Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 4, 2009

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:08:12 PM

VIVARIUM An International and Intellectual Journal forthePhilosophy LifeoftheMiddle Agesand Renaissance Aimsand Scope Vivarium is an international ofphilosophy and journaldedicatedto thehistory thehistory ofideasfromtheearlyMiddleAgesto theearly-modern It period. is as an unrivalled resource forthehistory of logic,semantics, widelyrecognized and metaphysics. It publishesphilosophical epistemology analysesas well as historical studiesof ideas,textsand theinstitutional contextof medievaland andlearning. Italsowelcomes editions oftexts. Itpublishes early-modern thought a specialissuedevotedto a particular themeorphilosopher. annually Editor L. W. Nauta (Groningen) EditorialBoard P.J.J.M. Bakker(Nijmegen) L. Bianchi (Vercelli) E. P.Bos (Leiden) H. A. G. Braakhuis(Nijmegen) A. D. Conti (L'Aquila) W.J.CouRTENAY (Madison) C. Flüeler (Fribourg) S. Gersh (NotreDame) D. N. Hasse (Würzburg) 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 ([email protected]). Contributions shouldbe accompanied and 2-6 keywords. bya 10-lineabstract Beforesubmitting theircontribution, authors arerequested to consultandadopt thestylesheetavailableat brill.nl/viv.

15:08:12 PM

(É¡it»v 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 littéraire delaFrance frère "Pierre , 33(1906),479-528, mineur," Auriol, vol.I (Rome, A.Maier, at502,507-508; Mittelalter, 1964),pp.15,92;B. Nardi, Ausgehendes Studi suPietro 1965),pp.340-48. (Florence, Pomponazzi 2)L. O. Nielsen, and onTheology Peter Auriol andThomas "TheDebatebetween Wylton Vivarium , 38(2000),35-98. Virtue," Brill ©Koninklijke 2009 Leiden, NV,

DOI:10.1 163/004275409X12482627895203

15:08:33 PM

376

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

de animaand Dionystudy.A fewof them,suchas Johnof Lanas Questiones on theSentences siusde Burgos openingquestionfromhiscommentary , areso in themanuscript but remainlargelyunstudied.Manyothertexts identified Workon themanuscript has beenslowedand at timesdisareanonymous.3 in deciphering thesmallscribalhand,muchof it couragedby thedifficulty format. The significance ofthe fadedand tightly packedin itsdouble-column additionaltreaand thepossibility of uncovering contentsalreadyidentified sureshaskeptit in thesightsofnumerousscholarsacrosstheyears. of the manuscript was providedby Henry The firstdetaileddescription in Oxfordcolleges.4 OctaviusCoxe in his catalogueof manuscripts Among itemshe noted,includingthequestionsbyAurioland Wylthetwenty-two in themanuscript, suchas ton,Coxe listedworksand authorsso identified what he and of Giles of Rome,JohnBeverley, Dionysiusde Burgo,John Lana, thoughtwas a workauthoredbyWilliamWoodford,as wellas thenamesof authorscitedin thoseand in otherworksthatwereanonymous.He even of theauthorof a groupof questions(60roffered a guessas to theidentity in the to attributed 66r) margin ťGer' whichhe thoughtmightbelongto Gersonor GerardofSiena. hisconjectures werepassedoverin silencebylaterscholars. Unfortunately, VictorinDoucet notedthatthefirst questionin thatgroup,"Utrumdeussub has an almostidentical absolutarationedeitatissitsubiectumin theologia," titleas a questionin thelastpartofAmiens234, whichalso containsa questo Gerardof St. Victor.5ConsequentlyDoucet rejectedBartionattributed 3)F.Stegmüller, Petri inSententias Lombardi Commentariorum 1947), (Würzburg, Repertorium of and1199.1), some included sixgroups ofanonymous (nn.1196-1200, questions pp.481-82, with which cannowbematched authors. 4)H. Coxe,Catalogus vol.I, Oxoniensibus hodie codicum mss., adservantur, quiincollegiis aulisque mss. Balliolensis section: codicum 16-17. 1852; 1972), (Oxford, pp. repr. Catalogus Collegii 5)V.Doucet, auRépertoire deM.Frédéric Commentaires surlesSentences. Stegmueller Supplément from Archivům Franciscanum 47 (1954),66Historicum, 1954,reprinted (Firenze-Quaracchi, etdeceluid'Amiens, oùl'onretrouve, dums.Balliol 170,400-427), p.33:"Lerapprochement à cesfragments la invite voir dans lamême sur de semble-t-il, question l'objet théologie, plutôt estdumoins intéressant deGérard deS.Victor. Cerapprochement desextraits duCommentaire seeE. Coyecque, CataloFora description oftheAmiens etméritait d'être manuscript signalé." de France. tom. Amiens Manuscrits des Général des 19: Départementsi Bibliothèques 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


òli

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 werebyAugustinián 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 Médiévale, (2009). appear Philosophie 8)K. Michalski, "Lecriticisme etlescepticisme dansla philosophie duXIVsiècle," Bulletin del'Académie desSciences Polonaise etdesLettres. Classe d'histoire etdephilosophie , année1925 inMichalski, at43;repr. Laphilosophie auXIVesiècle. Sixétudes , ed. (Cracow, 1926),41-122, K.Flasch at70. (Frankfurt, 1969),67-149, }) Seeabove, note2. I0)F. Pelster, "ZurÜberlieferung desQuodlibet undanderer Schriften desPetrus Aureoli Franciscan Studies 398-406. O.F.M.," , 14(1954),392-41 1,at395-96,

15:08:33 PM

378


on 87v as possiblybelonging to GerardofSiena.In hissecondarticlehe added thepossibility thatthequestionson ff.60r-66rwerealso byan Augustinián Hermit(butwithoutconjecturing anyspecific person),and thattheAugustinián 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 Augustinián 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.,seineQuästionen Raymundus gegen Bequini undseinCorrectorium Petri DasQuodlibet desJacobus deApamis O.E.S.A.FrancisAureoli, canStudies at31. SeealsoPelster, "Kleine zurLiteraturgeschichte der , 15 (1955), 30-47, Beiträge Scholastik. Cod.739derStadtbibliothek Toulouse mitteilweise unbekannten des Quästionen 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 theAugustinián 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-Köln, "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


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 wereAugustinián 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 oftextsfromAugustinián on earlierbyFranzPelster, Hermits,remarked pointingto an EnglishAugustiniánprovenance 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


ff.19va-20rb:"Utrumhabitustheologicussit practicusvel speculativus" (ThomasWylton,disputedquestion,editedby Nielsen,"The Debate," pp. 76-89) ff.20va-21vb:PetrusAureoli,Questiones quodlibetales15 a forma ff.20va-20vb:Auriol,Quodlibet , q. 2: "Utrumactio différât res alia." agenditamquam etspecff.21ra-21va:Auriol,Quodlibety q. 15: "Utrumhabituspracticus activumet non ab invicemperesseprincipium ulativusdistinguantur esse principiumactivumin ipso sciente."(editedby Nielsen,"The Debate,"pp. 90-98) ff.21va-21vb:Auriol,Quodlibet , q. 5: "Utrumsola distinctiorationis ad tollendumomnemcontradictionem factaperintellectum sufficiat in divinis." ff.2 Ivb: Auriol,Quodlibety requiq. 8: "Utrumad visionembeatificam ratursimilitudocreata." ff.22ra-22vb[Stegmüller, , nr. 1196]. Top marginof 22ra: Repertorium Text:"Quia supponiturin lecSententiarum." "Questiosuperprimum tionequod deussitsubiectumin hac scientia,ideo querode rationeforet estquestioista:Utrum malisub qua deushabeathic poni subiectum, deus sithic subiectumsub alia rationemagisspecialiet magiscontracta quam sitabsolutaratiodeitatis.Quod sic,quia absolutaratiodeitatisest formaliter infinita;igitursub illa non est deus subiectum.Antecedens infinitum, quia illud est formaliter quia omne sibi annexum probatur, theopinionof Gilesof Rome,referred facitinfinitum." Citesfavorably from to in thetextas "opiniodoctoris."The textof thisquestiondiffers thestructure and contentof a similarquestionby Gerardof Sienalater in thismanuscript (60ra-60rb),and fromthequestionon thesamesubin ject Dionysiusde Burgo Sancti Sepulchri,Sent. I, Prologue,q 2: "Utrumdeussitsubiectumsub rationecontracta."16 omnia terpervenire ad cognoscendum ff.23ra:"Utrumviatorpossit naturali Et probaturquod sic,quia activonaturaliet passivo salutisue necessaria. 15)Fora discussion seeNielsen, "TheDebate," ofthese 35-98. questions, 16)Thisisthetitle "TheQuaestiones ofDionysius deBurgo O.S.A.," byDamasus Trapp, given inthebody of handled that at64.Dionysius, however, , 3 (1963),63-78, subject Augustinianum in 2° of his CA and the second 131, 12ra, Erfurt, 1, "Quiain begins: quest. question prologue et intheologia subratione contracta estquoddeusestsubiectum dictum questione precedenti subratione ideoqueritur: Utrum hic[deus] sitsubiectum nonabsoluta, absoluta, quiaprima estprima subprima sedtheologia scientia habere subiectum debet ratione; scientia; primum etc." ergo

15:08:33 PM


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 cédulain 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


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.Arámburu, "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


383

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

15:08:33 PM

384


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

15:08:33 PM


385

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

15:08:33 PM

386


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
15:08:33 PM


387

format. fromtheotherfoliosin themanuAlthoughthatformatdiffers if script,thescribalhandis similar notidenticalwiththatoftheprevious The authorcitesThomas(69r,72v,73r,82v,84r [doctorcomfolios.26 munis]),Henryof Ghentas 'Ganď (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 anAugustinián 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, Augustinián 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." velpractica.Quod ff.67v-69v:"Utrumtheologiasitscientiaspeculativa " non speculativa, quia habetobiectumattingibile ff.69v-70r:"Utrumtheologiaviatorissubalternetur theologiebeatorum." ad ff.70r-71v:"Utrumperdonumsupernaturale possithomo attingere veritatem ad non quam attingere potestper cognoscendamaliquam dona naturalia." ff.71v-72r:"Utrumfideset scientiapropriedietapossintsimulstare."

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 Augustinián might interra ." Butwearehere incognita

15:08:33 PM


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


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, Palémon which but to refer to he understood 2 which Woodford sol.," iunioris, ownership, prec. the whotranscribed La Littérature , vol.II (Paris, 1935),pp.127-28, Glorieux, Quodlibétique

15:08:33 PM


391

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

15:08:33 PM

392


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 Inprimům 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


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


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

15:08:33 PM


395

an Augustinián friar. ApartfromWyltonand Auriol,thetextscollectedhere arebyAugustinián on ff.67r-85v. authors,as is theSentences commentary The most obviouscontextin whichan AugustiniánfriarfromEngland 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 oftheAugustinián seeE.Ypma, "Lapromotion aulectorat Order, program chezlesAugustins etle «De lectorie d'Ambroise de Cora," 13 (1963), gradu» Augustiniány 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


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

15:08:33 PM


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 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


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

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

15:08:33 PM


65

399

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

15:08:33 PM

400

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

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

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

15:08:33 PM


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 artículosfideialiquo 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


totaconsideratio et mensuratur Tertioad idem sic: ilia per que regulatur tota consideratio in sed alicuiusseiendesuntprincipia ilia scientia; theologie Probo Maior est evidens. artículos 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 discordât. 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 transiré 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


80

85

90

95

100

403

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

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

15:08:33 PM

404


B,fol.18vb theologie,quia verein se suntintelligibiles ab eis qui | et vereintelliguntur habent scientiam sicut sunt beati. perfecte theologie, Ulteriusapparethoc secundoex eo quod istatheologiautituristisprincipiis etregulando| totamsuamconsiderationem, A,fol.I4va mensurando quemadmodumseiende humanitusadinventeutunturipsis dignitatibus regulandoet mensurandototumsuumprocessumpereas; quapropternon obstantequod prefati articulinon intelligantur a theologo,nihilominus tarnenveresuntprincipia ratione eis utitur usus, theologie quia tamquamdignitatibus. Ulterius,dico quod possuntdici principiatheologietamquamsuppositions quia habentaliquamsimilitudinem cumsuppositionibus. Nam sicutsupex virtutescientiein qua supponuntur sed positions non habentevidentiam ex virtutescientiesuperioris a qua accipiuntur, ita articulifideinon habent evidentiamex virtutetheologienostrein qua supponuntursed ex virtute scilicetDei et beatorum,a qua accipiuntur. Et hincest theologiesuperioris, nostra non sit subalternata Dei et beatorum quod quamvistheologia theologie est tamen ibi similitudo sicut subalternationis, proprieloquendo, aliqua patebitin sequentiarticulo. Concludoergoquod articulifideisintprincipiatheologieetsicutdignitates etsicutsuppositiones, Nam sicuttangebanullotamenmodosicutpetitiones. tursuperius,petitioest contrariaopinioniaddiscentis,et ideo petitureius concessio.Articuliautem fideinon sunt contradiaddiscentitheologiam, immosi essentcontrarii ei, nullomodopossetdisceretheologiam, quapropter debentsupponi,sicutperse nota. noncogunt,namcumprimo Motivaautemsuperiusinductain contrarium diciturquod nullascientiaqueritde suisprincipiis sed supponitet ex eis proceditad concludendumalia, dico quod quererede principiispotestintelligi et ilio modo nullascientia Primout dubitetur de eorumveritate, dupliciter. scientia nec de suis querit principiis, quia quelibit supponitea esseverissima, scilicetde articulifidei, edam istomodo theologiaqueritde suis principiis, eos habere infallibilem veritatem. quia supponit

105

110

115

120

125

130

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

15:08:33 PM

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

140

145

150

155

160

405

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

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

15:08:33 PM

406


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 cognamconsidérât 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

cř"1"' {éiUtì

BRILL

Nikolaus


Vivarium 47 (2009)407-420

von Autrecourt

über das erste Prinzip die Gewißheit von Sätzen

und

AndrejKrause* Seminar Universität 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 immerwiedergroßeBeachtung.1 Seine Erkenntnistheorie, Dieser Aufsatz istMatthias Kaufmann Vormehreren durfte icheinvonihm Jahren gewidmet. anderUniversität Oberseminar zuNikolaus vonAutrecourt besuHalle-Wittenberg geleitetes chen. Dafür 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 undGewißheit. Debatten imMittelalter Perler, 2000),199-223, Zweifel Skeptische amMain,2006),Christophe etsavoir. Croire Lesprincipes delaconnaissance Grellard, (Frankfurt selon Nicolas ď Autrécourt 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 zumTeilAnstoßerregten seinzweiter von denen formuliert, wurden,hatervorallemin einigenBriefen ist.2Dort gibter unter Briefan Bernhardvon Arezzowohl derberühmteste Er an. anderemeine bemerkenswerte sagtnämlich,daß es neben Einteilung Glaubensnurnoch die Gewißheit der Gewißheitder Sätzedes christlichen des erstenPrinzipsund die GewißheitderjenigenSätze,die auf dieseserste Aufwerdenkönnen,gebe.3Das Ziel desvorliegenden Prinzipzurückgeführt Briefes aufderGrundlagedesgenannten satzesistes,dieseEinteilung genauer in zweiTeilen.Im erstenTeilwirddie GewißDies geschieht zu untersuchen. Bei diesemPrinziphandeltes erstenPrinzipsdiskutiert. heitdes sogenannten aber es findetsichbereitsbeiAristoteles, sichum den SatzvomWiderspruch, lassensichjeweilsverschiedene sowohlbei Nikolausals auch bei Aristoteles des GemäßdenAusführungen fürdiesesPrinzipnachweisen. Formulierungen in zweifacher erstes Briefesist der Satz vom Widerspruch Hinsicht; Prinzip wirdnun Üblicherweise zu analysieren. dieseHinsichtengiltes im folgenden des ersten Gewißheit daß die NikolausdieAuffassung Prinzips zugeschrieben, ist.4Der Aufsatzwird andererSätzenotwendig fiirdie Gewißheitbestimmter hinreichend daß die GewißheitdiesesPrinzipsjedenfalls dafürargumentieren, im zweitenTeildesAufsatzes fürdieseSätzeseinsoll.5Dies wirdvornehmlich derdie Thesendes BriefesbezüglichderGewißheitderaufdieses geschehen, Sätze besprichtund nach ihrerPlausibilität erstePrinzipzurückfuhrbaren 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 (Münster, of Rudolph Weinberg, Schriften Philosophie PrincederAusgabe A Study inI4thCentury Autrecourt. 1969;Nachdruck (NewYork, Thought 'Nicolas finden sichinZ. Kaluza, zuNikolaus ton,1948).Ausführliche Angaben biographische 42/1(1995),1-233. delaFrance littéraire inHistoire Amidelavérité', ďAutrécourt. 2)FürM.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 Bernardům Secunda Dieser die desNikolaus. , text" mostfamous Brief, Epistola His Nicholas of nach II" und mit Autrecourt, Correspondabgekürzt folgenden"Correspondence ed.L.M.deRijk(Leiden-New andBernard York-Köln, Master Giles ence with 1994), ofArezzo, wird. dieser dieSeitenzahl inKlammern wobei zitiert, 58-75, Ausgabe angeführt jeweils 3)Vgl.Correspondence nisicertinullaestaliacertitudo certitudine fidei, II,7 (62):"Excepta ist Diese resolvi." in vel tudoprimi gleichBehauptung potest principium principii,que primům 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. Gewißheit 5)Indiesem mitdieser Grellards wird auchdieDeutung Interpretation verglichen. Zusammenhang

15:08:39 PM


409

bekannteBegriffe als nützlicherweisen werden.Nikolaussagtin diesemKontextauch,daß jederFolgesatzeinTeil seinesVordersatzes oderidentischmit ihmist.Der dieserBehauptung des zugrundegelegteBegriff Teilessollgenauer untersucht werden.Es bietensichzwei Deutungenan, derenImplikationen starkeinsichtigsind. Abschließendwird erörtert, jeweils unterschiedlich ob angesichtsder genanntenDreiteilungeine natürlicheTheologienoch möglichist. 1. Die Gewißheitdes erstenPrinzips Sätze,die gewißsind- diese Sätze mögenim folgenden g-Sätzeheißen- , sind Sätze,die man fiirwahrhält und in derenFür-wahr-halten man sich nichttäuschenkann.6Jederg-Satzistwahr,da mansichnurdannin demFürwahr-halten einesfürwahrgehaltenen Satzesnichttäuschenkann,wenndieser Satz wahrist.Andererseits muß nichtjederwahreSatz ein g-Satzsein, denn es könntewahreSätze geben,die man fürfalschhält oder bezüglich dererman sichnichtentscheiden kann,ob sie wahroderob sie falschsind. Das sogenannte erstePrinzipsoll ein solcherg-Satzsein.Dieses Prinzipwird in besagtemBriefso formuliert: sindnichtzugleichwahr.7 (P) Zwei Sätze,die einanderwidersprechen, Man siehtsofort, daß P derSatzvomWiderspruch ist.In dieserFormulierung läßt er sichbereitsbei Aristoteles nachweisen.8 Nikolauszufolgekannkeine - P- falschist.9 Macht bewirken,daß der Satz vom Widerspruch Folglich kann auch Gott P nichtaußer Kraftsetzen,er kann beispielsweise nicht daß es gleichzeitig wahrist,daß ein Gegenstand existiert und bewirken, jetzt nicht existiert. Daß Gott dies nichtkann,wirdvorNikolausetwavon jetzt 6)Dieses Verständnis vonGewißheit 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 ofAutrecourť, Perler, Prinzip, Zweifel undGewißheit Auch beiAristoteles esverschiedene ,340f. FüreineAnalyse gibt Formulierungen. Über denSatzdesWiderspruchs beiAristoteles ZürichNew vgl.JanLukasiewicz, (HildesheimYork, 1993). 9)Vgl.Correspondence facere II,5 (60):".. .necaliquapotentia sint potest quodcontradictoria simul vera."

15:08:39 PM

410


P istfürNikolausnichtnurein fürwahr ThomasvonAquinangenommen.10 sondern ein Satz, gehaltener sogar g-Satz,es sollunmöglichsein,sichim Fürvon P zu täuschen,es soll daherauch unmöglichsein,daß P wahr-halten falschist.Daß P eing-Satzist,leuchtetein,dennwäreP falsch,gäbees Sätze, die einanderwidersprechen und die zugleichwahrsind.Diese Konsequenzist P wahr offensichtlich absurd.Außerdemmüßte,wennP falschist,gleichzeitig sein,es sei denn,es gäbe andereGründedafür,warumes sichbei P und - iP nichtum Sätzehandelt,die gleichzeitig wahrsind.WelcheGründesolltendas 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 früher alsjedesanderePrinzip. (2) P istfrüher Weisender Daß es grundsätzlich 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 Früherseins derMauer.Nun istz zwarin demSinneErstesgemäßdieser 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. daß die Relationdes Früherseins 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 gemäß später x erstes Elementim x R ist. Somit ist auch M geben,das früherals gemäß Sinne der erstenWeise. Daher muß, 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.Schönberger, Relativierung inPhilosophiumdaserste Diskussionen Zumittelalterlichen 'Evidenz undErkenntnis. Prinzip', 102(1995),4-19. sches Jahrbuch n) Vgl.Correspondence estpriestquodistud duo.Primům II,2 (58):"Circa quodoccurrunt Secundum estprius'. můmprincipium, quod quo nichil exponendo: <'primum'> negative alioprius'." velpositive: affirmative estprimum occurrit estquodistud quodestquocumque

15:08:39 PM


4 11

als jedes anderePrinzipist,muß folgen,daß kein d. h., daraus,daß P früher P als ist. Dies nimmtNikolaus implizitauch an, wenn er früher Prinzip " estpriusomnialio quodnonestipsum'ergo[meine schreibt:Istud[principium] 12 isthieraber nichil est eo prius? WelcheArtvon Frühersein Hervorhebung] Relationen zwischen soll es sich nicht nur um Jedenfalls Prinzipien, gemeint? die gewiß sind, handeln,sondern,allgemeiner, um Relationenzwischen Diese legennämg-Sätzen.Das ergibtsichklaraus Nikolaus'Ausfuhrungen. lichfolgendeDefinitionnahe.13 als q genaudann,wenndie (D) p und q seienzweig-Sätze.Dann istp früher werdenkann. Gewißheitvon q aufdie Gewißheitvon p zurückgeführt In diesemZusammenhang scheintNikolauszu unterstellen: (3) Die Gewißheitvon q kanngenaudannaufdie Gewißheitvon p zurückwerdenkann. werden,wennq aufp zurückgeführt geführt WennNikolausebenfallssagt,daß die Gewißheitvon g-Sätzenauf P selbst zurückführbar so meinterdamit,daß die GewißheitdieserSätzeaufdie ist,14 von P zurückführbar ist,bzw.,wegen(3), daß diese Sätze auf P Gewißheit zurückführbar sind.Legtman die genannteDefinitionzugrunde,so ergeben sichfïir(1) und (2) folgendeLesarten: (4) Es gibt keinenvon P verschiedenen g-Satz,auf dessenGewißheitdie Gewißheitvon P zurückgeführt werdenkann. (5) Die Gewißheiteinesjeden von P verschiedenen g-Satzes kann auf die Gewißheitvon P zurückgeführt werden. kann aber die Gewißheiteines g-Satzesauf die Gewißheiteines Inwiefern andereng-Satzes zurückgeführt werden? Was meintNikolausalso mit"zurückführen"? Zunächsteinmalsetzteres mitdemZurückführen einesFolgesatzes " aufein Prinzipgleich, resolvitur in aliudsicutconclusio inprincipium' .15Man 12)Vgl.Correspondence II,3 (60). 13)Vgl.Correspondence II,7-10,20 (62,64,70). 14)Vgl.Correspondence II,3,6 (58,60). 15)Vgl.Correspondence a nobis certitudo habita resolvitur inistud II,3 (58):"Omnis principium.Etipsum nonresolvitur inaliquod inprincipium aliudsicut conclusio suum." CorrespondenceII,3 (60):".. . innostrum dictum omnis nostra certitudo resolvitur. Et principium nonresolvitur inaliudsicut inprincipium conclusio . . ." ipsum

15:08:39 PM

412


kanndiesso verstehen, alsseidiesesPrinzipnotwendigem denFolgesatz.Dann müßteman (1) und (2) bzw.(4) und (5) so interpretieren: (6) Es gibtkeinenvon P verschiedenen g-Satz,dessenGewißheitnotwendig fürdie Gewißheitvon P ist. furdie Gewißheitjedes von P ver(7) Die Gewißheitvon P ist notwendig schiedeneng-Satzes. derPositiondes NikoInsbesondere (7) istTeil einerüblichenBeschreibung laus.16Sowohl(6) als auch (7) sindjedenfallsgültigeAussagen,dennes gibt keinenvon P verschiedenen g-Satz,dessen Gewißheitnotwendigfürdie fürdie GewißGewißheitvon P ist.Auchistdie Gewißheitvon P notwendig manP,hättedie RedevonderGewißheitderandereng-Sätze,dennbestritte heitvonSätzenkeinenSinnmehr.Nikolaussolltealso (6) und (7) akzeptieren. des Nun scheinteraber,wennerbetont,daß die g-SätzeihreGewißheitkraft sich die daß erstenPrinzips(virtute primiprincipii)haben,17anzunehmen, Dieses Übertragen Gewißheitvon P aufdie Gewißheitderg-Sätzeüberträgt. für derGewißheitvon P aufandereSätzesetzter auch in seinemArgument davonaus,daß erst von (5) voraus,18 dennergehtdortoffenbar die Gültigkeit der P sicherstellen kann,daß das,was derFallzu seinscheint,auchtatsächlich einesFolgesatzes Fall ist.Fernerdürftees sichbei dem Zurückfuhren auf ein einesFolgesatzes auf seinen Prinzipum einenSonderfalldes Zurückfuhrens ihre sie aber Vordersatz handeln.Vordersätze Folgesätze, sind fiir implizieren Somitmüßteman (1) und (2) bzw.(4) und (5) so lesen: letztere hinreichend (8) Es gibtkeinenvon P verschiedenen g-Satz,dessenGewißheithinreichend fiirdie Gewißheitvon P ist. fiirdie Gewißheitjedesvon P ver(9) Die Gewißheitvon P isthinreichend schiedeneng-Satzes.19 16)Vgl.Fußnote 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)FürKurtFlasch, Mittelalter undDarstellung. in Text derPhilosophie Geschichte (Stuttgart, derevidenten derGrund derSatzvomWiderspruch Urteile, 1999),482,istnachNikolaus DasPariser ähnlich wasermit"Grund" erläutert Flasch meint, nicht, Paqué, Ruprecht allerdings derneuzeitlichen desRealitätsbegriffi ZurEntstehung Nominalistenstatut. (BerNaturwissenschaft lin,1970),171.

15:08:39 PM


413

Nun ist(8) zwarplausibel,da es in derTat keinenvon P verschiedenen g-Satz (9) aber ist falsch. gibt,dessenGewißheitdie Gewißheitvon P impliziert, Denn beispielsweise die Gewißheitvon P nichtdie Gewißheiteines impliziert mathematischen g-Satzes,etwades Satzes,daß die Summezweier beliebigen Zahlen stets geradeist. Dafür,daß diesermathematische beliebigergerader Satz gewißist,reichtes nichtaus, daß P gewißist.Auch fürdie Gewißheit einesSatzes,der die Existenzeinesextramentalen behauptet, Gegenstandes von P reichtdie Gewißheitvon P nichtaus. Wennmandaherdas Frühersein fürdas Spätereist,ergibtsichdie so interpretiert, daß das Früherehinreichend daß daß (2) bzw.(5) unplausibelsind.Man könnteeinwenden, Schwierigkeit, derAnsichtendes Nikolaus es sichbei (8) und (9) um Fehlinterpretationen handelt.Nikolausmeinemit(1) und (2) bzw.(4) und (5) keinesfalls (8) und 20 (9), sonderneben (6) und (7). Gegen diesenEinwandsprichtaberneben und den bereitsgenanntenGründen,daß Nikolauszwischenmittelbarem und sichhierbeiaufdas VorgeZurückfuhren unterscheidet unmittelbarem Dies sollim folgenden werden. henderGeometrieberuft. genauererläutert Sätze 2. Die Gewißheitder auf das erstePrinzipzurückfuhrbaren Daß das Zurückfuhren derg-SätzeaufP im Sinnevon (9) zu verstehen ist, sich aus Zitat: folgendem ergibt 20)Grellard, Weisen an: derErstheit 339,gibtfürdiebeiden 'Scepticism', folgende Deutung ofthefirst inthewaythatNicholas thenegative "Buridan therefore primacy principle accepts it(thefirst isnottheconclusion ofa demonstration), butnotthepositive understands principle first is the of demonstration." Grellard (the (4)und primacy interpretiert principle premissevery wiefolgt: (5)demnach eines Beweises/in einem Beweis. derFolgesatz (G 1) P istnicht P ist Prämisse eines Beweises/in einem die (G2) jeden jedenBeweis. Es istmöglich, daßdieseInterpretation Grellards mitdervonunsvorgeschlagenen übereinfalls nämlich P ist,und daßeskeinen derhinreichend fiir stimmt, (G 1) besagt, g-Satz gibt, daßP hinreichend für ist.Dafür könnte Croire daßGrellard, (G2) besagt, jeden sprechen, g-Satz etsavoir daßderSatzvomWiderspruch beiNikolaus Gewißheit , 7Of., 74,sagt, jegliche garantiert. Sollte in(G 2) jedoch ermitdemWort "Prämisse" daßP einenotwendige meinen, (und - entgegen keine fiir ist,dannwäre hinreichende) (G 1)Bedingung jedeng-Satz jeder g-Satz fiir P.Nunschreibt hinreichend Artikel aberauch:"Nicholas er,'Scepticism', 336,inbesagtem admits theprinciple ofnon-contradiction because it is a condition Her[meine simply necessary fordebate." vorhebung]

15:08:39 PM

4 14

A.Krause /Vivarium 47 (2009)407-420 Entweder werden also . . .jedeGewißheit erste wirdaufdasselbe Prinzip zurückgeführt. unmittelbar aufdasselbe erste Prinzip zurückgejeneersten gleich Schlußfolgerungen unmittelbar Aber dasbieführt. . .; oderdieeinewird dieandere mittelbar, zurückgeführt. aufdaserste tethierkeineSchwierigkeit, dennwennwireineRückführung Prinzip ingleicher Weise wiederGeometer wiederanderen sindwirdereinen vollziehen, gewiß, wiederersten, undsoderdritten und ebenso sicher eristderzweiten Schlußfolgerung sagt; derübrigen . . .21

odermittelbar aufP zurückunmittelbar Demnachsolljederg-Satzentweder sein.Fernersoll es fürdie Gewißheiteinesg-SatzeskeineRollespiefuhrbar oder mittelbar auf P zuriickfiihrbar ist,alle g-Sätze len, ob er unmittelbar das Zurückfuhren sollenim gleichenMaße gewißsein. Nikolausvergleicht aufP zurückfiihrbaren dermittelbar g-SätzemitdemVorgehenderGeomedaß sichdie GewißheitvonP auf trie.Er tutdies,um dafürzu argumentieren, aufP zurückfiihrbaren die unmittelbar g-Sätzeundvondortaufdie mittelbar - überträgt: - ohneVerlust . aufP zurückfuhrbaren g-Sätzejeweilsvollständig im gleichenMaße gewiß Denn auchderGeometersei sichseinerGrundsätze In derGeometrieund in jedem oderFolgesätze. wie seinerSchlußfolgerungen Theoreme nunaberinsofern sind die anderenaxiomatischen System genauso wenn die . Daher muß es sie aus diesen wie als die sich, Axiome, folgen gewiß P ein auf um eines beim Zurückfuhren g-Satzes Analogiegültigsein soll, handeln.AußerdemsprichtNikolausim aufeinen Vordersatz Zurückfuhren , sind,die aufP unmittelbar Folgesätze obigenZitatdavon,daß es conclusiones, sind.Entferntere zurückfuhrbar odermittelbar FolgesätzewerdendannsinnDas Rückfuhrungsverhältnis von näherenFolgesätzenimpliziert. vollerweise zwischenihnenbestehtalso darin,daß derfrühere g-Satz(deran P "nähere") . Analogbestehtdas den spätereng-Satz(denvon P "entfernteren") impliziert P unmittelbaren und den zwischen darin, Folgesätzen Rückfuhrungsverhältnis AuchwenigspäternimmtNikolausan, daß daß P dieseFolgesätzeimpliziert. sie zurückfiihrbar es conclusiones sind,22 , Folgesätze , gibt,die aufP unmittelbar man NikoP Somit darf aus als sie sollenalso insofern folgen. Folgesätzesein, lausdieAkzeptanzvon (9) bzw.derfolgenden Behauptungunterstellen: 21)Vgl.Correspondence inidemprimům 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 Übersetzung 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


415

(10) Jedervon P verschiedene g-Satzfolgtaus P. Daher muß die zitierteBemerkung, nach derjederg-Satzunmittelbar oder mittelbar auf P zurückführbar werden,daß jederg-Satz ist,so interpretiert unmittelbar odermittelbar aus Pfolgt . Die Verbindung derg-Sätzegemäßder Relation"... ist zurückfuhrbar auf.. ." ist dann eine Verbindung gemäßder Relation"... folgtaus. . .". FürNikolausistdie Relation"... istzurückfuhrbar auf.. ." sichertransitiv, d. h.,wennq aufp undraufq zurückführbar ist,dann sollr aufp zurückführbar sein.Sie solljedochnichtkonnexsein,d. h., es soll nichtso sein,daß zweibeliebig herausgegriffene g-SätzegemäßdieserRelation in Beziehungzueinanderstehen,es sollensichalso g-Sätzefindenlassen,die nichtgemäßdieserRelationin Beziehungzueinanderstehen.Folglichsoll es aufp2"noch "p2ist g-SätzePj, p2geben,so daß weder"pl istzurückführbar zurückführbar aufp" gilt.Nikolauswürdeaußerdembestreiten, daß g-Sätze aufsichselbstzurückführbar sind,fürihn wäredie Relation"... istzurückführbar auf.. ." irreflexiv. Fernerwürdeer annehmen,daß sie asymmetrisch daß dann,wenneing-Satzp aufeinenandereng-Satz ist,erwürdebehaupten, zurückfuhrbar nicht aufp zurückfuhrbar ist.WegenihrerAsymmetrie, ist, q q Irreflexivität und Transitivi tät ist die Relation"...ist zurückführbar auf..." eine irreflexive Halbordnung,wegender fehlendenKonnexitätist sie keine Ordnung.23 AnalogeAussagenfürdie Relation". . .folgtaus. . ." sind falsch, dennnichtnurdie Formelp -» p istgültig(gegendie Irreflexivität), sondern auch FormelnderArtp <-» q könnengültigsein (gegendie Asymmetrie). WennNikolausalso die Relation"... istzurückführbar auf.. ." mitderRelation "...folgt aus..." identifiziert, so darfer das nur fürdie Fälle tun,die Reflexivität und Symmetrie ausschließen.Wegen (4) enthältdie durchdie Relation"... istzurückführbar auf.. ." halbgeordnete Mengeder g-Sätzeein minimales ist dieses Element Element, (5) sogenanntes wegen sogarein sogenanntesMinimum.Jederg-Satzsoll in nur endlichvielenSchrittenauf P Dies sein,er soll aus P in nurendlichvielenSchritten zurückfuhrbar folgen.14 ist insofernplausibel,als auch in klassischen axiomatischen Theorienjedes TheoremnachnurendlichvielenSchritten aus dengegebenen Axiomenfolgt. Ob die Folgerungsmenge, d. h. die Menge der g-Sätze,die unmittelbar odermittelbar aufP zurückführbar nicht sind,endlichist,istdamitnatürlich ausgesagt. 23)Zurmathematischen indie Terminologie vgl.etwaHeinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus, Einfiihrung 1994). Mengenlehre (Mannheim-Leipzig-Wien-Zürich, 24)Vgl.Correspondence II,8 (62).

15:08:39 PM

416


Daß die Akzeptanzvon (10) problematisch ist,zeigtesichbereitsbei der DiskussionderThesen(8) und (9). AusP alleinfolgtnämlich . Pfastnichts formal: i(p a ip) impliziert lediglichSätze,die mitP logischäquivalent ob ein Satz mitP logischäquivalentist, sind,aberselbstum zu entscheiden, P man von nichtimpliziert die werden.So könnteder Prinzipien, benötigt Satz 1( ip a p), der,so würdeman sagen,mitP äquivalentist,etwavorausist.Es scheintschlechterdings keinennichttrivialen setzen,daß a kommutativ P zu der aus unmittelbar Dann g-Satz geben, folgt. folgtaus P auchkeinSatz so die bzw. daß mittelbar, gesamteFolgerungs- Rückfuhrungskette gleichsam ohneFundamentist.Jedenfalls sei festgehalten, daß sichdie Gewißheitvon P aufalle andereng-Sätzenübertragen soll,und zwarentwederunmittelbar mittelbar diese Sätze mitteldieseSätzesindunmittelbar oder sind gewiß bar gewiß. Dennoch sollen die unmittelbar gewisseng-Sätzeim gleichen Maße gewißseinwie die mittelbar Die Gewißheiteines gewisseng-Sätze.25 von der AnzahlderFolgees soll nicht von der g-Satz logischenEntfernung ihm P zwischen Wenn und und abhängen. p q zwei g-Sätze rungsschritte aus p folgt,so sollenp und q sindundp unmittelbar aus P undq unmittelbar im gleichenMaße gewißsein,p soll nichtgewisser als q sein,nurweilp, im P aus Sätze sind fürNikolausentweder zu unmittelbar folgt. Gegensatz q, gewißodernicht,sie sindnichtmehroderwenigergewiß.Da g-Sätzegenau so gewißsindwie P,sindsie schlechthin gewiß.WennNikolausschreibt mit desFolgesatzes Durch keine Macht könnte esgeschehen, daßdasGegenteil gleichzeitig so wie keine Macht bewirken daß demVordersatz könnte, kann, Gegensätzliches gelten ist.26 wahr gleichzeitig fürdie materiale so verwendet erhiereineäquivalenteFormulierung Implika- » <-> tion,denn fiirbeliebigeSätzep, q giltbekanntlich (p q) i(p a iq), q dannund nurdann,wennes nichtderFallist,daß p zwargilt, p impliziert ableitnichtaberq. Ein vonP verschiedener g-Satz- einaus einemVordersatz barerFolgesatz kann,das behauptetNikolausim Zitat also, ebensowenig falschseinwie P. Insofernistdie Gewißheiteinesjeden Folgesatzes genauso von P.27 wie die Gewißheit groß 25)Vgl.Correspondence Utsisintdueconnonhabet evidentie II,6 (60):"Certitudo gradus. certi deunaquamdealia." certi nonsumus sumus clusiones dequarum evidenter, magis qualibet 26)Vgl.Correspondence fieri II, 5 (60):"Necperaliquam posset quodoppositum potentiam facere nec sicut simul cum staret antecedente, quodcontraaliquapotentia potest consequentis in von Nicolaus v. 17. sint simul vera." Deutsche dictoria Autrecourt, Perler, Briefe, Übersetzung 27)Thijssen, Fußnote ausdieser Textstelle Certain 'TheQuest for 213,versucht 26) (vgl. Knowledge,

15:08:39 PM

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

4 17

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

Das Haus existiert. Die Wand existiert.

als der Teil des Vordersatzes, In dieserAbleitungist der Folgesatzinsofern bezeichnet derdurchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes wird,ein mateGegenstand, riellerTeil des Gegenstandesist, der durch das Subjektdes Vordersatzes und Folgesatzidentisch bezeichnet wird,wobeidie Prädikatevon Vordersatz im allgemeinenfalschist,ist unmittelbar sind. Daß (11), so interpretiert, die nichtdie in (1 1) formuklar,dennes gibtzahlreiche gültigeAbleitungen, Menschiststerblich" also etwadieAbleitung"Jeder lierteBedingungerfüllen, tothe zufinden: "Reduction "Rückführen aufdaserste eineErklärung fürdenBegriff 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 würde sich daß daß daraus, ist, Widerspruch p -iqgilt, ergedigen. withcertainty mitGewißheit ausp folgt wouldnotfollow ben,daßq nicht ("the consequent eswürde sichbekanntlich diewesentlich stärkere from theantecedent"), sondern Behauptung nicht ausp folgt. daßq gewiß ergeben, 28)Vgl.Correspondence II,9f.(62,64). 29)Vgl.Correspondence II, 17(68).

15:08:39 PM

418


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

JedesLebewesenrennt. JederMenschrennt.

als derGegenstand, TeildesVordersatzes, HieristderFolgesatznichtinsofern wird(Mensch),einmaterielbezeichnet derdurchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes bezeichlerTeil des Gegenstandes ist,derdurchdas SubjektdesVordersatzes net wird (Lebewesen).Vielmehrist jetzt der FolgesatzinsofernTeil des definierte als die durchdas Subjektdes Folgesatzes Vordersatzes, Mengeeine definierten derdurchdasSubjektdesVordersatzes Mengeist,wobei Teilmenge sind.Man hates alsostattmiteinermatebeiderSätzeidentisch die Prädikate mit einerTeilmenge-Obermenge-Beziehung riellenTeil-Ganzes-Beziehung, mandenTeilbegriff zu tun.Versteht so, dannist(1 1) jedenfallsplausiblerals won (11) gültig I. Außerdemscheintdann die Umkehrung bei Interpretation zu sein. ad isteine reductio Nikolausversucht(11) zu begründen.Sein Argument läßt:31 so schreiben halbformal sich absurdum , die (A) q folgtaus p. (Annahme) (B) Es istnichtderFall,daß 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


4 19

daß p zusammenmit- »qgilt,(aus (B)) (C) Es istnichtwidersprüchlich, (D) (C) istfalsch,(aus (A)). (E) Also ist(B) falschund somit(11) wahr,(aus (D)). Was istzu diesemArgument zu sagen?Sicherlichist(D) wahr,dennwennq aus p folgt,ist es widersprüchlich, daß p zusammenmit- «q gilt.Inwiefern Wenn es widerfolgtjedoch (C) aus (B)? Nikolausscheintso zu überlegen: daß nicht aber dann mit muß ist, sprüchlich p vorliegt, q, q p identischoder ein Teil von p sein,dennwarumsolltees sonstwidersprüchlich wenigstens nichtaberq? Diese Überlegung wärezwarplausibel,ohne sein,daß p vorliegt, zusätzlicheGründejedoch nurfürderartige Fälle,in denenq ein materieller oderräumlicher Teilvon p ist.q soll aber,wie klargewordenseindürfte, nur in einemschwachenSinn ein Teil von p sein,nämlichnurinsofern, als der der durch das von bezeichnet ein materieller Teil wird, Gegenstand, Subjekt q des Gegenstandes wobei die ist,derdurchdas Subjektvon p bezeichnet wird, PrädikatebeiderSätzeidentischsind (Interpretation als die I), oderinsofern, durchdas Subjektvon q definierte MengeeineTeilmengederdurchdas Subjektvon p definierten Mengeist,wobei auch hierdie PrädikatebeiderSätze identisch sind(Interpretation ein, II). Dann aberleuchtetnichtohneweiteres wieso (C) aus (B) folgensollte.Ferneristes sicherproblematisch, (11) auch fürden Fallzu akzeptieren, daß es sichbei dem dortgenannten Vordersatz p um P handelt.Inwiefern solltenämlichirgendein aus P ableitbarer Folgesatz einTeilvonP sein?Allerdings wurdebereitsdaraufverwiesen, daß aus P allein sowiesofastnichtsfolgt,so daß (1 1) fürden Fall,daß es sichbei demVordersatzum P handelt,irrelevant seindürfte.Eine unmittelbare Konsequenzaus daß aus dem "a existiert" nur dann der "b (11) ist, g-Satz g-Satz existiert" folgt, wennderSatz"b existiert" einTeildes Satzes"a existiert" ist.Versteht mandie im Sinnevon Interpretation I, so heißtdas, daß aus Teil-Ganzes-Beziehung derTatsache,daß ein Ding existiert, nichtgeschlossen werdenkann,daß ein anderes existiert. Diese letzte völlig Ding Behauptungfindetsichexplizitbei Nikolaus.32 Was sichdarausfürden Kausalitätsbegriff ergebenkönnte,istin derLiteratur zu Nikolausoftuntersucht worden.33 Abschließendsei noch einmalauf die zu Beginndes Aufsatzesgenannte Einteilungaufmerksamgemacht.Sie enthältdie Behauptung,daß die GewißheitderSätzedes christlichen Glaubensnichtaufdie Gewißheitvon P 32)Vgl.Correspondence essichauchumeinen derverurteilten Artikel. II,11 (64).Hierhandelt B der von de 170. Vgl.Appendix Ausgabe Rijk, 33)Vgl.bereits Nicolaus von 11-16. Autrecourt, Lappe,

15:08:39 PM

420


zurückführbar ist.Diese SätzesollenihreGewißheitdemnachaus derTatsasie daß che, wurden,beziehen,und nur daraus.Entwederalso geoffenbart istein Satz gewiß,weil er aus P folgt(oderP ist),oderer istgewiß,weil er wurde.Er kannnichtgewißsein,weiler aus P folgt,und gleichgeoffenbart wurde.Dann aber müßte Nikolaus zeitiggewiß sein, weil er geoffenbart Glaubenssätzegibt,die auch mit der natürdaß es geoffenbarte bestreiten, Sätzehättenihre werden lichenVernunft können,dennderartige eingesehen Gewißheitgleichsamzusätzlichaus P. Eine natürliche Theologieistin diesem Fallnichtmöglich. 3. Fazit In seinemzweitenBriefan Bernhardvon ArezzobehauptetNikolausunter verschiedaß die GewißheiteinesjedenvomSatzdesWiderspruchs anderem, zurückfuhrbar deneng-Satzesaufdie Gewißheitdes SatzesvonWiderspruch daß die Gewißheitdes Satzesvom Widerist.Man kanndies so verstehen, fiirdie Gewißheitjedesandereng-Satzesseinsoll.Der Aufspruchnotwendig daß Nikolausjedenfallsauch derAuffassung satzhatdafürargumentiert, ist, hinreichend fiirdie Gewißheit daß die GewißheitdesSatzesvomWiderspruch jedesandereng-Satzesist.Diese ThesedesNikolaushatsichalsproblematisch die Relation"... istzurückfuhrAuchwenner im allgemeinen herausgestellt. scheinter in bar auf..." mit der Relation"...folgt aus..." identifiziert, denndie ersteRelationistim FällenUnterschiede bestimmten anzunehmen, Halbordnungin derMengederg-Sätze,die Gegensatzzu diesereineirreflexive mitdemSatzvomWiderspruch sogarein Minimumenthält.WennNikolaus mitseinem daß in einemgültigenSchlußjederFolgesatzidentisch 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 derobigenBehauptunghängtdannvon definierten Menge.Die Plausibilität Glaudie Sätzedes christlichen ab. Da, ferner, dergewähltenInterpretation bensihreGewißheitnuraus derTatsache,daß sie geoffenbart wurden,bezienicht hensollen,isteinenatürliche möglich. Theologie

15:08:39 PM

KtG/ö 'Ê)'68i BRILL

Psychology

VIVA RIUM brill.nl/viv

Vivarium 47 (2009)421-443

and the Soul in Late Medieval

Erfurt

PekkaKärkkäinen 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.Kärkkäinen /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, Universitätsbibliothek, 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 Strömungen faculty Ihre inBibliotheca imLicht Universität 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 (München 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, inderUniversitätsbibliothek kuszuButzbach Giessen, 2004),271-2. part

15:08:48 PM


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 theAugustiniánHermits.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 Große Trutfetter' Denker undderErfurter Universität Pilvousek, Josef 'Jodocus , ed. Erfurts Dietmar vonderPfordten 2002),96-117. (Göttingen, 10)OnUsingen, seeKleineidam, Universitas Sebastian Secundum viam II,298-301; 154-7; Lalla, modernám. Nominalismus beiBartholomäus Arnoldi vonUsingen. 2003), Ontologischer (Würzburg, 15-22.

15:08:48 PM

424


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 animò)}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 Université AnEdition 'Henricus Tabarroni, Metaphysicae. Ruyn, Disputata ofexerOntheliterary 61 (1991),185-428. etlatin dumoyen-age cahiers del'institut genre grec arts au des dans les Facultés La see 2002), cises, OlgaWeijers, 'disputano' moyen âge(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


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.Domaňski, (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.Kärkkäinen Í Vivarium 47 (2009)421-443

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

15:08:48 PM


427

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

15:08:48 PM

428


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

15:08:48 PM


429

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

15:08:48 PM

430


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

15:08:48 PM


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 theArabicphilosoAverroës 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 Kärkkäinen, 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, Kärkkäinen, 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


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

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

15:08:48 PM


433

in theChurch,and couldthusin 1514 refer awareofthelatestdevelopments to thelatestdecreesoftheongoingFifthLateranCouncil.44 4. Psychologyand theSoul in General 4. 1. Psychology as a PartofNaturalScience The Erfurtnominalists Lutreaand Usingendiscussthescienceof thesoul in theinitialquestionsoftheirexercitia. Theirpositionis thatas a naturalscience, scientiade anima concernsknowledgeof singularextramental entitiescalled is aboutres, and logicis aboutsigns.However, souls,sincenaturalphilosophy scientia deanimaalso consistspartlyofknowledge ofsigns,suchas theuniversal termsoul'. Bothkindsof knowledgearebasedon theconclusionswhich formthematerialbasisofthisscience.Theseconclusionsareconsideredto be and knowledgeofthemis,accordingto Lutreaand Usingen, truths, necessary whatAristotle meantin hisremarkthatknowledgeconcernsnecessary truths An. Post. of means this construction Lutrea Aristotle, (cf. 1). By conceptual and Usingencould maintaintheirnominalistconvictionthatthereare no universaland necessaryfeaturesin extramental and that thingsthemselves, in manifests itself the mind universal universality only through conceptsand thenecessary features of them. scienceconnatural Nonetheless, predicated sistsof a knowledgeof extramental entitiesand universalinvariances at the sametime.Lutreaadmitsthatthedistinction betweenthementaland extramentalobjectofscientific ofthevia knowledgederivesfromthephilosophers moderna. Similarproblemsdo notariseamongphilosophers oftherealistvia oftheinvariantiqua, who considernaturalscienceas a pursuitofknowledge able universal features ofbeingsin theextramental world.45 44)Trutfetter seems tobethefirst ofthese authors toquoteBiel,which hedidina retrospective of a in in his in Summule There hequotes Biels 1501. 1497, description quodlibet printed Canonis misse SeeTrutfetter, Unaconclusio cumcorollariis indisputatione dequolibet expositio. A. D. 1497posita inBochumer Wöhler , ed.Hans-Ulrich Jahrbuch Erffordie philosophisches für Antike undMittelalter G(2001),160.Thereference totheFifth Lateran Council isfound inthe Summa , f.Y4r. 45)Lutrea: "Utrum deanima sitscientia deobiecto etadacquato illius scientanquam proprio tiae. . . undetriplex estscibile. estquodpropinquius terminât actum assensivum Propinquus intellectus utestconclusio. Remotum estquodremote terminât actum assensivum ipsius ipsius intellectus utestterminus conclusionis. Remotissimum estquodremotissime terminât actum assensivum intellectus utestres,quiaresestextra actusautem in assensivus animam, ipsius anima est. . . Sequitur estinter scibile etpropinquum. Resenim bene quoddifferentia primům

15:08:48 PM

434


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

15:08:48 PM


435

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

15:08:48 PM

436


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

15:08:48 PM


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, seealsoKärkkäiEx.,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


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

15:08:48 PM


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 Averroës) 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


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'. seeKärkkäinen, E6V-F1V. Onthequestion, Ex.an.,ff. 66)SeePekka oftheSoulintheLateVia andImmortality Kärkkäinen, Philosophy 'Theology, Vivarium ofErfurt', Moderna 43 (2005),337-60. 67)SeeKärkkäinen, andIndividual'. 'Nature 68)Summa of seePekka s remark, ofTrutfetter Onthecontext Kärkkäinen, ,X4r. 'Interpretations West ed. intheMedieval toBiel',in Trinitarian from Theology Aquinas Psychological Analogy P.Kärkkäinen 2007),256-79. (Helsinki, 69)Ex.,ff. 29v-30v. 70)Ex.an.,ff.F1V-F4V. lectura deanima SeealsoBuridan, , Deprima Quaestiones '=QDAj),ed. médiévaux 29 (Louvain-laLe traité del'âmedeJeanBuridan. inPatar, B. Patar Philosophes text seeJ.M.M.H. Thijssen, oftheedited Onthedubious Neuve, 1991,288-92). authenticity deThéologie Recherches in Trends Recent Some Natural 'Late-Medieval Scholarship', Philosophy: Médievales etPhilosophie Gl(2000),190.

15:08:48 PM

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

44 1

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

15:08:48 PM

442

/Vivarium P.Karkkäinen 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 (Tübingen, 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


443

whichfollowsmoreor lesstheoutlineofPierre generaloutlineofhistreatise, de anima or the psychological s Summa ďAillys 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


Vivarium 47 (2009)444-479

Ten Arguments in Search of a Philosopher: Averroes and Aquinas in Ficino's Platonic Theology

BrianCopenhaver UCLA

Summary In book15 ofhisPlatonicTheology on theImmortality oftheSoul,MarsilioFicino he doesnotsaywhich namesAverroes andtheAverroists as hisopponents, though in The Averroists he has mind. that Ficinoattributes to keyposition particular - thattheIntellect - is notonethat form Averroes is notthesubstantial ofthebody Averroes he doesclaimexplicitly thattheIntellect is nota holdsexplicitly, though or in of what Averroes a a Ficinos account said about the souls body power body. not from Averroes but from made comes texts written immortality by arguments Averroes contra byThomas AquinasintheSumma gentiles. against Keywords Renaissance soul,intellect, Averroism, immortality, Neoplatonism 1. Introduction:High Stakes in thefifteenth book of MarsilioFicinos Platonic Who or whatis 'Averroes' first ? here for the answer offered time,as faras I know- is that My Theology thathe assembledfromhisstudyof Averroes' is Ficinos namefora construct Beforegivingevidence theSummacontra ThomasAquinas,especially gentiles. I hopeto clarify thequestionbyputting to supportmyanswer, and arguments à la longuedurée 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 RenéDescartesto 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


hisdismaywhen "Allcoherence gone":thatwashowJohnDonne expressed the universe inside out.5Soon the evidence that turned Galileofirst presented of 1610 spreadtheshockingnewsthroughEurope, aftertheStarry Messenger theyoungDescarteswitnesseda strangeresponseto itin 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 Flèchebycommemorative 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 Flèche, 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 Flèche,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


447

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

15:08:57 PM

448


- 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'Averroisť 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 Società Editrice Internelrinascimento dell'anima diNapoli, L'Immortalità (Torino: Averroès etl'averroïandAlaindeLibera, nazionale, 1963),pp.59-65;Maurice-Ruben Hayoun sme(Paris: PUF,1991),pp.110-13. 12)Fora useful the Averroès 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'unité 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, Étienne studies Gilson, 1993);andtherelevant byB.C.Bazán, Herman Antonino Bruno Pierre Randall, Mandonnet, Nardi, sewicz, John Dominique Poppi, about mass ofwriting thesheer andE.H.Wéber. 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


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


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 etlapensée: 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


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 usesofeiôoçinAristotle, 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


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

15:08:57 PM


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


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'Averroès Notessurla réception averroïste'? unenoétique De Libera, "Existe-il andL. Sturlese undinderRenaissance inAverroismus imMittelalter , ed.F.Niewöhner siècle," as "Form forUs"and Intellect "TheAgent C. Taylor, (Zurich: Spur,1994),p. 72; Richard and Medieval the of Averroes's ,5 al-Farabi," Metaphysics Logic for Proceedings of Society Critique (2005),24-5.

15:08:57 PM

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

455

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

15:08:57 PM

456


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

15:08:57 PM


457

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

15:08:57 PM

458


Intellect:theagent(agens)and thereceptive(
15:08:57 PM


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


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


46 1

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

15:08:57 PM

462


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 roisťsectionsofthesummary (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)ortheAverroisť (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, Averroès, 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


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,Niccolò 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'Immortalità andDe Mellen, 1991),pp.81-95;Di Napoli, , pp.55-8,66-9;Hayoun Libera, Averroès, 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'Immortalità andDe Libera, Averroès , pp.78-84, 97-105, 126-7, 134-5; , pp.114-17. Hayoun

15:08:57 PM

464


who taughtat Padua and in theearly1480s gave Pico accessto writings of thatsurvived Averroes onlyin Hebrew.SinceElia was probablyno morethan , it is unlikelythatElias twentywhen Ficinofinishedthe PlatonicTheology Averroism couldhaverousedthegreatPlatonist.60 Anotherimportant Paduan of this was Nicoletto who studied with Gaetano da Vernia, philosopher period Averroist Thiene,butthedateofhisunpublished Questionon theUnityofthe Intellect is closerto 1480.61In Italyitis hardto locateother"recent Averroists" in timeforthePlatonicTheology. who mighthaveattracted Ficinos attention 4. live Long Commentary As forAverroes, manyof his writingsdeal withthe soul and the intellect. on Aristotle s De anima, he Besidestheshort,middleand longcommentaries as the leftseveralworkson suchnarrower souls problems happinessand the withtheIntellect. Also relevant arehiscommentarofconjunction possibility ies on a numberof otherAristotelian texts,especiallythe Metaphysics , On Generation and Corruption and theParvanaturalia.Finally,therearediscusin TheIncoherence sionsofthesouland immortality CDestruc oftheIncoherence . tio destructions), a long attackon Ghazalis Incoherence of thePhilosophers Someofthese,butnotall,had longbeenavailablein LatinbyFicinos day,but - theLongCommentary onDe animaand the onlytwooftheLatinizedworks accountsof thesoul and intellect Destructio destructionsprovideextensive Of the two,the Long read by scholasticphilosophers.62 thatwereregularly of Averroes. is closer to Ficino s version much Commentary 60)Umberto delrinascimento GliEbrei a Firentnell'età Olschki, Cassuto, 1965), (Florence: 282-6. pp. 61)Edward in in Nicoletto Vernia andAgostino andScience Nifo," Mahoney, "Philosophy di Padova nelQuattrocento Scienza efilosofia all'università , ed.Antonino Poppi(Padua:Lint, inPhilosophy andHuman"Nicoletto Vernia ontheSoulandImmortality," 1983),pp.145-51; Ennio inHonor Kristeller ism: Renaissance Brill, (Leiden: 1976),pp.144-63; ofPaulOskar Essays inNicoletto Vernia e Agostino "LaFormazione e l'opera di Nicoletto de Bellis, Vernia," Nifo: Aristotelians emetodologici ,pp.1082003),pp.9-17;Iorio, (Lecce: Congedo, Aspetti storiografici L'Immortalità , pp.179-193. 10;Di Napoli, 62)ACM,p.xvii(Crawford's intoLatin: TheReception "Arabie Charles Burnett, 'Prolegomena); to Arabie in The into Western ofArabie , Philosophy Companion Europe," Cambridge Philosophy andAverroes onIntellect Avicenna 262-5, , pp.220-2, Davidson, 397-400; Alfarabi, pp.374-85, inL'Averroismo enoccident," del'entrée d'Averroès "LeProblème 298,n.179;VanSteenberghen, Commentaries on De "Averroes' Three Alfred L. et inItalia ed. Cernili al.,pp.81-9; , Ivry, andAersten, ed.Endress inAverroes andtheAristotelian 199-216; Tradition, anima," Ivry, pp. inMediinA Straight Path: Studies TheFirst "Averroes andtheWest: Encounter/Nonencounter,"

15:08:57 PM


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"thinkvoeîvbecomesformare at 429a15, ing is akinto perceiving," per intellectum' of the form" or Ô£ktikòv 8è tov is ; e'iÔoDç "capable receiving recepii formam and at 429a21,"thatit is potential"or oti ôuvaxóvis 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 inAverroès etTaverroïsme etal.,pp.13-26; Émile "LeProblème dela , ed.Bazzana Fricaud, temps," d'Averroès," ibid., disgrâce 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. "Unenoétique Clarendon, 1968);De Libera, averroïste,' pp.

15:08:57 PM

466


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)xfjç) by "part kinds: one does is of two which an intellect(voûç), stands(cppoveî)," actually theother"byproducing(rcoieîv) itsjob by"becoming(yiveaGai)all things," all things,as a kindof disposition(ëÇiç)."The twoarerelatedas "art(xexvri) to itsmaterial(uà,îiv)," 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 (rcç>ir|TiKÓv) byproducing unaffected is intellect "distinct This all." dual them (anaQr'q) (%cûpiOTÔç), (rcoieîv) - In separation and unmixed(à|Aiynç), (évepyeía) beingin essenceactivity and eternal."69 it is justwhatit is,and thisaloneis immortal (xcopiG0eiç),

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


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


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 CiceronianprosebyJoachimPérion, an extravagance even other humanists.Betterphilologists than by rejected Périonunderstood thepointmadebrilliantly in Ficinos dayby and ironically GiovanniPico'selegantletterto anothergreattranslator, ErmolaoBarbaro: musthaveitsownwayofspeaking, sometimes philosophy non-philignoring norms for reasons.72 osophical good philosophical excessas PériAlthoughFicinocannotbe 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 kindredAverroisťwas 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


469

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

15:08:57 PM

470

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

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

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

15:08:57 PM


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


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 forthethreeconcludingAverroisťpositions(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


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 oíACM,pp.379-413, there areabout twodozen instances ofthe Averroes Doctrine Mohammed, , pp.94-5. phrase; ofImmortality

15:08:57 PM

474


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

15:08:57 PM


475

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

15:08:57 PM

476


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


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


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, "Unenoétique SCG2.68.2;De Libera, averroïste,' 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 diAverroè," 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


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)'6»V BRILL


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 ofjyväskylä

Mikko Yrjönsuuri

15:09:07 PM


f-à'ì Vivarium 47 (2009)483-484

Brill

Contents David Bloch Antoine Côté 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 SylvainPirón Stephen F. Brown GeraldOdonis' Tractatus desuppositionibus: Whatis suppositio communicabilisi 205 GeraldOdonis on theNotionofesse JokeSpruyt tertio adiacens 221 Camarín Porter GeraldOdonis' Commentary on the Ethics : A DiscussionoftheManuscripts and GeneralSurvey 241 ©Koninklijke Brill 2009 NV, Leiden,

DOI:10.1 163/156853409X12551323046629

15:09:21 PM

484

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

Paul J.J.M.Barker and Sander W. de Boer Chris Schabel WilliamDuba Roberto Lambertini William J.Courtenay Andrej Krause Pekka Kärkkäinen Brian Copenhaver Review

Locusestspatium.On GeraldOdonis' Quaestiode loco of GeraldOdonis on thePlurality Worlds Visionin theSentences The Beatific ofGeraldOdonis Commentary Lettersand Politics:GeraldOdonis vs. FrancisofMarchia Balliol63 and ParisianTheologyaround 1320 überdas erste NikolausvonAutrecourt von Sätzen ... und die Gewißheit 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:[email protected]. 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

Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 4, 2009

Recommend Documents