Vivarium

Volume

35
1997

Reprintedwiththe permissionoftheoriginalpublisher
by
Periodicals Service Company
Germantown,NY
2010

19:19:50 PM

Printed
onacid-free
paper.
the
Thisreprint
wasreproduced
from
bestoriginal
edition
copyavailable.
NOTETOTHEREPRINT
EDITION:
Insomecasesfullpageadvertisements
which
donotaddto
havebeenomitted.
thescholarly
valueofthisvolume
volumes
Asa result,
somereprinted
mayhaveirregular
pagination.

19:19:50 PM

VIVARIUM

AN INTERNATIONALJOURNAL
FOR THE
PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE
MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE

VOLUME XXXV (1997)

''

68^

BRILL
LEIDEN - NEW YORK - KLN

19:19:50 PM

VIVARIUM

AN INTERNATIONALJOURNAL
FOR THE
PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE
MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE

VOLUME XXXV (1997)

';

68^

BRILL
LEIDEN - NEW YORK - KLN

19:19:50 PM

VIVARIUM

editors

advisory
committee
publishers
published

AN INTERNATIONAL
JOURNALFOR THE PHILOSOPHY
AND INTELLECTUALLIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND
RENAISSANCE
is devotedin particular
vivarium
to theprofane
sideof mediaevalphilosophy
and theintellectual
lifeoftheMiddleAgesand
Renaissance.
- H.A.G.Braakhuis,
- J. IJsewijn,
L.M. de Rijk,(Leiden)
(Nijmegen)
C.H.
(Louvain)
(Groningen)W.J.Courtenay,
Kneepkens,
- E.P. Bos,(Leiden).Secretary
of theEditorial
Board:
(Madison)
Dr. C.H. Kneepkens.
Allcommunications,
shouldbe
nature,
exceptthoseof a business
addressed
to C.H. Kneepkens,
Faculteit
Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen,
der Letteren,
P.O. Box 716,9700 AS
Mediaevistiek,
Vakgroep
The Netherlands.
Groningen,
- PaulOskarKristeller,
- Albert
TullioGregory,
(Rome)
(NewYork)
- J.E.Murdoch,
Zimmermann,
MA).
(Cologne)
(Cambridge,
The Netherlands.
Brill,
Leiden,
Twiceyearly.
MarchandSeptember;
ca. 280pagesyearly.

1997byKoninklijke
BrillNV,Leiden
Copyright
, TheNetherlands
in
Allrights
reserved.
bereproduced
Nopartofthis
} translated
, stored
may
publication
a retrieval
ortransmitted
inany
orbyanymeans
,
, electronic
form
system,
orotherwise,
mechanical
without
written
, photocopying,
recording
prior
permission
ofthe
publisher.
tophotocopy
orpersonal
items
Authorization
forinternal
useisgranted
that
byBrill
provided
theappropriate
toCopyright
feesarepaiddirectly
Clearance
222Rosewood
Suite
910
Center,
Drive,
MA01923,USA.Feesaresubject
tochange.
Danvers,
INTHENETHERLANDS
PRINTED

19:19:50 PM

CONTENTS

OF VOLUME

XXXV (1997)

The Functionof theformaenativaein the

RefinementProcessof Matter:A Studyof
1
Bernardof Chartres'sConcept of Matter
Petrus Hispanus O.P., Auctor SummuAngel D'Ors,
larum
21
Madrid
A
New
of
Revisited:
1277
Interpretation
J.M.M.H. Thijssen,
the Doctrinal Investigationsof Thomas
Nymegen
72
Aquinas and Giles of Rome
WilliamJ. Courtenay, Conrad of Megenberg:The ParisianYears 102
Madison,Wisconsin
IntroRoger Bacon and Aristotelianism:
JeremiahHackett,
129
Columbia
, SouthCarolina duction
Costantino Marmo,
Bacon, Aristotle(and all the others) on
Natural InferentialSigns
136
Bologna
Aristotle's
Doctrine
of
Bacon
and
Cecilia Trifogli,
Roger
155
Place
Pisa
The Anonymous Questions on Physics
Silvia Donati,
II-IV of MS Philadelphia,Free Library,
Cologne
Lewis Europ. 53 (ff.71ra-85rb)and Roger
177
Bacon
Rega Wood,
Roger Bacon: Richard Rufus' Successor
as a Parisian PhysicsProfessor
222
New Haven
on
Bacon
and
Richard
Rufus
TimothyB. Noone,
Roger
Aristotle'sMetaphysics:A Search for the
Grounds of Disagreement
251
Place
of
Bacon
on
the
Nature
and
R. JamesLong,
Roger
266
, Connecticut Angels
Fairfield
and
the
Parisian
JeremiahHackett,
Roger Bacon, Aristode,
Columbia,
283
, SouthCarolina Condemnationsof 1270, 1277
of
Bacon
....
The
Published
Works
315
Hackett,
Roger
Jeremiah
Carolina
Columbia
South
,
Pauli Annala,
Helsinki

Reviews

e teologia
nelTrecento.
Studi in ricord
Filosofia
di Eugenio Randi, a cura di Luca Bianchi

125
{JolBiard)
deNogent
etsessecrtaires
M.C. Garand,Guibert
126
{E. Saak)

19:19:50 PM

ProcessofMatter:
The Function
of theformae nativae in theRefinement
A StudyofBernardof Chartres'
s ConceptofMatter
PAULIANNALA

1. Introduction
in his earlypublicationson
Tullio Gregorydemonstratedconvincingly
medievalPlatonism,an argumentrecentlyconfirmed
by Paul Dutton,that
nativae
Bernardof Chartres'conceptionof theformae
emergedfroma close
Timaeus
and Boethius'
on
Plato's
of
both
Calcidius'
commentary
reading
} The surenesswithwhichthesetwo scholarshave laid
treatiseDe Trinitate
bare the geneticrootsof Bernard'sphilosophyshould not,however,blind
us to the factthatit was preciselyfromthe glossedtext,the Timaeus
, that
Bernardderivedhis knowledgeof Plato's philosophy.Dutton's word of
caution is indeed in order here: "glossatorswere engaged in explaining
a textand would only occasionallystand self-consciously
aside fromthe
and continues:"Bernard'srole,theretask,"he writesin his introduction,
fore,was to interpretPlato's philosophyas he had receivedit, and not
to put forwardhis own, thoughthe two seem to have coincided."2
In a recent contributionto a historyof twelfth-century
philosophy,
ProfessorGregorydrew Plato himselfinto the sources of Bernard'sformae nativae.It is clear that the occasion of the reference,a surveyof
Platonism,was not the forumfor a detailed discussion.3
twelfth-century
1 See T. Gregory,
in:
dellascuola
di Chartres:
la dottrina
delle
sulplatonismo
Note
native,
specie
Lafilosofia
di
mundi.
Giornale
critico
dellafilosofia
32 (1953),358-62;
idem,Anima
italiana,
di Conches
e la scuola
di Chartres
, Firenze1955,76-9,195-6,andidem,Platonismo
Guglielmo
Introduction
PaulE. Dutton,
medievale:
studi
e ricerche
, in: The
, Rome1958,113-5.See further
Toronto
GlosaesuperPlatonem
1991,77-9.
, ed. Dutton,
ofBernard
ofChartres
2 Dutton,
a
it"is,ofcourse,
"as he hadreceived
Introduction,
p. 71. The formulation
hadbeen
tradition
Bernard
totheMiddlePlatonist
one;on theonehanditrefers
telling
he
handto theAristotelian
influences
whenreading
andon theother
Calcidius,
exposed
andBoethius.
hadreceived
from
bothCalcidius
3 I meanthearticle
Western
inP. Dronke's
inheritance
ThePlatonic
ofTwelflhCentury
History
offormae
nativae
tothenotion
,
1988,p. 74 where
, Cambridge
referring
Gregory,
Philosophy
to Boethius,
butwas
as follows:
"a doctrine
whichnotonlydrewon a reference
writes
the
andCalcidius'
derived
from
theTimaeus
commentary
(. . .)."Whenconsidering
directly
inter
famous
sentence
aboutBernard
exactmeaning
ofJohnofSalisbury's
("perfectissimus
Vivarium
35,1

Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

19:19:58 PM

PAULIANN
ALA

The referencedoes raise the questions,however.To what degreecan we

read Bernard'sGlosaeas a literalcommentaryon Plato's Timaeus?
And to
what extentdoes the concept of theformaenativaeemerge directlyfrom
Bernard's effortsto understandPlato? This paper attemptsan answer
thesequestions.The eighthpart of the commentary
constitutes
the material basis forour study.For it is preciselyin the tractatus
deprimordiali
materia that Bernard begins calling on the explicatoryservicesof hisforma
.
nativae
2. Hyle sive necessitas
In addition to the efficientcause (deus)and the formalcause (ideae),
Bernard proposes hyleas the thirdmetaphysicalprinciple.4At the very
beginningof the treatise,he observesthat Plato calls it necessity,forno
corporeal being can exist withoutit: "Et uocat hie hylen necessitatem,
quia impossibileest aliquod corporeumsine ea esse" (8: 4-6).5Primordial
mattermustthusbe both substratum
out of which(exqua) corporealthings
draw theirmaterialphenotypeand substantia
in which(inqua) bodies come
into existence.6
When Plato considersthe natureof the thirdprincipleforthe firsttime
in his dialogue, he offersthe followingnotion: "Opinor, omnium quae
gignuntur
receptaculumest,quasi quaedam nutricula."7
Many of the commentatorsbeforeBernard had based theirunderstanding
of hyleon this
Platonicos
seculinostri"),
Duttonsurmises
that"perhaps
theperfectissimus
ofthetitlewas
an acknowledgement
ofBernard's
in sticking
andintegrity
to thedocmerely
orthodoxy
trine
ofthetext."
Introduction
Dutton,
, p. 91.
4 Besides
thisone,therearethreeotherpassages
in theGlosae,
whereBernard
writes
on thethreemetaphysical
ofPlato'sphilosophy:
theseare4: 234-7,
explicitly
principles
8: 194-7,
and8: 401-2.Themetaphysics
ofthethree
tookitsclassical
principles
shapein
theeraofMiddlePlatonism;
seee.g.JohnDillon,TheMiddle
Platonists.
A Study
ofPlatonism
80 B.C.toA.D.22OyLondon1977,45-9;Stephen
Middle
Platonism
andNeoplatonism:
Gersh,
TheLatinTradition
andDavidRunia,Philo
, NotreDame1986(Vol.I), 241-50,
ofAlexandria
andtheTimaeus
Plato
, Leiden1986,52-5.
of
5 Theargumentation
In Tvmaeo
47e-48a
doesnotgo likethis,
forPlatohimself
usesthe
termnecessity
to designate
thedomain
thereachofreason.
Thuseverything
that
beyond
outside
thecontrol
ofreasonis forhimaccidental,
andso forhimtheconcepts
happens
ofnecessity
andchancearesynonymous.
ofnecessity
Platowants
Bythiskindofconcept
alsoto avoidthedeterminism
defended
as Demokritus.
bvsuchatomists
6 TheAristotelian
termsubstratum
is notfound
in Bernard's
in
Glosae
, butitis implied
theconception
ofhyle.
1 Timaeus
a Caldio
translatus
49a, ed.J. Waszink,
p. 46, 19-20.Becausewearedealing
herewiththehistory
oftheLatinTimaeus,
all quotations
henceforth
arefrom
Calcidius'
translation.

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
OF THE FORMAE
NATIVAE

passage, with its emphasis on the in qua aspect of the thirdprinciple.

Althoughthe ex qua aspect is not completelystrangeto the whole diagenusis onlya locuswherebodies come into existlogue,8stillif the tertium
ence, wheredo theyfindthe concretematerialwhichmakes themvisible
and tangible?So Bernardraises the question: "Sed potestquaeri secundum hoc in quam materiam,ex qua fiataliquid, uenerintillae formaead
efficientiam
corporum,cum hyletantumsitmateriain qua fiant"(8: 11-3)?
His responsegoes like this:
in hylecreatam
Adquodr<espondendum>:
essequamdam
materiam
confusam
ex
illisnatiuis
in elinihilo
uelorigine
carentem
formis,
primotransiit
quae,susceptis
deinde,
aliis,in elementara
(8: 13-6).
assumptis
quataelementa,
In the receptacleof becoming{in qua) was a sortof confusedmatter,created fromnothingor lackinga beginning;by means of theformaenativae
it passed firstinto disengagedelements,and then,throughsupplementary
, into elementarythings.It is preciselyout of thissubstratum
, created
formae
that
their
fromnothingand sustainedby hyle
mate,
corporealthingsget
rial phenotype.The quotationsuggestsfurtherthat it happens througha
two-phaseprocessin which theformaenativaerefinethe chaotic matterin
and then,in the second, into the elementhe firststage into the elementa
in fact take place? To answerthis question
tara.How does this transitus
we look more closelyat Bernard'sexpositionof 52d-53a fromthe Timaeus.
3. Confusioelementorum
In Timaeo48b Plato comparesthe fourelementsto the alphabet of the
Bernard'sgloss on the passage offersus a preuniverse{initiauniuersitatis).
view
of
the
transitus
. It reads as follows:
liminary
sicutin constitutione
uocislittera
estprimum
examinare,
Quia si uereuolumus
itain huiusmundi
dictio
tercio
lococonstituitur,
consecundum
elementm,
sillaba,
secundum
iliaquattuor
haec
stitutione
elementm,
pura,tercium
hyleestprimum
mixta
(8: 69-72).
quattuor
of hylefromits primitivestate up to the concretemateThe refinement
rial of corporealthingsis comparable with the formationof an uttered
8 In Timaeo
thathascometobe
Platorefers
to thefactthatanything
31bforexample
Eventhough
Calcidius
had takenthebalanced
mustbe corporeal,
visible
andtangible.
theinqua
ofhyle
MiddlePlatonist
he emphasized
Aristotelian
notion
from
handbooks,
at theexpense
oftheexquaaspect.
On thispointseeJ.C.M.
ofthethird
aspect
principle
A Chapter
vanWinden,
intheHistory
Calcidius
onMatter
. HisDoctrine
andSources:
ofPlatonism,
Leiden1959,31,39.

19:19:58 PM

ALA
PAULIANN

and sillabae.In an analogous mannerthe

word (dictio)
by means of litterae
of hyleproceeds fromits primitivestate to more refinedone
refinement
throughtwo stages.Hyleexistsfirstin its primitivestate.Then it changes
mixtaelementara?
and finallyinto the quattuor
into the quattuor
puraelementa
Plato's descriptionin 52d-e elucidatesclearlythe abysmaldisorderin
which these lettersfoundthemselvesin hyle'sprimitivestate.He explains
how the nurse of becoming (nutricula)
was in a confusedand disordered
state because the contraryqualities of water and fire,of earth and air
were struggling
againsteach otherwithinit:
nutriculam
humectatam
itemet
modo,modoignitam,
Igitur
generationis
terraeque
aerisformas
omniformem
suscipientem
pedissequas
passiones
ceterasque
perpetientem
uisuuideri;10
A preliminarystrugglefor order was takingplace withinthe nurse of
becoming.Plato triesto describethe processin 52e-53a by the example
of matter,i.e. the protoof threshingcorn. The four basic constituents
in
of
the
tumble
about
the
elements,
types
receptaclejust as do the contentsof a winnowingbasketwhere the solid and heavy stuffis siftedout
and placed to one side while the lightand insubstantial
stuffpiles up below. Althoughthe prototypesof the elementsin theirchaotic statewere
all withoutproportionand measure, theytook on some traces of their
proper nature througha sort of screeningprocess. This is how Plato
envisagesthe state of the nurse of becomingbeforethe creator-godsets
about inducingorder and givingto the qualities of water and fire,of
earth and air theirdefinitepatternof shape and number.
Bernard takes this passage (52e-53a) into considerationat the end of
deprimordiali
materia.
And we noticehow he explainsthispasthe tractatus
. . . etc.") by means of theforrnae
natinutriculam
sage ("Igiturgenerationis
vae: "Passionesaccipit hie frigiditatem,
et
Humectatam
ceteras.
siccitatem,
nec habet
dicit,non humectam,quia recipitformasper quas humectatur,
eas ex se" (8: 406-7). Accordingto Bernardthe nurse of .becomingwas
not ex se cold or hot, nor was it dry or humid, but because it was at
thatstageinfluencedby all thosequalities,it was in some undifferentiated
manner all of them. In a word, it was uniformlycold, hot, dry, and
humid.
9 Cf.Dutton,
Introduction,
p. 84.
10Ttmaeus
a Caldio
translatas
, 52d-e,ed.J. Waszink,
p. 51, 7-10.In Plato'sontology
is always
tosubstance,
andthisexplains
aremerequaliinferior
whytheelements
quality
in the
tiesin thechaotic
willbe discussed
morethoroughly
stateofmatter.
Thistheme
seventh
section
ofthisstudy.

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
VAE
OF THE FORMAE
NATI

In the sequel Bernardgivesa veryreasonableexplanationto the problem of the originand the natureof motionin hyle:
elementorum
et quae
materiis
Et mensmeaest:agitari
agitan
ipsorum
ipsamhylen,
Et mensmeaest:ipsasmaterias
aliorum.
seseinuicem
futura
erantmateriae
elementa
a
essetsupraferri,
, quiacumignisnatura
, scilicet
impediebatur
pulsu
reproco
pulsare
ad ima,impediebatur
ab igne,etitainceteris.
ferri
etcumessetnatura
terrae
terra,
resinde
motum
sed quia contrariae
estintelligendum,
Nec tamenactuibi fuisse
dumcommixtae
uidentur
earumnaturae,
erant,interse pugnasse.
processerunt,
etinordinatus,
tamen
ibieratmotus,
sedirrationabilis
Secundum
quiaPlato
quosdam
ibifluctuasse
dicitelementa
(8: 416-24).
Fire,the hot and fieryelement,strivesby its natureupwards,and earth,
the solid element,settlesdown. In the chaotic state this natural movementof the elementswas, however,impeded by the qualitiesof the eleand thisexplainswhy motionin chaos was irrationabilis
mentsthemselves,
.n
et inordinatus
4. Discredo elementorumsive exordia prima
de constitutione
mundigives
The gloss on the Timaeus30a in the tractatus
to
us an even more illustrative
example of Bernard'sinclination expound
fromthe point
the Platonictheoryof primitivechaos and its exordinatio
:
of view of theformaenativae
Hocideodicit,
Fluctuons
fluctuum
se commiscens.
, idestinmodum
quiainhyleantenonquodadhucessetcorpus,
iactabatur
seminarium
corporum,
quamformaretur,
In qua hyleipsaconfuutformas
sedformandum
erat,et ideonitebatur
acciperet.
motus.
Illudueroseminarium
natiuis
formis
deus
etincerti
sioerat,quasifluctuado
inuenta
a se ipsisquattuor
elementa,
formauit,
liquidaet elimata,
perquasdiscreta
etindedicunt
nonex nihilo
deum
nondum
sensucomprehensibilia,
sunt,
philosophi
fecisse
sedtantum
exornasse
mundum,
(4: 188-95).
Beforeprimordialmattercalmed down to its natural state,it swayed
corporum
tossingabout in
unevenlyto and fro because of the seminarium
it.12Plato himselfrefersto the cause of this irrationalmotion with the
11It should
in
Platomight
be keptin mindthat,although
speakabouttheelements
ofelehe is referring
to thequalities
thechaotic
statein terms
oftheir
names,
proper
state
ments.
On thebasisofthepassage8: 416-24Dutton
arguesthat"inhyle'schaotic
natures
oftheelements
there
no motion,
thatis,untilthecontrary
is,inactuality,
began
Introduction
orinert;"
eachother.
tostruggle
,
Dutton,
Hyleis,insomesense,
passive
against
p. 76.
12Whenreferring
Platousestheterm
In Timaeo
53bto theseseedsofcorporeal
things
elementorum
andspeaks
aboutitin
translates
thewordbythephrase
Calcidius
XVT1.
uestigia
theexpression
hiscommentary
; seeIn Tim.cap.354,ed.J.Waszink,
corporum
using
uestigia
Introduction,
p. 86.
p. 345,1-5.See alsoDutton,

19:19:58 PM

PAULIANNALA

Bernard understandshim as referring

by these
phrase vireset potentiae.
termsto theformaenativaeGod had sown at random in the primordial
matter.13
Bernarduses the termexordia
primato referto the eventwherebydivine
for
the
first
time
broughtnecessityunderits control,withthe
intelligence
nativae
resultthattheformae
of the fourelementsbecame actual and therewiththe basic constituents
of hyle.He writes:"Et haec quattuorpura sunt
14
necessitas
, id est quae primoloco hyleconstituit"(8: 24-5). In
quaeinuehit
the glosswhichimmediately
followsBernardwarnshis pupilsnot to interthe
between
relation
the
active (;intellectus
) and the passive principle
pret
in
necessitas
a
(
)
reciprocalmanner; the relationremains one-way: "non
admisceaturnecessitati,
sed operaturintellectus.
s
Necessita
quod intellectus
in
ex
se
uel
se
et
hanc
mixturam
innuit
cum
subdit:
domipatitur
operari,
"
nanteintellectu
(8: 27-30).15
In lines 105-106 of the treatiseon primordialmatterBernarduses the
formulageneratio
secundato speak about the creationof the visibleworld.
Exordiaprimawas its unconditionalprecondition,forit would have been
impossibleforthe creatorto establisha visibleworldon such an unsteady
foundationas hylein its chaotic state.What thenwas the role of theformaenativaein the firstphase of hyle'
s refining
processtowardsthe proper
matterof creation?There is one passage at the end of the treatisethat
sheds lighton the question:
Et notaquoniam,
licetanteconstitutionem
mundi
omnesnatiuae
formae
quaepost
inhylen
inipsahyletantum
uenerunt
illaetarnen
exstiterunt,
potentialiter
quaeipsam
ad quattuor
mundielementa
actualiter
antemundi
exornaformabant,
procreanda
in ipsaconstiterunt;
tionem
(8: 397-401).
13Illustrative
inthiscontext
isalsotheglosstothepassage
Bernard
states:
48a,inwhich
"Erraticam
causam
uocathylen,
hancetdiscretionem
omnia
quiainea anteinformationem
fluctuando
errabant"
quasi
14Somelineslaterhe (8: 39-40).
theprima
exordia
inthisway:
s development
phaseinhyle'
explains
"Etquianonuiolenter
exornecessitas
uicta
et sicconstiterunt
praecepit,
igitur
paruit,
prima
dia, quaepossunt
ex illis
diciuelquattuor
uelhaecquattuor
elementara
puraelementa
coniuncta.
... Et quiaex hac necessitate
constiterunt
primamundiexordia,
ergosi quis
mundi
huius
institutionem
insinuaturus
hunc
etc"8: 34-9.
erits
perfecte
oportet
15The textual
lie in 48a oftheTimaeus
and
rootsofBernard's
caution
, butthefifth
sixth
ofthefirst
bookofAristotle's
shedmorelighton howcomplex
the
chapters
Physics
debateaboutthenumber
andontological
status
ofcontrary
wasinthe
actually
principles
classical
era ofGreekphilosophy.
In Bernard's
caseone can feelalsotheinfluence
of
whoon thebasisofhisMiddleandNeoplatonic
overestimated
the
inclinations
Calcidius,
control
ofthevoovertheiSXr|.
See Calcidius,
In Tim.cap.269, ed.J.Waszink,
p. 274,
9-14.Calcidius
madethegooduse of hisknowledge
of Plato'sTimaeus
as wellin his
theStoicposition;
see e.g.In Tim.cap.321, ed.J. Waszink,
polemic
against
p. 317,2-9.
in Bernard,
Cf.further
similar
remarks
e.g.8: 203-12and8: 300-10.

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
OF THE FORMAE
NATIVAE

As we see, accordingto Bernard,all theformaenatiuaeexistedpotentially

in hylein its primitivestate.Then those thatwere to formhyleand produce the fourelements,achievedactualitywithinit beforethe adornment
of thevisibleworld.To avoid givingthe impressionthattheformae
natiuae
,
whichwere actual in hyleanteexornationem
, had actualized in it by themselves,Bernardremindsus of the factthat thereare no otherprinciples
outsidethese three,"scilicetdeus, hyle et ideae" (8: 401-2). In the gloss
quoted above at the beginningof this sectionBernard statesthat "illud
uero seminariumnatiuisformisdeus formauit"(4: 191-2). In accordance
withthisit is consistentto thinkthat theformaenativaethat were actual
alreadyin the antephase, had become actual at God's command.16
In lines 97-9 of the traetatus
de constitutione
mundiBernard refersto the
in orderto underlinethat the four
pure elementsby the termfundamenta
pure elementsestablishthe firmbase on which the corporeal world is
founded.The corporealworldis not, however,composed merelyof fiery
and solid,of liquid and airyqualitiesof matter;it is in itsmaterialappearance much more complex.The foundationand the buildingitselfshould
be separatedfromeach other,Bernard contends,and consequentlyhe
ratherthan the elementa
as the proper materialof
regardsthe elementaria
on
Bernard's
comment
Plato's
metaphorabout the alphacorporealthings.
bet of the universebears repeating:"in huius mundi constitutione
hyle
est primmelementm,secundumilia quattuorpura, terciumhaec quattuor mixta" (8: 70-2).17
s develBernarduses the exordia
primato explain the firstphase in hyle'
opment. In that phase metaphoricallyspeaking,the lettersare formed
into syllables.The syllables,fortheirpart,are the basic unitsin the formationof utteredwordsthemselves,
and thisis the phase we shall analyse
in the next section.We can formulatethe exact questionlike this:How
does the corporealworld emerge fromthe hyleconstitutedby the four
elements?
- the
5. Elementaria
statesofmatter
elementary
Hot and cold, dry and wet are the ultimatequalities of matter,and
consequentlyfieryand solid, airy and liquid are the elementarystatesin
16See alsoDutton,
Introduction,
p. 79.
17In a
oftheTtmaeus
varieties
andcomPlatoexamines
moreclosely
(58c-61c)
passage
in Galcidius'
transofthefourelements.
thepassagewasnotincluded
pounds
Although
Bernard
treats
thetheme
as ifithadbeenfamiliar
to him.
lation,

19:19:58 PM

PAULIANNALA

which hyleoffersitselfas an object of sensibleperception.Bernardconsidersthemsome kind of partsof matter[quasiparteshyles)and calls them

elementara.
But what actuallydoes happen in hylewhenit assumesdifferent
qualities,turningsometimesinto fieryor solid, and sometimesinto airy
and liquid states?In otherwords,how does the change fromthe elementa
take place, and what is the explanation of the pheto the elementara
nomenon? We consider the problem firstfrom Plato's and then from
Bernard'spoint of view.
In Timaeo51a Plato argues that "we must not call the motherand
receptacleof visibleand sensiblethingseitherearthor air or fireor water,
nor yet any of their compounds or components;but we shall not be
wrongifwe describeit as invisibleand formless,
possessed
all-embracing,
in a most puzzling way of intelligibility,
yet very hard to grasp."18He
followsthisup witha kind of concludingremarkon the discussionabout
the nature of the receptiveprinciple.It bears close reading,for there
Plato explainshow the receptacleassumes different
qualities.
The core of Plato's explanationis this.The qualitythatthe receptacle
assumesis dependenton the nature of the simulacrumit receives.Thus
the receptacleof becomingturnsfiery,liquid, solid or airy by the simulacra of the fourelements.If it receivesthe simulacrumof the fireelement,i.e. a copy of the intelligible
fire,it becomes fiery,and accordingly,
if it receivesthe simulacrumof the water element,it turnsinto liquid,
and so it goes with the otheras well:
humectata
ueroparseiusdem
Ignisquidem
parseiusignita,
aqua,si modoexpertis
reiparsulladicipotest;
terra
eorum
illa,siforte
quoqueetaerratione
qua simulacra
in se,. . ,19
recipit
This is the way the passage is glossed by Bernard:
Docetquaeinipsahylecommutentur,
scilicet
haecquattuor
elementara,
quaequasi
Et hoc est:ignita
parteshylesconsiderantur.
parshylesestignis.Hoc esthyle,si
id estafficiatur
fit
formis
huiusigneifitignis,
si humectetur,
id estigneum;
igniatur,
Terra
suntpartes
etaer
, id estterreum,
, id estaerium,
aqua,id estaquaticum.
quoque
siforte
simulacra
etc
. (8: 246-51).
hyles,
hyleinserecipit
Bernard'sexpositionseems to followcloselythe letterof the Timaeus
, and
he
also
the
of
the
of
consequently
concept the
acknowledges importance
18In thiswayPlatovoiceshiscriticism
ofPresocratic
in which
ofnature,
philosophy
either
oneor all fourelements
wereregarded
as theultimate
ofreality.
The
principles
translation
from
is taken
thePenguin
Classics
Timaeus
andCritias)
trans,
edition,
byD. Lee,
1965,p. 70.
19Timaeus
a Caldio
translatus
, 51b, ed.J. Waszink,
p. 49, 14-6.The equivalent
expressionto"simulacra
inse"intheoriginal
eorum
textgoes
tovhdv
xexai."
recipit

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
OF THE FORMAE
NATIVAE

simulacrumin resolvingthe problem.The qualitywhich hyleassumes,or

the state into which it turns,depends on the nature of the simulacrum
thatit receives.If hyleis affectedby the simulacraof the pure archetype
natiuaewhose birthis
of fire,in other words, if it receivesthoseforrnae
caused by the immutableIdea of Fire itself,it becomes fiery.
ultimately
Bernardexplainsthe process in which matterturnsinto
Mutatismutandis
a liquid, solid, and airy state.
which Bernardmakes
The criticalremarkon Calcidius' interpretation
both substantiallyand formally.
as he continueshis gloss is interesting
The eventwhich Bernardcalls the primaexordia
phase in matter'sdevelin
of
his
Calcidius
272
commentaryin the folexplains chapter
opment
was forthe firsttime
and
matter
When
shapeless
unqualified
lowingway.
molded and informedby intelligibleform,pure and intelligibleFire and
the other four real substancesarose. Up to this sentenceBernard can
agree withCalcidius,but when the latterargues in the sequel that these
four real substancesare the archetypesof fiery,liquid, solid, and airy
materials,Bernardsees a conflictwiththe principlesof Platonicphilosophy.20He expoundshis own standpointwith these words:
in hylen,
haecuisibilia
Simulacra
horum
quae uenientes
procrant
accipitformas,
Vel edamhaecuisibilia
uocat
dicuntur
simulacra
idearum.
quattuor
quaeproprie
inhyle.
Videcumipsapermutentur
simulacra
quaenonpermutantur,
archetiporum,
horum
etcetera
turuelleCalcidius
commixtorum,
purum
ignem
puraessearchetipa
et ipsumpurum
et aliorum,
specieet hyle
ignemfieriex intelligibili
igneiscilicet
(8: 251-6).
In the formerpart of the quotation Bernard explicateshis standpoint,
and in thelatterhe criticizesCalcidius' position.Beforewe considermore
we
interesting,
closelywhyBernard'sremarkon Calcidius is also formally
focuson the firsttwo sentencesof the passage.
Firstof all, it is clear forBernardthat the visibleelementsare merely
the simulacraof the true and immutableIdeas of the fourelements.But
how do these simulacrabecome reallyvisible?This is the process Bernard connects with the formationof corporeal thingsthemselves.He
20The passagein chapter
272 withwhichBernard
goes:"Quippeprimum
disagrees
format
ac sinequalitate
elementm
uniuersae
reisiluaestinformis
quam,utsitmundus,
ceteet specie,ignispuruset intellegibilis
ex quibus,siluavidelicet
intellegibilis
species;
haemateriae
e quibus
demum
sincerae
substantiae
sensiles,
igneae
aquatiles
quattuor,
raeque
substantiae
etceterae
sincerae
terrenae
etaereae.Ignisporro
species
intellegibilesque
purus
In Tim.cap.272, ed.J.Waszink,
ideaecognominatae;"
suntexemplaria
p. 276,
corporum,
10-5.
Platonism
onthehistory
ofideasseeStephen
About
theinfluence
ofthispassage
Gersh,
- Aristotelianism:
andItsSources
A Twelfth-Centuiy
, in:R. Benson
Metaphysical
System
Neoplatonism
andRenewal
intheTwelfth-Century
andG. Constable
1982,521.
, Oxford
(eds.),Renaissance

19:19:58 PM

10

PAULIANNALA

understandsthe processin the followingway. When the basic constituents

of hyle
, the simulacraof the elements,receivetheformaenativaeof corporeal thingsas these thingscome into existence,they therewithbecome
secundaphase
visible.They become visiblein what Bernardcalls generatio
of hyle'sdevelopment.However many formswe encounterin the corporeal world,in spite of all- the simulacraof the true and intelligibleelementsare the constantsof matter.They remainunchangedas hyleturns
into the diversestateswithwhich we are familiar.
Bernard correctsCalcidius on the firmbasis of Platonic philosophy,
accordingto which an entitymade fromthe combinationof the intelligibilisspecies
and silva(hyle)cannotbe an Idea.21What does thistellus about
Bernard'sintimateknowledgeof Plato's philosophy,if he readilycalls his
authoritative
source into question?In this specificcase it can be argued
that the criticismdid not emerge from the writingsof Boethius and
Macrobius, which besides Calcidius' commentaryBernard knew best.22
Did it not come fromBernard's thoroughacquaintance with the very
principlesof Plato's philosophy?
6. Formae nativae ab extra and generatiosecunda
With the wordforma
, which appears in the accusative plural at the
beginningof the previousquotation,Bernardrefersno longerto theformaenativaethat constitutehyleab intrain the exordia
primaphase. On the
with
the
term
he
refers
to
of
the
another
set
nativae
, those,
contrary,
formae
as
of
the
transcendent
into
matter
ab extra
Ideas, penetrate
acting agents
and beget corporealthingsin its womb. Bernardsurelyhas in mind here
the generatio
secunda
, that is, the generationof the sensibleworld made
the
presentby
singularcorporealthings.But what is the exact mechanism by whichthistakesplace? Passage 50b-c in the Timaeusgivesus much
help in answeringthisquestion.It is also the passage thatoffersus a better positionto reflecton the geneticroots of the doctrineof theformae
nativae.

21Dutton's
formulation
is an apposite
one:"Bernard
evencorrects
Calcidius
whohad
thatpurefire,
maintained
thatis,thepurearchetype
offire,
wasmadefrom
thecombioftheintelligibilis
nation
andhyle.ForBernard
thiscouldnotconstitute
a definition
species
ofthepurearchetype,
sinceevenpurefirewastheresult
ofthejoining
ofhyleandthe
nativa
couldnotbe theimmutable
Idea ofFireitself."
Introand,therefore,
Dutton,
forma
duction,
p. 79.
On Bernard's
seealsoDutton,
Introduction
sources,
, especially
p. 64.

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
OF THE FORMAE
NAT1VAE

11

In passage 50b-c Plato characterizesthe receptiveprinciple,23

saying
that"estqueususeius similismollicedentiquemateriae,in quam imprimunomnimodeab introeuntur uaria signacula,moueturqueet conformatur
tibus."24To the question,"What actuallyare these enteringand exiting
entities?"he answersthat "quae introeuntet egrediuntursimulacrasunt
uere existentium
rerum."25Immediatelyafterthis Plato admitsthat it is
hard to describejust how the enteringand exitingsimulacraassume the
we
likenessof the eternalIdeas.26Rather than to stop at this difficulty,
should pay attentionto the consistencywithwhich Plato carriesout his
idea of theworld'semergence:the explanationgivenhere is based exactly
on the same distinction
he makes at the verybeginningof the dialogue.27
And thisis the way Bernardglossesthe text:
etegrediuntur
simulacra
sunt
idearam
, id estipsaeformae,
Eademque
quaeintroeunt
quae
ueramessehabent.
modo
Formata
ab illis,miro
sed in partenon
, id estprocedentes
, sicutostendemus,
translata.
Atuero
dixiquodostendemus
sintindeformata,
sednunc
,
genus
quomodo
priustrinum
rerum
idesttresmaneriae
sumendae
sunt:
scilicet
resformata,
animo,
quaeestcorpus,
etidea,quaesemper
informis
scilicet
maneteademin mente
divina.
materia,
hyle,
Decet
doceamus
similiergo.
Quia positasunttriadiuidentia,
quibusobtineant
igitur
atuero
unde
obuenit
tudinem
uicemmatris,
, id estarchetipus
mundus,
hyleobtinet
singula:
sednatiuae
uicempatris
, nonquodideaecommisceantur
sensilis,
hylein efficientia
idearum
formae,
(8: 191-202).
quaesuntimagines
Here Bernardskipspassage 50c to gloss the next one, where Plato presentshis famousfamilymetaphor.By motherhe refersto the receptacle
of becoming,by fatherto the exemplaryprinciplefromwhichthe emerghe refersto the sensible
ing thingsassume theirlikeness,and by offspring
worlditself.How do theformaenativaefunctionin thistriangularconstellation,and what is theirexact ontologicalstatus?These are the essential
of Bernard's
questionsthatguide us on our way to a betterunderstanding
notionof theformanativa.
23"rtEpi
- withthisformula
xTivia
Platocharacterizes
acb|iax(x
xf|
(paeco"
%onvTi
thereceptive
define
that
he
is
to
more
precisely.
principle
going
24Ttmaeus
a Caldio
50b, ed.J. Waszink,
translattis,
p. 48,5-7.
25Ttmaeus
a Caldio
50c, ed.J. Waszink,
translates,
p. 48, 9-10.The Greekexpression
totheimportant
formula
et egrediuntur
simulacra
suntuereexistentium
"quaeintroeunt
rerum"
xcov
ovxcv
e n.i|iT|^axa."
Kalivxa
goeslikethis:"xEaivxa
26"miroquodamuixqueexplicabili
ab isdemuereexistentibus
modoformata
rebus,"
hewrites
inTvrrmo
50c, ed.J. Waszink,
48, 10-1.
p.
27After
in passage28a thefamous
distinction
between
quodsemper
making
ontological
andquod
necestsemper
est,carens
, he comesin theendofpassage29a to
generatone
gignitur
theconclusion
is theimageoftheformer
thatthelatter
est).
semper
[quod
(quod
gignitur)

19:19:58 PM

12

PAULIANNALA

28and
BernardunwrapsPlato's involucrum
transposesthe familymetaphor
is replaced by the resforinto a philosophicalkey,in which the offspring
materia
and
the
father
mata
the
mother
,
,
by the idea,quaesemby informis
divina.If the thirdpartyin the constellation,
eademin mente
namely
permanet
the Idea, is immutableand remainsin its autarchyin the divineintelligence, any role on its part in the formationof the resformatamust be
is to be informedat all, theremust
excluded.Therefore,if materia
informis
betweenthe two. This task
be some agent that acts as an intermediary
devolves upon theformaenativae
, which are accordingto Plato simulacra
idearum.29
vereexistentium
rerum
, and which Bernard himselfcalls imagines
When a formanativaof a definiteIdea descendsinto hyle,a singularcorporeal thingis born in the likenessof its transcendentIdea. When they
sensilisin its multiplicity
is born in the likenessof
are many,the mundus
in
mind. "Vocat hie forthe mundus
that
exists
Gos
intelligibilis
eternally
mas quae in ipsa hylefiunt,ubi, licetquaedam pereant,tamensuccedendo
Et ideo diciteas manerepersaeculauel propter
semperaliqua inueniuntur.
sunt
imagines,"Bernardstatesin lines 8: 230-2.30
archetipasquarum
It seems that the doctrineof theformaenativaehas a twofoldfunction
in Bernard'sGlosaesuperPlatonem.
First,by virtueof themthe chaoticmatteris arrangedinto an orderconstituted
by the fourpure elements.These
, which carryout theirtask in the exordia
primaphase of matter's
formae
ab
intra
seem
to
somehow
,
althoughone set of them,
development,
operate
are
that
the
four
those
elements, actual in it even before
namely
produce
the adornmentof the sensibleworld,and the otherset remainslatenttill
28On theChartrian
litandintegumentum
ofinuolucrum
, andalsothepertinent
techniques
erature
seeDutton,
Introduction
thereto
, p. 59.
29Calcidius'
In
as presented
andBernard's
here,havemuchin common.
explanation,
Calcidius
us witha triangular
confronts
329ofhiscommentary
composed
figure
chapter
To each
andimmutable
silva,
, anddeus.
substances,
bythree
namely,
archetipus
permanent
isnointeraction
between
thatthere
ofthem
herefers
withtheverb"manet,"
which
implies
andbecoming
them.
Itseems,
atthispoint,
modelhasmadechange
thatCalcidius'
imposintheexemplary
? He distinguishes
sible.Howdoeshesolvetheproblem
ofgeneratici
prinhe
andthefunctional.
To theformer
twoontological
thesubstantial
levels,
ciplebetween
with
andimmutable
theterm
transcendent
refers
, andmeans
prima
species
byittheabsolutely
orgenerata
withtheterms
or nativa
Idea itself;
to thelatter
he refers
secunda
, and
species
itis capasinceit stands
between
thevere
andthatwhichnihil
esteorum
existens
quaesunt,
andacting
as aninterbleofbreaking
outoftheself-sufficiency
oftheexemplary
principle
thatdescends
andsilva.It is precisely
thespecies
secunda
mediary
agentbetween
archetipus
intosilvaand generates
See In Tim.cap.329, ed.J. Waszink,
therea corporeal
thing.
323,11-6.Cf.vanWinden1959,193,andGersh1986(II),468-9.
p. 30
Dutton's
is worth
nativas
reflect
theeternal
here:"Theformae
expression
repeating
character
oftheir
andtheyaresaidto
someperish,
others
succeed
Ideas;although
them,
remain
theagesonaccount
which
aretheir
Ideas(8:230-2)."
ofthearchetypes
throughout
Introduction
Dutton,
, p. 79.

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
OF THE FORMAE
NATIVAE

13

thatact as the agentsof the

o secunda.
thegenerati
Second, theformaenativae
in
role
the
creation
of the world proper.
a
decisive
species
primaeplay
with
the
resultthatthe mundus
ab
extra
inform
into
it,
hylethey
Descending
.31
is born in the likenessof the mundus
sensilis
intelligibilis
7. Circuituselementorumand theidentification
oftheelements
secundain the fifth
When we examined Bernard'sidea of the generatio
at
least
became
clear.
three
First,accordingto Bernard
section,
points
the fourelements,which constitutehyle
, become visible along with the
the
of
second,
corporealthingsare not comemergence corporealthings;
but
of
their
different
of
the
four
elements
compounds;third,
posed purely
in
of separate corpovarious
states
the
formation
assumes
althoughhyle
real things,its basic constituents,
namely the four elements,keep their
of matter.The second pointespeand
remain
constants
unchanged
shape
with
shows
us
that
Bernard
Plato, who insiststhat the elecially
agrees
mentsdo not ever occur in the actual worldin theirideal or pure forms,
but thereexistsan incessantinteractionbetweenthem.32Let us examine
thispoint more closely.
In passage49c we finda classicaldescription
of thephenomenonknown
elementorum.
as circuitus
Here Plato describesthe process of cyclicaltransformationas follows.Water seems to solidifyinto a solid state and dissolve and evaporateinto wind and air. For its part,air turnsinto fireby
combustion,and firein turn,when extinguishedand condensed,takes
the formof air again. Air contractsand condensesinto cloud and mist,
and when these come togetherstillmore tighdy,they become running
water,which again turnsinto a solid state.33
elementorum
The drcuitus
causes problemsfor a philosopherwho holds
to the permanentsubstanceof things.Passage 49d-e betraysat difficulty.
At the beginningof the passage Plato wondersif it is proper to imply
31Thesamedoubleaspect
inthebeginning
"Eritigitur
occurs
ofthetreatise:
hylequasi
incorpus;
secundum
hoc
transit
secundum
hocquodassumptis
formis
quasimater,
pater,
Et secundum
causaeritcorporum
formas.
principalis
post
quodpater,
quodinse recipit
causa."8: 19-22.The rolesBernard
deumet ideas;secundum
secundaria
quodmater,
totherolesPlato
do notcorrespond
ofPlato'sfamily
metaphor
givesheretothemembers
See Timaeus,
50d.
givesthem.
32See e.g.Timaeus
howtheparticles
ofall otherele56d-e
, wherePlatodemonstrates
earthcanundergo
transformation.
theparticles
ments
oftheelement
expect
33HerePlatodrawson thePresocratic
we
Evenin Anaximenes
ofnature.
philosophy
ofthe
"Herakleitos'
finda similar
andin theso-called
puzzle"theproblem
description,
in thesameway.
ofthethings
identification
is formulated

19:19:58 PM

14

PAULIANNALA

one ratherthan the other,seeing as

that any one of them is definitely
no one of the elementsever appears constantlyunder the same form.
For example when a person is speakingof water,which mightfreezein
the next moment,is he speakingof a liquid or a solid? By distinguishing betweenthe substanceof a thingand its quality,Plato suggeststhe
followingsolutionto the problem.Wheneverwe see anythingin process
of change,we should not designateit withthe definitepronoun"this"or
"that,"forthesepronounsdenote the essenceor the substanceof a thing.
When designatingsomethingthat is in process of change, we shall use
the pronoun proper to quality,namely"thisor that kind."34
in two respects.Firstof all, it shows how
The solutionis interesting
close the relationis betweenthe doctrineof Ideas and the theoryof designation in Plato's philosophy.We designatethe upper ontologicallevel,
namelythatof the immutableIdeas, as its permanencerequireswiththe
definitepronoun "this,"whereaswe referto lower thingsin theirchanging qualities properlyby such qualitativeexpressionsas "this and that
etementorum
thismeans thatthe definitepronounis
kind." For the circuitus
suitablewhen referring
to the immutableIdeas of the elements;but when
we referto the fiery,solid, liquid, and airy qualitiesdrawn fromhyleby
virtue of the elements,we should use the pronoun proper to quality.
Second, along with this rule of designation,Plato demonstratesanother
the
rule in the passage which governsour way of seizingand identifying
entitiesof the actual world. We cannot identifythingson the basis of
theirqualities;we need knowledgeof the immutablesubstancesof things.
In short,we identifya thingproperly,given our knowledgeof its Idea.35
In passage 50a-b Plato gives us a furtherillustration
of the problem.
in gold, and
kind
a
man
of
modellinggeometricalshapes every
Suppose
If
each
into
another.
somebodypoints at
constantlyremoulding
shape
one of themand asks what it is, it would be safestto say thatit is gold,
for at the very momenta person is puttinghis question,the object of
designationcan turninto anotherfigure.The same argumentapplies to
the receptacleof becoming.Althoughit continuesto receiveall things,it
never takes a permanentimpressfromany of the thingsthat enter it,
but remainsalways the same in its nature.The receptacleof becoming
34The equivalent
and to "thiskind"it is
to "this"in Greekis "touto,"
expression
"toiotov."
In chapter
makesgooduseofthisgenuine
Calcidius
325ofhiscommentary
Platonic
seeIn Tim.cap.325, ed.J. Waszink,
distinction;
p. 320,4-14.
35Forthesemantics
A Philosophical
ofTimaeus
50a-52d
seeL.M.de Rijk,Plato's
Sophist.
vanWetenschappen.
Nederlandse
Akademie
Afdeling
Verhandelingen
Commentary.
Koninklijke
York1986,265-71.
Letterkunde.
Nieuwereeks,
deel133,Amsterdam-Oxford-New

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
OF THE FORMAE
NATIVAE

15

is also an immutablesubstance,one to which we referby the definite

pronoun"this."
As a grammarianBernard shows interestin the Platonic theoryof
designation.This becomes clear fromlines 141-65 of the eighthtreatise,
wherehe focuseson the subject.There he repeatsseveraltimesthe basic
statementof Plato's theory,wherebythe definitepronoun denotessolely
the substancesand not the qualities.36He also applies the theoryin an
elementorum.
appropriatemanner in solving the problem of the circuitus
There is, however,one point in which his explanationdiffersfromthe
Timaeus.In order to look at this,we go back to passage 50a.
When Plato givesus in passage 50a permissionto designatethe receptacle by the word "this,"he means that the object of the designationis
the formlessand unqualifiedreceptivesubstanceready to be moulded by
the formsthat enter it. But for Bernard this is not the shapeless and
, but hylealready refinedin the exordiaprima}1
unqualifiedreceptaculum
Consequently,when a personpointsat the receptiveprinciple,the object
of the designationis not the receptaclein the originalPlatonicsense,but
theconstantsof the fourelementsthatremainunchangedin hyle
, although
it assumesvariousqualitieswiththe emergenceof corporealthings.When
between the glossatorand his masterin the
we look at the difference
and the elementara
, we
lightof Bernard'sdistinctionbetweenthe elementa
have reason to use the word "this"as an appropriateway to referto the
unchangingconstantsof matter.We may not use the word, however,to
designatethevariablequalitiesor statesthatmatterassumesor turnsinto.
Though Bernard proposes his idea in a ^/-sentence,i.e. in a sentence
thatexpressesan alternativeto the standardreading,his proposal is reasonable and consistentwhen we considerit fromthe point of view of the
treatiseas a whole:
36Forinstance
nonsunt
habent
in 8: 147-8Bernard
states:
stabilitateli!,
"Quianullam
ui."
in propria
substantiam
estmeram
significare
quorum
pronominibus,
dignadesignali
and
ofCalcidius
hasbeeninfluenced
In addition
to Timaeus
, Bernard
bythecommentary
seeIn Tim.cap.325,ed.J. Waszink,
On theformer
ofPriscianus.
thetextbook
p. 320,
Latini
XII. 15,ed. M. Hertz,Grammatici
seeInstitutiones
8-13,andon thelatter
grammaticae
non
rule:"Solamenimsubstantiam,
wefindthefollowing
//,Leipzig1855,585-6,where
vocis."
in
est
edamqualitatem
ipsius
prolatione
quantum
pronomina,
significant
3 The intention
m
various
thecraftsman
oftheparableconcerning
figures
modelling
In accordance
etsine
isexplicitly
substance
qualitate.
informis
goldistoshowthatthereceptive
"Verenonrecedit,
writes
as follows:
withthisBernard
recipiat,
quia,cumomnesformas
et
intra
remane
formantur,
naturam,
corpora
t,secundum
hyles
grmium
propriam
ipsainformis
in lines8: 160-1he states:
8: 182-4.Further,
ibiea repiuntur
"Hyle,
persolasformas."
The
eademest,dignaestdesignali
pronominibus."
semperque
quianonrecipit
qualitatem
IntroCf.alsoDutton,
should
notbe overestimated.
PlatoandBernard
difference
between
duction,
p. 82.

19:19:58 PM

16

PAULIANNALA
nonsuntdesignanda
Haec mutabilia
sedsolahylein qua soluuntur,
pronominibus,
secundum
uariationem
formaram.
pereuntia
corpora
Quaeideodignaestdesigsingula
nalipronominibus,
eademin suinatura
necullampropriam
consistit,
quiasemper
Vel potest
ad puraelementa
habetqualitatem.
hocreferri
(8: 155-9).38

8. Idea, formanativa,and hyle

In the sixth section,above, we already touched on the hierarchical
relationthatprevailsbetweenthe upper and the lower ontologicallevels
on the one hand and the receptiveprincipleon the otherhand. We also
raised the question about the place of the generatio
secundain this constellation.Beforewe examine the hierarchymore precisely,we shouldreexaminepassage 51b-c fromthe 7"imams.
There Plato opens the discussion
with a provocativequestion: "Is theresuch a thingas 'fireitself'... or
are we talkingnonsensewhen we say thereare intelligible
formsof particularthings?Is thismerelyan emptyexpression?"The answerdoes not
surprisea person familiarwith the principlesof Plato's philosophy:the
firemanifestedin the actual worldin diffrents
formsand in variousfiery
and burningstates,is a sense-perceptible
simulacrumof the immutable
Idea of Fire itselfcomprehendedby reason alone (51b).
Bernard begins his gloss on 51c by asking,"an est solus nosterignis
"
,"
quem uideamus,an est alius separatusab ilio" (8: 312-3)? Incommunicabilis
he exclaims,and goes on:
id estquineca nobisuideatur
neccuiquam
commisceatur,
corpori
qualisestillepuinmente
rasarchetpus
deiconsistit.
Item
ceterae
, id estideaeterrae
quisemper
species
et aliorum,
nonquodsintspecies
sedquarum
consistant
similitudine
praedicabiles,
haecsensibilia
(8: 313-7).
The immutableIdea of Fire itself,which existsin God's mind,is incommunicabilis
, giventhatthatis so, it neitherentersinto any interactionwith
the receptiveprinciplenor is it an objectof senseperception.Communicabilis
or in otherwordsitsformanativa
is, however,itssimulacrum,
, thatdescends
intohyle'swomb and begetstherea fierycorporealthing.And so Bernard
writesin lines 152-4 of the treatiseon primordialmatter:"Quia hoc
et instabilitatem,
igneum non est uerus ignis,propterpermixtionem
igiturille ignisuerus putandusest qui idemestet omne
, quasi hoc ipsum dico
de omnibuselementis."
38A similar
in 8: 252-4,where
^/-sentence
occurs
Bernard
states:
"Veletiamhaecuisibiliaquattuor
uocatsimulacra
cumipsapermuarchetiporum,
quae nonpermutantur,
in hyle."Thistypeof^/-sentences
tentur
tellus something
aboutBernard's
modesty.

19:19:58 PM

THE FUNCTION
OF THE FORMAE
NAT1VAE

17

9. Disputado epoptica/disputadonaturalis
In the firstthematicpart of the Tmaeus(27c-47e) Plato tellshis "likely
story"(29d) about the originof the cosmos followinga method that is
of the Tmaeus
based solelyon argumentsof reason.In the Wirkungsgeschichte
When
at 47e
this kind of approach has been called disputatio
epoptica?9
Plato finishesthoseargumentsand turnsto his nextdevelopment,he says
that he will now set about treatingthe work of necessity.With these
to the diswordshe indicatesthathe is passingfromthe disputatio
epoptica
will
a
of
nature.
Conthat
he
now
naturalis
is,
,
putatio
pursue philosophy
in
from
that
to
the
that
reaches
61c,
part
turningpoint,47e,
sequently,
cause40more fullyinto consideration.
Plato takesthe indeterminate
naturalis
When Plato startsengagingin disputatio
, he makes its limitasoon. In passage 48c-d he statesfirstthat the
tions knownsurprisingly
nature of the materialprincipleand the concept of the indeterminate
In
naturalis.
cause includedin it are the centralobjects of the disputatio
order to examine these question,"we should," he goes on, "startagain
fromthebeginningand considerwhatwas the natureof fire,water,earth
and air beforethe beginningof the worldand what theirstatewas then"
(48b). Some lines later,however,he refusesto undertakea task of such
for him to
magnitudefor the simple reason that it would be difficult
the
in
or
of
universe
the
context
the
explain
originalprinciple principles
of this discussion(48c), meaningby the expression"this discussion"the
naturalis.
But a reason that is simplefor Plato mightnot be so
disputatio
forus. So let us considerthe subjectmore closely.
"Omne autem quod gigniturex causa aliqua necessariogignitur;nihil
enimfit,cuiusortumnon legitimacausa et ratiopraecedat."41
This famous
of Plato's
Timaeus
can
be
as
the
basic
statement
from
the
regarded
passage
A philosopherengaged in this type of
epoptica.
concept of the disputatio
reflection
triesby means of pure thinkingto findand propose legitimate
not only for everysingle phenomenon,but also
reasons (reddere
rationed)
forthe questionof the originof the universeas a whole. And because
these questionsare by their nature metaphysicalquestions,both their
39Seeespecially
In Tim.cap.272, ed.J.Waszink,
Calcidius,
p. 276,10-5.In thefootnote
oftheterm.
He mentions,
theeditor
offers
a concise
review
ofthehistory
amongother
as a synonym
thattheterm
wasusedbytheMiddlePlatonists
for"metaphysics."
things,
40Plato'sowntermhereis "rctaxvcDH-evn
ama" translated
byCalcidius
bytheterm
andwithout
butthecauses
"erratica
causa."The causesofreasonarestraight
surprises,
= to maketowander).
ofnecessity
are"wandering"
(tcAxxvcx)
41Tmaeus
a Caldio
28a, ed.J. Waszink,
translatus,
p. 20,20-2.

19:19:58 PM

18

PAULIANNALA

and theirsolutionfallplausiblyin thefieldof disputatio

epoptica.
investigation
naturalis
is nature itself,its structuresand
The object of the disputatio
the principlesof this science
processes.A person who followsfaithfully
the
leaves questionsconcerning
primaryor ultimatecauses of thingsto
and focuseson givingsecondaryreasons forphenomena
metaphysicians
is to offer
found in the actual world. If the task of the disputatio
epoptica
reasonable answersto the question "whythe world is," the task of the
is to clear up "whatkindof world is."
naturalis
disputatio
In the studyof the receptionhistoryof Plato's Timaeusin the Middle
Ages Bernard'simportancehas been emphasized.The reason forthisis
the principlesof Platonicphilosophyand by means
that,withoutsacrificing
of theformaenatiuae
programme,he directedhis pupils' attentiontowards
Due to his teaching
physicalnature and its more precise investigation.
and later to his Glosaethere arose in the scholarlycirclesof Chartresa
naturalis
,42Against
to thedisputatio
epoptica
gradualprogressfromthe disputalo
this backgroundit is interesting
to look at the remarksBernard makes
on passage 48b-d.
Bernardintroduceshis commentsby observingthatwe talkabout these
mixed and visibleelementsas thoughwe knewwhat truefireis.43Then,
afterglossingPlato's metaphoricdevelopmentabout the alphabet of the
and natuuniverse,he considersthe relationbetweenthe disputatio
epoptica
ralisin the followingway:
eratquodiliaquattuor
ex hyleuelin hylefierent,
ne
Quia dicturus
puradementa
an unasolaforma
an pluresformarent
ad iliaquattuor
hylen
corpora
quaereretur
an essetunaideaan
uelne quaereretur
de forma
scilicet
mundi,
puraprocreanda,
se etdicit:nonpertinere
excusat
disad hocpropositum,
sedesseepopticam
plures,
id estsupercaelestem.
Haec uerodisputatio
putationem,
phisicaest,quoddicit:de
uniuersitatis
uelinitio
uelinitiis
uelan unasolanatiua
, hocestan unaideaan plures,
an plures,
forma
informent
ad quattuor
(8: 73-80).
hylen
generanda
puracorpora
Is it only one formor are theymany thatinformmatterto produce the
fourpure elements?In Bernard'sjudgementthisis a secondaryquestion.
The primaryone concernsthe originand the metaphysicalstatusof the
42In addition
in thefirst
to thestudies
mentioned
footnote
ofthispaperI wouldlike
I was
to makeonereference
to an important
at theverymoment
which
study
appeared
I havenot,forthisparticutoBernard's
Glosae
, andwhich
completing
myownapproach
larreason,
takenmoreintoaccount.
ofAndreas
The workconcerned
hereis thestudy
im12.
einer
scientia
naturalis
Natur:
zu Begrndungsversuchen
Speer,Dieentdeckte
Untersuchungen
, Leiden1995,especially
Jahrhundert
pp. 126-9whereProf.Speermakeshisconcluding
remark
ofdisputation.
therelation
between
thetwotypes
concerning
43"Sed
etuisibilibus
sciamus
sicde hismixtis
elementis,
bquimur
tamquam
quidsituerus
ignis"8: 66-7.

19:19:58 PM

OF THE FORMAE
THE FUNCTION
NATIVAE

19

nativae.
Because the questionof the originalprinformanativaor theformae
vel
initiovelinitiis)
is an issue of a metaphyuniversitatis
or
ciple principles(de
sical nature,it is not pertinentto treatit in the contextof hocpropositum
For
a phraseby whichBernardrefersto the disputatio
phisicasivenaturalis.
instithatreason,some lines lower (8: 83-5), he states:"Quia hoc sermone
tuto
, scilicetphisicae,non possem perueniread rei, id est initiorum,explanationem
, quae pertinetad epopticamdisputationem."Bernard completes
that"non potestdiffiniri
his glosson the passage 48b-c by acknowledging
sit
(8:
88-9).44
hyle"
quid
also has its limitswhich it cannot transcend.
But the disputatio
epoptica
Bernardhandlesthispoint in an interesting
way in the fourthtreatiseof
:
his Glosae
uellet
autemaliquissibireddiradones
Dixithuncmundum
esseimaginem
archetipi,
de archetipo
Platoueroostendit
se nonpossereddere
rationes,
quiacum
utriusque.
- sicutarchetipus
sint
aeternus
rationes
rebusipsiscognatae
omnium
rerum
est,ita
- etideohominum
aetemae
sunt
eiusrationes
nequunt
(4: 114-8).
ingenio
comprehendi
rationes
By the reddere
typeof causal explanation,the human mind is able
Ideas existingeternallyin God's mind
to comprehendthatthe intelligible
are the rationes
or causaeof sensiblethings.But beyond this human reason cannot reach. For if the thingsthemselvesby theirvery existence
reflectthe eternalreasons conceivedby God in eternity,
by contemplatsensilisthe human being is surelyable to see and coming the mundus
is.
prehendwhat kind of archetypalworld model the mundusintelligibilis
sive
does
not
such
However,
epoptica supercaelestis)
contemplation(disputatio
elevate the soul into the divine intelligence,so that it could understand
is what it is. It has to settle
as thoughab intrawhy the mundus
intelligibilis
forits contemplative
situation,and thisis preciselythe limitwhich even
the pure science,i.e. the disputatio
, cannot transcend.45
epoptica
Helsinki
ofSystematic
Department
Theology
44Ciceroas welladmits
in hisbookDe inventione
rhethorica
(I, 24) that"naturam
ipsam
thehistory
of
forthefactthat,throughout
difficile
definire
est."Whatis theexplanation
todefine?
The answer
is obvious:
nihil
so difficult
matter
hasbeensucha prope
Platonism,
as an objectoutofreachofreason.On Bernard's
becauseit hasbeenregarded
explaIn Tim.cap.347, ed.
and8: 366-8.See alsoCalcidius,
nations
see 8: 244-5;8: 264-99,
J.Waszink,
p. 338,12-7,339,1-6.
45Cf.Dutton,
theabsolute
transcendIntroduction
, p. 74.In thewayBernard
emphasizes
ofbothCalcidius
andMacrobius.
wecansensetheinfluence
enceofthedivine
intelligence
On theformer's
p. 204,5-9,andconcerning
part,seeIn Tim.cap.176, ed.J. Waszink,
Calcidius
on
in
the
denBoeft,
comments
literature:
see
also
some
thisparticular
passage

19:19:58 PM

20

ALA
PAULIANN
Bibliography

Sources
Ancient
andMedieval
Aristotelis
1977)
, ed. W.D. Ross,Oxonii1950(reprint
Aristotle,
Physica
anIntroduction
ofChartres,
ed.with
Platonem
ofBernard
TheGlosae
Bernard
ofChartres,
super
Toronto1991
P. Dutton,
editioaltera,
instructus
a Caldio
translatus
Timaeus
, ed.J. Waszmk,
Calcidius,
commentarioque
MediiAevi,ed.R. Klibansky,
Platonicum
etLeidaeMCMLXXV(Corpus
Londonii
Vol.IV)
PlatoLatinus,
rhethorica
De inoentione
, ed. G. Friedrich,
Cicero,
Leipzig1908
5thimpression
ed.J.Burnet,
Oxonii1902(combined
1992,
edition,
Platonis
Plato,Timaeus
Platonis
Opera,t. IV)
Latini
ed. M. Hertz,in: Grammatici
Institutiones
, II-III,ed. H. Keil,
Priscianus,
grammaticae,
1961)
byOlms,Hildesheim
(reprint
Leipzig1855-1859
Modern
Literature
andSources
onFate.HisDoctrine
denBoeft,
, Leiden1970
J.,Calcidius
A Study
80 B.C.toA.D.220, London1977
Platonists.
Dillon,
ofPlatonism
John,TheMiddle
Paul E., Introduction
, ed.
, in: TheGlosaesuperPlatonem
Dutton,
ofBernard
ofChartres
P. Dutton,
Toronto
1991,1-135
- Neoplatonism
- Aristotelianism:
A Twelfth-Century
Platonism
Gersh,Stephen,
Metaphysical
intheTwelfth
in:
andRenewal
temandItsSources
Renaissance
, R. Bensonand
,
Century
G. Constable
1982,512-34
(eds.),Oxford
- , Middle
TheLatinTradition
Platonism
andNeoplatonism:
, Vols.I-II,NotreDame,Indiana
1986
native
delle
dellascuola
di Chartres:
la dottrina
, in:
Tullio,Notesulplatonismo
species
Gregory,
critico
dellafilosofa
32 (1953),358-62
Giornale
italiana,
- , Anima
1955
di Chartres
e la scuola
di Conches
mundi.
Lafilosofia
di Guglielmo
, Florence
- , Platonismo
studi
e ricerche
medievale:
, Rome1958
- , ThePlatonic
Western
in:P. Dronke
inheritance,
,
(ed.),A History
ofTwelh-Century
Philosophy
1988,54-80
Cambridge
York
A Philosophical
, Amsterdam-Oxford-New
Commentary
Rijk,L.M. de, Plato's
Sophist.
1986
andtheTimaeusofPlato
, Leiden1986
Runia,DavidT., Philo
ofAlexandria
natueiner
scientia
Dieentdeckte
Natur.
zu Begriindungsversuchen
Untersuchungen
Speer,Andreas,
York-Kln
1995
ralisim12.Jahrhundert
, Leiden-New
A Chapter
intheHistory
HisDoctrine
andSources.
onMatter.
Winden
of
J.C.M.van,Calcidius
Platonism
, Leiden1959

Fate:HisDoctrine
andSources
, Leiden1970,85-92,andGersh1986(II),440-2.On theinto himin 4: 235-9,andthenDutton,
seefirst,
howBernard
refers
fluence
ofMacrobius
in thetwelfth
Introduction
oftheideaofcontemplation
, p. 73. On theimportance
century
seeGregory
1988,54,62-3.
Platonism,

19:19:58 PM

PetrusHispanas O.P., AuetorSummularum

ANGELD'ORS

] more
The Tractatus,
has been
widelyknownas the Summulae
Logicales,
universally
recognizedas a workby Peter of Spain,2to whom a book on
3 is also attributed.Believed to have been writtenbetween
Syncategoremata
was an enormousacademic success.It was
1230 and 1245,4 the Tractatus
quicklyadopted as a textbookby universitiesacross Europe, and it remained highlyinfluentialwell into the sixteenthcentury.Its academic
success was accompanied by an analogous success in that the Tractatus
was repeatedlycopied and commentatedupon beforeappearingin print,
and was printedwithand withoutcommentarynumeroustimes.5A good
exampleof itsextraordinary
earlyfameand successeven outsideof purely
academic circlesis the referenceto Peter of Spain and his Tractatus
in
Canto XII (134-135) of the Paradisoof Dante's DivinaCommedia:
1 Peter
ofSpain(Petrus
called
Summule
Tractatus,
qfierwards
Hispanus
Portugalensis),
Logicales.
First
Critical
withan Introduction
Edition
from
theManuscripts
byL.M. de Rijk,Assen
1972.
2 The"Byzantine
which
fora Latinversion
tooktheTractatus
ofa Greek
work
Thesis,"
defended
Prantl
andothers,
folPsellos,
Brucker,
Tennemann,
byMiguel
byKeckermann,
EliasEhinger,
hasbeendefinitively
after
theworks
ofHamilton,
Thurot,
rejected
lowing
RoseandStapper,
andespecially
after
theedition
oftheworks
ofGennadios
Scholarios
deGennade
Scholarios
We nowknow,
ed.,Oeuvres
, vol.8, 1936,pp.vi-viii).
(M.Jugie
completes
on thecontrary,
thatitwasin factGennadios
Scholarios
(1400-c.1472)whotranslated
PeterofSpain'sTractatus
intoGreek.
See L.M. De Rijk,"Introduction,"
in Peter
ofSpain,
Tractatus
, pp.LXI-LXVII.
3 PeterofSpain(Petrus
FirstCritical
Edition
Hispanus
Portugalensis),
Syncategoreumata.
withan Introduction
and Indexesby L.M. de Rijk,withan English
Translation
by
Leiden-New
York-Kln
1992.
J. Spruyt,
4 See L.M. de Rijk,"Introduction,"LV-LXI;SanctiThomaede
pp.
Aquino,Opera
Omnia
Libri
Roma-Paris
, TomusI* 1, Expositio
, editioalteraretractata,
1989,
Peryermenias
wasestablished
basedon theattribution
oftheTractatus
to PopeJohn
p. 52*.Thisdating
tohisbiographical
Sincethispaperclaims
torefuse
theidentification
XXI,according
profile.
oftheauthor
oftheTractatus
withPopeJohnXXI, thisdating
willbe considered
as a
provisional
approximation.
5 SeeJ.P.
The"Summulae
, NotreDame1945(2nded.
ofPeter
Mullally,
Logicales"
ofSpain
on 166editions
oftheTractatus
or itscommentaries;
1960),pp. 133-58forinformation
W. Risse,Bibliographie
York1964-1979;
L.M. de Rijk,
, 4 vols.,Hildesheim-New
Logica
thereexistno lessthan
"Introduction,"
particularly
pp.XCV-CX.As De Rijkindicates,
300manuscripts
and200editions
oftheTractatus
or itscommentaries.
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,1

19:20:08 PM

ANGELD'ORS

22
e Pietro
Ispano
Lo qualgiluceindodici
libelli

But who was this Peter of Spain, author of the Tractatus

, the extraordiof
?
him
the
entrance
of
which
would
honor
intoParadiso
success
nary
gain
and the Divina Commedia
have posed this
Readers of both the Tractatus
questionforcenturies.
have coexistedover the centuries:the firstregards
Two major traditions
Peter of Spain, the author of the Tractatus
, to be Spanish and generally
a memberof the Dominican Order; the othertraditionconsidershim to
be Portuguese,and identifieshim as Pope John XXI.6 For this reason,
the historiansof the Dominican Order, papal historians,and both Spanish and Portuguesenationalhistorianscan be added to the readersof the
Tractatus
and the Divina Commedia
as groups interestedin the identityof
in determining
Peter of Spain. In view of the currentdifficulties
whether
Peterof Spain was a memberof the Dominican Order or whetherhe can
be identifiedas Pope John XXI, some historianschoose to avoid these
questions.7Others subscribe to a thirdsolution,8and some even uphold
both traditionsat once.9
Currentlyit is universally,and in my opinion, mistakenly,
accepted
that Peter of Spain, author of the Tractatus
, is none other than Petrus
, physicianand nativeof Lisbon,who underthe name ofJohnXXI
Juliani
6 It seemscertain
thatPopeJohnXXI wasnota member
oftheOrderofPreachers
andtherefore,
thatthesetwoimportant
traditions
be reconciled.
cannot
One ofthetwo
mustbe erroneous.
7 For
NicolsAntonio,
wholeavesthequestion
to be resolved
byothers:
example,
tamen
intererit
duoan unusPetrus
aliisquorum
veritatis,
"Absque
praeiudicio
relinquentes
fuerit
interim
IoannemPapamprivatum
nospraeter
examinare,
cognomento
Hispanus
aliumponimus,"
(Bibliotheca
Vetus
, Vol.II, Roma1696,158).
Hispana
8 For
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
, Vol.I, Paris1719,p. 485b:
Qutif-Echard,
Scriptores
example,
"Etsiautem
illenonsitnoster,
nonindesequitur
Pontifex
XXI,
Joannes
quodsitSummus
dictus
anteaPetrus
Petrus
Iuliani& quandoque
Hispanus
simpliciter."
9 Take, forexample,ValeriusAndreaeTaxandrus,Catalogus
clarorum
Hispaniae
, Moguntiae,MDCVII, p. 93: "Petrus
scriptorum
..Hispanusordinispraedicatorum,
anno1250.EiusSummulae
Summam
floruit
cuminterpretatione
Bruxellensis
scripsit,
Georgii
etThomaeBricotti
etc.Iannotde Campisexcudit
quaestionibus
textuque
Suppositionum,
1509.EaedemSummulae
Venetiis
Versorii
Parisiensis.
Lugduni
Logica,cumexpositione
1572.Petrus
Sanzovinum,
apudIuntas1563,et Franciscum
episHispanus
Portugalensis,
XXI P. M.)scripsit
Ioannes
Thesaurum
de medendis
copusTusculanus
(postea
Pauperum,
morbis
continens.
et Simplicia
medicamenta
humani,
corporis
experimenta
particularia,
Christiani
lib.1,EpistoFrancofurti,
medicinae,
1576,8. Cnones
apudhaeredes
Egenolfi,
larum
ad diversos,
lib.1 etquaedam
alia.Eiusdem
Tractatus
Coloniae,
Sexlogici,
impressi
anno1503.De hoclegendus
loan.Mariana
lib.XIV,Annalium
apudHenricum
Quentel,
Hispaniae,
cap.2."

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

23

occupiedthe Papal See fromSeptember15, 1276 throughMay 20, 1277.

and theDivinaCommedia,
historians
of theDominican
Scholarsofthe Tractatus
Order and papal historians,and Portugueseand Spanish nationalhistoOver the past fewdecades many
rianshave all acceptedthisidentification.
of
and
histories
files,
library
philosophy
logic, and encyclopediaentries
have been systematically
correctedto accept Pope JohnXXI as the author
has become so common that today it
of the Tractattis.
This identification
seemsas if centuriesof debate over the identityof Peterof Spain, author
of the Tractatus
, have suddenlybeen forgotten.
This paper arguesin favorof the Dominican thesis.I mustadmitfrom
the startthat I stilldo not know the identityof Peter of Spain, author
I have come to the conclusionthathis idenof the Tractatus
. Nevertheless,
tification
as Pope John XXI cannot be supported,and thatthismistaken
identification
whichrefersto thewrithas led boththeline of investigation
and
dissemination
of
the
Tractatus
and
that
which
refersto the biograing
phyof Pope JohnXXI to a dead end. It is timenow to turnthe direction
of our investigations
the other way. In my opinion, the argumentsin
favorof identifying
Peter of Spain, authorof the Tractatus
, as a member
of the Dominican Order are much strongerthan those which identify
him as Pope John XXI (even strongerthan those supportinghis Iberian
origin,whichI do not aim to refute,but which is supportedonly by his
"
," whichcould easilybe a surname,and not a label
appellation Hispanus
of origin).
The problemof the identityof Peter of Spain, authorof the Tractatus
,
becomes extremelydifficult
when one takesinto account the lack of reliable documentswhich would supportone interpretation
over the other.
To solve this problem,it is necessaryto set up a confrontation
among
of differing
testimonies
naturesscatteredover the course of
contradictory
more than 700 years. Consequendy,we must clearlydelimitthe nature
of the problem,the diverseliterarytraditionswhich have come to shape
each opinion,and the intersection
of these traditions.
The problemcan be phrased in the followingway: Is Peter of Spain
PetrusJuliani(Pope John XXI)? Regardless of
(author of the Tractatus)
documentarybase, defendersof the positionthat they are one and the
same person have come across two major difficulties.
The firstof these
and geographicalcirinvolvesdetermining
the biographical,chronological,
The
cumstancesby which Petrus
Julianicould have writtenthe Tractatus.
second difficulty
stemsfromexplainingthe acceptedfactthatthe Tractatus
was mainlydisseminatedby the Dominican Order. The Order originally
adopted the workas a textbookin its centersof studyin the Provinceof

19:20:08 PM

24

ANGELD'ORS

of Paris,the source of
Toulouse and laterintroducedit to the University
its subsequentdisseminationthroughoutEurope.
Investigationsconcerningthe geographicaland chronologicalcondido
tions surroundingthe compositionand disseminationof the Tractatus
not coincide withthe biographicalprofileof Pope John XXI. The comdemand an authorialprofile
positionand disseminationof the Tractatus
whichlacks consonancewiththe documentedbiographicalprofileof Pope
John XXI. Only throughan ignoranceof his exact date of birthand of
his biographyuntil 1245 has it been possibleto posittoJohn XXI a biographical profilewhich allows us to consider him the author of the
Tractatus
.10
In order to succeed in makinghim the authorof the Tractatus
, it was
to Petrus
attributed
Juliani
necessaryto antedatethe date of birthpreviously
his
instead
of
and
to
raise
fifteen
1220),
by
age
years (1205
accordingly
at Papal ordinationby fifteen
years(7 1 insteadof 56). These changesare
strikingif one considersthe factthatJohn XXI was the fourthPope to
occupy the Papal See in the year 1276, and that all of the contemporarychroniclersnoted thathe boasted thathe would have to have a long
Furtherexplanationswere also necessaryto make Petrus
Juliani
pontificate.11
the authorof the Tractatus.
For example,in orderto explain his compoand the Syncategoreumata^
sitionof the Tractatus
it is necessaryto assume
thatPetrus
of these
Julianitaughtlogic. To explainthe initialdissemination
textsfromsouthernFrance,it mustbe assumedthathe was in thatregion.
to the cities of Len,
Also, to explain the referencesin the Tractatus
Zamora, and Astorga,it must furtherbe assumed that he was in the
Len kingdom.However, all of these conjectureslack documentarysupport. Finally,even though this argumentwill have to be submittedto
futurerevisions,the traditionalintellectualprofileof PetrusJulianias a
10See L.M. de Rijk,"Introduction,"
especially
pp.XXIV-XLII.
11Martinus
Chronica
degestis
Summorum
ac Romanorum
, ed.
Polonus,
Pontificum
Imperatorum
Monumenta
Germaniae
t. XXII,p. 443: "Etcumsibivitae
Pertz,
Histrica,
Scriptores,
inplurimos
annosextendi
ethocetiam
coram
aliisassereret";
Ricobaldus
crederet,
spatium
de Ferrara(?),
Historia
ed. Muratori,
RerumItalicarum
Romanorum
Pontificum
Scriptores,
t.IX,Mediolani
1726:col.181:"Duminlongovitaespatio
gauderet,
quodsibietafluturum
Bartholomaeus
de Lucca,Historia
Ecclesiastica
RerumItalicarum
, ed. Muratori,
jactabat";
et sua sapientia
sicutipseintert. XI, col. 1177:"Quiacredebat
confidebat,
Scriptores,
ed.
dumdicebat,
Francesco
Chronicon}
longotempore
posseistadignitate
gaudere";
Pipino,
Rerum
Italicarum
t. IX, col.723:"Dumquelaetusdegeret
Muratori,
Scriptores,
spelonBartolomaeus
devitaChristi
ac omnium
Sacchida Platina,
Liber
giorisvitaeconceptae";
RerumItalicarum
t. III/1, p. 248:"Pollicebatur
sibi
, ed. Muratori,
Pontificum
Scriptores,
homostolidus
vitam
et diuse victurum
omnibus
longam
praedicabat."

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

25

physicianand naturalphilosopherhad to be alteredto fitthe profileof

an accomplishedlogician.12
of Peterof Spain, author
Scholarswho have rejectedthe identification
of the Tractatus
, Pope John XXI, have encounteredthe
, withPetrus
Juliani
for
problem of determiningan alternateidentification
equally difficult
Was he a memberof the Order
Peter of Spain, authorof the Tractatus.
of Preachers?Was he in factSpanish,as his name would indicate?Where
did he teach and compose his works?Did he writeany otherbooks?Did
he hold anotherposition or was he involved in other activitieswhich
Why is it that the
mighthelp to establisha more precise identification?
author of a work of such importancedoes not seem to have leftany
othertracesbesidesthesetwo logic books?These questionshave received
variousresponsesover the past seven centuries,and each has raised its
which thispaper aims to examine.
own particulardifficulties,
it is
Beforereviewingthese responsesand theirrespectivedifficulties,
which
have
drawn
traditions
attenoutline
the
distinct
literary
necessaryto
The first,and
tion to the figureof Peter of Spain, or to his Tractatus.
on
the
Tractatus
and on
centers
the
most
tradition,
outstanding
decidedly
this
tradition
focuses
on the
its commentaries.In its contemporary
state,
to determineas preciselyas possible his relations
authorof the Tractatus
withotherthirteenth
centuryauthorsand works,in orderto betterunderstandthe developmentof logic in thisdecisivecentury.A second tradition
is linkedto the mentionof Peter of Spain in Dante's Paradiso.This tradition'sinterestin the figureof Peter of Spain is quite indirect,since it
is not Peter of Spain, but the vision which Dante has of him which is
of real interest.Despite this,however,I considerthistraditionto provide
whose importancehas not been properlyrecognized.A third
information
is relatedto the histraditionand, in my opinion,the most informative,
toryof the Dominican Order, associatedwiththe traditionof the Spanish historians.This traditionseeks to ascertainwhetherPeter of Spain
should be includedamong the listsof the major Dominican or Spanish
12Generally
ofallthesciences,
thechroniclers
PopeJohnXXI as knowledgeable
present
"Indiversis
scientiis
famosus"
butespecially
andnatural
ofmedicine
(Martinus
philosophy:
De
in omniscientia
eruditus"
loc.dt.);"Virphilosophicus
Polonus,
(JuanGilde Zamora,
loc.cit.);
deFerrara(?),
Madrid
1955,
(Ricobaldus
magister"
p. 152);"Magnus
preconiis
Hispanie,
in medicina"
de Lucca,loc.cit
fuitetpraecipue
"Generalis
clericus
., col.
(Bartholomaeus
esthabitus"
loc.cit.);
"Doctissimus
(Bartholomaeus
(Francesco
1291);"Virlitteratus"
Pipino,
etinseculari
valdeeruditus
loc.dt.);"Virinmedicinis
Sacchida Platina,
magphilosophia
"Omni
De Scriptoribus
Ecclesiasticis
nifice
doctus"
, Kln1494,p. 107r);
Tritemius,
(Johannes
c. 1497],
Marineus
DeHispaniae
emicuit"
doctrina
laudibus
Siculus,
(Lucius
[Burgos
quidem
p. 60v).

19:20:08 PM

26

ANGELD'ORS

views of his work at various

writers(this is influencedby the differing
a
fourth
tradition,probablythe most complex and the
times).Finally,
to analyze,associatedwiththe Portuguesehistorians,
focuses
mostdifficult
on the Papal See and seeks to ascertainwhetherthe Tractatus
should be
included among the alreadyoverlargelist of worksbyJohn XXI.
I will examine these fourtraditionsseparately,ending with the most
and its commentaries.
decisiveone, which focuseson the Tractatus
1. Lo qualgi lucein dodicilibelli
In contemporarystudiesof the Divina Commedia
of
, the identification
PietroIspano, authorof the "dodici libelli,"as Pope John XXI seems to
be closed to discussion.It is enough to point out thatneitherthe Enciclo14
,13nor N. Sapegno's edition of the Divina Commediashow
pediaDantesca
the slightesttrace of doubt withrespectto the identification.
The acceptance of thisidentification
withinthisliterarytraditionseems to have been
imported,however,withoutobjection,fromotherliterarytraditionsinterested in the figureof Peter of Spain.
The textof the DivinaCommedia
itselfis not explicitwithregardto the
debated question.The information
givenabout Peterof Spain is not new:
he wrotethe "dodici libelli"(the twelvebooks of the Tractatus).
An analysis of Canto XII does not seem to provideany otherdefiniteconclusions.
The mentionof Peterof Spain in thiscanto is ratherconfusing.Dante
refersto Peter of Spain by his secular name and does not allude to a
papal title.It is also surprising,
consideringthe reputationhe had among
his contemporaries,15
thathe is foundin Paradise.Finally,the factthathe
is includedin a canto which tellsof the gloryof Saint Dominic and the
13Roma1970-1978,
vol.II, p. 188.
143rded.,10threpr.,Firenze
1994,p. 169.
15Martnus
loc.cit.:"Et pontificalem
morum
Polonus,
dignitatem,
quadamstoliditate
adeoutnaturali
industria
de Voragine,
deformabat,
videretur";
propartecarere
Jacobus
Chronicon
Gmuense
Rerum
Italicarum
, ed.Muratori,
IX, col.52:"De cuiusmorte
Scriptores
modicum
Ecclesiae
damnum
etnaturali
multum
essetrepfuit,
quialicetscientia
physicali
tarnen
discretione
et sensunaturali
multum
eratvacuus";
Ricobaldus
de Ferrara(?),
letus,
loc.cit.:"Inscientiis
in negotiis";
Bartholomaeus
plusdelectabatur
quamomnibus
reliquis
de Lucca,loc.cit.:"Etquamvis
inscientia,
fuerit
indiscretione";
Franmodicus
fuit
magnus
cescoPipino,
loc.cit.:"Magisoblectabatur
scientiarum,
quaestionibus
Papatus,
quamnegotiis
etquamquam
essetPhilosophus,
tarnen
fuit
discretione
etnaturali
scientia
vacuus";
magnus
Bartholomaeus
Sacchide Platina,
loc.t.:"Hicdoctissimus
esthabitus,
sedignoratione
rerumgerendarum
et
attulit.
Multaenimstolide
plusdetrimenti
quamhonoris
pontificatui
leniter
gessit."

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

27

to associatehim withPope JohnXXI.

DominicanOrder makesit difficult
is
this
dedicatedto Saint Dominic and the
even
canto
However,
though
association
of
Peter
of Spain withHugo de Saint Victor
the
Dominicans,
and PeterComestordoes not supportan argumentin favorof his memcenturyauthorslived
bershipin the Dominican Order. These mid-twelfth
of
the
Dominican
before
the
Order, and this association
founding
long
seems to clash withboth identifications.
These difficulties
lead to the conclusionthat it is the Tractatus
itself,
and not the figureof Peter of Spain, which is the reason for his incluin itselfprovides a link between its
sion in Canto XII. The Tractatus
authorand the Order of Preacherswho broughtabout its rapid dissemination.It was a gloriousworkcapable of overshadowingany otherreputation;a workwhichin Dante's eyes mighthave held greatermeritthan
a briefoccupationon the Papal See; and whichwarranted,
beyondchronoa
link
between
Peter
and
of
Hugo de Saint
Spain
logical considerations,
if
Victorand Peter Comestor.It seems as the Divina Commedia
offersno
of Peterof Spain. In Canto XII of the Paradiso
,
help forthe identification
the figureof Peter of Spain is in such a way reduced to his Tractatus
which leaves doubts as to whetherDante could have had information
concerningthe true identityof Peter of Spain.
fromthe
however,commentatorsof the Divina Commedia
Fortunately,
with
to
fourteenth
are
rather
more
the
century
respect
personalexplicit
ity of Peter of Spain. Among those which I have been able to study,16
Benvenutoda Imola (c. 1338-1390) explicitlyrefersto the debated quesPraedicator
."17The uniquenessof this
tion,and calls Peter of Spain "frater
without
testimonyhas been taken as a sign of its limitedplausability18
several
"no
one"
identifies
Peter
facts.
of
First,
considering
Spain with
XXI
or
alludes
to
a
while
many
Pope John
Portugueseorigin.Second,
16I havenotbeenableto consult
thecommentaries
ofGraziolo
and
de'Bambaglioli
Iohannes
de Serravalle.
islimited
toa paraphrase
Pietro
ofDante's
Alighieri's
commentary
verses.
Villani
andtheChiose
Jacopodi Dante,Guidoda Pisa,G. Boccaccio,
Filippo
sopra
Dante
limit
themselves
thefifteenth
andsixteenth
to theInferno.
commenAmong
century
I havebeenabletoconsult
ofChristophoro
Landino
andAlessandro
tators,
onlytheworks
in no waydeviate
I do not
which
from
thefourteenth
commentators.
Vellutelo,
century
know
which
wasthefirst
toaccepttheidentification
commentator
on theDivina
Commedia
ofPeterofSpainwithPopeJohnXXI.
17Benvenuto
da Imola,Commentum
Dantis
de Rambaldis
Comoediam
V, ed.
Aldigherij
super
G.F. Lacaita,Firenze1887,p. 89: "E Pietro
, hicfuitfrater
praedicator,
qui fecit
Ispano
inlogica,
intra
tractatus
suntinduodecim
libellis
maiorem
etminorem;
partem
quidistincti
ad logicam
et artes;undedicit:'b quai
fuitutilenovellis
introducendis
quodopusculum
"
in mundo,
libelli
.'
scilicet
'indodici
giluce*
18L.M.de Rijk,"Introduction,"
n. 1.
p. XVIII,especially

19:20:08 PM

28

ANGELD'ORS

sources claim Peter of Spain to be the author of theologicalworks,no

one considershim the author of medical books which figuredinto the
intellectualrenownbestowedon Pope John XXI19 by his contemporaries.
In 1324Jacopo della Lana (c. 1290-1365)20wrote,as did the Anonymous
that Peter of Spain "scrisseinfilosofia
e in teologia Francesco
Florentine,21
da Buti (c. 1324-1406),22wrote "et ancoaltreoperenellasantateologia"
and
the Ottimo
Comento
"e
which
libri
in
e
,23
fece
filosofia teologia
Pope John XXI has certainlyalso had severalworksof a theological
- even
natureattributed
to him {Commentaries
onthePseudo-Dionysins)
though,
like the Traetatus
and many otherworksof medicineand naturalphiloswere probablygroundless.It is true that we have
ophy, the attributions
still not identifiedanother Peter of Spain, author of theologicalworks,
who could also be the authorof the Traetatus.
It is also truethatthe testimoniesofJacopo della Lana, the AnonymousFlorentine,Francescoda
Comento
Buti, and the Ottimo
probablyrelyon each other,and therefore
are less valuable in theirrepetition.Even thoughthe testimoniescould
obviouslybe erroneous,there is nothingin the traditionof the commentatorsof the DivinaCommedia
to make us believe that Peterof Spain
is Pope John XXI, nor is thereanythingto make us doubt the testimony
of Benvenutoda Imola.
The testimoniesof the fourteenth
on the Divina
centurycommentators
Commedia
are confirmedby the mid-fifteenth
illuminations
of
century
Giovanni di Paolo (1399-c. 1482) which illustratedthe Paradiso(Codex
Canto XII witha beautifultableau,
Yates-Thompson).Di Paolo illustrates
19See note12.
20Commedia
colcommento
diDante
diJacopo
dellaLanabolognese
, ed.L. ScaraAllagherii
degli
in
di loica,scrisse
belli,III, Bologna1866,p. 205:"Questofuquellochefeceli trattati
filosofa
e in teologia."
21Commento
allaDivina
Commedia
d'anonimo
delsecolo
t. III,
XIV,ed. P. Fanfani,
fiorentino
diloica,e scrisse
1874,p. 242:"Pietro
Bologna
Spano.Questifuquellochefeceglitrattati
in filosofa
e teologia."
22Commento
diFrancesco
da Butisopra
la Divina
Commedia
diDante
, ed. C. GianAllighieri
di Spagnachefeceli trattati
della
Pietro
nini,III, Pisa1862,p. 378:"Questofumaestro
loicacheincominciano:
estarsetc.';et ancoaltreoperenellasantaTeologia.
'Dialetica
'Il qual';cioPietroSpano,'gi';cionelmondo,
chesi
'luce';ciorisplende:
imper
vedela scienzia
suae vigela famasua,'indodicilibelli';
li quale
questofumododicilibri,
fecelo dettomaestro
Pietro
Spano."
23L'Ottimo
Commento
della
Divina
Commedia.
Testo
d'uncontemporaneo
inedito
diDante
tato
dagli
accademia
della
crusca
maestro
Pietro
, ed.A. Torri,
III, Pisa1829,p. 744:"Questo
Spagnuolo
feceli trattati
di logica,
e fecelibriinfilosofa
i qualitrattati
e inteologia;
di logicadivise
in dodicilibricciuoli;
e questo quelloche'ltestodice.Avvegnach
e la chiosa
l'Autore
abbianotrattata
la vitae nascimento
ad il finedi SanDomenico,
nientemeno
pienamente
brievemente
qui ritesseremo
quellochela chioseleggedi lui."

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

29

in whichBonaventurada Bagnoregiointroducesthe twelvepersonsmentionedin the canto to Beatriceand Dante.24Included among the figures
is Peter of Spain. However, none of these figureswear the pontificate
"tiara" by which di Paolo identifiespopes in all of his other illuminafourof the twelvewear the religiousrobes which Di
tions.Nevertheless,
Franciscansand Dominicans. The centralfigureis
Paolo uses to identify
of course St. Thomas Aquinas; the other two religiousfigurescan be
identified
as the Franciscans,Illuminatoda Rieti and Augustine,but who
is the fourthfigurein religiousattire?He must be Pietro Ispano, who
most likelyshould be identifiedas the religiousfigurecarryinga closed
book in his hands, and seated beside St. Thomas.
and illustrators
of the DivinaCommedia
,
Amongthe earlycommentators
we have foundnumeroustestimonies
which supportthe identification
of
Peterof Spain as a memberof the Order of Preachers,while none provide evidenceto supportan identification
as Pope John XXI. Thus, an
unbiased analysisof this traditionleads us to believe that in fact Peter
of Spain was a memberof the Order of Preachers.As we shall see, the
agreementof this traditionwith the otherswhich have focused on the
figureof Peter of Spain is an argumentin favorof its credibility.
Praedicatorum
2. De Ordine
The identification
of Peterof Spain, authorof the Tractatus
, withPope
XXI
a
matter
of
the
Order
of
is
also
closed
for
historians
Preachers
John
or Spanish writers.As evidenceit sufficesto point out that T. Kaeppelli
did not include Peter of Spain in his Scriptores
OrdinisPraedicatorum
Medii
Aevi
hasta160O26
,25and V. Muoz Delgado in his LogicaHispano-portuguesa
accepts that Peter of Spain is identicalwith Pope John XXI. However,
a large numberof testimoniesover the centuriessupportthe membership of Peter of Spain to the Dominican Order.
Beforeexaminingthisevidence,it is worthwhileto investigatethe reasons that have led scholarsof the Order of Preachersand the Spanish
writersto refusesuch a strongtradition.The reasons are as follows:
" ratherthan
to Peterof Spain as "magister
"jrater"'
i) therepeatedreference
24JohnPope-Hennessy,
Divine
di
Paradiso.
Theilluminations
toDante's
byGiovanni
Comedy
diPaolo
Il Paradiso
miniato
da Giovanni
Paolo
diDante
,
italiana,
, London1993,p. Ill (trad,
Milano1993).
25Vol.III, Roma1980.
26Salamanca
1972,pp.50-2.

19:20:08 PM

30

ANGELD'ORS

ii) the absence of referencesto Peter of Spain in the earliestchroniclesof

ofplacingPeterof
the Order of Preachers;iii) the chronologicaldifficulty
convent
of
and
the
misidentification
at
the
Dominican
Estella;
iv)
Spain
withotherprominentmembersof the Order
of the authorof the Tractatus
of Preachers.The value of these fourreasons will be furtherexamined.
"
"
, ergononfiater
a) Magister
The repeated referenceto Peter of Spain as "magister"
ratherthan
of
the
Order
Preachers
has
been
considcustom
of
the
"fiater"against
ered the major reason fordoubtinghis membershipto the Order. QutifEchard,27and, later,De Rijk28have grantedthis argumentconsiderable
weight.In my opinion,however,the argumentdoes not have the weight
that theygive it.
First,thereis at least one referenceto Peter of Spain as "fiater"anecdotal thoughit may be (the Tractatus
manuscript,Erfurt,
Amplon.F. 263,
Other members of the Order of Preacherswere
fourteenthcentury).29
treated similarly.In the catalogue of books belongingto Fr. Proynus,
"
PetriYspani
thereis a referencenot only to "magisti
(n 45), but also to
"
"
"
and
Monete
Alberti
and
28
(n
33)30In fourof
(n
46)
"magistri
magisti
the twelvemanuscriptsof the Summaby Lambertd'Auxerre(Lambertde
"
," and is nevercalled "fiater"(to be consistent
Lagny),he is called magister
withthe treatmentof Peter of Spain, we would have to rejectthe membershipof Lambert d'Auxerreto the Order of Preachers,as well).31
Second, as evidenced in the record of the General Chapters of the
" or
debate over the use of the titles"magister
Order of Preachers,32
"fiater"
ordered to substitutethe
was heated, since memberswere consistently
title"magister"
with "fiater"At the General Chapter of 1256 in Paris, it
etnonmagisnominibus
nostri
lectores
was decided that"Fratres
vocentur,
propriis
et nonaliis
trinecdoctores.
.
nostri
vocentur
[. .J Quodfiatres
fiatrespredicatores,
nominibus"Subsequent Chapters confirmthis decision; in 1321 at the
General Chapter in Florence,the recommendationwas made yet again:
27Scriptores
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
I, p. 485.
28L.M. de Rijk,"Introduction,"
p. XIX.
29"Istesuntsumule
P.H.quepossunt
diciflosortus
libriAristotilis"
fratris
(29v),quoted
in L.M.de Rijk,"Introduction,"
XI.
p.
30F. Pelster
ausdenReiten
vonSantaCaterina
zuPisa,eine
Bchersammlung
S.J.,DieBibliothek
vonAquin
vol.III, 1925,p. 257.
deshl.Thomas
, in:XeniaThomistica,
31Paris,BnL 13966;Praga,Univ.Bibl.893; Kynzvart,
Bibl.Cast.,lat.20 H 27;
Cod.210.SeeLambertd'Auxerre,
Theol.School.,
Mass.,Bibl.Episcopal
Logica
Cambridge
Lamberti
Firenze1971.
), ed. F. Alessio,
(Summa
32B.M.Reichert,
Praedicatorum
Generalium
Ordinis
ActaCapitulorum
, Vol. I, t. III, Roma
1898,pp.69 and81.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

31

est:"Nolite
unumestenimmagisdictum
vocari'rabbi,'
predicatoribus
Quiaprimis
ne frater
omne
autemvosfratres
inhibemus
districte
tervester,
estis,"
aliquisnostri
ab aliofratre
exnomine
intheologia
existens,
ordinis,
magister
quandocumque
proprio
dicendo"magister
nomine
obmisso
"fratris,"
"magister,"
prenominetur
designatur,
vanaestet seculaet sicde aliis,que nominado
Petrus"
aut"magister
Iohannes,"
dicendo
nomina
suainterris
rium
vocantum
fratres,
suis;sedsemper
prenominentur
aliinominari.
fratres
aut"frater
sicutconsueverunt
"frater
Petrus"
Iohannes,"
The insistanceof this recommendationseems to indicate that the title
"
"
magistermust still have been in currentuse among membersof the
Order.
However,thereis yet a thirdreason to doubt the forceof this argument,a reasonwhich,in my opinion,can probablyexplainthe consistent
referenceto Peterof Spain as "magister"
despitethe repeatedrecommenthat have argued that the tide
Those
dationsof the General Chapters.
" is a clear
"
sign thatPeterof Spain did not belong to the Order
magister
of Preachershave neglectedthe special ambiguitywithwhich the DomiDue to the decidedlyintellectual
nican Order treatedthe title"magister"
of
the Order Preachersborrowedtitlesfromacanatureof itsspirituality,
Ordinis""Magister
demic circlesto designatetheirown positions:"Magister
was not consideredexclu"Rector
scholarum"
The title"magister"
studentium"
sivelyan academic tide, but also came to indicate the occupation of a
positionwithinthe Order. The conflictbetween these two meaningsis
as a purelyacademic
possiblythe sourceof the renunciationof "magister"
title.It is not possiblethat Peter of Spain could be identifiedas one of
the General Masters of the Order, but mightnot he have held some
otherpositionwhichwould gain him the title"magister"?
"
"
omnium
auctorum
, sed causa compilativa
aequalium
b) Silentium
The second argumentwhichis raised to refutePeter of Spain's mem33
bershipto the Order of Preachersis that Grard de Frachet (+1271),
34
tiennede Salagnac (+1291), and BernardGuy (+1331)35do not menAmbrosio
tion the authorof the Tractatus.
Accordingto Qutif-Echard,36
Thegio (+1529)37was the firstto considerPeter of Spain as a member
33Fratris
ordinis
Praedicatorum
necnon
cronica
ab
deFracheto
Fratrum
Ordinis
Gerardi
O.P.,Vitae
Fratrum
Ordinis
annoMCCIIIusque
ad MCCUV
' ed. B.M. Reichert
O.P., Monumenta
vol.unicum,
Louvain1896.
Praedicatorum
Histrica,
34De quatuor
in quibus
DeusPraedicatorum
Ordinem
, ed. Th. KaeppeliO.P.,
insignivit
vol.XXII,Roma1949.
Monumenta
Fratrum
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
Histrica,
35Libellus
Dominici
Histrica
Sancii
Patris
nostri
deMagistris
Monumenta
Ordinis
,
Praedicatorum}
Praedicatorum
Histrica
fase.II, Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
XVI,Roma1935.
36Scriptores
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
I, p. 485.
37Monumenta
thiswork.
I havenothadtheopportunity
toconsult
Praedicatorum.
Ordinis

19:20:08 PM

32

ANGELD'ORS

of the Order of Preachers,and this sixteenthcenturydeclarationcomes

ratherlate. Qutif-Echarddemand earliertestimonies.
exist,and surprisingly,
Indubitably,a greatnumberof such testimonies
Qutif-Echardwere familiarwith some of them: they knew the Catalogues of Pignon38and of Luis de Valladolid;39theyknew the testimony
relativeto the table of the Conventof Saint Catalina at Pisa;40theyknew
the Sevillian manuscriptof Bartolom'scommentaryon the Tractatus
;41
and, though later, they also knew the testimonyof Juan Lpez who
associated Peter of Spain with the Dominican conventof Estella.42De
Rijk has added considerablyto the numberof manuscriptsor commenin which Peter of Spain is considereda member
tarieson the Tractatus
It is possibleto add stillmore commentaries
of the Order of Preachers.43
38Catalogas
doctrina
, in:G. Meerseman
O.P.,Lamenti
Catalog,
quiclaruerunt
Pignon
fratrum
Ordinis
Fratrum
etUpsalensis
Accdant
Stamsensis
etChronica.
O.P.,Monumenta
catalog.
Scriptorum
Praedicatorum
Histrica
Alfonsi,
XVIII,Roma1936,VI,p. 31:"n94.Fr.Petrus
Hispanus,
traduntur
summulas
scripsit
logicae,
quaecommuniter
pueris."
39Tabula
Die Tabulae
von
Ordinis
Auctorum
Praedicatorum
, in H. Chr.Scheeben,
Ludwigs
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
derPredigerbrder
St.Jakob
inParis
Valladolid
imChor
von
, in:Archivm
de natione
Petrus
1 (1931),pp. 223-63(p. 255):"n 12.Frater
Castelle,
scripHispanus,
inquolibroviamfacilem
Tractatus
sitsummam
nuncupatur,
logicalem,
queutcommuniter
et composuit
ac tradidit.
Itemdictavit
ad dialecticam
invenit
hyseleganter
acquirendam
nostri."
officium
beatiDominici
toriam
et totum
patris
40"F. Petrus
et officium
historiam
dicitur
auctorSummularum
composuisse
Hispanus
I do notknowthe
Thesaurum
et librum
cuititulus
S. Dominici,
medicinae,
pauperum."
In
ofthistable,whoseexistence
I havenotbeenableto confirm.
current
whereabouts
Peter
ofSpainwith
theDominican
accordance
with
theknown
thistablepresents
testimonies,
a single
waswritten
robe.I do notknowwhether
theinscription
hand,butitsstruc" wasby
"dicitur
from
addedat a laterdate.Thefirst
tureleadsmeto think
thatthesection
withLuisde Valladolid's
Thesecaddition
is in keeping
testimony.
partofthisprobable
I knowwhich
attributes
ondpart,perhaps
addedbya third
hand,is theonlytestimony
oftheOrderofPreachers.
theThesaurum
to a member
pauperum
41Sevilla,
"Etin hocterminatur
lectioet
cod.7-7-7,2ra-165ra:
Biblioteca
Colombina,
PetriIspanide
totusliberBartholomey
magisti
supraprimam
partem
perconsequens
Theascription
ofPeterofSpaintothe
Amen"(165ra).
ordine
Deo gratias.
predicatorum.
referbutalsointhebodyofthetext,
OrderofPreachers
is madenotonlyintheexplit,
fuitmagister
Petrus
Ispanusde ordine
"compilativa
ringbothto the"causacompilativa':
Petri
a magistro
: "Incipiuntur
tractatus
oftheTractatus
(2ra),andtothetitle
predicatorum"
edicti"
de ordine
(2ra).
Ispano
predicatorum
42Tercera
dela Historia
dePredicadores
General
deSancto
, Valladolid
Domingo
y desuOrden
parte
1613,p. 297;seenote59.
43Tarragona,
Glosule
cod.23 andcod.27 (Guillelmus
Biblioteca
Arnaldi,
Provincial,
supra
216
de la Coronade Aragn,
Petri
Archivo
Tractatus
Barcelona,
Ripoll
magisti
Hispani);
de
Tractatus
Vaticana,
Reg.lat.3043(Philippus
(Petrus
Hispanus,
); Biblioteca
Apostolica
F. 263 (Petrus
Rationes
Tractatuum
Wissenschaftlichen
Bibliothek,
Ferrara,
); Erfurt,
Amplon.
Tractatus
Lat.Qu.87 (Petrus
Deutsche
Staatbibliothek,
Berlin,
);
Hispanus,
Tractatus);
Hispanus,
Salamantine
Paris,Bibl.Nat.,Lat.6433(Glose
); Paris,Bibi.Nat.,Nouv.
acq.lat.258 (Glose
Biblioteca
Cod.94-27(Glose
Salamantine
Salamantine
); Madrid,
); Toledo,Biblioteca
Capitular,
Petri
Tractatus
ms.1070(Guillelmus
Glosule
Nacional,
Arnaldi,
). See
Hispani
magisti
supra

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

33

writtenbefore,during,and afterthe sixteenth-century

and testimonies44
to the list of those which presentPeter of Spain as a member of the
Order of Preachers:Sancho Porta (+ 1429),45Diego Rodriguezde Almela
47
(1426-c. 1491),46Antoniusa Conceptione Senensis Lusitanus (+1584),
48
AmbrosioAltamura(1608SerafinoRazzi (+1613), AlfonsoFernndez,49
c. 1676),50etc.51
Summule
TextofPeter
L.M. de Rijk,OnTheGenuine
II, in: Vivarium,
Logicales
ofSpain's
7 (1969),
7 (1969),pp. 8-61;IV, in:Vivarium,
6 (1968),pp. 69-101;III, in:Vivarium,
8 (1970),pp. 10-55.
andV, in:Vivarium,
pp. 120-62;
44Salamanca,
Biblioteca
ms.1882(Glose
Biblioteca
Salamanca,
Universitaria,
Salamantine)]
ms.32 {Glose
Salamantine
Archivo
ms.2080;Segovia,
Universitaria,
), todaylost,
Capitular,
Estatales
intheDireccin
de Archivos
is a microfilm
ofthismanuscript
butthere
(Archivo
n 33465-3347
IR.
Historico
Nacional,
Madrid),
45Sanctorale
cum
Porta
ordinis
Santii
velSermones
deSanctis
venerabilis
, sacri
predicatorum,
gemina
utilitabula
seuindice
eorumdem
admodum
, Lugduni
1513,LVIIva:"Sed beatuspaternoster
in Cathoetperfectas
Habuitgrammaticam
scientias.
Dominicus
habetmagnas
magnam
declarator
in fratre
PetroHispano,
Aristotelis,
licon,magnam
logicam
qui fuitprimus
in SanctoThoma,et in
in Alberto
theologiam
Magno,magnam
magnam
philosophiam
aliis."
pluribus
46Valerio
deEspaa
Escritura
delashistorias
dela Sagrada
, Madrid1793,pp.
y deloshechos
de la Ordende losPredicadores,
fuegran
327-8(1sted.,Murcia1487):"Petrus
Hyspanus,
buenas
obrasquefizosobre
lostractados
sobre
la logica,
Doctor,
yotras
Philosophia."
y
copilo
47Bibliotheca
Antonio
Praedicatorum
authore
R.P.Magistro
Fratre
Ordinis
Fratrum
lusitano,
Senensi,
reetnomine
Petrus
alumno
eiusdem
Dominicanae
, Paris1585,p. 191:"Frater
familiae
Hispanus,
eruditionem
observantia
obvitam
virnonminori
talis,
probatissimam
quampropter
dignus
aliisfuitinsigniter
versatus.
doctrina
et in facultatibus
Numet in theologica
singulrem.
in
nonmodicaAristotelis
doctrinam
Hic dicitur
author
eo quodindustria
Summularum,
tamen
reduxit.
Plurium
virorum
etmethodum
facillimam
graeamqueoptimam
epitomen
PetriHispani
ad exponendum
conflati
suntcommentarli
viumetdoctrina
ipsius
insignium
inlogicalibus.
Claruit
circaannum1250.P.P.mon.ord."
opera
48Istoria
Predicacome
nelle
dottane
delsacro
ordine
huomini
illustri
cosnelle
degli
prelature
degli
come
dellesommette
tori
, Lucca1596,p. 310:"Fr.Pietro
logicali,
compositore
Hispano,
fufrate
e si leggeanchein altriautori,
f.Antonio
nellasua Biblioteca
scrive
Portoghese
e fiorintorno
e dottissimo
di approvatissimi
costumi
ancorateologo,
dell'ordine
nostro,
all'anno1250."
49Notitia
eiusdem
P.F.Alphonso
Fernandez
, authore
Piacentino,
familiae
praedicatoriae
scriptorum
iudeos
Catholica
contra
haer
ordinis
to Concertalo
ticos,
Praedicatoria,
, appended
gentiles,
proEclesia
in scholasticis,
tamdialecticis,
etagarenos
1618,p. 408:"Fr.Petrus
, Salamanca
Hispanus
eo quod
dicitur
author
ettheologicis
Summularum,
excultus,
disciplinis
quamphilosophicis,
in epitomem,
ac facillimam
methodum
Aristotelis
reduxerit,
doctrinam,
plurium
ingenise
ad exponendum
suntcommentarli
conflati
tamenvirorum
doctrina
ipsius
praestantium
millesimum
ducentesimum
Claruit
circaannum
PetriHispani
quinopera,in logicalibus.
quagesimum."
50Bibliothecae
deAltamura,
accuratis
abadmodm
R.P.M.F.
Ambrosio
collectionibus,
Dominicanae,
ac
hocseculari
incrementum
ad annum
1600productae,
ab Ordinis
constitutione
apparatu
usque
primo
Ecclesiae
ArchiedeRocaberti,
Valentia
Fra. Io.Thomam
adillustrissimum,
acreuerendissimum
prosecutio,
&
Generlem
Praedicatorum
Ordinis
necnon
totius
, RomaMDCLXXVII,typis
Magistrm
piscopum,
natione
antonoNicolaiAngeli
Tinassii,
Hispanus,
p. 13:"Anno1249.Petrus
sumptibus
nonminori
observantia
ob proPetrus
masiacommuniter
dignus
Hispanus,
nuncupatus
Fuitenimaequepiusac doctus
batissimam
eruditionem
vitam,
profundam.
quampropter

19:20:08 PM

34

ANGELD'ORS

Both Qutif-Echardand, later,De Rijk, have doubted the validityof

a number of these testimoniesbecause theyall contain,in one way or
another, "obvious" mistakes.In particular,thesesourcesattributeworks
to Peter of Spain, author of the Tractatus
, which are consideredto be
writtenby other authorsto whom the authorshipof the Tractatus
could
not be attributed.Moreover,De Rijk notes that in some of the earliest
, the ascriptionof Peterof Spain to the Order
manuscriptsof the Tractatus
of Preacherswas made in the explicit
, or by a later hand.
, not the incipit.
This factwas being interpreted
as a clear indicationthatit was the copyist who insertedthe identification.
The fourthpart of thissectionincludesan examinationof these"obvi- mistakeswhich are derivedfromthe conflationof Peter
ous" mistakes
of Spain withotherauthors.For now,we willfocuson the firstof Qutifomnium
Echard's reasons,the "silentium
auctorum
," and the addiaequalium
tional reason to which De Rijk refers.
In myopinion,Qutif-Echarsargumentrunsintonumerousdifficulties.
It is truethat the chroniclesby Grard de Frachet,tiennede Salagnac
and BernardGuy do not mentionthe Tractatus.
But why?One possibility
Tractatus
was
a memberof the Order
be
that
the
author
of
the
not
might
of Preachers,but is thisthe onlypossibleexplanationof theirsilence?In
orderto explainthissilencewe mustconsider,in my opinion,the followand the chronologyof theworks
ing areas: 1) theparticularcharacteristics
of Grard de Frachet,tiennede Salagnac and BernardGuy; 2) the lack
of establishedchronologicalinformation
on the lifeof Peter of Spain, on
the compositiondate of the Tractatus
, and, if he was indeed a member
of the Order of Preachers,on his entryinto the Order; and 3) the particularcharacteristics
of the Tractatus
as a "work" of Peter of Spain.
Hieexindustria
facilitate
inprimis
claritudine
celeberrimus.
summa
protyronibus
compilavit
communiter
meuman. 1621lectores
Summulas
Logicales,
quibususquead tyrocinium
Namin hismaxima
& clarerecluin nostra
utebantur
facilitate,
prudentdssime
Religione.
&
ditur
incompendio
universa
Aristoteles,
doctrina,
Porphyrius
quamtradiderant
logicalis
virpiusprofundissimam
humilitatem.
Gilbertus.
Summae
ac doctrinae
coniunxit
sapientiae,
sunteum
Plures
& patriam.
interpretati
Quareinoperetamfamoso
cognomen
suppressit,
in
viridoctissimi,
Antonius
& innumeri.
Claruit
circahuncannum.
Lusitanus,
Versorius,
inBreviario
diaa Scigliano
Bruno
Bibliotheca,
Taegius,
p. 1,Plodius,
p. 2,lib.I,Jacobus
I."
lctico,
preludio
51I will
PeterofSpainwith
whichassociate
laterexamine
thenumerous
testimonies
I havenotbeenabletolocatetheworks
ofAmbrosio
theDominican
convent
ofEstella.
PoandPedroSnchez
Brunus
da Scigliano,
Ciruelo,
Plodius,
Jacobus
JuanMiguel
Thegio,
also
or Qutif-Echard,
whichaccording
ofAltamura,
NicolsAntonio
to thetestimonies
consider
oftheOrderofPreachers.
See alsonote9.
PeterofSpainto be a member

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

35

was composed before 1260, probaGrard de Fraches VitaeFratrum

was
Peter
of
still
when
Spain
living.Unlike earlierchroniclesattribbly,
uted to Jordanusde Saxonia, Pedro Ferrando,Constantinusde Orvieto
and Humbertusde Romanis which focus almost exclusivelyon Saint
Dominic and his role as founderof the Order, the work of Grard de
Frachethighlights
the lives of numerousothermembers.For thisreason,
it could be consideredthe firsthistoryof the Order of Preachers,and
not just of its founderand founding.Nevertheless,Grard de Fraches
work retainsthe characterof the previoushistorieswhich were written
in close connectionwiththebeatification
of Saint Dominic. Their perspecand miracles
tive is essentiallyhagiographie;apostolicacts, martyrdoms,
constitute
the major and nearlyexclusivesubjectmatterof theirwritings.
The titleof the finalchapteris revealing:De egressu
de hocmundo
.
fratrum
Grardde Fraches workdoes not pay close attentionto the Dominican
but instead,providesa historyof deceased figures.Considering
"writers,"
thatPeterof Spain was stillliving,the lack of referenceto the Tractatus
is
In the finalpart of thispaper, we shall see thatthe undernot surprising.
standablesilence regardingthe Tractatus
cannot be considereda silence
withrespectto Peterof Spain, its author,since thereare numerousreferences to variousfiguresnamed "Peter of Spain" in de Fraches history.
in quitusDeus Predicatorum
Etiennede Salagnac's De quatuor
Ordiner
insignirtiseems to have been writtenaround 1277 (the preciseyear thatPetrus
, Pope JohnXXI, died). It is unknownwhetherPeter of Spain was
Juliani
stilllivingat this time. Etienne de Salagnac's work has a verydifferent
characterfromGrard de Fraches. The perspectiveis no longerhagiographie.The subjectof the workis not miraclesperformedby members
of the Order of Preachers,but is ratherthepositionstheyoccupied:popes,
cardinals,bishops,and mastersof the Universityof Paris. Also included,
forthe firsttimeso faras I am aware, is a catalogue of Dominican writers:Fratres
viriillustres
in scriptis
etdoctrinis.
Peterof Spain is mentionedneitheramong the mastersof Paris,nor among the Dominican writers.How
is this absence? In my opinion,Etienne de Salagnac's silence
significant
is insignificant
fortwo reasons.First,the catalogue focusesexclusivelyon
majortheologiansand canonists,and does not mentionliberalarts.Second,
the work does not claim to be exhaustiveand the catalogue ends with
an explicitdeclarationto thiseffect:
Fuerunt
aliifratres
summulas
etutiles,
tractaquamplures
quidiversa
opuscula,
gratas
tusmultplices,
sermones
morales,
superdiversos
distinctionesque
postillas
predicabiles
indiversis
libros
Biblie
nonnullos
dediversis
materiis
libellos
ubiqueterrarum
aliosque
ediderunt
ad utilitatem
nationibus
etlaudabiliter
etprovinciis
convenienter
legentium

19:20:08 PM

36

ANGELD'ORS
et numerum
nonessetfacilenecpossinomina
et profectum,
perstringere
quorum
bilemihi.52

be included among these "summulas

Might not Peter of Spain's Tractatus
In
"?
et
utiles
tractatus
,
multplices my opinion,while thispassage does
gratas
was a
not allow us to positivelyconclude thatthe authorof the Tractatus
member of the Order of Preachers,at least it impedes us frominterpretingtienne de Salagnac's silence as a denial of thisclaim.
Bernard Guy's workseems to have been writtenaround 1304, a date
by whichwe can say withalmostcompleteconfidencethatPeterof Spain
was deceased. This work constitutesa revisionand continuationof the
worksof Grard de Frachetand Etiennede Salagnac, and itselfwas subnew dates to the
ject to numerousrevisionsand expansions.It contributes
of
Etienne
de
work
(introducingnew popes,
many chapters
Salagnac's
cardinals,bishops,and mastersof the Universityof Paris),but the main
in ordine
addition is of entirelynew chapters(De tribus
prelatorum
gradibus
which
treat
the
General
of
the
Order
of
Masters
Preachers,
predkaUmim)
the ProvincialPriorsof the provinceof Provence(fromwhichtheprovince
of Toulouse separated),and the Conventual Priors of the province of
Toulouse. To do this,it relies on the materialprovided by Gerard de
not as the lives of the firstsaints
Frachet,but presentsthe information
of the Dominican Order, but ratheras the livesof the firstGeneral Masters and Priors.Bernard Guy also introducesa catalogue of Dominican
conventsand compilesthe recordsof the variousgeneralchaptersas well
as of the provincialchaptersof the provinceof Toulouse. It is difficult
to determinethe natureof BernardGuy's additionsto Etienne de Salagnac's work,particularlyin the chaptersconcerningthe Masters of Paris
and the Dominican writers(whichwere subjectto new additionsin the
subsequentmanuscripttradition).However it is clear that the Dominican "positions"ratherthan the Dominican "writers"were the main topic
of his historiographical
work. Indeed, there is no mentionof the Tractatusin his work (exceptin the indirectand implicitformof tienne de
Salagnac) but,like Gerard de Frachet'swork,numerous"Petersof Spain"
is this absence? In my opinion,it
appear in the work. How significant
cannot be consideredsignificant
for the very same reasons as the ones
discussedearlier.

52Stephanus
de Salaniaco
etBernardus
De quattuor
inquibus
DeusPraedicatorum
Guidonis,
Ordinem
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
HisOrdinis
/,ed.Th.Kaeppeli
O.P.,Monumenta
insignivi
vol.XXII,Roma1949,p. 36, 1-7.
trica,

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

37

of the Tractatus
as a "work"
Withregardto the particularcharacteristics
in
of
we
read
some
commentaries
on
the
Tractatus
Peter
early
by
Spain,
" of the
and
that
Peter
of
thatAristodeis the "causainventiva
work,
Spain
." Peter of Spain is thus not consideredthe
is merelyits "causacompilativa
true"author"of the Tractatus
, since the doctrinecontainedin the Tractatus
is not "his," but Aristotle's.Peter of Spain does not explain or comment
but limitshimselfto summarizingand makingaccessiblethe
on Aristotle,
obscure and difficult
originaldoctrineof Aristotle.The Records of the
General Chaptersof the Order show that withinthe Dominican Order
thereexisteda clear distinctionbetweenacts of compositionand acts of
Now, with the benefitof centuriesof hindsight,we can
compilation.53
. Yet, would this importance
appreciatethe significanceof the Tractatus
have been noticedin the years immediatelyfollowingits compilation?
Throughthe precedinganalyses,I have shownthat the Qutif-Echard
argumentcan in no way be consideredconclusive.As I have indicated,
these chroniclesof the Order of Preacherspay special attentionto the
lifeof Saint Dominic and his fellowfounders,to the lives and miraclesof
the firstmartyrsand saintsof the Order, to membersfillingthe highest
positionswithinthe Church (popes, cardinals,bishops),to the General
Mastersand provincialpriors,to the mastersof the Universityof Paris,
and to the most famoustheologiansand canonists.Numerous "Petersof
Spain" appear in thesechronicles,thusthe silenceregardingthe Tractatus
cannot be considereda silence with respectto its author at least until
the identityof the authorof the Tractatus
has been resolved.If Peter of
Spain did not take special part in the foundationof the Order, and if
he did not receiveecclesiasticalor academic honors,and if his workwas
not even consideredto be the "true" work of a Dominican author (we
was composed beforeor after
do not know,in addition,if the Tractatus
Peter of Spain's assumed entryinto the Order), then how surprisingis
the lack of mentionby Grard de Frachet, Etienne de Salagnac and
BernardGuy concerningthe Tractatus
? In my opinion,it is no surprise
at all. We also do not findmentionin theseworksof Lambertd'Auxerre's
work,whose membershipto the Order of Preachersis unquestioned.

53General
1254,inB.M.Reichert,
ActaCapitidorum
Generalium
ofBuda(Hungary)
Chapter
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
Histrica
Ordinis
, vol.I, Monumenta
III,Roma
factavelcompilata
a fratribus
nostris
1898,p. 69: "Nullascripta
aliquatenus
publicentur
velpriorprovincialis
nisiprimo
commiserit,
perfratres
quibusmagister
diligenter
peritos,
fuerit
examinata."

19:20:08 PM

38

ANGELD'ORS

Finally,Bernard Guy's work is nearlycontemporarywith the Stams

Catalogue54in which Peter of Spain is listed among the writersof the
Order of Preachers.Why thenshouldthismentionbe consideredless significantthan the silence of the otherchroniclers?
With regardto De Rijk's argument,it draws attentionto the factthat
the ascriptionof Peterof Spain to the Order of Preacherswas introduced
in the "explicit"and not in the "incipit
," or by a later hand. De Rijk is
probablycorrectin assumingthat these manuscriptsare copies of earlier
workswhich do not include such an ascription.But can one conclude
fromthisfactthatPeterof Spain did not belongto the Order of Preachers,
an unfoundederror?
and that his ascriptionto the Order constitutes
In my opinion,thereare more plausible explanationsfor thismatter.
There are a few possible reasons why the earliestmanuscriptsof the
Tractatus
do not include an ascriptionof Peter of Spain to the Order of
could predate his entryinto
Preachers.The compositionof the Tractatus
been treated
the Order,or moreprobably,the Tractatus
could have initially
as an internaldocumentdesignatedfor use withinthe centersof study
run by the Dominican Order. In such a case, the membershipof Peter
of Spain to the Order of Preacherswould be an impliedfactwhichwould
not requireexplanation.Only when the Tractatus
began to move beyond
centersdid it become
thisoriginalsphereand was used in otheruniversity
of
to
state
Peter
Spain's membershipto the Dominican
necessary explicidy
Order. In my opinion,this could serve as anotherplausible explanation
of the factmentionedby De Rijk. The ambiguitywhich emergesin this
respect,due both to the existenceof a writtentraditionwhich does not
uphold his inclusionin the Dominican Order, and to his late and miswithPope John XXI, could have contributedin cerguided identification
tain circumstances
to the generalacceptanceof the Tractatus
by members
of all the religiousorders,but does not appear to be a decisiveargument
againstthe membershipof Peter of Spain to the Order of Preachers.

54"Inistatabulanominantur
sivebacularioif.magistrorum
omniascripta
siveopuscula
sumPetrus
rumde ordine
Predicatorum
Alfonsi,
scripsit
[. . .] nr.91:Fr<ater>
Hyspanus,
before
in: TabulaScriptorum
mulaslogicales,"
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
Stamsensis),
(Catalogus
im13.und
desPredigerordens
inHeinrich
zurGelehrtengeschichte
1311,published
Denifle,
Quellen
II (1886),
14.Jahrhundert
fiirLiteratur-und
desMittelalters,
, in:Archiv
Kirchengeschichte
Accedunt
etChronica.
alsoinG. Meerseman
O.P.,Laurentii
Catalogi
Pignon
Catalogi
pp. 165-248;
Fratrum
Histrica
etUpsalensis
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
Stamsensis
O.P.,Monumenta
Scriptorum
XVIII,Roma1936,VI, p. 66.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

39

c) "Hic iacet reverenduspater magisterfr.PetrusHispanus, auctor

Summularum"
Fromthe beginningof the sixteenthcenturyto the middleof the eighttraditionlinked Peter of Spain to the conventof
eenth a long-standing
Saint Dominic of Estella (Navarre). In the sixteenthcentury,we are
informedof this traditionby the apparentlyindependenttestimoniesof
BaltasarSori (+1557)55and Juan de Marieta (+1611),56and, relyingupon
these,of FranciscoDiago (+1615).57In the seventeenthcenturywe have
dependentworksupon those testimoniesof A.S. Peregrino(+1656)58and
55Deviris
ed.J.M.De Garganta
Ordinis
Provinciae
illustribus
Praedicatorum,
Fbrega
Aragoniae
written
Stellae
, p. 69).Probably
O.P.,Valencia1950(Secunda
pars,CaputVI, De convento.
Summularum
Tractatus
Petrm
1516and1522:"Magistrum
between
Dialecticae,
Hispanum
inconventu
Stellae
edidisse
textus
scholis
observatur,
irrefragabilis
tanquam
quiinomnibus
enim
Monstratur
estac sepultus.
conditus
inDominorequiescens,
est;ubietiam,
liquidum
sui
floruisse
inprincipio
In hocconventu
eiususqueinpraesens.
illicsepultura
plurimum
habuisse
etinsignes
ordinem
est,et muitos
magistros."
perspicuum
56Historia
Padrefray
detodos
lossantos
deEspaa
eclesistica
, Compuesto
porel Reverendo
en
naturali
de la ciudadde Victoria,
de la Ordende Sto.Domingo,
Juande Marieta
aoMDXCVI(LibroXIII,De losDoctores
en Casade PedrodelValleimpresor,
Cuenca,
enTeologa,
fuedelosmsantiguos
Maestro
deEspaa
, p. 209v):"80.FrayPedroHispano,
doctsimo
de la Orden,
hombre
y no menossanto.Estees a quientodoslosDialcticos
Maestro
comoa otroPedroLombardo,
susSumulas,
hantenido
ycomentado
pormaestro,
de las Sumulas,
Escribi
todoslostextos
de lasSentencias.
y de disqueporserdiversos
Floreci
a cincolibros.
slose reducen
tintas
materias,
porlosaosde mily doscientos
de la Orden.Est
de la confirmacin
aoscumplidos
y cincuenta,
queannofuetreinta
enNavarra,
enunarcodelclausde Estella,
de SantoDomingo
sucuerpo
enel convento
a la Iglesiaen unsepulcro
trojuntoa la puerta
que entran
muyantiguo."
57Historia
dePredicadores
dela Orden
deAragn
dela Provincia
1599,13v-14r:
, Barcelona
muchos
tuvoen su origen
"Puesaquelconvento
maestros,
y
y muyinsignes
y principio
tan
IasSumulais
Dialcticas
el quecompuso
PedroHispano
entre
ellosel famosissimo
fray
entodaslasescuelas,
entodoel mundo,
conocidas
aunqueseanlasde Paris,
y tantenidas
nomenos
deliashanhechoy hazencomentarios
Bolonia,
y Salamanca,
queenexplicacin
texto
dndoles
el honor
Dotores,
irrefragable.
quesedevea qualquier
quecasiinnumerables
entre
losmasillustres
No es tanpocolo que tienen
que no sobreparaponerel author
de Estella,
dondetomoel habitoy
y famosos,
y parahazerbolarla famadelconvento
Balthasar
Sorioen el tratadillo
el maestro
estaenterrado,
comolo escrive
que comfray
dela orden
dePredicadores
dela Provincia
deAragon
illustres
, al qualhecitado
pusodelos Varones
en la provinmuchas
vezesporserelloassi,que de estesujetoapenastenemos
y citare
nosda enel dichotratadillo.
otranoticia
ciade Aragon
quela queestebuenValenciano
enla Biblioteca
de SenaPortugus
Antonio
escrive
de FrayPedroHispano,
Lo propio
fray
Pedro
delimpressor
dezirque fray
dela orden
dePredicadores
delosfiayles
, aunquefueyerro
florecio
cercadelaode mily dozientos
Porqueen esseao aun
y cinquenta.
Hispano
de su fundacin."
ni se tratava
de Estella,
el convento
no estavafundado
porventura
58Hispaniae
HisClarorum
Item
etNomencltor
acBibliothecis.
Bibliotheca
seudeAcademiis
Elogia
Mediarne
illustrarunt
omnes
, Jurispru, Philohgiae}
, quilatine
Philosophiae,
disciplinas
paniae
Scriptorum
Marnium
& haeredes
III distincta
Tomis
ac Theologiae,
, Francofurti,
dential,
ApudClaudium
clarorum
MDCVIII(Tomus
loan.Aubrii,
II, Elogia& nomencltor
Scriptorum,
Hispaniae

19:20:08 PM

40

ANGELD'ORS

59
Juan Lpez (1524-1632), as well as directaccounts of Francisco Bernardo de Oteiza60and Baltasarde Lezaun,61and the undecidedtestimony
of Nicols Antonio (+1684).62Eighteenthcenturytexts include that of
Dei propugnant,
veldisciplinas
omnes
illustrant,
X, II Glassis,
quivelEcclesiam
perclasses
familiae.
Ex Ant.Senensis
Dominicanae
Lusitani
& loan.Mariettae
Cantabri
Bibliotheca,
Eccles.Hisp.Historia,
Inter
S. Dominici
p. 243):"Petrus
antiqussimos
Hispanus.
religiosos
fuit& Petrus
inprimis,
subtilis
& Dialecticae,
erat,
Hispanus,
quituncingeniorum
captus
nonimperitus.
Hunesibimagistrm,
olimlogicae
studiosi
Summa
delegerunt,
docebaturque
eiusa barbarie
nonaliena.In Praedicatorum
Coenobio
Stellae
Navarrorum
iacet,
sepultus
ad annum
MCGL.De hocsivealioPortugalensi
loan.Mariana
Annalium
floruitque
legendus
Lib.XIV,cap.2."
Hisp.
59Tercera
dela Historia
General
deSaneio
dePredicadores
,y desuOrden
, Valladolid
parte
Domingo
recebida
de manoenmano,queel padreMaestro
Pedro
1613,p. 297:"Aytradicin
fray
hombre
tanconocido
en las escuelas
de losPhilo<so>phos,
fuehijodesteconHispano,
ventode santoDomingo
de Estella.
Lo queenfavor
destaopinion
se dize,es queal salir
de la Iglesiaparael claustro,
a la manoizquierda,
estaun arcodentro
de la redarri4
madoa la mismaIglesia,
y en el huecodelarcoestaunletrero
que dize: Hicfat(sic)
.'
reverendus
Petrus
El
Maestro
Baltasar
Sorio
historiador
pater
fiater Hispanus padre
fray
grave
en el libroque hizode losvarones
ilustres
de la Provincia
de Aragon,
y el padrefray
de SenaensuBiblioteca,
Antonio
dizenqueel Maestro
PedroHispano,
fuehijodeste
fray
convento."
60Extacto
delosdocumentos
reales
delconvento
de
pontificios,
y concesiones
privilegios
particulares
Santo
deEsteUa>
in 1688,Roma,Arch.Gen.O.P.,Lib.I, pp.205-17;
written
edited
Domingo
inJosGoiGaztambide,
Historia
delconvento
deSanto
deEstella
de Viana
, Principe
Domingo
22 (1961),pp. 11-63(pp.48-57):"Hayopinin
el M.R.P.
que fuehijode esteconvento
Maestro
fr.PedroHispano,
autorde lasSmulas"
(p. 206);"Enunarcoqueestinmediatoa la puerta
desdeel claustro
un
pordondese entraa la iglesia
hay
quedice:
'" epitafio
'Hiciacet
reverendus
Petrus
auetor
Summularum
(p.
216).
pater
magister
fr.
Hispanus,
61Memorias
histricas
dela ciudad
deEstellay
Gobierno
deNavarra,
1990(includes
Pamplona
a facsimile
ofthemanuscript
of1698),
Author
pp.83-4:"Aquestenterrado
aquelzelebre
de las Sumulas,
conozido
de FrayPedroHispano,
se
porel nombre
y en las memorias
llamael Maestro
su entierro
estal salirparael claustro
FrayPedroVitoria,
bajoen un
carnero
consu inscripzin";
in another
ofthiswork,
from1710,thetexthas
manuscript
"Enesteconvento
beenslightly
altered:
estenterrado
el maestro
PedroVitoria
bien
fray
conocido
de Hispano,que fueel autorde las Smulas"
porel sobrenombre
(I thank
D. JosGoiGaztambide
forinforming
meofthissecondmanuscript).
62Biblioteca
Tomus
secundus
ab anno
M usque
adMD, Ex
Vetus,
Hispana
complectens
scriptores
de RubeispropeS. Sylvestrum
Antonii
de CapiteinVia Vitis,
Roma1696,
Typographia
fols.50-54;2nded.,Bibliotheca
Vetus
aevo
siveHispani
Hispana
scriptores
quiab Octaviani
Augusti
MDfloruerunt
adannum
Christi
D. Nicolao
Antonio
Francisco
, auctore
I.C.,curante
Hispalensi
Perezio
Tomussecundus.
AbannoM ad MD, Matriti,
etheredes
Bayerio,
Apudviduam
D. Ioachimi
Ibarrae
. facs.
fols.73-78(repr
MDCCLXXXVIII,
regii
quondam
Typographi
ut diversus
ab hocauctorsit'Summularum,'
Visor,Madrid1996):"158.Accedit
quod
Dominicani
ordinis
suisodalem
Petrum
cuiuseae 'Summulae'
nomen
Scriptores
Hispanum,
communiter
tumrecentiores,
utpostea
faciunt,
praeseferunt,
aliiquecumeis,tumveteres
dicemus.
aliisquorum
duoan
veritatis,
intererit,
Absquetarnen
praeiudicio
relinquentes
unusPetrus
interim
Ioannem
fuerit,
examinare,
nos,praeter
cognomento
Hispanus
Papam,
aliumponimus.
a gente
scilicet,
privatum
[. . .] 159.Petrum
Hispanum
vulgonuneupatum.
Hic ex ordinefratrum
Praedicatorum
fuisse
ac in Parisiorum
dicitur,
gymnasio
professorpublicus.
Atvolensis domesticis
sodalibus
dialecticam
artem
introfacilius
insinuare,

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

41

Jos de Sarabia y Lezana,63based on Juan Lpez, the criticaltext by

64
Qutif(1618-1698)-Echard(1644-1724), and the opposingresponsesby
verbo
ductionem
logicamexcogitavit,
diminuenteque
magnam
quandamad Aristotelis
fausto
statim
ususvulgarem
fecit.
veluti
'Summularum'
omine,
Quamquidem,
conceptam
illudaliaqueperEuropam
dictaverunt.
feregymnasium
sunt,auditoribusque
amplexata
dialecticae
Utinam
verosuccessores,
artis,
atquein eademscholaParisiensi
professores
aliipostaliosquasicontendentes
bonum
Petri
nonvacuassent,
consilium
imprudenterque
viaedemonstrato,
introductione
evertissent!
Ecce enim,probreviuscula
compendioque
iuxtamodum
scholaribus
moxvolumina
morigeri,
interpretes
parum
unusquisque
ingentia
iterimmensis
sectae
doctrinae,
suae,sivemagistrorum
planum
atqueapertum
quaestionum
molibus
substituerunt.
noviter
obstruentes
[. . .] 162.Haecfereomniasumexcogitatarum
utinomnihistoria
etdisciplinarum
matim
exPetri
CimeliDarocensis,
genere
excerpsimus
commentario.
de omnibus
harum
fuitcuriosus,
ad easdem'Summulas'
Adi,si vis,lector,
inbibliothecarum
etexemplaribus
Ludovicum
'Summularum'
enarratoribus
asservatis,
angulis
IoannisuoXXI,Papaeadscribit.
a S. Carolototies
dumhocopus'Summularum'
dictum,
inventorem
Dominicanum
sodalem
HunePetrum
'Summularum'
fuisse,
Hispanum
passiva
esthuiussacraefamiliae
quamlegereestapudeosomnes,
qui de Scriptoribus
persuasio,
sunt[Antonius
Ambrosius
Dominicanis
a saeculo& ultracommentati
Senensis,
Thegius,
Fernandez,
Razius].Nec dicasdomihancnatampraesumtionem,
Alphonsus
Seraphinus
natiseademseditsententia
nam& exteris
antehosdomsticos
testes
[Lucius
quibusdam
de Almela];
Marieta
DidacusRodriguez
& Ioannes
Dominicanus
Marinaeus
Siculus,
quicincoenobio
servari
huiuscadaver
S. Dominici
efficacioris
quamadiunxit
argumenti,
nempe
urbis.
& involumine
Stellae
Navarrae
ms.bibliothecae
Necnon
Ecclesiae,
regni
Hispalensis
Bartholomaei
cumcommento
est,haeclegitur
operistotius
inscriptum
quod'Summulae'
liber
etperconsequens
totus
Bartholomaei
conclusio:
'Etinhocterminatur
lectio,
primam
partem
super
.'"
deordine
Praedicatorum
Petri
magisti
Hispani
63Josde SarabiayLezana,Annales
deSto.Domingo
dela Sagrada
, TomoSegundo,
Religion
Madrid1709,p. 139(literally
JuanLopez'swords).
repeats
64Smptores
Praedicatorum
Ordinis
, TomusI, Paris1719,pp.485-6:"Petrus
Hispanus,
operis
& apudLogicosCelebris,
vel 'Summulae'
illiusadeodecantati
dicitur,
quod'Dialctica'
sculoXIII floruisse
Praedicatorum
auctor,
vulgoaiunt,ordinis
quem& mediocirciter
a Lusitano
Ambrosii
fuisse
asseritur
ex fidenostri
ordinis);
Tagii(I P. Monumentorum
secutiPius(P. II, lib.I, col.34),Fernndez,
Altamura
Lusitanum
(ad 1249in
deinceps
Bib.etinApp.)& aliinostris,
velut
indubium
nullum
tamen
accensent
scriptoribus,
antiquius
documentum
scribebat
Duplicem
proferentes.
ego,
quamseculiXVI,cuiusinitio
Tagius,
insuoscriptotestem:
estF. Laurentius
centum
annisvetustiorem,
produco
primus
Pignon,
Sumrumnostrorum
Alphonsi
catalogo,
qui n. 91 sichabet:'F. Petrus
Hispanus
scripsit
a Valleoleti
in
mulaslogicae,
traduntur
alterestF. Ludovicus
pueris';
quaecommuniter
suaTabulaauctorum
n. 14sicscribens:
'Frater
Petrus
Castelde natione
ordinis,
Hispanus
in quo libro
tractatus
lae scripsit
Summam
nuncupatur,
logicalem,
quae ut communiter
viamfacilem
invenit
ac tradidit.
et composuit
Itemdictavit
ad dialecticam
acquirendam
B. Dominici
nostri.'
ad hocpostehistoriam
et totum
officium
patris
Quantum
eleganter
nam& historia
& officium
B. Dominici
certonon
manifeste
estValleoletanus,
delusus
rius,
suntPetriHispani,
at F. Constantini
Urbevetani
At saltemex histestimoniis
episcopl.
circa1400Petrum
aucParisiensi
inferre
licetin gymnasio
nostro
Sanjacobeo
Hispanum
existimatum.
Et uthocobiter
torem
dicamValleoletanum
'Summularum'
vulgonostrum
inregioPissiacensium
monasSororum
nostrarum
citatum
videtur,
quiad tabellam
excepisse
in qua Petrus
anteannoscirciter
scilicet
in peristylio,
centum,
terio,
Hispanus
depictam
investeordinis
'F. Petrus
auctorSumhancinscriptionem
exhibetur,
apposuit:
Hispanus
cui
etofficium
S. Dominici,
etlibrum
mularum
dicitur
historiam
medicinae,
composuisse
hominis
estsaneimperiti,
duosautedam
Thesaurum
titulus,
pauperum.'
Quae inscriptio

19:20:08 PM

42

ANGELD'ORS

Toms Madalena65and Pascual de Larrainzar(1716-1797).66

Undoubtedly,
whichmay be added to thislist.
thereexistyet undiscoveredtestimonies
The decisiveargumentwhich supportsthistraditionis the existenceof a
in unumconflantis.
Petrum
tresauctores
diversos
Sed hocinterim
omisso.
[. . .] Aliunde
nostrum
nonfuisse
videntur.
silentium
omnium
auctorum
Primo,
Hispanum
pluraevincere
& aliorum,
de Salanhaco,
Bernardi
Gerardi
de Fracheto
Guidonis,
Stephani
aequalium,
& agnominis
nullieorum
hocopusascribunt,
huiusnominis
laudent,
quicumplures
quod
tamen
sateratcelebre
uteiusnonobliviscerentur.
F. Petri
a B. Dominico
in
Sicduopriores
anno1217ad propagandum
ordinem
missi
miminerunt,
Hispaniam
quemaliiMatritensem,
aliiMadinum
certoHispanum,
in 'VitisFratrum'
F. Petrus
habentur
nuncupant;
plures:
inmulFerrandi
circa1250mortuus,
Zamorae,
(idestlector)
qui(lib.5, c. 3,12)'doctor
tisHispaniae
et vitamS. Dominici,
locisfuisse,
nonveroofficium
dicitur;
(lib.
scripsisse
in Tudensi
eodem5, c. 9, 10)F. Petrus
Ecclesiasepultus
& miraculis
Gonsalvi,
clarus,
seu
Lusitanus,
(lib.eodem5, c. 3, 7)F. Petrus
nuncupant;
quemvulgoTelmum
physicus
medicus
Scalabidefunctus;
Sendre
Catalanus
ferventis(lib.4, 19)F. Petrus
peritissimus,
simus
in lib.de Apibus
miraculis
F. ThomaeCantimpratani
illustris;
(Lib.2,
praedicator,
c. 1,11),F. Petrus
inHispania
nulliopus'Summularum'
miraculis
clarus.
Horum
tribuitur,
& siquidem
aliusfuit,
cureum,ut& istosnonlaudant?
Hic necLeander
nec
Albertus,
Ferdinandus
necMalvenda,
huiusauctoris
sculoprimo
ordinis
meminerunt.
Scio
Castillus,
F.Joannem
inconventu
Stellensi,
Navarrae,
regni
Lopez(Hist.Gen.P. III,p. 297)narrare
traditione
auctorem
dicticonventus
'Summularum/
antiquateneriPetrum
Hispanum,
Stellensis
alumnum
ex ea quaeibidem
inperistylio
inarcusconcavifuisse,
idqueprobari
tatelegitur
'Hic facit(forte
Petrus
iacet)reverendus
inscriptione:
legendum
paterFrater
Sedutaliaomittam
noninter
aliaconventum
Stellensem
Hispanus.'
quaeobiicipossent,
nisianno1260erectum,
habuisse
Non
concameratum.
nequeverotamcitoperistylium
dubitatur
in illaprovincia
floruerint
Fratres
sedquaeritur
PetriHispani
dicti,
quinplures
vetus
claredicatur
non
auctor
documentum,
Summularum,
quoquisillorum
quodquidem
fert
relata.[. . .] Alterum
meoquidem
iudicio
nobis
inscriptio
argumentum
magisurgens
in nullocodiceseuMS. seuimpresso
scilicet
titulo
Petrum
'Fratris'
adversatur,
Hispanum
autordinis
Praedicatorum
Id autem
Petrum
ornari,
dici,sedubiquemagistrm
Hispanum.
caverunt
nostri
semper
(deillisloquorquisculoXIII ad seculiXIV medium
claruerunt)
ut saltemtitulum
Fratris
suo nomini
necputoquemquam
ea aetateinvepraefigerent,
niendum
undeilleloquendi
modus
Petrus
celebrem
quiomiserit;
'magister
Hispanus,'
potius
ac magistrm
artium
universitatis
Parisiensis
indicat,
philosophiae
professorem
quamvirum
votisastrictum.
Antonim
referre
religionis
[. . .] Moneosolum
Jo.Marieta
quasiexnostro
'Summularum':
(lib.21,Hist.Eccl.,c. 57),sicinvol.MS. Bibl.Hispal.Eccl.legiad finem
'Et in hocterminatur
etperconsequens
liberBartholomaei
totus
lectio,
superI P. magistiPetriHispani
Praedicatorum.'
sed
de ordine
mihinonoccurrunt,
QuaeapudMarietam
etsiitasit,superest
an codexantiquus,
an illud'de ordine
Praedicatorum'
examinandum,
scriptum
primamanu?."
65Manual
delosblasones
delosdominicos
dela religin
msgloriosos
delosPredicadores
, informe
,
"Ni megovierno
en todoporlo que dicennuestros
autores
Zaragoza1746,pp. 159-61:
comode la Biblioteca,
NatalAlexandro
tesmodernos,
y otros;
porquehallomaisfuertes
timonios
lo contrario
de lo que defienden
en susescritos.
que persuaden
Pongoel ejemFr.PedroHispanoa quienlosmasautores
tienen
ploenel antiguo
Quieren
pornuestro.
losde la Biblioteca
el monumento
que sea estrao;
porqueno vieron
ya
quepropongo,
losmascrticos
leshuviera
a confessarlo
comohijode nuestra
(Advertencia
obligado
religin"
a todos
losreligiosos
delOrden
dePredicadores)
tomel nombre
dirigjida
[. . .] "PedroHispano,
de la nacin,
de
en el finde el siglo13;y en unvolumen
y floreci,
segnlosautores,
la Iglesiade Sevilla,
manuscrito
se lee al fin:'/hocterminatur
lectio
, etperconsey antiguo,
1 p. Magisti
totus
liber
Bartholomaei
.' LosnuesPetri
Praedicatorum
, super
, deOrdine
quens
Hispani

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

43

tombin the conventof Saint Dominic at Estella whichbears the inscription:"Hie iacetreverendas
Summularum
, auctor
fi. Petrus
patermagister
Hispanas
The inscriptioncould not be more explicit,and some writersproclaim
trossontancrticos
en estepunto,
serautorde lasSumulas
, y Dialctica,
quele niegan
y
tomando
masprolixo,
las armasque nosofrecen
contra
ellosmisporessopideexamen
de Fr.PedroCrocart
de Bruselas,
deJuanMayor,
mos,porquehacenmencin
discpulo
de losNominales,
ennuesyde la Escuela
quiende edadde 35 a 40 aostomel habito
trareligion,
a la doctrina
de SantoThoms.Escrivi:
Summulanum
y fuemuyadherente
Artis
utilis
admodum
textm
Petri
Praedicatorum
Diakcticae,
, Ordinis
,
inerpretatio
super
Magisti
Hispani
Parisiis
1508.Cuydde la impression
su discpulo
Fr.MiguelSalmantino,
y diceen el
item
iEdidisti
saneinterpretation
anno
inSummulas
Petri
etc
.' Ya
prologo:
superimi
argutas
Hispani,
tenemos
de masde 200aosla noticia
de atribuirse
lasSumulas
a nuestro
PedroHispano.
Fr.Nicolas
de Troyaescrivi:
InDialecticam
Petri
, por1390;Fr.Felipede Ferrara,
Hispani
Dialecticam
Petri
Losmismos
crticos
mencionam
unasSumupor1310,escrivi:
Super
Hispani.
lasantiguas,
se conservan
enFlorencia,
enel Convento
de SantaMarade la Novella,
que
dondese lee: 4Expliciunt
Summulae
clarissimi
Doctoris
Dominia
deFlandria
, Ordinis
Magisti
Petrm
Conventus
S. Mariae
Novellae
Praedicatorum,
Mimiati,
super
Hispanum,
quasegoFr.Michael
deFlorentia,
etfinivi
anno1478,die9 Decembris,
ineodem
El mismo
Convento.'
se
scripsi,
Quetif
otros
comode Pignon
No obstante
todoesto,Quetif
testimonios,
obgeta
y Valeoleti.
niega
a nuestra
el sermadrede PedroHispano,
en la pag.485,fundado
en que no
religion,
hastaTaegio,que escrivi
al principio
de el siglo16,y luego
haytestimonio
alguno,
aaden:Quaeritur
vetus
documentum.
Fundan
su dictamen
en que no se nombra
jamsen el
siendoentonces
PedroHispano,
usoponerel Fray,
, sinoel Maestro
siglo13Fray
y assi,
de la Universidad
de Pars.Perocontra
losargumentos,
concluye,
queeraMaestro
seglar
V. Maestro
Fr.Saneio
tengoyo unomuypositivo,
y es de nuestro
y muyautorizado,
de SanVicente
en el principio
de el siglo15,
Porta,
Ferrer,
contemporaneo
que floreci
de Nuestro
PadreSantoDomingo,
le aplicala gloriade loshijos,que ha
y enel Sermon
tenido
sabiosen la Religion,
fol.57,col.3, diceassi:
2, de letragotica,
y en el Sermon
'B. Dominions,
habuit
inFratre
Petro
inAlberto
magnam
Logicam
Hispano,
magnam
Philosophiam
'
inS. Thoma,
etaliis.Si Quetif
huviera
tenidoestefirme
testimagnam
Magno,
TTieologiam
no se huviera
dexadollevar
de losargumentos
a Pedro
monio,
negativos,
parano contar
entre
losnuestros.
Puedeaadirse
el Anonimo
de
Hispano
Hispalense,
hijodelConvento
SanPablode Sevilla,
de quienhacemencin
el mismo
sulibrocon
Quetif,
queimprimi
letragotica,
de impression
se usabaen Espaa,y en el cap.6, en el
que en el principio
dice:'Eodem
Fr.Petrus
etiam
creditor
auctor
sancSummularum
fin,
tempore
floruisse
Hispanus,
Logices,
tushomo,
etinartibus
dissertis
simus*
Cuentaalllosvarones
de nuestra
Orden,sin
insignes
notar
el ao,sinoel impressor:
Dudanloscrticos
la antigedad
de el codice
JuanVarela.
de Sevilla,
conla memoria
de esteAnonimo,
y se persuade
que lo hablacomode cosas,
enquenoseponiaduda.Hagasereflexin,
de queel Maestro
SaneioPorta,
segnQuetif,
ao 1385,yaeraLector
de Artes
en esteConvento
de Zaragoza,
y se educconla noticiade serFrayle
nuestro
PedroHispano,
conquesu testimonio
es antiguo,
y parecefunflorecido
PedroHispano
dado,haviendo
porel finde el sigloantecedente;
y mas,quando
contando
lossugetos
de la Ordennotorios,
cuenta
entre
ellosa Fr.Pedro
y mscelebres,
escrivir
tantos
dominicos
sobrela Dialctica
de PedroHispano,
Tambin,
Hispano.
persuade
No se
que eranuestro,
y poressohaviacodicesrepetidos,
quandono haviaimpression.
moviQuetif
de el sepulcro,
de nuestro
que tienePedroHispanoen el claustro
antiguo
Convento
de Estella,
a la tradicin
de aquellaciudadde Navarra,
perodebarendirle
dondetodossusvecinos
comogloria,
gritan,
que PedroHispanofuehijode aquelconconel dedosu sepulcro."
sealando
vento,
66Informe
elconvento
sobre
dominicano
deEstella
in 1758,Roma,Arch.Gen.O.P.,
, written
Lib.GGG.,fols.124-26.EditedinJosGoiGaztambide,
deSanto
Historia
delconvento

19:20:08 PM

44

ANGELD'ORS

that theyhave made personalvisitsto the site. Althoughit may be considered ratherlate, the account of Francisco Bernardo de Oteiza, who
writesin his functionas apostolic notary,gives this traditionparticular
strengthand credibility.
deEstella
de Viana22 (1961),pp. 11-63(pp.57-63):"Tambin
es fama
, Principe
Domingo
comnen dichaciudadde Estella,que estenterrado
en aquelconvento
frayPedro
ilustres
autorde las Summulas,
Sorioen sus Varones
hijosuyo.Portallo tienen
Hispano,
deAragn;
Antonio
SenaensuBiblioteca
; el ilustrsimo
fray
Monopoli
y DiagoensuHistoria
Y aunqueel maestro
en su obraScriptores
deAragn.
Ordinis
tomoI,
Praedicatorum
Quetif
fol.485,poneen dudaque PedroHispanofuesereligioso
diciendo
no halla
dominico,
enel sigloXVI,muchos
aosdespus
quienlo digahastaTagio,queescribi
quefloreci
PedroHispano(quienpocomso menosmuria principio
delsigloXIV) y que desea
testimonio
msantiguo,
en el maestro
SaneioPorta,
visto,
fray
ya lo tena,si lo hubiera
el mismo
maestro
eralector
delconvento
depredicadores
deZaragoza
Quetif,
quien,
segn
el sigloXIV el ao de 1385.Este,pues,en un tomode susSermones
de
, en el segundo
a nuestro
de letragtica,
sannuestro
fol.57,col.3, aplicndole
padreSantoDomingo
la gloriade loshijossabiosque en la religin
ha tenido,
tsimo
poneporuno
patriarca
Petro
infiatre
de ellosa fray
PedroHispano.
Diceas:4Habuit
(B.Dominicas)
magnam
logicam
inSancto
Thoma
etin
infratre
Alberto
theologiam
magnam
philosophiam
Magno,
Hispano,
magnam
el testimonio
msantiguo
aliis
.' Aqutenael maestro
Quetif
que deseaba,
pueses tan
dencercano
el maestro
SaneioPortaa fray
PedroHispano,
fray
que ambosflorecieron
trode un siglo,y si lo hubiera
no se hubiera
visto,
dejadollevarde argumentos
negadiciendo
dominico
a fray
PedroHispanohastaTagio.Aqulo
tivos,
que no encuentra
tienemuchos
aosantes.[. . .] A lo que el mismo
maestro
diceque el convento
Quetif
de Estella
el ao 1260y quenoes persuasible
de fray
Pedro
se fund
queparala muerte
de varios
instrumentos
ya claustro
Hispanotuviese
y honorfico
sepulcro,
digoqueconsta
deldepsito
de Estella,
delconvento
aosantesestaban
(f.125r)acabados
que muchos
los claustros
de PedroHispanoy otroscomol. PuesfrayPedro
y hechoel sepulcro
muri
estabaperfectamente
Hispano
porel aode 1300,y el claustro
pocomso menos
hermosas
aosantes,pueslo hizoy
acabadoconlas columnas
que hoytiene,muchos
en 10de noviembre
donuode Lara,y stemuri
en Lisboaen Portugal
perfeccion
Y el sepuldelconvento.
de 1290,comoconsta
delcuadernillo
citadoy libros
de becerro
PedroHispanoy el que esta l inmediato
en el
crode fray
en la paredde la sacrista
ladoqueda al claustro
conotrosa ellossemejantes
quehaya losdosladosde la puerta
hizoel reydonTeobaldo.Estemuri
en Trpanide Siciliaen 5
de la iglesia,
principal
de diciembre
contra
losde Tnez,comoconsta
de el aode 1270al volver
de la guerra
de dichocuadernillo
comollevodicho,lostrespaos
y libros
ya citados,
y dejhechos,
encuyaparedestel sepulcro
de PedroHispano,
delconvento
sacrista,
y enellosiglesia,
hechos
lossepulcros,
y aun
y otrojuntoa l. Con que ya parael ao de 1270estaban
mepersuado
que se celebr
provincial
que parael ao de 1264,en que en el captulo
en Salamanca,
fueadmitido
el convento
connmero
de religiosos
y consiguientemente
coniglesia,
encuyaparedestnlossepulcros.
sacrista,
Quetif
[. . .] Mireel padremaestro
habaen el
si parael ao de 1300pocomso menosque murifray
PedroHispano,
de Estellaclaustro
aosantes.[. . .] y no
convento
y muchos
y honorficos
sepulcros,
dichas
abrlosdosel aode 1765,
diciendo
enculde losdossepulcros
estaban
personas,
el
en que desdenioconocestainscripcin
[. . .] y en el primero
que apuntatambin
R. Petrus
huesos
como
ilustrsimo
'Hiciacet
Auetor
Summularum
,' encontr
Monopoli:
Hispanas
de unapersona
el maestro
tambin
contra
y ya muydeshechos.
[. . .] De aquse infiere
hecholosdossepulcros
de la pared
Quetif,
que,aunqueel reydonTeobaldono hubiera
de la sacrista,
se habanhechoantesde la muerte
de fray
PedroHispano;
porquesipara
el primero
en el convento,
que se sepult
que fuedonJuande Aylloz[...], habaya

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

45

which
due to a periodof neglectand a recentrestoration
Unfortunately,
turnedthe formerconventof Saint Dominic into a retirement
home, all
there
is
no
tracesof the tomb have disappeared.Currently,
way to verifythe existenceof the tomb or inscription.In addition,the styleof the
leads me to believe that it is not medieval. Still, thereis no
inscription
reason to doubt the veracityof the above-mentionedtestimonies.
Why, then,is theirvalidityquestioned?An examinationof the texts
which make up this traditionallow us to determinewith a high degree
of precisionthe causes of the unfoundeddoubt of theirvalue. Qutifand
the traEchard were the first,in 1719, to raise doubts.They investigated
a
account
of
who
the
work
of
ditionthrough
gives partial
Juan Lpez,
"Hie [fadt]<iacet>reverendus
theinscription:
,"
Hispanas
fiaterPetrus
patermagister
de SantoDomingo
de
and portraysPeter of Spain as the "hijodesteconvento
"
Estella
." The frequencyof the name "PetrusHispanus and the dates of
the foundationof the Dominican conventof Estella (between 1258 and
could have been
1264) make it unlikelythat the author of the Tractatus
a son of the convent.For this reason,withoutquestioningthe existence
reaof the tomb,Qutifand Echard declared that therewas insufficient
Estella
and
a
the
convent
of
son
of
this"PetrusHispanus
son to identify
,"
thereburied,withthe authorof the Tractatus.
como
lo podaestarhechoparaquiense enterr
hechohonorfico
despus
mejor
sepulcro,
PedroHispano
el sepulcro
de fray
comohedicho,
fuefray
PedroHispano,
y mscuando,
a unmismo
Mireahorael maestro
se hicieron
Quetif
tiempo.
y el de donjunde Aylloz
antesque muriese
honorficos
si el convento
fray
y sepulcros
(f.125v)tenaya claustro
he halladosea fray
PedroHispano.[. . .] Es verdadque en ningn
papeldel depsito
ni dndeestsepultado;
PedroHispanohijode el convento
peroestono hacefuerza,
ni
consta
dndeestsepultado,
puesno habalibrode difuntos
religioso
puesde ningn
en dndeest
de ningn
de hijosdelconvento.
religioso
[. . .] Con que no constando
no es muchono constede frayPedroHispano;antesde steconstaporla
sepultado,
Pedro
lo quede ninguno.
de su sepulcro,
[. . .] Fue,pues,segnlo dicho,fray
inscripcin
auctorde las Summulas
, comolo pruebael maestro
fray
Hispano
hijode esteconvento,
Dominicano
Tomsde Madalenaen su Manual
, blasn11,fol.159y 160.Fue hombre
doctoy santo,segnel Annimo
Quetifen el cap. 6,
Hispalense,
que citael maestro
auctor
Summularum
dondedice:Eodem
creditor
, sanctus
logices
Hispanus,
fi. Petrus
tempore
floruisse
Auctorum
Ordiensu Tabula
Valleoletis
Ludovico
Tambin
homo
etinartibus
disertissima
fray
unasummade la lgica,
PedroHispanoescribi
nisinum.14,diceque el maestro
fray
la historia
uncamino
fcilparala dialctica,
enquehallyensea
y quedictycompuso
dice
lo
el
mismo
Santo
oficio
de
nuestro
fray
compuso
Quetif
Domingo
(aunque
y
padre
Lo que s es lo que el mismo
no s en qu debede fundarlo).
Constantino
Urbevetano,
un
de Pisahayen el claustro
de monjas
dominicas
dice,queenel realmonasterio
Quetif
conhbitodominico
PedroHispano
cuadro
de tablapintado
enellael maestro
y en
fray
historiam
etoffiSummularum
'Fr.Petrus
ellaestainscripcin:
, dicitur
, Auctor
composuisse
Hispanus
.' Y lo que no tieneduda,
Thesaurus
cuititulus:
cium
S. Dominia
medicinae,
, etlibrum
pauperum
dadotanespenole hubieran
PedroHispano,
fray
muyespecial
quea noserunhombre
cialy honorfico
sepulcro."

19:20:08 PM

46

ANGELD'ORS

ButJuan Lpez reliedon the worksof Baltasar Sori and Antoniode

Sena, neitherof which portraysPeter of Spain as a son of the convent
of Estella or mentionsthe inscription.Thus, since he does not seem to
have gone to Estella personally,Lpez must have used a thirdsource,
of this third
which I have not been able to identify.The identification
source mightperhaps add new informationto the examinationof this
problem. In any case, before Qutif and Echard used this argument,
Francisco Bernardo de Oteiza had already provided the entireinscription: "Hie iacetreverendas
Summularum
, auctor
,"
patermagister
fi. Petrus
Hispanus
which invalidatesthe Qutif-Echardargument.Later Pascual Larrainzar,
a native of Estella,informsus once again of the same completeinscription, althoughnow in replyto the argumentsof Qutif-Echard.
In 1930,H.D. Simonin,67
the latestdefenderof the "DominicanThesis,"
to
refute
the
attempted
argumentsof Qutif-Echardon the basis of the
testimonies
ofJuan Lpez, and of the Stams Catalogue68(whichattributes
the Summulae
to a memberof the Order of Preachersnamed Petrus
Alfonsi).
In view of this,he was forcedto considerPetrusHispanus
, author of the
Tractatus,to be a late-thirteenth
or early-fourteenth
centurywriter.
In 1972, L.M. De Rijk accepted the argumentsof Qutif-Echard,
paying no attentionto the "Estella tradition,"and rejectedit simplyon the
basis of the impossibilityof Simonin's conclusions.The association of
Peter of Spain withthe conventat Estella,the strongestbasis forwhich
lies in the existenceof the tomb,seems to have puzzled the chroniclers
of thistradition.They were not satisfiedwithtransmitting
the basic information of the existenceof the tomb, and instead attemptedto provide
an explanationforthis factwhich theydeveloped in variousways.Juan
de Marieta and A.S. Peregrinoare the only chroniclerswho limitthemselves to a transmission
of the basic information
of the existenceof the
tomb. BaltasarSori writesthatPeterof Spain wrotethe Summulae
at the
conventand is entombedthere.Diago writesthat he was ordained and
buried there.FollowingJuan Lpez, FranciscoBernardo de Oteiza just
as Jos de Sarabia y Lezana, Toms Madalena and Pascual de Larrainzar writethatin theirtimeit was a commonopinionthatPeterof Spain
was a son of the conventand was buried there.
The onlycommonand the mostreliableconclusionamong theselocalized testimoniesis the existenceof the tomb in which Peter of Spain,
" dePetrus
67Les"Summulae
d'Histoire
Doctrinale
etLittraire
, in:Archives
Logeales
Hispanus
du MoyenAge,5 (1930),pp. 267-78.
68See note54.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

47

authorof the Tractatus,is buried.Consideringwhat we now knowabout

the probable chronologyof Peter of Spain and of his Tractatus
, as well
as of the foundingdate of the conventat Estella,it does not seem possible thatPeterof Spain was a son of the convent,that he was ordained
there.
there,or that he wrotethe Tractatus
of Peter of Spain as a late thirteenth
With regardto the identification
centuryauthor,we now know that Peter of
centuryor earlyfourteenth
centuryand thatthe
Spain was a figureof the firsthalfof the thirteenth
Tractatus
was mostprobablywrittenbefore1250.69This is the exact date
assignedto Peterof Spain in the earlyDominican and Estella traditions.
BaltasarSori,Antoniusa ConceptioneSenensisLusitanus,SerafinoRazzi,
Juan de Marieta, A.S. Peregrino,Alfonso Fernndez, and Ambrosio
Altamuraall remarkthat Peter of Spain flourishedaround 1250.
It was FranciscoDiago who alteredthis date in order to resolvehis
confusionconcerningthe existenceof Peter of Spain's tomb in the convent at Estella. Because he consideredPeter of Spain as a son of the
conventat Estella,Diago concluded that: "fue yerrodel impressordezir
que frayPedro Hispano floreciocerca del ao de mil y dozientosy cinquenta, porque en esse ao aun no estava fundadoel conventode Estella,
ni se tratavapor venturade su fundacin."FollowingDiago's argumentation,at a time when Peter of Spain's membershiphad already been
placed in doubt,Toms Madalena, Pascual Larrainzar,and in this century,Simonin,used the erroneousdate to reduce the distancebetween
knownto themwhichconsider
Peterof Spain and the earliesttestimonies
him a memberof the Order. They used thiscloserproximityin orderto
of thesetestimonies.
Diago's ungrounded
argue in favorof the reliability
of
Peter
of
later
of
the
flourishing
Spain,
upheld by other
postponement
a
valid
the
associationof
be
considered
cannot
writers,
argumentagainst
Peterof Spain withthe Order of Preachers,since the earliestdocuments
whichuphold the membershipprovideus withthe correctdates.
But ifPeterof Spain was not a son of the conventat Estella,if he was
not ordainedthereand did not writethe Tractatus
there,what reason can
be offeredforhis burial at the convent?What is the natureof the relationshipof Peter of Spain to the conventat Estella? It is known that
69The Tractatus
ofbooksdonated
intothecatalogue
ofPeterofSpainalready
figures
which
datesfrom
at PisabyFr.Proynus,
1248:
ofSantaCatalina
totheconvent
probably
vonSantaCaterina
"n45: Tractatus
Petri
cales"(F. Pelster
S.J.,DieBibliothek
magisti
Yspani
loy
von
Thomistica
deshl.Thomas
ausdenReiten
zuPisa
, vol.III,
, eine
, in:Xenia
Aquin
Bchersammlung
the
andofitscommentaries
from
1925,249-81,
dating
p. 257).CopiesoftheTractatus
stillexist.
secondhalfofthethirteenth
century

19:20:08 PM

48

ANGELD'ORS

Navarre traditionally
kept close relationswith the provinceof Toulouse,
and that communicationbetweenthe two regionswas frequentthrough
the Santiago Road on which Estella constitutedan importantlink. It is
knownthatat the time,territories
whichare now partof France belonged
to the kingdomof Navarre,and that some Navarre nativeswere among
the firstfoundersof the Order of Preachers.It is likewiseknownthatin
the firstyears of the expansion of the Order in southernFrance, the
we know that
Bishop of Bordeaux was also fromNavarre. Furthermore,
the decisionto founda conventin the Navarresecityof Estella (although
it was integratedinto the provinceof Spain and laterbecame part of the
provinceof Aragn)was adopted at the General Chapter of Toulouse in
1258 in the region where the Tractatus
was most probably composed.
Might not Peter of Spain have been a Navarrese,nativeto Estella,and
livingin southernFrance, who enteredthe Order of Preachers,taught
, and helped to fosterthe foundationof the conlogic,wrotethe Tractatus
vent of Saint Dominic at Estella where he perhaps spent his last years
or wanted to be buried?
This hypothesisis perhapsratheradventurousin thatit makes a number of assumptions,but it remainsviable and receivespartialsupportin
manuscript2080 of the Universityof Salamanca, an anonymouscomfrom the fifteenth
mentaryon the Tractatus
century,which introduces
Peter of Spain as "de Stellaoriundas
Aristotiles
tradidisset
nobislogicam
in praedictis
et
libris
difficiliter
(lrb)Cumigitur
ideoquidambonushomo,de ordine
obscure,
magister
praedicatorum,
qui vocatur
Petrus
de Stellaoriundus,
videns
tradiderat
nobislogicam
Ispanus,
quodAristoteles
difficiliter
etobscure
seuconfuse,
Summam
volens
fecit
scolaribus,
aplaudere
quandam
faciliter
et
inquibusessettradita
Tractatus,
Introductiones,
[lva',quosdam
quasdam
de piano.Undeprotantovocatur
inpraedictis
libris
"Summa,"
quiaquodcontinet
sumatur
de faciliet de piano;et protantovocantur
nos
"Tractatus,"
quiatrahunt
ad artem
velquiasunttracti
etvocantur
ab illislibris;
dialecticam,
"Introductiones,"
nosin artemdialecticam.
Ex hocpatetcausaefficiens
huius
quia citointroducunt
Petrus
libri,
quoniam
Hispanus.
magister
This textis particularlyimportantbecause it confirmsthe Estella tradition,the most widelyknownamong the earlyhistoriansof the Order of
which
Preachers,at an earlierdate and froma separateliterarytradition,
is linked directlyto the Tractatus.
On the otherhand, this textprovides
us with a reliable,unproblematicexplanationof the nature of Peter of
Spain's associationwiththe conventof Saint Dominic,thatperhapscould
be consideredthe basis of the Estella tradition.This associationis rooted
in the cityof Estella itself,and not in its Dominican convent.In thisway,
problems concerningthe chronologyof the foundationof the convent

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

49

would be relevantonly in relationto the tomb of Peter of Spain, and

here it seems clear that there is no conflict.If on the assumptionthat
Peter of Spain is Pope John XXI we allow that Peter of Spain could
have died in 1277, what is the problemin supposingthat he is buried
in a conventwhich we know was built in 1264?
This analysisof the testimonieslinkingPeter of Spain to the convent
at Estella has explainedwithenough precisionthe originof the mistakes
thatcast doubt on the validityof the tradition.If we eliminatethesemistakes,thereis no reason to deny that Peter of Spain was somehowassociatedwiththe conventat Estella or thathis tomb was located in Estella.
d) "Item dictavitet composuiteleganterhystoriamet totumofficium
beati Dominici,patrisnostri"
Togetherwiththe "Estella tradition,"thereexistamong the historians
of the Order of Preachersotherliterarytraditionswhich associate Peter
of Spain withthe Dominican Order, and whichprovideadditionalinformationconcerninghis workand life.The Stams Catalogue70and, probably based on the Stams, the catalogues of Pignon71and Saint Ann,72
referto Peterof Spain, authorof the Tractatus,
." Lezaun73
as "Petrus
Alfonsi
calls him "Pedro Vitoria."As Pascual de Larrainzarindicatedin his additionsand correctionsto the 1710 versionof Lezaun's work,74
the identiof
fication Peterof Spain withPedro Vitoriaseems to be a clear mistake.
However,littleor nothingcan be concluded fromthe remainingtesti"
moniessince"Petrus
Alfonsiwas a verycommonname in Spain fromthe
twelfthto the fourteenth
century.Any attemptto use this name as a
for
the
identification
of Peter of Spain, or to explain his mistaken
guide
70See note54.
71See note38.
72P. AuerO.S.B.,Einneuaujgeindener
derDominikanerschriftsteller
his, Institutum
Katalog
FF.Praedicatorum
toricum
Dissertationes
fase.II, Paris
Romae,ad S. Sabinae,
historicae,
Petrus
Alfonsi
summulas
1933,p. 107:"[59]Frater
Hyspanus.
Scripsit
loycales."
73See note61.
74"Es verdad
estenterrado
en el carnario
que PedroHispanoautorde las Smulas
"
al claustro
queestal salirde la iglesia
y que en l estabala inscripcin
que deca: Hic
iacet
Petrus
auctor
Summularum"
est.Perose equivoca
el historiador
Hispanus
y hoytambin
en decirque el maestro
fueel que tuvoel sobrenombre
de Hispano
FrayPedroVitoria
muri
y fueel autorde las Smulas,
puesFrayPedroHispanoautorde las Smulas
por
losaosde 1300y el Maestro
vivamuchos
aosdespus,
FrayPedroVitoria
puesfirma
en unaescritura
delao 1375que se conserva
de dichoconvento
hoyen el archivo
y
firma
Maestro
en Lgica."(I thank
D. JosGoiGaztambide
as:FrayPedroVitoria
for
thistextto myattention.)
bringing

19:20:08 PM

50

ANGELD'ORS

in thesetextswithanotherfigureof thisname,seemsdoomed
identification
to failure.These testimoniesprovide more problemsthan information,
can help to clarifythem.
and only the introductionof new information
Many testimoniesdescribePeter of Spain as the authorof philosophical and theologicalworks,but since thereis no mentionof the tides of
to reach any conclusions.Only Luis de Vallathese works,it is difficult
dolid75and the Table of the conventof Saint Catalina at Pisa (whichis
they
providepreciseinformation:
probablybased on Valladolid's work)76
attributea Historiaand the Officeof Saint Dominic to Peter of Spain.
Both Qutif-Echardand De Rijk have rejectedthe validityof this testimony,and state that the author of this Historiaand the Officeof Saint
Dominic could not have been the authorof the Tractatus.
Qutif-Echard
attributethe Historiato Constantinusde Orvieto,and De Rijk attributes
the workto Pedro Ferrando.Consequently,it has been thoughtthatLuis
de Valladolid, writingin the early fifteenth
century,confusedPeter of
, withPedro Ferrando,authorof the Historia
Spain, authorof the Tractatus
of Saint Dominic, and thatthisconfusionwas the originof the erroneous
identification
of Peter of Spain as a memberof the Order of Preachers.
In myopinion,theproblemis considerablymorecomplex.Luis de Valthe Tractatus
ladoliddoes not attribute
to Pedro Ferrando,but ratherattributes a Historiaof Saint Dominic to Peterof Spain. There are at least four
toJordan
of Saint Dominic,todayattributed,
different
histories
respectively,
of Saxony,Pedro Ferrando,Constantinusde Orvieto,and Humbertusde
Romanis.77There is no reason to assume that the Historiaattributedto
Pedro Ferrandois the same workwhich Luis de Valladolid attributesto
Peterof Spain. It may have been any one of thesefour,or perhapseven
a fifthwork that is now lost. Only a bias againstthe testimonyof Luis
de Valladolid,thatis to say,the beliefthathe committeda mistakecaused
has led to the thoughtthatFerrando'swas the same Hisby homonymy,
toriaattributedto Peter of Spain. In addition,the historiesattributedto
Jordan of Saxony or to Humbertusde Romanis, General Mastersof the
Order of Preachers,were probablynot theirown work,but were commissionedby them. Peter of Spain could plausiblythen have been the
real author.An analogous situationcould hold withrespectto the Office
of Saint Dominic.
75See note39.
76See note40.
77Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Patris
nostri
Domini
Histrica
Sancii
, fase.II, Monumenta
Praedicatorum
Histrica
XVI,Roma1935.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

51

now attributed
to Pedro Ferrando
Still,evenifwe acceptthattheHistoria
attributes
to
Peter of Spain,
Luis
de
Valladolid
which
was the same text
cause to reject his testimony.There are
we stilldo not have sufficient
two reasons to considerValladolid's testimony.First,the attributionof
to Pedro Ferrando,the Spanish Dominican who died in 1259
thisHistoria
was
and
buried in Zamora, who is said to have enteredinto the Order
of Preachersas a child and who taughtin severalof the Order's centers
of study,is also problematic.Second, there do not seem to be concluthatthisPedro Ferrandocould have
sive reasonsto excludethe possibility
also been the authorof the Tractatus.
Luis de Valladolid's attributionof this Historiaof Saint Dominic to
Peter of Spain could signifyeitherthat Peter of Spain is identifiedas
Pedro Ferrando,or, contraryto our beliefs,thatits authorwas not Pedro
Ferrando,but Peter of Spain. The expansionof the Order of Preachers
in Spain began in 1217. Saint Dominic died in 1221.
and itsintroduction
to Pedro Ferrando,whichalso exists
The Legenda
SanciiDomini
, attributed
in an earlierCastilianversion,seems to have been writtenbetween 1235
and 1239, soon afterthe beatificationof Saint Dominic in 1234. If we
considerthe factthatPedro Ferrando,as the traditionstates,enteredthe
Order of Preachersas a child, and that Saint Dominic did not live in
Spain forany lengthof timeduringthe last fouryearsof his life,it seems
improbablefor Pedro Ferrando to have had direct contact with Saint
Dominic.
If, in addition,we considerthe fact that generallythis sort of work
did not originatefromthe personalinitiativeof the author,but as a comto explain why
missionfromthe General Master, it becomes difficult
whilemanyofDominic's
PedroFerrandoshouldreceivesuch an assignment
collaboratorswere stillalive. Is it not possiblethatthe authorof the Tractatusand the real authorof thisLegendaare one and the same? Peter of
Spain probablylived in southernFrance, in the regionwhere the Order
originated,and possiblyduringthe same yearswhen Dominic was active.
He could have have been personallyacquainted with Dominic or with
Dominic's closestcollaborators.Does thisbackgroundnot establishPeter
of Spain as a more suitablecandidate for the commissionedwork?Is it
not possiblethat Pedro Ferrando,to whom traditionattributesthe compositionof a Historiaof Saint Dominic, could simplyhave translatedthe
workinto Castilian?
As forthe authorshipof the Tractatus
, why should we rejectits attributionto Pedro Ferrando,who is knownto have taughtin various educational centersof the Dominican Order? Pedro Ferrando is buried in

19:20:08 PM

52

ANGELD'ORS

Zamora, not in Estella,and it seems unlikelythathe would be identified

with a "PetrusAlfonsi"For this reason, I do not believe that this Pedro
But for those who reject
Ferrando could be the author of the Tractatus.
what reasonsallow them
the validityof theseotherDominican traditions,
The allusionmade in the Tractatus
to the cities
to exclude thispossibility?
of Len, Astorgaand Zamora, in the example of the formof argumentationcalled Example, could be easilyexplainedby thishypothesis.Can
we be surethatthegeographicalallusionis not relatedto Pedro Ferrando's
residencein Zamora?
Finally,even allowingthat Luis de Valladolid confusedPeter of Spain
with Pedro Ferrando and attributedthe work of one man to the other,
thisdoes not necessitatethe rejectionof his testimony.
Many othertestimoniesbeforeLuis de Valladolid'sconsideredPeterof Spain to be a member of the Order of Preachers.The falsityof one part of a copulative
allows forthe inferenceof the falsityof the entirecopulative,but not the
falsityof the other part of the copulative.In my opinion, this is what
happened in the case of the Table of the Convent of Saint Catalina at
S. Dominici,
Pisa: "dicitur
historiam
et officium
et librum
medicinae
cui
composuisse
titulus
iThesaurum
the
to Peterof Spain of
Thepauperum,The attribution
saurum
, a recognizedwork of Pope John XXI, seems to be a
pauperum
clear mistake,although,consideringthe confusionwhich surroundsthe
majorityof worksnow attributedto John XXI, it would not be surprising if thismatteralso requiresa more thoroughfutureinvestigation.
Perhaps Luis de Valladolid and the Table of Pisa are mistakenin
the compositionof the Legenda
and the Officeof Saint Dominic
attributing
to Peterof Spain, authorof the Tractatus
(it seems thatthe Table of Pisa
is clearlymistakenin attributing
the Thesaurus
to him).However,
pauperum
there are no argumentswhich permitthe unequivocal conclusionthat
theyare mistaken.In any case, it is not valid to conclude on the basis
of thissupposederrorthatPeterof Spain was not a memberof the Order
of Preachers.
I have examined many testimonieswhich,withvaryinglevels of precision,associatePeter of Spain withthe Order of Preachers.In addition,
thesetestimonieshave been shown to agree fullywiththe commentators
of the DivinaCommedia.
Why would one doubt such a consistentand plausible tradition?There could be but one justifiablereason: the irrefutable
evidenceof testimoniesin favorof identifying
the authorof the Tractatus
with Pope John XXI. And, as I will attemptto show in the following
section,such testimoniesdo not exist.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

53

3. "Ut libriediti inditiosunt PetriHispani titulo"

In the Church of San Lorenzo at Viterbo, the tomb of Pope John
XXI stillremains.It bears the followinginscription:
IOANNESLUSITANXXIPONTMAXPONTSUI*
MENSVIIIMORITUR
MCCLXIIII
(MCCLXXVII)
The tomb,which is now foundto the leftof the Church entrance,was
originallysituated at the top of the left nave, as another inscription
reminds.In moderntimes,the versesof Canto XII of the Paradisowere
a clear sign of the Papal historians'acceptance
added to the inscription,
with Pope John XXI.
of the identification
of the authorof the Tractatus
The existenceof Pope John XXI is indubitable,althoughhe is sometimesreferredto as John XX, and evenJohn XIX or John XXII. The
dates of his ordinationas cardinal(1273), and as pope (1276), and of his
accidentaldeath (1277) are also certain,as is his originfromPortugal,
and more precisely,fromLisbon. There are also convincingreasons to
Howconsiderhim a physicianand the authorof the Thesaurus
pauperum.
ever,we are lackingreliabledates forhis birthand his studiesin Paris.
There is no reason whichjustifieshis identification
as the author of the
he
Tractatus.
does
continue
to
be
consideredauthor
universally
Why,then,
of the Tractatus
?
Establishinga precise and reliable answer to this question is difficult
sincetheidentity
of thefirstauthorto attributethe Tractatus
toJohnXXI,
as well as the reasonsbehind the attribution,
are unknown.Nevertheless,
in lightof the testimonies
which I have been able to examine,I believe
that the attribution
of the Tractatus
to John XXI came as the resultof
threefactors,whose only link is the coincidenceof the secular name of
The threefactorsare
John XXI withthat of the authorof the Tractatus.
as follows:1) the existenceof a large numberof manuscriptsin European
archivesand librarieswhich containworksattributedto Peter of Spain,
on the Tractatus
of or commentaries
(thesame probespeciallymanuscripts
lem is also true of the medical,philosophical,and theologicalworksattributedto John XXI); 2) the lack of precise and reliable information

19:20:08 PM

54

ANGELD'ORS

concerningthe charactersof the authorsof these works,especiallywith

;
respectto the characterof Peter of Spain O.P., author of the Tractatus
and 3) the intellectualrenownand knowledgeof all the sciences,especiallymedicine,whichis attributedtoJohn XXI fromthe earliestchronicles of his pontificate,and which are said to have distractedhim from
his duties as Church leader.
The attribution
to Pope John XXI of all the works,includingthe Tracare
tatiLs
which
attributed
to Peter of Spain, provideda simplesolution
,
(too simple,in fact)to all of these problems.It justifiedthe intellectual
renownofJohn XXI, uncoveredthe characterof the authorof the works
containedin the various manuscripts,
and explainedthe exceptionalsucit
cess of the Tractatus.
while
the
solutionmightseem effective,
However,
lacks basis. Between the twelfthand fourteenth
centuriestherecertainly
existeda large numberof writersnamed Peteron the Iberian peninsula,
and the authorshipof these worksmustbe distributedamong them.
firstattributed
When, and by whom, was authorshipof the Tractatus
to John XXI? This is extremelydifficult
to determine,and I myselfdo
not know. Numerouschroniclesof the lives and worksof the popes exist
as well as many cataloguesof writers.By theirverynature,these works
demand revisionand expansion, and, in the case of the most famous
chroniclesand catalogues,have been revisedand expanded more than
once. Moreover,we are lackingreliableeditionsof the majorityof these
works.To determinewhetheror not a particularauthor attributesthe
Tractatus
to John XXI, it is insufficient
to consulta singleeditionof the
work.One mustexaminevariouseditionsand, if need be, variousmanueditionsand manuscripts
scripts.However, these worksin theirdifferent
are not easilyfound.
To date, I have not founda singletestimony
writtenbeforethe invention of the printingpress which clearly and undeniablyattributesthe
to Pope John XXI. The earliesttestimonies
authorshipof the Tractatus
withwhichI am familiardate fromthe late fifteenth
century.They belong
and its commentarieswhich I will examto the traditionof the Tractatus
ine in the followingsection.Among the bibliographersand Papal historians or among the Spanish and Portuguesenationalhistorians,I do not
know of a single testimonybefore 1545. Of the followingauthors,not
one attributesthe authorshipof the Tractatus
to John XXI: Martinus
Polonus (+1278),78Jacobus de Voragine (c. 1228-c. 1298),79Guillaumede
78Chronica
Germaniae
, ed. Pertz,Monumenta
Historica,
XXII, p. 443:
Scriptores
mil"Iohannes
CXCVII.1276.Iohannes
natione
annoDomini
vigesimusprimus,
Hispanus,

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

55

80
81
Nangis (+ c. 1302), Juan Gil de Zamora (+ c. 1318), Bartholomaeus
83
82
de Lucca (+ c. 1326), Nicholas Trivet (1258-1328), Francesco Pipino
Francesco Petrarca (+13 74),85 San Antoninode
(XIII-XIV centuries),84
octoetdieuno.Etcessavit
sedit
mensibus
ducentsimo
lesimo
septuagesimosexto,
pontificatus
Hicpontifex
Petrus
anteadicsexetdiebus
eius,mensibus
Iohannes,
septem.
postmortem
Tusculanus
tandem
Romanus
scientiis
famosus,
tus,in diversis
primo
episcopus,
pontifex
morum
florem
et pontificalem
efficitur.
Qui scientiarum
dignitatem,
quadamstoliditate
In hoctarnen
industria
videretur.
deformabat
adeoutnaturali
propartecarere
quamplurimumlaudabilis
communem
exhibens
muitos
fuit,
quamdivitibus
quodse tampauperibus
et in beneficiis
studium
litterarum
fovit
ecclesiasticis
Et
amplectentes,
promovit.
egentes
in plurimos
annosextendi
et hocedamcoramaliisassecumsibivitespacium
crederei,
suanova,quamprose Viterbii
circapalatium
subito
cumcamera
reret,
ipseconstruxerat,
soluscorruit,
etinter
sextodiepostcasum,
omnibus
sacramentis
lignaet lapidescollisus,
in ecclesia
etibidem
ecclesiasticis
SanctiLaurentii
extitit."
perceptis,
expiravit,
sepultus
79Chronicon
Genuense
urbis
ad annum
ed. Muratori,
Rerum
(aborigine
usque
MCCXCVII),
Fornieditori):
Italicarum
"Alius
1726,col.52 (Repr.Arnaldo
IX, Mediolani
Scriptores
fuitIohannes
natione
octo.Gumenimquamdam
domum
Hispanus,
qui seditmensibus
eumoccidit,
aedificari
subito
domocadente
et sicvitamfinivit.
De cuiusmorte
faceret,
etnaturali
modicum
Ecclesiae
damnum
multum
essetreplefuit,
physicali
quialicetscientia
et sensunaturali
discretione
multum
eratvacuus."
tus,tarnen
80Chronicon
sivecollodio
Guillelmi
deNangis
veterum
, in Lucasd'Achery,
Spilegium
aliquot
Bibliothecis
delituerant
, t. III, Paris1723,p. 44: "Ioannes
scriptorum
quiinGalliae
Papacum
extendi
et hocetiamcorammultis
sibivitaespatium
crederet,
perannosplurimos
saepe
cumnovacamera,
circapalatium
subito
aedificari
assereret,
fecerat,
quamprose Viterbii
soluscorruit,
et inter
sextadiepostcasumhuiusmodi
sacramenlignaet lapidescollisus,
in EcclesiaSanctiLaurentii
tisEcclesiasticis
est."
sepultus
operibus
perceptis
exspirans,
81De Preconiis
, ed. Manualde Castroy Gastro
O.F.M.,Madrid1955,p. 152,
Hispanie
inomniscientia
Petrus
IulianiUlixbonensis,
8-11:"Etvirphilosophicus
eruditus,
magister
in Summum
Pontificem
estcreatus
etIohannes
vocatus."
qui
postmodum
82Annales
RerumItalicarum
, ed. Muratori,
XI, col. 1291:"AnnoDomini
Scriptores
hocest1276,circafinem
dominus
Petrus
Petrus
dictus
eodem,
Iuliani,
septembris
Hispanus,
de cardinalatu
cardinalis
Tusculanus
nationePortugallensis,
assumitur
in papatum
et
in medicinis,
XXI estvocatus.
clericus
fuitet precipue
undeet
Iohannes
Hic generalis
ad curais
hominum
etlibrum
quiThesaurus
pauquedam
scripsit
composuit
experimenta
libriAristotelis,
vocatur.
Fecitetlibrum
de problematibus
iuxtamodum
etformam
perum
in scientia,
etquamvis
fuerit
modicus
fuitin discretione."
magnus
83Chronicon
inLucasd'Achery,
Trwetti
abanno
mcxxxvi
adannum
Nicolai
Dominicani,
mcccvii,
sivecollectio
Bibliothecis
delituerant
veterum
, t. Ili, Paris
scriptorum
Spilegium
aliquot
quiinGalliae
inannosplurimos
cumsibivitaespatium
1723,p. 207a:"Ioannes
papavicesimus
primus,
et hocetiamcoramaliisassereret,
subitocumcameranovaquamsibi
extendi
crederet,
et interlapideset lignacollisus
Viterbii
circapalatium
soluscorruit,
sexto
construxerat,
etibidem
in Ecclesia
diepostcasumSacramentis
omnibus
Ecclesiasticis
moritur,
perceptis
de
SanctiLaurentii
Succedit
Nicolaustertius,
priusdictusIoannesCajetanus
sepelitur.
Ursinorum."
genere
84Chronicon
MCLXXVI
Bononiensis
O.P.(abanno
adannum
rciter
Fratris
Francisa
usque
Pipini
ed. L.A.Muratori,
RerumItalicarum
1726(Repr.
IX, Mediolani
MCCCXIV),
Scriptores
Fornieditori),
huiusnominis
Arnaldo
col. 723:"Johannes
XXI, eodemannoin Papam
VII et diebusVII. Hic fuitnatione
et seditmensibus
mensibus
VII, et cessavit
eligitur
virlitteratus
vocatus
Petrus,
Hispanus,
Magisoblectabatur
primo
Magister
apprime.
quaesfuit
tionibus
etquamquam
essetPhilosophus,
scientiarum,
Papatus,
magnus
quamnegotiis

19:20:08 PM

56

ANGELD'ORS

Firenze(1389-1459),86BartolomaeusSacchi da Platina(1421-1481),87Felipe
de Barberio(secondhalfof XV),88Marino Barlezio (second halfof XV),89
vitae
scientia
et naturali
tamendiscretione
vacuus;dumquelaetusdegeret
spelongions
Palatium
coretnovocubiculo
lectitaret
solusinPalationovoViterbii,
repente
conceptae,
tamen
XV maii.Diebusquinqu
munitus
etlapidibus
attritus
etsoluslignis
ruit,
supervixit
inea Civitate
SanctiLaurentii."
Ecclesiae.
estautem
Sacramentis
Sepultus
apudEcclesiam
85Chronica
dePontefici
etImperatori
Romani
Venezia
delle
vite
Petrarcha,
composta
perM. Francesco
mesiviii.Vacoil
1526:"Papacxciii.Giovanni
xxi,natodi Spagna,tenneil pontificato
i signori
della
furono
superati
papatomesividi.xvi.In questoanno,nelmesedi genaio,
de la cittaetmorietpresida gliusciti
etdalmarchese
in Melano,
etcacciati
fuori
torre
i suoiadvermolti
ritorno
ettutti
dimonferrato
ondelarcivescovo
co glialtriusciti
dentro,
A Giovanni
di dio,caddeunpalazoadossoet
sariidisperse.
papa,al ultimo,
pergiudicio
nonoffendendo
Re di Francia
fuori
di luialcunoaltro.In questotempo
amazollo,
Philipo
usurari."
tutto
il suoreameperseguito
grandemente
per
gli
86DiviAntonini
Fiorentini
Chronicorum
tertia
1586,p. 204b:"Post
, Lugduni
pars
Archiepiscopi
Petri
Petrus
anno
domini
ascendit
cathedram
<1276>,
[1286]
magister
Hispanus,
ipsum,
et vocatus
estIoannesXXI.
canonice
in sequenti
menseseptembris,
cardinalis
electus,
camerae
sedemPetritantum
viiimensibus,
et mortuus
estex eo quodtestudo
Tenuitque
estac sepultus
honorifice
Viterbii.
eum.Et mortuus
eiusubidormiebat,
ruens,
oppressit
itautsextasex.Fuiteo annomagnapenuria
Vacavit
vitualium,
posteasedesmensibus
riumfrumenti
dimidio
valeret
fioreno."
87Platynae
Rerum
de VitaChristi
ac Omnium
ed. L.A.Muratori,
Historia
Liber
Pontificum)
III/1: "193(188).- IOANNESXXI (XX)(1276-1277).
Ioannes
Italicarum
vigeScriptores
ex episcopo
Petrus
anteavocatus,
simusprimus,
natione
patriaUlyxiponensis,
Hispanus,
rerum
tamenignoratione
Tusculano
creatur.
Hic etsidoctissimus
esthabitus,
pontifex
etmorum
etemolumenti
pontificatili
inaequalitate,
plusdetrimenti
quamhonoris
gerendarum
etlevitatem
commenattulit.
Multaenimstoliditatem
egit.In unotantum
praese ferenda
litterarum
ecclesiasdatione
beneficiis
studiosos,
maxime,
inopes
dignus,
quodadolescentes
mercaturam
ticisetpecuniaiuvit.
Vexabant
tumVenetiAnconitanos,
quodin Dalmatia
Ecclesiae
nullopersoluto
Veneris
exercerent,
equeeos,utparerat,vectigales
portorio;
inrebusagendis
inverbis
timidi
etinfracti
tantummodo
ipsetuebatur,
promptus,
pontifex
animi.Anconitani
autempontificis
auxiliodestituii,
se ipsoscolligentes,
facta,
eruptione
illato
incommodo
Usustamen
Consilio
Ioannis
Venetos
urbem
obsidentes,
magno
propellunt.
creacuiusnutuomniatumgerebantur,
auxilio
etsuffragiis
Caietani,
quodipsius
pontifex
tumad reges
occidentales
tusfuerat,
tumad Paleologum,
misit,
quieossuonomine
legatos
nominis
utpaceinter
se inita,
armain Saracenos
ethostes
Christiani
cohortarentur,
parasibilongam
etdiuse victurum
omnibus
rent.Pollicebatur
homostolidus
vitam,
praedicaadeoeratinverecundi
etsecordis
omnibus
bat,quippecuiusvitaetmores
ingenii.
patebant,
omnibus
camara
Sedeccedumhancstultitiam
nova,quaminpalaquaedam
praedicabat,
die
tioViterbiensi
subito
inventus,
extruxerat,
corruit,
septima
lignaetlapides
atqueinter
suimense
octavo
ruinm
omnibus
Ecclesiae
sacramentis,
pontificatus
acceptis
posttantam
Multa
sedparum
litteratus,
moritur,
vir,utdixi,admodum
prudens.
Viterbiique
sepellitur;
verocnones
ad medicinam
enimin vitasua scripsit,
quosdam
pertinentes.
potissimum
Nammedendi
habebatur.
etlibrum,
arteadmodum
pauScripsit
quemThesaurum
peritus
imitatus.
Sed hocnescioquo
Aristotelem
perumvocat.Ediditet Problemata
quaedam,
ad resagendasparumidonei
litterati,
est,ut viriquidamadmodum
pactocompertum
videri
utqui convideantur.
Nescioquo pactodixi,cummirum
debeat,
potiusomnibus
animum
idemetiamrebusterrenis
delectatur,
applicet."
templatione
88<Chronica>
Praedicatoi
artium
ettheolodeBarbeis
Ordinis
Frats
Siracusii
Suculique
Philipi
menxxius
"Iohanes
, [Sevilla1480],pp. 74v-75r:
giaeinterpreti
atqueulixbonensis
hispanus
sibusocto."
89Compendium
Summorum
ad Marceilum
vitarum
//,Roma1555,pp. 98-9:
Pontficum
usque

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

57

91
Jacobus PhilippusBergomensis,90Lucius Marineus Siculus (1460-1533),
92
93
Johannes Trithemius(1462-1518), Alonso de Venero (1488-1565),
BartolomCarranza de Miranda (+1576),94AlfonsoChacn (1540-1599),95
anteamedicus,
librum
"Ioannes
1276;fuit
21,Hispanus,
Papa194,fitannoChristi
eumque
seditmensibus
in ea arteThesaurus
8."
edidit,
pauperum
nuncupatur;
qui
90Frats
inomnimoda
Ordinis
Fratrum
Eremitarum
DiviAugustini
hislacobi
Bergomensis
Philippi
Chronkarum
"Petrus
toria
novissime
, Venezia1483,131r-v:
appellata
quoque
congesta
Supplementum
ac deindemaximus
medicus,
patriaUlixbonensis,
posteaTusculanus
episcopus,
hispanus,
in predoexistens
ad medicinam
cnones
Pontifex.
Hac ipsatempestate
quosdam
pertivocantconscripsit.
et
Feruntur
nentes
edidit,
atquelibrum
quemThesaurum
pauperum
edita.[.. .] Papa196.Ioannes
ad imitationem
Aristotelis
eiusproblemata
2luspapa,natione
Viterbii
ex Tusculano
Petrus
medicus
anteavocatus,
postAdrinm
episPortugalensis,
sedsineprudentia;
Seditmensibus
8. Viradmodum
verbis
creatus.
doctus,
copoPontifex
infractus
ettimidus.
Hac tamen
tantummodo
sedin rebusagendis
commendapromptus,
et pecuniasemper
iuvit.
HicMichaelem
tionedignus
Paleologum
quodinopesbeneficiis
admonuit
nisipraemissam
servaret
unionem
Caroloregiimperius
daret.Verumcumse
dumViterbii
in
victurum
sibipolliceretur,
eccesubito
semper
idqueomnibus
praedicaret,
luderet
domuscadensipseintersaxa obrutus
thalamo
interiit,
praecioso
quo defuncto
vacavit
sedesmensibus
v."
91De Hispaniae
c. 1497],LXv:"De Petromedicoepiscopo
tusculano
laudibus
[Burgos,
Petrus
quoquemedicus,
patriaUlixbonensis,
atquesummo
pontfice.
posteaTusculanus
doctrina
ac demum
Pontifex
omniquidem
emicuit,
maximus,
episcopus,
quicnones
quosdamad medicinam
Itemscripsit
etiam
librum
Thesaurum
pertinentes
composuit.
quemmedici
ad Aristotelis
feruntur
& eiusProblemata
imitationem
nobilissima."
vocant;
pauperum
92See notes103and104.Annales
t.II, 1690,p. 32:"EodemannoJoannes
Hirsaugienses,
dictum
annos,dum
est)longosvitaepromiserat
PapaXXI, qui sibi(utpaulosuperius
in aula,domicilium
ludens
Viterbii
subito
et eumcumfamiresideret
cecidit,
magnifica
liaribus
Sedesaliquandiu
disensione
Postcuiusinteritum
vacavit,
Apostolica
oppressit.
electione
eius
Patrum.
Tandemin Pontificatu
Romanosuccessit
Cardinalium,
Nicolaus,
nominis
tertius."
93Enchiridion
delostiempos
, JuandeJunta,
Burgos1540,p. 90r:"El PapaJuan,vigesenEspaa.Su throno
simoprimo
destenombre,
fuenatural
de Lisboa,ciudadnobilissima
et setenta
et cinco.Estando
este
annodelSeorde milet dozientos
comeno
pontifical
en Viterbio
le maltrato
pontfice
cayola camarasobreel,et de talmanera
que al sepsu yglesia
timodiadioel almaa nuestro
de averregido
ochomeses."
Seor,despues
94F. Bartholomeus
Summa
Institu
Sancti
Conciliorum
Carranza
Mirandensis,
Dominici,
Pontificum
sanctorum
omnia
traditus
sunt
, succinte
, 1549,p. 268v:
aliorumque
patrum
complectens
quaealibisparsim
utdicitur,
"Ioannes
sedinrebusgerendis,
22 (sic),
prudens.
papa 193,virliteratus,
parum
Moritur
suimense8, subeodemCaesare(Rudolfo
Subhocfacta
Germano).
pontificatus
nihilhabuisse
estdefinitio
Christum
eteiusdiscipulos
etinhisquae
contra
eosquidicunt
ethaereticam
essecensendam
nullum
iuseisfuisse.
Eiusmodi
sententiam
erroneam
habuerunt,
inextravagan.,
cuminter
declarat
de verb.fig.SubeodemIoanne22 (sic)damnonnullos,
Parisiensis."
natur
errores
Ioannis
de Poliacodotoris
95Vitae
a Christo
Domino
ad Clementem
VIII, Roma1601,
etgesta
Summorum
usque
Pontificum,
Libersecundus,
pp. 605-7:"IoannesXX, dictusXXI, P. CLXXXIX.AnnoDomini
IoannesXXI ab hisqui fabulosam
& commentitiam
MCCLXXVI.IoannesXX, dictus
Ioannam
M. Ioannes
Petrus
anteadictus,
natione
feminam
numero
Pontificum
interserunt,
Iuliani
olimmedicus,
filius,
Lusitanus,
professione
Hispanus,
provincia
patria
Olysipponensis,
inconcilio
exEpiscopo
a Gregorio
decimo
Viterbii
Cardinale
Tusculano
factus,
Lugdunensi
incomitiis,
maxime
auxilio
& sufagiis
Ioannis
mortuo
Hadriano
V, a decern
Cardinalibus,
s.Nicolai
incarcere
Maximus
Caietani
Cardinalis
Pontifex
Diaconi
Romani,
Tulliano,
Ursini,

19:20:08 PM

58

ANGELD'ORS

Aubert
Giovanni Antonio Brandi,96Francisco Tarafa (XVI century),97
Miraeus (1573-1640),98and Gonzalo de Illescas.99
idibusseptembris,
AnniDomini1276,qui nomen
nonmutavit,
sedretinuit,
renunciatus,
utanteadictus.
licetignoratione
rerum
Hic doctissimus
esthabitus,
Ioannes,
gerendarum
minus
commendatione
litterarum
aptus.Hac in retarnen
dignissimus,
quodadolescentes
beneficiis
ecclesiasticis
& pecunia
iuvit.[. . .] Coronado
studiosos,
inopesmaxime,
Papae
XX. AnnoDominicae
Ioannis
Nativitats
Viterbii
incathedrali
s.
1276,XII kal.Octobris
suaecoronatonis
Ioannis
diaconi
Cardinalis
Laurentii,
Ursini,
insignia
suscepit,
permanus
incarcere
s. Nicolai
S.R.E.Archidiaconi,
inApostolica
sedit
autem
Tulliano,
sede,Imperatore
CaesareRodulfo,
menses
8 & dies8. UsusConsilio
IoannisCaietani
cuiusnutu
Ursini,
omniagerebantur,
tumad Palaeologum
misit,
legatos
Imperatorem
Constantinopolitanum
uteumad servandum
inconcilio
facta
ceterum
hortarentur,
promissa
Lugdunensi
Palaeologus
in Lugdunensi
suipolliciti
se observaturum
omnia,
essent,
quaenuncii
synodo
respondit;
ad regesitemOccidentales
nuncios
utpace
mandavit,
cohortarentur,
quieossuonomine
interse inita,armain Saracenos
& hostes
Christiani
nominis
Octomensium
pararent.
namcumViterbii
cubiculi
recens
constructi
dormiret,
pontfex
appellati
potuit,
repentina
ruinaoppressus
est,quodin palatoViterbiensi
fabricaverat,
atqueinterligna& lapides
suimense
omnibus
Ecclesiae
8&
inventus,
die,acceptis
sacramentis,
septimo
pontificatus
die8 moritur;
viradmodum
litteratus
& litteratorum
valdeamator,
rerum
multarumque
scientia
instructus.
XIII kal.Iuniianni1277,ibidem
inCathedrali
s. Laurentii,
Sepultusque
cuiuscasumiliummortemque
Victorianus
Annalis
Hoc autemexemplo
annotavit.
moneneRomanos
Pontfices
humanis
casibus
mur,
esse,quiautsintPontfices,
quidem
exemptos
homines
tamen
essenondesinunt.
Multain vitasuascripserat,
verocnones
potissimum
ad medicinam
nammedendi
artenimis
&
habebatur,
quosdam
pertinentes,
peritus
scripsit
vocant.
Edidit& Problemata
Aristotelem
librum,
quemThesaurum
pauperum
quaedam,
sedhoccommune
utviriquidam
admodum
ad resagendas
imitatus,
existit,
litterati,
parum
idoneivideantur,
cummirum
omnibus
videri
utqui contemplatione
delecdebeat,
potius
idemetiamrebusterrenis
animum
VacavitsedeApost.menses
6 dies4
tatur,
applicet.
Ioannis
Domine
Deusmeusinconspectu
tuoviammeam."
[. .96
.] Signum
PapaeXX:Dirige
deSommi
Roma1608,col.189:"Giovanni
XX. NelMCCLXXVI.
Cronologia
Pontefici,
Giovanni
Pietrodi Lisbona,
di Giovanni,
XX, dettoprimaGiovanni
Medico,figliuolo
di Tuscolano,
essendo
Vescovo
fucreatoPontefice
nel1276,a 13di settembre.
Fu dotto
in ogniscienza.
MandoLegatial Paleologo,
a difender
& a i Re d'Oriente,
essortandoli
la FedeCatholica.
Condenari,
e beneficii
aiutode'poveri
allistudii.
Scrisse
alcuni
giovani
canonidi Medicina,
& alcunealtreopere.Rumatagli
adossounastanzanelPalazzodi
morialli20 di Maggio1277in settegiorni,
statoPontefice
essendo
ottomesi,&
Viterbo,
ottogiorni.
Fu Sediavacante
6 mesi,& 4 giorni."
97De origine
ocrebus
, 1553,p. 170:"Petrus
gessRegum
Hispaniae
Portugalensis,
episcopus
medicus
etphilosophus
S. Romanae
ecclesiae
Tusculanus,
Cardinalis,
praestantissimus,
primo
claruit:
noncontemmedicis
postmodum
papa IoannesXXI, perhaectempora
scripsit
nendaopuscula,
inter
Thesaurum
Item
quaeopusculum
quodmedici
pauperum
appellant.
lib.1,CnonesMedicinae
lib. 1 et Epistolarum
ad diversos
lib.1."
problematum
98Auberti
Miraei
Auctarum
descriptoribus
ecclesiasticis
Ecclesiastica
sweNomencltores
, in:Bibliotheca
VII.veteres
XXI. Papa,civisOlisiponensis,
lit, Antwerp
1639,p. 253:'Joannes
XX,dictus
teratorum
et multiplicis
ac medicinae
amantissimus,
doctrinae,
praesertim
philosophiae
studiis
clarusfuit,
ut librieditiindiciosuntPetriHispanititulo,
quodillinomenante
fuit.Exstatde re medicalibereiusqui Thesaurus
pontificatum
nuncupatur.
pauperum
Octomensibus
et diebusocto,cumpontificatum
annomillesimo
ducentsimo
tenuisset,
Viterbii
Nicolaoex Ursinorum
obiit,succedente
septuagsimo
septimo
gente."
99Primera
dela Historia
Gonzalo
, [. . .] compuesta
parte
Pontifical
y Catlica
y ordenada
poreldoctor

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

59

has pointedout the Chronicle

M.H. Laurent,100
L.M. De Rijk,following
of Ricobaldus de Ferrara,probablywrittenin 1297, as the oldest docuto Pope John XXI. Moreover,they
mentwhich attributesthe Tractatus
have consideredthisdocumentto be decisivein the solutionof the problem of Peter of Spain's identity.Laurent and De Rijk quote the edition
of Riccobaldus' Chroniclewhichwas preparedby Muratoriin 1726 and
' states:
XXI natione
seditmenses
MCCLXXVII.Iohannes
viii,diesi, etcessavit
Hispanus,
a Gregorio
X. Hic magnus
fuitCardinalis
menses
vii,diesvii.Hic electus
magister
innegotiis.
Cuinomen
inscientiis
juitMagister
quamomnibus
reliquiis
plusdelectabatur
Dumin longovitaespatiogauderet,
inlogica
Petrus
quiTractatus
composuit.
Hispanus
novacamara
legeret,
quamsibicircapalatium
jactabat,
dumque
quodsibietafuturum
etsolusinter
eo praesente
corruit
Viterbii
palatium
paraverat,
lignaetlapidesattriet munitus
sacramentis
ecclesiasticis
e sculoet
tusdie quintosupervixit
migravit
SanciiLaurent.101
estViterbii,
ecclesia
sepultus
This editionof Riccobaldus' Chronicle does indeed considerJohn XXI
to be the authorof the Tractatus.
however,the textof RiccoSurprisingly,
baldus' Chroniclein the manuscriptsas well as in the earliesteditions,is
incrediblydiverse:
etiam
8. Dei iudicio
Iohannes
21 papaseditmensibus
palacium
supereumcorruit
sedpotuit
eumlesit.Nonstatim
confiteli.102
necullum
novum,
praeter
expiravit,
I do not know the originof the textedited by Muratori,which bears a
strictresemblanceto thechronicleof FrancescoPipino.However,considering what we know about the earliestversionsof Riccobaldus' Chronicle,
or editionswhichattributethe Tractatus
toJohn
unlessearliermanuscripts
to
XXI are found,any attemptto base the attributionof the Tractatus
be
would
futile.
XXI
on
Riccobaldus'
John
testimony
JohannesTritemius(1462-1518) is oftenlistedamong the earliestwritto John XXI, but as in the case of Ricoers to attributethe Tractatus
baldus de Ferrara,in the originalversionof Tritemius'work,John XXI
is not consideredto be the authorof the Tractatus.
As Qutifand Echard
have alreadynoted,it was one of Tritemius'editors,the Colmariensis
, who

deIllescas
deDueas
, AbaddeSanFrontes
, Madrid1652,p. 507b:"Dexoescritas
y Beneficiado
enMedicina;
ciertos
cosasde mucha
Cnones,
erudicin,
compuso
algunas
principalmente
comolosde Aristoteles."
Problemas,
y unlibroque se llamoTesorode pobres,
y ciertos
100
39 (1936),pp. 35-45.
Dominicain
Matre
Pierre
?,in:DivusThomas,
fiit-il
d'Espagne
101
in:Rerum
Italicarum
Historia
Romanorum
IX,
, ed.L.A.Muratori,
Scriptores
Pontifkium
Fornieditori),
col. 181.
Mediolani
1726(Repr.Arnaldo
102Chronica
Summorum
1474.
ms.&-IV-28,
Ricobaldi
87v;Chronica
, Escoriai,
Pontificumy

19:20:08 PM

ANGELD'ORS

60

introducedthis attribution.A comparisonof the editionsof 1494 and

1518 with the 1546 editionis itselfconclusive:
Editionsof 1494 and 1518:103
etsacrosanctae
romanae
ecclePetrus
Tusculanus,
Portugalensis,
episcopus
Hispanus
virinmediac postremo
summus
siaecardinalis,
postHadrianum
quintum,
pontifex
seditinpontifcatu
cinisvaldeeruditus,
etin saeculari
doctus,
magnifice
philosophia
de quibus
ferunmensibus
tantum
octo.Scripsit
medicis
noncomtemnenda
opuscula,
tursubiecta:
Thesaurus
lib.I
pauperum
De problematibus
lib.I
CnonesMedicinae
lib.I
lib.I
ad diversos
Epistolarum
Et quaedamalia
in pontificatu
Claruit
subnomine
Iohannis
XXI,temporibus
Rodulphi
imperatoris,
annodomini1275.
1546 edition:104
etsacrosanctae
romanae
ecclePetrus
Tusculanus,
Hispanus
Portugalensis,
episcopus
ac postremo
virinmedisiaecardinalis,
summus
pontifex
quintum,
postHadrianum
cinisvaldeeruditus,
seditinpontificatu
et insaeculari
doctus,
philosophia
magnifice
tantum
octo.Scripsit
medicis
noncomtemnenda
de quibus
ferunmensibus
opuscula,
tursubiecta:
lib.I
De problematibus
lib.I
Thesaurus
pauperum
ad diversos
lib.I
CnonesMedicinae
lib.I
Epistolarum
Et quaedamalia
+ nempetractatus
in dialecticam
vulgoiamolimnotissimos.
aliquot,
in pontificatu
Claruit
Iohannis
subnomine
XXI,temporibus
imperatoris,
Rodulphi
annodomini1275.
The earliesttextwhichI have been able to findfromthe papal historians and bibliographersor fromSpanish and Portuguesenationalhistorians which attributesauthorshipof the Tractatus
to Pope John XXI is the
Gessner(1516-1565).
1545 editionof the Bibliotheca
Universalis
Konrad
by
etRomanae
EccleClaruit
Tusculanus
1275.Petrus
Hispanus
Portugalensis,
episcopus
siaeCardinalis,
ac postremo
virinmedicinis
valdeeruditus,
Summus
Pontifex,
scripsitmedicis
noncontemnenda
de quibusferuntur
subiecta.
opuscula,
lib.1
lib.1
De problematibus
Thesaurus
pauperum
lib.1
Cnonesmedicinae
lib.1
ad diversos
Epistolarum
scribit.
Et quaedamalia.
*Eadem
Symphorianus
Champerius
inBursaMontis
Coloniae
Tractatus
sexlogici,
cumcopulatis
elucidatoriis
magistrorum
1503in 4.
ColoniaeapudHen.Quentel,
regentium,
impressi
103
De saiptoribus
ecclesiasticis
, Basilea1494,CVIIr;Paris1518,CVIIr.
104
Dn.Iohannis
Tritthemii
DeScriptoribus
Ecclesiasticis
Abbatis
, [. . .] LiberUnus:
Spanheimensis,
mendis
Additiunculis
innumeris
sedulo
scatuit,
hucusque
multisque
passim
quibus
purgatus,
illustratus
et auctus,[. . .] authore
Balthazaro
Werlino
Colmariense.
signo+ talinotatis
anniMDXLVI,p. 201.
ex officina
PetriQuentel,
menseMartio
[...], Coloniae,

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

61

Listrio.
Videsuprain Gerardo
BruxeUensis
& ThomaeBricoti
Summulae
cuminterpretatione
Petri
Georgii
Hispani
deCampis
excudit,
etc.,Iannot
1509,
Lugduni,
textuque
suppositionum
quaestionibus
in fol.105
Gessner'swork obviouslyrelies on Tritemius',and the way in which it
to John XXI makes it
of the Summulae
introducesthe attribution
Logicales
the
Gessner
was
merelyupdating
bibliographyby adding
highlysuspect.
the "latesteditions"of Peterof Spain, whichwere printedafterthe Tritemius publication.Gessnerdoes not add any argumentsor testimoniesto
of Peterof Spain withJohn XXI, and does not
supportthe identification
could be problematic.
even seem to suspectthat thisidentification
Gessner's influentialwork is one of the principal channels through
to Pope John XXI spread
of the Tractatus
whichthe erroneousattribution
Simler
the
(1531-1576),
Lycosthenisde
bibliographers.Josias
among
and
Antonio
Verderio107
Rbea,106
literally
repeat
JohannesJacobusFrisius,
or limitthemselvesto updatingGessner'stext,adding new commentaries
of Peter of Spain.
to the Summulae
At the end of the 16th century,Juan de Mariana (1536-1624) also
Nicols Antonio also includesJuan
seems to supportthe attribution.108
Barros (1496-1570) among those who considerJohn XXI to be author
I have been unable to locate Barros' work. In the 17th
of the Tractatus.
105
Conrado
Gesomnium
Bibliotheca
Universalis
, sive
, . . . authore
scriptorum
bcupletissimus
catabgus
nero
doctore
medico
, Tiguri1545,pp.549v-550r.
Tigurino
106
D. Conrado
Gesnero
medico
ediomnium
viro
Elenchus
, . . . a clarssimo
Tigurino
scriptorum
. . . auctus
, Basilea1551,col.863:"Petrus
tus,
Hispanus
Rubeaquensem
Lycosthenem
perConradum
Thesaurum
lib. 1, De probTusculanus
etc.,scripsit
pauperum
episcopus
Portugalensis,
lib. 1, Epistolarum
ad diversos
lib. 1, et quaedam
lematibus
lib. 1, Cnonesmedicinae
elucidatoriis
annoDomini1275."
cumcopulatis
alia.Tractatus
sexlogici,
[. . .] Claruit
107Supplementum
continentur
libri
Bibliothecae
Gesnerianae,
plurimi
quiConrad.
quolonge
epitomes
vel
& Io.Iac.Frisium
huiusce
Bibliothecae
los.Simlerum
latuerunt,
Gesnerums
locupletatorem
postremum
Domino
collectore
sunt
Verderio
editiones
mandati
, Lugduni
, Antonio
Vallisprwatae
posteorum
typis
Versorii
Logicalesetiamcumexpositione
1595(?),
p. 673: "[. . .] EaedemSummulae
Parisiensis.
Venetiis
1572."
apudF. Sancovinum,
108
Libri
Historiae
De Rebus
1592,LibroXIV
XX,Toleti,TypisPetriRoderici
Hispaniae
annus Christi
ortu
(IacobiAragoni
Regisobitus),
cap. 2, p. 660: "1276.Subsequens
obituextitit
trium
Pontificum
Romanorum
millesimus
ducentesimus
sextus,
septuagesimus
ac mensium
brevissimus
Hadriani.
Innocentii
fuit,
Innocentii,
pontificatus
insignis,
Gregorii,
In Hadriani
locumIoannes
Hadriani
dierum
etduorum
dierum.
septem.
triginta
quinqu
litterarum
doctriviringenio,
studiis
successit
eo nomine
XXI,civisOlisiponensis,
magno
suntPetri
ac medicinae,
utlibrieditiindicio
dialecticae
Hispani
prasertim
naequepraeditus,
libereius,quiThesaurus
fuit.
Extatde remedica
inprivata
fortuna
titulo,
quodillinomen
octoenim
diuturnior
Vita
haud
multo,
contingit,
prioribus
quam
pauperum
nuncupatur.
ruinaViterbii
tecticonclavis
mensibus
etdiebusoctocmpontificatum
tenuisset,
oppressusest,NicoiaoIII ex ursinorum
gentesuccesore."

19:20:08 PM

62

ANGELD'ORS

109
writers
Rodrigoda Cunha (1577-1648), JorgeCardoso
century,
Portuguese
111
110and Antonio de Sousa Macedo 1606-1
(
682), as well as
(1606-1669)
and
papal historiansLouis Jacob (Ludovicusa SanctoCarolo;1608-1670)112
AgostinoOldoini (1612-1683) advanced the spread of the erroneousattribution.Throughthe influential
worksof LouisJacob and AgostinoOldoini,
the attribution
became widespreadamong the papal historians.Today it
is universallyaccepted as valid.
109Segunda
da Historia
e Varoens
Ecclesiastica
dosArcebispos
deBraga
illus, e dosSantos
parte
deBraga
neste
da Cunha
etSenhor
tres,
, Braga
queflorecera
Arcebispado,
porDomRodrigo
Arcebispo
V do nome,& 75 Arcebispo
ou Hispano,
1635,pp. 152-60(p. 152b):"D PedroIuliam,
de Braga.CapitoloXXXV. [. . .] Escreveo
em Lisboao livroque chamoSummulas
da Logica,que emmuitas
de Hespanha,
& foradella,se lera,comohoje
Universidades
nasde Portugal,
& outras
da Gpanhia
se le o cursoConimbricense,
& nasde
escholas
S. Domingos
as Summulas
de Soto,& porventura,
entrara
emlugar
quehum,& outras
a imitao
das de PedroIulia.Escreveo
tambm
variosproblemas
de
Philosophicos
& na sua propria
certasregras
facultade
dondedepes
Aristoteles,
geraesde Medicina,
a scholasalernitana.
tomoumuito
intitulado
Composmaeshumlivrode variosremedios
Thesauro
estasortede gentemedico,
de pobres,
peraque nelletivesse
que semdespezas
a curasse."
He quotesTiraq.denobile
c. 13,a num.106usquead 165;Tractatus
dePrimtu
Bracharensis
Ecclesiae
inUniversa
A Cunha
Auctore
Domino
Roderico
, Braga1632,p. 212.
Hispania,
"73.Petrus
Pontifex
creatus
ex Cardinali
Ioannis
21
Iulianus,
Tusculano,
posteaSummus
vocatus
est.Suntqui dicant
anteaArchiepiscopum
fuisse
Bracharensem."
110
dosSonetos,
doReino
. . . composto
Lusitano
e varoens
illustres
emvirtude
dePortugal,
Agiologio
Cardoso
, Lisboa1666,t. Ill, pp. 312-23:"MaioXIX. Em Viterbo,
pelolicendiado
George
cidadeda Toscana,
a inesperada
morte
do Summo
Pontfice
JooXXI,a quema inclyta
cidadede Lisboa(patria
a supservio
de solar,& bero,
chamado
de lograr
(antes
minha)
remaTiara)PedroGiaes.Eraellemuiestudioso,
na doctrina
& versado
&
philosophica,
sendoo primeiro
a qual se leo muitos
peripatetica,
que compozlogicaem Hespanha,
annosnasescolas
demais
deserinsigne
comomostro
& perito
medico,
publicas,
astrologo,
seuseruditos
ellemuitas
escrittos,
queandonasmosde todos(pp.312-13)
[. . .] Compoz
obrasde Philosophia,
emcujafacultade
& Medicina,
eradoctissimo,
todasa fimde subi ensinar
levara pobreza,
aos ignorantes.
Hunadeliasse intitula
De Tuendavaletudine,
emParis RainhaD. Branca,
mede S. Luis,da qualnospersuadimos
quededicou
que
estudou
Universidade
a de tercomposto
Sumulas,
naquella
porque
(p. 322)[. . .] E menos
seistoforaassi,tamben
o BispoBiliago
as queselionaUniversidade
o seria,
quecompoz
de Lisboa,emtempo
delRei D. JooIII (p. 323)."
111
Flores
deEspaa.
dePortugal,
Excelencias
Lisboa1631,p. 68: "En Medicina
el Papa
de Lisboa,cuyasciencia
alabael PadreMariana,
JuanXXI,natural
y dellasonmejores
loslibros
connombre
de PedroHispano,
testigos
queerael quetenaantes
quecompuso
de serPapa [. . .] En Philosophia
de msde Daciano,que diximos
(i),el
y Dialctica,
dichoPapaJuanXXI y el dichoDotorBaltazar
de Azeredo."
112
Bibliotheca
XIX (sic),aliisXXI, antea
, Lugduni
1643,pp. 137-9:"Ioannes
Pontificia
Petrus
aliasHispanus,
Provincia
Iulianus,
Lusitanus,
patria
Ulyssiponensis,
Papa 186,anno
inCattedrali
Viterbii
& 21coronatus
S. Laurentii.
1276,die13vel15Septembris
creatus,
& Medicus
celeberrimus:
Summulas
Scripsit
tanquam
Philosophus
Logicales,
quibusartis
flexiones
& diverticula
est.Extant
cumexpositione
extricare
[...], ParvaLogicalia
proclive
sex[...], Problemata
Aristotelis
[...], Tractatus
[...], In Physiognomia
Logicales
quaedam
in Isaacumde diaetis
universalibus
et particulari[...], Dialecticam
[...], Commentaria
bus [...], Commentaria
in eundem
seu
Isaacumde urinis
[...], Thesaurum
pauperum,

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

63

are relatively
all of thesetestimonies
late and do not proNevertheless,
vide any reasons to justifysuch an attribution.Consequently,in my
of the Tractatus
to a
opinion,theyare not reliable.While the attribution
memberof the Order of Preachersfindssupportin increasingly
earlyand
reliabledocumentswhich appear duringPeter of Spain's own lifetime,
to Pope John XXI comes late and is less
of the Tractatus
the attribution
and less reliable.The latterattributiondoes not seem to reach back to
the author himself,but only to the workshopsof the printersand the
shelveson which the manuscriptsof his works are kept. The tradition
to John XXI seems to
which attributesthe authorshipof the Tractatus
authorhave a late and purelyscholarlybasis,whilethatwhichattributes
ship to a memberof the Order of Preachersseems to find supportin
whichwe have examined,
earlyoral traditions.In lightof the testimonies
in my opinionthosethatconsiderPeterof Spain, authorof the Tractatus
,
to be a memberof the Order of Preachersare much more reliablethan
him withPope John XXI, despitethe possibleerrors
thosewhichidentify
whichtheycan invite.An examinationof the manuscript
or imprcisions
and its commentarieswill provide
and printedtraditionsof the Tractatus
new argumentsin favorof thisopinion.
4. "Sub brevicompendio,ad utilitatemnovorumstudentiumcompilavit"
In his criticaleditionof the Tractatus
, De Rijk refersto Peter of Spain
in
and
his more recentcriticaleditionof
as "Petrus
,"
HispanusPortugalensis
in
same identification.
As faras I
he
the
the Syncategoreumata
,
persists using
been
the
has
never
refuted.
However,
know,thisidentification
manuscript
tractatum
demedendis
humani
morbis
[...], De ocupodagra
corporis
[...], De medenda
hominis
tractatum
listractatum
[...], De formatione
[...], SuperTegnisetHippocratem
de tuenda
valeGlossas
de natura
[...], Concilium
[...], CnonesMedicinae
puerorum
S. Ludovici[...], Epistolarum
volumen
tudine
ad Blancham
matrem
[...], Sermones
Viterbii
anno1277,die 19 Maii,sepelitur
et quaedamalia. [. . .] Moritur
praedicabiles,
Toanni
in Ecclesia
Cathedrali
S. Laurentio
dicata,cumsequenti
inscriptione
sepulchrali:
XXI Pontificatus
maximi
octavomoritur
MCCLXXVII.'Seditmenses
Lusitano
suimense
Pontificios.
8 & dies4. VacatSedesmenses
5 & dies22.Eiusvitahabetur
apudAuctores
inChron.;
Possevinus
De eiusscriptis:
Ioannes
Trithemius
De script.
Eccles.;Genebrardus
in Nomenclatura
Ioannes
in Bibliotheca
1. 12,c. 5; Rupipozaeus
Cardinalium;
selecta,
Antonius
De Scriptis
Medicis;IsraelSpachiusibid.;IoannesGeorgius
Vander-Lynden
Gesneri
Paulus
a GrafFenberg
Gallusibid.;Conradi
Paschalis
Schenkius
Bibliotheca;
ibid.;
in Registro
tom.2, Annal.
insuaBibliotheca
Pontif.
Bolduanus
Waddingus
Philosophica;
Medicinae
Parisiis
etdignitate
scholae
Naudeus
lib.De Antiquitate
Parisiensis,
Min.;Gabriel
in IoanneXXI Theatrum
editoin 8 1628apudloan.Moreaupag.39; PaulusMorigia
in eiusvita."
vitaehumanae
v. Mediciex arte;Ciaconium

19:20:08 PM

64

ANGELD'ORS

and its commentatorsdo not provide reasons

traditionsof the Tractatus
which would allow us to defendthisidentification.
I have already indicated,followingDe Rijk, that a great numberof
Tractatus
manuscriptsand commentaries
presentPeterof Spain as a memI have also examined the manuscript
ber of the Order of Preachers.113
of a Tractatus
commentarywhich presentsPeter of Spain as an Estella
native. On the other hand, I am aware of only one manuscriptwhich
withPope JohnXXI, namelythe thirteenth-century
associatesthe Tractatus
manuscriptH 64 Inf. of the AmbrosianaLibraryin Milan which reads:
PP XXI ab aliquibusdictusest."Among the over threehun"qui etJohannes
dred existingmanuscriptsof the Tractatus
or its commentaries,
thisis certo
tainlynot the only one which attributesthe authorshipof the Tractatus
John XXI. However, it is the only one which has come to lightand
which is referredto as a standardin discussionsof the identityof Peter
of Spain. Consideringits dates,thismanuscriptcould have decisivevalue.
However it loses all of its value when we note thatfirst,the quoted text
is an additionwrittenby a later hand, and thatsecond,the natureof the
attribution"ab aliquibusdictusest" is less than definitive.
The absence of deliberatereferences
to Pope JohnXXI in the Tractatus
tradition
withthemanuscript
of the Thesaurum
contrasts
tradition
manuscript
whichfrequently
makesexplicitreference
to his papacy- London,
pauperum
BL, Sloane 2479 (XIV), 282 (XV) and 284 (XV), and Erfurt,Amplon.,
O. 62 (XIV).
As for the printededitionsof the Tractatus
, even thoughthe majority
of them do not referto the characterof Peter of Spain, some of them
attributethe workto John XXI while othersattributeit to a memberof
the Order of Preachers.Among the 5 1 editionsof the Tractatus
collected
in
view
of
which
he
offers
the
by Mullally (and
us), seven
descriptions
attributethe Tractatus
to John XXI (nos. 4, 4b, 9, 25, 26, 27 and 39),
while two attributeit to a memberof the Order of Preachers(nos. 3 and
44). These numbersare not veryrevealingwhen one takesinto account
thattheyare not editionsof the Tractatus
made by the same
, but printings
editoror in the same city.The descriptionswhich Mullallyprovidesof
these 51 editionsare fragmentary
and imprecise,and do not allow us to
formsolid conclusions,but they do offersome significant
information.
Three of the seven editionswhich attributethe Tractatus
to John XXI
lack precise dates, but are probably incunabula. These three editions
as part of the title:"Summulae
logicae
explicitlyincorporatethe attribution
113See notes43 and44.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

65

"
Johannis
papaeXXI (nos. 4, 4b and 39). This is an entirelynovel formula,
withoutprecedentin the manuscripttradition.The other four editions
were printedbetween 1512 and 1527. They incorporateas introductory
on John XXI providedby Platina
materialon the authorthe information
on the authorof the Tractatus
andTritemius.Lackingpreciseinformation
,
on John XXI, the only
the editorsseem to have resortedto information
PetrusHispanasof which theyknew. A carefulexaminationof these editionsis needed,but the methodused raisescertainsuspicionswithregard
of this attribution.
to the reliability
toJohn XXI in the incuof the Tractatus
We findthe same attribution
Iodocus
Trutvetter.114
nabular editionof the Explanatio
However, this
by
is of the same uncertainnatureas the one foundin the preattribution
"
natione
examined
, ut arbitror
viously
manuscript: PetrusHispanas
portugallen,"115
sub nomine
Ioannisvicesimi
sis [. . .] tandem
SummusPontifex
primicreatus
" once
a
The expression"ut arbitror
the
attribution
hypothetagain gives
which Trutvetter
ical and uncertaincharacter.And the information
providesus forJohnXXI comesfromthe chroniclesof Platinaand Tritemius,
This leads us to
which later accompany some editionsof the Tractatus.
who is responsibleforthe attrithinkthatit could in factbe Trutvetter
to John XXI. Only furtherdetailed studyof the
butionof the Tractatus
incunabulareditionsof the Tractatus
would allow us to answerthisquestion,but in any case, this is the earliestdocumentknownto me which
of the Tractatus
to Pope John XXI.
gives an unquestionedattribution
on
This editionof Trutvetter's
the
other
work,
hand, providesus with
It considersPeterof Spain to be "Burdegaa surprising
piece ofinformation.
."
innonnulla
PetriBurdegalensis,
dicunt
lensis":"Explanatio
, volumina
quern
Hispanum
1,4Explanatio
volumina
etcominnonnulla
Petri
dicunt,
, adeobreuis
Hispanum
quem
Burdegalensis,
Saxonis
ad que
exiiselibilium,
etsophismatum
Alberthi
unacuminterrogationum
moda,
expeditione,
Vat.IV, 644).I thank
MaiusIsenachcense
cum
valet
(Incunable,
AngelMuozfor
primis
Opus
thisimportant
textto myattention.
bringing
1,5"Sumule
ut arbitror
ulixboPetriHispani.
Petrus
natione
portugallensis,
Hispanus,
Summus
Pontifex
subnomine
Ioannisvicenensis
ex tusculano
tandem
episcopo
patria,
virin medicinis
simiprimi
valdeeruditus,
creatus,
philosophia
atquein seculari
egregie
victurum
etsibiipsi
sedmoribus
doctus,
stolidus,
idque
quodsesemper
speravit
pollicebatur
thalamo
duminprecioso
luderet
domus
cadens
omnibus
verum
predicavit,
tempore
quodam
inlogicaAristotelis
Hisquippeproeruditione
iuvenum
disinter
saxaipseobrutus
interiit.
cuiob id summule
nomen
accomodatradita
incompendium
redegit,
quoddam
pendiose
tractatuum
multarum
tum,
parvorum
perinde,
atquenumerus
plurium
quodexcollectione
maxime
in histractatibus
hastractaturi
coacervatione
resultet,
supputationum
parvarum
inoperis
morem
soient
exordio
ad solitum
academia
quiinErphurdiana
legiatquedisputali
I thank
forbringing
LorenaVelsquez
cumplerisque
aliissequens
nostenetdubitatio."
thistexttomyattention.

19:20:08 PM

66

ANGELD'ORS

Why this associationof Peter of Spain to the cityof Bordeaux? Could

thisbe a memoryof Peterof Spain's associationwiththiscity'sDominican
convent?Undoubtedly,a futureexaminationof the manuscriptand print
and its commentarieswill have to providenew
traditionof the Tractatus
withrespectto the figureof Peterof Spain, and withrespect
information
to the originof the attributionof the Tractatus
to Pope John XXI, but
for now I have not encounteredany othersignificant
information.
of Peterof Spain,
Independentfromthe questionrelatingto the identity
earlier
on
Tractatus
are threewhich
the
commentaries
the
there
,
among
now meritour attention:the commentaryof RobertusAnglicus,foundin
thatof Philippus
theVaticanmanuscript,
Reg.Lat. 3049 (thirteenth
century);
de Ferrarafoundin theVatican manuscript,
Reg.Lat. 3043 (earlyfourteenth
"omneshomines foundin the
and
the
,"
century);
anonymousCompilationes
V.P.L.
Vienna manuscript,Oesterreichische
2389. The
Nationalbibliothek,
firstof these tellsus that Peter of Spain " quorundam
nobilium
condeprecibus
"
scendem
ad maiorem
(2ra); the second
intelligentiam
loyceedidithunctractatum
"
de
ordine
and
the
thirdrefersto
fratrum
(80rb);
"quifiiitpostea
predicatorum
him as "PetriHyspanigalli."De Rijk has used RobertusAnglicus'commentaryto supportan associationbetweenPeter of Spain and the court of
thekingdomof Len. We cannotexcludethispossibility,
but the reference
may also be to the court of the Navarre monarchy.We know that the
Kings of Navarre played a decisiverole in the expansionof the Dominican Order, and we also have informationconcerningthe relationship
between Lambert d'Auxerreand King Teobaldo II of Navarre,116
promoter and protectorof the convent of Saint Dominic at Estella. The
answerto thisquestionwould shed greatlighton the relationship
between
the Tractatus
of Peter of Spain and Lambert's Summa(I am inclinedto
thinkthat Lambert'sSummabegan as a commentaryon the Tractatus).
With respectto the commentaryof Philippusde Ferrara,it becomes
trivialin its pure literalness,since there is necessarilysomethingwhich
came beforePeter of Spain's entranceinto the Order of Preachers.Such
a commentary
seems to indicatethattherealso was a periodas "magister"
and perhaps that the compositionof the Tractatus
also came beforehis
entranceinto the Dominican Order. Where could Peter of Spain have
taught?In my opinion, there are fourpossibleplaces: the Universityof
Paris; a Universityor cathedralschool in the provincesof Toulouse or
116See L.M.De
OnTheDateofLambert
Summulae
, in:Vivarium,
ofAuxerre's
Rijk,A J'fote
7 (1969),
F. Alessio,
deAuxerre,
"Introduzione"
toLamberto
(Summa
Lamberti),
pp. 160-2;
Logica
Firenze1971,especially,
pp.XXX-XXXI.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

67

France;the courtof the NavarreKings; or the cathedralschool,and later

whereSanto Domingo
of Palencia,theoldestSpanishuniversity
University,
other
de Guzmn studied,and where numerous
figuresrelevantto the
Order of Preacherswere found,such as Pedro Gonzlez (San Telmo). I
which would allow me to decide
do not have the necessaryinformation
four
these
possiblities.
among
"omneshomines the denomi,"
Finally,with respectto the Compilationes
" could be consideredas evidence of the assonation"PetriHyspanigallici
ciationof Peter of Spain with the Dominican provinceof France.
In my opinion,the analysisof the manuscripttraditionof the Tractatusand of its commentariesonce again confirmsthat the reasons supof Peterof Spain as a memberof the Order of
portingthe identification
with
Preachersare much strongerthan thosesupportinghis identification
La
Divina
Commedia
the
historians
on
XXI.
The
commentators
,
Pope John
of the Order of Preachers,Spanish national historians,papal historians,
itselfand of its commentariesall argue
and the traditionof the Tractatus
of Peterof Spain as a memberof the Order
in favorof the identification
of Preachers.
5. Who,When
, Where?
So far,I have examinedwithas much rigorand precisionas possible
which I have been able to collectconcerningto
a numberof testimonies
the identityof Peterof Spain. In my opinion,thisexaminationhas shed
lighton severalof the problemspresented,but has advanced littleor no
of the figureof
in referenceto a biographicalreconstruction
information
the
Peterof Spain and of the circumstances
surrounding compositionand
There is stillmuch work to be done.
of the Tractatus.
dissemination
In searchingfor new informationconcerningthe figureof Peter of
Spain, I have come across some testimonieswhich could easily referto
him,even if I have thusfarnot been able to verifythat these references
are in factto the same figure.In what follows,I have relinquishedsome
of the rigorand precisionto which I have adhered untilthispoint,and
will riska purelyspeculativediscourse,attemptingto account for some
of the testimoniesI have found. Many "Peters of Spain" have crossed
which
my path, but I will limitmyselfto an account of the information
I believecould have some relationto the figurewe have been discussing.
As I have alreadystated,I do not know who Peter of Spain, author
was. I believe,since I have no reasons to doubt it, that
of the Tractatus
was buried in the Convent of Saint Dominic
the authorof the Tractatus

19:20:08 PM

68

ANGELD'ORS

at Estella until 1765, the date when Pascual Larrainzar,accordingto his

own testimony,
opened the tomb. I do not know of the whereaboutsof
the tomb and its inscriptionafterthis date.
I also believe that Peter of Spain was a member of the Order of
Preachers,that he was probablyoriginatedfromNavarre, and that he
was somehow linkedto the Dominican Provinceof Toulouse. There he
probablyoccupied a positionin the Order's centersof study,which is
I considerit probable that
why he meritedthe denomination"magister"
he was the real authorof one of the Historiesof Saint Dominic, and of
the Office.He also probablywroteotherworks,whichbecame the basis
of his renownas a theologian,as mentionedby severalchroniclers.
If my beliefsare not mistaken,perhaps Peter of Spain, authorof the
" to whom some
Tractatus,could be identifiedas the "Magister
Petrus
early
documentsand Dominican chroniclesrefer.V.J. Koudelka117published
"
a documentwhich "MagisterPetrus
signs as a witnessin Rome on 25
November 1220. Grard de Fraches VitaeFratrum
, and Bernard Guy's
of
which relies
of
Provincial
Priors
of
the
Province
Toulouse
the
history
"
"
around
Petrus
on Fraches work,mentiona "Magister
1238, erat
who,
"
"
Petrus is quite
." The referenceto this Magister
rector
scholarum
Burdegalis
indirect,since he is cited as a witnessand beneficiaryof Guillaume de
Syssac's miracles,who was the thirdpriorof the provinceof Toulouse.118
Thus thereis no cause to expectmore detailsconcerningthisfigure(such
of the authorshipof
as a mentionof his Spanish originor an attribution
the Tractatus).
Neither Grard de Frachet nor Bernard Guy provide us
"
Petrus
this
." Nevertheless,
withmore information
concerningthis Magister
"
"
referenceto him as Magister
Petrus (whichis preciselythe formulaused
to referto Peter of Spain in the ProvincialChapter of Pisa of 1340119
117
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
Monumenta
S.Dominici^
Monumenta
Ordinis
Histrica,
Diplomatica
vol.XXV,Roma1966,p. 135.
118Barcelona,
scoms.218,101:"Magister
Universidad,
quoquePetrus,
quieratrector
auditamorte
viriDei, et confidens
de eiussanctitate,
larumBurdegalis,
quamnoverat,
et faucescum
alteradie accessit
ad eiussepulchrum,
cumpateretur
dolorem
dencium,
muletstatim
fuita dolore
dencium
terra
eiusfricavit,
liberatus,
qui,audientibus
sepulchri
librovcapihocnarravit.
duoscripta
suntinVitisFratrum,
tissuisscolaribus,
Premissa
iunii
utdictum
inDominoinconventu
tuloix.Hisquiescit
est,xkalendas
Burdegalensi,
Veterum
etmonumentoannoDomini<MCCXXXVIII>."Cf.Martne-Durand,
scriptorum
Gerardi
Fratris
. . Bernardi
Libellas
demagistris
ordinis
rum
Guidonis
, cols.419-420;
praedicatorum
abanno
MCCIIIusque
ordinis
Fratrum
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
necnon
cronica
deFracheto
O.P.}Vitae
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
adMCCLIV,
B.M.Reichert
O.P.ed.,Monumenta
Ordinis
Histrica,
vol.unicum,
Louvain1896,pp. 298-9.
119
Actacapitulorum
Romanae
ThomasKaeppeliO.P.
Provinciae
(1243-1344).
provincialium
auxiliante
Dondaine
instruxit
Innocentius
Taurisano
Antonio
O.P.,MonuO.P.,praefatione

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

69

when the use of the Tractatus

was officially
recommended),his positionas
"rector
scholarum
and
his
with
association
Bordeaux (rememberingthat
,"
Iodocus Trutvettercalls him PetrusBurdegalensis
), make the identification
" with the author of the Tractatus
of this"Magister
Petrus
highlyplausible.
in
this
same
the
Dominican
chronicles
vein,
Continuing
speculative
also speak of a "PetrusHispanasconversus
one
of
Saint
Dominic's
col,"
laborators,who in 1218 accompaniedJuan de Navarra on his journey
"
Withinthe Dominican Order, the denomination"conversus
to Bologna.120
seemsto have been ambiguous,and could serveequally to referto someone who was convertedto Christianityas well as to membersof the
Order who had not receivedthe sacerdotalordination.In the firstsense,
it seems as thoughthe referentis a convertedJew. It is known that at
this time groups of Jews existed in Navarre, and that conversionsto
were common. Would it be surprisingforJuan de Navarra
Christianity
to have chosena fellowNavarreseas a companion?If thiswere the case,
"
," which is the denominationused in
perhaps the name PetrusAlphonsi
the Stams Catalogue,would not be surprising
since anotherfamousconvertedJew adopted the name in the previouscentury.
" to whom
If we grantthatall of thisis possible,if the "Magister
Petrus
the Dominican chroniclesreferin both 1220 and 1238 is one and the
" and as
same person,and can be identifiedas "PetrusHispanusconversus
the authorof the Tractatus
, perhaps we would be inclinedto push back
the date of compositionof the Tractatus
by at least a decade (1220-35
insteadof 1230-45 so that the date proposed by De Rijk "no later than
the 1230's," could be the correctone). We mightalso connectits comwiththe organizationof the Dominican
position,or at least its diffusion,
centersof studyin the yearsfollowingthe death of Saint Dominic. If the
"
"
Petrus
organizationof studiesat Bordeaux was entrustedto this Magister
"
"
scholarum
("rector
"), thisis probablywhyhe was already magister(perhaps
he had alreadywrittenthe Tractatus
or the Syncategoremata
) beforehaving
enteredinto the recentlyfoundedOrder of Preachers.This would be in
accord withPhilippusde Ferrara'scommentary.
If thisis true,the mostplausibleplace forthe compositionof the Tractatusseems to be the cityof Bordeaux. In this case, the allusion in the

menta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
Histrica
vero
XX,Roma,1941,p. 319:"Magisti
in loycalibus
veterem
artem
totamet duoslibrosad minusde artenovaperficiant
dilietpostquam
artem
de tractatibus
veterem
Petriprorudibus
genter,
compleverint
magisti
suasassumant
sollicite
lectiones."
120
T.M. Mamacho,
Annates
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
, TomusI, Roma1756,p. 466.

19:20:08 PM

70

ANGELD'ORS

Tractatus
to the citiesof Len, Zamora and Astorgawould become rather
enigmatic.One would have to think,then,eitherthat the studiesor initial teachingof Peterof Spain were in a regionclose to thesecities(which
undoubtedlyhad to have been the Universityof Palencia, where, as I
have alreadyshown,Santo Domingo de Guzmn also studiedand probably taught),or thattherewas a Castilianadaptationof the originalversion of the Tractatus
, which subsequentlywould have been disseminated.
This "Magister
Petrus"could perhaps also be identifiedwiththe figure
referredto by Henry of Ghent (+1293):
eiusdem
Provincialis
sermones
deDominicis
ordinis,
Franciae,
Gap.41.Petrus
scripsit
et festivitatibus
ferepertotum
utuntur
annum,
quibusmulti
usquehodie,121
who Tritemius122
considersto be "natione
Gallus
." I do not knowthe iden"
of
this
Petrus
natione
in
Francia
Prior
Gallus
,
,
tity
provincialiswhom Henry
of Ghent dates in the mid-thirteenth
century.However,the Compilationes
" refersto Peter of
" Omneshomines
"
," which
Spain as PetriHyspanigallici
leads one to thinkof a possiblelink betweenthese two figures.If thisis
" could be identifiedwiththe "rector
true and if this "Petrus
Gallus
, natione
scholarum"
of Bordeaux,one would have to thinkof a possibletransfer
of
the authorof the Tractatus
fromthe provinceof Toulouse to the Province
of France. This transfer
would probablyentailboth an approximationto
the courtof King Teobaldo I of Navarre (Troyes),and to the Univerisity
of Paris,whichwould illuminatethe relationsbetweenPeterof Spain and
Lambertd'Auxerre,as well as the later disseminationof the Tractatus.
In
this case, a studyof the historyof the ProvincialPriorsof the province
of France would providenew information
concerningthe figureof Peter
of Spain.
A fourthtradition,
whichderivesfromThomas of Cantimprand finds
echoes in the worksof Qutif-Echard,123
Jos Sarabia y Lezana,124and
121
Liber
Henrici
Gandavensis
Archidiaconi
Tornacensis
De scriptoribus
ecclesiasticis
, in:Aubertus
Miraeus
Bibliotheca
Ecclesiastica
VILveteres
siv
Nomencltores
Bruxellensis,
1639,
[. . .],Antwerp
p. 170.
122
De scriptorbus
ecclesiasticis
ordinis
fratrum
, Kln1546,p. 199:"Petrus
praedicatorum,
natione
et eiusdem
in FranciaPriorprovincialis,
virin divinis
Gallus,
religionis
scripturis
et saecularis
nonignarus,
et promptus
acutus,
longostudiodoctus,
philosophiae
ingenio
in declamandis
ad populum
sermonibus
idoneus
fuit.Undead utilitatem
eloquio,
legentiumcomposuit
nonspernendos:
Sermones
de tempore
lib.I; Sermones
perannicirculum
lib.I; Sed et alia nonnulla
meam
dicitur,
quoquede sanctis
scripsisse
quaead notitiam
nonvenerunt."
123See note64.
124
dela Sagrada
deSto.Domingo
, TomoSegundo,
Josde SarabiayLezana,Annales
Religion
Madrid1709,pp. 41-2.

19:20:08 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS

71

ManuelJos de Medrano,125
speaksof a Fray Pedro Espaol, who is diffiand who
but to whom numerousmiraclesare attributed,
cultto identify,
lived in the firsthalf of the thirteenth
century.
Obviously,theseanalysesare of a purelyspeculativenature.They claim
in the hope that along
only to definenew directionsfor investigation,
of the true PetrusHispaone of thesepaths we will findthe identification
Studiesof the historyof the Dominican
nas O.P., authorof the Tractatus.
" to the
Petrus
conventat Bordeauxand the date of entryof "Magister
posischolarumof the historyof theDominicanconventat Troyes
tionof "rector
and of the ProvincialPriorsof the Provinceof France; of the intellectual
lifeat thecourtof the Navarresemonarchs;of the historyof the University
of Palencia and of its decline throughthe foundationof the University
of Salamanca, will all undoubtedlyprovide valuable informationallowing us to confirmor rejectthese hypotheses.I am convinced,however,
thattheywill shed new lighton the figureof Peterof Spain, and on the
chronology,
purpose,and natureof this decisivework.126
Madrid
Universidad
Complutense

125
dePredicadores
deEspaa
Manuel
Historia
dela Provincia
, dela Orden
,
Josde Medrano,
Primera
desdeel ao de MCCXXIhastael findel sigloXIII,
Parte,Tomosegundo,
Madrid1727,pp. 324-5.
126
Del
I thank
De Rijk,as wellas Professors
Professor
Ebbesen,
Ashworth,
Angelelli,
ofthispaperfortheattention
PuntaandMeirinhos,
version
whohadreadtheSpanish
to improve
it.
comments
paidtomyworkandfortheir
De Rijkletthe
Editorial
note
: After
ofthisarticle,
Professor
theSpanish
version
reading
thesis.
He
oftheauthor's
author
knowthathe wasfully
convinced
of thecorrectness
invited
himtopublish
an English
in thisjournal.
version

19:20:08 PM

A New Interpretation
1277 Revisited:
of
of theDoctrinalInvestigations
ThomasAquinasand Gilesof Rome*

J.M.M.H.THIJSSEN

In two importantstudiesRobertWielockxofferedevidencethatin the

year 1277 Bishop StephenTempier initiatednot one but threeinquiries
against certainphilosophicaland theologicalviews at the Universityof
Paris.1 Since theirpublicationapproximatelya decade ago, Wielockx's
findingshave foundgeneralacceptanceamong historiansof medievalphiAccording
losophyand are regardedtodayas the accurateinterpretation.2
issued
the
censure
of 219
not
to thisinterpretation,
only
Bishop Tempier
doctrinal
investion
March
but
also
started
distinct
1277
7,
propositions
gationsof the theologiansGiles of Rome and Thomas Aquinas. The investigationof Giles of Rome was concluded beforeMarch 28, 1277 and
* Research
Institute
forAdvanced
forthisarticle
waspartly
carried
outattheNetherlands
intheHumanities
inWassenaar,
andwassupported
andSocialSciences
bya grant
Study
Henk
from
theNetherlands
forScientific
Research
(NWO).I wishtothank
Organization
which
is oneoftwostudies
Braakhuis
forhiscomments
on an earlier
draft.
Thisarticle
in 1277.
thecurrent
ofthecondemnations
ofBishop
revise
Stephen
Tempier
interpretation
s
onMarch
The related
article
willappearas What
7, 1277?Bishop
Tempier'
happened
really
inContext
Condemnation
anditsInstitutional
Context
andE. Sylla(eds.),Texts
, in:M. McVaugh
andMedieval
Science.
inhonor
Murdoch
inAncient
Essays
, Leiden1997,84-114.
ofJohn
1 Aegidius
Omnia.
111.1
et commentaire
; Edition
Romanus,
Apologia
parRobert
Opera
de Thomas
Firenze1985,and R. Wielockx,
Autour
duprocs
, in: (ed.),
Wielockx,
d'Aquin
imLicht
neurerer
A. Zimmermann,
Thomas
vonAquin.
Werk
undWirkung
, Berlin
Forschungen
in earlier
studies
viewssetforth
further
andcorrect
1988,413-38.Thesestudies
develop
de thologie
ancienne
et
in: Recherches
ofE. Hocedez,
La condemnation
deGiles
deRomey
der
4 (1932),34-58,andL. Hdl,NeueNachrichten
ber
diePariser
mdivale,
Verurteilungen
Thomasischen
Formlehre
39 (1964),178-96.
, in:Scholastik,
2 See,forinstance,
del1277e l'evoluzione
L. Bianchi,
Il vescovo
e ifilosofi.
La condanna
parigina
di
delle
scolastico
dell'aristotelismo
, Bergamo
1990,28; S. Donati,Studi
perunacronobgia
opere
aristotelici
e studisulla
Romano.
I: Le opere
del1285.I commenti
, in:Documenti
Egidio
prima
au
1 (1990),7 n. 13;F. Van Steenberghen,
La philosophie
tradizione
filosofica
medievale,
XIIIesicle;
Deuxime
mise jour,Louvain-La-Neuve
1991,426 n. 160;J.-P.
dition,
Sa personne
etsonoeuvre
Torrell
saintThomas
1993,
, Fribourg-Paris
O.P.,Initiation
d'Aquin.
Faith
440-1; J.F.Wippel,
Mediaeval
Reactions
totheEncounter
between
andReason
, Milwaukee,
Wi 1995,71,and Thomas
andtheCondemnation
of1277, in:The ModernSchoolAquinas
du7 mars
1277, in:
SaintThomas
etl'intervention
man,72 (1995),270-2;R. Hissette,
piscopale
D. Lorenz,
O.P. andS. Serafini,
O.P. (eds.),Studi
, Roma1995,257-8.I wishto thank
Dr. RolandHissette
forbringing
thelatter
to myattention.
twopublications
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,1

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

73

concerneda listof 5 1 erroneouspropositionstakenfromBook I of Giles's

Soon afterthe startof thisinvestigation,
but
on the Sentences.
commentary
in any case beforeMarch 28, 1277, Bishop Tempier began his examination of Thomas Aquinas's views. Sometime between May 20 and
November25, 1277, duringthe vacancy of the ApostolicSee, however,
the papal Curia orderedBishop Tempier to interruptthisinvestigation.
In thisarticleI willreexaminethe evidenceon whichthe currentinterpretationof the inquiriesagainst Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome
has been based. I shall argue that the suggestionthat Tempier starteda
thirdand separateinquiryagainstThomas Aquinas's viewsin 1277 is not
supportedby the sources. In addition,I will depict a scenario for the
processagainstGiles of Rome that departsin importantways fromthe
accepted interpretation.
TheallegedinquiiyagainstThomasAquinas
The idea that Bishop Tempier initiateda separate investigationof
Thomas Aquinas's views in 1277 is based largelyon the testimoniesof
Henryof Ghent,John Pecham, and William de la Mare. These authors
all referto an investigation
of the thesisof the unityof substantialform,
one of Thomas Aquinas's mostcontroversial
positions.Wielockxhas sugon March 7, 1277,
this
was
not
condemned
since
position
gestedthat,
the testimony
of Henryof Ghent,John Pecham, and Williamde la Mare
mustconcerna separateinvestigation
whichTempier had startedagainst
Thomas Aquinas. Althoughsome of the passages in question are well
knownand have been publishedseveraltimes,I will quote them extensivelybelow because theyare so crucialto the new analysisof the examinationsof the views of Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome that I shall
propose here.
Henry of Ghent
The testimonyof Henry of Ghent is contained in quaestio5 of his
Quodlibet
X, whichwas held duringChristmas1286. It discusseswhether
the livingbody of Christis identicalin species with the livingbody of
about the unityof
Peter.3It is a topic that touched on the controversy
substantialformin man, which was waged at the Universitiesof Paris
3 Henry
corofGhent,
O.F.M.,Leuven1981,55: "Utrum
X, ed.R. Macken,
Quodlibet
vivum
et Petrivivum
sintidemspecie."
pusChristi

19:20:19 PM

74

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

and Oxford duringthe 1270s and 1280s.4At issue was the numberof
substantialformspresentin man: is only one substantialformto be admittedor more than one? The problemand its proposed solutionswere
especiallywithrespect
thoughtto have importanttheologicalramifications,
to the human nature of Christ.5As is generallyacknowledged,Thomas
Aquinas and Giles of Rome, the latteraftera considerableevolutionof
his views,defendedthe unityof substantialformat Paris. The plurality
positionin one of its versions,however,was dominant.Certain scholars
in Paris seemed to be under the impressionthatthe unityof formthesis
had been condemnedas erroneous,even thoughit did not appear among
the propositionsthat were condemned on December 10, 1270 and on
March 7, 1277 by Bishop Tempier.6
One of those responsiblefor conveyingthe impressionthat the unity
of Paris was Henry
of formwas a highlysensitivetopic at the University
In
X
of Ghent. the firstredactionof Quodlibet q. 5, preservedin onlyone
medieval manuscript,Henry inserteda long note (.schedula
) in which he
recallseventsthatoccurredten yearsearlier.7The contextof Henry'srecollectionsis provided by the discussionof a rebuttal.It maintainsthat
the view which Henry of Ghent had been developingin quaestio
5 could
be rejectedon thegroundthatit had been recently
condemnedin England.
From the referenceit is clear that Henry of Ghent is alludingto a condemnationconcerningthe unityof formtheory,issued by Archbishop
John Pecham on April 30, 1286 in London.8The thesiswhichis quoted
4 See,
thefollowing
D.A. Callus,TheProblem
studies:
oftheUnity
ofForm
amongothers,
and
andRichard
in:Mlanges
tienne
Gilson
1959,123-60,
, Toronto-Paris
Knapwell,
offerts
TheCondemnation
Richard
atOxford,
London1955;R. Zavalloni,
secondedition,
ofStThomas
surlapluralit
DieEinheit
deMediavilla
etla controverse
des
, Louvain1951;Th.Schneider,
formes
Korrektorienstreit
und
desMenschen.
Dieanthropologische
Formel
"anima
imsogenannten
forma
corporis"
Mnster
1973.ThisconbeiPetrus
Olivi.
EinBeitrag
desKonzils
vonVienne,
zurVorgeschichte
debatethatalsowagedinthe1270samong
should
be distinguished
from
another
troversy
in connection
scholastics
withthehumansoul,namely
thedebateabouttheuniqueness
oftheintellect.
SoulintheThirteenth
See nowR.C. Dales,TheProblem
,
Century
oftheRational
Leiden1995.
5 SeeJ.F.
D.C. 1981,
TheMetaphysical
, Washington,
Thought
ofGodfrey
ofFontaines
Wippel,
314-47fora convenient
introduction
to thisissue.
6 H. Denifle
andE. Chatelain,
Paris1889-1891,
Chartularium
Universitatis
Parisiensis
, 4 vols.,
henceforth
citedas CUP, 1: 486-7(#432),
and 1: 543-58(#473).
7 Theschedulae
ms.
arecontained
Nationale,
Paris,Bibliothque
onlyin themanuscript
thecritical
ofHenry
lat.15350which
wasan important
forestablishing
edition
manuscript
in
ofGhent's
in theother
Quodlibet.
Theyweresuppressed
copiesbuthavebeenprinted
ofthe
thecritical
fora discussion
See Henry
ofGhent,
X, lxxiv-lxxvi
Quodlibet
apparatus.
status
ofthesenotes.
8 HenryofGhent,
of
thecontroversy
abouttheunity
X, 106-7.At Oxford
Quodlibet
form
wasmarked
official
thatofMarch1277,issued
bythree
prohibitions:
byArchbishop

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

75

by Henryof Ghent appears as Article8 on the listof condemnederrors

de unitate
that were extractedfromthe Quaestiodisputata
, a work
formae
8 mainRichard
Article
Dominican
the
authoredby
theologian
Knapwell.9
tained that therewas only one formin man, namely his rationalsoul,
est tantum
una
and no other substantialform: Octavusest, quod in homine
ex
et
nulla
alia
substantial
scilicet
anima
;
rationalis,
,
qua opinione
forma
forma
.10AccordingtoJohn Pecham, the thehaereses
omnes
supradictae
sequividentwr
withChristianteachingconsis of the unityof formwas in contradiction
the
and the resurrection
for
the
Incarnation,
Eucharist,
instance,
cerning,
of the body.
The discussionof Article8 of Knapwell's condemnationleads Henry
of Ghent to a recapitulationof the historyof the unityof formcontroversyat the Universityof Paris. Right at the outset,Henry reportsthat
twelvemastersof the facultyof theologyin Paris had signed a letterin
which theydeclared that none of them recalled that the unityof form
theoryhad been condemnedas erroneousand hereticalduringtheirtime
at the Universityof Paris. Henry of Ghent confirmstheirstatementand
declaresthathe too did not knowof a condemnationissuedby an official
who possessedthe requiredauthority:
in quadamlittera
ut intellexi,
vero12 theologicae
facultatis,
sigillaverunt
Magisti
suis
nesciunt
nonessenisiunamformam,
quaeponitin homine
quodpositionem
et haereerroneam
in studio
fuisse
condemnatam
tamquam
parisiensi
temporibus
latam
de damnatione
cam.Quodre vera et egonescio,
persententiam
loquendo
damnatione.11
haberisuperhaeresum
ab homine
quipotestatem
publice,
The letterto which Henry refershas been interpretedin the scholarly
literatureas a reactionfromParisiantheologiansto Knapwell's condemnation on April 30, 1286. Since both Henry of Ghent and Godfreyof
of Christmas1286, it must
Fontainesmentionthe letterin theirQuodlibeta
have been writtenbetweenApril 30 and Christmas1286.12Althoughthe
the
in 1284byArchbishop
itsrenewal
Robert
and,especially,
JohnPecham;
Kilwardby;
See Callus,The
in 1286,alsoissued
condemnation
ofRichard
byJohnPecham.
Knapwell
Pecham
Problem,
andD. Douie,Archbishop
, Oxford
1952,285-301.
9 Richard
Paris1982.
deunitate
, ed. F.E. Kelley,
Quaestio
formae
Knapwell,
disputata
10F. Pelster,
Richard
desMagister
von1286unddieSchriften
DieStzederLondoner
Verurteilung
16 (1946),87. HenryofGhent
Fratrum
vonKnapwell,
Praedicatorum,
O.P.,in:Archivm
butArticle
8 wasconsidered
articles
from
alsodiscusses
other
condemnation,
Knapwell's
werederived.
which
theother
articles
tobe themostcrucial,
from
11Henry
ofGhent,
X, 127n.
Quodlibet
12
in hisQuodlibet
refers
to thesameletter
ofFontaines
3, q. 5. See Lesquatre
Godfrey
Louvain1904,
deFontaines
deGodefroid
, ed. M. de WulfandA. Pelzer,
Quodlibets
premiers
TheMetaphysical
inWippel,
isdiscussed
Thepassage
207-8.
, 318n.89,andWielockx,
Thought
, 222.
Apologia

19:20:19 PM

76

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

theoryof the unityof formwas not formallycondemnedin Paris, the

was not withoutits incidents.
controversy
is structured
aroundthree
of
Henry Ghent'saccountof the controversy
such episodes. Each episode resultedin a rejectionof the theoryof the
unityof form.None, however,was a condemnationin the propersense
of the term.The incidentsreportedby Henryeitherdid not involveecclesiasticalauthorities,or, if they did, theirinvolvementwas of a private,
ratherthan a public nature. The three episodes are dated relativeto
X.
Christmas1286, when Henry of Ghent held his Quodlibet
first
of
the
tookplace ten
to
the
controversy
episode
According Henry,
that
sometime
between
Christmas
and
Easter 1277
1276
is,
yearsearlier,
13
(March 28). Henry claims that ten years earlierhe attendeda meeting
in Paris of all available regentand non-regentmastersof theology.The
meetingwas held on the ordersof Bishop StephenTempier and Simon
of Brion, the papal legate and futurePope Martin IV, and its purpose
was to examine certainarticles.Among the articlesto be examinedwas
one stating"that in man there is but one substantialform,namelythe
is nisianimaratiorationalsoul" (ille,quodin homine
noneratformasubstantial
all
but
two
masters
to
of
nalis).According Henry Ghent,
agreed thatthis
articlewas false (falsum
):
scio,quia interfui,
Loquendoautemde damnatione
persententiam
magistrorum,
tamnonregentes
actuquam
omnetheologiae
magisti
quodiam 10 anniselapsis,
simulcongregati
ad examinandos
Parisius,
regentes,
qui haberipotuerunt
quosdam
et domini
artculos
de mandato
domini
Simoni
Stephani
episcopi
parisiensis
legati,
interquosartculos
fuitpapa Martinus,
eratille,quodin homine
qui postmodum
noneratforma
nisianimarationalis,
unanimiter
substantial
omnes
unoore,duobus
rationalem
dixerunt
nonesseformam
nisianimam
exceptis,
quoddicerein homine
falsum
erat.14
The second episode took place "the previousyear," that is in 1285.
In thatyear, all the available regentand non-regentmastersof theology
gatheredto examine a listof articleson the ordersof Pope HonoriusIV.
On the list was the aforementioned
articleconcerningthe unityof substantialform.All the masters,with the exceptionof two dissenters,and
one masterwho voiced some reservations,
agreed again that the article
was false,thoughtheydid not maintainthat it was erroneous:
tam
annum
omnesmagisti
Iterum
autemannopraecedente
theologiae
disputationis
ad examiParisius
actuquamnonregentes,
congregati
regentes
quihaberi
potuerunt,
13Thedateswhich
areaccording
totheEaster
calendar.
SeeWielockx,
Henry
provides
, 82 and89.
Apologia
14Henry
ofGhent,
X, 127n.
Quodlibet

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

77

nandum
artculos
domini
Honorii
de mandato
articulus
papae.Intererat
quosdam
in homine.
de imitate
substantialis
Omneunanimiter,
duobus
formae
praedictus
et quodamaliodubierespondente,
dixerunt
idem:quodlicetdixerint
falexceptis
substantialis
nisianimarationalis,
sumessedictum
nonestforma
quodin homine
dixerunt
illudesseerroneum.15
nontarnen
The thirdepisode also occurredten years earlierand musthave been
withthe firstone (betweenChristmas1276 and
nearlycontemporaneous
March 28, 1277), and subsequent to Henry of Ghent's firstQuodlibet
(Christmas1276). Sometime during that period Henry of Ghent was
summonedto appear at a privatemeetingwith the papal legate Simon
of Brion,Bishop Tempier, the chancellorJohn of Alleux, and Ranulph
of Houblonnire.At this meeting,the papal legate questionedHenry of
Ghentabout his positionwithregardto the pluralityof substantialforms.
Henry,however,did not seem convincedtotallythat thereexisteda pluralityof formsin man. Aftera briefdeliberation,the papal legate prescribedthatin the futureHenry would have to teach that in man there
is a pluralityof forms.From thisepisode,Henry concludedthatthe conover the unityof formwas not purelya philosophicaldiscussion,
troversy
he observedthat
but ratherone that touched upon faith.Furthermore,
in the eyes of the personspresentat this privatemeeting,the unityof
formwas a condemnedtheoryeven thoughit was not condemnedpublicly.For the truthin this matter,however,Henry refersthe reader to
Ranulph of Houblonnireand John of Alleux, "who are stillalive and
can furnishtruthful
testimonywith respectto the aforesaid."In 1286,
when Henry of Ghent gave his Quodlibet
X, Ranulph of Houblonnire
was Bishop of Paris, and John Alleux had joined the Dominicans:
Parisius
cumquidamnotati
fuerunt
lam 10annis,
quasiposuissent
quodin homine
in dubio
et egoeodemtempore
nisianimarationalis,
nonessetforma
substantialis
an pluresformae
in primadisputatione
meade Quolibet
quaestionem
reliquissem
a domino
tunclegato,
inhomine
vocatus
velunicatantum,
essent
Simone,
ponendae
etdomini
tuncepiscopi
inpraesentia
domini
etrequisitus
Ranoldi,
parisienis,
Stephani,
tunccancellarii
nuncepiscopi
et magisti
Ioannis
Aurelianensis,
parisienis
parisienis,
essent
an quodin homine
etnuncfratris
ordinis
praedicatorum,
quidegosentirem,
senetrespondissem
an quodunicatantum,
formae
substantiates
quodpotius
plures
cumpraedicSimonpostmodicam
consultationem
tirem
quodplures,
ipsedominus
in partem,
mihidixit:"Volumus
et praecipimus
me tracto
tispersonis,
tibi,quod
substantiates
sintformae
in scholis
determines
tuis,quodin homine
plures,
publice
in dubio."Et
de cetero
nonsolaanimarationalis,
ne scholares
superhocmaneant
mandatum
ne satisefficaciter
suspicabatur
quia,secundum
quodmihivisumfuit,
deterutclareetaperte
addidit:
"Sissollicitus
comminando
suuminhocexsequerer,
nemini
esseinhomine,
mines
formas
substantiales
parcerem."
quiaincausafidei
plures
an plures
formae
subEx quovisum
estmihiipsumsensisse
quodin determinando
15Henry
ofGhent,
X, 127n.
Quodlibet

19:20:19 PM

78

J.M.M.H.
THIJSSEN
Visumestedammihi
veltantum
unicasintin homine,
causafidei.
stantiales
agitur
de Consilio
dictorum
unicam
formam
essein homine
virorum
quoddiceretantum
utcredo,
scilicetnonpublice.
sit,melius,
damnaverat,
Quidauteminhocveritatis
Renaldus
et frater
Iohannes
untdominus
Aurelianensis,
qui
episcopus
parisiensis
adhucvivunt
et de praedictis
fidele
testimonium
perhibere
poterunt.16

Henrysuggeststwo reasonsforwhyhe was drawnintothissmallmeeting and questionedabout his stance. First,in 1276 some people in Paris
were considerednotoriousfordefendingthe thesisthattherewas but one
substantialformin man. Second, at approximately
the same timeHenry
of Ghent himselfhad takenan equivocal stancewithrespectto thisissue
in his firstQuodlibet
(held at Christmas1276).
Among the personswho ten yearsearlierhad been "marked"in Paris
for having defended the thesis of the unity of substantialformwere
Adenulphof Anagni and Giles of Rome.17In 1277, Adenulphof Anagni
recantedhis position.18
But the same thesisalso playeda role in the investigationof Giles of Rome.
Only two originaldocumentshave survivedfromtheproceedingsagainst
Giles of Rome: a brieftreatise,named Apologiaby its editor,and a letterdatedJune 1, 1285 fromPope HonoriusIV toJohn of Houblonnire,
the Bishop of Paris.19Both documentswill be analysedmore fullybelow,
when I discuss the process against Giles of Rome. My presentpurpose
is to linkthesetwo documentsto the incidentsin the unityof formdebate
mentionedby Henry of Ghent.
The secondepisode(1285) describedin Quodlibet
X is generallyassociated
with Giles of Rome's reconciliationwith the bishop and the mastersof
theologyin Paris. In 1285, in responseto a requestof Giles of Rome,
Pope HonoriusIV wrotea letterto Ranulph of Houblonnire,the Bishop
of Paris.20In thisletterthe pope orderedthe bishop,the chancellorand
16Henry
ofGhent,
X, 128n.
Quodlibet
17Wielockx,
ofAnagni
wasamongthe"quidam
, 83 rulesoutthatAdenulph
Apologia
notati"
to whomHenryofGhentreferred.
Butthisconclusion
is basedon a misunderoftheterm
toWielockx
wasapplied
"notatus,"
which,
standing
according
onlytopersons
whohadbeencondemned
as infamous.
thatintheexamples
which
Note,however,
Wielockx,
theterm
ina composition:
occurs
"notatos
, 83,n. 29 quotesforhisinterpretation,
Apologia
de excommunicatione,"
In Henry
"de heresinotatus."
ofGhent's
text,thetermis used
without
thiscontext.
18RogerMarston,
ed.G.F.Etzkorn
andI.G.Brady,
Quodlibetu
1968,
Quatuor,
Quaracchi
389:"Hancigitur
nonaudeo,cumsitcontraria
et
fundamentis
opinionem
philosophicis
fuitParisius
a magistro
solemniter
Henrico
documentis;
theologicis
propter
quodretracta
de Gandavo
etmagistro
sicutaliquihiepraesentes
auribus
audierunt."
Adinulpho,
propriis
19Thetwodocuments
areedited
inWielockx,
andCUP 1:633(#522),
Apologia
respectively.
20CUP 1: 633(#522).

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

79

the mastersof theologyto make a decisionin Giles of Rome's case, which

had been initiatedby Bishop Stephen Tempier. Henry of Ghent's testiX, confirmsthat the mastersat Paris indeed met in
mony in Quodlibet
and
that
one
of the articlesthatwas discussedin thismeetingcon1285
cerned the unityof substantialform.
The firstepisode (1277) reportedby Henry of Ghent can be linked,I
believe,to the processagainstGiles of Rome, which took place in 1277.
The thesisof the unityof substantialformwhich the masters,according
to Henryof Ghent,rejectedat theirmeetingoccurson the listof charged
errorsof Giles of Rome. These chargeshave been preservedin theApologia,
a brieftreatisein which Giles respondsto 51 allegedlyerroneoustheses
thatwereextractedfromBook I of his commentary
on the Sentences.
(articuli)
One of the theses,Article48, preciselyconcernsthe unityof substantial
form.21
Thus, it appears highlylikelythat Henry's account of the first
episode concernsthe inquiryagainstGiles of Rome.
The kind of meetingdescribedby Henry of Ghent is a typicalstage
in investigations
of suspectteaching.At some point duringthe inquiry,
a commissionof theologiansor ail the mastersof theologyin a plenary
sessionwould evaluate a list propositions.Usually, the mastersof theology assessed the degree of errorof each thesison the list by majority
vote.22In his account of the firstepisode Henry of Ghent reportsthat
the thesisof the unityof substantialformwas rejectedby all but two
masters.This means that only two masterswere of the opinion that the
thesisof the unityof substantialformwas not erroneous.Since theywere
the thesisremainedon the list of chargeswhich
clearlyin the minority,
the bishophad submittedto the theologiansforadvice. Hence, it appears
as an Articlein the listof chargesto which Giles of Rome respondedin
his Apologia.
This analysisof the account of the votingsession- the firstepisode in
He believed
X - runscontrary
to RobertWielockx'sinterpretation.
Quodlibet
that this episode concernedan investigationinto the views of Thomas
21Wielockx,
The
withtheposition
ofThomasAquinas.
169drawsa parallel
Apologia,
estunaforma."
SeeWielockx,
"Inquolibet
article
readsas follows:
, 59.
Apologia
composito
22Procedures
inJ.M.M.H.
Academic
areoutlined
forinvestigating
falseteaching
Thijssen,
and
in:A.A.MacDonald
attheUniversity
andIntellectual
Freedom
, 1200-1378,
ofParis
Heresy
inPre-Modem
andtheNearEast
, Leiden1995,
ofLearning
Europe
J.W.Drijvers
(eds.),Centres
1200-1278
at TheUniversity
andCensure
andHeresy
Pa,forth217-28,
ofPariss
(Philadelphia,
Articles
CA2 127andtheCensured
one.See alsoW.J.Courtenay,
of
Erfurt
chapter
coming),
Ihre
imSpannungsfeld
Mirecourt
andAutr
in:A.Speer(ed.),DieBibliotheca
ecourt,
Bedeutung
Amploniana.
von
undHumanismus
Nominalismus
, Berlin1995,342-5.
Aristotelismi^,

19:20:19 PM

80

J.M.M.H.
THIJSSEN

Aquinas and not into those of Giles of Rome.23His sole argumentrests

on the assumptionthat Henry of Ghent used Thomas Aquinas's exact
wordingwhen characterizingthe theoryof the unityof substantialform,
nisi anima rationamely"quod in homine non esset formasubstantialis,
nalis."24However,as I have indicatedabove, Henryderivedhis phrasing
of the unityof formcontroversyfromKnapwell's 1286 condemnation,
and used it to describeeventsthatoccurredtenyearsearlierat theUniversityof Paris. It was, afterall, Henry of Ghent'sdiscussionof Knapwell's
condemnationwhich set offthe historicaldigressionabout the situation
in Paris. In conclusion,Henry of Ghent's recollectionshave no bearing
on a distinctinvestigation
of Thomas Aquinas's views in 1277.
In summarythen, Quodlibet
X refersthreetimesto the inquiryagainst
Giles of Rome and in doing so revealssome interesting
details.First,the
of
Giles
of
Rome
caused
for
investigation
problems Henryof Ghentover
the unityof substantialform.Giles of Rome was one of the scholarsin
Paris who had been infamousforupholdingthe unityof substantialform,
and thisfactraised suspicionswithrespectto Henry'sown hesitantposition. Second, Henry'sensuingrebukeby the ecclesiasticalauthorities
was
a
of privatenatureand hence was no formalcondemnationin the debate
over the unityof form.Third, the othertwo reportedeventsconcerned
pronouncementsby the masters,who only had an advisoryrole, but no
about the unityof form.
jurisdictionalpowersin decidingthe controversy
detailsabout the outFinally,Henry'stestimony
providessome interesting
come of the votes cast by the mastersof theologyin the investigation
of
Giles of Rome.
John Peckham
Other evidence for the suggestionthat in 1277 Tempier initiatedan
investigationof Thomas Aquinas's views about the unityof substantial
form,and some other theses as well, is a passage in a letterwrittenby
of Oxford,
John Pecham to the chancellorand mastersof the University
dated December 7, 1284.25The passage has been interpretedas proof
that Tempier intendedto starta case in Paris againstThomas Aquinas
23Wielockx,
Autour
, 414,andalso415:"Il estdonchorsde doutequeThomasa fait
Pariscontre
sa mmoire."
l'objetd'unprocsintent
to Wielockx,
Autour
ofGhentderived
hisword, 414-15,and418 Henry
According
ThomasAquinas,
Summa
I q. 76 a. 4. Probably,
Wielockx
hadthefolingfrom
theologiae
formula
in mind:"Undedicendum
estquodnullaalia forma
substantialis
estin
lowing
nisisolaanimaintellectiva."
homine,
25Wielockx,
Autour
, 413-4.

19:20:19 PM

1277revisited

81

of some cardinals,transferred
and thatthiscase was, on the instructions
fromthe episcopal court to the papal courtwhere it was leftpending.26
But is Pecham reallyalludingto an inquiryagainstThomas Aquinas in
at the papal court?27I thinknot.
termsof a causapendens
Close scrutinyof the crucial passage reveals that Pecham's account
consistsof threeinterwovenbut distinctelements.First,Pecham claims
that Bishop Tempier had plans in 1277 to make a decision {ad discusbonaememoriae
with respectto the opiniones
sionem
fiatris
cogitarei)
procedere
ThomaedeAquino
, thatis, the views of the late Thomas Aquinas. Second,
he reportsthe rumorthatTempier'splans were abortedby some [quidam)
cardinalsat the Roman Curia. They had ordered Bishop Tempier to
notice.Pecham indicatesthatthese
drop thismatterentirelyuntilfurther
eventsoccurredduringthe vacancy of the ApostolicSee, thatis, between
May 20, 1277 (the sudden death of Pope John XXI) and November25,
1277 (theelectionof Pope Nicholas III). Third, Pecham believesthatthe
of Aquinas's viewsis connectedto a meetingat which
1277 investigation
he was presentand thattookplace a fewyearsearlier.Tempier's evaluathat
tionconcernedthe verysame theses{ad discussionem
articulorurri)
ipsorum
of
the
theoThomas Aquinas had submittedto the judgment(<arbitrium
)
logiansat thatpriormeetingin Paris.
fratris
Thomaede Aquino,
bonaememoriae
Causamveroopinionum
quasfratres
idem
in nostra
subiecit
essedicunt,
suiordinis
praesentia
quastamen
ipsiopiniones
in
diximus
arbitrio
Parisiensium
reverendus
magistrorum,
pendere
patertheologorum
Romanacuriaindecisam,
permortem
proeo quod,cumvacantesedeapostolica
Romani
tunctemporis
Dei gratia
domini
sanctae
memoriae
epispontificis,
Johannis,
articulorum
ad discussionem
bonaememoriae
ipsorum
Stephanus
copusParisiensis
eidemepiscopo,
fuisse
dicitur
mandatum
deConsilio
cogitaret,
procedere
magistrorum
utde factoillarum
Romanaecuriaedominos
reverendos,
opinionum
perquosdam
in mandatis.28
donecaliudreciperet
penitus,
supersederet
Let me analyzethesethreeelementsof Pecham's account a bit further,
weightthat Pecham attribtherebyalso payingattentionto the different
utes to them. Pecham's centralclaim is that Bishop Tempier had plans
26Wielockx,
Pecham
wasmadeinDouie,Archbishop
Autour
, 38,
, 414.A similar
suggestion
ofthenewpopeas "pending."
to theelection
alsorefers
and287,whoin thiscontext
27Wielockx
toinnote36
dated
thatPecham's
letter
believed
1, 1285,referred
January
in 1285.
wasstillpending
views
ofThomas
thattheinvestigation
below,
Aquinas's
proved
intheissue
tomakea decision
thattherequest
Autour
SeeWielockx,
, 419.Note,however,
andthatthereis no referin general
is phrased
form
oftheunity
ofsubstantial
terms,
at thepapalcuria.
ThomasAquinas
caseconcerning
encein theletter
to a pending
28CUP 1: 625(#517).
havealsobeenedited
letters
Pecham's
byFranzEhrle.See his
des13.Jahrinderzweiten
undAristotelismus
Pecham
ber
denKampf
desAugustinismus
Hlfte
John
Scholastik
Gesammelte
inF. Pelster,
hunderts
zurEnglischen
, Roma1970,67-8.
, reprinted
Aufstze

19:20:19 PM

82

J.M.M.H.
THIJSSEN

in 1277 to assess Thomas Aquinas's views.But what does Pecham mean

by that?Is he alludinghere to a separateposthumousinquiryexplicitly
has been asand directlyaimed againstThomas Aquinas, as traditionally
can Pecham's testimony
sumed?To put it differently,
onlybe understood
a
the
existence
of
examination
of the doctrinal
by introducing
separate
in
of
Paris
in
Thomas
The
answer
is "no."
1277?
orthodoxy
Aquinas
I thinkthatPeckham'stestimony
can be and shouldbe read in another
way. The decisive detail in Pecham's account is that the 1277 inquiry
concernsviews(opiniones
) of Thomas Aquinas. At the time,therewas one
at
Paris
process
takingplace that can be accuratelycharacterizedas an
of
Thomistic
theses, namely the process against Giles of
investigation
Rome. As I mentionedabove, Article48 fromGiles's Apobgiaconcerns
the thesisof the unityof form.Althoughthis thesisgenerallywas consideredto be Thomistic,it was upheld also by Giles of Rome and culled
fromhis commentary
on the Sentences.
So whenPecham refersto Tempier's
plans to proceed againstopinionsof Thomas Aquinas he may be reporting actuallythe investigationof Giles of Rome in which Tempier was
involved.Since Giles of Rome was a followerof Thomas Aquinas's docimtrines,the examinationof his commentaryon the Sentences
potentially
plied views of Thomas Aquinas. This is true not only for the thesisof
the unityof substantialform,Pecham's own preoccupationin his letters,
but also for many other errorsthat were attributedto Giles of Rome
in the investigation
of 1277, but that also happened to be defendedby
Thomas Aquinas.29
There are some additionalargumentsin supportof thisinterpretation
of Pecham's testimony.
Recall, thatPecham was away fromParis in 1277
and thathe is reportinghearsayevidencewhichprobablycirculatedwhen
he was at the Roman Curia as a theologianof the Sacred Palace {lector
palatii).30Pecham could not have any first-hand
knowledgeabout plans
that Tempier may have had in Paris. Moreover, the referenceto this
occursin the contextof Pecham's own interestin the debate
investigation
about the unityof substantialform,clearlya Thomisticissue. Pecham's
29Wielockx,
So Wielockx
hasobserved
179-223.
thattheinvestigaApologia,
correctly
tionofGilesofRomeincluded
ThomasAquinasas well.His suggestion
thatTempier
ThomasAquinas's
viewsa fewdaysafter
theGilesofRomesinvestiproceeded
against
unfounded.
is,I believe,
gation
30Pecham
wasat thecuriafrom
thebeginning
of1276untilMarch1279.He leftthe
curiabecause
hewasnominated
ofCanterbury.
Pecham's
academic
andeccleArchbishop
siastical
careeris conveniendy
in Fr.IoanisPechamO.F.M.,Quodlibeta
summarized
quattuor
andF. Delorme,
Grottaferrata
, eds.G.J.Etzkorn
1989,21*and25*.

19:20:19 PM

1277revisited

83

focus,if not obsession,in his letteris the questionwhetherthe unityof

CatholicFaith.Like Henryof Ghent,JohnPecham
formthesiscontradicts
is reshapingpast events in the light of this doctrinaldebate. Even if
Pecham in Viterbohad possessedany detailedknowledgeabout the process againstGiles of Rome in Paris,which one may doubt, he was only
in it insofaras it concernedThomistictheses,in particularthe
interested
thesisof the unityof substantialform.
under
The second claim in Pecham's letterconcernsthe circumstances
whichTempier'splans were aborted.It is importantto note thatPecham
indicatesthathe is reportinga rumor.He concludes(diximus
) on the basis
thatinsofaras the Roman Curia had curtailed
of hearsayevidence(dicitur)
Tempier'sintentionsto bringto an end the matterof Thomas Aquinas's
views,one can say that this matterwas leftundecided at the Roman
Curia. Thus, only as a mannerof speaking,Pecham maintainsthat the
case was leftpendingat the papal court. Pecham does not maintainin
of Thomas Aquinas's viewswas transferred
his letterthattheinvestigation
fromthe bishop to the papal court,nor that it was stillpendingthere.
Finally,Pecham indicatesthat the interruptedevaluation of Thomas
Aquinas's views in 1277 are connectedto an event that must have occurredfiveto seven years earlier.This prioreventwas a meetingof the
mastersof theologyat the Universityof Paris to whom Thomas Aquinas
had submittedhis opinions for review (<arbitrium
). As a consequence, it
musthave takenplace duringThomas Aquinas's second teachingperiod
at Paris,thatis, between 1268 and 1272.31Since Pecham claims that he
was presentat this meeting,he must have already become a masterof
theologyat the Universityof Paris. This means that the meetingmust
have takenplace sometimebetween 1270 and 1272.32Only of this element in his account, Pecham mentionsthat he was presenthimself.In
his mind,thereis no doubt that the storywhich he heard at the Curia
is relatedto the period of 1270-72,
about Tempier's 1277 investigation
when certainThomistictheseswere debated at the facultyof theology.
The connectionbetween both eventsis the thesisof the unityof substantialform.
The factthatThomas Aquinas submittedhis views to the theologians
31Thomas
tookplacefrom
1268to 1272.SeeTorrell,
Parisian
second
regency
Aquinas's
Initiation
, 265.
32During
ofParis,where
at theUniversity
theSpring
of 1270,
JohnPecham
incepted
After
his
chairoftheology.
ofArrason theFranciscan
he tooktheplaceofEustachius
became
to havelasteduntil1272,Pecham
is generally
at Paris,which
supposed
regency
at Oxford
master
oftheology
, 21*.
Quodlibeta
quattuor
(until1275).Pecham,

19:20:19 PM

84

J.M.M.H.
THIJSSEN

at the Universityof Paris in thisperiod and the significance

of thisevent
have passed unnoticedin the Thomas Aquinas biographies.33
The event
is corroboratedand elaboratedupon in two otherlettersbyJohnPecham.
The shared preoccupationof these lettersis the question whetherthe
thesisof the unityof formwas compatiblewith Catholic Faith or not.34
Pecham resentedthe Thomist doctrineof the unityof formas a presumptuousnoveltyand a source of many hereticalviews. Moreover,he
indicated that the Dominicans and Franciscanswere in complete disagreementon this issue. The FranciscanPecham denied, however,that
he had helped to cause the antagonismbetweenthe two religiousorders
the Thomisttheoryof the unityof formeven afterthe death
by criticizing
of Thomas Aquinas. On the contrary,in a letteraddressedto the Bishop
of Lincoln,datedJune 1, 1285, Pecham claimsthathe came to Aquinas's
assistanceuntilthe lattersubmittedhis views. Pecham declares that not
but also thebishopof Paris(StephenTempier),
onlythemastersof theology,
and Aquinas's own brethrenargued againstthe unityof substantialform:
Dicitnosopiniones
deimitate
formae
rationibus
etsanctorum
testimoniis
persequentes
in mortuum
cumpro
ei,de quo loquitur,
impingere,
quodestfalsum.
Quinpotius
hac opinione
ab episcopo
Parisiensi
et magistris
et a fratribus
theologiae
propriis
nossolieidemastitimus,
salvaventate
defenargueretur
argute,
ipsum
prout
potuimus
imminere
sicutdocsando,doneeipseomne
suas,quibuspossit
correctio,
positiones
torhumilis
subiecit
moderamini
Parisiensium
magistrorum.35
And again, in a letterdatedJanuary1, 1285 and addressedto several
cardinals at the Roman Curia, Pecham repeats his eye-witnessaccount
of the meetingof the theologiansin Paris, at which Thomas submitted
his theoryof the unityof formand some othertheses:

33Wielockx,
doesnotdiscuss
thispassage,
Friar
neither
doJ.A.Weisheipl,
"Autour,"
Thomas
Hislife
withCorrigenda
andAddenda
D.C.
, Thought
, andWorks,
, Washington,
d'Aquino.
Initiation.
The eventreported
in Pecham's
letters
shouldnotbe con1983,norTorrell,
founded
withtheincident
which
Bartholomew
ofCapuarelated
atAquinas's
canonization
In orderto illustrate
humble
a disputaBartholomew
nature,
process.
Aquinas's
reports
tionin which
to ThomasAquinasin bombastic
andpompous
JohnPechamresponded
Thelatter,
Theincident
however,
language.
kepthisdignity.
maybe thesameas theone
ofTocco.See Weisheipl,
FriarThomas,
Initiation
255-256,
Torrell,
,
reported
byWilliam
268 n. 20, and 270,andI. Brady,
ofAquinas's
De
JohnPechamandtheBackground
Aeternitate
in:St.ThomasAquinas1274-1974.
Commemorative
2 vols.,
Mundi,
Studies,
Toronto1974,149,and 152-154.
In anycase,thesetwotestimonies
agreein thatthey
relatea disputation,
whereas
Pecham's
letters
a faculty
I intend
concern
to dismeeting.
cussthisissuemorefully
in a separate
note.
34Callus,TheCondemnation
, 17-33.
35CUP 1: 634
andEhrle,
74.
Pecham,
(#523),
John

19:20:19 PM

1277revisited

85

theview
innumera
ex hocipso(thatis,from
Aliaauteminconvenientia
sequuntur
in man).Fuitrevera
illaopiniofratris
Thomae
form
exists
thatonlyonesubstantial
dictis
suissuam
sedipsein hiset in aliishuiusmodi
de Aquino,
memoriae
sanctae
humiliter
subiin collegio
Parisius
innocentiam
declaravit,
magistrorum
theologiae
etlimaeParisiensium
libramini
sententias
iciens
omnes
suashuiusmodi
magistrorum;
sumus.36
testes
certitudinem
cuiusnosperauditus
proprii
It appears
What conclusionscan be drawn fromPecham's testimony?
that as early as 1270-72 Thomas Aquinas's views on the unityof substantialform,and a fewotherunspecifiedthesesas well,were considered
controversial.
Consequently,Aquinas was invitedto explain his views in
a forumof his fellowmastersof theologyat the Universityof Paris. We
maysafelyassumethatthemasterswho between1270-72weightedThomas
) and subjected them to
Aquinas's statementson their balance (ilibramen
theirfile (ima)saw no reason to pursue the matterany further.
John
Pecham would certainlyhave mentionedin his correspondencea condemnationof Thomas Aquinas's theoryof the unityof form.Instead,
however,Pecham, in the same letterof January 1, 1285, urges Pope
about the
Honorius IV to make a doctrinaldecision in the controversy
Pecham claims that therenever had been any authoriunityof form.37
tativedecisionon this matter,and for this reason he triesto win papal
supportforhis own stance in thisdebate.38
Williamde la Mare
The thirdpiece of evidencein supportforthe thesisthatTempier iniof Thomas Aquinas's views in 1277 seems
tiateda separateinvestigation
to be givenby Williamde la Mare. In the Correctorium
, writfiatrisThomae
ten sometimebetween 1277 and 1279, he reportsof two of Aquinas's
positionsthattheyhad been reprovedby "the masters."The firstreproved
thesisconcernsthe existenceof matterwithoutform.The second concernsthe unityof substantialform.
estdicerequodDeus
concordaverunt
undeomnesmagisti
nuperquoderroneum
sineforma39
nonpotest
dareesseactumateriae
36CUP 1: 626-7(#518),
70.
andEhrl
Pecham,
t,John
37CUP 1: 627(#518),
Pecham.
andEhrle,
, 70-1.
John
38As faras we know,Pechamneverreceived
a reply,
and in 1286he condemned
to thethesisof theunityof form.
forhisadherence
Richard
Interestingly,
Knapwell
as
hadneverbeencondemned
oftheunity
ofform
thatthethesis
maintained
Knapwell
secundum
heretica
fuitdamnata
heretical
tanquam
(dicendum
quodopinionumquam
See Callus,TheCondemnation
, 33.
fidem).
39P. Glorieux,
/. Le correctorium
thomistes.
Lespremires
"Quare"Kain
corruptorii
polmiques
Thomae.
de la Mare'sCorrectorium
thetextofWilliam
alsoincludes
1929,114,which
fratris

19:20:19 PM

86

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN
a magistris,
Haec positio
de unitate
formae
substantialis
primo,
quiaex
reprobatur
contraria
fidei
secundo,
catholicae;
quiacontradicit
philosophiae,
ipsaplurasequuntur
SacraeScripturae.40
tertio,
quiarpugnt

Since both thesesdo not appear in the syllabusof 219 errorsprohibited

on March 7, 1277, Robert Wielockxsuggestedthat theystemmedfrom
a separate inquiryagainstThomas Aquinas.41As a matterof fact,however, William de la Mare's testimonyis highlyproblematic.
As is well known,the Correctorium
consistsof 118 incriminatedtheses
drawn
from
The theses and
(articuli)
mainly
Aquinas's Summatheologiae.
theirexplanationsare followedby William de la Mare's point by point
criticism.The purpose of the Correctorium
was to discreditcertaindoctrinal positionsby Thomas Aquinas and to correctthem. One convenient
and rhetorically
skillfulway to reach thisgoal was to associateAquinas's
views withpropositionsthathad alreadybeen condemnedor reproved.42
It is not at all clear, however,what William de la Mare is referring
to in the quoted passages. He does not specifyat which university
the
theseswere reproved,nor againstwhom the inquiryhad been directed.
The thesisof the unityof substantialformwas targetedin Kilwardby's
condemnationof 1277 at Oxford.However,as I mentionedabove, it also
appears as Article48 on the list of charged errorsin the case against
Giles of Rome at Paris. The same holds true forthe Thomisticposition
concerningthe existenceof matterwithoutform.This thesisappears as
Article47 on the list of errorsattributedto Giles of Rome in 1277.43If
seen in thislight,the two thesesin questionhad been rejectednot in a
separateexaminationof Thomas Aquinas's works,but in an investigation
of the commentaryon the Sentences
by Giles of Rome. Yet, William de
la Mare's claim that the two positionsof Thomas Aquinas had been
reproved,was stillcorrect.
But thereis a furthercomplicationwhichone should reckonwith:Do
the quoted passages reallyconcern magisterialdeliberationsduringproceedingsto curbsuspectteaching?The Dominicanresponsesthatappeared
to William'scorrective,
knownas the Correctoria
, place
collectively
Corruptorii
one of the passages in a completelydifferent
perspective.This is most
in the fullestof all the defensesto Williamde la Mare's
clearlyillustrated
40Glorieux,
Lespremires
, 129.
41Wielockx,
Autour
, 415.
42See alsoWippel,
Thomas
, 243forthissuggestion.
Aquinas
43SeeWielockx,
between
47 and48 andThomas
articles
, 213forthesimilarity
Apologia
Aquinas's
position.

19:20:19 PM

1277REVISITED

87

attack,whichwas authoredby Richard Knapwell,and whichis identified

"
by its openingword Quare"*4
about
How, then,does Quarerespondto Williamde la Mare's testimony
It ignoresWilliam
the reprovaiof Thomisticthesesby "the masters"?45
de la Mare's observationabout the reprovaiof the unityof substantial
formthesis.Quaredoes, however,respondto the magisterialrejectionof
the Thomisticthesisof the existenceof matterwithoutform,reportedby
William.In Quareit is believed that William de la Mare is alludingto
the communis
opinioamong the theologians,which supposedlyrejectedthe
Thomisticpositionas erroneous.As a consequence,the defenseis taken
up along that line and hinges on the denial that there was unanimity
among the masterson thisissue. Quareclaims that the more outstanding
masters,thosewho reallyunderstandthe natureof matterand form,hold
the same view as Thomas Aquinas. For this reason it will not accept
withoutproofWilliam de la Mare's testimony.46
In conclusion,the available evidence does not supportthe claim that in
1277 Bishop StephenTempier initiateda separateprocedureto examine
Thomas Aquinas's doctrinalposition on the basis of his own writings.
The testimoniesof Henry of Ghent,John Pecham, and William de la
as referencesto the
Mare may be explainedwithouttoo much difficulty
inquiryagainst Giles of Rome. This investigationdid imply some of
Aquinas's views,insofaras theywere defendedalso by Giles of Rome,
when the list of
and were culled fromhis commentaryon the Sentences
51 alleged errorsattributedto Giles of Rome was drawn up. Moreover,
to see how William of Mare's observationscould concern
it is difficult
an investigationof Thomas Aquinas, for then they would contradict
thatneitherin 1270-72,nor in 1277 Aquinas's views
Pecham's testimony
were condemnedin Paris, and Henry of Ghent'sclaim that the thesisof
44Thetext
Thethree
other
Correctoria
arealsoidentified
inGlorieux,
Lespremires.
isedited
and Quaestione.
Sciendum
word:Circa
their
,
,
opening
by45
"
"
section
from
TheCorrectorium
Quaresetsdowntheincriminated
Aquinas,
reproduces
authoritpointbypoint.
Correctorium
William
de la Mare'sentire
, andanswers
Knapwell's
inRichard
arediscussed
oftheunity
thesis
anditsdefense
byFrancis
Kelley
shipofQuare
, 18-29.
Quaestio
Knapwell,
disputata
46Glorieux,
Lespremires
, 116: "Quodergodicunt
nuperconcorquodomnemagisti
sinetestimonio
cumsciamus
estdicere,
daverunt
etc.;nonrecipimus
quod
quoderroneum
sentiant."
et formae
rectius
maiores
nturm
materiae
Alongthe
intelligentes,
oppositum
dela Mare'sstatement.
SeeJ.-P.Mller,
toWilliam
samelines,
Circa
andQuaestione
respond
Roma1941,142,andLeCorrectorium
deParis
"Circa"
deJeanQuidort
LeCorrectorium
,
Corruptora
"
claim(Apologia,
95 n. 75) thatthe
," Roma1954,132.Wielockx's
Quaestione
Corruptarii
ofa censure
is notaccurate.
literature
deniestheexistence
Correctoria

19:20:19 PM

88

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

the unityof formhad never been condemned in Paris.47In summary,

then,thereis no evidence that Thomas Aquinas was ever direcdycenin Paris.48
sured duringhis lifetime,or posthumously
At thispointone may ask what the significance
was of Bishop Stephen
of Bourret'sretractionon February 14, 1325 of those Parisian articles
thatconcernedor were claimed to concernthe doctrineof Saint Thomas
vel tangere
asseruntur
b. Thoma
doctrinam
).49One
Aquinas {quantum
tangunt
mightargue that Bourret'srevocationimpliesthat Aquinas's views had
been censuredin Paris. I think,however,that Bourret'sdocumentneed
not be taken that way. It is uncontestedthat the 1325 revocationconcerned the syllabusof 219 articleswhich Bourret'spredecessorStephen
Tempierhad issuedon March 7, 1277. One of thequestionsthatTempier's
syllabusraised as early as the end of the thirteenth
centuryis, whether
it envisionedThomas Aquinas's views.Godfreyof Fontaines,forexample,
assumed that Tempier's condemnationpreventedstudentsto take notice
of Aquinas's "veryuseful"doctrine.50
The DominicanJohnof Naples even
foundit necessaryto writean apology to the effectthat Aquinas's views
were not affectedby Tempier's condemnation,and that,consequently,
it
was legitimateto teach Aquinas'sworksat Pariswithoutdangerof excomThe debate whetherthe condemnationof March 7, 1277
munication.51
was explicitlyaimed against propositionsthat were also defended by
Thomas Aquinas still continuesto this day. Both in medieval timesas
nowadays,scholarsdisagreeover whichThomisticpropositionsmay have
been implied in Tempier's condemnation.52
This situationillustratesan
47See note11.
48Thisis nottosay,ofcourse,
thatThomistic
theses
never
becamethetarget
ofconin Paris.I already
demnations
mentioned
thatGilesofRome'scensure
included
many
Thomistic
theses.
49CUP 2: 280-1.Some
withregardto thisdocument
in
are discussed
problems
A. Maier,Der Widerruf
derarticuli
Parisienses
(1277)imJahr1325in: A. Maier(ed.),
Mittelalter.
Gesammelte
des14.Jahrhundert
zurGeistesgeschichte
, 3 vols.,Roma
Ausgehendes
Aufstze
3: 601-8.
1964-1977,
50A fuller
discussion
ofGodfrey
ofFontaines'
reaction
toTempier's
conecclesiological
demnation
is provided
in chapter
Censure.
See nowalsoStephen
F. Brown,
2 ofThijssen,
andHenry
Individuation
andtheCondemnations
Godfrey
ofFontaines
ofGhent:
of1277,in:S. Wlodek
etglise.
Textes
etdiscussions
danslesuniversits
centrale
lemoyen
(ed.),Socit
d'Europe
pendant
ge
Turnhout
1995,194-5.
tardif,
51Thetextof
in C. Jellouschek,
Ioannis
JohnofNapleshasbeenedited
Quaestio
magisti
deNeapoli
O.Pr.:"Utrum
licite
doceri
Parisius
doctrina
Thome
ad omnes
conpossit
frats
quantum
clusiones
eius
," in:S. Szabo(ed.),XniaThomistica,
, Roma1925,73-104.
52Mostrecendy,
Thomas
thatAquinas's
weredirecdy
views
, hasargued
Wippel,
Aquinas
toHissette,
Saint
Thomas
wasonlyindi, Tempier's
targeted
byTempier.
According
syllabus
aimedagainst
He believes
thattheadherents
ofthecensured
viewshave
recdy
Aquinas.

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

89

pointabout Tempier's syllabus,namelythatit is so ambiguous

important
that certainarticlescan be read as an attackon Thomistictheses.
It is preciselythisconfusionwhichBishop Stephenof Bourretbrought
to an end in 1325, less than two years afterThomas Aquinas's canonihimselfwhetherTempier'sdecree reallyenvization.Withoutcommitting
sionedAquinas's positions,and withoutbecomingspecificabout whichof
the 219 articlescould be read as censuresof Thomistictheses,he simply decreed thatfromnow on Tempier's syllabusno longer applied to
the doctrineof Saint Thomas. Bourret'sintervention
prepared the way
fora freediscussionin the schools of all those articlesof Tempier's syllabus that touched on or that were supposed to touch on the doctrinal
positionsof Aquinas,thatis, all thosearticlesthatpossiblycould be interthat Stephen of Bourret'srevopretedas Thomistic.I believe,therefore,
cation does not in itselfsupportthe thesisthat Thomas Aquinas's views
actuallywere condemnedin Paris, not on March, 7, 1277, and certainly
that startedshortlyafterwards.
not in a separateinvestigation
This conclusion,however,seems to raise a problem. If we take seriously Pecham's hearsay testimonyin his letterof December 7, 1284,
Tempier'splans to proceed againstthe opinionsof Thomas Aquinas were
abortedthroughintervention
by the Roman Curia. If, however,it is also
of Aquinas's views really
true that Pecham's allusion to an investigation
concernsthe inquiryagainstGiles of Rome, as I have argued above, then
in 1277. In
was interrupted
the conclusionemergesthat thisinvestigation
that
Giles of
has
ever
doubted
no
one
the scholarlyliterature,
however,
Rome was censured.Accordingto the traditionalpicture,Giles of Rome
was requiredto recanthis views in 1277, but he refusedand was forced
to discontinue his academic career until his rehabilitationin 1285.
Consequently,the suggestionthat therewas no separate examinationin
1277 of Thomas Aquinas's orthodoxyin Paris, automaticallyleads to a

between
thedistinction
in theartsfaculty.
to be sought
JohnWippeldismisses
primarily
andHissette
NotethatbothWippel
verbal.
and"indirect"
as merely
"direct"
agree
targets
butthatthey
can be readas Thomistic,
ofTempier's
thatcertain
syllabus
propositions
The inclucallthehistorical
context.
ofwhatonemight
overtheinterpretation
disagree
attackon
in Tempier's
couldhavebeena disguised
theses
sionofThomistic
syllabus
itseemsmorenatuletter
butifonetakesTempier's
Thomas
seriously,
prefatory
Aquinas,
Moreofthecondemned
foradherents
tolookintheartsfaculty
ral,indeed,
propositions.
at
forcensuring
whatwenowknowoftheprocedures
over,considering
teaching
suspect
thatthesyllabus
ofMarch7, 1277
ofParis,it seemshighly
theUniversity
implausible
had
oftheology
whoalready
theviewsofa master
themodus
against
represents
procedendo
beendeadforthree
years.

19:20:19 PM

90

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

revision of the traditionalinterpretationof Giles of Rome's process.

Accordingto which scenario did thisprocess reallyunfold?
The allegedcensure
of GilesofRome
As I mentionedabove, only two documentshave survivedfromthe
proceedingsagainstGiles of Rome: a letterdatedJune 1, 1285 fromPope
Honorius IV to John of Houblonnire, the Bishop of Paris, and the
, a work attributedto Giles of Rome and consideredcontempoApologia
raneous with Giles's censure.53
. Althoughthe
First,let me reviewwhat is known about the Apologia
has now been reconstructed
Apologia
admirablyas one continuoustext,it
actuallyappears in the manuscriptas a seriesof marginalnotes accompanyingBook I of the commentaryon the Sentences
by Giles of Rome.54
The notesare presentedin the formof articles(<articuli
), thatis, of allegedly
erroneousstatements.In total 51 such statementsin Book I of Giles of
Rome's commentary
on the Sentences
were markedas "article";44 of them
are followedby a briefdefense.Their editor,RobertWielockx,has demonstratedthat Giles of Rome must have been the author of the marginal
notes,since, not only are the defenses,but also the articlesin the wording of Giles of Rome.55Moreover, Wielockx has establishedbeyond a
reasonabledoubt that the notes were writtenin the hand of Godfreyof
Fontaines.They are a reportatio
whichdates back probablyto the firstfew
months of 1277 but certainlyno earlier than the last few monthsof
1276.56
But a reportatio
of what?As the titleunderwhichthe noteswere edited
Wielockx
was under the impressionthathe was dealing
alreadysuggests,
with an apologia, with a treatiseof self-justification
composed afterthe
Giles
of
Rome.
to
Giles of Rome
Wielockx,
proceedingsagainst
According
was summonedto recant the 51 articles,but he refusedand, instead,
wrotethe Apologiain order to explain and justifyhis position.57
53See note19.
54The texthasbeen
Paris,Bibliothque
Nationale,
onlyin themanuscript
preserved
lat. 15848,fols.190-265.
Forwhatfollows
I relyon themeticulous
and
paleographical
ofRobert
theeditor
oftheApologia.
Wielockx,
codicological
analysis
55Wielockx,
, 10-16.
Apologia
56To complicate
matters
and 18ofthe44 defenses
25 ofthe51 articles,
were
further,
notcopiedbyGodfrey
ofFontaines
butbya copist
in themaintextofGilesofRome's
on theSentences.
See Wielockx,
, 9-10,and38.The dateofthenotes
commentary
Apologia,
is discussed
in Wielockx,
, 17-41,and77.
Apologia
57Wielockx,
, 10,70-1,116-7,and 145.
Apologia

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

91

of suspect
In the lightof what is now known about the investigation
this
scenario
at
the
of
University Paris, however,
appears very
teaching
unlikely.A comparativestudyof other cases of academic censure has
of allegedlyerroneousteachingwould typirevealedthatthe investigation
the
consist
of
followingstages:(1) commencementof the action; (2)
cally
inquest;(3) citationand defense;(4) the sentenceand its exepreliminary
cution;(5) appeal, if any.58When seen fromthisperspective,the conclusion emergesthatthe marginalnotes thatwere edited as the Apobgiaare
actuallya reportof Giles of Rome's defense.Due process requiredthat
the accused be informedabout the chargesand to be allowed to respond
to them.The Apologia,
then,representsthe defensewhich Giles of Rome
deliveredwhen confrontedwith the list of 51 charged errorsthat were
drawnfromBook I of his commentaryon the Sentences.
In purpose and style,the Apologiais very similarto the two defenses
whichJohnof Mirecourtpresentedwhen his commentaryon the Sentences
was investigatedin 1347. Hardly any documentationof this particular
stageof the processhas been preserved.John of Mirecourt'sdefensescirculated togetherwith his commentaryon the Sentences
, to which they
of
Rome's
Giles
in
the
medieval
attached
became
response
manuscripts.59
to the chargeswas jotted down by Godfreyof Fontainesin his own copy
.60
of Giles's commentaryon the Sentences
containsall the strategiesof defensethat one
Giles of Rome's Apologia
mightexpect in such a case.61Some responsesfocus on the true underof an article;Giles qualifieswhat he had actuallymeant
standing(sensns)
to say or defendsthe correctnessof the article.62In other cases, Giles
denies that he held the view that was attributedto him; he eitherflatly
or he
denies that an articleappears in thiswordingin his commentary,
Those
else's
views.
claims that he was merelyrecitingsomeone
charged
an articlefrom
withassessingGiles'sviewshad apparendybeen extracting
58See Thijssen,
ofthescheme
refinement
is a further
Thisscheme
Censure.
presented
inAcademic
Heresy
, 221.
59Courtenay,
outtheuniquesituation.
, 345points
Erfurt
60Wielockx,
that
evidence
on thebasisofcodicological
40 n. 71 concludes
Apobgia,
.
oftheApobgia
ofa reportado
musthavehada draft
ofFontaines
Godfrey
61See Thijssen,
disAcademic
, chapter
one,fora moregeneral
224,andCensure
Heresy,
false
accusedofdisseminating
ofdefense
invoked
cussion
ofthestrategies
byacademics
defense.
See alsoCourtenay,
, 344forMirecourt's
Erfurt
teaching.
62Forexample,
ofArticles
thedefense
3, 8, 14,19,28,30,31,33,and45 is focused
should
howthearticle
often
witha clausespecifying
onthemeaning.
Theyareintroduced
thecorrectness
est. . .) ofArticles
be understood
est. . .). Gilesdefends
{verum
(intelligendum
5, 10,21,39b,and44.

19:20:19 PM

92

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

the wrongpartof the commentary.63

Finally,of some chargederrorsGiles
claimedthattheywere not dangerous,or notpertinent
[nihiladproposition
i).64
Not all 51 articlesare defended.In the case of Articles23, 24, 31 and
42 he musthave thoughtthattheydid not need a separatedefense,since
the mattershad been discussedalreadyin his responsesto otherarticles.65
In case of the articles 1 and 46-51, mattersare more complicated.As
Wielockx has demonstrated,Giles of Rome did deliver a defense,but
Godfreyof Fontainescould not writeit down, because he did not have
yet the quires with the pertinentpassages fromGiles's commentaryon
the Sentences
. The quires containingthe Prologue,fromwhich article 1
was drawn,and the part fromwhichthe articles46-51 were drawn,were
on
subsequentto the quires containingthe otherpart of the commentary
the Sentences
.66
The investigation
whichgeneratedthe Apologia
tookplace in 1277. On
the basis of Henry of Ghent's testimony,the inquiryagainst Giles of
Rome can be set beforeMarch 28, 1277.67The testimoniesofJohn of
Pouillyand Godfreyof Fontaines,on the otherhand, demonstratethat
the investigationof the views of Giles of Rome was subsequentto the
condemnationof March 7, 1277.
Articles24 and 51 of Giles's list,which both deal with the problem
of malice, were condemnedin the syllabusof March 7, 1277 (as articles
129 and 130). From the testimony
ofJohn of Pouilly,we knowthatthose
masterswho had assistedTempier in condemningtheses 129 and 130
were the same ones who had conceded articles24 and 51 of Giles of
Rome's list; hence, theyhad contradictedthemselves:
lidemmagisti
fuerunt
assessores
in condendo
etinconartculos
Stephani
episcopi
cedendo
Et ideocumpraedicta
inpraedictam
propositonem.
magistralis
proposio
terimat
articulum
modointellectum,
si praedicto
mododeberet
articulus
praedicto
ilHmagisti
sibiipsiscontradixissent,
omneetiamXVI magisti
intelligi,
qui illam
concesserunt
excommunicationis
sententiam
incurrerent,
propositonem
quaeomnia
nonsuntdicenda.68

63Examples
areArticles
4, 7, 26,and38.
64Gilesclaims
thatArticles
15 and27 arenotdangerous.
17and37 areconArticles
sidered
notpertinent
Giles.
by
65I follow
hereWielockx,
Apologia
, 37.
66Wielockx,
49 is accompanied
which
waswrit, 37-41.Article
Apologia
bya response,
tendownat a laterdatebyGodfrey
ofFontaines
becausehehada special
inthe
interest
See Wielockx,
40.
subject.
Apologia
,
67See Wielockx,
andalsonote14,if
, 81-6.See note16 fortherelevant
text,
Apobgia
onefollows
thatthispassage
tooconcerns
theinquiry
GilesofRome.
my
suggestion
against
68The textis
, 98 n. 6.
quotedin Wielockx,
Apologia

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

93

betweenthe magisterialassessmentat Giles of Rome's

The contradiction
and
the
view of Bishop Tempier had been observedalso by
investigation
of
Godfrey Fontaines,who pointed out that the magisterialassessment
could be upheld onlyif it was explainedin such a way thatit would not
contradictthe syllabusof March 7, 1277.69From thisevidenceit follows
that the inquiryagainstGiles of Rome was posteriorto the condemnation of March 7, 1277. Otherwise,the mastersat Giles's investigation
had no need to considerits syllabusof errors.70
From the papal letterof 1285 it can be inferredthatBishop Tempier,
the chancellor,and the othermastersof theologyat Paris were involved
in the inquiryagainstGiles of Rome. They all had examinedwhat Giles
But what were the respectiveroles of the bishop,
had said and written.71
chancellor,and mastersin evaluatingcases of suspectteaching?Unfortunately,the documentationis verysparse. Only a few of the finallistsof
censuredviews have survived.Sometimes,they are preceded by a few
lines indicatingwhich authoritieswere responsiblefor the
introductory
censure.This materialsuggeststhatduringthe thirteenth
centuryall unithe
chancellorand
were
determined
of
cases
by
suspectteaching
versity
mastersin collaborationwiththe bishopof Paris.72The fourteenth-century
evidence gives a more differentiated
perspective.From this materialit
emergesthat the body of chancellorand mastersof theologyconstituted
69J. Hoffinans,
deGodefroid
deFontaines
Le huitime
, Louvain1924,165-6:"Et
Quodlibet
estquodhaec
concessum
intheologia
doctoribus
hocpatetedamexhocquodab omnibus
scilicet
et praetendunt,
secundum
estveraet tenenda
quodverbaeiussonant
propositio
inratone.
Haecenimpropovelnescientia
involntate
nisisiterror
quodnonestmalitia
voluntatis.
esseelectio
iudicium
rationis
habere
veritatem
si contra
sitiononposset
posset
tarnen
anteapprobationem
ab episcopo
reprobati,
Propter
quodedamquidamarticuli
suntsic exponendi
huicpropositioni,
contraran
huiuspropositionis,
quod
qui videntur
concordent."
fieri
huicpropositioni,
prout
potest,
70Thispointis alsobrought
77-81.
Apologia,
up byWielockx,
71GUP1:633:"Venerabili
frater
Licetdilectus
filius
. . . episcopi
Parisiensi.
fratri
Egidius
vacansstudio
olimParisius
sanctiAugustini
Heremitarum
Romanus
de Ordinefratrum
inscripturam,
dixerit
etredegerit
Stephanus
quebonememorie
aliquasicutintellexerimus
Parisienetpercancellarium
Parisiensis
tuusperseipsum
examinans,
predecessor
episcopus
reexaminari
censuit
facultatis
ac peraliostheologice
semejustemporis
faciens,
magistros
nisusfuerit
variis
rationibus
revocavit
etea minime
vocanda,
(CUP:revocant),
quinpotius
confirmare."
72See,forinstance,
in 1241,documented
ofVenizy,
Frater
theinquiry
against
Stephen
OdoofChateauroux
Chancellor
tosomemanuscripts,
inCUP 1: 170-72
(#128).
According
in W.J.
The caseis discussed
ofthebishop.
viewsupontheorders
examined
Venizy's
TheCases
intheThirteenth
andSuspect
Dominicans
ofVenizy,
ofStephen
Century:
Opinion
Courtenay,
32 (1994),186-9.See furandthe
Articles
Peter
ofTarentaises
of1270and1271, in:Vivarium,
chanrolesofthebishop,
oftherespective
discussion
therpp. 193-4fora moregeneral
in correcting
falseteaching.
andmasters
cellor,

19:20:19 PM

94

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

the lowestlevel of jurisdictionin cases of suspectteachingat a university.These cases were in firstinstancestartedand setded by the masters
of theology,and the chancellorwho was in charge. Togethertheyacted
as a disciplinarytribunal,not as a real court.73A case of suspectteachto the bishop's courtonly when the accused refused
ing was transferred
to complywiththe decisionsmade by the chancellorand mastersof theology. This happened in the cases of Denis of Foullechat and John of
Monzn. Both refusedto recant the list of articlesthat had been compiled by the chancellorand masters.As a consequence,theircases were
moved to the episcopal court.74
The inquiryagainstGiles of Rome probablyfolloweda different
route.
The papal letterof 1285 indicatesthat Bishop Tempier not only examined certainpropositionshimself(perse ipsumexaminons
), but also instructed
the chancellorand other mastersof the facultyof theologyto examine
them{examinan
of the papal letteris correct,this
faciens
).75If the testimony
means that the bishop was involvedin the inquiryrightfromthe start.
His examination,however,was preceded by an investigation
by a commissionof theologians,who advised Tempier in assessingthe degree of
error of Giles's theses. Thus, the proceedingsagainst Giles of Rome
unfoldedin two stages.Since originally,
the articlesand Giles's responses
were not numbered,it is not possibleto reconstruct
theway of proceeding
of those who were charged with examiningBook I of Giles's commen76
taryon the Sentences.
The idea that the inquiryagainst Giles of Rome took place in two
stages findsfurthersupportin the testimoniesof Henry of Ghent and
John Pecham. A slightdiscrepancyexistsbetweenthe dates which both
theologiansmention.If it has not been caused by clouded memoriesof
eventsthat happened more than ten yearsearlier,it may be resolvedby
73Thebodyofchancellor
andmasters
tocasesofsuspect
as a disresponded
teaching
notas an ecclesiastical
it is inaccurate
to
tribunal,
ciplinary
judge.So, strictly
speaking,
ofcasesoffalseteaching
at thatlevelofjurisdiction,
sincethe
speakoftheadjudication
wasextrajudicial.
Thisimportant
ismorefully
inThijssen
procedure
actually
point
explained
What
discussed
anddocumented
in Thijssen,
Censure
, andextensively
, chapreally
happened
terone.
74See CUP 3: 122(#1299),
and3: 495-6(#1559),
Censure
, chaprespectively.
Thijssen,
terone,discusses
whattheinquiries
Foullechat
andMonzncantellusaboutthe
against
roleofchancellor,
andpapalcourtincensuring
at
falseteaching
masters,
court,
episcopal
theUniversity
ofParisin thefourteenth
century.
See thetextquotedin note71.
76Notethatthe
thearticles
arenumbered
intheorder
inwhich
byWielockx
they
apofBookI ofGilesofRome'scommentary
ontheSentences.
SeeWielockx,
pearinthemargin
, 61-4,and227-8.
Apologia

19:20:19 PM

1277Revisited

95

to two different
assumingthat theywere referring
stages of the inquiry
of
Rome.
The
event
to
which
of
Giles
Henry Ghent alludes,and
against
whichtook place beforeMarch 28, 1277 was the meetingof mastersof
theology(and the chancellor),as Henry himselfindicates(per sententiam
At thismeetingthe degreeof errorof the propositionsdrawn
magistrorum).
was assessed. Henry
fromGiles of Rome's commentaryon the Sentences
the
commissionwho was
of Ghentwas one of the experttheologianson
requiredto give his opinion.The eventto whichJohn Pecham refers,is
probablythat point in the proceedingswhen the bishop took over the
dossierand made his abortedattemptto bringit to an end. This occurred
duringthevacancyof theApostolicSee, sometimebetweenMay 20, 1277
and November25, 1277.
occurredin two stagesalso
The suggestionthatthe 1277 investigation
the evaluationwhich
understand
certain
between
to
discrepancies
helps
on
hand
theses
the
one
and
themastersgave of certain
Tempier'sevaluationon the other.The factthatGiles of Rome's positionconcerningmalice was conceded by the masters,as John of Pouillytestifies
(see above),
and yetappeared twiceon the listof chargederrors(Articles24 and 51),
impliesthatBishop Tempier did not take over the advice of the masters.
He made his own evaluationwhen he receivedthe dossiercollectedby
the chancellorand masters.
Accordingto the papal letterof 1285, Giles of Rome refusedto recant
whichthe bishop,the chancellorand the mastersof theothepropositions
logy had ordered him to recant. He even tried to uphold his position
This latterstatementis a referenceto Giles of
withvariousarguments.77
Rome's defenseas representedby the Apologia.
What happened at Giles of Rome's anticipatedrecantation?There is
no documentaryevidence,but the case against Denis Foullechatin the
fourteenth
centurysheds some light on what could have happened on
the day that Giles of Rome was expected to pronouncehis recantation.
Denis Foullechat suddenlyrefusedto deliver his previouslyrehearsed
recantationand, instead,read anotherdocumentwhich he pulled from
his gown. It turnedout to be his appeal to the papal court.78Similarly,
Giles of Rome, too, may have refusedto complywiththe reproofby his
fellowscholarsand the bishop. Instead of pronouncingthe recantationof
77See thetextquoted
is crucial,
CUP 1: 633:"Licet
innote71. Thefollowing
passage
in
et redegerit
. . . aliquasicutintellexerimus
dixerit
dilectus
filius
Romanus
frater
Egidius
et ea minime
. . . censuit
Parisiensis
revocanda,
episcopus
scripturam,
que. . . Stephanus
nisusfuerit
confirmare."
variisrationibus
revocavit
(CUP:revocant),
quinpotius
78CUP 3: 121-2(#1299).
discussion.
Censure
See Thijssen,
, chapter
one,fora fuller

19:20:19 PM

96

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

the condemnedtheses,as expected,he may have read his defense,which

the editor titledApologia.From the manuscriptevidence it is clear that
this textwas certainlynot writtenwith the intentionto be disseminated
fora largeraudience. This makes it appear even more probable thatthe
ApologiareflectsGiles's oral defense,which by chance was preservedfor
ratherthan a deliberatetreatiseof self-justification.
posterity,
Even thoughGiles of Rome refusedto recant,he was not convicted.
There is only one reason I can thinkof why that was so: the process
was not broughtto completion.This suggestionneeds some further
explanation of the crucial role of the recantation(;reuocatio
) in the disciplinary
who had been conproceduresused to correctscholarsat the university
demned for disseminatingerroneousviews. The standard sentencefor
such academics was the reuocatio
, the solemn withdrawalof the propositionsthathad been condemnedas erroneousor even heretical.The recantationserved two purposes.First,it informedthe academic community,
which was presentat thisceremony,about the propositions(<articuli
) that
had been condemned.From thenon, the academic communitywas prohibitedfromdisseminatingthe articleseitherby teachingor writing.In
constitutedan importanttestforthe corrigibility
of
addition,the reuocatio
the academicwhoseviewshad been condemned.If he recanted,he proved
thathe did not adhere pertinaciously
to his errors.Therefore,he was not
a heretic,since by definitiona heretic was someone who obstinately
defendedhis errors.As a consequence,an academic who recantedwas
not condemned: Only his views were condemned,and this condemnation was not transferred
to the holder of theseviews.79
Given this,Giles of Rome would have been convictedas a hereticand
would have incurredthe customarypenaltiesforheretics,if he had persistedin his refusalto recantthe 5 1 errors,and if his processhad been
broughtto completion.We knowfora fact,however,thatGiles of Rome
remainedactive in his order,the AugustininHermits,even thoughhis
academic career was discontinuedby the universityauthorities.In the
period from1281 to 1285 Giles was in Italy and was involvedin organizing the generalchapterof the Augustiniansin Padua and the provincial
chapterin Tuscany.80Such a career patternwould have been impossible
fora convictedheretic.As a heretic,Giles would have been not only a
but also forhis order.
problemforthe university,

79Thijssen,
Academic
, 220,and224-5.
Heresy
80Donati,Studi,
7-8n. 13 andWielockx,
, 116.
Apologia

19:20:19 PM

1277revisited

97

Moreover,the listof 51 errorsattributedto Giles appears nowherein

that circulated
the compilationsof condemnedarticles(articuli
condemnati)
and
of
Paris.
the
thirteenth
fourteenth
at the University
centuries,
During
collection
severalof thesecompilationswere made. A fourteenth-century
would typicallylist the followingcondemnationsand recantationspronounced at the Universityof Paris: Stephen of Venizy (1241), the condemnationissued by Stephen Tempier on March 7, 1277, Nicholas of
Autrecourt(1346),John of Mirecourt(1347),John Guyon (1348), Simon
(1351), Guido (Giles of Medonta?) (1354), Lewis of Padua (1262), John
of Calore (1363), and Denis of Foullechat(1369).81Giles of Rome's list
of 51 chargederrors,however,does not occur in any of these compilations.It has onlybeen preservedin the singlemanuscriptfromwhichthe
This omissionis not trivial,forthe conhas been reconstructed.
Apologia
oaths.Bachelors
role in the university
demnedarticlesplayedan important
in
to
favor
of articlesthat
teach
of theologyhad to swear not
anything
had been condemned at the Roman Curia or in Paris. If they heard
someone actingagainstthisoath theywere obliged by the same oath to
revealthisto the bishop or the chancellorwithinseven days.82The oath
thejuridicalbasis to startan inquiryagainstsuspectteaching.
constituted
In sum, then, Giles of Rome's ecclesiasticalcareer afterhe had been
and the absence of his recantationin any
expelledfromthe university,
condemnati
of the collectionsof articuli
, strongly
suggestthatthe case against
him was dropped.
But if,as a matterof fact,the processagainstGiles of Rome was not
broughtto completion,what, then,happened to the episcopal examination?John Pecham's testimonysheds some lighton this matter.Perhaps
Pecham is rightwhen he reportsthatthe Roman Curia vetoedTempier's
81Anexample
from
themanuscript
edited
ofsucha list,
Auxerre,
Bibliothque
municipale
Il vescovo
See further
What
in Thijssen,
, 25-6,and
Bianchi,
243,is provided
really
happened.
Condemnations
attheUniversity
Dissemination
and.
ThePreservation
of
ofAcademic
W.J.Courtenay,
morales
L. Sbrocchi
ParisintheMiddle
, in:G. Bazn,E. Andujar,
(eds.),Lesphilosophes
Ages
fora disetpolitiques
auxMoyen
1995,3: 1659-67
, 3 vols.NewYork-Ottawa-Toronto
Age
lists
vehicles
as oneofthedocumentary
errorum
cussion
oftheroleoftheCollectio
bywhich
oferrors
andcirculated.
werepreserved
82Theoathis attested
ofthe
andextensively
in several
sources,
quotedin therecords
in
suis
GUP
3:
Foullechat.
See
Denis
120-1:
the
of
of
quod
"jurat
investigation teaching
autdogmanondicet,
etlecturis,
necnon
etinaliisacribus
tenebit,
quibuscumque,
principiis
inRomana
. . . seuinfavorem
articulorum
tizabit
fidem
catholicam,
aliquid
quodsitcontra
sedsanam
autquodmalesonetinauribus
curiavelParisius
auditorum,
condempnatorum,
of
Theoathitself
doesnotappearamongthestatutes
doctrinam
etdogmatizabit."
tenebit
ofit,are alsoquotedin the
versions
thetheological
ofParis,butit,or similar
faculty
Censure
See Thijssen,
andina textbyJeanGerson.
recantation
Bartholomew
ofa Brother
,
discussion.
onefora fuller
chapter

19:20:19 PM

98

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

initiativeto decide upon the articleswhich the mastershad reviewed

already.83The reason why the papal courtmay have wishedto interfere
with the disciplinaryproceedingsat Paris is that a condemnationof the
views of Giles of Rome would also implythe views of Thomas Aquinas.
As RobertWielockxconvincingly
has argued,thereexisteda strongDominican pro-Aquinaslobby at the Curia.84This may have been responsible
for makingBishop Tempier interrupthis investigation,
an investigation
that throughthe views of Giles of Rome concernedpositionsof Thomas
Aquinas. Accordingto this scenario,then, the views of Giles of Rome
escaped a formalcondemnationbecause of theirsimilarityto doctrinal
however,had become
positionsof Thomas Aquinas.Giles of Rome himself,
of scholars.He was denied
unacceptable as a memberof the unwersitas
the license to teach. The discontinuationof his academic career was a
disciplinary
penaltyusual forthosemembersof the academic community
who had brokentheiroaths,in thisparticularcase the oath not to teach
anythingagainstfaithor good morals.
Afterthe death of Pope MartinIV (Simon Brion)on March 28, 1285,
the timeseemed ripe fora reconciliation.Perhaps,Giles of Rome waited
so long because he thoughtthat Pope Honorius IV mightlend a more
favorableear to him than did his predecessor,who as papal legate at
Paris had been involvedin the discussionover the unityof substantial
formin 1277.85It is also possiblethatearlierrequeststo obtainthe license
were turneddown and have not been preserved.In any case, papal dispensationwas crucial.This can be inferredfromtwo othercases of suspect teachingin which academicswere denied the master'slicenseunless
the pope gave his special permission.86
83See note28: "... episcopus
Parisiensis
bonaememoriae
ad discussionem
Stephanus
articulorum
de Consilio
mandatum
fuisse
diciipsorum
magistrorum
cogitaret,
procedere
tureidemepiscopo,
Romanae
curiaedominos
utdefacto
illarum
reverendos,
perquosdam
donecaliudreciperet
in mandatis."
opinionum
supersederet
penitus,
84Wielockx,
Autour
ofthepresence
of"Dominican
, 421,and427-9.Thesamesuggestion
at thecuriawasmadebyDouai,Archbishop
Pecham
without
, 38,though
representations"
further
or substantiating
thisidea.
elaborating
85Wielockx,
thissuggestion.
thateventhough
, 113alsooffers
Note,however,
Apologia
GilesofRomein 1285managed
to avoidSimonofBrion,
he wasstillconfronted
with
ofHoublonnire,
theBishopofParis.According
to Henry
ofGhent's
Ranulph
testimony
in theinvestigation
of 1277.
(seeabove),he toohadbeeninvolved
86The standard
formula
wouldrunsomething
as follows:
"ad graduset honores
...
et assuminonposses
. . . sinelicentia
sedisapostolice
The penalties
promoveri
specialis."
concerned
ofLincoln
andNicholas
Richard
ofAutrecourt.
SeeCUP 2: #1076,
andNicholas
ofAutrecourt,
His Correspondence
with
Master
Giles
andBernard
, ed. L.M. de Rijk,
ofArezzo
Leiden1994,163-4,
Bothtexts
arediscussed
inZ. Kaluza,Nicolas
.
d'Autrecourt
respectively.
Amidela vrit
littraire
dela France
, in:Histoire
, TomeXLII,fase.1,Paris1995,122-3.

19:20:19 PM

1277revisited

99

of Giles of Rome appeared as a local

To the pope, the investigation
Parisianmatter.Afterall, Giles of Rome had neverappealed to the papal
court. So it was only logical that the pope redirectedGiles of Rome's
thatis, the bishop,the chancellor,and
case back to the local authorities,
the mastersof theology.Pope Honorius IV orderedthe bishop to gather
the regentand non-regentmastersin a special meetingand have them
vote upon whichof the 5 1 chargederrorsGiles of Rome would have to
recant.As a matterof fact,Giles did not have to recant at all, and his
was closed in 1285. In any case, there is no documentary
investigation
evidenceindicatingthat Giles of Rome recantedin 1285, nor should the
papad letterbe read in this way, as some seem to have done.87On the
soon afterwards,
perhapseven at the beginningof the nextacacontrary,
demic year in October 1285, Giles of Rome obtained his license and
continuedto disseminatethesesthathad been on the listof 51 articles.88
Conclusion
stillleaves a few
The above scenarioof Giles of Rome's investigation
no
evidence
that
is
There
unsolved.
documentary
explainswhy
puzzles
was examined. Robert
Book I of Giles's commentaryon the Sentences
Wielockxhas rejectedthe older thesisof Edgar Hocedez, who believed
thatthe investigation
of Giles of Rome was a resultof the censureissued
March 7, 1277. Accordingto Hocedez, Giles of
on
by Bishop Tempier
Rome was censured,because he defendedcertainof the 219 thesesthat
were condemnedin the syllabusof March 7, 1277.89
Wielockxreplaced Hocedez's thesiswith a scenario in which Bishop
the
Accordingto thisinterpretation,
Tempierinitiatedthe investigation.90
of
the
arts
members
to
was
intended
of
March
7, 1277
discipline
syllabus
faculty,whereasthe censureof Giles of Rome was meant to discourage
87Notethatthepapalletter
thatGilesshouldrecant
(CUP 1: 633)merely
stipulates
oftheerrors
willorder
himtorecant.
Thecollection
thebishop
andthemasters
whatever
attributed
to
a 1285listoferrors
ofParisdoesnotinclude
condemned
at theUniversity
GilesofRome.
88Wielockx,
whichtheses
ofthe1277listweretaught
, 173indicates
byGiles
Apologia
of
as a master
inwhichGilesofRomeappears
document
ofRomeafter
1285.The first
to be theyearofhisgraduabelieved
datesfrom1287.Yet,1285is generally
theology
Romanus
De tempore
tion.See E. Esteban,
,
iitads. theobgiae
magisterium
promotus
quoAegidius
Studi
in:Analecta
2 (1907),281,andalsoDonati,
, 7-8n. 13,andWielockx,
Augustiniana,
, 116.
Apologia
89Hocedez,
La condemnation
, 58.
90Wielockx,
, 114-8.
Apologia

19:20:19 PM

100

J.M.M.H. THIJSSEN

certainintellectualtrendsin the facultyof theology.Because the Augustinians were exemptfromepiscopaljurisdiction,Tempier could not simply
excommunicateGiles of Rome as he had threatenedto do with those
membersof the arts facultywho continueddisseminatingthe 219 condemned articles.Hence, he had to pursue anotherstrategy:strikeGiles
of Rome in an area in which he had jursidiction,namelyin the granting of the master'sdegree.Accordingto Wielockx,Tempierquicklyassembled sixteentheologiansto examine Book I of Giles's commentary
on the
. They would forceGiles eitherto recanthis viewsor, ifhe refused,
Sentences
hismaster'sdegree.In both cases, thevictorywould be Tempier's.
withhold
however,we have no evidence that Tempier initiated
Unfortunately,
the investigation
of Giles of Rome. That the papal letterof 1285 reports
that Tempier himselfexamined Giles's writingsdoes not implythat he
himselfstartedtheinvestigation.
More likely,Giles of Rome was denounced
of
or
one
his
the
was the resultof the preby
investigation
colleagues
were subpublicationscrutinyto which commentarieson the Sentences
jected routinely.In both events,the syllabusof 219 errorscould have
constituted
thejuridicalcontextto startan inquiryagainstGiles of Rome.
to
Contrary what he had sworn,he had defendedpositionsthatwere on
the list of articuli
condemnati.9]
Althoughthese two suggestionsare more closelyrelatedto how cases
of suspectteachingat the university
were started,theytoo are not unto
the
most
recent
research,the publicationof
problematic.According
Book I of Giles of Rome's commentaryon the Sentences
took place sometimebetween 1271 and 1273, not around 1276 as was thoughtfora long
time. Consequently,one would have to explain why the investigation
of
Giles's commentarywas startedfiveyears afterthe work had appeared.
The alternativescenario is that Giles of Rome's investigation
startedas
was published,
early as 1271-73, when the commentaryon the Sentences
and draggedon until 1277. This, however,seems to be contradictedby
the testimonyof Henry of Ghent, who sets the meetingin which the
mastersevaluated Giles of Rome thesesin 1277.92
91RolandHissette,
surles219 articles
condamns
Parisle 7 mars
1277^ LouvainEnqute
Paris1977,316 haspointed
outthatsomeoftheprohibited
theses
resembled
positions
thatwereheldbyGilesofRome.Noneofthesepositions
laterreturned
on thelistof51
errors.
After
bookI ofGiles'scommentary
on theSentences
, thecommischarged
reading
sionmayhavecometo theconclusion
thatthearticles
on theMarchsyllabus
didnot
Giles'sviews.
In themeantime,
51 other
accurately
represent
theyhaddiscovered
suspect
noneofwhichappeared
on thesyllabus
of219errors.
theses,
92Thetestimony
ofJohnPeckham
doesnotcontradict
thealternative
scenario
thatthe

19:20:19 PM

1277revisited

101

A definitive
answerto these questionscan hardlybe given in the preof
sentstateof the documentaryevidence.In any event,the introduction
a separate inquiryagainst Thomas Aquinas in 1277 for understanding
the testimoniesof Henry of Ghent,John Pecham, and William de la
has led to a thoroughly
revised
Mare appearsunnecesary.This recognition
accountof the examinationof Giles of Rome's views,an account thatis
more consistentwith what we now know about the suppressionof suspect teachingat the Universityof Paris.
Nijmegen
The CatholicUniversity

in 1277by thevetofromthe
in 1271-1273
and was interrupted
started
investigation
RomanCuria.

19:20:19 PM

: The ParisianYears
ConradofMegenberg
WILLIAMJ. COURTENAY

Conrad of Megenbergwas one of the most importantand productive

German scholarsin the generationbeforeHenry of Langenstein,Henry
Tottingof Oyta, and Marsiliusof Inghen,and like the latterthreesecular masters,he receivedmuch of his highereducationat Paris. Yet since
almostall of Conrad's writingspostdatehis departurefromParis in 1342,
much that has been writtenabout him concernshis post-Parisiancareer
at Vienna and Regensburg.The followingstudyattemptsto presenta
more detailed pictureof the Parisian phase of Conrad's career. When,
in his konomica
, Conrad describedthe ideal course of study,he looked
the settingof true learning.1Yet,
back to Paris as the model university,
in the area
at the same time his examples of false teaching,particularly
of the seven liberal arts, were also derived in large measure fromhis
to say
experiencesin Paris.2It would not be an exaggeration,therefore,
that Paris had a fundamentalshaping effectnot only on Conrad's educational formationbut on his philosophicalviews as well.
The details of Conrad's academic career are largelyderivedfroman
in which he refersto his early
autobiographicalpassage in his konomica
studiesand teachingat Erfurt,followedby his years at Paris.3As tradiConrad went to Erfurtat the age of seven in 1316,
tionallyinterpreted,
moved to Paris in or before1334, and leftParis forVienna in 1342.4 By
1 Conrad
konomica
ofMegenberg,
MGH,Staatsschriften
, III, tr.1,c. 20,ed.S. Krger,
desspteren
Mittelalters,
III, 5, Stuttgart
1984,III, 196-9.
2 Megenberg,
desspteren
ecciesiae
Planctus
Mittelalters,
MGH,Staatsschriften
, ed.R. Scholz,
III, tr.1,ch. 12.
II, 1,Leipzig1941,32; konomica
3 Megenberg,
etatisextra
konomica,
, III, tr.1, c. 21; III, 200-01:"Cumqueminoris
mead
etsubito
in Erfordiam
metranstuleram
fecerat
limina
meexulare
teneritas,
paterna
cellariis
sociorum.
sesociaverat
quousque
repeticionibus,
prefui
Quibuspropeseptennis
pietas
mesustulit
studii
lecture
eiusdem
famaclarescente
ad cathedram
quam,
magistratus,
publice
EtmoxParisius
acribus
venerabiliter
excolui.
famalativola,
scolasdcis
utnoscit
quasiannuus
felicissimi
viribeatiBernhardi
ordinis
fratres
ubidivini
mereceperam,
atquesanctissimi
mesusceperant,
michide necessariis
quousque
philosophie
atquein lectorem
providerant
dilectus
et octennuus
sedisgubernator
lauream
doctoratus
processu
supradicto
receperam
universitatis
filius
honorabar."
4J. Trithemius,
in Bibliotheca
Ecclesiastica
De scriptoribus
ecclesiasticis
, ed.J.A.Fabricius,
Vivarium
35,1

Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

19:20:33 PM

OF MEGENBERG
CONRAD

103

the time she edited the thirdbook of the konomie

a Krger suspected
" used laterin the
" and "octenuus
"annuus
like
that"septennis
,"
passage cited
above in note 3, mightreferto a period of time,in thiscase to Conrad's
at Erfurtratherthan his age when he arrivedthere.5
years as repetitor
" refersto his
"octenuus
years as regentmasterin the arts facSimilarly,
the
entire
at
not
Paris,
ulty
period of residency.A closer readingof that
two
distinct
phases in his Paris residency:severalyears
passage suggests
in
which
he was lectorat the Cistercianconventwhile
at the beginning
studyingin the arts faculty,followedby eight years as regentmaster.
Since we knowhe leftParis in 1342, we can place his regencyfrom1334
to 1342, his determination,
licensing,and inceptionprobably in 1334,
and his years as a studentin the arts facultyc. 1330-1334, or slightly
longer.
A. Lectorat CollgeSt. Bernard
Conrad's Parisianperiod began withhis appointmentas lectorin philosophyat the Cistercianhouse of studies,the Collge St. Bernard.6How
in his
he came by this appointment,mentionedonly autobiographically
in
contacts
have
been
It
is
unclear.
konomica
,
arranged through
may
GermanybeforeleavingErfurt,or he may have approached the Cistercians in Paris afterhe arrivedthereto help financehis studiesin the arts
faculty.Accordingto his own description,it entailed room and board
It
in returnforinstruction.7
(and perhapssome additionalremuneration)
from
the Rue
not far
also locatedhim at the footof Mont-Ste-Genevive,
du Fouarre. But an appointmentof this kind at this late a date in the
instructional
programsforreligiousorderswas
developmentof university
unusual and needs to be put in context.

vonMegenberg,
desKonrad
undSchriften
Ibach,Leben
1718,157;Helmut
Wrzburg
Hamburg
konomica
toMegenberg,
introduction
1973,1,13-4.
, I, Stuttgart
1938,1-2;SabinaKrger,
is basedonthe"explicit"
Theyearofhisbirth
(andthushisagewhenhewenttoErfurt)
1: "annoDomini1337.. . annoveronativitatis
to hisPlanclus
, p. 94,andIbach,Leben,
movetoParisin 1334,butKapelli
sue28."Ibach,following
Trithemius,
placedConrad's
refers
tohistime
toan eight
Conrad's
reference
andKrger
realized
{octenuus)
yearperiod
in Paris.
residence
ofarts,notto hisentire
master
as regent
5 Megenberg,
isyoung
tohavethedegree
sevenyears
konomica
III, 200,n.995.In fact,
"metransluleram"
ofhismovetoErfurt:
ofmaturity
andfreedom
byhisdescription
suggested
6 ConradofMegenberg,
III, tr.1, c. 21,p. 201. CitedalsoinT. Kaeppeli,
konomica,
dums.7-7-32dela Bibliothque
II: Le texte
entier
deConrad
deMegenberg
UOeconomka
retrouve,
at 591,n. 2.
45 (1950),569-616,
deSeville
Colombine
, in:Revued'histoire
ecclsiastique,
7 konomica
ordinis
viribeatiBernhardi
III, 1,21,p. 201:"ubidivini
atquesanetissimi

19:20:33 PM

104

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

It is well known that religiousorders,both mendicantand monastic,

sought universitytrainingonly in the higherdisciplinesand refusedto
arts faculties.On the
allow theirstudentsto take degrees in university
otherhand, trainingequivalentto the arts degreewas necessaryforsuccessfulstudyin theology,and in place of requiringall theologicalcandidates to have previouslyreignedin arts,universities
did requirethat the
contentand methodsof that educationbe acquired beforeproceedingin
theology,and that a certainnumberof years of studyin arts outsidean
arts facultyat a university
be completed.If religiousordersrejecteduniarts
and
versity
training
degrees,theyhad to develop theirown internal
whichin turnrequiredresourcesand
of
system philosophicalinstruction,
personnelwithinthe religiousorders.8
When a religiouscommunitysoughtto improvethe quality,breadth,
or academic standingof theirinstructional
programby relyingon teachers fromoutsidetheirorder,it was usuallybecause theydid not yethave
to do such teachamong theirmembersthosewithadequate qualifications
ing. This was the reason why the Franciscansat Oxford,not long after
theirfoundation,invitedRobert Grossetesteto be lectorfor Greyfriars.9
This was also the reason whythe Benedictinesat ChristChurch,Canterbury,employedFranciscan lecturersto provide adequate pre-university
instruction.10
But at the time Megenbergwas appointed,the Cistercian
house of studies at Paris had been in existencefor almost a century,
and its principallectoroccupied a chair as regentmasterin the faculty
of theology.It seems strange,therefore,
that theywould employan outsider,especiallya secular scholar,to providetrainingin logic and natural philosophy.
Part of the answer lies in the difference
betweenthe educationalsystems of the monasticordersin the fourteenth
centuryand those of the
mendicantorders. By the middle of the thirteenth
centurythe mendifratres
felicissimi
michide necessariis
mesusproviderant
atquein lectorem
philosophie
..
ceperant.
8 As theserequirements
in grammar,
logic,and natural
philosophy
appliedto the
seeStatuta
Generalium
Ordinis
Cisterciensis
abanno
1116adannum
1786,
Cistercians,
Capitulorum
ed.J.M.Canivez,
vol.Ill, Louvain1935,430-4(for1335)and467 (for1341).
9 R.W.Southern,
Robert
Grosseteste
TheReligious
, Oxford1986,74-5;M.W.Sheehan,
Orders
1220-1370
, in:J.I.Gatto(ed.),TheHistory
, vol.I: TheEarly
oftheUniversity
ofOxford
Schools
, Oxford
1984,197.
Oxford
10W.J.Courtenay,
Schools
andScholars
inFourteenth-Century
, Princeton
1987,67,
England
90. AtonetimetheCistercians
alsosought
suchhelpfrom
theFranciscans,
whichthe
orderblocked;
see Krger's
notein konomica
of
III, 201,n. 997,whocitesthearticle
G. Mller
in Cister
denser19 (1907),54.
Chronik,

19:20:33 PM

OF MEGENBERG
CONRAD

105

cant ordershad a primarycommitmentto educationwhich,in the late

thirteenthand early fourteenthcenturies,developed into a diversified
in whichphilosophicaltrainingand some of the theoand tieredstructure
logicaltrainingwas providedin conventsand studiaat the provinciallevel
It does not appear that
convents.11
beforestudentswere sentto university
the monasticorders,which became interestedin the benefitsof universitytrainingand establishedhouses of studiesat Paris by the middle of
the thirteenthcentury,ever created a formalsystemof pre-university
that led to uniin local monasteries.The kind of instruction
instruction
a
in
and
canon
law
was
of
technical,scholastic
versitydegrees theology
naturethat differedin content,form,and purpose fromthe lectiodivina
thatlay at the heart of monasticlettersand learning.And while mendicant conventswere sub-unitswithinan order that could move members
remained
aroundaccordingto theneedsof theorder,individualmonasteries
which
and
stabilitas
were
to one's
units
in
monastic
obedience
independent
own monasteryand abbot, not to a higherlevel of affiliatedorganizaof the monastic
tion. In order to preservethe missionand tranquillity
advisable
to
send
those
selectedfor
have
more
it
well
life, may
proved
their
a
house
of
studies
for
to
philosophical
university
university
degrees
trainingas well as theirstudiesin the higherfaculties.As a result,one
would have in monastichouses of studya proportionately
largergroup
of youngerstudentspursuingtheirtrainingin arts than one would ever
mendicantconvent.
findin a university
that substantialnumbersof Cistercian
It is understandable,therefore,
studentsat the Collge St. Bernard,needingto remaincloisteredand yet
needingto acquire a high level of philosophicaltraining,may have led
to hiringthe occasional outsiderto provide such trainingin the lecture
halls of the convent.The need in the period after1321 may have been
acute inasmuchas the ordertookover ownershipof the house
particularly
of studiesfromClairvaux and pressuredCistercianmonasteries,under
threatofvisitationand financialpenalties,to send more studentsto Paris.12
The internalresourcesin teachingpersonnelthatexistedbefore132 1 may
not have been able to accommodate the influxof young pupils in the
followingdecade. In any event,knowledgeof Conrad's appointmentin
thiscapacityat St. Bernardis as importantforwhat it tellsus about the
Cistercianeducationalsystemat this time as for what it tells us about
Conrad himself.
11Courtenay,
andScholars
Schools
, ch.2.
12Thissuggestion
konomica
wasputforward
III, 1, 21,p. 201,n. 997.
byKrger,

19:20:33 PM

106

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

What did Conrad bringto the Collge St. Bernardand what influence
mightit have had on him? Conrad had alreadytaughtwhile studyingin
Erfurt,and presumablybroughtthose skillsand subjectareas to his lectorshipat St. Bernard.The core of his teachingwould have been logic
and naturalphilosophy,probablywithsome trainingin grammar,if necessary.Had Conrad not had this appointmentat St. Bernard,the normal source of financialsupportat his level, if needed, would have been
as a grammarteacher to secular students.And in addition to what he
knew when he firstcame to Paris, he could introduceinto St. Bernard
whateverhe thoughtusefulthat he picked up in his own trainingin the
arts faculty.In the other direction,namely the college's influenceon
Conrad,it may have encourageda conservative
theologicaloutlook.Conrad
would undoubtedlyhave come into contact withJean de Bruxelles,a
longtimeCistercianstudentin Paris, who attainedhis doctoratein theo13
logy in 1333. Moreover, Conrad would probablyhave had access to
the conventlibrary,which was substantialby the early fourteenth
century an advantagefora studentin the artsfacultythatwas usuallyavailable only to those who were connectedwith a college, and no secular
college apart fromthe Sorbonne or Navarre had a libraryto rival that
of St. Bernardor the mendicantconvents.14
Assumingthat Conrad's teaching at St. Bernard coincided with his
studiesin the artsfacultybeforedetermination
and licensing,whenwould
this have been? Conrad does not appear in the universitycomputus
of
but
since
that
document
is
in
its
1329,
incomplete, silence this matter
cannot be used to place Conrad's arrivalafterthe academic year 13291330.15In fact,one sectionof the Latin quarterthatis not well covered
in the computus
is the area around the Collge St. Bernard,which itself
was exempt fromuniversitytaxation,althoughConrad would not have
Nor does Conrad's name appear in the
qualifiedfor that exemption.16
recordsof the English-Germannation that survivefor 1333, but again,
thatonlymeans he had not yetbecome a masterof arts,whichwe know
13E. Kwanten,
Le Collge
Paris
Saint-Bernard
43
, in: Revued'histoire
ecclsiastique,
469.
(1948),
14A. Vernetand
del'abbaye
de Clairvaux
duXIIeau
J.-F.Genest(eds.),La bibliothque
XVIII'sicle
, Paris1979.
15Thisdocument,
in Chartularium
Universitatis
Parisiensis
citedas CUP),
printed
(hereafter
ed. H. Denifle
andE. Chatelain,
vol.II (Paris1891),661-71,
anddatedbyitseditors
to
between
can nowbe datedto theacademic
andwillbe re1329-1336,
year1329-1330
edited
in a separate
study.
16It should
be notedin addition
thatalmost
noonebelowthelevelofbachelor
ofarts
is mentioned
bynamein thiscomputus.

19:20:33 PM

CONRAD
OF MEGENBERG

107

fromhis own remarks,and did not determineor license in that year.

were never mentioned
Studentsin arts below the level of determination
in the proctor'sregister.In lightof Conrad's positionwhen, in 1337, he
does begin to appear in the recordsof that nation,we would not be far
wrongin placing his early studiesin arts at Paris (and thus the period
in which he was also fora time lectorin philosophyat St. Bernard)in
the 1328-1334 period (or 1330-1334 if his Erfurtpreparationwas taken
into account),at an age somewhatolder than many of his fellowstudents.If Conrad moved out of the Collge St. Bernardwhen he became
regentmasterin arts, his departureironicallywould coincide approximatelywiththe completionof philosophicalstudiesand the beginningof
theologicalstudiesof a young and later controversialCistercianmonk,
Jean de Mirecourt.
B. MasterofArts
If Conrad accuratelyreportedthe lengthof time he reignedin arts at
Paris, he inceptedin the arts facultyearly in the academic year 1334the quires of the proctor'sregisterforthe English1335.17Unfortunately,
German nationfromJune 1333 to August 1337 are lost,and when that
recordresumesat the end of August,duringthe proctorshipof Ulrich of
Augsburg,Conrad ranks among the senior regentsin the nation.18He
had been the promotingmasterof Sunno of Sweden when the latterwas
19
licensed,probablyin the springof 1337. He was apparentlyat thattime
the receptor
forthe fundsallocated for the candles at Notre Dame.20 We
also know of two other activitiesin which he had been engaged in the
in
precedingmonths.One of thesewas the writingof his Planctusecclesiae
later
on
1338.21
some
four
months
which
Germaniam
he
,
Jan. 1,
completed
17Financial
atthistime
thenormal
andacademic
resources
pattern
progress
permitting,
inSeptember
andincept
between
andJune,
belicenced
wastodetermine
Lent,
April
during
at thebeginning
oftheacademic
year.
18Auctarium
and
citedas AUP), ed.H. Denifle
Parisiensis
Chartularii
Uniuersitatis
(hereafter
E. Chatelain,
Vol.I, Paris1894,col. 18.
19AUPI, col.19,forlateSeptember
sub
Sunode Sweciaincepit
1337:"Itemdominus
licensubquofuit
deMontePuellarum,
Chunrado
Scoto;[sub]magistro
magistro
Philippo
fuerat."
nonpotuit,
ciatus,
quiaprivatus
incipere
20AUP
I, col.18:"utrum
qua
expedientis
permodum
quodquedampecunia,
piacerei
. . . que quidem
ex partenacionis
daretur
Chunradus
tenebatur
nacioni,
pecunia
magister
. . ." Butin midOctober1337,it appears
BeateVirginis.
eratdeputata
proluminaribus
ofthenation;
accounts
onbehalf
that
AUP1,col.21: "ad audiJohnRathewashandling
. . ."
factis
ad curiam.
de expensis
Scotide Rathey
endum
Johannis
magisti
compotum
21Planctus
in Germaniam
a Conradode Maeeditus
ecclesie
, p. 94: "Explicit
planctus

19:20:33 PM

108

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

The otherwas his deep involvementin a disputewiththe Frenchnation

and with a master Christianus.Conras behavior in that disputehad
alreadyresultedin the suspensionof his university
privileges,and he had
petitionedthe nation to help financea letterof appeal to Avignon.22
The initialcause of dissensionbetweenthe Frenchnationand the other
threenationsis not known,but it is evidentthatConrad's vigorin defending the positionof the Englishnation againstthe Frenchled the rector,
Johannes de Vimarcio, to suspend his privilegesand powers as master,
probablysometimeduringthe summerof 1337 or in the previousacademic year. Conras writingsreveal him as a personof strongopinions,
and the recordsof his nation reflectan aggressivepersonalityuninclined
toward compromise.His actions at times created problemsfor himself
and his nation,which probablymade some of his colleaguesuncomfortable.23But his willingnessto defendaggressively
his own convictionshad
its uses, and with the backingof masterUlrich,Conrad was oftenchosen to representthe positionof the nation in externalnegotiations.
The particularepisode that led to Conrad's suspensioninvolved a
conflictwith a master Christianus.In the contextof the dispute,one
would assume he belongedto the Frenchnationand may even have been
the proctorof that nation at the time of the dispute.24The Christianus
in questionis certainlynot Christianusde Eist, since Eist,who belonged
to the English-Germannation,was not activein the affairsof the nation
dicitur
de Montepuellarum,
indiecirannoDominiM.GGG.37
genberg,
quodParysius
cumcisionis
annoveronativitatis
sue28."In dating
thisreference
toJan.1,1338,
Domini,
itis assumed
thatConradwasfollowing
Parisian
Gallicano
(inmore
practice
), which
began
thecalendar
rather
thantheGerman
andpapalpractice,
Easter,
yearwiththefollowing
which
fortheEnglish-German
nation,
begantheyearonJan.1. In theproctor's
register
theentry
forMar.11,1339reads(AUPI, col.27):"AnnoDomini1338moreGallicano,
etsecundum
alios1339.. . . Notaquodplures
Alemanii
annum
inCircumcisione
incipiunt
licetGaliciin festoPascatis."
In thesametexttheentry
Domini,
forjan.14, 1340in
AUPI, col.36 reads:"Itempertransito
iliomense
inannoDomini1340secundum
curiam
diescilicet
19kalendas
Februarii.
..
Romanam,
22AUPI, cols.18-20.
23Conrad's
at theelection
in October1337(AUPI, cols.
oftherector
presence
illegal
found
somecolleagues
whileothers
toremain
neutral.
No
19-21)
support
among
preferred
onein thenation
Conraddirectly.
appears
readyto havechallenged
24Thecritical
intheedition
oftheproctor's
fortheEnglish-German
apparatus
register
nation
is nothelpful
on thispoint.He is identified
in a footnote
(AUPI, col.20,n. 11)
as Christianus
butthatis almost
a duplication
ofthefootnote
formasBonifacii,
certainly
terGrimerius
Bonifacii
or receptor
(AUPI, col.20,n. 8),whowasat thetimeproctor
fortheNorman
nation.
The compiler
oftheindex,
on theother
himto
hand,assumed
be Christianus
de Eist,a German
master
whoincepted
intheEnglish
in
nation
probably
thesecondhalfof 1333andappearsactivein theaffairs
ofthatnationfrom1344on,
butnotin theperiodfrom1337to 1344(AUPI, cols.14,18,70).

19:20:33 PM

CONRAD
OF MEGENBERG

109

at thistime,and the Christianusin questionwho attendedthe meeting

to electa new rectoron Oct. 10, 1337, was not listedamong the masters
nationattendingthatmeeting.Nor would it make
of the English-German
senseforthe threenations,includingthe Englishnation,in a disputewith
the Frenchnation,to have aligned themselvesagainsta masterfromthe
Englishnation.For similarreasonswe can also exclude ChristianusGuys
or Ghis of St. Omer, who was undoubtedlya regentmasterin arts in
1337, but who would have belonged to the Picard nation.25
Conrad made his presencefeltat the October meetingof the faculty
called to elect a new rector,which master
of artsat St. Julian-le-Pauvre,
The
also
attended.
Christian
Johannesde Vimarcio,under
outgoingrector,
Conrad had been suspended,would not begin the meetwhose authority
in
deliberationthe matterof choosing electors,because
i.e.,
ing,
place
Conrad was present,despitethe factthathe was totallydeprivedof uniAftersome delay,Conrad leftthe meetinglong enough
versity
privileges.26
fordeliberationsto begin and for electorsto be chosen by the French,
Norman,and Picard nations.But beforethe Englishnationchose its elector,Conrad returnedand sat with his nation,which produced considerable confusionand delayed the choosing of an elector for the English
nationwhich,when done, was rejectedby the rectorbecause of the participationof Conrad.
Conras lack of academic statusin the arts facultyand university,
suum" did not pre"a totaUniversitate
malecium
propter
privatus
fiiitperpetuo
vent his participationin the business of his nation. At its meetingon
October 2 1 Conrad, because of his reputationforhard dealingon behalf
nadonis
erat
of the nation("quia rigorosum
, cumfactum
"), was chosen to
fiierit
the
to
in
the
the
nation
Picard, Norman,
Avignonby
appeal
represent
and Englishnationsagainstthe French nation.
Conras mission to Avignon on behalf of his nation (and himself)
began in late October and apparentlycontinuedintoJanuary.While he
was there,mattersin Paris came to a head. In late Novemberthe French
nationdenouncedthe otherthreenationsand separatedfromthem,carthe application
ryingthe disputeto a higherlevel but also precipitating
of resolutionprocedureslaid down in the agreementworkedout by the
25Christian
whenhisnamewasplacedon a
theSentences
reading
Guyshadcompleted
in 1353,butwhengranted
master
oftheology
rotulus
in 1349(CUPII, 654).He wasregent
in
as "magister
in 1342,hewasdescribed
ofThrouanne
inhishomediocese
a canonry
in artibus
fuit"
Parisius
multo
(CUPII, 655,n. 16).
artibus,
regens
tempore
qui
26AUPI, col.20: "abUniversitate
privatus."
faittotaliter

19:20:33 PM

110

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

papal legate, Simon de Brie, in 1266.27The Englishnation consultedits

own copy of the agreementon the resolutionof disputes,which called
for the appointmentof sevenjudges: threesenior regentsin the faculty
of theologyand fourregentsin the facultyof canon law. Initiallya settlementwas proposed that all actionstakensince the electionof the rector be revoked,includingthe privationofJohannesde Vimarciothatthe
threenationshad imposed.The Englishnation,at least,refusedto accept
thissolutionand preferred
to let matterstaketheircourse.In late December
or earlyJanuary matterswere worked out by the judges, peace was
restored,and the suspensionsof Conrad and Johnde Vimarciowere lifted
bonum
sensuambarum
."
"propter
pactset ex communi
partium
While in Avignon,Conrad was activeon his own behalfas well as the
affairsof his nation. In additionto presentingthe appellation
he soughta
within
the
curia
and
dedicated
his
Planctus
to
the
patron
papal chaplain,
Johannesde Piscibus,in the hopes of obtaininga benefice.The attempt
was unsuccessful,
and Conrad eventuallyreturnedto Paris disappointed
and bitter.28
The resolutionof the dispute restoredConrad's standingin the universityand his abilityto earn income throughteachingand the promotion of candidates,but it did not satisfyhis financialneed or his career
ambitions.Probablyin the summerof 1338 he returnedto Germanyto
raise money by sellingfamilyland.29He also continuedhis quest for a
to Arnold
powerfulpatronby dedicatinga revisededitionof his Planctus
de Verdala, anotherpapal chaplain who at the timewas papal legate to
the court of Louis of Bavaria.30
How long Conrad remained away fromParis is unclear. His name
does not reappear in the proctor'sregisterof the English-German
nation
at Paris until December 1339,31 but inasmuchas few names of regent
mastersappear in that recordin the previousthreemonths,thereis no
reason to assume he did not resumeteachingin October 1339 and may
27AUPI, col.23; CUPI, 449-58,
#409.
28Planctus
ostendit
, p. 69: "tibinildaturAvignonis";
p. 92: "Gap.30,in quo scriptor
beneficium
sibicollatum
inutile
essepropter
Ibid.:"Parysius
pluresprecedentes
ipsum."
Whether
hereturned
toParisoronlyafter
redeam,
numquam
plustaliaqueram."
directly
hissojourn
in Germany
in 1338and 1339is unclear,
sincehisnamedoesnotreappear
ofthenationuntilDecember
from
amongtherecords
1339,buttheproctor's
register
December
1337untilDecember
1338arelost.
29Ibach,Leben
konomica
, 118;Krger,
I, p. xv.
30See seconddedication
in Planctus,
de Verdalawasthendeanof
pp. 17-8.Arnold
Fenoillet
andin March1339wasmadebishop
ofMaguelonne,
nearMontpellier.
31AUPI, col.36.

19:20:33 PM

CONRAD
OF MEGENBERG

111

thushave been presentat the Septembermeetingof the artsfacultythat

Conrad's absence had not
proscribedthe use of Ockham's writings.32
his
his
diminished standingamong
colleagues.He was elected proctorof
the nationforthreesuccessivetermsin 1340, fromFebruaryinto May.33
Aftera one-monthtermin which Ulrich served,Conrad was re-elected
at the end of June and served until Ulrich was elected at the end of
Conrad again serveda one-monthtermfromDecember 1340
August.34
for the nation in 1340,
intoJanaury 1341.35 He also served as receptor
that
in
October
of
of
office
his
term
year,36and as one of
completing
the examinersforthe Lenten examinationsthatyear at Ste. Genevive.37
When Conrad returnedto Paris for the 1339-40 academic year, he
found a university
preoccupiedwith a crisiswith the papacy that had
of 1339 as a propertydisputebetweensome citizens
in
the
winter
begun
of Valence and two arts studentsin the Norman nation.38By the summer of 1339 the affairhad growninto a disputebetweenthe papacy and
in which Benedict threatenedto suspend the university's
the university
and
rejectedthe rotuliof beneficerequeststhat the university
privileges
nunciihad broughtto Avignon.None of the actions taken by the arts
facultyin the fall of 1339 appeased Benedict XII, who suspended universityprivilegesin February 1340. Privilegeswere not restoreduntil
July 1341.
Since Conrad did not yet have a beneficein 1339, those eventsmay
only have had an indirecteffecton him. But they may have provided
forthe artsfacultyto take a harderline againstthe teachan opportunity
ing of an importantpapal opponent,Williamof Ockham. And assuming
attitudesof Conrad were alredypresentin 1339, he
the anti-Ockhamist
a
have
may
played centralrole in urginghis nation and the arts faculty
to take action againstOckham's teachingand that of the Ockhamists.
What we do see of Conrad's actionsin the proctor'sregisterfor 133940 is more academic than political,which is to be expected.Several students determinedunder him in the springof 1340, specificallySunno
32CUPII, pp.485-6,#1023;
AUPI, col.35.
33AUPI, cols.37-38.
34AUPI, cols.39-41.
35AUPI, col.44.
36AUPI, cols.39-40,42.
37AUPI, cols.36-7.
38CUPII, 476-7,482-3,487-8,488-9,497-8,498-9,521-2;AUPI, cols.26,28-32.See
andK.H. Tachau,Ockham
in W.J.Courtenay
oftheaffair
thediscussion
, and
, Ockhamists
ofUniversities,
2 (1982),53-96,at
atParis
the
Nation
, in:History
, 1339-1341
English-German
77-9.

19:20:33 PM

112

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

Karoli of Sweden (to be distinguishedfromthe Sunno of Sweden who

incepted in 1337), Nicholas Gossek of Poland, and Thomas de Caliga
Rbea of Trier. Sunno was licensed under Conrad in May or June of
that year, and inceptedunder Conrad in early September.
But Conrad was equally concerned about obtaininga positionwith
In Novemberof 1340 the nationsupportedhis appeal
betterremuneration.
to the Duke of Austriaand the cityof Vienna.39He was appointednuntinsto conveythe artsfaculty'srotulus
of petitionsto Avignonin February
40
1341. When he lefton thatmissionis unclear.In March 1341 two students determinedunder him:JohannesArneriof Sweden and Burchard
of Constance,41and another student,John of Wittenberg,was licensed
under Conrad in the same month.42
The April-Mayperiodwould appear
to be the mostlikelytimefora diplomatictripto Avignon.In June 1341,
when Burchardof Constancewas licensedunderhim,Conrad musthave
been back in Paris.43He was certainlyin Paris forthe September1341
meetingconcerningthe Ockhamist sect.44In February 1342 he made
preparationsto leave Paris. The classroomallocated to him, namelythe
scolaad septem
artessuperterram
, was accorded to his formerpupil, master
Sunno Karoli of Sweden.45Conrad remaineduntilthe end of the month
in order to oversee the determinations
of severalstudents:Eghno,John
Swavus, BertoldSwavus, Henry of Constance,John of Trier,and Ulrich
of Saxony.46By March 16, 1342 Conrad was alreadyin Germany.47
The sourcesforConrad's yearsat Paris thusprovideconsiderableinformation on his politicaland administrative
activitiesas regentmasterin
arts. But what of his teaching?No commentariesattributableto Conrad
on the textsof the arts curriculumhave been identified,except for his
on Johnof Sacrobosco'sDe sphaera
, whichwas writtenat Vienna
Quaestiones
and completedtherein 1347.48A shortbut importanttreatisecritiquing
39AUPI, col.43. He alsopurchased
a royalprivilege
forthesizablesumof35 solidi;
AUPI, 45.
40AUPI, cols.45,46.
41AUPI, col.46.
42AUPI, col.47.
43AUPI, cols.50,52.
44AUPI, cols.52-3.
45AUPI, col.54.
46AUPI, cols.54-5.
47Ibach,Leben
, 4.
48Mnchen,
Gim14687,ff.71ra-95vb.
The workis datedby
Bayr.Staatsbibliothek,
itsexplicit
as wellas thefactthatConrad,
onf.90va,citesHeinrich
vonNrnberg's
comon theDe Sphaera.
See Ibach,Leben,
De Sphaera
konomica
65-6;Krger,
I, xix-xx.
mentary
wasa textin theParisartscurriculum,
and it is conceivable
thatConrad's
workwas

19:20:33 PM

CONRAD
OF MEGENBERG

113

's views on contraryformshas survivedand dates to the

Walter Burley
But occasional referend of his regencyat Paris, or shortlythereafter.49
ences in that treatiseand later workssuggestthat he wrotequestionsor
groupsof questionsin naturalphilosophywhile at Paris, specificallyon
problemsin physics.In his treatiseagainstBurleyhe cited his treatiseon
de sphaera
he referred
and condensation,whilein his Quaestiones
rarifaction
to his Dispuin physics,and in his konomica
his readersto his quaestiones
.50These may, in fact,all referto the
tationes
in naturalibus
speculationibus
same workor sectionsof it, whichprobablyoriginatedas disputedquestions.Whetherany of thismaterialhas survivedor is recoverablewill be
consideredtowardthe end of the next section.
in Theology
C. Student
Beforeturningto Conrad's role in the crisisover Ockhamismat Paris,
therewas a thirdstage in his acadeit is importantto determine
^vyhether
mic career,namely,as a studentand bachelorof theology,thatcoincided
withall or part of his regencyin arts,and if so, how far he progressed
in thatfaculty.In the standardbiographicalaccount of Conrad's acadebeforeleaving Paris
mic career,it is reportedthat he read the Sentences
in 1342.51According to that information,Conrad did not attain the
ff.lr-57v,
conIt should
alsobe notedthatthesamemanuscript,
begunin thatsetting.
thatmaybe byMegenberg.
tainsa commentary
onDe Sphaera
49Vienna,
locaThedateandprobable
ff.83rb-91va.
Ms.401/130,
Dominikanerkloster,
on theSentences
lectured
is suggested
tionofthetreatise
(f.83rb:"In
having
byhisalready
tracdixi.. . .") andbytheexplicit
sententiarum
(f.9lva):"Explicit
quarti
prima
questione
universitatis
rectoris
de monte
tatusmagisti
Chonradi
parisiensis,
quo probat
puellarum,
in iliaconclusione
contrarie
sinteiusdem
contra
speciei
quodforme
Wurley
oppositum
595.
takenfrom
Citation
Kaeppeli,
specialissime."
50Tractatus
f.9lva,citedfrom
Ms. 401/130,
contra
Dominikanerkloster,
, Vienna,
Burley
konomica
dico,quodmotusestperse ad quantitatem
I, xviii-xix:
"Quapropter
Krger,
in tractatu
meo
mutacio
. . ., sicutcredomedemonstrasse
in quantum
in augmentacione
locutus
sumde motuad
clareet diffuse
ubimultum
de rarificatione
et condensacione,
deSacrobosco
inIoannis
, Glm14687,f. 74ra,citedfrom
Quaestiones
sphaeram
quantitatem."
desKonrad
inAlamannia
DerTraktat
dermortalitate
derPest?
Krise
der7als Ursache
Krger,
vonMegenberg
zum70.Geburtstag
1972,
, vol.II, Gttingen
, in:Festschri
Heimpel
irHermann
inquesethabetde hocvideri
alibi,scilicet
849,n. 55:"sedegononsumistius
opinionis,
minuiuvencule
konomica
tionibus
I, tr.2, c. 6, p. 76: "Undequedamcolerice
physicis."
calorsopitur
. . . nonconcipiunt,
ettorride
habentes
tosmusculos
quousque
pungens
corpore
in naturalomnium
incarnali.
inipsisetcumincipiunt
Quorum
disputaciones
aliqualiter
ibusspeculacionibus
reliqui."
51Ibach,Leben,
deConrad
retrouUOeconomica
deMegenberg
42-3,esp.n. 148;T. Kaeppeli,
deSeville
Colombine
dums.7-7-32dela Bibliothque
ve
entier
, in:RHE,45 (1950),
, II: Le texte
in KonradvonMegenberg,
konomica
I, xvi.
593-4;S. Krger,
"Einleitung,"

19:20:33 PM

114

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

in sacra
doctoratein theology,but he would have been baccalarius
formatus
in
from
and
would
the
1334
to
the
1342, given
pagina
period
lengthof
the theologicalprogram,have been a studentin the theologicalfaculty
as well as regentmasterin arts.The implicationsof thisare considerable.
He would have been attendinglecturesin the theologicalfacultywhen
Pastor de Serrescuderio,Peter of Aquila, Bernardof Arezzo, Nicholas of
More imporAutrecourt,and Thomas of Strasbourgread the Sentences.
in
his
the
over
would
have
crisis
Ockhamism
been shaped
tantly, viewpoint
by theologicalas well as philosophicalconsiderations.And his having
come close to attainingthe Parisiandoctorateand havingto abandon his
studiesforfinancialreasonsmightwell have had an embittering
effecton
his psychology.
The evidence behind the theologicalcareer of Conrad is not extensive, but it is persuasive.For many years it restedsolelyon the remark
of Trithemiusthat Conrad while at Paris wroteon the fourbooks of the
Sentences
and draftedhis Monasticon
,52
, the three books of his konomica,
Ibach rejectedthe placementof the last two items,since theywere written in Vienna and Regensburg,not Paris, but he accepted the accuracy
of the information
on the Sentences
A betterwitness,howcommentary.53
came
to
several
In
decades ago.
Conrad's Traetatus
contra
ever,
,
light
Burley
identifiedand discussedby Kaeppeli in 1950, Conrad specificallyrefers
to his firstquestionon the fourthbook of the Sentences.
This means that
Conrad's questionson the Sentences
his
treatise
predate
againstBurleyand
were writtenbeforehe leftParis in the springof 1342.
When did Conrad writehis commentaryon the Sentences
? In view of
the lengthof the Paris theologicalprogram,Conrad musthave begun his
52J.Trithemius,
Annates
. . . quiscrip, S. Gallen1690,II,p. 187:"Conradus
Hirsaugienses
sitapudParisios
docens
libb.IV,opusOeconomicon
libb.Ill,AdDucem
supersententias,
Austriae
Monasticon
lib.I etaliaquaenonvidi."
aliud,quodpraenotavit
53
inaccurate
is Trithemius,
De scriptoribus
ecclesiasticis
, 157:"se deindead uniSimilarly
versitatem
Parisiensem
ubiphilosophiam
et sacrasliteras
contulit,
publice
peroctennium
scholaribus
doctoratus
infulam
est."Thereisnoevidence
thatConrad
lectitans,
consequutus
attained
thedoctorate,
andtopursue
inartsandtheology
degrees
up tothelevelofmasterinthefirst
anda formed
inthesecond
inan eight
bachelor
is impossible.
yearperiod
inferred
Trithemius
studies
in "sacra
littera"
from
in konomica
Conrad's
reference
Perhaps
"
"
ButConradconsidered
doctoratus
an appropriate
labelfor
III, 1, 21,to thedoctorate.
theartsmagisterium.
He usedit to describe
whathe attained
in arts
whenhe incepted
lauream
doctoratus
et octennuus
sedisgubernator
universidilectus
("receperam
processu
tatisfilius
anditis thewayhe describes
theobligation
oftheartsbachelor
honorabar"),
todispute
in theschools
ofvarious
artsmasters;
konomica
III, 1,4, p. 27: "quiarguendo
etrespondendo
scolasdoctorum
nondum
lauream
milicie
doctamen
perambulat;
accepit
sednichilominus
vicinus
estad magisterii
toralis,
gradum."

19:20:33 PM

CONRAD
OF MEGENBERG

115

studiesin theologyat least a year beforehis regencyin arts in order to

have been eligibleto lectureon the Bible in 1340, and on the Sentences
in 1342.54This would place Conras lectureson the Sentences
and, along
contraBurley
with it, his Tractatus
, at the very end of his time in Paris.
The peculiarthingis that Conrad never refersto himselfas a bachelor
in theology,and that titleis never accorded to him when he is mentionedin papal documents,as was customary.55
The answerto thispuzzle may lie in the proceduresthatgovernedthe
commentariesby the second quarterof the fourcompositionof Sentences
teenthcentury.It had become customaryfor bachelors to compose a
draftor workingcopy of theirsententialquestionsduringthe year before
the candidateorallydeliveredthemas a bachelor of theology.This year,
knownas annusexpectations,
followedhis year as biblical cursorand preThus the oral lectures(lectura
ceded his year as sententiarius.56
lecta)as sententiarius
was the second stage in the writingprocess,whichwas followed
beforea definitivetext
annotata)
by one or more stagesof editing(lectura
edita
recollecta
, lectura
, or ordinatio
) for publicationwas achieved. If
(lectura
financialneed or other circumstancesinterruptedthe normal sequence,
it would be possiblefora drafttextto have been realized withoutone's
,
actuallyhaving completedor even having begun the official,proforma
lectureson the Sentences.
Whetherthishappenedin Conrad's case we do not know.We do know
but was never accorded the tide
thathe wrotequestionson the Sentences
of bachelor of theology.We also know that his preparationfor biblical
and sententiallectureswould have coincided with his last two years in
Paris and with the crisisover Ockham's thought.If, as will be argued
54CUPII, 692,#1188.Thislegislation
datesto thesecondquarter
ofthefourteenth
tolecforseculars
before
oftheological
andspecifies
sevenyears
study
proceeding
century
Thosein religious
orders
tureson theBibleandtheSentences.
bythe1330swereonly
- a reduction
to theseculars
to havestudied
sixyearsinitially
officially
granted
required
in 1366butwhich
have
been
mayalready
by 1340.
practiced
55Forexample,
to as "magister
artium"
in May 1341he was referred
XII,
(Benoit
in or
Lettres
communes
, ed. Vidal,vol.II, Paris1905,304),andhadhe readtheSentences
or
histidewouldhavebeen"baccalaurius
before
theacademic
theologiae"
year1340-41,
ina letter
Conradinconsomeequivalent.
of19April1363,UrbanV mentioned
When,
of cathedral
to theposition
nection
witha disputed
priorin Regensburg,
appointment
a master
in arts,anda priest;
cf.
Conradwasdescribed
onlyas a canonofRegensburg,
comUrbanV, Lettres
communes
247,#6680.See alsoUrbanV, Lettres
, II, Paris1964-72,
munes}
IX, Rome1983,444,#27363.
56Fora description
Amidela
d'Autrcourt.
seeZ. Kaluza,Melas
oftheannus
expectations,
theyearofexpectation
vrit
littraire
dela France
, in:Histoire
, 42 (1995),pp. 54-6.During
couldbe heldin artsas wellas in theology.
disputations

19:20:33 PM

116

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

below,Conrad played a centralpartin the campaignagainstOckhamism,

the referencesin the 1340 statuteconcerningthe implicationsof those
"errors"forthe interpretation
of scriptureor propositionsabout God may
reflectthe theologicalsensitivity
of someone engaged in preciselythose
tasks.We also know that Conrad remainedactivelyteachingin the arts
57
facultyuntilhe leftParis forgood in March 1342. His retentionof his
classroomin the Rue du Fouarre and his Tractatus
contra
witnessto
Burley
his continuingcommitmentto philosophy.58
While no Sentences
commentaryhas yet been identifiedfor Conrad, it
should be noted thatthe styleand contentof questionsadded to Michael
de Massa's commentaryon book II of the Sentences
found in Vat. lat.
1087 anticipate in a remarkableway the viewpointand language of
Conrad.59The manuscriptwas in the possessionof Thomas Parentucelli
de Sarzana (laterPope Nicholas V) in the earlyfifteenth
century,through
whom it came into the Vatican library.The work was copied froman
exemplarthat blended, accordingto the plan of the authoror editor,a
text on the early distinctionsof Book II, identifiedas his "opusordina"
"
rum
," with questionson topics in physicsidentifedas additionesor as
extraordinariae"60
The numerous cross-references
"quaestiones
among the
additionalquestions,and between those and the questionsin the "opus
ordinarum
," make it certainthat the text,as edited in its presentform,is
the workof one and the same person.And althoughthe cross-references
57Ibach,Leben
, 4.
58AUPI, col.54. Nicholas
ofAutrecourt
is another
ofa secular
master
who
example
continued
to teachin theartsfaculty
whilecompleting
in lawandtheology.
hisdegrees
59Fora discussion
ofthattext,
seeD. Trapp,Notes
onsome
ofthe
Augustinin
Manuscripts
Michael
deMassa(d. 1337),in: Augustinianum,
5 (1965),58-133;W.J.Courtenay,
The
inSententias
deMassa,OESA:
A Redatmg
45 (1995),
, in:Augustiniana,
Quaestiones
ofMichael
191-207.
60Some
to cosmology
areraisedin thesections
thatbelongto the
questions
relating
author's
caelumsitcompositum
ex
; e.g.Vat.lat. 1087,f. 124rb:"Utrum
opusordinarum
animaet corpore
ex principiis
essentialiter
intrinsecis
itaquodveresitanimatamquam
tumformaliter
etvivum";
f.128ra:"Utrum
ultima
sitaliquomodoinloco."
ibid.,
sphaera
Someofthequestions
addedlater(additiones),
which
from
another
acamayhavederived
demiccontext,
aredirectly
andalmost
withphysics;
concerned
exclusively
e.g.Vat.lat.
"Utrum
duratio
reipermanentis
sitrealiter
idem
1087,f.68va("quaestio
extraordinaria"):
f.70rb("quaestio
"Utrum
duratio
sucibid.,
quodipsarespermanens";
extraordinaria"):
sitrealiter
idemquodmotuscuiusestpassio";ibid.,
cessiva,
quae estipsumtempus,
f.71ra:"Utrum
sitresperse uniustantum
motus
f.74ra:"Utrum
ibid.,
praedicamenti";
sitrealiter
idemquodmotus,
velsitrealitas
addita
generaliter
loquendo
tempus
ipsimotui";
ibid.:
"Utrum
motus
sitaliquarealitas
additaprimo
quodestpassioprimi
motui";
tempus
ibid.f.82ra:"Utrum
formaliter
sitpassioinexistens
alicuimotui";
ibid.,
tempus
acceptum
f. 83va:"Utrum
forma
siveipsummet
ad suumformale
sit
temporis
tempus
quantum

19:20:33 PM

CONRAD
OF MEGENBERG

117

fromthe Vatican manuscriptto the text of Michael de Massa's comare not as numerousnor as convincmentaryon Book I of the Sentences
works
that
both
belong to the same author.61
ing, theysuggest
Moreover,some of the "additional"questionswere not writteninitially
academic setting,
fora Sentences
commentarybut originatedin a different
differ
in
from
otherquestions;
the
from
style
disputations.They
probably
to
used
describe
are
sometimes
groupingsof
they
prefacedby wording
the topicsare more narrowlyfocused;and thereare
disputedquestions;62
an opponent(tu/tibi)instead of the more general
to
references
frequent
in thesequestionsconcernproblemsin physics,
The
issues
debated
.63
aliqui
of motion and time. And the opponent
status
the
especially
ontological
or opponentsin these questionswere adherentsof an Ockhamistphysics. In some questionsthe sourcesof the debate are limitedto Aristotle
and the Commentator(Averroes)withoutcitingany Patristicor scholastic author,and withoutany applicationto a theologicalissue. In others,
such as the questionson quantity,theologicalissuesand scholasticsources
are introduced.
Assumingthesequestionswere authoredby Michael de Massa, the fact
that theywere incorporatedinto his Sentences
commentaryby an editor
have
been writtennot long
afterMichael's death suggeststhattheywould
beforehis death in May 1337. In any event, the additional questions
withConrad in the theologicalfaculty
show thata studentcontemporary
withthe issues
was deeplyconcernedover issuesthatcoincideremarkably
in
his
or
to
have
treated
claimed
questions disputationson
Megenberg
problemsin physics.For example,the anti-Ockhamistargumentson the
ontologicalstatusof pointsand lines to which Conrad refershis readers
f.85ra:"Utrum
habeatsuumesse
cuilibet
formaliter
motui";
ibid.,
tempus
passioinexistens
omniopereintellectus
nostri";
ibid.,f. 89ra:"Utrum
aliquod
circumscripta
completum
decontinuo
ff.130v-169v;
tenquestions
intototempore";
maneat
idemrealiter
instans
, ibid.,
andfour
voluntatis
ff.175-205r;
etmotione
deventate
sixteen
, ibid.,
quesprimi
principii
questions
ff.205r-221v.
tionsdespecie
, ibid.,
61One manuscript
Bibl.Univ.,Ms. 2214)is
on BookI (Bologna,
ofthecommentary
ofSarzana.
ofVat.lat.1087andwasalsoin thepossession
in thehandofthescribe
62Vat.lat.1087,f.68va:"Duodecima
circamateextraordinaria
<Undecima>
quaestio
sitrealiter
idemquodipsaresperduratio
reipermanentis
riamcreationis
fuit
ista:Utrum
manens."
63Forexample,
connotationes
etperquascumque
f.70va:"perquascumque
ibid.,
figuras
motus
etquandoque
tuconaris
salvare
quies,et
quodunaressitquandoque
gramaticales
...
albedoetquandoque
salvabo
tibiquodeademressitquandoque
nigredo.
egopereasdem
..."
ad propositiones
Si autemdicasquodsic.. . . Preterea,
gramaticales.
quia tu fugis
...
cumipsomobili.
localis
estidemrealiter
tudicisquodmotus
f.70vb:"Quaratione
Ibid.,
Et si dicasquod...."

19:20:33 PM

118

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

in his Quaestiones
on De sphaeracan be found in question 3 (depunctoet
the
of
"additional
lined)
questions" on the continuum,Vat. lat. 1087,
ff. 136vb-140vb.Similarly,the issues and views to which he refershis
readersin his Tractatus
contra
can be foundin the questionon the
Burle)/
and
of
in Vat. lat. 1087, ff. 169va-175rb.
matter
generation
corruption
And finally,a more extendeddiscussionof Ockhamisttheorieson motion
discussedbrieflyin konomica
III, tr. 1, c. 1 can be found in Vat. lat.
1087, ff.70rb-74ra.While one cannot dismisscategoricallythe possibilitythatthe scribewho assembledMassa's "additional"questionson book
II of the Sentences
did not inadvertently
include questionsfromanother
authorfoundin quiresin the possessionof Michael, or thatMichael himself"borrowed"sectionsfromquestionson naturalphilosophyby a prominentsecularcontemporary,
or thatVat. lat. 1087 is not itselfa "reworked"
Sentences
a
lectura
secundum
alium
, in which a later author
commentary,
an
redelivered
earlier
(Conrad?)
commentaryand added some questions
of his own, the weightof evidence points in the directionof Massa's
in styleand attitudebetween
authorship.Still,the occasional similarities
Vat. lat. 1087 and Conrad's worksis remarkable,as can be seen in the
last sectioncited above, where the language and vehemencewithwhich
Ockham's positionis attackedare evocativeof Conrad's critique:
Duodecima
extraordinaria
circamateriam
eratista:Utrum
duracreationis
quaestio
do successiva,
sitrealiter
idemquodmotuscuiusestpasquae estipsumtempus,
sio.... Et quiade realitate
motus
estunuserror
modernorum
quorundam
quicirca
totamPhysicam
tamquantum
ad principia
ad conclusiones
quametiamquantum
errores
freipsiusconatisuntinnovare
antiquorum
philosophorum
quosAristoteles
licetper quasdamfugasgrammaticales
huiusmodi
errores
quentissime
reprobat,
sicutaliasapparebit.
Ideostatim
sustineant,
valent,
quaemodicum
pronuncdeerrore
istorum
circarealitatem
motus
mevaldebreviter,
cuiusmoveoistam
expedio
gratia
quaestionem:
Utrum
motussitrealiter
mobilequodmovetur.
Et videtur
ipsummet
quodsic,
realitatum
sinenecessitate.
. . . Respondeo,
sicutdixi,
quidfrustra
pluralitas
ponitur
hicestunuserrorum
reiveritatem
secundum
conanquorundam
modernorunT^jui
turdiffundere
interveradictaphysicae
multaseminafalsitatum,
et in omnibus
verbosi
habent
recursum
ad verbagramaticalia
eis.Nec
utendo
tamquam
sophistice
forte
melior
modus
essetnisinauseare
eorum
etdicere:
"Contra
verbosos
superdictis
nolicontendere
veritatem
errores
nonsuntcum
verbis,"
quia secundum
ipsorum
Et ideoexpediamus
nosde ilioerrore
magnadiligentia
pertractandi.
quemasserunt
circarealitatem
dicunt
enimquodmotus
nonestdistinctus
a mobili
sedest
motus;
realiter
mobile.
Et quoditasitprobant
celeste
estquoddam
ipsummet
quiacorpus
a quo nondistinguitur
mobile
realiter
suusmotus;
dicendum
est
ergo,pariratione,
de omnimobiliet de motuquo quandoque
. . . Sed isteerror
movetur.
estcontra
Aristotelem
etCommentatorem.
. . . Nuncautem
etad rem,etnon
loquendo
physice
recurrendo
ad subiectum
etpraedicatum
etad suppositum
etad apposipropositions
tumpropositions
seddicoloquendo
ad rem:constat
gramaticaliter;
quodsi motus
essetrealiter
idemquodmobile,
motus
moveatur,
ergorealiter
quaeest
quiarealitas
motusmovetur
sententiam
. . . Constat
Aristotelis.
perte,sed hocestcontra
quod

19:20:33 PM

CONRAD
OF MEGENBERG

119

inessecontraria,
ibisubiectum
Commentator
reale,cuivicissim
possunt
puta
accipit
ibisubiectum
etquies,etnonaccipit
motus
propositionis
gramaticaliter;
ergosecunmobili
sicutsuoperse subiecto
exnatura
resinexistens
estquaedam
dumeummotus
cummotuquo movetur
rei.. . . Qua ratione
mobileestidemrealiter
perte,pari
motu.Sed hocposito
cumquietequa quiescit
cessante
ratione
inestidemrealiter
et Mellissi,
errorParmenidis
Aristoteles
. . ., et ita redibit
quemreprobat
sequitur
Physicorum.64
primo
neclocum;ergoaliquamrealitatem
noncausatmobile
Sedconstat
quodmovens
Aliasplusdicetur
contraerrorem
istorum
distinctam.
quando
ponamab utroque
videlicet
tractabo
abusionem
quamponunt,
quodin eodemsupposito
generlem
...
substantia
etqualitas.
scilicet
concurrunt
nisiduaedistinctae
realitates,
numquam
ad inquisitionem
Etaccedamus
abusiodicatur.
Sicergoerror
istorum
magis
tamquam
volentem
conNecoportet
de realitate
utilem
proficere,
philosophum
ipsiusmotus.
uthabeatur
ad proprietates
fundere
realitates
eorum
etconfugere
fuga
grammaticales
circaipsas.Immoquanet difficultates
realitates
eorum
de nonexplicando
physicas
de quidditatibus
rerum.
debemus
<tantum>
tumpossumus
explicare
investigare,
motus
etComcircarealitatem
moreAristotelis
Moveamus
ergoaliquasquaestiones
insanias
modernorum
innomentatoris
et aliorum
philosophorum,
praetermittendo
vantium
grossitive
antiquorum.65
And froma later question:
motus
suntidemidentice,
etprimus
Sedsecundum
istoscontra
quosarguo,
tempus
estipsummet
. . . dixerunt
necdifferunt
nisiconceptibiliter
caelum,
aliquiquodtempus
Okanistae.66
incidunt
istorum
etin sententiam
Massa's questionsrevealan overriding
concern,sharedby Conrad, with
and philosophicalimplicationsof Ockham's physicson the
the scientific
eve of the statuteof 1339 and the arts facultyoath based on it. The
Conradi
in the above passage,ad mentem
statements
,
, althoughnot ad.linguam
thuslead us back to a centralconcernof Conrad in his last threeyears
and Ockham's physics.
in Paris: the crisisover the Occamistae
64Vat.lat.1087,f.70rb-70va.
oftheviewsofParmenides
Foran extensive
discussion
andMellissus,
seeVat.lat.1087,f. 131ra.Theimageofnauseawaslaterappliedto the
ofpoint,
Ockhamist
line,andfigure
(Vat.lat. 1087,f. 140rb):
"disputare
interpretation
in
..." ConradofMegenberg
usedthesameexpression
cumipsisestquaedamnausea.
tr.
and
konomica
of
Ockham's
III,
1,
relation,
motion;
quantity,
understanding
discussing
clerici
dicipoterint,
c. 1,p. 7: "Etdeficientes
praeeoquodnauseam
quidem
nausigraphi
enimnausigraphus
distinctae
Dicitur
inscripturis
rerum
autnaturae
tendant
ascriptarum.
a 'nausea'et 'graphos,'
quodestscriptura."
65Ibid.,f. 71ra.Ibid.,f. 84v:"Respondeo
sineargumentis
potesttam
quodsustineri
intentionem
Aristotelis
secundum
apparquamedamsecundum
quamedamCommentatoris
in hacpartesentenvolopraeponderare
entiam
rationis
quodsie."Ibid.,f. 143r:"magis
tiamAristotelis
et Commentatoris
quamsuam."
66Ibid.,f.88va.Ibid.,f. 135va:"Sedarguitur
Okamprimosic:
ulterius
proopinione
a mobilicuiusest
veltempus
nonestresdistineta
successiva
quantitas
quae estmotus
turdifferre
etpermanens
successivum
Patetconsequentia
subiective.
quam
quiamagisvide
ceteris
aliishabentibus
. . . Praeterea,
se uniformiter.
etpermanens,
arguosic:
permanens
est
necaccidens
realiter
nonestresadditafundamento;
relatio
igitur
quodestquantitas

19:20:33 PM

120

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

D. The CrisisovertheOckhamistae
The later years of Conras tenureas regentmasterin arts at Paris
in that facultyover the contentand methcoincidedwith a controversy
ods of analysisfound in the writingsof William of Ockham. Conrad's
oppositionto Ockham in his post-Parisianwritingsis well known,includ(c. 1354) and in his commentaryon John
ing passages in his konomica
contra
Ockham
of Sacrobosco's Sphaera(1347), as well as his Tractatus
(1354).
In lightof the intensivescholarlyattentionthathas been devotedto the
statutesof the arts facultyover the Ockhamistcrisisof 1339-1341 and
the shifting
of thatevidence,a freshlook at Conrad's role
interpretations
in those eventsis in order.67
First,althoughthe post-Parisianwritingsof Conrad show a firmoppositionto Ockham's naturalphilosophy,that topic is not touched on in
in that
his Planetas
, nor is thereany mentionof Ockham or the Occamistae
work. What does come out stronglyin the Planctusis a hatred of the
mendicantsand a diatribeagainstthose in the arts facultywho misused
grammarand logic,perhaps a veiled referenceto those he latercriticizes
in his konomica
for rejecting,as literallyfalse, propositionscontainof
ing figures speech.68This latterissue was undoubtedlyrelatedto the
resadditafundamento.
. . . Praeterea,
actioetpassioetquaecumque
entiarespectiva
non
dicunt
resadditas
entibus
estresadditasubstantiae
absolutis;
ergonecquantitas
corpotamenconstitut
diversum
. . . Ad istatriasimulresponrali,quamvis
praedicamentum.
deo.. .
67
andTachau,Ockham
TheReception
, Ockhamists
, 53-96;Courtenay,
ofOckham's
Courtenay
at theUniversity
etraisons

, in: Z. Kaluzaand P. Vignaux

Thought
ofParis
(eds.),Preuve
l'Universit
deParis:
etthologie
auXIVesicle
, Paris1984,43-64;Courtenay,
Logique,
ontologie
Force
andFigures
: Therisis
over
Virtus
sermonis
intheFourteenth
,
ofWords
ofSpeech
Century
in: Franciscan
44 (1984),107-20;Z. Kaluza,Le Statut
du25 septembre
1339et
Studies,
l'Ordonnance
du2 septembre
im14.und15.Jahrhundert:
1276,in:O. Pluta(ed.),DiePhilosophie
Inmemoriam
MichaLski
1988,343-51;
(1879-1947
'),Amsterdam
Thijssen,
Konstanty
J.M.M.H.
Once
theOckhamist
Statutes
: Some
newperspectives
28
, in: Vivarium,
Again
of1339and1340
TheRegisters
the
oftheUniversity
(1990),136-67;Courtenay,
ofParisandtheStatutes
against
Scientia
in:Vivarium,
etleurs
29 (1991),13-49;Kaluza,Lessciences
Mote
Occamica,
langages.
surlestatut
du29 Dcembre
1340etleprtendu
contre
statut
Ockham
, in:L. Bianchi
(ed.),
perdu
e teologia
nelTrecento:
Studi
inricrdo
Randi
diEugenio
1994,197, Louvain-la-Neuve
Filosofia
desannes
and
1474-1482
258;Kaluza,La crise
, in:M.J.F.M.
Hoenen,
J.H.J.Schneider,
G. Wieland
andLearning.
Universities
intheMiddle
Leiden1994,293(eds.),Philosophy
Ages,
AlsoreleWasThere
anOckhamist
School?
in:Philosophy
andLearning,
263-92.
327;Courtenay,
vantto theseissues:Courtenay,
ThePreservation
Condemnations
andDissemination
ofAcademic
at theUniversity
au Moyen
morales
etpolitiques
, in:Philosophies
ofParisintheMiddle
Ages
Ages.
ActsoftheNinth
International
ofMedieval
Ottawa1992,Ottawa
Congress
Philosophy,
1995,III, 1659-67.
68Planctus
ed.R. Scholz,
invanis
ecclesiae,
MGH,SsMII, 1,Leipzig1941,32:"Cespitat
iamlingua,
monetat
Floribus
estnuda,rudisetvox,rustica
inanis;
cruda;Iamparalogis-

19:20:33 PM

OF MEGENBERG
CONRAD

121

propositionsthat were condemnedby the arts facultyin late December

1340 in a statutethat bears the rubric:"de reprobationequorumdam
but in Conrad's Planctusthese views are not
errorumOckanicorum,"69
discusseddirectly.In any event,the contentof the Planctus
, which was
writtenand revisedbetweenthe fall of 1337 and September 1338, may
all date beforethe crisisover Ockham's teachingsurfacedat Paris.
Secondly,while Conrad apparentlyreturnedfromAvignon to Paris
earlyin 1338, he wentto Germanyin the summerof 1338 and does not
appear at all in the recordsof the nationforthe 1338-39 academic year.
While the recordsbetweenJanuaryand December 1338 are lost,the failure of Conrad's name to appear in the extantrecordsfor the firsthalf
of 1339- the season of examinationsand promotionsin whichthe names
of sponsoringregentsare mostlikelyto be included- makes it likelythat
he was not in Paris duringthatyear. In fact,the firstfirmevidence for
his resumptionof his regencyis in December 1339, fromwhichwe may
inferhis presence duringthe firstterm of the 1339-40 academic year.
Thus, ifthe crisisover the use of Ockham's teachingsand writingsbegan
in the summerof 1339 or duringthe previousacademic year,it is unlikely
Conrad was involvedat thatstage. It is likely,however,thatConrad had
returnedto teachingby the end of September 1339 when the arts faculty statuteagainst the dogmatizingof Ockham was promulgatedand
inscribedinto the Book of the Nation.70WhetherConrad played any role
in the draftingand promulgationof that statutecannot be ascertained.
But if his later views are any guide, he would have stronglysupported
the action taken.His absence fromParis in the monthsbeforeSeptember 1339, however,probablymeans he was not among the initiatorsof
thatlegislation.
We can assume that Conrad's role in the campaign againstthe OccaHe was proctorof the Englishin 1340 and 1341 was more direct.71
mistae
Germannationwhen the statuteof December 29, 1340 was passed, and
as proctorduringthe precedingweek he may have had a hand in drafting the finalwording.If, as now seems likely,the actual sealing of the
mathomoquilibet
Ethycamarcescunt,
magiset brutaliacrescunt."
atquesophismat;
tr.
ch.
12.
konomica
1,
III,
Compare
69CUPII, 505-7,#1042.
70ThefactthatConrad's
until
December
namedoesnotappearintheproctor's
register
in thatregister
between
arelisted
masters
sincehardly
little,
anynamesofregent
proves
andDecember
1339.
August
71Thiswasalsotheconclusion
Werken
seinen
Studien
ofBerndMichael,
zu seinem
Leben,
Mittelalters
desspten
seiner
Theorien
imEuropa
undzurRezeption
, Teil 1, Berlin1985,191-2.
Ockhamists
in Courtenay
andTachau,Ockham,
Alsosuggested
, 72-5.

19:20:33 PM

122

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

statuteoccurredseveral weeks later,possiblydue to debate over inclusion of the finalarticle,the promulgationand enforcement
of thatstatute
would not have occurredduringConrad's termas proctor.72
That may
explain his statementin the proctor'sbook thatduringhis termin office
nothingthat was done was broughtto completion.73
If the later writingsof Conrad are any guide, the teachingsof the
thathe consideredthe mostperniciouswere not the procedures
Occamistae
for determiningthe truthor falsityof propositions,but Ockham's reinof the Aristoteliancategoriesand its implicationsfornatural
terpretation
philosophy.Propositionalanalysisand the effecton figuresof speechwhen
one allowed only the strictest
literalmeaning[de virtute
was cersermonis)
he criticizedthe
tainlyone of Conrad's later concerns.In his konomica
wretches{miseri)who rejected as meaninglesssuch sentencesas "aqua
transitin fluviis"or "ventivolant" because theyattributean action to a
subject that it does not in realityhave, since water does not have feet,
nor do winds have wings.74Conrad, echoing the language of the statute
of December 1340, noted the implicationsof this fallacyfor scriptural
But nowherein Conrad's discussiondid he attributethoseviews
exegesis.75
to the Occamistae.
That label he employedonlywhen criticizing
Ockham's
naturalphilosophy.
72Forscholarly
discussion
of thetwo-statute
vs a delayin promulgation,
see
theory
becauseoftheinclusion
ofthelast
above,note67. Ifa delaytookplace,itwasprobably
article
orclause,which
unlike
theotherarticles,
wasperhaps
takenfrom
theteaching
of
Nicholas
ofAutrecourt.
Inasmuch
as thatwasoneofthearticles
whoseorthodoxy
was
someartsmasters
andpossibly
beingjudgedat Avignon,
mayhavefeltit presumptive
offensive
toBenedict
XII tocondemn
itat Parisbefore
theAvignon
commission
hadcompleteditsdeliberations.
73AUPI, col.44: "In cujus
nichil
estfactum,
ad actumducetempore
quodperfecte
retur."
74konomica
miseri
III, tr.1,ch. 12,p. 47: "surguntque
quidam,
quise numquam
dignosnoverunt
etquodpenitus
nesciunt
docere
discpulos
presumunt
atque,quodcondolendo
talesnobilibus
Gramaticam
refero,
ingeniis
pociusseductores
quamdoctores
preficiunt.
molestant
derisibus
affirmantes
oracionis
constructio
esttranindignis
quodnullapartium
sitiva.
. . . Quapropter
in fluviis
secundum
eos,equeventi
volant,
aqua nontransit
quoniamalas nonhabent.
Nec poterit
diciquodunaparsoracionis
regataliamsecundum
modorum
humanus
omnes
orationis
significandi
proporciones,
quiaintellectus
partes
regit
etdirigit.
enimpartium
oracionis
nichil
utdicunt."
sunt,
Proprietates
75Ibid.:"Rethoricam
adeosuacecitate
utnecflores
verborum
eloquenciam
postergant,
neccolores
sentenciarum
sedflores
in pratiscrescere
et colores
variospictores
capiant,
etpulchre
variare
ad instar
nature
affirmant.
hiidulciloquia
sacrarum
componere
Qualiter
necestdubium
hereses
ex hiis
noscit,
interpretentur
scripturarum
quevisraciodisposita
innmeras
etenim
sacranonsemeluterum
vocatet
pullulare.
Scriptura
virginalem
virgam
flium
dei indeconceptum
florem
Et si de virtute
sermonis
false
isteoraciones
appellat.
in pulcherrimis
rethoricam
nullam
ad oraciones
sunt,sequitur
speciebus
transumpcionis
habere
et sicrethorica
tota."
virtutem,
quasievanuit

19:20:33 PM

OF MEGENBERG
CONRAD

123

- unless
The firsttext in which Conrad attacked Ockhamistphysics
certainquestionsin Vat. lat. 1087 wereauthoredor influenced
by Conrad
was in his commentaryon John of Sacrobosco's Sphaera
, which Conrad
completedin 1347 while teachingat St. Stephan's school in Vienna. He
rejectedOckham's teachingthat points and lines were not res distinctae
se et a corporeiThe critiquewas expanded in his konomie
inter
a, written
at Regensburgbetween1348 and 1352. There Conrad rejectedthe opinion of Ockham and his followersthat the categoriesof relation(;relatio
),
and
when
were
indistinwhere
habit
(habitus),
(ubi),
(quando)
(situs),
place
quantityas simguishablefromabsolute,permanentthings,who identified
and
who
affirmed
thatmotion
as
a
of
substance
extended,
ply description
frompermanentthings.77
was indistinguishable
(motus)
The arts facultystatuteof September 1339 was vague about what
But
subjectmattertheyproscribedwhen theyforbadeOckham's doctrina.
the sententialand physiof Conrad and, even more explicitly,
thewritings
cal questionsin Vat. lat. 1087 make clear thatthe principaldoctrineproof the categoriesand its implications
scribedwas Ockham's interpretation
forscience.This is spelledout in the inceptionoaths forthe artsfaculty,
revisedin the summeror fall of 1341, in which, parallel to numerous
passages in Vat. lat. 1087, the contrastis made betweenOckhamistscientiaand the teachingof Aristotle,Averrois,and the ancientcommentaWhetherthislanguage simplyexpands on the implicitmeaningof
tors.79
the 1339 statuteor derivesfroman additionalpiece of anti-Ockhamist
legislation,the battleover Ockham's physicswas centralto the eventsof
76Mnchen,
Gim14687,fol.74ra,as quotedbySabineKrger,
Bayr.Staatsbibliothek,
von
desKonrad
demortalitate
inAlamannia
dereit
alsUrsache
derPest?
DerTraktat
Krise
Megenberg,
at849,
vol.II, Gttingen
in:Festschrift
Hermann
zum70.Geburtstage
1972,839-83,
ftir
Heimpel
n. 55: "Sedhicestadvertendum,
illos,qui negant
punctahabereesse
quodsecundum
et sui,illidicerent,
Wilhalmus
animam
realepreter
et similiter
lineas,sicutfacitfrater
sibisecundum
essesuumymaginativum
spereeciamcompeteret
quodsecunda
descripcio
in
et habetde hocvideri
etconceptibile,
sedegononsumistius
alibi,scilicet
opinionis,
questionibus
physis."
77konomica
in statu
deficiens
III, tr.1,c. 1,p. 7: "Autcertedicipotest,
quodclerus
Wilhelmus
frater
esthie,qui naturas
scolastico
rerum,
abnegat
quemadmodum
plurium
de OcchamAnglicus
ubi,
qui tamrelaciones
quamsitus,habitus,
atquesui sequaces,
eana rebusabsolutis
animam
resindistinctas
asserunt
atquequantitatem
quando,
preter
rerum
et passiones
Motuseciamin quibusactiones
demcumsubstancia
remaffirmant.
a permanentibus
rebus."
firmantur
dicunt
resindistinctas
78CUPII, 485-6,#1023.
79CUPII, 680:"Itemjurabitis
scienfactaperfacultatem
artium
contra
quodstatuta
scientiam
et consimiles
sustinebitis
tiamOkamicam
observabitis,
quoquonequedictam
etaliorum
Averrois
commentatorum
etsuiCommentatoris
sedscientiam
Aristotelis
modo,
fidem."
nisiin casibus
etexpositorum
dictiAristotelis,
qui suntcontra
antiquorum

19:20:33 PM

124

WILLIAM
J. COURTENAY

nationrequired
1339-1341.When,in September1341,theEnglish-German
an anti-Ockhamistloyaltyoath of all membersof the nation, students
and mastersalike,thattheydid not belong to and would informon anyone who belonged to the sectaoccamica,
, Conrad's name appears among
the masterssigningthatlegislation,and he was probablyamong its principal sponsors.80
It is ironicthatConrad's departurefromPariscoincidedwiththe return
for
of Gregoryof Rimini to Paris (1342) as the Augustininsententiarius
the followingacademic year, 1343-44.81Rimini was the firsttheologian
as did Hugolino
at Paristo defendpublicallyOckham'snaturalphilosophy,
of Orvieto at the end of the decade.82WhatevereffectConrad had at
Paris in subsequentyears came froma distance,eitherthroughhis writings or, since he was in Avignonin 1346 when ClementVI draftedhis
letterto the Universityof Paris, as an encouragingvoice on the wording
But eventuallythe anti-Ockhamist
of thatpapal admonition.83
legislation
- at least as
in the arts faculty
regardsOckham's naturalphilosophy
failed. Sometime between 1355 and 1365 the prohibitionof Ockham's
scientia
was removedfromthe oaths in the arts facultyand ail mention
of thosestatutes,as theyapplied to Ockham, was likewiseremovedfrom
the oaths.84How Conrad would have reactedto the collapse of an effort
to whichhe had devotedso much politicalenergycan onlybe imagined.
It would probablyhave been furtherevidence,in his eyes, of a world
gone wrong.
Madison, Wisconsin
University
of Wisconsin

80AUPI, cols.52-53: . . nullusdecetero

in
admitteretur
ad aliquosactuslegtimos
dictanacione,
nisipriusjuraret
si sciretaliquosde sectaOceanicaad
quodrevelaret,
invicem
de sectavelopinionibus
esse
erroneis
veletiamconjuratos
fovendis,
conspirasse
velconventcula
habereocculta,
aliternisijurediceret
si sciret,
ex tuncpenampeijurii
incurreret."
81V. Marcolino,
seninGregory
ofRimini,
Lectura
etsecundum
"Einleitung,"
super
primm
tentiarum
vol.I, Berlin1981,xi-xiii.
, ed. D. TrappandV. Marcolino,
82W.J.
TheRoleofEnglish
intheTransformation
Education
ofUniversity
Courtenay,
Thought
inthe
LateMiddle
in:J.M.Kittelson
:
andP.J.Transue
andResilience
Rebirth
, Reform
Ages,
(eds.),
Universities
in Transition
at 126-31.
, 1300-1700
, Columbus
1984,103-62,
83CUPII, 587-90,
#1125.
84
TheRegisters
, at 40-2.
oftheUniversity
Courtenay,
ofParis

19:20:33 PM

Reviews
nelTrecento.
Studiin ricorddi Eugenio
e teologia
Randi,a curadi LucaBianchi.
Filosofia
ettudes
duMoyen
1994,Vili + 574p. (Textes
FIDEM,Louvain-la-Neuve
Age,1).
runiparLuca Bianchi
et introduit
Ce recueil
de dix-huit
contributions,
parMariaestddi la mmoire
Randi(1957-1990).
TeresaFumagall'
Beonio-Brocchieri,
d'Eugenio
surle XIVesicle,
italien
avaitconsacr
L'ensemble
estcentr
auquellejeunemdiviste
et la
de sestravaux.
Ce sicle,donton peroit
toutela diversit
l'essentiel
aujourd'hui
d'unepoquede dissolution
de l'image
auxantipodes
fcondit,
qui a longtemps
prvalu
se trouve
iciabordsouslesaspects
lesplusvaris.
On y trouve
destuetde dcadence,
de G. PiaiasurJean
dessurdes thories
(avecla contribution
politico-ecclsiologiques
et Guillaume
et cellede R. Lambertini
surFranois
d'Ascoli
on y
d'Ockham),
Quidort
chezles "Averrostes"
et la viemystique,
et
abordel'thique
(A. de Liberasurl'thique
propos
A. Ghisalberti
de l'amour
de Dieuetde l'actemoralchez
chezMatre
Eckhart,
de logique
chezGuillaume
d'Ockham
Guillaume
desquestions
(lesobligations
d'Ockham),
telsque la chimre
la signification
chezJeanBuridan
imaginaires
parP. Mller,
d'objets
ou de rhtorique
deJeande
etMarsile
(C. Marmo propos
d'Inghen
parG. Roncaglia),
tenant
la thologie
desquestions
de thologie
chezDurandde Saint(leconcept
Jandun),
la contingence
etla tromperie
divine
chez
Beonio-Brocchieri,
Pourain
parM. Fumagalli
de la science
Robert
desproblmes
etde thorie
Holcot,
d'pistmologie
parK. Tachau),
de 1340de la facult
desartsde Paris
(unemiseau point,
parZ. Kaluza,surle statut
unetudedu concept
et surl'mergence
d'uneconception
de
des sciences,
parisienne
vrit
chezMarsile
(avecuntatdesrecherches
d'Inghen
parM.-E.Reina),la mdecine
la physique
etC. Crisciani),
dansce domaine
entre1891et 1991parJ.Agrimi
(avecune
de mouvement
dansl'coled'Oxford
discussion
duconcept
parM. Panza),
mathmatique
on trouve
encore
uneanalyse
de la produclesflorilges
(parJ. Hamesse);
philosophiques
de manuscrits
ainsique destudes
tionde livres
au XIVesicle Paris(W.Courtenay),
attribu
Guillaume
du trait
De principiis
d'Ockham
concernant
un fragment
theologiae
de logiqueet de thologie
de diffrents
et destextes
auteurs,
(R. Imbachet P. Ladner),
Luca Bianchi,
textes
dontGentilis
de Cingulo
(A. Tabarroni).
qui avaitpubliplusieurs
futun
avecEugenio
l'ideselonlaquelleAristote
Randi,montre
quant lui comment
se trouve
dsle Moyen
homme
etputparconsquent
se tromper
Age,y comdveloppe
le Grandou Sigerde Brabant.
telsqu'Albert
du pripattisme
prischezdesdfenseurs
partir
de textes
de
de M. Parodi,
librevariation
se termine
L'ouvrage
parunePostface
Randi.
descrits
le MoyenAge,puisunebibliographie
d'Eugenio
J.-L.Borgs
voquant
a grandement
forger
unenouvelle
Au coursde sa brvecarrire,
contribu
celui-ci
en causedes
mdival
mettant
mdivaux),
(oudesaristotlismes
imagede Paristotlisme
une
lieuxcommuns
telsquel'ideselonlaquelle
le XIVesicleserait
longtemps
prgnants
de 1277,etpropoinitie
de raction
anti-aristotlicienne
priode
parlescondamnations
santdestudes
novatrices
surla thologie
aprsScot.Dansce cadre,il a donnimpulsion
surla toutedcisive
aux travaux,
biendesprolongements,
aujourd'hui
qui connaissent
absolue
etlesmondes
Ce
lesdiffrents
de la puissance
modles
divine,
possibles.
puissance
au moment
mmeo la matuvolume
unbelhommage
unmdiviste
constitue
disparu
trereconnues.
etla fcondit
ritde sestravaux
de seshypothses
commenaient
Paris

Jol Biard

Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,1

19:20:46 PM

126

REVIEWS

Turnhout
1995120pp. ISBN
deNogent
etsessecrtaires.
M.G. Garand,Guibert
Brepols,
mediiaevi,2).
Christianorum:
2 503 504507 (Corpus
Autographa
ofNogent's
In thisdetailed
anderudite
ofthecomposition
ofGuibert
study
(d. 1124)
on threemanuscripts,
all originally
at theabbey
M.C. Garandfocuses
works,
composed
thelastyearsofGuibers
in theBiblioofNogent-sous-Goucy
life,nowpreserved
during
in Paris:MS Lat.2500,containing
sermo
theQuoordine
debeat
andthe
Nationale
fieri
thque
sanctorum
de
Geneseos
theDe pigneribus
Moralia
, andtheEpistola
; MS Lat.2900,containing
Iudaedataetventate
dominici
theTropobgiae
in
bucella
; andMS Lat.2502,containing
corporis
etAmos).
Threedistinct
Ieremiae
scribes
worked
onthese
manu, Lammtationes
(inOsee
Prophetis
ofwhich
twogiveevidence
ofbeingthehandsofprofessionals.
Thefirst
handwas
scripts,
forthegreater
responsible
partof ms.2500,whilethesecondcopiedms.2502in its
andbothworked
on ms.2900.Thethird
which
R.B.G.Huygens
hand,however,
entirety,
termed
"ScribeC" andsawas thedominant
handin hisedition
of Quoordine
sermo
fieri
debeat
Iudaedataetdeventate
dominici
eteorum
, De bucella
, andDe sanctis
corporis
pigneribus
as thatofGuibert
himself.
Thisthird
hand,a late
(GC CM 127,1993),Garandidentifies
notthatof a professional
"se distingue
and clearly
de ses coquiscribe,
carolingian
tantparla nature
de sesinterventions
de soncriture."
(35-6).
pires,
que parl'aspect
never
mentioned
a third
Guibert
andamongtheother
Garandputs
secretary,
arguments
is thefactthat"au moment
ditnepluspouvoir
o Guibert
forward,
prcis
composer
que
solamemoria,
solavoce
la transcription
destraits;
l'onne recon, 'C' cessede participer
natplussa main,dansle ms.2502,que sousla forme
de brves
mentions
de rvision
dontle scripteur
contrlait
mallesmouvements
de sa plume."
(39).Basedon hisdetailed
Garandconcludes
desmanuscrits
de Nogent
... nepeut
analysis,
"quela maindominant
treque cellede l'auteur,
Guibert."
(36).
withan overview
lifeandworks.
Theworkbegins
ofGuibers
Garandargues
fortwo
ofGuibers
De virginitate
distinct
versions
Whereas
andMoralia
Geneseos.
hadgiven
Huygens
1119as theterminus
ante
forDe virginitate
to itsearlyoriginal
, Garandpoints
quem
compothetimeGuibert
wasfinishing
hisstudies
ofthetrivium
between
sition,
, namely,
during
1075and1078,andhedatesthefirst
oftheMoralia
between
version
1083and1086.(21).
On page25 Garandgivesa mosthelpful
tableofthechronology
works.
In
ofGuibers
thesecond
Garandtreats
Guibers
thosethathave
chapter
manuscripts,
original
including
beenlost,suchas theautograph
ofthefirst
version
oftheQuoordine
sermo
debeat
and
fieri
theMoralia
wascompleted
Geneseos
around1084at theBenedictine
, which
abbeyofSaint
Germer
de Fly.He thenturns
to thethreemanuscripts
mentioned
above,andincludes
extensive
ofeach.In thethird
Garand
Guibers
codicological
descriptions
analyzes
chapter
workmethods,
a paleographical
ofhisductus
anda discussion
ofhiscodiincluding
study
In short,
"La dmarche
de Guibert
associait
trois
d'effort:
celui
vocabulary.
cological
types
de l'esprit,
sa pense,
celuide l'imagination,
pourformuler
pourvisualiser
l'organisation
de sestextes
surlespages,et l'effort
nonle moinspnible,
leur
pourraliser
physique,
closeswitha short
followed
which
(73).Thestudy
transcription."
bysixteen
epilogue,
plates
withexcellent
thereader
from
thethree
thatform
thebasis
provide
examples
manuscripts
ofGarand's
andargument.
analysis
Garand's
a newpointofdeparture
forall future
on Guibert:
research
study
provides
- l'abbaye
Lestrois
enunmme
raliss
lieu
deNogent-sous-Coucy
conservs,
originaux
- moins
et dansunlapsde temps
relativement
de dixans- constituent
court
doncun
chantillon
dutravail
s'estlivr
sursesoevures.
Ilscontiennent
significatif
auquell'auteur
desexemples
destatssuccessifs
sa conception
parlesquels
passeuntexte
depuis
jusqu'
sa miseau point
enapportant
la preuve
intervenait
toutau long
dfinitive,
queGuibert
duprocessus
... au travers
desgrattages,
desadditions,
desremaniements
lestexdivers,
tess'yprsentent
enunesriede versions
doitdistinmoderne
superposes
quel'diteur
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,1

19:20:54 PM

REVIEWS

127

couches
d'unsitede
desdiffrentes
comme
le faitl'archologue
reconstituer,
gueret
fouilles
. . . (82-3).
thecircleof
etsessecrtaires
hassignificance
Guibert
deNogent
Andin thislight,
beyond
toourunderstanding
of
itis a contribution
on theabbeyofNogent;
centered
scholarship
andtextproduction.
medieval
authorship
E. Saak

Groningen

19:20:54 PM

RogerBacon and Aristotelianism

Introduction

JEREMIAHHACKETT

of
Roger Bacon has been interpretedas a significant
representative
scienceand philosophyin the middle ages a kind of fore-runner
of the
PhilosophicalChancellor. Writingin the nineteenthcentury,William
Whewellsaw Bacon as a medievalversionof a modernscientist
and thought
thatany correspondencebetweenRoger Bacon and Aristotlewas more a
of spiritthan directdependenceof writing.In the course of the
sympathy
twentieth
of medievalphilosophysuch as Theodore
century,interpreters
and
A.
Crowley
James WeisheiplconcludedthatBacon neverfullyunderstoodAristode.They believedthathe interpreted
Aristodein a veryeclectic manner ofteninfluencedby Avicenna, Averroes and Neo-Platonic
workssuch as theLiberde causis.This does not mean, however,thatRoger
Bacon was not concernedwiththe Corpus
Aristotelicum
as it came into use
in the Medieval Universities
between
and
1225
1280. By 1255,
especially
the studyof Aristotelianphilosophywas an establishedjuridical fact in
the statutesof the EnglishNation at the Universityof Paris. And Roger
Bacon had, in the period c. 1237-47, been one of the early philosophical commentators
on the textsof Aristodeand his Islamic interpreters,
Avicenna and Averroes,at Paris. Hence, one would expect that Bacon
would have had a knowledgeof Aristotle'sphilosophyas understoodin
thatcontext.
Further,in the course of the 1260s and 1270s, one notices that the
one-timeMasterof Arts(theProfessorof Philosophy,who, it would seem,
taughtlongerin the Artsthan any otherMaster),once more entersthe
realmof public discourse.This time,he entersthe listsin orderto argue
fortheimportanceof bothAristodeand Science in the contextof Parisian
debatesabout the role and place of philosophyand sciencein a Christian
education.Indeed, we witnessa philosopherwho is severelycriticalof
the youngergenerationof philosophersin the Faculty of Arts at the
of Paris. And we see a philosopherwho has acquired a new
University
interestin the uses of languages and sciences in theology.This, older
Roger Bacon is very criticalof the youngergenerationof theologians
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,2

19:09:01 PM

130

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

and canon lawyers,who in his view, ignorethe "new" Aristotleand the

"new" sciences.
universities
The great effortto interpretAristotlein the 13th-century
in the Latin West laboured under a numberof difficulties.
First,there
was the difficultstate of the translations,some fromGreek and some
fromArabic. Second, there was the filteringof Aristotle'sphilosophy
Jewish,Islamic and Christianthought.Third,therewas thelatent
through
Neo-Platonismand elementsof Stoicismin traditionalLatin thought.All
And as a
of thismade any interpretation
of the Greek Aristotledifficult.
have
had
historians
of
reservations
it
is
to
see
result,
easy
philosophy
why
about the adequacy of Bacon's understandingof Aristotle.The same
charge could be levelled againsthis contemporaries.
to
thephilosophers
of the 13thcenturymade a greateffort
Nevertheless,
understandthe Stagirite.Among the youngergenerationafterGrosseteste
was Roger Bacon, who advocated a thoroughphilologicalas well as a
philosophicalstudyof the textof Aristotleafterthe mannerof theBishop
ofLincoln.And as J. Brams has noted, Bacon may have been correctin
of Aristotleat Paris in the
demandinga betterphilologicalunderstanding
mid-1260'swhen the textof the Moerbecketranslationof the Meteorologies
reached Paris. Indeed, the question naturallyarises: Did Bacon have a
than his
more radical commitmentto the paradigm of the Philosophus
acclaimed hero Robert Grosseteste?It would seem thatin some respects
he did. This will become apparentin the papers below.
of Roger Bacon have
The materialsfora studyof the Aristotelianism
been available since the completionof RobertSteele's editionof the Opera
hactenns
ineditaRogenBaconiin 1940. This is especiallythe case for the
unstudied
largely
period of Bacon's thought,his timeas a Master of Arts
of Paris fromc. 1237/8 to 1247/8. Further(Philosophy)at the University
more,some of thesevolumesin Steele'sedition,whentakenin conjunction
withBrewer'sand Bridges'editionsof the worksfromthe 1260s,provide
of Bacon's relationto the soample evidencefora criticalre-assessment
called "Latin-Averroism"of the 1240s and to the "Latin-Averroism"or
"Radical Aristotelianism"
of the young Professorsof Philosophyin the
in
of
Arts
at
Paris
the
Faculty
period 1260-77.Indeed, not onlythis;they
also shed lighton Bacon as a Criticnotjust of the youngradicalsin the
Facultyof Artsbut also as a Criticof the "New" theologyof the young
Mastersfrom1250 on such 21sRichardRufus,Bonaventure,
JohnPecham,
Thomas Aquinas and also, perhaps,Giles of Rome.
However,with the exceptionof Theodore Crowleyand a fewothers,

19:09:01 PM

13 1

INTRODUCTION

scholarssince Pierre Mandonnes work on Siger of Brabant and Latin

Averroism(1911) have largelyignoredRoger Bacon's works as reliable
and hard evidence that Bacon himselfwas involvedboth positivelyand
negativelyin the events leading up to the Parisian Condemnationsof
1270 and 1277. Naturally,these workswere used as evidence for the
of thisperiod of philosophyin the thirteenth
"Geistesgeschichte"
century.
But in general,historiansof philosophyand of Latin Averroismwriting
afterPierreMandonnethave tendedto relegateRoger Bacon to a second
AlbertusMagnus and theLatinAverroist
tierbehindAquinas,Bonaventure,
Masters of Arts. But what if it were the case that Roger Bacon, as a
had fannedthe flamesof the firewhichbroke
seniorEmeritusProfessor,
out in the Universityof Paris with the inceptionof Siger of Brabant in
the early 1260s?
The aim of the presentvolumeis two-fold.(1) The evidencepresented
hereopensup once again theissueof Bacon's Aristotelianism.
(2) It enables
scholarsto see the intellectualcontextsof the developmentof Bacon's
Aristotelianideas, both in the period 1237-47 and 1260-77. In other
words,it aims to open up once more an older fieldof research:to determine as preciselyas possiblethe exact natureof Bacon's Aristotelianism.
Philosophershave generallyinterpretedBacon in referenceto either
RobertGrosseteste
or AlbertusMagnus. He is seen as the faithful
follower
of one (in his own estimate)and the severeopponentof the other.These
essaysraise criticalquestionsabout the traditionalevaluations.In particular, the discussionin recenttimesof worksfoundin the Bibliotheca
Amploniana
Wood and Noone
, Erfurt,
(ErfurtQuarto 290 and 312) by Professors
of the Aristotelianism
of Roger
poses new questionsforthe interpretation
Bacon. These works,previouslyattributedto Walter Burley since the
inceptionof theUniversity
Libraryin Erfurtin the late fourteenth
century,
now
have
been demonstrated
to be theworksof RichardRufusof Cornwall
(d.c. 1260). He is the one who is dismissedin a derisorymannerby Roger
Bacon in 1292:famosissimus
multitudinem.
Sed apudsapientes
apudstultam
fuit
insanasetreprobatus
Parisius
errores
invenerat
<et>
propter
quos
promulgauerat
quando
solemniter
Sententtasibidem,
SententiasOxoniaeab anno
legebat
postquam
legerat
Domini1250.
With the new information
fromRichard Rufus and in the contextof
the Parisian writingsof Robert Kilwardby,Adam of Buckfield,Roger
Bacon and others,it will in time be possible to trace a more accurate
at both Oxford and Paris forthe period
historyof Latin Aristotelianism
1230-77.

19:09:01 PM

132

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

in Roger Bacon's
In some recentstudies,I pointed to the difficulties
as a faithful
followerof thePhilosophyof RobertGrosseteste.
self-estimation
In the lightof the worksof Richard Rufus,it will become clear thatthe
thoughtof Roger Bacon, despitesome agreementin generalterms,does
differin significant
Richard
ways fromthe thoughtof RobertGrosseteste,
Rufusand Bonaventure.A criticalcomparisonof RichardRufusand Roger
Bacon in regardto thecentralNeo-Platonicand Aristotelian
ideas willallow
scholarsto see the developmentof these topics in greaterdetail. And it
will enable them to see that perhaps it is Richard Rufus ratherthan
followerof Grossetestead litteram.
Roger Bacon who is the more faithful
The sequence of papers in this volume moves fromthe issue of philosophyof language throughphysics,metaphysics,
philosophyof mind to
moralphilosophy.Thus, it coversa wide rangeof topicsfromAristotelian
philosophy.The appendix providesa check-listof Bacon's worksand a
briefreviewof the requirementof Manuscriptstudyof Bacon's works.
The firstpaper by CostantinoMarmo presentsa synthesisof Bacon's
teachingon natural inferentialsigns. This paper presentssome of the
paradoxes which arise when Aristotle'steaching on signs and that of
Augustineare integratedas is the case in Roger Bacon. More particularly,
we have here an interpretation
of the importanceof Bacon's De signis
,
the new-foundpart of the Opusmains
, part three,discovered1978 byJan
Pinborgf, K.M. Fredborg,and Lauge Nielsen.This paper correcdynotes
that"Bacon's theoryof signs,however,is one of the fewattempts[in the
Middle Ages] at workingout a generaltheoryof signification,
and remains
a milestoneforany 'archaeologyof sign.'" Further,Bacon's generalcontributionto a theoryof language is broad in its philosopicalscope.
In the second paper, Cecilia Trifoglipresentsa thoroughaccount of
the problemsrelatingto the interpretation
of the Aristoteliandoctrineof
Placein Englishphilosophyin the mid-13thcentury.From about 1250-70,
many Englishphilosophersdenied thatplace was just a two-dimensional
extension.Rather, they argued for the existenceof a thirddimension,
that of depth. Roger Bacon's works 1240-70 address various aspects of
thisdebate. Althoughthe issue is absent fromthe Questiones
primeon the
fora third
the
need
the
altere
advocate
Questiones (1250s)
Physics(1240s),
dimension.And yet,in the Communia
naturalium
Bacon
rejects
(1260s/70s),
the need fora thirddimension.This importantcontribution
places a central doctrinefromBacon's physicsin context.
In the thirdpaper, Silvia Donati connects"The AnonymousQuestions
on PhysicsII-IV" foundin MS Philadelphia,Free Library,Lewis Europ.

19:09:01 PM

INTRODUCTION

133

withthe Quaestiones
on the Physicsby Roger Bacon, which
53 (ff.71ra-85rb)
are foundin one manuscriptonly,namelyin MS Amiens406. She argues
resemthat"The AnonymousQuestionson PhysicsII-IV" bear a striking
blance to theworkof Bacon, and probablyoriginate,along withthe other
commentariesby the EnglishMaster, fromlecturesgiven when he was
teachingin the Facultyof Arts at the Universityof Paris in the 1240s.
This paper firmly
places Bacon in the contextof the many commentaries
of
Professors
century.This study
by
Englishoriginin the mid-thirteenth
tracesthe influenceof Bacon's physicson some Englishphilosophersin
the period 1250-70. Moreover,it will enable scholarsto arrivea more
criticaltextforBacon's physics.This is, indeed, a significant
discovery.
In the fourthpaper,Rega Wood providesa criticalcomparisonof some
centralphilosophicalideas in Richard Rufus of Cornwall and Roger
Bacon. These includePlatonicIdeas, Final Causes, Eternityof the World,
ProjectileMotion,Heaven's Place. This comparisonoutlinesboth the positiveand negativeinfluenceof Rufuson Bacon. One consequence of this
of the importanceof
research,which is part of a larger interpretation
RichardRufusin 13th-century
Philosophy,is the new view of a contrast
betweenRufus,the traditionalChristianNeo-Platonist,and Bacon as the
in the 1240s. Thus, an argumentis
advocate of the new Aristotelianism
to
of
both
the
views
made, contrary
Crowleyand Weisheipl,to the effect
that,on theissuesofAristotelian
physics,Roger Bacon did have a thorough
graspof theAristotelian
philosophicalparadigm.Thus, it providesgrounds
forunderstanding
Roger Bacon's firmdefenceof Aristotleas interpreted
Avicenna
and
at Paris in the 1260s. The emeritusMaster
Averroes
by
ofArtshad not forgotten
eitherthe messageor the methodof Aristotelian
commentary.
In the fifth
of Richard
paper, TimothyNoone examinestheMetaphysica
Rufus in relationto the worksof Roger Bacon. First,he examines the
issues of the literaryformof theirrespectiveworks,the chronologyof
the worksand theiruse of sources.Second, he turnsto a comparisonof
the doctrines.He emphasisesthe common backgroundbeliefs.This can
be seen in the treatmentof the agent and the possible intellects.(Of
course,Bacon will change his positionon this topic duringthe 1260s.)
He thenturnsto pointsof disagreement.
The topicswhichexhibitdisagreementbetweenRufusand the Early Bacon (1237-47) are: the doctrinesof
truthand futurecontingency.Indeed, he addressesthe importantissue:
whichof thesethinkers,
Bacon or Rufus,is the more faithful
followerof
RobertGrosseteste?
And it would appear thatRichardRufusof Cornwall

19:09:01 PM

134

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

followsthe letterof Grosseteste'stextmuch more oftenthan Bacon does.

Indeed, Rufus seems to be betteracquainted with Grosseteste'sphilosophy and theologyin general than is the case with Roger Bacon.
In the sixthpaper, R. James Long, who firstbroughtMS Philadelphia,
Free Library,Lewis Europ. 53 to scholarlynotice, examines Bacon's
account of the nature and place of Angels or intelligences.When one
realizes that this issue of Angels or intelligenceshas major philosophical
import,and is no mere figmentof a mistakenmoderncanard (how many
angels could balance on the head of a pin? a pointlessexerciseforany
medievalphilosopheror physicist),
one noticesthe importanceof Bacon's
comments.Bacon was an advocate of the doctrineof "spiritualmatter"
as presentedby theJewishPhilosopherSolomon ibn Gebirol. His doctrineof place, however,especiallyin the Opustertium
, would seem to have
caused his condemnationon thisissue in the ParisianCondemnationsof
1277. R. James Long identifiesthreepropositionswhich involvea condemnationof the positionfavoredby Bacon, namelythat the Place of
This is indeed a significant
is nowhere.
identification,
Angelsor Intelligences
and it adds to the evidenceforthinkingthat Bacon was, withthe Latin
Averroists,
Aquinas and Giles of Rome, a directtargetof the theological
commissionof 1277.
In the seventh paper, Jeremiah Hackett presents an introductory
account of the relationof Bacon's worksin the 1260s to the Parisian
Condemnations,1270/1277. He providesa reviewof the evidencefrom
Bacon's writings1266-74 to argue that Bacon composed the Opusmaius
and related
IV with the issues of the Radical Arisworks
for Pope Clement
totelianismof the new Professorsof Philosophyfirmlyin mind. Passing
referenceis given to those areas such as Astrologyand Scientia
experimentaliswhichmay have led to Bacon's own condemnationin the Franciscan
Order in 1278. The main account,however,deals withBacon's treatment
of De animafound in Communia
naturalium
, Book I, part 4, distinction3.
It is argued that this polemical work,which may originallyhave been
, is datable to theperiodcirca 1268 and later.More
partof the Opustertium
importandy,it is argued that this work is contemporarywith Thomas
intellectus
contra
Averroistas.
This treatiseprovesthatBacon
Aquinas' De unitate
likeAquinaswas opposedto theinterpretation
oftheAristotelian
Philosophy
of Mind, specifically
withrespectto the unityand pluralityof the possible
intellecton the part of the Radical Aristotelians
such as Siger of Brabant.
But, as the treatisemakes clear in regard to other aspects of medieval
philosophyof mind,Bacon had more targetsthan Siger of Brabant.He

19:09:01 PM

INTRODUCTION

135

attacksRichardRufusand possiblyBonaventureon the notionof a doublevegetativeand sensitivesoul and he attacksThomas Aquinas and probably
Albertuson the notion of the soul as a simple substance.It illustrates
Bacon's fundamentaldifference
fromthe youngergenerationof philosophers and theologianson the issue of the Agent Intellect.
This volume has been intended as an introductionto Bacon and
It is to be hoped that furtherstudieswill be developed
Aristotelianism.
in thisfieldwhichwill situateBacon in the contextof other Masters of
Artssuchas Adam of Buckfield
and indeedthemanyAnonymousTeachers
in the period 1237-77.Further,more lightcan be shed
at the Universities
on the actual role Bacon played in the complex effortto recoverand
studyof the Greek textof Aristodein the 13th century.
ofSouthCarolina
University

19:09:01 PM

Bacon, Aristotle
(and all theothers)on NaturalInferential
Signs
COSTANTINO MARMO

Introduction
We have no commentaryon Aristotle'slogical workswrittenby Roger
II 27,
Bacon. In particular,we have no commentaryon PriorAnalytics
that would be a very good startingpoint for an articleon Bacon and
on signs,language and the
Aristotleon naturalsigns.Bacon's reflections
disciplinesof the Trivium,however,are scatteredin many of his extant
works.In particular,his Summulae
dialectices
(ca. 1250),1the newlydiscovered
2
of
the
maius
devoted
to
Opus
signs (1267), and his late Compendium
part
3 are the best witnessesof Bacon's attitudetowards
studiitheologiae
Aristotle,
and all his othersources,on this subject.
In recent literature,a leading role in the developmentof medieval
the doctrinalbacksemioticshas been attributedto Bacon; furthermore,
which
worked
out
his
theories
has
he
been recentlyhighground from
lighted.Thanks to the studiesof Alain de Libera4 and Irne Rosier,5in

1 Cf.Sumule
Baconi
dialectices
Oxonii1940,in:Opera
hactenus
inedita
,
, ed. R. Steele,
Rogeri
XV.Thiswork
withthewitness
ofa second
hasbeenedited,
manuscript,
byA. de Libera,
deRoger
I-ILDe termino,
De enuntiatione
d'Histoire
LesSummulae
dialectices
Bacon
, in:Archives
de
dialectices
Doctrinale
et Littraire
du MoyenAge,53 (1986),139-289;
Id.,LesSummulae
in:Archives
etLittraire
du Moyen
III. De argumentation,
d'Histoire
Doctrinale
Bacon
Roger
Bacon
and
TheSumule
dialectices
(SD). Cf.Th.S.Maloney,
ofRoger
Age,54 (1987),171-278
& E. Vance(eds.),
dusigne
theSumulist
Form
, Toronto
1983,
, in:L. Brind'Amour
Archologie
235-49.
"
2 Cf.K.M. Fredborg,
L. Nielsen
& J. Pinborg,
AnUnedited
PartofRoger
Bacon's
Opus
De
R.
Maius": Sigms
34(1978),
75-136
ed. Steele,
naturalium,
, in:Traditio,
(DS).Cf.alsoCommunia
Baconi
Oxonii1940,in: Opera
hactenus
inedita
, XVI, 110-1;Opustertium
, XXV-XXVI,
Rgen
in:RogerBacon,Opera
ed.J.S.Brewer,
hactenus
inedita
, vol.I, London1859.
quaedam
3 Cf.Th.S.Maloney,
andTranslation
Edition
Bacon.
Roger
Compendium
ofthe
Study
ofTheology.
withIntroduction
Yorketc.1988(CST).
andNotes,Leiden/New
4 Cf.Libera,
LesSummulae
dialectices
deRoger
Bacon
/-//,
(op.cit.,note1);andLesSummulae
etstructure
des
dialectices
deRoger
Bacon///,
etchamp:
Genese
(op.cit.,note2); Id.,Reference
del'ambigut
-XIIIesicle
thories
mdivales
10 (1984),155-208.
(XIIe
J,in:Medioevo,
5 See,especially,
auXIIIe
La parole
comme
etla smantique
I. Rosier:
acte.Surla grammaire
sicle
, Paris1994.
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,2

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
SIGNS
NATURAL

137

particular,Bacon's eclecticismand originalitycame fullyto light.Th.S.

by A. de Libera on the summulistform,6
Maloney,revisinga contribution
towardsthe Corpus
as shown
that
Bacon's
attitude
aristotelicum,
acknowledged
in his Sumuledialectices
, "resultsin a less global reorganization"of its ordo
as
disciplinae comparedto Sherwood's:the inclusionin Bacon's treatiseof
of
of the categories,the placementgivento the properties
a consideration
and the treatterms(betweenthe tractson propositionand on syllogisms),
show that
mentoffallaciesunderthe headingof syllogismus
peccansin materia
"Baconwas concernedto writea workin greaterharmonywiththe Corpus
than Sherwood."7In this paper, I will point out that Bacon's theoryof
is in deep agreementwithAristotle's,but
naturalinferential
signification
influencesthatshowshis
it is also the resultof a convergenceof different
fundamentaleclecticism.
1. Bacon'sdefinitions
of "sign"
of sign8do not come out of the blue.
Bacon's semioticsand definition
They originateas a reactionto common opinions or as a conflationof
disparatesources.BeforeBacon it was not frequentto apply the notion
when it was used,
of signto logical or grammaticalmatter.Furthermore,
it had a derogatoryconnotation:on one hand it served the purpose of
fromthe science of demondialectic(or scientiaTopicorum)
distinguishing
stration,and assignedto the formera weaker cognitivestatus(opinioet
probabilitas
),9 on the other hand it could give dialectic a higher stance
As will be clearerin what follows(par. 2),
when comparedto rhetoric.10
6 See A. de Libera,Textualit
etforme
summuliste
dusigne
, in:Archologie
, (op.cit.,
logique
note1),213-34.
7 Maloney,
TheSumule
dialectices
, (op.cit.,note1),241.
8 This
withthefirst
ofC. Marmo,
Semiotica
e lincoincides
chapter
partially
paragraph
: Parigi
1270-1330.
La semiotica
deiModisti
nella
Scolastica
, Roma1994.
, Bologna
, Erfurt
guaggio
9 "Istascientia
medium
eo quoddocetinuenire
inuentiua,
(seil.Topicorum
) dicitur
per
sicutsi aliquisinuenit
id estperlocos,que quidemsignasuntfallibilia;
signaexteriora,
rubeum
ethocpersigna
<et> propter
credit
se inuenisse
aurum,
aliquidrubeum
signum
et probabilisecundum
estde istascientia
similiter
exteriora,
que procedit
opinionem
dicitur
Set scientia//
demonstratiua
et
et propter
hocistascientia
esseinuentiua.
tatem;
doceatinuenire
Priorm
resolutoria
et noninuentiua,
dicitur
medium,
quianon
quamuis
ofParis,
setpercausasnecessarias."
docetipsuminuenire
(Nicholas
persignaexteriora,
elm14460,
librum
Boethii
Notule
Staatsbibliothek,
, I, ms.Mnchen,
Bayerische
super
Topicorum
f. 152va"b).
10"Differens
facitipsumhabereproprios
moduset processus
locos,
ipsi<us>rectoris
facere
set
nonpotest
permedianecessaria,
quiaenimintendit
persuadere,
quodscilicet
etnegotium;
consistunt
circasingulrem
sunt,
personam
quequidem
persignaquefallibilia

19:09:25 PM

138

COSTANTINO
MARMO

the notion of sign that was used in these cases is only one of the types
describedby Bacon: the sign thatgivesthe startingpointof an inference.
This kindof signis the one Aristotlediscussesin the second book of Prior
and in the firstbook of his Rhetoric
, and definesas the premiss
Analytics
of an enthymeme.11
Peter of Spain (or an anonymousglossatorof his
to
kindof signthe peculiarmeaningof "proposition
ascribes
this
Tractatus)
fromwhich one can infersomethingeithernecessarilyor probably":
Aristotiles
sicdiffinit
entimema:
Entimema
estexycotibus;
idemestquod
ycosautem
idemestquod
autem,secundum
signum
probabilis;
quodhiesumitur,
propositio
velnecessaria
velprobabilis
et hocestinferendo.
demonstrativa
Signum
propositio
dicitnecessitatem
illationis,
autem,secundum
ycosautemdicit
quodhicsumitur,
in se secundum
ipsiuspropositions
quamprobabilitatem
propositio
probabilitatem
videtur
essevera.12
to notice that Albertthe Great triesto reconcilethisacIt is interesting
ceptationof "sign"withtheAugustininone, in his paraphraseof the Prior
.
Analytics
autemestquod,praeter
ad aliquidducit
offert,
Signum
quamcognoscenti
speciem
cuiusestsignum.
communiter
estomneilludquodex
dictum,
(. . .) Signum
quidem,
ex ipso.13
suispecie,
aliudpraetendit
exhibet,
quodinferri
potest
quamcognoscenti
As IrneRosierhas alreadyremarked,14
thedialecticbetweenan Augustinin
tradition,comingfromtheology,and an Aristotelianone, dominatingin
theFacultiesof Arts,characterizesthe developmentof semioticsin Xlllth
century.In the quoted text,Albertis a witnessof a trendwhichis much
morevisiblein the worksof Roger Bacon and in the Prisciancommentary
of the pseudo-Kilwardby.
The Augustinindefinition
whichservedas model to Albertis the folenim
res
est
, quamingerit
sensibus,
aliquidaliud
praeter
speciem
lowing: "Signum

etomnes
aliescientie
suasconcluideohabet
suoslocosappropriates;
setdialetica
probant
etnonfallibilia."
Commentimi
librum
siones
(Anonymous,
super
Topicorum
permedianecessaria
Boethii
Peterhouse
205,f.83rb).
, IV.24,ms.Cambridge,
11On Aristotle's
ofsignsee G. Manetti,
Theories
,
Antiquity
oftheSigninClassical
theory
(IN) 1993,70-91.
Bloomington
12Peterof Spain,Tractatus,
called
Summule
, V.3, ed. L.M. de Rijk,
afterwards
logicales
this
Assen1972,57-8,apparatus
ofthesevenmss.usedfortheedition
(three
preserve
addition).
13Liber
Priorm
Paris1890,vol.II, 803a.
Analyticorum
, II.7.8, ed. A. Borgnet,
14I. Rosier,
La parole
comme
acte
, (op.cit.,note5),ch.3.

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
NATURAL
SIGNS

139

."15The historyof its receptionin medieval

ex sefaciensin cogitationem
venire
but it seems that only veryrarelyit
semioticshas not yet been written,16
has been connectedto an inferential
conceptionof the sign,such as the
Aristotelian
one.17
of sign(theone Bacon critiAs a matterof fact,the standarddefinition
in
cizes) logical,grammaticaland, sometimes,theologicaltextswas rather
different
fromthat,and closerto the one givenin Augustine'sDe dialctica
:18
"
sensuietaliquidderelinquit
estquodse ipsumdemonstrat
intellectui."]9
Both
Signum
were usuallyinterpretedas implyingnot an inferentialcondefinitions
of
ception sign, but ratherwhat I would define a "substitutional"or
notion of it: somethingpresentis taken to represent
"representational"
somethingelse which is absent or outside the scope of the cognitive
For both logiciansand grammariansthe model
powersof an interpreter.
was that of the relationholdingbetween the units of human language
(voces)and the thoughtsof the speaker,a model that theycould findin
Aristotle(De int.1, 16a3-9) and Boethius.20
Accordingto the mid-XIIIth
standard
the
of
century
theory, expressions our language were instituted
in order to convey the thoughtsof a
the
nominum
by
originalimpositor
into
the
mind
a
of
hearer,by standingfor these thoughtsand
speaker

15Dedoctrina
Christiana
Turnhout
, II.1.1.,ed.I. Martin,
1962,32 (Corpus
Christianorum,
Serieslatina,
32).
16See thecontributions
inthisdirection
La parole
comme
acte
, (op.cit.,note
byI. Rosier,
etsigne
dansla discussion
S. Delesalle
&
, in:S. Auroux,
5),ch.3; Ead.,Langage
eucharistique
H. Meschonnic
Histoire
etgrammaire
dusens
, Paris1996,42-58.
(eds.),
17See,for
SimonofTournai,
Institutiones
insacram
ofthis
, 1 (anedition
example,
paginam
textwillappearinCahiers
de PInstitut
duMoyen
AgeGrecetLatin,67 (1997)).See also
C. Marmo,
andSimon
General
, in:C. Marmo
Inferential
ofTournai's
Signs
Theory
ofSignification
andLogic
inMedieval
Texts
1997(forthcoming).
, Turnhout
(ed.),Semiotics
Theological
18"Signum
estquodetseipsum
sensui
etpraeter
Dedialctica
se aliquid
animoostendi',
,
withan English
transi,
Dordrecht/Boston
V, ed.J. Pinborg,
1975,86;
byB.D.Jackson,
cfr.
DasSprachdenken
derStoaundAugustinus
Dialektik
, in:ClassicaetMediaevalia,
J.Pinborg,
22 (1962),148-77;M. Baratin,
dusigne
stociennes
de la thorie
, in:
Origines
augustinienne
Revuedes tudeslatins59 (1981),260-8;H. Ruef,Augustin
berSemiotik
undSprache.
mitdeutschen
"DeDialctica"
Bern
zuAugustins
Sprachtheoretische
Schrift
Analysen
bersetzung,
1981.
19It is quotedinmanytreatises
andascribed
toAristotle,
Isidore
of
Cicero,
Augustine,
ofAuxerre
andso on;seea first
e linguaggio
listin C. Marmo,
Semiotica
Seville,
Remigius
nella
La parole
comme
Scolastica)
acte
(op.cit.,note8), 25-6,nn. 14-16;I. Rosier,
(op.cit.,
note5),97,nn.24-25;andI. Rosier,Variations
surVopposition
mdivales
"ad
entre
signification
etsignification
naturelle
andC.H. Kneepkens
, in:H.A.G.Braakhuis
placitum"
(eds.),TheCommentaries
onAristotle's
Deinterpretatione:
TheMedieval
Tradition
, ActsoftheTenthEuropean
Symon Medievali
andSemantics,
posium
Logic
(forthcoming).
20In librum
Aristotelis
De interpretatione
commentaria
maiora
, PL 64,405-406.

19:09:25 PM

COSTANTINO
MARMO

140

themto the latter.Accordingto RobertKilwardby,here lies

representing
to label ea
the reason why Boethius used the term notaand not signum
in
sunt
voce:
quae
Et dicendum
notaet signum,
estin ore
quoddifferunt
quia notaestin quantum
setsignum
estinquantum
estinaureaudientis:
proferentis,
quodpatetperhocquod
estquodse offert
aliudderelinquens
intellectui.
sensui,
signum
Quia igitur
species
in animain quantum
estalteri
dicitur
passioin animaeius
intelligibilis
significanda
dicit"suntnote"quam"signa."21
melius
qui loquitur,
Boethius' standpointwas, then, that of the speaker: the use of signum
would have impliedthepresenceof an addressee.It is importantto notice,
though,that fromboth points of view the same dichotomybetween a
sensible side of the nota/
signumand an intelligibleone comes out: the
of
the
constitute
the intelligiblepart of his words both
passiones
speaker
forhimselfand forhis addressee.The main difference
seems to lie in the
factthatwhen a man wants to talk to a hearerhe is compelledto utter
some words,while when he talks to himselfhe is not: in the last case
the "speaker"(who does not speak at all) just makesuse of mentalimages
that
of the soundsof his language,and theseare probablythe words-notae
22
lack the sensibleside of the wordssignal
As will be shown below (par. 3), Bacon not only divergedcompletely
fromthe standardconceptionof the unitsof language as signs,but also
rebukedthe vulgatadescriptio
of sign used, forinstance,by Kilwardby.At
the outsetof his De signis
Bacon
offersa new definitionof the notion,a
,
definitionwhich takes into account a very importantkind of sign, i.e.
concepts:

21In Perihermenias
La parole
comme
acte
I, quotedin Rosier,
, (op.cit.,note5), 97,n. 25
A. Conti).
(transcr.
by
22I amworking
outsomeofthetheoretical
ofKilwardby's
distinction,
presupposition
toofaritsconsequences.
byps.-Kilwardby's
pushing
perhaps
Theyaredirecdy
inspired
oftheinner
in theforthcoming
volume
word(seethecontribution
ofC. Panaccio
theory
oftheProceedings
"TheCopenhagen
SchoolofMedieval
oftheconference
Philosophy"
heldin Copenhagen
inJanuary
conscious
ofthefact
wasnotprobably
1996).Kilwardby
thatBoethius
withnota
twodifferent
andsemeion
thatAristranslated
words:
smbolon
greek
totleusedperhaps
withslightly
different
Theories
, (op.cit.,
(seeManetti,
meanings
ofSign
note11),71-7;D. Seddley,
De interpretatione
andAncient
Semantics
Aristotle's
, in:G. Manetti
Ancient
Semiotic
Theories
andPractices
, Turnhout
1996,87-108;
(ed.),Knowledge
Through
Signs.
ofthedebateonthefamous
oftheDe interpretation,
seeG. Sadun
and,fora review
passage
inAristotele
e realt
Bordoni,
, Bari-Roma
1994,39-64).See alsoJohnMacGee,
Linguaggio
Boethius
onSignification
andMind
1989.
, Leiden/New
York/Kobenhavn/Kln,

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
SIGNS
NATURAL

141

sensui
estilludquodobltm
velintellectui
autem
ipsiintelaliquiddsignt
Signum
offertur
utvulgata
nonomnesignum
sensui
lect^,quoniam
descriptio
signisupponit,
animaeesse
testante
sedaliquodsoliintellectui
Aristotele,
offertur,
quidicitpassiones
rerum
existentes
sunthabitus
ipsietspecies
apudintelquaepassiones
signarerum,
intellectui
ita ut repraesentant
et ideosoliintellectui
offeruntur,
lectum,
ipsasres
extra.
(DS 1.2,82)
To tellthe truth,here Bacon is not completelyoriginal.The same objectionwas raisedby the dominicanRichard Fishacrein his commentaryon
devotedto sacramentaltheology.23
book of the Sentences
thefourth
Bacon,
of
the
traditional
the
of
instead
however,
deficiency
sign defiexplaining
nitionmakingappeal to the factthatsensiblesignsare more commonand
the definition
usefulthan intelligible
ones,24simplyreformulates
including
also conceptsin it.
This is not the only connectionbetween Bacon's semioticsand the
theologicaldebates about sacraments.As Irne Rosier showed, one of
the targetsof Bacon's criticismmighthave been his minister-general,
Bonaventure.The openingwords of Bacon's De signisare devotedto the
indicationof the categoryin which the concept of sign falls:
relationis.
estin praedicamento
(DS 1.1,81)
Signum
At firstsight,this seems to be a ratherplain, innocentand universally
acceptable assertion.Which it is not, at least in Bacon's interpretation.
In the traditionof the logical commentaries,this assertionwould have
been interpretedas talkingabout the relationthat holds between sign
and its meaning,be it a concept or a thing.Theologians,however,such
as Richard Fishacre and Bonaventure,pointed to its double nature. A
sign standsin a double relation:one to the meaning(or thingsignified),
Even ifputtingdifferent
stresson some details,
and one to its addressee.25
23He wasthefirst
in Oxford
whocommented
dominican
on theSentences
(seeRosier,
La parole
comme
acte
, (op.cit.,note5), 113,n. 76).
24"De definitione
et speciem
Fateoraliquasignasunttantum
intelligibilia
respondeo.
Undehoc nonestuniversalis
nullamingerunt
sicutdictaerationes
sensibus,
probant.
communiter
etmagis
universaliter
definitio
sedeorum
etmagis
quaepropriissime
signorm,
daemones
suntsigna,
idestsignorm
homines,
(. . .). Et,utdixi,fereapudomnes
potissime
< ter
> bruta,
sensupotius
etuniversali
quamintelsignasuntsensibilia
aliqua,quiautuntur
In Sent.
communiter
IV, d. 1,
Fishacre,
lect^etitasuntsensibilia
magissigna."(Richard
edition
and
thecritical
transcr.
ofToronto,
whois preparing
byJ. Goering,
University
meto usehistranscription).
allowed
kindly
25See Richard
relaIn Sent.
IV, d. 1: "Sciendum
Fishacre,
quodhocnomen'signum'
tivum
relativorum
unicamrelationem,
est,et nominum
quaedam
quaedamsignificant
ut'datum,'
ut'ponitur'
unicam
duplicem;
quiadicitrelationem
(pro:positum?),
duplicem

19:09:25 PM

142

COSTANTINO
MARMO

both Richard and Bonaventureconcludedthatforthe signsthe firstrelais essential,while the second is

tion, i.e. the one to the thingssignified,
holds
the oppositeposition:
Bacon
accidentaland non-permanent.26
relationis
et dicitur
essentialiter
ad illudcuisignificat,
estin praedicamento
Signum
illudponitinactucumipsum
sitinactu,etinpotentia
cumipsum
quoniam
signum
estinpotentia.
cassum
essetetvanum,
Quianisiposset
aliquis
concipere
persignum,
sed maneret
immononeritsignum,
solumsecundum
substantiam
signum
signiet
nonessetin radonesigni,
sicutsubstantia
manet
estmortuus
et
patris
quandofilius
Et quamvis
vinivelaliudactuimpositum
nonrelatio
sitvoxvelcirculus
paternitatis.
alicui<us>et institutum
eidemquatenus
et significare
possitrepraesentare
respectu
nonestsignum
inactusedinpotentia
tansi nonsitcuiactusignificetur
alii,tarnen
tum.(DS 1.1,81)
that a rule connectsa thingto
Accordingto Bacon, it is not sufficient
in
to considerthatthingas a sign,
its
order
as
else
;
significatimi
something
it is necessarythat an interpreter27
actuallyuses it to know the signified
thing,otherwisethe sign would remain emptyand only potential.The
scilicet
et ad dantem
et ad accipientem.
Similiter
'lucere'significat
habitudinem
unicam,
ut aestimo
si proprie
ad lucentem,
sed 'illuminare'
Sic 'signum,'
accipiatur,
duplicem.
et aliamad eumcui significat,
relationem
unamad significatum
quae duplex
significat
indefinitione
hie(seil,inAugustine's
relatio
relatio
ad significatum
definition):
per
tangitur
relatio
ad aliquem
cuisignificat,
hocquoddicit[relatio]
'aliud,'scilicet
perhoc
signatum;
esseab aliquoet alicui,
venire.'
Sicutigitur
'datum'
quoddicit'incognitionem
significat
InSent.
sicsignum
estsignum
alicuius
etalicui"(transcr.
andBonaventure,
byJ. Goering);
IV, I, p. 1,art.un.,q. 2, in:Opera
, vol.IV, AdClarasAquas1949,15:"Signum
theologica
habetcomparationem:
et ad illudquodsignificat,
etad illumcuisignificat."
duplicem
26Richard
loc.cit.:"Relatio
illaquaeestad significatum
estessentialior
autem
Fishacre,
a principio
et ideoquiaillaaliquando
esta principio
quodestnatura,
aliquando
signo,
insignum
utfumus
velinstinaturale,
quodestvoluntas,
dividitur]
signum
igni,etdatum
uthocnomen'homo'talisrei.Illa tamenrelatio
tutum,
quaeestad illumcuisignificat,
haecvox
eniminstituentis
estpermanens,
utin signis
datispatet;exvolntate
quandoque
utfumus
talemremsignificat;
verononpermanet,
'homo'semper
[non]potest
quandoque
utestresin se et nonutcausatur
ab igne,et tunenonestsignum
considerar!
omnino,
tuncest
unarelatio;
velut causatur
ab igne,et tunccumsicconsideratur,
quia deficit
et
relatio
estin signis
omnino.
Sed hocattende,
institutis,
perpetua
signum
quodutraque
in signis
naturalibus
Sed relatio
ad significatum
hocab institutione,
sedneutra
essentialis.
a Deo et
et ideoperpetua,
estomnicreaturae
essecausatum
estessentialis,
utessentiale
nonestessennaturalium
ad eumcuisignificant
itasignum.
(. . .) Relatioverosignorm
ad illud
tialisnecperpetua
sedaccidentalis";
loc.cit.:"Etprima(seil,relatio
Bonaventure,
in actu,secundam
autemhabetin
et habetipsamsemper
estessentialis
quodsignificat)
semet a primadicitur
nona secunda.
Undecirculus
habitu;
supertabernam
'signum,'
sicsacramentum
edamsi nullus
est,nontamen
signum
perestsignum,
semper
aspiciat;
sufficit
fidesaliena,ita sufficit
huic.Ideo dicendum,
quod
significat
quodsicutprvulo
in
tamen
in alio;undequamvis
nonsignificet
ei in se,significat
significetur
ipsiprvulo
alio."Cf.alsoRosier,
comme
acte
La parole
, (op.cit.,note5), 115-9.
27Bacon'suse of theneuter
ad illudinstead
of themasculine
, suchas in
(ad illum
as signsusers.
animals
to be aimedat including
Bonaventure)
appears

19:09:25 PM

NATURAL
INFERENTIAL
SIGNS

143

communicativefunctionof language (as opposed to the denotativeone)

permeatesBacon's whole semioticsand acquires a centralrole also in his
typologyof signs,whereas the relationof denotationplays only a secondaryrole:
nonrefertur
nisiperaccidens,
sicut
Ad remquam(seil,signum)
habetsignificare
scibile
ad scientiam.28
2. Inferential
Signs
of signshas been describedand analysed many
Since Bacon's typology
here I just would like to draw attentionto some generalfeatures
times,29
and some details.
Bacon divides signs firstin two classes: those
FollowingAugustine,30
emittedby a livingbeing withthe intentionof signifying
and the natural
ones, i.e. produced withoutany intentionof signifying.31
Here, the second necessaryelementof any processof communication,i.e. the sender,
that- as seen aboveemergesbesidesthe addressee(or the interpreter),
role in Bacon's definitionof the sign. Taking into
plays a fundamentad
accountthisdefinition,
one can not interpretthe firsttypeof signs,such
as the smokethat signifiesthe presenceof a fire,as workingjust on the
basis of theirown nature,independentlyof any human (or animal, or
In CST, Bacon's last word on the subangelic,or devilish)interpreter.
ject, naturalsignsare dividedinto two groups:32
veronaturale
velex concomitantia
naturali
Signum
oportet
quodsitduobusmodis:
velexfiguratione
suisignati,
naturaliter
respectu
signiad signatum,
perquampotest
(CST 1.26,56)
repraesentare
signatum.
28Ibid^82. Foran analysis
ofthedevelopment
oftheconception
ofsignification
as a
relation
in Modism,
e linguaggio
seeMarmo,
Semiotica
, (op.cit.,note8), 27-35.
29Cf.Th. Maloney,
TheSemiotics
Bacon
45 (1983),120, in:Mediaeval
Studies,
ofRoger
C. MarmoandA. Tabarroni,
OnAnimal
inthe
Medieval
54;U. Eco,R. Lambertini,
Language
Onthe
Medieval
, in:U. Eco& C. Marmo
, Amsterdam/
Classification
ofSigns
(eds.),
ofSigns
Theory
etsignification
desaffects
dansla smantique
du
1989,3-41;I. Rosier,
Philadelphia
Interjections
XIIIesicle
La parole
comme
14/2(1992),ch. 1; Rosier,
, in:Histoire
Epistmologie
Langage,
acte
Semiotica
e linguaggio
, (op.cit.,note5),100-12;
Marmo,
, (op.cit.,note8),45-55;I. RosierBacon
andthe
Bacon
etlagrammaire
Sciences:
Commemorative
Catach,
, in:J.Hackett
Roger
(ed.),Roger
ch.4.
Essays
, Leiden(forthcoming),
30On Bacon'sclaimofindependence
La parole
ofAugustine's
seeRosier,
classification,
comme
acte
cit.,note5),95-6,and 149-55.
(op.
31Cf.DS 1.2,82; CST 1.25,56.
32HereI willnotdealwiththesecondtypeofnatural i.e.icons,thatI discussed
signs,
e linguaggio
elsewhere
Semiotica
, (op.cit.,note5),49-51).
(cf.Marmo,

19:09:25 PM

144

COSTANTINO
MARMO

In DS he gives a different
typology,adding a thirdtypeof sign:
Tertium
autemgenusreperitur
ut universaliter
effectus
suaecausae,sicut
respectu
et fumus
animalis
estsignum
estsignum
vestigium
ignis.(DS 1.6,83)
Bacon also copes withan implicitobjectionpointingout thatthe relation
of signification
and that of causation are not incompatible,so that they
can be foundtogetherin the same thing:
Et nonestinconveniens
et <signiet> signati
causaeetcausati
invequodrelationes
in eisdemrebus,quoniamsecundum
niantur
ordinem
naturae
una resestcausa
alterius
nonhabita
sedsolum
ad virtutem
facta
comparatione
ipsarum
cognoscentem,
autemsigniet significati
et eiuscui fit
eoruminterse. Relationes
comparatione
attenduntur
ad animam
(Ibid.)
significado
percomparationem
apprehendentem.
Bacon does not make clear the reason why,in CST, he gets rid of this
kind of sign. One mightsay that this happens because the relationof
causation existsby itself,so that it does not need any interpreter
to be
actualized.33
both
adduced
Bacon
can
be
reduced
Furthermore, examples
by
to the two other categories:smoke signifiesa presentfire,and consequentlyit can be conceivedas a signconcomitantwiththe thingsignified
(firsttype);footstepson the soil are formedby impressionof the paws of
an animal, so that theybear resemblanceto those paws (or, by synecdoche, to the animal itself).34
Briefly,the relationof causationis not relevantfora classification
of signs,and can not be used as divisivedifference
of the genus signum
naturale
.
One could raise this same objection againstthe relationof concomitance which, as seen above, Bacon acknowledgesas fundamentof the
first
kindof naturalsigns.But thiswould be unfair.The firsttypeof natural signs is characterizedby its inferentialnature,which is based on a
The converygeneralrelationof temporalsequence or contemporaneity.
comitantia
naturalis
above
from
to
or
constitutes
is
CST)
(quoted
equivalent
the basis of an inference;thisis clear both fromthe sequel of the quoted
textand fromthe parallel textof DS.35 Natural signsof the firsttypecan
inferthe thingstheysignify
eithernecessarily
or probably,and withrespect
to past, presentor futureobjects. An examinationof the examples put
33Cf.Th. S. Maloney,
Bacon.
TheCompendium
, (op.cit.,note3), 10-1.
Roger
34Cf.Eco etal.,
OnAnimal
, (op.cit.,note29),17.
Language
35"Ethaec(seil,
dividuntur
in triagenera:
estquandoaliquid
signanaturalia)
primum
dicitur
infert"
hocquod<aliud>necessario
velprobabiliter
signum
(DS 1.4,82).
propter

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
NATURAL
SIGNS

145

forwardby Bacon can be usefulto understandsome peculiarityof his

conceptionof the inferential
sign.
A. Necessaryinferential
signs:36
PRESENT

PAST

FUTURE

1. haberemagnas
extremi-4. haberelactiscopiamad 5. auroraestsignum
ortus
inanimali
infantem
estsig- solis
tates
(. . .) estsig- nutriendum
numpartus
in muliere
numfortitudinis
scientis
estposse
2. (signum)
docere
3. cantus
gallimotiad cantandum
horae
estsignum
noctis
B. Probable inferential
signs:37
PRESENT

PAST

FUTURE

6. somnia
rubeasuntsigna 12.terram
essemadidam
est 13. rubedo
inmaneestsigvelsanguinis
domi- signum
eademdie
colerae,
pluviae
praeteritae numpluviae
nantis
14.rubedo
invespere
estsig7. (somnia)
in crastino
numserenitatis
aquatica(sunt
fleumatis
(dominantis)
signa)
8. (somnia)
(sunt
nigra
signa)
melancholiae
(dominantis)
9. essematrem
estsignum
dilectionis
10.essecomptum
et nimis
ornatum
estsignum
superbiaeetlasciviae
11. esseerrabundum
multum
de nocteestsignum
latronis
About theseexamplesI would like to make two points: 1) what is their
source?2) what is the importof theirlinguisticformulation?
It is no surpriseto see the varietyof sourceswhence Bacon fishedout
his examples. First of all, Aristotle'ssecond book of the PriorAnalytics
(11.27,wherehe giveshis theoryof signs):ex. 1 and 4; second,Aristotle's
36Cf.DS 1.4,82; CST 1.27,56. The
ofthecock'scrowis also,in a different
example
in SD 11.23,
222(cf.Eco etal., OnAnimal
form,
, (op.cit.,note29),19).
Language
37Cf.DS 1.4,82-83;CST 1.27,56;someofthem
canbe readalsoinSD III.320,229.

19:09:25 PM

146

MARMO
COSTANTINO

ex. 10,
elenchi(eh. 5, wherehe deals withthefallaciaconsequentis):
Sophistici
: ex.
14 and (onlypartially)11; third,Averroes5paraphraseof the Rhetoric
with
ex.
he
deals
where
11;38Cicero'sDe inventione
9;
):
argumentatio
(1.30.46,
medicine:ex. 6-8;39meteorology:ex. 12 and 13. As has been remarked
about SD,40Bacon followshere his own philosophicalstyle:when he deals
withsignsand language,he does it in a philosophicalway whichenlarges
the scope of the traditionaldisciplinesof the Trivium.And that makes
the difference.
of some examplesof
formulations
A comparisonbetweenthe different
different
in
that
we
can
read
Bacon's
inferential
works,can tell us
signs,
The
of
this
kind
more
about
followingtable shows how
sign.
something
in DS, SD and CST:
the same sign relationis expressed,respectively,
Expression

Content

dilecestsignum
essematrem
(probabile)
tionis
(DS)
"love(for
herchild),"
"tobemother,"
"probsi mater
est,diligit
(SD)
ofconcomitance"
able)relation
estmater,
(CST)
ergodiligit
As we can see,a naturalsignof thefirst
typecan be expressedin threeways:
of
the
word
use
"sign," so that the relationof con1) makingexplicit
into
comitance(or whatevernaturalrelationis at stake)is transformed
a semioticrelation;
2) in formof a conditionalproposition,wherethe antecedentis the sign
of the consequent;
3) in formof an inference,where the premissworksas sign of the conclusion.41
These ways of expressinga sign relationare clearlyequivalent,but ifwe
and
of signwe can go a step further
take into account Bacon's definition
an
of
the
intervention
first
formulation
that
the
interpreter
implicate
say
38Cf.Rosier,
of
toLambert
references
comme
acte
La parole
, (op.cit.,note5), 107(with
elenchi
on Sohistici
andGilesofRome;buttheycandepend
5).
(Auxerre)
Lagny
39Baconconsiders
either
of bileor ofblood.
rbea
as signsofpredominance
somnia
onurine
andred:inthetreatise
bothdarkyellow
theMiddleAgessignified
Rbeas
during
and
bothhoney
itwasusedtoqualify
towhite;
itdenoted
thecoloropposite
furthermore,
gold.
40Cf.libera,LesSummulae
and
Bacon
dialectices
deRoger
/-//,
(op.cit.,note1), 145-54;
deRoger
Bacon
dialectices
LesSummulae
/-//,
Libera,
(op.cit.,note1),177-90.
41Onemight
distoalways
wereso subtle
doubtaboutthefactthatmedieval
logicians
forms
2) and3).
tinguish

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
NATURAL
SIGNS

147

(be it humanor not) thatchangesthe naturalrelationinto a culturalone,

Naturalsigns,in Bacon's semiotics,are theproduct
i.e. a semioticrelation.42
a
i.e.
of lexicalization, expressionby meansof language,of naturalrelations.
it should be noticedthat the sign is not simplyreduceFurthermore,
able to an absolutething(resabsoluta
), but it can also be a situationor a
of
stateof affairs(essemultum
errabundurri).
Togetherwiththe identification
the
of
a
condiform
of
with
antecedent
the logical
(some natural)signs
tional that revealsthe consequent,also this featureof Bacon's semiotics
: the infinitive
remindsa piece of Stoic doctrine,i.e. the theoryof the lektn
was
used
to
in
and
both
clause,
logical traditions,
expressthe
theological
of
the
correspondingproposition.43
meaning
Between
Convention
andNaturalness
3. HumanLanguage
As indicatedabove, some examples of natural signs of the firsttype
occur also in different
to quote one of them
place of SD. It is interesting
in length:
locusa concomitantibus
estlocusa communiter
Ultimus
substantiam
accidentibus.
Et arguitur
iuxtahancmaximam:
"Communiter
accidentibus
soientseseconcomi"Si errabundus
tari."Ut"Si mater
"Si comptus,
de nocte,
est,diligit,"
ergoadulter,"
etnonnecessaria,
huiusmodi
sunt,
ergofur"ethuiusmodi,
quaeprobabilia
quoniam
nonpossunt
autnonsoient
se invicem.
accidentia
(III.320,229)
relinquere
Given the inferential
natureof some naturalsignsand the factthatsome
of
them
occur
also as examplesof locusa communiter
accidentibus
,
examples
to investigatethe relationsof Bacon's semiotics
it mightbe interesting
and the theoryof the loci, i.e., of the non-syllogistic
inference.
If one reads the part of the SD devoted to the loci,and comparesits
of signsin DS or CST, one
exampleswiththose of Bacon's classification
can certainlyconclude thatthe relationsare limitedto the passage I just
answer. There is at
quoted. But this would be a highlyunsatisfactory
least one more place whereto look forbetteranswers:Bacon's theoryof
42Thisis implicit
alsoinps.-Kilwardby's
classification
ofnatural
whenhe speaks
signs,
e linguaggio
aboutconvertible
vs.non-convertible
natural
Semiotica
, (op.cit.,
signs
(cf.Marmo,
note8),40-42).
43SeeG. Nuchelmans,
Theories
Ancient
and.
medieval
ofthe
Propositions.
conceptions
ofthebearers
andfalsity
1973.In SD Baconsignificantly
the
, Amsterdam/London
oftruth
distinguished
naturaliter
from
thegalium
tometecantus
cantare
as natural
similar
gallias voxsignificativa
sign,
ones(SD 11.23,
222;quotedin Eco etal.}OnAnimal
, (op.cit.,note29,
orological
Language
36,n. 39).

19:09:25 PM

148

COSTANTINO
MARMO

connotation.But, beforegoinginto the details,let us see what is the place

of signs.
of language in Bacon's classification
Human (and animal) language obviouslyfallsin the categoryof signa
In particular,words are conordinataab animacumintentione
significanti.
ventionalsignsof theircontents(i.e. the presentthingstheyare imposed
rei)
to),44but it has a relationboth to the correspondingconcept {species
that existsin the mind of its speaker,and to the mental image of its
sound (species
of signs,these are
vocis).Accordingto Bacon's classification
naturalrelationswhichgive rise to different
typesof naturalsignification.
In the firstcase, a wordsignifying
and by convention(adpladtum)
primarily
a certainthing,signifiesalso the concept of thatthingwhich is certainly
presentin the mind of the speakerwhen he/sheuttersthatword. Again,
is prevailing:it is only for him/her
the point of view of the interpreter
that a word can be the antecedentof a conditionalpropositioninferring
thepresenceof the conceptin the speaker'smind,and it can be considered
a naturalsignof the firsttype.The traditional
doctrineof the conventional
finds
here
a
sudden
break. In the second case,
of
signification concepts
the voxcan signifyits mental image eitheras an inferentialsign, or as
as the cause of an effect:also in
an iconic sign,or (in DS' classification)
thiscase the species
mustbe presentin the speaker'smindforthe utterance
as well as otherartificial
of theword(and thisallowsan inference);
objects,
the voxis modeled afteran exemplarwhichexistsin the mind of its artifex
,
so that the word's utteranceis the image (token)of that exemplar(type);
, and
finally,the exemplarcan be consideredthe formalcause of the vox
as such the lattersignifiesthe formeras everyeffectsignifiesits cause.45
Bacon saysin DS (III.5.102, 116) thata word whichhas been imposed
to a certainthing,and thereforesignifiesit by convention,can signify
naturallymany other things. How can this happen? Every thing in
the world is in a web of relationsthat existindependendyof any mind.
the existenceof a real relationrequires,accordingto XHIthFurthermore,

44On Bacon's
andimpo
seeM.K.Fredborg,
extensionalist
ofmeaning
sitio,
radically
theory
& L.M.
Bacon
on"impositio
vocis
in:H.A.G.Braakhuis,
C.H. Kneepkens
adsignificandum"
Roger
totheTimeof
de Rijk(eds.),English
andSemantics
Century
Logic
fiomtheEndoftheTwelfth
onMedieval
Ockham
andBurleigh
, Actsofthe4thEuropean
LogicandSemantics,
Symposium
Bacon
onthesignificatum
Th.S.Maloney,
,
1981,167-91;
ofWords
Roger
Leiden/Nijmegen
Eco
in: L. Brind'Amour
dusigne
& E. Vance(eds.),Archologie
, Toronto1983,187-211;
e linguaggio
etal.j OnAnimal
Semiotica
, (op.cit.,
, (op.cit.,note29),20-3;Marmo,
Language
note8),69-70and318-20;Rosier,
La parole
comme
acte,
cit.,note5), 131-8.
(op.
45Cf.DS II.1.18,87;V.166,134;CST 11.46-47,
Comm.
64.Cf.alsops.-Kilwardby,
sup.
Prise,
mai.,2.1.1b,59.

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
SIGNS
NATURAL

149

the existence of its terms (i.e. the absolute

centurystandardtheory,46
that are in connection);this means that the extremes(i.e. the terms)
of a real relationmeet the requirementof contemporaryexistence(conof the firsttype.This is the theoretical
comitantia
) fornaturalsignification
foundationof Bacon's theoryof connotation:when a word signifiesa
thingby conventionand this thingis in relationto anotherthing,then
one is allowed to "jump" fromtheformerto the latterthanksto a natural process of inference.A scheme47mighthelp to understandBacon's
connotation:
1. signum
pater
2. Ifather
I
3. signum
sipater
est
4. pater

repraesentat
statpro
is in relation
to
infert
ergo
connotai

significatum
Ifather
|
Ichild
I
significatum
est
filius
Ichild
I

There is a deep differencebetween the two types of signification

(i.e.
1 and 4). The firstone depends on an originalact of imposition,and
regardsthe relationbetweenunitsof language and thingsof the world.
The second one regardsboth the relationsbetweenlanguage and world,
and the relationsbetweenunitsof language: since a man is fatheronly
when he actuallyhas a child, the noun that signifiesit by convention
leads one to thinkof the child,
(and can suppositforit in a proposition)48
and to forman inferencefroman existentialpropositionconcerningthe
formerto an existentialpropositionconcerningthe latter.The secondary
(thisis the name used by Bacon in DS) is built upon the
signification
and the real relationthat holds betweenthe firstsignificatimi
one
primary
and the second one.
While Bacon in DS (III.5.103, 116) acknowledgeshis debt towards
Avicenna's and Algazel's logic, in CST he reveals the convergenceof
theseArabic philosopherswithwesterntheology:
Deindediligenter
considerandum
alicuireisoli
estulterius
quodnomenimpositum
extraanimam
extraanimam,
et haecvocantur
in
potestmultasimulsignificare
etapudtheologos
connotata.
cointellecta,
(111.66,
philosophia
74)

46Cf.M.G.
Theories
1250-1325
1989.
Relations.
Medieval
, Oxford
47In the Henninger,
human
andnottheenglish
| father
| is theexisting
diagram
expression
being,
which
translates
thecorresponding
latinword.
48Cf.DS III.5.124,
123;andIIL5.129,124.

19:09:25 PM

150

COSTANTINO
MARMO

As a matterof fact,Bacon's theoryof connotationseemsto derivedirectly

fromAugustine'sdistinctionbetweensignapropriaand signatranslata
, that
was used by medieval theologiansto work out the theoryof the four
senses of Sacred Scriptures.It was commonplaceamong Xllth-century
theologians,forinstance,to hold thatin Sacred Scripturesnot onlyverbal
Hugh of Saint Victorconexpressions,but also thingsthemselvessignify.
trastsexplicitlySacred Scripturesto profaneones, God's word to thatof
the Philosopher:
non
indivino
sedetiamressignificare
habent,
verba,
eloquionontantum
quimodus
inveniri
solet.Philosophus
solamvocumnovit
adeoin aliisscripturis
significationem,
sedexcellentor
valdeestrerum
significado,
quamvocum;
quiahancususinsdtuit,
illamnatura
dictavit.
Haechominum
voxest,iliavoxDei ad homines.49
fromSacred Scriptures
Bacon widensthe scope of secondarysignification
of Bacon's theory
to human language toutcourtThe theologicalorigins50
of connotation,however,is apparentwhen one examinesBacon's classificationof the ways in which a univocaldictio(i.e. a word thathad only
and signifies
one impositio
primarilyone thing)can have a pluralityof secondarymeanings:
a word can signifyall its grammaticalfeatures,e.g.
1) ratione
consignificati
tense,person,gender,numberand so on (DS III.5.104, 117);51
a word can signifyin seven ways:
2) ratione
significati
an
infinite
(or privative)noun always makes one understandthe
2.1)
noun which it negates (and the thingssignifiedby that noun)
(III.5.105, 117);
, dominus
, causaprimaand
2.2) the relativenames of God, such as creator
so on, always connote His creatures,even thoughno real relation could be assigned to the pure simplicityand unchangeability of God (Bacon points out that Deus, a non-relativename of
God, does not mean anythingsecondarily)(III.5.106, 118);
49Didascalicon
Ecclesiae
, VIII, PL 177,374-5;Simonof
, V.3,PL 176,790;cf.Speculum
III.1, pp. 111-2.On
Institutiones
insacram
Dialctica,
Tournai,
1,butalsoAbailard,
paginam,
Ecritures
dessens
danslesSaintes
Lapluralit
thistopic,
seeL. Valente,
Unesmantique
particulire:
undMittelalter
imSptantike
in: S. Ebbesen
1995,
, Tbingen
(XIIesicle),
(ed.),Sprachtheorien
13-4.
50On theuseofconsignificatio
seeL. Valente,
in Xllth-century
andconnotatio
theology,
etconnotatio
la seconde
moiti
dans
etmisericors.
desnotions
deconsignificatio
Iustus
Vusage
thologique
duXII' sicle,
in:C. Marmo
andLogic
, (op.cit.,note17).
(ed.),Semiotics
51Bacon'sdiscussion
ofsecofthenotion
beartracesalsoofthegrammatical
origin
Iustus
etmisericors,
(op.cit.,note17),par.2).
ondary
signification
(seeValente,

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
SIGNS
NATURAL

151

2.3) even ifDeus can not enterany antecedentof a semioticinference,

itcan entera consequent:relativenounsof creaturesalways imply
namesof God (si creatura
theircorrelative
est,ergocreator
est),and these
estsequitur
quod
alwaysimplythe absolutenames of God (si creator
Deus est)(III.5.107, 118);
2.4) nounsofcreaturesimplyeach other,e.g. accidentnounsimplysubstancenouns,and vice versasubstanceimplyitsproprium
(III.5.108,
118): thisis a firststep fromtheologyto metaphysics;
eithervaguely(i.e. as subject
2.5) universalnouns infertheirindividua
of a particularlyquantifiedproposition)or distinctlybut disjunctively(i.e. in a propositionwith disjunctsingularnames as
subjects):e.g. homoest,ergoaliquishomoest, or homoest,ergoSocrates
velPlatoest(III.5.1 10, 119);52
both the
an
essentialor principalintegralpart of a thingsignifies
2.6)
otherprincipalpartsof the same thing,and the whole thing(and
sunt(III. 5. 121,
vice versa): e.g. tectum
est,ergopariesetfandamentum
122); as far as the subjectiveparts of universaltermsare concerned,Bacon hintsthat genus name impliesthe disjunctionof
thata speciesname alwaysinfersits genus
its divisivedifferences;
and its difference
(ibid.);
which actuallyexists:e.g.
2.7) a relativenoun connotesits correlative,
est
si paterest,ergo
(III.5.122,
122).
filius
This classification
redundant,since it classifiesin the
appears disturbingly
secondcategory(2.2) what could have been classifiedin the last one: relative nouns, even if said of God, always connotestheircorrelative.This
can be explained,however,if we take into account that the background
of theologicaldiscussionsconcerned not only divine relativeattributes,
but in generalail typesof adjectivesas theywere referredto God.53All
of them,accordingto Xllth-century
theologians,had a principalmeaning
whichwas identicalwithGod's essence,and a secondarymeaningwhich
consistedin God's effectson the world.In thislight,the factthatBacon
deals withtheologicaltermsin a separatecategorybecomes fullyunderstandable,even thoughtheirexaminationseems ratherincomplete.
it is clear that with item 2.5-2.7 Bacon shiftsdefinitely
Furthermore,
frommetaphysicsto logic. One of the examples of 2.4 is homoest,ergo

52On thedistinction
between
individuum
andindividuum
, seeDS III.2.47,
vagum
signatum
98-9.
53See Valente,
Iustus
etmisericors
, (op.cit.,note17),par.3.

19:09:25 PM

152

COSTANTINO
MARMO

estand could have been listedtogetherwithhomononcurrit

risibile
, ergohoc
in the second part of SD, where Bacon deals with the
risibilenoncurrit
locia totouniversali
(SD 11.288,224). With items2.6 the parallel withthe
in orderto
locidiscussionfullyemerges.Let's compare the two treatments
and
differences
similarities:
get
SD 11.286-99,
224-6

DS III.5.121,22

A) Locusa totouniversali
(genus,
species, Al) [Locusa totoessentiali]
"Etspecies
multo
datintelligere
etc.):
partes
magis
"Tenetargumentado
ab huiusmodi
totoad
sinequibusessenonpotest
essentiales,
suamsolumnegando"
et econverso,
utperhominem
partem
significaex.:Nullum
animal
nullus
homo
currit
tur(. . .) similiter
currit,
ergo
genusetdifferentia"
[affirmando]
Locus
a
subiectiva
ad partem]
(individuum,
B)
parte
Bl) [Locusa parteessentiali
"unaparsessentialis
etc.):
(. . .) aliamsignificai"
species,
"Sedtalislocusconstructivus
est"
[affirmando]
ex.:Sorcurrit,
homo
currit
estactuparsunius
ergo
(. . .) inquantum
"genus
licet(. . .)
differentiam
speciei,
significai,
inpotentia
ad diverconsideratur
prout
sasspecies
necinfert
deternecsignificat
minate
alteram
sedsub
differentiarum,
tantum"
disiunctione
C) Locusa totointegrali
Al) [Locusa totoessentiali]
"Etarguitur
a totoad partem
solumaffa- "Etspecies
multo
datintelligere
magis
partes
sinequibusessenonpotest
mando"
essentiales,
ex.:Domus
est
eteconverso,
utperhominem
est
, ergo
significatur
paries
coret capu
[affirmando]
a
ad partem]
Locus
D)
Dl) [Locusa parteintegrali
parteintegrali
"A partead totum
"unapars(. . .) principalis
aliamsignificat"
arguitur
negando"
ex.:Si paries
nonest,domus
nonest
[affirmando]
ex.: Tectum
etindamentum
sunt
est,ergo
paries
in ratione
i.e.
("dummanent
partis,"
whilethehouseis stillstanding
up)
for2.6 inferences:
N.B.Requirements
N.B.Requirements
forG) andD):
- "non
i.e.beingalways
a toto - existential
tenet
huiusmodi
content,
plays
argumentado
theroleofpredicate
ad partem,
vele converso,
nisi
(seeexamples)
integrali
cumcomparantur
totum
etparsad seinvicemrespectu
esse"(11.296,
225)
- "istelocusnontenet,
nisisumantur
onlyprincipal
parts
partes - theyconcern
.
principales
(. .) quibuspositisponitur
res
totum,
(. . .) destruitur
quibusremotis
Sortis
suntcor,hepar,
sto(. . .) utpartes
machus,
caput"(11.299,
226)
All the inferences2.7 fallin the locusa relative
(SD 11.336,230),
oppositis
whileit is not clearwhetherinferences
2. 1 mightbe consideredas examples
of locusa contrarie
or privative
oppositis.

19:09:25 PM

INFERENTIAL
SIGNS
NATURAL

153

We are now in a betterpositionforan evaluationof the relationships

betweenthe theoryof the loci, i.e. the theoryof non-syllogistic
inference,
and Bacon's theoryof connotationor, morein general,his theoryof natural inferential
signs.As one can see formthe table, the typesof locifrom
whole to parts,and vice versa,do not matchwiththe examplesof whole
or part names which have connotation.These examples- partlytaken
fromAvicennaand Algazel (cf. III. 5. 121, 122)- eitherfall in one of the
point of
(traditional)typesof loci (theyare consideredfroma different
in
I
as
the
to
or
do
not
table,
and,
view,though),
appear widen
suggested
relationsbetween
the traditionaltypology,consideringalso the inferential
it is really surprisingthe similarity
the parts of a whole. Furthermore,
and the general
betweenthe requirements
forthe locia toto/
parteintegrali
The
first
i.e.
the
existential
contentof
for
connotation.
one,
requirements
the antecedentand the consequent of the conditionalproposition,is a
generalconditionfor all naturalsemioticinferences:theyall draw from
the existenceof a thingthe existenceof anotherthingas conclusion.(And
thisdeeplyagreeswiththe definition
of sign givenby Aristotlein An. Pr.
27
II,
70a7-9).
As seen above, some of the examples of natural inferentialsigns fall
in the locusa communiter
. This suggeststhat the whole theory
acddentibus
of inferential
signsworkedout by Bacon in DS may be conceivedof as
an extension-refinement
about the non-syllogistic
of his reflections
inferences as traditionally
dealt with in the Summulae.
Conclusion
A fullevaluationof Roger Bacon's contribution
to the historyof semisemioticscan rightly
oticsappearsto be highlyproblematic.Contemporary
of
his
the
"extensionalist
theoryof meanfallacy"against
bring
charge
toby
themeaningof a wordwiththeexistent
thingreferred
ing:54
identifying
it, Bacon is compelledto make appeal to an infinite(and mainlyunconscious)process of new impositionof words,and this puts in danger the
possibilityof communicatingat all. Bacon's theoryof signs,however,is
one of the fewattemptsat workingout a generaltheoryof signification,
it
and remainsa milestonefor any "archeologyof sign." Furthermore,

54See,forinstance,
Eco etal., OnAnimal
, (op.cit.,note29).FortheextenLanguage
sionalist
seeU. Eco,A General
, Bloomington
Theory
ofSemiotics
(IN) 1975.
fallacy,

19:09:25 PM

154

COSTANTINO
MARMO

debates about the

can give some hintsand suggestionsto contemporary
natureof the sign-relation.55
Bacon's contribution,
however,is not limitedto a general theoryof
signs: as I. Rosier has shown,56his considerationof language takes also
intoaccountthe forceof words,the powerlanguagepossessesto influence
and modifythe emotionsand thoughtsof an addressee.The studyof language fromtraditionalpointsof view (grammar,logic, rhetoric)is mixed
frommusic, astrologyand magic: in this context,
up with contributions
Bacon assignsto Aristotle'swritings(especiallyto his Rhetoric
and Poetic)
a theoretically
centralrole,57but- as a matterof fact- he mainlydraws
his considerationsfromArabic sources.

55See,forinstance,
Semiotica
e linguaggio
Marmo,
, (op.cit.,note8),471-9.
56Rosier,
La parole
comme
acte
, (op.cit.,note5),chap.6.
57Cf.C. Marmo,
A KeyWord
totheSignificance
Rhetoric
inThirteenth
ofAristotle's
Suspicio.
in:Cahiers
del'Institut
duMoyen
Scholasticism,
Century
AgeGrecetLatin60 (1990),163-5.

19:09:25 PM

Doctrineof Place
RogerBacon and Aristotle's
CECILIA TRIFOGLI

Introduction
mostsystematic
discussionof place is foundin Physics
IV. 1-5,
Aristotle's
wherehe argues thatplace is the innerlimitof a containingbody.1For
instance,the place of the water containedin a vessel is the surfaceof
the vessel in contactwith water. Thus, as to its quantitativestructure,
extension,being the surfaceof a body. Alplace is a two-dimensional
commentators
on the Physicsoccasionally introduced
medieval
though
in Aristotle'soriginalaccount of place, theygenerally
some modifications
followedhim in maintainingthat place is a two-dimensional
extension.
has shown that therewere also imporHowever,a recentinvestigation
tantexceptionsto thisgeneraltendency.In fact,among Englishcommentatorsof the years 1250-1270s the problemof the quantitativestructure
of place was much debated. Many of them denied that place is a twodimensionalextensionand claimed thatit musthave also a thirddimension,namelya depth,in virtueof whichit "immersesitself"(profundat
se)
in the located body.2
Roger Bacon (ca. 1214-1292) dealt withAristotle'stheoryof place on
threemain occasions: in his firstset of questionson the Physics(henceforth:Questiones
prime),in his second set of questionson the same work
and in thefirstbook of his Communia
naturalium?
Questiones
(henceforth:
altere)
Especiallyin the last two worksBacon too is much concernedwith the
1 Aristotle,
Physics
, BookIV, especially
4, 212a2-30.
2 See C. Trifogli,
IV dellaFisicainalcuni
Le questioni
sullibro
commenti
intorno
alla
inglesi
met
delsec.XIII. Parte
in: Documenti
e studisullatradizione
filosofica
//,forthcoming
9 (1998),185-201.
Formoreinformation
on thisgroupofEnglish
commenmedievale,
taries
seebelownote27.
3 Forthethree
works
hactenus
inedita
see Opera
Baconi
, Fase.VIII, Questiones
Rogen
supra
libros
withthecollaboration
ofR. Steele,
Aristotelis
, ed. F.M.Delorme
quatuor
Physicorum
Oxford
octo
1928(Questiones
libros
Aristotelis
, ed.
prime
); Fase.XIII,Questiones
Physicorum
supra
F.M.Delorme
withthecollaboration
ofR. Steele,
1935(Questiones
altere
Oxford
); Fase.III,
liberPrimus
Communium
1911(Communia
Oxford
Naturalium
, PartsIII andIV, ed.R. Steele,
naturalium
on thePhysics
werediscussed
, I). The twosetsofquestions
byBaconwhilehe
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vwarium
35,2

19:09:31 PM

156

CECILIATRIFOGLI

in the Questiones
of place. In particular,
structure
problemof the quantitative
the view
of
his
he
advocates
commentators
altere
like
time,
,
many English
extension.Such a view, however,is
that place is a three-dimensional
and is explicitly
rejectedin the Communia
prime
totallyabsentin the Questiones
naturalium.
The centraltopicof thispaper is theoriginalnotionof three-dimensional
, but in
place found in Bacon's second set of questions on the Physics
the developmentof Bacon's
analysingthisnotionwe shall also reconstruct
in
of place. First,howthe
debate
on
the
structure
quantitative
position
Aristotelian
it
is
to
the
ever,
necessary clarify
backgroundof such a debate.
in
Aristotle
nowhere
the
For, although
Physics
suggeststhe idea thatplace
is a three-dimensional
extension,he does suggestit in the shortaccount
. In fact,the debate on the quantitative
of place given in the Categories
views in the
structureof place arises mainlyfromAristotle'sconflicting
in
and
the
Categories
Physics.
1. Place in theCategories
At thebeginningof hisdiscussionof thecategoryof quantity(Categories
, 6),
betweendiscretequantitiesand continuousquantiAristotledistinguishes
ties.The latterare thosewhose adjacentpartsjoin at a commonboundary,
the formerare those forwhich such a commonboundarydoes not exist
(e.g., numbers).Among continuousquantities,he listsa line, a surface,a
remarked,
body and, besides,timeand place.4As medievalcommentators
in thislista surfaceand place figureas two distinctspeciesof continuous
quantity.But this is contraryto what is impliedby Aristotle'sdefinition
as limit,i.e., surface,of a containingbody.
of place in the Physics
In the Categories
Aristotlegives no explicitdefinitionof place; in fact,
he restrictshimselfto explainingin which sense place is a continuous
quantity.Yet, even his account of the continuityof place is enough to
confirmthe suggestionthat the notion of place he has in mind in the
fromthat of the Physics.He presentsthe
is radicallydifferent
Categories
followingargument:
were
naturalium
in theFaculty
ofArtsofParisin the1240s.The Communia
wasteaching
inaddiofthesethree
inthe1260s.Forthechronology
written
inFrance
works,
probably
Bacon
andHisSearch
seealsoS.G. Easton,
to their
tionto theIntroduction
editions,
Roger
intheLight
A Reconsideration
Bacon
Science.
ofHis
ofRoger
oftheLifeandWork
fora Universal
NewYork1952(reprint
OwnStated
59-66,111,188.
1970),especially
Westport
Purposes,
4 Aristotle,
ofcontinuity,
seealsoPhysics
definition
On Aristotle's
,
6, 4b20-25.
Categories,
V.3,226bl8-227b2.

19:09:31 PM

BACONANDARISTOTLE'S
OF PLAGE
DOCTRINE

157

Forthepartsofa bodyoccupy
Place,again,is oneofthecontinuous
quantities.
ata common
So thepartsoftheplace
someplace,andthey
boundary.
jointogether
at thesame
bythevarious
partsofthebody,themselves
join together
occupied
theparts
ofthebodydo.Thusplacealsois a continuous
atwhich
quantity,
boundary
at onecommon
sinceitsparts
boundary.5
jointogether
In thisargumentAristotleassumes that a body is a continuousquanof place fromthat of the body
tityand he wants to inferthe continuity
located in it. In short,his proof goes as follows:given two "parts" of
place, it must be shown that theyjoin at a common boundary;but
Aristotleremarks each of thesetwo partsis occupied by a corresponding
part of the located body; since such a body is continuous,thesetwo parts
of the locatedbody have a commonboundary;but then- he concludesthisboundaryis also thecommonboundaryat whichthetwocorresponding
partsof place join, so that place too is continuous.
Surely,thiskind of proofprovidesratherclear indicationsalso on the
: the boundaryof two parts
of place in the Categories
quantitativestructure
of place, beingthe same as thatof the partsof the located body,is a twodimensionalextension,i.e., a surface;but then the partsof place, insofar
as bounded by a two-dimensionalextension,have a three-dimensional
extension.It followsthatplace is a three-dimensional
extension.It is also
clearthatsuch a three-dimensional
extensioncannotbe a bodilyextension;
forin thiscase it could not be occupied by the located body,since bodies
cannot interpenetrate.
Accordingly,place must be an incorporealthreedimensionalextension,whichis also commonlycalled space. In conclusion,
Aristotle's
seems to be thatthe place of a body is the
idea in the Categories
regionof space occupied by it.6
Consequendy,it is not surprisingthat in medieval commentarieson
the Physics
argumentstakenfromAristotle'sshortaccount in the Categories
of the question"Whether
usuallyappeared among the counter-arguments
place is a surface."On the otherhand, it is equally not surprisingthat
mostcommentators
triedto show thatthistypeof argumentscan be solved
withoutabandoning the notion of place as a surfaceof the Physicsin
favourof the three-dimensional
notionof place of the Categories.
For this
latternotion is apparentlycommittedto the positionof an incorporeal
5 Aristode,
inAristotle's
translation
is thatofJ.Ackrill
, 6, 5a8-14. TheEnglish
Categories
De Interpretation,
and.
Translated
withNotesbyJ.L.Ackrill,
Oxford
1963,13.
Categories
6 ForAristode
ofplacemtheCategories
seeespecially
s conflicting
views
andmthePhysics,
H. Mendell,
onTopos:
TheDevelopment
32
, in: Phronesis,
ofAristotle's
ofPlace
Topoi
Concept
Theproblem
discussed
alsoin therecent
hasbeenextensively
(1987),206-231.
study
by
K. Algra,
inGreek
York/Kln
, Leiden/New
1995,123-36.
ofSpace
Thought
Concepts

19:09:31 PM

158

CECILIATRIFOGLI

space; but it is well-knownthat Aristotleargues at lengthin PhysicsIV

that such a space cannot exist.7As we announced,in his Questiones
altere
Bacon departsfromthisgeneraltendencyand on the basis
on the Physics
is led to ascribealso a thirddimension
ofAristotle's
accountin the Categories
to place. Bacon's treatmentof three-dimensional
place will be our major
concernin next paragraph.
2. Baconon three-dimensional
place in theQuestionesaltere
In the Questiones
altereBacon deals with the quantitativestructureof
conneri
subsuperficie
in
10
debeat
, utrum
(Anlocus,si sitquantitas
place mainly q.
an sit idem)and in q. 11 (. . . si locusnonestsuperficies,
utrum
sit corpus)of
in q. 10 Bacon introducesthe notionof a threeBook IV.8 Schematically,
in q. 11 he triesto solvea majorproblemwhich
whereas
dimensional
place,
arises fromAristotle'sontologyof spatial extensionin the Physics
.
2.1 Let us startby examiningthe relevantaspects of q. 10. Bacon
here assumes:(i) thatplace is the limitof a containingbody, as Aristotle
statesin PhysicsIV; (ii) that place is somethingelse froma surface,as
Aristotle
statesin theCategories.
Accordingly,
q. 10, whichaskswhetherplace
is a surface,mustbe given a negativeanswerand more preciselyit must
be shown that the limitof a containingbody is somethingelse froma
surface.He proposes a firstsolutionbased on the followingdistinction:
(S) A containingbody can be regardedeitherinsofaras body or insofar as it is also a container(beans).When a containingbody is regarded
in the firstway, thenits limitis a surface;when it is regardedin the second way, then its limit is a place. Place and a surface,therefore,are
essentiallydifferent.9

7 Fora
ofthemedieval
discussions
on place,spaceandvoid
survey
comprehensive
PlaceandSpace
inMedieval
E. Grant,
, in:P.K.Machamer
Thought
spaceseeespecially
Physical
andTime
andMatter
andR.G.Turnbull
, Space
Id.,Much
, Ohio1976,137-67;
(eds.),Motion
Revolution
Adoabout
Theories
,
fiomtheMiddle
Nothing:
ofSpaceandVacuum
AgestotheScientific
1981,3-147.
Cambridge
8 The questions
In thisedition,
thequestions
in Delorme's
edition.
arenotnumbered
lin.37
I refer
toas toq. 10andq. 11areat 183,lin.36-185,
lin.31and185,lin.32-187,
respectively.
9 Questiones
IV, q. 10,ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 184,lin.4-9:"SOLUTIO:ultimum
altere
autinquantum
etsicestultimum
considerali
superficies;
corporis
potest
corpus,
dupliciter:
autin quantum
essentialiter:
locans,et sic estultimum
locus,et hecdifFerunt
corporis
differunt
essentialiter."
quarelocuset superficies

19:09:31 PM

OF PLAGE
DOCTRINE
BACONANDARISTOTLE'S

159

In the Questiones
primetoo Bacon discussesthe questionwhetherplace
and he introducesa distinctionconcerningthe limitof the
is a surface10
containingbody which is equivalentto that used in (S).11Furthermore,
altereBacon raises the
both in the Questiones
primeand in the Questiones
same objectionagainstargument(S) above. This objectionsays that(S) is
since it
not sufficient
to prove thatplace and a surfacedifferessentially,
In
of
relational
difference.12
the
have
a
sort
shows
that
Questiones
they
only
withthe followingexample:
, the pointof thisobjectionis illustrated
prime
and Socrates regardedas standing
Socratesregardedas sitting(Sorsedens)
in
Sor
fact
and
are
(i stans)
essentiallythe same thing.Yet, in
specifically
that
Bacon
maintains
thisobjectioncan be answered.
the Questiones
prime
He presentsa rathergeneral solution,which statesthat a relationaldifin the case of accidents,although
ferencedoes implya specificdifference
it does not implyit also in the case of substances.13
Accordingly,in the
that
Bacon
assumes
Aristotle's
views
of
Questiones
prime
place in the Categories
and in the Physics
can be reconciledwithoutmodifyingthe quantitative
structureof place as definedin the Physicsand, in particular,without
the notionof a three-dimensional
place.
introducing
In the Questiones
altere
, however,Bacon's positionon thistopic is comHere, the objectionagainstargument(S) remainswithout
pletelydifferent.
an answerand argument(S) is quicklydismissed.

10See Questiones
lin.34.
, IV, ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 188,lin.19-189,
prime
11Ibid.,189,lin.
3-10:"<Solutio>:ad primam
istarum
dicendum
quod
questionimi
estlocus:quidamestlocuslocans,
et hicestcorpus;
aliusestquo locanslocat,et
duplex
hocestultimum
locantis.
Hoc autemultimum
ad duocomparatur:
unomodoad
corporis
etsicestsuperficies,
aliomodoad locatum,
etsicdicitur
locus.Notandum
locantem,
igitur
idemestlocuset superficies,
setsubdiversa
ratione
relationis
velcomparationis."
quod
12Qvxsones
n. 3), 189,lin.10-16:"SetCONTRAhocpotest
IV, ed.cit.(above,
prime,
obici:que solarelatione
et comparatione
differunt
nondifferunt
ut
specieet substantia,
Sorsedens
et Sorstans;setlocuset superficies
solarelatione
et comparatione
differunt,
utdictum
et specienondifferunt:
<est>,ergosubstantia
est,quia diverse
quodfalsum
suntspecies
altere
, IV, q. 10,ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 184,lin.9-12:
Questiones
quantitatis."
"CONTRA:absolutum
et comparatum
nondiversificant
remessentialiter;
setcorpuset
continens
sivelocansdifferunt
solumsicutabsolutum
et respectivum;
corpus
quareetc."
13Questiones IV,ed.cit.(above,
n. 3), 189,lin.16-27:"Adquoddilingenter
notanprime,
inaccidentibus
veritatem
habetinsubstantia,
tarnen
falsaest.
dum,quodmajorpropositio
estaccidenti
cumperse nonexistt,
et
inherere,
Hujusautemcausaestquiaessentiale
itaessentiale
estei habere
ad subjectum
etrelationem
cuiinheret;
setsubcomparationem
stantie
relatio
<et> comparatio
ad aliudaccidentalis
estquodvereest
est,quiasubstantia
etpersuaprincipia
velcomparatio
inacciintrinsica
existit.
diversa
<relatio>
Quapropter
dentediversitatem
causatin forma
velspecie,
ex quo (proqua?)diversa
vel
comparatione
relatione
accidentis
ad substantiam
diversa
sicautemnonestin
oriuntur;
predicamenta
substantia
ratione
predicta."

19:09:31 PM

160

CECILIATRIFOGLI

There is littledoubt thatBacon's negativeattitudetowardsthe validity

of thisargumentas an attemptto reconcileAristotle'sconflicting
viewsof
in
if
a
the
at
stake.
Aristotle's
shows
Indeed,
deeper insight
problem
place
thatplace and a surfaceare different
kindsof quanclaim in the Categories
tityis taken seriously,then argument(S) cannot account forthistypeof
to see why it cannot. Rephrasingit in
distinction.And it is not difficult
more explicitterms,(S) points out that not everysurface(i.e., the limit
of a body) is the place of a body, i.e., the limitof a containingbody.
There are, in fact,surfaceswhich cannot containa body in the sense of
surroundingit; forinstance,flatsurfaces.Conversely,in orderto contain
a body a surfacemustbe concave. Thus, in orderto be a place, a surface
must have the additionalpropertyof being concave, viz. of containing.
However, by adding the requirementof concavityor containmentto a
surface,one does not get thatplace definesa species of quantitydistinct
froma surface,but thatit simplydefinesa subspeciesof surfaces.In other
words,if place is a distinctkind of quantityfroma surface,it musthave
some quantitativepropertywhich no surfacecan have. As we have seen
in the precedingparagraph,the contextof the Categories
suggeststhatsuch
a propertyis having three dimensions.This suggestionis followedby
Bacon in his finalanswerto q. 10.
Some detailsof Bacon's answerare obscure,but his main idea can be
presentedas follows.He focusseson the class of thingswhich have two
dimensions,namely longitudeand latitude,and he proceeds to divide
this class dichotomicallyinto two mutuallydisjointsubclasses.The first
one is that formedby those two-dimensional
thingswhich satisfythree
and
continentia
further
containment
(immobilitas)
(<
), immobility
requirements:
those
twois
that
the
second
subclass
formed
thus,
by
depth ( profimditas)'
dimensionalthingswhich do not satisfyone of these threerequirements.
Every surfaceclearlybelongs to the second subclass,since by definition
- Bacon claims- consists
it has no depth.The firstsubclass
exactlyof those
two dimensionalthingswhichare a place. This dichotomyshows- Bacon
concludes- thatplace and a surfaceare two distinctspeciesof quantity.14
Let us have a closer look at the threeadditionalrequirementswhich
characterizeplace againsta surface.At thisjuncture,it mustbe remarked
14Questiones
lin.5: ". . . etnatura
n. 3), 184,lin.35-185,
altere
, IV, q. 10,ed.cit.(above,
illetrescondiin duo,in unumsupraquodadduntur
duarum
dimensionum
dividi
potest
unamspeciem
scilicet
immobilitas
etprofunditas,
ethecfacit
tiones,
continentia,
quantitatis
faciunt
aliamspeciem
istarum
trium
conditionum
queestsuperficies,
queestlocus;opposita
sicutsi dividatur
animalin rationale
et irrationale."
See also,ibid.,185,lin.13-31.

19:09:31 PM

DOCTRINE
OF PLAGE
BACONANDARISTOTLE'S

161

thatthe requirement
of immobility
is added by Aristotlehimself.His final
of place in Physics
IV. 4 statesthat place is the immobilelimit
definition
of a containingbody. Thus, in Aristotle'sview, place is not whatsoever
container,but an immobileone. For instance,a vessel containingsome
water (i.e., the limitof this vessel) cannot be said properlythe place of
thiswater,since it is subjectto motion.15
Those who have some familiarwith
the
tradition
of
Aristotelian
natural
ity
philosophyknow verywell
that the requirementof immobilitywas one of the most debated topics
in greekand medieval commentarieson PhysicsIV. 1-5.16Bacon himself
deals at lengthwith this problemboth in his Questiones
primeand in his
in
altere
of
his
this
but
the
debate
is not perQuestiones ;
position
analysis
tinentto the subject of this paper.17Instead, the relevantpoint here is
that Bacon's firsttwo requirementsforplace- namely,containmentand
definition
of place. However,
immobilityare alreadypresentin Aristotle's
- one would look in vain for
as to the thirdrequirement
namely,depth
it in Aristotle'sdefinitionof place and more generallyin Physics
IV. 1-5.
This is a new elementintroducedby Bacon and is also the crucial one
in orderto make place a species of quantitydifferent
froma surface.
Our nextstepis to clarify
how a place withdepth,i.e., a three-dimensional
place, shouldbe thoughtof in Bacon's view. In q. 10 Bacon givesno exhaustiveindicationson thispoint.He onlyimpliesthatthree-dimensional
place resultsfromadding a thirddimensionto the limitof the containing
body. There is, however,an intuitiveway to carryout such an addition
whichleads to a rather"harmless"notionof three-dimensional
place. That
is, roughlyspeaking,by adding to the limitof the containingbody the
depth of thissame body. The resultof thistypeof additionis indeed a
three-dimensional
extension,i.e., the containingbody itselfor a threedimensionalportionof thisbody. Thus one mightsuggestthat by introducinga thirddimensionBacon is simplyextendingAristotle'snotionof
fromthe limitor surfaceof the containingbody to
place in the Physics
thewholecontainingbody (or to a three-dimensional
portionof it bounded
its
external
This
finds
in the
some
confirmation
by
surface).
suggestion
15See Aristotle, , IV.4,212a14-21.
Physics
16On Aristotle's
of theimmobility
ofplaceand thediscussions
on this
requirement
seeespecially
K. Algra,
inGreek
tradition,
, 222topicintheGreek
ofSpace
Concepts
Thought
30.Forthemainsolutions
seeE. Grant,
TheMedieval
commentators,
bymedieval
proposed
Doctrine
Fundamental
Problems
andSolutions
, in: A. MaierandA. Paravicini
ofPlace:Some
sulXIVsecolo
inmemoria
Maier
diAnneliese
, Roma1981,57-72.
(eds.),Studi
Bagliani
17Bacon's
intheQuestiones
inR. Wood,
altere
hasbeenrecendy
taken
intoaccount
position
Richard
at Parisbefore
e studisullatradizione
filosofica
1240in:Documenti
Rufus:
Physics
5 (1994),118-124.
medievale,

19:09:31 PM

162

CECILIATRIFOGLI

, where on severaloccasions the term"place" is used also

Questiones
prime
to denote the whole containingbody.18However,it cannot be accepted.
altereis not the conBacon's three-dimensional
place in the Questiones
tainingbody.
To establishthispoint,let us turnto q. 11. There Bacon explainswhy
place should have also a depth. On thispurpose,he appeals explicitlyto
that we
Aristotle'sargumentfor the continuityof place in the Categories
That
have quoted in the precedingparagraph.
argumentrequiresthat
it
also the internalparts of the located body occupy a place; therefore,
shows- Bacon claims- that place does not simplysurroundthe body
locatedin it,but mustbe also to some extentinternalto the locatedbody.
extenAccordingly,depth is needed to make place a three-dimensional
sion whichis spatiallycoexistingwiththe located body,thatis, in Bacon's
words, depth is the dimensionin virtueof which place immersesitself
se) in the located body.19On the other hand, it is clear that
[profundat
the containingbody, althoughit is a three-dimensional
extension,is not
"immersive,"but spatiallyexternalto the located body.
To summarizethe main pointsthatwe have seen so far,in the Questiones
altere
Bacon adheresto Aristode'sclaim in the Categories
, accordingto which
on
of
a surfaceand place are two distinctspecies quantity.Furthermore,
of place in the Categories
the basis of Aristode'saccount of the continuity
,
Bacon correctlyassumes that the quantitativedistinctionbetweenplace
and a surfaceis ultimatelydue to the factthatplace has a thirddimension in virtueof which it is internalto the located body. Yet, he is not
18See,forinstance,
between
Bacondistinguishes
thepassagequotedin note11,where
ofthecontaining
locat
locus
beans
body).
(thelimit
quohearts
(thecontaining
body)andlocus
.
habeat
trinam
dimensionem
Utrum
locus
ofthequestion
isusedalsointhesolution
Thisdistinction
See Questiones
, IV, ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 176,lin.2-11:"Adprimam
questionem
prime
ineo
ethicestsubstantia
estlocus;quidam
dicendum
istarum
locans,
trium,
quodduplex
habetdimenautemprouttrinam
etformam
determinatur,
quantitas
quodpermateriam
aliusestlocus
setexcedit;
utestaervelterra,
ethiclocusnonadequatur
locato,
sionem,
setestunadimensio,
nechabettrinam
dimentionem,
quolocanslocat,ethicestsuperficies
sicutestconcava
necexceditur,
necexcedit
ethiclocuslocatoadequatur,
ignis
superficies
et sicde aliis."
in qua aercollocatur,
19Questiones
altere
, IV, q. 11,ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 186,lin.24-33:"SOLUTIO:dico
habetaliquomodoprofunditatem,
non
est
locus
tarnen
quia nonsolum
corpus,
quod
se
immooportet
inter
lateracontinentis,
contineatur
sufficit
quodprofundet
quodlocatum
etoccupant
beieopulantur
adsingulas
unde
secundum
illud
corporis
partes
singule
partes
permedium:
locusperntistam
se locusaliquomodo,tamen
etideoprofundat
profunditatem
recipit
estactu;ideo
locatum
locatiinquantum
inquantum
urmlocantis
locansetpernaturam
to Categories
is mine.It indicates
thereference
etc."(Italics
, 6, 5a8-14).We shallexplain
ofthedepthofplaceon
thedependence
in 2.2 Bacon'sclaimin thispassageconcerning
thecontaining
body.
bodyandon thelocated

19:09:31 PM

DOCTRINE
OF PLAGE
BACONANDARISTOTLE'S

163

willingto abandon Aristotle'snotion of place in the Physicsas limitof a

body.For,on one hand, it is truethathis finalanswerto q. 10
containing
not
reflect
does
completelyhis originalplan forthis question,namelyto
froma surfaceand
show thatplace is both a speciesof quantitydifferent
the limitof a containingbody. But, on the otherhand, Bacon insiststhat
three-dimensional
with
place is a sortof completionof the place identified
the limitof a containingbody,since it is obtainedby adding a dimension
to thislimit.And by means of thistypeof additionsuch a limitacquires
also a new function:it is not only somethingsurroundingthe located
body fromoutside,but is also somethingwhich can receive this body,
i.e., thatcan be occupiedby it. Thus, Bacon's notionof three-dimensional
place combinesboth the notion of a surroundingplace and that of a
receptiveplace. However, as we shall see next,the ontologicalstatusof
the three-dimensional
place resultingfromthis kind of combinationis
veryproblematic.
2.2 The complex of problemsinvolvedin the ontologicalstatus of
three-dimensional
the following
place can be introducedby formulating
if
dilemma: place has threedimensions,then (1) eitherit is a body or (2)
is an incorporealthree-dimensional
extension,i.e., a space. Evidently,
horn (1) of thisdilemmamust be ruled out, at least if place is not simply a body externalto the located body. In particular,it cannot be acceptedin the immersiveview of place supportedby Bacon. For, if place
were a body, the immersionof place into the located body would violate theprincipleof the impenetrability
of bodies. As to horn (2), Aristotle
in
it
the
, maintainingthat there is no extension
stronglyrejects
Physics
over and above thatinheringin corporealsubstances,i.e., thatspace does
not exist.20Accordingly,this dilemma points out that behind Aristotle's
views of place in the Categories
and in the Physicsthere is a
conflicting
contrast
the
of
deeper
concerning
ontology extension,since the threedimensionalplace of the Categories
implies the existenceof incorporeal
does not. In
extension,whereasthe two-dimensional
place of the Physics
the Questiones
altere
, however,Bacon does not seem to be fullyaware of
thisontologicalcontrast.On one hand, his officialpositionon the ontology
of extensioncoincides with that of Aristotlein the Physics
, that is, he
denies the existenceof space.21On the otherhand, like Aristotlein the
20See
Aristotle's
refutation
ofthevoidin Physics
, IV.6-9.
21See especially
thequestions
on Aristotle's
treatment
ofthevoid,especially
at 223,lin.3-232,
lin.7.

19:09:31 PM

164

CECILIATRIFOGLI

extension.But
, he maintainsthat place is a three-dimensional
Categories
then he is confrontedwith horn (1) of the dilemma. That is, he has to
extension,
explain how it is possiblethatplace, being a three-dimensional
is not a body. Q. 11, which asks whetherplace is a body, is devoted
exactlyto thisproblem.
The generalstrategyof Bacon's solutionis the following.Considerthe
then it is a body." Bacon
inference"if somethinghas three-dimensions,
some
that
within
Aristotle's
assumes
even
ontologyin the Physics
correctly
qualificationsare necessaryin orderto make it valid. In fact,since a body
has three dimensionsby definitionand thereforeessentially,something
having threedimensionsis a body if and only if these threedimensions
But- Bacon claims- place has threedimensionsonly
belongto itessentially.
accidentally;more precisely,the thirddimension,namelydepth,belongs
to place only accidentally.This does not mean thattherecan be a place
which has no depth; for place necessarilyimmersesitselfin the located
)
inseparabile
body.As Bacon putsit,depthis an inseparableaccident{accidens
of place. Nevertheless,depth is an accident of place in the sense that
it does not belong to place primarily,but only in a derivativeway. For
place receivesits depth fromthe located body, which has primarilythis
thirddimension.In short,Bacon's answer to q. 11 is that place is not
a body, because depth belongs to a body primarily,but to place only
derivatively.22
The meaning of Bacon's answer can be clarified,startingfromthe
of three-dimensional
place. Take the case
compositequantitativestructure

22In replying
thefact
from
infer
thatplaceis a bodystarting
which
totwoarguments
Baconsays:"Adaliudrespondeo
thatit hasthreedimensions,
quodhaberetresdimenacciscilicet
siones
est,sicutvisum
est,quialocushabettertiam
profunditatem
multipliciter
etaccidentia
sunttarnen
de essentia
dentaliter,
per
corporis
quianonestde ejusessentia,
habet
Ad aliudsimiliter
estaccidens.
se loci,utaccidens
patetquodcorpus
inseparabile
locussolumhabetsicutaccidens
sicutdifferentiam
trinam
dimensionem
perse.
specificam,
sicimposAd ea que suntin oppositum
dicoquodhaberetresdimensiones
essentialiter,
secundum
etsicarguit
sintin eodem,
sibileestquodduedimensiones
Aristoteles;
tarnen,
estde loco,benepotest
esse,quialocusnonhabetillamprofunditatem
quodexpositum
altere
vellocati"(Questiones
de essentia
locantis
, IV, q. 11,ed. cit.
sua,setpernaturam
thatbothat theendofthispassage
(above,n. 3), 187,lin.20-32).It can be remarked
both
andin thepassagequotedin note19 Baconsaysthatthedepthofplacedepends
itis noteasyto understand
on thecontaining
body.However,
bodyandon thelocated
alsoonthecontaining
inwhich
sensethedepthofplacedepends
body.In fact,
essentially
in thenextquestion
(q. 12,at 187,lin.38-188,lin.34),whenhe dealsmorecarefully
withthistopic,Baconspecifies
thatthedepthofplacedepends
onlyon the
essentially
in
locatedbody.On thispoint,see thepassagequotedbelowin note25. Accordingly,
I willfollow
hisviewin q. 12.
themeaning
ofBacon'sposition
explaining

19:09:31 PM

OF PLAGE
BACONANDARISTOTLE'S
DOCTRINE

165

of the water containedin a vessel. The three-dimensional

place of this
water are the sides of the vessel (the limitof the contaningbody) plus
the distanceor intervalbetweenthe sides of the vessel,whichdetermines
the thirddimensionof place. Now, betweenthe sides of the vessel there
extension
is also the corporealdistancedefinedby the three-dimensional
of water.Thus the questionof the relationbetweenthe distanceof water
and the distanceof place coexistingwithit naturallyarises.The point of
Bacon's answer to q. 11 is that the distance of place is ontologically
dependenton thatof water,so that,if therewere no waterbetweenthe
sidesof thevessel,therewould be no distanceof place. Accordingly,
place
does not have a depth in its own right,but only in virtueof the water
interveningbetween the sides of the vessel. Indeed, this establishesa
difference
betweenplace and a body,likewater.In thisway,Bacon seems
to avoid horn (1) of the dilemma stated above.23But then the question
is whetheror to whichextenthe is also able to avoid horn (2), according
to whichthree-dimensional
place impliesthe existenceof an incorporeal
extensionand therefore
violatesAristotle'sontologyin the Physics.
In thisregard,it mustbe remarkedthat in the preliminary
discussion
Aristotle
whichleads to the definition
of place in Physics
himself
conIV,
sidersthe intervalbetweenthe sides of the vessel as a possiblecandidate
fortheplace of thewatercontainedin it. But he also rulesout veryexplicidy such a candidate,arguingthat betweenthe sides of the vessel there
is onlyone kindof extension,namelythatof water.24Instead,as we have
just seen, Bacon's positionapparentlyimpliesonly that the extensionof
place betweenthesidesof thevesselis ontologically
dependenton theextension of water. Therefore,in order to make Bacon's positionconsistent
withAristode'sontologyof extensionin the Physics
, theprincipleof dependence of the extensionof place on the extensionof the located body must
in a verystrongsense,namelyin thesensethattheextension
be understood
of place is reallythe same as the extensionof the body located in it.

23On oneoccasion
Baconusestheexpression
in orderto
"quasibody"(quasicorpus)
indicate
thetypeofthree-dimensional
in a derivative
sensewithwhich
thing
placemust
beidentified.
n. 3),201,lin.18-23:". . . Si loquimur
See Questiones
altere
, IV,ed.cit.(above,
de locoproutagrgat
interlateracontnentis,
sic superficies
profunditatem
permedium
estejusterminus
et sic,
et sic ad eundem
terminm
copulantur
parteslociet corporis,
licettertia
dimensio
nonsitde essentia
loci,tamenproutillamproprietatem
recipit
ejus
dimensio
etestquasicorpus,
nontamen
corpus."
24Aristotle,
Bacondiscusses
thequestion
sitspatium
Utrum
, IV.4,21Ib5-212al4.
Physics
inter
continentis
on thistopic.See Questiones
latera
, in whichhe adoptsAristotle's
position
altere
, IV, ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 181,lin.8-182,lin.12.

19:09:31 PM

166

CECILIATRIFOGLI

However, in his treatmentof three-dimensional

place, Bacon nowhere
states this strongversion of the principleof dependence. Furthermore,
thereis also a positiveindicationthathe is not willingto accept it. This
is givenby Bacon's treatmentof q. 12, whichasks whetherplace has two
subjects,i.e., both the containingbody and the located body.
As to the topic of q. 12, it can be remarkedthat,ifAristotle'sdoctrine
of place in PhysicsIV is accepted, then the subject of place can hardly
become matterof contention.Since place is the limitof the containing
the conbody, place inheresin only one subjectand thisis by definition
the
of
itself.
whether
the
However,
tainingbody
problem
establishing
located body too is a subjectof place does arise in Bacon's view of place
as three-dimensional
extension.The relevanceof thisproblemis pointed
out in the main argumentof q. 12 in favourof the two-subjectstheory
of place:
in thedepthofthe
ofthelocating
itself
. . . placeis thelimit
immerses
bodywhich
as a limit,
locatedbody.Hence,insofar
it is dueto thelocating
body,butinsofar
in theintervening
the
as immersive,
itis dueto thebodylocated
distance
between
sidesofthecontainer.
to thesetwothings
Therefore,
[i.e.,tothe
placeis accidental
toitself
both
body]andtherefore
locating
bodyandtothelocated
placedetermines
ofthemas itsuniquesubject.25
In thispassage Bacon relieson the principleof the dependenceof the
depth of place on the depth of the located body that he has established
in q. 11. This principlemightsuggestthat the dependence in question
must be understoodin the sense that the depth of place inheresin the
located body as in its subject.The argumentforthe two-subjects
theory
of place that we have just quoted is based exactlyon this suggestion.
This suggestionis appealing also fromanotherpoint of view, since it
seems to provide an easy solutionof the ontologicalproblemleftopen
by Bacon's analysisof the depth of place in q. 11. Indeed, if the depth
of place inheresin the located body, then the ontologicalstatusof threedimensionalplace becomes completelylegitimatewithinAristotle'sontolFor, in thiscase, each of the two elements
ogy of extensionin the Physics.
of the composite quantitativestructureof such a place, i.e., the twodimensionalextensiongiven by the limitof the containingbody and the

25Questiones
altere
locantis
, IV, q. 12,188,lin.5-10:". . . locusestterminus
profundans
se secundum
ad prolocati:undea partetermini
debetur
locanti
profunditatem
quantum
debetur
locatointerlateracontinentis
fundationem,
permedium;
quareeritaccidentale
determinat
after
sibitanquam
unicum
istorum;
quareutrumque
(Thecomma
subjectum."
is misplaced.
It shouldbe placedafter
profundationem
locanti).

19:09:31 PM

DOCTRINE
BACONANDARISTOTLE'S
OF PLAGE

167

depth,is an accidentof a body, namelyof the containingbody and of

the located body respectively.
Bacon, however,rejectsthe two-subjects
theoryof place. He insiststhat
place has onlyone subjectand thisis the containingbody,as in Aristotle's
originalview. In particular,he thinksthat the argumentquoted above,
based on the principleof the dependenceof the depth of place fromthe
located body, is not conclusive.He argues that,since the located body
is outsidethe containingbody (i.e., theyare two distinctbodies),the distance betweenthe sides of the containingbody, althoughit is caused by
the located body,cannotinherein it.26In thisargument,however,Bacon
assumes that the distance between the sides of the containingbody is
somethingelse fromthe distanceof the located body. And thisconfirms
thatBacon's rejectionof the two-subjects
theoryof place is at least implicrelated
to
the
the
of
itly
rejection
strongversionof the principleof the
the
of
of
on
the located body presentedabove.
dependence
depth place
On the otherhand, in followingAristotle'sview on the subjectof place,
Bacon makesthe ontologicalstatusof three-dimensional
place even more
In
the
of
turns
out
to
be an accident
complicated. particular, depth place
of the containingbody,whichis, however,spatiallyexternalto thisbody.
Roughlyspeaking,in Bacon's position,the containingbody has two kinds
of depth:the firstone is that in virtueof which such a body is a threedimensional
corporealextension,the second one, thatof place, is the depth
in virtueof which the limitof the containingbody extendsitselfinside
the located body. But it is certainlynot easy to imaginehow a body can
possiblyhave this second kind of depth.
In conclusion,Bacon's three-dimensional
place is not a body, because
the thirddimensionbelongs to it only derivatively,
that is, by means of
the located body intervening
betweenthe sides of the container.Furthermore,one can say that in Bacon's view the depth of place is in a sense
corporealand in anothersense incorporeal.It is corporealin the sense
thatit has a corporealsubject,and thisis the containingbody; but it is
incorporealin the sense that it is not the dimensionthroughwhich a
body is extended.In particular,the depth of place is neitherthe depth
of the located body nor thatof the containingbody,althoughit is caused
26Questiones
altere
ab alio
, IV,q. 12,188,lin.27-34:"Adaliud,recipere
profundationem
est:autquodestintraipsumet tuncdebetdiciaccidens
dupliciter
ale,
ejusvelsubstanti
et sicnonestde loco;autquodestextra,
et sicesthie,quialocansrecipit
distantiam
inter
laterasuaperdistantiam
locatiettamen
neutrum
estaliiaccidens,
etsicestde loco
a locatotanquam
mensura
necestaccidens
quiarecipit
profundationem
ejusextrasolum,
ejus,setlocantis."

19:09:31 PM

168

CECILIATRIFOGLI

by the formerbody and inheresin the latter.We have suggestedthat

this ratherodd ontologicalstatusof the depth of place resultsultimately
froman attemptto combine two opposite ontologiesof extension:the
view
firstone positsincorporealextension,and on thisontologyAristotle's
seems to rely; the second one does not posit
of place in the Categories
and
thisis Aristode'sontologyin the Physics.
extension,
incorporeal
3. The rejection
of thedoctrine
ofthree-dimensional
placein the
Communia naturalium
altereon the
It is likelythat some time afterdiscussinghis Questiones
in his
involved
the
difficulties
aware
of
himself
became
Bacon
,
Physics
book
of
his
later
in
the
first
In
of
three-dimensional
fact,
place.
theory
of
his
treatment
naturalium
work Communia
(ca. 1260-1267)a relevantpart
of the view accordingto whichplace
of place is devotedto the refutation
altere
has a depth. But in the period of time betweenBacon's Questiones
naturalium
the theoryof three-dimensional
and the Communia
place enjoyed
a discretefortune.We have foundthis theoryin a group of around ten
on Aristode'sPhysics
commentaries
, whichveryprobpermodum
quaestionis
the
Arts
of
of
from
the
Oxford
years 1250-1270s.27
Faculty
ably originate
There is also positiveevidence that some of these Englishcommentators
27Mostofthesecommentaries
andCambridge
inmanuscripts
arecontained
ofOxford
that
In particular,
we havesuggested
Withfewexceptions
libraries.
theyareanonymous.
is around1270becausethisis thedate
forall thesecommentaries
antequern
theterminus
Mostofourcomon thePhysics
ofThomasAquinas'
, which
theyallignore.
commentary
in the1960s.See A. Zimmermann,
werefirst
mentaries
discovered
byA. Zimmermann
t vonetwa
ausderet
desAristoteles
undPhysik
Kommentare
zurMetaphysik
Verzeichnis
ungedruckter
1250-1
9-14,20-21,28-31,33-35.Fora general
pre1971,especially
350yLeiden/Kln
withS. Donati,
outtogether
thatI am carrying
oftheresearch
oftheresults
sentation
inBritain
onAristotle's
Commentaries
C. Trifogli,
F. Del Punta,
S. Donati,
seeespecially
,
Physics
oftheinternational
inBritain
theMiddle
ca. 1250-1270
, Proceedings
, in:Aristotle
during
Ages
8-11 April1994,organized
at Cambridge,
conference
pour
bytheSocitInternationale
Fora
Turnhout
ed.J. Marenbon,
l'Etudede la Philosophie
1996,265-283.
Mdivale,
oftherelations
between
andforthediscussion
detailed
ofourcommentaries
description
diprobabile
I: Commenti
deicommen
allaFisicadelXIIIsecolo.
Perlostudio
seeS. Donati,
them,
filosofica
e studisullatradizione
anni1250-1270
ca.,in: Documenti
origine
inglese
degli
III della
sullibro
Le questioni
4 (1993),25-133;C. Trifogli,
2 (1991),361-441;
medievale,
e studisulla
delsec.XIII, in: Documenti
intorno
allamet
Fisicain alcuni
commenti
inglesi
IV dellaFisicain
sullibro
tradizione
filosofica
2 (1991),443-466;
Id.,Lequestioni
medievale,
sullatradizione
e studi
allamet
delsec.XIII.Parte
alcuni
commend
intorno
/,in:Documenti
inglesi
ofthree-dimensional
ofthedoctrine
7 (1996),41-116.Fortheanalysis
filosofica
medievale,
aboveinnote2. Theexactchronological
seethereference
commentaries,
given
placeinthese
is stilltobe established.
naturalium
andBacon'sCommunia
orderbetween
ourcommentaries

19:09:31 PM

BACONANDARISTOTLE'S
DOCTRINE
OF PLAGE

169

altere
used Bacon's Questiones
, so that we can assume that this work was
an authoritative
source of the theoryof three-dimensional
place for our
In
the
commentaries.28
commentators
of
general,
English
group English
did not modifythe basic elementsof this theory.However, theygave a
of thistheory,fromwhichalso the ontological
moreextensivepresentation
in
it
came
out moreexplicitly.
involved
Thus, it can be suggested
problems
in
the OxfordFacultyof
thatthe discussionson three-dimensional
place
of his
Artscontributedto make Bacon himselfaware of the difficulties
altere.
own view on thistopic in the Questiones
Bacon refersto some Englishexponentof the theoryof threeCertainly,
naturalium
dimensionalplace in the firstbook of his Communia
, when he
raisesthe question:
sensein addition
... it is askedwhatis required
to a
byplacetakenin thestrict
a third
Andfirst
itis askedwhether
a depth,
surface.
is required,
dimension,
namely,
as somewant.Fortheysaythat(i) placeis a surface,
notonlyinsofar
as thissura distance
butinsofar
as it alsohasactually
its
facesurrounds
between
intervening
in itsownright,
but
sides;(ii)however,
placedoesnothavethisdistance
opposite
invirtue
ofthelocated
else
body;andthat(iii)thedepthofplaceis notsomething
. . ,29
from
thedepthofthebody.
Bacon adds some shortargumentspresentedby the exponentsof this
but, fromhis report,it is not easy to establishwhetherhe
position,30
in the quorefersto some specificcommentator.In fact,points(i)-(ii)-(iii)
tationabove can be foundin a numberof Englishcommentariesof the
years 1250-1270s. Indeed, points(i) and (ii) reflectverywell even Bacon's
own view in the Questiones
altere.As to point (iii), it correspondsto the
version
of
the
strong
principleof the dependence of the depth of place
on thatof the located body, accordingto whichthe dependencein question impliesthat the depth of place is reallythe same as the depth of
the located body. In the precedingparagraphwe have seen that point
(iii) does not seem to be adopted by Bacon himself.Instead, it is stated
28Bacon'sQuestiones
altere
arequotedin theanonymous
contained
in ms.
commentary
Comunale
andin thecommentary
Siena,Biblioteca
L.III.21,ff.lra-92ra
degliIntronati,
in ms.Cambridge,
ofClifford
contained
Peterhouse,
157,I, ff.43ra-104va.
byWilliam
The quotations
thatwe havefounddo notconcern,
thedoctrine
of threehowever,
dimensional
place.
29Communia
naturalium
, I, pars3, ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 194,lin.35-195,lin.7: "...
ad locum,
dictum.
Et primoqueritur;
queritur,
quidultrasuperficiem
requiritur
proprie
an aliquaprofunditas,
dicunt
uttercia
secundum
dimensio,
quodaliquivolunt;
requiratur,
hecsuperficies
enimquodlocusestnontantum
setin quantum
circumdans,
superficies
habetactualem
inter
hanctamen
distanciam
non
distanciam
permedium
partes
oppositas;
..."
habeta se; seta locato,
etquodprofundum
locinonestaliuda profundo
corporis.
30Ibid.,195,lin.7-24.

19:09:31 PM

170

CECILIATRIFOGLI

who, on the otherhand, were not always

by some Englishcommentaries,
able to keep it consistently.
For instance,while supportingofficially
point
(iii), they also claimed that the subject of place is the containingbody
and not the located one; but this implies that the depth of place too
inheresin the containingbody, whereasit is clear that the depth of the
located body does not. This kind of ontologicalproblemsare addressed
by Bacon in his refutationof the theoryof three-dimensional
place. In
of
the
the
this
dismissing
argumentspresentedby
exponent
theory,he
writes:
these
arenotvalidandalsotheposition
isnottrue,
Therefore
itself
namely
arguments
thataccording
towhich
thesides
dimension,
i.e.,a depthbetween
placehasa third
that(a) thereis no distance
ofa void
ofthecontaining
body.(I) Forit is evident
a distance
ofthelocating
is a
(b)neither
body,which
space,as ithasbeenproved,
its
dimension
ofthisbody,becausenothing
to thisbodyexists
between
belonging
elseapartfrom
thelocated
thisdistance
sides,(c) neither
anything
body.Therefore,
is thedimension
ofthelocated
notofthelocated
body.(II) Yet,placeis an accident
ofthelocatedbody;therefore,
the
bodyandis nothing
body,butofthelocating
dimension
ofthelocated
toplace.31
bodyis notplaceneither
belonging
something
In part (I) of thispassage Bacon considersthreepossiblecandidatesfor
the depth of place: (a) an incorporealdimension;(b) a dimensionof the
containingbody; (c) a dimensionof the located body. FollowingAristode's
, he rules out (a). But also (b) can be
ontologyof extensionin the Physics
ruled
the
since
out,
immediately
containingbody cannotbe extendedalso
in theregioninsideitsconcavesurface.Therefore,only(c) is left.However,
as it is pointedout in part (II), (c) cannot be reconciledwiththe assumption thatplace is somethingelse fromthe located body and in particular
that it does not inherein the located body as in its subject.
It can be remarkedthat,once (c) is accepted, the only possible way
to make consistentthe ontologicalstatusof three-dimensional
place is to
adopt the two-subjectstheoryof place. As a matterof fact,this theory
was much discussedby the Englishcommentators;
however,it was also
We
know
at
one
generallyrejected.
presentonly
major exception,namely,
Geoffreyof Aspall, masterof Artsin Oxfordin the years 1260s. Aspall
maintainedthatthe two elementsof the compositequantitativestructure
of place have two different
subjects,the containingbody being the sub-

31Ibid.,195,lin.24-33:"Raciones
nonvalent,
necipsaposicioin se estvera,
igitur
inter
latera
dimensionem,
scilicet,
continentis,
quodlocushabettertiam
profunditatem
quia
constat
nullaestvacuispacii,utprobatum
est,neccorporis
locantis,
quoddistancia
que
sitejusdimensio,
laterasuanecaliquidnisicorpus
locatum;
quianichil
ejusestinter
ergo,
hecdistancia
estdimensio
locatosetlocati
locati;setlocusnonaccidit
corporis
corpori
etnichil
estipsius
locatinonestlocusnecaliquidloci."
locati,
[prolocanti),
ergodimensio

19:09:31 PM

OF PLAGE
BACONANDARISTOTLE'S
DOCTRINE

171

ject forthe longitudeand the latitudeof place and the located body for
its depth.32However, in this way place is deprived of any ontological
unity,being the aggregateof the limitof the containingbody and of the
depthof the located body. Thus the reluctancyof the Englishcommentatorsto accept the two-subjects
theoryof place appears veryreasonable.
altereBacon too rejectedthis theory.
We recall that in the Questiones
that
he
also
assumed
the three-dimensional
view of place
Yet,
implicitly
was not committedto it. In fact,as it seems,at thattimehe had in mind
a longerlistof candidatesforthe depth of place, which included also a
depthinheringin the containingbody,but spatiallyexternalto it. There
is litde doubt that the absence of such a candidate in the list given in
naturalium
the passage quoted above fromthe Communia
showsthatBacon
developeda much more lucid view of the ontologicalaspectsinvolvedin
the theoryof three-dimensional
place. This led him to reject radically
this theoryby denyingits basic assumption,namely the existenceof a
thirddimensionof place.
naturalium
one can stillfind some echo of this
Yet, in the Communia
between
theory.For instance,in dealingwiththeproblemof the difference
a
and
he
writes:
surface,
place
I say,therefore,
ifthelimit
ofthelocating
in itself,
insofar
that,
bodyis considered
as itlimits
thelocating
Butifthatlimit
body,thenitis a surface,
properly
speaking.
is regarded
as something
thenitis concave.
Ifitis regarded
capableofcontaining,
as something
which
thenitstarts
tobecome
a place,butmuststill
contains,
actually
be completed
tothespaceordepth
between
bytwoconditions,
namely,
bya respect
thesidesofthecontaining
to thelimits
oftheuniverse.33
bodyandbya respect
This passage is parallel to that fromthe Questiones
altere
, where Bacon
that
the
limit
surface
which
the
of
the
argued
represents
containingbody
32Geoffrey
ofAspall,Questiones
Merton
IV, ms.Oxford,
272,
super
Physicam,
College,
f.112rb,
lin.62-va,
lin.4: "Dicendum
locumdupliciter.
Et loquamur
quodestconsiderare
de locoinferiorum.
extracontinens
etambiens
(i)Autsecundum
quodestquiddam
ipsum
utsecundum
continentis
ex principiis
eius.Et
extra,
quodestterminus
corporis
egrediens
sicestin locante
utin subjecto,
et sicvultauctorSexPrincipiorum
quodsitin continente,
utestextracontinens,
setutesthabitus
(ii)Autnonsolum
locato,
quidamadquisitus
profundans
se usquein centrum
ut quodammodo
mensura
intra,
corporis
quia partesloci
nonsubdimensione
sedsubdimensione
correspondent
partibus
corporis
propria,
corporis
locati.
Etsicestinlocatoutinsubjecto."
On Aspall's
onAristode's
as commentator
activity
seeespecially
E. Macrae,Geoffrey
Commentaries
onAristotle
works,
, in: Mediaeval
ofAspall's
andRenaissance
6 (1968),94-134.
Studies,
33Communia
naturalium
n. 3), 183,lin.4-10:"Dico,ergo,quod
, I, pars3, ed.cit.(above,
si ultimum
locantis
in se, ut termint
consideretur
et
corpuslocans,sic estsuperficies,
nominatur
Si veroconsideretur
vereetproprie.
illudultimum,
utnatum
estcontinere,
sic
estconcavum:
si veroutactucontinet,
sicincipit
fieri
locus,setcompletur
perduo,sciliad spacium
lateracontinentis,
siveprofundum
inter
et perrespectum
cet,perrespectum
ad terminos
mundi."

19:09:31 PM

172

CECILIATRIFOGLI

mustsatisfythreefurther
in orderto be the place of a body:
requirements
and
containment,immobility
depth.34The firsttwo requirementsare
positedby Bacon also in the passagejust quoted. The capacityof containing is here expressedgeometrically
by concavity.Immobilitycorresponds
to the respect(i.e., distance)whichthe limitof the containingbody has to
the limitsof the universe.Such a correspondenceis based on a peculiar
solutionof the problemof the immobilityof place, which Bacon adopts
both in the Questiones
altereand in the Communia
naturalium
P
consistently
The thirdrequirementtoo, namelydepth,is presentto some extentin the
passage just quoted, but a very importantmodificationhas been introduced here. For "havinga depth" has been replacedby "havinga respect
to a depth." Bacon furtherspecifiesthat the depth in questionis simply
the depthof the body locatedbetweenthe sidesof the container,in agreement with Aristotle'sontologyin the Physics.36
He also insiststhat place
has only a respectto such a depth,but in itselfhas no depth:
itmustbe conceded
thatplaceis related
to thedepthofthe
Therefore,
exclusively
it is notrelated
to thisdepthin sucha waythatthis
body.However,
intervening
to theessence
ofplace,sincein thatcaseplacewouldbe a body.
depthbelongs
tosucha depth
as tosomething
itsessence,
outside
as a relaInstead,
placeis related
is related
tivething
to itsobject,
as thedouble,
forinstance,
is related
to thehalf
andthefather
to theson,without
whomhe cannot
exist.37
As in the Questiones
altere
, in thisargumenttoo we findagain the inference "ifplace had threedimensions,thenit would be a body." Moreover,
in both worksBacon apparentlyuses the same strategy
to block thisinferthat
that
has
a
ence,
is, by specifying
place
depth only accidentallyand
not essentially.However,it is clear that by "accidentally"he means two
altere
, he means
quite distinctthingsin the two works.In the Questiones
that place does have a depth, althoughnot in its own right,but in a
derivativeway, since it receivesit fromthe located body. In the passage
naturalium
, "accidentally"is illustratedexjust quoted fromthe Communia
clusivelywith examples taken fromrelatives.For instance,he poses the
analogy: the depth of the located body is to place as the son is to the

34See abovenote14.
35On thissolution
seethepaperbyR. Woodquotedin note17.
36Communia
naturalium
, I, pars3, ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 183,lin.17-30.
37Ibid.,183,lin.30-184,
lin.2: "Quapropter
concedendum
est,quodlocusnonrespicit
nisiprofundum
settarnen
nonrespicit
illudita,quod
profundum,
corporis
inteijacentis;
hocprofundum
sitde essencia
setrespicit
loci,quia hune(protunc)locusessetcorpus,
illudtanquam
ut
suumobjectum,
sicutrelativum
aliquidextrasuamessenciam,
respicit
etpaterfilium,
sinequo essenonpotest."
dimidium,
duplum
respicit

19:09:31 PM

BACONANDARISTOTLE'S
DOCTRINE
OF PLACE

173

father.This analogyclearlyrulesout thatdepthcan belong to place even

in a derivativesense. But thenone mightask whyBacon in the Communia
maintainsthat place has also a respect to the depth of the
naturalium
located body,whose nature,on the otherhand, remainsratherobscure.
One implicitreason is that,in insistingthatplace is somehow relatedto
a thirddimension,he triesto reduce the contrastwith his view in the
altere.However, he gives also an explicitreason, which is the
Questiones
alterein connectionwiththe requiresame as thatfoundin the Questiones
mentof the depthof place,38namely,thata relationof place to the depth
of the located body is requiredby Aristotle'saccount of the continuity
of
in
.39
the
the
As
we
remarked
at
of
this
Categories
place
beginning
paper,
Aristotle's
shorttreatment
is the major source of
of place in the Categories
that also
the theoryof three-dimensional
place. Thus, it is not surprising
in the Communia
naturalium
Bacon resortsto Aristotle'sview in the Categories
in connectionwith the requirementof place of having a respectto the
depthof the located body. However,even withoutmentioningthe details
of his explanation,it should be clear that his attemptto save Aristotle's
account of the continuity
of place in the Categories
by means of a notion
of place as two dimensionalquantityhavingjust a relationto the depth
of the located body could hardlybe successful.For in Aristotle'saccount
each part of the located body occupies a correspondingpart of place,
whichaccordinglymusthave also a thirddimension.Bacon himselfis at
least partiallyaware that his "weakened" notion of "three-dimensional"
naturalium
cannotbe reconciledwithAristotle'sview
place in the Communia
in the Categories.
For instance,thereAristotlealso impliesthatplace defines
a speciesof quantitydistinctfroma surface.On the otherhand, Bacon's
notion of place in the Communia
naturalium
definesthe same species of
of
a
it
has
since
no
surface,
quantity
quantitativepropertieswhich distinguishesit froma surface.In fact,"having a respectto the depth of
the located body," unlike "having a depth," is not at all a quantitative
but a relation.This failureis acknowledgedby Bacon. Indeed,
property,
the failureof a similarattemptwas acknowledgedby him in the Questiones
38See abovenote19.
39Communia
naturalium,
t I, pars3, ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 183,lin. 10-19:"Quodvero
habeatrespectum
necessario
ad spatium
et profundum
interlateracontinentis,
patetper
dicitin Predicaments
ad eundem
terhoc,quodAristoteles
, quodparteslocicopulantur
minm
ad quern
sueprofunditatis
setpartes
locati,
copulantur
corporis
partes
copulantur
ad superficiem,
inter
ad eanqueestymaginanda
partes
ejus;ergo,partes
ejuscopulantur
demsuperficiem.
habetprofundum
velrespicit
de
contenti,
Ergolocusnecessario
corporis
necessitate
essencialiter
et necessario
ad illud
seuquodhabetrespectum
illius,
profundum
profundum."

19:09:31 PM

174

CECILIATRIFOGLI

alteretoo.40But this time,instead of adding a thirddimensionto place,

:
he decides to dismissAristotle'sclaim in the Categories
whenin theCategories
Aristotle
ofquantity,
However,
positsthatplaceis a species
inessence
a surface,
different
from
hedoesnotpositplaceas a newspecies
butonly
extrinsic
tothelocated
invirtue
Andsinceplaceis a quantity
and
ofa respect.
thing,
a line,a surface
anda bodyare,andsince,on theother
notintrinsic,
as,instead,
intheLogical
works
hespeaks
thisdifference
, where
hand,hehadtotakeintoaccount
he alsolistsplace<amongthespecies
ofquantity>
and
therefore
there
superficially,
a surface.
he
itfrom
Buthe doesnotdo itin theMetaphysics
,41where
distinguishes
works
he says
therealtruth,
norin theNatural
moreclosely
, where
following
speaks
ofthecontaining
thatplaceis thelimit
bodyandthisis a surface.42
This passage shows that Bacon has finallybecome aware of the fact
of place as a species
viewson the classifications
thatAristotle'sconflicting
in
and in
on
and
the
one
of quantityin the Categories
hand,
,
Metaphysics
reconciled.
the
other
cannot
be
on
the Physics
hand,
,
strictlyspeaking
However, he also establisheswhich of them is the true one. This is the
and of the Physics
viewof theMetaphysics
, sinceonlyin theseworksAristotle
he proceeds
focusseson the truenatureof things,whereasin the Categories
which
a
distinctions
rathersuperficially,
deeper investigation
introducing
shows to be devoid of a firmground.
It can be remarkedthat the negative attitudetowards the truthof
Aristode'sviews in the Categories
, when these are in conflictwith those
is alreadypresentin Averroes43
foundin otherpartsof the Corpus
aristotelicum,
and is much widespreadin the later exegeticaltradition.In connection
with the doctrineof place, in particular,Bacon's dismissalof Aristode's
in the passage quoted above is veryimportant.
account in the Categories
For it willbe proposedover and over,in different
formulations,
especially
40See above158-60.
41Baconrefers
inlisting
of
V inwhich
thespecies
Aristode
toa passageofMetaphysics
See Aristode,
omits
, V, 1020a7-32.
Metaphysics
quantity
place.
42Communia
I, pars3, ed. cit.(above,n. 3), 184,lin.23-32:"Quodautem
naturalium)
in Predicamentis
Aristoteles
, nonponitnovam
speciem
quantitatis
ponitlocumessespeciem
inrespectu.
Etquiaextrnseca
a superficie,
seddistinctam
distinctam
quanttas
peressenciam
debuit
etcorpus
sicutlineasuperficies
estreilocate,
nonintrinseca,
(ethancdistinccionem
et
et ideoconnumerat
in Logicalibus)
nisi(proubi)superficialer
notare
locum,
loquitur),
veriin
in
non
ubi
a
set
fecit
hoc,
,
Metaphisica
profundo
loquitur
magis
distinguit
superficie;
ethocestsuperficies."
necinNaturalibus
continentis,
tatis,
, ubidicitquodlocusestultimum
43Forinstance,
ofquanthespecies
intheCategories
Aristotle
doesnotlistmotion
among
innote41. In thisconVmentioned
in thepassageofMetaphysics
as he doesinstead
tity,
the"famous"
Aristode
listssimply
remarks
thatin theCategories
nection
Averroes
species
Averrois
vol.VIII,Aristotelis
See Aristotelis
cum
ofquantity.
Commentants,
MetaphysicoOpera
amMain1962),t.c.18,
Frankfurt
rumlibri
XIIII,V, Venetiis
apudlunetas1562(reprint
f. 125vaI-vbK.

19:09:31 PM

BACONANDARISTOTLE'S
DOCTRINE
OF PLAGE

175

In fact,althoughargumentstakenfrom
commentators.
by XlVth-century
the Categories
continuedto be proposed among the counter-arguments
of
the question"Whetherplace is a surface,"it became a somewhatstandard practiceto dismissthem quicklyon the groundthat Aristotlein the
no relevantattempts
does notsay reallythetruth,and accordingly
Categories
were made to introducea thirddimensionof place.44
In conclusion,althoughin the Communia
naturalium
thereare stilltraces
of Bacon's earliertheoryof three-dimensional
place, it is also indicated
the exegeticaltool withwhichin the later traditionthe rise of thistheory
will be prevented.Bacon himselfhas been, if not the creator,certainly
the most authoritative
exponentof this theory,but this seems to have
an
with
his
Communia
naturalium.
to
end
come
Conclusion
In this paper it has been pointed out that there is an evolutionin
Bacon's view of the quantitativestructureof place. In the Questiones
prime
on the Physics
Bacon assumes that place is a two-dimensional
extension,
altere
, he mainbeing the surfaceof a containingbody. In the Questiones
tainsthatplace has also a depth,in virtueof which it "immersesitself"
inside the located body. Finally,in his later work Communia
naturalium
,
Bacon apparentlyreturnsto his old view of place as two-dimensional
extension,but he also insiststhat place is somehow related to a depth.
It has been suggestedthat this evolutionsubstantiallyreflectsdifferent
attitudestowards the exegetical problem which arises fromAristotle's
viewsof place in the Categories
and in the Physics.
For, although
conflicting
Aristotle'sofficialpositionis that of the Physics
, in which place is defined
as the surfaceof a body,the idea thatplace is a three-dimensional
extension is certainlyimpliedby his shortaccount in the Categories.
This idea
is takenseriouslyby Bacon in his Questiones
altere.
Startingfromit, he tries
to construct
a notionof three-dimensional
place whichcombinesthepropertiesof the twoAristotelian
notionsof place. In particular,Bacon's threedimensionalplace is somethingwhich at the same time contains the
located body, as the place of the Physics
, and is occupied by it, as the
of
the
This
place
Categories. combinationis veryappealing,but it involves

44Thistendency
hasbeenpointed
inPlaceandSpace
inMedieval
outbyE. Grant
Physical
, 138.
Thought

19:09:31 PM

176

CECILIATRIFOGLI

a major ontologicalproblem:three-dimensional
place seems to be committedto the positionof incorporealspace, whichis, on the otherhand,
naturalium
deniedbothby Aristotleand Bacon. By thetimeof his Communia
,
Bacon has become fullyaware of thisontologicalproblemand is finally
led to reject the theoryof three-dimensional
place. We have found no
trace of this theoryin the commentarieson the PhysicsafterBacon's
naturalium
Communia
(i.e., afterca. 1270), in which Aristotle'snotion of
extensionis never seriouslyquestioned. Yet,
as
two-dimensional
place
Bacon's acceptanceof the three-dimensional
theoryofplace in the Questiones
.
altere
is not an isolatedcase in the medievaltraditionof Aristode'sPhysics
In fact, this theoryenjoyed a great fortunein the Faculty of Arts of
Oxford of the years 1250-1270 and Bacon himselfseems to have subto itsfortune.Thus, Bacon's positionin the Questiones
contributed
stantially
altere
, besides being of great theoreticalinterest,cannot be neglectedin
the historyof the receptionof Aristotle'sdoctrineof place.
ofPisa
University
Italy

19:09:31 PM

on Physics II-IV ofMS Philadelphia

TheAnonymous
, Free
Questions
*
53
Lewis
and
Bacon
,
(ff.71ra-85rb)
Europ.
Library
Roger
SILVIA DONATI

1. Introduction
The manuscript
Philadelphia,Free Libr.,Lewis Europ. 53, once thought
to have belongedto FrancescoPetrarca,has recentlybeen broughtto the
attentionof the historiansof medievalphilosophyby James Long.1 The
witnessto the receptionof Aristotle'snatural
manuscriptis an interesting
science in the Latin world and includes commentarieson most of the
Aristotelian
and pseudo-Aristotelian
librinaturales:
Meteora
Aristotle's
(twice),
De memoria
et reminiscentia
et brevitate
, De longitudine
(twice),De somnoet vigilia
vitae
De generatione
etcorruptione
, De sensuetsensato,
, Nicholasof
(twice),Physics
Damascus's De vegetabilibus
etplantisand Qust b. Lq's De differentia
spiritus
etanimae.2
The commentaryon the De plantisand the second commentary
* Theresearch
on medieval
Latincommentaries
on thePhysics
on which
thispaperis
basedissupported
I wishtothank
Heinrich
bytheDeutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft
(Bonn).
ofCologne)
forshowing
mehistranscription
ofthe
(Thomas-Institut,
Riggert
University
onthePhysics
ofClifford,
aboutwhich
a dissertation,
heiswriting
commentary
byWilliam
andDr.Michael
Gorman
forrevising
Boston,
(Boston
College,
Massachusetts)
myEnglish.
1 Cf.R.J.
andJohn
Some
Sackuille:
onPhiladelphia
Free
Notes
ofBucfield
Long,Adam
Library
MS Lewis
45 (1989-1990),
53, in:Traditio,
364-367.
On thismanuscript
cf.also
European
S. De Ricci- W.J.Wilson,
Census
andRenaissance
inTheUnited
States
ofMedieval
Manuscripts
andCanada
toDe Ricci,themanuscript
datesfrom
, NewYork19612,II, 2056.According
themiddle
ofthefourteenth
and is ofItalianorigin.
In fact,thethreehands
century
which
havecopiedrespectively:
29vb-36rb,
65ra-65va,
(1) ff.lra-14vb,
(3) ff.
(2) ff.36rb-64ra,
seemto be Italian.As to thedate,themanuscript
is probably
notlaterthan
65vb-70vb,
early
fourteenth-century.
2 For
thetwelve
commentaries
in MS LewisEurop.53,cf.respectively:
(1)
preserved
: ms.cit.,ff.lra-29vb;
Meteora
Meteora
De
, ms.cit.,ff.29vb-34rb;
Super
(2) Super
(3) Super
memoria
etreminiscentia
: ms.cit.,ff.34rb-36rb;
De memoria
etreminiscentia
: ms.cit.,
(4) Super
ff.36rb-38ra;
De somno
etvigilia
: ms.cit.,ff.38rb-41va;
De vegetalibus
et
(5) Super
(6) Super
: ms.cit.,ff.42ra-49rb;
De differentia
etanimae
: ms.cit.,ff.49va-51ra;
plantis
(7) Super
spiritus
De longitudine
etbrevitate
vitae:
ms.cit.,ff.51ra-52r;
etsensato:
De sensu
ms.
(8) Super
(9) Super
De generatione
etcorruptione:
ms.cit.,ff.57vb-64ra;
cit.,ff.52r-57vb;
(10) Super
(11) Super
Degeneratione
etcorruptione:
ms.cit.,ff.65ra-70vb;
ms.cit.,ff.71ra-85rb.
The
Super
Physicam:
ofsomeofthesereferences
is duetothefactthat,
of
incompleteness
owingtoa mistake
thephotographer,
somefolios
in mycopyofMS LewisEurop.53.
seemto be missing
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,2

19:09:44 PM

178

SILVIADONATI

are ascribedin this manuscriptto the Englishmason the De generatione

terJohn of Sackville,3while the other treatisesin the codex are anonymous. The ascriptionof the commentaryon the De plantisto John of
Sackvillehas been questionedby Long, who has restoredthisworkalong
and the De
with the anonymous commentarieson the De generatione
the famousEnglishmasterwho around the
sensuto Adam of Buckfield,4
middle of the thirteenth
centurycommentedon almostthe whole Corpus
.5 Furtherinvestigationinto the contentsof the manuscripthas
Vetustius
then confirmedits associationwithAdam of Buckfieldor his school: the
on the
as well as the commentaries
on the De memoria
second commentary
vitae6seem to be identical
et breuitate
De differentia
and the De longitudine
to the commentarieson the same Aristotelianand pseudo-Aristotelian
treatisesascribed to "magisterAdam Anglicus" in MS Lisboa, B.N.,
Alcobaa 382 and normallyregisteredas Buckfielsin moderninventories of his works.7
In thisarticle,whichis part of a more comprehensiveresearchproject
1 wishto present
in the thirteenth
on the receptionof the Physics
century,8
3 Cf.MS LewisEurop.53,ff.42r,uppermargin,
See also,Long,
65r,uppermargin.
be
should
Adam
probably
(at 364,366,n. 18 and 367,n. 21 "parisien(sem)"
ofBuckfield
in
ofJohnofSackville,
Forthebiography
of:"parisiensis").
readinstead
M.A.,possibly
A
of Parisin 1256,cf.A.B. Emden,
Oxford,
by 1248,and Rectorof theUniversity
toA.D.1500, Oxford
theUniversity
1957-1959,
III, 1661-2.
ofOxford
Biographical
Register
of
4 Cf.Long,Adam
ofBucldield.
5Cf.Ch.H. Lohr,
A-F,in:Traditio,
23 (1967),
Commentaries.
Authors
Medieval
Latin
Aristotle
and
of
Buckfield
Adam
on
further
information
For
317-23.
313-413,
bibliographical
esp.
dellaTranslatio
deicommentatori
hisworks,
cf.S. Donati,Physica
I, 1: L'interpretazione
inglesi
diAverro
21 (1995),75-255,
delcommento
e la lororecezione
Vetus
, in:Medioevo,
esp.80-3,
dellasuascuola
anonimo
e uncommento
diBocfeld
allaFisicadiAdamo
,
86-8;Ead.,Il commento
9 (1998),in press.
filosofica
e studisullatradizione
in:Documenti
medievale,
6 It is noteworthy
as wellas
thatin MS LewisEurop.53, thesethreecommentaries,
restored
De sensu
andDe generatione
on Deplantis,
thecommentaries
byLongto Adamof
seemtohave
thecodicological
a unity
alsofrom
form
Buckfield,
pointofview,sincethey
combeencopiedbythesamehand.Thishandseemsalsotohavecopiedtheanonymous
unknown.
is completely
etvigilia
on De somno
however,
, whoseorigin,
mentary
7 Cf.Donati,Physica
alsoother
I, /,80-81,n. 14,where
copiesofthesecommentaries
etbreandDe longitudine
onDe memoria
thecommentaries
arelisted.
, De differentia
Although
as copiesofBuckfiels
in MS Alcobaa382 arenormally
vitate
vitae
contained
regarded
their
text
Latin
Aristotle
Commentaries
commentaries
, 317-23),
Lohr,Medieval
(cf.,forinstance,
ofBuckfield
commentaries
from
thetextoftheother
differs
(cf.Donati,
Physica
manuscripts
1, 1, 80-81,n. 14).
8 Fora short
withCecilia
outtogether
whichI am carrying
outline
ofthisresearch,
with
concerned
so farhasbeenmainly
in thisjournal),
andwhich
(seeherarticle
Trifogli
onAristotle's
Commentaries
C. Trifogli,
S. Donati,
cf.F. Del Punta,
commentaries,
early
English
the
Middle
inBritain
ca.1250-1270
inBritain,
, ed.J.Marenbon,
, in:Aristotle
Ages
during
Physics
cf.the
ofthecommentaries
Turnhout
examined,
1996,265-83.Fora detailed
description
studies
quotedbelow,n. 11.

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

179

into the commentaryon the Physics

the resultsof a firstinvestigation
preservedin MS Lewis Europ. 53, an anonymouscollectionof questionson
Books I-IV of the Aristoteliantreatise.Despite the lack of externalevidence, thisinvestigationmainlyfocusedon the questionson Book II
has broughtto lighta close connectionbetween the Questions of MS
Lewis Europ. 53 and the early English exegeticaltradition(beforeca.
- hitherto
resemblance
bears a striking
1270): the anonymouscommentary
- to
unnoticedby scholars
Roger Bacon's Questions on Phys.I-VIII. As
is well-known,the Questions on Phys.I-VIII, which representBacon's
second commentaryon the Physics
,9 probablyoriginate,along with the
the
commentaries
otherAristotelian
by
Englishmaster,fromlecturesgiven
at
the
when he was teaching
Facultyof Arts of Paris in the 1240s.10A
comprehensivesurveyof unpublishedsources11has shown that Bacon's
on Phys.I-VIII is not withoutinfluencein the later exegeticommentary
cal tradition:a clear example of such influence,namelythe commentary
by the EnglishmanWilliam of Clifford,M.A. by 1265, will be discussed
in thisarticle.12
The relationbetweenBacon's Questions and the anony9 The Questions
I-VIIIareantedated
on Phys.
ofquestions
.
on Phys
bya collection
I-IV(published
in:Rogeri
BaconiQuestiones
libros
Aristotelis
, ed.F.M.
supra
physicorum
quatuor
- R. Steele,
Delorme
in: Opera
hactenus
indita
Baconi
, fase.VIII, Oxonii1928).
Rogeri
10Cf.St.C. Easton,
Bacon
andHisSearch
Science
, NewYork1952,
fora Universal
Roger
Bacon's
Oxford
59-66;D.C. Lindberg,
1983,xvi-xvii;
ofNature,
Roger
Philosophy
RogerBacon,
withintr.andnotesbyTh. S. Maloney,
, ed. andtrans,
ofthestudy
Compendium
oftheology
Leiden/New
York/Kobenhavn/Kln
1988,3; cf.alsobelow,n. 38. ForBacon'sacademicdevelopment
cf.alsoSt.J.Williams,
Bacon
andHisEdition
Roger
ofthePseudo-Aristotelian
69 (1994),57-73.
Secretum
Secretorum
, in:Speculum,
11 Thescopeofthisinvestigation
extends
toovertencommentaries
onthePhysics
belongFora detailed
oftheworks
tradition
(ca. 1250-1270).
ingtotheearlyEnglish
description
allaFisicanelXIII secolo.
I: Commenti
cf.S. Donati,Perlo studio
deicommenti
di
examined,
sullatradizione
anni1250-1270
e studi
filosofica
ca.,in:Documenti
probabile
origine
degli
inglese
2 (1991),361-441(= Intr.and 1-5),ibid.,4 (1993),25-133(= 6-9and
medievale,
allaFisica
diAdamo
diBocfeld'
C. Trifogli,
I37, 86-98;Ead.,Il commento
App.);Ead.,Physica
Le questioni
III dellaFisicainalcuni
intorno
allamet
sullibro
commenti
delsec.XIII, in:
inglesi
e studisullatradizione
Documenti
filosofica
2 (1991),443-501,
medievale,
esp.443-66;
sullibro
IV dellaFisicainalcuni
commenti
intorno
allamet
delsec.XIII,
Ead.,Lequestioni
inglesi
ibid.,7 (1996),39-114.
12ForClifford's
A Biographical
cf.Emden,
, III, 2163.Forother
Register
biography,
possible
witnesses
to theinfluence
ofRogerBacon'sQuestions
within
theearlyEnglish
tradition,
cf.C. Trifogli,
Bacon
andAristotle's
Doctrine
Formoregeneral
, in thisjournal.
Roger
ofPlace
affinities
commentators
ofthePhysics
doctrinal
between
,
English
RogerBaconandtheearly
ineinigen
cf.alsoS. Donati,
Materie
und
rumliche
englischen
urlgedruckten
Physikkommentaren
Ausdehnung
imMittelalter
ausderZeitvonetwa1250-1270
, in:RaumundRaumvorstellungen
, ed. A. Speer,
Mediaevalia
aboutthesources
ofRoger
(Miscellanea
25),inpress.Forsomeinformation
Bacon'sQuestions
on Phys.
atParisbefore
1240,
I-VIII,cf.R. Wood,Richard
Rufus:
Physics
in:Documenti
e studisullatradizione
5 (1994),87-127.
filosofica
medievale,

19:09:44 PM

180

SILVIADONATI

of MS Lewis Europ. 53, however,goes farbeyondthe

mous commentary
observedin Clifford'swork,to such an extentthat
occasionilisimilarity
the questionof the authorshipof the anonymouscommentary
legitimately
arises:13as I hope the followinganalysiswill show, in the lightof the
available evidence,the hypothesisthatthe anonymouscommentary
repreversionof Bacon's Questions,whileby no meansdefinitely
sentsa different
certainlyappears to
proved and obviouslyneeding furtherinvestigation,
deservesome consideration.The relationshipbetweenthe Questions on
Phys.II-IV of MS. Lewis Europ. 53 and Bacon's Questionson Phys.I-VIII
will thus be my main concern.In additionto the textualanalysisin the
evidencewill be givenin an appendix
body of the article,supplementary
containinga completelist of the questionsdiscussedin the anonymous
commentaryalong withthe referenceto Bacon's corresponding
questions.
For the sake of clarity,the followingsigla will be used in thisstudy:
BaconiQuestiones
libros
octo
Aristotelis
(ed.F.M.Delorme
1) R = Rogeri
Physicorum
supra
Baconi
fase.
R. Steele,
in:Opera
hactenus
inedita
Oxonii
,
XIII,
Rogeri
1935).
Aristotelis
de Clifford,
librum
, I-V,4,
2) CI = Guillelmus
Compilationes
super
Physicorum
Peterhouse,
157,I, ff.43ra-104va.
VII; ms.Cambridge,
FreeLibr.,
, II-IV;ms.Philadelphia,
Quaestiones
3) Ph= Anonymus,
super
Physicam
LewisEurop.53,ff.71ra-85rb.14
on Phys.I-V1I1 (- R) in the
2. The reception
ofRogerBacon'sQuestions
Williamof Clifford
(- CI)
Englishtradition:
I willdiscussthe relationbetweenRoger Bacon's
By way of introduction
on the Physicsby William
Questionson Phys.I-VIII and the commentary
of Clifford,
which,as remarkedabove, providesa clear exampleof Bacon's
13De Ricci'sattribution
onthePhysics
toJohn"Britton"
oftheanonymous
commentary
of
of"Driton"
theEnglish
or "drytown,"
to Longa corruption
transposition
(according
cf.De Ricci,Census
seemstobe entirely
without
, II, 2056;Long,
foundation;
"Siccavilla")
Adam
, 365.
ofBucfield
14Although
in Delorme's
arethequestions
edition
norin thetwomanuscripts
neither
in thepresent
in thecommentaries
discussed
numbered,
study
theyhavebeennumbered
ofBacon's
in orderto simplify
In thebodyofthearticle
thequestions
thereferences.
be
andoftheanonymous
ofMS LewisEurop.53 willnormally
commentary
commentary
in thelistofthe
givenin theAppendix,
quotedonlybymeansofthereference-number
wherefuller
edition
andto MS LewisEurop.53 are
references
to Delorme's
questions,
doesnotappearsatistobe found.
Thetextoftheedition
ofBacon'sQuestions
sometimes
in MS Amiens,
a checkon thepassages
B.M.,406- the
factory;
quotedin thisarticle
Delorme's
to
Bacon's
has
confirmed
known
witness
only
manuscript
Questions
Roger
cf.below,part4).
ofthetextoftheAmiens
(onthepoorquality
manuscript,
readings
in brackets.
Emendations
havebeensuggested
on occasion

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

181

influencewithinthe early English tradition.Unlike most early English

commentarieson the Physics
, Clifford'scommentaryincludes a detailed
explanationof the Aristoteliantextin additionto questionson doctrinal
As he himselftestifies
at
and exegetical issues connectedwith the text.15
the beginningof the work,16Cliffordclearlyrelies on the earlierexegesis when he comes to his commentary.In the explanationof the text,his
most importantsource is probablyrepresentedby Adam of Buckfield's
literalcommentary,
which,in fact,seems to have been quite influential
As to the questions,Clifford'scomamong earlyEnglishcommentators.17
affinities
with
several
worksof Englishorigindating
shows
strong
mentary
In
beforeapproximately1270.18 particular,the questionson Books I-II
are clearlyrelated to Bacon's Questions. The main pieces of evidence
to Bacon can be summedup in the followingthreepoints.
linkingClifford
in the themesdiscussedby the two
There
are
noticeablesimilarities
(i)
in some sectionsof the commentariesthe set of questions
commentators:
raisedby Bacon and Cliffordis almostthe same, and theyare nearlyin
the same order.Moreover,thereare severalquestionswhich,withinthe
earlyEnglishtraditionhere examined,seem to be common only to these
two commentaries.19
The followingtable,listingthe titlesof the questions
of Phys.II, 3, givesan examincludedin Bacon's and Clifford's
treatment
ple of such similarities:
PHYS.II, 3
R

hocnomen
causa
Q. 35 Quidsignt
univoce
Q. 36 Ancausadicatur

Gl
sitconsiderare
de causis
Q. 26 Anphysici
(f.58rb,lin.38-46;49-57)
determinando
Q; 27 Cumin libroprimo,
de materia
et forma,
determinavit
Auctor
de privatione,
quaresimulcumhisnon
determinai
de privatione
in hoc secundo
(f.58rb,lin.46-48;lin.57 sgg.)
de omnibus
causis
Q. 28 Ancausadicatur
velnon(f.58va,lin.1-17)
aequivoce

15Fora
ofthiscommentary
cf.Donati,Perlostudio
, 3, 409-21.
16Cf.Cl,description
f.43ra,lin.1-2:"Intendentes
naturalis
scilquandam
philosophiae
partem,
icetlibrum
. . . Physicorum
lin.ms.)exponere,
immo
alioPkysicorum
(scilicet
supra
explicationes
rum
a quibusdam
extrinsecis
dubitationibus
inchoamus."
, primo
explicare
magis
17
Fortheinfluence
ofAdamofBuckfield
onClifford's
andonother
literal
commentaries
ofEnglish
1' 1; Ead.,Il commento
cf.Donati,Physica
allaFisicadiAdamo
diBocfeld.
origin,
18ForClifford's
in thequestions,
sources
cf.Donati,Perlostudio
, 3, 410-412;Ead.,
Le questioni
sullibro
III dellaFisica
I3 7, 180-214;
445-8;Ead.,Le questioni
Physica
Trifogli,
sullibro
IV dellaFisica;
Del Punta,
Commentaries
Donati,Trifogli,
, 274-5.
19Forsomeexamples
inthecommentators'
treatment
ofPhys.
I, 1, cf.Donati,
occurring
I, 7, 240-55.
Physica

19:09:44 PM

182

SILVIADONATI

utrum
perprius,
primoet que Q. 29De quacausadicatur
Q. 37 De qua causadicitur
lin.17-44)
de finevelnon(f.58va,
sitcausanobilior
inter
aliastres
Q; 38 Que sitcausanobilior
et efficientem)
formalem
(si.materialem,
causae
materialis
causematerialis
(f.58^,
Q. 30De proprietate
Q. 39 De proprietate
lin.6)
lin.44-58vb,
lin.
formae
forme
(f.58vb,
Q. 31 De proprietate
Q. 40 De proprietate
illaratioexemplaris
{sal.que 6-31)
Q. 41 Utrum
in anima)
et exemplar
estut paradigma
debetdiciforma
lin.
efficientis
causeefficients
(f.58vvb,
Q. 32De proprietate
Q. 42 De proprietate
31-57)
lin.57
finis
(f.58vb,
Q. 33 De proprietate
sgg-)
esse
necesse
situniuseffectus
Q. 43 Utrum
omnescauseconcausas(i.e.,utrum
plures
an quelibet
ad unicumeffectum
currant
habeatproprium
effectum)
suntomnes
effectus
cuiuslibet
ad effec- Q. 34 Utrum
causarum
Q. 44 De comparatione
vel plures<quamuna>
de hocquoddicitquodunius causaequattuor
tus,etprimo
lin.1-30)
ad (f.59ra,
suntplurescause(i.e.,utrum
effectus
effectum
cause)
plures
requirantur
quemlibet
essecausae
Q. 35 Anduaecausaepossunt
Q. 45 Anunacausasitcausaalterius
lin.30-46)
sibiinvicem
(f.59ra,
essecausaoppositoquodidemestcausa Q. 36 Anidempossit
Q. 46 De eo quoddicit
lin.8)
lin.47-59rb,
rum(f.59ra,
contrariorum
nautaesitcausaperdinautefacit
absentia
peri- Q. 37 Anabsentia
Q; 47 Quomodo
lin.8-18)
navis(f.59rb
tionis
culumnavis
convecausaeefficienti
solum
in aliiscausis(seil,a causa Q. 38 Utrum
Q; 48 Utrum
velnon(f.59rb,
sitidemcausacontrariorum niatessecausaoppositorum
efficiente)
lin.18-34)
et primo Q. 39 De dictiscircaipsosmodoscausacausarum,
Q. 49 De differentiis
rum.DicitAuctor
etparticulare
sintdifferentie
universale
utrum
genere
quodin quolibet
et particucause causaeestcausa. . . universalis
et primoutrum
omnium
causarum,
laris. . . ItemdicitAuctor
sintuniversales
quodinquolibet
causamsimplicausae
est
actu
et
sunt
De
aliis
50
differentiis,
reperire
genere
que
Q.
. . . Itemdicitquodin
. . . Item... deistaproprietate,
que cemet compositam
potentia
causam
. . . Item... de omnigenerecausaeestreperire
et compositum
estsimplex
. . . Itemdicit
inpotentia
inactuetcausam
hacproprietate
perse etperaccidens
quodquaedamestcausaperse et quaedam per accidens(f. 59rb,lin. 34-59va,
lin.26)
et
etappropriata
Q. 51 Ancausasingularis
causain actuponatsuumeffectum
modorum
circaproprietates
sicausauniversalis
sit,utrum Q. 40 De dictis
Q. 52 Utrum,
. . . quod,posita
causae.DicitenimAuctor
sit
effectus
in actu. . .
effectus
hecproprietas
conveniat
(seil. causain actu,ponitur
Q. 53 Utrum
esteffectus
universalis
causa
Item
dicit
omni
quod
effectus)
quodpositacausa,ponatur
etparticularis
universalis
cause
differentie
(f.59va,
particularis
quodcause 26-50)
proprietate
Q. 54 De secunda
etuniesteffectus
<particularis>
particularis
estuniversalis
versalis

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

183

As thistable shows,Bacon and Cliffordraise twentyand fourteenquestionsrespectively

concerningPhys.II, 3, whereAristotlepresentshis fourof causes. Eleven out of the fourteenquestionsraised
fold classification
by Cliffordare also foundin Bacon and are discussedby him in exactly
the same order;in fact,since in two cases separate questionsin Bacon's
=
mergeinto one questionin Clifford's(= R, qq. 49, 50 CI,
commentary
q. 39; R, qq. 51, 52, 54 = CI, q. 40), fourteenof the issues discussedby
As to the questionsby Clifford
Bacon are foundin Clifford's
commentary.
that do not have a counterpartin Bacon's treatmentof Phys.II, 3, two
of them (= CI, qq. 26-27) do have a counterpartin anothersectionof
. II, 7 (= R, qq.
Bacon's commentary,
namelyin his explanationof Phys
of
chance and luck
his
account
76-77),whereAristotle,afterintroducing
in Phys.II, 5-6, resumes
as causes by virtueof concurrence(peraccidens)
the expositionof the theoryof the fourcauses. The only questionintroduced by Cliffordthat is not discussedin Book II of Bacon's commena naturalcompletion
tary,"De proprietatefinis"(= CI, q. 33), constitutes
of Bacon's examinationof Phys.II, 3, since afteranalysingthe concepts
cause (= R, qq. 39-42), Bacon failsto
of material,formaland efficient
the
of finalcause.20
to
notion
the
same
treatment
give
in
found
the contentof the questions:in
affinities
are
also
Obvious
(ii)
severalinstances,corresponding
questionsof Clifford'sand Bacon's commentariesare characterisedby extensiveparallels in the argumentspro
and contra
, theiranswersand the solutionof the questions.Generally,in
theseparallel passages are incorporatedin a more
Clifford's
commentary
whichalso includesoriginalelements;in
structure
complexargumentative
some exceptionalcases, however,the coincidencebetweenthe two works
is almostcomplete.By way of an example,we will considera shortquestion raised by the two authorsin connectionwithAristotle'steleological
account of naturein Phys.II, 8, namelythe questionwhethermonsters
are caused in natureby the corruptionof some intrinsicprinciple.As the
textsquoted below make clear, the commentators'treatmentof thisissue
in lengthand degreeof elabois almostidentical:despiteslightdifferences
solution
introduced
and
the
the
ration, arguments
by the two authorsare

20Asanextensive
tradition
oftheearly
shows,
although
clearly
exegetical
English
survey
areraisedalsoby
Bacon
andClifford
here
almost
all
discussed
taken
by
singly
questions
is notfound
intheglobalarrangement
ofsimilarity
thesamedegree
other
commentators,
is theanonymous
in anyothercommentary
ofthistime.The onlyexception
Questions
ofMS LewisEurop.53 (= Ph;cf.Ph,II, qq. 34-53),
which,
however,
represent
possibly
version
ofBacon'sQuestions
(onthispointcf.below,n. 23).
justanother

19:09:44 PM

184

SILVIADONATI

basicallythe same and theyeven contain some obvious coincidencesin

wording:21
lin.6)
lin.25-33)
R, II, q. 84 (135,lin.33-136,
Cl, II, q. 74 (f.64ra,
innatura
an monstra
accidunt
Queritur
per
alicujus
principii.
corruptionem
suntmate- <QN> Circaquartum
sic:mons<QN> Quodnon:quiaprincipia
arguitur
ria vel formaet componitur
ex hiis(seil. truositas
sedincomacciditin composito;
in illa(pro:ilio?); posito
sahantur
manent
matena
etforma
monstrum);
ergo
, ut patetper
inprimo
Auctorem
quareetc.
huius;
ergomonstruositasnonaccidit
materiae
percorruptionem
- nonpercorrupvel formae.
Et- constat
intionem
aliorum
secundum
principiorum
vultenimquodhocfiat
tentionem
Auctoris;
percorruptionem
spermatis,
quodestprincipiummateriale.
Ergononacciditmonstruositas
alicuius
percorruptionem
principii.
dicitAristoteles
estAuctor.
quodbovi- <QS> Ad oppositum
<QS> Contra:
accidunt
genaet hujusmodi
per corruptionem
intrinseci;
alicujus
quareetc.
principii
<S> Solutio:nospossumus
loquide cor- <S> Et dicendum
potest
quodprincipium
suisubstantiam,
et corrumpi
secundum
autsecundum
substantiam
,
ruptione
principii
dupliciter:
sicnonaccidit
autquan- etsicingeneratione
nonestnecesse
monstri
aliquodmonstrum;
tum
ad suiproportionem
aut accidere
autsecundum
respectu
agentis
corruptionem
principii,
autdiminutum
etitainobe-debitam
, etsiccorrumpitur
proportionem
quodestsuperfluum
prindiens
tuncaccidit
materiale
ingeneratione
est
monstri;
ipsiagenti,
corruptio
que cipium
velmonstri,
etsicloquitur enimmateria
estcausapeccati
et improportionalis
inoboediens
Aristoteles.
suisuperftuitatem
etdiminutionem
.
propter
(iii) In additionto the considerablenumberof passages thatare closely
includesseveralposparallelto Bacon's Questions,Clifford'scommentary
references
to
the
former
for
some
of
Clifford's
sible
work,
frequentillusionsto previouscommentators generallyquoted anonymously
by means
of expressionssuch as "secundumquosdam," "dicitur,""dicuntquidam"
etc.- are perfectly
verifiedby Bacon's commentary.In the followingsectakenfromthe questionI will discusssome examplesof thesereferences
tions on Book II.22
21Thisproblem
inthesameterms
is notdiscussed
belongbyanyofthecommentaries
of
hereexamined
theanonymous
tradition
Questions
ingto theearlyEnglish
apartfrom
MS LewisEurop.53 (= Ph;cf.Ph,II, q. 83; cf.alsobelow,n. 23).Despitethestrong
closerto the
textis slightly
whichlinksBacon'sQuestions
and Ph,Clifford's
similarity
work.
Foranother
andBacon'scomofclosesimilarity
between
Clifford's
former
example
mentaries
taken
from
thequestions
on BookI, cf.Donati,
Perlostudio
3, 411-2,n. 136.
22Whileperfectly
are notverified
thesereferences
verified
by
byBacon'sQuestions,
hereexamined,
tradition
to theearlyEnglish
anyotherofthecommentaries
belonging
theonlyexception
ofMS LewisEurop.53 (= Ph;cf.
commentary
beingtheanonymous

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
QUESTIONS

185

(1) In the questionwhethera particulareffectcan be produced by a

universalcause, Bacon introducesan argumentpro concerningthe case
of spontaneousgenerationof plants and animals fromrottingmaterials:
as the argumentpointsout, when thesespontaneousprocessestake place,
a particulareffectis induced merelyby the action of a universalagent
such as the sun, withoutany co-operationfroma particularagent, i.e.,
in thecase of generation,the seed. Bacon answersthisargumentby stressing that,in additionto the action of the universalagent,thereare also
otherfactorsinvolvedin spontaneousgenerationwhich account for the
productionof particulareffects,for example the different
positionswith
of
to
the
stars
and
the
active
matter
towards
different
respect
potentiality
effects:
desoledicoquodappropriatili-,
set
R,II, q. 54,113,lin.34-114,lin.4: "Adobjectum
autperdiversas
etdiversos
constellationes
etrespecto
<s?>
situs
appropriali
dupliciter:
ad planetas
virtus
solisad hocquodmagisproducatur
hoc
alios,etsicappropriatur
virtus
communis
activam
inmatequamillud;aliomodoappropriatur
perpotentiam
riaexistentem,
estdiversa
. . ."
activa.
putrefacta
quiain materia
potentia
This solutionis reportedby Cliffordin his own treatmentof the same
argument:
lin.44-50:"Adaliuddicendum
caelestis
et
Cl, II, q. 40, f.59va,
quodlicetvirtus
estde se,sitcausauniversalis,
in quantum
educit
tamen,
intelligentiarum,
quantum
hocanimal
efficitur
causaparticularis,
ethocperappropriationem.
magis
quamillud,
autem
haecvirtus
huiceffectui
secundum
Vel
Appropriatur
perconstellationes
quosdam.
forte
huiceffectui
talisvirtus
activam,
appropriatur
perpotentiam
quae transmutat
materiam
intra.
Haec enimpotentia
formam
huiusanimalis
magisconcernit
quam
illius.Secundum
hocanimal,
nonestiamsubratione
causae
igitur
quodproducit
immomagissubratione
causaeparticularis."
universalis,
(2) DiscussingAristotle'sdefinitionof chance as a cause by virtueof
concurrence{peracdens
), Bacon advocatestheview thatin a sense,namely
when considered with respect to the casual effect,chance should be
regardedas the cause perse:
de proprietate
causein se,sic estcasus
R, II, q. 59, 116,lin.20-23:"Loquendo
causaperaccidens;
velde causacollataad suumeffectum,
et sie estcausaperse
."
casualis
respecta

lin.24-31;q. 58,f.73va,
lin.4-7;q. 67,f.73vb,
lin.51-56,forthetext,
Ph,q. 53,f.73rb,
cf.below);
on thispointcf.below,
n. 23.

19:09:44 PM

186

SILVIADONATI

This positionis rejectedby Clifford,

who, in his own treatmentof the
same question,maintainsthat chance can only be viewed as a cause by
virtueof concurrence:
consideratur:
Gl,II, q. 49,f.60vb,lin.49-56:"Adilluddkitur
quodcasusdupliciter
Primomodotantum
dicitur
causa
autincomparatione
ad casuale.
autscilicet
absolute
omniaobiecta
solvi.
mododicitur
causaperse.Etsicvidentur
secundo
peraccidens,
incomSedcontra
. . . Dicoigitur
quodcasusnullomodoestcausaperse,immo
ad casualeestcausaperaccidens."
paratione
(3) Answeringthe questionof how chance and luckfitwithinAristotle's
of causes, Bacon claimsthat,consideredin different
fourfoldclassification
respects,theycan be reduced both to the materialand to the efficient
cause:
videtur,
solum,
R, II, q. 68, 122,lin.9-20:"Quodad materialem
quiacasusetfortunaaccidunt
indeterminatum
quaremateria
principium
quodestmateria;
propter
...
estcausacasuset fortune.
illorum
casusetfortune)
ad causamdupliciter
Solutio:
de relatione
loquipos(seil,
etsicad
ad aliquodgenuscausequodparticipant
sumus:
autquantum
peraccidens,
autquantum
ad
reduci
causeefficientis,
efficientem
debent
quiahabent
proprietatem
et noncujushabent
ad illudcujussunteffectus
per
proprietatem
aliquidtanquam
et sicad materiam
debent
reduci."
accidens,
In his own treatmentof the same problem,afterpresentingthe view
that chance and luck are to be reduced to the efficient
cause, Clifford
solution:
as
an
alternative
the
advocated
Bacon
introduces
by
position
in contrarium
dicendum
Gl,II, q. 62,f.62rb,lin.34-41:"Adprimum
quodistae
Etquia
certum
etdeterminatum.
infinitae
finem
causaedicuntur
quianonintendunt
ideoad solumefficientem
soliusefficientis
fuitintendere
finem
vel nonintendere,
sicutoperans
nontamen
estsicinfinita
sitinfinita,
habent
reduci.
Undelicetmateria
etideononnecesse
illudquodaccidit
velagensnonintendens
persuioperationem;
fuithaecreduci
ad materiam.
: possunt)
reduciad causam
Aliter
dicunt
potest
[pro
quodcasuset fortuna
quidam
autad illamcuiusproautad illamcuiusproprietatem
participant
perse dupliciter:
modoad
secundo
nonparticipant.
Primo
modoad efficientem
reducuntur,
prietatem
et infinitatem."
suiinterminationem
materiam
propter
that
The strongaffinities
betweenClifford'sand Bacon's commentaries
to a close relationship
emergefromthe precedinganalysisclearlytestify
between the two works. This relationshipis most easily explained by
assumingthatClifforduses Bacon's Questionsas a source. The converse
hypothesis,namely that Cliffordis the source of Bacon, can be safely
ruled out not only on the groundsof externalevidence- Clifford,first
recordedas an M.A. in 1265, seems to belong to a later generation
,

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

187

but also on the basis of the probable referencesto Bacon's Questions

On the other hand, if Cliffordis
containedin Clifford'scommentary.23
Bacon's
Questions,this work by no means repreclearlyinfluencedby
sentshis only source. On the contrary,as is indicatedby the complex
frameof relationsthat,as remarkedabove, linksClifford'scommentary
to otherworksof Englishorigin,it seems to be only one among the several sourceson whichthisauthorrelies.In otherwords,Clifford's
dependence on Bacon's Questionsappears to be just an instanceof the tendency,
ratherpronouncedin our author,but nonethelessfairlycommon among
to make extensiveuse of the earliertraditionwithout
the commentators,
too much concernfororiginality.24
on Phys.I- VIII (- R) and Ph
3. RogerBacon'sQuestions
While Clifford'scommentaryprovides a clear example of Bacon's
influenceon a later commentatorwho freelycombines materialtaken
fromdifferent
sources into his own work,the relationbetweenBacon's
Questions on Phys.I-VIII and Ph the anonymous Questions on the
Physics
preservedin MS Lewis Europ. 53 is of a more problematicsort.
the affinity
betweenthese two
For, as alreadynoted in the introduction,
worksseems to be fargreaterthan the ordinaryprocessof usingan earlier source can explain.The relationbetweenthe two commentarieswill
be discussedin detail in this sectionon the basis of the examinationof
23Giventhecloseaffinity
linksBacon'sQuestions
to theanonymous
which
Questions
it is notpossible
evidence
ofMS LewisEurop.53 (= Ph),on thebasisoftheavailable
to ruleoutthehypothesis
thatClifford's
sourceis theanonymous
(cf.also
commentary
shouldbe kept
remarks
thefollowing
above,nn.20-22).Butevengiventhishypothesis,
in mind.Iftheanonymous
is onlya secondversion
ofBacon'sQuestions,
commentary
the
source.
thiswillnotalterourconclusion
thatBaconis Clifford's
If,on thecontrary,
area lateradaptation
ofBacon'scommentary
author,
bya different
anonymous
Questions
willstillbe theoriginal,
albeitindirect
source.
On theotherhand,
Bacon'scommentary
ifindeedtheanonymous
is an adaptation
ofBacon'sQuestions
bya later
commentary
toassume
thatClifford
knewtheworkofa relaitwouldseemmorereasonable
author,
thana derivative
textbysomeunknown
master
suchas Baconrather
famous
pupil
tively
arerelated
alsoin
ofBacon's.
Asmentioned
andBacon'scommentaries
above,Clifford's
in theanonymous
textin itspresent
thequestions
on BookI, whichare notpreserved
form
cf.belown. 26).
(onthispoint,
24Astheexamination
in thethirteenth
ofthePhysics
cenofthecommentary
tradition
fortheearly
thisis a verycommon
attitude
shows,
amongthecommentators;
tury
clearly
cf.Del Punta,Donati,Trifogli,
Commentaries,
tradition,
273; forsomeexamples
English
cf.S. Donati,Commenti
takenfrom
theParisian
tradition
oftheyears1270-1300,
parigini
allaFisica
anni1270-1300
ca in:A. Speer(ed.),DieBibliotheca
, Berlin/New
Amploniana
degli
York1995,136-256.

19:09:44 PM

188

SILVIADONATI

(1) their general structure,(2) the contentof the questionsconcerning

Phys.II, (3) some possible referencesto otherworksby the same author
containedin Ph.
3.1 The structure
(BooksII-IV). Ph coversBooks II-IV of the Physics.
As the list of the question-titles
given in the Appendix shows,the commentarycontains95 questionson Book II, 38 on Book III (chapters4-8),
and 104 on Book IV. At the beginning,a portion of text is missing,
in the middle of the question
since the commentarybegins ex abrupto
<Utrum natura possit definiri>.Moreover,the incipitof the next question (the second in the presentdispositionof the text),"Quartosumatur
definitioquam ponit in littera.Videturquod . . .,"25clearlyindicatesthat
at least two more questionson Phys.II, 1 were originallyincludedin the
The loss of thesequestionsat the beginningof the commencommentary.
taryis easily explained if we take into account the presentconditionof
the codex: the beginningof the text(on f. 7 Ira) coincideswiththe beginning of a new gathering,the tenthof the manuscript,and the preceding
gathering(= ff.65-70), containingthe commentaryon the De generatone
attributedto John of Sackville,seems to have lost two folios.26
Compared with the correspondingpart of Bacon's commentary,i.e.,
the questionson Books II-IV, Ph is slightlyless complete.In Book II,
which confirms
q. 1 of Ph correspondsto q. 3 of Bacon's commentary,
in
the hypothesis
just suggested,namelythat its presentformPh has lost
two whole questionsat the beginning.In Book IV, what in Ph is the last
question(= Ph, q. 104; R, qq. 110-112)is followedby twelvemore questions in Bacon's commentary.27
Apart fromthese slightdiscrepanciesin
the extentof the two works,theirgeneralstructureand organisationare
almostidentical,as we shall see.
is almostexactly
(i) The set of questionsraisedin the two commentaries
the same. This is true especiallyfor the part of the commentariesthat
25Cf.Ph,f.71ra,
lin.10-11.
26In itsoriginal
on
thecommentary
on thePhysics
contained
form,
questions
probably
in favour
cross-reference
to
BookI as well.Anindication
ofthishypothesis
is a possible
thequestions
inBookIII (cf.Ph,III,q. 23,f.76^,lin.10:"Dicendum
onBookI occurring
isprobably
utprius
referestunaspecie,
dictum
theauthor
est,"where
quodmateria
prima
inBookI
ontheunity
inBookI; see,forinstance,
ofmatter
contained
ringtoa discussion
vel
ofBacon'scommentary
thequestion
"Utrum
utgenus
<materia
prima>situniversale
to the
thehypothesis
that,in addition
[cf.R, 49,lin.27-50,lin.17]).However,
species"
twofolios
oftheninth
an entire
thesequeshasbeenlostcontaining
gathering,
gathering
I andpossibly
tionson thePhys.
theremaining
on theDegenerapartofthecommentary
tione
nowendsexabrupto
inDegen.I, 5) is notconfirmed
ofthe
(which
bythenumeration
ofMS LewisEurop.53,sinceitis continuous;
cf.Long,Adam
, 365.
gatherings
of
Bucfield
27Forthetextofthese
cf.R, 281,lin.6-289,lin.13.
questions

19:09:44 PM

ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
II-IV
QUESTIONS

189

in the issues
concernsPhys.II-IV, 9, where only veryminor diffrences
discussedare found:in three cases two separate questionsof one commentarymergeinto one questionin the other(Ph, II, qq. 19, 20 = R, II,
q. 21; Ph, II, q. 84 = R, II, qq. 85, 86; Ph, III, qq. 18, 19 = R, III,
q. 18), while one questionof Ph has no equivalentin Bacon's commentary(= Ph, IV, q. 66). The discrepanciesare slightlymore pronounced
in the followingsection,concerningPhys.IV, 10-14: here fivequestions
discussedin Bacon's commentaryhave no equivalentin Ph,28while in
threecases two separatequestionsof the formercommentarycorrespond
to a singlequestionof thelatter(R, IV, qq. 80-81 = Ph, IV, q. 81; R, IV,
qq. 84-85 = Ph, IV, q. 83; R, IV, qq. 110-112 = Ph, IV, q. 104).
(ii) The orderin which the questionsare discussedis nearlyidentical:
the whole Ph thereare onlytwo instancesin whicha question
throughout
is transposedwithrespectto the correspondingquestionof Bacon's commentary(Ph, II, q. 89 = R, II, q. 91; Ph, IV, q. 95 = R, IV, q. 96).
The mostnoticeableexample of the similarity
just describedis a structural peculiarityshared by the two commentariesin Book III: neither
raiseshere any questionsabout Aristotle'streatiseon motion
commentary
(= Phys.Ill, 1-3),but only questionsabout Aristotle'streatiseon infinity
(= Phys.,Ill, 4-8). In Ph the treatmentof motionis postponedto Book V
(not preservedin Ph), since, as the commentatorpoints out, the discussion of this topic belongs essentiallyto Book V of the Physics
, while in
Book III the notion of motion is introducedby Aristotleonly incidenAs forBacon's commentary,
here the treatment
of motionis divided
tally.29
into two sections,the firstat the end of Book IV, afterthe questions
on time,the second at the beginningof Book V.30 However, since in
Book IV the discussionof motionneitherseems to bear any connection
withthe Aristoteliantextnor to be relatedin any way to the preceding
questionson time,the suspicionmightbe justifiedthat the presentdispositionof the commentarydoes not reflectits originalstructure.31
28Forthetextofthequestions
thathaveno equivalent
in Ph,
ofBacon'scommentary
cf.R, 257,lin.5-35,259,16-260,
lin.27, 261,18-262,
lin.2, 264,Un.19-265,
lin.18
(= R, qq. 88,91,92,94,98).
29Cf.Ph,III, q. 1,f.75rb,
lin.35-39:"Habitosicde secundo
esset
libro,
consequenter
de motu.Sed
de principio
ubi(utrum
tertii,
ms.)aliquantulum
quaerendum
prosequitur
determinai
de motu,
ubide natura
motus
quiaibiincidentaliter
usquead quintum,
prinde motuusquead quintum,
ideoquaestiones
..."
reservamus.
determinat,
cipaliter
30Forthesetwosections,
cf.respectively
lin.13;289,lin.14-296,
R, 284,lin.15-289,
lin.11.
31The
on motion
in BookIII andpost(i.e.,no questions
justdescribed
disposition
ofthemto BookV) seemstobe mostunusual
componement
amongthirteenth-century
inwhich
I knowonlytwoother
is found
mentaries
onthePhysics.
instances
thisdisposition

19:09:44 PM

190

SILVIADONATI

Thus, to summarisethe resultsof thisstructuralanalysis,apart froma

in thetreatment
of Phys.IV,
fewexceptions,forthemostpartconcentrated
Ph
and
the
is
between
there
10-14,
corresponding
complete agreement
part of Bacon's commentary(= Books II-IV) in the choice of questions
and in the order in which theyare discussed.This structuralsimilarity
clearlyindicatesa close relationshipbetweenthe two works,moreovera
which,withthepossibleexceptionof thequestionson Phys.IV,
relationship
10-14, seems to hold good for the whole extentof Ph. Turningnow to
more
the contentof the individualquestions,we willattemptto investigate
of
a
of
this
on
the
basis
of
the
nature
comparison the
closely
relationship
II
in
the
commentaries.
on
Book
two
questions
3.2 The questionson Book II.- Even a cursoryglance at the questions on Book II sufficesto reveal extensiveparallels between Ph and
Bacon's commentary.In fact,as a closer examinationclearlyshows,in
Book II the two commentariesare linkedby a certaindegree of resemblance in all correspondingquestions,so thatthereare no instanceshere
of correspondingquestionsthat are completelyunrelated.The degree of
betweenthe two works,however,variesfromquestionto quessimilarity
that emerge fromour surveyof the
tion; the most relevantdifferences
textsare summedup by the followingthreefoldclassification.
parallelquestions."
(i) The firstclassis formedby whatI willcall "strictly
By "strictlyparallel questions" I mean correspondingquestionscharacterisedby the followingthreemain features.(1) The logical elementsor
in which the questionsare articulated,i.e., the arguments
constituents32
and
the solution,the answersto the argumentspro and contra
,
contra,
pro
objectionsagainst the solutionand theiranswers,opinions discussedor
explanatorydigressionsif there are any, are exactlythe same. (2) The
of the questions,thatis the orderin whichthesedifferent
logical structure
Bibi.
inMS Erfurt,
Wissen.
One ofthemis a commentary
(andonlypartially).
preserved
master
184rb
inthiscodextotheParisian
andattributed
derStadt,
Ampl.F. 349,ff.120rathetreatonmotion;
ofGent:inthiswork
BookIII doesnotcontain
anyquestions
Henry
Thesecond
is notaccordingly
in BookV, however,
mentofmotion
contained
expanded.
in MS London,
Wellcome
on BookV preserved
is an anonymous
commentary
example
with
connected
besides
Historical
MedicalLibr.,333,ff.69ra-80vb;
questions
specifically
whicharenoron motion
includes
several
BookV, thiscommentary
questions
general
ofthecomin BookIII. Fora listofthequestions
discussed
mally
bythecommentators
deGandavo
Henrici
Bibliotheca
toHenry
ofGentcf.R. Macken,
attributed
,
Manuscripta
mentary
Commenti
seealsoDonati,
Leuven/Leiden
,
112;onthiscommentary
1979,II, 1100-1
parigini
on BookV, cf.Donati,Perlo studio,
142-3.On theanonymous
9, 60-1,
commentary
andApp.I, 84-7.
32Forthisterminology,
Commentaries
cf.alsoDel Punta,
Donati,Trifogli,
, 273.

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

191

elementsare arrangedinto the question,is identicalor very similar.(3)

so
is consistently
While the contentis identical,the formulation
different,
in
of
the
two
no
are
thatthere
commentaries, parinstances,
significant
allel passages coincidentnot only in contentbut also in wording.
In Book II of our commentariesthereare severalquestionsthat fulfil
about the frequencyof "strictly
More detailedinformation
thisdescription.
will
on
the basis of the examination
be
below
given
parallel questions"
of the sectionconcerningPhys.II, 3 in both commentaries;here I will
attemptto illustratethe main featuresof such questionsby analysingtwo
concreteexamples of them. The firstexample is taken fromthe discussion of Aristotle'sdefinitionof natureas an intrinsicprincipleof change
and stasisin the naturalobjects {Phys.II, 1, 192b20-23);in this context
both commentariesask the questionwhethersuch a principleextendsto
the heavenlybodies or it is confinedto the sublunaryworld.
R, II, q. 6, 79,lin.36-80,lin.22:
utrum
natura
sitincorporibus
suQueritur
pracelestibus.
natura
<QN1> Et videtur
quodnon:naturaest <QN1> Quod<non,>sic:quiasicut
similiter
est
setnichil
causaetprincipium
sednoneststa- estcausamotus,
quietis;
status;
incelo,etitanonerithabens
causaquietis
tusin caelestibus;
ergonecnatura.
naturam.
estprincipium
natura
ad formam
substan- <QN2> Item,omnis
<QN2> Item,motus
velad ubi;setnonest
tialemestprincipium
motusad ubi;ergo motusad formam
incelo;quareetc.Probatio
motus
caelumnonmove
tur;sednaturaestprin- principium
minoris:
motus
ad formam
motus.
quia
priorest
cipium
pecedit
quammotusad ubi,quia forma
ubietestcausaubi,quarecumnonsitibi
motus
ad formam,
ergonecad ubi.
lin.34-42:
Ph,II, q. 4, f.71ra,
sitin caelonatura.
Secundo
utrum

omnianaturalia
in <QS> Contra:
omnequoddeterminatur
participant
<QS> Contra:
naturalis
esthabens
ntu- naturam;
setcorporacelestiasunthujusparte
philosophiae
naturam.
ut dicitur modi,ergohabent
rm;sedcaelumesthuiusmodi,
De caeloetmundo'
ergoestnaturain corcaelestibus.
poribus
<S> Quodconcedo.
<S> Et hocestconcedendum.
dicendum
<QN1R>Adprimum
igitur
quod <QN1R> Solutio:ad objecta,loquiposet
causadupliciter
est:aut in habituaut in sumussecundum
causandi,
aptitudinem
in sicestcausainceloaptanataad quietem,
actu.Dico quod,licetnaturaexistens
siloquimur
caelononsitprincipium
velcausaactusta- undenatum
estcelum
quiescere;
sicnon
in aptitudine
estcausaet quie- decausasecundum
actum
causandi,
tus,tamen
scitaliquando
etstabit
etnaturaliter
sicut
patet
aptum estibiquiesvelcausaquiescendi:
ethomine,
estad standum,
habitofinepropter
ridet,
quianonsemper
quem derisibili
estin celo,quia
Et sic estibi natura tamenestetc.;similiter
(quamms.)movetur.
datur
inaptitudine
etnoninactu.
motus
etstatus
principium
perse etc.,licet diffinitio
status
nonactu.

19:09:44 PM

192

SILVIADONATI

estin illisubi <QN2R> Adaliudrespondeo

quodforma
<QN2R> Ad aliud:verum
ut in pecedit
estmotusad formam
ubi;setquod arguitultra"ergo
substantialem,
<ad>
motusad formam
motum
inferioribus.
pecedit
siitaesset
ubi,"benesequeretur
quodomnis
in essepermotum:
forma
exiret
tuncesset
celinonexitin esse
causaubi;setforma
ideononoportet
quodsitibi
permotum,
causamotusad ubi,setin hec inferiora
tenet
solum.
argumentum
As is apparent fromthe textsjust quoted, the treatmentof the issue
is almostidenticalin the two commentaries:the argumentsemployedare
the same, the answersto the argumentsare identical,and the questions
At the same time,thewordingis different.
have the same logicalstructure.
we
find
where
the word "quies" in Bacon's commentary,
for
So,
instance,
Ph uses the synonym"status,"where Bacon's commentaryemploysthe
formulas"secundumaptitudinemcausandi" and "secundumactum causandi," Ph prefersthe expressions"causa in habitu" and "causa in actu."
in the arguMoreover,Ph introducesa quotationof the De celoetmundo
ment quodsic to supportthe statementthat the heavenlybodies are natural objects,while Bacon's commentaryadds the classicalexample of the
capabilityto laugh which is always presentin man, even when he is
- in orderto
not actuallylaughing
clarifythe answerto the firstquodnon.
of the
non
and
its
answerprovidean illustration
the
second
quod
Finally,
thatis oftenapparentin Ph:
preferenceforhighlyshortenedformulations
obviously,the two textsare introducinghere the same argumentand the
the reasoningis expressed
same answer,but whilein Bacon's commentary
in a more complex and articulatedway, in Ph onlyits essentialelements
are preserved.33
The second example is taken fromthe discussionabout the natureof
chance and luck. StartingfromAristotle'saccount of chance and luck as
which are to be explainedin terms
secondaryfactors{causaeper accidens)
of a cause perse (Phys.II, 5-6), the two commentariesraise the questionalreadymentionedabove of how chance and luck fitin Aristode'sfourfold classification
of causes.
lin.42-61:
Ph,II, q. 67,f.73vb,
< 1> Habitosicquidestcasusetfortuna
et
de
in quibussintet quomodo,
quaeritur
causarum
reductione
ad causasperse. Et
ad quamcausamhabeant
primoquaeritur
reduci.

R, II, q. 68, 122,lin.4-33:

re<1> Queritur
ad quamcausamhabent
et que estillacausa:
ducicasuset fortuna
materialis
velefficiens.

33Cf.alsobelow,n. 38.

19:09:44 PM

ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
II-IV
QUESTIONS

193

habeant <2> Quodad quamlibet,

<2> Videtur
videtur:
quodcasusetfortuna
quiain
reduciad quamlibet
causam;dixitenim genereomniestcausaperse et peracciActorin modiscausarum
suntcauseper
quod in omni dens;setcasuset fortuna
modoestreperire
causam
perse etcausam accidens;
ergocumtammaterialis
quam
etsimiliter
alieduesintperse,ergo
ergo,cumcausaeperse sint efficiens
peraccidens;
finis
etefficiens,
inhisomni- ad illasreducuntur.
forma,
materia,
scilicet
casuset
buseritcausaperaccidens,
fortuna.
<3> Item,videtur
solum,
videtur,
quodcasuset fortuna <3> Quodad materialem
ad materiam,
debeant
reduci
accidunt
indequiacasualia quiacasusetfortuna
propter
et fortuita
accidunt
ut terminatum
materiam,
propter
principium
quodestmateria;
dicitActor;
reducun-quaremateria
estcausacasusetfortune.
ergocasusetfortuna
turad materiam.
<4> Contra:
casusetfortuna
fiunt
videtur:
praeter <4> Quod ad efficientem,
quia
ad causam casualiaet fortuita
accidunt
intenintentionem;
ergoreducuntur
preter
sedsolumestcausaefficiens;tionem;
setsola causaefficiens
intendentem;
agitcum
ad causamefficientem. intentione;
ergoreducuntur
quareetc.
<5> Et dicendum
ad <5> Solutio:
de relatione
illorum
ad causam
quodde reductione
causamestloquidupliciter:
autad causam dupliciter
autquantum
ad
loquipossumus:
cuiusproprietatem
casuset for- aliquodgenuscausequodparticipant
recipiant
per
tunain quantum
suntcausae,sicreducun-accidens,
etsicad efficientem
debent
reduci
turad causamefficientem,
autad causam quia habent
causeefficientis,
proprietatem
cuiussunteffectus
casusetfortuna,
ethaec autquantum
ad aliquidtanquam
ad illud
estmateria.
Undereducuntur
ad materiamcujussunteffectus
etnoncujushabent
prout eiussintsubproprietate
redu- prietatem
etsicad materiam
effectus,
peraccidens,
cuntur
ad efficientem
reduci.
Undead materiam
utcuius debent
reducun(reducitur
ms.)
inquantum
manentes
causaeper tur,
sunteffectus;
ad efficientem,
recipiant
proprietatem
accidens.
efficientis
quia proprietatem
[perse et ?]
peraccidens
participant.
<6 [= R, 7]> Etperhocsolvitur
[primum
et tertium.
et]secundum
<7> Sedquodobicis
dicendum
causaperaccidens
duquod <6> Ad objectum,
primo,
causaperaccidens
autquiacoaccidit
esseautquodcoac- pliciter:
substantie
cause
potest
cidit
etsicverum
substantiae
utalbumaedificari,peraccidens,
estquodsemper
causae,
sic estintelligendum
causae concausa
: cumcausa?)perse estcausa
quodcuilibet
(pro
causa peraccidens
ettalisnon
etinomnigenere,
(r.p. s. scr.etcorr.ms.)
perserespondet
velpotest
dicicausaperacci- estcasusvelfortuna,
setsuntcausaperacciperaccidens,
densquaecoaccidit
causae,etsic densquiacoaccidunt
cause,non
operationi
operationi
solum
causaeefficienti;
huius
enim ejussubstantie,
et sicestverum
respondet
quodsunt
estoperari.
Sicsuntcasusetfor- causeperaccidens,
setquiaopere(pro:
proprium
operatunacausa,nonprimomodo,et ideoad rio?)
estsolum
ideoad efficientem
efficientis,
efficiens
<debent
reduci>.
sicdebent
reduci.
<7 [= Ph,6]> Adaliuddicoquodpossunt
ad causamcujusproprietatem
comparari
etsicad efficientem;
si compaparticipant,
rentur
ad causamcujussunteffectus,
sicad
materiam
debent
etsicbenedebent.
reduci
As in the firstexample,in the treatmentof thisquestionthe two commentariesrun almostparallel: the same argumentsare introducedin the
same order,and theyare solvedin the same way. Very minordifferences
in contentand structure
are the example of a cause peraccidens
(thewhite

19:09:44 PM

SILVIADONATI

194

of the building)added by Ph in the answerto the

thingas cause peraccidens
firstargument(= Ph, nr. 7); the factthat,insteadof answeringthe second
and the thirdargument,Ph contentsitselfwitha referenceto the solution
of the question(= Ph, nr. 6, 5), whileBacon's commentary
givesa proper
answerto the two arguments(= R, nr. 7), an answer,however,thatsimply sums up the main pointsalready made in the solution(= R, nr. 5).
(ii) Turning to the second class of questionsobservedin Book II of
our commentaries,
thisclass is formedby corresponding
questionswhose
relatedor at least comcontent,whilenot strictly
identical,is stillstrongly
plementary,in the sense that theydo not include any instancesof contrastbetween the two commentaries.Now, most questionson Book II
seem to fall into the class just described.I will tryto substantiatethis
general conclusion,at the same time givinga more detailed idea of the
structureof thiskind of question,by analysingthe sectionon Phys.II, 3
in both commentaries.The resultsof this examinationare summarized
by the followingtable.
PHYS. II, 3

Ph34 (5)
Ph35 (4)
Ph36 (6)
Ph37 (4)
Ph38 (7)
Ph39 (5)
Ph40 (4)
Ph41 (4)
Ph42 (3)
Ph43 (4)
Ph44 (5)
Ph45 (7)
Ph46 (6)
Ph47 (8)
Ph48 (7)
Ph49 (9)
Ph50 (4)
Ph51 (4)
Ph52 (3)
Ph53 (6)
105

IE

SE

R35 (5)
R36 (4)
R37 (5)
R38 (4)
R39 (7)
R40 (7)
R41 (3)
R42 (3)
R43 (2)
R44 (4)
R45 (5)
R46 (6)
R47 (5)
R48 (8)
R49 (7)
R50 (10)
R51 (4)
R52 (3)
R53 (4)
R54 (7)

5
4
3
3
6
4
3
3
2
4
4
6
5
6
7
7
4
3
2
5

0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(?) 2
0
1
0
0
10
1

103

86

10

MEE

DO

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

0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
10
10

0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

Ph
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1

CE
R

19:09:44 PM

ON PHYSICS
II-IV
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

195

About Phys.II, 3 both commentariesraise twentyquestions,in exactly

the same order (= Ph, qq. 34-53; R, qq. 35-54). These questionshave
been analysed here into their "logical elements,"i.e., according to the
, the solutionetc.
descriptiongiven above: the argumentspro and contra
The total numberof such elementsin each questionis indicatedin the
table in parenthesesfollowingthe sigla of the commentary.Furthermore,
withincorrespondingquestionsof the two commentaries,these logical
have been classed accordingto theirmost relevantfeatures
constituents
in the corresponding
withrespectto our inquiry.So forbothcommentaries
table
indicates:34
the
number
of
identical
the
elements(= IE),
(1)
questions,
in
which
the
ideas
are
i.e., corresponding
passages
expressed
conceptually
in wording,as in the cases discussedabove
identical,althoughdifferent
of"strictly
parallelquestions";(2) thenumberof similarelements(= SE), i.e.,
corresponding
passages in which the thoughtsintroduced,withoutbeing
identical,appear stillrelatedto some degree,so thattheirdifferences
strictly
could be conceivedas the resultof a shiftin the focusof the argument,
of a simplification
or, conversely,of an expansionof the reasoning,of a
further
elaborationetc.; (3) thenumberof complementary
elements(= CE),
of
one
which
have
in the other,
no
i.e., passages
commentary
counterpart
but whose contentis compatiblewiththe contentof the other,forexamof one commentarywhich are not foundin
ple arguments
proand contra
the otheror alternativesolutionsintroducedby one commentaryin addition to the solutionshared with the other; (4) the numberof mutually
exclusiveelements(= MEE), i.e., correspondingpassages in which the
ideas expressedare, in one way or other,mutuallyincompatible,as, for
or thoroughly
soluinstance,in the case of clearlydifferent
contradictory
tionsof the same problem.Finally,the last column of the table (= DO)
in the logical structure
the occurrenceof differences
of the quesregisters
in
for
the
order of the arguments.Going,
tions,
example, discrepancies
then,throughthe table, one obtainsthe followinggeneralresults:
(1) Globally speaking,identicalelements(= IE) are largelypredominant in the correspondingquestionsof the two commentaries(86 out of
105 elementsin Ph and 103 elementsin R respectively).
(2) As forindividualquestions,we findthat thereare several "strictly
parallelquestions"in the sense definedabove, i.e., containingonly idenin the logicalstructure
ticalelementsand withlittleor no difference
(5 out
of 20). However, although comparativelyspeaking identical elements
predominatein almostall correspondingquestions,mostof them(14 out
34Thequestion
markqualifying
oneentry
indicates
thattheclassification
is uncertain.

19:09:44 PM

196

SILVIADONATI

of 20) exhibita slightly

lowerdegreeof affinity
than "strictly
parallelquesin
also
include
addition
to
identical
some simielements,they
tions,"for,
lar or complementaryelements(= SE, CE). Finally,we findjust one
instanceof corresponding
questionscontainingmutuallyexclusiveelements
(= MEE) in addition to identicalelements.As we shall see, this is an
instanceof Ph and Bacon's commentaryholdingconflicting
views about
the same problem.
(iii) The thirdclass of questionsfoundin Book II of the two commentariesis formedby corresponding
questionsin which as in the example
of Phys.II, 3- Ph and Bacon's
just mentionedoccurringin the treatment
whilestillcloselyrelatedto each other,are in conflictabout
commentary,
some pointor other;accordingto our classification,
besidesidentical,similar or complementary
elements,such questionsalso containsome mutually
incompatibleelements.Now, throughoutthe whole extentof Book II of
our commentaries,there seem to be very few instancesof this kind of
we find
questions:leaving aside some cases of uncertainclassification,35
only one more possible instanceof conflictin additionto the one contained in the discussionof Phys.II, 3. As we shall see, however,in this
second instancethe conflictmightbe merelyverbal. Moreover,despite
the conflict,in both cases, the solutionadopted by the two commentaries
stillshows some similarities
which clearlyreveal a common origin.
first
occurs
withina systematicanalysisof the notion
The
(1)
example
of abstractionconnectedwith Aristotle'sdistinctionbetween philosophy
of natureand mathematicsin Phys
. II, 2. In thiscontextboth commentariesraise the questionwhetheran abstractconsiderationof timeis possible withinmathematicalscience.
Ph,II, q. 31,f.72rb,lin.28-37:
Tertioutrum
abstrahi.
tempus
possit

R, II, q. 32,98,lin.28-99,Un.3:
a
abstrahi
utrum
<Queritur>
tempus
possit
mathematico.
<QS> Videtur
proportio
potest
quodsic:cuiusestconsiderare<QS> Quodsic:commutata
etsubiectum;
de lineis,firmis,
sedpassio<nem> probari
etc.,
passionem,
temporibus
in .V. Geometrie
lineaeetcorporibus,dicitAnaritius
, quia (pro:
quaeconvenit
tempori,
scilicet
considrt
mathe- quare?),
cumsitpassiomathematico,
permutata
ergo
proportio,
in V enimGeometriae
determinaietc.36
maticus;
de huiusmodi
proportione;
ergohabetconsiderare
de tempore,
et sie tempus
poterit
abstrahi.

35Fora problematic
cf.below,n. 46.
classification,
passageofuncertain
36As Delorme
outin hisedition
ofBacon'sQuestions
(ed.cit.,(above,n. 9),
points
Elements
on Euclid's
to an-Naynzs
431),Baconis herereferring
(translated
commentary

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

197

estperse passioet
estperse passio <QN> Contra:
tempus
<QN> Contra:tempus
setimpossibile
estpropriam
a motu. mensura
abstrahi
motus;
motus;
ergononpotest
a suosubjecto.
abstrahere
passionem
esttempus
estloqui <S> Quodconcedo,
<S> Etdicendum
quodimpossibile
quoddetempore
esttempus,
et abstrahi.
autin quantum
dupliciter:
in quantum
motus
necabstrahi
sicestmetrum
tempus
<potest>, <QSR> Ad objectum,
et in quantum
estcon- estnaturale
in quantum
considerali
velpotest
est,sic
tempus
de ipso,tamen
etsicde ipsisprobatur nonpotest
tinuum
etquantum,
aliquidprobari
in quantum
est[tempus
velin
etsic de tempore
in V Geometriae,
numerata
proportio
"commuabstrahi
?] continuum
probatur
quantum
potest.
nonpotest
ad tataproportio
[de?],"etsicadhuc
argumentum
<QSR, QNR> Et solvitur
sitin materia
abstrahi
sensibili
, cumsemper
utramque
partem.
in continuo.
secundum
esseejus,scilicet
As in the questionsdiscussedabove, in this case too Ph and Bacon's
are clearlyrelated.The argumentsemployedin the two comcommentary
mentariesare exactlythe same. To a certainextent,even the solutionis
similar,since in both worksit is based on the distinctionof two different
ways in which time can be considered,i.e., as a naturalentityand as a
continuousentity;moreover,both commentariesmaintain that mathematicalpropertiescan belong to time in so far as continuous.The conforPh claims
clusioninferredfromthisdistinction,
however,is different,
that the considerationof time as a continuousentityis abstract,while
Bacon's commentaryseems to maintainthe converse.But, as remarked
above, the contrastmightbe more verbal than real and the positions
ratherthan conflicting,
since in defendingand
introducedcomplementary
the
of
an
abstract
considerationof time,
denyingrespectively possibility
kinds of
the author of Ph and Bacon seem to be talkingof different
motion
and
from
contiabstraction
from
abstraction
abstraction,namely
nuous quantity:the authorof Ph is probablydefendingthe possibilityof
of motion,whileBacon seemsonlyto deny
timeindependently
considering
of consideringtimeindependently
the possibility
of continuousquantity.37
The
is
the
case mentionedabove,
second
(2)
example representedby
occurringin the treatmentof Phys.II, 3. Here both commentariesdiscuss Aristotle's
statementthattwo thingscan cause each otherin different
in thetwelfth
on thisworkand
from
Arabic
intoLatinbyGerard
ofCremona
century);
in theLatinworld,
Latintranslation
Elements
itsreception
cf.Thefirst
ofEuclid's
"commonly
ascribed
toAdelard
ed.H.L.L.Busard,
Toronto
1983,2-15.The"V Geometriae
quoted
ofBath,
in Ph in theparallel
Elements.
BookV ofEuclid's
is,ofcourse,
passage
37On therelation
to Bacon,cf.R, II, q. 34,
andmatter
between
quantity
according
"Ansubiectum
sitmateria";
continui
100,lin.9-29(cf.alsoin BookVI, thequestion
oftimeaccording
to Bacon,cf.
lin.22).Forthequantitative
nature
R, 325,lin.21-326,
lin.20.
R, IV, qq. 79-82,251,lin.32-253,

19:09:44 PM

198

SILVIADONATI

cause (Phys.II, 3,
ways, for instanceone as final,the other as efficient
195a8-l 1).
R, II, q. 45, 107,lin.5-29:
lin.52-62:
Ph,II, q. 44,f.72vb,
an unacausasitcausaalterius
...
Secundodubitatur
de secunda
Queritur
proprietate,
etestcomparando
unamcausamad aliam.
Et dicitquodunacausaestcausaalterius.
dicitur Quod non.. . . <QN2> Quod necsimili. . . <QN2> Item,effectus
Contra.
cause:quiacausadicitur
ad
ad causam;ergo,si causaestcausae,non terin ratione
effectum;
iamestcausa,sedeffectus.
quareuna causanoneritcausa
in quantum
alterius
causa,setin quantum
effectus.
finis
non
estcausaefficientis
<QS> Contra:
immomovet
secundum
substantiam,
ipsum
inquaninquantum
etsicefficiens
efficiens,
a fineete converso;
tumefficiens
causatur
estde fine.
similiter
nospossumus
<S> Solutio:
<S> Et hocestconcedendum
...
loquide causis
inquantum
causacompositi
est
, etsic
utrumque
estquodunacausasitcausaalterius
in
possibile
cause
ete
ratione
efficientis
, utfinis
respectu
cumestcausacomconverso,
quiaefficiens,
similiter
e converso
esteffectus
finis;
positi,
cum?)
finis
est
effectus
tarnen
efficientis,
(pro:
<QN2R> Ad aliuddicendum
refequod,
si ad invicem
conferendo
ad compositum
, omnessuntin ratione estcausacompositi;
sicnonestpossibile
sit rantur,
alterius
absolute
quodunacausa
causae,licetunarespectu
in quantum
sitcausaalterius
causaest.
in ratione
effectus.
finis
estcausaefficientis
(non
<QS> Contra:
nonsecunadd.etdel)subradone
efficientis,
dumsubstantiam
ete converso;
ergopotest
essecausacausae.

As in the firstexample,in the treatmentof thisquestionthe two comtwo

mentariesshow clear parallels:in particular,both worksdistinguish
in
which
the
same
to
different
causes
of
effect
belonging
possible ways
kinds(as, forinstance,the finaland the efficient
cause) can be compared
to each other,i.e., absolutelyand with respectto theircommon effect,
. Again,however,fromthe same distinction
the twocommenthe compositum
taries seem to draw different
conclusions,althoughwithoutgivingany
reasonsin supportof theirrespectivepositions:Ph maintainsthat causes
of different
kindscan be viewed mutuallyas causes of each otherwhen
seems to hold thatthey
consideredabsolutely,while Bacon's commentary
can be regardedmutuallyas causes of each otherwhen theyare con.
sideredin connectionwith the compositum
now
the
of
this surveyof the questionson
to
evaluate
results
Trying
Book II, we can startwiththe safe conclusionthattheyfullyconfirmthe
resultsof the structuralanalysis:coincidencesin contentsuch as those
detectedin Ph and Bacon's commentarycannot be due to chance and
clearlytestifyto a close relationshipbetween the two works.As to the

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
QUESTIONS

199

natureof this relationship,two hypothesesspringto mind as the most

likelyexplanationsof the resemblanceobservedin the two texts:(a) that
versionsof the same commentaryor, more
theyrepresenttwo different
of one and the same course on the
reportationes
precisely,two different
authors,
Physics
by Bacon; (b) thattheyare two distinctworksby different
one of whichis closelymodelledon the other.Given thissecond hypothesis,we could easilythinkof Ph as a textstemmingfromBacon's school
and usingtheworkof the masteras itsmain source.Certainly,no definite
conclusionon thisissue will be possible beforethe comparisonbetween
Ph and Bacon's commentaryhas been completed.The evidence available at the moment,however,seems ratherto point to the firsthypothesis, as I hope the followingverygeneral remarkswill show.
First,thatindeed Bacon's commentaryand Ph originatefromnotesof
lecturestakenby studentsratherthan being finishedliterarycompositions
of theirauthor(s),seems to be confirmedforboth worksby the characteristicsof theirliterarystyle.38
As to our hypothesisof two distinctreportationes
, thissuppositionwould
account for most of the resultsof our examinationof the texts:(1) the
of Ph and Bacon's commentaryin the choice
nearlyperfecthomogeneity
38Bothcommentaries
as themarks
exhibit
thegeneral
features
stylistic
usually
regarded
ofactualteaching,
theextreme
shortness
in
ofworks
from
namely
reportationes
originating
theabsence
thetraces
forinstance
theformulation,
ofliterary
oforalstyle,
embellishments,
thefrequent
useofthesecond
ofverbs
"tuponis,"
"tuobicis"
etc.),
person
(e.g."tudicis,"
to a concrete
which
is normally
takenas a reference
interlocutor
andhenceas a signof
a realdebate(forthegeneral
traits
ofreportationes
derivation
from
, cf.thestudies
stylistic
features
inRogerBacon's
n. 39).Allthese
havebeenlongrecognised
below,
quoted
stylistic
as theresult
of
forthisreason,
aregenerally
considered
Aristotelian
commentaries,
which,
- probably
- takenbystudents
to somedegreebythecommentator
notes
revised
during
Bacon
attheuniversity
ofParis(cf.,forinstance,
Bacon's
lectures
, 62-3).This
Easton,
Roger
I-VIII, where,
on Phys.
in addition
to the
seemsto be trueespecially
fortheQuestions
traits
cf.theexamples
(fortheuseofthesecondperson,
general
justmentioned
givenin
ed. cit.(above,n. 9),xxvi-xxvii),
we alsofindsevDelorme's
introduction
to theedition;
eralconcrete
ofa schoolroom
situation
(cf.esp.,in Delorme's
examples
clearly
suggestive
xxiv:"intelligamus
istas "intelliintroduction,
corpusinfinitum
perscolas
quodtranseat
ab isto
adilium
lineainmedio
istius
domus
lineadeducta
," "accipiatur
parietem
").
gatur
pariete
- notedin Bacon'scommentary
As forPh,whilethisworkdoesnotsharethehabit
fordidactic
it doessharethemoregeneral
ofintroducing
concrete
examples
purposes,
in theformulation,
ofa reportatio
whichhereis
shortness
traits
, i.e.,thetypical
stylistic
often
takenevento a higher
thelackofanyliterary
degreethanin Bacon'sQuestions,
suchas theuseofthesecond
Forsomeexamoforalstyle
sometraces
refinement,
person.
suchas "quodquaeris,"
in expression
ples,in BookII, oftheuseofthesecondperson
"si velissustinere,"
"utobicis,"
"si obicis,"
"quoddicis,""ergodicistu,"
"quodobicis,"
lin.1, 71*,lin.21,23,71,
lin.64,
"siturespondeas,"
"situdicas"etc.,cf.Ph,ff.71ra,
lin.7,
71vb,lin.14,72rb,
lin.57, 1 ab imo,72va,
lin.49, 72vb,
lin.8, 72vb,
lin.67, 73ra,
lin.50, 75rb,
lin.56,75ra,
lin.6.
11,12,13,14-15,74va,

19:09:44 PM

200

SILVIADONATI

and the order of the questions;(2) the remarkableresemblancein the

contentof correspondingquestions,whichis constantat least throughout
the whole of Book II of the commentaries;(3) the equally constant
differencein wording.This stable mixtureof similarityin contentand
diversityin formulationis most easily explained on the assumptionthat
two different
studentsindependently
took notes on the same lectures.By
in
two
commentaries
different
contrast,
authors,even if one were to
by
be the source of the other,we would expecta higherdegreeof difference
in content,the usual markof a derivativetextbeing eithera combination
of elementsderivedfromthe source with originalelementsor a combinationof elementstakenfromdifferent
sources,as, forinstance,Clifford's
commentary.
of the same
Obviously,we would expect the resultsof two reportationes
lecturesto be what,in our earlierterminology,
we have labelled "strictly
in wordingbut completely
idenparallelquestions,"i.e., questionsdifferent
tical in content.However,the hypothesisof independentwitnessesto the
same lecturesseems also to be compatiblewiththe cases of looseraffinity
observed in the two commentaries,i.e., accordingto our classification,
questionsthat,in additionto identicalelements,includesome merelysimilar elementsor are characterisedby the presencein one of themof complementaryelementsabsent in the other.This lower degree of similarity
could be easily explained as the resultof occasional lapses in the attention of the reportatores
, each of whom, fromtime to time,would neglect
elementsnoticed by the other; of differences
in theirinterests;of a differentdegree of understanding
on theirpart of the subjectsdiscussed;of
that minimumamount of originalitywhich would be to be expected
fromthem in recordingthe teachingof the masterin theirown words
or in later orderingtheirnotes.39
Clearly in contrastwith this hypothesisof one and the same source,
, are,
reportationes
namelyBacon's lectures,transmitted
throughtwo different
39Fora
abouttheliterary
ofthereportatio,
cf.C. Luna,
comprehensive
bibliography
genre
ducommentaire
surlepremier
Les
d'une
deGilles
deRome
lime
desSentences.
Fragments
reporiation
et
extraits
desmss.Clm.etParis
, B.N.,lat.15819
, in: Revuedes Sciences
philosophiques
74 (1990),205-54,
features
ofdifferent
thologiques,
esp.214,n. 24.Forthegeneral
reportationes
ofthesamelectures,
cf.esp.H.V. Shooner,
La Lectura
deS. Thomas
inMatthaeum
,
in: Angelicum,
du
33 (1956),121-42;P.G. Mller,
Lesreportations
livres
desdeux
premiers
Commentaire
surlesSentences
deJeanQuidort
deParisO.P,ibid.,361-414;
,
Id.,La "reportatio"
in:Salesianum,
De la reportatio
la redactio
Bonaventure
21(1959),647-59;
,
J.G.Bougerol,
{Saint
dutexte),
in:Lesgenres
lit, q. 2, a. 2, danslestats
Qg.disp.De peifectione
evangelica
successifs
traires
danslessources
etphilosophiques
mdivales
, Actesdu Colloqueinternational
thologiques
de Louvain-la-Neuve
25-27mai1981,Louvain-la-Neuve
1981,51-65.

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

201

on the contrary,the cases in which Ph and Bacon's commentaryhold

views about the same issue. Yet, given the very small numconflicting
in Book II, of such occurrences,the rathersuperficialcharleast
at
ber,
acter of the conflictand the lack of detailed argumentations
explaining
the reasonsforthe conflicting
positionsin these cases, thereseem to be
groundsforthe suspicionthattheymightbe due to some misunderstandor to some isolatedinterventions
ing on the part of one of the reportatores
or of theirutilisation.
in the textsat a later point of theirtransmission
3.3 Possible referencesof Ph to other commentariesby the same
into the relationbetween Ph
author.- I will conclude this investigation
and Bacon's Questionsby analysingsome passages of Ph containingpossible referencesto otherworksby the same author. These references
at a firstexaminationthere are three throughoutthe whole extentof
Ph- are of particularsignificance
forour inquiry,since theygive us some
about the author of the anonymouscommentaryor, more
information
precisely,about the scope of his literaryproduction.
(1) In Book II, in a passage discussingthe different
degreeof influence
exertedon the effectby the universalcause on one hand and the particularcause on the other hand, we finda rathervague referenceto a
LiberDe causis
:
futurecommentaryon the pseudo-Aristotelian
lin.3 ab imo73rb,
lin.1: "De hoctamendubium
est,quomodo
Ph,f. 73ra,
magis
Ethabet
<de>terminari
inprincipio
De causis.
influt
causauniversalis
quamparticularis.
Et forte
ad essentiam,
causauniversalis
(influt
ms.)quantum
plusinfluit
particularis
ad esseforsitan
autemcausaquantum
plusinfluit."
(2) Again in Book II, we are referredto the "thirdbook of the Metafora discussionof the questionto whichsciencethe inquiryabout
physics"
the causes belongs.Now, althoughAristotlehimselfraises (but does not
solve) this question in the thirdbook of the Metaphysics
(Metaph.Ill, 2,
of
the
reference
seems
ratherto
the
context
996al8-996b26),
particular
indicatethat the authoris thinkingof his own discussionin a commen: as it is his own treatmenthe is talkingabout
taryon the Metaphysics
when he announces that he is going to omit the discussionof the role
of the different
sciencesin the inquiryabout the causes, it seems a reawhen he refers
sonableassumptionthathe is talkingof his own treatment
to the discussionof thisissue containedin the Metaphysics.
de cauutrum
determinare
lin.49-53: "Tertio
tuncdubitatur
Ph,f.74rb,
pertineat
decausis,
et
adquem
sisad physicum.
SedinIII Metaphysicae
perscrutali
inquiritur
pertineat
utrum
ad
hic.Sed tamenspecialiter
ideo(sohuntur
add. et del.)omittitur
quaeritur
de casuetfortuna."
determinare
physicum
pertineat

19:09:44 PM

202

SILVIADONATI

(3) In the questionson Book IV, a clear referenceis made to a future

to whichthe discussionabout the qualicommentaryon De celoetmundo
ties of rarityand densityin the heavenlybodies is postponed:
et densum.
in quibussintrarum
Et esset
lin.25-28:"Deindedubitatur
Ph,f.82vb,
Sed
sintin caelestibus
et utrum
hieet in elementis.
utrum
aequivoce
quaerendum
in mixtis
Et hicquaeritur
utrum
sintista."
adDe celo<et> mundo.
relinquitur
usque
From the threereferences
just quoted we can thus extractthe following pieces of informationabout the author of Ph: when he was com, the author of Ph had probablycommentedor
mentingon the Physics
was about to commenton the thirdbook of the Metaphysics
(the present
tense "inquiritur"is ambiguous);he was possiblyplanninga commentary
on the De causis
; he was also planning to commenton the De celoet
fitratherwell withthe known
mundo
. Now, all thesepieces of information
factsabout Bacon's literaryproduction.First,Bacon did commenton the
thirdbook of the Metaphysics
(withinhis Questionson Metaph.I-IV)40as
41
well as on the De causis and was actuallyprojectinga commentary(not
identified
so far)on the De celoetmundo}2
Secondly,fromthe chronologiin agreecal pointof view,the information
providedby Ph is substantially
ment withwhat we know about the relationbetweenBacon's Questions
on Phys.I-VIII and the commentarieson Metaph.Ill, De causisand De
celo
. For Bacon's Questions on Phys.I-VIII certainlyantedateshis com; moreover,at the time,he had not yet commentaryon the De causis
as
mentedon the De celo
, the repeatedallusions containedin Book VIII
- to the
of the commentaryon the Physics
commentaryon the De celoas
a futurework clearlytestify.
As for the commentaryon the Metaphysics
,
the chronologicalrelationbetweenBacon's Questionson Phys.I-VIII and
his commentaryon Metaph.Ill is unclear,just as the referenceto the
containedin Ph is ambiguousfromthe chronologicalpointof
Metaphysics
and to the De
view.43Finally, the referencesof Ph to the Metaphysics
40Forthetext,cf.RogeriBaconiQuestiones
Aristotelis
libros
Prime
altere
philosophie
supra
Baconi
inedita
in:Opera
hactenus
, fase.
Rgen
I-IV),ed.R. Steele- F.M.Delorme,
{Metaphysica
XI, Oxonii1932.
41Forthetextcf.RogeriBaconiQuestiones
librum
De causis
, ed. R. Steele- F.M.
supra
inedita
Baconi
in: Opera
hactenus
Delorme,
, fase.XII, Oxonii1935.
Rogeri
42Cf.below.
43Cf.thelistofthecross-references
inDelorme's
contained
andtherelative
chronology
I-VIII(ed.cit.(above,n. 9),xxviito theedition
oftheQuestions
on Phys.
introduction
I-IV
onMetaph.
Delorme
xxxi).In hisrelative
tentatively
placestheQuestions
chronology,
evidence.
before
theQuestions
without
on Phys.
I-VIII,but,as itseems,
anypositive

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
QUESTIONS

203

verifiedby Bacon's own commentarieson these

causisare substantially
sciencesin the inquiryabout the causes
works:the role of the different
is actuallydiscussedby Bacon at the beginningof his commentaryon
Metaph.Ill,44while at the beginningof the commentaryon De causisseveral questionsare devoted to the problem of the influenceof universal
and particularcauses.45
In conclusion,the referencescontained in Ph, while by no means
demonstrative
proofsof our hypothesisthat Ph and Bacon's commentary
of the same course,do seem to provide
two
different
reportationes
represent
some circumstantial
evidenceforit. As to the factthatthe threereferences
in Bacon's Questions,on our hypothesisthis
do not have any counterpart
of thistext.In the same
could be imputedto a negligenceof the reportator
a
we
similar
omission
can
occurringin Ph, namely
way
probablyexplain
- containedin Bacon's
the omissionof a possible reference
Questions
,46
to a previouscommentaryon Book XVIII of the De animalibus
44Cf.thequestions
uniusscientie
estdeterminare
"Utrum
velconsiderare
de omnibus
ed. cit.(above,n. 40),104,lin.25-106,
causarum"
and"Quesitillascientia";
generibus
lin.27.
45Cf.thequestions
"Utrum
causaprimaria
. . . primo
de
plusinflut
quamsecundaria
". . . De aliiscausiscreade collatione
causeprime
extrinsecis,
increate,"
agentibus
primo
tis. . . utrum
<universalis>
"De ipsisintrinsecis
plusinflut
quamparticularis,"
quemagis
n. 41),11,lin.24-15,lin.24.
ed.cit.(above,
influt";
46Thisreference
in thequestion
occurs
"Utrum
monstrum
<accidatin animalibus>";
"diximus"
theform
usedinreferring
totheDe animalibus
seemstoindicate
(ofcourse,
proon thepoorquality
oftheonlymanuscript
videdit is nota misreading
bythecopyist;
witness
toBacon'sQuestions,
cf.below,
is talking
ofhisown
part4) thatthecommentator
on theAristotelian
text;cf.R, II, q. 90, 138,lin.18-30:"Habitoquodibi
commentary
utrum
accidatpeccatum,
monstrum.
(seil.:in animalibus)
queritur
Quod non:.XVIII.de
. . . Solutio:
diximus
hocnonestpossibile
inanimalibus
hoc
Animalibus,
, quodibisitmonstrum.
quod
scilicet
erroneum
accidere:
autquodacciditex unicoanimali
dupliciter,
potest
intelligi
indeAnimalibus;
secundum
ethocimpossibile
Aristoteles
autquod
est,etsicnegat
speciem,
in commixtione
accidat
ex concursu
rerum
diversarum
utrius
seminis
specierum
(?),etsic
estpossibile
utexleoneetcanevelaliquohujusmodi,
ad utrumque."
etsicpatetresponsio
In thecorresponding
owntreatis madenotto theauthor's
passageofPh thereference
buttotheAristotelian
text(probably
Degen.animal.
towhich
ment,
IV, 3, 769b20-770a4),
Bacon'scommentary
inthesolution
toorefers
ofthequestion
(".. . etsicnegatAristoteles
indeAnimalibus
lin.61-63:"Deindedubitatur
. . .");cf.Ph,II, q. 88,f.74vb,
utrum
inanisitponeremonstrum.
malibus
Et videtur
scribitur
quodnon:XVIII De animalibus
quod
..." A further
hocestimpossibile,
scilicet
monstra;
ergononsuntin animalibus.
problem
in thequestion
underdiscussion
of
is thefactthatPh seemsto quotean interpretation
thetextoftheDe animalibus
similar
inBacon'sQuestions
tothatadopted
as itwereadvolin.64-70:"Adprimum
catedbyothercommentators
dicendum
(cf.Ph,f. 74vb,
igitur
estnisifiatcommixtio
diversarum
virtutum.
Undeintelligit
quodhocintelligendum
quod,
nisifiatdiversarum
virtutum
diversorum
secundum
commixtio,
imposagentium
speciem
sibileestfieri
monstrum.
Etsecundum
bancsententiam
litteram
inisto
,
quidam
passunegative
legunt
itaquodimpossibile
in animalibus
Si tamen
estsicaccidere
monstra
sicutnecin plantis.
virtutes
utde
commiscentur
diversae
diversorum
. . ., tuncestponeremonstra,
agentium

19:09:44 PM

204

SILVIADONATI

4. The textofRogerBacon'sQuestions
on Phys
. I -VIII (- R)
Roger Bacon's Questionson Phys.I-VIII are preservedin MS Amiens,
cenB.M., 406, the famouscodex datingfromthe end of the thirteenth
In the
commentaries.47
turywhichcontainsalmostall Bacon's Aristotelian
. I-VIII are divided into two
Amiens manuscriptthe Questions on Phys
distinctsections,contained on ff. 29ra-56vb (Books I-VI [pardy]) and
In his introductionto
63vb-74ra (Books VI [partly]
-VIII) respectively.48
F.M. Delorme pointsout the poor qualthe editionof the commentary,
ityof the textin the firstsection,which,accordingto him, is characterised by gaps, transpositions
and other textualimperfections.49
Delorme's
remarksare fullyconfirmedby the resultsof our comparisonof Bacon's
commentarywithPh; thiscomparisonhas broughtto light,in the edited
text,several instancesof corruptionor at least of obscurityin addition
to those noticed by the editor.50Some of these cases will be examined
in thisparagraph.Two among them are instancesof omission(nr. 1-2);
in the other cases (nr. 3-5), althoughthe text of Bacon's commentary,
to pinpointpreciselywhere
comparedto Ph, is obscure,it is more difficult
the problemlies.
in
se patet.")
areindeedthesourceto whichPh is referring
Now,ifBacon'sQuestions
thepassage
thiswould,
ofcourse,
be in contrast
withthehypothesis
thatPh
justquoted,
andBacon'sQuestions
aredifferent
ofthesamecommentary.
thispasversion
However,
seemsto be tooambiguous
to baseanydefinite
conclusion
on it.
sage
47Fora description
ofMS Amiens,
desmanuB.M.,406,cf.E. Coyecque,
Catalogue
gnral
scrits
Baconi
desbibliothques
deFrance-Dpartements
, t.XIX,Paris1893,196-8;
publiques
Rogeri
libros
Prime
Aristotelis
I, II, V-X),ed.R. Steele- F.M.
Questiones
supra
philosophie
(Metaphysica
in:Opera
hactenus
inedita
Baconi
On theAmiens
Delorme,
, fase.X, Oxonii1930,xiii-xv.
Rogeri
hactenus
inedita
Baconi
cf.alsoOpera
, fase.XII, xv.
Rogeri
manuscript,
48Within
at theendofa
on BookVI endexabrupto
thesecondsection,
thequestions
ofa new
at thebeginning
whilethequestions
on BookVII beginexabrupto
gathering,
themissing
thatoneor moregatherings
one;thissuggests
containing
partofthecomed.cit.
in hisintroduction
to theedition;
havebeenlost(cf.Delorme's
remarks,
mentary
(above,n. 47),xxiv-xxv).
49Cf.ed. cit.(above,n. 47),xxv-xxvi.
50Since
- as it seems
- Bacon'sQuestions
from
a reportatio
, it is conceivable
originate
errors
thattheirtextual
notonlyto scribal
be due to someextent
imperfections
might
ofthe
in theprocess
oftransmission
ofthetext,
butalsoto thepoorquality
intervening
ofthestudent,
whichmight
havecontained
itself,
i.e.,therecord
original
gaps,garbled
etc.Forthediscussion
ofthisproblem,
detailed
textual
however,
investigations
passages
hereI will
wouldbe required
whichexceedthescopeofthepresent
Therefore,
inquiry.
in Bacon's
retain
thatthetextual
contained
Delorme's
simply
assumption
imperfections
aretheresult
to theediofordinary
scribal
errors
introduction
(cf.Delorme's
Questions
withthecommonly
seemsto be in accordance
tion,xxvi).Atanyrate,thisassumption
ofBacon'scommentaries
tosome
thatthereportationes
havebeenrevised
accepted
opinion
himself
bythecommentator
(cf.above,n. 38).
degree

19:09:44 PM

ON PHYSICS
II-IV
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

205

(1) In the question"Utrumphysicusdebeat abstrahere"onlyone argumentquodnonis apparentlyintroducedin Bacon's commentary.

However,
as the comparisonwith Ph clearlyreveals,what is apparentlyone argumentconsists,in fact,of parts of two distinctarguments,both mangled
by an omissionoccurringin the middle of the text:
lin.42-47:
Ph,II, q. 26,f.72ra,
R, II, q. 27,95,lin.17-21:
utrum
debeatabstrahere.Tertiodubitatur
utrum
abstrahat,
physicus
physicus
Queritur
et primode primomodo,utrum
abstractionequaeestuniversalis
a singulari.
universaliter:
<QN1> Etvidetur
quodnon,quiaassignat
<QN1> Quodnonad minus
ad differentiam
et mathemamathematici
interphysicum
datdifferentiam
quoniam
ticum(metaphysicum
ms.)penesabstracphysicum,
tionem.
setsensi- <QN2> Item,omnesensibile
sed
considrt
sensibile;
naturale;
quiaphysicus
alicu- singulare
Si naturale
bileetsingulare
idem;quareseparatio
sensibile;
ergonaturale.
noncompetit
a naturali,
jus a singularibus
physico. nonabstrahit
ergonihilabstrahit
a singulari;
universale
a
ergononabstrahit
singulari.
A confirmation
of thisreconstruction
is providedin Bacon's commenthe
answer
to
the
, since, as in Ph, in this
argumentsquodnon
taryby
worktwo distinctargumentsare discussed:
lin.49-55:
Ph,II, q. 26,f.72ra,
obiectum
solutio,
<QN1R>Adprimum
patet
immo
universalis,
quia nonestdifferentia
solumphysicus
illa abstracnonabstrahit
tionequa mathematicus,
aliquatamenabstrahit.
aut <QN2R> Adaliuddicendum
quodduplex
<QN2R>Adaliud:sensibile
dupliciter:
Dicendum
sensibile
etsingulareestsensibile:
perseetperaccidens.
perse,etsicsensibile
communiter
esseuni- quodsensibile
[perse]velper
idem;sensibile
potest
peraccidens
considrt
et a talinon
accidens
naturalis
eta primo
abstrahit
versale,
physicus.
nihilominus
tamenpotest
abstraabstrahit,
herea sensibili
etperse,ethoc
particulari
estsingulare.
Universale
autemestsensibile
a sensibili
etilludabstrahit
peraccidens,
per
se,scilicet
singulari.
R, II, q. 27,95,lin.24-28:
dicoquodnonab<QN1R> Adobjectum
strahit
abstractione
setalia,ut
mathematica,
visum
est.

(2) The same phenomenonoccurs in the next question,"Utrumnaturalispossitabstrahereformama materia."In this case too, what at first
sightappears to be only one argumentis in fact the resultof an omission which has disfigured
the originaltext:

19:09:44 PM

206

SILVIADONATI

lin.55-60:
Ph,II, q. 27,f.72ra,
R2,II, q. 28,95,lin.29-33:
utrum
abstrahit
abstracnaturalis
utrum
possitabstrahereQuartodubitatur
Queritur
a materia.
tionequaeestformae
a materia.
formam
Metha- <QS1> Et videtur
quodsic,quiamateria
<QS1> Quodsic:quia,in septimo
ab essentia estaliaab essentia
inVII
materie
cuiuslibet
, aliaestessentia
formae,
physice
forme,
; ergounumab alteropoterit
Metaphysicae
et abstrahi.
separali
inIII De anima
: aliudestma<QS2> Item,
et magni- gnitudo
esseetaquaetaquae
etmagnitudinis
quiaestaliudessemagnitudinis
forma esse;ergo,si propter
hocquodaliudpotest
tudo;ideoabstrahitur;
ergosimiliter
naturalis. abstrahi
aque,que estde consideratione
magnitudo,
ergoet aquae forma
similiter.
Sed ipsaestnaturalis;
ergonaturalispotest
abstrahere
a materia.
formam
As in the precedingexample, in this case as well the reconstruction
proposed here is confirmedby the solutionof the arguments,since both
commentariesanswertwo distinctargumentsquodsic.51
(3) A slightlymore complex situationoccurs in the thirdexample,
whichis takenfromthe question"An aliqua possuntfieriequaliter."The
beings
problemdiscussedin thisquestionis whether,besidesthe contingent
thatcome to be in maim(i.e., forthe mostpart in the same way),which
nata, and the contingentbeingsthatcome to be
are also called contingentia
ad utrumlibet
which are also called contingentia
in minori
,
(i.e., exceptionally),
Both
thereis an intermediateclass of beings that come to be aequaliter.
commentariesgive a negativesolutionbased on a twofoldclassification
of the causes producingcontingenteffects.52
(a) The firstclass is formed
determinatele
the
determinate
causes
), whichalwaysproduce their
{causae
by
effectsunless theiraction is prevented.The resultsof the actionsof this
sortof cause are the contingentia
nata, which come to be in maiori
, i.e., for
the mostpart,but not always;fortheydo not come to be in the cases in
whichthe action of theircauses is hinderedin some way. (b) The second
class is formedby the indeterminatecauses (<causaeindeterminatae
), which
are relatedto theireffectsin such a way thattheymay or may not produce them. The resultsof the actions of this second kind of cause are
the contingentia
ad utrumlibet.
Now, althoughconsideredwithrespectto their
to being and not being,
ad utrumlibet
are indifferent
cause the contingentia
consideredin themselves,they tend to not being ratherthan to being;
, but in minori
therefore,
, i.e., exceptionally.
theycome to be not aequaliter
of the causes is regardedas exhaustive,the
As this twofoldclassification
51Cf.R, 28,96,lin.5-21;Ph,q. 27,f.72ra,
lin.66-72.
52Cf.R, q.
lin.
lin.8, q. 61, 118,lin.6-19;Ph,q. 59,f. 73va,
q. 60, 116,lin.32-117,
lin.35-45.
14-22,
q. 60,f.73va,

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
QUESTIONS

207

class of contingent
of an intermediate
beings,i.e., a class containpossibility
in both commentaries.
be
is
ruled
out
that
come
to
,
aequaliter
ing beings
summed
the
solution
of
the
question,we will now examine
Having
up
more closelythe discussionof the second argumentquodsic, i.e., in favour
of the existenceof thisintermediateclass of contingentbeings:
lin.16:
R, II, q. 60, 116,lin.28-117,
. . . Quodsic. . . <QS2> Item,ubimagis
et minus,
et equale;setaliquafiunt
magis
...
etaliquaminus;
ergoaliquaequaliter

lin.11-28:
Ph,II, q. 59,f.73,
. . . Videturquod sic. . . <QS2> Item,
si estponeremaiuset minus,
et aequale;
inmaiori
cumigitur
(maiore
ms.)
aliquafiant
iter.
et minori
(etminori
ms.'aliquafient
...
aequaliter
com- <QS2R> Ad aliuddicendum
<QS2R>Adsecundum,
aliquapossunt
quodhabere
a causiscontrariis,
et magis
etminus
est.Autenimsunt
dupliciter
paranetaliacausari
me- a causis
sicunum(pro:bene?)possibile
etsicintelligendum
contrariis,
ponere
quod,
inillisquecausantur
a contradictoriis
si estponeremagiset minus,
et aequale,
dium;
nonestmedium;
contraria
estmedium.
Si autem
quiainter
sunta causiscontradictoriis,
sicnonestmediumvelaequale,licetsitmagiset minus.
Sicautem
se habent
iliaquaefiunt
inmaiori
et
minori
a causis
; causantur
(aequaliter
ms.)enim
a causadeterminata
scilicet
etindecontradictoriis,
terminata
medium
.
, etideononestponere
a causaindeterminata,
quare
queminus
fiunt
fiunt
utsunt
adutrumtibet,
contingento
quepotest
impedm;
ideoquiadese resmagis
sehabent
ad non
fieri
adfieri
etesse,
etilia(pro:causam?
) habent
quam
sehabet
adfieri
etnon
, ideo
queindifferenter
fieri
inminori
dicuntur
fieri
parte.
The argumentjust quoted restson the general principlethat,wherever more (magis)and less (minus)
exist,the intermediate
element,i.e., the
same in quantity(aequale),must also exist.In both textsthis argumentis
rejectedon the basis of the assumptionthat,while contrariesadmitof an
intermediateelement,oppositesby contradictiondo not; therefore,an
intermediate
class willbe possiblein the case of beingsproducedby causes
withcontrarydispositions,
but not in the case of beingswhose causes are
In the textprintedin ijtalicsPh elucidatesthis
contradiction.
opposed by
statement
general
by pointingout that the causes responsibleforbeings
to
in
maiori
and those responsibleforbeings comingto be in
be
coming
minori
are indeed opposed by contradiction,
for,accordingto the classification given above, theycan be describedrespectively
as determinateand
indeterminate
causes. This explanationis missingin Bacon's commentary,
whereonlythe generalstatementis introduced.Given the ellipticalcharacter of the answerof Bacon's commentary,almost crypticin its shortness,one would mosteasilysuspectthatan omissionhas occurredin the

19:09:44 PM

208

SILVIADONATI

text.But even if the text is acceptable as a veryshortenedformulation

of the answer,a furtherindicationof a textualproblemof some sortis
the factthatthe second part of the passage (printedhere in italics),which
deals with the contingentia
ad utrumlibet
and substantially
reproduceselementscontainedin the body of the question,does not seem to bear any
immediateconnectionto the firstpart. To explain this gap in the flow
of the reasoningwe must thereforeeitherassume that thereis an omission betweenthe firstand the second part or that what apparentlyrepresentsthe second part of the answeris in facta misplacedpassage.
(4) Discussingthe questionwhethernature,i.e., the intrinsicprinciple
of change and stasisin naturalbeings,can be identifiedwiththeirsubstantialform,both commentariesintroducean argumentquodsic (i.e.,
provingthatnatureis indeed identicalwiththe substantialformof natural beings)based on the assumptionthatchangesare to be classifiedwith
ad quem.In Ph the argumentis plain enough
respectto their terminus
and can be summed up as follows:given the principlejust stated,natural change is classifiedas such (i.e., as natural)withrespectto the form,
since the formconstitutes
its terminus
ad quem'but the formcould not provide any ontologicalbasis for this classification
of change if it were not
with
identical
nature;thereforeformand naturemustbe identical.As to
Bacon's commentary,the occurrenceof the same generalprinciple(i.e.,
that changes are to be classifiedwithrespectto theirterminus
ad quern)
in
the
in
a
on
the
is
simisame
whole, very
context,
exacdy
questionthat,
lar to its counterpart
in Ph, seems to testify
to the factthatwe are indeed
in presenceof the same argumentas in Ph. The generalprinciple,however,is all we can recognisein a textthat appears to be garbledto the
point of incomprehensibility.
R, II, q. 22,91,lin.15-18:
Ph,II, q. 21,f.71*,lin.24-26:
a suo Contra:
scr.
motus
naturalis
motus
denominatur
Contra:
denominator
(denotatur
setforma
estforma;
seddicitur
naturalis
nature
termino;
quare etcon.ms.)a termino;
motus
forma
estnatura,
sicutalbumab albedine (sedhocnonessetadd.etdel.ms.);
ergo
esttermisicdicitur.
Sed forma
dicitAristoteles:a termino
denominatur;
ma<jorem>
a termino.
nus(eiusms.)motus;
denominatur
generado
ergo(estadd.etdel.ms.)
naturalis.
Sedhoc
<a> forma
dicitur
motus
Et haec
nonessetnisiforma
essetnatura.
estratioActoris.
(5) Furtherexamples of textualobscurityin Bacon's commentaryare
foundin the questionwhetherbeingscomingto be in maiori
, i.e., accordnata, and beingscomintroducedabove, contingentia
ing to the classification
ad utrumlibet
, i.e., contingentia
, can be classifiedas beings
ing to be in minori

19:09:44 PM

ON PHYSICS
II-IV
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

209

comingto be saepe.The solutionof thisquestionrestsin both commentarieson the distinctionof two different
meaningsof the termssaepeand
a
non-technical
frequenter
(1)
meaning,accordingto which theyhave a
; (2) a techtemporal connotationand are synonymouswith multotiens
nical meaning,accordingto which theyreferto a necessaryrelationbetweencause and effect:takenin thissense,theyare applied,forinstance,
to phenomena such as eclipses,which do not always exist, since their
cause is not alwaysin act, but which nonethelessfollownecessarilyfrom
theircause, so thattheyalwaysexistwhenevertheircause exists.On the
the hypothesisis rejectedthatthe termssaepeand
basis of thisdistinction,
in
taken
their
technical meaning, can be applied to beings
,
frequenter
, since both kindsof being are contincomingto be in maiorior in minori
gentbeings.
Now, the firsttwo argumentsintroducedin the question intend to
ad utrumlibet
or contingenza
prove that both beings coming to be in minori
and comingto be in maiorior contingentia
natafall into the class of beings
comingto be saepe.In Ph the argumentsare clearlybased on the nontechnicalmeaningof the adverbsaepe
, whichcan be applied to both kind
of beings when taken as a synonymof multotiens
: both kinds of contincan
described
be
as comingto be saepebecause theircoming
gentbeings
to be occursoftenin time.In Bacon's commentary,
althoughthe general
is
the
text
shows
some
An instanceis
obscurities.
meaning plain enough,
foundin the second argument:the finalpart (printedin italics)appears
to be a superfluousaddition,since, as in Ph, the focus of the argument
seems to be on the fact- statedin the firstpart- that beings comingto
be in maioricome to be repeatedlyin time:
R, II, q. 61, 117,lin.17-23:
Ph,II, q. 60,f.73va,lin.28-31:
iliaquemagis
dicunt<ur> Habitoergoquodnonsitponere
medium,
Queritur
quesunt
etillaque minus,
etillaque sepe.
etminori
fieri,
quaesuntiliaquaesuntinmaiori
quaeritur.
< 1> Quodcontingentia
ad utrumlibet
fiant <1> Videtur
enimquodea quae suntin
sintsaepeet frequenter,
accidunt, minori
sepeetinminori:
quiahecsepius
quia conetin majori
ad utrumlibet
ergosepefiunt
{pro:minori?). tingens
saepefitetmultotiens,
esttamencontingens
in minori.
decontingentibus
<2> Similiter
<2> Item,quodfitinmaiori
potest
argui
saepefit;ergo
in majorisepeet nonestdistinguere
inter
ista.
natis,
quiailiaque fiunt
accidunt;
frequenter
cumiliaquefiunt
inminori
non
ergo
fiunt
sepe,
etc.
ergo
peroppositum
53Cf.R, q. 61, 117,lin.32-118,
lin.19;Ph,q. 60,lin.35-45.

19:09:44 PM

210

SILVIADONATI

A similarsituationoccurs in one of the next two arguments,whichin

. In Ph these two
both commentariesare introducedas argumentscontra
and
that (a) beings coming to be in minori
argumentsprove respectively
(b) beings coming to be in maioricannot be describedas coming to be
saepe.Both argumentsare based on the assumptionthat the adverb saepe
takenin the technicalmeaningexplained above, i.e., as entailinga necessaryrelationbetween the cause and the effect,only applies to beings
that can be the object of a demonstration.But obviouslythis property
ad utrumor contingentia
does not belong to beings coming to be in minori
it
Nor
does
come
be
libet
to
since
,
only exceptionally.
belong to
they
be
, since theircomingto be can
prevented,
beingscomingto be in maiori,
- in factthe failureof such
even if only exceptionally
beings to come to
or in
ad utrumlibet
be correspondsto the coming to be of the contingentia
nor
comminori.
Neitherbeings comingto be in minori
, therefore, beings
, can be describedas coming to be saepe.In Bacon's
ing to be in maiori
identicalwithits countercommentarythe firstargumentis substantially
the
in
Ph.
on
The
second
contrary,differsfromits corargument,
part
in
Ph
in
final
the
part (printedhere in italics).Contraryto
respondent
the text of Ph, however,the final part as preservedin Bacon's commentarydoes not seem to fitinto the argument.For, as in Ph, afterdisin the firstargument,
cussingthe case of beings coming to be in minori
in the second argument,Bacon's commentarytoo seems to focuson the
as in Ph,
nata' therefore,
beings that come to be in maiorior contingentia
we would expectthe conclusionthatbeingscomingto be in maiorior connatacannot be describedas comingto be saepe.But the finalpart
tingentia
is clearlyincompatiblewith this line of reasoning,since it statesexactly
natacome to be saepe.
the opposite,namelythat the contingentia
lin.32-35:
II, q. 61, 117,lin.23-32:
Ph,II, q. 60 f.73va,
<1> Contra:
estde hiisque <1> Contra:
demonstratio
fiunt
ex hisquaesaepefiunt
ad demonstrationes;
fiunt
ad
sed ex contingente
contingentium
sepeautfrequenter;
nonestdemonstratio;
utrumlibet
nonfiunt
ergocon- utrumlibet
demonstrationes;
ergo
ad utrumlibet
nonfiunt
nonsuntsaepe.
sepe.
tingentia
ea <2> Item,
.7. (i.e..6.) Methaphysice,
<2> Preterea,
in
: ea quaefiunt
VI Metaphysicae
inmajori,
nonessein maiori
utpluviam
inminori
sicausaimpefieri
quefiunt
possunt
diebuscanicularibus,
quia habentcausam diatur;
fiuntea que fiuntin minori
impeditam,
sua causa;
quandoimpeditur
setcon- nonigitur
sunt
adutrumlibet,
setilianon
contingentia
, quianonpossunt
fimex
fiunt
saepe
iliaque (inscr.et interi,
nata
natasunt
demonstratalibus
; ergo
tingentia
contingentia
corr.ms.)
inmajori
velsepe.
tiones.
parte
fiunt

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

2 11

The examplesjust discussedgive an idea of the sortof problemsposed

by the text of Bacon's commentaryas preservedin the Amiens manuscript:it containsinstancesof omission,obscurities,possiblymisplaced
such as gaps,
passages. Though itselfnot free of textualimperfections
omissions,misreadingsand occasional obscurities,in the cases examined
above Ph, on the contrary,shows a more corrector at least more consistentand, on the whole, more comprehensibletext.
The Amiens manuscriptis the only known witnessto Bacon's commentary.In his introductionto his edition of the commentary,F.M.
Delorme recognisesthe poor qualityof the manuscript,but stressesthe
of improvingit withoutthe help of a second copy.54Now,
impossibility
Ph is not a copy of Bacon's commentary;so we can hardlyexpect that
contributeto the solution of the difficult
its witnesswill significantly
to
problemsfacingany attempt restorethe problematicpassages to their
of Ph to Bacon's commentary,
originalform.Given the close similarity
we
can
however,
reasonablyexpect that, as in the instancesdiscussed
withPh will to some degreecontribute
above, comparingthe commentary
of the meaninghidden behind the text.Obviously,
to our understanding
the kind of authorityto be granted to Ph in this respect will largely
depend on the solutionof the questionof how Ph is related to Bacon's
commentary.But even if it is only a later adaptation of this work by
anotherauthor,as a closely related text Ph will doubtlessstillprovide
some usefulevidence to supplementthe scantymanuscripttraditionof
Bacon's Questions.Therefore,even ifit is onlya derivativeworkdepending on Bacon's commentary,it seems to me that for this reason, quite
apart fromits obvious significanceas a witnessto Bacon's influenceon
the exegeticaltraditionof the Physics
, the anonymouscommentaryof MS
Lewis Europ. 53 should be of interestto scholars concerned with the
studyof Roger Bacon.
Cologne
Thomas-Institut
, University
of Cologne

54Cf.ed.cit.(above,n. 47),xxv-xxvi.

19:09:44 PM

2 12

SILVIADONATI
APPENDIX
List of the questions

ThisAppendix
a listofthequestions
in theanonymous
contains
discussed
commenII-IVpreserved
in MS Philadelphia,
FreeLibr.,LewisEurop.53,ff.71rataryon Phys.
in RogerBacon's
85rb(= Ph),alongwithreferences
to thecorresponding
questions
I-VIII (= R). Forthesakeofclarity,
on Phys.
bothin Ph andin Bacon's
Commentary
thequestions
havebeennumbered
eachbook.Tidesin
within
commentary
continuously
in thetextandhavebeenreconstructed
arenotfound
on thebasisofthe
anglebrackets
contents
ofthequestions.
Minormistakes
inthetextofPhhavebeencorrected
occurring
The arrow(, I) whichoccasionally
to Bacon'squestions
thereference
silendy.
precedes
indicate
a transposition
withrespect
in theanonymous
to thecorresponding
questions
commentary.
LiberII
natura>(Ph,f. 7Ira,lin.1-10[inc.ex abrupto];
cf.R,
Q. 1 <Utrum
possitdefiniri
q. 3, 77,lin.31-78,lin.19).
dataab Aristotele
sitbona> (Ph,f. 71ra,lin.10-27;cf.R,
Q. 2 <Utrumdefinitio
q. 4, 78,lin.20-79,lin.18).
et circahocprimoutrum
sitin intelligentiis
Q. 3 In quibussitnatura,
(Ph,f. 71ra,
lin.28-33;cf.R, q. 5, 79,lin.19-35).
sitincelonatura
lin.22).
(Ph,f.7Ira,lin.34-42;cf.R,q. 6, 79,lin.36-80,
Q. 4 Utrum
in inferioribus,
sitnatura
etcircahocprimo
utrum
sitin inanimatis
Q. 5 Utrum
(Ph,
f.71ra,lin.42-59;cf.R, q. 7, 80,lin.23-81,lin.12).
et primoutrum
naturasitin animatis,
sitin animatis
animavegetativa
Q. 6 Utrum
(Ph,f.7Ira,lin.59-68;cf.R, q. 8, 81,lin.13-28).
habeatanimalnaturam
(Ph,f. 7Ira,lin.68 sqq.;cf.R, q. 9, 81, lin.
Q. 7 Utrum
29-82,lin.8).
in homine
sitnatura
Q. 8 Utrum
(Ph,f.71rb,lin.1-9;cf.R, q. 10,82,lin.9-27).
elementorum
Q. 9 In generatione
simplici
quidsitnatura(Ph,f. 71rb,lin.9-32;cf.
R, q. 11,82,lin.35-83,lin.34).
in generatione
mixti
inanimati
Q. 10 Quidestnatura
(Ph,f. 71rb,lin.32-55;cf.R,
q. 12,83,lin.35-85,lin.6).
. . generatis
in animatis.
Q. 11 Quidestnatura
(Ph,f. 71rb,lin.
perputrefactionem
56-66;cf.R, q. 13,85,Un.7-22).
et seminis
decisionem
Q. 12 <Quid sitnatura>in generatis
(Ph,
perpropagationem
f.71rb,lin.67-2ab imo;cf.R, q. 14,85,lin.23-86,lin.8).
lin.18;
in motualterationis
Q. 13 Quidestnatura
(Ph,f.71rb,lin.2 ab imo-71va,
cf.R, q. 15,86,lin.9-87,lin.21).
in motuaugmenti
essenatura
Q. 14 Quiddicatur
(Ph,f. 7lva,lin.18-25;cf.R, q.
16,87,lin.22-34).
Q. 15 Quidsitnaturain moturecto(Ph,f. 7Iva,lin.25-40;cf.R, q. 17,ed. cit.,
p. 87,lin.35-88,lin.27).
Q. 16 In motucirculan
(Ph,f.7lva,lin.40-49;cf.R, q. 18,88,lin.
quidsitnatura
28-89,lin.7).
Q. 17In motuprocessivo
(Ph,f.7lva,lin.49-65;cf.R, q. 19,89,lin.
quidsitnatura
8-30).
Q. 18 Quae estillamateria
(Ph,f.7lva,lin.65-74;cf.R, q. 20,89,
quaeestnatura
. lin.31-90,lin.7).
. . . utrum
sitnatura
nonsitnatura
Q. 19Si materia
generis
prima
ipsasubforma
primi
(Ph,f.7lva,lin.74-7Ivb,lin.4; cf.R, q. 21,90,lin.8-91,lin.4).

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
QUESTIONS

213

nonsitnatura,
utrum
secundi
generis
Q. 20 Si subforma
primi
ipsasubforma
generis
sitnatura
(Ph,f.7Ivb,lin.4-17;cf.R, q. 21,90,lin.8-91,lin.4).
sitnatura
forma
substantial
(Ph,f.7Ivb,lin.17-36;cf.R, q. 22,91,
Q. 21 Utrum
lin.8-31).
forma
accidentalis
(Ph,f.71vb,lin.36-57;cf.R, q. 23,91,lin.32-92,
Q. 22 Utrum
lin.26).
sitnatura
(Ph,f.7Ivb,lin.58 sgg.;cf.R, q. 24,92,lin.27-93,
privatio
Q. 23 Utrum
lin.31).
secundum
formam
considerei
idem<quodmathematicus>
(Ph,
physicus
Q. 24 Utrum
f.72ra,lin.1-18;cf.R, q. 25,93,lin.32-94,lin.18).
sitponereabstractionem
(Ph,f. 72ra,lin.18-42;cf.R, q. 26,94,lin.
Q. 25 Utrum
lin.16).
19-95,
et primode primomodo,utrum
abstractione
abstrahit,
Q. 26 Utrum
quae
physicus
estuniversalis
a singulari
(Ph,f.72ra,lin.42-55;cf.R, q. 27,95,lin.18-28).
abstractione
a materia
(Ph,f. 72ra,lin.
quae estformae
Q. 27 Utrumabstrahat
55-72;cf.R, q. 28,95,lin.29-96,lin.21).
lin.9; cf.R, q. 29,
mathematicus
abstrahat
(Ph,f. 72ra,lin.72-72rb,
Q. 28 Utrum
96,lin.22-97,lin.21).
et primoutrum
(Ph,f. 72rb,lin.
Q. 29 Utrum
quantitas
possitabstrahi,
magnitudo
9-16;cf.R, q. 30,97,lin.22-98,lin.2).
abstrahi
locuspossit
Q. 30 Utrum
(Ph,f.72rb,lin.16-28;cf.R, q. 31,98,lin.3-27).
(Ph,f. 72rb,lin.28-37;cf.R, q. 32, 98, lin.
Q. 31 Utrum
possitabstrahi
tempus
28-99,lin.3).
discreta
Q. 32 De quantitate
quae estoratioutrum
(Ph,f. 72rb,lin.
possitabstrahi
37-62;cf.R, q. 33,99,lin.4-30).
Q. 33 Quidestpromateria
{sl.considerata
ipsiquantitati
proutsicabstrahitur
prout
estmathematica)
lin.7; cf.R, q. 34,99,lin.31-100,
lin.29).
(Ph,f.72rb,lin.62-72va,
causaequidsignificet
(Ph,f.72va,lin.8-23;cf.R, q. 35, 100,
Q. 34 De hocnomine
lin.30-101,
lin.20).
"causa"dicatur
velaequivoce
univoce
de causis(Ph,f.72va,lin.23-35;
Q. 35 Utrum
cf.R, q. 36, 101,lin.21-102,
Un.6).
"causa"perpriusdicatur
de finali
causaquamde aliis(Ph,f.72va,lin.
Q. 36 Utrum
36-52;cf.R, q. 37, 102,lin.7-34).
aliarum
causarum
ad invicem,
Q. 37 De comparatione
quaemagissitcausaet nobilin.24).
lior(Ph,f.72va,lin.52-61;cf.R, q. 38, 102,lin.35-103,
causaematerialis>
(Ph,f.72va,lin.62-2ab imo;cf.R, q. 39,
Q. 38 <De proprietate
lin.19).
103,lin.30-104,
lin.12;cf.R, q. 40,
formae
Q. 39 De proprietate
(Ph,f. 72va,lin.2 ab imo-72vb,
lin.13).
104,lin.20-105,
istud(seil,
formae
utestexemplar
inanima
conveniat
formae)
Q. 40 Utrum
proprietas
(Ph,f.72vb,lin.12-19;cf.R, q. 41, 105,lin.14-28).
efficientis
(Ph,f.72vb,lin.20-31;cf.R, q. 42, 105,lin.29-106,
Q. 41 De proprietate
lin.9).
effectus
sicutdistinguuntur
causaeprimae,
utscilicet
Q. 42 Utrum
primus
distinguatur
essent
effectus
(?)quattuor
(Ph,f.72vb,lin.32-39;cf.R, q. 43, 106,lin.10-25).
primi
uniuseffectus
sintplures
causae>(Ph,f.72vb,lin.40-52;cf.R, q. 44,
Q. 43 <Utrum
lin.4).
106,lin.26-107,
unacausasitcausaalterius>
Q. 44 <Utrum
(Ph,f.72vb,lin.52-62;cf.R, q. 45, 107,
lin.5-29).
idemsitcausaoppositorum>
(Ph,f.72vb,lin.62-72;cf.R, q. 46, 107,
Q. 45 <Utrum
lin.30-108,
Un.13).
absentia
nautaesitcausaeversionis
navis>(Ph,ff.72vb,lin.72-73ra,
Q. 46 <Utrum
lin.5; cf.R, q. 47, 108,lin.14-28).

19:09:44 PM

214

SILVIADONATI

solumefficienti,
istudconveniat
(Ph,f.73ra,
Q. 47 Utrum
quodsitcausacontrariorum
lin.15).
lin.5-16;cf.R, q. 48, 108,lin.29-109,
velparticulares
sintuniversales
causae(i.e:u. c. s. un.v. p.) (Ph,f.73ra,
Q. 48 Utrum
lin.6).
lin.17-35;cf.R, q. 49, 109,lin.16-110,
<causarum>
(Ph,f.73va,lin.35-57;cf.R, q. 50, 110,lin.
Q; 49 De aliisdifferentiis
7-111,lin.16).
effectus
inactu>(Ph,f.73ra,lin.57-66;
Q. 50 <Utrum
positacausain actu,ponatur
cf.R, q. 51, 111,lin.17sgg.)
nonpositacausauniversali
effectus,
Q. 51 Utrum,
ponatur
positacausaparticulari,
lin.1; cf.R, q. 52, 112,lin.1-20).
(Ph,f.73ra,lin.66-73rb,
istudconveniat
cuilibet
causae,quodponatsuumeffectum
(Ph,f.73rb,
Q. 52 Utrum
lin.9).
lin.1-9;cf.R, q. 53, 112,lin.21-113,
scilicet
esteffectus
quamponit,
quodcausauniversalis
Q. 53 De secunda
proprietate
universalis
etcausaparticularis
esteffectus
(Ph,f.73rb,lin.9-31;cf.R, q. 54,
particularis
lin.15).
113,lin.10-114,
sintaliquid(Ph,f. 73rb,lin.32-49;cf.R, q. 55, 114,
casuset fortuna
Q. 54 Utrum
lin.16 sgg.).
utrum
sintsubstantia
velaccidens
(Ph,f. 73rb,lin.49-58;cf.
Q. 55 Si suntaliquid,
R, q. 56, 115,lin.1-9,16-24).
tarnen
nectamen
substantia
velaccidens,
peraccidens,
Q. 56 Datoquodsintaliquid,
velprivationem
utrum
sintaliquidperpositionem
(Ph,f. 73rb,lin.59-66;cf.R, q. 57,
115,lin.10-16,25-32).
sintcausae(Ph,f.73rb,lin.66-1ab imo;cf.R, q. 58,
casusetfortuna
Q. 57 Utrum
Un.12).
115,Un.33-116,
(Ph,f. 73rb,lin.1 ab imo-73va,
Q. 58 Si <casus>sitcausaperse velperaccidens
lin.7; cf.R, q. 59, 116,lin.13-23).
inminori,
sicutestponere
quaedam
quaedam
quaesuntsicutinmaiori,
Q. 59 Utrum
utrum
sitponere
(Ph,f.73va,lin.7-28;cf.R, q. 60, 116,lin.
aliquaquaefiant
aequaliter
lin.16).
24-117,
(Ph,f. 73va,lin.28-45;cf.R,
Q; 60 Quae suntillaquae suntin maioriet minori
lin.19).
q. 61, 117,lin.17-118,
in minori
in hisquaefiunt
velin maiori
et casus,utrum
Q. 61 In quibussitfortuna
lin.15).
(Ph,f.73va,lin.45-59;cf.R, q. 62, 118,lin.20-119,
sitomnium
in minori
. . . utrum
quae
Q. 62 Dato quodcasussiteorumquae fiunt
lin.8).
in minori
fiunt
(Ph,f.73va,lin.59-74;cf.R, q. 63, 119,lin.16-120,
sitin brutis
(Ph,f. 73va,lin.75-73vb,
primoutrum
Q. 63 In quibussitpropositum,
lin.7; cf.R, q. 64, 120,lin.9-23).
et alienatis
sitinpueris
(Ph,f.73vb,lin.7-14;cf.R, q. 65,
propositum
Q. 64 Utrum
120,lin.24-34).
istisinsitcasusetfortuna
(Ph,f.73vb,lin.14-23;cf.R, q. 66, 120,lin.
Q. 65 Utrum
lin.18).
35-121,
casussitin inanimatis
(Ph,f. 73vb,lin.24-42;cf.R, q. 67, 121,lin.
Q. 66 Utrum
lin.3).
19-122,
reduci<casuset fortuna>
(Ph,f. 73vb,lin.42-61;
Q. 67 Ad quamcausamhabeant
cf.R, q. 68, 122,lin.4-33).
natura
et intelad causamefficientem,
cumhaecsitduplex,
Q. 68 Si . . . reducuntur
lin.7; cf.
. . . utrum
reducuntur
ad haec(Ph,ff.73vb,lin.62-74ra,
lects velpropositum,
lin.31).
R, q. 69, 122,lin.34-123,
. . . utrum
ad intellectum
ad causamquaeestintellectus
reduci
specuQ. 69 Si habent
lin.10)
velpracticum
lativum
(Ph,f.74ra,lin.8-19;cf.R, q. 70, 123,lin.32-124,
sintin eodem(Ph,f.74ra,lin.19-25;cf.
causaeperse etperaccidens
Q. 70 Utrum
R, q. 71, 124,lin.11-23).
sintrespectu
causaeprimae
casualiaet fortuita
(Ph,f.74ra,lin.25-41;
Q. 71 Utrum
cf.R, q. 72, 124,lin.24-125,
lin.13).

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

215

sintrespectu
et caeli(Ph,f. 74ra,lin.
casualiaet fortuita
intelligentiae
Q. 72 Utrum
41-48;cf.R, q. 73, 125,lin.14-33).
in natura
sintcasualiaetfortuita
velinuniverso
(Ph,f.74ra,lin.48-64;
Q. 73 Utrum
lin.27).
cf.R, q. 74, 125,lin.34-126,
causaeuniversalis,
utrum
nonsintrespectu
sintcum
Q. 74 Cumcasualiaet fortuita
nonpraeter
intentionem
: scilicet?)
eius(Ph,f. 74ra,lin.
licet(pro
intentione
eiusdem,
lin.28).
lin.5; cf.R, q. 75, 126,lin.28-127,
64-74rb,
numerum
causarum
habeatprobare
(Ph,f.74rb,lin.6-37;cf.
physicus
Q. 75 Utrum
lin.8).
R, q. 76, 127,lin.29-129,
causas(Ph,f. 74rb,lin.37-49;cf.R, q. 77, 129,lin.
Q. 76 De modoconsiderandi
9-35).
determinare
de casuet fortuna
ad physicum
(Ph,f.74rb,lin.
pertineat
Q. 77 Utrum
lin.28).
49-63;cf.R, q. 78, 129,lin.36-130,
quodcausaenoncoincidunt
quae hicdicitur,
quaeQ. 78 De quadampropositione
lin.3; cf.R, q. 79, 130,lin.29-131,
verosic(Ph,f. 74rb,lin.63-74va,
dam,quaedam
lin.20).
cumaliis(Ph,f.74va,lin.3-13;cf.R, q. 80, 131,lin.
materia
coincidat
Q. 79 Utrum
lin.7).
21-132,
forma
coincidat
cumefficiente
(Ph,f.74va,lin.13-24;cf.R, q. 81, 132,
Q. 80 Utrum
lin.8-29).
sitquaelibet
actiopropter
finem>(Ph,f. 74va,lin.
Q. 81 <Utrumin naturalibus
lin.25).
25-50;cf.R, q. 82, 132,lin.30-134,
in naturapeccatum
velmonstrum
sitaccipere
(Ph,f. 74va,lin.
Q. 82 An possibile
lin.32).
51-1ab imo;cf.R, q. 83, 134,lin.26-135,
utrum
alicuius
suntpercorruptionem
peccatain natura,
prinQ. 83 Si . . . sitponere
lin.8; cf.R, q. 84, 135,lin.33-136,
lin.6).
cipii(Ph,f.74va,lin.1 ab imo-74vb,
in plantis
sexuum
(Ph,f.74vb,
ponere<per> commixtionem
Q. 84 Ansitpeccatum
lin.9-23;cf.R, qq. 85,86, 136,lin.7-26).
universaliter
sitin hisponerepeccata(Ph,f. 74vb,lin.23-30;cf.R,
Q. 85 Utrum
lin.8).
q. 87, 136,lin.27-137,
accidat
monstrum
(Ph,f.74vb,lin.31-53;cf.R, q. 88, 137,lin.9 sgg.).
Q. 86 Utrum
in animalibus
sitponere
(Ph,f.74vb,lin.53-61;cf.R, q. 89,
peccatum
Q. 87 Utrum
138,lin.1-17).
inanimalibus
monstrum
sitponere
Q. 88 Utrum
(Ph,f.74vb,lin.61-70;cf.R, q. 90,
138,lin.18-30).
lin.3; i
in> inanimatis
sitponere
peccata(Ph,ff.74vb,lin.70-75ra,
Q. 89 <Utrum
lin.7).
cf.R, q. 92, 139,lin.14-140,
monstra
sitinillisponere
Q. 90 Utrum
(Ph,f.75ra,lin.3-17; cf.R, q. 91,pp. 138,
lin.31-139,
lin.13).
velmonstra,
utrum
accidant
exintentione
huiusmodi
si accidant,
peccata
Q. 91 Utrum
naturae
(Ph,f.75ra,lin.18-30;cf.R, q. 93, 140,lin.8-22).
sitmateria
necessitatem
reinaturali;
utrum
(Ph,
primo
Q. 92 Quidestid quodimponit
f.75ra,lin.30-61;cf.R, q. 94, 140,lin.23-141,
lin.31).
lin. 1; cf.R,
necessitatem
efficiens
(Ph,f. 75ra,lin.61-75rb,
Q. 93 Utrum
imponat
lin.11).
q. 95, 141,lin.32-142,
etprimo
de fineextra(Ph,f.75rb,lin.2-25;
finis
necessitatem,
Q. 94 Utrum
imponat
cf.R, q. 96, 142,lin.12-143,
lin.7).
necessitatem
reinaturali
forma
(Ph,f.75rb,lin.
(seil.finis
intra)
Q. 95 Utrum
imponat
25-33;R, q. 97, 143,lin.8 sgg.).
LiberIII
in infinitum
substantia
(Ph,f.
absqueomniquantitate>
Q. 1 <Utrum
possitextendi
75rb,lin.34-63;cf.R, q. 1, 144,lin.3-145,lin.15).

19:09:44 PM

216

SILVIADONATI

si sitponere
<Aristotelis>:
huiusmodi
substantias
utrum,
Q. 2 De primaconsequentia
utrum
sintindivisibiles
(Ph,f.75rb,lin.63-75va,lin.5; cf.R, q. 2,
[sl.sinequantitate),
lin.26).
145,lin.16-146,
esset
"si substantia
essetinfinita,
quaelibet
parssubstantiae
Q. 3 <Utrumsequatur:
> (Ph,f.75va,lin.5-13;cf.R, q. 3, 146,lin.27-147,
lin.4).
infinita"
in continuis
sitpossibile
(Ph,f.75va,lin.14-41;cf.R,
ponereinfinitum
Q. 4 Utrum
q. 4, 147,lin.5-34).
. . . <infinitum>
sitin quantitate
discreta
et in multitudine
(Ph,f. 75va,
Q. 5 Utrum
lin.41-67;cf.R, q. 5, 147,lin.35-148,
lin.37).
in continuis
. . . utrum
necin discretis
sit
Q. 6 Si . . . nonsitactuponereinfinitum
lin.15;cf.R, q. 6, 148,lin.38-149,
infinitum
(Ph,f.75va,lin.67-75vb,
potentia
ponere
lin.31).
... an sitin potentia
sitin potentia
Q. 7 Si . . . infinitum
puraan sitibialiquidmixlin.26).
tumde actu(Ph,f.75vb,lin.16-40;cf.R, q. 7, 149,lin.32-150,
tarnen
itaquodactus
sitinpotentia,
coniuncta
actuiincompleto,
Q. 8 Si . . . infinitum
. . . utrum
habeatessesuccessive
velin
actum
ad ulteriorem
semper
relinquat
potentiam
lin.13).
(Ph,f.75vb,lin.40-60;cf.R, q. 8, 150,lin.27-151,
permanentia
. . . utrum
esseinfinitum
Q. 9 Supposito
corpushomogeneum
quaelibet
parseiussit
lin.4).
infinita
lin.4; cf.R, q. 9, 151,lin.14-152,
(Ph,ff.75vb,lin.60-76ra,
utrum
tamen
(Ph,f.76ra,
parsestinfinita,
aliquaparsestinfinita
Q. 10Si nonomnis
lin.4-22;cf.R, q. 10,152,lin.5-24).
utrum
infinitum,
aliquaparseiussitinfinita
Q. 11 Si ponatur
corpusheterogeneum
Un.34).
(Ph,f.76ra,lin.22-47;cf.R, q. 11,152,lin.25-153,
sitin genere
velextragenus(Ph,f. 76ra,lin.48-63;cf.R,
Q. 12 An <infinitum>
lin.17).
q. 12,153,lin.35-154,
estingenere,
. . . utrum
sitsubstantia
(Ph,f.76ra,lin.63-76rb,
Q. 13Si . . . infinitum
lin.1; cf.R, q. 13,154,lin.18-155,
lin.5).
sitaccidens
(Ph,f. 76rb,lin.2-23;cf.R, q. 14, 155,lin.
Q. 14 Utruminfinitum
6-156,lin.2).
inquogenere
sitaccidens,
(Ph,f.76rb,lin.23-36;cf.
Q. 15Si . . . infinitum
quaeritur
R, q. 15,156,lin.3-22).
sitin genere
relationis
(Ph,f. 76rb,lin.36-47;cf.R, q. 16, 156,lin.
Q. 16 Utrum
23-34).
actionis
infinitum
sitin praedicamento
(Ph,f. 76rb,lin.47-59;cf.R,
Q. 17 Utrum
lin.13).
q. 17,156,lin.35-157,
sitingenere
(Ph,f.76rb,lin.59-69;cf.R, q. 18,157,lin.14Q. 18Utrum
qualitatis
158,lin.23).
sitin qualitate,
in qua specie(Ph,f. 76rb,lin.69Q. 19 Si . . . infinitum
quaeritur
lin.23).
76va,lin.15;cf.R, q. 18,157,lin.14-158,
<utrum
infinitum
sitcuiusnillestextra>(Ph,f.76va,
infiniti,
Q. 20 De definitionibus
lin.15-31;cf.R, q. 19,158,lin.24-159,
lin.8).
estcuiusquantitatem
Q. 21 De aliadefinitione,
accipientibus
quaeestquodinfinitum
estextrasumere
(Ph,f.76va,lin.31-47;cf.R, q. 20, 159,lin.9-35).
semper
in se possitdividiin infinitum
continuum
(Ph,f. 76va,lin.47-76vb,
Q. 22 Utrum
lin.1; cf.R, q. 21, 159,lin.36-160,
lin.33).
naturaliter
in infinitum
(Ph,f. 76vb,lin.1-16;
Q. 23 Utrum
possetdividicontinuum
cf.R, q. 22, 160,lin34-161,
lin.23).
ininfinitum,
nonapponitur
. . . quomodo
hoc
dicatquodcontinuum
Q. 24 CumActor
habeatintelligi
lin.7).
(Ph,f.76vb,lin.16-32;cf.R, q. 23, 161,lin.24-162,
hocsitverum,
scilicet
nonvaditininfinitum
Q. 25 Utrum
perappoquodmagnitudo
sitionem
nonhabito
ad divisionem
(Ph,f.76vb,lin.32-54;cf.R, q. 24, 162,lin.
respectu
8-163,lin.2).
ad
infinita
nonhabitorespectu
Q. 26 Si . . . nonsitmagnitudo
perappositionem

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ANONYMOUS
ON PHYSICS
QUESTIONS

217

lin.5; cf.R, q. 25, 163,

. . . quaeestcausahuius(Ph,if.76vb,lin.55-77ra,
divisionem,
lin.3-164,lin.12).
ininfinitum
ad divisionem
crescat
(Ph,f.77ra,
magnitudo
perrelationem
Q. 27 Utrum
lin.5-16;cf.R, q. 26, 164,lin.13-33).
. . . utrum
numerus
vadatininfinitum
inquantitate
discreta
perappoQ. 28De infinito
lin.21).
sitionem
(Ph,f.77ra,lin.16-35;cf.R, q. 27, 164,lin.34-165,
vaditin infinitum
hocsitverum,
scilicet
pernaturam
quodnumerus
Q. 29 Utrum
sic divisae(Ph,f. 77ra,lin.35-50;cf.R, q. 28, 165,lin.22-166,
continuae
quantitatis
lin.11).
in dividendo
in apponendo,
. . . utrum
vadat
vadatin infinitum
Q. 30 Si . . . numerus
lin.5).
ininfinitum
(Ph,f.77ra,lin.50-66;cf.R, q. 29, 166,lin.12-167,
velforma
in numeris,
utrum
sitmateria
(Ph,f. 77ra,lin.
Q. 31 De causainfinitatis
lin.5; cf.R, q. 30, 167,lin.6-168,lin.2).
66-77rb,
infiniti
. . . utrum
materia
siteiussubiectum
vel quantitas
(Ph,
Q. 32 De subiecto
f.77rb,lin.5-38;cf.R, q. 31, 168,lin.3-169,lin.26).
motum
et tempus,
ad magnitudinem,
... cui
Q. 33 De infinito
percomparationem
lin.8).
inest(Ph,f.77rb,lin.38-54;cf.R, q. 32, 169,lin.27-170,
primo
motuiquamtempori
infinitum
(Ph,f. 77rb,lin.
Q. 34 Utrum
perpriusconveniat
54-72;cf.R, q. 33, 170,lin.9-35).
infinitum
sitinfini
ta>
esse,< utrum
Q. 35De rationibus
perquasActor
probat
generado
lin.
lin.
lin.
cf.
lin.3).
77rb,
72-77va,
27;
R,
34,
170, 36-172,
(f.
q.
velratione,
<utrum
omnecorpusterminetur
ad aliud,
Q. 36 De secunda
quaestione
etsicininfinitum>
(Ph,f.77va,lin.27-46;cf.R, q. 35, 172,lin.4-173,lin.9).
ratione
. . . utrum
nosintelligamus
infinitum
Q. 37 De tertia
(Ph,f. 77va,lin.46-67;
cf.R, 173,lin.10-174,
lin.2).
<utrum
etmotus
sintinfinita>
(Ph,f.77va,lin.
Q. 38 De illisaliisrationibus,
tempus
66-7
7vb,lin.9; cf.R, q. 37, 174,lin.3 sgg.).
LiberIV
loci(Ph,f.77vb,lin.10-39;cf.R, q. 1, 175,lin.5-176,lin.26).
Q. 1 De differentiis
Un.25).
Q. 2 Ansitlocus(Ph.,f.77vb,lin.40-62;cf.R, q. 2, 176,lin.27-177,
locumesse(Ph,ff.77vb,lin.63-78ra,
lin.15;cf.R, q. 3,
Q. 3 An sitnecessarium
lin.10).
177,lin.26-179,
sitforma
locati(Ph,f. 78ra,lin.15-41;cf.R,
Q. 4 Quidsitlocus,et primoutrum
lin.22).
q. 4, 179,lin.11-180,
lin.7).
locussitmateria
Q. 5 Utrum
(Ph,f.78ra,lin.41-56;cf.R, q. 5, 180,lin.23-181,
<locus>sitspatium
inter
lateracontinentis
lin.
Q. 6 Utrum
(Ph,f.78ra,lin.56-78rb,
33;cf.R, q. 6, 181,lin.8-182,lin.12).
locussitsubstantia
Q. 7 Utrum
(Ph,f.78rb,lin.34-62;cf.R, q. 7, 182,lin.13sgg.).
lin. 14; cf.R, q.8, 183,
locussitquantitas
(Ph,f. 78rb,lin.62-78va,
Q. 8 Utrum
lin.1-35).
Q. 9 Utrumsitsuperficies
(Ph,f. 78va,lin. 14-64;cf.R, q. 9, 183,lin.36-185,
lin.31).
locussitcorpus
lin.44; cf.R, q. 10,185,lin.
Q. 10Utrum
(Ph,f.78va,lin.64-78vb,
lin.37).
32-187,
etlocati
. . . cuiussubiecti
sitlocantis
sit,utrum
Q. 11 Habitoquodlocussitaccidens
insimul
lin.34).
(Ph,f.78vb,lin.44-63;cf.R, q. 11,187,lin.38-188,
. . . cuiussitaccidens
Q. 12 Si . . . locusnonsitaccidens
(Ph,ff.78vb,lin.
utriusque
lin.6; cf.R, q. 12,188,Un.35-189,
lin.33).
63-79ra,
... De istaconditione
definitionem.
vel
Q. 13 De ipso<loco> quidestsecundum
differentia
scilicet
"immobile"
. . . quo motuhicprivetur,
<utrum
motuperse
essentiali,
an peraccidens>
lin.20).
(Ph.,f.79ra,lin.6-18;cf.R, q. 13,189,lin.34-190,

19:09:44 PM

218

SILVIADONATI

motus>(Ph,f.79ra,lin.19-35;cf.
locussitimmobilis
perprivationem
Q. 14 <Utrum
lin.9).
R, q. 14,190,lin.21-191,
universi>
diffusam
locussitimmobilis
peromnespartes
pervirtutem
Q. 15 <Utrum
lin.12).
(Ph,f.79ra,Hn.35-56;cf.R, q. 15,191,Hn.10-192,
immobilitatis
ad completionem
additur
loci)(Ph,
(seil,
Q. 16Quidsitilludquodulterius
lin.25).
lin.26; cf.R, q. 16,192,lin.13-194,
f.79ra,lin.56-79rb,
ultima>(Ph,f. 79rb,lin.26-41;cf.R,
varietur
locuscumvariantur
Q. 17 <Utrum
lin.26).
q. 17,194,lin.26-195,
motucorruptionis
locussitimmobilis
(Ph,f. 79rb,lin.41-56;cf.R,
Q. 18 Utrum
lin.19).
q. 18,195,Hn.27-196,
motuaugmenti
(Ph,f. 79rb,lin.56-79va,lin.4; cf.R,
Q. 19 Utrummoveatur
Hn.3).
lin.20-197,
q. 19,196,
circulum
localiter
secundum
(Ph,f. 79va,Hn.4-18;
Q. 20 Utrumlocusmoveatur
cf.R, q. 20, 197,Hn.4-34).
moturecto(Ph,f. 79va,Hn.18-33;cf.R, q. 21, 197,lin.
moveatur
Q. 21 Utrum
Hn.24).
35-198,
ad locummathematicum
loci naturalis
(Ph,f. 79va,lin.
Q. 22 De comparatione
Hn.18).
33-64;cf.R, q. 22, 198,Hn.25-199,
lin.23;cf.R, q. 23, 199,Hn.
locussitinloco(Ph,f.79va,lin.64-79vb,
Q. 23 Utrum
Hn.19).
19-200,
ad indivisibile
(Ph,f.79vb,Hn.23-46;cf.R, q. 24,
Q. 24 De locopercomparationem
Hn.28).
200,Hn.20-201,
sitin loco(Ph,
. . . utrum
ad locatum
punctus
Q. 25 De locopercomparationem
lin.21).
f. 79vb,Hn.46-61;cf.R, q. 25,201,Hn.29-202,
Hn.7; cf.R, q. 26,202,Hn.
Hneasitin loco(Ph,ff.79vb,Hn.61-80ra,
Q. 26 Utrum
Hn.21).
22-203,
sitin loco (Ph,f. 80ra,lin.7-21;cf.R, q. 27, 203,lin.
Q,. 27 Utrumsuperficies
Hn.12).
22-204,
utrum
sitinloco(Ph,f.80ra,Hn.21-42;cf.R, q. 28,
incorporea,
Q. 28 De substantia
Hn.13).
204,Hn.13-205,
simul(Ph,f. 80ra,Hn.42-68;
plurapunctasintin punctoindivisibili
Q. 29 Utrum
Hn.12).
cf.R, q. 29,204,Un.14-205,
in eodemindivisibiH
simulessepossint
(Ph,f. 80ra,lin.
intelHgentiae
Q. 30 Utrum
Hn.18).
Hn.23; cf.R, q. 30,205,Hn.13-207,
68-80rb,
cumduplexsit
nonsuntin loco,sed solumcorpus,
Q. 31 Si . . . istaindivisibilia
essein
dicatur
. . . quidistorum
et corpus-substantia,
scilicet
corpus,
corpus-quantitas
Hn.15).
locoperse,(Ph,f.80rb,Hn.23-40;cf.R, q. 31,207,Hn.19-208,
undecorpus
locusdebeatur
(Ph,f.80rb,lin.40-62;cf.R, q. 32,
corpori
Q. 32 Utrum
Hn.15).
208,Hn.16-209,
suum(Ph,f.80rb,Hn.
sintin locoperse sicutettotum
corporis
partes
Q. 33 Utrum
Hn.18).
Hn.12;cf.R, q. 33,209,Hn.16-210,
63-80va,
locato>(Ph,f.80va,Hn.12-36;cf.R, q. 34,210,
locusadaequetur
Q. 34 <Utrum
Hn.19-211,
Hn.7).
sintcontinua>
locuset locatum
(Ph,f.80va,Hn.36-67;cf.R, q. 35,
Q. 35 <Utrum
211,lin.8-212,Hn.34).
caeHvellunaesicutin locosuo(Ph,f.80va,Hn.
sitin ultimo
Q. 36 De igneutrum
Hn.22).
Hn.18;cf.R, q. 36,212,Hn.35-213,
67-80vb,
ultimum
ignissitiUud(Ph,f. 80vb,lin. 18-33;cf.R,
Q. 37 De loco aerisutrum
Hn.6).
q. 37,213,Hn.23-214,
ultimum
aerissiteiuslocus(Ph,f. 80vb,Hn.34-51;
Q. 38 De loco aquae utrum
cf.R, q. 38,214,Hn.7 sgg.).
utrum
situltimum
aquae(Ph,f.80vb,lin.51-65;cf.R, q. 39,
Q. 39 De locoterrae
215,Hn.1-21).

19:09:44 PM

II-IV
ON PHYSICS
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

219

centrum
sitlocusterrae
(Ph,ff.80vb,lin.65-8Ira,lin.18;cf.R, q. 40,
Q. 40 Utrum
lin.24).
215,lin.22-216,
cf.R, q. 41,216,lin.25-34).
caelum
habeat
locum(Ph,f.8Ira,lin.18-23;
Q. 41 Utrum
caelumhabeatlocumperaccidens
an perse> (Ph,f.8Ira,lin.23-37;
Q. 42 <Utrum
lin.21).
cf.R, q. 42,216,lin.35-217,
estinlocoperaccidens,
istudsitverum
quaeritur
quomodo
Q. 43 Habitoquodcaelum
lin.2).
(Ph,f.81ra,lin.37-8lrb,lin.16;cf.R, q. 43,217,lin.22-220,
habeatlocum"inquo"(Ph,f.8lrb,lin.16-27;cf.R, q. 44,220,
caelum
Q. 44 Utrum
lin.3-221,lin.4).
omnium
caelumsecundum
universi
sitin
Q. 45 Utrum
quodestaggregatio
partium
loco(Ph,f.8lrb,lin.27-36;cf.R, q. 45,221,lin.5-26).
. . . quomodo
caelumproutestuniversum
sitin locoet proutcaelum
Q. 46 Habito
. . . quaeritur
nominat
ultimam
aliiorbessintinloco(Ph,f.8lrb,lin.
sphaeram,
quomodo
37-56;cf.R, q. 46,211,lin.27-222).
extracaelum
Q. 47 Ansitvacuum
(Ph,f.8lrb,lin.57-8lva,lin.11;cf.R, q. 47,223,
lin.1-224,
lin.7).
sitponerevacuum
infra
caelum(Ph,f. 8lva,lin.11-37;cf.R, q. 48,
Q. 48 Utrum
224,lin.8-225,lin.18).
vacuumesse.De primoexperimento>
Q. 49 <De experimentis
probantibus
(Ph,
f.8lva,lin.37-60;cf.R, q. 49,225,lin.19-226,
lin.31).
Q. 50 <De secundo
(Ph,f.8lva,lin.60-8Ivb,lin.12;cf.R, q. 50,226,
experimento>
lin.32-228,
Un.5).
Q. 51 <De tertio
(Ph,f.8Ivb,lin.12-28;cf.R, q. 51,228,lin.6-34).
experimento>
Q. 52 <De quartoexperimento>
(Ph,f.8Ivb,lin.28-39;cf.R, q. 52, 228,lin.35229,lin.14).
Q. 53 <De quintoexperimento>
(Ph,f.8Ivb,lin.39-64;cf.R, q. 53, 229,lin.15230,lin.20).
in rerum
sitvacuum
natura>(Ph,f. 8Ivb,lin.64-70;cf.R, q. 54,
Q. 54 <Utrum
230,lin.21-30).
invacuoquodestnihil(Ph,ff.8Ivb,lin.70-82ra,
motus
fieri
lin.
Q. 55 Utrum
possit
lin.7).
23;cf.R, q. 55,230,lin.31-232,
. . . quodsitvacuum
a corporibus,
dimensionatum
Q. 56 Supposito
spatium
separatum
natum
etsupposito
inhuiusmodi
translado
vacuo,
repleri
corpore
primo
quodsitpossibilis
de huiusmodi
motibus
utrum
ibi possitfierimotuscircularis
quaeritur
specialiter
(Ph,
f.82ra,Un.23-36;cf.R, q. 56,232,lin.8-29).
in vacuosic <accepto>possitfieri
motus
Q. 57 Utrum
(Ph,f.82ra,lin.
processivus
Un.6).
36-47;cf.R, q. 57,232,lin.30-233,
in vacuo(Ph,f.82ra,lin.47-58;cf.
utrum
Q. 58 De moturectonaturali
possitfieri
R, q. 58,233,Un.7-234,Un.2).
violentus
motus
lin.1; cf.R,
Q. 59 Utrum
(Ph,f.82ra,Un.58-82vb,
possitibifieri
q. 59,234,Un.3-22).
fiatin vacuo,utrum
sitmotus
velmutatio
fiat
velutrum
Q. 60 Datoquodtranslado
subito
velsuccessive
Un.18).
(Ph,f.82rb,Un.2-27;cf.R, q. 60, 234,Un.23-235,
fieri
translado
invacuoquocumque
Q. 61 Utrum
(Ph,f.82rb,Un.27-47;cf.R,
possit
Un.14).
q. 61,235,Un.19-236,
sitponere
vacuum
incorporibus
sciUcet
infusum
etimbibitum
aUter,
Q. 62 Utrum
(Ph,
f.82rb,Un.47-64;cf.R, q. 62,236,Un.15-237,
Un.12).
huius{si.ponentis
in corvacuum
infusum
et imbibitum
Q. 63 De causapositionis
Un.15;cf.R, q. 63,237,Un.13-238,
Un.24).
(Ph,f.82rb,Un.64-82va,
poribus)
rarum
et densum
fiant
adveniente
nuUo,nullorecedente
Q. 64 Utrum
(Ph,f.82va,
Un.15-32;cf.R, q. 64,238,Un.25-239).
etdensum
secundum
substantiam
Q. 65 Quidsitrarum
(Ph,f.82va,Un.32-59;cf.R,
Un.35).
q. 65,240-241,

19:09:44 PM

220

SILVIADONATI

in densoquamin raro>(Ph,f.82va,
materiae
Q. 66 <Utrum
plussitde substantia
lin.59-68;R- ).
etprimo
utrum
sintsubstantia
vel
Q. 67 De raroetdensoquidsintsecundum
genus,
accidens
lin.8; cf.R, q. 66,241,lin.36-242,
lin.11).
(Ph,f.82va,lin.68-82vb,
sint(Ph,f.82vb,lin.8-18;cf.R, q. 67,ed.cit.,p. 242,lin.12Q. 68 In quogenere
30).
rarietdensi. . . utrum
istudsitmateria
(Ph,f.82vb,lin.18-25;cf.
Q. 69 De subiecto
Un.4).
R, q. 68,242,Un.31-243,
in mixtis
sintista(Ph,f.82vb,lin.25-38;cf.R, q. 69,243,lin.5-23).
Q. 70 Utrum
rarum
etdensum
sintunivoce
in miscibilibus
etmixtis
Q. 71 Utrum
(Ph,f.82vb,lin.
lin.13).
38-54;cf.R, q. 70,243,lin.24-244,
attribu
rarum
et densum
Q. 72 Cui debeant
(Ph,f.82vb,lin.54-67;cf.R, q. 71,
244,lin.14-35).
et densum
conveniunt
materiae
velipsius
Q. 73 Si rarum
composito
gratiaformae,
cumtarnen
nullomodohabeant
fieri
sineactione
. . . cuiusmodi
formae
forma
compositi,
estcausarariet densi.Utrum
forma
lin.12;
corporalis
prima(Ph,ff.82vb,lin.67-83ra,
lin.23).
cf.R, q. 72,244,lin.36-245,
utrum
debeant
fieri
subito
velsuccesrarefactio,
condensatio,
Q. 74 De istismotibus,
sintmotusvel mutationes
sive,utrum
(Ph,f. 83ra,lin. 12-46;cf.R, q. 73, 245,lin.
lin.7).
24-247,
sittempus
lin.4; cf.R, q. 74,247,lin.
Q. 75 Utrum
(Ph,f.83ra,lin.47-56,61-83rb,
8-24,248,lin.2-22).
habeatesseperinstans
Q. 76 Utrum
tempus
(Ph,f.83ra,lin.56-61,83rb,lin.4-10;
cf.R, q. 75,247,Un.25-248,
Un.2, 22-30).
sitin animautin subiecto
Q. 77 Utrum
(Ph,f.83rb,Un.10-18;cf.R, q. 76,
tempus
Un.26).
248,Un.31-249,
animaenecinanima. . . utrum
. . . posset
essesineanima
Q. 78 Si . . . nonsithabitus
Un.26).
(Ph,f.83rb,Un.18-38;cf.R, q. 77,249,Un.27-250,
sitsubstantia
velaccidens
Q. 79 De genereeius,et primoutrum
(Ph,f. 83rb,Un.
Un.12).
38-47;cf.R, q. 78,250,Un.27-251,
inquogenere
Q. 80 Si . . . sitaccidens,
quaeritur
(Ph,f.83rb,Un.47-61;cf.R, q. 79,
251,Un.13-31).
estquantitas,
utrum
continua
veldiscreta
Q. 81 Si . . . tempus
(Ph,f.83rb,
quaeritur
Un.61-83va,
Un.9; cf.R, qq. 80-81,251,Un.32-253,
Un.4).
sitquantitas
Q. 82 Utrumtempus
(Ph,f. 83va,lin.9-28;
perse velperaccidens
cf.R, q. 82,253,lin.5-20).
< "tempus
ad eiusdefinitionem,
estnumerus
secunmotus
Q. 83 De tempore
quantum
dumpriuset posterius."
Utrum
sitnumerus
motus>(Ph,f.83va,lin.28-46;cf.
tempus
R, qq. 83,84,ed. cit.,p. 253,lin.21-254,15).
<scilicet>"secundum
Q. 84 De aUisdifferentiis,
(Ph,f.83va,lin.
priuset posterius"
lin.9).
46-57;cf.R, q. 85,254,lin.16-255,
ad subiectum
subiectum
eiussit
eius,utrum
Q. 85 De tempore
percomparationem
substantia
velaccidens
Un.6).
(Ph,f.83va,Un.57-67;cf.R, q. 86,255,Un.10-256,
motus
siteiussubiectum
Un.7; cf.R, q. 87,
Q. 86 Utrum
(Ph,f.83va,lin.67-83vb,
256,Un.7-257,lin.4).
et circahocprimoabsolute,
an instans
sit(Ph,f.83vb,lin.7-20;
Q. 87 De instanti,
cf.R, q. 89,257,Un.36-258,
lin.27).
instans
sitquantitas
directa
Q. 88 Utrum
praedicatione
(Ph,f.83vb,Un.20-37;cf.R,
Un.15).
q. 90,258,Un.28-259,
Q. 89 Quidesteiussubiectum
(Ph,f.83vb,Un.37-45;cf.R, q. 93,260,lin.28-261,
lin.17).
instans
dicatur
eo quodtempus
exinstanQ. 90 Utrum
principium
temporis
componitur
tibus(Ph,f.83vb,Un.45-60;cf.R, q. 95,262,lin.3-263,lin.5).

19:09:44 PM

ON PHYSICS
II-IV
ANONYMOUS
QUESTIONS

221

eo quodfacit
estprincipium
temporis
quodinstans
ipsum
Q. 91 De aliomododicendi,
lin.12;cf.R, q. 96,263,lin.6-31).
influere
(Ph,ff.83vb,lin.60-84ra,
duotempora
sicut
terminus
etprinciunius
(?)secundum
Q. 92De instanti
quodestinter
utrum
sitidem(Ph,f.84ra,lin.12-28;cf.R, q. 99,265,lin.19-266,
lin.28).
piumalterius,
uniustemporis
velfiniseiusutrum
unoquodest<terminus>
sit
Q. 93 De instanti
cumtempore
idemperessentiam
(Ph,f.84ra,lin.28-33;cf.R, q. 100,266,lin.30-267,
lin.25).
alicuius
utrum
suntunuminstans
temporis
Q; 94 De instantibus
quae suntextrema
lin.35).
autdiversa
(Ph,f.84ra,lin.33-54;cf.R, q. 101,267,lin.26-268,
in tototempore
situnumetideminstans
(Ph,f.84ra,lin.54-64;i R,
Q. 95 Utrum
lin.18).
q. 97,263,lin.32-264,
ad aeternitatem,
utrum
sintidem(Ph,f.84ra,lin.
Q. 96 De comparatione
temporis
Un.17;cf.R, q. 102,268,lin.36-269).
64-84rb,
ad aevum,
utrum
sintidem(Ph,f.84rb,lin.17-34;
Q. 97 De comparatione
temporis
lin.8).
cf.R, q. 103,270-271,
... ad aeternitatem,
utrum
sintidem(Ph,
Q. 98 De nunctemporis
percomparationem
f.84rb,lin.34-64;cf.R, q. 104,271,lin.9-272,lin.22).
ad aevum(Ph,f.84rb,lin.64-84va,
lin.
Q. 99 De nunctemporis
percomparationem
lin.10).
12;cf.R, q. 105,272,lin.23-273,
nunctemporis
ad nuncaeternitatis,
utrum
sintidem(Ph,
Q. 100De comparatione
f.84va,lin.12-28;cf.R, q. 106,273,lin.11-274,
Un.9).
ad nuncaevi(Ph,f.84va,lin.28-46;
Q. 101De nunctemporis
percomparationem
cf.R, q. 107,274,lin.10-275,
lin.13).
numeri
lin.32; cf.R, q. 108,275,lin.
Q. 102De unitate
(Ph,f.84va,lin.46-84vb,
lin.36).
14-276,
sitquodnumerus
situnus,utquodsitidemdenarius
Q. 103Quomodo
intelligendum
decern
et decern
hominum
(Ph,f.84vb,lin.32-66;cf.R, q. 109,276,lin.37equorum
278,lin.16).
cf.R, qq. 110-112,
Q. 104De unitate
(Ph,if.84vb,lin.66-85rb;
278,lin.
temporis
lin.5).
17-281,

19:09:44 PM

3
as a ParisianPhysicsProfessor
RogerBacon: RichardRufoisSuccessor
REGA WOOD

Why did Roger Bacon despise Richard Rufus,calling him the worst
and most famous among the foolishmultitude?It is a question whose
answermay have littleto do withRufus.Bacon dislikedsome of the most
eminent,learnedmen of his time.AlbertusMagnus and Thomas Aquinas
earned Bacon's contemptjust as Rufusdid.1Still,Bacon's dislikeof Rufus
was not irrational.Bacon was opposed to the developmentsin what we
now call "scholasticism"which are exemplifiedby Rufus.
Bacon was an accomplishedlinguistby the standardsof the time and
the author of Greek and Hebrew grammars;he was quite widelyread
in the literatureof the Arabic philosophy;he was convincedof the value
of mathematics;and he was committedto an allegorical approach to
theology. By contrast,Rufus probably could read only Latin; among
the Arabs he felta strongneed to come to termsonlywithAverroes.In
mathematicsRufusshowedno special interest;even in logic,about whose
importancetheyagreed,the two men disagreed.Rufusassertedand Bacon
denied that correctassertionscould be made about emptyclasses.2
And Rufus was to carrythe day. Even the many later logicianswho
agreed withBacon ratherthan Rufuson the questionof emptysets saw
the enterpriseof philosophyand theologyin the same termsRufus did.
1 Compendium
London1859,426; Compendium
studii
, c. 5, ed.J.S. Brewer,
philosophiae
Leiden1988,86. Henceforth
studii
, c. 4, n. 86,ed.T.S. Maloney,
ph.and
Comp.
theobgiae
th.
Comp.
about
toa series
Thanks
areowedtoJeremiah
forhelpful
ofquestions
Hackett
replies
on thisarticle.
Baconandforcomments
2 Bacon,Comp,
Ox., Ill d. 21,as
Sent.
86; Rufus,
th.,p. 2a, c. 4, n. 85,ed. Maloney,
Christus
"Utrum
DerOxforder
O.F.M.ber
dieFrage'.
citedbyF. Pelster,
Richardus
Rufus
Theologe
16
in triduo
et mdivale,
mortis
fuerit
de Thologie
ancienne
homo,"in: Recherches
aliterestde
Balliol62,f. 230^: "Namtempus
(1949),259-80.See alsod. 25, Oxford,
secundum
essentia
aliterde essentia
enuntiabilis.
articuli,
Tempusenimestde articulo
inesse
eidem
etarticulo
essentiam
sedsecundum
suasquaeomnes
veritati
differentias
suam,
sitsubdifferentia
estde essentia
enuntiabilis,
possunt
ergoetc.ErgocumeademVeritas
in a,
et futuri,
estChristum
essenatum
praeteriti,
praesentis
patetquodidemarticulus
in , et nasciin a, et tarnen
et nasciturum
triasuntenuntiabilia
tresdifferentias
propter
temporis."
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,2

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

223

Like Rufus,they omittedallegoricalmoralizingfromtheir lectureson

theology.When lecturingon theology,theywere preoccupied,as Rufus
was, withmetaphysical
problemsand even withtopicsin naturalphilosophy such as substantialchange and beginningand ceasing. They shared
Rufus' relativelynarrowknowledgeof the historyof philosophyand his
weaknessesin language and mathematics.
When we considerthe big picture,Bacon appears as a defenderof the
breadthof early thirteenth
centurylearning.Taking another more fine
pictureemerges,a picturein which
grainedapproach,however,a different
not
a
old-fashioned
defends
more
Rufus, Bacon,
early13thcenturyscholasticism.And it is thatpictureI want to sketchhere. This approach starts
withwhat Rufus and Bacon have in common: the period in theirlives
beforetheybecame Franciscanswhen theytaughtAristotle'slibrinaturales
at Paris.
I am going to compare and contrastBacon and Rufus as
Specifically,
lecturerson the Physics
, a task which they undertookabout ten years
3
apart: Rufus before 1238 and Bacon before 1247. These lecturesmay
have followedeach otherclosely,since Bacon lecturedforan exceptionally
long period,as he himselfreportedand as is suggestedby the fact that
he prepared twelvemajor commentaries.4
The lectureswith which we
will be concernedare stylistically
as well as chronologicallyquite close:
both are sets of briefquestionson controversial
pointsin the text,rather
thanrunningcommentaries
or synopses.Bacon preparedtwo such lecture
courses.Many of the questionsin both of these courses are longerand
betterdevelopedthan thoseof Rufus,and Bacon is oftenconcernedwith
somewhatdifferent
issues. That is what we should expect, since Bacon
was probablynot Rufus' immediatesuccessor,but very likelyfollowed
Robert Kilwardby.Still,thereare enough pointsof contactforthe contrastbetweenRufus and Bacon as physicsprofessorsto be instructive.
3 1247isthedatebywhich
Baconmust
haveleft
ParisforOxford,
sincehesawThomas
ofWales,
whenThomasserved
as theFranciscan
lector
at Oxford,
andThomas
probably
as Bishop
Oxford
ofSt.DavidinWalesin 1247.I acceptCrowley's
contention
departed
thatBaconstudied
withAdamMarshandalsobriefly
withThomasofWalesat Oxford
after
hisfirst
at Paris,cf.Crowley,
Bacon
, Louvain1949,27-9.Sinceas
Roger
sojourn
Hackett
haspointed
outthere
is alsogoodreason
tobelieve
thatBaconwasat Parisuntil
madethemovein 1247.Cf.Hackett,
Scientia
1247,itseemsto methatBaconprobably
From
Robert
toRoger
Grosseteste
Bacon
Grosseteste:
New
, in:J.McEvoy
Experimentalis:
(ed.),Robert
, Steenbrugis
1995,95.
Perspectives
4 Comp.
octoPhysicorum
tot.,ed.
Aris
ph.yc. 8, p. 468; Bacon,Quaestiones
supralibros
F. Delorme,
in:Opera
inedita
Baconi
hactenus
andR. Steele,
, Vol. 13,ed. F. Delorme
Rogeri
citations
ofthisworkwilltaketheformQsoPhysics
, XIII:
(Oxford
1935),xxx.Hereafter
pagenumber.

19:09:58 PM

224

REGAWOOD

attitudes
toward
The comparisonwillshowtwo men withvastlydifferent
whichpreceded
of Aristotle,
the old-fashionedneo-Platonicunderstanding
the introductionof the librinaturales
, and towardAverroes.Surprisingly,
as a physicsprofessor,not only does Rufusdefendold-fashionedscholasof
ticism,but he, ratherthan Bacon, challengesAverroes'interpretation
Aristotle.That is the picturewhich emergesfromthe examinationof five
topics: Platonic ideas, final cause, the eternityof the world, projectile
motion,and the place of the heavens.
1. PlatonicIdeas
Scholasticswere not free to accept Aristotle'scomplete rejectionof
Platonic ideas {Met. c. 11. 1, 1059b2)- or, as medievais would have
describedthem,divine ideas. Still,views about divine ideas varied considerably.And on this issue, Rufus and Bacon representtwo extremes.5
Rufus believed God could be correctlycharacterizedas the exemplary
which is. He held that God as the firstcause is the
formof everything
formof all thingsor theirexemplar,just as a seal is the formof wax;
the firstcause is also the firstform.6
Bacon explicitlyconsidersthisview, askingwhetherthereis "one first
formjust as thereis one firstmatter."His replyis negative,since forthe
physicistthereis no one firstformin nature.Only at the instantof crea... percreationem,
tion is therea singleexemplarform{inprimoexiturerum
scilicetin esse
secundo
scilicet
una estforma
exitu3
,
exemplar).
Subsequently{in
... pernaturam
), in the naturalworld thereis no firstform.7
physico
On the topic of the numberof divineideas, earlyscholasticswere also
divided.Most thirteenth
centuryauthors,influencedby Anselm,held that
God has onlyone idea,just as he has one essence.8By contrast,
Augustine,
5 Fora discussion
ofinnateideas,cf.
and minimal
of Bacon'sreluctant
acceptance
167-80.
Crowley,
6 Rufus,
In Phys
. I, Erfurt,
genere
Q. 312,f. 1: "Et quiacausaprimaestin triplici
estcognoscere
causae,ideoeiusproprium
quodprima
perillastrescausas.Intelligendum
InPhys.
estforma
cerae."Hereafter
sicutsigillum
causaestforma
omnium
sive[?]exemplar
NewCollege
lat.4538,f.Ira;Oxford,
InMetaph.
I (Vatican,
285,f.194ra):
"Item,
Rufus,
rerum
causae:estenimcausafinalis,
cumipsesitcausain triplici
quiaomnium
genere
cumde ipsodicatur
finis
creatarum
est;estetiam[autemO] causaformalis
ipsumesse
rerum."
omnium
exemplar
7 Bacon,Quaestiones
tot.,I, ed.F. Delorme
andR. Steele,
Aris
libros
Physicorum
supra
quatuor
ofthis
citations
hactenus
Baconi
in:Opera
inedita
1928,41-2.Hereafter
, vol.8, Oxford
Rogeri
workwilltaketheform
, I, VIII: 41-2.
Qsq
Physics
8 Anseimus,
in: Opera
Omnia
c. 15 et 37,ed. F. Schmitt,
, I, 28-9et55.
Monologion,

19:09:58 PM

RUFUS'SUCCESSOR
BACONAS RICHARD

225

Peter Lombard, and the earlyAlexanderof Hales posited a pluralityof

divine ideas. As Lombard puts it, citingAugustine,there is only one
divinewill, one divine power, and hence only one principalcause. But
- the
since the effectsof that cause are many- everything
which exists
causes of thosethingsin God are said to be many.Rejectingthe assumption on which the opposite opinion is based, Lombard holds that not
God knowsis his essence.9
everything
Directinghis argumentsin the firstinstanceagainstAverroes,on this
issue Rufus supportsthe position of Augustineand Lombard. And in
some respectshis positionis more extremethan theirs.He argues that
God not only has many ideas but even has ideas for each individual
creature.10
Though theirideas constitutea unityin Gos mind, every
singlethingis understoodin itself,with its own nature,by its own species or idea in God's mind.11Holding that God has only a singleidea,
Rufus' opponentsobject that this is too much to know,because infinite
and hence unknowable.Quite the contrary,Rufus replieson Augustine's
indeed fromthe human perspective,God does know infinitely
authority;
many things.12
Bacon confrontsthis position of Rufus' too, in his lectures on the
"Some say that there are many diverseideas in the firstcause,
Physics'.
finitein that they produce finitethings."He rejectsthis unusual view

9 Lombard,
Sententiae
, I d. 36 c. 1 & II d. 18 c. 5, ed. Brady,
1971,c. I:
Quaracchi
ofAlexander
ofHalesviewsondivine
259,418.Forthedevelopment
ideas,cf.R. Wood,
Distinct
IdeasandPerfect
Solicitude:
Alexander
, andOdoRigaldus
, in:
ofHales,Richard
Rufus
Franciscan
53 (1993),7-46.Henceforth,
Ideas.
Studies,
Wood,Distinct
10Rufus,
Deideis,
tr.1,Erfurt,
sibicontradiceret
Q. 312,f.81:"Numquid
ipseAverroes
ineodempassu(Metaph.
XII t. 52)ubiethaecverbadixit?
Ibidemenimdicitquoddatio
huiuslargaecomprehensionis
... a largodatore
nonnisiex perfecta
soliciprimonobili,
tudine
circahomines
individuos
Averroem
provenit.
Numquid
ergoilledatorquisecundum
estintellectus
a materia,
cumsitsicsollicitus
circaindividua,
etipsaintelligit."
separatus
11Rufus,
De ideis
naturam
vereet perfecte
creatam
, tr.4, f. 81 : "Et quisdubitat
si fuerit
notaeiuspropria
cognosci,
specieset idea?Estautemcausaprimasingulorum
creatorum
ideaepropriae."
b:"Etipsaspecies
De ideis
estintellectum,
, Ad 1,f.84ra
primo
illudobiectum
secundo
cuiusestiliaspecies.
solumper
Ergoquiatuomniaaliainteliigis
. . . primum
tespeciem
a tuointellectu
ettuusintellectus
intellectum
idem<sunt>;
simpliciter
secundario
id estiliaobiecta
ineffabiliter
intellecta,
quaeper[om.E' tespeciem
inteliigis,
a tuointellectu
<sunt>diversa.
Ethocdicosecundum
suasubiecta
hocquod
etsecundum
suntin se ipsiset suissubiectis
et naturis,
licetin quantum
a te intellecta
miromodoin
unasimplicssima
sint."
specieadunata
12Sent.
Ox., I d. 36,Oxford,
Balliol62, f.80vb:
estponerefinita
"Item,melius
quam
. . . ergovide
<ut> ponere
turdecentius
et congruentius
turunicaesseideaquam
infinita,
- Supratarnen
De civitate
habitm
estexAugustino,
Dei sunt
Dei,quod'insapientia
plures.
infinita
quaedam.'"

19:09:58 PM

226

REGAWOOD

acceptinginstead the view of the vast majorityof theolosummarily,13

halfof the thirteenth
the
first
in
century,accordingto whichthere
gians
is produced.14
is a singleidea fromwhich everything
Roger Bacon had no sympathyfor Richard Rufus' old-fashioned
AugustininNeo-Platonism.He consideredit simplymistaken.It is a case
in which Bacon was in tune with the timesand Rufuswas not.
2. Final causes
Not all of Rufus' old-fashionedviews were as unusual as his defense
of a pluralityof divineideas. Some of the old-fashionedviewshe upheld
were no more than scholastictruisms.One such view is that a thing's
finaland efficient
causes mutuallydefineeach other.Bonaventurestates
the dictum succinctly:"the end moves the efficient[cause];" in the
naturalrealmno cause is actual withoutthe concurrenceof the finalwith
the efficient[cause].15An objectionconsideredby Philip the Chancellor
cause is actualizedby the final
is based on the same truism:the "efficient
estin actu)."16
earn[causam
cause [secundum
] efficiens
finalem
lecturesand in
both in his Physics
Rufus statesthe view circumspectly
. Sometimes,as when statingan
his commentaryon the Posterior
Analytics
utfinis"11Elsewhere
objectionhe uses the phrase "movingas an end: movet
more preciselyhe speaks of the efficient[cause] "movingon account of
an end" and of the efficient[cause] insofaras it is efficient
existingin
in
an
virtueof the end.18Rufus explains this language
early work,his
and finalcauses mutuallydefine
. Efficient
Analytics
questionson the Posterior
each other because a potentiallyor habituallyexistingend moves the
efficientcause, as a purpose moves an agent, while an efficientcause
actualizesthe end.19
13Bacon,QsoPhysics
, II, XIII: 113.
14See forexample
Oxford
Alexander
, ed.R. Thomson,
Speculationum
Speculum
Nequam,
ParisSumma
aurea
, II, tr.1 c. 2, ed.J.Ribaillier,
Altissiodorensis,
1988,254-5;Guillelmus
Bonaventurianum
Grottaferrata
Chancellarius,
1982,III: 17 (Spicilegium
17);Philippus
Bern1985,56.
Summa
deBono
, ed. N. Wicki,
15Bonaventure,
II d. 1 p. 2 d. 1,Quaracchi
1885,II, 51.
Sent.,
16Philippus
Bern1985,6.
Summa
deBono
, ed. N. Wicki,
Chancellarius,
17Cf.Rufus,
ut
dicereutrumque
In Phys
., VIII, f. 13. Et videtur
quoddebemus
inferioribus
efficiens,
propter
quam
ipsaresextra,
perapprehensionem
quiain agentibus
utfinis."
tur,movet
agi18
finem
movet
etexitinactum
InPhys
. II, f.4rb:"Undesicutefficiens
propter
propter
in ratione
salvatur
etestperfinem."
sicefficiens
efficientis
finem,
19In An.Posty
causa
dicendum
Erfurt,
quodspecialis
Q. 312,f. 30ra:"Ad ultimum
estcausa
ete converso,
estquodutrumque
definitur
secundum
quamefficiens
perfinem

19:09:58 PM

RUFUS'SUCCESSOR
BACONAS RICHARD

227

Incautiouslystated,the problemwiththisview is that strictly

speaking
the finalcause or end does not move at all. As Aristotlesays in De geneAnd thatis
ratione
, 1. 7, 324b14-15, the end moves only metaphorically.
the objectionBacon raises. Instead of explaininghow the finaland the
efficient
cause mutuallyactualize each other,Bacon contraststhe fined
cause which moves only metaphorically
with the efficientcause that is
Bacon has no morepatiencewiththe languageof mutual
thetruemover.20
- anotherof
causationthan he has withthe notionof habitual existence
his btes noires.21
Here it is Bacon who challengesa consensusposition.And thoughhe
does not adduce Aristode'sauthority
explicitly,
havinglecturedon De generatione
he
not
knew
the
relevant
text
but
even took it forgranted.
,22
only
His criticismof the truismabout the relationof finaland efficient
causes
is a step towardsestablishingan Aristotelianorthodoxyand away from
the complicatednotionsof causalitywhich characterizedearlierscholasticism.In thiscase, however,as when consideringdivineideas, it is Rufus
who maintainsand explainsthe tenetsof early scholasticism.
3. TheEternity
of theWorld
Where Aristotle'sviews differedfromthose establishedby Christian
theology,Christianphilosophershad more to do than choose between
glossingAristodeand challenginghis authority.At the outsetthey also
had to determinewhetherAristotledisagreedwith Christiandogma.
CharacterizingAristotle'sviews on the eternityof the worldwas complicatedfor early scholastics;for some time theywere not clear on the
extent of the differencesbetween the Philosopher and the tenets of
studiitheologiae,
Christianity.
By 1292, when Bacon wrote his Compendium
the issue had been setded.Aristode'spositionon the eternity
of the world
alitertarnen
et aliter.
et potentialiter
Finisenimhabitualiter
exsistens
estcausa
alterius,
efficiens
movens
sicuttegere
ab intemperiebus
etc.estcausamovens
architectorem;
ipsum,
efficiens
autemcausaactualis
exsistentiae
ipsiusfinis."
20QsoPhysics,
, II, XIII: 128.
21Comp,
n. 101and128,ed.Maloney,
th.,
92, 106-8.Cf.Pelster
p. 2a,c. 4-5,especially
as citedabove.See alsoInAn.Post
dicendum
., f. 31ra:"Adultimo
quodhoc
quaesitum
etquaelibet
dividi
quoddico'homo',
species
potest
perindividua:
specialissima,
dupliciter
autperindividua
actualiter
authabitualiter.
dividatur
Licetergononsemper
exsistentia,
actualiter
dividitur
tamenperindividua
habitualiter
exsistentia,
[? E] perindividua
- uthomoin Sorteet homoin Platone.
Et tangoperhocquoddico
E] exsistentia
[rep.
'in'habitualem
exsistentiam
individuorum
velhominis
in Sorteet in Platone."
22F. Delorme
in QsoPhysics
describes
theprobable
orderofthelectures
, I, XIII: xxx.

19:09:58 PM

228

REGAWOOD

P But when the

was a principalreason for the ban on the librinaturales
librinaturales
were firstbeingintroduced,thingswere by no means so clear
cut. Philip the Chancellordid not commithimselfone way or the other.
At the outset,he says that Aristotle"seems to intend"to argue for the
view thatthe worldis eternal.But in fact,accordingto Philip,Aristotle's
argumentssupportonly the view that the world is perpetual,lastingfor
all timeand commensuratewithall motion;time,motion,and the world
are coeval. The trueintentionof Aristotle'sphilosophy,Philipconcludes,
is to show that the world is perpetual
leaving unexplainedwhat view
Aristotlehimselfactuallyheld.24
exculhe straightforwardly
Alexander of Hales is more forthcoming;
no
Alexander
of
Hales
saw
great
pates Aristotle.Writingbefore 1236,
danger in Aristode'steaching.Aristotleand the ancientphilosophersdid
not know about creation,which is above nature.But thoughlimited,the
ancientphilosophers'accountof the naturalworldwas correct:theworld's
existenceand its motion are commensuratewith the whole durationof
time.25Aristotledid not reallyhold thatthe worldwas eternal.In a turn
of phrase adopted by Richard, Alexander claimed that this view had
been imposed on Aristode.26
In his Physics
Richard agreed: Aristotlewas denyingonly
commentary,
that before the world existed there was a preexistingpotentialworld,
or ratherthat the non-existenceof the world had a temporalor quasitemporalduration.Like Philipand Alexander,Richardheld thatAristotle's
arguments
justifiedonly the conclusionthattherewas no timebeforethe
worldexisted.As was common,Rufusspecifically
disputedAristode'sclaim
that everyinstantis preceded by time and motion.And he chose to do
so in an unusualway by appealingto God's entirelysimpleand unchangmakesan
ing nature.Since God is simple,Rufuslike his contemporaries
analogybetweenGod and an indivisiblepoint; he claims thattimeflows
fromGod as froman indivisible.Rufusconcludesthatpriorto the instant
23Comp,
46.
th.,p. Ia,c. 2 n. 14,ed. Maloney,
24Philippus
Bern1985,47-9.Notethat
Summa
deBono
, ed. N. Wicki,
Chancellarius,
isciting
Boethius
Deconsolatione
, V. 6. 14,ed.J.O'Donnell,
here,
philosophise
Philip
implicitly
BrynMawr,Pa., 1990,123.
25De materia
, Paris,B.N.,lat. 15272,16406,as translated
byR. Dales,Medieval
prima
classroom
Discussions
about
theEternity
, an unpublished
translation/transcription,
oftheWorld
Fall 1992,96.
26Alexander
Ph.D.Diss.Univ.of
mundi
de Hales,De duratione
, ed. D.M. Nathanson,
Southern
estquodAristoteli
California,
imponitur
quodposuit
May1986,80-1:"Verum
fuisse
semmundum
esseperpetuum
et fuisse
Sed notandum
estquod'mundum
semper.
velquiase commedicivelquianunquam
esse,etsicnonestverum;
per'potest
ceperit
Aristotelis."
etsicintellexit
ciatur
totitempori,
et sicestverum
mundum
fuisse
semper,

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

229

of creation,thereis no time or change, thereis only God's unchanging

being,in whichthereis no beforeand after.Rufusagrees thatAristotle's
argumentsdemonstratethat thereis no firstinstantof time. Rufus does
not object since on his account creationis not part of time,it is rather
the last instantof non-being.Rufus can thus both defendcreationand
concurwithAristotlethatthereis nothingin the worldpriorto timeand
no firstinstantof the being of created things.27
Beforetheycome into being,however,created thingsexistwith God;
theirnon-beingis with God, thereis no change in that non-beingand
so no motionor time. Citing Boethius,Rufus holds that the creatoris
prior to creationby nature not "antiquity,"in that there is no before
and afterin God. Similarly,the non-beingof created thingsis not temporallybut naturallypriorto theirbeing. By comparingthe creatorto a
point,and time to a line flowingfroma point, Rufus is claimingthat
time begins at eternity.Since time begins but has no firstinstant,its
beginningis at the last instantcreatedthingsdo not exist.In otherwords,
the initiallimitof timeis extrinsic;what is priorto timeis anothermode
of being,durationlesseternity.28
27Rufus,
In Phys
., Vili, f. 12ra:"Et possumus
sic,utcommuniter
respondere
respondetur
duorum
tem[respondet
], utdicamus
quodhaecestfalsa'omnenuncestmedium
Sed contra
... Si ergoad essemutatum
tuncad omnenunc
motus,
porum.'
praecedit
ab aeterno."
nunc,etsittempus
tempus.
praecedit
Ergononpotest
poniprimm
"Etpossumus
dicerequodhocnonsequitur.
Si enimintelligamus
ensprimm
utindietessetemporalium
utquemdam
fluxum
ab ipso.Undeapparet
visibile,
quodipsefluxus
<est>ab alio,et tamen
in ipsononestdicere[itaforsan
: dareE] primum.
Sic estin
pro
mundi
velmotus,
creatione
estsicutquoddam
indivisibile,
quodilluda quo estillefluxus
etinesseipsorum
nonestdicere
Etsicestpossibile
diceretempus
nec
primum.
incepisse,
tamen
esseprimum
<motus>nectemporis."
28Rufus,
In Phys.,
nonestprius
VIII, f. 1lvb:"Ethic[?] dicitBoethius
quodCreator
creaturis
sedsimplicitate
in
naturae,
temporis
antiquitate
quiaipsecumsitsimplicissimus,
eiusessenonaditpriusetposterius.
Sic ergoestprioraliis,quodaliasuntex non-esse
inesse,ipsum
autem
non.Et hocnonponitaliaesseaeterna,
illudpotest
esse
quiatotum
si omniaaliahabuerunt
et ipsumnonhabuit
principium
principium.
Aliaautemestdubitatio
circaprimam
radonem
a natura
sumptam
temporis,
quiaaut
dicemus
mundum
Et si
creatum
autnoncreatum.
Et oportet
dicereprimum
membrum.
fuerunt
et hocnonpotest
hoc,tuncauteiusesseet eiusnon-esse
esse;autnonsimul,
essepraecessit,
et hocnonpotest
essecumnonsitibiprius.
Etpotest
itaetdicere
mundi
fuit
uno
quodnon-esse
responderi
priusquamessemundi
ettamen
inipsonon-esse
noncadebat
Ethocsicpossumus
intelmodo,
priusetposterius.
non-esse
creaturae
nonestnisisolaexsistentia
eiusapudCreatorem.
Exitusergo
ligere:
in esseestfluxus
de non-esse
eiusa Creatore.
ut aliquod
Intelligamus
ergoCreatorem
indivisibile
utpunctum,
... etessecreaturae
lineam
fluentem
expuncto.
Etinteltamquam
ettotam
sicutmanens
lineam
sicutfluentem,
adhuceritdicerequodin
ligamus
punctum
nonaditpriusequeposterius,
et tamenipsepunctus
estpriusquamipsa
ipsopuncto
lineavelaliquid
Ethocmodoestdicere
mundi
estpriusquamsuum
ipsius.
quodnon-esse
in suonon-esse
noncaditequepriusequeposterius."
esse,ettamen

19:09:58 PM

230

REGAWOOD

AgreeingwithAristotlethat time has no firstinstant,Rufus even follows Alexanderin claimingthatit is imposingon Aristotleto say thathe
rejectedthe view thatthe worldbegan. That thisis the case, Rufussays,
is clear fromthe recapitulationof argumentat the end of book 8 of
the Physics.29
Rufus leaves himselfa narrowavenue of escape here, when he considersthe relationbetweenAristotle'sviews and those of Plato. As Rufus
understandsPlato, Plato postulatesdurationbefore time. Accordingto
Rufus it is this view that Aristotleopposed and not the view that time
and the world were created fromnothing.30
Askingforthe last time what Aristotlebelieved,Rufus suggeststhatit
may be that Aristodedid believe the world was eternala partepost. He
had refutedPlato's argumentfor the existenceof durationprior to the
world's creation,but not Plato's argumentagainstthe end of the world.
and his acceptRufusspeculatesthatAristotle's
regardforPlato's authority
what
is
not
of
that
best
does
the
claim
ance
pertainto God
destroying
may have persuaded Aristotleto believe in endlesstime. The diffrence
betweenthe ancientphilosophersand Christiansmay be about the best
dispositionof the world.Thus Rufusholds thatifAristotledissentedfrom
it was fora creditablereason.31
the truthsof Christianity
When he came to change his mind about Aristotle'sviews,however,
Rufusdid not avail himselfof thisescape route.Instead,he completelyreinsteadthoseof RobertGrosseteste
tractedhis previousviews,preferring
29Rufus,
ex dictisAristotelis
concludere
In Phys
., VIII, f. 12ra:"Anpossimus
quod
cuius
mundum
nonincepisse,
Aristoteli
mundus
incepit:
Quiaimponitur
quodipseintellexit
exdictis
Aristotelis
habere
videtur
exsuarecapitulatione,
quodpossumus
oppositum
apparet
quodmundus
incepit."
to thedebatesee R. Wood,Richard
of Rufus'contribution
Fora further
description
and
intheWest
onCreation:
TheReception
, in:Medieval
Philosophy
Physics
Rufus
ofAristotelian
at Early
TheEternity
Discussion
2 (1992),1-30.Cf.alsoS. Brown,
oftheWorld
Theology,
265.
Mediaevalia
, vol.21,Berlin1991-1992,
, in:Miscellanea
Oxford
30InPhys.,
sedinten"Etpossumus
dicere
VIII,f.1lvb-12ra:
quodipsenonsicintellexit,
aditprius
nonpotest
essepriushocmodoutinipsonon-esse
ditostendere
quodnon-esse
mundum
fieri
ex aliquopraeiacumposuerunt
Et itaposuerunt
et posterius.
philosophi
cumquadamduramundi
etmotus
non-esse
centeetnonex nihilo.
Ipsienimposuerunt
tione.
... Et debemus
[/E] ex
processit
quintempus
intelligere
quodipsenonintendit
essetcum
eisuteiusnon-esse
in esse.Sed hunemodum
intendebat
non-esse
improbare
Platonem
Et sieintellexit
dimensione
ponere."
aliquaet duratione.
31InPhys.,
Aristoexdictis
aliisrationibus
"Hisetmultis
VIII,f.12rb:
contingit
arguere
nonhabere
mundum
crediderit
Sedforte
telisetperrationes
mundum
incepisse.
physicas
conditum
dissolvi
velienonestDei.
finem
bonaratione,
iuxtaillamauetoritatem
Piatonis
etvere
in optima
sednosperfidem
enimmundum
essefactum
Crediderunt
dispositione,
mundi
et meliorem
credimus
sicutresurrectionem
dispositionem."
oppositum

19:09:58 PM

RUFUS'SUCCESSOR
BACONAS RICHARD

231

a factwhichoughtto have earnedhimBacon's approbation.Rufusactually

did what Bacon so stronglyrecommendsin his Opus maius'he neither
ostentatiously
displayedhis knowledge,nor concealed his error.Instead,
he adopted the views of one of Bacon's heroes,praisingGrossetesteas
as Bacon himself.32
Grossetesteis not cited by name, but
unreservedly
neitheris his identity
concealed in a phraselikealiquidicunt.
Rufusrefersto
him as vireminentissimus
,33No otherauthoris accorded thisrecognition
certainlynot Aristotle.
Under Grosseteste's
influence,Rufusradicallyaltershis outlook.Instead
of condemningAristotle'scriticsforthe viewstheyimpose on him,Rufus
now refersunfavorably
to thosewho tryto excuse Aristotle.He abandons
thequasi-Aristotelean
accordpositionpresentedin thePhysics
commentary,
ing to whichtime has no intrinsiclimit,only an extrinsiclimitwhich is
God's atemporalmode of being. Instead,in the Metaphysics
commentary,
Rufus allows that time has an intrinsiclimit.God created the world ex
nihiloat the firstinstantof time. Rufus dissociateshimselfradicallyfrom
his own formerreply,describingit as worthless{illudnihilest).34Instead
he borrowsfromGrossetestea complicatedsemanticdistinctionbetween
God's "speaking"and God's "making,"whichaddressesthe problempresentedwhen we maintainthat an immutableGod created the world in
time.35
Rufus'embarrassment
is palpable; not only does he drop his own
but he adds thatthisis the replythat
argumentsin favorof Grosseteste's,
should have been made to Aristotle'sargumentsin the Physics
.36 Like
Bacon's
views
on
this
The
Rufus',Roger
subjectchanged rapidly.
point
32OpusmajiLs
London1900,67 & 108.
, III & IV d. 1 c. 3, ed. Bridges,
33Rufus,
InMetaph
Vat.lat.4538,f.4ra:"Adilludrespondebat
., II c. 1 t. 2, Vatican,
virexcellentissimus
in scientia.
..."
34Rufus,
InMetaph
aliomodosalvare
., XII, lect.1,q. 2: "Aliivolunt
ipsumsic.Linea
habetprincipium
intrinsecum
Motusautemhabetprincipium
extra
sui,scilicet
punctum.
sesednonintra,
ethocintendit
Aristoteles
cumdicitquodnonestmotus
In motu
primus.
enimnihilestnisimotum
esse.Et illudnihilest.Aristoteles
enimvultquodtempus
sit
infinitum
etmotus
et nonhabetprincipium
intrinsecum
infinitus,
aliquod.Quia nuncest
futuri
etfinis
etsecundum
instans
nonpotest
esseprincipium
principium
praeteriti,
ipsum
itaquodanteipsum
instans
nonsitaliudtempus.
Undeponittempus
nonhabere
temporis,
finem
necprincipium,
necsimiliter
motus[motum
and
N]." (ed.T.B. Noone,AnEdition
bk.12,dist.
2: A Work
toRichard
Attributed
oftheScriptum
Study
superMetaphysicam,
Rufus
ofToronto,
, Ph.D.dissertation,
1987,181.
ofCornwall
University
35See Richard
onCreation
andTheology,
2 (1992),1-30.
, in:Medieval
Rufus
Philosophy
Rufus'
account
ofthenature
oftruth
intheMetaphysics
is alsoborrowed
from
commentary
Grosseteste.
36Rufus,
In Metaph
eodemmodorespondendum
., XII, c. 6, lect.1, q. 3-4:"Penitus
estad argumentum
Aristotelis
,
quodfacitin octavoPhysicorum"
(ed. Noone,AnEdition
p. 185).

19:09:58 PM

232

REGAWOOD

however.Bacon beginsby notingcorof departureis radicallydifferent,

in
both
book
6 and in book 8 thattimeneither
that
Aristotle
holds
rectly
at least comes close to espousing
What
is
Bacon
ceases.
nor
more,
begins
to
a doctrineof double truth,according which,Aristotle'sopinionis true
"physicallyspeaking."37The Christian account of creation transcends
nature,accordingto Bacon, but he goes on to describeGod's threefold
operationin at least quasi-physicalterms.First,thereis creationin which
substances are completelyproduced; second, there is concreation in
which elementalformsand universaisare broughtinto existence;and
finallythereis influx,in which the primarypassions of completebeings
proceed fromGod. Time, motion,and place are thoseprimarypassions.
So whatdoes Bacon mean when he saysthataccordingto the Christian
account,time begins with an operationtranscendingnature,the sudden
mutationwhich is creation?Very likelyit has nothingto do with the
threefoldoperationof creation.ProbablyBacon is simplyclaimingthat
creationis a supernatural,not a natural,phenomenon.This seems the
sinceit is Hales' view: "creationis not a natural,
mostlikelyinterpretation,
but a supernaturalmutation."Hales goes on to claim thatsince Aristotle
deals only with naturalmutations,his conclusionsapply only to them.38
Thus thereis no firstnaturalmutation,but thereis a firstsupernatural
mutation.
the argumentis not apSupposing that is the correctinterpretation,
to
for
Aristotle's
arguments beginninglesstime, since they are
propriate
But it would mean
foundednot on physicalbut on logical impossibility.
thatBacon, likeHales, has an answerto thequestionhow thetwoaccounts
can consistently
be maintained.Hales says that Aristode'sstatementis
true only in a qualifiedmanner.Most likely,Bacon means similarlythat
it is truethattimehas no beginningin the physicalworld.Probablythat
is how we should understandBacon's claim thatit is trueboth thattime
did not begin and also that it did, dependingon whetherone is speaking "physically"or not.
At any rate, this was not a positionwhich Bacon espoused forlong.
When he next lecturedon the Physics
, Bacon argued that not only faith
but also reason shows us that the world has not existedfrometernity.
37Qsq
dicendum
Adprimam
istarum
, IV,VIII: 222:"Solutio:
quod
quaestionum
Physics
Et hoc
in 6. et8. hujusestquodtempus
noncepitnecinesseexivit.
sententia
Aristotelis
exivit
etcepitopeverum
Sententia
autemnostra
estquodtempus
est,loquendo
physice.
tamennaturam
estcreatio."
ratione
scilicet
subitanea
mutatione,
transcendente,
quae
38Alexander
de Hales,De duratione
mundi
, 81.

19:09:58 PM

RUFUS'SUCCESSOR
BACONAS RICHARD

233

Aristotleneitherheld that the world is eternal,nor were his arguments

intendedto demonstratethe timelesseternityof the universe.39
That Bacon changed his views radically,and did so withoutadverting
to the change in his position,is not surprising.
What is surprising
is that
apparentlyhis positionchangedunderRufus'influence,at least indirectly.
The questionwithwhichwe shallchieflybe concernedis entitled:Whether
Aristodeconsentsto the view that motion is eternal?And the answer
is negative.The positiveaccount is much like Rufus5firstaccount: time
has a beginninglimit,but not an intrinsiclimit;its extrinsiclimitis God's
atemporalmode of being eternity.As Bacon puts it: there is nothing
firstin timewhichis a part of time;but priorto timeis its terminus
a quo
fromwhichit begins.Time terminatesat eternity,
and so it beginsfrom
betweenRufusand Bacon's
eternity.
Verballythereis not much similarity
but
the
two
accounts
are very close. The
Physics
questions,
substantially
basic positionin both is that time begins at its extrinsiclimit,which is
had claimedthatAristotle
Justas Rufusin his Physics
eternity.
commentary
opposed onlythe view thatbeforetimetherewas duration,Bacon claims
thatAristotledisputedonlythe claim thatbeforemotiontherewas time.40
Virtuallyall the argumentsadduced by Bacon in favorof his position
are anticipatedby Rufus.In additionto what has alreadybeen said, there
are three:41The firstcites Aristotleagainst himself,saying that where
thereis no firstthereis no last. Here the claim is thatit is obvious that
thereis a finalmomenthere and now, and so theremust have been a
first.That parallelsRufus' thirdargumentfor a beginningof time.42
The second has a long historyamong Arabic and Jewishauthors,but
is not used in thisformand contextby Rufus.It claims thatif timewere
infinitea parteante
, nothingcould be added to it. But in fact each new
revolutionof the sun adds a day to past time,so the assumptionmust
be rejected.Basically,thisargumentclaimsthatiftimewere infinite,
there
39Qso
, VIII,XIII: 391.
Physics
40QsoPhysics
in tempore
, VIII,XIII: 387:"licetnonsitponere
primum
quodsitpars,
tamen
estponere
a quoincipit:
terminus
unde. . . incipit
aliquid
priuseo quodesttantum
nona tempore,
. . . Quodtamen
setab eternitate.
contra
fidem
videipsenichil
posuerit,
turperintentionem
eius... et sicvidetur
nonincepit
in
ipsumveliesolumquodmotus
et hocestverum."
tempore,
Notethattheclaimthattimehasa beginning
whichis external
to it is notoriginal
withRufus.
Cf.William
ofDurham,
deaetemitate
as printed
Quaestiones
byR. Dalesand
O. Argerami,
Medieval
LatinTexts
ontheEternity
theWorld,
Leiden1991,15.
of
41QsoPhysics
, VIII,XIII: 387-8.
InPhys
inLibro
CaelietMundi
dicitquodsinonestprimus
Rufus,
.,VIII,f.12ra:
"Item,
nonestultimus.
estprimus;
sedtemporis
terminus,
Ergosi estultimus,
praeteriti
usque
ad diemistum
estultimus
terminus;
ergoestprimus."

19:09:58 PM

234

REGAWOOD

- no
could be no arithmeticalrelationsbetween different
times
adding,
or dividing.43
substracting,
multiplying
Bacon's final argumentis Rufus' variant on the "no arithmetically
relatedtimes"argument.As Bacon puts it, if timewere infinite,
the time
betweenthe firstrevolutionand todaywould be equal to the timebetween
the firstrevolutionand tomorrow.Or in the words of Rufus' fifthargument, therewould be no fewerdays beforetomorrowthan today, and
hence today would not come beforetomorrow.44
Bacon concludesthisquestionby concedingthe argumentsin oppositum.
He affirms
thatthose argumentsconclude correctlythatAristotleis arguthat
thereis no time beforemotion. In his reply,he offersas
ing only
additional evidence of Aristotle'sorthodoxyhis "recapitulation,"
just as
he
Rufus'
distinction
between
Rufushad.45In thefollowing
question, adopts
the beginningand end of time.The beginningof timecan be provenby
necessaryargument,the end of time is evidentonly to faith,mentioning
in thiscontextthe resurrection
as had Rufus.Thus both thosewho heard
Rufusand thosewho heard Bacon's second lectureson the Physics
would
have heard that positingbeginninglesstime is a philosophicalerrornot
espoused by Aristotle to which Bacon adds that this view has been
imposed on Aristotleby Averroes.46
As we know,thiswas not Bacon's finalposition.But it changed more
, Bacon
graduallythan one mighthave supposed. Even in the Opusmains
does not say that Aristotlewas wrong. He says only that Aristotlewas
not sufficiently
of the world.47This,
expliciton the subjectof the eternity
then, is an odd sort of case. Bacon held more tenaciouslyto the oldfashionedexculpation of Aristotlecharacteristicof the early scholasticism of Alexanderof Hales than did Rufus,and it was probablyRufus
who persuaded him it was reasonable to do so. Rufus,himself,however
soon adopted a more pessimisticview of Aristotle.Under the influence
of Grosseteste,he accepted a more criticalapproach to Aristotleand
Aristotelianism.

43Formoreon the
ofthesearguments,
onCreation.
seeWood,Richard
Rufus
history
44Rufus,
in
InPkys.,
"Iterum
numerus
dierum
VIII,f. 12ra:
usqueerasessetab unitate
nonestunusnumerus
infinitum.
Sedtalisnumerus
maioralionecminor,
etsicnonsunt
diesusquead diemistum
necminus
quamusquead diemcrastinum,
pauciores
tempus.
Priori
enimrespondet
Et tuncnoncitius
veniret
istadiesquamcrastina.
brevius
tempus."
45QsoPhysics
, VIII,XIII: 388.
46QsoPhysics
, III, XIII: 148;IV, XIII: 223;VIII,XIII: 376.
47
London1900,14.
, I c. 6, ed. Bridges,
Opusmajus

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

235

This case shows us that Bacon was much more reluctantthan Rufus
Before1238 Rufuswas condemningthosewho sought
to criticizeAristotle.
to excuse Aristotle.In 1267 Bacon was still saying that all wise men
approvedof Aristotle.Though he did not reach the limitof wisdom,he
Rufus did not share Bacon's
was the mostperfectof the philosophers.48
veneration
forAristotle,
whomhe ordinarily
calls quite simply"theauthor."
Rufus believed Aristotlewas wrong not only when he disagreed with
Christianteachingbut also in his disputewith Plato about forms.49
As
we shall see in the nextsection,Rufusdid not hesitaterespectfully
to disagree withAristotle,or even to correcthim.
4. Projectile
Motion
Like the last problem,the case of projectilemotion is one in which
Bacon was influencedby Rufus,but to a lesser extent.It is a case in
which Rufus radicallydepartedfromAverroes5reading of Aristotleand
even correctedAristotle.Rufus held that by itselfthe account of projectile motion in PhysicsVIII was both inadequate and inconsistentwith
Aristotelianprinciples.Rufus does not say, however, that Aristotleis
wrong, he says only that Aristotleprovided an incomplete account,
perhapsbecause it was adequate for his purposesin book VIII.50
Rufus argued firstthat the account was inconsistent.In PhysicsVIII,
Aristotle
saysthatin projectilemotionthe originalmover"givesthepower
of being a mover eitherto air or water or somethingelse of the kind"
(8.10, 267a3-4). When it loses contactwiththe thrower,the air continues
to move, but ceases to be moved. The firstlayer of air moves the next
layer,thatlayerin turnis firstacted upon and then acting,and so on
thishas been called the "air layertheory."51
As Aristodepointsout,projectile motion,so described,thoughapparentlycontinuous,would actually
be composedof consecutivediscretemovements.That explainswhysuch
motiontakes place only in a medium like air or water,he says. Some
48Opusmajus
London1900,8.
, I c. 3, ed. Bridges,
49Cf.
R. Wood,Richard
A Medieval
andtheClassical
Tradition:
, forthRufus
Defense
ofPlato
in theproceedings
ofan International
Conference
heldat Corfu(October
1995),
coming
Internationale
under
theAuspices
oftheSocit
Mdivale,
pourl'tudede la Philosophie
Turnhout
1997,229-51.
50Rufus,
In Phys
"Et si quaeratur
. .," quoted
., VIII, f. 13va:
propter
quidAristoteles.
in R. Wood,Richard
andAristotle's
52 (1992),280.
, in: Franciscan
Studies,
Rufus
Physics
Henceforth
RAP.
51J.Sarnowsky,
Diearistotelisch-scholastische
Theorie
derBewegung:
Studien
Alberts
zumKommentar
1989,384.
vonSachsen
derAristoteles
zurPhysik
, Mnster

19:09:58 PM

236

REGAWOOD

or mutual replacement
say, he adds, that what happens is antiperistasis
. Aristotleconcludes his briefdiscussionof
an allusion to Plato's Timaeus
thatno correctaccountofprojectilemotion
motion
by stipulating
projectile
the
can postulate
simultaneousmotion of all parts of the medium; in
otherwords,it is essentialfor the layersto move successively.
Rufus takes issue with Aristode'sclaim that the air would continue
to move in the absence of the mover. That would make air animate,
an unmoved mover.And, as Aristotlehimselfholds, air is a body, and
bodies as bodies do not move themselves.As Averroesputs it, Aristode
has just shiftedthe problem;now we have to account forthe motionof
the mediumratherthan the projectile.So ifair movesafterlosingcontact
with the thrower,a furtherexplanation is necessary.Tacidy rejecting
Averroes'account of air's movement,Rufusarguesthatthe fluidity
of air
does not explain the supposed abilityof air to move itself,since fluidity
is a passive not an active capacity.52
RufusmodifiesAristotle's
explanationof the movementof theair,allowing a sensein whichair is a mover,but givingit a moresecureAristotelian
foundationby appealing,as Aristodenormallydoes, to the natureof the
theair beyond
mover.When air is violendydivided,Rufussays,thatrarefies
the limitsestablishedby its nature.The formof air givesthe partsof the
air a certaindensityand orientation(situs)to each other.When its parts
resumetheirnaturalinclination,air moves. Rufus describesthisas accidental motionnot motionperse, because it cannot be an initialmotion;
it is rathera reactionto the initialviolentmotion.Since thissecondary
motionis producedby the reinclinationof the medium'sparts,I will call
or replacementtheory,it is
it reinclination.
Closely relatedto antiperistasis
an attemptto providea mechanicalexplanationof the movementposited
in the air. It somewhatresemblesperistalsis,since it is a processof sucfromthe air's
followedby contractions
cessive,violentdistensions
resulting
naturalinclinationto resistdistension.Rufushimselfcomparesit themovewhen plucked.53
ment of stringsof lyre(cordoecitharae)
52Rufus,
In Phys.y
ad dubitationem
. . quotedinRAP
VIII,f. 13^: "In respondendo
,
279.
53Rufus,
In Phys.y
in quantum
"Dicendum
estquodcorpus
VIII,f. 13**:
perse
corpus
Ex consequenti
movere
se localiter.
tarnen
et accidentaliter
loquendo,
perse nonpotest
maior
fitinpartibus
aerisdivisis
Cumaerdividitur
potest
perhunemodum:
[?] violenter,
et distantia
suamnaturam
enimtalisdat
rarefactio
secundum
(forma
quamei debeatur
et propterea
reinclimateriae
talemrarefactionem
et talemsitumad invicem),
partibus
ex naturasua parteshuiuscornantur
ad debitam
inclinationem
et approximationem
. . quotedin:RAP
, 279.
poris

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

237

Having revisedAristotle'saccount, Rufus then argues that even the

revisedaccountis inadequate,sinceprojectilemotioncannotbe sufficiently
explainedin termsof the action of the medium.Motion impartedto the
mediumalone would not account forthe appearances (signa).If by itself
the action of the mediumwere an adequate explanation,then the action
of the medium movingone projectileeast would preventanotherprojectile fromtravelingwest at the same time.Also someone throwingtwo
projectilesof the same size and shape in the same way would throwthem
at the same speed, regardlessof theirweightor density.But in fact a
pitcherforcedto throwa baseball made of papier mach could not throw
it as fastas a regulationball, and as Rufus says, "the heavier (grautus)
body is betterprojected."This too is a tacit rejectionof Averroes,who
held that diversemotionsdo not impede each otherin a medium- that
is, a quasi-spiritual
body. Unlike Averroes,Rufus concludesthat an adeof
account
quate theory projectilemotionmustsupplementtheAristotelian
by sayingsomethingabout the effectof the throweron the projectileitself
as well as on the medium.54
Rufus supplementsAristotle'sexplanationby postulatingthat violent
motionhas an effecton the projectileas well the surroundingmedium,
a greatereffecton heavy than on lightprojectiles.Accordingto Rufus,
because they affordgreaterresistance,heavier projectilesreceive more
Violent motionproduces an
violence,and hence can be thrownbetter.55
in
in
both
the
medium
and
the
impression
projectile.When thatimpression is strongit does two things:It givesthe projectilea motionopposite
to its naturalmotionand impedes that naturalmotion.The impression
is continually
weakeneduntilit can performonlyone function;it impedes
the naturalmotion.Thus a rock thrownupward eventuallystopsmoving
upward,afterwhichthe impressionceases to functionaltogetherand the
rock falls,resumingits naturalmotion.56
One problemwith Rufus' account of the action of projectoron the
projectileis to describethe impressionit makes, the receivedviolence.
Rufussays thatit is a formand a qualityimprintedin the projectileby
the thrower.Supplyinga mechanical explanationof that action, Rufus
suggeststhatit acts by transposingthe partsof the projectile,presumably
54Rufus,
In Phys
"Sedad hocperplurasigna. . in:RAP
., VIII,f. 13va:
, 280.
55Rufus,
InPhys
"Etiterum,
si quaeratur
., VIII,f.13:
grave
quidmediocriter
propter
melius
. . in:RAP
, 280.
proicitur
56Rufus,
In Phys.,
"Debemus
VIII, f. 13vb:
quodhaec
ergodicere,ut mihividetur,
in medioet inproiecto
. . in:RAP
, 280-1.
impressio

19:09:58 PM

238

REGAWOOD

Here
that explainshow it impedesthe naturalmotionof the projectile.57
Rufusapparentlymeetsthe challengeof fitting
violenceintoan Aristotelian
category,but as his successorswould point out, the projectileimprinthe
positsis a problematicrevisionof Aristoteliannaturalphilosophy.
Bacon does not raise an objectionbased on the natureof the imprint,
but his objectionis equally fundamental.As a good Aristotelian,
Bacon
refusesto entertainthe idea of action at a distance.FollowingAverroes,
but not Aristotleor Rufus, he gives major emphasis to accountingfor
projectilemotion,ratherthan treatingit as a briefdigressionin an argument about the firstmover. And he does not even considerpostulating
any lastingaction of the throweron the projectile.Bacon himselfmakes
a major contribution
by subtlychangingthe termsof the debate. In rejectan
ing
imprinttheory,he refersnot to unmovedmovers,but to "virtual"
as opposed to "substantial"contact between the mover and the moved
body. Violentlocal motion,he stipulates,does not occur withoutsubstantial contact.But since Bacon cannot claim that projectilemotionceases
when substantialcontactdoes, the questionremain:whydoes it continue?
Rufus had claimed that projectilemotion resultsfrom the impression
made by the projectorin the medium and on the projectile;the projector acts on medium and projectilein a similar fashion by causing a
of parts.
temporarytransposition
Bacon rejectsboth these claims. The projectorcannot act by producing an impression,and it cannot act on the projectile.It does not produce an impression,since alteration,not local motion continuesmotion
It cannotact on
by producingan impression,insinuationor immission.58
the projectileat all, because the throwerloses contactwith the projectile. Denying that virtualcontact (necsecundum
estsimul)
virtutis
influentiam
can substitutefor substantialcontact, Bacon has to explain projectile
motionby the action of the mediumalone. Since unlikethe thrower,the
medium never loses contact with the projectile,accordingto Bacon it
alone can accountforthe continuationof violentmotioncharacteristic
of
a medioet nona primoproiciente).59
motuscontinuatur
projectiles(huiusmodi
established
his
to
satisfaction
that the explanationof projecHaving
tile motioncan involveonly the medium,Bacon devotesthe next three
questions to explaining the action of the medium. He considers two
57Rufus,
In Phys.,
VIII f. 13va"b:
"Et videtur
mihiquodhocestverum,
quodaliqua
et forma
a proiciente
sivealiquidei imprimatur
. . in:RAP
, 280.
qualitas
58QsoPhysic,
Vili,XIII: 339.
59QsoPhysic
, Vili,XIII: 338.

19:09:58 PM

RUFUS'SUCCESSOR
BACONAS RICHARD

239

and Averroes'(fluidretention).As sumRufus5(reinclination)

alternatives:
marizedby Bacon, Averroes'view relieson the fluidityof mediumslike
air and water:because theyare flexible,or, as Averroesputs it, shapeless
violentmotion.
and unterminated,60
theyretainratherthan terminating
Bacon prefersRufus' explanation,which he describessuccinctlyas acciThe
motion that weakens continually.61
dental motion by reinclination,
to
it
Rufus
is
since
important Bacon,
continuallyweakeningposited by
is consistentwiththe descriptionof violentmotionwhich is strongestat
the outsetand weakensover time,by contrastwithnaturalmotion,which
over time.62Bacon accepts Rufus' explanation and rejects
strengthens
Averroes'on the groundsthatit betterexplainsthe directionof motion.63
On Averroes'account,thereis no reason to suppose that some parts of
the mediumwould retainviolentmotionmore than others,his account
would provideno explanationformovementin one directionratherthan
another.
Here Bacon has accepted Rufus' revisionof Aristotle'saccount of the
action of the medium in projectilemotion,but rejectedthe supplement
he proposed.Though Bacon adduces morephenomenaforwhicha theory
which considersonly the action of the medium will not account- such
his adherenceto the Aristotelianparaas projectilesmovingupstream,64
digmis so completethatanomalous cases do not lead him to reconsider
basic principles.Moreover,he followsAverroesin makingthisanomalous
. Bacon accepts a revisionof
case central to book VIII of the Physics
Averroes'account for the sake of greaterconsistencywith Aristotelian
principles.Bacon himselffocusesattentionon the issue of contact.
s Place
5. Heaven3
The last problemin naturalphilosophywhich will concernus here is
the place of the heavens.65As Averroestells us (IV t. 43), Philoponus
posed a perplexingdilemmaforAristotle'stheoryof place: if all motion
the eighthsphereaccordingto Averroes,
is in a place, thenthe outermost,
60Averroes,
In Phys.
, VIII t. 82,Venice1550,f. 195.
61QsoPhysic
VIII,XIII: 340-1.
62Qso
VIII,XIII: 343.
63QsoPhysic
VIII,XIII: 345.
Physic
64QsoPhysic
VIII,XIII: 340.
63A fuller
andsucofthosehispredecessors
ofthisproblem,
Rufus'
account
response
atParisbefore
willbe found
inR. Wood,Richard
cessors
1240in:Documenti
Rufus:
Physics
5 (1994),87-127.
e StudisullaTradizione
Filosofica
Medievale,

19:09:58 PM

240

REGAWOOD

mustbe in a place since it is manifestthat the heavens move. But place

is definedas a dimension(the inner boundary)of the containingbody,
and nothingcontainsthe outermostsphere,so it mustnot be in a place.
Accordingto Averroes,thisargumentseeks to compel us to admiteither
that somethingcan move withoutbeing in a place, or that place is not
a bodily dimensionbut a bodiless dimensionor a vacuum.66Though
positingemptyspace as the place
Philoponuschose the second alternative,
of the eighthsphere,he had no medievaldisciples.Afterpresentingand
rejectinga numberof replies to Philoponus,Averroespresentshis own
solution.He modifiesthe definitionof place for the outermostsphere.
That sphereis in a place accidentally,in virtueof the centerof the world
Averroes'solutionwas acceptedby manyauthors.
system,whichis fixed.67
even thosewho rejectedhis view agreed withhim that
More importantly,
an acceptable solutionto the problem of the missingcontainerwould
have to providea substitute
whichprovidesa fixedlocationforthe outermostsphere.Accordingly,
even authorswho disagreedwithAverroesprovided an account of the "immobility"or stabilityof the universe.
Richard Rufus rejectsAverroes'account. Why should we believe that
center of world is the place of the outermostsphere,or the 9th orb?
Afterall, when asked where it is, we do not point down. He wonders
whetherthe centerof the world is even a part of the outermostsphere.
Could we notjust as well describethe place of the outermostspherein
termsof its circumference
withoutreferenceto the center?68
And what
66Averroes,
In Phys
autemoctavanoncon., IV t. 43, Venice1550,f.66: "Sphaera
in
ettotus
accidit
si nonaccidit
ei motus
orbisquimovetur
motudiurno,
tenta,
proprius,
sitin
manifestum
estipsummoveri.
Et cumomnemotum
eo magnaquaestio:
quoniam
estuttotus
orbissitinloco.Ergosumus
inter
duo:autponere
loco,necesse
quodaliquod
Ioannes
veropropter
motum
nonestinloco,autponere
quodlocusestinaneetdimensio.
locumesseet dimensionem
et vacuum,
nonfinem
hocobedithuic,scilicet
continentem,
utdicitAristoteles."
67Averroes,
InPhys
cum
., IV t. 43,Venice1550,f.66: "Nosautemdicamus,
quoniam
Et quia quiesestei
sitfixum
necesseestut hocmodositquiescens.
secundum
totum,
ideo
et quiesest,quiaestin locoessentialiter,
centri,
quietem
quodestin terra,
propter
id estquia
dicitur
coelumessein eodemloco,et nontransmutatur
ab eo peraccidens,
Et haecestintentio
sermonis
Aristotelis
dicentis
centrum
eiusestin loco essentialiter.
coelum
estin locoperaccidens."
quod
68Rufus,
InPhys.,
Estenim
"Videtur
suapeccet
Vili,f.6vb:
quodsententia
multiplicits
dicereunomodocentrum
aliomodonon.Si enimintelligamus
essepartem
circuii,
per
circulum
tunccentrum
nonestparscircuii.
Sedsidicamus
ipsamcircumferentiam,
spatium
estcaelumcircucontentum
tunccentrum
estparscircuii.
modorum
intra,
Quo istorum
si loquamur
lus?Magissicutcircumferentia
de quintaessentia.
Ergoestdicerecentrum
in locoquia
nonessepartem
eius;et si hoc,non<est> dicerecaelumesseperaccidens
centrum
sitin loco."

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

241

about the other spheres?The sphere of Saturn and the sphere of the
moon have the same center.Are theyall in the same place? If not, how
can Averroesaccount fortheirbeing in different
places?69
Rufus' own account evolved in an attemptto meet these difficulties.
At the outsethe admitsthat the outermostsphere is not in a place in
the same sense as the otherspheres.It cannot be, since thereis no containingsurface.Accordingto Rufus,the functionordinarilyexercisedby
innermostconcave surfaceof the containingsphere is performedin its
absence by the outermostconvexsurfaceof the containedsphere.Its own
outer skin ratherthan a distinctwrapper containsit. Rufus asks us to
considerthis surfacenot as a boundary,but as somethingmovingat a
constantdistancefromthe centerof the universe.
That leaves Rufus with a problem:His account appears to leave the
universewith a moving,not a fixedplace. To solve it, he asks: What
makesthe outermostsurfacepartsof the place of the universe(UP)? Not,
he says,being part of the sphere,but theirrelationto the centerof the
universe.Consider x, which is the easternmostpart of UP at time t. It
can be describedeitheras x or as the easternmostpart of UP. As the
sphererotates,so does the surfacepart x. But it is replaced by another
part,y, which bears the same relationto the center,so that at t + 1, y
is the eastern most part. There is always an easternmostpart which
bears exactlythe same relationto the centerof the universe.At different
timesit will be a different
part of the surface,but it will always be the
- that
same part of the place of the universe
is, its easternmostpart.
Moreover,since the orbitis fixed,the same is true for each and every
part of UP. Since being part of UP does not depend on being part of
the ninthorb but on distancefromand orientationto the center(things
whichdo not change),in one sense UP is fixed;it is immobileby equivUP move,but itsdescripalence. The partsof the surfacewhichconstitute
tion remains constant; it can be described in exactly the same way
the convex surfaceof the outermostorb would be described if it did
not move.70
69Rufus,
In Phys.y
VIII, f.6vb:"Item,nonneestdicerehuneorbemessehicet hune
nonessehicsedhic?"
Lunaeessehicet orbemSaturni
nonessehic,sicutorbem
70Rufus,
si conIn Phys^
VIII, f. 7ra:"Debemus
ergoscirequodhaeccircumferentia
habens
terminus
nonuthuiuscorporis
sideretur
ambiens,
est,sedutestquiddam
undique
dicamus.
utcommuniter
a centro,
sicestlocusuniversi
distantiam
huiussuperficiei
Contra:
moventur,
moventur,
quodestfalsum.
ergolocipartes
partes
hoc
nonsuntpartes
locisecundum
huiussuperficiei
scirequodpartes
debemus
Propterea,
a centro,
utdicatur
sedutsicdistant
quodhaecparsest
quodsunt<partes>superficiei,

19:09:58 PM

242

REGAWOOD

The immobilityby equivalence solutionalso allows Rufus to address

the moregeneralproblemof movingplaces whicharisesfortheAristotelian
notionof place as a dimensionof the containingbodies. Motion is defined
in termsof a body which changes place over time. That is unproblematic when place, the inner surfaceof the containingbody, is rigid,but
not when it is fluid.Take the case of the Ichneumon,a boat at anchor
in the Nile. Is it movingor stationary?
own stanceis not entirely
Aristotle's
clear. Once he says thatplace mustbe motionless,thatit does not move
when its contentsmove {Physics
IV, 4, 2 12a18), which suggeststhat the
Ichneumonis stationary.But some moderncommentatorsthinkthat he
- that in
would maintainthatit is moving
different
is, successively
places.71
Rufus consideredthe second alternativeabsurd, and having at hand a
notionof immobility
by equivalenceallowed him to avoid it. The watery
of
the
river
move, but as long as the Ichneumonis at anchor,it
parts
will always be bounded by water bearingthe same relationto the universe. That allows Rufus to maintainthat he can hold his hand stillin
the air, even on a windyday.72
Bacon seems have been the firstto respondto Rufus,and he returned
repeatedlyto the problem over a period of fortyyears. InitiallyBacon
accepted Averroes'solution:the place of the universeis its center.There
is no immobility
will do, and that
by equivalence,only literalimmobility
has odd consequences for what we can say in answer to the question,
"whereis the Ichneumon?"Bacon assignssevendefinitions
to place. Strictly
in
the Nile as a whole, since the Nile never
speaking,the Ichneumonis
moves and the boat never leaves it; then comes the water which flows

ex hac partecentri,
et haecex hac.Hoc habitopossumus
viderecumaliquaparscircumferentiae
a centro,
estin talirespectu
et cumadvenit
alia,tunchabet
ipsarecedit;
eundem
Et propterea,
si ex
ipsaadveniens
respectum
quemhabuit
parspriora centro.
talirespectu
fiatparssuperficiei
parsloci,ergoex eodemrespectu
parseadem,ergopars
adveniens
etparsrecedens
sunteademparsloci,cumtarnen
sintdiversae
superficiei,
partes
tameneundem
a centro.
habent
..."
respectum
71E. Hussey,
III andIV' Oxford
Aristotle's
Physics
, Books
1983,xxx.
72Rufus,
In Phys
dicerede immobilitate
loci?
., VIII, f. 7ra:"Qualiter
ergodebemus
Debemusdiceresicutpriusdictum
estquodterminus
huiusaeris,nonin quantum
est
huiusaerissedinquantum
ad universum,
talem
habetrespectum
locusest;quiaisterespectusmanet
idemrecedente
aereetadveniente
terminus
aeris
aquacircamanum.
Propterea
et terminus
advenientis
suntidemlocusmanusmeae,quiapereanaquaeconsequenter
demnaturam
suntlocus.Et hocintelligendum
estcumdicit'terminus
continentis
immobilis'(212a20),
inquantum
terminus
aeriscontinentis
talem
habet
quiahocestdictu:
ipsius
ad universum,
manetimmobilis
et manetidem.Quia aerper
respectum
qui respectus
suampropriam
naturam
nonestlocusaquae,quiaaqua nonsequitur
aeremubicumque
et sicex natura
sua nonestlocusaquaesed [secundum
E ] secundum
fuerit,
respectum
quemhabetad universum."

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

243

partsof the waterycourse

past the boat when it is anchored;the different
the
river
the least proper
which
boat
moves
down
constitute
through
senseof "place."73This view somewhatimplausiblyimpliesthatit is more
properto say thattheboat is "in theNile fromLake Victoriato Alexandria"
than to say that it is "in the Nile at Cairo."
influencedby RufusThe secondcommentary,
by contrast,is strongly
both positivelyand negatively.Bacon accepts Rufus' account of immobility,but stillprefersAverroeson the place of the heavens.The influence
is most unmistakablewhen Bacon is paraphrasingand rejectingRufus'
views on the question of heaven's place.74At the outset we learn that
Indeed
thoughRufus' positionis wrong,it is betterthan Themistius'.75
Bacon devotes more attentionto Rufus' argumentsthan to those of
Averroes,whose opinion he himselfespouses.
There is, forexample, a whole questionintendedto explain why we
do not pointdown, if asked where the heavens are, an objectionagainst
Averroesraised by Rufus. Here Bacon distinguishesbetween the sur) and the place in whichmotiontakesplace
roundingplace {locuscircaquem
If
in
a
man
on the surfaceof the outermostsphere,it
were
(locus quo).76
is truethathe would not point to the centeras the place where he was,
but at partsof the sphere.That is because he would be indicatingonly
the locusin quo, not the locuscircaquem.That "here" and "there"are relative terms,Bacon tellsus, explainswhy the man on the ninthorb refer
to thisaspect of place.
Bacon's main reasonforrejectingRufus'view is his intuitionthatplace
mustbe separablefromthe object it contains.Bacon presentsRufus'reply
to thisobjectionfairly:the containingsurfacecan be separatedconceptuallyfromthe body it limits,because being the limitof a body is not
part of its quidditativedefinition.Surfaces,like pointsand lines,are simple quantities;they can be definedwithoutreferenceto the body that
theylimit.Consequentlythe convex surfaceof the universecan be seen
as its place; so conceptualizedit is not a part of the outermostsphere.77
73Bacon,QsqPhysics
, IV, VIII: 196-7.
74Parallel
from
thetexts
ofRufus
andBaconarepresented
in Richard
passages
Rufus:
atParis.
Physics
75Bacon,QsoPhysics
andfavorably
discussed
, IV,XIII: 217-20.Bacon'sviewsarefully
P. Duhem,
Medieval
1985,144-8.
, Chicago-London
by76
Cosmology
Bacon,QsoPhysics
, IV, XIII: 219-220.
77Rufus,
InPhys
"Necsuperficies
estterminus
Immo
., IV,f.7rb:
hoc-quod-est
corporis.
<lineaetsuperficies>
inse suntquantitates
etpriusnatura,
ethuiussignum
est
simplices
. . . superficies
definiri
nonin respectu
ad corpus.
caeli
quodpotest
Quia ergosuperficies
in se quantitas
illudin se nonut
contingit
aliquaestet nonsolumterminus,
intelligere
huiusestsedutreceptivum
huius."

19:09:58 PM

244

REGAWOOD

Immobilityby equivalence stilldoes not providean entirelyadequate

- that is
account of celestialimmobility
pardy a functionof the fiftheleBut
ment,quintessence.
immobilityby equivalence is part of the explanation,and what is more Bacon statesit more clearlythan Rufus had,
and he providesan example which is easy to follow.78
In Rufus,the prose is difficult
to follow.Aftertellingus thatpartsof
the universe'scontainingsurfaceare not parts of place in so far as they
are parts of the surface,but only in so far as they are parts at this
maximal distancefromthe centerof the system,he adds a complicated
reflectionon what makes something"this" part: "ut dicatur
quodhaecpars
ethaecex hac" He explainsthatas the sphererotates,
estex hacpartecentri,
one part takes the place of another and has the same relationto the
centeras the previouspart. What makes a different
part of the surface
the same place is a constantrelationto the center:79"If such a relation
makes a part of the surfaceat part of the place, then the same relation
makes it the same part. Hence the advancingand the recedingpart are
the same part of place. And thoughtheyare diversepartsof the surface,
yet theyhave the same relationto the center."
This difficult
prose is typicalof Rufuswhen he is stillgropingtoward
a solution.By contrast,Bacon's prose is polished.True, his is an account
of the immobilityof ordinaryterrestialplace, not celestialplace, but by
itselfthis would not account for the improvement;Bacon's words show
that he understoodpositionbetter:80
"Whereverthe relationis identical,
the place is immobile. My view is that relationalidentityis the comof the immobility
of place, because we alwayspositthe
pletingdifferentia
same relationin the containing<body>. Though the containingbody is
not the same, the relationis always the same, thatis the relationto left
and right,frontand back, up and down."
This matureand well-developedtheoryis preservedvirtually
unchanged
considerali
convexitas
IV,XIII: 218:"... iliaultima
Bacon,QsoPhysics
potest
dupliciter:
ab ipso;autin
estterminus
velinquantum
celi,et sicnonestlocusejusnecseparabilis
in se consideratur
sinelocoetsecundum
essentiam
etdiffinitur
ejusinquantum
quantum
estsuperficies,
et sicestlocusejus."
78Bacon,Qso
, IV, XIII: 191.
Physics
79Rufus,
fiatparssuperficiei
In Phys
., IV, f.7 : "Si ex talirespectu
parsloci,ergoex
et parsrecedens
sunteademparsloci.
eodemrespectu
parseadem,ergoparsadveniens
habent
a centro."
sintdiversae
tameneundem
Cumtarnen
respectum
partes
superficiei,
80Bacon,QsoPhysics
estlocus
estidentitas
, IV, XIII: 192-3:"ubi<cum>que
respectus,
immobilitatis
. . . Dico quodidentitas
estdifferentia
immobilis.
loci,
completiva
respectus
incontinente;
etlicetcontinens
nonsitidem,semper
idemrespectus
quiasemper
ponitur
deorsum."
ad sinistrum,
idemestrespectus,
scilicet
sursum,
dextrum,
ante,retro,

19:09:58 PM

RUFUS'SUCCESSOR
BACONAS RICHARD

245

81
in the Communia
naturalium
, writtenafter1265, at least fifteen
years after
The main changes
commentaries
we have been discussing.82
thetwoPhysics
naturalium
are the resultof more fullyintegrating
foundin the Communia
Rufus' relationalaccount of the immobilityof place. Bacon has completelygiven up explainingthe immobilityof place in termsof celestial
nature,the fifthessence.
Relations are now incorporatedinto the very definitionof place.83
Place in its mostpropersense is a containingsurface,as relatedboth to
the dimensionswithinit and to the boundariesof the world. The most
equivocal use of the term"place" applies to heaven, which has no containingsurface,only the relation,firstincludedin the definitionof place
by Rufus.84
of place, but he changes his
Not onlydoes Bacon revisethe definition
In
the
Communia
naturalium
of
Averroes.
, Bacon says that
interpretation
Averroeshimselfdid not hold thisview;it is a view thathas been imposed
on him.85Unwillingthoughhe is, however,Bacon has in fact rejected
Averroesand his own earlieraccountand accepteda theorycloserto that
of Rufusand Avempace. When Aristotlesays that heaven is in a place
accidentally,according to the late Bacon, this is because heaven does
not essentiallyrequirea place. What is located must be in a place, and
heavenis not in the centerof the earth.86So heaven does not reallyhave
a place. This is at the opposite extremefromthe firstcommentary,in
whichit is ordinaryobjects in movable containerswhich do not stricdy
problemhavingbeen solved,the
speakinghave a place.87The immobility
containmentfunctionof place assumes greaterprominence.
Still,Bacon does not entirelyaccept Rufus' account. He persistsin his
intuitionthatplace mustbe separablefromwhat it contains.Thus Bacon
rejectsthe view that heaven's place is the convex outer surfaceof the
outermostsphere.Since as Aristotlesays (and Rufussays),properlyspeaking heaven is simplynot in a place,88thereis no reason we should seek
81J. Hackett,
Bacon
s.v.Bacon,
Roger
; S.G. Easton,
, in:Dictionary
Roger
oftheMiddle
Ages
NewYork1952,111.
andHisSearch
Science,
fora Universal
82Bacon,Communia
ineditaRogeri
naturalium
, III, ed. R. Steele,in: Operahactenus
Oxford
Baconi,
1911,187,199.
83Described
as thedifferentia
notofplacebutthe
in thesecondcommentary
completiva
ofplace(QsoPhysics
IV, XIII: 193).
immobility
84Bacon,Communia
naturalium
, 185-6.
85Ibid, 188.
86Bacon,Communia
naturalium
, 187-9,194,230.
87Bacon,QsqPhysics
, IV, VIII: 196-7.
88Aristotle,
naturalium
, 194.
, IV, c. 5, 212b14-7;Bacon,Communia
Physics

19:09:58 PM

246

REGAWOOD

to identifya containingsurface.Where thereis no container,thereis no

containingsurface.
Like the case of impetus,the problem of the place of the heavens
promptedBacon to compromisebetween Rufus and Averroes.In both
cases, Averroesis the strongerinfluence,at least initially.Where Rufus
eventuallypromptsBacon to abandon Averroes,it is to achieve great
consistencywithinthe Aristotelianparadigm,not to challengebasic prinin thiscase when the change occurs,it is accomciples.And interestingly,
an
exculpationof Averroes;thisrejectedviewhas been imposed
panied by
on him.
6. Conclusion
Mention of Averroesbringsus back to the question with which we
started,since Averroes,like Rufus,was the object of Bacon's bitterattack
in 1292.89And nothingwe have seen thus far could explain the bitterness of eitherattack.What we have seen is a quite ordinarypatternof
influenceby one thirteenth
centuryphilosopheron another,whereboth
shared a considerableregard for Averroes.Bacon oftendisagreeswith
Rufus,but also sometimesadopts his views.There is nothinghere which
would suggestthat Bacon believes Rufus gave credence to the worst
errors90
or that AverroesdestroyedAristotelianphilosophy.Indeed, the
Bacon
shows more deferenceforAverroesthan Rufusdoes. Rufus,
early
was alreadywritingtreatisesagainstAverroesbefore 1238.91By contrast,
Bacon does not registera protestuntilthe late 1260's when he wrotehis
Communia
naturalium?2
Even the late 1260's when Bacon acknowledgesand
condemnsAverroes'teachingon the passive intellect,he prefersnot to
disagree.93Rather than disagreewithAverroeson place, Bacon suggests
that Averroeshas been imposed upon and did not reallyhold the view
the universewas in a place in virtueof its center.In the case of Bacon's
dislikefor Rufus,it is possible that Bacon did not know the views he
adopted came from Rufus. Conceivably he knew these views only at
second hand- perhaps as reportedby Robert Kilwardby.But thatseems

89Comp,
th
78.
., p. 2a c. 3 n. 72,ed. Maloney,
90Comp
. th.,p. 2a c. 4 n. 86,ed. Maloney,
86.
91De ideis
Forms
andDe causaindividuationis
, in:L. Honnefelder,
, cf.R. Wood,Individual
R. Wood& M. Dreyer
DunsScotus
, Leiden1996,253.
(ed.),
John
92D. Lindberg,
Oxford
Bacon's
1983,xxv.
Roger
ofNature,
Philosophy
93Communia
naturalium
, 286.

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

247

unlikelysince Bacon was at Paris not long afterRufusleftand may even

have arrivedbeforehis departure.Moreover,Kilwardbycited Rufusprominentlyenough (at least when discussingtopics like the eternityof the
to miss the reference.94
world as a theologian)that it would be difficult
Anotherpossibilitywhich suggestsitselfis that the animosityis personal in origin:Rufusand Bacon mighthave learnedto dislikeeach other
while livingtogetherin a Franciscanconvent.But that possibility,too,
seems remote.It is unlikelyin part because the two authorswere almost
neverat the same convent.Between 1234 and 1238 when Rufuswas at
Paris,Bacon is supposedto have been in Oxfordformostof thetime.And
thoughit is possiblethat Bacon arrivedat Paris beforeRufus left,since
neitherweisa Franciscanthen, they certainlydid not live at the same
convent.From 1238 to 1246 when Rufuswas certainlyat Oxfordstudying theology,Bacon was at Paris teachingphilosophymost of the time.
Only fromabout 1246 to 1251 is it likelythat the two authorswere
togetherfor an extended period, perhaps studyingtheology together
Bacon was at Paris in the Springor
at the OxfordFranciscanconvent.95
Summerof 1251,96but he is generallysupposed to have been in Oxford
a periodwhen Rufas was in Paris most
from1252 to 1257 continuously,97
of the time,returningto Oxfordin 1256 not long beforeBacon is supposed to departforParis. Finally,we suppose that Rufusdied soon after
1259 allowingforno personalcontactafter1260.
Consequentlyif therewas personal animosity,the likelihoodis that it
dates from1246-51. Supposingtherewas a personalproblem,we would
expect the most violentattacksin the workswrittenclosest to the period of theirtime together,perhaps as late as the OpusMaius of 1267.
We would not expectfortyyearsof silencefollowedby a bitterattackin

94Kilwardby,
II Sent.,
inlibrum
Mnchen
1992,15.
Quaestiones
q. 3, ed. G. Leibold,
95Conceivably
in 1250andin Parisin 1252;thatwould
Baconwasbothat Oxford
andincrease
theperiod
ofRufus'
lecturers
account
forhisknowledge
ofthecircumstances
in an article
oftheir
contact.
(1995,102)madea similar
suggestion
Recendy
J. Hackett
thatmuchof
which
theaccepted
ofBacon'slife.I agreewithHackett
account
challenges
butdo
is notconclusively
thecurrent
reconstruction
ofBaconchronology
documented,
to get
hereis simply
notfeelmyself
to contribute
to thedebate.Mypurpose
qualified
- namely,
withRufus
that(1)
clearon whatis uncontroversial
aboutBacon'sencounter
there
wasnotmuchcontact
attack
camemorethanthirtybefore
1250and(2) thebitter
inParis
after
thatcontact.
five
IfHackett's
thatBaconremained
years
plausible
suggestion
latercontact,
buttheattack
after1251is accepted,
thenthere
wasmoreandsomewhat
waspossible.
stillcamemorethanthirty
contact
yearsafter
anypersonell
96Opus
I: 401-2;Crowley,
25-9.
, IV, ed. Bridges
Majus
97D. Lindberg,
Bacon's
, Oxford
1983,xviii-xxi.
ofNature
Roger
Philosophy

19:09:58 PM

248

REGAWOOD

studiitheologiae.
When he says that he
1292, the date of the Compendium
of theiryearstogether
knewRufusbest of all, Bacon is probablythinking
But
what
on
Rufus was probably
the
attack
studyingtheology.
prompts
not somethingfromstudentdays.
More likely,it was thesuccessofwhichBacon complainswhichprompted
the attack.SurelyBacon was angrypreciselybecause he lacked the eager
followersattractedin immensenumbersby Rufus'philosophy.Verylikely
Averroeswas attackedfora similarreason:because Bacon disagreedwith
attracted
Averroesabout the agent intellect,and Averroes5interpretation
adherentswhile Bacon's did not. But the violentattackin 1292 should
not temptus to ignore Bacon's 1267 statementthat Averroeswas the
greatestphilosopher afterAristotleand Avicenna.98Bacon learned to
understandAristode'slibrinaturales
with the help of Averroes'commenLike
other
was immenselyindebtedto Averroes
scholastic
he
tary.
every
for his own understandingof Aristotelianphysics.Indeed, the advances
we can see in Bacon's lecturesas compared to those of Rufusare owed
in no smallpartto Averroes.And thoughBacon's viewsin naturalphilosophy did change over time,theirdevelopmentfollowedan orderlycourse.
There is, as FerdinandDelorme pointedout," more continuity
than disin
the
views
in
stated
the
and
the
continuity
philosophical
polemicalpedanaturalphilosophywhich
gogical works.The sound viewson Aristotelian
Bacon owed in large part to Averroescertainlywere not abandoned in
later years.
James Weisheipl believed that Bacon never really understoodArisbecause he interpreted
Aristodeaccordingto Avicennaand other
totle,100
He holdsthat
Neoplatonicthinkers.
Crowley'spositionis morenuanced.101
Bacon triedto be an Aristotelianbut failed,since his approach was too
eclectic. Crowley claims that though Bacon did not consciouslydepart
fromAristotle,Bacon also did not grasp the implicationsof Aristotle's
views.The comparisonjust made betweenBacon and Rufussuggeststhat
such judgmentsare anachronistic.Bacon was far less Neoplatonicin his
approach to physicsthan was Rufus; he rejected more tenetsof oldfashionedscholasticism.More importantly
it is consistency
withthe guiding principlesof Aristotle's
physicswhichdictateswhatrevisionshe accepts
and what he rejects.

98Opusmajus
London1900,14.
, I c. 6, ed. Bridges,
99Bacon,
QsoPhysic
, XIII: xxvi.
100 Weisheipl,
s.v.Roger
in:NewCatholic
Baco,
>n>
Encyclopedia.
WlJ.
Bacon
201-4.
, 178-81,
Roger

19:09:58 PM

BACONAS RICHARD
RUFUS'SUCCESSOR

249

Bacon had absorbed the paradigm of Aristotelianphysicsmore fully

than Rufus.That is whychallengesto the basic principlesof Aristotelian
physics,such as Rufus'explanationof projectilemotion,appeared absurd
to him. Having absorbed the paradigm,Bacon was able to accept limited criticismof Averroesand even Aristotle,when they made for an
as in the cases of place
account freerfromanomaly and inconsistency,
and projectilemotion.For the most part, however,Bacon preferredto
gloss over such disagreements.Unlike Rufus, Bacon concurred with
Averroes'strongemphasis on the substantialcontact in violentmotion
and deferredto Averroeson the place of the heavens. It is sign of his
regardto Averroeson the topic thatwhen Bacon is eventuallyconvinced
to abandon Averroes'position,he does not acknowledgethe disagreementbut exculpatesAverroes.
of the worldis importantin two respects.
Bacon's stanceon the eternity
to criticizeAristotle.Second, itshows
it
his
extreme
reluctance
shows
First,
that at least in that respecthe was more a member of Alexander of
RobertGrosseteste.Bacon
Hales' generationthanthe generationfollowing
- and
knew Aristotle'snatural philosophythoroughly
pace Weisheipl
understoodmost of it. But he was not in a positionto move farbeyond
it. In part because Rufus had absorbed the paradigm of Aristotelian
physicsless completely,and never gained the habits of deferencecharacteristicof later scholasticism,he was more effectiveas a critic.That
explainswhy his workswere stillfreshthirtyyears afterRufus died.
These are generalizationsto which thereare undoubtedlyexceptions.
One such exceptionis the case of the agent intellect,where Avicenna
more stronglyinfluencedBacon than Rufus. But since these generalizaof some
tionsare based on an evaluationof Rufus'and Bacon's treatment
of the great problemsof Aristotelianphysics,correctingthem will not
resultin a returnto past judgments.It is to be hoped that people will
Aristotleor Rufus
hesitateto presentBacon as incapable of understanding
as a minortheologianinferiorto Grossetestein his grasp of Aristotelian
physics.Instead,we may hope formore refinedand precisepresentations
- whereso much of what we
of the earlydays of WesternAristotelianism
knowwe owe to Bacon.
he provides
Not the least of what we owe to Bacon is the information
about Rufus.Adoptingthe intellectualhumilityBacon preached but did
not practice,Rufus almostvanishedfromthe historybooks, as he probablywishedto do. Bacon, by contrast,soughtto escape obscurityby writing for the powerfuland for posterity.Both men achieved theirwishes
to a considerableextent;we know almostnothingabout Rufus' life.And
it is a delicious irony that Bacon's rude remarksprovide some of the

19:09:58 PM

250

REGAWOOD

most importantinformationwe have on Rufus. WithoutBacon's testimony,who would dare assertthat a virtuallyunknownscholasticauthor
attractedhuge crowdsof followerslong afterhis death?
New Haven
Yale University

19:09:58 PM

: A Searchfor the
Metaphysics
RogerBacon and RichardRufuson Aristotle's
Grounds
ofDisagreement
TIMOTHY B. NOONE

studiitheologize,
As is well known,in his late workthe Compendium
Roger
Bacon refersto Richard Rufus as a major source of the many philosophical and logical errorsthat led, in Bacon's eyes, to the decline of
century.1Furthermore,Bacon claims in
theologyin the late thirteenth
severalof his otherlaterworksthat his views on key philosophicalissues
a tradithetruewisdomof an older,partiallyOxonian, tradition,
represent
in Adam Marsh and RobertGrosseteste.2
tionthathe findsbestexemplified
on Aristotle's
The presentstudysurveysBacon's and Rufus'svariouswritings
to see whattracesof theireventualdisagreement
may be found
Metaphysics
in the philosophicalopinions of theirearly careers. To do so we shall
beginwithan analysisof the literaryformand sourcesof theircommentwe shall turnour attention
arieson theAristotelian
; thereafter,
Metaphysics
to some of the doctrinalpositionstakenby the two authorsto assess how
much ground they share in common and to what extentthey already
stand apart in the approaches theytake to philosophicalproblems.
Formand Chronology
Literary
In his pioneeringstudyof the introductionof Aristotelianlearningto
Oxford in the early thirteenth
century,Fr. Callus outlinesthe general
scheme of commentariesat Oxford (and to some extentelsewhere)and
to the literarymodelsfoundin the Islamic commentators,
theirsimilarities
Avicenna and Averros.3Accordingto Callus, three different
types of
1 Roger
Leiden/Kln
ed.Thomas
Bacon,TheCompendium
Maloney,
ofTheology,
ofthe
Study
1988,cap.4, 86.
2 RogerBacon,Opusmaius
studii
Oxford1879,108;id.,Compendium
, ed.J.H.Bridges,
London
indita
hactenus
Bacon:
, ed.J.S.Brewer,
, in:Frats
Opera
quaedam
phibsophiae
Rogeri
1859,469,472.
3 DanielA. Callus,TheIntroduction
ofthe
toOxford
, in:Proceedings
ofAristotelian
Learning
British
27 (1943),229-81.
Academy,
Vivarium
35,2

Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

19:10:05 PM

252

TIMOTHY
B. NOONE

commentarieswere produced in Oxford duringthe course of the thirteenthcenturyand these typestendedto succeed each otherchronologifromone type
cally,albeitwithconsiderableoverlapduringthe transition
to the other.The firsttypeof commentary,
clearlyevidencedin the writingsofJohnBlund,4tendedto imitatetheAvicennianmodelof constructing
an essay synthesizing
pointsof doctrinewithoutany explicitreferenceto
theAristotelian
text,althoughtreatingmanyof thesame themesin roughly
the same order.The second typeof commentary,
whichreacheditszenith
of popularityin the 1240s, followedtheAverroistic
model of exact literary
the
of
use
divisions,subdivisions,and lemmata.This
expositionthrough
of
is
in thewritings
of Adam of Buckfield,5
to
be
found
a
type commentary
masterof artsat Oxfordduringthe 1240s. The finaltypeof commentary
was the question-commentary
which kept the discussionof the textand
itssubdivisionsto a minimumor omittedit altogetherso as to focusphiloissuesraised by the Aristotelian
sophical researchon the more interesting
is best exemplifiedby the worksof
writings.The question-commentary
later arts-masters
such as Geoffreyof Aspall6and Richard Clive,7whose
to the 1250s and 1270s.
writingsdate, respectively,
Rufus' Scriptum
superMetaphyskam
easilyfindsits place in thissequence
of formsof commentary.The Scriptum
begins each of its sectionswitha
4 D.A. Callus,TheTreatise
Blund
ontheSoul
d'Aristote:
de
Recueil
d'tudes
, in:Autour
ofJohn
etmdivale
ancienne
Monseigneur
A. Mansion
, Louvain1955,471-95;fora
philosophie
offert
critical
textofoneofBlund'scommentaries,
see Iohannes
deanima
, ed.
Blund,Tractatus
D.A. CallusandR.W.Hunt,London1970.
5 On Buckfield's
seeF. Pelster,
Adam
von
einOxforder
Erklrer
writings,
Bocfeld
(Bockingfold),
desAristoteles
umdieMitte
des13 Jahrhunderts:
SeinLeben
uneseine
in: Scholastik,
Schriften,
11 (1936),196-224;
S.H.Thomson,
ANote
ontheWorks
Adam
deBocfeld
ofMagister
(Bochermerfort),
in:Medievalia
ethumanstica,
onMaster
Adam
2 (1944),55-87;id.,A Further
Note
',
ofBocfeld
in: Medievalia
et humanistica,
12 (1958),28-32;LouisBataillon,
Adam
Further
ofBocfeld:
ethumanistica,
13(1960),35-9.Forpartial
ofBuckfield's
edition
, in:Medievalia
Manuscripts
onAristotle's
Adam
Sententia
Maurer,
, seeArmand
commentary
ofBuckfield:
Metaphysics
super
secundum
in:Nine
A Collection
Mediaeval
Thinkers:
Unedited
Texts
, ed.
Metaphysicae,
ofHitherto
Toronto
O'Donnell,
1955,99-144.
J. Reginald
6 SeeEnyaMacrae,
Commentaries
onAristotle,
in:Mediaeval
andRenaissance
Geoffrey
ofAspalVs
4 (1968),94-134andthemorerecendy
Roberto
Richard
Studies,
Pievano,
Rufiis
ofCornwall
andGeoffrey
TwoQuestions
ontheInstant
in:Medioevo,
19(1993),167-232.
of
Aspall:
of
Change,
7 A.G.LitdeandF. Pelster,
andTheologians:
c. A.D. 1282-1302
, Oxford
Oxford
Theology
1250-1275:
Nicholas
1934,257-8;forthedatesofClive,seeP. Osmund
Oxford
Lewry,
Logic
andPeter
onPastandFuture
in: P.O. Lewry(ed.),TheRiseofBritish
Realities,
ofCornwall
ActsoftheSixth
onMediaeval
andSemantics,
BalliolCollege,
Logic:
European
Logic
Symposium
19-24
's
identified
version
ofClive
Oxford,
1983,19-62andfora newly
June1983,Toronto
see RobertAndrews
andTimothy
B. Noone,A Newly
Metaphysics
commentary,
Identified
Redaction
on
With
anEdition
ofRichard
ofClive's
Questions
Quaestiones
ofThree
Metaphysicae:
in:Manuscripta
Relation,
(forthcoming).

19:10:05 PM

METAPHYSICS
BACONANDRUFUSON ARISTOTLE'S

253

textus
subdivisionsby lemmata.This, in turn,
divisio
indicatingthe resulting
is followedbya detailedexpositionof the text thatis tantamountto a comliterate
mentarium
auctoris
, and questionsarisingfromthe text.8Since two of
of Buckfieldbut the quaestiones
thethreepartsresemblethe close expositions
are reminiscent
of the questioncommentariesof Aspall and Clive, Rufus'
as a hybrid,and possiblytransitional,
form
Scriptum
mayreadilybe classified
and
that
combines
the
second
third
varieties
described
of commentary
by
Callus. Such a classification
accordingto genre,moreover,tallieswiththe
to the late 1240s.9
probable datingof the Scriptum
How the Parisian commentariesdeveloped and what literaryforms
theytook has not been the subject,as far as I know, of detailed study.
Consequently,to what extentthe commentariesby Bacon fitinto a prior
traditioncannotpresently
be ascertained.But what is clear about Bacon's
is thattheyare question-commentaries
the
and
both
Quaestiones
,
primae alterae,
of the typethatwere the termof developmentin the Oxford tradition,
of lemmatacan stillbe seen as can the odd question
althoughtheintrusion
that arises fromthe expositionof the text.10The upshot of the present
is thatthe commentaries
observations
by Rufusand Bacon are trulycomin
as
documents
that:
1) they were, in all probability,
literary
parable
writtenwithinthe same decade, the 1240s11;2) a considerableportionof
Rufus' Scriptum
and the entiretyof Bacon's Quaestiones
are comprisedof
rather
than
of
the
and
both
men are reading
text;
3)
expositions
questions

8 Forfurther
oftheScriptum
B. Noone,An
form
details
on theliterary
, see Timothy
andStudy
bk.12,d. 2: A Work
to
Edition
Attributed
oftheScriptum
superMetaphysicam,
ofToronto1988,83-7.Texts
Richard
Rufus
, in: Ph.D.dissertation
University
ofCornwall
from
thisedition
as ed. Noone.
from
willbe citedhereafter
bk.12,d. 2 oftheScriptum
9 Forthisdating,
B. Noone,Richard
andtheAuthorship
seeTimothy
Rufus
ofCornwall
of
theScriptum
in:Franciscan
49 (1989),55-91.Foran alterStudies,
superMetaphysicam,
onCreation:
TheReception
see RegaWood,Richard
native
Rufus
of
ofCornwall
chronology,
intheWest
andTheology,
Aristotelian
2 (1992),7-23,and
, in:Medieval
Philosophy
Physics
i
animae:
andtheIntroduction
intheWest
,
ead.,Richard
ofAristotle
Rufus
Epistemologa
Speculum
Berlin
DieBibliotheca
1995(Miscellanea
in:Andreas
(eds.),
Amploniana,
JanA. Aertsen
Speer,
86-8.
Mediaevalia),
10Foran example,
inedita
alter
hactenus
see RogerBacon,Quaestiones
ae,I q. 2 in: Opera
Baconi
theQuaestiones
undecimum
Primae
vol.11,1. Hereafter
, Oxford,
Philosophiae
supra
Rogeri
M. Delorme,
Oxford1926
Aristotelis
(Metaphysica
XII), ed. RobertSteeleand Ferdinand
on the
willbe citedeither
orSupra
undecimum
as Supra
undecimum
secundae)
prmae
depending
ofthereference;
libros
Primae
Aristotelis
location
theQuaestiones
, ed. Robert
supra
Philosophiae
1930willbe citedas Primae.
SteeleandFerdinand
M. Delorme
Oxford
11On thedateofBacon'scommentaries,
E. Sharp,Franciscan
at
Dorothea
Philosophy
In theThirteenth
C. Easton,
Bacon
andhis
, London1930,115;Stewart
Oxford:
Roger
Century
Search
Science
, NewYork1952,34; 44-5.
fora Universal

19:10:05 PM

254

B. NOONE
TIMOTHY

translation
forpart
thesame versionofAristotle's
, thearabico-latina
Metaphysics
vetusforbooks I-IV.
of book I, books II-X, XII along withthe metaphysica
Before leaving the topic of literaryformwe should note an obvious
difference
betweenthetwomen'swritings:
Bacon asksmanymorequestions
than does Rufus on any particularbook, the only exceptionbeing the*
second set of questionsby Bacon on book XII. The greaterabundance
of questionsin Bacon's worksprobablyis attributableto Rufus' partial
preoccupationwith the letterof the text,on the one hand, and Bacon's
lack of literalexposition,on the other.
The Sources
textitself,two othersources
Afterthe primarysourceof the Aristotelian
: Averrosand
provide the main inspirationfor Richard Rufus' Scriptum
Robert Grosseteste.To the former,Rufus owes his organizationof the
textof the Metaphysics
and much of his literalcommentary;to the latter,
he owes the stimulusfor many of his questions.Indeed, as we shall see
shortly,Rufus uses Grosseteste'sdoctrinalpositionsas a guide and point
of departureto engage in a dialogue withthe teachingof Aristotleas it
is interpretedby Averros;sometimesthe outcome of the dialogue is a
substantialmodificationor even rejectionof Grosseteste'sviews,but at
othersthe resultis an extensionand refinement
of the bishopof Lincoln's
's theoNow
this
all
since Grossesteste
is
the
more
remarkable
positions.
and
fit
into
a
of
Scholastic
did
not
mold
logical
philosophicalwritings
discoursethat could be readilycompared to the orderof topicsfoundin
Aristotle'sMetaphysics
. Furthermore,
Rufus depends on Grossetestequite
for
his
citations
of
frequently
Augustineand otherPatristicauthorssuch
as John Chysostom.Besides Grosseteste,othersourcesprominentin the
are the Pseudo-Augustinian
De spiritu
etanimaand PeterLombard.12
Scriptum
By contrast,no narrowlycircumscribed
group of sourcesunderliesthe
commentariesof Bacon. There is, of course,the frequentmentionof the
and Boethius;
Commentator
as wellas the use ofAugustine,
Pseudo-Augustine,
but thereis no explicitcitationof Grossetestein Bacon's commentaries,
as thereis in the Scriptum
As we shall see shortly,
moreover,even when

12Forfurther
oftheScriptum
information
onthesources
, 75-83.
, seeNoone,AnEdition
13Rufus
refers
toGrosseteste
inscientiis"
toquoting
extenas "virexcellentissimus
prior
from
hisDe ventate.
Bibliotheca
Richard
Vaticana,
Rufus,
, II q. 4, Civitas
sively
Scriptum,
MS 4538(= F), f.4ra.
Vaticana,
Apostolica

19:10:05 PM

BACONANDRUFUSON ARISTOTLE'S
METAPHYSICS

255

thereis some evidencethat Bacon may be acquainted Grosseteste'sdoctrines,he does not use them as a guide or point of departurefor his
questions.On the otherhand, a source that Bacon frequendyemploys,
but one to which Rufus rarelyrefers,is Alan of Lille's Regulae.Overall,
one would have to characterizeBacon's commentariesas broaderin their
use of sourcesthan Rufus' commentary;Bacon is more ofteninclinedto
cite Algazel,Alfarabi,and Avicennathan Rufusis. The Scriptum
seems to
have a much narrowerrange of sources and to be more interestedin
examininghow these fewersources relate.
Doctrine
In a cursoryexaminationof Bacon's Quaestiones
and Rufus' Scriptum
,
one is immediately
struckat the extentto whichtheysubscribeto a common set of doctrines.For example,both authorsendorse universalhylemorphismand the claim that matterenjoys some kind of fundamental
unityprior to its division into spiritual,celestial, and earthlytypes.14
of formswithinthe human
Likewise,both authorsconcede a multiplicity
personand the relatedview that the vegetativeand sensitiveare temporally,but not ontologically,
priorto the intellectualsoul in the processof
human ontogenesis.15
Yet universalhylemorphismand the pluralityof
formswere common positionstaken by philosophersand theologiansin
the firsthalf of the thirteenth
centuryand formedpart of the nexus of
doctrinestermedby Van Steenberghenand otherscalled Neo-platonizing

14Bacon,Primae,
estex
Lib.VIII (X, 284):"Et hocconcedoquodomniscompositio
veramateria
etveraforma,
secundum
sedincorporibus
substantiam;
quiaunaestmateria
estsubdimensionibus,
in incorporeis
non."Bacon,Supra
undecimum
, (VII, 33):"Est
primae
etiamtriplex
et haecestintelligentiarum,
materia;
quaedamspiritualis,
quaedamestcoret transmutabilis,
aliaestmediainterhasduasquaecum
et haecestinferiorum;
poralis
et haecestmateria
In XII Metaph
de
caelestium.";
Rufus,
., lect.3, "Digressio
utraque,
omnia'"(ed.Noone,218; V,f. 97):"Ergomateria
et
prop,'animaestquodammodo
intellectus
suntaliquomodoidem.Et hocdicode materia
utde
individui,
cuiuscumque
materia
huiuslapidis.
Et hocverum
estnonhocmodoquodmateria
lapidissitintellecunameteandem
utntutus,sedsuntaliquomodoidem,hocestcommunicant
naturam,
rmmateriae
primae."
15Bacon,Supra
undecimum
dicendum
primae,
(VII, 17):"Adprimm
quod
argumentum,
et sicnonestvegetativa
et sensitiva
scilicet
sed
duplexestposterius;
posterior
tempore,
. Rufus,
aliomodonatura,
et sieintellectiva
, IX, q. 5 (V, f.74)
prior;
prior.
Scriptum
andIX,q. 6 {V,f.76ra).
in GedeonGi,CommenThesetexts
aretobe found
transcribed
tarioinMetaphysicam
in:Archivm
Aristotelis
Richardi
, cod.Vat.lat.4538: Fonsdoctrinae
Ruft,
Franciscanum
53 (1950),217-8.
Historicum,

19:10:05 PM

256

TIMOTHY
B. NOONE

What is more surprising

and tellingis thatboth authors
Aristotelianism.16
advance a similarview of the agent and possible intellectswithinthe
human soul, since the interpretation
of the ontologicalstatusof the agent
and possible intellectswas the subject of widespreaddisagreement.17
First,let us examine Bacon's position.In his firstset of questionson
book Lambda, Bacon distinguishes
firstbetweenuncreatedand created
intellectand thenwithinthe lattercategorybetweencreatedintellects
sepaand separate
ratefromchangingmatter,such as thoseof the intelligences
souls, and thosewhich are conjoined to such matter.Into thisfinalcategory,he places the agentand possibleintellectsof human beings,describing them as follows:
Andthistypeofintellect
is twofold.
One is active,
a partoftheintellect
namely,
thatis raisedup to gazeuponhigher
andthisis calledagentintellect.
And
things,
thispartoftheintellect
withthehelpofthesenses,
doesnotunderstand
butrather
itsowninborn
theseareindistinct.
Anditis withrespect
through
exemplars,
though
to thispartthattheintellect
doesnotsuffer
andtirein itsactsofunderfatigue
anditis thisagentintellect
thatabideswithin
thesoulwhenitis separated
standing
from
thebody.Theother
intellect
is thepossible
theother
intellect,
namely,
partof
or reasonwhenreasoninclines
theintellect
toward
thelowerthings;
andthisintellectdoesunderstand
thehelpofthesenses.
. . .,8
through
The view of agentintellectbeing advanced in thistextis thatagentintellect is one of two partsof the human soul but is clearlythe more essential and enduringof the two. Of itself,agent intellecthas an abilityto
of the body's sense powers,althoughBacon
cognize thingsindependently
adds the qualificationthat such cognitionis by means of the exemplars
with which the agent intellectis naturallyendowed and admits that it

,6Ferdinand
VanSteenberghen,
Laphilosophie
auXIIIesicle
1991,170.
, 2eme
ed.,Louvain
17Leonard
TheDevelopment
intheFranciscan
Intellect
J. Bowman,
oftheDoctrine
ofthe
Agent
School
50 (1973),251-79;
Schoolman,
, in:TheModern
oftheThirteenth
JeanRohmer,
Century
La thorie
del'abstraction
dansl'cole
deAlexandre
deHaies JeanPeckham
, in:Archives
franciscaine
doctrinale
etlittraire
d'histoire
dumoyen-ge,
3 (1928),105-84;
andtienne
Gilson,
Pourquoi
Thomas
a critiqu
etlittraire
saint
saint
d'histoire
doctrinale
dumoyen, in:Archives
Augustin
1
81-111.
5-127;especially
ge,
18 (1926-1927),
. . ethicestduplex;
ad supescilicet
unaparsintellectus
elevata
quidamestagens,
rioracontemplandum,
et haecvocatur
ethaecnonintelligit
intellectus
agens,
peradminad hanc
istrationem
sedperexempla
sibiinnata,
confusa
et quantum
tarnen;
sensuum,
et hicest
nonsuscipit
in intelligendo,
intellectus
lassitudinem
partem
languorem<que>
intellectus
inanimaquandoa corpore
est.Alter
estintellectus
agensquiremanet
separata
velrationis
ad inferiora,
scilicet
alteraparsintellectus
possibilis,
quandoratiose inclint
ethicintelligit
. . ." Bacon,Supra
undemum
sensuum.
, XII (VII,
primae
peradministrationem
110).

19:10:05 PM

BACONANDRUFUSON ARISTOTLE'S
METAPHYSICS

257

has the additionalfunctionof illuminatingthe phantasmsderived from

the agent intellectis the intellectualfaculty
sense cognition.Furthermore,
that remainsand retainsits functionwith the human soul afterdeath,
despitethe factthatthe two intellectsare, in a certainsense, the same.19
Possibleintellectis the facultyof the intellectconcernedwithlowerthings
and is dependentupon the body's sense powers. As Bacon tells us earlier in the same work,the possible intellectis the actualityof the body
and as such not able to existindependentof the body.20
When we turnto the writingsof Richard Rufus,we find much the
same teaching.For Rufus,too, the two intellectsare part of the human
the same but are differentiated
soul and substantially
according to the
objectsupon which theyare focused:
as itunderstands
oftherational
forms
abstractive
Thesubstance
from
soul,insofar
is calledthepossible
thesenses
themediation
oftheotherorganic
through
powers,
Thatsamesubstance,
as it understands
intellect.
insofar
without
intelligible
objects
oftheorganic
is calledtheagentintellect;
andit is in this
themediation
powers,
God andHis angels.
Forit is oneandthe
soulunderstands
waythattherational
thatinanother
is called
samesubstance
thatinonewayandmodeis calledpossible
agent.21
The discussionhere makes clear that Rufus does not considerthe two
intellectsto be equally necessaryfeaturesof the human soul. Instead the
term"possibleintellect"refersto the ontologicalcapacityof the human
mindto engagein certainactivitieswithrespectto certainobjects,namely
to understandand knowmaterialthings;indeed,Rufuscalls thisthe lower
of St. Augustine.
by thistheratioinferior
partofthemind,probablyintending
This intellectis proper to man as man and is that power by which the
soul understandsnow, but it is also corruptiblesince the organicpowers
19Bacon,
undemum
lassitudinem,
, (VII,110):"Ethic[sc.intellectus
Supra
primae
possibilis]
etfatigationem,
inconsecutione
sednonagens,
sint
languorem
quamuis
suscipit
intelligendi;
insubstantia
idem,
a tempore."
Italics
andpuncnonestmensuratum
, quiaintelligere
agentis
tuation
supplied.
20Bacon,
undemum
ofBacon'sdoctrine
of
, (VII, 15).Fora broader
Supra
study
primae
SoulinhisPhilosophical
CommenseeTheodore
Bacon
: TheProblem
intellect,
ofthe
Crowley,
Roger
Louvain-Dublin
untipico
1950andEfrem
Ladottrina
della
diR.Bacon:
conoscenza
tarieSy
Bettoni,
sagdi filosofia
62(1967),
323-42.
neo-scolastica,
, in:Rivista
giodiAristotelismo
Neoplatonizzante
21Rufus,
autemanimae
, XI q. 3-4,V,f. 90:"Substantia
Scriptum
super
Metaphysicam
a sensibus
virtutibus
mediantibus
formas
abstrahibiles
rationalis,
prout
ipsaintelligit
organicisdicitur
nonmediantibus
virtutibus
possibilis.
intelligibilia
Ipsa autem,
proutintelligit
sedsecundum
suum
se ipsam,
Creatorem
dicitur
intellectus
organicis
agens;etsicintelligit
etangelos.
unomodoet unaviadicitur
substantiam
Ipsaenimunaet eademsecundum
etaliaviaagens."
possibilis

19:10:05 PM

258

B. NOONE
TIMOTHY

on which it depends for its object are corruptible.The agent intellect,

far fromhaving the sole role of illuminatingthe phantasm,is a power
thatis activein understanding
the angels,
(intellectiva
:) the pure intelligibles,
calls
it
and God; Rufus
the superiorpart and deems it incorruptible,22
whilein othertextshe identifies
thissamepartof the soul withthe imago
Dei
amor.23
whereinhe locatesthe Augustinintriadof memoria,
and
,
intelligentia
Yet despitea similarity
of doctrineon manypoints,Bacon and Rufus
are at times either in doctrinal disagreementor take quite different
approaches to the philosophicalproblemstheycommonlyface; what is
more curiousstillis that,in many cases, the disagreementor difference
is traceable to Rufus5closer adherence to the writingsand teachingsof
Grossetestethan what one findsin the textsof Bacon.
One major and obviousinstanceof thisphenomenonis Bacon's avowal
of the commonplaceview,vigorously
thatAristotle
opposedby Grosseteste,
did not actuallyhold the doctrineof the eternityof the world,but simply meant that time and motion are unoriginatedin theirown order.24
of Aristotlewas a recurrentfeaOpposing such a benign interpretation
ture in Grosseteste'swritingsand Bacon's failureto raise seriousdoubts
about the plausibilityof such an interpretation
indicateshow littlethe
of
Lincoln's
bishop
writingshad yetinfluencedhim.25Rufus,on the other
and
hand, is keenlyaware of the inadequacyof the benigninterpretation
shows his dependence upon Grossetestewhen he reportsthat thereare
22Rufus,
, XI d. 1 q. 3-4,Ff. 91ra:"lstiautemanimae,
Scriptum
quaesicestunain
actuquaevocatur
essentia
unavirtus
et quidquid
istavirtus
rationalis,
respondet
propria
homoapprehendit;
etillavirtus
estintellectus
anima
apprehendit
quointellectum
possibilis
autempartiistiusanimae,
correintelligit.
Superiori
quae parsdicitur
parsintellectiva,
iliaeademvirtus
secundum
diversata
tarnen
secundum
esse;in quanessentiam,
spondet
tumenimattribuitur
istipartidicitur
intellectus
agens.Et sicestipsaincorruptibilis."
23Rufus,
intelli, I q. 7 n. 28, V f. lvb:"Adaliud:quodhocnomen'natura'
Scriptum
natura
sunthomines
etestnatura
esthomoad
gitur
perquamhomines
perquamfactus
Dei.Haecenimestparssuperior
inquasuprema
animae
scilicet
rationalis,
mens,
imaginem
triaesse:memoria,
dicitur
ista
et amor.Perquemternarium
partenotantur
intelligentia
totius
Trinitatis."
imago
pars
24Bacon,Quaestiones
alterae
supraVIIIPhysicorum
(XIII, 388):"Undedicendum
quod
Aristoteles
causamab aeterno
under
error
estinphilosophia
solum;
ponitprimam
ponere
mundum
nonhabuisse
UndeAristoteles
nonponitmotum
a parte
aeternum
principium.
antenisipernaturam
A similar
inAlbertus
temporis."
interpretation
Magnus,
maybefound
Commentarius
inII Sententiarum
, ed. Auguste
(Paris:Vivs,1894),d. 1, B, art.10,
Borgnet
C. Dales,
29a.Forother
texts
thesameinterpretation
ofAristotle,
seeRichard
advancing
Medieval
theEternity
Discussions
theWorld
, Leiden1990,57-70.
of
of
25Cf.Robert
Oxford
Hexameron
C. DalesandServus
Grosseteste,
Gieben,
, ed.Richard
C. Dales,
in Richard
ofGrosseteste
1982,part.1,cap.VIII,58; 60-61;63 andthetexts
Robert
Grosseteste'
s Treatise
De finitate
et temporis,
motus
in:Traditio,
19 (1963),256-60.

19:10:05 PM

METAPHYSICS
BACONANDRUFUSON ARISTOTLE'S

259

While Rufusasserts,in opposition

"thosewho wish to excuse Aristotle."26
to Grosseteste,that in a philosophicalunderstandingof the universeall
in conthingsare traced to God as to a FirstPrinciple,he does affirm,
to Grosseteste's
teaching,thatthe philosophers,
includingAristotle,
formity
were mistakenin believingthat the world is eternalin the fashionthat
the processionof the Son fromthe Father is eternal.27
in greaterdetailthe discrepanciesbetweenthe two authors,
To illustrate
I would like to focusattentionon two particularissues discussedin con:
and by Bacon in the Quaestiones
siderabledetail by Rufusin the Scriptum
the eternalnature of truthin book II and Gos knowledgeof future
in book XII.
contingents
***
on the eternalnatureof
Rufus' positionin the Scriptum
Understanding
truthrequiresthat we acquaint ourselveswith the positiontaken earlier
, since,as Rufusexplicitlytellsus, he finds
by Grossetestein his De ventate
involved.28
Grosseteste'sanalysisto be the key to resolvingthe difficulties
are
eternal
In his De ventate
that
there
Grosseteste
truths,
,
many
argued
not simplya single Eternal Truth, althoughin an oblique and indirect
fashionthe HighestTruthis predicatedin each instancewhen something
to the
is said to be true,for created truthsconsistin theirconformity
rationes
of thingsin the Divine Mind.29Yet a problemimmediatelyarises
regardingthe statusof such multiplecreatedtruths.Mathematicalpropositionsand even conditionallytrue propositionsbearing on the created
orderseem to be equally eternallytrue because conformingto the their
eternalreasons,yet they are not identicalto each other or to God. It

26Rufus,
lib.XII d. 2 lect.1 dubium
secundum
(ed.Noone,176;V,f.95ra):
Scriptum
"Etvolunt
Aristotelem
sic."
quidamhicexcusare
27Rufus,
Fora moredetailed
XII d. 2 lect.3 q. 1 (ed.Noone,206; V97ra).
Scriptum
in theScriptumi
ofRufus's
seeWood,Creation
account
, 16-23and,in a broader
teaching
and
Position
onthePhilosophers
B. Noone,TheOriginality
context,
ofSt. Thomas's
Timothy
Creation
60 (1996),284-9.
, in:TheThomist,
28Rufus,
enimdabat[sc.Robertus
II q. 4 (F, f.4ra):"Exemplum
Grossatesta]
Scriptum
. . ."
totasolutio.
viso,videbatur
primo,
quo
29Grosseteste,
von
Lincoln
Werke
desRobert
Grosseteste
Deventate
,
, in:Diephilosophischen
Bischofs
nonpossent
dici
Dr.Ludwig
i. W 1912,139:"Quapropter
Baur,Bd.9, Mnster
herausg.
nisiessent
multae
veritates
aut'omnis
Veritas,'
veritates,'
suppositae.
Supponuntur
'plures
in
rationibus
rerum
veritates
locutionibus
rerum,
quaesuntconformitates
ergoin talibus
ut formam
nomenveritatis,
veritate.
aeterna
Sed forte
nusquam
ponitur
quinsignificet
summam."
nominis
velobliqueveritatem
aliquomodoadiacenter

19:10:05 PM

260

TIMOTHY
B. NOONE

that thereare many eternaltruths,and possiblythings,

seems,therefore,
that are not God.
Grosseteste'ssolutionto this difficulty
beginsby suggestingthe following thought-experiment.
Suppose someone were praising Caesar and
In such a case, "Caesar is praised"and "Socrates
Socratesfromall eternity.
is praised" would be both trueeternally,
yetthesepropositionswould not
be identicalin meaning nor would theybe true because eitherCaesar
or Socrates was eternal.The only source of the eternallytrue character
of thepropositions
would be thepraiser.In likefashion,Grosseteste
claims,
we can say that"Socratesknownby God" and "Plato knownby God" are
both eternaltrue,yet not identicalto each other,because of the eternal
Divine Knowledge and not because thereexistsanythingeternallyapart
fromGod.30Consequently,we can say that many thingsare true from
eternity,
yet that thereis nothingin existencefrometernitysave God.
In the Scriptum
, Rufus quotes extensivelyfromthis section of the De
ventate
and commentsupon it closely.Rufusemphasizes,as had Grosseteste,
that when we extend the thought-experiment
of praisingto the case of
eternaltruthsin God, we should note whypropositionssuch as "X is not
Y" are eternallytrue;theyare eternallytruebecause eternallyknownby
fromeach otherwithreferenceto
God, but theyare said to be different
the corruptiblesubjectsthat are created.31Rufus does, however,distance
himselfsomewhatfromGrossetesteon the issue of how statesof affairs
may be said to be eternallyknown.32
The philosophicalposition taken by Grossetesteand Rufus may be
summarized,then, as follows.There are many truthsfrometernityin
additionto the Eternal Truth that is God, yet such a positiondoes not
entail that thereare many eternalthings,since the eternalcharacterof
such truthsonly requiresthe Divine Mind for them to obtain and be
of the truthsultimately
refersto the createdorder
known;the multiplicity
that is to come to be.
Bacon asksmanyquestionsabout truthwhencommenting
upon BookII
in
of theMetaphysics
both
the
and
the
alterae.
But
,
Quaestiones
Quaestiones
primae
the more pertinenttextsforour purpose are foundin theprimae.For in

30Grosseteste,
De ventate
, ed. Baur,140-1.
31Rufus,
II q. 1 (F, f.4ra"b):
"Cumautemdicitur
'a estaliudquamb,' illud
Scriptum
redditur
subiecto
subiectorum
etnonsequitur
pariter
gratia
corruptibilium
quodtriasunt
secundum
essentiam
ab aeterno;
sedessenta
scientis
estab aeterno
cumscientia,
quaeest
actioquaenonestaliudin essentia
ab ipsosciente."
32Rufus,
II q. 1 (F,f.4rb):
"Sedistaresponsio
nonestadeoverasicutprima."
Scriptum

19:10:05 PM

METAPHYSICS
BACONANDRUFUSON ARISTOTLE'S

261

the primaeBacon explicitlyraises the issue of whetherthere are many

truths,be theycomplex or simple,frometernity.In the opening arguments,Bacon introducesconsiderationsthat are similarto those seen in
Rufusand Grosseteste;the truthsof firstprinciplesseem to be unfailingly
trueand even thosebearingupon contingentfeaturesof the createdorder
The firstindicationwe find
musthave been knownas truefrometernity.
of the extentto which his outlookis in fundamentaldisaccordwiththat
of Grossetesteand Rufusis to be foundin Bacon's summaryof the status
:
quaestionis
from
andnonetheless
Certain
mendenyplurality
eternity;
saythattherearetruths
as theyareknown
andtheyare
areonlytrueinsofar
fortheysaythatsuchtruths
a
Cause and[inthisway]theydisallow
onlyknown
bytheTruththatis theFirst
claimthattheyaretrueabsolutely,
Others
yetthey[too]denyplurality,
plurality.
andthatis one;thereofthings
is subject
to thedivineknowledge
sincethetruth
in theidealreasons
aretruths
butnotin the
assert
thatthere
etc.Stillothers
fore,
ofthings
orin thosethings'
natures
entity.33
proper
proper
From the textsof Grossetestewe have examined,it is fairlyapparentthat
the bishopof Lincoln mustbe at least one of thoseamong the firstgroup
mentionedby Bacon; Grossetesterepeatedlyaffirmedthat the eternality
of the truthswas attributableto the fact that they are known by the
Divine Mind.
/Rufusbecomes
But the fulldistancebetween Bacon and Grosseteste
evidentwhen Bacon stateshis own view. There may be truthsfrometerHis
nity,butaccordingto Bacon thereare no eternallytruepropositions.34
in
an
and
can
exist
is
that
truth
intellect
only
propositional
reasoning
as such can only be true fromthe time when some intellect,whether
As to the argumentthatclaimsthatfirstprinhumanor angelic,existed.35
ciples and other necessarytruthsare somehow eternallytrue inasmuch
as theycannot fail to be true,Bacon repliesthat such a line of reasoning presumesthe identityof the subjectof discourse.Yet thereis no such
identity
priorto the creationof intellectscapable of composingthe terms
33"Solutio:
dicunt
et tarnen
quodsuntveraab aeterno,
pluralitatem
quidamnegant
scita,etnonscitanisia veritate
quaeest
quodnonsuntveranisiinquantum
quiadicunt
ettamen
causaprima
etprohibent
Quidamdicunt
quodsuntveraabsolute,
pluralitatem.
et iliaestuna,ideo,
scientiae
rerum
subicitur
divinae,
negant
quiaveritas
pluralitatem,
etesseproprio."
natura
etc.Et alii,quodin causisidealibus
sunt,nontamenin propria
Bacon,Primae
, II (X,41-42).
34Bacon,Primae
etdico
dici:dicoquodsuntpluraveraab aeterno;
, II (VII 42):"Potest
nullapropositio
estveraab aeterno."
quod
35Bacon,Primae,
, II (VII 42).

19:10:05 PM

262

B. NOONE
TIMOTHY

of such propositions;simplyspeaking the assertionthat such primary

propositionsare eternallytrue is itselffalse.36
***
In the case of the second issue chosen forstudy,God's knowledgeof
the two authorsdiffermore in the conceptstheybring
futurecontingents,
to bear and the framework
theyuse than in theirconclusions;hence the
betweenthem is not so much one of blatantdisagreementas
difference
one of emphasis,and a failureon Bacon's part to appropriateand use
the more innovativeideas of Grosseteste.
As so oftenis the case withotherproblems,Rufusrelieson the framework establishedby Grossetesteto approach the problemof futureconand De ventate
is, Grossetestehad
tingents.In his De liberoarbitrio
proposition
an
account
of
that
differed
fromhisprededeveloped
modality
considerably
cessors.Priorto Grosseteste,necessitywas consideredto be of two types:
absolute and relative.37
Under absolute necessity,therewere two further
divisions:perse and peracdeos.An example of a perse absolutenecessity
is a mathematicalpropositionsuch as "7 + 3 = 10," a propositionthat
could never be false. An example of per accidensabsolute necessityis a
propositionsuch as "Socrates sits"giventhatSocrates' sittinghas already
occurred;such a propositioncannot now be false,though it was once
able to be false.Finally,relativenecessityis the conditionalnecessityfound
in propositionssuch as "Socratesis sitting"giventhatSocratesis presently
sitting.The noveltyof Grosseteste'saccount of modalityconsistsin what
formsthe backdropto the modal notions;insteadof readingnecessityas
a featureof propositionsmapped against time, Grossetesteportraysthe
modal notionof necessityas referring
to eternity.38
Thus Grosseteste
divides
whereinthereis no eternalpossinecessityinto: the necessarysimpliciter
bilityfor the matterexpressedthroughthe propositionbeing otherwise,
such as "7 + 3 = 10"; and a qualifiednecessity,whereinthereis no pos36Bacon,
II (VII42):"Quodobicit
. . . supponit
veritatem
cumconstantia
Primae,
subiecti,
et ideosimpliciter
estfalsa;velsupponendo
fuitintellectus
componens,
postquam
tempus
velhominis
sicverum
estquodnonpotuerunt
nonesseveras,
etitaa principio
temporis
velintelligentiae
habent
veritatem."
37Gf.Anonymous,
modernorum:
cumsitnostra
, ed. L.M. De Rijk,in: id.,Logica
Logica
A Contribution
tothe
Assen1967,429.
Terminist
, Vol.II, PartTwo:Texts,
History
of
Logic
Early
38NeilLewis,TheFirst
in: Mediaeval
Recension
Grosseteste's
De liberoarbitrio,
ofRobert
etal.,
53 (1991),6-8,andCalvinNormore,
Future
, in:N. Kretzmann,
Studies,
Contingents
Medieval
1982,358-81.
(ed.),TheCambridge
ofLater
Cambridge
History
Philosophy,

19:10:05 PM

METAPHYSICS
BACONANDRUFUSON ARISTOTLE'S

263

sibilityfor the matterfirstbeing one way and then another,although

therewas an eternalpossibilityfor the state of affairsto be eithertrue
will come."39
or false,such as "the Antichrist
Grossetesteargues
Applyinghis own modal theoryto futurecontingents,
are both necessaryand contingent;theyare conthatfuturecontingents
thattheynot obtain,
tingentinasmuchas therewas an eternalpossibility
but theyare necessaryinasmuchas thereis no longeran ontologicalpossibility,giventhe dispositionof the Divine Will, that theynot obtain.40
In his Scriptum
, Rufus makes considerableuse of Grosseteste'stheory
of modalityto explore and solve the problem of divine foreknowledge
and futurecontingency.In his commentaryon Book XII, he raises the
and if
questionsof whetheror not God has knowledgeof the Antichrist
willcome" can be recso, how theproposition"God knowstheAntichrist
will
onciledwiththe proposition"God can not know that the Antichrist
come." In answeringthe firstquestion,Rufus contendsthat God indeed
will come, but he also maintainsthatthisdoes
knowsthatthe Antichrist
will come" is necessary;for
not entailthat the statement"the Antichrist
God could have eternallyknown(in the sense of willed)thatthe Antichrist
would not come.41
Rufus' replyto the second questionis even more illuminating
since it
shows he has understoodthat Grosseteste'stheoryof modalityimplies
that therecould have been radicallydifferent
statesof affairsab aeterno
,
a notionthatunderliesthe lateridea of possibleworlds.The proposition
"The Antichrist
will come" can be reconciledwiththe proposition"God
will come" because we can and should
can not know thatthe Antichrist
the sense in which God can not know such a propositionas
distinguish
will come." If we conceive of the Divine Essence not as
"The Antichrist
determinedby God's actual knowledgeof the presentworld, then God
can not know such a propositionpreciselyin the sense that He might
39Grosseteste,
De lib. arb.recendo
De libero
arbitrio
, c. 6, ed. Baur,168-73;Grosseteste,
ed.Lewis,48-52.
, 7.2-17,
prior
40Grosseteste,
De libero
arbitrio
, c. 6, ed. Baur,171:"Totum
quodin hisgnrt
igitur
in ipsisvidetur
necessitati
rerum
illi,quaeest
est,quodcontingentia
repugnare
caliginem
in menteet scientia
necessitati
immutabilitas
illi,quae est
divina;similiter
praesentialis
in hisde praeterito
et de futuro;
et quodnondistinimmutabilitas
veritatis
praesentialis
in eadempropositione
ex partealiquaestnecessitas
hoc,quod
guitur,
quomodo
propter
sine
nonfinibilis
esteiusventas,
et ex partealiacontingentia
quiaquae estverapotuit
initio
nonfuisse
rerum
vera,ex qua potentia
contingentia."
sequitur
41Forthetext,
B. Noone,Richard
onCreation,
Divine
seeTimothy
, and
Immutability
Rufus
della
Rivista
Future
intheScriptum
in:Documenti
e studi:
Contingency
superMetaphysicam,
4 (1993),22.
SocietInternazionale
Latino,
perlo StudiodelMedioevo

19:10:05 PM

264

B. NOONE
TIMOTHY

and it is this
know,by His will, a world in which thereis no Antichrist
cometernalpossibilitythat underliesthe contingencyof the Antichrist's
instant
of
is
that
the
actual
Rufus
Hence
what
eternityin
proposes
ing.
He
wills
is not
wills
whatever
knows
whatever
He
knows
and
whichGod
as determinateas one mightthink,forthereare logicallypossiblealternativeinstantsof eternity.42
Only in his firstset of questionson Book XII does Bacon treatthe
issue of concern to us, althoughin both sets of questionshe deals with
of God's
and the immutability
the relatedmatterof divineself-knowledge
the
use
of
the
Bacon
questionby noting
"contingent"
knowledge.
begins
and "possible"in the contextof God's foreknowledge;
somethingis contingentif it existsbut could not existand somethingis possibleif it does
not existbut could.43In his solution,Bacon claims that the questionof
whetherwhat God knowsis necessarycan be resolvedby focusingon the
importof the proposition"It is necessaryforthat thingto come to pass
thatGod foresees."For the necessityinvolvedcan be viewedas the necessityof the consequence or the necessityof the consequent.In the case
of the necessityof the consequence,the sense of the propositionis that
if God foreseessome thing,it is necessarilytrue that the foreseenthing
will come to pass; but in the case of the necessityof the consequent,the
sense would be that the thingsso foreseenby God would themselvesbe
thatthe thingsthemselvesmay
Bacon argues,to the contrary,
necessary.44
and do remaincontingent,
their
being knownand being logically
despite
with
reference
to
the
divine
necessary
knowledge.45
of
AlthoughBacon's solutionbears witnessto the logical sophistication
conhisthoughtand anticipatesthe use of the distinction
betweennecessitas
and necessitas
it does not make any use,
sequentiae
consequentis
by laterwriters,
so far as I can tell, of the theoryof modalityshared by Rufus and
Grosseteste.
42Forthetextanda moreextensive
seeNoone,Future
, 12-4;22-3.
Contingency
analysis,
43Bacon,
undedmum
, (VII 105):"Notaquodcontingens,
primae
Supra
prouthiesumitur,
a possibili,
differt
estquodestetpotest
estquodnon
nonesse,possibile
quiacontingens
estpotest,
tarnen
<ed. = tam>esset."
potens
44Bacon,Supraundedmum
dicendum
(VII, 106):"Adquaestionem
quodhaec
primae)
in qua totavislatet,'necesse
de necessitate
estevenire
proposito
quodDeuspraevidit,'
illius'si
veltotius
estsensus
consequendi
consequentiae,
quodidemestnoncontingens;
hocmodo,
Deuspraevidit
remfuturam,
necesseeritrespraevisa,'
nontarnen
sequitur
necessaria
sunt'quiasiciteratio
de necessitate
'ergo
praevisa
consequentis."
45Bacon,
estquodomnia
"Similiter
dicendum
undedmum
, (VII, 106-107):
Supra
primae
in eo quodpraevisa,
in eo quodentia,et itaerunt
suntnecessaria,
nontarnen
praevisa,
omnino."
quaedamcontingentia
quaeab ipsocognoscentur

19:10:05 PM

BACONANDRUFUSON ARISTOTLE'S
METAPHYSICS

265

Conclusion
The quest of the present study has been to search for grounds of
Bacon's and Rufus' eventualdisagreement(and Bacon's later antipathy
. The contowardRufus)in theircommentarieson Aristode'sMetaphysics
clusionreachedis thatthereis a remarkablesimilarity
of doctrinebetween
thetwomen'swritings,
of interest,46
althoughthereare differences
approach,
and even a few doctrinalconflicts.Regarding the latter,a noteworthy
Rufus
findingis thaton the issueswhere the two men disagreeor differ,
makes much more extensiveuse of Grosseteste'steachingsthan Bacon.
Such a findingrenderseven more curiousthe factthatin his later writingsBacon upbraidsRufusso severely.Perhapsone of the reasonsBacon
does so has to do with the extentto which Rufus had already donned
the bishop of Lincoln's mande and that Bacon's claim to be the true
bearerof Grosseteste'straditionin philosophyand theologywas less than
apparentto the contemporarymedievalaudience.

46Among
include
suchdifferences
ofinterest,
one might
Rufus'fascination
withthe
combined
withmildinterest
in exploring
status
ofcognitive
thetheory
ontological
objects
ofdivine
to Bacon'scareful
to divineexemideasin theScriptum
attention
, as compared
andrelative
to thestatus
ofcognitive
ofissuespertaining
plarity
objects.
neglect

19:10:05 PM

RogerBacon on theNatureand Place ofAngels

R. JAMESLONG

Angels presenta puzzle forthe metaphysician.Pure spiritsand superior in being to incarnate spirits,they are neverthelessinferiorto the
InfiniteSpirit,whom Christianscall God.1 They are also in some fashion
different
fromeach other.It was in part to account forthesedistinctions
that Christiantheologiansof the thirteenth
centurywere drawn to the
curiousdoctrineof spiritualmatter,originallythe inspirationof theJewish
thinkerIbn Gabirol.2Among the firstschoolmento embrace thisteaching was the Paris Artsmaster,later Franciscantheologian,Roger Bacon.
It is my purposein thispaper to exploreBacon's angelology,focusingin
and its locationin the
particularon the angel's metaphysicalconstitution3
world of things.

1 Christian
belief
wasframed
ofthe
concerning
beings
bythepronouncements
angelic
ofNicea,which
Council
Godtobe the"maker
declared
andearth,
ofallthings,
ofheaven
visible
andinvisible"
Enchiridion
, 1963,n. 125)andthe
(Denzinger-Schnmetzer,
Symbolorum
4thLateranCouncil,
whichaddedthatGod wasthe"creator
ofall things
visible
and
and corporeal,
whobyhisalmighty
fromthe
invisible,
spiritual
(simul)
powertogether
oftimeformed
outofnothing
thespiritual
andthecorporeal
creature
creature,
beginning
thatis,thatangelic
andtheterrestrial"
n. 800).Alllaterpronouncements
have
(Denzinger,
beenreaffirmations
ofNiceaand4thLateran.
simply
2 Historians
ofphilosophy
refer
to thisteaching
morecommonly
as "universal
hyloon thesubject
remains
thedissertation
morphism."
Thoughdated,theonlymonograph
ofErichKleineidam,
Das Problem
derhylomorphen
dergeistigen
im
Substanzen
Zusammensetzung
13.Jahrhundert
bisThomas
vonAquin,
Breslau1930.Forcorrections
andadditions
, behandelt
to Kleineidam
seeO. Lottin,
La composition
dessubstances
de
; ksdbuts
spirituelles
hylmorphique
la controverse
andPinheads:
The
, in: RNSP,34 (1932),21-41.See alsomypaperOfAngels
Contributions
Masters
tothe
A. Wilson
Doctrine
Matter
, in:Gordon
oftheEarly
Oxford
ofSpiritual
andTheir
Texts
NY 1998,[inpress].
Masters
, St.Bonaventure,
(ed.),Franciscan
3 Thequestion
ofthemetaphysical
constitution
ofangelswasraisedfirst
byAlexander
ofHalesin hisGloss
on theLombard's
Sentences.
His solution,
wasto resurrect
however,
theBoethian
in
distinction
between
est
is nosuchdistinction,
; inGodthere
quoestandquod
theangelthere
is.SeeMarciaColish,
in:Recherches
deThologie
Scholastic
Angelology,
Early
ancienne
et mdivale,
62 (1995),106-9.
Fora goodstudy
ofBacon'shylomorphic
.
Bacon
doctrine
seeTheodore
Roger
Crowley,
TheProblem
Commentaries
how, Louvain1950,81-91.Crowley,
oftheSoulinhisPhilosophical
theDeplantis
below.
thetextthatwillbe analyzed
ever,ignores
commentary,
Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

Vivarium
35,2

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

267

One of Bacon's earliestexpositionsof the doctrineof spiritualmatter,

writtenbetween 1240 and 1247,4 is to be found in his Quaestiones
super
De plantis
, a collectionof questionswhichtake as theirpoint of departure
issuesraised in the recentlyavailable Pseudo-Aristoteliantext.5There he
of matter:
two understandings
distinguishes
in thebeingofthe
form
andexisting
is matter
Somematter
only,namely
lacking
thatis matter
andsubject,
. . . theotheris matter
"informed"
with
essence
namely
is substance.6
andaccidental
andthissimply
substantial
forms,
speaking
Of this firstkind of matterBacon then asks if it is a body, and his
responseis thatit seemsnot to be, because the incorporealdoes not come
to be out of the corporeal.Yet out of matter(in the firstsense) come
into being incorporealsubstances,like the angels,in which thereis matter and which have matteras a part of theirmake-up.7
and spirTo thisobjectionBacon repliesthatalthoughthe intelligences
itual substancesof this sort have matter,which is the root, foundation,
as a part of theirconstitution,
and originof corporeality,
theyare neverthelessnot corporeal.The reason for this is that the formationof these
spiritualsubstancesis not educed or elicitedfromthe potencyof matter,
with matter.Hence this latter
but is instead created together(concreata)
kindof matteris potencyonly in the sense that in it, as in a receptacle,
are introducedformswhose provenanceis fromwithoutand whichcome
intobeingwithmattervia a simultaneouscreationor "con-creation"(per
Thus this kind of mattercan be said to be in potencyto
concreationem).
),
spiritualforms,as forexample those of the intelligences(read theangels
as well as certaincorporealforms(read theheavenly
these
bodies) though
latterare "less corporeal"than thosewhichare educed fromthe potency
of matter,likethe formsof sensiblebodies and the formsof the elements.8
4Jeremiah
s.v.Roger
in:Medieval
Hackett,
Bacon,
Philosophers,
Dictionary
ofLiterary
Biography
CXV,Detroit
1992,90.
5 On thequestion
wasutilized
ofwhichversion
oftheDe plantis
byBaconsee S.D.
to
TheMedieval
LatinVersions
, with
Reference
oftheAristotelian
Scientific
Corpus
Wingate,
Special
theBiological
Works
, London1931,61-4.
6 Questiones
in: Opera
hactenus
inedita
Baconi
Deplantis
XI,
, ed. Robert
Steele,
Rogen
supra
Oxford
ad hoc,quodduplexestmateria;
1932,53: "Solutio
quedamestmateria
que est
materia
existens
in esseessentie,
et de hacfitquestio;
cilia
scilicet
carensforma,
tantum,
et acciestmateria
informata
formis
substantialibus
etsubjectum,
scilicet
queestmateria
ethecsimpliciter
estsubstantia."
dentalibus,
7 Ibid.,
Et videtur
54: "Queritur
utrum
sitcorpus.
non
materia
quodnon:ex corporeo
in quibusest
fitincorporeum,
setex materia
fiunt
ut substantie
incorporea
spirituales
suipartem,
nonestcorporea
substantia
vel
etquemateriam
habent
materia,
ergomateria
corpus."
8 Ibid.,
55-6:"Adprimam
dicenincorporalis
igitur
queprobabat
quodessetsimpliciter

19:10:21 PM

268

R. JAMES
LONG

This participationin the natureof matter,in fact,takesplace on three

levels: spiritualmatter,as for example the matterof the intelligences;
intermediatematter[materia
media),as the matterof heavenlybodies; and
finallycorporeal and sensiblematter,as that of generableand corruptible substances.9Therefore,when the metaphysicianconsidersthe first
kind of matter,that of the intelligencesor separate substances,it is the
kind of matterthat accountsforthe possibilitythat such beings have to
not-be.Though by the will of the Creatorsuch beings,angelsand human
and perpetual,nonethelessby theirnaturesthey
souls, are incorruptible
have withinthemselvesthe principleby which they are in potencyto
non-being and thisbecause theyhave theiroriginin non-beingor nothing.
The principle,in short,by whichtheyare denominatedpossible
is matter.10
In his other Aristoteliancommentaries,which date from the same
period, Bacon's positionon spiritualmatteris consistentwiththe teachIt was not,however,untilthe writings
ing of the De plantiscommentary.11
et huiusmodi
substantie
habeant
materiam
dum,quodquamvis
intelligence
spirituales
suique estradix,
et origocorpulentie,
nontarnen
fundamentum,
erunt,
partem
corporee
ethoc[non]estquiaformatio
earumsubstantiarum
nonesteductade potenspiritualium
tiamaterie,
setestcumipsamateria
concreata.
Undenotaquodmateriam
esseinpotentiaad formam,
hocestdupliciter;
unomododicitur
essead formam
intrinsecam
cum(dicit
materialem
ex suipotentia
educibilem
et in seipsam
introducibilem
formam)
perreceptionem
etsustentationem,
ethocmodoestad formas
aliomododicitur
corporales;
potentiasua ad formas,
nonitaquodex suapotentia
setestin potentia
ad
educantur
forme,
hocutin ipsaintroducantur
forme
ab extrnseco
scilicet
provenientes,
perconcreationem
in esse,etsicestinpotentia
exeuntes
ad formas
utad formas
spirituales
intelligentiarum,
et etiamhocmodoestin potentia
ad quasdamformas
setminus
corporales,
corporales
utad formas
et ad forsensibilium
educuntur,
quamilleque ex suapotentia
corporum
maselementorum
concreate
ethecforme
naturam
sunt,
que ipsimaterie
magisetminus
velcorporeitatis
utelementa
suntquamsupracelescorpulentie
participant,
corpulentiora
et sicde aliis."
tia,et terraquamaqua,aerquamignis,
Cf.Odo Rigaldus,
Franciscan
oftheology
master
at Parisduring
there
Bacon'stenure
as Artsmaster;
textin OdonLottin,
La simplicit
del'me
humaine
auant
saint
Thomas
,
d'Aquin
in:id.,Psychologie
etMorale
auxXIIeetXIIIesicles,
Gembloux
1957,I, 449.
9 Ibid.,59: "Notaquodde materia
estloqui;unomodoperessentiam,
etsic
dupliciter
dicitur
modoperparticipationem
essentie
sue.Et hoc
quoduna estet prima;secundo
modoesttriplex;
ut materia
et
quedamspiritualis,
intelligentiarum;
quedamcorporalis
ut materia
et corruptibilium;
alia media,ut materia
celestium
sensibilis,
generabilium
corporum."
10Ibid.,60-1:
. . . nonconsidrt
ex qua fiunt
ibi materiam
alia,quia
"Metaphysicus
essentie
rerum
de quibushicestconsiderado
suntomnino
a motuetmateria
tali,
separate
scilicet
exquafiunt
secundum
res,setnona materia
quiahuiusquodnominatur
possibile,
modiessentie
et substantie
et spirituales,
licetpervoluntatem
conditoris
incorseparate
et perpetue,
tamenpersuamnaturam
in se habent
ruptibiles
principium
quo possibilia
suntad non-esse
velnichilo
estipsamate(ethocquiaex non-esse
sunt),
quodprincipium
riasecundum
quod
nuncupatur
possibile."
11See thedistinction
inhisQuaestiones
libros
IVPhyskorum
ed.Ferdinand
Aristotelis,
e.g.
supra

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

269

of his matureperiod,the worksproduced at the behest of Clement IV,

of his universalhylomorphism.
thatBacon workedout the fullimplications
the impetusproved to be the theologyof the angels.
Not surprisingly,
In the Opustertium
, forinstance,afterdistinguishing
spiritualand cor,12Bacon argues that
poreal matteras two species of a genusgeneralissimm
the cause of the angel's freedomfromcorruptionis that the formcompletes the whole potencyof its matterand terminatesits appetite.It is
the potencyand appetitefora new formthat is the cause of corruption
in corruptible
beings,as all knowand declare,says Bacon.13The factthat
the angel has mattermeans forBacon that it is corruptibleand mortal,
and hence distinctfromGod.
A later chapterin the same text bringsBacon to threemetaphysical
and the answers
questions,whichby his account are even more difficult,
to which"scarcelyeverwillbe knownby men in thislife,especiallyowing
The firstof these questions
to alreadycommon errorsin theirstudy."14
is whetherthe angel can traversethe space between heaven and earth
or mutatio?
If the
or in time;is it in otherwords a case of motus
instantly
Aristotle's
it
has
finite
to
could
not
act
physics
power,
according
angel

in:Opera
inedita
hactenus
Baconi
, VIII, Oxford
Delorme,
1928,76.Fora complemenRogen
81-91.
seeCrowley,
tary
analysis
12Opus
tertium
in:Opera
hactenus
inedita
, cap.38,ed.J.S.Brewer,
, I, London1859
quaedam
Liechtenstein
122,127.
Nendeln,
1965),
(repr.
13Ibid.,123-4:"Namresgeneris
estincorruptibilis
et ingenerabilis,
generalissimi
quia
natura
nonpotest
illamcorrumpere
necgenerare,
naturam
et
quiapraecedit
angelicam
etingenerabiles.
inangeloet
Sedcausaincorruptionis
coelestem,
quaesuntincorruptibiles
estquiaforma
totam
matecoelo,utomnes
concedunt,
mine]
{emphasis
complet
potentiam
ad formam
riaein eis,etappetitum
eiusfinit:
novamet appetitus
estcausa
quiapotenia
mine
et dicunt.
in rebuscorruptibilibus,
ut omnes
[emphasis
] sciunt
corruptionis
Ergocum
estquodsuaforma
resgeneris
manifestum
totam
sitincorruptibilis,
complet
generalissimi
inpotentia
etappetitum
materiae.
ad ulteriorem
forErgononestiliamateria
potentiam
eiusappetitus
in ea."
mam,necapta,sedfinietur
inthepassage
aboveincluded
theOxford
Dominican
Richard
who
Theomnes
Fishacre,
theidentical
eiusnonesttam
line:"Hincenimestcorruptio
argues
compositi,
quiaforma
utterminet
materiae
ad formam
aliam.Forma
nobilis
et compleat
omnem
inclinationem
utnullaiamin
autem
tamnobilis
estutcompleat
omnino
materiam,
quaeestintellectus
aliam.Etitapernaturam
formae
suntindissolubiles,"
ea relinquatur
inclinatio
ad formam
sixmanuscripts
Univ.MS
In 2 Sent.
from
3.3;thetexthasbeencollated
(viz.Bologna,
& CaiusCollegeMS 329/410[C]; Oxford,
OrielCollege
1546[B];Cambridge,
Gonville
British
MS Royal
MS 43 (B 4.3) [O]; Paris,Bibl.Nat.lat.15754[P]; London,
Library
10.B.VII[R]; andVatican,
Ottob.lat.MS 294 [V]).
14Opustertium
verohorum
167-8:"Occasione
, cap.46,ed. Brewer,
quaeiamquaesita
suntoccurrunt
et theologia,
tresquaestiones
et
difficiliores,
quaesuntin totaphilosophia
vixunquam
in hacvita;et praecipue
errores
studii
iamvulscientur
ab homine
propter
gatos;etistaesuntmetaphysicae
quaestiones."

19:10:21 PM

270

R. JAMES
LONG

declares Bacon, and he followsthis assertionwith a

instantaneously,15
carefuland detailed demonstration.16
Furthermore,
argues Bacon, not only is the angel incapable of instantaneous motion,it is not able to move at all. The angel in an indivisible place or even presentto an indivisibleplace will be limitedto the
when at rest and not elsewhere,even thoughit is
extentthat it is there
not measured
by position(situs)or location,as is an indivisiblebody,which
is a point or atom. The consequencesforboth are equally awkward.Let
A, forexample,be an indivisiblelocus in space to whichan angel is present and fromwhich motionwill take place; and let B be anotherindivisible locus, which is the firstand most immediateterminusto which
the angel could be moved and to whichit willbe made presentby motion.
Let C, moreover,be the thirdindivisiblelocus, mostproximateto B; and
D, a fourthmost immediate to C, and so forth.Since thereforethe
angel cannot be presentexcept to a singleindivisiblelocus at any one
time,and since it will omit no indivisiblein its transit,it is evidentthat
it will always be in transitand will not in fact traversethe least space.
On the model of the point never traversingthe least quantum,because
the latteris made up of an infinitenumberof points- and the infinite,
- so it is likewise
as any reader of Aristotleknows,cannot be traversed
the case here.17
15Ibid.,168:"Et
utangelus
velanimarationalis,
cum
separata,
primaest,an substantia
a corpore
inter
coelum
etterram,
velquodcunque
recedit,
posito
quodpertranseat
spatium
velmutasubito
etin instanti,
velin tempore;
hocest,an sitmotus
aliud,an pertranseat
tio.Et iamsuperius
fuerunt
rationes
positaead hoc,quandodicebatur
quodnullavirtus
ininstanti,
maiorpossit
finita
agereinminori;
agitininstanti.
Quiasi aliquavirtus
ageret
finita
etinfinita
non
utarguit
sextoetoctavoPhysicorum,
ubidicitquodvirtus
Aristoteles
sedvirtus
infinita
agitin instanti,
ergoomnisvirtus
possunt
agerein eademduratione;
finita
agetin tempore."
16Ibid.
, 168-9.
17Ibid.,170:"Quiaauteritangelus
vel
inlocoindivisibili
autdivisibili;
si inindivisibili,
itaquodibiestdumquilocotaliveltali,determinabit
sibilocumindivisibilem,
praesens
sicutindivisibile
coretnonalibi;licetnoncommetiatur
se illiindivisibili
escit,
persitum,
NamsitA
velatomus;
ettunceademinconvenientia
quodestpunctus
sequentur.
porale,
et B sit
indivisibile
in spatio,
cuipraesens
sitangelus,
a quo fietmotus;
et estterminus
indivisibile
etimmediatissimus
ad quemmovebitur
aliud,quisitterminus
angelus,
primus
fietpermotum,
etcuipraesens
licetei noncommensuretur
sedsitei praesens
persitum,
inspatio,
EtC sittertium
indivisibile
loci,utomnes
propinperdeterminationem
ponunt.
immediatissimum
ipsiC; et sie ultra.Cumigitur
quissimum
ipsiB; et D sitquartum
secundum
haecnonpotest
nisialicuiindivisibili
essepraesens
soli,etpertransmuangelus
inaliud,etangelus
inaliud,etangelus
nullum
indivisibile
tationem
fietab unoindivisibili
insuotransitu,
de spatio
cumtotum
nullum
omittit
necaliquid
indivisibile
omitiere,
potest
manifestum
estigitur
sicut
indivisibilia,
transeat;
punctus
corporalis
quodsemper
pertransibit
indivisibili
sedsolumeritdifferentia
tarnen
eritangelus
cuilibet
in situ.Praesens
transirei;

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

271

There is anotherreason which,says Bacon, cannot easilybe set aside.

While the angel is totallypresentto A, it is at rest;and while it is totally
presentto B, it is likewiseat rest.It cannot, however,be presentto A
withrespectto one part and to B with respectto another,because it is
not divisibleand always occupies an indivisibleplace.18Thereforeit will
Bacon also
neverbe moved. By a parallelline of reasoning,furthermore,
denies that angels are able to change.19Hence he rules out both motus
and mutatio.
withthe difficult
His wrestling
questionof the possibilityof the angels
heaven and earth,or any otherspace
the
between
passingthrough space
forthatmatter,leads Bacon to the even more difficult
questionof whether
in
that
thereis no more
a place.20Declaring
the angel can be located
puzzlingsubjectin the whole of speculativetheology,Bacon assertsthat
he will take a cautious approach:
than
andrecital
rather
topursue
thepathsofinquiry
I wishin thismatter
(retatio)
to a better
ofanyoneopinion,
andwithout
anddefinition
determination
prejudice
opinion.21
In the firstof fiveargumentsin favorof the opinion that he embraces,
, Bacon assertsthathe is persuaded
namelythatangelsare literallynowhere
that a spiritualsubstancehas no relationshipto a bodily place, be that
place divisibleor indivisible.The conceptof a bodilyplace, howeverelse
or whereabouts,because
it be understood,necessarilyincludessite (situs)22
duoinconvenientia,
acciderent
sicutpunctus;
quodminimum
puncti
ergosicutin transitu
etquodquantitas
inquolibet,
sitexpuncsuntpuncta
nontransirei,
quiainfinita
spatium
from
Aristotle's
derives
tis;sicerithie."Thisanalysis
Physics
(VI.1-2,231bl8-233b32).
18Ibid.,170-1:"Ettertia
rationonpotest
ipsiA quiesquiadumestpraesens
impediri;
unam
etnonpotest
essesecundum
cit;etdumesttotaliter
partem
ipsiB quiescit;
praesens
locum
aliampraesens
est;et semper
A, et secundum
ipsiB, quia indivisibilis
praesens
to
Fora lucid(andpersuasive)
movebitur."
obtinet.
indivisibilem
response
Ergonumquam
Summa
thislineofargument
seeThomasAquinas,
, 1.53.1c.
theobgiae
19See ibid.,
171.
20He actually
with
in thehierarchy
ofdifficulty
on an equalfooting
putsthisquestion
189
ofspiritual
seeibid.,
theaevum
tobe addressed,
thenextquestion
substances;
namely,
andfollowing.
21Ibid.,
hicconsiderare
de locoeorum,
172-3:"Ideooportet
quod
cap.47,ed.Brewer,
Habettarnen
duoaequalia
se in totaspeculatione
nonhabetaliquiddifficilius
sapientiae.
estistis.Sed in hoc
alterodicetur
de quorum
ei in difficultate,
posthoc,quiaannexum
et recitationis,
secundum
viasinquisitionis
locovoloprocedere
magisquamdeterminatiosententiae."
melioris
alicuius
et sinepraejudicio
nisetdiffinitionis
sententiae,
22ThatBaconis notusingsitus
ninth
thatis,
herein thesenseofAristoue's
category,
evident
ofpartsoneto another
thedisposition
etc.)becomes
standing,
sitting,
(e.g.lying,
forbeing
situated
as a synonym
where
heusessitus
below,
(Opustertium,
cap.49,ed.Brewer,
uthomo."
incoeloutstella,
necin terra
situm
habet,
183): . . nullum
quianecsituatur

19:10:21 PM

272

R. JAMES
LONG

even a point (the minimumplace) has location,as does a line and a surface and a body. But a spiritualsubstancehas no locationand therefore
lacks the ratioof a bodilyplace.23
A spiritualsubstance,moreover,possesses neitherthe divisibilityof
quantitynor even of a point,because by its verynatureit is indivisible.
It is neithera quantitynor the terminusof a quantity.Thus, just as the
of quantityis alien to a spiritualsubstance,so too is theindivisidivisibility
bilityof a limitof quantity,whichis a point. But thingsnot of the same
genus have no comparisonor proportionto each other,as for example
thereis no proportionof whiteto lineor substance
, which belong to differentgenera of predicaments.In like manner,indivisiblespiritualnature
has no comparisonor proportionto eitherindivisibleor divisiblein a
bodilyquantity.24
Bacon's thirdargumentis an a fortior
consideration.Corporeal substances do not of theirvery nature have a relationshipto place. Unity
and number,forexample,do not. Unityis neitherhere nor thereexcept
by accident,in virtuenamelyof a body whose unityit is. Far less thereforedoes the spiritualsubstance,whichin no way dependson body,have
a connectionor relationshipto a bodilyplace.25
For his last argument,Bacon says that everything
thatis in a place is
so naturallyor accidentally.But thatwhich is in a place accidentally,as

23Ibid.,ed. Brewer,
173:"Quodautemsubstantia
nullam
rationem
habetad
spiritualis
locumcorporalem,
sic.Locuscorponequedivisibilem
nequeindivisibilem,
persuadetur
habetnecessario
situm
desuointellectu;
ralis,
qualitercunque
intelligatur,
quiaetiam
punctussitum
etlinea,et superficies,
et corpus.
Sed substantia
nullum
situm
habet,
spiritualis
nullam
rationem
habetlocicorporalis."
habere,
potest
ergo
24Ibid.:"Iterum,
substantia
necpuncti,
spiritualis
nequehabetdivisibilitatem
quantitatis
estindivisibilis;
quiasua natura
nequeestquantum,
nequeterminus
quanti.Et itasicut
divisibilitas
a substantia
extranea
termini
est,sicindivisibilitas
quantitatis
spirituali
quanSed quae nonsunteiusdem
nonhabentad invicem
titatis,
qui estpunctus.
generis
necproportionem;
utnonestproportio
albedinis
ad lineam,
necad subcomparationem
a generealbedinis;
necad
stantiam,
quae suntdiversorum
generum
praedicamentalium
necad dulcedinem,
subalternis
ad albedinem.
musicam,
quae suntin diversis
generibus
natura
indivisibilis
nullam
necproportionem
habebit
Quapropter
spiritualis
comparationem
ad indivisibile
veldivisibile
in quantocorporali."
25Ibid
hocvidemus
namquaedamressuntcor., 173-4:"Iterum,
perlocuma maiori:
sunt,et tamennonhabent
porales,
quiaproprietates
corporum
aliquamcomparationem
ad locumcorporalem
de suinatura,
utunitas
etnumerus.
Nonenimcontingit
dicere
quod
de suinatura
alicubisunt;quianonhabent
necpositionem.
situm
Unitasenimnonest
hicnecibi;nequelocumdivisibilem
necindivisibilem
necpraesens
estalicuiloco
occupt;
et de se,sedperaccidens,
ratione
cuiusestunitas.
naturaliter,
corporis
Ergomanifestum
substantia
nondependet
est,quodlongeminus
spiritualis,
quae a corpore
aliquomodo,
habebit
velcomparationem
ad locumcorporalem."
respectum

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

273

a rock thrownin the air, is thereby violence and has a necessaryinclination to a naturalplace. Thus everythingthat occupies an accidental
place in actualitypossessesa nativeaptitudeforits naturalplace, in which
6 and outsideof which it exists
it is conserved(saheturf
only by violence.
In spiritualsubstances,however,thereis no violence,and thereforethey
cannot have accidentalplace. Nor is there in them a need to be conIn neithersense, then,
servedbecause theyare by natureincorruptible.
is thereany exigencyforspiritualsubstancesto be located in a place.27
If, however,someone should object that while the spiritualsubstance
may not need a locussahans, a "conservingplace," it does need a containingplace,28because the spiritualsubstanceor angel is includedin the
worldof thingsand outsidethe heaven of the empyreanit can and ought
not exist,and thus its nature is limitedin that it is contained beneath
the empyrean,thereare many responsesthat can be made. In the first
place, the outermostheaven,the empyrean,does not have a place in the
and yet is a part of the universe.If it is not, then the
sense of a continens
and
penultimateheaven also lacks a place, both in the sense of a continens
a sahans, and so on down throughthe remainingconcentricspheres.If,
however,none of the spheresneeds a place withrespectto its conserving
function,neitherdoes it need one for its containingfunction.And if
the heavens,which are afterall corporealsubstances,have no need for
a continens
, how much less does the spiritualsubstance?29
26A difficult
in English.
in origin,
wordtorender
Theideais Aristotelian
that
namely
a necessary
there
connection
between
natural
ofa body.
placeandthewell-being
prevails
Outofitsnatural
placethebodyis moreaptto corrupt.
27Ibid.,174:"Iterum,
omnisres,quae locumhabet,authabetlocumnaturalem
aut
utlapis,qui elevatur
est
sedresquae habetlocumaccidentalem,
accidentalem;
sursum,
ad locumnaturalem.
ethabetnecessariam
inclinationem
Et ideoomne
ibiperviolentiam,
in
in actu,aptumnatumesthaberelocumnaturalem,
quodhabetlocumaccidentalem
nonestalietextraquemestperviolentiam.
Sedin substantiis
quosalvetur,
spiritualibus
haberelocumaccidentalem.
Nequein eisestnecessitas
qua violentia;
ergononpossunt
sibilocumnatuconservations,
sunt;ergonullomododeterminant
quiaincorruptibiles
etitanullomodohabebunt
locum."
ralem,
28Bonaventure
between
hadin hisSentences
Commentary
givena threefold
relationship
thelocus
andthelocatum
"thatwhich
is located",
andconnamely,
containing,
measuring,
estnotandum,
"Adintelligentiam
autemobiectorum
serving:
quodlocushabettriplicem
ad locatum.
enimprimoin ratione
continents
, secundoin
comparationem
Gomparatur
ratione
mensur
et tertio
in ratione
Continet
enimutvas,mensurat
utquanticonservante.
antis,
utnatura,"
In2 Sent.
2.2.2.1conci,(ed.Quaracchi,
tas,sedconservt
2:76).Baconis follow's taxonomy,
Bonaventure
forthemensurans.
ing
except
29Opustertium
174-5:"Si dicatur
non
, cap.47,ed. Brewer,
quodsubstantia
spiritualis
locosalvante
sedcontinente,
etextracoelum
esse
rerum,
indiget
quiaestparsuniversitatis
utsitinfra
locumnon
nonpotest
necdebet,
etideolimitatur
coelum
ultimum
eiusnatura
estparsuniversi;
nec aliquodcoelumindiget
lococontinente;
habet,et tarnen
quia si

19:10:21 PM

274

R. JAMES
LONG

The elements,on the otherextreme,bringus to the root of the containingfunctionof place. Because theyare in need of being conserved
fromeveryside, theyare thusin need of containment
fromeveryside,of
in
assume
being shortenveloped.Thereforethe elements
sphericalshape,
nestedfromthe innermostearthto the outermostfire.As
concentrically
a consequence the celestialbody, the empyrean,is also a sphere,thus
the spheresof the elements.If,however,the elements
enclosing{contentiva)
had no need forconservation,theywould have no need forcontainment
and no need therefore
forthe sphericity
of the heavens.Containment,in
otherwords,is not an absolutebut a relativenecessity.30
The suppressed
in
this
that
substances
can
is
premise
argument
spiritual
enjoy the status
of being thingsin the world without having to be placed withinit.
Incorruptibleby nature,theydo not requirecontainmentin a place for
the purposesof conservation.
The final of Bacon's five argumentssilentlyinvokesAristotle'scosmology.To the extentthat the world is subject to generationand corruptionthereis a necessityfor the sphericityof the ultimatebody, that
is the outermostheaven. The latteris moved only in a circle,the perfectmotionaccordingto Aristotle,as Bacon remindsthe pope he established in the Opus mains.But should the heavens not be moved, there
would be no generationand corruption,31
as will be the case in the find
resurrection.
Then all will rise incorruptible.
Yet theywill stillbe parts
coelumultimum
nonessetde partibus
universi
coelum
locumnonhaberet,
penultimum
neccontinentem,
necsalvantem,
et sienecde aliquocoelo.Undequodnonindiget
salvantenonindiget
etideocoelinonindigent
continente,
aliquolococontinente;
quarelonge
nonindigebit
lococontinente."
magissubstantia
spiritualis
in
Pierre
Duhem'sevaluation
ofBacon'scontribution
is worth
to thissubject
quoting
full:"We do notthink
thatanyChristian
Aristotle's
Scholastic
moreclearly
perceived
theplaceofheaven;
we do notthink
it withas
thatanyexpressed
thought
concerning
theories
of
withone of themoreessential,
subtle,
greata precision.
Wrestling
though
Baconwasabletomaster
itas earlyas whenhetaught
at theFaculty
Peripatetic
physics,
ofhisperspicacity";
ofArtsat Paris,andgavestriking
Medieval
Theories
of
proof
Cosmology.
Place
andthePlurality
, Time,
Void,
, ed. & tr.RogerAriew,
Infinity,
ofWorlds
Chicago1985,
147.
30Ibid.,175."Iterum,
si consideremus
radiem
in hocmundo,
undeaccidit
continentia
videbimus
nonrequiritur
ab
quodad hoc,quodressitparsuniversi,
quodcontineatur
salvante
continente
ideoindigent
aliquo.Namquiaelementa
undique;
indigent
undique,
et ideoelementm
estsphaericum
et perconsequens
coeleste
estsphaericorpus;
corpus
elementi.
Sed si elementa
ex nullaparteindigerent
cum;et ideocontentivum
salvante,
autnonundique,
nonessetnecesse,
essent
necperconsphaericae
figurae,
quodelementa
et ideocontinentia
et tamenessent
nonrequireretur
necessario;
sequenscoelum;
partes
universi."
31Cf.the79tharticle
intheCondemnation
stoodstill,
of1277,viz."thatiftheheaven
firewouldnotburnflaxbecauseGodwouldnotexist."

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

275

of the universe,provingonce more thatthereis no necessaryconnection

and being part of the universe.Bacon
between"containment"(continentia)
concludesthat the spiritualsubstancerequiresno place, eitherdivisible
incurredeitherforthe sake of conor indivisible,nor is thereany ought
tainmentor conservation.32
The problemarises,however,thatif the angels are createdin heaven
and if theycannot traversepoint A eitherby motionor change, then it
seems thattheycannot operate in thisworld nor can theybe presentto
- which is
humankind
contraryto the truthboth of Scriptureand reason. If, however,one were to claim that existingat point A in heaven,
the angel could operate here among human creaturesowing to its great
power,absentlocal mutation,it would be counteredthatpower does not
outstripnature:eithernature is superiorto power or at least its equal.
Therefore,where the angel's nature or essence is not found,neitheris
its operationpossible.33
It is the firmfaithof the Church, moreover,and the testimonyof
Bacon adds, that not only
Scriptureand the saints,as well as truestories,
have angels been made presentto human beings operationallybut also
This could not be the case
, essence
, and nature.
accordingto theirsubstance
were the angel to limititselfto a punctal place, in other words, to a
point,as has alreadybeen demonstrated.34
32Opustertium, 47,ed.Brewer,
in quantum
175-6:"Iterum,
mundus
debetmoveri
cap.
etcorruptionem,
propter
oportet
quodsitsphaericitas
generationem
figurae;
quianonposmundi
nisiin figura
in OpereMaiori.Sed
setultimum
moveri,
tali,sicutprobavi
corpus
nonmoveretur,
sicoelum
necfierent
etcorruptio,
sicuteritpostresurrectionem
generado
et
tunc
omnia
adhuc
erunt
universi
ista
erunt
quia
incorruptibilia,
partes
ergofigura
inhocmundo,
continentiam
nonpotest
convincere,
quaefacit
spaerica,
quinidemsitpars
et necessario
secundum
continens
et locumcontinencontentum,
universi,
quodrequirit
tem.Quapropter
concludi
videtur
substantia
nullum
nec
necessario,
locum,
quodspiritualis
divisibilem
necindivisibilem,
necdebeathabere,
continencorporalem
requirit,
propter
sicut
salutem."
tiam,
propter
33Ibid.,neque
176:"Deindein particulari
et
ad utrumque,
cap.48,ed. Brewer,
arguipotest
nonobtinebit
necrequiret.
NamtuncsitilludA punctus
primo
quodlocumindivisibilem
incoelo;sequitur
A inaeternum,
dictaquodnontransibit
igitur
ipsum
neque
persuperius
nisiapudipsum
A. Ergoangeli
permotum
nequepermutationem;
ergononoperabitur
in
cumfuerint
omnesin coelocreati,
etprimo
existentes
ibi,nonpossent
aliquidoperari
hocmundo,
necad homines
eisesse,quodestpianefalsum;
pertingere,
nequepraesentes
dicitplanecontrarium,
et multiplex
et experientia;
et estcontra
historia,
quiascriptura
etcontra
fidem
veritatem.
in A puncto
in coelopotest
hicinter
Si dicatur
quod,existens
- contra,
homines
sinemutatione
virtutis,
locali;
operari,
propter
potestatem
magnam
potestasnonexcedit
estpotentia,
nobilior
autpotentia
essentiam,
aequatur
quiaautessentia
saltem
sicutdicitur
inlibrode Causis.Ergoubisuaessentia
nonest,nonpotest
essentiae;
operari."
34Ibid.,177:"Iterum,
et scripturae,
et
ecclesiae
secundum
fidem
et dictasanctorum,

19:10:21 PM

276

LONG
R. JAMES

The rationalsoul's presenceto the entirebody not only by its power

but by its nature,true as well of the soul in heaven or in hell or in purgatory,is likewisean argumentthatthe angel is not confinedto a point.
Were the latterthe case, namelythatthe essenceof the angel were punctal in size, so too would its power be limitedto a point,and thenindeed,
says Bacon, it would be the basest of all substances.35
If the objection be raised that since the angel is indivisible,so too
with
should be its place, a point namely,Bacon respondsthatindivisibility
respectto the angel and to place is equivocal and belongs to different
genera. Although,theoreticallyspeaking,an indivisibleplace would be
more suitableto an indivisiblesubstancethan would a divisibleplace, it
to everyquantityof
is more precise to say that the angel is indifferent
place, large or small,so long as it is finite.36
If again it be objected that a limitedplace is a functionof the angel's
secundum
secundum
historias
hominibus
certas,
angelinonsolumfactisuntpraesentes
suamsubstantiam,
et essentiam,
et nturm.
Sed hocnonpotest
si
opera,sedsecundum
determinei
utprobatum
sibilocumpunctalem,
est."Thequestion
ofthenumber
angelus
is ofcoursean old chestnut,
butapparently
neveraskedbya
ofangelson a pinhead
medieval
written
master.
Itsfirst
to Prof.EdithSyllais in Henry
according
appearance
in 1659.Fora discussion
More'sTheImmortality
ofthisandrelated
, published
oftheSoul
andPinheads.
issuesseemypaperOfAngels
35Ibid.'"Iterum,
humano
animarationalis
etestpraesens
estpraesens
viventi;
corpori
nonsolumsecundum
utpatet,
etfitincoeloper
sedsecundum
substantiam,
operationem
autin pursuaesubstantiae
quaedamnatur,
praesentiam
quae beataest,autin inferno
noneritsolumetsemper
praespiritualis
gatorio
quaespemhabetsalutis.
Ergosubstantia
secundum
suamessentiam,
sicutnecsecundum
suampotentiam
sensunilocopunctali,
si angelus
essetarctatus
solumad punctum,
et essetsubstantia
solamoperandi.
Iterum,
estquodessetdignitatis
illiusquaepraedicatur
de eo; namtuncet
impossibile
punctalis,
omnibus
et potentia,
et vilior
essentia
essetpunctalis
et itaessetvilissima
substantiarum,
miseriam
nonarctantur."
aliis,quaead puncti
36Ibid.,1778:"Quodsi obiiciatur
et suuslocus,
estindivisibilis,
igitur
quodangelus
dicendum
estquodindivisibilitas
quia
generis;
angeliet locisuntaequivocaet alterius
localis
estitaindivisibilis
necterminus
sedpunctus
angelus
quanti;
quodnecestquantum
et ideononcorrespondent
sibiinvicem.
Si etiamdicatur,
estterminus
quodsicut
quanti,
ad locumindivisibilem;
ad locumdivisibilem,
sicindivisibile
se habetdivisibile
locatum
veraestde indivisibili
locato,quodesteiusdem
dicendum,
generis
quodprimapropositio
sednonde alioindivisibili
cumdivisibili,
utestpunctus
quod
respectu
corporis;
corporalis
Sedtotadifficultas
estrespectu
necquantitatis.
estspirituale;
quodnecestterminus
corporis
nec
locumdivisibilem,
etprobatur
nonpotest
sibideterminare
locidivisibilis;
quodangelus
Namplusconvenit
ei locus
necparvum,
ad quemlimitetur
magnum
perpraesentiam.
non
estindivisibilis;
indivisibilis
ergosi locusei indivisibilis
quamdivisibilis,
quiasubstantia
uniangelo
nosassignare
necmulto
noncontingit
Iterum,
congruit,
magislocusdivisibilis.
utsitunus
scilicet
debetoccupare,
necpotest
locietlocatiassignari;
pernaturam
quantum
cumsitresspiritualis
non
velstellae;
locushominis
quoniam
pes,velduo,velquantum
sit
dummodo
habetmaiorem
convenientiam
ad locumuniusquantitatis
quamalterius,
seu
ad omnem
se habebit
loci,seuparvam
finita;
quantitatem
quantitas
ergoindifferenter
arctari."
finitae
locumcertaequantitatis
magnam;
ergoad nullum
potest

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

277

finitudeof power,Bacon repliesthatthe angel'spoweris spiritual,as is its

essencedoes notexhibitmorecongeniality
essence.As a spiritual
(Jamiliaritas)
towardone place ratherthan another,neitherdoes its power.37
The difficulty
of these questions, continues Bacon, is furthercompounded by the all-too-commontendencyon the part of the cavilersto
sensibleimagesforintelligible
substitute
concepts.AlthoughBacon agrees
withAristotlein holdingthat our understanding
always begins with the
- our mind musttran- or withthe continuum,as he
here
sensible
says
of spirscend corporealquantityifit hopes to reach a trueunderstanding
itual substancesand theirproperties.We say in the Creed, forexample,
the vulgarunderstanding
would be thatHe
thatGod descended
fromheaoen:
descended fromon high, leaving His place in heaven and acquiringa
new place. These claims would, however,obviouslybe absurd. Likewise,
Son, we failto understandthe meanwhen we say He senthis only-begotten
the
when
we
interpret image literally.38
ing
In like manner,says Bacon, we employ many sensiblesimilitudesin
speakingof the angels,similitudeswhich mustbe transcendedif we aim
at a trueunderstanding
of thesespiritualcreatures.Justas we knowfrom
the creationand governanceof the world that God existsand fromthe
unityof theworldthatHe is one, so too by the movementsof the heavens,
which are neithernaturalnor violentbut voluntary,we know that it is
the angelicnaturethatmovesthe heavens(!).Moreover,because thereare
sixtysuch movementsaccordingto Aristotle,we know that thereat least
37Ibid.,178-9:"Si dicatur
et ideooportet
limitatur,
quodsic,quiasua potestas
quod
locum
limitatum
etcertum
contra
estlimitado
suaepoteshoc;authaeclimitado
occupet:
et hocnonimpedit
locuminfinitum
ex suapotestate;
etsicpatetquodnonhabebit
tatis,
Sed si limitado
dicatlocumcertaequantitatis,
nec
argumentum.
potestatis
qua minorem
hocreprobatur
estspiritualis,
sicutsuaessenta,
maiorem
sic,quiasuapotestas
occupabit;
ei necdisconvenit;
et ideosi sua essentia
et nonrpugnt
nonhabet
quiaestspiritualis
familiaritatem
ergonecsuapotestas."
magisad locumuniusquamalterius,
38Ibid.,
179-80:"Seddifficilia
incontrarium
suntargumenta
cap.49,ed.Brewer,
propter
noster
estcum
sumus,
imaginations
corporalium,
quibusabsorpti
quiaomnisintellectus
utdicitAristoteles.
... Et ideoprimointuitu
nontranscendit
intellectus
noster
continuo,
ultra
Etpropter
hocde spiritualibus
format
sibi
continuum,
quodestquantitas
corporalis.
tuncdeficit
a
autsimiles
eis;autsi hasnonfaciataliquando,
imaginationes
corporales,
sunt
etnihilcontemplatur;
etideoinhismulta
veritatum
circaspiritualia,
comprehensione
incorporalibus,
secundum
aliter
et
modum
cumtarnen
sunt,
vulgata
loquendi
intelligenda
sedde Deo. Namdicimus
de coelo;sedsecunnonsolum
de angelis,
quodDeusdescendit
dummodum
de alto,relinquit
locumiliumetadquirit
vulgatum
apudnos,quoddescendit
Sed haecsuntabsurda
de Deo. Et cumdicitur:
novum
locum,
quempriusnonhabuit.
suum
'MisitDeusFilium
suumin terris,'
nonestintelligendum
sicuthomomittit
filium
a se ad locumdistantem,
inquo nonestmittens,
etquempriusnonhabuit
missus.
Haec
et sicde infinitis
serenimin corporalibus
locumhabent;
aliisattributis
Deo, secundum
mones
de corporalibus.
sunt."
vulgatos
Quae aliter
intelligenda

19:10:21 PM

278

R. JAMES
LONG

that we know
of thousands
sixtyangels, in addition to the tensofhundreds
of the Scriptures
to existthroughthefaithof the Churchand the testimony
and the saints.39
Furthermore,
angels are impeded neitherin the movingof the heavenly spheresnor in theirmissionsin the serviceof human creaturesby
exclaims
their inabilityto move or change. The wholeofphilosophy
, says
is immobile
Bacon in one of his exuberantmodes, thatthespiritual
substance
toplace. . . andyet operates
in different
. This is, he tellsthe
withrespect
places
pope, the well known positionof certainParisian theologians.Distance
of operation,moreover,is no obstacle,since distanceis a categoryapplicable only to corporealsubstances.The angel, in sum, is nowhereas to
its substanceand immobile,presentin heaven, yet not absent fromthis
earth,occupyingplace nowhere.40
This freedomfromthe restrictions
of space, however,does not mean
that the angels are, like God, ubiquitous.41
The angel lacks the ratioof
39Ibid.,180-1:"Similiter
veroestde angelis,
de eis secundum
quodmultaloquimur
in corporalibus;
similitudines
estproprius
intellectui
quia talismodusloquendi
loquendi
nontranscendit,
etprincipali
mentis
licetex
nostro,
intuitu;
qui corporalis
primo
aspectu
et privationes
devenimus
via
consequenti
percorporalia,
quae sunteffectus
spiritualium,
in aliquales
ad quaestiones,
an
etpraecipue
argumenti
cognitiones
spiritualium;
quantum
sintetquotsint.Quiaseimus
etgubernationem
creationem
mundi;
quodDeusestpropter
et seimus
Et permotuscoelorum,
quodestunus,quia unusestmundus.
qui nonsunt
necviolenti,
sedvoluntarii,
seimus
natura
estquaemovet
naturales,
coelos;
quodangelica
etquiasuntsexaginta
in nonoMetaphysicae,
motus
secundum
seimus
etiam
Aristotelem,
motores
orbium
suntsexaginta,
milliamillium
et decies
coelestium,
quodangeli,
praeter
centena
etinnumerabiles
esseperfidem
etscripturae,
millia,
nobis,
ecclesiae,
quosseimus
etsanctorum."
40Ibid.,181-3:"Si igitur
erunt
infra
obiiciatur,
quodcumangelisintin gloriacoelesti,
etitaveltotum
velpartem,
eorum
sibideterminabit,
etitalocum
coelum,
coelum,
quilibet
velindivisibilem;
virifamosi
nonvalet;quia
divisibilem
dixerunt
quodhocargumentum
Deusestin coelo,et in hocmundo,
et tarnen
locumsibideterminat
... Si tunc
nullum
eritsimilis
etitatarnen
Deuspropter
Deo in hacparte,
hoc,quod
dicatur,
quodangelus
in se est,nondicitur
essein loco;similiter
et angelus;
quiatuncesset
quodestnefarium,
Deus:dicunt
et in
naturae,
quodDeus estnaturaspiritualis
perprivationem
corporalis
hocsimilis
estei angelus.
... Et hocphilosophia
clamattota,quodsubstantia
spiritualis
inlibrode Causis,ettamen
inlocis
estimmobilis,
uthabetur
secundum
locum,
operatur
Et haecetquorundam
diversis.
volentes
famosa
Parisius,
theologorum
positio
quodopereturincoeloetinterra,
Ponitur
licetnonmoveatur
secundum
necmutatur.
locum,
igitur,
necrespectu
eiusestaliqua
quodnulladistantia
corporalis
impedit
operationem
angeli,
...
huiusmodi
namdistantia
ad corpora
sednonad spiritus.
distantia;
refertur,
corporalis
Sed eiussubstanta
estlocaliter
alicuius
loci;quia situm
nusquam
perdeterminationem
nonhabet.Etideocumangelus
duxit
etreduxit
eiusetcorpus
Tobiam,
assumpoperatio
immotummutabant
et fiebant
in diversis
remansit
locum,
locis;sedsubstantia
angelica
bilispraesens
nec
scilicet
nectamenlocumalicubioccupans,
coelo,nonabsensa terra,
determinans
in coelonecin terra."
41This
oftheangel,wasexplicitly
condemned
viz. theubiquity
byWilliam
teaching,
ofAuvergne,
in eodeminstanti
essein
bishopof Paris,in 1241:"quodangelus
potest
diversis
lociset esseubiquesi voluerit.
enimquod
credimus
Huneerrorem
reprobabmus,

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

279

God's majestyand infinitepower, and is not thereforeeverywhere.By

reason of its spirituality,
however,which is not bound by physicaldistance,one can properlysay thatthe angel is presentin heaven and at the
same time neitherabsent nor distantfromthe earth. Reverence forthe
Divine Majesty demands this negativemode of predication:one cannot
say thatthe angel is alwaysand at the same timepresentto heaven and
earth;one must rathersay that the angel is notabsentfromthe latter.42
Bacon is carefulto insistthat ubiquityis not repugnantto the angel's
spiritualnaturebut ratherto its creaturelystatus,insofaras it has limited power.43
Bacon concludeshis analysisof the relationshipbetweenspiritualsubstancesand space witha forewarning
thatthe vulgos"the common herd"
is incapable of understanding
thisissue or even any part thereof.Some,
in fact,led more by theirimaginationthan theirreason,are so exercised
over thismatterthat theywill stoop to vilification.
His appeal, however,
of the formerOxfordmasters,FriarAdam Marsh and
is to the authority
antiqui.While insistBishop Robert Grosseteste,who are labeled sapientes
that
he
is
which
would
be
ing
assertingnothing
prejudicialto a better
Bacon
nevertheless
convinced
that
he has established
remains
opinion,
argumentsforhis positionwhich cannot be refuted,thoughmany headcontinueto cavil.44
strongpeople (imultiobstinati)

estin locoperdiffinitionem,
itaquodsi esthic,nonestalibiin eodeminstanti;
angelus
estenimquodsitubique,hoc enimproprium
estsoliusDei," Chartularium
impossibile
Unwersitatis
Parisiensis
et A. Chatelain,
Paris1899,I, 171.
, ed. H. Denifle
42Opustertium
autemnonhabetrationem
maies183-4:"Angelus
, cap.49,ed.Brewer,
tatisnecpotentiae
et ideoex hacpartenonestubique,neccumpraesens
est
infinitae,
coelononabestterra.Sed ratione
spiritualitatis,
quae nullamdistantiam
reeipit
corpoincoeloutStella,
situm
necinterra
uthomo,
ralem,
habet,
quianullum
quianecsituatur
Et ideosecundum
habetquodpraesens
coelononabestterra,
necdistat.
hancviamnon
debetadhucproprie,
etprimo,
etprincipaliter
et
diciquodsitubiqueperaffirmationem,
. . . Quatenus
non
hocpraecipue
ut dissimilitudo
eiusad maiestatem
Dei notetur.
igitur
similes
solum
vitemus
sedsermones
reverendm
divierrorem,
erroribus,
propter
praecipue
nondicemus
estsimul
naemaiestatis,
etsemelubique;
quiahocappropriatur
quodangelus
Deo tamin re quamin sermone;
necoportet
estsimulet
quoddicamus
quodangelus
semel
coeloetterrae,
sedpernegationem,
a coelonec
praesens
quodnonabestnecdistat
a terra,
a terra,
necabestab ea; et,e converso,
cum
etcumestpraesens
coelonondistat
nonabestnecdistat
a coelo;utsemper
consideratur
terrae,
praesens
aliquanegadoexprihabetrationem
distantiae
cumsitspiritus."
matur,
quianullam
corporalis,
43Ibid.
sufficit
utnonabsitalicui
y185:"Haecprivatio
comparationis
prospatiofinito,
sufficit
hocad spatium
et estnatura
infinitum,
partieius;nontarnen
quiaangelus
spirietestcreatura,
nonabsitallicui
etpotentiae
finitae.
tualis,
infiniti,
Quodigitur
partispatii
nonrpugnt
estnatura
sedin quantum
estcreatura,
et
angeloin quantum
spiritualis,
habens
finitam."
potentiam
44Ibid.,
187:"Vulgus
tarnen
noncapithaec,neceiuscapitamulta.
cap.50,ed.Brewer,

19:10:21 PM

280

R. JAMES
LONG

Who are these cavilerswho so preoccupiedFriar Roger? Whomever

else he may have had in mind, Bacon most probablyaimed his broadside atJohnPeckham,45
thenmasterof theologyin Paris,and Bonaventure
Commenof Bagnorea,thenMinisterGeneralof his Order. In his Sentences
tary, 1250-1252, the latterhad raised the question of the place of the
angels and concludedthattheyare located withinthe empyreanheaven,
even whileconcedingthatthisis a locuscontinens
"measonly,not mensurans
nor
conservans
uring"
"conserving."46
It is for the sake of the orderingof the parts of the universethat
Bonaventuresays he puts the angels in a place. Withoutplace the angels
would not be ordered among themselves,given that theywere all creThis place of the angels, moreover,is corporeal,
ated simultaneously.47
namelythe empyrean and corporealfortwo reasons:first,corporeityis
congruentwith the angel's limitationas a created
spirit;and secondly,it
is the only way to secure the distinctionhereand there
"hie et ibi."48
It was the cavilers,however,who had the last word.Amongthepropositionscondemnedin Paris in 1277 by Bishop Tempier's sweepingand
epoch-makingcondemnationare to be foundthe following:
Thatan intelligence
oran angelora separated
soulis nowhere
(53).Thatthesepaifso
ratedsubstances
arenowhere
to theirsubstance.
Thisis erroneous
according
as to meanthatsubstance
is notin a place. . . (54).Thattheseparated
understood
andthattheycannot
movefrom
one
substances
aresomewhere
bytheir
operation,
ad haec,nullatamenrationum
sedimaginaducti,
Aliquitamense confricant
potentia
tion sua in hoc,sicutin aliis,magisfalsis
haec
Undevilificatur
quamverisgaudentes.
autem
utfratris
positio
pereossiveraest.Extollitur
perconsensum
antiquorum
sapientum,
sed
Roberti
Adae,et episcopi
sui,et caeterorum.
magisti
Disputationem
igitur
approbo,
nihilasseroinpraeiudicium
sententiae
melioris.
Fateor
tamen
quodrationes
prohacposinesciodissolvere,
etfortiores
tionenesciodissolvere,
etfortores
rationes
prohacpositione
in contrarium
rationes
rationes
dissolvi.
Nec credoquodomnesqui nuncvivunt
quas
induxi
valeant
multi
obstinati
veraciter
cavillaverunt."
impedire,
quamvis
45D.E. Sharp,Franciscan
at Oxfordy
NewYork1964,205.
Philosophy
46In 2 Sent.,
2.2.2.1(ed.Quaracchi,
2:76-7).
47Thissimul
oftheFourth
wasa formulation
Lateran
Council(seenote1 above),a
commentators
inthatthere
isnoexplicit
formulation
thatcreated
forhexaemeral
problems
in Genesis.
mention
ofangelic
creation
48Ibid.:"Ratioautem,
locosivealiquoambiente,
continentur
estordinatio
quareAngeli
ordiuniversi.
Si enimnonhaberent
nonesseteorum
existentia
partium
aliquidcontinens,
nataad invicem,
nechaberet
ordinem
unusad alterum;
hocautemnondecetuniversum
- Ratioautem,
necsummum
lococorporali
est:una,scil, duplex
opificem.
quarecontinentur
. . . ideoDeusfecit
icetlimitado
creati
unumcorpus
nobilissimum,
quodesset
ipsius
spiritus
natumomniaambire,
nihilesset;et hocestempyreum;
et ideo
et extraquodomnino
- Aliaratioest,quiain solocorpore
estdistinctio
necesse
esseintraipsum.
est,Angelm
et
hicetibi. . . ideointercreaturas
solicorpori
debuitdariuniversalis
locandi,
potentia
suipartibus
visibilium
ut sicuniversum
essetunumin omnibus
et invisibilium,
respectu
ordinatum."

19:10:21 PM

BACONON ANGELS

281

or to themiddle
extreme
to another
exceptin so faras theycan willto operate
ifso understood
in themiddle
or in theextremes.
Thisis erroneous
either
as to
a substance
is notin a placeandthatitdoesnotpass
meanthatwithout
operation
from
oneplaceto another
(55).49
Whom did the bishop and his commissionthinkheld these doctrines?
The obvious suspectsare AlbertusMagnus, Thomas of Aquino, Siger of
Brabant,and Boethiusof Dacia.501 am suggesting,
paceTheodoreCrowley,51
that Roger Bacon, since he held all three condemned propositionsin
some formor other,eminentlyqualifiesas a targetof the proscription.
to the pontiff,its contents
Althoughhe had addressed the Opus tertium
in
Franciscan
soon
circles.52
became
known,especially
Furthermore,
very
JeremiahHackets discoverythat articles101-106 of the Condemnation
correspondeitherexactly(in the case of article101) or closelyto Bacon's
evidencethatTempier's
teachingin the Opusmaiusprovidescorroborating
as well.53
net was intendedto catch the Doctormirabilis
In theacademicyearfollowing
the Condemnation,Godfreyof Fontaines
refrainedfromdetermininga question on angelic location,notingboth
themutuallycontradictory
natureof the condemnedpropositionsand also
the danger of incurringexcommunication.54
John Duns Scotus, repthe
next
of
resenting
generation post-Condemnationthinkers,had no
such hesitationin determining
the questionof angelic place, arguingthe
49Chartularium
translation
citedfrom
Arthur
andJames
, I, 546;English
Hyman
J.Walsh
intheMiddle
, Indianapolis
1973,587.On thefaceofit,nos.54 and
(eds.),Philosophy
Ages
- andGodfrey
- tohisembarrassment
55contradict
which
eachother,
bothHenry
ofGhent
ofFontaines
Parisle 7
seeRolandHissette,
surles219articles
condamns
observed;
Enqute
andJohnWippel,
TheMetaphysical
Mars1277
, Louvain1977,104-5,
ofGodfrey
Thought
of
A Study
D.G. 1981,385.
inLateThirteenth-Century
Fontaines.
, Washington
Philosophy
50Hissette,
The quarry
toinclude
GilesofRomeand
105-10.
alsobe extended
might
theanonymous
entia
author
ofUtrum
omnia
sintinloco;ibid.,
105n. 5 & 109.See alsothe
recent
which
Hissette's
viewthatThomaswasnotdirectly
a
study
challenges
byWippel,
oftheCondemnation:
Thomas
andtheCondemnation
Aquinas
of1277, in:TheModern
target
72 (1994-1995),
233-72.
Schoolman,
51Theodore
ofDe WulfandGorceto
totheunsubstantiated
claims
Growley,
replying
wereupheld
thecontrary,
deniesthatanyofthecondemned
byBacon,sinpropositions
outforspecialmention
theastrological
Problem
theSoul
errors;
, 70.
of
gling
52Jeremiah
thatBonaventure,
andpresumably
Hacke
tthasargued
readthe
Peckham,
attheUniversity
maius
cf.Aristotle,
andControversy
, in:
Opus
carefully;
Astrology
ofParis1266-74
VanEngen(ed.),Learning
inthe
Medieval
Dame
Institutionalized
, Notre
John
Teaching
University
withBacon'steaching
onperspectiva,
issued
Peckham
wasacquainted
[inpress].
Certainly
inhisOpus
seeDavidC. Lindberg,
TheScience
in:D. Lindberg
maius;
ofOptics,
(ed.),Science
intheMiddle
Ages,
Chicago1978,353.
53Hackett,
From
toRoger
"Scientia
Grosseteste
in:James
Robert
Bacon,
McEvoy
Experimentalis
Robert
onhisThought
Grosseteste:
andScholarship,
NewPerspectives
1994,117-8.
(ed.),
Steenbrugh
54Wippel,
385.

19:10:21 PM

282

LONG
R. JAMES

preciseoppositeof Bacon's teaching,namely,thatthe angelswere immaterialin nature and neverthelessin a place.55

thatwas spiritualmatterhad ultimately
The thought-experiment
failed,
abandoned even by the Franciscans.As to the problem of locatingthe
angels: althoughRoger Bacon was ultimatelyvindicatedwhen the relevant articleswere repealed by one of Tempier'ssuccessors,at least to the
extentthat theytouched on the teachingsof Friar,now Saint, Thomas
of Aquino,56the debate had long since moved offcenter-stage.In the
formof the question regardingthe numberof angels that could dance
on a pinhead, its shelflife was extended,but merelyas a modernparand irrelevanceof medievaltheology.57
ody on the triviality
Fairfield,Connecticut
Fairfield
University

55Foran excellent
it
thatinforms
andthenewphysics
ofScotus'position
discussion
and
Place
: Putting
in Their
DunsScotus
see HelenLang'schapter
, in:Aristotle's
Physics
Angels
ItsMedieval
Varieties,
Albany1992,173-87.
56Chartularium
SaintThomas
Torrell,
Aquinas,
, II, no. 838,pp. 280-1.Cf.Jean-Pierre
D.C. 1996,324.
vol.I: ThePerson
andhisWork
, tr.Robert
Royal,Washington
57See note34 above.

19:10:21 PM

and theParisianCondemnations
RogerBacon, Aristotle,
of 1270, 1277
JEREMIAHHACKETT

1266-77: An Introduction
RogerBaconand RadicalAristotelianism
In the vast literatureon the Parisian condemnationswhich followed
on the pioneeringwork of Ernest Renan and Pierre Mandonnet down
to the systematicreview by Roland Hissette and to later studies,one
name is conspicuouslyabsent fromthe indices of these studies,namely,
of Philosophy[MA] c. 1237-47 at the University
Roger Bacon (Professor
of Paris and a seniorresidentat the Franciscanstudiumin Paris in the
1260's).1This is, indeed, quite an anomaly since Renan had connected
Latin Averroismwiththe Franciscanstudiumand Mandonnethad noted
a significant
connectionbetweenthe worksof Roger Bacon (1260-74) and
the Condemnationsof 1277.2 Once again, in more recentstudiesof the
1 E. Renan,
Averroes
etVaverrosme:
Essaihistorique
Mandonnet
, 3rded.,Paris1866;Pierre
latinau XIII"
etVaverrosme
sicle
deBrabant
, 2nded.,2 vols.,Louvain1911,
O.P.,Siger
vol. 1, 238-51;F. Van Steenberghen,
La philosophie
au XIIIesicle
, 2nded.,Louvain-lasurles219 articles
condamns
Parisle 7 mars
1277
Neuve1991;RolandHissette,
,
Enqute
Louvain1977.
2 Pierre
deBrabant,
ed.dt.,(note1),vol.1,238:"La condamnation
de
Mandonnet,
Siger
les averroistes
et secondairement
SaintThomas
atteindre
1277ne devaitpas seulement
le contreclbres
du temps
allaient
subiretgravement
Deuxautres
d'Aquin.
personnages
du 7 mars.Nousavonsnomm
RogerBaconetGillesde Rome."
coupdel'acteepiscopal
SeeJohnWippel,
Thomas
andtheCondemnations
Schoolman,
of1277, in:TheModern
Aquinas
thatThomasAquinaswas
thiswell-argued
account
72 (1995),233-72.It is clearfrom
an intended
ithaslongbeenclearto scholars
that
Further,
objectofthiscondemnation.
affected
ofGilesofRomewasstrongly
byit.In thispaper,I examine
scholarly
activity
withthethemes
withLatinAverroism
from
theevidence
forBacon'sconcerns
associated
andtheir
about1264-74.
I amat workon a comprehensive
ofBacon'slaterworks
study
trend
One exception
to thegeneral
totheParisian
Condemnations.
scholarly
relationship
a Kriovjan,
O.F.M.cap.Controversia
doctrinalis
canbe seeninthestudy
byP. Hadrianus
inter
etSigerum
deBrabant
27 (1957),121-65
, in:Collectanea
franciscana,
franciscanos
maistros
of1270and
in relation
condemnations
fora review
ofFranciscan
masters
totheParisian
who
thanBonaventure
willbe thatit wasBaconrather
1277.Myargument,
however,
Averroes
and
ofArts.SeeJeremiah
first
raisedtheissuesconcerning
theFaculty
Hackett,
etal. (eds.),A
andPhilosophy
Bacon
ontheHarmony
, in:RuthLink-Salinger
Roger
ofReligion
Path.Studies
inMedieval
andCulture.
,
ofArthur
Hyman
Straight
Philosophy
Essaysin Honor
intheMoralPhilosophy
andHappiness
D.C. 1988,98-112;id.,Practical
Wisdom
Washington,
Bacon
12(1986),55-109.
, in:Medioevo,
ofRoger
Vivarium
35,2

Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

19:11:51 PM

284

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

ParisianCondemnations,thereis scarcelya mentionof the one-timeProof Paris (c. 1237-47)and Franciscan

fessorof Philosophyat the University
in
Paris
fromabout 1256-79.3
Studium
Friar (at the Franciscan
)
The purpose of thispaper is to presenta strongcase forinterpreting
the later works of Roger Bacon (1266-92) as a criticaldefenceof the
by Avicenna and Averroesin the
importanceof Aristotleas interpreted
of Paris in the 1260's.4However,
contextof the debates at the University
of philosophyand theologyin theseyears
Roger Bacon's unique synthesis
is no simple defenceof Averroismas Renan thought.It is a verycomof philosophyinto an Augustinintheology,one in which
plex integration
a via mediais attemptedbetween the extremesof the so-called Latin
Averroistssuch as Siger of Brabant and Boethiusof Dacia and the criticismsof Franciscantheologianssuch as Richard Rufusand Bonaventure.
Or better,it is one philosopher'sattemptedsynthesisof Augustinewith
the new influencesarisingfromthe philosophyand science of the new
and also fromnon-aristotelian
translations
of Aristotleand his interpreters,
worksespeciallyin medieval science.5
natuIn particular,I will want to examine a sectionof the Communia
and
I
between
ralium
which
believe
must
be
dated
sometime
1268
1274.6
,
3 L. Bianchi,
dell'Aristotelismo
e i filosofi.
La condanna
Il Vescovo
del1277e l'evoluzione
Parigana
von1277,
Die Verurteilung
scolastico
imMittelalter?
, Bergamo
1990;eh. K. Flasch,
Aufklrung
tothe
Encounter
between
Faith
andReason
Mainz1989;JohnWippel,
Reactions
Mediaeval
Aquinas
etlesmenaces
Etienne
Wise.1995.See alsoR. Hissette,
Lecture,
1995,Milwaukee,
Tempier
contre
chrtienne
de Philosophie
21 (1979),68-72;id.,Etienne
mdivale,
, in:Bulletin
l'thique
47 (1980),
ancienne
etmdivale,
etsescondamnations
de Theologie
, in:Recherches
Tempier
" d'Etienne
"antimoderniste
in:Bulletin
de Philosophie
231-70;id.,Notesurla raction
Tempier,
du
dansla censure
Parisienne
leGrand
etThomas
22 (1980),88-97;id.,Albert
mdivale,
d'Aquin
TheCondemnations
15(1982),
7 mars
1277, in:Miscellania
226-46.
Mediaevalia,
JohnWippel,
7 (1977),
andRenaissance
ofMedieval
Studies,
, in:TheJournal
of1270and1277atParis
72
andtheCondemnations
Schoolman,
, in:TheModern
169-201;
id.,Thomas
of1277
Aquinas
in1277?,
in:ibid.,
Whowascondemned
273-81.
233-72;CalvinNormore,
(1995),
4 As is clearfrom
ofAristode
as
Bacon'sdefence
and related
theOpusmaius
works,
to
critical.
On theissuesrelating
andAverroes
is self-consciously
interpreted
byAvicenna
of1270and1277,Roger
thecentral
arisein theParisian
Condemnations
elements
which
can
in theheatofpolemic,
Baconmakes
Naturally,
precisions
veryimportant
precisions.
ofparts
ofthispaperwillappearinJeremiah
be forgotten.
version
quickly
(Note:A shorter
theBinghamton
from
onMindandIntellect:
NewEssays
Hackett,
ed.,Aquinas
(1997)[Papers
Conference
on Ancient
andMedieval
1993-4]).
Philosophy
5 Fora modern
andthe"new"LatinAristotle,
oftherelation
between
study
Augustine
1994.Fora newassesscontra
see Udo Reinhold
, Amsterdam
Jeck,Aristoteles
Augustinum
Bacon
andtheSciences:
menton Baconandthesciences,
seeJeremiah
Hackett,
ed.,Roger
1996(Leiden:
Commemorative
E.J.
Brill-forthcoming).
Essays
6 RogerBacon,Communia
hactenus
3: deanima
Liber
naturalium,
1,Pars4,distinctio
, in:Opera
Thisworkwillbe cited
inedita
Baconi
, Fase.III, ed. Robert
Steele,1911,281-302.
Rogeri
C. Easton
ofthechronology
Stewart
as CN,/,4, d.3.In hisaccount
ofBacon'sworks,

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 285
ARISTOTLE,
BACON,
I want to argue that this sectionof the Communia
naturalium
is in fact a
a
of
tertium
or
section
the
of
the
,
Opus tertium
Opus
perhaps
segment
in
naturalium.1
More importandy,
expanded and developed the Communia
TerciaDe Animafound
I will argue the thesisthatRoger Bacon's Distinctio
in Book one, part fourof the CN is a polemicalworkanalogous in scope
intellectus
contra
Averroistas
of Thomas
and similarin contextto theDe unitale
an
to
at
importanttestimony the debates the UniAquinas. Further,it is
versityof Paris (1268-77).Beforepresentingthispositivethesis,however,I
wishto presenta briefreviewof passages fromthe worksof Roger Bacon
(c. 1266-74)whichpresentmuch evidenceforBacon's intenseconcernwith
Latin Averroismfromas earlyas 1264, when he firstcontactedRaymond
of Laon, the clericin the householdof Cardinal Guy de Foulques about
the new philosophicaltendenciesat the Universityof Paris.8
thesecondpartis notlisted.
See
liststheCommunia
naturalium
(first
part)as c. 1260-67;
A Reconsideration
C. Easton,
Bacon
andhisSearch
Science:
Stewart
forA Universal
ofthe
Roger
intheLight
York1952,
Bacon
, Oxford/New
LifeandWork
ofHisOwnStated
Purposes
ofRoger
a
111-3.Thismaywellbe thecaseforBookone,partone.Butas willbe apparent,
: in an earlysection
arisesconcerning
ofparttwo,Bacon
CNBookone
, parttwo
difficulty
to theMoralis
cross-refers
(= Opusmaius,
explicidy
philosophiae
partseven)[seeCN 1,part
workwasnotcompleted
before1267at theearliest.
2, d.5,ch. 2, p. 128].Thislatter
Andsecond,
in CN 1, partfour,
distinction
Baconexplicitly
cross-refers
backto
three,
bothOpus
maius
, parttwoandtothePerspectiva
[seeCNI, 4,d.3i298,297].Another
probto thissection
in hoc TeroOpere
lemarisesherein thatBaconrefers
ofCNas "deinde
contrarium."
thissection
of CN
hoc,et solviobjecciones
[298]In anyevent,
explanavi
andis nowbeingusedas partoftheCNand
mayhavebeenpartoftheOpustertium
forittocontain
itwouldseembe datedafter
evidence
1268.It is therefore
must,
possible
as setoutin thetextofSiger
forthedebateaboutthethird
bookofAristotle's
De anima
ofBrabant.
7 CN,/, 4, d.3)298: "Namponitur
quodagenssitparsanime,quodestimprobatumin 2 partePrimi
hoc,etsolviobjecciones
, deindein hocTeroOpere
explanavi
Operis
contrarium."
8 Therehadbeena
inthe1240'sbut
influence
ofAverroes
on thephilosophers
strong
itwasdifferent
the"new"Averroist
ofthe1260's.Theodore
inkindfrom
influence
Crowley
andSt.
remarks:
"Bacon'sinterpretation
ofAverroes
wassharedbyAdamofBuckfield
inthismatter
atdifferent
theGreat.
ofAverroes's
influence
Albert
Thestrange
effects
periodshasbeenpointed
an advooutbySalmann.
Before
1250,farfrom
beingconsidered
cateofmonopsychism
which
thepresence
notonlyofan active
intellect
within
the
denied
wasaccredited
withtheopinion
individual
soulbutevenofa possible
Averroes
intellect,
thattheactive
wasimmanent
in mananda faculty
ofthesoulandhisauthority
intellect
wasinvoked
theperandthetheologians
Avicenna,
who,whilst
admitting
against
Algazel
an immasonalandimmanent
nature
ofthepossible
madeoftheactive
intellect
intellect,
terial
form
orsubstance
after
was
1265thepicture
altogether
existing
apart.In theperiod
withmanyother
which
Baconin common
TheAverroism
scholasverydifferent.
against
Averroism
known
in common
ticsthenraisedhisvoicehadnothing
withtheprimitive
before
withmonopsychism."
1250;ithadbecome
[Theodore
Crowley,
Roger
synonymous
Bacon:
TheProblem
Commentaries
, Louvain1950,166-7.See
oftheSoulinHis Philosophical

19:11:51 PM

286

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

In Opusmaius
, part one, Roger Bacon engages in a strenuouspolemic
on the natureof Christianstudies.He explicitly
defendsAristotleas interand
his reservationson
Avicenna
Averroes,notwithstanding
preted by
some positionsheld by these philosophers.9
However,the polemic is not
limitedto theworksof Aristodeand his Islamicinterpreters
alone. Rather,
the polemic involvesAristodeand the newsciences
, especiallyastronomy/
In brief,Bacon accuses the theologiansof his timesimputing
astrology.10
to themnegligenceof the new philosophyand sciences,whichwere based
of Aristodeand Greek-Arabicsciences.But there
on the new translations
is one significantclaim. Bacon claims that in the philosophia
communis
,
"the"
Aristotlehas now replacedPlato as theAuctor
that
as
,
is,
Philosopher.
in Bacon's view, Augustinewould agree with him had he
And further,
knownthe "greater"worksof Aristotleand notjust the Categories
and De
11
interpretatione.
In Opusmaius
, part two, Bacon introducesa subordinationof philosoto
phy theologyin his account of the Augustinintheoryof illumination.
And yet, in his presentationof the doctrineof the Agent Intellect,he
relies on Aristode and his Arab interpreters
for supportof a position
which he attributesto Robert Grossetesteand William of Auvergne.12
" in:Revuedes
R.A.Gauthier,
surlesdbuts
dupremier
"Averrosme,
O.P.,Notes
(1225-1240)
sciences
et
Le
trait
De
anima
etdepoten66
321-72;
id.,
(1982),
philosophiques
thologiques,
ciiseiusd'unmatre
sarts(vers
etthologiques,
1225),in:Revuedessciences
philosophiques
66 (1982),3-55.
9 Opusmaius
Vol.III, 21.
, partone,ed. Bridges,
10Ibid.,
33 andall ofOpusmaius
ed. Bridges,
Vol.I.
, partfour,
11Ibid.,28-9:"Sedtarnen
omnium
testimonio
Platonullam
philosophantium
comparaSi igitur
tionem
Aristotelis
noscitur
habuisse.
sanctividissent
philosophiam
ejus
respectu
nonnegasset
nec
et altiusextulissent,
manifestam,
quiaveritatem
procertoea usiessent,
manifestum
est
maxima
Caeterum
ex libropraedicamentorum
dclinassent.
prominimis
suae
ilium
sancti
laudassent
Aristotelis
libellum,
quirespectu
quantum
magnalia,
postquam
Nam
inmilletractatibus
extulerunt.
unamnonvaletfestucam,
difusae
magnifice
sapientiae
iliumde GraecoinLatinum
diligenter,
profiliosuo,etexposuit
Augustinus
ipsetranstulit
eumpromagnapartesuae
de hocnihiloquamnosextollamus
pluslaudansAristotelem
..."
sapientiae.
12Opusmaius
Parisiensi
convoVol.Ill, 47: "Namuniversitte
, parttwo,ed. Bridges,
Parisiensem
venerabilem
antistitem
dominum
Gulielmum
cata,bisvidietaudivi
Episcopum
essepars
memoriae
felicis
coramomnibus
sententiare
quodintellectus
agensnonpotest
ethujusetdominus
etfrater
Adamde Marisco
Robertus
Lincolniensis
animae;
Episcopus
ThePhilosophy
On thisissue,seeJamesMcEvoy,
modimajores
hocidemfirmaverunt."
of
abouttheteachRobert
Baconisbetter
informed
Grosseteste
, Oxford
1982,347-8:"Evidently,
he offers
nosupwhich
andMarshthanaboutGrosseteste's,
ingofAuvergne
concerning
andTheology
in
. . seeJeremiah
Hackett,
evidence,
Philosophy
porting
onlytheassertion
andtheGodofAbraham:
Bacon's
in:R.JamesLong(ed.),Philosophy
Essays
Roger
Opusmaius,
From
inMemory
A. Weisheipl
, OP,Toronto
1991,55-71;id.,Scientia
ofJames
experimentalis:
on
Grosseteste:
Robert
Grosseteste
toRoger
in:JamesMcEvoy(ed.),Robert
NewPerspectives
Bacon,
hisThought
andScholarship,
see98-103.
Turnhout
1995,90-119,

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 287
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
In Opusmains
, part three,on the nature of language, Bacon presents
which is a fusionof
a comprehensivetheoryof sign and signification
and the Rhetoric
withthatof
the doctrineof Aristotlein the PriorAnalytics
works.13
and
related
in
De
Christiana
doctrina
Augustine
One major polemic in Opusmaius
, part four,involvesthe issue of the
This
statusof Astronomia!
Astrologia}*
argumentis closely tied to Bacon's
The polemic is concernedwiththe issue of
favoredScientia
experimentalist
in the Parisian
an issuewhichfiguressignificantly
Providenceand Necessity,
commitCondemnationsof 1270 and 1277. Roger Bacon's self-evident
with
of Abu Mas'har and it's interpretation
mentto the astral-cosmology
a
for
the help of Pseudo-Ptolemaictextspresentsstrongevidence
major
difference
on this issue between himselfand his putativehero, Robert
Grossetesteas well as with Bonaventure.16
, is a comprehensivestudyof the
, part five,the Perspectiva
Opusmaius
role of visionin human knowledge.Here, one noticesthe integrationof
intoa philosophyof mindbased on Aristotle,
theopticsof Ibn-Al-Haytham
and
Avicenna.
Indeed, one findsa notion of the primacyof
Augustine
which standsin markedcontrast
in knowledgeand of illumination
Intuition
in a contemporarywriterin
of
mind
to the more discursivephilosophy
Paris,namely,Thomas Aquinas.17
has as its goal
The Opus maius
, part six, on the scientiaexperimentalis
the defenceof the rightsof the Philosopherand the Experimenterto
determinewhich Books are worksof Magic and which Books are works

13K.M. Fredborg,
Bacon's
PartofRoger
An Unedited
andJanPinborg,
LaugeNielsen,
34 (1978),75-136.See Costantino
Maius":"DeSignisin:Traditio,
Bacon,
Marmo,
"Opus
See I. Rosier,
volume.
onNatural
Aristotle
, in thepresent
Inferential
Signs
(andall theothers)
Hackett
Bacon
etla Logique
onGrammar
Bacon
, in:Jeremiah
, andAlainde Libera,
Roger
Roger
andtheSciences,
Bacon
op.dt.(note5).
(ed.),Roger
14Jeremiah
inAlbertus
Fateanda Science
, Thomas
Magnus
Hackett,
ofExperience
Necessity,
Studies
Medieval
intheMiddle
Bacon
andRoger
,6
(= Sewanee
Ages
, in:ManandNature
Aquinas
in:
attheUniversity
andControversy
ofParis(1266-74),
id.,Aristotle
, Astrologia,
(1995),113-24);
Dame:
Medieval
inthe
VanEngen
Institutionalized:
, (Notre
University
Teaching
(ed.),Learning
John
andThirteenth
ThomasO'Loughlin,
ofNotreDamePress-forthcoming);
Astrology
University
33 (1994),89-110.
onOldProblems
A NewAngle
Studies,
, in:Milltown
Century
Philosophy:
15Jeremiah
ibid.
Hackett,
16Jeremiah
Bacon
toRoger
Robert
Grosseteste
From
Scientia
, in:
Hackett,
experimentalis:
107-19.
McEvoy,
op.dt.(note12),seeespecially
James
17DavidC. Lindberg,
A Critical
inthe
Middle
andtheOrigins
Bacon
Ages:
ofPerspectiva
Roger
andNotes
Introduction
with
andEnglish
Translation
Edition
1996;
, Oxford
Perspectiva
ofBacon's
onMind
ofMind,seeAnthony
forThomas
, London
Kenny,
Aquinas
Philosophy
Aquinas's
two
andthefirst
andNewYork1993.Whenone compares
partone ofthePerspectiva
to
the
commitment
the
one
notices
De
of
the
scientia
primacy
i,
strong
experimental
chapters
ofmind.
in Bacon'sphilosophy
ofIntuitio

19:11:51 PM

288

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

of Art and Science}*In Bacon's view, this is a task for the practicing
philosopherand scientist;it is not one to be made by theologianswho
have no directknowledgeof thesetopics.It is evidentthatthe accountof
secretbooks and experimentalbooks in the later worksof Roger Bacon
is analogous to the subject mattercovered by the importantbook cataastronomiae
, which,in the modernconsensus,is univerlogue, the Speculum
attributed
to
the
Albert
Great. Nevertheless,Bacon and the author
sally
of thisworkhave a common concern:the need forChristianacademics
and scientiststo carefullydistinguishbetweenvaluable worksof Artand
Scienceand the balefulworksof Magic.19
It is in the contextof Bacon's remarksin theMoralisphilosophia
(= Opus
maius
to theseremarksin CNSdistinctio
, part seven)and the cross-reference
tertiaDe anima
, that one noticesBacon's concern with the philosophical
issues at the heart of Latin Averroism.In the latterwork,he mentions
that alreadyin the Moralisphilosophia
(1267) he had shown that not just
had provedthathuman
religiousfaithbut also thephilosophie
magnapotestas
was
about
virtue
and
human
damnationby vice.
happiness
brought
by
If the Latin Averroistdoctrineof the unicityof the possibleintellectwere
forgood and evil would disappear.20
true,then,individualresponsibility
In brief,the Moralisphilosophia,
the teleologicalfocusof Bacon's remarks
on language and a scienceof nature,is the mostimportantof the human
sciences.As G. Wieland demonstratedforBacon, all the sciencesincluding Metaphysicsare subordinatedto Moralisphilosophia.21
In both his earlyworksand his later works,Roger Bacon displaysa
keen interestin the themesof the FinisHominisand the Felicitas
/Beatitudo
distinction.22
In the CN] book one, part two, Bacon explicidytalksabout
18Foran account
ofthis,
seeJeremiah
Bacon
onScientia
Hackett,
Roger
experimentalis,
in:id. (ed.),Roger
Bacon
andtheSciences
: Commemorative
1996
, op.cit.(note5).
Essays
19See PaolaZambelli,
TheSpeculum
Astronomiae
anditsEnigma
: Astrology
andScience
, Theology
inAlbertus
andhisContemporaries
of
1992fora review
, Dordrecht/Boston/London
Magnus
theissuesin themid-thirteenth
PaolaZambelli
of
century.
givesa comprehensive
history
themanyefforts
sinceMandonnet
to dealwiththeauthorial
ofthiswork.
enigma
CNjly4, d.3, 287:"Item,cumnonsolumregulafideisetphilosophie
magnapotesinpartibus
Moralis
..."
doceat.
tas,utprobavi
philosophiei
21G. Wieland,
TheReception
andInterpretation
Ethics
, in: N. Kretzmann,
ofAristotle's
A. Kenny,
Medieval
J. Pinborg
, Cambridge
(eds.),TheCambridge
History
ofLater
Philosophy
1982,657-73.
22Foran account
ofthistheme
in Bacon,seeJeremiah
Practical
and
Wisdom
Hackett,
intheMoral
Bacon
12 (1986),55-109;seeespeHappiness
, in:Medioevo,
Philosophy
ofRoger
73-85.Forthedoctrine
ofbeatitudo
andfelicitas
inthe13thc.,seeAnthony
cially
J.Celano,
TheUnderstanding
inthePre1250Commentaries
ontheEthica
Mcomachea
oftheConcept
,
offelicitas
in:Medioevo,
12 (1986),29-54.

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 289
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
the ultimategoal of human lifeand in so doing re-worksmaterialfrom
theMoralisphilosophiaP
Indeed, the humanbeingdue to a failurein virtue
declinesinto evil and sin.
Andso he lacksan ultimate
beatitude
beatitudo
end,whichis future
), con(futura
in theDe immortalitate
which
animae
Ciceroteaches
, thatthislifeis a death,
cerning
andPlatoin thePhaedo
thatbeauseofthisthehumanbeingoughtnotto
teaches
themortification
bezealous
towards
ofthepresent
lifeina reasonable
manner,
except
theother
is the
so thatthehuman
thatphilosophy
life,saying
beingmayseekafter
andin thisallperfect
arein agreement,
cureandsolicitude
fordeath,
philosophers
in the[booksabout]moralphilosophy.24
justas willbe expounded
It is clear then,that thereis internalevidence in Bacon's textsfrom
the 1260's and later for a concernwith some of the issues which arose
in the ParisianCondemnationsof 1270 and 1277. Yet even if we grant
thatBacon as a FranciscanFriarwould have been opposed to any putais thereany
tiveLatin Averroismin the sense of extremeAristotelianism,
evidence that Roger Bacon addressedthe centralissues of the unityof
the human mind or the eternityof the world?
In his laterworks,Bacon wroteverylittleon the Eternityof the World,
to hint that Bacon saw himselfas a defenderof
but thereis sufficient
of the
Aristotleor at least thathe soughtto give a benigninterpretation
one which would not
doctrineof the eternityof the world in Aristotle,25
the new generationof theologiansin the extreme-augustinian
camp.
satisfy
It will be my argumentin what followsthat Roger Bacon does address
the issue of the unityof the possible intellectdirectlyand that he does
23CN}/,2, d.3, 127-8.
24Ibid.,128:"Etideoindiget
ultimo
beatitudo,
fine,
propter
quoddocet
quiestfutura
docetquod
Anime
libroDe Immortalitate
Tullius
, quodhecvitamorsest,etPlatoinFedrone
vitepresents
hochomonondebetstudere
nisiad mortificationem
racionabiliter,
propter
etinhoc
estcuraetsolicitudo
aliamvitam,
asserens
utsequatur
mortis,
quodphilosophia
Note:The reference
sicutinMoralibus
concordant
omnes
exponetur."
philosophi
perfecti,
of
is quitesignificant
sinceit showsthatBaconhadaccessto thisdialogue
tothePhaedo
transofHermannus
Platointhetranslation
justas hehadaccesstoAristippus'
Aristippus,
intheMoralis
andPhaedo
oftheMeno.
Bacon'suseofthesetheMeno
lation
(1267)
philosophia
of
evenwiththeinfluence
ofmindandanthropology
thathisgeneral
philosophy
proves
influenced
texts.
thePhilosophus,
is stillgreatly
byPlatonic
25See Richard
C. Dales,Medieval
Discussions
, Leiden1990,64:
oftheEternity
oftheWorld
of
washisinterpretation
ofPhilip's
(theChancellor)
positions
"Byfarthemostimportant
those
hemadebetween
andthedistinction
ontheeternity
oftheworld
Aristotle's
teaching
to natural
andthosewhichareproper
whichareproper
to theology
philosophy.
things
at Parisuntilthe1270's,at whichtimeit was
Thisbecamethestandard
interpretation
dubbedthedoctrine
conservative
andincorrectly
renounced
theologians
bytheextreme
Albert
theGreat
ofdoubletruth.
It wasaccepted
ofHales,Bonaventure,
byAlexander

19:11:51 PM

290

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

tertia
De anima.2*
so in CN book two, part four,distinctio
And further,
this
was
written
sometime
and
between
must
be
1268
1274
and
polemic
an
additional
witness
the
in
the
to
debates
of
Arts
analoregarded
Faculty
withthe De unitate
intellectus
contra
of
Averroistas
gous to and contemporary
Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, as we willnoticebelow it may be clearlyrelated
to the latterwork.And it also may have a markedrelationto the theories of Siger of Brabant in the Questiones
in tertium
De anima.21
In distinctio
De anima
tertia
, one findsthatBacon, writingsometimeafter
doctrineof the soul which
1268, has developedan explicitand distinctive
is closelylinkedto the discussionson thistopic at the University
of Paris
1
(c. 264-77).28He returns,as he had promisedto do in Opusmaius,to a
discussionof the Agent Intellect.This is found in the seventhpart of
distinctio
tertia.
He remarks:
thepartsoftheintellect
arethought
tobe diverse
in essence,
andthisis so
Indeed,
in manywaysandheretheerrors
aremorecrossthanelsewhere.
Forsomehave
thattheactive(agent)
Intellect
is a partofthesoul(a parsanimae
argued
), a position
I refuted
inthesecond
which
Work
Third
partoftheFirst
(Opus
Maius).
Againin"this
Work
I haveexplained
thisandsolved
tothecontrary.
[sic!],"
objections
Having
granted
that
thePossible
Intellect
alone
is inthehuman
thereis stillan infinite
being
(myitalics)
amount
ofwork
todo inordertoexplain
itsparts.
Foralltheinnumerable
questions
aboutfreewillarebasedon thisquestion:
DoestheRational
Soulhavereason
and
willas diverse
to substance
or according
to reason,
definition
and
partsaccording
andRogerBacon,amongothers,
as wellas themasters
oftheartsfaculty,
whofrequently
invoked
ittomakeclearthattheywereinvestigating
theworldas itexists
andaccording
to itslaws,andnotwhatGod coulddo bysupernatural
means.See 191-2forBacon's
remarks
on theeternity
oftheworld
in theDe miscontractu
instudio
(ed.Robert
theologiae,
a benign
ofAristotle
on theeternity
Steele,Oxford,
1909,10).Here,he defends
reading
oftheworld.
Thisreading
ofAristotle,
which
is idiosyncratic,
seemslikea throw-back
to
William
ofConches
inthe12thc. andappears
tobediametrically
totheexpressed
opposed
viewsofRobert
Richard
RufusandBonaventure.
in 1270folGrosseteste,
JohnPecham
William
ofConches
andperhaps
Bacondoesarguethatthere
is a sense
lowing
Augustine,
in whichtheworldcouldbe saidto be eternal."
26It is not
to develop
theargument
here,butonecanbe madetoprovethat
possible
Bacondirects
hisattention
in boththeDe multiplication
andthePerspectiva
tosetspecierum
in Philosophy
ofNaturefortheissueswhichwillculminate
in
tingoutthefoundations
matters
In otherwords,
to De anima.
thetreatise
underconsideration
should
be
relating
readas theendresult
ofmuchreflection
ofa philosophy
byBaconon thefoundations
ofmindandofnature.
27Sigerde Brabant,
intertium
De anima
De aeternitate
mundi
Questiones
, De anima
intellectiua,
,
ed. B. Bazan,Louvain/Paris
1972;seebelownotes55 to 66.
See P. Mandonnet,
ed.cit.(note1);Theodore
: TheProblem
Bacon
Roger
Crowley,
ofthe
Fora newstudy
oftheproblem
ofthesoulin thethirSoul,op.t.,(note8), 119-207.
teenth
C. Dales,TheProblem
Soulin
century
up to the1270's,seeRichard
oftheRational
theThirteenth
York/Kln
1995.Professor
Dalespresents
an account
, Leiden/New
Century
oftheearlyBaconfromthe1240'son thedoctrine
oftherational
soul.He doesnot
address
underconsideration
thetexts
here.
explicitly

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 291
ARISTOTLE,
BACON,
diverse
is thatit (thehumanrational
whichI favor
soul)is one substance
having
which
it
first
knows
andhaving
learned
these
and
names
comparisons,
operations,
in thisstatement.29
remarks
desires
them,
justas Aristotle
here are to the works composed between
The main cross-references
1266 and 1268, the ones writtenforPope ClementIV. The referenceto
the " ThirdBook" must then be a referenceto the Opus tertium
, which it
would seem was writtenafter1267/68 and before 1274. That the CN is
connectedwiththe Opusmaiusis furthersupportedby Bacon's statement
in the sectionof CN under considerationto the effectthathe wrote Opus
in orderto providea correctaccount "ofthe
maius
, part five,on Perspectiva
the
soul" He notes that this lattersectionis
the
sensitive
powersof
parsof
and theology
teachers
"onein whichall thecommon
, natural
ofmedicine
philosophy
arein error"30
terciade animais divided into seven parts. They are:
The Distinctio
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

On
On
On
On
On
On
On

the productionof the parts of the soul

the SensitiveSoul
the unityand pluralityof the IntellectualSoul
the Compositionof the Rational Soul
the powers of the soul: whethertheyare parts of the soul?
the parts of the VegetativeSoul
the parts of the IntellectualSoul.

My aim here is to discussthose sectionswhichhave a directreference

to the issuesat stakein discussionsof the productionof the partsof the
soul, on the nature of the sensitivesoul and on the unityand plurality
of the IntellectiveSoul which took place just beforeand after 1268 at

29CN1, 2, d.3, 298-9:"Partes

et
estimantur
essediverse
verointellectus
peressenciam
hocmultis
ethicsuntcrudeliores
errores
modis,
quodagenssit
quamalibi.Namponitur
in 2 partePrimi
, deindein hoc Tercio
Operis
Opere
parsanimae,
quodestimprobatum
<in> contrarium.
Datoveroquodsolumsitintellectus
hoc,etsolviobjecciones
explanavi
Namomnesquesin homine,
adhucestlaborquasiinfinitus
circaejuspartes.
possibilis
fundantur
fereinnumerabiles,
tiones
de liberoarbitrio,
superquestionem
que modofiunt
secundiversas
habeatracionem
etvoluntatem
hanc,an animaracionalis
tanquam
partes
Etdominatur
intenetopera<ciones>.
velsecundum
etnomen
dumsubstanciam
racionem
nometdiversa
habens
diversas
cionimeead presens
operaciones
quodunaestsubstancia,
sicut
Aristoteles
eteademapptit
inaetdiversas
cognita,
comparaciones,
queprimo
cognoscit
vultin hocverbo.
. . ."
30Ibid.,297:"Partes
in principio
verosensitive
virtutis
egoposuicumomnidiligencia
et
erratmedicorum
naturalium
estunumin quo totum
, quodcapitulum
Perspective
vulgus
et estunumde dignioribus
sapiencie
potestheologorum,
capitulis
que misi,continens
tatem."

19:11:51 PM

292

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

the Universityof Paris. Parts fourto seven will be examined in a separate study.
In the firstpart, Bacon reviews past teachingsand notes that up to
about 1250 all the philosophersclaimed that the intellectualsoul (anima
was createdby God and thatthe vegetativeand sensitivesouls
intellectiva)
in the humanbeingwere producedfromthe potencyof matterin accordance withnature.He notes in passing:"And stillto thisday the English
) uphold this
theologians and all true lovers of wisdom (philosophantes
position."31
However,fromabout 1250 new teacherswho challengedthisview have
based theirpositionon two pseudonomousauthorswho in Bacon's estimate do not rankwithauthoritieslike Aristode,Augustineand Averroes.
These pseudonomousauthorsare Pseudo-Augustine
[= Alcherof Clairvaux],
etanimaand Gennadius,the authorof the De eccleauthorof the De spiritu
siasticisdogmatibus.32
Bacon holds that theseworkspresentthe positionthat "the vegetative
and sensitivesouls are co-createdwiththe intellectualsoul, and thatthey
are separatedat death."This, in Bacon's view,is a kindof Folk-Psychology
about the mind,and much of it in his view is to be foundin the common
theologybooks. "All philosophy,"on the contrary,"teachesthatthe intellectivesoul alone is created."33Moreover,accordingto Bacon, the latter
31Ibid.,
hoccelebrant."
See
de Anglia
etomnes
282:"Etadhuctheologi
philosophantes
Theodore
Bacon:
TheProblem
(note8), 134:"Itis notposop.cit.,
Crowley,
Roger
oftheSoul,
atthepresent
isknown
time:toolittle
sibletopassdefinite
onBacon'sstatement
judgment
ofthethirteenth
Butwhatwe do knowaboutthem
oftheEnglish
century.
theologians
- Richard
Bacon'sstatement.
TheFranciscan
ofMiddleton,
doesnotinvalidate
theologians
andpossibly
alsoThomasofYork,wereon thesideofthephilosophers.
JohnPecham,
Another
Richard
RobertKilwardby.
Fishacre,
Dominican,
So, too,wastheDominican,
ofthe
to takesidesin thedebate.So muchforthetheologians.
Lessis known
refused
at Oxford
or
ofArts,
whether
thatis tosay,ofthepositions
oftheMasters
philosophers,
ofthenon-creation
at Paris.Bacon'swords
wouldleadoneto suppose
thatthedoctrine
ofthehumansoulwasaccepted
ofthenutritive
andsensitive
byall thephilosopowers
theorigin
AdamofBuckfield,
about1243,is ofBacon'sopinion
phantes.
regarding
writing
ofthenutritive
andsensitive
souls."
32See Theodore
Bacon:
TheProblem
, op.cit.,(note8), 135;see
oftheSoul
Crowley,
Roger
in
edition
Bulletin
de Philosophie
ofcritical
Mdivale,
1995,114,133forannouncement
ofthiswork.
progress
33See Crowley,
andsensitive
souls
thenutritive
op.cit.,(note8), 135:"ForAristotle,
'outweredeveloped
ofgeneration:
reasonalonecamefrom
thenormal
through
process
and
soulwascreated
Forthescholastics,
thismeantthattherational
side,'ab extrnseco.
ofthesoul,whichwasintimately
infused
intothebody.In thedebateon thepowers
of
ofplurality
forAristode,
theorigin
boundupwiththequestion
offorms,
thefactthat,
wasone
from
thatofreason,
thenutritive
andsensitive
wascompletely
different
powers
offorms."
ofthecentral
oftheprotagonists
ofplurality
arguments

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 293
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
positionis defendednot merelyby referenceto the authorityof Aristotle,
but forgood philosophicalreasons.The defendersof thispositionproduce
evidence fromembryologyto prove that the embryois nourishedand
growspriorto the infusionof the intellectualsoul. Bacon continues:
withtheintellective
soulswereco-created
andsensitive
Butifthevegetative
soul,as
not
the
soulin
would
intellective
moderns
teach
then,
precede
they
publicly,
many
and
tosaythatoneneedsa doublevegetative
Andso these
peopleareforced
being.
from
thepotency
ofmatter
is produced
a doublesensitive
soul,onewhich
through
soul.. . . Butno
withtheintellective
creation
theother
ofnature;
thepower
through
itas nonsense"
inphilosophy,
and"experts
holdthisposition,
authorities
, dismiss
therefore
foralltheoperais sufficient
soulproduced
Forthevegetative
bynature
(myitalics).
. . ,34
tionsofthevegetative
being.
(soul)in thehuman
Bacon continuesand statesthat those who hold this "new" teaching
cannotaccountforthe timeand place of the appearance of these"created."
with
vegetativeand sensitivesouls. Again, if these powers were separated
to
be
own
of
their
the
basis
on
theintellect
natures,
, theyought,
separated
But of course, the vegetativeand sensitivesouls
liketheintellect.
substances
are organicpowers.
a
There is good reason to believe that Bacon, in thispart, is offering
severe criticismof the view of John of La Rochelle as developed by
Richard Rufusof Cornwall,a view shared by "manymoderns"35
In the second chapter,Bacon becomes verypolemical indeed aiming
his weapons at the leading ParisianPhilosophersof the day. He remarks:
34CN13 2, d.3, 283:"Setsi vegetativa
ut
cumintellectiva,
essent
concreate
etsensitiva
in
et
intellectivam
non
tune
multi
esse,
modernorum,
ipsam
precederent
ponunt
publice
unamproetdicunt
etduplex
estvegetativa
ideocoactisuntdicere
sensitiva;
quodduplex
Set
cumintellectiva.
et aliampercreacionem
materie
ducide potencia
perviamnature,
ad hoc,etideo
sufficientes
necsuntauctoritates
istudhabere
nullomodopotest
racionem,
Namistavegetativa
istudtanquam
inphilosophia
queinduprophanum.
reprobant
periti
. . ."
in homine.
ad omnesoperaciones
naturam
sufficit
citur
vegetative
per
35Thereference
ofthisviewhavebeen
is noteworthy.
Moderns
toMany
Representatives
Albert
theGreatandThomasAquinas.
ofGhent,
in thescholarship
as: Henry
identified
X, ed.
ofFontaines,
ofGodfrey
seetheremark
ofGhent,
In thecaseofHenry
Quodlibet
mateeductade potentia
unascilicet
sitduplexforma,
344:"quodin homine
Hofmans,
toHenry
He attributes
thisposition
a Deo creatore."
scilicet
riae,aliaveroab extrnseco,
et
consenserunt
in which"philosophi
andaddsthatthisis an opinion
ofGhent,
plurimi
He himconcordare."
suntconscripta,
videntur
sanctorum
etiam
dicta,proutad litteram
deanima
See Aquinas,Questiones
abouttheposition.
reservations
selfhas strong
, Q. 1
In deanima
andad 10m;Albert
theGreat,
XII, 157.
, XVI, 1, 11,ed. Borgnet,
(response)
the
which
wouldseemwarranted
andAlbert,
toAquinas
Theattribution
bythereference
of
in
Bazan
his
edition
Professor
in
soul
is
rooted
one
Siger,
givenby
simple
being
parts
intertium
deanima
; see belownote55. Yet,it wouldappearthatthedoctrine
Questiones
see
alsoBonaventure;
andpossibly
Rufus
to is thatofRichard
Baconis referring
which
Theodore
Crowley,
op.cit.,(note8), 124-36.

19:11:51 PM

294

HACKETT
JEREMIAH
Buttheleaders
oftheordinary
common
at Paris
(vulgus
philosophers
philosophantium)
fallintoothernepharious
errors
in regard
, whichthetheologians
contradict,
especially
to twopropositions
andconcerning
a third
. . . Since
theyargueamongthemselves.
an opinion
about
ten
hasarisen
theagency
ofanerroneous
, therefore,
years
ago
through
andfamous
man.Thisopinion
holdsthatpriorto theexistence
oftherational
soul,
a specific
thereis presuppposed
substantial
educedfrom
difference
of
thepotency
matter
which
ofanimal,
suchthattheintellective
souldoes
placesmaninthespecies
notdo so.Buta specialsensitive
souladdedtothecommon
sensitive
nature
ofanimal[doesthis]
soulofa donkey
is addedbeyond
anijustlikethespecialsensitive
to thephilosophy
ofAristotle
andto all authors.36
Yet,thisis contrary
mality.

Bacon uses the authorityof Aristotle,Porphyryand Boethiusto argue

againstthisposition.He argues that the notionof "a specificsubstantial
difference
educed fromthe potencyof matterwhich places man in the
of
animal"
is superfluous.If it reallydid functionin thismanner,
species
the
rational/intellective
elementin man would serveno purposein
then,
the definitionof a human being.
One interesting
aspect of the above citationis the mannerin which
Bacon setsout to prove thatthisis not the truepositionof eitherAristode
or true authoritiesin philosophy.This is quite analogous to the manner
in which Aquinas attackssimilarviews taken fromthe Latin Averroists.
Bacon ends this section by statingthat all the argumentsabout this
are pure fantasyand that in his timesas a
special substantialdifference
Master of Arts(c. 1237-47)such nonsensewould not have been tolerated
among the philosophersthemselves.It would not have been tolerated
since it was so evidentlycontraryto both faithand philosophy,and was
therefore
heretical.This position,whichBacon refutes,appears to be that
of Siger of Brabant.37Since Siger probablybecame a Magister
adu regens
36CN 1, 2, d.3i284-5:"Sed
in alioserrores
Parisius
capitavulgiphilosophancium
in duobusarticulis,
maxime
etde tercadunt,
nephandos
contradicunt,
quibustheologici
ciocontendunt
estestimantes.
Abannis
adinvicem,
veritatem,
quidam
quidam
quodfalsum
decern
inolevit
erroneum
et famosum
igitur
opinioperhominem
quodanteanimam
racionalem
diffrencia
substancialis
educta
de potencia
materie
presupponitur
specifica
que
subspecieanimalis,
itaquodintellectiva
nonfaciat
ponithominem
hoc,setanimasensitivaspecialis
additaad nturm
sensitivm
animalis
sicutanimasensitiva
communem,
specialisasiniadditur
utfiatasinusspecies
animalis.
Setistudporroest
superanimalitatem
totam
contra
Aristotelis
et omnium
IfSigerincepted
auctorum."
c. 1264-5
philosophiam
ora short
timebefore
doesthismeanthatBaconis writing
in 1274?
theseremarks
then,
Or is he usingtheexpression
tenyearsin a loosemanner?
Or is he simply
the
reflecting
thatthesematters
werediscussed
in theFaculty
ofArtssometenyearsbefore
possibility
1270?Thedating
ofallsections
oftheCommunia
naturalium
is problematic,
andthispoints
totheabsolute
needfora critical
ofthiswork
edition
anda solution
ofthesedating
problems.I am at workon thiscritical
edition.
See P. Hadrianus
a Kriovjan
O.F.M.cap.,
Controversia
Doctrinalis
. . ., op.at.,(note2), 150-1on theposition
thatBaconis responding
to Sigerin reference
to thepresent
topic.
EdwardP. Mahoney,
Intellect
andImagination
inAlbert,
Thomas
Sense,
, andSiger
, in:

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 295
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
c. 1262-65,his views may have been knownto Bacon beforehe wrote
the Opusmainsand subsequentworks.At any rate, it would seem that
Bacon wrote these commentssome ten years afterthis Master of Arts
firstintroducedthem.
In the thirdchapter,Bacon addressesParisiandiscussionsconcerningthe
soul, the topic which scholarshave
unityand pluralityof the intellective
discussedat length.Bacon continueshis diatribeagainstthese
traditionally
of Aristotle.But in this case, Bacon hits his target,
new interpretations
head on. He states:
the Latin Averroists,
ofthe
andplurality
on theunity
withthissecondproposition
We areconcerned
soul
soul.Therefore,
intellective
they
(theLatinAverroists)
arguethattheintellective
ALL
HUMAN
BEINGS.
IS
IN
AMONG
NUMBER
anima
ONE
,
Therefore
intelectiva)
(the
IT IS
PHILOSOPHY
thatTHROUGH
arecompelled
error
when
cover
their
stating
they
they
ELSE, NORIS IT POSSIBLETO HAVEANY
NOTPOSSIBLETO SAYANYTHING
FAITHALONE.
BUT[ONLY]THROUGH
THROUGH
OTHERPOSITION
REASON,
deceive.38
as thevilest
ofheretics,
Butthese,
This is very significantindeed. This is the very propositionwhich
Averroists
contra
intellectus
in hisDe imitate
ThomasAquinasattacksvehemently
,
of
to
attributed
have
which
scholars
and
Siger
traditionally
chapterfour,
.39What followsin Bacon's textare
De anima
in tertium
Brabant'sQuestiones
at the end of this
It will be instructive
argumentsagainst TheAverroists.
studyto compare themwiththe argumentsofferedby Thomas Aquinas
in his polemicaltreatise.
First,Bacon holdsthatthedoctrineoffaithandAristodein theNicomachean
Ethicshold thatmeritand demerit,virtueand vice belong to the human
soul (humanbeing). If therewerejust one intellectivesoul presentin all
human beings,it would be the case thatthe same personwould be both
Norman
History
ofLater
Kretzmann,
(eds.),TheCambridge
JanPinborg
Kenny,
Anthony
anditsinterpreowntheory
Medieval
1982,602-23.On Aristotle's
, Cambridge
Philosophy
anditsInterpretation
Aristotle's
seeArthur
tation
ofTheIntellect
Theory
Hyman,
byAverroes,
D.C. 1981,161-91.
inAristotle,
in:Dominic
Washington,
J.O'Meara(ed.),Studies
byAverroes,
38Ibid.,
Ponunt
animeintellective.
etpluralitate
deunitate
secundum
286-7:"Etestistud
suum
Palliant
in omnibus.
situna numero
ergoerrorem
ergoquodanimaintellectiva
aliterdicinecperracionem
nonpotest
dicentes
quodperphilosophiam
quandoartantur
See
vilissimi
heretici."
Sed menciuntur
habenaliud,setpersolamfidem.
tanquam
potest
D.C.
Aristotelianism
andRadical
Thomas
Van Steenberghen,
Ferdnand
, Washington,
Aquinas
1980.
39See Herbert
Their
Onintellect:
andAverroes
Avicenna
A. Davidson,
arabi,
Cosmologies,
Alf
Oxford
Human
Intellect
andTheories
Theories
1992,298, NewYork/
Intellect,
ofthe
ofTheActive
inSiger;rather,
verbatim
is notfound
criticises
thatwhatAquinas
314.He argues
Aquinas
and
from
bothAverroes
whichcouldbe derived
theimplications
wasat mostcriticising
Siger.

19:11:51 PM

296

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

good and bad, just and unjust at the same time. But the denial of the
factthatthisindividualhuman being thinksis contraryboth to faithand
philosophy.40
In the second argument,Bacon states,as we saw above, that he had
Since virtueleads
addressedthisissue in 1266-7 in his Moralisphilosophia.
to happiness in this life and the next and vice leads to damnation,it
would follow,if the above propositionwere true,that the same human
happy and damned, "whichis insane and
being would be simultaneously
to
all
and
is
reason,
contraryto both faithand philosophy.And
contrary
the
this
thus,
positiondestroys laws of moral philosophy."41
The remainingargumentsseek to prove thatthe doctrineof the unity
of the possibleintellectin all human beingsdestroys"the laws of nature,"
that is, the laws of naturalphilosophyincludinghuman psychology.
1. Aristotlein De animarefutesthe Pythagoreandoctrineof the transof souls.Thus, since,accordingto Aristotle,
migration
propermatterappropriatesto itselfproper formand conversely,it followsthat the rational
soul in Socrates is the presentformand is perfectiveof him. It cannot
be presentin any materialotherthan in the body of Socrates.Therefore,
it is impossiblefor one single soul to be separatedfromone body and
enteranother.A corollaryfollows:if,accordingto Aristode,it is not possible to hold thatone soul is successivelypresentin diversebodies, then,
in an absolute sense, it is not capable of being presentsimultaneously
and in one momentof time in diversebodies.42
2. Bacon uses Aristotle'sargumentabout the vacuum in the Physics
to
if
that
in
which
is
one
number
can
in
be
two
argue
anything
present
places, then,by the same reasoning,it can be presentin a third,fourth
40Ibid.:"Namcummeritum
etdemeritum
sintpenesanimam
etomneopusvirtutis
et
in Ethicis
fidem
setsecundum
doctrinam
Aristotelis
et secunvidi,nonsolumsecundum
dumomnes
tuncsi unaanimaessetin omnibus
hominibus,
philosophos,
sequeretur
quod
eademessetreavidietvirtute
et itaeademessetbonaet mala,justaet injusta,
repleta
fidem."
See Thomas
quod essenonpotestsecundum
philosophiam
equesecundum
Tractates
De unitale
intellectus
contra
Averroistas
, 89,ed.Leo.W. KeelerSJ.,Rome
Aquinas,
. . . Rpugnt
sitinter
homines.
1936,57:"Etexhoculterius
sequitur
quodnulladifferentia
enimhisquaeapparent,
etdestruit
totam
scientiam
moralem
etomniaquaepertinent
ad
conversationem
esthominibus
utAristoteles
dicit."
civilem,
naturalis,
quae
41CNls 2yd.3, 287:"Item,cumnonsolum
fideisetphilosophie
regula
magnapotesin partibus
Moralis
servientes
fruentur
vita
tas,utprobavi
, doceatquodvirtuti
philosophie
beataet peccatores
et animain morte
hominis
ad
punientur
penainfernali,
separatur
tunccumnonomnis
homobonusestnecomnis
sitmalus,
eadem
penamvelad gloriam,
animaeritsimulglorificata
et dampnata,
et contra
omnem
racionem,
quodestinsanum
et contra
et contra
et sicdestruit
moralis
fidem,
philosophiam,
leges
philosophie."
42CNI, 4, d.3,287.

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 297
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
and so on to infinity.
Thus, it would be infinitein power and equivalent
to God.43
3. In this argument,Bacon addresses the all-importantissue of the
in indirelationbetweenthe animaintellectiva
and the imaginationes
diversas
vidual human beings. He argues that if therewere but one intellective
and
soul in diversepersons,then,the same personwould simultaneously
at one moment(simulet semel)be both ignorantand learned in respect
of the same object. And if somephilosophers
would hold that Averroesin
the thirdbook of De animaargues in responsethat "diversityis brought
about by means of diverseimaginationsin diversepersons" and so the
soul knowsin thisperson and is ignorantin another(because of this or
that imagination),then,one can answerby makinga studyof the relationshipbetweenimaginationand intellect.
For example,one can showhow theimaginationcan impedethe activity
of mind. In thecase of insaneor physically
injuredpersons,the species(of
the thing)cannot reach the intellectdue to the breakdownin the organic
powers.As Bacon puts it, the being of the species is destroyedand so
the intellectcannotbe informed,and as a resulta personbecomes stupid
or mindless.Yet, ifthe sensoryorgansare not injured,theycan represent
a completedaction. Thus, if one excludes injuryof thiskind,it is plain
thatthe mereexistenceof diverseimaginationsin diversepersonswill not
differentiate
the intellectin different
personssuch that one will be ignorantand anotherknowingin respectof the same object,giventhe theory
which holds that the Intellectis one in numberfor all human beings.44
4. Averroesand his followerspresentanotherproblem."And so, if the
intellectis numberedin human beings,then,the same object or objects
will be numbered,since it is
seu res intellecta)
of the intellect[intellectum
understoodby manypersons.5'45
Thus, therewill be no unifiedobject of
knowledge.
Bacon respondsthatAverroesis not correct;rather,he developsa fantasticargumentto defendhis position.This is the argumentwhichclaims
that fromthe intellectand by the intellecta true unityis produced, a
unitywhich is more real than that of matterand form.To summarize
43Ibid.,287.
44Ibid.,287-8.
45CN1, 4,d.3, 288:"Etideosi intellectus
sitnumeratus
inhominibus,
tuncidemintela pluribus."
On theissueof
cumintelligitur
seuresintellecta
eademnumerabitur
lectum
Thomas
theresintellecta
CarlosBazan,Intellectum
Averroes,
, see Bernardo
Speculativum:
oftheHistory
ofPhilosophy,
andSiger
ontheIntelligible
, in:Journal
Object
ofBrabant
Aquinas,
19(1981),425-46.

19:11:51 PM

298

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

Bacon's long argument:ifAverroesis talkingabout the object of the intellect, so that fromthis object and by it, in general,just one object of
intellectis made, then,he is incorrect.Bacon continues:
Butmanyscholars
thisin manyways;sometakeitto meantheobjectof
interpret
which
whileothers
takeittobe conis understood],
theIntellect
[thatis,thething
cerned
withthespecies
ofthething
whichis [represented]
themind.Iftherebefore
willbe calledthisunderstood
so thatfrom
theintelligible
fore,
object(intellectum)
thing
itandtheintellect
there
is madejustoneintelligible
theerror
is obvious.46
object,
By assumingthat thereis just one intelligibleobject forall things,the
distinction
betweenkindsof thingis destroyed.Afterall, "The staras the
of
is distinctfromthe man and fromhis soul." Thus,
object understanding
it is nonsenseto statethat the intellectmakes one object whichis a true
He states:
unity.Bacon at thispoint introducesa veryhelpfuldistinction.
It is nonsense
to statethatfrom
thesoul,theheavens
anda stoneor from
whatevercanbe understood,
his
Therefore,
justonesingle
objectis produced.
intelligible
wordthatfrom
theintellect
andbythething
understood
justonetrueintelligible
ofthething
which
is
objectis made,canbe appliedto thesoulandto thespecies
before
thesoul.
[represented]
Butifwepositthenotion
ofan intelligible
, andat thesametimeallowfor
species
thefactthatthesoulsofmenarediverse,
arises.Forwhen
then,no disagreement
itwillbe argued
thatthespecies
willbe multiplied
indiverse
thatthe
men,I concede
diverse
ofthesamething
canbe present
todiverse
species
peoplebecausethething
itself
itsspecies
to every
as wasproved
in De speciebus
diameter,
produces
according
Andso,justas indiverse
[i.e.De multiplication
specierum'.
partsoftheairthespecies
ofthesamethings
arediverse,
andcometotheeyesofdifferent
so itis
perceivers,
thecasewiththeintellects
ofdiverse
persons.47
46Ibid.
et quidam
y288-89:"Setmultimultipliciter
exponunt,
quidamde re intellecta
de speciereiapudanimam.
Si ergointellectum
vocethieremintellectam
utexea etintellectufiatomino
manifestus
esterror."
"Namtuncexanimaetlapide
unum,
[He continues:
fieret
unumvereet ex eademanimaet equoet celoet omnibus
intellectis
fieret
unum
duoimpossibilia
manifesta.
Namnichil
ex
vere,ethocestimpossibile
propter
componitur
rebusdistantbus.
Setstellaintellecta
ab homine
etab animaejus.Etiterum,
distat
sivere
unumfieret
exanimaetlapidevelstella,
inhocmundo
tuncessetaliquaresexistens
quod
nonessetanimaneclapis,setnoncontingit
hoc."]
assignare
47Ibid.
dicerequodex animaet celovellapidevelquocunque
, 289:"Etestridiculum
intellecto
fiatunum,
cumdicitex intellectu
et intellecto
fitvereunum,
sutm,
ergoverbum
hoceritde animaetspeciereiintellecte
etsimul
que estapudeam.Setsi hocponamus,
cumhocquodanimehominum
namcuminfersuntplures,
nullum
inconveniens,
sequitur
turquodspecies
diversas
concedo
eiusapudanimas
multiplicabitur,
quoddiversa
species
demreipotest
esseapuddiversos,
suamsecundum
omnes
diametros,
quiaresfacit
speciem
utostensum
estin tractatu
De speciebus
[De multiplication
/,et ideo,sicutin diverspecierum
sispartibus
aerisspecies
suntejusdem
reidiverse
etad oculosdiversos
sic
veniunt
diverse,
diversos."
On theissueoftheroleofspecies,
seeEdouard-Henri
Weber,
apudintellectus
La controverse
de1270 l'Universit
deParisetsonretentissement
surlapense
deS. Thomas
,
d'Aquin
Paris1970,andid.,Dialogue
etdissensions
etSaint
entre
Saint
Bonaventure
Thomas
Paris
d'Aquin

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 299
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
worksout this problem with a distinctionbetween
Bacon, therefore,
the intelligiblespecies by which one knows somethingand that thing
whichis the object of knowledge.Because of the diversityof the intelligible species in all humans,it does not followthat because all humans
have one similarobject of knowledge,theremust be one unitarymind
in diverse
forall the diversehumans.Rather the one mind is diversified
human beingsby means of diverseintelligiblespecies.48
5. Bacon countersthatAverroistargumentthat if the intellectualsoul
were numberedin diversepersons,then,the knowledge(science)which
is in the teacherwillbe generatedin the pupiljust in the automaticmanner thatfiregeneratesfire,or else the pupil will be ignorant.This seems
to leave no room for "new" knowledge.Bacon respondsthat the active
forinteriorilluminationand the teacheris a
(Agent)intellectis sufficient
cause as an externalguide.49
sufficient
6. In this argument,which I shortenhere, Bacon counteractsthe
Averroistargumentthat since all grammariansand logicians have the
same science of grammarand logic, theymustpossess the same knowledge. Thus, therewould be one knowledgein them,and consequently,
soul. This, in Bacon's view, is a complicatedcase which
one intellective
between(a) the cognitivehabit by
can be solved when one distinguishes
which the soul knows anythingknowable as the object of the intellect,
in diversepersonsand numberedaccordingto
whichhabit is diversified
theirnumber,and (b) knowledgecan be takento mean thatwhichis the
object of knowledge.
The knowledgeor science in this lattersense is believed "to be one
and the same thingwhichis knownby all who know it,just as Socrates
is one thing,but is, however,knownby distinctknowers.Bacon, then,
del'intelligence
surla doctrine
CarlosBazan,Prcisions
Paris1974;seeBernardo
(1252-1273),
York1981,1066-73
imMittelalter
undErkenntnis
selon
Thomas
, Berlin/New
, in:Sprache
d'Aquin
desoiauMoyen
La connaissance
: Bd 13/2);F.X.Putallaz,
Mediaeualia
Age:Siger
(= Miscellanea
et Littraire
du MoyenAge(1992),89-157.
Doctrinale
d'Histoire
deBrabant
, in:Archives
inthe
andCertitude
H. Tachau,Vision
ofspecies,
seeKatherine
On Bacon'sdoctrine
Ageof
York/
andtheFoundations
Ockham:
, 1250-1345
, Leiden/New
ofSemantics
Epistemologa
Optics,
inthemiddle
ofspecies
ofthedoctrine
1988.Fora general
ages,
history
Copenhagen/Kln
DisandMedieval
1. Classical
Roots
From
toKnowledge.
seeL. Spruit,
Perception
Species
intelligibilis:
theintroduction
Weberattributes
1994.Edouard-Henri
Leiden/New
York/Kln
cussions,
inShouldwe not,perhaps,
intothedebateoftheroleofSPECIEStoThomasAquinas.
workDe multiplication
in viewofthefactthathisimportant
cludeBaconhere,especially
as earlyas 1267?
hadbeensenttoViterbo
perhaps
specierum
48Ibid.
, 289-90.
49Ibid.,289-90.

19:11:51 PM

300

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

in the cognitivehabit in the soul by which

rules out a regressto infinity
the thingis understood.50
7. On the basis of Aristotle'steachingon writingand speech as signs
of the Passvones
animae
, it can be said thateverykindof scienceis an accident of the soul. Thus, just as the soul is multiplied,so too will knowledge be multiplied.And so grammar and logic will be numberedin
diversepersonssuch thatgrammarand logic in diversepersonsis one in
kind and number. Thus, a science like logic or other sciences is not
merelyan object withrespectto the souls whichknow them,nor is it in
one soul alone, but it is in the soul of any one personwho knows.Thus,
it is correctto say that science is numberedaccordingto the numberof
diversehuman beings.51
Parts fourto seven of the distinctio
tertia
De animaare concernedwiththe
followingproblems:(4) the idea that the soul is composed of formand
matterjust like the angels;(5) concerningthepartsof the soul: hereBacon
attacksthe damnable opinion of the vulgus
at Paris whichholds that "the
of
the
soul
are
accidents
of
the
one
same substance;" (6) the
powers
natureof the vegetativepowers; (7) the Agent Intellect.
These parts contain materialsufficient
fora furtherstudyand suggest
a directlinkwithconcernsin the writingsof Aquinas (1266-74). Thomas
Aquinas was fundamentally
opposed to the doctrineof Bacon and other
Franciscanson the doctrineof spiritualmatter.Further,the doctrineof
the simplicityof the substantialsoul in Aquinas ran counterto Bacon's
doctrineof the compositeunityof the soul.
When, however,we compare the above listed argumentswith those
found in Thomas Aquinas' De imitate
intellectus
contra
Averroistas
, chapter
four,one noticesthe commonalityof interest.Both authorsset out, using
some of similararguments,to attackthe doctrineof the unityof the possible intellectin all humans. Fundamentally,both are engaged in the
same task. They take the Aristoteliannotionof the individuality
of substantialbeing and use it to interpretthe doctrineof mind. Thus, instead
of positinga totaluniformcommonmindforall human beings,theyboth
defendthe radical individuality
of the intellectin human beings.52
50Ibid.,290.
51Ibid.
, 290-1.
On themanner
inwhicha newemphasis
on human
inBacon
individuality
appears
in the1260's,seeJeremiah
M.G.Hackett,
Bacon
d 1292),in:Jorge
Roger
(b.ca.1214/20;
inScholasticism
: TheLater
Middle
andtheCounterJ.E.Gracia(ed.),Individuation
Ages
Reformation
1150-1650
See esp.130-4concerning
theCommunia
naturalium.
For
, Albany
1994,117-40.

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 301
ARISTOTLE,
BACON,
53
RogerBaconand ThomasAquinasagainsttheAverroists
Here, I will limitmyselfto the concernsin Bacon's chapterthreeconsoul. It is clear thatthis
cerningthe unityand pluralityof the intellective
in
of
the
Latin
is central
is
the
texts
which
found
Averroists,
proposition
that Bacon accuses them of actual
to the debate. It is very significant
deceptionin statingthat "throughphilosophyit is not possible to say
anythingelse . . . but only throughfaith.These, as most vile heretics
of a doctrineof Doubledeceive."This imputationto the Latin Averroists
in
P
is
true
that
is,
Truth,
necessarily
philosophybut -P is simultaneously
true accordingto faith,coming froma Franciscansource ought not to
But it is furtherevidence of Bacon's deep involvement
be a surprise.54
in the debate. Yet, the same concern is found in Aquinas' De unitate
intellectus
, ch. V, ( 123): "Even more seriousis this subsequentremark:
'Throughreason I conclude necessarilythat intellectis numericallyone,
but I firmlyhold the oppositeby faith.'"55
In what follows,I will compare some of the argumentsfromBacon
and Aquinas concerningthe unityand pluralityof the possible intellect.
Both writersset out to show that the Latin Averroistdoctrineon the
unityof the possible intellectis not just repugnantto Faith, but that it
is equally opposed to principlesof philosophy.
ofthisthemeafterBacon,seeJorge
thedevelopment
ofthe
J.E. Gracia,TheCentrality
8
ofPhilosophy
inthePhilosophy
Individual
, in: History
Quarterly,
Century
oftheFourteenth
(1991),235-51.
53ForEnglish
contra
averroistas
intellectus
on theDe unitate
andcommentary
translations
,
theAverroists
OntheUnity
H. Zedier,
SaintThomas
seeBeatrice
oftheIntellect
Against
Aquinas
Wise.1968;RalphMclnerny,
Contra
Intellectus
Milwaukee,
Aquinas
Averroistas)i
{De Unitate
1993.See Deborah
OneIntellect
OnThere
TheAverroists:
, WestLafayette
Being
Only
Against
of
inAquinas's
andSelf-knowledge
, in:Journal
Black,Consciousness
ofAverroes's
Critique
Psychology
Thomas
VanSteenberghen,
349-85;Ferdinand
ofPhilosophy,
31(1993),
theHistory
Aquinas
inrelaofThomasAquinas
andRadical
Aristotelianism,
study
op.at.Forthemostup-to-date
Vol.I: The
seeJohn-Pierre
tionto thecondemnations,
O.P., St. Thomas
Torrei,
Aquinas:
D.G. 1996(trs.RobertRoyal),191-6.He asks(193):
Person
andHis Work,
, Washington,
on
ofSigerandofhiscolleagues
heardsomeechooftheteaching
"HadThomas
already
thathe had.An if
Fr.Dondainesuggested
whilehe wasstillin Italy?."
monopsychism
aimedatthe"new"LatinAverroism,
IV were,as I argue,
works
forPopeClemet
Bacon's
debates.
thatThomasheardan echooftheseParisian
itis notimpossible
then,
54R.C.Dales,TheOrigins
15(1984),169-79.
Truth
Doctrine
Double
, in:Viator,
ofthe
ofthe
Truth
Double
SeealsoArmand
Studies,
, in:Mediaeval
CSB,Boethius
Maurer,
ofDaciaandthe
17(1955),233-9.
55ThomasAquinas,
intellectus
deunitate
Tractatus
., (note40),79: Adhuc
, 123,ed.cit
concludo
de necessitate,
dicit:
autem
estquodpostmodum
quodintelperradonem
gravius
tamen
teneooppositum
firmiter
lectus
estunusnumero;
perfidem."

19:11:51 PM

302

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

(1) Unityof the Possibleintellectinvolvesa denial of individualresponsibility.

Aquinas: DUICA ( 89):
[ 89] Manifestumest . . . Rpugnt enim his quae apparent,et
destruittotamscientiammoralemet omnia quae pertinentad conversationemcivilem,quae est hominibusnaturalis,ut Aristoteles
dicit.
Bacon CN I} 4, d.3, 286-7
Nam cum meritumet demeritumsintpenes animam et omne opus
virtutiset vidi, non solum secundumfidemset secundumdoctrinam Aristotelis
in Ethiciset secundumomnesphilosophos. . . eadem
anima eritsimulglorificataet dampnata,quod est insanumet contra omnem racionem,et contrafidem,et contraphilosophiam,et
sic destruitleges moralisphilosophiae.
(2) Denial of beatitudo/
felicitas:
Bacon CN I} 2. d.5, ch. 2, 127-8
Aquinas: DUICA ( 80)
Bacon MP, 28
autem
[ 80] Propria
operatiohominis,in quantumest homo, est
hoc
enim
differt
ab aliis animalibus:et ideo in hac
intelligere;per
ultimamconstituit.
operationeAristotelesfelicitatem
Bacon:
In his account of beatitudo
mentionedabove, Bacon gener/felicitas
the
role
of
intellect,but emphasisesthe role of
ally presupposes
virtueand will.
(3) Individuation:matterand form
Aquinas: DUICA ( 99-103)
[ 103] ... Ex quo sequiturquod si aliqua formanata est participan ab aliquo, ita quod sit actus alicuius materiae,ilia potest
individualiet multiplicanper comparationemad materiam.
Bacon, CN 1, 4, d.3, 287:
Aristoteles
per totamphilosophiamnaturalemsupponitquod materia propria appropriai sibi formampropriamet e converso. Set
anima racionalis in Socrate est formapropria et perfectivaejus,
ergo, non potestesse in alia materiaquam in corpore Socratis.
to imaginationes
dwersae
(4) Relation of animaintellectiva
Aquinas: DUICA ( 91)
Bacon, CN ibid., 288
sicut
[ 91] Phantasmataenimpraeambulasuntactioniintellectus,
coloresactionivisus:unde per eorumdiversitatem
non diversificare-

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 303
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
maxime respectuunius intelligibilis,
secundum
turactio intellectus,
a
huius
scientia
diversifican
scientiam
tarnen
alterius,
ponunt
quae
in quantum hie intelligitea quorum phantasma habet, et ille alia
quorumphantasmatahabet. Sed in duobus qui idem sciuntet intelligunt,ipsa operatio intellectualisper diversitatemphantasmatum
nullatenusdiversifican
potest.
Bacon, CAT,288:
Si dicatur,ut Averroisin 3 De Animadocet responderead hoc argumentumquod diversitasest per ymaginacionemdiversamin diversis hominibus,et ideo anima seit in isto et ignortin alio propter
aliam et aliam ymaginacionem,considerandumest tunc qualiter
ymaginacioimpeditintellectumvel operaturad ipsum.... Si igitur excludamushujusmodilesionem,planum est quod ymaginacio
...
intellectumin diversissi unus est intellectus.
non diversificabit
(5) Res intellecta/
IntelligibleSpecies
Aquinas: DUICA ( 109-111) Bacon, ibid.,288-9
. . . Sed
[ 109] Sed inquirendumresttquid sitipsumintellectum.
se
subsistenimmateriales
formas
huiusmodi
Plato
per
posuit
quia
ab
tes,poteraiedam cum hoc ponerepluresintellectus,
participantes
una forma separata unius veritatiscognitionem.Isti autem quia
ponunt huiusmodiformasimmateriales(quas dicunt esse intellect)
in intellectu,necesse habent ponere quod sit unus intellectustantum,non solum omniumhominum,sed etiam simpliciter.
quod
[ 110] Est ergo dicendumsecundumsententiamAristotelis
intellectum,
quod est unum, est ipsa natura vel quidditas rei. De
rebusenim est scientianaturaliset aliae scientiae,non de speciebus
intellectis.Si enim intellectumesset non ipsa natura lapidis quae
est in rebus,sed speciesquae est in intellectu,sequereturquod ego
rem quae est lapis, sed solum intentionemquae
non intelligerem
est abstractaa lapide. Sed verumest quod naturalapidis proutest
in singularibus,est intellectain potentia;sed fitintellectain actu
per hoc quod species a rebus sensibilibus,mediantibussensibus,
usque ad phantasiamperveniunt,et per virtutemintellectusagentis
abstrahuntur,
quae sunt in intellectupossibili.
species intelligibiles
Hae autemspeciesnon se habentad intellectum
possibilemut intelintellectus
sicut
sed
lecta,
(sicutet speciesquae
intelligit
speciesquibus
sunt in visu non sunt ipsa visa, sed ea quibus visus videt),nisi in
reflectitur
supraseipsum,quod in sensuaccidere
quantumintellectus
non potest.

19:11:51 PM

304

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

Bacon, CN I, 4, d.3, 288-9:

dicere "si intellectussit
Quod autem Averroisarguitin contrarium,
numero
et
numeratus
secundum
numerumhominum,
multiplex
tunc res intellectaerit multiplexnumero." Istud est insanum,nec
ipse ibi verificaihanc consequenciam.Ex dictistarnensuisin eodem
fantasiapro hac consequenciaverificanda,
capituloet alibi extrahitur
ex
intellectu
et intellectofitunumvere et veriusquam
scilicet,quod
ex materiaet forma,et ideo si intellectus
sitnumeratusin hominibus,
tunc idem intellectumseu res intellectaeadem numerabiturcum
a pluribus.Set multimultipliciter
intelligitur
exponunt,quidam de
re intellectaet quidam de specie rei apud animam. Si ergo intellectumvocet hie rem intellectamut ex ea et intellectufiatomnino
unum, manifestusest error.Nam tunc ex anima et lapide fieret
unum vere et ex eadem anima et equo et celo et omnibusintellectisfieretunum vere, et hoc est impossibilepropterduo impossibilia manifesta.Nam nichilcomponiturex rebus distantibus.Set
stella intellectadistatab homine et anima eius. Et iterum,si vere
unum fieretex anima et lapide vel stella,tunc essetaliqua res existens in hoc mundo quod non esset anima nec lapis, set non contingitassignarehoc. Et est ridiculumdicere quod ex anima et celo
vel lapidevel quocunque intellecto
fiatunum,ergo VERBUMSUUM,
cumdit ex intellectu
et intellecto
, fiat vereunum
, hoc erit: de animaet
rei
intellecte
est
earn.
Set
si
hic
specie
quae apud
ponamus,et simulcum
hoc quod anime hominumsunt plures,nullum sequiturinconveniens.Nam cum infertur
quod species apud animas diversasmulticoncedo
plicabitur,
quod diversa species ejusdem rei potest esse
apud diversos,quia res facitspeciem suam secundumomnes diametros,ut ostensumest in tractatuDe speciebus
[= De multiplicatione
Et ideo, sicut in diversispartibusaeris species sunt ejusspecierun.
dem rei diverseet ad oculos diversorumveniuntdiverse,sic apud
intellectusdiversos.
(6) Generationof knowledge/fire
Aquinas: DUICA ( 111) Bacon, CN ibid.,289, 1. 22-6
[ 111] Si autem intelligereesset actio transiensin exteriorem
materiam,sicut comburereet movere,sequereturquod intelligere
esset secundum modum quo natura rerum habet esse in singu...
laribus,sicutcombustioignisest secundummodumcombustibilis.
Bacon, CN ibid.,289, 1. 22-6
Cum vero arguitquod si anima numeraturin diversis,tunc sciencia que est in magistrogenerabitscienciamin discipulumsicutignis

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 305
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
generatignem,aut nichilseiet discipulus,non verificathanc conintellectusagens pro causa
sequenciam,et est pessima.Nam sufficit
interioriet magisterexterius.
(7) Teacher/Pupil
Aquinas: DUICA (113) Bacon, CN ibid.,289, 1. 25-290, 1. 9.
[ 113] Ex hoc autem apparetquomodo sit eadem scientiain discpulo et doctore.. . . Sicut enim in infirmoest principiumnaturale
ad sanitatemperficiendam,
cui medicusauxiliasubministrat
sanitatis,
naturalescientiae,seil,intellectus
ita in discpuloestprincipium
agens
et primaprincipiaper se nota; doctorautem subministrat
quaedam
adminicula,deducendo conclusionesex principiisper se nota.
Bacon, CN I} 4, 3, 289, 1. 25-290, 1. 9:
Cum vero arguit.. . . Set rerum notitia significatarumhabetur
et partim
partimper magistrmostendentemet exemplificantem,
influenciam
sensus
et
agentis.Nam
per
experienciam partimper
et species rei
res per doctorempotestvisui ostendiet exemplificari,
venitad intellectum
per sensum,et intellectusagens illustrt,et sic
nasciturin anima habituscognitivus,et ita per has vias sufficienter
potestfieriscienciain discpulo,ita quod non oportetquod sciencia
generatse.
The common agreementon the part of Thomas Aquinas and Roger
Bacon in an attackon the Latin Averroistdoctrineof the Unityof the
And it is notjust accidental.
PossibleIntellectis, indeed,quite significant.
It suggeststhat there is some relationshipbetween these texts.This is
Auerroistas.
But in other
what Aquinas and Bacon held in common contra
Bacon
was an
commitments:
had
differing
philosophical
respects,they
advocate of the following:the doctrineof spiritualmatter,the doctrine
of the compositesoul in oppositionto Aquinas' doctrineof the simplicity
of the AgentIntellectwithGod, the denial
of the soul, the identification
that the AgentIntellectwas a pars animae.
All of this is verysignificant
for a comparisonof the De unitaleinteltertiade anima.The firstpart of the former
lectuswith Bacon's Distinctio
workis notjust an attackon Averroesand his Latin followers;it is also
a sustainedcritiqueof a Neo-Platonicdoctrineof "separateintellect"and
"separatedform."Moreover,much of the discussionof the relationof
is a sustainedcritiqueof a doctrineof "illumined
intellectus
and Phantasma
phantasms,"a view similarto that of Roger Bacon who favorsilluminationover abstraction.
And Bacon's attackon the doctrineof the simplicity
terciade anima
of the soul and his defenceof spiritualmatterin Distinctio

19:11:51 PM

306

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

suggeststhat Thomas Aquinas had more than Siger of Brabantin mind

when he composed the De unitate
contra
intellectus
Averroistas.
Bacon may
have differedfromSiger of Brabanton the one issue of the unityof the
possible intellect.Yet, he differedfromAquinas and Siger in regardto
the doctrine of the Agent Intellect.56Bacon's strongadvocacy of the
identification
of the intellectus
ogenswithGod and his refusalto allow that
theAgentIntellectwas a parsanimaeallowedAquinas and Sigerthe chance
to raise a challenge about the meaning of Aristotlein his masterwork,
De anima.01
s Tractatus de Anima and Sigerof BrabansQuestiones in
RogerBacon3
tertiumDe anima
58
BriefRemarks
The followingis a briefreviewof some evidencewhichwould suggest
a connectionbetweenBacon's Tractatus
de animain the Communia
naturalium
and the Quaestiones
in tertium
De animaof Siger of Brabant.59
56On Bacon'sdoctrine
- twoquite
oftheAgentIntellect
(inboth1240'sand 1260's
different
see OttoKeicher,
DerIntellectus
bei
Baco
in:
Studien
zur
positions),
Agens Roger ,
Geschichte
derPhilosophie:
Clemens
Mnster
Zur60-Geburtstag
Baumker,
1913,297-308;
Festgabe
derltesten
vonintellectus
in:Abhandlungen
ausdem
Gebiete
id.,ZurLehre
Franziskanertheologen
agens,
derPhilosophie
undihre
Geschichte
imBreisgau
Leonard
, Freiburg
1913,173-82;
J. Bowman,
TheDevelopment
intheFranciscan
Intellect
School
ofthedoctrine
ofthe
Agent
,
oftheThirteenth
Century
in:The ModernSchoolman,
50 (1951),251-79;seeTimothy
B. Noone,Roger
Bacon
and
Richard
... in present
volume.
Ru/us
57See
ideas
andexperience
Owens,Faith,
, illumination,
, in: TheCambridge
Joseph
History
of
Later
Medieval
', op.cit.,(note21),449:"In theviewofRogerBacon,thesoul's
Philosophy
activeintellect
ideasorspecies
without
thought
bymeansofinnate
exemplar
beingserved
whilethepotential
directed
towards
lowerthings,
intellect,
bysensecognition,
depended
maintained
thedoctrine
ofthe
Bacon,however,
uponwhatwasgivenit bythesenses.
overallillumination
described
Fromthatviewpoint
he coulddenythat
byAugustine.
theactiveintellect
waspartofthesoul,sincean agenthadtobe substantially
other
than
thepatient.
He opposed
thedoctrine
thatthesameform
canbe theground
ofboththe
ofthething,
content
withthestandthattheillumibeingand theknowledge
seeming
nation
itself
allowed
bothintellects
to seetheir
Buthe explicitly
ranked
theindiobjects.
viduili
thantheuniversal."
higher
58See P. Hadrianus
a Kriovjan
O.F.M.cap.,Controversia...,
op.at. (note2), 150-1,
whoargues
forthefactthatin Communia
naturalium
I, 4,d.e,ch.2: De anima
sensitiva,
284-6,
Bacon
oculishabetsententiam
Roger
Sigeri."
59This "prae willbe worked
outin detailin a laterpaper.Fora summary
of
comparison
theimpact
ofAverroes'
ideason thematerial
intellect
on Latinscholastics,
see Herbert
A. Davidson,
andAverroes,
OnIntellect
: Their
Theories
, Avicenna
Alfarabi
Cosmologies,
ofTheActive
andTheories
Intellect
See p. 306:"The
Intellect,
, NewYork/Oxford
1992,298-314.
ofHuman
thesis
thatthepotential
intellect
is notjoinedto thebodyas itsform,
which
is nowhere

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 307
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
deAnimaand Siger of Brabant's Questiones
in tertium
De
Bacon's Tractatus
animahave in broad termsa common structure.
Bacon's Parts one and two deal with the productionof the parts of
in relationto the other
the soul; Sigerin part one deals withthe intellectus
the
and
the
sensitive.The second
of
the
soul,
vegetative
parts
especially
in
is
treated
Bacon
of
treatise
by
parts fourand five.Siger's
part Siger's
treated
of
and
intellect
is
the
account
agent
by Bacon in his part
possible
three and seven. But in general, both treatises,with some exceptions,
cover some of the same ground.
In treatingthe questionas to whetherthe intellective
part is rootedin
the same substanceof the soul with the vegetativeand sensitiveparts,
to bothAlbertthe Great and Thomas Aquinas,
Siger,apparendyreferring
a
soul
but fora compositesoul.60In the course of
not
for
argues
simple
this argument,he denounces those who hold the theoryof a doublevegetativeand sensitivesoul in termsverymuch like the criticismof this
positionofferedabove by Roger Bacon.61Siger's solutionto the problem
in Averroes'
on theDe anima
articulated
, is notstatedin so many
LongCommentary
thethewords
either,
although
Sigerprobably
implies
bySigerinthework
justexamined
man"through
its[theintelintellect
doesnot"perfect"
siswhenhewrites
thatthehuman
De
intellect
as thehuman
On theissueofthepotential
form,
Aquinas'
lect's]substance."
theimplications
ofAverroes'
atmostaddresses
unitate
intellectus
therefore
LongCommentary
inteltheissueofthepotential
De anima.
Evenapartfrom
intertium
andSiger'sQuestiones
ofthe
intellectus
doesnotstandas a direct
theDe unitate
lectas thehuman
form,
critique
inanyofSiger's
known
works.
taken
or,forthatmatter,
bySigerintheQuestiones
positions
suchas onethatanearly
fourteentha lostwork
ofSiger's
wasrefuting
Conceivably,
Aquinas
- thesuggestion
hasbeenmade
refers
to.Alternatively
writer,
century
JohnBaconthorpe,
or
other
oflectures
conducted
accounts
bySiger
mayhavehadinviewlistener's
Aquinas
adherents
ofAverroes."
60SigerofBrabant,
De anima
intertium
, Q. 1,ed.cit.,
Questiones
(note27),2, 1.33-3,1.49:
in
<et intellectivum>
radicantur
sensitivm
"Solutio.
Quidamponunt
quodVegetativum,
ab triplici
ab extrnseco
istiquodtotaanimaadvenit
Et dicunt
eademsubstantia
simplici.
illaetresvirad corpusdifferunt
... Et sicperrelationem
virtute
et differentia
animae.
ab extrnseco.
cumomnesadveniant
tutes,
Averrois,
quodunus
perquamprobat
Qui sicponitnonhabetundeevadatrationem
nisi
hocquod
sumat
multas
solutiones
inomnibus
sitintellectus
aliorum),
per
(etquamvis
<non>estimproSinedubiodifficile
ab extrnseco.
etsensitivm
adveniunt
Vegetativum
etsencumsuatriplici
scilicet
animaab extrnseco
barequodadveniret
virtute,
vegetativo
XVoAnimalium.
Ibienimdicit
veliecontrarium
videtur
sitivo
etintellectivo,
cumAristoteles
estab extrnseco."
ipse:solusintellectus
61Ibid
Constat
illaratioimprobari.
., 3, 1.50-7:"Itemratione
quodVegetativum
potest
Si ergoadveniret
materiae
cumformatur
de potentia
etsensitivm
educuntur
progenitum.
et
et sensitivm
ab extrnseco,
Vegetativum
oporteret
quodcorrumperentur
Vegetativum
ab
etsensitivm
advenientia
materiae
sensitivm
perVegetativum
priuseductade potentia
velnecessario
nisia suocontrario;
extrnseco,
poneret,
quianihilcorrumpitur
quodnullus
et duplexsensitivm,
essetduplexVegetativum
quodsimiliter
quodin homine
oporteret
estinconveniens."

19:11:51 PM

308

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

is to argue that "the intellectivesoul" is not rooted in the same simple

cumipsisin eadem
soul with the vegetativeand sensitiveparts,sedradkatur
.62This indeed is significant
since Siger would seem to be
animacomposita
on thispoint.Hence, the disagreenearerto Bacon and thephilosophantes
mentof both Siger and Bacon againstAquinas on the notionof the simplicityof soul.63
However, it is clear that Bacon had Siger firmlyin mind, as we saw
above, when he criticisesthose who hold that "a special sensitivesoul"
and not the "intellectivesoul" places man in the species animal.64
See Siger, Questio6 in his oppositionto the notionthatthe intellectis
composed frommatterand form.65
In thiscomparison,I am limitedto illustrating
and differences
similarities
between Siger and Bacon and I will limitmyselfto the two issues: the
unityand pluralityof the possible intellectand the agent intellect.
9: " Utrum
situnusintellectus
in omnibus
."
Sigertreatsthefirsttopicin Questio
Here one noticestwo items.Siger remarks:
Cumergotudicisquodintellectus
materias
multiplicatur
propter
quibus
appropriatur,
Nonvidetur
essecausanisiponendo
quaeratur
quideritcausaappropriationis.
quod
In separatis
intellectus
incorpore.
sitvirtus
enima materia
subuna
quaereperiuntur
nonreperitur
viliusetmelius,
utdicitAristoteles.
Si ergoformarum
immatespecie,
si sititaquodunanonestmelior
rialium,
quaesuntsubunaspecie,
quamalia,ergo
nonmagishabetappropriari
huicmateriae
Averroes
quamalii.Et ideoarguii
quod,
si multiplicaretur
secundum
hominum
essetvirtus
in
individuorum,
multiplicationem
corpore.66
Siger then continuesand gives his account of the relationof the one
intellectus
to the intentiones
And he concludes that ideoper intenimaginatae.
tiones
intellectus
in
In Questio11, Siger's remarks
numerentur
nobis.*1
imaginatas
about Pythagorashave an interesting
contrastin Bacon's text:
62Ibid.,3.
63CNI, 4,d.3, 291-2:"Setegoteneo certo
ex materia
pro
quodanimaestcomposita
etforma.
... Etistud
utsicprincipia
etforma
substancie,
fingunt
quesuntmateria
generis
excludant
ab angeloetab animaracionali,
perhocvolentes
fingere
quodanimaracionalis
et angelus
estsimplex
similiter."
64See above
n. 36. See Siger,Questiones
interum
deanima
De anima,
6; Questiones
Questio
intellectiva,
7, (ed.cit
., (note27),102-4).
Questio
65SigerofBrabant,
ed.i., (note27), 17-22;see 20,1. 62-3:"Credoessedicendum
nonsitmateria
And21,
<quod> in intellectu
aliquasicutnecin substantiis
separatis."
1. 89-93:"Estigitur
in intellectu
et
Haec autemnonestex materia
aliquacompositio.
utvisum
est.Dicendum
ex materiali
sicut
etformali,
forma,
quodintellectus
componitur
ex forma
etforma
differentiae.
Undecomponitur
ex forma
materiali
etactu.Non
generis
enimomnesformae
sunt.
..."
simplices
27.SeeBacon,CN1, 4,d.3, 207,1.13-6:"Aristoteles
natuIbid.,
pertotam
philosophiam
ralemsupponit
materia
ete converso.
..."
sibiformam
quod
propria
appropriat
propriam
67Ibid.,26-7;see Bacon,ed.cit.,288-9forthe
See EdwardP.
opposing
arguments.

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 309
ARISTOTLE,
BACON,
Et hocquodAristoteles
dixitcontra
animaingrePythagoram,
quodnonquaelibet
debetintelligi
ditur
quodlibet
corpus,
perhocquodipsevelitdicerequodintellectus,
nonnumeratus
licetnonsitnisiunusin substantia,
substantialiter
secundum
numetarnen
itaappropriai
rationem
ad
hominum,
corpushominis
quodnonse inclint
id est,brutorum.
inpotentia
se habeatad intentiones
Unde,cumintellectus
corpus,
determinate
intentiones
eo quodomnes
hominum,
imaginatas,
respicit
imaginatas
intentiones
hominum
unius
rationis
sunt.
Ideointellectus
unicus
inomnibus
imaginatae
estetsecundum
substantiam
suumet secundum
suampotestatem.68
Finally,in Questio12, Siger addressesthe questionof the intellectus
agens.
In treatingof the issue of innatecognition,thathabitus
, whichis likelight,
Siger responds:
Sed hocnonvalet,quoniam
secundum
Averroem
nonest
intellectus,
agens,scilicet
.69
sedestparsanimae
nostrae
habitus,
potissima
This topic of the intellectus
agensas a pars animaeis fundamentalto the
between
Bacon
and Siger. From Opusmaius
, part two, right
disagreement
naturalium
1, 4, d.3 and elsewhere,Bacon is adamant
throughto Communia
on thispoint:the intellectus
agensis identicalwithGod, and it is not a pars
animae.10
St.Thomas
andSiger
Revisited
27 (1974),
, in: ReviewofMetaphysics,
ofBrabant
Mahoney,
531-53.
68Ibid.,34-5;see Bacon,ed.cit.,287:"Aristoteles
naturalem
pertotamphilosophiam
. . . Setanimaracionalis
in Socrateestforma
supponit
propria
appropriai.
quodmateria
etperfectiva
esseinaliamateria
Socratis.
propria
ejus,ergo,nonpotest
quamincorpore
in casuproposito.
Et hocexpressius
Namhocmodoargumenhabetur
perAristotelem,
tandiinvenitur
3DeAnima
contra
animam
mutare
se de corquiposuerunt
Pichagoricos,
Etibihocreprobat;
dicens
quodmateria
poreincorpus
postmortem.
propria
appropriai
ete converso,
unaanimaseparali
ab unocorpore
sibiformam
etingredi
ergo,necpotest
inaliud.Ex quotuncarguopropositum:
unaanimasuccessi perAristotelem
nonpotest
siveesseindiversis
essesimul
etsemelindiversis."
ergonecmultoforcius
potest
corporibus,
69Ibid.,39. In what
theposition
Alii
follows
ofAlbertus:
here,Sigeralsodismisses
ut
nostro
etvidetur
essepositio
estinnata
Alberti,
dicunt,
quodintellectui
aliquacognitio,
scilicet
. . . sedsuntinstrumenta
intellectus
primorum
principiorum
agentis,
perquaeeducit
intellectum
ad actum.
possibilem
70See CN
in Opusmaius,
ed.
1, 4,d.3,298-9.See Bacon'sremarks
parttwo(= Bridges'
inJuly1266.
Vol.Ill, 44-5),written
hereceived
thePapalmandate
soonafter
presumably
It reads:"Primo
Veritas
Christi
secunhocquodubicunque
invenitur,
propter
judicatur,
dumsententiam
etauctoritates
secundo,
superius
quamvis
aliquomodo
Augustini
allegatas:
Veritas
ad hanctamen
luxdivina
influxit
dicatur
esseeorum,
habendam
philosophiae
primo
in nimos
hominem
et eosdem
Illumint
enimomnem
venientem
eorum,
superillustravit.
in huncmundum,
Nam
cui sententiae
concordant.
sicutdicitscriptura,
ipsiphilosophi
intellectum
Animaverohumana
et possibilem.
diciturab eispossibilis,
ponunt
agentem
et eas recipit
Intellectus
ad scientias
et virtutes
aliunde.
quiade se estin potentia
agens
in animas
illuminans
ad scientiam
etvirtutem,
nostras
dicitur,
quiinfluit
quialicetintellectus
diciagensab actuintelligendi,
tamen
intellectum
sumendo
agentem,
possibilis
possit
utipsisumunt,
veritatis.
Et sic
vocatur
influens
et illuminans
ad cognitionem
possibilem
sedestsubintellectus
NONEST PARSANIMAE,
agens,secundum
majores
philosophos,
ad
abintellectu
Et quiaistud
stantia
intellectiva
aliaetseparata
estnecessarium
peressentiam
possibili.

19:11:51 PM

3 10

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

In Questiones
13 & 14, Siger discussesthe intellects
agensin detail. One
wonders if the Quidamin Questio14 concerningthe irradiationof light
in the phanthe imaginativeintentions
whichas intellectus
agenstransforms
He
thistopic
is
treated
not
Bacon?
tasia makingthemactuallyintelligible
in passing in the Perspectiva
, and overall prefersa theoryof illumination
over that of abstraction.71
Certainly,Bacon is totallyopposed to Siger's
views on this matter.
There is much more to be exploredin the relationshipbetweenSiger
and Bacon, and the briefremarksabove are just suggestionspointingto
evidence of a connection.72
And since Siger gave these lecturespriorto
the returnof Thomas Aquinas to Paris in 1269, the question arises as
who is conto who is the interlocutorin the disputatio
, the interlocutor
; Si
stantlyidentifiedby Siger by means of the formulae:Et si tu quaeras
tu dices;Sed ulterius
etc.?
argues
The most significantresult,indeed, provided by the evidence given
above is thatAquinas, Bacon and Siger of Brabantmustbe read together
and againsteach other.73
We have seen abqve thatthereare manycorrelationsbetweenthesethree1
thinkersas well as withAlbertus,RichardRufus
and others.Bacon's importancehere arisesfromthe factthathe was present in Paris in the 1260s. And to judge fromhis worksat thistime,he
volo
utostendatur
sitperinfluentiam
divinae
istud
illuminationis}
persuasionem,
quod
philosophia
propositi
cumMAGNUS
ERRORinvaserit
inhacparte
,
, praecipue
Vulgus
Phibsophantium
efficaciter
probare
necnon
homo
estinphilosophia
MAGNAM
MULTITTJDLNEM
,
THEOLOGORUM,
qualis
quoniam
of
talisintheobgia
andAvicenna
as hisrepresentatives
esse
BacontakesAl-Farabi
probatur."
andheholdsthatAristotle
hastheposition
thattheagent
thegreater
himself
philosophers
a substance
from
intellect
is byessence
thesoul.Anditisonthispoint,
according
separate
ofAuvergne
to Bacon,thatWilliam
and RobertGrosseteste
agreedwiththesegreater
philosophers.
71Bacon,Perspectiva
ed.cit.,(note17).
, ed. DavidC. Lindberg,
72Certainly,
in hislaterDe anima
intellectiva
, Sigermakesit clear(p. 80) thathe is
viriinphilosophia,
whilehe
tothe"praecipue
Albertus
etThomas."
Further,
responding
thaton
he admits
the"intention"
ofThe Philosopher,
stillsetsouthisgoalto interpret
soulis multiplied
thecontrary
theWayofTruthholdsthattheintellective
bythemultiissues
thephilosophical
ofhuman
discussed
bodies.In theend,having
carefully
plication
in Aristotle's
thatdueto muchdoubtabouttheintention
of
involved
he concludes
texts,
offaith
all humanreason.
theStaragite,
he fallsbackon theadherene
whichsurpasses
in the
Bacon'sremarks
Thereare somehintsin thesetextsthathe mayhaveknown
and
butin explicit
theargument
is directed
Albert
Communia
terms,
naturalium
against
aresigns
Thomas.
intheQuestiones
librum
decausis
Certainly,
super
(pp. 110-1;112-3)there
hadtakensomeofBacon'sconcerns
intoaccount.
thatSigerofBrabant
Still,thematter
is in needofmoredetailed
study.
73In orderto study
to do a
naturalium
thistextofBaconin theCommunia
, I propose
to figure
outall therefcritical
edition
ofthistext.Onlyin thiswaywillit be possible
bothhidden
andexplicit
in thistext.
erences,

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 311
ARISTOTLE,
BACON,
was very conscious about the implicationsof the new ideas arisingin
both the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Theology. I do not think
thatit is an exaggerationto statethat Bacon providedPope ClementIV
with his interpretation
of these matters.As a senior academic of long
could
Bacon
justlyclaim to have somethingto say on matters
standing,
in the Facultyof Arts.Further,since he is writingas a Franciscan,one
would expect that he would approach the whole issue froman interest
in the implicationsof philosophyfortheology.Indeed, the Pope did not
just ask Bacon forjust any old piece of writing.Bacon himselftells us
that he requestedthe following:
notandas.
Una est
certascausasomnino
faciopropter
Et totam
hancprobationem
inutilis
est
mandatum
utostendam
de philosophia,
vestrum
quodphilosophia
propter
utei serviat
et relative
ad
Dei elevatur,
etvana,nisiproutad sapientiam
absolute,
Deo.74
et caetera
est,sicutet ejusauctori
tria,cuiservire
ecclesiam,
regnare
When this is taken togetherwith the above cited text fromCN 1, 4,
to the Radical Aristotelians,
d.3 concerningthe imputationof double-truth
and togetherwiththe analysisof the Latin Averroistpositionsin Bacon's
laterwritings,
we can see the extentto which the Bacon of the 1260-70s
of the Philosophyof
is intimately
tied into the issue of the understanding
in
a
Avicenna
and
Averroes
Aristodeas interpreted
theologicalcontext.
by
One mightjust say thatthe one-timeMaster of Artsfromthe 1240s, the
one who had for fifteenyears devoted his time to the sciences and to
secretbooks,was once again drawnback into the affairsof the Facultyof
Artsand also thistime,the Facultyof Theology.And here one noticesthe
nuances such as the
lines of philosophicalcontinuityand also significant
new emphasison the primacyof the individual.
The omissionof the Bacon textsfromthe debate on Latin Averroismin
the period after1911 and rightdown to the presentday is one majorlacuna in the scholarshipand the philosophicalanalysis.I hope to correct
thislacuna in a majorcomprehensive
studyofthisthemein thenearfuture.
Conclusion
At the beginningof thispaper, we set out evidencefromBacon's later
worksto argue thatBacon is a primarywitnessto the eventsleading up
of 1270 and 1277 at Paris. Indeed, his own polemic
to the condemnations
74Opustertium,
ed.J.S.Brewer,
London1859,82-3.

19:11:51 PM

3 12

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

and propaganda, positiveand negative,may have contributedto these

condemnationsof the youngMastersof Artsby the Bishop of Paris. We
adherent
noticed that Bacon, attemptedto be a mid-thirteenth-century
or
better
the
called
Avicennianof
movement
"Neo-Augustinianism"
(a doctrinewhichwas notjust an adherenceto Augustine
Augustinianism
or Avicenna,but which included a doctrineof spiritualmatteroriginating with Solomon ibn Gebirol). But as we saw, there are elementstoo
fromAverroes,even ifand when Bacon criticisesbothAverroesand Latin
Masters of Arts at Paris who soughtto interprethim Aristotle,who by
the mid-1260s is held by all to be Philosophus.
Bacon saw himselfas a defenderof theprimacyof Aristotle
in phibsophia
in
In otherrespects,especially anthropology
communis.
and moral philosophy, Bacon stillmaintainsstrongNeo-Platoniccommitmentsas well as
some Stoic positions.Nevertheless,
Aristotlein his view has replacedPlato
as ThePhilosopher.
Bacon's
Aristodeis no simple replica of the
However,
GreekAristode.He is an Aristotlewho has been filtered
throughtheArab
interpreters,
especiallyAvicenna and Averroes.Further,this Aristodeis
joined in unisonwithan Aristotlewhose worldis linkedto an Astrological
Cosmos as foundin Abu Ma'har. And here we see elementsof a strong
whichdespiteBacon's protestations
of his abilityto save the
determinism,
realityof human freedom,musthave made troubleforhim.75That Bacon
could have been both a stronganti-Averroist
on the issue of the unityof
the intellectand an adherentof Abu Ma'shar in astronomy/astrology
is
not impossible.Aristotlewas the auctorin Philosophy;Abu Ma'shar was
in astronomy/
the auctor
therehas been a hundred
astrology.And further,
of
the
De
of Richard of Fournival,
to
vetula
years interpretation
rightup
whereinAristotlewas the new Princepsof Philosophywithinan astrological universe.In many ways, it was the shadow of this latterwork
75See PaulL. Sidelko,
TheCondemnation
ofMedieval
Bacon
, in:Journal
ofRoger
History,
remark
in page71,n. 2 thatI confuse
thecondemnation
of
22 (1996),69-81;Sidelko's
thepoint.
underBonaventure
misses
RogerBaconafter1277witha priorcondemnation
thathe wasformally
Order.
It is obvious
condemned
after1277within
theFranciscan
Butit is alsoclearfrom
theOpustertium
thathe washeldundersomeform
ofcensure
thegeneralship
ofBonaventure,
IV about
andthathecomplained
toPopeClement
during
hiscondition.
to a deterAs to thefurther
claimbySidelko
thatBaconwascommitted
ministic
universe
andtherefore
wascondemned
on thataccount,
arein
someprecisions
order.It couldbe arguedthathe himself
doesmakeprecisions
in orderto saveconandfreedom.
Andtherefore
in hisowntheory
he is nota detertingency,
individuality
minisi.
theextreme-neo-Augustinian
suchprecisions
wouldnothaveimpressed
Perhaps
The issueofBaconandAlbertus
in regard
is morecomplicated
to astrology
theologians.
andall elements
on thismatter
oftheir
needsmuchmorecareful
study.
understanding
On theissueofastraldeterminism,
. . .,
seeJeremiah
Scientia
Hackett,
experimentalis
Fate.. . op.cit.(note14).
op.cit.(note12)andid.,Necessity,

19:11:51 PM

ANDTHE PARISIAN
CONDEMNATIONS 313
BACON,
ARISTOTLE,
whichinformsmuch of Bacon's polemic in favorof astrology.Elsewhere
I have suggestedgrounds for believing that Props. 92-107 may have
included Roger Bacon's natural philosophyin their sights.76And that
takenwiththe propositions53, 54, 55 on angels,as demonstratedabove
by R. James Long, does show that it was not just the Latin Averroists
(Sigerof Brabantand Boethiusof Dacia), Thomas Aquinas and Giles of
Rome who were the objectsof the extreme-Augustinian
camp on the theologicalcommissionof EtienneTempierin 1277. The groundsfora belief,
firstproposed by PierreMandonnet in 1911, that Roger Bacon was an
intendedtargetof the Parisian Condemnationsof 1277, are, therefore,
veryreal and meritfurtherstudy.
When one reviewsthe evidence set out above in the attacksby both
Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon on the Latin Averroistdoctrineof
the unityof the possibleintellect,one noticesthatmanyof the arguments
are similaror at least theyshare a commonconcern.Further,one notices
thatthereare indicationsof a connectionbetweenBacon's textsand the
De animaof Siger of Brabant and with subsequent
in tertium
Questiones
works.Naturally,the argumentsof Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon
are based on a NaturalPhilosophyand Psychologycomingfromdifferent
startingpoints.And yet theymake common cause againstthe notionof
a numericallyone mind for all human beings. This displayof the evidence fromRoger Bacon, when takenin conjunctionwiththe many referencesin his worksfrom1266-74 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt
that much of his irate attackon the Masters of Arts (and on everyone
else too) was primarilymotivatedby his fearthat the new generationof
PhilosophyProfessorshad not thoughtthroughthe ultimateimplications
of the doctrineof the mind as foundin the textsof the Latin Averroes.
Bacon, to be sure, is writingas one who has theologicalconcerns,but
he is clearlybasing his argumentson a doctrineof Natural Philosophy
and Philosophyof Mind which is quite sophisticated(see the Perspectiva
and relatedworks),and he believes that he can give a more coherent
philosophicalaccount than that given by the Latin Averroists.
In the end, it would seem thatthe retiredProfessorof Philosophywho
could not keep his head out of the ArtsFaculty,the Franciscanfriarwho
commentedon the politicsof the age, ended up in good companywith
Thomas Aquinas,Giles of Rome, Sigerof Brabantand Boethiusof Dacia77
76Scientia
. . op.cit.(note12).
experimentalis
77A comparison
I
ofDacia is a necessary
ofBaconwithBoethius
partofthisstudy.
itelsewhere.
hopetopresent

19:11:51 PM

314

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

in that he too must have been the object of much resentmenton the
part of the Bishop and his advisors,especiallyin regardto astraldeterminism.And just as Thomas Aquinas' attackon the doctrineof the unity
of the possible intellectdid not save him fromcensure,so too Bacon's
attack on both Siger of Brabant and Thomas Aquinas did not exonerate him. Bacon was condemnedwithinthe FranciscanOrder on account
of suspectednovelties,most likelyhis new theoriesof astrologia,
scientia
is and his relianceon the astro-cosmology
of Abu Ma'shar.
experimental
Columbia, SC
ofSouthCarolina
University

19:11:51 PM

The PublishedWorksofRogerBacon
JEREMIAHHACKETT

In 1950 and 1952 two scholars,namelyTheodore Crowley1and Stewart

C. Easton,2providelistsof theworksof Roger Bacon.3The listin Crowley
is a limitedone, and the list in Easton needs expansionin the lightof
new discoveries.In more recentstudies,thereare longerlistsof Bacon's
In the light
works,but in generalthereis need fora completecheck-list.4
of recentscholarship,
it has become evidentthatsome itemsin the Bacon
are not authentic.A criticalreviewof the entryforRogerBaconin
corpus
A Handlistof theLatin Writers
15405 proof GreatBritainand Irelandbefore
vided the impetusforthischeck-list.6
I have organisedBacon's workschronologically.
This has meant splita
in
edition.
But
sense
of the chronological
items
found
Steele's
tingup
developmentof Bacon's workwill be of some use to scholars.
1 Theodore
TheProblem
Bacon:
Commentaries,
oftheSoulinHisPhilosophical
Crowley,
Roger
havebeenedited
suchas theOpus
maius
etc.which
Louvain/Dublin
1950,211.Forworks
in the19thand20thcenturies,
I havenotlisted
editions.
theearlier
Manyoftheseare
defective.
2 Steward
A Reconsideration
Science:
Bacon
andHisSearch
C. Easton,
forA Universal
of
Roger
York
theLifeandWork
Bacon
intheLight
, Oxford/New
ofHis OwnStated
Purposes
ofRoger
1952,236-7.
3 SeealsoFranco
in:Rivista
distudi
Bacone
crisuRuggero
Unsecolo
Alessio,
(1848-1957),
Bacon
14(1959),81-102;
MaraHuber,
ticadi storia
dellafilosofia,
zuRoger
, in:
Bibliographie
Hackett
andThomasS. Maloney,
65 (1983),98-102;
Franziskanische
Studien,
Jeremiah
This
A Roger
in:TheNewScholasticism,
61 (1987),184-207.
Bacon
(1957-1985),
Bibliography
S. Maloney
in:Jeremiah
willbebrought
Hackett
latter
uptodatebyThomas
bibliography
1996(forthcoming).
Bacon
andtheSciences:
Commemorative
(ed.),
Roger
Essays
4 See
: A Critical
Edition
DavidC. Lindberg,
Bacon's
, with
English
ofNature
Philosophy
Roger
andDe speculis
comburentibus
andNotes
,
Translation,
Lntroduction,
, ofDe multiplication
specierum
A Critical
inTheMiddle
Oxford
Bacon
andTheOrigins
1983,404;id.,Roger
Ages:
ofPerspectiva
Introduction
Edition
with
with
andNotes
Translation
, Oxford
1996,
ofBacon's
Perspectiva
English
and
: Compendium
Bacon
, Edition
394;ThomasS. Maloney,
ofTheology
Roger
ofTheStudy
York/Kobenhavn/Kln
Translation
with
Lntroduction
andNotes
1988,179-80.
, Leiden/New
5 Richard
Britain
andIreland
1540, in:
A Handlist
before
ofGreat
Sharpe,
ofLatinWriters
1997.
ofMedieval
Latin,Toronto/Turnhout
Journal
6 I havebeenat workforsometimeonAnAnnotated
Bacon
(tobe
Bibliography
ofRoger
published
byGarland
Press).
Vivarium
35,2

Koninklijke
Brill,
Leiden,1997

19:11:59 PM

316

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

EarlyBacon: 1237-50
PrimePhilosophie
Aristotelis
Questiones
(Metaphysica
XII), ed.
supraundecimum
Fase.
Ferdinand
M.
Delorme
Robert Steele (with
7, in:
O.F.M.), 1926,
inedita
, ed. RobertSteele, 16 Fascicules,Oxford
Operahactenus
RogenBaconi
1905/1909- 1941 (cited hereafterby Fase. Number)
Aristotelis
, ed. FerdinandM. Delorme
Questiones
supralibros
quatuor
Physkorum
O.F.M. (withRobert Steele), 1928, Fase. 8
Aristotelis
, ed. Robert Steele (with
Questiones
supralibrosPme Philosophie
FerdinandM. Delorme O.F.M.), 1930, Fase. 10
alteresupralibrosPrimePhilosophie
Aristotelis
Questiones
1-IV),
(Metaphysica
ed. Robert Steele (withFerdinandM. Delorme O.F.M.), 1932, Fase. 11
Questiones
supraDe Plantis,ibid.,Fase. 11
De Causis, ed. Robert Steele (withFerdinandM.
Questiones
supralibrum
Delorme O.F.M.), 1935, Fase. 12
Aristotelis
Questiones
, ed. FerdinandM. Delorme
supralibrosoctoPhysicorum
O.F.M., 1935, Fase. 13
Liberde sensuet sensatoand Summade sophismatibus
et distinconibus
, ed.
Robert Steele, 1937, Fase. 14
et distinconibus
Summade sophismatibus
, Ibid.,Fase. 14
Summagramatiea
, ed. Robert Steele, 1940, Fase. 15
Sumuledialectices
Maistri
RogeriBacon, ed. Robert Steele, 1940, Fase. 15
33
Summulae
dialectices
dialectices
/-//,in: Alain de Libera, Les eeSummulae
de RogerBacon, /-//.De termino.De enuntiatione,in: AHDLMA, 53
(1986), 139-289
33de
Summulae
dialectices
III , in: Alain de Libera, Les "Summulae
dialectices
RogerBacon,III. De argumentation,in: AHDLMA, 54 (1987), 171-278.
See Thomas S. Maloney, trs.(English)RogerBacon3sSummulae
dialectices
1997) for notes on the text
(forthcoming,
S.H. Thomson,An Unnoticed
Treatise
,
byRogerBaconon TimeandMotion
in: ISIS, 27 (1937), 219-24
LaterBacon:1260-92
F. Delorme O.F.M. , Le Prologue
de RogerBacon son trait
De influentiis
in:
18
81-90
,
Antonianum,
agentium
(1943),
De multiplicatione
and De speculiscomburentibus
, in: David C.
specierum
Bacon3s
A
Critical
Edition
, withEnglish
Lindberg,Roger
ofNature:
Philosophy

19:11:59 PM

PUBLISHED
WORKSOF ROGERBACON

317

andNotes,ofDe multiplications
andDe speculis
Translation
, Introduction
specierum
Oxford
1983
comburentibus
,
Opusmaius:
"
The "Opusmaius
of RogerBacon, ed. John Henry Bridges,2 Vols.,
Oxford 1897
"
The "Opusmaius
of RogerBacon, ed. John Henry Bridges,3 Vols.,
a.Main 1964]
London 1900 [repr.Frankfurt
, part three:K.M. Fredborg,Lauge Nielsen,Jan Pinborg,
Opusmaius
PartofRogerBacon's"Opusmaius:De signis"in: Traditio,
eds.,An Unedited
34 (1978), 75-136. [= fragmentof Opusmaius
, part three]
, part five:David C. Lindberg,RogerBaconand theOrigins
Opusmaius
: A Critical
in theMiddleAges
Editionand EnglishTranslation
ofPerspectiva
of
withIntroduction
andNotes
Bacon'sPerspectiva
, Oxford 1996
, part six: De scientiaexperimental
i, ed. JeremiahHackett,
Opus maius
:
six
De
scientia
in: id., Opusmaius
, Toronto PIMS/MSL
, part
experimentali
thesis, 1978 (a critical edition with introductionand notes is near
completion)
, ed. Eugenio Massa, in:
, part seven: MoralisPhilosophia
Opus maius
Zurich
1953
Baconis
Moralis
,
(- criticaledition)
Philosophia
Rogeri
, ed. J.S. Brewer,in: Fr. RogeriBacon Operaquaedamhactenus
Opusminus
inedita
, ed. J.S. Brewer,London 1859 [repr.Nendeln 1965] (cited as Fr.
BaconOpera
, ed. J.S. Brewer),313-89
Rogeri
IV
maius
, Opusminus
, Opustertium
(Introduction):
Epistolaad Clementem
Opus
a
in:
Aidan
An
Work
Unpublished
Fragment
of
papam^ Francis
Gasquet (Card.),
byRogerBacon, in: EnglishHistoricalReview, 12 (1897), 494-517
:
Opustertium
tertium
, 3-310 (Note:
, ed. J.S. Brewer,in: Fr. RogeriBaconOpera
Opus
ProfessorA.G. Molland has announced the progressof a new edition
of the Opustertium)
inditde l'opustertium
de RogerBaconprcd
PierreDuhem, Unfragment
1909
d'unetudesurcefragment
, Quaracchi
a Fragment
PartoftheOpustertium
Now Printed
for
ofRogerBaconIncluding
theFirstTime^ed. A.G. Litde,Aberdeen 1912 [repr.Farnborough1966]
[For Italian translation,see Francesco Bottin,La scienzasperimentale:
I segreti
a Clement
e dellanatura
Lettera
IV La scienzasperimentale:
dell'arte
,
Milan 1990]
Liber
communium
naturalium
, parts1 and 2, ed. RobertSteele,Fase. 2,
primus
[n.d. 1905 (?)]

19:11:59 PM

3 18

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

communium
naturalium
Liber
, parts3 and 4, ed. RobertSteele,Fase. 3,
primus
1911
communium
naturalium
Libersecundas
j, ed. RobertSteele, 1913,
(De celestibus
Fase. 4
studiiphilosophiae
,
, ed. J.S. Brewer,in: Fr. RogeriBaconOpera
Compendium
393-519
ArtisetNaturae,
Baconisde Secretis
etdeNullitate
fiatrisRogerii
Operibus
Epistola
, 523-51
Magiae, ed. J.S. Brewer,in: Fr. RogeriBaconOpera
in studiotheologiae
, ed. Robert
Metaphysica
fiatrisRogeri:De viciiscontractis
Fase.
1905
1, [n.d.
Steele,
(?)]
Communia
mathematica
, parts 1 and 2, ed. Robert Steele, Fase. 16, 1940
Antidotarius
, ed. A.G. Little & E. Withington,Fase. 9, 1928, 103-119
a
critical
reviewof the authenticity
of Bacon's Medical works,espe[For
in
to
the
for
accidentium
declaringDe retardatione
cially regard
argument
senectutis
and fourrelatedworksto be inauthentic,
see A. ParaviciniBagliani,
Il mitodellaprolongadovitae e la corte
: il De retardadelDuecento
pontificia
tionesenectutis,
in: Medicinae scienzadellanatura
alla corte
deipapi nelDuecento
,
Spoleto 1991, 281-326]
De erroribus
medicorum
Fase. 9, 1928,
, ed. A.G. Little& E. Withington,
150-71
De graduatione
medicinarum
, ed. A.G. Litde & E. Withington,
compositarum
Fase. 9, 144-9
De diebuscreticis
Fase. 9, 1928, 186, ed. A.G. Litde & E. Withington,
berdie
200; see FriedrichPalitzsch,RogerBaconszweite(astrologische)
Schrift
kritischen
1918
,
Tage Borna/Leipzig
De crisimorborum
Fase. 9, 1928, 200-8
, ed. A.G. Litde & E. Withington,
etNotulis;
etUtisAdDeclarandum
Secretum
secreUmmi
cumGlossis
Tractatus
Brems
Dicta FratrisRogeri
QuedamObscure
, ed. Steele, Fase. 5, 1920; see StevenJ.
SecretumsecreWilliams,RogerBaconandHis EditionofthePseudo-Aristotelian
in:
69
57-73
torum, Speculum,
(1994),
, ed. Steele, Fase. 6, 1926 [datinguncertain]
Compotus
studiitheologiae
, parts one and two (1292), ed. H. Rashdall,
Compendium
Aberdeen 1911 [repr. Farnborough 1966]; ed. Thomas S. Maloney,
Leiden/New York/Kobenhavn/Kln1988
Grammatica
, ed. E. Nolan & S.A. Hirsch, Cambridge 1902,
graeca
3-182
Grammatica
hebraica
, ed. E. Nolan & S.A. Hirsch,Cambridge1902, 202-8
of
the
two
(Dating
grammarsnot determined)
De nigromantia
M.
ed.
A. McDonald, Gillette,NJ 1988 (attrib.)
,

19:11:59 PM

WORKSOF ROGERBACON
PUBLISHED

319

ofAlchimy.
ofAlchemy
] see StantonJ. Linden (ed.), TheMirror
[TheMirror
Hermeticism
Renaissance
, 4, New York 1992
English
In all of the existingBibliographiesof Roger Bacon, one findsno develor quaestioon the agent intellectand divine illumination.
oped tractatus
the evidence from Opusmaius
And this is so, notwithstanding
, part two
naturalium
that such a treatisemay have been
and fromthe Communia
writtenin the 1260's.
Nonetheless,such a workdoes actuallyexist,and it was publishedin
1883. The reason it has never enteredthe Bacon bibliographiesis that
it was publishedin an editionof the worksof Saint Bonaventureand his
disciples,and it carriedthe name of Fr. Rogerii Anglici.
The tide is: Quaestio
Anglici
DisputataFr. Rogerii
Quaeriturpostea, utrumanima omnia quae cognoscit,cognoscat in
lux naturaliset propriaad ceteracognosluce aeterna,an sibi sufficiat
cendum?
It is foundin the following:
De Humanae CognitionisRadone Anecdota Quaedam Seraphici
Doctoris Sancti Bonaventuraeet NonnullorumIpsius Discipulorum
Edita Studio et Cura PP. Collegii A S. Bonaventura
Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi),Ex TypographiaCollegiiS. Bonaventurae,
MDCCCLXXXIII, pp. 197-220
(This veryvaluable Quaestio
Disputatafromthe 1260's will I believe shed
much lighton the relationof Roger Bacon to the thoughtof Thomas
Aquinas. It bears out in much detailthe elementscitedabove inJeremiah
, and theParisianCondemnations
Hackett,RogerBacon, Aristotle
of 1270, 1277,
:
The
and
Latin
Problem
Bacon
Averroism
and in id.,Aquinas
, Roger
oftheIntellective
Soul (animaintellectiva)
(1266-77), in: JeremiahHackett (ed.), Aquinason
MindandIntellect:
New Essays(1997). That this QuestioDisputatais datable
to the 1260's can be see fromthe verbatimcorrespondencebetweenpp.
207-8 and Bacon's Opusmaius
, Vol. Ill,
, part two, p. 45 (see Opusmaius
in THEOLOGY' it
ed. Bridges).Since this is a formalQuaestiodisputata
raisesthe veryinteresting
evidencethatin the 1260's Bacon was possibly
a Magisterin Theology,somethingthat is attestedin the condemnation
of Bacon in 1278 as citedin the Chronicleof the TwentyFour Generals.
In view of the importanceof this work, and its more than 100 year
I will prepare a Translationand
absence fromthe Bacon bibliographies,

19:11:59 PM

320

HACKETT
JEREMIAH

Critical Study of this QuaestioDisputataand a Critical Edition of the

Book one, partfour,pp. 281-302
Tractatus
De animain the Communia
naturalia,
two studiesmentionedabove.)7
the
a
in orderto provide logicalexpansion
RogerBacon'sManuscripts
to The MSS. and Printed
A.G. Little,RogerBacon's Workswithreference
On theOccasion
Various
Authors
Contributed
in:
Bacon
Editions
,
Essays
By
Roger
, Collected and
of His Birth
Centenary
of The Commemoration
of The Seventh
Editedby A.G. Little,Oxford1914,Appendix,373-426. Since thepublication of this catalogue there have been a few MSS discoveriesof note.
See the followingstudies:
A Student's
Robert Steele, RogerBacon as Professor.
Notes
, in: ISIS, 20
53-71
(1933),
Treatise
S. HarrisonThomson,An Unnoticed
byRogerBacon, on Timeand
in:
27
219-24
Motion, ISIS,
(1937),
Part of
K.M. Fredborg,Lauge Nielsen and Jan Pinborg,An Unedited
"
De
34
75-136
Bacon's
maius:
in:
Traditio,
(1978),
Roger
signis"
Opus
et distinctionibus
van Roger
H.A.G. Braakhuis,De Summade sophismabus
overSyncategorematische
Bacon, in: id., De 13deeeuwseTractaten
2 Vols.,
Termen,
Universityof Leiden, Ph. Diss. 1979, Vol. 1, 74-8
de experientia
in communi
, in: id., The
JeremiahM.G. Hackett, Tractatus
in
the
Scientia
Science
ofRoger
experimentalis Philosophy
MeaningofExperimental
Bacon, Toronto: Ph.D. thesis,1983 (This workis currently
beingprepared
forpublication.)
A.G. Molland, RogerBacon'sGeometriaspeculativa,ed. cit.
William Newman, RogerBaconon Alchemy
, in: JeremiahHackett (ed.),
Bacon
and
the
Sciences
1997) concerninga missingsecRoger
(forthcoming,
tion of Opusminus.
on PhysicsII-IV . . ., in the preSilvia Donati, TheAnonymous
Questions
sent volume.

7 I am
whichhaslong
Nooneforbringing
thisvolume,
to Professor
Timothy
grateful
to myattention.
beenoutofprint
andis noteasilyaccessible,

19:11:59 PM