Mediaeval Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Vol. 3 (English, French and Latin Edition) [1 ed.] 9004211845, 9789004211841

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Figures
Abbreviations
Introduction: Three Avenues for Studying the Tradition of the Sentences
Chapter 1 Filiae Magistri: Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Medieval Theological Education “On the Ground”
Chapter 2 Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur: forme et usage dans la lectio des Sentences
Chapter 3 Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones Super IV Libros Sententiarum: Studying the Lombard in the First Decades of the Fifteenth Century
Chapter 4 The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology: The Commentary on the Sentences by Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, Vienna, ca. 1400
Chapter 5 Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium? Notes on Some French Franciscan Sentences Commentaries of the Fifteenth Century
Chapter 6 The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment (Fruitio Beatifica) in the Sentences Commentaries of Some Pre-Reformation Erfurt Theologians
Chapter 7 John Major’s (Mair’s) Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard: Scholastic Philosophy and Theology in the Early Sixteenth Century
Chapter 8 The Sentences in Sixteenth-Century Iberian Scholasticism
Chapter 9 Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation: The Digital Future of the Sentences Commentary Tradition
Bibliography
Figures
Index of Manuscripts
Index of Names

Citation preview

Mediaeval Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mcpl

Mediaeval Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard Volume 3

Edited by

Philipp W. Rosemann

LEIDEN | BOSTON

isbn 978-90-04-21184-1 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-28304-6 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents List of Figures  vii Abbreviations  ix Introduction: Three Avenues for Studying the Tradition of the Sentences  1 Philipp W. Rosemann 1 Filiae Magistri: Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Medieval Theological Education “On the Ground”  26 Franklin T. Harkins 2 Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur: forme et usage dans la lectio des Sentences  79 Claire Angotti 3 Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones Super IV Libros Sententiarum: Studying the Lombard in the First Decades of the Fifteenth Century  145 John T. Slotemaker 4 The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology: The Commentary on the Sentences by Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, Vienna, ca. 1400  174 Monica Brinzei and Chris Schabel 5 Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium? Notes on Some French Franciscan Sentences Commentaries of the Fifteenth Century  267 Ueli Zahnd 6 The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment (Fruitio Beatifica) in the Sentences Commentaries of Some Pre-Reformation Erfurt Theologians  315 Severin V. Kitanov

vi

Contents

7 John Major’s (Mair’s) Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard: Scholastic Philosophy and Theology in the Early Sixteenth Century  369 Severin V. Kitanov, John T. Slotemaker, and Jeffrey C. Witt 8 The Sentences in Sixteenth-Century Iberian Scholasticism  416 Lidia Lanza and Marco Toste 9 Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation: The Digital Future of the Sentences Commentary Tradition  504 Jeffrey C. Witt Bibliography  517 Figures  533 Index of Manuscripts  546 Index of Names  552

List of Figures 1

Abridgment of Book i, dist. 3, chaps. 1 and 2 in the Filia Magistri preserved in ms. Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin 203, fol. 78v.   533 2 Abridgment of Book iii, dist. 15, chap. 1 in the Filia Magistri preserved in ms. Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin 203, fol. 174v.   534 3 Haec sunt que dicit Magister que non tenentur . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15705, fol. 2v.   535 4 Nota quod in viii locis non tenetur oppinio Magistri in libro Sententiarum . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15707, fol. 169 vb.  535 5 Iste sunt opiniones quas ponit Magister in libro Sententiarum que modo non tenentur a magistris . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15719, fol. 204va.  536 6 Sententia Magistri non tenetur hodie in his locis . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15723, fol. 1v.   537 7 Nota opiniones minus probabiles quas ponit Magister Sententiarum . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15728, fol. 185r.   537 8 Iste sunt opiniones Magistri Sententiarum que non tenentur a modernis . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16375, fol. 290v.  538 9–10 Inserted sheets 46a and 46b between fols. 45 and 46 of ms. Vienna, Schottenstift, 269, in the context of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s discussion of the procession of the Holy Spirit.   539 11 Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Lectura Mellicensis in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, tm 536, fol. 324r.   540 12 Index of questions on Book ii from the Sentences commentary by William of Vaurouillon (Basel, 1510), fol. 117r.   541 13 The opening page from the commentary on Book iv by Nicholas of Orbellis (Haguenau, 1503), fol. q7r.   542 14 Inácio Dias (?), commentary on Book iii, dist. 29 of Durandus’s Sentences commentary in ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 268, fol. 7v.   543 15 Anonymous Tractatus de paenitentia (a commentary on Book iv, dist. 14–18) in ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5512, fol. 89v.   544

viii 16

List Of Figures List Of Figures

Juan de Celaya, Scripta . . . in quartum volumen Sententiarum, quae in Valentino gymnasio die Iouis quarto decimo calendas Nouembreis a localibus ipsis kalē tykē, vt aiunt, incohata sunt, anno a Christo nato 1525 . . . (Valencia: industria Joannis Joffre, 1528), Book iv, dist. 22, fol. 144v.   545

Abbreviations afh  Archivum franciscanum historicum (Grottaferrata). Vol. 1 (1908) ff. ahdlma  Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge (Paris). Vol. 1 (1926) ff. ccsl  Corpus christianorum, series latina, 201 vols. to date (Turnhout, 1953 ff.). Colish, Peter Lombard Marcia L. Colish, Peter Lombard, 2 vols. (Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1994). csel  Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 99 vols. to date, ed. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna, 1866 ff.). Mediaeval  Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter  Commentaries, vol. 1 Lombard: Current Research, vol. 1, ed. Gillian R. Evans (Leiden/Boston/Cologne, 2002). Mediaeval  Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter  Commentaries, vol. 2 Lombard, vol. 2, ed. Philipp W. Rosemann (Leiden/ Boston, 2010). Peter Lombard, Magistri Petri Lombardi Sententiae in iv libris distinc‑  Sentences tae, ed. Ignatius Brady, O.F.M., 2 vols. (Grottaferrata, 1971–81). Vol. 1 contains Books i and ii; vol. 2 contains Books iii and iv. pl  Patrologia latina, cursus completus, 221 vols., ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1844–65). Rosemann, Great Philipp W. Rosemann, The Story of a Great Medieval  Medieval Book Book: Peter Lombard’s “Sentences” (Peterborough, Ont., 2007). Rosemann, Peter Philipp W. Rosemann, Peter Lombard (New York, 2004).  Lombard rtam  Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale (Louvain). Vol. 1 (1929)–63 (1996). Continued as rtpm. rtpm  Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales (Louvain). Started with vol. 64 (1997). Stegmüller, Friedrich Stegmüller, Repertorium Commentariorum  Repertorium in Sententias Petri Lombardi, 2 vols. (Würzburg, 1947).

Introduction: Three Avenues for Studying the Tradition of the Sentences Philipp W. Rosemann It is in three major ways that this volume adds both substance and nuance to our knowledge of the tradition of the Sentences. First, several of the chapters published here enrich the contemporary debate, lively amongst medievalists as well as intellectual historians more generally, concerning the meaning of authority and authorship. The question, “What is an author?” is answered differently in different cultures, and the rise of scholasticism was one of the points in intellectual history when the function of the author underwent significant change. Secondly, the volume sheds much light on what one of its contributors calls theological education “on the ground,” especially during the later Middle Ages—the kind of teaching that was dispensed by the average master and received by his average student, and not just the content of the few most “original” masterpieces by the most celebrated doctores. Finally, the contributors to this third volume of Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard paint a picture of the reception of the Book of Sentences which suggests that Peter Lombard’s great textbook played a much more dynamic role in later medieval theology than hitherto assumed. Far from being marginalized and superseded after the flourishing of the great commentaries of the thirteenth century, the work remained a force to be reckoned with until at least the sixteenth century. The following pages will elaborate on each of these points, thus highlighting the major themes that hold the chapters of this volume together. 1

Authorship, Modern and Scholastic

Even today, the concept of authorship remains problematic and, in fact, paradoxical. We live in an age in which the idea of the author implies notions of both original creativity and property rights. An author, according to this understanding, is a person who creates value by originating words and ideas that are novel, innovative, unheard-of—in short, “original.” At the opposite pole of the author, thus conceived as the fount of value and innovation, we have the plagiarist, who steals the author’s creations, enriching him- or herself illicitly by infringing on the author’s right to be recognized and rewarded. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_002

2

Rosemann

The logic that drives the contemporary notion of the author is thrown into sharp relief in the concept of self-plagiarism. In relation to the world of art, self-plagiarism has been defined as occurring “when the artist takes from the aesthetically significant features of his/her previous work, and presents them under the false assumption that they are creatively original and that aesthetic progress has been made. . . .”1 Here, originality is conceived of in terms of progress in relation not only to the work of others, but even to one’s own productions. Let us note, in passing, how modern the emphasis on progress is as a criterion of an aesthetically significant work. One wonders how this criterion would apply to, say, a Byzantine icon. The trademarking of common phrases is another consequence brought about by the contemporary notion of the author. Originality and creativity are so valuable that not only entire works need to be protected (through copyright laws), but individual symbols and phrases as well. Thus, for example, the phrases “play and fun for everyone,” “black history makers of tomorrow,” and even “hey, it could happen” are trademarks of the McDonald’s corporation, which has used them in a variety of advertisements and promotions.2 In this context, what the law protects are less the claims of an author to be recognized for his or her original creations, than the economic interests of a corporation that wants to be associated with certain vernacular terms so as to insinuate itself more deeply into the thought processes of its customers. The consequence which such pervasive trademarking produces is that more and more words and phrases of the language of a particular culture come to be absorbed into the domain of property. The vernacular thus takes on the characteristics of a commodity from which its users feel increasingly alienated.3 The final step in this development is that not only language, but nature itself is commodified. In the United States, which has often been at the leading edge of modern social and technological developments, living matter was not patentable until 1980. The situation changed when the Supreme Court ruled, in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, that a certain bacterium which the biochemist Ananda M. Chakrabarty had developed to digest oil spills could indeed be 1  David Goldblatt, “Self-Plagiarism,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43 (1984): 71–7, at 71. 2  See David Bollier, Brand Name Bullies: The Quest to Own and Control Culture (Hoboken, n.j., 2005), 112. 3  I have discussed these developments in two previous publications: “ ‘Where America Takes It’s PicturesTM’: Only Theology Saves Language,” in Pragmata: Festschrift für Klaus Oehler zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Kai-Michael Hingst and Maria Liatsi (Tübingen, 2008), 170–7, and “Vernacularity and Alienation,” Existentia 23 (2013): 139–54.

introduction

3

­ rotected by a patent.4 This decision paved the way for commercial bioengip neering. Henceforth, human beings—and corporations, in particular5—have been able to claim legally, and enforce the claim, that they have invented, created, authored parts of nature. But we were talking about the paradoxical nature of the contemporary notion of authorship. On the one hand, the way in which the author’s originality contributes to human progress—not least economic progress—is valued so highly that it is protected by rigorous copyrights, trademarks, and patents, as well as the taboo of plagiarism. Yet at the same time, authorship appears to be dissipating in a digital culture in which there is a boundless proliferation of author-less meaning (texts, images, sounds) on websites, in blogs, and in tweets. Material is posted, often under a screen name, then copied, modified, and reposted in a manner that subverts the conventional notions of authorship, originality, and property. The Wikipedia is only one example of a website that relies on the collaboration of a multitude of authors who contribute their expertise, effort, and time in the full knowledge that there will be neither acknowledgment nor pay. Some decades before the popular availability of the Internet, Michel Foucault already spoke of the death of the author in the context of contemporary literature. He meant the fact that literary figures of the modern avantgarde—the likes of Beckett, Flaubert, Proust, and Kafka—no longer regarded writing as the expression of their deepest interiority, pursued with the goal to ward off death through an act of literary immortalization. On the contrary, Foucault argued, for these modern authors writing became a sacrifice of self.6 Indeed, Foucault himself practiced writing as a method of self-effacement. The idea irritated him profoundly that what he called the “author function” could dominate the interpretation of his work, reducing the multiplicity of meaning in his books to a predictable set of “Foucauldian positions.”7 4  See Daniel V. Kevles, “Ananda Chakrabarty Wins A Patent: Biotechnology, Law, and Society, 1972–1980,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 25 (1994): 111–35, and idem, “Diamond v. Chaskrabarty and Beyond: The Political Economy of Patenting Life,” in Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences, ed. Arnold Thackray (Philadelphia, 1998), 65–79. 5  Chakrabarty himself was an employee of the General Electric Research Center in Schenectady, New York, when he engineered the oil-eating Pseudomonas bacterium. 6  See Michael Foucault, “What Is an Author?,” in Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, ed. James D. Faubion, Essential Works of Foucault 2 (New York, 1998), 205–22. 7  I have explored this theme in my essay, “What Is an Author? Bonaventure and Foucault on the Meaning of Authorship,” Fealsúnacht: A Journal of the Dialectical Tradition 2 (2001–02): 22–45.

4

Rosemann

Foucault claimed that, due to the tensions inherent in the contemporary notion of authorship, the author has in fact become an ideological construct, that is to say, a notion which is defined in a way that veils its actual function. We say that our laws must protect the rights of the author, who “is the genial creator of a work in which he deposits, with infinite wealth and generosity, an inexhaustible world of significations.”8 In reality, however, the flourishing of signification is precisely what the legally sanctioned understanding of authorship prevents; for the author “is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, and chooses; in short, by which one impedes the free circulation, the free manipulation, the free composition, decomposition, and recomposition of fiction.”9 In a discussion of medieval authorship, it is good to remember, with Foucault, that “[t]he author function does not affect all discourses in a universal and constant way.”10 While it is not possible, therefore, to define the author in a unified way across the different centuries, regions, disciplines, and genres of medieval culture, it is clear that the medieval notion of authorship, unlike the modern one, did not constitute itself at the intersection of concepts of originality, progress, and property. There is also evidence that the author function underwent a significant reconfiguration precisely in conjunction with the rise of the new scholastic genre of the Sentences commentary—the subject matter of this volume. In a well-known passage of the prologue to his Sentences commentary, Bonaventure asks the question, certainly puzzling from the modern point of view, Quae sit causa efficiens sive auctor huius libri?, “what is the efficient cause or author of this book?”11 The modern answer would be, “Look at the name on the cover!” But, of course, the medieval book was constructed differently: to begin with, there was no cover or title page to look at. In his answer, Bonaventure develops a fourfold distinction among the scriptor (who merely copies the words of someone else), the compilator (who copies the words of someone else, or of others, but adds to them), the commentator (who adds words of his own to clarify a copied text), and finally the auctor (who combines 8  Foucault, “What Is an Author?,” 221. 9  Ibid. 10  Ibid., 212. 11  Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libris Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi, vol. 1: In primum librum Sententiarum, prooemium, qu. iv, in Doctoris seraphici S. Bonaventurae Opera omnia, ed. PP. Collegii a S. Bonaventura, 10 vols. (Quaracchi, 1882–1902), 1: 14. For commentary, see A.J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 2nd ed. (Aldershot, England, 1988), as well as Rosemann, “What Is an Author?”

introduction

5

text both by himself and by others, but provides the leading voice). “Such was the Master,” Bonaventure concludes, “who posits his own sententiae and confirms them through the sententiae of the Fathers. This is why he must truly be called the author of this book.”12 Bonaventure further elucidates his conception of authorship in response to an objection: does Peter Lombard himself not admit that he composed his Book of Sentences from the “examples and teachings of our forefathers,” and that his own voice is hardly ever heard?13 Yes, Bonaventure concedes, this may be true, but “the fact that there are many citations from others here, that does not do away with the auctoritas of the Master, but rather confirms his auctoritas and commends his humility.”14 Since this is the final sentence in Bonaventure’s response to the question, Quae sit causa efficiens sive auctor huius libri?, it is likely that the term auctoritas should be rendered as “authorship” here. Yet of course it also means “authority.” The auctor is credited with auctoritas, 12  Bonaventure, In i Sent., prooem, qu. iv, resp. (1: 14–15): “Respondeo: Ad intelligentiam dictorum notandum, quod quadruplex est modus faciendi librum. Aliquis enim scribit aliena, nihil addendo vel mutando; et iste mere dicitur scriptor. Aliquis scribit aliena, addendo, sed non de suo; et iste compilator dicitur. Aliquis scribit et aliena et sua, ed aliena tamquam principalia, et sua tamquam annexa ad evidentiam; et iste dicitur commentator, non auctor. Aliquis scribit et sua et aliena, sed sua tamquam principalia, aliena tamquam annexa ad confirmationem; et talis debet dici auctor. Talis fuit Magister, qui sententias suas ponit et Patrum sententiis confirmat. Unde vere debet dici auctor huius libri.” 13  Ibid., videtur 2 (1:14): “. . . sed Magister hoc opus composuit ex aliena doctrina, sicut ipse dicit in littera, quod ‘in hoc opere maiorum exempla doctrinamque reperies’; ergo non debet dici auctor. Si tu dicis, quod non tantum hoc est doctrina Sanctorum, sed etiam sua, ratione cuius debet dici auctor; contra: ‘A maiori et digniori debet fieri denominatio’; sed Magister dicit, quod ‘paulisper vox sua insonuit, et tunc a paternis limitibus non discessit’; ergo non deberet iste liber dici esse Magistri.” Note that Bonaventure has altered the second quotation, which in the Sentences reads: “Sicubi vero parum vox nostra insonuit, non a paternis discessit limitibus” (Peter Lombard, Sentences, prologue, no. 4 [1: 4]). This sentence translates as: “But wherever our voice has made itself heard too little, it has [at least] not deviated from the bounds of the fathers.” Peter Lombard appears to be apologizing for sometimes being too hesitant in advancing positions of his own. Giulio Silano’s translation misses this point: “And if in some places our voice has rung out a little loudly, it has not transgressed the bounds of our forefathers” (The Sentences, Book i: The Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Giulio Silano [Toronto, 2007], 4). Parum does not mean “too loudly,” but rather “too little,” “not enough.” 14  Bonaventure, In i Sent., prooem, qu. iv, ad 2 (1: 15): “Et quod sunt ibi multa dicta aliorum, hoc non tollit Magistro auctoritatem, sed potius eius auctoritatem confirmat et humilitatem commendat.”

6

Rosemann

a­ uthorship, but he is also someone who enjoys authority: the two seem to be inextricably connected in Bonaventure’s mind. Another term that appears in our sentence is “humility.” Peter Lombard’s humility bolsters his auctoritas: the latter does not require bold claims to originality, as one might expect in a modern context, but rather the humble building of doctrina—teaching—out of material inherited from the maiores, the elders. In a recent study devoted to the genesis of magisterial authority in the school of Anselm of Laon, Cédric Giraud has impressively shown that humility was an essential ingredient in the construction of the notion of authority in the schools on the twelfth century: “The nature of magisterial authority,” Giraud writes in the final pages of his book, is such that it “manifests itself but in a hidden manner, as though obliquely, with a kind of reserve that is its distinctive characteristic.”15 A master’s authority in his school depended on his perceived humility and moderation in handling the tradition, and was amplified, not reduced, by the fact that his students often did not acknowledge his authorship in compiling manuals based on his teachings: “The master acquires the status of reference only at the conclusion of an operation in which his name is silenced, to better incorporate his sententia into a scholarly vernacular.”16 Giraud’s research raises the intriguing possibility that, although authorship may have required authority at a certain point in the development of the scholastic discourse of the Middle Ages, authority may in turn have led to the elision of authorship. Bonaventure’s position according to which Peter Lombard was indeed the author of the Book of Sentences was by no means undisputed. Lecturing on the Sentences at Oxford only a few years (1241–45) before Bonaventure was baccalaureus sententiarius in Paris (1250–52), Richard Fishacre, in the prologue to his commentary on the Sentences, asks the same question regarding the authorship of the work: Sed quis potest esse auctor huius Scripturae vel sapientiae? Yet he provides a very different answer: Ergo Deus huius est auctor.17 However, perhaps Fishacre’s answer is different because the question he asks is, in fact, not the same as Bonaventure’s. Note that, curiously, Fishacre refers to the Book of Sentences as “this Scripture or wisdom.” There is no confusion here: in Fishacre’s mind, Peter Lombard’s work possesses no literary identity of 15  Cédric Giraud, Per verba magistri. Anselme de Laon et son école au xiie siècle (Turnhout, 2010), 499. I have reviewed this book in Speculum 88 (2013): 520–1. 16  Giraud, Per verba magistri, 436. 17  R. James Long, “The Science of Theology according to Richard Fishacre: Edition of the Prologue to his Commentary on the Sentences,” Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972): 71–98. The quotations are on pp. 87 and 88, respectively.

introduction

7

its own, for it represents nothing more than a set of excerpts from Scripture. Writing about the two parts of the science of theology—faith and morals— Fishacre explains: I acknowledge that both of these parts are contained in the canon of Sacred Scripture, albeit indistinctly. Nevertheless, only one of these parts—namely, the one concerned with the instruction of morals—is taught by the modern masters when they read the holy books. The other, regarded as more difficult, is reserved for disputation. Now it is this more difficult part, extracted from the canon of the Sacred Scriptures, which has been placed in this book that is called “of the sentences.” For this reason, reading [or lecturing] and disputing do not differ here.18 It is easy to see, then, why Fishacre does not consider Peter Lombard to be an author: he did not compose any book of his own, but prepared only a compilation of extracts from God’s work. There is no authorship of the Book of Sentences because the sententiae contained in the book all come from Scripture. The latter claim glosses over the fact that, while there are certainly a lot of scriptural quotations in the Sentences, the bulk of the work is derived not from the Bible, but from the writings of the Church Fathers and other authorities—above all, Augustine. In Fishacre’s mind, however, all these different authors appear to be absorbed into the one Author, of whom they are nothing but mouthpieces. Fishacre himself does not articulate this idea in so many words, but one of his successors at Oxford, Robert Kilwardby, does. In his Sentences commentary, composed around the year 1255, Kilwardby concurs with Fishacre that, “although one can say that the Master compiled this book or promulgated it, nonetheless God must be called its author.”19 In elaborating on this thesis, Kilwardby posits a remarkable continuity among types of voices whom we would nowadays take care to distinguish. When it comes to delivering God’s Word, there does not seem to be much difference among

18  Ibid., 97: “Utraque fateor harum partium in sacro Scripturae sacrae canone—sed indistincte—continetur. Verumtamen tantum altera pars, scilicet de moribus instruendis, a magistris modernis cum leguntur sancti libri docetur. Alia tamquam difficilior disputationi reservatur. Haec autem pars difficilior de canone sacrarum Scripturarum excerpta in isto libro qui Sententiarum dicitur ponitur. Unde non differt hic legere et disputare.” 19  Robert Kilwardby, Quaestiones in primum librum Sententiarum, ed. Johannes Schneider (Munich, 1986), qu. 1, p. 3: “Licet igitur huius libri possit Magister dici compilator vel promulgator, auctor tamen esse debet dici Deus.”

8

Rosemann

angels, prophets, apostles, evangelists, “and others inspired by God.” The latter category, Kilwardby suggests, includes Peter Lombard: Now, angels and human beings are those who promulgate, or write, or even compile this teaching, like the Master of the Sentences, [or] angels like those on Mount Sinai and elsewhere in the Old Testament. About which the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2[:2], [declares]: “For if the word, spoken by angels, became steadfast,” etc. The Gloss: “To Moses and others like the law.” [I mean] human beings like the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and evangelists, as well as others who are inspired by God.20 The point here is: God’s overarching authorship leaves no room for other efficient causes in the realm that concerns his own Word: whether we are talking about angelic messengers or about masters of theology in the universities, we are dealing only with instrumental causes. Or are we? At the very end of the ninth question of his commentary on the prologue—the question that is devoted to the efficient causality or authorship of the Sentences—Kilwardby makes a remark as though in passing: nota quoque, he writes, note, too, that, although God is the author of the truth handed down in the Sentences, nonetheless the Master is rightly and truly called the efficient cause of the compilation, or its author insofar as it is a compilation. It is to be noted, therefore, that he is the principal efficient cause. But a double charity motivates him toward this, like a disposition that assists him (as the prologue of the book testifies), that is to say: He himself is the efficient cause insofar as he is motivated and pushed toward this, out of a twofold charity.21

20  Ibid., qu. 9, p. 22: “Angeli autem et homines sunt huius doctrinae promulgatores vel scriptores vet etiam compilatores, ut Magister Sententiarum, angeli ut in Monte Sina et Veteri Testamento alibi. De quo Hebr. 2: ‘Si enim qui per angelos factus est sermo, factus est firmus etc.’ Glossa: ‘Ad Moysem et ceteros ut lex.’ Homines ut patriarchae, prophetae, apostoli et evangelistae et alii a Deo inspirati.” 21  Ibid., p. 23: “Nota quoque quod licet veritatis traditae in Sententiis Deus auctor sit, compilationis tamen efficiens vel auctor secundum quod compilatio est bene et vere dicitur Magister. Ubi notandum quod ipse est efficiens principalis. Sed gemina caritas eum movet ad hoc tamquam dispositio iuvans, sicut Prologus libri testatur, hoc est dictu: Ipse est effciens secundum quod motus et promotus ad hoc ex gemina caritate.”

introduction

9

In this passage, Kilwardby nuances his position significantly. At first, he writes carefully, as though eager to avoid a direct contradiction with the position that he just defended in the immediately preceding text; but then he asserts, without further hedging: ipse est efficiens principalis. Various (speculative) explanations are possible for this surprising nota at the end of question 9. One is that Kilwardby added the note to his text at a later point, when his previous position had become untenable—for remember that Bonaventure, in Paris, was already teaching that Peter Lombard was the author and efficient cause of the Book of Sentences, not just the instrumental conduit of God’s Word. Alternatively, it is possible that, in the main part of the question, Kilwardby simply reports what he takes to be the opinion prevailing at Oxford, and then chooses to register his dissent in the final note.22 Whatever the case may be, in Kilwardby’s note we witness something rather dramatic: the emergence of the notion of human authorship in scholastic theology. It would be interesting to pursue further this investigation of the scholastic author in statu nascendi, in particular by exploring the roots of this notion of authorship in the Christian metaphysics of the book as one sees it in Fishacre and, in particular, Bonaventure. But such an investigation would go beyond the scope and purposes of this introduction, whose goal is, more narrowly, to provide a context for the chapters published in the present volume. Several of these chapters throw light on the problem of authorship as I have sketched it here. Franklin Harkins provides a first, fascinating example of the complex characteristics of scholastic authorship in his contribution on the Filia Magistri, the “Daughter of the Master.” The title under which the work circulated already indicates its nature as a “mere” compilation23 or abbreviation of the Book of Sentences itself. There is no claim to originality here; on the contrary, the title emphasizes filiation, dependence, and service to an (authoritative) tradition. The “Daughter” first surfaced in the 1240s in the circle of Hugh of Saint-Cher in Paris; rather than being attributable to any particular individual, its production appears to have occurred in a team.24 Indeed, 22  Alain Boureau (École des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris) suggested the second explanation in a discussion following a lecture that I delivered at the ehess in June, 2013. 23  On the medieval practice of compilation, one may read the now classic piece by Neil Hathaway, “Compilatio: From Plagiarism to Compiling,” Viator 20 (1989): 19–44. 24  Alain Boureau has spoken of auteur collectif or atelier scolastique as one of the ways in which texts were produced in the scholastic milieu of the high Middle Ages; see “Peut-on parler d’auteurs scolastiques?,” in Auctor & auctoritas. Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale, ed. Michel Zimmermann (Paris, 2001), 267–79, at 273.

10

Rosemann

it is ­misleading to characterize the Filia as “a” work or “one” work, because it continued to evolve until the fifteenth century. We find quite different Filiae witnessed in the manuscripts, as the Book of Sentences was abridged according to the needs of various academic communities across the centuries. Monica Brinzei and Chris Schabel present a similar case in their chapter on the Sentences commentary by the Viennese master Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, whose work was “among the most widely copied Sentences commentaries in history.”25 In terms of influence, it ranks only after the commentaries of Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus. But who was Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl? He was a master who lectured on the Sentences at the University of Vienna at the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. His method of commenting consisted largely in compiling and abbreviating the commentaries of others. Brinzei and Schabel demonstrate, for example, that the prologue to Nicholas’s commentary is nothing more than an abridgment of Gregory of Rimini’s own prologue. Indeed, the entire commentary constantly rearranges and recycles elements from the work of Nicholas’s predecessors—although not in an unintelligent, merely mechanical manner. Rather, Nicholas’s choice of sources reflects his theological preferences, as is clear from a comparative study of the sources that he employs in the different books of his commentary. In Book i, he mostly follows the teachings of Henry of Langenstein and Henry Totting of Oyta, two masters from Paris under whom Nicholas studied in Vienna. Thus, Brinzei and Schabel write, “his goal might have been to make the recent Parisian theological tradition more accessible and easier to follow.”26 In the later books, however, Brinzei and Schabel note a shift “to earlier, safer doctors.”27 This tendency was common in the fifteenth century.28 Indeed, when he taught at the Benedictine abbey of Melk later in life, Dinkelsbühl thoroughly revised his commentary on Book iv in order to emphasize the communis opinio of the great doctors, especially Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Scotus. The point now was no longer to provide material for scholastic disputation, but to facilitate monastic contemplation of the mystery of the sacraments as elucidated by sound doctrine.

25  Monica Brinzei and Chris Schabel, “The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology: The Commentary on the Sentences by Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, Vienna, Ca. 1400,” 261. 26  Ibid., 230. 27  Ibid., 192. 28  See Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, chap. 4: “The Long Fifteenth Century: Back to the Sources.”

introduction

11

But the story of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl does not end here. Nicholas’s first commentary on the Sentences, which is preserved in the ms. Vienna, Schottenstift, 269, spawned a whole maze of revisions. Brinzei and Schabel term this group of works derived from Schotten 269 the “Vienna Group commentary.” These works cannot be attributed to particular authors, but rather represent a team effort, a “communis creatio”29 that occurred at the University of Vienna in the first half of the fifteenth century. This, then, is how the theological tradition developed—at least at this particular point in this history of Sentences commentaries: one author, who functioned more like a compiler or abbreviator, creatively rearranged materials handed down to him by his teachers. His creativity consisted less in the production of the kind of deep synthesis of currents of thought or even different traditions that we see in thinkers like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas, than in the selection, abridgment, and combination of excerpts. This compilation subsequently served as the starting point for a large number of similar texts—filiae, one could say—which continued to use the same core sources, but rearranged them while adding a certain number of new elements. Brinzei and Schabel are vigorous in their defense of the value of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s work, as well as that of his followers in the Vienna Group. It is important not to impose a univocal, modern standard of originality on these texts. To borrow a metaphor from Alain Boureau, even if the building blocks that an architect or mason employs remain the same, the edifice resulting from their combination depends on how they are fitted together, and on the kind of cement that is used to join them.30 Reliance on a relatively stable patrimony of texts therefore does not preclude that genuine insight can arise from a reconsideration and rearrangement of essentially identical elements.31 And while such creative reuse may at first appear less “deep” than the syntheses of the most “original” scholastic authors, not every reproduction of a text is the same. Reuse is not plagiarism; neither is it the same as citation.32 29  Brinzei/Schabel, “The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology,” 220. 30  Boureau employs this metaphor in a contribution to a volume that contains several chapters on medieval architecture; see Alain Boureau, “Le remploi scolastique,” in Remploi, citation, plagiat. Conduites et pratiques médiévales (xe–xiie siècle), ed. Pierre Toubert and Pierre Moret (Madrid, 2009), 43–52. 31  As Jaroslav Pelikan writes, “insight has often come through the recitation and rearrangements of materials from tradition” (The Vindication of Tradition [New Haven and London, 1984], 73). 32  A useful distinction that Boureau makes in “Le remploi scolastique” (see above, note 30). Boureau defines a citation through its emphasis on the “distance between a text and its use” (52), while claiming that “the intellectual (and not calligraphic) invention of

12

Rosemann

Furthermore, reuse may involve what Jaroslav Pelikan has termed the “recital” of texts, which he characterizes as “a way of identifying what had not been said, but had been assumed, in the sources—or of what had not been said, but had been implied.”33 Such recital brings to the surface foundations of a tradition that have up to that point remained implicit and un-thought. However, we cannot undertake a typology of textual borrowing here. It has become sufficiently clear that the adequate study of scholastic texts requires a nuanced conceptual framework to capture the development of the scholastic concepts of authorship and authority, as well as the variety of scholastic strategies of composition. 2

Theological Education “on the Ground”

Historians of scholasticism have expended significant effort on the task of reconstructing the infrastructure of medieval education. The first edition of Hastings Rashdall’s The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages appeared in 1895,34 simultaneously with the first (and only) volume of Heinrich Denifle’s Die Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400.35 These books inaugurated the modern scholarly study of the medieval university system, which has in our own day borne fruit in the work of scholars such as Olga Weijers and her circle of collaborators.36 This research has afforded medievalists the opportunity of approaching intellectual history not, as is often done in philosophy and theology departments, as though ideas existed in some abstract space of pure intellectuality, but rather with proper attention paid to the material forms that q­ uotation marks” occurred at the turn of the fourteenth century: “The scholastic reuse had had its day” (52). The work contained in the present volume suggests that scholastic texts were “reused” until at least the fifteenth century. 33  Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition, 75. 34  See Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895); a revised edition, by F.M. Powicke and E.B. Emden, appeared in 1936, in three volumes. 35  See Heinrich Denifle, Die Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400, vol. 1: Die Entstehung der Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1895). The first volume remained the only one Father Denifle completed. 36  For a synthesis of her research, one may consult Olga Weijers, Le maniement du savoir. Pratiques intellectuelles à l’époque des premières universités (xiiie–xive siècles) (Turnhout, 1996). A Festschrift dedicated to Dr. Weijers was recently published under the title, Portraits de maîtres offerts à Olga Weijers, ed. Claire Angotti, Monica Calma, and Mariken Teeuwen (Turnhout, 2013).

introduction

13

contribute to the shape of human discourse. Such emphasis on the incarnate nature of medieval intellectual life has also allowed medievalists to appreciate the deep roots of the great and most “original” authors of the period in the cultural and institutional conditions of their time, rather than viewing them as isolated monuments.37 In this manner, the distance between thinkers considered canonical and others regarded as minor is reduced as well, as it becomes clear that even the intellectual creations of the most revered thinkers frequently find expression in well-established genres, as well as being replete with reuse, citation, and recital of traditional material. The present volume of Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard offers several studies that provide insight into the way in which teaching the Sentences shaped scholastic discourse from the ground up, as it were. In connection with the question of authorship, we have already touched on the set of abridgments of the Sentences that circulated under the title Filia Magistri. The Filia Magistri is equally interesting, however, in the light that it sheds on practices of theological education. As Franklin Harkins points out in his chapter, the Filia Magistri was not intended to function as a university textbook: “the manuscript evidence suggests that the Filia was not used for the professional training of the theological high-flyers at the medieval universities, but rather for the more basic education and pastoral formation of friars, canons, and monks ‘on the ground’ in various religious houses and schools across Europe.”38 It is worth noting, moreover, that the type of “low” or “everyday” theology that the Filia exemplifies was by no means static or simplistic. The masters who compiled the text made sure to bring it up to date by incorporating more recent theological concepts and developments. Neither was the Filia a simplified work, or set of works, lacking theological nuance and sophistication. In studying how one version of the Filia deals with a famously difficult passage in the Book of Sentences—namely, Peter Lombard’s summary 37  Two classic works exemplifying this approach are M.-D. Chenu, O.P., Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin (Montreal/Paris, 1950), and Jacques Guy Bougerol, O.F.M., Introduction à saint Bonaventure (Paris, 1988). The concept of a “monumental” history is, of course, Nietzschean; see Friedrich Nietzsche, “On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life,” trans. R.J. Hollingdale, in Untimely Meditations, ed. Daniel Breazeale (Cambridge, England, 1997), 57–123, at 68: “That the great moments in the struggle of the human individual constitute a chain, that this chain unites mankind across the millennia like a range of human mountain peaks, that the summit of such a long-ago moment shall be for me still living, bright and great—that is the fundamental idea of the faith in humanity which finds expression in the demand for a monumental history.” 38  Franklin T. Harkins, “Filiae Magistri: Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Medieval Theological Education ‘On the Ground,’ ” 34–5.

14

Rosemann

and discussion of three sententiae regarding the union of God and man in the Incarnation39—Harkins concludes that this authorless compilation conveys the Lombard’s position with more attention to detail than Thomas Aquinas does in the Summa! Perhaps, then, Harkins suggests, the distance between “high” and “low” theology was far less in the scholastic period than it is tempting to assume: “Our comparative analysis suggests that Filiae and formal commentaries or other synthetic works are separated by a much smaller theological distance than scholars have previously imagined.”40 Other contributors to this volume make similar points about the value of research into the reception of the Book of Sentences in everyday theolo­ gical practice. Studying the multiple revisions of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Sentences commentary by the Vienna Group helps us understand the way in which theology was practiced and taught at the University of Vienna in the first half of the fifteenth century. Even if none of the theologians working in the Vienna Group were mountain peaks in the landscape of intellectual history, the simple acts of citing or not citing a text in a compilation, or of rearranging the order of familiar material, may produce significant effects. Brinzei and Schabel argue that this is precisely what happened in the foregrounding of Gregory of Rimini’s doctrine of double predestination in the Viennese commentaries: these commentaries paved the way for a conception of predestination that was to come to full fruition in the Reformation.41 On the other hand, even explicit theological restraint—the effort to limit oneself to quod recitant communiter ­doctores—can be a powerful intellectual agenda, as it is in Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Lectura Mellicensis, the version of his commentary on Book iv that he prepared for instruction of the Benedictine monks at Melk.42 This derivative, conservative, and irenic work, which prefers inoffensive consensus to theological innovation and progress, “was among the most widely copied Sentences commentaries in history, perhaps even the most popular commentary on any one book,”43 thus exerting inestimable influence on the tradition as a whole. Not all fifteenth-century Sentences commentators employed a method of compilation to compose their commentaries. In his chapter on three of the most influential Franciscan commentators who were active in Paris in 39  See Peter Lombard, Sentences, iii, dist. 6 and 7 (2: 49–66). 40  Harkins, “Filiae Magistri,” 78. 41  See Brinzei and Schabel, “The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology,” esp. 175 and 263. 42  See ibid., section 9: “Stage Three: The Lectura Mellicensis,” 250–62. 43  Ibid., 261.

introduction

15

the fifteenth century—namely, William of Vaurouillon, Nicholas of Orbellis, and Stephen Brulefer—Ueli Zahnd demonstrates that these authors did not practice the type of lectura secundum alium or bricolage textuel that Brinzei/ Schabel found in their Viennese colleagues.44 The Paris commentators did share with the Viennese ones an emphasis on the need to create pedagogically useful works, after the fourteenth century had seen the rise of increasingly technical and complex, but at the same time incomplete commentaries.45 The Parisian Franciscans were not willing to sacrifice theological accessibility, reliability, and comprehensiveness to the undisciplined focus on a few issues, judged to be most interesting by a master who devotes enormous space to their discussion while neglecting other topics. This more didactic approach, in turn, entailed the recovery of older and doctrinally less controversial sources. In a way, then, we are dealing with a return to the original intent of the Book of Sentences itself, which was not meant to present breathtakingly novel theological insights, but to transmit traditional truths in an accessible manner. But were the fourteenth-century commentaries not also products of teaching in an academic environment? Zahnd explains: “there is an undeniable difference between these fifteenth-century commentaries and the commentaries preceding them: although in those earlier commentaries the authors were theologizing in the context of a university or a studium, the fifteenth-century authors aimed not so much to theologize in a pedagogical environment, as to prepare theological content pedagogically.”46 In other words, the fifteenth century emphasized the needs of theological education “on the ground” over the possible fruitfulness of advancing the understanding of controversial issues. John Slotemaker provides an instructive example of the interaction of “high” and “low” theology in his examination of Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones in iv libros Sententiarum. These “conclusions,”47 which Henry composed in the early fifteenth century at the University of Cologne, fall into the literary genre of the many study aids that were created throughout the centuries to help students grasp the basic content of the Book of Sentences. This late scholastic precursor of our modern-day SparkNotes presents each distinction in a brief text of 44  For the origins of these terms, see Ueli Zahnd, “Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium? Notes on Some French Franciscan Sentences Commentaries of the Fifteenth Century,” 268–9. 45  See Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, chap. 3: “The Fourteenth Century: The Movement away from the Sentences.” 46  Zahnd, “Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium?,” 312–13. 47  For the late scholastic use of the word conclusio, see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, index s.v. “conclusion.”

16

Rosemann

600 to 900 words. These overviews invariably have the same structure, leading the student from a first, general summary through two sets of three propositions (which Slotemaker calls propositiones generales and propositiones speciales) to a more detailed understanding of Peter Lombard’s meaning. Slotemaker notes that, although Henry of Gorkum was a Thomist and hence defender of the via antiqua, he is careful not to project contemporary theological disputes into the Sentences. Henry’s Conclusiones proved to be a popular text, frequently appearing alongside the Sentences themselves in printings of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Many contemporary readers of the Sentences thus approached the work through Henry of Gorkum’s summaries, with their structure of two times three propositiones. Most of these readers have left no trace of their impressions, of the way in which their reading of the great textbook was shaped by Henry’s humble abridgment. One user of the Conclusiones, however, is well known: when the future Reformer Martin Luther lectured on the Sentences at Erfurt, in the years between 1509 and 1511, he based himself on an edition that left Nicholas Keßler’s Basel printing-house in 1489—and this edition presented the Sentences accompanied by Henry of Gorkum’s study tool.48 As Slotemaker points out, there are no explicit references to Henry of Gorkum in Luther’s marginal comments on Peter Lombard; yet this does not mean that Luther did not consult and profit from the Conclusiones. For, Luther has a curious habit of summarizing distinctions always in three parts. Closer analysis shows the provenance of these tripartite divisions: What is interesting for the present argument is that Luther did not merely divide the individual distinctions into three propositions, but often adopted Gorkum’s textual divisions of the individual distinctions as developed in the propositiones generales. Thus, while Luther did not explicitly engage with the theological statements in the Conclusiones, the work exerted a strong influence on how Luther understood the Sentences themselves.49 Right here, in the influence of a simple study tool upon the young Luther’s early intellectual career, we can see the interplay of “high” and “low” ­theology— of epoch-making theological insight and basic pedagogical practices—­ impressively exemplified.

48  See Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 171–83. 49  John Slotemaker, “Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones in iv libros Sententiarum,” 172–3.

introduction

17

Claire Angotti’s chapter is devoted to another aspect of the study of the Book of Sentences “on the ground”: namely, the function that criticism and censure exercised in the reading of Peter Lombard. Many modern students of the tradition of the Sentences are familiar with the list of eight propositions that Bonaventure cites in Book ii of his commentary as being “not commonly held” (communiter non tenentur).50 According to Angotti, Bonaventure’s list— or rather, lists, as a second one appears at the very end of Book ii—inspired other efforts to indicate, in manuscripts of the Sentences, which aspects of Peter Lombard’s teaching were not in accordance with the communis opinio of the masters. Angotti closely analyzes one coherent corpus of manuscripts which feature such indications, namely, the copies of the Book of Sentences that were owned by the lending library of the Sorbonne. Among the forty copies that have survived, nine contain lists of propositions “not commonly held.” As Angotti explains, these lists by no means enjoyed the status of official condemnations. The consensus of the masters regarding the problematic nature of some of Peter Lombard’s teachings rendered the latter minus probabiles, but this judgment remained subject to criticism and further examination.51 One of the lists preserved in the Sorbonne library introduces a distinction which highlights the tentative character of the masters’ judgment: it is a distinction between propositions of the Master that are contrary to the communis opinio, and others that are “difficult to explain.” Furthermore, the most controversial of teachings attributed to Peter Lombard, and the only one that was, in fact, officially censured, does not even figure in the lists, which give no hint that Pope Alexander iii twice condemned the so-called “Christological nihilianism.”52 What, then, was the function of these lists? Angotti writes: It seems possible to me to say that the point, for the masters, was to update the Lombard’s text and to lead the reader of the Sentences to remain attentive to the Master’s words—to sift through the latter with the help of more recent texts. The lists thus cause their users to read the Sentences in an active, dynamic way.53

50  For a brief discussion, see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 70–2. 51  See Claire Angotti, “Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur: forme et usage dans la lectio des Sentences,” 92. 52  On the question of Christological nihilianism, and whether Peter Lombard even held this position, see Rosemann, Peter Lombard, chap. 6. 53  Angotti, “Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur,” 109.

18

Rosemann

What Angotti suggests, then, is that the lists of propositions did not suppress critical discourse, as one might expect, but rather incited it. The strange dialectic of prohibition and transgression is well known; St. Paul talks about it in Romans 7, just as Foucault does when he describes the “perpetual spirals of power and pleasure” in the History of Sexuality.54 It appears that Angotti’s lists may well have given rise to such a dialectic: the fact that a proposition was marked as non tenetur caused readers not only to study the passage in question particularly carefully, but to engage in a chase for other occurrences of the same position judged problematic.55 3

The Dynamic Role of the Sentences in Later Medieval Theology

Many of the chapters published in this book contribute to a better understanding of the role that the Book of Sentences and the Sentences commentary played in later medieval theology, in particular in the fifteenth century and beyond. When I wrote the concluding summary for the preceding volume of Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, I had to state with regret that this volume did “not contain a single chapter on this fascinating period of ‘harvest’ and ‘waning.’ ”56 We are beginning to see this major lacuna being filled. I am not going to return to the contributions by Brinzei/Schabel, Slotemaker, and Zahnd, the principal findings of which we have already had an opportunity to consider in the previous sections. They, too, of course constitute major steps in writing the story of the Book of Sentences in the fifteenth century. Let us here focus on three chapters that are devoted, respectively, to the tradition of the Sentences at pre-Reformation Erfurt, to John Mair’s early sixteenth-­century Sentences commentary, and to the reception of the Sentences in sixteenth-­ century Spain and Portugal. Studying a series of Sentences commentaries composed at Erfurt in the fifteenth century, Severin Kitanov finds that these authors have in common a deliberate return to Peter Lombard’s text. This movement toward a recovery of the Master’s voice finds expression in a composite form of commentary which begins with a literal exposition of each of the Lombard’s distinctions before moving on to a quaestio disputata. Behind the attention afforded to 54  Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York, 1978), 45. 55  See Angotti, “Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur,” 120. 56   Philipp W. Rosemann, “Conclusion: The Tradition of the Sentences,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 495–523, at 519.

introduction

19

the Sentences themselves, Kitanov sees “a sense of nostalgia for the past of a systematic theology saturated by the living word of Scripture and the Church Fathers”—an almost Reformation-like desire to recover a more authentic core of the Christian tradition,57 free of the doctrinal disputes of later scholasticism. The Erfurt commentaries implement their shared goals through an astonishing variety of approaches, a diversity that testifies to the vitality of the genre. In the one commentary that has come down to us by a member of Luther’s order of Augustinian Hermits, Angelus Dobelinus, Kitanov finds a wide-ranging treatment of the “test question” he examines, namely, the problem of beatific enjoyment and Augustine’s famous distinction between uti and frui; indeed, Kitanov speaks of the “breathtaking scope” of Dobelinus’s treatment.58 The positions that Dobelinus embraces are largely those of Hugolino of Orvieto, whose Sentences commentary Dobelinus tends to follow closely. Hugolino, then, appears to have functioned as an important conduit of Augustinian theology to the new University of Erfurt (whose first theology professor Dobelinus was). The largest number of Sentences commentaries at Erfurt were the work of Franciscan authors. Kitanov acquaints us with four of them: John of Erfurt, Matthew Döring, John Bremer, and Nicholas Lakmann. He finds that Döring’s commentary is written from a largely Scotist point of view, which is not to say that he copied the Subtle Doctor in a slavish and unoriginal manner. On the contrary, “[w]e are dealing with lectures that are not characterized by expository lassitude and scholarly detachment, but which have a mode of exposition that is dramatic and suffused with the unique qualities of the author’s temperament.”59 Bremer’s and Lakmann’s approaches are different: rather than aligning themselves with a particular thinker and offering a spirited defense of his position, they endeavor to bring out the unity of the Franciscan tradition, with Bonaventure occupying a privileged position in their commentaries, in addition to Scotus and other representatives of the Franciscan school. In Bremer’s commentary, in particular, Kitanov detects a certain weariness with regard to doctrinal disputes, together with a didactic orientation which—he surmises—may well be due to the fact that Bremer presented his explanation to an audience of Franciscan confrères at the order’s studium, rather than to theologically more sophisticated and demanding university students. Kitanov finds this reluctance regarding doctrinal dispute even more clearly evidenced in the Sentences commentary by one of Erfurt’s secular priests, John 57  Severin V. Kitanov, “The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment (Fruitio Beatifica) in the Sentences Commentaries of Some Pre-Reformation Erfurt Theologians,” 367. 58  Ibid., 337. 59  Ibid., 347.

20

Rosemann

of Wesel. Wesel’s conciliatory attitude is so strongly developed that it becomes difficult to determine where his doctrinal allegiances lie at all! And yet, we are not dealing with a tired, wishy-washy approach to theology: indeed, Kitanov marvels at Wesel’s “magnificent stylistic elegance” and “didactic brilliance.”60 This author belongs to a period of “harvest,” not decay and decline.61 A contemporary of Erasmus and Martin Luther, John Mair wrote at a time of religious and social upheaval—and at the time of the transition from the manuscript to the printed page. (His Sentences commentary, the final redaction of which he published in Paris in 1530, is no longer extant in manuscript form.) As Severin Kitanov, John Slotemaker, and Jeffrey Witt demonstrate in their contribution on this early sixteenth-century Scottish thinker, amidst the uncertainties of his age, Mair finds a foothold in the tradition, just as his fifteenth-century predecessors did. However, unlike many of the Sentences commentators of the fifteenth century, Mair does not regard the thirteenth century as the golden age of scholasticism; the renaissance that he promotes vigorously, both in Paris and in his native Scotland, involves a dialogue with the likes of Gregory of Rimini, Ockham, Pierre d’Ailly, Adam Wodeham, and the Scotistae. Mair’s commentary, then, “is a testimony to the fruitfulness and vitality of ­fourteenth-century scholasticism.”62 Kitanov/Slotemaker/Witt note that Mair does not identify within the body of the text the authors whom he cites most frequently (although he adds marginal notes with their names in the first redaction of Book I—very helpful in identifying his most important sources, at least in a provisional manner). Mair chooses this literary device in order to suggest that these authorities remain subject to evaluation and discussion: a dialogue is what he is interested in, not facile copying. Mair acknowledges by name only authorities from a more distant past, that is to say, thinkers such as Aristotle, Augustine, and Averroës. Part of Kitanov/Slotemaker/Witt’s chapter is devoted to the task of distinguishing the numerous redactions and printings that appeared, during their author’s lifetime, of Mair’s commentaries on the four books of the Sentences. Book ii, for example, was printed first in 1510, then republished in an expanded edition in 1519, and again appeared in another redaction (closer to the first one) in 1530. Mair, then, kept reworking his Sentences commentaries over a period of twenty years during which he taught variously in Paris, Glasgow, and at St. Andrews. The genre, then, was far from exhausted, remaining a viable 60  Ibid., 359. 61  Ibid., 366. 62  Severin Kitanov, John Slotemaker, and Jeffrey Witt, “John Major’s (Mair’s) Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard: Scholastic Philosophy and Theology in the Early Sixteenth Century,” 370.

introduction

21

means of theological expression even during the Reformation. When Mair realized, for example, that his “students were much more interested in the practical questions of Book iv than in the speculative questions of Book i,”63 he added lengthy discussions on questions of contemporary relevance, such as a treatment of property rights in distinction 15. In 1530, Mair noted with regret that after Luther’s “heresy,” students of theology tended to abandon the study of the great theologians of the past, focusing instead on the Bible. He was aware, as well, of humanist criticisms of the scholastic method and language—criticisms that he did not share, but to which he found it difficult to respond. In sum, Kitanov/Slotemaker/Witt characterize Mair “as a transitional figure in the history of Western philosophical theology: Mair is a theologian who identified very strongly with the great tradition of Latin scholasticism, realized that times were changing, but did not fully embrace or share the spirit of novelty.”64 Lidia Lanza and Marco Toste’s chapter on “The Sentences in SixteenthCentury Iberian Scholasticism” takes us into the largely uncharted territory of the post-Reformation period in the Lombard’s Wirkungsgeschichte. In a veritable tour de force, Lanza and Toste introduce us to some of the most significant theologians at the major universities in Spain and in Portugal, while sketching an outline of the pedagogical and institutional structures that governed theological teaching at these universities. For instance, we learn of the existence of “major” and “minor” chairs of theology, which were devoted to specific authors—which does not mean that the holders of the chairs always respected these designations. It was not uncommon for a theologian holding one chair (say, the Scotus chair) to be lecturing on another author, such as Durand of Saint-Pourçain. The general picture that emerges from Lanza and Toste’s groundbreaking study of dozens of theologians at numerous Iberian universities is this: from being the standard text which was read and commented on in the faculties of theology, the Sentences disappeared from the major chairs (being superseded by the Summa) and in the minor chairs were replaced by medieval commentaries (by Gabriel Biel, John Duns Scotus, and Durand of Saint-Pourçain). The classes were no longer devoted to reading the Sentences, but to lecturing on a Sentences commentary.65

63  Ibid., 383. 64  Ibid., 415. 65  Lidia Lanza and Marco Toste, “The Sentences in Sixteenth-Century Iberian Scholasticism,” 434.

22

Rosemann

Lanza and Toste speak of “supercommentaries” to designate the latter phenomenon. As the Book of Sentences was felt to have fallen out of date, yet the centuries-old tradition of lecturing on Peter Lombard was still deeply rooted in the theology faculties, the logical solution was to move from studying the Lombard himself to expounding his more recent commentators. Moreover, lectures in the form of supercommentaries allowed instructors to remain within the doctrinal parameters of their preferred schools. Thus, for example, a Franciscan could lecture on Bonaventure’s or Scotus’s Sentences commentary. Interestingly, as Lanza and Toste note, Dominicans appointed to the Durand chair often opted to read Aquinas instead, due to the greater prestige that the Angelic Doctor’s theology enjoyed. The adherence that university statutes still required to lecturing on the Sentences or at least on a commentary on the Sentences, combined with the ever-increasing status of Aquinas’s Summa as the principal basis for theological instruction, gave rise to some interesting hybrid literary genres, such as commentaries on the Summa presented according to the order of the Book of Sentences, or commentaries on the Summa containing sections devoted to Peter Lombard. As a general rule, however, Lanza and Toste’s research has found that neither the commentaries on the Sentences nor the supercommentaries offer literal explorations of the doctrines contained in their base texts; rather, following the order of these base texts, the commentaries develop questions on the subjects suggested by them. Toward the end of the period under investigation, however, even the supercommentaries begin to fall out of favor. Thus, for example, Francisco Carreiro, a theology master teaching at Coimbra at the turn of the seventeenth century, “uses Scotus’s and Biel’s commentaries to construct short treatises of his own which are not based on their commentaries.”66 The movement away from the tradition of Sentences commentaries appears to be an undeniable fact, then, but it was slow. Toward the end of their chapter, Lanza and Toste point to the case of the newly founded colonial university of Mexico City, which in its statutes from 1668 still stipulated that the Sentences serve as the text for the theology examinations. Moreover, in the Prime and Vespers chairs the professors were expected to teach the Sentences, albeit according to the order of the Summa, which in practice meant lecturing on the Summa but presenting Peter Lombard’s theses at the beginning of each question—together with the manner “in which they are commonly held to be certain or uncertain (en que se tienen comúnmente por ciertas ò inciertas).”67 66  Ibid., 485. 67  Ibid., 494 n. 275.

23

introduction

The latter phrase is remarkable in that it echoes, over several centuries, the Parisian lists of opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur, the subject matter of Claire Angotti’s piece in this volume. A final remark on the fading of the tradition of the Sentences: it seems worth pointing out that the supersession of the Book of Sentences, and of commentaries on the latter, by the Summa theologiae is not tantamount to the replacement of one genre of theological writing with another completely unrelated one. The Summa is Thomas Aquinas’s revision of his own commentary on the Book of Sentences—a thorough revision, doubtless, but a revision nonetheless.68 Thus, even though references to the Magister are few and far between in the Summa, Aquinas’s magnum opus still largely follows the structure of Peter Lombard’s work, from the consideration of the nature of the theological enterprise in the first pages of Book i (corresponding to the Prima Pars) to the study of the sacraments and Last Things in Book iv (corresponding to the second half of Aquinas’s Tertia Pars). Not surprisingly, therefore, it was relatively easy for Thomas’s disciples to complete the Summa, left unfinished after question 90 of the Tertia Pars, by means of relevant sections from the Angelic Doctor’s Sentences commentary. The precise relationship between Thomas’s Sentences commentary and the Summa has not yet been fully explored, despite the flourishing of Thomistic scholarship in the past 150 years, and would be a worthwhile topic for further research.

…

Reflection on the Book of Sentences began when Peter Lombard taught the material it contains at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame de Paris in the middle of the twelfth century. The tradition that thus started, some 850 years ago, on the Île de la Cité has continued until the present day. Was it ever truly interrupted, in the sense that the Sentences no longer influenced theological teaching and reflection at all? This is a question for further research. What this volume has shown is that commentaries on the Book of Sentences, as well as commentaries on these commentaries, were written well into the age of the printing press. But how is the tradition of the Sentences going to fare in the digital age? This question Jeffrey Witt appropriately addresses in the final contribution to this volume. 68  An important step between Aquinas’s Sentences commentary and the Summa is the revision of the former that he undertook while teaching in Rome in 1265–1266; on this socalled Lectura romana, see John F. Boyle, “Thomas Aquinas and His Lectura romana in primum Sententiarum Petri Lombardi,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 149–73.

24

Rosemann

Witt draws on the experience he has gained in the ongoing project of realizing an online edition of Peter of Plaoul’s Sentences commentary (http:// petrusplaoul.org). Unlike some recent critics of digital publication, such as Nicholas Carr, who argues that it encourages “shallow” reading, Witt believes that the digital edition of medieval texts holds valuable opportunities.69 To begin with, in an age in which the audience for medieval Sentences commentaries is limited, online publication makes it possible to bring to light texts whose edition most traditional publishing houses would be unwilling to take on. The principle of publishing material “early and often,” whose virtues Witt strongly emphasizes, encourages extensive collaboration from the earliest stages of a project to its completion—although a digital edition may never be truly complete ( just as medieval readers never stopped annotating the manuscripts that they studied, or as modern-day library books keep being “defaced” by users with their pencils, pens, and highlighters). Again, there is a crucial difference between the shift from the manuscript to the printed page, and from the printed page to the screen: whereas the printing press simply supplanted the manuscript culture that preceded it, the digital medium allows for the preservation of previous media and—even more powerfully—the interweaving of these old forms of media within the larger framework. Thus, one can present not only the text, but also the history of its mediation: both its original mediation and its historical re-mediations, even as the digital medium re-mediates the text anew. Thus, instead of exchanging the new for the old, this new digital medium simultaneously gives us increased, though not total, access to the old.70 Witt envisages the creation of digital editions in which simple mouse clicks reveal multiple layers of mediation for any given passage, from images of manuscript witnesses to modern transcriptions. Cross-references will no longer require the reader to flip pages or even consult a different book (from a different library, in a different city!), as the relevant texts can be linked directly to particular words or phrases. In this manner, Witt believes, “deep” reading will be encouraged, due to the greater ease with which it will be possible to compare texts.

69  See Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (New York, 2010). 70  Jeffrey C. Witt, “Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation: The Digital Future of the Sentences Commentary Tradition,” 505–06.

introduction

25

The considerable promise that digital editions hold does, however, require more than the mechanical scanning that forms the basis for so many online projects—Google Books, for example. Witt writes: I cannot stress enough the importance of semantic encoding. It is the backbone of an effective digital edition. It is what makes possible different visualizations of the same text, effortless construction of indices, and robust text searches. Perhaps more important than any of this is that it allows for the text to be used in ways that were not envisioned at the time of its creation: analysis of large corpus sets, aggregated from several editions, is one such example.71 Semantic encoding means that every significant word of a digitally edited text must be accompanied by metadata which allow it to be linked to other words, passages, or—more generally—digital resources. A reference to a passage from the Book of Sentences in a later commentary will appear at a click of the mouse only if the relevant word or phrase in that commentary has previously been linked, through semantic encoding, to the referenced text. The biographical data of a cited authority will be accessible immediately only if the name of that authority was properly encoded. And so forth—in other words, digital editions, for all their novelty and promise, require precisely the type of scholarly work that learned and curious readers of Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences have been practicing for many centuries. 71  Ibid., 511.

CHAPter 1

Filiae Magistri: Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Medieval Theological Education “On the Ground” Franklin T. Harkins* Introduction The utility of Peter Lombard’s book as a pedagogical tool is conspicuously attested by the fact that from the thirteenth until the sixteenth century the Sentences became the standard university text on which all aspiring masters of theology were required to lecture publicly. Indeed, there is no piece of Christian literature, save the Bible, that has been commented on more frequently: Friedrich Stegmüller’s 1947 Repertorium lists 1,407 commentaries on the Lombard’s book, and a number of others have been uncovered in the six decades since this publication.1 Despite the great fame that both Peter Lombard and the Sentences enjoyed throughout the high and late Middle Ages, most modern scholars (even scholars of scholastic theology and philosophy) have tended until very recently either to disparage or to completely overlook the man and his achievement. Peter has been generally viewed as little more than an uncreative compiler of ancient texts, rather than an innovative author or an original thinker.2 Simply put, the Lombard’s purpose and method in this work do not comport with the modern scholarly assumptions concerning great thinkers and good books: in fact, they run contrary to them.3 *  I am most grateful for the following fellowships and grants which supported this research: a Mellon Fellowship at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto (academic year 2010–11); a Fordham University Faculty Fellowship (academic year 2010–11); a Faculty Research Grant from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Fordham (2008–09); and an Ames Grant for Junior Faculty from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Fordham (2007). I would also like to thank Michèle Mulchahey, Greti Dinkova-Bruun, Joseph Goering, Philipp Rosemann, and an anonymous reviewer at Brill for their expert advice on earlier versions of this essay. 1  See Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 3. 2  See Colish, Peter Lombard, 1.4–11. 3  Giulio Silano explains: “We tend to like authors who self-assertively speak in the first person singular and who tell us with some degree of brazenness how original they are. If this becomes what we require in the books we read, then what were regarded as the virtues of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_003

Filiae Magistri

27

Lesley Smith has recently provided a much-needed corrective to our modern, anachronistic assumptions about and valuation of medieval literary production. By looking at the collaborative context at Saint-Jacques in which Hugh of Saint-Cher and his Dominican confreres produced the Postilla in totam Bibliam, itself an updating of the Glossa ordinaria, Smith demonstrates that “the way we have studied the thinkers and writings of the early schools has done violence to a fuller understanding of what the participants themselves thought they were doing—and so to our historical picture of the time.”4 Particularly in the case of authorship, Smith notes, modern scholars have the tendency to wear Romantic spectacles, employing the notion of the author— whether it be of a text, a picture, a sculpture, or any other piece of creative work—as an individual (and preferably tortured) genius. This perspective is inimical to the medieval view of authorship, which was focused strongly on purpose rather than on a sense of authorial originality or even creation for its own sake.5 Indeed, as Alain Boureau has noted in a study of Hugh of Saint-Cher’s Sentences commentary, the concern with originality, singularity, and individual variation had virtually no place in the theological culture of the Middle Ages.6 Boureau estimates that eighty percent of the questions that constitute Hugh’s Scriptum represent more or less literal rewritings of material from William of Auxerre, Alexander of Hales, and other contemporaries.7 And it must be kept in mind that the texts of Augustine constitute approximately ninety percent of the Sentences themselves. Furthermore, Peter Lombard did not individually peruse and uniquely excerpt from the late antique bishop’s writings; rather, he mined the collections of his own contemporaries (most notably, Abelard’s Sic et non and Gratian’s Decretum) in producing his c­ ompilation.8 It is surely significant that at several points throughout his work, Peter apologizes to the reader if his own voice, his own opinion as distinct from that of the auctoritas works like Peter’s . . . become vices” (Peter Lombard, The Sentences, Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Giulio Silano [Toronto, 2007], xxx [hereafter: Sentences, trans. Silano, Book 1]). 4  Lesley Smith, “Hugh of St. Cher and Medieval Collaboration,” in Transforming Relations: Essays on Jews and Christians throughout History in Honor of Michael A. Signer, ed. Franklin T. Harkins (Notre Dame, Ind., 2010), 241–64, at 241. 5  See ibid., 255. 6  See Alain Boureau, “Hugues de Saint-Cher, commentateur des Sentences: le cas du sacrement du mariage,” in Hugues de Saint-Cher († 1263), bibliste et théologien, ed. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, O.P., Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy, O.P. (Turnhout, 2004), 427–64, at 429. 7  See ibid., 429. See also Kilian F. Lynch, “Some Fontes of the Commentary of Hugh de SaintCher: William of Auxerre, Guy d’Orchelles, Alexander of Hales,” Franciscan Studies 13 (1953): 119–46. 8  See Sentences, trans. Silano, Book 1, xxvii.

28

Harkins

at hand, rings out too loudly.9 In considering and evaluating Filiae magistri, which may be described as a family of abbreviations of the Lombard’s abbreviation of his contemporaries’ abbreviations of Augustine, we will do well to (try to) see it not through our usual modern scholarly spectacles, but rather through the lens of prevailing medieval notions of expedient modes and purposes of literary production. Marcia Colish has argued that twelfth-century sentence collections aimed at a twofold purpose, or at least actually had a twofold use in the scholastic ­context.10 First, these texts sought to train their readers to think theologically, that is, how to appraise, analyze, and criticize the tradition of Christian thought that had been handed down on a wide spectrum of topics and questions, and to use it to grapple with the theological problems of the day. Secondly, sentence collections were used in the construction of a theological curriculum, that is, they served as syllabi of pertinent topics treated in a particular order and included (at least implicitly) a general rationale for their decisions concerning what was to be included and in what order. “Once we take the trouble to crack the hermeneutic code of the sentence collection and learn how to read it,” Colish explains, “we will be able to see that the theologians who used this genre were, indeed, advancing the state of theology in both substance and method and were actually producing the century’s most innovative tool for the education of professional theologians.”11 As we will see, in abridging and updating the Sentences in the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, Filiae magistri further advanced the state of theology in both substance and method. Within approximately a decade of Peter Lombard’s having completed the Sentences, scholastic masters such as Peter Comestor, Paganus of Corbeil, and Pseudo-Peter of Poitiers began to compose glosses or commentaries on the work.12 During the same period, others, such as a certain Master Bandinus, began abbreviating the work in an effort to make it more manageable for their students.13 As time passed and masters found themselves increasingly at a distance from Peter Lombard and his mid-twelfth-century intellectual 9  See, for example, prol. to Book i, no. 4 (Silano 1, 4); and Book i, dist. 26, chap. 3, no. 6 (Silano 1, 139). 10  See Marcia Colish, “The Sentence Collection and the Education of Professional Theologians in the Twelfth Century,” in The Intellectual Climate of the Early University: Essays in Honor of Otto Gründler, ed. Nancy Van Deusen (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1997), 1–26, at 2. 11  Ibid. 12  See Marcia L. Colish, “The Pseudo-Peter of Poitiers Gloss,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 1–33. 13  See Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 27–51, who includes the gloss of Pseudo-Peter of Poitiers among the early abbreviations.

Filiae Magistri

29

milieu, their abbreviations acquired a secondary purpose, namely, to update the theology of the Sentences both conceptually and linguistically in light of contemporary understanding. One such significant “updated abbreviation,” dating from the thirteenth century and attested in manuscript Manchester, John Rylands University Library, Latin 203 (fols. 75r–256r; hereafter designated as M), is known as Filia magistri, “the Daughter of the Master.” Despite its wide use throughout the Middle Ages (its manuscript tradition extends well into the fifteenth century), Filia magistri has never been edited or printed.14 And, to my knowledge, only one scholarly article has been devoted exclusively to the work, namely, the brief note of Raymond Martin published in the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library exactly a century ago.15 Here Martin summarily describes a beautiful thirteenth-century manuscript that the John Rylands Library acquired in February, 1913, from the collection of the British bibliophile George Dunn of Woolley Hall near Maidenhead. Martin’s study of this manuscript revealed that its principal text was the compendium of the Sentences that in 1885 the Dominican scholar Henri Denifle had attributed to Hugh of Saint-Cher.16 Although the work as preserved in M bears no title, Raymond Martin gave it the title that is found in some of the manuscript witnesses identified by Denifle, Filia magistri.17 As we will see, more than thirty extant manuscripts attest to this work and considerable textual fluidity exists among the manuscript witnesses, indicating the circulation of multiple Filiae in the high and late Middle Ages rather than the straightforward copying and transmission of a single text. Both because M was the first manuscript witness discovered and the one that has attracted the most scholarly attention and because of particularly noteworthy features of the text as attested here (e.g., what I will call “block notes,” that is, “magisterial notes” that appear as blocks embedded in the body of the text rather than in the margins), this manuscript will be the focus of our analysis. The present essay aims to provide an introduction to the Filia magistri by considering: (1) the scholarly status quaestionis; (2) the manuscripts and their high and late medieval educational milieux; (3) the fluidity of the text as attested in the manuscripts and our proposal that it is more accurate to speak of Filiae 14  See ibid., 33. 15  See Raymond M. Martin, O.P., “Filia Magistri. Un abregé des Sentences de Pierre Lombard. Notes sur un manuscrit latin conservé à la bibliothèque John Rylands à Manchester,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 2 (1914–15): 370–9. 16  See ibid., 370–1. 17  See ibid. Other titles found in the manuscripts are Liber sententiarum abbreviatus and Sententie abbreviate.

30

Harkins

­magistri than a single Filia; (4) the literary genre and putative pedagogical purpose of this family of texts; and (5) the working method and theological content of the Filia attested in M. 1

Status Quaestionis

One of the principal concerns of the earliest scholarship on the Filia was identifying the author of the work and the date of composition. Raymond Martin rightly noted that the text of the abbreviation indicates dependence on the Sentences commentary of the Dominican Hugh of Saint-Cher, who taught theology at Paris from 1230 to 1235 and probably penned his commentary at the very beginning of the 1230s.18 Despite literary dependence, however, Martin declines to attribute the Filia to Hugh on account of two words that appear in the prologue: “magisterial notes” (notas or notulas magistrales). The author of the work, as we will see in greater detail below, maintains that he will add some “magisterial notes” throughout his abbreviation of the Lombard’s Sentences. Martin maintains that it would be “absurd” to suppose that in reproducing his own comments Hugh would have been so pedantic as to describe them as “magisterial.” It is far more likely, he argues, that one of Hugh’s students would have both drawn from his master’s commentary and described notes taken from it as “magisterial.”19 In dating the work, Martin sets the terminus a quo at 1232, supposing that Hugh produced his commentary during the period 1230–1232. He establishes the terminus ad quem at 1245 with the arrival of Albert the Great in Paris. Observing that “the fame of his [i.e., Albert’s] teaching necessarily eclipsed the glory of Hugh of Saint-Cher,” Martin seems convinced that no student would have desired to abridge the Sentences based on Hugh’s commentary with the new master in their midst.20 A pupil of Hugh, then, must have produced the Filia sometime between 1232 and 1245. Considering the question in 1934, Artur Landgraf remained unconvinced by Martin’s arguments against Hugonian authorship, based on two different discoveries he had made in looking at the manuscripts. First, in ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 21048 the text of the Filia opens thus (fol. 204r): 18  See ibid., 378. For a recent discussion of the dating of Hugh’s commentary, see Magdalena Bieniak, “The Sentences Commentary of Hugh of St.-Cher,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 111–47, at 112–13. 19  Martin, “Filia Magistri,” 378. Martin states that he does not know which of Hugh’s students might have produced the Filia. 20  Ibid., 378.

Filiae Magistri

31

Incipit prologus Hugonis Cardinalis super quatuor libros ­ sententiarum.21 Although this manuscript dates to the fifteenth century, Landgraf does not question the authenticity of its authorial attribution. Secondly, Landgraf finds evidence in a manuscript of Peter the Chanter’s Gloss on the Gospels (namely, Paris, Bibliothèque mazarine, Cod. lat. 279, fol. 201v) that the phrase notas magistrales is a technical term (rather than a personal pedanticism) that Hugh very well may have used simply to designate himself as author as distinct from, and in relation to, his students.22 Dissatisfied with this scholarly stalemate, Heinrich Weisweiler sought in 1936 to definitely settle the question by “a more meticulous examination of the abridgment.”23 By conducting a close comparison of the “magisterial notes” and the commentary by Hugh of Saint-Cher, Weisweiler was the first to notice that the author of the Filia makes use of Hugh throughout. In fact, Weisweiler located six passages where the notes explicitly mention Hugh by name, leading him to conclude that Hugh’s commentary is “the essential source” for the Filia.24 And although the work also reveals dependence on the Summa aurea of William of Auxerre, Weisweiler has little doubt that it is a product of the circle of Hugh of Saint-Cher. Lastly, he also agrees fundamentally with Martin’s dating of the Filia. Although he questions how Martin could date the terminus ad quem so precisely at 1245, he concurs that the abridgment could not have been produced much later than that because it contains none of the “nouvelle théologie” that Albert introduced.25 Surely based on the pattern of manuscript transmission, Weisweiler significantly observes that the Filia served to promulgate the theology of the circle of Hugh of Saint-Cher well into the fifteenth century.26 The related reality that neither he nor the other twentieth-century scholars working on the Filia seem to have noticed, however, is its rather high degree of textual fluidity among the manuscripts, to which we will return shortly.

21  See Artur Landgraf, “Mitteilungen zum Sentenzenkommentar Hugos a S. Charo,” Zeit­ schrift für katholische Theologie 58 (1934): 391–400, at 391–2. In this manuscript Book ii similarly begins: Incipit 2us liber Hugonis Cardinalis de creatione. 22  See ibid., 392–3. 23  H. Weisweiler, “Théologiens de l’entourage d’Hugues de Saint-Cher,” rtam 8 (1936): 389– 407, at 389–90. 24  Ibid., 390 and 406. 25  Ibid., 401–02. 26  See ibid., 406–07.

32 2

Harkins

The Manuscripts and their Medieval Milieux

In his 1947 Repertorium of Sentences commentaries, Friedrich Stegmüller identified thirty-four manuscripts of the Filia, variously dating from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, suggesting the work’s popularity well into the late Middle Ages.27 Thirteen years earlier, Palémon Glorieux had identified nineteen manuscripts containing the Filia, only one of which would not be included in Stegmüller’s list, namely, ms. Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1174.28 The catalog description of this thirteenth-century manuscript now housed in the Vatican Library reveals that it does not, in fact, contain the Filia; rather, its contents include the Summa theologica of Praepositinus of Cremona (with anonymous glosses), brief excerpts from various works of Augustine, two letters from Archbishop Hildebert of Tours, and—most importantly for our purposes—Hugh of Saint-Cher’s commentary on Book iv of the Sentences.29 Glorieux’s inclusion of this manuscript among the witnesses to the Filia suggests the view of some early scholars that the abridgment was the work of Hugh, perhaps even a short form of his own commentary.30 My own research has uncovered what may be an additional manuscript witness to the Filia that neither Glorieux nor Stegmüller records, namely, ms. Prague, Nárondi knihovna České republiky, 784 (iv h 20), a manuscript of Bohemian provenance produced around 1375–1425. Whereas Joseph Truhlář’s description of this manuscript identifies its opening text (fols. 1–103) as the Conclusiones Sententiarum of the fourteenth-century Viennese theologian Henry of Oyta, the incipit of this work is that of the Filia’s prologue.31 It may be, as is the case with the variously divergent versions of the Filia attested in other manuscripts, that Henry—for purposes of authorization—simply affixed the Filia prologue to his own, more independent commentary on the Lombard’s book. Only an examination of the manuscript will reveal whether it does, in fact, witness to the Filia (perhaps offering Henry’s abridged and updated ver27  Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 175–6. 28  See Palémon Glorieux, Répertoire des maîtres en théologie de Paris au xiiie siècle (Paris, 1933), 1: 50–1. 29  See Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti, vol. 2, pt. 2: Codices Vaticani latini, ed. M.-H. Laurent (Rome, 1958), 54–7. Cf. Barbara Faes de Mottoni, “Les manuscrits du commentaire des Sentences d’Hugues de Saint-Cher,” in Hugues de Saint-Cher, ed. Bataillon et al., 273–98, who lists this manuscript in her inventory (275, no. 13). 30  See Landgraf, “Mitteilungen,” 391, who quotes N. Paulus’s conviction, published in 1923, that Hugh left a shorter and a longer commentary on the Sentences. 31  For a brief description, see Joseph Truhlář, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum latinorum qui in C.R. Bibliotheca Publica atque Universitatis Pragensis asservantur (Prague, 1905), 319, no. 784.

Filiae Magistri

33

sion of the Lombard’s text), or whether it contains some sort of free-standing commentary. The subsequent discussion will make reference to the following manuscript witnesses to the Filia: Bo Br C Ga Gb L La M N O Pa Pb Ra Rb Va Vb Wo Wz

Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, lat. 808 (1572), saec. 14. Bruges, Openbare Bibliotheek, 80 (fols. 133–173), saec. 13. Cambridge, Trinity College Library, B.14.6 (292) (fols. 167r–247b), saec. 13ex–14in. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, 361 (fols. 1r–57r), saec. 143–4. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, 751 (fols. 85r–147v), saec. 151–2. Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, 152 (fols. 27–92), saec. 14. Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, 321, saec. 14.32 Manchester, John Rylands University Library, Latin 203 (fols. 75r–256r), saec. 133–4.33 Nürnberg, Stadtbibliothek, Cent. iv 48 (fols. 1r–54v), 1479. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon. Pat. Lat. 208 (fols. 1r–54r), saec. 15. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 3423 (fols. 1r–95v), saec. 15. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16412 (fols. 39r–109v), saec. 13. Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, 784 (iv h 20) (fols. 1r–103v), saec. 14ex–15in. Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, 1546 (viii e 21) (fols. 1r–47v), saec. 15. Vorau, Stiftsbibliothek, 176 (fols. 1r–99v), saec. 141–2. Vorau, Stiftsbibliothek, 212 (fols. 1r–69r), saec. 133–4. Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, 1275 (Helmst. 1167) (fols. 1v–81r), saec. 13–14. Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M. ch. q. 17 (fols. 2r–183r), saec. 153–4.

Although more work remains to be done with regard to the manuscripts, a few noteworthy observations can be made at this preliminary stage. First, a number of the manuscripts were produced, used, and housed in various locales 32  Stegmüller incorrectly records the number of this manuscript as 231 rather than 321 (Repertorium, 1: 176). 33  In an unpublished catalog entry, Professor Neil Ker dated the text of the Filia found in M to the second half of the thirteenth century, although he placed the five other texts in this manuscript in the second half of the twelfth century. I am very grateful to Professor Richard Sharpe of Oxford University, Professor Ker’s literary executor, for granting me access to this description, and to Mr. John Hodgson of the John Rylands University Library for his assistance in this regard.

34

Harkins

throughout western Europe from the thirteenth through the fifteenth centuries, including the Cistercian abbey of St. Mary at Cambron in Belgium (M), the Dominican convent in Nürnberg (N), the community of Augustinian Canons Regular at Vorau in Austria (Va, Vb), the Parisian abbey of Saint-Victor (Pa, Pb), the Premonstratensian abbey of Cuissy in Picardy (La), the Cistercian abbey of Ebrach in Bavaria (Wz), and the Cistercian abbey of Neuberg in Austria (Ga, Gb). Furthermore, explicits, marginal additions, and colophons indicate that the Filia attracted a wide range of readers, from students and scholars of theology and the arts, to Dominican preachers, to monks, to Canons Regular. For example, a note in the bottom margin of fol. 1r of Va reads: Iste liber est monasterii beate virginis marie sanctique Thome Apostoli Canonicorum regularium in vorano.34 A colophon in the manuscript explains how it arrived at the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Thomas the Apostle in Vorau around the middle of the fifteenth century: “In the year of our Lord 1446, Lord [Peter] Pranpekch, a layman in the church of Peham, gave this book to our monastery [asking us] to pray faithfully to the Lord God for his own salvation.”35 A similar marginal note on the opening folio of Pa identifies this manuscript as belonging to the Parisian abbey of Saint-Victor.36 That the Victorine canons made good use of the Filia in Pa, the manuscript’s only text, in the fifteenth century and beyond may be suggested by the two signatures—of “Vincent the monk” and “Hubelot”—adorning the final verso.37 The Cistercians of St. Mary at Cambron claimed M as their own by noting at the bottom of fol. 1r, in what appears to be a fourteenth-century hand, Liber sancte marie de Camberone, and by inscribing the shortened de Camberone at the foot of many subsequent rectos.38 The manuscripts clearly indicate that this abridgment of the Sentences, in terms of interest and usage throughout the high and late Middle Ages, was far more than simply a university “textbook.” In fact, the manuscript evidence suggests that the Filia was not used for the professional training of the t­ heological 34  Vb contains a nearly identical note at the bottom of fol. 2r. 35  “Hunc librum obtulit monasterio nostro dominus [Petrus] pranpekch plebanus in pehamkirchen Anno domini Millesimo quadringentesimo quadragesimo sexto orate dominum deum pro ipsius salute fideliter” (quoted in Pius Fank, Catalogus Voraviensis seu codices manuscripti bibliothecae canoniae in Vorau [Graz, 1936], 98, no. 176). 36  Pa, fol. 1r: “Iste liber est Sancti Victoris Parisiensis.” 37  On fol. 95v there appear in two different hands: “Liber Vincentii monachi. Registrum. Deo gratia. Amen” and, in a much larger script, “Hubelot.” 38  The following rectos carry “de Camberone” at their foot: 81, 85, 89, 93, 96, 99, 102, 106, 109, 114, 118, 122, 125, 130, 136, 140, 143, 146, 149, 153, 157, 160, 165, 170, 174, 177, 181, 185, 189, 194, 197, 201, 205, 208, 212, 215, 219, 223, 227, 230, 234, 238, 241, 245, 249, and 253.

Filiae Magistri

35

high-flyers at the medieval universities, but rather for the more basic education and pastoral formation of friars, canons, and monks “on the ground” in various religious houses and schools across Europe. Indeed, the Filia circulated together with Latin and vernacular (sometimes bilingual) penitential manuals (L, R), treatises and sermons on the vices and virtues (M, R, Wo), collationes and homilies on various feast days (M, O, W), contemporary sacerdotal letters concerning practical pastoral matters (O), bestiaries (M), exegeses of and reflections on select scriptural passages (Br, L, M), treatises on the body of Christ (O), short scholastic questions (quaestiunculae) on such fundamental issues as “whether there is a mediator between God and man” and “whether the blessed virgin, the mother of God, was sanctified in the womb before her birth” (G), expositions of the Hail Mary (R), and poems on the Our Father and the Apostles’ Creed (Vb). This pattern of textual transmission intimates that the Filia was used by Canons Regular, mendicants, and other religious as a tool for basic theological and moral instruction with an eye to such pastoral duties as preaching and hearing confessions. Even when the Filia circulated alone, paleographical evidence sometimes points to this pattern of use: the Victorine manuscript Pa, for example, appears to have been the codex of a certain “Vincent the monk,” who presumably understood the work contained therein (whether he penned the inscription or not) as a summa theologica, an enchiridion containing the fundamentals of the Church’s doctrinal tradition. Likewise, in manuscript C, dated to the thirteenth or early fourteenth century, the Filia circulated with a number of other short works, notes, and distinctions on the arts and sciences, Scripture, and basic theological topics such as the nature and existence of God, the soul and the virtues, and predestination. Similarly, in Wo the Filia is followed, inter alia opera, by theological notes, sermons on the Gospels, a treatise on contemplation, and a miscellaneous tractatus with chapters on, for example, the articles of faith, justice and its utility, obedience and its effects, mercy, temptations, humility, and love. Finally, with the order and concision characteristic of teaching and learning at the abbey of Saint-Victor from the time of its foundation, the texts found in the thirteenthcentury Victorine manuscript Pb illustrate the basic contours of contemporary religious education and pastoral formation, with its focus on Sacred Scripture and the Lombard’s Sentences. The complete contents of Pb are as follows: (1) de articulis fidei, de vii petitionibus, de x preceptis, de vii sacramentis, de vii virtutibus, de vii donis, de viii beatitudinis, de vii viciis; (2) Summa theologica, iv libris [i.e., Filia magistri]; (3) Summa questionum sacre scripture; and (4) De sacra scriptura. This collection of texts reflects the pedagogical perspective of Hugh of Saint-Victor, that the twofold aim of sacred reading is to instruct the mind with knowledge and adorn it with morals, and that the student of

36

Harkins

t­ heology should never look down upon what seem to be the simplest and least important things.39 That manuscripts of the Filia were housed in the Cistercian abbey of St. Mary at Cambron in Belgium (M), the Dominican convent in Nürnberg (N), the community of Augustinian Canons Regular at Vorau in Austria (Va, Vb), the Parisian abbey of Saint-Victor (Pa, Pb), the Premonstratensian abbey of Cuissy in Picardy (La), the Cistercian abbey of Ebrach in Bavaria (Wz), and the Cistercian abbey of Neuberg in Austria (Ga, Gb) further suggests the practical purposes and pastoral uses to which various religious orders and particular communities throughout Europe put this abbreviation—purposes and uses for which, indeed, the members of these orders likely even produced versions of it.40 It is also worthy of note in this regard that the Filia does not appear, so far as I can tell, to have been part of the pecia system at the University of Paris. I have identified no pecia marks in any of the manuscripts that I have consulted,41 and the Filia is absent from both of the stationers’ taxation lists of theological and philosophical texts at Paris that have come down to us. The first list, dated between 1272 and 1276 and containing 177 distinct works, includes an exemplar of the Sentences as well as the full commentaries of Thomas Aquinas and Peter of Tarentaise on the Lombard’s book. The second list, that of the stationer André de Sens—which bears the date 25 February 1304, and contains 156 different items—includes Aquinas’s Scriptum on Books ii–iv, the commentary on Book i of the Augustinian Giles of Rome, and the full commentary of the Franciscan Richard of Mediavilla.42 In light of the presence of these 39  See Hugh of Saint-Victor, Didascalicon de studio legendi v.6 and vi.3, ed. Charles Henry Buttimer (Washington, D.C., 1939), 104–05 and 113–17 (trans. Franklin T. Harkins, in Interpretation of Scripture: Theory, ed. Franklin T. Harkins and Frans van Liere [Turnhout, 2012], 157 and 164–7). 40  On the fundamental practical and pastoral thrust of Dominican education in the Middle Ages, see M. Michèle Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study . . .”: Dominican Education before 1350 (Toronto, 1998), esp. 130–218. 41  To date I have consulted nine manuscripts, namely, B, C, Gb, M, O, Pa, Pb, Va, and Vb. 42  See Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Henri Denifle and Émile Chatelain, 4 vols. (Paris: Ex typis fratrum Delalain, 1889–1897), 1: 644–50 (no. 530) and 2: 107–12 (no. 642). In arriving at the item counts given here for these taxation lists, I have considered a collection of letters and sermons only one item; similarly, a Sentences commentary, whether partial or complete, has been counted only once. See also Louis Jacques Bataillon, “Les textes théologiques et philosophiques diffusés a Paris par exemplar et pecia,” in La production du livre universitaire au moyen âge: exemplar et pecia, Actes du symposium tenu au Collegio San Bonaventura de Grottaferrata en mai 1983, ed. Louis J. Bataillon, Bertrand G. Guyot, and Richard H. Rouse (Paris, 1988), 155–63.

Filiae Magistri

37

Sentences-related texts on the Parisian taxation lists and given the centrality of the Lombard’s book to theological training at the university, the absence of the Filia seems particularly conspicuous. It points to the intriguing and very real possibility that precisely during the period when the Lombard’s book assumed and enjoyed a central place in the training of theologians at Paris, the principal context and purpose of this abbreviation of the Sentences lay outside the university. A brief look at the role and nature of lecturing on the Sentences in the conventual schools of the Dominican order in the high Middle Ages will suggest one context in which the Filia—or, more properly, Filiae—may well have been produced and used for basic theological education and pastoral formation “on the ground.”43 Against some modern scholarship maintaining that lectures on Scripture and the Sentences would have proven too sophisticated and difficult for Dominicans just beginning their theological studies in the conventual scholae, meetings of the order’s general chapter in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries promulgated documents strongly encouraging precisely such students to attend lectures on both texts.44 The general chapter of 1271, for example, admonished students to “exercise themselves diligently in the study of theology by carefully listening to ordinary lectures [on Scripture] and on the Sentences.”45 In 1300, the general chapter urged lectors to read the Lombard’s “entire text as a whole” (totus textus legatur integre), and warned students that if they should miss class while the lector is reading this text they would be punished severely.46 Michèle Mulchahey interprets the chapter’s phrase totus textus legatur integre as mandating that the lector read all four books of the Sentences, rather than only one or two of its books, not that he provide a detailed lecture on each distinction in the Lombard.47 That this was, in fact, the chapter’s intention is supported by: (1) the fact that some conventual schools, 43  For an overview of early Dominican education in the order’s scholae and studia, see chapters 3–5 of Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” on which the following discussion depends. Our focus will be on the first level of the order’s educational system, that of the conventual schola. 44  See, for example, Angelus Walz, “S. Raymundi de Penyafort auctoritas in re penitentiali,” Angelicum 12 (1935): 346–96, who claims that lectures in the scholae were limited to practical, as opposed to doctrinal, theology. 45  My translation; for the Latin, see Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis Praedicatorum, vol. 1: ab anno 1120 usque ad annum 1303, ed. B.M. Reichert (Rome, 1898), 159–60; and Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 135 n. 14. 46  Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis Praedicatorum, 1: 297; cf. Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 136 n. 18. 47  See Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 135.

38

Harkins

instead of having two lectors (one on Scripture, the other on the Sentences), used a cursor Sententiarum to provide an annual introduction to the Lombard alongside the lector principalis, who offered ordinary lectures on Scripture; and (2) the description of the Dominican lector found in the Instructiones de officiis ordinis of Humbert of Romans. Humbert makes clear that a good lector will “conform himself to the capacity of his hearers” and “lecture with ease and clarity on things that are useful and expedient for them.”48 The lector should remain close to his text, avoiding unnecessary tangents. He should be careful not to subdivide his text superfluously, and not to offer too many arguments in support of each of his points, as such practices will surely confuse listeners. In short, he should not wander far from what is contained in the expositions of the saints and the authoritative glosses.49 Our subsequent treatment of the method of the Filia as attested in M will hone in on features of this updated abridgment of the Sentences that would have made it an ideal pedagogical tool in conventual schools and other religious educational contexts in the high and late Middle Ages. Here let us simply note that, in line with the Dominican general chapter’s admonitions to lectors and the order’s pedagogical practice, the Filia provides an abbreviation of all four of the Lombard’s books that a conventual lector or cursor could have easily covered in one year. It seems significant in this regard that manuscript Vb, which was surely used by the Augustinian canons at Vorau, contains this note at the bottom of the recto of its flyleaf: In hoc volumine continetur textus quatuor librorum magistri sententiarum. Interestingly, the scribe does not call the text contained here a compendium or an abbreviatio, as the prologue to the text itself does; rather, he describes the Filia simply as “the text of the four books of Sentences of the Master,” suggesting that this was likely the only format in which he and his fellow canons heard, read, and learned the Lombard’s great book.50 As we will see in greater detail below, this abridged format also comports well with the requirements of the lector and his teaching in religious houses set forth by Humbert of Romans, presenting the Sentences 48  Instructiones de officiis ordinis, chap. 11.1 (my translation of the Latin found in Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 137 n. 21). 49  See Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 137–8. 50  It also makes sense that the scribe of Vb would not call the Filia a compendium, as the text’s prologue does, because the prologue is missing from the manuscript as it has come down to us, and may also have been lost from the manuscript in the fifteenth century when this note seems to have been written. The text as it is currently found in Vb begins abruptly in the middle of dist. 2 (fol. 2r). It is worthy of note, however, that manuscript Va, which was also at the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Thomas the Apostle in Vorau and may have been read by the scribe of Vb, does carry the text’s prologue.

Filiae Magistri

39

in a simpler and more accessible way to newcomers to the theological science. In short, the Filia seems to have been the means whereby religious-in-training “on the ground” gained access, albeit in a more rudimentary way, to the same text of the Lombard which more advanced students heard lectures on and read at higher-level studia and the universities. The difference was in the mode of teaching and learning, not in the essential content of what was learned.51 Among the manuscripts for which I have located catalogue descriptions, N, in particular, presents some intriguing questions concerning the production and use of the Filia or, more properly, Filiae. The abbreviation of the Sentences found here (whose prologue, division of books, and incipits are identical with other Filia manuscripts) is attributed to a certain Henricus de Frimaria, presumably prior provincial of the Augustinian Hermits in Thuringia and Saxony, who lectured on the Sentences at the University of Paris in 1300 and became master of theology there in 1308.52 The historical picture is complicated, however, by the fact that during the period 1265–1384 there lived three scholars known as Henry of Frimaria (referred to in the scholarship simply as “Henry the Elder,” “Henry the Younger,” and “Henry the Youngest”), one of whom appears to have made additions to excerpts of at least Book iv of the Sentences.53 The colophon of N muddies the water further in its suggestion that the compendium in this codex was produced or written “in Halle, a city in Saxony under the venerable master of the arts Leo [or Leon] of Mening from France in the year of Our Lord 1479 by his student John of Novoforo, who is 17 years old.”54 So who actually produced the abridgment, where, and why? Was Henry (whichever one) responsible for creating an abridgment that Leo then summarized further? If so, why was Leo, a “master of the arts,” studying the Sentences or an abridgment thereof? Does “master of the arts” here indicate that Leo was a member of an arts faculty, or simply that this was the highest degree he had earned? Does the fact that he had a pupil, John, suggest the former? And why was John copying 51  See Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 137–40. 52  See Clemens Stroick, O.M.I., Heinrich von Friemar. Leben, Werke, philosophisch-theologische Stellung in der Scholastik (Freiburg, 1954), esp. 12–20 for a biographical chronology of three different scholars with the name Henricus de Frimaria. 53  See ibid., 12 and 31–3. For an edition of three of the works of Henry the Elder, see Henrici de Frimaria O.S.A. tractatus ascetico-mystici, vol. 1, ed. Adolar Zumkeller (Würzburg, 1975). 54  See Karin Schneider, Die Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg, vol. 2: Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften, Part 1: Die theologische Handschriften (Wiesbaden, 1967), 270, who records the colophon thus: “Finiunt excerpta libri sentenciarum compendiosa in Hallis civitate Saxonie sub venerabili magistro arcium Leone de Mening francone anno domini 1479 per Johannem de Novoforo scholarem anno etatis sue 17mo completo. . . .”

40

Harkins

the Filia? Was this for him a study text, a reportatio of his master’s lecture, or was his copying it simply some sort of punishment imposed by his master? Manuscript Bo seems to corroborate the view that Henry (whichever one) did, in fact, produce a version of the Filia. Did Henry’s lectures on the Sentences, and perhaps even his magisterial abridgment of them, give rise to other abridgments among his students? If so, our current scholarly “evolutionary” model of Sentences commentating and Sentences literature needs to be revised. Scholars still tend to assume—as Martin, Landgraf, and Weisweiler did early last century—that once Albert and Thomas arrived at Paris and began producing what we now think of as “fullblown” Sentences commentaries, the glossing and abridging of the Lombard’s text was forever eclipsed. To be sure, such high scholastic masters-in-training did break new ground in the burgeoning tradition of commenting on the Sentences; but it seems to me, based on preliminary analyses of the Filia’s “magisterial notes,” that this difference was first and foremost formal. That is, around the middle of the thirteenth century, commentaries began to pose quaestiones that were related to and grew out of the Lombard’s excerpts, but that no longer shared parchment space with these excerpts. Such self-standing Sentences commentaries were able to pose many more questions than their annotated-abridgment counterparts, to arrange these questions systematically according to logics other than that determined by the particular order of the Lombard’s discussion, and to answer them much more thoroughly.55 But substantially many of the basic questions taken up by Albert, Thomas, and other theologians after them—and even the philosophical terminology and categories that they use to answer these questions—are found in the Filia, as we will see below. For now let us simply note the significance of the historical fact that copies of the Filia continued to be produced throughout the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, clear evidence that medieval scholars and religious saw Peter Lombard’s book quite differently than have their modern counterparts.56 55  Noteworthy here is Stephen Langton’s Sentences commentary, which represents an intermediate stage of sorts in this structural evolution. Produced sometime between 1197 and 1206/1207, Langton’s commentary is what Landgraf described as a “catchword gloss” (Stichwortglosse), that is, one structured according to lemmas in the Lombard’s text but not containing this text in full, wherein Langton often comments in the form of quaestiones (see Riccardo Quinto, “Stephen Langton,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 35–77, at 49–51). 56  Marcia Colish makes a similar point in her study of the Pseudo-Peter of Poitiers gloss, about which she concludes: “Altogether, the message conveyed by the gloss and its later fortunes is that there remained a market for an older, less adventurous, and more ­conservative approach to scholastic theology well into the thirteenth century and

Filiae Magistri

3

41

Textual Fluidity and Filiae magistri

Another noteworthy feature of the Filia is the fluidity of the text found in the manuscripts, a feature that hitherto has not attracted scholarly attention. Here I will sketch a few of the broad patterns of textual divergence among manuscripts C, M, and O in an effort to provide a basic sense of this fluidity. The text of C is substantially different from that of M, whereas O is generally closer to M. Neither C nor O tends to contain the same block notes (i.e., “magisterial notes” appearing as a block embedded in the body of the text rather than in the margins) and interlinear glosses found in M. Sometimes, however, M and C have block notes in common.57 O has no block notes at all and far fewer interlinear glosses than M; and the interlinear glosses found in O are not found in M. Furthermore, immediately following the prologue and division of books, the text of C diverges noticeably from that of M (and O). The following table compares the opening lines of Book i, dist. 1 in M and C.58 Here and subsequently I enclose interlinear glosses in M in angle brackets. In describing the signs and things treated in Scripture, the author or scribe of C not only quotes Augustine’s De doctrina i.2.2 at greater length than M, but also (following the Lombard) further distinguishes between signs that merely signify and those that both signify and justify. The author of C undoubtedly knew that this distinction, exemplified by the sacraments of the Old Law and those of the New Law, respectively, is central to Book iv, and he seems to have wanted to highlight it for his reader at this initial stage of his work. As the author of C continues his abridgment, his excerpts and emphases remain different from those of M. Still in distinction 1, for example, whereas the author of M’s emphasis is on defining frui and uti (he only provides brief examples in marginal glosses), C omits the definitions altogether, simply offering Augustine’s examples of things to be enjoyed and used.59 Here we see M’s and C’s divergent approaches to abbreviating Peter Lombard, whose own text defines frui and uti before providing examples of things to be loved in each way.60 beyond, even as this subject underwent major changes both generic and methodological, and even as new philosophical and scientific materials enriched the curriculum” (Colish, “The Pseudo-Peter of Poitiers Gloss,” 33). 57  As, for example, in M, fol. 79v, and C, fol. 169r. 58  In addition to variations in textual content, M and C have different orthographic conventions, which are reflected in the following table. The edited text of M that appears here and subsequently throughout this essay is diplomatic, reproducing this particular manuscript’s orthography. 59  See M, fol. 76v; C, fol. 167r. 60  Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 1, chap. 2, nos. 3–4 (1: 56–7).

42

Harkins

ms. M (fols. 75v–76r)

ms. C (fol. 167r)

Ueteris ac noue legis continentiam considerantibus nobis innotuit sacre pagine tractatum, circa res uel signa

precipue uersari. Ut enim ait augustinus : “Omnis doctrina uel rerum est uel signorum. Omne etiam signum res aliqua est.” Quod enim nulla res est, ut ait augustinus, omnino nihil est. “Primum de rebus, postea de signis disseremus.”

Ueteris ac noue legis continenciam considerantibus nobis innotuit sacre pagine tractatum, circa res uel signa precipue versari. Vt enim ait augustinus de doctrina Christiana: “Omnis doctrina uel rerum est uel singnorum [sic]. sed res etiam per signa discuntur. proprie autem hic res appellantur quae non ad singificandum [sic] aliquid adhibentur; signa vero quorum usus est in singificando [sic].” Signorum aliqua sunt quorum vsus omnis est in significando non in iustificando, ut sunt sacramenta legalia. Alia quae non solum singificant [sic], sed conferunt quod intus adiuuet sicut euangelica sacramenta. “Omne igitur signum res aliqua est; non autem e converso,” quia non adhibetur ad significandum aliquid.

In distinction 4 of Book i, C again has material from the Lombard that M does not include. Here the Lombard treats the threeness and oneness of God, attempting to reconcile the two. In both M and O, distinction 4 consists of a brief discussion of the opinion of some thinkers (“adversaries of the truth”) according to which the three persons are one divine essence but the one God is not three persons.61 C, on the other hand, does not include this discussion, but rather includes only an earlier portion of distinction 4 as found in the critical edition of the Sentences, namely, a treatment of the question of whether it is to be conceded that God generates Himself.62 This, after all, is the more basic question, which Peter Lombard himself describes as satis necessaria.63 C follows the Lombard’s text closely before reaching the same general conclusion to which M and O come by a different route, namely, that “it must be held that the one God is a Trinity, and that one substance is three Persons. Now ­conversely 61  M, fol. 79r; O, fol. 2r. 62  See C, fols. 168v–169r, and Sentences, Book i, dist. 4, chap. 1, nos. 1–2 (1: 77–8). 63  Sentences, Book i, dist. 4, chap. 1, no. 1 (1: 77).

Filiae Magistri

43

the Trinity is said to be one God.”64 Aside from the content of this conclusion, C and M share only one short “magisterial note” explaining how the gender endings of adjectives predicated of God variously describe a person or the divine essence.65 Whereas C and M seem to diverge mainly in their modes of abbreviating the Lombard (and hence in the material that constitutes their base texts), what marks off O from M, at least in the initial distinctions of Book i, are their notes. While the abbreviated texts found in the two manuscripts is very similar, O appears to share none of the interlinear or block notes found in M. This brief, preliminary comparison of M, C, and O points to a considerable degree of textual fluidity among manuscripts witnessing to the Filia. Such fluidity suggests that a noteworthy demand for abbreviations of the Sentences existed throughout western Europe in the high and late Middle Ages, and that different masters, lectors, and students at different times and places abbreviated and annotated the Lombard’s text differently. We might well imagine, for example, a mid-fourteenth-century Dominican conventual lector or cursor Sententiarum lecturing from his copy of the Lombard’s book, perhaps annotated with more recent magisterial opinions—like those of Thomas Aquinas— on various distinctions. We know, after all, that in 1313 the general chapter of the Dominican order formally introduced Aquinas into the conventual curriculum by instructing its lectors to expound the Sentences according to the mind of Brother Thomas.66 In the Roman province, and surely elsewhere as well, the Dominican fratres communes were required to bring their own copies of the Sentences to the lectures.67 Although it was used among the Augustinian canons at Vorau and not among the Dominicans, manuscript Vb, whose flyleaf note we mentioned above, suggests that the copies of the Lombard that beginning students in their religious houses brought to class were highly abridged versions, much like the base text of the Filia found in our manuscripts. As the student listened to simple, straightforward lectures on the Sentences, he likely jotted down in the margins and between the lines of his base text explanations of particular theological points and noteworthy comments made by the ­lector. Manuscript Vb, on numerous folios of which we find a base text written 64  C, fol. 169r: “Item tenendum est quod unus deus est trinitas, et vna substantia tres persone. Nunc e converso trinitas dicitur esse vnus deus.” 65  See M, fol. 79v, and C, fol. 169r. 66  See Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 141 and 155 n. 76. This decision followed from the 1286 determination of the capitular fathers at Paris, in the wake of the condemnation of March 7, 1277, to the effect that every Dominican—whether master, bachelor, lector, or friar—was to promote the teachings of Aquinas (James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Friar Thomas d’Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Works [Oxford, 1974], 342–3). 67  See Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 136.

44

Harkins

in a thirteenth-century Gothic book script surrounded by marginal notes in a fifteenth-century cursive script, may be the product of just such an educational process at the Augustinian house at Vorau.68 Those manuscripts, like M, where the “magisterial notes” (understood to be notes conveying contemporary authoritative opinions rather than the lecturing master’s own opinions) are fully integrated into the page layout and—together with the interlinear notes—are written in the same hand as the base text, are explainable as products of this teaching and learning process at a later stage. That is, we might imagine a student somehow inheriting a manuscript like Vb and producing his own copy in which, for the sake of utility and order, he more fully integrates the former student’s marginal notes with the base text, while maintaining the visual distinction between the two. Or a text such as that found in M, considering the obvious care taken in its production, may be the lector’s or cursor’s clean lecture copy, which he himself produced from his own earlier copies on which he had added notations even as he lectured. Whatever the exact circumstances of production, we can easily imagine the use of the Lombard’s book by lectors and students in the schools of religious houses across Europe giving rise to myriad, divergent iterations of abbreviated and glossed Sentences texts. The handful of scholars who have studied the Filia have assumed that the various manuscripts witness to a single text, in no small part because Stegmüller identified this text in the manuscripts according to the incipits (particularly that of the prologue). And interestingly, most if not all of the manuscripts he lists do have the same prologue; this is certainly the case with nearly all of the manuscripts that I have consulted. That these otherwise often divergent texts share the same prologue intimates some literary relationship among the manuscripts; but how is it to be explained? Did a particularly early or important abridgment contain this prologue with which, as an authorizing strategy, subsequent abbreviators prefaced their own versions? Can it be that until late in the fifteenth century teachers and students were at work producing new and different annotated abbreviations of the Sentences rather than simply copying and using one or a few that were produced in the thirteenth century? Both the manuscript evidence and the religious educational contexts that we have suggested as having given rise to these texts strongly suggest so. It is surely more proper and accurate, then, to speak of Filiae magistri, “Daughters of the Master,” rather than a single Filia magistri. That the different “daughters” ­manifest such 68  See, for example, Vb, fols. 37v–38r, where a fifteenth-century scribe has added many marginal annotations to the base text of Book iii, dist. 15–19, which treat such salient theological topics as which human defects Christ assumed, the will of Christ, the merit of Christ, and the liberation of the human race.

Filiae Magistri

45

variation, both in their base texts and their “magisterial notes,” highlights what a popular, living, and malleable tool of teaching and learning the Lombard’s book was in religious houses and schools across medieval Europe. Different teachers lectured on different parts of the Sentences and introduced different supplemental authorities and arguments in different ways given their particular educational purposes, theological interests, formational goals, and time constraints. And different students heard these different lectures differently and annotated their texts differently based on their own theological knowledge and interest, intellectual sophistication, spiritual maturity, formational needs, and pastoral goals. Let us now turn from the variegated reality of religious education and of updated abridgments of the Sentences to a consideration of the literary genre and general purpose (if we are able to speak generally of a single purpose) of these Filiae magistri. For the sake of consistency and clarity, I will most often follow the scholarly convention of speaking of the Filia (in the singular); it must be understood, though, that by Filia I intend a family of more or less textually divergent abbreviations of the Sentences. 4

Literary Genre and Pedagogical Purpose

In terms of genre, the Filia is what I have called an “updated abbreviation” of the Sentences. In his article on manuscript M, Raymond Martin offers a cursory classification of the various types of abbreviations of Peter Lombard’s work.69 In general, they are divided into versified and prose formats. Among prose abbreviations, some are of only one or two of the Lombard’s books; most of them, however, provide summaries of the work as a whole. The Filia is of this “complete” prose variety. I use “complete” loosely in this context because the work is, in fact, an abbreviation: what this means, of course, is not only that material within a particular unit—book, chapter, distinction—of the Lombard’s text is summarized, but also that some units are omitted altogether from the abbreviation, as we have seen in our manuscript comparison. For example, the author of M has simply passed over approximately ten percent of the distinctions in Books i and iii. And he devotes widely varying degrees of attention to different theological themes. One may be surprised to find, for example, that the abbreviation of the Augustinian uti-frui distinction at the outset of Book i fills three and a half folios, whereas distinction 11 of Book iii— 69  See Martin, “Filia Magistri,” 373–4; cf. Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 27–8.

46

Harkins

which treats the crucial but thorny question of whether Christ ought to be called “made” and “created”—is reduced to seven short lines.70 Martin divides what I have called “complete” prose abbreviations into “simple summaries” and “mixed summaries.”71 Simple summaries are those in which the abbreviator adds nothing to the words of the Lombard, whether explanatory notes of his own or texts of other authors. In mixed summaries, by contrast, the abbreviator inserts certain opinions of which the Lombard did not make mention. Often these additional opinions represent contemporary updates to the Sentences. Furthermore, sometimes these additional opinions are embedded in the abbreviated text itself at the appropriate places; that is, the master or the scribe gives the reader no formal signal indicating extra material. At other times, however, the manuscripts set off this extra material by means of page layout. They do so in two ways, namely, by means of interlinear glosses and through “magisterial notes” that appear in block format. In M, both interlinear glosses and block notes are written in a script smaller than that used for the main abbreviated text of the Sentences, and block notes are embedded in the body of the text itself rather than in the margins (see figs. 1 and 2). In C, although the script of “magisterial notes” is about the same size as that of the main text, the scribe has tightened their line-spacing and (usually) enclosed them within visible margins. The author of the Filia in M describes the purpose of his notulae magistrales, and of his abbreviation more generally, in the opening lines of the prologue: Since, just like the four rivers of paradise [Gen. 2:10–14], the books of Sentences water the garden of the Church copiously, it is expedient, doubtless for the sake of those who rejoice in brevity, that the abundant flow of those [books] be restrained by a compendium. Through a compendium, the mother of disgust, prolixity of words, might be avoided, yet the order and contents of the books might somehow be made known to those who are unfamiliar with them. Therefore, in undertaking the following work in the name of Jesus Christ, I will add some magisterial notes so that the excerpts might shine forth more clearly.72 70  See M, fols. 75v–77r and 172r–v. In Brady’s edition of the Sentences, Book i, dist. 1 and Book iii, dist. 11 are of comparable length, running to six and four pages, respectively. 71  Martin, “Filia Magistri,” 374–5. 72  M, fol. 75r: “Quoniam uelut quatuor paradisi flumina libri sententiarum ortum irrigant ecclesie copiose, nimirium propter eos qui breuitate gaudent, expedit ut illorum diffusio compendio temperetur, per quod euitetur mater fastidii prolixitas dictorum tamen ordo librorum et continentia nescientibus aliqualiter innotescat. Igitur opus subsequens

Filiae Magistri

47

The vivid image of the Sentences here is that of a powerful irrigation system or water hose whose vigor must be held in check. Through his compendium, the abbreviator seeks to moderate the flow of the wisdom contained in the Sentences for those who not only rejoice in brevity but also are unacquainted with the Lombard’s book, most certainly beginners in the study of theology (whether in the religious schools or elsewhere). His words indicate that he is most concerned to convey to his readers the order of books and essential points or basic arguments (ordo librorum et contenentia) found in the Sentences. So that the nescientes might not be waterlogged by, even drown in, the copious excerpts Peter Lombard has gathered for the purpose of refreshing and nourishing the Church, the author or producer of the Filia has added “magisterial notes” throughout in an attempt to highlight and further elucidate certain features of the Sentences in light of contemporary thought. The author’s language here seems significant, particularly in light of our foregoing discussion of medieval authorship and purpose: “I will add some magisterial notes so that the excerpts might shine forth more clearly.”73 Notice that he does not say, “I will add my own thoughts or opinions on select topics”; that is, he makes no claims to originality on his own part with regard to these notes, nor does he even generally identify their sources in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, the purpose of these notes is not to shed light on the teachings of Peter Lombard, but rather to underscore and explain what both the Lombard and he have received, namely, excerpts from ancient authorities on the gamut of theological topics. It may be said, then, that the author understands his purpose—in good Lombardian methodological fashion—as elucidating and updating the theological tradition, while drawing as little attention to himself and his own views as possible. He appears profoundly aware that it is the Sentences, that is, the authoritative statements themselves, that do and should continue to abundantly refresh the garden of the Church. It is surely also significant in this regard that—assuming our proposal that different teachers or students produced different annotated abbreviations of the Sentences reflects the historical reality—nearly all of these teachers or students seem to have taken the prologue unchanged for their own use. That is, they did not attempt to preface their particular abridgments with an original and creative preface of their own. Furthermore, one of the distinguishing marks of O is that throughout the abridgment the author appears not even to aggrediens in nomine Iesu Christi, notulas magistrales apponam aliquas, ut exce[r]pta clarius elucescant.” 73  M, fol. 75r: “Igitur opus subsequens aggrediens in nomine Iesu Christi, notulas magistrales apponam aliquas, ut exe[r]pta clarius elucescant.”

48

Harkins

attribute the patristic and early medieval excerpts of which he makes use, as M does most often in interlinear glosses and C usually does within parentheses in the body of the text itself. Does the author or scribe of O, by the time he is writing in the late fifteenth century, simply assume that every reader would know that the vast majority of excerpts in the Sentences are from Augustine and that the exact work and book from which they come are not necessary to specify or even for his readers to know? Or is it part of his pedagogical plan—even his own way of thinking as a scholar and author—to deemphasize authorship and attribution so that his students and other potential readers might focus instead on the theological content being conveyed? Finally, let us turn to the working method and theological content of the Filia magistri as attested in M. 5

Method and Theological Content

When considering the working method of the master or student who produced the Filia that we have preserved in M, we might profitably distinguish between his method as an abbreviator and glossator, on the one hand, and as a theologian, on the other. The two are not separate modes of work, of course, and our larger purpose here will be to shed further light on exactly what the Filia is and what its general medieval purpose (again, if we can narrow it to one) might have been. Let us turn, first, then to the author’s work as abbreviator and glossator. 5.1 Modes of Abbreviation and Glossing The first observation to be made concerns simply the extent to which the author of our Filia abbreviates his source text. The entire Filia—including the abridged text, magisterial notes in block format, and interlinear glosses— is only about one tenth the length of the Lombard’s four books of Sentences. Whereas Ignatius Brady’s critical edition of the Sentences runs to over 1,000 printed pages, my complete transcription of the Filia as attested in M will probably occupy slightly more than 100 single-spaced pages. In fact, Brady’s Book i comprises 272 published pages, whereas my transcription of the opening book of the Filia is about 25 single-spaced pages long. The complete text of the Filia occupies 181 folios in ms. M, whose small pages contain a single column of 17 lines with very generous margins. As two points of comparison, the thirteenth-century ms. Vb records the entire Filia on 69 larger single-column folios of 25 lines each, and the text fills only 54 single-column folios of 32 lines each in the fifteenth-century ms. O. Admittedly, the text as found in Vb and O

Filiae Magistri

49

contains fewer and briefer magisterial notes than does M and, in fact, no marginal notes at all, but the Filia rarely occupies more than one hundred folios in any of its manuscripts. By contrast, nearly all of the twelve manuscripts that served as the basis for Brady’s edition of the Sentences preserve this text on between 150 and 250 larger bi-columnar folios, with one manuscript running to 382 folios!74 Given that his work abridges his source text so radically, it should come as no surprise that the author of our Filia abbreviates the Sentences selectively; that is, he does not offer a concise version of the Lombard’s entire book, but actually skips over some distinctions altogether. Of the 48 distinctions in Book i of the Sentences, for example, the Filia abbreviates 40, which means that one sixth of them are completely omitted.75 Most often the distinctions that the abbreviator omits are places where Peter Lombard provides a more in-depth treatment of the topic of the foregoing distinction. For example, after abridging the Lombard’s general consideration in distinction 5 of what exactly happened when the Father generated the Son (did the Father generate a divine essence, did an essence generate the Son, did an essence generate an essence, or did a person generate a person?), the author of the Filia omits distinction 6 (where the Lombard asks whether the Father begot the Son by His own will or by necessity) and distinction 7 (where it is asked whether, if the Father was able or willed to beget the Son, He was able to do or willed something that the Son neither was able to do nor willed). Although the abbreviator likely recognized the theological import of the questions raised in distinctions 6 and 7, he obviously deems them too difficult or involved for his intended audience or too tangential to the basic question in distinction 5, which he considers under the rubricated heading “On the simplicity and immutability of the divine nature.”76 This too is quite interesting and suggestive of the abbreviator’s pedagogical approach: that he subsumes under this particular heading the Lombard’s discussion of who or what gave rise to whom or what when the Father generated the Son. The implication is that simply knowing that the divine nature is simple and immutable would enable readers or hearers of the Filia to recognize that affirming generation by or of God’s essence is theologically problematic. Furthermore, the abbreviator reduces the lengthy first chapter of distinction 5 in the Sentences—consisting of 17 sections wherein the Lombard adduces and 74  See Peter Lombard, Sentences, ed. Brady, 131*–136*. The lengthiest manuscript is Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 688, described on p. 135*. 75  The distinctions that the Filia as found in M does not abbreviate or comment on at all are 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 21, 29, and 47. 76  M, fols. 79v–81r: “De simplicitate et incommutabilitate nature diuine.”

50

Harkins

discusses 28 scriptural and patristic authorities in support of one position or another—to a single concise magisterial note: “There are, then, four propositions, namely: an essence generates an essence, a person generates an essence, an essence generates a person, a person generates a person. Only the last of these is true.”77 In nearly all cases the scribe of M marks off each separate distinction in the abbreviated text with a short rubricated heading: De generatione eterna for distinction 4, De spiritu sancto for distinction 10, and De uoluntate dei for distinction 45, for example. The same or similar headings are found in most other Filia manuscripts that I have consulted, which suggests that these headings likely originated with those who produced the texts rather than simply with those who copied them. Relatively rarely, the material that constitutes a distinction in the Sentences is found abbreviated only in a magisterial note in the Filia, as is the case with distinction 46. In the Lombard’s book, distinction 46 follows on a more general discussion of the will of God in distinction 45, treating several scriptural passages that would seem to contradict the already established sentence affirming that God’s will can never be made void. One such passage, 1 Tim. 2:4, “God wills all humans to be saved,” becomes the centerpiece of a brief block note that the master of our Filia embeds in his larger abbreviation of distinction 45. “For God wills in this way,” he explains, “namely, He teaches and advises all humans to be saved, and however many perish, perish contrary to His counsel. Likewise, as it is said in Ezekiel, ‘I do not will the death’ of a sinner, that is, I neither advise nor cause [his death].”78 This magisterial note exemplifies the pedagogical method of the Filia: here the abbreviator uses one of several authorities found in the Lombard to illustrate the question or problem at hand (namely, 1 Tim. 2:4), but he provides a much more succinct and straightforward solution than is found in the Sentences. Whereas the Lombard himself invokes Augustine’s explanation in the Enchiridion according to which this scriptural verse does not mean that there is no person whom God does not will to be saved but rather that there is none who is saved except whom God wills to be saved, the author of the Filia simply explains that spiritual death 77  M, fol. 79v: “Sunt ergo quatuor propositiones, scilicet: essentia generat essentiam, persona generat essentiam, essentia generat personam, persona generat personam; quorum tantum ultima uera est.” 78  M, fol. 106v: “Nota quod illud apostolus: uult omnes homines saluos fieri. sic intelligitur id est quodquot saluantur per ipsum saluantur uel potest dici. quod ibi accipitur uult pro uoluntate significari. Uult enim deus hoc modo id est precipit uel consulit omnes homines saluos fieri, et quotquot pereunt contra consilium eius pereunt. Item cum dicitur ezechiel: Nolo mortem peccatoris id est non consulo, uel non operor.”

Filiae Magistri

51

is against divine instruction and counsel.79 And he draws on two authoritative words from Ezekiel, Nolo mortem (words not found in the Lombard himself ), to drive this point home with his readers. In treating our author’s general method of abbreviating, it may prove helpful to construct a basic typology of glossing in the Filia. As a glossator, he produces both interlinear glosses and magisterial notes, the latter appearing in block format in M. The interlinear glosses are of three basic types (what I will call “orienting notes,” “source-reference notes” or simply “reference notes,” and “explanatory notes”), all of which seem intended for beginning students in theology and/or religious novices. (1) First, the master uses some interlinear notes to orient the reader of the abbreviation and the arguments in it. The most common “orienting notes” are soluit and solutio, clearly signaling that what follows is the solution by Peter Lombard, Augustine, or some other auctoritas to the question posed. The master also sometimes orients the reader by using interlinear glosses such as primum, secundum, and tercium to enumerate arguments or points within an argument.80 Finally, when presenting a certain opinion or quotation, the master may insert such glosses as “but wrongly” or “better” in an effort to provide his reader or auditor with guidance concerning how to think rightly about a particular question.81 (2) The second type of interlinear note provides brief source references for sentences or authoritative statements presented in the abbreviation. Before quotations from Augustine, for example, the glossator usually identifies the work from which it comes with interlinear glosses such as in libro de doctrina christiana, often also providing the book number, as in primo libro de trinitate. Or he introduces a scriptural quotation with “as the Apostle says.” Such “reference notes” can be quite helpful in orienting the reader, particularly when the abbreviation sets forth multiple quotations from different authors in series, as for example in Book iii, dist. 23. The student who reads here about the order of the virtues would have little or no way of knowing the sources of two backto-back quotes (or even that the first was an authoritative sentence) were it not for one interlinear gloss that reads “as Augustine says on John” and another after the words “Gregory says, however” that specifies “on Ezekiel.”82 Such reference notes provide guidance for the beginning student who may not have a mastery of traditional theological sources or who may be interested in reading more on a certain topic. 79  See Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 46, chap. 2, no. 3 (1: 313–14). 80  See, for example, dist. 19 (M, fol. 85v). 81  See sed male and ergo melius at Book i, dist. 1 and 9, respectively (M, fols. 77r and 81v). 82  M, fol. 181r.

52

Harkins

(3) The third basic type of interlinear gloss, and the most frequently occurring, is the “explanatory note.” Some of these notes very briefly define or explain a word or phrase in the abbreviation, often in the updated philosophical language of the thirteenth century. Glossing the phrase “things and signs” in the opening distinction of Book i, for example, the master inserts above the line “that is, essences and sacraments.”83 Other explanatory notes make something in the abbreviation explicit or elucidate how an authority that is cited teaches a particular doctrine. In abbreviating the Lombard’s treatment of the twofold nativity of Christ in Book iii, dist. 8, for example, the author of the Filia quotes John Damascene and explains with interlinear glosses (which I enclose in angle brackets) the precise meanings of John’s phrases propter nos, secundum nos, and super nos: “We honor the two nativities of Christ: one from the Father before the world beyond cause and reason and time and nature; and the other that is in these last [days] because of us , and according to us , and beyond us .”84 Similarly, the master of the Filia sometimes uses explanatory interlinear notes to show the reader how a particular authoritative statement teaches a certain doctrine. In offering scriptural testimonies to the Trinity, he writes: “David also says: ‘May God bless us, our God , may God bless us, and may all the ends of the earth fear Him .’ Likewise, Isaiah says: ‘Holy , holy , holy , Lord God .’ ”85 Such glossing suggests that the master intended his work for the basic doctrinal or theological instruction of beginning students or religious novices, who may not—without such assistance—understand Psalm 66:7–8 and Isaiah 6:3 as revealing the triune God. Finally, some explanatory interlinear notes summarize points previously made or serve as reminders of a foregoing discussion. Near the end of his abbreviation of Book i, dist. 1, the master reminds his hearer or reader that some things are to be enjoyed, where he inserts the note “such as God,” other things are to 83  M, fol. 75v: “id est essentias et sacramenta.” 84  M, fol. 171r: “vnde Ioannes damascenus: ‘Duas Christi natiuitates ueneramur: unam ex patre ante secula super causam et rationem et tempus et naturam; et unam quae in ultimis propter nos et secundum nos et super nos .’ ” 85  M, fol. 78r: “Item Dauid dicit: ‘Benedicat nos deus , deus noster , benedicat nos deus , et metuant eum omnes fines terre.’ Isaias quoque dicit: ‘Sanctus , sanctus , sanctus , dominus deus .’ ”

Filiae Magistri

53

be used, inserting the note “such as creatures,” and still other things are both used and enjoyed, “such as humans and angels.”86 Like this last type of interlinear gloss, the magisterial notes in the Filia magistri also aim to explain or clarify the Lombard’s teaching or questions that might arise from it. They do so in three general ways: namely, by making distinctions (I will call these “distinguishing notes”), by offering contemporary opinions (these I will call “updating notes”), and by providing summary lists or arbores ramificatae (these I will call “summary notes”). As with the types of interlinear notes, there is obviously some overlap among these three categories, as for example when contemporary opinions serve as the source for a distinction that is made. An example of a distinguishing note appears in Book i, dist. 3, which treats the question of how vestiges of the Trinity appear in created things (see fig. 1). After recording in the abbreviated text the Lombard’s teaching that no Trinitarian vestiges in creatures are able to be known without instruction or the revelation of interior inspiration, the master explains in a block note: “Now I know in part [1 Cor. 13:12]. God is known in four ways: internally through inspiration and through reasoning; externally through the contemplation of creatures and through instruction.”87 The master composes a second distinguishing note at the end of distinction 3 in an effort to explain why we say that the Father is a different alius than the Son, but not a different aliud: “Adjectives predicated of God in the masculine designate a person, in the feminine a concept, and in the neuter the essence.”88 An interesting and related example of a magisterial note that is simultaneously a distinguishing and an updating note occurs in Book i, dist. 22 on the names predicated of God. Here the master of the Filia provides a very lengthy note distinguishing among the classes of names that are predicated essentially of God and giving examples of each. Essential predications are bifurcated into substantival (such as “God,” “creator,” etc.) and adjectival (such as “sublime,” “eternal,” etc.). Within substantival essential predicates, some are concrete (such as “God” and “creator”), whereas others are abstract (“deity,” “power,” “essence”). The distinctions continue. What is suggestive about this note is that—although the master makes no mention of it source—it shares identical contents (down to the very examples) with an arbor ramificata from prologue I of Hugh of Saint-Cher’s 86  M, fol. 77r. 87  M, fol. 78v: “Nunc cognosco ex parte [1 Cor. 13:12]. Quatuor modis cognoscitur deus: intus per inspirationem, et ratiocinationem; extra per creaturarum contemplationem, et per doctrinam.” 88  M, fol. 79r: “Adiectiua dicta de deo in masculine supponunt personam, in feminino notionem, in neutro uero genere essentiam.”

54

Harkins

Sentences commentary, which is preserved in only one extant manuscript of that work.89 In the production of his commentary, however, Hugh drew heavily on the Summa aurea of William of Auxerre, which makes tracing lines of influence an inexact science at best.90 Another interesting example of what I have dubbed an “updating note” appears in distinction 15 of Book iii, which treats the defects that Christ assumed in his human nature, including passibility and mortality (see fig. 2). Here the master of our Filia includes a magisterial note discussing whether the human race could have been liberated other than through the death of Christ. After explaining that “certain people” deem that it was possible per se but not per accidens on account of the promises made to the prophets, he reports that “Hugh” says that liberation could have happened otherwise with regard to mercy but not with regard to justice; thus, the death of Christ was the means of liberation “with the greatest mercy for us” and “with the greatest justice for the Father.”91 The comparative work of Weisweiler has demonstrated that this opinion is found exactly as the master of our Filia reports it in the commentary of Hugh of Saint-Cher.92 A similar updating note occurs in distinction 23 of Book i, where the author of the Filia brings the opinions of Master Simon of Corbie and Master G., among others, to bear on the question of what precisely the term persona means as applied to God.93 We might observe, in passing, that in neither of these two updating notes does the author of our Filia offer his own solution in light of the contemporary opinions he presents. This may suggest that scholars have misread the abbreviator’s methodological statement in the prologue, where he promises to offer some magisterial notes to elucidate 89  See Bieniak, “The Sentences Commentary of Hugh of St.-Cher,” esp. 121, which reproduces the arbor ramificata from ms. B on which the Filia’s magisterial note is based. 90  See ibid., 112–13. 91  M, fol. 174v: “Quaeritur humanum genus potuit aliter liberari quam pro morte Christi. quidam dignat quod possibile fuit per se sed non per accidens, scilicet propter promissionem factam in prophetis. uel dici potuit aliter liberari sed non aliter redimi, id est dari solutio iusti precii. hugo dicit quod de misericordia potuit aliter liberari sed non de iusticia, sed liberatio per mortem fuerit maxima misericordia quoad nos et maxima iusticia quoad patrem.” Interestingly, Weisweiler notes that three manuscripts of the Filia (namely, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 5307, Clm 17243, and Clm 18582) read “Willelmus dicit quod . . .” instead of “uel dici . . .” in this note, thereby revealing the source of this opinion as William of Auxerre (Weisweiler, “Théologiens de l’entourage d’Hugues de Saint-Cher,” 390). Perhaps the scribe of M misread the abbreviation for “Willelmus” and copied “uel” instead. 92  See Weisweiler, “Théologiens de l’entourage d’Hugues de Saint-Cher,” 390. 93  See M, fol. 88v.

Filiae Magistri

55

the Lombard’s text. Perhaps the phrase “magisterial notes” is not intentionally self-descriptive or self-referential at all, that is, as penned it did not aim to reveal the identity of the producer of the Filia as either Hugh of Saint-Cher, a student of Hugh’s who used the master’s notes, or another master in his circle at Paris. Rather, many of the block notes in the Filia are “magisterial” in the sense that they simply bring the teachings of various contemporary masters into conversation with one another on the myriad questions raised by the Lombard’s book. The final type of magisterial note summarizes often detailed and complex subjects or teachings by means of a list or arbor ramificata. In distinction 34 of Book i, for example, the master provides an arbor of the nouns or notiones proper to each of the three divine persons (though they can be predicated communally or substantially as well). Proper to the Father are “authority,” “origin,” “unity,” “beginning,” and “eternity.” Proper to the Son are “wisdom,” “beauty,” “truth,” “form,” “word,” and “likeness.” And proper to the Holy Spirit are “love,” “goodness,” “gift,” “peace,” and “grace.”94 Similarly, at distinction 37 the master provides an extensive arbor (filling roughly half of fol. 99r) that explains the twenty different ways in which God is “in things” (through nature, through grace, through union, through bodily presence, through hidden revelation, through vestiges, and through the identity of nature). Such visually memorable summary notes would surely have been pedagogically effective in helping readers to comprehend and retain what is presented in much more extensive prose in the Lombard’s book. 5.2 Theology and Pedagogy Our foregoing consideration of the modes of abbreviation and glossing in M suggests that the master intended his updated abridgment for the instruction of beginning theology students and/or religious novices, and the pattern of manuscript diffusion confirms that numerous Filiae were, in fact, used in this way. In an attempt to shed light on how the Lombard’s book was understood, taught, and used “on the ground” in the thirteenth century and beyond, let us consider our Filia’s theological teaching as compared to the instruction given in roughly contemporary commentaries produced by masters-in-training at the University of Paris for students there. We will confine our comparative analysis to two major theological issues and the distinctions in the Sentences from which they arise, namely, divine omnipotence in Book i, dist. 44, and the mode of the Incarnation in Book iii, dist. 6. We will see that the teaching of the Filia attested in M on these two theological loci aligns essentially with the 94  See M, fol. 97r.

56

Harkins

parallel presentations of William of Auxerre, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas, although it is offered in a much more condensed and simpler form. Indeed, as is the case in Book i, dist. 44, the more detailed and nuanced teachings of these thirteenth-century masters help to elucidate the excessively concise, and sometimes even cryptic, notes of our Filia. What this suggests, I propose, is that whoever produced this Filia integrated the very latest early-to-mid-thirteenth-century theological insights and interpretations into his abridgment, the very same body of teaching that Albert, Bonaventure, and Aquinas drew on but developed in greater detail and with greater precision in the subsequent decades. 5.2.1 Book i, dist. 44 In distinctions 42–44 of Book i, Peter Lombard treats a series of questions related to the power—or, more properly, the omnipotence—of God. Distinction 44 asks whether God can do or make anything “better” than He has actually done or made it. The Filia magistri as found in M provides an answer to this important question in two magisterial notes. In the first, the abbreviator explains that the word “better” (melius) can act either as a noun (by which he means a substantivized adjective: “a better thing” or “something better”) or as an adverb (“He made it in a better way”). If “better” is used as a substantivized adjective or each thing is considered in itself absolutely, our Filia teaches that “God was able to make each thing better.”95 Although this note is quite elliptic, the master of the Filia draws on the creation account in Genesis 1 in what seems to be an attempt to demonstrate that there can be and, in fact, are different levels of goodness in God’s work. Quoting Genesis 1:31, “God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good,” the master teaches: “Each individual thing is indeed good in itself, but all of them mutually ordered are very good.” This magisterial note relies, of course, on the reader calling to mind that after God had created particular things on each day, the text of Genesis 95  The entire magisterial note reads: “Dicas ergo quod hec est duplex: deus potest aliud facere melius quam facit quia hoc ‘melius’ potest esse nomen uel aduerbium. si nomen aut res consideratur secundum se absolute, et sic deus unamquamque rem potuit facere meliorem. aut in comparatione ad alias et sic unaquoque optimum habet esse in genere suo. terra enim in genere suo optime est, celum in genere suo optime est. Diabolus in ministerio optime sedet. Genesis: Uidit deus cuncta que fecerat et cetera. Singula quidem bona in se, sed omnia adinuicem ordinate ualde bona. Si uero est aduerbium, ad hoc duplex est quia potest referri: ad [vacat] et sic falsa sub hoc sensu. deus melius, id est meliori sapientia, potest facere aliquid. uel potest referri ad accusatiuam, et sic Ysaia considerate re absolute ut dictum est” (M, fol. 105v). The word vacat in square brackets indicates a blank space at the end of a line where there seems to have been a scribal erasure.

Filiae Magistri

57

repeatedly affirms: “And God saw that it was good.” If, by contrast, the word “better” is used as an adverb, it points not to the what of divine making, but rather to the how. In this way, the Filia maintains, saying that God is able to do something better implies “by a better wisdom”—that is, more wisely—and is therefore false. It must be noted at the outset that, like others, this highly abbreviated magisterial note in the Filia presupposes on the part of the reader a basic familiarity with early- to mid-thirteenth-century discussions on the question at hand. Indeed, a consideration of some of these contemporary treatments of distinction 44 of the Lombard’s first book suggests that the Filia captured the most recent theological thinking of its day and provided it for its readers in a radically shortened summary form, a kind of scholastic “SparkNotes,” as it were. As a point of comparison, let us examine several contemporary readings of distinction 44. In his Summa aurea, posing the question of whether God can make anything better than He made it, William of Auxerre provides an answer that is quite similar to (albeit more straightforward than) what we find in the Filia. In asking “whether God is able to make anything better than He has made it,” William explains that if the adverb “better” modifies the verb in relation to the subject (namely, God), then the answer must be negative “because God makes whatever He makes according to an eternal plan, and He is not able to make anything according to a better plan.” If, however, the adverb “better” modifies the verb in relation to the object (namely, the creature), then the answer must be affirmative “because He is able to make a better thing.”96 In offering this answer, William is reporting the view of “some” on this question. As the Summa aurea was composed sometime in the period 1215–1229 and seems to have served as a source for our Filia, William’s treatment here suggests that our abbreviator is updating the Lombard’s text with the very latest theological and semantic insights. The Filia’s second magisterial note on distinction 44 provides further confirmation of this point by introducing a quintessential scholastic distinction into the Lombard’s discussion of actual limitations on God’s omnipotence. The precise question that the Lombard asks here is “whether God is always able

96  William of Auxerre, Summa aurea, Book i, tract. 11, chap. 7, sol. (ed. Jean Ribaillier [Rome, 1980], 216): “Ad primum dicunt quidam quod hec est duplex: Deus non potest facere melius aliquid quam facit, quia si hoc adverbium ‘melius’ determinet verbum in comparatione ad rem nominative, vera est, quia Deus eterna ratione facit quicquid facit, et non potest meliori ratione falsa est, quia meliorem rem potest facere.”

58

Harkins

to do what He was once able to do.”97 The master of the Filia comments: “The power of God is twofold, that is, it is spoken of in a twofold way: [as] absolute and conditional. By [His] absolute power God can do all things, even damn Peter, become incarnate, etc. But with regard to His conditional and ordained power God was not able to do all things.”98 While the master’s words here suggest that the language of the absolute and ordained power of God was common parlance at the time of his abridgment, this distinction had likely been in use among theologians for only about two decades. Indeed, both William Courtenay and Lawrence Moonan have identified the first use of the power distinction, in the way that would become standard, in the Summa theologiae of Geoffrey of Poitiers, a student of Stephen Langton who flourished in the second decade of the thirteenth century as a secular master in the faculty of theology at Paris.99 It was at Paris that the distinction entered the thought of Dominican and Franciscan theologians through the works of such masters as Roland of Cremona, Hugh of Saint-Cher, and Alexander of Hales. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas inherited it around mid-century, and it eventually made its way to Oxford, where it became more well-known in the hands of John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and their followers.100 Geoffrey’s Summa, written around 1210–1215, not only depends on the work of his master, Stephen Langton, but also shares close textual affinities with parts of the Summa fratris Alexandri and the Summa aurea. Moonan observes: “It can be seen that no great originality is intended in the work, but that it is something of a paradigm of the vehicles in which the dialectical teachings of the Masters might be registered, modified, and transmitted.”101 In light of the Parisian origin and early trajectory of the power distinction, that this Filia witnesses quite early to this distinction may bolster the theory advanced by 97  Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 44, chap. 2 (1: 305). 98  M, fols. 105v–106r: “Potentia dei duplex est, id est duplicitur dicitur: absoluta et conditionata. potentia absoluta deus omnia potest, etiam petrum dampnare et incarnari et cetera. sed de potentia conditionata et ordinate non posset et sic de aliis.” 99  See William J. Courtenay, Capacity and Volition: A History of the Distinction of Absolute and Ordained Power (Bergamo, 1990), 72 (also 14, where he notes that it was Artur Landgraf who uncovered in Godfrey’s Summa what appears to be the earliest use of the technical terms de potestate absoluta and de potentia conditionali); Lawrence Moonan, Divine Power: The Medieval Power Distinction up to its Adoption by Albert, Bonaventure and Aquinas (Oxford, 1994), 57–61; and Francis Oakley, “The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Theology,” Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1998): 437–61, at 440. 100  See Oakley, “The Absolute and Ordained Power of God,” 440. 101  Moonan, Divine Power, 57.

Filiae Magistri

59

Raymond Martin and Heinrich Weisweiler according to which it was produced by a student of, or a member of the circle of, Hugh of Saint-Cher at Paris. Additionally, the use of the absolute/ordained power distinction here may situate the Filia among those paradigmatic vehicles for conveying magisterial teaching in the first several decades of the thirteenth century.102 Furthermore, despite the fact that the Filia makes no explicit claims to originality, its master shows himself to have been in the theological vanguard of his day. It is noteworthy in this regard that William of Auxerre, also a master of theology at Paris in these years, makes no mention of the absolute/ordained power distinction, even when he treats the very question to which the master of the Filia alludes in making this distinction, namely, “whether God was able to damn Peter and save Judas.”103 If we return to the Filia’s first magisterial note on distinction 44, comparing how contemporary theologians framed and answered the question of whether God can make something better than He made it may help to illumine the abridgment’s pedagogical method and theological content. Albert the Great, who lectured on the Sentences before becoming a master of theology at Paris in the spring of 1245, begins his comments here, as elsewhere, by dividing the Lombard’s text in order to nail down precisely what he is asking and how he is answering.104 Albert makes clear in his divisio textus that in distinction 44 Peter Lombard is actually posing three different questions related to the manner of divine omnipotence vis-à-vis creation, namely: (1) whether God was able to make the world better than He made it; (2) whether God was able to make what He made in a better way; and (3) whether God is now able to make what He was once able to make.105 The distinction indicated in the first two questions here is precisely that made by the master of our Filia in semantic terms, namely, that between the what and the how of God’s creative power. In treating the quiddity of God’s creative power, Albert makes another crucial distinction intimated in the Filia and subsequently explained in greater 102  This would comport with Martin’s dating of M to the period 1232–1245, although Ker dates the Filia of M to the second half of the thirteenth century. 103  See William of Auxerre, Summa aurea, Book i, tract. 11, chap. 5, pp. 211–13. 104  On the dating of Albert’s Sentences commentary, see James A. Weisheipl, O.P., “The Life and Works of St. Albert the Great,” in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays 1980, ed. James A. Weisheipl, O.P. (Toronto, 1980), 13–51, at 21–3. Although Albert likely lectured on the Sentences upon his arrival in Paris around 1243–1244, the record of those lectures that we have in the Borgnet edition is clearly an ordinatio that was not completed until after March 25, 1249. 105  See Albert the Great, Commentaria in I Sententiarum, dist. 44, divisio textus, in B. Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, ed. S.C.E. Borgnet, vol. 26 (Paris, 1893), 388.

60

Harkins

detail by both Bonaventure and Aquinas, namely, that between the goodness of the individual creatures which God has made and the goodness of the orderly arrangement of the whole world.106 Before turning to a consideration of Bonaventure and Aquinas, one particularly noteworthy and explicit point of contact between our Filia and Albert must be noted. Specifically, in taking up what Albert describes as the “very difficult question” of whether God was able to make the goodness that results from the order of the entire world better, the first authority that he invokes in the sed contra is Genesis 1:31, “God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” Immediately thereafter, Albert teaches: “The Gloss says that each [created] thing was good in itself, but taken all together they are the best: but the best cannot be made better.”107 When the Filia is read through the lens of Albert, we see more clearly that the abbreviator is making use of a standard interpretation of Genesis 1:31 taken from the Glossa ordinaria. The master of our Filia may well have known the other three authoritative arguments enumerated by Albert in his sed contra (and perhaps others as well), but his purpose of providing a concise and simple theological updating of the Lombard surely demanded that he offer only the shortest and best of these to his auditors and readers. In discussing this question at the level of the entire world (rather than of the individual creatures in it), Bonaventure is concerned with whether God could have made a better world (1) with regard to the substance, essence, or being of its integral parts (what Aquinas will call its “essential goodness”) and (2) with regard to the order of its parts.108 First, on the substance of the world’s integral parts, Bonaventure explains that what he describes as “an excess of substantial or essential goodness” in a thing (that is, what is meant by “better” in the question at hand) can be understood in two ways: either with regard to the nobility and status of the thing’s essence, or with regard to its being

106  Albert’s second article asks, of individual things, “whether God was able to make those things that He made better,” whereas article 3 asks “whether God was able to make the goodness that results from the order of the world better than He made it” (ibid., art. 2 and 3, pp. 391–4). 107  Ibid., art. 3, sed contra, p. 393: “Super illud Genes. 1, 31: Vidit Deus cuncta fecerat: et erant valde bona: dicit Glossa, quod bona erant in se, sed in universo optima: optimo autem non potest melius fieri.” 108  Bonaventure treats these in question 1 and question 3, respectively, of article 1 of his commentary on distinction 44. In his own lectures on the Sentences, Aquinas drew on the commentaries of both Albert the Great and Bonaventure. Bonaventure began lecturing on the Sentences in 1250, two years prior to Aquinas. See Christopher M. Cullen, Bonaventure (Oxford, 2006), 11; and Joseph P. Wawrykow, The Westminster Handbook to Thomas Aquinas (Louisville, Ky., 2005), 135.

Filiae Magistri

61

as ­concerns addition or increase. To use Bonaventure’s own examples: we say that a human is better than an ass because its essence is more noble; but we say that eight ounces of gold are better than one ounce not because eight ounces have a more noble form or essence than one, but rather because they have more of the substance of gold and so more goodness and economic value.109 If one asks whether God was able to make a better world and one understands an excess of essential good in the first way (namely, that the world would consist of better and more noble essences), Bonaventure answers negatively. This is so because if the same world that now exists had been able to be made better, it would not be this world but another. “Just as if this one who was made a human had been made an ass, he would not be who he is,” Bonaventure explains. Here the hypothetical created thing would, of course, display a reduction of essential good with regard to the nobility of its essence, but his point is the same. If one asks the question and understands an excess of essential good in the second way, Bonaventure answers affirmatively. Indeed, he teaches that God was able to make not only another world but even this world better in the sense of an increase of being. If God had made a larger or greater world, it would not have been another world, Bonaventure teaches, “just as He could have made this boy as big as a giant, having more substance and strength [than he now has], but he still would not have been a different person than he is.”110 When Bonaventure turns to consider this question from the perspective of the order of the world’s parts, his opening objection quotes Genesis 1:31 and the exact gloss on it that we have seen both in the Filia and in Albert the Great. 109  See Bonaventure, Commentaria in iv libros Sententiarum, Book i, dist. 44, art. 1, qu. 1, in S. Bonaventurae Opera theologica selecta, vol. 1 (Quarrachi, 1934), p. 621: “Dicendum quod excessus bonitatis substantialis in rebus potest attendi dupliciter: aut quantum ad essentiarum nobilitatem et gradus, et sic dicitur, quod species hominis melior est et nobilior specie asini; aut quantum ad esse, prout concernit additionem sive augmentum, sicut dicitur, quod marca auri melior est uncial, non quia nobiliorem habet formam uel essentiam, sed quia plus habet de auri substantia ac per hoc de bonitate et valore.” 110  Ibid.: “Quando ergo quaeritur, utrum Deus potuerit mundum facere meliorem quantum ad substantiam partium; si tu intelligas de excessu quantum ad primum modum, quod mundus constaret ex melioribus et nobilioribus essentiis, dico quod idem mundus, qui est nunc, non potuit fieri melior, quia non esset iste, sed alius; sicut, si iste qui factus est homo, fuisset factus asinus, non esset ille qui est. Quia tamen posse eius non est arctatum nec limitatum, non video quare non potuisset mundum facere meliorem hoc genere melioritatis. Si autem intelligas quantum ad secundum modum, sic dico quod non solum alium, verum etiam hunc potuit facere meliorem, sicut et maiorem. Et si fecisset non esset alius; sicut posset facere quod iste puer esset ita magnus ut gigas, et plus haberet de substantia et virtute, et tamen non esset alius quam est.”

62

Harkins

Like the Filia and Albert, Bonaventure invokes both the sacred text and its gloss (telling us that the latter originates with Augustine) to support the claim that God was not able to make a more perfectly ordered world than the one He made.111 He proceeds to explain that both with regard to the order of parts in the whole (in toto) and with regard to the order of parts toward their end (in finem), God has ordered the things of this world in the best way. Bonaventure explains the perfect ordering of things thus: The whole world is, as it were, the most beautiful song, which flows along with the best harmonies, with some parts following others until things are perfectly ordained toward their end. . . . Thus, the order of things in the whole world shows wisdom, and the order of things to their end shows goodness, but in the relationship of one thing to another the greatest wisdom and the greatest goodness are shown.112 In the opening article of the first question of his Scriptum on distinction 44, Thomas Aquinas frames the question in individual rather than universal terms: “whether God was able to make any creature better than He made it.”113 In article 2, he proceeds to inquire, as Bonaventure does, whether God could have made the whole world better, but his initial concern is with the individual things of creation. Whereas the Filia answers the question posed by the Lombard by means of a linguistic or semantic distinction (namely, between “better” used as an adjective and as an adverb), Thomas’s tack is, like Bonaventure’s, more immediately philosophical: specifically, his solution hangs on the distinction, derived from Aristotle and borrowed from his teacher Albert, between essential and accidental goodness.114 Because being is twofold and because being and goodness are intimately linked, Thomas explains, each 111  See ibid., qu. 3, obj. a, p. 624. 112  Ibid., qu. 3, resp., p. 625: “Similiter optime ordinatae sunt res in finem, salvo ordine universi, quia universum est tamquam pulcherrimum carmem [sic], quod decurrit secundum optimas consonantias, aliis partibus seccedentibus aliis, quousque res perfecte ordinentur in finem. . . . sic ordo rerum in universe in se ostendit sapientiam, et ordo ad finem bonitatem, sed in comparatione unius ad alterum ostenditur summa sapientia et summa bonitas,. . . .” 113  Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libris Sententiarum, Book i, dist. 44, qu. 1, art. 1 (ed. P. Mandonnet, O.P. [Paris, 1929]), p. 1015: “Utrum Deus potuerit facere aliquam creaturam meliorem quam fecerit.” Aquinas delivered his lectures on the Sentences at Paris in 1252– 1256 (see Wawrykow, Westminster Handbook, 135). 114  Cf. Albert, Comm. in I Sent., dist. 44, art. 2, resp., p. 392, who distinguishes between “substantial goodness” and “accidental goodness.”

Filiae Magistri

63

thing can be thought to possess an essential goodness and an accidental goodness. Rationality, for example, is constitutive of the essential goodness of the human person, whereas health and knowledge are aspects of his or her accidental goodness.115 If we have in mind a thing’s accidental goodness when we ask whether God could have made that thing better than He made it, then we must answer in the affirmative, Thomas maintains, as God was able to confer greater goodness on each particular thing. If, on the other hand, we have in mind a thing’s essential goodness, determining the question requires a further distinction, namely, that between the thing in question (according to species) and another or a different thing (according to species). Aquinas explains: Because if something is added to [a thing’s] essential goodness, it would not be the same thing but another thing: since, according to the Philosopher in Metaphysics viii.10, just as with numbers adding or subtracting one changes the original figure, so too with the classification [of creatures] adding or subtracting a distinguishing characteristic changes the species. For example, if the ability to reason were added to the description of a cow, it would no longer be a cow but another species, namely a human; if the power of perception were taken away, it would remain alive [but] in the way that trees live. Hence, just as God cannot make something that is threefold remain threefold when a fourth element is added—although He can thereby make a greater number—He cannot make this [created] thing remain the same if it has more or less essential goodness.116 In sum, Thomas teaches that God can make a creature better with regard to its accidental goodness, but not with regard to its essential goodness without making it a creature of a different species. Although Aquinas’s explanation is much more detailed and lucid, this appears to be essentially the same teaching that we see in shorthand in our Filia. God has made each thing such that it is 115  See Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, Book i, dist. 44, qu. 1, art. 1, resp., p. 1016. 116  Ibid.: “quia si adderetur ad bonitatem essentialem aliquid, non esset eadem res, sed alia: quia, secundum Philosophum, in viii Metaph., text. 10, sicut in numeris unitas addita, vel subtracta semper variat speciem; ita in definitionibus differentia addita vel subtracta; verbi gratia, si definitioni bovis addatur rationale, jam non erit bos, sed alia species, scilicet homo; si subtrahatur sensibile, remanebit vivens vita arborum. Unde sicut Deus non potest facere quod ternarius manens ternarius habeat quatuor unitates, quamvis quolibet numero majorem numerum facere possit, ita non potest facere quod haec res maneat eadem, et majorem bonitatem essentialem habeat, vel minorem.”

64

Harkins

the “best being” (optimum esse) in its genus or class, the abbreviator teaches: “For the earth is the best in its class, heaven is the best in its class. The devil remains the best in hell.”117 This teaching implies, as Aquinas makes explicit, that God could not make the earth, heaven, or even the devil essentially better without making them something else. This is true, the master of the Filia surely wishes his reader to know, even in spite of the devil’s post-lapsarian status and his ongoing work against God and the righteous. Furthermore, that both Albert in the early 1240s and Bonaventure in the early 1250s invoke Genesis 1:31 and the same Augustinian gloss on it that the Filia sets forth in support of the claim that God could not order the world better than He has already done highlights the Filia’s importance as a basic pedagogical tool for conveying contemporary theological teaching. Albert, Bonaventure, and Aquinas obviously make more distinctions in order to make the teaching clearer, but the same basic doctrine appears here in the Filia in a shorter, simpler form that would have been accessible for many novices, mendicants, and monks who would never receive a university education. 5.2.2 Book iii, dist. 6 In distinction 6 of Book iii, Peter Lombard sets forth three traditional opinions on the mode of the union in the Incarnation of the Word. Scholars of the Sentences consistently note the Lombard’s own refusal to make a final determination among his three opinions. Philipp Rosemann, for example, affirms: “From a reading of the Sentences themselves, it is not possible to determine with certainty which of the theories Peter preferred.”118 Similarly, Marcia Colish observes that even on this central doctrine of Christianity, “Peter really does think that the three opinions he outlines can truly be maintained within the orthodox consensus.”119 Such a holding together of differing positions or explanations within the bounds of acceptable belief, summarized in the phrase diversi sed non adversi, became characteristic of twelfth-century theological thought.120 Let us briefly consider each of the three opinions as set forth in the Lombard’s work. 117  M, fol. 105v: “aut in comparatione ad alias et sic unaqueque optimum habet esse in genere suo. terra enim in genere suo optime est, celum in genere suo optime est. Diabolus in inferno optime sedet.” 118  Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 130. 119  Colish, Peter Lombard, 1: 399. 120  On this theme, see Henri de Lubac, “A propos de la formule: diversi sed non adversi,” in Mélanges Jules Lebreton = Recherches de science religieuse 40 (1952): 27–40; and Hubert Silvestre, “ ‘Diversi sed non adversi’,” rtam 31 (1964): 124–32.

Filiae Magistri

65

Peter describes the first opinion, which has come to be dubbed “homo assumptus theory,” in this way: Some people say that in the very Incarnation of the Word, a certain man was constituted from a rational soul and human flesh, from which two every true man is constituted. And that man began to be God—not, however, the nature of God, but rather the person of the Word—and God began to be that man. Indeed, they concede that that man was assumed by the Word and united to the Word, and nevertheless was the Word. . . . Not, however, by the movement of one nature into another, but with the quality of both natures being preserved, it happened that God was that substance and that substance was God. Hence, truly it is said that God became man and man became God, and the Son of God became the son of man and vice versa. And although they say that that man subsists from a rational soul and human flesh, they do not, however, confess that he is composed of two natures, divine and human; nor that the parts of that one are two natures, but only soul and flesh.121 Two significant points—points that modern scholars have often overlooked when summarizing this position—must be made. First, the Lombard clearly states that those holding this opinion say that a certain man was constituted from a rational soul and human flesh “in the very Incarnation of the Word,” not prior to it. Secondly, that man, having been constituted at the moment of assumption, began to be the very person of the Word. He was not a separate, fully constituted person either before or after the assumption.122 So in 121  Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book iii, dist. 6, chap. 2, no. 1 (2: 50): “Alii enim dicunt in ipsa Verbi incarnatione hominem quendam ex anima rationali et humana carne constitutum: ex quibus duobus omnis verus homo constituitur. Et ille homo coepit esse Deus, non quidem natura Dei, sed persona Verbi; et Deus coepit esse homo ille. Concedunt etiam hominem illum assumptum a Verbo et unitum Verbo, et tamen esse Verbum. . . . Non tamen de migratione naturae in naturam, sed utriusque naturae servata proprietate, factum est ut Deus esset illa substantia, et illa substantia esset Deus. Unde vere dicitur Deus factus homo et homo factus Deus, et Deus esse homo et homo Deus, et Filius Dei filius hominis et e converso. Cumque dicant illum hominem ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistere, non tamen fatentur ex duabus naturis esse compositum, divina scilicet et humana; nec illius partes esse duas naturas, sed animam tantum et carnem.” Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the Sentences are my own. 122  Lauge Olaf Nielsen offers a summary of what has become the characteristic modern scholarly interpretation of this opinion when he writes: “According to this theory, a human being, constituted of soul and body, just like other men, was united with the Word

66

Harkins

describing this first opinion, it is safe to say that Peter does not have in mind the Nestorian two-person Christological heresy. The Lombard sets forth the second opinion, which modern scholars know as “subsistence theory,” in this way: There are others, however, who partially agree with these [proponents of the first opinion] but say that that man [Jesus Christ] consists not only of a rational soul and flesh, but of a human and divine nature, that is, of three substances: divinity, flesh, and soul. They confess that this Christ is only one person, indeed merely simple before the Incarnation, but in the Incarnation made composite from divinity and humanity. He is not, therefore, another person than he was previously, but whereas previously he was the person of God only, in the Incarnation he also became the person of man: not so that there were two persons, but so that one and the same was the person of God and man. Therefore, the person who was previously simple and existed in only one nature [now] subsists in two natures.123 It is significant that the adherents of this position, as the Lombard describes them, are in partial agreement with the first position. This suggests, of course, that the three positions were neither mutually exclusive nor as clearly delineated as they would become in the following century and beyond. Peter envisioned and intended his description of the third opinion also as simply another way, again within the bounds of orthodoxy, of thinking about the mode of the incarnational union. He sets forth the third opinion, known by modern scholars as “habitus theory,” as follows:

of God” (“Logic and the Hypostatic Union: Two Late Twelfth-Century Responses to the Papal Condemnation of 1177,” in Medieval Analyses in Language and Cognition: Acts of the Symposium, the Copenhagen School of Medieval Philosophy, January 10–13, 1996, ed. Sten Ebbesen and Russell L. Friedman [Copenhagen, 1999], 251–80, at 259). 123  Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book III, dist. 6, chap. 3, no. 1 (2: 52–3): “Sunt autem et alii, qui istis in parte consentiunt, sed dicunt hominem illum non ex anima rationali et carne tantum, sed ex humana et divina natura, id est ex tribus substantiis: divinitate, carne et anima, constare; hunc Christum fatentur, et unam personam tantum esse, ante incarnationem vero solummodo simplicem, sed in incarnatione factam compositam ex divinitate et humanitate. Nec est ideo alia persona quam prius, sed cum prius esset Dei tantum persona, in incarnatione facta est etiam hominis persona: non ut duae essent personae, sed ut una et eadem esset persona Dei et hominis. Persona ergo quae prius erat simplex et in una tantum natura exsistens, in duabus et ex duabus subsistit naturis.”

Filiae Magistri

67

There are also others who deny not only [the existence of ] a person composed of natures in the Incarnation of the Word, but even that some man or some substance was there composed or made from soul and flesh. Rather, they say that these two things—namely, soul and flesh—were united to the person or the nature of the Word not so that some substance or person was made or composed from these two or from these three things, but so that the Word of God might be clothed with these two as with a garment in order that He might suitably appear to the eyes of mortals.124 A little more than a century after Peter Lombard defined his three opinions and toward the end of his own teaching career, Thomas Aquinas offered in the tertia pars of his Summa theologiae what was to become (at least for many modern scholars) a definitive interpretation of these three ways of understanding the mode of the union. In the sixth article of his second question, which inquires “whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally,” Aquinas reviews the ancient Christological heresies of Eutychianism and Nestorianism before explaining that “some more recent masters, thinking to avoid these heresies, through ignorance fell into them.”125 Summarizing the Lombard’s first position, Thomas continues: “For some of them conceded one person of Christ, but proposed two hypostases or two supposita, saying that a certain man, composed of soul and body, was from the beginning of his conception assumed by the Word of God.”126 After briefly explaining the Lombard’s second and third opinions, Thomas concludes: “Therefore, it is clear that the second of the three opinions that the Master proposes, which affirms 124  Ibid., chap. 4, no. 1 (2: 55): “Sunt etiam et alii, qui in incarnatione Verbi non solum personam ex naturis compositam negant, verum etiam hominem aliquem, sive etiam aliquam substantiam, ibi ex anima et carne compositam vel factam diffitentur; sed sic illa duo, scilicet animam et carnem, Verbi personae vel naturae unita esse aiunt, ut non ex illis duobus vel ex his tribus aliqua substantia vel persona fieret sive componeretur, sed illis duobus velut indumento Verbum Dei vestiretur ut mortalium oculis congruenter appareret.” 125  Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae iii, qu. 2, art. 6, resp., in Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis xiii P.M. (Rome, 1882–), xi: 36: “Quidam autem posteriores magistri, putantes se has haereses declinare, in eas per ignorantiam inciderunt.” Unless otherwise noted, the Latin of the st is according to the Leonine edition and the translations are my own. 126  Ibid.: “Quidam enim eorum concesserunt unam Christi personam, sed posuerunt duas hypostases, sive duo supposita; dicentes hominem quendam, compositum ex anima et corpore, a principio suae conceptionis esse assumptum a Dei Verbo.”

68

Harkins

one hypostasis of God and man, should not be called an opinion, but an article of Catholic faith. Similarly, the first opinion which proposes two hypostases, and the third which proposes an accidental union, should not be called opinions, but heresies condemned by the Church in councils.”127 What is perhaps most striking here to the student of the Sentences is the way in which Aquinas, writing a little more than a half century after the Fourth Lateran Council, imposes the categories of orthodoxy and heresy on an earlier Christological presentation from which such distinctions remained markedly absent. It is perhaps also surprising that Thomas’s interpretation entails considerably less nuance than does the Lombard’s original presentation. It may very well be unfair to claim that Thomas misunderstood the three opinions and the interrelationships among them as envisioned by Peter. Instead, we might do well to assume that Aquinas’s rather flat-footed reading of the three opinions in the Summa represents an accommodation of the Lombard’s complex views to the capacity of the beginning students whom the Dominican master aims to teach in his Summa. Indeed, we may view his interpretation of the three opinions as in line with his intention “to pursue those things that pertain to sacred doctrine as briefly and clearly as the subject matter will allow.”128 Furthermore, Thomas’s concern to accommodate the Sentences’ three opinions on the mode of the incarnational union to his own students was doubtless determined largely by Pope Alexander iii’s condemnation, in 1170 and again in 1177, of the position, common in the Parisian schools at the time and attributed by Alexander to Peter Lombard, that Christus secundum quod homo non est aliquid. As Lauge Olaf Nielsen has shown, theologians working in the schools of Paris in the years immediately after the papal condemnation strove variously and creatively to explain the defensibility of both the view that insofar as He is human Christ is something (where aliquid is read as referring to a distinct nature), and the position that insofar as He is human Christ is not something 127  Ibid., 37: “Sic igitur patet quod secunda trium opinionum quas Magister ponit, quae asserit unam hypostasim Dei et hominis, non est dicenda opinio, sed sententia Catholicae fidei. Similiter etiam prima opinio, quae ponit duas hypostases; et tertia, quae ponit unionem accidentalem; non sunt dicendae opiniones, sed haereses in Conciliis ab Ecclesia damnatae.” For an overview of Aquinas’s theology of the hypostatic union as it developed throughout his career and in relation to the Lombard’s three opinions, see Joseph Wawrykow, “Hypostatic Union,” in The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, ed. Rik Van Nieuwenhove and Joseph Wawrykow (Notre Dame, Ind., 2005), 222–51. 128  s t, prooemium (Leonine ed., iv: 5): “Haec igitur et alia huiusmodi evitare studentes, tentabimus, cum confidentia divini auxilii, ea quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinent, breviter ac dilucide prosequi, secundum quod materia patietur.”

Filiae Magistri

69

(where the referent of aliquid is taken to be a separate person, substance, or essence).129 Such masters and students as Stephen Langton and the anonymous pupil of Peter the Chanter appear to have worked out their theologies of Christ’s humanity in the context of oral classroom debates concerning certain key sentences, such as: Utrum Christus sit duo; Homo assumptus est; Deus potest assumere personam Petri; Christus potuit assumere Petrum; and even Filius Dei potuit assumere te.130 These sorts of key sentences are indicative of disputation in the species of positio impossibilis or positio de impossibili, wherein the respondent is given the task of defending an impossible position or sentence. Such opinions as “A man was assumed” and “The Son of God was able to assume you,” which are—when taken at face value—naturally impossible, are in fact conceivable and thus are not logically impossible. As such, an impossible assumption and whatever follows from it are to be granted by the respondent; he is, on the other hand, to deny whatever is repugnant to it.131 By having recourse to current grammatical and logical teaching in these disputations in the mode of positio impossibilis, late twelfth-century Parisian masters and students explained how precisely such controverted Christological key sentences as Homo assumptus est could—and alternatively, could not—be defended.132 Like Thomas Aquinas, the master who produced the Filia magistri of M wished to avoid prolixity in his pedagogy by restraining the abundant flow of the four books of Sentences through a compendium and by adding some “magisterial notes so that the excerpts [of the Lombard’s work] might shine forth more clearly.”133 And yet, at least here in his teaching on the three opinions on the mode of the incarnational union, the master of our Filia seems to capture and convey Peter Lombard’s intention—as well as the theological understandings of the twelfth century—more effectively than does Aquinas. In this regard, both how he abbreviates the Lombard’s text and what he adds by way of interlinear and block notes are significant. The Filia’s abbreviation of the first opinion reads as follows:

129  See Nielsen, “Logic and the Hypostatic Union.” 130  Ibid., 255–8. 131   See Mikko Yrjönsuuri, “The Trinity and Positio Impossibilis: Some Remarks on Inconsistence,” in Medieval Philosophy and Modern Times, ed. Ghita Holmström-Hintikka (Dordrecht, 2000), 59–68. 132  See Nielsen, “Logic and the Hypostatic Union,” esp. 255–77. 133  M, fol. 75r.

70

Harkins

For some say that the Son assumed a man constituted of a rational soul and human flesh. And that man began to be God, not that [he began to be] the nature of God but [rather] the person of the Word, and God began to be that man. Hence Augustine [says]: “From where did that man merit this, that he might be assumed by the Word of God and be the Son of God?”134 Although these words at least imply that the eternal Son assumed a man already constituted of soul and flesh prior to the assumption, they also make clear that the assumed homo began to be the very person of the Word. Furthermore, if we look at the larger discussion in Book i, chapter 15 of On the Predestination of the Saints, from which this brief quotation of Augustine comes, it is obvious that Augustine understands homo not as a fully constituted human person or man, but rather as a human nature. Indeed, just previous to the words quoted here, Augustine asks concerning the predestination of Christ: “And by what preceding merits of its own, whether of works or of faith, did the human nature that is in Him prepare itself [to be assumed by the eternal Word]?”135 Finally, and most importantly, the abbreviator’s interlinear gloss teaches that the Lombard’s first opinion can be appropriately held or supported per positionem in scolis, that is, through scholastic disputation in the species of positio impossibilis. Although he provides no further explanation here, the abbreviator seems well aware of how theologians of the preceding decades such as the pupil of the Chanter and Stephen Langton were able to defend such putatively impossible sentences as Filius assumpsit hominem. Indeed, they did so by reading homo as signifying a human nature rather than a human person, just as certain theologians in the decades before them, such as Hugh and Achard of Saint-Victor, had done.136 Hugh and Achard of Saint-Victor are usually among the first names that modern scholars associate with the Lombard’s first opinion. This is ­conspicuously 134  M, fols. 170r–v: “Alii enim dicunt filium assumpsisse hominem ex anima rationali et humana carne constitutum. Et ille homo cepit esse deus, non que natura dei sed persona uerbi et deus cepit esse homo ille. Unde augustinus : ‘Ille homo ut a uerbo dei assumptus filius dei esset, unde hoc meruit?’ ” 135  p l 44: 981: “Est etiam praeclarissimum lumen praedestinationis et gratiae, ipse Salvator, ipse Mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus: qui ut hoc esset, quibus tandem suis vel operum vel fidei praecedentibus meritis natura humana quae in illo est comparavit?” Translation mine. 136  Nielsen, “Logic and the Hypostatic Union,” esp. 268–75.

Filiae Magistri

71

evidenced by the footnote to Peter’s alii in Ignatius Brady’s critical edition, which points the reader directly to Hugh’s De sacramentis, Book ii, Part i, chapters 9 and 11. Almost immediately after the publication of Brady’s edition, Lauge Olaf Nielsen, in his monograph on twelfth-century theologies of the Incarnation, affirmed: “There can be little doubt that the source of the first theory in the Lombard’s survey was Hugh of St. Victor’s Christology.”137 About two decades prior to Nielsen’s affirmation, Walter Principe listed both Hugh and Achard of Saint-Victor as proponents of the Lombard’s first position, which he described in this way: “[T]his theory’s starting-point was that that which was assumed into this personal identity with the Word was an individual human substance, a ‘certain’ individual man fully constituted as a man from a rational soul and human flesh: hence the frequently-used expression homo assumptus or ‘assumed man.’ ”138 Principe drew on the seminal work of Nikolaus Häring, who affirmed that “the first theory . . . apparently originated in the mind of Hugh of St. Victor.”139 Similarly, Everhard Poppenberg maintained that Hugh “confessed to having a mindset close to [homo assumptus theory].”140 Finally, Jean Châtillon affirms: “A quick examination of the Christological vocabulary of the Sermones [of Achard of Saint-Victor] confirms this general judgment.”141 As intimated by Principe’s description of the homo assumptus theory, modern scholars have tended to read the Christological writings of Hugh and Achard through the lens of the interpretation of the Lombard’s first opinion given in Aquinas’s Summa. As such, based more or less on Châtillon’s “quick examination of the Christological vocabulary,” they hastily consign the Victorines to the realm of Nestorian heresy. At the close of his 1948 essay on Achard’s Christology, for example, Châtillon wondered whether his thought really merits the serious criticisms that Aquinas levels against those who maintain the 137  Lauge Olaf Nielsen, Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century: A Study of Gilbert Porreta’s Thinking and the Theological Expositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period 1130–1180 (Leiden, 1982), 256. 138  Walter Henry Principe, William of Auxerre’s Theology of the Hypostatic Union (Toronto, 1963), 65. 139  N.M. Häring, S.A.C., “The Case of Gilbert de la Porrée, Bishop of Poitiers (1142–1154),” Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951): 1–40, at 29. Principe reveals his debt to Häring’s presentation of the Lombard’s three opinions in n. 31 on p. 197 of William of Auxerre’s Theology. 140  Everhard Poppenberg, Die Christologie des Hugo von St. Victor (Münster, 1937), 47. 141  Jean Châtillon, Théologie, spiritualité et métaphysique dans l’œuvre oratoire d’Achard de Saint-Victor (Paris, 1969), 194: “Un examen rapide du vocabulaire christologique des Sermones confirme ce jugement global. Achard est en effet de ces théologiens qui parlent plus volontiers du mystère de l’Homme-Dieu en termes d’‘assomption’ que d’‘incarnation.’ ”

72

Harkins

Lombard’s first opinion. He concluded: “The texts that we have cited require us to respond, perhaps with regret but without any possible hesitation, that Achard obviously falls into this category of theologians whose view is declared heretical by the Angelic Doctor.”142 Elsewhere I have argued, over against Châtillon and others, that some thoughtful “hesitation” is precisely what is needed in considering the question of the relationship among Victorine Christology, the Lombard’s first opinion, and Aquinas’s interpretation of the Lombard on this point.143 I aimed to demonstrate that whereas both Hugh and Achard consistently employ the phrase homo assumptus when describing what was taken up by the divine Word in the Incarnation, both Victorines use homo to mean a human nature constituted of a rational soul and human flesh rather than a fully instantiated man or human person. The Victorine teaching on the mode of the union intimates precisely the kind of fluidity and overlap that Peter Lombard seems to have understood as existing between and among his three opinions. Indeed, we may surmise that the Lombard actually had Hugh and Achard in mind as among those who agree partially with the first opinion and affirm that the single person of the Incarnate Word subsists in two natures. Peter Lombard concludes his description of the first opinion by asserting that its adherents do not affirm that Christ is composed of two natures, which Hugh and Achard obviously do teach. Therefore, whereas the Victorines most often use the traditional language of homo assumptus, their understanding of the Incarnation clearly aligns more closely with the second opinion. It is in this light that the abbreviator of the Filia magistri may well have understood the Victorine view, which perhaps was known to him via the positio impossibilis disputations of subsequent schoolmen, as rendering the first opinion and its potentially dangerous language theologically acceptable. Furthermore, the Filia’s abridgment of the Lombard’s second opinion sounds as if it could just as easily be an abbreviation of Hugh or Achard: 142  Jean Châtillon, “Achard de Saint-Victor et les controverses christologiques du xiie siècle,” in Mélanges offerts au R.P. Ferdinand Cavallera doyen de la faculté de théologie de Toulouse à l’occasion de la quarantième année de son professorat à l’Institut Catholique, ed. JulesGéraud Saliège (Toulouse, 1948), 317–37, at 336: “Les textes que nous avons cités nous obligent à répondre, avec regret peut-être, mais sans hésitation possible, qu’Achard entre manifestement dans cette catégorie de théologiens dont l’opinion est déclarée hérétique par le Docteur angélique.” 143  See Franklin T. Harkins, “Homo assumptus at St. Victor: Reconsidering the Relationship between Victorine Christology and Peter Lombard’s First Opinion,” The Thomist 72 (2008): 595–624.

Filiae Magistri

73

There are others who say that that man consists of a human and a divine nature, that is, of three substances: divinity, flesh, and soul. And they confess that this Christ is only one person: before the Incarnation merely simple, but in the Incarnation made composite from humanity and divinity. He is not, therefore, another person than He was previously. Hence Augustine [says]: “Human nature was able to be so joined to God that one person was made from three subs­ tances, but by these [three substances] He is now composed of three: God, soul, and flesh.”144 The compiler of the Filia concludes his abbreviation of the three opinions with the following magisterial note. Its language clearly reveals the determinative influence of the papal condemnation of 1177 on Christological thought and formulation in the subsequent decades. The Master sets forth three opinions concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God. The first says that Christ assumed a man (hominem). The second says that [He assumed] the nature of a man—namely, body and soul—not as parts of Himself but as His own habit or garment. The first opinion says that Christ, insofar as He is a man, is something (homo est aliquid). The second says the same. The third says that Christ, insofar as He is a man, is not something (homo non est aliquid), but rather has a certain mode of being. The first opinion is not supported in the schools except by means of an [impossible] position. The second is conceded by all. The third is condemned as heretical by all.145 144  M, fol. 170v: “Sunt autem alii qui dicunt hominem illum ex humana et diuina natura, id est ex tribus substantiis diuinitate, carne et anima constare. et hunc Christus fatentur et unum personam tantum esse: ante incarnationem solummodo simplicem, sed in incarnatione factam compositam ex humanitate et diuinitate. nec est ideo alia persona quam prius. Vnde augustinus : ‘Sic deo coniungi poterat humana natura ut ex duabus substantiis fieret una persona at per has iam est ex tribus: deo, anima, et carne.’ ” 145  M, fol. 170v: “Magister ponit tres opiniones circa incarnationem filii dei. prima dicit quod Christus assumpsit hominem. secunda dicit quod naturam hominis, scilicet corpus et a­ nimam, non ut partes sui sed ut habitum siue uestem sui. prima opinio dicit quod Christus inquantum homo est aliquid. Idem dicit secunda. tertia dicit quod Chistus secundum quod homo non est aliquid sed aliquot modo se habens. prima opinio non

74

Harkins

We have seen that Thomas Aquinas rejects the Lombard’s first opinion in his mature Summa theologiae. But, like the Filia magistri, his earlier Scriptum on the Sentences tells a different, more nuanced story. In the second article of the first question on distinction 6, Aquinas asks rather straightforwardly “whether the Son of God assumed a man.” He begins by enumerating five objections that suggest an affirmative answer, including a citation of Psalm 64:5, “Blessed is he whom you have chosen and assumed,” which Aquinas reads as a reference to Christ the man.146 For Thomas, as for the Victorines before him, the determination of this question hangs on how one understands the term homo. He explains that in the Incarnation the assuming and the assumed are not the same. Furthermore, that which is assumed always precedes the union of the two according to our understanding. That is, for an assumption to take place, there must be a thing to be assumed. In the case of the Incarnation, this thing, this homo, would be a particular (rather than a universal) subsistent being, that is, a person. In the opening article of this question, Aquinas has already established that in Christ there is only one hypostasis, suppositum, or “thing of nature.”147 A thing that has complete being in which it subsists, Aquinas goes on to explain here in article 2, can be united to another thing only either accidentally (as when a man is united to his tunic or a person is united to God through love or grace) or by aggregation (as when one stone is united to others on a growing pile). If homo is read as denoting “person,” the Lombard’s first opinion describes an aggregate union and his third an accidental one, neither of which fittingly describes the Incarnation. “Hence it must in no way be conceded that a man was assumed,” Thomas concludes.148 But he immediately follows with a caveat: It must be known, however, that the first opinion postulated none of the modes of union mentioned above: therefore it is not heretical. But it supposed that there had been a union according to which the person of the Word began to be that nature (illa substantia). That [kind of union] is certainly not intelligible, as when one of two things becomes the other, except through the conversion of one into the other. On the contrary, it is

s­ ustinetur in scolis nisi per positionem. secunda conceditur ab omnibus. tertia ab omnibus tamquam heretica reprobatur.” 146  See Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libris Sententiarum, Book iii, dist. 6, qu. 1, art. 2, obj. 1 (ed. Marie-Fabien Moos, O.P. [Paris, 1933]), p. 229. 147  See ibid., art. 1, pp. 222–9. 148  Ibid., art. 2, resp., p. 230: “Unde nullo modo concedendum est quod homo sit assumptus.”

Filiae Magistri

75

impossible, as we said earlier. And for that reason it [i.e., the first opinion] is not supported.149 Writing about a century after Achard of Saint-Victor and within several decades of the Filia as attested in M, Aquinas here reveals his awareness that Peter Lombard’s first opinion did not intend to describe contemporary Nestorians who imagined that the second person of the Trinity assumed a human person. Rather, proponents of the first position seem to have held, according to Thomas, that the eternal Word did something new in taking up human nature and thereby becoming man. But the Word did not become, or in Thomas’s words “begin to be,” that substance or nature by being converted from His eternal divine substance or nature into it. If read in this way, the first opinion would again have to be rejected. But what is significant for our purposes is that, like the Filia, Aquinas does make room for a valid way of interpreting the first opinion, a way that generally accords with the Christological teaching of the Victorines, Stephen Langton, and the anonymous student of Peter the Chanter.150 Aquinas’s commentary on the three opinions is, not surprisingly, lengthier, clearer, and more linguistically and philosophically sophisticated than that of the Filia. Whereas the Filia, for example, conflates the second and third opinions—maintaining that the second teaches that Christ assumed a human body and soul like a habit or garment—Aquinas makes clear both in question 1, article 2 and in question 3, article 2 that human nature could not have been united accidentally to the Word. (We might note in passing that whereas the Filia identifies the assuming agent as “Christ,” Thomas uses the more accurate “Word,” again indicating his greater theological precision.) One substance can be accidentally joined to another in two ways, Thomas explains: it is joined to 149  Ibid.: “Sciendum tamen quod prima opinio nullum praedictorum modorum unionis ponebat, unde non est haeretica. Sed ponebat quod erat facta unio secundum hoc quod persona Verbi incepit esse illa substantia: quod quidem non est intelligibile, ut duorum unum fiat alterum, nisi per conversionem unius in alterum, immo impossibile, ut prius dictum est; et ideo non sustinetur.” 150  If the homo of the Lombard’s first opinion is understood as signifying a human nature, as the Victorines and these later theologians read it, then it can be properly affirmed that the Word took a homo to Himself, all the while retaining his eternal divine nature, such that He was then constituted of two natures. It is precisely in view of this understanding that the pupil of the Chanter is able to defend the proposition Christus est simplex et compositum. The terms simplex and compositum, he explains, are attributed to Christ on account of his two natures: the divine nature is simple and the composite nature is complex (see Nielsen, “Logic and the Hypostatic Union,” 263).

76

Harkins

it either “according to association or contact,” as a garment to a man or a chalice to wine, or “as something movable to the mover,” as an angel to the body that he assumes.151 Aquinas—together with a number of his contemporaries, including Alexander of Hales, Richard Fishacre, Richard Rufus of Cornwall, Albert, and Bonaventure—taught that because the relationship between angels and their assumed bodies is strictly extrinsic and occasional, various corporeal functions of life that are natural to human beings by virtue of the organic connection between body and soul are not, properly speaking, natural to angels.152 In such scriptural narratives as Luke 1, Genesis 18, and Genesis 6, angels simply seem to speak, eat, engage in sexual intercourse, and generate offspring, according to these thirteenth-century masters. Indeed, the archangel Raphael goes so far as to admit the accidental relationship that he has to his body when he tells Tobit, “I appeared (videbar) to eat with you, but I use invisible food” (Tob. 12:19). Scripture and tradition clearly testify that the Incarnate Word, by contrast, did truly eat, speak, suffer, die, and arise from death in and with His human body. Because the third opinion cannot affirm that “the Son of God truly became man and truly suffered,” Aquinas concludes, it has been condemned as heretical.153 Without such a protracted explanation—indeed, with no explanation at all—the Filia likewise teaches that the third opinion is condemned as heresy by all. Conclusion I have aimed to provide a thorough introduction to the updated abridgment of the Sentences known as the Filia magistri. The groundbreaking work on this text, particularly as attested in manuscript M, of Raymond Martin, Artur Landgraf, and Heinrich Weisweiler in the first several decades of the t­ wentieth century painted a picture of the Filia magistri as a single abbreviated and glossed text produced by Hugh of Saint-Cher or someone in his scholarly 151  Ibid., qu. 3, art. 2, resp., p. 246: “. . . sic una substantia alteri accidentaliter advenire dicatur, sicut vestis homini. Sed hoc potest esse nisi dupliciter: vel quod conjungatur ei secundum contactam, sicut vestis homini vel sicut dolium vino; aut sicut mobile motori, sicut Angelus conjungitur corpori quod assumit.” 152  See Franklin T. Harkins, “The Embodiment of Angels: A Debate in Mid-ThirteenthCentury Theology,” rtpm 78 (2011): 25–58. 153  Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, Book iii, dist. 6, qu. 3, art. 2, resp., p. 247: “Unde patet quod haec opinio non potest dicere quod Filius Dei vere sit homo vel vere sit passus; et ideo cum neget veritatem articulorum, condemnata est quasi heretica.”

Filiae Magistri

77

circle at the University of Paris around 1232–1245 and used as a teaching tool there until it was eclipsed by the arrival of Albert the Great and the “nouvelle théologie” of the mid-century. Although Weisweiler noted that manuscripts of the Filia continued to be produced well into the fifteenth century, neither he nor other scholars noted the considerable fluidity of the abbreviations witnessed to in these manuscripts. Furthermore, the traditional assumptions that (1) the Filia was produced at the university for the training of theology students there, and (2) such a glossed abbreviation of the Lombard’s text would have had little to no appeal or utility for university theologians-in-training once the great masters began producing full-blown, independent commentaries on the Sentences have served to blind scholars to the possibility that the Filia may have found a home, a pedagogical purpose, and a utility outside the universities. Based on the manuscript evidence and the nature of theological education and formation among medieval religious, I have proposed that the Filia found precisely such a home, purpose, and extraordinary utility in the houses and scholae of Dominicans, Cistercians, Augustinian canons, Premonstratensians, and other religious orders throughout Europe during the high and late Middle Ages. From Nuremberg and Ebrach to Paris and Cuissy, to Vorau and Neuberg, to Cambron, religious novices and students beginning the study of theology seem to have been introduced to Peter Lombard’s great book by means of the Filia. Indeed, the fluidity of texts that circulated under the title Filia magistri and share a common prologue suggests, as we would surely expect, that lectors read and students heard the Lombard’s text in countless different ways, giving rise to many divergent Filiae magistri. That the particular Filia attested in M is a “complete” abbreviation—that is, one that abridges all four books of the Sentences rather than only one or two—to which contemporary opinions and explanations have been added comports well with what we know about the requirements and reality of teaching the Lombard’s book in Dominican conventual schools, intimating that it would have been an ideal pedagogical tool in the religious schools of other orders as well. By means of his orienting, reference, and explanatory interlinear glosses, together with his distinguishing, updating, and summary magisterial notes, the lector or teacher who appears to have produced the Filia of M proves himself a master of accommodating the sophisticated theology and innumerable authorities of the Lombard’s text to the capacity and needs of his novices without watering it down in the least. In fact, in the two examples that we have considered, the master of our Filia updates and elucidates the Lombard’s teaching in a way that enables him to set forth the same basic doctrine that Albert, Bonaventure, and Aquinas develop at greater length and with more conceptual nuance and linguistic precision

78

Harkins

in their own Sentences commentaries. Our comparative look at the theology of this Filia has enabled us to see both this particular text (and, by extension, other abridgments of the Sentences) and the work of these widely recognized great medieval thinkers in a new light. Reconciling our findings with previous scholarship on the Filia and other Sentences abbreviations—which tends to assume that they are the far less evolved ancestors of formal Sentences commentaries and that theology students had no need for them once the great thirteenth-century masters arrived in Paris—is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. This is particularly the case when we keep in mind, as the manuscript evidence indicates, that Filiae seem to have been used for basic theological education “on the ground” in various religious houses rather than in the universities. Our comparative analysis suggests that Filiae and formal commentaries or other synthetic works are separated by a much smaller theological distance than scholars have previously imagined. Indeed, in some cases—as, for example, in the interpretation of the homo assumptus theory as found in our Filia and in Aquinas’s Summa—the great systematic work seems less nuanced and less attuned to the Lombard’s theological aim than the simple updated abridgment. Also interesting is the possibility that, in attempting to simplify the Lombard’s three opinions for his own beginning students, Thomas oversimplified them, as he seems not to have done in his earlier Scriptum. This should increase our appreciation for the theological sophistication of abridgments like the Filia magistri all the more. Finally, not only does the master of the Filia attested in M seem to be updating the Lombard’s text with the latest philosophical categories and theological insights—the absolute/ordained power distinction being a prime example— but Albert, Bonaventure, and Aquinas seem to have drawn from the same general store of traditional authorities and contemporary teachings of which the master of our Filia makes use. As we have seen, they most certainly added their own particular—and particularly erudite—ways of thinking about and helping their students at the university understand the theological tradition in light of the most recent learning. But perhaps we will understand the great thirteenth-century masters more as they understood themselves, in light of their religious vocations, when we begin to recognize and appreciate that the theological and pedagogical distance separating the “Daughters of the Master” from the great university masters is smaller than we have heretofore imagined.

CHAPitre 2

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur: forme et usage dans la lectio des Sentences Claire Angotti Plusieurs historiens ont évoqué les listes de propositions de Pierre Lombard qui ne sont plus tenues. Parmi les premiers, on peut citer Charles du Plessis d’Argentré († 1749), qui les intègre dans sa Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus, tout en soulignant qu’il ne s’agit nullement de propositions condamnées du Lombard1. Pierre Féret les commente fort brièvement et en propose une ­traduction2. Les auteurs postérieurs à Charles du Plessis d’Argentré, par exemple Heinrich Denifle, insistent sur le fait qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une liste de positions officiellement condamnées et qui auraient été promulguées par la faculté de théologie ou par la papauté3 : d’ailleurs, aucune des propositions mises en cause par Alexandre iii au xiie siècle n’y figure4. Tous ceux qui ont édité ces listes soulignent le nombre variable de propositions qu’elles contiennent. Heinrich Denifle en indique huit, en se fondant

1  Voir Charles du Plessis d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus, qui ab initio duodecim seculi post Incarnationem Verbi usque ad annum 1632 in Ecclesia proscripti sunt, t. 1 (Paris, 1728), 118–19. 2  Voir Pierre Féret, La faculté de théologie et ses docteurs les plus célèbres, t. 2 (Paris, 1895), 169– 70 et 605–07. 3  Voir Heinrich Denifle et Émile Châtelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis [désormais abrégé cup], t. 1 (Paris, 1889), n° 194, pour l’édition de « huit propositions non tenues ». H. Denifle précise en note : « Ces phrases ne sont condamnées par aucune décision de la faculté de théologie, comme l’ont été les 10 erreurs de 1241 mentionnées plus haut, mais uniquement par l’accord des maîtres commentateurs du maître des Sentences et, qui plus est, parisiens. » 4  Voir ibid., introduction, n° 3 et n° 9. Pour une bibliographie exhaustive et une mise au point récente sur les accusations dont Pierre Lombard a été l’objet, voir Colish, Peter Lombard, 1 : 427–34, et Pietro Rossi, « Contra Lombardum : reazioni alla cristologia di Pietro Lombardo », in Pietro Lombardo. Atti del xliii Convegno storico internazionale. Todi 8–10 ottobre 2006 (Spolète, 2007), 123–91.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_004

80

Angotti

sur le commentaire des Sentences de Bonaventure5, mais signale un manuscrit en contenant neuf 6, un autre dix-sept7, un dernier dix-huit8 ; Edward A. Synan présente un manuscrit en contenant dix-neuf 9. Les rédacteurs du récent catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de Clairvaux ont eux aussi jugé utile de signaler, voire de transcrire ces listes. En effet, plusieurs exemplaires du Livre des sentences ayant appartenu au collège parisien Saint-Bernard, puis retournés à Clairvaux en sont dotés10. Leurs listes comportent un nombre très variable de propositions (9, 11 ou 12 propositions)11. C’est cependant la liste de Charles du Plessis d’Argentré, qui en comprend 2612, qui est partout reproduite : d’abord de manière fautive, dans la Patrologie latine à la suite du texte des Sentences13 ; l’édition de 1916 des Sentences14 et Joseph de Ghellinck la reprennent15 et 5  Voir Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi, Opera omnia 1–4 (Quaracchi, 1882–1889), Livre ii, dist. 44 (2 : 1016). Cette liste figure aussi dans la praelocutio qui précède le commentaire du Livre ii. Les éditeurs des Opera omnia de Bonaventure ont choisi de l’imprimer à deux reprises. Voir ibid., 2. 6  Le ms. Cité du Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgh. 203 contiendrait une liste de neuf propositions. 7  Il s’agit du ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15761, fol. 2. 8  Il s’agit du ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15702, fol. 186v. 9  Il s’agit du ms. Londres, British Library, Harley 3243, fol. 88v. Voir Edward A. Synan, « Nineteen Less Probable Opinions of Peter Lombard », Mediaeval Studies 27 (1965) : 340–4. 10  Voir André Vernet (dir.), Jean-Pierre Bouhot et Jean-François Genest, La bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux du xiie au xviiie siècle, t. 2 (Paris, 1997), 563–71. 11  Il s’agit des mss. Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 588 (liste de 12 propositions de la main d’un lecteur de la fin du xiiie siècle) ; Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 899 (liste de 9 propositions d’une main du xve siècle) ; Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 900 (liste reprenant celle de Bonaventure, main du xiiie siècle) ; Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 1713 (liste de 11 propositions de la main d’un lecteur italien du xive siècle) ; Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 2264 (liste de 11 propositions d’une main de la fin du xve siècle). 12  D’après Heinrich Denifle (cup i, n° 194 n.), Charles du Plessis d’Argentré se serait fondé sur un ms. datant du début du xive siècle, Cité du Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 4847, fol. 66. En réalité, juste après la liste, du Plessis d’Argentré en ajoute une 27e, qu’il aurait pu trouver dans un autre ms. Voir du Plessis d’Argentré, Collectio, 119 : « Adde, quod sacerdotibus non tribuat potestatem remittendi, sed tantum peccata remissa in sacramento poenitentiae declarandi, 4. Lib. Dist. 18. » 13  Voir pl 192 : 962–4 ; l’éditeur a en outre rajouté la formule de Pierre Lombard condamnée par Alexandre iii. 14  Voir Petri Lombardi Libri iv Sententiarum, ed. PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 2 vols. (Quaracchi, 1916), 1 : lx–lxi et lxxviii–lxxx. 15  Voir Joseph de Ghellinck, « Pierre Lombard », Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 12 (Paris, 1965), 1941–2019, précisément cols. 2014–15.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

81

c­ orrigent ainsi la liste erronée de la Patrologie latine16. Toutefois, les deux éditions du xxe siècle n’ont pas signalé quelques erreurs dans les indications de du Plessis d’Argentré : ainsi, la troisième proposition non tenue signalée dans le Livre i n’est pas tirée de la 21e distinction des Sentences, mais de la 31e, la 13e proposition non tenue signalée dans le Livre iv n’est pas tirée de la 33e distinction des Sentences mais de la 34e, la 15e proposition considérée comme non tenue dans le Livre iv n’est pas tirée de la 44e distinction des Sentences, comme l’indiquent les pères de Quaracchi et de Ghellinck à la suite de du Plessis d’Argentré, mais de la 43e. Comme on le constate, ces listes ont été éditées à plusieurs reprises. Il semble pourtant difficile de considérer qu’elles sont bien connues des spécialistes du Livre des sentences ou des ses commentaires, tant du point de vue de leur contenu que de celui de leur fonctionnement. Cet article doit être considéré comme un nouveau jalon destiné à mettre en valeur les perspectives de recherche qu’offre l’étude de ces listes de propositions non tenues. En ce qui touche à leur contenu, il ne s’agit en aucun cas d’une étude exhaustive17 : seules 16  Ainsi la première proposition non tenue au Livre i de la liste donnée par la pl n’est pas extraite du chapitre 11 de la dist. 17, mais du chapitre 2 (voir de Ghellinck, « Pierre Lombard », col. 2014, et Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, lxviii) ; de même, la première proposition non tenue du Livre ii de la liste de la pl n’est pas extraite de la dist. 2, mais de la dist. 5 (voir de Ghellinck, « Pierre Lombard », col. 2015, et Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, lxix) ; de plus, la cinquième proposition non tenue du Livre iv de la liste de la pl n’est pas extraite de la dist. 1, mais de la dist. 2 (voir de Ghellinck, « Pierre Lombard », col. 2015) ; enfin, la dernière proposition non tenue de la liste donnée par la pl n’est pas extraite de la dist. 64 du Livre iv, mais de la dist. 44, selon de Ghellinck (« Pierre Lombard », col. 2015). La plupart de ces erreurs sont liées à l’emploi des chiffres romains dans la numérotation des distinctions. De Ghellinck et les Pères de Quarrachi corrigent aussi quelques termes : à la première proposition non tenue du Livre iv, au lieu de justicabant ils indiquent justificabant, pour la 14e proposition extraite du même livre, ils corrigent posset en potest, putatur en petatur, pour la 15e et dernière proposition patefiant en patefient. Signalons enfin que de Ghellinck et les Pères de Quarrachi omettent deux lignes de la 6e proposition non tenue du Livre iv donnée dans la pl : « Vel aliter : Baptismus Joannis cum impositione manuam aequipollebat baptismo Christi » (pl 192 : 964). 17  La seule étude doctrinale exhaustive date du . . . xive siècle! Le dominicain Nicolas Eymeric († 1399) a écrit un traité sur 22 de ces propositions ; cette œuvre n’a pas été l’objet, à ma connaissance, d’une attention scientifique récente. Elle se révélera probablement très intéressante. Cette œuvre n’est pas signalée dans le répertoire de F. Stegmüller. Voir Thomas Kaeppeli, Emilio Pannella, Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum medii aevi, t. 3 (Rome, 1980), 156–65, précisément n° 3060, p. 158. Un seul exemplaire manuscrit de cette œuvre semble nous être parvenu (ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 3171, fols. 121v–135).

82

Angotti

quelques propositions sont analysées. L’analyse de ces propositions s’efforce bien sûr d’éclairer les raisons doctrinales pour lesquelles elles sont considérées comme non tenues mais s’interroge aussi sur le moment où telle ou telle proposition a été signalée comme non tenue et sur celui – ou plutôt ceux – qui pourraient être considérés comme les auteurs de telles listes. Pour répondre à ces questions et aborder le problème – plus complexe qu’il n’y paraît – du fonctionnement des listes, il est nécessaire de constituer un corpus cohérent et non étudier, au hasard d’une recherche, une liste ou l’autre. La constitution d’un corpus unitaire permet ainsi une étude en série des listes et des manuscrits qui les contiennent. Surtout, cela présente l’avantage d’apporter un éclairage non plus uniquement doctrinal sur l’usage de telles listes, mais d’inscrire cet usage dans une problématique d’histoire intellectuelle plus vaste, celui du « maniement du savoir »18 auquel se livrent les théologiens, en particulier à l’égard du Livre des sentences, dont l’introduction dans le programme de la faculté de théologie a eu lieu durant les années 1240–1250 et dont l’étude s’est maintenue jusqu’à l’époque moderne19. Reste bien sûr à constituer ce corpus cohérent : les listes figurant dans les manuscrits de Clairvaux pourraient être étudiées dans cette perspective, mais il est difficile de cerner avec certitude l’usage de ces volumes, probablement passés entre les mains des membres du collège Saint-Bernard avant de revenir au célèbre monastère cistercien. Si ce schéma est vraisemblable, il demeure délicat de fournir une chronologie plus précise de la circulation de ces manuscrits et donc de leur usage. Une autre célèbre institution parisienne, le collège de la Sorbonne, offre l’avantage de posséder un grand nombre de sources (catalogues, registres d’emprunts, testaments, obituaires) qui permettent de saisir de manière précise l’histoire de sa bibliothèque, constituée depuis le milieu du xiiie siècle jusqu’à la fin du xve siècle20. En outre, ce collège, lentement intégré à la faculté de théologie, au point, à l’époque moderne, d’en devenir le synonyme, possédait un très grand nombre d’exemplaires du Livre des sentences21. Le catalogue de 1338 de la bibliothèque 18  J’emprunte cette expression et ce concept à Olga Weijers, dont les travaux sur la faculté des arts démontrent la richesse et la variété. Voir notamment Olga Weijers, Le maniement du savoir. Pratiques intellectuelles à l’époque des premières universités (xiiie–xive siècles) (Turnhout, 1996). 19  Sur cette question, voir Rosemann, Great Medieval Book. 20  Pour un bilan méticuleux des sources médiévales de la bibliothèque du collège de Sorbonne, voir Gilbert Fournier, « Listes, énumérations, inventaires. Les sources médiévales et modernes de la bibliothèque du collège de Sorbonne (première partie : les sources médiévales) », Scriptorium 65 (2011) : 158–215. 21  Voir Claire Angotti, « Présence d’un enseignement au sein du collège de Sorbonne : collationes, disputationes, lectiones (xiiie–xve siècle). Bilan et hypothèses », Cahiers de recherches médiévales 18 (2009) : 89–111, aux p. 95–6.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

83

de prêt du collège (la parva libraria) en signale une c­ inquantaine22, il en subiste actuellement une quarantaine23, ce qui constitue un taux de conservation des exemplaires des Sentences tout à fait extraordinaire24. Nous avons ainsi en mains, de manière assurée, non seulement les textes que lisaient les maîtres et les étudiants, mais aussi leur mise en page ainsi que tout le « para-texte » (annotations marginales, gloses plus ou moins structurées, listes variées) accompagnant l’œuvre principale. Sur la quarantaine d’exemplaires des Sentences du collège de Sorbonne conservés, neuf comportent une liste de « propositions non tenues » de Pierre Lombard25. Je me limiterai dans cette mise au point à la présentation et à l’analyse du procédé de « mise en liste » des propositions non tenues du Lombard dans les exemplaires des Sentences, preuve de l’usage didactique de ces listes dans la maîtrise du texte du Lombard. Signalons toutefois que l’on trouve les mêmes listes dans d’autres œuvres, en particulier des commentaires des Sentences qui peuplent en grand nombre la bibliothèque du collège de Sorbonne26. De même, si j’y fais ponctuellement référence, je ne conduirai pas d’analyse systématique sur les exemplaires des Sentences non dotés d’une liste mais comportant pourtant dans leurs marges la mention non tenetur face à un passage discuté du Lombard27. 22  Très précisément 52 exemplaires : 26 à 29 avant 1290, le reste (23 à 26 volumes) avant 1338. Pour une analyse un peu plus détaillée de ces chiffres, voir Claire Angotti, « Bonum commune divinius est quam bonum unius. Le collège de la Sorbonne et sa bibliothèque, place et rôle dans l’Université de Paris au xive siècle », in Die universitären Kollegien im Europa des Mittelalters und der Renaissance/Les collèges universitaires en Europe au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance, dir. par Andreas Sohn et Jacques Verger (Bochum, 2011), 91–105. 23  Très précisément 42. Les manuscrits subsistants ont été l’objet d’une notice détaillée dans Claire Angotti, « Lectiones Sententiarum. Étude de manuscrits de la bibliothèque du collège de Sorbonne : la formation des étudiants en théologie à l’Université de Paris à partir des annotations et des commentaires sur le Livre des Sentences de Pierre Lombard (xiiie–xve siècles) », thèse dactyl. E. P. H. E. (ive section) (Paris, 2008). Une version simplifiée des notices est mise en ligne dans le catalogue général des manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque nationale de France). Voir http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/cdc.html. 24  Un peu plus de 75% des exemplaires des Sentences nous sont parvenus. À titre de comparaison, Ezio Ornato et Carla Bozzolo indiquent que le taux de conservation des manuscrits décrits dans le catalogue de la parva libraria est de 41%. Ce taux leur semble déjà tout à fait considérable. Voir Carla Bozzolo et Ezio Ornato, Pour une histoire du livre manuscrit au Moyen Âge. Trois essais de codicologie quantitative (Paris, 1980), 82. 25  Il s’agit des manuscrits suivants, tous conservés à Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France : lat. 15702, fol. 186v ; lat. 15705, fol. 2v ; lat. 15707, fol. 169vb ; lat. 15716, fol. 1 ; lat. 15717, fol. 4v ; lat. 15719, f. 204va ; lat. 15723, f. 1v ; lat. 15728, f. 185r ; lat. 16375, f. 290v. 26  Voir par exemple le ms. signalé à la note 7 ci-dessus. 27  La plupart des manucrits que j’ai examinés lors de ma thèse comportent de telles indications, sans qu’elles soient systématiques : quelques manuscrits ne semblent pas en

84 1

Angotti

La présentation formelle des listes

La plupart des listes, après un titre signalant qu’il s’agit de propositions non tenues – titre qui fera l’objet d’une analyse serrée28 –, se présentent sous forme d’arborescences ou distinctiones : du numéro du livre (i, ii, iii ou iv) partent de multiples branches qui aboutissent en général à l’indication du numéro de la distinction suivie de l’incipit du chapitre incriminé (parfois de son numéro d’ordre à l’intérieur de la distinction). Ensuite seulement, est formulée la proposition non tenue, en une phrase, sans autre explication. Elle est parfois suivie de sigles, de très brefs commentaires, de renvois à d’autres œuvres, qu’il faut analyser. Les présentations sont plus ou moins abouties : parmi les listes les plus soignées, signalons celle du ms. bnf, lat. 15702. La présentation du ms. bnf, lat. 15719, par le grand soin accordé à la copie de la liste, est, elle aussi, intéressante dans la mesure où la majorité des autres listes ont un caractère moins abouti, pour ne pas dire bâclé. Les listes figurant dans les exemplaires des Sentences ne sont pas contemporaines à la copie du manuscrit. Les exemplaires des Sentences du collège ne comportent pas d’indication de date ; toutefois leur décor et leurs caratéristiques paléographiques permettent d’avancer une localisation et une datation pour leur fabrication29. Quant aux listes, les plus anciennes semblent certes avoir été copiées dans la deuxième moitié du xiiie siècle (listes des mss. bnf, lat. 15702 et lat. 15707), d’autres à la fin du xiiie siècle (bnf, lat. 15705 et lat. 15728) ou au tout début du xive siècle (bnf, lat. 15717 et lat. 16375), le reste dans la première moitié du xive siècle (bnf, lat. 15716, lat. 15719 et lat. 15723), et par des mains qu’il semble possible de qualifier de parisiennes. Ainsi, le procédé de « mise en liste » des opinions non tenues du Lombard paraît ne pas être le fait de copistes professionnels mais d’usagers du Livre des sentences. Leur date (deuxième moitié du xiiie siècle/première moitié du xive siècle) pourrait conduire à penser que ces listes ont été ajoutées aux manuscrits au c­ omporter, mais ils sont assez rares (par exemple bnf, lat. 16374). J’ai repéré dans les marges de certains exemplaires une seule mention non tenetur pour l’ensemble des quatres livres des Sentences (par exemple, bnf, lat. 15726) et jusqu’à 17 mentions (par exemple, bnf, lat. 15325). 28  Voir ci-dessous, pp. 91–3. 29  bnf, lat. 15702, fabriqué à Paris vers 1230–1240 ; bnf, lat. 15705, fabriqué dans le deuxième tiers du xiiie siècle (vers 1240?), dans le nord de la France ; bnf, lat. 15707, fabriqué vers 1200 à Bologne ; bnf, lat. 15716, fabriqué au milieu du xiiie siècle à Paris ; bnf, lat. 15717, fabriqué dans le deuxième quart du xiiie siècle (vers 1220?) à Paris ; bnf, lat. 15719, fabriqué dans le deuxième quart du xiiie siècle en Italie ; bnf, lat. 15723, fabriqué vers 1230– 1240 à Paris ; bnf, lat. 15728, fabriqué vers 1270–1280 à Paris ; bnf, lat. 16375, fabriqué au milieu ou dans le troisième quart du xiiie siècle en Italie.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

85

moment de l’entrée de ces derniers dans la bibliothèque du collège. Cette hypothèse doit cependant être rejetée : une comparaison des différentes mains responsables des listes montre qu’aucune n’est récurrente, et aucune ne ressemble aux mains responsables des ex-libris signalant l’appartenance du volume au collège et qui sont très certainement celles des sociétaires chargés de l’enregistrement et du rangement des livres. La variété du contenu des listes, « petites listes » de neuf propositions, « grandes listes » de vingt propositions, tout ceci illustre le caractère aléatoire de leur insertion, la labilité de leur propos : malgré la présence, dans la libraria communis et d’après le répertoire méthodique, d’un volume contenant les Opiniones magistri Sentenciarum que non tenentur communiter (au banc « C », volume « q »)30, il ne semble pas y avoir eu de « liste-modèle » qui aurait permis aux membres du collège d’équiper les exemplaires des Sentences qui leur étaient prêtés. Si tel avait été le cas, la majorité des listes seraient identiques, dans la présentation comme dans le contenu31. S’il semble clair qu’il s’agit de lecteurs des Sentences (certaines mains sont en effet aussi responsables de la rédaction, dans les gardes de certains exemplaires dotés de listes, d’amorces de commentaires sur tel ou tel passage de l’œuvre du Lombard)32, il reste difficile d’en proposer les noms. Une seule identification paraît plausible, dans le cas du ms. bnf, lat. 15719, exemplaire des Sentences ayant appartenu à Simon de Melta, dont le legs parvient au collège entre 1306 et 131033. On peut supposer que le scripteur de la liste est maître Simon lui-même. En effet, c’est la même main qui est responsable de l’ex-libris (Iste liber est magistri Symonis de Melta, precio .lx. sol .34) et de la mise 30  Voir le catalogue double de la libraria communis du collège, composé vers 1321–1338 et contenu dans ms. Paris, bnf, n.a.l. 99, p. 346, l. 26 ; et l’édition de Léopold Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale. Étude sur la formation de ce dépôt, comprenant les éléments d’une histoire de la calligraphie, de la miniature, de la reliure et du commerce des livres à Paris avant l’invention de l’imprimerie, t. 3 (Paris, 1881), 72–114, à la p. 112. 31  Signalons cependant la très grande proximité du contenu des listes du lat. 15716 et du lat. 16375. 32  Voir, par exemple, lat. 15717 et lat. 15728. 33  Voir Richard H. Rouse, « The Early Library of the Sorbonne », Scriptorium 21 (1967) : 42–71 et 226–51, à la p. 243. 34  Voir annexe 4 pour une transcription de cette liste. La mention du prix du manuscrit, qui pourrait conduire à conclure qu’il s’agit de l’estimation dont sont dotés chacun des volumes de la parva libraria du collège et donc à voir dans la main responsable de l’ex-­ libris et de la liste l’intervention d’un bibliothécaire du collège, peut s’expliquer d’une autre façon : le manuscrit lat. 15719 a probablement eu un propriétaire antérieur et Simon de Melta a, après avoir acquis le volume, apposé son ex-libris ainsi que le prix d’achat. On devine en effet, gratté au fol. 3, l’ex-libris d’un certain Guillaume.

86

Angotti

au point de la liste des propositions non tenues. Le legs de Simon de Melta parvient au collège au début du xive siècle, tandis que la main responsable de la liste et de l’ex-libris a été datée de la seconde moitié du xiiie siècle. La datation des premières listes suit de près l’introduction des Sentences comme manuel de la faculté de théologie, introduction qui s’accompagne de la rédaction et de la diffusion, par certains des maîtres les plus brillants de l’université de Paris, d’un commentaire des Sentences. L’un d’entre eux, le franciscain Bonaventure, semble avoir été le premier à « mettre en liste » les opinions non tenues du Lombard. L’édition de ses Opera omnia fournit, pour son commentaire des Sentences, non pas une, mais deux listes des « opinions de Pierre Lombard qui ne sont plus tenues »35. Bonaventure n’est pas le premier des maîtres à avoir considéré que certains passages de l’œuvre du Lombard étaient critiquables36. C’est vraisemblablement pour des raisons mnémotechniques qu’il décide de mettre en liste ces propositions et qu’il ne mentionne que deux propositions pour chacun des quatre livres. Même si tout semble suggérer que la liste de Bonaventure se limite à huit passages non tenus du Lombard, en réalité, il cite dix passages problématiques. Dans deux cas, en effet, le recours aux « paires » de propositions non tenues n’est pas tout à fait exact : ainsi, pour un passage du Livre ii, Bonaventure en signale la répétition dans une seconde proposition, toujours au Livre ii, mais dans une autre distinction37 ; pour un autre article, il mentionne comme non tenue l’affirmation par Pierre Lombard que « Dieu a pu conférer à la créature le pouvoir de baptiser et de remettre les péchés », mais le renvoi qu’effectue Bonaventure au passage des Sentences ne concerne que le pouvoir de baptiser (Livre iv, dist. 5) ; il manque donc un autre renvoi concernant le pouvoir de remettre les péchés38. Enfin, notons l’emploi de l’adverbe « principalement » (praecipue), dans la liste ii, qui semble suggérer qu’elle n’est pas exhaustive. 35  Voir la note 5 ci-dessus. J’ai appelé par commodité « liste i » la première des listes éditées (p. 2) et « liste ii » la seconde (p. 1016). 36  En effet, un certain nombre de propositions qu’il signale comme « non tenues » sont déjà discutées, si ce n’est combattues, par Étienne Langton. Voir Claire Angotti, « Étienne Langton, commentateur des Sentences de Pierre Lombard », dans Étienne Langton : prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, dir. par Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Nicole Bériou, Gilbert Dahan et Riccardo Quinto (Turnhout, 2010), 487–523 ; Riccardo Quinto, « Stephen Langton (ca. 1150/55–1228) », dans Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 35–78. 37  Voir tableau 2.1, proposition 3, liste ii. 38  Voir tableau 2.1, proposition 8, liste i (mentionnant le pouvoir de baptiser et de remettre les péchés) tandis que la liste ii ne renvoie précisément qu’au pouvoir de baptiser (dist. 5 du Livre iv). On peut supposer que le passage incriminé du Lombard sur le pouvoir de remettre les péchés concernait la dist. 18 au Livre iv.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum tableau 2.1

87

Les deux listes fournies dans l’édition du commentaire des Sentences de Bonaventure

Liste i donnée dans la praelocutio au commentaire du Livre ii des Sentences39

Liste ii figurant en fin du commentaire du Livre ii des Sentences40

In his igitur et in aliis verbis Magistri adhaerens, debita servata reverentia . . . et proposui et propono juxta tenuitatem ingenii et paupertatem scientiae in his, in quibus potero, sustinere, his dumtaxat exceptis, in quibus magis communiter non sustinetur, immo communis opinio tenet contrarium. Haec autem sunt octo, ita quod in quolibet libro sunt duae de illis positionibus.

. . . verum tamen sicut aperte apparet, Magister allegat eas [i.e. auctoritates] aliquantulum minus recte. Non tamen est mirandum, si in tot et tam bonis dictis magister dixit aliquid minus complete ; nec ei est propter hoc insultandum. Magis enim suo labore meruit legentium orationes et gratiarum actiones quam reprehensiones, licet in aliquibus locis declinaverit ab opinionibus communibus et parti minus probabili adhaeserit, praecipue in octo locis.

1.

In primo enim libro haec duo dicit Magister quae communiter non tenentur, videlicet quod caritas quae est amor Dei et proximi, non sit quid creatum sed increatum, ut Spiritus sanctus.

Nam in primo libro sunt duo, unum videlicet est distinctione decima septima, quod caritas, quae est amor Dei et proximi, non est quid creatum, sed increatum.

2.

Aliud est quod haec nomina « trinus », « trinitas » et alia numeralia non ponunt, sed tantum privant. In his autem duabus positionibus deceptum credimus Magistrum occasione sumta ex verbis Hilarii et Augustini. Unde utraque istarum fuit improbata.

Aliud vero est, quod haec nomina « trinus » et « trinitas » non dicunt positionem sed privationem tantum ; et hoc ponit distinctione vigesima quarta.

39  Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi, Liber II, 1–3. 40  Ibid., 1016.

88

Angotti Liste i donnée dans la praelocutio au commentaire du Livre ii des Sentences

Liste ii figurant en fin du commentaire du Livre ii des Sentences

3.

In secundo libro similiter duae sunt, quarum una est, quod in angelis beatis praemium praecessit meritum, meritum, inquam, respectu praemii substantialis, quod etsi valde videatur probabile, communiter tamen non tenetur.

In secundo vero libro similiter duo dicit, quorum primum est, quod in angelis beatis praemium praecessit, et meritum respectu substantialis praemii habet subsequi ; et hoc dicit distinctione quinta et etiam distinctione undecima.

4.

Altera est, quod nihil de cibo transit in Aliud est quod nihil de cibis transit in veritatem humanae naturae, sed tota veritatem humanae naturae, nec per veritas humanae naturae fuit in Adam. generationem, nec per nutritionem.

5.

In tertio libro similiter duae inveniuntur opiniones : una est, quod anima soluta a corpore est persona ;

In tertio libro similiter duo dicit : unum est, quod anima exuta a corpore est persona ; et hoc dicit distinctione quinta.

6.

alia est, quod Christus in triduo fuit homo.

Aliud est, quod Christus fuit homo in triduo ; et hoc dicit distinctione vigesima secunda.

7.

In quarto similiter duae reperiuntur : una de baptismo Ioannis ;

In quarto similiter duo dicit : unum est quod baptismus Ioannis cum impositione manuum aequipollebat baptismo Christi, ita quod baptizatus baptismate Ioannis in fide Trinitatis non erat rebaptizandus, et hoc dicit distinctione secunda.

8.

altera de potestate baptizandi sive dimittendi peccata, quam potuit conferre creaturae.

Aliud est de potestate baptizandi interius, quam dixit ; quod Deus potuit alii dare, et quod creatura potuit suscipere ; et similiter quod Deus potest potestatem creandi communicare et creare per creaturam tanquam per ministrum ; et hoc dicit distinctione quinta.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

89

Liste i donnée dans la praelocutio au commentaire du Livre ii des Sentences

Liste ii figurant en fin du commentaire du Livre ii des Sentences

In his positionibus Magister a communi via recessit, et sicut in suis locis tractabuntur ad minus probabilem partem declinavit, et ideo non sustinetur communiter a magistris. Et licet fortassis aliquis eum in aliquibus harum opinionum sustineat, verum tamen pater et magister noster bonae memoriae frater Alexander in nulla harum ipsum sustinuit, sed potius contrarium sensit, cujus vestigiis praecipue inhaerere propono.

In his octo positionibus communiter doctores Parisienses non sequuntur Magistrum, nec credo in omnibus his eum sustinendum, ne amore hominis veritati fiat preiudicium ; et haec omnia suis locis manifesta sunt et manifestabuntur.

Les deux listes, dans leur structure comme dans leur contenu, restent extrêmement proches : une introduction – dans laquelle Bonaventure souligne d’abord la nécessité pour les commentateurs de suivre la pensée de Pierre Lombard, avant de concéder qu’en huit passages les docteurs n’adhèrent communément plus à ses positions –, suivie de la liste elle-même indiquant les paires de propositions livre après livre. Seule la liste ii, donnée en fin du commentaire du livre ii, précise le numéro de la distinction contenant chacun des passages incriminés. Certaines propositions sont un peu plus développées, tantôt dans la liste i (propositions 1, 2 et 3), tantôt dans la liste ii (propositions 7 et 8). Seule la proposition 4 subit une reformulation relativement nette. Bonaventure conclut les deux listes en soulignant que les passages incriminés du Lombard le sont par la communauté des maîtres (parisiens, précise-t-il dans la liste ii) et rappelle, dans la liste i, que si quelqu’un souhaitait se ranger aux avis du Lombard, Alexandre de Halès lui-même, dont Bonaventure affirme à plusieurs reprises marcher dans les traces, pensait à l’inverse du maître des Sentences41. Il annonce enfin, dans la liste ii, que les passages non tenus ont été et seront 41  On trouve effectivement dans le commentaire des Sentences d’Alexandre de Halès la mise en cause de certaines positions de Pierre Lombard. Mais Alexandre de Halès n’en dresse pas de liste. Voir aussi Angotti, « Lectiones Sententiarum », vol. 2, p. 624 pour un relevé des passages où Alexandre de Halès s’oppose à Pierre Lombard.

90

Angotti

signalés42. La liste ii, par les procédés de rédaction employés, paraît plus aboutie : elle signale avec une précision plus grande les passages non tenus du Lombard en employant le découpage en distinctiones introduit par Alexandre de Halès43, elle traite de manière moins allusive les passages problématiques des Livres iii et surtout iv des Sentences, elle supprime la référence explicite à Alexandre de Halès parmi les docteurs ne suivant pas les huit positions du Lombard. Tout ceci laisse à penser que le texte de la praelocutio est probablement une trace – certes partiellement rédigée – mais encore relativement proche de l’exercice oral de lectio des Sentences conduit par Bonaventure44, tandis que la liste ii serait alors une version plus efficace de la liste i, sa reprise, l’ensemble de la lectio achevé, à l’occasion de la rédaction, de la mise en forme écrite du commentaire. C’est la forme de la liste ii, plus précise, qui paraît avoir été imitée dans les listes du collège. On peut distinguer cependant deux groupes distincts dans notre corpus : un premier, constitué de quatre manuscrits, reprend globalement la liste bonaventurienne45, un second (cinq manuscrits) présente des listes bonaventuriennes enrichies de nouvelles propositions46. 42  Soulignons l’ambiguïté de cette formule : le signalement des propositions non tenues a-t-il lieu au cours du commentaire rédigé par Bonaventure? Ou bien le maître franciscain suggère-t-il de signaler dans les marges des Sentences les passages incriminés? 43  Voir Ignatius Brady, « The Distinctions of Lombard’s Book of Sentences and Alexander of Halès », Franciscan Studies 25 (1965) : 90–116. 44  Il demeure difficile toutefois de lier ce que les éditeurs de Quaracchi ont intitulé praelocutio à certains des exercices en lien avec la lectio des Sentences. La praelocutio ne contient ni l’éloge de la sacra doctrina, ni le plan, ni l’éloge du Maître des Sentences, ni la présentation du livre qui va être objet de la lectio, comme le voudrait l’exercice de la collatio précédant le principium du sententiaire. Sur ces questions, en demeurant prudent, en raison du recours à des sources normatives (serments, statuts) datant du xive siècle pour décrire des pratiques du xiiie siècle, voir Palémon Glorieux, « L’enseignement au moyen âge. Techniques et méthodes d’enseignement en usage à la faculté de théologie de Paris au xiiie siècle », Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 43 (1968) : 65–186, précisément pp. 138–41 (sur les principia) et p. 157 (sur la collatio). P. Glorieux mentionne aussi (p. 157) la regratiatio, sorte de discours conclusif très bref, prononcé par l’un des étudiants à la fin de la lectio, mais le texte de la praelocutio paraît trop long et trop complexe pour correspondre à ce type d’exercice. 45  Il s’agit des mss. bnf, lat. 15705 (fol. 2v) et lat. 15707 (fol. 169vb) qui mentionnent strictement les propositions de Bonaventure et les mss. bnf, lat. 15716 (fol. 1) et lat. 16375 (fol. 290v) qui mentionnent toutes les propositions de Bonaventure, excepté la huitième proposition, qui visait la distinction 5 et qui est remplacée, dans ces deux listes, par la distinction 13. 46  Il s’agit des mss. bnf, lat. 15702 (les huit propositions de Bonaventure en neuf passages et neuf autres propositions), lat. 15717 (20 propositions), lat. 15719 (19 propositions), lat. 15723

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

91

À ­l’intérieur de ce second groupe se dégage toutefois un sous-ensemble, composé de trois manuscrits dont la liste bonaventurienne est augmentée et qui proposent, aussi, un classement des propositions et en justifient la mise à l’écart47. Bonaventure est certes le premier à organiser sous forme de liste les propositions non tenues du Lombard, mais cette dernière demeure fermement enchâssée dans son commentaire : elle est dotée d’une introduction et d’une conclusion. À l’inverse, les listes figurant dans les feuillets suivant ou précédant le texte du Lombard ne bénéficient (sauf une exception, le ms. bnf, lat. 15728) ni d’introduction ni de conclusion. En revanche, toutes possèdent un titre qu’il convient d’analyser. L’intitulé des listes figurant dans les exemplaires des Sentences du collège de la Sorbonne ne se différencie pas de celui des listes précédemment éditées. On signale simplement qu’il existe des passages du Livre des sentences où l’opinion de Pierre Lombard n’est plus tenue48 ; toutefois certaines formulations insistent sur l’obsolescence de certaines positions de Pierre Lombard, en employant le terme de « modernes » pour désigner les docteurs parisiens49 ou en recourant aux adverbes « aujourd’hui » (hodie) ou « désormais » (modo)50. Un seul intitulé indique qu’il s’agit de l’opinion des maîtres parisiens, opposant leur consensus, leur « opinion commune », à celle de Pierre Lombard51. Le concept d’« opinion commune » des docteurs permet de saisir aussi la manière dont ces listes (et, plus largement, la critique du texte des Sentences) (deux propositions de Bonaventure en trois passages et cinq autres propositions) et lat. 15728 (16 propositions). 47  Il s’agit des mss. bnf, lat. 15717, lat. 15719 et lat. 15728. 48  Voir ainsi bnf, lat. 15705, fol. 2v : Haec sunt que dicit magister que non tenentur ; lat. 15707, fol. 169vb : Nota quod in viii locis non tenetur oppinio magistri in libro Sententiarum. 49  Voir bnf, lat. 15716, fol. 1 et lat. 16375, fol. 290v : Iste sunt opiniones magistri Sententiarum que non tenentur a modernis. Ce phénomène figure fréquemment dans les gloses des Sentences signalées par Arthur Landgraf, dans « Frühscholastische Abkürzungen der Sentenzen des Lombarden », dans Studia mediaevalia in honorem admodum reverendi patris Raymundi Josephi Martin (Bruges, 1948), 171–99, précisément 197–8. Il en donne plusieurs exemples, ainsi : Satis probavit magister quod Christus in illo triduo fuit homo. Sed modernis creditur qui dicunt. . . . On retrouve parfois cette même opposition dans les marges des manuscrits du collège de la Sorbonne : ainsi lat. 15716, fol. 195ra : L[inea] .4. « A brutis ». Hec fuit opinio magistri, aliter sentiunt moderni . . . 50  Voir bnf, lat. 15702, fol. 186v : Hee sunt positiones magistri Sententiarum que hodie non tenentur ; lat. 15719, fol. 204va : Iste sunt opiniones quas ponit Magister in libro Sententiarum que modo non tenentur a magistris ; lat. 15723, fol. 1v : Sententia magistri non tenetur hodie in his locis. Ces mêmes adverbes (hodie, modo) se retrouvent dans les marges des manuscrits comportant la mention non tenetur. 51  Voir bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v : Secundum magistros Parisienses magister Sententiarum declinavit a communibus opinionibus magistrorum in istis locis.

92

Angotti

s’élaborent et circulent. On relève en effet la récurrence, dans les marges des manuscrits comme dans les listes, de l’adjectif communis ou de l’adverbe communiter. Est ainsi désignée la communauté magistrale, les magistri en corps qui, peu a peu, ont émis un avis unanime sur tel et tel point de l’enseignement de Pierre Lombard. Il est ainsi presque vain d’attribuer à tel ou tel maître (Etienne Langton, Alexandre de Halès, Bonaventure . . .) la paternité de l’identification de telle ou telle proposition non tenue dans les Sentences. C’est l’accord de maîtres différents, en des temps différents (ce qui explique leur « anonymat »), qui assure la promotion et le succès des « opinions non tenues de Pierre Lombard » au sein de la faculté de théologie52. La « mise en liste » initiée par Bonaventure est un moyen pratique, mais pas le seul – les marges et même les interlignes du texte du Lombard sont un vecteur aussi efficace pour cette « opinion commune » – de faire circuler la critique de certains points des Sentences. L’emploi du terme opinio pour désigner le consensus des autres maîtres est d’ailleurs révélateur : l’opinion commune n’est qu’un avis de l’ensemble des maîtres et il n’est pas considéré comme vraiment autoritatif ; cet avis peut varier et demeure sujet à la critique. C’est ce fait dont a d’ailleurs conscience le rédacteur de la liste figurant dans le ms. bnf, lat. 15728 qui, en une sorte d’introduction, en présente ainsi le contenu : Note les opinions les moins probables qu’expose le maître des Sentences, opinions que désormais les docteurs ne suivent plus, mais de diverses manières : dans certains cas, presque tous le contredisent, dans d’autres ils les résolvent avec force explication et grande difficulté, si bien qu’ils en allèguent la fausseté ; [ces derniers sont signalés] en face de ce signe : ☼ ; à propos de ceux pour lequels ils sont d’un avis contraire, par ce signe : 9a [i.e. contra]53.

52  Cela fait des listes de propositions non tenues l’inverse exact des listes de censure, qui peuvent aussi circuler dans le Livre comme dans les commentaires des Sentences. Les listes de propositions censurées sont presque toujours datées, leur responsable est désigné. Sur le phénomène de la censure, voir en particulier Luca Bianchi, Censure et liberté intellectuelle à l’Université de Paris : xiiie–xive siècles (Paris, 1999) ; William J. Courtenay, « The Preservation and Dissemination of Academic Condemnations at the University of Paris in the Middle Ages », dans Les philosophies morales et politiques au moyen âge, dir. par Bernardo Carlos Bazán, Eduardo Andújar et Léonard G. Sbrocchi, t. 3 (New York/ Ottawa/Toronto, 1995), 1659–67. 53  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15728, fol. 185r : « Nota opiniones minus probabiles quas ponit magister Sententiarum quas non sustinent communiter nunc doctores sed tamen diversi mode, in quibusdam contradicunt fere omnes, in quibusdam solvunt cum magna difficultate et

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

93

Les positions choisies par Pierre Lombard ne sont pas fausses, mais font partie des « moins probables ». Le fait de les énumèrer de façon indifférenciée dans une liste de propositions non tenues dissimule en réalité une partie de la méthode critique à l’égard des Sentences : certes, pour certains passages de Pierre Lombard, les docteurs sont désormais d’un avis contraire, mais d’autres positions du Maître des Sentences posent tant de difficultés d’explicitation aux magistri qu’ils préfèrent les considérer comme fausses, ce qu’elles ne sont pas véritablement. Ceci expliquerait aussi les variations du nombre de propositions non tenues, selon que le rédacteur de la liste a tenu compte au regard de l’opinio communis des seules propositions qui lui sont contraires ou des opinions qui lui sont simplement difficiles à expliquer. Il convient désormais de s’intéresser au contenu des listes en s’appuyant sur quelques exemples, afin d’essayer de comprendre la contribution de ces dernières dans la maîtrise et l’appropriation des Sentences, but auquel doivent tendre tous les étudiants de la faculté de théologie. Autrement dit, dans quelle mesure ces listes pouvaient-elles constituer un instrument dans le travail intellectuel qu’est la lectio? 2

Le contenu et le fonctionnement des listes

Le travail du rédacteur de la liste figurant dans le ms. bnf, lat. 15728 peut nous servir de fil conducteur. L’auteur de cette liste opère en effet un classement des propositions non tenues original : il dépasse le simple ordonnancement livre par livre tel qu’il était conçu par Bonaventure, et tel qu’il était repris par la très grande majorité des listes circulant de manuscrits en manuscrits. Comme on le constate, les signes diacritiques (☼, 9a) annoncés dans l’intitulé ne sont pas systématiquement employés54. Les propositions de Pierre Lombard classées comme « contraires » à l’opinion commune concernent seulement le Livre ii et deux propositions sur trois (dist. 5 et 30), tandis que celles qui sont « difficiles à expliquer » sont contenues dans le Livre i (dist. 43, une sur trois) et dans le Livre iv (dist. 13 et 25, deux sur huit). Le reste des onze propositions n’est agrémenté d’aucun signe. L’effort de classement original conduit dans la liste du lat. 15728 n’est donc pas mené à terme puisque la majeure partie des propositions qu’il signale n’est accompagnée d’aucun signe diacritique qui indique à l’utilisateur de la liste dans quelle mesure les maîtres sont opposés à la position expositione licet pretendent falsitatem, in facie hoc signo ☼ ; de quibusdam sunt contrariorum oppinionum tali signo 9a. » 54  Voir annexe 4.

94

Angotti

du Lombard ou s’ils ont simplement du mal à l’expliquer. Dans le cadre de cet article, nous nous cantonnerons à l’analyse des quelques propositions agrémentées d’un signe diacritique. 2.1 Deux exemples d’opinions « contraires à l’opinio communis » La première opinion concerne l’angélologie : l’auteur de la liste du lat. 15728 la formule ainsi : « Que dans les anges la récompense précède le mérite »55. Cette opinion de Pierre Lombard figure dans l’ensemble des listes présentes dans les manuscrits des Sentences ; elle est en général formulée de manière à peu près identique56. Sont opposés le mérite et la récompense (et, plus précisément, la « récompense substantielle », c’est-à-dire la béatitude) : selon Pierre Lombard, en effet, les anges ont reçu la récompense substantielle quand, après avoir été créés, ils ont choisi de se tourner vers Dieu. Ils ont alors été récompensés : Dieu leur donne la béatitude (Livre ii, dist. 5). Les anges bienheureux peuvent alors croître en mérite jusqu’au jour du jugement (dist. 11) : de fait, pour Pierre Lombard la récompense substantielle précède le mérite57. Il n’en va pas de même pour les théologiens du xiiie siècle, qui soulignent que les anges doivent mériter leur béatitude : le mérite doit donc, par l’intermédiaire de la grâce reçue dès la création des anges, précéder la béatitude. Celle-ci, comme le souligne notamment Thomas d’Aquin, suit donc immédiatement le mérite58. Cette analyse de la béatitude des anges comme suivant leur mérite est partagée par la plupart des maîtres du xiiie siècle59. C’est pour cette raison que 55  ms. bnf, lat. 15728, fol. 185r : « [proposition 4] Quod in angelis precessit premium meritum. » Signalons qu’elle est aussi mentionnée dans la liste de Bonaventure : voir tableau 2.1, proposition 3. 56  Voir les formules du lat. 15702 [proposition 6] ; lat. 15705 [proposition 3] ; lat. 15707 [proposition 3] ; lat. 15716 [proposition 3] ; lat. 15717 [proposition 4] ; lat. 15719 [proposition 6] ; lat. 16375 [proposition 3]. 57  Voir André Vacant, « Ange », dans Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 1 (Paris, 1899– 1903), cols. 1223–5. « Un peu comme le soldat qui recevrait d’abord ses galons et les mériterait ensuite par sa bravoure », selon C.V. Heris (trad. et comm.), Thomas d’Aquin, Somme théologique, Ia pars, qu. 50–64, Les anges (édition de la Revue des jeunes) (Paris/Tournai/ Rome, 1953), 425 n. 97. 58  Voir Thomas d’Aquin, Somme théologique, i, qu. 62, art. 4 et 5. 59  On trouve la même critique chez Étienne Langton, à propos de la distinction 5 du Livre ii. Voir, à ce sujet, Der Sentenzenkommentar des Kardinals Stephan Langton, éd. Arthur M. Landgraf (Münster, 1952 ; rééd. 1995), 79. Voir aussi Magistri Alexandri de Hales Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, éd. PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae (Quaracchi, 1951–1957), Liber ii, dist. 5 (2 : 49). Les scholia de l’édition du commentaire de Bonaventure mentionnent différents docteurs en accord avec Bonaventure : Albert le Grand, Pierre de Tarentaise, Richard de Mediavilla, Gilles de Rome, Thomas d’Aquin dans

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

95

l’opinion du Lombard exposée dans la distinction 5 et, probablement, celle de la distinction 11 sont considérées comme « contraires » à l’opinion commune des maîtres. La seconde opinion contraire à celle des docteurs touche un passage de la distinction 30 du Livre ii : « Que dans la vérité de la nature humaine rien d’extrinsèque ne passe, mais toute la vérité de la nature humaine descend d’Adam60. » La « vérité de la nature humaine » est un concept lié au problème de l’unité de l’espèce humaine, en vue de la transmission du péché originel. La première scolastique considère qu’il y a une particule de matière héritée des parents (la « vérité de la nature humaine ») qui a été transmise et multipliée depuis Adam à tous les membres de l’humanité61. Comme le souligne Odon Lottin, dans le Livre des sentences, on assiste à l’un des « premiers essais de la future question de veritate humanae naturae qui longtemps défraiera les écoles62. » Ainsi, Pierre Lombard a, comme la plupart des maîtres du xiie siècle, une position réaliste : il affirme que la transmission du péché originel provient exclusivement d’Adam en tant qu’il est le représentant de l’ensemble du genre humain63. Les maîtres postérieurs sont sensibles aux difficultés de cette position : Bonaventure insiste par exemple sur les conditions simultanées permettant la transmission du péché originel. Il ne suffit pas, en effet, qu’Adam soit le père de toute la race humaine ; il faut aussi que le commandement de ne pas manger les fruits de l’arbre de la connaissance s’adresse à Adam en tant son ­commentaire des Sentences (Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, Liber ii, dist. 5, p. 158). Ce dernier nuance quelque peu sa position dans la Somme théologique, i, qu. 62, art. 4. 60  ms. bnf, lat. 15728, fol. 185r : « [proposition 6] . . . quod in veritatem humane nature nihil transit extrinsecus sed ab Adam descendit tota veritas humane nature ». Certaines formulations sont beaucoup plus claires : voir, par exemple, lat. 15707, fol. 169vb : « [proposition 4] . . . quod nihil de cibis transit in veritatem humane nature nec per generationem nec per nutritionem » ou lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [proposition 6] . . . quod nihil de extrinseco transsit in veritatem humane nature nec per generationem nec per nutritionem ou encore lat. 15719, fol. 204va : « [proposition 8] . . . quod in veritate humane nature nichil transit nisi quod processit a lumbis Ade ». On notera la confusion des auteurs des listes des lat. 15716 (fol. 1) et lat. 16375 (fol. 290v), qui écrivent virtutem humane nature au lieu de veritatem humane nature. Signalons que cette proposition aussi figure dans la liste de Bonaventure ; voir tableau 2.1, proposition 4. 61  Voir Maaike Van der Lugt, Le ver, le démon et la vierge. Les théories médiévales de la génération extraordinaire (Paris, 2003), 245–6. 62  Odon Lottin, Psychologie et morale aux xiie et xiiie siècles, t. 4 : Problèmes de morale (Louvain/Genbloux, 1954), 39 et 55 n. 63  Voir Auguste Gaudel, « Pêché originel », dans Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 12/1 (Paris, 1932–1933), cols. 441–58.

96

Angotti

que chef de l’espèce humaine et que sa désobéissance et son démérite soient passés à tous les hommes. Quant à Thomas d’Aquin, soulignant les difficultés de la position des maîtres du xiie siècle, qui implique une forme d’hérédité du péché originel, il s’efforce d’en décrire la transmission par la comparaison avec le corps humain, en présentant Adam comme le « chef » du genre humain responsable de ses « membres » (les hommes)64. Ce n’est pas tant le concept de « vérité de la nature humaine » qui est critiqué par les maîtres chez Pierre Lombard que la description de sa transmission qui doit être nuancée65. 2.2 Les opinions « difficiles à expliquer » Selon la liste du ms. bnf, lat. 15728, les propositions jugées par les docteurs plus « difficiles à expliquer » que contraires à leur propre opinion concernent des sujets très variés : l’une touche à la prescience et à la science divines66, les deux autres aux pouvoirs sacramentels de ceux qui ont été exclus de l’Église. La première des positions de Pierre Lombard signalée comme difficile à expliquer consiste en l’assemblage de deux passages du Livre i des Sentences, l’un touchant la distinction 41, l’autre la distinction 44, comme en témoignent deux autres listes67. Dès le xiiie siècle, la position présentée par Pierre Lombard est critiquée par les théologiens. Bonaventure, à la suite d’Alexandre de Halès, souligne les difficultés soulevées par la question utrum enuntiabilia que semel Deus cognoscit, semper cognoscat vel sciat. Une réponse positive est longuement mise en question : l’essentiel de l’argumentation de Bonaventure repose sur le sens des verbes cognoscere et scire. On peut, selon lui, dégager deux sens à ces verbes : soit scire implique une « compréhension nue », soit scire suscite « une compréhension avec un assentiment »68. Dans le premier sens, la proposition 64  Voir Thomas d’Aquin, Somme théologique, i-ii, qu. 81, art. 1. 65  Voir notamment Philip L. Reynolds, Food and the Body : Some Peculiar Questions in High Medieval Theology (Leyde, 1999), chap. 1 et 2. 66  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15728, fol. 185r : « [proposition 3] Quod Deus semper quicquid aliquando potuit, potest, voluit et vult, sicut scit quicquid scivit. . . . » 67  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15702, fol. 186v : « [propositions 4 et 5] Quod Deus semper scit omne enunciabile quod aliquando scivit . . . ; Quod Deus potest quicquid aliquando potuit . . . »; lat. 15719, fol. 204va : « [propositions 4 et 5] Tercia est quod scit semper omne enunciabile quod aliquando scivit . . . et similiter quod potest quicquid potuit ». Quant au lat. 15717 (fol. 4v), il ne signale que le passage de la dist. 41 : « [proposition 3] . . . Ubi dicit quod Deus scit omne enunciabile quod aliquando scivit ». 68  Voir Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, Liber i, dist. 41, art. 2, qu. 2, conclusio (p. 739) : « Primo modo scire importat nudum intelligere, secundo modo intelligere cum assensu. Si ergo scire accipiatur primo modo, sic dico, quod quidquid est, et omne enunciabile, et omne quod scivit, adhuc scit et habet cognitionem de illo,

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

97

de Pierre Lombard est juste ; mais comme ce dernier l’entend dans le second sens, à la manière des nominalistes, elle est fausse69. Avant d’exposer les arguments des nominalistes et de les contrer, Bonaventure s’appuie pour réfuter cette position sur l’autorité d’Aristote et, dans un mouvement de gradation, signale que non seulement cette position va contre « l’opinion commune » mais aussi contre la vérité70. Bonaventure s’attache à souligner les difficultés soulevées par l’affirmation de Pierre Lombard dans la distinction 41 et il n’évoque pas le contenu de la distinction 4471, qui porte sur l’éternité et l’immutabilité de la volonté et de la puissance divines. On peut toutefois appliquer aux verbes « vouloir » et « pouvoir » le même type de raisonnement dialectique, en jouant sur les différents sens de ces verbes : si « vouloir » et « pouvoir » signifient qu’ils rendent vrai tout ce qui est voulu ou pu par Dieu, alors la proposition de Pierre Lombard est fausse. Dans les scholia à l’édition du commentaire de Bonaventure, les auteurs indiquent que la position de Bonaventure est aussi celle d’Alexandre de Halès, d’Albert le Grand, de Pierre de Tarentaise, de Thomas d’Aquin, de Durand de Saint-Pourçain et de Richard de Mediavilla. Ce dernier reconnaît que la question appartient plus à la dialectique, mais qu’il n’est cependant pas inutile d’éviter les erreurs72. De manière curieuse, la proposition « non tenue » de Pierre Lombard connaît une certaine fortune dans les facultés des arts : Sten Ebbesen signale au moins douze manuscrits des xiiie et xive siècles, tous au contenu en rapport avec l’enseignement des arts, qui soulèvent la question quia de omni eo quod est et quod potest esse, habet cognitionem. Nec sequitur : scit hoc, ergo est verum. . . . Si autem accipiatur scire secundo modo, prout connotat veritatem circa ennuntiabile, sic fuerunt qui dicerent, quod desinit aliquod enuntiabile scire ; quia posuerunt, quod enuntiabile, quod est verum, potest esse falsum. » 69  Voir ibid. (p. 740) : « Et respondent illi rationi : omne enuntiabile, quod scivit scit ; sed scivit te nasciturum vel te esse : ergo etc. non debet inferri sic : ergo scit te esse, sed sic ergo scit te fuisse. Aliter est ibi figura dictionis, quia procedit ab identitate in modo significandi ad identitatem rei. Et hoc modo solvit magister. Et ista fuit opinio nominalium, qui dicti sunt nominales quia fundabant positionem suam super nominis unitatem. » 70  Voir ibid. : « Sed ista fuit positio contra Philosophum qui dicit in Predicamentis quod eadem oratio primo est vera, postea falsa. Fuit etiam contra communem positionem. Fuit etiam contra veritatem. Et ratio hujus est, quia nec bonum fundamentum habet, nec bonam adaptationem. » 71  Lorsqu’il commente le contenu de la dist. 44, il se contente de dire : « Ad hoc est duplex modus respondendi, sicut ad sophisma de scientia » (ibid., dist. 44, art. 2, qu. unica, conclusio, p. 791). Les éditeurs du commentaire renvoient alors à la distinction 41. Sten Ebbesen a toutefois une autre interprétation pour ce renvoi. Voir note 73. 72  Voir ibid., dist. 41, art. 2, qu. 2, conclusio (p. 741 n. 1).

98

Angotti

Deus scit quicquid scivit, traitée sous forme de sophismata73. Ebbesen signale cependant que cette proposition n’est pas un simple prétexte, pour les artiens, à traiter de problèmes terre-à-terre, mais qu’ils abordent surtout le problème de la description de l’omniscience divine74. L’existence d’un « sophisme standard vivant dans une sorte de symbiose avec une distinction des Sentences »75 s’expliquerait par le fait que ce type de question trouve son origine en un temps où théologie et arts n’étaient pas séparés aussi strictement (c’està-dire les xiie et xiiie siècles). Pourtant, dès les débuts de l’Université de Paris, des lettres pontificales demandent aux théologiens de se garder de problèmes logiques ou dialectiques76. À l’inverse, les artiens sont strictement encadrés et ne peuvent en aucun cas aborder des points théologiques. Une de cléfs de la survie de cette proposition au sein de l’enseignement des arts tient peutêtre à son classement parmi les « opinions non tenues » du Lombard. Ce statut « hybride » de la question – un problème théologique formulé sous forme de sophisme, un sophisme faisant appel à des données théologiques – explique aussi qu’elle ait été abordée par les sententiaires comme par les artiens sans que l’enseignement de la théologie ne paraisse menacé par l’intérêt des artiens pour un tel problème et sans que l’orthodoxie de ceux qui en traitent ne soit jugée suspecte. Les deux autres propositions jugées difficiles par les docteurs selon l’auteur de la liste du lat. 15728 touchent au Livre iv des Sentences. Contrairement à la proposition précédente, spéculative, les propositions du Livre iv touchent à la théologie sacramentelle et à la pastorale. Elles concernent des passages de la distinction 13 et de la distinction 2577. Ces propositions figurent fréquemment sous des variantes légèrement différentes dans cinq des listes présentes dans les manuscrits du collège de la Sorbonne78 ; dans deux des listes les plus 73   Voir Sten Ebbesen, « Doing Theology with Sophismata », dans Vestigia, Imagines, Verba. Semiotics and Logic in Medieval Theological Texts (xiith–xivth century), dir. par Constantino Marmo (Turnhout 1997), 151–69. 74  Voir ibid., 155. 75  Ibid., 160. 76  Voir cup i, n° 59 (lettre de Grégoire ix datée de 1228 adressée aux maîtres en théologie) et n° 79 (bulle Parens scienciarum de Grégoire ix adressée à l’ensemble de l’université). 77  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15728, fol. 185r : « [propositions 11 et 12] Quod heretici precisi vel excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi . . . ; Quod episcopi symoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi. . . . » Rappelons les différences entre excommuniés et dégradés : l’excommunication est une sanction qui prive de manière temporaire celui qu’elle frappe, en vue de son amendement, tandis que la dégradation est une condamnation définitive. Ceux qui sont dégradés sont à jamais privés de l’exercice sacerdotal. 78  Voir mss. bnf, lat. 15702, fol. 186v : « [proposition 15] Quod heretici ab ecclesia precisi non habent potestatem conficiendi . . . ; [proposition 16] Quod episcopi symoniaci

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

99

courtes, qui reprennent la liste de Bonaventure à huit propositions, elles ont même remplacé la proposition 8 du maître franciscain79. Si la proposition concernant la science de Dieu peut effectivement paraître complexe en raison des compétences dialectiques et logiques qu’il faut mettre en œuvre pour l’aborder, en quoi les deux propositions du Livre iv peuventelles être jugées « difficiles à expliquer »? Le sacrement de l’Eucharistie est présenté par Pierre Lombard comme le sacrement « qui permet de recevoir Celui qui est source et origine de toute la grâce »80. La proposition concernant la distinction 13, sur l’incapacité des prêtres excommuniés ou exclus de l’Église à dispenser ce sacrement, ne paraît pas, de prime abord, soulever de difficulté. L’opinion de Pierre Lombard repose sur l’argument suivant : Ceux qui sont excommuniés ou condamnés publiquement du fait d’hérésie ne paraîssent pas pouvoir consacrer ce sacrement, même s’ils sont prêtres : nul ne dit durant cette consécration « j’offre », mais « nous offrons »81, en tenant la place, pour ainsi dire, de l’Église. Et donc tandis que les autres sacrements peuvent être célébrés en dehors de l’Église, ce n’est pas le cas pour celui-ci82. degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi . . . »; lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [propositions 12 et 13] . . . quod heretici ab ecclesia precisi non habent potestatem conficiendi . . .   ; [proposition 17] . . .  quod episcopi symoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi . . . »; lat. 15719, fol. 204va : « [propositions 14 et 15] . . . quod heretici precisi ab ecclesia vel excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi corpus Christi . . . et quod episcopi symoniaci non habent potestatem ordinandi . . . ». On note la variante proposée par le ms. lat. 15719 qui concerne l’Eucharistie. Pour les mss. lat. 15716 et lat. 16375, voir la note suivante. 79  Voir mss. bnf, lat. 15716, fol. 1 : « [proposition 8, probablement rajoutée par une autre main] . . . quod scismatici, degradati, prescisi ab ecclesia, heretici, excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi corpus Christi » ; lat. 16375, fol. 290v : « [proposition 8] . . . quod scismatici, degradati, precisi ab ecclesia, heretici et excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi corpus Christi. 80  Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 8, chap. 1 (2 : 280) : « Unde excellenter dicitur eucharistia, id est bona gratia, quia in hoc sacramento non modo est augmentum virtutis et gratie, sed ille totus sumitur, qui est fons et origo totius gratie. » L’Eucharistie semble avoir beaucoup intéressé le Lombard, qui y a consacré un petit traité lors de la rédaction de son commentaire de la Première épître aux Corinthiens. Voir l’édition de ce premier traité dans Pierre Lombard, Sentences, 2 : 51*–87*, précisément 77*–84*. La question qui nous préoccupe n’est cependant pas abordée. 81  Il s’agit des expressions de l’offertoire et du canon. 82  Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 13, chap. 1, §4 (2 : 312) : « Illi vero qui excommunicati sunt vel de haeresi manifeste notati, non videntur hoc sacramentum posse conficere, licet sacerdotes sint : quia nemo dicit in ipsa consecratione ‘offero’ sed ‘offerimus’, quasi ex

100

Angotti

Cette prise de position, qui repose sur l’idée que le prêtre agit au nom de l’Église, ce qui est impossible à quelqu’un qui en a été exclu, pose le problème de l’efficacité du sacrement. En effet, suivant l’analyse que livre Pierre Lombard, lors du sacrement de l’Eucharistie, deux res sont reçues par les fidèles : ils reçoivent d’une part le corps du Christ (caro Christi propria), mais aussi son corps mystique, c’est-à-dire l’Église (caro mystica)83. Un prêtre exclu de l’Église, ne pouvant pas prononcer les paroles de consécration, fait donc courir un « double risque » aux fidèles qui ne peuvent recevoir l’Eucharistie de manière sacramentelle (sacramentaliter) et mystique (spiritualiter). Dès le xiie siècle, les maîtres se sont attachés à analyser les deux res sacramenti, ce qui a donné lieu à de multiples questions et de curieux débats84. Un problème beaucoup plus concret était aussi généré par une telle position, la question de la valeur de l’ordination : plusieurs prêtres avaient en effet été ordonnés lors du schisme occasionné par l’affrontement entre Grégoire vii et Henri iv. Il s’agissait de savoir si le caractère sacerdotal transmis par le sacrement de l’ordre devait être réitéré. Urbain ii, suivi en cela par plusieurs canonistes de Bologne, réconcilie les clercs ordonnés dans le schisme en réitérant tous les rites de l’ordre, sauf l’onction, qu’il considère comme le rite essentiel de l’ordre, en cela non réitérable. Plusieurs maîtres du xiiie siècle considèrent de ce fait que l’opinion du Lombard est bien sévère85 et dans son commentaire des Sentences, Thomas d’Aquin tranche en faveur de l’opinion opposée, en avançant deux arguments : persona Ecclesie. Et ideo, cum alia sacramenta extra Ecclesiam possint celebrari, de hoc non videtur. » 83  Voir le schéma très éclairant de Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 154. Voir aussi Henri de Lubac, Corpus mysticum. L’Eucharistie et l’Église au moyen âge : étude historique (Paris, 1941). 84  Voir notamment Gary Macy, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period : A Study of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament According to Theologians c. 1080–c. 1220 (Oxford, 1984). Certaines de ses analyses sur Pierre Lombard doivent être nuancées avec Colish, Peter Lombard, 561, 575–80 et surtout Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 242 n. 31 et 32. P. Rosemann souligne que c’est à cette occasion qu’est souvent présenté le problème « célèbre et bizarre, mais en même temps réel, de la souris qui par malchance parviendrait à manger une miette d’une hostie consacrée qui serait tombée de l’autel sur le sol » (153). Pierre Lombard évoque lui aussi mais très brièvement, la question, qu’il semble considérer comme bien vaine (voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 13, chap. 1, §8, 2 : 314). 85  Voir Joseph de Ghellinck, « Eucharistie au xiie siècle en Occident », dans Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 5 (Paris, 1911–1913), cols. 1233–1302, précisément cols. 1260–1 pour une présentation de la position du Lombard, qui est, à cet égard, qualifiée de sévère, par rapport à la Summa sententiarum et à plusieurs autres auteurs du xiie siècle (voir ibid., col. 1285). Voir aussi Colish, Peter Lombard, 573.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

101

[1] Sed contra. Le prêtre a le pouvoir de consacrer de par la marque sacramentelle (character) [c’est-à-dire ici l’ordination] ; or cette marque demeure dans l’hérétique, le schismatique et l’excommunié. Ils peuvent donc consacrer. [2] En outre, la qualité de la personne n’est pas réclamée sauf pour un acte propre de la personne. Mais la consécration n’est pas un acte personnel du prêtre lui-même, mais il consacre au nom de Dieu. Il n’est donc pas empêché du fait de sa propre qualité86. Les maîtres du xiiie siècle affirment le rôle secondaire du ministre par rapport à l’efficacité de deux sacrements87 : l’Eucharistie et l’ordre. C’est pourquoi il n’est pas étonnant de voir certaines des listes associer en une même proposition le passage des Sentences concernant les évêques simoniaques dégradés et leur capacité à conférer le sacrement de l’ordre88. Une fois encore, les théologiens du xiiie siècle affirment que le pouvoir d’ordre demeure indélébile chez les évêques hérétiques et schismatiques qui l’ont reçu, c’est-à-dire s’ils ont vraiment reçu l’onction épiscopale. Le cas spécifique des évêques simoniaques est traité à part par les maîtres, probablement en raison des nombreuses controverses dont cette question a été l’objet, dès le haut moyen âge : héritier de la réforme grégorienne, Pierre Lombard qualifie d’hérétiques les évêques simoniaques89. Thomas d’Aquin, Bonaventure, Pierre de Tarentaise, après 86  Thomas d’Aquin, Scriptum super Sententiis, t. 4, éd. Marie-Fabien Moos (Paris, 1947), Liber iv, dist. 13, qu. 1, art. 1, p. 546 : « [1] Sed contra, sacerdos habet potestatem consecrandi ex ipso charactere ; sed character manet in ipso heretico, schismatico, et excommunicato. Ergo possunt consecrare. [2] Praeterea, qualitas personae non exigitur nisi ad actum proprium personae. Sed consecratio non est actus personalis ipsius sacerdotis, sed Dei cujus verbis consecrat. Ergo non impeditur propter propriam qualitatem ». 87  On retrouve les mêmes arguments et l’insistance sur le caractère sacerdotal qui prime la qualité du ministre chez Alexandre de Halès, Bonaventure et Richard de Mediavilla. Pour les positions de ces différents maîtres, voir Eugène Mangenot, « Eucharistie du xiiie au xve siècle », dans Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 5 (Paris, 1911–1913), cols. 1302–26, notamment, pour le ministre, cols. 1318–20. 88  Voir mss, bnf, lat. 15717 (fol. 4v) et lat. 15719 (fol. 204va), qui associent en une seule phrase les deux propositions. Voir aussi lat. 15702 (fol. 186v) et lat. 15728 (fol. 185), qui mettent les deux propositions l’une à la suite de l’autre, quitte à ne plus respecter l’ordre du texte, faisant en effet passer un passage de la distinction 25 avant un passage de la distinction 19. Dans la liste des lat. 15716 (fol. 1) et lat. 16375 (fol. 290v), les deux propositions sont, en quelque sorte, fondues en une seule formule. 89  Voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 25, chap. 2 (2 : 413) : « De simoniacis vero non est ambigendum quin sint heretici, qui tamen ante sententiam degradationis et ordinant et consacrant. Et licet simoniaci proprie dicantur qui, instar Simonis Magis, impretiabilem

102

Angotti

avoir défini la simonie, soulignent que, à proprement parler, les simoniaques ne sont pas des hérétiques : « ils ne sont hérétiques que par analogie, en tant qu’ils estiment faussement que le don de l’Esprit Saint peut être acheté »90. L’ordination simoniaque demeure valide même dans le cas des simoniaques occultes, puisque, comme le rappelle Thomas d’Aquin, le simoniaque « n’a pas l’intention d’acheter quelque chose qui est, en soi, spirituel, comme le caractère, mais l’œuvre de ministre qui est corporelle et la cause de la réalité spirituelle du sacrement »91. En quoi les deux dernières propositions de Pierre Lombard sont-elles considérées comme « difficiles à expliquer » par les maîtres? Contrairement à la position sur la science de Dieu, elles ne réclament pas de virtuosité dialectique particulière. Plusieurs hypothèses peuvent être avancées : (1) Plus que « difficile à expliquer », cette formule est avant tout « difficile à trouver » chez Pierre Lombard! La prééminence de l’efficacité du sacrement sur la qualité et l’orthodoxie du ministre, affirmée par Augustin lors de sa lutte contre les donatistes, tend à s’affaiblir à partir du viiie siècle. Il faut attendre le xiie siècle pour que réapparaissent lentement les idées d’Augustin, parfois combattues par certains des plus éminents juristes bolonais (Roland Bandinelli, Rufin, Jean de Faenza). Pierre Lombard se fait le rapporteur des différentes solutions élaborées par les juristes et les théologiens : il semble certes favorable aux adversaires des arguments d’Augustin, mais ne prend pas clairement parti en faveur de l’une des opinions qu’il expose92. Certes, les évêques simoniaques sont assimilés par le Lombard à des hérétiques, mais comme il ne tranche pas sur la validité des ordinations effectuées par ces derniers, il est

gratiam pretio conducere volunt ; et qui pro ministerio sacro pretium recipunt in modum Giezi, giezitae vocandi sunt ; omnes tamen, et dantes et accipientes, simoniaci dicuntur, et utrique eadem sententia percelluntur. » 90  Sur cette question, voir l’exposé d’A. Michel, « Ordre », dans Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 11 (Paris, 1931–1932), cols. 1193–1405, aux cols. 1301–04 pour l’analyse des deux distinctions de Pierre Lombard sur ce sacrement et aux cols. 1312–13 pour une présentation synthétique de la position des maîtres du xiiie siècle sur les simoniaques (citation col. 1313). Voir aussi Elsa Marmursztejn, L’autorité des maîtres. Scolastique, normes et sociétés au xiiie siècle (Paris, 2007), 185–90, qui analyse l’âpreté des débats autour de la définition de la simonie dans les quodlibets théologiques. 91  Thomas d’Aquin, Scriptum super Sententiis, Livre iv, dist. 25, qu. 3, art. 2, trad. par Michel, « Ordre », à la col. 1313 (« non intendit emere illud quod est per se spirituale ut characterem, sed operationem ministri que est corporalis et causa sacramenti rei spiritualis »). 92  Voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 25, chap. 1, §13–16 (2 : 411–13).

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

103

difficile de lui attribuer littéralement l’affirmation péremptoire qui figure dans les listes de propositions non tenues. (2) Plus curieux encore, la liste du lat. 15717, qui mentionne cette même proposition, indique : . . . on trouve le contraire d. 18 au chapitre 1 et à i. q. 1 chapitre quod quidam [puis une main a précisé en marge] d. 18, au chapitre Secundum ecclesie catholice93. Il s’agit non pas de renvois internes au Livre des sentences mais au Décret de Gratien : respectivement à la prima pars, distinction 18, chapitre 8 (Secundum ecclesie catholice) – j’ai interprété la note marginale comme une correction du premier renvoi – et à la secunda pars, cause i, question 1, chapitre 97 (quod quidam). L’auteur de la liste du lat. 15717, doté d’un grand esprit de rigueur et de minutie, s’est efforcé, pour le Livre iv, de signaler à l’utilisateur de la liste les passages de droit canon (Décret et Décrétales de Grégoire ix) qui entraient en contradiction avec les idées de Maître Pierre. Pourtant, comme le signale A. Michel, la position de Gratien est, comme celle du Lombard, loin d’être claire : certes, il donne « le signal d’un renouveau de la théologie sacramentaire », mais du fait même des sources qu’il emploie, son « exposé [est] forcément incohérent, souvent contradictoire »94. On lui attribue la position suivante : « l’ordination conférée par des évêques excommuniés mais précédemment ordonnés dans l’Église serait valide, mais l’ordination faite par des évêques consacrés par des excommuniés serait nulle »95. Il est d’autant plus curieux de constater l’opposition entre Gratien et le Lombard que fait l’auteur de la liste du lat. 15717 qu’il semble que le maître des Sentences se soit précisément inspiré de passages du Décret pour présenter les diverses opinions en ce qui concerne la validité des sacrements conférés par des évêques hérétiques ou excommuniés96. Il est clair que si un lecteur pointilleux compare les passages 93  ms. bnf, lat. 15717 : « [proposition 17] D. 25. Ubi dicit quod episcopi symoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi ; contrarium habetur : D. 18 capitulo 1 et .i. q. .1. quod quidam ; . » 94  Michel, « Ordre », 1292–3. 95  Ibid., 1294. 96  Voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 25, chap. 1, §12 à 15 (2 : 411–12). Voir aussi Colish, Peter Lombard, 2 : 582 : « When it comes to the conditions that validate the consecration of the Eucharist, he sides unhesitatingly with the canonists in rejecting the efforts of other theologians to make the rules more flexible. He finds it perfectly reasonable to rule out heretic, schismatic, and excommunicate priests, although, in admitting the validity

104

Angotti

des Sentences et du Décret de Gratien, il peut avoir du mal à expliquer pourquoi l’opinion du Lombard est considérée comme fausse au profit de celle de Gratien, dont le premier s’inspire largement ! Il faudrait longuement se pencher sur l’ensemble des propositions du Lom­ bard considérées comme non tenues, dans le cadre d’une réflexion plus vaste sur l’usage des Sentences par les théologiens. Notre propos est ici plus limité : essayer de saisir la confection et l’utilisation de ces listes et en estimer l’influence sur la lectio des Sentences. 3

L’usage des listes de propositions non tenues

La pratique de la « mise en liste » des proposition non tenues dans les manuscrits du collège semble avoir lieu dans la seconde moitié du xiiie siècle et dans la première moitié du xive siècle. Il est cependant difficile de prouver que c’est l’entrée d’un volume dans les fonds du collège qui a pu susciter la rédaction des listes, alors même que cette période correspond au plus fort du développement et du rayonnement de la bibliothèque du collège : dans un cas, au contraire, c’est le propriétaire antérieur du volume, Simon de Melta, qui a équipé son livre, probablement au moment où il en avait l’usage, lors de sa formation théologique, et avant d’en faire don au collège. Les dates d’élaboration des listes (1250–1350) correspondent à la période où la lectio des Sentences connaît un développement et un succès considérables en raison de l’obligation qui était faite aux étudiants de se livrer à cet exercice de la part des autorités universitaires. Ces listes semblent donc élaborées pour constituer un instrument de travail critique à l’égard du texte du Lombard. Mais elles sont plus que cela : elle ont un rôle herméneutique et dynamique dans l’exercice de la lectio des Sentences. Deux exemples permettent d’illustrer d’une part le rôle herméneutique, d’autre part le dynamisme de ces listes. Les positions christologiques « non tenues » : rôle herméneutique des listes Certaines affirmations de Pierre Lombard concernant la personne du Christ ont fait l’objet de vives attaques au xiie siècle97. Répétons-le, aucune des listes 3.1

of Eucharistic ministry of immoral priests, he accents the instrumentality, and not the authority, of the priest in this context. » 97  Voir Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 118–19 et 122–33 et Colish, Peter Lombard, 1 : 427–38, pour une analyse des critiques dont Pierre Lombard a été l’objet. Franklin Harkins, « Filiae Magistri : Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Medieval Theological Education “On the

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

105

ne contient les passages incriminés. Il n’en reste pas moins que les maîtres rapportent souvent les menaces pontificales. Bien qu’aucune des propositions christologiques débattues au xiie siècle ne soit mise en liste, la christologie de Pierre Lombard contient deux autres passages, au Livre iii, qui sont considérés comme non tenus par les maîtres. Bonaventure les signale98, et les listes des exemplaires des Sentences du collège les reprennent sans beaucoup de variations99. Trois listes peuvent être mises en exergue : celle, une fois encore, du lat. 15728, celles du lat. 15702 et du lat. 15719. La liste du lat. 15728 signale que cette position est aussi celle de d’Hugues de Saint-Victor, source de Pierre Lombard, aux propositions 7 et 8 : [proposition 7] Que l’âme séparée du corps est une personne . . . selon Hugues, De sacramentis, deuxième livre, première partie, chap. 11, e. f. ; [proposition 8] . . . que le Christ durant les trois jours après sa mort, son âme séparée du corps, a été un homme100. . . . La première de ces deux propositions fait allusion à un passage de la distinction 5 du Livre iii des Sentences. Durant plusieurs chapitres, Pierre Lombard s’efforce de préciser les conditions de l’Incarnation, se demandant notamment « si une personne divine ou la nature divine assume une personne ou une nature humaine et si la nature de Dieu est incarnée »101. La plupart des Ground” » (pp. 26–78 de ce volume) traite de la manière dont ces débats christologiques sont reflétés dans la Filia Magistri, un abrégé des Sentences circulant dans les studia dès le deuxième quart du xiiie siècle. 98  Voir tableau 2.1 ci-dessus, propositions 5 et 6. 99  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15707, fol. 169vb : « [proposition 5] . . . quod anima exuta a corpore est persona ; . . . [proposition 6] . . . quod Christus fuit homo in triduo » ; lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [proposition 7] . . . quod anima a corpore exuta est persona ; [proposition 8] . . . quod Christus in triduo fuit homo » ; lat. 15716 (fol. 1) et lat. 16375 (fol. 290v) : « [proposition 5] . . . quod anima exuta a corpore est persona ; [proposition 6] . . . quod Christus fuit homo in triduo ». 100  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15728, f. 185r : « [proposition 7] Quod anima a corpore separata sit persona . . . secundum Hugonem De sacramentis secundum, .i. pars c. .xi. e. f. ; [proposition 8] . . . Quod Christus in triduo separata anima a corpore fuit homo . . . ». La référence indiquée dans la proposition correspond bien au De sacramentis, Livre ii, première partie, chap. 11. Les lettres qui suivent correspondent à un découpage du texte d’Hugues de Saint-Victor sur le modèle du texte biblique. Pour la citation attribuée à Hugues de SaintVictor, voir pl 176 : 401B : « Quod Christus separata anima a carne et persona fuit et Deus et homo », puis cols. 408–12. 101  Voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iii, dist. 5, chap. 1, §1 (2 : 41) : « Si persona vel natura personam vel naturam assumpsit, et si natura Dei incarnata sit. »

106

Angotti

­théologiens du xiie siècle se sont heurtés à la difficulté fondamentale qu’a l’intelligence humaine pour conceptualiser et formuler l’existence d’une personne divine incarnée en un homme et qui, dans l’Incarnation, demeure dotée de deux natures, humaine et divine. Pierre Lombard, tout en s’appuyant sur les efforts de Gilbert de la Porrée, éclaircit et simplifie le vocabulaire de ce dernier et parvient, le premier, à différencier nettement et à définir précisément les termes de « substance », de « personne » et de « nature »102. Pierre Lombard souhaite ainsi démontrer que la personne divine a assumé la nature humaine (persona naturam) et réfute les arguments de ceux qui affirment que la personne divine a assumé la personne humaine (persona personam). C’est à cette occasion qu’il cite la célèbre phrase de Boèce : « la personne est en effet une substance rationnelle d’une nature individuelle »103. Après avoir fait remarquer que cette définition est aussi celle de l’âme, Pierre Lombard, jouant toujours le rôle de ses adversaires, ajoute : « et donc si l’on assume l’âme, on assume la personne ». Il s’oppose alors immédiatement à cette conclusion en soulignant que cette définition de la personne doit être abandonnée : l’âme n’est pas une personne quand elle est unie à une autre réalité (le corps), mais seulement quand elle existe par elle-même, comme dans le cas des anges104. Or, dans le cas de l’âme du Christ, celle-ci a toujours été unie à un corps lors de l’Incarnation : il s’ensuit donc que, si la personne divine a assumé l’âme, elle n’a pas assumé la personne humaine105. Pierre Lombard est conscient des difficultés que suscite l’Incarnation. Tout au long des différents chapitres qui s’efforcent d’en cerner le processus, ou plutôt le mystère, il recommande à son lecteur les plus grandes précautions : Sur ce point, lorsqu’il est demandé, sans qu’une auctoritas ne soit avancée, si un certain homme ou quelque homme a été assumé par le Verbe ou uni au Verbe, il ne faut pas donner de réponse sans avoir fait une 102  Voir Colish, Peter Lombard, 1 : 398–417 pour une présentation des diverses solutions élaborées par les prédécesseurs de Pierre Lombard ; 417–25 pour l’analyse détaillée de la démonstration de Pierre Lombard. Voir aussi la présentation plus synthétique de la christologie de Pierre Lombard dans Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 124–6. 103  Voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iii, dist. 5, chap. 3, §2 (2 : 48) : « Persona enim est substantia rationalis individue nature ». En fait, la phrase de Boèce est : « Persona enim est nature rationalis individua substantia » (ibid., n. 1). Sur les variations de sens des termes employés par Boèce, voir la présentation très synthétique de Colish, Peter Lombard, 1 : 92–3. 104  On remarque que la proposition 5 de la liste du lat. 15705 (fol. 2v) insiste sur cette comparaison : « . . . quod anima separata a corpore est persona sicut angelus ». 105  Voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iii, dist. 5, chap. 3, §2–3 (2 : 47–8).

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

107

d­ istinction de sens parce que la question contient des prémisses complexes ; mais face à l’insistance de ceux qui t’interrogent détermine ainsi : si tu m’interroges à propos de la personne de l’homme, je réponds non, si tu m’interroges à propos de la nature de l’homme, je réponds oui106. Les maîtres du xiiie siècle ont poursuivi leur effort de réflexion sur l’Incarnation, alimenté par des textes aristotéliciens et leurs différents commentateurs. Lorsque Pierre Lombard combattait l’affirmation selon laquelle la personne divine avait assumé la personne humaine ( persona personam), il avait pour objectif de ne pas prêter le flanc à une accusation d’adoptianisme. Mais au xiiie siècle, face à la définition de la personne qui découle de l’argumentation du Lombard, qui sous-entend, sans que cela ne soit dit littéralement, que l’âme est une personne, les théologiens doivent préciser leurs définitions de l’âme et de la personne en réfléchissant au mode d’union de l’âme et du corps dans la personne, qu’il s’agisse de l’homme en général ou du Christ en particulier. La définition donnée, comme en passant, par Pierre Lombard est alors discutée tant en ce qui concerne la personne humaine que pour le Christ. Ceci explique les diverses formulations de la proposition 5 de Bonaventure107 et notamment, dans le cas des listes du lat. 15702 et du lat. 15719, l’application à la seule âme du Christ de la définition de la personne108. La plupart des listes s’intéressent aussi à la définition générale de l’âme109, tout comme le faisait Thomas d’Aquin, dans la Somme théologique, soulignant que l’âme ne peut être une personne que par son union au corps110. Cet effort de définition de la personne et de l’âme, qui conduit Thomas à réfléchir ensuite au problème de l’union de cette dernière avec le corps (question 76 de la Prima pars), est sous-tendu par un enjeu de taille : dans la seconde moitié du xiiie siècle, les maîtres ont eu à combattre l’averroïsme. Les tenants de cette école philosophique considèrent que l’intellect est une substance séparée, distincte des hommes individuels et cependant en continuité avec chacun d’eux par les images qui se forment en eux. Seul l’intellect séparé perçoit les images, porteuses de l’intelligibilité des choses. Thomas d’Aquin souhaite démontrer l’unité de l’être humain constitué

106  Ibid., chap. 3, §4 (49). 107  Voir tableau 2.1. 108  Voir mss. bnf, lat. 15702, fol. 186v : « [proposition 9] . . . quod anima Christi a corpore separata sit persona » ; lat. 15719, fol. 204va : « [proposition 9] . . . quod anima [Christi add. interlin.] a corpore separata sit persona ». 109  Voir, par exemple, mss. bnf, lat. 15705 (proposition 5) et lat. 15707 (proposition 5). 110  Voir Thomas d’Aquin, Summa theologiae, i, qu. 75, art. 4.

108

Angotti

d’une âme forme subsistante et de la matière corporelle. La définition « platonisante » de Boèce reprise par le Lombard est donc inacceptable. La critique formulée à l’égard de la définition du Lombard ne s’inscrit pas uniquement dans le contexte de la lutte contre les averroïstes. Alexandre de Halès, tout comme Étienne Langton, avait déjà formulé des objections. Dans le commentaire des Sentences, comme dans la Somme théologique de Thomas d’Aquin, on trouve un exposé clair et synthétique de la critique exercée par les maîtres parisiens servie par une connaissance profonde des instruments conceptuels forgés par Aristote111. Cela explique probablement pourquoi certains des auteurs des listes choisissent des formulations qui ne citent pas de manière littérale le passage des Sentences considéré comme non tenu, figurant à la distinction 5 du Livre iii. Ils s’efforcent ainsi d’attirer l’attention du lecteur sur les implications plus générales de la proposition, conduisant ainsi à ne pas tenir la seconde proposition du Livre iii (dist. 22). C’est pourquoi les formulations dans certaines listes (mss. lat. 15702, lat. 15719 et lat. 15728) prendraient presque la forme du syllogisme suivant : 1) 2) 3)

l’âme séparée du corps est une personne [première proposition non tenue signalée pour le Livre iii] ; l’âme du Christ pendant les trois jours de sa mort s’est séparée de son corps ; donc : pendant les trois jours de sa mort, le Christ est resté une personne, un homme [deuxième proposition non tenue signalée pour le Livre iii]112.

Bien sûr, n’importe quel étudiant en théologie attentif, utilisant une autre liste dont la qualité pédagogique est moindre, parvient malgré tout à établir 111  Voir Thomas d’Aquin, Scriptum super Sententiis, t. 3, éd. Marie-Fabien Moos (Paris, 1956), Liber iii, dist. 5, qu. 3, art. 2, pp. 206–07 (réponse à la question Utrum anima separata sit persona). 112  Voir mss. bnf, lat. 15702, fol. 186v : « [propositions 9 et 10] quod anima Christi a corpore separata sit persona ; quod Christus in triduo separata anima a corpore fuit homo » ; lat. 15719, fol. 204va : « [propositions 9 et 10] quod anima [Christi, add. interlin.] a corpore separata sit persona ; quod in triduo Christus fuit homo separata anima » ; lat. 15728, fol. 185 : « [propositions 7 et 8] quod anima a corpore separata sit persona . . . ; quod Christus in triduo separata anima a corpore fuit homo ». Les autres listes mentionnent bien ces deux propositions, mais leur forme ne suggère pas au lecteur d’établir un lien entre les deux affirmations. Par exemple, ms. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [propositions 7 et 8] quod anima a corpore exuta est persona ; quod Christus in triduo fuit homo » ; voir aussi, annexe 4, lat. 15716 (propositions 5 et 6) et lat. 16375 (propositions 5 et 6).

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

109

le lien entre les deux propositions non tenues du Livre iii, comme le faisait Bonaventure. On a la preuve du lien étroit qu’établissaient les maîtres entre les deux propositions non tenues : dans la Somme théologique en effet, à la question « Durant les trois jours de sa mort, le Christ est-il resté homme? »113 Thomas d’Aquin rappelle que la mort du Christ est un article de foi et mentionne que toute personne qui va à son encontre est coupable d’une erreur contre la foi. Il adoucit cependant ce jugement à l’égard de deux maîtres : Hugues de Saint-Victor et Pierre Lombard, qu’il n’accuse pas d’erreur dans la foi, même s’ils ont avancé des propositions erronées114. Thomas d’Aquin a vraisemblablement en tête les propositions « non tenues » de Pierre Lombard lorsqu’il se livre à la défense de l’orthodoxie de l’auteur des Sentences. Ainsi, la christologie de Pierre Lombard demeure discutée, mais le Maître n’est certes pas accusé d’hérésie : les listes de propositions non tenues sont le produit de la critique attentive à laquelle se livrent les théologiens parisiens et non une « liste de censure ». Quel était donc l’usage de ces listes? Il me semble possible de dire qu’il s’agissait pour les maîtres d’actualiser le texte du Lombard et de conduire le lecteur des Sentences à rester attentif aux propos du Maître, à passer ces derniers au crible de textes plus récents. Les listes provoquent donc de la part de leurs usagers, une lecture active, dynamique des Sentences. Les propositions « non tenues » à l’épreuve du droit canon : rôle dynamique des listes La lectio des Sentences, au moins pour le Livre iv, semble avoir été accompagnée de la lecture de textes de droit canonique, notamment le Décret de Gratien et les Décrétales. Plusieurs des listes font en effet référence à des chapitres de ces deux ouvrages et y renvoient leurs lecteurs. Trois listes font de clairs renvois à l’œuvre de Gratien et au recueil de Grégoire ix115 : toutes réclament de leur utilisateur qu’il se reporte à l’un des deux textes du corpus juris canonici, voire 3.2

113  Voir Thomas d’Aquin, Summa theologiae, iii, qu. 50, art. 4. 114  On trouve la même défense chez Bonaventure ; voir Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, iii, dist. 22, art. unicus, qu. 1 (pp. 452–3). Les scholia de l’édition de Bonaventure nous apprennent qu’une telle analyse était partagée par Alexandre de Halès, Duns Scot, Albert le Grand, Pierre de Tarentaise, Richard de Mediavilla, Henri de Gand et Durand de Saint-Pourçain (ibid., 453). 115  Il s’agit des listes de propositions non tenues des mss. bnf, lat. 15719 et lat. 15728, qui renvoient tous deux aux Décrétales pour une seule proposition du Livre iv (la même dans les deux cas : « quod ille qui vivente uxore contraxit cum alia cum vult ab ea recedere et cogitur ab ea de reddendo debitum incipit excusari per obedentiam et timorem »), et surtout du lat. 15717, qui renvoie au Décret ou aux Décrétales pour cinq propositions du Livre iv.

110

Angotti

aux deux, afin que puisse être efficacement critiquée la proposition de Pierre Lombard116. Il ne semble pas que l’établissement de propositions non tenues au Livre iv soit une particularité des manuscrits du collège de la Sorbonne : la liste édité par E.A. Synan contient aussi des renvois aux textes de droit canon pour le Livre iv117. Deux thèmes semblent avoir réclamé une comparaison entre la solution proposée par Pierre Lombard et celle suggérée par les canonistes : le premier concerne le pouvoir d’ordre118, le second la bigamie et l’adultère119. Ordre et bigamie ne sont d’ailleurs pas sans rapport : la question de l’ordination de prêtres et d’évêques bigames a agité l’Église des premiers siècles, elle a aussi été l’objet d’une querelle célèbre entre Jérôme et Augustin au ve siècle. De manière générale, sur la question de la licéité de la bigamie chez les laïcs, les Pères de l’Église peuvent être répartis en deux groupes à la position plus ou moins sévère, mais pour les clercs, l’unanimité se fait, au cours du moyen âge, sur le fait qu’un bigame ne peut plus accéder aux ordres sacrés. Quant aux diverses propositions non tenues de Pierre portant sur l’adultère, elles sont à mettre en rapport avec la construction du mariage comme sacrement, construction à laquelle Pierre Lombard participe mais qui ne s’achève qu’à la fin du xiiie siècle (pour le droit savant) et au milieu du xive siècle (pour la théologie)120. Il n’est donc pas surprenant que certaines décisions législatives 116  En effet, la proposition non tenue est donnée, puis elle est suivie d’un renvoi au passage des Sentences qui y correspond, et elle s’achève par un renvoi à l’un des textes du corpus juris canonici amorcés par la périphrase contrarium habetur ou cujus contrarium. 117  Voir Synan, « Nineteen Less Probable Opinions », 344. 118  Voir ms., bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [proposition 16] . . . quod presbiter potest consecrare virgines ex precepto episcopi . . . ; [proposition 17] . . . quod episcopi symoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi . . . ; [proposition 18] . . . quod maritus qui cognoscit viduam tamen incognitam a primo marito est bigamus nec potest promoveri ad sacros ordines . . . ». 119  Voir ibid. : « [proposition 19] . . . quod quando aliquis cognoscit consanguineam uxoris sue non potest postea reddere debitum uxori . . . Item eodem capitulo habetur aliquid falsum . . . ; [proposition 20] . . . quod ille qui vivente uxore legitima contrahit cum alia excusatur si manet cum secundam quando cogitur ab ecclesia per obedientiam » ; lat. 15719, fol. 204va : « [proposition 19] . . . quod ille qui vivente uxore contraxit cum alia cum vult ab ea recedere [vel, exponc.] et cogitur ab ea de reddendo debitum incipit excusari per obedentiam et timorem . . . ; lat. 15728, fol. 185r : « [proposition 16] . . . Quod qui vivente legutima [sic] uxore contraxit de facto cum alia, cum vult ab ea recedere quia cogitur ab ecclesias [sic] reddere debitum, incipit excusari per obedientiam . . . ». 120   Voir Seamus P. Heaney, The Development of the Sacramentality of the Marriage (Washington, 1963) ; voir surtout Gabriel Le Bras, « Mariage : iii. La doctrine du mariage

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

111

postérieures à la rédaction des Sentences soient en contradiction avec les positions du Lombard121. Comment ces propositions fonctionnent-elles? Comment est justifié le classement du passage de Pierre Lombard comme non tenetur? La liste du lat. 15717 est celle qui fait le plus grand nombre de renvois à des textes de droit canonique122 : elle rend compte de la critique qui s’exerce sur le Livre iv des Sentences par le recours systématique aux textes de droit canonique. Dans les quatre propositions non encore étudiées qui évoquent une contradiction entre les Sentences et le droit canon, on relève plusieurs types de rapports contradictoires : 1) 2)

3)

le texte des Sentences, pourtant postérieur au Décret, va à l’encontre de ce dernier (cas de la proposition de la distinction 20, chapitre 9)123 ; est signalée une contradiction entre le Livre des sentences et le Décret, renforcée par la citation de canons des Décrétales de Grégoire ix (cas de la proposition de la distinction 27, chapitre 10124, cas aussi de la proposition de la distinction 25 étudiée ci-dessus) ; est signalée une contradiction entre le Livre des sentences et les Décrétales (cas de la proposition extraite de la distinction 38, chapitre 10)125, sans qu’il ne soit fait mention du Décret ;

chez les théologiens et les canonistes depuis l’An Mille », dans Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 9 (Paris, 1926–1927) : 2123–2318. 121  M. Colish elle-même a quelques réserves sur la manière dont Pierre Lombard traite du mariage. Voir Colish, Peter Lombard, 2 : 698 : « Yet as this conclusion to Peter’s doctrine of marriage and to his sacramental theology more generally suggests, he left soft spots and inconcistencies for his followers to puzzle over in sequel. » 122  Voir annexe 4. 123  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [proposition 16] D. .20. capitulo Non debet in fine. Ubi dicit quod presbiter potest consecrare virgines ex precepto episcopi ; contrarium habetur : D. .68. capitulo quamvis ». Voir, pour le passage exact, Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 20, chap. 6, §2 (2 : 378) : « Puellarum tamen consecratio, consulto episcopo, per presbyterum fieri valet. . . . Sicut praecepto episcopi potest presbyter consecrare virgines . . . ». 124  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [proposition 18] D. .27. Ubi dicit quod maritus qui cognoscit viduam tamen incognitam a primo marito est bigamus nec potest promoveri ad sacros ordines ; contrarium habetur D. .33. capitulo maritum, Extra. de bigamis, maritum, a nobis ». Voir, pour le passage exact, Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 28, chap. 1, §2 (2 : 431) : « cui copulatus in conjugo ulterius ad sacros ordines non accederet ». 125  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [proposition 20] D. .xxxviii. Ubi dicit quod ille qui vivente uxore legitima contrahit cum alia excusatur si manet cum secundam quando cogitur ab ecclesia per obedientiam capitulo ultimo illius distinctionis ; contrarium habetur Extra. de sententia excommunicationis, [capitulo] inquisitioni ». Voir, pour le

112

Angotti

4)

est signalée à première vue la même sorte de contradiction qu’en 3), mais la lecture attentive du passage permet de montrer que les Sentences et le Décret, que Pierre Lombard a copié presque mot à mot, sont désormais contredits par les Décrétales (cas de la proposition extraite de la distinction 34, chapitre 5)126.

Il faut examiner l’une après l’autre ces différentes contradictions entre Livre des sentences et corpus juris canonici. Le commentaire d’Alexandre de Halès, présentant l’avantage d’un emploi abondant de textes juridiques pour le Livre iv, permet de mieux saisir les raisons pour lesquelles certaines distinctions sont signalées comme non tenues dans le lat. 15717. Il s’appuie en effet sur les mêmes textes juridiques mentionnés pour contrer les propositions du Lombard. 1) Ainsi, au sujet de la dist. 20, chap. 9 du Livre iv on lit dans le ms. lat. 15717 : « Où il dit que le prêtre peut consacrer une vierge sur l’ordre de l’évêque, on trouve le contraire D. 68, au chapitre Quamvis [du Décret de Gratien]127. » De même, Alexandre de Halès indique après l’affirmation du Lombard : « Contra, [Cause] xxvi, question 6 chapitre Si jubet [du Décret de Gratien]. Nous répondons : ceci a existé en certains lieux et pendant certaines périodes ; désormais cela s’applique aux seuls évêques, comme le dit la 68e distinction [du passage exact, Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 38, chap. 3, §5 (2 : 483) : « Solvit. Sane dici potest non esse conjugium, et mulierem de crimine excusari per ignorantiam, virum autem adulterium admisisse. Sed ex quo, ad primam redire volens nec valens, cogitur Ecclesiae disciplina hanc tenere, incipit excusari per oboedientiam et timorem de hoc quod poscenti mulieri debitum reddit ; a qua ipsa nunquam poscere debet. Et sic de aliis hujusmodi sciendum est. » 126  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v : « [proposition 19] D. .34. Ubi dicit quod quando aliquis cognoscit consanguineam uxoris sue non potest postea reddere debitum uxori, capitulo de hiis etc. Item eodem capitulo habetur aliquid falsum ; contrarium habetur Extra. de eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris sue, capitulo discretionem ». Voir, pour le passage exact, Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 34, chap. 5, §2 (2 : 466) : « Ex Aurelianensi concilio : Qui dormierit cum duabus sororibus, et una ex illis ante fuerit uxor, neutram ex ipsis habeat ; nec ipsi adulteri unquam in conjugio copulentur. Item nec proprie uxori sibi licet reddere debitum, quam sibi reddidit illicitam sororem ejus cognoscendo. Nec etiam post mortem uxoris licet ei vel adulterae copulari in conjugium. » Voir, pour le Décret de Gratien, Corpus juris canonici, éd. Æmilius Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879–1881), C. 27, qu. 2, c. 30 (1 : 1072) : « Item ex concilio Aurelianensi. Qui dormierit cum duabus sororibus, et una ex illis ante uxor fuerat nec unam ex ipsis habeat nec ipsi adulteri umquam in conjugio copulentur. Gratian. Id est, nec proprie uxori licet sibi reddere debitum, quam sibi reddidit illicitam, sororem ejus cognoscendo. Nec etiam post mortem uxoris licet ei, vel adulterae alicui copulari in conjugium. » 127  m s. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v [proposition 16], voir ci-dessus n. 123.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

113

Décret], [chapitre] Quamvis128. » La plupart des commentateurs ne s’attardent pas sur ce passage des Sentences : Albert le Grand129 et Thomas d’Aquin130 se contentent ainsi de signaler, au cours de leur expositio textus, que cette affirmation n’appartient plus au jus commune, sans indiquer de manière précise le canon qui rend obsolète la phrase du Lombard. Quant à Bonaventure, il soulève la difficulté lors de ses dubia circa litteram mais, s’il cite le jus commune, il ne fait référence à aucun texte juridique précis131. (2) Inversement, pour la dist. 27 Alexandre de Halès ne mentionne pas son désaccord avec le Lombard132. La proposition est considérée comme non tenue dans la mesure où ce qui est en jeu, c’est la question de ce qui fait le mariage : le seul consentement ou la consommation? Pour Pierre Lombard, le consentement fait le mariage, tandis que Gratien considère que le mariage n’est réalisé qu’avec la consommation : de fait, dans le cas d’un homme épousant une veuve qui n’aurait pas été déflorée par son premier époux, les tenants du consentement considèrent que celle-ci a été mariée une première fois et par assimilation à sa situation de bigame son nouvel époux est aussi bigame 128  Voir Magistri Alexandri de Hales Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, Liber iv, dist. 20 (4 : 362) : « Puellarum tamen consecratio. Contra. xxvi, quaestione 6, cap. Si jubet. Respondemus : istud fuit locale vel temporale ; modo solis episcopis convenit, ut 68 distinctione, Quamvis. » 129  Voir B. Alberti Magni Commentarii in iv Sententiarum, Opera omnia, éd. Auguste Borgnet, vol. 29 (Paris, 1894), Liber iv, dist. 20, qu. G, expositio textus, p. 860 : « Hoc autem non servatur : quia etiam episcopo in eadem villa existente, non semper habet presbyter recursum ad ipsum, sed absolvit et reconciliat. » 130  Voir Thomas d’Aquin, Scriptum super Sententiis, t. 4, Liber iv, dist. 20, expositio textus, pp. 1039–40 : « Hoc non est de jure communi, quia solis episcopis qui sunt vicem sponsi gerentes, competit desponsari et uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo, ii Cor. 11, 2. Unde modo non habet locum, sed fuit ex aliqua dispensatione factum in aliquo modo. » 131  Voir Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, Liber iv, dist. 20, pars ii, dubium circa litteram vi (4 : 543) : « Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit : Puellarum consecratio, consulto episcopo, per presbyterum fieri valet. Videtur male dicere, quia illae desponsantur Christo : ergo a solo episcopo est eis imponendus anulus. Respondeo : Dicendum quod quantum est de jure communi ; hoc licitum est solis episcopis, quia ipsi sunt sponsi, qui debent Christo animas consecrare, secundum quod dicit Apostolus secundae ad Corinthios undecimo : Despondi vos uni viro virginem castam, et debent filios perfectos generare ; et ideo habent clavium potestatem in excellentia, et eis solis ista quae sunt excellentiae, sunt commissa. Unde hoc quod dicit Magister, locale solum fuit et nunc non habet locum nisi de viduis velandis, quibus potest sacredos de consilio episcopi dare velum. Et pro tanto illud est intelligendum. » 132  Voir Magistri Alexandri de Hales Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, Liber iv, dist. 27 (4 : 477).

114

Angotti

(théorie de la « bigamie interprétative »)133. De ce fait ce dernier ne pourra accéder aux ordres sacrés. Au contraire, pour les tenants de la consommation du mariage, la première union n’ayant pas été pleinement réalisée, l’épouse n’est pas bigame, son mari non plus, il pourra donc accéder aux ordres sacrés. Sont invoqués, dans la liste du lat. 15717134, et le Décret de Gratien135 et trois (en fait deux) canons des Décrétales de Grégoire ix136. Si Alexandre de Halès ne critique pas explicitement la solution de Pierre Lombard137, Thomas d’Aquin, au cours de son expositio textus, souligne : « le Maître et Pélage [auctoritas citée dans ce passage des Sentences] parlent en fonction de la sévérité du droit ; c’est pourquoi aujourd’hui, selon le droit nouveau, cela n’est plus tenu »138. Les deux propositions suivantes évoquent deux thèmes qui ont suscité de nombreux débats chez les théologiens comme chez les canonistes : l’adultère et l’inceste. [Adultère :] . . . celui qui, ayant une épouse légitime vivante, contracte un mariage avec une autre, est excusé s’il demeure avec la seconde quand il est forcé à l’obéissance par l’Eglise139. . . . [Inceste :] . . . quand un homme connaît une consanguine de son épouse, il ne peut plus ensuite rendre le devoir à sa femme140. . . . (3) La distinction 38 (traitant de l’adultère) contient une solution de Pierre Lombard qui sera considérée comme non tenue par comparaison avec différents canons des Décrétales de Grégoire ix. Cette proposition figure dans trois listes (lat. 15717, lat. 15719 et lat. 15728) et non plus dans la seule liste du lat. 15717141. Est exposé par Pierre Lombard, à l’occasion d’un développement sur le vœu et l’engagement, le cas de figure suivant : 133  E. Valton, « Bigamie (irrégularité) », dans Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 2 (Paris, 1903–1905), cols. 878–88, à la col. 883. 134  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v [proposition 18] ; voir ci-dessus n. 124. 135  Voir Corpus juris canonici, éd. Friedberg (1 : 123). 136  Voir ibid. (2 : 146 et 147). Il n’existe pas de canon maritum dans les Décrétales de Grégoire ix. Il s’agit probablement d’une confusion avec le canon éponyme du Décret. 137  Voir n. 132 ci-dessus. 138  Voir Thomas d’Aquin, Commentum in quatuor libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, Liber iv, dist. 27, expositio textus, Opera omnia 7/2 (Parme, 1858), 936 « Magister et Pelagius loquuntur secundum rigorem juris ; unde hodie secundum jura nova non tenetur. » 139  m s. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v, [proposition 20] ; voir ci-dessus n. 125. 140  m s. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v, [proposition 19] ; voir ci-dessus n. 126. 141  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15717, fol. 4v [proposition 20] ; voir ci-dessus n. 125 ; lat. 15719, fol. 204va : « [proposition 19] viiia. est quod ille qui vivente uxore contraxit cum alia cum vult ab ea

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

115

Question : mais si un homme, ayant laissé dans son pays son épouse, s’en allant dans une région lointaine en prend une autre, puis qu’ensuite, conduit par la pénitence, veut l’abandonner en lui disant qu’il en a une autre qui vit et que l’Église ne permet pas qu’elle ignore ce qu’il lui affirme : on demande si dans cette seconde union, il y a mariage142. La réponse de Pierre Lombard – qualifiée d’« assez curieuse » par G. Le Bras143 – est que, bien que l’homme soit adultère, il devra rendre le devoir conjugal à la deuxième épouse quand elle le demandera. Plusieurs canons des Décrétales sont invoqués pour affirmer l’obsolescence de la solution de Pierre Lombard : deux listes mentionnent les canons Discretionem et Jordanae, qui émanent respectivement d’Innocent iii et de Grégoire ix. Les deux canons présentent différents cas d’adultère. Discretionem fait part de la décision du pape concernant le cas suivant : alors qu’un homme et une femme avaient donné leur consentement au mariage (ce dernier n’étant pas encore consommé), l’homme donne la femme, malgré l’opposition de cette dernière, à un homme de sa parenté. Celui-ci célèbre avec elle un mariage, mais dès qu’elle est libre, elle s’enfuit et demande avec insistance à retourner chez son premier mari et celui-ci aussi en fait la demande. Innocent iii recommande que ce dernier fasse pénitence et que la femme demeure continente jusqu’à la mort de son mari. Mais, rajoute le pape, si elle ne le peut pas, son (premier) mari doit demeurer avec elle : il ne peut s’y opposer en raison de l’adultère puisqu’il en est la cause et qu’elle n’était pas consentante. Dans le canon Jordanae Grégoire ix donne la solution suivante au cas qui lui est exposé : un laïc s’est engagé avec une fille de dix ans à l’épouser dans le futur. Durant l’année, ils ont eu des relations charnelles, mais celui-ci a préféré épouser la mère de la jeune fille. Grégoire ix, même s’il préférerait qu’ils respectent un vœu de continence après que l’homme a fait pénitence, considère que ce dernier doit être contraint à habiter avec la jeune recedere [vel, exponc.] et cogitur ab ea [sic, pro : ecclesia] de reddendo debitum incipit excusari per obedentiam et timorem. D. 39 [sic, pro : 38] c. ult. cujus contrarium Extra. de eo qui cognovit con. u. s. ca. Discretionem et ca. Iordane » ; lat. 15728, fol. 185r : « [proposition 16] xvi. Quod qui vivente legutima [sic] uxore contraxit de facto cum alia, cum vult ab ea recedere quia cogitur ab ecclesias [sic] reddere debitum, incipit excusari per obedientiam. D. .xxxviii. c. ultimo, cujus contrarium Extra. de eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris sue [capitulo] Jordane [capitulo] discretionem. » 142  Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 38, chap. 3, §4 (2 : 483) : « Sed si quis, relicta in patria sua uxore, in longuiquam abiens regionem aliam ducat, deinde poenitentia ductus eam dimittere velit, asserens se aliam habuisse quae vivit, nec Ecclesia permittat, quae quod ille asserit ignorat : quaeritur an in hac secunda copula sit conjugium. » 143  Le Bras, « Mariage : iii. La doctrine du mariage », 2154.

116

Angotti

fille. Dans ces deux canons, conformément à l’orientation générale que prend le droit canon au xiiie siècle sur le mariage, la solution des souverains pontifes consiste à promouvoir le mariage consensuel : de fait, les deux femmes (l’épouse « donnée » de Discretionem comme la jeune fille de Jordanae) peuvent, à bon droit, habiter avec leur premier époux, celui qui avait consenti au mariage. C’est en cela que la solution de Pierre Lombard, dans le cas du mari qui lors d’un voyage lointain prend une seconde épouse, est inacceptable : ce dernier doit retourner avec sa première épouse. Signalons cependant que la liste du lat. 15717 se distingue : elle ne mentionne pas la contradiction des Sentences avec les canons Discretionem et Jordanae, mais renvoie le lecteur au canon Inquisitioni des Décrétales de Grégoire ix. Ce canon émane d’une décision d’Innocent iii : le pape évoque l’attitude qu’un conjoint doit avoir quand il y a empêchement au mariage ou quand il suppose seulement qu’il peut y avoir un empêchement144. Le premier cas de figure correspond à celui exposé par le Lombard : le mari a affirmé à sa seconde épouse qu’il avait déjà contracté un mariage. La réponse d’Innocent iii est claire : si l’un des deux époux sait avec certitude qu’il y a empêchement au mariage, il ne peut avoir, sans pécher mortellement, de rapport charnel avec son conjoint ; même s’il ne peut prouver cet empêchement, mieux vaut encourrir une sentence d’excommunication que pécher mortellement145. De fait, que les listes invoquent les canons Discretionem, Jordanae ou Inquisitioni, la solution du Lombard, affirmant que l’époux peut rendre le devoir conjugal à sa seconde épouse, est non seulement contraire au droit, mais elle peut mettre en péril le salut de l’âme des fidèles. (4) La proposition issue de la distinction 34 traite de l’inceste. Seule la liste du lat. 15717 la signale comme non tenue146 en invoquant le canon Discretionem, qui servait, dans les listes des mss. lat. 15719 et lat. 15728, à justifier le classement comme proposition non tenue d’un passage de la distinction 38. La proposition non tenue de Pierre Lombard est issue d’un passage des Sentences ­décalquant

144  Voir Corpus juris canonici, éd. Friedberg, x.v.39.44 (2 : 908) : « Inquisitioni tuae breviter respondentes credimus distinguendum, utrum alter conjugum pro certo sciat impedimentum conjugii, propter quod sine mortali peccato non valeat carnale commercium exercere, quamvis illud apud ecclesiam probare non possit, an impedimentum hujusmodi non sciat pro certo, sed credat. » 145  Voir Corpus juris canonici, éd. Friedberg, x.v.39.44 (2 : 908) : « In primo itaque casu debet potius excommunicationis sententiam humiliter sustinere, quam per carnale commercium peccatum operari mortale. » 146  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15717 (proposition 19).

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

117

strictement le Décret de Gratien147. Il est intéressant de constater que le Livre des sentences est aussi un vecteur d’actualisation du droit canonique : de fait, dans le cas de la dist. 34, ce ne sont pas tant les Sentences qui sont mises en cause que le Décret, rendu obsolète par la promulgation des Décrétales. À ma connaissance, il n’existe pas pour le Décret de Gratien de liste de « propositions non tenues » qui signaleraient aux canonistes l’obsolescence de certaines affirmations du maître du xiie siècle. La nature même du programme de la faculté de droit permettait de répondre à ce problème : les étudiants commençaient par l’étude du Décret et poursuivaient leur formation par l’étude des différents recueils de décrétales (Décrétales de Grégoire ix, Sexte, Clémentines, Extravagantes, Extravagantes communes). De fait, les canonistes assimilaient et maniaient des textes en mutation constante : il était banal pour eux d’ignorer une affirmation de Gratien rendue obsolète par des décisions juridiques nouvelles émanant des souverains pontifes. Par contre, pour les théologiens, le programme de la faculté ne leur permettait pas de connaître les nouveautés juridiques ; de plus, le choix de la Bible et des Sentences comme uniques manuels ne leur permettait pas d’avoir connaissance des acquis nouveaux du droit canon. Les listes de propositions non tenues permettent aux apprentis théologiens d’assimiler, d’une manière ou d’une autre, les transformations, les nouveautés théologiques mises au point après Pierre Lombard. Cela est évident pour le Livre iv, mais cela semble aussi se vérifier pour les autres livres des Sentences : les analyses parfois maladroites des maîtres du xiie siècle à propos de l’Incarnation doivent être corrigées et pondérées par les acquis terminologiques et spéculatifs des maîtres du xiiie siècle. C’est ainsi qu’il convient de comprendre les remarques suivant certaines des propositions mentionnées par l’auteur de la liste du lat. 15705 : ce dernier signale en effet à trois reprises : « et ceci est 147  Voir Pierre Lombard, Sentences, iv, dist. 34, chap. 5, §1 et 2 (2 : 466) : « [1.] De his etiam qui cum duabus sororibus vel quae cum duobus fratribus dormiunt, videndum est quid censeant canones. [2.] Ex Aurelianensi concilio : Qui dormierit cum duabus sororibus, et una ex illis ante fuerit uxor, neutram ex ipsis habeat ; nec ipsi adulteri unquam in conjugio copulentur. Item nec proprie uxori sibi licet reddere debitum, quam sibi reddidit illicitam sororem ejus cognoscendo. Nec etiam post mortem uxoris licet ei vel adulterae copulari in conjugium. » Le texte du Décret est presque identique. Voir Corpus juris canonici, éd. Friedberg, C. 27, q. 2, c. 30 (1 : 1072) : « Sororem uxoris polluens neutram valet habere. Item ex concilio Aurelianensi. Qui dormierit cum duabus sororibus, et una ex illis ante uxor fuerat nec unam ex ipsis habeat, nec ipsi adulteri unquam in conjugio copulentur. [Dicta Grantian.] Id est, nec propriae uxori licet sibi reddere debitum, quam sibi reddidit illicitam, sororem ejus cognoscendo. Nec etiam post mortem uxoris licet ei vel adulterae alicui copulari in conjugium. »

118

Angotti

encore tenu par de nombreuses personnes »148. Plus que le témoin de l’âpreté des discussions sur les diverses difficultés théologiques que soulèvent ces passages des Sentences, elle trahit, par ces trois formules, le souci de l’auteur de la liste d’être un théologien « à la page ». 4

L’utilisation des listes de propositions « non tenues »

Après avoir analysé le fonctionnement des listes de propositions non tenues en tant que listes, à savoir comme un élément textuel autonome, reste à s’interroger sur les liens exsitants entre les listes et les exemplaires des Sentences qu’elles accompagnement. Autrement dit : comment et quand les lecteurs des Sentences utilisaient-ils ces listes? Avaient-elle un rôle lors de l’exercice même de la lectio? Les statuts de l’Université de Paris révèlent qu’au cours du xive siècle – sans que l’on puisse précisément dater cette décision149 – le temps consacré au commentaire oral des Sentences fut divisé par deux : le bachelier sententiaire, si l’on en croit les statuts de la fin du xive siècle, doit mener sa lectio en une seule année150. La mention non tenetur aurait-elle pu signaler au sententiaire « pressé » qu’il avait la possibilité de sauter tel ou tel passage? Au contraire, il semble qu’elles pouvaient être l’occasion d’une explication plus poussée151. Nous avons au moins un exemple – mais qui n’est effectivement pas lié aux pratiques universitaires parisiennes – qui prouve que les propositions non tenues de Pierre Lombard sont toujours lues, c’est-à-dire commentées et expliquées, à la lumière des maîtres qui précèdent le sententiaire : il s’agit de la lectio des Sentences effectuée par Martin Luther en 1509–1510, chez les Ermites de SaintAugustin à Erfurt. Luther n’ignore pas que l’un des passages de la dist. 17 du

148  Voir annexe 4. 149  Sur la question de la datation des statuts de la fin du xive siècle, voir l’introduction d’H. Denifle, dans cup ii, 697. 150  Voir cup ii, n° 1189 (§32) : « Item quod quilibet bacalarius lecturus Sententias incipiat eas temporibus consuetis, et continuabit lecturam quatuor librorum Sententiarum usque ad vacationes . . . ». Voir aussi cup ii, n° 1190 (§18). 151  Cette hypothèse demande encore à être creusée : en effet, quelques mentions marginales dans les exemplaires du collège de la Sorbonne peuvent conduire à conclure que ces passages n’était plus vraiment commentés. Voir, par exemple, fol. 177vb du ms. bnf, lat. 15323 (non legitur) ; ou encore la mention non le. [i.e. non legitur?] du ms. bnf, lat. 15720 (fol. 66vb).

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

119

Livre i qu’il commente est considéré comme une proposition non tenue152. La distinction 17 traite de la mission invisible du Saint-Esprit : comment celui-ci nous est-il envoyé? Comment devient-il notre charité? Un des chapitres de la dist. 17 est déjà signalé comme non tenu dans le commentaire d’Étienne Langton et mis en liste par Bonaventure153. Toutes les listes mentionnent cette proposition de manière plus ou moins explicite154. L’enjeu de l’affirmation de Pierre Lombard est de taille155 : il considère qu’entre le Saint-Esprit et l’amour que nous ressentons pour Dieu et notre prochain, la vertu de charité ne joue aucun rôle. L’effet du Saint-Esprit n’est donc médiatisé par aucune vertu. C’est le Saint-Esprit qui est la charité dans l’âme humaine et qui nous fait aimer156. Les annotations marginales de Luther soulignent son plein accord avec l’affirmation du Lombard : il identifie lui aussi la vertu de charité avec l’Esprit Saint, dénonçant l’application d’un concept aristotélicien, l’habitus, aux choses du salut ; l’habitus, coopérant avec la grâce et le libre-arbitre de l’homme, deviendrait de ce fait la vertu de charité157. Pour Luther, il convient de refuser la charité sous la catégorie de l’habitus : son accord avec le Lombard, sa dénonciation des pratiques intellectuelles des théologiens « aristotéliciens » du xiiie siècle, 152  Voir notamment Paul Vignaux, Luther commentateur des Sentences (Livre i, distinction xvii) (Paris, 1935), 42–3 et 42 n. 2 : « Et videtur quod Magister non penitus absurdissime loqui : in eo quod habitum dicit esse spiritum sanctum ». 153  Voir tableau 2.1, proposition 1. 154  La formulation du ms. bnf, lat. 15707 est très proche de la formule de Bonaventure : « quod caritas que est amor Dei et proximi non est quid creatum sed increatum ». Elle n’établit pas la connection « habitus incréé égale Saint-Esprit », contrairement aux autres listes. Voir annexe 4. 155  Voir Johann Schupp, Die Gnadenlehre des Petrus Lombardus (Fribourg en Brisgau, 1932) ; Aage Rydstrøm-Poulsen, The Gracious God : Gratia in Augustine and the Twelfth Century (Copenhague, 2002). 156  Voir sur ce point les analyses profondément divergentes de M.L. Colish et de P.W. Rosemann. La première, soucieuse de défendre celui dont elle souhaite faire, comme elle le dit elle-même, le « héros » de son livre, considère que la pensée de Pierre Lombard a été mal comprise. Selon elle, Pierre Lombard traite seulement des « effets du Saint-Esprit, qui aide l’homme à développer la vertu de charité et les autres vertus » (Peter Lombard, 1 : 261). Rosemann s’appuie sur une analyse étroite des passages des Sentences : il est clair pour lui que la position de Pierre Lombard est nettement celle qui efface la charité dans son rôle de médiateur entre le Saint-Esprit et les hommes ; voir Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 87–8 ; idem, « Fraterna dilectio est Deus : Peter Lombard’s Thesis on Charity as the Holy Spirit », dans Amor amicitiae – On the Love that is Friendship : Essays in Medieval Thought and Beyond in Honor of the Reverend Professor James McEvoy, dir. par Thomas A.F. Kelly et Philipp W. Rosemann (Louvain, 2004), 409–36. 157  Voir notamment Vignaux, Luther commentateur des Sentences, 2 et 44.

120

Angotti

comme des théologiens nominalistes (Holcot, Occam, Grégoire de Rimini, Pierre d’Ailly, Gabriel Biel), nous révèlent les premiers balbutiements d’une pensée théologique qui ordonne précisément le salut à la charité158. Comme en témoigne le cas de Luther, il semble même que le fait de mentionner une proposition comme « non tenue » est, loin de mettre de côté le texte des Sentences, une manière d’attirer l’attention du lecteur et de le conduire à discuter, à expliquer en détail le passage du Lombard ainsi incriminé. Le lat. 15728 est un bon exemple du type de classement que l’explicitation de la liste devait susciter159. Certains lecteurs se livrent même, au fil de la lecture, à une sorte de « chasse » aux répétitions des propositions non tenues, répétitions que les auteurs des listes n’ont pas cru bon de signaler. C’est ainsi qu’il faut comprendre l’amorce de liste contenue dans le lat. 15723 et qui concerne les deux premiers livres160. Les listes peuvent ainsi générer un travail personnel. L’auteur de la petite liste du lat. 15723 signale d’une manière assez particulière des passages non tenus des Sentences : si l’on ne se fie qu’à l’indication de la distinction et au numéro des chapitres, on pourrait supposer qu’il ne s’agit que de nouvelles propositions. Il n’en est rien : l’auteur de la liste signale essentiellement la répétition, en d’autres endroits des Sentences, des propositions non tenues, notamment l’identification de Dieu (ou de la personne du SaintEsprit) à la charité161. On trouve d’ailleurs fréquemment le même phénomène en marge des manuscrits : certaines mentions non tenetur signalent en fait à l’attention du lecteur une phrase rappelant une proposition non tenue162. La datation des listes des exemplaires du collège de la Sorbonne permet d’en fixer la constitution entre la deuxième moitié du xiiie siècle et la première moitié du xive siècle : après cette date, le collège n’acquiert plus de nouveaux exemplaires des Sentences. En revanche, la pratique de mettre en liste et de signaler en marges des manuscrits les propositions non tenues de Pierre Lombard et encore clairement attestée au début du xve siècle, comme 158  Voir ibid., 87–94. 159  Voir annexe 4. 160  Voir annexe 4. 161  Voir ms. bnf, lat. 15723 : les propositions 1, 4 et 8 renvoient à des passages faisant allusion à l’identité entre la charité et Dieu (proposition 1 chez Bonaventure). La proposition 5 signale un passage considéré comme non tenu (proposition 2 chez Bonaventure), une première fois signalé en proposition 2 dans le lat. 15723. Les propositions 6 et 7 qui traitent du mérite de l’homme avant la chute, sont peut-être à mettre en rapport avec la proposition 3 de Bonaventure, sur le mérite des anges. La proposition 3 du lat. 15723 renvoie au célèbre passage d’Augustin, qui voit dans l’esprit humain une image de la Trinité. 162  Voir, par exemple, ms. bnf, lat. 15714, fol. 102rb correspondant au Liber iii, dist. 23, chap. 9, §2 (Pierre Lombard, Sentences, 2 : 148), qui signale comme non tenue l’identité entre Saint-Esprit et charité, établie par le Lombard au Liber i, dist 17.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

121

en témoigne Jean Gerson, dans un texte daté de 1419. Il souhaite que cette technique intellectuelle soit appliquée aux textes astrologiques, mais dans une claire perspective de censure : Bien plus, quelque collège de théologiens rendrait un grand service à la chrétienté, si, après avoir soigneusement examiné les livres d’astronomie, ils notaient un à un les passages suspects ou clairement erronés ou au contenu hérétique, de même qu’on le trouve réalisé à plus forte raison en ce qui concerne des livres d’Aristote, d’Avicenne et d’Averroès, mais aussi en ce qui concerne certains livres catholiques comme sont notés les passages ou les articles [des Sentences] dans lesquels le maître n’est communément plus tenu163. Dans le cas de Gerson, le repérage des propositions non tenues en marge des manuscrits semble inspirer les censeurs, tout comme pourrait le faire leur « mise en liste ». Mais peut-être l’inverse est-il vrai : la première liste de censure date en effet de 1241 et précède donc de quelques années la liste bonaventurienne. Cette pratique intellectuelle, qui semble avoir été prisée par les théologiens, joue un rôle important dans l’apprentissage et la maîtrise des Sentences. Elle facilite un mouvement de va-et-vient intellectuel entre moderni et Magister, oblige à mesurer les solutions du Lombard à l’aune du renouvellement du droit canon. Cela explique que les listes contenant des propositions non tenues sont un des para-textes les plus fréquemment présents des Sentences, et constituent un équipement important des manuscrits. Elles témoignent des méthodes de la lectio des Sentences ou du moins en révèlent un des aspects. Ces listes, dont on a pu mesurer parfois les explications complexes qu’elles ont pu susciter, les compétences qu’elles réclamaient (virtuosité dialectique, connaissances juridiques), s’adressaient vraisemblablement à des étudiants déjà avancés dans la maîtrise du texte du Lombard. Elles méritent non seulement l’attention des historiens des doctrines, mais aussi celle des historiens des pratiques intellectuelles, au sens le plus large du terme.

163  Voir Jean Gerson, Trilogium astrologiae theologizatae, Œuvres complètes, t. 10 : L’œuvre polémique, éd. Palémon Glorieux (Paris, 1973), 90–109, précisément p. 108 : « Porro magnum faceret obsequium christianitati collegium aliquod theologorum si libris astronomicis diligenter inspectis, notarent sigillatim passus suspectos aut palam erroneos et hereticales contentos in eisdem, quemadmodum factum reperitur nedum de libris Aristotelis et Avicenne et Averrois, sed etiam de quibusdam libris catholicorum, sicut notati sunt passus vel articuli in quibus magister communiter non tenetur. »

122

Angotti

Annexes 1

Comparaison et contenu des éditions de la liste de C. du Plessis d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus, qui ab initio duodecim seculi post Incarnationem Verbi usque ad annum 1632 in Ecclesia proscripti sunt, t. 1 (Paris, 1728), 118–19 Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

* = article Collectio de du figurant Plessis d’Argentré, dans les t. 1, p. 118–19 listes de Bonaventure

Isti sunt articuli in quibus Magister Sententiarum non tenetur communiter ab omnibus.

[Liber primus]

Identification du chapitre de Ghellinck, « Pierre Lombard », dtc 12 (1965), cols. 2014–15.

pl 192 : 961–4

Petri Lombardi Libri iv Sententiarum, éd. PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae (1916), 1 : lxxviii–lxxx

Articuli in quibus Magister Sententiarum non tenetur communiter ab omnibus.

[pas de titre] Articuli in quibus magister Sententiarum non tenetur communiter ab omnibus.

Et primo primi libri. In primo libro.

In i libro.

In i libro.

Petri Lombardi Sententiae in iv libris distinctae, éd. Ignatius Brady (1971–81). [LIVRE, n° de la distinction, n° et incipit du chapitre, tomaison et p. de l’éd.]

LIVRE i

123

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

1*

2*

3

4

I. Quod caritas qua Deum et proximum diligimus est Spiritus Sanctus : dist. 17 c. 2 vel quod caritas quae est amor Dei et proximi non est aliquid creatum.

2. Quod nomina numeralia dicta de Deo dicuntur solum relative : dist. 24 cap. Si diligenter. Vel haec nomina numeralia, trinus et trinitas, non dicunt positionem sed privationem tantum.

Identification du chapitre

Primo, quod caritas qua diligimus est Spiritus Sanctus . . .  c. 11 . . .

[texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio]

. . . cap. Et si diligenter

. . . cap. Etsi diligenter

. . . cap. Etsi diligenter

dist. 24, chap. 1, §2, Si diligenter praemissis auctoritatum verbis intendimus (1 : 187–8)

. . . dist. xxi

. . . dist. xxi

dist. 31, chap. 1, §3, Hoc idem etiam dicimus de simili (1 : 224)

3. Quod simile et aequale similiter dicuntur de Deo privative : dist. 3 cap. . . . dist. xxi Et hoc idem

dist. 17, chap. 2, Cum autem fraterna (1 : 143–4)

4. Quod Deus semper [texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] potest quicquid aliquando potuit et vult quicquid voluit et scit quicquid dist. 44, chap. 2, scivit : dist. 44 cap. §1, Praeterea Praeterea quaeri quaeri solet utrum solet. Deus (1 : 305)

124

Angotti Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

Identification du chapitre

[Liber secundus]

In secundo libro.

In ii libro.

LIVRE ii

5*

1. Quod angeli non [texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] meruerunt beatitudinem per gratiam sibi datam ; sed quod praemium praecessit meritum, et postea meruerunt per obsequia fidelibus exhibita, dist. 5, chap. 6, dist. 5 cap. Hic §1, Hic quaeri quaeri solet ; vel solet utrum in quod angelis ipsa praemium praecessit confirmatione et meritum, respectu (1 : 353–4) praemii substantialis habet subsequi.

6*

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique 2. Quod angeli in à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] merito, respectu essentialis praemii, et in ipso praemio proficiunt usque ad dist. 11, chap. 2, judicium ; dist. 11, §1, Praeterea cap. Praeterea illud. illud considerari oportet (1 : 381–2)

125

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

7

8*

[Liber tertius]

3. Quod caritas est Spiritus Sanctus ; sed illa, quae animae qualitates informat, atque sanctificat ; dist. 27 cap. Cum igitur

. . . scilicet illa, quae animae . . .

4. Quod in veritate, humanae naturae nihil transit extrinsecum ; sed, quod ab Adam descendit per propagationem auctum et multiplicatum resurget in judicio ; dist. 30 cap. penultimo. Quibus . . . Quibus respondetur . . . responderi potest, vel quod nihil de cibis transit in veritatem humanae naturae nec per generationem, nec per nutritionem. In tertio libro.

. . . scilicet illa, quae animae . . .

Identification du chapitre

. . . scilicet illa, quae animae . . . dist. 27, chap. 5, Cum ergo dicitur fides mereri justificationem (1 : 483–4)

[texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio]

dist. 30, chap. 15, §1, Quod vero nihil extrinsecum (1 : 504–05)

In iii libro.

LIVRE iii

126

Angotti Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

9*

1. Quod anima a corpore exuta sit persona, dist. 5 cap. . . . dist. ii cap. Hic a quibusdam Hic opponitur a opponitur quibusdam

Identification du chapitre

[texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] dist. 5, chap. 3, §2, Hic a quibusdam opponitur (2 : 47–8)

10

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique 2. Quod Christus à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] convenienter mortuus et non mortuus dicitur, passus et dist. 21, chap. 2, non passus ; dist. 21 §1, Recedente cap. ult. vero anima (2 : 134–5)

11*

3. Quod Christus in triduo mortuus fuit homo, dist. 22 cap. i.

[Liber quartus]

In quarto libro.

12

1. Quod sacramenta legalia non justificabunt, etiamsi cum fide et devotione fierent. Dist. i, cap. Non igitur

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] dist. 22, chap. 1, §1, Hic queritur utrum in illo triduo (2 : 135–6) In iv libro

LIVRE iv

[texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] . . . justicabant [sic] . . .  Dist. Cap. i. Non igitur

dist. 1, chap. 4, §2, Non igitur significandi (2 : 233)

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

13

2. Quod homo sine medio videbat Deum ante peccatum : eadem distinctione, c. Triplici.

127 Identification du chapitre

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] dist. 1, chap. 5, §1, Triplici autem ex causa sacramenta (2 : 234–5)

14

3. Quod circumcisio [texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] non conferebat gratiam ad bene operandum, nec virtutes ad augmentum ; sed solum ad peccata dimittenda valebat. Ead. Dist. Cap. Duo dist. 1, chap. 9, igitur. §4–5, Duae igitur res sunt illius (2 : 238–9)

15

4. Quod parvuli, ante octavum diem morientes incircumcisi peribant et quod causa necessitatis poterant ante circumcidi : eadem distinctione, cap. Si vero.

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio]

dist. 1, chap. 10, Si vero quaeritur de parvulis qui (2 : 239)

128

Angotti Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

16

17*

5. Quod quaedam sacramenta Novae Legis instututa sunt in remedium tantum, ut matrimonium. Dist. . . . Dist. i, cap. 2 cap. Iam ad Iam ad sacramenta sacramenta.

6. Quod baptizati baptismo Johannis non ponentes spem in illo, non erant baptizandi baptismo Christi : ita quod baptizatus baptismo Johannis non erat baptizandus.

. . . cap. 1 Iam ad sacramenta

Identification du chapitre

. . . cap. 1 Iam ad sacramenta

dist. 2, chap. 1, §1, Iam ad sacramenta novae Legis (2 : 239–40)

. . . Quod baptizari baptismo . . . . . . non erant baptizandi baptismo Christi baptismo dist. ii cap. Ult. Christi ; ita quod baptizatus Hic considerandum. baptismo Johannis non Vel aliter : erat bapstismus baptizandus. Johannis cum Dist. ii, cap. ult. impositione Hic manuam considerandum. aequipollebat baptismo Christi ; ita quod . . .

. . . non erant baptizandi baptismo Christi ; ita quod baptizatus baptismo Johannis non erat baptizandus. Dist. ii, cap. ult. Hic considerandum.

dist. 2, chap. 6, §1, Hic considerandum est si baptizati (2 : 242)

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

129 Identification du chapitre

18*

7. Quod Deus potuit [texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio] dare potentiam creaturae creandi et interius abluendi, id est, peccata dist. 5, chap. 3, dimittendi. Dist. 5, §1, Hic quaeritur c. ult. Hic quaeritur, quae sit illa quae sit. Vel sic : potestas (2 : 266) quod Deus poterat dare potestatem aliis baptizandi interius et quod creatura potuerit suscipere. Et similiter quod Deus potest potestatem creandi creaturae communicare et creare per creaturam, tanquam per ministrum. Dist. 5.

19

8. Quod schismatici, [texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] degradati, praecisi à la Collectio] ab Ecclesia haeretici, excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi corpus Christi, dist. 13 dist. 13, chap. 1, c. Illi vero. §4, Illi vero qui excommunicati sunt (2 : 312–13)

130

Angotti Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

Identification du chapitre

20

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique 9. Brutum non à la Collectio] à la Collectio] sumit verum corpus à la Collectio] Christi etsi dist. 13, chap. 1, videatur : dist. 13 §8, Illud etiam cap. Illud etiam sane potest dici sane. (2 : 314)

21

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique 10. Quod scientia à la Collectio] à la Collectio] discernendi ut notat à la Collectio] habitum scientiae, dist. 19, chap. 1, sit clavis : dist. 19 c. 1. §1, Postquam ostensum est (2 : 365–6)

22

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique 11. Quod episcopi à la Collectio] à la Collectio] simoniaci degradati à la Collectio] non possunt conferre ordines : dist. 25, chap. 2, dist. 25 c. De De simoniacis simoniacis. vero non est ambigendum (2 : 413)

23

12. Quod secundus maritus alicujus mulieris incognitae carnaliter a primo sit bigamus per cognitionem illius et prohibetur ab ordinibus : dist. 27 cap. ult.

[texte identique [texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio] à la Collectio]

dist. 27, chap. 10, §1, Et est sciendum quod illa sponsa (2 : 430–1)

131

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

24

25

13. Quod cognoscens sororem uxoris suae non tenetur uxori petenti debitum rederre ; dist. 14 c. . . . dist. De his xxxiii . . .

14. Quod ille qui, uxore vivente, duxit aliam in aliena patria qui rediens ad conscienciam vult eam dimittere et non potest, si cogitur ab Ecclesia remanere et debitum reddere quia sibi non creditur ; dicit Magister quod incipit excusari per obedientiam et timorem et tenetur reddere debitum, si petatur : dist. 38 cap. ult

. . . dist. xxxiii . . .

Identification du chapitre

. . . dist. xxxiii . . .

dist. 34, chap. 5, §1, De his etiam qui cum (2 : 466–7)

[texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio]

. . . et non posset

. . . reddere debitum si putetur. . . .

dist. 38, chap. 3, §1, Hic quaeritur de illis feminis quae (2 : 482–3)

132

Angotti Variantes par rapport à la Collectio

26

Identification du chapitre

15. Quod peccata deleta non patefient aliis in judicio : dist. 44 c. Hic quaeritur utrum electis.

. . . peccata deleta non patefiant . . .  dist. lxiv.

[texte identique [texte identique à la Collectio] à la Collectio]

Quod sacerdotibus non tribuat potestatem remittendi sed tantum peccata remissa in sacramento poenitentiae declarandi, 4. Lib. Dist. 18

[N’est pas mentionné. En revanche, indique une position christologique du Lombard condamnée par Alexandre iii.]

[N’est pas mentionné.]

dist. 43, chap. 5, §1, Hic quaeritur utrum electis tunc adsit memoria (2 : 513–14)

[supplément à la liste] 27

2

[N’est pas mentionné.]

dist. 18, chap. 5, §1, Nec ideo tamen (2 : 359–60).

Les éditions des listes proposées par Bonaventure

1. Liste i : Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, Liber ii, dans Opera omnia S. Bonaventurae, t. 2 (Quaracchi, 1885), 1–3. La liste est intégrée dans la praelocutio précédant le commentaire du Livre ii des Sentences. Cette praelocutio figure dans un manuscrit unique – Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 201 (ancienne cote : 193) (xiiie siècle) – aux fols. 164vb–165ra. Le ms.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

133

semble avoir été copié par une main principale ; en revanche, la praelocutio est due à une autre main, d’un moindre module, très abrégée et plus cursive164. Signalons enfin que le ms. ne comporte que le commentaire du Livre i des Sentences : le texte désigné comme praelocutio – terme qui ne figure pas dans le manuscrit – par les éditeurs de Quaracchi pourrait plutôt être considéré comme une conclusion au commentaire de Bonaventure sur le Livre i des Sentences, bien que le paragraphe introduisant la liste évoque comme achevée la lectio du Livre ii. La nature et les circonstances de rédaction de ce texte soulèvent bien des problèmes, tous évoqués par Rosemann, The Story of a Great Medieval Book, 70–2. 2. Liste ii : Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, Liber ii, dans Opera omnia S. Bonaventurae, t. 2 (Quaracchi, 1885), 1016. La liste fait suite au dernier dubium cira litteram concernant la dist. 44 du Livre ii des Sentences. Bonaventure souligne que l’emploi fait par Pierre Lombard des auctoritates n’éclaire pas véritablement le point que le Maître des Sentences souhaitait étudier165. Cette remarque lui permet de souligner que le Maître est faillible et qu’il a parfois, « parmi tant de bons propos, dit les choses de manière moins complète »166, mais que « l’ampleur de son œuvre mérite à son auteur plus de prières et d’actions de grâce de la part de ceux qui la commentent (legentium) que de mépris, même si, ajoute Bonaventure, dans certains passages il s’est écarté des opinions communes pour adhérer au parti le moins probable, principalement en huit passages »167. Après en avoir fourni la liste, Bonaventure souligne que « ce sont les maîtres parisiens qui ne suivent pas le Maître et, précise Bonaventure, je ne crois pas qu’il faille le soutenir dans tous ces points afin que, par amour de l’homme, on ne fasse pas préjudice à la vérité »168. Bonaventure annonce ensuite que « ces points ont été [pour les Livres i 164  Ces remarques découlent d’un examen du ms uniquement sur microfilm. Elles doivent donc être considérées avec prudence. Le décor de l’œuvre principale a fait l’objet de quelques clichés en couleur, actuellement disponibles en ligne dans la « Bibliothèque virtuelle des manuscrits médiévaux » de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes (http://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/) 165  Voir Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, Liber ii, t. 2, 1016 : « sicut aperte apparet, Magister allegat eas aliquantulum minus recte ». 166  Ibid. : « Non tamen est mirandum, si in tot et tam bonis dictis Magister dixit aliquid minus complete ». 167  Ibid. : « Magis enim suo labore meruit legentium orationes et gratiarum actiones quam reprehensiones, licet in aliquibus locis declinaverit ab opinionibus communibus et parti minus probabili adhaeserit, praecipue in octo locis ». 168   Ibid. : « In his octo positionibus communiter doctores Parisienses non sequuntur Magistrum, nec credo in omnibus hiis esse sustinendum, ne amore hominis veritati fiat prejudicium ».

134

Angotti

et ii] et seront [pour les Livres iii et iv] signalés aux passages correpondants169. » Il conclut alors le commentaire du Livre ii en faisant appel à la bienveillance de ses propres lecteurs : S’il semble à quelqu’un que cela doit être autrement et peut-être meilleur, je n’en suis pas jaloux ; mais voici ce que je demande : si, dans l’explication des deux livres précédents ou des deux livres suivants, quelqu’un trouve, dans cet opuscule, une chose digne d’approbation, qu’il en rende grâces à Dieu, libéral dispensateur des biens. Dans d’autres passages, où se trouverait quelque chose de faux, de douteux ou de confus, que l’on fasse preuve d’indulgence et de bénignité envers celui qui a écrit et qui, sans doute, comme en témoigne sa conscience, a désiré dire ce qui est vrai, clair et commun170. Et, citant les Écritures, Bonaventure prévient le danger qu’il y aurait à mépriser les paroles d’un autre pour tous ceux qui sont en quête de la vérité : Quoi qu’il y ait dans les propos qui figurent dans ces feuillets, il faut être très attentif à ce qui doit être observé dans toute enquête, pour que personne surtout « ne se réjouisse de la sentence de sa bouche » [Prov. 15 :23] et ainsi n’y adhère de sorte qu’il méprise les paroles issues d’une autre bouche, les considérant d’un œil moins raisonnable et ainsi, ajoutant à l’orgueil la jalousie, il ne s’écarte lui-même de la vérité et ne se trouve au nombre de ceux dont l’Apôtre dit qu’« ils sont toujours à pérorer et ne parviennent jamais sur le chemin de la vérité » [ii Tim. 3 :7] ; voilà ce dont Dieu avertit tous ceux en quête de la vérité »171.

169  Ibid. : « et haec omnia suis locis manifesta sunt et manifestabuntur ». 170  Ibid. : « Si cui autem aliter videtur, et fortassis melius, non invideo ; sed hoc rogo, ut si quis in explanatione duorum librorum praecedentium et etiam duorum sequentium aliquid in hoc opusculo invenerit approbationi dignum, gratias agat Deo, largitori bonorum. In aliis vero locis, ubi invenerit vel falsum, vel dubium, vel obscurum, scribentis insufficientiae benigne indulgeat, qui absque dubio, teste conscientia, vera et aperta et communia dicere concupivit. » 171  Ibid. : « Quidquid enim sit de verbis, quae foliis comparantur hoc summopere attendendo in inquisitione qualibet observandum, ne quis adeo laetatur in sententia oris suis [Prov. 15:  23] et sic ei inhaereat, ut verba oris alieni despiciat, aspiciens ea oculo minus sano, et sic per tumorem et livorem aditum sibi veritatis praecludat et de numero illorum sit, de quibus dicit Apostolus quod semper sunt discentes et nunquam ad viam veritatis pervenientes [ii Tim. 3: 7] ; quod avertat Deus ab omnibus inquisitoribus veritatis. »

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

135

3.

Heinrich Denifle et Émile Châtelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, t. 1 (Paris, 1889), n° 194, p. 220–1. Il s’agit de la reprise de la liste ii de Bonaventure que Denifle et Châtelain datent ca. 1250. 4.

Petri Lombardi Libri iv Sententiarum, éd. PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae, t. 1 (Quaracchi, 1916), p. lxxxviii en note. Il s’agit de la reprise de la liste ii de Bonaventure. 5.

S. Bonaventurae Collationes in Hexaëmeron et Bonaventuriana quaedam selecta, éd. F. Delorme (Quaracchi, 1934), 357–62. Il s’agit d’une réédition de la praelocutio et de la liste i de propositions non tenues.

3 1. 2.

4

Éditions ou transcriptions d’autres listes Edward A. Synan, « Nineteen Less Probable Opinions of Peter Lombard », Mediaeval Studies 27 (1965) : 340–4. André Vernet (dir.), Jean-Pierre Bouhot et Jean-François Genest, La bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux du xiie au xviiie siècle, t. 2 (Paris, 1997), 563–71.

Les listes de propositions non tenues dans les exemplaires des Sentences du collège de la Sorbonne

Les propositions de chaque liste ont été numérotées ; quand le numéro est accompagné d’une astérisque, cela signifie que la proposition figure aussi dans les listes de Bonaventure. 1. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15702, fol. 186v. ms. produit à Paris vers 1230–1240. La main responsable de la liste peut être datée de la deuxième moitié du xiiie siècle. Hee sunt positiones magistri Sententiarum que hodie non tenentur. Primus : [1*] Quod caritas qua diligimus Deum et proximum est Spiritus Sanctus. D. .17a., ca. .2°. [2*] Quod nomina numeralia dicta de Deo dicuntur solum privative. D. .24a., capitulo .2°. [3] Quod simile et equale dicta de Deo dicunt solum privative. D. .31a., capitulo .3°.

136

Angotti

[4] Quod Deus semper scit omne enunciabile quod aliquando scivit. D. .41., capitulo ultimo. [5] Quod Deus potest quicquid aliquando potuit. D. .44., capitulo ultimo. in primo libro Secundus : [6*] Quod in angelis premium precessit meritum. D. .5., capitulo ultimo. [7*] Quod in merito respectu essentialis premii proficiunt angeli usque ad judicium. D. .xi., capitulo preterea illud. [8*] Quod in veritatem humane nature nichil transit extrinsecum sed ab Adam descendit tota veritas corporum humanorum. D. .30., capitulo quibusdam. in [secundo libro] Tercius : [9*] Quod anima Christi a corpore separata sit persona. D. .5., capitulo ultimo. [10*] Quod Christus in triduo separata anima a corpore fuit homo. D. .22., capitulo .1°. in tercio libro Quartus : [11] Quod sacramenta legalia non justificabant etiam si in fide et devotione fierent. D. 1a., capitulo .2°. [12*] Quod baptismus Johannis cum impositione manuum equipollebat baptismo Christi. D. .2a., capitulo ultimo. [13*] Quod Christus dare potuit baptistis mundandi interius ministerialem potestatem. D. .5., capitulo ultimo. [14] Quod sciencia discernendi prout nominat habitum sit clavis. D. .19., capitulo .2°. [15] Quod heretici ab ecclesia precisi non habent potestatem conficiendi. D. .13., capitulo illi vero. [16] Quod episcopi symoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi. D. .24a., capitulo de symoniacis. [17] Quod maritus alicujus per consensum de presenti ex illa copula bigamus judicaretur. D. .27. [18] Quod cognoscens sororem sponse legitime non potest post reddere uxori debitum. D. .24. [sic] capitulo De hiis. in quarto libro. 2. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15705, fol. 2v. ms. produit dans le Nord de la France durant le deuxième tiers du xiiie siècle. La main responsable de la liste peut être datée de la fin du xiiie siècle.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

137

Haec sunt que dicit magister que non tenentur : In primo libro : [1*] quod caritas que diligitur Deus est idem quod Spiritus sanctus d. .xvii. [2*] aliud quod haec nomina unum, trinitas, trinus et hujusmodi non ponunt aliquid sed privant ut cum dici tres personne significat quod non sit tria persona, et habetur d. .xxiiii. In secundo libro : [3*] quod in angelis premium precedit meritum et hec a multis adhuc tenetur. D. .v. [4*] alia quod aliquid de cibis transit in veritatem humane nature et hec a quibusdam adhuc tenetur. D. .xxx. Alia in tertio : [5*] quod anima separata a corpore est persona sicut angelus d. .v. al. [6*] alia quod Christus homo in triduo et hoc adhuc in multis tenetur. D. [xxii]. In .4. [libro] : [7*] quod baptismati baptismo Iohannis non ponentes spem in eo, si credentes, scilicet si esse iterum [?], non erant rebaptizandi. D. ii. [8*] alia quod eamdem potentiam potuit dare homini baptizandi et creandi sicut et ipse humanitati D. .v. 3. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15707, fol. 169vb. ms. produit à Bologne vers 1200. La main responsable de la liste peut être datée de la deuxième moitié du xiiie siècle. Nota quod in viii locis non tenetur oppinio magistri in libro Sententiarum. In primo libro sunt duo : [1*] unum videlicet d. .xvii. quod caritas que est amor Dei et proximi non est quid creatum sed increatum. [2*] Aliud est quod haec nomina trinus et trinitas non dicunt positionem sed privationem tantum et hoc ponit d. .xxiiii. In secundo vero libro sunt duo quorum primum est : [3*] quod in angelis beatitudinis premium non precessit, et meritum respectu substantialis premii habet subsequens et hoc dicit d. .v. et etiam .xi. [4*] Aliud est quod nihil de cibis transit in veritatem humane nature nec per generationem nec per nutritionem et hoc dicit d. .xxx.

138

Angotti

In tertio libro due distinctiones : [5*] unum quod anima exuta a corpore est persona et hoc dicit d. .v. [6*] Aliud quod Christus fuit homo in triduo d. .xxii. In quarto similiter duo dicunt : [7*] unum est quod baptismus Johannis cum inpositionem manuum equipollebat baptismo Christi ; ita quod baptizatus baptismate Iohannis in fide Trinitatis non erat rebaptizandus hoc dicit d. .ii. [8*] Aliud est de potestate baptizandi interius quam dixit quod Deus potuit alii dare et quod potest potestatem creandi communicare et creare per creaturam tanquam per ministerium et hoc dicit d. .v. In hiis viii [positionibus] communiter doctores parisienses non secuntur magistrum. 4. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15716, fol. 1. ms. produit à Paris, au milieu du xiiie siècle. La main responsable de la copie de la liste peut être datée du xive siècle. Iste sunt opiniones magistri Sententiarum que non tenentur a modernis. In primo libro : [1*] d. .17. Ubi dicit quod caritas que est amor Dei et proximi est Spiritus sanctus solum et non habitus creatus. [2*] d. .24. Ubi dicit quod nomina trinus trinitas et hujusmodi nomina numeralia non dicunt positionem sed privationem. In secundo libro : [3*] d. .5. Ubi dicit quod premium substantiale precessit meritum in angelis et d. .xi. [4*] d. .30. Ubi dicit quod nihil de extrinseco transit in virtutem [sic, pro veritatem] humane nature nec per generationem nec per mutationem. In tertio : [5*] d. .5. Ubi dicit quod anima exuta a corpore est persona. [6*] d. .22. Ubi dicit quod Christus fuit homo in triduo. In quarto : [7*] d. .2. Ubi dicit quod dicit quod [sic] baptismus Johannis impositione manuum equivalebat baptismo Christi ; ita quod baptismati baptismo Johannis in fide Trinitatis non erant rebaptizandi. [8] d. [.13a., al. man.] Ubi dicit [quod scismatici, degradati, prescisi ab ecclesia, heretici, excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi corpus Christi al. man.]

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

139

5. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15717, fol. 4v. ms. produit à Paris au début du deuxième quart du xiiie siècle. La main responsable de la copie de la liste date du début du xive siècle. Les passages entre signalent les interventions réalisées dans une encre plus pâle et complétant la liste. Elles semblent être de la même main. Secundum magistros Parisiensis magister Sententiarum declinavit a communibus opinionibus magistrorum in istis locis : Libro primo : [1*] D. .xvii. Ubi dicitur quod caritas que est amor Dei et proximi est Spiritus Sanctus et non habitus creatus capitulo 2. [2*] D. .24. capitulo 2. Ubi dicit quod hec nomina trinus et trinitas non dicunt positionem sed privationem. [3] D. .41. capitulo ultimo. Ubi dicit quod Deus scit omne enunciabile quod aliquando scivit. Libro secundo : [4*] D. quinta. Ubi dicitur quod in angelis fuit prius premium substantiale quam meritum . [5*] D. .xi. Ubi dicit quod angeli proficiunt in merito respectu primii substantialis usque ad iudicium ; . [6*] D. .xxx. Ubi dicit quod nihil de extrinseco transsit in veritatem humane nature nec per generationem nec per nutritionem . Libro tertio : [7*] D. quinta, . Ubi dicit quod anima a corpore exuta est persona. [8*] D. .xxii. Ubi dicit quod Christus in triduo fuit homo . Libro quarto : [9] D. .i. Ubi dicit quod sacramenta legalia non justificabant etiamsi cum fide et devotione fierent . [10*] D. .ii. Ubi dicit quod baptismati baptismo Iohannis non habentes spem in eo et habentes fidem trinitatis non erant baptizandi baptismo Christi . [11*] D. quinta. Ubi dicit quod Deus potestatem baptizandi interius et potestatem creandi potest communicare creature et creatura potest recipere et quod potest creare per creaturam tanquam per ministerium . [12 et 13] D. .xiii. Ubi dicit quod heretici ab ecclesia precisi non habent potestatem conficiendi. In capitulo « illi vero » .

140

Angotti

[14] D. .18. Ubi dicit quod sacerdotes legales hec poterant in curandis leprosis quidem evangelici in peccatis, et quod virtus clavium in absolvendo non est aliud quam ostendere absolutum sicut sacerdotes legales faciebant respectu lepre . [15] D. .19. Ubi dicit quod sciencia discernendi prout nominat habitum sciendi sit clavis ordinis ita quod ignorantes non habent clavem. [16] D. .20. capitulo « Non debet » in fine. Ubi dicit quod presbiter potest consecrare virgines ex precepto episcopi ; contrarium habetur : D. .68. capitulo « quamvis ». [17] D. .25. Ubi dicit quod episcopi symoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi ; contrarium habetur D. .18. capitulo 1 et .i. q. .1. « quod quidam » ; . [18] D. .27. Ubi dicit quod maritus qui cognoscit viduam tamen incognitam a primo marito est bigamus nec potest promoveri ad sacros ordines ; contrarium habetur D. .33. capitulo « maritum », Extra. « de bigamis », « maritum », « a nobis ». [19] D. .34. Ubi dicit quod quando aliquis cognoscit consanguineam uxoris sue non potest postea reddere debitum uxori, capitulo « de hiis etc. ». Item eodem capitulo habetur aliquid falsum ; contrarium habetur Extra. « de eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris sue », capitulo « discretionem ». [20] D. .xxxviii. Ubi dicit quod ille qui vivente uxore legitima contrahit cum alia excusatur si manet cum secundam quando cogitur ab ecclesia per obedientiam capitulo ultimo illius distinctionis ; contrarium habetur Extra. « de sententia excommunicationis », [capitulo] « inquisitioni ». 6. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15719, fol. 204va. ms. produit dans le deuxième quart du xiiie siècle, en Italie. La main responsable de la copie de la liste date de la première moitié du xive siècle. Iste sunt opiniones quas ponit Magister in libro Sententiarum que modo non tenentur a magistris. In primo libro sunt tres : [1*] Prima est quod karitas qua diligimus Deum et proximum est Spiritus sanctus. D. .xvii. c. .2. [2* et 3] Secunda est quod nomina naturalia dicta de Deo dicuntur solum privative. D. .xxiiii. c. .2. et simile et equale D. .31. ca. ultimo. [4 et 5] Tercia est quod scit semper omne enunciabile quod aliquando scivit. D. .xli. ca. ultimo. Et similiter quod potest quicquid potuit. D. .44. ca. ultimo. In secundo libro sunt tres : [6*] Prima est quod in angelis premium precesserit meritum. D. .v. ca. ultimo. [7*] Secunda est quod respectu essentialis premii proficiunt usque ad iudicium. D. .xi. ca. Preterea illud considerari.

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

141

[8*] Tercia quod in veritate humane nature nichil transit nisi quod processit a lumbis Ade. D. .30. c. Quibus etc. In tertio libro due : [9*] Prima est quod anima [Christi add. interlin.] a corpore separata sit persona. D. .v. ca. ultimo. [10*] Secunda est quod in triduo Christus fuit homo separata anima. D. .22. capitulo primo. In quarto libro sunt octo : [11] Prima est quod sacramenta legalia non sanctificabant etiam si in fide et devotione fierent. D. .i. ca. .2. [12*] Secunda est quod baptismati baptismo Iohannis non ponentes fidem et habentes fidem trinitatis non erant baptizandi baptismo Christi. D. .2. ca. ultimo. [13*] Tertia est quod sicut Deus potuit dare potentiam creandi sic in baptismo potuit dare potentiam interius abluendi. D. .v. ca. ultimo. [14 et 15] Quarta quod heretici precisi ab ecclesia vel excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi corpus Christi. D. .xiii. ca. Illi vero et quod episcopi symoniaci non habent potestatem ordinandi. D. .xxvi. ca. De symoniacis. [16] .va. est quod sciencia discernendi prout nominat habitum sciendi sit clavis. D. .xix. c. .i. [17] .via. est quod maritus sponse alicujus per consensu de presenti quam ille non cognovisset bigamus judicatur. [d. xxvii ca. ultimo add. in marg.]. [18] .viia. est quod cognoscens sororem uxoris sue non potest post ea uxori debitum reddere. D. .xxxiiii. ca. De hiis [ii add. interlin.]. [19] .viiia. est quod ille qui vivente uxore contraxit cum alia cum vult ab ea recedere [vel, exponc.] et cogitur ab ea de reddendo debitum incipit excusari per obedentiam et timorem. D. .39. c. ult. Cujus contrarium Extra. de eo qui cognovit cum. u. s., ca. Discretionem et ca. Iordane. 7. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15723, fol. 1v. ms. produit à Paris, vers 1230–1240. La main responsable de la copie de la liste peut être datée de la première moitié du xive siècle. Cette amorce de liste (seuls les Livres i et ii ont été traités) présente des renvois originaux, c’est pourquoi les notes indiquent le passage du Lombard incriminé dans l’édition la plus récente des Sentences. Sententia magistri non tenetur hodie in his locis. Libro primo : [1] d. 1, c. 14 in fine, « Nisi forte alia virtus sit Deus ut caritas »172. 172  Pierre Lombard, Sentences, i, dist. 1, chap. 3, §10 (1 : 61).

142

Angotti

[2] d. 2, c.5 b « non poni aliquid sed removeri »173. [3] d. 3, c. ii a « mens hic pro animo accipitur »174 [4*] d. 18 et precipue quod dicit capitulo penultimo « diligendi vero actum per se tantum sine alicujus virtutis medio »175 quod est [?] Spiritus sanctus. [5*] d. 24 c. Si diligenter premissis176. Libro secundo : [6 et 7] d. 23 capitulis Nunc diligenter investigari177, Ad hoc autem quod diximus178 utriusque plures. [8*] d. 27 [capitulo] Cum ergo dicitur fides mereri, in fine « Unde apparet vere caritas [est Spiritus sanctus] »179. 8. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15728, fol. 185r. ms. produit à Paris, vers 1270/1280. La main responsable de la liste peut être datée de la fin du xiiie siècle. Nota opiniones minus probabiles quas ponit magister Sententiarum quas non sustinent communiter nunc doctores sed tamen diversi mode, in quibusdam contradicunt fere omnes, in quibusdam solvunt cum magna difficultate et expositione licet pretendent falsitatem, in facie hoc signo ☼ ; de quibusdam sunt contrariorum oppinionum tali signo 9a. Primo libro : [1*] Quod karitas qua diligimus Deum et proximum est Spiritus Sanctus tantum non aliquis habitus creatus. D. .xvii. c. Hic autem. [2*] iia. Quod nomina numeralia dicta de Deo dicuntur solum privative nec aliquid ponunt. D. .xxiiii. c. Si diligenter. [3] iiia. Quod Deus semper quicquid aliquando potuit, potest, voluit et vult, sicut scit quicquid scivit. D. .xliii. c. ultimo. ☼

173  Ibid., i, dist. 2, chap. 4, §4 (1 : 65). 174  Ibid., i, dist. 3, chap. 2, §5 (1 : 73). 175  Ibid., i, dist. 17, chap. 6, §8 (1 : 151). 176  Ibid., i, dist. 24, chap. 1, §2 (1 : 187). 177  Ibid., ii, dist. 24, chap. 1, §1 (1 : 450). 178  Ibid., ii, dist. 24, chap. 1, §6 (1 : 452). 179  Ibid., ii, dist. 27, chap. 5 (1 : 484).

Les listes des opiniones Magistri Sententiarum

143

Secundo libro : [4*] Quod in angelis precessit premium meritum. D. .v. c. ultimo Hic queritur. 9a, patet intencio magistri. [5*] v. Quod angeli respectu premium essentialis et in ipso premio proficiunt usque ad judicium. D. .xi. ca. Illud. [6*] vi. Quod in veritatem humane nature nihil transit extrinsecus sed ab Adam descendit tota veritas humane nature. D. .xxx. c. Quibusdam 9a. Tertio libro : [7*] Quod anima a corpore separata sit persona. D. .v. c. ultimo Hic a quibusdam, secundum Hugonem De sacramentis secundum, .i. pars c. .xi. e. f. [8*] viii. Quod Christus in triduo separata anima a corpore fuit homo. D. .xxii. c. i. Quarto libro : [9*] Quod baptizati baptismo Johannis non ponentes spem in illo et habentes fidem Trinitatis non erant baptizandi baptismo Christi. D. .ii. c. ultimo. [10*] x. Quod Deus potuit dare potentiam creandi et baptizandi scilicet interius abluendi. D. .v. c. ultimo. [11] xi Quod heretici precisi vel excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi. D. .xiii. c. Illi vero. ☼ [12] xii. b. Quod episcopi symoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi. D. .xxv. c. De symoniacis. ☼ [13] xiii. a. Quod sciencia discernendi prout nominat habitum sciendi sit clavis. D. .xix. c. i. [14] xiiii. Quod si aliqua virgo contrahat cum aliquo per verba de presenti, illa mortua sine carnali copula, maritus est bigamus. D. .xxvii. c. ultimo [15] xv. Quod cognoscens uxoris sororem legitima non potest postea uxori debitum reddere. D. .xxxiiii. c. De hiis, cujus contrarium revertur. [16] xvi. Quod qui vivente legutima [sic] uxore contraxit de facto cum alia, cum vult ab ea recedere quia cogitur ab ecclesias [sic] reddere debitum, incipit excusari per obedientiam. D. .xxxviii. c. ultimo, cujus contrarium Extra. « de eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris sue » [capitulo] « Jordane » [capitulo] « discretionem » 9. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16375, fol. 290v. ms. produit en Italie au milieu ou dans le troisième quart du xiiie siècle. La main responsable de la copie de la liste peut être datée du début du xive siècle. Iste sunt opiniones magistri Sententiarum que non tenentur a modernis. In primo libro :

144

Angotti

[1*] distinctione .17a. ubi dicit quod caritas que est amor Dei et proximi est Spiritus sanctus solum et non habitus creatus. [2*] distinctione .24a. ubi dicit quod hec nomina trinus et trinitas et hujusmodi nomina numeralia non dicunt positionem sed privationem. In secundo libro : [3*] distinctione .5a. ubi dicit quod premium substantiale precessit meritum in angelis et distinctione .xia. [4*] distinctione .30a. ubi dicit quod nihil de exteriore transitur in virtutem [sic, pro veritatem] humane nature nec per generationem nec per mutationem. In tertio [libro] : [5*] distinctione .5a. ubi dicit anima exuta a corpore est persona. [6*] distinctione .22a. ubi dicit quod Christus fuit homo in triduo. In quarto [libro] : [7*] distinctione .2a. ubi dicit quod baptismus Johannis cum impositione manuum equivalebat baptismo Christi ita quod baptizati baptismo Johannis in fide Trinitatis non erunt rebaptizandi. [8] distinctione .13a. ubi dicit quod scismatici, degradati, precisi ab ecclesia, heretici et excommunicati non habent potestatem consecrandi corpus Christi.

CHAPter 3

Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum: Studying the Lombard in the First Decades of the Fifteenth Century John T. Slotemaker 1 Introduction Henry of Gorkum was born around 1378 in Gorinchem, in the Low Countries. Gorinchem, which is located about 35 miles (56 km) south of Amsterdam, was granted city rights in 1322. Henry began his studies at the University of Paris in 1395 as a member of the English nation and became a master of arts there in 1398. Having attained the degree of magister, he served as the regent of the university until 1401. Anton Weiler argues that between 1402 and 1409 Henry probably studied theology at the University of Paris.1 Following this period of theological studies, Henry served as the procurator of the English nation at Paris between 1410 and 1419, when he left for Cologne. Henry’s commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard is an abbreviatio that presents short summaries (ca. 600–900 words) of each distinction of all four books of the Sentences. The work became increasingly popular in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, being printed either as an independent commentary consisting of the abbreviations alone (following the traditional incipits of the distinctions in the Lombard’s text) or within an edition of the Sentences. Because Henry’s commentary has been relegated to the category of an abbreviatio it has attracted little attention from scholars, particularly regarding its philosophical and theological content.2 This neglect has been 1  See Anton G. Weiler, Heinrich von Gorkum († 1431). Seine Stellung in der Philosophie und der Theologie des Spätmittelalters (Hilversum, 1962), 24–5. Weiler’s work remains the most significant introduction to Henry of Gorkum’s life and thought. His careful scholarship has informed the historical background of the present paper throughout. Gorkum’s philosophical and theological thought has not received much attention from scholars, but see Henk J.M. Schoot, “Language and Christology: The Case of Henry of Gorkum († 1431), Thomist,” rtpm 68 (2001): 142–62. 2  A distinction should be made between the twelfth- and thirteenth-century abbreviations of Peter Lombard’s Sentences (for example, the abbreviation by Master Bandius or the Filia Magistri) and those of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (for example, John Eck’s

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_005

146

Slotemaker

addressed, albeit indirectly, in the recent work of Maarten Hoenen, whose studies of the abbreviatio literature is giving these commentaries the proper attention that they deserve within the development of medieval thought.3 The best guide to interpreting Henry’s abbreviatio is to place it within the historical and textual tradition within which it was produced. Thus, the present paper will first consider Henry within the context of the University of Cologne, summarizing both the institutional context within which Henry worked and the other works he wrote while at Cologne. Secondly, it will briefly examine the textual tradition of Henry’s Conclusiones as found in the manuscript and incunabula tradition. Thirdly, it will consider the methodology of the Conclusiones, looking at what Henry chose to treat in his summaries of the Lombard and what information this gives the historian regarding both the intent of the work and its theological content. The argument of this chapter is that Gorkum’s Conclusiones belong to the modus expositionis tradition of textual analysis, which was common to the realist masters (antiqui) working in Cologne at the beginning of the fifteenth century, and as such was developed as a pedagogical tool for students studying the Lombard’s Sentences. 2

Henry of Gorkum and Cologne

2.1 Cologne and the Bursae Henry of Gorkum was a Thomist who has the distinction of being one of the first theologians to write a commentary (or summary) of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. He was influential in the fifteenth-century Thomistic renaissance that had its beginnings in the late fourteenth century and exerted such a significant influence on the German universities. The origins of this Annotationes). For a discussion of the earlier abbreviations, including Master Bandius, see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 27–33, and Raymond Martin’s “Filia Magistri: un abrégé des Sentences de Pierre Lombard. Notes sur un manuscrit conservé à la bibliothèque John Rylands à Manchester,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 2 (1915): 370–9. Franklin T. Harkins is currently editing and translating the Filia Magistri for the Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations series; see also his contribution to the present volume, “Filiae Magistri: Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Medieval Theological Education ‘On the Ground,’ ” 26–78. On John Eck, see the critical edition: John Eck, In primum librum Sententiarum annotatiunculae D. Iohanne Eckio Praelectore. Anno ab Christo nato 1542, per dies caniculares, quos alioqui a studiis gravioribus feriari solebat, ed. Walter L. Moore, Jr. (Leiden, 1976). There is presently not enough literature on either of these groups of abbreviated commentaries for any useful comparisons among them. 3  For the relevant studies by Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, see footnotes 8, 44, 50, and 51 below.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

147

movement are perhaps traced back to Paris, as many of the antiqui at Cologne and other European universities were originally trained there.4 For example, Henry of Gorkum (Thomist) and Heymericus de Campo (Albertist) both studied at Paris around the turn of the century. Another example is the Thomist John Capreolus († 1444), who began his studies as a baccalarius Sententiarum at Paris in 1407, becoming a master in theology there in 1411 and subsequently teaching in Dominican houses in Toulouse and Rodez. Astrik Gabriel argues that several students of Johannes Wenck († 1460)—including Conradus from Franken, Johannes Leivolfingher from Schaffenhausen, Nicholaus from Rospacha, and Ludovicos Rorich from Hesse—were responsible for spreading “realist” philosophical positions throughout Germany.5 Wenck, an Albertist, remained in Paris until around 1418, when he left for Heidelberg. He also wrote a Thomistic commentary on the Sentences and was influential in spreading “realist” philosophy to Heidelberg.6 It is within this broader interest in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great that Gorkum composed his theological works. Gorkum left Paris and arrived in Cologne in 1419. The University of Cologne, founded in 1388, was influenced by the via moderna in the late fourteenth century, but with Gorkum’s arrival it began to be influenced by the via antiqua, and particularly Gorkum’s brand of Thomism.7 The debates between the various viae or philosophical schools in the fifteenth century—debates that are generally referred to as the Wegestreit—had 4  See Gilles Gérard Meersseman, “Les origines parisiennes de l’Albertisme colonais,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 7 (1932): 397–403; idem, “La lutte entre Thomistes et Albertistes parisiens vers 1410. Une voix thomiste,” Divus Thomas 40 (1937): 121–42. 5  See Astrik L. Gabriel, The Paris Studium: Robert of Sorbonne and his Legacy (Selected Studies) (Frankfurt am Main, 1992), 128. See also Edmond Vansteenberghe, Le ‘De ignota litteratura’ de Jean Wenck de Herrenberg contre Nicolas de Cuse, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 8 (Münster, 1910), and Rudolf Haubst, Studien zu Nikolaus von Kues und Johannes Wenck aus Handschriften der Vatikanischen Bibliotek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 38 (Münster, 1955). 6  See Gabriel, The Paris Studium, 127–8. 7  On the University of Cologne, see Götz-Rüdiger Tewes, Die Bursen der Kölner ArtistenFakultät bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Cologne, 1993) and Erich Meuthen, Kölner Universitätsgeschichte, vol. 1: Die alte Universität (Cologne, 1988). The statues of the arts faculty (1398) for the University of Cologne can be found in Franz Josef von Bianco, Die alte Universität Köln sowie die zu Köln administrierten Studien-Stiftungen, 2 vols., bound in 4 (Cologne, 1855; reprinted, Aalen, 1974), vol. 1.2, 59–73. Cf. Harm Goris, “Thomism in FifteenthCentury Germany,” in Aquinas as Authority, ed. Paul van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget (Louvain, 2002), 1–24, at n. 5, where Goris notes the statutes are recorded in volume 2.1 (sic!) of Bianco’s work.

148

Slotemaker

a significant influence on the development of the University of Cologne.8 Anton Weiler, critiquing both Ritter and Keussen, argues that the 1398 statutes of the faculty of arts demonstrate that the masters were free to use either Peter of Spain’s Summulae de dialectica or John Buridan’s Summulae logicales for instruction in logic.9 The logical works of Peter of Spain were generally understood to be more open to a realist reading, whereas Buridan’s logic was employed by the terminists or conceptualists. As Weiler emphasizes, the result was an openness to the various viae and their respective approaches to the study of logic.10 In the fifteenth-century debates between the reales/antiqui and the nominales/moderni the former defended a realist understanding of universals 8  On the Wegestreit, see Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Late Medieval Schools of Thought in the Mirror of University Textbooks: The Promptuarium Argumentorum (Cologne, 1492),” in Philosophy and Learning: Universities in the Middle Ages, ed. M.J.F.M. Hoenen, J.H. Josef Schneider, and Georg Wieland (Leiden, 1994), 329–69. 9  See Weiler, Heinrich von Gorkum, 57. Hermann Keussen and Gerhard Ritter interpreted the statute in question to be prohibiting a nominalist view of logic, and in his critique of this position Weiler indicates the following texts and pages: Hermann Keussen, Die alte Universität Köln. Grundzüge ihrer Verfassung und Geschichte (Cologne, 1934), 296; Gerhard Ritter, Via antiqua und Via moderna auf den deutschen Universitäten des xv. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg, 1963), 42. The statutes state three separate times when the logic of Peter of Spain or Buridan could be studied within the arts faculty. See Bianco, Die alte Universität Köln, vol. 1.2, 71: “Item de quantitate collectarum, statuimus et ordinamus circa libros ordinarios in Facultate nostra legendos, quod Summule Petri Hispani et similiter Byridani legantur per tres menses, et pro quinque albis; Vetus ars per quatuor meses et pro sex albis; Topicorum per decem septimanas et pro quinque albis; Elenchorum per decem septimanas et pro quatuor; de anima per quatuordecim septimanas et pro sex; Physicorum per tria quartalia anni et pro duodecim albis. . . .” 10  For a fuller discussion, see Henk A.G. Braakhuis, “School Philosophy and Philosophical Schools: The Semantic-Ontological Views in the Cologne Commentaries on Peter of Spain, and the ‘Wegestreit,’ ” in Die Kölner Universität im Mittelalter. Geistige Wurzeln und soziale Wirklichkeit, ed. Albert Zimmermann (Berlin, 1989), 1–18, esp. 3–14. In particular, note Braakhuis’s problematization of the interpretation that the masters in the arts faculty could choose between the two logics (p. 4 n. 8). Regarding the arts faculty and the statutes, respectively, see Erich Meuthen, “Die Artesfakultät der alten Kölner Universität” and Anna-Dorothee von den Brincken, “Die Statuten der Kölner Artistenfakultät von 1398,” in Die Kölner Universität im Mittelalter, 366–93 and 394–414. Also regarding the arts faculty, see Sophronius Clasen, “Der Studiengang an der Kölner Artistenfakultät,” in Artes liberales. Von der antiken Bildung zur Wissenschaft des Mittelalters, ed. Josef Koch (Leiden, 1959), 124–36. Finally, as a corrective to the traditional view that Cologne was dominated by the via antiqua after 1415, see William J. Courtenay, “Theologia Anglicana Modernorum at Cologne in the Fourteenth Century,” in Artes liberales, 245–54.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

149

while the latter defended a conceptualist or terminist view. Beyond the theory of universals, the debates which characterized the Wegestreit extended into areas of formal logic and supposition theory. The supposition of terms, therefore, was a central point of disagreement between the antiqui and moderni.11 However, within the realist camp, there was also a heated debate between the Thomists and Albertists at Cologne. Since this latter debate is the context in which Henry wrote his commentary on the Lombard, a brief description of the two schools of thought and their institutional organization is in order. Soon after his arrival in Cologne Gorkum founded a bursa, which was later called the bursa montana.12 The bursae of the German universities in the early fifteenth century are therefore important to understanding the academic context within which Henry’s Conclusiones were composed. The bursae were founded by an individual person and remained independent administratively from the university and city. But the bursae were the places where the students lived; eating and lodging together, they developed over time a sense of a familia magistri.13 Consequently, the individual bursae began to exert considerable influence on the structure of the university and were increasingly the places not only where students lived and ate but also took their courses.14 While the bursa montana was the oldest bursa in Cologne, by the mid-fifteenth century there were four central bursae (two Thomist and two Albertist ones).15 The two Thomist bursae were the bursa montana (named after Gerhard de Monte, a student of Gorkum’s) and the bursa corneliana (named after Cornelius Baldwini de Dordraco/of Dordrecht). The two Albertist bursae were the bursa laurentiana, which was begun by Heymericus de Campo in 1440 (named after Laurentius Berungen of Groningen) and the bursa kuckana (named after John of Kuck, who died in 1470). As is argued by Harm Goris and others, the Cologne bursae established a theological tradition within which students and masters conducted their work. Thus, it was common in the latter fifteenth century for commentaries to be written secundum processum bursae Montis or secundum 11  See Braakhuis, “School Philosophy,” 3–14. 12  I will refer to the bursa founded by Henry Gorkum as the bursa montana, although it received this title at a somewhat later date. 13  See Goris, “Thomism in Fifteenth-Century Germany,” 10. Goris refers to Rainer C. Schwinges, Deutsche Universitätsbesucher im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Sozial­ geschichte des alten Reiches (Stuttgart, 1986), 418–20. 14  For a discussion of student life and the students’ relationship with the bursae, see Tewes, Die Bursen, and Meuthen, Kölner Universitätsgeschichte. 15  For information on these bursae—and the smaller bursa Raemsdonck and bursa Ottonis— see Tewes, Die Bursen, 27–110 and 250–61.

150

Slotemaker

processum Thomistarum.16 The two realist viae—despite their general objection to the nominales17—also had significant points of disagreement with each other. Thus, the controversy between the Thomists and Albertists “would be even fiercer and longer lasting” than the debates of either with the nominales.18 The philosophical and theological disputes between the viae antiqui—both in Cologne and in the fifteenth-century universities broadly speaking—are studied in great detail by Maarten Hoenen, who defends the thesis that many of the heated debates in the fifteenth century were between the Thomists and the Albertists. The Cologne bursae were influential in spreading Thomism and Albertism into the German universities. The two viae antiqui—as developed within their respective bursae in Cologne—spread throughout the German universities. However, what is important for the present paper is not the development of the bursae per se, or the spread of the viae antiqui throughout Germany, but the institutional context in which Henry of Gorkum carried out his work. Within the Thomistic and Albertist bursae at Cologne, the masters developed significant pedagogical tools for instructing the members of their respective colleges. In the following section, I will briefly consider two other works by Henry of Gorkum which indicate that the texts in question were developed as teaching tools within the bursae. 2.2 Thomism and the Modus Expositionis Before analyzing Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones in detail, it is necessary to consider not only the institutional context of his works but also similar treatises that can provide a hermeneutical key for understanding his abbreviation of the Lombard. Thus, the present section will consider briefly two of Henry’s works—the Supplementum iiiae partis Summae theologiae S. Thomae Aquinatis and the Quaestiones in Summam Sancti Thomae—by analyzing their basic methodological structure as well as the question of what this structure indicates about Henry’s approach to Thomas Aquinas. The point of departure for interpreting the method of Henry and the viae antiquae is still the work of Gerhard Ritter. Ritter, in his study of late fifteenth-century sources, argues that the via antiqua and the via moderna developed two distinct commentary traditions: the modus expositionis followed by the reales, and the modus quaestionum

16  See Goris, “Thomism in Fifteenth-Century Germany,” 11–12. 17  For a discussion of the terminists and a “terminist school” within the Cologne arts faculty at the beginning of the fifteenth century, see Tewes, Die Bursen, 279–332. 18  Goris, “Thomism in Fifteenth-Century Germany,” 12.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

151

followed by the nominales.19 Weiler adopts this methodological division in his analysis of Henry of Gorkum. Henry composed the Supplementum iiiae partis Summae theologiae S. Thomae Aquinatis to expand on Thomas’s Summa.20 Because Thomas died before completing his Summa theologiae, the work of supplementing the tertia pars fell to his confessor, the Dominican Reginald of Piperno († c. 1290), who composed his supplementum from the relevant sections of Thomas’s Scriptum super Sententiis. Following Reginald’s lead, Henry of Gorkum compiled a second supplement to the tertia pars. Henry’s was a more substantive supplementum than the one complied by Reginald, expanding as it did the text through a more generous use of Thomas’s Sentences commentary. Henry’s Supplementum is significant in the present context because it indicates his general approach to theology. As a follower of Thomas Aquinas— and as the founder and master of a newly instituted bursa—it was important for him to present the Dominican’s theology in its fullest and most developed form. That being said, because the Supplementum does not contain original commentary or argumentation by Henry, it is difficult to compare it with his other, more expository works. In this sense the Supplementum is best understood as a pedagogical work developed for the use of students. But, beyond the pedagogical interest that this text demonstrates it would perhaps be more productive to consider Henry’s commentary on the Summa theologiae. Alongside the Supplementum Henry also wrote the Quaestiones in Summam Sancti Thomae.21 The Quaestiones, which were probably conceived as a pedagogical tool to summarize Thomas’s massive Summa within a lecture setting, treat all four parts of the Summa: the prima pars, the prima secundae, secunda secudae, and the tertia pars.22 The work systematically divides the four parts into quaestiones, each of which contains three propositiones and one or more corresponding corollaria.23 The prima pars has 38 quaestiones (table: 1v) and occupies about 48 folios (2r–49v); the prima secundae has 19 quaestiones (table: 50v) and occupies about 34 folios (51r–85v); the secunda secundae has 19  See Ritter, Via antiqua und Via moderna, 104ff. 20  For a discussion of the Supplementum, see Weiler, Heinrich von Gorkum, 122–30. Weiler notes that the Supplementum was not edited or printed in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth centuries. For a list of the manuscripts, see ibid., 92. 21  See ibid., 89–90, 130–7. 22  I am using the following edition: Heinricus de Gorichem, Quaestiones in Summam S. Thomae (Esslingen: Konrad Fyner, 1473), which is kept in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Stamp. Ross. 2142. 23  The practice of dividing the individual quaestiones into three propositiones is significant. Gorkum follows this pattern in the Conclusiones, see the discussion in sections 4.1 and 4.2 below.

152

Slotemaker

22 quaestiones (table: 86r) and occupies about 43 folios (87r–130r); and the tertia pars has 25 quaestiones (table: 130v) which occupy about 44 folios.24 The Quaestiones, unlike the Supplementum, were edited and published in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.25 Both the Supplementum and the Quaestiones demonstrate Henry’s interest in disseminating the original works of Thomas Aquinas, as well as making the works of the Angelic Doctor more accessible to students within the classrooms of the bursa. That said, the argument described above—developed by Ritter and defended by Weiler, among others—suggested a distinction between the nominales and reales regarding their use of the modus quaestionis and the modus expositionis, respectively.26 So, how should Henry’s Quaestiones be interpreted in this regard? Is the methodology of the work expository, that is to say, based on philosophical and theological questions that remain unreconciled? Weiler addresses this question in his analysis of the title of the work. He argues that, although the incunabula tradition often refers to the work using the term Quaestiones, it was previously referred to as a Summa nova, Compendium, or Abbreviatum.27 These designations, Weiler notes, describe the methodology of the Quaestiones more adequately. In fact, what Henry of Gorkum presents in his Quaestiones is a summary or abbreviation of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Thus, both the Supplementum and Quaestiones can be adequately described, following Ritter, as following a modus expositionis approach.28 3

The Textual Tradition of the Conclusiones

The extant manuscripts, incunabula, and early modern printings of Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones were originally cataloged by Friedrich Stegmüller, 24  Weiler composed a table in which he correlates Henry’s quaestiones with the Summa theologiae (for the prima pars and prima secundae only). See Weiler, Heinrich von Gorkum, 135–7. 25  See ibid., 89–90. 26  See ibid., 132. “Wenn die Titel mit Quaestiones . . . oder Positiones . . . sich auf die äußere Gestalt des Werkes beziehen, so geben die Bezeichnungen Summa, Compendium oder Abbreviatum den Zweck an, den es verfolgt: eine kurze Zusammenfassung von Thomas’ Hauptwerk zu geben.” 27  See ibid., 132. 28  Weiler’s distinction between the modus expositionis and the modus quaestionum has been the subject of critique and should be used with caution. But given this caveat, his description of Gorkum’s works as encapsulating a modus expositionus remains convincing (if understood as not necessarily excluding the modus quaestionum).

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

153

whose findings were subsequently completed by Anton Weiler.29 Thus, for information regarding the manuscripts and early printings, the reader is directed to Weiler’s work. The present section, therefore, will not present a full analysis of the manuscripts or printings, but instead will treat the content of the manuscripts and printings. That is, because Gorkum’s work is often printed alongside the Lombard’s Sentences (particularly in the early modern printings) the discussion here will consider how the Conclusiones circulated both in manuscript and in early printed form. 3.1 The Manuscript Tradition In recording the manuscripts of Gorkum’s Conclusiones, Weiler notes that the work is extant in four complete and two incomplete versions.30 The present discussion will consider the work housed at Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, 508/1. The purpose is to analyze briefly the structure of Gorkum’s Conclusiones as found within the manuscript tradition. ms. Erlangen 508/1 contains two commentaries on the Sentences. The first is a commentary by Iohannes Tinctoris on the first and second book; the second is the commentary by Henry of Gorkum on all four books. Iohannes Tinctoris from Tournai was a student of Henry of Gorkum at Cologne, and was one of the first to lecture on Thomas’s Summa theologiae (ca. 1443).31 Tinctoris’s commentary on Thomas’s Summa, which was not published in incunabula or early printed form, is a much more expansive work than Gorkum’s own modest Quaestiones in Summam Sancti Thomae.32 Like Gorkum, Tinctoris wrote commentaries and notes on both Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Thomas Aquinas’s

29  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 321–2 and Weiler, Heinrich von Gorkum, 90–2. 30  The list of manuscripts presented in Weiler (Heinrich von Gorkum, 90) is as follows: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Theol. Fol. 217 (Books i–iv); Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Theol. Fol. 331 (Books i–iv); Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, 508/1, fols. 184–274 (Books i–iv); Munich, Universitätsbibliothek, Fol. 63 (Books i–iv); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 20203, fols. 257–81 (Books ii and iii); Salzburg, Erzabtei St. Peter, b ii 42 (Book ii); Warsaw, Staatsbibliothek, Chart. Lat. Fol. i 530 (Books iii and iv). (The Warsaw manuscript was burned during the Second World War, as noted by Weiler.) 31  See Martin Grabmann, “Der belgische Thomist Johannes Tinctoris (†1469) und die Entstehung des Kommentars zur Summa theologiae des heiligen Thomas von Aquin,” in Mittelalterliches Geistesleben. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Scholastik und Mystik, vol. 3 (Munich, 1956), 411–32. 32  A copy can be found at Paderborn, Erzbischöfliche Akademische Bibliothek, 0609 Ba 21. The author and title are listed as Johannes Tinctoris, Lectura super primam partem Summae theologiae Thomae de Aquino. The work occupies 216 folios.

154

Slotemaker

Summa theologiae.33 It is instructive, therefore, that the commentaries of Gorkum and Tinctoris were bound in a single volume, as there are numerous parallels between the two authors and their corresponding works. The version of Gorkum’s Conclusiones found in Erlangen 508/1 presents only the commentary, without the Lombard’s text itself. The text preserves all four books of the Conclusiones, each occupying between 20 and 25 folios as follows: Book i (184r–206r); Book ii (206r–226v); Book iii (226v–248r); Book iv (248v–274v); Table of questions (275r–279v). The work is preserved in a format that contains about 40–44 lines of text per page, written in a single column. Throughout, Erlangen 508/1 assumes an explicit familiarity with the Lombard’s Sentences, in that it divides the individual conclusions up based on the incipit of the Lombard’s original distinction. Thus, the work does not present numbered distinctions but only a large capital occupying two lines of text followed by the standard underlined incipit. For example, for the prologue and first three distinctions of Book i the work is presented as follows: 33  The commentary on the Sentences by Iohannes Tinctoris has received little attention from modern scholars. The work is interesting for considering the content and structure of Sentences commentaries belonging to the early to mid-fifteenth century. The first book is treated in about 82 folios (fols. 1ra–82va) and Book ii in almost 100 folios (fols. 84ra–183vb). The cover of the work, the initial page of Book i (1r), and the initial page of Book ii (84r) state that the work is by Tinctoris (Tinctoris in primum Sententiarum; Tinctoris in secundum). The text is presented in two columns and is almost completely devoid of corrections or marginalia. The third and fourth books of Tinctoris’s commentary (the companion volume) is found in ms. Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, 508/2. I have not seen ms. 508/2, but Grabmann lists the foliation as follows: Book iii contains about 120 folios (fols. 1–119v) and Book iv, about 110 (fols. 121r–232v). See Grabmann, “Der belgische Thomist,” 420. Grabmann’s discussion of the Sentences commentary is very brief (pp. 419–29) and simply provides foliation information, etc. The catalog of manuscripts contains useful information: Hans Fischer, Die lateinischen Papierhandschriften der Unitersitätsbibliothek Erlangen (Erlangen, 1936), 112–14. See also Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 246, and Jörgen Vijgen, “Johannes Tinctoris,” in Thomisten-Lexikon, ed. David Berger and J. Vijgen (Bonn, 2006), 316–18.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

155

Cupientes aliquid de penuria ac tenuitate nostra (184r) Followed by Gorkum’s text: Iste est liber dictus Sententiarum . . . Veteris ac nove legis (184v) Followed by Gorkum’s text: Ista est secunda pars principialis . . .  Hoc itaque vera et pia fide (185v) Followed by Gorkum’s text: Ista est secunda distinctio huius . . . Apostolus namquam ait (186r) Followed by Gorkum’s text: Est distinctio tertia huius primi libri . . . Thus, we can conclude that the late medieval theologians were familiar with the Lombard’s Sentences—and in particular the incipit of each distinction—as they appear to have been able to navigate the text easily; or, alternatively, they had the Lombard’s Sentences open on the desk beside them. For this particular manuscript the basic visual markers that assist the reader are the large initial capitals and the underlining of the original text. Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones are most familiar to modern readers as part of an edition of Peter Lombard’s Sentences. In that context—discussed in the following section—Gorkum’s commentary functions as a tool for studying the Lombard himself. It is clear, however, that in the earliest manuscript tradition, and, as we will see, in the first incunabula, the Conclusiones were preserved independently of the Lombard’s text itself. 3.2 The Incunabula and Early Printed Tradition The incunabula and early printed editions of the Conclusiones can be divided into two distinct groups: editions that publish the Conclusiones separately as an independent treatise, and those that publish them along with a copy of the Lombard’s Sentences. Here I will briefly discuss these two types of printings and present a description of these works along with a few tentative conclusions regarding the possible intent of the editors and publishers. One of the earliest editions of Henry’s Conclusiones is that edited and printed by the Fratres vitae communi in Brussels in 1480. The edition published by the Brothers presents only Henry of Gorkum’s abbreviations without the

156

Slotemaker

text of the Lombard.34 In this sense the edition closely follows the manuscript tradition in simply publishing Gorkum’s abbreviationes. The 1480 edition—with no introduction announcing the publishers, etc.— opens with the traditional incipit: Incipiunt conclusiones pulcerrime super quattuor libros sententiarum compilate. Immediately after the incipit is a large capital C and the work begins by citing the first six words of the Sentences, Book i, prol.: Cupientes aliquid de penuria ac te[nuitate], etc. Gorkum’s text follows, offering a brief summary of the Lombard’s work that extends over one and a half folios (single column, c. 30 lines per page). Following the summary of the prologue, there is a heading indicating the first distinction (sequitur secunda pars principalis, etc.), followed by a large capital V and the incipit of the Sentences, Book i, dist. 1: Veteris ac novae legis. Gorkum’s commentary follows, occupying one and a half folios. Structurally, the edition presents a heading indicating the distinction (for instance, sequitur tertia distinctio), the incipit of the distinction of the Lombard (such as Apostolus namque ait from Book i, dist. 3), and Henry’s commentary. This early printing, then, follows closely the structure of the work found in the manuscript tradition described above (that is, ms. Erlangen 508/1). The only editorial addition is the numbering of the distinctions to make it easier to locate one’s place in the work. This minimalist edition of the Conclusiones which followed closely the manuscript tradition would however soon be replaced by a very different type of work. The publication of the Lombard’s Sentences in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries often included various tools that could assist in the study of theology. In the numerous printings of the Sentences, the editors and printers often included Henry’s Conclusiones. The present discussion will briefly consider the 1498 edition of the Sentences published in Basel by Nicholas Keßler.35 The purpose here is to consider in some detail the content and structure of this work, so as to ascertain the use of Henry’s Conclusiones in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century. Keßler’s 1498 edition includes the full text of Peter Lombard’s Sentences, Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones, marginal notations identifying biblical 34  See Henry of Gorkum, Conclusiones super iv libros Sententiarum (Brussels: Fratres vitae communis, 1480; reprinted, Frankfurt am Main, 1967). 35  I have selected this edition for consideration because it was reprinted in 1967 by Minerva, Frankfurt am Main. This edition should be compared with the 1516 edition that was published by Hornken in Cologne. The Hornken edition is the final one listed by Weiler, Heinrich von Gorkum, 92. Structurally, the Hornken edition closely follows the Keßler text described below.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

157

and patristic references, a complete table of questions for each book of the Sentences, a list of the English and Parisian condemnations,36 a list of articles in which common opinion disagrees with the Lombard, and finally an alphabetical index of theological topics.37 Thus, in the Keßler edition Henry’s commentary is only one tool among many that were included to facilitate the study of the Sentences. The Keßler edition begins with Peter Lombard’s prologue and Henry of Gorkum’s summary of the prologue (a ir–v), which are followed by a comprehensive table (rubrica) listing the distinctions of the Lombard and briefly summarizing them (a iv–a iiir). Following the table is the text of the Lombard, beginning with distinction 1 of book i of the Sentences. Before considering the place of Gorkum within this work, it is necessary briefly to discuss the relationship between the manuscript tradition of the Lombard’s Sentences themselves and the text as presented by Keßler.38 Following Alexander of Hales the Lombard’s Sentences were generally divided into distinctions.39 The majority of medieval theologians in the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries knew the distinctions based on the incipits—such as, for the first four distinctions of Book i: Veteris ac novae legis, Hoc itaque vera, Apostolus namque ait, and Hic oritur quaestio satis. While some manuscripts included information regarding the individual distinctions (either above the columns or within the columns themselves), many did not. Thus medieval theologians could use the incipits to mark the distinctions themselves in the manuscripts. For example, ms. British Library, Royal 10.A.1— the sole surviving copy of Peter Gracilis’s commentary on the Sentences—indicates the distinctions through a large capital and, in larger font, the incipit of each distinction. This method was followed in the manuscript of Gorkum’s 36  On this Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius condemnatorum, see Johannes M.M.H. Thijssen, Censure and Heresy at the University of Paris, 1200–1400 (Philadelphia, 1998), 167. 37  The Keßler edition defines the work thus: “Textus Sententiarum cum conclusionibus magistri Henrici Gorichem, et concordantiis Bibliae ac Canonum: necnon in principio singularum distinctionum utilimis summariis diligentissime iam primum appositis. Item errores quidam Parisius revocati, et articuli in quibus Magister communiter non tenetur. Item registrum totius libri.” 38  The edition by Lodovicus Hornken provides numerous other tools, including the elucubrationes by Giles of Rome and the additiones by Henricus de Urimaria. Beyond these two tools, the other aspects of the editions by Hornken and Keßler are remarkably similar, in that both include marginal notes to the Bible and the tradition, the condemnations, the alphabetical tables, etc. 39  See Ignatius Brady, “The Distinctions of Lombard’s Book of Sentences and Alexander of Hales,” Franciscan Studies 25 (1965): 90–116.

158

Slotemaker

Conclusiones discussed above, Erlangen 508/1. Through this method the reader can immediately identify the distinction he is looking for. This is all well and good, but when a reader opens up Keßler’s edition—or the modern critical edition by Ignatius Brady—there are other headings that are employed to demarcate the texts at the beginning of individual distinctions and throughout the distinctions. These other textual divisions are important both in the manuscript tradition and in Keßler’s edition. The present discussion will focus on the Keßler edition because it is readily available through a reprint. Keßler’s edition includes four distinct font sizes as well as marginal notes to indicate different types of divisions in the text. The four font sizes (which I will refer to as 1–4, with 1 being the smallest) are as follows: font 1 records Henry’s Conclusiones; font 2 records the text of Peter Lombard’s Sentences; font 3 records textual divisions (not distinctions) marked between paragraphs, etc.; and font 4 records paragraph breaks within the Lombard’s Sentences by presenting the incipit of the paragraph. Further, there are also thematic divisions indicated in the margins. Setting aside for a moment fonts 1, 2, and 4 as selfexplanatory, the status of font 3 and of the marginal notes is perhaps unclear to the reader. Interestingly, the modern reader can turn to Ignatius Brady’s edition of the Sentences for some clarification regarding these textual divisions and marginalia. Turning to distinction 1 of the first book, one can note the first sentence of Brady’s edition is in bold type: Omnis doctrina de rebus vel de signis.40 However, when one consults the corresponding footnote Brady writes that this particular rubric is inauthentic to the manuscript tradition, being absent from all of the codices.41 Interestingly, this particular rubric is also omitted in the Keßler edition. That said, the subsequent rubrics of distinction 1 that Brady presents in a bold font are authentic to the manuscript tradition—and Keßler presents them in the third size of font described above. Thus, in distinction 1 of book i one finds the following bold rubrics in Brady’s modern edition: (1) Omnis doctrina de rebus vel de signis; (2) De rebus communiter agit; (3) De rebus quae fruuntur et utuntur*; (4) Quid sit frui et uti*; (5) De rebus quibus fruendum est*; (6) De rebus quibus utendum est*; (7) Item quid intersit inter frui et uti, aliter quam supra; (8) Determinatio eorum quae videntur contraria; (9) Alia determinatio*; (10) Utrum hominibus sit utendum vel fruendum; (11) Hic quaeritur utrum Deus fruatur an utatur nobis; (12) Utrum fruendum an utendum sit virtutibus; and (13) Epilogus.42 On 40  Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 1 (Brady 1: 55). 41  See ibid., apparatus criticus to line 5. 42  Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 1 (Brady 1: 55–61).

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

159

closer inspection, one also notices that certain rubrics are followed by an asterisk (*): those without an asterisk are found in the body of the text in the manuscripts, whereas those with an asterisk appear in the margins.43 In the Keßler edition, the rubrics that Brady prints without an asterisk are found in the body of the text, but are distinguished from the main text by being presented in a slightly larger font (namely, our font 3). Further, the Keßler edition also sets them off by sequentially lettering these rubrics (a, b, c, d, etc., in font 3). Finally, in accordance with the manuscript tradition, Keßler presents the marginal rubrics (those with an asterisk in Brady’s text) in the margins of the text. Both the 1480 edition published by the Brothers of the Common Life and that of Nicholas Keßler from 1498 present an edition of the Conclusiones that is consistent with the manuscript tradition. The 1480 edition, like ms. Erlangen 508/1, preserves only Gorkum’s Conclusiones without a corresponding edition of the Lombard’s Sentences. However, it seems that the edition completed by the Brothers is the only one to do so, as the subsequent editions preserve the Conclusiones alongside the Lombard’s Sentences, together with other resources for studying the Lombard. This fact presents an initial argument for the interpretation that the Conclusiones were used in the late fifteenth century as a study aid to supplement the analysis of the Sentences. The following section on the content of the work will further support the claim that the work is fundamentally pedagogical in nature, not only with respect to its use in the late fifteenth century but even initially within the Cologne bursae. 4 The Conclusiones: Summarizing the Lombard’s Sentences When understood within the broader historical context, Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones are best understood as a pedagogical tool for studying the original text of the Lombard. The general trend of early fifteenth-century theology is helpfully summarized by Hoenen, who writes: Questions about the nature of theology and of theological truths played a central role in fifteenth-century intellectual life and debates. In the years after the Great Schism (1378) the essence of academic theology changed significantly. Generally, theologians were no longer inclined to penetrate 43  For a discussion of the rubrics used in the manuscript tradition of the Sentences and in Ignatius Brady’s edition, see Peter Lombard, Sentences, ed. Brady, 1: 138*–141*; Brady, “The Rubrics of Peter Lombard’s Sentences,” Pier Lombardo 6 (1962): 5–25. For a brief and helpful overview, see Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 228–9 n. 13 and 40.

160

Slotemaker

the mysteries of faith with metaphysical and logico-semantical tools; rather, their intention was only to make the items of belief somehow comprehensible and to protect them against heretical understandings.44 If the intention of the majority of fifteenth-century authors was to articulate the comprehensibility of the Christian faith and to guard against heretical interpretations, Gorkum’s writings are best understood within this broader development. Gorkum’s abbreviations of Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae are summaries that guard against heresy and guide the student towards a better understanding of the faith. Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones provide succinct summaries of the various distinctions. It will be helpful to analyze the internal structure and content of Gorkum’s work. The present discussion will first note a structural characteristic of many late fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century Sentences commentaries, and how Gorkum’s work in consistent with this general trend. Secondly, I will focus briefly on the theological summaries of Peter Lombard’s Sentences in the Conclusiones, considering whether or not Gorkum interprets the Lombard through an identifiably Thomistic lens. 4.1 The Tripartite Structure of Late Medieval Sentences Commentaries In keeping with the practice of Sentences commentaries in the final quarter of the fourteenth century, Henry of Gorkum organizes his Conclusiones according to a tripartite structure. Numerous examples of the threefold structure of late medieval Sentences commentaries can be found, and it is perhaps instructive to consider the commentaries of Pierre d’Ailly, Peter Gracilis, and Heymericus de Campo.45 This background will provide a context within which one can understand the structure of the Conclusiones. 44  Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Tradition and Renewal: The Philosophical Setting of FifteenthCentury Christology: Heymericus de Campo, Nicolaus Cusanus, and the Cologne Quaestiones vacantiales (1465),” in Christ Among the Medieval Dominicans, ed. Kent Emery Jr. and Joseph P. Wawrykow (Notre Dame, 1998), 461–92, at 462. 45  I am limiting the discussion to Peter d’Ailly, Peter Gracilis, and Heymericus de Campo to keep it manageable. One could also consider the Sentences commentaries of James of Eltville, Peter of Candia, Henry of Oyta (Paris Quaestiones, not the later Prague Lectura), Marsilius of Inghen, Michael Aiguani of Bologna, etc. The masters of the numerous commentaries on the Sentences belonging to the period 1360–1400 systematically divide the individual distinctions or questions into three articles, conclusions, or propositions. For example, the Carmelite Michael Aiguani of Bologna—who lectured on the Sentences at Paris in 1362–63 (in the generation prior to d’Ailly)—divides his commentary on all four books into distinctions. Each distinction consists of a single question (except Book i, dist.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

161

Pierre d’Ailly’s commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard—which was delivered in Paris in 1377–7846—is divided into questions, not distinctions, with each of the questions containing three articles (articuli).47 This tripartite structure is maintained consistently throughout his commentary on Books i, iii, and iv. Pierre d’Ailly’s socius at Paris, the Augustinian Peter Gracilis, developed a similar tripartite structure in his commentary on the Sentences.48 The structure of Gracilis’s commentary is however distinct from that of d’Ailly, in that Gracilis more closely follows the formal structure of the Lombard’s Sentences. Thus, he begins each question with the incipit (in bold script) of the corresponding distinction of the Lombard, followed by a brief summary of the content of the distinction. Following the incipit and the introduction, Gracilis lists his question (Utrum in bold script), which, as in d’Ailly’s commentary, is divided into three conclusions (conclusiones), responses to the conclusions (contra conclusionem), and finally arguments against the responses (ad argumenta contra conclusionem).49 The common feature characteristic of the 1, 2 questions; Book ii, dist. 2, 2 questions; Book ii, dist. 13, 3 questions; Book iv, dist. 3, 2 questions; Book iv, dist. 25, 5 questions, and Book iv, dist. 29, 2 questions), which is divided into three conclusiones or articuli. See Michael Aiguani, Super quattuor libris Sententiarum, ed. Ioannes Guerilium (Venice, 1662), table of questions, fols. 1r–2v. 46  On the dating of d’Ailly’s commentary, see William J. Courtenay, “Theological Bachelors at Paris on the Eve of the Papal Schism: The Academic Environment of Peter of Candia,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown, ed. Kent Emery Jr., Russell L. Friedman, and Andreas Speer (Leiden, 2011), 921–52, at 935. 47  The complete table of questions can be found in Monica B. Calma, “Pierre d’Ailly: le commentaire sur les Sentences de Pierre Lombard,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 47 (2007): 139–94. The one exception to the tripartite structure of d’Ailly’s commentary is, as Calma notes (p. 163 n. 43), question 4 of Book i. I have edited this question (based on mss. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 934 and 935) in John T. Slotemaker, Pierre d’Ailly and the Development of Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology (with an Edition of Quaestiones super primum Sententiarum, qq. 4–8, 10) (Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston College, 2012, 516–46). The remaining questions (namely, qu. 5–8 and 10) exhibit the tripartite structure. 48  For a discussion of Peter Gracilis, see Courtenay, “Theological Bachelors at Paris on the Eve of the Papal Schism,” 943–47, and Venício Marcolino, “Zum Abhängigkeitsverhältnis der Sentenzenkommentare der Augustinertheologen Petrus Gracilis († n. 1393) und Iohannes von Basel († 1392),” Analecta Augustiniana 71 (2008): 493–529. Marcolino presents a full table of questions (503–529) for Gracilis’s commentary, which is found in a single manuscript (ms. London, British Library, Royal 10 A 1). 49   The London manuscript of Gracilis’s commentary contains all four books of the Sentences, and according to the scribe was written during the year 1415 (see fol. 234v). See also Slotemaker, Pierre d’Ailly and the Development of Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology, Appendix C, 507–12.

162

Slotemaker

commentaries of d’Ailly and Gracilis is the tripartite structure that informs the individual questions. The tripartite structure of the commentaries of Pierre d’Ailly and Peter Gracilis can be found in numerous Sentences commentaries of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. Significantly, it is also found in some of the abbreviated commentaries on the Sentences. In particular, one can note Heymericus de Campo’s Quadripartitus questionum sillogistice supra quatuor libros Sententiarum recently edited by Maarten Hoenen.50 Heymericus (Heymerich van den Velde, † 1460), who was a student of the Parisian Albertist Jean de Maisonneuve, arrived in Cologne by invitation of Henry of Gorkum.51 The Quadripartitus is of particular interest to the present discussion, as it contains a tripartite structure that is reminiscent of a structure found in Gorkum’s Conclusiones. Since Maarten Hoenen discusses the structure and content of the Quadripartitus, it is only necessary to summarize his findings briefly here. Heymericus’s Quadripartitus is a “fourfold” commentary on the Sentences in the sense that it treats all four books;52 the work divides each book into four questions (except the fourth book, which contains three),53 with each question being further divided into three syllogisms. Hence, at the level of the individual questions, the work takes on a tripartite structure. This tripartite structure and corresponding Trinitarian vocabulary, as Hoenen notes, is typical of Heymericus, who “used threefold formulas to express the fundamental trinitarian nature of reality.”54 Interestingly, the Sentences commentary 50  See Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century. The Sentences Commentary of Heymericus de Campo († 1460),” in Chemins de la pensée médiévale. Études offertes à Zénon Kaluza, ed. P.J.J.M. Bakker (Turnhout, 2002), 513–59, at 539–54. 51  Heymericus de Campo has been the subject of several important studies, including: J.-D. Cavigioli, “Les écrits d’Heymericus de Campo (1395–1460) sur les œuvres d’Aristote,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 28 (1981): 293–371; J.-D. Cavigioli and Ruedi Imbach, “Quelques compléments aux catalogues des œuvres d’Heymericus de Campo,” Codices Manuscripti 7 (1981): 1–3; Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, Heymeric van de Velde. Eenheid in de tegendelen (Baarn, 1990); idem, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century”; idem, “Academic and Intellectual Life in the Low Countries: The University Career of Heymeric de Campo (d. 1460),” rtam 51 (1994): 173–209. 52  On the title of the work, see Hoenen, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century,” 524–7. 53  On the “breakdown” of the structure of the text itself—and the possibility of scribal errors—see Hoenen, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century,” 533. 54  Hoenen, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century,” 521. Hoenen also notes that this threefold structure is similar to other works written at Cologne. He writes: “Further infor-

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

163

by John Hulshout of Mechelen—a lectura secundum alium, following the Quadripartitus—retains the formal structure of Heymericus’s commentary.55 The commentary of Heymericus, and John of Hulshout following him, develops a structure that is consistent with the commentaries of Pierre d’Ailly and Peter Gracilis. It appears, then, that beginning in the mid- to late fourteenth century numerous commentators on the Sentences organized their commentaries (particularly the individual distinctions or questions) according to a tripartite structure. This is true for both larger traditional commentaries (such as the ones by Peter Gracilis and Pierre d’Ailly) and abbreviated commentaries (for example, the work by Heymericus of Campo). Further, while the present discussion is limited to Gracilis, d’Ailly, and Heymericus, there are numerous other examples that could be given. In the second half of the fourteenth century, the majority of authors organized the material of their commentaries in a threefold structure. The tripartite structure of Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones is perhaps best understood within the context of Heymericus of Campo’s Quadripartitus. Hoenen is correct to direct our attention to the pedagogical function of this structure within the classroom. In particular, as he surmises, the syllogistic structure of Heymericus’s work may well have served a pedagogical function within the classroom.56 This reading is consistent with that of Weiler, who emphasizes the pedagogical role of Gorkum’s various abbreviated works within the classrooms of the bursa. 4.2 The Tripartite Structure of the Conclusiones Peter Lombard’s Sentences present a particular problem for the scholar seeking to summarize the work: it is somewhat unclear what it would mean, strictly speaking, to summarize a list of authoritative statements or quotations organized into a specific theological order. In short, the Lombard’s work constitutes a genre that is difficult to summarize because it consists of a large number of mation on the format of the Quadripartitus can be derived from the Cologne ‘quaestiones vacantiales,’ which exhibit a similar arrangement. ‘Quaestiones vacantiales’ were weekly disputes, held on Fridays during the summer vacations, at the Faculty of Theology. Many of these disputations were preserved as student notes in the manuscripts Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek, st 688 (George Schwartz), and Frankfurt, Stadtbibliothek, 1690 (Servatius Fankel). Each question of the ‘quaestiones vacantiales’ is tripartite and is answered in three syllogisms.” For a brief edition of George Schwartz’s quaestiones, see Hoenen, “Tradition and Renewal,” 481–5. 55  See Hoenen, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century,” 529, 531–6. Hoenen edited a brief section of John of Hulshout’s commentary in “Tradition and Renewal,” 487–92. 56  See Hoenen, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century,” 531.

164

Slotemaker

citations from previous authors and precious little direct theological argumentation on behalf of the Lombard himself.57 To address this problem, Henry of Gorkum developed a systematic approach to the material, imposing a standard structure and method on each of the Lombard’s distinctions, organizing the material as systematically as the content allows. The Conclusiones present one summary for each distinction of all four books (that is, 48 distinctions in Book i; 44 distinctions in Book ii; 40 distinctions in Book iii; 50 distinctions in Book iv). Gorkum’s summaries are about 600 to 900 words in length and follow a strict structure, employing the same phrases in almost every summary. The summaries begin with an introductory statement that provides the distinction number and a one- or two-sentence summary. Thus, the introduction states which distinction is being summarized (for example, for dist. 10: ista est distinctio decima) and the topic under consideration (dist. 7: in qua magister ostenso qualiter . . . or dist. 10: in qua magister postquam egit . . . ). The phrases used in the first sentence are consistent throughout the work (ostenso/postquam egit) so that the reader immediately begins to recognize the patterns established. Following the introductory sentences, Gorkum always repeats the same phrase with different levels of abbreviation—for instance, et circa hoc tria facit, or, in a more abbreviated form, et tria facit. Following this phrase, Gorkum presents three propositions— although he does not use that term—which summarize the distinction of the Lombard. Here, for the purpose of explication, it is helpful to consider a particular distinction. In distinction 10 of Book i, Gorkum writes: circa hoc tria facit. [1.]  Primo enim ostendit Spiritum Sanctum amorem esse Patris et Filii, et per consequens procedere per modum voluntatis. [2.]  Secundo subiungit quod amor convenienter appropriatur personae Spiritus Sancti. [3.]  Tertio concludit quod etiam Spiritus Sanctus convenienter nominatur nomine communi, scilicet convenienti tam Patri quam Filio, quorum quodlibet est et potest dici Spiritus Sanctus. The three propositions are then linked to clearly identified sections of the Lombard’s text. Thus, following the three propositions Gorkum states the first proposition is explicated by the Lombard from the beginning of the distinction

57  For a discussion of the type of work that the Sentences are, see Colish, Peter Lombard; Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 23–7; Richard W. Southern, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1995 and 2001), 2: 49–65 and 135–47.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

165

until the phrase, Hic manifestavit se dixisse;58 the second proposition from the phrase, Hic manifestavit se dixisse until the phrase, Hic notandum est;59 and the third proposition from the phrase, Hic notandum est until the end of the distinction. Thus, Gorkum identifies each of the three propositions with a specific section of the Lombard’s work. Following this textual division, Gorkum concludes the section with a summary phrase: Et haec est sententia magistri in hac distinctione in generali. This phrase—stating explicitly that the three previous propositions capture the thought of the Lombard in this distinction generally speaking—concludes the first section of Gorkum’s abbreviation. At this first level of abbreviation Gorkum summarizes each distinction by identifying three propositions that correspond with sections of the Lombard’s text; in the second and longer section, Gorkum more fully articulates three specific propositions and elucidates them theologically. He creates a distinction, that is, between a general (generalis) and a specific (specialis) analysis. Accordingly, the second section begins with the following phrase: In speciali sententia magistri stat in tribus propositionibus: quarum prima est haec.60 If we take Book i, dist. 10 as an example, the three propositions are as follows: [1.]  Caritas seu amor essentialis Spiritui Sancto appropriatus, est communis toti Trinitati. [2.] Caritas scilicet amor personalis nulli alteri proprie convenit quam solius Spiritus Sancti personalitati. [3.] Spiritus Sanctus communis originalis principii est nomine Spiritus Sanctus nominatus non obstante quod illud nomen sit commune omnibus tribus personis. 58  This phrase is found in Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 10, chap. 2 (Brady 1: 112). 59  Ibid., chap. 3 (1: 113). 60  Gorkum is remarkably consistent in his language and the structural divisions, although it is important to not overstate his consistency. The first book contains the following exceptions: dist. 2 (b ir–v) uses conclusiones, not propositiones; dist. 3 (b iiiv) 4 propositiones; dist. 20 (f iiir) 3 rationes, not propositiones; dist. 22 (f iiiiv) 1 propositio, 2 regulae. The second book has only one exception: dist. 2 (m viv) states . . . in tribus propositionibus . . . , but contains only 2 propositiones. The third book contains two departures from the standard: dist. 7 (B 3r–v) contains 1 propositio; dist. 33 (F 4r) contains one propositio. The fourth book contains the most exceptions: dist. 9 (I ir) contains 1 propositio; dist. 10 (I iv) contains 1 propositio; dist. 29 (N iiiv) contains 1 propositio; dist. 35 (O iiiir) contains 2 propositiones; dist. 37 (O vr) contains 2 propositiones; dist. 42 (P vr) contains 4 propositiones; dist. 44 (Q ir–v) contains 2 propositiones; dist. 46 (Q iiiir) contains 1 propositio. The four books of the Sentences contain 48, 44, 40, and 50 distinctions respectively, which means that with the 15 exceptions, 92% of Gorkum’s conclusiones follow his established structure.

166

Slotemaker

Since the propositiones speciales61 are the heart of Gorkum’s analysis, it is worth considering how he approaches each of these propositions. First I will consider in general how Gorkum analyzes the individual propositions, and secondly I will consider a specific case (namely, the first of the propositiones speciales listed above). Unlike the propositiones generales, which are listed without comment, the propositiones speciales are explicated and defended (following the Lombard) in a short discussion of about 150 to 250 words. Generally speaking, Gorkum begins with a theological explication of the proposition. Following this, he presents a counterargument (usually a counterargument raised by Peter Lombard himself ) before considering the Lombard’s response to the objection in question. In general, Gorkum will follow the Lombard’s argumentation quite closely as he elaborates on the central theological claim with a series of arguments and counterarguments. Further, it is in response to the propositiones speciales that Gorkum often refers to specific authoritative passages that support the Lombard’s argument. The authoritative passages, which are almost always taken from the Sentences themselves, are generally paraphrases or short quotations from Augustine, other Church Fathers, or Scripture. Following the Lombard, Gorkum commonly refers to Augustine of Hippo, Gregory the Great, or John Damascene to support a proposition or a theological conclusion defended by the Lombard. The authoritative passages rarely stand alone, but are part of a complex syllogistic argument that supports the general position. Finally, speaking generally about Gorkum’s explication of the propositiones speciales, it is important to note that, while he often devotes equal space to the three propositiones in question, it is not uncommon for him to focus narrowly on the first and/or second proposition, defending the third only briefly.62 Given this general overview, I will now consider by way of illustration Gorkum’s exposition of the first propositio specialis noted above. The first aspect of Gorkum’s analysis that requires unpacking is his distinction between the propositiones generales and the propositiones speciales. In 61  I am applying the terms propositiones generales and propositiones speciales to the basic distinction employed by Gorkum. This language is my own. Henry Gorkum lists two sets of propositions, giving the first three propositions and then referring to them as the Lombard’s three points in general. Subsequently, he lists the second list of propositions and refers to them as the Lombard’s particular or special sense. For sake of simplicity, I will refer to the two lists of propositions as propositiones generales and propositiones speciales. While this language is mine, the structure is clearly found in each of Gorkum’s conclusiones. 62  For a few examples from Book i, see dist. 11 (d iv–d iir), dist. 16 (e iv), dist. 19 (f iiv), and dist. 40 (k vr).

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

167

short, the two are similar with respect to their theological import, with the special proposition engaging more deeply the theological implications of the general proposition. Thus, for Book i, dist. 10, Gorkum summarizes the first section of the distinction generaliter as: Primo enim ostendit Spiritum Sanctum amorem esse Patris et Filii, et per consequens procedere per modum voluntatis.63 This general proposition captures Peter Lombard’s claim in a broad way but, as Gorkum recognizes, there is more at stake in the text. Thus, when he offers his special proposition for this same section of text, Gorkum restates it as follows: Caritas seu amor essentialis Spiritui Sancto appropriatus, est communis toti Trinitati. This rephrasing is significant, because Gorkum is not simply stating that the Holy Spirit is love (caritas seu amor), but that love is appropriated to the Holy Spirit and is also common to (or shared by) all three persons of the Trinity. In this sense, the special proposition takes on the more technical question presented in the Lombard’s text:64 in what sense is the Holy Spirit love strictly speaking, if it is true that all three persons of the Trinity are love? Thus, the focus of the special proposition as defined by Gorkum is the complicated issue of the relationship between the common attributes of the persons, and the person’s individual personal properties. The Conclusiones are therefore a highly structured abbreviation of the Sentences. The structure, I think, is imposed on the work so that the student of the Lombard can easily navigate the work and master the material of each distinction. Weiler and Hoenen, as noted above, have correctly emphasized the pedagogical value of these types of commentaries. For the student, it is incredibly convenient to have both a structural (in the propositiones generales) and a theological (in the propositiones speciales) breakdown of each one of the Lombard’s distinctions. In short, the student could rely on the fact that each distinction has a threefold structure that corresponds to three distinct theological claims.

63  Cf. Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 10, chap. 1 (Brady 1: 110): “Spiritus Sanctus amore est sive caritas dilectio Patris et Filii.” 64  See Peter Lombard, Sentences, Book i, dist. 10, chap. 1 (1: 110): “Quod Spiritus Sanctus dilectio proprie dicatur et tamen Trinitatis sit dilectio. Ioannes autem in Epistola canonica ait: Deus caritas est. ‘Non dixit: Spiritus Sanctus caritas est, quod si dixisset, absolutior esset sermo et non parva pars quaestionis decisa; sed quia dixit: Deus caritas est, incertum est, et ideo quaerendum, utrum Deus Pater sit caritas, an Filius, an Spiritus Sanctus, an Deus ipsa Trinitas, quia et ipsa non tres dii, sed Deus est unus.’ ” The quotation is from Augustine, and the italics are the editor’s.

168

Slotemaker

4.3 The Theology of the Conclusiones Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones were written as a pedagogical tool for students studying the Sentences. Because Gorkum was a Thomist—and a founding member of a Thomist bursa montana—one of the central questions that must be asked is whether or not the work betrays a distinctively Thomist approach to Christian theology. The Sentences, one must recall, were instituted in the thirteenth century as a pedagogical tool for studying theology at both Oxford and Paris.65 The Sentences, therefore, predate the great theological systems of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, or Gregory of Rimini, and consequently do not support one of the theological positions vying for supremacy in the fifteenth-century Wegestreit. The focus of the present discussion is to understand whether or not Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones are explicitly Thomistic in a theological sense, or simply a summary of the Lombard that avoids specific commitments to the competing fifteenth-century viae. Thomas Aquinas held several distinctive theological positions that were supported by his followers throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. One of those distinctive theological opinions is Thomas’s argument in his Scriptum super Sententiis and Summa theologiae that the three persons of the Trinity are distinct by means of opposed relations of origin.66 This theological position, which has been the focus of much study in recent decades, is distinctively Thomistic and therefore makes it a useful test case. The present section will briefly describe Thomas’s position before considering whether or not the doctrine is supported in John Capreolus’s Defensiones theologiae divi 65  Alexander of Hales was the first master to introduce the Sentences into the curriculum at Paris. For an overview, see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 60–70. On Alexander specifically, see Hubert Philipp Weber, “The Glossa in iv Libros Sententiarum by Alexander of Hales,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 79–109. Similarly, Richard Fishacre is generally credited with introducing the Sentences into the curriculum of Oxford University, despite Robert Grosseteste’s objections to the practice. On Fishacre, see R. James Long, “The Beginning of a Tradition: the Sentences Commentary of Richard Fishacre, op,” in Medieval Commentaries, vol. 1, 345–57; and R. James Long and Maura O’Carroll, The Life and Works of Richard Fishacre O.P.: Prolegomena to the Edition of this Commentary on the “Sentences” (Munich, 1999). 66  The best summary of Thomas Aquinas’s account of the distinction of persons is found in Gilles Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Francesca Aran Murphy (Oxford, 2007), 78–102; idem, Trinity in Aquinas (Ypsilanti, Mich., 2003), 209–69. For a discussion of Thomas that places him into dialogue with other scholastic authors, see Russell L. Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham (Cambridge, 2010), 15–49.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

169

Thomae Aquinatis or Gorkum’s Conclusiones. John Capreolus is introduced to the present discussion at this point because he exemplifies a specifically Thomistic approach to the question at hand in the first four decades of the fifteenth century. John Capreolus studied theology at Paris in the early fifteenth century and become a master in theology in 1411.67 After completing his studies in Paris, he taught theology at the Dominican house in Toulouse and finally Rodez. Capreolus’s massive Defensiones were completed in 1442 and present a defense of the theology of Thomas Aquinas following the order of doctrine established in Peter Lombard’s Sentences. In a certain respect, one can note, the Defensiones are a commentary on the Lombard secundum Thomam that defends Aquinas against his fourteenth-century critics. In distinction 11 on the procession of the Holy Spirit a Filio, Capreolus explicates and defends Thomas’s argument that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son because there is an opposed relation of origin between the two persons: the Son’s relation to the Holy Spirit is active spiration, whereas the Holy Spirit’s relation to the Son is passive spiration.68 Following his articulation of Thomas’s conclusiones, Capreolus presents several objectiones by Peter Aureoli and Gregory of Rimini before offering his solutiones by means of a rebuttal of the arguments of Peter Aureoli, John Duns Scotus (who was not discussed in the objections), and Gregory of Rimini.69 In distinction 26 Capreolus returns to the discussion of opposed relations, again defending at length Thomas’s understanding of the distinction of persons.70 The point, for the present argument, is that in the third and fourth decades of the fifteenth century Capreolus vigorously defended Thomas’s account of opposed relations against the critiques of the fourteenth-century theologians such as John Duns Scotus, Peter Aureoli, and Gregory of Rimini. Thus, despite the fact that the discussion of opposed and disparate relations was not hotly debated in the second half 67  The best introduction to Capreolus is Jean Capreolus et son temps (1380–1444). Colloque de Rodez, ed. Guy Bedouelle, Romano Cessario, and Kevin White (Paris, 1997). 68  See Capreolus, Defensiones theologiae divi Thomase Aquinatis, ed. C. Paban and T. Pègues, 7 vols. (Tours, 1900–1908), Book i, dist. 11, qu. 1, art. 2 (vol. 2, p. 26): “Ex quo enim prima distinctionis ratio inter Filium et Spiritum Sanctum est per oppositionem duarum affirmationum, in Filio autem non est aliqua affirmatio opposita affirmationi quae sit in Spiritu Sancto nisi spiratio activa, quae opponitur relative spirationi passivae, oportet quod primo distinguatur Filius a Spiritu Sacnto per spirationeum activa, non autem per filiationem primo; quia illa non opponitur affirmative alicui affirmationi quae sit in Spiritu Sancto.” 69  See ibid. (vol. 2, pp. 26–9). 70  See ibid., dist. 26, qu. 1 (vol. 2, pp. 214–35).

170

Slotemaker

of the fourteenth century or the beginning of the fifteenth century, Capreolus still defended Thomas’s account against the critiques of the early fourteenthcentury theologians. In considering Gorkum’s discussion of the divine relations in his Conclusiones, our question now is whether or not Gorkum’s Thomistic approach to Christian theology influenced his summary of Peter Lombard in an identifiable way, or whether he attempted to present a theologically neutral interpretation of the Lombard for use by students who possibly supported a variety of theological positions. In Conclusiones, Book i, dist. 11, Henry summarizes the Lombard’s analysis of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son. Following his established pattern, he presents three general and three special propositions. The general propositions are as follows: [1.]  Nam primo ostendit quid circa huiusmodi principium Latini sentiant. [2.] Secundo subdit in quo Graeci ab ipsis discrepant. [3.] Tertio subiungit in quo Graeci simul et Latini consentiant.71 Thus, in his general propositions Gorkum notes that the Lombard (1) explicates the Latin understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, (2) discusses the way in which the Greeks differ from the Latins, and (3) explains the similarities between the Greeks and the Latins. These three propositions summarize the basic structure of distinction 11 as found in the Lombard; the focus is on the similarities that the Lombard discusses at the end of distinction 11. This basic approach is maintained in the special propositions: [1.]  Veritas approbat evengelii Patrem et Filium simul produxisse Spiritum Sanctum. [2.] Graeci falso motivo inducti Spiritum Sanctum a Filio procedere negaverunt. [3.]  Ex quo Graeci concedunt Spiritum Sanctum esse Spiritum Filii; non sensu sed verbis a nobis differunt.72 The special propositions expand somewhat on the theological aspects of the dis­tinction. Gorkum begins with the claim that according to Scripture, the Father and Son simultaneously produce the Holy Spirit. The second 71  Henry of Gorkum, Conclusiones i, dist. 11 (Basel, 1498, d iv; ms. Erlangen, 508/1, fol. 191r). 72  Ibid.

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

171

proposition considers the Greek argumentation and motive for denying that the Holy Spirit proceeds a Filio. Finally, the third proposition returns to the similarities between the Greeks and Latins, maintaining that the Greeks concede that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, such that the Greeks disagree with the Latins only verbally. For the present argument, it is simply necessary to note that throughout distinctions 11, 12, and 26 of the first Book of the Conclusiones Gorkum does not engage in the heated debate regarding disparate or opposed relations.73 This is one example—of the many that could be given—where Henry of Gorkum chooses to ignore or sideline a theological issue that was central to fifteenth-century Thomistic theology. As a reading of John Capreolus demonstrates, the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was still being debated by theologians around the time when Henry composed his Conclusiones. My tentative thesis, therefore, is that Gorkum’s Conclusiones do not engage in the numerous philosophical and theological debates that divided the competing schools or viae of the Wegestreit. Gorkum’s abbreviation of the Lombard’s Sentences is a more general work, and one that attempted to summarize the Lombard’s work itself. 5

Conclusion: The Conclusiones as a Pedagogical Tool

Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones did not leave an indelible imprint on the development of late medieval and early modern thought. The influence of the Conclusiones is much more subtle. When Martin Luther lectured on the Sentences at the University of Erfurt between 1509 and 1511, the textbook for the class was the Basel edition of the Sentences published by Nicholas Keßler in 1489. This edition, discussed above, included the Conclusiones by Henry of Gorkum. Yet when one studies Luther’s marginal notations, there is no explicit discussion of Henry of Gorkum’s abbreviations.74 Thus, Luther does not mention Gorkum by name and does not seem 73  The debate over disparate and opposed relations is extensively studied in the works of Russell L. Friedman; see “Divergent Traditions in Later-Medieval Trinitarian Theology: Relations, Emanations, and the Use of Philosophical Psychology, 1250–1325,” Studia Theologica 53 (1999): 13–25; idem, Medieval Trinitarian Thought, 1–49; idem, Intellectual Traditions at the Medieval University: The Use of Philosophical Psychology in Trinitarian Theology among the Franciscans and Dominicans, 1250–1350, 2 vols. (Leiden, 2012). 74  Luther’s marginal notes from 1509–11—covering, among other works, various theological writings of Anselm, Bonaventure, Augustine, Peter Lombard, William of Ockham,

172

Slotemaker

to engage with the Conclusiones directly. Nevertheless, it does not follow that Gorkum’s work did not have an influence on how Luther understood Peter Lombard’s Sentences, or how he lectured on them to the students in his class as a baccalaureus sententiarus. In fact, there is evidence that the Conclusiones did influence how Luther understood the structure of individual distinctions. As argued above, Gorkum divided each distinction both structurally (propositiones generales) and thematically (propositiones speciales) into sets of three propositions. This threefold structure—so common, it was argued above, to the commentaries of the late fourteenth century—was implemented by Gorkum and borrowed by Martin Luther. In one of the latest contributions to Luther’s marginalia, Philipp Rosemann comments on this threefold structure of Luther’s marginal notations.75 What is interesting for the present argument is that Luther did not merely divide the individual distinctions into three propositions, but often adopted Gorkum’s textual divisions of the individual distinctions as developed in the propositiones generales.76 Thus, while Luther did not explicitly engage and Giorgio Valla—are expertly edited by Jan Matsuura. For the marginal notes on the Lombard’s Sentences, see Martin Luther, Erfurter Annotationen 1509–1510/11, ed. Jan Matsuura (Cologne, 2009), 251–560. There is a substantial literature on Luther’s annotations on the Lombard, but in particular, see: Paul Vignaux, Luther, commentateur des Sentences (livre i, distinction xvii) (Paris, 1935); Francis Murphy, Martin Luther, Commentator on the Sentences of Peter Lombard: Theological Method and Selected Theological Problems (Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 1970); Josef Wieneke, Luther und Petrus Lombardus. Martin Luthers Notizen anläβlich seiner Vorlesung über die Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus, Erfurt 1509/11 (St. Ottilien, 1994); Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 171–83; Pekka Kärkkäinen, “Martin Luther,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 471–94. 75  See Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 177. He notes in particular: “Many marginal notes draw attention to the structure of Peter Lombard’s text. Interestingly, Luther consistently divides each distinction into three parts, independently of the number of chapters. This tripartite division is indicated in the margins: 2a pars, 3a pars (the first part naturally coincides with the beginning of each distinction).” 76  The new edition of Martin Luther’s marginalia by Jan Matsuura makes it much easier to track the subtle influence of Henry Gorkum’s Conclusiones. Thus, when Luther divides the text (usually marked with 2a pars, 3a pars), Matsuura provides a footnote noting any correspondence between Luther’s textual division and Gorkum’s. Further, he provides a brief transcription of the relevant section of Gorkum’s Conclusiones as presented in the Keßler edition. See, for example, Martin Luther, Erfurter Annotationen 1509–1510/11, Book i, dist. 2 (268 n. 10); dist. 4 (281 n. 1); dist. 5 (287 n. 7); dist. 6 (293 n. 6); dist. 7 (294 n. 4). While Luther is generally consistent in maintaining this threefold structure, like Gorkum he does not do so in every single case. This, one can only assume, was a natural development as Luther

Henry of Gorkum ’ s Conclusiones Super iv Libros Sententiarum

173

with the theological statements in the Conclusiones, the work exerted a strong influence on how Luther understood the Sentences themselves. In this sense, the Conclusiones functioned in the pedagogical role that Gorkum intended. As Luther taught the Lombard to students of theology between 1509 and 1511, he found it instructive to follow Gorkum’s threefold divisions of the individual distinctions. Why? Asking why Luther followed the textual divisions found in Gorkum’s Conclusiones is a purely speculative exercise; that said, it is helpful to recall that Luther’s marginalia originated within the classroom setting, and as such they provide concrete evidence of the arguments developed by Anton Weiler and Maarten Hoenen that such abbreviations served a pedagogical role within the late medieval university. In the case of Gorkum’s Conclusiones, it is clear that Luther used Gorkum’s textual analysis of the Sentences to help his students understand the structure and content of the Sentences themselves—and this despite the fact that Gorkum was a representative of the via antiqua whereas Luther, and the University of Erfurt more broadly, followed the via moderna.77 Looking at Luther, therefore, one can reasonably conclude that Gorkum’s abbreviation of the Lombard achieved its pedagogical goal by (1) providing a textual and thematic breakdown of the Sentences on which future lecturers could rely on to analyze the text, and (2) avoiding, as argued above, specific philosophical or theological arguments that would have limited the use of the Conclusiones to a particular via within the Wegestreit.

presented his lectures and either did or did not agree with the textual divisions found in Gorkum’s Conclusiones. 77  On Erfurt, see Sönke Lorenz, Studium Generale Erfordense. Zum Erfurter Schulleben im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1989), and Wolfgang Urban, “Die ‘via moderna’ an der Universität Erfurt am Vorabend der Reformation,” in Gregor von Rimini. Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation, ed. Heiko A. Oberman (Berlin/New York, 1981), 311–33; on the via moderna and Martin Luther, see Heiko A. Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, 1963); idem, “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna: Late Medieval Prolegomena to Early Reformation Thought,” Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (1987): 23–40; idem, “Luther and the Via Moderna: The Philosophical Backdrop of the Reformation Breakthrough,” in The Two Reformations: The Journey from the Last Days to the New World, ed. Donald Weinstein (New Haven/London, 2003), 21–43.

CHAPter 4

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology: The Commentary on the Sentences by Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, Vienna, ca. 1400 Monica Brinzei and Chris Schabel* Sandra Hindman, professor emeritus of art history at Northwestern and owner of Les Enluminures, ushers in the excited authors to examine and photograph sections of two fifteenth-century manuscripts. It is not often that intellectual historians are given a chance to inspect—and, with sufficient funds, purchase— a medieval witness of the text they are studying, let alone two copies. The codices we are looking at in the soft morning light contain Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Lectura Mellicensis on Book iv of the Sentences of Peter Lombard.1 If one glances through Friedrich Stegmüller’s repertory of commentaries on the Sentences, it is perhaps no surprise that Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and John Duns Scotus receive the most attention, twelve pages each for the Seraphic and Subtle Doctors and seventeen for the Angelic Doctor, although only five are devoted to his Sentences commentary.2 What is surprising is that close behind these three giants, ranking fourth, is Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, * This paper could not have been written without the financial support of the erc Starting Grant THESIS, no. 313339, additional assistance from the University of Cyprus research program dinky for Schabel, and, for Brinzei, a Heckman Stipend from the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library. We would like to thank Julie Dietman and the rest of the staff at hmml for their hospitality during stays in the summers of 2011, 2012, and 2013. We also thank the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek and the Schottenstiftsbibliothek in Vienna, especially Maximilian Alexander Trofaier at the latter, for their friendly help during a visit in early 2013, and the Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes in Paris, where we performed an exhaustive inspection of manuscript catalogs in December of 2011. 1  They are manuscripts tm 536 and tm 566. For more information on tm 566, see the excellent description by Laura Light at: http://www.textmanuscripts.com/manuscript_list.php, while for tm 536 see the description in Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the Faculty of Theology at Vienna in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Monica Brinzei (Turnhout, forthcoming), building on Light’s work. We thank Professor Hindman and Dr. Light for their friendly assistance and hospitality. 2  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 56–67, nos. 111–161; 1: 203–15, nos. 421–432; and 1: 393–410, nos. 844–894 respectively.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_006

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

175

bachelor of the Sentences at Vienna around 1400, who is allotted no fewer than ten pages.3 That Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s commentary on the Sentences takes up more space than those of Albertus Magnus, Giles of Rome, Richard of Menneville, Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Peter Auriol, William of Ockham, Francis of Meyronnes, Gregory of Rimini, and Peter of Candia is rather shocking, given that Dinkelsbühl is practically unknown to most historians of medieval thought. Stegmüller needed ten pages for Dinkelsbühl for two reasons. First, following Alois Madre’s 1940 doctoral thesis on Dinkelsbühl,4 Stegmüller divided Dinkelsbühl’s commentary into four redactions and various abbreviations, even referring the reader to eight other theologians whose commentaries he linked to that of Dinkelsbühl. Secondly, Stegmüller listed about 200 manuscripts for Dinkelsbühl’s commentary, a figure that places Dinkelsbühl’s work with those of Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus in terms of popularity as well. Our preliminary research has demonstrated that the real number may be as high as 300 or more, both because Dinkelsbühl’s commentary was popular in Central and Eastern Europe, where many of the libraries had not yet been cataloged properly when Stegmüller published his repertory, and because some of Dinkelsbühl’s popular treatises in fact stem from his Melk commentary on Book iv. Numbers indeed tell part of the story. As we shall see, Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Sentences commentary was virtually the conveyer of official Viennese theology in the first half of the fifteenth century, and by sheer numbers it best reflects the present of late medieval theology in this period. Yet the wealth of explicit citations to and implicit borrowings from thirteenth- and fourteenth-century university theologians found in Dinkelsbühl’s commentary makes it a revealing guide to the past of late medieval theology as seen from the Viennese perspective in the early fifteenth century. Finally, because Dinkelsbühl adopted and passed on provocative ideas that played an important role in the intellectual revolutions of the sixteenth century, notably Gregory of Rimini’s pre-Calvinist and preLutheran theory of double predestination, with some justification Dinkelsbühl’s work can be considered to presage the future of late medieval theology.5 The commentary is not simply important and interesting from a historical point of view, however; it is also a fascinating philological puzzle. Recent 3  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 274–84, nos. 561–86. 4  Later published as Alois Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl. Leben und Schriften. Ein Beitrag zur theologischen Literaturgeschichte (Münster, 1965), esp. 72–125. 5  See Monica Brinzei and Chris Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation,” in What is New in the New Universities? Learning in Central Europe in Later Middle Ages (1348–1500), ed. Elżbieta Jung (Turnhout, forthcoming).

176

Brinzei and Schabel

scholarship has shown that Dinkelsbühl’s colleagues at Vienna may have had a hand in writing some versions of the Sentences commentary.6 Indeed, it is difficult to discern the precise nature of Dinkelsbühl’s contribution beyond the initial text, and if we can nail down something that can be called an “official redaction,” no matter what, we will be left with a broad spectrum of reworkings by other theologians that range from nearly verbatim copies to explicit abbreviations to more loose adaptations. If we are not dealing with a “team effort,” then what we may have before us is the scholastic version of a contemporary school of painting of the sort associated with the Van Eyck brothers, a model than can be applied to authoritative texts in other fields in fifteenth-century Vienna and other new universities in Central Europe.7 This chapter will provide a first glance at Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl to a wider audience, attempt to settle the question of authorship, describe the origins of the various redactions, and explain why this Sentences commentary is worthy of much further study. 1 The Status Quaestionis In 1965 Alois Madre published a revised version of his 1940 doctoral disssertation under the title, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl. Leben und Schriften. This was a major undertaking, given the meager secondary bibliography existing in 1965 and the fact that Madre had to deal with more than 1,400 manuscripts in 113 libraries. The subtitle, Ein Beitrag zur theologischen Literaturgeschichte, accurately reflects the necessarily codicological and philological nature of this first in-depth examination of Dinkelsbühl’s life and writings, 54 pages of which are devoted to the Sentences commentary. Madre claimed the following for Nicholas Prunczlein (Pruntzlein, Brüntzler), who was born in Dinkelsbühl around 1360: lectures on the Bible in the faculty of theology at Vienna in 1396–98; lectures on the Sentences beginning in 1398, Books i and ii over the next two years and, as baccalarius formatus, Books iii and iv probably in 1400–02; between 1409, when he became master of theology, and 1413, another series of lectures on 6  See Michael H. Shank, “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand.” Logic, University and Society in Late Medieval Vienna (Princeton, 1988), esp. chaps. 1–2. 7  For Aristotelian commentaries at Vienna and Prague, see Christoph Flüeler, “Teaching Ethics at the University of Vienna: The Making of a Commentary at the Faculty of Arts (A Case Study),” in Virtue Ethics in the Middle Ages: Commentaries on Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics,” 1200–1500, ed. István P. Bejczy (Leiden, 2008), 277–346, and the introduction to John Buridan, Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis, ed. Michiel Streijger, Paul J.J.M. Bakker, and Johannes M.M.H. Thijssen (Leiden, 2010), 19–20.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

177

the Sentences.8 Later, in the early 1420s, Dinkelsbühl commented on Book iv of the Sentences in lectures delivered at Melk Abbey, from which teaching stems the most popular and most secure version of his commentary in terms of dating and authorship, the so-called Lectura Mellicensis. He died in 1433.9 The prima facie historical simplicity of the Lectura Mellicensis on Book iv contrasts with the dizzying complexity of the earlier redactions. Madre, and fol­lowing him Stegmüller, distinguished between what they dubbed Quaes­tio­ nes communes and Quaestiones magistrales, the latter being further divided into the Reportatio A and the Reportatio B. Madre found that the book of dona­tions to the Schottenstift in Vienna, dated 1453, records the following: “Likewise, the late illustrious man, Master Nicolaus de Dinkelspuehel, doctor of sacred theology, left us the Questiones communes on the Sentences written in his own hand.”10 Looking in the Schottenstift library, Madre located number 269 (274), which he asserted was an autograph based on a comparison with known autographs of Dinkelsbühl. He therefore concluded that Schotten 269 is an autograph of Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones communes in quatuor libros Sententiarum.11 Madre had no doubt that these Quaestiones communes were an early work from Dinkelsbühl’s term as bachelor of theology, asserting that he read Books i and ii in 1398–1400 and Books iii and iv from 1400 to 1402.12 This being the case, Madre dated what he considered the more mature redaction to his early period as master of theology, from 1409 to 1413. Accordingly, Madre dubbed this second redaction the Quaestiones magistrales. As stated, Madre divided the Quaestiones magistrales into two redactions, the Reportatio A, represented by manuscript Vienna, önb 4820, and the Reportatio B, contained in Schotten 254 (230). A fifteenth-century hand in Schotten 254 notes that this is “Master Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl on Books i and ii of the Sentences,” further confirmation, perhaps, that the commentary dated from Dinkelsbühl’s period as master 8  See Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 17–21. 9  See also Karl Binder, Die Lehre des Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl über unbefleckte Empfängnis im Lichte der Kontroverse (Vienna, 1970), and idem, “Eine Anthologie aus den Schriften mittelalterlicher Wiener Theologen,” in Dienst an der Lehre. Studien zur heutigen Philosophie und Theologie, herausgegeben von der Katholisch-theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien als Festschrift für Kardinal König zur Vollendung seines 60. Lebensjahres (Vienna, 1965): 201–61; Alois Madre, Kardinal Brada an Nikolas von Dinkelsbühl. Eine Anweisung zur Kreuzzugspredigt gegen die Hussiten, von Konstanz nach Trient (Munich, 1972), 87–100. 10  Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, ed. Theodor Gottlieb (Viena, 1915; reprinted, Vienna, 1974), 437.15–18: “Item quondam egregius vir magister Nicolaus de Dinkespuehel, doctor sacre theologie, testatus est nobis questiones communes sentenciarum propria manu scriptas.” 11  See Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 72–3. 12  See ibid., 78.

178

Brinzei and Schabel

of theology. With a secure terminus post quem of 1409, when he became master, Madre determined the summer of 1413, the date that önb 4820 was completed, to be the terminus ante quem. Had the situation not been more complex than Madre thought, we might have been able to accept his conclusions without any serious reservations. But with over 1,400 manuscripts of Dinkelsbühl’s writings then known, Madre only scratched the surface. He did not even begin to study the contents of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Sentences commentary. For example, Gregory of Rimini, the theologian who had the greatest doctrinal influence on Dinkelsbühl, both directly and indirectly, is completely absent from Madre’s book. Madre certainly saw no need to read the massive work from cover to cover, an undertaking that, given the actual complexity of the redactional issue, is absolutely necessary. Building on the work of earlier historians of medieval thought, Albert Lang and Johann Auer13 in particular, yet accepting Madre’s findings, Michael Shank described this complexity in his important 1988 monograph “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand”: Logic, University, and Society in Late Medieval Vienna.14 Shank revealed close links among the commentaries attributed to the near contemporaries Dinkelsbühl, John Berwart of Villingen (murdered 1411), Peter Czech of Pulkau (pre-1370–1425), and the Carmelite Arnold of Seehausen († after 1424), the last three being fellow bachelors of the Sentences soon after Dinkelsbühl’s own bachelor lectures. Shank also pointed out their common debt to the founders and fathers of the Viennese faculty of theology, Henry of Langenstein (of Hesse, ca. 1325–1397) and Henry Totting of Oyta (ca. 1330–1397), both Parisian masters of theology who, at the invitation of Duke Albert iii, relocated to the Hapsburg capital in the 1380s during the Great Schism, probably producing the final versions of their Sentences commentaries at Vienna around 1390. Given Madre’s characterization and dating of the redactions of Dinkelsbühl’s Sentences commentary, the best explanation for Shank was that Pulkau, Villingen, and/or Seehausen, together or separately, with or without Dinkelsbühl’s active input, took Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones communes and reworked them into the Quaestiones magistrales, which served as the base text for this Vienna group and for a commentary formerly ascribed 13  See Albert Lang, Heinrich Totting von Oyta. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten deutschen Universitäten und zur Problemgeschichte der Spätscholastik (Münster, 1937); Johann Auer, “Die aristotelische Logik in der Trinitätslehre der Spätscholastik. Bemerkungen zu einer Questio des Johannes Wuel de Pruck, Wien 1422,” in Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Michael Schmaus zum sechzigsten Geburstag, ed. Johann Auer and Hermann Volk (Munich, 1957), 457–96. 14  See Shank, “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand,” chaps. 1–2.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

179

to John Wuel of Pruck, but actually by John Angrer of Müldorf (fl. 1421), a member of the succeeding generation of theologians at Vienna. Our own previous research has added Müldorf’s contemporary Thomas Ebendorfer of Haselbach (1388–1462) to the mix,15 and, as we shall see, there were several others. 2

Stage One: Vienna, Schotten 269

2.1 Quaestiones communes: A Generic Term To test Madre’s scenario, on which everything else relies, a complete examination of all redactions of the text is required to provide as much secure evidence as possible. The first issue is the dating of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s theological career.16 The acts of the faculty of theology published after Madre’s book inform us that on August 1, 1398, Nycolaus dictus Tynchenpuhel was involved in his second course of the Bible. It is implied on November 11, 1399, that Nycolaus de Tynkelspuchel was then lecturing on the Sentences, which in Vienna took two years. It is possible that he read the Sentences starting in the fall of 1398, which would make 1398–1400 his period as sententiarius. He was called bachelor formatus in 1401, but in Vienna this title was given already after the completion the first year of Sentences lectures, so 1399–1401 is another option. Nycolaus Dinkelspuchel paid for his license in theology on November 17, 1408, and presumably as master he “owed the faculty” one florin on October 6, 1409, for the Sentences. Contrary to Madre and others, however, this does not mean that Dinkelsbühl lectured on the Sentences a second time as regent master, but merely that, like many others, Dinkelsbühl had difficulties with this financial obligation: regent masters of theology did not give Sentences lectures.17 The next issue is whether Schotten 269, the main witness of what Madre labeled the Quaestiones communes, is an autograph of Dinkelsbühl. Schotten 15  Chris Schabel, Theology at Paris 1316–1345: Peter Auriol and the Problem of Divine Fore­ knowledge and Future Contingents (Aldershot, 2000), 301, and William J. Courtenay, “From Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones communes to the Vienna Group Commentary. The ‘Vienna School,’ 1415–1425,” in Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, ed. Monica Brinzei (Turnhout, forthcoming). 16  Paul Uiblein, “Zur Lebensgeschichte einiger Wiener Theologen,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 74 (1966): 95–107, already updated the chronology of Dinkelsbühl’s career; we add to this, based in part on the general findings in Courtenay, “From Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones communes to the Vienna Group Commentary.” 17  Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, 1396–1508, ed. Paul Uiblein, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1978), vol. 1, 3–4, 9, 14–16; Joseph von Aschbach, Geschichte der Wiener Universität im ersten Jahrunderte ihres Bestehens (Vienna, 1865), 431–2; Courtenay, “From Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones communes to the Vienna Group Commentary.”

180

Brinzei and Schabel

194 (164) contains Dinkelsbühl’s Book iii, Schotten 198 and 199 (168 and 169) together hold a copy of the Melk Lectura on Book iv, Schotten 201 (170) preserves a copy of his Books iii and iv, and Schotten 254 has Books i and ii and some other material. A note in Schotten 254 (fol. 1r) records that it was donated to the library by Martinus de Leibitz (Lewbicz) and not by Dinkelsbühl himself, and a comparison of the handwriting of the other manuscripts with that of known autographs of other texts by Dinkelsbühl demonstrates that Madre is most probably correct in identifying Schotten 269 as Dinkelsbühl’s autograph. Schotten 269 is also the only codex listed in the current catalog as having been donated by him.18 It is possible that not all copies of Dinkelsbühl’s commentary in the Schotten library have survived, but we will assume that Madre is also correct that Schotten 269 is the manuscript containing the Quaestiones communes that Dinkelsbühl himself donated. Madre’s further inference that only the redaction of the Sentences commentary in Schotten 269 is the Quaestiones communes is more problematic. Three entries previously in the book of donations, we read thus: “Likewise, a certain master of arts, named Nicolaus de Lauczg, granted us the Questiones communes on Book ii of the Sentences,”19 without any reference to Dinkelsbühl. Looking through Stegmüller’s repertory for manuscripts in the Schottenstift, one comes across 196 (166), which contains a commentary on Book ii attributed to Theodoric Rudolf of Hammelburg.20 Hammelburg was already a master of arts at Vienna in 1385 and was associated with Dinkelsbühl as Viennese master of theology as late as 1424,21 although Stegmüller’s attribution is merely based on the cover of one of the three otherwise anonymous witnesses, Graz, Universitätsbibliothek 263: “Collecta magistri Theodorici super ii,” which is phrased vaguely enough. (The third is Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 7478.) As we shall see, the text of Schotten 269 in Books i and ii often reads like an abbreviation of Gregory of Rimini, for example in the question on predestination in Book i and the distinctions on grace and human free will in Book ii. While Hammelburg’s 18  We compared Schotten 269 with Vienna, önb, 4353, 4354, and 4355 and Melk 504. See also Guillaume H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, “Nicolas de Dinkelsbühl à propos des auréoles des docteurs. Recherche fondée sur Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. Lat. 504 (autographe),” in Litterae textuales: Essays presented to G.I. Lieftinck, ed. J.P. Gumbert and M.J.M. de Haan, 4 vols. (Amsterdam, 1972), vol. i, 47–55. The modern catalog is Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Monasterii B.M.V. ad Scotos Vindobonae servantur. Ex man­ dato Reverendissimi domini abbatis Ernesti Hauswirth, ed. P. Albertus Hübl (Vienna, 1899). 19  Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, ed. Gottlieb, 437.7–8: “Item quidam magister arcium dictus Nicolaus de Lauczg contulit nobis questiones communes super secundo sentenciarum.” 20  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 392, no. 841. 21  See Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 38.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

181

incipit does not match that of Schotten 269 or any of the other known redactions, Schotten 196 does hold much of Rimini’s treatment of grace and free will in the form that Dinkelsbühl has it. Although the last folios, which might have contained a note on the gift, are missing, Schotten 196 is no doubt the manuscript of Book ii of the Quaestiones communes that Nicholas of Lauczg donated to the library. Yet the contents of Schotten 196 in general are much closer to those of the commentary on Book ii in Schotten 254—what Madre incorrectly dubbed the Quaestiones magistrales (Reportatio B)—than they are to what is found in Schotten 269. If only one of the two can contain the Quaestiones communes, therefore, it would seem to be Schotten 254, not Schotten 269. So, which manuscript, Schotten 254 or Schotten 269, contains the Quaestiones communes? Both, we hypothesize, and more. After all, why would an individual author’s Sentences commentary be called Quaestiones communes in the first place? Our theory is that the Quaestiones communes grew out of the need to have a kind of updated Lombard for teaching purposes at the new University of Vienna. They are called communes because they were used by many bachelors of the Sentences and indeed served as the basis for written commentaries attributed to various individuals, including Dinkelsbühl. Accordingly, all redactions sharing the core of a common base commentary might have been referred to collectively and individually in the faculty of theology at the University of Vienna as the Quaestiones communes. 2.2 Schotten 269: The Origin of the Quaestiones Communes Nevertheless, Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl is responsible for authorial, or at least editorial, choices in Schotten 269 that demonstrate that all other manuscripts of all redactions, including that attributed to Theodoric of Hammelburg, stem from Schotten 269. As will be shown, Dinkelsbühl’s manner of copying from Gregory of Rimini proves that his personal choices in Schotten 269 were retained in all later witnesses, even if, surprisingly, some of those manuscripts also display direct awareness of Rimini’s text. But what is Schotten 269 itself? To determine this, we have to examine separately the text and the extensive marginalia in Dinkelsbühl’s own hand, much of which was incorporated into all later manuscripts and redactions. The text contains frequent references to the other books (in the sequence i-ii-iiiiv), for example, “on the manner in which Christ’s soul knows with respect to future things and others it is to be seen more in Book iii” (i, qu. 9; fol. 74v), “as was said in a question of Book i on the conformity of our will to the divine will; let it be sought there” (ii, qu. 9; fol. 145v), “as must be seen in Book iv on marriage” (iii, qu. 9; fol. 228v), or, “as was distinguished more fully concerning this in Book i on the topic of the knowledge of futures” (iii, qu. 5; fol. 207r).

182

Brinzei and Schabel

Sometimes these references are given in the first-person singular: “The Master also touches on this in distinction 40 of Book i of the Sentences, as I proved in the same place on the topic of predestination” (iii, qu. 2; fol. 185r). Thus the work really was composed, or compiled, as a commentary on all four books. It is possible, but unlikely, that Schotten 269 is merely an abbreviation or modified version of a compilation already existing. There are good indications, at least, that it was written in Austria. The names “Bertha” and “Katherina” are used as examples more than once (fols. 304v, 315r), and in a linguistic discussion we are given the example of something translated “from Latin to German,” the chosen term being theutonicum (iv, qu. 3; fol. 254r). More telling, in a discussion of whether serfs can get married, since they cannot give ownership of their bodies to their spouses, the author brings up a casus in which “one lord sends the serf to Hungary and the other lord sends the maid to France” (iv, qu. 34; fol. 337r). Besides its probable creation in Austria, citations of Nicole Oresme’s De communicatione idiomatum (fols. 183r, 190r) and, especially, the Cistercian James of Eltville’s Sentences commentary provide an initial terminus post quem of around 1370. The most likely compilers before Dinkelsbühl himself would have been Henry of Langenstein and/or Henry Totting of Oyta. As we shall see, there is much from Langenstein in Schotten 269, but there are also explicit citations of Langenstein in the text itself, especially several from his commentary on Genesis at the end of Book iv. The person behind the commentary in Schotten 269 is thus probably not Langenstein. As for Henry Totting of Oyta, at one point we are told that “Master Heinrich of Hesse says that in the time he was at Paris a solemn doctor publicly revoked the contrary, which he posited in his vesperies” (iii, qu. 3, art. 3; fols. 199v–200r).22 It would be strange for Oyta to cite Langenstein in this way, since they had both been at Paris. Moreover, there are two citations of Oyta in Schotten 269, although only in the margins: one in Book i, qu. 9 (fol. 71v): “Oyta seems to say the opposite in the last corollaries of the second article of the question on God’s foreknowledge,” and the other, in a second hand, in Book iv, qu. 9 (fol. 285r): “See other difficulties pertaining to this 10th distinction in Scotus and in the Quaestiones of Master Heinrich of Oyta.” The fact that the later redactions of Book i add significant 22  Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, iii Sententiarum, qu. 3, art. 3 (dubia) (ms. Vienna, Schottenstift, 269, fols. 199v–200r): “Nullus enim dignus est aliquo quod sibi inesse non potest, immo videtur blasphemia esse dicere quod Deus sit aliquibus honoribus dignus quod nec habet nec habebit nec habere potest. Et dicit M. Hainricus de Hassia quod tempore suo Parisius fuerit contrarium publice revocatum per unum doctorem sollemnem qui [200r] in vesperiis suis contrarium posuit.”

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

183

material from Oyta also suggests that Schotten 269 is not the product of Oyta’s own selections. In sum, there is little reason not to consider Schotten 269 Dinkelsbühl’s own composition or compilation. Thus we can ascribe most personal remarks to Dinkelsbühl himself, for example: “I was not able to find anything about this in the writings of the doctors of theology, but at the request of some people I asked the lord jurists. . . .”23 Yet there is little to indicate that Schotten 269 contains a commentary stemming from lectures. There are also numerous blank spaces, with questions often beginning on the recto of a new folio, or even on a new quire. Thus in Book iii, qu. 1 (fol. 181v), Dinkelsbühl adds a marginal reference telling the reader, or himself, “Look below in the question asked for distinctions 8 and 9, on the fourth folio, where three rules are posited concerning this,” and indeed on the fourth folio (fol. 191r) of the pertinent question (qu. 3) one finds the rules. It is only in the marginalia, or in the material added to the ends of the books, that we find any indication that Dinkelsbühl lectured on the Sentences. In the additional dubia for Book iii (qu. 8; fol. 245v), we read: “Third, I say that hope is a theological virtue. This was clear in the previous lecture (priori lectione).” In Book iv (qu. 7; fol. 276r), he adds in the margin, “as I brought up in the last lecture (proxima lectione).” Most interesting is a marginal note saying, “concerning this I spoke otherwise in my fourth principium on the Sentences” (iv, qu. 42; fol. 351v), as if to say that he did not agree with his own written compilation! It is probable, then, that Schotten 269 was merely Dinkelsbühl’s working draft. The initial text in Schotten 269 is sui generis, because the manuscripts that copy its text without making significant modifications incorporate much of Schotten 269’s marginalia (and other added material) into the text. The result, initial text plus marginalia, could be what Dinkelsbühl read as a bachelor in Vienna. Parenthetically, the Principia traditionally attributed to Dinkelsbühl in Schotten 254 actually date to debates held in 1423–1425 and should be ascribed to Andrew of Waytra, Urban of Melk, or John Nider, op.24 23  Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, iv Sententiarum, qu. 20 (ms. Vienna, Schottenstift, 269, fol. 317r): “Aliud dubium utrum habens confessionale a sede apostolica secundum formam consuetam possit ratione illius eligere [quemcumque sacerdotem del.] in confessorem quemcumque sacerdotem non suspensum vel aliquo alio modo tali non impeditum. De illo non potui invenire [in doctor del.] in scriptis doctorum theologiae, sed ob rogatum quorundam quaesivi a dominis iuristis, qui dixerunt concorditer quod esset concors sententia Iohannis de Lignano, Iohannis Andreae, et omnium modernorum doctorum iuris quod virtute illius clausulae. . . .” 24   See Courtenay, “From Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones communes to the Vienna Group Commentary.”

184

Brinzei and Schabel

In any case, Schotten 269’s text plus marginalia is contained in two anonymous copies, although Book i is only partial: ms. Salzburg, Erzabtei St. Peter, b xii 2, preserves questions 7 and 10–12 (the end of Book I) of Schotten 269’s Book i and all of Books ii–iv. mss. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 8358 and 8455 together preserve what is contained in the Salzburg manuscript, 8358 having Book i, qu. 7 and 10–12, and Books ii–iii, and 8455 holding Book iv (on fols. 113–263). In addition, as Madre noted, Schotten 201 (170), fols. 157– 311, contains what looks like Schotten 269’s Book iv, although he also confusingly but understandably (since the two versions are very similar; see below) claimed that this was Book iv of what he called the Quaestiones magistrales:25 Schotten 201 inserts additional questions on occasion, including two at the spot in Book iv where Schotten 269 tells the reader to look in Scotus and Oyta (a remark absent in Salzburg and Munich 8455). Finally, the extra material for Book ii in Schotten 269 is also contained in mss. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 4713, fols. 257r–292v, önb 4422, fols. 159ra–183rb, and perhaps other witnesses. Unfortunately, the most spectacular example of complicated marginalia and inserted sheets, question 6 of Book i, on the procession of the Holy Spirit,26 is missing from the Salzburg and Munich codices, but we know from the later redactions that here, too, the additions of Schotten 269 were successfully incorporated into the text, for example in ms. Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 41. In fact, the later redactions do include much of what is in the Schotten 269 version, but Klosterneuburg 41 seems to be a special case of blending later material with Schotten 269. This manuscript will be discussed below, but for now suffice it to say that the minor modifications of Schotten 269 material in Klosterneuburg 41 are intentional. Where in added material Schotten 269 remarks that there is a controversy over the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary—indeed, Dinkelsbühl wrote at the height of the controversy—and drops the issue by saying that he will not discuss it, “Sed quid de illo sit, non discutio in presenti” (iii, additional qu. 1; fol. 235r), the compiler of Klosterneuburg 41 writes that God knows the answer, “Sed quid de illo sit, Deus novit” (fol. 192va), a phrase that was probably taken from the later redaction(s), which does go on to the treat the issue. As mentioned, the Salzburg and Munich manuscripts insert in the text what Schotten 269 has in the margins. A collation of article 2 of question 10 25  See Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 78, 92, 94–5. 26  On this, including a partial edition, see Chris Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the Filioque at Vienna in the Early Fifteenth Century,” in Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, ed. Monica Brinzei (Turnhout, forthcoming).

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

185

(distinctions 40–41) of Book i (Schotten 269, fols. 78r–81r; Salzburg, fols. 15rb– 19ra; Munich 8358, fols. 15rb–19rb) revealed that Salzburg and Munich 8358 share variants and an omission per homoioteleuton (Salzburg, fol. 17va; Munich 8358, fol. 17vb), as one would expect, but Munich 8358 also has an unshared omission per homoioteleuton (fol. 18rb) and other errors, so perhaps Munich 8358 is a copy of Salzburg. A glance at other places uncovered nothing that would contradict this suggestion, Munich 8358 always being further away than Salzburg from Schotten 269. Some of the material added to Book ii in Schotten 269 is missing in Salzburg but present in Munich 8358, but here the normal Book ii ends on a verso in Salzburg, so a quire may be missing. To a degree, the manuscripts copying Schotten 269 are depersonalized. The second marginal reference to Dinkelsbühl’s fourth principium in Book iv, mentioned above, is incorporated into Salzburg (fol. 226va), except that the “meo” is dropped. In Munich 8358 (fol. 244ra) and in Schotten 201 (fol. 309ra) only the doctrinal remark remains, however, which supports our theory about Munich 8358’s deriving from Salzburg, but also links Munich 8358 and Schotten 201 together. Dinkelsbühl’s personal remark about the jurists, retained verbatim in Salzburg, is modified in Munich 8358 and Schotten 201: Schotten 269 (fol. 317r), Salzburg (fol. 282rb), Klost. 41 (fol. 310va)

Munich 8455 (fol. 171r)

Schotten 201 (fol. 264r) Klost. 315 (fol. 171r) Klost. 301 (fol. 255rb)

Vienna, önb 4820 (fol. 300v)

De illo non potui invenire in scriptis doctorum theologiae, sed ob rogatum quorundam quaesivi a dominis iuristis, qui dixerunt concorditer quod esset concors sententia Iohannis de Lignano, Iohannis Andreae, et omnium modernorum doctorum iuris quod virtute illius clausulae . . .

De isto non invenitur in scripturis doctorum theologiae, sed domini iuristae dicunt quod sit concors sententia Iohannis de Lignano, Iohannis Andreae, et omnium modernorum doctorum iuris quod virtute illius clausulae . . .

De isto non inveni quidquam in scriptis* doctorum theologiae, sed domini iuristae dicunt quod sit concors sententia Iohannis de Lignano, Iohannis Andreae, et omnium modernorum doctorum iuris quod virtute illius clausulae . . .

De isto modo non vidi quicquam in scriptis doctorum theologiae, sed domini iuristae dicunt quod sit concors sententia Iohannis de Lignano, Iohannis Andreae, et omnium modernorum doctorum iuris quod virtute illius clausulae . . .

* scripturis K. 301

186

Brinzei and Schabel

Minor variants show that Schotten 201 and Munich 8358 are independent, but they may both stem from a copy of Salzburg. Munich 8358 represents a further depersonalization of what were perhaps becoming the Quaestiones communes. As is the case with many, if not most, commentators on the Sentences after the Black Death, and several of them in earlier periods, Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl could be termed a compiler or abbreviator. Nevertheless, this does not entail that he did not create thereby an original commentary. Nor does it seem, at this stage of our research into his ideas, that he chose his components willy-nilly without regard to doctrine. Indeed, his choices, so decisive for the future of Viennese theology, were conscious. To get an idea of how Dinkelsbühl composed his commentary, we can begin with a citation list for Schotten 269:27 University Theologian

Book i

Book ii

Book iii

Book iv

Total

John Duns Scotus, ofm Bonaventure, ofm Thomas Aquinas, op Durand of Saint-Pourçain, op Gregory of Rimini, oesa Adam Wodeham, ofm Thomas of Strasbourg, oesa Alexander of Hales, ofm William of Ockham, ofm Peter Auriol, ofm Landulph Caracciolo, ofm Hugolino of Orvieto, oesa Praepositinus Thomas Bradwardine Robert Holcot, op Henry of Langenstein Giles of Rome, oesa James of Eltville, OCist

19 1 7 (1 del.) 43 26 2 6 12 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1

19 10 6 4 12 15 2 2 4 5 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 3

1 23 34 22 0 4 11 10 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 1 0 0

139 73 48 49 0 3 3 0 0 7 8 2 2 0 4 1 (5) 0 0

178 107 95 75 55 48 18 18 16 15 9 6 6 5 5 4 (8) 4 4

27  This list is based on a complete reading of the manuscript’s 364 folios. The marginalia are not always clear on our reproduction, however, and in the future we hope to do a closer reading. The numbers in parentheses for Henry of Langenstein refer to instances where he is called idem doctor in a lengthy discussion of Magister Hainricus de Hassia in Lectura Super Genesim, fols. 356r–357r.

187

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology University Theologian

Book i

Book ii

Book iii

Nicole Oresme Henry of Ghent William of Auxerre Henry Totting of Oyta Gerard of Novara Robert Grosseteste Richard FitzRalph Osbert Pickingham, ocarm Alphonsus Vargas, oesa William of Montebello, ofm Haymo of Faversham, ofm John Baconthorpe, ocarm

0

2 3 1 (mg.) 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

3

Totals Franciscans (9) Dominicans (3) Augustinians (5) Carmelites (2) Cistercians (1) Seculars (9) 13th century (9) 14th century (17)

137 67 8 48 1 1 12 23 114

92 57 10 16 0 3 5 20 71

119 39 56 15 0 0 9 72 47

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Book iv

0 1 0 1 (mg.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 342 230 101 5 1 0 5 (9) 124 218

Total

3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 689 393 175 88 2 4 31 (34) 239 450

This chart needs to be severely qualified, however: many of the citations of earlier authors are borrowed (copied) from later ones, often without any indication of this. For example, although Dinkelsbühl explicitly cites Gregory of Rimini frequently in Book i and, to a lesser extent, in Book ii, Dinkelsbühl also mentions previous scholastics via tacitly copied passages from Rimini. Indeed, marginal references in the manuscripts of Rimini usually end up in the text of Dinkelsbühl, a notable exception being the apparently otherwise unknown “Gwillelmus de Montebello, Ordinis Fratrum Minorum,” whom Dinkelsbühl cites in the margin (ii, qu. 11; fol. 157r) following Rimini’s own marginal citation (ii, dist. 42–44, qu. 2).28 One wonders, then, about citations not found in 28  See Gregorius Ariminensis, ii Sent., dist. 42–44, in Gregorius Ariminensis, oesa, Lectura in i et ii libros Sententiarum, ed. A.D. Trapp, V. Marcolino, W. Eckermann, M. Santos-Noya,

188

Brinzei and Schabel

the apparatus of the Rimini critical edition, such as two references to Adam Wodeham at the start of Dinkelsbühl’s Book ii, dist. 26–28, qu. 2 (Schotten 269, fol. 130r): “. . . sicut etiam dicit Adam, q. 10 primae distinctionis primi libri . . . et dicit ulterius Adam. . . .”29 In Schotten 269, Dinkelsbühl often had a copy of Gregory of Rimini’s Sentences commentary before his eyes, although, judging from the marginalia, not Vienna, önb 1511, the surviving copy of Rimini’s Book ii in Vienna, which Dinkelsbühl donated to the Collegium Ducale.30 Dinkelsbühl understood enough of the text in advance to make minor but useful rearrangements, but he also changed his mind while copying and crossed things out, and he seems to have committed some omissions per homoioteleuton. Rimini was rather verbose, so Dinkelsbühl distilled Rimini down to the core, although sometimes only a fraction is left out. An example is the discussion of the cause of predestination, article 2 of Dinkelsbühl’s question 10 on distinctions 40–41 of Book i, where about two thirds of the 24 pages of Rimini’s treatment are incorporated into Dinkelsbühl, the titles of the conclusions that Rimini lumps together in the beginning are relocated more comfortably to the defenses of the conclusions themselves, and there is material struck through, as will be seen below. (Dinkelsbühl did not copy Rimini’s so-called Additiones.) In keeping with Dinkelsbühl’s less philosophical approach, Rimini’s phrase incomplexe et complexe significabile is removed. Elsewhere, Rimini’s treatment is much more condensed: in the prologue, the 185 pages of the modern edition are reduced to 20 not very dense folios in Dinkelsbühl’s text, while in the case of his questions on grace and free will in Book ii, Dinkelsbühl chooses 13 folios of the most important passages from 150 pages of Rimini in the edition. In other cases, Dinkelsbühl’s reliance on Rimini can be much looser, and we certainly have not detected all such instances.31

M. Schulze, W. Simon, W. Urban, and V. Vendland, 7 vols. (Berlin/New York, 1979–1984), vol. vi, 318. 29  In a section corresponding to Gregorius Ariminensis, ii Sent., dist. 22–24, vol. vi, 88–9. 30  See Uiblein, “Zur Lebensgeschichte einiger Wiener Theologen,” 102–03. 31  For the above examples, see the editions and analysis in Brinzei/Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation.” For the predestination article in particular (Gregorius Ariminensis, I Sent., dist. 40–1, vol. iii, 325–48), Dinkelsbühl omits the passages of Rimini noted in the chart below, pp. 217–18. Rimini’s text at 325.10 contains the reference to the complexe significabile. For the Book ii passages on grace, Dinkelsbühl distills Gregorius Ariminensis, ii Sent., dist. 22–4, vol. vi, 22–173.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

189

Even when Rimini is mentioned by name, such citations may not tell the entire story. For example, article 2 of question 9 of Book i, on divine foreknowledge, begins with 14 paragraphs from Rimini’s Book i, distinction 38. In this instance, however, although he does not say so, Dinkelsbühl has taken this section from Henry of Langenstein’s sixth and final question of Book i, in addition to material apparently original to Langenstein.32 Indeed, a rough collation of Dinkelsbühl’s Book i in Schotten 269 against the surviving manuscript of Langenstein’s Book i, ms. Alençon, Médiathèque Aveline, 144, showed that, of Dinkelsbühl’s 12 questions, numbers 3, 4, 6, and 9 correspond to Langenstein’s own questions 2, 3, 4, and 6 respectively.33 So much of Langenstein’s text is absorbed by Dinkelsbühl that, since only one manuscript of Langenstein’s Book i is known to survive, Schotten 269 will even be useful in editing Langenstein and, in at least one place, Schotten 269 may supply text missing in Alençon 144.34 Indeed, the significance of Langenstein’s Sentences commentary may turn out to depend primarily on Dinkelsbühl, who tacitly passed it on to the next generations of Viennese theologians. With this discovery in mind, we thus expanded our investigation and checked Dinkelsbühl’s text in Schotten 269 against the likely candidates, and the following chart presents our results:

32  See the edition and analysis in Chris Schabel, “Henry Totting of Oyta, Henry of Langenstein, and the Vienna Group on Reconciling Human Free Will with Divine Foreknowledge,” in Philosophical Psychology in Late Medieval Commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, ed. Paul J.J.M. Bakker, Monica Brinzei, and Russell Friedman (Turnhout, forthcoming). 33  We have not yet studied Langenstein’s Books ii–iv carefully, but Book ii in Schotten 269 does include at least one question from Langenstein (fol. 164r). 34  Langenstein’s ymaginationes manuductivas discussed below in another context in his commentary are to be found (again) in Book i, dist. 5 (Schotten 269, fol. 33r), where Dinkelsbühl is in the process of copying Book i, qu. 4, of Langenstein. In Langenstein’s ms. Alençon 144, this question has two articles, but on fol. 48va the first article ends abruptly after 12 lines, the remainder being blank, and on column 48vb Alençon 144 continues with the articulus secundus. Dinkelsbühl, who copies verbatim almost the whole question, seems to supply at least part of the missing text of the first article from Alençon 144. (It should be noted that, unaware that Alençon 144 existed and contained all four books, Rudolf Damerau edited and translated into German the incomplete text of ms. Vienna, önb, 4319, in Der Sentenzenkommentar des Heinrich von Langenstein. Lateinische textkritische Ausgabe, 4 vols. [Marburg, 1979–1980]. önb 4319 begins abruptly early in Book ii.)

190 Dinkelsbühl, Schotten 269

Brinzei and Schabel Source Text

1. Utrum theologia sit scientia Gregory of Rimini, prologus, qu. 1 (vol. i, proprie dicta (prologue, fols. 1r–5r) pp. 1–57): Utrum de obiecto theologico per theologicum discursum notitia proprie scientifica acquiratur 2. Utrum theologia sit practica vel speculativa (fols. 5r–7r)

Gregory of Rimini, prologus, qu. 5 (vol. i, pp. 147–86): Utrum theologia sit speculativa vel practica

3. Utrum voluntas quolibet actu suo Henry of Langenstein, qu. 2 (Alençon 144, fols. 22ra–31va): Circa primam distinctionem licito creaturis utatur et solo Deo primi libri Sententiarum quaeritur utrum fruatur (dist. 2, fols. 7r–23r) voluntas quolibet suo actu licito circa creaturas eis utatur et Deo solo fruatur 4. Utrum in creaturis inveniatur vestigium benedictae Trinitatis (dist. 3, fols. 23r–29v)

Henry of Langenstein, qu. 3 (Alençon 144, fols. 31va–48rb): Consequenter quaeritur tertio utrum ex sacris scripturis et autenticis melius quam ex creaturis appareat veritas.

5. Utrum illa sit vera: Deus genuit Deum (dist. 4, fols. 29v–32v)

James of Eltville, Gregory of Rimini, and Henry Totting of Oyta (see below for analysis)

6. Utrum sit aliqua productio in divinis qua nec essentia nec Spiritus Sanctus producat nec producatur (dist. 5, fols. 32v–47v)

Henry of Langenstein, qu. 4 (Alençon 144, fols. 48rb–59ra): Consequenter quaeritur quarto utrum sit aliqua productio in divinis qua nec essentia nec Spiritus Sanctus producatur

7. Utrum missio Sancti Spiritus ad creaturam rationalem sanctificandam sit eius processio temporalis distincta a processione aeterna (dist. 14–16, fols. 47v–59v)

James of Eltville, qu. 14 (Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, 593, fols. 133ra–138va): Utrum Spiritus Sancti diffusio in mente viatoris rationali sit temporalis processio distincta a sua spiratione aeterna

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

191

Dinkelsbühl, Schotten 269

Source Text

8. Circa distinctionem 33 est notandum quod personas divinas distingui ab invicem suis proprietatibus sex modis potest intellegi (dist. 33, fols. 59v–62r)

No match found.

9. Utrum omne futurum contingens a Deo aeternaliter sit praescitum et ad fore determinatum (dist. 35–39, fols. 62r–76v)

Henry of Langenstein, qu. 6 (Alençon 144, fols. 71va–89rb): Consequenter quaeritur sexto utrum omne futurum contingens aeternaliter sit a Deo scitum et ad fore determinatum

10. Utrum quilibet homo fuerit ab aeterno praedestinatus vel reprobatus a Deo (dist. 40–41, fols. 76v–83v)

Gregory of Rimini, I Sent., dist. 40–41 (vol. iii, pp. 320–54): Utrum quilibet homo fuerit ab aeterno praedestinatus vel reprobatus a Deo

11. Utrum omne possibile fieri Deus possit facere (dist. 42–44, fols. 83v–87v)

Gregory of Rimini, I Sent., dist. 42–44 (vol. iii, pp. 355–481): Utrum voluntas Dei sit omnium quae fiunt prima efficiens causa

12. Utrum quilibet utens libero arbitrio teneatur infrustrabili divinae voluntati suam voluntatem in volito conformare (dist. 48, fols. 87v–92v)35

No match found.

35  No match found, but see Hugolino of Orvieto, dist. 48, q. un., Hugolini de Urbe Veteri OESA Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, ed. Willigis Eckermann and Venicio Marcolino, 4 vols. (Würzburg, 1986–1988), vol. II, 457: “Utrum quilibet viator utens libero arbitrio teneatur voluntatem suam divinae in volito conformare.”

192

Brinzei and Schabel

While a large portion of Book i in Schotten 269 thus stems verbatim, although often much rearranged, from Rimini, Langenstein, Eltville, and Oyta, Dinkelsbühl usually does not cite his sources. Given his general practice, therefore, we cannot be sure that, where we have not found an earlier match to a given passage, Dinkelsbühl is using his own words. Via an explicit citation of James of Eltville, it was easy to find the source of a passage added in the margin of Schotten 269 (placed in the text in later witnesses) at the end of the article on the cause of predestination coming from Gregory of Rimini, but other stray passages present greater challenges. For example, in Dinkelsbühl’s Book ii, “distinctions 30 and some that follow,” where Dinkelsbühl carries on copying Rimini, at one point (fol. 136r–v) Dinkelsbühl departs from Rimini and it is only by luck that his source, the Franciscan Peter of Candia’s commentary on Book iii of the Sentences, article 2 (pars prima, conclusio quarta) of the sole question, has been edited and is now available online.36 Peter of Candia’s Parisian Sentences lectures date to as late as 1380, after those of Eltville, Langenstein, and Oyta. In Books iii and iv Dinkelsbühl does not copy (at least not noticeably) from Gregory of Rimini directly or indirectly for the simple reason that Rimini appears not to have left a written commentary on those books. The citation list reflects this radical shift from a focus on Rimini and the theologians he cites (Adam Wodeham, for example) to the Franciscans John Duns Scotus and Bonaventure, and to a lesser extent the Dominicans Thomas Aquinas and Durand of Saint-Pourçain. Scotus and Aquinas never ceased to be important in the fourteenth century, although their ideas were often rejected. Bonaventure, however, had faded, so his resurgence in Dinkelsbühl has to be seen as part of the conservative trend to return to earlier, safer doctors. The most famous representative of this trend is, of course, Jean Gerson. During the Great Schism, Gerson was active in advocating a new way of interpreting theology. In the context of the practice of lecturing on the Sentences, Gerson’s recommendations included an insistence on returning to the commentaries of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. According to Gerson, the commentaries from later in the fourteenth century did not serve the reader well, since the vocabulary employed was contaminated with terms from logic and philosophy—terms that, for Gerson, rather than clarifying theological thinking, instead introduced significant confusion. Trying to find a solution, Gerson suggested adopting the examples of the Sentences commentaries 36  See Petrus de Candia, Lectura in quatuor libros Sententiarum, ed. P.J.J.M. Bakker, S.F. Brown, W.O. Duba, G.J. Etzkorn, R. Keele, S. Kitanov, A. Kringos, and C. Schabel (2004–): http://www2.ucy.ac.cy/isa/Candia/index.htm. Most of fols. 135r–141r is taken from Gregorius Ariminensis, ii Sent., dist. 22–4, vol. vi, 174–218.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

193

of Bonaventure, Thomas, or Durand, Bonaventure’s being by far the best path to follow, balancing clarity and sanctity.37 Dinkelsbühl’s focus on Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Durand in Schotten 269 is perfectly in line with Gerson’s views. A complete study of the connections between Gerson and Dinkelsbühl would shed light on the intellectual exchanges between Paris and Vienna in the early fifteenth century. Both Gerson and Dinkelsbühl were important participants in the Council of Constance, Gerson’s treatises circulated widely in Vienna,38 and Dinkelsbühl possessed in his library and himself copied some of Gerson’s works and offered them to the Collegium ducale of Vienna.39 Gerson’s stay at the nearby Benedictine abbey of Melk in 1418, before Dinkelsbühl began the Lectura Mellicensis, coincided with a period in which Dinkelsbühl was occupied with a project for monastic reform. Yet all of this was still to come when Dinkelsbühl compiled the commentary in Schotten 269, so this is strong evidence that Gerson’s recommendations were more representative of his age than pioneering. Although the prominence of Durand is certainly noteworthy in Schotten 269,40 most telling is Dinkelsbühl’s and the Parisian chancellor’s shared admiration for Bonaventure. Besides the large number of explicit citations, we have also traced frequent implicit quotations of the Seraphic Doctor in Schotten 269. For example, the start of distinction 39 from Book iii (fol. 230r) reproduces verbatim the beginning of Bonaventure’s Book iii, dist. 39, art. 1, qu. 3. The use of the earlier text here is purely formal, not at all doctrinal, since 37  See Jean Gerson, Œuvres complètes. L’œuvre ecclésiologique (253a–291), ed. Palémon Glorieux (Paris, 1965), vol. ii, 33: “Ad primum juvant, exempli gratia, quaestiones super Sententias et praesertim illorum doctorum qui purius ac solidius conscripserunt, inter quales, meo judicio, dominus Bonaventura et sanctus Thomas et Durandus videtur numerandi.” Cf. Brian Patrick McGuire, Jean Gerson and the Last Medieval Reformation (Philadelphia, 2005), 29 and 121, and more recently Daniel Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity before Print: Jean Gerson and the Transformation of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia, 2009), 32, 35, and 38–9. 38  See Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity before Print, especially chap. 7. 39  See, for example ms. Vienna, önb, 3954, which contains ecclesiological writings by Gerson. Cf. Guillaume H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, Jean Gerson. Zijn kerkpolitiek en ecclesiologie (The Hague, 1963), 294 n. 78. For Dinkelsbühl’s library, see Uiblein, “Zur Lebensgeschichte einiger Wiener Theologen,” 102–03. 40  On Dinkelsbühl and Durand, see Monica Brinzei, Russell L. Friedman, and Chris Schabel, “The Reception of Durand’s Sentences Commentary, with Two Case Studies: Peter Auriol († 1322) and Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl († 1433),” in Durand of Saint-Pourçain and His Sentences Commentary: Historical, Philosophical, and Theological Issues, ed. Andreas Speer, Guy Guldentops, Thomas Jeschke, and Fiorella Retucci (Louvain, forthcoming).

194

Brinzei and Schabel

Dinkelsbühl does not copy everything from Bonaventure’s question, but merely exploits the structure and clarity of his model as a base on which to develop his own question. One peculiarity of the commentary in Schotten 269 and in some other codices attributed to Dinkelsbühl, including Schotten 254, is that at the end of each book there is a strange section containing fragments of questions, sometimes beginning with the word Dubium, which Madre lists under the rubric “Nachtrag zu I Sent.,” “Erster Nachtrag zu iii Sent.,” or “Zweiter Nachtrag zu iii Sent.”41 Dinkelsbühl seems to have collected these materials for future use. A close look reveals that they are usually fragments of different length copied from Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, or Oyta. In addition to the material on the Immaculate Conception, discussed below, here are a couple of other examples of summaries of questions from Bonaventure: Bonaventure

Dinkelsbühl

Book iii, dist. 27, art. 2, qu. 6, pp. 613–15: Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum teneamur ad illum modum implendum, quem Dominus in praecepto implicat Matthaei 22: Diliges . . .

Schotten 269, fol. 246r, iii, dist. 27, qu. 1:42 Utrum teneamur ad modum implendum quem Dominus in praecepto implicat Matth. 22: Diliges . . .

Book iii, dist. 37, art. 1, qu. 2, p. 815: Utrum praecepta Decalogi obligent ad opera formata.

Clm 2693, fol. 222r, iii, dist. 37: An praecepta Decalogi obligent ad opera formata.

Book iii, dist. 37, art. 2, qu. 1, p. 821: Utrum mandata Decalogi debeant esse tantum decem.

Clm 2693, fol. 224r, iii, dist. 34, qu. 4: An praecepta Decalogi sint tantum decem.

41  For example, ms. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143, fols. 265vb–267va: “Dubium an praecepta . . . ,” or fols. 266va–267va: “Dubium an Deus. . . .” See the lists in Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 74–5, 75–6, 84, 90–1. For an interpretation of the dubia in Dinkelsbühl’s commentary, see Binder, Die Lehre des Nikolaus, 46. 42  Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 90, quotes this question from MS. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 2693, fol. 206v.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

195

Aside from Scotus, Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Durand, Dinkelsbühl appears to make somewhat extensive use of Alexander of Hales, ofm, and Thomas of Strasbourg, oesa, in Book iii, and of the Franciscans Peter Auriol and Landulph Caracciolo in Book iv. Again, however, many citations are no doubt borrowed. For example, Book iii, question 3 of Schotten 269 begins, “Circa 8am et 9am distinctiones quaero utrum humanitas Christi nata de Virgine adoratione latriae sit colenda.” In article 1 Dinkelsbühl cites Nicole Oresme’s De com­ municatione idiomatum, chapter 9, verbatim, at length, and more than once.43 In the passage below, there are minor modifications from Oresme’s original in Schotten 269, such as the replacement of Oresme’s “Bertha” with “Margaret,” and the text concludes by criticizing Oresme’s statements. In later version(s), represented by ms. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143, the passage is contained in question 2, article 2, but the question title there is “Utrum propter humanum genus redimendum decuerit incarnari solum Dei Filium.” Yet the entire passage, including the critique of Oresme, is taken from Henry Totting of Oyta’s sole question on Book iii, which is yet again worded differently: “Utrum beata virgo Maria sit vera mater Dei et hominis Ihesus Christi.” Thus only a thorough search produced the following: Oresme, De communicatione idiomatum44

Oyta, Graz, Univ. ii 639, fols. 257va–b

Schotten 269, fol. 190r–v

Innsbruck 143, fol. 79ra

Tertio arguitur contra: demonstrata manu huius Christi casu posito concedendum est quod haec manus fuit in utero Bertae et egressa est ex utero Bertae et de lacte eius nutrita, et ita de aliis membris; ergo hoc totum corpus huius

Contra: demonstrata manu huius Christi in dicto casu concedendum est quod haec manus fuit in utero Margaretae et egressa est de utero eius et de lacte eius nutrita, et ita de aliis membris; ergo totum hoc corpus huius

Contra: demonstrata manu huius Christi in dicto casu concedendum est quod haec manus fuit in utero Margaretae et egressa est de utero eius et de lacte eius nutrita, et ita de aliis membris; igitur totum hoc corpus huius

Contra: demonstrata manu huius Christi in dicto casu concedendum est quod haec manus fuit in utero Margaretae et egressa est de utero eius et de lacte eius nutrita, et ita de aliis membris; ergo totum hoc corpus huius Christi egrediebatur de utero Margaretae.

43  See Ernst Borchert, Der Einfluß des Nominalismus auf die Christologie der Spätscholastik nach dem Traktat De communicatione idiomatum des Nicolaus Oremse (Münster, 1940), 15, dating the text to the period between 1356 and 1361. 44  Ibid., 20.20–31.

196

Brinzei and Schabel

Oresme, De communicatione idiomatum

Oyta, Graz, Univ. ii 639, fols. 257va–b

Schotten 269, fol. 190r–v

Christi egrediebatur ex utero Bertae; ergo iste Christus est vel fuit filius Bertae.

Christi egrediebatur ex utero Margaretae; ergo iste Christus est vel fuit filius Margaretae.

Christi egrediebatur ex utero Margaretae; igitur ille Christus est vel fuit filius Margaretae.

Respondeo negando assumptum. Et dico quod non est concedendum in hoc casu quod haec manus fuit in utero Bertae, nec umquam egressa est ex utero Berthae.

Respondet Orem in tractatu De communicatione idiomatum in capitulo 9, ubi pertractat istam difficultatem, quod non est concedendum in hoc casu quod haec manus fuit in utero Margaretae, immo numquam fuit in utero Margaretae, nec umquam egressa est ex utero eius.

Respondet Orem in tractatu De communicatione idiomatum in capitulo 9, ubi pertractat illam difficultatem, quod non est concedendum in hoc casu quod haec manus fuit in utero Margaretae, immo numquam fuit in utero Margaretae, nec umquam egressa est ex utero eius.

Respondet Orem in tractatu De communicatione idiomatum in capitulo 9, ubi pertractat illam difficultatem, quod non est concedendum in hoc casu quod haec manus fuit in utero Margaretae, immo numquam fuit in utero Margaretae, nec umquam egressa est ex utero eius.

Sed forte concedendum est quod haec humanitas partialis huius manus, seu portio humanitatis quae est in hac manu, fuit in utero Berthae. Sed ex hoc non sequitur, “ergo haec manus fuit in utero Berthae,” nec loquendo simpliciter nec loquendo secundum quid, ut videbitur in capitulo sequenti.

Sed bene concedendum est quod haec humanitas huius manus, seu portio humanitatis quae est in hac manu, fuit in utero Margaretae. Sed ex hoc non sequitur quod igitur haec manus fuerit in utero eius.

Sed bene concedendum est quod haec humanitas huius manus, seu portio humanitatis [190v] quae est in hac manu, fuit in utero Margaretae. Sed ex hoc non sequitur quod igitur haec manus fuerit in utero eius.

Sed bene concedendum est quod haec humanitas huius manus, seu portio humanitatis quae est in hac manu, fuit in utero Margaretae. Sed ex hoc non sequitur quod igitur haec manus fuit in utero Margaretae.

Innsbruck 143, fol. 79ra

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology Oresme, De communicatione idiomatum

197

Oyta, Graz, Univ. ii 639, fols. 257va–b

Schotten 269, fol. 190r–v

Innsbruck 143, fol. 79ra

Sed ista solutio non videtur mihi clara, [257vb] quia non apparet quod haec sit concedenda: “Haec manus est Christus” . . .

Sed ista solutio non videtur clara, quia non apparet quod haec sit concedenda: “Haec manus est Christus” . . .

Sed ista solutio non videtur clara, quia non apparet quod haec sit concedenda: “Haec manus est Christus” . . .

In his study of the reception of the thought of the Augustinian Hugolino of Orvieto, Venicio Marcolino found another example of borrowing in Book iii. Where Dinkelsbühl cites the “opinio Hugolini et sequacium suorum” in question 2 of distinctions 12–24 (Schotten 269, fol. 210r), the next three pages are taken from Hugolino’s follower Conrad of Ebrach, a Cistercian who lectured on the Sentences at Bologna and Prague in the 1360s and 1370s before coming to Vienna in 1384, at the same time as Langenstein and Oyta, dying there in 1399 while Dinkelsbühl himself was lecturing. It turns out that Dinkelsbühl tacitly copied Hugolino in other places in both Books iii and iv, directly or via Conrad.45 Given the inchoate nature of the research into later fourteenth-century scholasticism, the above picture of Dinkelsbühl’s compilation in Schotten 269 is necessarily incomplete. We have focused our efforts on Book i, for which, as a whole, Dinkelsbühl’s choice of sources is not at all surprising. His professors of theology at Vienna were the Parisian masters Henry of Langenstein and Henry Totting of Oyta. Both Henrys were heavily influenced by Gregory of Rimini, and Langenstein and perhaps also Oyta studied under Eltville at Paris. There are indications that Book ii in Schotten 269 follows a similar pattern, while for Books iii and iv we also find the influence of another Viennese founding father, Eltville’s Cistercian confrère Conrad of Ebrach, a disciple of Hugolino of Orvieto. Whether the preponderence of Scotus, Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Durand in Books iii and iv has anything to do with Dinkelsbühl’s masters is a matter for further investigation. 45  See Venicio Marcolino, “Das Nachwirken der Lehre Hugolins,” in Schwerpunkte und Wirkungen des Sentenzenkommentars Hugolins von Orvieto O.E.S.A., ed. Willigis Eckermann (Würzburg, 1990), 295–481, at 310, 320, and 378.

198 3

Brinzei and Schabel

Stage Two: The Vienna Group

3.1 Schotten 269 and the “Classic” Vienna Group If we are correct in identifying Schotten 269 and Schotten 196 with the two references to Quaestiones communes in the Schottenstift library book of donations, and in further inferring that Quaestiones communes is a generic label for numerous Viennese Sentences commentaries of the fifteenth century that stem from Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s autograph in Schotten 269, it is time to explain, or at least describe, what happened after Schotten 269 was compiled. To avoid confusion, we will not use the term Quaestiones communes and employ instead “Vienna Group commentary” to refer to works sharing this common core. As we have seen, contrary to Madre, Dinkelsbühl did not lecture on the Sentences again as master of theology in 1409. Yet since Schotten 269 could constitute his working draft in preparation for his first lectures around 1399, then what Madre labeled as his Quaestiones magistrales, or one version of them, may instead be the written version of his first Sentences lectures, compiled before the lectures of the Viennese colleagues whose works closely resemble those of Dinkelsbühl. It is possible that no written product of Dinkelsbühl’s lectures survives, or that they have come down to us as another version of what Madre called the Quaestiones magistrales. In sum, we cannot date these texts with certainty. One thing is certain: Schotten 269 is the basis for the remaining commentaries of the Vienna Group, whether or not they are attributed to Dinkelsbühl. To prove this we will present both unpublished and previously published texts as examples. The few studies on the Vienna Group published thus far have focused on Dinkelsbühl’s first three associates, the “classic” Vienna Group, and we will start with them. As of Stegmüller’s time, we have one witness of Book ii (with an associated copy of Book i) attributed to John Berward of Villingen and one witness of Book i assigned to Peter of Pulkau, while a few manuscripts contain together the commentary of Arnold of Seehausen on all four books. 3.1.1 John Berward of Villingen John Villingen Berward began reading the Sentences at Vienna in 1403.46 The explicit to the commentary on Book ii in ms. Klosterneuburg, AugustinerChorherrenstift, 41, reads as follows (fol. 183rb): “Explicit lectura magistri Iohannis Berbardi, magistri Wyen., anno Domini Mooccccoxiiiio in die Primi 46  See Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, ed. Uiblein, vol. i, 8.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

199

et Feliciani martirum,” that is, June 9, 1414, three years after his death!47 Perhaps for this reason, another hand adds: “Qui vixit sub anno Domini Moccccoviiio,” 1408. On the basis of this explicit and a comparison of the contents, Stegmüller48 also attributed the text of Books i and ii in ms. Klosterneuburg, AugustinerChorherrenstift, 301 to Villingen, even though the Book ii in Klosterneuburg 301 is explicitly attributed to Dinkelsbühl (fol. 142rb): “Finita est lectura solempnis magistri Nicolay Dynchelspuchl super 2o libro Sententiarum,” followed by: “Anno Domini Moccccoxvii finitus est liber iste feria sexta proxima post festum sancte Margarethe,” i.e., July 23, 1417. That is, this Book ii is assigned to Villingen in as many manuscripts as those in which it is ascribed to Dinkelsbühl himself, which may already be sufficient reason to doubt Villingen’s responsibility. If, however, Klosterneuburg 41 is somehow the product of Villingen’s mind, it is derivitive of Schotten 269 and shares the basic text of other versions of the Vienna Group commentary. Another proof lies in the mode of copying from Rimini. In some places in Schotten 269, Dinkelsbühl copies Rimini selectively and, on occasion, begins copying sections only to cross them out. In some instances where Dinkelsbühl both skips passages and crosses out passages in Rimini, the text in Klosterneuburg 41 contains the Rimini passages that have not been crossed out, but not those that have been crossed out, meaning that in Schotten 269 Dinkelsbühl created the text and all other witnesses followed his choices. (Otherwise, Dinkelsbühl would have had to have both Klosterneuburg 41, or a related text, and Rimini before his eyes and, while copying Klosterneuburg 41, occasionally decided to add text from Rimini, only to change his mind continually.) Here is an example from Book ii, dist. 26 et sequentes: Gregory of Rimini, ii Sent., dist. 22–24, vol. vi, p. 31.5–12

Schotten 269, fol. 123v

Schotten 254, fol. 306rb

Schotten 196, fol. 188r; Klost. 41, fol. 151ra; Klost. 301, fol. 75rb

“. . . neque ultra quaerendum, alterum enim periculosum, alterum nullum est.”

“. . . nec ultra quaerendum, alterum enim periculosum, alterum nullum est.”

“. . . nec ultra quaerendum, alterum periculosum, alterum enim nullum.”

“. . . nec ultra quaerendum, alterum enim periculosum, alterum nullum est.”

47  Shank, “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand,” 118, reports that he was killed in 1411 “while carrying the university rotulus back from Rome.” 48  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 196, no. 407.

200

Brinzei and Schabel

Gregory of Rimini, ii Sent., dist. 22–24, vol. vi, p. 31.5–12

Schotten 269, fol. 123v

Item, capitulo 15: “Non arbitror, cum de moribus et vita fit quaestio, amplius esse requirendum, quid sit hominis summum bonum, quo referenda sunt omnia. Id enim esse patuit, et ratione quantum volumus et ea quae nostrae rationi antecellit auctoritate divina, nihil aliud quam ipsum Deum.”

Item, capitulo 5: “Non arbitror, cum de moribus et vita sit quaestio, amplius esse referendum requirendum, quid sit hominis summum bonum, quo referenda sunt omnia

Haec est ratio eiusdem Contra Iulianum libro 4 capitulo 13 . . .

Item, Contra Iulianum libro 4 capitulo 13 . . .

Schotten 254, fol. 306rb

Schotten 196, fol. 188r; Klost. 41, fol. 151ra; Klost. 301, fol. 75rb

Item, Contra Iulianum libro 4 capitulo 13 . . .

Item, Contra Iulianum libro 4 capitulo 13 . . .

Nevertheless, the compiler of Klosterneuburg 41 apparently did have direct access to Rimini as well. For example, in material on predestination in Book i (fols. 96va–99ra), which we have edited, as expected, Klosterneuburg 41 often agrees with Schotten 269’s readings against Rimini’s text, but occasionally Klosterneuburg 41 has Rimini’s wording, as for example at one point where Rimini says ut supra allegatum est, as in Klosterneuburg 41, but Schotten 269 simply writes dixit.49 Since it is almost irrefutable that Schotten 269 is a source

49  Gregorius Ariminensis, I Sent., dist. 40–1, vol. iii, 337.24. The edition is in Brinzei/Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation.”

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

201

for Klosterneuburg 41, Klosterneuburg 41 must also have employed Rimini’s text itself. Yet Klosterneuburg 41 is also related to Vienna, önb, 4820, attributed to Dinkelsbühl himself and discussed below. In the question on predestination, Klosterneuburg 41 begins with the text found in önb 4820 verbatim, with some minor but intentional modifications. It is only after §11 that Klosterneuburg 41 joins up with Schotten 269, although much of the text in §§12–33 is common to Schotten 269 and önb 4820. After §33 (fol. 98ra) the difference is striking bet­ween Schotten 269 and önb 4820, while Klosterneuburg 41 continues with Schotten 269 until the end of the article. As we shall see, Klosterneuburg 41 cannot rely solely on önb 4820, nor vice-versa, and we might add that Klos­ terneuburg 41 is not dependent on Schotten 254 either, since in the prologue Klosterneuburg 41 reproduces a fragment added in Schotten 269 and missing in Schotten 254.50 Regardless, whatever Villingen’s involvement, the text does not differ in any substantial way from what is found in other manuscripts. 3.1.2 Peter of Pulkau Like Villingen’s, Peter of Pulkau’s Sentences lectures commenced in 1403.51 Stegmüller and Madre consider manuscript Vienna, önb, 4668, containing Book i, an autograph of Peter of Pulkau.52 A medieval label pasted on the cover of the manuscript mentions Pulkau’s name—although on the spine we find crossed out “Scripta theologica [Thoma Ebendorfer de] Heiselbah”! A similar label is pasted on the cover of Vienna, önb, 4713, but without any mention of Pulkau’s name, only Lectura super 2 Sententiarum. In addition, the same two hands that we find in önb 4668, one copying the text and the other writing marginal comments, are found again in önb 4713, which contains Book ii of a commentary from the Vienna Group. Given codicological similarities as well, we conclude that the two manuscripts form a set of Books i–ii by the same author. Paul Uiblein, who also noted that önb 4713 should be attributed to Pulkau, assigned the commentary on Book iii in önb 4939 to Pulkau as well, relating that it has marginal notes in Pulkau’s hand, and Venicio Marcolino 50  See the transcription of the prologue from Schotten 254 in Brinzei/Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation.” 51  See Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, ed. Uiblein, vol. i, 8. 52  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 332, no. 684; Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 91 n. 9; Dieter Girgensohn, Peter von Pulkau und die Wiedereinführung des Laienkelches. Leben und Wirken eines Wiener Theologen in der Zeit des großen Schismas (Göttingen, 1964), 35 and 166 (and generally on Pulkau).

202

Brinzei and Schabel

has confirmed that material in önb 4939 reproduces that in Dinkelsbühl’s Schotten 269.53 Moreover, if Stegmüller is correct in claiming that the Book iii in önb 4939 matches that in ms. Seitenstetten, Benediktinerstift, 9, which contains a commentary on Books i–iii, then the Seitenstetten manuscript might also be another witness to the Book i in önb 4668 and the Book ii in önb 4713. We have not yet inspected Seitenstetten 9, but although we cannot match the incipit of Book i in Seitenstetten 9 with that of önb 4668, since önb 4668 is missing the first bit, the incipit that Stegmüller gives for Seitenstetten 9’s Book ii does match that in önb 4713. The fact that Stegmüller attributed önb 4939 and Seitenstetten 9 to Dinkelsbühl himself with a question mark merely shows that these manuscripts contain a commentary on Books i–iii from the Vienna Group. For Stegmüller, önb 4713 belongs to John Harrer of Heilbronn (on whom see below) but, again, Heilbronn may have simply followed or copied Pulkau.54 Michael Shank contends that önb 4668 contains marginal references that are included in önb 4820, generally attributed to Dinkelsbühl, and that, therefore, Dinkelsbühl was probably copying Pulkau here, incorporating Pulkau’s marginalia into his text.55 We will examine önb 4820 below, but it is important also to establish the relationship between Pulkau’s önb 4668 and Schotten 254, assigned to Dinkelsbühl in the manuscript. First, both önb 4668 and Schotten 254 derive from Schotten 269. In Schotten 269, there are passages in the prologue taken verbatim from Rimini, with parts of Rimini crossed out. Schotten 254 contains some of these passages from Rimini, omitting the parts that have been crossed out, thus showing its dependence on the Schotten 269 version. Since the passages in önb 4668 attributed to Pulkau match the Schotten 254 version and do not include the crossed-out words either, this text too descends ultimately from Schotten 269. Perhaps what happened was that Pulkau copied from a manuscript containing the text as in Schotten 254, looked at önb 4820, and added in the margins what Dinkelsbühl (or the compiler of önb 4820) had added in the new version. Let us take a closer look at another example. Alfonso Maierù published a thirty-page article including an edition of some Ymaginationes manuductive 53   See Uiblein, “Zur Lebensgeschichte einiger Wiener Theologen,” 105–07, although Uiblein’s doubts (107 n. 48) about the material on fols. 257r–292v of önb 4713 belonging to Dinkelsbühl can be dispelled: the text is copied from Schotten 269. For Dinkelsbühl and önb 4939, see Marcolino, “Das Nachwirken der Lehre Hugolins,” 309–10, who assigns the codex to Pulkau. 54  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 220–2, no. 452; 279, no. 568. 55  See Shank, “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand,” 120 and n. 32.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

203

from what he labeled as question 6 of Peter of Pulkau’s commentary on Book i of the Sentences in önb 4668.56 In his introduction, Maierù summarizes Michael Shank’s findings that Henry Totting of Oyta and Henry of Langenstein influenced the first generation of Viennese theologians—Dinkelsbühl, Pulkau, Villingen, and Seehausen—, mentions Madre’s findings about the redactions of Dinkelsbühl’s commentary, remarks that Pulkau’s questions are dependent on Dinkelsbühl’s so-called Quaestiones communes (that is, Schotten 269) and have the same titles as Dinkelsbühl’s parallel so-called Quaestiones magistrales (that is, also the Vienna Group commentary), and points out Pulkau’s reliance on Oyta. He describes how paragraphs 3–11 of the thirty-paragraph edition are rearranged from Oyta, but asserts that the remainder is independent, although in line with Oyta’s thought. Further analysis shows that, qua author, Pulkau had little or nothing to do with the text from önb 4668 published by Maierù. The entire section edited by Maierù is included verbatim in Schotten 254. The paragraphs not from Oyta actually rely on Henry of Langenstein, as is clear from Dinkelsbühl’s Schotten 269. The opening paragraph (Maierù’s no. 1) is revealing: Henry of Langenstein Alençon 144, fol. 37ra

Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl Schotten 269, fol. 24v

Vienna Group Schotten 254, fol. 78r / Maierù ¶ 1

Nunc restant iuxta dicta aliquae manuductiones ad concipiendum in creaturis quodammodo exemplariter trinitatem divinam.

Magister Hainricus de Hassia ponit aliquas imaginationes manuductivas intellectus nostri ad concipiendum in creaturis quodammodo exemplariter increatam trinitatem.

Consequenter modo ponende sunt alique ymaginationes manudutive nostri intellectus ad concipiendum in creaturis quodammodo exemplariter increatam trinitatem.

56  See Alfonso Maierù, “Ymaginatio manuductiva: logica e teologia trinitaria in Pietro di Pulkau,” in Itinéraires de la raison. Études de philosophie médiévale offertes à Maria Cândida Pacheco, ed. José F. Meirinhos (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2005), 347–65 (cf. the modified English version in Trinitarian Theology in the Medieval West, ed. Pekka Kärkkäinen [Helsinki, 2007], 226–55).

204

Brinzei and Schabel

Langenstein’s Book i, qu. 3, art. 2, pars 2 contains most of Maierù’s paragraphs 1–2 and 12–30 in the following order: 1, 13–16, 21–22, 25–26, 18–20, 27, 2, 28–30. Yet there are many gaps in between. In Schotten 269, Dinkelsbühl has the text, mostly Langenstein, in a differing order as 1, 12–27, 2, 28–30, of course without the gaps. So in step one, in Schotten 269 Dinkelsbühl has taken Langenstein’s text and rearranged it. In step two, in Schotten 254 the text is rearranged again, so that Maierù’s paragraph 2 is moved from between paragraphs 27 and 28, and the compiler has inserted paragraphs 3–11 from Oyta. (It should be noted that önb 4820 does not contain this text.) Even if Pulkau (compiling önb 4668) were responsible for the text that Maierù has edited, it is merely a rearrangement of a rearrangement and an insertion of additional derivative text. A parallel passage from the question on predestination further illustrates where Pulkau’s önb 4668 fits in the Vienna tradition: önb 4820, fol. 119v

Gregory of Rimini, i Sent., dist. 40–41, vol. iii, p. 344

Schotten 269, fol. 80v

Klosterneuburg 301, Schotten 254, fol. 98rb fols. 192–193r; önb 4668, fols. 233r–234v (rearranged)

. . . iustificatio et obduratio.

. . . obduratio et iustificatio.

. . . obduratio et iustificatio.

. . . obduratio et . . . obduratio et iustificatio. iustificatio. (response to 3rd argument placed here)

Deinde quarto arguo . . .

Deinde arguitur quarto . . .

Deinde arguitur quarto . . .

Quarto arguitur . . .

Confirmatur, quia . . . contumeliae, istud fieri non potest.

Confirmatur, quia . . . contumeliae, istud fieri non potest.

Confirmatur, Confirmatur, quia . . . quia . . . contumeliae, istud contumeliae. fieri non potest.

Praeterea, licet in gratuitis possit distributor plus vel minus pro libito dare absque

Praeterea, licet in gratuitis possit distributor plus vel minus pro libito

(4th argument omitted)

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

205

Schotten 269, fol. 80v

Klosterneuburg 301, Schotten 254, fol. 98rb fols. 192–193r; önb 4668, fols. 233r–234v (rearranged)

önb 4820, fol. 119v

Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Magistri . . .

Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Magistri . . .

Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Magistri . . .

Item, Ad Romanos . . .

Item, Ad Romanos . . .

Item, Ad Romanos . . .

Item, Beatus Ambrosius . . .

Item, Beatus Ambrosius . . .

Ad primum . . . sententiam concilii, secundum quem modum definitur 3 Ethicorum et talis electio . . .

Ad primum . . . sententiam concilii, et talis  . . .

Gregory of Rimini, i Sent., dist. 40–41, vol. iii, p. 344

iniustitia, non tamen sine iniustitia potest pro libito poenam infligere. Sed in reprobatione infligitur poena; igitur non pro libito reprobat Deus. Praeterea, si hoc esset verum . . . Praeterea, ad hoc est auctoritas Magistri . . .

Ad primum . . . sententiam concilii, secundum quem modum definitur 3 Ethicorum quod “electio est desiderium consiliabile,” et talis electio . . .

Repondetur . . . Ad primum dicit Bradwardinus . . . sententiam concilii, et talis electio . . .

206

Brinzei and Schabel

For now our point is that, even if Pulkau is responsible for Vienna, önb 4668, he did little, and it is entirely possible that he did nothing but copy Dinkelsbühl. 3.1.3 Arnold of Seehausen, OCarm The Carmelite Arnold of Seehausen was a senior socius of Villingen and Pulkau, beginning his lectures in 1402.57 His commentary on all four books of the Sentences survives,58 so if anyone besides Dinkelsbühl played an important part in developing the Vienna Group commentary, it would have been Seehausen. Johann Auer edited a text from Book i using manuscripts he ascribed to Oyta (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 8867 and 17468), Dinkelsbühl (Schotten 254), and John Wuel of Pruck (Vienna, önb, 5067) from the next generation (see below), concluding that Dinkelsbühl used Oyta, but added a dubium, and Pruck (actually John Angrer of Müldorf) copied Dinkelsbühl, with some changes.59 Shank found that the text with the dubium is also found in Seehausen, precisely as in Pruck (that is, Müldorf). Since the question that includes this text is absent in Dinkelsbühl’s Schotten 269, although present in Schotten 254 (not in önb 4820), Shank concluded, following Madre’s dating of the text in Schotten 254 to 1409–1413, that the text Auer edited originates with Seehausen, who had already lectured on the Sentences by then.60 Besides the fact that Madre’s dating was based on a mistaken claim that Dinkelsbühl lectured on the Sentences again as regent master, there are good reasons to suppose that Seehausen was not the source of the text. First, we have found more or less the same text in the manuscripts attributed to Pulkau and Villingen, so they could have been the authors as much as Seehausen, although perhaps not in the exact form that Müldorf would have it later. Second, we would expect Seehausen’s text to match that of the Vienna Group commentary elsewhere, or at least that of Müldorf. A composite edition of the Viennese theologians’ question on predestination from Book i, however, shows that this is not the case. Villingen, Pulkau, and a theologian of the next generation, Thomas Ebendorfer of Hasselbach, have the basic text of one of 57  See Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, ed. Uiblein, vol. i, 5–6. 58  See Bartholomeus M. Xiberta, De scriptoribus scholasticis saeculi xiv ex ordine Carmelitarum (Louvain, 1931), 463–76 (tabula quaestionum, 467–71); Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 40–1, no. 78. 59  See Auer, “Die aristotelische Logik in der Trinitätslehre der Spätscholastik,” 475–98 (edition). 60  See Shank, “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand,” 117–20.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

207

the versions of the Vienna Group commentary: Pulkau and Villingen share the text of Schotten 254 while Ebendorfer follows the önb 4820 version. Müldorf, on the other hand, combines the text in Schotten 269 with the redaction in Schotten 254. Not only does Seehausen not have the text of Müldorf, but he does not share the text of any of the three alleged Dinkelsbühl manuscripts. Seehausen does have common ideas with the other Viennese, but the text is not the same. He was not the author of the Vienna Group commentary. Much of the text of the Vienna Group commentary for Books ii–iv is entirely absent from Arnold of Seehausen. An example from Book IV demonstrates that, while Seehausen and Dinkelsbühl are linked in some way, perhaps with the Carmelite occasionally borrowing from the secular theologian, it is probably the case that they shared common sources. The issue is the use of unleavened and leavened bread in the sacrament of the Eucharist, a subject of controversy between medieval Greeks and Latins. We have traced the deve­ lopment of an (apocryphal) explanation for the difference in rite over the thirteenth, fourteenth, and early fifteenth centuries,61 finding that both Seehausen and Dinkelsbühl more or less copy verbatim Thomas of Strasbourg’s embellishment of the story: Thomas of Strasbourg iv Sent., dist. 11, qu. 2, art. 1 (ed. Venice 1564)

Arnold of Seehausen iv Sent., dist. 8 et sqq., qu. un. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3546, fol. 218ra–b)

Vienna Group commentary iv Sent., dist. 11, pars 2, qu. 1

Sed istud non valet, quia, ut recitant multi et magni doctores, ab exordio institutionis istius sacramenti usque ad Leonem papam tota Ecclesia Dei confecit in azymo.

Unde advertendum, sicut dicit Doctor Sanctus et recitat etiam Thomas de Argentina, ab exordio institutionis huius sacramenti usque ad Leonem papam tota Ecclesia confecit in azymo.

Quod etiam patet quia, ut recitant doctores* communiter, ab exordio institutionis huius sacramenti usque ad Leonem papam tota Ecclesia confecit in azymo.

61  See Chris Schabel, “The Quarrel over Unleavened Bread in Western Theology, 1234–1439,” in Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204–1500, ed. Martin Hinterberger and Chris Schabel (Louvain, 2011), 85–127, at 115–22.

208

Brinzei and Schabel

Thomas of Strasbourg iv Sent., dist. 11, qu. 2, art. 1 (ed. Venice 1564)

Arnold of Seehausen iv Sent., dist. 8 et sqq., qu. un. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3546, fol. 218ra–b)

Vienna Group commentary iv Sent., dist. 11, pars 2, qu. 1

Sed tempore Leonis papae, ad extirpandam haeresim Ebronitarum, qui dicebant quod de necessitate salutis oporteret quemlibet hominem cum observatione evangelii observare ceremonialia legis praecepta, et per consequens consecrare in azymo, tunc praecepit Ecclesia conficere in fermentato.

Sed tunc, ad execrandam haeresim Hebronitarum, qui dicebant quod de necessitate salutis oportet quemlibet hominem cum observantia evangelii observare ceremonialia et legis praecepta, et per consequens consecrare in azymo, tunc praecepit Ecclesia conficere in fermentato.

Sed tunc, ad extinguendum haeresim Hebronitarum, qui dicebant quod de necessitate salutis oportet quemlibet hominem cum observantia evangelii observare cerimonialia et legis praecepta, et per consequens celebrare in azymo, tunc praecepit Ecclesia ad tempus ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti conficere in fermentato ne eis consentire videretur.

Deinde, post aliquorum annorum curricula, iam dicta haeresi penitus extirpata, sacerdotes in partibus Latinis primum modum, scilicet consecrandi, in azymo resumpserunt, eo quod clare deducitur ex evangelio, ut superius patuit, Christum in azymo celebrasse.

Deinde, post aliquorum annorum curricula, iam dicta haeresi penitus extirpata, sacerdotes in partibus Latinis primum consecrandi in azymo receperunt vel resumpserunt, eo quod clare deducitur ex evangelio Christum in azymis consecrasse.

Deinde, post aliquorum annorum curricula, iam dicta haeresi penitus extirpata, sacerdotes in partibus Latinis primum modum consecrandi in azymo receperunt et resumpserunt, eo quod clare deducitur ex evangelio— immo ex tribus evangelistis, ut prius dictum est, scilicet Matthaeo, Marco, et Luca—quod Christus in azymis consecravit. Et ita in primitiva Ecclesia apostoli celebrabant, quem morem Romana Ecclesia ab apostolis qui ipsam fundaverunt accepit, ut dicit Dominus Innocentius tertius.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

209

Thomas of Strasbourg iv Sent., dist. 11, qu. 2, art. 1 (ed. Venice 1564)

Arnold of Seehausen iv Sent., dist. 8 et sqq., qu. un. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3546, fol. 218ra–b)

Vienna Group commentary iv Sent., dist. 11, pars 2, qu. 1

Sacerdoes vero Graeciae modum primum non resumpserunt, sed consecrationem in fermentato usque ad haec tempora continuaverunt.

Sacerdoes vero Graeciae modum primum non resumpserunt, sed consecrationem usque nunc continuaverunt in fermentato.

Sacerdotes vero Graeciae modum primum non resumpserunt, sed consecrationem in fermentato usque nunc continuaverunt.

* recitant doctores] recitat Doctor Subtilis Clm 8455

Without a critical edition of Thomas of Strasbourg’s Sentences commentary, we cannot be sure about certain details, but the words in bold in the parallel texts show that Dinkelsbühl added material—mostly from Thomas Aquinas’s Sentences commentary (Book iv, dist. 11, qu. 2, art. 2, qc. 3)—to the Augustinian’s text in Schotten 269 (and Munich 8455) that Seehausen did not copy, and this new material was retained in the Vienna Group commentary. Yet Seehausen names his source as Thomas of Strasbourg, whereas Dinkelsbühl does not, although he often cites the Augustinian elsewhere in Book iv. The context in which the passage is embedded, moreover, differs in Dinkelsbühl and Seehausen. While it seems that Dinkelsbühl was sometimes a source for Seehausen, there is no good evidence for the reverse. 4

The Next Generations of the Vienna Group62

It is clear, then, that Schotten 269, perhaps Dinkelsbühl’s working copy, is the ultimate source for the commentaries ascribed to Villingen and Pulkau, and one source for Seehausen, and that these works in turn are related to Schotten 254 and/or Vienna, önb 4820, ascribed to Dinkelsbühl. Before we proceed to an analysis of Schotten 254, önb 4820, and other witnesses of the post-Schotten 269 Vienna Group commentary, we will first discuss other Viennese theologians whose Sentences commentaries are linked to Dinkelsbühl.

62  See now Courtenay, “From Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones communes to the Vienna Group Commentary,” for this group in general.

210

Brinzei and Schabel

4.1 Four Early Commentaries We have already mentioned that the three manuscripts of a commentary on Book ii that Stegmüller attributed on slender grounds to Theodoric of Hammelburg contain the Vienna Group commentary, while, judging from the incipits, the commentary on all four books in ms. Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek 519, from 1416, which Stegmüller assigns to a certain Pultenhagen, also appears to preserve the common Vienna text.63 According to the explicit in ms. Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 315 (fol. 458r), “Explicit lectura illustris Magistri Chunradi de Ratenburkch super tertio et quarto Sententiarum pronunciata ad universitatem Wienn. comparata per dominum Stephanum canonicum Neronburg”—this is Conrad of Rothenburg’s commentary on Books iii and iv. Stegmüller lists Conrad as a disciple of Dinkelsbühl’s, and an inspection of the manuscript supports this. Conrad began reading the Sentences in 1407, so with Theodoric and Pultenhagen he lectured soon after the “classic” Vienna Group.64 More importantly, Stegmüller lists eleven manuscripts of the commentary on Book iv by Peter Reicher of Pirchenwart, who began his lectures in 1417, and these codices, too, appear to contain the Vienna Group commentary.65 4.2 John Angrer of Müldorf More attention has been paid to the supposed lectures on Book i of John Wuel of Pruck found in Vienna, önb, 5067, with an explicit attribution (fol. 280r): “Finitus est iste liber per Iohannem Wuel de Prukk,” with another hand adding, “in die Sanctorum Gervasy et Prothasy finivi primum Sententiarum legendo anno etc. vicesimo secundo,” that is, 1422. Afterwards (fols. 281r–297r) we have some interesting text from principial debates, dated explicitly to 1421 (fol. 284v) and 1423 (fol. 297r). Shank suspected that Pruck was merely the scribe of önb 5067,66 and on the basis of the Principia Courtenay has shown that the contents should be attributed to John Angrer of Müldorf. The text of önb 5067 is mostly what we find in the other versions of the Vienna Group commentary, but with much rearrangement and additional material in what we have edited, for example in distinctions 38–41 on foreknowledge and 63  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 342, no. 703. 64  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 73, no. 172; cf. p. 283; Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, ed. Uiblein, vol. i, 12. 65  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 332–3, nos. 686–8; Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, ed. Uiblein, vol. i, 35. Stegmüller dates ms. Göttweig 272/261 to 1411: either he is in error or the manuscript is not by Pirchenwart. 66  See Shank, “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand,” 120 n. 31.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

211

predestination. The prologue is also very different from that of Schotten 269 or Schotten 254, containing large passages also found in Vienna, önb 4820, and some added text from James of Eltville. 4.3 Thomas Ebendorfer of Hasselbach Thomas Ebendorfer of Hasselbach, who started reading the Sentences at Vienna early in 1420, was almost as famous in Vienna as Dinkelsbühl himself.67 Our edition of article 2 of distinctions 40–41 of Book i in Vienna, önb, 4820, assigned to Dinkelsbühl, and in Vienna, önb, 4369,68 attributed to Ebendorfer, shows that önb 4369 derives, probably directly, from önb 4820. Much of the text is taken verbatim from Gregory of Rimini, and on the 25 occasions in passages from Rimini where the two manuscripts disagree, önb 4820 always agrees with Rimini, except twice when önb 4369 corrects önb 4820 in the margin. Otherwise, önb 4369 is simply more corrupt. The text in önb 4369 differs from that in önb 4387, which is also attributed to Ebendorfer in Stegmüller and indeed called an autograph (dated 1427 on fol. 319r; the end on fol. 415v is not on the hmml microfilm). In fact, notes in önb 4369 on fol. i merely state that Ebendorfer gave the manuscript (dated 1421 on fols. ir, 6v, and 405v) to such-and-such, not that it contains his work: “Iste liber pertinet ad collegium Beate Virginis domus Rubee Rose aput Fratres Predicatores in Wyenna, datus eidem collegio per excelcissimum sacre pagine doctorem magistrum Thomam de Haselpach”; “Librum presentem suo in testamento legavit ad collegium Beate Marie Virginis domus Rubee Rose aput Fratres Predicatores in Wyenna pro studio theologie egregius ac venerabilis vir et dominus olim magister Thomas de Haselpach, artium et theologie professor eximius. . . .” This leaves open the possibility that önb 4369 is merely Ebendorfer’s personal copy of the commentary on Book i in önb 4820, with added material, such as the principia on fols. 1r–6v, dated 1421, which seem to be in his own hand. Accordingly, in article 2 of distinctions 40–41, where in önb 4820 (§37) the text says that something videbitur circa quartum librum, in önb 4369 videbitur is scratched out and dixi is written in its place, with et in 2o principio meo added in the margin. Moreover, numerous other notes are added to the

67  See Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, ed. Uiblein, vol. i, 35; generally Alphons Lhotsky, Thomas Ebendorfer. Ein österreichischer Geschichtschreiber, Theologe und Diplomat des 15. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1957). 68  See Brinzei/Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation.”

212

Brinzei and Schabel

margins of önb 4369, and much from these notes is found in the text of önb 4387, the autograph. Here is one example: Vienna, önb, 4369, fol. 141v margin

Vienna, önb, 4387, fol. 278r text

De prima opinione fuit Thomas de Argentina, quae dicit quod causa praedestinationis adultorum sit bonus usus liberi arbitrii ab aeterno praecognitus a Deo finaliter in ipsis duraturus, quem bonum usum finaliter Deus contemplans proposuit talibus hominibus huiusmodi usum habituris dare gratiam. Causam autem praedestinationis parvulorum dicit ille doctor esse aptitudinem respectu baptismalis gratiae, quam Deus praevidens ab aeterno ipsos ad salutem praedestinavit . . .

Et ista fuit opinio [Henrici de Gandavo, 4o quolibet, q. 19, et mg.] Thomae de Argentina [distinctione 41, q. unica s.l.], quae dicit quod causa praedestinationis adultorum sit bonus usus liberi arbitrii ab aeterno praecognitus a Deo finaliter in ipsis duraturus, quem bonum usum finaliter Deus contemplans proposuit talibus hominibus huiusmodi usum habituris dare gratiam . . . Causam autem praedestinationis parvulorum dicit ille doctor esse aptitudinem respectu baptismalis gratiae, quam Deus praevidens ipsos ab aeterno [habere mg.] ad salutem praedestinavit . . .

De secunda opinione est Landulfus, qui imaginatur quatuor instantia . . .

Imaginatur enim quatuor instantia . . . [Ita resolvit mentem Scoti Landulfus, sed mihi videtur quod ista declaratio sit contra Scotum . . . mg.]

The reference to “Landulfus” (Caracciolo) is amusing. In önb 4369, where Peter Auriol’s position on predestination is described anonymously, the opinion is ascribed erroneously to “Scotus, Landulfus” in the margin, probably because Auriol’s theory employs “instants of nature,” favored by Scotus and especially Landulph. In the example given, önb 4369 describes the Scotist Landolfo’s own stance in the margin, which is placed in the text in önb 4387, to which a marginal comment is attached declaring that Landulph appears to have got Scotus wrong. Thus it is likely that önb 4369 is merely Ebendorfer’s annotated copy of Dinkelsbühl, on the basis of which he composed his own commentary in önb 4387. önb 4369 is therefore another copy of the commentary in önb 4820. As we shall see, önb 4820 is paired with önb 4439, which contains most of Book ii and all of Book iii. önb 4393 is attributed on the spine to Ebendorfer:

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

213

“Lectura scripturistica Haselpachii,” and it was donated by Ebendorfer himself (fol. ir): “Hunc librum dedit ad librariam domus Rubee Rose venerabilis M. Thomas Ebendorfer de Haselpach sacre pagine professor. Orate pro eo 1456.” The manuscript contains, after what seem to be Ebendorfer’s principia (fols. 1r–9r), two commentaries on Book ii, the first, smaller text (fols. 9v–44r) assigned by Stegmüller to a disciple of Dinkelsbühl’s, the second, larger one (fols. 49r–252r) to Ebendorfer. The second commentary exhibits many similarities with other Vienna Group specimens, including many of the questions in the commentary contained in önb 4820/4439. More work needs to be done on Book ii to determine whether the relationship between Ebendorfer and önb 4820 in Book i also holds for Book ii.69 4.4 John Harrer of Heilbronn The most impressive member of the Vienna Group in terms of numbers of manuscripts is John Harrer of Heilbronn.70 Stegmüller notes that Harrer was master of arts in 1442, and the oldest manuscript of his Sentences commentary, in this case of Book ii, Stegmüller dates to 1443, which must be close to the time of Harrer’s lectures. Stegmüller lists almost 40 manuscripts of Harrer’s commentary. While the incipits and other data Stegmüller gives for Books i and iii, in eight and thirteen witnesses respectively, do not appear to match those of the Vienna Group closely, Book ii carries a version of the Vienna Group commentary, while Stegmüller notes 31 copies of Harrer’s abbreviation of the Lectura Mellicensis for Book iv. Fourteen manuscripts allegedly contain Book ii. We have inspected two of these, önb 4713 and önb 4422. Above we paired önb 4713 with önb 4668, containing the Book i assigned to Peter of Pulkau (along with the Books i–iii in Seitenstetten 9). önb 4422 does correspond to önb 4713 for much of the way, containing virtually all of the questions in Schotten 269 in addition to some earlier material, but önb 4422 then has text that corresponds in one way or another to what is found in önb 4393, before concluding, like önb 4713, with the “extra questions” for Book ii found in Schotten 269. Perhaps, then, önb 4713 is by Pulkau while önb 4422 is Heilbronn’s development of that commentary. In any case, everything is from the Vienna Group, and much further research will be required to determine the precise nature of each of the manuscripts attributed to Harrer.

69  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 284, no. 586, and (with a typographical error, önb 1393) 1: 417, no. 903. 70  See ibid., 1: 220–2, nos. 452–3.

214

Brinzei and Schabel

5 Vienna, önb 4820 Madre singled out two manuscripts—Vienna, önb 4820 and Schotten 254—as representatives of what he erroneously called Dinkelsbühl’s Quaestiones magis­ trales, in contrast to the Quaestiones communes that he mistakenly (it seems) identified exclusively with Schotten 269. Neither önb 4820 nor Schotten 254 contains all four books, and in fact they do not even preserve a complete commentary together: önb 4820 has Books i and iv, Schotten 254 Books i and ii. More odd still, while Schotten 254, dated 1423–1425, is assigned to Dinkelsbühl, albeit in a later hand, önb 4820 has no attribution at all, although its Book i is dated 1413 (fol. 135v), and so Madre merely based his attribution on common elements with other Dinkelsbühl manuscripts. Therefore, although önb 4820 is linked to Schotten 269 and to the members of the Vienna Group, its nature is by no means clear. Madre did not notice that önb 4820 forms a two-volume set with önb 4439. önb 4820 contains a commentary on Book i (one column, ca. 48 lines), the start of a commentary on Book ii (one column, ca. 47 lines), and a commentary on Book iv (one column, ca. 44 lines) that is missing the last section. The commentary on Book i ends at fol. 135v with “Completus est hic labor in vigilia Sancti Uodalrici episcopi anno Domini 1413o”—so July 4, 1413. Folios 136–7 are blank, followed by the first eight folios of a commentary on Book ii on fols. 138r–145v, at the bottom of which we read: “Residuum usque ad finem habes in secundo volumine circa principium,” and then the reclamans “per adiunctas transmutationes” (then Book iv is on fols. 146r–375v). önb 4439, on the other hand, contains most of a commentary on Book ii (one column, ca. 50 lines, fols. 1r–112r; 112v–113v blank) and a commentary on Book iii (one column, ca. 49 lines, fols. 114r–251v; 252r–253v blank), followed by material from Langenstein (two columns). Folio ir announces that “Hic continentur lectura super 2m et 3m Sententiarum,” so the Langenstein material beginning on fol. 254r, in two columns unlike the previous work, was not originally part of the codex. Folio 1r begins with a comment on the top: “Hic deficit unus sexternus de secundo Sententiarum, quem quaeras in folumine [!] primo circa finem primi,” and the text starts in mid-sentence: “per adiunctas transmutationes,” that is, exactly as the reclamans in önb 4820 says it should. Thus önb 4820 and önb 4439 together form a commentary on all four books of the Sentences, probably completed in 1413 or shortly thereafter. This complete commentary definitely belongs to the Vienna Group, but there is no guarantee that Dinkelsbühl was the compiler or that the compilation dates from much before 1413. Indeed, Venicio Marcolino, who also noted that önb 4820 and önb 4439 form a set, attributed the commentary to Georgius de Horb, 1412–1413.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

215

Marcolino also assigned Schotten 254 to Martinus de Leibitz, 1423–1424,71 however, who seems to have been merely the donor of the manuscript, since he was still an advanced arts student when it was compiled in 1423–1425. The basis for Marcolino’s attribution of önb 4820 and önb 4439 is unknown, but Horb—i.e., George Wetzel of Horaw († 1427), dean of the faculty of arts in 1407 and 1416—was indeed a master of theology whose vesperies survive in önb 4300 (fols. 46r–59v).72 Whether or not Marcolino is correct, there is good reason to doubt that any of these manuscripts contains precisely Dinkelsbühl’s revision of Schotten 269. önb 4820 seems to be the source for the later commentary of Thomas Ebendorfer, as we have seen, but önb 4820’s relationship with the material in Schotten 254 and in önb 5067 is quite complicated, as we shall see. To give an idea of its character, here is a chart of citations for Book i in önb 4820: John Duns Scotus, ofm Gregory of Rimini, oesa William of Ockham, ofm Adam Wodeham, ofm Thomas Aquinas, op Alexander of Hales, ofm Bonaventure, ofm Thomas Bradwardine Henry Totting of Oyta John of Ripa, ofm Robert Halifax, ofm Henry of Ghent Thomas of Strasbourg, oesa

65 64 48 35 33 12 11 9 8 7 7 6 5

Giles of Rome, oesa Durand of Saint-Pourçain, op Peter Auriol, ofm John de Hassia Alphonsus Vargas, oesa Hugolino of Orvieto, oesa James of Eltville, OCist Thomas Buckingham Richard of Menneville, ofm Richard FitzRalph Robert Holcot, op Quidam doctor, alii, etc. Total

5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 80 412

Between the questions on Book i covering dist. 14–16 and dist. 19–20 in the other manuscripts of the Vienna Group commentary, önb 4820 inserts a question for dist. 18, “Utrum in divinis esse donum sit Spiritui Sancto proprium,” and then begins another on fol. 93v: 71  See Marcolino, “Das Nachwirken der Lehre Hugolins,” 298 n. 1, 309–10, 312, 316–17, 320. 72  For Horp/Horaw as dean, see Aschbach, Geschichte der Wiener Universität, 587–8. For Leibitz, see Harald Tersch, Österreichische Selbstzeugnisse des Spätmittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit (1400–1600) (Vienna, 1998), 52–65.

216

Brinzei and Schabel

Circa distinctionem 19, utrum cum divinarum personarum distinctione stet quod una sit in alia circumincessione. Arguitur quod non, quia si sic, sequitur quod in eadem persona esset paternitas, filiatio, et passiva spiratio, et per consequens eadem persona esset Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, et sic in divinis esset personarum confusio, quod est contra Symbolum: “neque confudentes personas neque substantiam separantes.” Et patet consequentia, quia si quaelibet persona est in qualibet, tunc quaelibet divina proprietas et relatio est in qualibet personarum, cum sint inseparabiles a personis. Igitur etc. Oppositum patet per illud Iohannis 14o: “Ego in Patre et Pater in me est.” Et patet per Magistrum, distinctione 19a. Notandum quod Thomas de Argentina dicit. The text is then crossed out and the next question begins, common to the other manuscripts. It would seem that the scribe had a model in front of his eyes and was not “authoring” this material. What was the model? Oyta and Langenstein go straight from the procession of the Holy Spirit (dist. 14–16) to divine foreknowledge (dist. 38–9), and Arnold of Seehausen does the same. The material is not in distinction 19 by Thomas of Strasbourg himself, nor in that of any of the usual suspects who often cite or quote from him: Gregory of Rimini, Alphonsus Vargas of Toledo, Hugolino of Orvieto, John Hiltalinger of Basel, James of Eltville, Conrad of Soltau, and Conrad of Ebrach. Either it is buried somewhere else in the commentary of one of these theologians, or, less likely, it is original to the compiler of önb 4820. This point in the various texts is interesting for another reason. After the question for dist. 14–16, Schotten 254 has a marginal note (fol. 146r): “Hic multa sunt obmissa, quae omnia habentur in lectura magistri Ni. Dink. Ibi vide.” Madre interpreted this note as referring to the material in Schotten 269, beginning on fol. 59v, Circa distinctionem 33am. This is a possibility, but since Schotten 269, like Oyta and Langenstein, also skips the following question in Schotten 254 and other manuscripts related to dist. 19–20, which is from Rimini, perhaps the note refers to önb 4820 or its model, which has an additional question? The compiler of önb 4820 had direct access to Schotten 269 and Rimini. At the end of article 2 of distinctions 40–1 of Book i, on predestination, Schotten 269 adds in the margin a section from James of Eltville, along with a small symbol (^) indicating where it is to be placed in the text.73 In the Salzburg and Munich 8358 copies of the Schotten 269 text, the Eltville passage is positioned according to the instructions, but in önb 4820 the Eltville text is placed at the 73  See Gregorius Ariminensis, I Sent., dist. 40–1, vol. iii, 348.1.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

217

end of the article, as it is visually in Schotten 269. Thus önb 4820 seems to stem from Schotten 269 and not a copy. Nevertheless, the compiler of önb 4820 also had direct access to Rimini, since it corrects at least one omission in Schotten 269.74 Otherwise for that article önb 4820 sometimes paraphrases and sometimes abbreviates the Rimini section in Schotten 269, while adding new material from elsewhere. The chart of omitted passages from Rimini is as follows: Schotten 269

Vienna, önb, 4820

325.15–17 328.19–23 328.28–34

same same same 329.20–4 330.7–18 same same new Paris articles 38–9 (§14) added same same same same 337.24–6 same same same 340.26–9 same same Bradwardine (§34–41) added 343.7–10 344.1–10 same first of the two new arguments (§46) Bradwardine (§47–51) added same 345.12–23

330.18–331.14 Additio 152 333.1–7 333.30–2 334.10–21 334.26–336.29 338.15–25 339.7–340.9 Additio 153 341.2–32 342.26–9

344.11–16 two new arguments added 345.1–4

74  See Gregorius Ariminensis, I Sent., dist. 40–1, vol. iii, 334.4–5.

218

Brinzei and Schabel

Schotten 269

Vienna, önb, 4820

345.23–6

same 346.17–25 same 346.31–3 same 347.5–25 same 348.1–13 same refutation of the first new argument (§57)

346.25–31 346.33–347.5 347.26–31 348.13–19 refution of the two new arguments

6

Other Commentaries Attributed to Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl

In addition to commentaries represented by Schotten 269 (no. 561), Schotten 254 (no. 567), and önb 4820 (no. 564), Stegmüller listed other commentaries under the name Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, including one on Book iii surviving in two witnesses (no. 563), önb 4439 (no. 566, which we have just paired with önb 4820), and, with a question mark, a commentary on Books i–iii in ms. Seitenstetten, Stiftsbibliothek, 9, with another copy of Book iii in önb 4939 (no. 568, which we have assigned to Peter of Pulkau). All of these texts require extensive further investigation, but the most important additional commentary is that represented by Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 222 (I F 195) (in Stegmüller’s time, ms. 206) (no. 562). Despite two notes in the codex attributing the text to Nicolao Dynckelspuel, Madre confined it to a footnote, remarking that it is probably by Peter of Pulkau, whose autograph Madre claimed was önb 4668.75 We examined Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M ch. 190, which, according to Stegmüller, has the same text as Wrocław 222. Since the text in önb 4668 differs from that of Wrocław 222 (Würzburg 190), if önb 4668 is by Pulkau, it is doubtful that Wrocław 222 is also by Pulkau, given the attribution to Dinkelsbühl. In any case, there is no doubt that the text in Wrocław 222 is from

75  See Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 91–2 n. 9; Bibliotheca Universitatis Wratislaviensis. Catalogus manu scriptorum codicum Medii Aevi latinorum signa 180–260 comprehendens, ed. Konstanty Klemens Jażdżewski (Wrocław/Krakow, 1982), 184–5.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

219

the Vienna Group and stems from Schotten 269. Moreover, since Stegmüller lists four anonymous manuscripts along with Wrocław 222, this would make this particular redaction of Book i the most popular among the many versions by the Vienna Group. 7

A Failed Attempt at a Stemma

The careful reader of this study will by now be aware of what appears to be a confusing jumble of texts deriving from Schotten 269, probably having direct access to Rimini, and exhibiting extensive contamination among the manuscripts attributed to various members of the classic Vienna Group. Only Ebendorfer’s place seems to be clear. An edition of the question on divine foreknowledge from Book i provides an opportunity to determine whether this confused situation holds or whether the reality is more simple.76 In Schotten 269, Dinkelsbühl followed Henry of Langenstein. In Schotten 254, önb 4820, Klosterneuburg 41, önb 4668, önb 5067, and so on, much of the text is replaced with that of Henry Totting of Oyta. By comparing Oyta’s text (based on two witnesses) with the other manuscripts in four long passages where they differ in content and/or sequence, we should have some answers. In one of these passages, önb 4820 contains material from Oyta omitted from the other witnesses, so önb 4820 cannot stem from any of them exclusively. önb 5067 adds material, which fits its idiosyncratic nature, so it probably is not a source here for Schotten 254, Klosterneuburg 41, or önb 4668. In another passage, all manuscripts insert text into Oyta’s, so that they are related beyond copying Oyta. önb 4820 omits a passage in Oyta that is contained in the other witnesses, so önb 4820 cannot be an exclusive source for any of them. In a third passage, Klosterneuburg 41 contains material from Oyta omitted in the others, so that it cannot depend exclusively on any of the others. The others also rearrange text from Oyta, with önb 4820 being further from Oyta, but with önb 5067 exhibiting similaries to both Klosterneuburg 41 and önb 4820. Finally, in the fourth passage, Schotten 254 and önb 5067 contain Oyta text omitted in the others, so that they cannot depend on them exclusively. The result is that only önb 4668 could derive from the others, although it probably does not come from any single one, while önb 5067 is a mix.

76  See Schabel, “Henry Totting of Oyta, Henry of Langenstein, and the Vienna Group.”

220

Brinzei and Schabel

On the above basis, we can probably say that someone, likely Dinkelsbühl himself, took Schotten 269 and replaced some Langenstein with Oyta. We have not found the archetype of this new compilation, but Klosterneuburg 41, Schotten 254, and önb 4820 may derive from it directly, but with heavy contamination—from Schotten 269, Oyta, Rimini, and/or other manuscripts/ theologians of the Vienna Group. önb 4668 probably stems indirectly from the new archetype, while önb 5067 is even more contaminated. In short, the confusion holds; thus, if there is any hope that we can untangle the mess, it will take a lot more work. The result may indeed be that, after Schotten 269, the Quaestiones communes (Vienna Group commentary) were a communis creatio. In what follows, therefore, we only tentatively attribute the core of the new compilation to Dinkelsbühl. 8

A Case Study from Schotten 254, Notes on Book iii, and a Description of Book iv

What is this new compilation like? Three subsections will shed some light on this. First, a case study for Schotten 254 (with Principia dating to 1423–1425, but with a Sentences commentary explicitly attributed to Dinkelsbühl) will help us better explore his work method and doctrinal interests, but also the literary style of his commentary. Secondly, since Book iii is not contained in Schotten 254, we will take a look at this book and examine a previous publication of Dinkelsbühl’s texts on the Immaculate Conception. Thirdly, because Madre did not provide a question list for Book iv, we will do so and note our findings about how it relates to Schotten 269. Before proceeding, in order to compare the text in Schotten 269 with that of the later redactions, we present a rough citation count for an example of each book of the Sentences, with the numbers from Schotten 269 in parentheses. For Books i and ii, we give the statistics from Dinkelsbühl’s Schotten 254, for Book iii we employed Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143, and for Book iv we used Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 301.77

77  Often all the citations of a theologian are in one context, as with Holcot in Book iii, in Innsbruck 143, fols. 180–90, probably taken from Oyta (see below). Sometimes for Books iii and iv the names Richard and, to a lesser extent, Gregory are vague, since they could equally apply to the Victorine and Gregory the Great rather than Menneville and Rimini.

221

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology University Theologian

Book i

Book ii

Book iii

Book iv

Total

Thomas Aquinas, op John Duns Scotus, ofm Bonaventure, ofm Gregory of Rimini, oesa Durand of Saint-Pourçain, op Alexander of Hales, ofm Adam Wodeham, ofm Thomas of Strasbourg, oesa William of Ockham, ofm Richard of Menneville, ofm Thomas Bradwardine Robert Holcot, op Robert Halifax, ofm William of Auxerre Peter Auriol, ofm Henry of Ghent Peter of Tarentaise, op James of Eltville, OCist Henry of Langenstein Hugolino of Orvieto, oesa Peter of Palude, op Giles of Rome, oesa Peter of Candia, ofm Landulph Caracciolo, ofm Nicholas of Lyra, ofm Henry Totting of Oyta Nicole Oresme Praepositinus Haymo of Faversham Alexander Neckam Albertus Magnus, op Bochardus Richardus Barba78

39 (7) 77 (19) 13 (1) 68 (43) 4 (0) 11 (6) 52 (26) 4 (2) 50 (12) 0 (0) 18 (1) 1 (0) 13 (0) 0 (3) 6 (3) 2 (2) 2 (0) 2 (1) 0 (1) 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 mg. (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

47 (6) 36 (19) 29 (10) 34 (12) 12 (4) 31 (2) 12 (15) 19 (2) 4 (4) 0 (0) 3 (3) 0 (1) 3 (0) 0 (0) 2 (5) 1 (0) 5 (0) 5 (3) 0 (1) 2 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

79 (34) 14 (1) 63 (23) 1 (0) 24 (22) 34 (10) 5 (4) 25 (11) 1 (0) 16 (0) 1 (1) 12 (0) 0 (0) 12 (0) 1 (0) 8 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 4 (4) 1 (0) 1 (0) 6 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) 1 (0) 3 (3) 3 (4) 2 (1) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

128 (48) 293 (95) 193 (139) 220 (178) 97 (73) 202 (107) 0 (0) 103 (55) 59 (49) 99 (75) 0 (0) 76 (18) 3 (3) 72 (48) 7 (3) 55 (18) 0 (0) 55 (16) 16 (0) 32 (0) 2 (0) 24 (5) 4 (4) 17 (5) 0 (0) 16 (0) 1 (0) 13 (3) 3 (7) 12 (15) 0 (1) 11 (3) 4 (0) 11 (0) 2 (0) 9 (4) 5 (1 [5]) 8 (4 [8]) 1 (2) 8 (6) 6 (0) 7 (0) 0 (0) 7 (4) 0 (0) 6 (0) 5 (8) 5 (9) 0 (0) 5 (0) 0 (1 mg.) 4 (2) 0 (0) 3 (3) 0 (2) 3 (6) 0 (0) 2 (1) 0 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)

78  Provisor of Harcourt College between 1369 and 1380, mentioned by Marsilius of Inghen, he seems to have been very active in Paris in his time. Cf. Zénon Kaluza, Thomas de Cracovie. Contribution à l’histoire du collège de la Sorbonne (Wrocław/Gdansk, 1978),

222

Brinzei and Schabel

University Theologian

Book i

Book ii

Book iii

Book iv

Total

Theodoric (of Hammelburg?) Francis of Meyronnes, ofm John Baconthorpe, OCarm Alphonsus Vargas, oesa Thomas Buckingham John Klenkok, oesa John of Ripa, ofm Monachus Albus (Mirecourt), OCist Richard FitzRalph Walter Burley

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 (0)

8.1 Case Study: Book i, Question 7, in Schotten 254 In Schotten 254, the title of Book i, question 7, “Whether God begot God” (Utrum Deus genuerit Deum), mostly likely derives from a quotation Peter Lombard borrowed from Augustine, perhaps from the Collatio cum Maximo Arianorum episcopo.79 Following the path of a long tradition of commenting on this distinction, Dinkelsbühl develops the problem of the divine properties and the nature of signification when a name or attribute is predicated of God. In order to elucidate his position, we will present his structure and use of explicit and implicit sources. Generally Dinkelsbühl divides his questions into five segments.80 After announcing the title of the question and giving some rhetorical arguments pro and contra (section I), in the next phase (ii), introduced by Notandum est, he defines his terms. These notabilia, varying in number from question to question,

137–8, and William J. Courtenay, “Theological Bachelors at Paris on the Eve of the Papal Schism: The Academic Environment of Peter of Candia,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown, ed. Kent Emery, Russell L. Friedman, and Andreas Speer (Leiden, 2011), 921–52. 79  Augustinus, Collatio cum Maximo Arianorum episcopo i, chap. 15, n. 7 (pl 42: 726). 80  See the same composition in the case of the prologue: Brinzei/Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation.” For Book iv, see Ueli Zahnd, Wirksame Zeichen? Sakramentenlehre und Semiotik in der Scholastik des ausgehenden Mittelalters (Tübingen, 2014).

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

223

play the same role as do the propositions found under the rubric declaratio terminorum in some other commentaries.81 The notabilia explain the technical vocabulary Dinkelsbühl will employ in the third section (iii), the doctrinal development, consisting primarily of conclusiones. Again varying in number, the “conclusions” express Dinkelsbühl’s own position on the topic treated in the question, in conjunction with a series of corollaria formulated as a complementum in support of each conclusion. The fourth level (iv) gathers together all the objections that may be raised against his position and replies to them. In the fifth and final stage (v) of this division Dinkelsbühl gives his responsiones to the opening arguments. For Book i, question 5, (i) Dinkelsbühl begins by presenting four arguments against the position he will eventually adopt, the first three of which are copied from Gregory of Rimini’s Book i, dist. 4, qu. 1. (ii) Next Dinkelsbühl continues with three notabilia by which he presents the different ways of understanding of God’s names according to various hermeneutical approaches to the topic. The first notandum explains what we have found to be more or less the via communis at the time, and Dinkelsbühl chooses to follow the presentation of one of his favorite sources, the Cistercian James of Eltville, who read the Sentences at Paris in 1369–1370.82 Eltville offers a series of twelve regulae83 concerning the different kinds of names that signify God: essential, personal, common, notional.

81  For the section of declaratio terminorum, see Monica Brinzei Calma, “La définition du via­ tor dans les commentaires des Sentences au xive siècle,” in Les innovations du vocabulaire latin à la fin du moyen âge. Autour du Glossaire du latin philosophique. Actes de la journée d’étude du 15 mai 2008, ed. Olga Weijers (Turnhout, 2010), 45–59, esp. 46–7. 82  See William J. Courtenay, “James of Eltville, O.Cist., His Fellow Sententiarii in 1369–70, and His Influence on Contemporaries,” in Philosophical Psychology and Late-Medieval Sentences Commentaries, ed. Paul J.J.M. Bakker, Monica Brinzei, and Russell L. Friedman (Turnhout, forthcoming); Monica Brinzei, “La théologie comme science selon Jacques d’Eltville,” in Actes of the ivth Annual Symposium of the fidem. Coexistence et coopération au Moyen Âge, ed. José Meirinhos (Porto, forthcoming). 83  This series of rules circulated in Viennese manuscripts under the name of Aegidius de Campis as Regulae de nominibus ad divina adhibendis. In fact, Gilles des Champs is not the original author, since he read the Sentences in Paris as a socius of Pierre d’Ailly in 1378. Nor does James of Eltville seem to be the originator of the rules, since they are found in the commentary of his Cistercian confrere John of Mirecourt. See Monica Brinzei, “Aegidius de Campis et son commentaire perdu des Sentences,” in Portrait des maîtres. Hommage offert à Olga Weijers, ed. Claire Angotti, Monica Brinzei, and Mariken Teeuween (Turnhout, 2013), 8–19.

224

Brinzei and Schabel

The second notandum involves supposition theory, which Dinkelsbühl introduces via logici moderni. Dinkelsbühl does not attribute his version to anyone explicitly, but he seems to follow Buridan’s definition of material or personal supposition. As regards the third notandum, Dinkelsbühl does not quote explicitly any of his near contemporaries, but lists a series of authorities: John of Damascus, Augustine, the Bible, and the Gloss. This is the same list found in Gregory of Rimini. When Rimini deals with the theme of Deus genuit Deum in his Book i, dist. 4, qu. 1,84 and more precisely when he considers the diversity of the suppositions concerning the name of God, he emphasizes the range of such suppositions in the Bible. The mention in Scriptura is actually the reason why Dinkelsbühl repeats Rimini’s position here. What emerges is that, after Dinkelsbühl has shown that there is a de facto common way (the twelve regu­ lae) and a logical way (supposition theory) to understand names of God, one can also invoke a biblical perspective. At the same time, concerning his sources, his definitions combine material from James of Eltville, John Buridan, and Gregory of Rimini, as follows: Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., qu. 7, Schotten 254, fols. 83v–84r

Circa quartam distinctionem quaeritur cum Magistro utrum Deus genuerit Deum. Ideo notandum secundum Jacobum de Altavilla quod nominum significantium Deum quaedam sunt essentialia, quaedam communia, quaedam personalia, quaedam notionalia. Essentialia sunt . . . Nomina personalia . . . Nomina communia . . . Nomina notionalia . . . De hiis sit prima regula: Regulae 1–2

Iacobus de Altavilla, i Sent., d. 4, Basel a.vi.22, fols. 44ra–49va

Ideo pro solutione argumentorum infra fiendorum est notandum quod nominum significantium Deum quaedam sunt essentialia, quaedam personalia, quaedam communia, quaedam notionalia. Essentialia sunt . . . Nomina personalia . . . Nomina communia . . . Nomina notionalia . . . De his autem possunt dari multae regulae: 1–12

84  See Gregorius Ariminensis, I Sent., dist. 4, qu. 1, vol. i, 440–7.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

225

Dinkelsbühl, I Sent., qu. 7, Schotten 254, fol. 84r

Moderni

Secundo notandum quod loyci moderni communiter dividunt suppositionem in personalem et materialem, comprehendendo sub materiali vocatam a modernis simplicem quando terminus supponit pro conceptu cui subordinatur in significando. Suppositio personalis est suppositio termini pro suo significato ultimato vel suis significatis ultimatis secundum illum conceptum secundum quem ultimate significat. Et posset magis proprie vocari suppositio realis. Et sic vocabo ipsam in dicendo* “Suppositio materialis est suppositio” etc.

Buridanus, Summulae, De suppositionibus: Aliter autem vocant alii suppositionem simplicem quando terminus supponit pro conceptu secundum quem imponitur, et materialem quando supponit pro se ipsa vel consimili. Et hoc potest permitti, sed non curo, quia utrumque voco suppositionem materialem.85 Ockham, Summa logicae, i, cap. 68: Et sicut quandoque suppositio materialis est pro illo quod supponit, et quandoque non pro illo quod supponit sed pro alio, quod tamen non significat, ita terminus mentalis supponens simpliciter quandoque supponit pro se.86

* lectio incerta

Dinkelsbühl, I Sent., qu. 7, Schotten 254, fol. 84r

Gregorius Ariminensis, I Sent., dist. 4, qu. 1, vol. ii, pp. 441–2

Tertio notandum quod communiter doctores concedunt quod ly “Deus” quandoque supponit pro essentia seu natura . . . Unde Damescenus, libro 3°, capitulo 4°, dicit . . . Augustinus, ut dicit glosa ad Hebraeos 1° . . . patet per illud Iohannis 1° . . . antiquiores loyci vocabant.

Respondeo dicendum quod hoc nomen ‘Deus’ diversam in scriptura invenitur habere suppositionem. . . . A Damasceno l. 3° cap. 4 et 11 . . . ponit Augustinus, ut dicit Glossa Ad Hebraeos 1 . . . per illud Iohannis . . . ubi supra Damascenus . . .  probatur multipliciter a Magistro . . . ponit Augustinus 1 De trinitate cap. 6.

85  Johannes Buridanus, Summulae de suppositionibus, ed. Rita van der Lecq (Nijmegen, 1998), 39. 86  Guillelmus de Ockham, Summa logicae, I, ed. Philotheus Boehner, Gideon Gál, and Stephen F. Brown (Bonaventure, N.Y., 1974), 207.

226

Brinzei and Schabel

(iii) In the three conclusions that follow the notabilia, Dinkelsbühl harmoniously combines theological theses drawn from canonical authorities, such as Augustine, John of Damascus, Anselm, and thirteenth-century figures like Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, with some later theologians, such as Peter Auriol, William of Ockham, Adam Wodeham, and Gregory of Rimini. As the following table reveals, however, the quotations in Dinkelsbühl’s conclusions are actually copied from Henry Totting of Oyta, whom Dinkelsbühl never mentions. The source of Dinkelsbühl’s conclusions and their corollaries is Oyta’s Book i, dist. 9, art. 1:87 Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., qu. 7, Schotten 254, fols. 85v–87r

Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 9 (ms. Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 121ra–123ra

Sed contra hos, sequendo Sanctum Thomam, Ockam et alios doctores, sit haec prima conclusio: Iste terminus “Deus,” in modo significandi qui sibi convenit formaliter quantum est de se et per se, habet supponere pro persona. Probatur: ly “Deus” ex forma suae significationis . . . ut dicit Sanctus Thomas d. 4 primi, q. 4, a. 2 . . . ut dicit Damascenus lib. 3, c. 11 circa finem: “Deus est suppositum quod habet divinam naturam et homo quod habet humanam.”

Sed contra hoc, sequendo Sanctum Thomam et Occam, sit ista conclusio: Ille terminus “Deus,” ex modo significandi qui sibi competit formaliter quantum est de se et per se, habet supponere personaliter. Probatur: hoc nomen “Deus” ex forma suae impositionis . . . etiam dicit Sanctus Thomas d. 5 primi, q. 1, a. 2 . . . Damascenus ubi supra, scilicet libro 3, c. 11 circa finem: “Deus est suppositum quod habet divinam naturam et homo quod habet humanam,” et haec est ratio Occam, licet ipse auctoritatem Damasceni non ponat.

87  The title of Oyta’s question is Utrum Deus genuerit Deum de sua natura seu substantia quae sit potentia seu principium generandi (ms. Prague, Národní knihovna České repub­ liky, v.b.25, fols. 120r–148v), and it is divided into three articles (fol. 120rb): “Iuxta tres difficulates tactas in titulo quaestionis et etiam in argumentis tam ante oppositum quam post, erunt tres articuli. Primus, secundum quem modum significandi et supponendi terminorum ista: ‘Deus genuit Deum’ sit concedenda. Secundus, an cum dicta veritate et sanctorum assertionibus sit ista concedenda: ‘Essentia divina non generat nec generatur,’ et ista: ‘Filius est genitus de substantia Patris,’ et ista: ‘Essentia est subiectum vel terminus divinae generationis’ rationabiliter concedenda. Et circa hoc est materia de paralogismis

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

227

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., qu. 7, Schotten 254, fols. 85v–87r

Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 9 (ms. Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 121ra–123ra

Corollarium: si in divinis suppositum realiter differret ab essentia, ly “Deus” ex natura sui modi significandi nunquam supponeret pro natura nisi hoc esset ex usus accomodatione vel auctoritate loquentium, et tunc solum ratione adiuncti hoc esset concedendum . . . ex usu loquendi doctorum.

Corollarium: si in divinis suppositum realiter differret ab essentia, ille terminus “Deus” ex natura modi significandi sui nunquam supponeret pro natura nisi hoc esset ex usu auctoritate[m] loquentium, et tunc solum ratione adiuncti hoc esset concedendum . . . ex usu loquendi doctorum . . .

Secunda conclusio: quamvis ly “Deus” vi praedicati precise notionalis solum supponat pro supposito . . . introductus est a doctoribus . . .

Secunda conclusio: licet ille terminus “Deus” respectu praedicati praecise notionalis solum supponat pro supposito . . . introductus est a doctoribus . . .

Correlarium: sicut haec conceditur: “Tres personae sunt unus Deus,” vel illa: “Trinitas est unus Deus,” ita et illa: “Unus Deus est tres personae,” vel illa: “Unus Deus est trinitas,” est simpliciter concedenda. . . .  Magister adducit plures auctoritates Augustini d. 4. Item Augustinus 15 De Trinitate, capitulo 8 . . . Et iterum ibidem . . .  Item Anselmus De processione Spiritus Sancti capitulo ultimo . . .

Corollarium: sicut ista conceditur: “Tres personae sunt unus Deus” vel “Trinitas est unus Deus,” ita et ista: “Unus Deus est tres personae,” vel ista: “Unus Deus est Trinitas” est simpliciter concedenda. . . . adducit plures auctoritates Augustini, de hoc etiam Anselmi De processione Spiritus Sancti, capitulo ultimo . . . Item Augustinus quinto De Trinitate [121vb] capitulo octavo . . . Item xv De Trinitate, capitulo 8.

Tertia conclusio est responsalis: “Deus genuit Deum” est simpliciter de virtute sermonis concedenda.

Tertia conclusio: haec propositio: “Deus genuit Deum” est simpliciter de virtute sermonis concedenda . . .



qui fieri solent in divinis pertractanda. Tertius: an essentia divina sit potentia seu principium generandi Filium in divinis, et an haec: ‘Filius in divinis habet potentiam generandi,’ sit aliquatenus astruenda” (fol. 120rb). Dinkelsbühl copied here only the first of the three articles.

228

Brinzei and Schabel

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., qu. 7, Schotten 254, fols. 85v–87r

Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 9 (ms. Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 121ra–123ra

Correlarium: quamvis esset sustinibile quod illa: “Deus non genuit Deum” sit de virtute sermonis concedenda, tamen . . . ex modo loquendi antiquorum doctorum, [86v] et est ad hoc exemplum Augustini . . . Sicut dicit Sanctus Thomas ubi supra . . . Concordat Bonaventura eadem distinctione, quaestione prima . . . Illud correlarium tenent Petrus Aureoli, Okcam [!], Adam et Gregorius.

Corollarium: quamvis esset sustinibile quod ista: “Deus non genuit Deum,” sit de virtute sermonis concedenda, est tamen . . . ex modo loquendi doctorum antiquorum, et est ad hoc exemplum Augustini . . . et illo modo dicit Sanctus Augustinus ubi supra . . . Concordat Bonaventura eadem distinctione, quaestione prima . . .

Secundum correlarium: licet in illa: “Deus generat Deum” ly “Deus” non supponat pro essentia, res tamen pro qua supponit est essentia.

Dictum corollarium tenent Petrus Aureoli, Occam, Adam, et Gregorius, quod in ista: “Deus generat Deum,” licet ly “Deus” non supponat pro essentia, res tamen pro qua supponit est essentia.

Tertium corollarium: iuxta dictum modum loquendi non semper terminus supponit in propositione pro illo vel illis de cuius vel quorum pronomine demonstrante talis terminus verificatur . . . [87r] . . . ad omnia dicta doctorum . . .

Corollarium tertium: iuxta dictum modum loquendi videtur quod non semper terminus pro illo supponit in propositione vel pro illis, quo demonstrato vel quibus demonstratis per illa pronomina “hoc” vel “haec” vel aequivalentia . . . ad omnia dicta doctorum . . .

Contra . . .

[fol. 123r] Contra . . .

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

229

(iv) Despite the similarities in the conclusiones, only one of the four objections in Dinkelsbühl’s text comes from Oyta, an objection that Dinkelsbühl answers along Oyta’s lines as well. We have yet to find a source for the other three objections and their refutations. (v) Finally, in his responsiones to the opening arguments, most of which were taken from Gregory of Rimini, Dinkelsbühl repeats Rimini’s solutions. According to Rimini, accepting that God begot God does not entail admit­ ting that there are two different Gods. In detailing his arguments, Rimini maintains that Deum from the sentence Deus genuit Deum is not God the Father but a kind of predication about the person of the Son, who has God as Father. Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., qu. 7, Schotten 254, fols. 87v–88r

Gregorius Ariminensis, i Sent., dist. 4, qu. 1

Ad primam rationem ante oppositum: fol. 87v Ad secundam negatur consequentiam: fol. 87v Respondetur quod si ly “alium” sit substantivum: fol. 87v Ad tertiam dicendum: fol. 88r

Ad primam rationem in oppositum: p. 445.17–26 Ad secundam similiter: p. 445.27–32 Si autem quaeratur . . . si “alium” sit substantivum: p. 446.19–34/447.1–4 Ad tertiam dicendum: p. 447.5–17

Our double inquiry regarding both the structure and the identification of sources reveals that Dinkelsbühl basically recycles elements from Gregory of Rimini, James of Eltville, and Henry Totting of Oyta, using them as a guide in giving his final solution to this theological problem. In addition, it seems that he does not hesitate to open an invisible dialogue with his sources. The fact that few or none of the arguments or examples listed in the question are original to Dinkelsbühl reinforces the hypothesis that his commentary is composed as a compilation, often abbreviating his various sources. We have already stressed that his prologue88 can be read more like an abbreviation of Rimini’s prologue than as a personal intellectual production. We can also extend this remark to the whole of Book i, as we discussed above.89 88  See Brinzei/Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation.” 89  See above, pp. 190–1, for the table of concordances in the case of Book i from Schotten 269.

230

Brinzei and Schabel

It is possible that Dinkelsbühl’s project was to compile or abbreviate some doctrinal positions that could serve as the basis for theological instruction at Vienna. Beyond preparing for his own lectures, his goal might have been to make the recent Parisian theological tradition more accessible and easier to follow. This might explain why, when cutting and pasting questions from Oyta, for example, he rearranges Oyta’s arguments. For example, question 8, Utrum essentia divina generet vel generentur, in Schotten 254 (fols. 88r–92r) is just a rewriting of the second article of Oyta’s distinction 8. At fols. 124vb–126va in the Prague manuscript, Oyta lists a series of nineteen Regulae about the possibility to generate, and only after this list does he give on fols. 126vb–130rb an explanation for each regula. Dinkelsbühl skips some of these regulae and restructures Oyta’s article by placing together the regula and its explanation, as in this concordance table: Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

[fol. 124vb] Quantum ad secundum articulum sciendum quod, licet de istis propositionibus: “Essentia generat,” “Essentia generatur,” etc. fecerunt aliquando inter doctores controversiam, et praecipue inter Magistrum Sententiarum et Richardum de Sancto Victore et Abbatem [fol. 125ra] Ioachim, nunc tamen ab omnibus tenetur sententia Magistri. Pro qua sit conclusio prima: essentia divina, quae est tres personae et quaelibet earum, non generat nec generatur. . . . [fol. 125rb] Contra conclusionem arguit: . . .

Notandum quod, licet de illis propositionibus: “Essentia generat,” “Essentia generatur,” fuerit aliquando inter doctores controversia, et praecipue inter Magistrum et Richardum de Sancto Victore et Abbatem Ioachim, nunc tamen ab omnibus tenetur sententia Magistri, quam etiam determinavit Ecclesia. Pro qua sit prima conclusio: divina essentia non generat . . . [88v] . . . Conclusio secunda: essentia divina non generatur. Contra primam conclusionem: . . .

Ille Pater generat; ille Pater est essentia divina; igitur essentia divina generat . . .

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

231

Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

Secundo: essentia divina est Pater generans; igitur essentia generans; igitur essentia generat. Antecedens est notum eo quod essentia est Pater qui generat, per decretalem. Sed consequentia prima tenet, quia secundum Philosophum 2° Peryhermeneias . . .

essentia divina est Pater generans, cum sit Pater qui generat, per decretalem, igitur essentia est generans, et per consequens essentia divina generat. Respondetur concedendo antecedens, quia potest habere illum sensum: essentia est Pater et ipse Pater est generant, et negando consequentiam. Secundo, in divinis unitas non amittit suum consequens ubi non obviat relationis oppositio, secundum regulam Anselmi, De processione Spiritus Sancti . . . Respondetur concesso toto antecedente negando consequentiam, sed bene sequitur per illam regulam quod essentia divina est res quae generat vel idem rei quae generat  . . . [89r] . . .

[fol. 125va] Tertio: de quocumque praedicatur subiectum et propria passio; sed generare est propria passio seu proprietas Patris, ut patet ex conclusione praecedenti, articulo primo; igitur, cum haec sit vera: “Divina essentia est Pater,” erit et haec vera: “Divina essentia generat.”

Tertio, de quocumque verificatur subiectum et propria passio; sed generare est propria passio vel proprietas Patris; igitur, cum haec sit vera: “Essentia divina est Pater,” erit et haec vera: “Essentia divina generat.” Respondet Bonaventura q. 1 . . . Item S. Thomas hic q. 1, articulo primo . . . Item Scotus hic q. 1 dicit . . . Magister distinctione 2 . . .

Quarto item: ab inferiori ad superius affirmative semper est bona consequentia, igitur bene sequitur: “Pater generat, igitur essentia generat.”

Quarto, “Pater generat, igitur essentia generat,” ab inferiori ad superius. Respondetur negando consequentiam. Ad probationem dicitur quod . . .

232

Brinzei and Schabel

Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

Item quinto: quicquid vere praedicatur de altero, hoc supponit pro ipso, quia subiectum vere subicitur praedicato; sed essentia vere praedicatur de Patre, haec enim est vera: “Pater est essentia”; ergo vere proprie supponit. Igitur sicut conceditur quod Deus generat eo quo ibi ‘Deus’ supponit proprie, sic concedi debet quod essentia generat pari ratione.

Quinto, quicquid verificatur de altero supponit pro ipso; sed essentia verificatur de Patre, quia haec est vera: “Pater est essentia”; igitur essentia supponit pro Patre; igitur, sicut conceditur illa: “Deus genuit,” eo quod ly “Deus” ibi supponit [89v] pro Patre, sic debet illa concedi: “Essentia genuit,” pari ratione. Respondetur sicut ad tertium . . . concordant Adam et Bonaventura. Et dicit Scotus . . .

Item sexto sic: essentia est Pater, igitur essentia est Pater Filii . . .

Sexto, essentia est Pater, igitur essentia est Pater Filii. Respondetur concedendo primam consequentiam . . . S. Thomas, Alexander de Hallis, et Scotus . . . Gregorius etiam concordat . . . Scotus eam distinguit . . .

Item septimo: aliqua essentia divina generat, igitur essentia divina generat. Antecedens probatur, quia . . .

Septimo, contradictoria istius: “Essentia generat” est falsa, scilicet “Nulla essentia divina generat,” igitur. Antecedens patet . . . Respondetur negando antecedens . . . [90r] . . .

Octavo arguitur per auctoritatem Richardi, 6° De Trinitate, c. 22, dicentis: “Multi temporibus nostris surrexerunt qui non [fol. 125vb] audent hoc dicere, scilicet quod persona Filii sit substantia genita, cum potius, quod multo periculosius est contra sanctorum patrum auctoritatem . . .”

Octavo auctoritate Richardi, 6° De Trinitate, c. 22, dicentis: “Multi temporibus nostris surrexerunt qui non audent hoc dicere, scilicet quod persona Filii sit substantia genita, quin potius quod multo periculosius est contra sanctorum patrem auctoritatem . . .”

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

233

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

Respondet Adam quod auctoritas Richardi hic non debet ponderari, quia auctoritas Ecclesiae est in contrarium . . . [90v] . . . Magister glossat . . . dicit Gregorius . . . Richardus . . . Augustinus . . . Ex auctoritate Hylarii. Item nono arguit c. 33: “Ponamus duos quorum unus alicuius rei scientiam vel alicuius artis notitiam per se ipsum excogitando invenit . . .”

Nono arguit Richardus c. 23: “Ponamus,” inquit, “duos quorum unus alicuius rei scientiam vel alicuius artis notitiam per se ipsum excogitando invenit . . .” Respondetur admisso casu quod non est eadem scientiam in utroque, sicut nec eadem veritas . . .

[fol. 126ra] Item decimo arguit ibidem sic: Filius habet esse a Patre et Patris generatione, igitur et sapere, cum idem ei esse et sapere . . .

Decimo arguit ibidem: Filius habet esse a Patre et Patris generare, igitur sapere, cum idem sit ei esse et sapere . . . Respondetur concedendo quod Filius habet esse et sapere et sapientiam a Patre ex Patris generatione . . . [91r] . . .

Item undecimo arguit sic: Filius generatur ab aliquo ente et non ab accidente, igitur a substantia. Et illa non est nisi essentia divina . . .

Undecimo, Filius generatur ab aliquo ente et non ab accidente, igitur a substantia, et non ab alia quam ab essentia divina, igitur. Respondet Adam quod capiendo substantiam pro omni ente quod non est accidens . . .

[fol. 126rb] Item duodecimo: in Deo est aliqua relatio genita, cum relatio Filii sit Filius, ut patet d. 33 primi, igitur in Deo est aliqua entitas genita. Consequentia tenet ab inferiori ad superius . . .

Duodecimo, in Deo est relatio genita, cum relatio Filii sit Filius, ut patet d. 33 huius, igitur in Deo est entitas genita, ab inferiori ad superius . . . Respondet Adam quod si ly “essentia” capitur . . .

234 Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

Brinzei and Schabel Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

Item tertiodecimo: si nulla essentia esset genita, igitur nullum genitum esset essentia, per conversionem simplicem. Consequens falsum . . .  Item quartodecimo: si non hoc potissime esset, sicut Magister d. 5 primi, quod si Pater generaret essentiam, essentia relative diceretur ad Patrem et esset genitor illius rei quae ipse est . . .

Tertiodecimo, si non maxime, ut arguit Magister in littera, quod si Pater generaret essentiam, essentia relative diceretur ad Patrem et Pater esset genitor illius rei quae est ipse . . . Respondetur concedendo consequentiam. Ad improbationem . . . [91v] . . .

Item decimoquinto, sequitur: haec essentia est Filius, igitur haec essentia est habens Patrem, igitur haec essentia est genita . . . [fol. 126rb]

Decimoquarto, sequitur: haec essentia est Filius, igitur haec essentia est habens Patrem, igitur est genita . . . Respondetur quod si ly “habens Patrem” stat ibi substantive et facit . . .

Item sextodecimo: Anselmus, De processione Spiritus Sancti, c. 5°, dicit: “Spiritum Sanctum non esse de deitate Patris, sed de relatione, stultissimum est dicere.” Ex quo manifeste sequitur quod Spiritus Sanctus esse de deitate Patris productiva, quia sic loquitur Anselmus . . .

Decimoquinto, per Anselmum De processione Spiritus Sancti, c. 5°, dicentem Spiritum Sanctum non esse de divinitate Patris, scilicet de relatione, stultissimum est dicere, igitur divinitas producit Spiritum Sanctum et pari ratione generat Filium . . . Respondetur quod Anselmus ibi non intendit . . . unde dicunt Bonaventura et Scotus . . .

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

235

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

Item septimodecimo, ibidem c. 13: “Spiritus Sanctus est Deus de Deo, igitur essentia Spiritus Sancti de essentia Patris, quae una in tribus esse intelligitur.” Ex quo sequitur quod essentia est de essentia et non nisi [fol. 126va] producente; igitur essentia producit et producitur. Item octavodecimo: essentia divina communicatur, igitur producitur. Antecedens patet per Augustinum, xii De Trinitate, c. 26, ubi dicit: “Essentiam praestat Filio sine initio generatio . . .”

Sextodecimo, essentia divina communicatur, igitur producitur. Antecedens patet per Augustinum, 15 De Trinitate, capitulo 26, dicentem: “Essentia praestat Filio sine initio generationis . . .” Respondetur negando consequentiam . . . Augustino . . . Sic solvit Adam. Scotus autem dicit . . . [92r] . . .

Item novodecimo: tres personae non sunt una natura quae sit quaelibet earum, igitur. Antecedens probatur Ioachim per illud Salvatoris orantis Patrem pro suis fidelibus ut sint unum . . .

Septimodecimo, tres persone non sunt una substantia quae sit quaelibet earum, igitur. Antecedens probavit Ioachim per illud quod oravit Christus pro fidelibus ut sint unum . . . Respondetur negando antecedens. In hoc enim sententia Ioachim reputabatur haeretica . . .

Ad primum istorum negatur . . . [fol. 126vb] Ad secundum, “Essentia divina” etc., respondet Occam negando antecedens . . .

236 Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

Brinzei and Schabel Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

[fol. 127rb] Ad tertiam respondet Adam . . . [fol. 127vb] Per idem patet ad quartum . . . [fol. 128ra] Ad quintum, “Quicquid vere praedicatur” etc., dicitur . . .

Vide supra responsionem 5

[fol. 128rb] Ad sextum, “Essentia” etc., conceditur . . . concedunt Sanctus Thomas, Alexander de Halles et Scotus et Praepositinus . . .

Vide supra responsionem 6

[fol. 128va] Ad septimum, “Aliqua essentia” etc. . . .  [fol. 128vb] Ad octavum respondet Adam . . .

Vide supra responsionem 8

[fol. 129ra] Ad novum, quod est ratio Richardi . . .

Vide supra responsionem 9

[fol. 129ra] Ad decimum, quod etiam est Vide supra responsionem 10 ratio Richardi . . . [fol. 129rb] Ad undecimum, “Filius generatur” etc., dicit Adam . . .

Vide supra responsionem 11

[fol. 129va] Ad duodecimum dicit Adam . . .

Vide supra responsionem 12

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology Henricus Totting de Oyta, I Sent., dist. 8, art. 2, Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, v.b.25, fols. 124vb–130va

237

Dinkelsbühl, i Sent., q. 8, Schotten 254, fols. 88r–92r

Ad [fol. 129vb] trecedimum, “Si nulla” etc., negatur consequentia. Ad probationem dicitur sicut ad septimum. [fol. 129vb] Ad quartumdecimum, “Si non” etc., conceditur consequentia . . . Vide supra responsionem 14 [fol. 129vb] Ad quintumdecimum, dicitur quod si ly ‘habens patrem’ stat ibi substantive . . . [fol. 129vb] Ad sextumdecimum, dico quod Anselmus non intendit ibi aliud nisi ostendere Spiritum Sanctum . . .

Vide supra responsionem 15

[fol. 129vb] Per idem patet ad decimumseptimum qui exponitur quod [fol. 130ra] Spiritus Sanctui qui est . . . [fol. 130ra] Ad decimumoctavum, “Essentia divina” etc., negatur consequentia . . .

Vide supra responsionem 16

[fol. 130rb] Ad decimumnonum dicitur Vide supra responsionem 17 negando antecedens. In hoc enim opinio Ioachim reputabatur haeretica . . .

The parallel columns again show Dinkelsbühl’s systematic method: no new material is used in question 8, as all the authorities cited are borrowed from Oyta. For example, when Oyta quotes two long passages from Richard of Saint-Victor, Dinkelsbühl does not hesitate to reproduce them entirely.90 The 90  See above in our table arguments 9 and 10, which are exact quotations, as Oyta indicated, from Richardus de Sancto Victore, De Trinitate, chap. 23, ed. Jean Ribaillier (Paris, 1958), 261–262.10–38 and 262.40–60.

238

Brinzei and Schabel

table above also shows how Dinkelsbühl changes the ordering and omits some of Oyta’s theses. Thus, arguments 1, 7, and 15 from Oyta are missing in Dinkelsbühl, although Dinkelsbühl adds “Anselm’s rule” as argument 2, which explains why the nineteen propositions in Oyta’s question become seventeen in Dinkelsbühl. Whenever any of Dinkelsbühl’s text is not found in Oyta’s distinction 9, article 2, we can trace its origins elsewhere. Thus in response 3, where Dinkelsbühl lists the positions of Bonaventure, Thomas, and Scotus from their distinction 5, he inserts a discussion that takes almost half a folio in Schotten 254 but is missing in Oyta’s distinction 9: the text can be found in article 2 of Oyta’s question 8.91 We can see Dinkelsbühl’s consistent practice again in question 11 of Schotten 254, Utrum essentia divina sit potentia vel principium generandi Filium (fols. 96v–100v), where he reorganizes Oyta’s distinction 9, article 3 (fols. 142va–148va in the Prague manuscript). Again changing the sequence of Oyta’s arguments, Dinkelsbühl regroups the theses and responses together. He pays attention to Oyta’s text, modifying self-references as necessary. For example, Oyta’s Pro qua et contra conclusionem meam . . . (fol. 144rb) becomes Pro qua et contra conclu­ sionem positam in Dinkelsbühl’s question. That Dinkelsbühl was not simply lazily copying from his master, but rather had a deep interest in his ideas is apparent when Dinkelsbühl goes beyond Oyta’s Sentences commentary as a source, as he does for Langenstein. In distinction 44 of Book ii in Schotten 254, Utrum omnis cogitatio turpium sit pecca­ tum (fols. 368v–369r), Dinkelsbühl copies more than a column (fols. 3va–4ra) from the question An omnis cogitatio turpium sit peccatum (ms. Salzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M. ii 307, fols. 3va–5vb) of Oyta’s Lectura super psalterio.92 Dinkelsbühl’s Sentences commentary in Schotten 254 is an important witness to the reception of Henry Totting of Oyta’s Trinitarian doctrine in Vienna. Dinkelsbühl’s way of recasting and reorganizing Oyta’s theses de facto, and maybe intentionally, made his master’s complicated text more accessible to his listening and reading audience. Students from Paris were perhaps more accustomed to the sometimes twisting structure of the Sentences commentaries 91  Alfonsu Maierù edited this fragment of Oyta using mss. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, ii 639, and Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19364 and 17468, in “Logique et théologie trinitaire dans le moyen âge tardif: deux solutions en présence,” in The Editing of Theological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages: Actes of the Conference Arranged by the Department of Classical Languages, University of Stockholm, 29–31 August 1984, ed. Monika Asztalos (Stockholm, 1986), 185–222, esp. 221–2. 92  On this treatise, see Lang, Heinrich Totting von Oyta, 90–9, esp. 90, qu. 3: An omnis cogita­ tion turpium sit peccatum.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

239

of the fourteenth century, because they were trained within this tradition. This practice was missing in the new University of Vienna, a context in which Dinkelsbühl’s commentary was one of the first indigenous examples. It is quite possible that Dinkelsbühl’s efforts to simplify Oyta’s argumentation had a pedagogical inspiration. Copying arguments from Bonaventure, Rimini, Eltville, Langenstein, and Oyta and abbreviating their doctrinal statements created a new framework for Viennese theology. 8.2 Notes on Book iii Book iii, which provides some interesting details about dating and redactions, has been the focus of an actual doctrinal study, a book on Dinkelsbühl and the Immaculate Conception published by Karl Binder.93 Binder’s main goal was to place Dinkelsbühl into his doctrinal context on this issue, rather than to sort out the complexities of the traditions definitively, so that he does not look at Arnold of Seehausen and, even though he employs Klosterneuburg 41, Binder does not mention Villingen, to whom the manuscript has been attributed.94 Nevertheless, following Madre’s terminology, Binder published transcriptions or editions of four versions of Dinkelsbühl’s treatment of the Immaculate Conception in the Sentences commentaries, thus providing us with an opportunity to analyse and compare these texts.95 Binder begins with the brief four-page text in Schotten 269, calling it Quaestiones communes and giving variants from Klosterneuburg 41, although he does not use the Salzburg and Munich 8358 witnesses. As we have seen, this is actually a dubium added to the end of the Book iii material, making its nature particularly unclear. Binder’s apparatus fontium is incomplete, for almost the entire text comes verbatim from Bonaventure and Richard of Menneville.96 Next Binder prints the fourteen-page Reportatio A version of the Quaestiones magistrales from mss. önb 4366 and Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 26933. Binder notes that much of the above dubium is incorporated into the end of this text, although in fact it is virtually all there, with the last bit

93  See Binder, Die Lehre des Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl über unbefleckte Empfängnis. 94  Binder’s dating (ibid., 29–35) of the material is also confusing, seeming to prefer the later notes in Schotten 254 that give the dates 1423 (fol. 1r) and 1425 (fol. 369ra–b) as representative of the lecture series itself, which would then coincide with the Lectura Mellicensis (see below). This would not work for a number of reasons. 95  See ibid., 151–89. 96  See ibid., 151–4, and 11 for Quaestiones communes.

240

Brinzei and Schabel

rearranged.97 Finally, after printing an odd eight-page text of unclear origin from önb 4719 that he dubs Reportatio B,98 Binder offers the thirteen-page Reportatio C from ms. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143. Despite Binder’s suggestion that only a few passages are the same, however, this text actually incorporates all of his Reportatio A, even if Binder does not punctuate both copies the same way.99 The only differences between the texts are where Innsruck adds text:100 Reportatio C contains Reportatio A, which contains Schotten 269. Although Binder did not employ other known witnesses of the later redactions of Book iii, he gives us an idea of the progression from Schotten 269 to önb 4366/Munich 26933 to Innsbruck 143, with önb 4719 occupying an odd place. This already modifies some of Madre’s classification, so in the future a complete analysis of the more than a dozen witnesses to the later redactions will be required to untangle the Book iii web. A few of the manuscripts—for instance, Innsbruck and Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 124 (87)—begin with a question absent in the majority: Utrum ex testimoniis legis et prophetarum ostendi possit Christum verum Messiam esse incarnatum. Not surprisingly, the question borrows heavily from Nicholas of Lyra. In particular, it quotes his Probatio adventus Christi, where Nicholas remarks that 1309 years have passed since the Messiah came: “quia ab illo tempore fluxerunt usque nunc 1309 anni . . . et adhuc Iudaei videntur a praedicto sceptro magis longiique quam a principio.”101 In the Viennese question, “1309” is replaced with “1408,” providing a nice date for that redaction.102 Since the question is 97  See ibid., 155–68. The dubium actually begins on 167.7 at Pro constanti (151.7) and not at Et licet hoc (151.8). It does end at 154.2, but the remaining 33 lines of p. 154 are simply rearranged on 167.15–168.9. 98  See ibid., 169–76. 99  Once Binder introduces a new paragraph in one version where he continued the same sentence in the other. There are quite a few hasty transcriptions; for example at 186.35, where Binder has Subdit Scotus in 13a: Hec opinio videtur racionabilis, one should read, Subdit Scotus ubi supra: Hec opinio videtur valde racionabilis. 100  Adding 177.36 (Nota)–178.2 (seminato), that is, seven lines, after 156.30 (Tractavi); 179.4 (Et istius)–181.18 (opinionem), more than two pages, after 159.24 (posui); 182.1–4 (Tertio . . . etc.), four lines, after 160.3 (concedendum); and 186.35 (Subdit)–187.9 (doctores), sixteen lines, after 165.12 (Anshelmus). Binder elides some text in the Innsbruck transcription, which explains why it is slightly shorter than the Reportatio A transcription. 101  m s. Tortosa, Archivo Capitular, 139, fol. 311vb, quoted in William O. Duba, “Continental Franciscan Quodlibeta after Scotus,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages: The Fourteenth Century, ed. Chris Schabel (Leiden, 2007), 569–649, at 583 n. 20. 102  For example, mss. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143, fol. 66va; Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 124 (87), p. 334 (the ms. is paginated).

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

241

absent in many witnesses, however, it is possible that it is a later addition, although this complicated tradition is best approached with caution. As in the case of the base text in Schotten 269, the explicit citations in the various later redactions conceal Dinkelsbühl’s debt to scholars from whom he borrows tacitly, or even explicitly. Henry Totting of Oyta, for instance, a source for Dinkelsbühl in Schotten 269, contributed much more to the later versions. We have already discussed cases where Dinkelsbühl’s borrowing from Henry of Langenstein in Book i was supplemented with extensive passages from Oyta. Oyta is not mentioned in those instances, and it is only through diligence that the source is found. Fortunately, one does find his name on occasion. In question 17 of Book iii, we read that “Francis of Meyronnes appears to have been of this opinion, as we read from his statements recited in the first question on the Sentences, the question of Master Henry of Oyta.”103 One can indeed cite Oyta’s first question for Book i, but more to the point, in Oyta’s third question of Book i we also read that “Francis of Meyronnes appears to have been of this opinion, as we read from his statements recited in the first question.”104 What has happened is that Oyta’s question 3 of Book i (ms. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, ii 639, fols. 37ra–44rb) has in fact become question 17 of Book iii in Innsbruck 143 (fols. 183rb–206rb). The controversy that interested Binder postdates Oyta’s and Langenstein’s sojourn in Paris, that is, the debate over the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which erupted in 1387 following the Dominican John of Monzón’s personal condemnation of the predominantly Franciscan doctrine according to which Mary was born without original sin.105 In Schotten 269 from ca. 1400, Dinkelsbühl is anxious to avoid the issue, as we have seen, but in the later version of Book iii there is a change:

103  m s. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143, fols. 183vb–184ra: “Et illius opinionis videtur fuisse Franciscus de Maronis, ut patet ex dictis [184ra] suis recitatis in prima quaestione Sententiarum, quaestione Magistri Henrici de Oyta.” 104  m s. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, ii 639, fol. 37va: “Et illius opinionis videtur fuisse Franciscus de Maronis, ut patet ex dictis suis recitatis in prima quaestione Sententiarum, quaestione Magistri Henrici de Oyta.” 105  See on this topic Bernard Guenée, Between Church and State: The Lives of Four French Prelates in the Late Middle Ages (Chicago, 1991), 159–69; Sigrid Müller, “Pierre d’Ailly und die ‘richtige’ Thomas-Interpretation. Theologisch-hermeneutische Prinzipien als Grundlage des Wegestreits,” Traditio 60 (2005): 339–68; Paweł Krupa, O.P., Une grave que­ relle. L’université de Paris, les mendiants et la conception immaculée de la Vierge (1387–1390) (Warsaw, 2013).

242

Brinzei and Schabel

Schotten 269, fol. 235r

Later Redaction (Innsbruck 143, fols. 108rb–va)

Circa distinctionem 3am tertii, in qua Magister agit de sanctificatione Virginis, est notandum quod aliqui dicunt Mariam Virginem Matrem Domini conceptam esse in peccato originali, alii vero dicunt quod non, sed quod anima ipsius fuit sub gratia creata et ab omni macula peccati praeservata. Sed quid de illo sit non discutio in praesenti.1 Ambae partes fortes sunt et a magnis tentae.

His praemissis, sciendum quod aliqui dicunt Virginem Mariam Matrem Domini conceptam esse in originali, alii vero dicunt quod non, sed quod ipsius anima fuerit in gratia et sub gratia creata et ab [108va] omni macula peccati conservata. Sed quid de isto sit, Deus novit. Ambae partes fortes sunt et a magnis tentae.

Pro constanti tamen est tenendum et indubitanter quod Beata Virgo fuit sanctificata antequam de utero nata. Et licet hoc expresse non habeatur in scriptura, haberi tamen potest ex his quae in sacra scriptura leguntur. Cum namque evangelia inchoentur a Iohanne, qui fuit consummatio prophetarum et initium legis novae, et Beata Virgo nata et concepta fuerit ante Iohannem, ideo nihil habetur de eius nativitate vel sanctificatione in evangeliis. Habetur tamen in novo et in vetere testamento unde eius eius sanctificatio . . .

Quare pro praesenti nullam dictarum opinionum affirmare volo, sed solum earum aliqua dicta recitare. Et primo dicta asserentium quod virgo benedicta sit sine originali concepta . . .

1 in praesenti] add. Deus novit Klosterneuburg 41

The later redactions thus discuss the controversy at length, although, as is clear in the passage above, “I don’t want to affirm any of said opinions at present, but only to recite some of their statements.” Thus we read various words of caution: From this it is clear that whoever rashy and belligerently posits by assertion this or that opinion on this matter and contentiously defends it is not completely excused of sin through ignorance, but rather accused, since scandals are often generated from these assertions and belligerent

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

243

disputes, especially from sermons in the vernacular. But in the schools anyone can hold this opinion or that without rash assertion, although subjecting himself to the determination of the Church.106 And later: Here a certain doctor states that, on account of contentious or belligerent disputations on the matter of the conception of the Blessed Virgin and vernacular sermons, by which some people frequently and imprudently preach and explain the secrets of nature in front of virgins and honest ladies, [and] from which dirty and wanton thoughts frequently arise, perhaps it would be and have been better for this feast not to be solemnized.107 From Madre and Binder it is clear there are various versions of the later redaction of Book iii, with Innsbruck 143 adding four passages that are absent from other witnesses. In fact, near the beginning the different perspective is highlighted: where Innsbruck 143 (fol. 108ra) and the rest begin in unison, “For this question, I take what original sin is and how it is contracted from the statements in Book ii, where I dealt with this at length,” the same codex adds a passage that starts curiously, “Note, as will be clear in Book ii, the Lord granting. . . . ”108 Among the passages not found in most other manuscripts are citations from numerous theologians, including a crucial reference to Peter of Candia:

106  Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, iii Sententiarum, qu. 6 (ms. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143, fol. 109ra): “Ex quo patet quod qui assertive hanc vel illam opinionem in praedicta materia temere ponunt litigiose atque contentiose defendunt non penitus a peccato per ignorantiam excusantur, immo potius accusantur, cum ex huiusmodi assertionibus et litigiosis dispositionibus saepe scandala generentur, et praecipue ex vulgaribus sermonibus. Potest tamen quilibet in scolis sine temeraria assertione hanc vel illam opinionem tenere, subiciendo se tamen determinationi Ecclesiae.” 107  Ibid.: “Dicit tamen hic quidam doctor quod propter contentiosas seu litigiosas disputationes de materia conceptionis Virginis benedictae et sermones vulgares quibus saepe aliqui incircumspecte coram virginibus et honestis dominabus secreta naturae praedicant et declarant, ex quibus saepe cogitationes turpes et luxuriose generantur, melius forte esset et fuisset non esse festum hoc sollemnizandum.” 108  Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, iii Sententiarum, qu. 6 (mss. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 143, fol. 108ra; Schotten 201, fol. 39ra): “Ad hanc quaestionem, supposito/suppono quid sit peccatum originale et quomodo contrahitur ex dictis [patet del.] in 2o libro ubi de hoc satis diffuse tractavi, nota, ut patebit Domino contente in secundo libro. . . .”

244

Brinzei and Schabel

Innsbruck 143, fol. 112rb; önb 4590, fol. 86r

Most other manuscripts

. . . Haec Anselmus.

. . . Haec Anselmus.

Et Scotus ubi supra: haec opinio videtur valde rationabilis. Cum enim tot modis potuerit Deus eam ob originali preservasse . . . Pro hac etiam opinione prima sunt Thomas de Argentina, q. 4, 3 ar. primo et dominus Petrus de Candia, Alexander papa quintus, q. unica 6y ca. 2o et plures alii doctores. Allegant etiam alii pro se Alexandrum Nequam . . .

Allegant etiam alii pro se Alexandrum Nequam . . .

Whoever was planning, God granting, to lecture on Book ii after Book iii cited Peter of Candia as Pope Alexander v and was therefore writing after his election to the papacy at the Council of Pisa in 1409. 8.3 The Later Redactions of Book iv and Schotten 269 Madre did not provide a question list for what he called the Quaestiones magis­ trales for Book iv, but merely noted in brief the shared and unshared questions with Schotten 269. He distinguished between two redactions, noting that önb 4820 had a different first question, while the title of the first question in Schotten 201 still matched that of Schotten 269. A closer look reveals that the later redactions are much closer to Schotten 269 than Madre understood. Most of Schotten 269’s question 1 is in fact incorporated into the later version, which expands considerably. Schotten 201 appears to represent a transitional stage, since it still shares Schotten 269’s first question. Madre failed to spot a question in Schotten 269 corresponding to question 8 in the later version. Questions 11 and 12 of the later version are new, yet here again there is a connection in Schotten 269, since a note at the end of the previous question in that manuscript directs the reader to Henry Totting of Oyta and the new questions turn out to come from Oyta’s Sentences commentary, Book iv, qu. un., articles 2 and 3 respectively. Otherwise, question 17 in the later version differs from Schotten 269’s question 14. Schotten 269 ends prematurely at distinction 45, while some later manuscripts complete Book iv in differing ways. Aside from these

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

245

differences, material is often added, a fact reflected in the increased number of citations. There are differences among the later manuscripts. For example, önb 4820 adds even more material here and there, some of which is also in the margins of Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 315, attributed to Conrad of Rothenburg. But the relationship between these two manuscripts, or between önb 4820 and the others, is hard to discern, given the probability that more than one exemplar was employed on many occasions. Thus we have various slightly differing texts of the later version of Book iv, in the following manuscripts:

• • • • • • • • • • •

Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 41 (fols. 243ra–354vb); Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 301 (fols. 142v–335r); Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 302 (fols. 13r–252r); Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 315 (fols. 1r–262r); Krakow, Biblioteca Jagiellońska, 1418 (fols. 1r–243r);109 Lilienfeld, Stiftsbibliothek, 85 (fols. 1r–315r); Michaelbeuern, Stiftsbibliothek, man. Cart. 9 (fols. 113r–232r);110 St. Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, xi 85 (fols. 1ra–287rb); Seitenstetten, Benediktinerstift, 180 (fols. 1ra–242vb); Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 4820 (fols. 146r–370v); Vienna, Schottenstift, 201 (170) (fols. 157ra–311vb). Then, because the later Lectura Mellicensis does not deal with the distinctions on marriage (see below), several of those manuscripts fill in the blanks with earlier material, for example:

• • • • • • •

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3066 (fols. not noted); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 23850 (fols. 472r–517r); Munich, Universitätsbibliothek, 88 (fols. 112r–223v); Salzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M ii 19 (fols. 401vb–439rb); St. Paul im Lavanttal, Stiftsbibliothek, 48/4 (fols. 205ra–241ra); Tübingen, Universitätsbibliothek, 203 (fols. 238ra–279rb); Vienna, Schottenstift, 199 (169) (fols. 189ra–243rb).

109  We will need to inspect this manuscript to ensure that it does not simply contain the text of Schotten 269. 110  Likewise, we will need to check this manuscript to find out whether it simply reproduces the text of Schotten 269.

246

Brinzei and Schabel

Below is a question list for the later manuscripts, based on several witnesses. Actually, the question titles in Schotten 269 include the references to distinctions, exactly as below, omitted in Madre’s list. = both the title and the explicit match those in Schotten 269 (we give Madre’s numbers); cf. only the title matches; ~ only the explicit matches; cf. ? the title is similar. 1.

Circa distinctionem 1 quarti Sententiarum moveo illam quaestionem: Utrum novae legis sacramenta causativa gratiae habeant aliquam spiritualem virtutem formaliter inhaerentem qua in animam possint agere (non). Incorporating most of question 1 in Schotten 269. 2. (= Schotten 269, qu. 2) Circa secundam partem 1 distinctionis quaeritur utrum circumcisio fuerit collativa gratiae ratione operis operati (non). 3. (~ Schotten 269, qu. 3) Circa 2 distinctionem quaeritur utrum sacramentum baptismi ex debita forma verborum et materia aquae constet (non). 4. (= Schotten 269, qu. 4) Circa 4 distinctionem quaeritur utrum quilibet qui rite baptizatur suscipiat simul sacramentum baptismatis et effectum eius (non). 5. (= Schotten 269, qu. 5) Circa 5 distinctionem quaero utrum malitia ministri impediat efficaciam sacramenti (sic). 6. (= Schotten 269, qu. 6) Circa distinctionem 7* quaero utrum sacramentum confirmationis sit sacramentum novae legis a Christo Domino institutum (non). *distinctionem 7] 7 distinctionem 269 7. (= Schotten 269, qu. 7) Circa 8 distinctionem quaero utrum eucharistia sit unum sacramentum novae legis a Christo Domino institutum (non). 8. (= Schotten 269, qu. 7a, omitted in Madre) Secundo quaero circa istam 8 distinctionem utrum sit vera et praecisa forma consecrationis istius sacramenti ista quae ponitur in canone missae (non). 9. (= Schotten 269, qu. 8) Circa 9 distinctionem quaero utrum existens in peccato mortali peccat mortaliter sumendo hoc sacramentum (non). 10. (= Schotten 269, qu. 9) Circa distinctionem 10* quaeritur utrum in consecratione eucharistiae sub speciebus panis et vini fiant realiter corpus Christi et sanguis eius (non). Here there is a marginal reference to Scotus and Oyta in Schotten 269. *distinctionem 10] 10 distinctionem 269 11. Utrum corpus Christi sub speciebus panis et vini sit dimensive seu vere quantum et tantum sicut est in caelo aut in ara crucis fuit (non). Taken from Henry Totting of Oyta, Book iv, qu. un., art. 2 (ms. Graz, Universi­ tätsbibliothek, ii 639, fols. 266vb–271va).

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

247

12. Utrum omnis actio vel passio Christi conveniens naturaliter existenti in caelo conveniat eidem ut est hic sub eucharistiae sacramento (non). Taken from Oyta, Book iv, q. un., art. 3 (Graz ii 639, fols. 271va–277ra). 13. (= Schotten 269, qu. 10) Circa secundam partem distinctionis 11, utrum congrua huius sacramenti materia sit panis et vini (non). 14. (cf. Schotten 269, qu. 11) Circa 13 distinctionem quaeritur utrum quilibet sacerdos et solum sacerdos proferens verba consecrationis cum debita intentione et circa convenientem materiam possit conficere eucharistiam (non). 15. (= Schotten 269, qu. 12) Circa 14 distinctionem quaeritur utrum ad deletionem peccati mortalis post baptismum commissi necessario requiratur paenitentia actualis (non). 16. (= Schotten 269, qu. 13) Secundo quaeritur utrum actus paenitendi requisitus ad deletionem culpae mortalis sit actus alicuius virtutis (non). 17. Tertio quaeritur utrum ad deletionem peccati mortalis necessaria sit ad salutem paenitentia sacramentalis (non). Question 14 in Schotten 269 is replaced with this one. 18. (= Schotten 269, qu. 15) Circa 15 distinctionem quaero primo utrum cuilibet peccato mortali actuali correspondeat propria satisfactio (non). 19. (= Schotten 269, qu. 16) Secundo quaero circa istam distinctionem utrum quilibet damnificans alium in bonis suis teneatur ad restitutionem ita quod non sit vere paenitens sine tali restitutione (non). 20. (~ Schotten 269, qu. 17) Circa 16 et 17 distinctiones quaero utrum ad perfectam hominis viatoris paenitentiam necessario requiratur contritio, confessio et satisfactio (non). 21. (= Schotten 269, qu. 18) Circa 18 et 19 distinctiones quaero utrum cuilibet sacerdoti in susceptione ordinis sacerdotalis conferantur claves regni caelestis (non). 22. (= Schotten 269, qu. 19) Circa 20 distinctionem quaero utrum paenitentia in extremis valeat ad salutem (non). 23. (= Schotten 269, qu. 20) Circa distinctionem 21* quaero utrum confessor teneatur in omni causa celare peccatum sibi in confessione detectum (non). *distinctionem 21] 21 distinctionem 269 24. (= Schotten 269, qu. 21) Circa distinctionem 22* quaero utrum peccata per paenitentiam dimissa in recidivante redeant in numero (sic). *distinctionem 22] 22 distinctionem 269 25. (= Schotten 269, qu. 22) Circa distinctionem 23* quaero utrum extrema unctio sit sacramentum novae legis (non). *distinctionem 23] 23 distinctionem 269

248

Brinzei and Schabel

26. (= Schotten 269, qu. 23) Circa 24 distinctionem quaero utrum in Ecclesia sint tantum septem ordines eo modo quo ordo vel ordinatio ponitur sacramentum (non). 27. (~ Schotten 269, qu. 24) Circa 25 distinctionem dubitatur utrum poena canonica impediat a susceptione et collatione ordinis (non). 28. (= Schotten 269, qu. 25) Circa 26 distinctionem quaero utrum matrimonium fuerit a Deo immediate* institutum (non). *fuerit a Deo immediate] immediate a Deo fuerit 269 29. (= Schotten 269, qu. 26) Circa 27 et* 28 distinctiones quaero utrum solus consensus verbis de praesenti expressus causet matrimonium (non). *27 et] om. 269 30. (= Schotten 269, qu. 27) Circa 29 distinctionem quaero utrum consensus in altero coniugium* contrahentium coactus sufficiat ad verum matrimonium contrahendum (sic). *coniugium] om. 269 31. (= Schotten 269, qu. 28) Circa 30 distinctionem quaero utrum ad contractum matrimonium requiratur consensus sequens rationem non erroneam sive apprehensivam (non). 32. (= Schotten 269, qu. 29) Secundo quaeritur* utrum inter Mariam et Ioseph fuerit verum matrimonium (non). *quaeritur] quaero 269 33. (cf. Schotten 269, qu. 30) Circa 31 distinctionem quaero utrum sint tria bona matrimonii, scilicet fides, proles, et sacramentum (non). 34. (= Schotten 269, qu. 31) Circa 32 distinctionem quaero utrum simpliciter necessarium sit in matrimonio reddere debitum petenti (non). 35. (= Schotten 269, qu. 32) Circa 33 distinctionem* quaero utrum aliquando fuerit licita pluralitas uxorum, similiter et earum repudium (non). Schotten 269 adds dubium fols. 334v–335r: Aliud dubium utrum virginitas sit praeferenda matrimonio . . . *distinctionem] om. 269 36. (= Schotten 269, dubium after qu. 33): Circa distinctionem 34* est dubium utrum impotentia ad actum carnalem impediat matrimonium (sic). *distinctionem 34] priorem distinctionem 269 37. (= Schotten 269, qu. 33) Circa 35 distinctionem quaero utrum liceat viro dimittere uxorem suam causa fornicationis (non). 38. (= Schotten 269, qu. 34) Circa distinctionem* 36 quaero utrum servitus impediat matrimonium (non). *distinctionem] om. 269 39. (= Schotten 269, qu. 35) Circa distinctionem* 37 quaero utrum sacramentum ordinis impediat matrimonium (non). *distinctionem] om. 269 40. (= Schotten 269, qu. 36) Circa 38 distinctionem* quaero utrum votum continentiae impediat matrimonium (non). *distinctionem] om. 269 41. (= Schotten 269, qu. 37) Circa distinctionem* 39 quaeritur utrum dispar cultus impediat matrimonium (non). *distinctionem] om. 269

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

249

42. (= Schotten 269, qu. 38) Circa distinctiones* 40 et 41 quaeritur utrum cognatio carnalis vel vinculum affinitatis impediat matrimonium (non). Includes consanguinity table; the manuscripts vary towards the end. *distinctiones] om. 269 43. (= Schotten 269, qu. 39) Circa distinctionem* 43 quaero utrum generalis resurrectio futura sit in instanti (non). *distinctionem] om. 269 44. (= Schotten 269, qu. 40) Secundo circa materiam de resurrectione quaero principaliter utrum corpora electorum post resurrectionem erunt impassibilia (non). 45. (= Schotten 269, qu. 41) Tertio quaero utrum corpora beatorum erunt agilia (non). 46. (= Schotten 269, qu. 42) Quarto quaero utrum corpus gloriosum fiat clarum (non). 47. (= Schotten 269, qu. 43) Quinto quaero utrum corpus beati per dotem subtilitatis possit simul esse cum alio corpore (non). 48. (= Schotten 269, qu. 44) Circa distinctionem 45* quaero utrum suffragia vivorum prosint defunctis (non). Schotten 269 ends here. *distinctionem 45] 45 distinctionem 269 Some manuscripts of the later versions add several questions here to complete Book iv. Curiously, ms. Ansbach, Staatliche Bibliothek, lat. 142, a miscellany with other works by Dinkelsbühl and others, preserves the last question on the above list and then some of these questions separately on fols. 162rb–178rb, apparently in agreement with ms. Munich, Universitätsbibliothek, 88: 49. Utrum omnes homines tam boni quam mali sint in futuro iudicio iudicandi (sic). [Ansbach 142, 168rb–169va; St. Florian 85, 260va–262rb; Klosterneuburg 315, 255v–257v] 50. Utrum homines et angeli sint cum Christo iudicaturi (non). [A 142, 169va– 170ra; F 85, 262rb–236ra; K 315, 257v–258v] 51. Utrum aliquod generale iudicium sit futurum (non). [A 142, 170ra–174rb; F 85, 263ra–266ra; K 315, 258v–262r] 51a. Utrum simoniacus in ordine sui ordinis officium valeat exercere (non). [F 85, 266ra–268vb = 27a in K 302] 51b. Circa distinctionem 49am quaeritur utrum beatitudo electorum maior sit futura post iudicium quam ante. Et arguitur quod non . . . – . . . ratio reddita est superius eadem de materia illius quaestionis. [F 85, 268vb–281vb] 52. Utrum damnati in inferno mallent omnes homines esse damnatos quam aliquos beatos (non). [A 142, 174rb–175rb]

250

Brinzei and Schabel

53. Utrum damnati in inferno paeniteant de peccatis (non). [A 142, 175rb–vb] 54. Circa distinctionem ultimam quaeritur utrum damnati in inferno ante iudicium videntes gloriam beatorum post iudicium omni luce privati penitus excaecentur (non). [A 142, 175vb, remainder blank; F 85, 281vb–287rb] 9

Stage Three: The Lectura Mellicensis

The Lectura Mellicensis is entirely different from Dinkelsbühl’s earlier commentary. The beautiful deluxe codex Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, Codex 367, begins as follows: “Here begins the register of the Lectura on the fourth book of the Sentences of the reverend master and illustrious doctor of sacred theology Nicholas of Ninkchelspuchl, read and recited in the monastery of Melk in the years of the Lord 1421, 2, 3, and 4.”111 The brief prologue to the work gives further details about the circumstances: Since I desired to serve diligently your love in some way and I explained this to the venerable fathers our lord abbot and the lord prior, it seemed to them expedient for me to read the fourth book of the Sentences, because of the usefulness of the subjects treated in it—especially with respect to the seven sacraments of the Church, to which our Savior gave efficacy with His glorious suffering so that they would be like seven healthful medicines for the diseases of our souls, through the proper and worthy administration and use of which the omnipotent Lord both forgives sins and gives sanctifying grace—and also because of the easiness of these same subjects, at least as compared to those contained in the preceding books. And since, according to the venerable Hugh in the Didascalicon, for every Christian philosopher reading should be exhortation more than occupation, and should not kill good desires in him, but rather nurture them and show him the way of the Truth, so that understanding the secrets of God more highly he loves more strongly, this seems to pertain especially to religious men who have bound themselves to the monastic 111  Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, Lectura Mellicensis, ms. Kremsmünster 367, fol. 1ra: “Incipit registrum Lecturae super quarto libro Sententiarum Reverendi Magistri ac Egregii doctoris Nycolai de Dinkchelspuchl [Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 117: Dinkchelspuchel] Sacrae Theologiae, lectae et pronunciatae [Madre, 117: lectoris, et pronunciatum] in Monasterio Mellicensi, sub annis Domini millesimo ccccmo xxio, secundo, tertio, ac quarto etc.”

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

251

life. Since I will be speaking to them and, according to Blessed Augustine On John, the speech of the teacher should be moderated according to the capacity and need of the listeners, I decided to cut out the metaphysical and physical stuff and the subtle—that is, sterile—subjects and the questions that are more curious than fruitful, and also the superfluous divisions and such things, which could cause difficulties for simple men and occupy rather than edify their souls.112 The Melk Lectura would thus be a radical departure from the earlier approach of nearly a quarter century before. This was partly due to the specific context, for Dinkelsbühl was sincere about catering to his monastic audience. For example, one lengthy casus asks whether a monastery that promises to say individual

112  The prologue was published by Karl Binder, “Eine Anthologie aus Schriften mittelalterlicher Wiener Theologen” (cited in n. 9 above), 212–14, from ms. Melk, Stiftsbibliothek 1873 (81 B.48), but we give the text from ms. Klosterneuburg, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, 47, fol. 2ra and ms. Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, Codex 367, fol. 4ra (the sequence varies in the manuscripts): “In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Cum desiderarem vestris caritatibus in aliquo deservire et illud exposuissem venerabilibus patribus domino nostro abbati et domino priori, visum est eis expedire ut legam quartum librum Sententiarum, propter utilitatem materiarum quae in ipso tractantur—maxime quo ad septem sacramenta Ecclesiae, quibus Salvator noster sua gloriosa passione hanc dedit efficaciam ut essent quasi septem salutaria medicamenta morborum animarum nostrarum, per quorum ritam et dignam administrationem et usum omnipotens Dominus et peccata dimittit et gratiam sanctificantem tribuit—et etiam propter facilitatem earundem materiarum, saltem respectu eorum quae in libris praecedentibus continentur. Et cum, secundum venerabilem Hugonem in Didascolicon, omni Christiano philosopho lectio exhortatio esse debeat magis quam occupatio, et debeat in eo bona desideria non necare, sed pascere, et Veritatis viam sibi ostendere, ut secreta Dei altius intelligens artius amet, maxime hoc videtur pertinere ad religiosos, qui se vitae monasticae manciparunt. Quibus, cum locuturus sim et, secundum beatum Augustinum Super Iohannem, sermo doctoris moderandus sit secundum capacitatem et exigentiam auditorum, cogitavi in processu rescindere metaphysicalia et philosophicalia et materias subtiles, scilicet steriles, et quaestiones magis curiosas quam fructuosas, et etiam superfluas divisiones et huiusmodi, que difficultatem facere possent simplicioribus, et magis eorum animum occupare quam aedificare. Et volo procedere modo faciliori quo potero et prout materia admittit quae fuerit pro tempore pertractanda. Et quia in illo quarto Sententiarum Magister agit principaliter de sacramentis Ecclesiae, de iudicio finali, de resurrectione corporum, de paenis dampnatorum, et de gloria beatorum, et de multis aliis ad illas principales materias pertinentibus, posset iste quartus liber dividi in multas partes, sed videbuntur in processu Domino largiente.”

252

Brinzei and Schabel

Masses for two people can get by with saying one for both.113 Brotherly correction is a theme that receives extensive general treatment, and he seems to be more explicit than normal in describing a certain “abominable sin against nature.”114 Indeed, exactly halfway through Book iv, at the start of distinction 26, 270 folios into the Klosterneuburg 47 witness, which we follow below, after quoting the beginning of Thomas Aquinas’s prooemium to his own Book iv, distinction 26, Dinkelsbühl explicitly announces a change in procedure: “Since the other sacraments after sin” etc. After the Master has determined concerning the sacrament of orders, which is ordered to the spiritual multiplication of the Church, here he begins to determine concerning marriage, which is ordered toward the material multiplication of the faithful. And this part contains seventeen distinctions, for he begins at distinction 26 and ends at distinction 42. In these distinctions many things are said and dealt with that do not much pertain to this place, which contains persons who have castrated themselves for God and who do not have to deal with marriage issues. So I have decided that it is not necessary to follow the material that the Master in the texts and the doctors in their Scripta touch upon, but only to deal with a few things that seem to me to be fitting for this place, so that we do not completely neglect this sacrament.115 For the seventeen distinctions that Lombard devoted to the sacrament of marriage, therefore, Dinkelsbühl asks only two pertinent questions, one on whether 113  See Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, Lectura Mellicensis, Klosterneuburg 47, 327rb–328rb: “Sed pono quod Sortes vel collegium aut conventus promittat duobus cuilibet singillatim unam missam. Quaeritur an tunc liberetur et satisfaciat legendo ambobus unum solam missam.” 114  Ibid., 214rb: “Peccatum illud turpe nimis et totaliter abhominabile quod dicitur peccatum contra naturam, sive in propria persona committatur per mollitiem sive sit commissum in aliena persona quae eiusdem sexus existit vel in persona alterius sexus.” 115  Ibid., 270vb: “ ‘Cum alia sacramenta post peccatum’ etc. Postquam Magister determinavit de sacramento ordinis, quod ordinatur ad spiritualem multiplicationem Ecclesiae, hic incipit determinare de matrimonio, quod ordinatur ad materialem multiplicationem fidelium [thus far = Thomas Aquinas]. Et haec pars continet 17 distinctiones. Incipit enim a distinctione 26 et finitur in 42 inclusive. In quibus distinctionibus multa dicuntur et tractantur quae non multum pertinent ad hunc locum continentem personas quae se propter Deum castraverunt nec habent causas tractare matrimoniales. Ideo cogitavi non prosequi oportet materiam quam Magister in textu et doctores in suis scriptis tangunt, sed aliquas paucas quae mihi videntur huic loco congruae, ut hoc sacramentum non totaliter ignoremus.”

253

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

God founded marriage and the other concerning the marriage of Mary and Joseph, although he uses distinction 38 for an excursus on scandal. He thus omits what the monks might have considered superfluous, but perhaps also provocative, with the high sexual content. Nevertheless, despite the accommodations to his monastic audience, there is no doubt that the sober experiences of Constance and the admonitions of Jean Gerson taught the older Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl to take an even more conservative approach. Already focusing on the more “religious” Book iv, the Melk Lectura is also a return in structure to an earlier style, asking hundreds of questions (not always small), providing a brief division of Peter Lombard’s text before each distinction, reverting even more to the safer authorities of the antiqui—above all Aquinas, Scotus, and Bonaventure—and avoiding both the pagan and Muslim philosophers and the controversial theologians of the fourteenth century. The list of citations of university theologians, especially in comparison with the earlier versions, is striking: University Theologian cited in Book iv

Schotten 269

Klosterneuberg 301

Mellicensis

Thomas Aquinas, op John Duns Scotus, ofm Bonaventure, ofm Peter de Tarantaise, op Durand of Saint-Pourçain, op Nicholas de Lyra, ofm William of Auxerre Richard of Menneville, ofm Albertus Magnus, op Hostiensis Alexander of Hales, ofm Thomas of Strasbourg, oesa Peter Aureoli, ofm Peter de Palude, op Praepositinus Adam Wodeham, ofm William of Paris James of Eltville, OCist Landulph Caracciolo, ofm Robert Holcot, op

48 139 73 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 3 0 0 8 4

128 193 97 4 59 0 1 16 1 1 0 7 3 4 0 3 0 2 5 4

917 455 326 32 12 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

254

Brinzei and Schabel

Then a number of other scholars with one citation each: Henry (Hainricus) de Gandavo, Doctor Bathon (Baconthorpe?), Wilhelm Durantus, Germundus (fol. 104rb), John Andreas, Caspar de Calendrinis (Lectura on Extra, “De paenitentia et remissione”). Aside from the canon lawyers (Hostiensis, John Andreas, Calendrinis, and perhaps Germundus) and tacit citations to Sentences commentaries, Dinkelsbühl refers to Albert’s Postilla super Iohannem and Tractatus de missa, William of Auvergne’s De fide et legibus, Lyra’s biblical works and quo­ dam libello quem fecit contra quemdam Iudaeum, William of Auxerre’s Summa aurea, and William Durand’s Rationale divinorum officiorum. Otherwise, Adam Wodeham’s question 12 of his commentary on Book i of the Sentences is cited, as is question 46 of the commentary on Book ii by Alexander of Hales, but mostly Dinkelsbühl means Book iv, the present distinction, unless otherwise specified. In sum, Dinkelsbühl cites over twenty university-era theologians, a respectable number, yet almost 95% of these references are to the big three: Aquinas, Scotus, and Bonaventure. Thomas Aquinas is cited more often than all other university-era scholars combined, almost always as Sanctus Thomas (mostly just s.t.), but twenty times as Beatus Thomas (or b.t.). Given that Dinkelsbühl may begin responding to arguments with Ad primum, s.t. dicit . . . and continue simply with Ad secundum, dicit . . . the actual number of references is much higher. Of course, in some cases Aquinas is copied without any hint of attribution (see below for two examples), but at least twice we are told Haec s.t. (fols. 57va, 169va). Aside from a citation of Aquinas’s commentary on John and three to quodam quolibet, there are 55 explicit references to the Summa theologiae, almost always by part (34 to part iii, 19 to the iia iiae, and one to the ia iiae), usually by question, but rarely by article. Dinkelsbühl cites Aquinas’s Sentences commentary explicitly forty times, usually hic in quarto or a variation (hic in Scripto quarto, in Scripto huius quarti, in Scripto super quartum, or simply hic), about one third of the time mentioning a distinction. One assumes that when no distinction is cited, Dinkelsbühl means the present distinction. Almost 90% of the citations of Aquinas do not specify the work, but we are inclined to think that the Scriptum in quartum Sententiarum is usually meant. The conservative Dinkelsbühl is not interested in catching Aquinas in a contradiction, so only rarely are his statements in the Summa and Scriptum contrasted (for instance, fol. 119vb). Were it not for the nearly one thousand citations of Aquinas, one would think that Dinkelsbühl was a Franciscan, and a Scotist at that. As with Aquinas, the 455 citations of Scotus (usually Sco) are insufficient to portray the impact of the Subtle Doctor on Dinkelsbühl’s doctrine: beyond the frequent verbs like dicit without the subject Scotus, we read Haec Scotus twice (fols. 43va,

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

255

187rb) and at the end of distinction 10, question 5, we read, “Vide residuum in Scoto . . . Plura hanc decimam distinctionem respicientia obmitto hic quae videat in Scoto qui voluerit ea habere” (fol. 103ra). That Dinkelsbühl did not count himself among the Scotists, however, is indicated by a couple of references to Scotus’s sequaces. Only a half dozen or so of these citations refer to other distinctions in Book iv, the rest presumably being to the same distinction in Scotus’s corresponding commentary. The prevalence of references to Aquinas and Scotus is conservative, but not outrageously so, given their status in the Dominican and Franciscan orders respectively in the fourteenth century, especially at the University of Paris. What is truly striking, as with Schotten 269 and the Vienna Group commentary, is the prominence of Bonaventure, with 326 explicit citations and many more tacit ones. Even among Franciscans of the fourteenth century, Bonaventure was not conspicuous among authorities cited in philosophical theology. Landolfo Caracciolo, for example, referred to Bonaventure twice in his commentary on Book iv, Gerald Odonis not at all for that book. Except for two explicit citations of Bonaventure’s commentary on Book iii (fols. 177rb, 365ra) and two or three to other distinctions in Book iv, as with Scotus the remaining citations of the Seraphic Doctor in Dinkelsbühl’s Melk commentary likely refer to the same distinction in the Franciscan’s Book iv commentary. Dinkelsbühl’s approach is not only conservative, but irenic. Scotus, it is true, is only cited a little over thirty times in conjunction with one or more other theologians, including fourteen with Aquinas and fifteen with Bonaventure, emphasizing a shared opinion. But Dinkelsbühl explicitly asserts the agreement of Aquinas and Bonaventure on 73 occasions, while Aquinas agrees with others in about twenty other instances and Bonaventure with others about fifteen times. Even the sudden appearance of Peter of Tarantaise, Pope Innocent v, cited 32 times in the Mellicensis, but only four times in the Book iv of the Vienna Group commentary, finds its explanation in Dinkelsbühl’s new attitude: lecturing just after Bonaventure and Aquinas at Paris, the future pope tried to reconcile the two magistri where they differed and thus his commentary became useful for Dinkelsbühl’s purposes.116 Dinkelsbühl prefers to write that communiter doctores or communiter theologi hold a certain opinion, in which case he primarily means Aquinas, 116   See Russell L. Friedman, “The Sentences Commentary, 1250–1350: General Trends, the Impact of the Religious Orders, and the Test Case of Predestination,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 1, 41–128, at 48–9, 95–7, 106–08; idem, Intellectual Traditions at the Medieval University: The Use of Philosophical Psychology in Trinitarian Theology Among the Franciscans and Dominicans, 1250–1350, 2 vols. (Leiden, 2012), vol. 1, 95.

256

Brinzei and Schabel

Bonaventure, and Scotus. When there appears to be a disagreement, for example between Aquinas and Bonaventure, he might say, “Combinando amborum illorum doctorum intentionem . . .” (fol. 360va). Or better, “De hac tamen diversitate illarum opinionum non est curandum, quia omnes concordant in re et solum discordant in nomine” (fol. 368va). If necessary, Dinkelsbühl is prepared to avoid tiring his monastic audience: “Quae autem illarum positionum sit tenenda de hoc est longa disputatio inter doctores, cum qua nolo vestras reverentias occupare pro praesenti” (fol. 52va), or to put off his prudent response until later: “De illo dubio, quid sit in illa diversitate opinionum cautius tenendum dicetur posterius in forma consecrationis sanguinis” (fol. 67ra). And there is always the option to throw up one’s hands: “Adhuc sunt alii modi dicendi Sancti Thomae, Scoti, et aliorum doctorum, de quibus transeo. Ex istis ergo et aliis modis eligat quilibet quem velit” (fol. 67va). When confronted with a real dispute, Dinkelsbühl still tries to make peace: “Alii dicunt, et secundum Sanctum Thomam probabilius . . . Scotus vero de hoc valde caute loquitur . . . Respondet Scotus et dat in hoc et in aliis sacramentis bonum consilium. . . .” (fol. 69ra). Early on, concerning the general question of how the sacraments cause grace, Dinkelsbühl admits, “non est inter doctores plena concordia, sed sunt de hoc duae famosae opiniones. Una est Beati Thomae et multorum alio­rum secum in hoc concordantium . . . [fol. 7ra] . . . Alia est opinio Scoti et multorum secum in hoc concordantium . . .” (fol. 7vb). Forced to take a stand, Dinkelsbühl replies cautiously, “Videtur quod ista secunda opinio non satisfaciat intentionem sanctorum quorum dictis in tali materia plus standum est quam rationi­bus ei artis,” but continues immediately, “Ex ambarum opinionum dictis sequitur quod . . .” (fol. 8vb). Even on the heated question of the plurality versus unicity of the substantial form in humans, Dinkelsbühl concludes his treatment of Scotus’s support of plurality thus: “Et licet illa Scoti positio possit sustineri, tamen quia satis communiter non ponitur in homine nisi una forma substantialis, scilicet anima [107vb] intellectiva, ideo . . . ,” an interesting comment on the isolation of the Franciscan position in the early fifteenth century. Asking whether attrition can become contrition (dist. 17, qu. 4), Dinkelsbühl contrasts Scotus’s opinion with another, then stresses that they agree on contrition but only disagree on attrition, and concludes the question, “Licet ambae positiones sint probabiles, et quaelibet earum possit sustineri, tamen prima videtur probabilior, et est, ut dixi, Scoti, et est etiam Bonaventurae et Petri de Tarantasio, et istam plus prosequar in sequentibus quaestionibus” (fol. 175vb). More examples could be given, but these should suffice to show that Dinkelsbühl intended the Lectura Mellicensis to be a conservative commentary following the safe opinions of Bonaventure, Scotus, and above all Aquinas.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

257

That the Mellicensis is an entirely new commentary is shown by the fact that, even when treating the exact same topic as before, without even modifying his opinion, Dinkelsbühl still modifies his text and changes his sources. Earlier we discussed his reliance on the Augustinian Thomas of Strasbourg for his treatment of the history of the quarrel between Greeks and Latins over the bread of the Eucharist, with a few added words from Thomas Aquinas’s Sentences commentary. Covering the same material in the Melk Lectura, Dinkelsbühl abandons Thomas of Strasbourg and copies verbatim Aquinas’s treatment in iv Sentences, dist. 11, qu. 2, art. 2, qc. 3 (the bold in the earlier redactions is from Aquinas): Earlier Redactions iv Sent., dist. 11, pars 2, qu. 1

Lectura Mellicensis iv Sent., dist. 11, qu. 8

Lectura Mellicensis iv Sent., dist. 9, qu. 3

Quod etiam patet quia, ut recitant doctores* communiter, ab exordio institutionis huius sacramenti usque ad Leonem papam tota Ecclesia confecit in azymo. Sed tunc, ad extinguendum haeresim Hebronitarum, qui dicebant quod de necessitate salutis oportet quemlibet hominem cum observantia evangelii observare cerimonialia et legis praecepta, et per consequens celebrare in azymo, tunc praecepit Ecclesia ad tempus ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti conficere in fermentato ne eis consentire videretur. Deinde, post aliquorum annorum curricula, iam dicta haeresi penitus extirpata, sacerdotes in

Causa autem quare Latini conficiunt in azymo est quia Dominus de illo confecit in prima sacramenti institutione, ut ex tribus evangelistis expresse habetur, et ita etiam in primitiva Ecclesia apostoli celebrabant, quem morem Romana Ecclesia ab apostolis qui eam fundaverunt accepit, ut Innocentius tertius dicit. Sed, ut dicit Leo papa, imminente haeresi Hebionitarum, qui dicebant simul cum evangelio legalia observanda esse, sancti patres, ne eis consentire viderentur, ex Sancti Spiritus instinctu ordinaverunt ut ad tempus conficeretur in fermentato. Sed postea,

Tertio, patet etiam de condicione accidentali materiae huius sacramenti. Nam licet Dominus instituendo sacramentum confecerit illud in azymo, et ita in primitiva Ecclesia confecerint apostoli, quem morem etiam Romana Ecclesia ab apostolis qui eam fundaverunt accepit, tamen, ut dicit Leo papa, imminente haeresi Hebroitarum dicentium legalia esse de necessitate servanda cum evangelio, sancti patres, ne eis consentire viderentur, voluerunt ad tempus conficere in fermentato ex Spiritus Sancti instinctu. Et ipsa haeresi eliminata, Romana Ecclesia ad pristinum morem rediit. Propter quod sacerdos

258

Brinzei and Schabel

Earlier Redactions iv Sent., dist. 11, pars 2, qu. 1

Lectura Mellicensis iv Sent., dist. 11, qu. 8

Lectura Mellicensis iv Sent., dist. 9, qu. 3

partibus Latinis primum modum consecrandi in azymo receperunt et resumpserunt, eo quod clare deducitur ex evangelio—immo ex tribus evangelistis, ut prius dictum est, scilicet Matthaeo, Marco, et Luca—quod Christus in azymis consecravit. Et ita in primitiva Ecclesia apostoli celebrabant, quem morem Romana Ecclesia ab apostolis qui ipsam fundaverunt accepit, ut dicit Dominus Innocentius tertius. Sacerdotes vero Graeciae modum primum non resumpserunt, sed consecrationem in fermentato usque nunc continuaverunt.

cessante illa haeresi, Ecclesia Romana ad pristinum morem rediit. Graeci autem modum primum non resumpserunt, sed modum consecrandi in fermentato usque hodie, ut fertur, continuaverunt, addentes ulterius et dicentes quod etiam non possit confici nisi in pane fermentato. Et ideo dicunt nos non conficere.

subditus Romanae Ecclesiae qui contra illum morem conficiendi in azymo faceret, quamvis vere conficeret, tamen graviter peccaret.

* recitant doctores] recitat Doctor Subtilis Clm 8455

Aquinas’s overall treatment in iv Sentences is embedded in Dinkelsbühl’s wider discussion in distinction 11 in the Melk Lectura, but the Viennese master also interjects a few remarks into the passage from the Dominican. In Dinkelsbühl’s dictinction 9, however, where his reliance on Aquinas is slightly reduced, Dinkelsbühl touches on the issue in another context, the question of the Hussite insistence on communion in both bread and wine. In this generally conservative and irenic work, Dinkelsbühl mostly steers clear of controversial issues like the recent schism, conciliarism, or indulgences,

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

259

but he makes an exception for the Hussites. In the midst of generally brief questions, Dinkelsbühl inserts a huge one, 46 columns in Klosterneuburg 47 (fols. 74va–86ra), “Whether it is by evangelical law and of necessity for salvation to take the sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds,” an issue of little significance in the earlier redactions. The opening response explains the length: “It is argued that it is, on the basis of many authoritative passages that the barons of the king of Bohemia sent to the king of the Romans and of Hungary at the Council of Constance.” Not only did this question circulate separately,117 but extensive common passages show that it derives from the text Dinkelsbühl composed against the Hussites at the Council of Constance, for which Madre lists ten further witnesses. The broader passage, containing the quotation given above concerning unleavened and leavened bread, if it is original to Dinkelsbühl (with Thomist inspiration), made its way into the records of the Council of Constance and, more extensively, into a treatise on the Sentences purportedly based on Scotus, Aquinas, and Bonaventure, printed in the sixteenth century. How much more of the treatise matches Dinkelsbühl’s text is a subject of future inquiry.118 Given the large question against the Hussites, and yet the extremely heavy reliance on Aquinas, Scotus, and Bonaventure, characterizing the Mellicensis as a whole or its individual parts requires much leg work. It seems clear from the opening remarks that Dinkelsbühl meant to lecture to the monks only on Book iv, yet there are several references to the other three books. Granted, some of them do not suggest that he had lectured or planned to lecture on those books, since they are of the sort that this topic pertinet ad secundum librum (fol. 165va), hoc tamen plus pertinet ad tertium librum (fol. 358rb), or sed de sacramento taliter accepto agitur in primo et in tertio libris (fol. 2vb). In other cases, however, it seems that Dinkelsbühl is looking forward to lecturing on Books ii and iii: sicut magis videri habet in secundo libro (fol. 2va), videndum est in libro tertio et secundo plenius (fol. 4vb), hoc declarari habet in secundo

117  See Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, 120. 118  See “Responsio Mauritii ad scripturae loca a Iacobello pro communione calicis proposita,” in Tomus ii rerum concilii oecumenici Constantiensis (Frankfurt/Leipzig, 1697), chap. 2, col. 832; Pelbartus de Themesvvar, O.M. de Observantia, Aureum sacrae theologiae rosarium iuxta quatuor Sententiarum libros quadripartitum ex doctrina doctoris Subtilis, divi Thomae, divi Bonaventurae, aliorumque sacrorum doctorum, vol. iv (Venice, 1586), fol. 119rb–vb.

260

Brinzei and Schabel

libro (fol. 30va), and hoc tamen habet in secundo plenius videri (fol. 40rb). When we recall that in the Parisian tradition of a century before sententiarii often lectured in the sequence i-iv-ii-iii, it is possible that these references are simply embedded in passages borrowed from earlier commentaries. For the same reason, it is not always clear whether Dinkelsbühl’s examples are personal or borrowed. At one point, in discussing language in the sacraments, he mentions quando verba illa de latino transferuntur in theutunicum (fol. 23va). Aside from the Hussite question, however, there is only one other passage that definitely reflects Dinkelsbühl’s personal experiences. When discussing one of the miracles of the sacrament of the Eucharist, whereby the same body of Christ is in many places in the world at once, he relates: This should even be believable for the Jews, because they say and believe—and the newly converted in this duchy of Austria have related to me—that Elias is present at every circumcision of a boy. Yet it happens that many boys far apart from each other on the entire globe are circumcized simultaneously at the same moment. On account of this, they have to believe and state consequently that Elias is at the same time in different places distant from each other, such as Vienna, Rome, Cologne, Paris, and so on. Thus since they believe that Elias is at the same time in different places distant from each other, so much more should this be believable for them concerning the humanity of Christ, namely, that by divine power He can be and is in different places.119 In contrast, when Dinkelsbühl remarks that communis autem utilitas est defensio Terrae Sanctae (fol. 236va), given that the last outposts of Western Christendom in Syria-Palestine had fallen well over a century before, and that the previous great crusading effort had ended disastrously in 1396 at Nicopolis on the Danube, this statement is either a strange anachronism or borrowed material, which would explain the reference to King Louis ix and Pope Innocent iv in the following column (fol. 236vb). An internet search reveals 119  Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl, Lectura Mellicensis, Klosterneuburg 47, fol. 97rb: “Iudaeis etiam debet esse credibile illud, quia ipsi dicunt et credunt, et noviter conversi in hoc ducatu Austriae mihi retulerunt, quod Elias praesens sit in omni circumcisione parvi. Contingit autem simul in eodem momento circumcidi parvulos multos in toto orbe ab invicem distantes. Propter quod habent consequenter credere et dicere Eliam simul esse in diversis locis et ab invicem distantes, ut Wiennae, Romae, Coloniae, Parisius, etc. Ex quo ergo sic credunt de Elia quod simul sit in diversis locis et ab invicem distantibus, quanto magis debet eis hoc credibile esse de humanitate Christi, scilicet quod divina virtute possit esse et sit in diversis locis.”

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

261

that the phrase comes, not surprisingly, from Bonaventure.120 There is at least one reflection of the oral nature of the lecture: et ut audistis iam in quaestione decima (fol. 183ra), but this is very rare, so the general impression, again, is that Dinkelsbühl’s last commentary, like his first, is mostly a compilation from other commentaries. With such a conservative and often derivative commentary, one might ask why it deserves so much attention. The answer is simple: it was among the most widely copied Sentences commentaries in history, perhaps even the most popular commentary on any one book. When one considers its size—371 folios in the manuscript we have read, Klosterneuburg 47, almost 1500 columns—it is astounding that the text survives in whole or in part in well over 200 manuscripts. Thus far we have only been able to inspect about 85 of these codices, and previously unknown copies continue to appear (see the appendix). Several manuscripts containing the entire text consist of more than 500 folios, such as ms. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek 646 (532 fols.), so the text was often divided into more than one volume. In the complete witnesses, natural breaks occur at the end of the questions on the Eucharist, between distinctions 13 and 14, and again at the start of the largely missing questions on marriage at distinction 26. When the text is divided into two volumes, the first break is most often chosen, so that, for example, in the Universitätsbibliothek in Innsbruck, codex 214 contains part i, dist. 1–13, and codex 134 preserves part ii, dist. 14–50, a total of about 720 folios of text. Alternatively, a number of manuscripts, especially in Munich, choose to divide the text between distinctions 17 and 18, which is closer to the actual midpoint of the commentary in terms of size. A few other two-volume sets choose different breaking points. The length of the text naturally gave rise to a series of abbreviations. Stegmüller mentions the names of no less than five abbreviators, John of Ochsenhausen and Nicholas Awer of Swinnbach, osb, with one surviving manuscript each, Johann Spanberger, osb, whose abbreviation is preserved in two witnesses, and the very popular abbreviations of John Schlitpacher of Weilheim, osb, from 1437, and John Harrer of Heilbronn, from a few years later, contained in 25 and 31 codices listed in Stegmüller’s repertory.121 It is perhaps some sort of shorter version of the Lectura Mellicensis that John of Gingen read at Vienna in 1431 at the behest of Dinkelsbühl himself, questions conceptae by Master Nicholas.122

120  Bonaventure, iv Sent., dist. 20, pars ii, art. 1, qu. 4 (Opera Omnia iv [1889], 537). 121  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 281; 220–1, nos. 452–3; 230, no. 471; 243, no. 496; 244, no. 498; 273, no. 558. 122  See Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, ed. Uiblein, vol. i, 67.

262

Brinzei and Schabel

In addition to the Melk commentary itself, witnesses often include two other substantial sections of text. First, a long and detailed tabula quaestionum summarizing the commentary is found in numerous witnesses. In the case of partial witnesses or two-volume sets, the tabula may be complete or contain only the summaries of the questions found in that codex. The complete tabula can take up 20 folios or more of a given manuscript, constituting an impressive piece of scholarship in itself. More research is needed to determine whether the tabula originates with Dinkelsbühl or is a later addition. Second, many users apparently were not satisfied with the gap in questions regarding marriage, so that, as mentioned, they filled in their copies with questions from the earlier redactions. Finally, an as yet completely undetermined number of manuscripts contain sections of the Lectura Mellicensis copied as separate treatises, and we are a long way from distinguishing among Dinkelsbühl’s works. Indeed, we have only begun to understand the importance of the Lectura Mellicensis as a vehicle for passing on the sacramental theology and eschatology of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries to late medieval and early modern readers in Central and Eastern Europe, either directly through copies of the work ranging from fragments to full texts, or indirectly via others, whose works survive in manuscript or printed form. 10 Conclusion In the spring of 2013, the Les Enluminures manuscript tm 536 was purchased by the Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (irht) of the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique (cnrs) with funds from Monica Brinzei’s European Research Council (erc) THESIS project. Now held for the irht in the Bibliothèque nationale de France and accessible to scholars, tm 536 contains Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Lectura Mellicensis and consists of 550 folios, perhaps the most of any witness, almost 2,200 columns. Folios 1r–529v preserve the complete text itself, followed by the detailed tabula quaestionum on fols. 530r–550r. Just the great size and stunning popularity of the text warrants a complete study of the manuscripts and an edition, with a view to understanding the past and future of this text: what went into it exactly and where did it go from there? How does this huge and widely read theological work relate to the intellectual life of Europe at the close of the Middle Ages and the violent dawning of a new ecclesiastical and theological era? The answer may be that it played a very important role.

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

263

While the Lectura Mellicensis had a monastic beginning in the 1420s, late in Dinkelsbühl’s life, his working commentary on all four books of the Sentences in Schotten 269 originated in a university context around 1400. In its own way, the commentary in Schotten 269 deserves the same scholarly attention. Dinkelsbühl studied the Parisian Sentences commentaries of his masters, Henry of Langenstein and Henry Totting of Oyta, the founding fathers of the faculty of theology of the University of Vienna, as well as the commentaries of those that inspired them, above all Gregory of Rimini and the Cistercian James of Eltville, employing the older classical works of Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, and Durand for later books, whether directly or via intermediaries. Schotten 269 provided the University of Vienna with an updated Peter Lombard, together with a smattering of the salient teachings of numerous other theologians from the thirteenth and especially fourteenth centuries. Schotten 269 proved so successful that it spawned a number of derivative versions and redactions differing from the model to greatly varying degrees. Taken as a whole, these texts made up the Quaestiones communes of the University of Vienna in the first half of the fifteenth century, read and reread by a number of bachelors of theology that has yet to be determined. We have a long way to go before we have a clear understanding of the past, present, and future of these Quaestiones communes, a new stage in the entire tradition of reading the Sentences, based on the model of Paris, but developed for the particular needs of Vienna. The only doctrinal issue we have traced in great depth, that of predestination, reveals that the Quaestiones communes adopted and popularized in Vienna and the surrounding areas Gregory of Rimini’s ultra-Augustinian doctrine, a doctrine that went on to gain popularity in the sixteenth century in the context of the Lutheran revolution. Dinkelsbühl’s Schotten 269 and the Quaestiones communes may have played a similar role in shaping Viennese and Eastern and Central European doctrine in many other contexts. This investigation is our future task.

Appendix: “New” Manuscripts of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Sentences Commentary

An inspection of the catalog collection of the irht in Paris and in other libraries, a review of the secondary literature, and an internet search uncovered a number of manuscripts, mostly anonymous, that (probably or definitely) contain parts of a version of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Sentences commentary. Each manuscript will have to be inspected, of course, and there are no doubt more to be found. The following list

264

Brinzei and Schabel

supplements those given in Madre and Stegmüller. We do not always have complete information on foliation where the catalogs are imprecise and we have not seen the manuscript.

1

Vienna Group

1) Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek, 2° Cod. 286, fols. 185ra–333vb (iv) 2) Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek, 2° Cod. 269, fols. 49ra–160vb (iv) 3) Bratislava, Kapitulská kniznica, 42 (52), fols. 1ra–288vb 4) Bratislava, Kapitulská kniznica, 71 (75), fols. 1r–188v 5) Hanover, Stadtbibliothek, Mag. 19, fols. 268–337v 6) Harburg (Schloß), Fürstlich Öttingen-Wallersteinsche Bibliothek, Cod. ii.1.2° Fol. 72 (i–iv excerpta) 7) Košice, Východoslovenské múzeum, Cx xiii, fols. 254ra–315rb 8) Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, cc 22, fols. 34v–39v (iii, dist. 25; iv, dist. 2) 9) Michaelbeuern, Stiftsbibliothek, Man. cart. 9, fols. 1–222v (iii–iv) 10) Vienna, Schottenstift, 171 (341), fols. 1–187 (iii)

2

Lectura Mellicensis

1) Aargau, Kantonsbibliothek, Ms MurF 14, fols. 212r–233r 2) Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Batthyány, R. ii 48, fols. 1ra–453va 3) Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Batthyány, R. i 93, fols. 281ra–425va 4) Ansbach, Staatliche Bibliothek, Ms lat. 63, fols. 1r–291vb 5) Ansbach, Staatliche Bibliothek, Ms lat. 68, fols. 541r–542v (dist. 9, qu. 3; dist. 21, qu. 1–3) 6) Ansbach, Staatliche Bibliothek, Ms lat. 89, fols. 233r–239r (dist. 20 = de indulgentia) 7) Ansbach, Staatliche Bibliothek, Ms lat. 128, fols. 138v–139v, 144r (dist. 14, qu. 7; dist. 15, qu. 2) 8) Ansbach, Staatliche Bibliothek, Ms lat. 142, fols. 162rb–168rb (dist. 45, c. 2; dist. 47) 9) Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek, Cod. ii.1.2° 15, fols. 1ra–218vb 10) Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek, Cod. ii.1.2° 206, fols. 1–273v 11) Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek, 2° Cod. 300, fols. 136r–v (dist. 13, qu. 3) 12) Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek, 2° Cod. 418, fols. 3r–92r 13) Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A i 17, fol. 127a 14) Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A i 18, fols. 1r–348r 15) Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A x 44, fols. 23v, 40r, 51r (qu. disputatae in studio Viennensi) 16) Dolný Kubín, Čaplovičova knižnica, C 3/211 (144), fols. 10ra–309rb 17) Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek, 389, fols. 133r–163v (dist. 18–19)

The Past, Present, and Future of Late Medieval Theology

265

18) Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek, 351, fols. 205rb–210vb (dist. 18, qu. 1–4) 19) Frankfurt am Main, Dominikanerkloster, Praed. 138, fols. 122r–136r (dist. 20) 20) Hanover, Stadtbibliothek, Mag. 19, fols. 268r–342v 21) Innsbruck, Stift Wilten, s.n. (hmml 28, 778), fols. 271ra–278rb (dist. 40, 41) 22) Klagenfurt, Kärntner Landesbibliothek, 23, fols. 1r–430v 23) Jasov, Miestne procovisko Matice slovenskej, C 3/122 (144), fols. 10r–309r 24) Krakow, Bibliotheca Jagiellońska, 1235, fols. 113r–254v 25) Krakow, Bibliotheca Jagiellońska, 1418, fols. 1r–243r 26) Linz, Studienbibliothek, 31, fols. 259r–300r (dist. 26) 27) Ljubljana, Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, 65 (52), fols. 7–202 28) Ljubljana, Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, 75 (53), fols. 230–233 (de unctione) 29) Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 14 (A.16), fols. 564–570 (excerpts from dist. 44) 30) Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 79 (B.46), fols. 1r–469 31) Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 83 (B.50), fols. 1r–157v 32) Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 531, fols. 165vb–169rb (excerpts) 33) Michaelbeuern, Stiftsbibliothek, Man. cart. 9, fols. 229v–232r (dist. 40, 41) 34) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4634, fols. 55r–57v (dist. 44) 35) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4638, fols. 55–57v (dist. 44 de corporum resurrectione) 36) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28479, fols. 1r–14v (De indulgentiis) 37) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 29466, fols. 1r–68v 38) Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna, 333, fols. 1r–369v (all but dist. 14) 39) Ottobeuren, Benediktinerabtei, Ms. O.23 (ii 325), fols. 1–218 40) Ottobeuren, Benediktinerabtei, Ms. O.38 (I 164), fols. 64r–119v 41) Paris, Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, tm 536, fols. 1–550 42) Paris/New York/Chicago, Les Enluminures, tm 566, fols. 1–168 43) Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, 107 (I C 15), fols. 335v–342v (Tabula manu Crucis de Telcz) 44) St. Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, xi 85, fols. 1ra–287rb 45) St. Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, xi 92, fols. 1–315 46) Seitenstetten, Benediktinerstift, 180, fols. 1r–252v 47) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliotkek, cod. theol. et phil. Fol. 98, fols. 1ra– 417vb (with Tabula, olim Stiftsbibliothek Comburg) 48) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, cod. theol. et phil. Fol. 150, fols. 1ra–390rb (all but dist. 14, olim Stiftskirche in Ellwangen) 49) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, hb i 196, fol. 159ra (dist. 9, qu. 3; olim Hofbibliothek) 50) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, hb iii 54, fols. 259rb–261vb (olim Hofbibliothek) 51) Tübingen, Universitätbibliothek, 203, fols. 1r–279r 52) Vienna, Erzbischöfliches Diözesanarchiv, C-2, fols. 1r–333r

266

Brinzei and Schabel

53) Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 223 (I F 196), fols. 1–220 (olim Bibliothek der Dominikaner zu Breslau)

3 Abbreviationes 1) Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek, 2° Cod. 88, fols. 87ra–98va (Narcissu Hertz Berching, Commentarius in iii librum Sententiarum) 2) Bratislava, Kapitulská knižnica, 54 (63), fols. 1r–460vb (Abbreviatio by Johannis Harrer de Heilbronn?) 3) Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek, 186, fols. 5v–6r (Abbreviatio by Johannes de Heltpurg, De indulgenciis) 4) Freiburg im Breisgau, Universitätsbibliothek, 268, fols. 105ra–150vb (dist. 1–26, q. 2) (Hans Schepach, Abbreviatio Lecturae Mellicensis) 5) Harburg (Schloß), Fürstlich Öttingen-Wallersteinsche Bibliothek, Cod. ii.1.2° Fol. 83 (Johannes Grössel de Tittmoning, Dicta super l. ii Sententiarum; Johannes Schlitpacher de Weilheim O.S.B., Compendium lecturae Mellicensis Nicolai de Dinkelsbühl iv, 1461) 6) Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 216, fols. 143r–183v (iv Sent. Abbrev.) 7) Košice, Východoslovenské múzeum, Cx xiii (174), fols. 1r–243vb (Abbreviatio lib. iii by Johannes) 8) Michaelbeuern, Stiftsbibliothek, Man. cart. 29, fols. 1–192rb (Simplicius Chamrer, Abbreviatio Lecturae Mellicensis) 9) Michaelbeuern, Stiftsbibliothek, Man. cart. 105, fols. 2r–334v (Simplicius Chamrer, Abbreviatio Lecturae Mellicensis) 10) Michaelbeuern, Stiftsbibliothek, Man. cart. 109, fols. 145r–213r (Abbreviatio Lecturae Mellicensis) 11) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 16426, fols. 257–347 (excerpta by Johannes Schlickpacher de Weihaim) 12) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 18354, fols. 359–480 (excerpta by Johannes Schlippacher) 13) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 18762, fols. 1–239 (excerpta by Johannes de Weykhaim) 14) Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna, 72, fols. 212r–213r (responsio rev. m. Nicolai Dinckelsbul doctoris sacre theologie) 15) Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna, 227, fols. 97r–152v (Conrad de Halberstadt, Liber extractus) 16) Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Rukopisy knihovny Metropolitní kapituly u sv. Víta, 575, fols. 42r–202b (from the collection of the library of the Metropolitan Chapter St. Vitus) 17) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 3996, fols. 191r–348r (Abbreviatio Lecturae Mellicensis)

CHAPter 5

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium? Notes on Some French Franciscan Sentences Commentaries of the Fifteenth Century Ueli Zahnd 1 Introduction In his pioneering study on fourteenth-century Augustinian theology published in 1956, Damasus Trapp took a particular interest in the models and sources of the scholastic works he was going to present. Trapp focused mainly on commentaries on the Lombard’s Sentences, and it was due to the fact that many commentators of the late fourteenth century not only cited, but literally copied whole passages from earlier Sentences commentaries that Trapp established the famous terminology of a lectura secundum alium.1 These “lectures according to someone else” were said to be mainly composed of excerpts from one or more other works, and they often enough never mentioned their sources. But, in his analysis of late fourteenth-century commentaries Trapp was reluctant to disqualify their way of proceeding. Rather than accusing them of plagiarism, he stressed the fact that such lecturae secundum alium preserved the scattered contents of earlier commentaries and thus promoted “the cause of solid science.”2 However, regarding the fifteenth century’s equivalent of the lecturae secundum alium—namely, commentaries giving evidence of certain 1  Damasus Trapp, “Augustinian Theology of the 14th Century: Notes on Editions, Marginalia, Opinions and Book-Lore,” Augustiniana 6 (1956): 146–274, at 251–55. I am particularly greatful to Dan R. Foord and John T. Slotemaker for their painstaking efforts to make this paper more readable. 2  Ibid., 254. With regard to John of Mirecourt in particular, this way of proceeding has been considered as plagiarism; see Jean-François Genest and Paul Vignaux, “La bibliothèque anglaise de Jean de Mirecourt. Subtilitas ou plagiat?,” in Die Philosophie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. In memoriam Konstanty Michalski, ed. Olaf Pluta (Amsterdam, 1988), 275–301, and Zénon Kaluza, “Late Medieval Philosophy, 1350–1500,” in Medieval Philosophy, ed. John Marenbon (London/New York, 1998), 426–51, at 438. For a more balanced account to the problem of plagiarism in late medieval Sentences commentaries, see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 127, and Monica Calma, “Plagium,” in Mots médiévaux offerst à Ruedi Imbach, ed. Iñigo Atucha et al. (Turnhout, 2011), 503–12.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_007

268

Zahnd

theological “schools” and thus being explicitly orientated around earlier scholastics—Trapp was more dismissive. According to him, this later “return to the great masters” not only would have been promoted “by the ‘orthodox’ because they mistrusted the freedom-loving theologians of the 14th century”; what is more, Trapp conceived of their return as an attitude “hailed also by easy-going scholars because it was so much more convenient to study one author than ten or twenty.”3 While the verbatim copying of late fourteenth-century commentators was conceived of as an act of textual preservation, the fifteenth-century authors’ “return to the great masters” was the result of an intellectual phlegm. Trapp’s accounts did not remain unchallenged. Above all, his use of the term lectura secundum alium has been criticized in recent scholarship; a closer look at the fourteenth-century sources revealed not only that none of the known commentaries used the term lectura secundum alium—the label thus seems to be a neologism—but also that the phenomenon of copying sections of texts verbatim was to be found in the late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century commentaries as well.4 To read the Sentences “according to someone else” was not an approach limited to the late fourteenth century; and while Trapp based his observations of the phenomenon on some restricted passages of Books i and ii, more detailed and more extensive studies have since uncovered a diversity and variety of methods of handling, copying, and collating sources into new commentaries that make it difficult to subsume all these techniques into one particular genre.5 A closer look at the fourteenth-century commentaries gave 3  Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” 215. On Trapp’s view of the fifteenth century, see John van Dyk, “The Sentence Commentary: A Vehicle in the Intellectual Transition of the Fifteenth Century,” Fifteenth-Century Studies 8 (1983): 227–38, at 229–30. See as well Ueli Zahnd, “Zwischen Verteidigung, Vermittlung und Adaption. Sentenzenkommentare des ausgehenden Mittelalters und die Frage nach der Wirksamkeit der Sakramente,” in Vermitteln – Übersetzen – Begegnen. Transferphänomene im europäischen Mittelalter und der Frühen Neuzeit. Interdisziplinäre Annäherungen, ed. Balázs Nemesch and Achim Rabus (Göttingen, 2011), 33–86. 4  See, for example, Chris Schabel, “Aufredo Gonteri Brito secundum Henry of Harclay on Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contigents,” in Constructions of Time in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Carol Poster (Evanston, Ill., 1997), 159–71, and Zénon Kaluza, “Auteur et plagiaire: quelques remarques,” in Was ist Philosophie des Mittelalters?, ed. Jan A. Aertsen and Andreas Speer (Berlin/New York, 1998), 312–20. 5  For a criticism of Trapp’s terminology, see in particular Paul J.J.M. Bakker and Chris Schabel, “Sentences Commentaries of the Later Fourteenth Century,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 1, 425–64, at 438–40; for an overview of different types of lecturae secundum alium, see Chris Schabel, “Haec Ille. Citation, Quotation, and Plagiarism in 14th-Century Scholasticism,” in The Origins of European Scholarship: The Cyprus Millennium International Conference, ed. Ioannis Taifacos (Stuttgart, 2006), 164–76.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

269

rise to a reevaluation of Trapp’s lecturae secundum alium, reevaluations that went as far as proposing new labels for the designation of the phenomenon with regard to the late fourteenth century.6 But what about Trapp’s judgment regarding fifteenth-century commentaries and their reliance on earlier sources? It is true that many Sentences commentaries of the fifteenth century seem to be focused, at a first glance, on a single authority from the thirteenth or early fourteenth century. John Capreolus conceived of his commentary as a pure defense of Thomas Aquinas;7 the commentary of Gabriel Biel was explicitly labeled as a collectorium or epithoma of William of Ockham;8 and Stephen Brulefer’s lectures were centered on the Sentences commentary by Bonaventure.9 This procedure seems to have been so common that it even influenced humanist writings: in 1509, Giles of Viterbo, the later general of the Augustinian order, published a Sentences commentary which he explicitly designed as a commentarius ad mentem Platonis.10 The very titles of these commentaries seem to confirm Trapp’s judgment, a judgment that concurs with a general view of the fifteenth century as the age of an uninspired scholasticism in which the genre of the Sentences commentaries was in gradual decline.11 Nevertheless, it is true as well that these 6   See Schabel, “Aufredo Gonteri Brito,” 160, and idem, “Haec Ille,” 172, calls it a “cut and paste method.” Calma, “Plagium,” 504, suggests the phrase bricolage textuel. It remains questionable, however, to what extend these new labels solve the main problem of Trapp’s terminology, namely, to treat a variety of procedures as if they were all the same. 7   The Defensiones theologiae divi Thomae Aquinatis are available in a modern edition by C. Paban and Th. Pègues (7 vols., Tours, 1900–1906). On Capreolus, see the collected essays in Jean Capreolus et son temps (1380–1444), ed. Guy Bedouelle, Romanus Cessario, and Kevin White (Paris, 1997), and Roseman, Great Medeival Book, 139–48. 8   See, for example, the colophon of the Basel 1508 edition of Book i of his commentary: “Explicit epithoma primi scripti Guilhelmi Occam editum et elaboratum ab eximio viro magistro Gabriele biel” ( fol. Ss 5vb). Biel’s Collectorium is available in a critical edition directed by Udo Hofmann and Wilfridus Werbeck (5 vols., Tübingen, 1973–1992). 9   They are available as Reportata clarissima in quartuaor sancti Bonaventure doctoris seraphici sententiarum libros (Basel, 1501). On this commentary, see below, pp. 299–311. 10  The commentary, which treats only Book i, has recently been edited: Giles of Viterbo, The Commentary on the Sentences of Petrus Lombardus, ed. Daniel Nodes (Leiden, 2010). For Giles’s biography, see Germana Ernst, “Egidio da Viterbo,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 42 (Rome, 1993): 341–51. 11  Modern histories of medieval philosophy thus tend, in the better case, simply to ignore the developments of the fifteenth century (for example, John Marenbon, Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction [London/New York, 2007]), or, in the worse case, to mock its scholastic style (for example, Jos Decorte, Eine kurze Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, trans. Inigo Bocken and Matthias Laarmann

270

Zahnd

judgments rely only on some superficial impressions, since the commentary tradition of the fifteenth century has yet to be explored. The few studies we have and the few commentaries that are available in modern editions pre­sent a somewhat different picture: the aforementioned Capreolus did not focus on Thomas Aquinas alone, but was well acquainted with the writings of Duns Scotus, Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Peter Auriol, Adam Wodeham, or Gregory of Rimini as critics of Thomas, as well as with those of Aristotle, Averroës, Albert the Great, Peter Palude, or Hervaeus Natalis as his partisans.12 In addition to these authors, Gabriel Biel included important passages from Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Henry Totting of Oyta, or Pierre d’Ailly in his Ockhamist Collectorium,13 and unsurprisingly Giles of Viterbo, who converted this type of scholastic commentaries into a humanist form, was not stuck ad mentem Platonis, but assimilated Homer, Vergil or Cicero as well.14 Others, such as Denys the Carthusian, never focused on one single authority, but conceived of their commentaries as a compilation of a variety of interesting and important scholastic contributions,15 referring additionally, as in the case of Denys, to extracts from Peter of Tarantaise, Richard of Middleton, Thomas of Strasbourg, or even Jean Gerson.16 [Paderborn, 2006]). On the purported decline of the commentary tradition, see below, note 22. 12  At the beginning of the first volume the modern edition of Capreolus’s Defensiones contains an Index auctorum quorum nomina saepius . . . inveniuntur (xxiii–xxv). At least in relation to Albert the Great, Capreolus’s sources have been studied by Serge-Thomas Bonino, “Albert le Grand dans les Defensiones de Jean Cabrol (†1444),” Revue Thomiste 99 (1999): 369–25. 13  See the excellent Index auctoritatum in the fifth volume of the critical edition of Biel’s Collectorium. For his reception of Thomas Aquinas, see John L. Farthing, Thomas Aquinas and Gabriel Biel: Interpretations of St. Thomas in German Nominalism on the Eve of Reformation (Durham, 1988). 14  On Giles’ sources, see Nodes’s introduction to his critical edition of the Commentarium ad mentem Platonis, 18. 15  On Denys’s way of proceeding, see Kent J. Emery, Jr., “Denys the Carthusian and the Doxography of Scholastic Theology,” in Ad Litteram: Authoritative Texts and their Medieval Readers, ed. Mark D. Jordan and Kent J. Emery, Jr. (Notre Dame, 1992), 327–59, at 332–3, and Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 154–5. A less elaborate case of a commentary consisting mainly of a compilation of earlier sources is the one of Johannes Pfeffer, who was the first commentator of the Lombard’s Sentences at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau; see Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Philosophie und Theologie im 15. Jahrhundert. Die Universität Freiburg und der Wegestreit,” in 550 Jahre Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, ed. Dieter Mertens and Heribert Smolinsky (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2007), 67–91, at 89–90. 16  On Denys’s sources, see his famous Protestatio in Dionysii Opera Omnia, vol. 42 (Tournai, 1890), 625–6. Also see Dirk Wassermann, Dionysius der Kartäuser. Einführung in Werk

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

271

Thus it appears that a closer look at these commentaries of the fifteenth century discloses a rather vivid and intense use of the broad tradition indebted to the Lombard’s Sentences, and this seems to be true not only for the philosophical and theological dimension of this tradition’s representatives, but also for the genres and styles that were developed as part of this tradition. As some recent, selective studies have shown, the fifteenth century was not only au fait with the usual question-style commentaries that were elaborated as part of the theological curriculum;17 rather there appears to have been a variety and a vivacity within the genre that even seems to surpass earlier stages of the commentary tradition. From “simple” synopses (be it in a tabular form, in a more sophisticated syllogistic style, or as versified adaptations)18 to literal expositions and even extended theological compendia based on the Sentences structure,19 fifteenth-century scholastics were familiar with different kinds of und Gedankenwelt (Salzburg, 1996); on his knowledge of Gerson, see Kent J. Emery, Jr., “Twofold Wisdom and Contemplation in Denys of Ryckel (Dionysius Cartusiensis, 1402– 1471),” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 99–134. 17  For an example of such a conventional commentary as part of the theological curriculum, see Mario Meliadò and Silvia Negri, “Neues zum Pariser Albertismus (15. Jh). Der Magister Lambertus de Monte und die Handschrift Brüssel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, ms. 760,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 53 (2011): 349–84. 18  Older tables such as the one attributed to Michael Aiguani of Bologna (Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 539) were still in use, but there seem to be further developments, such as the one written (and conceived?) by Nicholas Friesen from Basel in ms. Colmar, Bibliothèque municipale, 111 [348], fol. 155r–175v. For syllogistic commentaries, see, for example, the Quadripartitus questionum sillogistice supra quatuor libros sententiarum of Heymericus de Campo that has been edited by Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century: The Sentences Commentary of Heymericus de Campo,” in Chemins de la pensée médiévale. Études offertes à Zénon Kaluza, ed. Paul J.J.M. Bakker (Turnhout, 2002), 513–59. While Heymericus usually combines several distinctions in one syllogism, Gerhardus de Zutphen, an Albertist from Cologne working at the end of the fifteenth century (hence he is to be distinguished from his famous namesake Gerhard Zerbolt de Zutphen, one of the leading figures of the devotio moderna) devised a similar commentary to Book iv that has several syllogism per distinction: Quaestiones disputabiles super quartum librum sententiarum secundum communes catholicorum doctorum opiniones cum propositionibus syllogistice ordinatis (Cologne, 1490). On Gerhard, see Hermann Keussen, Die Matrikel der Universität Köln, vol. ii: 1476–1559 (Bonn, 1919), 228. For examples of versified adaptations of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, see the Versus memoriales by Arnoldus Vesaliensis († 1534), which have been edited together with the commentary by Denys the Carthusian (Dionysii Opera Omnia, vol. 19 [Tournai, 1902], 15–27; vol. 21 [1903], 7–22; vol. 23 [1903], 7–19; vol. 24 [1904], 7–22); or the anonymous commentary listed as no. 13 in Stegmüller’s Repertorium. 19  The most famous of those literal expositions is undoubtedly the one by Henry of Gorkum, on which see John Slotemaker’s contribution to the present volume. Other examples are

272

Zahnd

Sentences commentaries. This variety of styles was complemented by a variety of uses. Besides the conventional curricular lecture and its elaborations, in which a scholar would display his magisterial expertise, Sentences commentaries were designed, on the one hand, for private purposes as preparation for other written theological works or as notebooks for sermons20 and, on the other hand, for scholarly use as short introductory presentations, as auxiliary manuals for accessing the Sentences tradition, or as fully elaborated theological handbooks.21 Far from exhibiting any kind of tiredness with the genre, fifteenth-century scholars seem to have relied on commentaries on the Lombard’s Sentences as an important and highly appreciated tool for their theological work.22 the Lectura super quartum by Jacques Legrand (Jacobus Magni, Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 387.1; there is a further manuscript not listed there from Tarragona, Biblioteca Pública del Estado, 103), or the Puncta sive notata sententiarum attributed to Hermann of Grevenstein (Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 347). An influential example of a theological compendium is the Resolutio theologorum by Nicholas Denyse, which was first edited in Rouen in 1504, but reprinted until 1568 (in Venice). Nicholas reorganized the structure of the Lombard’s Sentences into one single book with seven tracts; those tracts, however, followed the usual ordering of the content of the Lombard’s Sentences rather closely. The opposite was the case with Pelbartus Temeswar’s Aureum rosarium (Haguenau, 1504–1507; Book iv was added by Oswald de Lasko), which superficially kept the structure of the four books of the Lombard’s Sentences, but alphabetically reorganized their content. 20  This is the case with the commentary by Denys the Carthusian, who compiled it as a kind of a source-book for his other theological writings; see Kent J. Emery, Jr., Dionysii Cartusiensi Opera selecta, Prolegomena, vol. i a: Studia bibliographica, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 121 (Turnhout, 1991), 22–5. Another example is Heymericus’s commentary conserved in ms. Bernkastel-Kues, Bibliothek des St. NikolasHospitals, 24. 21  Such a scholarly use is attested, for instance, for the Quadripartitus by Heymericus de Campo mentioned above in note 18. For auxiliary manuals, see—in addition to the Vademecum by William of Vaurouillon, which is going to be presented in this study (below, pp. 275–9)—the Quaestiones magistri Johannis Scoti abbreviatae et ordinatae per alphabetum by a certain Johannes de Colonia (first ed. Venice, 1472); the Scotus pauperum by Guillermo Gorriz, an abbreviated and sometimes paraphrased version of Scotus’s Ordinatio; or the Thesaurus theologorum by Johannes Picardus, an uncommented catalog of the main theses of some thirty Sentences commentaries that structurally follows the Lombard’s text. A fully developed handbook of theology is, for example, Gabriel Biel’s Collectorium; but see also the commentaries by William of Vaurouillon and Nicholas of Orbellis that are going to be portrayed in this survey. 22  The myth of the Sentences commentaries as a dying genre in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries has recently been refreshed by Daniel Hobbins, “The Schoolman as Public Intellectual: Jean Gerson and the Late Medieval Tract,” The American Historical

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

273

This article provides evidence of this late medieval flourishing of the genre from a necessarily selective perspective. It focuses on three Franciscan commentaries of the fifteenth century that are, in one way or the other, linked with the university of Paris. This focus ensures comparability of the presented texts, while the restriction to Franciscan commentaries allows for the presentation of a certain variety in style and content: unlike other schools of thought, and in response to Trapp’s judgment, the late medieval Franciscan tradition was not fixated on one single authority, but recognized Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, and Scotus as the order’s great masters.23 Even in a presumably traditional context the conditions seem to have been conducive to a vivid discussion of various positions. What is more, the works of these “great masters” were so extensive that they themselves engendered a kind of commentary literature, generating some of the most interesting examples of the previously mentioned auxiliary manuals. This paper’s limitation, finally, to French Franciscan commentaries allows not only a certain continuity with earlier studies that were mainly focused on the Parisian tradition,24 but also seems to suit the taste of the era in question: among the printed Sentences literature of the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, the works belonging to the Franciscan tradition were mainly written by French scholars. Therefore, this paper aims not to give a complete account of the known late medieval Franciscan commentaries,25 but attempts to present—with a special interest Review 108 (2003): 1308–37, at 1317–18, and repeated in idem, Authorship and Publicity Before Print: Jean Gerson and the Transformation of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia, 2009). See as well Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 126. 23  A fixation on one single authority was prevalent among the Thomists. Nevertheless, many important Thomists like Silvestro Mazzolini or Paulus Soncino relied less on a direct reading of Thomas’s works than on his renowned defender John Capreolus; see Michael Tavuzzi, “Capreolus dans les écrits de Silvestro da Prierio, o.p. (1456–1527),” in Jean Capreolus et son temps, ed. Bedouelle/Cessario/White, 239–58. On the varieties in fifteenth-century Scotism, see Stefan Swieżawski, “L’anthropologie philosophique du xve siècle sous l’aspect de l’influence du scotisme,” in Studia mediaevalia et mariologica. P. Carolo Balić ofm septuagesimum explenti annum dicata, ed. Roberto Zavalloni (Rome, 1971), 361–75, at 363–4. 24  This is true not only for Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” but also for Bakker/Schabel, “Sentences Commentaries of the Later Fourteenth Century,” and for a majority of the authors discussed in Monica Calma, “La définition du viator dans les commentaires des Sentences au xive siècle,” in Les innovations du vocabulaire latin à la fin du moyen âge. Autour du glossaire du latin philosophique (Actes de la journée d’étude du 15 mai 2008), ed. Olga Weijers (Turnhout, 2010), 45–59. 25  For the Franciscan commentaries from Erfurt, see Severin Kitanov’s contribution to the present volume. There are some interesting Parisian Franciscan commentaries of

274

Zahnd

in the background, namely, the sources and style of their commentaries— three of the period’s most important French Franciscan masters: William of Vaurouillon, Nicholas of Orbellis, and Stephen Brulefer. 2

William of Vaurouillon

Without doubt William of Vaurouillon, who would become the provincial of the Touraine, is the most famous of the three scholars discussed in the present chapter. Born sometime around 1390 most probably near Dinan in Brittany,26 he entered the Franciscan order at an early age and passed through the usual education, including his lectures on the four books of the Sentences in one of the French studia.27 In 1427 William was assigned to Paris to proceed to the doctorate, but it was only in 1429 that he actually enrolled as sententiarius.28 Probably due to the political situation in Paris (since 1422, the city was under English control, and in her attempt to reconquer it, Joan of Arc was captured in 1430), William seems to have lectured only on Books i to iii before leaving the early fifteenth century which, however, did not have any detectable influence and hence do not figure in the present survey: Petrus ad Boves (Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 656), Petrus Reginaldetus (Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 685) and Peter of Nogent (Victorin Doucet, Commentaires sur les Sentences [Quaracchi, 1954], no. 676b; also see Zénon Kaluza, “Les débuts de l’albertisme tardif (Paris et Cologne),” in Albertus Magnus und der Albertismus, ed. Maarten J.M.F. Hoenen and Alain de Libera [Leiden, 1995], 207–302, at 248). 26  On his birthplace, see the lengthy discussion in Ignatius C. Brady, “William of Vaurouillon, O. Min. († 1463): A Biographical Essay,” in Miscellanea Melchor de Pobladura i. Studia franciscana historica P. Melchiori a Pobladura dedicata, ed. Isidor Villapadierna (Rome, 1964), 291–315, at 292–4. This discussion is almost literally repeated by Franciszek Tokarski, “Guillaume de Vaurouillon et son commentaire sur les Sentences de Pierre Lombard,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 29 (1988): 49–119, at 51–5. 27  This was suggested by Franz Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon, ein Skotist des 15. Jahrhunderts,” Franziskanische Studien 8 (1921): 48–66, at 50, and confined by Erich Wegerich, “Biobibliographische Notizen über Franziskanerlehrer des 15. Jahrhunderts,” Franziskanische Studien 29 (1942): 150–97, at 193. There is some evidence that William taught in Toulouse; see Brady, “A Biographical Essay,” 297, and Olga Weijers, Le travail intellectuel à la faculté des arts de Paris. Textes et maîtres (ca. 1200–1500), vol. 3 (Turnhout, 1998), 134–5. 28  See Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis sub auspiciis consilii generalis facultatum Parisiensium ex diversis bibliothecis tabulariisque, vol. 4, ed. Henri Denifle (Paris, 1897), no. 2330 (p. 485); for the delay, see John Chrysostom Murphy, “A History of the Franciscan Studium Generale at the University of Paris in the Fifteenth Century” (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1965), 153–4.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

275

Paris in January 1431; he would not return until 1447 to complete his doctorate. In the meantime he seems to have traveled extensively29 and continued to work as a teacher, since it must have been in these years that he composed the so-called Vademecum non opinionis Scoti, a kind of an apparatus fontium to Scotus’s Ordinatio. In 1448 he finally attained his doctorate,30 but he did not stay for long in Paris, for around the same time he composed at Poitiers his final scholarly work, the so-called Liber the anima.31 In 1450 at the latest, he was elected provincial of the Touraine, a position he seems to have held until 1461, two years before his death in early 1463.32 Among the three works of Vaurouillon that are known—the Sentences commentary, the Vademecum and his Liber de anima—two belong to the tradition indebted to the Lombard’s Sentences. They are both worthy of being examined in this brief survey. Even though the Vademecum is not occupied with the Lombard’s text itself, but concentrates on Scotus’s Ordinatio and thus belongs to the aforementioned auxiliary literature, its affiliation with the commentary tradition is fundamental and goes beyond a simple focus on Scotus:33 since it 29  These travels seem to have brought him at least to Genoa and to the Council of Basel; see Thomas Sullivan, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, a.d. 1373–1500: A Biographical Register, vol. 1: The Religious Orders (Leiden, 2004), 359. At one point, Vaurouillon was also back in Brittany: see Brady, “A Biographical Essay,” 299–301. Even though William speaks of his travels only in the late 1440s, Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 50–1, and Tokarski, “Guillaume de Vaurouillon,” 57, claim that some of them already took place in the early 1420s, before William came to Paris. See however Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 155–6. 30  See Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, vol. 4, no. 2625 (pp. 677–8). At least up to the end of the academic year 1447/48, William stayed in Paris as magister regens (ibid., no. 2634, p. 682), and Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 53. 31  This Liber de anima, which is more of a psychological encyclopedia than a commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, has been edited by Ignatius C. Brady, “The Liber De Anima of William of Vaurouillon, O.F.M.,” Mediaeval Studies 10 (1948): 224–97, and 11 (1949): 247– 307. No other works by William of Vaurouillon are known to exist; on some inauthentic ones, see Ignatius C. Brady, “William of Vaurouillon, O.F.M.: A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” in John Duns Scotus, 1265–1965, ed. John K. Ryan (Washington, 1965), 291–310, at 301–04. 32  On this later stage of William’s life, see Brady, “A Biographical Essay,” 303–15, and Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 159–66. 33  This is already evident from the work’s title: Vademecum vel collectarium non opinionis Scoti sed opinionum in Scoto nullatenus signatarum. There are two known incunabula, one printed in Paris (Simon Doliatoris) in 1483, and one in Padua (Mattheus Cerdonis) in about 1485. The authorship is unquestioned (see below, note 52). Since the Paris edition lacks a foliation, references to the Vademecum are given according to the relevant book and distinction of Scotus’s Ordinatio. For descriptions of the two incunabula, see

276

Zahnd

was his belief, as William points out in a short prologue to his short work, that “the mind grasps the truth in a more acute way if it knows not only what has been said, but also who said it,”34 the Vademecum aims to provide the names of the unnamed scholars Scotus was discussing. For every single question in Scotus’s Ordinatio William traces back the master’s references to quidam doctor, aliqui ponunt, and opinatur, informing his readers about name, book title, and question or chapter of the texts where the respective opinions of Scotus’s sources are to be found. But the Vademecum is more than a simple apparatus fontium. In following closely the setting of Scotus’s Ordinatio, William takes the opportunity to cite the questions and subquestions Scotus is dealing with, and for the more sophisticated ones he often outlines the structure of Scotus’s argument, presenting not only a kind of tabula to the Ordinatio, but also elements of a divisio textus.35 What is more, William is fully aware of the complex textual tradition of Scotus’s Ordinatio. He is eager to indicate any vacat and extra he knows of,36 he discusses variants of textual transmission and tries to re-establish a readable text.37 At some points where he is unable to make Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 196–7, and Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 159–66. 34  Vademecum, prol.: “Quoniam letius intellectus conquiescit et mens capit acutius veritatem, dum non solum quid dicatur, sed quis dicat intelligit, hac ex re ut in doctore subtili quis proficere et altissimarum contemplacionum rivulos capere valeat, iuxta decursum operis sui principalis in quatuor sentenciarum libros quod opus nominatur anglicanum . . . disposui favente altissimo et matre dei unigeniti cuius sum indignus servulus, quamlibet summatim prosequi conclusionem ut opinio et opinans cognoscatur.” 35  This is particularly the case in Book iii, which is why, unlike the other three books, its explicit not only reads dicta, but dicta seu abreviata super tercium librum Scoti sentenciarum. 36  In Vademecum, iv, dist. 12, William even tries to explain the origin of these additions and omissions: “Sed ad questionem veniamus quod alibi doctor noster non efficit per vacat. Hec questio distinguit ut non sit idem vacat et extra. Extra quidem non sunt a doctore, et si in libris reperiuntur doctoris ut merito dici queat extra, non sunt a doctore sed bene sunt in doctore nisi forsan communiter vacat sumatur, et dicatur quod illud vacat quod frustra est aut venit preter intentum. . . . Doctor solvendo quartum argumentum principale huius questionis credo addit vacacionem seu ocio unde et nomen acceperunt post lecturam completam revisendo que scripserat, et inde est quod quidam libri ea habent et quidam non.” On these additions and omissions in Scotus’s Ordinatio, see Charles Balić’s introduction to the first volume of the Vatican edition: Duns Scoti Opera omnia, vol. 1: Ordinatio, Prologus (Vatican City, 1950), 176*–199*. 37  See Vademecum, i, dist. 17: “patet quod hic textus est flus quia ista diffinicio non est secundi ethicorum sed primi celi et mundi. Secundo quia inutiliter repetitur. Tertio quia sic non est ad propositum. Alibi tamen textus est incompletus, ideo aut flus super aut

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

277

progress with the readings contained in his copies of the Ordinatio, he resorts to the Reportata parisiensa.38 Finally, William is not afraid to emend Scotus’s citations,39 and while he is usually content to give the mere reference to a certain author, he summarizes or even provides full citations of Scotus’s sources where he thinks that the Subtle Doctor did not sufficiently cite them in order to make his argument understandable.40 William’s Vademecum is thus driven by a predominantly pedagogical interest in providing the necessary information to read Scotus’s main work, and this interest gives proof of an almost modern historico-critical attitude. It has been claimed that such an attitude had already developed in the fourteenth century when scholars such as Peter Auriol, Gregory of Rimini, or John Hiltalingen explicitly stated whom they were citing.41 But what William does exceeds those earlier attempts by far: his goal is not simply to refer precisely to some of the sources he is himself working with, but to give a full account of the anonymous citations another scholar has made. It is obvious that William, in order to achieve this goal, had to be acquainted with all the sources (or at least with the majority of them) Scotus himself was acquainted with, and there are in fact only a few authors who appear in the index fontium of the modern edition superfluus aut diminutus”; or iv, dist. 25: “in tercia pena que est irregularitas est quidam textus qui aliquando est truncatus seu colobon. Ideo pono sicut debet esse.” 38  William’s description in his prologue seems more limited than what he actually does: “solumque in secundo suo super Sentencias quem non integravit totaliter in Anglia ex Parisiensibus reportatis a xv distinctione inclusive usque ad xxvi exclusive insertum est.” At many other points, he consults the Reportata as well; see, in particular, and with a probable allusion to the contemporary political situation the end of Book i, dist. 43: “Super hec requirantur in hac distinctione reportata doctoris nostri parisius ut parisius angliam iuvet et veritas appareat.” 39  Normally, William just provides the correct reference (for example, Vademecum, ii, dist. 39, or iv, dist. 14). At iv, dist. 15, however, where Scotus erroneously attributes a biblical citation to the book of Proverbs instead of Ecclesiastes, William collects four different explanations in order to excuse his master’s mistake. See as well i, dist. 9, on the misattribution of a citation from Gregory the Great: “solus Deus memoriam omnia continentem continet.” 40  See, for example, Vademecum, i, dist. 17: “Hee soluciones que sequntur ad raciones opinionis Godofredi communiter non sunt in libris”; ii, dist. 1: “quia hec opinio in multis deest libris, dignum duxi hic notare”; or iv, dist. 1: “quia hec opinio in doctore communiter non ponitur et Henrici quodlibeta non semper occurrunt, immo disposui brevissime sentenciam illius questionis ponere.” At the end of Books i and iv, the Vademecum even provides short collections of patristic texts to which Scotus refers, but which communiter in textu non complentur. 41  See already Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” but now in particular Schabel, “Haec Ille.”

278

Zahnd

of Scotus, but who are absent from Vaurouillon’s Vademecum.42 William’s references, of course, do not comply with modern standards of literary criticism; some of his attributions are simply erroneous, and at more than one point where he cannot find an opinion in one of Scotus’s usual counterparts, he does not hesitate to give references to scholars that postdate Scotus, such as Nicholas Bonetus, Adam Wodeham, and John of Rodington.43 Nevertheless, the more William proceeds in his manual, the more his attitude seems to be not only historico-critical, but also historical as such, since in addition to the references to Scotus’s counterparts, Vaurouillon starts to mention discussions and names of which he knew that they postdated Scotus and his Ordinatio: which is how Hugh of Newcastle, Landulph Caracciolo, Gerard Odonis, William of Ockham, or even John of Ripa find their way into the manual as well.44 With Scotus as the pivot, the Vademecum provides thus an overview over more than a century of scholastic discussion. Not surprisingly, this valuable manual was rather successful. Besides two incunabula editions, an abbreviated version of the Vademecum has survived in manuscript,45 excerpts of Book iv were appended to one of the earliest

42  This is the case with, Matthew of Aquasparta, Robert Kilwardby, and William of Militona, for example. 43  They all figure at least three times in different books. Only once or twice, William also refers to Alexander of Alexandria, Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Peter Auriol, and Robert Holcot. Finally there is (in Vademecum, i, dist. 8) a very unspecific reference to Albert of Saxony, who never wrote a theological work. 44  For Gerard Odonis, see Brady, “A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” 299 n. 27, who reads Vademecum, iii, dist. 38 (“Dicit tercio Bonaventura in presenti dis. q. 2 et Girardus Odonis primo Ethicorum impugnans opinionem Platonis de felicitate q. 1”) as though William conceived of Odonis as one of Scotus’s sources. Better examples are, for Hugh of Newcastle, Vademecum, iv, dist. 11 (“sic respondet frater Hugo de Novocastro non doctor sed bachalarius doctor[is?] Francisci patris alumpnus quarti sui presenti dist. q. 2 in solucione ad secundum argumentum”); for Caracciolo, Vademecum, iv, dist. 1 (“hinc sequitur in virtute Landulphus seu Radulphus ordinis minorum in quarto distinctione prima questione prima respondendo quarto argumento Petri Aureoli”); for Ockham, Vademecum, iv, dist. 10 (“Hac opinione improbata accedit Guilelmus Okam quem florem dicunt modern[or]um in quarto q. 1 huius materie in solucione secunde difficultatis”); and for John of Ripa, Vademecum, i, dist. 26 (“Ponitur opinio dicens divinas personas constitui per absoluta quam insequitur frater Iohannes de Rippis in primo suo et quodlibeto xxv et xxvi, et ibi roboratur ne nova vidiatur auctoritate eiusdem antiqui doctoris, scilicet fratris Iohannis Bonaventure ut Iohannes iuvetur Iohanne in primo suo dis. xxv q. prima”). 45  For information about these manuscripts, see Brady, “A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” 298 n. 23.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

279

printed editions of Ordinatio, Book iv,46 and in imitation of the Vademecum, a similar manual was designed—probably by one of Vaurouillon’s students— for Scotus’s Quodlibeta.47 A prevalent use of William’s Vademecum can also be observed in various texts from the Franciscan Sentences literature of the later fifteenth century—be it through verbatim citations48 or through obvious parallels between references.49 Finally, the 1497 Venice edition of Scotus’s Ordinatio simply reproduced in its margins the references collected by Vaurouillon.50 If the “solid science” of some late fourteenth-century scholars consisted in the preservation of other texts, with its density of information, its critical attitude, and its facilitation of accessing the complex structure of Scotus’ Ordinatio, the scientific solidity of Vaurouillon’s manual is undeniable. Even more important than the Vademecum, however, is Vaurouillon’s own commentary on the Lombard’s Sentences. The commentary survives in only one manuscript, but there are four early modern printed editions;51 its authorship is unquestioned.52 Besides the commentary itself, the printed editions 46  See Scotus, Quaestiones in quartum librum Sententiarum (Paris, 1473), fols. 325–58. 47  In both incunabula printings of William’s Vademecum, this manual on the Quodlibeta follows immediately. That William is not its author is evidenced by the fact that ad q. 10 of Scotus’s Quodlibeta, an explicit reference to the Vademecum appears with the words, ut patet in collectorio magistri Guilelmi. See Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 60. 48  See, for example, the Scotus pauperum, an abbreviated version of Scotus’s Ordinatio composed around 1473 in Saragossa by a certain Guillermo Gorriz (on whom see Gonzalo Díaz Díaz, Hombres y documentos de la filosofia española. E–G [Madrid, 1988], 589b). This abbreviation, however, relies not only on Scotus’s Ordinatio, but also reproduces passages from William’s Vademecum at length. 49  This is the case with Nicholas of Orbellis, who will be discussed later on in this chapter. 50  For some examples, see Brady, “A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” 298–9 n. 26. At some point, even the editors of the modern Vatican edition seem to have relied on the Vademecum: see Duns Scoti Opera omnia, vol. 1: Ordinatio, Prologus, pars 2, q. un., p. 77 n. 3. 51  The manuscript is Rennes, Bibliothèque municipale, 41 (Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 305). The manuscripts listed in Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 304 do not contain Vau­ rouillon’s commentary, but the commentary by John Findling based on Vaurouillons lectures (on Findling see below, note 81). The four existing printed editions are Lyons 1489, Venice 1496 and 1502, and Basel 1510 (descriptions in Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 196, and Brady, “A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” 294; however, note that the Lyons 1499 edition which they both mention does not exist). 52  The coherent structure of the four books and the similar tone of the four principia exclude all doubt that the work has a single author. In Book iv, dist. 11, this author refers to a tract quem composui de opinionibus que sunt in doctore subtili (see below, note 56). He is thus identical with the author of the Vademecum who indicates rather explicitly that he is from Brittany (see Vademecum, iv, dist. 10: “ad idem commentator occurrit Brito noster

280

Zahnd

contain parts of the principia William gave as sententiarius at Paris, while the manuscript begins with a declaratio seu retractatio, a rather short list of amendments that Vaurouillon himself composed when reviewing his commentary.53 Although most of these amendments have been included in the printed editions, it becomes clear that William’s commentary is not an ordinatio, but the result of his Parisian lectures: in his declaratio seu retractatio, Vaurouillon describes his commentary as a lectura.54 Nevertheless, the Sentences commentary seems to be more than a momentary impression of William’s theology at a certain point of his career. As already mentioned, it is usually assumed that William was working on Books i to iii of this commentary during his first period at Paris around 1430, and that he lectured on the fourth book only in the late 1440s on the occasion of his second sojourn in the city. This assumption is mainly due to the fact that the differences between his commentary on Books i to iii and the commentary on Book iv are significant. William’s Book iv is more elaborate than the earlier three books: it is longer, and William not only introduces new sources, but also proves more careful in handling the sources he already referred to in Books i trough iii.55 Book iv of William’s commentary, therefore, bears the manifest imprint of his work for the Vademecum—an imprint lacking in the earlier books. Indeed, in his commentary to distinction 11 of Book iv he even cites his own manual explicitly.56 The relative chronology between Books i–iii, the Vademecum, and Book iv thus seems to be given, and since the university’s Chartularium records that William matriculated at two different periods to achieve his doctorate, it stands to reason that it was only during the second period that William lectured on Book iv. This dating is, however, challenged by two biographical remarks from William’s own pen. The first is located in a concluding sermon that is now Alanus . . . , et normannus Godofredo de Fontibus in idem se coniungit cum Britone ut sicut patria sint mente propinqui”). The most obvious indication that William authored both works lies, however, once more in the leading verse of the four principia to his commentary: it is from Judith 13: 12 and begins with the phrase gyrantes vallem, which literally means “wheeling through the valley.” In Old French this is valle rouillonis or “Vaurouillon.” 53  This list has been edited by Ignatius C. Brady, “The ‘Declaratio seu Retractatio’ of William of Vaurouillon,” afh 58 (1965): 394–416. It contains 37 amendments; however, there are no fundamental doctrinal changes. 54  Ibid., i.11, 407, and Epilogue, 416. At the beginning of this list, where Vaurouillon refers to a friend speaking of his work, he has him calling it a scriptum (399). 55  See Brady, “A Biographical Essay,” 295–6. 56  See William of Vaurouillon, Super quattuor libros Sententiarum (Basel, 1510), iv, dist. 11, art. 2, concl. 2, fol. 362vb: “Unde motus doctor solemnis dicit quodlibeto 3 q. 6, 8, 15, 20 et in mutlis aliis locis que notavi in tractatu quem composui de opinionibus que sunt in doctore subtili, quod . . .” (cf. Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 59–60).

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

281

attached to the end of his commentary to Book iv, but originally was part of its principium:57 William gratefully refers there to magistro Luce de Assisio, who is said to have supervised his first three principia, and to magistro Girardo Suleti, under the regency of whom he “began” his principium on Book iv and is “now” continuing to give his lectures.58 The sermon was thus delivered at a point when the quaestio principalis of Book iv had already been disputed but the commentary was not yet finished. While we know that Luke of Assisi was regent master in 1428 and 1429,59 we do not know anything about the regency of a Gerard in the late 1440s. There is, however, a Girardus de Salinis directly replacing Luke in his regency in September 1430, and it is highly probable that this Girardus de Salinis and Vaurouillon’s Girardo Suleti are one and the same person, otherwise known as Girardus Fuleti de Salinis.60 If this is correct, William would also have given his principium and possibly parts of his commentary to Book iv during his first stay at paris in late 1430.61 57  In all four principia such a sermo gratiativus seems to have been intended, but it only survived for Book iv. At the end of the first part of the fourth principium, the early modern editors explicitly state: “residuum huius principij super quarto sententiarum require in fine tabularum quod sic incipit: Expeditus per domini gratiam etc.” ( fol. 330v), which is nothing else than the incipit of this sermo gratiativus. For the sermones gratiativi of the other three books see below, note 68. 58  Super quattuor libros Sententiarum, iv, epilogue, fol. 460r: “Specialiter hinc regratior nostris reverendis magistris. . . . Maxime nostro reverendo magistro magistro Luce de Assisio, sub cuius sedentis pedibus primum, secundum et tertium feci principium. Consequenter nostro reverendo magistro magistro Girardo Suleti nunc in scholis hijs regenti de Burgundiae provincia oriundo, cuius sub pedibus nunc meas continuo lectiones, et quartum sententiarum incoepi principium.” 59  See Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, vol. 4, no. 2315 (p. 478) and no. 2331 (p. 486). There are three more names that William mentions in this epilogue: Richardus de Chambanae (probably Champaigne), Ioannes Gileti, and Ioannes Nico. Unfortunately, none of these names appears in the university registers. 60  This was already suggested by Denifle, Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, vol. 4, 828 (index entry to “Salinis”) and Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 240 (on Gerard’s regency, see Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, vol. 4, no. 2351, p. 500). Sullivan, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, i, 25, speaks of “Gerardus Feuleti de Salinis.” Other spellings of Gerard’s second name are Feuillet, Fuleti, and Suleti. Unfortunately, we do not have much information about Gerard’s later career: he was involved in the trial of Joan of Arc, but after 1431 he does not reappear in the university registers (which, of course, are far from being complete for that period). 61  Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 59, assumed that William wrote the complete commentary during his first sojourn at Paris, but that is rather improbable due to the differences between the first three books and the fourth. On the other hand, Brady, “A Biographical Essay,” 298, suggests a somewhat different reading of the passage cited in note 58: according to him, the second nunc is an “anticipation of his license,” so that the whole Book iv

282

Zahnd

The second remark challenging the usual dating stems from the declaratio seu retractatio. At one point in his list vaurouillon attempts to excuse some of his faults with a reference to the political situation that characterized his first sojourn at paris. His words are: The reason, however, of this and similar [cases of ] inadvertence was, I believe, the Parisian tribulation which was so great that there was hardly ever sufficient time to write a lesson; and once the lectura was finally completed (tandem lectura completa) and I departed from Paris for fear, it was snatched from [my] hands and transcribed before it was corrected: it is therefore no wonder that some flaws occur in it.62 William explicitly states that he completed his lectura before he fled from Paris. According to his own indications, there is thus no need to suppose a two-step redaction of the commentary. But what about the differences between Books i through iii and Book iv? And what about the relative chronology? We simply cannot say. However, just as we know little about William’s first stay in Paris, we also do not know what exactly he did in the late 1440s. There is the possibility that he revised passages of his commentary during his second sojourn, and if we believe him that at the end of his first stay he almost could not wait to finish and leave the city, it is not too much to suppose that it was particularly Book iv that would have been in need of revision. At least for Book iv, William’s commentary could thus be something between a lectura and a revised ordinatio. Even though the commentary on Book iv is more elaborate than the other three books, the whole work nevertheless possesses a homogeneous structure. Unlike the Parisian commentaries of the later fourteenth century,63 William provides a full commentary, taking into account not only all four books, but each distinction of the Lombard’s Sentences. He thus seems to be following would have been written in 1447/48 under Gerard. There is, however, no external evidence to substantiate such a reading. 62  Brady, “The ‘Declaratio seu Retractatio’ of William of Vaurouillon,” i.11, p. 407: “Causa autem inadvertencie in hoc et similibus credo fuit tribulacio parisina que fuit tanta ut vix aliquando tempus sufficeret ad scribendum lectionem; et tandem lectura completa pre timore me egresso de Parisius, que de manibus erepta est et transcripta antequam corrigeretur: ideo non mirum si in ea aliqui occurrunt deffectus.” 63  On the structure of those commentaries, see Zahnd, “Sentenzenkommentare,” 74–5. However, William is not the first to revive the tradition of full commentaries in Paris; see, for instance, the commentaries by Giles Charlier (Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 42) or Peter Reginaldetus (Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 685—even though we no longer have Book iii from Reginaldetus’s commentary anymore; see note 25 above).

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

283

the Lombardian base text rather closely, but this is not the only feature the structure of his commentary reveals. It appears that throughout his four books William adheres to a peculiar division of his questions: while he normally asks one question per distinction, he formulates three questions for the third distinction and only one question for distinctions 14 to 16, 23 to 25, and 38 to 40 of each book:64 Book i Book ii Book iii Book iv princ. princ. princ. [princ.] one question prol. one question dist. 1 dist. 1 dist. 1 dist. 1 one question dist. 2 dist. 2 dist. 2 dist. 2 one question dist. 3 dist. 3 dist. 3 dist. 3 three questions dist. 4 dist. 4 dist. 4 dist. 4 one question . . .  . . .  . . .  . . .  . . .  dist. 13 dist. 13 dist. 13 dist. 13 one question dist. 14–16 dist. 14–16 dist. 14–16 dist. 14–16 subsumed in one question dist. 17 dist. 17 dist. 17 dist. 17 one question . . .  . . .  . . .  . . .  . . .  dist. 22 dist. 22 dist. 22 dist. 22 one question dist. 23–25 dist. 23–25 dist. 23–25 dist. 23–25 subsumed in one question dist. 26 dist. 26 dist. 26 dist. 26 one question . . .  . . .  . . .  . . .  . . .  d. 37 d. 37 d. 37 d. 37 one question d. 38–40 d. 38–40 d. 38–40 d. 38–40 subsumed in one question d. 41 d. 41 d. 41 one question . . .  . . .  . . .  . . .  d. 48 d. 44 d. 50 one question

Since there is, with regard to the content of the Lombard’s Sentences, no particular reason for such a division of the questions, this structure must be motivated by an external scheme. And indeed, the structure reveals a kind of a play on numbers: the three questions to distinction 3 providing, so to speak, a numerical basis of 3 – 3, the middle numbers of the summarized triples of

64  Without any further explanations and without recognizing the repetition of the structure throughout the four books, Tokarski, “Guillaum de Vaurouillon,” 89 n. 152 already pointed to this peculiar division of questions.

284

Zahnd

distinctions in William’s commentary are nothing but the subsequent members of a Fibonacci sequence based on 3:65 Fibonacci sequence based on 3: (0 –) 3 – 3 – 6 – 9 – 15 – 24 – 39 – 63 – 102 – . . . This use of a mathematical sequence is more than simple fooling about. Fibonacci sequences are directly linked with the golden ratio: the higher one gets in a sequence, the more the result of the division of two subsequent members approximates the golden section. It appears, then, that Vaurouillon tried to build his commentary in accordance with the predominant proportion used in Renaissance architecture.66 The fact that William chose a Fibonacci sequence based on the number 3 might well have a theological background as well. For William had an almost obsessive predilection for this number, a predilection that surpasses normal Trinitarian speculation.67 His principia are subdivided into three parts,68 and throughout his commentary every single question contains three articles. 65  A Fibonacci sequence is an infinite series of numbers starting with two identical numbers x – x (or 0 – x, which comes to the same), each subsequent number being the sum of the previous two. Leonardo of Pisa alias Fibonacci introduced this sequence in the early thirteenth century into western mathematics in order to describe the growth of a rabbit population. The standard Fibonacci sequence begins with 1 – 1 (or 0 – 1). 66  For a long time only Johannes Kepler was credited for having recognized the correlation between the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio—a position still held by Albert van der Schoot, Die Geschichte des goldenen Schnitts. Aufstieg und Fall der göttlichen Proportion (Stuttgart, 2005), 154. There is strong evidence, however, that the correlation was already known at the end of the Middle Ages; see Leonard Curchin and Roger HerzFischer, “De quand date le premier rapprochement entre la suite de Fibonacci et la division en extrême et moyenne raison?,” Centaurus 28 (1985): 129–38. 67  A Trinitarian dimension is sometimes explicitly present, as, for example, when he first explains the tripartite structure of his questions (Super quattuor libros Sententiarum, prologue, fol. 6vb): “In ista quaestione et in sequentibus divino favente auxilio qui deus unus extat et trinus, tres erunt articuli declarandi. Quorum primus est terminorum declarativus, secundus quaestionis responsivus, tertius est dubiorum motivus.” The last sentence is going to be repeated throughout his commentary at the beginning of the pes of each question. 68  The introductory lines of each of the four principia indicate that William always designed an oratio recommendativa, a dubietas disputabilis (that is, the principal question), and a loquela gratiativa (see Super quattuor libros Sententiarum, fols. 1r, 120v, 236v, and 330r). The third part for the principia of Books i through iii and the disputed question for Book iv have not been preserved.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

285

This is in itself nothing special, since there are many commentaries from the fourteenth century that present a similar choice for a certain stereotypically applied number of articles and arguments.69 But William goes further: each first article of his questions is devoted to the clarification of exactly three terms; each second article discusses exactly three conclusions; and each third article deals with exactly three dubia or difficultates. At the end of each question and after having resolved the usually three principal arguments William formulates exactly three conclusions de mente magistri, and it is needless to say that he tries to offer, whenever he can, a threefold division of a problem, three reasons to solve it, three authorities, or three examples. This fixation on the number 3 goes to the point where he even criticizes Francis of Meyronnes, a scholar he normally holds in high esteem, for having applied a fourfold structure to his arguments: melius est habere bonum ternarium quam malum quaternarium.70 As rigid as William’s application of this ternary structure may be, its effects are nonetheless surprisingly positive. It is true that, at one point or another, William has to shorten a discussion or to stretch out a not so complicated matter in order to make it compliant with his overall structure.71 Yet this regularity bestows upon his commentary an even elegance which, again, is best compared with Renaissance architecture. In William’s commentary things are clear. There is no Gothic excess of corollaries, sub-problems, and interposed doubts, but a harmonious simplicity that never leaves it up to doubt which 69  For some examples, see Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” esp. 242, where he calls this way of proceeding more geometrico. A fixed number of articles or arguments is, however, not sufficient to justify this terminology since there are some Parisian commentators of the late fourteenth century (like James of Eltville, Henry of Oyta, Peter of Candia, and to some extent Marsilius of Inghen as well) who used a threefold “geometrical” structure in a real Euclidean sense: in addition to the quaesitum itself, their questions have two presuppositions, each of which one of the three principal arguments challenges and consequently one of the three articles has to resolve. Hence, their questions receive a “geometrical” internal logical structure that is completed by notanda (providing definitions), conclusions (corresponding to the axiomata and theoremata), and correlaria (to draw further conclusions). On the origins of these mathematical methods in western scholasticism, see Mechthild Dreyer, More mathematicorum. Rezeption und Transformation der antiken Gestalten wissenschaftlichen Wissens im 12. Jahrhundert (Münster, 1996). 70  Super quattuor libros Sententiarum iv, dist. 14–16, art. 2, concl. 1, fol. 371rb. See already Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 63–4, and Brady, “A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” 297. Vaurouillon’s reactions to Francis of Meyronnes have been collected by Bartholomäus Roth, Franz von Mayronis O.F.M. Sein Leben, seine Werke, seine Lehre vom Formalunterschied in Gott (Werl, 1936), 90–1. 71  As it is deplored by Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 64.

286

Zahnd

part of a question a paragraph belongs to, and whether William is giving his own opinion or reporting someone else’s. As is the case with the new aesthetics his contemporaries were about to develop, form mattered for William just as much as content, and this formal emphasis turns out to be extremely helpful to anyone reading his commentary. The commentary thus seems to have been designed to be read, hence its objective proves to be again a didactic one: similar to the Vademecum, William’s main work aims to facilitate access to the Sentences tradition. This didactic purpose is emphasized by other structural elements that are worthy of note. Even though the division of his questions into three articles is the same throughout his commentary, William always provides a short divisio quaestionis after the principal arguments. Such “signposting language” runs through the other parts of his questions as well: at the beginning of each first article, he always lists the three terms that he is going to explain; at the beginning of the second article, he previews the three conclusions that he is going to draw; and at the end of each third article, he repeats his current response in the form of another conclusion. More important with regard to the didactic preparation of his material is the fact that, as already mentioned, at the end of each question William presents three conclusiones de mente magistri, which summarize and throw into relief the content of the current distinction of the Lombard’s text.72 William does not just use the Lombard’s Sentences as a rough framework for solving theological problems—as was the wont of many earlier commentators—but he also demonstrates a real interest in presenting the Lombard’s text itself (as has already became apparent from the fact that he has no selective approach, but develops a full commentary). Thus it is no surprise that, at the beginning of each question, William provides an elaborate divisio textus of the distinction his question is going to address—an element that had disappeared during the fourteenth century, at least in the published versions of most Sentences commentaries.73 As a result, William’s standard exposition of a Lombardian distinction has the following structure:

72  For the three questions of each third distinction, William formulates only one such conclusion per question; for the summarized triples of distinctions, William still provides only three conclusions de mente magistri, namely, one per distinction. 73  See Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “The Commentary on the Sentences of Marsilius of Inghen”, in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 464–506, at 496, and William J. Courtenay, “Postscript: The Demise of Quodlibetal Literature,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages, vol. 2: The Fourteenth Century, ed. Chris Schabel (Leiden, 2007), 693–9, at 695.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

divisio textus quaestio argumenta principalia in oppositum divisio quaestionis articuli art. 1: declaratio terminorum art. 2: responsio quaestionis art. 3: tractatio dubiorum solutio quaestionis ad argumenta principalia conclusiones ad mentem magistri

287

(usually three arguments) (always three terms) (always by three conclusions) (always three difficulties) (always three conclusions)

The Sentences commentary of William of Vaurouillon presents at the same time a literal exposition of the Lombard’s Sentences (comprising the divisio textus and the conclusiones ad mentem magistri), and a classical question commentary which, however, consists not only of the usual discussions and solutions, but also provides, by means of the declarationes of the first articles, a kind of thesaurus of scholastic terms. As an exposition, commentary, and dictionary all at once, Vaurouillon’s main work on the Sentences is a compendium, not unlike his Vademecum. With regard to contents, this manual-like character is more than obvious. William is not so much interested in developing an independent—or even an original—theological position, but rather in answering his questions by providing the most appropriate solution he collects from the former scholastic tradition. In the majority of cases, he chooses a purely expository approach: he is not interested in earlier debates and polemics or in lengthy pros and cons, but in a concise presentation of what he thinks is the best theological or philosophical position. More often than not, this is the position of Duns Scotus: it is Scotus whom he follows in most of his doctrinal choices, and with regard to his predilection for triples, he unsurprisingly contradicts Scotus only three times in an explicit way throughout his commentary.74 Nevertheless he does not content himself with a simple reproduction or abbreviation of the Subtle Doctor’s opinions: even though he favors Scotus, he does not hesitate 74  The first dissensio occurs in Book ii, dist. 17, art. 2, concl. 1 (fol. 174va) on the subject of the localization of Paradise; the second in Book iv, dist. 14–16, art. 2, concl. 3 (fol. 372ra) on a question regarding the death penalty; and the third in the same Book, dist. 27, art. 2, concl. 2 (fol. 394rb) in the context of the institution of marriage. In this third place, William declares: “hic est tertius passus, in quo tantum gigantem nanus dimitto, forte quia non capio . . . , ut sit completus ternarius, et amplius non excedat.”

288

Zahnd

to refer to an impressive diversity of other scholastic authors where he thinks that their opinions are preferable. From obvious resources like Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, and Richard of Middletown up to more surprising names like Godfrey of Poitiers or Roger Bacon, the collection of texts to which William refers is as substantial as in the Vademecum.75 William strives to reproduce their positions in his own words; indeed, the majority of these sources are used in a way that makes it clear that Vaurouillon really knew the texts he was referring to. Needless to say, he also exhibited a historico-critical accuracy in indicating from where he was citing. Admittedly, the result of this method is a rather eclectic amalgam of scholastic positions dominated by the doctrinal principles of Scotist theology. But the work should not be prematurely dismissed for its eclecticism.76 First of all, even though his commentary at points resembles a mere sequence of quotations, it is evident that, for each question, William had to survey the majority of his sources in order to be able to make his choices. His knowledge of the preceding scholastic tradition is impressive; there is no doubt that the design of such a compendium was anything but the product of intellectual phlegm. If it is true, in addition, that William conceived of his commentary with a predominantly didactical purpose, he is to be blamed for a lack of speculative outpourings as much as any modern author of a philosophical or theological compendium. William wanted to present a schoolbook; thus, if we miss in his commentary any original thoughts, then this corresponds exactly to William’s own intention. Finally, of particular historical value is the fact that William goes beyond citing the standard scholastic sources. For his clarifications of terms, in particular, William also refers to Cicero, Seneca, Lucian, Cato, Ovid, or Juvenal.77 If the overall structure of his commentary already gives us cause to suppose that he had a sense for renaissance aesthetics, these references confirm that he was 75  For an almost comprehensive list of authors cited, see Brady, “A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” 296. In his concluding sermon, William especially mentions (besides Thomas, Bonaventure, and Scotus) the sequentes tres alij quorum suffragijs multum saepe indigui— that is, Francis of Meyronnes, Henry of Ghent, and Giles of Rome (Super quattuor libros Sententiarum, epilogue, fol. 460r). 76  For an evaluation of late medieval eclecticism, see Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Marsilius von Inghen in der Geistesgeschichte des ausgehenden Mitelalters,” in Philosophie und Theologie des ausgehenden Mittelalters. Marsilius von Inghen und das Denken seiner Zeit, ed. Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen and Paul J.J.M. Bakker (Leiden, 2000), 21–45, at 45. 77  See, for example, Super quattuor libros Sententiarum iv, dist. 49, art. 1, fol. 452r, where, in order to explain the term dos, William refers to Cato’s Disticha iii.12 and Ovid’s Remedia amoris 325. For other examples, see the Declaratio seu retractatio (ed. Brady), passim.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

289

not ignorant of early French humanism. To a certain extent, his commentary is evidence of a felicitous conjunction of scholastic and humanist approaches, which is particularly evident in William’s principia: while his quaestiones follow the standard grammatical structure of contemporary scholastic Latin, the principia not only abound with references to classical authors, but are written in a clearly humanist style, presenting thus an amalgam of scholastic content and humanist Latin.78 Similar to William’s Vademecum, the density of information and the clarity of his approach to the Lombard’s Sentences were jointly responsible for the success of his commentary. Because of this work, William was soon to be called the doctor brevis, and the four early modern editions testify to the appreciation his contemporaries had of him. It was used and cited in sermons of the late fifteenth century.79 Moreover, Johannes Picardus, a Franciscan author of a Thesaurus theologorum, a collection of the main propositions of some thirty scholastic authors of Sentences commentaries, regularly referred to William’s position even before his mandatory references to Scotus.80 In the early sixteenth century, the use of Vaurillon’s commentary as a real schoolbook is attested to by the fact that Johannes Findling, also known as Apobolymaeus, 78  Beyond the aforementioned classical authors, Wiliam also refers in the principia to Homer and Valerius Maximus and mentions, among others, Euripides, Sophocles, Aristippus, and Xenocrates. On the influence of humanist Latin on William, see already Pelster, “Wilhelm von Vorillon,” 66; an impressive example is William’s appraisal of Scotus: “Nunc nunc ad te amor meus o doctorum subtilior Ioannes dictus de dunis se convertit lingua mea. Non autumo haud suspicor quenquem in terris viventem tuas laudes dignis celebrare sermonibus, quem mater universitatum parrhysius suo in flore et precio tot inter doctorum turmas subtilis nomine insignivit, cuius postmodum coloniae clerus adventum sentiens, universus tibi obviasse refertur. . . . Mirum unum comperio quod tot subtilia scribens in errore non es comprehensus aut aliquo. Hic est o patres aptissimi huius honor studij, mentes suspensas faciens prae stupore, cuius dicta communem transcendunt facultatem, inquisitor maximus veritatis, redargutor falsitatis, veri archa, legum summa, rerum comparata sanctio, in philosophicis strenuus, in magicis praecipuus, in theologicis arduus, in cognitione circumconspicuus” (Super quattuor libros Sententiarum, epilogue, fol. 460r). See as well the collatio recommendativa of the principium to Book ii, fol. 122r: “ad te venio, ad te vertitur meus sermonis curriculus, nunc noster o amor praecordialissime, qui tanta in universitate tantum scientia plenus eras, ut doctoris subtilis nomen retineres, cuius error nullus tuam doctrinam, tuum opus maculavit, devotione consopitus praecipua.” 79  See Brady, “The ‘Declaratio seu Retractatio,’ ” 394 n. 3. 80  See Johannes Picardus, Thesaurus theologorum quatuor libris Sententiarum correspondens, doctorum et magistrorum in sacra pagina professorum decisiones complectens resolutive et in pluribus probative (Milan, 1506). On Picardus, see Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 178–80, and Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 220–3.

290

Zahnd

relied on Vaurouillon’s compendium; at the Franciscan studium of Ingolstadt he presented a lecture on Book iv of the Sentences entitled, “Collecta circa quartum sententiarum iuxta lecturam doctoris brevis Guilhelmi Vorillon.”81 3

Nicholas of Orbellis

Although he was held in high esteem by his contemporaries and early successors, Nicholas of Orbellis is even less known to modern research than William of Vaurouillon.82 Born around 1400 in the neighborhood of Angers, Nicholas joined the Conventuals of the province of Tours at an early age and was sent to Paris, where he obtained his doctorate in about 1435.83 He then left Paris and may have taught for a time, as Vaurouillon and many other Frenchman did, at the University of Poitiers, where (in the tumultuous events of the Hundred Years War) Charles vii tried to establish the new French capital; without any doubt he was teaching as well at the convent of Angers.84 Unlike William of Vaurouillon, it was only during this later part of his career that Nicholas composed the theological and philosophical works that we know, even though their content might well go back to notes he took during his own studies at Paris. Nicholas wrote commentaries in the main fields of scholastic philosophical and theological teaching of his time: he is the author of an Expositio 81  This is the title Findling offers at the beginning of his proper commentary on fol. 14r of the autograph, ms. Munich, Universitätsbibliothek, 8° Cod. ms. 28. On Findling († 1538), see Michael Bihl, Der Katalog des P. Johannes Findling vom Jahre 1533, dessen Schriften und Leben, sowie der Katalog des P. Johannes Nasus vom Jahre 1564. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ingolstädter Franziskaner-Bibliothek (Ingolstadt, 1921). 82  The only modern scholar to have shown any substantial interest in Nicholas of Orbellis is Pierre M. Duhem, Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon a Copernic, vol. 10: La cosmologie du xve siècle. Écoles et universtiés au xve siècle (Paris, 1959), 46–58 and passim; see also his Études sur Léonard da Vinci iii. Les précurseurs parisiens de Galilée (Paris, 1913), 99. For a short, but almost exhaustive bibliography, see Stephan Meier-Oeser, art. “Nicolas d’Orbelles,” in Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 6 (Nordhausen, 1993), 683–4; to be completed with Barnabas Hughes, “Franciscans and Mathematics,” afh 77 (1984): 3–66. 83  The fullest biographical account on Nicholas of Orbelles is provided by Amédée Teetaert, art. “Nicolas d’Orbelles,” in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 11 (Paris, 1931), 625–8; a few points being corrected by Émile Pasquier, “Deux auteurs angevins du xve siècle,” Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences, Belles-Lettres et Arts d’Angers 7 (1953): 85–98. See also Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 174–8. 84  Up to the eighteenth century, the convent remembered its famous teacher in a portrait painted on its outer walls; see Pasquier, “Deux auteurs angevins,” 90.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

291

logice on Peter of Spain; he produced a Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice and a Compendium ethice mainly based on Aristotle,85 and he composed a detailed commentary on the Lombard’s Sentences. For reasons unknown, Nicholas joined the Observants at the end of his career; he died in Rome between 1472 and 1475.86 A closer look at the different works by Nicholas reveals that they are all part of one single, steadily evolving project. It is thus worth looking in more detail at Nicholas’s oeuvre prior to focusing on his Sentences commentary. The internal coherence of his works is illustrated by their prologues, which are never longer than ten or fifteen lines: the beginning paragraphs of the Expositio logice, an epitome of Scotist logic designed “for the young,” explicitly refers to and builds upon a “compendium” that Nicholas says he “compiled on Scotus’s philosophy.”87 This is undoubtedly a reference to one of his commentaries on Aristotle, since the Compendium mathematicae, physice et metaphysice as well as the Compendium ethice claim in their prologues to be secundum mentem doctoris subtilis.88 But, while the former does not mention in its introductory 85  As was usual for such compendia of the fifteenth century, the Compendium mathematicae, physice et metaphysice also contains, in the section on natural philosophy, a commentary on the Parva naturalia and the De anima. The authenticity of an independent commentary on the De anima (purported editions Basel 1503 and 1542) is doubtful (see below, note 95, for other doubtful and spurious works). On Nicholas’s philosophical commentaries, see Charles H. Lohr, “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors N–R,” Traditio 28 (1972): 281–396, at 288–90, and Olga Weijers, Le travail intellectuel à la faculté des arts de Paris. Textes et maîtres (ca. 1200–1500), vol. 6: L–O (Turnhout, 2005), 166–8, which update the partially outdated information provided by Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 177–8. 86  The general chapter of 1475 held at Saint-Omer mentions Nicholas among the recently defunct members of the order; see Clément Schmitt, art. “Nicolas d’Orbelles,” Catholicisme, vol. 9 (Paris, 1982), 1258–9, at 1258. 87  Nicholas of Orbelles, Expositio logice, prologue (Venice, 1500), fol. a2ra: “Utile est volentibus studere doctrinam doctoris subtilis Scoti . . . in eius principijs a iuventute introduci. . . . Igitur iuxta ipsius mentem aliqua logicalia pro iuvenibus super summulas Petri Hispani Christo duce breviter enodabo. Et quia multe materie que tractantur in logica peramplius reperiuntur in philosophia, remitto aliunde ad quoddam compendium quod super philosophiam eiusdem doctoris dictis compilavi, sepeque noto ea que hic dicuntur in quibus locis ab eodem doctore habentur, ut ea ibidem diffusius valeas intueri.” 88  Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice, prol. (Basel, 1503), fol. I1ra (corrected against ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28671, fol. 70ra): “Sicut dicit philosophus sexto metaphisice: ‘Theorica sive speculativa dividitur in mathematicam, phisicam et metaphisicam,’ de his tribus inquantum arbitror fore necessarium ut in pluribus pro doctoribus theologicis [om ed. Basel], in presenti compendio duce

292

Zahnd

paragraphs any further writings by Nicholas, the Compendium ethice is said to complement his “two [already] treated parts of speculative philosophy, that is, the rational and the real.”89 Finally, the first lines of the Sentences commentary state that “after a short compilation of logics, physics, and ethics according to the Subtle Doctor’s opinion as an introduction for the young,” Nicholas was now about “to treat briefly and brightly” Scotus’s thoughts on the Lombard.90 It is thus possible to provide a relative chronology of these works which all refer to each other:91 the first seems to have been the Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice, which was designed as the comprehensive manual of a Scotist philosophia speculativa realis.92 It was completed later on by a philosophia speculativa rationalis, the Expositio logice.93 Only then, this bipartite spec-

alitissimo tractabo, sequendo doctoris subtilissimi magistri Iohannis de Donis qui fuit natione Scotius dictis.” 89  Compendium ethice, prol. (Basel, 1503), fol. p5va: “Pertractis compendiose secundum mentem doctoris subtilis Scoti duabus partibus scientie speculative scilicet rationali et reali, divina gratia opilante de scientia practica libet breviter aliquid fari.” 90  Compendium super Sententias (Haguenau, 1503), fol. a2ra: “Post brevem compilationem logice, physice et ethice secundum opinionem doctoris subtilis ad iuvenum introductionem intentionis presentis est ipsius mentem super librum sententiarum Christo duce compendiose lucideque tractare.” 91  An absolute chronology is difficult to establish, however. There is a terminus post quem only for the Sentences commentary (see below, note 107); and the explicit of the commentary on metaphysics (in the Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice) in the edition of Bologna 1485 claims that it has been “compiled” by Nicholas tempore quo erat regens in conventu Parisiensi ( fol. M5vb). There is, however, no external evidence for this information provided by its editor. 92  Even though Nicholas usually speaks of mathematics, physics, and metaphysics as the three parts of the philosophia speculativa (without the further adjective realis), it is evident from his commentary to Metaphysics vi, where this division stems from, that his first Compendium is limited to the scientiae reales; see Compendium mathematice . . . on Met. vi, fol. o4va: “loquitur ibi de scientia speculativa reali scilicet quod considerat intentiones primas abstractas a singularibus rebus et dictas de illis in quid. Per hoc excluditur logica que est de secundis intentionibus que de nulla re prime intentionis predicatur in quid.” See, as well, Nicholas’s Expositio logice, vol. 1 (Venice, 1500), fol. a4vb–a5ra, where he explicitly presents the division of Metaphysics vi as concerning the scientia speculativa realis. 93  For Nicholas, as a follower of Scotus, there is no doubt that logic is a rational (and not a practical) science: “patet quod logica non est scientia practica cum non sit directiva praxis. Est igitur speculativa, quia ordinatur ad scire” (Expositio logice, vol. 1, fol. a5rb). On the late medieval problem of placing logic among the sciences, see Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Ars artium und scientia scientiarum. Logik an den mittelalterlichen Universitäten von Paris

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

293

ulative philosophy found its practical counterpart, the Compendium ethice, all three together eventually complemented by Nicholas’s Sentences commentary. This division and organization of the sciences is, of course, nothing special for a medieval author; there are plenty of other scholars who commented extensively upon the different parts of Aristotle’s work as well as on the Lombard’s Sentences.94 The peculiarity of Nicholas’s oeuvre lies in the fact that he systematically works through the different fields of scholastic science and that his writings seem to be intended to form a whole. This internal coherence is also apparent from the similar composition and style of his works, guided as they are by brevity and clarity: each of the four commentaries mentioned above95 is conceived of as a compendium; the respective topics are unpretentiously presented following closely the texts on which they are based, and the individual comments limit themselves to explaining a particular topic without debating it. What is more, the four works are designed for the same audience: the phrase pro iuvenibus in the opening paragraph of the Expositio logice is repeated at the beginning of the Sentences commentary,96 and the Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice specifies who these young people are: Nicholas intends to treat the three sciences mentioned in the title of this first compendium only inasmuch as he considers them to be useful for future doctoribus theologicis.97 A few lines later on he defends his dealing with such voluminous philosophical sciences in one compendium by stating that he limits himself to topics that, on the one hand, are of a certain necessity for theology, but that, on the other, would not normally be treated in

und im Alten Reich,” in Artisten und Philosophen. Wissenschafts- und Wirkungsgeschichte einer Fakultät vom 13. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Rainer C. Schwinges (Basel, 1999), 63–82. 94  Other late medieval examples are Henry of Oyta, Marsilius of Inghen, Pierre d’Ailly, Peter Tartaret, and John Mair (on whom see the contribution by Severin Kitanov, John Slotemaker, and Jeffrey Witt in the present volume). 95  Nicholas is said to have composed as well a Tractatus de successione and a Liber de casibus conscientie (see Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 178), but there do not seem to be any extant copies. The treatise De terminis theologicis (or Declarationes quorundam terminorum theologicalium, or De divinis nominibus) that usually follows the editions of his Sentences commentary is by Francis of Meyronnes; see Clément Schmitt, “Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque municipale de Metz,” afh 67 (1974): 471–555, at 543–5; the Sermones in omnes epistolas quadragesimae are by his probable nephew Peter of Orbellis; see Pasquier, “Deux auteurs angevins,” 94–5. 96  See above, notes 87 and 90. 97  See above, note 88.

294

Zahnd

theological works and especially not within a Sentences commentary.98 Hence, the focus of Nicholas’s philosophical compendia—and, therefore, the focus of his entire project—is a theological one: culminating in the Sentences commentary, the philosophical compendia do not exhibit an interest in philosophy as such, but are designed for the preparation of future theologians. The iuvenes mentioned in the prologues are, above all, young friars.99 In this sense, Nicholas’s works are not purely “academic” writings, but probably stem from his teaching at the convent of Angers. The most distinctive peculiarity of Nicholas’s works, and at the same time the guiding theme that further substantiates their internal coherence, is their focus on Scotus. The Subtle Doctor’s doctrine figures as the prominent guideline in the very first lines of each compendium cited above, and unsurprisingly this concentration on Scotus reappears in the explicits and titles early modern editors chose for Nicholas’s works.100 Once more, the prologue to the first of these compendia, the Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice, is the most telling one. Having declared that he plans to follow the teachings of the Subtle Doctor, Nicholas first states that he does not intend to assert anything that is not in accord with those teachings; secondly, that he will expose them in a plain and intelligible language; and thirdly, that he is going to specify “the books and distinctions” from which they come lest the reader 98  See Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice, prol. fol. I1ra: “Nec mirum videatur alicui si ea que in tot et tantis libris philosophie diffuse habentur hic compendiose tractantur. Hoc enim peragere satis est facile, quod patet triplice ratione. Primo, quia multe materie que tractantur in philosophia non sunt magne necessitatis pro theologia. Secundo, quia quamplures materie philosophie eque bene, immo melius tractantur in theologia quam in philosophia ut patet intuenti doctorum opera super libros sententiarum. Ideo circa tales materias non est diutius immorandum. Tertio hoc idem patet, quia eadem materia tractatur in pluribus libris philosophie ut patet intuentibus philosophi textum cum commentis et questionibus super illum editis.” 99  With Pasquier, “Deux auteurs angevins,” 87. Duhem, Système du monde, vol. 10, 47, reads the iuvenes in a more general sense to be any “commençants adonnés encore aux études du Trivium.” 100  For example, the printed edition of the Sentences commentary from Haguenau 1503 has the title: Eximii doctoris magistri Nicolai de Orbellis super Sententias Compendium perutile, elegantiora doctoris subtilis dicta summatim complectens, and its explicit reads: “Compendium perutile quattuor librorum sententiarum Magistri Nicolai dorbelli sacre theologie professoris Ordinis Minorum fratrum de observantia secundum doctrinam doctoris subtilis.” Also see the Basel 1503 edition of the three philosophical compendia (with the phrase secundum doctrinam doctoris subtilis Scoti in the title and secundum viam scoti in the explicit).

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

295

take them as Nicholas’s own thoughts.101 As was the case with Vaurouillon, Nicholas displays of a historico-critical attitude, but here this attitude is combined with an exclusive focus: Nicholas is interested in Scotus, and in Scotus alone. It is the prologue to the Expositio logice—the compendium that precedes the others from a curricular perspective—which explains why Nicholas thinks this focus is worth the trouble: according to him, Scotus’s doctrine “excels among the others in force and truth.”102 That, however, is not the main reason he indicates for having written his introductory compendia: the utility of introducing young people to Scotus’s thought lies in the fact that “once they have acquired [Scotus], they can easily acquire the others, but not the other way around.”103 In order to be able to understand Scotus properly, one has to grow up with him, and Nicholas conceives of his different compendia as one big project devised to facilitate this growth. It is no wonder that Nicholas’s successors appreciated this holistic approach, combining at least his philosophical commentaries into one large Scotist compendium.104 It was worth dwelling on these points since the four compendia are part of a single project, such that the features of Nicholas’s philosophical commentaries apply as well to his commentary on the Sentences. Now, even though this commentary is usually described as a compendium,105 it is a full commentary treating every distinction of all four books and presenting, for most of them, more than one question. It is thus a question-based commentary; there is no evidence that Nicholas might also have provided divisiones textus or literal expositions that have been lost in the process of textual transmission. 101  Compendium mathematice, physice et metaphysice, prol., fol. I1ra: “Nihil dissonum hic determinate asserere intendo. Tractanda autem in hoc compendio sub verbis planis ut satis intelligibilius referabo. Et ne a meipso loqui videar, signabo ut sepius in quibus libris seu librorum distinctionibus doctor prefatus tractat materias in hoc compendio positas.” 102  Expositio logice, prol., fol. a2ra: “Utile est volentibus studere doctrinam doctoris subtilis Scoti que inter ceteras maxime extat roboris et veritatis in eius principijs a iuventute introduci.” 103  Ibid.: “Ipsa enim habita, alie de facili haberi possunt, sed non econtra.” 104  This is already the case in some manuscripts (for example, mss. Colmar, Fonds du consistoire, 27, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28671, and Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1442), but see as well the printed editions of Basel 1494 and 1503. For detailed information on editions and manuscripts of Nicholas’s philosophical compendia see, Weijers, Travail intellectuel, vol. 6, 167–8. 105  This is the case already in the first known printed edition (Rouen, 1494), in which the commentary is entitled, Eximii doctoris magistri Nicholai de orbellis super sentencias compendium perutile. On other editions of Nicholas’s Sentences commentary see below, note 114; there are two known manuscripts, on which see Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 591.

296

Zahnd

Unsurprisingly, Nicholas’s interest is not so much in Lombard as in Scotus, and his consideration of the whole Lombardian text is most probably due only to the fact that Scotus’s different commentaries on the Sentences also take most of the Lombard’s distinctions into account. Thus, while Nicholas does not literally repeat Scotus’s questions—as we will see, he is not just providing an abbreviation of Scotus—the number of questions he poses matches those of the Subtle Doctor in most cases.106 The fact that Nicholas’s Sentences commentary is called a “compendium” thus reflects his approach to Scotus rather than to Peter Lombard. Parts of this Sentences compendium date from after 1465. In his commentary to distinction 45 of Book iv, Nicholas refers to a privilegium Pauli pape moderni who is said to “have confirmed in the year 1465” earlier privileges for the Franciscans.107 Since this “modern” (meaning “contemporary”) Pope Paul ii reigned until 1471, we have at least a rough point of reference to date not only the Sentences commentary, but to anchor the relative chronology concerning Nicholas’s other works as well. In regard to these philosophical compendia, the Sentences commentary plays the already described role of the culminating point of the whole project. Therefore, it has some distinctive features in which it differs from the philosophical commentaries: first of all, the Sentences commentary is more extensive. It is about as long as the three other compendia taken together, which is to be expected when one considers the fact that Nicholas intended to limit the philosophical commentaries to theologically relevant topics while postponing the philosophical subjects that he could treat as well in the Sentences commentary. In order to handle this amount of material, the Sentences commentary also differs from the philosophical compendia in its approach to the base text, since the commentaries are, as already mentioned, organized into questions. These questions do not have a very strict structure. Apart from the usual “head” with the quaestio itself and the principal arguments pro and con, most of his questions feature a short divisio quaestionis at the beginning of the responsio, while they usually end 106  Where the number of questions differs, it is usually Nicholas who poses fewer questions than Scotus. There are, of course, some exceptions: whereas, regarding the problem of the potestas clavium, Scotus treats distinction 18 of Book iv in his Ordinatio as well as in the Reportata parisiensa (which even merge distinctions 18 and 19) in a single question, Nicholas asks no fewer than nine different questions. 107  Compendium super Sententias, fol. G1rb–va: “Manet in vigore suo per privilegium Pauli pape moderni qui ex certa scientia Anno domini millesimo quadringentesimo sexagesimo quinto confirmavit omnia privilegia per quoscunque rhomanos pontifices ipsis fratribus sub quacunque forma verborum concessa.” See Teetaert, “Nicolas d’Orbelles,” 626, and Pasquier, “Deux auteurs angevins,” 90.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

297

with a refutation of the principal arguments. But that is as much as one can say about their general structure: Nicholas’s quaestiones differ greatly in length as well; moreover, some are divided into articles, others are not, and there is no kind of conclusio or propositio reappearing in each question to summarize Nicholas’s main thesis on the current topic. Thirdly and most importantly, Nicholas’s Sentences commentary differs from his philosophical compendia in the sources and opinions to which it refers. Of course, Nicholas is still preoccupied with Scotus as he prominently declares in the first lines of his commentary—but in the prologue he also notes that he is going to “insert the moral topics that are more extensively treated by other doctors.”108 Apparently, Nicholas aims to present in his Sentences commentary a broader view of the scholastic tradition, which accords well with what he said at the beginning of the Expositio logice: the iuvenes having been formed within a Scotist philosophy, it is now possible to introduce them to the thinking of other scholars without running the risk of obfuscating their understanding of Scotus.109 Throughout the commentary, Nicholas thus refers— besides, of course, his omnipresent citations of Scotus—to Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Richard of Middletown; an important role is assigned to John of Roddington, Henry of Ghent, and Giles of Rome; and to a lesser extent he also refers to William of Auxerre, Alexander of Hales, William of Ware, and Godfrey of Fontaines, or to even more “modern,” predominantly Franciscan scholars such as Peter Auriol, Nicholas of Lyra, Francis of Meyronnes, and Peter of Candia.110 In the fourth book, with its more practical problems of sacramental theology, he also relies on a certain number of commentators of canon law, including Henry of Segusio (Hostiensis), Bernardus Papiensis, and Raymond of Peñafort.111 It is however difficult to say to what extent Nicholas really knew those other scholars. While he most probably read Thomas’s Summa theologiae and the Sentences commentaries of Richard of Middletown and John of

108  Compendium super sententias, fol. a2ra: “morales materias ab alijs doctoribus diffusius tractatas inserendo.” For the context of this citation, see above, note 90. 109  See above, note 103. 110  See, for example, the discussion of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Compendium super Sententias iii, dist. 3, q. un., fol. m7ra: “Scotus vero dicit quod deus potuit facere quod nunquam esset in peccato originali. . . . Hoc etiam tenent Petrus de Candia, Petrus Aureoli et Franciscus de Maronis et plures moderni doctores. Fuitque pluribus miraculis celitus revelatum ac in consilio Basilensi roboratum.” 111  For example, they all appear together with a fourth canonist, Geoffrey of Trani, in a question on homicide as an obstacle to ordination: Compendium super Sententias iv, dist. 25, qu. 8, fol. C8vb.

298

Zahnd

Roddington, he almost certainly derived some of his other references from intermediary sources.112 In spite of his recourse to other sources, there is no doubt about Nicholas’s preference for Scotus. As far as it was possible to verify for this survey, Nicho­ las abides by his principle of not asserting anything that departs from Scotus, and where he refers to other scholars, he conceives of such references as a complement or, at best, as an alternative to the Subtle Doctor’s teachings. However—and this is a fundamental feature of Nicholas’s commentary— these other authors do not appear as a challenge to Scotus. If Nicholas ever cites an opposing opinion, Scotus bears the palm of course;113 but generally speaking, Nicholas is not interested in polemics at all: his goal is not to defend Scotus against his opponents, but to provide a positive account of the Subtle Doctor’s doctrine. Consequently, he silently passes over many debates to which Scotus was responding, or which were caused by his teachings. Even if Nicholas composed his compendium for advanced students he believed to be capable of handling a variety of opinions, he nevertheless remained within the parameters of a schoolbook that was not intended to present and discuss different scholastic positions, but to disseminate Scotism. In a way, Trapp’s description of a scholar who contents himself with the study of one author instead of ten or twenty applies to Nicholas of Orbellis, even though he obviously knew more authors than Scotus alone: it was his students who had to make do with Scotus alone. But again it is obvious that this limitation was not the result of intellectual phlegm, but represented the consistent application of a pedagogical program. And this program seems to have been very successful: Nicholas’s Sentences commentary was printed at least fourteen times between 1494 and 1537, in France as well as in Germany and northern Italy.114 Likewise, his philosophical compendia saw at least three 112  Rather obviously, one of these sources is no other than William of Vaurouillon and his Vademecum: in the fifth question of Nicholas’s prologue, where he treats—as Scotus had done—the problem of knowing whether theology is a practical or a speculative science, he cites exactly the same sources that William’s Vademecum had noted as the opinions Scotus refers to; see Compendium super Sententias, prol., qu. 5, fol. a7ra–va, and Vademecum, prol., qu. 4, fol a2v–a3r. 113  As this is the case in the prologue’s question about the speculative character of theology, see preceding note. 114  Since there are some inconsistencies among the indications provided by Wegerich, “Biobibliographische Notizen,” 177, here is a list of the editions whose existence can still be verified today (based on Andrew Pettegree, Malcolm Walsby, and Alexander Wilkinson, French Vernacular Books: Books Published in the French Language before 1601 [Leiden, 2007]): Rouen 1494, 1495, 1500; Paris 1498, 1506, 1511, 1515, 1517, 1520, 1521, 1537; Haguenau 1503; Lyons 1503; Venice 1507—this last edition combines Nicholas’s commentary with

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

299

editions each between 1482 and 1516.115 Johann Eck presented Nicholas in his Chrysopassus praedestinationis, a collection of opinions on the problems of predestination, as one “who, with comprehensive success, wrote laconically and succinctly, but who, by his fruit and juice, excelled the height of giants.”116 John Trithemius, in his De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, praised Nicholas’s erudition and clarity.117 His philosophical compendia soon became a mandatory part of the philosophical curriculum of the University of Angers, while his theological positions were regarded as outstanding enough to be inserted into the already mentioned Thesaurus theologorum by Johannes Picardus.118 4

Stephen Brulefer

Things are slightly different with the third Franciscan author covered by this survey: Stephen Brulefer. At the end of the fifteenth century, he was as renowned a Scotist as his two predecessors, but the commentary on the Sentences we have from his hand is not primarily focused on Scotus, but on Bonaventure. Moreover, even though the commentary stems from a particular educational situation, Brulefer did not intend to compose a well-balanced compendium, but was interested in a real defense, and thus in a polemical justification, of the positions he held. What is more, Brulefer has gained some attention in recent research, although not among medievalists, but among historians of the Swiss reformation: in the same way in which marginal notes from an edition of the Lombard’s Sentences and bears the telling title: Petri Lombardi quattuor Sententiarum volumina cum doctissimis Nicolai de Orbellis theologi acutissimi interpretationibus in quibus Scoti dicta que obscuriora vulgo videbantur faciliter enarrantur: Ex quorum cognitione brevi omnes in Scoti dogmatibus sunt peritissimi evasuri. 115  The philosophia realis was published three times (Bologna 1485; Basel 1494, 1503), and the Compendium logice at least six times (Parma 1482; Venice 1489, 1500, 1516; Basel 1494, 1503). 116  Johann Eck, Chrysopassus praedestinationis (Augsburg, 1514), fol. Q2v: “Audiamus nunc quid nobis dicat Nicholaus de Orbellis, qui ubique profecto succincte et laconice scripsit; sed fructu suo et succo etiam proceritatem gigantum superat; accedit enim fertilitati suae quod optime et magistraliter tradit, ac rem quasi ante oculos ponit.” 117  See John Trithemius, Catalogum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (Cologne, 1531), fols. 146r–v: “Nicolaus Dorbellus, ordinis fratrum minorum S. Francisci provinciae Thuronensis, vir in divinis scripturis eruditissimus, et in philosophia scholastica nulli secundus, ingenio clarus, et ad disputandas enodandasque quaestiones scripturarum satis idoneus. . . . Fuit autem dictorum Iohannis Scoti profundus interpres et acerrimus defensor.” For Nicholas’s reception among the Spanish Franciscans, see Pasquier, “Deux auteurs angevins,” 88. 118  For Picardus, see above, note 80; for Angers, see Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 176.

300

Zahnd

Luther’s hand have survived in a copy of the Sentences commentary by Gabriel Biel, Brulefer’s commentary was read and glossed by Huldrych Zwingli.119 We do not have much information regarding Brulefer’s biography. He was born in Saint-Malo (Brittany) as Étienne Pillet, and since we know that he received his license and doctorate in Paris in 1482, we can assume that he was born between 1450 and 1455.120 There is thus no reason to claim that he was among the students of William of Vaurouillon (who died in 1463), as has often been done, although it is obvious that he was, in many points, William’s intellectual heir.121 Soon after his doctorate, Brulefer joined the Observants and went to Mainz (Germany),122 where he started to give lectures based on Bonaventure’s Sentences commentary. In about 1490, he moved to Metz, where he continued these lectures; in the meantime, he committed himself to the propagation of the Observant reform. It was in order to accomplish this task that he was sent, in about 1495, to his native Brittany, where he died between 1496 and 1499.123 During his career, Stephen Brulefer produced several works that have survived. A collection of opuscula printed in Paris in 1500 contains sermons and short theological tracts that Brulefer probably composed in the 1480s during his sojourn in Germany.124 Most of them are occasional writings, such as the 119  See Martin Sallmann, Zwischen Gott und Mensch. Huldrych Zwinglis theologischer Denkweg im de Vera et Falsa Religione Commentarius (1525) (Tübingen, 1999), 183–97; Zwingli’s marginal glosses have been studied and edited by Daniel Bolliger, Infiniti Contemplatio. Grundzüge der Scotus- und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis (Leiden, 2003). 120  For the most complete biographical account, see Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 172–85; the important dates have been confirmed by Sullivan, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, vol. 1, 101–03. 121   Unaware of Murphy, Tanja Thanner, art. “Brulefer, Stephanus,” Biographischbibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 33 (Nordhausen, 2012), 188–91, still assumes that Brulefer was taught by Vorillon. Also see Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 158, and Sullivan, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, vol. 1, 101. 122  In search for predecessors of the Reformation, Matthias Flacius Illyricus purported that Brulefer had to escape from Paris due to his unorthodox teachings on justification; see his Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1556), 984. There is, however, no evidence of a flight or any heterodox opinions in Brulefer’s writings; see at length Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 181–5, and already Nikolaus Paulus, “Paul Scriptoris. Ein angeblicher Reformator vor der Reformation,” Theologische Quartalsschrift 75 (1893): 289–311, at 291–9. 123  Most probably in 1496 or 1497; see Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 178, and Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 161. It is the general chapter of 1499 at Mechelen that remembered his death. 124  Contrary to Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 161, there is no evidence of a 1499 Parisian edition of these opuscula; see Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 194–5. The most complete transcription of the eight titles contained in these opuscula is provided by

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

301

ten propositions An personae in divinis sint, ut usus habet, depingendae, or the Quaestio de symonia . . . in sinodo quadam Maguntinensi edita;125 some exhibit typically Franciscan concerns, as is obvious in the Sermo de conceptione purissima . . . dei genitricis Marie. More importantly, there are two logical works by Brulefer’s hand, the Formalitates in doctrinam Scoti and the Identitatum et distinctionum contractio, both centered on a specific understanding of the formal distinction which Brulefer pertinaciously defends, witnessing his deep solidarity with late medieval Scotism.126 It is above all the Formalitates that corroborated Brulefer’s reputation as a Scotist throughout the sixteenth century (at least eighteen editions appeared between 1480 and 1591), but unlike Nicholas of Orbellis, Brulefer endeavored not simply to present Scotus’s logical approach, but to prove its truth in explicit distinction from other approaches. He did not refrain from ardent polemics that combined logical, theological, and legal aspects of a problem: in the Contractio, for example, he even accused his opponents of being possible heretics,127 an accusation he also made to substantiate his arguments in the theological opuscula.128 A. van den Wyngaert, art. “Brulefer (Étienne),” in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, vol. 10 (Paris, 1938), 916–17. 125  The synod of Mainz mentioned in this title took place in 1487; see Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 175. In other writings included among the opuscula, Bonaventure is called a saint (he was canonized in 1482); see, for example, ed. Paris 1500, fol. 28r: “doctor seraphicus et devotus sanctissimus scilicet Bonaventura qui antonomatice merito dicitur doctor noster et omnium fratrum minorum.” 126  The Formalitates in doctrinam Scoti were printed in Paris as early as 1480 ( further editions: Paris 1485, 1490, 1516, 1517, 1541, 1560, 1582, 1586; Toulouse 1490; Poitiers 1493; Milan 1496; Basel 1501, 1507; Venice 1504, 1526, 1588, 1591). They originate in Brulefer’s teaching as a logician in Paris. The Identitatum et distinctionum traditarum compendiosa contractio was, however, printed only in 1501 in Basel (together with the Formalitates; re-editions: Basel 1507; Venice 1504, 1588; and Paris 1560, 1582, 1586); hence it is difficult to say when exactly Brulefer composed the Contractio. It is possible that the two writings were conceived to form a whole, as van den Wyngaert, “Brulefer (Étienne),” 916, suggests. 127  See Contractio (Basel, 1501), fol. 16vb: “omnia correlaria istius opinionis sunt simpliciter falsa . . . et sunt multum periculosa et ex eis possunt inferri multa heretica.” In the Formalitates, Brulefer substantiates his argument with excerpts from canon law, without however explicitly concluding that those who do not share his opinion are heretics; see, for example, Formalitates in doctrinam Scoti (Basel, 1501), fol. 5ra. For these legal aspects of the Wegestreit, see Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Jean Wyclif et les universalia realia. Le débat sur la notion de virtus sermonis au moyen âge tardif et les rapports entre la théologie et la philosophie,” in La servante et la consolatrice. La philosophie dans ses rapports avec la théologie au moyen âge, ed. Jean-Luc Solère and Zénon Kaluza (Paris, 2002), 173–92. 128  See, for example, Opuscula, fol. 37r or fol. 51r; cf. Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 186.

302

Zahnd

The same polemical trait marked Brulefer’s most important work, his commentary on the Lombard’s Sentences. In its present state, which is the one that found its way into the early modern printed editions,129 this commentary does not stem from the magisterial lectures Brulefer delivered at Paris around 1480, but from his teachings at Mainz and Metz about ten years later: according to the explicits of the single books of his commentary, Book i was finished in 1490 at Mainz, whereas Books ii to iv were composed afterwards at Metz.130 There is, however, no reason to assume that, in this surviving version, Brulefer did not rely on material he had collected during his own studies in Paris, although there is a particularity of that later version which most probably reflects the beatification of Bonaventure in 1482: Brulefer’s surviving commentary is centered on the Sentences commentary of the Seraphic Doctor, whereas he is known to have read, whilst in Paris, according to Scotus.131 From a formal point of view, this shift to Bonaventure is fundamental: Brulefer does not simply present a commentary that is doctrinally inspired by the doctor seraphicus, but he in fact comments upon Bonaventure’s 129  To my knowledge, there are no manuscripts of Brulefer’s Sentences commentary. Among the printed editions listed in Stegmüller, Repertorium, no. 823, the existence of only the following three can be confirmed: Basel 1501, 1507; and Venice 1504. The Nuremberg editions mentioned by Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 193, are editions of Bonaventure, not Brulefer—in the explicit, they only claim to be based on a version that had been reviewed by Brulefer: “Primum scriptum beati Bonaventure doctoris seraphici ordinis minorum super sententias, quod veluti et trium subsequentium librorum scripta ab innumeris quibus hactenus statuit erroribus atque defectibus accuratissime limatum fuit sive detersum diligenti atque pervigili cura reverendissimi magistri nostri sacre theologie doctoris parisiensis fratris Stephani Bruliferi dudum eadem scripta Maguntie partim, partimque Methis dilucidantis” (Disputata in quatuor libros Sententiarum i [Nuremberg, 1510], fol. s3vb). 130  Only the explicit of Book i provides a date: “Anno domini millesimo quadringentesimononagesimo, in beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum vigilia . . . in Moguntia nobilis alemanie aurea (Reportata clarissima in quattuor sancti Bonaventure doctoris seraphici Sententiarum libros [Basel, 1501], fol. [est]7vb). The other three explicits only mention the location: Metis gallie comportata. 131  This is at least what the cover letters to his Opuscula and to the Reportata suggest: “Suis nempe laudatissimis enucleationibus in quattuor sententiarum libros doctoris sub­tilis necnon diversi generis disputationibus tam disquisite tam cumulate sui ingenii flumen audientibus effudit, ac tali decore Parisiorum gymnasia illustravit” (Opuscula, fol. 2r); and “frater Stephanus Brulefer theologus illustris . . . subtilissimi Scoti in sententias scripta luculentissima interpretatione in parisiorum universitate elucidaverit. . . . in Moguntinorum gymnasio sancti Bonaventure doctoris seraphici scripta resolvendo dilucide aperuerit (Reportata, fol. a2r). See Wegerich, “Bio-bibliographische Notizen,” 158.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

303

text itself. His method reveals that he assumes his students and readers have Bonaventure’s text at hand: he passes through every question Bonaventure poses, citing only the question itself without the argumenta principalia Bonaventure provided. But he nevertheless relies on these argumenta in his reasoning and even explicitly refers to their number and order, which he obviously could not do if Bonaventure’s text was not available.132 Like Bonaventure, Brulefer provides a full commentary respecting the single distinctions with a varying number of quaestiones, and there are only slight structural differences: as is customary in early modern editions of the Seraphic Doctor’s commentary, Brulefer does not adopt Bonaventure’s arrangement of questions into parts and articles, but numbers them consecutively per distinction.133 What is more, Brulefer usually ignores the dubia circa litteram Magistri that were placed at the end of each distinction of Bonaventure’s commentary and that dealt with problems in the Lombard’s text itself: obviously, Brulefer is more interested in Bonaventure than in Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Hence it appears that, from a formal perspective, Brulefer’s commentary was presented in a classroom situation where Bonaventure’s text was present and Brulefer gave his interpretation of it, with the result that the commentary of the doctor seraphicus replaced the actual base text by Peter Lombard.134 Accordingly, the Venice edition of Brulefer’s commentary simply presents it as an interpretatio sub­tilissima of Bonaventure.135 Regarding the specific classroom situation that is detectable in the commentary’s structure, this surviving version of Brulefer’s text has to be considered as a kind of a reportatio. This is, at least, what the commentary is called in contemporary sources: the two Basel editions present it as Reportata clarissima in

132  See, for example, Reportata iv, dist. 1, qu. 4, fol. mm4vb–5ra, where Brulefer mentions, “pro ista questione sunt argumenta sex ibi post oppositum, vide in textu.” See as well below, notes 139 and 142. 133  There are exceptions, of course, as for instance in Reportata i, dist. 3. 134  This is not completely unusual at the end of the Middle Ages, but Brulefer seems to have been one of the first to do so. Another example is the aforementioned Johannes Findling, who relied on Vaurouillon instead of Peter Lombard (see above, note 81). Far more interesting is Peter Tartaretus, who, in 1506, commented at the Parisian Franciscan studium on Scotus’s Opus oxoniense. One year later (and only one year later!) the Dominican Peter Crockaert would be the first at the rue Saint-Jacques in Paris to comment on Thomas’s Summa theologiae. 135  The full title of the Venice 1504 edition is: Clarissimi sacre pagine doctoris fratris Stephani Brulefer ordinis minorum in quatuor divi seraphicique Bonaventure sententiarum libros interpretatio subtilissima.

304

Zahnd

quattuor sancti Bonaventure doctoris seraphici Sententiarum libros,136 while the cover letter to the Paris edition of Brulefer’s Opuscula suggests that the notes on his interpretations of Bonaventure were brought together “under” Brulefer himself: reportatos sub illo.137 Since this is also what the explicits of the different printed editions suggest,138 Brulefer seems to have overseen and probably approved this compilation of student notes of his lectures. Nevertheless, his commentary is not a pure reportatio approbata reflecting Brulefer’s classes as they were taught: even though there are expressions that seem to stem directly from the classroom,139 Brulefer himself is referred to more than once as magister Stephanus, who, for example, is said to share a certain opinion with Robert Grosseteste, Alexander of Hales, and Scotus—an expression that Brulefer certainly would not have used himself.140 In its present state, the commentary should be considered as a compilation of notes taken during Brulefer’s lectures that have been slightly reworked by one of his students—or, as the explicits say: they have to be considered as reportata comportata et conscripta. In the case of William of Vaurouillon, the specific classroom situation and his didactic purposes led to an emphasis on clarity; in the case of Nicholas of 136  The full title of the two Basel editions is: Excellentissimi atque profundissimi humanarum divinarumque litterarum doctoris fratris Stephani Brulefer ordinis minorum charitate igniti reportata clarissima in quattuor sancti Bonaventure doctoris seraphici sententiarum libros Scoti subtilis secundi incipiunt feliciter. 137  Opuscula, fols. 2v–3r: “. . . ac seraphici doctoris beati Bonaventure super Sententias quattuor librorum pro sui ingenii magnitudine ita acute copioseque exercuit, ut reportatos sub illo codices dudum michi Parisius a quodam suo discipulo exhibitos, pro magno crederem erecenseri.” 138  These explicits are very similar in the two Basel and the Venice editions; see particularly the explicit to Book i: “reportata clarissima in sancti Bonaventure doctoris seraphici primum Sententiarum . . . in beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum vigilia fini quam felicissime data sunt ad pedes quoque reverendi magistri fratris Stephani Brulefer . . . lectoris ac studij directoris dignissimi comportata et conscripta”; and the one to Book iii: “expliciunt nonnulla reportata super tertium sententiarum doctoris seraphici sancti Bonaventure ordinis sacri minorum de observantia sub prefidentia reverendissimi magistri fratris Stephani Brulefer eiusdem ordinis. . . .” 139  In the prologue to Book i, for example, Brulefer speaks of the first book of Bonaventure’s commentary quem prae manibus habemus (Reportata, prol., fol. a3ra). Similarly, in the prologue to Book ii Brulefer mentions the sanctissimus Bonaventura cuius secundum habemus prae manibus (ibid., fol. A1ra). See as well above, note 132. 140  Reportata iii, dist. 1, qu. 6 [q. 10], fol. aa4vb: “Nota hanc opinionem tenent Lyconiensis, Alexander de ales et Scotus cum quibus magister Stephanus; beatus sanctus Thomas remanet dubius et solvit rationes pro et contra.” See as well Reportata i, dist. 46, qu. 8, fol. [est]2va: “Hec magister Stephanus Brulefer.”

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

305

Orbellis his pedagogical aims favored an approach aimed at simplicity. Neither of this is the case in Brulefer’s commentary. His questions do not follow a general scheme, and there is no limitation to a mere presentation of positions. It is true that, in a notandum in his prologue, Brulefer alludes to the basic structure of “a real scholastic question,” namely, a tripartition into a caput with arguments pro and con, a corpus with the decisions regarding the question, and a pes with solutions to the heading arguments;141 but since he does not recite Bonaventure’s argumenta, Brulefer’s own commentary normally consists only of the corpora.142 These corpora usually, but not necessarily, start with a clarification of terms, proceeding to summarize the question’s solution in conclusions or propositions. The length of these parts varies considerably, however, and Brulefer inserts ad libitum further discussions and arguments between the exposition and the solution to a question. What is more, his orientation toward Bonaventure is not the same throughout his commentary. Sometimes, particularly in Book i, Brulefer sticks to Bonaventure’s text, presenting arguments and solutions of the Seraphic Doctor, trying to explicate the notions and arguments of the text he has at hand.143 In other passages, particularly in Books ii to iv, Bonaventure seems to function only as the provider of questions to which Brulefer responds without any explicit concern for the doctor seraphicus.144 Since these different approaches to Bonaventure’s text coincide with Brulefer’s move from Mainz (where Book i was compiled) to Metz (where the other three books were written), it is possible that this shift is due to the different demands of the respective convents. That Brulefer himself did not want to present an approach in Metz completely different from what he did in

141  Reportata, prol., qu. 1, fol. a6ra: “Notandum quod omnis questio vere scolastica dividitur in tres partes, scilicet in caput et sunt argumenta pro et contra (et illa non debent accipi pro auctoritate: aliquando enim procedunt ex suppositione falsi quod tamen reputatur verum ab illo contra quem arguitur). Secunda pars est corpus quod continet questionis decisiones; tertia pars sunt pedes qui sunt argumentorum solutiones.” 142  It sometimes happens that Brulefer appends a pes, as in Reportata i, dist. 46, qu. 2 and 3, fol. [#]7rb–8ra. 143  See, for example, the questions to the second article of Book i, dist. 17, where most paragraphs are introduced by expressions such as conclusio responsiva Bonaventure stat in una conclusione; opinio sancti Bonaventure stat in quattuor propositionibus; sanctus Bonaventura resolvendo ponit duas opiniones ( fols. n1–n3). 144  In the first two questions to Book iv, for example, there is not a single reference to Bonaventure, while Scotus is mentioned four times, and William of Vaurouillon once (as Warlion in ed. Basel 1501, fol. mm3ra, and as Vuarlion in ed. Venice 1504, fol. aaaa3rb).

306

Zahnd

Mainz is indicated by the fact that he repeated parts of his prologue to Book i at the beginning of Book ii.145 This prologue is telling with regard to the polemical character of Brulefer’s commentary. As was usual in the preambles of the first editions of Bonaventure, Brulefer refers to a letter written by Jean Gerson and transmitted under the title, Laus doctrinae Bonaventurae.146 Gerson, the sedulous opponent of the formal distinction whom the late fifteenth century, for that reason, counted among the members of the nominalist school,147 wrote this letter to a young Franciscan in order to recommend Bonaventure and Alexander of Hales as preferable alternatives to the “formalizing” Scotus. One of Gerson’s arguments in favor of these old-school Franciscans was the impartiality that qualified them as common doctors: while he himself, Gerson admits, would have chosen Bonaventure, no other than Thomas Aquinas was said to have opted for Alexander of Hales when asked once which master was worthy of being imitated—a fact that could be verified, according to Gerson, in the Secunda Secundae, in which Thomas often displayed his familiarity and accordance with the old Franciscan master.148 However, when Brulefer refers to this famous passage, he does it in a very specific way: cutting out any criticism of Scotus, 145  The prologue to Book ii, which consists of only one column, is an abridged version of the prologue to Book i, which consists of roughly four columns. Brulefer defends Bonaventure’s “curiosity” in view of the subjects of Book ii, citing none other than the fifteenth century’s most famous opponent of curiosity, Jean Gerson. See my “Gerson on Utility,” forthcoming in Pleasures of Knowledge. Proceedings of the siepm’s International Congress of Medieval Philosophy in Freising. 146  See Jean Gerson, “Lettre à un Frère Mineur,” in Œuvres complètes ii 58, ed. Palémon Glorieux (Paris, 1960), 276–80. From its earliest editions (see, for instance, Operum Johannis Gerson, vol. 1 [Strasbourg, 1488], fol. ff6ra) to the Du Pin edition (vol. 1 [Antwerp, 1721], 117), this letter was entitled, Laus doctrinae Bonaventurae. 147  This is true for the nominalist self-perception at the end of the fifteenth century as well as for judgments from representatives of other schools; see the documents assembled in Franz Ehrle, Der Sentenzenkommentar Peters von Candia, des Pisaner Papstes Alexanders V. Ein Beitrag zur Scheidung der Schulen in der Scholastik des 14. Jahrhunderts und zur Geschichte des Wegesteites (Münster, 1925), esp. 322 and 324. 148  See Gerson, “Lettre à un Frère Mineur,” 277: “Secutus est doctor iste [Bonaventura], se testante, doctrinam communem et solidam quae Parisius vigebat maxime tempore suo; unde et allegat ad confirmationem doctrinae suae parisienses articulos quos per Guillelmum Parisiensem de consilio et assensu magistrorum omnium dicit fuisse damnatos et excommunicatos, vivente tunc et consentiente fratre Alexandro de Ales cujus doctrina quantae sit ubertatis dici satis nequit; de qua fertur respondisse sanctus Thomas dum inquireretur ab eo quis esset optimus modus studendi theologiam, respondit talis exercere se in uno doctore praecipue; dum ultra peterent quis esset talis doctor, Alexander inquit

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

307

Brulefer limits himself to documenting Thomas’s and Gerson’s appreciation of Bonaventure and Alexander of Hales.149 In the case of Thomas, he additionally modifies the account given by Gerson: There are two kind of doctors, since some are textuales, such as the four doctors of the Church and the master of the Sentences, who was the last one. Others are questionarii, the first of whom among the mendicants was master Alexander of Hales, from whom Thomas received many things, for he received almost everything he wrote in the Secunda Secundae from Alexander of Hales, as is obvious to anyone who looks closely.150 While Gerson referred to Thomas’s familiarity with Alexander of Hales, Brulefer explicitly states that there was barely anything in the Secunda Secundae that Thomas did not receive from the Franciscan, thus making Thomas a disciple of Alexander. The intention behind these modifications is obvious: Brulefer tries to show that even Thomas Aquinas, the head of the Thomists, and Jean Gerson, a protagonist of nominalism, admired and depended on the Franciscan masters—which suggests that the Franciscan tradition must be superior to Thomism and nominalism. Brulefer transposes the philosophical Wegestreit onto theological terrain. This late in the fifteenth century, such theological saber-rattling in the context of the Wegestreit is nothing special.151 It is typical, as well, that Brulefer does not focus on Bonaventure (or Scotus) alone: similar to Nicholas de Ales. . . . Testantur scripta ejusdem sancti Thomae, maxime secunda secundae, quam intimum sibi fecerat et familiarem illum quem laudabat doctorem Alexandrum.” 149  See Reportata, prol., fol. a3rb: “Quidam discipulus interrogavit sanctum Thomam de Aquino quis esset modus proficiendi in theologia. Respondit, quod est exercere se in doctore perito et experto. Discipulo querente ‘quis est talis?’, cui ille: ‘Alexander de Ales.’ Sed doctor consolatorius Johannes Gerson de laudibus sancti Bonaventure ait: ‘Ego vero eligo sanctum Bonaventuram.’ ” 150  Ibid., fols. a3rb–va: “Doctores sunt in duplici differentia. Quia alij textuales, ut quatuor doctores ecclesie et magister sententiarum qui fuit ultimus. Alij sunt questionarij. Quorum primus in religionibus mendicantium fuit magister Alexander de Ales, a quo sanctus Thomas multa | recepit. Unde fere quicquid scripsit in Secunda secundae recepit ab Alexandro de Ales ut patet intuenti.” 151  For the Wegestreit as a primarily philosophical debate of the fifteenth century, see Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna in the Fifteenth Century: Doctrinal, Institutional, and Church Political Factors in the Wegestreit,” in The Medieval Heritage in Early Modern Metaphysics and Modal Theory, 1400–1700, ed. Russel L. Friedman and Lauge O. Nielsen (Dordrecht, 2003), 9–26.

308

Zahnd

of Orbellis—who complemented his Scotist compendium with extracts from other, predominantly Franciscan authors—and similar to William of Vaurouillon, who, in spite of his almost unquestioned approval of Scotus, incorporates the whole scholastic tradition into his commentary, Brulefer also presents himself not as partisan to one single scholar’s school, but as a follower of a broader Franciscan tradition.152 Accordingly, even though Brulefer formally centers his commentary on Bonaventure, there are many other scholastics who appear in his expositions: Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Tarantaise, or Richard of Middletown are present, as well as later scholastics, such as Francis of Meyronnes, William of Ockham, or Gregory of Rimini. Brulefer even cites Peter of Ailly or, as we have just seen, Jean Gerson, and he relies on his two contemporaries William of Vaurouillon and Nicholas of Orbellis.153 The majority of these sources are Franciscans again and, unsurprisingly, Scotus is almost as important as Bonaventure. The Subtle Doctor appears throughout the commentary, and while, at certain points, Brulefer tries to reconcile him with Bonaventure,154 he simply opts for Scotus elsewhere without showing any further interest in the differences between the two Franciscan masters.155 152  See notes 75 and 110 above. The Thomists and Albertists were usually more focused on their respective leaders, but even John Capreolus relied on Albert the Great or Peter of Palude to substantiate his defense of Thomas Aquinas (see Bonino, “Albert le Grand”). For the generally broader perspective of the Franciscan tradition, see Jacob Schmutz, “L’héritage des subtils. Cartographie du scotisme du xviie siècle,” Études philosophiques 1 (2002): 51–81, at 55–8. 153  For Vaurouillon, see above, note 144, but see as well Brulefer’s usual declarationes terminorum at the beginning of a question, where he often implicitly relies on the relevant first article from Vaurouillon’s Super quattuor libros Sententiarum. For Nicholas of Orbellis, see Reportata, prol., qu. 1, fols. a4rb–va. 154  See, for example, the first question of the prologue, where Brulefer denies any contradiction between Bonaventure’s and Scotus’s different conceptions of theology: “Notandum quod ista opinio doctoris seraphici non contradicit doctori subtili simpliciter, nec econtra doctor subtilis contradicit simpliciter dictis Bonaventure” (Reportata, prol., qu. 1, fol. a6vb). 155  Concerning the question of sacramental efficacy, for example, Bonaventure and Scotus defend slightly different approaches (even though they both reject any physical efficiency of the sacraments): for Bonaventure, sacraments are mere causae sine quibus none, while for Scotus they still are real causes; see Irène Rosier-Catach, La parole efficace. Signe, rituel, sacré (Paris, 2004), 125–6 and 140–1. Brulefer treats the problem in six dicta, the first four of which seem to follow Bonaventure until the last two reinterpret everything in a typically Scotist perspective: see Reportata iv, dist. 1, qu. 4, fol. mm5rb–va. See as well below, note 161.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

309

Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists, on the other hand, are Brulefer’s preferred opponents. Already in his prologue, Brulefer accuses the Thomists not only of endorsing, through their rejection of the formal distinction, a doctrine condemned by a Parisian article, but also of destroying all demonstration and accordingly any form of science.156 Although he does not explicitly say so, the followers of Thomas are from the very beginning treated as suspected heretics, and this suspicion extends, of course, to Thomas Aquinas as well. Brulefer is more diffident, however, with regard to Aquinas himself, since the Angelic Doctor had been canonized in 1323—a fact that the Thomists liked to underline.157 Brulefer even relies on Thomas in certain passages to substantiate a point or to justify the existence of more than one possible solution to a problem;158 sometimes he just mentions Thomas’s disagreement with a solution without any further discussion of the dissent.159 Far more often, however, Brulefer opposes Thomas’s position, attempting to find inconsistencies and implicit contradictions in his doctrines;160 he eagerly underscores differences 156  See Reportata, prol., qu. 1, fols. a5rb–va: “Omne subiectum continet identica continentia suas proprias passiones. Probatur. Nam si essent quedam qualitates distincte re|aliter a subiecto (ut Thomiste dicunt) in secunda specie qualitatis, tunc unum posset separari ab alio; patet. Quia per divinam potentiam absque contradictione omne prius potest separari a posteriore, per articulum parisiensem. Quandocumque sunt duo entia absoluta realiter et essentialiter distincta quorum unum est prius alio, absque contradictione deus potest facere unum sine alio. Ergo homo potest separari a risibili quo concesso omnis demonstratio et omnis scientia destruitur.” I was unable to find the Parisian article to which Brulefer refers; see, however, Duns Scotus, Ordinatio i, dist. 28, qu. 3, no. 94, in Opera omnia, vol. 6 (Vatican City, 1963), 155–6, and Francis of Meyronnes, In secundum Sententiarum, princ., concl. 3 (Venice, 1505), fol. A2rb. 157  On Thomas’s canonization as an argument for the truth of his doctrine, see Sigrid Müller, “Pierre d’Ailly und die ‘richtige’ Thomas-Interpretation. Theologisch-hermeneutische Prinzipien als Grundlage des Wegestreits,” Traditio 60 (2005): 339–68, and Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, “Categories of Medieval Doxography: Reflections on Use of ‘Doctrina’ and ‘Via’ in Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Philosophical and Theological Sources,” in Vera doctrina. Zur Begriffsgeschichte der Lehre von Augustinus bis Descartes—L’idée de doctrine d’Augustin à Descartes, ed. Philippe Büttgen et al. (Wiesbaden, 2009), 63–84, at 75–8. 158  See, for example, Reportata i, dist. 44, qu. 4, fol. [#]1vb: “Quia tamen alterius opinionis sunt aliqui theologi ut sanctus Thomas et aliqui alij forte moderni, et doctor subtilis in secundo solvit rationes pro utraque opinione, ideo teneat unusquisque quod placet.” 159  See Reportata iv, dist. 6, qu. 3, fol. oo3ra: “Nota quod sanctus Thomas ponit caracterem [baptismalem] in intellectu, Scotus autem in voluntate, doctor autem iste [i.e., Bonaventura] et Alexander de Hales ponunt eum in tota imagine, ut patet.” 160  See particularly the question regarding the reality of the dove that represents the Holy Spirit in Mt 3:16 in Reportata i, dist. 16, qu. 3, fol. m1vb, where Brulefer presents a whole

310

Zahnd

between Thomas and the Thomists; and he is happy to demonstrate that, to a certain extent, Thomas can be used to corroborate typically Scotist positions.161 It is this undeniably polemical approach that distinguishes Brulefer’s commentary from those of William of Vaurouillon and Nicholas of Orbellis. It might be due to his skills not so much as a mediator of scholastic positions, but as an ardent defender of the Franciscan tradition that he achieved renown during his lifetime, but did not have, in theology, the same posthumous fame as the other two Franciscans. Even though Brulefer’s commentary saw two re-editions and he figured among the theologians cited by Johannes Picardus and John of Eck,162 sixteenth-century theologians seem to have preferred the rather inoffensive expositions of William of Vaurouillon and of Nicholas of Orbellis; if ever they knew of Brulefer, it was because of his logical works, and particularly because of his Formalitates.163 That Zwingli studied Brulefer’s Sentences commentary in the second decade of the sixteenth century did not further the Scotist’s renown: Zwingli, who was mainly interested in Scotus, consulted Brulefer as the great master’s expositor, and as soon as he began to develop a reformed position, he also adopted the prevalent humanist anti-scholasticism.164 During Brulefer’s list of contradictions between Thomas’s Sentences commentary and his Summa theologiae: “Thomas tertia parte summe questione 39 articulo tertio ex intentione movet istam questionem et dicit quod erat vera columba. Sed argumentum et rationes eius solvuntur a sancto Bonaventura. . . . Thomas in distinctione presenti, questione tertia in solutione tercij argumenti dicit quod non fuerit vera columba. Unde patet quod sibi contradicit, sicut et de conceptione beate virginis super sententias et in summa. Item in quarto dicit quod papa possit dispensare in voto continentie seu castitatis, in prima parte summe dicit quod non.” 161  See, for example, Reportata i, dist. 20, art. 2, qu. 1, fol. o5ra; or consider the problem of knowing whether Christ achieved his merits in the first instant of his conception, treated in Reportata iii, dist. 18, qu. 1, ff7rb: “In ista questione diversificati sunt doctores scilicet scotizantes contra doctores communes et antiquos. . . . Doctor seraphicus videtur approbare utramque opinionem, tamen magis videtur declinare ad [an]tiquos dicendo quod est planior et communior. Beatus Thomas etiam dicit in tertio quod placet sibi scilicet opinio scotistarum.” Brulefer, by the way, will adopt this Scotist position. 162  For Picardus, see above, note 80; for Eck, see the Chrysopassus praedestinationis, for example fol. A5r: “Sic de duplici misericordia pulchre loquitur Stephanus Brulifer, quem secundum Scotum nominitant.” 163  This is true as well for some humanist writers; see Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 180. At least one of his short theological opuscula, however—the Decem propositiones an personae in divinis sint, ut usus habet, depingendae (see above, note 125)—had an afterlife in the eighteenth century, since it was reedited from a Wolfenbüttel codex in 1718 in Helmstad (by a certain Hermann von der Hardt). 164  It is true that Zwingli’s reformed theology perpetuates Scotist ideas, such as the concept of the univocity of being, which fundamentally distinguish his approach from Martin

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

311

lifetime, however, his fame as an outstanding theologian was unquestioned: in 1488, he was chosen to preside over the inaugural disputation held at the provincial chapter of the Observants at Nuremberg, and in 1495 he was invited to move to Toledo in order to found and lead a Scotist academy there.165 5 Conclusion Among the wide variety of works that belong to the Sentences tradition of the fifteenth century, this chapter has focused on the Sentences commentaries by three Franciscan theologians linked to the University of Paris. Unsurprisingly, there are some obvious similarities among these writings: all three commentaries are complete commentaries that are based on questions, and even though they all seem to rely on material collected for the lectures delivered by their authors in order to obtain the doctorate, they all constitute at least partial revisions of this material. In addition, they are nevertheless all designed for pedagogical purposes, and they promote in a more or less forthright manner the doctrines of Duns Scotus without, however, exclusively focusing on him. Despite these fundamental similarities, the three commentaries turn out to differ from each other to such an extent that the differences serve to underline how vivid the genre still was at the end of the Middle Ages: the clear structure of William of Vaurouillon’s commentary, the compendious approach of Nicholas of Orbellis, and the orientation toward Bonaventure’s commentary in Brulefer’s Reportata unmistakably distinguish the three commentaries from a formal perspective, just as Vaurouillon’s brief presentations, Orbellis’ simplifying recapitulations, and Brulefer’s ardent polemics characterize the commentaries with regard to content. It seems, then, that some of the distinctive features of these commentaries are typical of the genre’s overall development in the fifteenth century: particularly in contrast with the commentaries of the late fourteenth century, it is apparent that, at least structurally, the text of Peter Lombard’s Sentences is taken into account once again, with all three commentaries providing questions on almost every one of Lombard’s distinctions. Although this turn back to the Sentences may, in two of the three present cases, have been induced by thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century commentaries—those of Bonaventure and Scotus, respectively—the basic structure of the Lombard’s Sentences with its four books and different distinctions is again the standard Luther’s (see Bolliger, Infiniti contemplatio). These ideas, however, are not specifically “Bruleferian,” but characterize Scotism in general. 165  See Murphy, “Franciscan Studium Generale,” 176–7.

312

Zahnd

framework, and it appears that the majority of the Sentences commentators of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries share this approach, providing full commentaries.166 As a consequence of this more comprehensive approach, the questions of the three commentaries analyzed in this chapter are rather short and centered on the quaesitum. This, too, seems to be a general trait of fifteenth-century question commentaries: most of them are far more concise than the essay-style commentaries or the geometrical approaches of the later fourteenth century.167 Moreover, these brief questions might well be due to an orientation toward thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century commentaries with their traditionally shorter questions. Yet it is striking that among the three commentaries studied here, not one resorted to a lectura secundum alium in the sense of an extensive verbatim copying of earlier texts. To our knowledge, this, too, is true for most other commentaries of their age: even though their authors may tend to repeat only what others have said, they do it in their own words.168 A closer look at the motifs and goals of the three commentaries studied here suggests that these features depend on a common background that may be distinctive of the fifteenth century in an even more general way: it is their pedagogical focus. It is true that the Lombard himself already conceived of the Sentences as a pedagogical tool, and that the vast majority of commentaries that arose in the following centuries were designed to serve a pedagogical purpose. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable difference between these fifteenth-century commentaries and the commentaries preceding them: 166  At some universities, the sententiarii even had to vow in the late fourteenth century already that they would lecture on the whole Sentences; see, for example, Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, vol. 2, no. 1189 (p. 700), or Urkundenbuch der Universität Heidelberg. Zur fünfhunderthährigen Stiftungsfeier der Universität im Auftrage derselben, ed. E. Winkelmann (Heidelberg 1886), 21. Also see Hoenen, “The Commentary of Marsilius of Inghen,” 496, and Bakker/Schabel, “Sentences Commentaries of the Later Fourteenth Century,” 426–7. 167  For the geometrical approaches, see above, note 69; for the “essay style,” see in addition to Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” 231, William J. Courtenay, Adam Wodeham: An Introduction to His Life and Writings (Leiden, 1978), 178, and now Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 116. One of the most striking examples of such an essay style is the commentary by Thomas of Buckingham, which consists of only six questions, but in an early modern edition extends to more than 120 folios (ed. Paris 1505). 168  There are, of course, exceptions, as for instance the already mentioned commentary by Johannes Pfeffer (see above, note 15), or the Aureum rosarium by Oswald de Lasko (who continued the work begun by Pelbartus Temeswar [see above, note 19]), which copies whole passages from the Lectura Mellicensis of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl. On the latter, see Brinzei/Schabel’s chapter in this volume, esp. pp. 250–62.

Easy-Going Scholars Lecturing Secundum Alium ?

313

although in those earlier commentaries the authors were theologizing in the context of a university or a studium, the fifteenth-century authors aimed not so much to theologize in a pedagogical environment, as to prepare theological content pedagogically. This is why they focused on Scotus, Bonaventure, or Thomas Aquinas, and why they relied on the classic, well-proven structure of the Lombard’s Sentences, which asked concise questions that better fit the demands of fifteenth-century teaching. It is probably also for this reason that they did not just copy what others had said: in designing their commentaries for a specific audience, they had to adjust their formulations to the capacities and needs of their students. This didactic focus is corroborated by the fact that a new virtue seems to guide these commentaries: the one of brevity. While Nicholas of Orbellis explicitly relies on this principle, it is this virtue for which William of Vaurouillon was honored with the honorific title doctor brevis; there are other examples in the Sentences tradition of the close of the Middle Ages where brevity was hailed as a methodological guideline.169 With regard to their sources, finally, it is undoubtedly in view of their pedagogical preoccupation that the fifteenthcentury commentators follow a much more historico-critical attitude than their predecessors. Since they were interested, above all, in presenting and transmitting the theological doctrines of the great masters, questions of accurateness and authenticity gained a new importance. But the downside of that interest in past theologians is evident too: among the authors cited, there are almost no contemporaries. Obviously, then, there is no interest in a contemporary theological debate. Even if it is true that Orbellis probably used Vaurouillon’s Vademecum, and Brulefer explicitly refers to his two Franciscan predecessors, there is—besides some very general asides against the Thomists—no open debate with exponents of other theological schools. This seems to be a final distinctive feature of these fifteenth-century commentaries: since they are preoccupied with authors from the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, they are rather ignorant of their own contemporaries.170

169  See, for example, the prologues to the Resolutio theologorum by Nicholas Denyse, written in about 1500 (Venice, 1568), fol. 1r, or to the Aureum rosarium of Pelbartus Temeswar (Haguenau, 1503), fol. a2ra. 170  It will distinguish the theological literature of the early sixteenth century that their authors overcome the boundaries of their schools, and this even with regard to their contemporaries; see the aforementioned Thesaurus theologorum of Johannes Picardus (see above, note 21), the Chrysopassus of John Eck (see above, note 116), or even Johannes Findling’s lectura secundum Vaurouillon, which abounds with citations from Gabriel Biel (see above, note 81).

314

Zahnd

In this sense—but only in this sense—it is true that fifteenth-century Sentences commentators had a somewhat limited view of the Sentences tradition: they were so preoccupied with recovering traditional accounts that they did not generate much original theological debate. But while it is debatable to what extent the criterion of originality is applicable to medieval texts at all, it is beyond all question that the approaches of these fifteenth-century commentators responded well to the demands of their time: predominantly interested in a modernization and recovery of traditional positions, the amount of texts they studied and prepared for these compendious approaches is impressive and more than equals the number of sources that were normally used in a commentary of the later fourteenth century. To reread these sources, to select the most appropriate passages, and to recompile them into understandable, concise language was anything but an easy task—the last thing we can thus hold against these fifteenth-century authors is intellectual phlegm.

CHAPter 6

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment (Fruitio Beatifica) in the Sentences Commentaries of Some Pre-Reformation Erfurt Theologians Severin V. Kitanov1 1

Theology at Erfurt University

The University of Erfurt, founded in 1392, is one of the oldest German universities and the place where the great German reformer, Martin Luther, earned his master’s in arts. Established at the request of the free citizenry of a prosperous town, conveniently located at the very heart of Germany, not divided into nations like other European universities and yet exhibiting the typical four-faculty structure (arts, medicine, law, and theology), the University of Erfurt was an ideal fosterground of solid theological learning and the cradle of a distinctively German Christian identity.2 Instituted at the beginning of a major ecclesiastical crisis—the so-called Great Papal Schism—the University of Erfurt soon gained a reputation for outstanding expertise in theological training, evidenced by the fact that the unversity had its own faculty representation at the councils of Constance and Basel. Erfurt gave rise to a number of theologians of considerable renown, such as the Franciscan John of Erfurt, who was also a canon law specialist and well-versed philosophy commentator, the Augustinian Angelus Dobelinus, the university’s earliest theology professor, Matthew Döring, a provincial minister of the Franciscan order and a trustworthy exponent of Duns Scotus’s teaching, and John Rucherat of Wesel, an early critic of the practice of selling indulgences, an emphatic defender of the authority of Holy Writ in theology, and the first highly decorated u ­ niversity 1  I wish to thank Pekka Kärkkäinen for advice on the literature regarding the Erfurt Sentences commentaries, and Martin Kitanov for providing me with competent translations of some of the secondary literature in German. 2  For the history of the establishment of the University of Erfurt, see Erich Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis. Überblick über die Geschichte der Universität Erfurt, Teil i: Spätmittelalter, 1392–1460 (Leipzig, 1985), 3–40, esp. 19–20. For the establishment of the theology faculty at Erfurt, see ibid., 28–36. See also Carl Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, vol. 1, trans. Robert Menzies (Edinburgh, 1855), 217–43, esp. 218–22.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_008

316

kitanov

theologian to be tried for heresy in Germany.3 By the time Luther began his theological studies at the monastery of the Augustinian hermits in Erfurt (1505), theology at Erfurt had a long-established tradition, and commenting on the Peter Lombard’s Sentences had become a cornerstone of this tradition also. Luther himself contributed to the Sentences commentary tradition.4 Thus, by looking at some of the surviving Sentences commentaries of Erfurt theologians prior to the time of Luther’s early theological training, we can learn more about the tradition within which Luther was nurtured, and sharpen our understanding of Luther’s intellectual milieu.5 Moreover, we can learn a great deal about the evolution of the genre and methodology of commenting on Lombard’s Sentences. Lastly, by focusing upon a single conversation topic—namely, the Augustinian theme of enjoyment and use which provided the foundation for Lombard’s systematic organization of the contents of sacred doctrine in the four books of the Sentences—we can see whether late medieval commentators viewed themselves as synthesizers and conservers of doctrine, or rather as innovative contributors to the systematic development of doctrine. 2

The Place of the Concept of Beatific Enjoyment in the Tradition of Sentences Commentaries

The first distinction of Book i of Peter Lombard’s Sentences is the locus classicus for the treatment of the theological concept of enjoyment ( fruitio) derived from Augustine’s De doctrina christiana, Book i. The choice of the enjoyment of God as the opening topic of Lombard’s Sentences was very convenient insofar as it provided thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Sentences commentators with an opportunity to explore a variety of issues pertaining to faculty psychology prior to discussing the doctrine of the Trinity. More precisely, the concept of enjoyment gave scholastic theologians an occasion to examine the nature of volition, on the one hand, and the relationship between volition and cognition, on the other. A significant amount of theological and philosophical work was produced at the turn of the thirteenth century as a result of the immense interest in the concept of enjoyment. The most hotly debated questions concerned 3  See Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, 225–9. 4  For Luther’s contribution to the tradition of commenting on the Sentences, see Pekka Kärkkäinen, “Martin Luther,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 471–94. Also see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 171–83, and idem, Peter Lombard, 209–11. 5  For a concise account of Luther’s intellectual context, see Kärkkäinen, “Martin Luther,” 475–6.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

317

how enjoyment ought to be understood, whether there are different kinds or degrees6 of enjoyment (namely, perfect or imperfect), whether enjoyment is or is not the same as pleasure, whether an individual can enjoy one person of the Trinity without enjoying the other two, and whether the enjoyment of God in heaven is freely elicited or necessitated. The significance of the pair of Augustinian concepts, frui-uti, for understanding St. Augustine’s own view of the goal and method of the theological enterprise, but also, more importantly, for highlighting the unity and Augustinian flavor of Franciscan theology was initially brought to the attention of t­wentieth-century scholars by the German Franciscan, Ludger Meier, in a conference paper titled “Zwei Grundbegriffe augustinischer Theologie in der mittelalterlichen Franziskanerschule.”7 According to Meier, St. Augustine’s speculative genius had successfully captured the whole of reality—God, world, and all their interrelations—by means of the concepts of frui and uti.8 Franciscan theologians, Meier claims, departed from Peter Lombard’s rather cursory frui-uti account by examining the two concepts in light of many other Augustinian texts, and by showing that the concepts were well grounded in St. Augustine’s entire theological system.9 Meier takes the rich and profound discussion of the two Augustinian terms in Franciscan Sentences commentaries as evidence of the Augustinian and, indeed, truly Catholic character of Franciscan theology.10 6  The question regarding the degrees of beatific enjoyment is discussed in more detail in the context of Book iv, dist. 49, where the Lombard speculates about the individual differences and shared properties in the experience of the beatific vision of God that the elect are going to enjoy. See Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 188–91. 7  See Ludger Meier, “Zwei Grundbegriffe augustinischer Theologie in der mittelalterlichen Franziskanerschule,” in Fünfte Lektorenkonferenz der deutschen Franziskaner für Philosophie und Theologie, Schwarz in Tirol, 3.–7. September 1929 (Werl in Westfalen, 1930), 53–74. See also idem, Dei Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt (Münster, 1959), 111–12. 8  See Meier, “Zwei Grundbegriffe,” 54: “In zwei Begriffe hat Augustins spekulatives Genie die ganze Wirklichkeit eingefangen: Gott und Welt und alle ihre gegenseitigen Beziehungen begreift er in die unscheinbaren termini frui-uti.” 9  See ibid., 58: “Der Fortschritt gegenüber Petrus Lombardus äußert sich zunächst nach der spekulativen Seite. Wie wenig andere Begriffe werden frui-uti nach allen Seiten auf ihre Tragkraft durchgeprüft, so daß ein Fehler Augustins unter keinen Umständen hätte verborgen bleiben können. Aber auch nach der positiven Seite haben die Franziskanertheologen wertvolle Arbeit geleistet, indem sie neue Augustinustexte heranzogen und damit die Darlegungen von De doctrina christiana erläuterten und vertieften. So haben sie gezeigt, daß unser Begriffspaar im Gesamtorganismus von Augustins Theologie wohl begründet ist.” 10  See ibid., 74: “Die Gemeinsamkeit des augustinischen Weltbildes in den Grundlinien der Theologie, die in den Kommentaren zur ersten Distinctio des ersten Sentenzenbuches

318

kitanov

The concept of enjoyment has also been the object of a number of studies since Meier’s article. These studies, however, focus primarily on the development of the scholastic discussion of enjoyment in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.11 There are very few treatments of late fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century discussions of enjoyment,12 and there are no studies of the evolution of the discussion of enjoyment in late fifteenth- and early klar zum Ausdruck kommt, ist der tiefere Grund für jene organische Einheit der Franziskanerschule. Dieses Weltbild aber ist letzten Endes nichts anderes als eine licht­ volle Einsicht in die erhabene Wahrheit des christlichen Dogmas, ein genialer intellectus fidei, aber auch eine großartige, für alle Zeiten gültige Anleitung zur Verwirklichung des Christentums auf allen Gebieten des Lebens und der Kultur. Darum wird die franziskanische Wissenschaft sicherlich dann nicht nur wesentlich augustinisch, sondern auch stets wahrhaft zeitgemäß und wahrhaft katholisch sein, wenn sie der Weisung der Ordensgesetzgebung folgt: ‘Scholae franciscanae ex animo inhaerere student.’ ” 11  See Severin Valentinov Kitanov, Beatific Enjoyment in Medieval Scholastic Debates: The Complex Legacy of Saint Augustine and Peter Lombard (Lanham, Md., 2014); idem, “Is it better for the king of England to be a king of England than a duke of Aquitaine? Richard FitzRalph and Adam Wodeham on whether beatific enjoyment is an act of the intellect or an act of the will,” in Richard FitzRalph: His Life, Times and Thought, ed. Michael Dunne and Simon Nolan O.Carm. (Dublin, 2013), 56–78; idem, “Durandus of St.-Pourçain and Peter Auriol on the Act of Beatific Enjoyment,” in Philosophical Debates at Paris in the Early Fourteenth Century, ed. Stephen F. Brown, Thomas Dewender, and Theo Kobush (Leiden, 2009), 163–78; idem, “Displeasure in Heaven, Pleasure in Hell: Four Franciscan Masters on the Relationship between Love and Pleasure, and Hatred and Displeasure,” Traditio 58 (2003): 287–340; idem, “Bonaventure’s Understanding of Fruitio,” Picenum Seraphicum 20 (2001): 137–91; Kimberly Georgedes, “The Serpent in the Tree of Knowledge: Enjoyment and Use in Fourteenth-Century Theology” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1995); William J. Courtenay, “Between Despair and Love: Some Late Modifications of Augustine’s Teaching on Fruition and Psychic States,” in Augustine, the Harvest, and Theology (1300–1650): Essays Dedicated to Heiko Augustinus Oberman in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Kenneth Hagen (Leiden, 1990), 5–20; Arthur Stephen McGrade, “Enjoyment at Oxford after Ockham,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks (Oxford, 1987), 63–88; idem, “Ockham and Valla on Enjoyment,” in Acta Conventus NeoLatini Sanctandreani. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, ed. I.D. McFarlane (Binghamton, n.y., 1986), 153–58; idem, “Ockham on Enjoyment— Towards an Understanding of Fourteenth-Century Philosophy and Theology,” Review of Metaphysics 33 (1981): 706–28. For a recent study of the reflection of the scholastic debate about beatific enjoyment in late medieval poetry and vernacular literature, as well as in connection with emerging secular conceptions of the happy life under the influence of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, see Jessica Rosenfeld, Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry: Love after Aristotle (Cambridge, England, 2011). 12  See Severin V. Kitanov, “Peter of Candia on Beatific Enjoyment: Can One Enjoy the Divine Persons Separately from the Divine Essence?,” in Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 35

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

319

sixteenth-century Sentences commentaries. It is my intention to fill this lacuna to some extent with respect to fifteenth-century Erfurt commentaries. 3 Augustinian Sentences Commentaries and Treatments of Enjoyment The school of the Augustinian Hermits, to which Martin Luther belonged, had been established at Erfurt several decades prior to the founding of Erfurt University. The first documented Augustinian to serve as lector at Erfurt was Henry of Friemar the Elder († 1340), also known as Henry the German and under the title of doctor seraphicus on account of his contributions to mystical theology and asceticism.13 According to Meier, Henry enjoyed an almost legendary status outside of his order, and Henry’s commentaries on the Sentences and on Aristotle’s Ethics were widely known.14 Henry of Friemar the Elder, not to be confused with Henry of Friemar the Younger,15 was thus the first in the series of sixty-eight Augustinian theologians who were active at Erfurt prior to Martin Luther.16 Sadly, with the exception of Angelus Dobelinus, the few remaining Sentences commentaries of Erfurt Augustinians are of uncertain attribution.17 (2006): 145–66; idem, “Peter of Candia on Demonstrating that God is the Sole Object of Beatific Enjoyment,” Franciscan Studies 67 (2009): 427–89. 13  Henry of Friemar the Elder lectured on the Sentences at Paris around 1300 and incepted as master of theology around 1305. See Chris Schabel and William J. Courtenay, “Augustinian Quodlibeta after Giles of Rome,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages: The Fourteenth Century, vol. 2, ed. Christopher Schabel (Leiden, 2007), 545–68, at 550–52. See also Adolar Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School in the Middle Ages, ed. and trans. John E. Rotelle (Villanova, Pa., 1996), 31, 111. 14  See Ludger Meier, “Contribution à l’histoire de la théologie à l’Université d’Erfurt (suite et fin),” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 50 (1955): 839–66, at 849–50, 862–3. 15  Henry of Friemar the Younger lectured on the Sentences at Paris around 1318–1319 and became a master of theology in 1321. He served as magister regens at the house of general studies in Prague (1342–1350), and died in Erfurt on April 21, 1354. See Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 35, 111. 16  See Meier, “Contribution,” 849–61. 17  A commentary on Book iv of Lombard’s Sentences has survived in several codices, but it is uncertain whether the authorship is to be attributed to Henry of Friemar the Elder, Henry of Friemar the Younger, or to a third Henry of Friemar. See Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 31, 121. See also Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 149, no. 317. According to Meier, a commentary by a Henry of Friemer on Books i–iii of the Sentences

320

kitanov

3.1 Angelus Dobelinus Angelus Dobelinus, the “Angel of Döbeln,” was a German theologian born in Döbeln, in the province of Saxony. He was recruited as a young lad by the Augustinians in his home town and entered the monastery of Grimma. He spent some time in Prague as lector sententiarius in the studium generale of the Augustinian order, where he was befriended by the chancellor of Emperor Karl iv, Johannes von Neumarkt. It is believed that Dobelinus studied under John Klenkok18 at Erfurt. Dobelinus moved to Paris around 1373, read the Sentences in 1373–75, and became master of theology in 1379. In his own Sentences commentary, preserved in a manuscript housed by the Jena University Library, Dobelinus identifies Klenkok as his personal teacher and spiritual father. Sometime after the completion of his theological studies at Paris, Dobelinus returned to his homeland and took the post of regent master of the Augustinian studium generale in Erfurt. With the founding of Erfurt University in 1392, the Augustinian studium was incorporated into the university institution while Dobelinus became the university’s first theology is found in a manuscript from Dresden, Landesbibliothek, A.103. See Meier, “Contribution,” 850 n. 7. 18  John Klenkok (ca. 1310–1374) was a mendicant theologian of German origin. Born in the county of Hoya, south of Bremen, John became an Augustinian friar around 1346. John studied philosophy and theology in one of the Augustinian houses of general studies in Germany before becoming a bachelor at the Unversity of Paris. After completing the baccalaureate degree in Paris, John went to Oxford in the late spring or summer of 1357 and was made a master of theology on August 3, 1359. At the conclusion of a two-year period as a regent master of the Augustinians at Oxford (1359–1361), Klenkok returned to Germany and served as provincial and, later on, as a lecturer in the arts and canon law at Erfurt. Klenkok eventually occupied important ecclesiastical offices—namely, the office of inquisitor of the diocese of Olomouc (before July 4, 1370) and the office of minor penitentiary to Pope Gregory xi in Avignon (before June 22, 1372). See Christopher Ocker, “Johannes Klenkok: A Friar’s Life, c. 1310–1374,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 83.5 (1993): 7–8, 11–12, 19, 21, 25, 31–3, 44–5, 70, 78. See also Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 47–8, 122. Klenkok composed both literal and questionbased commentaries on Lombard’s Sentences, but he is mostly known for his work in canon law and especially for the tract Decadicon (1368–69), which represents Klenkok’s criticism of certain principles of Saxon common and feudal law (Sachsenspiegel). See Ocker, “Johannes Klenkok,” 24, 28–29, 42–69; Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 48, 122. For a discussion of the editions of Klenkok’s Sentences commentaries, see Damasus Trapp, “Augustinian Theology of the Fourteenth Century: Notes on Editions, Marginalia, Opinions and Book-Lore,” Augustiniana 6 (1956): 146–274, at 232–5.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

321

professor and dean. It is reported that Dobelinus and Johannes Zachariae († 1428),19 Dobelinus’s successor as a regent master of the Augustinian studium and a university professor, attended the Council of Constance in 1414–1418. At Constance, Dobelinus made a lasting impression with his oratory skills. He died in Erfurt soon after he returned from this last great mission of his life, around 1420.20 The Lectura super Sententias is Angelus Dobelinus’s only surviving work. As already mentioned, the work is found in a manuscript (El. f. 47) owned by the Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek at Jena. In Zumkeller’s judgment, the manuscript is probably an autograph; it contains two separate works, Dobelinus’s actual lecture notes (lectura lecta) on Lombard’s Sentences—­neither a student report nor an exemplar meant for publication—and Dobelinus’s copy of the Quaestiones by Henry Totting of Oyta,21 which Dobelinus mistakenly attributed to Henry of Hessen (also known as Henry of Langenstein).22 According to Damasus Trapp, the fact that Dobelinus mentions the “pious memory” of Klenkok only at the very end of the Lectura shows that it was not finished until soon after Klenkok’s death at Avignon in

19  Johannes Zachariae served as a provincial of the Thuringian-Saxon province of the Augustinian order, lectured on the Sentences at Bologna around 1392, and became a regent master at Erfurt around 1400. Zachariae’s Sentences commentary has not survived, but a significant portion of his exegetical works has been preserved. Zachariae is known primarily for his involvement in the condemnation of John Wycliff and John Huss at the Council of Constance. See Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 45–55, 158, 168–9, 171–3. 20  See Zumkeller, Erbsünde, 136–9. See also Damasus Trapp, “Angelus de Dobelin, Doctor Parisiensis, and His Lectura,” Augustinianum 3 (1963): 389–413, at 389–90; Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil i, 22, 29–30, 273–4. 21  Henry Totting of Oyta (ca. 1330–1397) is known to have taught at Paris, Prague, and Vienna, and his Sentences commentary demonstrates the strong influence of nominalist thinkers such as William of Ockham and Adam Wodeham. See Stephen F. Brown and Juan Carlos Flores, Historical Dictionary of Medieval Philosophy and Theology (Lanham, Md., 2007), 5, 139. 22  See Zumkeller, Erbsünde, 139–41. Henry (Heinbuche) of Langenstein (1325–1397) became a master of arts at Paris in 1363 and a master of theology also at Paris in 1376. Henry was deeply interested in both mystical theology and science. He authored treatises on conciliarism and a vast commentary on Genesis (1385), and he is also credited with writing the constitution of the University of Vienna. See E. Kay Harris, “Henry of Langenstein,” in Medieval France: An Encyclopedia, ed. William W. Kibler et al. (New York and London, 1995), 849.

322

kitanov

1374.23 Dobelinus’s Lectura comprises 124 two-column folios in toto, covers all four books of the Sentences, and is divided into 51 questions (Book i, qu. 1–26; Book ii, qu. 27–33; Book iii, qu. 34–48; Book iv, qu. 49–51).24 The Lectura begins on fol. 2 with the prayer, “Adiuva me, dulcissime Jesu, gloriosa virgo Maria et beate pater Augustine, ut meritorie hunc laborem perficiam. Amen.”25 It ends with Dobelinus’s summary treatment of dist. 49–50 and with an attribution in red ink stating: “Explicit Lectura super Sententias fratris Angeli de Dobelin, sacrae theologiae professoris minimi.”26 A major portion of Dobelinus’s Lectura super Sententias, comprising almost half of the entire commentary, is devoted to Book i. As in many early fourteenth-century Sentences commentaries, the prologue of Dobelinus’s Lectura examines questions pertaining to the problem of the scientific character of theology. The author uses the text of the Sentences more as a structural rather than a content-driven point of reference. Unlike early fifteenth-century Franciscan commentators, as we shall see below, he rarely engages in citation and interpretation of the Lombard’s actual text. The author also tends to skip entire distinctions, as well as integrating distinctions into a single question. Sometimes he mentions a particular distinction and poses a corresponding question (for instance, circa 17am et 18am distinctionem quarti libri quaeritur), while at other times he refers more generally to a Lombardian topic (for instance, circa materiam incarnationis, circa materiam de praeceptis, etc.) and then follows up with a question. There are also anomalies in the text. For instance, at the very end of Dobelinus’s treatment of Book i, dist. 47–48 we read: “. . . et haec de ista quaestione et toto primo libro Sententiarum sufficient, quo finito gratias ago Jesu Christo, qui vivit et regnat cum Deo Patre et Spiritu Sancto, amen.”27 This is followed immediately by a question about the meriting of grace related to the topic of charity. Three folios later, the author returns to Book i, dist. 41. A similar anomaly can be observed in Book iii. Here the author addresses dist. 23 initially within the consecutive order of distinctions, but then revisits the distinction, albeit under the title of a new query, immediately after the treatment 23  See Trapp, “Angelus de Dobelin,” 389. 24  See ibid., 391–413. 25  Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, El. f. 47, fol. 2. The entire El. f. 47 manuscript has been digitally reproduced and is available for free download at http://archive.thulb.uni-jena.de/hisbest/ receive/HisBest_cbu_00011801. 26  Ibid., fol. 124ra. 27  Ibid., fol. 60va.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

323

of the penultimate distinction of Book iii. If, as Zumkeller claims, the preserved manuscript does indeed represent Dobelinus’s actual lecture notes, it would follow that Dobelinus occasionally abandoned the sequential order of lecturing on the distinctions of the Lombard’s text, sometimes lecturing on distinctions out of order and at other times returning to distinctions treated earlier. As far as the sources and merits of Dobelinus’s theology are concerned, Trapp claims that the many doctors quoted in the Lectura are in effect “all taken from John of Basilea O.S.E.A.” (i.e. from John Hiltalingen of Basel),28 that we “come to know much more about Klenkok, Klenkok’s works and doctrines, than we would know without Angelus,” and that Dobelinus’s theological views are “not so much his own as Klenkok’s and Hiltalingen’s.”29 Confirming Trapp’s verdict, Zumkeller adds Hugolino of Orvieto († 1373) as one of the main sources of Dobelinus’s philosophical theology. Although Zumkeller concurs with Trapp’s judgment regarding the derivative character of Dobelinus’s work, he notes that Dobelinus frequently enters into debate with his most cherished authorities.30 My comparative analysis of Dobelinus’s treatment of enjoyment, in particular, with that found in the Sentences commentary by Hugolino of Orvieto31 will show that Dobelinus relies heavily on Hugolino’s work. In fact, 28  According to Trapp and Zumkeller, John Hiltalingen of Basel lectured on the Sentences at Paris in 1365–1366. See Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” 261–62; idem., “Hiltalingen’s Augustinian Quotations,” Augustiniana 4 (1954): 412–49, at 412–13; Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 49, 123; idem, Erbsünde, 143. Courtenay, however, argues for a later dating of Hiltalingen’s lectures on the Sentences and points to the year 1375 as the approximate date of his revised and expanded commentary. See William J. Courtenay, Adam Wodeham: An Introduction to His Life and Writings (Leiden, 1978), 141 n. 70. Hiltalingen’s extensive commentary of Books i–iv of the Sentences is an important source of information regarding fourteenth-century theology. See Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 49–50. For an account of Hiltalingen’s sources, see Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” 242–50. 29  See Trapp, “Angelus de Dobelin,” 390. See also Ocker, “Johannes Klenkok,” 47–50. 30  See Zumkeller, Erbsünde, 211–12. 31  Hugolino of Orvieto lectured on the Sentences at Paris in 1348–49, soon after the condemnation of the Cistercian theologian John of Mirecourt (1347). More than forty propositions found in Mirecourt’s Sentences commentaries (based on lectures at Paris in the period 1334–1336) were condemned by Robert of Bardis, chancellor of the University of Paris and a friend of Petrarch’s. Hugolino embraced the condemnation of Mirecourt’s views, arguing that the condemnation was also applicable to the deterministic views of Thomas Bradwardine which influenced some of Mirecourt’s propositions. See Christoph Burger, “Freiheit zur Liebe ist Geschenk Gottes. Hugolin von Orvieto (†1373) als Schüler

324

kitanov

even though Dobelinus cites the views of many early and mid-fourteenthcentury theological authorities—such as Duns Scotus, Gregory of Rimini, Adam Wodeham, John Klenkok, Richard Kilvington, Robert Holcot, Roger Roseth, Richard FitzRalph, and Richard Brinkley—portions of Dobelinus’s text are in fact just abridged versions of Hugolino’s much longer and richer discussion of enjoyment. Since the treatment of beatific enjoyment is among the longest in Dobelinus’s Lectura, it can serve as a good starting point for determining the quality of Dobelinus’s contribution to systematic theology in general.32 Dobelinus has divided his treatment into two questions—the first focusing on whether the enjoyment of the highest good is solely an operation and pleasure of the created will, and the second examining whether something other than the highest good can satisfy the will. After introducing the preliminary arguments—three at the beginning of each section—, Dobelinus divides the sections into articles. He also advances multiple conclusions and derives corollaries from them. Each conclusion and corollary is demonstrated and counterarguments are presented and answered. We find a similar mode of exposition in Hugolino as well. However, Hugolino’s treatment comprises four additional questions, and most of the questions contain at least four separate articles. For the sake of brevity and only as a way of illustrating the degree of Dobelinus’s dependence on Hugolino, I confine my investigation to the first question of Dobelinus’s treatment of enjoyment and provide three instances of Hugolino’s presence in that treatment. The first instance of clear dependence on Hugolino can be discerned in Dobelinus’s definition of enjoyment as a kind of simple delight or pleasant attachment (complacentia incomplexa) to the highest good propter se:

Augustins,” in Augustine, the Harvest, and Theology, 21–40, at 39–40. For a brief notice on Hugolino’s life, work, and importance for theology and philosophy at the new German universities, see Willigis Eckermann, “Vorwort,” in Hugolini de Urbe Veteri Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, vol. 1, ed. Willigis Eckermann (Würzburg, 1980), v–x, at v– vi; Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 45–6. For a brief account of the authors cited in Hugolino’s Sentences commentary, see Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” 222–3. For a concise account of Mirecourt’s activity and views, see Mauricio Beuchot, “John Mirecourt,” in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. Jorge J.E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone (Malden, Mass., 2003), 377–81. 32  For a discussion of Augustinian theology at Erfurt, see Zumkeller, Erbsünde, 461–5.

325

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment table 6.1 Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, Universitätsbibliothek, El. f. 47, fol. 21va, concl. 1 (All overlapping or almost identical passages in the compared texts are marked with bold face.)

Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, ed. Willigis Eckermann, (Würzburg, 1980), dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 1 (l. 136, p. 161–l. 167, p. 162)

Circa primum probatur primo definitio fruitionis, quae enim fruitio est proprie complacentia incomplexa amati vel complaciti propter se [summi boni add. mg.]. Patet, quia frui est alicui [amore sup. lin.] inhaerere propter se. Ly “propter se” non solum negat ipsum referri in aliud amabile vel diligibile, sed etiam negat in eodem amabili rationem priorem, ut si placet alicui Deum esse beatum, et quaeratur— “Cur sic placet?”—tunc recte dabit rationem quasi priorem diligibilitatis, quia [placet scr. sed del.] ipse seipso mihi placet valore suae bonitatis. Et dicitur complacentia, quia non est nolle incomplexum, nec desiderium, nec timor. Et dicitur incomplexa complacentia, quia incomplexus amor [de Deo add. mg.] enim originatur prior quolibet actu voluntatis, quia ad illum ultimate statur perquirendo per ‘cur,’ et ibi sistit et quiescit voluntas tamquam in bono per se sufficienter amabili, nec in illo eodem amato est ratio prioris amabilitatis respectus.

Ex istis sequitur, quod fruitio est complacentia incomplexa amati vel complaciti propter se. Ly “propter se,” id est ultimate, duo negat, scilicet ipsum volitum referri actu vel habituali inclinatione in aliud volitum, id est cuius nulla est prior ratio amabilitatis quam ista, quae correspondet huic complacentiae. Et hoc vel sic est ex parte rei, scilicet quod nec in illo amato nec in alio est ratio prior, quare illud sit sic placitum, et tunc id est ex valore propriae bonitatis ex se sufficienter amabile, cuiusmodi est deus seu essentia summa incomplexe accepta, et tunc est fruitio recta, vel non sic est, sed solum apud amantem sistitur, in illo quasi inhaereatur sibi et quiescat in complacendo, et sic est perversa fruitio. Ex hoc patet, quod ly “propter se” non solum negat ipsum referri in aliud amabile, sed etiam negat in eodem amabili rationem priorem. Unde si placet tibi “deum esse beatum” et quaeratur, cur sic placet, tunc recte dabis rationem quasi priorem diligibilitatis, scilicet quia mihi placet essentia illa summa. Et ideo, si huic praemissae descriptioni “complacentia incomplexa propter se amati” addatur “summi boni,” est descriptio rectae fruitionis. Dicitur autem “complacentia,” quia non est nolle incomplexum nec desiderium nec timor.

326 Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, Universitätsbibliothek, El. f. 47, fol. 21va, concl. 1 (All overlapping or almost identical passages in the compared texts are marked with bold face.)

kitanov Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, ed. Willigis Eckermann, (Würzburg, 1980), dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 1 (l. 136, p. 161–l. 167, p. 162)

Dixi autem “incomplexa” primo, quia incomplexa complacentia seu incomplexus amor est originaliter prior et causaliter quolibet actu voluntatis. Unde secundo: Incomplexus amor vel complacentia de deo est simpliciter prior, ad quem ultimate statur perquirendo per “cur.” Et patet, quod ille prior potius debet dici fruitio. Tertio: In hoc enim stat essentialis differentia fruitionis a quolibet actu, qui non est fruitio, scilicet quod sit respectu obiecti placiti, id est propter se amati amore non relato, sed simpliciter primo et causali respectu aliorum actuum. Et quia, ubi statur ultimate in complacentia incomplexa, ibi est quies complaciti obiecti et quasi inhaesio, ne ultra transcurrat voluntas, ideo dicitur ab Augustino, quod “frui est amore inhaerere alicui propter se,” amore incomplexo, alicui amato amore amicitiae propter se, id est quia amans nec actu nec habituali inclinatione complacet in isto propter aliud amatum, sed sistit ibi et quiescit voluntas tamquam in bono ex se sufficienter amabili nec in illo eodem amato est ratio prioris amabilitatis realiter.

It is evident upon close inspection that Dobelinus’s passage is a truncated version of what we read in Hugolino. The opening of Hugolino’s passage indicates that Hugolino’s account of enjoyment follows directly from what was

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

327

said just prior to the account. If we read Hugolino’s passage in light of the preceding text, we realize that Hugolino is attempting to explain enjoyment in terms of human motivation. On the basis of the authority of St. Augustine and St. Anselm, he argues that (a) we always want something for a reason, and that (b) we do not always know whether desires or actions that appear good to us are motivated by charity or by concupiscence.33 By entirely omitting this context, Dobelinus fails to render Hugolino’s interpretation of the qualification propter se plainly enough. Hugolino’s point is that the expression propter se means not only that one does not enjoy God for the sake of another good, but also that one has no ulterior motive for enjoying God other than God’s goodness. Furthermore, although Dobelinus reiterates Hugolino’s point that the inclusion of the idea of delight or pleasant attachment to the good in the definition of enjoyment helps differentiate enjoyment from acts such as ­willing-against (nolle), desire, and fear, Dobelinus condenses Hugolino’s threefold account of the qualifier “simple” into a single and unified description. In doing so, Dobelinus fails to mention that enjoyment is essentially a love of friendship (amor amicitiae) with respect to God, that is to say, love that involves a genuine concern for the well-being of the object loved.34 The second instance of dependence on Hugolino occurs in Dobelinus’s discussion of whether in addition to enjoyment and use one must also posit the existence of a third or middle act of the will that is neither enjoyment nor use. This same question is discussed by Hugolino in a separate and lengthy article.35 Dobelinus’s discussion, by contrast, is much shorter and less detailed. It begins with an account of the disagreement among theologians regarding the division of the acts of the will into acts of use and acts of enjoyment. Dobelinus reports three different opinions on the matter. According to the first (Table 6.2, 1.A), enjoyment and use are one and the same act. According to the second (Table 6.2, 2.A), one must admit the existence of a third, middle act (res media, actus medius). Dobelinus attributes the third opinion (Table 6.2, 3.A) to Gregory of Rimini (1300–1358), who holds that the division of the acts of the 33  See Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 1, l. 90, p. 160–l. 136, p. 161. 34  Scholastics distinguished love of friendship as wishing the best for the object loved from love of desire (amor concupiscentiae), which involves the idea of possession. See Henrik Lagerlund and Mikko Yrjönsuuri, “Introduction,” in Emotions and Choice from Boethius to Descartes, ed. Henrik Lagerlund and Mikko Yrjönsuuri (Dordrecht, 2002), 1–28, at 16–17. 35  See Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 4, pp. 171–82.

328

kitanov

will into acts of use and acts of enjoyment is exhaustive, and that there is consequently no need to posit the existence of a third, middle act of the will. As seen in Table 6.2 below, Dobelinus’s report and respective critique of Gregory’s position are taken almost verbatim from Hugolino. According to Hugolino’s critique, one must grant a middle act in order to accommodate cases in which the will is said to reject (nolle) something or some state of affairs for the sake of God—namely, nolle with respect to God’s non-being, God’s creation of a different world, and the Son of God generating another person. If one describes such acts as use and if the final object of this use is God, then God can be “used” licitly (recte), which, according to Gregory, cannot be the case. Neither can such acts be described as enjoyment because no act of rejection or willing-against (nolle) is an act of enjoyment. Interestingly, the conclusion Dobelinus draws from this critique is that a third kind of act—an act which is neither enjoyment nor use—must be granted to exist, whereas the conclusion in Hugolino’s text states only that not every act of nolle is an act of use. But, by implication, since an act of nolle is also not an act of enjoyment, it follows that the act of nolle is a third kind of act, an act that is neither enjoyment nor use. table 6.2  Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 22ra–b

Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 4 (l. 47, p. 173–l. 63, p. 174)

Sciendum est hic circa praesentem materiam sunt tres opiniones. [1.A] Prima quod unus et idem actus est usus et fruitio, sicut quando homo vult herbam propter visum. [2.A] Secunda opinio ponit rem mediam, qua nec est utendum nec fruendum proprie. Rationes probantes formant de mediatione Christi, de Dei odio, et de virtutibus. Et secundum illam opinionem eadem re homo simul potest uti et frui. Contra: Omni re est aut solum recte utendum aut solum est fruendum, ergo etc. Antecedens patet, quia aut est

Secunda conclusio Gregorii est: “Omne nolle est usus.” Haec conclusio non apparet prima facie vera, quoniam nolitio, qua Petrus ex dilectione dei nolebat Christum pati, non erat usus, quoniam non erat referibilis in aliud volitum, nam in deum referebatur, et Christus est deus, igitur. Unde Petrus non assumebat nolitum illud in facultatem voluntatis nisi propter deum, igitur non propter aliud a Christo, quem nolebat pati. Similiter est de nolitione, qua nolo deum non esse, quoniam refertur, quia volo deum esse, et demum, quia mihi placet

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

329

Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 22ra–b

Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 4 (l. 47, p. 173–l. 63, p. 174)

infinite diligibilis aut non. [3.A] Tertia simpliciter negat actum medium, ut Gregorius 1a dist., primi libri, qu. 1a, art. 1o dicit quod “omne nolle est usus.” Contra: Nolitio qua Petrus ex dilectione Dei nolebat Christum pati non erat usus. Probatur, quoniam non erat referibilis in aliud volitum, nam tale nolle in Deum referebatur, et Christus est Deus, ergo etc. Unde Petrus non assumebat volitum illud in facultatem voluntatis nisi propter Deum, ergo non propter aliud a Christo, quem nolebat pati. Similiter est de nolitione qua nolo Deum non esse, quoniam referitur in illud volo Deum esse, et demum, quia mihi placet Deus. Ergo non referitur in aliud. Similiter de nolle Deum creare alium mundum, nolle Filium Dei generare alium, et sic de multis nolitionibus quae non referuntur nisi in Deum. Rationes suae probant quod omne rectum nolle circa creaturam est propter aliud volitum, quia finaliter propter Deum. Ideo non probant universaliter, nam eius prima ratio est omni nolle assumitur aliquid in facultatem voluntatis propter aliud, ergo est usus. Sed contra antecedens, quia Deo non possumus recte uti secundum eum, et nolle Deum esse iniustum non est fruitio, ergo datur actus medius qui nec est usus nec fruitio.

deus, igitur non refertur in aliud. Similiter de nolle deum creare alium mundum, nolle Filium dei generare alium, et sic de multis nolitionibus, quae non referuntur nisi in Deum. Rationes suae probant, quod omne rectum nolle circa creaturam est propter aliud volitum, quia finaliter propter deum, ideo non probant universaliter. Eius prima ratio est: “Omni nolle assumitur aliquid in facultatem voluntatis propter aliud, igitur est usus.” Sed contra antecedens: Quia deo non possumus recte uti secundum eum, et nolle deum iniustum, non est fruitio, igitur contra te. Ideo pono oppositam conclusionem scilicet, quod non omne nolle est usus.

330

kitanov

A further comparison with Hugolino’s discussion reveals also that Dobelinus is well aware of an important nuance of Hugolino’s own position. According to Hugolino, a middle act of the will must be granted to exist with respect to complex volitions but not with respect to simple ones. The nuance of Hugolino’s position surfaces in his response to the objection that the love through which an angel loves the humanity of Christ is neither an act of enjoyment nor one of use. Hugolino’s response—found also in Dobelinus’s text—is that the angel’s affection is either directed at Christ’s divinity, in which case the affection is an instance of enjoyment, or at Christ’s humanity, in which case the affection is an act of use. However, if the angel’s affection is an act of complex love (complexus amor), then the object of this kind of love includes both Christ’s divine and human natures, and is expressible by means of the proposition, “I am pleased that God has assumed human nature.” Because the object of the act is expressible through a proposition, the act is neither one of enjoyment nor one of use but is of a third kind.36 The third instance of dependence on Hugolino is found in the third article of Dobelinus’s first question. In this article, Dobelinus examines whether enjoyment is an act of the will, and whether the will is capable of producing an act of free and efficacious enjoyment without the assistance of any other created cause. The parameters of the investigation are set by the following two arguments pro and con. If, indeed, a cause other than the will itself is required for volition to occur, then that cause must either be a prior cognition (that is, a cognition other than the one included in the actual volition), or the object of volition itself. But the cause cannot be a prior cognition because volition already involves an experiential cognizance of the object. Neither can the object of volition be the cause because the object is frequently something nonexistent or something impossible. It is argued, on the contrary, that there is an additional efficient cause necessary for the production of volition, and that this cause must be an act of cognition. If this were not so, then the will could love something unknown, which, according to St. Augustine, is impossible.37 At this stage of the investigation, Dobelinus makes a distinction between two different senses of enjoyment: (1) enjoyment taken concausaliter et requisitive, and (2) enjoyment taken formaliter et elicitive. In the first sense, the term “enjoyment” refers to the cognition necessarily required for the production of the act whereby the will loves an object for its own sake. In the second sense, the term “enjoyment” refers to that very act whereby the will loves an object for its own 36  Ibid., p. 177, ll. 153–5. See also Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 22rb. 37  See Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 23rb.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

331

sake.38 On the basis of the distinction, Dobelinus concludes that enjoyment is an act of the intellect in the first sense—concausaliter et ­requisitive39—but an act of the will in the second sense—formaliter et elicitive—and properly ­speaking.40 In light of the familiar grounds that we acquire merit and demerit and are praised or blamed on account of our will, Dobelinus argues that the will is the free productive cause of enjoyment.41 However, he qualifies this voluntarist corollary by adding that every act of the will requires cognition as a partial efficient cause.42 Although Dobelinus’s distinction between the aforementioned two senses of enjoyment—intellectual and volitional—appears to be original and is not found in Hugolino, the matter which preoccupies Dobelinus significantly in the third article of the first question is whether any given volition is essentially a kind of cognition,43 and Dobelinus’s response to this question relies heavily on Hugolino.44 Dobelinus first examines the view that no volition is essentially cognition. The view, which is attributed to “some doctor of ours” (cuiusdam doctoris nostri),45 is supported by several arguments against the 38  See ibid., fol. 23va: “Notandum quod frui dupliciter potest accipi, scilicet, concausaliter et requisitive, et sic enim cognitio necessario praevie requisita ad actum fruitionis dicitur fruitio. Secundo formaliter et elicitive, et sic solum actus amoris eliciti respectu alicuius obiecti propter se fruitio vocatur.” 39  See ibid., fol. 23va: “Conclusio prima, quod sumendo fruitionem primo modo, scilicet, concausaliter et requisitive, sic est actus potentiae intellectivae sive animae ut potentia intellectiva.” 40  See ibid., fol. 23va: “Secunda conclusio est quod fruitio proprie dicta et elicitive est actus solius voluntatis tam active quam subiective.” 41  See ibid., fol. 23va: “Corollarium, quod voluntas est causa libera productiva actus fruitionis.” 42  See ibid.: “Tertia conclusio: Omnis actus voluntatis ab aliqua notitia partialiter causatur effective.” 43  See ibid., fol. 24ra: “Modo videndum est circa istam materiam utrum omnis volitio sit quaedam essentialis cognitio sui obiecti, sicut tangit primum argumentum.” 44  See Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 2, art. 1, l. 34, p. 188–l. 391, p. 200. 45  According to Trapp, the quidam doctor is the Augustinian theologian Alphonsus Vargas of Toledo. See Trapp, “Angelus de Dobelin,” 393. Alphonsus Vargas (ca. 1300–1366) lectured on the Sentences at Paris in 1344–45, immediately after Gregory of Rimini, and became a master of theology in 1346 or 1347. The association of Alphonsus with Toledo results from the fact that Alphonus was consecrated archbishop of Toledo in 1361. Alphonsus Vargas’s commentary on Book i of the Sentences has been preserved in a number of manuscripts as well as in print. A set of ten quaestiones on Aristotle’s De anima has also survived. See Brown and Flores, Historical Dictionary, 13; Zumkeller, Theology and History of the

332

kitanov

contrary thesis, namely, that volition is cognition. The most convincing of these counterarguments states that if volition is indeed cognition, then the more intensely we want a given object, the more perfect our cognition of that object becomes.46 The second view examined by Dobelinus is this time explicitly attributed to the group of Hugolino of Orvieto, Bonsemblant (1327–1369),47 and Facinus of Asti.48 According to this view, there are two different kinds of perception of an actually desired object: one based on assent (assentiva), and another based on acceptance or approbation (acceptativa). This distinction depends to some extent on whether we consider the object under the aspect of the truth discernible by the intellect, or under the aspect of the good discernible by the will. By appealing to the authority of the early Augustinian theologian James of Viterbo (ca. 1255–1308),49 Dobelinus argues that there is an important Augustinian School, 44–5. However, for anyone familiar with the scholastic debate regarding the cognitive character of volitions, Gregory of Rimini would be the most obvious choice for Dobelinus’s quidam doctor (see note 51 below). 46  Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 24rb: “. . . quanto plus diligeremus aliquid tanto perfectius cognosceremus [add. mg.], quod est falsum.” 47  This is most likely the Augustinian theologian Bonsemblant Baduarius of Peraga (or Padua). Born on June 3, 1327, Bonsemblant studied at Padua, Venice, and Treviso, lectured on the Sentences at Paris in 1358–1359, became a master of theology at Paris in 1363, and died on October 28, 1369. It is reported that Petrarch was a good friend of Bonsemblant’s and that he called Bonsemblant “his country’s great glory, and his order’s great and illustrious distinction.” According to Zumkeller, Bonsemblant’s principia to the Sentences have been preserved. See Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 48; David Aurelius Perini, Bibliographia Augustiniana, vol. 1: A–C (Florence, 1929), 79–80. See also Courtenay, Adam Wodeham, 143 n. 73; Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 68, no. 162. 48  Facinus of Asti was an Italian Augustinian, and the little that we know of him is that he lectured on Lombard’s Sentences at Paris in 1362–1363. He is probably the same individual as Bonificius of Asti who was promoted to master of theology upon the request of Pope Urban v in a letter to the chancellor of the University of Paris from March 3, 1365. Facinus has left us a commentary on Books i–iii of the Sentences, quaestiones on Aristotle’s Physics and De anima, and a Tractatus de maximo et minimo. See István Bodnár, “Facinus de Ast, Opera philosophica i, Tractatus de maximo et minimo,” ahdlma 64 (1997): 405– 37, at 406–08; Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School, 48–9; Trapp, “Augustinian Theology,” 239–42; Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 96, no. 215. 49  James of Viterbo joined the Augustinians in 1270, studied philosophy and theology at Paris in 1275–1282, and became the Augustinian regent master in theology after Giles of Rome at Paris in 1293. James became bishop of Benevento in 1302 and archbishop of Naples in 1303. He died in 1308 and was beatified in 1914. James of Viterbo is primarily known for his quodlibetal questions and the treatise De regimine christiano, written in defense of papal authority. See Brown and Flores, Historical Dictionary, 151–2; see also The Cambridge

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

333

difference between the extension or scope (latitudo) of the intellect and the extension or scope of the will with respect to the object—viz. the will advances ahead of the intellect and grasps the good in a more profound and immediate way.50 Dobelinus consequently explains that there are two different ways of understanding the thesis that volition is cognition.51 In one sense (Table 6.3, 1.A, 1.B), any given volition, insofar as it is a vital act, involves an awareness of oneself as the subject of the volition, and such self-awareness, Dobelinus points out, is not an act separate from the actual volition. The object of volition understood as a vital act is not itself cognized unless it also happens that Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts, vol. 2, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade, John Kilcullen, and Matthew Kempshall (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 285–300. 50  Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 24rb: “Alia est opinio Magistri Hugolini, Boncemblantis et Fascini de Asti, quod contingit dare duas ­perceptiones distinctas obiecti complexe voliti, quarum quaelibet est notitia, sed una est assensiva, alia acceptativa. Probatur: Nam alia est tendenda per cognitionem, alia per volitionem in idem obiectum. Nam intellectus tendit in illud sub ratione veri, non sub ratione boni, nisi quia verum est ipsum esse bonum. Voluntas tendit sub ratione boni, non sub ratione veri, nisi quia bonum est ipsum esse verum. Ergo, sicut not latet intellectum ad verum, sic non latet voluntatem ad bonum. Et concludit Iacobus de Viterbio primo Quodlibeto, q. 8: ‘Hinc est quod plus amatur de Deo quam per intellectum cognoscatur. Intrat dilectio ubi intellectio foris stat. Sed non intrat nisi mens percipiat in quod bonum diligendo intrat. Ergo per latitudinem illam percipit bonum.’ ” 51  As is clear from Hugolino, the main opponents in the debate regarding the attribution of cognitive features to appetitive acts are Adam Wodeham (ca. 1298–1358) and Gregory of Rimini. Wodeham proposed the thesis that volitions can be understood in some sense as cognitions. Gregory opposed Wodeham’s thesis by arguing that there is nothing about appetitive acts that requires us to attribute cognitive characteristics to them. Detailed discussions of this debate are found in Martin Pickavé, “Emotion and Cognition in Later Medieval Philosophy: The Case of Adam Wodeham,” in Emotion and Cognitive Life in Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy, ed. Martin Pickavé and Lisa Shapiro (Oxford, 2012), 94–115, esp. 99–112; Simo Knuuttila, Emotions in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy (Oxford, 2004), 276–9; Dominik Perler, “Emotions and Cognitions: Fourteenth-Century Discussions on the Passions of the Soul,” Vivarium 43 (2005): 250–74, at 264–70. For Adam Wodeham’s life and works (especially his lectures on the Sentences), see John T. Slotemaker and Jeffrey C. Witt, “Adam de Wodeham,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, published online at http://plato .stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/wodeham/; Rega Wood, “Adam of Wodeham,” in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, 77–85, at 77; eadem, introduction to Adam de Wodeham, Lectura secunda in librum primum Sententiarum, tom. i, prologus et distinctio prima, ed. Rega Wood (St. Bonaventure, n.y., 1990), 5*–49*, at 5*–8*; Courtenay, Adam Wodeham, 160–82.

334

kitanov

this object is the actual volition itself. In such a case, Dobelinus says, the wanted object is part of the actual volition.52 In another sense (Table 6.3, 2.A, 2.B), the object of a given volition is extrinsic to the volition, as in the case in which I want my neighbor to be just. The object in this case is my neighbor’s state of being, and the volition can be described as a complex one. This complex volition can itself be taken in two different ways (Table 6.3, 3.A, 3.B), namely, as a kind of veridical affirmation, declaration, or assertion, on the one hand, or as a kind of approval, liking, or wish, on the other. table 6.3  Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 24rb–va

Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 2, art. 1 (ll. 35–53, p. 188)

Hinc nota quod volitionem esse cognitionem dupliciter intelligitur. [1.A] Primo modo quod sit quaedam experimentalis notitia sui ipsius veluti actus vitalis, quoniam omnis perceptibiliter sibi ipsi operans habet evidentiam se operari, et non oportet quod per alium actum, sicut est de amore vel volitione. Non autem quod sit notitia obiecti voliti nisi per accidens ipsamet esset obiectum volitum. Sicut si vellem omnem volitionem esse, tunc ipsa esset

Circa primum articulum praemitto duas distinctiones. Prima distinctio est: Volitionem esse cognitionem. Duplicitur intelligitur. [1.B] Primo, quod sit quaedam experimentalis notitia sui ipsius veluti actus vitalis, quoniam omnis perceptibiliter sibi ipsi operans habet evidentiam se operari, et non oportet, quod per alium actum; igitur sic est de amore vel volitione. Non autem quod sit notitia obiecti voliti, nisi per accidens ipsamet esset obiectum volitum, sicut si vellem “omnem volitionem esse,” tunc

52  It must be pointed out that the aspect of reflexivity suggested by the characterization of volition as a kind of self-awareness was discussed at great length by scholastic theologians. In the context of the discussion about the nature of happiness, especially, fourteenth-century theologians were challenged by the controversial thesis of the Dominican thinker Durand of Saint-Pourçain (ca. 1275–1334) according to which happiness, and the enjoyment of God in particular, is a reflexive act wherein the individual takes stock of his/her own subjective experience. For a comprehensive discussion of Durand’s thesis in light of the criticism of his contemporaries, as well as for critical editions of the relevant texts of the chief authors involved in the debate about the reflexivity of happiness, see Thomas Jeschke, Deus ut tentus vel visus. Die Debatte um die Seligkeit im reflexiven Akt (ca. 1293–1320) (Leiden, 2011).

335

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 24rb–va

Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 2, art. 1 (ll. 35–53, p. 188)

ipsa esset pars voliti. Sed ubi volo “proximum esse iustum,” ita quod non volo volitionem esse, sit A haec volitio, ibi est aliud volitum. [2.B] Alio modo, quod A sit notitia et ipsius B voliti, ut huius sic esse “proximum esse iustum.” Primo modo et secundo negat Gregorius, quia nullo modo vult volitionem esse cognitionem. Secunda distinctio est subdistinctio Dico ergo quod volitionem A esse secundi membri: Nam volitionem A esse notitiam sui obiecti B est dupliciter notitiam sui voliti, quod est B, B enim est intelligere. [3.A] Uno modo quod “proximum esse iustum,” quod est sit notitia assentiva vel indicativa complexe volitum, ideo A est volitio seu ostensiva. Alio modo quod sit complexa. Dico igitur, quod volitionem A acceptativa et quasi complacentia esse notitiam sui B obiecti est dupliciter sic esse, non qua asseram sic esse, sed intelligibile [3.B]: Uno modo, quod sit qua perceptabiliter perceptiente notitia assertiva vel indicativa seu obiecti B opto et volo proximum esse iustum. Et est inter illa differentia, quia ostensiva seu pronuntiativa de sic esse. Alio modo, quod non sit indicativa seu primi modi notitiae dividuntur per ostensiva vel assertiva, sed sit acceptativa verum et falsum, certum et dubium, evidens et inevidens, sed secundi modi sic esse, quasi complaceativa sic esse, non qua asseram sic esse. Sit etiam per bonum et malum, rectum et pravum, meritorium et demeritorium, imperativa, qua perceptibilitate obiecti B volo sic esse, aut optativa, qua mentaliter quia non est assentiva, sed magis et perceptibiliter perceptibilitate obiecti complacentiva vel optativa. B opto proximum esse iustum. pars voliti. [2.A] Alio modo quod A sit notitia ipsius B voliti, sicut proximum velle esse iustum, et illa est volitio complexa.

Table 6.3 above demonstrates how closely Dobelinus follows Hugolino’s interpretation of what it means to say that volitions have a cognitive character. In fact, Dobelinus’s account can be characterized as an abridgment of Hugolino’s much longer disquisition. What is missing from Dobelinus’s account is Hugolino’s mention that Gregory of Rimini rejects both senses in which volitions can be called cognitions. Dobelinus concurs with Hugolino that one

336

kitanov

must differentiate between veridical, assent-based volitions and non-veridical, evaluation-based volitions. He also follows Hugolino’s explanation of the fourfold difference between assent-based and evaluation-based volitions.53 Most importantly, Dobelinus recognizes the real issue behind Hugolino’s quarrel with Gregory. Hugolino’s critique of Gregory is motivated by an important theological point, namely, that the love of God is in itself already a kind of cognitive appropriation of God. In other words, the love of God is by itself a powerful source of intellectual insight into God’s nature. In denying that love—as an act of the will—has an inherent cognitive character one subordinates the affective component of theological practice to intellectual contemplation, thus drifting away from the evangelical and patristic emphasis on the primacy of love and action. In order to show that one must distinguish between two different kinds of perception of a complexly desired object, Hugolino provides a detailed and insightful exegesis of passages from James of Viterbo, St. Augustine, and St. John. The end result of this exegesis is the conviction that the love of God has a self-validating character, so that it is to some degree independent of the authenticating function of the human intellect. This is indeed the conclusion one must draw from James of Viterbo’s claim that “love enters while the intellect stands at the door,” St. Augustine’s paradoxical statement that “many learn and yet do not learn God’s just ways,” and St. John’s verse, “The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar.”54 Dobelinus’s conclusions capture the essence of Hugolino’s position fairly well. The first conclusion says that any given act of the will can be considered to be an act of cognition insofar as it involves self-awareness or represents a kind of experiential perception.55 The second conclusion asserts that some acts of the will are non-veridical or non-demonstrative cognitions insofar as 53  See Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 25va. See also Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 2, art. 1, l. 54, p. 188–l. 94, p. 189. 54  See Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 2, art. 1, l. 95, p. 189–l. 152, p. 191. 55  See Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 24va: “Conclusio prima de primo membro primae distinctionis est: Quaelibet volitio et nolitio est quaedam notitia sui, scilicet, experimentalis, et quilibet actus vitalis est quaedam experimentalis perceptio.” The argument for this conclusion—found complete in Hugolino and trimmed down in Dobelinus—is that when one remembers upon waking up that one intensely wanted a book before falling asleep, the actual object of the recollection is not the book itself, but the act of intensely wanting the book. However, such recollection would be impossible if the initial act of wanting the book did not already involve the awareness of oneself wanting the book. See Hugolino of Orvieto, Commentarius in quattuor libros

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

337

they appear to have the form of a mere wish, command, or approval.56 The third conclusion states that some cognitions of God are in essence acts of love.57 The fourth conclusion declares that the causation of some acts of the will does not require a prior cognition of the desired object.58 The fifth conclusion claims that all free appetitive acts involve an experiential perception of their objects and should therefore be regarded as cognitions.59 The theological point stressed by Hugolino is perhaps most clearly visible in Dobelinus’s third and fourth conclusions. By granting that some instances of loving God are by themselves instances of knowing God, and that some acts of the will can be caused without a prior cognitive appropriation of the object, Dobelinus is essentially recognizing the crucial significance of the affective dimension of theological practice. Another way of stating Dobelinus’s point is by saying that an individual can love God as well as any created person without fully knowing them as they are in themselves. On the other hand, some instances of cognition are already affective in character or can be said to include an affective component. My close analysis of the first question of Dobelinus’s treatment of enjoyment reveals a breathtaking scope of engagement with some of the problems clustered around the Augustinian uti/frui distinction—namely, the problem of the distinction between enjoyment and use as acts of the will, the problem of the relation between volition and cognition, and the problem of the noetic character of the love of God.60 The wealth and complexity of Dobelinus’s discussion can be explained as a result of Hugolino of Orvieto’s pervasive influence. The omnipresence of Hugolino’s doctrinal positions, criticisms, and arguments in Dobelinus’s text allows us to view Dobelinus’s commentary as a major medium for the transmission of the ideas of significant Augustinian authors at Erfurt; it also warrants the inclusion of Dobelinus’s commentary in the category of works drawing inspiration from some of the most developed Sententiarum, tom. i, dist. 1, qu. 2, art. 1, ll. 153–165, p. 192; Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 24va–b. 56  See Angelus de Dobelin, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, El. f. 47, fol. 24vb: “Secunda conclusio: Aliqua volitio est notitia obiecti voliti, non quidem ostensiva sed potius optativa vel imperativa vel acceptativa.” 57  See ibid.: “Tertia conclusio: Aliqua Dei cognitio est ipsius Dei dilectio.” 58  See ibid.: “Quarta conclusio: Alicui volitioni causabili in anima non necessario requiritur praevia notitia obiecti ipsius volitionis effectualiter productiva.” 59  See ibid.: “Quinta conclusio: Omnis actus liber appetendi vel fugiendi seu odiendi est quaedam cognitio sui obiecti cogniti.” 60  For a useful summary of Dobelinus’s views regarding sin, grace, justification, and predestination, see Zumkeller, Erbsünde, 212–14.

338

kitanov

and articulate systematic works of theology in the mid-fourteenth century. Even though Dobelinus’s doctrinal positions are fairly derivative, the wideranging scope and depth of his commentary allow us to anchor the quality of theological reflection at the newly established Erfurt University in the rich and complex tradition of systematic theology in Paris. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that Dobelinus’s treatment of enjoyment is quite extensive, the comparison with Hugolino’s much longer treatment (Hugolino’s six vs. Dobelinus’s two questions) gives us good reason to think that Dobelinus was probably interested in providing a more condensed and focused Sentences commentary. Lastly, the fact that Dobelinus sides frequently with Hugolino against Gregory of Rimini is significant at least insofar as it enables us to determine the extent of Dobelinus’s allegiance to Hugolino. 4 Franciscan Sentences Commentaries and Treatments of Enjoyment Ludger Meier’s research has contributed immensely to our understanding of the tradition of Franciscan theology at Erfurt. His numerous articles have given birth to an entire new field of study, having brought to light the rich intellectual legacy of the Franciscan school at Erfurt. Most of the extant Sentences commentaries written at Erfurt were in fact composed by Franciscan theologians. After the first Franciscans arrived at Erfurt around 1225, a Franciscan convent and a studium generale were established there at the latest by 1231.61 By the time the University of Erfurt was founded (1392), the Franciscan studium generale had already existed for more than a century, and a Franciscan theological tradition had taken root and flourished. Furthermore, the studium retained its independence from the university as a center of intellectual life, which is evidenced by the fact that some of the Franciscan lectors active at the studium were never incorporated into the university.62 From the time of the founding of the university to around the year 1521, there were altogether forty-eight Franciscans who pursued doctorates in theology at Erfurt.63 Most of them presumably wrote commentaries on the Sentences, although a certain attribution has been made only with respect to few authors, such as Matthew Döring, John Bremer, Kilianus Stetzing,64 Nicholas Lakmann, and Hermann Etzen, among others. One of the earliest Sentences commentaries written by an Erfurt University 61  See Meier, Die Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt, 10–11. 62  See Ludger Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (continuatio),” Antonianum 5 (1930): 333–62, at 353–5. 63  See ibid., 333–49. 64  On Kilianus Stetzing, see note 83 below.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

339

theologian dates from the very end of the fourteenth century and was probably composed by John of Minden († 1413), who, after John of Chemnitz, was the second Franciscan to have become a theology doctor at Erfurt.65 It is safe to say that the Franciscan tradition of commenting on Lombard’s Sentences at Erfurt, a tradition which reaches back into the mid-thirteenth century and finds its roots in the pre-Scotistic work of John of Erfurt, gathers momentum with the work of the early Erfurt University theology professors—John of Chemnitz and John of Minden—and culminates, on the one hand, in the more decisively Scotistic commentaries of Döring and Etzen,66 and, on the other, in the commentaries of scholars such as Bremer and Lakmann, who were more even-handedly synthetic in their approach. 4.1 John of Erfurt John of Erfurt was one of the first lectors in the Franciscan study house at Erfurt. We do not know the exact dates of his birth and death. We do know, however, that he spent altogether forty-one years as lector at Erfurt. He was active at Erfurt before 1275, worked as a lector at Magdeburg from approximately 1280 to 1295, after which he returned to Erfurt and continued working as a lector until his death (sometime after 1325).67 John of Erfurt’s literary oeuvre includes a great variety of works—philosophical, juridical, and theological. His philosophical works encompass treatises on grammar, logic, natural and moral philosophy. His Tabula iuris civilis et canonici and Summa confessorum constitute his most important juridical works. His theological works are represented by the Sentences commentary, commentaries on a number of books of Holy Scripture, a collection of sermons, and an encyclopedia of key biblical concepts and names alphabetically arranged, entitled Tabula ­originalium.68

65  See Ludger Meier, “De anonymo quodam Sententiario Erfordiensi O.F.M. saeculi xiv,” Antonianum 8 (1933): 84–120, esp. 111–5. 66  Etzen, who referred to Duns Scotus as doctor noster, was determined to defend Scotus’s teachings. For a discussion of Etzen’s life, philosophical and theological works, and, especially, for the list of conclusions of Etzen’s Sentences commentary composed at Erfurt in 1445–47, see Ludger Meier, “Ermano Etzen O.F.M. e lo scotismo preriformatore nella Germania,” Studi francescani 7 (1935): 369–413, at 384–413. For an evaluation of Etzen’s theological doctrine and Meier’s edition of Etzen’s Principium in I librum Sententiarum, see idem, “Ermano Etzen O.F.M. e lo scotismo preriformatore nella Germania,” Studi francescani 8 (1936): 144–63. 67  See Norbert Brieskorn, Die Summa Confessorum des Johannes von Erfurt, Teil 1: Einleitung (Frankfurt am Main, 1980), 5–10, esp. 10. See also Meier, Die Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt, 11–12. 68  See Brieskorn, Die Summa Confessorum, Teil 1, 11–22; Meier, Die Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt, 42–5.

340

kitanov

John of Erfurt’s Sentences commentary dates from 1294–95,69 and it covers all four books of the Sentences.70 Although a detailed examination of its structure and content is beyond the scope of the present study, it should be said that this commentary exemplifies in its own unique way the t­ radition of mid- and late thirteenth-century Franciscan Sentences commentaries and can serve as a basis of comparison for understanding the later development of the Franciscan Sentences commentaries at Erfurt. For instance, John of Erfurt’s commentary on Book i represents a comprehensive investigation of all forty-eight distinctions.71 Each distinction is subdivided into a series of questions and sub-­questions. John of Erfurt’s treatment of the first distinction, for e­ xample, consists of five main questions,72 although the table of contents prefacing the commentary contains as many as sixteen distinct questions.73 A careful examination of the text of the first distinction reveals that John raises additional questions—in essence sub-queries—within the five clearly differentiated and consecutively numbered queries. St. Augustine and Aristotle are the chief authorities and conversation partners in John’s account of uti and frui. One does, however, find occasional references to other authors, such as Cicero and Master Lombard. After listing some arguments pro and con, John offers concise responses to the questions, often in a memorable quasi-versification form. John’s work lacks the complexity, profundity, and sophistication of the analysis characteristic of the uti/frui treatments of later Franciscans such as Duns Scotus and Peter Auriol. Nevertheless, the significant number of queries and sub-queries suggests the existence of an already established and opulent agenda of theological and philosophical problems on which the intellects of later Franciscan Sentences commentators would thrive.74

69  See Brieskorn, Die Summa Confessorum, Teil 1, 12–13; Meier, Die Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt, 72. 70  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 215–16, no. 444. 71  John of Erfurt’s commentaries on Books i and ii of the Sentences are available for free download through the digital library of the Manuscriptorium project at http://www .manuscriptorium.com. Search the library database under “Johannis de Erfordia.” 72  See Johannis de Erfordia Commentarius in primum librum Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, dist. 1, ms. Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, 790 (iv.h.26), fols. 18r–21v. 73  See ibid., fol. 1r–v. 74  In John of Erfurt’s Summa Confessorum, we also find a lengthy discussion of the medieval juridical notion of usufructus, which forms the basis of an entirely separate discussion concerned with the juridical regulation of the use and enjoyment of property. See Norbert Brieskorn, Die Summa Confessorum des Johannes von Erfurt, Teil 3: Liber ii (Frankfurt am Main, 1981), 6.31, pp. 1448–59.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

341

4.2 Matthew Döring A highly regarded Erfurt theology professor and gifted preacher, Matthew Döring has been counted among the most distinguished literary figures of the fifteenth century. Called the “armed doctor” (doctor armatus) by his contemporaries, Döring had the reputation of being a competent exponent and powerful defender of Catholic doctrine.75 He was born in the town of Kyritz in the Prussian province of Brandenburg. The exact date of his birth is uncertain. On the grounds that Döring received his theology doctorate in 1424 and that Erfurt University did not allow the conferring of a theology doctorate prior to the candidate’s completion of age thirty, Meier speculates that Döring must have been born around or slightly before 1393. After entering a Franciscan convent in the province of Saxony, he went to pursue studies in England, where, according to his own testimony, he spent five years “not in vain.”76 Döring eventually returned from England and in 1422 embarked upon his theological studies at Erfurt University. He became a bachelor in 1423, and was promoted doctor of theology on October 23, 1424. In 1427, he was elected as provincial minister of the Franciscan order, but was soon after embroiled in various mendicant controversies. He spent the final years of his life in solitude and passed away in the convent of Kyritz on July 24, 1469.77 Döring left two major writings—a Commentary on the Sentences and a Defense of the Liturgical-Scriptural Commentary of Nicholas of Lyra (Defensorium Postillae Nicolai de Lyra).78 On the basis of the frequent citations of Duns Scotus’s views and the fact that Döring defends Scotus against critics, Meier characterizes him as a “sincere Scotist” and as a reliable and fair interpreter of Scotus’s views.79 The group of most frequently cited authors in Döring’s commentary includes Duns Scotus (40 citations), Francis of Meyronnes (22 citations), Nicholas Bonet (16 citations), Peter of Navarre (14 citations), St. Bonaventure (9 citations), Peter Thomas (9 citations), Henry of Ghent 75  Meier makes this assessment on the basis of Conrad Wimpin’s testimony and Peter Albert’s research; see Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” Antonianum 5 (1930): 57–94, at 59–60. For an account of the origin and merit of the title doctor armatus in light of Döring’s work, see Ludger Meier, “Doctor Armatus Matthias Doering errores praereformatorios valide impugnans,” Studi francescani 34 (1937): 65–93, esp. 78–83. 76  See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 60 n. 5. See also idem, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Matthias Doering,” Franziskanische Studien 17 (1930): 83–89, at 88. 77  See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 60–61; idem, Die Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt, 20–1. 78  See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 61. 79  See ibid., 63–5, and Meier, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Matthias Doering,” 88–9.

342

kitanov

(6 citations), and Alexander of Hales (4 citations). The group of authors cited less than four times encompasses St. Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Peter Auriol, John of Ripa, Warro, Walter Burley, Richard Brinkley, Robert Grosseteste, Peter of Candia, William of Ockham, Peter of Ravenna, Eraldus Evangelista, Alexander Neckam, Peter of Aquila, and Godfrey of Fontaines.80 Döring’s Sentences commentary is found in a single manuscript codex, Clm. 8997 (Mon. Franc. 297), owned by the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.81 The text of the commentary covers Books i, iii, and iv.82 On the basis of the comparative analysis of the commentaries by Matthew Döring, John Bremer, Kilianus Stetzing,83 and Nicholas Lakmann (especially their treatment of the immaculate conception of Virgin Mary in Book iii, dist. 3 of Lombard’s Sentences), Meier makes the following observations regarding their mode of exposition (Darstellungstechnik): The authors retain the standard division of the material of the Sentences into four separate books. They faithfully preserve the division into distinctions and their order, but deepen and expand the investigation of the issues addressed in them. Yet, according to Meier, in practice, the authors also tend to skip distinctions, especially in Books ii, iii, and iv. Following a model put to use by William of Nothingham around 1312, they subdivide the distinctions into articles. Thus, by avoiding a division whereby each distinction is subdivided into separate and independent questions and sub-questions, as in the commentary by St. Bonaventure, the authors seek to unify and integrate the material within each distinction. In effect, each distinction has the overall structure of a disputed question. How this overall structure is further articulated and subdivided—through division indicators such as pars, articulus, opinio, dubium, etc.—differs from author to author. The dialectical mode of treatment by means of arguments pro and con, concession (sic) and rejection (non) of inference moves, however, characterizes every commentary. Two additional common elements of the commentaries are an introduction and

80  The citation statistics are from Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 63, and idem, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Matthias Doering,” 87. 81  For a detailed description of the codex and its contents, see Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 61–2, and idem, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Matthias Doering,” 83–86. 82  See Stegmüller, Repertorium, vol. 1: 259–60, no. 532. 83  Kilianus Stetzing entered Erfurt University in 1433, where he completed his bachelor’s degree. It is unknown whether he obtained a doctorate in theology. Only Books iii and iv of Stetzing’s large Sentences commentary have survived. See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 81–3.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

343

division of the text of the distinction (introductio et divisio textus) and a general conclusion.84 It should also be pointed out that, according to the university statutes, sententiary bachelors were required to lecture on the entire text of the Lombard’s Sentences, word by word. This rule explains why most Sentences commentaries composed at Erfurt were titled Lecturae, although there were exceptions to the rule since some commentaries were titled Conclusiones Sententiarum or Quaestiones in Sententias.85 If we now turn our attention to Döring’s discussion of enjoyment in Book i of his commentary on the Sentences, we will at once notice some of the characteristic features of the mode of exposition highlighted by Meier. Döring begins his treatment of distinction 1 with an introduction, in which he aptly explains the Lombard’s rationale for dividing the material of the Sentences into four books. According to Döring, this division is based on four distinct ways of considering the proper subject of theology, God—namely, God’s essence (not whether it exists, since this is presupposed, but according to what it is), God’s power, God’s wisdom, and God’s goodness or benevolence. In view of that, Döring says, Book i deals with God from the perspective of God’s natural perfection, Book ii treats God’s power as manifested through the work of creation, Book iii examines God’s wisdom as expressed through the benefit of redemption, and Book iv investigates God’s mercy known through the effect of human justification. Döring adds that Peter Lombard’s intention can be translated into a different kind of division of the whole (summa) of the Sentences, a division which takes its cue from the idea that everything pertaining to God can be considered in two separate categories—things (res) and signs (signa). The Lombard’s work (opus) can, therefore, be divided into two parts, the first dealing with things and the second dealing with signs. Furthermore, since there are three kinds of things—those that are meant to be enjoyed ( fruibiles), those that are meant to be used (usibiles), and those that are meant to be both enjoyed and used (utroque modo)—the Lombard discusses the things meant to be enjoyed in Book i, the things meant to be used in Book ii, and the things that are meant to be both enjoyed and used in Book iii.

84  See Ludger Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (finis),” Antonianum 5 (1930): 443–74, at 448–52. 85  See Ludger Meier, “Christianus de Hiddestorf O.F.M. scholae Erfordiensis columna,” Antonianum 14 (1939): 43–76, at 75–6, esp. 75 n. 1.

344

kitanov

Christ, the subject matter of Book iv, is considered both in terms of his humanity, which is to be used, and in terms of his divinity, which is to be enjoyed.86 Döring introduces the proper subject matter of distinction 1 immediately after his account of the Lombard’s division of the Sentences. The body of the distinction consists of a conclusion and two corollaries. The single two-part conclusion captures the focus of Döring’s treatment: “Every created entity is an object of use for some will, although adequate to it in different ways, but only the immutable Trinity is the enjoyable object of ordinate enjoyment.”87 In a move typical of the dialectical mode of exposition, Döring offers to consider counterarguments for the sake of “the greater evidence of the conclusion and the corollaries.”88 As indicated in the margins of the manuscript, the counterpoints focus on each of the two parts of the conclusion (contra primam partem conclusionis, contra secundam partem conclusionis). Döring responds briefly to each counter-point.89 86  See Matthias Döring, Lectura in Sententias, Book i, dist. 1, ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 8997, fol. 14r: “Veteris ac novae legis, etc. Post prohemium Magister convenienter positis partem executivam cuius causa formalis consistit [existit, scr. sed corr.] in debita distinctione et diversorum prosecutione, haec autem circa subiectum proprium maxime sunt attendenda, quia igitur circa subiectum theologicum principaliter quatuor inquaeruntur, scilicet, eius essentia [substantia, scr. sed del.], non quidem quia est vel quod est, quia talia de subiecto debet praesupponi, ex primo Posteriorum, sed primo investigatur qualis est eius essentia, 2o de eius potentia, 3o de eius sapientia, 4o de eius bonitatis benevolentia. Secundum hoc summa Magistri dividitur in quatuor libros. In primo agitur de Deo secundum rationem suam naturalis perfectionis. 2o de Dei potentia relucente in opere creationis. In 3o de Dei sapientia patente in beneficio [in beneficio, rep.] redemptionis. In 4o de Dei clementia innotescente in effectum humanae iustificationis. Sed tamen ad intentionem Magistri potest haec summa aliter dividi, et sic quia enim cuncta relata ad Deum vel habent modum rerum significantiarum vel signorum significantium, ideo opus Magistri dividitur in duas partes. In prima determinat de rebus. In 2a de signis. Et hoc in 4o huiusmodi. Et quia res sunt tres, quae sunt fruibiles, quae usibiles, quae utroque modo, ideo Magister primo agit de rebus quibus est fruendum in Io libro, 2o determinat de rebus quibus est utendum, et hoc in iio, 3o determinat de hiis quibus est sub distinctione utendum et fruendum, et hoc in iiio, in ivo agit de Christo, in quo considerat humanitas qua utendum est, ut patet distinctione 9a iiiii, et deitas qua fruendum est.” 87  Ibid.: “Omnis creata entitas est obiectum usus cuiuslibet voluntatis, quamvis diversimode tamen [?] adequate. Sed sola incommutabilis Trinitas est obiectum fruibile fruitionis ordinatae.” 88  Ibid., fol. 14v: “Sed pro maiori evidentia conclusionis et corrollariis arguitur contra dictam.” 89  Ibid., fols. 14v–15r.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

345

In order to illustrate Döring’s allegiance to Scotus, I turn toward Döring’s rejoinder to the second counterargument presented in connection with the second part of the conclusion. According to the second counterargument, the Trinity functions as an adequate object of enjoyment either under a single aspect (sub unica ratione), or under several aspects (sub pluribus rationibus). But the Trinity cannot be subsumed under a single aspect because the aspect proper to the Father differs from that proper to the Son. Neither can the Trinity be subsumed under several aspects. Otherwise, one could without contradiction enjoy God under one aspect but not under a separate aspect, which is impossible.90 In response, Döring claims that for a follower of Duns Scotus (Scotista) the Trinity is enjoyed under a single aspect. Although the persons of the Trinity differ with respect to their proper enjoyable aspect (ratio fruibilitatis), these aspects are not entirely unrelated because they all share in the singular goodness of the divine essence. Thus, the Trinity is enjoyed rightfully through a single act of enjoyment. Nevertheless, as Döring observes, Scotus concedes that, absolutely speaking and without contradiction, it is possible for one to enjoy the divine essence without enjoying the persons. The opposite, however, is impossible, namely, to enjoy one person without enjoying the others. According to Döring, Scotus grants this to be so not only in the case of the wayfarer (viator), but also in the case of those who see God face to face (comprehensor).91 After having aptly summarized Scotus’s position, Döring says that “many who have attempted to ensnare this position have only managed to trap their

90  See ibid., fol. 15v: “Secundo sic ad idem. Si sola incommutabili Trinitate ordinate est fruendum, vel hoc sub unica ratione vel sub pluribus. Non unica, quia alia est ratio Patris, alia Filius, etc. Non pluribus, quia tunc staret frui ipso Deo sub una ratione et non sub alia sine contradictione, sed hoc est impossibile.” 91  See ibid.: “Hic diceret Scotista quod sub unica ratione tantum. Ad improbationem dicitur quod quamvis Pater habeat distinctam rationem fruibilis, similiter Filius etc., non tamen aliam et aliam rationem fruibilitatis. Est enim in tribus una essentialis bonitas, qua est praecisa ratio fruibilitatis in omnibus. Sed verum est quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sunt distincta fruibilia, tamen sub una ratione et sub uno actu ordinate fruitur cunctis. Exemplum: Filius et Pater sunt plura intelligibilia, tamen est una ratio formalis obiectiva intelligibilitatis. Concederet autem Scotus convenienter quod absolute et sine contradictione possibile est frui una ratione fruibili et non alia, ut fruendo essentia non personis, sed non econtra fruendo etiam una persona et non alia, qua distinctio attenditur penes obiecta materialia non formalia. Ista non solum sunt ab hiis probabiliter concessa de viatore, sed etiam de comprehensore.”

346

kitanov

own feet.”92 A special instance of this kind of failed criticism, Döring states, can be found in John of Ripa’s Sentences commentary, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 4. Döring explains that Scotus’s position, as criticized by Ripa,93 amounts to the following: “. . . the act of the enjoyable vision has the divine essence as a primary object, but the divine persons as a secondary object; however, by means of a special outpouring God can assist man with respect to the evidence of the primary object and not of the secondary [one].”94 Döring boils Ripa’s critique down to his strongest objections, dismissing the others either because they are irrelevant to Scotus’s mind (ac si non habuissent mentem Scoti), or because Ripa “wanted not to understand him.”95 In essence, John of Ripa’s critique focuses on the implication that the created intellect can somehow shift its attention from the primary object (the divine essence) to the secondary object (the persons) within one and the same act without undergoing any kind of change. It is as if the intellect can go from one opposite (namely, not seeing the persons) to the other (that is, seeing the persons) within a single act of intellectual apprehension without there being any change whatsoever, either on the part of the faculty of the intellect or on the part of the object.96 92  Ibid.: “Huic autem positioni multi paraverunt insidias et tamen ipsi hiis laqueis proprios pedes offendunt.” A full transcription of Döring’s text detailing Ripa’s criticism of Scotus and presenting Döring’s refutation can be found in Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 63–5. 93  The Franciscan theologian John of Ripa (fl. ca. 1357–1368) was known under the title of doctor difficilis on account of the unusual organization and difficult content of his commentary on Book i of the Sentences as well as under the title of Doctor supersubtilis because of his close engagement with and critique of Scotus’s views. See Brown and Flores, Historical Dictionary, 161. 94  Döring, Lectura in Sententias, Book i, dist. 1, fols. 15v–16r: “Inter quos praecipuus fuit Joannes de Ripa, super dist. 1m, qu. 1a, art. 4o, qui arguit primo sic contra fundamentum et rationem Scoti, quae est, quia actus visionis fruitive habet essentiam divinam pro obiecto primario, personas autem pro obiecto secundario; Deus autem illapsu speciali potest cooperari homini ad evidentiam in obiectum primarium et non secundarium.” 95  Ibid., fol. 16r: “Istae plus movent. Aliae autem rationes suae in rei veritate nihil valent. Hoc sonant ac si non habuissent mentem Scoti vel forte noluit eum intelligere.” 96  See ibid.: “Secundo sic: Data ista positione sequitur quod posset esse transitus de contradictorio in contradictorium sine mutatione deperdita vel acquisita. Consequens est articulus Parisiensis. Consequentia probatur supponendo dictum doctoris: Quod idem est actus visionis essentiae et relucentium; nam videre essentiam et non personam, et postea videre essentiam et personam, est videre post non videre, nulla mutatione praevia, quia non in obiecto nec in potentia, quia est idem actus utrobique ex suppositione; igitur etc.” For a brief account of Peter of Candia’s examination of John of Ripa’s critique of Duns Scotus, see Kitanov, “Peter of Candia on Beatific Enjoyment,” 153–6.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

347

In assessing Ripa’s objection, Döring explains that Scotus in facts posits a certain necessary condition (causa sine qua non), which is a relation (respectus) distinct from the formal and adequate aspect of the act of vision, a relation through which the intellect, as in the account of the third mode of relations in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, takes hold of the entire measure of the cognitive object.97 This condition can be called a relation of attainment or tendency of the faculty with respect to the object (respectus attingentiae vel tendentiae potentiae in obiectum); it can be understood as a means whereby the first member relates to the third member in the triadic sequence of terms. It is in the presence or absence of this condition that the sought-for change consists.98 As a result of our discussion of Döring’s treatment of dist. 1, Book i of the Sentences, I concur with Meier’s judgment that Döring’s treatment represents nothing less than a masterfully executed disputed question. We are dealing with lectures that are not characterized by expository lassitude and scholarly detachment, but which have a mode of exposition that is dramatic and suffused with the unique qualities of the author’s temperament.99 4.3 John Bremer John Bremer was Döring’s friend and successor. The dates of Bremer’s birth and death are unknown, but his career is well documented. He first appears in 97  For an account of Scotus’s appropriation and reinterpretation of Aristotle’s three modes of relation, see Peter King, “Scotus on Metaphysics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus, ed. Thomas Williams (Cambridge, England, 2003), 15–68, at 36–8. 98  Döring, Lectura in Sententias, Book i, dist. 1, fol. 16r–v: “Sed isto addito nego assumptum pro ista parte tertia, quia quamvis actus secundum substantiam non variatur sed manet unus, variatur tamen secundum quandam habitudinem, quam vocat doctor in 4o, q. 13, secundo argumento secundi articuli principalis respectum attingentiae vel tendentiae potentiae in obiectum, quod respectus quamvis non sit ratio visionis formalis et adequata, sicut replicat Johannes Ripa, est tamen causa sine qua non. Unde nota secundum doctorem, ubi supra, quod duplicem respectum actualem et realem, saltem non purae rationis, habet qualibet potentia perceptiva respectu sui obiecti, unus est mensuralis ad mensuram, et illum motum ponit Aristoteles vo Metaphysicae, de tertio modo relationum. Dicit autem intellectum ab intelligibili mensurari quando intellectus de aliqua qualitate rei cognitivae certificatur. Alius autem respectus est unientis formaliter in ratione medii ad tertium ad quod unit, et iste dicitur respectus attingentiae alterius ut terminum vel tendentiae in alterum ut in tertium. Plana est unicuique distinctio istorum respectuum, quia unus ab alio separari potest. Quid igitur mirum si manente actu eodem unus respectuum istorum circumscribi poterit, quae mutatio sufficit ut fiat transitus de contradictorio in contradictorium.” 99  See Meier, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Matthias Doering,” 87–9.

348

kitanov

1420 as lector secundarius100 at the Franciscan convent in Leipzig and as member of the Saxon nation at the university there. He is later mentioned as lector secundarius at the Franciscan convent at Erfurt (1424/25). Bremer entered Erfurt University in 1427 and was made doctor of theology on October 23, 1429. He was incorporated into the University of Rostock in 1434, and in 1444 is mentioned as lector in Goslar and Braunschweig.101 Bremer’s most important theological work is the Commentary on the Four Books of the Sentences, which was written before 1429 while he was still a bachelor at Erfurt.102 According to Meier, Bremer’s intention in writing the commentary was much more ambitious than that of Döring. Bremer aimed to demonstrate the organic unity of the whole Franciscan school, not merely defend and expound Scotus, as Döring had done.103 Bremer was especially concerned with showing the congruence between the doctrines of St. Bonaventure and those of Scotus and the Scotists. Accordingly, the list of authors most frequently cited by Bremer includes St. Bonaventure (154 citations), Duns Scotus (96 citations), Francis of Meyronnes (34 citations), Peter of Candia (22 citations), Walter Chatton (22 citations), St. Thomas Aquinas (20 citations), Peter of Navarre (16 citations), Hugh of Newcastle (13 citations), John of Ripa (7 citations), Richard of Mediavilla (6 citations), William of Ware (5 citations), and Henry of Ghent (5 citations). The list of authors cited less than five times includes Alexander of Hales, William of Ockham, Nicholas 100  According to Meier, the function of lector secundarius at the house of general studies lasted two years and was equivalent to the bachelor level of studies at the university; see Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (continuatio),” 355. Giving sermons was among the chief duties of the lector secundarius, again according to Meier, “Ioannes Bremer, O.F.M. Immaculatae Conceptionis strenuus defensor,” Antonianum 11 (1936): 429–86, at 444–5. The distinction between lector principalis and lector secundarius was also characteristic of the Augustinian houses of general studies. The function of the lector principalis was to comment on the Bible, carry out disputations on philosophical subject matters, and give lectures on arts textbooks. The function of the lector secundarius, on the other hand, was to lecture on philosophy and on Peter Lombard’s Sentences. See Ocker, “Johannes Klenkok,” 22. 101  See Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil i, 294; Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 70–1; idem, Die Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt, 21; idem, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Johannes Bremer,” Franziskanische Studien 15 (1928): 161–9, at 161–2. 102  Bremer was also a gifted homilist. For a discussion of Bremer’s rhetorical, argumentative, and expository skills as exemplified in his sermon on the Immaculate Conception (Sermo recommendatorius Virginis Mariae), see Meier, “Ioannes Bremer, O.F.M. Immaculatae Conceptionis strenuus defensor,” 460–2. 103  See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” 72.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

349

Bonet, Antonius Andreas, Peter Thomas, Landulph Carraciolo, Peter of Aquila, Francis of Marchia, Robert Holcot, Robert Cowton, Cardinal Vital of Furno, Peter Auriol, Nicholas of Lyre, and Giles of Vienna.104 On the basis of the number of citations, Meier notes that the influence of St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus is less strongly felt in Book i. There are, however, numerous citations of the works of Francis of Meyronnes and Peter of Navarre. Hugh of Newcastle and Richard of Mediavilla appear mostly in Book iv. Walter Chatton is most often cited in Book iii. Meier also observes that in material treating God and the Trinity, Bremer relies more heavily on Peter Lombard and the Church Fathers, steering clear of nominalist theology.105 Bremer’s Sentences commentary, which is found complete in ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 9027,106 covers all four books of the Sentences. It rigorously follows the order and number of distinctions in each book. The fact that not a single distinction has been omitted and that the questions are formulated with maximum precision and clarity and without as much as a hint of sophistry and paradox, allows us, in Meier’s judgment, to characterize the author of the commentary as a warden of a more traditional kind of theology deeply steeped in the theology of the Church Fathers, notable Franciscan predecessors, and canon law. The author’s primary intention is pastoral—the care of the soul rather than the “hyper-dialectical” sharpening of the intellect.107 In each distinction, after giving a summary of Master Lombard’s intention and the division of the original subject matter of the distinction, Bremer opens his own treatment with a specific question.108 This question is then typically followed by a syllogistically formulated objection and a counter-objection based on authority. The question is consequently divided into three articles. The first article contains two to three conclusions and one or two corollaries. The second article features objections or counterarguments to the established conclusions. Bremer reminds the audience frequently of the purpose behind the counterarguments by saying that it is a matter of disciplinaris notitia, and that

104  The citation statistics are from Meier, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Johannes Bremer,” 167. For a more detailed and descriptive account of Bremer’s citations, see idem, “Citations scolastiques chez Jean Bremer,” rtam 4 (1932): 160–86. 105  See ibid., 186. 106  For a description of the codex and its contents, see Meier, “Neue Angaben über den Erfurter Franziskanertheologen Johannes Bremmer,” Scholastik 6 (1931): 401–17, at 402–04. 107  See ibid., 416–17. 108  For a list of Bremer’s questions, see ibid., 405–15.

350

kitanov

considering these objections contributes to greater clarity and stronger confidence in the truth. In the third article, Bremer responds to each of the counterarguments. The ability to resolve them in a manner conducive to an informed and secure disciplinaris notitia requires—as he emphasizes—magisterial skill (magistralis peritia).109 In line with the methodological principles of his Darstellungstechnik, Bremer’s treatment of the first distinction of Book i of the Sentences opens with a lengthy preamble highlighting the division into four books and the subject matter corresponding to each book. Afterwards, the preamble captures Peter Lombard’s subdivision of the material of the first distinction by identifying the chief themes and problems addressed there. Bremer closes the preamble and launches the special investigation into the first distinction through the question as to whether it is as meritorius to use some creature as it is to enjoy the divine nature.110 The question is followed by a two-part negative response: (1) not every use is meritorious because not every action is subject to the control of the will; (2) not only the divine nature is to be enjoyed because, as St. Augustine says, one ought to enjoy invisible goods, the divine nature being one among many such goods. The counter-point (in oppositum), which rests on the authority of the Lombard and of St. Augustine, amounts to the claim that only the Trinity is to be enjoyed and the created world is to be used.111 After this initial dialectical move, Bremer divides the question into three articles. The first contains Bremer’s conclusions with their corresponding demonstrations. The second article consists of counterarguments aimed at the conclusions stated in the first article. The third article details Bremer’s solutions to the counterarguments.112 Bremer’s first conclusion states that the appropriate use of anything created contributes to the attainment of perpetual salvation.113 The second conclusion points out that use and enjoyment—when taken in a proper and complete

109  See Meier, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Johannes Bremer,” 165–6. 110  See Johannes Bremer, Lectura in Sententias, Book i, dist. 1, ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 9027, fol. 8v: “Ut autem magis in speciali huius distinctionis habeatur cognitio tunc talis pro nunc ponitur quaestio: Utrum meritorie sit utendum qualibet creatura tantumque fruendum sit divina natura.” 111  See ibid. 112  See ibid.: “Pro decisione huius quaestionis tres erant articuli declarandi, inquorum primo aliquas conclusiones ponam et eas ex littera distinctionis declarabo, in secundo contra praedicta argumentis instabo, in tertio solutiones rationis assignabo.” 113  See ibid.: “Prima est: Qualibet creatura debite uti hominem coaptare perpetuae saluti.”

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

351

sense—exist subjectively in the will alone.114 The third conclusion affirms that only God can satisfy the created will perfectly and ultimately, and that, therefore, God represents the adequate object of ordinate enjoyment under the aspect (ratio) of the divine essence.115 Bremer demonstrates each conclusion ad litteram Magistri, by following closely Lombard’s reading of St. Augustine. Still, in the demonstration of the third conclusion, Bremer breaks his habit of relying on the authority of Peter Lombard and St. Augustine, instead appealing to the expertise of Peter of Navarre († ca. 1347)116 and Peter of Candia.117 He does this in order to reinforce the claim that the aspect of the divine essence (ratio essentiae et deitatis), more so than that of the final end (ratio finis) or the good (ratio boni), is indeed the proper formal ground of beatific love and enjoyment.118 114  See ibid.: “Uti et frui si appropriate summuntur et completive tunc in sola voluntate existuunt subiective.” 115  See ibid., fol. 9r: “Tertia conclusio, quia solus Deus est perfecte satiativum et ultimate creaturae intelligentiae voluntatis, ideo existat ipse adequatum obiectum fruitionis ordinatae sub ratione tamen essentiae divinae.” 116  Peter of Navarre (also known as Peter of Atarrabia) was a Franciscan theologian who may have studied in Paris under Duns Scotus. We know that Peter was a provincial minister of Aragon in 1317 and that he probably lectured at Barcelona around 1320. Peter of Navarre’s commentary on Book i of the Sentences has been edited by Pío Sagüés Azcona under the title, Doctoris fundati Petri de Atarrabia sive de Navarra, ofm in Primum Sententiarum Scriptum (Madrid, 1974). See William O. Duba, “Continental Franciscan Quodlibeta after Scotus,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages: The Fourteenth Century, 569–639, at 625. 117  Peter of Candia (also Petrus Philaretus or Petros Philargis) was a Franciscan theologian of Greek origin. He was born on the island of Crete in 1340. Orphaned as a young boy, Peter was adopted by the Franciscans and made a Franciscan friar in 1357. He studied the liberal arts at the University of Padua, theology at Norwich and Oxford, and lectured upon the Sentences in Paris in 1378–80. After becoming a doctor of theology in 1381, Peter embarked upon a very successful ecclesiastical career which ended with his election as Pope Alexander v in 1409. However, Peter’s tenure as pope was cut short when he died in 1410. See Stephen F. Brown, “Peter of Candia’s Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard,” in Mediaeval Commentaries vol. 2, 439–69, at 439; idem, “Peter of Candia’s Hundred-Year ‘History’ of the Theologian’s Role,” Medieval Philosophy and Theology 1 (1991): 156–90, at 156–7; Brown and Flores, Historical Dictionary, 217–18; Christopher Schabel, “Peter of Candia,” in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, 506. 118  See Bremer, Lectura in Sententias, Book i, dist. 1, fol. 9r.: “Ideo relinquitur quod ratio essentiae est formalis ratio continendi eminenter omnes perfectiones simpliciter. Hoc Petrus de Navarra, q. 1a, 1ae distinctionis. Ratio etiam deitatis est in qua continetur tunc infinite et independenter omnes denominationes perfectionum simpliciter unitive. Sumpta formaliter ergo soli rationi deitatis formaliter correspondet dilectio fruitiva prout deducit

352

kitanov

Bremer’s less than meticulous treatment of enjoyment can be interpreted as a sign of weariness. Yet, the brevity with which Bremer addresses the key issues in the scholastic discussion of enjoyment is already hinted at in the opening words of his commentary, which not only allude to the preference for brevity symptomatic of the culture of Bremer’s contemporaries (moderni), but also explain this preference in terms of the shortness of human life.119 Furthermore, if brevity is any indication of lack of rigor, it should be noted that Bremer probably wrote this commentary not for a university audience, but for the audience of his Franciscan confreres at the Erfurt studium generale, and that Bremer constantly reminded his listeners that a more thorough investigation of the issues had to involve private study of the works of the great teachers of the order.120 4.4 Nicholas Lakmann Nicholas Lakmann came from Danzig (today Gdansk in Poland). He studied at Magdeburg (1433–34) and worked as lector secundarius in the general house of study of the Franciscan order in Leipzig (1442). Lakmann began his studies at Erfurt University in 1443, became lector secundarius there in 1444, and received a licentiate in Holy Scripture in 1446. After becoming a theology doctor on October 17, 1446, he functioned as the leader of the Franciscan house of general studies in Erfurt and as a university professor. He died on November 16, 1479, in Bratislava, where he was also buried.121 According to one testimony, Lakmann was a humble and peace-loving individual, not as easily given to controversy as

luculenter Petrus de Candia circa Im, q. 1a, cap. 2do.” For a discussion of Peter of Candia’s demonstration that only the divine essence can function as the adequate formal ground of beatific enjoyment, see Kitanov, “Peter of Candia on Beatific Enjoyment,” 162–5. 119  See Bremer, Lectura in Sententias, Book i, dist.1, fol. 2r: “Poesis iocunda copia sermonis fert externi, quoniam quidam nunc gaudent brevitate moderni, eo quod brevius semper delectabilius est, ut inquit Philosophus iiio Rhetor. Teste enim Hypocrate in principio amphorismorum: ‘Ars longa, vita brevis, experimentum fallax.’ Et licet ista sint verba dicta principaliter de arte medicinae, tamen finaliter verificari possunt de qualibet scientia et veritate, cuius cognitio multum est difficilis, iio Metaph. Huius autem difficultatis tria sunt signa: Primum est scientiae profunditas; secundum vitae humanae brevitas et virtutis intelligentiae debilitas; tertium est principiatorum in suis principiis latens et occulta veritas.” See the transcription of Bremer’s principium to Book i of the Sentences in Meier, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Johannes Bremer,” 163–4. 120  See Meier, “Neue Angaben,” 417. 121  See Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil i, 304; Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (continuatio),” 157–60.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

353

Matthew Döring. Lakmann was also held in high regard by his contemporaries as a scholar well-versed in Scripture and the philosophy of Aristotle.122 Lakmann wrote a comprehensive commentary on all four books of the Sentences. The commentary, which was composed at Erfurt in 1443–44, has been preserved in no fewer than fifteen manuscript codices.123 According to Meier, Lakmann was able to derive material from abbreviations of St. Bonaventure’s monumental Sentences commentary as well as from the commentaries of Peter of Aquila, Francis of Meyronnes, Francis of Marchia, and Peter of Candia.124 On the basis of the examination of the sources of Lakmann’s teaching, Meier also concludes that Lakmann was a faithful follower of Scotus in philosophy and of both Bonaventure and Scotus in theology. In theology, especially, Lakmann contributed significantly to the project of an organic unification of Franciscan thought launched by scholars such as Bremer and Stetzing.125 When sifting through the question list of Lakmann’s commentary, we see that the commentary follows the exact order and number of distinctions. There is a query corresponding to each Lombardian distinction. Only once does Lakmann merge two distinctions into one and the same query—namely, in Book i, distinctions 6 and 7.126 The commentary’s mode of exposition is very similar to that characteristic of the commentaries by Döring and Bremer. Each question opens with an introduction and a textual division. A new element is the dictum, which serves as an organizing principle of the divisio textus. The text of the dictum is a rhyme. For instance, the first of the seven dicta summarizing the contents of the first distinction of Book i states: divisio bona signorum et rerum in omni doctrina claudut quodlibet verum.127 The last and seventh dictum reads: non est fruendum ulla virtute sed ea utendum est pro salute.128 The divisio textus is followed by the formulation of a specific question, which is then followed by arguments pro and con. The body of the question is divided into four distinct articles. The first article contains definitions of terms and terminological distinctions. The second article represents Lakmann’s response to the main

122  See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (continuatio),” 160–1. 123  See Ludger Meier, “De Nicolai Lakmann Commentario in Sententias,” Scriptorium 4 (1950): 28–43, at 28. 124  See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (continuatio),” 165–6. 125  See ibid., 188. 126  See Meier, “De Nicolai Lakmann Commentario in Sententias,” 26–35. 127  Nicolaus Lakmann, Lectura super primum Sententiarum, dist. 1, ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 4760, fol. 3v. 128  Ibid., fol. 4r.

354

kitanov

question in light of several conclusions and their corresponding demonstrations. The third article involves the examination of arguments against the conclusions proposed in the preceding article. The final article is concerned only with points of difficulty (dubia). The resolution of the last dubium is followed by a response to the counterargument that was given in connection with the formulation of the main question.129 Since Meier has already amply illustrated Lakmann’s mode of exposition through the edition of several questions from his Sentences commentary,130 it will suffice for my purposes to look at some of the elements of Lakmann’s treatment of enjoyment. The actual question corresponding to the first distinction does not appear until after a preamble detailing the general subject matter of each book of the Sentences, and a lengthy divisio textus summarizing the contents of the first distinction in seven dicta. The specific question Lakmann proposes is whether any limited being can function as the adequate object of enjoyment.131 This is followed by a single argument pro and a single argument con. Interestingly, the argument pro is almost identical to one of the arguments given by Peter of Candia in the preliminary discussion of the same question.132 Essentially, the argument stipulates that there are two acts—the love of God above all things, which is a, and the love of another human being, which is b. It is then asked: Does a exceed b by an infinite or a finite amount? If infinite, then one created act exceeds another created act by an infinite amount, which is false, since both acts are created and, therefore, limited. If the amount is finite, then one can imagine that b could surpass a in intensity, since love is a quality subject to reduction and intensification. But a is an ultimately satisfying act since its object is the uncreated divine being; yet b is more intense than a. It follows that b, which has something created as an object, can also be an ultimately satisfying act. Thus, something created can bring total satisfaction to our will.133 This argument suggests that Lakmann concurs with 129  See Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (finis),” 450. 130  See Ludger Meier, “Nicolai Lakmann O.F.M. doctrina de divinae existentiae demonstrabilitate,” Studi francescani 27 (1930): 413–25, at 417–25; idem, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (continuatio),” 189–202. 131  See Lakmann, Lectura super primum Sententiarum, dist. 1, fol. 4v: “In speciali [?] iuxta praesentem distinctionem talem pertractabo quaestionem: Utrum aliquod ens limitatum obiectum fruitionis potest esse ordinatum.” 132  See Kitanov, “Peter of Candia on Demonstrating that God is the Sole Object of Beatific Enjoyment,” 438, 452–3. 133  See Lakmann, Lectura super primum Sententiarum, dist. 1, fol. 4v: “Et arguitur primo quod sic. Omne illud est obiectum fruitionis ordinatum cuius dilectio potest volitivam creatam totaliter satiare. Sed aliqua dilectio alicuius certae creaturae est huiusmodi. Ergo tenet

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

355

Candia’s thesis that something limited can indeed satisfy our desire, although such an enjoyment would be erroneous and wicked. The argument in oppositum states that if one is meant to enjoy a greater good, then one cannot possibly be contented with a lesser one. Since our soul is made to receive, and partake of, the highest good—namely, God—it follows that no good lesser than God can possibly satisfy us.134 After presenting the opposing arguments, Lakmann offers the same fourfold articulation of his question that is characteristic of all questions in his commentary: (1) definitions of key terms and basic distinctions; (2) a set of ­declarative conclusions with their proper demonstrations; (3) arguments against the established conclusions and responses to those arguments; and (4) a set of difficult points (dubia).135 We can skip the first article of the question because the definitions of the acts of uti and frui and their distinctions are taken entirely from Candia’s treatment of enjoyment.136 For the sake of brevity, we shall also omit the third article of Lakmann’s question and focus only on the conclusions of the second article and on two of the four dubia found in the fourth article. The four conclusions contained in the second article are meant to communicate the core of Lakmann’s thesis. The first conclusion states that when consequentia, et maior nota, quia alias non videtur quare Deus esset obiectum fruitionis ordinatum nisi quia eius dilectio totaliter satiat volitivam. Minor probatur, quia pono, verbi gratia, quod dilectio Dei super omnia sit a, et dilectio hominis b. Isto admisso arguo sic: Vel a in infinitum excedit b, vel finite solum. Primum non est dandum, quia tunc creatura in infinitum excederet creaturam, quod falsum est. Si autem finite solum, cum dilectio sit formaliter intensibilis, intendatur ergo b quousque sit intensior quam a. Hoc totum est possibile. Et tunc sic: Quandocumque sunt aliqui duo actus certae potentiae secundum perfectionem differentes, si minus perfectus potest satiare volitivam, et maius perfectus. Sed a et b sint tales actus secundum perfectionem differentes, quia in secundum casum perfectior est actus b quam a, et a potest satiare volitivam creatam, videlicet, dilectio Dei super omnia, ergo et b, et per consequens habetur propositum, quod aliqua creatura potest satiare volitivam potentiam et per consequens frui.” 134  See ibid.: “In oppositum arguitur sic: Quandocumque est aliquid frui ad maius illud non [potest] satiari a minori. Sed anima facta est ut sit capax et particeps [summi boni]. Ergo non potest satiari minori Deo.” 135  See ibid.: “In ista quaestione sic procedam: Primo ponam propter declarationem terminorum in titulo quaestionis positorum vel aliquas distinctiones. Secundo ex hiis nostrum propositum declarantes certas eliciam conclusiones. Tertio propter maiorem notitiam veritatis quaedam subiungam argumenta et earum responsiones. Quarto superaddam aliquas dubitationes.” 136  See ibid., fols. 4v–5r. See also Kitanov, “Peter of Candia on Demonstrating that God is the Sole Object of Beatific Enjoyment,” 441–43, 457–61.

356

kitanov

use is understood as an act of the will, any given entity—whether limited or unlimited—can be used ordinately.137 The second conclusion declares that when use is understood more narrowly as an act of the will whereby the will actually accepts something for the sake of another, then God cannot be used ordinately, but a creature can.138 The third conclusion points out that when enjoyment is understood as predicated upon a potential or actual relation to another, then the virtues are able to be enjoyed ordinately.139 The fourth conclusion states that if enjoyment is understood without such an implied potential or actual relation to another, then the adequate object of enjoyment can only be a wholly perfect nature, and not anything created.140 When we compare these conclusions with those found in Peter of Candia’s Sentences commentary, we can see that Lakmann’s views regarding the objects of use and enjoyment closely resemble those of Candia. This is especially true with respect to Lakmann’s fourth conclusion, which, in essence, repeats the insight from Candia’s fifth and sixth conclusions, namely, that nothing other than the most complete and perfect good can be the adequate object of ­enjoyment.141 We do not find in Lakmann, however, as we do in Candia, a detailed investigation of the question as to whether natural reason can definitively demonstrate that only God is able to be enjoyed licitly, and that no created entity can fully satisfy our will. Similarly, we do not find a comprehensive and rich discussion of the problem of different types of enjoyment of the Trinity or of the contingency or necessity of enjoying God in the state of the beatific vision. The latter two questions make a fleeting appearance in the last article of Lakmann’s treament—in the second and fourth dubium, respectively. The second dubium asks whether one can enjoy a single divine person without enjoying the other two. The fourth dubium asks how the blessed in 137  See Lakmann, Lectura super primum Sententiarum, dist. 1, fol. 5r: “Istis praemissis ponuntur hic quatuor conclusiones nostrum propositum declarantes, quarum prima est: Accipiendo usum pro actu potentiae volitivae omni ente, sive limitato sive illimitato, ordinate est utendum.” 138  See ibid.: “Si autem accipitur usus pro actus voluntatis alicuius propter aliud actualiter acceptantis, sit haec secunda conclusio: Deo ordinate non est utendum sed dumtaxat creatura.” 139  See ibid.: “Si autem accipitur fruitio cum relatione aptitudinali ad aliud, sit ista tertia conclusio: Virtutibus ordinate est fruendum.” 140  See ibid.: “Si autem accipitur fruitio sine relatione aptitudinali vel actuali, sit haec conclusio quarta: Obiectum fruitionis ordinatum est natura summe perfecta et non aliquod ens creatum.” 141  See Kitanov, “Peter of Candia on Demonstrating that God is the Sole Object of Beatific Enjoyment,” 465–6.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

357

heaven can be certain of their beatitude if the beatific object does not necessitate their will. In response to the second dubium, Lakmann appeals to the distinction between God’s absolute and ordained power. From the point of view of God’s absolute power, it is possible to enjoy one person without enjoying another, or the divine essence without the persons, or the essence without the divine attributes or ideas, or one attribute without another. From the point of view of God’s ordained power, however, no such differentiated types of enjoyment are possible with respect to the Trinity. This claim, Lakmann says, is in line with the intention of Francis (most likely Francis of Meyronnes).142 In response to the fourth dubium, Lakmann states that, considered by itself, the will of the blessed can lose beatitude. However, God preserves the will of the blessed and does not allow the blessed to lose their beatitude. That does not entail, however, that the will is wholly passive. Rather, through God’s grace the will is enabled to spurn evil and seek only the good. The blessed also have certainty regarding their beatitude, although they have no knowledge of the way in which God shields them from falling into sin again.143 Having responded succinctly to each of the four points of difficulty, Lakmann concludes his treatment of enjoyment with a short response to the principal argument con and moves on to the next distinction.

142  See Lakmann, Lectura super primum Sententiarum, dist. 1, fol. 6r: “Secundum dubium: Potest ne quis una persona frui non fruendo alia divina? Hic dico breviter secundum intentionem Francisci quod una persona potest frui absque alia de potentia Dei absoluta, et essentia absque personis, et essentia absque attributis et absque ideis, et unum attributum sine reliquo. Hoc tamen de potentia Dei ordinata non potest fieri.” See also Francis of Meyronnes, Commentarium in Sententias (Venice, 1520), Book i, dist. 1, qu. 4, fols. 13va–14ra. 143  See Lakmann, Lectura super primum Sententiarum, dist. 1, fol. 6r: “Quartum dubium est: Si voluntas creata non necessitatur ab obiecto beatifico quomodo tunc beati sint certi de eorum beatitudine? Hic dico quod voluntas quantum est de se potest dimittere beatitudinem, sed Deus preservat voluntatem ne dimittat, quia si dimitteret eam, ipsa fortasse causaret alium actum. Sed dices hoc posito voluntas nihil ageret. Dico quod non sequitur, sed Deus per gratiam suam preservat eam a malo ut possit bonum agere. Sed dices iterum quia licet beati hoc posito essent certi de beatitudine non tamen de modo. Dico quod fortasse modus beatitudinis de beatitudine eorum soli Deo cognitus est, vel etiam ipsis notus est, qui iam Deum vident in sua claritate facie ad faciem, licet non nobis.”

358 5

kitanov

Sentences Commentaries and Treatments of Enjoyment by Secular Priests

The tradition of Sentences commentaries of secular Erfurt priests is represented by very few remaining works, among which John of Wesel’s commentary stands out.144 The first secular Erfurt theologian was Herman Lurtz of Nuremberg († ca. 1400). Lurtz studied at Paris and Vienna, and was later incorporated into Erfurt University as a master of theology, arts, and medicine (1395). Lurtz was elected rector in the autumn of 1396 and is likely to have composed a Sentences commentary.145 Even though the Dominicans held their own chair at Erfurt, no commentaries have survived. There are also no surviving commentaries from the very few Carmelites who received the title of doctor of theology at Erfurt. 5.1 John of Wesel There is no record of John of Wesel’s birth date, childhood, and early education. His proper name was Rucherat (or Ruchrath), and he was born in OberWesel, a small town on the banks of the river Rhine, probably sometime in the second or third decade of the fifteenth century. John of Wesel entered Erfurt University in 1441; he was the first student to attain the Master of Arts degree at an age under 20. He began his theology baccalaureate in 1449, became dean of the faculty of philosophy in 1445, rector on October 18, 1456, and was pro144  One should also mention the commentary by Benedictus Stendal de Hallis. The exemplar of Benedictus’s commentary on the four books of the Sentences from the year 1449 has been preserved at Wolfenbüttel, but I was unable to access it. See Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil i, 308. 145  See Ludger Meier, “Contribution à l’histoire de la théologie à l’Université d’Erfurt,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 50 (1955): 454–79, at 455–6. We also have the principia on Books iii and iv and conclusion of the Sentences of Henricus Toke de Brema (promoted doctor of theology at Erfurt in 1426), the conclusiones on the Sentences of Johannes Wolffis de Arnstede (made doctor of theology at Erfurt in 1430), the commentary on Book iv of Wilhelmus Textoris de Aquisgrani (he became a doctor of theology at Basel on September 30, 1462, but wrote his commentary at Erfurt in 1461), and the commentary on all four books of the Sentences by Johannes Carnificis de Lutrea (entered Erfurt University in 1452); see Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil i, 289–92, 294–5; Teil ii: Spätscholastik, Humanismus, Reformation, 1460–1521 (Leipzig, 1992), 310–12. Among the secular theologians who composed Sentences commentaries Meier numbers also a certain John Wartburg (elected rector of Erfurt University in 1406) as someone who was influenced primarily by the Augustinian Thomas of Strasbourg and the Dominican John Quidort of Paris, well-known as defender of St. Thomas. See Meier, “Contribution à l’histoire de la théologie à l’Université d’Erfurt,” 470–79, esp. 474. For John Wartburg, see also Stegmüller, Repertorium, 1: 247 no. 503.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

359

moted to the rank of doctor of theology in the same year, on the Monday after the feast of Saint Martin. After serving shortly as vice-rector at Erfurt, John of Wesel served as a professor of Holy Scripture in Basel (1461–63), then functioned consecutively as cathedral preacher at Worms (1463–77) and Mainz (1477–79).146 In 1479, he was summoned before a tribunal of the inquisition in Mainz after being charged with preaching views contrary to official Catholic doctrine. He recanted, but was sentenced to life imprisonment, and his writings were ordered to be burned. John passed away in 1481, and although his views were condemned, Erfurt University conserved his writings and considered him as one of its most reputable academics. In fact, John of Wesel’s Aristotelian commentaries were still in use as preparation for student examinations at the time of Martin Luther. Furthermore, in light of his emphasis on the primacy of the authority of Holy Scripture in matters of the formulation of Church doctrine, and on account of his criticism of the practice of selling indulgences, John of Wesel enjoyed the posthumous reputation of a protoreformer and a predecessor of Luther.147 John of Wesel’s Sentences commentary covers Books i–iii and is contained in two manuscripts—ms. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Theol. lat. Fol. 97 (Rose 572), fols. 1–175, and ms. Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Palat. lat. 337, fols. 1–195.148 The extant commentary covers every distinction of Books i–iii although, occasionally, Wesel merges distinctions into a single treatment.149 In Ritter’s judgment, Wesel’s commentary lacks the rigor and profundity of the great fourteenth-century Sentences commentaries. We have, instead, a rather schematic and hasty presentation of conclusions which uses the question format merely as an external form to highlight the essence of each distinction. The value of this kind of commentary is purely didactic. It is meant to facilitate and accelerate the student’s learning process by focusing only upon what is most important, and by providing information in a simple 146  See Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil i, 308–9. 147  See ibid., Teil ii, 105–9. For a discussion of the peculiarities in the versions of the official report of Wesel’s trial, see Gerhard Ritter, Studien zur Spätscholastik, vol. iii: Neue Quellenstücke zur Theologie des Johannes von Wesel (Heidelberg, 1927), 37–57. 148  See Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil i, 310. Wesel’s Sentences commentary has not been studied extensively, but short extracts from his teaching about the Trinity, original sin, divine foreknowledge and predestination, grace and merit can be found in Ritter, Studien zur Spätscholastik, vol. iii, 58–63. 149  For instance, Wesel treats distinctions 12–15 of Book ii and distinctions 34 and 35 of Book iii summarily. See Johannes Ruchrat de Wesalia, Liber conventus fratrum minorum in Brandenborg, ms. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Theol. lat. Fol. 97 (Rose 572), Book ii, fol. 111ra; Book iii, 165vb.

360

kitanov

and concise manner. By avoiding the intricacies and pitfalls of a more sustained investigation, Wesel’s commentary aims to cast, says Ritter, all competing schools of thought in an equally favorable light. It is precisely this kind of approach to the problematics of the Sentences, according to Ritter, that makes it difficult to determine where Wesel’s doctrinal allegiances lie.150 In contrast to Ritter’s unfavorable judgment, we shall see, however, that Wesel’s discussion of enjoyment is characterized by magnificent stylistic elegance, and that even though one can hardly find evidence of extraordinary originality, Wesel’s contribution represents both a tribute to the great scholastic debate regarding the nature and attainability of beatific enjoyment, and a testimony to Wesel’s didactic brilliance. A remarkable feature of Wesel’s treatment of enjoyment is that it contains two entirely different parts—a close literal commentary of the Lombard’s original uti/frui exposition and a disputed question (quaestio disputata). Wesel’s literal commentary, which follows the order of Peter Lombard’s text, is concerned primarily with showcasing the hermeneutic nuances of the Lombard’s reading of St. Augustine. As will be shown below, Wesel also attempts to throw into relief the rationales behind the Lombard’s remarks and the emphases in the questions he asks. Wesel’s disputed question, on the other hand, is only very loosely related to the Lombard’s original text. The question in fact focuses upon a problem that became a matter of debate much later—namely, the question of whether the adequate object of enjoyment is the divine essence or, rather, the divine persons. In line with the habit established among Erfurt Franciscans of introducing the topic of the first distinction of Book i by explaining the thematic division of the material of the Sentences into four distinct books, Wesel begins his discussion of enjoyment by outlining the topic of each book.151 Book i, Wesel says, is divided—according to the current convention—into forty-eight distinctions, the first of which examines the subject matter of theology in general and in particular.152 Wesel explains that the Augustinian distinction between things and signs, on which the division of the Lombard’s Sentences is based, 150  See Ritter, Studien zur Spätscholastik, vol. iii, 8–9. 151  See Johannes Ruchrat de Wesalia, Liber conventus fratrum minorum in Brandenborg, fol. 5vb: “Haec est pars executiva sive tractatus, in qua de quatuor principaliter secundum quatuor libros partiales determinatur. In primo determinatur de obiecto nostrae felicitatis, scilicet, de essentia divina secundum se et secundum sibi attributa. In secundo determinatur de ipso subiecto felicitatis creato, ut de angelis et homini. In tertio de reparatione creaturae lapsae per Verbi incarnationem, et in quarto de adminiculationibus in via ad acquisitionem felicitatis in patria, videlicet, de sacramentis.” 152  See ibid.: “Primus dividitur secundum communem nunc currentem ordinationem in distinctiones 48, in quarum prima duo principaliter facit: primo in generali praemittit quae

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

361

suggests that one can distinguish between real theology (theologia realis) and conceptual theology (theologia rationis). However, if what is meant by a thing is what is understood by means of a first intention and if what is meant by a sign is what is signified by means of a second intention, then theology must always be “real” theology because it always deals with things as grasped through first intention. But if theology is about both things and signs, then the Lombard is using the terms “thing” and “sign” to mean something altogether different, namely, things we talk about without using them to signify other things, and things we talk about in order to signify others. The first kind includes things such as the divine essence, the Trinity, and the grace of God. The second kind includes things such as the bread and wine employed in the Eucharist, or the oil used in the sacrament of confirmation. Peter Lombard further subdivides the second category—that of signs proper—into justifying signs (significantia cum iustificatione), such as the sacraments of the New Law, and signifying signs (significantia tantum), such as the sacraments of the Old Law.153 Having explained the Lombard’s appropriation of the Augustinian res/signa distinction, Wesel proceeds by carefully retracing his analysis of St. Augustine’s classification of things to be enjoyed, things to be used, and things to be both enjoyed and used. While reviewing St. Augustine’s ­definitions of enjoyment and use, Wesel points out that Peter Lombard’s distinction between perfect and imperfect enjoyment was meant to soften St. Augustine’s thesis according to which genuine enjoyment can be obtained only in the afterlife as a result of the clear vision of God. According to Wesel, the Lombard had realized that Augustine’s thesis leads to the problematic conclusion that many who love God in this life (in via) cannot experience any kind of enjoyment of God. Thus, the Lombard argued that one can experience enjoyment in via as well, although this enjoyment would not be as perfect and complete as that attained in the afterlife.154 The disputed question, which constitutes the second part of Wesel’s treatment of enjoyment, is divided into three separate queries. Each query contains a conclusion defended on its own merits and examined in light of argumentation to the contrary. Each query also contains a corresponding dubium. The first query examines enjoyment as an act and the potency of which it is an act. The second query focuses on the nature of the adequate object of enjoyment. The third query deals with whether one divine person can be enjoyed

in sacra considerentur scriptura, secundo particularilter genera rerum consideratarum in ista theologia.” 153  See ibid., fols. 5vb–6ra. 154  See ibid., fols. 6rb–va.

362

kitanov

without another.155 Wesel’s discussion is considerably indebted to the authority of Duns Scotus. The following two examples will demonstrate the extent to which Wesel relies on the views and arguments of the Subtle Doctor. The first example is borrowed from Wesel’s first query. The query begins with the observation that, according to Aristotle, the act of any given potency is followed by a certain pleasure. By relying on Scotus’s analogy between intellectual and appetitive acts, Wesel first distinguishes between the positive act of velle, corresponding to intellectual assent, and the negative act of nolle, corresponding to intellectual dissent. On the basis of the different kinds of intellectual assent—namely, assent to self-evident first principles or assent propter se, and inferential assent or assent propter aliud—Wesel distinguishes between two forms of volitional pursuit (persecutio) and avoidance ( fuga).156 Wesel also mentions that Scotus introduces a middle act between velle propter se and velle propter aliud called “neutral” or “simple” volition.157 There are thus four distinct things in the will: the three acts of velle propter se, velle propter aliud, and velle simpliciter, on the one hand, and the pleasure consequent upon any of these three acts, on the other.158 Along with Scotus, Wesel brings up the uncertainty (dubium) among theological authorities as to whether enjoyment is the act of velle propter se, the pleasure consequent upon the act, the aggregate of the act and the pleasure, or the aggregate of the act, the pleasure, and the preceding cognition.159 After a succinct examination of the different significations of the term frui, Wesel concludes that enjoyment is a perfect act of the affective faculty, an act presupposing intellectual adjudication and completed 155  See ibid., fol. 7ra: “Quaeritur utrum fruitionis, quae est actus elicitus voluntatis, obiectum adequatum sit essentia divina et non aliqua persona trinitatis. In ista quaestione primo videbitur quem actum dicat frui et cuius potentiae dicat actum, secundo quale sit obiectum adequatum circa quod talis sit actus, et tertio an una persona contigat frui sine alia.” 156  See ibid. 157  See ibid.: “Quare sequitur si intellectus iudicaverit de aliquo ipsum esse bonum similiter [?] voluntas ipsum acceptabit simpliciter, et sic Scotus ponit quemdam actum medium voluntatis inter velle propter se et velle propter aliud, et vocat illum velle neutrum.” 158  See ibid., fol. 7ra–b: “Ex quibus dictis sequitur quod quatuor sunt in voluntate: primum est velle propter se, secundum est velle propter aliud, tertium est velle simpliciter vel velle neutrum, quartum est delectatio consequens quemcumque istorum actuum. Tres igitur sunt actus et unum est delectatio.” 159  See ibid., fol. 7rb: “Dubium ergo est an frui dicat primum actum, vel dicat ipsam delectationem, vel dicat illa duo simul, vel dicat illa duo cum cognitione praevia intellectus.” For an account of Scotus’s discussion of the disagreement regarding the signification of the term frui and to see how close Wesel’s account is to Scotus’s, see Kitanov, Beatific Enjoyment in Medieval Scholastic Debates, 107–11.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

363

by ­pleasure.160 In support of the conclusion, Wesel explains that the ablative case in the expression fruor Deo suggests a certain kind of advance or stretching (transitus) from the subject toward the object. Thus, the grammatical construction itself suggests that enjoyment is neither the kind of appropriation of an object which obtains in the act of intellectual comprehension, nor the kind of relaxed inherence in the object characteristic of the state of pleasure.161 In this context, Wesel also distinguishes between fruitio ordinata and fruitio inordinata. The terms can be translated as “ordered” and “disordered” or licit and illicit enjoyment. The difference between these two types of enjoyment depends on whether the will’s exertion is congruent with the directive of right reason; that is to say, whether the will elicits an enjoyment when right reason recommends it, or abstains from eliciting an enjoyment when right reason advises against it.162 Since in either case the conduct of the will presupposes an act of intellectual discernment, Wesel highlights the importance of probing the object one seeks to enjoy in terms of its goodness.163 Our second example is taken from the third and last query of Wesel’s disputed question. As mentioned earlier, the main problem of the third query is whether one can enjoy the divine essence apart from the persons and one divine person apart from the other two. Prior to advancing his own conclusion, Wesel explains that the difficulty of the question depends on how one views the distinction among the divine persons, that is to say, whether they are differentiated by means of something relative or by means of something absolute. Here Wesel states that, according to the via moderna, one cannot distinguish the relative from the absolute entitatively. Rather, one and the same thing can be viewed as relative when it is given one name or as absolute when it is given 160  See Johannes Ruchrat de Wesalia, Liber conventus fratrum minorum in Brandenborg, fol. 7rb: “Et si actum voluntatis sequatur delectatio et praecedat iudicium intellectus, fruitio tamen suppositaliter dicere videtur actum perfectum ipsius affectus.” 161  See ibid.: “Prima pars conclusionis patet clare ex dictis. Secunda pars persuadetur, quia cum dico ‘fruor Deo,’ ly ‘Deo’ est ablativi casus significans obiectum et ipse construitur cum illo verbo ‘fruor’ exempli aliqualis transitionis, qua vis congruit proprie verbis significantibus actionem. Significat ergo ‘fruor’ ibi actionem, scilicet, fruitionem, non autem actionem intellectus, quia secundum eam intellectus non transit in rem, sed magis res in intellectum. Nec delectationem significat, quia iterum per delectationem non transit potentia in obiectum, sed quiescit in obiecto. Ergo dicimus ‘delector in Deo,’ ‘delector in hoc cibo,’ et non dicimus ‘delector Deo vel cibo.’ ” 162  See ibid., fol. 7va. 163  See ibid.: “Ubi sciendum quod rationem fruibilis oportet investigare secundum rationem determinationis boni tamquam obiecti, quia enim bonum est quod omnia appetunt, secundum Io Ethicorum, ubi clare innuitur bonum esse obiectum appetitus.”

364

kitanov

a different name. Thus, the entity picked out by the name “paternity” can be viewed as a relative thing (res relativa) insofar as it relates to another. The very same entity, however, when named “divine essence” ceases to be relative and is now an absolute thing (res absoluta). And so, ultimately, the question turns out to be whether, in God, there are three or four relative things or three or four absolute things (the divine essence being considered as the fourth thing).164 Wesel concludes that an individual who has an intuitive cognition of the triune divine essence cannot possibly enjoy “ordinately” the essence without enjoying the persons, or enjoy one person without enjoying the others. The conclusion follows from the fact that the divine essence and three persons taken together constitute a single ultimate good or object.165 Yet, Wesel adds, it is certainly possible to have distinct acts of enjoyment with respect to God on account of the will’s freedom, although such enjoyments would be disorderly and lacking in merit.166 It is also possible for God to cause an individual to have differentiated cognition with respect to God’s essence alone or with respect to a single divine person. In this case, the individual would rightly judge the revealed object to have the character of the ultimate good and would consequently enjoy it.167

164  See ibid., fol. 8va: “Item sciendum difficultas quaestionis pro illa parte est ex eo quod quidam dicunt personas divinas distingui per relativa, alii per absoluta. Quia tamen secundum viam modernam non distinguuntur relativa ab absolutis, sed una res uno nomine nominata vel nominabilis dicitur esse absoluta, et alio nomine nominata vel nominabilis dicitur esse relativa, ut paternitas illo nomine nominata est relativa, eadem res nominata essentia divina est res absoluta. Videtur dubium an debeat concedi tres res relativae sunt in divinis, quatuor res relativae sunt in divinis, tres res absolutae sunt in divinis et quatuor res absolutae sunt in divinis, sed de hoc posterius videndum est.” 165  See ibid.: “Impossibile videtur cognoscentem essentiam divinam trinam in personis intuitive ordinate inhaerere essentiae et non personis, uni personae et non alteri fruitive. Probatur conclusio sic. Unum ultimum et optimum bonum obiectum fruitionis est essentia divina et tres personae. Ergo quilibet cognoscens illud bonum esse essentiam divinam et tres personas ordinate fruitur, illo sic quod non essentia et non persona vel una persona et non altera. Tenet consequentia, quia unum obiectum verum fruitionis unam causat ordinatam fruitionem.” 166  See ibid., fol. 8va–b: “Dicitur notanter ‘ordinate,’ quia forte possibile esset quem frui una persona et non alia ex libertate voluntatis, sed tunc inordinate frueretur et demereretur frui.” 167  See ibid., fol. 8vb: “. . . possibile videtur quod Deus, cum voluntarie se obiciat cognitioni creaturae, causet in creatura ut cognoscat creatura essentiam Dei et non personam, vel unam personam et non aliam, et sic poterit iudicare creatura etiam iudicio recto hoc esse summum bonorum et eodem frui.”

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

365

How is it possible to have differentiated enjoyments with respect to the Trinity if, after all, both the authority of Holy Writ and St. Augustine state the opposite? It will be objected, Wesel says, that Christ himself says to Philip in John 14 that “whoever sees me also sees my Father.” Furthermore, St. Augustine states in the De doctrina christiana that neither the Father can be shown without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. In response to these substantial objections, Wesel appeals to Scotus’s distinction between what can be said about the cognition of the Trinity from the point of view of God’s ordained power (potentia ordinata), and what can be said about such cognition from the point of view of God’s absolute power (potentia simpliciter vel absoluta).168 In following Scotus, Wesel argues that God could give someone a non-relative cognition of one divine person, such that the cognition would be limited to that person alone, excluding the cognition of the other persons.169 If objected that an intuitive cognition of God cannot possibly fail to reflect the nature of the thing as it is in itself, Wesel responds by offering an analogy with the case in which one has noticed that another man looks different from oneself, but without seeing clearly what this dissimilitude consists in. In delicately voicing his admiration for Scotus’s genius, Wesel adds that Scotus argues very much the same thing albeit “under another marvelous way of speaking” (sub alio mirabili loquendi modo).170 After pursuing Wesel’s treatment of enjoyment in some detail, we should ask why he incurred inquisitorial persecution and censure—especially if, as Gerhard Ritter points out, Wesel’s Sentences commentary makes it very difficult to determine the exact hue of his doctrinal allegiance.171 Part of the reason 168  See ibid.: “Sed contra dicit Dominus Jo. 14o: ‘Philippe, qui videt me videt et Patrem meum.’ Item, Augustinus De Doctrina Christiana, cap. 10 loquitur de Patre et Filio et dicit neuter sine alio ostendi potest. Respondet ad ista Scotus quod ibi loquatur de potentia ordinata, quae autem dicta sunt intelliguntur de potentia simpliciter et absoluta.” 169  See ibid.: “Potest tamen Deus alicui creaturae dare cognitionem unius personae non relativam qua habita altera non cognoscitur.” 170  See ibid.: “Item arguitur essentia non potest videri sine personis. Probatur sic, quia visio est intuitiva cognitio, qua est rei praesentis ut existit praesens, sed essentia divina non existit praesens nisi in persona, ergo non videtur intuitive nisi in persona. Respondetur quod essentia divina qua existit in personis potest videri ab aliqua creatura, licet ab ea tunc non videatur essentia ut existit in personis, quia personae ut sic non cognoscuntur, ut in simili stat quod hominem mihi dissimilem videam et tamen non videam hominem mihi dissimilem cum per visum non cognoscam dissimilitudinem ut sic, et idem arguit Scotus sub alio mirabili loquendi modo.” 171  See Ritter, Studien zur Spätscholastik, vol. iii, 9: “Es ist deshalb nicht leicht, aus dem eintönigen Grau des Schulbuchs eine bestimmte Parteifarbe des Autors herauszufinden.”

366

kitanov

for Wesel’s persecution and condemnation is likely related to the anti-secular sentiment of faithful Thomists, who saw in Wesel—unjustifiably so—a critic of Thomistic realism and an adherent of the via moderna.172 In the discussion of enjoyment, in particular, Wesel aligns himself with Scotus rather than with Ockham or with Ockham’s followers. Ultimately, the tiniest evidence on Wesel’s part for a preference for the definitive authority of Scripture over that of the Church councils and the Roman pontiff—manifested especially through Wesel’s criticism of the widespread practice of dispensing indulgences173 and his teaching on original sin as mere lack of original justice (carentia iustitiae originalis)174—may have served as a justification for Wesel’s indictment in the eyes of a few anti-secular Thomists and champions of papal authority.175 6

Concluding Remarks

My dwelling in the world of Sentences commentaries written by Erfurt theologians in the late fourteenth and early and mid-fifteenth centuries leads to several principal conclusions regarding the tradition of commenting on Lombard’s Sentences in the late Middle Ages and at the dawn of the Reformation. The Erfurt commentary tradition is deeply rooted in the great Parisian tradition of systematic theology. We see evidence of this in the work of the Paris-trained theologian Angelus Dobelinus, Erfurt’s first theology professor and dean. The commentaries of authors like Dobelinus—encyclopedic yet selective in ­character—eventually yielded to the more concise and less detail-oriented yet elaborately organized and well-balanced Erfurt Sentences commentaries represented by the work of theologians such as Döring, Bremer, Lakmann, and Wesel. My survey confirms the verdict that the Sentences commentaries of this historical period epitomize the “harvest” that late medieval thought reaped as a result of engaging the great commentaries of the preceding centuries, especially those of early fourteenth-century theologians.176 We witness the drive to return to Peter Lombard’s original text and the zeal to recover the subject

172  See ibid., 40–2. 173  For a detailed account of Wesel’s polemics against indulgences, see Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, 254–76, esp. 260–1. 174  See Ritter, Studien zur Spätscholastik, vol. iii, 10–11, 59–61. 175  See Kleineidam, Universitas studii Erffordensis, Teil ii, 107–8. 176  See John Van Dyk, “The Sentence Commentary: a Vehicle in the Intellectual Tradition of the Fifteenth Century,” Fifteenth-Century Studies 8 (1983): 227–38, at 229–30.

The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment

367

matter of the Sentences in its entirety, book by book and distinction by distinction. The omnipresence of the Lombard’s voice suggests a sense of nostalgia for the past of a systematic theology saturated by the living word of Scripture and the Church Fathers. We thus find abundant evidence corroborating the impression of fifteenth-century commentators as guardians of the tradition of systematic theology launched by the Lombard in the twelfth century.177 One of the most interesting developments in the Erfurt commentaries involves the practice of separating the Lombardian distinction into two very different parts—the preamble to and gloss on the original text, on the one hand, and the self-contained quaestio disputata, on the other. We see the development of this kind of hybrid or “composite” commentary structure—consisting partly in literal and partly in discursive exposition178—most clearly reflected in the commentary of John of Wesel. In terms of theological doctrine, we notice the deeply pervasive influence of the Subtle Doctor, an influence that is clear not only in the commentaries of Franciscan theologians, but also in the work of John of Wesel. On the other hand, we find very little evidence of interest in the thought of William of Ockham, in particular, or nominalism, in general. The only evidence we have unearthed, found in John of Wesel, consists of a passing reference to the methodological approach of the via moderna.179 The Erfurt Franciscans, in particular, sought to unify the thought of the great masters of the order, St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus. Whether this tendency to synthesize the insights of the leading authorities of one’s school was paralleled in fifteenth-century Augustinian Sentences commentaries remains to be seen. Lastly, I stand confident in my judgment that the fifteenth-century Sentences commentaries of Erfurt theologians constitute a valuable and fascinating contribution to the immense and long-lasting Sentences commentary tradition. This is so especially in terms of the endevor to recapture the authentic voice of the Master of the Sentences, and restore the sense of the scriptural and patristic roots of the theological enterprise. Putting aside Dobelinus’s commentary, which contains every mark of the influence of the most developed mid-fourteenth-century Sentences commentaries, such as that of Hugolino of Orvieto, the commentaries of the Erfurt Franciscan and secular theologians exhibit a strong tendency toward selectivity and consolidation in the treatment of theological doctrine. Apart from the influence of didactic concerns, this tendency can also be explained in terms 177  See Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 208. 178  See ibid., 200. 179  Our modest findings concur with Meier’s observation that the Erfurt Franciscans, in particular, showed no interest in Ockham’s philosophical theology; see Meier, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv (finis),” 464–5.

368

kitanov

of the emphasis on the letter of Peter Lombard’s work and the preference for views and positions that have survived theological controversy, or that epitomize the distinctive flavor and best insights of one’s own theological tradition. In their discussion of beatific enjoyment, in particular, the Erfurt theologians focus primarily on the manner in which the divine Trinity serves as an adequate object of love and enjoyment, and on the nature of the relationship between the human and the divine wills in the experience of enjoyment in this life and the next. It is astonishing to see that allegiance to the authority of Duns Scotus is not characteristic solely of Franciscan authors, but is also encountered in the work of secular theologians. The conviction that enjoyment is an act of the will, and that the healing and redirection of the human will constitute the main concern of theological practice, is the unifying theme of the discussions we have examined. The extent to which the divine will contributes to the realization of human salvation, without at the same time coercing the human will, continues to be a matter of deep interest, although the conclusions that our authors draw are mostly derivative and remain within the safe limits of orthodoxy. The Augustinian thesis that we ought to enjoy only the Trinity and use created things is moderated on the basis of the Lombardian distinction between perfect enjoyment in the afterlife and imperfect enjoyment in the present life. The unity of the object of the beatific vision is emphasized, even if an attempt is made to account for the logical possibility of differentiated enjoyments. Finally, the authors stress the human will’s inherent receptivity with respect to God’s infinite perfection, as well as the continuity of the blessed’s experience of the enjoyment of God.

CHAPter 7

John Major’s (Mair’s) Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard: Scholastic Philosophy and Theology in the Early Sixteenth Century Severin V. Kitanov, John T. Slotemaker, Jeffrey C. Witt* 1 Introduction A three-volume work, published not long ago, that contains a comprehensive bibliographical register of the contemporaries of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469–1536) provides no entry devoted to the Scottish scholastic theologian and philosopher John Mair, a figure of considerable renown in sixteenth-century university life. Given the fact that John Mair knew Erasmus, at least indirectly,1 was familiar with Erasmus’s writings,2 and employed the services of the Paris printer Josse Bade of Ghent (ca. 1461–1535), who, as the author of the Bade entry points out, “belonged to the chosen few among all printers with whom Erasmus maintained close personal contact over many years,” and who did more than any other printer for the circulation of Erasmus’s many writings,3 the conspicuous absence of a Mair entry from the *  We wish to thank James K. Farge for allowing us to use of his forthcoming article, “John Mair: An Historical Introduction,” in A Companion to the Theology of John Mair, ed. John T. Slotemaker and Jeffrey C. Witt (Leiden, forthcoming). We also thank Ueli Zahnd for the use of the textual and bibliographical information compiled on his website: http://jmair.zahnd.be/. 1  Erasmus lived at the Collège de Montaigu at Paris, where he befriended Mair’s compatriot Hector Boece. All three—Erasmus, Mair, and Boece—inhabited the college at the same time. Unlike Mair and Boece, who belonged to the domus pauperum community of the college, however, Erasmus was a boarder on stipend. See Augustin Renaudet, Pré-Réforme et humanisme à Paris pendant les premières guerres d’Italie (1494–1517) (Paris, 1953), 267–9. For the different types of personnel at Montaigu, see Paul J.J.M. Bakker, “The Statutes of the Collège de Montaigu: Prelude to a Future Edition,” History of Universities 22 (2007): 67–111, at 81. 2  Mair was among the theologians asked to evaluate Erasmus’s Paraphrases on Matthew; see James K. Farge, Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology, 1500–1536 (Toronto, 1980), 304–09, at 305. 3  See Geneviève Guilleminot, “Josse Bade,” in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vols. 1–3, ed. Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas B. Deutscher (Toronto/Buffalo/London, 2003), 1: 79–81, at 80.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_009

370

Kitanov et al.

register raises a justified concern regarding the comprehensiveness and historical accuracy of the work. A careful study of John Mair’s most significant theological work, the commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, will show that Mair was indeed a remarkable sixteenth-century intellectual, a systematic thinker worth mentioning as one of Erasmus’s notable contemporaries— a thinker who, regardless of his strong affiliation with the scholastic method of doing philosophy and theology, and regardless of the fact that he belonged to the camp of scholastic traditionalists and conservatives, was nevertheless very much aware of the ideals of Renaissance and humanist culture. More importantly, as our investigation will make clear, Mair was not only well-versed in the literature of his Renaissance contemporaries, but also had a masterful grasp of the immense scholastic literary heritage, especially that produced during the fourteenth century. Mair’s commentary is a testimony to the fruitfulness and vitality of fourteenth-century scholasticism. In the midst of an increasingly diverse and contentious intellectual milieu, Mair attempted to revive and maintain interest in the immense resources of fourteenth-century philosophical theology by showing its potential for a systematic engagement with theological questions and newly emerging cultural and socio-political problems. 2

John Mair’s Life

John Mair was born in Gleghornie, Scotland, in 1467.4 Gleghornie is located in East Lothian just southeast of Edinburgh. Mair attended primary school in Haddington, as it was the administrative and cultural capital of Haddington burgh. Not much is known about Mair’s life prior to his enrollment at Cambridge University in 1490, where he resided at God’s House (subsequently Christ’s Church) College. However, Mair did not linger in Cambridge for very long. In 1491 or 1492, he enrolled in the Collège Sainte-Barbe, where he received the licentiate in arts in 1494 and the master of arts in 1495.5 At Paris, Mair joined the English nation (later German nation), where, as Farge notes, the 4  This brief biographical sketch is based primarily on the works of James K. Farge, Alexander Broadie, and James H. Burns. In particular, see Farge, Biographical Register, 304–9; idem, “John Mair: An Historical Introduction”; Alexander Broadie, “John Mair,” in The Dictionary of Literary Biography, Second Series, vol. 281: British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660 (Detroit, 2003), 178–87; James H. Burns, “New Light on John Mair,” The Innes Review 5 (1954): 83–100. 5  For primary source documentation of Mair’s student days at Paris, see Farge, “John Mair: An Historical Introduction,” notes 4–7.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

371

young student could socialize with his fellow Scotsmen, “at least ten of whom (seven from [Mair’s] own diocese of Saint Andrews) arrived in Paris at the same time he did.”6 While at Paris, Mair studied philosophy and logic with some of the outstanding professors of his time—in particular, John Bolu and Thomas Briscot at Sainte-Barbe as well as Gerónimo Pardo at the Collège de Montaigu.7 Having completed his studies in the arts, Mair entered the Collège de Montaigu to study theology with the Flemish doctor John Standonck and the French divine Noël Beda (Beda was Standonck’s successor as principal of the college).8 Mair studied theology at Paris for about a decade. The statutes of the university stated that during the first six years, a student had to earn credits (credulae) in the study of the Bible and the Sentences of Peter Lombard, prior to spending the following six years lecturing on the Bible and the Sentences to incoming students.9 The curriculum was designed to last upwards of fifteen years, so that Mair completed his studies around the age of 40, receiving his doctorate on November 12, 1506. Mair’s first publications date from 1499 and 1500. His earliest works, published between 1499 and 1508, are all devoted to logic and were written during the time when Mair was a student of theology at the Collège de Montaigu. While at Montaigu, Mair taught numerous courses on logic, and he also published works on Exponibilia, Praedicabilia, Insolubilia, Termini, Sillogismi, and Obligationes, to name just a few.10 However, although his publishing record during the first decade of the sixteenth century indicates that Mair was primarily focused on logical works, he was simultaneously lecturing on the Sentences and preparing for publication the first volumes of his monumental commentary.

6  See ibid., the text preceding note 4. 7  For information on Bolu, see Farge, Biographical Register, 50–1; for Briscot and Pardo, see Thomas Sullivan, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, ad 1373–1500: A Biographical Register, vol 2: The Secular Clergy (Leiden, 2011), 113–16 and 405–06, respectively. We thank Farge for directing our attention to Sullivan’s work. 8  On Standonk, see Augustin Renaudet, “Jean Standonk, un réformateur catholique avant la réforme,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 51 (1908): 5–81. On Beda, see James K. Farge, “Noël Beda and the Defense of Tradition,” in Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Erika Rummel (Leiden, 2008), 143–64. 9   See Farge, “John Mair: An Historical Introduction,” the text preceding note 12. 10  See Mair, Exponibilia magistri Ioannis Maioris Scoti (Paris: Guy Marchant, 1499); idem, Praedicabilia (Paris: Antoine Chappiel, 1500); idem, Insolubilia (Paris: Guy Marchant, 1500); idem, Termini (Paris: Guy Marchant, 1501); idem, Sillogismi (Paris: Antoine Chappiel, 1502); and idem, Obligationes (Paris: Denis Roce, 1503).

372

Kitanov et al.

Mair published his commentary on the Sentences between 1509 and 1530. During these two decades, he taught in both the arts and the theology faculties of the universities of Paris, Glasgow, and St. Andrews. He completed his doctoral degree in 1506 and remained in Paris until 1518. In 1518 he returned to Scotland, serving as the principal regent of the University of Glasgow until 1523, when he took a position at the University of St. Andrews. Mair taught philosophy and theology there until he returned to Paris in 1526. Back in Paris, he continued to teach logic at the Collège de Sainte-Barbe, although he resided at the Collège de Montaigu.11 It is probable that while in Scotland he retained close contact with Paris, as there is evidence suggesting that he returned to Paris in 1521; furthermore, all of his publications during this period appeared in France (namely, in Caen, Lyons, and Paris). The years during which Mair published his commentary on the Sentences were some of his most productive. It is not possible here to recount all of his publications during this period, but some works warrant special mention. As will be demonstrated in what follows, John Mair was a student of fourteenth-century scholastic thought. More precisely, he examined numerous fourteenth-century Sentences commentaries. His interest in preserving and making these texts available in early printed editions led to the publication of Henry Totting of Oyta’s abbreviation of Adam Wodeham’s Ordinatio oxoniensis and John Duns Scotus’s Parisian lectures on the Sentences.12 Mair was not only responsible for initiating the publication of these volumes, he was intimately involved in the process of their editing. Mair remained in Paris until 1530 or 1531, when he returned to Scotland for good. It remains unclear why he returned to Scotland, although Farge offers some clues. It is possible that the growing Protestant Reformation induced him to seek out a more congenial atmosphere, or, perhaps, having completed the majority of his writings, he no longer needed to be close to Paris and its 11  Jules Quicherat, as Farge notes, claims that Mair continued teaching logic at the Collège de Sainte-Barbe when he returned to Paris in 1516. If this is correct, it was at Sainte-Barbe that he possibly came into contact with John Calvin, Ignatius of Loyola, Reginald Pole, and Robert Wauchope, all of whom were studying at Sainte-Barbe at the time. See Farge, “John Mair: An Historical Introduction,” the text preceding note 24. 12  See Henry Totting of Oyta, Adam Goddam super quattuor libros sententiarum, ed. J. Maior, with a vita of Wodeham (Paris: J. Barbier, 1512); Reportata super secundum Sententiarum fratris Joannis Duns Scoti, ed. J. Maior (Paris: J. Granjon, 1517); Reportata super tertium Sententiarum fratris Joannis Duns Scoti, ed. J. Mair (Paris: J. Granjon, 1517); Reportata super primum Sententiarum fratris Joannis Duns Scoti, ed. J. Maior (Paris: J. Granjon, 1518); Reportata super quartum Sententiarum fratris Joannis Duns Scoti, ed. J. Maior (Paris: J. Granjon, 1518).

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

373

many publishing houses.13 Whatever the case, soon after Mair published the final redaction of his commentary on the Sentences in 1530, he returned home to Scotland. He resumed his teaching at the University of St. Andrews and became the provost in 1533. Unfortunately, little is known about the last twenty years of his life. He published no new works during this time, and there are few records from his sojourn at St. Andrews. John Mair died on May 1, 1550. He was 83 years old. 3

The Text of Mair’s Sentences Commentary

John Mair’s commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard was published in Paris between 1509 and 1530. His commentary, which is no longer extant in manuscript form, is found in thirteen early modern editions. The lack of extant manuscripts is presumably due to the fact that some scholars during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries preferred the traditional manuscripts to early printings, which encouraged both authors and printers to destroy the original manuscripts once the work had been printed.14 Mair commented on all four books of the Sentences. He published both reprints of previous editions and complete revisions of three of the four books (there is no second redaction of Book iii). Thus, the printed tradition includes both (1) reprints that are either identical or include only minor printing or editing changes, and (2) revisions that include substantial changes to both the structure and content of the book in question. The complete list of reprints and redactions is as follows: Book i

• • •

Joannes Major in primum Sententiarum. Paris: H. Stephanus, J. Badius, J. Petit et C. Leporis, 1510. [1st redaction] Joannes Major in primum Sententiarum ex recognitione Jo. Badii. Venundatur apud eundem Badium. Paris: J. Badius, 1519. [1st redaction] Joannis Majoris Hadingtonani, scholae Parisiensis theologi, in primum magistri Sententiarum disputationes et decisiones nuper repositae, cum amplissimis

13  See Farge, “John Mair: An Historical Introduction,” the text preceding and following note 34. 14  For a useful introduction to early modern book culture and printing, see Mark Bland, A Guide to Early Printed Books and Manuscripts (Oxford, 2010).

374

Kitanov et al.

materiarum et quaestionum indicibus seu tabellis. Paris: J. Badius et J. Petit, 1530. [2nd redaction]15 Book ii

• • •

Johannes Maior in secundum Sententiarum. Paris: J. Badius et J. Petit, 1510. [1st redaction] Editio secunda Johannis Majoris in secundum librum Sententiarum, nunquam antea impressa. Paris: J. Granjon, 1519. [2nd redaction] In secundum Sententiarum disputationes theologicae Joannis Majoris Hadyngtonani denuo recognitae et repurgatae. Paris: J. Badius et J. Petit, 1528. [3rd redaction] Book iii

• •

Editio Joannis Majoris doctoris Parisiensis super tertium Sententiarum, de novo edita.16 Paris: J. Granjon et J. Petit, 1517. [1st redaction] In tertium Sententiarum disputationes theologicae Joannis Majoris Hadyngtonani denuo recognitae et repurgatae. Paris: J. Badius et J. Petit, 1528. [2nd redaction] Book iv

• • •

Quartus Sententiarum Johannis Majoris. Paris: P. Piquochet, 1509. [1st redaction] Quartus Sententiarum Johannis Majoris, ab eodem recognitus denuoque impressus. Paris: J. Petit, J. Granjon, P. le Preux, 1512. [1st redaction] Joannis Majoris doctoris theologi in quartum Sententiarum questiones utilissime suprema ipsius lucubratione enucleatae, cum duplici tabella, videlicet alphabetica materiarum decisarum in fronte, et quaestionum in calce. Paris: J. Badius, 1516. [2nd redaction] Joannis Majoris doctoris theologi in quartum Sententiarum quaestiones utilissimae suprema ipsius lucubratione enucleatae, denuo tamen recognitae et

•

15  Throughout the article, we refer to the various reprints and redactions of Mair’s Sentences commentary by an abbreviation of the original Latin title and the year of publication; for example, Mair, In i Sent. (1510). In our quotations, we have modernized the spelling and altered the punctuation of the Latin text. 16  There is no extant commentary on the third book of the Sentences that predates the 1517 edition. Thus, it is unclear why this edition is referred to as de nova edita.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

375

maioribus formulis impressae, cum duplici tabella, videlicet alphabetica materiarum decisarum in fronte, et quaestionem in calce. Paris: J. Badius, 1519. [2nd redaction] Joannis Majoris doctoris theologi in quartum Sententiarum quaestiones utilissimae, suprema ipsius lucubratione enucleatae, denuo tamen recognitae, et maioribus formulis impressae, cum duplici tabella, videlicet alphabetica materiarum decisarum in fronte, et quaestionem. Paris: J. Messier et J. Petit, 1521. [2nd redaction]

•

As this list indicates, Mair published two redactions of Book i, three redactions of Book ii, two redactions of Book iii, and two redactions of Book iv. Furthermore, during his lifetime his commentaries on Books i and ii were printed three times, those on Book iii two times, and those on Book iv five times. This is in keeping with Mair’s general remark in Book i that students of his time were more interested in Book iv than Book i. 3.1 Redactions of Book i Since Mair substantively reworked his commentary on Books i, ii, and iv between the individual redactions, it is helpful to give some account of this development. The first book consists of two redactions, printed respectively in 1510 and 1530. The first redaction, like all of Mair’s commentaries, is divided into distinctions and was reprinted in 1519. Book i of Peter Lombard’s Sentences—originally divided into distinctions by Alexander of Hales17—contains forty-eight distinctions. In the first redaction, John Mair commented on the majority of the distinctions, with the following exceptions: (1) dist. 5 and 6 are combined into a single distinction; dist. 11 and 12 are combined into a single distinction; dist. 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 32, 36, 41, 43, and 46 are omitted entirely; dist. 25–29 are combined into a single distinction. The majority of the distinctions (that is, 23) consist of one or two questions, while distinction 17 is extraordinary for containing 18 questions on the topics of charity and the intension and remission of forms. The number of distinctions that Mair omits completely, or elides and combines, is quite substantial, although this pattern does not hold in the second redaction. In the latter, Mair substantively expands on the number of distinctions treated while also recycling much of his original text. First, it is important to note that this commentary is more intentional about including a question or two for each distinction of the Sentences. Thus, the only distinctions that are 17  See Ignatius C. Brady, “The Distinctions of Lombard’s Book of Sentences and Alexander of Hales,” Franciscan Studies 25 (1965): 90–116.

376

Kitanov et al.

treated together are dist. 39 and 40, while the list of omitted distinctions is limited to dist. 32, 33, and 34. Mair achieves this breadth by often focusing on a single question for each distinction, such that in the table of questions the text states that for distinction 18, and for the following thirteen distinctions, there is a single quaestio each.18 Consequently, in the second redaction Mair is more expansive than in the 1510 edition, increasing the material of several of the discussions of Book i. It is best to consider an example of this expansion, looking briefly at the treatment of distinctions 18–35 in both the 1510 and the 1530 recensions. It is in this material, dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity, that one notices the greatest addition between the two recensions. In primum Sententiarum, 1510, dist. 18–35

In primum Sententiarum, 1530, dist. 18–35

Dist. 18: Utrum Spiritus Sanctus sit donus ab aeterno, an in tempore tantum datum (fol. 60rb–60va)

Dist. 20: Utrum personae divinae sint aequales, et an Deus effectus naturaliter conservet (fols. 83va–84va)

Dist. 19–20: Utrum personae divinae sint aequales (fol. 60va–60vb)

Dist. 21: Utrum haec “solus Pater est Deus” sit vera (fols. 60vb–61ra) Dist. 22: An Deus sit nominabilis (fol. 61ra–61rb) Dist. 23: An persona dicatur univoce de persona creata et increata (fol. 61rb–61va)

18  See Mair, In i Sent. (1530), tabula quaestionum, fol. Aviii r–v: “Distinctio xviii et xiii sequentium quaestiones singulae.” The table makes similar remarks for dist. 11–16 (“distinctio xi et quinque sequentium quaestiones singulae”) and dist. 45–47 (“distinctio xlv, xlvi et xlvii quaestiones singulae”).

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

377

In primum Sententiarum, 1510, dist. 18–35

In primum Sententiarum, 1530, dist. 18–35

Dist. 24, qu. 1: An quantitas discreta sit aliqua res quantis inhaerens (fols. 84vb–87rb); qu. 2: Utrum unum de quolibet dicatur, et an unitas sit res distincta a re una (fols. 87va–88vb)

Dist. 24: An Sancta Trinitas sit numerus (fol. 61va–61vb)

Dist. 25: Utrum personae divinae ipsis proprietatibus constituantur, et abinvicem distinguantur (fol. 89ra–89va)

Dist. 25: Utrum persona sit relativa, an absoluta (fol. 61vb)

Dist. 26: Utrum essentia divina et proprietas constituant personas in divinis (fols. 61vb–63ra) Dist. 27: An paternitas et spiratio activa distinguantur (fol. 63ra–63rb) Dist. 28: Utrum innascibilitas sit proprietas Patris in divinis (fol. 63rb–63va) Dist. 29: Utrum in divinis sit principium (fol. 63vb) Dist. 30: An relatio a fundamento et termino distinguatur (fol. 64ra–64vb) Dist. 30–31: Utrum relatio realis distinguatur a fundamento et termino (fols. 89va–92ra)

Dist. 33–34: Utrum in Deo persona vel proprietas personalis distinguatur ab essentia divina (fol. 92rb–92vb)

Dist. 30–31: Utrum Dei ad creaturas sit relatio realis (fol. 65ra–65rb) Dist. 32: Utrum Pater in divinis sit sapiens sapientia genita (fol. 65rb–65vb)

378

Kitanov et al.

As one can see, in his second redaction of Book i, Mair returns to Peter Lombard’s Trinitarian discussion in distinctions 18–35, adding considerably to the 1510/19 redaction. The Trinitarian material that Mair chooses to include in the second redaction is closely related to the Lombard’s original discussions, which Mair often states explicitly. For example, he begins dist. 21 by stating that “[p]ro distinctione xxi quaeritur de veritate huius quam tangit magister in litera: solus Pater est Deus.”19 This specific question, as Mair recognizes, is taken explicitly from the second chapter of dist. 21 of the first book of the Sentences. In this distinction, the Lombard asked whether or not one could state that “the Father alone is Father,” “the Son alone is Son,” or “the Father alone is God,” etc.20 Furthermore, while the various propositions considered by the Lombard seem to indicate that the topic of the chapter is somewhat broad, Mair justifiably reduces the discussion to the single proposition, solus Pater est Deus, because that is in fact the only one Peter Lombard really considered.21 Thus, to summarize the changes made by Mair to dist. 18–35 of Book i of his commentary, it should be said that in the second redaction Mair expands the number of distinctions treated and follows the content of the Sentences more closely. Beyond the Trinitarian discussion in dist. 18–35, in the second redaction Mair also revised significantly the prologue and the first three distinctions by expanding the number of questions asked. It is not necessary here to provide a complete list of all the questions, but the numbers themselves are telling. In primum Sententiarum, 1510, prol., dist. 1–3

In primum Sententiarum, 1530, prol., dist. 1–3

Prologue: 7 questions Dist. 1: 8 questions Dist. 2: 2 questions Dist. 3: 4 questions

Prologue: 11 questions Dist. 1: 21 questions Dist. 2: 1 question Dist. 3: 7 questions

19  Mair, In i Sent. (1530), dist. 21, fol. 60vb. 20  See Peter Lombard, Sentences, i, dist. 21, chap. 2 (1: 17527–30): “Post haec quaeritur utrum sicut dicitur: solus Pater est pater, vel solus Filius est filius, ita possit dici: solus Pater est Deus, vel solus Filius est Deus, ita et de Spiritu Sancto; aut Pater est solus Deus, Filius est solus Deus.” 21  See ibid., 175–6.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

379

The upshot of this second list is that with respect to questions of theological epistemology, the will, and human cognition, the second redaction contains a much more substantive engagement with the material. In this particular case, the expanded list of questions is only loosely related to the questions of the Lombard’s text (in other words, the questions asked are not necessarily those of the Lombard). The one exception is perhaps the discussion of the imago Trinitatis in dist. 3, qu. 6 of the second redaction, a theological topic that was completely absent from the first redaction.22 3.2 Redactions of Book ii The textual tradition of Mair’s commentary on Book ii is the most complex, given that there are three distinct redactions of this work printed respectively in 1510, 1519, and 1528. It is not necessary to narrate here every addition or omission in the three redactions, but it is instructive to present a broad overview of the textual tradition. In contrast to his commentary on Book i, in the first printing of Book ii Mair included at least one question for each of the forty-four distinctions of the Lombard’s original work. In this sense, the first redaction of Book ii is somewhat more comprehensive than the first redaction of Book i. The majority of the distinctions in the first redaction of Book ii contain one or two questions, with a few notable exceptions (dist. 2, eight questions; dist. 14, eight questions; dist. 30, six questions; dist. 42, fourteen questions; dist. 44, eight questions). The content of the individual distinctions often follows the content of the Sentences closely; for example, in distinction 10, Mair considers the question of whether or not all angels are given or sent (Utrum omnes angeli mittantur).23 Indeed, this question comes from Peter Lombard, and even in his citations from established authorities (such as the books of Daniel, Isaiah in the Old Testament, on the one hand, and Pseudo-Dionysius’s Celestial Hierarchy, on the other) Mair follows faithfully the theological content established by Peter Lombard.24 Nevertheless, he does not follow the Master slavishly in dist. 10, as is clear from the fact that he contributes to the discussion a relevant passage from Zachariah 2 that Peter Lombard had omitted.25 In other distinctions, Mair diverges quite significantly from the Lombard’s original 22  See Mair, In i Sent. (1530), dist. 3, qu. 6, fol. 33r. Note that the foliation in the top left corner of the page indicates fol. xxxi, but this is clearly a mistake. 23  Mair, In ii Sent. (1510), dist. 10, qu. un., fol. 20rb–va. 24  See Peter Lombard, Sentences, ii, dist. 10, chap. 1 (1: 377–8). 25  See Mair, In ii Sent. (1510), dist. 10, qu. un., fol. 20rb: “. . . angelus qui loquebatur in me egrediebatur et alius angelus egrediebatur in occursu[m] eius et dixit ad eum curre

380

Kitanov et al.

topic. For example, in dist. 13 (chap. 2), the Lombard investigated the nature of light mentioned in Genesis 1:3 ( fiat lux . . .). In his account of light, he had limited himself to citing the exegetical discussion found in Augustine’s commentary on Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram).26 Mair, by contrast, presents a purely Aristotelian analysis of light and optics.27 This is not entirely surprising, in that the first redaction of Mair’s commentary on Book ii resembles numerous fourteenth-century commentaries in integrating theological and philosophical material depending on the subject matter in question. The second redaction, printed by Granjon in 1519, represents Mair’s most extensive treatment of this book. In the first redaction, Mair was comprehensive in treating all of the individual distinctions, but in the second redaction he multiplied the number of questions in many of the distinctions. The first redaction, published by Badius in 1510, extends to 103 folio pages (two columns, 64 lines per column), while the second redaction is almost twice the size of the first, lengthened to about 195 folio pages (two columns, 60 lines per column). It is perhaps instructive to consider the expansion of the number of questions in the first three distinctions, as well as in dist. 14. In secundum Sententiarum, 1510, dist. 1–3, 14

In secundum Sententiarum, 1519, dist. 1–3, 14

Dist. 1: 1 question Dist. 2: 8 questions Dist. 3: 3 questions Dist. 14: 8 questions

Dist. 1: 13 questions Dist. 2: 13 questions Dist. 3: 13 questions Dist. 14: 17 questions

Thus, the 1519 redaction represents a significant expansion of the content treated in the second book of the Sentences. The topics considered are often focused on questions of natural science and cosmology; for instance, dist. 14, qu. 1 asks whether there are several heavens, and speculates on their order (an sit plures caeli, ed de ordine eorum); dist. 14, qu. 10 asks whether the moon is the lesser light (an luna sit luminare minus); and dist. 14, qu. 12 asks whether the

loquere ad puerum istum dicens absque muro habitabitur.” This passage is not cited in Peter Lombard’s treatment of angels in Book ii. 26  See Peter Lombard, Sentences, ii, dist. 13, chap. 2 (1: 389–90). 27  See Mair, In ii Sent. (1510), dist. 13, qu. un., fol. 23ra–vb.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

381

earth’s center of gravity coincides with the center of its magnitude (an centrum gravitatis terrae coincidat cum centro magnitudinis eiusdem).28 The third redaction of In secundum Sententiarum, published by Badius and Petit in 1528, is textually closer to the 1510 redaction than to the 1519 one. It contains 120 folio pages (two columns, 64 lines per column), thus being 75 folios shorter than the second redaction. The questions are often the original ones found in the 1510 redaction, with a few additions from the 1519 redaction. Thus, the text is a hybrid between the 1510 and 1519 redactions, including material from both of these commentaries. 3.3 Redactions of Book iii J. Granjon and J. Petit published John Mair’s commentary on the third book of the Sentences in 1517. The title included the phrase de novo edita, indicating that the 1517 redaction was a new edition of the work. However, the remark seems to be an editorial mistake since there is no evidence that Mair wrote an earlier recension of his commentary on Book iii. This first edition published in 1517 is a complete commentary, containing at least one question on each of the 40 distinctions of Book iii. Mair published a revised version of this work in Paris in 1528 through J. Badius and J. Petit. While the table of questions is identical for the two works, the 1517 edition concludes on folio 164, whereas the 1528 edition concludes on folio 138. However, this discrepancy in length is not due to a reduction of text: Badius and Petit (1528) simply included more material per folio, in that the 1517 edition has about 60 lines per column, while the 1528 has averages 65 lines per column. That said, the 1528 revision is a separate recension of the work, for while it preserves an identical table of questions as the 1517 edition, its content is slightly altered. Interestingly, Mair tends to support the same theological and philosophical conclusions in both the 1517 and 1528 editions, but occasionally provides different arguments for those conclusions.29 The third book of the Sentences can be divided into two parts: (1) the first part of the book treats the nature of Christ and his redemptive work (dist. 1–22); (2) the second part considers the theological virtues (dist. 23–32), the cardinal virtues (dist. 33), the gifts of the Spirit understood as virtues, the relation of the virtues to charity (dist. 34–36), and the Decalogue (dist. 37–40). 28  Mair, In ii Sent. (1519), dist. 14, qu. 1, fols. 71va–72va; qu. 10, fols. 82rb–83va; and qu. 12, fols. 84va–85ra. Note that for folio 85 the text has 87, but it is clearly a misprint that is corrected in the following foliation. 29  We are grateful to Richard Cross for bringing this point to our attention. Our initial transcription of the table of questions suggested that the two works were identical, such that the 1528 edition was simply a reprint of the 1517 edition.

382

Kitanov et al.

Mair’s commentary follows these basic divisions. In the first 22 distinctions, he considers the nature of Christ and Christ’s redemption of fallen humanity. These distinctions closely follow the theological content discussed by Peter Lombard himself. For example, in dist. 10 the Lombard considers whether or not Christ is an adoptive son according to His humanity or in some other way (An Christus sit adoptivus filius secundum quod homo vel aliquo modo).30 Mair rephrases the question slightly, but only to focus it on the Lombard’s original topic (An Christus secundum quod homo sit filius adoptivus Dei).31 Throughout the first 22 distinctions, then, Mair retains the basic content and structure of the Lombard’s work. But, starting with dist. 23, he begins to expand on the basic framework of the Sentences. This is evidenced by the fact that in the 1528 edition, the first 22 distinctions extend through folios 1 to 38, while the remaining 18 distinctions stretch from folios 38 to 138. The largest additions occur in dist. 33 and 37: the former, treating the four cardinal virtues, contains 33 distinct questions and occupies about 25 folios; the latter, on the nature of the law, contains 37 questions and occupies about 28 folios. Interestingly, the general theme of these two distinctions—that is, the four cardinal virtues and the law—follows Peter Lombard’s general theme, although Mair elaborates a great deal upon the theological and philosophical purview of the topic at hand. In some sense, Mair’s casuistic approach to ethical questions emerges already in these discussions. For example, in dist. 37, qu. 31 and 33, he considers whether simple fornication ( fornicatio simplex) and adultery are great sins.32 In his treatment of the law, Peter Lombard maintained a broader approach and did not consider in detail the nature of individual sins. Thus, Mair’s commentary on Book iii is a valuable source of information when considering his methodological approach to ethical questions. 3.4 Redactions of Book iv Mair wrote two commentaries on Book iv: the first redaction was published in 1509 and reprinted in 1512; the second redaction was published in 1516 and reprinted in 1519 and 1521. In the first redaction, Mair covers all 50 distinctions of the Sentences. This first redaction is already a sizeable work that amounts to over 200 folio pages. The majority of the distinctions are treated with a few questions, the notable exceptions being dist. 15 and 49, which consist of 34 and 18 questions respectively.33 Similarly to the comprehensive distinctions found 30  Peter Lombard, Sentences, iii, dist. 10, chap. 2 (2: 74–6). 31  Mair, In iii Sent. (1528), dist. 10, qu. un., fol. 18r–v. 32  See Mair, In iii Sent. (1528), dist. 37, qu. 31, fols. 119r–120r, and qu. 33, fols. 121v–122v. 33  See Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 15, fols. 70r–111v, and dist. 49, fols. 207v–223v.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

383

in Mair’s commentary on Book iii, these distinctions demonstrate Mair’s casuistic approach to moral questions and positive valuation of an exceptionally concrete and practical theology.34 Mair’s second redaction of Book iv is even bulkier than the first: in Bade’s 1519 edition, the text itself, not including the table of questions, is almost double the size of that of the first redaction. Much of the expansion takes place in dist. 15, which in the second redaction balloons up to 50 questions and by itself occupies 86 folios.35 This massive expansion of dist. 15 is also remarkable because dist. 15, explicitly concerned with the possibility of making satisfaction to God for one’s sins, became the standard place for debates about the restitution of unjustly acquired goods. In effect, the distinction was the locus classicus for discussions about the nature of property rights, a topic that was increasingly in vogue in the sixteenth century. Thus Mair clearly recognized and responded to this new trend.36 A similar expansion occurs in several other distinctions; for example, dist. 24 expands from 6 questions in the first redaction to 22 in the second; dist. 38 expands from 6 to 25 questions; dist. 49 increases from 18 to 27 questions.37 These four distinctions—that is, 15, 24, 38, and 49—occupy approximately 183 folios, or about 47% of the commentary. Both redactions of Mair’s commentary on Book iv should be considered major works. In both, Mair treats all of the original Lombardian distinctions. In the second redaction, however, he includes four significantly lengthened distinctions that function as small, almost independent, treatises on questions of ecclesiology, personal morality, and social ethics. As already noted, Mair realized that the students were much more interested in the practical questions of Book iv than in the speculative questions of Book i. Mair’s two substantial commentaries on Book iv show that he took his students’ interests seriously. 34  This is evident, for example, in Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 15, qu. 24, fols. 103v–104v. In question 24, Mair considers whether it is usury (a case of excessive interest) for a seller of wheat to withhold his crop and not sell during a particular time of the year, knowing that he can charge a higher price at a later date. Nor is this an isolated consideration. Mair goes on in questions 25–28 to identify other scenarios and to debate whether these are also instances of usury. 35  See Mair, In iv Sent. (1519), dist. 15, fols. 83v–169r. 36  See Annabel S. Brett, Liberty, Right and Nature: Individual Rights in Later Scholastic Thought (Cambridge, 1997), 23 n. 45. See also Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrance, Francisco de Vitoria, Political Writings (Cambridge, 1991), 240 n. 14: “Lombard’s treatment of restitutio (Sent. iv.15) was the standard occasion for theologians’ discussions of dominium. . . .” 37  See Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 24, fols. 130v–145r; dist. 38, fols. 165v–180r; and dist. 49, fols. 207v–223v; Mair, In iv Sent. (1519), dist. 24, fols. 209r–245r; dist. 38, fols. 290r–321v; and dist. 49, fols. 357v–387v.

384 4

Kitanov et al.

Mair’s Sources

Before examining the diversity and breadth of Mair’s sources, we need to note that a survey of Book i (1510/1519) shows that there are two distinct ways in which Mair cites and uses his sources. The first way is intra-textual: that is, the name of a given author is referred to and appears within the body of the text itself. The second way is through a marginal reference. Most often, where there is a marginal reference the name of the author is not present intra-textually. Instead, we find an anonymous reference to quidam doctor or alius doctor in the body of the text. Such anonymous references were not an uncommon scholastic practice;38 in fact, they were the standard way of addressing one’s contemporaries. However, as we shall see, Mair tends to view even those who wrote nearly 200 or more years prior as contemporary dialogue partners! In sum, we suggest that these differences in citation are not accidental but represent two distinct ways in which Mair views, appropriates, and converses with the intellectual tradition he inherits. The names and references interspersed intra-textually typically provide authoritative support for a given argument, whether or not that argument is ultimately accepted or rejected. This methodology is characteristically scholastic and the authorities we see are fairly standard: the names of Aristotle, Augustine, and Averroës pepper the text. Less often, but still in the same manner, we observe the use of other authorities such as Euclid, Boethius, and Anselm. However, despite their frequent appearance within the text of the commentary, these names rarely, if ever, appear in the margins. Thus, the names of Avicenna, Averroës, and Galen show up only once in the margins. Generally speaking, marginal citations seem to function differently than intra-textual ones. Here the position of the cited authority is simply being acknowledged, rather than being used as the final court of appeal. The truth of the author’s position still requires evaluation. A few examples will make this clear.

38  In discussing the commentaries of the second quarter of the fourteenth century, Katherine Tachau notes how the bachelors’ disputations on the Sentences were increasingly incorporated into their formal lectures on the Sentences. These disputational traces are replete with references to the opposing opinions of anonymously cited authors. Tachau’s example of Holcot’s Sex articuli suffices to illustrate the similar use of sources visible in Mair. See Katherine Tachau, “Introduction,” in Seeing the Future Clearly, ed. Paul Streveler and Katherine Tachau (Toronto, 1995), 1–56, at 6: “Hic incipiunt sex articuli de diversis materiis prius tactis, contra quos quidam socii rationabiliter insteterunt” (emphasis ours).

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

385

One instructive example appears on the first pages of Mair’s prologue. As is customary to the way he begins all of his distinctions, Mair explicitly refers to Peter Lombard as the reason for approaching the subject matter now under consideration. After explaining the division of questions, he begins with question 1—how is it possible for the pilgrim (viator) to acquire faith?— and defines some terms, the first of which is viator. Mair explains that viator is defined by someone (a quodam) as “one who does not have the intuitive knowledge of the Deity which is possible for him from the ordained power of God.” In the left margin the name “Ockham” appears. Shortly thereafter, however, Mair alerts us to the provisional, rather than authoritative, status of this definition. He writes: “But this description is suspect,” and employs Augustine as an authority to identify some of the problems with this definition. Then another possible definition is presented, again attributed to “some other doctor” (quidam alius doctor). The margin identifies this doctor as “Peter d’Ailly.” Once more, Mair questions this definition, before finally offering his own.39 A similar situation can be observed in the same place, immediately after the explication of the term viator. The text presents three opinions regarding the manner in which faith is generated. The text simply says “some posit” (aliqui ponunt), but the margin lists Holcot, Ockham, and Gregory without clarifying which opinion belongs to whom, or whether all three are associated with one position, or whether each definition articulates a distinct position.40 Mair then goes on to evaluate these definitions and ultimately appears to agree with what he thinks Ockham (and perhaps Rimini) says. Nevertheless, at the outset of the discussion, these opinions of Ockham and Rimini carry no authoritative weight. They are treated as opinions that require further examination. Although these examples show what Mair thinks about the status of the authorities identified in the margins of the text, there is no pattern determining where these citations appear within a given question. Sometimes they are used to open a question, but they can also be used to address sub-questions and corollary positions.41 What the examples do reflect is the general attitude that Mair adopts with respect to authorities marked anonymously within the text of the commentary and identified in the margins. It is likely that Mair made the marginal citations himself, or that he was at least heavily involved in their placement. It is, after all, not an easy matter to 39  Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., fol. 1ra–b. 40  It seems most likely that Holcot is supposed to be identified with the second, and Rimini and Ockham are to be identified with the third, leaving the first opinion unattributed; see Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., fol. 1rb. 41  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 17, qu. 5, fols. 54vb–57rb.

386

Kitanov et al.

read an anonymous position in the text and then identify the actual source of the position; it would take a separate editor a considerable amount of work first to understand the position being expressed, and subsequently to identify the authority behind the position. It seems much more likely that Mair himself entered these marginal citations, either at the time of writing, or during the typesetting process.42 The extra effort required for marginal citations is likewise suggested by the fact that Mair (or the scrupulous editor) appears to have abandoned this kind of arduous work after the first redaction of the first book. For, the 1530 redaction of Book i contains no marginal notations whatsoever. Likewise, the 1510, 1519, and 1528 printings of Book ii contain no marginal notations, and the same is true for Book iii (1517 and 1528). And while the 1509 edition of Book iv does contain marginal notations, they are all organizational in type—such as prima conclusio, secunda conclusio, etc.43 (The 1516, 1519, and 1521 printings of Book iv contain no marginal notations of any kind.) However, this change in marginal citations does not necessarily reflect a change in Mair’s use of sources. In each of the texts without marginal notes, the anonymous intra-textual references to non-authoritative positions can still be found. For example, in Book ii Mair opens dist. 3, qu. 3 by listing the opinion of quidam doctor . . . tenens partem affirmativam44 and then follows this by referring to ante eum quidam alius.45 In Book i, the reference to one doctor and then another ante eum was commonly used to indicate the respective opinions of Gregory of Rimini and Adam Wodeham.46 But there one was helped by the marginal identifications. One can surmise here in Book ii that if Mair does not identify these anonymous references for the editor, then this leaves an editor inclined to identify these sources with a tremendous amount of work. Unsurprisingly, therefore, we do 42  See also note 44 below for another example of how these references made their way into the margins. 43  See Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 3, qu. 1; somewhat out of step with his normal pattern of marginal citations in Book iv, the margin notes the opinion of Jerome ( fol. 18rb). This is a solitary reference to an author amid several marginal notes about the organizational structure of the text. 44  Mair, In ii Sent. (1510), dist. 3, qu. 3, fol. 12ra. One can actually see some development of how these citations move to the margins when one compares the prologues of Book iv from 1509 and 1512. On fol. 7ra of the 1509 text, Scotus is referenced intra-textually. On fol. 6vb in the 1512 text, the same sentence appears, except that Scotus’s name has been replaced with quidam, his name having been moved to the margin. 45  Mair, In ii Sent. (1510), dist. 3, qu. 3, fol. 12ra. 46  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 17, qu. 9, fol. 66ra: “Ad hoc argumentum respondet quidam doctor in hac distinctione et ante eum quidam alius dicens. . . .”

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

387

not see the fruit of this extra effort in subsequent editions. The 1512 printing of Book iv adds one final exception. This text, while not a new redaction of the 1509 text, has been newly typeset. In this version, the organizational notes (prima conclusio, etc.) present in the margins of the 1509 text are preserved. But added to these, there are new citations of the names of authors referred or alluded to within the text, similar to the authorial citations found in the 1510/1519 printings of Book i.47 The undocumented anonymous sources in Books ii–iv make it difficult for us to fully appreciate Mair’s full range of sources. Only a modern critical edition that attempts to identify every reference will ultimately allow us to provide a complete and exhaustive list. However, the documentation of sources in Book i allows us to use that book as a case study for the kinds of sources on which Mair relies, marginally or intra-textually, and for their frequency and proportion to one another. A survey of the marginal citations reveals that they are mostly concerned with fourteenth-century authors. Most frequently cited is Gregory of Rimini, who appears 41 times in the margins (19% of all marginal citations); he is mentioned at least 10 more times by name within the text. Ockham is present 21 times in the margins (10%) and at least four more times within the text. Peter d’Ailly appears 17 times in the margins (8%) and at least three more times within the text. Adam Wodeham appears in the margins 14 times (6%), but also nine more times within the text. Scotus also makes frequent appearances, showing up 11 times in the margins (5%) and in at least 7 places within the text. Likewise, Mair refers to Scotus’s followers—the Scotistae—once in the margins. John Buridan appears 10 times in the margins (5%) and at least two more times in the text. But alongside these fourteenth-century authors, Thomas Aquinas and William of Auxerre are cited with nearly the same frequency as Wodeham and Scotus. Aquinas is cited 10 times in the margins (5%) while his school—the Thomisticae—is present three times in the margins. Aquinas’s name appears at least 7 more times in the text as well. William of Auxerre appears 11 times in the margins (5%) and at least nine more times within the text. These dominating figures, however, in no way exhaust the list of Mair’s sources. Also appearing within the margins, but with lesser frequency, are 47  Compare the prologue of In iv Sent. (1509) with the prologue of In iv Sent. (1512). In the latter, one will find marginal citations of Baptista Mantuanus (fol. 2rb), Petrarch (fol. 2rb), Nicholas of Lyra (fol. 4ra), Lorenzo Valla (fol. 4ra), Alexander of Hales (fol. 4va), John Gerson (fol. 5rb), and Martinus Magistris (fol. 5va). Because the 1512 text is difficult to obtain, our comparison has been limited to the prologue. This comparison, however, sufficiently demonstrates the addition of marginal citations of authors to the original text.

388

Kitanov et al.

Richard Kilvington (9 times, 4%), Robert Holcot (8, 4%), Andrew of Novo Castro (6, 3%), Durand of Saint-Pourçain (6, 3%), Lorenzo Valla (5, 2%), Albert of Saxony (4, 2%), Walter Burley (4, 2%), Marsilius of Inghen (4, 2%), St. Bonaventure (4, 2%), Alexander of Hales (3 times, 1%), Alphonsus Vargas Toletanus (2, 1%), Martinus Magistris (2, 1%), Monachus Niger (2, 1%), and Roger Rosetus (2, 1%). Making a single appearance in the margin are the names of Albert the Great, Averroës, Avicenna, Henry of Ghent, Hibernicus (that is, Richard FitzRalph), John Capreolus, Monachus Cisterciensis, Nicholas of Lyra, Peter Auriol (who also appears at least four more times within the text), Praepositinus, Thomas Bradwardine, and Thomas of Strasbourg. These names exhaust the marginal citations and anonymous intra-textual citations. Mair’s intra-textual citations reveal an even wider array of dialogue partners, some of whom he treats as authorities while others function as nonauthoritative opinions. Besides the uses of Aristotle, Augustine, and biblical authors, which are too numerous to count, Mair’s sources include the following names: Ambrose of Milan (at least 3 appearances), Anaxagoras (3), Anselm of Canterbury (16), Bernard of Clairvaux (2), Bernard de Sylvestro (1), Boethius (2), Bokinkam [Thomas Buckingham?] (1), Democritus (2), Dionysius (1), Euclid (5), Eustratius (1), Gilbert of Poitiers (3), Giles of Rome (2), Godfrey of Fontaines (2), Gregory the Great (9), Hermes Trismegistus (2), Hugh of Saint-Victor (3), John Cassian (2), John of Damascus (5), John Gerson (4), John of Ripa (1), Origen (2), Plato (5), Plutarch (1), Pythagoras (1), Roger Bacon (1), Sallust of Carthage (1), Rabbi Salomon (1), Seneca (1), Simplicius (2), Themistius (2), Theophrastus (1), Virgil (2), and Zeno (1). While the above surveys include many authorities who are common to many scholastic writers, what is remarkable about Mair’s text is the multiplicity and diversity of fourteenth-century citations. The very fact that Mair cites such a diverse array of fourteenth-century authors suggests that he viewed fourteenth-century thought as a high point of intellectual productivity: a period that one must take into account if one is to address adequately the pressing issues of the day, and to demonstrate intellectual competence and versatility. 5

Philosophical Theology in Mair’s Sentences Commentary

As an illustration of Mair’s overall approach to theology in his Sentences commentary and his use of scholastic sources, we offer an account of two separate theological discussions—the discussion of theology’s purpose or final cause, and the discussion of beatific enjoyment. In each discussion, Mair demonstrates his ability to converse with scholastic theologians (esp. fourteenth-

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

389

century sources), and to develop unique and thoughtful positions of his own within the broader conversation. 5.1 Theology as a Practical Science 48 Mair’s commentary is replete with familiar speculative questions about God, creation, humanity, and happiness, but it is also notable for the ways in which these questions are intertwined with extremely detailed practical questions.49 For example, in Book iv, he not only asks about the nature of usury, but proposes highly specific scenarios and inquires as to whether or not such scenarios represent licit situations.50 In dist. 38, qu. 1 of the same book he discusses the minutiae and routines of the religious life; “whether a person is obligated to every vow, and whether he can be released from a vow,”51 “whether a religious can own property,”52 or “whether a Carthusian in extreme need is able to eat meat.”53 Nor are these kinds of concerns confined only to Book iv. In Book iii, dist. 23, qu. 2—amidst many speculative questions regarding the nature of faith—he asks “whether confession of faith counts as an act of faith and fulfills the command to believe.”54 And in dist. 25, he asks about how much belief is needed for eternal life; must all the contents of faith be believed explicitly, or is it permissible for the faithful to believe some tenets implicitly?55 Seen within the context of pastoral duties and the pressing questions of caring for human souls, few questions strike us as more down to earth and practical in nature. The prevalence of both highly speculative and everyday concerns raises the question of how these very different focal points can be unified. Fortunately, Mair, like most scholastics before him, asks this same question in the prologue to his commentary on Book i. More precisely, he asks “whether theology is 48  For accounts of Mair’s understanding of theology as a scientific discipline, see Thomas F. Torrance, The Hermeneutics of John Calvin (Edinburgh, 1988), 34–49; idem, “1469–1969: La philosophie et la théologie de Jean Mair ou Major de Haddington,” Archives de Philosophie 33 (1970): 261–93, at 262–82. 49  Mair’s sensitivity to the moral problems faced by ordinary human beings in ordinary human circumstances was to some extent a watershed moment in the development of Western casuistry. See, for instance, James F. Keenan, “The Casuistry of John Mair, Nominalist Professor of Paris,” in The Context of Casuistry, ed. James F. Keenan and Thomas A. Shannon (Washington, d.c., 1995), 85–102, at 93. 50  See Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 15, qu. 24, fol. 103vb–qu. 28, fol. 106vb. 51  Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 38, qu. 1, fol. 164vb. 52  Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 38, qu. 2, fol. 168ra. 53  Mair, In iv Sent. (1509), dist. 38, qu. 5, fol. 178vb. 54  Mair, In iii Sent. (1528), dist. 23, qu. 12, fol. 47ra 55  See Mair, In iii Sent. (1528), dist. 25, qu. 1, fol. 48vb.

390

Kitanov et al.

practical or speculative.” It is here that he gives attention to how the varied interests present in his commentary can be unified. At issue in this introductory question is: what is the point of theology? What is the goal of the entire intellectual undertaking? What are these speculative and practical considerations attempting to accomplish? And how does theology distinguish itself from other intellectual enterprises? Within the context of these questions, Mair faces the following objection: “If the love of God were a practice, then metaphysics would be a practical science because metaphysics considers God under the aspect (ratio) of goodness and, as a consequence, under the aspect of lovability.”56 Mair responds that metaphysics does indeed teach us that God is the highest thing worthy of love. However, metaphysics does not tell us “how or in what way God ought to be loved.”57 The unique task of theology lies precisely in what metaphysics does not and cannot accomplish. This sentiment is reminiscent of Augustine’s eloquent critique of the philosophers who see the ultimate end from far off, but do not know the way to it.58 The primary goal of the theology of the wayfarer, therefore, is in showing us how we ought to love that which metaphysics on its own is capable of showing us is the highest good and most lovable thing. But how does theology instruct us in this way, and what kinds of operations does it prescribe? Mair’s answer involves some clarifications deeply indebted to his reading of fourteenth-century authors—clarifications of the meaning of the terms “practice,” “speculation,” “practical knowledge,” and “speculative knowledge.” Among four possible definitions of a practice (praxis or operatio)—a list attributed to Eustratius which Ockham and Gregory of Rimini had reviewed nearly two hundred years prior59—Mair singles out the third definition as the 56  Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 15ra: “Si dilectio Dei esset praxis, metaphysica esset practica, nam metaphysica considerat de Deo rationem bonitatis, et per consequens diligibilitatis.” 57  Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 15ra: “Ad primum, nego consequentiam, quamvis enim metaphysica consideret Deum esse summum et perfectum bonum, ex quo sequitur dato quod sit maxime diligibile, nusquam tamen docet nec dirigit qualiter aut quomodo Deus est diligendus.” 58  See Augustine, Confessions, trans. R.S. Pine-Coffin (London, 1961), x.21, p. 156: “It is one thing to descry the land of peace from a wooded hilltop and, unable to find the way to it, struggle on through trackless wastes where traitors and runaways, captained by their prince, who is lion and serpent in one, lie in wait to attack. It is another thing to follow the high road to the land of peace, the way that is defended by the care of the heavenly Commander.” 59  Eustratius, In Eth. Nichom. i, 1, ed. H. Paul F. Mercken (Leiden, 1973), 12; see also William of Ockham, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (Ordinatio), ed. Gedeon Gál, Opera

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

391

meaning of practice that he has in mind: a practice, then, is any act that is within our power.60 By this he means a voluntary act which proceeds from a dictate of reason, but not necessarily according to right reason. The added condition of an operation voluntarily chosen in accordance with right reason is part of the fourth and strictest definition of practice.61 Mair, however, believing himself to be following the common opinion, insists that this is too strict because even malicious actions, when done voluntarily or guided by erroneous reason, should be counted as practices by definition.62 This definition can be fine-tuned even further. Every act of the will, Mair points out, is a practice in the sense of, first, an elicited act of the will (actus elicitus) and, subsequently, an act commanded by the will (actus imperatus).63 Thus, the commanded act of the will translates into an act executed by another power. Among scholastic thinkers, there is some debate about whether or not an intellectual act can be considered a practice. Scotus, for one, insists that speculation, which is an act of the intellect, is a practice only in a loose sense (extendendo nomen). In this loose sense, the intellect is said to “extend” itself to the activity of speculation. Strictly speaking, however, no intellectual act is a practice, and it is this strict sense of “extension” which is meant when we say

theologica 1 (St. Bonaventure, n.y., 1967), prol., qu. 10, p. 287; Gregory of Rimini, Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum, vol. 1, ed. A.D. Trapp and Venicio Marcolino (Berlin/New York, 1981), liber i, prol., qu. 5, art. 1, p. 154. 60  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 14rb: “Tertio capitur pro operatione quae est in potestate operantis. Ista acceptio est illa de qua communiter auctores loquuntur.” Mair shows his preference for this definition in his first proposition: “prima est: omnis actus voluntatis est praxis patet, quia est actus existens in potestate operantis, ergo est praxis; per eius diffinitionem, primo actus elicitus, postea actus imperatus ab eo.” 61  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 14rb: “Quarto modo accipitur pro omni operatione conformiter elicita dictamine rectae rationis.” 62  Scotus was read by later readers as holding that this fourth and strictest definition was the most proper definition of a practice. (See, for instance, Gregory of Rimini, Lectura, vol. 1, liber i, prol., qu. 5, art. 1, p. 152.) Scotus’s view is understandable, since a practice guided by reason requires practical knowledge, and yet it hardly makes sense to call something knowledge if it leads us to make bad decisions. For Scotus’s influential definition of a practice, see Ordinatio, vol. 1, ed. C. Balić (Vatican City, 1954), liber i, prol., pars 5, qu. 1–2, no. 228, p. 155. It is the third and last condition in this definition that Rimini understood to commit Scotus to the fourth and strictest definition of a practice. 63  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 14rb: “Ex his sequuntur aliquae propositiones. Prima est omnis actus voluntatis est praxis patet, quia est actus existens in potestate operantis, ergo est praxis, per eius diffinitionem, primo actus elicitus, postea actus imperatus ab eo.”

392

Kitanov et al.

that practical knowledge “extends” to some kind of action.64 Mair, however, joins the scholastics who disagree with Scotus and believe that, while the intellect cannot “extend” itself immediately, it can do so through the mediation of the command of the will. Thus, if the intellect dictates that something is worthy of speculation, then the will commands the intellect to speculate, and the intellect does so.65 This is the basic understanding of a practice that we ought to have in mind when Mair declares that theology is a practical discipline. His emphasis on the fact that theology shows us how and in what way God should be loved suggests that theology might govern many different practices, all of which, in different circumstances and situations, are instances of correct love. Put another way, Mair’s focus is not merely on the fact that the will should love God (which is an elicited act of the will, or an act which has the will as its sole efficient cause), but on the question of what that love should look like, or what its proper expression should be. Thus, theology has a lot to say about those acts that are commanded by the will but executed by other powers. Yet theology traditionally contains many propositions that are not immediately directive of a concrete action. What is more, Mair’s commentary on the Sentences contains many questions and answers that never formally direct concrete behavior. The question, therefore, is how these more speculative propositions (for example, “God is three and one”) are to be included within a theological system. The possibility that an act of the intellect—an act such as faith66—can be classified as a practice creates an interesting problem for the place of 64  See Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, vol. 1, liber i, prol., pars 5, qu. 1–2, no. 232, p. 157: “Respondeo: licet speculatio sit quaedam operatio et ita praxis, extendendo nomen, tamen ut praxis dicitur sola operatio ad quam intellectus potest extendi, nulla intellectio est praxis; et hoc modo accipitur praxis quando ad praxim dicitur cognitio practica extendi.” 65  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 15rb: “Intellectus extensive fit practicus, non infert quod nullus actus intellectus sit practicus, nam licet intellectus non extendatur immediate ad suam operationem, tamen extenditur mediante imperio voluntatis, nam cum dictat intellectus speculandum esse, voluntas imperat intellectui ut speculetur.” For other fourteenth-century precedents, see Petrus Aureoli, Scriptum super primum Sententiarum, vol. 1, ed. Eligius M. Buytaert (St. Bonaventure, n.y., 1952), prooem., sect. 3, art. 2, no. 58, p. 235; William of Ockham, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum, prol., qu. 10, p. 281; and Gregory of Rimini, Lectura, vol. 1, liber i, prol., qu. 5, art. 1, p. 151. 66  It is important to note that the assent of faith under discussion here is an intellectual act and can therefore be seen as distinct from the commanded act of faith, that is, the certitude or unhesitancy of the assent, which inheres in the will. See R. Neil Wood, “John Mair: the Human Dimension of Faith,” The Innes Review 48 (1997): 125–43, at 136. See also

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

393

speculative or non-directing practices. If assent can be a kind of practice, then it is possible that the assent to a given proposition, such as “God is three and one,” can be a kind of end in and of itself, a kind of intellectual practice that the instructing propositions of theology aim to direct.67 On the other hand, it is possible that theoretical or speculative propositions carry within them consequences for praxis. Thus, that “God is three and one” may have important ramifications for how someone worships, prays, or generally addresses himself to God.68 Mair does not rule out the former, but is clearly focused on the latter: the practical consequences of speculative propositions. Following closely a division made in the prologue of Gregory of Rimini,69 Mair states that there are two classes of speculative propositions: those that are “remotely virtually directive,” and those that are “proximate to formally directive propositions,” but nonetheless still virtually directive.70 By “proximately virtually directive,” he simply means that it only takes one further step to deduce a “formally directive” proposition. A “formally directive” proposition is one that explicitly declares what should be done. By “remotely virtually directive,” he means a proposition that carries eventual consequences for action, but requires many deductions to get there.

Alexander Broadie, In the Shadow of Scotus: Philosophy and Faith in Pre-Reformation Scotland (Edinburgh, 1995), 89–90. 67  This certainly seems like a plausible reading of Auriol’s description of theology’s practical nature. He writes that the theological habit does not properly elicit an act, but directs a separate intellectual act belonging to a separate habit, namely, belief: “Sed habitus theologicus non habet proprie actum quem elicit, immo actum quem dirigit, qui est credere . . .” (Petrus Aureoli, Scriptum, vol. 1, proem., sect. 3, art. 3, no. 84, p. 244). 68  This is an orientation clearly visible in Scotus’s description of theology as a practical habit; see Richard Cross, Duns Scotus (New York/Oxford, 1999), 9: “Scotus, however, provides a further argument to show that theology is not at all theoretical. He reasons that every item in the science of theology is, or can be, action-directing, because the more we know about theology, the more we might be disposed to love God. And Scotus proposes a distinctive description of a merely practical science that theology thus described would satisfy: ‘Every science that deals with theoretical items in no greater detail than is necessary for praxis is practical and not theoretical’. Theology on Scotus’s account will necessarily satisfy this description, since any putatively theoretical item that theology covers increases, or can increase, our disposition to love God.” 69  See Gregory of Rimini, Lectura, vol. 1, liber i, prol., qu. 5, art. 2, pp. 161–3. 70  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 14rb: “Duobus autem modis contingit notitiam esse praxis directivam, nam quaedam notitia est formaliter secundum se immediate praxis directiva, quaedam tamen virtualiter, vel continet virtualiter et de propinquo vel remote notitiam directivam praxis.”

394

Kitanov et al.

Mair holds a view of scientific habits indebted to Ockham71 and adopted by Gregory of Rimini.72 The view is basically that what we think of as an intellectual habit (scientific or otherwise) is a composite of several partial habits. Each habit is constituted by the particular conclusion drawn from a given syllogism. Thus, there are many parts to theology, some of which are purely speculative (syllogisms that result in “virtually directive” propositions), and some of which are purely practical (syllogisms that result in “formally directive” propositions). Mair affirms all of this,73 but the real question is: what unites this diverse collection of conclusions, and what is the primary purpose of this unity? According to Mair, taken together, the core (potissima pars) of theology is practical, and it is right to name something according to its chief aspect.74 He goes on to list several authorities—biblical, classical, and patristic—to support his claim that the principal aim of theology is practical, and that the purely speculative aspects of theology should be seen as contributing to this broader goal.75 This, then, is the general structure of Mair’s theological system: Theology is practical. It aims to do more than just tell us that God is the most lovable thing; metaphysics and natural reason can already do this. Instead, it attempts to tell us what metaphysics cannot accomplish. It tells us how and in what way God 71  Armand Maurer once said that Ockham “was the first, to my knowledge, to speak of a science as an arranged ensemble of written propositions. . . . In this respect, as in so many others, he was truly the initiator of the via moderna” (Maurer, “Ockham’s Conception of the Unity of Science,” Mediaeval Studies 20 (1958): 98–112, at 112). See also William of Ockham, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum, liber i, prol., qu. 12, p. 337: “Ideo aliter dico ad quaestionem quod theologia non est una notitia vel scientia, sed habet vel continet plures notitias realiter distinctas quarum aliquae sunt practicae simpliciter et aliquae speculativae.” 72  See Gregory of Rimini, Lectura, vol. 1, liber i, prol., qu. 5, art. 4, p. 180: “Prima est loquendo de theologia secundum quod est unus habitus unius tantum veritatis theologicae.” 73  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 14vb: “Secunda conclusio, extendendo terminum scientia, vel petendo de quocumque assensu, et capiendo theologiam pro simplici actu vel habitu, aliqua theologia est speculativa, et aliqua est practica. Patet quia alicuius theologiae actus non est alicuius praxis formaliter directivus alicuius vero actus est praxis formaliter directivus, igitur aliqua est speculativa et aliqua practica. Consequentia tenet ex terminis. Exemplum primi, ut Thobias habuit canem, Deus est Christus. Secundi, ut theologia huius Deus est venerandus, diligendus; proximus est diligendus propter Deum.” 74  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 14vb: “Tertia conclusio. Collective capiendo theologiam quae includit habitus speculativos et practicos, ipsa est practica. Patet, quia potissima pars theologiae est directiva praxis, sed iustum est totum a potiori parte denominari. . . .” 75  See Mair, In i Sent., 1519, prol., qu. 6, fol. 14vb, for arguments from Matthew, Romans, i Timothy, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Aristotle, and Avicenna.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

395

should be loved; or better, theology teaches us what it means to love God. In practice, this works itself out in a hierarchically ordered system of speculative propositions more or less remotely related to propositions that are formally directive of some action, an action that is a concrete extension and expression of the will’s love of God. Mair’s Sentences commentary, therefore, is a collection and defense of these hierarchically ordered propositions. The potential complication to this system is the lingering possibility that the love of God could entail a purely speculative act as a practice that is commanded by the will. This possibility would turn the present description of Mair’s theological system on its head. Given the fact that this speculative act of the intellect would be both a practice and a kind of speculation, one begins to wonder if the distinction between practice and theory can be useful at this level. This, at least, seems to be the kind of response Mair gives when he turns his attention briefly to what the love of God looks like in beatitude and writes: “the divine love of God in heaven is also an act of the contemplative life.”76 In beatitude, at least, the distinction between practical and speculative, love and contemplation, appears to lose its value, since in patria, praxis and theoria coincide.77 5.2 Beatific Enjoyment A quick glance at some fifteenth-century Sentences commentaries shows that interest in the Augustinian topic of enjoyment and use was still very much alive at the dawn of Luther’s Reformation.78 The topic also finds ample treatment in early sixteenth-century Sentences commentaries, such as Gabriel Biel’s Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum ( first edited on the basis of Wendelin Steinbach’s meticulous examination of Biel’s manuscripts printed in Tübingen in 1501, six years after Biel’s death),79 and Mair’s commentary on Book i. Given Mair’s reputation on the continent as a high-quality writer, 76  Mair, In i Sent. (1519), prol., qu. 6, fol. 15ra: “Ad aliud negatur assumptum, quia dilectio divina in patria est etiam actus vitae contemplativae.” 77  There seems to be some precedent for this position—consider Rimini’s claim that the theology of the blessed can no longer be called practical because the love of God proper to beatitude is fundamentally different from the love of God directed by the theology of the wayfarer. See Gregory of Rimini, Lectura, vol. 1, prol., qu. 5, art. 4, p. 185 and Jeffrey C. Witt, “Between Faith and Knowledge” (Ph.D. dissertation, Boston College, 2012), 208. 78  See Severin V. Kitanov, “The Concept of Beatific Enjoyment ( fruitio beatifica) in the Sentences Commentaries of Some Pre-Reformation Erfurt Theologians,” pp. 315–68 in this volume. 79  See Gabriel Biel, Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum, ed. Wilfrid Werbeck and Udo Hofmann, 5 vols. and Index (Tübingen, 1973–1992), liber i, dist. 1, qu. 1–6.

396

Kitanov et al.

teacher, and scholar,80 it can be historically instructive and rewarding to revisit Mair’s contribution to the topic of enjoyment and use, and determine the extent of Mair’s originality.81 Mair’s treatment of beatific enjoyment contains eight questions and extends roughly over ten folio pages in Bade’s 1519 edition, the first redaction of Book i. The number of questions in Bade’s 1530 printing, the second redaction of Book i, has almost tripled: twenty-one questions spanning over seventeen folio pages. We focus here on the first redaction of Mair’s treatment of enjoyment in Bade’s 1519 printing, setting aside for another study a substantial comparative analysis of the two redactions and an examination of the possible evolution of Mair’s views.82 The list of questions in Bade’s 1519 printing follows a more or less typical division of the material of the first distinction found in many fourteenth- and fifteenth-century commentaries on Book i—a division which begins with a preliminary account of the terms fruitio and usus; proceeds with an examination of a number of questions pertaining to the relation between enjoyment and use, enjoyment and cognition, enjoyment and pleasure; and ends with a discussion of the enjoyment of the Trinity and the freedom of beatific enjoyment. More precisely, Mair deals with the following questions: Qu. 1: “Whether every act of the will is an act of enjoyment or an act of use.” Qu. 2: “Whether we can love the means and the end through one and the same act.” Qu. 3: “Whether there can be many acts in the will.” Qu. 4: “Whether any act of the will is an act of cognition.” Qu. 5: “Whether one ought to enjoy only God and use only the creature.” Qu. 6: “On the cause of love (dilectio) and pleasure (delectatio), and how they relate to each other.”

80   See Alexander Broadie, “Mair, John (c. 1467–1550),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 36 (Oxford, 2004), 182–4. 81  Given Broadie’s assessment of Mair’s Sentences commentary, according to which “[w]hen Mair moves from formal logic to philosophical theology he takes his logic with him” (A History of Scottish Philosophy [Edinburgh, 2009], 53), it is worthwhile examining whether Mair applied novel logical tools in his discussion of traditional issues and questions pertaining to the topic of beatific enjoyment. 82  See Severin V. Kitanov, “John Mair on Beatific Enjoyment: New Wine in Old Wineskins?,” in A Companion to the Theology of John Mair, ed. John T. Slotemaker and Jeffrey C. Witt (Leiden, forthcoming).

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

397

Qu. 7: “Whether one can love or cognize one person without loving or cognizing another.” Qu. 8: “Whether the will is a free cause with respect to its own acts.” Almost all of these eight questions are afforded substantial treatments of one to one and a half folio pages. The longest treatment is devoted to the last question, which occupies two and a half folio pages. Mair offers familiar definitions of enjoyment and use. Broadly speaking, the term “enjoyment” applies to any attraction-based act of the appetitive faculty, for instance, pleasure or love caused by the apprehension of a pleasant thing. More strictly, however, “enjoyment” refers to the free love of the will whereby the will tends toward something for the sake of the thing and not for the sake of another. One should also distinguish, Mair explains, between loving something for its own sake both as an ultimate end and as worthy of love above all things, and loving something for its own sake without such additional determinations. Most properly understood, then, the term “enjoyment” stands for the act whereby the will loves something for its own sake both as an ultimate end and as worthy of love above all things. The term “use,” on the other hand, refers in an extended sense to what we normally do when we employ a faculty or a thing as an instrument; for instance, we use eyes in order to see, or a pen in order to write. Strictly speaking, use is an act of the will whereby the will actually or habitually tends toward something for the sake of another. Lastly, one should distinguish between orderly and disorderly enjoyment as well as between orderly and disorderly use.83 As if to reinforce the impression that his definitions of the terms “enjoyment” and “use” comply with the theological convention, Mair states that he will not take into consideration “Lorenzo Valla’s canine refutation” of the meaning of those terms.84 Mair apparently refers to the Christian Epicureanism defended by Valla’s protagonist Antonio da Rho in the third book of Valla’s De voluptate (1431), later revised and published under the title De vero falsoque bono (1433).85 As is well known, Valla 83  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 1, fol. 17va–b. 84  Ibid., fol. 17vb: “Non respiciendum est ad repugnationem caninam Laurentii Valensis de terminis his, scilicet, uti et frui, quelibet enim scientia habet suos terminos peculiares, theologi autem sic terminis utuntur.” 85  For Valla’s Christian hedonism, see Brian Vickers, “Valla’s Ambivalent Praise of Pleasure: Rhetoric in the Service of Christianity,” Viator 17 (1986): 271–319; Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought, vol. 1 (London, 1970), 103–170. For a concise account of the similarities and overlaps between Valla’s and Ockham’s discussions of enjoyment and pleasure, see Arthur Stephen McGrade, “Ockham and Valla on Enjoyment and Pleasure,” in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani:

398

Kitanov et al.

argued that the moral virtues encompassed in the Stoic category of honestas are only a means to true pleasure. This view is at odds with Mair’s characterization of the virtues as worthy of pursuit both for their own sake and for the sake of the ultimate end.86 The interesting element in Mair’s terminological synopsis is the claim that a negative volition (nolle) can also be classified as an act of enjoyment or an act of use. Hatred of sin for the sake of God, for instance, can be considered an act of use insofar as it embodies a propter aliud relation. Hatred, however, is a negative act, a nolle.87 Similarly, a negative act can be an act of enjoyment. An instance of a negative type of enjoyment is to want for God not to be evil, or to want for a father not to be the son.88 According to Mair, acts of enjoyment or use are always complex. They are complex acts of volition because they presuppose a complex judgment on the part of the intellect. There is also a third act of the will, which is neither enjoyment nor use. Mair characterizes this third act as a kind of basic inclination or propensity of the will with respect to an object. This inclination or propensity involves an intellectual act of simple apprehension of a real or apparent good. An act of enjoyment or use, by comparison, involves the additional feature of willing for a good to happen to the object, or for an evil not to befall the object.89 Mair’s remarks on the second question (“whether we can love the means and the end through one and the same act”) represent a notable application of the model of simple intellectual apprehension of a propositional complexum to volitions. According to Mair, the will is capable of simultaneously loving God as the highest good for God’s own sake, and loving a person—say, Socrates— for the sake of God. This is so, Mair says, because the human will can operate the very same way the intellect does when the intellect assents or dissents to Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, ed. Ian D. McFarlane (Binghamton, ny, 1986), 153–8. 86  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 1, fol. 17va: “Aliquid enim est diligibile propter se tantum, ut felicitas; secundo propter se et propter aliud, ut bonum delectabile et bonum honestum et virtutes; aliquid enim est diligendum propter aliud tantum, ut potio amara propter sanitatem.” 87  See ibid., concl. 1a, fol. 17vb. 88  See ibid., concl. 2a, fol. 17vb. 89  See ibid., concl. 3a, fol. 17vb. Note how in this passage Mair distinguishes between sensual and intellectual love, on the one hand, and intellectual love based on simple apprehension and intellectual love based on composition and division, on the other. The source of these divisions, which Mair does not reveal, is in fact Adam Wodeham. See Henricus Totting de Oyta, Adam goddam super quattuor libros sententiarum (Paris, 1512), liber i, dist. 1, qu. 11, art. 1, fol. 37ra.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

399

a propositional complexum without at the same time assenting or dissenting separately to the parts of the complexum—that is, the subject and predicate terms and the verbal copula.90 In the third question of the first distinction, Mair argues further that the faculty of the will can also have two different volitions simultaneously. If we are capable of experiencing the simultaneous occurrence of (a) an intuitive cognition and its corresponding affirmative or negative judgment, (b) a direct and a reflexive act, (c) a sensitive and an intellectual cognition, or (d) two distinct intuitive cognitions, it follows that nothing prevents the will from having two acts—such as enjoyment and use—simultaneously.91 One might object, however, that if the will can have two acts simultaneously, then it can also have three acts, and if three, then four, and so on ad infinitum.92 Mair points out in response that the soul’s capacity is limited, and that the faculty of the will becomes less and less capable of having multiple acts simultaneously the more acts it actually has.93 Mair’s treatment of the question of whether enjoyment is cognition is particularly intriguing. After reporting the common view (opinio communis) according to which no volition is cognition (notitia), Mair examines the position of Adam Wodeham, for whom appetitive acts such as volitions and emotions can be described as cognitions. Wodeham’s account, which has been called a “compositional cognition theory of volition,” maintains that an appetitive act, such as enjoyment or use, requires cognition (intuitive or abstractive) as a partial cause for its occurrence. The cognition then becomes part of the structure of the appetitive act in the form of an evaluation.94 Remarkably, Mair does not side with Wodeham; rather, he states that “one should not rashly abandon the accepted opinion, especially if the arguments for this [Wodeham’s]

90  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 2, fol. 18rb–va. 91  See ibid., qu. 3, fol. 19va. 92  See ibid., fol. 19vb: “Contra hanc conclusionem arguitur sic: si duo actus possunt esse in anima, quattuor et quinque et infiniti possunt. . . .” 93  See ibid., fol. 19vb: “. . . si tota capacitas activa animae repleatur in multitudinem actuum, non potest plus habere.” 94  For a detailed account, see Martin Pickavé, “Emotion and Cognition in Later Medieval Philosophy: The Case of Adam Wodeham,” in Emotion and Cognitive Life in Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy, ed. Martin Pickavé and Lisa Shapiro (Oxford, 2012), 94–115, esp. 99–112; Simo Knuuttila, Emotions in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy (Oxford, 2004), 276–9; Dominik Perler, “Emotions and Cognitions: Fourteenth-Century Discussions on the Passions of the Soul,” Vivarium 43 (2005): 250–74, at 264–70.

400

Kitanov et al.

opinion are of little weight.”95 Furthermore, Mair points out that in Book x of the De Trinitate, Augustine plainly maintains the exact opposite and “labors at length to show that we cannot love the unknown.”96 Presumably, if volitions have a cognitive character, then the familiar Augustinian thesis would be false because, in the absence of any prior or concurrent intellectual act of cognition, we will nevertheless be capable of loving something unknown. Mair thus endorses the established opinion, although he does say that it is possible to love the unknown, and even have a beatific enjoyment without seeing or cognizing God, de potentia Dei absoluta.97 After presenting and assessing multiple objections to Wodeham’s theory, Mair raises the pertinent question regarding the precise nature of the causal relationship between the intellect and the will. Mair introduces the view— mistakenly attributed in the margin of the text to Alexander of Hales but traditionally associated with Henry of Ghent—according to which cognition is a necessary, but by no means a sufficient condition, with respect to volition. In Henry’s terms, an intellectual act of cognition is a causa sine qua non of an act of the will. The total cause of volition, on Henry’s account, is the will. The intellect has no causal efficacy whatsoever with respect to volitions. Mair rejects Henry’s account in favor of Duns Scotus’s model of partial concurrent causality of the intellect and the will.98 For Scotus, the intellect and the will presuppose one another and are, so to speak, hitched together. In essence, the intellect and the will operate in tandem. According to Mair, the will cannot be the total cause of volition. If it were, then we could desire or love the unknown, which is contrary to our experience. An act of cognition is neither the effect of volition, on the one hand, nor a formal, final, material cause or a necessary 95  Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 4, fol. 20vb: “. . . non temere est abeundum ab opinione communi, praesertim cum rationes pro hac opinione modici sint momenti.” 96  Ibid., fol. 20vb: “Et expresse est beatus Augustinus in oppositum, ubi x De Trinitate laborat ad longum ostendere quod non possumus amare incognita. Sufficiebat enim dicere quod dilectio est cognitio essentialiter, et illam probare si volitionem vel nolitionem existimasset notitiam. Teneam ergo nullum actum voluntatis esse notitiam.” In the second redaction of Book i, Mair devotes an entire question to whether the will can move, or “extend itself,” toward the unknown; see Mair, In i Sent. (1530), dist. 1, qu. 12, fols. 19ra–20ra. 97  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 4, fols. 20vb–21ra. 98  For a detailed and historically sensitive account of the development of Scotus’s model of partial concurrent causality of the intellect and the will, and the relationship between Scotus’s model and that of Henry of Ghent, see Stephen Dumont, “Did Scotus Change His Mind on the Will?,” in Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts, ed. Jan A. Aertsen, Kent Emery, Jr., and Andreas Speer (Berlin/New York, 2001), 719–94.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

401

disposition with respect to volition, on the other. In other words, the efficacy of the will alone suffices to produce willing, but without a “what,” the willing would be blind.99 In actuality, an act of volition is always accompanied by an act of cognition, since, as Mair points out, cognition is a partially concurring cause of volition.100 Thus, in Alexander Broadie’s words, although considered separately through “an act of philosophical analysis,” cognitive and volitional acts are naturally inseparable because willing anything at all requires content, that is to say, something that is willed.101 Mair’s treatment of the fifth question of the first distinction (“whether one ought to enjoy only God and use only the creature”) defends conclusions that were fairly standard and widely accepted by earlier scholastics, namely, that it is not licit to enjoy a creature, that it is not licit to use God, but that it is licit to use something other than God, that is, a creature. Nevertheless, in a move reminiscent of Scotus, Mair argues that, logically speaking (de potentia logica), the 99  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 4, fol. 21ra: “Sed ponitur hec conclusio opposita: Cognitio partialiter concurrit ad actum voluntatis. Probatur: Si voluntas esset totalis causa volitionis, sequeretur quod voluntas naturaliter possit velle incognitum. Consequens est contra experientiam et contra Augustinum tertio De libero arbitrio, cap. 53 et 54, et consequens est falsum, ergo et antecedens; et probo consequentiam, quia cognitio non est effectus volitionis, nec causa formalis, finalis, nec materialis, nec necessaria dispositio illius causae, cum voluntas ex se sit sufficienter apta ad suscipiendam volitionem, et per consequens est sufficiens ad producendam volitionem.” 100  This is consonant with Mair’s doctrine that “. . . in the absence of any act by the intellect, the will does not produce any part of the assent of faith” (Broadie, A History of Scottish Philosophy, 67). See also Wood, “John Mair: the Human Dimension of Faith,” 130–1: “An assent of faith is not simply the result of an act of the intellect nor is it the result of an act of will. It is not the former because a pre-condition for a virtuous act is that the action is voluntary. It is not only the product of will because then the will could prompt one to assent to something unknown, which is absurd. The virtue of faith is achieved by the proper balancing of these two extremes. One extreme could be characterized as ‘blind faith’ because it does not have sufficient knowledge to make faith reasonable. The other extreme would be to think that faith can be the result of an act of intellect alone.” More precisely, an act of faith is the result of the intellect conceding the conclusion of a topical argument, which is a probable reason and serves as a motive, and a positive movement of the will called pia affectio (see ibid., 132–3). To appreciate the problematic character of Mair’s claim that the assent of faith depends on a probable reason and a pious affection of the will, where the difference between hesitant and unhesitant assent can be accounted for only in terms of the movement of the will, see Broadie, In the Shadow of Scotus, 90–2. 101  See Broadie, In the Shadow of Scotus, 87. Although Broadie’s point is about the assent of faith in particular, the point can be taken to apply generally to all instances where something is willed.

402

Kitanov et al.

will can enjoy any given worldly thing. As long as the intellect reveals something to the will under the aspect of the good, regardless of whether it is a real or apparent good, the will can enjoy and love that good. Since the good is the general object of the will, and since “good” and “being” are convertible terms, anything which falls within the scope of being falls consequently within the scope of the good. Therefore, the will can enjoy anything at all as long as it is conceived of as a good of some sort.102 Closer to the end of the treatment of the fifth question, Mair mentions the view of Durand of Saint-Pourçain, who maintained that the beatific vision of God, but not God as such, is the adequate object of beatific enjoyment. Durand’s view had become the target of criticism in many fourteenth-century Sentences commentaries,103 and so it is not surprising to see Mair report and criticize this view as well.104 In the sixth question of the first distinction, Mair inquires into the cause of love and pleasure, and the relation between love and pleasure. He argues that an act of love or pleasure is not immediately caused by the object. It is rather the case, he claims, that an appetitive act, such as love or pleasure, is caused simultaneously by the will itself and an accompanying cognition.105 With respect to the relation between love and pleasure, on the other hand, Mair tentatively proposes (conclusio probabilis) that every pleasure is an act of the will and, as a result, a form of love, a conclusion which Mair attributes correctly to Peter Auriol.106 On the basis of the principle of parsimony, Mair states 102  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 5, fols. 21vb–22ra. 103  For Durand’s view and its reception, see Thomas Jeschke, Deus ut tentus vel visus. Die Debatte um die Seligkeit im reflexiven Akt (ca. 1293–1320) (Leiden, 2011); Severin V. Kitanov, Beatific Enjoyment in Medieval Scholastic Debates: The Complex Legacy of Saint Augustine and Peter Lombard (Lanham, Md., 2014), 114–19; idem, “Durandus of St.-Pourçain and Peter Auriol on the Act of Beatific Enjoyment,” in Philosophical Debates at Paris in the Early Fourteenth Century, ed. Stephen F. Brown, Thomas Dewender, and Theo Kobush (Leiden, 2009), 163–78. 104  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 5, fols. 22vb–23ra. 105  See ibid., qu. 6, fol. 23ra–b. 106  See ibid., fol. 23rb: “Secunda conclusio probabilis (quam tenet Aureolus) omnis delectatio est actus voluntatis. Probatur conclusio. Quia nisi sic, aliquis posset esse beatus per fruitionem et visionem claram Dei nullo modo delectando. Hoc videtur esse inconveniens. Ergo fruitio beatifica est delectatio.” For a detailed account of Auriol’s view of the relation between love and pleasure and the reception of this view in Ockham, Chatton, and Wodeham, see Kitanov, “Displeasure in Heaven, Pleasure in Hell: Four Franciscan Masters on the Relationship between Love and Pleasure, and Hatred and Displeasure,” Traditio 58 (2003): 287–340.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

403

that it is unnecessary to talk about pleasure and displeasure as volitional passions really distinct from the acts of the will. In thus rejecting any distinction between passions and acts in the will, Mair distances himself from William of Ockham and sides with Peter Auriol.107 One wonders, in this context, why Mair was so dismissive of Lorenzo Valla’s Christian Epicureanism, given the fact that Mair endorses the thesis that beatific enjoyment and the love of God in heaven are in essence inseparable from pleasure. A Christian Epicurean like Valla would maintain that the end and motivation of the life of the Christian believer is the subjective experience of pleasure associated with the vision of God.108 Mair, on the other hand, seems to believe that the Christian believer’s end and motivation are to see and experience God as God, a vision and experience that could not in actuality be obtained without the accompanying delight. One ought to love and enjoy God for God’s sake, but in actually doing so, one is also immensely and intensely pleased insofar as the love and enjoyment already include pleasure. In essence, then, for Mair love or enjoyment is its own reward. In response to the question as to whether one can love or cognize one divine person without loving or cognizing another, Mair proposes three conclusions. The first states that one can love the Father without loving the Son. Surprisingly, the second conclusion states the exact opposite of the first, namely, that no one can love the Father unless he loves the Son. The third conclusion declares that even if it is possible to separate the worship owed to one divine person from that owed to the others, it is nevertheless illicit to worship one divine person without worshipping the others.109 How does Mair reconcile the apparent contradiction between the first two conclusions? He resorts to the following appellation rule: “Terms which stand for interior acts of the soul, whether of the intellect or of the will, cause the ensuing terms to appellate their proper rationes.” “It is on account of this [rule],” Mair says, “that Aristotle rejects the following inference: ‘I know Choriscus; Choriscus 107  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 6, fol. 23va: “Rursus, omnia possunt salvari non ponendo istas passiones realiter distinctas ab actibus voluntatis et intellectus. Sed res non sunt multiplicandae gratis; ergo incassum ponuntur passiones distinctae ab actibus voluntatis.” 108  The ultimate end, according to Valla, is the very act of loving (amatio), which is identical with pleasure, beatitude, happiness, and charity. In addition, one ought simply to love God, not love God on account of Himself. The proper interpretation of Scripture is the one which places the emphasis on love itself as an end, rather than on loving God for God’s own sake, as if love could ever be a means to a further end. See Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, vol. 1, 138. 109  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 7, fol. 24rb.

404

Kitanov et al.

is the one coming; therefore, I know the one coming.’ ”110 Since the predicate term—“the one coming”—signifies its proper concept, that is, the concept of man in general, in line with the appellation rule, the inference from “I know Choriscus” to “I know the one coming” is unwarranted since the proposition “I know the one coming” is false unless I also know who the one coming is.111 If, accordingly, we apply the same appellation rule to the proposition “I am acquainted with the Father,” we should say that the term “Father” within the predicate term “acquainted with the Father” (habeam notitiam patris) signifies its proper concept, that is, ‘Father.’ One can, therefore, legitimately say that it is possible to be acquainted with the Father without being acquainted with the Son. However, if we were to switch from a term that signifies its proper ratio to a term that does not, we could easily arrive at the opposite conclusion, namely, that no one can be familiar with the Father without being familiar with the Son. Mair exemplifies the switch from a term that signifies its proper ratio to a term that does not by means of the following immediate inference: “Sortes loves the Father; therefore, the Father he loves.” According to Mair, the term “Father” signifies its proper concept, ‘Father,’ in the premise but not in the conclusion. In the conclusion, “Father” signifies more than just ‘Father.’ It also signifies the divine essence. Thus, since the divine essence is the Son, it follows that one loves the Son.112 As pointed out earlier, the final question regarding the freedom of the will is the most extensively discussed of all eight questions. This is not unusual, given the immense interest of both scholastic and humanist authors in the philosophical and theological problems surrounding the Christian belief in the possibility of free will and moral responsibility. Mair articulates three conclusions: (1) the will is the immediate cause with respect to its own elicited acts; (2) the will can veto any given act under the conditions of the present life (in via); and (3) the will cannot be coerced.113 Mair’s defense of the first conclusion rests on a familiar claim in the medieval scholastic free-will debate, namely, that if the power of the will is capable of causing the movement of 110  See ibid., qu. 6, fol. 24rb. 111  In our explanation of Mair’s use of appellation, we rely upon Stephen Read’s account of John Buridan’s extension of appellation to intentional verbs; see Stephen Read, “Medieval Theories: Properties of Terms,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ fall2008/entries/medieval-terms/. 112  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 6, fol. 24rb–va. 113  See ibid., qu. 8, fol. 25ra: “Pono conclusiones. Prima est: voluntas est causa immediata respectu actuum elicitorum a se. Secunda conclusio: voluntas potest cessare ab omni actu suo dum est in via. Tertia conclusio: voluntas non potest cogi.”

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

405

subordinate powers by means of its own distinctive act, then the will must also be capable of causing its own act. “On the supposition that an individual walks freely toward the church,” says Mair, “then the will is not the immediate cause of the walking but causes it by means of its own act in such a way that if the volition is efficacious with respect to the present, the motive potency is sufficient, the bodily organs are intact, and there is no external impediment, then the walking ensues naturally and immediately.”114 If it is true that the will is the immediate cause of its own acts, then the second conclusion follows, namely, that the will is also capable of mastering its own acts by either eliciting an act of velle or nolle, on the one hand, or by vetoing or suspending any given act of velle or nolle, on the other.115 The will, Mair professes, is “the queen in the soul’s kingdom,” and, as if to illustrate the will’s radical indeterminacy, Mair states that the will is both capable of choosing one of two equally appealing alternatives for no reason whatsoever, or of choosing against the better judgment of the intellect.116 It is quite remarkable to see the well-known Buridan’s ass example—used by scholastics as a means of showcasing the concept of the will’s “liberty of indifference”—being deployed in this context against Mair’s defense of the radical freedom of the will. According to Mair’s imaginary opponent, numerous experiments with animals confirm the belief that indeterminacy is just as much a feature of the behavior of animals as of humans. Positioned midway between two equally appealing pieces of meat, a dog would behave differently every time. It would follow, therefore, that the freedom of the will is not, after all, a characteristic peculiar to human beings.117 Mair responds to the objection by pointing out that the behavior of 114  Ibid., fol. 25ra–b: “. . . supposito quod aliquis libere ambulet ad ecclesiam, tunc voluntas non est causa immediata illius ambulationis, sed causat eam mediante suo actu volendi, ita quod si volitio est efficax pro presenti, et sit potentia motiva sufficiens, et organa apta et nullum obviet impedimentum extrinsecum naturaliter protinus sequitur ambulatio.” 115  See ibid., fol. 25rb. 116  See ibid., fol. 25rb: “Tertio arguitur: approximatis duobus obiectis equalibus voluntas potest preacceptare unum refutando alium, immo oblatis maiori bono et minori bono potest acceptare minus, maius respuendo.” For a brief discussion of Mair’s account of the issue of choice between a greater good and a lesser good, see Broadie, A History of Scottish Philosophy, 59–60. 117  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 8, fol. 25rb: “Sed dices: hae rationes non concludunt, ut patet de innumeris experientiis brutorum. Si ponatur duo frusta carnis equalia equaliter distantia a cane, ad unum accedit et non ad aliud. Similiter, canis nunc tarde incedit nunc celeriter, nunc ex ista parte itineris nunc ex alia, irundo in eodem aere nunc ascendit nunc descendit. Et in presentia baculi cattus non accedit ad cibum, quo remoto celeriter ad illum devorandum progreditur, cum non amplius timore afficiatur. Ergo si ex

406

Kitanov et al.

animals only seems indeterminate. Different behavior outcomes in similar circumstances are due either to internal factors, such as qualitative differences in the animal’s apprehensions of the food sources, or to external factors, such as the influence of the celestial bodies (to which animals are subject more than humans on account of the corporeal nature of their souls), or the impact of the First Cause. With respect to the opponent’s canine experiment, Mair retorts that if a dog finds itself at the center of a perfectly round circumference of equally appealing bread pieces, the dog would remain motionless because having realized that it cannot go for two diametrically opposed pieces simultaneously, the dog will also realize that it has an equally good reason to go for either piece.118 Theoretically, the dog would remain motionless. In practice, however, the dog’s behavior is always influenced by internal and/or external factors and the dog moves toward one piece or another.119 If the will is essentially a free power, then although it is possible to restrict or diminish the will’s freedom, it is nevertheless absolutely impossible to eliminate the will’s deeper freedom, that is to say, freedom from coercion, unless one radically alters the nature of the will and, by implication, the nature of the soul. Freedom, Mair explains, is a property inseparable from the will. It would be a conceptual mistake to think of the “will” without at the same time thinking of “freedom.” Since the will is numerically identical with the rational soul, one can speak of the soul as being free from sin, being free from pain and suffering, or as having freedom of indifference or as having freedom with respect to opposites. One can speak of the soul as being deprived of some or all of these forms of freedom. One cannot, however, speak of the soul as being deprived of freedom from coercion. If God could deprive the soul of this kind of freedom, then God could also create an un-free soul, which, given what a rational soul is, is by definition impossible.120 experientiis probes libertatem voluntatis in hominibus rationis capacibus, debebis pari ratione ex similibus admittere in brutis.” 118  Note that Mair concurs with Aristotle that animals cannot make choices because choice requires the ability freely to accept one thing while rejecting another, an ability that animals lack. See Broadie, A History of Scottish Philosophy, 59. 119  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 8, fol. 25va: “Istae experientiae brutorum non impediunt, fortassis enim est inequalis apprehensio, et corpora coelestia plus dominii habent in brutis, quorum animae sunt pure extensae quam in hominibus, forte est impulsus primae causae ad hunc effectum et non ad illud. Si canis sit in centro panum circumferentialiter distantium, non potest simul adire duo obiecta, et equalis ratio utriusque adeundum, prima causa eum ad hunc effectum movet, vel aliquid aliud extrinsecum vel intrinsecum potius ad hoc obiectum quam ad illud.” 120  See ibid., fol. 26rb.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

407

It appears, nonetheless, that the human will can be coerced in exceptional circumstances, for example, in the circumstances of the beatific vision.121 How can the blessed in heaven still be free if they cannot suspend or veto their act of loving God? Mair notes that two alternative models have been proposed in scholastic debates concerning the freedom of the blessed. The first model, which is inspired by Anselm of Canterbury’s account of freedom in De casu diaboli, rests upon the idea that the created will does nothing of its own in loving God but receives the beatific volition directly from God. The second model is founded upon the idea of the concurrent causality of the divine will with respect to the created will. The exercise of this concurrent causality can either be understood on account of the direct influence of God’s will, or on account of God’s will influencing the created will by means of an intermediate secondary cause.122 Mair himself proposes a third model of concurrent causality. According to this model, the will of the blessed contributes only partially to the causation and continuation of the love of God. The very structure of beatific love thus involves two separate yet simultaneously operating causes—the created will and the divine will. One can, accordingly, describe the beatific act of loving God as a free act on account of the partial involvement of the will, and as a necessary act (non pure spontaneus) on account of God’s partial involvement.123 One might object to Mair’s account of the causal structure of beatific love that the same kind of causal structure also applies to the love of the wayfarer, and if the causal structure of the beatific act is the same as that of the non-beatific one, then both acts are equally free acts.124 Mair agrees that the two acts display the same causal structures insofar as both involve the partial concurrent causality of the created and divine wills. He denies, however, that God causes the two acts in the same way. Suppose, Mair says, that both Socrates and Plato want to climb the summit of Mount 121  For a recent systematic engagement with the main scholastic theories of the state of the will in heaven, see Simon Francis Gaine, Will There Be Free Will in Heaven? Freedom, Impeccability and Beatitude (London/New York, 2003). 122  See Mair, In i Sent. (1519), dist. 1, qu. 8, fol. 27ra–b. 123  See ibid., fol. 27rb: “Primum modum multi sequuntur et defendi potest sine contradictione. Duos alios posteriores possibiles puto. Beati enim tertio modo a Deo necessitantur suos actus continuare, de beatificis actibus loquor. Beatus enim suam beatitudinem voluntatis partialiter producit et continuat, et sic illa beatitudo producitur a causa libera, puta a voluntate. Sed cum non est situm in facultate beati illum actum deferere si vellet, non est pure spontaneus.” 124  See ibid., fol. 27rb: “Sed forte dices: actus voluntatis productus ab hoc viatore est simpliciter liber, actus beatificus voluntatis producitur ab eiusdem causis, scilicet, a Deo et voluntate; ergo si unus est liber, et alius liber erit.”

408

Kitanov et al.

Olympus but that neither of them can do so without God’s assistance. God is prepared to assist both Socrates and Plato. God is thus ready to assist Socrates to climb to the summit, providing that Socrates wants to do so, and if Socrates wants, which is all that is required on his part (quod in se est), then God makes it happen. In the case of Plato, however, God is also ready to prevent Plato from wanting the opposite, namely, not to climb to the summit, by removing any obstacle to Plato’s desire to climb to the summit. But Plato is also someone who is already disposed to climb to the summit of his own accord (ultro se). Plato knows that God could compel him to want to climb to the summit, but Plato wants to climb to the summit anyway. This analogy is intended by Mair to help us understand the subtle difference in the character of God’s involvement in one’s meritorious volitions in this life and in the next.125 In conclusion, what can be said in response to our initial query regarding the originality of Mair’s contribution to the impressive tradition of medieval scholastic commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences? The final answer to this question will have to await a deeper and more comprehensive examination of Mair’s entire Sentences commentary. However, our closer look at Mair’s treatments of theology as a practical discipline in the prologue and of beatific enjoyment in distinction 1 of Book i can help us draw at least some tentative conclusions. In his account of theology as a scientific discipline, Mair stresses the practical dimension of the theological endeavor by teaching the student that the ultimate objective of the study of theology is to learn how to love God. Although there are few new questions and problems in Mair’s treatments, Mair is genuinely interested in previously unexplored conceptual possibilities and argumentative pathways. This is clearly visible in Mair’s discussion of enjoyment; for example, in the claim that the will can have a negative act of enjoyment, or in the attempt to tone down the paradoxical claim that one both can and cannot love the Father without loving the Son by means of special semantic rules. Mair’s quip targeted at Lorenzo Valla’s Christian Epicureanism might be taken as evidence of his uncompromising stance with respect to the 125  See ibid., fol. 27rb: “Nego consequentiam, quia illi actus non producuntur ab eisdem causis eodem modo concausantibus, aliter enim Deus causat in productione unus actus quam alterius. Detur analogia: sint duo, Sortes, videlicet, et Plato, quorum neuter potest conscendere verticem montis Olympi sine ope Dei. Deus est paratus coagere Sorti, si ascendere velit, et facere quod in se est ad ascendendum et non aliter. Iuvat similiter Platonem conscendere, paratus tamen ubi Plato nolit conscendere removere omne prohibens et facere eum conscendere. Plato tamen est talis quod ultro se ad conscendendum disponit. Sic in proposito sit Sortes viator, Plato beatus, qui conformat suam voluntatem voluntati divinae in productione sui actus; scit tamen quod si coagere nolit ad suum actum Deus eum ad hoc necessitaret. Et sic in beato servatur aliqua ratio libertatis.”

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

409

value and authority of the scholastic tradition. One should be careful, however, to draw any hasty conclusions regarding his allegiance to schools of thought. Undeniably, the encyclopedic character of Mair’s familiarity with scholastic sources, ideas, positions, and argumentative strategies, as well as Mair’s mastery of the dialectical style of exposition typical of commentaries on the Sentences establish Mair firmly as a noteworthy representative of the scholastic tradition.126 Nonetheless, Mair’s allegiance to scholasticism should not be at all surprising, given the fact that he taught theology at the University of Paris, an institution known long after his lifetime as being the stronghold of scholasticism.127 6

Mair’s Commentary in Context

Peter Lombard’s Sentences were commented on consistently throughout the medieval period since Alexander of Hales and Richard Fishacre introduced the work into the theological curriculum of Paris and Oxford respectively.128 Throughout the centuries, several aspects of these commentaries changed. First, the structure of these commentaries developed as theologians in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries began to omit individual distinctions or to treat two or more distinctions together.129 Furthermore, beginning in the third decade of the fourteenth century, Oxford theologians started omitting the distinctions completely, instead structuring their commentaries around 126  Mair has in fact been described as a transitional figure in the history of Western thought, neither “an uncompromising Scholastic die-hard” nor a full-fledged humanist (Colin M. MacDonald, “John Major and Humanism,” Scottish Historical Review 13 [1915/16]: 149–58, at 151). 127  Recall René Descartes’s “Letter to the Sorbonne,” through which he sought the official endorsement of his undertaking in the Meditations on First Philosophy from the Parisian Faculty of Theology. See Œuvres de Descartes, ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, 12 vols., rev. ed. (Paris, 1964–1976), 7: 1–6, and The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. John Cottingham et al., 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1984), 1: 3–6. 128  For a brief introduction to Alexander of Hales’s role in introducing the Sentences into the curriculum at Paris, see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 60–70. On Alexander, see Hubert Philipp Weber, “The Glossa in iv Libros Sententiarum by Alexander of Hales,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 79–109. On Richard Fishacre, see R. James Long, “The Beginning of a Tradition: the Sentences Commentary of Richard Fishacre, op,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 1, 345–57. 129  This development is best observed in the critical editions of John Duns Scotus’s Ordinatio and William of Ockham’s Scriptum.

410

Kitanov et al.

several questions.130 Once introduced, the question-based commentaries were influential at both Oxford and Paris, although they never completely eclipsed the choice of certain commentators to follow a traditional distinction-based format. Additionally, the question-based commentary became highly structured in the second half of the fourteenth century, as is evident in the Parisian commentaries by Peter of Candia, Peter d’Ailly, and Peter Gracilis.131 It is not necessary or possible to sketch here the development of Sentences commentaries between the fourteenth and early sixteenth centuries. It is worth noting, however, that in many respects John Mair’s commentary on the Sentences is almost without peer in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. First, the structure of his commentary is somewhat unique when compared to other substantial commentaries in the second half of the fifteenth century. As discussed above, Mair’s commentary treats almost every single distinction of all four books of the Sentences. Secondly, unlike his predecessors—who accepted as normative the practice of commenting on the Lombard—John Mair was acutely aware that the practice of commenting on the Sentences was being called into question, and that a broadly scholastic mode of theological discourse was under attack. The following discussion will briefly highlight the unique character of these two aspects of Mair’s commentary on the Sentences. 6.1 The Structure and Extent of Mair’s Commentary The extant commentaries on the Sentences from the early sixteenth century are often shorter than John Mair’s massive work. Of the several examples that could be compared with Mair, the present discussion will focus on the works of Gabriel Biel and Jacques Almain. Biel’s commentary on the Sentences is an interesting point of comparison with Mair’s, given the fact that Biel’s work is one of the few commentaries published between 1400 and 1500 that are available in a modern critical edition, and that it rivals Mair’s for being 130  Two striking examples of this type of commentary are those of Robert Holcot, In quatuor libros sententiarum quaestiones (Lyons, 1518; reprinted, Frankfurt, 1967) and Roger Roseth, “Lectura super Sententias: Questions 3, 4 & 5,” ed. Olli Hallamaa (Th.D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2005), as well as Olli Hallamaa, “On the Limits of the Genre: Roger Roseth as a Reader of the Sentences,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 369–404. 131  See Stephen F. Brown, “Peter of Candia’s Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, vol. 2, 439–69; Monica B. Calma, “Pierre d’Ailly: le commentaire sur les Sentences de Pierre Lombard,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 47 (2007): 139–94; Venicio Marcolino, “Zum Abhängigkeitsverhältnis der Sentenzenkommentare der Augustinertheologen Petrus Gracilis († ca. 1393) und Iohannes von Basel († 1392),” Analecta Augustiniana 71 (2008): 493–529.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

411

a comprehensive commentary, treating all four books and the majority of the distinctions. Further, Jacques Almain’s works deserve special comment because Almain was a student of Mair’s at Paris and shared his teacher’s interest in fourteenth-century philosophical theology. Gabriel Biel (ca. 1420/25–1495), who studied at Heidelberg, Erfurt, and Cologne, was a Tübingen theologian and member of the Brethren of the Common Life. The first two books of his commentary on Peter Lombard— the Collectorium in quattuor libros Sententiarum—are essentially a comprehensive engagement with William of Ockham’s commentary on the Sentences (also dialoguing with other members of the via moderna, such as Gregory of Rimini and Peter of Ailly).132 In size and thoroughness, Biel’s commentary is indeed a worthy rival of Mair’s. Like Mair, Biel attempts to remain faithful to the number and order of distinctions. Thus, Biel’s commentary covers all 48 distinctions of Book i, all 44 distinctions of Book ii, and all 40 distinctions of Book iii. With the exception of Book iv, which treats only 22 of the 50 distinctions, Biel’s commentary is remarkably comprehensive. On the other hand, Biel’s treatment of many of the distinctions is limited to a single question, such that 104 of the original 182 distinctions, or 57%, are dealt with in a single question. Another difference is that, unlike Mair, Biel rarely has a distinction containing over 10 questions, with the exceptions of the prologue (12 questions), dist. 2 (11 questions), dist. 3 (10 questions) of Book i, and dist. 15 (17 questions) of Book iv. Mair’s commentary differs from Biel’s in some other ways as well. Perhaps most significantly, Mair is familiar with the critique of scholasticism that emerged during the second half of the fifteenth century. This topic is briefly introduced in the following sub-section, but here it is important to note that, historically, Mair attempts to address the humanist challenge to scholastic methodology. Furthermore, Mair is increasingly aware of the theological changes that were taking place in Germany, Switzerland, and France. He explicitly mentions Luther, and has a sense of the theological shifts that are taking place as a result of the Protestant Reformation. In these ways, Mair’s commentary is somewhat unique by contrast to that of Gabriel Biel and other late medieval authors. Mair lived during a period of social, intellectual, and cultural upheaval, and his commentary warrants much more comprehensive study as a way of achieving a balanced understanding of the complexity of 132  Biel’s use of sources in Books iii and iv is quite distinct, as he relies on numerous members of the via antiqua (such as Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas). See Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 166–70, and John L. Farthing, Thomas Aquinas and Gabriel Biel (Durham, n.c./London, 1988).

412

Kitanov et al.

sixteenth-century university culture, in particular, and European thought, in general. Jacques (or, also, James) Almain is another contemporary of John Mair’s who is worth some consideration. Almain (ca. 1480–1515) was a student of Mair’s, studying the arts and theology at the University of Paris during the first two decades of the sixteenth century. More precisely, Almain studied theology under John Mair between 1508 and 1512, when Almain received his licentiate in theology.133 Given his close association with Mair, his commentaries on the Sentences present an illuminating counterpart to Mair’s own work. Almain’s untimely death in 1515 means that most of his works were published posthumously;134 this is the case with two of his three commentaries on the Lombard’s Sentences. The first commentary is entitled, Dictata super sententias Holcot, which was published in the Opuscula cum additionibus David Cranston in Paris in 1512.135 This work was subsequently republished both in subsequent editions of the Opuscula, and independently in 1526.136 The work, which, as the title indicates, is a lectura secundum alium, is relatively brief, treating only four questions. The edition published in 1526 occupies only thirty folios. Almain’s second commentary on the Sentences, published in 1516, focuses on Book iii.137 The work, which is Almain’s only commentary on the Sentences that is not a lectura secundum alium, is relatively complete in treating distinctions 1–33 of Book iii. The commentary breaks off after distinction 33, and it is not clear why he did not treat the remaining seven distinctions. The edition published by Granjon in 1516 extends to 157 folios.

133   See Thomas M. Izbicki, “Jacques Almain,” in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy: Philosophy between 500 and 1500, ed. Henrik Lagerlund (Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 2011), vol. 1, 579–80. 134  Interestingly, several of the works published posthumously were edited by John Mair. See Farge, Biographical Register, 16. 135  Jacobi Almain aurea opuscula cum additionibus David Cranston (Paris: Gilles de Gourmont, 1512). 136  According to Farge, the Opuscula were printed at least two more times in the early sixteenth century; see Farge, Bibliographical Register, 17. The work was published independently as Dictata clarissimi et acutissimi doctoris Theologi Magistri Iacobi Almain Senonensis super sententias Magistri Roberti Holcot, apprime utilia (Paris: Claude Chevallon, 1526). 137  Acutissimi divinorum archanorum scrutatoris Magistri Iacobi Almain In tertium Sententiarum utilis editio, ed. N. Maillard (Paris: J. Granjon, 1516). Farge notes that this work was reprinted in 1527 and 1537, although we have not been able to confirm the existence of these two editions. See Farge, Bibliographical Register, 17.

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

413

Almain’s third commentary on the Sentences is grounded in Duns Scotus’s treatment of Book iv of the Sentences.138 This final work, like the commentary on Book iii, is a more substantial work than Almain’s initial commentary based on the theology of Robert Holcot. Unlike the commentaries by Gabriel Biel or John Mair, Jacques Almain’s three commentaries are all relatively limited in size and scope. Almain’s inte­ rest seemed to be in lecturing on the Sentences in dialogue with the great scholastic authors of the fourteenth century, Holcot and Scotus, in particular. This is not so different from Gabriel Biel, who in the first two books of the Collectorium followed closely both the structure and content of Ockham’s commentary. Thus, when compared with Biel’s and Almain’s commentaries, John Mair’s commentary appears quite exceptional. What stands out is not only the thoroughness with which Mair treats almost every distinction of all four books of the Sentences, but the balance of his engagement with fourteenth-century theological authorities. Nevertheless, despite their differences, the one thing that Biel, Almain, and Mair share in common is the profound respect for the work of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century authors. 6.2 Humanist Criticism In the short introduction that he wrote to the 1530 edition of his commentary on the first book of the Sentences, John Mair demonstrates a profound awareness of the changes that were occurring within the study of theology at the time.139 In the introduction to what would be his last published commentary on the Sentences, Mair provides a brief outline of his own engagement with the Lombard.140 First, Mair tells his reader that when he began writing on the 138  Jacques Almain, A decima quarta distinctione quaestiones Scoti profitentis, perutilis ad modum lectura (Paris: Claude Chevallon, 1526). 139  See MacDonald, “John Major and Humanism,” 149–58. Unfortunately, there has been little research into Mair’s knowledge and use of humanist methods, sources, and critiques of scholasticism. 140  See Mair, In i Sent. (1530), fol. Ai v: “Abhinc annos ferme viginti virorum optime, quaestiunculas complures in primum Magistri Sententiarum emisimus, in quibus multa quae liberales concernunt artes, de formarum intensione et similia placita pro virili discussimus nostra, multaque refellimus. Hic enim fere mos scribendi tunc theologis erat. At quamquam bonam aetatis illius partem in Aristotelica doctrina exponenda transegi, tamen (quod ingenue fateor) mos ille scribendi parum mihi placuit, cum viderem eum auditoribus meis nec gratum nec iucundum. Quando enim quartum Sententiarum profitebar, auditores ad me numerosi confluebant; dum vero in primum Sententiarum scripta conterranei mei Ioannis Duns, aut Anglicani Guilhelmi Ockam, aut Gregorii Ariminensis, praelegerem, mira erat antequam opus ipsum perlegerem, auscultatorum paucitas.

414

Kitanov et al.

Sentences two decades before, he engaged extensively with the liberal arts. His reason for this approach, he explains, is that this was the customary mode of discourse among the theologians at the time—Hic enim fere mos scribendi tunc theologis erat—an approach that was concerned primarily with interpreting Aristotle. After his work on Book i of the Sentences, Mair writes that he began lecturing on Book iv, when many listeners rushed to hear him. The students, Mair says, were not interested in the speculative discussions that dominated Book i, preferring instead the more practical issues discussed in Book iv. He also states that when he lectured on his countryman, Duns Scotus, or on William of Ockham or Gregory of Rimini, his listeners abandoned the lecture even as it began. Interestingly, Mair notes that this shift occurred around 1518, when the new “heresy” of Martin Luther threatened the Catholic faith. This shift distracted the Parisian students from studying the masters of the Sentences, and instead they turned their attention to the study of the Bible. These remarks, written around 1530, summarize briefly a radical shift that took place in theology during the first three decades of the sixteenth century. Mair’s commentary—one of the last great works of systematic scholastic philosophical theology prior to the era of “second scholasticism”—was written during exactly this period of radical transformation. During the fifteenth century, Lorenzo Valla (1406–57), Rudolph Agricola (1443–85), and numerous other humanist scholars launched a substantive critique of the scholastic method. In Mair’s lifetime, this critique was most poignantly felt at Paris through the publication of Erasmus’s Praise of Folly (Stultitae laus) in 1511 and Juan Luis Vives’s In pseudodialecticos in 1520. Mair was familiar with these works and the humanist criticism of scholastic methodology they defended. In his first redaction of the commentary on Book i, published in 1510, Mair presents a playful dialogue between David Cranston († 1512) and Gavin Douglas († 1522) on the relationship between theology and philosophy, incorporating many of the humanist critiques of the scholastic method (voiced by Douglas) into his dialogue.141 What is perhaps telling about Accessit praeterea a duodecim (si rite recordor) annis fidei catholicae nova et detestanda calamitas, Martini Luteri, et qui ab eo os ponendi in caelum temeritatis ansam acceperunt, execranda haeresis, ad quam confutandam, omnes theologiae studiosi Luteciae ad sacras sese literas, neglectis Sententiarum definitionibus, accinxerunt, ita ut nostra Academia Sorbonica obtutum mentis omnem ad materias cuilibet captu faciles fixerit, positionesque Sorbonicas ingeniosis animis dignas, in materias maiorum ordinariarum (ut vulgato more loquar) commutarint.” 141  See Mair, In i Sent. (1510). No foliation is present for the dialogue between Cranston and Douglas, but see the folio immediately preceding folio 1. For a discussion of this dialogue, see Broadie, A History of Scottish Philosophy, 54–5. For an edition of the Latin text with an

John Major ’ s ( Mair ’ s ) Commentary on the Sentences

415

this dialogue is that Mair never definitively responds to Douglas’s humanist critiques. In this respect, his commentary is a unique witness to the changing academic world of the sixteenth century: he was a man who was born two years before Desiderius Erasmus and who completed his theological education eleven years before Luther composed his 95 theses in Wittenberg; he was 44 years of age when Erasmus published In Praise of Folly and 53 when Vives published In pseudodialecticos. Mair thus appropriated the tools and vocabulary of late medieval scholasticism, but was also being gradually exposed to the impact of humanist learning. Mair’s commentary, in effect, stands witness to the disorienting context of the times, amply illustrating Mair’s status as a transitional figure in the history of Western philosophical theology: Mair is a theologian who identified very strongly with the great tradition of Latin scholasticism, realized that times were changing, but did not fully embrace or share the spirit of novelty. In the end, Mair’s commentary is a fascinating lens through which one can observe both the reception of late medieval thought in the early sixteenth century, and the struggle of a scholastically trained theologian to assimilate the ideals of humanist methodology. This fact alone warrants that much greater attention be given to Mair’s commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard than it has received so far.

English translation and a discussion of the dialogue, see Alexander Broadie, “John Mair’s Dialogus de materia theologo tractanda: Introduction, Text and Translation,” in Christian Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt, ed. Alasdair A. MacDonald, Zweder R.W.M. von Martels, and Jan R. Veenstra (Leiden, 2009), 419–30.

CHAPter 8

The Sentences in Sixteenth-Century Iberian Scholasticism Lidia Lanza and Marco Toste* Late scholasticism, sixteenth-century Iberian scholasticism in particular, are typically associated with the ascendancy of Thomism, which in turn partly resulted from the replacement of Peter Lombard’s Sentences with Aquinas’s Summa theologiae as the standard book to be read and commented on in European faculties of theology. This replacement undoubtedly represents a break with the tradition of commenting on the Sentences that began in the thirteenth century; nevertheless, it did not stop the reading of the Sentences and its commentary tradition, which lasted until the eighteenth century. The Sentences continued to be present in sixteenth-century university teaching, but in a completely different and more limited way. The systematic replacement of the Sentences with the Summa originated at the University of Salamanca in the late 1520s. From there it spread to the entire Iberian Peninsula, where, by the end of the sixteenth century, there were more than twenty universities and colleges where theology was taught. The adoption of the Summa as the basis for Jesuit teaching, established in the Ratio studiorum, helped to make the Summa as the fundamental theological work in all Catholic universities in Europe and America. Since the Summa theologiae became so prominent in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholastic thought, scholarship has paid far more attention to the process that

*  Lidia Lanza is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (SFRH/BPD/75934/2011). Marco Toste holds a fellowship granted by the Instituto de Filosofia, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, within the project Iberian Scholastic Philosophy at the Crossroads of Western Reason: The Reception of Aristotle and the Transition to Modernity (PTDC/FIL–FIL/109889/2009), and financed by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. We thank William Duba, José Meirinhos, João Rebalde, and Trine Wismann for providing important material for our research, and the librarians of the Universidade de Coimbra, Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa, Arquivo Distrital de Braga, and Biblioteca da Ajuda for their help. Unless otherwise indicated, we have checked all manuscripts first-hand, either in libraries or on microfilm.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_010

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

417

led to the replacement of the Sentences with the Summa, notably in the case of the University of Salamanca, and to the ideas developed in the commentary tradition on the Summa, than to the role of the Sentences in late scholasticism, which has been neglected. More than thirty Sentences commentaries were written in the Iberian Peninsula in the sixteenth century, of which a considerable portion is still extant only in manuscript. The bulk of these commentaries have never been studied, and for many authors we have very limited biographical data. Further, while scholars have concentrated on authors and works produced at the University of Salamanca, far less attention has been afforded to authors and intellectual contexts of other sixteenth-century Iberian universities. Stegmüller identified many commentaries in his catalog of the manuscripts containing late s­cholastic Portuguese theological and philosophical works,1 but his work has not been continued. All this makes the Sentences in Iberian scholasticism a completely uncharted territory. This chapter aims to provide an initial overview of the presence of the Sentences in late Iberian scholasticism, in the period that saw the replacement of the Sentences with the Summa as the main textbook in faculties of theology. The chapter is divided into two main sections plus an appendix. In the first section, we analyze the sixteenth-century statutes of the various Iberian universities, which will permit us to understand the role assigned to the Sentences within the teaching of theology; this analysis is intended to provide only a general picture, given the inchoate state of the research on this material and the uneven information available to us. For some of the main universities, such as Salamanca, Coimbra and Valencia, there are abundant records, while for some regional universities the material is still unedited or no longer extant. In view of the influence of Salamanca, we shall devote more attention to this university and to the way in which it influenced the others. This first section of the chapter will allow us to understand the change that occurred in the commentary tradition: commentaries on the Sentences were replaced by commentaries on commentaries on the Sentences. In the second part of our chapter, we offer a presentation of the Iberian commentary tradition on the Sentences, by presenting the works and their authors. The chapter concludes with an appendix

1  See Friedrich Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia nas Universidades de Coimbra e Évora no século xvi, trans. Alexandre Morujão (Coimbra, 1959). A considerable part of this work had been previously published, in some cases providing more information, as “Zur Literargeschichte der Philosophie und Theologie an den Universitäten Evora und Coimbra im xvi. Jahrhundert,” Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft 3 (1931): 385–438.

418

Lanza and Toste

containing the tabulae quaestionum of some commentaries, which will shed light on the differing structures of the commentaries. 1

The University Setting: Between the Sentences and the Summa

Theology and its teaching in the Iberian Peninsula during the sixteenth century are marked by two main factors: the remarkable expansion in higher ­education through the foundation of numerous universities and colleges, and the attempt, in the first half of the century, to impose Thomism at an official level in Castilian universities. The steady increase in the foundation of universities—from eight in 1475 to thirty-two in 16252—is reflected in the number of colleges and faculties, nearly thirty, in which theology was taught.3 The need for people trained for administrative offices in the two major empires of the sixteenth century, the Spanish and the Portuguese, explains this rise, although enrollment in the faculties of theology was far lower than in other faculties, such as the faculties of law. Of course, most of the Iberian universities being provincial, they were highly influenced by the major universities of the time, Salamanca, Alcalá, Valladolid, and Coimbra, which served as “imperial universities.”4 1.1 Salamanca After 1500 a growing interest in the Summa theologiae is evident, first in the German Dominican studia, where the first commentaries on the Summa

2  These numbers are taken from Luis E. Rodriguez-San Pedro Bezares, “Les universités espagnoles à l’époque moderne,” Histoire de l’éducation 78 (1998): 11–29. 3  For a table with dates, see Melquiades Andrés, “Las facultades de teología en las universidades españolas (1396–1868),” Revista Española de Teología 28 (1968): 318–58, at 321–2. A useful overview is also provided in Cándido Pozo, “Origen e historia de las facultades de teología en las universidades españolas,” in idem, Estudios sobre historia de la teología. Volumen homenaje en su 80° aniversario (Toledo, 2006), 41–58 (previously published in Archivo Teológico Granadino 28 [1965]: 5–24). 4  For an overview of the university in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Castile, which can be extended to the entire Iberia, see Richard L. Kagan, “Universities in Castile 1500–1800,” in The University in Society, vol. 2: Europe, Scotland, and the United States from the 16th to the 20th Century, ed. Lawrence Stone (London, 1975), 355–405. Although his approach is different, see also Mariano Peset Reig, “Modelos y estatutos de las universidades españolas y portuguesas (siglos xiii–xviii),” in Dall’università degli studenti all’università degli studi, ed. Andrea Romano (Messina, 1991), 65–105.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

419

appeared,5 and later in Castilian universities, where the Summa started to be used as the text through which theology was taught. Although the Dominican Diego de Deza had already imposed the Summa as the basic text in the chair devoted to teaching Aquinas’s doctrine in the College of Seville, and Francisco de Vitoria had taught according to the Summa in the Dominican college of Valladolid, it was in the University of Salamanca that the Summa first came to be taught on a regular basis, first by Vitoria in 1527 in the Prime chair and later by Domingo de Soto in 1532 in the Vespers chair. The replacement of the Sentences with the Summa was not instantaneous, however, and did not assume a definitive character from the beginning. This is attested by reconstructing the teaching years of Francisco Vitoria in the Prime chair of the faculty of theology of Salamanca: Francisco de Vitoria lectured on the Summa in the academic years 1527–29, 1531–38, and 1539–42, while he still read the Sentences in the years 1526–27, 1529–31, and 1538–39.6 The oscillation between the Summa and the Sentences can be explained by the fact that the teaching of the Sentences had a long tradition, which was officially established and could not easily be abandoned. In fact, the Sentences were so entrenched that the constitutions of the University of Salamanca enacted by Pope Martin v in 1422 determined that every student had to read the complete text of the Sentences in order to obtain the baccalaureate.7 In this way, Vitoria’s decision to lecture on the Summa collided with a papal determination. This dilemma was eventually resolved in the statutes that were issued in 1538 but written eight or nine years earlier,8 meaning that 5  For a survey of the first commentaries see Harm Goris, “Thomism in Fifteenth-Century Germany,” in Aquinas as Authority. A Collection of Studies Presented at the Second Conference of the Thomas Instituut te Utrecht, December 14–16, 2000, ed. Paul van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget (Louvain, 2002), 1–24, esp. 17–24, and the bibliography quoted there. 6  See section ii.2.1 below. 7  See “Constitutiones de Martín v para la Universidad de Salamanca,” Roma 20 de febrero de 1422, in Bulario de la Universidad de Salamanca (1219–1549), 3 vols., ed. Vicente Beltrán de Heredia (Salamanca, 1966–1967), 2: 203–04 (constitutio 30): “Nec etiam ad hujusmodi baccalariatum in theologia admittatur, nisi per quinque annos vel majorem partem cujuslibet de libris sententiarum . . . audiverit . . . Quodque etiam ad privatum examen nullus praedictorum, nisi prius post baccalariatum per quatuor annos vel majorem partem cujuslibet, in primo videlicet de biblia de veteri et novo testamentis, in secundo et tertio totum librum sententiarum, annuatim duos libros integraliter perficiendo, et in quarto anno [ed.: annis], facta responsione de quaestione tentatoria, in aliqua praedictarum cathedrarum omnes quatuor libros sententiarum perlegerit. . . .” 8  See José Barrientos García, “Francisco de Vitoria y la Facultad de Teología de la Univer­ si­dad de Salamanca,” in Aulas y saberes. vi congreso internacional de historia de las

420

Lanza and Toste

they were in effect contemporaneous with Vitoria’s first lectures on the Summa. The commission charged with the development of the new statutes, of which Vitoria was a member, maintained that the professors of the Prime and Vespers chairs should follow the order of the Sentences in their lessons; nevertheless, it opened a window: while the professor had to follow the Sentences and read the text of Peter Lombard at the beginning of each distinction, he was given the freedom to raise a question of his own choice in relation with the distinction.9 For each distinction, the professor could therefore raise questions from the Summa. This situation is mirrored in Vitoria’s commentary on the Secunda secundae of Aquinas’s Summa theologiae10 and, as we shall see, in Domingo de Soto’s printed commentary on the fourth book of the Sentences. But even though the Sentences remained formally in place as the work to be followed, this arrangement was eventually superseded by the practice of the classroom, where the Summa became the text to be read and commented on.11 In fact, the number of Salamanca commentaries on the Summa resulting from reportationes made in those years outnumbers by far the total number of commentaries on the Sentences. By the end of the 1550s, the Prime and Vespers chairs were already considered to be chairs devoted to teaching Aquinas’s thought.12 The Summa finally became the official text of the Prime and Vespers chairs of the faculty of theology in the university statutes of 1561. It is noteworthy that the statutes still formally respected the constitutions of Pope Martin v:  universidades hispánicas (Valencia, 2003), 2 vols., 1: 211–32, at 214–21; idem, “La teología, siglos xvi–xvii,” in Historia de la Universidad de Salamanca, vol. iii.1: Saberes y confluencias, ed. Luis E. Rodríguez-San Pedro Bazares (Salamanca, 2006), 203–50, at 209–11. 9  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 209. 10  At the beginning of each section of the Summa, Vitoria attempts to bring that section closer to the corresponding distinction of the Sentences. This occurs, for instance, at the beginning of the De fide section of the Secunda secundae (qu. 1–16): prior to qu. 1, Vitoria presents a prologue in which he puts forward seven conclusions taken from distinction 23 of Book iii of the Sentences. Vitoria does the same at the beginning of the De spe section (qu. 17–22), with material drawn from dist. 26 of Book iii of the Sentences; see Francisco de Vitoria, Comentarios a la Secunda secundae de Santo Tomás, Tomo i: De fide et spe (qu. 1–22), ed. Vicente Beltrán de Heredia (Salamanca, 1932), 3–4 and 268, respectively. 11  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 212. Based on the Libro de claustros (the book in which the content of the classes was recorded), Barrientos García provides evidence of complaints that the Summa was read instead of the Sentences in the Prime and Vespers chairs. 12  See the declaration by Domingo de Soto of 1559 quoted in José Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León y la Universidad de Salamanca (Madrid, 1996), 84–5.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

421

the section devoted to the teaching content of the chairs of theology begins by asserting that the book which has to be read in the Prime and Vespers chairs is the Sentences; yet, this statement is immediately followed by a list of the parts of the Summa that had to be read in each academic year.13 The same paradox is affirmed in the statutes of 1594. Significantly, more than thirty years after the establishment of the Summa as the official text of the two major chairs of theology, the statutes of 1594 still note that, according to the Constitutions of Pope Martin v, the Sentences have to be read in the faculty of theology. But, the statutes add, this has to be done by following the order of the Summa— which is the same as lecturing on the Summa—while reading at the beginning of each question the conclusions advanced in the text of the Sentences.14 The faculty of theology at Salamanca was constituted by the major chairs: Prime, Vespers, and Bible. These were compulsory—in other words, the students had to attend the classes taught by these chairs in order to graduate. In addition, there were minor chairs, named after Saint Thomas and Scotus, where the Summa and Scotus’s commentary on the Sentences respectively were read. A further chair of theology was added in 1508, the chair of Nominal Theology, which was instituted for the purpose of reading a nominalist author.15 Gregory of Rimini’s commentary on the Sentences seems to have been the

13  See Estatutos hechos por la muy insigne Universidad de Salamanca Año 1561 (Salamanca: en casa de Iuan Maria de Terranoua, 1561), titulo xii, fol. 23r. “En las Cathedras de Theologia de Prima y Visperas, se han de leer los quatro libros de las sentencias del maestro, como manda la constitucion, desta manera: que se lean las partes de sancto Thomas el pri­ mero año, desde la primera question de la primera parte, hasta la question cinquenta de Angelis. El segundo año, desde la question cinquenta de la primera parte, hasta el fin de la primera parte, y veynte y una quaestiones de la prima secundae.” The text continues to cover the successive years, until the ninth, in which the Supplementum of the Summa was to be read. In this way, the entire Summa was read, following its parts plus the Supplementum, in nine consecutive academic years. 14  See Estatutos hechos por la muy insigne Universidad de Salamanca (Salamanca: impresso por Diego Cusio, 1595), titulo xii, fol. 17v: “En la Cathedra de Prima y Visperas se han de leer los quatro libros de las sentencias, como se pide en la constitucion treinta quando se ordena que los cursos desta facultad, que son de escholastico . . . sean de los dichos libros, per cumplirse ha con esto leyendo sus materias por el orden de las partes de Santo Thomas, con que en los principios de las Questiones se lea la letra del Maestro que a ellos corresponde. Declarando sus conclusiones, e en que se tienen communmente por ciertas o inciertas, y en cada vna destas cathedras se han de leer tres años continuos de primera parte, y otros tres de Prima Secundae, y cinco de Secunda secundae, y otros cinco de la tercera parte con sus addiciones.” 15  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 206–07.

422

Lanza and Toste

work read in the first decades after the institution of the chair, which was sometimes referred to as the chair of Gregory of Rimini.16 Later, by the end of the 1520s, Gregory of Rimini’s commentary was superseded by the Sentences commentary of the Dominican Durand of Saint-Pourçain, which can be explained by the fact that the Dominicans effectively dominated the faculty of ­theology.17 The statutes of 1538 still refer to Gregory of Rimini, but it was Durand who was actually read in this chair.18 This replacement did not occur without opposition; in fact, in 1552 the council of the university proposed that Gabriel Biel and Marsilius of Inghen should be taught in that chair.19 Nonetheless, and despite the fact that the statutes of 1561 prescribed the reading of Biel or Marsilius, they opened up the possibility for Durand’s commentary to be chosen ad vota audientium.20 Later, in the statutes of 1594, the chair officially became the Durand chair, a decision that was reiterated in the statutes of 1604 and 1618.21 The decision in favor of Durand entailed the further expansion of Thomism in the teaching carried out in the faculty of theology,22 so that, unsurprisingly, in the late sixteenth century the holders of this chair began to comment on the Summa instead of Durand’s commentary.23 This was extended even to 16  See ibid., 207. 17  See Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “Accidentada y efímera aparición del nominalismo en Salamanca,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia. Colección de artículos sobre historia de la teología española, 4 vols. (Salamanca, 1971–1973), 1: 497–526 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 62 [1942]: 68–101); Barrientos García, “Francisco de Vitoria y la Facultad,” 222. 18  See the evidence provided in Beltrán de Heredia, “Accidentada y efímera,” 514 and especially in Fray Luis de León, Tratado sobre la ley, ed. José Barrientos García, trans. and rev. Emiliano Fernández Vallina (Madrid, 2005), 23–8. 19  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 216. 20  See Estatutos hechos por la muy insigne Universidad de Salamanca Año 1561, titulo xiI, fol. 23v: “En la Cathedra de Nominal, que es de dos a tres en inuerno, y de tres a quatro en verano, lea el Cathedratico vn auctor nominal, como Gabriel, o Marsilio. Y permitimos pueda leer Durando, esto ad vota audientium.” This passage is also quoted in Barrientos García, “La teología,” 222. 21  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 223. 22  Although Durand often disagreed with Aquinas, the official decision to assign a chair dedicated to the reading of Durand’s commentary was grounded on the idea that he follows Aquinas; see the Liber de Claustros 1551–1552, liber 21, fol. 130, quoted in Barrientos García, “La teología,” 216: “. . . en esta cathedrilla aya electión de poder leer a santho Thomás o a Durando, que es quasi la mesma doctrina.” It should be noted, however, that the Salamanca theologians were perfectly aware of the differences between Durand’s and Aquinas’s ideas. 23  More on this at the beginning of the next section of this paper. The replacement of Durand’s commentary with the Summa later became official. For instance, the statutes

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

423

the Scotus chair, where there was a tendency to teach Aquinas’s doctrines.24 As a consequence, Scotus started to fade away in Salamanca: first, the statutes of 1561 established that the professor had to read Scotus’s commentary on the Sentences in five academic years, although he was not obliged to f­ ollow Scotus doctrinally;25 then, in 1571 the university determined that, given the small ­number of students who attended the Scotus chair and their opposition to Scotus’s thought, the Scotus chair, although maintaining its designation, should serve to teach other subjects.26 The Sentences, then, did not disappear from Salamanca in the sixteenth century, but remained in a quite different way, that is, through medieval commentaries on the Sentences, principally the commentary of Durand. Moreover, there was a noticeable preference given to moral and sacramental issues, an aspect reflected in the statutes of 1561, which determined that the Sentences were to be read in five years, of which the last two had to be devoted to Book iv.27 This tendency continued in the statutes of 1594, which extended to twelve the number of academic years required for lecturing on the entire commentaries of Durand and Scotus in the two chairs devoted to these authors: two years for Book i, three years each for Books ii and iii, and four years for Book iv. The statutes also prescribed which distinctions of each book could not be passed

from 1662 of the University of Lleida prescribed the Summa as the text to be read in the four chairs of Scholastic Theology in the following way: the Prima pars in the Prime chair, the Prima secundae in the Vespers chair, the Secunda secundae in the Durand chair, and the Tertia pars in the chair of Saint Thomas. The reading of each part had to last four years, after which another part of the Summa was be assigned to each chair. The s­ tatutes of Lleida are quoted in Melquiades Andrés Martin, Historia de la teología en España (1470– 1570), vol. 1: Instituciones Teológicas (Rome, 1962), 69. 24  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 217. 25  See Estatutos hechos por la muy insigne Universidad de Salamanca Año 1561, titulo xii, fol. 23v: “El Cathedratico de Scoto, lea per le mesmo orden que el Cathedratico de Nominal, acabando en cinco años . . . que extensamente sea obligado a leer la lectura y doctrina de Scoto, aun que en la resolucion de la quaestion, no quede en la determinación de Scoto.” This passage is also quoted in Barrientos García, “La teología,” 224. 26  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 225–7. 27  See Estatutos hechos por la muy insigne Universidad de Salamanca Año 1561, titulo xx, fol. 23v: “El primer año ha de leer todo el Primero de las Sentencias. El segundo año todo el Segundo libro. El tercero año todo el Tercero libro. El quarto año desde la primera distinción del Quarto hasta la distinción veynte y tres De extrema unctione inclusive. El quinto año desde la distinción veynte y quatro De sacramento hasta el fin del Quarto, explicando siempre la letra del auctor.”

424

Lanza and Toste

over.28 As we shall see, the corpus of extant commentaries reflects the importance of Durand and the focus on Book iv. The emphasis on Book iv is not exclusive to Salamanca and (even less) to Iberian scholasticism. It is already noticeable in the fifteenth century, when pastoral issues, such as poverty, and questions on the sacraments and on ecclesiastical authority started to be debated more frequently.29 With the Reformation these issues became even more pressing, and Salamanca contributed to a great extent to the doctrinal attempt at arresting Protestantism. 1.2 Alcalá The replacement of the Sentences with the Summa in other Iberian universities followed the pattern of Salamanca, although the development was not the same in all cases. The University of Alcalá de Henares (Universidad Complutense), founded in 1499 by the Franciscan cardinal Cisneros, offers a different picture, as it aimed from its beginnings at providing teaching of the three different viae of medieval theology: Thomism, Scotism, and nominalism. Thus the faculty of theology of Alcalá had three major chairs, corresponding to these three ways,30 along with a chair in Sacred Scripture (since 1532).31 In 1536 the faculty instituted three further minor chairs: Saint Thomas, Scotus, and Durand. The appropriate texts for each chair were to be covered over four academic years. This situation was not immutable during the sixteenth century. Given the low level of acceptance of his doctrine among the students, the minor Scotus chair was changed into a chair of moral philosophy in 1550; the chair devoted to nominalism served partially to teach Gabriel Biel while Juan de Medina held it (1519–45), but later, in 1573, it became the chair of the Sentences themselves; finally, in the Durand chair the teaching dealt with Aquinas’s thought, rather than with Durand’s commentary on the Sentences.32 28  See ibid., título xii, fol. 18r–v. As we have seen, the fact that the statutes prescribed the years in which Scotus’s and Durand’s commentaries were to be read does not mean that they were actually read. 29  See Ulrich G. Leinsle, Introduction to Scholastic Theology, trans. Michael J. Miller (Washington, d.c., 2010), 187. 30  Note that, unlike the situation in Salamanca, these were major and not minor chairs. The three ways were therefore ranked equally in the teaching that occurred at Alcalá. 31  For Alcalá, see Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Alcalá,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, 4: 61–157 (previously published in Revista Española de Teología 5 [1945]: 145–78, 405–32, 497–527); José García Oro, “Alcalá, universidad teológica: vocación y régimen,” Archivo Ibero-Americano 70 (2010): 449–515. 32  See Beltrán de Heredia, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Alcalá,” 126.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

425

From its beginning, Alcalá placed a considerable emphasis on moral and political issues, which is reflected in the approach to the text of the Sentences. Beltrán de Heredia has drawn up a table of the teaching carried out in the different chairs of the faculty of theology of Alcalá from 1525 up to 1586.33 Unlike what occurred in Salamanca, in Alcalá the Summa did not extend to every chair. In the chairs devoted to Scotus, Durand, and nominalism, the lessons were based on the respective authors’ commentaries on the Sentences. Moreover, between 1525 and 1586, Book iii was rarely lectured on, while Book iv was often read in the chair devoted to nominalism: ten times over against seven times for Book i, the second most commented book. Furthermore, in the chairs in which the Summa was read—the major and the minor chairs of Saint Thomas and in some years in the Durand chair—the sections of the Summa studied were almost always the Prima secundae and the Secunda secundae. The emphasis on moral issues was already present in the constitutions of the University of Alcalá, dating from 1510,34 which determined that the holder of the chair of nominalism had, beyond the work of a nominalist author, to lecture on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, or Economics between Easter and October 18 of each year.35 The time reserved for teaching nominalism was thus reduced to a semester.

33  See ibid., esp. 130–2 for the list of the holders of the Scotus chair in the sixteenth century, and 134–5 for the list of the holders of the chair of Nominalism or Gabriel Biel. See also Antonio de la Torre y del Cerro, “La Universidad de Alcalá. Estado de la enseñanza, según las visitas de cátedras de 1524–1525 a 1527–1528,” in Homenaje a Menéndez Pidal. Miscelánea de estudios lingüísticos, literarios e históricos, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1925), 3: 361–78. 34  On the writing of the statutes, see Santiago Aguadé Neto, “Los secretarios humanistas del Cardenal Cisneros y la Constituciones de 1510,” in Mundos medievales: espacios, sociedades y poder. Homenaje al Profesor José Ángel García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre, 2 vols., ed. Beatriz Arízaga Bolumburu et al. (Santander, 2012), 2: 939–56. 35  See Constitutiones insignis Collegii Sancti Ildephonsi, ac per inde totius almae Complutensis Academiae, ab illustrissimo ac reverendissimo Domino Fr. Francisco Ximenio Cardinali Sanctae Balbinae & Archiepiscopo Toletano, eiusdem Collegijque Academiae fundatore, olim sancitae (Alcalá de Henares: ex officinis Ioannis de Villodas & Orduña, 1627), título 34, pp. 68–9: “Regens vero cathedram iuxta viam Nominalium legat etiam de eadem via alias duas lectiones, vnam antes meridiem & aliam post meridiem sicut dictum est, excepto quod a Pascha Resurrectionis vsque ad festum Sancti Lucae lectio vesperorum sit de moralibus ethicis, videlicet politicis, & oeconomicis Aristotelis. Ita quod tempore quatuor annorum suae regentiae possit semel legere totum textum Aristotelis praedictorum moralium.”

426

Lanza and Toste

1.3 Valladolid Far less information is available regarding one of the most important Iberian universities of the time, the University of Valladolid. Its faculty of theology grew slowly: the Vespers chair was created only in 1533,36 and the first ­reference to a Durand chair occurs in 1565.37 According to the statutes, composed sometime between 1517 and 1523, the Sentences were the formal basis for the examinations required to obtain a degree or a chair38—a rule that, as we shall see, was shared by all the Iberian universities. However, it is clear that in Valladolid, too, the Summa was gradually integrated into the teaching of the different chairs. The statutes of 1545, promulgated by the Emperor Charles v, reflect the strategy already found in the Salamanca statutes of 1538: while the Sentences are still prescribed as the standard book for each of the three chairs of the faculty (Prime, Vespers, and Durand), the latitude shown in the statutes reveals that the role of the Sentences was very limited: in the Prime chair, the professor was expected to read the text of the Sentences but then, to comment on the section just read, he was free to use an author chosen by the majority of the students (Aquinas, presumably); in the Durand chair, he had to read the Sentences “with Durand,” but according to Aquinas’s doctrine; finally, in the Vespers chair, the lectures were to be based on the Sentences or one of the parts of the Summa.39 In this way, the Summa theologiae could be read in all three chairs without any infractions of the rules. 1.4 Coimbra In the Portuguese territory, the University of Coimbra was the only institution of higher learning until the foundation of the Jesuit University of Évora in 1559. The faculty of theology at Coimbra was a small one, but grew considerably

36  See Vicente Velázquez de Figueroa, Historia de la Universidad de Valladolid transcrita del “Libro de Bezerro” que compuso el R. P. Fray Vicente Velázquez de Figueroa, complementada con notas y apéndices por D. Mariano Alcocer Martínez . . . seguida de los Estatutos en latón traducidos por D. Francisco Fernández Moreno . . . con una introducción del Excmo. Sr. D. Calixto Valverde y Valverde . . . (Valladolid, 1918), 18. 37  See ibid., 20. 38  The statutes are published ibid., i–lxxxix. See xx (titulo 17), lxxv–lxxvi (titulos 74–5). 39  See ibid., cxvii: “El Cathedratico de Prima de Theologia lea el texto del Maestro de las Sentencias y sobre el vn Doctor qual la mayor parte de los estudiantes pidiere . . . El Cathedratico de Durando leera del Maestro de las Sentencias con Durando, y ha de explanar la Doctrina de Santo Thomas. El Cathedratico de Visperas de Theologia lea del mismo Maestro de las Sentencias, o de las partes de Sancto Thomas, como mejor les pareciere.”

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

427

in the sixteenth century: from two chairs cited in the statutes promulgated by King Manuel i around 1503, to seven listed in the statutes of 1597 (major chairs: Prime, Vespers, Scripture, and Scotus—the latter instituted in 1562; minor chairs: Durand, Scripture, and Saint Thomas or Gabriel Biel).40 There is also evidence of the existence of further minor chairs devoted to Gabriel Biel (1560).41 Remarkably, and contrary to what occurred in Salamanca, the Scotus chair at Coimbra was a major chair. This can be explained by the fact that, unlike Salamanca, at Coimbra the Dominicans were just one religious order among others, such as the Augustinians, Cistercians, and Benedictines.42 From the proceedings of the meetings of the council of the University of Coimbra it is possible to reconstruct the teaching of the four major chairs for each of the academic years between 1546 and 1608.43 These records have to be approached with some reservations, however, as they are indications of what was supposed to be taught at the university in the following year; the actual practice may have been different. As we shall see, while the council might prescribe the reading of a precise part of the Sentences for one academic year, the professor could merely summarize the conclusions of the distinctions of the Sentences but comment on the Summa. In any event, an analysis of the records of Coimbra shows that the Sentences were read in the Prime chair from 1546–47 up to 1574–75—except for two years in which Durand’s Sentences commentary was read instead—and that from 1575 onward the Sentences were replaced by the Summa. More specifically, 40  See Fernando Taveira da Fonseca, “A teologia na Universidade de Coimbra,” in História da universidade em Portugal, vol. 1, part 2: 1537–1771 (Coimbra, 1997), 781–816, at 782–3. 41  See ibid.; also António Xavier Monteiro, Frei António de São Domingos e o seu pensa­ mento teológico (sobre o pecado original) (Coimbra, 1952), 32. On the statutes from 1597, see also Fernando Taveira da Fonseca, “Os Estatutos da Universidade de Coimbra de 1597: a consolidação de um paradigma educativo,” in Las Universidades Hispánicas de la monarquía de los Austrias al centralismo liberal. V Congreso internacional sobre Historia de la Universidades hispánicas, Salamanca, 1998, 2 vols., ed. Luis E. Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares (Salamanca, 2000), 1: 191–205. 42  For the numbers of members of the different religious orders at the University of Coimbra, see Fonseca, “A teologia,” 785. 43  A table is supplied ibid., 792, 794–5. Unfortunately, Fonseca indicates only the subject taught in the chair, but not who the professor (or his substitute) was in each chair. For this information, see Manuel Augusto Rodrigues, “Padres agostinhos do século xvi lentes de teologia da Universidade de Coimbra,” in idem, A Universidade de Coimbra: figuras e factos da sua história, vol. 1 (Porto, 2007), 285–381, at 329–38 (previously published in Repertorio de historia de las ciencias eclesiásticas en España, vol. 6: Siglos i–xvi [Salamanca, 1977], 441–519).

428

Lanza and Toste

Book ii was almost never read: the one exception is the academic year 1554– 55, when the work to be lectured on was Book ii of Durand’s commentary. By contrast, in the Vespers chair, the Summa was read from at least 1546–47, interrupted on only eight occasions (1551–52, 1561–63, and 1576–80) in which the Sentences were adopted as the textbook. Finally, in the Scotus chair the order of the lectures was based on topics and not on the sequence of books and distinctions in the Sentences. In the adoption of the Summa, the successive statutes of Coimbra followed the same pace as at other universities. In the statutes enacted by King Manuel i at the beginning of the sixteenth century, reading the Sentences is still required in order to obtain the degree in theology.44 Later, the statutes of 1559 prolonged the requirement of reading the Sentences in order to graduate, but opened one of the main chairs to the teaching of the Summa: the Sentences, along with one of its medieval commentaries, were to be read in the Prime chair, while the Summa was the text for the Vespers chair.45 This matches the records of the faculty mentioned in the previous paragraph. Moreover, in 1560 a chair devoted to Biel was instituted, and in 1562 one of the major chairs was turned into the Scotus chair, as a result of which the statutes of 1597 forbade the reading of the Sentences along with and according to a Sentences commentary in the Prime chair, because this could be done in one of the other chairs.46 The statutes of 1597 and later of 1653 continued to establish that the Sentences should be read in the Prime chair and the Summa in the Vespers chair.47 However, as we have seen, from 1580 onward the Sentences were no longer read in the two major chairs at Coimbra. The Sentences therefore slowly faded away, retaining a presence merely through the medieval commentaries by Scotus, Durand, and Biel. 1.5 Other Universities What has been said of the major Iberian universities can be applied to the minor ones too, mutatis mutandis. In general, by the beginning of the century the provincial universities had two chairs of theology, officially offering at least the teaching of both the Sentences and the Summa; by contrast, 44  See “Estatutos de D. Manuel i. 1503 (?),” in Os primeiros Estatutos da Universidade de Coimbra, ed. Manuel Augusto Rodrigues (Coimbra, 1991), 37: “Ho theologo leera duas liçõees e em dous livros das semtemças.” 45  See Estatutos da Universidade de Coimbra (1559), ed. Serafim Leite (Coimbra, 1963), cap. 29, p. 90. 46  See Estatutos (1597), liv. iii, tít. v, as quoted in Fonseca, “A teologia,” 788. 47  See Estatutos da Universidade de Coimbra (1653), edição fac-similada (Coimbra, 1987), liv. iii, tít. v, p. 142.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

429

the universities founded toward the end of the century exclusively adopted the Summa. By the middle of the century the universities started to institute a Durand chair and sometimes a Scotus chair. This occurred at the University of Seville, for instance, where the Durand chair was established in 1588 and the Scotus chair in 1596.48 In the second half of the sixteenth century, the Iberian faculties of theology are commonly structured according to four chairs: Prime, Vespers, Bible, and Durand. This is the case for the University of Toledo49 and the University of Osuna, which was founded in 1548 and where the Durand chair was created between 1548 and 1550.50 At Osuna, the adoption of the Summa was total: according to the statutes of 1549, the Prime chair was devoted to the reading of the Prima pars and the Prima secundae while the Vespers chair was charged with reading the remaining parts of the Summa.51 The same predominance of the Summa is found at the University of Baeza (established in 1538), which followed the pattern of the four chairs (with Durand being one of them) and the exclusivity of the Summa in the Prime and Vespers chairs;52 at the University of

48  See José Antonio Ollero Pina, “La Universidad de Sevilla en los siglos xvi y xvii,” in v Centenario. La Universidad de Sevilla: 1505–2005 (Sevilla, 2005), 135–203, at 167. 49  See Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Toledo,” in idem, Miscelánea, 4: 311–56, at 324–5 (previously published in: Revista Española de Teología 3 [1943]: 201–47). The statutes of Toledo are still unedited. Some aspects regarding the first statutes are addressed in Luis Lorente, La Real y Pontificia Universidad de Toledo. Siglos xvi–xix (Cuenca, 1999), 15–30. 50  See Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Osuna,” in idem, Miscelánea, 4: 357–86, at 379 (previously published in: La Ciencia Tomista 49 [1934]: 145–73). 51  See ibid., 360–1. For the faculty of theology of Osuna, see also María Soledad Rubio Sánchez, El Colegio-Universidad de Osuna (Sevilla), 1548–1824, 2nd ed. (Osuna, 2006), 187–99. 52  See Inmaculada Arias de Saavedra Alías, “La Universidad de Baeza en la Edad Moderna. Estado de la cuestión y síntesis de su trayectoria,” in Universidades hispánicas: colegios y conventos universitarios en la Edad Moderna (ii): Miscelánea Alfonso ix, 2009, ed. Luis E. Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares and Juan Luis Polo Rodríguez (Salamanca, 2010), 15–43, at 31–2. For the statutes from 1609, see Estatutos de la Insigne Universidad del título de la Santísima Trinidad de la ciudad de Baeza, ordenados por su claustro y comisarios nombrados por el Consejo del Rey Nuestro Señor, firmados de su real mano, recibidos y mandados publicar por el rector y claustro de ella en su teatro . . . (Jaén: por Pedro Doblas, 1784).

430

Lanza and Toste

Santiago de Compostela;53 at the University of Barcelona;54 at the University of Sigüenza;55 at the Portuguese University of Évora, which was founded by the Jesuit order in 1559 with four chairs, of which three were designated for lectures on Aquinas and one for lectures on Scripture;56 and at the University of Huesca, whose statutes of 1599 demanded five chairs (Prime, Vespers, Scripture, Durand, and Scotus), with the two major chairs exclusively devoted to lecturing on the Summa: the statutes describe in exhaustive detail precisely which questions of the Summa should be covered in each of the four years over which the complete Summa was to be read.57 These provincial universities were under the influence of Salamanca, many of their professors having received their education there. This has been noted, in particular, with regard to the Universities of Sigüenza and Lleida.58 53  See Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Santiago,” in idem, Miscelánea, 4: 191–309, esp. 195 (previously published in: La Ciencia Tomista 39 [1929]: 145–73, 289–306; 40 [1929]: 5–22; 41 [1930]: 50–63; 42 [1930]: 5–33). By 1593, the Prime and the Vespers chairs were exclusively devoted to the Summa. 54  The university statutes of 1559 instituted three chairs, one for Scripture and two devoted to the Summa; see Antonio Fernández Luzón, La Universidad de Barcelona en el siglo xvi (Barcelona, 2005), 215–16. The situation was, however, not stable in that the chairs and their number changed considerably during the sixteenth century; a chair devoted to the Sentences (at least nominally) was created during some academic years (see ibid., 222). A Durand chair and another for the Sentences were instituted by the statutes of 1588, although the Summa continued to be the fundamental work in the main chairs; this arrangement was reaffirmed in the statutes from 1596 (see ibid., 223–4). The first lectures on the Sentences given in Barcelona date from 1563 (see ibid., 226). 55  In its beginning, the faculty of theology had only one chair; a second chair was created by a papal bull in 1541, although the latter became effective only in 1543. In this chair the professor was required to lecture on the Summa for four years, so that he could cover the whole text. See Isidoro Montiel, Historia de la Universidad de Sigüenza, 2 vols. (Maracaibo, 1963), 1: 187. 56  See Amélia Maria Polónia da Silva, “Formação académica e vida quotidiana dos estudantes da Universidade de Évora nos primórdios da sua fundação: uma leitura contextual,” Revista da Faculdade de Letras do Porto 10 (1993): 137–75, at 154–6. The author bases her work on the unedited statutes of the University of Évora, which have been preserved ms. Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cxiv-2-31. The statutes were drawn up in 1567. 57  See “Statutos que el Obispo de Barbastro ha hecho y ordenado en la visita y reformación de la Universidad de Huesca con comisión de su Santidad y Magestad Año mdxcviiii,” in Estatutos de la Universidad de Huesca. Siglos xv y xvi, ed. Antonio Durán Gudiol (Huesca, 1989), chap. 12, pp. 154–8. On this university, see Antonio Durán Gudiol, “Notas para la historia de la Universidad de Huesca en el siglo xvi,” Hispania Sacra 21 (1968): 87–154. 58  In addition to the articles by Beltrán de Heredia on the Spanish faculties of theology quoted above, see Pedro Manuel Alonso Marañón, “Apuntes para el estudio de la proyec-

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

431

For our purposes, the influence of Salamanca is much more apparent for the University of Oviedo: throughout its statutes of 1607, the University of Salamanca is repeatedly mentioned as the model to be followed. Moreover, the procedure adopted in Salamanca at the beginning of Vitoria’s teaching career is here expressly prescribed: to lecture on the Summa and according to its order, while at the same time indicating the corresponding distinctions of the Sentences and the conclusions advanced by Peter Lombard.59 Oviedo also follows Salamanca in the emphasis given to moral issues: not only is there a stated intention to lecture mostly on Book iv of the Sentences as being “more suitable for clerics,”60 but the statutes also identify the content of the teaching of the Vespers chair as the section de iustitia et iure of the Summa.61 A slightly different picture emerges with the University of Valencia. Founded in 1502, this university tried to offer the three theological viae (Thomism, Scotism, and nominalism) from 1512 onward; the corresponding chairs were created in the following years: for the teaching of nominalism in 1514, of Scotus in 1515, and of Aquinas in 1516. However, in 1525 these chairs were abolished and a ción de Salamanca en el Colegio-Universidad de San Antonio de Portaceli de Sigüenza,” Revista de ciencias de la educación 192 (2002): 523–38; Ramón Gaya Massot, “Influencia de la Universidad de Salamanca en la de Lérida,” Analecta Sacra Tarraconensis 31 (1958–1959): 101–24. On the Faculty of Lleida in the sixteenth century, see Francesc Esteve i Perendreu, “La docència de la teologia a Lleida. La càtedra del bisbe Conchillos i les altres càtedres teològiques de l’Estudi General,” in El Bisbe Jaume Conchillos, l’humanisme à Catalunya, ed. Ximo Company with the collaboration of M. Esther Balasch (Lleida, 1992), 141–79, esp. 153–60. 59  See Estatutos de la Universidad de Oviedo: 1607 (Oviedo, 2007), título 4, p. 33: “Y lo que se a de leer en ella y en la de Vísperas es los quatro libros del Maestro de las Sentençias. Pero cumplirse a con esto: en leyendo sus materias, por el horden de las partes de Sancto Thomás, con que en los principios de las Questiones se lea la letra del Maestro que a ellas corresponde, declarando sus conclusiones y en qué se tiene en cada una dellas por çiertas o ynçiertas. Y en cada una de estas cátedras se a de leer tres años contínuos de primera parte y se prosigan todas las partes de Sancto Thomás por la horden de forma que se contiene en los Estatutos de Salamanca, en el título de las lecturas de Theología.” The statutes of Oviedo are also published in Historia de la Universidad de Oviedo, vol. 1, ed. Jorge Uría, Carmen García, and Aida Terrón (Oviedo, 2008), 275–306. 60  Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Oviedo,” in idem, Miscelánea, 4: 387–437, at 389 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 55 [1936]: 213–59). Beltrán de Heredia quotes the Orden que parece se debe tener en la erección y establecimiento de las cátedras de la Universidad, written by the Dominican Tomás de Sierra, who states that “Los cuales catedráticos leerán en la Universidad las materias de teología del cuarto de Sentencias que parecieren más convenientes para los clérigos.” 61  See Estatutos de la Universidad de Oviedo: 1607, título 4, p. 33.

432

Lanza and Toste

single professor, Juan Celaya (Joan Salaya), had to teach two daily classes, one on the Sentences and other on Aquinas. From 1530, the situation changed once again, so that Thomism became the leading school taught in Valencia. Alongside chairs aimed at lecturing on the Bible, a chair dedicated to Aquinas appeared in 1549, and in 1550–1551 two further chairs were created for teaching his thought. Additionally, a Durand chair and a Sentences chair were instituted in 1547 and 1553, respectively. The statutes of 1561 sanctioned this new trend by establishing two chairs on the Bible, two on Aquinas (both based on the Summa), two related to the Sentences, and one on Durand. Except for the Bible, the text associated with each chair was fully read in four consecutive academic years.62 From an arrangement at the beginning of the sixteenth century that was similar to the situation obtaining at Alcalá, Valencia had moved closer to Salamanca by the middle of the century and, unlike the other universities, in Valencia the Sentences continued to be taught, at least officially, in more than one chair. Nominally, the Sentences continued to be present in many Iberian universities even after their reading had ceased in the classroom. This is because, in order for students to graduate and to earn the doctorate in theology, numerous (if not all) university statutes still required a final examination related to the text of the Sentences (along with a text from the Bible), or one or more lessons on one or more arguments taken from the Sentences. Following the medieval tradition, the student had to deal with a selection of several sections from the text, which were known as puncta. To give only a few cases, the requirement of explaining a section of the Sentences was included in the statutes enacted in the second half of the sixteenth century for Alcalá,63 Baeza,64 Barcelona,65

62  This paragraph is based on Jordán Gallego Salvadores, “La Facultad de Teología de la Universidad de Valencia durante la primera mitad del siglo xvi,” Escritos del Vedat 5 (1975): 81–132. For the faculty of theology, see also Amparo Felipo Orts, La Universidad de Valencia durante el siglo xvi (1499–1611) (Valencia, 1993), 156–75; Manuel Vicente Febrer Romaguera, Ortodoxia y humanismo. El Estudio General de Valencia durante el rectorado de Joan de Salaya (1525–1558) (Valencia, 2003). For a brief outline of the role of the Sentences in seventeenth-century Valencia, see Amparo Felipo Orts, La Universidad de Valencia durante el siglo xvii (1611–1707) (Valencia, 1991), 189–93. 63  See Constitutiones insignis Collegii Sancti Ildephonsi, título 45, p. 72. 64  See Arias de Saavedra Alías, “La Universidad de Baeza,” 31. 65  See Fernández Luzón, La Universidad de Barcelona, 289–90.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

433

Coimbra,66 Évora,67 Gandía,68 Granada,69 Oñate,70 Orihuela,71 Oviedo,72 Santiago de Compostela,73 and Sigüenza.74 The Sentences were required for the final examination, but were not read in the classroom. This raises the question of how a student could follow lectures on Aquinas and be examined on sections taken from the Sentences. The answer lies in the practice initiated by Vitoria and mentioned in the statutes of Salamanca (1594) and of Oviedo: during the classes, the professor was expected to comment on a section or question of the Summa while at the same time 66  See Estatutos da Universidade de Coimbra (1559), chaps. 82–94; Estatutos (1597), liv. iii, títulos xxvii–xxxviii, quoted by Fonseca, “A teologia,” 790. 67  See Silva, “Formação académica,” 157. 68  “Constituciones de la Universidad de Gandía hechas por el buen regimento y govierno de la dicha Universidad,” in Monumenta paedagogica Societatis Iesu. Nova editio ex integro refecta, vol. 1: 1540–1556, ed. Ladislaus Lukács (Rome, 1965), 50–63, at 54. The statutes of this university, the first ever founded by the Jesuits, date from 1549/50. On this university, see Pilar García Trobat, El naixement d’una universitat: Gandia (Gandía, 1989); Mariano Peset and Pilar García Trobat, “El nacimiento de la primera universidad de la Compañía de Jesús,” Revista Borja. Revista de l’Institut Internacional d’Estudis Borgians 4 (2012–13): 107–29. 69  The statutes from 1542 are published in Francisco de Paula Montells y Nadal, Historia del origen y fundación de la Universidad de Granada, de las que existieron en su distrito y de los Colegios, Cátedras y escuelas que de ella dependían (Granada, 1870), 581–717 (reprinted in Granada, 2000, with an introduction by Cristina Viñes Millet). For the requirement of lecturing on the Sentences, see the Constitutio 38, in Montells y Nadal, Historia del origen y fundación, 674–6. 70  See José A. Lizarralde, Historia dela Universidad de Sancti Spiritus de Oñate (Tolosa, 1930), 278. 71  See Mario Martínez Gomis, La Universidad de Orihuela 1610–1807. Un centro de estudios superiores entre el Barroco y la Ilustración, 2 vols. (Orihuela, 1987). This work is the published version of a Ph.D. dissertation presented in the University of Alicante, from which we quote here. For the requirement of reading on the Sentences, see 349–51. 72  See Estatutos de la Universidad de Oviedo, titulo 7, p. 45. 73  See Maria del Pilar Rodríguez Suárez, “iii. Las facultades y la vida universitaria en los siglos xvi y xviii,” in Historia de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, vol. 1: De los orígenes al siglo xix, ed. Xosé Ramón Barreiro (Santiago de Compostela, 2000), 175–216, at 184–5. Rodríguez Suárez quotes the Claustros of February 19, 1568, and September 10, 1571. The Estatutos de los graduados en la Universidad de Santiago, aprobados y promulgados por Felipe ii, dating from 1567, are published as an appendix to Rodríguez Suárez’s article (196–9); see p. 198, where we are informed that, in order to graduate in theology, the student had to deliver a lecture on the Sentences and to reply to the objections from three members of the commission. 74  See document no. 19 in Montiel, Historia de la Universidad de Sigüenza, 2: 185–6, which contains a decision of the council of the University taken in September 1569, to the effect that the examinations in theology had to be related to Books i, ii, and iv of the Sentences.

434

Lanza and Toste

presenting the conclusions from the corresponding distinction of the Sentences. As already pointed out, this practice is reflected in some Iberian commentaries on the Summa75 and on the Sentences (which will be discussed in the next section of this chapter). Thus, in the exams, the Sentences only provided the theme on which the student was examined. The student was much more acquainted with the text of the Summa. The obligation to take a final examination on the Sentences, while the student had followed courses on the Summa, tells us about the symbolic importance of the Sentences as the key text of the faculties of theology. The persistence of the Sentences, notably in Valencia and Coimbra, also suggests that the academic reality was more dynamic than what was established by the statutes. In different Iberian universities, some chairs remained vacant for years while others were abolished and later created anew—all this without any relationship to the relevant university statutes. Note that the statutes were not updated very often and so remained unaltered for decades. However, from the sketchy portrait in the previous pages, the shift in the role of the Sentences during the sixteenth century is clear: from being the standard text which was read and commented on in the faculties of theology, the Sentences disappeared from the major chairs (being superseded by the Summa) and in the minor chairs were replaced by medieval commentaries (by Gabriel Biel, John Duns Scotus, and Durand of Saint-Pourçain). The classes were no longer devoted to reading the Sentences, but to lecturing on a Sentences commentary. The new chairs, on Durand and Scotus, became essential in the new faculties,76 persisting in numerous universities until nearly the end of the eighteenth century. This explains why the few seventeenth-century Sentences commentaries are almost exclusively commentaries on Scotus’s commentary (and sometimes on Bonaventure’s commentary) written by Franciscan authors.77 In fact, there 75  See note 10 above. 76  In addition to the cases mentioned earlier, we can point to the institution of a Durand chair in the University of Granada in 1580; see Montells y Nadal, Historia del origen, 107. 77  Of course, the absence of commentaries on Durand is explained by the fact the Dominicans were keener to comment on Aquinas than on Durand, a minor authority compared to Aquinas. The existence of Franciscan commentaries on Scotus and Bonaventure is also explained by the fact that in the seventeenth century chairs were established for the different religious orders and hence for the teaching of the main authorities of each order. For this reason, there is a multiplication of chairs; in addition to chairs devoted to Aquinas, Scotus, and Durand, there were chairs, for instance, on Anselm, Giles of Rome, and Suárez. See among others Pozo, “Origen e historia,” 55–6. Spanish commentaries on Scotus appeared relatively late for two reasons: the Franciscans could not take university degrees, and only in 1560 did the Franciscan general congregation require the reading

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

435

are no commentaries on the Summa by Franciscans, yet it is possible to find numerous seventeenth-century Sentences commentaries written by Spanish Franciscans.78 This shows us that, more than merely representing a change for the Sentences, the sixteenth century marks a change in the commentary tradition itself: the commentaries give way to “supercommentaries.” This will help us to understand the following section of this article. 2

The Commentary Tradition

The commentaries discussed in the following pages are linked to the major universities. There was often little interest in copying the commentaries of lesser known professors at provincial universities, while the high costs of printing could not be met by such provincial universities either. In fact, only a few commentaries were printed before the last four decades of the sixteenth century, and they were authored by renowned professors or by professors from the major universities: the commentary on the four books of the Sentences by Juan de Celaya, professor in Valencia, Domingo de Soto’s commentary on Book iv, and the commentary on Book iv by the Coimbra professor Martín de Ledesma. Moreover, due to the tremendous importance assigned to the Summa, the number of extant Iberian Sentences commentaries is not very large. As was shown earlier, although the statutes prescribed the reading of the Sentences and later of commentaries on the Sentences, this rule did not always prevent a professor from choosing to lecture on the Summa instead, which frequently occurred in the chairs of Durand and Scotus in Salamanca from the 1570s on. For instance, holders of the Durand chair in the second half of the sixteenth century—professors such as Luis de León, Domingo Báñez, Bartolomé de Medina, Juan Vicente, and Pedro de Ledesma—commented on the Summa of Scotus and nominalist authors in the arts courses of the Franciscan studia; see Isaac Vázquez, “La enseñanza del escotismo en España,” in De doctrina Ioannis Duns Scoti, vol. 4: Scotismus decursu saeculorum (Rome, 1968), 191–220, esp. 215. 78  Take the example of the following Spanish Franciscans who published commentaries on Scotus’s Sentences commentary (the year of publication of the commentary is indicated in brackets): Juan Iribarne e Uraburu (1614), Jerónimo Tamariz (1622), Mateo de Sosa (1629), Francisco Del Castillo Velasco (1641), Juan Merinero López (1668), Juan Pérez Lopez (1690), Jacinto Hernández de la Torre (1685–1692), Antonio Pérez (1700–1702), Antonio Castell (1698–1703), Manuel Pérez de Quiroga (1704–1714), Diego Mateo González (1749–64), Agustín Quevedo y Villegas (1752–1757), and Antonius Ruerk (1746–1747). The number would be higher if we add to this list the works entitled Cursus Theologicus that were based on Scotus’s commentary.

436

Lanza and Toste

in some, if not in most of the academic years in which they held that chair.79 The same happened with Pedro de Aragón and Pedro de Herrera in the Scotus chair, although these professors seem to have taken more care to establish connections between the Summa and the corresponding parts of Scotus’s Sentences commentary.80 It is also clear that a professor sometimes produced 79  The universities promoted inspectorial visits to the chairs in order to assess the compliance of the teaching with the statutes. At Salamanca, the visits occurring from 1560–61 onward are recorded in the Libros de visitas de cátedras. Moreover, before the beginning of each academic year, the university decided which part of the Sentences, Bible, and Summa should be read in each chair, this being recorded in the Libros de claustros. The Spanish scholars Vicente Beltrán de Heredia and more recently José Barrientos García have drawn on these records to reconstruct the teaching careers of some Salamanca masters. The former showed that Báñez always lectured on the Summa during his tenure of the Durand chair (1577–80); see Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “Valor doctrinal de las lecturas de Báñez,” in idem, Miscelánea, 3: 141–65, at 162–3 (previously published in La Ciencia tomista 39 [1929]: 60–81). Beltrán de Heredia also established that the Dominican Juan Vicente, holder of the Durand chair in 1582–85, always read the Summa; see idem, “El Padre Juan Vicente asturiense, procurador y vicario general de la Orden (1544–1595),” in idem, Miscelánea, 2: 543–83, at 567–6 (previously published in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 11 [1941]: 5–50). Barrientos García has shown that in the academic year 1570–71 Luis de León lectured in the Durand chair on qu. 50–64 of the Prima pars and on qu. 90–108 of the Prima secundae; see José Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 202–05. Note that in other years, however, Luis de León did lecture on the Sentences (see our discussion later in this chapter). Later, Bartolomé de Medina also read qu. 90–108 of the Prima secundae while holding the same chair in 1573–74; see idem, “Bartolomé de Medina, o.p. y la Universidad de Salamanca,” La Ciencia Tomista 107 (1980): 251–86, at 264. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Pedro de Ledesma commented on the Summa during some academic years while holding the Durand chair. Thus, Ledesma read the Prima pars of the Summa in 1604–05, the Tertia pars in 1605–06, the Supplementum in 1606–07, and again the Tertia pars in 1607–08; see idem, “El maestro Pedro de Ledesma y la Universidad de Salamanca,” Archivo Dominicano 5 (1984): 201–69, at 243–4. 80  See José Barrientos García, El tratado “De iustitia et iure” (1590) de Pedro de Aragón (Salamanca, 1978), 28–30 for the academic years 1576–1582, and idem, El Maestro Pedro de Herrera y la Universidad de Salamanca (Salamanca, 1983), 25–8 as well as Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “El Padre Pedro de Herrera,” in idem, Miscelánea, 3: 166–75, at 169–71 for the academic years 1592–1601. Barrientos García reports statements of students recorded in the Libros de visita de cátedras. Further analysis of the students’ testimonies is required, along with a comparison between those testimonies and the manuscripts that contain Aragón’s and Herrera’s lectures (which seem to be commentaries on the Summa in both cases). This is because the testimonies report lectures on Scotus at the beginning of the academic year but of the Summa later in the same year, and this according to an order which does not always seem to mirror the order of either of these works. Indeed, rather than following the order of a particular text, these professors seem to have taught by

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

437

the same commentary while lecturing on Durand’s Sentences commentary and Aquinas’s Summa, possibly in two different chairs: this can be seen in the works of the Coimbra professor Manuel Tavares, who successively held the Durand chair (1587–97) and the Scotus chair (1597–1605) there, authoring exactly the same text while commenting on qu. 26 of the Secunda secundae and on Book iii, dist. 29 of Durand’s commentary.81 The same is found in Luis de León’s lectures: in 1564–65, in the chair of Saint Thomas, he commented on the first three questions of the De incarnatione section of the Summa (iii, qu. 1–26) and later, in 1566–67, in the Durand chair he lectured on Book iii, dist. 1–22 of the Sentences, which treats the Incarnation as well. The texts of the two lectures are nearly identical.82 In some cases, the authors merged the Summa and the Sentences: in these instances, the work is arranged into distinctiones or disputationes that follow the order of the Sentences, while within each distinctio the questions raised themes: for instance, in 1594–95 Herrera lectured on De angelis based on Book ii, dist. 2 and 8 in Scotus, and on qu. 50–61 of the Prima pars of the Summa; in 1595–96 he lectured on original sin based on Book ii, dist. 20–24 of Scotus’s commentary, and on qu. 81–88 of the Prima secundae of the Summa. The most probable hypothesis is that these professors presented Scotus’s text in a condensed way, following the order of the distinctions in his commentary, but, after presenting each distinction, commented on the parallel section of the Summa. This is an approach one can observe in Luis de León’s commentary on the De legibus section of the Summa (i–ii, qu. 90–108). Under the title Durandus in iii Sententiarum dist. 40, the text begins with a very short summa textus Durandi (three propositions taken from Durand, followed by the titles of three questions from Durand, of which the third question has three further propositions). After this initial paragraph, Luis de León offers a lengthy commentary on Aquinas’s De legibus that bears no relation to Durand’s commentary on the Sentences; see Fray Luis de León, Tratado sobre la ley, 72–575. 81  Tavares’s commentary on qu. 23–33 of the Secunda secundae is preserved in ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca da Ajuda, 50-ii-17, fols. 189r–314v and bears the date of 1591, that is, during Tavares’s tenure of the Durand chair. His lectures on Book iii, qu. 27–30 of Durand are found in ms. Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cxix-2–4, fols. 233r–279v under the title Annotationes in materiam de charitate iuxta nobilissimum Durandum a fratre Emanueli Tauares traditae. The two texts contain a series of disputations related to charity, corresponding to material that occurs in qu. 26 of the Summa and in dist. 29 of the Sentences. In the commentary on the Secunda secundae qu. 26 is found on fols. 234r–255v; in the commentary on Durand dist. 29 appears on fols. 258r–274v. Both the titles of the disputations, which follow the order of the Summa, and their content are identical in the two manuscripts. 82  See Salvador Muñoz Iglesias, Fray Luis de León, teólogo: personalidad teológica y actuación en los “Prelúdios de las controversias De auxiliis” (Madrid, 1950), 36–7.

438

Lanza and Toste

c­ orrespond to the articles of the relevant question of the Summa. Some of the first printed commentaries on the Summa still bear a reference to the Sentences in their titles, giving the impression that they are at the same time commentaries on the Sentences and on the Summa. This is the case of the works by the professor of Valencia Jerónimo Pérez,83 by the Sigüenza professor Bartolomé Torres,84 and by the Salamanca professor Bartolomé de Medina.85 Despite their titles, none of these works comments on any part of the Sentences; the reference to the Sentences served merely pedagogical purposes, as the graduation examinations were conducted according to the order of the Sentences.86 The reference to the Sentences remained in many commentaries on the Summa (and vice versa, as we shall see).87 For this reason, it is sometimes difficult to ­determine, merely according to the title written in the manuscript, whether a work is a commentary on the Summa or on the Sentences. This occurs especially with regard to works related to the seven sacraments, since both Book iv

83  See Hieronymus Perez, Commentaria. Expositio super primam partem Summae S. Thomae Aquinatis, quantum ad ea quae concernunt primum librum Sententiarum (Valencia: typis Ioannis Mey Flandri, 1548). 84  See Bartholomaeus Torres, Commentaria in decem et septem quaestiones primae partis Sancti Thomae de ineffabili Trinitatis mysterio, ubi disputantur triginta tres distinctiones primi magistri Sententiarum (Alcalá de Henares: excudebat Andreas de Angulo, 1567). This is a commentary on qu. 27–43 of the Prima pars. 85  See Bartholomaeus a Medina, Expositio in tertiam divi Thomae partem vsque ad quaestionem sexagesimam, complectens tertium librum Sententiarum (Salamanca: apud Ioannem et Andream Renaut fratres, 1596). 86  We agree with the words of Llamas Martínez regarding the presence of the Sentences in the title of Torres’s commentary: “Esto tiene un valor indicativo más que real. Dada la finalidad didáctica de la obra y la costumbre que existía en las Universidades, de hacer los ejercicios de grado por los libros de las Sentencias, esta indicación podía ayudar a los estudiosos a preparar por sus páginas sus ejercicios. Por lo demás, Torres ni comenta las distinciones del Maestro, ni expone su doctrina, a no ser de una manera esporádica, cuando lo exige la materia, o es importante anotar y exponer su opinión” (Enrique Llamas Martínez, Bartolomé de Torres teólogo y obispo de Canarias [Madrid, 1979], 431). 87  An interesting case is found in a later Summa commentary, possibly dating from the 1570s, which is preserved in ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 149, fols. 350r–468v (commentary on ii-ii, qu. 1–6 and 10). At the end of qu. 6, the author writes a brief Summa eorum quae de fide tractantur a Magistro in 3° dist. 23, 24 et 25, summarizing the conclusions taken from the three distinctions mentioned (fols. 450v–451r); also, before commenting on qu. 10, he presents a Summa eorum quae de fide tractantur a Magistro in 3° dist. 23, 24 et 25 with the conclusions of dist. 23 and 24 concerning infidelity, the subject of qu. 10 of the Secunda secundae (fol. 451v).

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

439

of the Sentences and the second part of the Tertia pars and the Supplementum deal with the sacraments. The evolution of the commentary tradition on the Sentences in sixteenthcentury Iberia can be easily traced: from an initial period in which the university masters followed the order of the text of the Sentences and produced Sentences commentaries, to a period when they limited themselves to medieval commentaries on the Sentences and composed supercommentaries. These supercommentaries follow the same pattern as the Sentences commentaries: they do not comment on the authoritative text, step-by-step, with lemmata explaining the meaning of the text commented on; rather, they just follow the order of the supporting text in order to raise questions which are then developed autonomously. The earlier Iberian commentaries (previous to the late supercommentaries) are indebted both in content and format to the late medieval commentary tradition on the Sentences. Like many later medieval commentaries, they are not intended as discussions of Peter Lombard’s text; they merely follow the order of the distinctions in his work. What is more, the commentators continue the trend, initiated in the first half of the fifteenth century, of using their commentaries as defenses of major authors, the most notable case being that of John Capreolus’s influential commentary whose title epitomizes its aim: Defensiones theologiae Divi Thomae Aquinatis (1409–1432).88 In fact, the earliest commentary written in sixteenth-century Iberia is an imitation of Capreolus’s work. This is the Novarum defensionum doctrinae Angelici Doctoris Beati Thomae de Aquino super iv libros Sententiarum quaestiones profundissimae ac utilissimae, composed by the Dominican Diego de Deza and printed in Seville in 1517.89

88  For an overview of this work, see Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 139–49. 89  See Didacus Deza, Novarum defensionum doctrinae Angelici Doctoris Beati Thomae de Aquino super iv libros Sententiarum quaestiones profundissimae ac utilissimae (Seville: arte et ingenio Jacobi Kromberger, 1517), 3 vol. (the third volume contains the commentary on Books iii and iv). This work is not to be confused with Deza’s work entitled, Defensiones Sancti Thomae ab impugnationibus Nicolai de Lyra magistrique Mathiae Doering propugnatoris sui (Seville: per Meinardum Ungut et Stanislaum Polonum, 1491). This title was later reissued as Defensorium doctoris Angelici Divi Thomae Aquinatis contra invectivas Mathiae Dorinck in replicationibus contra Dominicum Paulum Burgensem super Bibliam (Paris, 1514). For a short presentation of this work, see Álvaro Huerga Teruelo, “Diego de Deza, ‘defensor’ de Santo Tomás (1491–1517),” Revista Española de Teología 34 (1974): 351–72, esp. 357–64.

440

Lanza and Toste

Diego de Deza’s Novarum defensionum doctrinae Angelici Doctoris Beati Thomae de Aquino super iv libros Sententiarum quaestiones profundissimae ac utilissimae This work does not stem directly from the author’s teaching at Salamanca, although it is somewhat connected to it. Diego de Deza (1443–1523) published his “most profound and useful” Quaestiones as archbishop of Seville; he had, however, held the Prime chair of theology in Salamanca from 1480, shortly after he had earned his master’s degree in theology, until 1486, when he became preceptor of Prince Juan, the son of the Catholic Monarchs.90 Diego is well known for his activity in the Spanish Inquisition and for his support of Columbus, but his promotion of Thomism is not negligible either: in the same year in which he published his commentary, Diego de Deza founded the Dominican college of Seville, establishing the Summa instead of the Sentences as the textbook in the chair devoted to teaching Aquinas. His academic career was brief, Salamanca being the only place where Diego taught. Sixteenth-century Iberian theology is marked by Thomism, so it is natural that Diego, a former Salamanca master, should have been influential, principally in Salamanca. Yet, Diego’s work never outshone Capreolus’s commentary, even though it was sometimes quoted by later authors.91 Arguably, sixteenthcentury authors were aware of the similarity of Diego’s work with that of Capreolus, preferring to use the latter, which was quoted and discussed in other influential texts. Of course, Diego’s short career in Salamanca and the fact that his work is a Sentences commentary, at a time in which the Summa was taking the place of the Sentences, did not help the diffusion of the Quaestiones.92 2.1

90  For Deza’s biography, see Armando Cotarelo y Valledor, Fray Diego de Deza. Ensayo biográfico (Madrid, 1902); Maximiliano Canal, “Fray Diego de Deza. Algunos datos para su biografía,” Analecta Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 16 (1923): 237–40; Mariano Alcocer Martínez, Fray Diego de Deza. Estudio biográfico y crítico (Valladolid, 1927). 91  Deza’s work, along with that of Capreolus, is cited by some of the major figures of late scholasticism, such as Francisco de Vitoria, Melchor Cano, Domingo Báñez, Gabriel Vázquez, and Francisco Suárez; note, however, that he is sometimes quoted in order to be criticized, as is the case in the works of Vázquez and Suárez. On this point, see Francisco Navajas, “La doctrina de la gracia en Diego de Deza o.p. (1443–1523),” Archivo Teológico Granadino 20 (1957): 5–153, at 14, 70, 76. Furthermore, Gines Arimon has shown that, with regard to the subject of faith, Deza had no influence on Vitoria, Melchior Cano, and Francisco Suárez, although Deza’s work is quoted 38 times in Suárez’s Opera omnia; see Gines Arimon, La teología de la fe y Fray Diego de Deza (Barcelona/Madrid, 1962), 233–6. 92  This is also asserted in Navajas, “La doctrina de la gracia,” 15.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

441

The structure of the Quaestiones is indebted to Capreolus’s Defensiones. Each question starts with the presentation of the issue at stake, which is followed by four articles: in the first article, Diego advances his theses, or conclusiones; in the second, he presents objections raised by opponents of Aquinas; in the third, he delves into specific points (notabilia); finally, in the fourth article, he replies to the objections. That this structure mirrors Capreolus’s work is acknowledged by Reginaldo de Montoro, bishop of Cefalù and author of the prologue to the first volume of Diego’s commentary. According to Reginaldo, the difference between Diego and Capreolus lies in the fact that in every question the former abridges Capreolus’s first, second, and fourth articles, while in the third plerumque nullum est cum Capreolo commertium.93 Undoubtedly, then, Diego de Deza drew upon Capreolus, but this dependence is far from linear. Francisco Navajas has shown that it often assumes the form of a literal reliance,94 but also includes Diego’s interpretation of previous authors. For instance, Diego draws on Capreolus when he discusses Duns Scotus’s views;95 further, his use of Gregory of Rimini’s interpretations of Aquinas is often mediated by Capreolus.96 Then again, Navajas has also demonstrated that Diego sometimes depends upon Gregory of Rimini without any mediation by Capreolus.97 What is more, in some passages he refutes Gregory98 and even Capreolus.99 A similar picture emerges from Gines Arimon’s study of Diego de Deza’s reflections on faith. Arimon examined dist. 23, qu. 1–2 of Book iii in Capreolus and in Diego, showing that while Diego reproduces Capreolus, at times he also presents a personal interpretation, mainly in the third article of each question.100 The Quaestiones stand as a singular work in the Iberian commentary tradition. They were written outside the university and exerted little influence; yet, they are indicative of the importance that Thomism had begun to assume in the Iberian Peninsula by the beginning of the sixteenth century.

93  Cf. Didacus Deza, Novarum defensionum, fol. 1v. 94  For passages where Deza depends to a great extent on Capreolus, see Navajas, “La doctrina de la gracia,” 53, 66, 100, 106, 109, 121, 123, 126 n. 426, 128, 138 n. 472, 139 n. 476, 143–44 n. 491, 145 n. 501. 95  See ibid., 30–1 n. 93, 33 n. 97, 115. For a case where Deza discusses Durand’s position through Capreolus’s work, see ibid., 119. 96  See ibid., 39, 67, 79, 96–7 n. 308. 97  See ibid., 66, 68–9, 73, 75–7. 98  See ibid., 86–90. 99  See ibid., 103. 100  See Arimon, La teología de la fe, 66–72, 315–44. See also 206–08.

442

Lanza and Toste

2.2 Salamanca 2.2.1 Francisco de Vitoria A large number of the extant Iberian commentaries were produced in Salamanca. As noted earlier, the adoption of the Summa was gradual and did not cause the total disappearance of the Sentences from university teaching. The first professor to lecture on the Summa also read the Sentences: Francisco de Vitoria (1486–1546) read Book ii of the Sentences in the academic year 1526– 27 and Book iv in 1529–31 and again in 1538–39.101 There are no witnesses to his lectures on Book ii. By contrast, two manuscripts have been indicated as containing Vitoria’s lectures on Book iv: Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 13923, fols. 1r–215v, and Lisbon, Biblioteca da Ajuda, 44-xii20, fols. 463–696. Beltrán de Heredia assumed that the former, which bears no date, transmits the lectures of 1529–31 and the latter the lectures of 1538– 39.102 The Spanish scholar based this assumption on the fact that the text in the Madrid manuscript is identical with the Summa sacramentorum Ecclesiae by the Portuguese Dominican Tomás de Chaves († 1570), who had attended Vitoria’s lectures in Salamanca in the 1520s. It was Tomás de Chaves himself who, in the title of his Summa, first printed in 1560, acknowledged that his work was based on Vitoria’s doctrine.103 In the foreword, Tomás further indicates that the Summa, which he defines as a compendium, derives from Vitoria’s oral teaching on Book iv of the Sentences.104 The 101  For the chronology of Vitoria’s lectures, see Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, Los manuscritos del Maestro Fray Francisco de Vitoria o.p.: estudio critico de introducción a sus Lecturas y Relecciones (Madrid/Valencia, 1928), 110–14, 118. 102  See ibid., 111 and 113. Note that at the beginning of the text the Lisbon manuscript indicates the year 1558, which is when it was copied: “Doctissimi magistri f. Francisci de Victoria, Ordinis Praedicatorum, sacrae theologiae in Salmanticensi Academia quondam professoris dictatae in quartum librum Sententiarum. Año m[illesimo] 558” (quoted ibid., 60). 103  The complete title is, Summa sacramentorum Ecclesiae ex doctrina doctissimi patris magis­ tri fratris Francisci a Vitoria, cathedram primae in Salmanticensi florentissima academia profitentis . . . (Valladolid: excudebat Sebastianus Martinez, 1560). Few studies have been devoted to this work. Among them are Augusto Sarmiento, “Francisco de Vitoria: el ‘ius divinum’ de la confesión integra y secreta de los pecados en la ‘Summa Sacramentorum’ de Tomás de Chaves,” Scripta Theologica 16 (1984): 423–31; Dionisio Borobio García, El sacramento de la penitencia en la Escuela de Salamanca: Francisco de Vitoria, Melchor Cano, Domingo de Soto (Salamanca, 2006), 16–51; idem, Sacramento en general. Bautismo y Confirmación en la Escuela de Salamanca. Francisco de Vitoria, Melchor Cano, Domingo de Soto (Salamanca, 2007), 19–28, 147–95; idem, Unción de enfermos, orden y matrimonio en Francisco de Vitoria y Domingo de Soto (Salamanca, 2008), 52–59, 85–94, 125–47. 104  Tomás de Chaves, Summa sacramentorum, p. 3: “. . . commentariolus quo in compendium redactae erant obseruationes inclyti praeceptoris mei fratris Francisci Victoriae, re

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

443

Summa sacramentorum enjoyed considerable success, with numerous printings across Catholic Europe.105 This success is due to the fact that the work was regarded as authored by Vitoria.106 After the first two editions, Tomás revised the text by adding decisions from the Council of Trent.107 A comparison of the first edition with the Madrid manuscript shows us that they transmit the same work, with minor variants throughout the text. The following examples suffice to prove this. The first example is taken from the very first lines of the work:

et fama super aethera noti in quartum librum Sententiarum, quem ego attenta cura et magna auiditate ex ore dicentis et praelegentis exceperam mihi ipsi ut thesaurum eximium seruaturus.” 105  Here is a list (not exhaustive) of sixteenth-century printings of this work: Valladolid: excudebat Sebastianus Martinez, 1561; Salamanca: in aedibus Andreae a Portonarijs, 1565 and 1567; Rome: apud Iulium Accoltum in platea Peregrini, 1567; Antwerp: apud viduam et haeredes Ioannis Stelsii, 1568; Brescia: apud Franciscum & P. Mariam fratres de Marchettis, 1568 and 1569; Salamanca: in aedibus Dominici a Portonarijs, 1569; Brescia: apud Damianum Turlinum, 1570; Salamanca: in aedibus Dominici a Portonarijs, 1571; Antwerp: apud viduam et haeredes Ioannis Stelsii, 1572; Venice: apud Antonium Bertanum, 1572 and 1573; Salamanca: in aedibus Dominici a Portonarijs, 1573, 1574 and 1575; Venice: apud Hieronymum Polum, 1574; Venice: ad instantia di Bartolomeo Sermartelli, 1574; Venice: apud Ioannem Baptistam Somaschum, 1574; Venice: apud Ioannem Antonium Bertanum, 1575 and 1577; Florence: apud Georgium Marescottum, 1579; Venice: apud Dominicum Farreum, 1580; Lisbon: excudebat Emmanuel de Lyra, 1582 (apud Lyram, 1583); Lyon: A. Martilias, 1584; Salamanca: ex officina Ildefonsi a Terranoua & Neyla, 1584; Huesca: typis Ioannis Perez a Valdiuielso, 1588; Alcalá de Henares: ex officina Ioannis Graciani, 1589; Venice: Cornetti, 1590; Valladolid: apud Didacum Ferdinandum a Corduba, 1594; Venice, 1595. The Summa sacramentorum was translated into Italian by the Carmelite Francesco da Trevigi (whose translation was published in Venice in 1575 and again in 1588) and by the Florentine Dominican Teofilo Fedini (his version was printed in 1576 in Florence). 106  Take the example of these three quotations: 1) Francisco Suárez, De legibus viii: De lege positiva canonica 2 (iv, 11–20), ed. A. García y García, Luciano Pereña et al. (Madrid, 1981), 50: “Unde Vitoria (in Summa 4 quaest. De confessione n. 150) licet credat satisfieri praecepto Ecclesiae . . .”; 2) Petrus Arcudius, Libri vii de concordia Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis in septem Sacramentorum administratione (Paris: apud Sebastianum Cramoisy, 1626), Liber vi, 466: “. . . quod probabile sentit esse Franciscus Victoria Summa de Sacramentis, quaesito 2. de Sacramento Ordinis”; 3) Antonius de Litteratis, Summa compendiosa sacramentorum Ecclesiae, casuum conscientiae ac de nonnullis theologicae veritatis resolutionibus . . . (Rome: typis Iacobi Mascardi, 1611), 154: “. . . mortale est vt Summa Victoria dicit.” 107  On this point, see Francisco Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca,” Anthologica Annua 32 (1985): 387–96, at 388–96.

444 Summa Sacramentorum, ed. 1560, p. 5

Lanza and Toste ms. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 13923, fols. 1r–2v

Ante omnia quia, ut Cicero ait primo Officiorum, scilicet omnis qui de aliqua re suscipi [institu add.] sermo [lectio incerta] debet a diffinitione proficisci, ideo primo queritur quid sit sacramentum? Diffinitio autem debet esse secundum Ciceronem brebis [sic] et dilucida oratio, naturam rei exponens. Et ideo Augustinus, De ciuitate Dei, sic deffinit: sacramentum est sacrae rei signum. Haec diffinitio habetur de consecratione, distinc. 2, cap. “sacrificium.” Haec est etiam prima diffinitio earum quas Magister Sententiarum ponit in 4, distinct. 1 & S. Tho. 3. p., quaestio 60, artic. 2, ubi conuertit diffinitionem hanc ut conuertatur cum suo diffinito, ut quod ex proprietate sermonis non habet accomodationem intelligatur habere secus tantum—Durandus [?]—, ubi vbi aduerte quod, quando dicit ‘sacrae aduerte quod, quando dicit ‘sacrae rei’, rei’, non intelligitur quaelibet res sacra, non intelligitur quaelibet res sacra, quia quia sic crux et multa alia esset sacramentum, sed res sacra sanctificans aliter [cod.: aliquis] cruz [sic] et multa nos. Cum enim sacramentum sit signum alia essent sacramentum, sed res sacra sanctificans nos. Cum enim quoddam, signa autem proprie debeantur hominibus, & sacramentum sacramentum sit signum quodam, signa autem proprie debeantur sit proprium hominum, oportet ut per hominibus, et sacramentum sit proprium rem sacram intelligamus rem homines hominum, oportet ut per rem sacram sanctificantem. Per signum etiam non intelligamus signum exterius quod intelligas quodcunque signum, sed communiter uocatur signum et quod signum exterius quod communiter diffinit Augustinus 2 De doctrina uocatur signum, et quod diffinit christiana dicens: signum est quod Augustinus 2 De doctrina christiana praeter species quas ingerit sensibus dicens: signum est quod praeter aliquid aliud facit in cognitionem uenire. speciem quam ingerit sensibus facit aliquid aliud in cognitionem uenire. Quia (ut ait Cicero Officiorum primo) omnis qui re aliqua instituitur sermo debet a diffinitione proficisci, ut intelligatur qui sit id de quo disputatur, diffinitio autem secundum eundem Ciceronem debet esse breuis et dilucida oratio naturam rei exponens, quaeritur in primis, quid sit sacramentum? Augustinus, liber decimo De ciuitate Dei, sic diffinit: sacramentum est sacrae rei signum. Haec diffinitio habetur de consecratione, dist. 2, cap. “sacrificium.” Haec est etiam prima diffinitio earum quas Magister Sententiarum ponit in 4, distinct. 1 & S. Thom. 3 p., quaestio 60, artic. 2,

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

445

The second example is taken from the first question on baptism. It shows us that even in the first edition Tomás introduced references to the Council of Trent. Summa Sacramentorum, ed. 1560, p. 9

ms. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 13923, fols. 5v–6r

De sacramento baptismi tractat Magister 4, distin. tertia et dicit quod baptismus est ablutio exterior corporis facta sub forma uerborum praescripta et determinata; tractat de hoc sacramento S. Thomas, 3 p., q. 66. Tractatur etiam de baptismate in Concilio Florentino et abunde satis in Concilio Tridentino, sessio 7 de baptismo per Canones quatuordecim.

De baptismo tractat Magister 4, d. 3, et dicit quod baptismus est ablutio corporis exterior facta sub forma uerborum praescripta et determinata; tractat de hoc S. Thomas, 3 p., q. 66.

Dubitatur quando fuit institutus baptismus, utrum ante Christi passionem uel postea? Respondetur per duas propositiones. Prima: certissimum est quod fuit institutus a Christo ante passionem. Patet hoc, Ioannis 3, ubi expresse habetur quod Christus baptizabat; et Ioannis 4 declaratur quomodo baptizabat, quanquam Christus non baptizaret, sed discipuli eius baptizabant de mandato ipsius, quia alias Christus non diceretur baptizare. Non est autem uerisimile quod Christus baptizaret baptismo Iohannis, nec etiam apostoli Ioannis baptismo baptizabant, ut dicit Hieronymus in epistola ad Seleucianum et in sermone Epiphaniae.

Dubitatur quando fuerit institutus baptismus, utrum ante Christi passionem uel postea? Respondetur per duas propositiones. Prima: certissimum est quod fuit institutus a Christo ante passionem. Patet hoc, Ioannis 3, ubi expresse habetur quod Christus baptizabat; et Ioannis 4 declaratur quomodo baptizabat, quamquam Christus non baptizaret, sed discipuli eius baptizabant de mandato ipsius, quia alias Christus non diceretur baptizare. Non est autem uerisimile quod Christus baptizaret baptismo Iohannis, nec etiam apostoli, ut dicit Iheronymus in epistola ad Seleucianum et in sermone Epiphaniae.

446

Lanza and Toste

The hypothesis that the manuscript could be a reproduction of the edition has to be dismissed, because the copyist would have copied the reference to the Council of Trent as well. By contrast, the Madrid manuscript was not necessarily used for the edition, as there were surely more manuscripts of this text. In the year in which the first edition of the Summa sacramentorum appeared (1560), another disciple of Vitoria’s, Martín de Ledesma, published a commentary on Book iv of the Sentences in Coimbra. The two texts share some f­ eatures—formal features rather than doctrinal ones—but in any case enough to make it clear that either the two texts have a common source or one depends on the other.108 Since Martín’s commentary was printed in January 1560, we have to assume that Martín did not make use of Tomás de Chaves’s printed work, but that he had access to some other manuscript. On the first folio, the Madrid manuscript bears the title, Scholia magistri Francisci a Victoria in compendium redacta super quartum librum Sententiarum. Despite this title, it is not quite exactly a commentary on the fourth book of the Sentences. As the title of Tomás de Chaves’s printed edition suggests, the work consists of an introduction on the sacraments followed by nine sections (entitled quaestiones), which are divided into numerous questions. The nine sections deal with each of the seven sacraments, plus the keys of the Church and excommunication. These are the same topics as those covered in Book iv of the Sentences (and also in the Tertia pars of the Summa). It is worth mentioning that the tabula quaestionum of each section does not follow the order of the Summa, which, as we shall see, is not the case for later works. With its catechetical style—arranged in question form, the answers ­succinct—the work, whether in manuscript form or in Tomás de Chaves’s edition, brings to mind the textbooks of Melanchthon and German Protestant Aristotelians. The style is telling: Vitoria’s commentaries on the Summa are for the most part the result of his oral teaching, being either reportationes made by students in the classroom or texts derived from those notes and presented in a revised form. This Compendium clearly belongs to a different genre, and hence it is likely that Tomás de Chaves’s role in its redaction should be acknowledged to a far greater extent than it has been. The few studies of the Summa sacramentorum have assumed its text to contain Vitoria’s thought, but only a full comparison with Vitoria’s two commentaries, one on Book iv, transmitted by the Lisbon manuscript, and one on the Tertia pars, may help us to discern how much of the Compendium belongs to Vitoria. 108  See ibid., 396–400.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

447

The Compendium transmitted by the Madrid manuscript contrasts markedly with the commentary on Book iv contained in ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca da Ajuda, 44-xii-20, fols. 463–696, which has been attributed to Vitoria.109 The Lisbon manuscript has three distinct sections: 1) a commentary on the Prima pars of the Summa (qu. 1–63, fols. 1–352), 2) a commentary on the Tertia pars of the Summa (qu. 1–57, fols. 355–456); and 3) a commentary on Book iv of the Sentences (fols. 463–696).110 The three sections are attributed to Vitoria in the manuscript; however, it has recently been proven that the first section was not authored by Vitoria.111 As for the second and third sections, no study has ever established beyond any doubt that Vitoria is their author. The final section of the manuscript covers dist. 1–15 of Book iv. This commentary follows the scholastic model, as the questions are arranged according to arguments pro and con, followed by the solution advanced by the commentator. This is noteworthy since Vitoria’s commentaries on the Summa are not structured in this fashion. While Aquinas is by far the most frequently quoted author in the work edited by Tomás de Chaves—other Sentences commentaries such as the ones by Bonaventure, Scotus, Peter of Palude, or John Mair are rarely mentioned—the Lisbon manuscript transmits a text full of citations of previous Sentences commentaries, Aquinas nevertheless being the doctrinal basis for countless lines of reasoning. The Lisbon commentary has many more questions than both the text preserved in the Madrid manuscript and the edition prepared by Tomás de Chaves.112 A full comparison among these texts exceeds the scope of this article. Nevertheless, two samples of questions found in both manuscripts illustrate the similarities between the two texts. The first example is taken from the first question. Clearly, the citations and the lines of reasoning are the same:

109  See Beltrán de Heredia, Los manuscritos del Maestro, 113. 110  For a description of this manuscript, see ibid., 56–63. 111  See Santiago Orrego Sánchez, La actualidad del ser en la “Primera Escuela” de Salamanca. Con lecciones inéditas de Vitoria, Soto y Cano (Pamplona, 2004), 120–3. 112  Take dist. 14 as an example. In the Madrid manuscript, the first two questions are Vtrum paenitentia sit sacramentum (fol. 80v) and Quaeritur quae sit materia huius sacramenti (fol. 81v), whereas in the Lisbon manuscript these questions are the ninth and the eleventh respectively (fols. 610va–611rb and 611vb–612rb), which means a much more extensive discussion.

448

Lanza and Toste

ms. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 13923, fols. 1v–2v

ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca da Ajuda, 44-xii-20, fol. 465ra–b

. . . Cum enim sacramentum sit signum quodam, signa autem proprie debentur hominibus, et sacramentum sit proprie hominum, oportet ut per rem sacram intelligamus signum quodcumque etiam mentale; sed signum exterius, quod communiter uocatur signum, et quod diffinit Augustinus, 2 De doctrina christiana, dicens: signum est quod praeter species quas ingerit sensibus aliquid aliud facit in cognitionem uenire, est igitur sacramentum signum sensibile rei sacrae nos sanctificantis. Per rem nos sanctificantem intelligitur principaliter gratia gratum faciens, quamuis S. Thomas, 3 pars, q. 60, art. 3, dicat tria significari in sacramentis: primum, causam effectiuam nostre sanctificationis, scilicet passionem Christi, Lucas 22, “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem,” et 1 Cor. 21, “Quotienscumque manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bibitis, mortem Domini annunciabitis”; secundo significat etiam causam formalem nostrae sanctificationis, scilicet gratiam; tertio, causam finalem, quae est gloria. Vnde Ecclesia cantat ex officio S. Thomae “O sacrum conuiuium in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis eius,” ecce primum; “mens impletur gratia,” ecce secundum, “et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur,” ecce tertium.

. . . dicit quod sacra res non debet esse quaecumque cum alias crux esset sacramentum, sed debet intelligi rei sacrae non absolute quidem, sed nos sanctificantis et ad nos pertinentis. Et patet: haec signa dantur hominibus, quibus est datum intelligere inuisibilia per sensibilia, non autem dantur angelis; per li ‘signum’ debet intelligi aliquid quod sensibus patet, unde Augustinus: signum est quod propter id quod ingerit sensibus facit deuenire in aliquid [iter.] aliud. Tunc illa diffinitio sic intellecta est bona et conuertitur cum quolibet sacramento. . . . Dubitatur an per rem sacram intelligatur sola gratia gratum faciens. Alii doctores non intelligunt nisi vel gratiam vel Corpus Christi, sed Sanctus Thomas dicit quod intelliguntur tria quod concurrunt ad nostram sanctificationem: prima est tanquam causa efficiens, quae est redemptio; secunda est tanquam causa formalis, quae est gratia; tertia tanquam finis, quae est beatitudo aeterna. De primo patet de sacramento eucharistiae: Paulus “Quotienscumque” etc., “mortem Domini annunciabitur donec veniat,” . . . De tertio patet per illud “donec veniat,” in adventu gloriae et Ecclesia “O sacrum convivium in quo Christus sumitur,” etc.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

449

The second example is taken from the question on the matter and form of penance, which occurs in dist. 14. The reasoning is much more developed in the Lisbon manuscript, but both texts present the same distinction between near and remote matter as well as the example of Mary. ms. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 13923, fols. 81v–82r

ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca da Ajuda, 44-xii-20, fols. 611vb–612ra

Queritur quae sit materia huius sacramenti. Respondetur quod materia remota sunt peccata poenitentis, unde cum beatissima Maria nullum prorsus peccatum habuerit, falsissimum et fabulosum commentum est quod quidam fingunt, quod scilicet confitebatur Beato Ioanni. Materia autem propinqua est confessio peccatorum, scilicet mortalium, post baptismum commissorum.

Quaeritur ex quibus constituitur hoc sacramentum. Ad hoc est uidendum de materia et forma. De materia ergo quaeritur an peccata sint materia huius sacramenti. Respondet Sanctus Thomas, quaestione 84, articulo 1, quod duplex est materia: quaedam proxima, quaedam alia remota; hoc in artificialibus patet, ut materia panis propinqua est farina, materia uero remota est triticum. Eodem modo in poenitentia materia remota est peccatum, a quo hoc sacramentum poenitentiae debet incipere et etiam ipsa uirtus poenitentiae, et materia propinqua dolor de peccatis, contrictio, confessio peccatorum, uel homo cum contrictione et dolore de peccato propter Deum detestans ea, quia Dei offensiua, et materia capitur hic similitudinarie propter proximitatem, sicut in naturalibus et artificialibus. Ex his sequitur quod ille qui non habet peccatum non solum non obligatur, sed neque hoc sacramentum recipere potest, unde fabulosum est quod dicitur quod beata uirgo confitebatur Ioanni Euangelistae.

We have no solid reasons to doubt that the text handed down in the Lisbon manuscript should be ascribed to Vitoria. As mentioned earlier, Vitoria read the fourth book of the Sentences twice, in the academic years 1529–31 and 1538–39. Vitoria lectured on the Tertia pars of the Summa only once, in the

450

Lanza and Toste

academic year 1537–38, but he stopped at qu. 59.113 This means that Vitoria lectured on the sacrament of penance, which is dealt with in qu. 84–90 of the Tertia pars and in dist. 14 of Book iv of the Sentences, only in the context of the Sentences. Therefore, the only records of Vitoria’s teaching on penance are the Madrid and the Lisbon manuscripts. Now, in his commentary on Book iv, dist. 14–15, Juan de Guevara states that Vitoria attributes to John of Bassols the thesis that the virtue of penance has its own constrasting vice, namely, impenitence.114 Such a statement is in fact found in the Lisbon manuscript.115 Moreover, the same idea, albeit with no mention to Vitoria, is advanced in the commentary by Martín de Ledesma, an author who, as we shall see, extensively reproduces Vitoria.116 As Vitoria did not discuss the virtue of penance in any other place and did not quote John of Bassols in any of his printed works—which were far more used by later 113  See Beltrán de Heredia, Los manuscritos del Maestro, 114. 114  See Iohannes de Guevara, In iv Sententiarum, dist. 14–15, qu. 1 (ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1057, fol. 54r): “Sed contra hoc arguit magister de Victoria ex mente Joanis de Basolis, primo sic: ex pluribus talibus ‘nollo peccare’ generabitur quidam habitus uitiosus, qui non est intemperantia nec timor et cetera, ergo uitium distinctum, et per consequens ei correspondet uirtus particularis opposita, et confirmabitur, mediante qua uirtute dolebimus de isto actu malo ‘nollo penitere.’ ” On Guevara, see section ii.2.4 below. 115  See Franciscus de Victoria, In iv Sententiarum, dist. 14, qu. 2 (ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca da Ajuda, 44-xii-20, fol. 604va–b): “Secundo sic—et est argumentum Ioannis Basolis, d. 14—: aliquod uicium est contra poenitentiam quod non est contra aliquam aliam uirtutem; ergo poenitentia est uirtus distincta ab aliis. Antecedens patet de hoc actu, ‘nollo poenitere de peccatis meis,’ quem, si quis continuet, habitus uitii generabitur, quaero quis? An iniustitia uel timiditas, non uidetur, quare hoc uel illud, ergo unum particulare uicium; confirmatur de illo peccato ‘nollo poenitere,’ per quam uirtutem conuertentur ad Deum, et certe non uidetur nisi per poenitentiam; ergo.” The reference to John of Bassols is not found in the Madrid manuscript nor in Tomás de Chaves’s work, as the question as to whether penance is a virtue does not arise there. 116  See Martinus Ledesmius, Primus thomus, qui et Prima quartae nuncupatur (Coimbra: excudebat Ioannes Alvarus, 1555), fol. 527a: “Arguitur hoc modo, et est argumentum Vasolis. Aliquod vitium est quod contrariatur poenitentiae, quod non contrariatur cuicumque alteri virtuti. Ergo poenitentia non coincidit cum omnibus aliis. Antecedens probatur. Ex his actibus, ‘nolo poenitere propter Deum,’ generabitur aliquis habitus. Et ille non contrariatur temperantiae nec iustitiae, sed est impoenitentia, est quaedam obstinatio positiva, quod non vult poenitere. Ille igitur habitus, cui virtuti opponeretur? Non iustitiae, nec temperantiae, quia nulli earum contrariatur. Si dicas quod est vnum vitium generale, quod nulli virtuti contrariatur, omnibus esset mirabile, et merito.” For Martín de Ledesma, see section ii.4.1 below.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

451

authors than his commentaries—, it is thus quite plausible that Guevara refers to Vitoria’s commentary on Book iv, which is extant in the Lisbon manuscript. It is also worth noting that, in the Lisbon manuscript, the solutions often start with the words Respondet Sanctus Thomas, as if it were a commentary on the Summa or on Aquinas’s Sentences commentary. This feature persists throughout a considerable part of the Iberian commentary tradition on the Sentences. 2.2.2 Domingo de Soto After Vitoria, his Dominican confrere Domingo de Soto (1495–1560) took a further step in merging the Summa with the Sentences, or rather in transforming a commentary nominally still on the Sentences into a commentary on the Summa. Soto’s commentary on Book iv was first published in two volumes in Salamanca in 1558 and 1560.117 It follows the order of the distinctions of the Sentences, but within each distinction the questions correspond exactly to the articles of the corresponding question in the Tertia pars of the Summa. For instance, the eight questions of distinction 1 perfectly match the eight articles of qu. 60 of the Tertia pars of the Summa. This having been said, the correspondence is limited to the distinctions that have corresponding questions in the Tertia pars, that is, dist. 1–17 of Book iv and qu. 60–90 of the Tertia pars.118 It does not concern the distinctions that correspond to questions from the Supplementum of the Summa, that is, from dist. 18 onwards. It is apparent that Soto draws upon the Supplementum, but the correspondences between the Summa and Soto’s commentary are much looser from dist. 18 through dist. 50. It is Soto himself who, in the preface to the first edition, justifies his preference for the arrangement of the Summa. For Soto, the Sentences represent 117  See Commentariorum fratris Dominici Soto . . . in quartum Sententiarum tomus primus (Salamanca: excudebat Ioannes a Canoua, 1557 [actually, 1558]); Commentariorum fratris Dominici Soto . . . in quartum Sententiarum secundus tomus (Salamanca: excudebat Andreas de Portinarijs, 1560). For subsequent editions, see Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, Domingo de Soto: estudio biográfico documental (Salamanca, 1960), 529–31, where sixteen editions are indicated. The first six came out between 1558 and 1570 and were produced in Salamanca, which indicates that at first the commentary was available only locally. A broader dissemination started with the first (of four) Venice editions (1570), and later with the edition of Louvain (1573). In 1613, the commentary was printed at Douai. 118  There are some exceptions to the parallelism with the Summa. Here is the order of Soto’s commentary with the indication of the parallel questions of the Tertia pars in parentheses: dist. 1 (qu. 60–65); dist. 2 (qu. 70 and 38); dist. 3–6 (qu. 66–69); dist. 7–17 (qu. 72–90). In the second distinction, on circumcision and the baptism of John the Baptist, Soto preferred to draw on other questions from the Tertia pars.

452

Lanza and Toste

an assortment of topics that is not governed by a judicious order: the same view is repeated in many different places in the Sentences, while in one and the same place one finds passages regarding different subjects. Moreover, Peter Lombard’s collection is no longer useful at a time when numerous works of the Church Fathers are available in copia impressa. By contrast, the Summa provides a much better order of subjects.119 Criticism of the Sentences’ lack of systematic order is also found in Vitoria’s commentary on the Prima pars and in Melchor Cano’s De locis theologicis.120 Unlike Vitoria, Soto most probably never lectured on the Sentences during his teaching career. Between 1532 and 1544 in the Vespers chair and during his tenure of the Prime chair (1552–1556), Soto read the Summa almost every, if not every, academic year.121 As to the years in which Soto was assigned to lecture on a book of the Sentences for which the manuscripts containing the lectures are still extant, it is clear that he read the Summa instead. This is the case for the year 1539–40, when the rector assigned Soto to read the Sentences, Book iii, dist. 27 (de charitate); Soto instead began with the Summa, ii-ii, qu. 23 (the question with which Aquinas begins the De charitate section). Soto’s integration of the articles of the Summa into the distinctions of the Sentences would prove influential. As we shall see, some later authors (even outside Salamanca) adopted this same procedure. Indeed, Soto’s work became a standard commentary, and was quoted, whether to be followed or refuted, in the commentaries of Juan de Guevara,122 José Angles (who often mentions it), Miguel de Palacio (who openly refutes Soto), Luis de León,123 Martín de

119  Commentariorum fratris Dominici Soto . . . in quartum Sententiarum, 5–6. 120  For Vitoria, see Cándido Pozo, Fuentes para la historia del método teológico en la Escuela de Salamanca, vol. 1: Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto, Melchor Cano y Ambrosio de Salazar (Granada, 1962), 45–6; for Cano, see Melchior Canus, De locis theologicis libri duodecim (Salamanca: excudebat Mathias Gastius, 1563), liber xii, cap. 3, 393. 121  For the reconstruction of Soto’s teaching and the manuscripts in which his lectures are found, see Karl Josef Becker, “Tradición manuscrita de las Prelecciones de Domingo de Soto,” Archivo Teológico Granadino 29 (1966): 125–80; Beltrán de Heredia, Domingo de Soto, 107–15. 122  See Francisco Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca (ii),” Anthologica Annua 34 (1987): 417–27, at 426. 123  See, for instance, Luisius Legionensis, Commentaria Eucharistica, ed. Joaquín Maristany del Rayo, José Rodríguez Díez, José María Ozaeta León, Angel Riesco, Sara Rodicio, and Jesús Domínguez, in idem, Reportata theologica, ed. José Rodríguez Díez (Madrid, 1966), 1–216, at 39, 42, 63, 127, 131, 136, 184. Note that Luis de León does not restrain himself in criticizing Soto; see ibid., 71–2.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

453

Ledesma, and Francisco de Cristo. Despite its influence, few scholars have studied Soto’s commentary in depth.124 2.2.3 Miguel de Palacio Salazar With Soto, the Sentences became confined to the minor chairs. No author read the Sentences in the Prime and Vespers chairs any more. Commentaries on Durand’s and Scotus’s commentaries began to appear, especially on Durand. But before the rise of supercommentaries, at least one professor produced a further commentary on the Sentences. This was Miguel de Palacio Salazar (ca. 1515–1593),125 who held the chair dedicated to nominalism between 1550 and 1555. As mentioned earlier, by the time Palacio held this chair, the standard text to be read was already Durand’s Sentences commentary. It is not possible to know whether Palacio lectured on Durand, because no commentary on Durand has been attributed to him thus far. Palacio did however compose a commentary on the four books of the Sentences, which is not based on Durand’s commentary. Unlike many of the extant Salamanca commentaries on both the Summa and the Sentences, Palacio’s commentary is not the result of his students’ notes and does not necessarily reflect his oral teaching. In fact, it was printed two decades after he held the Durand chair.126 124  See, however, Juan Ramón García-Morato Soto, “La necesidad de la confesión de los pecados en Domingo de Soto” (doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Navarra, Facultad de Teología, Pamplona, 1988); Francisco Delgado de Hoyos, “El cardenalato en los tratados ‘De sacramento Ordinis’ de los teólogos de la Escuela de Salamanca,” Anthologica Annua 42 (1992): 785–98, at 791–5; Dionisio Borobio García, El sacramento de la penitencia, 103– 244; idem, Sacramento en general, 63–142, 297–320; idem, “Antropología y sacramentos en Domingo de Soto: una interpretación de la antropología sacramental en Santo Tomás,” Ecclesia orans 24 (2007): 11–35; idem, Unción de enfermos, 59–83, 94–123, 147–77. 125  On this author, see Leopoldo Duran, Miguel de Palacios: un gran teólogo desconocido (Salamanca, 1988); Justo García Sánchez, “Aproximación a la biografía académica de Miguel de Palacio Salazar, catedrático de teología nominal en Salamanca (1550–1555) y canónigo civitatense (1557–1593),” in Estudios Históricos Salmantinos. Homenaje al P. Benigno Hernández Montes, ed. José Antonio Bonilla and José Barrientos (Salamanca, 1999), 413–41. As García Sanchez has shown (p. 417), this author’s surname is “Palacio” and not “Palacios.” The article by García Sanchez was also published, with slight changes, as “Miguel de Palacio Salazar, fundador en 1585 del colegio de San Miguel de los PP. Agustinos de Ciudad Rodrigo,” Archivo Agustiniano 82 (1998): 3–106, at 4–34. 126  See Michael de Palatio, In primum librum Magistri Sententiarum disputationes grauissimae, abstrusos quaestionum theologicarum sensus enodantes (Salamanca: in aedibus Gasparis à Portonarijs, 1574); Disputationes theologicae in secundum librum Sententiarum (Salamanca: ex officina Ildephonsi a Neyla, 1577 [1576]); Disputationes theologicae in tertium librum Sententiarum (Salamanca: ex officina Ildephonsi a Neyla, 1577); Disputationes

454

Lanza and Toste

Palacio’s academic career is marked by a famous incident, which is reflected in his commentary. In 1552, when the Prime chair remained vacant, Palacio applied for the position. However, Palacio was asked to withdraw his candidacy when the far more prestigious Domingo de Soto decided to return to Salamanca. He was the holder of the Vespers chair and had been in attendance at the Council of Trent for some years. Palacio eventually gave up his application and some years later, in 1555, left Salamanca permanently, becoming a canon in León and later, in 1557, in Ciudad Rodrigo, where he died in 1593.127 His commentary was therefore probably composed outside Salamanca. Arguably, because he was not a Dominican and his commentary was printed when he was no longer a professor in Salamanca, Palacio felt free to criticize Domingo de Soto, in an ironical and harsh tone.128 Such criticism of Soto is quite rare in sixteenth-century Iberian theology. Palacio assigned the greatest importance to the fourth book, which was issued in three volumes. This importance was later reinforced by the publication, in 1585, of the work Praxis theologica de contractibus et restitutionibus, which Palacio presented as a supplement to his commentary on the Sentences. Many of Palacio’s works were printed, including biblical commentaries and a commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, yet few scholarly articles have mentioned him.129 This is surprising given his relevance—later authors often quoted his theologicae in quartum librum sententiarum, 2 vols. (Salamanca: ex officina Didaci a Benauides, 1577–1579). 127  On this incident, see García Sánchez, Aproximación a la biografía académica, 434–6. 128  See Michael de Palatio, Disputationes theologicae in quartum librum Sententiarum, dist. 3, disputatio 1, p. 65; dist. 75, disputatio 1, p. 75; dist. 4, disputatio 3, p. 100; dist. 5–6, disputatio 2, p. 154; dist. 7, disputatio 4, p. 204 (“Neque recte Dominicus Soto Augustini locum intellexi, immo distorte satis”); dist. 8, disputatio 2, p. 222; dist. 9, disputatio 2, p. 284; dist. 10, disputatio 1, p. 331 (“Hoc argumentum frater Dominicus de Soto in 4 libro Sententiarum distin. 10 art. 6 arbitratur esse palmarium”); dist. 11, disputatio 1, p. 359; dist. 11, disputatio 4, p. 407 (“Et equidem etsi Soto in 4 dist. 9 art. 4 multas ratiunculas congregat, & exaggerat suo more, omnes ille tamen sunt exigui momenti, ut ex istis tibi perspicuum erit”); dist. 12, disputatio 2, p. 429. 129  The major exception is Annabel Brett, “The Good Man and the Good Citizen. Miguel de Palacios and an Aristotelian Question in the Spanish Second Scholastic,” in Die Ordnung der Praxis. Neue Studien zur Spanischen Spätscholastik, ed. Frank Grunert und Kurt Seelmann (Tübingen, 2001), 245–68. See also Marco Toste, “Unjust Laws and Moral Obligation in the Sixteenth-Century Salamanca Commentaries on Aquinas’s De legibus,” in Right and Nature in the First and Second Scholasticism. Acts of the xviith International Colloquium of the siepm, Porto Alegre, 15–18 September 2010, ed. Alfredo Culleton and Roberto Hofmeister Pich (Turnhout, forthcoming).

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

455

commentary on Book iv of the Sentences—and his originality, even in relation to his fellow Salamanca professors. Palacio’s commentary is arranged according to disputationes. These are much lengthier than the questions of the other Salamanca commentaries, both earlier and later than his work. His sources also cover a broader range (although he does not overload his text with quotations), including the Bible and the corpus Aristotelicum. Palacio refers to the best-known Sentences commentators, among whom the most quoted are Aquinas, Scotus, and Durand (the latter is often discussed and, on many occasions, refuted). Frequently, Palacio subscribes to Scotus’s positions ( for example on the thesis that prime matter is itself an entity, on the Incarnation, and on Mariology),130 which is rather rare for a Salamanca master. Palacio’s commentary possibly influenced Domingo Báñez on the question of the relationship between grace and original justice.131 2.2.4 Juan de Guevara Martín Vicente initially replaced Palacio in the Durand chair.132 However, from 1557 until 1564 the Augustinian Juan de Guevara (1518–1600) occupied the chair. Franz Ehlre prepared a concise catalog of the manuscripts that transmit Guevara’s lectures.133 Unlike almost all of his successors, Juan did lecture on Durand’s Sentences commentary in the Durand chair. In 1559–60 he read Book iv, and his lectures are handed down in two manuscripts.134 During 130  See Duran, Miguel de Palacios, 82, 111, 117. 131  See ibid., 85–9 and also 101–03. 132  See García Sánchez, “Aproximación a la biografía académica,” 440. 133  See Franz Ehrle, “Los manuscritos vaticanos de los teólogos salmantinos del siglo xvi (conclusión),” Estudios Eclesiásticos 9 (1930): 145–87, at 165–9. On the career, literary production, and thought of this author, see Luis Martínez Fernández, Sacra doctrina y progreso dogmático en los “Reportata” inéditos de Juan de Guevara, dentro del marco de la Escuela de Salamanca (Vitoria, 1967) and Ernesto Zaragoza y Pascual, El maestro Fray Juan de Guevara, osa (Madrid, 1997). See also Eloy Domínguez Carretero, “La escuela teológica agustiniana de Salamanca,” La Ciudad de Dios 168 (1956): 638–85, at 652–5. 134  The ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1001, fols. 2r–243v contains the commentary on Book iv, dist. 1–42. The content of this manuscript has been described in Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca (ii),” 425. Delgado de Hoyos did not notice, however, that dist. 36 is not commented on. A further manuscript transmits only sections from some distinctions (penance, excommunication, indulgences, and matrimony); this is ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1057. Its content is described in Ehrle, “Los manuscritos vaticanos,” 167–8, and in Martínez Fernández, Sacra doctrina, 37–8. Neither of the two scholars, however, includes folio numbers in his descriptions, a lacuna remedied in the following list:

456

Lanza and Toste

c­ ertain periods of the academic year, Guevara was replaced by other professors: Cristóbal Vela, then holding the Scotus chair,135 commented on dist. 3 while Gaspar de Grajal, a theologian who graduated from Louvain, commented on dist. 23–24.136 In the following academic year, Guevara’s teaching was devoted to Book i, his lectures having survived in one manuscript.137 The first seven questions have been published.138 In each question, he starts by presenting Durand’s conclusions, then moving on to Durand’s proofs of his conclusions. But then Guevara refutes Durand, with arguments that are mainly based on Aquinas’s Summa. Guevara makes use of many of the medieval Sentences commentators and other important scholastic authors: Henry of Ghent, Giles of Rome, Bonaventure, Scotus, Thomas of Strasbourg, Biel, and Gregory of Rimini, who is often quoted. It is clear that while teaching Durand in the chair dedicated to that task Guevara did not stick to Durand’s doctrines at all. It is not surprising to find that he even penned a list of Durand’s errors.139 fols. 53r–80v: lectures on Book iv, from dist. 14, qu. 1 through dist. 15, qu. 5 (de poenitentia), dating from 1560; fols. 93r–255v: a section containing Book iv, from dist. 14, qu. 1 through dist. 18, qu. 4 (the text starts ex abrupto and is completely distinct from the previous section of this manuscript); fols. 256r–268r: lectures on excommunication (from dist. 18, qu. 3 through dist. 20, qu. 2); fols. 268v–278r: lectures on indulgences (dist. 20, qu. 1–3); fols. 292r–351r: Guevara’s teaching on the sacrament of matrimony (from dist. 26, qu. 1 through dist. 42); this section bears the date of 1560. Scholarship had assigned different dates to these lectures, but they were certainly given in 1559–60; on this point, see Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca (ii)”, 423–7. 135  See Barrientos García, “La teología,” 225. 136  See Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca (ii),” 425. This scholar erroneously indicates dist. 24–25 as the subject matter of Grajal’s lectures. For a doctrinal study of Grajal’s commentary on these distinctions, see idem, “Sacerdotium maximum. Una teoría inédita del catedrático hebraísta de Salamanca, Gaspar de Grajal, sobre el sacerdocio común de los fieles,” Anthologica Annua 35 (1988): 517–40; idem, “El cardenalato en los tratados,” 796–7. 137  Namely, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1044, fols. 2–162 (containing dist. 1 through dist. 17, qu. 5); see Ehrle, “Los manuscritos vaticanos,” 167 and Martínez Fernández, Sacra doctrina, 37. 138  See Martínez Fernández, Sacra doctrina, 532–60. 139  The list is entitled, Errores Durandi per omnes 4or libros Sententiarum, and is preserved in ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1001, fols. 343v–344v. The list has been published in Ursino Domínguez del Val, “Juan de Guevara o.s.a., revisión crítica de los errores de Durando de S. Porciano, o.p.,” La Ciudad de Dios 165 (1953): 145–56. Domínguez del Val argued that this work dates from 1563–64, since Guevara taught the fourth book of the Sentences during that academic year (p. 147). This is not

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

457

2.2.5 Luis de León Following Guevara, the Durand chair in Salamanca was held by another Augustinian friar, the famous Luis de León (1528–1591), who some years earlier had been a student of Guevara’s at the College of Saint Augustine in Salamanca.140 Thanks to his importance for Spanish literature and thought, many of his lectures are preserved and have been published. Luis de León held the chair of Saint Thomas between 1561 and 1565, and the Durand chair from 1564–65 through 1571–72.141 In the greater part of his time in the Durand chair, Luis de León taught according to the order of Durand’s Sentences commentary. In some years, however, he read the Summa. The majority of his lectures from his academic years in the Durand chair have come down to us. The earliest surviving lectures are those from the academic year 1566–67. The Augustinian friar read Book iii, dist. 1–20 (De incarnatione): these lectures are found in two manuscripts and were published in the nineteenth century.142 Although Luis de León follows the order of Durand’s commentary, he aligns himself with the positions of Aquinas, even against Durand.143 Many conclusions start with the words, Ita tenet Divus Thomas, or with a similar phrase. The same is true of the ensuing commentaries written by Luis de León: he endorses Aquinas’s doctrines or, at least, presents his own thought as though it were in accordance with Aquinas.144 According to the testimonies of students and the extant manuscripts, Luis de León spent part of the following academic year (1567–68) reading Book iii of Durand’s commentary, the section De fide (dist. 23–25). In the second half a valid argument, because the Errores cover the all four books of the Sentences. The list refers to thirty-four mistakes (10 in Book i; 2 in Book ii; 7 in Book iii; 12 in Book iv). 140  The relationship between the two men was initially close but became antagonistic after Luis de León was arrested by the Inquisition. On their relationship, see Ángel Custodio Vega, “Fray Luis de León y Fray Juan de Guevara,” La Ciudad de Dios 180 (1967): 313–49. 141  For the chronology of his lectures in this chair, see Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 192–206. 142  See Magistri Luysii Legionensis Augustiniani Divinorum librorum primi apud Salmanticenses interpretis Opera nunc primum ex mss. ejusdem omnibus PP. Augustiniensium studio edita, vol. 4 (Salamanca, 1893), 7–485. The edition is based on ms. Madrid, Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia, 9/2080, fols. 1–363. During our research we discovered a further manuscript: Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1044, fols. 192r–336r. 143  By way of example, see dist. 2, qu. 2 (pp. 87–90), dist. 3, qu. 5 (p. 135), and dist. 14, qu. 4 (p. 379). In the second question of dist. 2, he also discusses the position of Peter of Palude. 144  For instance, in his commentary on the De legibus (Summa, i–ii, qu. 90–108), which he produced in the Durand chair in 1570–71, Luis de León defended positions which cannot be considered Thomistic. On this topic, see Toste, “Unjust Laws and Moral Obligation.”

458

Lanza and Toste

of that year, he dealt with issues that find no parallel in Durand’s text, for, after commenting on qu. 2 of dist. 25, the Augustinian raised the question, Vtrum ista Christi Ecclesia, quam diximus esse Romae, possit esse in aliquo errore fidei atque morum, after which he began a lengthy discussion on the authority of the Bible (De sacrae Scripturae ratione), which he pursued until the end of the academic year.145 The De fide section has been partially published, namely, from dist. 23, qu. 6 through dist. 25, qu. 2.146 Traditionally, scholars have held that these lectures are found in two manuscripts: El Escorial, Real Monasterio de El Escorial, o.iii.32, fols. 17–144 (on which the edition is based) and Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1843 (= T 10), fols. 225r–432v. A comparison between the two codices shows that they transmit the same text, although in at least some sections the number of variants of the Coimbra text is so significant that we can speak of a different edition.147 Two other manuscripts contain portions of Luis de León’s lectures from 1567–68. In both these manuscripts the texts are anonymous. One is Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. lat. 951, fols. 1r–139r. Although the manuscript does not bear any indication of authorship, it conveys the same text as the two previously mentioned codices. It is closer to the version handed down in the Coimbra manuscript, but starts at the first question of dist. 23 and ends slightly before the texts of the other two manuscripts, as it does not ­contain the last question (de apostasia, qu. 10) of the section De sacrae Scripturae ratione. 145  For the testimonies of the students, see Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 196. 146  See Magistri Luysii Legionensis Augustiniani Divinorum librorum primi apud Salmanticenses interpretis Opera nunc primum ex mss. ejusdem omnibus PP. Augustiniensium studio edita, vol. 5 (Salamanca, 1893), 5–447. The edition mistakenly indicates that the text starts with dist. 22, qu. 1, when in fact it starts with dist. 23, qu. 6. The question Vtrum ista Christi Ecclesia, quam diximus esse Romae, possit esse in aliquo errore fidei atque morum occurs on pp. 212–22, and the discussion De sacrae Scripturae ratione on pp. 223–323 and 339–447. 147  For instance, in dist. 25, qu. 1, the text of the edition starts with five propositiones (p. 148), while the Coimbra manuscript (fols. 283v–284r) presents four propositiones followed by one question, which in turn is followed by six conclusions, of which the last corresponds to the fifth of the edition. Again, on p. 200 of the edition a question starts that has four propositiones (pp. 200–06); by contrast, in the Coimbra manuscript (fols. 310v–314r) we read six propositiones: the first is the same in both texts; the second and third of the edition are respectively the fourth and fifth of Coimbra; finally, the fourth of the edition is the sixth of Coimbra. Thus, the second and third conclusions of the Coimbra manuscript are missing from the published text.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

459

The other manuscript also contains a text similar to the one transmitted in Coimbra. It is the codex Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1045, fols. 1r–164r: the text starts at dist. 23, qu. 6 and breaks off at the end of qu. 8 in the section De sacrae Scripturae ratione. Furthermore, on its final folios, 902r–917r, this manuscript contains the first two questions from dist. 23. This section is anonymous in the manuscript, but we can attribute it to Luis de León because the text is the same as that of the first folios of Barb. lat. 951. These two manuscripts have a close relationship: not only do they both include Luis de León’s lectures from 1567–68, including the initial questions of dist. 23 that are absent from the other manuscripts, but they also share the lectures on the Secunda secundae delivered by Mancio de Corpus Christi and his substitutes in the Prime chair in 1565–66 and in 1566–67.148 Finally, it is noteworthy that two manuscripts (Coimbra and El Escorial) start at the very beginning of dist. 23, while two others (Angelica and Vatican) start only at qu. 6 of the same distinction. According to the records of Salamanca, the first lessons of 1567–68 were given by Master Pedro de la Puente, who replaced Luis de León. Pedro de la Puente was supposed to start at dist. 24. At the first inspectorial visit to the chair, which occurred on December 16, Luis de León was already giving classes and was reading dist. 23, qu. 6.149 This means that Pedro de la Puente might have started at dist. 23 and not at dist. 24. It is thus quite possible that two manuscripts may reflect this situation, their copyists having transcribed only the part they knew was by Luis de León. Naturally, only a thorough examination of the texts will determine the authorship of the commentary on the first six questions of dist. 23. The commentary on the De fide section follows the same pattern as the commentary on the De incarnatione. The most remarkable feature consists in the numerous references to decrees enacted in the Council of Trent. As the 148  In ms. Barb. lat. 951, the commentary on ii-ii covers qu. 23–45, 57–186, art. 9 and occurs on fols. 145r–603v; in ms. Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1045, it covers qu. 23–45, 57–qu. 174, art. 4 and occupies fols. 189r–816v. We shall return to these two manuscripts in the following pages. Mancio’s (and his substitutes’) lectures are also found in mss. Palencia, Biblioteca del Cabildo de la Catedral, 5 (ii-ii, qu. 1–44, 57–63) and Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1853 (= T 20) (ii-ii, qu. 63–175). Note that three of these four manuscripts contain a commentary on the final question of the Secunda secundae by Juan Gallo: Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1045, fols. 818r–899r (qu. 183–189); Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1853 (= T 20), from fol. 693 until the end (qu. 183–189) and Vatican City, bav, Barb. lat. 951, fols. 608r–657r (qu. 184, art. 4 through qu. 186, art. 9). Beltrán de Heredia believes that Gallo’s text corresponds to his lectures given in 1568–69 (“La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Santiago,” 203). 149  See Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 196.

460

Lanza and Toste

issue of justification was pressing, on account of Lutheranism, which caused a significant widening of the discussion, it is noticeable in the commentary on the De fide that Luis de León makes less use of earlier Sentences commentators and more of contemporary authors, such as Domingo de Soto (De natura et gratia) and the Franciscan Andrés de Vega. The context brought about by the Reformation also helps explain why Luis de León moved away from Durand’s commentary and started a discussion on the Bible that academic year. In the academic year 1568–69, Luis de León resumed his lectures at the point where he had stopped the previous year. In fact, in October 1568 he was told to start his classes at dist. 26 of Book iii (De spe).150 According to the testimonies of his students, in December he was reading dist. 27, qu. 2 (De charitate); by the end of March he had already lectured, in the words of the students, on dist. 32 (De correctione fraterna), although by then it was Master Petrel who was giving lessons, having reached the first question of dist. 33 (De virtutibus in commune).151 Later, in July, Luis de León was teaching again, reading the section De scandalo. At the last inspectorial visit, in September, one student reported that Luis de León was reading qu. 83 of the Tertia pars of the Summa, while another confirmed the reading of that same question, but added that Luis de León had previously lectured on De schismate. It is clear that at least from March onward, Luis de León read the Summa: De correctione fraterna is actually qu. 33 of the Secunda secundae; further, the treatment De scandalo occurs in qu. 42 of the same part of the Summa as well, while De schismate corresponds to qu. 39. Note that these three questions form part of the De charitate section of the Secunda secundae (qu. 23–46). After this section, Luis de León decided for some reason to lecture on the De Eucharistia section of the Tertia pars (qu. 73–83), with which he finished the academic year in September. As to the first part of the academic year, it is not possible to assert with absolute certainty, solely based on the testimonies of the students, whether he followed the Sentences or the Summa. Luis de León’s Opera, published in Salamanca at the end of the nineteenth century, include a treatise De spe and one De charitate. Both are found in the same manuscript, El Escorial, Real Monasterio de El Escorial, o.iii.32, which also contains Luis de León’s De fide (the lectures of the previous year).152 150  All the information in this paragraph is taken from ibid., 198. 151  Barrientos García speaks of dist. 32 (ibid., 198), but it is clear that the distinction at stake here is no. 33, because it is devoted to the four cardinal virtues, whereas dist. 32 still covers the virtue of charity. 152  See Magistri Luysii Legionensis Augustiniani Divinorum librorum primi apud Salmanticenses interpretis Opera nunc primum ex mss. ejusdem omnibus PP. Augustiniensium

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

461

Note that the De spe and the De charitate are not found in the other manuscripts that transmit the De fide. Unlike the treatise De fide, they constitute commentaries on the Summa. This, along with other factors, has cast doubt on the authorship of these two commentaries. However, since the university records show that Luis de León lectured on these matters (De spe and De charitate) in 1568–69, scholars have connected the two commentaries with Luis de León’s academic teaching during that year.153 A full discussion of the authorship and date of these commentaries remains outside the scope of this chapter, but it should be noted that in this debate no scholar has taken into consideration the existence of a manuscript in which a commentary on Durand’s commentary, Book iii, dist. 26, qu. 1–3 (De spe), is explicitly attributed to Luis de León. This is ms. Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1045, fols. 166r–185v.154 This fragment might well be a record of part of Luis de León’s lectures in 1568–69, the only academic year in which he lectured on Book iii, dist. 26. This hypothesis is strengthened by three factors: first, as mentioned earlier, Luis de León lectured on the De fide in 1567–68 and on the De spe in the following year; in fact, this is one of the manuscripts in which the lectures De fide are preserved (fols. 1r–164r), and the De spe occurs immediately after the De fide (fols. 166r–185v). Secondly, the fragment of the De spe is followed in the manuscript by an anonymous Sermo in festo S. Joannis Baptistae (fols. 186r–188v), written in the same hand as the commentary on dist. 26. The appearance of a sermon in a volume of theological works is quite rare in manuscripts containing texts produced in Salamanca; more ­significantly still, Luis de León is one of the few Salamanca masters to have authored sermons (of course, only a detailed analysis can determine the authorship of this sermon). Thirdly, as noted earlier, the manuscripts Vatican studio edita, vol. 5, 449–618 (De spe); Magistri Luysii Legionensis Augustiniani Divinorum librorum primi apud Salmanticenses interpretis Opera nunc primum ex mss. ejusdem omnibus PP. Augustiniensium studio edita, vol. 6 (Salamanca, 1894), 5–439 (De charitate). In the El Escorial ms., the treatises are found on fols. 144–213 and 214–317. 153   See Salvador Muñoz Iglesias, Fray Luis de León, teólogo, 47–50; David Gutiérrez, “Autenticidad de las lecturas De spe y De caritate de Fray Luis de León,” Analecta Augustiniana 25 (1962): 340–50; Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 198–201. Muñoz Iglesias rejects the notion that these commentaries should be attributed to Luis de León, while Gutiérrez and Barrientos García have argued in favor. Barrientos García has attempted to establish that the two commentaries represent the lectures from 1568–69. 154  In the upper right margin of fol. 166r we read: F. L. de Leon. The same folio carries the title Distinctio 26 Durandi in 3 Sententiarum, in qua distinctione agitur de spe. A brief remark concerning this manuscript is found in Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “El maestro Juan de la Peña, o.p.,” in idem, Miscelánea, 2: 447–542, at 507 (previously published in La Ciencia tomista 51 [1935]: 40–60).

462

Lanza and Toste

City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. lat. 951 and Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1045 both preserve Luis de León’s De fide and the commentary on the Secunda secundae by Mancio de Corpus Christi and his substitutes in 1565–66 and in 1566–67. Mancio was absent from numerous classes, being replaced in the academic year 1565–66 by masters such as Domingo de Guzman, Bartolomé de Medina, and Juan de la Peña. In this year, the classes covered the Secunda secundae, qu. 23–62.155 In the following academic year, Mancio began his lessons at Secunda secundae, qu. 63, but soon after the beginning of the classes he was sent to the royal court and replaced initially by Bartolomé de Medina. Furthermore, we know that from March 22 until the beginning of May, 1567, in the absence of Mancio, it was Luis de León who gave the lectures in the Prime chair; Luis de León commented on qu. 79–82.156 Luis de León replaced Mancio again in the summer 1567, commenting on the text from qu. 88 up to some question before qu. 100.157 All this information is significant because, if we recall that the manuscripts from the Vatican and from the Biblioteca Angelica which contain the De fide also contain the lectures by Mancio and his substitutes (including Luis de León), then we can conclude that these two manuscripts share a further particularity: they are for the most part records of the teaching, during a short period of time (1567–69), in chairs in which Luis de León was involved, either as holder or as substitute. As a result, we may assume that the De spe fragment found in Biblioteca Angelica 1045 can indeed be attributed to Luis de León. The scholars who have dealt with the authorship of the De spe and the De charitate have assumed that the two texts were necessarily connected. But if we take into account the testimony of Luis de León’s students that in 1568–69 their professor read the De spe and later on the De charitate, and given that we know that the questions on charity were read according to the order of the Summa, but not necessarily those on the virtue of hope, we may assume that Luis de León may have lectured on the De spe according to the Sentences and afterwards decided to lecture on the De charitate according to the Summa, 155  See Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “El maestro Mancio de Corpus Christi, o.p.,” in idem, Miscelánea, 2: 363–446, at 381–2 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 51 [1935]: 7–103). 156  See ibid., 383, and principally Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 195–6. Barrientos García presumes that Luis de León already commented on qu. 77. This is not possible, as qu. 78 was commented on by Mancio and Bartolomé de Medina; see Teodoro López, Mancio y Bartolomé de Medina: tratado sobre las usuras y los cambios (Pamplona, 1998), 26. López seems to believe that Luis de León did not lecture on any question. 157  See Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 305.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

463

considering the latter more suitable for a discussion of the virtue of charity, just as he did for the rest of that academic year.158 Note that in the academic year 1571–72 (see below) Luis de León started his lectures according to the order of the Sentences and later switched to the Summa, so it is not impossible that he did the same in 1568–69. The De charitate found in El Escorial, Real Monasterio de El Escorial, o.iii.32 may correspond to the lectures of 1568–69, while the De spe may stem from another academic year,159 or even from lectures that Luis de León gave in the Augustinian convent of Salamanca—a circumstance not previously examined by scholarship.160 Luis de León lectured again on the Sentences in the academic year 1569–70, when he treated dist. 1–11 of Book i. He read according to the order of Durand, but in the questions on the Trinity he followed the order of the Summa. This

158  As we have seen, Soto took the same decision in the academic year 1539–40, when he was supposed to teach Book iii, dist. 27, but instead lectured on ii-ii, qu. 23 of the Summa. 159  The treatise De spe might date from 1563–64. Although there are no extant records of the Libro de visitas for that academic year, so that it is impossible to know what each professor taught in his chair, we should note that Luis de León had read on the De fide section (ii-ii, qu. 1–16) of the Summa during the previous academic year. He could therefore have continued in 1563–64 with the subsequent questions of the same part of the Summa, which is precisely the section De spe (qu. 17–22). However, this dating for the De spe is not without difficulties, because in the published text Luis de León praises an interpretation advanced by León de Castro, a Salamanca professor, in his Commentary on Isaiah published in 1570; León de Castro and Luis de León were fierce opponents. Then again, the license of publication for León de Castro’s work was issued in June 1567 (according to Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 436 n. 703); moreover, Castro began the composition of the work in 1564 (see Klaus Reinhardt, Bibelkommentare spanischer Autoren (1500–1700), vol. 1: Autoren a–ll [Madrid, 1990], 111). This means that Luis de León could have known Castro’s commentary in manuscript form, or at least some of his opinions, by 1564, when the two men were not yet enemies (it seems that the antagonism began in 1569); see Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 200. 160  For examples of lectures delivered in the Augustinian convent, see Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 318–19. Curiously, Barrientos García does not take into consideration this possibility when he discusses the authorship of the De spe. Of course, it is not impossible that the unedited De spe which is a commentary on Durand resulted from lessons at the Augustinian convent of Salamanca; yet, this hypothesis is fragile: 1) all the texts found in mss. Barb. lat. 951 and Angelica 1045 are records of classes given in the university (De fide; the commentaries by Mancio and his substitutes, and by Gallo); 2) why should Luis de León read according to the Sentences in the convent when he was professor of Durand in the university? It is more reasonable to think that he may have taught the Summa in the convent and Durand’s Sentences commentary in his Durand chair.

464

Lanza and Toste

commentary has recently been published.161 In February 1570, Agustín de Mendiola replaced Luis de León, who was away from Salamanca, and at his request covered dist. 35–38 of Book i.162 Luis de León approaches the text by inscribing himself into the commentary tradition on the Sentences: the most frequently quoted works, beyond Durand’s commentary, are the Sentences commentaries by Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Gabriel Biel, Marsilius of Inghen, and Capreolus, along with Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Cajetan’s commentary on the Summa. Yet, the most cited work is still the Summa. The structure of the text is not uniform: for instance, dist. 1 and 4 start with a summary of Durand’s text, while dist. 2 begins with the summary of the same distinction in Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Durand’s positions are often discussed; the pages on the Trinity are an exception, where Aquinas sets the parameters for the way the problem is posed. A comparison between the tabula quaestionum that accompanies the prologue of this commentary and that of Juan de Guevara’s commentary shows that they are independent of each other and have different lines of reasoning. This is noteworthy, because the Salamanca commentaries on the Summa are marked by the uniformity of their tabulae quaestionum and often their argumentations. The last time that Luis de León commented on Durand’s commentary was in the first semester of the academic year 1571–72, when, according to the students’ testimonies, he read Book ii, dist. 24–28. As he was arrested by the Inqui­ sition on March 24, 1572, he could not proceed with his lectures. Curiously, the Augustinian friar lectured on the first distinctions (dist. 24–25: De libero arbitrio) according to the Sentences and the following distinctions (dist. 26–28: De gratia) according to the order of the Summa (i–ii, qu. 109–14).163 The distinctions that we can consider as a proper Sentences commentary, that is, 24 and 25, and that are relevant for this chapter survive in one manuscript and have been critically edited.164 Again, Luis de León quotes previous ­commentators such as Gregory of Rimini and Ockham, together with c­ ontemporary Lutheran 161  See Fray Luis de León, Dios y su imagen en el hombre. Lecciones inéditas sobre el libro I de las “Sentencias” (1570), ed. Santiago Orrego (Pamplona, 2008), 37–375. The edition is based on ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1834 (= T 1), fols. 89r–114v (the text is anonymous). For the attribution, see Fray Luis de León, Dios y su imagen en el hombre, 24–33. 162  This commentary is published ibid., 376–474. For the reasons for Luis de León’s ab­sence, see Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 202. 163  See Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 205–06. 164  See Fray Luis de León, De libero arbitrio, trascripción, introducción y notas de Joaquín Maristany, in Reportata theologica, 473–515. The edition is based on ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1984, fols. 515v–532v.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

465

authors and Lorenzo Valla. The structure of this short commentary is different from the previous one: Luis de León puts forward Peter Lombard’s conclusions taken from the same distinction, then he mentions the questions raised by Durand, before finally indicating his own propositions or conclusions, which he develops at great length. 2.2.6 Other Authors from Salamanca No lectures on the Sentences have survived by professors occupying the Durand chair after Luis de León’s tenure. The production at Salamanca is quite possibly more extensive than the references made here. As research devoted to sixteenth-century Salamanca advances, more manuscripts will be found and more attributions (and corrections) will be made. Scholarship has repeatedly claimed the existence of lectures on the Sentences iuxta mentem Gregori Ariminensis by the Augustinian Alfonso de Córdoba,165 but there is no solid reason to believe that these lectures ever ­existed.166 Moreover, some anonymous lectures are found in manuscript Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1044 (in addition to lectures by Guevara and Juan de Medina, with whom we deal later in this chapter, this codex contains commentaries on parts of Durand’s Sentences commentary)167 and in two Roman manuscripts which, among other ­commentaries on the

165  See, for instance, Manuel Villegas, Teólogos agustinos españoles pretridentinos, in Repertorio de Historia de las ciencias eclesiásticas en España, vol. 3: Siglos xiii–xvi (Salamanca, 1971), 321–59, at 332; Gonzalo Díaz Díaz, Hombres y documentos de la filosofía española, vol. 2: C–D (Madrid, 1983), 390; Domínguez Carretero, La escuela teológica agustiniana, 651. These authors drew their information from old catalogs. 166  Alfonso de Córdoba held the Gregory of Rimini chair from 1525 to 1530. This probably led early bibliographers to assume that he must have left something written while holding the chair. Indeed, early catalogs also assume that Alfonso wrote Commentaria in libros Aristotelis Ethicorum, Oeconomicorum et Politicorum, but these works have never been located, although Alfonso held the chair of Moral Philosophy between 1531 and 1540. Evidently, bibliographers assumed that, since he held those chairs, there had to be extant lectures which just needed to be found. 167  See ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1044, fols. 261r–271r (commentary on Durand’s commentary, Book ii, dist. 2–11); 292r–355r (commentary on Durand’s commentary, Book iv, dist. 8–13); see Friedrich Stegmüller, “Zur Literaturgeschichte der Salmantizenser Schule,” Theologische Revue 29 (1930): 55–9, at 57. Domínguez Carretero, “La escuela teológica agustiniana,” 651, claims that the second commentary, albeit of uncertain authorship, can probably be attributed to Alfonso de Córdoba, but he gives no reason for this claim.

466

Lanza and Toste

Summa produced in Salamanca and Coimbra, transmit two anonymous commentaries on Scotus’s commentary.168 Compared with Durand’s commentary, Scotus’s Sentences commentary was much less commented on at the University of Salamanca. The only known commentary on Scotus is by Lope de Barrio, holder of the Scotus chair between 1560 and 1562. A fragment of his lectures on Book iii (dist. 1, qu. 1–3) has survived. Barrio follows the order of Scotus, but he quotes extensively from Aquinas as well as from Vitoria and Soto.169 It is possible that another commentary on Scotus has survived, but this requires further study.170 This dearth of commentaries on Scotus reveals the predominance of Thomism and of the Dominicans at Salamanca. Obviously, in the Franciscan convent of Salamanca the situation was the opposite. In 1560, the Franciscan general chapter held in Medina del Campo determined that, in the Franciscan studia, the Sentences should be read according to Scotus.171 Due to this decision, by the end of the century, professors from the Franciscan convent of Salamanca had started publishing commentaries on Scotus. In reality, however, these works were intended more as abridgments than as original commentaries.

168  These are mss. Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1041, fols. 443r–502v (commentary on Scotus’s commentary, Book iv, dist. 25) and Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1044, fols. 485r–513v (commentary on Scotus’s commentary, Book iv, dist. 43–44, qu. 2; it is followed, without any interruption, by a treatise De suffragiis mortuorum, which ends at 565r). The first manuscript is described in Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca,” 408 n. 2. 169  His commentary survives in ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 2800, fols. 163r–188v. In Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 126, fol. 167r is indicated as the beginning of the text, but this is not correct. On this unstudied author, see the brief note in Barrientos García, Fray Luis de León, 130 n. 3. 170  Beltrán de Heredia has indicated that a commentary by Cristóbal de Vela on Book iv, dist. 25 survives in ms. Valladolid, Biblioteca de Seminario Conciliar, with no call number, fols. 404–452; see Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “Los manuscritos de los teólogos de la Escuela salmantina,” La Ciencia Tomista 42 (1930): 327–49, at 338. We have not consulted this manuscript. However, since Cristóbal de Vela was holder of the Scotus chair and the only Sentences commentaries produced in Salamanca during the second half of the century were supercommentaries, it is likely that this commentary is a commentary on Scotus (provided it really is a commentary on the Sentences and not on the Summa; note that the manuscript contains only commentaries on the Tertia pars, the only exception being the fragment by Cristóbal de Vela). 171  See Isaac Vázquez, “Fr. Francisco de Herrera, OFM, y sus votos en la controversia De auxiliis,” Verdad y vida 23 (1965): 271–318, at 276.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

467

The first work in this genre seems to have been the Breviloquium in quatuor libros Magistri Sententiarum, published in 1584, which was followed three years later by the Breviloquium in quartum librum Magistri Sententiarum.172 Both of these works were penned by Francisco Ovando Mogollón de Paredes (b. 1532), who studied at the University of Salamanca and taught in the Franciscan convent of the same city.173 Despite its title, the first work covers only the first three books of the Sentences. Each distinction is divided into propositions, which shows the intention of presenting and summarizing its ideas as clearly as possible. Quotations of previous authors are not as abundant as in other contemporary commentaries: Scotus, Bonaventure, and Alexander of Hales are often mentioned, while Aquinas is quoted extensively. The second work includes a supplement to dist. 38 (De votis) as related to the Franciscans. The structure is the same as in the previous work; here Alexander of Hales is one of the most quoted authors. It is worth noting that, while the first work has 583 pages for the first three books taken together, the second extends to 1002 pages for the fourth book of the Sentences alone. This reflects the tendency of sixteenth-century scholasticism to emphasize the fourth book. This author’s brother, Juan Ovando Mogollón de Paredes (1532–1610), was a professor in the Franciscan convents of León and Oviedo before being appointed to the convent of Salamanca in the 1590s. There he became praelector sometime after 1601. Juan Ovando commented on Book iii of Scotus’s commentary, and his work was printed in Valencia in 1597.174 Juan Ovando replaced Francisco de Herrera (ca. 1551–before 1612) as praelector in the Franciscan convent of Salamanca. Herrera, who taught theology there since 1583 and held the Prime chair (being praelector) from 1589 to 1601,175 172  See Franciscus Ovandus Mogollon de Paredes, Breviloquium scholasticae theologiae in quatuor libros Magistri Sententiarum (Salamanca: apud haeredes Mathiae Gastij, 1584); idem, Breviloquium in quartum librum Magistri Sententiarum (Madrid: apud Petrum Madrigal, 1587). 173  See Isaac Vázquez Janeiro, “Los Juan de Ovando. Dos teólogos homónimos del siglo xvi,” Revista Española de Teologia 38 (1978): 273–310, at 278–80. 174  See Ioannes de Ovando, Commentarii in iii librum Sententiarum subtilissimi doctoris Ioannis Duns Scoti, eius quae litera, per articulos et conclusiones elaboratissime elucidata, ad clarissimum ordinem redacta, ut omnibus ad eam facilis praebatur aditus (Valencia: apud Alvarum Francum, 1597). The Commentarii were republished in 1624. The information about this author is taken from Vázquez Janeiro, “Los Juan de Ovando,” 280–9. 175  See Vázquez Janeiro, “Los Juan de Ovando,” 285. On Herrera, see Domingo Savall, “La interpretación escotista en la provincia de Santiago. Fr. Francisco de Herrera y el pecado de los ángeles,” El Eco franciscano 56 (1939): 448–59; Isaac Vázquez, “Fr. Francisco de Herrera, ofm,” 271–318.

468

Lanza and Toste

composed two different works related to the Sentences. First, he published commentaries on Scotus’s commentary, one on Book i (1589) and another on Book ii (1595–1600).176 Later, he composed a textbook on the four books of the Sentences, which enjoyed some diffusion in Europe (at least six editions in less than forty years).177 The commentaries and the textbook have different aims: while the former are truly commentaries, the latter is a condensed account of the doctrines that Scotus advances in his Sentences commentaries. While the former were printed in a folio format, the latter is a small sextodecimo volume, an appropriate format for textbooks that could be easily carried about. What is common to the commentaries and the textbook is the sometimes detailed discussion of the ideas of both Scotus and Aquinas. The subtitle of the manual is in fact explicit: Cum principalibus fundamentis opinionum Subtilissimi Doctoris Scoti et Doctoris Angelici Divi Thomae. Herrera’s commentary does not cover every distinction of the Sentences, since, as its title indicates, it is arranged into disputationes, each of which includes several questions. The text of reference is not the Book of Sentences itself, but rather Scotus’s commentary. Thus, each question starts with a summary of Scotus’s conclusion—just a few lines—followed by a brief explicatio litterae, which in turn is followed by the question itself. Since Herrera composed this work at Salamanca, where Thomism was dominant, and his goal was to endorse Scotus, it is unsurprising that he discusses Aquinas in depth in almost every question. For this reason (and although he often quotes medieval Sentences commentators, Bonaventure in particular), Herrera also addresses the Thomistae of his time, often to refute them, such as Bartolomé de Medina,

176  See Franciscus de Herrera, Disputationes theologicae et commentaria in primum librum Sententiarum Subtilis Doctoris Scoti (Salamanca: apud Ioannem et Andream Renaut fratres, 1589). This volume covers only dist. 1–25 of Book i. The commentary on Book ii was published in two volumes, the first of which covers dist. 1–27 and the second the remaining distinctions: Disputationes theologicae et commentaria in secundum librum Sententiarum Subtilis Doctoris Scoti (Salamanca: apud Ioannem et Andream Renaut fratres, 1595); Disputationes theologicae, et commentaria in secundum librum Sententiarum Doctoris Subtilis Scoti a 28 usque ad 42 inclusive, in quibus tota materia de peccatis actualibus disputatur (Salamanca: excudebat Andream Renaut, 1600). 177  See Franciscus de Herrera, Manuale theologicum et resolutissima dilucidatio principalium quaestionum quae communiter in quatuor libris Sententiarum disputantur. Cum principalibus fundamentis opinionum subtilissimi doctoris Scoti et doctoris Angelici divi Thomae (Rome: apud Gulielmum Faciottum, 1607; Barcelona: apud Sebastianum Matheaud, 1611; Paris: apud viduam Iacobi le Roy, 1616; Rome: apud Gulielmum Faciottum, 1619; Lyon: apud Hieronymum de la Garde, 1642; Venice: typis Marci Ginammi, 1644).

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

469

Domingo Báñez, Luis de Molina, and Miguel de Palacio.178 It is clear, therefore, that by the end of the century, the Franciscan convent attempted to react to the Thomism then dominant in Salamanca. Spanish Franciscan commentaries on the Sentences that proved more successful were the ones written by José Angles († 1588), professor in the Franciscan convent of Valencia and later in the arts faculty of Salamanca.179 Unlike his fellow friars, Angles did not follow Scotus’s commentary, but the Sentences themselves. His Flores in quartum Sententiarum and Flores in secundum Sententiarum were printed in 1575 and 1586 respectively: the first went through almost twenty re-editions and the second through more than ten.180 Although old catalogs also mention Flores on the first and third book, such volumes, which may have existed in manuscript, were never printed.181 Despite their titles, these works are not florilegia. With their catechetical style, they resemble Tomás de Chaves’s work. The text is concise: each question is divided into articles, which are subdivided into conclusions (sometimes, the articles include dubia or difficultates which are also subdivided into conclusions). The conclusions often start with the opinions of Scotus and Aquinas, and sometimes of Durand. At the beginning of many conclusions, there are references to medieval Sentences commentaries such as those by Alexander of Hales, Richard of Middleton, Bonaventure, Peter Auriol, Andrew of Novo Castro, and Biel. In the introductory Ad lectorem, Angles declares that he follows the doctrina communis of Aquinas and Bonaventure—although in fact he sometimes adheres to the positions of Alexander of Hales, Scotus, and Richard of 178  See, for instance, Franciscus de Herrera, Disputationes theologicae et commentaria in secundum librum Sententiarum Subtilis Doctoris Scoti, vol. 1, where Soto is discussed at pp. 117–8, 220, 248; Báñez at p. 597; Medina is mentioned at p. 693; Palacio at pp. 610, 619, 717; Molina at (among other pages) 576, 589–90, 629. It must be noted that Herrera mentions only printed works. 179  On this author, see Atanasio López, “El P. José Anglés, teólogo franciscano del siglo xvi,” Archivo Ibero-Americano 1 (1941): 421–35 and 2 (1942): 5–20. 180  For editions of these two works, see López, “El P. José Anglés, teólogo franciscano,” 8–19 and León Esteban Mateo, “Catedráticos eclesiásticos de la Universidad Valenciana del siglo xvi,” in Repertorio de Historia de las Ciencias Eclesiásticas en España, vol. 6, 349–439, at 359–61. Here are the bibliographical details for the first edition of each one: Josephus Angles Valentinus, Flores theologicarum quaestionum in quartum librum Sententiarum, 2 vols. (Cagliari: typis Nicolai Canyelles, 1575–76); Flores theologicarum quaestionum in secundum librum Sententiarum, nunc primum collecti et in lucem editi (Madrid: ex officina Petri Madrigalis, 1586). 181  See Esteban Mateo, “Catedráticos eclesiásticos,” 361–2.

470

Lanza and Toste

Middleton. Indeed, Angles follows Franciscan authors on many occasions and, like Herrera, has no qualms about criticizing the Thomistae of his time.182 Nonetheless, Angles is quite respectful regarding Thomistic positions, as he is prone to quote Thomas (and to concede the correctness of his arguments) or Dominican authors such as Cajetan and Domingo de Soto (the latter is extensively cited in the Flores on the fourth book). The success of Angles’s Flores can be explained by the fact that the author presents the positions of both Aquinas and Scotus, and by the brevity of the work: the Sentences are presented in conclusions, many of which occupy only a few lines in the edition. 2.3 Alcalá and Valencia 2.3.1 Juan de Medina In Alcalá, the teaching of the Sentences is marked by the career of Juan de Medina († 1546), who held the chair of Gabriel Biel (or of nominalism) between 1519 and 1545. Medina owes his fame to his posthumous work, De poenitentia, restitutione et contractibus, which was first published in Salamanca in 1550 and became one of the most important works of sixteenth-century Spanish scholasticism. For the most part, the lectures that Medina delivered in the Biel chair and that have survived reflect the subjects covered in his printed work. This is the case for two manuscripts which contain commentaries on Book iv. The first is ms. Rome, Biblioteca Angelica 512, which contains different sections on Book iv: dist. 1–14, qu. 4; dist. 15–16, qu. 5; and dist. 16–21. These lectures probably date from 1531–32.183 The second manuscript is Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 714, which hands down lectures on dist. 15 and 26–50 of

182  See, for instance, Josephus Angles Valentinus, Flores theologicarum quaestionum in quartum librum Sententiarum (Venice, 1586), 1: 169, where he accuses the Thomistae of being close to Pelagianism: “Contraria opinio est Thomistarum, qui ex conclusione Scoti colligunt ex uiribus naturae posse hominem poenitere, quod est Pelagii. Et ratio est, quia habitus acquisitus naturaliter, inquiunt, inclinat ad actus similes illis, ex quibus generatur. Et cum habitus poenitendi sit acquisitus ex actibus poenitendi supernaturalibus, naturaliter quidem inclinabit ad illos, et ex consequenti poterimus naturaliter poenitere, qui fuit error Pelagii.” 183  The content of this manuscript is described in Francisco Delgado de Hoyos, “Tres tesis de ordine del catedrático de la Universidad Complutense, M.° Juan de Medina, en el Ms. 512 de la Biblioteca Angélica de Roma,” Anthologica Annua 37 (1990): 355–61, at 356. It is worthy of note that Medina follows Durand and Peter of Palude regarding the supremacy of episcopal over sacerdotal power (ibid., 358–9).

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

471

Book iv.184 As yet, no comparison has been attempted between the texts of the two manuscripts that cover the same distinction (dist. 15), and between these manuscripts and the De poenitentia, restitutione et contractibus. Such a comparison would be important in order to assess the relationship between Juan de Medina’s teaching and his published work. According to Beltrán de Heredia, Medina lectured on Book iv in the academic years 1531–32, 1534–35, 1535–36, 1539–40 ( from dist. 18 on), and 1541– 42.185 Book iv seems indeed to have been the book on which Medina lectured most often. As we shall see, it is extremely rare to find lectures by holders of the Biel chair. For this reason, it would be particularly important to see how far Medina follows Gabriel Biel. Biel’s commentary ends at the beginning of dist. 23 of Book iv. In Medina’s commentary on dist. 26–50, preserved in ms. Ottob. lat. 714, the questions follow the order of Durand’s and Scotus’s commentaries: for instance, dist. 30 follows Durand, while dist. 31 follows Scotus.186 Medina probably also lectured on Books i and ii. A commentary handed down in one manuscript and covering these two books has been attributed to him.187 184  See Ehrle, “Los manuscritos vaticanos . . . (conclusión),” 177. Ehrle did not include folio numbers in his short description of the manuscript. The manuscript is also described in Beltrán de Heredia, Domingo de Soto, 584–5, and in Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca,” 401. Both scholars consider that the first section attributed to Medina is a commentary on qu. 42–50 of the Tertia pars, which is mistaken. Medina’s lectures are copied in this manuscript as follows: fols. 528r–780v: from dist. 26 through dist. 50; fols. 782r–815r: dist. 15. Fols. 802r–815r comprise a section entitled De restitutione, which Ehlre regarded as an autonomous work composed by Medina according to Gabriel Biel’s Sentences commentary. However, in some late medieval Sentences commentaries, such as the ones by Gabriel Biel, John Major, and even Juan de Celaya (see section ii.3.2 below), dist. 15 of Book iv included a lenghty section or a question on the topic of restitution. This section has not been compared with Medina’s De poenitentia, restitutione et contractibus. Delgado de Hoyos considers that this manuscript reproduces the lectures of 1533–35 and 1543–44, but does not substantiate this claim; see Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca,” 407; idem, “Tres tesis de ordine,” 356, n. 6. 185  See Beltrán de Heredia, “La teología en la Universidad de Alcalá,” 105, 156. 186  See ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 714, fols. 564v–569v. 187  This is ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 1044, fols. 162–231 (Book i, dist. 1–48); fols. 231–260v (Book ii, dist. 1–42, qu. 2). The commentary on Book ii presents a rather succinct text; the answers are usually brief. Ehrle, “Los manuscritos vaticanos,” 176–7, believed that these commentaries were composed in 1535; Beltrán de Heredia, however, opined that this manuscript conserves Medina’s teaching from 1538–39. Moreover, since some folios have references to Medina in the third person, Beltrán de Heredia advanced the hypothesis that in those cases the lectures were given

472

Lanza and Toste

2.3.2 Juan de Celaya Another university marked by the lengthy career of one of its professors is the University of Valencia, where, as we have seen, the Sentences enjoyed greater importance than at other Iberian universities. This professor was Juan de Celaya (1490–1558). Born in Valencia, Celaya returned to his hometown in 1524, after two decades in Paris (1504–25), where he graduated (on the same day as Francisco de Vitoria) and earned his doctorate (six days earlier than Vitoria, in 1522).188 While in Paris, Vitoria and most likely Domingo de Soto studied philosophy under Celaya.189 Celaya was the only professor of theology in the University of Valencia from 1525 to 1530, and as such he was obliged to teach according to the three ways in one chair and according to Aquinas in another chair.190 Celaya’s weight at this university was considerable for another reason too: he was nominated perpetual rector, an appointment that he held until his death in 1558. He taught in two chairs until 1536–37 and, from that year until 1549, only in one chair. The greater part of his literary production consisted in commentaries on Aristotle and was published in Paris in the first two decades of the sixteenth century. When Celaya arrived in Valencia, he was already a renowned professor. He published a commentary on the four books of the Sentences that resulted from his teachings there. From the academic year 1525–26 until 1528–29 he commented on the Sentences in the following order: Book iv, iii, i, and finally ii. The published volumes appeared in almost the same order: Book iv in 1528, Book iii in 1530, Book ii in 1531, and Book i in 1531 as well.191 The volumes by a substitute; see Beltrán de Heredia, “La teología en la Universidad de Alcalá,” 157. The manuscript itself bears the date of 1539 (and not 1535), at least in the explicit to Book i: “Explicit explanatio siue resolutio super I Sententiarum edita a praeclarissimo Doctore Joanne de Medina anno 1539.” Stegmüller proposed 1537 instead of 1535 for Book ii (“Zur Literaturgeschichte,” 57). Also, the name Medina or Metina appears in the margins of fols. 206v, 207r, 208r–v, 217v, 218r, and 220r. This means that at least some parts of the text contained in this manuscript have to be ascribed to a substitute for Medina. 188  On this author, see Ricardo García Villoslada, La Universidad de París durante los estudios de Francisco de Vitoria o.p. (1507–1522) (Rome, 1938), 180–215; Enrique González González and Vicent Vallés Borràs, “Libros y bienes del rector Joan Llorenç de Salaya,” Estudis. Revista de Historia Moderna 16 (1990): 31–88. 189  García Villoslada, La Universidad de París, 23; Beltrán de Heredia, Domingo de Soto, 16–7. 190  González González and Vallés Borràs (“Libros y bienes del rector,” 41) assume that Celaya taught Aquinas based not on the Summa, but on his Sentences commentary. Although this is more likely, there is no clear evidence for their claim. 191   See Ioannes a Celaia, Scripta . . . in quartum volumen Sententiarum, quae in Valentino gymnasio die Iouis quarto decimo calendas Nouembreis a localibus ipsis kalē tykē,

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

473

include the text of the Sentences, which is rare in printed sixteenth-century Sentences commentaries. Celaya’s commentary is thus one of the few works of the late commentary tradition to take into account Peter Lombard’s text. On occasion Celaya discusses the positions of Augustine and Ambrose, because they are present in the text of the Sentences itself. It is interesting to note that Celaya’s private library comprised many Sentences commentaries.192 While professor in Valencia, Celaya had access to many of the most important works of the medieval Sentences commentary tradition: Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, Robert Holcot, Francis of Meyronnes, Ockham, Gregory of Rimini, John Mair, Denys the Carthusian, Gabriel Biel, Adam Wodeham, Andrew of Novo Castro, Capreolus, and Adrian vi. These authors are quoted throughout his commentary, although the number of citations from medieval Sentences commentators is not the same across the four volumes. For instance, while in Book i (the last to be published), Celaya often refers to Aquinas, Scotus, Durand, Pierre d’Ailly, Ockham, and Gregory of Rimini, in the other books the references tend to be much fewer. Celaya declares that his commentary follows both Thomism and nominalism and that he will limit himself exclusively to theological issues.193 He often vt aiunt, ­incohata sunt, anno a Christo nato 1525 . . . (Valencia: industria Joannis Joffre, 1528); Scripta . . . in tertium volumen Sententiarum, quae in Valentino gymnasio die veneris decimo kalendas Nouembris statim a lucalibus ipsis inchoata sunt, anno a Christo nato 1526 . . . (Valencia: industria Joannis Joffre, 1530); Scripta . . . secundum triplicem viam diui Thomae, realium et nominalium in secundum librum Sententiarum, quae in Valentino gymnasio die Lunae decimo septimo kalendas Iulij statim a lucalibus ipsis inchoata sunt, anno a Christo nato 1528 . . . (Valencia: cura Georgij Costilla, 1531); Scripta . . . secundum triplicem viam diui Thomae realium et nominalium in primum librum Sententiarum, quae in Valentino gymnasio die Lunae duodecimo kalendas Nouembreis statim a lucalibus ipsis inchoata sunt, anno a Christo nato 1527 . . . (Valencia: cura Georgij Costilla, 1531). 192  See González González and Vallés Borràs, “Libros y bienes del rector,” 46–8. These authors assert that, out of a total of 244 volumes, Celaya’s library contained 46 Sentences commentaries, the Sentences commentary tradition thus forming the largest group of works in his library (the volumes on logic, natural, and moral philosophy amount to 20). However, if we examine the list provided by the authors (ibid., 54–68), the conclusion has to be different, as under the group of Sentences the authors include a number of other works; for instance, John of Freiburg’s Summa confessorum, Paul of Venice’s commentary on the Categories, or the Rationale divinorum officiorum by William Durand. The presence of Sentences commentaries in Celaya’s library was significant, but not to the extent suggested in the article. 193  See Ioannes a Celaia, Scripta . . . secundum triplicem viam diui Thome realium et nominalium in primum librum Sententiarum, preamble (with no pagination): “omnia iuxta diui Thomae, realium ac nominalium placita dogmataque . . . est . . . continuatum ex

474

Lanza and Toste

presents the stands taken by Aquinas and Scotus (or Bonaventure) with regard to the matter at hand and discusses them at length.194 Nevertheless, Celaya has been presented as an author who opposes Aquinas.195 Although throughout his commentary he defends Scotus et alios nominales,196 it would be a mistake to describe Celaya as anti-Thomistic without a detailed analysis of his commentary. It is interesting, as well, to note that Vitoria expressly criticizes him regarding the question of almsgivings, which Celaya discusses in the lengthy dist. 15 of Book iv (Vitoria’s statement, however, refers to the time when both men were in Paris).197 For these reasons, Celaya’s commentary deserves to be studied; moreover, along with Deza’s work, it is the only commentary on all four books of the Sentences, and it might stand as a singular work in a context (sixteenth-century Spain) dominated by Thomism. Celaya was probably decisive for the interpretation of the Sentences in Valencia for some decades, though his precise influence has yet to be studied. An investigation of this kind would also require identifying other commentaries that were produced in Valencia.198 d­ ogmatibus in hoc genere diui Thomae, realium ac nominalium, iam omissis his quae nihil faciunt ad operis instituti rationem. Ea solum attigi que ex re nasci eidemque abunde multum conuenire eruditissimo cuique viderentur. Ea quidem sunt theologica dumtaxat vti in re eius generis. Cetera vero que artium sunt veluti friuola parerga preterque rem in hoc scriptorum genere, de more equidem meo non moror.” 194  See, for instance, Ioannes a Celaia, Scripta . . . secundum librum Sententiarum, dist. 22, qu. 4, fols. 126v–130r; dist. 41, qu. 2, fols. 227r–228v. 195  For example, Villoslada, La Universidad de Paris, 205–06. 196  See, for instance, Ioannes a Celaia, Scripta . . . secundum librum Sententiarum, dist. 25, qu. 4, fol. 154ra; dist. 36, qu. 1, fol. 207vb. 197  See Francisco de Vitoria, De legibus, introd. Simona Langella, transcription and notes José Barrientos García and Simona Langella, Spanish translation Pablo García Castillo, Italian translation Simona Langella (Salamanca, 2010), qu. 100, art. 9, p. 212. 198  There is some indication that the Augustinian Joan Gregori Satorre wrote a commentary on Book iii of the Sentences in 1588, this being found in ms. Barcelona, Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó, Monacals d’Hisenda, vol. 721, fols. 1r–335v. Satorre held the chair devoted to the Sentences in 1582–84, 1587–88, 1591–93, 1595, 1597–1600, and 1603–05 (according to Esteban Mateo, “Catedráticos eclesiásticos,” 408 and 436). The manuscript bears the double title 3a pars divi Thomae and Comentaria in 3 librum Sententiarum; its incipit is, “In hoc tertio libro agit magister de ineffabili Incarnationis misterio.” The catalog of the Archive of the Crown of Aragon indicates that this manuscript reports lectures from 1588 on Book iii of the Sentences (dist. 1–2) and on the Tertia pars, qu. 1–32, on the subject of the Incarnation. A direct consultation of the manuscript will be necessary, but it is clear that the Summa occupies the lion’s share. Probably, the Sentences serve as the introduction to the subject matter, which is then treated according to the order of the Summa,

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

475

2.4 Coimbra 2.4.1 Martín de Ledesma The last Iberian university to be considered here is the Portuguese University of Coimbra, where the Sentences persisted for a longer time than at other Iberian universities. This helps to explain the higher number of extant sixteenth-century commentaries found in Portuguese libraries. The Spanish Dominican Martín de Ledesma († 1574) is an essential figure for Coimbra. Martín held the chair of Scripture (1540–41), the Vespers chair (1541– 57), and the Prime chair (1557–62).199 When he took possession of the Vespers chair, he was responsible for lecturing on Durand’s Sentences commentary, but in that same year the Portuguese king, John iii, established the Summa as the standard book for the Vespers chair,200 so that this became the work on which Martín lectured for sixteen years. Martín also lectured on the Sentences for five years, that is, during his tenure in the Prime chair, since, as mentioned earlier (1.4), the Sentences were the textbook in the Prime chair of Coimbra between 1546 and 1575. Martín de Ledesma composed a two-volume work (published in 1555 and 1560, respectively) whose title presents it as a commentary on Book iv of the Sentences.201 The first volume was published while Martín was reading the Summa in the Vespers chair. It seems odd that a professor who was required to teach the Summa in his classroom should have published a commentary on the Sentences. However, an analysis of the tabula quaestionum of Martín’s two volumes shows that it merely reproduces the tabula quaestionum of Domingo de Soto’s commentary, which, as we have seen, follows the order of the Summa. That Martín’s work is intended as a commentary on the Summa is further shown by the fact that, along with Martín’s text, at the beginning of each question the edition reproduces the corresponding question of the Summa.

as is the case in many other works. See Eulàlia Duran, Repertori de manuscrits catalans (1474–1620), vol. 3 (Barcelona, 2003), 322–3. 199  For his biography, see Manuel Augusto Rodrigues, A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura na Universidade de Coimbra: primeiro século (1537–1640) (Coimbra, 1974), 47–64. 200  See ibid., 49. 201  See Martinus Ledesmius, Primus thomus, qui et Prima quartae nuncupatur (Coimbra: excudebat Ioannes Alvarus, 1555); Secunda quartae (Coimbra: apud Ioannes Alvarus, 1560). This work has not been studied much, a rare exception being Delgado de Hoyos, “El cardenalato en los tratados,” 788–91.

476

Lanza and Toste

The same holds for Martín’s unedited lectures on part of Book ii, given in the Prime chair in 1560.202 Martín follows the order of distinctions of the Sentences—his lectures correspond roughly to dist. 27–44 of Book ii—but explicit references to distinctions in the Sentences occur only three times (fol. 64: dist. 27; fol. 94: dist. 30; and fol. 130: dist. 34). The commentary comprises 68 questions, some of which are clearly suggested by the text of the Sentences itself: this is the case for the first questions of dist. 30, for example. Nonetheless, of those 68 questions only 17 do not have a corresponding title in the Summa.203 This Dominican is a key figure in Coimbra for one main reason. Having followed the classes of Vitoria and Soto in Salamanca, he took the new ideas that he had learned at Salamanca to Coimbra. Indeed, he brought with him volumes containing Vitoria’s Relectiones and Soto’s De iustitia et iure (and probably others), which he used and copied extensively in his commentary on Book iv of the Sentences.204 An investigation of the influence of Martín’s commentary on later commentaries produced in Coimbra has yet to be undertaken. Nevertheless, it is clear that it was read, since it was quoted and discussed in the work of another Coimbra professor: in the De legibus of Francisco Suárez.205 After Martín de Ledesma, almost all the commentaries produced at Coimbra were commentaries on Scotus, Durand, and Gabriel Biel, as they originated in the teaching carried out in the chairs devoted to these authors. A curious 202  These lectures are found in ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1200. On fol. 1, the manuscript bears the title: Annotationes traditae a fratre Martino de Ledesma insigni ­theologiae professore in secundum Sententiarum d. xxvii, ao 2° doutubro [sic] de mil e quinhentos e sesenta [sic]. 203  In the appendix, we provide the tabula quaestionum of this manuscript. Between square brackets we indicate the parallel questions of the Summa theologiae. 204  See Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “Las relecciones y lecturas de Francisco de Vitoria en su discípulo Martín de Ledesma, o.p.,” in Miscelánea, 2: 113–36, esp. 119–36 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 49 [1934]: 5–29); Delgado de Hoyos, “Apuntes para la historia,” 396–400. 205  See, for instance, Francisco Suárez, Tractatus de legibus ac Deo legislatore. Liber v: De varietate legum humanarum et praesertim de odiosis (Madrid, 2010), cap. 9, §5, pp. 11, 13; cap. 16, §2, pp. 187, 196, 200, 320. Martín is also quoted as an authority in the commentary on Durand’s Sentences commentary by the Coimbra professor Manuel Tavares (see below in this chapter), which was written three decades after Martín’s commentary. Consider the incipit of Tavares’s commentary, extant in ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 239, fols. 270r–364v: “De hac materia agit Durandus cum illaque et alijs in 4 d. 8 et divus Thomas 3 pars q. 73 et Ledesma 4 q. 14. Ad questionem igitur propositam indet Durandus . . .”

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

477

feature of Coimbra is that all professors held more than one of the chairs that were devoted to the various Sentences commentators: the chairs of Biel and Durand were held at the beginning of the career, while the Scotus chair (a major chair) was held afterward. This means that in sixteenth-century Coimbra there was no direct relationship between belonging to a religious order and reading an author of that order. The commentaries of six different Coimbra professors have survived. We offer here a brief account of their careers and literary production. 2.4.2 Francisco de Cristo The Augustinian Francisco de Cristo († 1586), who spent his entire career at Coimbra, is one of the few authors from Coimbra who have been studied.206 He held the Biel (1563–65), Scotus (1565–66), and Vespers chairs (1566–81).207 Francisco published two commentaries on the Sentences: one on the whole of Book i, and another on dist. 1–30 and 34 of Book iii.208 These works were printed while Francisco held the Vespers chair. As we have seen, in the 1570s holders of this chair lectured on the Sentences, so that it is unsurprising that Francisco published commentaries on the Sentences and not on the Summa, although by that time the Dominicans of Salamanca were promoting the publication of the first commentaries on the Summa. Francisco’s commentaries follow the order of the Sentences, but on occasion the order of the questions within some distinctions is closer to that of the Summa.209 In both commentaries, Aquinas, Scotus, and Durand are the most 206  See Ursino Domínguez Carretero, “La predestinación y reprobación en Francisco de Cristo y Alfonso de Mendoza,” La Ciudad de Dios 154 (1942): 293–317 (this study sees Francisco as being close to Luis de León). His philosophical output has received some attention; see Vicente Muñoz Delgado, “Lógica y filosofía de la naturaleza en un inédito de Francisco de Cristo (Coimbra, 1566),” La Ciudad de Dios 186 (1973): 251–76; Amândio Coxito, Estudos sobre filosofía em Portugal no século xvi (Lisbon, 2005), 9–10, 19–120, and 393–433 (this includes a Portuguese translation of Francisco’s Methodus, hoc est docendi ratio, ea quam tam in logicis quam in physicis utitur Aristoteles; the translation is based on ms. Évora, Biblioteca Pública, CXVIII–2-17, and not on a critical edition). 207  For this author’s career, see Rodrigues, “Padres agostinhos do século xvi,” 287–313. 208  See Franciscus a Christo, Enarrationes in collectanea primi libri Magistri Sententiarum (Coimbra: typis Antonij a Mariz, 1579); Commentariorum in tertium librum Sententia­ rum libri duo. De verbo incarnato liber i. De fide. De haeresi. De spe. De charitate. De donis Spiritus Sancti (Coimbra: typis Antonij a Mariz, 1586). 209  See, for instance, dist. 26–30 on charity in Book iii, which to some extent follow the Summa, ii-ii, qu. 24–26.

478

Lanza and Toste

frequently quoted authors, whose positions are sometimes discussed at length. Significantly, in the commentary on Book iii, Francisco de Cristo quotes Vitoria, Soto, and Juan de Medina as authorities, which means that Salamanca and Alcalá were already integrated into the scholastic canon.210 Stegmüller indicated that three different sections of Francisco’s commentary on Book iv are found in a manuscript in Lisbon.211 It turns out, however, that only one of these sections—the third—is a commentary on Book iv, namely, on dist. 14–18; but it is anonymous.212 By contrast, Stegmüller was correct in indicating a manuscript that contains Francisco’s commentary on Scotus’s Sentences commentary, Book ii, dist. 10–42, recording his lectures during his last year in the Scotus chair.213 He did not notice, however, that there is another manuscript that hands down this commentary on Book ii, although as anonymous and from dist. 3, qu. 6 through dist. 42 (including some further questions on this last distinction).214 Compared with later commentaries produced at Coimbra or even with his own printed commentaries, this commentary presents a succinct text with few references to other theologians. Francisco does not deal at length with each distinction, even passing over some distinctions (dist. 13–16 and 33). The distinctions to which he pays more attention are dist. 25 on free will and dist. 30–32 on original sin. After Francisco de Cristo, no other Coimbra professor had a Sentences commentary printed, and none seems to have produced a commentary on a complete book of the Sentences. A possible last case of a commentary on the 210  See, for instance, Franciscus a Christo, Commentariorum in tertium librum, fols. 207v–208r. 211  See Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 200. 212  The manuscript is ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5512. Fols. 19r–48v contain an anonymous De sacramentis in genere, which is a commentary on qu. 61–62 of the Tertia pars and not on the Sentences. The foliation starts anew after this commentary. On fols. 1r–80v we find a Tractatus de sacrosanto Eucharistiae sacramento by Francisco de Cristo, which is a commentary on qu. 73–77 of the Tertia pars. Finally, on fols. 81r–153v, there is an anonymous Tractatus de paenitentia, which is a commentary on Book iv, dist. 14–18 (Stegmüller indicates only dist. 14). For the tabula quaestionum of this last work, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries on the Sentences: The Structure and Content of Some Iberian Manuscripts,” Studia Neoaristotelica 12 (2015), forthcoming. 213  See Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 252. The manuscript is ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1877 (= T 47), fols. 1r–119v: Annotationes super Scotum in 2 Sent.; in the upper right margin the name Frater Franciscus a Christo appears. In the left margin of the last folio one reads: “Hic Frater Franciscus a Christo uespertinam cathedram obtinuit qua de causa finem primo Sententiarum libro imponere ei non est datum.” 214  The manuscript in question is ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1861 (= T 30), fols. 1r–145v. Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 246, identifies it as an anonymous commentary. See the tabula quaestionum in Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.”

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

479

Sentences is a manuscript found in the university library of Coimbra: its text dates from 1564 and is attributed to an unknown author, Ludovico Crasto (not necessarily a professor at the university);215 in the introduction, the author presents the text as a treatise on penance made up of twelve questions, which roughly correspond to dist. 14–18 of Book iv of the Sentences. The text ends abruptly at the beginning of the sixth question, however.216 Its incipit—In distinctione prima de paenitentia cum sequentibus omisso ordine quem actor noster . . .—shows that it is a commentary on a precise section of the Sentences and not on the Summa. 2.4.3 Inácio Dias Not only did the focus at Coimbra shift from the Book of Sentences to its commentaries, but due to the slow pace of the lectures, we find no complete commentaries on one book, but only on particular sections of Durand, Scotus, and Biel. Inácio Dias’s works illustrate this tendency. Inácio held the Durand chair, first as substitute (1563–65) and later as its holder (1565–66), and afterward the Scotus chair (1566–75). Born in Coimbra, he received his education and spent his entire career there. He died in 1575.217 Based on Stegmüller,218 and correcting some of his findings, we can describe the corpus of Inácio Dias’s extant lectures as follows: 1.

commentary on Scotus, Book iii, dist. 1–6 (1566);219

215  See ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1880 (= T 50), fols. 108r–146v. The title reads, “Sequitur tractatus de paenitentia explicandus a D.D. Ludovico Crast 1564.” Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 253, indicates that this is the first text in the manuscript and that it is followed by a commentary on Aristotle’s Physics; actually, it is the other way around: the Physics commentary occupies fols. 2r–107r, and is followed by the treatise on penance. 216  Here a list of the questions addressed in the text: An paenitentia sit sacramentum (fols. 108v–121v); An paenitentia sit uirtus (fols. 122r–131v); An per paenitentiam omnia peccata remoueantur (fols. 132r–140r); An peccata per paenitentiam semel demissa redeant per sequens [sic] peccata (fols. 140r–142r); An per paenitentiam uirtutes restituantur (fols. 142v–146r); An contrictio sit dolor pro peccatis assumptus cum proposito confitendi et satisfaciendi (fol. 146r–v). 217  For his biography, see Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 29–30; Rodrigues, A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura, 487–8. 218  See Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 30. 219  See ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1877 (= T 47), fols. 119v–242v: Annotationes traditae a Magistro Ignatio Diaz super 3 Sententiarum de incarnatione Verbi diuini, anno 1566, nonis Octobris iuxta ordinem Scoti. The text ends abruptly at the end of the quire. In order to illustrate how a commentator inserted questions of his own into the order

480 2. 3.

Lanza and Toste

commentary on Durand, Book i, dist. 1–17, qu. 8 (1570–72);220 commentary on Scotus, from Book i, dist. 18 through Book ii, dist. 2, qu. 3 (1575).221

of questions of Scotus, we provide the tabula quaestionum of this commentary in the appendix. 220  Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 286 indicates only ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 268, fols. 168r–336r. However, this commentary is also extant in ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1873 (= T 43), pp. 1–10, which Stegmüller erroneously identifies as an anonymous work (Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 251). The Braga manuscript breaks off at qu. 3 of dist. 17, while the Coimbra codex also includes qu. 4, 5, and 8 of the same distinction. In the Braga manuscript, the text bears the title: Annotationes in primum librum Sententiarum Durandi tradita a doctore Ignatio Diaz, mense Nouembri anno 1570. On p. 97 of the Coimbra manuscript, we read a marginal note with the words, Incipit tertius sacrae theologiae cursus 2 oct. 1572. If the information conveyed by the two manuscripts is correct (which seems to be the case, as the adjective tertius may imply that the commentary was begun in 1570, as Braga suggests), Dias took almost two academic years to lecture on the first seventeen distinctions of Book i, which gives us an idea of the pace of the classes by the end of the sixteenth century. For the tabula quaestionum of this commentary, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.” 221  This commentary is transmitted by three manuscripts. One is ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 149: Book i, dist. 26–48 on fols. 1r–148r (explicit: Finitur feliciter primus Sententiarum Scoti expositus a D.D. Ignatio Diaz 4 Februari anno 1575); Book ii, dist. 1 on fols. 148r–162v (the text ends abruptly). Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 281, mentions this manuscript, but erroneously indicates that the commentary ends with dist. 6 of Book ii. A second copy of this commentary, but starting at Book i, dist. 18 and breaking off at dist. 39, is found in ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1873 (= T 43), pp. 110–486 and 493–506 (where dist. 22 is copied again; a note in the margin of p. 493 explains the repetition: “Hanc eandem quaestionem inuenias supra, dist. 22, sed hic latius et diffusius, ideo illam hic adiunxi”). Note that this is the same manuscript which contains Dias’s commentary on Durand (see note 220). Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 250–1, mentions this manuscript as containing, in addition to the commentary on Durand, an anonymous commentary on Book i, dist. 22. This means that Stegmüller failed to notice that the manuscript covers dist. 18–39. A third copy is found in ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1881 (= T 51). Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 253, indicates that this codex contains only two works: an anomymous commentary on Scotus, Book i, which Stegmüller tentatively ascribes to Dias, and a De censuris by Emmanuel Soares. Yet, the codex contains several other works/fragments; for a more exhaustive, though not complete, description, see Xavier Monteiro, Frei António de São Domingos, 92. This manuscript is seriously damaged in the upper left-hand corner of the first one hundred folios; in some cases it is impossible to read half of the folio. For the most part, the folios are not numbered. Moreover, the quires are currently in a different order than originally. Although there is no indication of Inácio Dias’s name in the codex, we have identified several fragments, in different quires of the manuscript, of a commentary on Book i and beginning of Book ii of Scotus which

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

481

If the dates handed down in the manuscripts are correct, Dias read Durand while holding the Scotus chair. In any case, Dias always has Durand present while commenting on Scotus; on some occasions he devotes a section within a question to discussing the differences between Scotus and Durand.222 Note that, although Dias composed supercommentaries, he did not stick to the text commented on. He follows the order of the questions of the text that is the subject of his commentary, but, like Luis de León, he goes beyond it by raising his own questions. Likewise, the importance he assigns to all the distinctions is uneven, as he may devote numerous pages to one point and a few lines to another.223 In his commentary on Durand, Dias tends to be much more concise. Stegmüller also indicates two other fragments that may have been authored by Inácio Dias: this is a commentary on Durand, Book iii, from dist. 26, qu. 3 through dist. 39, qu. 1.224 The text is anonymous; only further research can establish its authorship. 2.4.4 Francisco de Cáceres Inácio Dias was replaced in the Durand chair by the Spaniard Francisco de Cáceres (O.F.M. Conv.), who held this chair from 1566 until 1571. Little is known about this author, except that he studied at Alcalá and that, after his tenure has the same text as the first two manuscripts mentioned in this note. The fragments appear in the following order: Book i, dist. 21–24 (it bears only the title of dist. 24); Book i, dist. 40–41; Book ii, dist. 1–2, qu. 3; Book i, dist. 41–48; Book i, dist. 27–28; Book i, dist. 30; Book i, dist. 26–27; Book i, dist. 24–25. This is the only manuscript that transmits the text of dist. 2 of Book ii. We have also found a fragment on Durand’s commentary, Book i, dist. 3–4, but this work does not have the same text as Inácio Dias’s commentary on Durand. For the tabula quaestionum of Inácio Dias’s commentary on Scotus, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.” 222  See, for instance, ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 149, fol. 67r: In quo dissentiant Scotus et Durandus, within the question Vtrum idea in Deo sit objectum primarium seu secundarium diuini intellectus, seu, quod idem est, utrum idea sit essentia diuina an quidditas creaturae cognitae ut exemplari of dist. 36. 223  See, for instance, ibid., Book i, dist. 38, fol. 87v, where he merely writes, “Vide ea quae diximus in prologo q. 6.” By contrast, in his commentary on Scotus’s Book iii, dist. 2, qu. 5 (ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1877 [= T 47], fols. 170v–177v), he divides the question into sections entitled Sententia Caetani (fol. 172v), Communis sententia (fol. 173r), and Resolutio quaestionis (fol. 176r). He does the same in dist. 6 (fols. 230r–242v), which is divided into Opinio s. Thomae (fol. 231v), Sententia Scoti (fol. 236v), and Solutio argumentorum Scoti (fol. 236v). 224  See ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 268, fols. 1r–167r. Almost half of the commentary is devoted to dist. 37 (fols. 82r–162v). For its tabula quaestionum see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.”

482

Lanza and Toste

in Coimbra, he returned to Spain.225 Surprisingly, according to Stegmüller, the only lectures attributed to this author are two partial commentaries on Scotus’s commentary, one (anonymous) on Book i, dist. 11–22, containing lectures from 1569, and another on Book ii, dist. 1–2, which carries a date of 1570. The two commentaries are handed down in the same single manuscript.226 Both commentaries share some features; for instance, the distinctions are entitled summa distinctionis in the two texts, which is a peculiarity that does not occur in any of the other commentaries studied in this chapter. We may therefore follow Stegmüller’s assumption and tentatively assign authorship to Francisco de Cáceres. As already indicated, Francisco seems to have read Scotus while occupying the chair devoted to Durand: being a Franciscan, he may have felt more committed to Scotus’s thought. As we have seen, the inverse probably occurred with Inácio Dias in the Scotus chair. In any event, we may assume that the practice of reading Scotus in the Durand chair could have raised some objections. These may explain the structure of the commentary on Book i. Stegmüller presented it as a commentary on Scotus, but the reality is much more complex: the work is really a combination of the Sentences commentaries of Scotus and Durand; in fact, in each distinction Francisco raises questions taken from Scotus as well as from Durand. But the number of questions taken from Durand’s commentary is much higher than for questions from Scotus.227 This situation makes this commentary a singular case (though, as we have seen, a similar case seems to happen in one of Juan de Medina’s commentaries). Numerous questions begin with the words, Circa quaestionem hanc consulendi sunt Scotus, Durandus et Gabriel 228 (sometimes the names also include Bonaventure, Thomas, Denys the Carthusian, Capreolus, and Richard of Middleton). It would be interesting to carry out a doctrinal analysis that would evaluate the exact approach of 225  See Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 33; Memoria professorum Vniversitatis Conimbrigensis 1290–1772, vol. 1, ed. Manuel Augusto Rodrigues (Coimbra, 2003), 11. 226  This is ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 268, fols. 337r–451r (Book i, dist. 11–22, anonymous; at the bottom of fol. 411v we read, Die 6 Julij, anno 1569) and fols. 452r–536r (Book ii, dist. 1–2: Annotationes in secundum librum Sententiarum Scoti traddita [sic] a D. Frate Francisco de Caceres in anno Domini 1570 mense Octobri). Stegmüller, Filosofia e Teologia, 287 mistakenly indicates that the second commentary covers dist. 1–8. Given the peculiarity of the commentary on Book i, we present its tabula quaestionum in the appendix. For the tabula quaestionum of the commentary on Book ii, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.” 227  See the appendix. After the title of each question, we have indicated the corresponding questions in Scotus and Durand. 228  See ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 268, fols. 340v, 346r, 350v, 356r, 378v, 400v.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

483

this commentary, especially whether its author follows Scotus or Durand. It is also noteworthy that this commentary is full of references to medieval authors (in addition to those already mentioned, Godfrey of Fontaines, Alexander of Hales, John Baconthorpe, and Marsilius of Inghen), and mentions contemporary authors only rarely.229 2.4.5 Manuel Tavares The presence at Coimbra of a Spaniard such as Francisco de Cáceres is an exception, since all the later professors followed the pattern of Inácio Dias’s biography: they were born in Coimbra (or its environs) and their careers were local. This was the case for the Carmelite Manuel Tavares (1544–1622). In 1587 he was assigned the Durand chair, and in 1597 the one devoted to Scotus, which he held until 1605.230 Unlike the production of Inácio Dias, which consists of commentaries on Durand and Scotus, the bulk of Tavares’s literary output is constituted by commentaries on the Summa.231 This confirms that by the end of the century the Summa was superseding the Sentences in all the chairs at Coimbra. However, during some academic years Tavares lectured according to the Sentences commentaries by Durand and Scotus. Two manuscripts contain Tavares’s lectures on Durand: one transmits his classes from 1589 on Durand’s commentary, Book iv, dist. 8–13, qu. 3,232 while the other contains undated lectures on Durand’s commentary, Book iii, dist. 27–30.233 Another manuscript contains a partial commentary on Scotus’s commentary; it covers Book i, dist. 2–7.234 229  There are a few exceptions: Alfonso de Castro (ibid., fol. 406r), Andrés de Vega (fol. 410r), and Domingo de Soto’s De natura et gratia (fols. 410r, 411v). These authors are mentioned in a question that was particularly pressing at the moment and within the context of the Counter-Reformation (namely, utrum existens in charitate possit certo et infalibiliter cognoscere se illam habere siue in ea esse); in fact, some decisions from the Council of Trent are quoted as well. 230  See Rodrigues, A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura, 493–5; idem, Memoria professorum, 54. 231  For Tavares’s literary production, see Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 30–1. 232  See ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 239, fols. 270r–364v: De eucharistiae sacramento tractatus a sapientissimo P.D. Fr. Emmanueli Tauares anno 1589, Conimbricae Durandi Chatedraticus [sic]. 233  See ms. Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cxix-2-4, fols. 233r–280v: Annotationes in materiam charitatis [sed exp.] dico de charitate iuxta nobilissimum Durandum a fratre Emanuele Tauares traditae. 234  See Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5540, fols. 89r–158v: Annotationes in materiam santissimae [sic] Trinitatis traddita [sic] a D. Emanuele Tauares in Scoti cathedra sacrae theologiae

484

Lanza and Toste

Like Inácio Dias, Tavares follows the order of questions from Durand’s and Scotus’s commentaries but, within each question, he inserts questions of his own entitled articuli or disputationes. This structure, which echoes that of the Summa, allows him to present on occasion the same disputations in his commentaries on the Summa and on the Sentences when he addresses the same subject. For example, the disputations in his commentary on Durand’s Book iii, dist. 29, qu. 4 are identical with his commentary on Summa, ii-ii, qu. 26, art. 5 (both deal with the ordo charitatis). However, this does not happen in his commentary on Scotus, Book i, dist. 2–7, whose tabula quaestionum is different from that of his commentary on Summa, i, qu. 27–39 (both deal with the Trinity).235 Like other Portuguese commentators, he does not necessarily follow Durand, sometimes aligning himself with the opinions of Scotus (even in the commentaries on Durand), Aquinas, and Biel. Tavares’s lectures have not yet been studied.236 2.4.6 Francisco Carreiro Coimbra produced at least one commentary on Gabriel Biel. This was composed by the Cistercian Francisco Carreiro († 1620), who held the Biel chair after 1587 and the Durand chair starting in 1597. Carreiro also substituted for Suárez in the Prime chair in 1604; in 1605 he delivered lectures in the Scotus chair.237 He is one of the few Coimbra masters to have been studied.238

professor. Anno Domini 1563. Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 202 proposed that this date should be corrected to 1603. In 1563, Tavares was only 21 years old and was not professor in Coimbra. Stegmüller’s suggestion makes sense, as it is possible that a copyist wrote a 5 instead of a 6 and a 6 instead of a 0. Note that in 1603 (and not in 1593 or 1583, other possible conjectures) Tavares did hold the Scotus chair. Stegmüller, ibid., 228, also asserts that ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 6802 contains a section De trinitate by Tavares. This section is anonymous, however, and does not represent a commentary on the Sentences. 235  Tavares commented on the Prima pars, qu. 27–39 (De trinitate). This commentary is found in ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1859 (= T 28), fols. 133r–266v. 236  For this reason we provide their tabulae quaestionum in Lanza and Toste, “SixteenthCentury Commentaries.” 237  See Rodrigues, A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura, 496–7. 238  See Américo Ferreira, A eclesiologia de Francisco Carreira (Annotationes in ii-ii Divi Thomae, q. 1, a. 10): comentário e transcrição do manuscrito 50-ii-17 da Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisboa (Lisbon, 1982).

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

485

Carreiro’s lectures on Biel, which date from 1591, are found in two manuscripts. They cover only Book i, dist. 1 (De fruitione).239 Unlike the Coimbra commentaries on Durand and Scotus, this commentary does not follow the order of Biel’s Sentences commentary (see the tabula quaestionum no. 4 in the appendix). As a teacher in the chair dedicated to Biel, Carreiro pays attention to such authors as Gregory of Rimini, Biel, and Ockham, whom he quotes in the question of whether enjoyment consists more in love or in pleasure (his answer is, potius in utroque). Carreiro commented on Scotus’s commentary as well. Two manuscripts contain a commentary on Book i, dist. 35 (De scientia Dei),240 and one of these also transmits a commentary on Book i, dist. 45 (De voluntate Dei).241 The text of the former indicates the year 1595 and the text of the latter carries the date 1596. At this time, Carreiro was still professor in the Biel chair. So, unless he substituted for the professor of the Scotus chair sometime during those two years, we have to assume that he read Scotus in the Biel chair.242 The commentaries on dist. 35 and 45 owe much to the parallel questions of the Summa (Prima pars, qu. 14 and 19). They can therefore be considered commentaries on Scotus only in a broad sense.243 What is apparent is a growing detachment from the text to be commented on: while Dias and Tavares inserted disputations within Durand’s questions but still followed Durand’s order, Carreiro uses Scotus’s and Biel’s commentaries to construct short treatises of his own which are not based on their commentaries. This move is found in other authors, such as Jerónimo de Assunção (see below).

239  See mss. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 239, fols. 447v–460r: Annotationes ad materiam de fruitione iuxta Gabrielem a d. fratre Francisco Carreira tradditae; Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5114, fols. 311r–341v: De fruitione ad primam distinctionem primi Sententiarum iuxta literam Gabrielis, traditae a ddd Fr. Francisco Carreiro anno 1591. 240  See mss. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5107, fols. 345r–399r: Materia de scientia Dei iuxta litteram suptilis [sic] Scoti explanata a domino D. sapientissimo Fr. Francisco Carreiro anno 1595 Conimbricae; Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 6565, fols. 154r–199v: Incipit materia de scientia Dei tradita a sapientissimo D.D. Fratre Francisco Carreiro anno a natiuitate Christi 1595, secundum Scotum. Except for small variants, the text of the two manuscripts is the same. 241  See ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 6565, fols. 202r–224r: Incipit materia de uoluntate Dei in ordinem Scoti a sapientissimo D.D. Fr. Francisco Carreirro [sic] explicata anno Domini 1596. 242  On Carreiro’s teaching as a substitute, see Rodrigues, A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura, 496. 243  For the tabulae quaestionum of Carreiro’s commentaries on Scotus, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.”

486

Lanza and Toste

It is noteworthy that in his commentary on dist. 35 (qu. 1, art. 10), Carreiro quotes Luis de Molina—not Molina’s Concordia, but his unedited commentary on the Prima pars composed some years earlier at the University of Évora. In the penultimate question, Carreiro presents in depth the positions of Aquinas, Scotus, and Durand, the text ending with a section entitled Sententia Scoti proponitur et explicatur. 2.4.7 Egídio da Apresentação This overview reveals that at Coimbra, unlike Salamanca, Scotus continued to be a prominent influence. This is further attested by the output of the Augustinian Egídio da Apresentação (1539–1626). Egídio pursued his career entirely at Coimbra: he substituted for Francisco de Cristo in the Vespers chair in 1577, afterwards holding the chairs dedicated to Biel (1582–86) and Scotus (1586–96), and finally the Vespers chair (1596–1612). Egídio did not hold the Prime chair because it was assigned to Francisco Suárez in 1597; he nevertheless substituted for Suárez in 1604–06.244 Egídio retired twice, the first time in 1607 and the second in 1616. He was a prolific writer, who published three lengthy volumes on the first questions of the Prima secundae;245 his commentaries on parts of the Summa have survived in almost ten manuscripts. Egídio’s reflections on the Immaculate Conception have been the object of a number of studies.246 244  On his biography, see Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 18–19, and principally Rodrigues, “Padres agostinhos do século xvi,” 339–81, as well as Esteban San Martín, “Rasgos biográficos más importantes de Egidio de la Presentación, osa, con especial atención a su vida intelectual (1539–1626),” Recollectio 2 (1979): 291–332. 245  See Aegidius de Praesentatione, Disputationes de animae et corporis beatitudine, 3 vols. (Coimbra: ex officina Didaci Gomez Loureyro, 1609–15). 246  See Aegidius de Praesentatione, De Immaculata Beatae Virginis Conceptione ab omni originali peccato immuni libri quatuor (Coimbra: apud Didacum Gomez de Loureyro, 1617). Studies: Eloy Domínguez Carretero, “Tradición inmaculista agustiniana a través de Egidio de la Presentación,” La Ciudad de Dios 166 (1954): 343–86; Pedro de Alcántara, “Egidio de la Presentación o redención mixta,” Verdad y Vida 12 (1954): 6–22; José Saraiva Martins, “O ‘debitum peccati’ em Maria segundo Egídio a Apresentação, o.e.s.a.,” Ephemerides mariologicae 9 (1959): 377–437; idem, “As provas de Egídio da Apresentação em favor da Imaculada,” Ephemerides mariologicae 10 (1960): 421–58; idem, “A redenção passiva de Maria segundo Egídio da Apresentação,” Ephemerides mariologicae 11 (1961): 313–42; idem, “Valor teológico da doutrina de Egídio da Apresentação sobre a Imaculada,” Ephemerides mariologicae 12 (1962): 59–106; Esteban San Martín, “Constitutivo formal del pecado de origen según Egidio de la Presentación,” Recollectio 1 (1978): 114–58; idem, “Propiedades principales del pecado original y su transmision por generacion segun Egidio de la Presentación,” Recollectio 3 (1980): 47–118; idem, “Egidio de la Presentación: la p ­ reservación

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

487

For our purposes, it is worthy of note that Egídio left two long commentaries on Scotus: one on Book ii, dist. 2, qu. 4–11 (De angelis), finished in 1592 and extant in four manuscripts,247 and another on Book iii, dist. 1–11, qu. 2 (De incarnatione), handed down in three manuscripts, which records his lectures from 1587.248 The number of manuscripts shows that Egídio’s works enjoyed a wider diffusion than those of his fellow professors of Coimbra. Egídio organizes his work on Book ii less as a commentary than as a treatise on the subject De angelis inspired by Scotus’s commentary. This explains why Egídio does not address the first three questions of dist. 2—in the opening lines he remarks that he intends to deal only with questions related to angels249—and why, unlike other commentators, he does not place his disputationes within Scotus’s questions, but assigns the same importance to his own disputationes as to Scotus’s questions. This late development—increasing inmaculada de María en sus manuscritos sobre el pecado original,” Recollectio 4 (1981): 59–134. 247  The four manuscripts are: 1) ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 239, fols. 1r–204v (anonymous, but in the upper right-hand margin of fol. 16r the name Egídio appears; Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 283, tentatively attributes this text to Manuel Tavares); 2) ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1876 (= T 46), fols. 418r–592r (with the title Annotationes in materiam de angelis iuxta uiam Scoti traditae a religiosissimo et sapientissimo dd p. fr. Esidio [sic]. Anno Domini 1590 1° Octobris; on the final folio we read, finis isti materiae fuit impositus decima die Junij anno Domini nostri 1592); 3) ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5587, fols. 1r–213v (on the last folio we find the date Finis idibus Junii anno Domini 1592); 4) ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5588, fols. 176v–346r (in this manuscript the text starts in art. 2 of dist. 2, entitled Vtrum de ratione durationis sit successio prioris et posterioris; the text ends abruptly). If the date provided by ms. no. 2 is correct, then Egídio took two academic years to read this section of Scotus’s commentary: from October 1590 to June 1592. For the tabula of this commentary, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.” 248  The three manuscripts are: 1) ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1876 (= T 46), fols. 1r–264v: De incarnatione Verbi, super 3m Sententiarum Scoti a religiosissimo P. F. Egidio sacrae theologiae doctore meritissimo; 2) ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5114, fols. 1r–84v (the text breaks off at the end of dist. 2): De incarnatione Verbi, super iiim Sententiarum Scoti a religiosissimo P. Fr. Egidio lectore meritissimo (distinctio 1 usque 3 exclusive); 3) ms. London, Lambeth Palace Library, 418, fols. 145r–389v: Pro materia incarnationis in via domini subtilissimi Scoti 1587. We have not consulted the last manuscript. For the tabula, based on the two first manuscripts, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.” 249  Consider the incipit of the work: “In nomine Sanctissimae Trinitatis [Braga, ad, 239; Coimbra, bu, 1876: In nomine . . . Trinitatis om.]. Quoniam solam materiam de angelis explicandam suscepimus, solum explicabimus tres ultimas questiones Scoti [Lisbon, bn, 5587: questiones Scoti inv.] quas circa angelos excitat” (Braga, ad, 239, fol. 1r; Coimbra, bu, 1876, fol. 418r; Lisbon, bn, 5587, fol. 1r).

488

Lanza and Toste

detachment from the text to be commented gives rise to treatises more or less based on Scotus’s commentary—is found in other works too (see below on Jerónimo de Assunção, whose work is loosely based on Scotus). Egídio nonetheless aims at explaining Scotus’s thought, most of the time defending him. In some questions, sections open with announcements such as, Impugnatur sententia divi Thomae,250 Impugnatur sententia Aureoli,251 Pro defensione Scoti,252 but also Defenditur D. Thomas contra Scotum.253 Egídio was commenting on Scotus, and for this reason he sometimes skips over the defense of Aquinas, which, according to his own words, has to be left to the Thomistae.254 His commentaries are arranged to explain Scotus,255 but they follow the structure of late sixteenth-century commentaries on the Summa: lengthy questions are divided into articles, which are further divided into disputationes in which the different opinions or schools are discussed. In the case of Egídio’s commentaries, these divisions are numerous. It is remarkable how Egídio delves into some topics: in Book iii, dist. 2, qu. 3 (whether the organization of the body precedes the Incarnation), Egídio draws upon remarks already 250  Dist. 2, disputatio 3, art. 1 (Braga, ad, 239, fols. 78r–81r; Coimbra, bu, 1876, fols. 492r–494r; Lisbon, bn, 5587, fols. 78r–81r; Lisbon, bn, 5588, fols. 216r–219r). 251  Dist. 3, disputatio 1, art. 3 (Braga, ad, 239, fols. 92v–97v; Coimbra, bu, 1876, fols. 502r–506v; Lisbon, bn, 5587, fols. 92r–98r; Lisbon, bn, 5588, fols. 230r–235r). 252  For instance, dist. 3, disputatio 2, art. 8 (Braga, ad, 239, fols. 114v–122r; Coimbra, bu, 1876, fols. 517v–523r; Lisbon, bn, 5587, fols. 112v–122r; Lisbon, bn, 5588, fols. 247v–255v); Dist. 3, disputatio 3, art. 3 (Braga, ad, 239, fols. 128v–131v; Coimbra, bu, 1876, fols. 531r–533v; Lisbon, bn, 5587, fols. 130v–134r; Lisbon, bn, 5588, fols. 263v–266v). 253  Dist. 3, disputatio 1, art. 5 (Braga, ad, 239, fols. 98r–101v; Coimbra, bu, 1876, fols. 507r–509v; Lisbon, bn, 5587, fols. 99r–101v; Lisbon, bn, 5588, fols. 236r–238v). 254  These are his words in Book ii, dist. 3, disputatio 3, art. 6 (Braga, ad, fol. 135v; Coimbra, bu, fol. 537v; Lisbon, bn, 5587, fol. 139r; Lisbon, bn, 5588, fol. 271v): “Haec dicta sint pro defensione Scoti; suam opinioni D. Thomae probabilitatem relinquimus, quam defendere ad thomistas spectat.” 255  Take this case from his commentary on Book iii, dist. 1, disputatio 5 (Vtrum plures personae diuinae possint assumere unam numero naturam). The question is organized as follows (in parentheses, we provide the folio where the section begins in ms. Lisbon, bn, 5114): 1) Sectio 1a, in qua referuntur opposita opiniones: Egídio mentions Aquinas, Biel, Peter of Palude, Ockham, John Major, Alexander of Alessandria, Henry of Ghent, and John of Bassolis (43v); 2) Sectio 2, in qua fundamentum Scoti sumptum ex dependentia totali expenditur iuxta solutionem nominalium (44v); 3) Sectio 3, in qua expenditur fundamentum Scoti de dependentia a totali prout omnes dependentias essentiales includit (47v); 4) Quid sit dependentia essentialis (48r); 5) Defenditur ratio Scoti contra primum defectum (49r); 6) Defenditur ratio Scoti a secundo defectu (ibid.); 7) Defenditur ratio Scoti a tertio defectu (49r); 8) Sectio ultima in qua respondetur argumentis contra Scotum (50v).

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

489

put forward by Scotus, but then elaborates on the Incarnation in great detail, touching upon topics related to medicine and natural philosophy.256 There are two other Iberian manuscripts that contain works related to Scotus’s commentary. One is an epitome of Scotus’s commentary that can be dated to the end of the sixteenth century,257 while the other is authored by the completely unknown Jerónimo de Assunção, who read Book iii, dist. 23–25 (De fide) in 1597 in the convent of the Secular Canons of St. John the Evangelist at Xabregas (Lisbon). As its title suggests, it is more of a treatise based on Scotus’s commentary than a true supercommentary.258 A further anonymous fragment of a commentary on Durand’s commentary is found in ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 149, fols. 335r–349r: it covers only Book ii, dist. 3, qu. 5–6.259 Egídio da Apresentação seems to have been the last author to lecture on a Sentences commentary in Coimbra. Thus the end of the sixteenth century marks the end of the tradition of the Sentences in Coimbra. It is possible that some professors still lectured on Scotus or Durand, but at the present time there are no traces of such lectures. 3 Conclusion The importance of the Summa for sixteenth-century Iberian theology is inversely proportional to that of the Sentences. This same proportion is found in the number of commentaries on the two works. However, the lower number of Sentences commentaries does not by itself mean that some of these commentaries could not have been as frequently read and as influential as the Summa commentaries. The Sentences commentaries by Domingo de Soto, Francisco Ovando, José Angles, and Miguel de Palacio were quoted in the ­censure that a 256  See, for instance, Sectio 1a: ex qua materia corpus Christi fuerit formatum, and Sectio 3: utrum purissimi Virginis sanguines delati fuerint ad uterum in tempore an in instanti (ms. Lisbon, bn, 5114, fols. 79v–80v and 81r–v). 257  m s. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1872 (= T 42). In 386 folios, it covers the all four books of Scotus. 258  See ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5787, fols. 1r–284v: Tractatus de fide, in quo traduntur omnia quae pertinent ad fidem catholicam explicanturque quatuor quaestiones ab [sic] Scoto subtilissimo doctore excitatae super distinct. 23, 24, 25 Magistri Sententiarum traditis a doctissimo patre fratre Hieronimo ab Assumptione in coenobio Sanctae Mariae de Jessu Denxabregas [sic], anno Domini 1597. In the margin: die martii 18. For the tabula quaestionum of this work, see Lanza and Toste, “Sixteenth-Century Commentaries.” 259  Stegmüller, Filosofia e teologia, 281, incorrectly describes this fragment as a commentary on the Summa, i, qu. 54.

490

Lanza and Toste

Roman commission of Jesuit theologians pronounced in the 1590s on some of the theses defended by Pedro Luis, a Jesuit professor in Évora.260 The presence of the Sentences in sixteenth-century Iberia passed through three phases: (1) during the first three decades of the century, the Sentences were read in the major chairs of the faculty of theology, and commentaries continued to be produced in the same way as in the previous centuries (this is the case of the commentaries by Deza, Vitoria, and Celaya); (2) from the fourth decade onward, the Sentences were replaced by the Summa in the major chairs, while some of the most important medieval commentaries began to be commented on in the minor chairs: thus, the works presented as Sentences commentaries were actually commentaries on the Summa (this holds true for the commentaries of Soto and Martín de Ledesma), while the Sentences commentaries gave way to supercommentaries (examples are the commentaries by Juan de Medina, Guevara, Luis de León, and the professors at Coimbra); (3) by the end of the century, the Sentences remained only as the text of reference for the graduation examinations, and the number of supercommentaries drastically decreased (the latter were produced mainly by Franciscan authors). By the beginning of the 1570s hardly any professor at the University of Salamanca was still lecturing on Durand’s and Scotus’s commentaries. Of all the Iberian universities, the University of Coimbra seems to have been the one where the Sentences survived for the longest time: Peter Lombard’s work was still read in the second half of the century in the major chairs, while a number of supercommentaries were produced as late as the last decades of the century. The Iberian tradition of commentaries on the Sentences seems to have been less uniform than the commentary tradition on the Summa: while in the latter the questions, the lines of reasoning, and even the quotations tend to be repetitive across the different commentaries, in the Sentences commentary tradition the tabulae quaestionum are much more heterogeneous; only further research will tell us whether the Sentences commentaries are also varied regarding their content. Similarly, an important task will be to assess whether the numerous quotations of medieval authors present in the Sentences commentaries were made first-hand, or whether these quotations were transmitted through previous commentaries which established a sort of communis opinio on which later commentators drew. In any case, it is striking that throughout 260  See Klaus Reinhardt, “Dokumentation zu Pedro Luis sj (1538–1602), ii. Teil: Dokument 28–44 (1594–1600),” Portugiesische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft. Erste Reihe: Aufsätze zur portugiesischen Kulturgeschichte 4 (1966): 1–63. Domingo de Soto is cited on p. 4 (nos. 11 and 33) and p. 21 (n. 110); Francisco Ovando on p. 8 (n. 38) and p. 21 (n. 118); Miguel de Palacio on p. 22 (n. 129), and Angles on p. 22 (n. 130).

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

491

these ­commentaries there are often more references to medieval than to early modern authors. This fact also explains the production of supercommentaries, a genre which deserves further study (note, however, that when an Iberian author commented on a particular theologian, he did not necessarily support his theses). The importance assigned to authors such as Durand of SaintPourçain is also extremely significant. As the study of late scholasticism advances, it is possible that more commentaries will be identified in Iberian libraries. The present survey must therefore be seen as provisional. The Sentences continued to be present in Iberian theology until the eighteenth century as commentaries,261 supercommentaries (on Scotus and on John Baconthorpe),262 and even a commentary in the vernacular continued to be produced.263 As the requirement to be examined on the text of the Sentences remained officially in force throughout the seventeenth century (and in some places even later), it is also possible to find works such as the Examen studentium cum summa brevitate super quartum Magistri Sententiarum, published in 1684,264 and the Brevis expositio litterae Magistri Sententiarum cum quaestionibus (1635), written by the Jesuit Juan Martínez Ripalda (1594–1648) 261  See Antonius de Salcedo Pallantinus, Expositio et commentaria super librum primum Sententiarum (Valladolid: ex officina Bartholomaei Portoles, 1656). At least one Coimbra professor published on the Sentences in the eighteenth century, namely, Martinus Pereyra, Commentaria in primum librum Magistri Sententiarum, 2 vols. (Coimbra: ex typographia in Regali Collegio Artium Societatis Jesu, 1714–1722). We should also mention ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1903, fols. 1r–187r, which contains a full commentary on Book iii; a note indicates that the text was authored and transcribed by Martinho Pereira, but there is no indication of a date. If this Pereira is to be identified with the Carmelite who was professor in all the chairs of the faculty of theology at Coimbra from 1675 until 1708 (see Rodrigues, Memoria professorum, 36–7), then there was still some interest on the Sentences in the late seventeenth century. Note, however, that the text is presented in the form of conclusions with explanations by the author. It is arranged as a textbook, with no questions. 262  For commentaries on Scotus see above, note 78. For Baconthorpe, see for instance Didacus de Castilla, Speculum theologiae Bacconicae et commentaria quodlibetica in libros Sententiarum Ioannis Bacconii Carmelitae Anglici, 5 vols. (Cordoba: per Petrum Arias a Vega, 1731–1752). 263  There is a vernacular commentary composed by the Spanish Franciscan Luis de San Juan Evangelista, Tratado sobre el quarto del maestro de las Sentencias (Madrid: por Diego Diaz de la Carrera, 1642). 264  See Petrus Montalt, Examen studentium cum summa brevitate super quartum Magistri Sententiarum, in quo agitur de septem sacramentis Ecclesiae, de censuris, de resurrectione mortuorum, judicioque finali. Elaboratum ex eruditione Sanctorum Patrum et Doctorum Ecclesiae . . . (Barcelona: ex Typographia Hyacinthi Andreu, 1684). The author was an

492

Lanza and Toste

and which consists in an abridgment of the text of the Sentences: each distinction is summarized and followed by a lengthy list of scholastic authors (mostly commentators on the Summa and on the Sentences) who have dealt with the topic of the distinction.265 The Iberian Peninsula was instrumental in the replacement of the Sentences with the Summa. The movement initiated in Spain was rapidly extended to other parts of Europe, such as Louvain.266 This was due to a great extent to the Jesuits, as in their colleges, after an initial period during which the Sentences were still used,267 the Summa became the text by which theology was taught. In the influential Roman College, the Summa was, almost from the time of the college’s foundation, the only text to be taught in the Prime and Vespers chairs.268 This importance of the Summa was reflected in the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and later in the Ratio studiorum. Augustinian Friar who had been professor of theology in the University of Gerona in 1655–56. 265   See Joannes Martinez de Ripalda, Brevis expositio litterae Magistri Sententiarum, cum quaestionibus quae circa ipsam moveri possunt et authoribus qui de illis disserunt (Salamanca: ex officina Hyacinthi Tabernier, 1635). This work gained some popularity, as its three reeditions attest: Lyons: sumptibus Laurentij Arnaud, Petri Borde et Petri Arnaud, 1676; Venice: apud Joannem Radici, 1737; Venice: ex typographia Balleoniana, 1772. What is more, it became the textbook of the Prime chair and was read in the Vespers chair of theology at the College of Cabra at the end of the seventeenth century; cf. María Soledad Rubio Sánchez, Historia del Real Colegio de Estudios Mayores de la Purísima Concepción de Cabra (Córdoba). 1679–1847 (Sevilla, 1970), 86–7. 266  On the replacement of the Sentences with the Summa at Louvain, see the bibliography cited in Rosemann, Great Medieval Book, 210 n. 7. 267  See note 68 above. For the early teaching of theology in the Society of Jesus, see Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, “La enseñanza de Santo Tomás en la Compañia de Jesus durante el primer siglo de su existencia,” in idem, Miscelánea, 2: 309–342 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 11 [1915]: 388–408 and 12 [1915]: 34–8). According to the Spanish scholar, at the Jesuit college of Paris the Sentences were read until 1570 at least (see ibid., 331). There is also evidence that Peter Canisius lectured on the Sentences at the University of Ingolstadt in 1549–50; see Patrizio Foresta, “Un catechismo per li todeschi. Per un’archeologia della Summa doctrinae christianae,” in Diego Laínez (1512–1565) and his Generalate, ed. Paul Oberholzer (Rome, forthcoming). Note that Ignatius of Loyola shows appreciation for the Sentences in the Spiritual Exercises (see Sanctus Ignatius de Loyola, Exercitia spiritualia, ed. José Calveras and Cándido Dalmases [Rome, 1969], 410–1) and, in a letter to Peter Canisius, recommends that lectures in theology should be based on Aquinas, the Scriptures, and the Sentences (see Monumenta Ignatiana ex autographis vel ex antiquioribus exemplis collecta, Series prima (Madrid, 1903–1911), 6: 558. 268  The Sentences were taught in the Vespers chair only from 1553/54 (the first academic year in which theology was taught there) to 1556, by Martin de Olabe, who simultaneously

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

493

There were some Jesuits who opposed the adoption of the Summa as as textbook,269 or who later complained about the elimination of the Sentences from the canon of the Jesuit colleges.270 Furthermore, in the 1550s the Sentences were still regarded as a model for textbooks to be written by Jesuits for the University of Vienna.271 Yet, these positions constituted a minority and tended to diminish with time. The half-century that separates the Constitutions (1544) from the final version of the Ratio studiorum (1599) marks the period during which the Sentences were replaced with the Summa in European universities. This development is indeed reflected in these two Jesuit documents: while the Constitutions still make room for the reading of the Sentences, irrespective of the proclamation that the teaching is to be done according to Aquinas’s doctrine,272 in the Ratio studiorum any reference to the Sentences disappears. The transfer of European culture to the Americas led to the foundation of the first universities in the Spanish Empire (six in the sixteenth century and thirteen in the following century). For the most part, these universities reproduced the Salamanca model, which explains the predominance of the Summa there too.273 Yet, as in the Iberian universities, the colonial universities lectured on the Summa in the Prime chair; see Cándido Pozo, “La Facoltà di Teologia del Collegio Romano nel xvi secolo,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 29 (1991): 17–32, at 24. See also Monumenta Ignatiana, 5: 595, 613 and 6: 518. 269  For instance, Juan de Maldonado (1533–1583) considered that the Summa was too lengthy to be used as textbook; see Pozo, “La Facoltà di Teologia,” 24. Maldonado is indeed an interesting case, since he went against the grain: educated at Salamanca when the Summa was already established as a textbook, he taught at the Collège de Clermont in Paris, where he became famous for his biblical commentaries. His opposition to the Summa is shown by the fact that he never commented on it, but only on the Sentences. Maldonado’s commentary on Book iv is found in ms. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A 30 inf., fols. 1r–222r. This commentary is undated, so that, without a solid doctrinal study, it is impossible to ascertain whether it belongs to Maldonado’s period in Salamanca or in Paris. 270  These complaints were made by some Portuguese Jesuits in 1589; see Beltrán de Heredia, “La enseñanza de Santo Tomás,” 336. 271  See Monumenta Paedagogica, ed. Lukács, 543, and Foresta, “Un catechismo.” 272  See Monumenta Paedagogica, ed. Lukács, 295–7: “In theologia legetur Vetus et Novum Testamentum, et doctrina scholastica divi Thomae. . . . Praelegetur etiam Magister Sententiarum.” 273  On this point, see Águeda Maria Rodríguez Cruz, Historia de las universidades hispanoamericanas. Período hispánico (Bogotá, 1973), 2 vols.; eadem, “Salmantica docet”: la proyección de la Universidad de Salamanca en Hispanoamérica, vol. 1 (Salamanca, 1977). However, the University of Alcalá was also influential, principally in the universities of the Antilles; see eadem, “Proyección de la Universidad Complutense en Universidades

494

Lanza and Toste

c­ ontinued to assign at least a symbolic role to the Sentences: Peter Lombard’s text, and not the Summa, was still prescribed as the text by which a student had to be examined,274 and in the Prime and Vespers chairs the professor still had to “read the Sentences according to the order of the parts of the Summa,” that is, effectively lecture on the Summa but present the text of Peter Lombard at the beginning of each question.275 Furthermore, as in Iberian universities, the Sentences commentaries were replaced by supercommen­taries, namely, commentaries on Scotus’s commentary. These supercommen­taries, which were composed by Franciscans, have remained unpublished and completely unstudied.276 Americanas,” in La Universidad Complutense Cisneriana. Impulso filosófico, científico y lite­ rario. Siglos xvi y xvii, ed. Luis Jiménez Moreno (Madrid, 1996), 85–105. 274  See, for instance, Estatutos y constituciones reales de la Imperial y Regia Universidad de Mexico (Mexico City: por la viuda de Bernardo Calderon, 1668), constituciones cclxxxviii (p. 52r) and cclxxxxv (p. 54v). The same holds for the Universidad de San Marcos de Lima (statutes of 1571 and 1578), the Universidad de Caracas (statutes of 1727), and the Colegio Mayor del Rosário in Bogotá. For Lima and Caracas, see Rodríguez Cruz, Historia de las universidades, 1: 197–8, 204 and 2: 51; for Bogotá, see Jorge Tomás Uribe Angel, Historia de la enseñanza en el Colegio Mayor del Rosario (1653–1767) (Bogotá, 2003), 122–3. 275  The case of Mexico is an example; see Estatutos y constituciones reales, constitucion cxxvii, p. 21v: “Ordenamos que los Cathedraticos de Theologia en las Cathedras de Prima y Visperas que son de Theologia Scholastica, han de leer los quatro libros de las Sentencias, pero cumplirse ha, leyendo sus materias por el orden de las partes de S. Thomas, con que en los principios de las Questiones, se lea la letra de aquel Ilustre Varon Maestro de las Sentencias Pedro Lombardo, Obispo Pariciense, que à ellas corresponde, declarando sus conclusiones, y en que se tienen comúnmente por ciertas ò inciertas.” These exact words are also found in the statutes of the University of Guatemala (1681); see Adriana Álvarez Sánchez, La Real Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. 1676–1790 (Santiago de Compostela, 2008), 290. 276  See, for instance, the commentary by the Franciscan Cristóbal Zea y Silva, composed in 1573, entitled Commentaria in primum librum Sententiarum Doctoris Subtilis and found in ms. Mexico City, Biblioteca Nacional, 561, fols. 1r–253v (it covers the first 27 distinctions of Book i). For a description of this codex, see Jesús Yhmoff Cabrera, Catálogo de obras manuscritas en latín de la Biblioteca Nacional de México (México, 1975), 430–1. In his catalog, Walter Redmond also mentions the commentaries on Book i of Scotus’s commentary by the Franciscans Alfonso Briceño (2 vols., Madrid, 1638–1642) and Agustín de Quevedo y Villegas (4 vols., Seville, 1752–1756); see Walter Bernard Redmond, Bibliography of the Philosophy in the Iberian Colonies of America (The Hague, 1972), 20, 76. It is likely that the new project Scholastica colonialis of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale will discover more commentaries; on this project, one may read Roberto Hofmeister Pich, “siepm Project ‘Second Scholasticism’: Scholastica Colonialis,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 52 (2010): 25–45.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

495

In this way, the Sentences continued to be present in one way or another in theological thought; indeed some Sentences commentaries were still written in the seventeenth century, mostly in Italy. The text of the Sentences had been present in scholastic theology for four centuries, principally through commentaries; as some of these commentaries had themselves become landmarks of theological thought, theology still continued to look to the Sentences and to its commentary tradition at a time when the Book of Sentences itself was no longer the standard theological text. It is precisely the fact that early modern audiences regarded the Book of Sentences and its medieval commentaries as classic works which explains why the Sentences did not disappear when the Summa became prominent, but slowly faded away.277 Appendix: Tabulae Quaestionum 1

Martín de Ledesma, Commentary on Book ii, dist. 27–44 (ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1200)278 Vtrum gratia sic nominetur bene (1–4) Vtrum homo possit in hac uita esse certum de lege communi quod sit in gratia, q. 2 (4–20) De iustificatione impij: an iustificatio impij sit remisio peccatorum (20–2) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 1] An ad remisionem culpae, quae est iustificatio impij, requiratur gratiae infusio (22– 6) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 2] An ad iustificationem impij requiratur motus liberi arbitrij an non—in adultis intelligatur—an sine eo iustificentur (26–8) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 3] An ad iustificationem impij requiratur actus fidei an non (28–35) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 4] An sine fide Christi explicita poterint homines uenire in gratiam seu salutem (35–8) An requiratur post promulgationem Euangelij fides explicita, an sufficiat implicita ad gratiam (38–49)

277  It is remarkable that, at Alcalá, the designation of “Chair of the Master of the Sentences” disappeared only in 1770, when it was replaced with “Chair of History of Ecclesiastical Discipline.” This new chair was no longer devoted to lecturing on an authoritative text, but to teaching the history of dogma. See the statutes of 1770: Coleccion de las Reales Ordenes y providencias dadas por S.M. y su supremo Consejo, en razon de la enseñanza, y govierno de la Universidad de Alcala de Henares, desde el año de 1760 (Alcalá de Henares: en la imprenta de Doña Maria Espartosa y Briones, 1773), 206. 278  The pagination follows the modern standard.

496

Lanza and Toste

Vtrum requiratur motus liberi arbitrij in peccatum uel an sufficiat motus fidei et sufficiat aliqua dispositio ad gratiam comparandam (49–58) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 5] An remisio peccatorum debeat numerari inter requisita ad iustificationem (58–60) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 6] Vtrum iustificatio impij sit in tempore aut in instanti (60–1) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 7] Vtrum aliquod illorum quatuor sit primum et quo ordine concurrant uel promiscue concurrant (61–4) [i–ii, q. 113, art. 8] De merito agit Magister in 2° d. xxvii et in 1° d. xvii; tractatur a quibusdam doctoribus et in 3° d. xi agentes de merito (64–94) Vtrum possimus aliquid mereri a Deo an non (64–6) Vtrum ad hoc quod aliquis actus sit meritorius requiratur quod sit liber (66–9) Quaeritur num cuiusne actus sit meritum siue ad quam uirtutem spectet (69–74) An ad gratiam requiratur aliquid aliud auxilium Dei quam infusio ipsius gratiae (74–5) Vtrum homo possit mereri uitam aeternam sine gratia (75–6) [i–ii, q. 109, art. 5 and q. 114, art. 2] An gratia sufficiat ad merendum (76–9) Vtrum homo cum gratia possit mereri uitam aeternam alteri de condigno an non (79–81) [i–ii, q. 114, art. 3] An mereamur potius per gratiam quam per alias uirtutes (81–3) [i–ii, q. 114, art. 4] An homo possit mereri primam gratiam (83–5) [i–ii, q. 114, art. 5] An possit homo sibi mereri reparationem a peccato futuro an non (85–6) An homo possit mereri augmentum gratiae et charitatis de condigno an non. Thomas 1a2ae q. 114, art. 8 (86–90) [i–ii, q. 114, art. 8] An possit homo iam existens in gratia mereri perseuerantiam in ipsa gratia (90–1) [i–ii, q. 114, art. 9] An temporalia bona cadant sub merito an non de condigno (91–4) [i–ii, q. 114, art. 10] De peccato originali agit Magister in isto 2° d. xxx usque ad . . . [sic] (94–130) An primum peccatum primae [sic] parentis transfundatur ad posteros omnes, quaestio prima (95–8) Quomodo transfunditur peccatum originis ad posteros Addami, quaestio 2a (98–100) An aliquod aliud peccatum transfundatur ad nos, quaestio tertia (100–01) Vtrum, si Adamus non peccasse[n]t, an posteri eius possent nihilominus peccare, quaestio 4a (101–06) Vtrum, si aliquis formaretur per miraculum ex carne humana, non per carnalem generationem, an iste contraheret peccatum originale, quaestio 5a (106–07)

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

497

Vtrum, si Eua sola peccasset, Addamo non peccante, an posteri contraherent peccatum originale an non, 5a [sic] quaestio (107–08) An peccatum originis sit habitus. Thomas 1a2ae q. 82, a. 1° (108–09) [i–ii, q. 82, art. 1] An peccatum originis sit concupiscentia (109–20) [i–ii, q. 82, art. 3] Vtrum peccatum originale sit aequale in omnibus, quaestio (121–2) [i–ii, q. 82, art. 4] An peccatum originale sit magis in anima quam in carne, quaestio (122–3) [i–ii, q. 83, art. 1] An peccatum originale fuerit in Addamo (123–4) An peccatum originale sit prius in essentia animae an prius in potentiis, quaestio (124–5) [i–ii, q. 83, art. 2] An peccatum originale prius inficiat uoluntatem quam caeteras potentias, quaestio (125–30) [i–ii, q. 83, art. 3] De peccato actuali agit Magister d. xxxiv (130–83) An uitium sit uirtuti contrarium, quaestio Ia (130–2) [i–ii, q. 71, art. 1] An uitium sit contra naturam, quaestio 2a (132–3) [i–ii, q. 71, art. 2] An uitiosus habitus sit peior actu uitioso, quaestio 3a (133–4) [i–ii, q. 71, art. 3] An peccatum possit esse cum uirtute, quaestio 4a (134) [i–ii, q. 71, art. 4] An in quolibet peccato sit aliquis actus, quaestio 5a (134–42) [i–ii, q. 71, art. 5] An conuenienter definiatur peccatum, quaestio (142–5) [i–ii, q. 71, art. 6] An peccata differant specie secundum obiecta, quaestio (145–7) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 1] An conuenienter peccata bene diuidantur in carnalia et spiritualia (147–8) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 2] An peccata distingantur specie secundum causas, quaestio (148–9) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 3] An peccatum recte diuidatur in seipsum et in proximum et in Deum quaestio (149) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 4] An diuisio peccatorum secundum reatum mutet speciem ita ut maius reatum [sic] faciat aliam speciem an non, quaestio (149–52) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 5] An peccatum omissionis et commissionis differant specie an non (152–3) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 6] Vtrum sit bona distinctio in peccatum oris, cordis et operis (153) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 7] An excessus et defectus mutent species peccatorum an non, quaestio (153–4) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 8] An peccata differant specie secundum diuersas circunstantias an non, quaestio (154–8) [i–ii, q. 72, art. 9] An omnia peccata et uicia sint connexa, quaestio (158) [i–ii, q. 73, art. 1] An peccata omnia sint paria an non (158–9) [i–ii, q. 73, art. 2] An maiori uirtuti opponatur semper maius peccatum (159–62) [i–ii, q. 73, art. 4]

498

Lanza and Toste

An circumstantia augeat maliciam peccati, quaestio (162–3) [i–ii, q. 73, art. 7] Vtrum conditio personae augeat peccatum an non, quaestio (163–4) [i–ii, q. 73, art. 9] An excellentia uel magnitudo personae peccatis augeat peccatum an non, quaestio (164) [i–ii, q. 73, art. 10] An uoluntas possit esse subiectum peccati an non, quaestio (164–5) [i–ii, q. 74, art. 1] An sola uoluntas sit subiectum peccati, quaestio (165–7) [i–ii, q. 74, art. 2] An in sensualitate poterit eis [sic] esse peccatum mortale, quaestio (167–73) [i–ii, q. 74, art. 4] Vtrum peccatum habeat causam (173)279 [i–ii, q. 75, art. 1] An appetitus sensitiuus excuset a peccato (178–9) [cf. i–ii, q. 77, art. 7] An ex certa mallicia possit aliquis peccare (179) An homo qui peccat ex consuetudine grauius peccet an non, caeteris paribus (179–80) [cf. i–ii, q. 78, art. 3–4] An Deus sit causa peccati (180–3) [i–ii, q. 79, art. 1] An diabolus sit directe causa peccati (183) [i–ii, q. 80, art. 1]

2

Inácio Dias, Commentary on Scotus’s commentary, Book iii, dist. 1–6 (ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca da Universidade, 1877 [= T 47], fols. 119v–242v)

Distinctio 1 , utrum possibile sit naturam humanam uniri uerbo in unitate suppositi (119v–124r) Vtrum ista unio sit possibilis ex parte quae assumit (124r–125v) Vtrum unio sit possibilis ex parte naturae quae assumitur (125v–126v) Vtrum persona addat aliquid super naturam intellectualem singularem creatam et quid sit illud (126v–139r) Vtrum sit aliqua entitas absoluta noua quae sit proximum fundamentum huius relationis nouae, scilicet unionis, ita quod, ipsa posita, non possit eam non consequi relatio eius ad uerbum (139r–146r) Quaestio 2a Scoti, utrum tres personae possint assumere eandem naturam numero (146r–155r)

279  This question ends abruptly at the end of the folio. Folios 174–7 are left blank. Folio 178 starts with another text, which seems to continue a question different from that on fol. 173.

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

499

Quaestio 3a , utrum una persona possit assumere plures naturas (155v–156r) Vtrum in casu quo una persona assumeret plures naturas diceretur unus homo an plures homines (156r–159r) Quaestio 4a Scoti, utrum suppositum creatum possit sustentare hypostatice aliam naturam creatam (159v–170v) Quaestio 5 , utrum formalis ratio terminandi sit proprietas relatiua (170v–177v) Distinctio 2 Quaestio 1 , utrum naturam humanam uniri Deo hypostatice et non frui includat contradictionem. Quaestio haec duos continet articulos apud Scotum, primus est utrum natura nata frui ut est natura angelica et humana uniri Deo hypostatice et non frui implicet contradictionem; secundus utrum natura suppositabilis quae non est nata frui, ut natura ignis, lapidis, et caetera, posset assumi a uerbo uel a qualibet alia diuina persona (177v–181v) Articulus 2, utrum natura non nata frui possit assumi (181v–186v) Vtrum uniri Deo per gloriam sit melius quam hypostatice uniri alicui diuinae personae (186v–190v) , utrum uerbum primo et immediate assumpserit datam naturam humanam (190v) , utrum incarnationem praecesserit corporis organizatio (190v–194r) Vtrum illud instans fuerit primum non esse consensus Beatae Virginis expressi (194r–v) Vtrum motus localis sanguinis et alteratio eius incarnationis tempore antecesserit (194v–198v) Vtrum Christus in primo suae conceptionis instanti habuerit eam quantitatem quam habuisset alias post 40 dies si uirtute naturae conciperetur (198v–199v) Distinctio 3 Quaestio 1 , utrum Beata Virgo fuerit concepta in peccato originali (199v–209r) Vtrum Beata Virgo potuit esse in peccato tantum per instans, ita quod in illo instanti fuerit in culpa et deinceps semper in gratia (209r–212r) Distinctio 4 Quaestio unica, utrum Beata Virgo Maria fuerit uere mater Dei et hominis (212r–213v) Quid praestat foemina in generatione prolis, ratione cuius dicatur mater (213v–214v) Quod foemina concurrat actiue ex opinione Scoti et aliorum (214v–215r)

500

Lanza and Toste

Quod foemina non habet semen ad generationem necessarium ex sententia Aristotelis, et soluuntur argumenta Galeni (215r–217r) Probatur etiam sententia Galeni de semine mulieris et respondetur argumentis Aristotelis (217r–218r) Quod solum semen maris actiue concurrat ex opinione Aristotelis, non ut insitum et commistum cum materia foeminae, et soluuntur argumenta Scoti (218r–221v) Ex qua materia formatum sit corpus Christi (221v–222v) Sententia S. Thomae et aliorum (222v–223v) Distinctio 5 Quaestio unica, utrum persona creata fuerit assumpta uel assumptibilis (223v–224v) Vtrum implicet contradictionem personam creatam assumi (224v–226r) Vtrum persona diuina potuit assumere naturam personatam corrupta personalitate (226r–227r) Vtrum persona diuina potuit assumere naturam personatam personalitate creata (227r–230r) Distinctio 6 Quaestio prima , utrum in Christo sit aliud esse existentiae ab esse Verbi ab esse increato (230r–238v) Vtrum existere naturae humanae in Christo sit existere simpliciter an secundum quid (238v–240r) Quaestio 2 , utrum Christus sit aliqua duo (240v–242v)

3

Francisco de Cáceres (?), Commentary on Scotus’s (and Durand’s) commentary, Book i, dist. 11–22 (ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 268, fols. 337r–451r)

Scoti distinctio undecima Quaestio 1a, utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio (337r–340v) [Scotus, q. 1; Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum, si Spiritus Sanctus non procederet a Filio, esset ab eo personaliter distinctus (340v–344v) [Scotus, q. 2; Durandus, q. 2] Quaestio 3a, utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Patre per Filium (344v–345v) Distinctio duodecima (345v) Quaestio 1a, utrum Pater et Filius sint unum aut plura principia Spiritus Sancti (346r–350v) [Scotus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum Pater et Filius uniformiter spirent Spiritum Sanctum (350v–351v) [Scotus, q. 2]

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

501

Quaestio 3a, utrum Spiritus Sanctus necessario et per se procedat a duabus personis (351v–353v) [Durandus, q. 3] Distinctio 13a Quaestio 1a, utrum in diuinis sit aliqua processio (353v–355v) [Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum Spiritus Sancti processio sit idem quam generatio uel distinguatur ab ea (356r–363r) [Durandus, q. 2] Quaestio 3a, utrum Spiritus Sanctus possit dici ingenitus (363r–364v) [Durandus, q. 3] Distinctio 14 Quaestio 1a, utrum alicui personae diuinae conueniat mitti (365r–366v) [cf. Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum missio personae diuinae et potissimae Spiritus Sancti sit temporalis (366v–369v) [cf. Durandus, q. 2] Quaestio 3a, utrum per processionem temporalem detur ipsemet Spiritus Sanctus an potius eius dona (369v–373r) [Durandus, q. 3] Quaestio 4a, utrum Spiritus Sanctus detur a ministris Ecclesiae (373r–374v) [cf. Durandus, q. 4] Distinctio 15 (374v–375r) Quaestio 1a, utrum missio sit aliquid essentiale aut nominale (375r–376r) [Durandus, q. 2] Quaestio 2a, utrum persona diuina possit mitti a se ipsa uel ab alia a qua non procedit (376r–378v) [Durandus, q. 3] Quaestio 3a, utrum missio inuisibilis Filio competat (378v–379v) [Durandus, q. 4] Distinctio 16 Quaestio 1a, utrum Spiritui Sancto conueniat inuisibilis missio (380r–383r) [Scotus, q. unica; Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum species illae in quibus Spiritus Sanctus uisibiliter apparuit fuerint res uerae (383r–385r) [Durandus, q. 3] Distinctio 17 Quaestio 1a, utrum habitus habeat rationem principii activi respectu actus (385v–389v) [Scotus, q. 2] Quaestio 2a, utrum necessum [sic] sit ponere charitatem habitum creatum formaliter inhaerentem animae ut homo sit Deo charus [sic] (389v–393v) [Scotus, q. 1; Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 3a, utrum a Deo indigeamus habitu charitatis supernaturali ut in substantiam alicuius actus eiusdem charitatis propriis uiribus non possimus (393v–397r) [cf. Durandus, q. 2]

502

Lanza and Toste

Quaestio 4a, utrum charitas detur secundum proportionem naturalium (397r–400v) [Durandus, q. 3] Quaestio 5a, utrum existens in charitate possit certo et infalibiliter cognoscere se illam habere siue in ea esse, quod idem est (400v–411v) [Durandus, q. 4] Quaestio 6a, utrum charitas possit augeri (412r–414v) [Durandus, q. 5] Quaestio 7a, utrum charitas augeatur per additionem gradus ad gradum (414v–419r) [cf. Scotus, q. 6] Quaestio 8a, utrum per quemlibet actum charitatis charitas augeatur (419r–424v) [Durandus, q. 8] Quaestio 9a, utrum charitas possit crescere in infinitum (425r–427r) [Durandus, q. 9] Quaestio 10a, utrum charitas possit diminui (427r–430v) [Durandus, q. 10] Summa decimae octauae distinctionis Quaestio 1a, utrum donum dicat aliquid essentiale an notionale (430v–432v) [Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum donum sit proprium nomen Spiritus Sancti (433r–434r) [cf. Scotus, q. 1; Durandus, q. 2] Distinctionis decimae nonae summa (434r) Quaestio 1a, utrum inter diuinas personas reperiatur aequalitas (434v–437v) [Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum personae diuinae sint aequales secundum magnitudinem (437v–438r) [Scotus, q. 1] Quaestio 3a, utrum una persona diuina sit in alia (438v–440v) [Scotus, q. 2; Durandus, q. 3] Quaestio 4a, utrum in diuinis sit dare totum et partem (440v–442r) [Durandus, q. 4] Summa distinctionis uigesimae (442r–v) Quaestio 1a, utrum personae diuinae sint aequales in potentia (442v–442v) [Scotus, q. unica] Summa distinctionis uigesimae primae (442v–443r) Quaestio unica, utrum haec sit uera “Pater est solus Deus” (443r–444v) [Scotus, q. unica] Summa distinctionis uigesimae secundae (444v–445r) Quaestio 1a, utrum Deus sit nominabilis a nobis uiatoribus aliquo nomine exprimente diuinam essentiam, quod ab aliis sic solet quaeri, utrum aliquid nomen proprie Deo conueniat (445r–447v) [Scotus, q. 1; Durandus, q. 1] Quaestio 2a, utrum nomina quae praedicantur de Deo dicantur de eo essentialiter (447v–449r) [Durandus, q. 2]

The Sentences In Sixteenth-century Iberian Scholasticism

503

Summa distinctionis uigesimae tertiae Quaestio unica, utrum persona in diuinis secundum quod est aliquid commune omnibus tribus personis dicat praecise aliquid secundae intentionis (449r–451r) [Scotus, q. unica]

4

Francisco Carreiro, Commentary on Gabriel Biel’s Commentary, Book i, dist. 1 (mss. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 239, fols. 447v–460r [= B]; Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5114, fols. 311r–341v [= L])

Vtrum uti sit actus uoluntatis, articulus primus (L: 311r–324v; B: 447v–448r) Vtrum omnibus citra Deum sit utendum (L: 324v–326v; B: 448r–449r) De fruitione. Vtrum fruitio sit actus uoluntatis, quaestio tertia (L: 327r–329r; B: 449r–450v) Vtrum fruitio formaliter consistat in amore an potius in delectatione, quaestio quarta (L: 329v–332v; B: 450v–452v) Vtrum solum Deus sit obiectum fruitionis (L: 332v–336v; B: 453r–456r) Vtrum comprehensor possit frui essentia non fruendo personis uel una persona non fruendo aliis, quaestio quarta (L: 336v–340v; B: 456r–459r) Vtrum obiecto beatifico clare uiso uoluntas contingentius et libere perfruatur, disputatio ultima (L: 340v–341v; B: 459r–460r)

CHAPter 9

Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation: The Digital Future of the Sentences Commentary Tradition Jeffrey C. Witt 1 Introduction In a volume devoted to the long tradition of Sentences commentaries, it is appropriate to acknowledge that, as long as Sentences commentaries continue to be dissected, studied, and read, this tradition is a living one. While the tradition may not be living in the way it once was, we cannot help but recognize that, in making these texts accessible to contemporary readers, we are not merely passing meaning along, but actually shaping that meaning. Nowhere does the editor feel this more than when fighting with the text to mold it into the sentence, paragraph, and section units that modern readers expect.1 While we make the greatest effort to be faithful to the conceptual unity of discrete portions of the text, there can be no question that our editorial interventions inject meaning into the text and affect the focus of the reader. In this sense, at least, the Sentences commentary tradition seems to remain in a state of generation and thus can in some sense be said to be alive. This living tradition is also marked by the fact that author and reader continue to come together in new ways affected in large part by the medium that facilitates that meeting. Each new meeting brings hidden possibilities and latent meanings to the surface. In recognizing the Sentences commentary tradition as a contemporary and growing textual tradition, it is important to acknowledge that this tradition is entering a distinctively new stage, preceded by two equally distinctive stages. These three stages are demarcated by the unique medium through which author and reader are brought together. The first stage was the era of the 1  The importance of “white space” and the meaning it imposes is well described by Walter Ong in Orality and Literacy. Ong writes, “Because visual surface had become charged with imposed meaning and because print controlled not only what words were put down to form a text but also the exact situation of the words on the page and their spatial relationship to one another, space itself on a printed sheet—‘white space’ as it is called—took on high significance that leads directly into the modern and post-modern world” (Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy [London and New York, 2002], 128).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283046_011

Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation

505

­ anuscript. The second stage was the era of print. Today we are entering the m age of digital media. Neither the author nor the reader is unaffected by the medium with which he works. It affects how one organizes a text, conceives of conceptual breaks, and distinguishes the essential from the tangential. A particular risk that comes with the introduction of any new medium is the loss of those material features that foster unique and fruitful types of engagements with the text. This basic fact is visible in the simple transition from a single manuscript witness to an edited print text.2 As the printed text replaced the manuscript, the engagement with that text fostered by a given manuscript witness was lost. However, an equal danger lies in resistance to the shift to a new medium. This new medium also offers unique types of engagements with the text, and to cling to an old medium is to miss out on the opportunities afforded by the new medium.3 The transition to a digital medium, however, is unlike the previous transition to print. To be sure, it brings new ways to visualize and interact with a text, as all new media do. But it is special in that it also allows for the preservation of previous media and—even more powerfully—the interweaving of these old forms of media within the larger framework. Thus, one can present not 2  For instance, Ong connects the loss of an oral culture and memorization ability to the shift from the manuscript to the printed page: “Manuscripts were not easy to read, by later typographic standards, and what readers found in manuscripts they tended to commit at least somewhat to memory. Relocating material in a manuscript was not always easy. Memorization was encouraged and facilitated also by the fact that in highly oral manuscript cultures, the verbalization one encountered even in written texts often continued the oral mnemonic patterning that made for ready recall” (Orality and Literacy, 117; see also chap. 5, pp. 115–135). 3  Ong points to the printed text’s ability to foster silent reading: “The effects of the greater legibility of print are massive. The greater legibility ultimately makes for rapid, silent reading” (Orality and Literacy, 120). Similarly, Paul Saenger, in his book Space between Words, points to the dramatic change that occurred when spaces were inserted between words: “Word separation, by altering the neurophysiological process of reading, simplified the act of reading, enabling both the medieval and modern reader to receive silently and simultaneously the text and encoded information that facilitates both comprehension and oral performance” (Paul Saenger, Space between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading [Palo Alto, Calif., 1997], 13). Nicholas Carr notes how the shift to print, with its generous spacing, clean lines, and unabbreviated spellings, continued this development: “As the brain becomes more adept at decoding text, turning what had been a demanding problem-solving exercise into a process that is essentially automatic, it can dedicate more resources to the interpretation. What we today call ‘deep reading’ becomes possible” (Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains [New York, 2010], 63).

506

witt

only the text, but also the history of its mediation: both its original mediation and its historical re-mediations, even as the digital medium re-mediates the text anew.4 Thus, instead of exchanging the new for the old, this new digital medium simultaneously gives us increased, though not total, access to the old.5 An example of this unique kind of re-mediation can be seen in the digital and entirely web-based critical edition of the Sentences commentary of Peter Plaoul (fl. 1390s), now in progress. The current form of the edition can be viewed at http://petrusplaoul.org. This project is by no means the only Sentences commentary edition project using digital tools,6 but it is one of the few that I know of whose primary and ultimate goal is web-based publication rather than print publication. As an illustration of the kind of possibilities offered by a digital critical edition, allow me to explain the rationale of the Peter Plaoul digital critical edition and how it works. In closing, I will single out four characteristics of the digital edition that seem essential if the work of a textual editor is going both to survive the transition to a digital text and exploit the potential of this new medium. 2

The Vision of the Peter Plaoul Edition

Our field suffers from a challenge that impedes the progress of intellectual historians of the late medieval period (approximately 1300 to 1500). This challenge, in short, is a lack of access to texts. Despite the intrinsic value of this period, as well its importance for scholars of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and early

4  For discussions of text and “remediation,” one might fruitfully begin with Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, Remediation: Understanding New Media (Cambridge, Mass., 1999), chap. 2, pp. 53–62 (“Mediation and Remediation”). 5  Emphasis must be laid on “increased” rather than “total” access because there are obvious features of the original medium that are not conveyed through the digital media. The access points to the old made possible by digital media are primarily visual, although they can be aural as well. Digital images of a manuscript, however, do not yet provide us with access to the tactile or olfactory aspects of the manuscript page. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that reproduction of the manuscript page provides us with increased access, since in the printed critical edition there is typically no visual access to the manuscript whatsoever. 6  One might consider a number of critical edition projects with a presence on the web. Examples include: the Adam Wodeham Project (http://www.adamwodeham.org), the Richard FitzRalph project (http://philosophy.nuim.ie/projects-research/projects/richardfitzralph), the Peter Candia Project (http://www2.ucy.ac.cy/isa/Candia/index.htm), and the Peter Aureoli Project (http://www.peterauriol.net/).

Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation

507

modern science, it remains especially hard to study due to the fact that many of its primary texts remain in manuscript form. Despite the need for critical editions of Sentences commentaries, significant obstacles impede the creation of a modern edition. First, the static nature of a printed text demands that the text reach a stage of perfection that often takes many years to produce: a state wherein no future additions or corrections are needed. Such a state usually requires many more years of effort than are needed to construct a reliable text that scholars can begin to use. Secondly, the cost of printing these editions is prohibitive. Despite their value, they will have a very select readership. Thus, few publishers are willing to take on the cost of editing, typesetting, and distributing multi-volume sets that will likely not repay their costs. This is particularly true in the case of someone like Peter Plaoul. Because he is little known, there is no market for an edition of his text, but at the same time, his text is little known precisely because of the limited access to his work. Thus the problem for medieval scholarship is this: our primary source data are stored in libraries difficult to access, in a form too difficult for most Latinists to read. Moreover, the traditional solution to this problem—the creation of print editions—takes years and is increasingly costly to the point of becoming impossible. A solution to this problem is the electronic or digital critical edition. The dynamic nature of the digital form (as opposed to static nature of print) allows the text to be posted early and often, despite the fact that corrections and additions still need to be made. This is a main impulse behind the Peter Plaoul Electronic Critical Edition. The idea comes from an approach first successfully employed in the world of open-source software development. The idea, captured in the mantra, “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow,” is to publish work early and often, allowing it to be seen by as many eyes as possible, and then to correct and republish often. Eric S. Raymond described this approach in his paper, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” first presented in 1997 and then published as a book in 1999.7 The idea opposed the prevailing practice of the time, which was to keep work confined to a small group of experts until it was deemed perfect and ready for dissemination to the masses. The new approach championed by Raymond was enormously successful, creating more reliable software at a much quicker pace. But the idea went on to find applications outside of the world of software development. It quickly became a central influence behind the Internet encyclopedia project now known as 7  Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, rev. ed. (Sebastopol, Calif., 2001).

508

witt

Wikipedia.8 On a much smaller scale, the Peter Plaoul Electronic Critical Edition is conceived along similar lines. By publishing the text online early and often, it accomplishes two goals. It makes a usable text available to scholars despite the fact that it is not complete. But secondly, it also makes possible a peer-review process unachievable by any print edition. By linking images, diplomatic transcriptions, and edited transcriptions and by creating a comment feature, with which users can note corrections or concerns with a particular transcription, the text itself will eventually become more reliable and transparent than would ever be possible in a print edition. In addition to solving a major problem now facing the future of Sentences commentary studies, the Plaoul edition allows scholars to view the text from multiple vantage points. The dynamic nature of the text allows us to easily revisualize the text in multiple instantiations. The user has at her disposal several new visualizing and analytical tools. From a small menu associated with each paragraph, a user can access diplomatic transcriptions of individual manuscript witnesses, collation comparisons of manuscript witnesses, and links to the precise section of the manuscript image that corresponds to the paragraph of interest. Additionally, when the user highlights a Latin word, a dictionary tool will decline and define the word. Subject, name, and works indices are automatically generated from the text and allow the user to find easily any paragraph of text that references a particular idea, thinker, or work. A basic word search feature is also available, allowing the user to find quickly any word of interest. More complex search functions are also possible. Finally, the Plaoul edition is now part of a larger consortium of medieval digital projects known as the Medieval Electronic Scholarly Alliance (mesa), which will provide the Plaoul edition with more robust searching capabilities.9 These are just a few examples of the kinds of tools available. Aside from equipping the reader with new tools of analysis, it is also possible to continue to encourage close readings of texts: a type of reading often

8   See Marshall Poe, “The Hive,” The Atlantic Magazine (September, 2006), http://www .theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/the-hive/305118/. 9  m esa provides the following description of itself: “The Medieval Electronic Scholarly Alliance (mesa) project received a three-year implementation grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in June, 2012, to begin the organization of a federation of digital projects in the field of medieval studies and to develop recommendations for the social and technical infrastructure to support this federation” (http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/mesa/). The alliance is currently co-chaired by Dot Porter (Indiana University, Bloomington) and Timothy Stinson (North Carolina State University).

Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation

509

thought to be lost in the transition to the digital medium.10 A common complaint against digital media is that they entice us to be lazy readers.11 Such complaints have been most recently popularized by writers like Nicholas Carr, who complain that digital media promote a shallow kind of reading, actively preventing a deeper sustained kind of reading. Carr writes: [W]hen we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning. It’s possible to think deeply while surfing the Net, just as it’s possible to think shallowly while reading a book, but that’s not the type of thinking the technology encourages and rewards.12 Another way of describing the complaint is this: through convenient search functions and elaborate indices, it is easy for the reader merely to “take” from a text rather than to “receive.” That is, one might approach a text with a certain set of questions in mind and then, using the tools available, skip through the text looking only for what meets one’s prior interest. On the other hand, to “receive” from a text, rather than to “take,” is to be surprised by it, to read it closely, and let it pose its own questions to the reader. 13 While it is a common complaint that digital media do not facilitate the latter kind of reading, this does not have to be the case. Here one might remind Carr of a fact that he himself recognizes: the computer is a universal machine, whose promise lies not in its ability to do one thing, but in its ability to be programmed to do many things.14 Programming technologies give us an incredible amount 10  For an excellent overview of recent discussion about the pros and cons of digital reading, see Berry W. Cull, “Reading Revolutions: Online Digital Text and Implications for Reading in Academe,” First Monday 16, no. 6 (June 6, 2011), http://firstmonday.org/htbin/ cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3340/2985. 11  See David L. Ulin, The Lost Art of Reading: Why Books Matter in a Distracted Time (Seattle, 2010) and Ian Rowlands, David Nicholas et al., “The Google Generation: The Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future,” aslib Proceedings 60: 4 (2008): 290–310. 12  Carr, The Shallows, 115–16. 13  My notion of reading as “taking” is captured in Ziming Liu’s description of “a screen-based reading behavior” that is “characterized by more time spent browsing and scanning, keyword spotting, one-time reading, non-linear reading, and reading more selectively, while less time is spent on in-depth reading, and concentrated reading” (Ziming Liu, “Reading Behavior in the Digital Environment: Changes in Reading Behavior over the Past Ten Years,” Journal of Documentation 61: 6 [2005]: 700–12, at 700). 14  Carr in fact entitles his fifth chapter, “A Medium of the Most General Nature” to make this precise point. See Carr, The Shallows, chap. 5, pp. 81–98.

510

witt

of control over the reading environments that we create. The Plaoul edition attempts to design a clean reading page with few distractions. This design tries to preserve much of the look of the printed page: a well-spaced and uncluttered page with clear section divisions. Traditional footnotes and apparatuses initially remain hidden and out of the way. However, the digital text can do more than this. It can also combat those aspects of the printed text which, in their own way, promote lazy reading. In particular, I have in mind the case of cross-references with which Sentences commentaries are replete. The physical nature of a printed text discourages rather than invites the reader to consult the referenced section and to read carefully both parts of the argument exchange. The effort of finding the referenced passage—especially if it is in another volume—discourages consultation. This is a problem the digital text can overcome. Not only is the referenced section only a link away, but the Plaoul edition allows the user the option to select “View Referenced Section Inline,” such that the referenced paragraph will appear on the left half of the screen and the referencing passage on the right. This makes consultation of the referred and referring texts effortless and, in turn, allows us, pace Carr, to read these scholastic texts more deeply. Similar points could be made about the ease with which the digital text allows a careful reader to consult parallel ordinatio and reportatio passages so as to investigate important variants that might otherwise be passed over in a print edition. Finally, because the only cost of this form of publication is the server space, the text can be made freely and universally accessible to anyone with a webbrowser. Thus, one of the central hurdles facing the continued production of Sentences commentary editions is overcome. In this way, important texts that will nevertheless have a small readership can become available freely and universally. The promise of these digital editions only grows as they increase in number. With more digital editions, greater and greater access is possible. Moreover, the creation of an aggregated digital corpus will bring our field access to some of the advanced tools of analysis currently being created in the field of corpus linguistics. The larger the sample size of text, the more interesting our results will be. Imagine being able to trace spikes in usages of key words or phrases across time, or region, or both throughout five centuries of Sentences commentaries. This would provide us with an amazing new perspective on developments within the Sentences commentary genre. Yet such advances are possible only if we have a usable repository of well-formed digital texts. The necessity of a well-formed text, resulting from the kind of text preparation that makes the dynamic publication of the Plaoul text possible, leads me to close by discussing four essential characteristics of a useful digital edition.

Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation

3

511

Essentials of any Digital Sentences Commentary Edition

3.1 Semantic Encoding I cannot stress enough the importance of semantic encoding. It is the backbone of an effective digital edition. It is what makes possible different visualizations of the same text, effortless construction of indices, and robust text searches. Perhaps more important than any of this is that it allows for the text to be used in ways that were not envisioned at the time of its creation: analysis of large corpus sets, aggregated from several editions, is one such example. To illustrate the nature and importance of semantic encoding, imagine an edition visualized either in a word processing program like Microsoft Word or in a pdf file. This text is no doubt digital, and it is easy enough to post a pdf to the web and make it publicly available. But it is an example of a very primitive approach to the digital edition, an approach that ensures neither the long-term usability of the edition nor even its long-term survival. This is not an example of semantic encoding but of visual encoding.15 Characteristic of visual encoding is the intimate connection between form and matter, content and appearance. When we transcribe something into a word processor, we are dealing with lots of different types of data: headers, paragraph text, folio numbers, footnotes, variant information, marginal notes, titles of works, names of authors, etc. The way we distinguish these types of data is by changing the way they appear. Headers are slightly bigger, paragraphs use a medium-sized font, and footnotes are in a smaller font at the bottom of the page. Variants are sometimes in italics, but so are the titles of works and biblical quotations. The human reader is able to navigate this visual encoding fairly well, but the computer has a difficult time. Semantic encoding is an alternative system that the computer reads and understands with amazing facility. Distinctive of semantic encoding is the absolute divorce between content and form. Data types are not distinguished by how they look, but by semantic metadata. A title is noted as follows: City of God. An author’s name is described as: Augustine . And one can be even more descriptive by providing details about the type of name and useful subclasses like: Augustine. The more descriptive the metadata, the more creative one can be in one’s searches or visualizations. There are many different ways to encode data semantically, but today’s textual scholars have the benefit of the fact that a group of forward-thinking scholars developed the Textual Encoding Initiative (tei xml)16 to create a standard for textual scholars in their semantic markup. This standard is a valuable tool because it allows for compatibility across projects and across tools. The text of Peter Plaoul, at its source level, is encoded with this kind of metadata. The visualization that one sees on the webpage is just one of an infinite number of ways in which the text could be visualized. Another software group called “Juxta” makes the collation visualization possible.17 However, Juxta expects the text to be prepared according to the tei standard. Since the Plaoul text adheres to this standard, it can effortlessly use this important digital tool. Desmond Schmidt has recently criticized the promise of this kind of inter-operability inherent in conforming to an xml standard.18 However, the ease with which the Plaoul edition has, on account of its adherence to the tei guidelines, been able to integrate the collation tools created by Juxta software is an important counter-example to his criticism. In sum, if we want our editions of Sentences commentaries to survive the transition from print to digital media and to be able to exploit the tools that many digital humanists are creating, we must accept the fact that semantic encoding is the responsibility of the editor, just as visual encoding has always been the responsibility of the editing scholar. The decision about how to divide distinct data types is a highly interpretative act. It is not a job that can be farmed out to a computer programmer or technical consultant. It is a tool and responsibility we must claim as our own, just as we have previously accepted the responsibility of being visual encoders. 3.2 Linkability One cannot emphasize enough the importance of semantic encoding. It is the base level of the critical edition: everything else is a manipulation of that source text, and this manipulation is a task that can be transferred to nontextual scholars and computer programmers. With a well-formed source document, directions can be given to a competent programmer, who can easily manipulate the document according the desired specifications. 16  See http://www.tei-c.org. 17  See www.juxtasoftware.org. 18  Desmond Schmidt, “The Role of Markup in the Digital Humanities,” Historical Social Research 37 (2012): 125–46.

Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation

513

One such manipulation that is essential to the promise of the digital edition is linkability. As discussed above, the digital edition provides the possibility of the preservation of previous forms of media even as it re-mediates the text once more. But the ability to navigate effectively through these different layers of re-mediation requires that the conceptual units of text can be united according to a common identifier. The tei xml standard has an easy way to accomplish this task through the addition of an “xml:id” attribute. In the case of Plaoul text, each paragraph is given a unique xml:id attribute; it is this identifier which allows a given paragraph to be connected with the same paragraph in each of the individual manuscript transcriptions, including reportatio and ordinatio versions, as well as with the manuscript image of that same conceptual unit. Likewise, comments associated with each paragraph are linked by means of this same unique identifier. When translations are added, each translated paragraph will be linked in the same way. 3.3 Attention to Design Another important feature of a successful digital edition is attention to design. As already mentioned, it is easy to allow the analytical tools of a digital edition to dominate, but this can quickly come at the cost of another kind of engagement with the text: namely, slow careful reading, wherein the text surprises us with its own questions and attitudes. To preserve this second kind of reading, a good digital Sentences commentary edition needs to give the reader a clean and uncluttered view, where the text can appear front and center. The design principle of the Plaoul edition is to give the main reading page a very clean look that mirrors the appearance of the printed page, while at the same time giving the user access points to open and close tools and new visualizations as she desires them.19 3.4 Stable Citations and Version Control Finally, one of the challenges that a digital edition faces, especially one like the Plaoul edition, which attempts to publish and re-publish the text early and often, is how to create a stable text that scholars can cite. To deal with this problem, it has been the practice of the Plaoul edition to use something called “source control.” Source control is a kind of software that allows us to take snapshots of a file or set of files at any given time. Source control keeps track of the changes that occur between snapshots and allows us to reconstruct older 19  For a further discussion of digital design principles, see Roberto Rosselli Del Turco, “After the Editing Is Done: Designing a Graphic User Interface for Digital Editions,” Digital Medievalist 7 (2011), http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/7/rosselliDelTurco/.

514

witt

versions of the text. In the case of the Plaoul project, each lectio of the text is identified as a distinct project and versioned as such. On the page for each lectio, the publication statement includes an edition number, which identifies the particular snapshot that this instantiation of the text represents. Thus, as lectio 1 is amended and corrected, new snapshots are taken, and the version number increases. But what if someone cites paragraph 3 in version v2012.10, and then paragraph 3 is changed in version v2013.09? Source control allows us to give the user access to each previous version. Where earlier versions exist, a list of those earlier versions appears on the main lectio page. If an earlier version (say, version v2012.10) is selected, the text will reload according to the older page, complete with the previous paragraph divisions. In this way, the previously cited paragraph can easily be located. One can see that, according to this protocol, it is very important that scholars cite the current edition number that they are using. The digital edition can assist in this by providing a “how-to-cite link.” In the paragraph menu, the Plaoul edition includes a how-to-cite link, which offers instructions to the reader about how to cite the particular paragraph in question. Additionally, a version log is connected to each lectio, giving interested readers a clear guide as to how and why the text has been amended over time. 4 Conclusion Numbers two through four in the previous section represent suggestions of what I think are good practices for a digital edition. But item number one is the only true necessity. The semantic encoding of the text according to a preestablished and well thought-out standard is what is going to allow future Sentences commentary editions both to preserve the older forms of mediation and to re-mediate the text in new ways. It is also what is going to allow the individual work of isolated scholars to be combined and exploited in unforeseen ways as pieces of larger data sets. As a final anecdote, Father Busa, the engine behind the Index Thomisticus, was a man ahead of his time. To construct the Index Thomisticus, he recognized the need to divorce the content of Aquinas’s text from its visual representation.20 In doing so, he prepared a text that was able to be manipulated and used in unforeseen ways. Today, we recognize the fruit of this foresight in the 20  See Michael Dunne, “Aquinas on cd-rom: A Guide to Electronic Consultation,” in Thomas Aquinas: Approaches to Truth, ed. James McEvoy and Michael Dunne (Dublin, 2002), 158–71.

Texts, Media, and Re-Mediation

515

online version of Aquinas’s text found at corpusthomisticum.org. If we want the Sentences commentary tradition to thrive in its digital medium, we need to have as much foresight in our own preparation of Sentences commentary editions. While we concern ourselves with the immediate uses of our text, we also need to keep our eyes on the long-term sustainability of our work. Semantic encoding according to the standards set forward by the Textual Encoding Initiative is an essential part of this foresight. Once more head of his time, Father Busa perceptively recognized the responsibility that the new medium of our age places on us. In light of that responsibility, his words provide us with a fitting conclusion: In language processing the use of computers is not aimed towards less human effort, or for doing things faster and with less labor, but for more human work, more mental effort; we must strive to know more systematically, deeper, and better, what is in our mouth at every moment, the mysterious world of words.21

21  Roberto Busa, “Why Can a Computer Do so Little?,” Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing Bulletin 4 (1975): 1–3, at 3.

Bibliography The Filiae Magistri Bieniak, Magdalena, “The Sentences Commentary of Hugh of St.-Cher,” in Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, vol. 2, ed. Philipp W. Rosemann (Leiden, 2010), 111–47. Landgraf, Artur, “Mitteilungen zum Sentenzenkommentar Hugos a S. Charo,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 58 (1934): 391–400. Martin, Raymond M., “Filia Magistri. Un abregé des Sentences de Pierre Lombard. Notes sur un manuscrit latin conservé à la bibliothèque John Rylands à Manchester,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 2 (1914–15): 370–9. Mottoni, Barbara Faes de, “Les manuscrits du commentaire des Sentences d’Hugues de Saint-Cher,” in Hugues de Saint-Cher († 1263), bibliste et théologien, ed. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy (Turnhout, 2004), 273–98. Weisweiler, Heinrich, “Théologiens de l’entourage d’Hugues de Saint-Cher,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 8 (1936): 389–407.

The Lists of opiniones Magistri Sententiarum quae communiter non tenentur

Manuscripts Containing Such Lists

ms. London, British Library, Harley 3243. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15702. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15705. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15707. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15716. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15717. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15719. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15723. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15728. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15761. ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16375. ms. Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 588. ms. Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 899. ms. Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 900. ms. Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 1713. ms. Troyes, Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne, 2264.

518

Bibliography

ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgh. 203. ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 4847.



Editions



Secondary Literature

Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaëmeron et Bonaventuriana quaedam selecta, ed. F. Delorme (Quaracchi, 1934), 357–62. Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum, Liber ii, in Opera omnia S. Bonaventurae, vol. 2 (Quaracchi, 1885), praelocutio (pp. 1–3) and dist. 44, dubium circa litteram 3 (p. 1016). Bouhot, Jean-Pierre, and Jean-François Genest (ed. André Vernet), La bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux du xiie au xviiie siècle, vol. 2 (Paris, 1997), 563–71. Denifle, Heinrich, and Émile Châtelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, vol. 1 (Paris, 1889), no. 194, pp. 220–1. Féret, Pierre, La faculté de théologie et ses docteurs les plus célèbres, vol. 2 (Paris, 1895), 169–70 and 605–07. Peter Lombard, Libri iv Sententiarum, ed. PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 2 vols. (Quaracchi, 1916), 1: lxxxviii, footnote. du Plessis d’Argentré, Charles, Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus, qui ab initio duodecim seculi post Incarnationem Verbi usque ad annum 1632 in Ecclesia proscripti sunt, vol. 1 (Paris, 1728), 118–19. Synan, Edward A., “Nineteen Less Probable Opinions of Peter Lombard,” Mediaeval Studies 27 (1965): 340–4.

Angotti, Claire, “Étienne Langton, commentateur des Sentences de Pierre Lombard,” in Étienne Langton: prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, ed. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Nicole Bériou, Gilbert Dahan, and Riccardo Quinto (Turnhout, 2010), 487–523. ———, “Lectiones Sententiarum. Étude de manuscrits de la bibliothèque du collège de Sorbonne: la formation des étudiants en théologie à l’Université de Paris à partir des annotations et des commentaires sur le Livre des Sentences de Pierre Lombard (xiiie–xve siècles)” (doctoral dissertation, École pratique des hautes études, ive section, Paris, 2008). The descriptions of manuscripts from the Sorbonne that appear in vol. 3 of this dissertation have been incorporated into the catalog of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. One can find them by following the appropriate links at http:// archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/cdc.html: click on “Département des Manuscrits,” then “Latin,” then “Latin 15176–16718 (Sorbonne).” Bianchi, Luca, Censure et liberté intellectuelle à l’Université de Paris: xiiie–xive siècles (Paris, 1999). de Ghellinck, Joseph, “Pierre Lombard,” in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 12 (Paris, 1965), 1941–2019.

Bibliography

519

Quinto, Riccardo, “Stephen Langton (ca. 1150/55–1228),” in Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, vol. 2, ed. Philipp W. Rosemann (Leiden, 2010), 35–77. Rosemann, Philipp W., The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard’s “Sentences” (Peterborough, Ont., 2007), 70–2.

Henry of Gorkum’s Conclusiones super iv libros Sententiarum

Primary Literature



Secondary Literature

Henry of Gorkum, Conclusiones super iv libros Sententiarum, ms. Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, 508/1. Henry of Gorkum, Conclusiones super iv libros Sententiarum (Brussels: Fratres vitae communis, 1480; reprinted, Frankfurt am Main, 1967).

Goris, Harm, “Thomism in Fifteenth-Century Germany,” in Aquinas as Authority, ed. Paul van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget (Louvain, 2002), 1–24. Schoot, Henk J.M., “Language and Christology: The Case of Henry of Gorkum († 1431), Thomist,” Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 68 (2001): 142–62. Weiler, Anton G., Heinrich von Gorkum († 1431). Seine Stellung in der Philosophie und der Theologie des Spätmittelalters (Hilversum, 1962).

The Commentary on the Sentences by Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl Auer, Johann “Die aristotelische Logik in der Trinitätslehre der Spätscholastik. Bemerkungen zu einer Questio des Johannes Wuel de Pruck, Wien 1422,” in Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Michael Schmaus zum sechzigsten Geburstag, ed. Johann Auer and Hermann Volk (Munich, 1957), 457–96. Binder, Karl, “Eine Anthologie aus den Schriften mittelalterlicher Wiener Theologen,” in Dienst an der Lehre. Studien zur heutigen Philosophie und Theologie, herausgegeben von der Katholisch-theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien als Festschrift für Kardinal König zur Vollendung seines 60. Lebensjahres (Vienna, 1965), 201–61. ———, Die Lehre des Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl über unbefleckte Empfängnis im Lichte der Kontroverse (Vienna, 1970). Brinzei, Monica (ed.), Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the Faculty of Theology at Vienna in the Fifteenth Century (Turnhout, forthcoming). Brinzei, Monica, Russell L. Friedman, and Chris Schabel, “The Late-Medieval Reception of Durand’s Sentences Commentary, with Two Case Studies: Peter Auriol († 1322)

520

Bibliography

and Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl († 1433),” in Durand of Saint-Pourçain and His Sentences Commentary: Historical, Philosophical and Theological Issues, ed. Andreas Speer, Guy Guldentops, Thomas Jeschke, and Fiorella Retucci (Louvain, forthcoming). Brinzei, Monica, and Chris Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the University of Vienna on the Eve of the Reformation,” in What is New in the New Universities? Learning in Central Europe in Later Middle Ages (1348–1500), ed. Elżbieta Jung (Turnhout, forthcoming). Girgensohn, Dieter, Peter von Pulkau und die Wiedereinführung des Laienkelches. Leben und Wirken eines Wiener Theologen in der Zeit des großen Schismas (Göttingen, 1964). Lang, Albert, Heinrich Totting von Oyta. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten deutschen Universitäten und zur Problemgeschichte der Spätscholastik (Münster, 1937). Lhotsky, Alphons, Thomas Ebendorfer. Ein österreichischer Geschichtschreiber, Theologe und Diplomat des 15. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1957). Madre, Alois, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl. Leben und Schriften. Ein Beitrag zur theologischen Literaturgeschichte (Münster, 1965). ———, Kardinal Brada an Nikolas von Dinkelsbühl. Eine Anweisung zur Kreuzzugspredigt gegen die Hussiten, von Konstanz nach Trient (Munich, 1972). Maierù, Alfonso, “Ymaginatio manuductiva: logica e teologia trinitaria in Pietro di Pulkau,” in Itinéraires de la raison. Études de philosophie médiévale offertes à Maria Cândida Pacheco, ed. José F. Meirinhos (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2005), 347–65. Schabel, Chris, “Henry Totting of Oyta, Henry of Langenstein, and the Vienna Group on Reconciling Human Free Will with Divine Foreknowledge,” in Philosophical Psychology in Late Medieval Commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, ed. Paul J.J.M. Bakker, Monica Brinzei, and Russell Friedman (Turnhout, forthcoming). Shank, Michael H., “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand.” Logic, University and Society in Late Medieval Vienna (Princeton, 1988). Uiblein, Paul, “Zur Lebensgeschichte einiger Wiener Theologen,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 74 (1966): 95–107. Zahnd, Ueli, Wirksame Zeichen? Sakramentenlehre und Semiotik in der Scholastik des ausgehenden Mittelalters (Tübingen, 2014).

Some French Franciscan Sentences Commentaries of the Fifteenth Century Bakker, Paul J.J.M., and Christopher Schabel, “Sentences Commentaries of the Later Fourteenth Century,” in Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard: Current Research, ed. G.R. Evans, vol. 1 (Leiden, 2002), 425–64.

Bibliography

521

Bolliger, Daniel, Infiniti Contemplatio. Grundzüge der Scotus- und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis (Leiden, 2003). Brady, Ignatius C., “William of Vaurouillon, O.F.M. A Fifteenth-Century Scotist,” in John Duns Scotus, 1265–1965, ed. John K. Ryan (Washington, d.c., 1965), 291–310. ———, “William of Vaurouillon, O. Min. († 1463). A Biographical Essay,” in Miscellanea Melchor de Pobladura I. Studia franciscana historica P. Melchiori a Pobladura dedicata, ed. Isidor Villapadierna (Rome, 1964), 291–315. Hoenen, Maarten J.F.M., “Academic Theology in the Fifteenth Century: The Sentences Commentary of Heymericus de Campo,” in Chemins de la pensée médiévale. Études offertes à Zénon Kaluza, ed. Paul J. Bakker (Turnhout, 2002), 513–59. ———, “The Commentary on the Sentences of Marsilius of Inghen,” in Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard: Current Research, ed. G.R. Evans, vol. 1 (Leiden, 2002), 464–506. Hughes, Barnabas, “Franciscans and Mathematics,” Archivum franciscanum historicum 77 (1984): 3–66. Murphy, John C., A History of the Franciscan Studium Generale at the University of Paris in the Fifteenth Century. A Dissertation (Notre Dame, 1965). Pasquier, Émile, “Deux auteurs angevins du xve siècle,” Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences, Belles-Lettres et Arts d’Angers 7 (1953): 85–98. Pelster, Franz, “Wilhelm von Vorillon, ein Skotist des 15. Jahrhunderts,” Franziskanische Studien 8 (1921): 48–66. Sullivan, Thomas, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, a.d. 1373–1500: A Biographical Register, vol. 1: The Religious Orders (Leiden, 2004). ———, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, a.d. 1373–1500: A Biographical Register, vol. 2: The Secular Clergy (Leiden, 2011). Trapp, Damasus, “Augustinian Theology of the Fourteenth Century: Notes on Editions, Marginalia, Opinions and Book-Lore,” Augustiniana 6 (1956): 146–274. Van Dyk, John, “The Sentence Commentary: A Vehicle in the Intellectual Transition of the Fifteenth Century,” Fifteenth-Century Studies 8 (1983): 227–38. Wegerich, Erich, “Bio-Bibliographische Notizen über Franziskanerlehrer des 15. Jahrhunderts,” Franziskanische Studien 29 (1942): 150–97. Zahnd, Ueli, Wirksame Zeichen? Sakramentenlehre und Semiotik in der Scholastik des ausgehenden Mittelalters (Tübingen, 2014). ———, “Zwischen Verteidigung, Vermittlung und Adaption. Sentenzenkommentare des ausgehenden Mittelalters und die Frage nach der Wirksamkeit der Sakramente,” in Vermitteln – Übersetzen – Begegnen. Transferphänomene im europäischen Mittelalter und der Frühen Neuzeit. Interdisziplinäre Annäherungen, ed. Balázs Nemesch and Achim Rabus (Göttingen, 2011), 33–86.

522

Bibliography

The Sentences Commentaries of Some Pre-Reformation Erfurt Theologians

Manuscripts, Partial Editions, and Extracts



Secondary Literature

Angelus Dobelinus, Lectura super Sententias, ms. Jena, Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, El. f. 47 (available online at http://archive.thulb.uni-jena.de/hisbest/receive/HisBest_cbu_00011801). John Bremer, Lectura in Sententias, ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 9027. John of Erfurt, Commentarius in primum librum Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, ms. Prague, Knihovna Univerzity Karlovy, 790 (iv.h.26). John (Ruchrath) of Wesel, Liber conventus fratrum minorum in Brandenborg, ms. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Theol. lat. Fol. 97 (Rose 572). Matthew Döring, Lectura in Sententias, ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 8997. Meier, Ludger, “Christianus de Hiddestorf O.F.M. scholae Erfordiensis columna,” Antonianum 14 (1939): 43–76, 157–80. ———, “De anonymo quodam Sententiario Erfordiensi O.F.M. saeculi xiv,” Antonianum 8 (1933): 84–120. ———, “De schola franciscana Erfordiensi saeculi xv,” Antonianum 5 (1930): 57–94, 157–202, 333–62, 443–74. ———, “Ermano Etzen O.F.M. e lo scotismo preriformatore nella Germania,” Studi francescani 8 (1936): 144–63. ———, “Nicolai Lakmann O.F.M. doctrina de divinae existentiae demonstrabilitate,” Studi francescani 27 (1930): 413–25. Nicholas Lakmann, Lectura super primum Sententiarum, ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 4760. Ritter, Gerhard, Studien zur Spätscholastik, vol. 3: Neue Quellenstücke zur Theologie des Johannes von Wesel (Heidelberg, 1927), 58–63.

Kitanov, Severin V., Beatific Enjoyment in Medieval Scholastic Debates: The Complex Legacy of Saint Augustine and Peter Lombard (Lanham, Md., 2014). Meier, Ludger, “Citations scolastiques chez Jean Bremer,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 4 (1932): 160–86. ———, “Contribution à l’histoire de la théologie à l’université d’Erfurt,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 50 (1955): 454–79, 839–66. ———, “De Nicolai Lakmann Commentario in Sententias,” Scriptorium 4 (1950): 28–43; 5 (1951): 26–39. ———, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Johannes Bremer,” Franziskanische Studien 15 (1928): 161–9.

Bibliography

523

———, “Der Sentenzenkommentar des Matthias Doering,” Franziskanische Studien 17 (1930): 83–9. ———, Die Barfüßerschule zu Erfurt (Münster, 1959), esp. 41–59. ———, “Ermano Etzen O.F.M. e lo scotismo preriformatore nella Germania,” Studi francescani 7 (1935): 369–413. ———, “Neue Angaben über den Erfurter Franziskanertheologen Johannes Bremmer,” Scholastik 6 (1931): 401–17. ———, “Zwei Grundbegriffe augustinischer Theologie in der mittelalterlichen Franziskanerschule,” in Fünfte Lektorenkonferenz der deutschen Franziskaner für Philosophie und Theologie, Schwarz in Tirol, 3.–7. September 1929 (Werl in Westfalen, 1930), 53–74. Ritter, Gerhard, Studien zur Spätscholastik, vol. 3: Neue Quellenstücke zur Theologie des Johannes von Wesel (Heidelberg, 1927). Trapp, Damasus, “Angelus de Dobelin, Doctor Parisiensis, and His Lectura,” Augustinianum 3 (1963): 389–413. ———, “Augustinian Theology of the Fourteenth Century Notes on Editions, Marginalia, Opinions and Book-Lore,” Augustiniana 6 (1956): 146–274. Zumkeller, Adolar, Erbsünde, Gnade, Rechtfertigung und Verdienst nach der Lehre der Erfurter Augustinertheologen des Spätmittelalters (Würzburg, 1984). ———, Theology and History of the Augustinian School in the Middle Ages, ed. and trans. John E. Rotelle (Villanova, Pa., 1996).

John Major’s (Mair’s) Commentary on the Sentences Primary Sources Book I

Joannes Major in primum Sententiarum (Paris, 1510) [1st redaction]. Joannes Major in primum Sententiarum ex recognitione Jo. Badii. Venundatur apud eundem Badium (Paris, 1519) [1st redaction]. Joannis Majoris Hadingtonani, scholae Parisiensis theologi, in primum magistri Sententiarum disputationes et decisiones nuper repositae, cum amplissimis materiarum et quaestionum indicibus seu tabellis (Paris, 1530) [2nd redaction].

Book II

Johannes Maior in secundum Sententiarum (Paris, 1510) [1st redaction]. Editio secunda Johannis Majoris in secundum librum Sententiarum, nunquam antea impressa (Paris, 1519) [2nd redaction]. In secundum Sententiarum disputationes theologicae Joannis Majoris Hadyngtonani denuo recognitae et repurgatae (Paris, 1528) [3rd redaction].

524

Bibliography

Book III

Editio Joannis Majoris doctoris Parisiensis super tertium Sententiarum, de novo edita (Paris, 1517) [1st redaction]. In tertium Sententiarum disputationes theologicae Joannis Majoris Hadyngtonani denuo recognitae et repurgatae (Paris, 1528) [2nd redaction].

Book IV

Quartus Sententiarum Johannis Majoris (Paris, 1509) [1st redaction]. Quartus Sententiarum Johannis Majoris, ab eodem recognitus denuoque impressus (Paris, 1512) [1st redaction]. Joannis Majoris doctoris theologi in quartum Sententiarum questiones utilissime suprema ipsius lucubratione enucleatae, cum duplici tabella, videlicet alphabetica materiarum decisarum in fronte, et quaestionum in calce (Paris, 1516) [2nd redaction]. Joannis Majoris doctoris theologi in quartum Sententiarum quaestiones utilissimae suprema ipsius lucubratione enucleatae, denuo tamen recognitae et maioribus formulis impressae, cum duplici tabella, videlicet alphabetica materiarum decisarum in fronte, et quaestionem in calce (Paris, 1519) [2nd redaction]. Joannis Majoris doctoris theologi in quartum Sententiarum quaestiones utilissimae, suprema ipsius lucubratione enucleatae, denuo tamen recognitae, et maioribus formulis impressae, cum duplici tabella, videlicet alphabetica materiarum decisarum in fronte, et quaestionem (Paris, 1521) [2nd redaction].



Secondary Sources

Broadie, Alexander, art. “John Mair,” in The Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 281: British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, Second Series (Detroit, 2003), 178–87. ———, “John Mair’s Dialogus de materia theologo tractanda: Introduction, Text and Translation,” in Christian Humanism, ed. Alastair A. MacDonald (Leiden, 2009), 419–30. ———, The Circle of John Mair: Logic and Logicians in Pre-Reformation Scotland (Oxford, 1985). Farge, James K., “John Mair: An Historical Introduction,” in Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology, 1500–1536 (Toronto, 1980), 304–09. MacDonald, Colin M., “John Major and Humanism,” Scottish Historical Review 13 (1915/16): 149–58. Slotemaker, John T., and Jeffrey C. Witt (ed.), Companion to the Theology of John Mair (Leiden, forthcoming). Torrance, Thomas F., “La philosophie et la théologie de Jean Mair ou Major, de Haddington (1469–1550),” Archives de philosophie 32 (1969): 531–47; 33 (1970): 261–93.

Bibliography

525

Zahnd, Ueli, art. “Mair, John,” in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 34 (Nordhausen, 2013), 874–82.

The Sentences in Sixteenth-Century Iberian Scholasticism

Literature on the Universities of the Iberian Peninsula

Aguadé Neto, Santiago, “Los secretarios humanistas del Cardenal Cisneros y la Constituciones de 1510,” in Mundos medievales: espacios, sociedades y poder. Homenaje al Profesor José Ángel García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre, 2 vols., ed. Beatriz Arízaga Bolumburu et al. (Santander, 2012), 2: 939–56. Álvarez Sánchez, Adriana, La Real Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. 1676–1790 (Santiago de Compostela, 2008). Andrés Martin, Melquiades, Historia de la teología en España (1470–1570), vol. 1: Instituciones Teológicas (Rome, 1962). ———, “Las facultades de teología en las universidades españolas (1396–1868),” Revista Española de Teología 28 (1968): 318–58. Barrientos García, José, “La teología, siglos xvi–xvii,” in Historia de la Universidad de Salamanca, vol. iii.1: Saberes y confluencias, ed. Luis E. Rodríguez-San Pedro Bazares (Salamanca, 2006), 203–50. Beltrán de Heredia, Vicente, “Accidentada y efímera aparición del nominalismo en Salamanca,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia. Colección de artículos sobre historia de la teología española, 4 vols. (Salamanca, 1971–1973), 1: 497–526 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 62 [1942]: 68–101). ———, “La enseñanza de Santo Tomás en la Compañia de Jesus durante el primer siglo de su existencia,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, 2: 309–342 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 11 [1915]: 388–408 and 12 [1915]: 34–38). ———, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Alcalá,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, 4: 61–157 (previously published in Revista Española de Teología 5 [1945]: 145–78, 405–32, 497–527). ———, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Osuna,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, 4: 357–86 (previously published in: La Ciencia Tomista 49 [1934]: 145–73). ———, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Oviedo,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, 4: 387–437 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 55 [1936]: 213–59). ———, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Santiago,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, 4: 191–309 (previously published in: La Ciencia Tomista 39 [1929]: 145–73, 289–306; 40 [1929]: 5–22; 41 [1930]: 50–63; 42 [1930]: 5–33).

526

Bibliography

———, “La Facultad de Teología en la Universidad de Toledo,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, 4: 311–56 (previously published in Revista Española de Teología 3 [1943]: 201–47). Durán Gudiol, Antonio, “Notas para la historia de la Universidad de Huesca en el siglo xvi,” Hispania Sacra 21 (1968): 87–154. Esteve i Perendreu, Francesc, “La docència de la teologia a Lleida. La càtedra del bispe Conchillos i les altres càtredres teològiques de l’Estudi General,” in El Bisbe Jaume Conchillos, l’humanisme à Catalunya, ed. Ximo Company with the collaboration of M. Esther Balasch (Lleida, 1992), 141–79. Febrer Romaguera, Manuel Vicente, Ortodoxia y humanismo. El Estudio General de Valencia durante el rectorado de Joan de Salaya (1525–1558) (Valencia, 2003). Felipo Orts, Amparo, La Universidad de Valencia durante el siglo xvi (1499–1611) (Valencia, 1993). ———, La Universidad de Valencia durante el siglo xvii (1611–1707) (Valencia, 1991). Fernández Luzón, Antonio, La Universidad de Barcelona en el siglo xvi (Barcelona, 2005). Fonseca, Fernando Taveira da, “A teologia na Universidade de Coimbra,” in História da universidade em Portugal, vol. 1, part 2: 1537–1771 (Coimbra, 1997). ———, “Os Estatutos da Universidade de Coimbra de 1597: a consolidação de um paradigma educativo,” in Las Universidades Hispánicas de la monarquía de los Austrias al centralismo liberal. V Congreso internacional sobre Historia de la Universidades hispánicas, Salamanca, 1998, 2 vols., ed. Luis E. Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares (Salamanca, 2000), 1: 191–205. Gallego Salvadores, Jordán, “La Facultad de Teología de la Universidad de Valencia durante la primera mitad del siglo xvi,” Escritos del Vedat 5 (1975): 81–132. García Oro, José, “Alcalá, universidad teológica: vocación y régimen,” Archivo IberoAmericano 70 (2010): 449–515. García Trobat, Pilar, El naixement d’una universitat: Gandia (Gandía, 1989). Gaya Massot, Ramón, “Influencia de la Universidad de Salamanca en la de Lérida,” Analecta Sacra Tarraconensis 31 (1958–1959): 101–24. Kagan, Richard L. “Universities in Castile 1500–1800,” in The University in Society, vol. 2: Europe, Scotland, and the United States from the 16th to the 20th Century, ed. Lawrence Stone (London, 1975), 355–405. Lizarralde, José A., Historia dela Universidad de Sancti Spiritus de Oñate (Tolosa, 1930). Lorente, Luis, La Real y Pontificia Universidad de Toledo. Siglos xvi–xix (Cuenca, 1999). Marañón, Pedro Manuel Alonso, “Apuntes para el estudio de la proyección de Salamanca en el Colegio-Universidad de San Antonio de Portaceli de Sigüenza,” Revista de ciencias de la educación 192 (2002): 523–38.

Bibliography

527

Martínez Gomis, Mario, La Universidad de Orihuela 1610–1807. Un centro de estudios superiores entre el Barroco y la Ilustración, 2 vols. (Orihuela, 1987). Montells y Nadal, Francisco de Paula, Historia del origen y fundación de la Universidad de Granada, de las que existieron en su distrito y de los Colegios, Cátedras y escuelas que de ella dependían (Granada, 1870; reprinted, Granada, 2000, with an introduction by Cristina Viñes Millet). Montiel, Isidoro, Historia de la Universidad de Sigüenza, 2 vols. (Maracaibo, 1963). Ollero Pina, José Antonio, “La Universidad de Sevilla en los siglos xvi y xvii,” in v Centenario. La Universidad de Sevilla: 1505–2005 (Sevilla, 2005). Peset, Mariano, and Pilar García Trobat, “El nacimiento de la primera universidad de la Compañía de Jesús,” Revista Borja. Revista de l’Institut Internacional d’Estudis Borgians 4 (2012–13): 107–29. Peset Reig, Mariano, “Modelos y estatutos de las universidades españolas y portuguesas (siglos xiii–xviii),” in Dall’università degli studenti all’università degli studi, ed. Andrea Romano (Messina, 1991), 65–105. Pozo, Cándido, “Origen e historia de las facultades de teología en las universidades españolas,” in idem, Estudios sobre historia de la teología. Volumen homenaje en su 80° aniversario (Toledo, 2006), 41–58 (previously published in Archivo Teológico Granadino 28 [1965]: 5–24). Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto, “Padres agostinhos do século xvi lentes de teologia da Universidade de Coimbra,” in idem, A Universidade de Coimbra: figuras e factos da sua história, vol. 1 (Porto, 2007), 285–381 (previously published in Repertorio de historia de las ciencias eclesiásticas en España, vol. 6: Siglos i–xvi [Salamanca, 1977], 441–519). Rodríguez Cruz, Águeda Maria, Historia de las universidades hispanoamericanas. Período hispánico (Bogotá, 1973), 2 vols. ———, “Proyección de la Universidad Complutense en Universidades Americanas,” in La Universidad Complutense Cisneriana. Impulso filosófico, científico y literario. Siglos xvi y xvii, ed. Luis Jiménez Moreno (Madrid, 1996), 85–105. ———, “Salmantica docet”: la proyección de la Universidad de Salamanca en Hispanoamérica, vol. 1 (Salamanca, 1977). Rodriguez-San Pedro Bezares, Luis E., “Les universités espagnoles à l’époque moderne”, Histoire de l’éducation 78 (1998): 11–29. Rodríguez Suárez, Maria del Pilar, “iii. Las facultades y la vida universitaria en los siglos xvi y xviii,” in Historia de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, vol. 1: De los orígenes al siglo xix, ed. Xosé Ramón Barreiro (Santiago de Compostela, 2000), 175–216. Rubio Sánchez, María Soledad, El Colegio-Universidad de Osuna (Sevilla), 1548–1824, 2nd ed. (Osuna, 2006).

528

Bibliography

Saavedra Alías, Inmaculada Arias de, “La Universidad de Baeza en la Edad Moderna. Estado de la cuestión y síntesis de su trayectoria,” in Universidades hispánicas: colegios y conventos universitarios en la Edad Moderna (ii): Miscelánea Alfonso ix, 2009, ed. Luis E. Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares and Juan Luis Polo Rodríguez (Salamanca, 2010), 15–43. Silva, Amélia Maria Polónia da, “Formação académica e vida quotidiana dos estudantes da Universidade de Évora nos primórdios da sua fundação: uma leitura contextual,” Revista da Faculdade de Letras do Porto 10 (1993): 137–75. Torre y del Cerro, Antonio de la, “La Universidad de Alcalá. Estado de la enseñanza, según las visitas de cátedras de 1524–1525 a 1527–1528,” in Homenaje a Menéndez Pidal. Miscelánea de estudios lingüísticos, literarios e históricos, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1925), 3: 361–78. Uribe Angel, Jorge Tomás, Historia de la enseñanza en el Colegio Mayor del Rosario (1653–1767) (Bogotá, 2003). Velázquez de Figueroa, Vicente, Historia de la Universidad de Valladolid transcrita del “Libro de Bezerro” que compuso el R.P. Fray Vicente Velázquez de Figueroa, complementada con notas y apéndices por D. Mariano Alcocer Martínez . . . seguida de los Estatutos en latón traducidos por D. Francisco Fernández Moreno . . . con una introducción del Excmo. Sr. D. Calixto Valverde y Valverde . . . (Valladolid, 1918).



Literature on the Iberian Commentary Tradition

Alcántara, Pedro de, “Egidio de la Presentación o redención mixta,” Verdad y Vida 12 (1954): 6–22. Alcocer Martínez, Mariano, Fray Diego de Deza. Estudio biográfico y crítico (Valladolid, 1927). Arimon, Gines, La teología de la fe y Fray Diego de Deza (Barcelona/Madrid, 1962). Becker, Karl Josef, “Tradición manuscrita de las Prelecciones de Domingo de Soto,” Archivo Teológico Granadino 29 (1966): 125–80. Beltrán de Heredia, Vicente, Domingo de Soto: estudio biográfico documental (Salamanca, 1960). ———, “Las relecciones y lecturas de Francisco de Vitoria en su discípulo Martín de Ledesma, o.p.,” in Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia. Colección de artículos sobre historia de la teología española, 4 vols. (Salamanca, 1971–1973), 2: 113–36 (previously published in La Ciencia Tomista 49 [1934]: 5–29). ———, Los manuscritos del Maestro Fray Francisco de Vitoria o.p.: estudio critico de introducción a sus Lecturas y Relecciones (Madrid/Valencia, 1928). Barrientos García, José, “Francisco de Vitoria y la Facultad de Teología de la Universidad de Salamanca,” in Aulas y saberes. vi congreso internacional de historia de las universidades hispánicas, 2 vols. (Valencia, 2003), 1: 211–32. ———, Fray Luis de León y la Universidad de Salamanca (Madrid, 1996).

Bibliography

529

Borobio García, Dionisio, “Antropología y sacramentos en Domingo de Soto: una interpretación de la antropología sacramental en Santo Tomás,” Ecclesia orans 24 (2007): 11–35. ———, El sacramento de la penitencia en la Escuela de Salamanca: Francisco de Vitoria, Melchor Cano, Domingo de Soto (Salamanca, 2006). ———, Sacramento en general. Bautismo y Confirmación en la Escuela de Salamanca. Francisco de Vitoria, Melchor Cano, Domingo de Soto (Salamanca, 2007). ———, Unción de enfermos, orden y matrimonio en Francisco de Vitoria y Domingo de Soto (Salamanca, 2008). Brett, Annabel, “The Good Man and the Good Citizen. Miguel de Palacios and an Aristotelian Question in the Spanish Second Scholastic,” in Die Ordnung der Praxis. Neue Studien zur Spanischen Spätscholastik, ed. Frank Grunert und Kurt Seelmann (Tübingen, 2001), 245–68. Canal, Maximiliano, “Fray Diego de Deza. Algunos datos para su biografía,” Analecta Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 16 (1923): 237–40. Cotarelo y Valledor, Armando, Fray Diego de Deza. Ensayo biográfico (Madrid, 1902). Custodio Vega, Ángel, “Fray Luis de León y Fray Juan de Guevara,” La Ciudad de Dios 180 (1967): 313–49. Delgado de Hoyos, Francisco, “Apuntes para la historia de la Escuela de Salamanca,” Anthologica Annua 32 (1985): 387–96; 34 (1987): 417–27. ———, “El cardenalato en los tratados De sacramento Ordinis de los teólogos de la Escuela de Salamanca,” Anthologica Annua 42 (1992): 785–98. ———, “Sacerdotium maximum. Una teoría inédita del catedrático hebraísta de Salamanca, Gaspar de Grajal, sobre el sacerdocio común de los fieles,” Anthologica Annua 35 (1988): 517–40. ———, “Tres tesis de ordine del catedrático de la Universidad Complutense, M.° Juan de Medina, en el Ms. 512 de la Biblioteca Angélica de Roma,” Anthologica Annua 37 (1990): 355–61. Domínguez Carretero, Eloy, “La escuela teológica agustiniana de Salamanca,” La Ciudad de Dios 168 (1956): 638–85. ———, “Tradición inmaculista agustiniana a través de Egidio de la Presentación,” La Ciudad de Dios 166 (1954): 343–86. Domínguez Carretero, Ursino, “La predestinación y reprobación en Francisco de Cristo y Alfonso de Mendoza,” La Ciudad de Dios 154 (1942): 293–317. Domínguez del Val, Ursino, “Juan de Guevara o.s.a., revisión crítica de los errores de Durando de S. Porciano, o.p.,” La Ciudad de Dios 165 (1953): 145–56. Duran, Leopoldo, Miguel de Palacios: un gran teólogo desconocido (Salamanca, 1988). Ehrle, Franz, “Los manuscritos vaticanos de los teólogos salmantinos del siglo xvi (conclusión),” Estudios Eclesiásticos 9 (1930): 145–87.

530

Bibliography

García-Morato Soto, Juan Ramón, “La necesidad de la confesión de los pecados en Domingo de Soto” (doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Navarra, Facultad de Teología, Pamplona, 1988). García Sánchez, Justo, “Aproximación a la biografía académica de Miguel de Palacio Salazar, catedrático de teología nominal en Salamanca (1550–1555) y canónigo civitatense (1557–1593),” in Estudios Históricos Salmantinos. Homenaje al P. Benigno Hernández Montes, ed. José Antonio Bonilla and José Barrientos (Salamanca, 1999), 413–41. ———, “Miguel de Palacio Salazar, fundador en 1585 del colegio de San Miguel de los PP. Agustinos de Ciudad Rodrigo,” Archivo Agustiniano 82 (1998): 3–106. González González, Enrique, and Vallés Borràs, Vicent, “Libros y bienes del rector Joan Llorenç de Salaya,” Estudis. Revista de Historia Moderna 16 (1990): 31–88. Gutiérrez, David, “Autenticidad de las lecturas De spe y De caritate de Fray Luis de León,” Analecta Augustiniana 25 (1962): 340–50. Huerga Teruelo, Álvaro, “Diego de Deza, ‘defensor’ de Santo Tomás (1491–1517),” Revista Española de Teología 34 (1974): 351–72. López, Atanasio, “El P. José Anglés, teólogo franciscano del siglo xvi,” Archivo IberoAmericano 1 (1941): 421–35; 2 (1942): 5–20. Martínez Fernández, Luis, Sacra doctrina y progreso dogmático en los “Reportata” inéditos de Juan de Guevara, dentro del marco de la Escuela de Salamanca (Vitoria, 1967). Martins, José Saraiva, “A redenção passiva de Maria segundo Egídio da Apresentação”, Ephemerides mariologicae 11 (1961): 313–42. ———, “As provas de Egídio da Apresentação em favor da Imaculada,” Ephemerides mariologicae 10 (1960): 421–58. ———, “O ‘debitum peccati’ em Maria segundo Egídio de Apresentação, o.e.s.a.,” Ephemerides mariologicae 9 (1959): 377–437. ———, “Valor teológico da doutrina de Egídio da Apresentação sobre a Imaculada,” Ephemerides mariologicae 12 (1962): 59–106. Muñoz Iglesias, Salvador, Fray Luis de León, teólogo: personalidad teológica y actuación en los “Prelúdios de las controversias De auxiliis” (Madrid, 1950). Navajas, Francisco, “La doctrina de la gracia en Diego de Deza o.p. (1443–1523),” Archivo Teológico Granadino 20 (1957): 5–153. Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto, A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura na Universidade de Coimbra: primeiro século (1537–1640) (Coimbra, 1974). ———, “Padres agostinhos do século xvi lentes de teologia da Universidade de Coimbra,” in idem, A Universidade de Coimbra: figuras e factos da sua história, vol. 1 (Porto, 2007), 285–381. San Martín, Esteban, “Constitutivo formal del pecado de origen según Egidio de la Presentación,” Recollectio 1 (1978): 114–58.

Bibliography

531

———, “Egidio de la Presentación: la preservación inmaculada de María en sus manuscritos sobre el pecado original,” Recollectio 4 (1981): 59–134. ———, “Propiedades principales del pecado original y su transmision por generacion segun Egidio de la Presentación,” Recollectio 3 (1980): 47–118. ———, “Rasgos biográficos más importantes de Egidio de la Presentación, osa, con especial atención a su vida intelectual (1539–1626),” Recollectio 2 (1979): 291–332. Sarmiento, Augusto, “Francisco de Vitoria: el ius divinum de la confesión integra y secreta de los pecados en la Summa Sacramentorum de Tomás de Chaves,” Scripta Theologica 16 (1984): 423–31. Savall, Domingo, “La interpretación escotista en la provincia de Santiago. Fr. Francisco de Herrera y el pecado de los ángeles,” El Eco franciscano 56 (1939): 448–59. Stegmüller, Friedrich, Filosofia e teologia nas Universidades de Coimbra e Évora no século xvi, trans. Alexandre Morujão (Coimbra, 1959). ———, “Zur Literargeschichte der Philosophie und Theologie an den Universitäten Evora und Coimbra im xvi. Jahrhundert”, Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft 3 (1931): 385–438. Vázquez Janeiro, Isaac, “Fr. Francisco de Herrera, ofm, y sus votos en la controversia De auxiliis,” Verdad y vida 23 (1965): 271–318. ———, “La enseñanza del escotismo en España,” in De doctrina Ioannis Duns Scoti, vol. 4: Scotismus decursu saeculorum (Roma, 1968), 191–220. ———, “Los Juan de Ovando. Dos teólogos homónimos del siglo xvi,” Revista Española de Teologia 38 (1978): 273–310. Zaragoza y Pascual, Ernesto, El maestro Fray Juan de Guevara, osa (Madrid, 1997).

The Digital Future of the Sentences Commentary Tradition Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin, Remediation: Understanding New Media (Cambridge, Mass., 1999). Busa, Roberto, “Why Can a Computer Do So Little?,” Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing Bulletin 4 (1975): 1–3. Carr, Nicholas, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (New York, 2011). Cull, Berry W., “Reading Revolutions: Online Digital Text and Implications for Reading in Academe,” First Monday 16, no. 6 (June 6, 2011), http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3340/2985 . Dunne, Michael, “Aquinas on cd-rom: A Guide to Electronic Consultation,” in Thomas Aquinas: Approaches to Truth, ed. James McEvoy and Michael Dunne (Dublin, 2002), 158–71.

532

Bibliography

Liu, Ziming, “Reading Behavior in the Digital Environment: Changes in Reading Behavior over the Past Ten Years,” Journal of Documentation 61: 6 (2005): 700–12. Ong, Walter, Orality and Literacy (London and New York, 2002). Poe, Marshall, “The Hive,” Atlantic Magazine (September, 2006), http://www.the atlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/the-hive/305118/. Porter, Dot, “Medievalists and the Scholarly Digital Edition,” The Annual of the Association for Documentary Editing 34 (2013), http://www.scholarlyediting .org/2013/essays/essay.porter.html. Raymond, Eric S., The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, rev. ed. (Sebastopol, Calif., 2001). Rosselli Del Turco, Roberto, “After the Editing Is Done: Designing a Graphic User Interface for Digital Editions,” Digital Medievalist 7 (2011), http://www.digital medievalist.org/journal/7/rosselliDelTurco/. Rowlands, Ian, David Nicholas et al., “The Google Generation: The Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future,” aslib Proceedings 60: 4 (2008): 290–310. Saenger, Paul, Space between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading (Palo Alto, Calif., 1997). Schmidt, Desmond, “The Role of Markup in the Digital Humanities,” Historical Social Research 37 (2012): 125–46. tei Consortium (ed.), tei p5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. Version 2.5.0. Last updated on July 26, 2013, http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/. Ulin, David L., The Lost Art of Reading: Why Books Matter in a Distracted Time (Seattle, 2010).

Figures

figure 1 Abridgment of Book i, dist. 3, chaps. 1 and 2 in the Filia Magistri preserved in ms. Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin 203, fol. 78v. Reproduced by courtesy of the University Librarian and Director, John Rylands Library, University of Manchester.

534

figures

figure 2 Abridgment of Book iii, dist. 15, chap. 1 in the Filia Magistri preserved in ms. Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin 203, fol. 174v. Reproduced by courtesy of the University Librarian and Director, John Rylands Library, University of Manchester.

figures

535

figure 3

 aec sunt que dicit Magister que non tenentur . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque H nationale de France, lat. 15705, fol. 2v. The main text was produced in the north of France in the second third of the thirteenth century; the hand who wrote the list belongs to the end of the thirteenth century. By kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

figure 4

 ota quod in viii locis non tenetur oppinio Magistri in libro Sententiarum . . . List N in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15707, fol. 169 vb. The main text was produced in Bologna around 1200; the hand responsible for the list belongs to the second half of the thirteenth century. By kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

536

figure 5

figures

I ste sunt opiniones quas ponit Magister in libro Sententiarum que modo non tenentur a magistris . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15719, fol. 204va. Italian manuscript from the second quarter of the thirteenth century. List from the first half of the fourteenth century. In the upper margin, note the ex-libris indicating Simon of Melta’s ownership and, in column b, several ex-libris of the Sorbonne. By kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

figures

537

figure 6

S ententia Magistri non tenetur hodie in his locis . . .  List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15723, fol. 1v. Manuscript produced in Paris around 1230–1240; the list dates from the first half of the fourteenth century. By kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

figure 7

 ota opiniones minus probabiles quas ponit Magister Sententiarum . . . List in N ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15728, fol. 185r. Main text produced in Paris around 1270/1280; list from the end of the thirteenth century. By kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

538

figure 8

figures

I ste sunt opiniones Magistri Sententiarum que non tenentur a modernis . . . List in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16375, fol. 290v. Manuscript produced in Italy toward the middle or the third quarter of the thirteenth century. The list was written at the beginning of the fourteenth century. By kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

figures

539

figures 9–10 Inserted sheets 46a and 46b between fols. 45 and 46 of ms. Vienna, Schottenstift, 269, in the context of Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s discussion of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Photograph by Chris Schabel, with the kind permission of the Schottenstift library.

540

figures

figure 11 Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s Lectura Mellicensis in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, tm 536, fol. 324r. Photograph by Monica Brinzei, with the kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Dépôt de l’IRHT-THESIS.

figures

figure 12 Index of questions on Book ii from the Sentences commentary by William of Vaurouillon (Basel, 1510), fol. 117r. Note the three questions relating to dist. 3. Reproduced by kind permission of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich (call number: 4 P. lat. 1302).

541

542

figures

figure 13 The opening page from the commentary on Book iv by Nicholas of Orbellis (Haguenau, 1503), fol. q7r. Reproduced by kind permission of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich (call number: 4 Inc. c.a. 1135).

figures

543

figure 14 Inácio Dias (?), commentary on Book iii, dist. 29 of Durandus’s Sentences commentary in ms. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, 268, fol. 7v. © Universidade do Minho/ Arquivo Distrital de Braga.

544

figures

figure 15 Anonymous Tractatus de paenitentia (a commentary on Book iv, dist. 14–18) in ms. Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional, 5512, fol. 89v. By kind permission of the Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal.

figures

545

figure 16 Juan de Celaya, Scripta . . . in quartum volumen Sententiarum, quae in Valentino gymnasio die Iouis quarto decimo calendas Nouembreis a localibus ipsis kalē tykē, vt aiunt, incohata sunt, anno a Christo nato 1525 . . . (Valencia: industria Joannis Joffre, 1528), Book iv, dist. 22, fol. 144v. By kind permission of the Biblioteca Valenciana Nicolau Primitiu, Biblioteca Nicolau Primitiu (call number: xvi/78).

Index of Manuscripts Aargau Kantonsbibliothek MurF 14 264 Alba Iulia Biblioteca Centrală de Stat, Filiala Batthyáneum R. I 93 264 R. II 48 264

Berlin Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz theol. Fol. 97 359–66 theol. Fol. 217 153 n. 30 theol. Fol. 331 153 n. 30 Bernkastel-Kues Bibliothek des St. Nikolaus-Hospitals 24 272 n. 20

Alençon Médiathèque Aveline 144 189–91, 203

Bologna Biblioteca universitaria 808 (1572) 33, 36 n. 41, 40

Ansbach Staatliche Bibliothek lat. 63 264 lat. 68 264 lat. 89 264 lat. 128 264 lat. 142 249, 264

Braga Arquivo Distrital 149 438 n. 87, 480–1, 489 239 476, 483, 485, 487–8, 503 268 480–2, 500–03, 543 fig. 14

Augsburg Staatsbibliothek Cod. II.1.2° 15 264 Cod. II.1.2° 206 264 2° Cod. 88 266 2° Cod. 269 264 2° Cod. 286 264 2° Cod. 300 264 2° Cod. 418 264 Barcelona Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó Monacals d’Hisenda, vol. 721 474 n. 198 Basel Universitätsbibliothek A I 17 264 A I 18 264 A VI 22 224–5 A X 44 264

Bratislava Kapitulská knižnica 54 (63) 266 Bruges Openbare Bibliotheek 80 33, 35–6 Cambridge Trinity College B.14.6 (292) 33, 35–6, 41–3, 48 Coimbra Biblioteca da Universidade 1200 476, 495–8 1834 (T 1) 464 n. 161 1843 (T 10) 458–9 1853 (T 20) 459 n. 158 1859 (T 28) 484 n. 235 1861 (T 30) 478 n. 214 1872 (T 42) 489 n. 257 1873 (T 43) 480 n. 221

547

Index Of Manuscripts 1876 (T 46) 487 n. 247–9, 488 n. 250–4 1877 (T 47) 478 n. 212, 479 n. 219, 480 n. 20, 481 n. 223, 498–500 1880 (T 50) 479 1881 (T 51) 480 n. 221 1903 491 n. 261 1984 464 n. 164 Colmar Bibliothèque municipale 111 [348] 271 n. 18 Fonds du consistoire 27 295 n. 104 Dolný Kubín Čaplovičova knižnica C 3/211 (144) 264 Eichstätt Universitätsbibliothek 184 266 351 265 389 264 El Escorial Real Monasterio de El Escorial O.III.32 458–60, 463 Erlangen Universitätsbibliothek 508/1 153–6, 158–9, 170 n. 71 508/2 154 n. 33 Évora Biblioteca Pública CXIV-2-31 430 CXVIII-2-17 477 n. 206 CXIX-2-4 437 n. 81, 483 n. 233 Frankfurt am Main Dominikanerkloster Praed. 138 265 Freiburg im Breisgau Universitätsbibliothek 268 266

Göttweig Stiftsbibliothek 272/261 210 n. 65 Graz Universitätsbibliothek II 639 195–7, 238 n. 91, 241, 246–7 263 180 361 33–6 646 261 751 33–6 Hanover Stadtbibliothek Mag. 19 264–5 Harburg (Schloss) Fürstlich Öttingen-Wallersteinsche Bibliothek Cod. II.1.2° Fol. 72 264, 266 Innsbruck Stift Wilten s.n. (HMML 28,778) 265 Universitätsbibliothek 134 261 143 194 n. 41, 195–7, 220, 240–4 214 261 216 266 Jasov Miestne procovisko Matice slovenskej C 3/122 (144) 265 Jena Thüringer Universitäts- und Landes­bibliothek El. f. 47 321–37 Klagenfurt Kärntner Landesbibliothek 23 265 Klosterneuburg Augustiner-Chorherrenstift 41 184–5, 198–201, 219–20, 239, 242, 245 47 250–2, 259–61

548 Klosterneuburg Augustiner-Chorherrenstift (cont.) 301 185, 199–200, 204–05, 220, 245, 253 302 245 315 185, 210, 245, 249 Košice Východoslovenské múzeum Cx XIII (174) 264, 266 Krakow Biblioteca Jagiellońska 1235 265 1418 245, 265 Kremsmünster Benediktinerstift 367 250–1 CC 22 264 Laon Bibliothèque municipale 321 33–4, 36 Leipzig Universitätsbibliothek 152 33, 35 519 210 593 190 Linz Studienbibliothek 31 265 Ljubljana Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica 65 (52) 265 75 (53) 265 Lisbon Bibliotheca da Ajuda 44-XII-20 442, 447–50 50-II-17 437 Bibliotheca Nacional COD. 2800 466 n. 169 COD. 5107 485 COD. 5114 485, 487–9, 503 COD. 5512 478, 544 fig. 15

Index Of Manuscripts COD. 5540 484 COD. 5587 487–8 COD. 5588 487–8 COD. 5787 489 COD. 6565 485 COD. 6802 484 London British Library Harley 3243 80 Royal 10.A.1 157, 161 n. 48 Lambeth Palace Library 418 487 Madrid Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia 9/2080 457 n. 142 Biblioteca Nacional 13923 442, 444–5, 448–9 Manchester John Rylands University Library Latin 203 29–30, 33–6, 38, 41–59 , 64, 69–70, 73, 75–8, 533 fig. 1, 534 fig. 2 Melk Stiftsbibliothek 14 (A.16) 265 79 (B.46) 265 83 (B.50) 265 124 240 504 180 n. 18 531 265 1873 (81 B.48) 251 n. 112 Mexico City Biblioteca Nacional 561 494 n. 276 Michaelbeuern Stiftsbibliothek Man. cart. 9 245, 264–6 Man. cart. 105 266 Milan Biblioteca Ambrosiana A 30 inf. 493 n. 269

549

Index Of Manuscripts Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek 4 Inc. c.a. 1135 542 fig. 13 Clm 2693 194 Clm 3066 245 Clm 3546 207–09 Clm 4634 265 Clm 4638 265 Clm 4760 353 Clm 5307 54 n. 91 Clm 7478 180 Clm 8358 184–6, 216, 239 Clm 8455 184–5 Clm 8867 206 Clm 8997 342–7 Clm 9027 349–52 Clm 16426 266 Clm 17243 54 n. 91 Clm 17468 206, 238 n. 91 Clm 18354 266 Clm 18582 54 Clm 18762 266 Clm 19364 238 n. 91 Clm 20203 153 n. 30 Clm 21048 30 Clm 23850 245 Clm 26933 239–40 Clm 28479 265 Clm 28671 291 n. 88, 295 n. 104 Clm 29466 265 Universitätsbibliothek 88 245, 249 8° Cod. ms. 28 290 n. 81 Fol. 63 153 n. 30 Nuremberg Stadtbibliothek Cent. IV 48 33–4, 36, 39 Olomouc Vědecká knihovna 72 266 227 266 333 265 Ottobeuren Benediktinerabtei Ms. O.23 (II 325) 265 Ms. O.38 (I 164) 265

Oxford Bodleian Library Canon. Pat. Lat. 208 33, 35, 36 n. 41, 41–3, 48 Paderborn Erzbischöfiche Akademische Bibliothek 0609 Ba 21 153 n. 32 Palencia Biblioteca del Cabildo de la Catedral 5 459 n. 148 Paris Bibliothèque Mazarine lat. 279 31 lat. 934 161 n. 47 lat. 935 161 n. 47 Bibliothèque nationale de France lat. 3423 33–6 lat. 15323 118 n. 151 lat. 15702 80, 83–4, 90–1, 94, 96, 98, 101, 105, 107–08, 135–6 lat. 15705 83–4, 90–1, 94, 106–07, 117, 136–7, 535 fig. 3 lat. 15707 83–4, 90–1, 94–5, 105 n. 99, 107, 119, 136–7, 535 fig. 4 lat. 15714 120 lat. 15716 83–5, 90–1, 94–5, 99, 101, 105, 108, 138 lat. 15717 83–5, 90–1, 94–6, 99, 101, 103, 105, 108–12, 114, 116, 138–40 lat. 15719 83–5, 90–1 , 94–6, 99, 101, 105, 107–09, 114, 116, 140–1, 536 fig. 5 lat. 15720 118 lat. 15723 83–4, 90–1, 120, 141–2, 537 fig. 6. lat. 15726 84 lat. 15728 83–5, 91–6, 98, 101, 105, 108–10, 114–16, 120, 142–3, 537 fig. 7 lat. 15761 80 lat. 16374 84 lat. 16375 83–5, 90–1, 94–5, 99, 101, 105, 108, 143–4, 538 fig. 8 lat. 16412 33–6 n.a.l. 99 85 Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes TM 536 174 n. 1, 262–3, 265, 540 fig. 11

550 Paris/New York/Chicago Les Enluminures TM 566 174 n. 1 Prague Archiv Pražského hradu, Rukopisy knihovny Metropolitní kapituly u sv. Víta 575 266 Národní knihovna České republiky 107 (I C 15) 265 784 (IV H 20) 32–3, 35 790 (IV H 26) 340 n. 72–3 1546 (VIII E 21) 33, 35 V.B. 25 226–8, 230–8 Rennes Bibliothèque municipale 41 279 n. 51 Rome Biblioteca Angelica 512 470 1041 466 1044 457 n. 142, 466 1045 459, 461–2, 463 n. 160 Salzburg Erzabtei St. Peter B II 42 153 n. 30 B XII 2 184–8, 216

Index Of Manuscripts Stuttgart Württembergische Landesbibliotkek cod. theol. et phil. Fol. 98 265 cod. theol. et phil. Fol. 150 265 HB I 196 265 HB III 54 265 Tarragona Biblioteca Pública del Estado 103 272 n. 19 Tortosa Archivo Capitular 139 240 n. 101 Troyes Médiathèque de l’agglomération troyenne (formerly Bibliothèque municipale) 588 80 899 80 900 80 1713 80 2264 80 Tübingen Universitätsbibliothek 203 245, 265 Valencia Biblioteca Nicolau Primitiu XVI/78 545 fig. 16

Universitätsbibliothek M II 19 245 M II 307 238–9

Valladolid Biblioteca de Seminario Conciliar no call number 466 n. 170

St. Florian Stiftsbibliothek XI 85 245, 249–50, 265 XI 92 265

Vatican City Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Barb. lat. 951 458–9, 461–2 Borgh. 203 80 Ottob. lat. 714 470–1 Ottob. lat. 1001 455–6 Ottob. lat. 1044 456, 465, 471 Ottob. lat. 1057 450, 455 Ottob. lat. 1442 295 n. 104 Palat. lat. 337 359–60 Vat. lat. 688 49 Vat. lat. 1174 32 Vat. lat. 4847 80 n. 12

St. Paul im Lavanttal Stiftsbibliothek 48/4 245 Seitenstetten Benediktinerstift 9 202, 218 180 245, 265

551

Index Of Manuscripts Vienna Erzbischöfliches Diözesanarchiv C-2 265 Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 1511 188 3996 266 4300 215 4319 189 4353 180 n. 18 4354 180 n. 18 4355 180 n. 18 4366 239–40 4369 211–12 4387 212 4393 212–3 4422 184, 213 4439 212–15, 218 4668 201–06, 213, 218–20 4713 184, 201–02, 213 4719 240 4820 185, 201–02, 204–06, 209–20, 245 4939 201–02, 218 5067 206, 210, 215, 219–20 Schottenstift 171 (341) 264 194 (164) 179–80 196 181, 198–200 198 (168) 180

199 (169) 180, 245 201 (170) 180, 184–6, 243–5 254 (230) 177, 180–1, 183, 194, 199–207, 209, 211, 214–16, 220–38, 239 n. 94 269 11, 177, 179–207, 209–11, 213–20, 229 n. 89, 239–49, 253, 263, 539 figs. 9–10 Vorau Stiftsbibliothek 176 33–4, 36 212 33–6, 38, 43–4, 48 Warsaw Staatsbibliothek Chart. Lat. Fol. 1 530 153 n. 30 (MS. no longer extant) Wolfenbüttel Herzog-August-Bibliothek 1275 (Helmst. 1167) 33, 35 Wrocław Biblioteca uniwersytecka 222 (I F 195) 6, 219 223 (I F 196) 266 Würzburg Universitätsbibliothek M ch. 190 218 M ch. q. 17 33–4, 36

Index of Names Achard of Saint-Victor 70–2, 75 Adam Wodeham 20, 186, 188, 192, 215, 221, 226, 232–6, 253–4, 270, 278, 321 n. 21, 324, 333 n. 51, 372, 386–7, 398 n. 89, 399–400, 402 n. 106, 473, 506 n. 6 Adrian VI, pope 473 Aguadé Neto, S. 425 n. 34 Albert III, duke 178 Albert of Saxony 278 n. 43, 388 Albert the Great 30, 40, 56, 58–60, 62, 64, 76–8, 97, 109 n. 114, 113, 147, 168, 175, 221, 253, 270, 308 n. 152, 388, 473 Albert, P. 341 n. 75 Alcalá 424–6, 432, 470–1 Alcántara, P. de 486 n. 246 Alcocer Martinez, M. 440 n. 90 Alexander III, pope 17, 68, 79, 102 Alexander V, pope, see Peter of Candia Alexander Neckam 221, 244, 342 Alexander of Alessandria 278 n. 43, 488 n. 255 Alexander of Hales 27, 58, 76, 89–90, 92, 94 n. 59, 96–7, 109, 112–4, 157, 168 n. 65, 186, 195, 215, 221, 232, 236, 253–4, 270, 273, 297, 304, 306–8, 342, 348, 375, 387 n. 47, 388, 400, 409, 411 n. 132, 467, 469, 483 Alonso Marañón, P.M. 430 n. 58 Alphonsus Vargas 187, 215–6, 222, 331 n. 45, 388 Álvarez Sánchez, A. 494 n. 275 Ambrose of Milan 388, 473 Amsterdam 145 Anaxagoras 388 André de Sens 36 Andrés Martin, M. 418 n. 3, 423 n. 23 Andrew of Novo Castro 388, 469, 473 Andrew of Waytra 183 Angles, J.V. 452, 469–70, 489, 490 n. 260 Angotti, C. 17–18, 23, 79–144 Anselm of Canterbury 171 n. 74, 226–7, 231, 234, 237, 244, 327, 384, 388, 407, 434 n. 77 Anselm of Laon 6 Antonio da Rho 397 Antonius Andreas 349 Apobolymaeus, see Johannes Findling

Apresentação, E. da 486–9 Aragón, P. de 436 Arias de Saavedra Alías, I. 429 n. 52, 432 n. 64 Arimon, G. 441 Aris, G. 413 n. 140 Aristippus 289 n. 78 Aristotle (and Aristotelianism) 20, 62, 108, 121, 231, 275 n. 31, 291, 293, 319, 331 n. 45, 332 n. 48, 340, 347, 362, 384, 388, 394 n. 75, 403, 414, 425, 454, 464, 472 Arnold of Seehausen 178, 198, 203, 206–9, 216, 239 Aschbach, J. von 179 n. 17 Assunção, J. de 485, 488–9 Auer, J. 178, 206 Augustine of Hippo (and Augustinianism)  7, 11, 19–20, 27–8, 41, 50–1, 62, 70, 102, 110, 120 n. 161, 166, 171 n. 74, 222, 224–8, 232, 235, 251, 266, 317, 327, 330, 335, 340, 350–1, 360–1, 365, 380, 384, 388, 390, 394 n. 75, 395, 400, 444, 473 Averroës (and Averroism) 20, 107, 121, 270, 384, 388 Avicenna 121, 384, 388, 394 n. 75 Avignon 320 n. 18, 321 Badius, J. 369, 380, 381 Baeza 429, 432 Bakker, P.J.J.M. 268 n. 5, 273 n. 24, 369 n. 1 Balić, C. 276 n. 36 Bandinus, Master 28 Báñez, D. 435, 436 n. 79, 440 n. 91, 455, 469 Baptista Mantuanus 387 n. 47 Barcelona 430, 432 Barrientos García, J. 419 n. 8, 420 n. 9, n. 11, n. 12, 421 n. 15, 436 n. 79– 80, 422 n. 16, 17, 19–22, 423 n. 24–6, 456 n. 135, 457 n. 141, 458 n. 146, 459 n. 149, 460 n. 151, 461 n. 153, 462 n. 156–7, 463 n. 159–60, 464 n. 162–3, 466 n. 169, 474 n. 197 Barrio, L. de 466 Basel 16, 156 Bataillon, L.J. 36 n. 42 Becker, K.J. 452 n. 121 Beckett, S. 3

Index Of Names Beltrán de Heredia, V. 422 n. 17–18, 424 n. 31–2, 425, 429 n. 49–51, 430 n. 53, n. 58, 431 n. 60, 436 n. 79–80, 442, 447 n. 109, 450 n. 113, 451 n. 117, 452 n. 121, 461 n. 154, 462 n. 155–6, 466 n. 170, 471, 476 n. 204, 492 n. 267, 493 n. 270 Benedictus Stendal de Hallis 358 n. 144 Benevento 332 n. 49 Bernard de Sylvestro 388 Bernard of Clairvaux 388 Bernardus Pepiensis 297 Beuchot, M. 323–4 n. 31 Bianchi, L. 92 n. 52 Bianco, F.J. von 147 n. 7 Bieniak, M. 30 n. 18, 54 n. 89–90 Bihl, M. 290 n. 81 Binder, K. 177 n. 9, 194 n. 41, 239–41, 243, 251 n. 112 Bland, M. 373 n. 14 Bochardus 221 Bodnár, I. 332 n. 48 Boethius 106, 108, 384, 388 Bollier, D. 2 n. 2 Bolliger, D. 300 n. 119 Bologna 100, 197, 321 n. 19 Bolter, J.D. 506 n. 4 Bonaventure 4–6, 9–10, 17, 19, 22, 56, 60–2, 64, 76–8, 80, 87–92, 94 n. 55, 95–7, 101, 105, 107, 109, 113, 119, 120 n. 161, 122, 128, 132–5, 171 n. 74, 174–5, 186, 192–5, 197, 215, 221, 226, 231–2, 234, 238–9, 253–6, 259, 261, 263, 270, 273, 288, 297, 299–308, 313, 341–2, 348–9, 353, 367, 388, 411 n. 132, 434, 447, 456, 467, 469, 473–4, 482 Bonificius of Asti 332 n. 48 Bonino, S.-T. 270 n. 12 Bonsemblant Baduarius of Padua 332 Borchert, E. 195 n. 43–4 Borobio García, D. 442 n. 103, 453 n. 124 Bougerol, J.G. 13 n. 37 Bouhot, J.-P. 80 n. 10, 135 Boureau, A. 9 n. 22, 9 n. 24, 11, 27 Boyle, J.F. 23 n. 68 Bozzolo, C. 83 n. 24 Braakhuis, H.A.G. 148 n. 10, 149 n. 11 Brady, I.C. 46 n. 70, 48–9, 71, 90, 157 n. 39, 158–9, 274 n. 26, 275 n. 29, 275 n. 31–2, 278 n. 44–5, 279 n. 50–1, 280 n. 53–5, 281 n. 61,

553 282 n. 62, 285 n. 70, 288 n. 75, 289 n. 79, 375 n. 17 Braunschweig 348 Brett, A.S. 383 n. 36, 454 n. 129 Briceño, A. 494 n. 276 Brieskorn, N. 339 n. 67–8, 340 n. 69, n. 74 Brinzei, M. 10–11, 14–15, 18, 160 n. 47, 174–266, 267 n. 2, 269 n. 6, 273 n. 24, 312 n. 168, 410 n. 131 Broadie, A. 370 n. 4, 393 n. 66, 396 n. 80–1, 397, 401, 405 n. 116, 406 n. 118, 414 n. 141 Brown, S.F. 321 n. 21, 331 n. 45, 332 n. 49, 346 n. 93, 351 n. 117, 410 n. 131 Burger, C. 323 n. 31 Burns, J.H. 370 n. 4 Busa, R. 514–15 Cáceres, F. de 481, 483, 500–3 Cajetan 464, 470 Calma, M.B., see Brinzei, M. Calvin, J. 372 n. 11 Cambridge 370 Canal, M. 440 n. 90 Cano, M. 440 n. 91, 452 Carr, N. 24, 505 n. 3, 509 Carreiro, F. 22, 484–6, 503 Caspar de Calendrinis 254 Castell, A. 435 n. 78 Castilla, D. de 491 n. 262 Castillo Velasco, F. del 435 n. 78 Castro, A. de 483 n. 229 Castro, L. de 463 n. 159 Cato 288 Cavigioli, J.-D. 162 n. 51 Celaya, J. de 432, 435, 471 n. 184, 472–3, 474, 490, 545 fig. 16 Chakrabarty, A.M. 2, 3 n. 5 Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor 320 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 426 Charles VII, king of France 290 Châtelain, É. 79 n. 3–4, 135 Châtillon, J. 71–2 Chaves, T. de 442–3, 445–7, 450 n. 115, 469 Chenu, M.-D. 13 n. 37 Cicero 270, 288, 340, 444 Cisneros, Cardinal, see Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros Clasen, S. 148 n. 10

554 Coimbra 22, 426–8, 433, 434, 435, 437, 475–89, 490 Colish, M.L. 26 n. 3, 28, 40 n. 56, 64, 79 n. 4, 100 n. 84–5, 103 n. 96, 104 n. 97, 106 n. 102–3, 111 n. 121, 119 n. 156, 164 n. 57 Cologne 145–7, 149–50, 153, 156 n. 35, 159, 162 n. 54, 271 n. 18 Columbus, C. 440 Conrad of Ebrach 197, 216 Conrad of Rothenburg 210, 245 Conrad of Soltau 216 Conradus, from Franken 147 Córdoba, A. de 465 Cornelius Baldwini de Dordrecht 149 Corpus Christi, M. de 462 Cotarelo y Valledor, A. 440, n. 90 Courtenay, W.J. 58, 92 n. 52, 160 n. 46, 161 n. 48, 179 n. 15–17, 183 n. 24, 209 n. 62, 210, 222 n. 78, 223 n. 82, 286 n. 73, 312 n. 167, 318 n. 11, 319 n. 13, 323 n. 28, 332 n. 47, 333 n. 51 Coxito, A. 477 n. 206 Crasto, L. 479 Cristo, F. de 453, 477–8, 486 Cross, R. 381 n. 29, 393 n. 68 Cull, B.W. 509 n. 10 Cullen, C.M. 60 n. 108 Curchin, L. 284 n. 66 Custodio Vega, Á. 457 n. 140 Damerau, R. 189 n. 34 David Cranston 412, 414 Deza, D. de 419, 439–41, 474, 490 Decorte, J. 269 n. 11 Delgado de Hoyos, F. 443 n. 107, 446 n. 108, 452 n. 122, 453 n. 124, 456 n. 133–4, n. 136, 466 n. 168, 470 n. 183, 471 n. 184, 475 n. 201, 476 n. 204 Democritus 388 Denifle, H. 12, 29, 79, 80 n. 12, 118 n. 149, 135, 281 n. 60 Denys the Carthusian 270, 272 n. 20, 473, 482 Descartes, R. 409 n. 127 Dias, I. 479–81, 483–4, 498–500, 543 fig. 14 Diaz de la Carrera, D. 491 n. 263 Diaz Diaz, G. 279 n. 48, 465 n. 165 Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo- 379–88 Dobelinus, A. 19, 315, 319–38, 366–7

Index Of Names Domínguez Carretero, U. 455 n. 133, 465 n. 165, n. 167, 477 n. 206, 486 n. 246 Domínguez del Val, U. 456 n. 139 Dreyer, M. 285 n. 69 Duba, W.O. 240 n. 101, 351 n. 116, 416 n. * Duhem, P.M. 290 n. 82, 294 n. 99 Dumont, S. 400 n. 98 Dunn, G. 29 Dunne, M. 514 n. 20 Durán Gudiol, A. 430 n. 57 Duran, E 474–5 n. 198, 486 Duran, L. 453 n. 125, 455 n. 130–1 Durand of Saint-Pourçain 97, 109 n. 114, 175, 186, 192–3, 195, 197, 215, 221, 253, 263, 270, 278 n. 43, 334 n. 52, 388, 402, 422–8, 434, 437, 453, 455–8, 461, 465, 469, 470 n. 183, 471, 473, 475–7, 479–89, 489–91, 500–03 Ebbesen, S. 97–8 Eckermann, W. 324 n. 31 Ehrle, F. 306 n. 147, 455 n. 133–4, 456 n. 137, 471, n. 184, n. 187 Emery, G. 168 n. 66 Emery, K., Jr. 270 n. 15, 270–1 n. 16, 272 n. 20, 400 n. 98 Eraldus Evangelista 342 Erasmus of Rotterdam, D. 369, 20, 369, 414–15 Erfurt 16, 18–19, 173 n. 77, 118, 273 n. 25, 316, 319, 321, 337, 348, 358 Ernst, G. 269 n. 10 Esteve i Perendreu, F. 430–1 n. 58 Étienne Pillet, see Stephen Brulefer Etzen, H. 338–9 Euclid 384, 388 Euripides 289 n. 78 Eustratius 388, 390 Évora 426, 430, 433, 490 Facinus of Asti 332 Faes de Mottoni, B. 32 n. 29 Farge, J.K. 369 n.*, n. 2, 370, 371 n. 7–9, 372, 373 n. 13, 412 n. 134, n. 136–7 Farthing, J.L 270 n. 13, 411 n. 132 Febrer Romaguera, M.V. 432 n. 62 Felipo Orts, A. 432 n. 62 Féret, P. 79 Fernández Luzón, A. 430 n. 54, 432 n. 65

Index Of Names Ferreira, A. 484 n. 238 Fischer, H. 154 n. 33 Flaubert, G. 3 Flores, J.C. 321 n. 21, 331 n. 45, 332 n. 49, 346 n. 93, 351 n. 117 Flüeler, C. 176 n. 7 Foresta, P. 492 n. 267, 493 n. 270 Foucault, M. 3–4, 18 Fournier, G. 82 n. 20 Francesco Petrarca 323 n. 31, 332 n. 47, 387 n. 47 Francis of Marchia 349, 353 Francis of Meyronnes 175, 222, 241, 285, 288 n. 75, 293 n. 95, 297, 308, 309 n. 156, 341, 348–9, 353, 357, 473 Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros 424 Friedman, R.L. 168 n. 66, 171 n. 73, 193 n. 40, 255 n. 116 G., Master 54 Gabriel Biel 21, 120, 269–70, 272 n. 21, 300, 313 n. 170, 395, 410–11, 413, 422, 424, 428, 434, 456, 464, 469, 471, 473, 476, 479, 484–5, 488 n. 255, 503 Gabriel, A.L. 147 Gaine, S.F. 407 n. 121 Galen 384 Gallego Salvadores, J. 432 n. 62 Gallo, J. 459 n. 148 Gandía 433 García Oro, J. 424 n. 31 García Sánchez, J. 453 n. 125, 454 n. 127, 455 n. 132 García Trobat, P. 433 n. 68 García Villoslada, R. 472 n. 188–9, 474 n. 194 García-Morato Soto, J.R. 453 n. 124 Gaudel, A. 95 n. 63 Gavin Douglas 414 Gaya Massót, R. 431 n. 58 Genest, J.-F. 80 n. 10, 135, 267 n. 2 Genoa 275 n. 29 Geoffrey of Trani 297 n. 111 George Wetzel of Horaw 214–15 Georgedes, K. 318 n. 11 Gerard Odonis 255, 278 Gerard of Novara 187 Gerhard de Monte 149 Gerhardus de Zutphen 271 n. 18

555 Germundus 254 Ghellinck, J. de 80–1, 100 n. 85 Gilbert of Poitiers 106, 388 Giles Charlier 282 n. 63 Giles of Rome 36, 175, 186, 215, 288 n. 75, 297, 332 n. 49, 342, 388, 456 Giles of Vienna 349 Giles of Viterbo 269–70 Gilles de Champs 223 n. 83 Gilles de Gourmont 412 n. 135 Giorgio Valla 172 n. 74 Girardus Fuleti de Salinis 281 Giraud, C. 6 Girgensohn, D. 201 n. 52 Glasgow 20, 372 Gleghornie 370 Glorieux, P. 32, 90 n. 44 Godfrey of Fontaines 297, 342, 388, 483 Godfrey of Poitiers 58, 288 Goering, J. 26 n. * Goldblatt, D. 2 n. 1 Gonzáles Gonzáles, E. 472 n. 188–9, 473 n. 192 Goris, H. 149, 150 n. 16, n. 18, 419 n. 5 Goslar 348 Grabmann, M. 153 n. 31, 154 n. 34 Grajal, G. de 456 Granada 433 Granjon, J. 372 n. 12, 374, 380 Gratian 27, 103–04, 109, 112–14, 117 Gregory I, pope (Gregory the Great) 166, 277 n. 39, 388, 394 n. 75 Gregory VII, pope 100 Gregory IX, pope 98 n. 76, 103, 109, 111, 114–15 Gregory XI, pope 320 n. 18 Gregory of Rimini 10, 14, 20, 120, 168–9, 175, 178, 180–1, 186–92, 197, 199, 200–02, 204–05, 211, 215–17, 219–21, 223–6, 228–9, 232, 239, 263, 277, 308, 324, 327–9, 331 n. 45, 333 n. 51, 335, 338, 385–7, 390, 391 n. 62, 393–4, 411, 414, 421–2, 441, 456, 464–5, 473, 485 Grusin, R. 506 n. 4 Guenée, B. 241 n. 105 Guevara, J. de 450–2, 455–7, 464–5, 490 Guilleminot, G. 369 n, 3 Guillermo Gorriz 272 n. 21, 279 n. 48

556 Gutiérrez, D. 461 n. 153 Guzman, D. de 462 Hallamaa, O. 410 n. 130 Häring, N.M. 71 Harkins, F.T. 9, 13, 14 n. 40, 26–78, 104 n. 97, 145–6 n. 2 Harris, E.K. 321 n. 22 Hathaway, N. 9 n. 23 Haubst, R. 147 n. 5 Haymo of Faversham 187, 221 Heaney, S.P. 110 n. 120 Hector Boece 369 n. 1 Heidelberg 147 Henricus de Urimaria 157 n. 38 Henricus Toke de Brema 358 n. 145 Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 100 Henry of Friemar 39–40 Henry of Friemar the Elder 39 n. 53, 319 Henry of Friemar the Younger 319 Henry of Ghent 109 n. 114, 187, 212, 215, 221, 254, 288 n. 75, 297, 341, 348, 388, 400, 456, 488 n. 255 Henry of Gorkum 15–16, 145–73, 271 n. 19 Henry of Hesse, see Henry of Langenstein Henry of Langenstein 10, 178, 182, 186, 189–92, 197, 203–04, 214, 216, 219–21, 238–9, 241, 263, 321 Henry of Segusio, see Hostiensis Henry Totting of Oyta 10, 32–3, 160 n. 45, 178, 182–3, 187, 190, 192, 194–7, 203–04, 206, 215–16, 219–21, 226, 228–39, 241, 244, 246–7, 263, 270, 285 n. 69, 293 n. 94, 321, 372, 398 n. 89 Heris, C.V. 94 n. 57 Herman Lurtz of Nuremberg 358 Hermann of Grevenstein 272 n. 19 Hermes Trismegistus 388 Hernández de la Torre, J. 435 n. 78 Herrera, F. de 467–8, 469 n. 178 Herrera, P. de 436–7 Hervaeus Natalis 270 Herz-Fischer, R. 284 n. 66 Heymericus de Campo 147, 149, 160, 162–3, 271 n. 18, 272 n. 21 Hibernicus, see Richard FitzRalph Hilary of Poitiers 233 Hildebert of Tours 32

Index Of Names Hindman, S. 174 Hobbins, D. 193 n. 37–8, 272 n. 22 Hodgson, J. 33 n. 33 Hoenen, M.J.F.M. 146, 148 n. 8, 150, 159, 160 n. 44, 162–3, 167, 173, 270 n. 15, 271 n. 18, 286 n. 73, 288 n. 76, 292 n. 93, 301 n. 127, 307 n. 151, 309 n. 157, 312 n. 166 Homer 270, 289 n. 78 Hostiensis 253–4, 297 Huerga Teruelo, Á. 439 n. 89 Huesca 430 Hugh of Newcastle 278, 348–9 Hugh of Saint-Cher 9, 27, 29–32, 53–5, 58–9, 76 Hugh of Saint-Victor 35, 36 n. 39, 70–2, 105, 109, 251 n. 112, 388 Hughes, B. 290 n. 82 Hugolino of Orvieto 19, 186, 191 n. 35, 197, 215–16, 221, 323–32, 333 n. 51, 334–8, 367 Humbert of Romans 38 Ignatius of Loyola 372 n. 11, 492 n. 267 Illyricus, M.F. 300 n. 122 Imbach, R. 162 n. 51 Innocent III, pope 115, 116 Innocent IV, pope 260 Innocent V, pope, see Peter of Tarantaise Ioannes Gileti 281 n. 59 Ioannes Nico 281 n. 59 Iohannes Tinctoris 153, 154 n. 33 Iribarne e Uraburu, I. 435 n. 78 Izbicki, T.M. 412 n. 133 Jacques Almain 410–13 Jacques Legrand 271–2 n. 19 James of Eltville 160 n. 45, 182, 186, 190–2, 197, 210–11, 215–16, 221, 223–4, 229, 239, 253, 264, 285 n. 69 James of Viterbo 332, 335 Jean de Faenza 102 Jean de Maisonneuve 162 Jean Gerson 121, 192–3, 253, 270, 306–08, 387 n. 47, 388 Jerome 110, 386 n. 43 Jeschke, T. 334 n. 52, 402 n. 103 Joachim of Fiore 230, 235, 237 Joan of Arc 274, 281 n. 60 Johann Spanberger 261

Index Of Names Johannes Carnificis de Lutrea 358 n. 145 Johannes de Colonia 272 n. 21 Johannes Findling 279 n. 51, 289, 290 n. 81, 303 n. 134, 313 n. 170 Johannes Leivolfingher 147 Johannes Pfeffer 312 n. 168, 270 n. 15 Johannes Picardus 272 n. 21, 289 n. 80, 299 n. 118, 310, 313 n. 170 Johannes von Neumarkt 320 Johannes Wenck 147 Johannes Wolffis de Arnstede 358 n. 145 Johannes Zachariae 321 John III, king of Portugal 475 John Andreas 254 John Angrer of Müldorf 179, 206–07, 210–11 John Baconthorpe 187, 222, 254, 483, 491 John Berwart of Villingen 178, 198–9, 201, 203, 206–07, 209, 239 John Bolu 371 John Bremer 19, 338–9, 342, 347–53, 366 John Buridan 148, 224, 225 n. 85, 387, 404 n. 111, 405 John Capreolus 147, 168–9, 171, 269–70, 273 n. 23, 308 n. 152, 388, 439–41, 464, 473, 482 John Cassian 388 John Damascene 52, 167 John de Hassia 215 John Duns Scotus (and Scotism) 10, 19, 21–2, 58, 109 n. 114, 168–9, 174, 184, 186, 192, 194–5, 197, 212, 215, 221, 231–6, 238, 244, 246, 253–6, 259, 263, 270, 272 n. 21, 273, 275–9, 287, 289 n. 78, 291–2, 294–9, 301, 303 n. 134, 304, 308, 309 n. 156, 311, 313, 315, 324, 339 n. 66, 340–1, 345–9, 351 n. 116, 353, 362, 365–8, 372, 386 n. 44, 387, 391, 392 n. 64, 400 n. 98, 401, 409 n. 129, 413, 421, 423–5, 428, 431, 434, 435 n. 78, 436, 441, 447, 453, 455–6, 466–71, 473–4, 476–480, 481 n. 221, 482–91, 494, 498–503 John Eck 145 n. 2, 299, 310, 313 n. 170 John Gerson, see Jean Gerson John Harrer of Heilbronn 202, 213, 261 John Hiltalinger of Basel 216, 277, 323 John Hulshout of Mechelen 163 John Huss 321 n. 19 John Klenkok 222, 320–1, 324 John Nider 183

557 John of Bassols 450, 488 n. 255 John of Chemnitz 339 John of Damascus 224, 226, 388 John of Erfurt 19, 315, 339–40 John of Freiburg 473 n. 192 John of Gingen 261 John of Kuck 149 John of Minden 339 John of Mirecourt 222, 223 n. 83, 267 n. 2, 323–4 n. 31 John of Monzón 241 John of Novoforo 39 John of Ochsenhausen 261 John of Ripa 215, 222, 278, 342, 346–8, 388 John of Rodington 278, 297 John Quidort of Paris 358 n. 145 John Rucherat of Wesel 20, 315, 358–67 John Schlitpacher of Weilheim 261 John Standonck 371 John Trithemius 299 John Wartburg 358 n. 145 John Wuel of Pruck 179, 206, 210 John Wycliff 321 n. 19 Josse Bade of Ghent, see Badius Juan, prince of Asturias 440 Jules Quicherat 372 n. 11 Juvenal 288 Kaeppeli, T. 81 n. 17 Kafka, F. 3 Kagan, R.L. 418 n. 4 Kaluza, Z. 221 n. 78, 267 n. 2, 268 n. 4, 274 n. 25 Kärkkäinen, P. 315 n. 1, 316 n. 4–5 Keenan, J.F. 389 n. 49 Kepler, J. 284 n. 66 Ker, N. 33 n. 33 Keßler, N. 16, 156–9, 171 Keussen, H. 148, 271 n. 18 Kevles, D.V. 3 n. 4 Kilianus Stetzing 338, 342, 353 King, P. 347 Kitanov, S.V. 18–21, 273 n. 25, 293 n. 94, 315–415 Kleineidam, E. 315 n. 2, 348 n. 101, 352 n. 121, 358 n. 144–5, 359 n. 146–7, 366 n. 175 Knuuttila, S. 333 n. 51, 399 n. 94 Krupa, P. 241 n. 105

558 Lagerlund, H. 327 n. 34 Landgraf, A. 30, 31 n. 21–22, 32 n. 30, 40, 58 n. 99, 76, 91 n. 49 Landulph Caracciolo 186, 195, 212, 221, 226, 253, 255, 278, 349 Lang, A. 178, 238 n. 92 Langella, S. 474 n. 197 Lanza, L. 21–2, 416–503 la Peña, J. de 462 la Puente, P. de 459 la Torre y del Cerro, A. de 425 n. 33 Laurentius Berungen of Groningen 149 Lawrance, J. 383 n. 36 Le Bras, G. 110 n. 120, 115 Ledesma, M. de 435, 446, 450, 452–3, 475–6, 490, 495–8 Ledesma, P. de 435, 36 n. 79 Legionensis, L. 452 n. 123 Leinsle, U.G. 424 n. 29 Leipzig 348, 352 Leo I, pope 257–8 Leo of Mening 39 León, convent of 454, 467 León, L. de 435, 436 n. 79, 437, 452, 457–65, 481, 490 Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci) 284 Lhotsky, A. 211 n. 67 Light, L. 174 n. 1 Lisbon 489 Litteratis, A. de 442 n. 106 Liu, Z. 509 n. 13 Lizarralde, J.A. 433 n. 70 Lleida 430 Lodovicus Hornken 156 n. 35, 157 n. 38 Lohr, C.H. 291 n. 85 Long, R.J. 6 n. 17, 7 n. 18, 168 n. 65, 409 n. 128 López, A. 469 n. 179–80 López, T. 462 n. 156 Lorente, L. 429 n. 49 Lorenz, S. 173 n. 77 Lorenzo Valla 387 n. 47, 388, 397, 403, 408, 414, 465 Lottin, O. 95 Louis IX, king of France 260 Louvain 492 Lubac, Henri de 64 n. 120, 100 n. 83 Lucian 288 Ludovicos Rorich 147 Luis, P. 490

Index Of Names Luke of Assisi 281 Luther, M. (and Lutheranism) 16, 19–20, 118, 120, 171–3, 300, 310–11 n. 164, 315–16, 319, 359, 395, 411, 414–15, 460 Lynch, K.F. 27 n. 7 MacDonald, C.M. 409 n. 126, 413 n. 139 Macy, G. 100 n. 84 Madre, A. 175–81, 184, 194, 198, 201, 203, 206, 214, 218, 220, 239–40, 243–4, 246, 259, 264 Maierù, A. 202–04, 238 n. 91 Mainz 300, 302, 305, 359 Mair (Major), J. 18, 20–1, 293 n. 94, 369–415, 447, 471 n. 184, 473, 488 n. 255 Maldonado, J. de 493 n. 269 Mangenot, E. 100 n. 87 Manuel I, king of Portugal 427–8 Marcolino, V. 161 n. 48, 197, 201, 202 n. 53, 214–15, 410 n. 131 Marenbon, J. 269 n. 11 Marmursztejn, E. 102 n. 90 Marsilius of Inghen 160 n. 45, 221 n. 78, 285 n. 69, 293 n. 94, 388, 422, 464, 483 Martin V, pope 419, 421 Martin, J.S. 486 n. 246 Martin, R.M. 29–31, 40, 45–6, 59, 76, 146 n. 2 Martínez, L. 438 n. 86–7 Martínez de Ripalda, J. 491, 492 n. 265 Martínez Fernandos, L. 455 n. 133–4, 456 n. 138 Martínez Gomis, M. 433 n. 71 Martinho Pereira, E. 491 n. 261 Martins, J.S. 486 n. 246 Martinus de Leibitz 180, 215 Martinus Magistris 387 n. 47, 388 Mateo Gonzáles, D. 435 n. 78 Mateo, L.E. 469 n. 180–1, 474 n. 198 Matsuura, J. 172 n. 74, n. 76 Matthew Döring 19, 315, 338–9, 341–8, 353, 366 Matthew of Aquasparta 278 n. 42 Maurer, A. 394 n. 71 McGrade, A.S. 318 n. 11, 397 n. 85 Medina, B. de 435, 436 n. 79, 438, 462, 468 Medina, J. de 424, 465, 470–1, 478, 482, 490 Meersseman, G.G. 147 n. 4 Meier, L. 317–19, 320 n. 17, 338, 339 n. 65–8, 341–3, 346 n. 92, 347 n. 99, 348–50, 352 n. 120–22, 353, 358 n. 145, 367 n. 179

Index Of Names Meier-Oeser, S. 290 n. 82 Meirinhos, J. 416 n. * Melanchthon, P. 446 Meliadò, M. 270 n. 17 Melk 10, 14, 177, 193, 250 Mendiola, A. de 464 Merinero López, J. 435 n. 78 Metz 300, 302, 305 Meuthen, E. 147 n. 7, 148 n. 10, 149 n. 14 Mexico 494 n. 275 Michael Aiguani of Bologna 160 n. 45, 271 n. 18 Michel, A. 102 n. 90, 103 Minnis, A.J. 4 n. 11 Molina, L. de 469, 486 Monachus Niger 388 Montalt, P. 491 n. 264 Montells y Nadal, F. de P. 433 n. 69, 434 n. 76 Montiel, I. 430 n. 55, 433 n. 74 Montoro, R. de 441 Moonan, L. 58 Mulchahey, M.M. 26 n. *, 36 n. 40, 37, 38 n. 49, 39 n. 51, 43 n. 66–7 Müller, S. 241 n. 105, 309 n. 157 Muñoz Delgado, V. 477 n. 206 Muñoz Iglesias, S. 437 n. 82, 461 n. 153 Murphy, F. 172 n. 74 Murphy, J.C. 274 n. 28, 275 n. 29, 276 n. 33, 281 n. 60, 289 n. 80, 300 n. 120–4, 301 n. 125, 301 n. 128, 302 n. 129, 310 n. 163, 311 n. 165 Navajas, F. 440 n. 91–2, 441 Negri, S. 270 n. 17 Nicholas Awer of Swinnbach 261 Nicholas Bonet (Bonetus) 278, 341, 348–9 Nicholas Denyse 272 n. 19, 313 n. 169 Nicholas Friesen 271 n. 18 Nicholas Lakmann 19, 338–9, 342, 352–7, 366 Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl 10–11, 14, 174–266, 539 figs. 9–10 Nicholas of Lauczg 181 Nicholas of Lyra 221, 240, 253, 297, 341, 349, 387 n. 47, 388 Nicholas of Orbellis 15, 272 n. 21, 274, 279 n. 49, 290–9, 301, 305, 307–08, 310–11, 313, 542 fig. 13 Nicholas Prunczlein 176 Nicholas, D. 509 n. 11

559 Nicholaus, from Rospacha 147 Nicolas Eymeric 81 n. 17 Nicole Oresme 182, 187, 195–7, 221 Nicopolis 260 Nielsen, L.O. 65 n. 122, 68, 69 n. 129–30, 132, 70 n. 136, 71, 75 n. 150 Nietzsche, F. 13 n. 37 Nodes, D. 270 n. 14 Noël Beda 371 O’Carroll, M. 168 n. 65 Oakley, F. 58 n. 99–100 Oberman, H.A. 173 n. 77 Ocker, C. 320 n. 18, 323 n. 29 Olabe, M. de 492 n. 268 Ollero Pina, J.A. 429 n. 48 Oñate 433 Ong, W. 504 n. 1, 505 n. 2–3 Origen 388 Orihuela 433 Ornato, E. 83 n. 27 Orrego Sánchez, S. 447 n. 111 Osbert Pickingham 187 Osuna 429 Oswald de Laskó 272 n. 19, 312 n. 168 Ovando Mogollón de Paredes, F. 467, 489, 490 n. 260 Ovando Mogollón de Paredes, J. 467 Ovid 288 Oviedo 431, 433, 467 Oxford 6–7, 9, 58, 168, 320 n. 18, 351 n. 117, 409–10 Paganus of Corbeil 28 Pagden, A. 383 n. 36 Palacio Salazar, M. de 452–5, 469, 489, 490 n. 260 Palatio, M. de 453 n. 126 Pannella, E. 81 n. 17 Paris 9–10, 14–15, 20, 30, 36–7, 40, 43 n. 66, 55, 58–9, 84 n. 29, 145, 147, 160 n. 45, 161, 168 n. 65, 169, 182, 197, 221 n. 78, 223, 238, 241, 255, 263, 274–5, 280, 282, 290, 300–02, 320, 323 n. 28, 369 n. 1, 372, 412, 474, 493 n. 269 Pasquier, É. 290 n. 83–4, 293 n. 95, 294 n. 99, 296 n. 107, 299 n. 117 Paul II, pope 296 Paul of Venice 473 n. 192

560 Paulus, N. 32 n. 30, 300 n. 122 Paulus Soncino 273 n. 23 Pelbartus Temeswar 259 n. 118, 272 n. 19, 312 n. 168, 313 n. 169 Pelikan, J. 11 n. 31, 12 Pelster, F. 274 n. 27, 275 n. 29–30, 279 n. 47, 280 n. 56, 281 n. 61, 285 n. 70–1, 289 n. 78 Pereyra, M. 491 n. 261 Pérez, A. 435 n. 78 Pérez, J. 438 Pérez de Quiroga, M. 435 n. 78 Pérez Lopez, J. 435 n. 78 Perini, D.A. 332 n. 47 Perler, D. 333 n. 51, 399 n. 94 Peset, M. 433 n. 68 Peter Abelard 27 Peter Auriol 169, 175, 186, 195, 212, 215, 221, 226, 228, 253, 270, 277, 278 n. 43, 297, 340, 342, 349, 388, 392 n. 65, 393 n. 67, 402, 469, 488, 506 n. 6 Peter Canisius 492 n. 267 Peter Comestor 28 Peter Crockaert 303 n. 134 Peter Czech of Pulkau 178, 198, 201–07, 209, 213, 218 Peter Gracilis 157, 160–3, 410 Peter Lombard, passim Peter of Aquila 342, 349, 353 Peter of Candia 160 n. 45, 175, 192, 221, 243–4, 285 n. 69, 297, 342, 346 n. 96, 348, 351, 353–6, 410, 506 n. 6 Peter of Navarre 341, 348–9, 351 Peter of Nogent 274 n. 25 Peter of Orbellis 293 n. 95 Peter of Palude 221, 253, 270, 308 n. 152, 447, 457 n. 143, 470 n. 183, 488 n. 255 Peter of Poitiers, Pseudo- 28, 40 n. 56 Peter of Ravenna 342 Peter of Spain 148, 291 Peter of Tarantaise 36, 97, 101, 109 n. 114, 221, 253, 255, 270, 308 Peter Plaoul 24, 506–08 Peter Reginaldetus 274 n. 25, 282 n. 63 Peter Reicher of Pirchenwart 210 Peter Tarteretus 293 n. 94, 303 n. 134 Peter the Chanter 31, 69–70, 75 Peter Thomas 341, 349 Petit, J. 381 Petrarch, see Francesco Petrarca

Index Of Names Petrus ad Boves 274 n. 25 Pettegree, A. 298 n. 114 Pich, R.H. 494 n. 276 Pickavé, M. 333 n. 51, 399 n. 94 Pierre d’Ailly 20, 120, 160–3, 223 n. 83, 270, 293 n. 94, 308, 385, 387, 410–11, 473 Plato 388, 407–08 Plessis d’Argentré, C. du 79–80, 122–32 Plutarch 388 Poe, M. 508 n. 8 Poitiers 275, 290 Pole, R. 372 n. 11 Polónia da Silva, A.M. 430 n. 56, 433 n. 67 Poppenberg, E. 71 Porter, D. 508 n. 9, 511 n. 15 Posthumus Meyjes, G.H.M. 180 n. 18 Pozo, C. 418 n. 3, 434 n. 77, 452 n. 120, 492–3 n. 268–9 Praepositinus of Cremona 32, 186, 221, 236, 253, 388 Prague 176 n. 7, 320 Principe, W.H. 71 Proust, M. 3 Pultenhagen 210 Pythagoras 388 Quevedo y Villegas, A. de 435 n. 78, 494 n. 276 Quicherat, J. 372 n. 11 Quinto, R. 40 n. 55, 86 n. 36 Rabbi Salomon (Rashi) 388 Rashdall, H. 12 Raymond, E.S. 507 Raymond of Peñafort 297 Read, S. 404 n. 111 Rebalde, J. 416 n. * Redmond, W.B. 494 n. 276 Reginald of Piperno 151 Reig, M.P. 418 n. 4 Reinhardt, K. 463 n. 159, 490 n. 260 Renaudet, A. 369 n. 1, 371 n. 8 Reynolds, P.L. 96 n. 65 Richard Brinkley 324, 342 Richard Fishacre 6–7, 9, 76, 168 n. 65, 297, 409 Richard FitzRalph 187, 215, 222, 318 n. 11, 324, 388, 506 n. 6 Richard Kilvington 324, 388

Index Of Names Richard of Mediavilla 36, 97, 109 n. 114, 175, 215, 221, 239, 253, 270, 288, 297, 308, 348–9, 469–70, 482 Richard of Menneville/of Middleton, see Richard of Mediavilla Richard of Saint-Victor 230, 232–3, 236–7 Richard Rufus of Cornwall 76 Richardus Barba 221 Richardus de Chambanae 281 n. 59 Ritter, G. 148, 150, 151 n. 19, 152, 359–60, 365, 366 n. 172, n. 174 Robert Cowton 349 Robert Grosseteste 168 n. 65, 187, 304, 342 Robert Halifax 215, 221 Robert Holcot 120, 186, 215, 220 n. 77, 221, 253, 278 n. 43, 324, 349, 384 n. 38, 385, 388, 410 n. 130, 412–13, 473 Robert Kilwardby 7–9, 278 n. 42 Robert of Bardis 323 n. 31 Rodez 147, 169 Rodrigues, M.A. 427 n. 43, 475 n. 199–200, 477 n. 207, 479 n. 217, 483 n. 230, 484 n. 237, 485 n. 242, 486 n. 244, 491 n. 261 Rodríguez Cruz, Á.M. 493 n. 273, 494 n. 274 Rodríguez Suárez, M. de P. 433 n. 73 Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares, L.E. 418 n. 2 Roger Bacon 288, 388 Roger Roseth 324, 388, 410 n. 130 Roland Bandinelli, see Alexander III, pope Roland of Cremona 58 Rome 23 n. 68, 492 Rosemann, P.W. 1–25, 26 n. 2, 28 n. 13, 29 n. 14, 64, 82 n. 19, 100 n. 83–4, 104 n. 97, 106 n. 102, 119 n. 156, 146 n. 2, 159 n. 43, 164 n. 57, 168 n. 65, 172, 267 n. 2, 269 n. 7, 270 n. 15, 273 n. 22, 312 n. 167, 316 n. 4, 317 n. 6, 367 n. 177–8, 409 n. 128, 411 n. 132, 439 n. 88, 492 n. 266 Rosenfeld, J. 318 n. 11 Rosier-Catach, I. 308 n. 155 Rosselli Del Turco, R. 513 n. 19 Rossi, P. 79 n. 4 Roth, B. 285 n. 70 Rouse, R.H. 85 n. 33 Rowlands, I. 509 n. 11 Rubio Sánchez, M.S. 429 n. 51, 492 n. 265 Rudolph Agricola 414 Ruerk, A. 435 n. 78 Rufinus 102 Rydstrøm-Poulsen, A. 119 n. 155

561 Saenger, P. 505 n. 3 Salamanca 418–24, 431, 435, 438, 440, 442–70, 490 Salcedo Pallantinus, A. de 491 n. 261 Sallmann, M. 300 n. 119 Sallust of Carthage 388 San Juan Evangelista, L. de 491 n. 263 San Martín, E. 486 n. 244 Santiago de Compostela 430, 433 Saragossa 279 n. 48 Sarmiento, A. 442 n. 103 Satorre, J.G. 474 n. 198 Savall, D. 467 n. 175 Schabel, C. 10–11, 14–15, 18, 174–266, 268 n. 4–5, 269 n. 6, 273 n. 24, 277 n. 41, 312 n. 168, 319 n. 13, 351 n. 117 Schmidt, D. 512 Schmitt, C. 291 n. 86, 293 n. 95 Schmutz, J. 308 n. 152 Schneider, K. 39 n. 54 Schoot, H.J.M. 145 n. 1 Schupp, J. 119 n. 155 Schwartz, G. 163 n. 54 Schwinges, R.C. 149 n. 13 Seneca 288, 388 Shank, M.H. 176 n. 6, 178, 199 n. 45, 202–03, 206, 210 Sharpe, R. 33 n. 33 Sierra, T. de 431 n. 60 Siguënza 430, 433, 438 Silano, G. 5, 26 n. 3 Silvestre, H. 64 n. 120 Silvestro Mazzolini 273 n. 23 Simon de Melta 85–6, 104, 536 fig. 5 Simon of Corbie 54 Simplicius 388 Slotemaker, J.T. 15–16, 18, 20–1, 22 n. 66–7, 145–73, 271 n. 19, 293 n. 94, 333 n. 51, 369–415 Smith, L. 27 Soares, E. 480 n. 221 Socrates 398, 407–08 Sophocles 289 n. 78 Sosa, M. de 435 n. 78 Soto, D. de 419, 420 n. 12, 435, 451–4, 460, 463 n. 158, 466, 469 n. 178, 470, 472, 475–6, 478, 483 n. 229, 489–90 Southern, R.W. 164 n. 57 St. Andrews 20, 371–3

562 Stegmüller, F. 26, 32, 33 n. 32, 44, 81 n. 17, 152, 153 n. 29, 154 n. 33, 174–5, 177, 180, 198–9, 201–02, 206 n. 58, 210–11, 213, 218–19, 261, 264, 271 n. 18, 274 n. 25, 279 n. 51, 282 n. 63, 295 n. 105, 302 n. 129, 319 n. 17, 332 n. 47–8, 340 n. 70, 342 n. 82, 358 n. 145, 417, 465 n. 167, 466 n. 169, 478 n. 211–13, 479, 480 n. 220–1, 481–2, 483 n. 231, n. 234, 486 n. 244, 487 n. 247, 489 n. 259 Steinbach, W. 395 Stephen Brulefer 15, 269, 274, 299–311, 313 Stephen Langton 40 n. 55, 58, 69–70, 75, 86 n. 36, 92, 94 n. 58, 108, 119 Stinson, T. 508 n. 9 Stroick, C. 39 n. 52–3 Suárez, F. 440 n. 91, 443 n. 106, 476, 484, 486 Sullivan, T. 275 n. 29, 281 n. 60, 371 n. 7 Swieżawski, S. 273 n. 23 Synan, E.A. 80, 110, 135 Tachau, K. 384 n. 38 Tamariz, J. 435 n. 78 Tavares, M. 437, 476 n. 205, 483–5, 487 n. 247 Taveira da Fonseca, F. 427 n. 40–3, 428 n. 46 Tavuzzi, M. 273 n. 23 Teetaert, A. 290 n. 83, 296 n. 107 Tersch, H. 215 Tewes, G.-R. 147 n. 7, 149 n. 14–15, 150 n. 17 Thanner, T. 300 n. 121 Themistius 388 Theodoric Rudolf of Hammelburg 180–1, 210, 222 Theophrastus 388 Thijssen, J.M.M.H. 157 n. 36 Thomas Aquinas (and Thomism) 10–11, 14, 16, 22–3, 36, 40, 43, 56, 58–60, 62–4, 67–9, 71, 74–8, 94, 96–7, 100–02, 107–09, 113–14, 146, 150–2, 160, 168–9, 174–5, 186, 192–5, 197, 207, 215, 221, 226, 231–2, 236, 238, 252, 254–9, 263, 270, 288, 297, 306–10, 313, 342, 348, 411 n. 132, 416, 418–20, 422, 424, 426, 430–3, 434 n. 77, 437, 440–1, 447, 451–2, 455–7, 464, 466, 468–70, 472–4, 477, 482, 484–6, 488–9, 492 n. 267, 515 Thomas Bradwardine 186, 215, 217, 221, 323 n. 31, 388 Thomas Briscot 371 Thomas Ebendorfer of Hasselbach 179, 206–07, 211–3, 215, 219

Index Of Names Thomas of Buckingham 215, 222, 312 n. 167, 388 Thomas of Strasbourg 186, 195, 207–09, 212, 214–16, 221, 253, 257, 270, 358 n. 145, 388, 456 Tokarski, F. 274 n. 26, 275 n. 29, 283 n. 64 Toledo 311, 331 n. 45, 429 Torrance, T.F. 389 n. 48 Torres, B. 438 Toste, M. 21–2, 416–503 Toulouse 147, 169 Trapp, D. 267–9, 273, 277 n. 41, 285 n. 69, 298, 312 n. 167, 320 n. 18, 321, 322 n. 23–4, 323, 324 n. 31, 331 n. 45 Trinkaus, C. 397 n. 85, 403 n. 108 Truhlář, J. 32 Uiblein, P 179 n. 16, 188 n. 30, 201 Ulin, D.L. 509 n. 11 Ullmann, C. 315 n. 2, 316 n. 4, 366 n. 173 Urban II, pope 100 Urban V, pope 332 n. 48 Urban, W. 173 n. 77 Urban of Melk 183 Uribe Angel, J.T. 494 n. 274 Vacant, A. 94 n. 57 Valencia 431–2, 434, 435, 438, 469, 472–4 Valerius Maximus 289 n. 78 Vallés Borràs, V. 472 n. 188, 472 n. 190, 473 n. 192 Vallodolid 426 Valton, E. 114 n. 133 van den Wyngaert, A 300–301 n. 124, n. 126 van der Lugt, M. 95 n. 61 van der Schoot, A. 284 n. 66 Van Dyk, J. 366 n. 176 Vansteenberghe, E. 147 n. 5 Vásquez Janeriro, I. 435 n. 77, 466 n. 171, 467 n. 173–5 Vazquez, G. 440 n. 91 Vega, Andrés de 460, 483 n. 229 Vela, C. de 456, 466 n. 170 Velázquez de Figueroa, V. 426 n. 36–9 Vernet, A. 80 n. 10 Vickers, B. 397 n. 85 Vienna 10, 14, 175–83, 188, 193, 197–8, 211, 230, 238–9, 261, 263, 358, 493 Vignaux, P. 119 n. 152, n. 157, 120 n. 158, 172 n. 74, 267 n. 2

563

Index Of Names Vijgen, J. 154 n. 33 Villegas, M. 465 n. 165 Vincente, J. 435, 436 n. 79 Vincente, M. 455 Virgil 270, 388 Vital of Furno, cardinal 349 Vitoria, Francisco de 419–20, 431, 433, 440 n. 91, 442–3, 446–52, 466, 474, 476, 478, 490 Vives, J.L. 414 von den Brincken, A.-D. 148 n. 10 Vorau 34, 36, 38, 44 Walsby, M. 298 n. 114 Walter Burley 222, 342, 388 Walter Chatton 348–9, 402 n. 106 Walz, A. 37 n. 44 Wassermann, D. 270 n. 16 Wauchope, R. 372 n. 11 Wawrykow, J.P. 60 n. 108, 62 n. 113, 68 n. 127 Weber, H.P. 168 n. 65, 409 n. 128 Wegerich, E. 274 n. 27, 275–6 n. 33, 279 n. 51, 289 n. 80, 290 n. 83, 291 n. 85, 293 n. 95, 298 n. 114, 299 n. 118, 300 n. 121, n. 123–4, 302 n. 131 Weijers, O. 12, 82 n. 18, 274 n. 27, 291 n. 85, 295 n. 104 Weiler, A.G. 145, 148, 151 n. 20–1, 152–3, 163, 167, 173 Weisheipl, J.A. 43 n. 66, 59 n. 104 Weisweiler, H. 31, 40, 54 n. 91–2, 59, 76–7 Wieland, G. 148 n. 8 Wieneke, J. 171–2 n. 74 Wilhelmus Textoris de Aquisgrani 358 n. 145 Wilkinson, A. 298 n. 114 William Durand 254, 473 n. 192 William of Auvergne 254 William of Auxerre 27, 31, 54, 56–7, 59, 187, 221, 253–4, 297, 387

William of Militona 278 n. 42 William of Montebello 187 William of Nothingham 342 William of Ockham (and Ockhamism) 20, 58, 120, 168, 171 n. 74, 175, 186, 215, 221, 225–6, 228, 235, 269, 278, 308, 321 n. 21, 342, 348, 366–7, 385, 390, 392 n. 65, 394, 397 n. 85, 402 n. 106, 409 n. 129, 413–14, 464, 473, 485, 488 n. 255 William of Paris 253 William of Vaurouillon 15, 272 n. 21, 274–7, 279–87, 289–90, 297, 298 n. 112, 300, 303 n. 134, 304, 308, 310–11, 313, 347, 541 fig. 12 William of Ware 297, 342, 348 Wimpin, C. 341 n. 75 Wismann, T. 416 n. * Witt, J.C. 20–1, 23–5, 293 n. 94, 333 n. 51, 369–415, 504–16 Wittenberg 415 Wood, R.N. 392 n. 66, 401 n. 100 Worms 359 Xavier Monteiro, A. 427 n. 41, 480 n. 221 Xenocrates 289 n. 78 Xiberta, B.M. 206 n. 58 Yhmoff Cabrera, J. 494 n. 274, n. 276 Yrjönsuuri, M. 69 n. 131, 327 n. 34 Zahnd, U. 15, 18, 222 n. 80, 267–314, 369 n. * Zaragoza y Pascual, Ernesto 455 n. 131, 455 n. 133 Zea y Silva, Cristóbal 494 n. 276 Zeno 388 Zumkeller, A. 319 n. 13, n. 15, n. 17, 320 n. 18, 321, 323, 324 n. 32, 331 n. 45, 332 n. 47–8, 337 n. 60 Zwingli, H. 300, 310