Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
)(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
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
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
15:08:33 PM
384
/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay
15:08:33 PM
/Vivarium
47 (2009)375-406
W.J.
Courtenay
385
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
15:08:39 PM
416
A.Krause
/Vivarium
47 (2009)407-420
15:08:39 PM
/Vivarium
A.Krause
47 (2009)407-420
4 17
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
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
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
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
15:08:48 PM
P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443
427
15:08:48 PM
428
P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443
15:08:48 PM
P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443
429
15:08:48 PM
430
P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443
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
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
15:08:48 PM
434
P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443
15:08:48 PM
P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443
435
15:08:48 PM
436
P.Krkkinen
/Vivarium
47 (2009)421-443
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
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
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
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
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
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
15:08:57 PM
456
B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479
15:08:57 PM
B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479
457
15:08:57 PM
458
/Vivarium
B. Copenhaver
47 (2009)444-479
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
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
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
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
15:08:57 PM
B. Copenhaver
/Vivarium
47 (2009)444-479
475
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
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