.12
itsassociatederrorscouldbe pressured
on theImmorhisPlatonicTheology
And so, whenMarsilioFicinofinished
to
a
new
Platonic
in
he
not
Souls
1474,
onlybrought
perspective
talityof
in
a
The
he
also
involved
himself
an old Aristotelian
dangerousfight.
struggle,
the
is one of Ficinos two mostimportantachievements;
PlatonicTheology
ofthecompleteworksofPlato,whichfor
otheris hisepochalLatintranslation
ofAristotle's
teacheravailablein a language
timemadeall thewritings
thefirst
treatthateducatedEuropeanscouldread.ThePhaedo,Platos mostimportant
in Latin
wasone ofthefewdialoguesthathad circulated
mentofimmortality,
was
Ficino
who
first
with
small
effect.
It
beforethefifteenth
century,
though
in
context
of
the
made Platos account of immortality
intelligible
larger
H)Giovanni
Societ
Editrice
Internelrinascimento
dell'anima
diNapoli,
L'Immortalit
(Torino:
Averros
etl'averroandAlaindeLibera,
nazionale,
1963),pp.59-65;Maurice-Ruben
Hayoun
sme(Paris:
PUF,1991),pp.110-13.
12)Fora useful
the
Averros
andDe Libera,
seeHayoun
, andfora recent
paththrough
survey,
Aristotelismo
seeAntonio
onmedieval
theexperts
intricate
debates
Petagine,
philosophy,
among
diBraeSigieri
nella
diAlberto
L'Intelletto
umano
, Tommaso
Magno
d'Aquino
prospettiva
difficile:
forwhich,
totheliterature,
anorientation
includes
Vitae pensiero,
bante
2004),which
(Milan:
de
L'unit
del'intellect
De Libera,
seeespecially:
items
cited
after
Renan
andexcluding
elsewhere,
Mind
on
Thomas
Vrin,
(London:
2004);
(Paris:
Routledge,
Kenny,
Anthony
Aquinas
d'Aquin
KukZdzislaw
R.A.Gauthier,
tienne
studies
Gilson,
1993);andtherelevant
byB.C.Bazn,
Herman
Antonino
Bruno
Pierre
Randall,
Mandonnet,
Nardi,
sewicz,
John
Dominique
Poppi,
about
mass
ofwriting
thesheer
andE.H.Wber.
VanSteenberghen
Fernand
Salman,
Although
Kristeller
n.
cites
Paul
Martin
toitscontroverted
Averroism
testifies
career,
10)
(above,
Craig
ofFreeThought,"
Tradition
Atheism
andtheFrench
ofRenaissance
Journal
("TheMyth
of
andthe
Platonists
6 [1968],233-43)andMonfasani
theHistory
("Aristotelians,
ofPhilosophy,
Renaissance
inpre-Reformation
Ockhamists:
, 46
Quarterly
Italy,"
Liberty
Philosophical
Missing
as
Church
the
[1993],247-76)as correctives
crusading
against
post-medieval
seeing
against
that
"the
Itmay
libertinism.
ofphilosophical
Averroism
asa species
be,asMartin
extremely
says,
wasnotparticutheChurch
that
. . . suggests
ofuniversity
small
number
ofexecutions
professors
small
orAverroes
wasinterpreted
abouthowAristotle
concerned
but,ina very
applied,"
larly
a
few
executions
even
to
drink
saint
was
made
whose
andloquacious
poison,
patron
profession
willhavebeenconspicuous.

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

449

Platonicphilosophy.13
And now,in six splendidvolumesof text,translation
and notes,MichaelAllen and JamesHankinshave made Ficinos Platonic
accessibleforthe firsttime to contemporary
Theology
philosophersin the
world.14
their
six
volumes
the
Mainly,
Anglophone
present newPlatonicand
material
that
the
Platonic
introducedto theWest.But
Neoplatonic
Theology
thefifth
volumeof thisoptimum
book of Ficinos
opuscontainsthefifteenth
whichis a refutation
ofAverroist
on
the
soul
and intellect.
treatise,
positions
here
is
this:
who
or
what
is
Ficinos
in
Averroes'
thisfifteenth
My question
book?

2. Ficino'sAverroes
Havingarguedthecase forthesouls immortality
throughthefirstfourteen
booksofthePlatonicTheology
Ficino
the
next
bookbyconfessing
that
,
opens
fivequestionsstillneedanswers.The firsthad beenaskedbyAverroes:
forall
humans,is thereone mindwhichis eternal,whilehumansoulsaremanyand
does individualhumansouls no good?15
mortal,so thattheminds eternity
as
had said,Intellectis notmixedwithanybodilyand mortal
Since, Aristotle
Averroes
as drawingthreeconclusions:thatIntellect
nature,Ficinopresented
is (i) notbodynora matter/form
composite;(ii) nota qualitydivisiblewithor
on
and
not
a formperfecting,
and
(iii)
dependent body;
animating,
regulating
Ficinoaccepts
inheringin bodyto producea compositethatis one in esse.16
the firsttwo propositions
but rejectsthe third,whichdeniesthat"thesubstanceof theIntellectcan be theformthatperfects
thebodyand is itslife-

13)Forsummaries,
seeMichael
inEncyclopedia
Allen,
"Ficino,"
, ed.PaulF.
oftheRenaissance
Grendler
andSchmitt,
Renaissance
PhiScribner,
(NewYork:
1999),II,353-7;andCopenhaver
Thestandard
accounts
ofFicinos
areP.O.Kristeller,
ThePhipp.127-63.
losophy,
philosophy
Ficino
V.Conant
Gloucester:
Peter
,trans.
Smith,
Hankins,
1964);James
losophy
ofMarsilio
(rpt.;
PlatointheItalian
Renaissance
books
andarticles
Brill,
(Leiden:
1990);andthemany
byAllen
andHankins
onspecific
works
andthemes.
14)Ficino,
Platonic
ed.andtrans.
Hankins
, "TheI TattiRenaissance
Allen,
Theology
Library,"
etal.(Harvard:
Harvard
hereafter
I havesometimes
modPress,
FPT,where
2001-6);
University
ified
thesuperb
translation
tomake
various
philosophical
points.
15)FPT15.1.1.
i6)ppp15.1.3;esse
isoften
taken
asa technical
term
with
a precise
use;if,asAnthony
Kenny
its
use
is
not
clear
andconsistent
inThomas,
intheLatin
versions
ofAverroes
itiseven
argues,
lessso:Kenny,
TheFiveWays:
SaintThomas
Existence
Rout(London:
Aquinas'
Proof
ofGod's
Aristotelismo
1969),pp.82-95;Petagine,
, pp.54,72.
ledge,
difficile

15:08:57 PM

450

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

to Averroes
severalarguments
thatsupportthe
givingact."He thenattributes
rejectedproposition.17
The firstfourarguments
(Al -4), numberedand labeledas such,turnon
claim
that
Averroes
of
the
needsto refute,
consequences
accordingto Ficino:
thattheIntellectis thebodysformor act. Such an Intellectmustparticipate
in thebody,whichAristotle
himself
denied,so theclaimmustbe false,accordnextthreearguments(A2-4) address
The
to
the
first
(Al).18
ing
argument
whattheIntellectcould nothaveifitweretheformof thebody:knowledge
SinceIntellectmust
ofuniversais;
power.19
knowledgein general;and infinite
haveall theseitems,it cannotbe thebodys form.
Thesearethefourarguments:
werethebodysact,theresultwouldbe a mind/body
(Al) IfIntellect
composin body,butitcanIntellectto be a participant
itewitha singleesse
, requiring
notso participate
becauseit is separatefrombody.20
wouldbe received
weretheformofthebody,whatit receives
(A2) IfIntellect
in a divided
But
matter
receives
in thewaythata material
receives.
bodily
body
If
in
Intellect
received
it
individual
and
the
forms
temporal.
way,making
formsin thisway,it couldnevergraspa universal.21
17)FPT15.1.3;
atvarious
about
the
Averroes
himself
fora clear
ofwhat
times,
summary
taught,
andHisPhilosophy
ClarenAverroes
andimmortality,
seeOliver
Leaman,
soul,intellect
(Oxford:
Avi
Herbert
extensive
Davidson,
treatment,
don,1988),pp.82-96;andfora more
Alfarabi,
andTheories
Theories
andAverroes
onIntellect.
Their
cenna
Intellect,
of
Cosmologies,
oftheActive
alsoDominique
Human
Oxford
Intellect
Press,
1992),pp.220-356;
(Oxford:
Urvoy,
University
"Averroes:
C. Taylor,
IbnRushd
1991),pp.99-109;Richard
(London;
(Averroes)
Routledge,
to
in TheCambridge
Dialectic
andAristotelian
Companion
Philosophical
Thought,"
Religious
and
R.C.
ed.
P.
Adamson
Arabic
Press,
,
University
Taylor
Cambridge
(Cambridge:
Philosophy
SoulandIntellect,"
L. Black,
Deborah
ibid.,
2005),pp.190-7;
pp.308-26.
"Psychology:
18)FPT15.1.4.
19)FPT15.1.5-7.
2)FPT15.1.4.
21)FPT15.1.5:here
s mode
ofreception
canonly
that
theIntellect
itclear
Ficino
doesnotmake
ofreceiving,
iscapable
andnottheformal,
notformal,
because
bematerial,
onlythematerial,
- seeAverroes,
- i.e.,receptive
arepassive
ofIntellect
whether
thepowers
butona related
point,
TheMedieval
F.
Crawford
libros
ed.
S.
de
anima
in
Aristotelis
Commentarium
,
(Boston:
magnum
ofAmerica,
ACM;seealsoACM,pp.385,388,402,429,and
1953),
Academy
p.381;hereafter
Livre
III (429'10-435b25)>
commentane
duDeAnima,
Grand
etlapense:
Averroes,
L'Intelligence
AlaindeLibera
ed.andtrans.
71-2,97-8,180,
51,
54-6,
58-9,
Flammarion,
1998),pp.
(Paris:
s Critique
of
P.Mahoney,
alsoEdward
256-8;ALAhereafter;
184-6,
190-2,
211-13,
"Aquinas
andHisLegacy
inThomas
oftheIntellect,"
oftheUnity
Averroes'
Doctrine
, ed.D. GalAquinas
ofAmerica
D.C.:Catholic
Press,
1994),pp.101-2.
University
(Washington,
lagher

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

451

an Intellect
(A3) Sincematterhas no knowledgeoftheformsthatit receives,
in
the
that
matter
receives
would
know
way
receiving
nothing.22
in body.Butthereis infinite
(A4) Powercannotbe infinite
powerin theIntellect.Therefore,
Intellecthas no associationwithmaterialbodies.23
What comesnextlookslikea fifth
argument,
thoughFicinodoes not call it
thator numberit:we can treatit as an excursus(E). Itsstarting
pointis that
forthe human Intellect,whichis one in species,the relationwithmatter
neededbyformsof humanbodiesis impossiblebecausethatrelationwould
maketheIntellectmany,destroying
itsunity.
(E) Sincethehumanmindis one speciesofmind,itis one in speciesand thus
one in number,uniqueand notdividedamongindividuals.24
Ficinounpacksthistersestatement
in threefullerexpositions(El -3) whose
commonelementsare (i) distinctions
betweenbeingoneand beingmany
, in
and/or
and
about
relations
number,
,
(ii)
species
assumptions
among things
likenesses
or imagesof thingsand speciesderivedfromlikenesses.
of
Thinking
thepolyvalent
Greekeidos,Ficinouses theLatinspeciesambiguously,
sometimeslogicallyor taxonomically,
as a kind,sometimes
or
metaphysically psyas a formor idea or representation.25
chologically,
of thingsthatbodilyindividualscognize,and if
(El) If speciesarelikenesses
- ifthelikenesses
suchlikenesses
to theindividualcognizers
belongseparately
areindividuated
in theprocessof cognition,in otherwords- thensuchspecieswillbe individuated
withbodilyparticulars
madeof
bytheirengagement
matterand hencewill be numerically
distinct.AlthoughFicinois silenton
the pointabout matter,it is impliedwhenhe says,in a voice representing
22)ppT1515. again,
seeACM, p.388,fora fuller
account
ofthereasoning:
a keydifference
between
thematerial
intellect
andprime
matter
isthatthefirst
inpotency
stands
touniversal
intentional
while
thesecond
isinpotency
toparticular
sensible
sincethe
forms,
forms;
hence,
forms
inprime
received
matter
willbevarious
andparticular,
while
those
received
the
by materialintellect
willbeuniversal,
andnotprime
willbecapable
intellect,
matter,
onlythematerial
ofknowledge,
which
needs
universais.
23)FPT15.1.7.
24)FPT15.1.8.
25)Forthese
various
usesofeioinAristotle,
seeMeta.999*2-6,
1010a22-6,
1013a24-30,
1035b33-36a12,
1078a37-79b10,
1084b28-33;
431b2-19.
335b8-36al4;
l94h3-l5;An.
Degen.
Phys.

15:08:57 PM

452

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

thatspeciesarein theIntellectas in a substrate,

Averroes,
deployingan analwhich
to
the
was
of
Commentator.26
ogy
greatimportance
In thesimplest
in comparing
entities
follows
Aristotle
intellectual
case,Averroes
latter
the
with
(orsubstances) physical
objects(orsubstances),
beingcomposites
is
offormand matter.27
Theanalogy,
whereX andY aretypesofIntellect,
X : Y :: form
:: agent
: patient.
: matter
The typeof IntellectthatmostpuzzledAverroes(Y in theanalogy)was the
materialor receptive
whichFicinocalls capax.28By oftencallingit
Intellect,
is madeofmatter;
he meant
Averroes
did
not
mean
thatthisIntellect
material,'
to
thatit is receptive
, in thewaythatthematterof naturalobjectsis receptive
formor,moreabstractly,
thatit is somehowlikethepassivecomplement
(the
whatis acteduponbywhatis active(theagent),in naturalchange.29
patient),
26)ppT1519; Black,
"Psychology,"
pp.322-3.
27)Arist.
Aristotle's
An.430a10-19;
ACM, pp.406,409,436-7,454-5:Although
agent/patient
the
hasa morecomplex
distinction
is binary,
Averroes
ternary
arrangement,
distinguishing
as
physical
: patient
: product
agent
or
: recipiens
:factum
efficiens
theintellectual
terms
oftheanalogy
andthus
making
: habitual.
: material
agent
with
its
intellect
inACM,isthehuman
Thehabitual
intellect,
fully
supplied
obscurely
presented
to
the
is
more
that
this
even
the
vision,
obscure,
appealing eye,
thoughts; metaphor explains
dieaverroistiSeeALA
color
andthediaphonous.
Hdl,"ber
, pp.104-5,
233;Ludwig
light,
Recherches
de
im13.Jahrhundert,"
desMittelalters
derlateinischen
scheWende
Philosophie
"Averroes'
Three
Commentaries
Alfred
L.Ivry,
etmedievale,
ancienne
39(1972),181-2;
thologie
andReception
Constitution
Tradition:
mAverroes
andthe
Aristotelian
onDe anima,"
Sources,
ofthe
Averroicum
the
Fourth
Rushd
(1126-1198):
(Cologne,
Symposium
of
Proceedings
Philosophy
oflbn
andJ.A.
Aertsen
Brill,
1999),pp.192-3,
(Leiden:
1996),ed.G.Endress
pp.206-7.
28)In thispaperI treatmaterial'
areadjectives
whenthey
as nearsynonyms
and'receptive'
'intellect.'
modifying
29)ACM,p.463;ALA,pp.132,319:"And
isdisinwhich
that
intellect
thisisoneoftheways
init,butinthe
arefound
that
both
actandpotency
theagent
from
intellect,
namely,
tinguished

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

453

Less abstractly,
Dora the cow is a naturalcomposite,thecow-form
individuatedbya batchofmattercapableofreceiving
thatformand servingas its
The cow-form
substrate.
is one in species:everycow is a cow. But because
Dora is one cow,and Marleneis anothercow and so on throughmanygreen
therewill also be forms,manyin number,as componentsof many
pastures,
bovinecomposites.
Now ifyouand I arebothcognizingDora, eachofus bya
distinctprocessof cognition,thereshouldbe one likenessor speciesof Dora
involvedin yourcognition,and anotherone numerically
in mine.Yetifspecies (formsor likenesses)
areone in species(kind)butmanyin number,they
- saysFicinoon behalfofAverroes.
areparticular,
notuniversal
And to do its
own specialkind of cognizing,the understanding
kind,the Intellectneeds
universais.
Hence,ifyouand I areto cognizeDora in thisunderstanding
way,
we cannotdo it throughthedifferent
speciesprocessedin our individualacts
of cognition.Ficinosversionof theview thatAverroesholds is that"since
thehumanmindis one in species,it mustalso be one in number,
. . . unique,
singularand notdividedamongsingularthings."30
s metaphysical
The knowl(E2) Ficinothenrecounts
everyteacher
nightmare.
that
from
teacher
to
be
passes
edge
pupilsmight like the formthatpasses
froma male parentto his childrenor froma flameto piecesof
irretrievably
wood. The formsthattheteacherbegetsin studentswould thenbe identical
to hisown in speciesbutdifferent
in number,availableforacquisitionbydifferent
minds.Treating
as transmitted
formis anotherwayofanaloknowledge
intellectual
in
the
domain
of
withhylemorphic
activity
gizing
psychology
in
the
domain
of
to
understand
how knowl(form/matter)
change
physics:
moves
from
one
mind
to
we
are
to
think
of
unkindledwood,
another,
edge
whosematteris capableof becominghot,receiving
theformof heat,or to
thinkofmatteronlypotentially
humanactuallyreceiving
humanform.31
Buttheanalogywithnaturelimps:whysupposethatimmaterial
knowledge
is possessedby immaterial
mindin thewaythata materialqualitylikeheat
inheresin a materialsubstance?
If individuation
needsmatter,
and ifknowlis
cannot
be
individuated
it
cannot
be manyin
immaterial,
edge
knowledge
intellect
actandnotpotency.
Andthus
Aristotle
wascorrect
incalling
itthe'material'
agent
only
butnot,asAlexander
because
itismixed
with
matter
andcontains
intellect,
holds,
it";seealso
ACM, p. 381;ALA
Thomas
thehigher-order
, pp.50-1,180.Notethat
{SCG2.54.10)locates
inactandpotency,
relation
abovethematter/
form
thelatter
relation,
onlytonatural
applying
theformer
tobeing
ingeneral.
substances,
3)FPT15.L8.
31)FPT15AA0.

15:08:57 PM

454

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

in different
numberor different
minds.Withouta receptive
batchof matter,
the
individual
and
Dora
cannot
however,
composite
simplyemanate,in the
absenceofmatter,
fromthecow-form
alone.Then,sinceteachingphilosophy
is not likebegetting
a cow or a child,sincewhatis transmitted
by teaching
cannotbe manyin number,"theonlyoption... is thattheteacher. . . communicates
. . . absolutelythe same knowledgenumerically
as . . . he possesses
himself."
Neverhavingbeena professor
ofphilosophy,
Ficinothenassertsthe
oftheconsequence:thatiftheteacherand studenthavedifferent
impossibility
minds,then,once thisabsolutelysingularknowledgepassesfromteacherto
theteacherhaslostit.Geniallyconvincedthatthiscannotbe, Ficino
student,
concludeson behalfofAverroes
thatthereis onlyone mindforall teachers
and students.32
(E3) Suppose thateach teacher(T) and everystudent(S) has a different
humanmind(HM):
HMT1,HMT2...HMTn
SI' S2
Sn
in number,all such itemsare the same in speciesbecause
Thoughdifferent
all
are
minds (HM). Moreover,each such mind can acquire
human
they
- whicharealso thesamein species,
notionsofthings ofcows,forexample
so thatsuch notionswill be common in thattheyare notionsof things
belongingin commonto thesamespecies.And sincethemindsthatacquire
in number,theacquiredcommon
thesecommonnotions(CN) aredifferent
in number:
willalso differ
notionsthemselves
CNHMTl'
CNHMT2
' **CNHMTn
CNHMSl'
CNHMS2CNHMSn
Butone levelup in theepistemic
order,anothercommonnotion(CNN) ofall
commonnotions(CN) can be acquiredin thesameway.And
thosedifferent
32)FPT15.1.10;9-11; ACM,pp.411-12;
di
"LaCritica
ALA
Mazzarella,
,pp.80,230;Pasquale
" Rivista
66
di
Neo-Scolastica
all''Averroismo
SanTommaso
253;
,
(1974),
Filosofia
gnoseologica,'
auxiiic
latine
d'Averros
Notessurla rception
averroste'?
unenotique
De Libera,
"Existe-il
andL. Sturlese
undinderRenaissance
inAverroismus
imMittelalter
, ed.F.Niewhner
sicle,"
as "Form
forUs"and
Intellect
"TheAgent
C. Taylor,
(Zurich:
Spur,1994),p. 72; Richard
and
Medieval
the
of
Averroes's
,5
al-Farabi,"
Metaphysics
Logic
for
Proceedings
of Society
Critique
(2005),24-5.

15:08:57 PM

/Vivarium
B. Copenhaver
47 (2009)444-479

455

again,becausenotionsat theCNN level,likethoseat theCN level,can be had

in number:
mind,CNN notionstoo willdiffer
byeachdifferent
HMTn
CNNHMT1,CNNHMT2...CNN
CNNHMS1,CNNHMS2...CNNHMSn
inventive(compareA4), different
and infinitely
Since mindsare different
at thenextlevel,and thenextand the
commonnotionscan go on multiplying
- whatyou and I
But the commonnotionsin question
nextad infinitum.
- are notionsabout species(speciesin thetaxothinka cow is, forexample
areconceivableonlyas
nomicalsense)which,accordingto FicinosAverroes,
an orderedset {ordo).Assumingthatan open-endedsequenceof increasingly
withsuchan order,we mustelimiabstract
commonnotionsis incompatible
thattherearemanyinstancesofHM - manydifnatetheinitialproposition,
In otherwords,there
and students.
ferent
humanmindsbelongingto teachers
all studentsand all therestof us. Only the
is onlyone mindforall teachers,
mostparsimoniousallocationof mindswill halt a disorderly
explosionof
commonnotions.33
At thispoint,Ficinohas presentedfourcondensedarguments
(Al -4) and a
theviewsofAverroes
thathe opposes.
excursus(El -3) to represent
three-part
and
He thenputstheseviewsin contexts(K) - cosmological,physiological
of
concenThe
is
the
usual
universe
Peripatetic
psychological. cosmology(Kl)
theearthin the lowestand
tricspheres,withthe lunarspheresurrounding
innermost
they
position.Becausethe heavenlyspheresmoveof themselves,
theFirstMovertheyalso haveIntellects.
To
areensouled,and to contemplate
Intellectthatgives
thelowestspherebelongsthe single,eternal,immaterial
individualsin the humanspeciesall the accesstheyhave to any powerof
understanding.34
In no case does accessto understanding
conferimmortality.
Everyhuman
individualhas a distinctly
humansoul,withpsychological
equipment(K2)
peculiarto thespecies,and foreach humanbodythereis justone suchsoul,
whichperisheswiththe body.By itself,thisindividualmortalsoul has no
33)FPT 15.1.11:Estautem
inrebus
in
absurdum
ordinatis
infinitum
inducere;
progressum
vero
rerum
ordinem
esse
necessarium
est;
ACM>
411-12;
ALA,
80,
230;
speciebus
pp.
pp.
Ovey
N. Mohammed,
Doctrine
A Matter
Averroes
Wilfred
(Waterloo:
ofImmortality:
ofControversy
Laurier
B. Collins,
TheSecular
Ardis
isSacred:
Platonism
Press,
1984),pp.99-100;
University
inFicino's
andThomism
Platonic
(TheHague:
1974),p.64.
Theology
Nijhoff,
34)FPT15.1.12;
ACM,p.442;ALA,p. 111,280.

15:08:57 PM

456

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

whichis the workof the lowestcelestialIntellect,yet the

understanding,
humansoul belongsto a specieshigherthanthoseof otheranimals.Because
all animalsneedto choosewhatis helpful(a calfs mother)and avoidwhatis
harmful
(a ravening
wolf),theirsoulsareendowedwitha naturalinstinctto
. Whatdistinguishes
maketherightchoices,a powerto judge (visaestimatrix)
thesensitive
soulsofhumansfromthoseofanimalsis thepowerto chooseby
Whenthey
ratherthaninstinct.
(viscogitativa)
wayofreasonand deliberation
deliberate
human
souls
individual
their
however,
employ
cogitativepower,
thereasonin themis "particular
notuniversais:
aboutparticulars,
reason,"not
reason"ofthesingleIntellect.35
the"universal
whichhas no organ,thesouls cogitative
UnliketheIntellect,
powerhas its
to last
and fromfirst
ownlocalein thebrain.Fromfrontto backanatomically,
thehumanbrainslayout(K3) is commonsense;imagination;
functionally,
from
Afterthecommonsensecollectsimpressions
and
cogitation; memory.
holdsthemas imagesto be judgedby
thefiveexternal
senses,theimagination
thecogitative
power,whosejudgmentsthengo to thememoryforstorage.36
Its activeroleof judgingbringsthe cogitativepowerin the individualsoul
close to the separateagentIntellect,whichmustconnectwiththishighest
function
ofthelowlyhumansoulso thatwhathas alreadybeenjudgedbythe
as a universal
can nowbe understood
soulas a particular
species.
is unitaryand in the Intellectalone,
s act of understanding
The Intellect
but,justas lightis theoccasionforseeing,so cogitationin thehumansoul is
act of understanding.
theoccasionforthisnon-transitive
Sparkedbyhuman
foritselfwhatthemany
Intellecton highilluminates
thesolitary
cogitations,
soulsbelowcannotsee on theirown.In Ficinos words,speakingforAverroes,
but minddoes underminda man does not understand
anything,
"through
standin theman,"at leastin theadult.Althoughhumanchildrenare born
35)FPT 15.1.12-13;
on
"Remarks
C. Taylor,
ACM,pp.476-7;ALA,p. 145,349;Richard
andthe
deanima
libros
inAristotelis
Commentarium
inAverroes'
,"inAverroes
magnum
Cogitation
"Three
andAersten,
ed.Endress
Aristotelian
Commentaries,"
Tradition,
p.213;
Ivry,
pp.217-48;
in
estimative
eliminates
the
himself
Averroes
that
315,
Black,
faculty
explains
p.
"Psychology,"
: TheFormation
intheLatinTradition
"DeAnima"
Avicennas
SeealsoDagN. Hasse,
animals.
of
a Peripatetic
Institute,
2001).
(London:
Warburg
oftheSoul,1160-1300
Philosophy
36)Ficino
as sitesofdistinct
ofthebrain
ofdistinct
isthinking
psychological
compartments
for
of
the
faculties
the
latter
or
faculty
using
imaginatio,
psychology,
being
processescapabilities,
when
andbefore
occurs
after
which
for
Aristotle's
images
thought
perception
phantasia,
example,
from
canberecalled
after
which
forfurther
) havebeenpresented
they
processing,
{phantasmata
is
to
of
this
conservatrix
virtus
a
since
)
(
images,
faculty preserve
imaginum
keypower
storage;
and
forAristotle's
is aneffective
andimaginatio
ofimago
Ficino's
phantasma
parallel
pairing
phantasia.

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

457

withsoulsreadyto cogitate,theirsoulsstillneed to be purified

byeducation
and religionto makethemfitplatforms
forintellection
the
by higherIntellect.
into
Only whenthematurecogitative
powercan turnimagesof particulars
about
will
the
Intellect
be
to
understand
particulars
judgments
prompted
themas universalspecies:althoughAverroes
makesthislastpointexplicitly,
Ficinodoes not.37
In anycase,giventhisnobletaskforthehumansoul,we mightadmirethe
humananimalas themosteminentsoul/body
composite,and yetthehighest
of
that
will
soul
be cogitative,
notintellective.
Hence,in "theonlycompower
muniona manhaswithmind,"theeternalIntellect
cannotbe a partofmanortheformofman.Mans soulis potent,able to stirtheeternalIntellectand to
connectwithitssublimeintellection
butitis not
byitsownlowercogitations,
and does notcontaintheeternalIntellect.38
Thus,althougha soul thatforms
- theconclua humancompositemaybe admirable,it willnot be immortal
sionthatprovokesFicinoto opposeAverroes
at greatlength.
3. Ficino'sAverroists
And FicinoopposesnotjustAverroes
butAverroists
) as well.After
(Averroici
the
out
of
the
Commentator
(Al -4), elaboratingthem
laying
arguments
and
some
contexts
for
threeaddithem,he attributes
(El -3)
(Kl-3)
sketching
tionaland different
ofAverroes.39
positions(Cl-3) to unnamedfollowers
(Cl) As he introducesthe firstAverroist
position,Ficino assumeswhat is
impliedby his previousaccountof the Intellect:thatit has morethanone
state.IftheIntellecteitherconnectsor does notconnecton variousoccasions
withhumansouls,thismustbe so: at a minimum,therewill be connected
statesand unconnectedstates,at leastin relationto individualsouls.Ficino
have identified
not so much
however,claimingthatAverroists
goes farther,
twostates
oreventwopowersoftheIntellect
as twosubstances
thatcomposethe
37)FPT 15.1.13;
ACM,pp.225-6,415-16,
439,449,475,516,529-30;
ALA,83-4,107-8,
Averroes'
Doctrine
117-18,
143-4,
233-5,
275,292,347-9;
Mohammed,
ofImmortality,
pp.101-3.
38)ppT15.1.13;
haecsolaesthominis
cummente
nonquiaintellectus
sit
communio,
Atque
vivifica
hominis
huius
etanima
parsautforma
quiexcorpore
cogitatrice
componitur
(separatur
enim
intellectus
abhomine
etinessentia
etinessendo),
sedquiapraesens
estubique
intellectus
hominis
huius
exhacparticulari
illeuniversalem
haurit
cf.
cogitationi
atque
cogitatione
speciem;
ACM,pp.495-6;
385-6.
ALA,pp.163-4,
39)FPT15.1.14-16.

15:08:57 PM

458

/Vivarium
B. Copenhaver
47 (2009)444-479

Intellect:theagent(agens)and thereceptive(<capax), or theforming

(forma
in
is
Their
the
formable
( formabilis
).
trix)and
composition, fact, quasi-hylemorphic,analogousto thatof a physicalsubstancecomposedof formand
standsto theintellectus
matter:theintellectus
capaxformabilis
agensformatrix
And bythesameanalogy,theimmaterial
asformastandsto materia.
compositeofthembothis a soul thatis one in esse(animauna secundum
esse).
se ipsum):hence,
itself(intellegere
The essenceoftheagensis to understand
itself
whatever
its relationto humansouls,thisIntellectalwaysunderstands
with
its
But
the
minds
as
well.
celestial
other
as
a
and,
agens
consequence,
essenceis also alwaysjoinedbycompositionto thecapax,so that
intellective
theagentIntellectand thereby
Intellectalso alwaysunderstands
thereceptive
universo
the othercelestials.In the Intellectas a whole (in intellectu
), the
s essenceis a singleact,unchanging
whichis theagentIntellect
understanding
that
and eternal,but in the receptiveIntellectas such the understanding
eternalnorunchangbutneither
itissempiternal,
hasa beginning:
lastsforever
changesbecauseit is occasionedby humancogitaing.This understanding
and
tionsin time.40So now we have two Intellects,agentand receptive,
theotherchanging,and theunchangone unchanging,
twounderstandings,
is theagentIntellectsessence.If,byanalogy,themutable
ingunderstanding
Intellect(Ficinodoes notsay
weretheessenceofthereceptive
understanding
eachwithitsownessence,which
thatitis),we wouldthenhavetwoIntellects,
treat
he saysthattheAverroists
when
means
Ficino
what
mighthelpexplain
two
substances.
as
Intellects
theagentand receptive
The claimfortwosubstances,
thoughit has textualsupportfromAverroes
and elimitheIntellects
ithypostasizes
seemsodd on first
himself,
inspection:
In the firstinstance,however,theAverroist
natestheirunity.41
unityof the
Ficino after
and
Intellectthat Thomas Aquinas had famouslyopposed
or (to useThomas'sterm)posor material
him was theunityofthereceptive
Iftheagent
as thesolehumanmeansofunderstanding.
sibleIntellectregarded
Intelwerea substanceseparatefromthesoul and fromthereceptive
Intellect
to
a
threat
s unitymightstillbe intactand still
lect,thelatter
Aquinasand
4)ppT15.1.14.
41)ACM,pp385-6,
isnecesofthematerial
intellect,
proposition
saysboththat"the
speaking
matter
from
different
"it
is
an
that
and
also
form,
be
a
substance"
it
to
which
shows
entity
sary
with
intellect'
seesmaterial
someone
ACM, pp.450-4:"when
andtheir
together
composite";
their
.
two
.
.
in
another
and
one
in
one
two
to
be
willseem
intellect,'
by
way,
way
they
agent
and
intellect
is perfected
thematerial
. . . onebecause
different
bytheagent
waysofacting,
220-1,
secALA,pp.56-7,75,78-9,119-23,
187-9,
ontheproblem,
understands
it";formore
227,294-9.

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

459

substancescertainly
Ficino.42
Even so, a dyadof intellectual
complicatesan
sufficient
(continuatio)
alreadycomplexproblem:providing
continuity
among
theagentIntellect,
thematerialIntellectand humancogitations.
Ficinos silenceon anyimpediments
arisingfrommultiplesubstances
might
be thatof an advocateforan unlovedclient.As forAverroes,
theissueseems
notto haveworriedhim,thougha solutionofhisown makingwas available:
whatwe findin thematerialIntellect,
he claims,is a newtypeofesse
, notthe
old version,and thenoveltyhereseemsto be aboutsubstance.On thestanin
one divisionofeverything
dardPeripatetic
modelthatAverroes
inherited,
theuniverse
hasthreeparts:(i) terrestrial
formand (ii) terrestrial
which
matter,
combineto makecompositeterrestrial
and (iii) celestialsubstance
substances,
oftenregarded
as immaterial
and hencepurelyformal.But ifterrestrial
itself,
substances
arecomposedof (i) formand (ii) matter,
Averroes
reasoned,then
celestialsubstancesshouldalso be compositesof (iii) something
formalwith
if
form
And
intellectual
were
married
to a
(iv) somethingquasi-material.43
matterless lumpishthantheearthlykind,thena celestialcompositemight
butnotblockthecontinuity
ofmindsand souls.
qualifyforsubstancehood
Moreover,when Averroeshimselfspecifiesthat the material(receptive)
Intellectis a substantia
clearwhatthe Latinwordmeans,
, it is not entirely
whether
substancein thestrictsenseor an essenceor a subjector a substrate.44
If the first,thensurelythe activeIntellectcould not be denied the status
But in thatcase,out of theconjunctionof (iii)
grantedto itspassivepartner.
formand (iv) intellectual
intellectual
mustcome at leasttwo
quasi-matter
not just one forboth Intellects.How Averroesmightsolvethat
substances,
problemis beyondFicinosreachin his summaryof theenemyposition.In
claimto be thatthereceptive
anycase,evenifFicinodoes taketheAverroist
Intellect
s different
is thatofan independent
he also
substance,
understanding
notesthatit will stillbe farcloserto the agentIntellectthanto temporal
humancogitations.
humansouls,the
Despitebeingconjoinedto time-bound
materialIntellectis stilleternalbecauseit is alwaysunifiedwiththathigher
entity.45
42)Aquinas,
SCG2.76-8,
makes
theagent
intellect
human
soulandnot
partoftheindividual
a separate
butonlyafter
thissamestatus
established
forthepossible
in
intellect
unity,
having
SCG2.59.
43)ACM, pp.409-10;
"Three
Intellect,"
Commentaries,"
Taylor,
"Agent
p.24;Ivry,
pp.209-10;
nn.16,41.
above,
44)ACM,pp.385-6,
395,443.
45)Above,
n.40.

15:08:57 PM

460

/Vivarium
B. Copenhaver
47 (2009)444-479

in them,individthatgetimagesfromthebodiesreflected
(C2) Likemirrors
and
suffer
These
simulacra
with.
to
think
and
ual humansuse images
species
when
aredistorted;
die withthebody:whenthemirror
cracks,thereflections
understandit breaks,theyvanish.Foranyindividual,then,whatstimulates
withthemortalbody,and evenwhenthereis
and destroyed
ingis corrupted
of speciesfromimages,theprocessis variable
lifeto sustaintheabstraction
humansouls.In
becauseit relieson mutableand transient
and intermittent
one way,then,thematerialIntellectis subjectto a humancycleofawareness
forthe Intellectto underand oblivion:whensouls produceno cogitations
thatreceives
theIntellect
ceases.In another
stand,understanding
way,however,
is
becauseits understanding
theirmutability
humancogitationstranscends
in all humanbutalsosempiternally
in individuals
activenotjustmomentarily
byknowingthewhole
ityas individualhumansoulscomeand go. Moreover,
humanspeciesand all its thoughts,the materialIntellectalso knowsitself
it also knowsthe
and thereby
becauseitjustis all thosethoughtsin potency,
Intellects.46
the
even
as
well
and
Intellect
higher
conjoinedactive
formof theagentIntellectarethe
(C3) Farbelowtheabsolutelyimmaterial
- thesouls
in terrestrial
of
individuals
forms
materialized
species
completely
such
and
of cows,forexample,or othernon-humananimals
any
species
also
are
are
also
which
forms.
But
such
contain
forms,
angels,
many
may
matter
the
lacks
since
for
that
and
reason,
immaterial,
everyangel
entirely
eachone- we knowtheirnames,Michael,Gabriel,
neededforindividuation,
Betweenthe angelsand the beasts,says
Raphael- is a speciesunto itself.47
withmanylimbsand one
locate"a sortofhugemonster
Ficino,theAverroists
- a mind/
intellect
and unitary
head."It is a compositeofmanifoldhumanity
does the
Intellect
man,"in whichone
bodychimera,calledthe"intellectual
forthe manysouls thatbelongto merelycogitative
workof understanding
humans.48
humans
claimthatalthough
In otherwords,saysFicino,Averroists
cogitative
human
all
includes
understand
human,which
nothingat all, theintellectual
theIntellect,
becausea partofthatmonstrosity,
souls,doesindeedunderstand
- justas bymetonymy
we calla personsimaalthoughonlya part
understands
46)FPT'5.'A5' ACM, pp.448,474,486;ALA
IbnRushd,
, pp.117,143,291,344-5;Urvoy,
p. 107.
- 'Metatron,'
47)Theagent
a name
andeven
ofasanangel
issometimes
Intellect
given
thought
forexample.
48)FPT15.1.16.

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

46 1

of her,thenose,is simus.Ficinoknowsthatsimusis the'snub'so finelydissectedbyAristotle,

buthe seemsto havein mindneither
thesubtlearguments
aboutsnubnessfromtheMetaphysics
and theSophistical
northose
Refutations
ofAverroes
fromtheLongCommentary.
Ficinos simplerpointmightbe better
madein Englishwiththedifferent
,
qualityofbaldness,which,unlikesimitas
is nota properaccident:thingsotherthanheads,likethetailsofpossumsor
thefacesoflies,can be bald.Thatwe call Cicero'bald,'eventhoughonlyhis
head is hairlesswhereit shouldnotbe, is enoughto makeFicinoseasierdistinctionbetweenwholeand part,or a thingand itsfeatures.49
What FicinomissesfromtheLongCommentary
is nothingas intricate
as
Aristotle's
discussions
ofto gijiov,whichareaboutsuchthingsas theperplexofa termwhosedefinitions
mustmentionthatsameterm:thisis
ingfeatures
trueof'snub'butnotof'short'or 'bald.'50ForAverroes
thecrucialclaimmade
Aristotle
is
that
snubness
can
(a
form)
by
particular
onlybe in a nose (a particularbatchof matter),and to thisconstraint
he comparestherequirement
thata particular
(a nose) and theformof thatparticular
(snubness)mustbe
perceivedeitherby two different
powers(senseand intellect)or by a single
and undiversipower(intellect)withtwo different
dispositions(diversified
Two
faculties
will
be
when
needed
the
form
and
the
areperfied).
particular
ceivedapartfromone another,but when the object of perceptionis the
difference
ofone
(alietas)betweenthetwo,a different
disposition(diversified)
will
suffice.51
(theintellect)
faculty
Ficinos ellipticalremarkabout snubnessends the "accountof Averroes"
thatintroduces
boththeteachingsof theCommentator
and theviewsof his
theanonymous
Averroists.
We cannotbe too criticalofa shortsumfollowers,
maryofa topicthatfillsmorethantentimesas manypagesin themainwork
ofAverroes
availableto Ficino.52But it is fairto ask how well thesummary
to whatAverroes
corresponds
taught.
some positionsto Averroes(Al -4,
AlthoughFicinos summaryattributes
breaksdownin therest
El-3) and otherstoAverroists
(Cl-3), thedistinction
49)FPT15.1.16;
An.429b10-l4;
Meta.1030bl4-36;
ACM,pp.421-6,478-9;Arist.
1037a29El. 181b36-82a6;
ALA
b7;Soph.
whenthings
, pp.89-94,146-7,
247-8,356.Bythisaccount,
thatarenotnoses
arecalledsnub,'
nosesarestillinvolved
withthat
byanimplicit
metaphor,
at
its
which
would
not
be
true
of
'bald'usedsimply
tomeanthat
core,
particular
body-part
ishairless.
something
50)W.D.Ross,ed.,Aristotle
s Metaphysics:
A Revised
Text
with
Introduction
andCommentary
Clarendon,
(Oxford:
1924),II, 172-5.
51)Above,
n.49.
52)FPTliAA-l^ACM,pp.379-546.

15:08:57 PM

462

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

In thirty
ofbook fifteen.
byname,thoughnot
placesor so, he linksAverroes
to
various
statements
that
can
be
traced
back,thoughnotoften
alwaysfirmly,
in thesummary.
to AverButwhathe attributes
to viewspresented
precisely,
with
the
Averhas
as
much
or
more
roesin theseremaining
affinity
chapters
with
the
sections
described
as
as
roissectionsofthesummary
(CI -3)
coming
from'Averroes'
(Al-4, El-3).53 Moreover,
veryfewof theselaterreferences
and noneleadsto analyses
seemto citetheverywordsof theCommentator,
and as extensive
as theexpositions
whicharebothclearlyattachedto Averroes'
in book fifteen
of
Ifwe wantto identify
FicinosAverroes'
in thesummary.54
willbe ourbestevidence.
thePlatonicTheology
, thesummary
have
been is harderto say.Identifying
Who Ficinos Averroists'
any
may
in
has
been
no
Averroists, any period,
lighttaskforthe experts:even the
- not to speak of the rightsof
claimsof Averroeshimselfon his eponym
When Ficinomentions"more
debated.55
his followers havebeen regularly
53)Somementions
ofthename'Averroes'
(FPT2.1-2;8.2; 12.1;13.1;141.1;19.9)attach
with
thesoulas
oritsidentification
theunicity
oftheIntellect
togeneral
claims
fororagainst
withtheexcursus
theform
ofthebody;
(E2:13.9;E3: 13.7,10;
onlya fewseemtoconnect
thecontextual
reflect
16.16-17;
(K2:6.2;K3:10.1,4,7; 12.10;14.2;
19.6);most
exposition
17.5;18.4;
17.9;C2: 16.16-17;
10.6,
8;
15.4;
15.5;16.6)ortheAverrois
(CI:
arguments
areonentirely
different
5-6;C3:6.2);anda few
(7.1-2,9; 16.2).Thesame
19.2-3,
pattern
topics
E2:10.5;18.4;E3:16.4;K3:7.3-4;7.11;8.5;9.3;12.2;CI:
holds
formentions
of'Averroists':
2.4;
10.3;11.1,6,8, 10;15.1;17.2,9-11;C2: 10.6;16.14;18.2;C3:7.2,8; different
topics:
7.1-3;9.2.
54)ForFicinos
seeFPT1.7.1,
ofAverroes,
totheLong
references
three
most
direct
Commentary
a statement
cites
case.Thefirst
another
(ACM,
14.3,18.7;cf.1.10.6for
p.85,
byAverroes
likely
notjustthe
that
thewhole
human
which
An.408b13-17)
onArist.
person,
suggests
commenting
toa passage
alludes
thesecond
ofpsychological
{ACM,
soul,istheagent
p.399)where
processes;
and
the
third
his
to
on
Averroes
invites
other
saysofAverroes
improve findings;
philosophers
nudum
esse
omne
subiectum
Aristotelis
sententiam
terreplicavit
iuxta
"inlibris
Deanima
that
which
illius
ACM,p.385:"omne
paraphrases
quamsitsuscepturum,"
oportere
specie
qualitatis
nonsitsubetutsuasubstantia
a natura
necesse
estutsitdenudatum
recepti,
recipiens
aliquid
at
ACM
statement
almost
identical
in
since
an
stantia
,
p. 386,anda
appears
recepti specie";
ofthe
ofthissection
wasprobably
on p. 387,Ficino
related
useof"denudetur"
thinking
readit;
available
tohim,andhedidactually
; inanycase,itwascertainly
LongCommentary
and
oftheIntellect
"Averroes'
Arthur
dean.2,conci.;
seealsoAquinas,
Theory
Quaest.
Hyman,
andAersten,
ed.Endress
Aristotelian
inAverroes
andthe
theAncient
Tradition,
Commentators,"
n.91.
below,
pp.192-3;
55)Fora guide
Aristotelismo
seePetagine,
tothese
debates,
pp.7-8,32,36,47,51,64-5,
difficile,
andDe Libera,
Averros,
161-5,
168;alsoHayoun
113-14,
121-2,
80,84-5,105-7,
pp.78-82,
ofRecent
intheLight
andAlexandrism
Averroism
Studies,"
"Paduan
86-96;P.OKristeller,
di
XII
internazionale
:
Atti
del
aristotelica
e
inAristotelismo
filosofia
congresso
padovanofilosofia
in
sull'Averroismo
"Recenti
studi
Francesca
Luccheta,
1960),
(Florence:
padovano,"
pp.149-55;

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

463

recentAverroists,"
he mayhavebeenthinking
closerto home,about
however,
theItalianAverroism
of his own day.56
And becausehe was a physician,
the
medicalside of theItaliantradition
was important
to him.Sincethetimeof
Taddeo Alderotti,
a Florentine
who taughtat Bolognain thelate thirteenth
Italian
with
a professional
interestin formsrelationto
century,
physicians
body also understoodthattherewas a relatedand explosivequestionthat
prudenthealerswould avoid- the unityof the Intellect.By the earlyfourteenthcentury,
had becomebolder,and they
however,Bologneseprofessors
whohad taughtat Parisuntil1328,after
Taddeo
beganto citeJohnofJandun,
ofParmaand othershad startedto advertise
forhimin Italy.Johnsviews,still
notoriousin Ficinos timeand later,wereopposedto thesameorthodoxpositionson intellect,
soul, formand body thatSigerof Brabanthad failedto
overcomein thethirteenth
BecauseofJohns prominence
in Italy,he
century.
seemslikelierthanSigerofBrabantas thevoiceoftheAverroists
whomFicino
considered
lessrecent.57
Ficinos "morerecent"opponentsare harderto pin down.58If the lower
bound on recencywerethebeginningof Ficinos own century,
thenPaul of
Venice,who taughtat Bologna,Padua and elsewhereuntil1429, mightbe
a contender.Pauls student,Gaetano da Thiene,was a leadingexponentof
AlberttheGreat,whosepsychology
was closerto AvicennasthanThomas's,
and Paul himselfhas been called an Averroist,
perhapsby associationwith
Padua and hencewiththeolder'PaduanAverroismiBut on thekeyissues,
neitherPaul norGaetanoactuallytookAverroist
positions.Likewise,Niccol
whomFicinoknewpersonally,
wasan Aristotelian,
Tignosi,a fellowphysician
but a ThomistAristotelian,
not an Averroist.
He died in 1474, whenFicino
finished
thePlatonicTheology
, havingbegunit in 1469.59
The prodigiousGiovanniPico dellaMirandola,whowas thensixyearsold,
- whilestillin histeens
- withElia del Medigo,a Jew
wouldlatercollaborate
L'Averroismo
inItalia:Convegno
internazionale
18-20aprile
etal.
(Roma,
1977),ed.E. Cernili
Accademia
Nazionale
deiLincei,
withspecial
studies
(Rome:
91-6;
1979),pp.
byMahmoud
AlainLaurent,
OlafPluta,
andothers
cited
inn.12.
above
Kassem,
Salman,
Dominique
50)ppT1.17.9.
57)Dominick
Aristotelians
A Philosophical
Iorio,The
(Lewiston:
ofRenaissance
Italy:
Exposition
Edwin
L'Immortalit
andDe
Mellen,
1991),pp.81-95;Di Napoli,
, pp.55-8,66-9;Hayoun
Libera,
Averros,
pp.113-14.
5S)ppT1.17.9andn.117.
59)Alessandro
Conti,"PaulofVenice,"
Iorio,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paul-venice/;
Aristotelians
"Recenti
studi
,pp.94-7,105-7;
Luccheta,
sull'Averroismo,"
pp.99-110;Di Napoli,
L'Immortalit
andDe Libera,
Averros
, pp.78-84,
97-105,
126-7,
134-5;
, pp.114-17.
Hayoun

15:08:57 PM

464

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

who taughtat Padua and in theearly1480s gave Pico accessto writings

of
thatsurvived
Averroes
onlyin Hebrew.SinceElia was probablyno morethan
, it is unlikelythatElias
twentywhen Ficinofinishedthe PlatonicTheology
Averroism
couldhaverousedthegreatPlatonist.60
Anotherimportant
Paduan
of
this
was
Nicoletto
who
studied
with
Gaetano
da
Vernia,
philosopher
period
Averroist
Thiene,butthedateofhisunpublished
Questionon theUnityofthe
Intellect
is closerto 1480.61In Italyitis hardto locateother"recent
Averroists"
in timeforthePlatonicTheology.
who mighthaveattracted
Ficinos attention
4. live Long Commentary
As forAverroes,
manyof his writingsdeal withthe soul and the intellect.
on Aristotle
s De anima, he
Besidestheshort,middleand longcommentaries
as
the
leftseveralworkson suchnarrower
souls
problems
happinessand the
withtheIntellect.
Also relevant
arehiscommentarofconjunction
possibility
ies on a numberof otherAristotelian
texts,especiallythe Metaphysics
, On
Generation
and Corruption
and theParvanaturalia.Finally,therearediscusin TheIncoherence
sionsofthesouland immortality
CDestruc
oftheIncoherence
.
tio destructions),
a long attackon Ghazalis Incoherence
of thePhilosophers
Someofthese,butnotall,had longbeenavailablein LatinbyFicinos day,but
- theLongCommentary
onDe animaand the
onlytwooftheLatinizedworks
accountsof thesoul and intellect
Destructio
destructionsprovideextensive
Of the two,the Long
read by scholasticphilosophers.62
thatwereregularly
of
Averroes.
is
closer
to
Ficino
s
version
much
Commentary
60)Umberto
delrinascimento
GliEbrei
a Firentnell'et
Olschki,
Cassuto,
1965),
(Florence:
282-6.
pp.
61)Edward
in
in Nicoletto
Vernia
andAgostino
andScience
Nifo,"
Mahoney,
"Philosophy
di Padova
nelQuattrocento
Scienza
efilosofia
all'universit
, ed.Antonino
Poppi(Padua:Lint,
inPhilosophy
andHuman"Nicoletto
Vernia
ontheSoulandImmortality,"
1983),pp.145-51;
Ennio
inHonor
Kristeller
ism:
Renaissance
Brill,
(Leiden:
1976),pp.144-63;
ofPaulOskar
Essays
inNicoletto
Vernia
e Agostino
"LaFormazione
e l'opera
di Nicoletto
de Bellis,
Vernia,"
Nifo:
Aristotelians
emetodologici
,pp.1082003),pp.9-17;Iorio,
(Lecce:
Congedo,
Aspetti
storiografici
L'Immortalit
, pp.179-193.
10;Di Napoli,
62)ACM,p.xvii(Crawford's
intoLatin:
TheReception
"Arabie
Charles
Burnett,
'Prolegomena);
to
Arabie
in
The
into
Western
ofArabie
,
Philosophy
Companion
Europe," Cambridge
Philosophy
andAverroes
onIntellect
Avicenna
262-5,
, pp.220-2,
Davidson,
397-400;
Alfarabi,
pp.374-85,
inL'Averroismo
enoccident,"
del'entre
d'Averros
"LeProblme
298,n.179;VanSteenberghen,
Commentaries
on De
"Averroes'
Three
Alfred
L.
et
inItalia
ed.
Cernili
al.,pp.81-9;
,
Ivry,
andAersten,
ed.Endress
inAverroes
andtheAristotelian
199-216;
Tradition,
anima,"
Ivry,
pp.
inMediinA Straight
Path:
Studies
TheFirst
"Averroes
andtheWest:
Encounter/Nonencounter,"

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

465

is not
Ficinos introduction
of Averroesat the beginningof book fifteen
Aristotle
who standsaccusedofmisunderstanding
kindto theCommentator,
ratherthan
becausehe had "read[his]books. . . aftertheyhad beenperverted
From
Gemistos
converted
fromtheGreekintoa barbarous
Plethon,
tongue."63
a Greekpolytheist
who wantedto redesignthe failingByzantineempireas
Plato'sRepublic
thatifAverroes
had
, Ficinohad it on good Platonicauthority
readAristotlein his own language,he would have realizedthathis master
"considered
humansoulsto be manyand. . . everlasting."64
Butthereis no sign
of awarenesson Ficinos partofhis havingtheverysamefailingas a criticof
whowrotein Arabic.
Averroes,
As a readeroftheLongCommentary
, to be sure,Ficinowouldhaveencountereda verycrudeLatinizationof it in the earlythirteenth
centuryversion
to MichaelScot. Scots crudenesswas thepriceof pioneering:he
attributed
wasone ofthoseheroicearlytranslators
who recovered
theAristotelian
corpus
forWestern
and
create
the
ancient
universities
ofBolothereby
Europe
helped
In thelemmatafromDe anima in the
gna,Paris,Oxfordand Cambridge.65
- also
thatScot translated,
we can see theirregular
results
LongCommentary
- ofrendering
visibleto Ficino,an expertHellenist
a Greektextbywayofan
Arabicintermediary.
Takejustthreeexamples:at 429a13,in thephrase"thinkvoevbecomesformare
at 429a15,
ing is akinto perceiving,"
per intellectum'
of
the
form"
or
ktikv
8
tov
is
;
e'ioD
"capable receiving
recepii
formam
and at 429a21,"thatit is potential"or oti uvaxvis quodestpossibilis
,66In a
translation
thatwantsto be rigidlyliteral,whichwas thestandardforearly
versions
ofAristotle,
results
wouldbe apparentifitwerepossible
justas erratic
evalPhilosophy
andCulture
inHonor
etal.(Wash, Essays
, ed.R.Link-Salinger
ofArthur
Hyman
D.C.:
Catholic
of
America
For
the
Destructio
142-58.
Press,
1988),pp.
ington,
University
seeAverroes,
The
Incoherence
the
Incoherence
ed.
trans.
and
destructionis,
,
Tahafut
al-Tahafut:
of
Simon
vandenBergh
hiseminence
Press,
1978).Despite
(Cambridge:
University
Cambridge
andenormous
inthecenturies
Averroes
wasmore
famous
after
hisdeath
productivity,
among
Christians
than
Moslems:
C.Anawati,
"LaPhilosophie
d'Averroes
dansl'histoire
among
Georges
delaphilosophie
inL'Averroismo
inItalia,
"Averroes
dansson
arabe,"
Guichard,
pp.9-19;Pierre
inAverros
etTaverrosme
etal.,pp.13-26;
mile
"LeProblme
dela
, ed.Bazzana
Fricaud,
temps,"
d'Averros,"
ibid.,
disgrce
pp.155-89.
)FPT15.1.2.
64)FPT 15.1.2,n. 4, citing
De dijferentiis
Platonicae
etAristotelicae
1
Plethon,
philosophiae
Pat.Graec.
160:889).
(Migne,
65)Jean
"TheArabie
inAHistory
Western
Inheritance,"
, ed.
Jolivet,
ofTwelfth-Century
Philosophy
P.Dronke
n.62.
Press,
above,
1988),pp.113-48;
(Cambridge:
University
Cambridge
66)Translations
from
Deanima:
II andIII,ed.andtrans.
Books
D.W.Hamlyn
Aristotle,
(Oxford:
" 58-60.
"Unenotique
Clarendon,
1968);De Libera,
averroste,'
pp.

15:08:57 PM

466

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

withScots
to comparethe (lost) Arabicoriginalof the Long Commentary
Latin.
AlthoughFicinohad greaterskillas a readerof Greekthanas a writerof
werethoseof Quattrocento
of Latinity
humanism,
Latin,his highstandards
ofthe
wouldhavebeento smoothout thetangledterminology
whoseinstinct
. Ficinooftenusescapaxto modifyintellectus
, forexample,
LongCommentary
orrecipiens'
wouldusuallyhavematerialis
wheretheCommentary
capax, related
less
of
the
sense
to theverbcapio,obviously
given
recipiens' obviously,
captures
and it is also a
it also worksformaterialise
meantby material/
whatAverroes
which,despiteitsexcellentThomistpedigree,does
good matchforpossibilis
.67In fact,the intellectof
in the Long Commentary
not modifyintellectus
said
names
becauseAristotle
too
had
Aristotelian
psychology acquired many
and
on thesoul,whosebrusque
too littleaboutit in his treatise
threatening
remarksabout immortality
among Platonists
provokedendlesscontroversy
and Christians.
ofa naturalbodywhichhaslifepotentially,"
Ifthesoulis "thefirst
actuality
then,once a bodythatwas animatedis no longeranimated,thesoul thatdid
But thestorycontinues.Thereis a
theanimatingseemsto haveno future.68
and underthe
soul
bothknows(yivcoGicei)
which
of
the
soul
('|A)xfj)
by
"part
kinds:
one does
is
of
two
which
an intellect(vo),
stands(cppove),"
actually
theother"byproducing(rcoiev)
itsjob by"becoming(yiveaGai)all things,"
all things,as a kindof disposition(i)."The twoarerelatedas "art(xexvri)
to itsmaterial(u,iv),"
just as, in anydomainof nature,foreach itemthere
whichis matter(vkvi)to each kind"and also "something
willbe "something
elsewhichis theircause (a'mov) and is productive
(rc>ir|TiKv)
byproducing
unaffected
is
intellect
"distinct
This
all."
dual
them
(anaQr'q)
(%cpiOT),
(rcoiev)
- In separation
and unmixed(|Aiyn),
(vepyea)
beingin essenceactivity
and eternal."69
it is justwhatit is,and thisaloneis immortal
(xcopiG0ei),

67)Thomas
nonest
hominis
asin"Quodintellectus
oftimes,
hundreds
usesthephrase
possibilis
ofSCG2.59.
thetitle
substantia
separata,"
68)Arist.
onAn.4l2al6-12b9,
InACM,pp.133-9,
An.4l2a28-9
(trans.
commenting
Hamlyn).
itsrole
with
the
soul(nottheIntellect)
thehuman
isthat
a keypoint
body
justbecause
perishes
inthewaythat
"That
thesoulisnota substance
tothebody:
form
tiesitsoclosely
asthebody's
isnotina subject.
andthebody
thesoulisina subject
clear
. . . because
iswillbemade
thebody
itisa
that
from
thefact
is
manifest
form
is
a
substance
that
in
the
itisa substance way
Butthat
Mohamina subject";
that
itisa substance
toa form,
Forthisisproper
ina subject.
substance
Doctrine
Averroes
med,
pp.86-8.
ofImmortality,
69)Arist.
An.429a10-12,
430a10-25
(trans.
Hamlyn).

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

467

In justa fewwords,thiscrypticpassagesuggeststhatAristotle
treatedone
as a causalor productive
another
side
as
a passiveor
sideoftheintellect
agent,
in otherwords.
materialsubstrate
ofagency:an agentand a materialintellect,
as a wholewhich,as apartfromthebodyand theembodAnditis thisintellect
withtheNeoplatonists
ied soul, is "alone. . . immortaland eternal."Starting
and theGreekcommentators
on Aristotle mostofwhomwerePlatonists
who insistedon thesoulsimmortality,
philosophers
alongwithotherphilosowho
invented
a
more
elaborate
to sustainthe
phers
disagreed,
terminology
in Arisdistinctions
needed
for
their
distinctions
not
found
debates,
many
totle'saccountof the intellect.Hence, by the timeMichael Scot translated
of theintelAverroes,
manymorewordswereused to assertor denyfeatures
- for
lect thanthose- agent/material,''receptive,'
'habitual'and separate'
in
whichtextualgroundswereapparent keypassagesofDe anima: thelistof
novelties
willincludeintellects
thatare abstract,'acquired,'continued,'cor'in potency,'
'mechanical,'
ruptible,'
'generable,'generated,'
'operative,'
'passiand
ble,''passive,''patient,''possible,' 'speculative.'70
was meantto makedistinctions
and
Althoughtheelaboratedterminology
the
Latin
of
the
in
is
less
than
the
clear;
produceclarity,
Long Commentary
of
the
definition
Intellect
for
this
is
the
Latin
knotty
justdiscussed, example,
ofthelemmata:
De parte
autem
animae
etintelligitEtquia,quemadmodum
perquamanima
cognoscit
innatura,
estaliquid
inunoquoque
(etestillud
quodestmateria
genere
quodestiliaomnia
inpotentia)
etaliudquodestcausaetagens
(ethocestilludpropter
quodagitquidlibet,
sicut
artificii
necesse
estutinanima
existant
haedifferentiae.
disposino
apudmateriam),
ut
in
ea
sit
intellectus
est
intellectus
secundum
efficitur
et
omne,
Oportet
igitur
qui
quod
intellectus
est
intellectus
secundum
facit
et
intellectus
omne,
qui
quod
ipsum
intelligere
secundum
etiam
omne,
quodintelligit
quasihabitus,
quiestquasilux Etisteintellectus
estabstractus,
nonmixtus
etestinsuasubstantia
actio Etcumfuerit
nequepassibilis,
estilludquodesttantum,
etistetantum
estimmortalis
abstractus,
semper.71
70)ACM,
,pp.69,386,389-90,
394,401,407,409,411,438,442,451,476-7;Black,
"Psychol317-18.
ogy,"
pp.
71)Thelemmata
ofArist.
An.429a10-12,
inACM,translated
asliterally
asI canman430a10-25
which
thesoulknows
andunderstands
Andbecause,
age:"Onthepartofthesoulthrough
there
issomething
ineachandevery
which
ismatter
which
(anditisthat
justasinnature,
genus
isthem
allinpotency)
andsomething
elsewhich
isa causeandagent
because
of
(anditisthat
thefact
that
itdoeswhatever
isrequired,
likethedisposition
ofcraft
toward
thematerial),
itis
that
these
inthesoul.Init,then,
differences
exist
there
must
beanintellect
that
isthe
necessary
inregard
intellect
toeverything
andanintellect
which
istheintellect
inregard
produced,
being
toproducing
that
whole
andanintellect
inregard
toitsunderstanding
understanding,
everylikea habit,
which
islikelight Andthat
isalsosetapart,
intellect
notmixed
orableto
thing,

15:08:57 PM

468

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

The problemsstartwithAristotle's
added by the
Greek,and the difficulties
- or evenMichael Scot, giventhe available
Latinwereno faultof Averroes
resources.
oftenresponded
aside,Ficinoshumanist
Culpability
contemporaries
to obscuremedievalversionsof oldertextsby trying
to repairthemin some
an extreme
casewas
way,sometimes
puttingstyleaheadofcontentor clarity:
thetranslation
ofAristotle
intostrictly
CiceronianprosebyJoachimPrion,
an extravagance
even
other
humanists.Betterphilologists
than
by
rejected
Prionunderstood
thepointmadebrilliantly
in Ficinos dayby
and ironically
GiovanniPico'selegantletterto anothergreattranslator,
ErmolaoBarbaro:
musthaveitsownwayofspeaking,
sometimes
philosophy
non-philignoring
norms
for
reasons.72
osophical
good philosophical
excessas PriAlthoughFicinocannotbe blamedforanysuchbelletristic
in thePlatonicTheology
ofAverroes
andAverroism
seemsto
on's,histreatment
missPico'spointto somedegree:a homogenized
for
the
typesof
terminology
intellect(reducedmainlyto agensv. capaxby Ficino) or,moregenerally,
a
smoothand rectified
Latinrisksobliterating
theverydistinctions
and nuances
thatAverroes
needsto makehiscase.Hence,iftheLargeCommentary
was the
bestevidenceoftheCommentator's
viewsthatFicinocouldhavehad,which
is surelytrue,and ifhe had seenthattext,as clearlyhe had,thenwe mightstill
wonderwhetherFicinodid justiceto hismainopponentin book fifteen.73
5. Aquinas and Averroes
in book
Butwho was thisopponent:who or whatownsthenameAverroes'
fifteen?
Since the kindredAverroiswas a destructive
termof abuse when
beaffected,
itisactivity.
. . . Andsince
itissetapart,
itisonly
what
itis,and
andinitssubstance
that
aloneisimmortal
forever.
"Inrespect
ofthatpartofthesoulby
Forcomparison,
translation
oftheGreek:
Hamlyns
ofnature
there
is
which
thesoulbothknows
andunderstandsSince[justas]inthewhole
allofthem),
toeachkindofthing
which
ismatter
(andthisiswhatispotentially
something
issomething
elsewhich
istheir
cause
andisproductive
while
ontheother
handthere
byproducso
there
must
alsobethese
differences
related
as
an
art
to
its
material
them
all
these
being
ing
allthings,
andthere
is
isthiskindbybecoming
inthesoul.Andthere
isanintellect
which
likelight,
does
- Andthis
allthings,
asa kind
ofdisposition,
another
which
issobyproducing
itisjust
inessence
... Inseparation
intellect
isdistinct,
andunmixed,
unaffected,
activity.
being
andeternal."
what
itis,andthisaloneisimmortal
72)Copenhaver,
intheCaminPhilosophical
andStyle
Discourse,"
"Translation,
Terminology
Schmitt
andQuentin
Skinner
, ed.Charles
(Cambridge:
Philosophy
bridge
History
ofRenaissance
and
O'Brien,
"Translation,
Press,
1987),pp.77-110;
John
Philology
University
Cambridge
Renaissance
Studies
Ethics
of1558,"
3 (1983),
267-289.
inDenys
Lambins
Nicomachean
Polemic
73)Above,
n.54.

15:08:57 PM

/Vivarium
B. Copenhaver
47 (2009)444-479

469

sinceformorethana centuryafterFicinodied philosoFicinowas writing,

thequespherswerestillin periliftheyheldviewslabeledbythatpejorative,
we can
tion is not just academic.Having inquiredabout Averroeshimself,
Thomas
and his followers:
turnnow to anothercriticof the Commentator
in book fifAquinas.AlthoughFicinooftennamesAverroesand Averroists
teen,he mentionsThomasonlyonce, thoughhe citedhim elsewhereand
ThomashimselfcitedAverroes
had readsomeofThomas'swritings
carefully.
on the
hundredsof timesand oftenwithrespect,especiallyin theScriptum
is
Sentences
and otherearlyworks;in thetwogreatSummastheCommentator
lessvisible,however,
he turnedintotheCorrupter
ofAristoteand eventually
lian orthodoxy
whenThomastookon the Averroists'
towardtheend of his
career.74
On themanyvexedquestionsofintellect,
soulandbody,Thomashad much
to sayin hisvoluminouswritings.
And amongworksbyThomasdevotedjust
to thosetopics,one obviousplace forFicino to look was the littletreatise
On theUnityoftheIntellect
Buttheaimofthatlatework
AgainsttheAverroists.
was to refutenotAverroes
himselfbut "a mistakeabouttheintellect
thathas
from
statements
made
and
Averroes,"
recently
by
emerged,
arising
nothingin
thispolemiccorresponds
to
the
If
Averroes
of
Ficino
s
book
fifteen.75
closely
we turnnextto Thomas'ssubstantial
on De anima, a workof
commentary
rather
than
the
evidence
is
the
same:thiscommentary
refutation,
explication
could not giveFicinowhathe neededto construct
his Averroes.76
Likewise
forthe Quaestiones
de anima, in whichthe questionsdisputedare certainly
germane:
Whether
thehuman
soulcouldbea form
andsomethis-,
Whether
thehuman
soulisseparate
from
thebody
toesse-,
according
74)ppi*15.1 n.89,citing
Sent,
dean.1.6.6;cf.SCG2.57.6,13;Petagine,
AristoAquinas,
telismo
TheSecular
isSacred,
LonElders,
"Averroes
et
, pp. 84-5,94,176-80;
Collins,
difficile
Saint
Thomas
Doctor
Communis
, 45(1992),46-56.
d'Aquin,"
75)Aquinas,
Deunitate
intellectus
contra
averroistas
anEnglish
version
seeOntheUnity
; for
ofthe
Intellect
the
ed.
and
trans.
Beatrice
H. Zedier
UniverAverroists,
(Milwaukee:
Against
Marquette
thetreatise
asa whole
theunity
ofthematerial
intellect
Press,
1968).Since
sity
argues
against
by
that
itisunited
tobodies
astheir
allofitbears
onFicino
s case;however,
the
form,
maintaining
mentions
ofAverroes
Zedier
s numbering)
at1,7-8,14,17,23,56,59,63-7,121
explicit
(using
donotmatch
Ficino
s presentation;
isrelevant
toFicino
s E3,doesnotmention
Aver99,which
roesortheAverroists;
likewise
110-11
andK3;and113andE2.
76)Aquinas,
Sententia
librideanima-,
foranEnglish
seeA Commentary
onAristotle's
version,
DeAnima,
ed.andtrans.
R.Pasnau
YaleUniversity
mentions
Press,
(NewHaven:
1999).Explicit
ofAverroes
occur
at1.1.7and2.23.5;3.7.21-9
and3.10.5-12
arerelevant
toK3,and3.8.19-20
toEl-2.

15:08:57 PM

470

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479
ofmatter
Whether
thesouliscomposed
andform;
inman;
soulisonesubstance
Whether
therational,
sensible
andvegetal

but whichmentionsAverroes
onlya fewtimesand not on topicscrucialto
In fact,assumingthatThomaswrotehisquestionsto respondto the
Ficino.77
would
versionofAverroism
condemnedin Parisin 1270, thecondemnation
to Ficino,theunityoftheintelhavealertedhimonlyto one issuetroubling
formof the
lect,and not to anyproblemsabout the intellectas substantial
Ficino.78
body thetopicthatmostexercised
WhereFicinofoundthematerialthathe wantedwas in themostobvious
the SummaAgainsttheHeathens.
, primarily
placesof all, the greatSummas
When that majesticworkgoes by its genteelLatin name, Summacontra
whatsomeexpertsthinkwas itsmainintent(which
, thetitlemuffles
gentiles
no one knowsforsure):to convertthe heathens,especiallyin Spain of the
theirsages,of whomAverroesof Cordoba was the
, by refuting
reconquista
Since Cordoba and othercitiesof
mosteminentforscholasticphilosophers.
al-Andalushad fallento FerdinandIII ofCastilewhenThomaswas a boy,the
manualforDominican
Iberianmissionfieldswereripe.In an Aristotelian
doctrine
in
of
Christian
the
defense
againstMuslimphilosopreachers Spain,
and so it would havebeen naturalforThomasto
phywould be paramount,
Summato topicsof soul and intellect
of a missionary
dedicatea longstretch
in
on Aristotle.79
his
commentaries
Averroes
madecontroversial
by
in book one of his
and
perfections
Having establishedGods existence
in
humancreatures,
Summa, Thomasturnsnextto God s creatures,
especially
book two (SCG2), wherechapters46 through82 focuson thehumansoul

77)Aquinas,
Introduction
with
Edition
Established
ANewly
deanima:
Quaestiones
oftheLatinText
ofMedieval
Pontifical
Institute
H. Robb(Toronto:
andNotes,
ed.James
Studies,
1968),pp.53,
on
toAverroes
twoallusions
andperhaps
1,2,6,8);foronemention
64,106,128(Quaestiones
mentoK3;forother
2 conci.),
which
isrelevant
book3 ofDe anima
, seepp.68-70(Quaest.
see4 ad4,7 arg.3,9 ad10.
ofAverroes,
tions
78)Robb,
inAquinas,
, pp.35-6.
"Introduction,"
Quaestiones
79)InSCG1.1-2,
onthe
toreflect
asitisa wisemansduty
hispurpose:
Thomas
"Just
explains
false
to
combat
is
it
his
so
also
it
to
and
teach
its
others,
source,
truth,
teaching
duty
especially
with
usonthe
donotagree
andpagans,
liketheMoslems
thetruth Some,
that
contradicts
to
weusetheOldTestament
aswhen
text
thatmight
ofanysacred
them,
persuade
authority
on
torely
heretics
- Thusitisnecessary
andtheNewTestament
Jews
against
dispute
against
inmatters
isdeficient
reason
even
ofallpeople,
theassent
which
natural
reason,
though
requires
The
L'Immortalit
andtheSCG, seeDi Napoli,
On Ficino
oftheology."
, pp.130-2;Collins,
isSacred
Secular
,pp.x,114-215.

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

47 1

thatFicinoattriand intellect.
Chapter59 is thesourceofthefourarguments
to Averroes:
butesexplicitly
nasceretur
exeoetcorpore
unum
Al (.FPT15.1.4)Si intellectus
esset
taliscorporis
actus,
autem
exeiuscongressu
cumcorpore
etunum
essecompositi.
Nonpotest
compositum
Hancparticipationem
nonadmittit
unum
mens,
fieri,
quinipseevadat
particeps.
corporis
a corporibus
absolutam.
ratio
quamesseostendit
Etsimilisi[intellectus]
esset
mixtus
alicui
SCG2.59.3Hocautem
esse,
corpori.
oporteret
etmateria
tersiesset
forma
alicuius
, oportet
quod
quia,cumexforma
corporis:
fiatunum
estigitur
intellectum
denatura
eiuscuiusestforma.
Impossibile
forma
participei
aliquid
autesseactum
seuformam
alicuius
essemixtum
corporis.
possibilem
corpori,
A2(FPT15.1.5)Simens
esset
eodem
,
pacto
quaeque
susciperet
quoetmateforma
corporis
estcorporis
nihil
stiamateria
riasuscipit
Quodenim
suscipit
corpocorporalis.
forma
absque
nihil
vero
ralis.
estcorporis
forma
suamateria
Materia
Quodenim
absque
suscipit.
quicquid
ineadivisae
dividuo
undeformae
rerum
, temporales,
modo,
suscipit,
suscipit
particulares
evadunt.
Talesquoquecaperei
intellectus.
universalem
Numquam
persuasformas
igitur
naturam
aliquam
comprehenderet.
alicuius
materialis
huius
SCG2.59.4Si esset
eiusdem
, esset
forma
corporis
generis
receptio
etreceptio
materiae
Id
enim
est
alicuius
non
intellectus,
,
primae.
corporis
forma recipit
quod
suamateria.
Materia
autem
formas
individuales
: immo
aliquid
prima
recipit
perhoc
absque
formas
individuantur
Intellectus
utsunt
quodsuntinmateria.
possibilis
igitur
reciperet
individuales.
Etsicnoncognosceret
universalia.
Itamens,
siiuncta
materiae
A3(FPT15.1.6)Materia
formas,
, nonagnoscit.
quaspossidet
eodem
, nihil
pereiusconsortium
pacto
prorsus
caperei
quomateria
agnosceret.
Si ergoeadem
esset
formarum
SCG2.59.5Materia
nonestcognoscitiva
prima
quasrecipit.
et
intellectus
materiae
nec
intellectus
formas
receptio
possibilis
primae,
possibilis
cognosceret
receptas.
A4(15.1.7)Impossibile
estincorpore
ullaratione
esse
virtutem.
Mentis
virtus
autem
infinitam
estquodammodo
Hinceffici
utmens
nullam
habeat
commercium
cummateria.
vult,
infinita.
SCG2.59.6Impossibile
estincorpore
esse
virtutem
autem
est
infinitamIntellectus
possibilis
virtutis
e-,iudicamus
enimperipsum
resinfinitas
secundum
numeinfinita
quodammodo
subquibus
rum,
universalia,
inquantum
peripsum
cognoscimus
comprehenduntur
partiinpotentia.
culadainfinita
Nonestigitur
intellectus
virtus
incorpore.
possibilis
modifythelanguage,contentand formofwhat
AlthoughFicinos arguments
he took fromSCG2ythatworkis plainlyFicinos source:eventhe orderof
is thesame,thesameorderthatappearsin theSummatheologiae.m
arguments
80)Thefour
from
Thomas
areidentified
inFPT4-7,nn.14andHankins
arguments
byAllen
SCG
and
three
of
them
The
Secular
isSacred
17,citing
2.59.3-6,
Collins,
,pp.194-7;
Aquinas,
by
seealsoAquinas,
ST 1.76.obj.1-4;cf.Mahoney,
s Critique
ofAverroes'
Doctrine
of
"Aquinas

15:08:57 PM

472

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

Moreover,
againand
throughthreedozenchaptersofSCG2> Thomasreturns
also
in
thus
the
same
same
to
these
issues
giving
expressed
language,
again
from'Averroes'
Ficinomostofwhathe needednotonlyforhisfourarguments
excursus(El-3), fortherelatedcontextual
(Al -4), butalso forhis three-part
material(Kl-3) and forthethreeconcludingAverroispositions(Cl-3).
itemsin Ficinos discussioncan be foundin these
Almostall theprominent
chaptersof SCG2: theact and esseof thecompositesubstance;participation;
intellectual
thematerialmodeof reception;infinite
power;theindividuation
of speciesand images;theteachersvanishingknowledge;distinctpowersof
in the
judgment;thelocationsofpsychicfunctions
cognitionand instinctive
entiofintellectual
ofcelestialspheres;thesubstantiality
brain;thecosmology
of
all
the
and
intellection
for
such
of
a
different
entities;
ties;
type being
Ficino
but
The fewitemsemphasizedby
knowledgeof thehumanspecies.81
- angels,snubnessand theargument
fromregress
notfoundin thesechapters
- maybe cluesto Ficinos othersourcesand,perhaps,
aboutcommonnotions
ofhisAverroists.'82
to theidentity
whathe had alreadyestabAtthestartofchapter56 ofSCG2, summarizing
intellectualem
substantiam
lished,Thomasstatesa keypositionon theintellect:
This
a
nonessecorpusnequevirtutem
dependentem. claim"that
aliquam corpore
nor
substanceis not a body
intellectual
anypowerdependenton a body"is
: thattheIntelin theLongCommentary
verycloseto thelanguageofAverroes
lect,whetherpassiveor active,nequeestcorpusnequevirtusin corporeiAverroesrepeatsthisphraseagainand again.It is theheadlineof his case against
whoseviewshe describesas follows:
Alexander
ofAphrodisias,
that[theIntelithasbeenmadeclear
theforegoing
Andnowfrom
byAristotle
argument
Alexina body.
. . . Onthelastissue,
nora bodynora power
however,
lect]isnotanythis
. . . thatthe
science
ofnatural
thecontext
suits
thatitbetter
andclaims
maintains
ander
ofthesoul.84
other
... aswith
isa generated
material
Intellect
powers
power
usonFPT15J,
intellect
onDe untiate
oftheIntellect,"
theUnity
p. 105,n.78ontheinfluence
14,19.
81)Passages
asindicated
s summary
ofFicino
with
thesections
here
aregrouped
ofSCG2.46-81
A2:48.5;
Al: 50.4;51.2;52.1;52.8;53.2;56.3,14;57.15-16;
59.3;62.2;68.3;69.9-10;
above;
49.4;50.6;59.4;66.3;69.11;76.2;79.7;A3:49.4-5;59.5;A4:59.6;69.12;El: 59.8,10,13;
6;E2:75.4,7,14;E3:49.6;Kl: 75.12;seealso91.9;K2:47.4;48.6;59.17;
73.13,30;75.2-3,
60.1,6-7;74.2;80.6;K3:60.1;CI: 51.1;52.1;54tit.;54.8;55.3;59.1;73.17;75.10;78.9;
C2:73.36,39,41;C3:73.6-9;
76.9;81.9.
82)Forsnubness
seeAquinas,
57*11-1.52.1-2.
ofthepossible
ina discussion
intellect,
83)ACM,pp.382;ALA,pp.52-3,181.
84)ACM,pp.393-4;
ALA,pp.63-4,196-9.

15:08:57 PM

/Vivarium
B. Copenhaver
47 (2009)444-479

473

versionis that"Alexander
Thomas'sshorter
proposedthatthepossibleintellect
thatAverroesdeniedwhat
is some powerin us," and Thomasunderstands
theterm"power"(virtus
Alexanderasserted.85
Moreover,
) is ambiguoushere:
it mightmean eithera faculty
, likedigestion,or
, like sensation,or a process
here
attributed
on
the
view
in
three
all
like
But
a capability
cases,
,
strength.
thevirtus
thevirtusis bodily,and ifthebodyperishes,
to Alexander,
perishes
withit.
different
Thomashad usedslightly
In an earlierchapter,
languageto make
a
also
about
a pointnotjustaboutpowersof a bodybut
body'sform:"everyin
if
or else,ifit is corit
is
is
a
that
is
itself,
body,
corrupted
corrupted
thing
ofa body
or
form
it
is
some
of
accident,
{forma) power{virtus)
ruptedbyway
in
be
In
the
form
this
on
questionmight onlyan
passage,
dependent body."86
accidental
, likea cow'sblackcolor,whichcould be alteredwithoutfurform
betweenpowerand form
thereffect
on thecow.And in thatcasea distinction
ofsensingor a powerofdigestwouldnotamountto much.Justlikea faculty
- though
perishwhenthecow'sbodyperishes
ing,sucha formwillcertainly
whenan ax smashesa statue.
not in thedirectwaythata shapeis destroyed
But ifsomeonetakesan ax to a cow instead,theformthatwillceaseto animatethebovinebodyis a substantial
, theformthatthecow needsto be
form
a cow,and thatformtoo,individualand bovine,willhavebeen"corrupted
by
of
accident."
way
Thomasis clearly
In yetanotherplace,speakingpointedly
againstAverroes,
his
task
as
form.Describing
showingthat"theinteltalkingaboutsubstantial
lectas to itssubstanceis unitedas formwithsomebody,"he meansto refute
form
is notthesubstantial
thecontradictory
view,call it -F, thattheintellect
which
ofthebody.87
But -F is notat all themessageoftheLongCommentary
,
is nota bodyor
thedistinctpoint,call it -P, thattheintellect
keepsrepeating
it ought
.88Now -P is compatiblewith-F, and forAverroes
a powerin a body
to be compatiblebecause,on his largertheory,he shouldassert-P, as he
does,whilealso holding-F, as he also should,thereasonbeingthat
repeatedly
if the Intellectwerethe body'ssubstantial
form,then,sincethereare many
85)Aquinas,
SCG2.62.1.
86)Aquinas,
SCG2.55.8.
87)Aquinas,
inAlbertus
SCG2.70.1;ona newdoctrine
ofsubstantial
form
anditskey
Magnus
roleinThomas's
caseagainst
seePetagine,
Aristotelismo
Averroes,
45,74-9,
, pp.18-28,
difficile
"LaCritica
diSanTommaso,"
102-3;
Mazzarella,
263-4,
277;Laurent,
"L'Averroismo,"
pp.257-9,
pp.112-15.
88)Just
inthefirst
five
sections
oACM,pp.379-413,
there
areabout
twodozen
instances
ofthe
Averroes
Doctrine
Mohammed,
, pp.94-5.
phrase;
ofImmortality

15:08:57 PM

474

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

whereonlyone iswanted.But -P is also

bodies,theremustbe manyIntellects
of
call
itF, thattheIntellectis thebody'ssubwith
the
denial
-F,
compatible
stantialform.
holds-P and shouldhold -F, whereasAquinasprofessedly
Thus,Averroes
thatF contradicts
holdsboth-P and F, obviouslyrealizing
-F, as follows:
ina body;
ora power
isnota body
"P: theIntellect
ofthebody;
form
"F: theIntellect
isnotthesubstantial
ofthebody.
F: theintellect
isthesubstantial
form
ButAquinasalso seemsto suggestthatAverroes
-F, whichis
actuallyprofesses
and Ficinofollowshimin thisapparentmisunderstanding.89
incorrect,
takenas gospel,getstopbilling
Thomass(onlyapparent)misapprehension,
whomFicinoindictsfordenyingthat"the
in Ficinos case againstAverroes,
thebodyand is itslifesubstanceoftheIntellectcan be theformthatperfects
oftwopasis
not
Averroes
on
this
act."90
But
guilty.In thefirst
charge
giving
on
restriction
thatalterhisusual,and different,
sagesoftheLongCommentary
theIntellect,
thatit is "nota bodynora powerin a body,"thisis whathe says
aboutforms:
ina
ora power
these
forms
nottobea body
forthesubstance
Thatitisnecessary
receiving
Oneofthem
is
discussion.
Aristotle
usedinthis
that
from
thepropositions
isobvious
body
ThesecofthisIntellect.
andthisisknown
receives
allmaterial
that
thissubstance
forms,
ofthereceived
bebareofthenature
must
thatreceives
ondisthateverything
something
Forifthe
inthespecies
ofthereceived.
notbea substance
must
andthatitssubstance
itself
andthe
would
receive
then
a thing
ofthenature
ofthereceived,
item
were
receiving
color
color
lacks
the
sense
that
Hence
it
is
the
moved.
would
be
receiving
necessary
moving
is
and
sound.
Andthis
lacks
sound
andthat
theonereceiving
necessarybeyond
proposition
inits
material
Intellect'
hasnothing
thematerial
called
substance
doubt.This
forms
ofthese
subthat
this
itisobvious
orforms
ina body,
areeither
Andsince
material
nature.
body
forms
itisinno
andthus
noraform
ina body
a body
Intellect'
isneither
stance
called
thematerial
.91
with
matter
waymixed
89)Davidson,
ofthe
andAverroes,
Avicenna
pp.284,300;fora medieval
Alfrarabi,
" appreciation
Petrus
"Une
see
De
from
ofAverroes
abstention
averroste,'
66,
Libera,
'-F,
p. citing
notique
intheview
thetensions
InII Sent.,
Intellect,"
16.1;Taylor,
Aureolus,
pp.32-3,discusses
"Agent
from
distinct
bothontologically
forus,'somehow
isa 'form
Intellect
that
theAgent
ofAverroes
"SanTommaso
Vanni
andSofia
totheknower,
andalsointrinsic
theknower
d'Aquino
Rovighi,
inThomas's
theanalogous
inItalia pp.224-5,
inL'Averroismo
e Averro,"
difficulty
highlights
n.
soul
and
92.
of
the
account
below,
intellect,
body;
hylemorphic
9)ppi !5.!.3;above,
nn.16-17.
91)ACM,p.383-5;
thelanguage
ALA
160,405,
oxACM,
, pp.54-6,184-9;
pp.147-8,
compare

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

475

The functionof thematerialor receptive

Intellectis to receive
materialforms,
whichareyetto be made universaland thusintelligible
formsof particulars
In orderto receive
the
Intellect.
materialforms,claimsAverroes,
the
by
agent
materialIntellectcannotalreadyhavethemand mustalso be entirely
freeof
theirtypeofmateriality,
ofthesematerial
formsin itsnature."
having"nothing
"
The itemsso stringently
excludedfromthe materialIntellectare either[a]
bodyor [b] formsin a body."
The materialformswhichare(a) "body"arejustphysicalconfigurations
or
structures
ofbody;theirunsuitability
forreception
Intellect
byan incorporeal
is obvious.Withbodythusruledout, (b) "formsin a body,"can onlymean
'formsthathavebeenin a body,'disembodiedformssuitableforcognizing.
Theseformsarestill"material,"
however:Averroes
callsthemthat.Butjustas
thematerialIntellectis not made of matter,
neitherarethesematerialforms
bodies.The Intellectthatwill receivethem,despiteits name,is absolutely
immaterial
and incapableofbodilycontact.Mightthesedematerialized
materialformsbe substantial
formst
A formis substantial
onlyifa compositesubstanceis orwas theproductof
thatform
s havingbeenreceivedbya batchofmatter.
Butbeforereceiving
any
materialforms,
thematerialIntellect
was alreadythesubstancethatit is: "this
substancecalledthe materialIntellect,'"in thewordsofAverroes
just cited.
the
material
Intellect
cannot
be
substanHence,materialformsreceivable
by
tial forms.They are "formsin a body,"however,in the specialsensejust
described:'formsthathavebeenin a body.'
To recapitulate,
Averroes
tellsus,at theend ofthepassagecitedabove,that:
Thematerial
Intellect
cannot
bea material
form.
A material
form
iseither
a body
ora form
ina body.
thematerial
Intellect
canbeneither
a body
nora form
ina body.
Therefore,
But theformin a bodythatthematerialIntellectcannotbe is not, at leastby
theexplicittermsof thisargument,
a substantial
form.In otherwords,Averroesis notclaiming*-F,thatthe intellectis notthe substantial
formof the
body.
a tirelessand thoroughphilosopher,
laboredto excludecertain
Averroes,
formsfromthenatureofthematerialIntellect,
buttheformsexcludedarenot
where
theissue
isnotforma
butperfection
discussed
"SanTommaso
byVanni
Rovighi,
d'Aquino
eAverro,"
n.54,for"bare
ofthenature
ofthereceived."
p.223;alsoabove,

15:08:57 PM

476

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

substantial
forms.Againand againin theLongCommentary
, and frommany
is nota bodyor a
that
the
Intellect
the
case
for
he
makes
different
-P,
angles,
powerin a body.He doesno suchworkto prove-F, however:to showthatthe
formof thebody.But claiming-F is theroot
Intellectis not thesubstantial
Averroes.
Ficino
made
by
Although-F is nowhereto be found
against
charge
in theLongCommentary
, one mightgatherfromthe Summacontragentiles
as Ficinoseemsto havedone.92
thatitwas taughtbyAverroes,
-F
claimsabout intellect,body and the
F
and
are
ontological
Although
the
main questionsaddressedby the
relation
between
them,
metaphysical
how do
and epistemic.
arepsychological
De anima and theLongCommentary
to cognizeexternal
worktogether
thesenses,souland intellect
objects?In the
When I
broadestterms,Thomas'sansweris thatcognitionis assimilation.93
me
becomes
like
of
cognizea blackcow as blackand as a cow,something
thecow and likeitscolorby sharingtheirforms.I perceivethecow and its
and intelligible
colorbywayofsensiblespecies
, whicharetypesofforms.
species
form
or quiddity:the cows
be
a
will
the
specific
intelligible
species
Among
of
form.But something
essenceor nature,whichis an intentional
cognizable
- a substantial
thecows naturemustalso be substantial
form.
and so am I. When
is a compositeofformand matter,
The cow-substance
a cow is theresult.
of
batch
a cow-form
matter,
organizesa suitablydisposed
The formthatdoes thisjob is a substantial
form,whichmakesmatterinto
a cow-substance.
If, in cognizingthe cow,my material(receptive)intellect
receivesa bovinesubstantial
form,whywill I (or myintellect)not becomea
cow?Accordingto Thomas,one reasonis thattheformsreceivedwhenI cogforms(likeCowness),whichmakesubnize thecow are neithersubstantial
whichmakethem
forms(likeBlackness),
stanceswhattheyare,noraccidental
forms
are
means
of
howtheyare.The formsthatarethe
cognition intentional
or accidents,and so myknowledgeofcowswill
thatdo not makesubstances
makeme neitherone oftheherdnor,likeall cows,blackat night.94
intellect
ofcognitiondoesnotobligethematerial
In short,Thomasstheory
intelof
that
for
the
in
order
formofa cow
to receivethesubstantial
proprietor
Thomascan
formwilldo. Accordingly,
lectto cognizea cow: an intentional
92)SCG2.56.1,
69.7,70.1.
93)Forthisandthenext
inEleonore
oncognition
ofAquinas
seetheaccount
twoparagraphs,
2003),pp.244-76.
(London:
Routledge,
Stump,
Aquinas
94)Thomas
ofchange
inprocesses
modeofreception
s natural
a recipient
that
alsomaintains
(a
in
mode
of
s
intentional
a
from
differs
form
of
the
coldstone
heat)
reception
recipient
receiving
for
andintelligible
sensible
thestonebyreceiving
ofcognition
species);
(cognizing
processes
seeACM, p.469;ALA
roleinAverroes,
a similar
with
, pp.138,334.
intentiones

15:08:57 PM

/Vivarium
B. Copenhaver
47 (2009)444-479

477

withoutevertouchingthe
ofcognitionproposedbyAverroes
refute
thetheory
In
is
how
Thomasproceeds.95
and
and
issueofsubstantial
form, this,by
large,
form,Thomashas no reasonto
anycase,since-F is a claimaboutsubstantial
formis
oftheLongCommentary
debateitwiththeAverroes
, wheresubstantial
notup fordebate.
in theSummacould haveled Ficinoto
at leasttwo remarks
Nonetheless,
makethemistakethatThomashimself
onlyseemsto makein thatwork:callratherthanmerelyassumingor
-F
made
a
claim
Averroes,
by
explicitly
ing
remark
is that"Aver-F.
The first
or
should
hold
that
Averroes
held
inferring
roes and some ancientsproposedthatthe possibleintellect...is as to esse
If theselastwords,
separatefromthebodyand is not a formof thebody."96

makes
a compositesubto
the
form
that
referred
," clearly
formamcorporis
Thomas
would be
then
stancewhatit is a plausibleprimafacie reading
--Fto Averroes.
But
formand would be attributing
talkingaboutsubstantial
theimmediatecontextin whichthesewordsoccur,just afterthestatements
thatbecameFicinos Al -4, is about(i)formsin thepluralas receivedbyprime
matterin a non-cognizing
wayand (ii) thepowerin a bodythatthepossible
does nothave
cannotbe.97The secondpointtellsus thattheintellect
intellect
or processor capability,
but none of those
of a bodilyfaculty
thelimitations
form,nor do themultipleformsof thefirstpoint.
qualifiesas a substantial
- theforform
is notsubstantial
WhatThomasmeansherebyformacorporis
bearanceofa carefulreaderoftheLongCommentary.
Thomasmakesthesecondremarkwhilesummarizing
rejectedviewsheld
s relation
byAlexander,
Empedocles,Galen, Plato and Averroeson intellect
withbody:"Forifintellectual
substanceis notunitedto bodyonlyas a mover,
as Plato proposed,nor conjoinedto it onlythroughphantasms,as Averroes
ei" wouldbe rendered
more
said,butas a form "98The words"continuatur
by"continuedto it."'Continuationis a techniprecisely,
thoughawkwardly,
cal termfora topicmuchdebatedbyAverroes,
Avicennaand otherMuslim
are
the
human
souls
continued,or are theyconjoined,
many
philosophers;
with the unitaryIntellect,and if so, how? The view thatThomas rejects
whileattributing
it to Averroes
restricts
thislinkat thehumanend to phan- on the
tasms.ButThomassaysnothinghereaboutviewsheld- byAverroes
95)Fordiscussions
ofsubstantial
seeAquinas,
SCG2.56.11-12,
form,
58.6,63.3,68.3,72.3,
80.10,89.4-6.
96)Aquinas,
SCG2.59.7;alsoabove,
n.75.
97)SCG2.59.5-7.
98)SCG2.68.2.

15:08:57 PM

478

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

formor anyotherkindofform."
Intellectas beingor notbeinga substantial
In theverynextpassage,however,
Thomastellsus whatit takesto be a substantialform:theformmustbe theprincipleof a thingsexistenceand must
in a unitary
actofbeing,a composjoinwitha material(passive)complement
an intellectual
ite substance.He thenadds thatnothingprevents
substance,
he
has
still
said
But
likethesoul,frompassingthesetests.100
nothingabout
on substantial
Averroes
form,strictly
speaking.
Thomas'ssilencemayjustbe theresultofwhathe did notfindin theLong
and thecomplementary
since substantial,'
accidental,'are not
Commentary
, aliena,
amongthe manytypesof formnamedthereby Averroes:abstracta
intelindividuata,
corporalis,
imaginata,
composita,
complexionalis,
artificialis,
universalis
.101
and
sensibilis,
lecta,materialis,
simplex
separabilis,
prima,propria,
the
worried
about
not
have
been
Averroes
And in theLongCommentary
may
in thedomainofform:themaintopicsof the
distinction
substance/accident
arethepsychicor mentalprocessesofsensation,
texthe wasexplicating
cogniitemsas substanceand accitionand intellection,
leavingsuchmetaphysical
dentoutsidehiscoreconcerns.102
What Thomasactuallysaysabout Averroesin the Summacontragentiles
--Fto him.In one place,he writesthat
does not,in anypreciseway,attribute
hisown (Thomas's)
words
and
on
"the
relies
sinceAverroes
proofofAristotle,"
holdsF and not-F.103In anotherplace,he claims
taskis to showthatAristotle
usedbyAverroes
thatthearguments
fail toprove-F, whichwouldstillbe true
As a readerof Thomas,
was up to.104
ifproving-F werenot whatAverroes
is not
underthenameAverroes'in thePlatonicTheology
whatFicinorefutes
whosearguments
itis nottheAverroes
whatitseemsto be,in twosenses:first,
had been read by Europeanphilosophersfortwo and a halfcenturiesin
ofThomas'sSumma,
and itis noteventheAverroes
MichaelScot'stranslation;

" 55-7,73-5.
99)Aquinas,
"Unenotique
SCG2.68.2;De Libera,
averroste,'
pp.
100)
SCG,2.68.3.
Aquinas,
101)
387.10;388.37,44; 389.77;391.124,129;410.665;
386.103-4;
ACM,pp.384.20-1;
misunderstood
thatThomas
haveconcluded
Somecritics
414.32;441.32;489.295-6.
simply
Francesca
contested
Lucchetta,
"LaPhilosophie
Averroes:
214-17,
d'Averroes,"
Kassem,
by
pp.
Neo-Scolastica
diFilosofia
Rivista
diAverro,"
allanoetica
Tomistica
, 73 (1981),
"Sullacritica
596-602.
102)
inthe
butnoneofaccidentalis
as inaccidens
There
area fewcasesofaccidens,
proprium,
ACM
accidentalis-.
396.364.
phrase
forma
103)
SCG2.70.1.
Aquinas,
104)
SCG2.69.7.
Aquinas,

15:08:57 PM

B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479

479

strictly
speaking,thoughit looks like an artifactof Ficinos loose but not
implausible
readingofthatlongand subtlework.
The titleofFicinos equallylongand subtlemasterpiece,
ThePlatonicTheolon
the
a
than
Souls,
proclaims purposelarger
ogy
Immortality
of
producingyet
anotherscholasticcommentary
on Aristotle's
De anima. Yet the verysame
theendlessly
controverted
title,byhighlighting
topicofimmortality,
obliged
Ficinoto deal withtherichPeripatetic
traditionthatgrewout ofAristotle's
In Ficinos lifetime
and shortly
after,
gnomiccommentson soul and intellect.
other
tookthattradition
intodebatesso intense
Pomponazziand
philosophers
thattheveryidea oftheliberty
ofphilosophizing,
in orderto survive,
had to
takenew strength
fromeventsalmostfatalto it. In effect,
theAristotelian
was silencedbyhisChurchfortaking
Pomponazzi,whomFicinoinfluenced,
as thoseof Averroes.'
positionsalreadycontestedin the PlatonicTheology
Withina fewdecades,however,
Averroes
wouldspeakevenlouderforAristotleand forhimself
in thehugeGiuntaeditionof 1550-2,becauseofwhich,in
the half-century
beforeDescarteswas born,the subversiveCommentator
couldfindmorereadersthanever.105

105)
Aristotelis
omnia
nunc
selectis
translationibus
. . Averrois
Stagiritae
quaeextant
opera
primum
Cordubensis
ineaopera
omnes
commentarii
1550-2);
Charles
Giunta,
(Venice:
quiadnos
pervenere
"Renaissance
Averroism
Studied
theVenetian
Editions
ofAristotle-Averroes
Schmitt,
through
Particular
Reference
totheGiunta
Edition
of1550-2),"
inLAverroismo
inItalia
(With
,pp.121andtheRenaissance
Harvard
42;Aristotle
Press,
1983),pp.22-4,47-8.
(Cambridge:
University

15:08:57 PM

(i)'6V
BRILL

VIVA
RIUM
brill.nl/viv

Vivarium
47 (2009)480-482

Review

and
Theories:
Medieval
Dutilh
Catarina
Novaes,
Consequentiae
Suppositio,
Logical
Formalizing
9781402058530
2007.ISBN9781402058523
(ebk)
Dordrecht:
(hbk),
Springer,
Obligations,
ofScience,
andtheUnity
7).xii+ 314pp.
Epistemologa
(Logic,
that
with
thenewmethodologies
what
canbeachieved
inthisbookshows
Theapproach
nicely
Novaes
Dutilh
AsCatarina
ofmedieval
inthestudy
havebeendeveloped
putsitin
philosophy.
toformalize
tobelogical
that
arecurrently
sheapplies
theconclusion,
recognized
"techniques
andthe
modern
that
of
a
is
texts
medieval
to
the
Her
medieval
logician
(p.298). approach
logic"
Sheis
oflogic.
inthephilosophy
discussed
isnowbeing
towhat
relevant
results
areclearly
main
butrather
intheir
ownterms,
materials
themedieval
intopresenting
effort
much
notputting
tobeformal/
that
canbeconsidered
ofthelatter
to"outline
intends
[i.e.medieval
logic]
aspects
wouldmost
an
such
Some
decades
a modern
from
approach
ago
(p.298).
viewpoint"
logical
was
medieval
of
accurate
and
Genuine
anachronism.
have
entailed
logic
understanding
probably
therecent
Butgiven
havebeenmisplaced.
would
outlines
thattheresulting
soscarce
developoneandyields
isnowa respectable
this
ofmedieval
inthestudy
ments
very
approach
philosophy,
that
this
tothefact
topayattention
itisworthwhile
results.
change
Methodologically,
interesting
ofmedieval
andeventranslations
editions
ofcritical
about
hasbeenbrought
bytheavailability
own
on
their
them
the
first
edit
we
must
it
To
works.
study
manuscripts,
put simply,
logical
it
farenough,
thisworkhasprogressed
translations.
modern
andprepare
terms,
Onlyafter
between
a comparison
tomake
isquiteconsciously
Novaes
todowhat
becomes
doing:
possible
andmodern
discussions
medieval
logic.
logical
theinterauthentic
themore
isthat
ofphilosophy
thehistory
for
Auseful
guidelinestudying
of
a
from
are
results
the
more
are
the
sources
the
of
point
philosophical
interesting
pretations
Novaesapproach
Thisiswhy
interest.
ofphilosophical
israrely
a text
view.
Misunderstanding
ofmedieval
reconstructions
historical
i.e.before
nothavebeenrecommendable
would
earlier,
was
medieval
that
understands
Novaes
far
had
logic notthe
clearly
logic progressedenough.
takes
she
issues
most
of
the
one
asmodern
Indeed,
sameenterprise
constantly
interesting
logic.
What
thename?
share
twotraditions.
these
between
Whydothey
upinherbookistherelation
forlogicareformal
howcrucial
Mostinterestingly,
haveincommon?
isitthat
prothey
exactly
issues
characteristic
the
One
of
here?
"formal"
we
understand
how
should
and
cedures
typically
and
relation
istheinferential
beencalled
havetraditionally
that
inthetraditions
with
dealt
logic,
themediintaking
hasmadea gooddecision
Novaes
Inmyview,
itscounterpart
inconsistency.
concentheformer
While
under
andobligationes
ofconsequentiae
evalgenres
scrutiny.
particular
for
latter
the
as
relation
inferential
the
consistency.
on
such,
trates
techniquesdiscussing
provides
to
andassuchcouldnotbeusedtocontribute
medieval
'taste'
texts
medieval
Therelevant
very
ifweundereven
themlogicisnomistake
that
isnodoubt
there
butstill
modern
calling
logic,
however
clear
Itisnotequally
usedforthemodern
inthesense
why
theword
stand
enterprise.
that
the
to
in
sense
make
does
choice
the
but
is
taken
any
respect fact
along
theory
supposition
DOI:10.1
163/156853409X417926
Brill
2009
Koninklijke
Leiden,
NV,

15:09:07 PM

48 1

Review
/Vivarium
47 (2009)480-482

does
inorder
tocount
as a logic.Supposition
needstobeinterpreted
formal
theory
system
tomore
whatever
itamounts
inthat
direction,
exactly.
something
tocallthe
Shewants
ofobligationes.
s treatment
more
atNovaes
Letuslooka little
closely
maintenance"
of
medieval
(e.g.p. 145).In
disputations
games consistency
"logical
obligational
was
to
construct
in
is
The
crucial
issue
view
this
dynamically
disputations
obligational
my
right.
inthetexts
arise
from
with
dealt
Andthecrucial
that
areconsistent.
setsofsentences
problems
Thetaskwas
what
thismeans.
itisfarfrom
that
a recognition
easytodefine
bygoodlogicians
likethe
didnothave(norwanttohave)anything
notmadeeasier
bythefactthatmedievais
inoblimain
the
of
of
formal
technical
Still,
emphasis
consistency
contemporary
logic.
concept
sentences
at
issue.
of
the
we
would
call
formal
was
on
what
properties
disputations
gational
and
indetail
thetheories
ofobligations
discusses
Novaes
Swyneshed
byWalter
Burley,
Roger
ineachcaseturns
outtobethe
themain
issue
ofthetexts,
After
a brief
discussion
Strode.
Ralph
with
theaidofmodern
ofthetheories
details
ofrules
andother
formalization
logical
important
see
whatistaking
a
modern
can
With
these
formalizations
placein
easily
logician
techniques.
what
itdoesnotbecome
areinteresting.
these
these
andwhy
explicit
Interestingly,
games
games,
thecore
thecaseinphilosophy,
Asisoften
aimed
at(noristhat
these
necessary).
exactly
games
interest
remains
inexplicable.
partially
philosophical
forobligationes
toattribute
Inmyview,
Novaes
doeswellinnoteven
anydirect
parallel
trying
aboutdrawing
suchparallels,
much
ofthescholarly
inmodern
dispute
logic.Shesummarizes
ofmedieval
Butasscholars
s counterfactual
from
PaulSpade
philosophy
interpretation.
starting
tothemedieval
often
there
arenomodern
havestarted
torecognize,
enterprises.
equivalents
"Interms
there
seems
when
shewrites:
ofmodern
seems
torecognize
this
Novaes
logical
games,
or
an
But
to
the
tobenothing
214).
creating
(p.
finding
quiteequivalent obligational
game"
ofobligaingaining
a goodphilosophical
isnotnecessary.
Thepoint
understanding
equivalent
or
suchasthetheory
ofcounterfactuals
modern
tiones
isnottogethelpfora specific
enterprise
more
fora modern
ata much
belief
revision.
medieval
logician
Understanding
logicisbeneficial
She
Inthissense,
itseems
tomethat
Novaes
isasking
theright
kindofquestions.
level.
general
IfI understand
her
with
modern
would
that
further
payoff.
comparison
logical
games
suggests
toobligations,
butrather
togain
thepoint
isnottofind
theonethat
would
beclosest
correctly,
ingeneral.
Thiswould
ofcourse
a deeper
oflogical
of,e.g.,theworkings
games
understanding
work
on
of
these
benefit
any
games.
logical
arenotvery
ItmaybethatNovaes's
discussions
ofsupposition
andobligationes
consequentiae
arebrief
andthe
forthemorehistorically
minded
scholars.
Hertextual
comments
helpful
itisa fair
ofmaterial
shediscusses
isnotvery
wide.(Although
itseems
tomethat
amount
that
oftheareaingeneral.)
Thatthisisnotreally
a bookforthehistorian
becomes
representation
4
on
the
formalization.
it
evenmore
obvious
from
of
the
book
of
But
here,
part
philosophy
seems
tome,wecome
tothepoint
atwhich
shebecomes
about
what
shehasbeenaiming
explicit
atallalong.
Themain
aimofherbookliesinphilosophy
oflogic
andhermost
results
interesting
areinthisfield.
2 oftheconclusion
Section
carries
thetitle
"What
islogic?"
Herideaistocontrast
medieval
inrelation
with
modern
totheprocedure
offormalization
thatissocentral
to
logic,
especially
modern
Thisdiscussion
ishighly
inviewofthepresent
situation
philosophical
logic.
interesting
inlogic.
Itseems
istaking
inthe21stcentury.
thattheenterprise
a newturn
philosoAmong
the
of
seems
to
be
no
because
towards
theendof
phers popularity
logic
declining,
partly doubt
thelastcentury
oftheoptimism
much
aboutthepossibilities
oflogical
tobe
analysis
proved
atthesametimenewapproaches
inlogicaregaining
interest.
Thequestion
However,
empty.

15:09:07 PM

482

Review
/Vivarium
47 (2009)480-482

thenature
oflogic
isnotjusta historical
from
thefact
that
over
about
curiosity
history
springing
thenamehasbeenusedforsomany
Itis,rather,
thatpresent
different
enterprises.
something
would
clearer
aboutthanthey
are.Unlike
what
theaverage
needtobemuch
actually
logicians
in
the
of
involves
more
than
the
construcstudent
think,
study logic
first-year
may
philosophy
ina direction
Infact,
tobeprogressing
that
ismuch
tionofarbitrary
formal
seems
systems.
logic
ofmedieval
closer
towhat
themedieval
were
andthusthestudy
logicians
doing,
logiccanbe
bookis,I believe,
a goodexample
ofthis.
beneficial
forcurrect
discussions.
Novaess
very
is
not
a
book:
Medieval
Theories
,
however,
reader-friendlyithastoo
very
Formalizing Logical
thedrift
arenotclear.
It
much
thetaste
ofa dissertation,
andoften
andaimoftheargument
slowreading.
hasfound
ideasinthemedineeds
ButNovaes
extremely
philosophical
interesting
itseems
thatshe
which
makes
herstudy
andinteresting.
evaltexts,
Furthermore,
important
and
almost
always
historicallyphilosophically.
right,
getsthings
Department
ofPhilosophy
University
ofjyvskyl

Mikko
Yrjnsuuri

15:09:07 PM

VIVA
RI UM
brill.nl/viv

f-'
Vivarium
47 (2009)483-484

Brill

Contents
David Bloch
Antoine Ct
Michael J.Fitzgerald

Richard Gaskin
AhmedAlwishah &
David Sanson
ReviewArticle
Reviews
Books Received

Volume

47 (2009)

RobertGrosseteste
s Conclusiones
and the
on
the
Posterior
Commentary
Analytics...
SimpliciusandJamesofViterboon
Propensities
Time as a PartofPhysicalObjects:The
Modern'Descartes-Minus
Argument'
and an AnalogousArgument
from
Fourteenth-Century
Logic (William
and AlbertofSaxony)
Heytesbury
JohnWyclifand theTheoryof
ComplexlySignifiables
The EarlyArabicLiar:The LiarParadoxin
theIslamicWorldfromtheMid-Ninth
to theMid-Thirteenth
CenturiesCE ....

1
24

54
74

97
128
136
145

Special Issue:
GeraldOdonis, DoctorMoralis and FranciscanMinisterGeneral
GuestEditors:
William Duba and ChrisSchabel
William Duba and
Introduction
147
Chris Schabel
GiovanniCeccarelli and GeraldOdonis'EconomicsTreatise
164
SylvainPirn
Stephen F. Brown
GeraldOdonis' Tractatus
desuppositionibus:
Whatis suppositio
communicabilisi
205
GeraldOdonis on theNotionofesse
JokeSpruyt
tertio
adiacens
221
Camarn Porter
GeraldOdonis' Commentary
on the
Ethics
: A DiscussionoftheManuscripts
and GeneralSurvey
241
Koninklijke
Brill
2009
NV,
Leiden,

DOI:10.1
163/156853409X12551323046629

15:09:21 PM

484

Contents
Volume
47 (2009)483-484
47 (2009)/Vivarium

Paul J.J.M.Barker and

Sander W. de Boer
Chris Schabel
WilliamDuba
Roberto Lambertini
William J.Courtenay
Andrej Krause
Pekka Krkkinen
Brian Copenhaver
Review

Locusestspatium.On GeraldOdonis'
Quaestiode loco
of
GeraldOdonis on thePlurality
Worlds
Visionin theSentences
The Beatific
ofGeraldOdonis
Commentary
Lettersand Politics:GeraldOdonis vs.
FrancisofMarchia
Balliol63 and ParisianTheologyaround
1320
berdas erste
NikolausvonAutrecourt
von Stzen ...
und
die
Gewiheit
Prinzip
in
LateMedieval
the
Soul
and
Psychology
Erfurt
in Searchofa
TenArguments
Averroes
and Aquinasin
Philosopher:
Ficinos PlatonicTheology

15:09:21 PM

295
331
348
364
375
407
421
444
480

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:09:21 PM

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:09:21 PM

& Indexing
Abstracting
Vivarium
is indexed/
in:ArtsandHumanities
abstracted
CitationIndex;BibLing;
Current
Dietrich's
IndexPhilosophicus;
IndextoBlackPeriodicals;
InterContents;
nationale
derZeitschriftenliteratur
aus allenGebietendesWissens;
Bibliographie
International
ofBookReviews
ofScholarly
International
Literature;
Bibliography
and
Behavior
Middle
Bibi.;
Abstracts;
MathSci;
Philosophy
Linguistics Language
East:Abstracts
& Index;MLA; M L A International
of Books6c
Bibliography
Articleson theModernLanguagesand Literatures;
Old Testament
Abstracts;
Periodicals
Contents
Index;Philosophers
Index;ReligionIndexOne: Periodicals;
ReligionIndexTwo:MultiAuthorWorks.
Rates
Subscription
For institutional
thesubscription
edicustomers,
pricefortheelectronic-only
tionofVolume48 (2010,4 issues)is EUR 204 / USD 282. Electronic
+ print:
EUR 248 / U$D 338; printonly:EUR 228 / USD 310. Individualcustomers
can onlysubscribe
to theprinteditionat EUR 75 / USD 102. All pricesare
exclusive
of VAT (notapplicableoutsidetheEU) but inclusive
of shipping&
to thisjournalareacceptedforcompletevolumesonly
handling.Subscriptions
and takeeffect
withthefirst
issueofthevolume.
Claims
Claimsformissing
issueswillbe met,freeofcharge,
ifmadewithin
three
months
of
forEuropeancustomers
and fivemonthsforcustomers
outsideEurope.
dispatch
OnlineAccess
Fordetailson howto gainonlineaccess,pleaserefer
to thelastpageofthisissue.
Claimsand CustomerService
Orders,Payments,
Subscription
Stratton
Business
Brill,c/oTurpin
Distribution,
Park,PegasusDrive,Biggleswade,
Bedfordshire
SG18 8TQ, UK, tel.+44 (0)1767604954,fax+44 (0)1767601640,
e-mail:brill@turpin-distribution.com.
BackVolumes
Backvolumesof thelasttwoyearsareavailablefromBrill.Pleasecontactour
customer
serviceas indicatedabove.
Forbackvolumesorissuesolderthantwoyears,
Service
pleasecontactPeriodicals
NY 12526,USA. E-mailpsc@
Germantown,
Company(PSC), 11 Main Street,
or visitPSC's websitewww.periodicals.com.
periodicals.com
2009 by KoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,The Netherlands
BrillNV incorporates
theimprints
IDC
BRILL, HoteiPublishing,
Koninklijke
Martinus
Publishers
and
VSP.
Publishers,
Nijhoff
All rightsreserved.
No partof thispublication
translated,
maybe reproduced,
storedin a retrieval
or
in
transmitted
system,
anyformor byanymeans,elecor otherwise,
without
tronic,
mechanical,
photocopying,
priorwritten
recording
of thepublisher.
permission
Authorization
to photocopyitemsforinternalor personaluse is grantedby
thepublisher
feesarepaid directly
to Copyright
providedthattheappropriate
ClearanceCenter,222 RosewoodDrive,Suite910, DanversMA 01923, USA.
Feesaresubjectto change.
in theNetherlands
Printed
(on acid-free
paper).
Visitour web siteat brill.nl

15:09:21 PM

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:09:21 PM