8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 1/187
/';-=09 )(8*
=-0/']
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 2/187
VIVARIUM
AN INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
FOR
THE PHILOSOPHY
AND INTELLECTUAL
LIFE
OF THE
MIDDLE AGES
AND
RENAISSANCE
vivariums devoted
n
particular
o
he
rofane
ide
fmediaeval
hilosophy
and he
ntellectualife
f heMiddle
ges
ndRenaissance.
EDITORS
L.M. de
Rijk,
Leiden)
H.A.G.
Braakhuis,
Nijmegen)
C.H.
Kneepkens,
(Groningen)
W.J. ourtenay,
Madison)
E.P.
Bos,
Leiden)
D.
Perler,
(Basel)
M.G.M. an er
oel,
Nijmegen).
Secretary
f he ditorial
oard: rof. .H.
Kneepkens.
All
ommunications,
xcept
hose f
business
ature,
hould
e addressed
toC.H.Kneepkens,ijksuniversiteitroningen,aculteiter etteren,akgroep
Mediaevistiek,
.O. Box
716,
700AS
Groningen,
heNetherlands.
ADVISORY
Tullio
regory,
Rome)
Albert
immermann,
Cologne)
J.E.
Murdoch,
COMMITTEE
(Cambridge,
A).
PUBLISHERS
Brill,
eiden,
heNetherlands.
PUBLISHED Twice
early.
SUBSCRIPTION olume
LIII
2005)320
pp.):
UR 148
USD 185)
or
nstitutions,
nd
EUR
72
USD 90)
for
rivate
ubscribers,
nclusive
f ostage
nd
acking.
rice
includes
nline
ubscription.
Subscription
rdersre
accepted
or
omplete
olumes
nly,
rders
aking
effect
ithhe irstssue
f
ny
ear.
rders
ay
lso eentered
n nauto-
maticontinuingasis. ancellationsillnlyeacceptedf heyre eceived
before
ctober
st f he
ear
receding
he
ear
nwhichhe ancellation
is to
ake ffect.
laimsor
missing
ssues ill e
met,
reef
harge,
fmade
within
hree onthsf
dispatch
or
uropean
ustomers
nd ivemonths
or
customers
utside
urope.
Subscription
rdershoulde
sent o:
Brill cademicublishers
Strattonusiness
ark,
egasus
rive,
iggleswade
Bedfordshire
GI
8TÇ)
United
ingdom
Tel.:
44(0)1767
04954;
ax:
44(0)1767
01604
E-Mail:[email protected]
All
prices
nd
postage
handling
harges
reexclusivef
VAT n EU-countries
(VAT
not
pplicable
utsidehe
U).
Now njoyree nline ccess to thisournal
with
our rint
ubscription.
isit heBrill-Website
at http:/
ww.brill.nl
nd nterhe nline
ournals
ection.
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
ISSN
0042-7543
Printersion
;
ISSN 1568-5349
Online
ersion)
Printed
n The Netherlands
Printed
n acid-free
aper
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 3/187
/';-=09 )(8*
=-0/']
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 4/187
VIVARIUM
AN INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
FOR
THE
PHILOSOPHY
AND INTELLECTUAL
LIFE OF
THE
MIDDLE
AGES
AND
RENAISSANCE
vivariums
devoted
n
particular
o
the
rofane
ide f
mediaeval
hilosophy
and
he ntellectual
ife f
heMiddle
ges
nd
Renaissance
editors
L.M. de
Rijk,
Leiden)
H.A.G.
raakhuis,
Nijmegen)
C.H.
Kneepkens,
(Groningen)
W.J. ourtenay,
Madison)
E.P.
Bos,
Leiden).
.
Perler,
(Basel)
M.G.M.
an er
oel,
Nijmegen).
Secretaryf he ditorialoard: rof..H.Kneepkens.
All
ommunications,
xcept
hose
f
business
ature,
hould
e addressed
toC.H.
Kneepkens,
ijksuniversiteit
roningen,
aculteiter
etteren,
akgroep
Mediaevistiek,
.O.
Box
716,
700
AS
Groningen,
heNetherlands.
advisory
Tullio
regory,
Rome)
Albert
immermann,
Cologne)
J.E.
Murdoch,
committee
(Cambridge,
A).
publishers
Brill,
eiden,
he
Netherlands.
published
Twice
early,
a.
320
pages early.
©
Copyright
005
by
Koninklijhe
rill
V, eiden,
he
etherlands
Koninklýke
rill
V
ncorporates
he
mprints
rill
cademic
ublishers,
Martinus
ijhoff
ublishersnd
VSP.
All
rights
eserved.
o
part
f
his
ublication
ay
e
reproduced,
ranslated,
tored
n
a
retrieval
ystem,
r ransmitted
n
ny
orm
r
by ny
means,
lectronic,
mechanical,
hotocopying,
ecording
r
therwise,
ithout
rior
ritten
permission
f
he
ublisher.
Authorization
o
hotocopy
tems
or
nternal
r
ersonal
use s
granted
y
rill
rovided
hat
theppropriateeesre aid irectlyoCopyright
Clearance
enter,
22
Rosewood
rive,
uite10
Danvers,
IA
1923,
SA. ees
re
ubject
o
hange.
PRINTEDN
THENETHERLANDS
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 5/187
CONTENTS OF VOLUME
XLIII
(2005)
Alessandro D. Conti Introduction 1
Stephen
D. Dumont
Duns Scotus's
Parisian
Question
on the
Formal Distinction
7
Giorgio
Pini
Scotus's Realist
Conception
of the Cate-
gories:
His
Legacy
to Late Medieval
Debates 63
Paul Vincent
Spade
The
Problem
of Universais nd
Wyclif's
Alleged
Ultrarealism
Ill
Laurent Cesalli
Le
«pan-propositionnalisme»
e
Jean Wyclif
1
4
Alessandro D. Conti
Johannes harpe's
Ontology
nd Semantics:
Oxford
Realism Revisited
156
Fabrizio
Amerini
What
s
Real.
A
Reply
to Ockham's Onto-
logical Program
187
Mary
Sirridge
Dream Bodies and
Dream Pains
n
Augus-
tine's De Natura et
Origine
Animae ..
213
Dominik
Perler
Emotions and
Cognitions.
Fourteenth-
Century
iscussions n the Passions
of the
Soul
250
Florian
Hamann
Koran und
Konziliarismus.
nmerkungen
zum Verhältnis
on
Heymericus
e
Campo
und Nikolaus von Kues
275
Pepijn
Rotten
Secundum
processum
et mentem Ver-
soris :
John
Versor and His Relation
to
the Schools
of
Thought
Reconsidered ...
292
Pekka
Kärkkäinen
Theology,
Philosophy,
nd
Immortality
f
the Soul
in
the Late
ViaModerna f Erfurt 337
Reviews
M. Kardaun and
J.
Spruyt
eds.),
The
Winged
Chariot.Collected
Essays
on Plato
and Platonism
n
Honour of L.M. de
Rijk
{rev.
y
tefaniaonfiglioli
ndCostantino
armo)
36
1
Frans de Haas and
Jaap
Mansfield
eds.),
Aristode: On Generation nd
Corruption,'
Book
I
{rev.
y
Jack£upko)
367
Irène
Rosier-Catach,
La
parole
efficace:
signe,rituel, acré {rev. yL.G. Kelly) 369
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 6/187
iv CONTENTS
Claude Panaccio, Ockham on Concepts rev. y
Dominik
erler)
377
Richard
Billingham,
'De
consequentiis'
mit
Toledo-Kommentar.
Kritisch
herausgegeben,
eingeleitet
und kommentiert
on
Stephanie
Weber
(rev.
y
E.P.
Bos)
380
Books
Received
383
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 7/187
DreamBodies nd DreamPains in
Augustine's
"De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae"*
MARY
SIRRIDGE
"St.Perpetua,or xample,eemedoherselfndreamso be
wrestling
ith
certain
gyptian
fter
eing
urned
nto
man."
Augustine,
e
Natura
t
Origine
nimae
Abstragt
In
his De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae
an
answer
o a work
by
Vincentius
ictor,
Augustine
as drawn
nto
attempting
o answer ome
questions
bout what
kind
of
reality
ream-bodies,
ream-worldsnd
dream-pains
ave.
In
this
paper
I
concentrate
n
Augustine's
ttempts
o show that none of Victor's
argumentsor hecorporealityf the soul are anygood,and thatVictor's
inflated
laims
bout the
extent
f
the soul's
self-knowledge
re the result f
mistaking
elf-awarenessor
elf-knowledge.ugustine
akes he
position
hat
the
feelings
e
have
in
dreams nd the
feelings
f the
dead,
although hey
are real
feelings,
re not
always
he
feelings hey
eem to be. This
position
is
consistent ith
Augustine's
ater
works,
hough
t
departs
rom is under-
standing
f these
ssues
n
his
earliestworks.
In
De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae
written round 419
A.D.,
Augustine
was
drawn ntoattemptingo answer omequestions bout what kind of real-
ity
dream-bodies,
ream-worlds,
nd
dream-pains
ave.
Did
St.
Perpetua
really
feel that
she was
struggling,
r did she
merely
dream that she felt
that
way?
Was she
really truggling?
as
she
really
wrestling?
Was she
*
I
thank
arcia
olish ndFr.
Roland
eske,
hoheard r read
arlierersionsf
this
aper
ndmade
mportant
uggestions.
1
Augustine,
e
Matura
t
Origine
nimaeIV.
16.
26.
405,
d. C.F.
Urba&
J. Zycha,
CorpuscriptorumcclesiasticorumatinorumhereafterSEL) 0,Vienna 913, 01-419here-
afterNO
A).
Also itlede
Animat ius
riginePatrologia
ursus
ompletus
atrum
atinorum
(hereafter
L)
44,
475-548
I
have onsultedhe
nglish
ranslation,
he
ature
nd
Origin
of
he oul
in: TheWorks
f
aint
ugustine:
Translation
or
he
1st
entury
Vol.
23.1,
d.
and ransi..
Teske,
.J.,
yde
ark,
Y
1997,
66-561.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,Leiden,
005 Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailable
nline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 8/187
2
1
MARY
IRRIDGE
reallya male while wrestlingwith the Egyptian?And what about the
Egyptian?
Augustine ot
entangled
n
a discussion f these
questions
n
the course
of
responding
o a treatise n the soul
by
one Vincentius
Victor.
n
this
treatise,
which
has
excited effusive nthusiasm
mong Augustine's
wn
friends nd
associates,2
ictor
argues
that the human
soul is
corporeal.
In
support
f this
position,
e has cited the Bible
narrative bout Lazarus
and Dives.
Moreover,
Victorconsiders
t obviousthateach soul
is infused
directly y
God. Given the soul's
complete
knowledge
f its
"properties
and nature" {sua qualitate aturaque, Victor argues,simplyby reflecting
upon
his own soul
Augustine
hould have arrived
uickly
t the realiza-
tion that the soul
is
corporeal,
nd
that
each man's
soul,
then
his
spirit,
are created de novo
rom nd
by
the breath of God.
From this
position
on
the
origin
f the
soul,
Victor
argues
for
n
assortment
f
theses,
ome
of which are
typically elagian,3
.g.,
that
there s no
way
for the
soul
to inherit
riginal
in,
and that
unbaptized
nfants an
be
saved
by
the
prayers
f the faithful.
In
this
paper
I
will not deal
directly
ith
Augustine's
ttack n
Victor's
brand of
Pelagian theological
views. I will concentrate nstead on his
attempts
o show that Victor's
claims about the extent
nd
value
of the
soul's
self-knowledge
re
wildlyexaggerated,
nd that none
of Victor's
arguments
or he
corporeality
f the soul are
any good.
It is
in
the course
of
giving
his own
explanation
of the
story
of Lazarus and Dives that
Augustine
s drawn nto
a
discussion f
dreaming.
With
respect
o their
actions,
bodies and
feelings,
he dead resemble
dreamers,
e
says;
but it
is a
good
deal
easier to think bout dream
experience
han about after-
death
experience.
As an
example
of
dream
experience,Augustine ro-
2
Victor's orks
ost,
ndwe are eft ith
ugustine's
econstruction,
ncluding
fair
numberf
passages
hich
urport
o
be direct
uotations.
he
quotations
f
Book
V,
which akes he
form
f
a
letter irected
o Vincentiusictor
imself,
re
presumably
accurate
n
the
main,
ince
hey
match hose
n
Books
and
I,
which ere
riginally
addressedo
recipients
howere
amiliar
ith
incentiusictor'sreatise.
3
In
DNOA II. iii.3-xiii.
9,
Augustine
ists he arious
rrorsf
Victor's
ork:hat
the oul
was
made
y
Godout f
himself;
hat odwill
ontinuously
reateouls
orever;
that
he
oul ost omemerit
ybeing onjoined
ith
lesh;
hat he oul
egains
erit
fromeing onjoinedithlesh;hat he oul eservedo becomeinful;hat nbaptizedinfantsre aved;hatomewho re
predestined
obe saved
may
ot esaved;hat ome
ofthemansions
n
theFather'souse re outsidehe
kingdom
f
God;
that hristian
sacrifice
hould
e
offeredor hose ho ie
unbaptized;
hat hose
ho iewithout
ap-
tism
may
e saved t the ast
udgment.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 9/187
DREAM
ODIES
AND
DREAM AINS
215
poses the dreamvisionsof St. Perpetuadescribed n the popularnarra-
tive of the
martyrdom
f
Perpetua
and
Felicitas.4He comes
to a sur-
prising
et of
conclusions:
n
our dreams t
is with dream-bodies
hatwe
have dream-adventures
n
dream-worlds;
onethelesswe are
really
our-
selves
n
our
dreams,
nd
the
feelings
we have
in
dreams
are real.
One
interestingmplication
f
Augustine's osition
on
dream-experi-
ence is that the
feelings
we have
in
dreams
and the
feelings
f the
dead,
although hey
are real
feelings,
re not
always
exactly
he
feelings hey
seem
to be.
Augustine
s aware of this
mplication,
which is
in
fact
n
keeping
withhis
understanding
f
self-awareness,
elf-knowledge,
nd
body
and soul
in
his later
works,
lthough
t constitutes
departure
rom he
understanding
f these ssues
expressed
n
his earliestworks.
Self-Awareness
nd
Self-Knowledge
In
the course
of his
argument,
ictor
has attacked
Augustine
or hold-
ing
that the soul
is not
corporeal,
but
spiritual.
urthermore ictor has
criticizedAugustine orhavingbeen either oo cautious or too obtuse to
make a definite ecision bout whether
he soul is
generated
ex
propagine)
or derived
ex
traducefrom he
parent's
oul
as
bodies
are
generated
rom
bodies,
or
whether,
ike the soul of
Adam,
each
soul is created de novo
by
God
by being directly
reathed nto
ts
body
(insufflata).5
ccording
o
4
Passio anctarum
erpetuae
t
Felicitatisi
d.
C.J.M.J.
an
Beek,
Noviomagi
936
here-
after
assio).
onsiderable
ontroversy
as surroundedhe
Passio anctarum
erpetuae
t
Felicitatis.here ave eendoubts,irstxpressedyAugustinenDNOA DNOA . x.
12),
boutwhether
erpetuactually
rote he ections
escribing
er
mprisonment;
Perpetua'suthorship
s
not, owever,
uestioned
n
Augustine's
ermon
81
for he east
of he
Martyrs
erpetua
nd Felicitas
Sermo
CLXXXI,
L
38,
1284-5).
he
author-
ship
f
he arrative
s discussed
y
Thomas
effernan,
hilology
nd
uthorship
n hePassio
Sanctarum
erpetuae
t elicitatis"in:Traditio0
1995),
15-25.
manuela
rinzivalli,
erpetua
the
Martyr
n:
Augusto
raschetti
ed.),
Roman
omen
Chicago
London
994,
18-40,
argues
or
erpetua's
uthorship
f he assiond ummarizeshe
cholarly
ebate
bout
whetherhe xtant reek ersionf he exts the
riginal,
hetherertullian
as he
authorf he
assio
s
a
whole,
nd
the xtento whichhe
assio
s
a
Montanistork.
5
DNOA
V. v. 6. 386:"Et absurdumxistimas
tque ncongruum
ationit nesciat
anima trumnamivinitusnsufflata
it,
n de
parentibus
racta."
f.
lso
DNOA
. xiv.
20."Itaquaerendumst dhuc nde et, trumxpropagine,icutpse uidemat, ed
tarnenx
propagine
at
corporis
embra;
n ueronouum
eque ropagatumingulis
insufflandoistribuât."or
description
f hese iews fthe
rigin
f
he
human
oul
and
Augustine'spproach
o the
roblem
n
his
ater
orks,
f.
R.J.
'Connell,
.J.,
he
Originf
he oul nSt.
Augustine's
ater
Works
New
York
987,
sp.
251-6.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 10/187
216
MARY IRRIDGE
Victor,Augustine's eluctance o takea position n theorigin f the soul
is
well
nigh
ndecent:
But assure
ou
hat t
appears
o
me
completely
bsurd
ndunreasonablehat
man hould e
a
stranger
o
himself,
hat
ewho s held
ohave
cquired
he nowl-
edge
of
all
things
hould
e
supposed
o be
ignorant
f
his
very
elf.
orwhat
difference
s there etween
man nd a beast
f
he doesnot
know ow o delve
into
nd discuss
isnature
r what e is
like
sua
ualitate
aturaque),
o
that hese
words f
Scripture
re
ustly
pplied
o
him,
Man,
lthough
ewas n
honor,
idnot
understand;
e
hasbecomes one
f
he
easts,
nd s
likenedntohem"
Ps
xlix,
3).
For
since he
ood
God
established
othing
ithoutts
eason,
nd reated
an ratio-
nal nimal,apablef nderstanding,ndoweditheason,nd livewithhe ower
of ense
o as to
entrustll
things
evoid
freasono his
rudent
overnance,
hat
can
be more
nfitting
han
o
say
hat hat e cheated
an f
knowledge
nly
f
himself?
he wisdom
fthe
world,
hich
eachesowardshe
knowledge
ftruth
with
n
nquiry
hichs
pointless
ecauset
cannot now
im
hrough
hom
t
s
possible
o
earn rue
hings,
onetheless
as made
he
ttempt
o discoverome
things
bout he ature
f he oul
hat re
near othe
ruth,
ndeed
ractically
kin
to t.
How
unbecoming,
nd
ndeed
hameful,
t
s, he'n,
or
ny
eligiously
inded
man o
know
othing
bout his
ery
ubject,
r
completely
orbid
imselfo know
anything
bout t 6
The
comparison
withbeasts
rankles.
n
book
IV,
addressed
o Victor
per-
sonally,Augustine
eturns o the insult
gain
and
again
with
fugue-like
obsessiveness.
To what
extent,"
he
asks at one
point,
"will
you
allow
that
we can
be
ignorant
f our
nature nd
still
keep
safe
istance
rom
hose
beasts
f
he
ield
"7
n
addition,
t s no doubt
of some
concern o
Augustine
6
DNOA V. i.
2.
381:
Sed
mihi,
rede,
atis
uperque
ideturbsurdum
tque
ncon-
gruum
ationi,
t
homo
pse
xpers
ui it
ut
s,
ui
rerum
mnium
reditur
deptus
sse
notitiam,
ibi
psi
abeatur
gnotus.uid
utem iffert
omo
ecore,
i nescite
sua
qual-
itate
aturaqueisquirere
tque
isserere,
t
merito
n
lium
onueniat
uod criptum
st:
homoumssetnhonorenonntellexit;ssimilatusst umentist onparatusst is? am um eus
bonus
ihil on atione
condiderit
psumque
ominem
nimal
ationale,
ntellectus
apacem,
rationis
ompotem
ensuque
iuacem,
ui
omnia ationis
xpertiarudenti
rdinatione
is-
tribuât,
rocreaverit,
uid
am
nconuenienter
ici
otest
uam
t
eum ola ui
notatione
fraudarit?
t cum
apientia
undi,
uae
sese
sque
d ueri
ognitionem
uperuacua
ui-
dem
nuestigatione
rotendit,uia
scire
equit er
quem
icet
uae
sunt
era
ognosci,
aliqua
amen
icina,
mmoffinia
eritati
emptauerit
uper
nimae atura
ispicere,
uam
indecens
tque udendum
st
eligiosum
uemquam
e hoc
pse
ut
nihil
apere
ut
pen-
itus ibi
nterdixisse
e
sapiat "
7
DNOA
V.
2.
3.
382-3:
Die
ergo uatenus
obis
aturamostram
escire
oncedas,
ut
pecoribus
alva it
nostra
istantia."
lso V.
x.
14;
V.
xi.
15;
V. viii.
;
V. vii.
1.
Augustine
s also
bsessively
rritated
y
he illiness
fVictor's
sychological
heory,
ost
particularlyyVictor'somparisonfGod'snsufflationf he oul oourblowingpof
bags.
fVictor
upposes
hatwe
we
pour
urbreath
nto he
ag,
utwithout
ny
ess-
ening
fourselves
r ofour
breath,
ugustine
uggests,
etVictor
low
nto
bag
and
holdhis
nose nd
mouth,
nd ee
ust
how
ong
he continues
o think
hat
e has ost
none
fhisbreath
DNOA
II. iv.
4 ff
How
an
we consider
earning
bout
he
rigin
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 11/187
DREAM
ODIESANDDREAM
AINS
217
that Victor's workprovidesan accessible,pseudo-scientificationalefor
some
Pelagian
theses.But the
principal
rritant or
Augustine
n
dealing
withVictor's
work
s
that he is
faced
with
disarming position
which
s
neither
ery ogently
ramed
nor well
argued,
hough
t has
focussed
op-
ular interest
pon questions
that are
very
mportant
nd
centralto his
own
thought,
iz.,
the nature of
the
soul,
its
transparency
o itself nd
its
connectionwith the
body.
Augustine
tartshis refutation f
Victor
by
reading
"
sua
qualitate
atu-
raque
in
such
a
way
as
to attribute o Victor a
ridiculouslytrong
laim:
And o
you
eem o have
akenhe
osition
hatman
ught
o
be able o discover
anddiscusshe
ntirety
fhisnaturend
ttributes
n
uch
way
hat
othing
bout
himselfs
hiddenrom im.8
This
may
well be a
stronger
laim,
than Victor
meant to
make;
but it
allows
Augustine
o force
him
onto
a
slippery lope.
If
we
can be
allowed
ignorance
of
the number of
hairs on our
heads,
he
asks,
then
precisely
what
sorts
of
things
all
under
"
qualitatetque
natura?
Just
exactly
what
kind of
self-knowledge
ollows
mmediately
pon being
human?
If
there
is anything bout ourselvesof which we can be ignorant, ouldn'twe
just
as
well also be
ignorant
f the
answer to the
very
question
we are
examining?
he
way
is
open
for
Augustine
o
subject
Victor's
confident
claims
about self
knowledge
o critical
crutiny.
One of
Victor's
half-developed rguments
s that
t would be
strange
for man
to be
able to have
knowledge
f all
sortsof
things
ther than
himself,
nd
yet
not
to know what he
himself s
and is
like. He offers
no
further
xplicit
efense f this
claim;
but
tangledup
in
Victor's
messy
juxtaposition
f
"the wisdom
of the
world,"
which
attempts
o
investigatethe soul, and "the
religiously-minded
an,"
who refuses he
attempt,
s
a
relevant
oint
of
comparison.Worldly
wisdom falls
shortof
the truth
when it
looks to
things
utside the
soul,
because
it
is
ignorant
f some-
thing
hat
s
required
n
order to
come to know
truth.9
y
contrast,
ven
of
he
oul,
e
asks,
rom
omeone ho oesnot
ven now
owhe
goes
bout
lowing
up
a
bag?
DNOA
. iv.
4;
IV. iv.
5;
IV iv.
3).
8
DNOA V. ii.
3.
382:
quod
ensisseta
uideris,
amquam
e
uniuersaua
qualitate
atque
aturaichomo
isquireretque
isserere
ebeat,
t nihil
nim ui
ateat."
9DNOA V. ii.2. 381.The force f per uem"n.6 above)s unclear. ictor ay
mean
hat
hey
ack
knowledge
f
normal
pistemological
ntermediaries
ike he
enses
and
memory,
r
knowledge
f how o draw
nferences
rom
rior
nd better
nown
premises.
f
o,
he ntended
ontrasts between
ediated
ndunmediated
nowledge;
his
contrast
ould
ffectelievernd
unbelieverlike.More
robably,
hough,
quem'
ndicates
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 12/187
2
1
MARY
IRRIDGE
thisworldlywisdomcomesvery lose to the truthwhen t turns ts atten-
tion to the
the soul itself.
ictor's
point,
presumably,
s that betweenthe
soul and itself here
s no
intermediary
hat must
first
e
known
f
the
the soul
is
to
know itself
though
Victor
again
does not
make his
point
explicit);
ather
he soul's
self-knowledge
s a
direct nd immediate
on-
sequence
of its
presence
to
itself,
hus
requiring
o
prior knowledge,
o
methodof
investigation
r
inferences,
nd no
divine
llumination.
n
any
event,
his
s
the
strategy
hat
Augustine
eems to attribute o
Victor,
for
he
undertakes o
argue
that the
soul's
immediate
access to itself
s
of
extremely
imited
ognitive
alue.
In
arguing against
Victor,
Augustine
needs to differentiate
arefully
betweenhis own views
on
self-knowledge
nd Victor's
xtravagant
laims.
In
this
very
work,
Augustine
himself sserts hat
understanding
s essen-
tial to human
nature;10
hat
as
beings
with
understanding
e are
present
to
ourselves nd
aware of ourselves
n
a
unique
and immediate
way;11
and that
while we
live,
we
know
with
mmediate
ertainty
hat we
live,
and
that we
remember,
nderstand nd
will.12
n
the
arguments gainst
Victor,he is concernedto pointout that mmediate elf-awarenessnd
our natural
evel of
self-knowledge
o not
amount to
complete
knowl-
edge
of the soul's
nature
and
operations,
et alone
to
knowledge
bout
its
origin.
We do not
know,
Augustine rgues,
how it is
that
food
sustains ife
(DNO
A
IV.
iv.
5).
Nor do
we know:
that
omeone,
ot
omething,
s
acking;
he
worldly
ack ivinellumination
r
knowledge
ofGod. t
is
not
learwho
Victor's
worldly
ise"
re,
hough
ertullian,
rom
hom
Victorakes fair mountfhis heorybout he oul, escribeshe toic heoryf oul
with
pproval.
f.
Tertullian,
e Anima
,
ed.
J.H.
Waszink,
orpus
hristianorumeries
Latina
hereafter
C)
2,
Turnholt
954, 81-869,
sp.
786-7
hereafterA).
Victor ould
surely
onsider
he
material
heory
f oul ttributed
o the toics
y
Tertullian
o be a
clear
tep
n
the
ight
irection
n
theorizing
bout he oul.
10
NOA
V. xi. 15.
394:
nam
i
ntellegentia
ibi
lacet
n
natura
ominis,
uoniam
reuera
i earn on
haberet,
ihil
uantum
d animas
ertinet,
ecoribus
istaremus,
ntel-
lege uid
non
ntelligas."
11
NOA
V. xix. 0.
409-410:
Sicenim t nos
psos
ertius
uam
eteros
ouimus,
quia
nobis onscientia
ostra
ota st t
uoluntas,
uam lane
idemus,
t
n ea tamen
aliquam
orporis
imilitudinem
on
uidemus,
anc
n alio
quamuis
raesente
on er-
nimus."
12 NOAIV. vii.9. 389:"Eccemodo,modo um umus,umuiuimus,umnos
uiuere
cimus,
um
meminesseos
t
ntellegere
t uelle
ertissimi
umus,
ui
nosnatu-
raenostrae
agnos
ognitores
sse actamus
" Cf.Also
Augustine,
olloquia
I.
1-5,
d.
W.
Hörmann,
SEL
9,
Vienna
986,
-98;
Augustine,
nchiridion
0,
ed.
E.
Evans,
C
LXVI,
Turnholt
979,
9-114.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 13/187
DREAM
ODIESAND
DREAM
AINS
219
. when umaneed s convertednto lood, hennto olid lesh; henhe ones
begin
ohardennd
o
fill
ith
marrow;
ow
many
inds
f
veins ndnerves
here
are;
y
what hannelsnd ircuits
he ormererveo
rrigate,
nd
he atterocon-
nect he ntire
ody,
hetherkin
s
properlyhought
f s
nerve,
r
eeths bone
or
again,
what
urpose
s
served
y
those eins
n
which ir
circulates
nsteadf
blood,
hose
hey
all he rteries
DNO
A
IV. v.
6).
Augustine
llows
thatVictor
perhaps
misspoke,
hathe meant
to
say only
that the soul had
complete knowledge
of its own
"nature
and
quality,"
and not
anything
bout its
body (DNO
A
IV. ii.
3).
The weaker
claim
fares
ittlebetter han the
stronger ne, however,
for
t is the
soul itself
that directs he
development
nd
functions f its
body.
And
if
we
do not
know
whether r how
the soul sets
the veins
in
motion to
animate the
body,
and the
nerves to make it
move,
then the
soul is
ignorant
f its
own
operations,
ven
though
he
body
is
below it
metaphysically,
more
able to
give
life to the
body
than to know
about it"13
such
knowledge
as there s of
these
things
s
a
matter f art and
possessedby
very
few.14
We also
do not know
fromwhat
part
of the
body
thinking
nd
willing
originate
r
how we
go
about
simple
ctions ike
moving fingerDNO
A
IV. vi. 7). The centralregionof the body that nitiatesifeactivitynd
actions
i egemonikon
remains
mystery
o
us. The
conclusion f
Augustine's
elaborate
discussion f the
inscrutability
f
the soul's
operations
s
sim-
ple:
If
we are
ignorant
f the
soul's own
present
operations
precisely
because we
are
ignorant
f
the
body
it
governs
,
then how
should we
expect
to have
comprehensive
nowledge
of
its
history,
ndeed,
of an
event
n
its
history
hat
s further
ack than
birth.And
even
if
the
soul
were to
have been aware
of its
startup,
s there
any
reason
to
suppose
that t
would know
how it
got
started?
DNO
A
IV. v.
6)
Another fVictor'sargumentss that t would be absurd for man to
have been
given
reason and
understanding,
hen left
unaware
of these
abilities nd
activities.
urely
Victor s
to some
extent
ight;
t
would be
extremely
trange
or a
rational
oul to be
able,
for
example,
to
under-
stand
number
heory
nd make wise
decisions
without
eing
at all
aware
of these abilities
nd activities
if
the
supposition
makes
any
sense at all.
13
NO
A
IV. v.
6. 386: "et cum
uiscera
ntrinsecus
ostra on
possint
ine
nima
uiuere,aciliusa potuitnima iuificareuamnosse."
14
Our
gnorance
s due t eastn
part
o
gnorance
f
he
workings
f
he
ody,
hich
remain
ncompletely
nown,
ven
o
cientists
ho
pend
heirives
tudying
hem
DNO
A
IV. ii.
3.
382-383).
hese
cientistso not
Augustine
dds,
o
around
alling
on-scien-
tists
cattle"ecause
hey
avenot
cquired
his
nowledge.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 14/187
220
MARY
IRRIDGE
But here, too,Augustine rgues,Victor's confidencen the extent f the
soul's
self-knowledge
s unwarranted. ven
if
the soul must be immedi-
ately
aware that
t
remembers,
nderstands nd
wills,
Augustine
rgues,
it does not follow
ven that t knows what t remembers r understands
or how
trongly
t
wills;
he cites the case of one
Simplicius,
who did not
know that he knew all the books of
Virgil
from
memory,
ntil he had
performed
uch feats
as
reciting
loud the
last line but one from
very
book
(DNO
A
IV.
vii.
9).
Indeed we cannot even fathomhow
memory
works;
Augustine
offers ne of
his
memory
conundrums
n
evidence.
Suppose
there s something once knew,then could not remember, ut
now do remember:
We often
resume
hat
ewill
eep
omething
n
memory,
nd
hinking
his,
edo
notwritet down.
hen fterwardst doesnot
ome o mind henwe wantt
to,
andwe
are
sorry
hatwe believed
t would ome ack o us anddid
notwrite
t
down o as
to
prevent
t
from
ettingway.
hen,
lthough
e are not
earching
after
t,
t
uddenly
omes ack ous.
And
o were
we
not
urselveshen e
knew
it
<at the tart>?
nd hen
gain,
rewe notwhowe used o
be
<then>,
ow hat
we are not bleto
call t to mind? ow s
it, hen,
hat
we are somehowaken
away
romnd
lienatedrom
urselves,
ndthen
gain
omehow
rought
ack o
andrestoredo ourselvesas ifwe were omeonelse nd omewherelse ndwe
ourselves
ere nable o
get
o ourselvesecause
f
having
omehoween
put
somewhere
lsewhenwe seek
nddo not ind hatwe have
laced
n
ourmem-
ory,
nd s
if
we then
ame ack o ourselveshen e
find
t.After
ll,
where o
we
search,
f
not
withinurselves?ndwhat rewe
searching
or,
f
not or ur-
selves
as
if
we were
otwithin
urselves,
uthadwithdrawn
o some
lace
part
fromurselves?
o
you
notnotice
ndtrembleeforeuch astness?
ndwhat
s
this ut ur
nature,
ot s it
was,
ut
s it s now?15
As for
knowing
what we
know,
Augustine
ays
that he
himself as often
been
in
error bout
whetherhe knew the
answer to a
question
or
not,
thinking e knewtheanswerwhen he did not,and vice versa.And Peter,
he reminds
his
reader,
knew
that he was
willing
o die
forhis
Lord,
but
15
NOA V. vii.10. 389-90:
Saepe
nos
praesumimusliquid
memoriaetenturost
cum d
putamus,
on
cribimusec
nobis
ostea
um olumusenit
n
mentem
osque
paenitet
redidisse
enturum
ec itteris
nligasse
e
fugeret;
t subito
ursus,
um d non
quaeramus,
ccurrit:
umquid
os
non
ramus,
uando
d
cogitabamus?
ectamen oc
sumus
uod
fuimus,
uando
d
cogitare
on
possumus.uid
st
rgo, uod
nescio
uo-
modo ubtrahimur
egamurque
obis
temque
escio
uomodo roferimur
d nos
red-
dimurque
obis,
uasi
lii imus
t alibi
imus,
uando uaerimus
ec nuenimus
uod
n
memoriaostraosuimus,eque os psi d nos psos elutilibi ositoseruenireos-
simusttunc
erueniamusuando
nuenimus?bi
nim
uaerimus
isi
pud
nos?
t
quid
quaerimus
isi
os,
uasi
on imus
n
nobis t
liquo
ecesserimus
nobis? onne
dtendis
et
xhorrescisantam
rofunditatem?
t
quod
sthoc
liud
uam
ostra
atura,
on
ualis
fuit,
ed
qualis
unc st?"
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 15/187
DREAM
ODIESAND
DREAM AINS
221
was unaware of howweaklyhe willedto do so (DNO A IV. vii. 11). Thus
the
fact
that the soul has immediate elf-awareness
oes not add
up
to
the kind of
self-knowledge
ictor
would
need
to sustainhis claim that he
rational oul knows
even its own rational
operations
with
full
clarity
nd
certainty.
Augustine's
ommitment o the idea that self-awarenessoes
not lead
to
very
much
self-knowledge
hould not come as much of a
surprise.
Throughout
his
career,
Augustine
onsistently
ends to
identify
he self
with the
soul;
but
by
the
time
of De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae
Augustinehas come also to
emphasize
the factthat the soul is the soul of its
body,
a
body
that t animates nd directs
n
ways
that ie outside ts self-aware-
ness.
In
his discussion
f
the creationof
man in De
Civitateei
XIII,
he
says
that
man is
not
body
alone,
nor a
soul
alone,
but
is
"both
body
and soul
oined together."16
n
De Genesi d Litterame
appeals
tentatively
to the soul's "natural
appetite
for
managing
the
body"17
o
explain
the
resurrectionf bodies after he
ast
udgment.
But
although
he soul's ani-
mationand direction f the
body
is a
genuinepart
of its own
operation,
knowledge fsuchoperations fthe soul is not available from he imme-
diate data
of
introspection
nd
reflection. he soul's
ignorance
of how it
animates and directs
the
body
marks
a
limit to its self-awarenesshat
Augustine
onsiders
ignificant;
is
extended
argument gainst
Victor is
not a matterof
setting
ireto
a
straw man. Failure to understand
he
soul's
complex
interactionwith the
body
is
the first f several
ways
in
which Victor's
theorydisasterously
versimplifies
he soul's
"properties
and
nature,"
nd a
fortiori
he extent f the soul's
self-knowledge.
Furthermore,
he mind's
cognition
f its own
operations,
ike remem-
bering, hinkingnd willing,s neitherompletenor nfallible. s Augustine
has
argued
in
De
Natura
t
Orìgine
nimae
the mind can be
ignorant
f
16
Augustine,
e
Civitate
ei
XIII,
24.
409,
d.B. Dombert A.
Kalb,
CC
48,
Turnholt
1955.
Hereafter
e Civ.
ei).
17
Augustine,
e
Genesi
d Litteram
II. xxxv.
8,
485.
PL
34,
245-468.
hereafter
e
Gen.d
itt):
Sed i
quem
mouet,
uid pus
it
piritibus
efunctorum
orpora
ua
n
res-
urrectione
ecipere
siue
lia
atentiore
ausa,
iue deo
quia
nest i naturalis
uidam
appetitus
orpus
dministrandi;
uo appetitu
etardatur
uodammodo
e tota
ntentione
pergat
n
llud ummum
oelum,
uamdiu
on ubest
orpus,
uius dministratione
ppeti-
tus lle onquiescat."ugustineomes erylosehere osayingsomewhatnthe ash-
ion
of
Aquinas,
hat heminds not
eally
completehing
ithouthe
body,"
areth
Matthews,
ugustine
nd escartesnMinds
nd odiesn: G. Matthews
ed.),
he
ugustinián
Tradition
Berkeley
Los
Angeles
999,
30.
Matthewshinkshat
ugustine
oesnot ake
this
osition,hough
twould e
open
o
him
o do
so.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 16/187
222
MARY IRRIDGE
the data of ts own internalife, .g., of what t willsor how stronglynd
unambiguously
t wills
something. lready
n
Confessiones
e find
a dra-
matic
picture
of the
mind's
propensity
or
obscuring
ts mixed motives
and
imperfectly
ealized commitments. nd
although
wareness of our
minds'
operations
s indeed the basis for our
knowledge
f the structure
and nature
of the
mind,
t is a
repeated
theme
n
Augustine's
ater work
that the mind's
self-awareness,
uch as it
is,
does not amount to knowl-
edge
of how it works.
The mind can be
ignorant
f how
it
carriesout
some
purely
mental
peration,
or nstance f whether he
will s
prompted
to remember
by images
of
experience
tored n
memory,
r is in fact
itself he cause of
remembering
De
trìn. I. 7.
12).
8
We have
difficulty
grasping
what
memory
s at
all,
and
only
a
lengthy rocess
of
reasoning
brings
us to
an
understanding
f such facts about
memory
s that the
mind s
present
o itself
y
way
of
something
ike a
present-
memory
De
triti. IV.
11.
14).
Finally,
t is obvious
that self-awarenessoes not lead
the soul to the
most basic and
important
actabout its
nature,
viz
,
the
incorporeality
f
mind. The mind does have an immediate ense ofwhat it is,Augustine
says,
.e.,
of
its
living,
remembering, nderstanding
nd
willing;
n
this
sense it knows ts own
substance.
"What is so
present
o
knowledge
s
what is
present
o
mind?" he
asks;
"And what is so
present
o mind as
the
mind tself?"
De
trìn. . 7.
10).
People
who
suppose
that the mind s
corporeal,
. overlookhe
act hat he
mind nows
tself,
ven
whent eeks
tself,
s we
have
already
hown. ut
we can
n no
way ightlyay
hat
nything
s known hilets
substances unknown.
herefore,
ince
hemind nows
tself,
t
knows
ts wn ub-
stanceDetrin. . 10.16).
From
this mmediate
wareness,
knowledge
f ts
ncorporeality
s avail-
able to the mind.
Still,
for
all its
powers
of
introspection
nd
reflection,
the mind
can make
a fundamental
mistake bout its own
nature nd take
itself o be
corporeal
because
it
easily
confuses
ts own substance
with ts
objects.
Self
knowledgeproperly
o-called
requires
that the
mind
strip
18
Augustine,
e
TrinitateI.
7.12,
d.
W.J.
Mountain
Fr.
Glorie,
C
50, 50A,
Turnholt,968hereaftere trin).f.AlsoDe trin.I. 8.13,where lengthyrgument
is
required
o establish
hat
what s stored
n
the
memory
s
not he ame s the esul-
tant
xpression
f
t
n
the
hought
fthe
erson
ho
emembers
quod
nden
cogitatione
recordantis
xprimitur)recisely
ecause
ntrospection
nd eflection
renot ufficientodecide
the
uestion.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 17/187
DREAM ODIESAND
DREAM AINS
223
away what it is not from ts view of itself nd concentrate n what it
itself s.19
.... Letthemind hen
ot
go seeking
or look t
tself
s
if
t were
bsent,
ut
ratherake
ains
o discern
tself,
iven
hatt
s
present.
et t not
ry
o come o
knows f tdidnot now
tself,
ut ather
o
eparate
tselfut rom hat
tknows
to be other
De
triti. 9.
12).
Thus
in
more
sophisticated
orks ikeDe Trìnitatend
De Genesid Litteram
and even
in
the earlier
Confessiones
we
find a
smooth
fitwith the view
of self-awarenessnd self-knowledgen De Natura tOriginenimae.
TheDead and
Dreaming:
eal
Feelings
n Unreal odies
In
addition to
his
argument
or the soul's
knowledge
of its own
origin
based on the soul's mmediate wareness
f tself
nd its
operations,
ictor
has also
given
an account of how each soul
is
directly
reated
by
God.
Victor'sown
theory
eems to have been that the soul or "innerman" is
formedwithin
body
when the breathof God
whirling
bout
in
it causes
a substance o congeal [gelanteubstantia)hichis so molded that nside
the
body
another
body,
the "inner
man,"
comes to be enclosed as
if n
the
shape
of
ts
corporeal
heath uelutin
orma
aginae orporalisncimurrì)?®
to the extent hat
n
its
shape
it resembles he outer man.21
By
a simi-
lar
process
a third
corporeal
entity,
onstituted
y
sense and
intellect,
takes
hape
within
he
soul,
so that "the whole man
consists
f
three le-
ments: he
outer,
he inner nd the innermost"
DNOA
IV. xiv.
20).
On
19 husGareth atthews'laimMatthews999, . 17above),t225, hat ugustine
holds hat themind f ach fus
knows hat
mind
s
simply
nd
olely yknowing
itself,"
eeds o be understoodithers
very everely
estrictedo a kind fnon-thema-
tized ense f
elf,
hich he oul ndeed
lways
as of
tself,
r
as the
laim
hat his
non-thematizedelf-awarenesss the
ecessary
onditionnd ource
oth
f he
oul's
ar-
ticular
nowledge
f
ts
wn
tates
nd
cts
ndof
ts
genuinenowledge
f
tsnature.
20
DNOA
V. xiv.
0,
399-400.
De
hac enim
seil,nima]
oquebaris,
umdiceres:
'Et
gelante
ubstantia
uae conprehendi
on
poterai,
fficeret
orpus
liud ntra
orpus
naturaeuaeui et
spiramineonglobatum,
xindequenciperet
omo
nterior
pparere,
quem
eluti
n
forma
aginaeorporalis
nclusum,
d similitudinemuidelineauitxteri-
oris
ominisabitudo.'"
21
This ccountf he ormationf he oul s
essentially
he ne
given y
Tertullian
in DA IX, 7-9, 93-794.orTertullian,hoholds hat ouls regeneratedromouls
(ex raduce)
only
hefirstoul
results
rom
hedirect
nspiration
f
God;
n
subsequent
souls,
he ivine reathfGod
s
poured
ut s
a
kind f
vapor
with he eminalluid.
Cf.
DA
XXVII, -9,
23-4.
ertullianrawshe onclusionhat
riginal
in s transmitted
in
the
ropagation
f ouls.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 18/187
224
MARY
IRRIDGE
thisaccount, souls,each createdseparately y God's breath, re entirely
corporeal.
Augustine
has
criticisms f this account
of
the
genesis
of the
soul,22
but he is far more concernedto attack the
scriptural
rguments
ictor
adduces forthe
corporeality
f the soul. Victor
has
cited the case of
the
dead
Rich Man of Luke
16:24,
who looks
up
and
recognizes
he
(also
dead)
Lazarus
in
the bosom of the
equally
dead)
Abraham and
begs
that
Lazarus come down to
bring
him
water to relievehis
tormenting
hirst.
Victor
has then
gone
on to make
the
explicit
laim that
being
able to
recognize
nything
nd
impose
a name
upon
it
implies
ts
corporeality:
You
say,
Names ease obe
given
hen orms
not
istinguished;
ndwherehere
is no
designating
f
persons,
heres no
giving
f
names,"
.. You
say,
Someone
whose
elp
s
mplored
ust,
ssuredly
ave
bodily
ormndbe seen
odily."23
So,
according
to
Victor,
f
it is
the
soul that survives
eath,
and after
death the soul
is
still
being
recognized
nd called
by
name,
and
is rais-
ing up
its
eyes
and
suffering
hirst nd
having
this or that
n
its
bosom,
then
clearly
the soul is
a
kind of
body,
which
has limbs to
move
and
sensesand the ability o feelpleasure,pain and emotions.According o
Victor,
bodily
members
re here ascribedto the soul as
if
t were
really
a
body."24
Augustine
makes
fairly
hort
work here of the reference o the bosom
of
Abraham;
ike
many
referenceso bodies and
bodilyparts
n
Scripture,
it must be taken
metaphorically,
o refer o "that remote and
separate
abode of rest
and
peace
in
which
Abraham now is."25With
respect
to
how Dives
recognizes
azarus and
Abraham,
Augustine rgues
hat
Victor
is
making
n
assumption
hat
s
demonstrably
alse, .e.,
that what lacks
bodily
reality
s
ipso
acto
formlessnd therefore annot
recognized
nd
22
He
argues,
or
xample,
hatt s
hard
o
seehow
omethingorporeal
an
ever e
constituted
n
the
mage
f
God,
who s
ncorporeal,
ut
lsohard o seehowVictoran
avoid
eing
ommitted
o the oul's
eing
f
he
ubstancefGod
DNOA
V.
14.
20).
23
DNOA
V. XV.
2.402:
Dicis
tiamcessarellic
omina,
bi
non
istinguitur
orma,
et
nihilllic
gere ppellationem
ominum,
bi
nulla st
esignado
ersonarum'
'cuius
auxilium
nploratum
st,'
nquis,
corporeustique
isus st
tque
ormatus."'
24
DNOA
V. xvi.
3. 402:
"'Denique,'nquis,
membrallic
nimae
escribuntur
t
uere it orpus.'"25
DNOA V.
xvi.
4.
403-4.
ugustine
ere
ives
he ame ort
f
ccountound
n
Irenaeus,
dverushaeresesand
n Tertullian's
A,
ch.
7 and 55. Cf.
L.J.
ander
Lof,
Abraham'sosomn
he
Writingsf
renaeus,
ertulliannd
ugustine
in:
Augustinián
tudies,
6
(1955),
09-23.
f. lso
De
gen.
d itt. II. xxxiii.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 19/187
DREAM
ODIES
AND
DREAM AINS
225
named; does Victorneed to look at his face in a mirrorn order to rec-
ognize
who
he
is,
he
asks?26s it not insteadtrue
thatwe
know ourselves
better
han
we know others
precisely
ecause
we can
directly
ecognize
ourselves
by
our own
will and consciousness
conscientia
t voluntas
?
And
even
in
the
case of
others,
we do not
know
them,
properly peaking,
y
perceiving
heir
bodies;
we
most
properly ecognize
even others
not
by
their
bodies,
but
by
their ife
and will
(vitam
t voluntatem
,
even
if
that
spiritual
ecognition
s
mediated
by
bodies
in
this ife.27
But
Augustine
has still
got
to
explain
how Dives can lift
up
his
eyes,
suffer
hirst,
nd
beg
Lazarus to
dip
his
finger
nwaterto cool his
tongue
if
Dives
has
no
body. Augustine
ollows
renaeus and Tertullian
n
tak-
ing
the
story
f Lazarus and Dives
as a real
narrative,
nd not
ust
as a
parable
of some sort.
And
if
the
story
s taken
iterally,
hen the souls of
the dead
speak,
look
up
and
occupy space. Apparently
ives can see
Lazarus and
Abraham above
him
otherwise
why
would he
make the
effort
o lift
p
his
eyes?
And
apparently
e
is
tormented
y
thirst oth-
erwise
why
would he
beg
for water?
Dives,
Lazarus and
Abraham are
all dead, existing nlyas their ouls. It appears,then,that the souls of
the dead
are
corporeal.
Augustine
s
convinced
that
by looking
to dream
experience
we can
in
principle
find a
way
of
resolving
uch
questions
about
bodily phe-
nomena connected
with the dead
without
dmitting
hat these "bodies"
actually
re
physical
odies.The
bodily
ikenesses
n
dreams,
ays
Augustine,
are of the same kind
(ex
eo
genere)
s
bodily
ikenesses f the
dead,
but
they
re more accessible
o our
understanding.28
ictor
has himselfmade
reference o
St.
Perpetua's
dream visions bout
her
dead
brother nd has
26
DNOA V. XV.
1.
401:
"Sed,"
nquis,
si anima aret
orpore,uid
st
uod pud
inferosiues lle
ognoscit?'
haecdicens i
agnitionem
ominis
rouenire
on
putas
sine
orporis
orma,
t noueris
e
psum,
redo
uod
ssidue
peculum
dtendis,
e,
i
fuerisblitus
aciem
uam,
on e
possis gnoscere."
27
DNOA V. xviii. 0.409-10:
quis
utem ecte icat e
aliquem
ominem
ognouisse,
nisi
n
quantumotuit
ius itam
oluntatemqueognoscere,uaeutique
moles
on
habet
neccolores?icenim t nos
psos
ertius
uam
eteros
ouimus,
uia
nobis onscientia
nostra ota st
t uoluntas.
uam lane
idemust
n
ea tamen
liquamorporis
imili-
tudinem
on
uidemus,
anc
n
alio
quamuisresente
on
ernimus,
tiam uius bsentis
faciemouimus,ecolimus,ogitamus.ostramero aciemo modo osse, ecolere,og-
itare on
ossumus
t amen os
psos
obis
magisuam
lium
ognitum
erissimeicimus.
itadarum stubi it
otior
ominis
eriorque
oti
ia."
28
DNOA
V. xviii.
8.
408:
quamuis
nim tea
quae
imilia
orporibusogitamus,
x
eo
genere
int;
amen
uod
d mortuos
dtinet,
ptior
oniecturae dormientibusucitur."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 20/187
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 21/187
DREAM
ODIES
ANDDREAM AINS
227
fear and shame,as shownby itsweakness, lushing nd pallor.32 y the
timeof De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae
Augustine
was familiarwithTertullian's
arguments,33
hich he had
previously
iscussed
n
De Genesi d Litteram
although
not
particularly
uccessfully.34
e was
aware, then,
that he had
to
give
an
account of the
mode of existence nd
experiences
f the dead
and
dreaming
that
allowed
him
to
separate
actions,
passions
and the
recognition
f others
rom
having
ome sortof
body;
to do so he needed
to
give
a
convincing esponse
o Tertullian's nti-dualistic
rguments y
showing
hat
the
experiences
nd actions of the dead described
n
the
scriptural assage
are in
principle ndependent
f embodiment.
In
dreams,
Augustine ays,
we
remain,
o be
sure,
ourselves.
By
con-
trast,
the
earth,
the
sea,
the
sun,
the
moon,
the
stars,
nd
the
rivers,
mountains,
rees or animals" that we see
in
our dreams are not
bodily
in
nature,
but
only very
ike bodies.35 t.
Perpetua
was herself
n
her
dream, then;
but her
opponent
was a
dream-Egyptian.
What about St.
Perpetua's
male
body?
f
we
suppose
ourselves
o have
corporeal
bodies
in
our
dreams,
Augustine
rgues,
then we would have
to concede that the mountains nd rivers f our dreams are corporeal,
for how could
a
corporeal body
ascend
a
dream-mountain?
ut,
as we
have
seen,
the mountains nd rivers
n
our
dreams are not
corporeal.
Thus St.
Perpetua'sbody
is
only
a
dream-body,
likeness
.
imilitudo
of
a
corporeal
ody DNOA
IV.
17.
25).
In
the case of St.
Perpetua,Augustine
32
DA
V,
5.
787:
Item,
orporalium
t
ncorporalium
assiones
ntere non ommu-
nicare;
orro
t animam
ompatiorpori,
ui aeso
ctibusulneribuslceribusondo-
lescit,
t
corpus
nimae,
ui
fflictaeura
ngore
more
oaegresciter
detrimentumocii
uigoris,uius udoremtpauoremuboretque alloreestetur.giturnima orpusx
corporalium
assionum
ommunione."
33
DNOA
I. 5. 9.
Here
Augustineorrectly
ttributeso Tertullian
he
iew hat
oth
Godandthe oul re
corporeal.
34
Althoughugustine's
e
GenesidLitteramas
probablyomposed
n
stages,
aking
a
definitive
ating
f thework
ery
ifficult,
ookX.
24-26
f
that
work,
n
which
Augustinexplicidy
iscussesertullian'se Anima
was
urely
rittenefore
ugustine's
answer
o Vincentius
ictor;
f.O'Connell 987
n.
5
above),
sp.
201-45.
n
De Genesi
ad Litteram
ugustinebjects igorously
o Tertullian's
aterialism,
ut
he
has not
got
much f n
argumentgainst
t;
he
s able o show
nly
hat
ertullian's
laim
hat he
corporeal
oul
akes n the
hape
f he
ody,
utnever
ncreases
n
size,
s
fairly
illy.
35
DNOA IV. xvii.
5.
404:
"nam
t
n
somnis
uando liqua
dura t molesta
er-
petimur,osutiqueumust,nisi uigilantibusobisliapraetereant,oenas rauissimas
pendimus;
ed
corpora
sse
redere,
uibus
ac
atque
liac
uasi
erimurt
uolitamus
n
somnis,
ominis
st,
ui parum igilanter
e rebus
alibus
ogitauit.
e his
uippe
iso-
rum
maginibus
aximenima
robatur
on sse
orporea,
isi elis t lla
orpora
icere,
quaepraeter
os
psos
ammulta idemus
n
omnis:
aelum,
erram,are,olem,unam,
stellas,luuios,ontes,
rbores,
mmalia,aec
ui orpora
sse reditncredibili
er
esipit."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 22/187
228
MARY IRRIDGE
offers furtherrgumentgainst he real corporealityfherdreambody.
Who
could
doubt,
he
asks,
that St.
Perpetuai
soul was "the
likeness
f
a male
body,"
and
not
a true male
body
since her
own
body,
from
which she
was not
yet
sundered
by
death,
was
lying
n her
bed,
female
as ever.
If
the male
dream-body
was a
physicalbody, Augustine
sks,
why
id
t
not till ave he
hape
f
ts emaleexual
rgan
cur
onervabat
aginae
suae
ormam
)?
After
ll,
thadfound omale
enitals
n
the lesh
f
his
oman,
rom
whicht
could
ake
hape
y
ompressing
tself
or,
s
you ay
congealing.36
Augustinehere forces n application f Victor's own account of the for-
mation
of the soul
to
the formation f
dream
bodies;
the
body
of the
sleeping
St.
Perpetua
must
serve as
a
kind of "sheath" which lends its
shape
to the
bodily
parts
of the
corporeal
soul formedwithin t. But as
St.
Perpetua's
own
body
remains
female,
here
s
nothing
n
her
sleep-
ing
body
where
therewould
have to be
something
o lend
shape
to male
genitals.
hus her
male
dream-body
must
perforce
ave been some mere
likeness f
a
body.
Dream bodies
are
produced,
Augustine ays,
n the same
way
as the
likenesses f rivers nd mountains n dreams: the appearances peciesof
bodies
are formed
while we are awake and stored
n
memory;
hen
in
some
mysterious
ay
in
our
dreams we recollect
hem,
and
they
come
before
s as
if
we were
seeing
hem.37
he
process
s
none
too
predictable.
36
DNOA V.
xviii.
6.
405:
"quis
utem
ubitet,
n
lia imilitudine
orporis
nimam
eius
uisse,
on
orpus,
uodutique
n
suofemineoexu
manens,
opitis
ensibusacebat
in
stratis,
uando
nima ius n liauirilis
orporis
imilitudineuctabatur?
uid
hiedicis?
uerumne
rat
orpus
lia
uiri imilitudo
n non rat
orpus,uamuis
aberet
imilitudinem
corporis?lige uoduelis.icorpusratcur oneruabataginaeuaeormaniñeque nimn
illius
eminae
arne irilia
epereratenitalia,
nde ta
posset
ese
oarctando,t,
ut tu
loqueris,gelando
ormari'"
italicsmine). ossiblyollowing
ertullian,
e Resurrectione
Mortuorum
II,
8.
930,
d.
J.B.
h.
Borleffs,
C
2.2,
Turnholt
954,
21-1012.
ictor
ad
used
uagina
to describehe
body
s
a
sort
f heath
n
whichhe oul nheres
appar-
endy
n the
mannerf sword
n a scabbard.he
usage
s
classical;
uagina
used s
a
term or scabbard
s also
found
n
Tertullian,
e Resurrectione
ortuorum
X, 2,
932.
Augustine'saughty
hetorical
uestion
hus lso
has n
innocent
eading:
f
her oul>
was
body,
hen
hy
id tnot
reserve
he
hape
f
ts
bodily>
heath?
f. he rans-
lation
fR. Teske
Teske
997,
.
1
above):
If twas
body,
hy
id tnot
etainhe
formf ts
overing?"
37
DNOA IV.
xvii.
5.
404-405:
procul
ubio arnen
piritalis
st,
non
corporalis.
namqueuiusmodipecieselutorporum,on arnenorporatuigilantiumogitatione
formantur
t
profunditate
emorie
ontinenturt
ex
eius bditissimis
inibusescio
uo
mirabili
t neffabili
odo umrecordamur
rodeunt
t
quasi
nte culos
rolata
er-
santur
quid rgo
mirum,
i et
psa
ibi
n
sui
orporis
imilitudine
pparet
t
quando
sine
orpore
pparet?eque
nim
um uo
orpore
ibi
pparet
n somnist
tarnen
n
ea
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 23/187
DREAM ODIES
AND
DREAM
AINS
229
The dream bodies of thosewho have lost limbssometimes ppear with
fullgrown
ersions
of the
limbs
they
lost,
though
they
never seem
to
appear
with
the
tiny
arms
they
once had
(
ntegros;
and sometimes
he
appear
without
hem
ex
quacunque
arte
runcatos).
n Victor's
account,
t
is
impossible
o
explain
this
kind of
variability,
et alone
how Samuel's
soul
appeared
wearing
ts
customary arments
did
his
soul
and soul-
clothing
omehow
take
shape
in
his
living,
lothed
body
so
that at
death
his soul left
his
body wearing oul-clothing?38
What about St.
Perpetua's
wrestling? ugustine ays
explicitly
hat
f
our bodies in dreamsare likenesses f bodies,we
only
"seem to climb"
dream-mountains
nd "seem to enter"
dream-houses;39
nd so St.
Perpetua
is
only
dream-wrestlinggainst
he
dream-Egyptian.
till,
Augustine ays,
even
if
she had no
body,
therewas nonetheless "certain
ikeness f a
body"
(similitude*uaedam
in which she felt rue
struggling
r
strain
perus
labor)
nd true
oy
(
vera aetitia
.40
Applying
his
results
o the
question
of the
alleged
corporeal
souls of
the
dead,
Augustine roposes
that the souls of the dead
are
not
corpo-
real; afterdeath and beforethe final udgment, here are onlythe like-
nesses of
bodies,
ike the dream-bodies
f dreamers.
ust
ike the
souls of
dreamers, owever,
he souls of the dead feel real
sadness and real
oy
and real
pain,
not
ust
the likeness f such
feelings:
What
f
his
ame ort f
hing appens
n
hell,
ndthe
ead
recognize
ach ther
not
by
their
odies,
ut
by
ikenessesf
bodies? orwhenwe sufferadness ristia
patimur
,
even
f
only
n
our
dreams,
lthough
t s
only
he
ikenessf
bodily
imbs
which
cts,
nd
not
odily
imbs
hemselves,
tillheresnot
ust
likenessf
uffering,
but eal
uffering;oy
s felt
n
the ame
way.41
ipsa
imilitudine
orporis
ui
quasi er
oca
gnota
t
nota iscurritt aeta entit ulta
ueltristia."
38
DNOA IV. xix.
9.
409:
cur
Samuhelanctus
ost
mortem',
t
pse
uoque
om-
memorasti,
solito
ndumentoestitus
pparuit?'
numquid
ste e
corpore
estitus
xierat?"
39
DNOA V. xvii.
5.
405:
"sed
puto, uod
nectu audeas icere
iguram
llam or-
poris tque
membrorum,
uam
ibihabere idetur
n
somnis,
erum
orpus
sse, am
istomodo rit erus
mons,
uem
ibiuidetur
scendere,
t
corporea
omus,
uam
ibi
uidetur
ntrare,
t rbor ero
ignumque
erum
orpus
abens,
ub
ua
sibi idetur
acere,
et
aqua
uera,
uam
ibiuidetur
aurire,
t omnia
n
quibus
uasi orporibus
ersatur
corpora
runt,
i et
psa
orpus
st,
uae
simili
magine
nteruncta
llauersatur."
40
DNOA V. xviii.
6.
406: "si autem on rat
orpus,
t
tarnen
rat
liquid
imile
corporis,nquosane erusabor utuera aetitiaentiretur.."41
DNOA V. xiii.
7.
406:
"Quid
i tale
liquid
pud
nferos
eritur
t
n
eis e
non
corporibus,
ed
orporum
imilitudinibus
nimae
gnoscunt?
um nim ristia
atimurua-
muis
n
somnis,
tsimemborum
orporeorum
it lla
similitudo,
onmembra
orporea,
non st amen
oenae
imilitudo,
ed
poena;
ic tiam bi aeta entiuntur."his s essen-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 24/187
230
MARY IRRIDGE
Augustine ites the example of Dinocrates,St. Perpetua'sbrotherwho
appeared
to
her after
his
death.
Surely,
he
says,
t must
have been
in
the likeness f
a
body,
not
a
physical
body,
that his soul
came to
her,
with ts
suffering
miseria}
evealed
n
its
"face."
It
appeared
s
f fflicted
n
ust
he
way
he
ody
adbeen fflicted
ecause,
hough
not
body,
n
being
he
ikenessf he
body
t
hadthe ikenessf ts ffliction
s
well. ut
till,
n
ts
unreal
ody
he
oulfelt eal
distress,
hich as
ignified
y
the
ppearance
f he
ody's
ffliction,
nd
rom hich is
oly
ister's
rayers
arned
his
deliverance.42
The deliberate ntithesis etween"unreal body" and "real distress" n
this
passage
calls
attention o
the
metaphysical eculiarity
f
Augustine's
position.
Dinocrates'
suffering
s
real,
not
a likeness f
suffering,hough
it is
in a likeness f
a
body,
not
a real
body,
that his soul
undergoes
hat
real
suffering.
Augustine
hus
manages
to
explain
the
story
f Dives and the dream-
visions
of
St.
Perpetua
without
onceding
that
the soul
is
corporeal,
but
at the
price
of
significant
etaphysical
wkwardness. he awkwardness
seemsunnecessary.Why allow that
the
feelings
f the
dead and dream-
ing
are
genuine?
Why
not
ust
concede that
they
re
only
similitudes f
feelings,
ust
as their
odies,
urroundings
nd
adventures
re
merely
imil-
itudes,
.e.,
dream-realities?
Augustine's
olution
s all the more
striking
or
standing
t the inter-
section of
philosophical
raditions
which
strongly
onnect
having
emo-
tions,
pleasures
and
pains
with
having
a
body.
Even
Neoplatonists
ike
Plotinus,
who
deny
that
the soul
can be affected
y
the
body,
hold that
many
emotions,
leasures
and
pains
are
activities
f soul
which
respond
to its observation f bodilyconditions.43ven more relevant s a strain
tially
he
ame ccount
ugustineives
n De Genesid Litteram
II.
32-4,
hough
e s
there
muchmore
oncernedo
argue
hat
ell s
spiritual,
ot
eally
ome
lace.
42
DNOA V. xviii.
7.
407:"et
quasi
ulnerata
isa
st,
icut
orpus
ueratulnera-
tum,
uoniam
orpus
on
rat,
ed
habebat
n
similitudine
orporis
tiam
imilitudinem
uulneris.
orro
utem
n nonuero
orpore
era
miseriauit
nimae,
uae significabatur
adumbrato
orporis
ulnere,
e
qua
sororisanctae
rationibus
eruitiberali."
43
For
relevant
exts rom
heAristotelian
ommentators
nd
mportant
eoplatonic
authors,
f.
Emotionin:
Richard
orabji,
hilosophy
f
he ommentators00-600
.D.:A
SourcebookLondon/Ithacaorthcoming.f. lso .Knuuttila,edievalheoriesndhe assions
of
he
oulin: S.
Knuuttila
ed.),
motionsn
AncientndMedieval
hilosophy
Oxford
004;
S.
Knuuttiland
J.
Sihvola,
ow he
hilosophicalnalysis
f
Emotions
as ntroducedin:
J.
Sihvola
nd .
Engberg-Pedersen
eds.),
he moüons
nHellenistic
hilosophy
Dordrecht/oston
1998, -19;
.K.
Emilsson,
lotinus
n he
motions,bid.,
39-63.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 25/187
DREAM
ODIESAND
DREAM
AINS
231
of thoughtwhich can be traced to Plato himself,nd especially o the
Philebus
in
which
physicalpleasure
and
pain
are
explained
as a
sort of
intentional urface
f
needs
or
lacks and theirfulfillment.44
n
addition,
Augustine
had access to the Stoic
theory
hat
the emotions
necessarily
involve
and arise
in
consciousness
ut of
a
bodily
first
hase
or "first
movement".45 hus
Augustine
would have
gotten
from several
sources
the idea that where
thereare
genuine
emotions nd
feelings
f
pleasure
and
pain,
there s
real embodiment
n
some sense. ndeed
in
Conjessiones
Augustine
imself eems to be
adopting
Stoic
approach
n
his discussion
of the
pleasures
nd
pains
of
sensing
hat follow o
inevitably
rombod-
ily
states
s
to be unavoidable nd thusnot
subject
o moral assessment.46
In
the
ight
f this
background,
t seems that
Augustine's
roposal
that
the
real
misery,oy, pain
and
struggles
f the dead
and dreamers re felt
in
unreal bodies is
decidedly
dd.
Given the
theory
f "intentional
ur-
faces"or "first
movements" hat
Augustine
ppears
to
accept
n
Conjessiones
it is
surely
fair
question
about the
oys
and sorrows f
dreamers nd
of the dead how
they
an
be
fully
eal
if
there re
no
real
or
really
ppro-
priatebodies for hemto arise out of and be felt n. The problem s even
more
acute with
feelings
f
struggle,
atigue
nd
pain
how can
the feel-
ing
of
struggle
r
fatigue
r
physicalpain
be real or
"true,"
f
there s
no real
body
to wrestle r tire
or suffer roma lethal
cancerous sore?
Augustine
ought
to
concede,
it
seems,
that the
pains
and
passions
of
dreamers nd of the dead
are no more real than their
bodies.
It is
tempting
o
suppose
that
Augustine
has
forgotten
he
larger
con-
textof his
response
o
Victor,
which
requires
him
to
argue
for
the non-
transparency
f the
soul to
itself,
nd has
slipped
nto
assuming
ncritically,
as Descartes does in Meditation/, nd as Victorurges,that the mind's
operations
like
udging
and
willing)
nd internal tates
like
pain
and
seeming
to see the
light)being wholly
within he
mind,
are
necessarily
just
what
they
eem to
be,
because the mind's own
states nd
operations
44
Plato,
hilebus
3d-e,
3
a-c,
latonis
pera
I,
Oxford
901. f.Knuuttila
004
n.
3
above)
or
sketch
f
thePlatonicnd
post-Platonic
evelopment
ftheoriesf
feeling
and
motion.
45
Cf.R.
Sorabji,
motion
nd eace
f
Mind
Oxford
000,
sp.
355-6, 72-84,
or n
accountfAugustine'stoic ourcesndhis ppropriationf hem. f. lsoM. Colish,
The
toic radition
I,
Leiden
985,
sp.
207-13;
.
O'Daly,
Augustine's
hilosophy
f
Mind
London
987,
sp.
38-60.
46
Augustine,onfessiones
. 33. 49-34.
1, 181-182,
d. L.
Verheijen,
C
27,
Turnholt
1981
hereafter
onfi).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 26/187
232
MARY IRRIDGE
are, so to speak, transparento its gaze. Even if he is dreaming, ays
Descartes,
t is
as
certain
hat he doubts
and wills and seems to see the
light
as that he
exists,
for none of these
things
re
"distinct rom his
thought,"
r
"separate
from
him":
For
example,
now ee
the
ight,
ear he
noise,
ndfeel heheat.
hese
hings
are
unreal,
ince
am
dreaming.
ut t s still ertainhat seem
o
see,
o hear
andto
feel heheat
.
Meditations
II).47
There is some evidence
or his
proto-C
rtesian
nterpretation
f
Augustine.
As we have seen,Augustine oes hold that the soul knows some things
about itself
n the basis
of immediate
wareness and
simple
reflection;
we know
immediately
nd
certainly,
or
example,
that
we
are,
that we
live,
and that
we
understand,
ill and remember.
ometimes,
n a man-
ner that
anticipates
Descartes'
strategy,
e cites
this
knowledge
s evi-
dence
against
he
sceptical osition
hat
we can
know
nothing.48
n
addition,
he
says explicitly
hatwe know
;
ovimusourselves
more
certainly
han we
do others
precisely
because
we know ourselves
directly y way
of our
consciousness
nd will
(DNOA
IV.
xix.
30).
If
Augustine
hinks hat
oy
(, audium, gladness <aetitia, sorrow i ristitia, pleasure («electatio, suffering
( poena
,
distress
miseria),isgust
offensio)
re real even
if
the
person
who
feels
hem
s
dreaming
r
dead,
thismust
be,
it
seems,because,
he thinks
that ike
understanding
nd
willing, eelings,
motions,
leasures
nd
pains
have to
be whatever
hey
seem to
be,
even
if
their
purported
xternal
points
of
reference re
merely igments.
With
respect
o
passions
ike
oy
and
fear,
t is indeed
Augustine's osi-
tion that
such emotions
re
wholly
n
the
soul;
and
in
a
passage
from
The
City
f
God
Augustine xplains
why. Augustine
s
arguing gainst
the
"view of the Platonists" hatthe emotions s such
invariably
ave their
origin
n the
body.
The
argument
tself
s an odd
one,
invoking
he
authority
f
Virgil
as a
spokesman
for the
Platonists;
ut it concludes:
Thus ven ntheir
wn
dmission,
t s not
nly
y
he
ody
hat he oul
s
affected,
so thatt
desires,
ears,
ejoices
nd
grieves;
tcan lso
be stirred
p
by
hese mo-
tions
arising>
ut
f he oul tself.
hats
mportant
s what he
will f man
s
47
René
Descartes,
editationsn
irst
hilosophy
transi.
oger
riew,
ndianapolis
000,
110.48
Cf.
De trin. V.
12. 21-2.
Other
vidence
or
Augustine
s a
proto-C
rtesians his
view hat
mathematical
efinitions
nd their
mmediate
onsequences
ould e
certain,
even
f were
reaming
r
mad;
f.
oliloquies
.
9-10,
CSEL
LXXXIX;
nchiridionII.
20,
ed.
E.
Evans,
C
46,
Turnholt
958,
3-114.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 27/187
DREAM
ODIES
ANDDREAM AINS
233
like When econsentoour ppetiteorwhat ewill,heresdesire;utwhen
we consento
enjoying
hatwe
will,
hat s called
oy.
Similarly,
henwe dissent
from
hat
edo notwant o
happen,
his
illing
s
fear;
utwhen edissentrom
what
appens,
hough
e will t not
o,
uch
willing
s sorrow. nd hus or he
whole
ariety
f
hings
o which e aredrawn
y
ppetite
r from hich e
flee,
as thewill f man s attractedr
repelled,
t
s
changed
rturnednto
his
r
that
emotion.49
Whatever heir
ource, hen,
he emotions hemselves re thus ntentional
expressions
f the attachments f the
will;
the will's
positive
nd
negative
attachments
s
they
re
present
n
and to consciousness re emotions.
Thus, even ifsomefeelings o arise firstn thebody, bodily tates re
not
indispensable
o emotions.For one
thing,
not all
desires,
pleasures,
pains
and emotions re
corporeal.50
n
the case of
demons,
for
example,
it is their
very
minds which are tossed about on a sea of
ungovernable
passions De
Civ.Dei IX.
6);
their
airy
bodies"
hardly
ome into the
pic-
ture at all.
And the
devil,
who
has
no
body
at
all,
is nonetheless
ubject
to emotions
ike
envy
De
Civ. Dei
XIV.
6),
which is an emotion of
the
soul.
Angels
aside,
although
Augustine
ends to use
expressionsappetitus
and
6
libido
in
connection
withthe desires nd
pleasures
of sense and
sex,
in
Confessiones
e
refers o
"a
lust for the
knowledge
o be
gained
from
the senses"
appetitus
oscendi
{Conf.
. 35.
54)
and "the
lust for
revenge"
{libido
indicandi
e)'
we
get pleasure {libeat os)
nd
feel
oy
(gaudium
,
he
says,
from
being
feared and loved
by
others
Conf.
X.
36.
58-59).
And
even with
respect
o
those emotions hat do startwith
bodily
states
nd
responses,
t is
the
will
that
s
the direct ource of the emotions nd
pas-
sions,
which are themselves
holly
n
the
higherpart
of the
soul,
wholly
in
the realmof consciousness.51nd so
the fact hatSt.
Perpetua
s dream-
ingis no reason for upposing hather oy at her dreamvictory ver the
49
De Civ. eiXIV.
5-6.
21.
Vnde tiamllis atentibuson x
carne antumfficitur
anima,
t
cupiat,
etuat,
aetetur,
egrescat,
erum
tiam x
psa
his
potent
otibus
gi-
tari.
nterestutem
ualis
ituoluntas
ominis Sed cum onsentimus
ppetendo
a
quae
uolumus,
upiditas;
um utem
onsentimusruendois
uae
uolumus,
aetitiaocatur.
Itemque
umdissentimusb eo
quod
accidere
olomus,
alis oluntas
etus
st;
um
autem issentimusb eo
quod
nolentibus
ccidit,
alis
oluntasristitiast. t omnino
ro
uarietate
erum,
uae appetunturtque ugiuntur,
icut lliciturel
offendituroluntas
hominis,
ta
n
hosuel llos ifectus utaturt
uertitur."
50Cf.G.I.Bonner,Libidoand Concupiscentia"nSt.Augustinein:Studia atristicaI
(1962),
04-14,
here
ugustine's
road
ndvariableseof his
erminology
s
discussed.
51
Augustine's
ccountf
motions
trongly
esembleslotinus's
ccount
f
he
assions,
thoughugustine
oes
nothold hat he oul s not
ffected
y
he
assions,
reven
hat
it should
naffected
y
passions.
f. E.K. Emilsson998
n.
43
above),
sp.
339-63;
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 28/187
234
MARY
IRRIDGE
dreamEgyptians not real oy. She could also feelgenuine xtreme ear,
even
if
her real
body
were
lyingpeacefully
n the bed
without hintof
the
pallor
and
trembling
hich with which fear
usually
tarts.
Still,
even
if
Augustine
an
convincingly
how that
having
emotions
does not
require body,
t
is
hard to see how he can
give
the same sort
of "internalist" ccount of
feelings
ike
Perpetua's
sense of
fatigue
nd
struggle,
inocrates'
suffering
rom his
wound,
and Dives'
tormenting
thirst,
or these are the sort
of
feelings
which
normally
rise
fromthe
body
and
have
a
somatic
component.
t seems
extremely roblematic
philosophically
o claimthat
pleasures, ains,
thirst,nd
feelings
f
strug-
gle
and exhaustion are
real,
even when the soul is
not
appropriately
embodied or not embodied at
all,
like
souls of the dead.
Tertullianhad
in
factreasoned from he
reality
f the
torments f the
damned and from
he
principle
hat whatever an suffer as to
be cor-
poreal,
that ouls mustbe
corporeal
DA.
VII.
4).
Augustine
s,
of
course,
not nterested
n
denying
hatthe
sufferings
nd
oys
of the dead
are
real;
he
agrees
with Tertullian hat the souls of those who are not saved
are
really n torment. e does not,however, greewithTertullian hat very-
thing
that can be affected
n
any way
whatsoevermust be
corporeal.
Initially,
owever,
t is hard to see how this
helps
much
in
explaining
what is
going
on with the dead
Dinocrates and
Dives;
even
if
not
every
sort
of
suffering
nvolves
having
a
body,
still,
f
the
dead can suffer
en-
uine
thirst
nd
genuinepain
from cancerous
sore,
they
must,
t
seems,
have some sort of bodies.
Augustine's
olutionto the
problem
of
the
pains
of the dead
is
that
the souls of thosewho
are
not
saved,
ike Dinocrates nd
Dives,
are
really
in torment,hough heyhave no bodies;but they re notreally uffering
the
pains
they
think
hey
are
suffering
r the
pains
that
onlookers ike
Perpetua
think
hey
re
suffering.
he soul of Dinocrates that
comes
to
Perpetua
s
suffering,
nd Dives is
in
torment. ut
in
an
important
ense
Dives is not
feeling
what he thinks e is
feeling,
orhe
identifieshe tor-
ment he is
reallyfeeling
s a
bodily
sensation hat
he is
not
really
feel-
ing,
howevermuch he
may
appear
to himself o be
feeling
t. Dives is
said
to seek
to
repair
the
(real)
"ruins of his
soul,"
in
which "there s
J.M.
Dillon,
Metriopatheia"
nd
Apatheia":
ome
eflections
n
Controversy
n ater
reek
thics
in:
J.
Anton,
ndA.
Preus
eds),
ssays
nAncientreek
hilosophy
-II,
Albany,
Y
1983,
508-17.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 29/187
DREAM
ODIES
AND
DREAM
AINS
235
truesuffering" hich "torments is soul";52he has no real body,how-
ever,
and therefore
o real thirst.
f
he
is
asking
for
water,
then he is
mistaken bout
whatkind
f
tormenthe is
feeling.
The same
goes
for
Dinocrates.
His soul feels real
torment;
ut it
is
not the
bodily
pain
he
thinks e is
feeling.
t must
be,
Augustine ays,
thatthe souls of the dead
associate with themselves similitudes" f
bodies,
as dreamersdo.
Here,
as
elsewhere,
Augustine
has
very
ittle
o
say
about how such similitudes
or likenesses f bodies
are
produced.
But
presumably hey
arise out of
the soul's own habitual
associationwith ts
body
and its habitual associ-
ation of
pleasure,pain
and the
passions
withcertain
bodily
tates.53 hus
Dinocrates
experiences
his
genuine spiritual
orment s
pain
from the
imagined
ancerous ore
n
his "shadow of a
body,"
and
his
genuine pir-
itual frustrations
experienced
s
frustrationt
being
unable to reach
the
golden cup
above
him
and drinkfrom
t.
When the dead take each other
o
be
embodied,
possibly hey
ust
per-
ceive
whatever
odily
ikenesses ther dead souls
project
for themselves.
But it is more
likely
hat
theyreallyperceive
each other
by
the kind of
"interior ense"bywhich we perceiveourselvesn life, hough n lifewe
do
not have this ame kind of mmediate ccess to the "mindsand wills"
of others.
hey
thenconstrue hisunaccustomed orm f
recognizing
th-
ers as
bodily recognition:
Butwhowould ave he
bility
o
nvestigate
hat
ower
f
cognition
ven ouls
that renot
ood
will eceivefter
eath,
nce reed romheir
orruptible
odies,
so
that
hey
re
ble
o
perceive
nd
recognize
thers
s bad
as
they
re and ven
the
ood by
heirnteriorenses?
ill
hey ecognize
hem ot
y
real
odies,
ut
in
the imilitudesfbodies?
r
by
the
good
r evilmovementsftheirminds
n
which
heres
nothing
ike he
hape
f
bodily
members
so
that
ven
hough
52
DNOA V. xix.
9.
409: cur
rgo
quae
tillam
esiderauit
pud
nferosiues?
sed
n
lio era
rat
molestia,
ua
cruciabatur
nima,
on
arnenerum
orpus
ui
uaere-
ret limenta."
53
n
De Genesid
Litteram
Augustineays
hat hemechanisms
yway
fwhich
mages
come eforehe
mind,
hether
hey
re
dreams
r
visions,
re
mysterious,hough
he
origin
f ll such
mages
s
experience.
f.De Gen.
d itt. II. 18. 39-40. bout he ike-
ness f he
body
hat
he oulhasafter
eath,
e
says nly
hat t s no more
eculiar
than he
odily
ikenesseshe
reaming
ssociate ith
hemselves
De
Gen.
d itt. II.
32.
60-61).he ource,owever,ay e the oul's naturalptitudeormanaginghe ody,"
which
s
so
strong
s to
prevent
t
from
ttaining
erfect
ulfillmentntil
t
s
reunited
with he
body,
so
that
t
hasthe
perfect
easuref ts
being, beying
nd
command-
ing,
ivifiednd
vivifying
ithuchwonderfulase hat hatwas
nce ts urden
ill
e
its
glory"
De
Gen.d. itt. II.
35.
68).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 30/187
236
MARY
IRRIDGE
Abraham'sodilyormadnot eenknownohim, ives,ntorment,ecognized
Father
braham,
hose oul
had
managed
o hold n to a similitudef ts
body,
albeit n
ncorporeal
ne)?
ut
n
fact,
an
ny
fus ever
ay
hatwe haveknown
anybodyxcept
nsofar e were ble to know hat
erson's
ife nd
will,
which
assuredly
aveno
weight
r color?54
Probably,
hen,
the
Rich
Man
recognizes
Abraham's "consciousness nd
will"
directly, hough
he thinks e is
seeing
Abraham;
and so it does
not
matter hathe could not
recognize
Abraham
by sight.
However he
process
works
n
detail,
he dead
project
heir eal
recognition
f each
otheronto
an imagined recognition f bodies presumablybecause human souls
become
so accustomed o
recognizing
thers
by recognizing
heirbodies.
Augustine ives
no detailed
analysis
f
Perpetua's
visions;
her situation
s
somewhat
different,
e
notes,
since she is not herself ead when
she is
allowed
to
perceive
the
sorry
tate of her dead brother's oul.
Still,
ince
Dinocrates'
soul
has
got
no real
body,
it must be that she misidentifies
her "interior ense" of
his soul
as
seeing
him
bodily;
his
spiritual
orment
with
physical
suffering
rom his
sore,
his
thirst,
nd
his frustrationt
being
unable to reach
the
rim
of the
cup;
and his salvationwith
his
releasefrompain and thirst. ossibly his s because he sees himselfn
this
way;
but
perhaps
it is
only
that
Perpetua
is accustomed
to
seeing
her brother's
ody
whenever
he
recognizes
him,
and is unaccustomed
to
directly erceiving
he
pain
and
pleasures
of another
person's
soul.
Thus
Augustine
s
not
a
simpleproto-Cartesian.
his is
because
accord-
ing
to
Augustine
n
some
cases,
at
least,
the soul can make mistakes
bout
what it is
feeling,
ecause
it can make mistakes bout the mode of
its
embodiment. t.
Perpetua
n
her
wrestling
ream
and the dead Dinocrates
and Dives
are
reallyfeeling
omething
when
they
ense
fatigue, truggle
and pain, and theirfeelings re reallytheirs nd reallyof the general
kind
they ppear
to
be;
but
they
re not
reallyexacdy
the
feelings
hey
appear
to
be,
since
they
are not
really
the surfaces f
bodily
states nd
54
DNOA IV. xix. 0. 409:
"Postmortemero
uam
uim
ognitionisorruptibilibus
exoneratae
orporibus
nimae
ccipiant
tiam on
bonae,
t
uel
pariter
alas el
etiam
bonas aleantnterioribus
ensibusntueri
t
agnoscere
iue
n
psis
on
orporibus,
ed
similitudinibusorporumivenbonisutmalisffectionibusentis,nquibus ulla unt
quasi
iniamenta
embrorum,
uis
aleat
ndagare?
nde
st
t
llud,
uod atrem
braham
diues
lle,
um
n
tormentis
sset,
gnouit,
ui
figura
orporis
ius
non rat
nota,
uius
corporis
imilitudinem
uamuis
ncorpoream
otuit
nima etiñere,
uis
utem ecte icat
se
aliquem
ominem
ognouisse,
isi
n
quantumotuit
ius itam
oluntatemque
ognoscere,
quae
utique
moles
onhabet elcolores?"
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 31/187
DREAM
ODIES
ANDDREAM AINS
237
operations.55n theend, I think hatwe must read Augustine's eference
to
Perpetua's
verusaboť
in
her dream as
referring
o a real sense
f
trug-
gle
or
fatigue
or real
effort
projected
n
this case onto
a
dream
body
which
participates
n
dream adventures. ven
if
Augustine
does at one
point ay
that
her
soul wrestled
,
uctabatur
,
elsewhere e
says only
that he
"appeared
to herself
n
a
dream to wrestle"
visa
ibi
est n
somnisuctari
.56
It would be
open
to
Augustine
o abandon
proto-Cartesianransparency,
even with
respect
o
the emotions
hat
arise within
he mind itself.
His
accountof emotions
ives
us no
compelling
eason to think hatour emo-
tions are
invariably
he ones
they appear
to be. We can be mistaken
about what we
will,
and about how
strongly
nd
unambiguously
e will
something.
ven
if
the
genuineness
f
an
emotion s not
undercut
ust
by
the
unreality
r
inappropriateness
f its
object
and
circumstances,
till
if
we can make mistakes
bout other states of
consciousness,
nd
emo-
tions are
just
conscious
expressions
f statesof
will,
there s in
principle
no reason o
suppose
hatwe cannot
misidentify
ur
feelings.
ut
Augustine
seems not much inclinedto doubt that
n
the normal run
of
things
he
mind s prettymuch transparento itselfwithrespect o itsfeelings nd
emotions.
The
Delightsf
Dreamersnd
Sinning
n One's
Sleep
It
would not be
surprising
f
Augustine's
reatment f dreams
and dream-
ers
in
De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae
ontext
proved
to be at variance with
what he
says
elsewhere.Dream
reality
s
not
Augustine's
main interest
in
this
work;
and his discussion f dream
reality
s
clearly haped by
its
intendeduse, i.e., to serve as a model forunderstandingpparentbod-
ily
phenomena among
the dead. De
Natura
t
Orìgine
nimaetself s
topi-
cal and
polemical,
written
n
rapid
response
o a
particular
work,
which
55
n
hisfirstermonor he east fSt.
Perpetua
nd
St. Felicitas
Sermo
CLXXX.
v.
5,
PL
38,
1283)
ugustine
iscusseshe
epose
f
martyrs
nd
he ormentsf he ne
"who hirstsor
drop
romhe
inger
f
he
beggar,"
nd
ays
hat heres the ame
sort
f
differenceetweenhe
repose
nd
tormentsf these ouls
eforehe
Day
of
Judgment
nd afterhat
ay
when
hey egain
heir
odies s betweenhe
oys
nd
sufferings
f he
reaming
nd he
waking,
not ecause hese ouls re
necessarily
ak-
ing mistakeike he ouls fdreamers,"necesseit allibutbecauset s onethingo
have
epose
ithout
ny
ody
nd nother
o have
happiness
ith
glorifiedody.
56
Uisa
st'
must,
t
eems,
arkhe
wrestling
s
only
ream-wrestling,
ot eal
wrestling,
for
heres no reasono
suppose
t.
Perpetua ight
ave een
mistakenboutwhat ort
of
ream-actioner ream
ody
as
ngaged
n
that
he
might
nsteadave
een ream-
treading
ream-water.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 32/187
238
MARY IRRIDGE
was, to all appearances,notverygood philosophicallyr theologically.t
is
aimed
obliquely
t both
Pelagius
and Tertullian.
There
are two
important
passages
that
suggest
that
Augustine
did
indeed
change
his mind
bout
dream-reality
nd related ssues.
n
Confessiones
X
Augustine
eems
to claim
that
we are not
morally esponsible
orour
dream-pleasures;
ut it is hard
to see
how he can
hold that
we are not
responsible
or
uch
pleasures
f
he also
holds,
as he does
in De
Natura
t
Orìgine
nimae
that we are
ourselves
n
our
dreams and
that our dream
pleasures
re real
and
really
urs.
And
in
the
very
arly
Contra cadémicos
Augustine
eems to answerthe
sceptic
who doubts thatwe can know
anything
y arguing
hat we
can know with
certainty
hat
pleasures
we
are
having
because
even
if
we
should be
asleep, pleasures
have
to be
the ones
they ppear
to
be;
this s
exactly
what
he seems
committed o
denying
n De
Matura
t
Origine
nimae.
In
Confessiones
.
30
Augustine
discusses
he occurrence
n
dreams
of
sexual
activities
nd
pleasures
that
would
be illicit
n
waking
ife.
The
lustful
mages
encountered
n
sleep, Augustine
ays,
move us
more
pow-
erfullyhanwakingexperienceof the realities hemselves. e thenpro-
ceeds
to
worry
bout
whether
he dreamer
has moral
responsibility
or
experiencing
he
pleasure:
But
n
my
memory,
bout
which
any hings
ave een
aid,
here
tillive
mages
of he
orts
f
hings
o
which once
lung y
habit.
When
encounter
hem ak-
ing,
hey
ave
no
power,
ut
n
dreams
hey
eadnot
nly
o
pleasure,
ut
ven o
somethingery
ike onsent
nd deed
usque
d consensionem
actumque
imillimum).
Am not hen
,
my
ord
God?
And
yet
n
that
moment
n
which
go
from
ere
into
leep
r come
ack
rom
leep
heres
such difference
etween
yself
nd
myself.
heres that
eason
y
which
person
wake esistsuch
uggestions,
nd
remainsnmoved,venhouldhe ealitieshemselveseforcedpon
im? oes t
closewith he yes? oes t leepwithhe ensesf he ody? ndhow oes thap-
pen
hat
ften
e
putup
resistance,
nd remindful
four
purpose,
ndremain-
ing
most
hastely
aithful
o
t,
give
no consent
o such
emptations?
nd
yet
he
difference
s
so
great
hat
hen
hings
urn
ut
therwise,
ereturn
o
peace
f on-
science
pon
waking
nd
on accountf he
reat
istanceetween
he
wo tates
we discover
hatwe did
not
do whatwas omehow
one
n
us,
o
our orrow.57
57
Conf.
. 30.
41,
176-177:
Sed
adhuc iuunt
n
memoria
ea,
e
qua
multa
ocu-
tus
um,
alium
erum
magines,
uas
biconsuetudo
ea
fixit,
t occursantur
ihi
igi-
lanti
uidem
arentes
iribus,
n
somnis
utem
on olum
sque
d delectationem
ed
etiamsqued consensionemactumqueimillimumnumquiduncgo onumdomine
deusmeus
et tarnen
antum
nterest
nter
e
psum
tme
psum
ntramomentum
uo
hinc
ad
soporem
ranseo
elhue
nde
etranseo'bi
st unc
atio
ua
talibus
uggestionibus
esis-
tit
uigilans
t,
i
res
psae
ngerantur
nconcussus
numquid
lauditur
um
culis?
umquid
sopitur
um ensibus
orporis?
t unde
aepe
esistimus
ostrique
ropositi
emores
tque
n
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 33/187
DREAM
ODIES
ANDDREAM AINS
239
Augustine's onsidered iew is clearly hatwe are notresponsible orthe
sexual
pleasures
n
our dreams.
He does not fault the
"peace
of con-
sciousness"
o which he returns
pon awaking.
There
is,
he
says,enough
distancebetweenour
sleeping
nd
waking
elves that "we discover
repe-
riamusthatwe did not
do" whatever
egrettable
ctions and
indulgences
"were
done
in
us"
in
sleep. Intuitivelyppealing
though
this view
is,
it
is
initially
ard to see how
Augustine
s
entitled o it. He does not doubt
thatthe
pleasures
nvolved re
genuine
or that
they
re ours or
that
they
are the ones
they
eem to be. And
so,
it seems he should be held
morally
accountable for them.58 he
only way
for
Augustine
o avoid
drawing
this
conclusion,
t would
seem,
s
to cast doubt on whetherwe are our-
selves
n
our dreams.
The
Confessiones
assage
does
indeed
look to be
far
more ambivalent
about whether we are ourselves
n
our dreams than the account of
Perpetua's
dream-visions.
he
question
of
first-person
ream
identity
s
explicitly
aised
here,
fter ll.
Perhaps
more
significantly,ugustine
ever
uses
a
first-personingular
erb to refer o his
sleeping
elf.Matters re
blurred urtherytherepeated eferenceo "so great difference"etween
waking
elf nd
dream-self nd
still
further
y
the forceful nd finalref-
erenceto our
regret
or what was somehowdone
in
us."
Still,
Augustine
is not
ultimately repared
to doubt that he is himself
n
his troublesome
dreams. The
question:
"Am
I
not
I?"
with which he
begins
the discus-
sion
clearly xpects positive
nswer.The first
ersonplural
forms resisti
mus
nostrique
and
"
adhibemusused to
describeour
sleeping
elves tilt he
passage
towards he
unquestioned
iew of De
Natura
t
Orìgine
nimae hat
we are ourselves
n
our
dreams;
and the second "me
psum
of the
para-
doxical
"
interestnterme psumt me psummore or less settles he matter
of
self-identity:
e are ourselves
n
our
dreams. But we now face
a
fur-
ther
question:
f
Augustine ltimately
as no doubt about
whetherhe is
himself
n
his
dreams,
hen
why
s
self-identity
reated
n
such
an
ambivalent
eo castissime
ermanentes
ullumalibusnlecebris
dhibemusdsensum?t tarnenantum
interest
t,
um
literccidit
uigilantes
d
conscientiae
equiem
edeamus
psaque
istan-
tia
repeňamus
osnon
ecisse
uod
arnen
n
nobis
uoquo
modo
actum
sse oleamus
"
58
n
On
Being
mmoralna Dreamn:
Philosophy
6
(1981),
7-54,
Gareth atthews
argueshat ugustinean void esponsibilitynly yholding1)that e s not isdream
self;
r
2)
that ream
uggestion,
onsentnd
pleasure
renot
eal;
r
3)
that e can-
not o otherwisehan e
does
n his
dreams.ince
Augustine
oesnot
ccept
1)
or
2),
and
considers
3)
rrelevant
orally,ays
Matthews,
ugustine
as not
got very
ood
reason or
enying
hatwe are
responsible
orwhatwe do andfeel n our
dreams.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 34/187
240
MARY IRRIDGE
way, and whydoes the passage have such an ambivalent nd aporetic
tone overall with
respect
o
responsibility?
The nature f
Augustine's
mbivalence
n
Confessiones
becomes
clearer
if
we
compare
thisdiscussion
withhis much more
unambiguous
nd res-
olute treatment f
the "consents
f
dreamers"
onsensiones
omniantium)
n
De Genesi
d Litteram
where he
is
discussing
omeone who
is
dreaming
about
having
llicit exual
intercourse
De
Gen. d litt XII. 15.
31).
Such
dream
images, says
Augustine,
ome fromour
waking
ife.
Suppose
the
source of the
images
n
question
to be freeof
consent o
pleasure
placi-
tum onsensionisthe
images
come, let us
suppose,
from
thinking
bout
sexual
activity
while
composing
his
verychapter:
Then
f
he
mages
f he
orporeal
hings
hat have een orced
o thinkbout
in order o
say
his
hould
ppear
s
vividly
n a
dream
s bodies
ppear
o
the
waking,
omethingappens
hat
ould ot e done
withoutin
y
omeone
howas
awake.
orwho an
avoid
hinking
bout
what e s
discussing,
hen e s
speak-
ing
nd
finds imselfonstrained
y
he
ubject
attero
say omething
bout ex-
ual ntercourse
e
hashad? hen
f
his
mage
hat rises
nthemind
f
he
peaker
comes o
vividly
nto hevision
f the
leeper
hat t s
impossible
o
distinguish
between
t ndreal exual
ntercourse,
t
mmediately
oveshe
lesh,
nd hereol-
lowswhat aturallyollowspon hismovement.till,his appens ithoutin, o
the ame
xtents
we
say waking
an s withoutin
who
undoubtedly
as to
think
bout uch
thing
n
order
o talk bout t.59
In
this
passage,
the dreamer's
actions are
not real
ones,
only
dream
actions.
This
passage
is not
ambivalent;
he
dreamer does
not sin. The
reason
s
fairly
lear:
everything
hat
happens
to the dreamer
s
presented
to us
as
being
something
ver
which he
has no control.
The
speaker
has
entertained
he
mage
of
engaging
n
sexual
ntercourse;
hat ame
image,
now vivid
as
life,
s forced
upon
him in his dream.
The occurrence
f
such dream
images
is no more
significant
orally han the imagesthat
accompany
peaking
bout
sexual
activity
n
dreams
that re forced
pon
the
speaker
by
the
need to
speak
meaningfully.
nd
if
the dreamer's
lesh
then
responds
f
ts own
accord to
images
thatwould
hardly
erturb
im
59
De Gen.d
itt. II. 15.
31:
"porromagines
erum
orporalium,
uas
necessario
ogi-
tavi t haec
dicerem,
i tanta
xpressioneraesentarentur
n
somnis,
uanta
raesentan-
tur
orpora
igilantibus,
ieret
llud
uod
ine
eccato
ieri
vigilante
on
posset.
uis
enim el
cum
oquitur,
t
postulante
ecessitate
emonise
suo concubitu
liquid
icit,
possit on ogitareuoddicit?orropsaphantasia,uaefitncogitationeermocinan-
tis,
um ta
expressa
uerit
n visione
omniantis,
t nter
llam t veram ommixtionem
corporum
on
iscernatur,
ontinuo
ovetur
aro,
t
equitur
uod
um
motu
equi
olet,
cumhoctam
ine
eccato
iat,
uam
ine
eccato
vigilante
icitur,
uod
ut diceretur
sine
ubio
ogitatum
st."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 35/187
DREAM
ODIES
AND
DREAM
AINS
241
at all ifhe were awake, and the inevitable nsues,this s a mere "nat-
ural
consequence,"
and thus not a matter of
responsibility
nd
guilt.
Generally peaking,
hen,
no
one
gets any
credit r
any
blame fordream
actions,
or for other
images
that
arise
in
dreams,
or for the
resulting
physical esponses.
t would
be
no
more
appropriate
o blame
Augustine
forwhat he does
and
experiences
n
his
dreams,
than to
clap
the now-
awake
Perpetua
on the back and
congratulate
er for her
plucky
tand
against
the
Egyptian
r for
feeling
xhilarated t her
victory.60
De Genesi d Litteram
II
offers
far
more nuanced examination
of
visions nd
images,
both natural nd
divinely
nd
demonically roduced,
than
Confessiones.
ut
in
addition,
here re
significant
ifferencesetween
the dreamer f
Confessiones
and
the dreamer
of
the
Genesis
ommentary
which
explain
how
Augustine
an
say
that
the Genesis reamer s inno-
cent
pure
and
simple,
while
remaining
mbivalent
bout
the moral
respon-
sibility
nd
guilt
of his
dreaming
elf
n
Confessiones
.
In
De Genesi
d Litteram
ugustine
has
deliberately implified
is
case
morally.
irst,
hough
exual
pleasure
s
mentioned ere as it
s in
Confessiones
X, it does not assume muchimportancen the tale of virtuous hetoric,
dream
images
and "inevitable esults."
econd,
our virtuousdreamer s
in
no
way currentlymorally esponsible
or
having
he
images
he has to
startwith.
Perhaps
most
importantly, ugustine
s
supposing
that the
"consent f the
dreamers,"
which
s
the
subject
he started ut to
discuss,
is
only
dream-consent. or
suppose
that
I
have
thought
bout
having
indulged
n all
manner of illicit ctivities
n
the course of
piously
con-
demning
hem,
nd that as a result hese
mages
now come vivid as life
before
my
sleeping
yes,
so that seem to
myself
o
be
doing ust
what
I talked bout. "The flesh esponds," ays Augustine, and the inevitable
results." ut
surely
f
am to be
dreaming
bout
acting and despite
he
misleading arallel
with
memory
mages
of the
doings
of
my
past
self,
this s the case
Augustine
as
in
mind,
nd
not
my dreaming
bout some-
one
very
ike
myself
cting
while
I
look
on),
then
in
my
dream,
there
has
got
to be some elementof
intention,
onsent or
involvement.Who
is
it, then,
that consents o
hopping
nto bed with Sean
Connery,
tc.?
According
o
Augustine,my
dream self
s
myself;
f
anyone
consents, hen,
it
must
be
I
who consent.To be entitled o the claim that
dream
pleasure
60
n
the ase
of
he
ery ood, ugustine
dmitshat he oul'smeritsre
ometimes
manifested
n
tsdream
hoices
nd
ctions;
ven
n
his
dream,
he
wise
olomon
sked
Godfor
wisdom
De
Gen.
d
itt.
II. 15.
31),
ndGod
was
pleased.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 36/187
242
MARY
IRRIDGE
has no moralsignificance ere,Augustinehas got to hold out that there
is no real consent
nvolved
n
my dream-response
o the
mages,
but
only
dream-consent,
ust
as the
images
themselves
ccur
without
consentto
pleasure."
The
passive
and
impersonal
onstructionsf the
passage
show
that his
s
ust
what he
is
assuming.
No real
consent,
hen.And so unam-
biguously
no moral
responsibility.
All
of these
simplifications
re
lacking
n
the situationdescribed
n
Confessiones
.
First,
leasure
s
explicitly
nvolved,
nd
Augustine
nam-
biguously
akes dream
pleasure
to be real
pleasure. Secondly,Augustine
seems here to have in mind liminal states n which one is
drifting
ack
and
forth etween dream
and
waking,
nd therefore
more or less tenu-
ously
tied
to one's own
sleepingbody
and
waking
ife;
t is therefore ot
clear that
the consent nvolved
s dream-consent
lain
and
simple.
Most
importantly,
erhaps,
n
this
case the dream
images
are not introduced
into
Augustine's
nner
ife
by
the
melancholy
ecessity
f
speaking
bout
illicit exual
activity,
nd
they
are not
images
which exerciseno attrac-
tion for
him.
They
come
from memories
of what once attracted
him
strongly;hisattraction, e fears, s stillpresentas a secret nclination
that
s resistedwhen
he is awake and on
guard against
t
(vigilans),
ut
not
when his orientation
o
his main moral
purpose
is
dulled
and dis-
oriented
y half-sleep.
his is
why Augustine
wavers
n
Confessiones
.
In
this
case,
the
dreamer's onsent
may
indeed be
a
genuine
movement f
the
will,
and to that
extent
cause for moral
concern,
ven
though
he
dreamer's
will is so weakened
and
caught
so
completely
ff
guard
that
its movements
o not count
as consent
n
a
morally ignificant
ense.61
There is more
similarity
etween
treatments f dreamers
and their
experiencesn De Natura tOriginenimae nd Confessioneshan there ni-
61
This mbivalence
bout
reamonsents
neatly
irrored
y
he
eliberate
mbiguity
of consensionem
actumque
imillimum,"
hichan
mean consent
nd
omethingery
like he
eed,"
ut lso
somethingery
ike onsentnd
omething
ery
ike
he
eed."
ThusMatthews
981
n.
58
above),
ho
ays
hat
ugustine
oesnotdraw
hedistinc-
tion etween
ream
onsentnd
real onsentecause
fhis
tendency
o
view he
mind
and
ts
cts s
directly
nd
mmediately
nown
o tself"t
51,
underestimates
ugustine
onboth
oints.
lready
n Contracadémicos
II, xii, 8,
d.W.M.
Green,
C
29,
Turnholt
1970hereafteritedsCA),Augustineakes similarositionndream-assent.t ssue
there
s thewiseman's
ream-refusal
o choose
he
highestood.
Even
n
our
leep,
Augustine
ays,
e would
otdream f
denying
hat omeone
s wise
when e s
asleep
because
n
hisdreams
e assents
o falsehoods
n
place
f ruths
then
llowing
hat e
is wise
gain
s soon
s he wakes
p.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 37/187
DREAM
ODIES
AND
DREAM
AINS
243
tially ppears to be. The two worksagree completely hat our dream-
pleasures
nd
dream-pains
re real and are
really
ours.
They agree
that
dream
mages
come
in
the
main
from he
experiences
nd habits of our
waking
ife;
n
De
Natura
t
Origine
nimaeas
in
the Genesis
commentary,
this
ccount
s extended o
explain
the
"somatic"
experiences
f the dead.
The two works
agree completely
hat we are ourselves
n
our dreams.
The ambivalence f the
Confessiones
passage
does not come fromdoubt
on
Augustine's art
about whether e
is
himself
n
his dreams.His
ambiva-
lence has to do insteadwith the
suspicion,
ll
too often
onfirmed,
hat
there s a
part
of his soul which s not
wholly
onverted o his
decision,
and
remains lien to himself nd his moral
purpose,
a
subversive ncli-
nation to lower
goods
that s
always present,
ut
ordinarily
esisted.
n
the
chapters
f
Confessiones
which
follow,
Augustine
epeatedly xpresses
his
anxiety
bout the
remnants f misdirected
esire,
both
physical
nd
the
ntellectual,
hichremain
n
his
soul and
cause it to slide
ndiscernibly
from
pleasures
that
are natural and
unavoidable into
some measure of
the
guilty
leasures
ssociatedwith
elf-love nd immoral
oncupiscence.62
It is significanthatAugustine oncludes the discussion f Confessiones
with an
appeal
to God to
free
him
from
uch dreams and
responses
o
them,
nd
thereby
o cause his own oul
freedfrom he
snares of concu-
piscence,
to
follow
him
to God.63
62
Ishtiyaqueaji,
On
Being
orallyesponsible
n
a
Dreamn:
Matthews999
n.
17
above),
22-232,
s
surely
n the
ight
rackn
his
guess
hat
ugustine
s
thinking
hat
a dreamer
an be to some
xtent
orallyesponsible
or
ntertaining
certain
hought
while
sleep,
f
he
hought
rises romhe
desires
f
waking
ife,
ven
f
t the
waking
thoughtas veiledrom er onsciousnessyrationalization,"t180. nthe ubsequent
discussion,
onf.
. 33. 49-X. 4.
51,
Augustine
escribeshe
difficulty
f
distinguishing
between
llegitimate
libido
and he
egitimate
nd
nevitable
uoluptates
uriumand
uolup
tates
culorumwhich
ttend
earing
nd
eeing;.
f. lsoContra
ulianum
elagianum
V.
14,
PL
44,641-874,
here e
distinguishes
etweenhe
egitimate
commoditatis
rovisio
"
which
leads
s to avoidwhats
unpleasant
nd
painful,
ndwhich
oesnot
yet
mounto lle-
gitimate
libido".f.
lsoDe trin.
ll, 3,
where
ugustineays
hat
easts removed
y
some
naturali
ppetitu
uae
oluptatis
tdeuitione
olestitiae"with ur
mortal
odies,
e are
moved
navoidably
n
the ame
way.
63
Conf.
.
30.
42.
177:
Numquid
on
otens
stmanus
ua,
eus
mnipotens,
anare
omnes
anguores
nimae
meae
tque
bundantiore
ratia
ua asciuos
otustiammei
soporis
xtinguere?
ugebis,
omine,
agis
magisque
n
me
muñera
ua,
t
anima
mea
sequature dteconcupiscentiaeisco xpedita,tnon it ebellisibi,tque t nsom-
nis tiam
on olum on
erpetrei
stas
orruptelarum
urpitudines
er magines
nimales
usque
d carnis
luxum,
edne
consentiat
uidem."
this
ge,
he
adds,
t s
surely
o
great
hing
or od o
prevent
im,
ven
n
his
reams,
rom
oing
hameful
hings
usque
ad
luxum
arnis
"
and ndeed o
prevent
ven
he
lightest
int
f
onsento them.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 38/187
244
MARY
IRRIDGE
The differencesetweenAugustine's ccountofPerpetua'sdreamand
his assessment
f
his own
dream
activities
nd
experiences
n
Confessiones
X
have
to do
with the
peculiarities
of the
two
cases.
In
Confessiones
Augustine
does
not,
it
is
true,
raise the
possibility
hat the
sexual
plea-
sures
felt
n
dreams
are not
the
pleasures
they appear
to be.
This
may
be because
he
had not
yet
thought
f this
possibility
n
399-401
A.D.,
when
the
Confessiones
assage
was
written.
More
probably
t
is because
he
thinks
here
s no
reason
for
uncertainty
bout
what
kind
of
pleasures
these
are,
given
the
body's
obvious
nvolvement
n
a
liminaldream
state.
And in De Natura t
Origine
nimae
Augustine
pends
no time
worrying
about the
status
f the
sleeping
Perpetua's
"consent."
This is because
the
images
n
Perpetua's
dreams
are
not
ust
tossed
up
by
her
memory
nd
imagination,
ut
divinely
ent to
prefigure
er
passion
and
martyrdom.
Perpetua
herself
ntroduces
he account
of her
first wo
dream-visions
with
"
Mihi ostensum
sť
[Passio
VII.
3;
VIII.
1);
and
in
describing
her
visions
Augustine
ses
the
well-known
ormula
or
apparitions,
6
in somnis
visa est"
to describe
Perpetua's
dreams.64
t the end
of
her
description
ofher thirddream,Perpetuaherself rovides he interpretation:
I awoke.
nd
understood
hat
would
ight,
ot
gainst
easts,
ut
gainst
he
devil;
ut
knew
hat
ictory
ould
e
mine.
have
ompleted
his
short
ime
before
he
xhibition;
s to
what
akes
lace
t the
xhibition,
et
whoever
ishes
write
t
down.65
64
Ostensio/
stensum
st'
has
n established
ost
lassical
se,
ound
n
both
ertullian
andApuleius,avingodowithisions.heformulaugustineses odescribeerpetua's
dream
isions
s one
hat ften
escribes
ust
uch
ortents.
irgil
ses
m
omnis visus
est desse
ihi
to
ntroduce
ektor's
ream
ppearance
o
Aeneas,
bearing
he
wounds
(¡
ulnera
erms)
hat
e
received
n his
final attle
nd
afterwards"
Aeneid,
I.
270).
The
appearance
f the
orm
f
Mercury"
o
Aeneas o
tell
im o
make aste
o
flee
arthage
is
ntroduced
y
in omnis
ursusque
ta isa
monere
sť
{Aeneid
V.
554).
Cicero,
e
Divinatione
I.
iv.
49,
ntroduces
he
ision
f
Hannibal
ith,
visum
st n
omnis
love
ndeorum
on-
cilio
ocaď'
nd
Socrates
s said
o
have
egun
is
eport
f
his wn
ision
f he
woman
of
great
eauty
ho
foretold
is
death,
vidisse
nim
e n
omnis
[ibid.,
xiv.
2).
n the
second
fhis
ermons
or
he
east
fSt.
Perpetua
nd
St.
Felicitas,
ugustine
escribes
Perpetua:
It
delights
he
ious
mind o
behold
vision
spectaculum)
ike
he ision
fher-
self
t.
Perpetua
aid
he
had
been
hown
revelatum
sse),
hat
aving
een
urned
nto
man virume actamshefoughtith hedevil",ermoCLXXXI. i. 2 (n.4 above) t
1284.
65
Passio
.
14-15:
Et
experrecta
um.
t
mtellexi
e
non
d
bestias,
ed
ontra
ia-
bolum
sse
pugnaturum;
ed ciebam
ihi sse
victoriam.
oc
usque
n
pridie
muneris
ego;
psius
utem
muneris
ctum,
i
quis
voluerit,
cribat."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 39/187
DREAM
ODIES
ANDDREAM
AINS
245
ClearlySt. Perpetuai feelingsnd dreamexperiences refigure ermar-
tyrdom recisely
y reflecting
he
disposition
f
her will.
Perpetuai
deci-
sions
and
feelings
n her
dream
are more
in
character han those of
the
sleeping ugustine;
hey
re
in
linewithher
main moral
purpose. omething
of her real commitment
o her
passion
and
martyrdom
shines
through"
in
her dream-consent
o
fight
he
Egyptian
n
the dream that
prefigures
her
passion.
n
the
passion
narrative
tself,
his close
connection
etween
dream and life s reflected
trikinglyy
the
tone
of
St.
Perpetua's
auto-
biographical
arrative,
n
which she describesher
imprisonment
nd trial
and her threevisions, nd even
by
its
grammar.66
Contra cadémicosII.
xi.
26
seems
to
present
us witha differentort
of
inconsistency.
n
this
early
work,
Augustine
ncludes
pleasure
and
pain
among
the
self-presenting
tates;
we can be sure that we
are
experienc-
ing
pleasure,
nd certain bout what kind of
pleasure
t
is:
This
say,
hatwhen man astes
omething,
e can swearn
good
aithhat e
knowst s sweeto his
palate
r that
t s
not.Nor an
any rickery
f
he
Greeks
dispossess
im
f his
nowledge.
orwhowould e so
outrageous
s to
say
o me
while am
icking
way
with
elight,Perhapsou
re
not
asting
t,
nd this s
only dream"?m contestinghis? ut venn a dreamt would elight e.67
There is some
slippage
n
this
passage.
It seems to start
with
the claim
that
am
warranted
n
saying
that
I
know with
certainty
whetherome-
thing
astes itter
r
sweet o
me or
not even
if I
am
only
dreaming
hat I
am
tasting
t;
but
it seems to
end with the weaker claim that
I
know
with
certainty
hat am
having
he
leasure
even
if
I
am not
tasting ny-
thing,
r not
tasting nything
weet. Even the weaker claim that
can
know
certainty
hat
am
feeling ensory
elight
f
feel
that
am,
even
if I am dreaming,s not reallyconsistentwithAugustine's pproach in
66
assio .
7,
26.
Gender
n
Perpetua's
hird
ream-vision,
n
which
he
"became
man" nd
vanquished
he
gyptian
n
a
wresding
atch
s
grammaticallynambiguously
feminine;
hewas ransformednto
man,
facta
ummasculus
{Passio
.
7,
26);
he
was
liftednto he
ir,
sublataum
(.
assio
.
1
26);
he
rbiterails er s
victor ithFilia
pax
ecum
{Passio,
.
13,
6);
nd hedescribeser
wakening
romhe
ream
ision,
Et
experrecta
um
Ç
assioX.
14,
26).
67
CA II. xi.
26.
50: "Illud
ico,
osse
ominem,
um
liquid ustat,
ona
ideurare
se scire
alato
uo llud
uaue ssevelcontra eculla alumnia
raeca b ista cientia
posse educi. uis nim amnpudensit, uimihi um electationeigurrientiicat: or-
tasse on
gustas,
edhoc omniumst?
umquidnam
esisto?ed mihi arnenn
somnis
etiam electaret."or
numquidnam
esisto"
John
'Meara
transi.),
t.
Augustine:gainst
he
AcademicsNewYorkNY
1951,
t
129,
eads Do I
stopmy
avoring?",
hichmakes or
a
slighdy
ifferentrain f
hought,
ut he ame
ort
f
onclusion.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 40/187
246
MARY
IRRIDGE
De Natura t Orìginenimaewhere he wantsto say thatthe souls of the
dead and
dreaming
can
misconstrue heir
experience
to the extent of
making
mistakes
bout what sorts of
pleasures they
are
feeling.
But
in
any
event,
he
surrounding
ontextmakes t clear
that
Augustine
means
the
stronger
laim,
forhe
has
been
belaboring
he
point
that can know
that there
appears
to me to
be a bent stick
n
water
or
that
something
looks white to me
or that
something
astesbitter o me at this
moment,
even
if
it does
not stilltaste bitter o me
later,
or tastes weet
to a
cow
at this
very
moment
CA
III, xi, 26,
50).
Like instancesof
logical
or
mathematical ruths
CA
III, x, 23, 48), such claims are said to be in
absolutely
no
danger
of
being
undercuton the
grounds
that
they
are
indistinguishable
rom
very
similar
laims
that are false
CA
III,
xi, 26,
50)
in
this
case,
because
no
good
faith laims about
our own
intentional
states re ever
false.The distinction
etween
ppearance
and
reality
oes
not
apply
to intentional
ealities.The Academic
can startus down the
slippery lope
towards
ssenting
o
nothing nly
f
we ourselves
lip
over
into claims about
the extramental auses
of our intentional
tates,
y
say-
ing, e.g., "This ice cream tastes cruptious."
There is a
degree
of
genuine
disagreement
etween
he Contra cadémicos
passage
and the
much later
De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae. his is not
sur-
prising, iven
the
increasing
ophistication
f
Augustine's hilosophy
f
mind
and the fact
that the later works
put stronger mphasis
on
man's
essential mbodiment.68
qually important
s
the factthat the
philosoph-
ical
objectives
f
Augustine's
arliestworks
nd
his
later
works re
very
different.
n
Contra cadémicos
ugustine's
im is to disarm
epistemologi-
ca
skepticism.
is
strategy
s to
appeal
to immediate
erceptual
ontents
and feelings fpleasureand pain; these,he says,can be knownwithcer-
tainty.
ven
if
we are
dreaming,Augustine rgues,
we can be sure
about
the
"intentional
urface"of our
experience,
where
a
distinction etween
appearance
and
reality
makes
no sense.
A
pro
o-Cartesian
dentification
of
knowledge
with
certainty
nd the
idea that the immediate
nd com-
plete presence
of some
given
s sufficient
or
certainty
s
important
o
this
agenda.
De
Magistro
from he
same
period,puts
forward he actual
pres-
68 n stressinghe onnectionetweenody ndsoul,Augustineay e reactingo
Pelagian
riticism
fhisviews n
embodimentndrelated
ssues;
ut
he has
lso
begun,
perhaps
roma.
412
A.D.,
o work
n
the
ater ectionsfDe Genesi
d Litteramand o
he
cannot
ery
ell
gnore
he act hat mbodiment
s God
given.
f.O'Connell 987
(n.
5
above).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 41/187
DREAM
ODIESANDDREAM AINS
247
enee ofsomethingo themind as a necessary ondition or earning ny-
thing
bout it.
If I
am asked about
something
ensible ike
the new
moon,
and
if
t is
present
o me
I
can answer
truly
bout
it:
But
f
he
erson
ho sksmedoesnot eethe
moon,
e
acquires
beliefboutt
(or,
s often
appens,
e does
not);
uthe doesnot earn
nything
bout t unless
he himselfeeswhats
being
alkedbout.69
In
his later
works,
by
contrast,
ugustine
oes not care as much
about
disarming cepticism.
ndeed,
given
the increased
prominence
f will
in
his laterphilosophy f mind and epistemology,e cannotafford o care
very
much about it.
Cognition
for
the later
Augustine
s
markedly
process
of
selection,
ttention,
hinking
nd
speaking,
which
requires
kill
and
strategy;
nd the
measure of
objectivity
f such
activity
s its suc-
cess.
Despite
Augustine's
ncreased
nterest
n
the soul's
multifarious
pac-
ity
to its own
introspective aze,
Confessiones
till
reflects o some
extent
the
epistemology
f
presence
of the earlier
period.
But
by
the
final
ec-
tions
of De Trinitate
Augustine's
iews
n
epistemology
ave
changed
con-
siderably,
n
large part
because
they
are now
shaped by
his
interest
n
showinghow the humanmind and itsoperations urnish n imageofthe
divine
Trinity.
he Academics
achieved their
paltry
uccess,
he
says, by
casting
doubt
n
obvious
ways
on our
perceptual
knowledge
f the world
based on
the data of the
senses.
Anyone
who
wants to read
more
against
the
Academics s welcome
to consulthis
youthful
ork,
he
adds. But
in
fact
the
Academics never
succeeded
in
casting any
doubt on a much
more
significant
ind of
knowledge
uch as
that we
live,
and think nd
will.
Furthermore,
e
concludes:
Farbe it fromstodoubt hat he hingse earnhroughhebodilyensesre
true,
or
y
them e have earned
bout eaven nd
earth nd all the
hings
n
them
hichre known
o
us,
o far s He who
reated oth
s
and
them illed
that e come o know
hem. nd ar
e t
from
s to
deny
hatwe know
hatwe
have earnedrom
he
estimony
f
others. therwisee
would otknow
hat he
69
Augustine,
e
Magistro
II, 39,
ed.
K.-D.
Daur,
CC
29,
Turnholt
970,
57-203,
t
197,
ays:
Namque
mnia
uaepercipimus,
ut
ensu
orporis
ut
mente
ercipimus.
lla
sensibilia,
aec
ntellegibilia
iue,
t more
ostro
um
oquar,
lla
carnalia,
aec
piritalia
nominamus.e
illis um
nterrogamur,
espondemus,
i
praesto
unt
a,
quae
sentimus,
uelut um
nobis
uaeritur
ntuentibus
unam
ouam,
ualis
ut ubi
sit.Hic
ille,
ui
interrogat,i nonuidet,rediterbistsaepenon redit,iscitutem ullomodo, isi
et
pse uod
dicitur
ideat,
bi amnon
uerbis,
ed
rebus
psis
t
sensibus
iscit."
retty
clearlyugustine
eans o allow
hat
,
who ee
the
moon,
hereby
ome
oknowome-
thing
bout twhen
t s
present;
e has
thusmoved
way
rom
he
earguardpistemo-
logica ampaign
gainst
heAcademicn
Contra
cadémicos.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 42/187
248
MARY IRRIDGE
ocean xists,nd he ands nd ities eknowboutromopiouseports.ewould
notknow hat here
ere
eople
nddeeds hatwe earn
bout rom
eading
is-
tory.
We would ot
know he
hings
hat re
reportedaily
romll
over,
nd
re
confirmed
y
onsistent
nd onsonantvidence.
inally,
ewould otknow here
and fwhat
arents
ewere orn. Wewould
ot nowhese
hings>
ecausehese
areall
things
e
believe
n the
estimony
fothers. nd
f
t s
completely
bsurd
to
say
his
sc.
hat
we do notknow uch
hings],
hent
hasto be admittedhat
not
nly
ur
wn
odily
enses,
ut hose fothers ave dded
normously
o our
knowledge
De
trin.
V. xii.
21).
In
this
complex
process
of
knowing
nd
willing
f
things
nd
events,
we
dimly esembleGod; for ll thesethings,whetherwe come to know them
by
our
own
experience
or
by
the
testimony
f
others,
we have
a word
within.We
resemble
God
only dimly,
because
for
his
part
He knows
things
n a
single
Word
and does not
know
things
because
they
are;
rather
hey
are because
He
knows them
De
trin. V. xii.
22).
Conclusion
Augustine
hardly
ever
pursued
epistemology,
ntology
r
philosophy
f
mindfor theirown sakes; on any topic,what we find n his thoughts
a consistent
hilosophical
ore,
with the
actual
working
ut of the
posi-
tion
shaped
decisively y Augustine's
articular
rientation
nd
develop-
ing agenda,
by
his current
nthusiasms,
nd
by
the
opponent
of the
moment.
Like the other
ater
works,
De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae dheres
to
a
consistent
ore
of
thought.
rom
De Libero
rbitrionwards
Augustine
consistently
eclines
o
give
a
definite
nswer o
the
question
of the
soul's
origin,
f
how God
creates souls.
He never
deviatesfrom
his
discovery
that the
soul
is immaterial
nd
immortal,
r from
he
assumption
hat
first ersonexperiences re constitutivef personal dentitynd have a
special
and immediate
ivenness
o
the self.He
in
factholds
consistently
that dream-assent
nd dream-consent
n
normal
cases
are not
morally
r
epistemologically
ignificant.
De
Natura
t
Origine
nimae
lso fits nto
a
general progression
rom
naïve,
proto-Cartesian
hilosophy
f mind
to an interest
n
the
dynam-
ics
of embodiment
nd the
conviction hat
self-knowledge
emands
an
ongoing
abor of
psychological
nd moral
archaeology
nd
rigorous hilo-
sophical
reflection.
he
simple
view of
self-presenting
tates hat
Augustine
exploits
n Contra cadémicosas
given
way
to the
position,
lreadyclearly
present
n
Confessiones
and
articulated
owerfully
n
De Trinitatehat
the
self
s not
ust
the
sum
of its
first-person
xperiences,
ut
also
the
locus
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 43/187
DREAM
ODIESANDDREAM AINS
249
of reflection pon its own experiences, nd that self-awarenessmerely
supplies
ssential ata for
elf-knowledge.
s a
result,
ugustine
s
increas-
inglyopen
to
the
suggestion
hat
n
various
ways
our
first-person
xpe-
riences
may
not be
the
experiences hey ppear
to be.
Augustine's esponse
to Vincentius
Victor,
ranky, opical
and
polemical though
t
is,
is
never-
theless
irmly
ixed
n
the
landscape
of
Augustine's
ater works.
Baton
Rouge,
Louisiana
Louisiana tate
University
Departmentf
Philosophy
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 44/187
Emotionsnd
Cognitions
Fourteenth-Century
iscussions
n thePassions
f
the oul
DOMINIK
PERLER
Abstragt
Medieval
philosophers
learly
ecognized
hat motions
re not
simply
raw
feelings"
ut
complex
mental tates hat
nclude
ognitive omponents. hey
analyzed
hese
omponents
othon the
sensory
nd
on the ntellectual
evel,
paying
articular
ttention
o thedifferent
ypes
f
cognition
hat re nvolved.
This
paper
focuses
n William
Ockham nd Adam
Wodeham,
wofourteenth-
century
uthorswho
presented
detailed
ccountof
"sensory assions"
nd
"volitional
assions".
t intends
o showthat hese
wo
philosophers
rovided
both
a structural
nd
a functional
nalysis
f
emotions,
.e.,
they xplained
thevarious lementsonstitutingmotions nd delineatedhecausal relations
between hese
lements.
ckham s well
as Wodeham
mphasized
hat sen-
sory
passions"
re not
only
based
upon
cognitions
ut include
cognitive
component
nd
are
therefore
ntentional.
n
addition,
hey ointed
ut that
"volitional
assions"
re based
upon
a
conceptualization
nd an evaluation
of
given objects.
This
cognitivistpproach
to emotions
nabled them
to
explain
he
complex henomenon
f emotional
onflict,
phenomenon
hat
has its
origin
n the
co-presence
f various
motions hat nvolve
onflicting
evaluations.
I
Suppose
that,
duringyour
childhood,
you
had a best friend
who was
very
close,
withwhom
you
shared
not
only
most of
your
time,
but
also most
of
your
secrets.
The two
of
you
were
inseparable
at school and went
through
ll the
stormy tages
of
adolescence
together.
ut
then,
one
day,
your
friend
uddenlydisappeared
without
ny explanation.
You
heard
rumors hat
he
had
gone
to
Australia,
ut
you
receivedno
message
from
her no phone call, no postcard,nothing.t tookyou yearsto come to
terms
with his
trange
ehavior.
Yet one
morning,
hen
you
were
about
to leave
your apartment,
ll of a sudden
she was
standing
t
your
door,
smiling
t
you
as
if
nothing
had
happened.
How
would
you
react?You
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also vailable
nline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 45/187
EMOTIONS
ND
COGNITIONS
251
would be in a complexemotionalstate, assume, and you would go
through
arious
tages.
First,
you might
eel sheer
pleasure
at
seeing
her,
a
pleasure
that would
immediately rigger
odily
actions like
running
toward
her and
embracing
er. But then
you
might
lso feel
anger.Why
did she leave
so
abruptly?
nd
why
did she show
up
after o
manyyears
without
warningyou?
Finally,you might
lso feel a bit
guilty.
After
ll,
you
could have done
something
o learn about
her whereabouts.You
neglected
o
keep
in
touch
as
much
as she did.
It is
quite easy
to
imagine
such
a
situation nd to
give
a detailed
description
f the
complex
motional tate
person
s
likely
o be confronted
with.
However,
t is far from
asy
to
provide
a
philosophical nalysis
f
this state.
n
such
an
analysis,
we
need to do
at least two
things.
irst,
we
ought
to
give
a structural
xplanation
of the emotional
tate, .e.,
we
need to indicatewhat kind
of
components
r elements
re to be
taken
intoaccount nd how these lements
re interrelated.
hus,
it
s
necessary
to delineatewhat we need to considerwhen we describe
person
as feel-
ing pleasure, anger,
and
guilt.
Does such
a
person
have mere
feelings,
comparable o sensationsikefeeling ungrynd thirsty,r does she have
mental tateswith
cognitive
ontent?And how can we characterize his
content?
econd,
it is also
necessary
o
provide
a
functional
xplanation
of the
complex
emotional
state,
spelling
out what
causes the various
components
nd what
they
cause
in
turn. Should we
say,
for
nstance,
that
seeing
an old friend auses
pleasure?
And should we
assume that
pleasure,
n
turn,
auses
an action ike
embracing?
Or
should a different
causal role be
assigned
to
pleasure?
Philosophers
n
the aterMiddle
Ages
tried
o
answer
ll
of these
ques-
tionsby providing oth a structural nd a functional nalysisof emo-
tions
or,
more
precisely,
f
"passions
of the
soul"
(passiones
nimae
,
as
they
used to call
the
mental
phenomena
a
person experiences
r
"undergoes"
when she is
in
an affectivetate.1 ince
most
fourteenth-century
uthors
workedwith an
Aristotelian
heory
f the
soul,
they
examined two lev-
els
when
analyzing assions.2
irst,
hey
urned o the
sensory
oul,
which
1
Forthe echnicalse of
the erm
passio",
ooted
n
Aristotelian
etaphysics,
ee
V.
Hirvonen,
assionsn Williamckham's
hilosophical
sychology
Dordrecht
004,
7-73.
2Ockhamtresseshat hese wo evelsrereallyndnot implyonceptuallyistinct;
see
Quodl.I,
q.
10
OTh
X,
156-161).
ll
referenceso Ockham's
orks
pply
o the
Opera
hilosophica= OPh)
nd
Opera
heologica= OTh),
d.
by
G. Gài
et
l.,
t.
Bonaventure,
N.Y.,
1967-1988.n the
metaphysical
rameworkf his
psychology,
ee M. McCord
Adams,
WilliamckhamNotre ame
1987,
54-64,
nd G.
J.
Etzkorn,
ckham's
iew
f
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 46/187
252
DOMINIK
ERLER
was dividedinto two parts: "cognitive" nd "appetitive".They investi-
gated
the
passions
we findon this evel and the causal
role
theyplay
in
our actions.
econd,
they
xamined he evel of
the ntellectual
oul,
which
they
lso divided nto a
"cognitive"
nd
an
"appetitive" art, sking gain
what
kind of
passions
are to be
found
there and how
they
differ rom
sensory assions.
n
their
view,
we are
utterly
nable to understand
as-
sions unless
we
analyze
the
relationship
etween
ognitive
nd
appetitive
parts
on each
level as well as the nteraction etween he two evels.
Only
then do
we
get
a
clear
picture
of
all the structural
lements,
nd
only
then can we
explain
the causal role of all the relevant lements.
In
light
of this architecture f
the
soul,
I
intend o examine how two
prominent
ourteenth-century
hilosophers,
illiam
Ockham and
his
pupil
Adam
Wodeham,
analyzed passions
on both levels.
t
goes
without
ay-
•
ing
that will not be
able to take nto account
all
the dimensions
f their
complex
explanatory
model.
I
will discuss
neithermoral
aspects
e.g.,
the
importance
ttached
o
higher-levelassions
or
he
development
f
virtues)
nor
theological
nes
(e.g.,
the role
passions play
in
the
theory
f beatific
vision).3 ince I am primarilynterestedn structuralnd causal aspects,
especially
n
the
way
later
medieval
philosophers
elatedelements
n
the
cognitive art
of the
soul to those
n
the
appetitive
art,
will focus
on
the
interplay
etween
these
parts
and on the
impact
t
has foran
expla-
nation of human
actions.
To avoid
misunderstandings,
should
point
out
that
speaking
bout
parts
of the
soul does not amount
to
introducing
arious homunculi r
separate
faculties.
Ockham
emphasizes
that intellect nd
will are not
different
ntitieswithin
he human soul.
Ontologically peaking,
hey
re
one and the same substancethat s capable of bringing bout different
statesor acts.
Thus,
the intellect s
nothing
ut the
intellectual oul
inso-
far s it
produces
ognitive
cts,
and
the
will s the
very
ame soul insofar
as it
produces
volitional
cts.4There
is
only
a
real
distinction
etween
intellectual
nd
sensory
oul,
not between
intellect
nd will.
In
giving
such
an
ontologically arsimonious
xplanation,
Ockham
clearly
uses his
"cleaver"
to cut
away
a
multiplicity
f entities
nd
really
distinct
arts.5
the
umanassions
n the
ight
f
his
Philosophicalnthropology
in: W. Vossenkuhl
nd
R. Schönbergereds.), ieGegenwartckhamsWeinheim990, 65-87.
3
For
comprehensive
ccountfboth
moralnd
heologicalspects,
eeS.
Knuuttila,
Emotionsn
Ancientnd
Medieval
hilosophy
Oxford
004,
h.4.
4
See
Reportatio
I,
q.
20
OTh
V,
435-6).
5
On
this
methodological
rinciple,
ee
J.
Boler,
ckham'sleaver
n:Franciscan
tudies,
45
1985),
19-44.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 47/187
EMOTIONS ND
COGNITIONS
253
It is therefore ardlyadequate to investigate he relationship etween
various
parts
understood s
special
entities,
ven
if
ones uses
the
expres-
sions
"intellect" nd
"will",
as
Ockham
(and
following
im
Wodeham)
himself oes. The
basic
questions
hould ratherbe how
intellectual
nd
volitional cts re
interrelatednd how
they
re
based
upon
acts
brought
about
by
the
sensory
oul.
II
If we want to understand he activities f the
sensory
oul,
we need to
look
at
the
way
Ockham
explains
sensory ognition notitia
ensitiva).
n
his
view,
this
type
of
cognition
provides
nformation bout
particular,
material
hings
nd can be
either
ntuitive r
abstractive,
epending
on
the senses
that are
involved.6
f
the external
enses
are
activated,
nd if
they
grasp
something resent
o them s
present
nd
existent,
n
intuitive
cognition
ccurs.
f,
however,
nly
the
imagination
s
an
internal
ense
is
active and
apprehends
thing
without
aking
notice of
its
existence,
there smere abstractiveognition. his distinctionan be illustrated ith
a
simpleexample.
Suppose
there s an
apple
in
front f
you
and
you
see
it as
an
existent
pple.
In
that
ase,
you
have a
sensory
ntuitive
ognition.
If
there s
no
apple
physically
resent
o
you,
but
you
are
terribly
un-
gry
and visualize an
apple
in
your
imagination,
hen
you
have
nothing
more than a
sensory
bstractive
ognition.
Normally,
uch an
abstractive
cognition
presupposes
n
earlier
ntuitive
ne,
for
you
cannot
visualize
an
apple
if
you
have not
already
seen
one.
So
far,
the
intellecthas not
been
involved
n
the
cognitive
process.
There is intellectual ognitionnotitiantellectivaonlywhen the intellect
starts
orming
mental
terms, .e.,
concepts,
nd when
it
apprehends
he
objectby
means of
these erms.7
ere,
Ockham
again
distinguishes
etween
intuitive nd
abstractive
ognition.8
ntuitive
ognition
ccurs
when
the
6
See
Reportatio
I,
q.
12-13
OTh
V,
256-61);
eportatio
II,
q.
3
(OTh
VI,
114-25).
he
thesis
hat
ensory
ntuitive
ognitionrovides
he
basis or
urther
ognition
s
already
stated
n
Ordinatio
,
prologusOTh
,
25).
7
On
Ockham's
dentificationf
concepts
ith
mental
erms,
horoughly
iscussed
y
recentommentators,ee C. Panaccio,esmots,es onceptst es hoses.a sémantiquee
Guillaume
'Occamt e
nominalisme
'aujourd'hui
Montréal-Paris
991,
ndD.
Perler,
heorien
der
ntentionalität
m
Mittelalter
Frankfurt.
M.
2002,
61-85.
8
See
Ordinatio
,
prologus
OTh
,
30-3)
nd
Quodl.
,
q.
5
(OTh
X,
495-500).
n
this
istinction,
idely
iscussedn
recent
econdary
iterature,
ee the
oncise
nalysis
provided
y
C.
Michon,
ominalisme.
a
théoriee a
signification
'Occam
Paris
994, 08-26,
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 48/187
254
DOMINIK
ERLER
intellect pprehendsa presentand existent hingas an existent hing.
More
precisely,
ckham
claims that
by
means of this
cognition
one
can
know whether
r not there
s
a
thing
uch
that,
f
there s
a
thing,
he
intellect
mmediatelyudges
that it is and
knows with
evidence
that it
is."9
Thus,
an intuitive
ntellectual
ognition
s
always
followed
y
a
judg-
ment bout
the existence
r non-existence
f the
cognitive
bject.
Abstractive
intellectual
ognition,
n the
other
hand,
is not followed
y
such
a
judg-
ment.
In
that
case,
the intellect
abstracts
from the
existence
or non-
existence
nd from
therconditions
which
contingentlypply
to
a
thing
or are
predicated
of a
thing."10
his means that fI
simply
onceiveof
an
apple,
I
do not
udge
about
the actual
existence f
an
apple.
I
merely
grasp
a certain
cognitive
ontent.
This distinction
etween
ensory
nd intellectual
ognition
s
crucially
important
or
n
understanding
f the
passions,
because
Ockham
empha-
sizes
that it
is
sensory ognition,
not
the external
object
or
intellectual
cognition
f
this
object,
that
immediately
auses
passions
such
as
plea-
sure,
desire,
and sadness.11
hus,
when
I
meet
an old
friend,
t is not
thefriend erselfrmythinkingbouther,butmyseeingher thatcauses
pleasure
n me. Before
activate
my
intellect
nd,
accordingly,
efore
form
r use
any
concepts,
my
seeing
mmediately riggers
passion.12
f
course,
Ockham
acknowledges
hat
n
mostcases
sense
and
intellect
oop-
erate
so that
the ntellect
works
upon
the
material
rovided
by
the
senses
and
comes
up
with
an intellectual
ognition.
But he
insists
n the
fact
that
sensory ognition
s not
necessarily
ollowed
y,
or transformed
nto,
an intellectual
ne,
as
becomes
clear
when
you
consider
nfants
who do
and E.
Karger,
ckham'
Misunderstood
heory
f
ntuitivend
Abstractive
ognition
in:
P. V.
Spade
ed.),
he
ambridge
ompanion
oOckham
Cambridge-New
ork
999,
04-26.
9
Ordinatio
,
prologus
OTh
,
31):
.
notitia
ntuitiva
ei st alis
otitia
irtute
uius
potest
ciri
trum
es it
el
non,
ta
quod
i res
it,
tatim
ntellectus
udicat
arn sse
t
evidenter
ognoscit
arn
sse
.."
10
Ordinatio
,
prologus
OTh
,
31):
Aliter
ccipitur
ognitio
bstractiva
ecundum
uod
abstrahit
b
exsistentia
t
non xsistentia
t b
aliis ondicionibus
uae
ontingenter
ccidunt
reivel
praedicantur
e re."
11
ee
Quaestiones
ariae,
.
6,
art.
(OTh
VIII,
251);
Quodl
II,
q.
17
OTh
X,
268-
72);
Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
3
(OTh
,
420).
12
Ockham
akes
t lear hat
he
xternal
bject
annot
e more han
mediate
ause.
Quaestionesariaeq. 6,art. (OThVIII,252): Etper onsequensbiectumpprehensum
nullo
modo st
ausa
mmediatastarum
assionum.
ed olum
i sit
ausa
...],
est olum
causa
mediata
espectu
llius
assionis
t solum
ausa
ausae
uatenus
aturaliter
ausat
cognitionem
ntuitivam
n
sensu
t
earn
onservât,
uae
cognitio
ausat
mmediate
as-
siones
raedictas
odo
raedicto."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 49/187
EMOTIONS
NDCOGNITIONS
255
notyetuse conceptsbut nevertheless ave sensory ognitions ausingpas-
sions
e.g., seeing
the mother r
tasting
milk
causes
pleasure).13
t is
even
more
obvious
n
the
case
of brute nimals. Ockham mentions
he famous
case of the
sheep
that fleeswhen
seeing
a
wolf.14 he mere act of see-
ing
terrifieshe
sheep
and makes it flee.
Thus,
there can be a
sensory
cognition ausing passion
without he
presence
f
any
ntellectual
ctivity.
This claim
inevitably
aises the
question
of how we should
understand
this
type
of
cognition.
What
exactly
does
it
mean
that we
(as
well as
brute
animals)
can see
something
without
making
use of
concepts?
Unfortunately,
ckham does not
give
a detailed answerto this
question.
Modern readers
may
mmediately
aise the
objection
hat t
hardly
makes
sense
to
speak
about
pre-conceptual eeing.15
f
seeing
s
more than the
mere
reception
f
sensory nputs,
t
always
nvolves n
explicit
r
implicit
use of
concepts:
we
always
see
something
s
something
nd
thereby
ate-
gorize
the
perceptualobject.
For
instance,
you
see the
red,
round
thing
in
front f
you
as an
apple
or
simply
s a
red,
round
thing.
That is
why
you
make use
of
concepts
n
the
very
act of
seeing
and not
in
a
later
act of intellectualpprehension. o, Ockham's claim that thereare pre-
conceptual ensory
cts of
cognition ausing
passions
before he intellect
provides
oncepts
ooks
questionable.
Although
t is
tempting
o
argue
in
this
way,
I
do not think
that
Ockham's claim
should be
dismissed o
easily.
Let
me
try
o
explain
this
by
probing
the
examples
he
discusses.The
most
illuminating
ases are
those
of animals that
have mere
sensory ognition.16
hen a
sheep
sees
a
wolf,
t
apprehends
the
so-called "external
sensible
qualities"
of the
wolf,
.e.,
its
color,
its
shape,
its
size, etc.,
and it
immediately ognizes
that a thinghavingall thesepropertiess dangerous.Ockham empha-
sizes
thatthe
sheep
does not
apprehend
he
concepts
of
color,
shape,
etc.
It
simplyperceives
ome
patches
that
happen
to have a
certain
color,
shape,
etc. Nor
does it
graspdangerousness
r
hostility
s a
special
quality
13
nfantsre
mentioned
n
Reportatio
V,
q.
14
OTh
VII,
314),
nd n
Quodl,
q.
15
(OTh
X,
84),
where
ckham
tates:
puer
idet
ensibilitert non
ntellectualiter
He even
ssumes
hat
hey
ave
ome orm
f
non-intellectual
udgment.
hey udge
that
omething
s
agreeable
r
disagreeable
ithout
sing
he
onceptsagreeable"
nd
"disagreeable".
14 ee Ordinatio, dist. ,q. 2 (OTh I, 410-1).
15
n
the
current
ebate,
.
McDowell,
ind
ndWorld
Cambridge,
ass.,
1994,
46-65,
akes hisine n
his
ritique
f heoriesf
pre-conceptual
erception.
16
ee
Reportatio
V,
q.
14
OTh
VII,
314-5),
nd Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
2
(OTh
I,
410-1).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 50/187
256
DOMINIK
ERLER
thatwouldbe added to the sensible ualities.Criticizingome of hispre-
decessors,
mong
them Thomas
Aquinas,
Ockham
holds that
there
s
no
special
intentio
as claimed
by
these
authors,17
hat
could be
grasped.
Dangerousness
s
simply
what results
rom
thing
isplaying
ertain
ual-
ities. That is
why
the
sheep grasps
the
sensible
qualities
of the wolfand
its
property
f
being dangerous
t
the same time.
n
addition,
he
sheep
is also
capable
of
distinguishing
he wolf from
other
thingsdisplaying
other
ensible
ualities.
Ockham even claims
that the
sheep
is
capable
of
making
ome kind of
udgment, lthough
he
hastens o add that t does
not form
full-fledgedudgment
hat would involve he use of
concepts.
The
sensory
udgment
s a mere act of
recognizing
nd
locating
a cer-
tain
pattern
of sensible
qualities.
When
performing
his
act,
the
sheep
sees the wolf as
something,
in
the
sense that t sees it as a
specific
undle
of
colors,
and it is
capable
of
discriminating
his
bundle from nother
one,
say
from
he one it sees when
looking
at
a
fellow
heep.
Yet it is
utterly
nable to see the wolf
as a
wolf,
imply
ecause it cannot
apply
an
appropriate oncept
to
what it sees.
In light f thespecific apacity hatan animalwithmeresensory og-
nition
has,
we can conclude that this
type
of
cognition
s
indeed
pre-con-
ceptual,
but neverthelessmore than the
reception
of an
unstructured
stream f
sensory nputs.
t has a distinct ontent hat
enables
an animal
to
distinguish
ifferent
hings
n
the
materialworld.This is
important
or
an
understanding
f the
genesis
of
sensory assions,
for t is
precisely
he
sensory ognitionhaving
a
distinct ontent
that causes them. Ockham
says
with
respect
o the
fleeing heep:
"Then
I
ask: what could cause this
act
of
desiring
o flee?Not the
hostility,
or
there s no such
thing
here,
and what does not existcannot be a cause of anything. herefore, his
act is caused
by
a
cognition
f
the
external
ensible
qualities
. ."18So it
is the
act of
seeing,
not the
thing
tself r a
mysteriousntity
alled
"hos-
tility",
hat causes
a
passion.
This
occurs
naturally,
ithout
ny
intellec-
tual ntervention. ckham
acknowledges
hatnot
only
nimals
experience
such
passions.
Human
beings
have them as well. That is
why
he claims
that human
pleasure
and desire are often
naturally
aused
by sensory
17 ee Thomas quinas,ummaheologiaeed.byP.Caramello,urin-Rome952, ars
I,
q.
78,
rt.
,
corp.
18
Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
2
(OTh
I,
411):
Tunc
uaero: quo
causareturlle ctus
appetitivusugiendi?
on b
inimicitia,
uia
nulla
st
bi,
t
non-ensullius
otest
sse
causa;
gitur
ausatur
cognitione
ensibiliumxteriorum
.."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 51/187
EMOTIONS NDCOGNITIONS
257
cognitions,without herebeing any use of concepts.To illustrate his
point
with modern
example,
we
may say:
when
I
see and
smell
a bou-
quet
of fresh
flowers,
t
is not
the use
of
the
concepts
"flowers"
nd
"fresh"
nd,
hence,
not the
conceptualization
f
the
present
ituation hat
makes me feel
pleasure.
Rather,
the
simple
fact that
experience njoy-
able sensible
qualities
causes
my
pleasure.
This has a
consequence
for an
explanation
of
how
passions
can be
controlled r corrected.
o
I
have
direct ontrol ver
my pleasure
when
I
see and smellfresh lowers?
ardly,
Ockham
would
respond.
he flowers
naturally
ause a certain
type
of
sensory ognition
n
me,
whichin turn
naturally
auses
pleasure.
cannot dictate to
my
senses not
to
provide
a
certain isual and
olfactoryognition,
nd not to cause
pleasure.
Similarly,
the
sheep
cannot decide not to be terrified hen it
sees the wolf. The
passion
arises
naturally.
However,
this
does not mean
that we have no
control
whatsoever ver our
sensory
passions.
Ockham
carefully
oints
out that human
beings,
unlikebrute
animals,
can exercise certain
on-
trol
over
them,
because
they
are
capable
of
bringing
bout acts of the
will. But these acts cannot directly hange or influence assions. They
are
only
capable
of
producing
certain
disposition
hat
influences he
way
we see
things.
Or,"
Ockham
continues,
perhaps
the act of
the
will
is a
mediate cause with
respect
o these
passions,
because it
is the cause
of
the cause. For it is the
partial
mmediatecause of an
apprehension
that
precedes
such an act
called
'passion'."19
This claim
can
easily
be
illustrated.
uppose
that decide to
go
to
a
flower
hop
where will
be
exposed
to
exquisite
cents
nd colors.
n
that
case,
my
decision
an
act
of the
will)
is
a
mediate
ause of
pleasure,
because it makes
me
go
to a
place where willacquirea certain ensory ognition. his cognitionwill
then
cause
pleasure.
But the act of the will
can
by
no
means
function
as
the immediate
ause of
pleasure.
Were
I
exposed
to
rotten
flowers,
could
not command
myself:
eel
pleasure
No matterhow
much
I
want
a
sensory
assion,
cannot have it
unless have
previously
ad
the nec-
essary
ensory ognition.20
The fact hat
acts of the will can
be an
indirect ause
showsthat
there
is an
important
ifference etween
human
beings
and
brute animals.
19
Reportatio
II,
q.
12
OTh
VI,
411):
Vel
forte
pse
ctus oluntatis
st ausamedi-
ata
respectu
llarum
assionum,
uia
st ausa
ausae. st nim
ausa
mmediata
artialis
apprehensionis
raecedentis
alem
ctum
ui
vocatur
assio."
20
Note
hat his
ognition
oesnotneed
o be
direcdy
aused
y
n
external
bject.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 52/187
258
DOMINIK ERLER
When a sheep sees a wolf, t cannot want to avoid the passionoffear,
simply
ecause it lacks volitional cts. It
cannot even want to
be
in
a sit-
uation where it would not be scared. We human
beings,
on the other
hand,
can want to
expose
ourselves o situations
where we have different
sensory
ognitions
nd,
consequently,
ifferent
assions.
n
addition,
we
can use our intellect
n
order to conceive
of
one
and
the same
situation
in
different
ays. Suppose
you
suffer rom
wolf-phobiaust
like a
sheep,
but
you
learn that there are
nice,
tame wolves
n
the circus.
Then,
you
can want to
go
to the circus so that
you
will have a
sensory ognition
of a wolf that will be
shaped
by
what
you
have learned. That
is,
you
will no
longer
see the wolf
as a
mere bundle of sensible
qualities
that
scares
you.
You will see it as
a
tamed animal.
This
may
make
you
over-
come
your
wolf-phobia.
o,
unlike the unfortunate
heep, you
can do
something
o
change
your
passions.
This is an
important
oint
n
Ockham's
theory.
While
not
being
under the immediate ontrol f acts of the
will,
passions
are not out of control ither.We can forceourselves o
an
édu-
cation
entimentale
a) by exposing
urselves o situations
n
whichwe
acquire
certain ensory ognitionsnd (b) byconceptualizinghesebasiccognitions.
At this
point
someone
might
voice a fundamental
bjection against
Ockham's claim that
sensory ognitions
ause
passions.
Why
does he not
admitthat
objects
n
the world
play
this
ausal role? Could he not
appeal
to his famous
ontological
razor or "cleaver" and claim that the wolf
immediately
auses
fear when it is
present
to
a
person
or to
a
sheep?
No
doubt,
Ockham would
reject
his
uggestion
ecause it misses he cru-
cial
point
that
n
object
n
itself
imply
riggers
ur senses
nothing
more.
In
some
passages,
he
presents
n
explicit rgument ndorsing
he thesis
that it is the sensory ognition,not the externalobject,thatplays the
causal
role.21
f
the
object
caused
a
passion,
he
says,
the
passion
would
disappear
s soon as the
object
would be removed r
destroyed.
owever,
it
is
possible
for a
passion
to
persist
fter
he removal or destruction f
the
object. (Suppose
you
see a wild wolf
n
the dark
and are
terribly
scared.
Then the wolf
disappears.
Yet
you
are still haken
by
fearbecause
you
still
ave the
strong
mpression
f
something ig,
dark,
nd
threatening.
Since tcan also be abstractive,.e.,an act of magination,t can be caused ythe
sensory
oul tself.or
xample,
canforce
myself
o come
p
with
n
magination
f
delicious
pple,
which
ill ause
leasure.
21
ee
Quaestiones
ariae
q.
6,
art.
(OTh
VIII,
251-2);
uodl.
ll,
q.
17
OTh
IX,
268-9).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 53/187
EMOTIONS
ND
COGNITIONS
259
It is thepersistingontent fyour previous ct of seeingthat maintains
your
fear.)
Ockham even adduces
an
argument
x
hypothesi
o corroborate
this claim:
"If
God
preserved
he
seeing
of
a
pleasurable
or
saddening
object
and
destroyed
he
object
of that
act of
seeing,
he
pleasure
or
sad-
ness
in
the
appetite following
the sense of
sight
could
immediately
be
caused,
as is clear from
xperience."22 ppealing
to
experiencemay
be difficult
n
this
case,
but the crucial
point
is
clear.
A
passion
can be
caused even without he
presence
of an
external
object;
therefore,
he
external
bject
cannot
be the immediate ause of a
passion.
This is an
important
hesisthat should not be
neglected.
n Ockham's
view,
pas-
sions should not be
explained
n
a
crude behaviorist
way,
because
it is
not
simply
he stimulus
temming
rom n external
bject
that causes a
passion
as a
reaction.
Rather,
our
sensory ognitionplays
the decisive
causal role. To
put
it
in
a
nutshell,
we
may say
that t is
not the world
itself,
ut our
sensory
ognitive
ttitude oward he world
thatcauses
pas-
sions. This is
why passions
are
"cognitively enetrable",
s
modern
psy-
chologists
nd
philosophers
f
mind would
say.23
hifts
n
the
way
we
cognizetheworld mmediatelyffect ur passions.
Now one
may
still
wonder
n
what sense
passions
are
"cognitively
en-
etrable".Does
that mean that we first eed
to have a
sensory
ognition
so thatwe can
acquire
a
passion
that,
aken
n
itself,
s
a
mere
sensation?
Or
does it mean that we
need to have a
sensory ognition
o that
we
can
acquire
a
passion
that has
in
itself
cognitive
ontent?This
ques-
tion
arisesbecause
in
his discussion
f
sensory assions,
Ockham mentions
not
ust pleasure
and
desire,
but also
pain.24
et
pain
seems to be a
state
without
cognitive
ontent.
Using
modern
terminology,
ne could
say
thatpain has a certain henomenal uality itfeels certainwayto have,
say,
a
headache),
but not
a
cognitive
ontent
a
headache is
not about
something
nd does not
represent
certain
object
or
quality
in
the
world).25
f
Ockham treats
ain along
withother
ensory assions,
t
seems
22
Quaestiones
ariae,
.
6,
art.
(OTh
VIII,
251-2):
Si
etiam eus
onservaretisionem
alicuiusbiecti
electabilisel ristabilis
tdestrueretbiectum
llius
isionis,
otest
tatim
causari electatioel
ristiia
n
appetituequente
isum,
icut
atet er
xperientiam."
23
borrowhis
xpression
rom
.
Pylyshyn,
omputation
nd
ognition
Cambridge,
ass.
1984.
24
Pain s the
passion
e
discusses ost
xtensively
n
Quodl.
II,
q.
17
(OTh
IX,
269-70).
25
This
s,
of
ourse,
controversiallaim
hatwould
ot e
unanimouslyccepted
n
the
ontemporary
ebate.t
is
usually
iscusseds "the
henomenological
heory",
or
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 54/187
260
DOMINIK
ERLER
as ifhe werereducing ll passionsto mere sensations hat ack a cognitive
content.
Tempting
as this
interpretation
ay
be,
it would not be a correct
account
of Ockham's
theory.
n
his
explanation
of various
sensory
as-
sions,
he
makes t clear
thatmostof them re about
omething,
nd there-
fore have
a
cognitive
ontent.He
states,
for
instance,
hat
pleasure
is
about
something
resent,
whereas desire and avoidance are
about some
thing
hat s not
present
nd not
possessed.26
his
clearly
hows
that he
takes
these
passions
to be intentional
tates:
hey
re directed
oward
pre-
sentor
non-present
bjects.
Even
pain
is intentionaln his view.27 r to
be
more
precise,
pain
as
a
passionate
ttitude oward
omething
ad that
affectshe
body
s intentional.
ckham
carefully istinguishesain,
under-
stood
in
this
sense,
from
pain
understood
s a mere
feeling.28
herefore,
it would be erroneous
o
say
that Ockham considers
assions
to be non-
intentional
ensations r
moods. Most of
them are
fully ognitive:
not
only
are
they
caused
by sensory ognitions,
hey
also have
a
cognitive
content
n
themselves.
Ill
Sensory
ognition
s
the
starting
oint
for
every ognitive
ctivity
nd the
first ause of
passions.
Yet it
is clear that human
beings
also have
an
intellectual
oul, which,
ust
like the
sensory
oul,
can
bring
about
cog-
nitive
cts
so-called
intellectual
cts")
and
appetitive
cts
so-called
voli-
tional
cts").
This
is
precisely
what
distinguishes
uman
beings
from rute
animals,
which re
only
endowed
with
sensory
oul.
Since human
beings
can have higher-levelcts,Ockhamintroducespassionsof thewill" that
play
a decisive
ole
n his
theory
f emotions.29
is most xtensive
iscussion
instance
y
P. Smith
ndO. R.
Jones,
he
hilosophy
f
MindAn ntroduction
Cambridge-
NewYork
986,
93-206.
26
Quaestiones
ariae,
.
6,
art.
(OTh
VIII,
256).
bid.
OTh
VIII,
252),
he
says
hat
desire
nd voidance
re
"respectu
biectorumbsentium
t
nonhabitorum".
27
Quodl.
ll,
q.
17
OTh
X,
271):
.
quando
st
electatioel
dolor e
aliquo
biecto,
cessâtctus
esiderandi."
ckham
xplains
he ransition
romne
passion
o
another
y
referring
o the
bject
f he
assion.
f
the
bject
f
desire,
hich asnot een
resent,
suddenlyecomesresent,esireeasesnd sreplacedypleasureif he bjectsgood)
or
pain
if
he
bject
s
bad).
his
xplanation
hows
hat
assions
redefined
ith
espect
to a certain
bject.
28
ee
Quodl.
ll,
q.
17
OTh
X,
269).
29
He
explicitlypeaks
bout
assions,
or
nstance
n
Quodl.
I,
q.
17
OTh
X,
187):
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 55/187
EMOTIONS
NDCOGNITIONS
261
of thesepassionscan be found n a contextthatmay look strange o
modern
readers,
but
was of
great mportance
n
the later Middle
Ages,
namely
the debate
about
enjoyment
fruitio). ccording
to traditional
Christian
doctrine,
God is the
highest
nd final
object
the
only object
human
beings
njoy
for ts own
sake,
not with
regard
o
something
lse.30
The most
perfect njoyment
will be reached
in
the beatific
ision,
when
human
beings contemplate
God
in,
and
for,
himself.
This
theological
thesis
immediately
raises the
philosophical question
of what kind of
emotional tate
enjoyment
s.
Given that the
human
soul,
separated
from
the
body,
can have
it,
it is
certainly
ot a
sensorypassion.
And
given
that
t is not
implemented
n
the
body,
it does not
bring
about
bodily
actions.
So,
what
is
it,
and how
is
it caused? These
questions sparked
a
general
discussion bout the structure nd the causes of
non-sensory
passions.
All
philosophers
nd
theologians
nvolved
n
this debate
agreed
that
enjoyment,
nlike
sensory
leasure,
s a
conceptualized
ormof
passion.
If
someone
enjoys
God's
presence,
ne loves
him
as God
categorizing
im
as thehighestnd mostdesirablebeing.Given thisobviousfact, ne may
be
tempted
o
say
that
enjoyment
nd other forms f
higher-level
as-
sions are
an
intellectual ffair. hat
is,
the intellectual
oul,
by
grasping
an
object
and
conceptualizing
t,
brings
about
all
these
passions
in
its
cognitive
ctivities.
"... dico
primo uodpassiones
unt
n
volúntate,
uia
amor t
spes,
imort
gaudium
suntn
volúntate,
uae
tarnenommuniter
onunturassiones.
imiliterelectadottris-
titia untnvolúntate,uaeetiam unt assiones;giturtc."Ockham asbyno means
the irst edievaluthor
o
speak
bout
assions
fthewill.He followed
cotus,
ho
already
resented
detailed
nalysis
f
hese
assions,
nd hiftedhe ocus romhe en-
sory
o
the
olitionalevel. his rucialhifts
analyzedy
.
Knuuttila,
motionsnAncient
andMedieval
hilosophy
n. 3),
265-71,
nd O.
Boulnois,
uns
cot: xiste-t-iles
assions
e
la volonté
,
n:B.
Besnier,
.-F.Moreau nd
L. Renault
eds.),
es
assionsntiques
tmédié-
valesParis
003,
81-95.
n
the ise fvoluntarist
sychology
n
general,
ee B.
Kent,
Virtues
f
heWill. he
ransformationf
thicsn he ate hirteenth
enturyWashington
.C.
1995.
30
eter ombardtateshis
hesis
nthe
ery
irstfhis 8
distinctions,
here erefers
to the
Augustinián
istinctionetween
njoymentfruitio)
nd
use
usus):
od s the
nly
object
njoyed
or
ts wn
ake,
otused or
omething
lse.Given his lassicalistinc-
tion, ll medievalheologiansommentingn theSentencesealtwith hequestionf
whatkind f emotionaltate
njoyment
s. On the
theologicalackground
nd its
impact
n
philosophical
ebates,
ee A. S.
McGrade,
ckhamn
Enjoyment
Towardsn
Understanding
f
ourteenth
enturyhilosophy
nd
sychology
in:
The Review f
Metaphysics,
33
1981),
06-28.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 56/187
262
DOMINIK
ERLER
Ockhamfirmlypposessuchan intellectualistpproach,holdingnstead
that
"enjoying
s an act of the
will alone."31He
acknowledges
hat
con-
ceptualization
lays
a decisiverole.
But
in his
view,
this
does not amount
to
claiming
hat
enjoyment
s
nothing
but a
special
formof intellectual
activity.
ather,
t is
the will that
brings
bout an act
of
enjoyment
hen
the
intellect
resents
certain
object.
Thus,
when a
person
thinks bout
God,
he or
she
performs
n act of
enjoyment
hat
s a distinct olitional
act.
This
separation
f two
acts seems to
hint t
a
perfect
nalogy
between
"lower"
and
"higher"
passions.
As we
have
seen,
on the
sensory
evel,
thereneeds to be a
sensory ognition,
which,
however,
s not in itself
passion.
Rather,
a
sensory ognition
auses
sensory assion.
Similarly,
one
may
say
that on
the
higher
evel,
there needs
to be
a
conceptual
cognition,
hich,
aken
n
itself,
s not
yet
a
passion.
Rather,
conceptual
cognition
auses
passion,
.e.,
a volitional
ct such as
enjoyment.
Although
t
is
tempting
o construct
uch
an
analogy,
t
would not
express
Ockham's
opinion.
He
explicitly
ejects
he claim
that the
intel-
lect causes
passions
of the
will,
claiming
nstead:
". . . when
the intellect
presents n enjoyableobjectto the intellect
in a
clear
or
in an obscure
way,
in
particular
r
in
general
,
the will can
actively roduce
an
act
of
enjoyment
with
respect
to
that
object,
and this
happens
on natural
grounds."32
uite
obviously,
ckham
emphasizes
hat there
s no
simple
causal
mechanism
hat
makes the
will come
up
with
a certain
passion
whenever he
intellect
elivers
particular
ognition.33
he
will can
pro-
duce
an act
of
enjoyment,
ut
it need not.
Lurking
n
the
background
f
this thesis
s Ockham's
famousdoctrine
of
the
liberty
f the
will:
the will can
act
in
conformity
ith
objects
and
judgmentspresentedby the intellect, ut it does not have to.34 ven if
31
Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
2
(OTh
,
395):
.
primo
stendum
st
uod
frui
st ctus
solius
oluntatis."
32
Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
2
(OTh
,
397):
. dico
primo uod
biecto
ruibili
stenso
voluntati
er
ntellectum
ive
lare ive bscure
ive
n
particulari
ive
n
universali,
otest
voluntas
ctivelicere
ctum
ruitionis,
t hoc
x
puris
aturalibus,
irca
llud biectum."
33
Ockham
learlyejects
he
hesis,
efended
y,
mong
thers,
quinas
see
his
criptum
superrimům
ententiarum,
d.
by
P.
Mandonnet,
aris
929,
ist.
,
q.
1.,
rt. ad
1),
hat
the
will
lways
ollowshe
ntellect.
34
Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
2
(OTh
,
399):
Sed
voluntas
espectu
uiuscumque
biecti
liberetcontingentergit,giturimpliciterepotentiaua bsolutaotestessareb actu
suo."
ee also
bid.,
.
6
(OTh
,
503);Reportatio
II,
q.
1
(OTh
VI,
355);Reportatio
V,
q.
16
OTh
VII,
350).
For
concise
nalysis
f he o-called
iberty
f
ndifference,
ee
M. McCord
dams,
ckham
n
Will,
ature,
nd
Morality
in:P.
V.
Spade
ed.),
he
ambridge
Companion
o
Ockham
n.
8),
245-72.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 57/187
EMOTIONS
NDCOGNITIONS
263
the intellect onceivesofan objectas something ood and desirable, he
will
s
free
not o
accept
it
and,
consequently,
ot o
enjoy
t.
In
fact,
he
will has three
options:
t
can
accept
it,
not
accept
it,
or take
a
neutral
stance. For that
reason,
enjoyment
s not
automatically
aused
by
an
intellectual
pprehension.
When such
a
passion
arises,
t
requires
ts own
cause: the will.35
Now one
might
wonderhow the structure
f a volitional ct of
enjoy-
ment s
to be
understood. ince Ockham often
mphasizes
hat this act
is
distinct rom
n
intellectual
ctivity,
t
can
hardly
display
he
very
ame
structure.s it an act that has a mere
phenomenal
quality, omparable
to
a
good feeling?
Or
is it
an
act that also
comprises cognitive
om-
ponent,
ven
though
t differs rom n
intellectual ct? To answer these
questions,
we need to look at how Ockham
explains
the
relationship
between n act of
enjoyment
r a more
mundane
act
of ove
(
dilectioand
an act of
pleasure
delectatio
.
Criticizing
ome of
his
contemporaries,mong
them Peter
Auriol,
he
points
out that there s a
real distinction etween
these two acts. That
is,
a
loving
person
who feels
pleasure
has two
acts:
(i) an intentional ct of lovingdirected oward a certainpersonor state
of
affairs,
nd
(ii)
a
non-intentionalct of
experiencing leasure.
The rea-
son forthis distinctions
quite simple:
therecan be an act of
love
with-
out there
being
an
act of
pleasure.36
ckham adduces a
colorful
xample
to
illustrate his thesis.
A
devil can love
to seduce
a
human
being
and
make
him
sin,
but he does
not
experience ny
pleasure
n
this
despica-
ble
deed. He
has,
as it
were,
a
cool-hearted ove.37 his
example
shows
that an act of love is
neither dentical
to,
nor
necessarily
ccompanied
by,
an
act that has a certain
phenomenalquality.
t is
not
simply
n
act
of "feeling ood". Rather,an act of love (or in the case of love of God:
an
act
of
enjoyment)
s an act that s about
omething
nd can be
identified
through
ts content.This
content
may
be characterized
n
various
ways,
both as
being propositional
nd
non-propositional.
hus,
the devil's act
of
love has the content hat he
human
eing
hould in
whereas a human
35
t
should e noted hat
his
ppeal
o a distinct
ause oesnot nvolven
ontolog-
ical
commitmento a
spooky
ntity
alled thewill". s
pointed
ut bove
see
n.
4),
Ockham oesnot
ntroducehewill s an
entity
r
faculty
hatwould e
really
istinct
fromhe ntellect.heexpressionthewill" salwayso be understoods "the ntellec-
tual oul nsofar
s it
produces
olitional
cts". here s
only
n
ontological
ommitment
to
variousctsnot o
various
arts,
f he
oul.
36
ee
Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
3
(OTh
,
407).
37
ee Ordinatio
,
dist.
,
q.
3
(OTh
,
408).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 58/187
264
DOMINIK
ERLER
being'sact ofenjoyment implyhas the contentGod.No matterhow the
content s structured
in
a
"complex"
or a
"simple" way,
as
Ockham
would
say),
an
act of
love
always
has a
content,
nd is therefore o be
understood s
a
cognitive
ct.
An
act of
pleasure,
on the other
hand,
is
a
mere
feeling
hat
may
or
may
not
go along
with
the
cognitive
ct.
IV
So
far,
t has become clear
that volitional
passions
such
as
enjoyment
and love are not
only
based
upon
cognitive
cts,
but are themselvesnten-
tional
acts with
a
cognitive
ontent.But
how
then can
we
distinguish
them from
imple
ntellectual cts?
What,
for
nstance,
s
the difference
between
he mere act of
thinking
bout God and
loving
God,
if
t is not
just
a
phenomenal uality
hat
necessarily oes
along
with he second
act
and characterizes
t? t looks
as
if
the
cognitive pproach
Ockham takes o
the volitional
assions
risks
ssimilating
hem
ompletely
o intellectualcts.
In
light
of
this
difficulty,
t
is not
surprising
hat Ockham's
contem-
poraries and successorsanimatedlydiscussedthe question of how we
shouldcharacterize
he structure
f a volitional
assion.
Adam
Wodeham,
Ockham's
pupil
and
secretary,
eals with
this
problem
n
a
very
detailed
study.38
ollowing
his
teacher,
he subscribes o the thesis
hat
enjoyment
and love are
acts of the
will,
which are not
to be identified
with or
reduced
to intellectual
cts. He
unmistakablyejects
he ntellectualist
osi-
tion,
claiming
that
"the first
ognition
f
an
enjoyable object,
be it
an
intuitive r
an
abstractive
ognition,
s
really
distinct
rom n
enjoyment
of that
object,
and
vice
versa,
an
enjoyment
from this
cognition."39
Wodeham acknowledges, owever, hat ntellectual cts are necessary or
the
genesis
of
passions.
f
someone
had no idea whatsoever
f
God,
they
could
clearly
ave
no love
of God. This fact hows
hat
ognitions
rought
about
by
the
ntellect
lay
the
ndispensable
ole of
a
partial
ause.
However,
it
by
no means
proves
hat
hey
re the total r
unique
cause.40
n
addition,
38
Wodeham
as
by
nomeans
he
nly
uthor
odiscusshis
roblem.
alter
hatton,
Richard
itzralph,regory
f
Rimini,
eter
illy
nd otherslso
nalyzed
t
n
detail.
For
n
overview,
ee
A. S.
McGrade,
njoyment
t
Oxford
fter
ckham:
hilosophy,sychology,
and
he ove
f
Godin:A. Hudson
ndM. Wilks
eds.),
rom ckham
o
Wyclif,
xford
987,
63-88,ndS. Knuuttila,motionsnAncientndMedievalhilosophyn.3),275-82.
39
ecturaecundan
ibrum
rimum
ententiarum
ed.
by
R.
Wood,
t.
Bonaventure,.Y.,
1990,
ist.
,
q.
5,
§
4
(vol.
,
277):
.
prima
otitia
ruibilis,
ive ntuitiva
ive bstrac-
tiva,
ealiter
istinguitur
fruitione
iusdem,
t econtra
sta ruitio
b illa
ognitione."
40
Wodeham
rgues
hat
t is even
xcludedhat
hey
re the otal
ause,
ecause
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 59/187
EMOTIONS
NDCOGNITIONS
265
Wodehampointsout that"experience eachesthat we frequentlyppre-
hend
things
which we neither
hate
nor
love."41This
simple
fact
shows
that an intellectual
ognition
oes not
automatically
ause
a
passion:
we
can
simply ognize
God,
or
a
fellow
human or a material
thing,
with-
out
being
compelled
o have
any
passion.
Nor is
an
intellectual
ognition
in
itself
passion.
Otherwise
every
person
cognizing
a
certain
object
would
inevitably
e
in
a
passionate
state. The wide
diversity
f human
reactions
oward one and the
same
object
some
people
feel ove when
cognizing
certain
person,
others
do
not
clearly
shows that
passions
must not be identified ith ntellectual
ognitions.
Now Wodeham faces
a
dilemma.
On
the one
hand,
he concedes that
intellectual
ognitions
re the
partial
cause
of
passions,
nd
that
passions
comprise
a
cognitive
lement because
they
are
always
about a certain
object.
On
the other
hand,
he
rejects
n
identificationf
passions
with
cognitions
out ourt. ow are the two theses o be reconciled?Wodeham
tries o find a solution
by claiming
hat
passions
are
indeed stateswith
a
cognitive
ontent,
ut volitional tates hat are caused
partially y cog-
nitions f the intellect nd partially y the will itself. hat is whythey
are
higher-levelognitions.
n
fact,
Wodeham
presents
his second thesis
as
follows: Second
I
say
not as the
expression
f
an
assertion ut of
an
opinion
that
every
ct of
desiring
nd
hating,
nd hence
enjoyment,
is some
cognition
nd some
apprehension,
ecause
every
experience
of
an
object
s
some
cognition
f that
hing."42 bviously,
Wodeham
defends
a
strong
ognitivistosition.
Not
only
are
passions
of the
will
based
upon
(and
partially
aused
by)
a
conceptualization
f
things, assions
are
way
of
conceptualizing hings.
Therefore,
t
does not make sense to
open
a
gap between he ntellect hat s responsible or oncepts nd the will that
nothing
an
fully
ause
tself,.e.,
cognition
an
not
ully
ause
cognitive
assion.
ee
Lecturaecunda
dist.
,
q.
5,
§
4
(vol.
,
277).
41
ecturaecunda
dist.
,
q.
5,
§
4
(vol.
,
278):
Item,
xperientia
ocet
uod requenter
apprehendimusuae
nec
odimus ec
diligimus."
42
ectura
ecundadist.
,
q.
5,
§
4
(vol.
,
278):
Secundo ico non sserendoed
opinandoquod
omnis ctus
ppetendi
t
odiendi,
t ta
frui,
st
quaedam ognitio
t
quaedam
pprehensio,uia
omnis
xperientia
licuiusbiectist
uaedam
ognitio
ius-
dem."
lthough
autiouslyointing
ut hat eholds his
osition
opinando",
e
presents
it ndetailnd efendst gainston-cognitivistccounts.ote hat he cognitio"odeham
referso s not
basic
ognition.
t s
rather
cognition
hat
resupposes
basic
ogni-
tion
uppliedy
he ntellect.e makes
his learwhen
aying
n
Lectura
ecundadist.
,
q.
5,
§
6
(vol.
,
282):
.
dico
uod
ctus mandi
aturaliterausatus
equiritogni-
tionen
raeviamuae
non it mor."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 60/187
266
DOMINIK
ERLER
merely auses non-cognitiveesires.Rather,the will s to be understood
as a
capacity
hat
makes use of the
concepts
uppliedby
the ntellect nd
produces
conceptualizedpassions.
Let me illustrate his
mportant oint
with a modern
example.
Suppose
that
you
meet
an
old
friend nd
are
immediately
illedwith
joy.
In
this
case,
you
do
not
only
have
a
sensory
ognition
you
see a
familiar
attern
f colors
and smell
a well-known
cent)
that
makes
you
have
the
sensory
assion
of
pleasure
or
"feeling ood".
You also
recognize
the
person
you
meet
as
your
friend
nd therefore
onceptualize
what
you
see and smell. This is what makes
you
feel
oy.
The
important oint
s
that
n
the
very
ct of
conceptualizing
our
friend
s
your
friend
ou
feel
joy.
Joy
s not to
be
separated
from his
conceptualcognition.
t
is some
form
of
cognition.
Yet it is
not a basic formof
cognition.
Otherwise,
everyone
conceptualizing
our
friend
s,
say,
the
neighbor iving
next
door
or
a
six-foot
all
person,
would feel
oy.
You need to
conceptualize
your
friend s
your
riend
r as a
good
erson
n
order
to feel
oy.
If
we understand
Wodeham's
claim
that
everypassion
"is some
cog-
nition and some apprehension" n thisway, it comes close to
what is
nowadays
known
as
the
cognitivist
heory
f emotions.
But
how then
s
the
special
way
of
cognizing
o be understood?
n
the current
ebate,
cognitivists
ive
a
clear
answer
o this
uestion.
M.
Nussbaum,
or
nstance,
claims
that emotions
re
"judgments
f
value," i.e.,
ways
of
evaluating
things
and states
of affairs.43
ollowing
this
line,
one
might nterpret
Wodeham
as
claiming
hat
passions
of
the will are
a
special
kind of
udg-
ment
a
judgment
by
which we evaluate
things
s
good
or bad
for us.
Although
Wodeham
clearly
defends
cognitivist osition,
we should
be carefulwhen appealingto udgments n a modernexplanation fhis
view.
If
one takes
a
judgment
to be
something omposed
of the
propo-
sitional ttitude
f
affirming
r
denying
nd
a
propositional
ontent
"I
affirm/deny
hat
p"),
then
Wodeham
clearly
denies that
passions
of the
will are
always
udgments.
n
his third
hesis,
he
unequivocally
ays
that
"a
volition
ne
has formed
s an
apprehending
ognition,
ot
an
assenting
one"44
nd
argues
for this
claim
as follows:
. . .
something
leasurable
can be
loved
if
it
is
apprehended
exclusively
y
a
simple,
non-complex
43
hecalls er
heory
the
ognitive-evaluative
iew";
eeM. C.
Nussbaum,
pheavals
ofThought.
he
ntelligence
f
motions
Cambridge-New
ork
001,
3.
44
ectura
ecundadist.
,
q.
5,
§
5
(vol.
,
281):
. volitio
liqua
reata
st
ognitio
apprehensiva
t
non ssensiva.
t haec
potest
sse ertia
onclusio."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 61/187
EMOTIONS
ND
COGNITIONS
267
cognition. nd somethingan be loved when t is apprehendedn a com-
plex
way,
without here
being any
assent or dissent.
Therefore,
voli-
tional act is
only
an
apprehension."45
his
sounds ike
puzzling
cholastic
jargon,
but it makes
perfect
ense when we
illustrate t with the exam-
ple
I
just
mentioned.When
you
meet an old
friend,
ou
can
apprehend
her as a
friend
r as a
good erson.
his
simple apprehension,
which does
not involvethe
objective udgment
that she
really
s
a
good person she
might ppear
to be
good ust
to
you
or
ust
in
a
specific ituation),
uffices
for
a
cognitive assion.
You then
ove her as the
person you apprehendunder a certain
aspect.
And even if
you apprehend
your
friend in a
complex way",
i.e.,
by grasping
propositional
ontent,
ll
you
need to
apprehend
s that he is a
goodperson.
n
Wodeham's
terminology,
his
propositional
ontent s a
"complexe ignificabile"
hatcannot be
reduced
to
something on-complex.46
he
important oint
s
that
you
do not
have
to come
up
with the
full-fledgedudgment
"I
affirm
hat
she
is a
good
person" grasping
he
propositional
ontent
uffices. or it is
one
thing
to
grasp
such a
content,
uite
another
o
give
an
assentor dissent
o that
content.47
Wodeham
concedes that
there
may
be
judgments
n
some
cases,
and
provides
n
illustratingxample.48
f
someone is
happy
about
the death
of his
enemy,
he
does forma
judgment
n
the
very
act of
happiness,
namely
"The
enemy
s
dead",
which
ncludes an
assent to the
fact that
a certain
person,
apprehended
s
an
enemy,
s dead. It
may
be
spelled
out
as
follows:
I
affirm
hat
the
person
apprehended
as an
enemy
s
dead and
I
am
happy
about this fact."
But the
important oint
is
that
45
bid.: .
aliquid
electabile
otest
iligi
i
apprehendatur
antummodo
otitiaim-
plici
ncomplexa,
t
aliquid otest iligi
uando pprehenditur
omplexebsque
mni
assensuel
dissensu.
giturliqua
olitiost
pprehensio
antum."
46
He
presents
is
heory
f
he
complexe
ignificabile"
n
Lectura
ecundadist.
,
q.
1,
§
7-9
vol.
,
192-7).
or n
analysis
f his
heory,
ee D.
Perler,
ate
Medieval
ntologies
of
acts
in:The
Monist,
7
1994),
49-169;
.
Karger,
William
f
Ockham
Walterhatton
and
damWodehamn he
bjectsf
Knowledge
nd
elief
ivarium,
3
1995),
71-96;
. de
Libera,
a
reference
ide. héoriese
a
proposition
Paris
002,
57-226.
47
Note
hat his
istinctions not
denticalith
eneca's
amous
pposition
etween
the
irstndthe
econd
movementf n
emotion;
eeDe ira
I, iv, 1,
andthe
nalysis
providedy
R.
Sorabji,
motionnd eace
f
Mind. rom
toic
gitation
o
Christian
emptation
Oxford000, 6-75. eneca'sirst ovements nvoluntarynd merepreparationor
a
passion",
hereas
odeham's
pprehensive
motion
s an
act
of
hewill
nd onstitutes
in
tself
passion.
he distinction
etween
pprehensions
nd
udgments
s a
distinction
withinhe
ealm f
volitional
assions.
48
This s
hisfourthhesis.
ee Lectura
ecundadist.
,
q.
5,
§
5
(vol.
,
282).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 62/187
268
DOMINIK
ERLER
theredoes not need to be a judgment n everycase of a cognitive as-
sion.
That
is
why
Wodeham
suggests
hat
we should
carefully
istinguish
between
a) cognitive
assions
that are
mere
apprehensions
nd
(b)
cog-
nitive
passions
that
nvolve
udgments.
This distinction
as an
important
consequence
for
the
problem
of
truth-values
f
passions,
s Wodeham
is
quick
to
point
out.49
f
one
has a
passion
of
type
a),
the content
f
the
passion
clearly
oes
not
have
a truth-value.
hus,
if
you simply
ove
your
friend
s a
good
person,
the
content
s
a
good erson
s neither
rue
nor
false.
f,
however,
omeone
udges
that
the
enemy
s dead
and
is
happy
about this
fact,
hecontent hat he
nemy
s dead s trueor false. t is
pre-
cisely
ts truth-value
hat
distinguishes
uch
a
propositional
ontent
rom
a
non-propositional
ne.
The crucial
point
s that
n
everypassion,
whether
t
involves
judg-
ment
or
not,
an
object
or
a state
of
affairs
s
apprehended
n a certain
way.
This
apprehension
s not
descriptive
ut
evaluative,
s
Wodeham's
own
example
of
ove
makes clear.
For even
if
the
loving
person
does
not
form
he
udgment
x is
a
pleasurable
thing",
he
apprehends
under
a
certain spect,namelyas something leasurable delectabik).
n
doingso,
she
clearly
evaluates
x as
having
a
positive
quality.
This differs
rom
mere
descriptive
pprehension,
n
apprehension
f
x as
being
tall or
dark,
for
instance.
This
example
shows
that
a
cognitive
passion,
though
not
being
an evaluative
udgment
n
the
strict
ense,
ncludes
an evaluative
element
that
distinguishes
t from
basic
cognitions.
This
is one
of the
main
reasons
why
a
cognitive
assion
s a
higher-level
ognition.
n hav-
ing
such
a
passion,
one
does
not
simply
describe
perceptible
eatures
f
an
object.
One
also
evaluates
the
object
as
good
or
bad,
agreeable
or
disagreeable.
In
light
of this
distinction,
e
can
draw
a
picture
with
the
following
hierarchy
f
cognitions:50
49
ee
Lectura
ecunda
dist.
,
q.
5,
§
7
(vol.
,
284-5).
50
This
icture
implyresents
he
ierarchical
tructure
ithout
aking
nto
ccount
ll
the
ossible
nterrelations
etween
he
arious
evels.
ince
uman
eings
ake imulta-
neous
seof
heir
ensory
nd ntellectual
apacities,
ctivities
n
a
higher
evel
may
ery
well
hape
hose
n
a lower
evel.
or
nstance,
he
way
we conceive
f
nd
categorize
objects
as
n
impact
n the
way
we
see
and
magine
hem.
or
hat
eason,
here
re
not nly reconceptualcts f eeingnd maginingnthe irstevelas n the aseof
brute
nimals),
ut
lso
onceptualized
nes.
ollowing
ristotle
see
An. ost.
I,
19;
OObl),
all
medieval
uthors
onceded
hat
we
do not
imply
ee
or
apprehend
ndividual
tems,
but
lso
universais
e.g.,
e ee
Callias
s a
man).
his
learlyresupposes
he
se f
on-
cepts
n the
ery
ct
of
eeing.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 63/187
EMOTIONS
NDCOGNITIONS
269
sensoryognition seeingor imagining (pre-conceptual)
intellectual
ognitionapprehending
as
being
F
(conceptual
nd
descriptive)
volitional
ognition(a)
apprehending
as
beinggood/bad
conceptual
nd
evaluative)
(b)
judging
that
x
is
F
and
taking
this fact
to be
good/bad (conceptual
nd
evaluative)
To be
sure,
this
appeal
to differentevels of
cognition
was
by
no means
the standard
pproach
chosen
by
all
fourteenth-century
uthors.
Gregory
ofRimini nd PeterofAilly, or nstance, ejectedWodeham's claim that
there
re various
higher-levelognitions,
ome at the ntellectualevel
and
some at the volitional ne.
In
particular,
hey
criticized he thesis
that
passions
of the will should be treated
s forms f
apprehension.51regory
triedto
beat Wodeham with a
typically
ckhamist
weapon, namely by
appealing
to the
principle
of
parsimony.
He claimed: "He
[Wodeham]
superfluously osits
a
plurality
of
cognitions.
He
unnecessarily
and
superfluouslyosits something
s a
cognition."52
n
Gregory's
iew,
the
will does not
produce
an
additional
cognition
when it comes
up
with a
passion ikelove or hate. The intellect lready provides fullcognition,
both
descriptive
nd
evaluative,
while the will
simply
dds an affective
component.
This
reaction
o Wodeham's
analysis
hows
that
the
cognitivist
ccount
of
passions parked
heated debate about the structuref emotions. his
debate focused n the fundamental
uestion
of how
passions
can
acquire
a
cognitive
lement that
goes beyond
a mere
descriptive
ccount of
a
thing
r
a
stateof
affairs.
Whereas Wodeham tried o locate thiselement
in
a
specific
valuation,
thersdenied thatthe will s
responsible
or
uch
an element.
Consequently, hey
rejected
the
postulation
f
higher-level
cognitions.
Yet
Gregory
f Rimini's claim that the will does not
add
a
cognitive
element
ut
simply
n
affective
ne,
raises
n
important uestion.
s
there
any place
for
an
affective
omponent
n
Wodeham's
theory?
t looks as
51
ee
Gregory
f
Rimini,
ectura
uperrimum
t
ecundumententiarum.omus:
superri-
mům
rologus
tdist. -6 ed.
by
D.
Trapp
ndV.
Marcolino,
erlin-New
ork
981,
ist.
1,q. 1, 212-7; eter fAilly, ractatuse animaeditedn: O. Pluta, iephilosophische
Psychologe
es eteron
illy
Amsterdam
986,
3-4.
52
Gregory
f
Rimini,
ectura
uperrimum
t
ecundumententiarumdist.
,
q.
1
ed.
Trapp
and
Marcolino,
12):
.
superflueonit luralitatem
otitiarumt nutilitereu
uperflue
ponit liquam
em ssenotitiam."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 64/187
270
DOMINIK
ERLER
ifhe were presentingn analysisof emotions hat identifies hem with
"cool-hearted"
igher-levelognitions.
or
instance,
oving
omeone
eems
to amountto
comingup
with
n
evaluation
f that
person
s
being good.
But what about
the
aspect
of
desperatelyonging
forthis
person
or feel-
ing good
when
being
with her?
Are these non-evaluative lements
miss-
ing
in
Wodeham's
theory?
Not
quite
so.
In
his
analysis
of
enjoyment,
Wodeham
emphasizes
hat beatific
njoyment
s
really leasure."53
nlike
Ockham,
he does
not
separatepleasure
<
electatiofrom ove
(<
ilectio
.
These
are
not two distinct
tates hat can but
need not co-exist.
n
Wodeham's
view,
ove or
enjoyment
lways
ncludes
pleasure
because
enjoyment
s a
state
by
which
misery
s
formally
xcluded".54
herefore,
t
hardly
makes
sense to
say
that
the devil
enjoys deceiving
human
beings
but feels
mis-
erable
about it.
If
he
really experiences
njoyment,
he
feeling
f
plea-
sure
necessarily oes
along
with
t.
Of
course,
he devil
may
have another
kind of emotion
that ncludes the
elementof
feeling
miserable.But this
emotion
would
not be
plain enjoyment
ut,
say,
sadistic
oy.)
The fact
thatWodeham
explicitly
ncludes
n affective
omponent
n
the emotion
and even considerst to be a definingeature f thatemotion, howsthat
he does
not
adopt
a
purely
ationalist
xplanation
f emotions hat
gnores
all
non-cognitive
lements.
Rather,
he offers
sophisticated xplanation,
taking
nto account
both
a
cognitive
omponent
an
evaluative
appre-
hension
or
a
judgment)
and
an affective
omponent.
n
fact,
t is the
presence
of both
components
hat
characterizes
full-fledged
motion ike
love
or
enjoyment.
or it
is neither "cool-hearted"
valuation
f
a
state
of
affairs or
a
simple
feeling,
ut
an evaluation that
includes certain
feeling.
V
I
hope
my
reconstruction
f Ockham's
and Wodeham's
account
of the
passions
makes
clear
that hese
philosophers
ook
passions
o be
thoroughly
"cognitivelyenetrated",
oth on
the
sensory
nd on the
ntellectual
evel.
In
their
view,
passions
are not
mental states
that are
somehow
opposed
to,
or isolated
from,
ognitions.
uite
to the
contrary,
either
he
genesis
53
ectura
ecunda
dist.
,
q.
6,
§
2
(vol.
,
295):
. teneo
rimo
llam onclusionem
quod
fruitioeatífica
st
ealiterelectatio."
54
ectura
ecundadist.
,
q.
6,
§
2
(vol.
,
295):
.
sola liaestfruitio
eatifica
er
quam
ormaliterxcluditur
iseria,
ic cilicet
uod
ibi
ormaliter
epugnet
iseria."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 65/187
EMOTIONS
ND
COGNITIONS
271
of passions,nor their nternal tructure,an be explainedwithout n
appeal
to
cognitive
ctivities. his has an immediate
onsequence
foran
understanding
f the
relationship
etween the so-called
"cognitive"
nd
the
"appetitive"
art
of the soul. When Ockham and
Wodeham
referred
to
these
parts,
hey
did not intend o divide the soul into two
neatly ep-
arated sections.Nor did
they
want to introduce arious homunculi hat
would somehow be hidden but nevertheless ctive
in
a human
being.
Rather,
heir ntentionwas to refer o mental activities
hat
a
person per-
formswhen he or she
copes
with
complex
situations. t
is
in
fact the
coordination f various mentalactivities hat
distinguishes
person
from
a
brute
animal,
on the one
hand,
and
from n
angel,
on the other.
For
an
animal,
endowed with a
sensory
oul,
is
capable
of
having
mere sen-
sory
passions
that
enable it to behave
in
an
appropriateway.
But it is
utterly
nable to
conceptualize
he
situationwith which t is
confronted.
Consequently,
t cannothave
higher-level
assionsby
which t
would eval-
uate or assess a
given
situation.Nor
can it
try
o
conceptualize
he sit-
uation
n
various
ways,
so that t
would come
up
with different
assions.
It is a helpless ictim f tsnaturallyausedpassions.Angels, n the other
hand,
endowed with
an
intellectual
oul,
are
clearly apable
of
forming
intellectual nd volitional
cts,
and are therefore
ble to
develop
a
con-
ceptualized
passionate
attitude oward
things
with which
they
are con-
fronted.55et
angels
lack
sensory ognition
nd therefore annot
have
bodilypassions
that would
make them
cry
or
laugh.
As
fleshless
eings,
they
re condemned o have
fleshless
assions.
Occupying
middle
posi-
tion between nimals and
angels,
human
beings
have both
a
sensory
nd
an
intellectual oul. This allows them
to
bring
about lower-
and
higher-
levelpassions, .e., embodied andconceptualized motions. n fact, t was
this middle
position
on which
Ockham,
Wodeham,
and
many
other
medieval
philosophers
were
focusing
when
they
tried to
explain
human
passions.
This
enabled themto avoid
reducing
human
being
to
a
mere
bodily
reature,
ondemned o
have
naturally
aused
sensory assions,
r
to some kind of
free-floating
oul,
limited o immaterial
assions.
At this
point,
omeone
working
n
contemporary
heories
f emotions
and
influenced
y
neurobiological
esearch
may
raise
a
serious
objection.
If
Ockham and
Wodeham were
indeed
concerned with the
interplay
betweenvarious mentalactivities,nd if they ocated some of themin
55
Ockham
iscusses
ngelic assionshis
main
xample
s
love)
n
Quaestiones
ariae,
q.
6,
art.
(OTh
VIII,
257-8
nd
269-70).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 66/187
272
DOMINIK
ERLER
thebody, whydid theynot analyzetheirmaterialmplementation? hy
did
they
not look
at how
they
re
present
n
the brain?
Should
an
ade-
quate theory
ot
give
detailed
xplanation
f
the
neurobiological
rocesses
that are
necessary
or the
rise
of
passions?
In
response
to this
objection,
one
could
point
out that
Ockham and
Wodeham,
like the
majority
f
later medieval
thinkers,
ertainly
id not
locate
all
mental activities
n
the
body.
Since
they
took
the intellectual
soul to be
an
entity
hat s not
subject
o
material
onditions,
hey
would
have
denied
that
there could be
a
neurobiological
xplanation
or
in
medievalterms: n
explanation
within he framework f the
physica)
f
all
the
passions.
They
were
quite
obviouslyonly
"semi-materialists"
n
their
metaphysics
f the soul.56 ut even on the
level of the
sensory
oul
and
its
activities,
hich
clearly
re
subject
o material
onditions,
ckham
and Wodeham did not
attempt
o
provide biological
r a
physical
naly-
sis,
as some of his
contemporaries
e.g.
the
members f the medical chool
of
Padova)
did for
good
reason.
For,
if
one deals with
passions,
one
should
carefully istinguish
etween
philosophical
nd
a
scientificnter-
prise. In a scientificnvestigation,ne does indeed look at the material
implementation
f
passions
nd
at
the
biological rocesses
hat re
required
for uch an
implementation.
n
the fourteenth
entury,
uch
an
investigation
would have concentrated n the
arrangement
f so-called
"ventricles"
n
the brain.
In a
philosophicalnvestigation,
owever,
ne
ought
to look at
the differentlements hat
play
a role
n
the
genesis
f
passions
nd at the
functional
mechanisms,
hich
may
be
biologically
nstantiated
n
one
way
or another.Such a functional
xplanation
must not be conflatedwith a
material
ne,
foreven
if
one has
perfect
nowledge
f the somatic
basis,
one stilloughtto explainwhathappenson this basis. And it maywell
be,
as modernfunctionalistsre keen to
point
out,
that a
certain
ype
of
passion
can have different aterial nstantiations
n
differentuman
beings.
Therefore,
Ockham's
and Wodeham's functional
xplanation
s
not
as
incomplete
s it
may
look at a first
lance.
It is an
explanation
that
appeals
(a)
to functional lements
rovidedby
the various mental activ-
ities,
nd
(b)
to functionalmechanisms hat relatethese elements o each
other. This
type
of
explanation
may help
shed
light
on the
problem
of
56
borrowhis
xpression
rom
.
Pasnau,
heories
fCognition
n he ater iddle
ges
Cambridge-New
ork
997,
6.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 67/187
EMOTIONS NDCOGNITIONS
273
emotionalconflict, robablyone of the mostbewildering roblemswe
are
confronted
ithwhen
trying
o
cope
withemotions. et me
highlight
this
dvantageby
returning
o the
example
mentioned t the
verybegin-
ning
of this
paper.
I
asked
you
to
imagine
the case of a friendwho had left
you
without
any
explanation
nd
reappeared
fter
couple
of
years.
When she shows
up,
you
are
likely
o react withmixed emotions:
you
are
pleased, angry,
and
you may
also feel
guilty.
How is this
possible?
How can
you
have
both
positive
nd
negative
emotions?
Using
Ockham's and
Wodeham's
functional
model,
one could
give
the
following xplanation.
The
sensory
cognition ou
have when
seeing
your
friend
mmediately
auses the
sensory
passion
of
pleasure, passion
that arises
naturally.
et at the
same
time,
your
ntellect onceives f
your
friend
s
someone who had left
you
with-
out
any
warning.
This
triggers our
will,
which evaluates
the friend s
an
unreliable,
r even
a
betraying,
erson
and
brings
bout the
passion
of
anger.
Your intellect lso conceives of
yourself
s
a
person
who did
not
try
o remain
n
contactwith
your
friend. his
makes
your
will eval-
uate
yourself
s an
unreliable
r
betraying erson
as
well; consequently,
you
feel
guilty.
Given the
simultaneous
resence
of
all
these
acts,
you
have all
three
passions
at once. And
you
are
in
an
emotional conflict
because the three
passions,
based on
different
ognitions
nd
evaluations,
oppose
each other.
It was this
possibility
f conflict hat ate
medieval
philosophers
anted
to
point
out
in
their
functional
xplanation:
different
ognitionsplay
differentausal roles
in
the mechanismof
the
mind,
and
consequently,
they
give
rise to different
assions.
Their intention as
not
simply
o dis-
solve emotionalconflict y claimingthat,say, the will as a higherfac-
ulty
perfectly
ontrols ll
the
passions
and
unifies hem.
They
admitted,
of
course,
that the will has a
certain
rulingpower,
and
in
their heories
of
virtues,
hey ssigned
o it
the task of
bringing
bout the best
possible
higher-level
assions,
which
would become
some kind of second
nature
and
influence he
genesis
of our
sensory
passions.
Yet
they
nsisted n
the
fact that the
so-called
ower-level
assions
should
not be
neglected.
The
will
is not a
magic power
that
could,
or
should,
make the
sensory
passions
disappear.
Nor can it
arrange
all
the
higher-level
assions
n
a
harmoniousway. It is just one capacity of the soul that cooperates
with other
capacities
to
bring
about a
multitude f
passions passions
that
may
be
in
conflictwith
each other.
One can do
justice
to the
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 68/187
274
DOMINIK
ERLER
complexemotional ife of a persononlyifone acknowledges he possi-
bility
f such
a
conflict nd
if
one tries o
analyze
the elements hat
play
a
role
in
this conflict.57
Berlin
Humboldt-niversität
57
Earlier ersions
fthis
aper
were
resented
t the
Universitée
Montréal,
aint
Louis
University,
nd
Washington
niversity.
am
grateful
o the
udience
n all
three
places
or
timulating
uestions
ndcriticalemarks.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 69/187
KoranundKonziliarismus.nmerkungenum Verhältnis
von
Heymericus
e
Campo
und
Nikolaus
onKues
FLORIANHAMANN
Abstragt
This
paper
deals with he relation
etweenNicholasof Cusa and the Dutch
philosopher
eymericus
e
Campo.
Nicholas
s celebrated orhis rather
os-
itive ttitude owards slam.
n
De
pace
idei 1453)
he
presents
he visionof
una
religio
n rituumarietatend
in
his Cribratio
lkorani
1460/61)
Nicholas ries
to
prove
Christian
ogmas
on the basis of the Koran. This
idea he had dis-
cussedwithhis
Dutch friend everal ecades earlier.
n
his
Disputatio
e
potes-
tate
cclesiastica
1433/34)Heymeric
crutinizes
he
question,
hetherhe
highest
authority
n
the
church
elongs
o the
pope
or the
council,
n the basis of
the Koran. He
presents
en
arguments
n
favour
f the
council nd one
in
favour f thepope. This shows hatNicholasdeveloped artsofhisexcep-
tional
hought
n
conversation ith
Heymeric
nd
suggests
hat closer xam-
ination f
Heymeric's
extswill reveal new
side
of
the
young
Cusanus.
I. War
Heymerich
erLehrer
es Cusanus?
Rudolf Haubst
und Eusebio Colomer
haben
in
ihren bis
heute
einflussreichentudien
Heymericus
e
Campo
als den Lehrer
des Nikolaus
von Kues
bezeichnet,
der das Denken
des Albertus
Magnus
und
des
Raimundus Lullus sowie die Theorien der theologiaircularisnd der
Koinzidenz
n
seinenSchüler
vermitteltabe.1Beide
verstehen
eymerich
dabei
nicht ls
originellen
enker,
sondern
bloß als Vermittler.
olomer
1
R.
Haubst, lbert,
ieCusanushn
ah,
n: G.
Meyer/A.
immermann
Hg.),
Albertus
Magnus
Doctor
niversalis280/1980Mainz
980
Walberger
tudien
).
Ders.,
as Bild
des inennd
reieinenottesnderWeltach
ikolaus
on
uesTrier
952.
ers.,
¡um.
ortleben
Albertses
Großen
ei
Heymerich
on
amp
nd
ikolaus
on uesin:
Studia lbertina.
estschrift
für
ernhard
eyer
um
0.
Geburtstage
Münster
952
BGPhThMA
upplementband)
420-47.
ers.,
er
unge
usanus
ar m
Jahre
428
zu
Handschriften-Studien
n
Pans in:
MitteilungenndForschungsbeiträgeerCusanus-Gesellschaft,4 (1980),198-205.
E.
Colomer,
ikolaus
on
ues nd aimundlull. us
Handschriften
er
ueseribliothek
Berlin
1961.
Ders.,
u
dem
ufsatz
on
udolf
aubst
Der
unge
usanus
ar m
Jahre
428
u
Handschriften-Süidien
n
aris ,
n:
Mitteilungen
nd
orschungsbeiträge
er
usanus-Gesellschaft,
15
1982),
7-70.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also vailable
nline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 70/187
276
FLORIAN AMANN
schreibt:Dabei darfman deneigentlichenhilosophischenangHeimerics
nicht überschätzen.
Auch wenn
ihm
die
logische
und
systematische
Denkkraft icht
ehlt,
leibt ein
Denken dennoch
m
Großen und Ganzen
dem
Epigonentum
der
spätmittelalterlichen
hilosophie
verhaftet.
er
Eigenart
eines
Denkens
entsprechend
st die Rolle des
Heimeric
n
Bezug
auf Cusanus
die
philosophisch
escheidenere,
edoch geschichtlich
icht
unfruchtbare
ines Vermittlers
ewesen. 2
Die Vermitder-These
tützt ich auf die
Tatsache,
dass sich
Cusanus
1425
an der Kölner
Universität
mmatrikulierte,
n der auch
Heymerich
lehrte.3Doch ist es zumindest
diskussionswürdig,
b man aus dem
Immatrikulationsvermerk
on
1425
tatsächlich en
Schluss ziehen
darf,
Cusanus
sei ein Student
des niederländischen
enkers
gewesen.
nteres-
santerweise
istetHermann
Keussen,
der
die Kölner Matrikellisten
dierte,
Cusanus
unter den
Juraprofessoren
uf.4
Es muss also zunächst
der
Bildungsgang
eider Denker
verglichen
werden.
Nikolaus on
Kues
war 1401
geboren
worden,
erbrachte
as
Studienjahr
1416/
75 an der
Universität
eidelberg
und studierte on
1417 bis
14236
in Padua Kirchenrecht. bendorterwarb
Cusanus
14237
den
Titel des
doctor ecretorum
unter
dem er
sich auch
in
Köln immatrikulierte.
abei
wurden
hm
aufgrund
es
Ansehens einer
Person
{ob
reverentiam
ersonae)
die
Immatrikulationsgebühren
rlassen,
wie das bei
hochgestellten
Persönlichkeiten
blich
war.8 Der Titel
des doctor
ecretorumrhob den
Träger
in
eine
adelsähnliche
wenn
auch nicht
delsgleiche
tellung.
Der
Erwerb
des
Titels
in
Norditalien
unterschied en
Spitzenjuristen
om
Durchschnittsjuristen,
er nördlich
der
Alpen
studiert
atte.9 omit bot
der
Titel des
doctor
ecretorum
esonders für
reiche
Bürgersöhne
gute
2
E.
Colomer,
ikolaus
on
Kues nd
Heimericanden
Veldein:
Mitteilungen
nd
Forschungsbeiträge
er
Cusanus-Gesellschaft,
(1964),
98-213,
es.213.
3
E. Meuthen
Hg.),
Acta usana.
uellen
ur
ebensgeschichte
es
Nikolaus
on
ues,
d.
1,
Lieferung
(1401-1437
ai
17),
Hamburg
976,
Nr.
25,
9:
„Nycolaus
e Cusa
doctor
in
iure
anonico
reuerensis
yocesis.
ihil edit
b reverenciam
ersone,
ed uravit
complete.
4
H. Keussen
Hg.),
ie
Matrikeler
niversitätölnBd.
1
1378-1475),
onn
28,
ND
Düsseldorf
979,
Nr.
44,
72*.
5
AC
I
(s.o.,
Anm.
),
Nr.
11,
3.
6
AC I
(s.o.,
nm.
),
Nr.
15-18,
f. ür
ie rsten
tudienjahre
nPadua
ibt
s keine
gesichertenelege.7
AC
I
(s.o.,
Anm.
),
Nr.
18,
.
8
R.C.
Schwinges,
ie
Zulassung
ur
Universität,
nW.
RüeggHg.),
eschichte
er niversität
in
Europa
Bd.
1
(Mittelalter),
ünchen
993,
72-4.
9
P.
Moraw,
ber
elehrteuristen
m
pätmittelalter
in:
.
Petersohn
Hg.),
Mediaevalia
ugiensia.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 71/187
KORAN NDKONZILIARISMUS
277
Chancen, in der spätmittelalterlichenirche Karriere zu machen. Da
Nikolaus
von Kues
bürgerlicher bstammung
ar,
wäre
ihm
ohne diesen
Titel die steile
Karriereverwehrt
ewesen,
die
ihn
bis zum Kardinal und
Bischof
on Brixen führen ollte.
Heymericus
e
Campo
indes wurde um 1395
in
Son bei Eindhoven
in
den
heutigen
Niederlanden
geboren,
tudierte
n
Paris die artes
owie
die
Theologie
und immatrikulierteich
1422
an
der UniversitätKöln.
1423
wurde er baccalaureus
iblicus,
424
baccalaureusententiarius
1425
bac-
calaureus
ormatus
nd
1428
schließlich
magisterheologiae
10Obwohl
Heymerich
etwa sechs
Jahre
älter als Cusanus war,
erlangte
r erst mehrere
ahre
nach
ihm
die
Promotion,
a das Studium
der
Theologie
üblicherweise
länger
dauerte ls das der
Rechtswissenschaft.
m
Vergleich
u dem
Titel
des doctorecretorum
röffneteer
magister
heologiae
auptsächlich
ie Chance
auf eine
Universitätskarriere,
ie
sie auch
Heymerich
n
Köln
und
später
in
Löwen
gelingen
ollte.
Aus dem
Vergleich
beider
Ausbildungswege
uss
festgehalten
erden:
Cusanus
besaß
im
Jahre
1425
eine
soziale
Stellung,
ie der
des
Heymericus
de
Campo
mindestens
benbürtigwar. ErichMeuthen hat bereits1964
darauf
hingewiesen,
ass Cusanus kein
gewöhnlicher
tudent
war,
son-
dern
aller Wahrscheinlichkeit
ach
in
Köln
Juravorlesungen
ielt.11 as
Verhältnis
eider ueinander ollte lso
eher als
kollegialer
ustausch der
intellektuellereundschaft
ewertet
werden.
Dennoch ist die
These,
Heymerich
ei
der Lehrer des Cusanus
gewe-
sen,
keineswegs
bwegig,
denn die
intellektuelle
iographie
des Nikolaus
von
Kues weist eine
Lücke auf: Cusanus
studierte
ediglich
in
Jahr
die
artes n
Heidelberg
und sechs
Jahre
Kirchenrecht
n
Padua. Ob er
in
diesenJahrendie Zeit und die Möglichkeit esaß, sich derartprofunde
philosophische
nd
theologische
Kenntnisse
nzueignen,
wie sie für die
Abfassung
on
De
docta
gnorantia
rforderlich
ind,
st
unklar.
Doch besteht
zwischendem
Ende seines Studiums n
Italien im
Jahre
1423
und der
Abfassung
on
De
docta
gnorantia
440 eine
Lücke von immerhin 7
Jahren.
Forschungen
ur
Geschichtees
Mittelalters.
orgelegt
on en
Mitgliedern
es
Konstanzer
rbeitskreises
flir
mittelalterliche
eschichte
Stuttgart
001,
25-47.
10
.
Meuthen,
ölner
niversitätsgeschichte
Bd. 1
Die
alte
Universität),
öln/Wien
988,
187-9..-D. avigioli,es crits'HeymericuseCampo1 95- 60) ur esœuvres'Aristoe,n:
Freiburger
eitschriftlir
hilosophie
nd
heologie,
8
1981),
93-371,
es.
96ff.
eussen
1928
s.o.,
Anm.
),
Rektoratr.
132,
mmatrikulationr.
124,
40.
11
.
Meuthen,
as
Triererchismaon
430
uf
em
asler
onzil.
ur
ebensgeschichte
es
Nikolaus
on
ues
Münster
964,
8f.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 72/187
278
FLORIAN AMANN
In dieser Zeit unterhielt usanus tatsächlich inen engen Kontakt zu
Heymerich.
Beide
kannten sich nicht allein von der Universität
Köln,
sondern
nahmen
zeitgleich
on Ende
1432
bis zum
Frühjahr
1435 am
Basler Konzil
teil,12
o dass ein intellektuellerustauschvon
wenigstens
zehn
Jahren
anzunehmen
st. Hiervon
zeugen
die Basler Schriften es
Heymericus
e
Campo,
wie
sie
in
der
ehemaligen
ibliothek es
Nikolaus
von
Kues bis auf den
heutigenTag
erhalten ind.13
Da
die
biographischen
aten zu einem
zwiespältigem
rgebnis
ühren,
vermag
llein
ein inhalüicher
Vergleich
das Verhältnis
eider Denker zu
erhellen. abei müssenThemen
ausgewählt
werden,die fürbeideDenker
gleichermaßen pezifisch
ind.
n
wenigstens
rei Gebieten
ragen
die bei-
den
Philosophen
gemeinsam
us der
Masse der Denker des
frühen15.
Jahrhunderts
eraus:
Das erste ist die
Lullrezeption,
die bereits
von
Colomer untersucht
orden
st. Leider
hat er dabei die
Frage weitgehend
übergangen,
elche
Bedeutung
en lullschen
berlegungen
n
Heymerichs
eigenem
Denken zukommt.14
weitens
verfügen
eide
Philosophen
über
eine
geometrische
heologie.
Heymerich
ezeichnet
eine
theo
ogia iguralis
auch als sigillumeternitatisnd behandeltsie
in
wenigstens
ier seiner
BaslerSchriften.15
er niederländische
enkerdürfte
er
einzige
cholastiker
des
Spätmittelalters
ein,
der
eine
eigene
geometrische
heologie
entwik-
kelte.
Die
Untersuchung
ieser
Fragestellungen
ürde tief
n
Heymerichs
Denken
einführen,
was an dieser
Stelle
nicht
geleistet
werden
kann.16
Drittens
rezipieren
beide
Denker den
Koran. Letzteres
cheintvorerst
keine
Eigentümlichkeit
u
sein,
denn unter em
Eindruck es
Vormarsches
12
Vgl.
Für
Heymericus)
.
Keussen,
ie
Stellung
er niversität
ölnm
roßen
chisma
nd
zuden eformkonzilienes 5.Jahrhundertsin:Annalen esHistorischenereinsür en
Niederrhein,
15
1929),
25-54.
FürNvK)
Meuthen964
s.o.,
Anm.
1).
13
Bernkastel-Kues,
usanus-Hospital,
06.
eschreibung
es
Cod.Cus.106 n:
Heymericus
de
Campo,
pera
electa
,
hg.
vonR.
Imbach nd
P.
Ladner,
reiburg/
chweiz
001,
20/21.
14
Colomer
961
s.o.,
Anm.
),
5-46;
ers. 964
s.o.,
Anm.
),
198-213.
15
Heymericus
e
Campo,
ractatuse
igillo
ternitatisin:
Opera
electa
(s.o.,
Anm.
3),
99-128.
.
Ladner,
erAblass-Traktat
es
Heymericus
e
Campo.
in
Beitrag
ur
Geschichte
es
Basler
onzils
in:
Zeitschrift
ür chweizerische
irchengeschichte,
1
(1977),
54,
138.
Zudem ehandelt
r
sie noch
n
seiner
isputatio
e
potestate
cclesiastica
nd
n
den
vier
Figuren,
ie derCod. Cus.
106
enthält.ine
Teileditionieser exte
wird ls
Anhang
meiner
issertationitveröffendicht
erden.
ußerdem
reifteymerich
ie
iegelthematik
nochmalsnden 0er ahrenes15.Jahrhundertsuf. gl. . Burie,roeveotnventarisatie
van e
n
handschrift
f
ndrukewaarde
erkenan
e euvense
heologieprofessoren
it
eXVe euw
in:Facultas
.
Theologiae
ovaniensis
432-1797,
EThL
5
(1977),
30.
16
ies
stder
Gegenstand
einer issertation
it em
Titel:
as
Siegel
er
wigkeit.
Universalwissenschaft
nd
onziliarismus
ei
Heymericus
e
Campo.
er
vorliegende
ufsatzst
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 73/187
KORAN NDKONZILIARISMUS
279
der Osmanen wurden seit den späten40erJahrendes 15.Jahrhunderts
diverse chriftenum
Islam
verfasst. och
Heymerichs
useinandersetzung
mit dem
Koran datiertbereits us dem
Jahre
1433 und ist damit viele
Jahre
älter als alle anderen bekannten
eugnisse
der
Koranrezeption
es
15.
Jahrhunderts,
umindest oweit ie aus der Basler
Theologengeneration
stammen.17 udem weist Nikolaus von Kues
in
seiner Cribratiolkorani
darauf
hin,
er habe
den Koran auf dem Basler
Konzil kennen
gelernt.18
So
ergibt
ich ein direkter
usammenhang
wischender
Koranrezeption
beider Denker.
Um
eine
vergleichendeUntersuchung
u
ermöglichen,
werden zunächst die
Grundüberlegungen
er cusanischen Auseinan-
dersetzung
mit dem Islam
dargelegt.
Die
Forschung
hat sich intensiv
hiermit
eschäftigt,
o dass ich
mir
nur
einige Anmerkungen
rlaube.19
II. Cusanus ndder slam
Nikolaus on Kues verfasstee
pace idá
kurznach dem Fall
Konstantinopels
am
29.
Mai
1453.
Darin
wird ein
Mann
geschildert,
er
die
prachtvolle
Stadtmiteigenen Augen gesehenhatte. Als dieser Mann die Nachricht
vom
Sieg
der
Osmanen und deren
angeblicher
Gräueltaten
ernommen
hatte,
verfiel r ins Grübeln und
flehteGott an. Darauf wurde
ihm
die
Schau
(visio)
ines himmlischen
eligionsgespräches
uteil.20
ufgrund
er
Leiden der
Religionskriege
abe der
Allmächtige
ie
Weisen aller Völker
eineVorstudieu einer mfassenderen
ntersuchung
er
Koranrezeption
m
Kontext
seines
hilosophischen
enkens.
17
Vgl.
F.
Hamann,
er
Koranls
kklesiologische
utoritätei
Heymericus
e
Campo
f 1460),
in:Freiburgereitschriftür hilosophiendTheologie,0 (2003), 50-62.18
Nikolauson
Kues,
Cribratiolkorani
hg.
v.
Ludwig agemann,
VIII,
Hamburg
1986,
rologus,
.
2,
5:
„Feci
uampotui iligentiam
ntelligendi
ibrum
egis
Arabum
quem
uxta
ranslationem
er
Petrumbbatem luniacensem
obis
rocuratam
asileae
habui um
disputatione
orum
obilium
rabum,
uorum
nus
ociusMahumetiisus
fuit lium
rahere,
ui
doctior
t
magnus
nter rabes hristianam
idem,
uam
elose
coluit,
stendit
otius
enendam.
19
.
Hagemann,
er
Kur3n n Verständnisnd ritik
ei
Nikolaus
on ues. in
Beitrag
ur
Erhellung
slamisch-christlicher
eschichteFrankfurt.
M. 1976.W. A.
Euler,
nitas
nd ax.
Religionsvergleich
ei
Raimundusullusnd
ikolaus
on ues
Würzburg
990.
20
NvK,
e
pace
idei,g.
v. R.
Klibansky
ndH.
Bascour, VII,
Hamburg
959, 1,
3f:
Fuit
x
hiis,
uae apud
Constantinopolimroxime
aevissimecta
per
Turkorum
regemivulgabantur,uidamir eloDei accensus,ui oca llarumegionůmliquando
viderat,
t
pluribusemitibus
raret mnium
reatorem
uodpersecutionem,
uae
ob
diversum
itům
eligionům
lus
olito
aevit,
ua
pietate
oderaretur.cciditt
post
ies
aliquot,
ortex
diuturnaontinuata
editatione,
isio
uaedam
idem
eloso
manifestaretur,
ex
qua
elicuit
uod aucorum
apientum
mniumaliumiversitatum
uae
n
religionibus
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 74/187
280
FLORIAN AMANN
und Religionenzu einem himmlischen onzil (inconcilioxcelsorumher-
beigerufen.21
nter
dem Vorsitz des verbum
ollten sie
die
Religions-
streitigkeiten
iskutieren,
ie
den
Anlass u so
viel Leid
gaben.
m
Gespräch
sollte
die
Wahrheit um
Vorschein
kommen,
ass der
innerste
inn aller
Religionen
dentisch st und bloß
die Riten
voneinander
bweichen,
es
also nur
religio
na n rituum
arietate
äbe.22
Die Weisen
aller Völker
disku-
tieren
nun unter
dem
Vorsitz
des
verbum
ie
wichtigsten
laubensthemen.
Die
Argumentation
ller
Vertretertützt ich dabei allein auf die
Vernunft
und nicht
uf
Autoritäten,
enn
Cusanus vertrittie
Auffassung,
ass allen
Religionen eigentlich er gleiche
christlich-platonische
ehalt zu
Eigen
ist.23 us
diesem
Grundebezeichnet
usanus den Vorsitzenden es himm-
lischen
Konzils
nicht
als
Christus,
ondern
als verbumum
aufzuzeigen,
dass
es
sich
um
das
allen
Religionengrundlegende
rinzip
des
göttlichen
Wortes handle.
Am
Ende
schließlich ekennen
ich
alle
Teilnehmer u
dem
Konsens,
dass tatsächlich lle
Religionen
n
ihrem Gehalt überein-
stimmen nd dass sich
lediglich
die Riten
unterscheiden.24
Im Winter
1460/61
verfasste usanus
schließlich eine Cribratiolkorani.
In der
„Siebung
des
Korans
versucht Cusanus
den Koran auf das
Evangelium
hin zu
„sieben .25
ie
Wahrheitdes
Evangeliums
oll aus
per
orbem bservantur
eritia
ollentium
nam
osse
acilem
uandam
oncordantiam
reperiri,
c
per
am n
religione
erpetuam
acem
onvenientic veraci
medio onstitui.
21
NvK,
De
pace
idei
I
2,
4:
„Raptus
st
nim
d
quandam
ntellectualem
ltitudinem,
ubi
quasi
nteros
qui
vita
xcesserunt
xamen uiusceei
n
concilio
xcelsorum,
rae-
sidente
unctipotenti,
tahabitůmst.
22
NvK,
De
pace idei
I
6,
7:
„Si
sicfacere
ignaberis,
essabit
ladius
t
odii
ivor,
t
quaeque
mala;
t
cognoscent
mnes
uomodo
on stnisi
eligio
na
n
rituumarietate.
23
Vgl.K. Flasch, ikolauson ues. eschichteinerntwicklung.orlesungenur inflihrungin eine
hilosophie
Frankfurt/Main
998,
30-82.
24
NvK,
De
pace idei,
IX
68,
62:
„Postquam
um
apientibus
ationum
aec
ie
per-
tractata
unt,
rodueti
unt
ibri
lurimi
orum
ui
de
veterumbservantiis
cripsere,
t
in
omni
inguauidem
xcellentes,
t
pud
atinos arcus
arro,
pud
Graecosusebius
qui religionům
iversitatem
ollegit,
t
plerique
lii.
Quibus
xaminatis
mnem iversi-
tatem
n
ritibus
otius
ompertum
stfuisse
uam
n
unius ei
cultura,
uem
b initio
omnes
raesupposuisse
emper
t
n
omnibusulturisoluissex omnibus
cripturis
n
unum
ollectis
eperiebatur,
icet
implicitasopularisaepe er
dversamenebrarum
rin-
cipis
otestatem
bducta on dverteret
uid
geret.
onclusa
st
gitur
n
caelo ationis
concordia
eligionům
odo
uo
praemittitur.
25
NvK,
Cribratio
lkorani
Prologus,
.
10,
1
f:
„Intentio
utem ostrast
praesuppo-
sito vangeliohristiibrum ahumetiribraretostenderella n pso tiamibro aberi,
per
uaeevangelium,
i
attestatione
ndigeret,
alde
onfirmaretur,
t
quod,
bi
dissentit,
hoc x
gnorantia
t
consequenter
x
perversitate
ntenti ahumetivenissehristoon
suam
loriam
ed dei
patris
t hominum
alutem,
ahumeto
eronondei
gloriam
t
hominum
alutem
ed
gloriam
ropriam
uaerente.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 75/187
KORAN
ND
KONZILIARISMUS
281
dem Koran herausbewiesenwerden.26s handelt ich also um eine beson-
ders
usgeklügelte
hristliche
pologie,
ie den
Koran
nichtmitVäterzitaten
oder mit
Vernunftargumenteniderlegen
will,
ondern ich auf die höch-
ste Autoritätder Muslime selbst stützt.
Entsprechend
st der Tonfall
vergleichsweise
onziliant,
uch wenn
gewisse polemische Äußerungen
nichtfehlen.Dieses
Unterfangen
etztfreilich
oraus,
dass die
christliche
Botschaft wenn auch entstellt
im
Koran
durchscheint. it der
gesamten
mittelalterlichenradition erstand usanusden Islam nicht ls
eingeständige
oder
gar
neue
Religion,
ondern ls
christliche äresie. Cusanus erzählt
die klassische hristlicheolemik,wonachMuhammad den Koran unter
dem Einfluss es verstoßenenMönches
Sergius
und
von
Juden
aus der
Bibel
kompiliert
abe.
Es
handle sich somitum eine
nestorianisch
eprägte
christliche äresie.27Tatsächlich
handelt der Koran
an
vielen Stellen
von
Jesus
und
Maria,
was erst die
cusanische
Interpretationsstrategie
erlaubt.28
III. Die
Koranrezeption
ei
Heymerich
Heymerich
chrieb seine
Disputatio
e
potestate
cclesiasticawischen
April
1433 und Februar 1434 auf dem
Basler Konzil.
Er
erörtert ie
damals
aktuelle
Streitfrage,
b
dem Generalkonzil der dem
Papst
die oberste
Gewalt
in
der Kirche zusteht.Zunächst
werden die
Argumente
ür
die
Superiorität
des
Generalkonzils
angeführt,
nschließend die für die
Superiorität
es
Papstes
nd
n
der Determinatioird
die
Streitfrage
chließlich
entschieden.29
26
NvK,
Cribratiolkorani
Prologus,
.
4,
7:
„Ego
vero
ngenium
pplicui,
t
etiam x
Alkorano
vangelium
erum
stenderem..
27
NvK,
ribratio
lkorani,
lius
rologus,
.
11,
13:
Refert
obilis
lle
Arabs
hristianus,
de
quo upra
memini,
ergium
onachum
e monasteriouo iectum
echam
pplicuisse
ibique
uos
opulosepperisse
dolatrast udaeos
raedicasseque
bidemidem
hristianam,
prout
estoriusllam
enuit,
t fratresuos llius
ectae
lacaret
d
gratiam,
t omnes
idolatrasonvertissed fidem
uam,
nter
uos
Mahumetus
rat,
ui
conversuse idola-
tria
mortuusst hristianus
estorianus.edtres stutissimi
udaei e
Mahumetumoniun-
xerunt,
t
psum
verterent,
e
perfectus
ieret,
t
illi
uaseruntaria
mala.Post ero
mortemahumeti
mnibusd suam ectam
evertentibus
lli
udaei
ccesseruntalifilium
Habitalip,uiMahumetusuas ollectionesimisit,tpersuaserunti,ut icutMahumetus
itaet
pse
e
in
prophetam
levaret,
t
apposuerunt
t
deposuerunt
e libro
Mahumeti,
quae
voluerunt.
28
ur
usanischen
oranhermeneutik,
.
Hagemann
976
s.o.,
Anm.
9),
9ff.
29
Hamann
003
s.o.,
Anm.
7),
152ff.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 76/187
282
FLORIAN AMANN
Obwohl die Disputatiour eine sehrenge Fragestellungehandelt, ählt
sie
samt den
Anhängen
an
die 100
fol.,
denn
Heymerich
versucht ie
Superioritätsfrage
uf
möglichst
reitem
Fundament u untersuchen.
s
ist sein erklärtes
iel,
hierzu lle Wissenschaften
nd
Gegenstandsbereiche
heranzuziehen:
das
Trivium,
das
Quadrivum,
die
Hauptwissenschaften,
die ars
generalis
ulls und schließlich eine
eigene
Universalwissenschaft.30
Doch
Heymerich reift
och weiter us und versucht ie
Superioritätsfrage
schließlich
ogar
auf der
Grundlage
des
Korans zu erörtern. er Koran
wird damit
zu einer
ekklesiologischen
utorität
ufgewertet,
ine
Stellung
die kein ndererAutordes Mittelaltersem Koran
zubilligte.31
m Einzelnen
listet
Heymerich
ehn
Argumente
ür die
Superiorität
es Konzils
auf;
ein weiteres
Argument
ür die
Superiorität
es
Papstes
findet ich unter
den
propäpstlichen
yllogismen.
1. Laut dem Koran
sei ein
Heilsgesetz
umso
besser,
e
mehr es den
Kräften
der
Gläubigen angepasst
st,
die
jenem
Gesetz
unterliegen.
a
dies eher auf das
Generalkonzil
ls auf den
Papst
zutreffe,
ebühre
der
Synode
die
Superiorität
ber den obersten
Pontifex. ies
ergibt
ich aus
dem Selbstverständnises Generalkonzils, onach es die gesamteKirche,
alle
Gläubigen
also,
repräsentiert.
as Konzil
als
gesetzgebende
Gewalt
ist demnach
mit den
Gläubigen,
die seiner
Gesetzgebung
unterliegen,
zumindest endenziell
dentisch.
Der
Papst
indes unterscheidetich von
den
übrigen
Gläubigen,
die seiner
Rechtsprechung
nterstehen.
olglich
ist die
Übereinstimmung
ei
dem Generalkonzil
rößer
ls beim
Papsttum,
woraus
dessen
Superiorität
esultiert.32
30
DieDisputatioe otestatecclesiasticairdlsDPEzitiert.ine rsteranskriptionindetsich uch n: Hamann 003
s.o.,
Anm.
7),
160-2.
PE,
Cod. Cus.
106,
fol.
158r,
Z.
27-31:
.
et
sicde aliis
rius er
discursum
eptem
rcium
iberalium,
rtis
ullii,
artis
mee,
ue
dicitur
igillum
ternitatis,
t
utriusque
uris
ecnon
er
uctoritatesacre
pagine
ssumptis,ue,
i ad
medium
evocentur,
edum
omparabitur
umerus
acionum
pro apa
dduci
ossibilium
acionibus
reinductusro
oncilio
enerali,
edhabundanter
excrescerent.
31
mUnterschiedu
fastllen
oraninterpretationen
es
Mittelalters
erfolgt
eymerich
hierkein
pologetisches
nteresse.
um
polemischen
rundton
erchristlichen
us-
einandersetzung
it em slam
m
Mittelalter,
. N.
Daniel,
slamnd he
West.he
Making
of
n
mage,dinburgh
960.
32
DPE,
Cod.
Cus.
106,
ol.
116r,
.
21-8:
Ad
dem
otestrgui
d hominem
x
Alchoranoachometi,nquodicitur,uod ex alvacionisroporcionatairibusecipien-
cium st
melior
uam, ue
non st alis. ed
certum
st,
uod
excanonica
onciliorum
generalium
st
cclesie niversali
alubrior
uam
ex
apostolicaape,
um
uia
divinior
utputa
mmediate
rocedens
providencia
piritus
ancti,
um
uia
universalior
tputa
regulans
apam
t uos
ubiectost
procedensque}
ex udicio
lurium
apientum
inodaliter
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 77/187
KORAN NDKONZILIARISMUS
283
2. Der zweite yllogismuseht uf dieAussagedes Koranszurück,wonach
das
evangelische
Gesetz Christi die
Rechtleitung,
das Licht und die
Wahrheit ist. Der Koran stützt also das
Evangelium
und laut dem
Evangelium
musszwischen en versammeltennd den einzelnen
Aposteln
unterschieden erden. Petrus
st
zwar der erste der
Apostel,
doch ist er
selbstder Gemeinschaft er
Aposteluntergeordnet.
benso untersteht
er
Papst
als obersterRichterdem
Generalkonzil.33
3.
Im
dritten
Argument
tützt
ich
Heymerich
auf die mittelalterliche
Überzeugung,
ass der Koran eine häretische
ompilation
us
dem Alten
und Neuen Testament sei. Dadurch
impliziert
der Koran auch die
Auffassung,
ass die beiden
Testamente zusammen heilsamerund voll-
kommener ind als eines der beiden
Testamente
für sich allein.
Die
Autoritätdes
Generalkonzils,
cánones u
erlassen,
beruht auf beiden
Testamenten. as
apostolische
Gesetz des
Papstes edoch
stützt ich allein
auf
das
Neue
Testament.
Heymerich
eduziert as
päpstliche
Gesetz auf
die
Verpflichtung
ur
Pastoralfürsorge,
ndem er
Jo
21,
17 zitiert:
asce
oves
meas.34
4. Nach dem vierten chluss st dasjenigeGesetz vorzuziehen, as uni-
versaler
st,
ndem es viele
Menschen zum Heil führt. ies trifftuf das
kanonischeGesetz des Generalkonzils
u,
weshalb
hm
auch ein höherer
Rang gebührt
ls
dem
Papsttum.
Aus der
Universalität es Generalkonzils
resultiertuch seine
Legitimation
ur
Streitvorbeuge, etzerbekämpfung
und Sittenreform.a
Friede,
Glaube und Reformdie drei
Aufgaben
des
Basler Konzils
waren,
führt
Heymerich
uch sie über den
Mittelbegriff
der Universalität uf den Koran zurück.35
congregatorumt siedealiis, tpredictumst. rgo egitimauetoritasonciliieneralisest
ocior
uam otestasegitima
edis
postolice.
33
DPE,
Cod. Cus.
106,
ol.
16r,
.
28-31:
Ad
dem n
eodem lchorano
abetur,
quod
ex
ewangelica
esu,
ilii
Marie,
st
direccio,
ux
et Veritas
anifesta.ed
in
illa
habetur,
uod postoli
cclesiasticeollectiunt
udices
ingulorum
eorsum
elinquencium,
inter
uos
stPetrus
rimusapa.Ergo
dem,
uodprius.
34
DPE,
Cod.Cus.
106,
ol.
16r,
.
32-7:
Ad
dem
n
eodem
abetur,
uod
ex oni-
uneta x
ege
eteri
t
nova,
uius icit sse
egem
Machometi,
ediocriter
omplexa
st
perfeccior
t alubrior
uam
lteraantum.ed
ex,
x
qua
formantur
ánones
onciliorum
generalium,
on
st antum
wangelica,
ed ciam eteris
estamenti,
icut
atet
iffusen
volumineeere
orum,
ex
utem
postolica
ape
nnititurumtaxat
egi
nove,
tputa
llis
verbis
hristi:
asce
vesmeas
tc.
Ergo
tc.
35DPE,Cod.Cus.106, ol. 16r, . 37-41:Ad demneodem abetur,uod lia ex
est
prior,ue
estuniversaliort
plures
ucit d
salutem
uam,
ue
non
sthuiusmodi.
Sed
ex anonica
onciliorum
eneralium
st
huiusmodi,
x
quoper
hanc radicantur
ere-
ses,
ed ntecedunturites
treformanturoresn
totomundoeu
universohristiomine
dedicato.
rgo
tc.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 78/187
284
FLORIAN
AMANN
5. Das fünfte rgument tützt ich auf die Aussagedes Korans,wonach
Gott durch
sein Wort
und
seinen Geist alles
geschaffen
abe.36
Derartige
Wendungen
inden ich tatsächlich
n
vielen
Stellen
des Korans.37 usanus
sah
hierin inen Hinweis
darauf,
dass
auch der Koran die
Logostheologie
aufweist,
wonach
Christusdas
Wort Gottes st. Selbst nach
dem Koran
wäre Christus nicht nur
Prophet
oder
Bote,
sondern Sohn
Gottes.38
Heymerich
ndes
interpretiert
iese
Suren
ekklesiologisch.
uhammad
habe sein Gesetz aus der
Vorsehung
des
göttlichen
Wortes
erhalten. as
Verhältnis
wischen dem Wort Gottes und
Muhammad
entspricht
lso
dem zwischen Konzil und
Papst. Heymerich
ieht hierin seine Grund-
bestimmung
es Konzils als
legislative
Gewalt und
des
Papstes
als exe-
kutive Gewalt
begründet.
Der
Zusammenhang
mit der
Logostheologie
ergibt
ich aus der konziliaristischen
berzeugung,
wonach das Konzil
vom
Heiligen
Geist beseelt st.
6.
Im
sechsten
Argument
itiert
Heymerich
die berühmte
ure
4,
3 des
Korans,
worin Muhammad
die
Polygamie
erlaubt. Dies verstand die
christlicheolemik ls Aufrufu sexueller
Ausschweifung,
ie sie
beispiels-
weise
Johannes
von
Segovia
den Muslimen vorwarf.39och
Heymerich
sieht elbst
n
der Sure
4,
3 einen Hinweisdes Korans auf die
Superiorität
des Generalkonzils. ie Erlaubnis ur
Polygamie
ürfe
nichtnur wörtlich
verstanden
erden,
ondernman
müsse
ie
auch
mystisch
erstehen. ach
der
chrisdichen
rautmystikepräsentiert
ie
Kirche
die
Braut
Christi.
Wenn die Kirche durch den
Papst repräsentiert
wird,
herrscht ine
monogame
Ehe
zwischenKirche und
Christus;
wenn
allerdings
as Konzil
die Kirche
repräsentiert,
önne
man
von einer
polygamen
he
sprechen,
da die vielen Konzilsteilnehmerie
Braut Christi usmachen.Wenn man
36
DPE,
Cod.Cus.
106,
ol.
16r,
. 41 fol.
16v,
.
6:
„Ad
dem
n
eodem
abetur,
quod
deus
er
uum
erbum,
uod
st xtra
psum
d
modum,
uo
Plato
onit
mentem
et
Perypateticionunt
ntelligencias,116v]
t cum ius
piritu,ui
se habet t anima
mundiecundum
latonemel nima obilisecundum
eripatéticos,
ecitniversat
per
concorsecretumllorumermo
eiMachometostdata ex
alvacionis,
x hoc
rguens
illius
egis erfeccionem,uodprodierit
e
superno
oncilio
lurium.
um
rgo
e
papa
habeatd concilium
enerale
icut
achometusd
providenciam
eiverbit
uscipit
uam
legem,
t
fingit,er
modum utui
oncilii
ictatam,
atet
ropositum.
37
Koran
,
171;
Vgl.
Koran
, 117;36,
82;
6,
73.
38NvK,Cribratiolkorani,13,n.60,52:„Adhucic ertumst x Alkoranoerbo ei
omnia sse
reata.
erbum
gitur
ei ncreatum
st,
uoniam er psum
mnia reata
sunt.
39
Johannes
e
Segovia,
ber
e
magna
uctoritate
piscoporum
n oncilio
eneralihg.
v. Rolf
de
Kegel,
reiburg/
chweiz
995, ,
6
§
1,
37 f.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 79/187
KORAN ND
KONZILIARISMUS
285
den Wortlaut es Korans mittels es sensusmysticusnterpretiert,ann sei
die
Polygamie
atsächlich
er
Monogamie
vorzuziehen.40
7.
Laut dem
siebten
Argument
abe
Muhammad
den Koran
von
Gott
erhalten,
ls
er durch
einen
Diener,
den
Erzengel
Gabriel,
n
den siebten
Himmel
getragen
worden sei.41
Hiermit
gibt
Heymerich
die
muslimische
Legende
von
Muhammads
Himmelsreise
ieder.42
ei seiner
Himmelsreise
habe
Muhammad
den Koran
ohne
eigene
Verdienste ls
Gnadengabe
empfangen.
Muhammads
Funktion
war die
eines
Dieners
und Boten
Gottes,
was
tatsächlich em
Verständnis
uhammads
m
Koran
entspricht.Das Verhältnis ottes u Muhammad
gleicht
emzwischenGeneralkonzil
und
Papst.
Der
Papst
fungiert
lso als
Knecht und
Bote des
vom
Heiligen
Geist
inspirierten
onzils.
8.
Das
achte
Argument
verbindet den
Koran
mit
der
christlichen
Zweischwerterlehre.as
geistliche
nd
das
weltliche
chwert
tehenfiir
die zwei
Gewalten,
das
geistliche
ür
die
Amtskirche
nd
das
weltliche
für
Könige
und
Fürsten.
m
Konzil
sind nun
beiderlei
Gewalten
vertreten.
Der
Papst
indes
führt ach
Heymerich
ediglich
das
geistliche
chwert.
Folglich st die konziliareGewalthöheranzusiedeln ls die des Papstes.43
40
DPE,
Cod.Cus.
106,
ol.
16v,
.
6-14:
Ad
dem
ecundum
iffinicionem
lchorani
lex
poligamie
st
pocior
ege
monogamie,
ropter
uod
Machometus
oncedit edum
bigamiam,
mmo
uoscumque
uxurie
oncubitus,
ed
spiritualiter
t mistice
oquendo,
quisque
iscipulus
xterne
apiencie
ontra ic um
adem
uoddam
oniugium
upciale
secundumllud
apiencie
:
quesivi
ichi
ro ponsa
aberearn.
rgo
oncilium
enerale,
ubi
onvenit
ultitudo
apiencium,
ontinet
ale
multiforme
oniugium,
uod
n
olo
apa
est
uniformet
monogamum.
ciam
uilibet
astor
cclesie
st
piritualis
ponsus
ius-
dem,
oncurruntutemn
concilio
lures
cclesie
relati
eu
pastores,
t
papa
est antum
unus iusmodi.rgodem,uodprius.41
DPE,
Cod. Cus.
106,
ol.
16v,
.
14-21:
Ad
dem
ecundum
dem
Alchoranum
Machometus
uscipitegem
uam
deo
per
ministerium
abrielis
psum
uperiussque
ad
septimum
elum
ortantis
atificatam
er
estimonium
iusdem
abrielist
Michaelis
angelorum,
uius
egis rofitetur
e
servumine
meritis.
rgo,
um e
papa
habeat d
legem
ictatam
spiritu
ancto t
eius
testibuside
ignis
inodaliter
ollectis
icut
Machometusd
dictacionem
estesque
ue
egis,
atet
ropositum,
um
onstat
x
supra-
dictis,
uod
nuncius
t servus
st
ubiectusuo
missori.
42
Auf er
Basis er
ure
7,
1
hatteich ie
Legende
on
Muhammads
immelsreise
im
slam
ntwickelt.er
Liber
calae
achometi
urdem
13.
Jahrhundert
ns
ateinische
übersetztnd
wurde
n
einigen
ersionen
er ollectio
oletana
itüberliefert,
. E. Werner
(Hg.),
iber
cale
achometi.ie
ateinische
assung
es
Kitabl
mi'radj,
üsseldorf
986.
43DPE,Cod.Cus.106, ol.116v, . 21-30: Ad dem iciturneodem lchorano,
quod
deo ex
Machometi
st
potissime
alutaris,
uia
coniungit
ladium
piritus
ladio
temporali,
bedientes
ariis
landimentis,
abulis,
romissionibus
t
ibertatibus
onsolando
et
delectando,
ebellesero
enaliter
ohercendo.n
signumretor
llius
egis
enet
udatum
gladium
n
manu.
ed
n
concilio
enerali
terque
llorum
ladiorum
niversaliter
oncurrit,
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 80/187
286
FLORIAN AMANN
Heymerichkann hierfür en Koran zitieren,da der Islam tatsächlich
keine
Unterscheidung
wischen
geisdicher
nd
weltlicher ewalt
kennt.
9. Laut dem neunten
Argument
erbietet er
Koran das
Hören,
Studium
und die Riten
jedweden
anderen Gesetzes.44Ebenso verhält sich die
Gesetzgebung
es Konzils
gegenüber
em
Papst.
Das Generalkonzil
ann
also dem
Papsttum
Gesetze
und Urteile
untersagen.
Heymerich
bringt
dies ausdrücklich itdem
Nichtigkeitsdekret
decretam
rritam)
n
Verbindung,
das
1433
auf dem Konzil diskutiert
urde.
m
Rahmen der
Kirchenreform
versuchte as Konzil die Ämter-und
Pfründenvergabe
urch die Kurie
zu reduzieren,was imWahldekret
eschah.45
Während der
Vorbereitung
dieses Dekretes
kam es unterden Konzilsteilnehmern
um
Streit,
b
ihm
eine clausula
rritons
ingefügt
erden sollte oder nicht. Demnach
wären
alle
Eingriffe
n
die
Amtervergabe
urch
das
Papsttum,
ie dem Wahldekret
zuwiderliefen,
vorab
für
ungültig
erklärt
worden,
was eine harsche
Beschneidung äpstlicher
Vorrechte
gewesen
wäre. Doch
in
der
verab-
schiedeten
Fassung
des Wahldekretes vom 13.
Juli
1433 findet sich
diese Klausel
nicht,
denn
die
gemäßigte
Linie des
Konzilspräsidenten
Giuliano Cesarini hatte sich durchgesetzt.46 it der These, dass sich
das
Nichtigkeitsdekret
us dem
Koran
ergebe, pricht
ich
Heymerich
n
dieser Stelle fürdie
radikalere raktion
nnerhalbdes Konzils aus.
10. Der zehnte
Syllogismus
tützt ich
auf die
Unterscheidung
on
vis
coactiva nd
vis executiva.aut
dem Koran ist
dasjenige
Gesetz
gerechter,
bei dem beide
am ehesten übereinstimmen.47
ie vis coactiva telltdie
ex
quo representai
cclesiam
atholicamt
potestatibus
egalibus
eli t terre irtuosam
secundumllud: ata stmihimnisotestasncelo t nterrat llud: cceduogladii
sunt
ic,
apa
autem
abet umtaxatsum
ladii
piritualis
ecundumllud:mitte
la-
dium n
vaginam.rgo
llud,
uodprius.
44
DPE,
Cod. Cus.
106,
ol.
16v,
.
30-4:
Ad
dem
ex
fungens
ecreto
niversaliter
irritantest
potissima,
iquidem
alis st ex
Machometi
rohibens
uditum,
tudiumt
ritumeuusum
uiuslibet
lterius
egis
ub
pena
mortisut ributi.
ed ex anonicaon-
ciliorum
eneralium
st uiusmodi
espectuape,
icut
atet
e
plerisque
asibus
n
corpore
iuris
ontentis,
ontra
uos impliciterrohibeturispensacio
ummi
ontificis.
45
Conciliorum
ecumenicorum
ecreta
hg.
v. G.
Alberigo
.
a.,
Freiburg
.
Br.
1962,
essio
XII,
13.
Juli
433,
45-8.
.
Zwölfer,
ie
Reform
er
irchenverfassunguf
em
onzilu
Basel
in:
Basler eitschrift
ür eschichte
nd
Altertumskunde,
8
1929),
69ff.um
äpsdichen
Pro isionswesen
.
A.
Meyer,
urich
nd om. rdentliche
ollaturnd
äpstliche
rovisionen
m
Frau-nd roßmünster316-1523Tübingen986, 5-114.46
COD
(s.o.,
Anm.
5),
essio
II,
13.
Juli
433,
45-8.
47
DPE,
Cod.
Cus.
106,
ol.
16v,
. 34-43:
Ad
dem x eodem
ccipitur,uod
ex,
cuius is oactiva
st
roporcionata
irtuti
roprie
uinunciiive
xecutoris,
st
quior
t
iustior
uam, ue
non
potest
uiusmodi
dequari.
n
signum
uius icit
Machometus,
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 81/187
KORAN ND
KONZILIARISMUS
287
Richter dar und die vis executivaührt hre Urteile aus. Zur Konzilszeit
stimmen eide
überein,
denn
die
apostolische
Kirche
und die
katholische
Kirche machen die
Gesamtkirche
us,
die vom Konzil
repräsentiert
ird.
Der
Papst
allein kann
für sich nur die exekutive
Gewalt
beanspruchen,
die der Gewalt der
Gesamtkirche
ntergeordnet
st.
Heymerich
zitiert
hierfür ie klassische
hristliche
olemik,
wonach
der Koran nichtdurch
Wunder,
ondern llein durch die
Gewalt des weltlichen
rmes
bestätigt
worden sei.48
Im zweitenTeil derDisputatioührtHeymerichdie Gegenargumenteür
die
Superiorität
es
Papstes
an. Dabei
stützt
r
sich
weitgehend
uf
die
gleichen
Autoritätenwie
in
den
Argumenten
ür
die Oberhoheit
des
Konzils. Doch ist
der
propäpstliche
bschnitt esentlich ürzer
nd zählt
lediglich
in
Argument
uf
Grundlage
des Korans.
Laut dem Koran sei
jene
Rechtsprechung
heilsamer,
die
sich den
Bedürfnissender
gefallenen
Natur des
Menschen
anpasst
und ihm
angenehmes
und leichtes
vorschreibt
ls
jene
Rechtsprechung,
ie den
Menschen die volle Härte
des abstrakten
Gesetzes
auferlegt.49
iermit
thematisierteymerich as Spannungsverhältniswischendem Sinnund
dem Wortlautdes
Gesetzes. Durch die
unerbittliche
nwendung
kann
sich ein
Gesetz
in
sein
Gegenteil
verkehren,
as an
dem Umstand
iegt,
dass
ein Gesetz
notwendigerweise
bstrakt
st und nicht
eden
Einzelfall
berücksichtigen
ann.
Heymerich
spricht
hier also den
Grundsatz der
Epikie
an
und zitiert
ie
einschlägige
telle aus
der aristotelischen
olitik,
wonach
es besser
sei,
dass ein
Gemeinwesen om
besten Mann als
vom
quod ua exnon st onfirmatairaculis,edfortitudinemorisrachiiecularis.edvis
executivaurium
n
concilio
enerali
ecretorum
dequatur
iribus
postolicis
uorum
executorum,
x
quo
dem
unt
empore
oncilii
xecutores
udicii,
ui
udicesuxtallud:
quecumquelligaveritis.
ed constatoc
udicium
upervenire
udicium
ape,
x
quo pse
est
per
llud
udicabilisecundum
llud
relibatum:
i
peccaverit
n
te
frater
uus,
ie
ecclesie.
48
Vgl.
Daniel
960
s.o.,
Anm.
1),
73ff.
49
DPE,
Cod.Cus.
106,
ol.
52v,
.
19-29:
Si
iceat aciocinad
d hominemx
ypo-
thesi lchorani
psius erversorisegis
hristiane
achometi,
unc
iqueret
x
ege
ua
upe-
rius
ecollecta,
uod
lla
urisdiccio
stfinaliter
alubrior,
ue disponit
mnia
uavitert
leviter
ecundum
xigenciam
nfirmitatis
ature
apse
t d fruendum
blecta
entis,
arnis
vehementer
nclinate,
uam
lla,
ue imponit
nus
is<pro>porcionatum
t difficileali
nature,icenteomino:ugumnimuave tonus evemeum.ed urisdiccioegisnimate
boni
hominis,
uiusmodist
papa, ui
deodicitur
ater
anctissimus,
sthuiusmodies-
pectu
urisdiccionis
egis
bstracte,
uam
fert
oncilium
enerale,rout atet
x
aucto-
ritate
hilosophi
icentis
II
Politice,
uod
melius
stcivitatem
egi
iro
ptimouam
lege ptima.
rgo
tc.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 82/187
288
FLORIAN
AMANN
besten Gesetz regiertwerde.50 er Papst müsse nun dieserbeste Mann
sein,
der
das Gesetz
im
Einzelfall
außer Kraft setzen
könne,
um die
Gerechtigkeit
u wahren.
Das Generalkonzil ei indes fürdie abstrakten
Gesetze
verantwortlich,
ie
in
den Konzilsdekreten ormuliert erden.
Da
der
Papst
die Gesetze außer
Kraft etzten
kann,
um
unnötige
Härten
zu
vermeiden,
teht r auch über
dem Generalkonzil. ndem der Koran
ein
leichtes
Gesetz
st,
pricht
r sich also fürdie
Epikie
aus.
Interessanterweise
wird hier abermalseine
christliche olemik
gegen
den Koran
ins
Positive
gewendet,
enn dass der
Koran von seinen
Gläubigen
keine
Strenge
er-
lange,
sondern
ogar
zu einem
angenehmen
asterhafteneben ermuntere,
ist ein klassisches hristliches
orurteil.
IV. Die ähnliche
oranhermeneutik
eider enker nddas Basler
Konzil
Schon
in
De
pace
idei
ässt Cusanus
Auffassungen
rkennen,
ie
mit dem
BaslerKonzil
zusammenhängen,
as
sichvor allem an
der
angenommenen
Gesprächssituation
eigt:
Es wird von
einem Konzil als
Versammlung
der Weisengesprochen. s hatuniversalen harakter, a alle Völkerund
Religionen
vertretenind.
Den Vorsitzübt das
verbum
us,
das zumindest
die christlichen
Vertreter unschwer
mit Christus identifizieren. ie
Teilnehmer ind
prinzipiell
leichberechtigt,
er Christ hat also keinen
Vorrang
vor dem
Araber. Es besteht
Redefreiheit nd
im
Gespräch
soll
die
Wahrheit um Vorschein
kommen,
woraus
am
Ende
der
einmütige
Konsens
aller Teilnehmer
resultiert.
Cusanus konstruiert
ier also den
Idealtyp
ines
Generalkonzils,
obei
er
weniger
n
eine
vom
Papst
dominierte
ynode
denkt
ls vielmehr
n
die BaslerVerhältnisse, enn das Basler Konzil verstand ich ebenfalls
als eine
universale
Versammlung
er
Weisen,
nämlich der Kleriker
us
der
gesamten
westlichen hristenheit.
as Konzil solltedirekt
on Christus
gelenkt
werden
und
nichtvom
Papst,
was freilich
pirituell
u verstehen
ist.51 ie verschiedenen
onzilsteilnehmer
esaßen trotz
unterschiedlicher
50
Aristoteles,
ol.
II
15,
1286a9-ll.
.
Mörsdorf,
equitas
in:
Staatslexikon,
.
Aufl.,
Bd.
1
(1957),
4-60.
51DieseAuffassungehtuf asKonstanzerekret aecanctaurück,as inewichtige
Basisfür onziliaristisches
edankengut
arstellt,
.
COD
(s.o.,
Anm.
5),
Concilium
Constantiense,
essio
V,
6.
April
415,
85:
„Et
primo
eclarat,
uod psa
n
Spiritu
sancto
egitime
ongregata,enerale
oncilium
aciens,
tecclesiam
atholicamilitantem
repraesentans,
otestatem
Christo
mmediateabet..
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 83/187
KORAN NDKONZILIARISMUS
289
Weihegradedas gleicheStimmrecht52nd durften ich frei ußern.53n
den
Konzilsverhandlungen
olltedie Weisheit
hervortreten,
a das Konzil
als vom
Heiligen
Geist
erleuchtet erstandenwurde. Schließlich
ollten
die Diskussionen
n
den Konsens der
Konzilsentscheidungen
ünden.
n
Glaubensfragen
ar dabei nicht
die
Mehrheitsentscheidung,
ondernder
Totalkonsens
as
Ziel,
wie er
in De
pace idei
räsentiert
urde.54
Das
Basler
Konzil,
wie
später
auch
das Konzil von
Ferrara-Florenz,
sah tatsächlich
eine
Aufgabe
unter anderem
darin,
die
Glaubenseinheit
wiederherzustellen.
ber die
Streitpunkte
ollte
disputiert
nd verhandelt
werden,
bis schließlich ine
einmütige ösung gefunden
werdenkonnte.
Dazu fanddie
große
Hussitendisputation
m
Frühjahr
433
in
Basel statt.55
Nach den
anschließenden
Verhandlungen
chloss
das Konzil schließlich
die
PragerKompaktaten
b und führte ie Hussitendamit
n
den
Augen
der
Konzilsväter ur katholischen
Kirche zurück. Ebenso strebtendie
Konzilsteilnehmernd
deV
Papst
eine
Vereinigung
mit der Ostkirche
n,
wie sie nicht
n
Basel,
sondern
uf dem Konzil von Ferrara-Florenz
439
verabschiedet urde.56
Die Vision des Himmelskonzils on Nikolaus von Kues hat also eine
realgeschichtliche
Basis
in
den konziliaren
Bemühungen
um die
Glaubenseinheit. er literarische
unstgriff
er Schau des Himmelskonzils
erlaubte es
Cusanus,
die
realpolitischen
robleme dieser
Bestrebungen
auszublenden,
um den
Idealtyp
eines
Glaubenskonzils zur
Geltung
zu
bringen,
wie
er
es offensichdichuch mit den Muslimen anstrebte.
Möglicherweise
urde eine
solches Konzil mit den Muslimen zumindest
theoretisch
m Rande des Basler Konzils erörtert.
Mit Sicherheit
edoch
wurde
n
Basel auch die
Möglichkeit
iner
posi-
tivenKoranhermeneutikwischenHeymerich nd Cusanusdiskutiert,as
sich an ihrer sehr ähnlichen
Interpretationsstrategie
achweisen ässt.
HeymerichsVerwendung
des Korans
als
ekklesiologische
utorität etzt
nämlich
voraus,
dass man die Wahrheitdes Christentumsuf der Basis
52
P.
Lazarus,
as Basler
onzil
Seine
erufung
nd
eitung,
eine
liederung
nd eine
Behördenorganisation
Berlin
912,
3-7.
53
J.
Helmrath,
asBasler
onzil
431-1449.
orschungsstand
nd roblemeKöln
1987,
7ff.
54
Vgl.
W.
Krämer,
onsensnd
ezeption.
erfassungsprinzipien
er irchem asler
onziliarismus
Münster980 BGPhThMA9).Vgl.Helmrath987 s.o.,Anm. 3),32ff.erBegriff
„Totalkonsens
urde onHelmrath
eprägt.
55
.
Šmahel,
ie
Hussitischeevolutionübers,. Thomas
rzenk,
d.
3,
Hannover
002,
1560ff.
56
COD
(s.o.,
Anm.
5),
Concilium
lorentinům,
essio I
(6.Juli 439),
99-504.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 84/187
290
FLORIAN AMANN
des Korans beweisenkann,wie es CusanusJahrzehnte päter n seiner
Cribratiolkorani
nternommen at. Der Aufbau der
Kirche beruhtnach
christlicher
Überzeugung
selbstverständlich uf der Bibel
und dem
christlichen lauben. Wenn
nun
ekklesiologischeragen
aus dem
Koran
heraus beantwortet
werden
können,
muss
der
Koran die christliche
Botschaft wenn auch
dunkel beinhalten.
Die
einschlägigen rgumente
aus der
Disputato
e
potestate
cclesiasticand die Cribratio
lkorani
eruhen
also auf der
gleichen
Überzeugung,
wonach
der Koran selbst on Christen
positivgedeutet
werden
kann.
Der niederländische
hilosoph
erläutert eine Koranhermeneutikur
kurz,
ndem r
mehrfach arauf
erweist,
ass
es sich
bei
seinen
Darlegungen
um eine
örf-Aowz^m-Argumentation
andle.57 Bei einer
derartigen
Argumentationsweise
erden
fremde Thesen für den
eigenen
Beweis
herangezogen,
uch
wenn zweifelhaft
st,
ob sie wahr sind.
Heymerich
kann somit die
Superioritätsfrage
uf
der
Grundlage
des Korans disku-
tieren,
elbst
wenn er den Koran
fürhäretisch ält. Eben diese Theorie
findet ich auch bei
Cusanus
in
einem
Brief,
den er am
29.
Dezember
1454 an Johannesvon Segovia schrieb: Die Paradiesfreuden, ie der
Koran
seinen
Anhängern
verheißt,
ürfe
man
nicht
wörtlich erstehen.
Schon
Avicennahabe
in
seiner
Metaphysik
as intellektuelle
aradies dem
der Sinnenfreuden
orgezogen.
Muhammad habe
also durchdas Bild der
sinnlichen
Freuden die intellektuelle
lückseligkeit
eschrieben.Wenn
man von der wörtlichen
edeutung
des Korans
absehe,
könne
man
ihn
für
eine
eigenen
hristlichen
rgumentationszwecke
erwenden.58usanus
verweist
also ebenfalls auf
eine
arf-Aomm^m-Argumentation,
m seine
Koranhermeneutik
u skizzieren.
emnach
verfolgen
eide Denker eine
sehr ähnlicheKoranhermeneutik,ie derartungewöhnlichst,dass ein
57
Die konziliaristischen
rgumente
erden ie
folgtingeleitet,
PE,
Cod. Cus.
106,
fol.
16,
.
2
f:
Ad
dem
otestrgui
d hominemxAlchoranoachometi
,
ebenso
das
propäpsdiche
rgument,
PE,
Cod. Cus.
106,
ol.
52v,
.
19-21:
Si
iceat
acioci-
nan d hominem
x
ypothesi
lchorani
psius
erversorisegis
hristiane
achometi..
58
NvK,
pistula
d.oanneme
egobia,g.
.
Raymond
libansky
. Hildebrand
ascour,
h
VII,
99:
„De
paradiso
otest
e
facili onclusio
api,
tiam x dictis
uorum,
axime
Avicennae,
ui
n
Methaphisica
ua
praefertaradisum
ntellectualium
eliciarum
aradiso
sensibilium
nAlchorano
escriptum.
tiam idetur
criptorem
lchoraniocutum
er
imili-
tudinemorporaliumeliciarume futuriseliciis. ampostmultasecitationesetse
glosât
icens:Ista t sta
abebitis,
oc
st mne onumt
quidquid
esiderabitis.'
nde
videtur
uod
emper
d
hocconandumit
uod
iber
ste,
ui
apud
os
est n auctori-
tate,
ro
nobis
llegetur.
am
eperimus
n
eo talia
uae
erviunt
obis;
t
alia
quae
con-
trariantur,
losabimus
er
lla.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 85/187
KORAN NDKONZILIARISMUS
291
Diskussionszusammenhangwischen hnen als erwiesen eltenkann. Auch
die historischen mstände
bestätigen
iese These: Beide
pflegten
inen
jahrelangen
Kontakt und
Heymerichs isputatio
e
potestate
cclesiasticast
nach
heutigem
enntnisstandllein
n
der Cusanus-Bibliothek
n
Bernkastel-
Kues überliefert.
Obgleich Heymerichs
isputatio
ber
20
Jahre
älter st als der Briefdes
Cusanus
an
Johannes
von
Segovia,
lässt
sich hieraus nicht
schließen,
Cusanus habe seine Koranhermeneutik
on
Heymerich
übernommen.
Anders als Lull und Meister Eckhart
kannte
Cusanus
Heymerich
nicht
vornehmlich us seinen
Büchern,
ondern tand mit hm in
engem
per-
sönlichen
Austausch.Die
Diskussionen,
ie beide am Rande des Basler
Konzils
führten,
anden lso auch
Eingang
n
Heymerichs
asler Schriften.
Falls seine slamkenntnisse
auptsächlich
us
solchen
Gesprächen
tammen
sollten,
würde dies
erklären,
ieso seine Koranzitatederart
ngenau
sind.
Heymerich
war demnach
weniger
der innovationslose ehrer des
ungen
Cusanus,
wie Colomer
meinte,59
ls vielmehr einer seiner
wichtigsten
intellektuellenreunde und ein
origineller esprächspartner.
Schöne ussicht
D-30989 Gehrden
59
Vgl.
Colomer
964
s.o.,
Anm.
),
213.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 86/187
"
Secundum
rocessum
t mentem
ersons
John
Versornd His Relation o theSchools
f
Thought
econsidered*
PEPIJN
UTTEN
Abstract
Johannes
Versor
f
after
1482)
was a
prominent hilosopher
n the late
fifteenth
entury,
hose workswere
widely
diffused.n
recent
cholarship,
Versor has
been associated with two schools of
thought:
homism and
Albertism.
hese,
however,
ererivals
especially
n
Cologne,
where
Versor's
workswere
printed epeatedly.
Given
this historical
ontext,
ow should
Versor's
osition
midst he
quarrels
f the
schools e
interpreted?lthough
he
evidently
sed the
works f both Albert nd
Thomas,
there s no evi-
dence thatVersor ver committed
imself o eitherAlbertismr
Thomism.
In
addition,
he
Cologne printings
f
his
works
uggest
hat Versor's on-
temporaries
onsidered
im n
independentuthority.
herefore,
ersor an-
not be rated mongthemembers f either chool.
1
John
Versornd the chools
f Thought
n
the
ifteenth
entury
When the
fifteenth-centuryhilosopher
ohannes
Versor
(f
after
1482),
in
his
commentary
Quaestiones
on
Aquinas'
De ente t essentia
discusses
*
Researchor his rticle asfunded
y
theNetherlands
rganisation
or cientific
ResearchNWO) nd onductedspart f he rogramhomism,lbertism,ominalism.he
Dynamics
f
ntellectualraditions
n
the ateMiddle
ges.
ome fthe
opics
iscussedere
were
resented
n firstraft
uring
he
workshop
radition,ruth,
ransition.ntellectualnd
Spiritual
ulture
f
he
ifteenthentury
t Radboud
niversityijmegen,
-5March
004.
thank aarten
oenen,
allan
edsham,
ndrea
obiglio
nd
Sigrid
Müller or
heir
many
elpful
ommentsnd
uggestions.
1
quote
romhe
following
dition:
ohannes
ersor,
uper
mnesibrosovae
ogicae,
Köln
1494,
Unveränderterachdruckrankfurt/ain 1967. hisvolumelso ncludes
Versor's
ommentary
n De entet ssentiaentitledere
Questiones
agistřiohannis
ersoris
super
e
entetessentiaanctihomee
Aquino
rdinis
ratrum
redicatorumbelow: ohannes
Versor,
uestiones
uper
e entet
ssentia),
n ff.
4ra-u2rb.
he
quotation
s from
.
2,
f. 5ra-b. f.
L.
Hain,
Repertoriumibliographicum
vol.
I-2,
tuttgartiae-Lutetiae
arisiorum
1838, 87a *16029,16030);. Voulliéme,erBuchdruckölnsis um nde esunj.ehn-
ten
ahrhunderts,
onn
1903,
20
no. 1215).
As for hename f
John
ersor:cholars
generally
eem
o
prefer
he urname
Versor",
lthough
heres some videncehat his
philosopher
hould athere
called
Versoris";
f.L.
Mahieu,
ominique
eFlandre
XVe
siècle).
a
métaphysique
Paris
942,
2-5.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also vailablenline www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 87/187
VERSOR
NDHIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT
293
thequestionwhether he essence of a composite ubstance omprises oth
matter nd
form,
e first
ollows
homas'
answer,
but then
adds
a short
note on how to
respond ccording
o Albert he Great: "Dubitatur
primo
qualiter
st
respondendum
d
quesitum
ecundumAlbertům."Versor ex-
plains
that
ccording
o Thomas the definition
omprises
oth
matter nd
form,
whereasAlbertbelieves that t
comprises
orm,
nd that matter
s
only
ncluded
s the end term f the
luxus
f a form.2 t first
ight
Versor
seemsto take over Thomas'
view,
but he does so without
ejecting
lbert's
opinion.
The doubt
"Dubitatur
.
.") obviously
oes not concern he truth
of Albert's nswer to the
question,
because the
passage
merely
ells us
what that answer s.3
This
awkward
passage
is
difficulto
interpret
or
two reasons:
First,
Versor s
generally egarded
s an
important
homist.4
2
Johannes
ersor, uestiones
uper
e
ente
t
essentia
if.
4vb-s5ra:Conclusio
rima:
Essentiaubstantìe
omposite
on stmateria
antum,
ecforma
antum,
ecrelatio
ue
est nter ateriamt
formam,
ec
liquiduperadditum
stis Conclusioecunda:ssentia
in
substantiis
ompositiser
e
comprehendit
ateriamt formam Dubitatur
rimo
qualiter
st
respondendum
d
quesitum
ecundumlbertům.
espondeturuod
contra-
riumententieamhabitest eopinionelberti.. Et dicit lteriuslbertusuodmate-rianon
onitur
ndiffinitioneubstantieaterialis
anquamars
ssentieormeotius,ed
tanquam
erminusluxusormeaturalis."
luxuss a
centralotion
n
Albert's
hought,
whichannote
discussed
ere;
hat oncernss here s
merely
he
way
nwhich ersor
treats
lbert's
osition.
lbert
ives long
ccountf henaturef
flowing
n
his
om-
mentary
n
the
Book
f
Causes
cf.Albertus
agnus,
e causist
rocessu
niversitatis
prima
causalib.
1,
tr.
,
ed. W. Fauser
ed.
Coloniensis,
ol.
XVII-2),
Monasteriiestfalorum
1993, 2.35-58.30;
his
assage
s discussed
y
T.
Bonin,
reations Emanation.he
Origin
f
Diversity
n
Alberthe reat'sn theCauses nd theProcessionfthe
Universe,
Notre ame
200
1
-2
Cf. lso
A. de
Libera,
lberte
Grand
t
a
philosophie
Paris
90,
117-77. n thenotionf
orma
otiussee
below,
4.2.
3
K.
Feckes, owever,
ees n indubitable
ejection
fAlbert's
iews
n
Versor'som-
mentaryexceptor he istinctionetweeneingnd ssence);f.K. Feckes,asopuscu-
lum eshl. Thomason
quin
De
ente
tessentiaim
Lichteeinerommentarein: A.
Lang,
J.
Lechner,
. Schmaus
eds),
usderGeistesweltes
Mittelalters.tudiennd exte artin
Grabmann
ur
Vollendung
es
0.
Lebensjahres
on reundennd chülern
ewidmet
Münster
935,
1.
Halbband,
67-81,
t
672.
4
C.
Prantl,
eschichte
er
ogik
m
Abendlande
Reprint
erlin
955, V,
200
note 26),
220-1;
M.
Grabmann,
ittelalterlicheseistesleben.
bhandlungen
ur
Geschichteer cholastiknd
Mystik
Band
II,
München
956, 30;
Feckes 935
above,
.
3),
671-672;
.
Birkenmajer,
Die
Wiegendrucke
er
hysischen
erke
ohannes
er
ors,
n:
Bok- ch
ibliotekshistoriskatudier
illäg-
nadesak
Collijn,
ppsala
925,
21-35
Repr.
n: A.
Birkenmajer,
tudes
'histoire
es
ci-
encestde a
philosophie
u
MoyengeStudia
opernicana,
),
Wroclaw-arszawa-Kraków
1970,
51-65],
t
121;
C.
Lohr,
Medievalatin ristotleommentaries.uthors:
ohannes
e
Kanthir-Myngodus,n: Traditio:tudiesnAncientnd Medieval istory,hought,nd
Religion,
7
(1971),
51-351,
t
290;
E.J.
Ashworth,
he
clipsef
Medieval
ogic
in:
N.
Kretzmann,
.
Kenny,
Pinborg
eds),
he
ambridgeistoiyf
ater
edieval
hilosophy
Cambridge
tc.
1982, 87-96,
t
788.
For
further
eferences,
ee O.
Weijers,
e
travail
intellectuella Faculté
es rts eParis: extestmaîtres
ca.
1200-1500
,
V.
Répertoire
es oms
commençant
ar
(suite:
partir
e
Johannes),
Turnhout
003,
70-6.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 88/187
294
PEPIJN
OTTEN
Second, his commentary n De ente t essentiaas so manyof his other
works)
was
printed
n
Cologne
home of the fiercedoctrinal
quarrels
betweenAlbertists
nd
Thomists.5
Why
does Versor refrain rom
aking
a standon
a matter f obvious
disagreement
etween
Albert nd Thomas?
Scholastic
hought
n the fifteenth
entury,
f which Versor
would seem
a
typicalexponent,
has one
ubiquitous
characteristic:
he formation f
schoolsof
thought. hilosophers
nd
theologians
t
many
universities
on-
sidered
themselves
s
belonging
o
a
particular
ntellectual radition hat
was
in
one
way
or anotherdistinct
rom ther ntellectual
raditions.
o
distinguish
hese
traditions,
hey
used such denominationss thomistaesco-
tistae,
ominales,
lbertistae
nd of course
antiqui
nd modernit
he
University
of
Paris,
where
Versor
studied and
taught,
was no
exception
to this.7
What,
then,
s Versor's
role
in
this
etting?
oes he
belong
to
one of the
schools of
thought
r
not?
This
question
s relevantfor
three
reasons:
First,
Versor'sworks
were
so
widespread
hat
he became one
of the most
influential
uthorsof
his time.
His commentaries
n Aristotle nd
Peter
of
Spain
all
appeared
in
before
1500
and were
reprinted
everal
times.8 econd, in the recent iterature here is a tendency o regard
5
Cf.Voulliéme
903
above,
.
1),
58-60
nos.
44,145,147,
148)
nd518-33
nos.
1211-43);
ohr
971
above,
.
4),
290-9.
ee also
below,
§
2
and6.
ForAlbertism
nd
Thomism
n
Cologne,
ee
the iteratureisted
n thenext
ote,
sp.
Meersseman935.
6
Fundamental
tudies
re:G.
Ritter,
tudien
ur
pätscholastik,
:
Via
ntiqua
nd
iamod-
erna
uf
en eutschen
niversitäten
esXV.
JahrhundertsHeidelberg
922;
F.
Ehrle,
er
Sentenzenkommentar
eters
on
andia,
es
isaner
apstes
lexandersEin
Beitrag
ur
cheidung
der
chulennder
cholastikes
ierzehnten
ahrhunderts
nd
ur
Geschichtees
Wegestreites
Münster
1925;
.
Meersseman,
eschichtees
lbertismus,
eft: DiePariser
nfänge
es
ölner
lbertismus,
Lutetiae
arisiorum
933; d.,
Geschichtees lbertismus
HeftI:
Dieerstenölner
ontroversen
Romae 1935.Morerecent itlesnclude: . Zimmermanned.),AntiquindModerni.
Traditionsbewußtsein
nd
ortschrittsbewußtsein
m
päten
ittelalter
Miscellanea
ediaevalia,
),
Berlin-New
ork
974;
.
Kaluza,
es
uerelles
octrinales
Paris.
ominalistes
trealistes
ux
confins
u
XIVe tduXVe
iècles
Bergamo
988;
M.J.F.M.
oenen,
.H.J.
chneider
nd
G. Wieland
eds), hilosophy
nd
earning.
niversities
ntheMiddle
ges,
eiden-New
ork-
Köln
1995;
M.J.F.M.
oenen
ndA. de
Libera
eds),
lbertus
agnus
nd
er lbertismus.
Deutsche
hilosophische
ultur
esMittelalters
Leiden-New
ork-Köln
995.
7
For he
octrinal
uarrels
n
Paris,
f. hrle
925
above,
.
6),
114-40
nd
297-326;
Kaluza1988
above,
.
6).
ForVersor
n
Paris,
f.
H.
Keussen,
ieMatrikeler
niversität
Köln,II,
Bonn
1931,
4
(n.
897);
Lohr1971
above,
.
4),
290;
Weijers
003
above,
n.
4),
170-1
with
urther
eferences).
he main ource
or he
now
o
ongerccepted)
view
hat ersor
aught
t
Cologne
eems
obe
J.
Hartzheim,
ibliotheca
oloniensis,
oloniae
1747, 06.Hartzheimay ave ome o his onclusionthat ersorirst as member
of the
BursaMontana
nd
subsequendy
f the
Corneliana)
n thebasis
f some
f the
colophons
f
Cologne
ditionsf
Versor's
orks;
f.
elow,
§
2
and6.
8
Prand 955
above,
.
4),
220-1;
irkenmajer
925
above,
.
4),
121.
On Versor's
influence
n
Cologne
f.G.-R.
Tewes,
ieBuren er
ölnerrtisten-Fakultät
is
ur
Mittees
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 89/187
VERSOR
NDHIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT
295
Versornot as a Thomist, ut at least n someof hisworks) s an Albertist,
whichreinforceshe
mpression
hatVersor
s a
problematic
ase.9
Third,
the "Versor case"
urges
us to reflect n the
very
notion of
philosophical
schools. The real
problemmay
not be Versor'
position,
ut rather hat
we
need
to
fine-tune
ur
concepts
n
order to be able to understand hat
position.
There has been some discussion
n
the literature bout what
a
school
of
thought eally
s. Hans Gerhard
Senger
raised
the
ssue when he
ques-
tioned he existence f an Albertistchool
n
the fifteenth
entury. iscussing
the influence f Albert the Great on thinkers uch as
Heymericus
de
Campo (1395-1460),
enger
harply istinguished
he
writings
f
Heymericus
from hose of his successors t the BursaLaurentiana
n
Cologne.
He con-
sidered
Heymericus
who
was
certainlynspired y
Albert)
loser o Cusanus
and to
humanism,
han to those ater heads
of the
Laurentianawhom he
regarded
as
mere
epigones
of
Albert.
n
Senger's
view,
this
difference
meant that the BursaLaurentiana
ay
have been the home of
an
Albertist
school
during
he
ate fifteenth
entury,
ut that
ts
nstigator eymericus
was not properly peaking n Albertist.10his conclusionfollowed rom
16.
Jahrhunderts
Köln-Weimar-Wien
993,389-90;
n his nfluence
n
Cracow,
f.
S.
Swiezawski,
a
philosophie
l'universitée Cracovieès
rigines
u XVIe ièclein: Archives
d'HistoireoctrinaletLittéraireu
Moyen ge,
0
1963),
1-109,
t
89;
M.
Markowski,
Die
wissenschaftlichenerbindungen
wischen
er ölnernd er rakauerniversitätmMittelalter
in: A. Zimmermann
ed.),
ie Kölnerniversitätm
Mittelalter.
eistige
urzeln
nd
oziale
Wirklichkeit
Miscellanea
ediaevalia,
0),
Berlin-Nework
1989,274-86,
t
285;
Z. Kukse
icz,
ie
Einflüsse
er ölner
hilosophieuf
ieKrakauer
niversität
m
5.
Jahrhundert
in:Zimmermann
989, 87-298,
t
289-292.
ee also
below
§
2).
9
For
nstance
eijers
003
above,
.
4),
170;
her ources E.P.
Bos,
John
ersoťs
AlbertismnhisCommentariesn orphyrynd he ategories,n:P.J.J.M.akkered.), hemins
de a
pensée
édiévale.tudes
ffertes
Jfenon
aluza,
urnhout
002,
7-78. f.
lso
Lohr 971
(above,
.
4),
290,
who
otes,
ithout
eference
o
source,
hat ersors a
"Thomist,
sed
Albertizabať";
f. lsoBos
2002,
9,
nd
C.H.
Kneepkens,
am efecatumas
uandoque
servatmatum.
lementaryids-to-study:
nUnconventionalccesso ate-Medieval
niversity
hilo-
sophy
in:Bulletine
philosophie
édiévale,
5
2003),
05-29,
t 116
note 9).
am
n-
debtedo Henrik els or
ointing
ut
o
me
the ource f he
uotation
iven y
Lohr
('sed
Albertizabať):
t was
Versor's
upil
ominicfFlandersho
ualified
he
pinion
f
his eachern
the
ubject
f
ogic
s
being
nfluenced
y
AlbertheGreat. f.Dominicuse
Flandria,uaesüones
uper
II
ibros
etaphysicorum
ib.
,
q.
5,
.
2,
d
5,
ed.Venice
499
Nach-
druckrankfurt
967),
.15ra. he
passage
as
lreadyuoted y
Mahieu
942
above,
.
1),
22,
nd
thoughncorrectly)
y
G.
Meersseman,
enVlaamsch
ijsgeer:
ominicusan laanderen
in:Thomistischijdschriftoor atholiekultuurleven,-2 1930), 85-400,t 395.
10
H.G.
Senger,
lbertismus?
berlegungen
ur
via lberti
im
5.
Jahrhundert
n:A. Zimmermann
(ed.),
lbert
er rosse:eine
eit,
ein
Werk,
eine
irkung
Miscellanea
ediaevalia,
4),
erlin-
NewYork
981, 17-36,
sp.
29-36.
n
thebursae
n
Cologne,
eeTewes 993
above,
n.
8),
esp.
279-394.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 90/187
296
PEPIJN
UTTEN
the criteriaSenger formulated:n order to speak meaningfullyf an
Albertist
chool,
he
argued,
there
must be
a
distinguishable,
onsistent
and coherent
hilosophical
ystem
which
s
based
upon
Albert's
rincipal
philosophical
enets
nd which can
be reconstructed
istoriographically.11
Senger convincingly rgued
that
by
such criteria
Heymericus
was not
simply
n
Albertist;
or one
thing,
he was
heavily
nfluenced
y
other
traditions nd
thinkers,
uch as
Raymond
Lull.
Still,
Heymericus
wrote the Tractatus
roblematicus
bout the differences
betweenAlbertism nd
Thomism,
which
paved
the
way
forthe doctrinal
quarrels
that were to
pervade
intellectual ife at
Cologne
for the next
hundred
years.
Maarten
J.F.M.
Hoenen therefore
ighdy
riticized
enger's
criteria nd showed that t is
possible
to
identify
school of
thought y
its own
(limited)
et of characteristicheses.12 his is
obvious,
e.g.,
from
Heymericus'
method
n his
Albertist
manifesto,
he so-called
Tractatus
rob-
lematicusHe
does
not
present synthetic hilosophical
rogramme,
ut
a list of
eighteen roblems
problemata
divided over
all
branchesof
phil-
osophy.13
Whether or
not,
in
the case of
Albertism,
he characteristic
thesesall derive fromAlbert s of secondary mportance.The interests
of
fifteenth-century
hilosophers
may
have been differentromAlbert's
interests. o a certain
egree
the
appeal
to Albert's
uthority
s
a
different
issuefrom he actual nheritance
f
Albert's
hought.
urthermore,
oenen
distinguished
he notion
of a
philosophical
chool from he more
general
notion of
an
intellectual radition.He defined
philosophical
chool as
a
tradition f
thought
which
(1)
expressly
laims to follow he doctrine
of
a school
leader,
2)
is connected
mainly
o a
teachingprogram
or to
a
particular
cientific ducation
in
which
philosophy
has
a
preparatory
or instrumentalunction),3) defends particular et of axiomatic heses,
and
(4)
is also characterized
y
external
actors,
uch as the
writings
n
which its doctrine
s
based.14
The schools of
thought
re
not restricted
to
university
ducation.
As C.H.
Kneepkens
has
recently
hown,
the
11
Senger
981
above,
.
10),
18-9.
12
M
J.F.M.
Hoenen,
eymeric
an e Velde
f
1460)
und ieGeschichtees
lbertismus:
uf
der ucheachen
uellen
erlbertistischen
ntellektlehrees
ractatus
roblematicus,
n:
Hoenen
and
de Libera 995
above,
.
6),
303-31,
sp.
305-6.
13
Heymericus
e
Campo,
roblematanterlbertům
agnum
t anctum
homamd
utriusque
opinionisntelligentiamultumonferentiaCologne 496; f.Meersseman935 above, . 6),
Voulliéme903
above,
.
1),
246
no.546).
14
M.J.F.M.
oenen,
homismus,
kotismusnd lbertismus.
as entstehennd ie
Bedeutung
von
hilosophischen
chulenm
päten
ittelalterin: Bochumer
hilosophisches
ahrbuch
ür
Antike
nd
Mittelalter,
(1997),
1-103,
sp.
81-94
definition
t
81-5).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 91/187
VERSOR ND
HIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS
F THOUGHT
297
differentiaemanifest hemselves ven on the very elementaryevels of
linguistics
hat were
taught
n
grammar
chool.15
A
confession
f
discipleship
the
first haracteristic
entioned)
hould
not be
regarded
as
an
external
characteristic r
a
purely
strategical
manoeuvre,
ven
if
t does have rhetorical
ualities.
There are numerous
examples
of authors
who
explicitly
laim to follow
a
leader.
Consider
these
examples
of Albertists ho
pledge
their
oyalty
o Albert:
uxta iam
et
xpositionem
enerabilidomini lberti
octoris
agnicerrimiquehilosophi
Arnold
of
Tongeren),
ecundumententiam
eripatheticorum,uam
tribuitis venerbilis
dominuslbertus
agnus
Johannes
e Nova
Domo), ego
.
.
.)
subtilitatis
agni
peripateticorum
lberti
.
.
.)
interpreti
s ncultus
iscipulusHeymericus
e
Campo).16
A
school is named
after he
philosopher
who
is
regarded
as its
leader;
this school name
is
used
by
the authorsthemselves:
lbertistede
quorum
numero e esse
ateor
Heymericus).17
tatements uch as these
may
seem
obligatory,
ut
they
are historical ata
that must be accounted for.
n
fact,
they
are
(or
should
be)
the
reason
why
we
investigate
chools of
thought
n
the first
lace.
In
the
historiography
f late medieval
thought
(and ofphilosophyn general)we may use whatever abels we consider
convenient o
categorize
ndividual
hilosophers
nd
philosophical
move-
ments. or
instance,
we
may say
that
Albertisms a form f
neo-platonism.
This
may
not
be
uninformativer
inaccurate,
but we should
carefully
distinguish
uch
categories
from those
that are
present
n
the sources
themselves.
nderstanding
he
philosophical
chools of the fifteenthen-
tury
means
interpreting
he use
of school
designations
n
the
sources;
t
does not mean
ustifying
hatever lternative
esignations
e
may
prefer.
When we
investigate
he
works f
John
Versor
anew,
theseworks
may
be used as a test ase forthe notionofphilosophical chools as described
above.
If
the characteristics entioned
re
universally pplicable, they
15
Kneepkens
003
above,
.
9),
125-7
with
urther
eferences).
f.
lso he nswerf
the
University
f
Cologne
24
December
425)
o the etterf he rince
lectors,
dited
in Ehrle
925
above,
.
6),
281-5,
t
283.
The
professors
laim hat ll studentsave
already
een ntroducedo
oneof
he
iae efore
hey
ome
o
the
niversity,amelyy
theireachers
n
grammar
chool.
16
Arnolduse
Tungeris,
pitomata
ive
eparationesogice
eteristnove
restotelis,
ologne
1496,
itle
age;
f.Voulliéme903
above,
.
1),
9
no.164).
ohannes
e Nova
Domo,
Tractatuseesse t ssentiapraefatio,d. G. Meersseman,n: Meersseman933 above,
n.
6),
91-191,
t
91;
Heymericus
e
Campo,
robiematanterlbertům
agnum
tSanctum
Thomam
above,
.
13),
.
2r.
For
imilar,
homistic
xamples,
ee note
11
below.
17
Heymericus
e
Campo,
robiemata
nterlbertům
agnum
tSanctumhomam
above,
n.
13),
.h6v.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 92/187
298
PEPIJN
OTTEN
should enable us to defineVersor'spositionwithrespectto the philo-
sophical
debates of
the schools
whether
e will
eventually
e
regarded
as
belonging
o one of the schools or
not);
and that s
the aim
of this
paper.
Of
course,
t is
not
necessary
hat
Versor was
either Thomist
or
an
Albertist. e
may
have been
neither
r
he
may
have been
both,
at different
oments
n
time
or
in
different orks.
n
the
following,
will first iscuss
the reasons
put
forward
n
the
literature or
considering
Versor
a
Thomist or an
Albertist
§
2),
then Versor's
alleged
confession
of Albertism
§ 3),
next Versor's
position
on
some of the
fundamental
doctrinaldifferencesetween Albertists nd Thomists
§ 4)
and his use
of Albert's nd Thomas' Aristode
commentaries
§ 5),
and
finally
ome
aspects
of the
Cologne
editions f Versor's
works hat
urge
us
to recon-
sider his
"Thomism"
§
6).
2.
Was Versor
Thomist?
The
Parisian Master of Arts
Johannes
Versor s
generally
at
least since
Prantl's GeschichteerLogik mAbendlande)onsidered one of the most
influential
homists f his time.18
n
the last two
decades of the
fifteenth
century,
is
commentaries n
the
corpus
ristotelicum
ere
printedmany
times: ll
of
them
n
Cologne,
some
of them lso
in
Lyon,
one
in
Leipzig
and one
in
Metz.19
ater,
his works
were
printed
or
nstance t Cracow
(Questions
on De anima,
1514)
and
in
Venice
(Commentaries
n Peter of
Spain,
1572).20
.J.
Ashworth otes that
"the Thomist
John
Versor" was
perhaps
the
most uccessfulommentator"
n the
ogical
works f
Aristode
and Peterof
Spain.21
rantl,
Grabmann nd
Swiezawski
ll
qualify
Versor
as a Thomist, lthought hey ppreciatehisworksn differentays.Where
Grabmann
inds rich ontentsnd
clarity",
rand ees
"dry
nd dull"
xpla-
nations nd Swiezawski "banal and
popular
form f Thomism".22
he
18
or
references,
ee
above,
otes and8.
19
ohr 971
above,
.
4),
292-9.
20
ohr
971
above,
.
4),
296;
Petrus
ispanus,
ummulae
ogicales
um ersoriiarisiensis
Claríssima
xpositione
Venetiis
572
reprint
ildesheim-Nework
981).
Versor'som-
mentary
n Peter f
Spain
was
printed
s
early
s 1473 nd
1477
in
taly)
nd s late
as
1622
in
Cologne);
f.Ashworth
982
above,
.
4),
788,
ndHain1838
above,
.
1),
487 nos. 6031 nd16032).
21
Ashworth
982
above,
.
4),
788.
22
Prantl 955
above,
.
4),
200
n.
126:
der ntschiedene
homist
ersor"),
00-21
("zeigt
r sich ls einen rocknennd
angweiligen
rklärer");
rabmann956
above,
n.
4),
230
"Inhaltsfülle
nd
Klarheit");
wiezawski
963
above,
.
8),
89
"thomisme
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 93/187
VERSOR ND
HIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS
F THOUGHT
299
reasonwhythesescholarsput the label "Thomism" on Versorseems to
be a
general
impressiongiven by
his
writings.
n
Prantl's
perception,
Versor
basically explains
the works of Aristotle
ccording
to
Thomistic
principles:
He does not
quote many
authorities,
ut
generally
follows
Thomas.23
Moreover,
he wrote
commentary
n Thomas'
De
ente tessen-
tia
In
this work
he
may
not
always
dismissAlbert's
opinion decidedly,
but on thewholehe
certainly
eems
o takeoverThomas' line of
thought.24
Versor
might
also be considered
a
Thomist for other reasons. The
Thomists t
Cologne repeatedly
ommissioned
ologne printers
o
printhis works.The BursaMontana ad some of his
Quaestiones
n Aristotle's
physical
works
namely
hose
on De
generatione
De
cáelo,
Meteora
nd Parva
naturatici)
rintedby
Theodoricus
Molner
in
1485/6,
again by
Conradus
Welker
n
1488,
and
again by
Henricus
Quentell
n
1493.25 etween 1489
and
1497,
Quentell
also
printed
Versor's commentaries n the
Physics
(twice),
e animatheArsvetusnd the
Nova
ogica
all
of them
ommissioned
by
the
ThomisticBursaCorneliana.ewes
argues
that there
probably
were
personal
contactsbetweenmembers f
this
college
and Versor himself.26
The colophons of these Cologne printings uggestthat Versor was a
Thomist of the
Cologne type:
Et sic est
inisquestionum
ersoris
uper
uos
librosrestotelis
e
generatione
cilicett
corruptione
ecundum
rocessum
ursemontis
Questiones
ersorisuxta extume anima
diligentissime
onecte
n bursaCorneliin
Colonia]
tc.27t seems reasonable o
presume
hat heseworkswere meant
to be used
in
the educational
programs
f the
colleges
mentioned.This
presumption
s corroborated
y
the fact that Thomists of the Montana
refer o Versor
n
their
wn
writings
in
spite
of the
fact hat t was rather
unusual to mention
contemporary
uthors
by
name).28
Thus,
it would
seem that Versor can indeed be regarded s a Thomistic uthor.
sous ormeanalisée
t
populaire,
omme ans esécritse
JeanVersorius").
arkowski
also
ualifies
ersor's
hought
s a banal ormf
Thomism;
f.M.
Markowski,
lbertnd
der lbertismusnKrakauin:Zimmermann981
above,
.
10),
177-92,
sp.
187.Cf. lso
Ritter
922
above,
.
6),
73,
note :
"tatsächlich
ehören
ersorsehrbücher
soweit
ie
mir
ekannt
ind)
u dem
Verwaschensten
nd
Farblosesten,
as es damals
ab.
Eben
darauferuhteohlhre
roße erbreitung
nd hre
erwendbarkeitls
Materialsammlung."
23
rantl 955
above,
.
4),
200-21.
24
eckes 935
above,
.
3),
672;
cf.
bove,
1.
25Tewes 993above, .8),389;Birkenmajer925 above, .4),esp.134.
26
Tewes
993
above,
.
8),
389-90.
27
Cf.
Voulliéme903
above,
.
1),
520-9
nos.
214, 216, 220,
224, 225, 230,
1234).
28
Copulataulcherrima
iversisx utoribus
ogice
nunum
orrogata
nveteremrtem
restotelisum
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 94/187
300
PEPIJN
UTTEN
However,EgbertP. Bos has recentlynvestigatedome of Versor's og-
ical
writings
namely,
is commentariesn
Porphyry's
sagoge
nd Aristotle's
Categories)
nd has come to an
entirely
ifferentonclusion.
According
o
Bos "Versor
unquestionably
as a
prominent
Albertist
n
Paris
between
1407 and 1437".
9
Just
s
Prantl's onclusion
based
on the same
works )
that Versor was
a
Thomist,
Bos'
contrary
onclusion that he
was
an
Albertist lso reflects
general mpression
f the contents f these
ogical
works. os notes hat n several ssues
such
s the number f the
categories,
the
analogy
of
the
notion
f
being,
he nature f
substance nd the
theoryof
universais)
Versor
agrees
with Albert.30n
addition,
Versorrefers o
Albertmore often
han to
Aquinas.31
More
importantly,
e rates himself
among
the Albertists.
n
a
passage
in
his
commentary
n the
Categories
where
he
explicitly
laims to follow
Albert,
Versor
repeatedly
peaks
of
"our
way
of
understanding".
os
explains
this
phrase
as
a
confession f
loyalty
o the Albertist chool: When Versor writes our
way"
he refers
to the Albertist
way.32
On the basis of these
facts,
the
long-standing
conclusionthat Versor
was a
Thomist
suddenly
eems to have become
untenable.
3.
Verof
Alleged onfession
f
Albertism
In
view of the
importance
ttached to what
I
have labeled "confessions
of
discipleship"
cf.
§
1),
the
first
oint
to consider
s
Versor's
lleged
con-
fession
f Albertism.33
s
said
above,
in
his
commentary
n the
Categories
textuiusdemecundumiam ivi octorishomee
Aquino
t
uxta
rocessum
agistrorum
olonien
bursa ontisegentium,ologne494, .22vb: ethanc pinionemscilicetgidii e Roma
de
principio
ndividuations,
R) tangit
ersor
uper
e ente t essentiaancti home t
earn bidem
mprobat."
f.Voulliéme903
above,
.
1),
51
no.134).
29
Bos
2002
above,
.
9),
78.
30
Bos
2002
above,
.
9),
65-75.
31
Bos
2002
above,
.
9),
53.
32
Bos
2002
above,
.
9),
53
and 78. For
Versor's
ext,
ee
Appendix
below.
33
This
tudy
s based
n severalfVersor's orkss
they ppeared
n
t the
end f he ifteenth
entury.
n
general,
will
ave o
assumehat
hese
rereliabledi-
tions f uthentic
ritings.
t should owevere noted hat heir
uthenticity
asnot
yet
been
roven;
ndeed,
y
easonf ome ttributions
n
manuscripts
of
everal
f Versor's"
worksoother
uthors)
heirttributionoVersor
n
the ncunable
ditions
ay
e doubted:
Cf.C. Flüeler,ie verschiedeneniterarischenattungener ristoteleskommentare:urTerminologie
der
Überschriften
nd
olophone
in:
J.
Hamesse
ed.),
Manuels,
rogrammes
ecours
t
echniques
d'enseignement
anses niversitésédiévales.ctesu
olloque
nternationale
ouvain-la-Neuve
9-11
septembre
993 Louvain-la-Neuve
994, 5-116,
t 80-4. n the ther
and,
theruthors
may
ave
dapted
ersor's
ritings
nd husransformedhem
nto heirown"
ommentaries,
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 95/187
VERSOR ND
HIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT 301
Versor uses thephrase"ourway ofunderstanding";n the same passage
he mentions
lbert
xplicitly
nd also follows
is
explanation
f Aristotle's
text.
Hence Bos'
interpretation
f that
phrase:
According
o
Bos,
Versor
"professes
o
belong
to
a certain
way
of
thought, amely
Albertism"
nd
"is
conscious
f
belonging
o
a
distinct chool
n
contrast o
others",
when
he uses the
phrase
"secundum
nostrum
modum
ntelligendi".34
owever,
this
nterpretation
s a
misunderstanding.
he
expression
secundumnos-
trummodum
ntelligendi"
oes not refer o
a
particularway
of
thought
at
all
in
which case one should have
expected something
ike
the usual
via,
expo
itio,
octrinar
processus
but notmodus
ntelligendi
35Versor'swords
concern he human
way
of
understanding
n
general.
He uses themwhen
discussing
he
question
whether he notion of substance
s
the most
gen-
eral
genus
n
the
category
f substance.36
is
exposition
f the
problem
closely
resembles
passage
fromAlbert's
ommentary
n the
Categories
37
Indeed,
a
comparison
f the two texts
uggests
hatVersor
based his text
on Albert's.
I
have
included both texts
n
Appendix
1.)
Versor
distin-
guishes
three
meanings
of the term "substance":
(1)
the
metaphysical
a
procedure
hich as
ertainly
ot ncommont the
ime;
f. .
Rutten,
ontraccani-
cam iscoliam odernorum:
he o-Callede universalieali nd he issemination
f
lbertist
Polemics
gainst
he ia
moderna,
n: Bulletine
philosophie
édiévale,
5
(2003),
31-65
(which
emonstrateshat he
Tractatus
roblematicus
f
Heymericus
e
Campo
metwith he
same ate
uring
he ourse f thefifteenth
entury).
ohr
1971
above,
.
4),
297-8,
already
oted hat ome
manuscripts
fVersor's orks ave variant
ncipitseflecting
possibly
ifferentedactionsr different
uthorship."
s Flüeler as stressed
lsewhere,
Aristotle's
edievalommentators
including
ersor
imself;
f.
elow,
5)
usually
ased
theirommentaries
nthosef ther
ommentators;
f. .
Flüeler,
ie temmatischenerhältnisse
der
ristoteleskommentare,
n:
Freiburger
eitschriftür
hilosophie
nd
Theologie,
8
2001),
182-90.34
Bos
2002
above,
.
9)
discusses
his
assage
n
71-3;
or is
nterpretation
fthe
phrase
secundumostrum
odum
ntelligendi"
as
quoted),
f. 3 and78. use he ol-
lowing
dition
which
s the ame s Bos
used): ohannes
ersor,
uaestiones
uper
oarn
veteremrtemKöln 1494
unveränderter
achdruckrankfurt/ain
1967).
he table f
questions
n ff. 5rb-76rafthis dition
ives
he ides or hedifferent
arts,
ome f
which will sewhen
eferring
oor
quoting
romhis dition:
uestiones
primi
ibri
cilicet)
quinquéredicabiliumorphirii,
uestiones
ibri
redicamentorum
restotelis,
uestiones
rimi
ibri
Perihermeniarumrestotelis.
35
Cf.
M.J.F.M.
oenen,
ia
Antiqua
nd ia
Moderna
n he
ifteenth
entury:
octrinal,
Institutional,
nd hurch
olitical
actors
n
he
Wegestreit,
n:R.L. FriedmanndL.O. Nielsen
(eds.),
heMedieval
eritage
n
arly
odern
etaphysics
ndModal
heory,
400-1700,
ordrecht
2003, -36, t 1 -4. eealso he xamplesn note below.
36
Johannes
ersor, uestiones
ibri
redicamentorum
restotelis
above,
.
34),
.
6,
f. 30rb:
"Queritur
trumubstantiait
genus eneralissimům."
37
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicamentis
tr.
2,
c.
1,
ed. A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia,
vol.
),
Parisiis
890,
66a-67b.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 96/187
302
PEPIJN
OTTEN
notion of essence[essentiaimplex, which s the firstnd principalpartof
a
being
(
prima
t
principalisars
entis
, (2)
the
logical
notion of the
first
thingpredicable
of
any
substance
primům
t
simplicissimum
redicabile
,
and
(3)
the
notion
of an
individual ubstance
substantiaarticularis
,
which is
the
subject
of all
other
things
accidents)
nd
of
all
predications.38ogic,
says
Versor,
s concernedwithtwo notions
f
substance,
amely
he sec-
ond
and the third
meaning
of the term.
The second
meaning
of "sub-
stance" s a
generic
notion
and is
the
subject
of
logical enquiry,
ecause
it is
the
"first
redicable",
o which
anything
lse that
can be
predicatedof
any
substance whatsoever
e.g.,
"horse", "man",
"angel")
can be
reduced.39With
respect
to this
primumraedicabile
ersor
(still
following
Albert)
ormulates
sub-question:
What is
this
genus
composed
of,
since
there s
nothing
efore
t,
of
which t could be
composed?
n his
answer
to this
question,
Versor
mentions
nostrum
odum
ntelligendi.
he
highest
genus
itself annot be
composed
of
genus
and
difference,
ecause there
is
no
highergenus: Being
[ens)
s
not
a
genus
with
respect
o the cate-
gories
of
being,
since therecannot be
specific
ifferences
onstituting
he
categories, ecause nothing vades being in the way that a difference
evades a
genus.
Hence,
in
the
highest enus
there
s
no real
composition
of
genus
and
species,
nor of
matter
nd
form.
Nevertheless,
e conceive
of
this
genus
as
being composed
of
potency
nd
act,
or
quod
st nd
quo
est
or
ens
and
per
se.
In
Albert's
words,
there s an
"intellectual
ompo-
sition" of
ens
and
per
se:
"Est enim
ens,
et est
per
se,
quod
addit
super
ens intellectualem
ompositionem."40
n
Versor's
words:
secundum
ostrum
modum
ntelligendi
e can
only
think f the most
general genus according
to the
model of
composition
f act and
potency:41
38
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicamentis,
r.
2,
c.
1,
ed. A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890, 66a;
ohannes
ersor,
uestiones
ibri
redicamentorum
restotelis
above,
n.
34),
.
6,
f.30rb-30va.he
complete
extsre
n
Appendix
below.
39
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicamentis
tr.
2,
c.
1,
ed. A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890,
66a-
67b;
ohannes
ersor, uestiones
ibri
redicamentorum
restotelis
(above,
.
34),
.
6,
f. 30va. ee
Appendix
.
40
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicamentis
tr.
2,
c.
1,
ed. A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890, 67a;
ohannes
ersor, uestiones
ibri
redicamentorum
restotelis
above,
n.
34),
.
6,
f. 30va. ee
Appendix
.
41
n
other
ords:
he
composition
s not eal ut ational.homas
quinas
ses he
expressionmodusntelligendi"albeit ithoutddingnoster")nthe ameway, on-
trasting
hats real
secundum
emin
e
r
realiter)
nd
whats
merely
n
the
ntellect
tantum
in ntellectur ecundumodum
ntelligendi).
f.Thomas
quinas,
criptumuper
ibros
ententiarum,
lib.
1,
d.
2,
q.
1,
a.
3,
corp.,
d. R.P. Mandonnet
vol. ),
Parisiis
929,
8: ". sicut
nosdicimuse relationibus
uae
ex
tempore
e Deo
dicuntur;
ujusmodi
nim elationes
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 97/187
VERSOR
ND
HIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT
303
. accordingo ourway funderstandingsubstances understoodo be com-
posed
f
being
nd
per
e,
which
omposition
e understand
yway
f
compo-
sition
fact and
potency,
amely
f
by-which-it-is
quo
st)
nd that-which-is
uod
est)
However,
here
s no
composition
here
f
genus
nd
difference,
ecause
eing
can
haveno
differences,
ince heres
nothing
hich vades henotion
f
being.
And hust
s clear hatmatter
ndformo not
ompose
ubstance
n
general,
or
genus
nd
difference,ut,
s
said,
ccording
o our
way
f
understanding
t s com-
posed
f ct
nd
potency
r of hat-which-is
nd
by-which-it-is.42
In
using
the
expression
our
way
of
understanding"
ersor is not
pro-
fessing
o
belong
to
the Albertist
ay
of
thought,
ut nonetheless
is text
is evidently ased on Albert's see Appendix 1). In as much as Versor
rephrases
Albert's
text,
he also seems to adhere
to Albert's
philosophy.
For that
reason,
Versor
might
till
e
regarded
s
an Albertist. ne could
argue
that doctrinal
ongruence
s more
important
n
this
respect
than
overt
oyalty
o Albert
or the Albertist
chool.
4. Fundamental
octrinal
ifferences
When we look for
doctrinal
greement
r
disagreement,
n
order
to find
symptoms
f school formationn a
particular
eriod
of time,the ques-
tion
is what
problems
or
positions
re relevant
n
that
particular
ime.
With
respect
o
philosophy
n
the late Middle
Ages,
a
general
doctrinal
agreement
etween two or
more thinkers oes
not
necessarily
onstitute
a
philosophical
chool. Yet for some
scholarsthis was
precisely
he cri-
terion
for
using
abels such
as "Thomist" and
"Albertist"
n
relation o
Versor
cf. § 2).
Above
(§ 1)
it was stated that the
doctrinal
rofile
f
a
inDeo secundumemnon unt,edsequunturodumntelligendirationesorum
attributorumunt antum
n
intellectu,
t non
n
re,
quae
Deus
est."Cf. Thomas e
Aquino,
uaestiones
e
quolibetQuodlibet
,
q.
1,
a.
1,
corp.,
d.
Leonina,
ol.
XXV-2,
Roma-Paris
996,
95.42-5:
. unitas
ersonae
on
ponit
n
numerumumunitate
essencie
uasi
ealiterb
ea
differens,
et olum ecundum
odum
ntelligendi."
losely
related
o this
opic
s the
uestion
bout
omposition
n
the ntellectual
ubstances;
hese
are lso aid o be
composed
f
quo
st nd
quod
st.
f.,
.g.,
homas e
Aquino,
e ente
et ssentia
cap.
4,
ed.
Leonina,
ol.
XLIII,
Roma
1976,
76.90-377.166;
homas
quinas,
Summa
heologiae
la,
q.
50,
a.
2,
ad
3,
ed.
Leonina,
ol.
V,
Romae
889,
b.
42
Johannes
ersor, uestiones
ibri
redicamentorum
restotelis
above,
.
34),
.
6,
f. 30va:
". secundumostrumodum
ntelligendi
ubstantia
ntelligituromponi
x
ente t
per
se,
uequidemompositio
nobis
ntelligitur
er
modum
ompositionis
x actu t
poten-
tia, cilicetxquoest tquod st Non arnenst bi ompositioxgeneretdifferentia,
quia
ensdifferentiasabere
on
potest,
um
nihil
it
uod
rationemntis
ubterfugere
possit.
t ic
patet uod
materiat
formaon
omponunt
ubstantiam
n
communi
ccepta
ñeque
tiam
enus
t
differentia,
edutdictumst ecundumostrum
odum
ntelligendi
componitur
x actu t
potentia
eu
x
quod
st t
quo
est."
See
also
Appendix
.)
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 98/187
304
PEPIJN
UTTEN
school ofthought ather nsues from set of axiomatic heses oncerning
fundamental
ssues.
What,
in
the case of Albertism s.
Thomism,
these
issues
re
becomes
apparent
rom everal ources
ontemporary
o Versor's
writings.
n
this section
will discussthreeof these ssues:
First,
Albert's
doctrine
f nchoatio
ormarum
incipient ctuality
r inchoateness f
forms);43
second,
the distinction etween
orma artis
nd
forma
otius
§ 4.2);
third,
the
principle
f individuation
§
4.3).
A
consideration f Versor's
position
on these ssues will cast
light
on his
place
in
the battle of the schools.
4.1 TheDoctrinef nchoatioformarum
When
Aristotle,
n
the
first ook of the
Physics
discusses he
principles
f
nature,
e
distinguishes
hree
rinciples:
matter,
orm nd
privation.
hese
are the
three
principles
hataccount for ll
change
n
the
physical
world.
Matter
s
the
subject
which is
in
itself ndetermined nd which
under-
lies the forms
etermining
t. Form and
privation
re two
contrary
rin-
ciples
that account for
any particular hingbeing
so-and-so r not
being
so-and-so.
Change
means that matterreceives ome formwhich it was
previously eprivedof; it is a transition romprivation o form.Every
form
s a
kind of
perfection,
r
"something
ivine,
good,
and
desirable",
as
Aristotle dmits
n
his discussionwith
Plato,
whereasmatter s
imper-
fect.
All
natural
change
should thus be considered s
a
natural
striving
for
perfection:
Matter desires
to
be
perfected
y
form.44 t this
point
difficultiesrise.
On the one
hand,
it is matter hat desires
form,
or
pri-
vation is
contrary
o form:When
any
form
s
received
by
matter,
he
corresponding rivation
ontrary
o that formmust
necessarily
ease to
exist.
Nothing,
owever,
esires ts own destruction.
herefore,
he desire
for formcannot be in its privation, ut must be in matter tself.45 n
43
The
metaphysical
ndhistorical
ackgrounds
f
Albert's
octrinef nchoatio
ormarum
are
explored
y
B.
Nardi,
a dottrina
'Alberto
agno
uli "inchoatio
ormae
'
in:
d.,
tudii
filosofia
edievale
Storia
letteratura,
8),
Roma
1960,
9-101
Reprint
rom endiconti
dellaClasse
i Scienzi
Morali,
toriche
Filologiche
ell'Accademiaei
Lincei,
er.
,
vol.
12,
fase.
-2
1936), -38].
f.
M.J.F.M.
oenen,
he
Reparationes
ibrorumotiusatu-
ralis
hilosophiae(Cologne
494)
s a source
or
he atemedieval
ebatesetweenlbertistae
nd
Thomistae
in: Documentistudi ulla radizione
ilosofica
edievale,
V
(1993),
07-44,
esp.
23-6.
hetranslation
incipient
ctuality"
s
suggested
y .A.Weisheipl,
he
oncept
ofMatternFourteenthenturyciencein:E. McMullined.), he onceptfMatternGreeknd
Medieval
hilosophy
Notre
ame
1963, 47-69,
t
151-2.
44
Aristotle,
hysics
,
9,
ed. .
Bekker,
erolini
831,
92a
6-34.
45
On Albert's
iscussionf henature
fmatter's
ppetite
or
orm,
f.Hoenen 993
(above,
.
43),
324-6.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 99/187
VERSOR ND
HIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT 305
the otherhand, since matterhas nothing n common withform,how
can it
be
susceptible
t all
to
the
perfection
ntailed
by
a
form?There
mustbe some
ntrinsic
rinciple
o account for he fact
hatmatter esires
form,
n
particular
because
that desire must be
natural,
not violent.46
According
o
Aristotle,
rivation
s
that
principle.
he
controversy
etween
Albert and
Thomas concerns
the
question
whether
privation
s to be
regarded
s
purelypassive potentiality,
r rather s
a
potency
which
is
in
some
way
active.
According
o
Albert,
privation
n
itself
s
just
the
absence
of
a
form
(
arenila
ormae)',
t does not contribute
nything ositively
nihil
onit).A1
his
is
in
accordance withAristotle's
istinction etween
matter nd form s
the
principles
er
se
of
any composite
being
and
privation
s a
principle
per
accidenswhich distinction
s taken over
by
Albert nd Thomas alike.
Yet
privation
annot be
reduced to
absolutely
othing,
n
Albert's
words,
because it
leaves an
aptitude
behind
n
the
subject
relinquitptitudinem
n
subiecto).
his
aptitude
s
the
potentiality
f matterwith
respect
o
form;
it
s
therefore
lso thatwhich
makesmatter
eceptive
o
change.48 othing,
however, esires nythinglse,unless t alreadyhas someincompleteike-
ness to it.
Therefore,
he
appetite
for form
n
mattermust
be of such
a
nature
that t has
a
beginning
f form:
n inchoatio
or
incohatio)ormae
49
As
Albert
xplains,
he
"Peripatetic"
ccount
he
gives
of the nature
of
matter's
usceptibility
o form avoids the
problems
caused
by
the two
46
Albertus
agnus,
hysica
lib.
1,
tr.
3,
c.
15,
ed. P. Hossfeld
ed.
Coloniensis,
vol.
V-1),
Monasteriiestfalorum
987,
9.22-30.
47
Cf.Albertus
agnus, hysica
lib.
1,
tr.
3,
c.
9,
ed.
P.
Hossfeld
ed.
Coloniensis,
vol. V-1),Monasteriiestfalorum987, 4.74-91.48
Albertus
agnus,
hysica
lib.
1,
tr.
3,
c.
9,
ed. P. Hossfeld
ed.
Coloniensis,
vol.
V-1),
Monasteriiestfalorum
987,
4.39-50.
49
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicabilibus
tr.
5,
c.
4,
ed.
A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890,
6b:
. materiaon stmateria
er
hoc
quod
stnudum
ubjec-
tum ormaeb omni
orma
enudatum,
ed
potius
n
materia
lege,
otentia)
d formam
per
nchoationemormae
n
psa.
Et deo
dicitur,
uod
materiaesiderat
ormam,
icut
foemina asculum:
on n
quantum
st
oemina,
ed
n
quantum
st
mperfecta.
. )
nec
perficiotest,
n
quo
non st
ptitudo
d
perfectionem.ptitudo
utemlla necessario
aliquid
st
erfectionis,uia
liter on
ppeteret
d
perfectionem."
he
uggestion
oread
"potentia"
or materia"omes rom
ardi
960
above,
.
43),
84.
Albertus
agnus,
Physica
ib.
,
r.
,
c.
10,
d.P.
Hossfeld
ed.
Coloniensis,
ol.
V-1),
Monasteriiestfalorum
1987, 2.92-73.6:Et deoverissimeictumst, uodnihilppétitliudnisi er imili-
tudinem
ncompletam,uam
habet
d
ipsum.
t ideo
appétitomplerier
transmuta-
tionemd
ipsum,
uod ppétit;
icet
nim
ns
ompletum
alvari
ppetat,
amen
ppetitus
transmutationis
on stnisi
ncompleti.
t
deo alis
ppetitus
st
materiae,
uaeper
mix-
turam
rivationis
um
psa
formaeabet
ncohationem,
d
quam
ransmutanesiderat."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 100/187
306
PEPIJN
UTTEN
extremepositions fAnaxagorasand Plato (whichAristotle imself lso
discusses).Anaxagoras postulated
he latent
pre-existence
f
all
forms
n
matter
latentiaormarum
,
which
entails he false onclusions
hat
generation
is
really
alteration
and that
ultimately verything
s
everything
lse.
According
o
Plato,
on the other
hand,
matterhas no
privation
nd no
incipient
orm;
ll forms ome from
the
giver
of forms
datorormarum).
This leads to
the false conclusion
that
change
in
the
physical
world is
not
natural,
but violent
violentimi),
ecause it
has an
external
efficient
cause.50
According
o
a
Peripatetic
ictum,
however,
orms re extracted
frommatter
educuntur
e materia
.51
Therefore,
lthough
the
positions
of
both
Anaxagoras
and Plato
are to be
avoided,
the
Peripatetic
olution o
the
problem
s closer
to
Anaxagoras
than to Plato.52
On this ast
point
Thomas
Aquinas
agrees
with
his
teacher:
The idea
of
ncipient
orms omes close
to
assuming latency
f forms
n
matter.53
For
Thomas,
this s
all
the
more reason to dismiss he
idea of
incipient
formality,
hich he does
consistently,
oth
in
his
theological
nd
in his
50Albertusagnus,hysica,ib.1,tr.3,c. 15, d.P. Hossfelded.Coloniensis,ol.
IV-
),
Monasterii
estfalorum
987, 8.72-70.76,
nd
bid.,
.
16,
71.15-73.27.
51
The
origin
f he
ormula
ormae
ducunturematenar
ormae
ducunture
otentia
ateñae
is
unclear. he
referenceo
De
generatione
nimalium
n Mandonnet'sdition
fThomas'
Scriptum
eems
mistaken;
f. he
uotation
n note 6 below.
ajetan
alls
t secretum
eri-
pateticum
nddoesnot
give
reference;
f.
Thomas
quinas,
umma
heologiae,
a,
q.
90,
a.
2,
ad
2,
ed.
Leonina,
ol.
V,
Romae
889,
87b
Commentaria
ardinalis
aietani).
52
Albertus
agnus,
ibere
raedicabilibus,
r.
,
c.
4,
ed.
A.
Borgnet
Opera
mniavol.
I),
Parisiis
890,
5a-b:
Adomnia utem
aecdeterminanda
raenotandum
st,
uod
ut
dicit
verroes,
enus
on st
materia,
edforma
eneralis,
t
confusa,
t
ndistincta,
t
diffusa
n
materia
on eterminata
er
ormam:
uam
iffusamormamt
onfusam
ocant
quidamormaenchoationem:ropteruamnchoationemormaenmateriaiffusampsa
materia
quibusdam
ntiquis
ocus
ormae
icebatur,
n
quo
atentormae:t deo aten-
tiam ormarum
rincipium
ecerunt,
tdictumst
n
Physicis,
t rat oc ictum
naxagorae:
propter
uod
tiam
ristotelest
omnes
eripatetici
ixerunt
duci e materia
mnes or-
mas,
tnon sse
as a datorextrínseco.
Elsewhere
lbert
laims ith verroeshat
he
other
hilosophers
eant
he ame s
Aristotle,
ut
acked hewords
o
express
hem-
selves
orrectly;
f.Albertus
agnus,
umma
heologiaepars
2,
q.
4,
m.
2,
a.
4,
ed.
A.
Borgnet
Opera
mniavol.
XXXII),
arisiis
895,
0a: "ideo
icit ommentator
uper
XI
primae
hilosophiaequod
mneslii
Philosophi,
cilicet
t
ponentes
atentiam,
t
ponentes
datorem
ormarum,
ui
mediantibus
irtutibusoelestibus
t elementalibus
t
formativis
generantium
irtutibus,
nfluitt
nvehitormas
n
materiam,
oluerunt
dem
icere
uod
dixit
ristoteles,
uod
cilicet
ormae
otentia
n
materiassent:
ed erbis
ropriis
esciverunt
exprimere.."
53
Thomas
quinas,
n duodecim
ibros
etaphysicorum
ristotelis
xposition
ib.
7,
ect.
,
ed.
M.-R.
Cathala R.M.
Spiazzi,
aurini-Romae
950,
52-3
no.
14426):
Haec
autem
opinio
idetur
ropinqua
onentibus
atitationem
ormarum.um
enim
ihil
gat
nisi
secundum
uod
est
n
actu:
i
partes
el nchoationes
ormarum
uae
sunt
n
materia,
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 101/187
VERSOR
ND
HIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS
F THOUGHT
307
philosophicalworks. n the Summa heologiaein his commentary n the
Sentences
nd
in
his commentaries
n the
Physics
nd the
Metaphysics
Thomas
rejects
the notion
of inchoatio
ormae
n
the
sense
explained
by
Albert.54
Thomas
explains
that
matter annot
have an intrinsic
ctive
principle.
Such
a
principle
would
mean that
something
has the
ability
to effect
change
in
itself,
which
only
occurs
in
living
creatures,
ot
in
inanimate
things.55
homas endorses
he
view thatforms
re extracted
rom
matter,
but
denies
thatthis
entails
n
active
potency
n
matter.He
also
expressly
counters
lbert's
rgumentoncerning
he
supposedly
iolent
i.e.
unnatural)
character f
change
effected ithout he
participation
fan active
potency
in
matter;
ormatter
ssists
n
generation,
ot
by
actively
ontributing
o
the
process,
but
by
reason
of its
aptness
to receive forms.
That
aptness
may
be called
"appetitus
materiae"
or "inchoatio
formae",
but
it is a
purelypassive
potency.56
habentliquamirtutemctivam,equituruod int liquomodo ctu, uod stponerelatitationemormarum."
54
Thomas
Aquinas,
n
octoibros
hysicorum
ristotelis
xpositio
lib.
1,
lect.
13,
ed.
M.
Maggiolo,
aurini-Romae
954,
8
(no. 114):
Patet
rgo
ecundum
ntentionem
Aristotelis
uod
privatio,uae
poniturrincipium
aturae
er
ccidens,
on st
liqua
aptitudo
d
formam,
el nchoatio
ormae,
el
liquod rincipium
mperfectum
ctivum,
ut
quidam
icunt,
ed
psa
arentiaormae
el ontrarium
ormae,
uod
ubiectoccidit."
Cf.Thomas
quinas,
n duodecimibros
etaphysicorum
ristotelis
xpositio
lib.
7,
ect.
,
ed.
M.-R. athala R.M.
piazzi,
aurini-Romae
950,
52-3
no. 442oc-Q;
homas
quinas,
Scriptum
uper
ibros
ententiarum,
ib.
,
d.
18,
.
1,
a.
2,
ed. P.
Mandonnet
vol. I),
Parisiis
1929, 50-4;
homas
quinas,
umma
heologiae
Ilia,
q.
32,
a.
4,
corp.,
d.
Leonina,
vol.
XI,
Romae
903,
37a-b.
55Thomas quinas,n duodecimibrosetaphysicorumristotelisxpositiolib.7, ect. ,ed.
M.-R.
Cathala R.M.
Spiazzi,
aurini-Romae
950,
53
no. 1442e).
56
Thomas
quinas,
criptumuper
ibros
ententiarumlib.
2,
d.
18,
.
1,
a.
2,
corp.,
d.
R.P. Mandonnet
vol. I),
Parisiis
929,
50-454:
. aliidicunt
uod
um mnes
or-
mae,
ecundum
hilosophum,
e
gener.
nimal
,
lib.
I,
cap.
3,
de
potentia
ateriae
du-
cantur,
portet
psas
ormas
raeexistere
n
materia
ncomplete,
ecundum
uamdamuasi
inchoationemaliter
nim on sset
eneratio
utatio
aturalis,
edviolenta Hoc
autem erum
on idetur:
uia uamvis
ormaeducanture
potentia
ateriae,
lla
arnen
potentia
ateriaeon st
ctiva,
ed
passiva
antum;
icut
nim..
in
motuocali
portet
esse liudmovenst
motum,
ta etiam
n
motu
lterationis;
t
ponit xemplumuod,
quando orpus
aturaliter
anatur,
or
st
anans,
t alia membraanata
Nec tamen
sequitur,
i
n
materiast
potentiaassiva
antum,
uod
non it
generatio
aturalis:
uia
materiaoadjuvatdgenerationemon gendo,ed nquantumsthabilisdrecipiendum
talem
ctionem,
uae
etiam abilitas
ppetitus
ateriaeiciturt nchoatio
ormae
Et
ideo concedo
uod
n
materia
ulla
potentia
ctiva
st,
ed
purepassiva".
f.
Thomas
quinas,
umma
heologiae,
a,
q.
45,
a.
8,
corp.,
d.
Leonina,
ol.
V,
Romae
1888, 77a-b,
nd bid
,
q.
65,
.
4,
corp.,
d.
Leonina,
ol.
V,
Romae
889,
52a-153a.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 102/187
308
PEPIJN
OTTEN
Albert'sposition s adopted by his earlyfollowers,uch as his pupil
Udalricus de
Argentina
Ulrich
von
Strassburg).57
t is
again
taken
up by
fifteenth-century
lbertistsuch
as
Johannes
e Nova Domo and
Heymericus
de
Campo.
In his treatise n
being
and
essence,
ohannes
de
Nova
Domo
ascribes
n essence to
prime
matter,
ecause
everybeing
esse)
s the
act
of
an
essence
and
in
matter here
s
formable ormal
being
(esse ormale
formabile
as
opposed
to
formaleormans
nd
formaleormátům).
his
essence
of
prime
matter
omprises
subjective
otency
nd an
aptitude
orform.
From
this essence
flows
fluii
the formable ormal
being,
which is also
called esse
ormalis
nchoationisnd which is
essentially
he same as form.
Thus,
Johannes
takes over Albert's
position
that matter's
potency
with
regard
o
form s
already omething
ormal
tself.58
eymericus
e
Campo
does the
same
in
the treatisewhich
explicitly
iscussesthe
"problems"
betweenAlbertists
nd
Thomists,
he Tractatus
roblematicus.59
eymericus
also
adopts
Albert's
doxographic erspective
n the
history
f
philosophy
(from
Albert's
ommentary
n the
Metaphysics
,
according
o
which
there
are three
main
philosophical
ects:
Peripatetics, picureans
and Stoics.60
The PeripateticsollowAristotle,heEpicureans includinghepre-socratic
natural
philosophers)
follow
Anaxagoras
and the Stoics
(including
Pythagoreans
nd
Platonists)
ollow Plato.
Heymericus'
account of
the
Platonist,
Epicurean
and
Peripatetic
Peripatetici
. .
viammediam
enentes)
57
Cf.Ulrich on
Strassburg,
e summo
ono,
ib.
4,
tr.
2,
cap.
7,
ed. S.
PieperhofF
(De
summo
ono,
iber
,
Tractatus
-2,7), amburg
987,
28.251-131.364;
t
128.257-8:
"materiaon
ppétit
ormam,
isi
nquantum
st
n
psaprivatio,uae
est ncohatioor-
mae
n
materia";bid.,
t 131.345-6:
formast
n
materia
er
ssentiamecundumsse
imperfectumt confusumotentiale."58
Johannes
e
Nova
Domo,
ractatuse
sset
ssentia,
.
4,
prop.
,
ed.
G.
Meersseman,
in: Meersseman933
above,
.
6),
91-191,
t 135-7
with
eferenceso
Albert):
Quia
esse
ecundum
otumuum mbitům
st ctus ssentiae ideo
bicumque
ecipitur
sse,
ibi
recipitur
ssentia.
mnis
nim ssentiaormalis
st,
uia
b
ea
fluit
sse,
t tahabet
modůmormalis
ormae;
ormalis
ico elformabilis
el
formantisel
formatae.
n
natura
materiae
rimae
eperitur
sse
ormale
ormabile,
t
proportionabile
eperitur
n
essentia.
In essentia
rimae
ateriaenvenitur
liquid
uod mportatur
omine
otentiae
ubiecti-
vae,
ui oncreata
st
ptitudo
euhabilitasd
formam;
uaequidemptitudo
um
oten-
tiamateriae
ocatur
ssentia,
qua
fluitsse
ormale
ormabile,
uod
ocatursse
ormalis
inchoationis,
e
quo
solet
ici
uod
st dem
ecundumssentiamum
orma."
59
Heymericus
e
Campo,
roblematanter
lbertům
agnum
tSanctum
homam
above,
n. 13), robi. ,f.elr-v: . privatiostnegatioormeum ormaliptitudined ean-
dem,
t
per onsequens
portetonere
nmateriaormalem
ptitudinem
t nchoationem."
60
On Albert's
hilosophical
oxography
n
his
commentary
n the
Metaphysics,
f.
G.
Santinello,
toriaella
ibsofia
storia
ei
ilosofi:
l commento
iAlbertol ibrodella
Metafisica",
in:
Medioevo,
VI
(1990),
3-70.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 103/187
VERSOR
NDHIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT 309
views on the relationbetween matter nd formcompletely orresponds
to
Albert's.61
eymericus
warns that the Albertists ith their"formable
formal
ssences"
may
incline owards
Anaxagoras'
theory
f
atent
forms,
whereas he
Thomists,
who
acknowledge nly passive
potency
n
matter,
may
inclinetowards
he "stoic"
theory
f "sterile"matter.62
The
passage
from
he Tractatus
roblematicus
n
which
Heymericus
ketches
this
pectrum
f
positions
s
incorporated
lmost
word forword
n a
work
thatwas
published
y
the Bursa aurentiana
n
1494,
the
Reparationes
ibrorum
totius aturalis
hilosophiae.
In
addition,
his
work also includes
an inde-
pendent
ssimilationf Albert's
hought,
hich
repeats
hemain
arguments
advanced
by
Albert:
Only
on account of the nchoate tatus f forms an
one
explain
that forms re extracted
from
matter,
hat
mattercan
be
perfected
y
form,
nd that
change
n
natural
hings
oes
not come from
outside.64
n
sum,
there s an
obvious,
Albertist
ine
of
thought
which
clearly
has a
direct
relation o the
writings
f Alberthimself.
61
Cf. bove.
eymericus
e
Campo,
roblematanterlbertům
agnum
t anctumhomam
(above, . 13), robi. ,f.d5r-v:Dicebat nim lato uodmateriast oeternaatoriformarumcui lledator ola uabonitatetimulatusmprimitmaginesonformesuis
ydealibus
ationibus..
E
contrautem icunt
picurei,
uorumaput
uit
naxagoras,
quod
materia
st
universorum
rimum
t
perfectissimumrincipiumuod
n
se
prehabet
omniumormas
uas
subiectiveustentâted velamentoccidentium
psam
estientium
occultantur
e alicui
ppareant
reter
arn
ue
dat
materie
n hoc
vel
n lionomen.
t
dicit uiusmodiatentiasllucescere
er gentia
aturaliaemoventiab
ipsa
materiaalia
accidentiaccultantiatobumbrancia
ucem alium
ormarum,
ta
uod
generatio
on st
aliud
uam
evelatioormeubstantialisntus
epulte
n
caligine
aterie.
t alteratiost
revelatiolicuiusormeccidentalisimiliteratitantis
Peripatetici
ero,
uorumrchipa-
ter uit
restoteles,
iammediamenentesixeruntateriamecomnino
sse
nudam
t
sterilem,
icut iunt latonicit
Stoyci,
ec
prorsus
ecunditateormarum
ctuatam,
icut
pretenduntpicurei,ed rehabereasformasecundumotentiamt bagentibusxpectare
illius
otentie
ormativos
formativus
d.
actus,
ui
ermob
omnibusectatoribusrestotelis
concorditer
ccipitur."
62
Ibid.,
.
d5v:
Sedeius
ntelligentia
deo
dispar
nvenitur
ic,
uod
hii
videnturec-
linared
opinionem
toycorum,
iivero d
positionem
picureorum.
obis
nim,
uxta
viam t ntellectumoctoris
agni
ales ormas
reesse
n
materia
er
ssentiasuas or-
males ormabiles
onentibus,nponitur
rror
naxagore,
icut
t
sectatoribusoctoris
Sancti,
olam
otentiam
ubiectivamaterie
onfitentibus,
rror
mpingiturtoycorum."
63
Reparationes
ibrorumotius
aturalis
hilosophiaeanonymous),
ologne
494;
f.
Voulliéme
1903
above,
.
1),
443
no. 1016).
ee the
part oncerning
he
Physics
lib.
1,
tr.
,
ff.
c2v-c3r.
n these
eparationes
nd the
genre
f
reparationes
n
general,
f.Hoenen 993
(above,
.
43).
64Reparationesibrorumotiusaturalishilosophiaeabove, .63), nPhys.ib.1,tr. ,f. 2r:
"Queritur
uomodoatet uod
ormeecundum
liquod
sse arum
intnchoate
n
mate-
ria . .
Rationeic
primo atet,
uia
nihil
duciture
aliquo
isi
liquo
modo
refuerit
in
o. Sedformeducunture
potentia
aterie,
rgo
ecundum
liquod
sse arumuerunt
in
materia.oc autem
sse
stformale
ormabile.ecundo
robatur
ic. n
omnimotu
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 104/187
310
PEPIJN
UTTEN
JohannesVersorbriefly iscusses he same topicofincipient ormality
in
his
commentary
n the
sagoge
Again
(cf. § 3),
his text s based
loosely
on Albert's
ommentary,
ut he
keeps
his distance rom he kindof
oyalty
to Albert
isplayed y Heymericus
r the
Reparationes.
nsteadof
defending
either Albert's or
Thomas'
position,
he
juxtaposes
their views without
showing
a
preference
or either one.65The
theory
of
inchoatio
ormarum
is encountered ere
n
a
logico-metaphysical
ontext,
ecause it elucidates
the
relationbetween
a
genus
and its differences.
ust
as
prime
matter
is not
purelypassive
and
uninformed,
o a
genus
is a
"general,
onfuse
and indistinct orm"which
potentially
i.e.
on account of a
potestas)
on-
tains the
specific
ifferencesnd which s called inchoatio
ormae.66
ersor's
paraphrase
of
the
passage
fromAlbert's
ommentary
oes not contribute
a
single original thought,
ut he does mention the fact that Thomas
Aquinas
holds
different
pinion:
It seems hat
he
Holy
Doctor
contradicts
him,
negating
he inchoateness
f forms
n
matter."67
n
the next
page,
Versor mentionsthe same
disagreement
etween Albert
and Thomas
velmutationeportetliquodntrinsecet formalitererfici.ed hocquod ic ntrinsece
perficitur
on
otest
sse ubstantia
aterie,
cilicet
otentia
ius
ubiectiva,
uia
lia em-
per
ademmanetubdiversisormis.ed erit
liquod reter
ateriam
psi
materie
uper-
additum,
cilicet
otentia
ormalisaterie
ue
denticeransit
n
actum. t hocvocatur
formenchoatio.ertio
robatur
atione
ic.
Si non
ssent
orme
ecundum
liquod
sse
in
materia
nchoate,
unc
mnes ormeenirente
foris,
uod
amen st
ontramnes
rationales
hilosophos."
65
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicabilibus,
r.
5,
c.
4,
ed.
A.
BorgnetOpera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890, 1b-97a;
ohannes
ersor,uestiones
uinquéredicabiliumorphiriiabove,
n.
34),
.
26,
ff.
1ra-21vb.
66
ee Albertus
agnus,
ibere
raedicabilibus
tr.
,
c.
4,
ed. A.
BorgnetOpera
mnia,
vol. ),Parisiis890, 5b quotedbove, .52).For he uestionfwhetherne hould
speak
í
potentia
r
otestas
cf.
bid.,
4a-96bnd he
ummaryy ohannes
ersor,uestiones
quinquéredicabilium
orphiriiabove,
.
34),
.
26,
f.
2
vb.
67
Johannes
ersor, uestiones
uinquéredicabilium
orphirìiabove,
.
34),
.
26,
f.
2
1
b:
"Ex
quo
oriturubitatio
e modo
uomodo
ifferentie
pposite
unt
n
genere,
t a
quo
genus
abet
as,
ut cilicet
seipso
el b alio
respondet
enerabilisominuslbertus
notando
liqua,
t bi n
aliquibus
unctis
ibi ontradicereideturoctor
anctus,
icut
notabitur
aute dvertenti.otât
giturrimo
enerabilisominus
lbertus
quod
enus
non
st
materia,
ed st
orma
eneralis,
onfusatdistinctaiffusa
n
materia,
uam
or-
mam ocatAlbertus
nchoationemormarum
n
materia,
ui
ponit
uod
n
naturalibus
forma
nte
enerationem
ormaliter
reest
n
materia,
n
esse amen
onfuso,ndistincto,
formabilit
distinguibili.
. )
Doctor anctus ideturibi ontradicere
egans
nchoat-
ionemormarumnmateria. )Etde sta nchoationeormarumabeturrimohisicorum.
Vide bi."Note hat he
pronoun
sibi" s used
n
a non-reflexive
ay
here,
hich as
commont
the
ime;
f.G. Du
Cange,
lossariumediaet
nfimae
atinitatis,
ol.
,
Parisiis
1846,
35b;
O.
Weijers
M.
Gumbert-Hepp,
exicon
atinitatis
ederlandicae
edii
evi,
ol.
VII,
Leiden
002,
602
S 433):
sibi,
ei:
passim".
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 105/187
VERSOR ND
HIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS
F THOUGHT 3
11
twice.68 et comparedto theway in which,for nstance,Heymericus e
Campo opposes
Albertto Thomas
and
refutes
homas'
views,
Versor's
textreads like
a truce.Versor does
not side withAlbert
ike
Heymericus
or
Johannes
de
Nova Domo
did,
he
merelyrepeats
him.
He does not
side with
Thomas either.He mentions
he difference
f
opinion,
nd that
is all.
In
his
commentary
n Aristotle's
hysics
however,
ohn
Versor
unam-
biguously ejects
Albert'snotion
of inchoate
forms.69
lthough
hiswork
bears traces of both
Albert's nd Thomas'
influence
through
heir om-
mentaries n the
Physics)
Versor
decidedly
follows
Aquinas
on the issue
of matter's
usceptibility
o form.70
s
in
his
commentary
n the
Isagoge
Versor mentions
he
controversy
etween
Albertand Thomas
explicitly.
Here,
he also devotes
separatequestion
o its solution.71 fter
lengthy
discussion
of
arguments,
ncluding
a sketch of the doctrinal
spectrum
(Anaxagoras,
lato,
Peripatetics),
ersor oncludeswith
Thomas
"Conclusio
responsalis
um doctore
sancto")
that substantial ormshave
no formal
being
n
matter efore
he
composite
hing
s
generated.
The
main
argu-
menthe advances here to support his onclusion s that ubstantial orms
give
substantial
eing;
hence,
f
a
substantial
ormwere
essentially resent
68
Johannes
ersor, uestiones
uinqué
redicabiliumorphiriiabove,
.
34),
.
26,
f.
2
vb:
"Et cum
uerebatur
n differentieint
n
genere
icut
n
quodam
eminario,
espondit
dominuslbertus
uod
ic,
uia
realisnchoatioormarum
n
materiaicitursse emen
omniumormarum
pecificarum
Sed
sanctus
homas ene onvenitum o
in
hoc
quodgenus
st
rincipium
ifferentiarum
n
genere
ause ormalison ormantistdeter-
minantis,
edformabilist
distinguibilis.
ed
n
ponendo
alemnchoationemealem is-
convenit
um o. Ideo non
ponit
uod
differentieint nchoate
n
genere
ealitered
tantumecundumationem."69
use the dition
rintedy
Mathias uss
n
Lyon:
hisica
ersoris,
yon
1489
(=
Hain
16023),
f. lva-c4va.
his ditionncludes
uestions-commentaries
n ll
physical
works
Physica
De
cáelo,
e
generatione,
eteora,
e
anima,
arva
aturalia).
f.
Birkenmajer
1925
above,
.
4),
131-5;
ain 1838
above,
.
1),
486.
70
One
of
the
manuscripts
Praha,
nihovna
etropolitníapituly,
od.
L
37,
at
f.
252r)
fVersor's
hysical
orks
xplicitly
otes hat
hey
re Collectex Commentariis
clarissimorumt llustrium
irorum,
idelicetoctorisancti
home e
Alquino
tdomini
Alberti
agni piscopi atisponensi";
s
quoted
sic)
y
Fliieler994
above,
.
33),
3.
71
hisica ersons
above,
.
69),
f. clvb: "secundumanctumhomamalis
ptitudo
(scilicet
ptitudo
ateried
formam,
R)
non st
liquid
ealiter
reale d.]
istinctum
materiaed olum atione Dicit arnen lbertus
uod
hec
aptitudo
eu
appetitus
st
habitualisnchoatioormauperadditaateriet distinctaealitermateria,uiatalis
inchoatiost iusdemssentie
um
forma
De
ista ontroversia
n
sequentibus
atius
videbitur."
he
discussion
f
the
ontroversy
hen
ollows
n
the econd ext
uestion;
Ibid.,
.
c2vb:
Queritur
ecimooctavo
trumormaubstantialisnte
generationem
ei
cuius st ormait
n
materiaecundumsse ormaleormabile."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 106/187
3
1
PEPIJN
UTTEN
in matterbeforethe generation f the composite hing, ubstantial en-
erationwould be
impossible
nd
only
ccidental
hange
would be
possible:
All
generation
would be mere alteration.
hus,
Versor accuses Albertof
falling
nto the error of
Anaxagoras.72
his is the same
argument
hat
Thomas
Aquinas
had
already
advanced
against
Albert.73
To sum
up:
Versor is
obviously
ware of the
controversy
ver the
notion of
inchoate
formality,
ut,
whereas
in
his
commentary
n the
Physics
e defendsThomas'
position,
n
his
commentary
n
the
sagoge
e
leaves
the matterundecided.
n
order to know whether his
disparity
s
accidental or
structural,
e will have to
investigate
ther contentious
issues.
n
the
following
will
briefly
iscusstwo more
problems
put
for-
ward
by
Versor himself. he
first
oncerns
he
distinction etween
orma
totiusnd
forma artis
n
substances
omposed
of matter nd form
§
4.2);
the second
concerns he
principle
f individuation
§
4.3).
4.2.
The
Theoiy
f
forma otius
nd forma
partis
The
theory
of
forma artis
nd
forma
otius
lays
an
important
ole
in
Albert's hought.n his discussion f the ontological tatusof universais
in
his
commentary
n
Porphyry,
lbertraises the
question
whether he
universal
s matter r form.
ince it cannot be
matter,
he next
question
is: Is it the
forma artis
r the
forma
otiusThe
forma artis
s
the
form
which s
part
of
a
composite
nd which nforms he other
part, namely
matter. he
forma
otiuss the form
f a
composite
whole,
.e. its essence.
In
man,
the
forma artis
s his soul which nforms is
body,
whereas the
forma
otius
s
human
nature.The
forma
artis
annotbe the
universal,
ince
it
is
not
predicated
f that
which
t
informs:Man is not his soul.74 ence
72
hisica ersoris
above,
.
69),
f. c4ra: Conclusio
esponsalis
um
doctoreancto:
Forma ubstantial
nte
enerationem
ei uius st
forma on st
n
materiaecundum
esse ormale
ormabile
Probatur De rationeormeubstantial
stdare sse im-
pliciter.
i
ergo
orma
ubstantialst
n materiaecundum
ssentiam,
equituruod psa
datesse
impliciter
aterie
t
per
onsequensuicquid
dvenit
ost
st ccidens.t
ta
destrueretur
mnis
eneratio
ubstantialist
omne ierisset
lterali,
t
ponebantntiqui
Philosophi."
73
Cf.
bove,
. 53.
74
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicabilibus,
r.
2,
c.
8,
ed. A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol. ),Parisiis890, 7b: . quaeriturujusmodiormait? st nim ormaotius,t
humanitas
stforma
ominis:utforma
artis,
icut
nima stforma
orporis
umani.
Forma utem
artis
ivemateriae
on
praedicatur
e
re
cujus
st
forma,
eduniversale
bene
raedicatur.
niversale
rgo
on st orma
artis
elmateriaeecundum
uod
mate-
ria
perficitur
er
formam."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 107/187
VERSOR ND
HIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F
THOUGHT
313
the universalmust be theforma otiusbut thisform an be designatedn
two
ways:
Either t
is
designated
s the mere form
forma antum)
r for-
mal
essence
essentiaormalis)
f
the
composite
being;
or it
is
designated
s
expressing
he whole
being
(totumsse)
f a
composite
of which it
is the
form.
n
the
first
ase,
a
man's form
s
expressed
by
the word "human-
ity" (humanitas).
n
the second
case,
a man's form s
expressed
by
the
word
"man" or "human"
[homo). nly
when
designated
n
the second
way
can the
formof the whole
{forma otius)
e
predicated
of
the
com-
posite
whole,
for we cannot
say
"Socrates
is
humanity"
ut we can
say
"Socrates s human".75
herefore,
he universal s the form f the
whole,
designated
s
expressing
he whole
being
of the
particular hing.76
One of
Johannes
Versor's
questions
on
the
praedicabilia
s whether he
universal
s
matter
r formor the
composite
whole;
it mirrors
he
pas-
sage ust
discussed romAlbert's
ommentary
n
Porphyry.77
ersor takes
over both Albert's
division f the two kinds of form
nd his account of
the twofold
esignation
f the
forma
otius™
aving
concluded that the
universal s the form f the
whole
in
as much as it
expresses
he whole
75
Albertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicabilibus,
r.
2,
c.
8,
ed. A.
BorgnetOpera
mnia,
vol.
),
Parisiis
890,
8a: "Sedformaotius
upliciteresignatur
n
nomine:
esignate
enim t forma
antum,
icut umanitas
stforma
esignata
t forma
antum,
uae
est
essentiaormalis:
t deonon
raedicatur
e eo
cujus
st
orma,
uia
homo on
st
ssentia
sua
formalis,
ec
liquid
liorum
uae
formasabent.
esignatur
tiam
t
formaotius
totumssedicens
ujus
st
forma:t tunc
esignaturer
sse
uod
dat i
in
quo
est t
nomen,
icut
omo icit sse ormale
uod
formaotiusathuic
ompositouod
st
hie
homo."
76
bid.:
Relinquitur
rgo,uod
niversaleit
orma
otiust otumsse icens
esignata".
Cf.G.Wieland,ntersuchungenumeinsbegriffmMetaphysikkommentarlbertses rossenBeiträge
zurGeschichteer
Philosophie
nd
Theologie
es
Mittelalters,
eue
Folge,
),
Münster
1972,
7-31.
77
Johannes
ersor, uestiones
uinquéredicabiliumorphiriiabove,
.
34),
.
15,
f. 3va-
14ra;
Albertus
agnus,
iber
e
praedicabilibus
tr.
2,
c.
8,
ed. A.
BorgnetOpera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890,
7b-39a.
78
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
uinquéredicabiliumorphiriiabove,
.
34),
.
15,
.
13va-b:
"Sciendum
uodduplex
st
forma,
cilicet
orma
artis ue
est ctus t
perfectioartis
compositi
antum,
cilicet
aterie,
icut nima
n
hominest ctusmaterieominis.lia
estformaotius
ue
sciliceton st ctusmaterie
antum,
edest ctus otius
ompositi
ex materiat forma
artis.
t
hec forma
upliciteresignatur:
no modo
er
nomen
abstractum
er uod ignificaturer
modumormeantumum
rescisione
aterie,
icut
hoc nomen umanitasignificaiormamotiusermodum ormeantum,t deonon
predicatur
e eo cuius st orma. liomodo
esignaturer
nomenoncretum
er uod
significatur
tdiceresotumsse ius uius st
forma,
t ta
ignificatur
ormaotius
er
universaleomen t
st
n
habente,
icut ocnomen omo
ignificai
ormam
otiust st
in
habente,
t ob hoc
predicatur
e eo cuius st orma."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 108/187
3
1
PEPIJN
UTTEN
esseof that of whichit is the form,Versorgoes on to ask whether he
form f the
part
and the form f the
whole are one and the
same form
secundum
em.79ersor
responds
o
this
question
by distinguishing
he
opin-
ions
of Thomas and
Albert.
They agree
as far as the
separate
ubstances
are
concerned,
n
which there
s no
real
composition ccording
o both
Dominican
doctors,
ut
theydisagree
with
respect
o
composite
ubstances.
Thomas
says
that
n
composite
ubstances here s also
a real
distinction,
because the
forma
otius
omprises
he essence of both
matter nd
forma
partis
and hence the
forma artis
s a
part
of the
forma
otius
According
o
Albert,
owever,
he
orma
otiusf a
composite
ubstance oes not nclude
matter,
ut
merely
orm.80
Versornotes
hat he Albertists
lbertiste
explain
his
position
n
different
ways.81
ome
Albertists,
ays
Versor,
nterpret
lbert'swords
n
terms f
a rational
istinction,
hereasothers
ake
him
to mean a real distinction.82
He does not
mention
ny
Albertists
y
name,
but it seems reasonable
to
assume that
f
he knew
anything
bout
Albertism,
e would have been
acquainted
with some
worksof the
Parisian Albertist
ohannes
de
Nova
Domo (Versorhimself eing activein Paris).Johannesde Nova Domo
also elaborates
on the
relationbetween the two forms
n
order to solve
79
Ibid.,
.13vb: Conclusio
ecunda: niversale
st ormaotiust otumsse
ei icens
illius uius st
forma Dubitatur
rimo:
trum
orma
artis
t formaotiusint
na
format eadem ecundum
em."
80
bid.' Ad
hoc
espondet
anctus
homas
uod
n
rebus
ompositis
xformat
materia
distinguuntur
ecundum
em,
uia
secundum
psum
ormaotius
omplectitur
ssentiam
forme
artis
t
etiammaterie.
t sicformaotiuse
habet d formam
artis
icut
otum
ad
partem.
ed
nrebus
eparatis
materiaorma
artis
tformaotius
on
istinguuntur
secundumem,uiaunanihilontinetreterliam. t nhacparteene onvenitlbertus
cumdoctoreancto.
ed
in
rebus
ompositis
x materiat
forma icitAlbertus
uod
forma otius
t humanitas
n
homine on
ncludit ateriamed
estformaantum."
Cf.
Thomas e
Aquino,
e ente
t ssentia
cap.
2,
ed.
Leonina,
ol.
XLIII,
Roma
1976,
373.281-91:
nomenutem
ignificans
d unde umitur
atura
peciei,
um
precisione
materie
esignate,ignificai
artem
ormalem.
t ideo humanitas
ignificatur
t
forma
quedam,
t
dicitur
uod
st
orma
otius;
on
uidem
uasi uperaddita
artibus
ssentialibus,
scilicet
ormet
materie,
icut orma
omus
uperadditur
artibus
ntegralibus
ius: ed
magis
st orma
ue
est
otum,
cilicet
ormam
omplectens
t
materiam,
arnen
um
re-
cisione
orum
erque
nata stmateria
esignali."
orAlbert's
iew,
f.Wieland
972
(above,
.
76),
9-31.
81
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
uinqué
redicabilium
orphirii
above,
.
34),
.
15,
. 13vb:
"Et llud iversimodexponuntlbertiste."
82
bid
,
f.13vb-14ra:
Quidam
nim
icunt lbertům
ntellexisse
uod
formaotius
non
distinguuntur
forme
artis>
e
sed
rationeantum
. Sed
alii dicunt lbertům
intellexisse
cilicet
uod
x unione
orme
artis
ummateriaésultat
naformaistincta
realiterforma
artis
t
a materiat
a toto
omposito
t materiat
forma."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 109/187
VERSOR NDHIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F
THOUGHT 315
theproblemwhether he distinctions real or rational.83 is account of
the
relation
places
him in
the second
group
of Albertists
mentioned
by
Versor.
According
o
Johannes
de Nova
Domo,
in
substances
omposed
of matter nd form
there s
a
real distinction
etween
orma artis
nd
forma
otius.Mhe
Copulata ulchenima
ompiled by
the
Thomistsfrom he
Bursa
Montana t
Cologne
also
note that the
opinions
concerning
he dis-
tinction f
forma artis
nd
forma
otius
iverge.
This
text
argues against
those who
deny
that
n
composite
ubstances he
distinctions
real,
and
thus t
represents position orresponding
o Versors
accountof Thomas'
position namely,
hat he distinctions
real).85
n this
point,
hen,
Thomas
Aquinas,Johannes
de Nova Domo and the
Thomists eem to
agree.
Both
Versor nd the Thomists
n
Cologne
mention he
opinion
of
others
some
of
the
Albertists,
ccording
o
Versor)
hatthe distinctions
rational.Now
this
position
an be found
n
the worksof
Heymericus
e
Campo
not
in
the Tractatus
roblematicus
but
in
the
Compendium
ivinorum.
ere,
Heymericus
xplicitly
enies that the
distinction
s
real.86
hus,
although
it is obvious that
the
problem
of the
distinction etween
orma
otius
nd
forma artis laysa role in the school debates,at thispointit seems too
complicated
o contribute o our
understanding
f Versor's
place
in
those
debates.
From
a
doctrinal
oint
of
view,
t remainsunclear
which
posi-
tion would
count
as
distinctly
homisticdoctrine nd which
as
distinctly
Albertist octrine.
However,
the
way
in
which Versor
treats he
problem
does
reveal
something
lse:
Although
Versor mentions
he
Albertists,
e
does not
count himself
mong
them.
Moreover,
s
in
the case of his dis-
cussion of inchoatio
ormae
n
his
commentary
n the
Isagoge
he does not
83
Johannes
e Nova
Domo,
ractatuse sset
ssentia
q.
4,
prop.
,
ed.G.
Meersseman,
in:
Meersseman933
above,
.
6),
149-68.
84
bid
,
149-50:
Quamvis
n
substantia
omposita
ecundumem it
eperire
ormam
partis
istinctam
ealiterontraormam
otius,
amensse ormae
otiusésultatt
emanat
ab esse ormae
artis.
sse ormaeotiusoco
uodper
diffinitum
icitur
mplicite
t
per
diffinitionem
xplicite,uod
uidam
ocant
uiditatem
ei,
lii
ssentiam
ei,
lii
naturam
formalem.
sse ero ormae
artis
st sse nthelechiae
orporis.
ctusutem
ive nthelechia
corporisistinguitur
toto
sse ei."
85
Copulata
ukherrimaabove,
.
28),
.
lrb.The
famousambertuse
Montes some-
times
egarded
s themost
mportant
ontributor
o worksuch s
these
opulata
which
are
collectiveffortsf the
mastersf the
BursaMontanacf.
Kneepkens
003
above,
n.9),117. ambertuse Monte ashead f heMontanaor ineteenears1480-1499);
cf.Tewes 993
above,
.
8),
34.
86
Heymericus
e
Campo, ompendium
ivinorum
V,
ed.
J.B.
Korolec,
n:
J.B.
Korolec,
"Compendium
ivinorum
Heimeryka
e
Camporkp.J
95.
ohoňczenie
n: tudia
ediewistyczne,
9
(1968),
-90,
ee
55.860-56.925,
sp.
56.911-9.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 110/187
316
PEPIJN
OTTEN
even takeposition n thedebate.Here, VersormerelyistswhatThomas,
Albertand the different lbertists
ay.
But
again
there
s anotherwork
in which he discusses
he
same
topic
and
argues
in
favourof Thomas.
In his
commentary
n
De ente t essentia,
Versor
poses
the same
question
about
forma
artis
nd
forma
otius
gain.87
Here,
he
is not
commenting
upon
an Aristotelian
r
Porphyrian
ext,
but on
a work of Thomas
Aquinas.
The difference
ith the
parallel
passage
from
his
commentary
on the
Isagoge
s
revealing.
Again,
Versor
writes
hat Thomas
Aquinas
argues
that
in
composite
substances
here
s a
real distinction
etween
forma artis
nd
forma
otius. ne reasonis thatthe form f the
part
can
remain
when the form
of
the
whole is
corrupted;
.g.,
when Socrates
dies,
his soul survives.
et
now Versor adheres
to thisview
and
declares
that,
although
Albert
and othershold the
opposite,
their
opinion
"can
easily
be
proven
wrong."88
4.3.
The
Principle
f
ndividuation
The last
topic
I
want to
address
briefly
s
advanced
by
Johannes
Versor
himself s a much disputed problem:the principleof individuationn
corporeal
substances.89
n
Versor's
commentary
n De ente
t essentiat
is
the third
question
he
proposes;
his
discussion
reflects
he controversial
statusof
the issue.90
Having
said that
there were
many opinions
about
87
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
uper
e entet ssentia
above,
.
1),
q.
6,
ff.
lvb-t2ra:
"Dubitatur
rimo
trum
n substantiis
ompositis
ormaotius
t forma
artis
b invicem
realiter
istinguuntur."
88
Ibid.,
.
t2ra:
In
oppositum
st
doctoranctus
t Avicenna.
t
arguitur
atione
ic,
quia n eodem otestorrumpiormaotiusemanenteormaartis,tcorruptoorte
corrumpitur
umanitas
ius t non
ua anima.
gitur
orma
artis
t formaotius
ealiter
distinguuntur.
unc
espondetur
d dubium
uod
n
substantiis
aterialibus
orma
artis
et
forma
otius
unt
ealiteristincte
Unde
icet
lbertust
uidam
lii eneant
ppositum,
hoc amen
otest
x
supradictis
aciliter
mprobari."
89
Backgrounds
nd
nalyses
n:
.A.
Aertsen
ndA.
Speer
eds),
ndividuum
ndndividualität
imMittelalter
Miscellanea
ediaevalia,
4),
Berlin-New
ork 996.
f. n this olume
sp.
A.
Speer,
Yliathin
uod
st
rincipium
ndividuando.
ur
iskussion
m
as
ndividuationsprinzip
bei
ohannes
e
Nova
omo,
lbertus
agnus
nd homas
on
quin
266-86,
Hoenen,
"Aliter
utemicunt
homistae".
as
Prinzip
er
ndividuation
nder
useinandersetzung
wischen
en
Albertisten
Thomisten
nd
cotisten
es
usgehenden
ittelalters
338-52;
or
lbert,
f. nthe ame
volumelso
H.
Anzulewicz,
rundlagen
on
ndividuum
ndndividualität
n
der
nthropologie
es
Albertusagnus124-60,sp.132-6. or he homisticiew f. lsoM.J.F.M.oenen,he
Thomistic
rinciple
f
ndividuation
n
15th-Century
homistic
nd
Albertist
ources
in:
Medioevo.
Rivistai storia
ella ilosofia
edievale,
VIII
1992),
27-57.
90
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
uper
e
ente
t ssentia
above,
.
1),
.
3,
ff. 5ra:
Utrum
materia
it
principium
ndividuationis."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 111/187
VERSOR ND
HIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS
F THOUGHT
317
the principle f individuation, ersor decides to consideronlythree of
them:
The
first,
hich s
ascribed
to Giles of
Rome,
is
that the
princi-
ple
of individuation
s
quantity;
he
second,
which
is
ascribed to Albert
the
Great,
s
that
t is
matter;
he
third,
which
is
defended
by
Thomas
Aquinas
in
De ente t essentiais that t is
signate
matter.91
Heymericus
e
Campo
offers similar
ccount
f this ssue
n
theTractatus
problematicus.
e does not
considerGiles'
view,
but he
represents
lbert
and
Thomas
in
the same
way.92
he
same
holds
for the
professors
ho
lead the BursaLaurentianafter
Heymericus,
uch as Arnold of
Tongeren
and Gerald of
Harderwijk. hey
defend he "sententia enerabilis omini
Alberti"
Arnold)
hat the
principle
f
individuation
s
matter
gainst
the
Thomistic hesis hat t is matter
ignatedby quantity
a
position
which
is indeed defended
y
the Thomistic
CopulataulchemmaP gain,
the same
issue nd the same Albertistnd Thomist
ositions
ccur
n
the
Promptuarium
argumentorum
Cologne
1492),
whichdiscusses lbertistnd Thomist olutions
to a number of
logical questions.94
n
short,
t is
apparent
from
many
91
bid
,
f. 5va: Sciendumst ecundo
uod
de
principio
ndividuationsulte uerunt
opiniones,ed olumdpresensetribusidendumst. rimapiniost gidiie Rhoma
dicentis
uodquantitas
e
se est
principium
ndividuationis.ecunda stAlbertiicentis
quod
materia
stde se hec t
ncommunicabilist de se sufficienseddereormam
uam
suscipit
ncommunicabilem;
t
sicest otale t sufficiens
rincipium
ndividuationisecun-
dum
psum.
. )
Tertia ero uit
pinio
ancii home icentis
uod
materia
ignatauan-
titatest
rincipium
ndividuationistnonmateria
uocumque
odo
ccepta."
f.Thomas
de
Aquino,
e entet ssentia
cap.
2,
ed.
Leonina,
ol.
XLIII,
Roma
1976,
71.73-7:Et
ideo ciendumst
uod
materiaon
uolibet
odo
ccepta
st ndiuiduationis
rincipium,
sed olummateria
ignata;
tdico
materiam
ignatam
ue
subdeterminatisimensionibus
considerato."
92
Heymericus
e
Campo,
roblematanterlbertům
agnum
tSanctum
homam
above,
n. 13), robi.,ff. 4v-b6v.or ohannese NovaDomo, f. peer 996above, .89).93
Heymericus
e
Campo,
bid. erarduse
Harderwyck,
ommentaria
n
sagogasorphirii
(part
f his
complete
ommentary
n
the
old
ogic), ologne
494,
f.
Elra-EE2vb;
cf.Voulliéme
903
above,
.
1),
195
no. 439).
Arnolduse
Tungeris,
pitomata
ive
reparationesogice
eterist
nove restotelis
above,
.
16),
f.
2v-d3r:
Querituruid
st
prin-
cipium
ndividuationis.olu io
uod
de hoc unt
pud
iversosalde iverse
tvarie
pin-
iones,
uibus
mnibusimissiserior
ideturententiaenerabilisomini
lbertiicentis
quod
materiae sola est
principium
ndividuationis."
opulataulcherrimaabove,
.
28),
ff.
0vb-21va,
t
f.
20vb:
relictismnibusstis
pinionibus
icendum
uod
n
materialibus
materia
ignata
it
rincipiumdequatum
ndividuationis."rnoldf
Tongeren
lso iscusses
and
rejects
he cotist
heory
fhaecceitas
Arnoldus
e
Tungeris,
bid.
,
f.
d3r),
nd the
Thomistsf heMontana
ven iscuss
besides
lbert
ndof
ourse
homas)
he iews f
Scotus,enryfGhentndGiles fRomeCopulataulcherrimaabove,.28), f.0vb-21va).
94
The
Promptuarium
rgumentorum
as
anonymously)
rintedy
H.
Quentell
n
Cologne
in
1492;
t hasbeen
alsely
scribedo
Heymericus
nd
was
reprinted
s
Heymericus
e
Campo,
romptuarium
Frankfurt/Main
992.
Cf.
Voulliéme903
above,
.
1),
431
no.
980).
ee
Promptuarium
ff.lr-i3v
ndHoenen
992
above,
.
89),
51-3. or
he
uestion
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 112/187
318
PEPIJN
UTTEN
sourcesthattheproblemof ndividuation as a highly ontroversialssue
at the time
and,
in
particular,
hatAlbertists
nd
Thomistsheld
different
opinions
about
it.
In
his
commentary
n De ente t essentia
Johannes
Versor,
determining
his solution o the
question
proposed,
akesover
Thomas'
standpoint
nd
states hatmatter
signated"
by
quantity
s the sufficient
rinciple
f ndi-
viduation.95
e reaffirms
his
n
the second
conclusion,
tating
hat the
only
difference etween
the essence of a
species
and the essence
of an
individual ies
in
the fact that
in
the
first ase matter
s not
signate,
whereas n the second case it is.
Again,
theseare almost
iterally
homas'
words.96
hereafter,
ersor discusses he
doctrines f Giles of Rome and
Albertthe
Great. His
rejection
f both
opinions
s
unequivocal.97
s
in
the case
of the distinction
etween
orma artis
nd
forma
otiusVersor
s
commentary
n Thomas'
text mounts
o a clear-cut efence
f the doctor
sanctus. here
is
no
sign
at
all of
sympathy
owards Albert's
point
of
view.98
ompared
to
his
writings
n the
logica
etusthe
commentary
n
of
uthorship
nd
n
analysis
f he
ontents,
ee
M.J.F.M.oenen,
ateMedieval
chools
ofThoughtn theMirrorfUniversityextbooks.he romptuariumrgumentaramCologne
1492),
n:
Hoenen,
chneider
ndWieland 995
above,
.
6),
329-69.
95
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
uper
e entet ssentia
above,
.
1),
.
3,
f. 5va: Conclusio
prima:
ateria
uantitate
ignata
st ufficiens
rincipium
ndividuationis."
96
bidr.
Conclusioecunda:
ssentia
peciei
t
individui,
t Sortis t
hominis,
on
différantisi
enes
ignatum
t
nsignatum."
f.Thomas e
Aquino,
e entet ssentia
cap.
2,
ed.
Leonina,
ol.
XLIII,
Roma
976,
71.77-87:Hec utem
ateria
n
diffinitione
que
est
hominis
n
quantum
st
homo on
onitur,
ed
poneretur
n diffinitioneortisi
Sortes iffinitionem
aberet.
n
diffinitione
utem ominis
onitur
ateria
on
ignata:
non nim
n diffinitione
ominis
onitur
ocos ethec
aro,
edos et caro
bsolute,
ue
suntmateria
ominison
ignata.
ic
ergo atet uod
ssentia
ominist essentia
ortis
nondifférantisi ecundumignatumtnon ignatum."97
Johannes
ersor,uestiones
uper
e entet ssentia
above,
.
1),
.
3,
f. 5va-b:Dubitatur
primo
trum
uantitas
e se sit
principium
ndividuationis
ufficiens,
t dicit
gidius
e
Rhoma
Respondetur
d dubium
uod
quantitas
e se non st
ufficiens
rincipium
individuationis
Dubitaturecundo
trum ateria
it e se totale
t ufficiens
rincipium
individuationis,
t dicit lbertus
Respondetur
d dubium
uod
materia
ecundum
e
accepta
on st otale
ec ufficiens
rincipium
ndividuationis."
98
Ibid.,
f. 5vb-s6ra:
Dubitatur
ecundo trum
ateriait
de se totale
t sufficiens
principium
ndividuationis,
t dicit
lbertus.
t videtur
uod
ic,
uia
seclusis
seclusus
ed.]
mnibus
ccidentibus
Sorte t
Platone
dhuc emanent
uo ndividua
t habent
formast
materiasealiter
istinctas.
espondetur
d dubium
uod
materiaecundum
se
accepta
onest
totale
ec sufficiens
rincipium
ndividuationis.
atet
uia
materia
secundume acceptastcommunist ndifferensd multaspeciesel ad multandi-
vidua.
gitur
onest
principium
eterminationis
d hic et
nunc el ad
particulare.
t
sic
materia
ecundum
e
accepta
on
otest
ici ufficiens
rincipium
ndividuationis.
d
rationemubii
icitur
uod
eclusis
mnibus
ccidentibus
SortetPlatone
dhuc
emaner-
ent
ndividu
i]
,
quia
in
quolibet
sset
materia
ignata,
ammateria
etineret
uam
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 113/187
VERSOR
ND
HIS RELATION
O
THE SCHOOLS F
THOUGHT 319
De ente t essentias of an entirely ifferentharacter.Whereas n thefirst
Versor
remains
neutral n
the issues
of inchoatio
ormae
nd
forma
otius
in
the
second
he sides
with
Aquinas,
not
ust
on these
issues but
also on
the
principle
f
ndividuation.
herefore
t seemsthat
his
neutrality
owards
Albert
n
his commentaries
n
Porphyry
nd the
Categories
s a matter f
choice rather
han
a
slip
of the
pen.
How could
this
pparently
eliberate
strategy
e
accounted for?
5. Versori seofAlbert'snd ThomasCommentariesn theOldLogic
The reason
why
Versor ften
eems o
agree
withAlbert
n his
commentaries
on
Porphyry's
sagoge
nd Aristotle's
ategories
s
that
arge parts
of these
commentaries
re based on
thoseof
Albert.We have
seen several
xamples
of this
n
the
previous
sections
see
also
Appendix
1).
The reason
why
he used Albert's
commentaries
s obvious:
Thomas did
not write com-
mentaries n
these works.
Hence,
even
if
Versor
preferred
o draw
on
Thomas'
writings,
n
the case of the
Isagoge
nd the
Categories
e had
no
choice but to relyon Albert.For a fifteenth-centurycholastic uthor
such
as
Versor,
Thomas and
Albertwere the
most
prominent
uthorities
fromwithin
the scholastic
radition.
He
may
have
preferred
homas,
but
stillAlbertwould
have been
the natural second
choice.
Below,
we
will
see that Versor
indeed
preferred
homas,
for
in
the case
of Peri
hermeneias
e did
have a
choice,
and
he chose to use
Thomas' commen-
tary.
First,
ome more
samples
will illustrate
recisely
how Versor used
Albert's ommentaries.
The second
question
Versor
poses
in his
commentary
n
Porphyry's
Isagoges: Whether ogic should be called a part of philosophy."Albert
the
Great discusses
he same
question
n
the second
chapter
of the first
treatiseof
his Liberde
praedicabilibus.
A
comparison
of
the two texts
clearly
ndicates hatVersor's
text s
an
adaptation
in
some instances
no
more than
an
excerpt)
from
Albert's
hapter,
lthough
Versor does not
refer o Albert
t all.101 ersor
rephrases
Albert's
rguments
ccording
o
signationem
uam rius
abuitub
uantitate,
ationeuius sset eterminata
d esse
ar-
ticolare."
99Johannesersor,uaestionesuperotameteremrtemabove, . 34), . 2,ff. vb-3ra.
100
lbertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicabilibus,
r.
1,
c.
2,
ed. A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890,
b-4a.
101
f.Fliieler
001
above,
.
33),
sp.
183,
or n accountf his ommon edieval
practice.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 114/187
320
PEPIJN
UTTEN
the rigidscheme ofhis own text,which s composedand formulatedn
a
way
that
guarantees
maximum
structural
larity:Questions
start
with
queritur
arguments
re counted
primo,
ecundo
etc.)
and series
f
arguments
and
counter-arguments
re introduced
y phrases
ike
arguituruod
non in
oppositum
rguitur
etc.
n
addition,
onclusions
re marked s
conclusio
rima
etc.;
important
istinctions
nd other
points
of nterest re
marked
by
sci-
endum
rimo
etc.;
additional
ounter-arguments
re introduced
y
dubitatur
and their
rejections
y respondetur.
ersor's
argumentation
ollows
long
the
lines set out
by
Albert.Their
answer to the
question
raised
is that
logic
is a
part
of
philosophy,
f
philosophy
s taken n a
general
ense.102
In the first
rgument
uod
non
to prove
that
ogic
is not a
part
of
phi-
losophy)
Versor
rephrases
Albert'swords
in
the manner described
and
also adds
a reference o
Aristotle:
Albertus
agnus,
iber
e
praedicabilibus
tr.
1,
c.
2,
ed.
A.
Borgnet,
b-3a:
"Hanc utem
cientiam
ui
modus
st mnis
philosophiae,
uidam
ullam
artem
sse
philosophiaeontendunt,icenteson isi resesse
arteshilosophiae,
cilicet
hysicam,
athe-
maticamive
disciplinabilem,
t
metaphysicam
sive
ivinarti."
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
uinqué
redicabilium
Porphirii,.
2,
f.
2vb:
"Arguituruod
non
rimo
utoritate
hilo-
sophi
exto
Metaphisice
onentis
antumres
parteshilosophiescilicethisicam,athematicamet
methaphisicamergo
t cetera."
The second
argument
uod
non lso
corresponds
o Albert's
rgument
see
Appendix
2).
The third
rgument
wordly
eflects lbert's
ext
gain,
the
only changes
being
some
stylistic
nd
linguistic implifications.
n
Albert's
text,
the
argument
begins
by:
"Addunt etiam ad suae
assertionis
confirmationem,
uod
. . Versor
replaces
this
phrase
by
the words
"Tertio arguitur."Likewise,Albert'sfinalphrase "nec videtur . . con-
tineri"
s
abridged
by
Versor:
Albertus
agnus,
bid.,
a:
"Addunttiam
d suae ssertionis
onfirma-
tionem,
uod
nullius
ei
modus,
um e
ujus
modus
st,
enit
n
eneris
ui
ivisionem.onstat
autem,
uod
ogicaeneraliter
icta
modus
philosophiae
st.
on
rgo
enireidetur
d
philo-
sophiae
ivisionemnec
videtur
n
aliqua arte
hujus enerisuod
st
hilosophia
ontineri."
Johannes
ersor,
bid
,
f. 3ra:
"Tertio
rguitur:
ullius
eimodus
ume uius
estmodusenit
n
ui
eneris
ivisionem.
ed /o-
gica
stmodus
hilosophie,
rgo
on enitndivi-
sionem
hilosophieanquam
ars
ius."
102
lbertus
agnus,
iber e
praedicabilibus
tr.
1,
c.
2,
ed.
A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
890, a-b;
ohannes
ersor,
uestiones
uinquéredicabilium
orphiriiabove,
n.
34),
.
2,
f. 3rb.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 115/187
VERSOR NDHIS RELATION
O THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT
321
The arguments uodsic are again roughlythe same in both texts,
although
Versor'sversion f
the
first
s
considerably
horter han
Albert's:
Where Albertoffers
lengthy xposition
f the diverse
ways
in which
beings
can be
related
to human
understanding,
ersor omits this
part
and
simply
oncludes
hat ince
ogic
concerns
econdary
ntentions,
hich
are
beings,
t is a
part
of
philosophy.
ersor's
econd and third
rguments
are
again copied
almost
wordly
romAlbert's
ext
see
Appendix
2).
In
his
commentary
n Perìhermeneias
published
n
the same volume as
the commentaries
n
Porphyry
nd the
Categories103)
ersorfollows similar
procedure.Only
this
time,
his text does not derivefromAlbert'scom-
mentary,
ut
from hat
of
Thomas
Aquinas.104
he close
relation etween
parts
of Versor's text and
that of
Aquinas
becomes
apparent
from
a
passage
concerning
Aristotle's emarkthat truth nd
falsity
ertain
to
the intellect
n
so
far as
it
composes
and divides.105 ersor lists several
points
to notice
,
ciendum.
.)
that are
all
taken from
Thomas. His
own
contribution
onsists
mainly
f
changing
he
orderof the words:Whereas
Thomas firstnames both
operations
("indiuisibilium
intelligencia"
and "secundumquod huiusmodiSimplicia oncepta simul componitet
diuidit")
nd then
states that truth
nd
falsity
re not
in
the first ut
in
the second
operation
"in
hac secunda
operatione
. . inuenitur
eritas
et
falsitas
..
in
primaoperatione
on
inuenitur"),
ersor
places
the
denial
of truth nd
falsity
n
the
first
peration ight
fter he
description
f this
operation
"Una
est
simplicium
ntelligentia
..
et
in
hac
operatione
. .
non est
Veritas
vel falsitas .
.
Alia
est . .
compositio
et divisio .. et
in
hac
operatione
.. est Veritas
vel
falsitas).
n
addition,
Versor
sim-
plifies
homas'
text
by omitting
he word
"indivisibilia" nd
instead
using
"simplicia"twice,whereas Thomas uses both words to denote simple
concepts:
103
Johannes
ersor,
uaestiones
uper
otameteremrtem
above,
.
34).
104
f. lso
Kneepkens
003
above,
.
9),
116-7.
105
he
complete
ext fthis
assage
s
given
elow
n
Appendix
.
Cf.
Thomas e
Aquino,
xpositio
ibri
eiyermenias,
ib.
1,
ect.
,
ed.
Leonina,
ditio ltera
etractata,
ol.
1*1, oma-Paris989, 4.39-16.138;ohannesersor,uestionesrimiibrierihermeniarum
Arestotelis
above,
.
34),
.
3,
f. 1va-b. or ther
xamples,
ompare
homas
e
Aquino,
Ibid.
6.80-8.168,
bid.
lect.
,
9.20-11.133
nd
12.184-208,
bid.,
ect.
,
21.85-107
nd
23.207-24.279
o
Johannes
ersor,bid.,
f.
9va-b,0rb-60va,
0vb, 2va,
nd
62vb-63ra,
respectively.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 116/187
322
PEPIJN
OTTEN
Thomas e Aquino, xpositioibri eryer-
menias,
ib.
1,
ectio
,
ed.
Leonina,
ol.
*1,
14.39-16.138.
Johannesersor, uestionesrimiibrieriher-
meniarum
restotelis,
.
3,
ff. 1va-b.
Vbi
portet
ntelligere
uod
na
uarum
pera-
tionumntellectus
st
ndiuisibilium
ntelligencia
in
uantum
cilicetntellectus
ntelligit
bsolute
uius-
cunque
ei
uiditatem
iue ssenciam
er
e
psam,
puta uid
st
homoel
uid
lbum
el
aliud
huiusmodi;
lia ero
peratio
ntellectus
st ecun-
dum
uod
huiusmodi
implicia
oncepta
imul
componit
t
diuidit.
icit
rgo uod
n hac
secundaperationentellectus,cilicetomponentiet
diuidentis,
nuenitur
eritast
alsitas,
elinquens
quod
n
prima
peratione
on
nuenitur
Sciendum
ecundo
uod,
t
prius
icebatur,
duplex
st
peratio
ntellectus.
na st
implicium
intelligentia,uando
cilicet
ntellectusbsolute
ntel-
ligit
uiuscumque
ei
uidditatem
ive
ssentiam
er
seipsam,
tputauid
st omo
el
uid
st
lbum
et
n hac
operatione,
t
habet
extus,
on
est
Veritasel
falsitas.
lia st
peratio
ntellec-
tus
ue
st
ompositio
t
divisio,
ue
fit um
intellectusimpliciaimulomponittdividit;t
in
hac
peratione
ntellectusic
dividentis
t om-
ponents
st entas
el
alsitas.
In
Versor's
next
three
tems,
fragments
f Thomas'
commentary eep
appearing
see
Appendix
3).
From these
textual
omparisons,
t becomes
clear
that
John
Versor
does
not
limit his resources
o
the works
of
a
single
authoritative
hinker.
He draws
inspiration
rom
both Albert
and
Thomas.
In
particular,
his use of
Albert's commentaries
n
the
Isagoge
and the
Categoriesxplains
why
he would
seem to
agree
with Albert
n
his own commentariesn these
writings:
is discussion f
Porphyry's
r
Aristotle's ext
s often
not
much
more than
a
copy
of
Albert's
xposition.
This has been
demonstrated
or
he
passage
about
the
category
f
substance
from
Versor's
commentary
n the
Categories
§
3;
cf.
Appendix
1)
and
for
two
passages
from
his
commentary
n
Porphyry:
ne
about
incipient
or-
mality
§
4.1),
and one
about
ogic
as
a
part
of
philosophy
this
ection).
However,
the consensus
s
only
apparent.
n the same
sections
and
in
§
4.2)
I have shown
that
Versor
does
not take
sides
with either
Albert
or Thomas in theselogicalworks,whereas n some of his otherworks
(his
commentaries
n the
Physics
nd
on
De ente t
essentia)
e commits
himself
o
the doctrine
f
Aquinas
even
if
these
works
re based
(as
is
the case
with
he
commentary
n the
Physics
cf.
§
4.1)
on
the commentaries
of both
Thomas
and
Albert.
6.
Versor's
Thomism"
econsidered
The reason
why
Versor
relies
on
Albert
for
his own commentaries
n
the Isagogend the Categoriess thathe had no choice,because Thomas
did not
write
commentaries
n
those
works.
This
also
explains
Versor's
neutrality
owards
Albert.
t
would
have
been
no
sinecurefor
Versor
to
base
his
own
commentary
n
Albert's,
while
at the
same
time
criticising
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 117/187
VERSOR
ND
HIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT
323
Albert foreverydisagreementwith Thomas. However thatmay be, it
should
be clear
by
now that neither n account
of his use of Albert's
works,
or
by
reason
of the
philosophical
iews
defended
n
his own works
Versor can be
regarded
s an Albertist.106
n the
whole,
Versor's doc-
trinal
profile
eems ndistinct
nd at best
a
blurred
form f Thomism.107
This
"albertizing
homism"
may
have
been
typical
f
a
realist radition
in
an
environment
probably
Paris)
where "Albertists"
nd "Thomists''
were not
so much rival
parties
as allies
facing
a
common
enemy e.g.,
nominalism r
Scotism).108
owever,
everal f Versor's
workswere
printedat
Cologne by
orderof the
Thomists,
who
evidently
lso used them.This
was one of
the reasons
put
forward or
accepting
the view that Versor
should be considered
Thomist
cf.
§ 2).
Let
us have a closer look at
those
Cologne
editions f Versor's
philosophical
works.
At the end of the
fifteenth
entury, ologne
was
at
the same
time the
centreof
Thomist-Albertist
ivalry
nd
of the
promotion
nd
expansion
of Versor's
egacy.
Both
phenomena
re
closely
elated o the educational
program
of the arts
faculty
n
Cologne,
and
they
are both reflected
n
the bookproductionn Cologne during he ast two decadesof the fifteenth
century.
he worksof Aristotle
nd the Tractatusr Summulae
ogicales
y
Peter of
Spain
occupied
a central
place
in
the educational
program
of
the artsfaculties
t late medievaluniversities.109
n
his Der Buchdruckölns
bis
zum
Ende des
ünfzehntenahrhunderts
E. Voulliéme
compiled
a
list of
books
printed
t
Cologne
before
1500,
which includes over
1200
titles.
Among
these are 88 titles
oncerning
ifferentindsof works
quaestiones,
106
ememberhat ersor,hen iscussingncipientormalitynhis ommentaryn
Porphyry,
efersothe irstook f he
hysics
inwhich e
rejects
lbert's
heory;
f. he
quotation
n
note 7 above.
hat t s not
uspicious
or Thomisto
quote
lbert
even
quite requently)
s
shown,
ith
espect
o
John apreolus,y
S.-Th.
Bonino,
lberte
GrandansesDefensionese
Jean
abrol
f 1444).
Contributionla rechercheur es
ňgines
deValbertisme
ardif,
in: Revue
homiste:evue
octrinalee
théologie
t de
philosophie,
99-1
1999),
69-425.
107
f. he emarks
y
Ritternd
Zwiezawski
uoted
n n.
22
above.
108
or he
albertizing
homism"f.note above.
nteresting
n
this
espect
s
the
explicit
f
manuscript
f
Versor's
ommentary
n
the
Metaphysics
hich
emarks
hatt
followshe
modus
arisiensis.
f. he
manuscript
raha,
árodnínihovnaeské
epubliky,
cod.
V.E.25,
.
96v,
s
quoted y
Flüeler
994
above,
.
33),
2:
"Expliciuntuestiones
XII librorumetaphysicaeecundum odumarisiensem". Cf.also thequotation
fromnother
anuscript
n
note 0
above,
o the ffecthat ersor's
hysical
orksre
collectedromhe ommentariesfbothAlbertheGreat ndThomas
quinas.
109
or
Cologne,
ee
F.J.
on
Bianco,
ie lte niversitätöln nd ie
pätem
elehrten-chulen
diesertadtI.
Theil,
öln
1855,
1
statutes
f
heArts
aculty
rom
398).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 118/187
324
PEPIJN
OTTEN
copulata,eparationesetc.)related owritingsf Aristotle nd PeterofSpain
{Tractatus
r Summulae
ogicaks
nd Parva
bgicalia
.110
n
a
general
sense
I
will refer o these works
as
"commentaries".
ll
of these are works
by
fifteenth-century
uthors;
not one of Albert'sor Thomas' commentaries
on the
corpus
ristotelicumere
printed.
The titles nd
colophons quoted
by
Voulliéme
give
a clear indication
of
the
situation t
Cologne:
31 of
the 88 commentaries
nclude a reference o the Thomisticdoctrine
of
the Bursa
Montana
20
include
a
reference o
the
Albertist
octrine f the
Bursa
Laurentiana'
hree
nclude
a
reference o
Scotism;
one
volume of
copulata
on
Peter of
Spain's
Summulaehas no reference o
any
viam
Clearly
the
only
school doctrines
elevant
n
Cologne
at the time were
Thomism and Albertism.
he rest of the 88 titles
re works
by John
Versor:
in
total
33 titles of commentaries n works
of Aristotle
28)
and Peter of
Spain
(5).
112
Thus,
John
Versor s the author of more than
one third
of all commentaries
n the basic
philosophical
works
printed
at
Cologne
before
1500,
which
makes
him
by
far
the
most
printed
uthor
in this domain.
110
f.
Voulliéme903
above,
.
1).
Voulliéme's
tudy
s
precious
ecausef ts xtensive
quotations
romitle
ages
nd
colophons.
small umberf dubiousases
such
s
untraceable
orksisted
y
ther
epertories)
s isted ithout
uch
uotations;
hese
have
not ncluded
n
my
tatistics.
t should e noted
hat ome fthe
itlesisted
eparately
by
Voulliéme
and
egarded
y
him
s
separatelyublished
olumes)
ere
ctuallyub-
lished
ogether
as
parts
f ne nd he ame
olume);
f.
Birkenmajer
925
above,
.
4).
111
ome
xamples
f
itles
re:
Copulata
ukhmima
iversis
x
utoribus
ogice
nunum
orrogata
inveteremrtemrestotelisum extuiusdemecundumiam ivi octorishomeeAquinot uxta
processumagistrorum
olonie
nbursa ontis
egentium
no.133);
Metheororumrestotelis
ecundum
processum
lbertistarum
urseaurentiitudii
oloniensis
no.
149);
Commentarla
ibrorume
elo t
mundorestotelis
uxta iam enerabilisomini
lbertit
rocessumagistrorum
egentium
olonien
bursaaurentii
no.
408);Copulatauper
resibroseAnima
restotelisum
extuuxta octrinam
excellentissimi
octoris
anctihomee
Aquino
no.723);Copulata
mnium
ractatuumetri
ispani
etiam
incathegreumatum
t
arvorumogicalium
um extuecundum
octrinamivi
home
quinatis
iuxta
rocessum
agistrorum
olonien
bursa ontis
egentiumno.
28);
ositionesircaibros
hisi-
corumtde nima
restotelisuxtardinarium
t
disputativum
rocessum
agistrorum
olonienbursa
montis
egentium
d
opponendum
t
espondendum
on
minustiles
uam
ecessarie
no. 77);
ll
quoted
after oulliéme
903
above,
.
1).
have
ot ncluded
orkshat
rerelatedothe ursae
but
not
explicitly)
o Aristotle
r Peter f
Spain,
uch s
the
Promptuarium
rgumentorum
(above, .94)or commentariesn Donatus.
112
or
example:
uestiones
enerabilis
omini
oannis
ersoris
uper
otameteremrtem
no.
1213);
icta ersoris
upereptem
ractatus
agistři
etri
yspani
umextu
no.1240);
f.Voulliéme
1930
above,
.
1).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 119/187
VERSOR ND
HIS RELATIONO
THE SCHOOLS F THOUGHT
325
Table 1: CommentariesnAristotlendPeterf pain rintednCologneefore500.
School
designation
Voulliéme os.
Total
number f
or author
titles
Commentaries
n Commentaries
n
Aristotle
Peter f
Spain
ThomisticBursa
132-134,
36-140, 921, 922,
927-932,
31
Montana
13
150,
720-731,
77
1135
Mbertist/ursa 141,142, 149, 159, 167,443(b), 20
Laurentiana
14
160,
164, 165,
408,
444-446
438-443(a),
10,
10 61
5
Johannes
ersor
144,
145, 147, 148,
1239-1243
33
1211-1218,
220-
1222,
1224-1236
"ad mentem
352-354
3
Johannis
coti"
no
designation
925
1
Source:
oulliéme903
cf.
bove,
.
1).
Of those 33 works
by
Versor,
25
contain
no references
o the
Cologne
bursae
t all. Five are works
hatwere
according
o their
xplicits)
evised
by
masters
f the Bursa
Corneliana.f the three
remaining
works,
wo are
presented
s
being
secundum
rocessum
ursemontisnd one
as in via sancti
Thome.
Whereas 51 works
by
other uthors ontain
referenceso the
rival
parties
Thomists
nd
Albertists)
f
the
University
t
Cologne,
only
these
three outof33) works yVersor uggest hathe mayhave been regarded
as a Thomist
at
Cologne.
Two of
the
25
titleswithout eference
o the
colleges
n
Cologne
are
intriguing
ecause
of their
xplicits,
which men-
tion
a
processus
t mens
VersonsEt sic terminantur
uestiones
ersoris
uper
uos
113
he most
mportant
uthor
mong
heThomists
s Lambertuse Monte
nos.
720-731).
114
he most
mportant
uthor
mong
he
Albertistss Gerardus
e
Harderwyck
nos.
438-446).
o.
442,
lthough
scribed
y
Voulliéme
o
Gerardus,
s
actuallyy
Johannes
de
Nürtingen;
f.
Birkenmajer
925
above,
.
4),
135,
n. 1.
115 o. 1016 s the rypto-lbertistork eparationesibrorumotiusaturalishilosophiae
secundum
rocessum
lbertistarumtThomistarum
above,
.
63),
whichummarizesristotle's
physical
orks
n
accordance ith
Albert,
lthough
hetitle
might
uggest
neutral
approach;
f.Hoenen 993
above,
.
43).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 120/187
326
PEPIJN
UTTEN
libros egenerationetcorruptionerestotelisecundumrocessumt mentemiusdem
verorts
iligentissime
onecte
no.
1231);
Et
sic terminantur
uestiones
agistři
Joannis
ersons
uper
uos ibros
e
generatione
t
corruptione
restotelisecundum
verum
rocessum
tmentemiusdem
ersons
iligentissime
orrecte
no. 1232).
These
titles
uggest
different
olution
o our
problem.
Could
it be that
Versor
was
regarded
s an
authority
ui
generisi
Table
2:
Versori
ommentaries
nAristotlend
Peter
f pain
printed
n
Cologne
efore
500.
School
designation
Voulliéme
os.
Total
number
of
titles
no
designation
144,
145, 147, 148,
1211-1213,
23
1215, 1217,
1218, 1221,
1222,
1226-1228, 233,
1235, 1236,
1239-1243
revised
y
masters
f the
1214, 1216,
1220, 1224,
1225
5
Bursa orneliana
"secundumrocessum 1230,1234 2
burse
montis"
"in
via
sancti home"
1229
1
"secundum
verum)
1231,
1232
2
processum
t mentem
eiusdem
ersoris
diligentissime
orrecte"
Source:oulliéme
903
cf.
bove,
.
1).
The twoeditions f Versor'squestions n De generationetcorruptioneVoull.
1231
and
1232)
that
are
presented
s
being
secundum
rocessum
t mentem
eiusdem
ersoris
ere
printed
by
Henricus
Quentell
in
1489 and
1493
respectively.
hese
questions
were
also
printed
wice
before,
namely
by
Theodoricus
Molner
n
1485/6
and
by
Conradus
Welker
n
1488
(Voull.
1230
and
1234).
In all four
cases,
the
questions
on
De
generatione
ere
part
of a
larger
volume
which
also included
Versor's
questions
n De
cáelo
etmundothe
Meteora
nd the
Parvanátur
lia 116
n
addition,
he
first
Molner
1485/6),
third
Quentell
1489)
and fourth
Quentell
1493)
volumes
all
includedworks ytheThomistGerardusde Monte:bothhiscommentary
on De ente
t ssentia
with
homas'
text)
nd
his
Tractatusstendens
oncordantiam
116
Birkenmajer
925
above,
.
4).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 121/187
VERSOR
NDHIS RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS
F THOUGHT
327
dictorumancii Thomae tDominiAlberti}11hese volumes were therefore
probably
ommissioned
y
the
BursaMontanaof whichGerardusde Monte
(critic
f
Heymericus
de
Campo)
had been one of the most
illustrious
leaders.118
hat
explainswhy
the first wo editions
Voull.
1230
and
1234)
of
Versor's
commentary
n
De
gener
tione re
(according
o their
xplicits)
secundum
rocessum
ursemontis.
his means that he Thomists f the
Montana
initially
sed Versor's
commentary
s
if
t were
a
genuine
Thomistic
ext.
They may
even
have
adapted
it to make it harmonize
with their own
doctrines.
owever,
the
reprintsVoull.
1231
and
1232)
indicate hatthe
texthas been
"carefully
orrected
ccording
to the true
procedure
and
intention f
Versor",
which makes sense
if
it means that the text has
been restored o its
original
form.So it would seem that
the Thomists
of the
Montana irst
egarded
Versor
as a
Thomist,
but
eventually
ad to
recognize
hat he was
not "one of theirown". The
contraposition
f the
processus
ursemontisnd the
verus
rocessus
ersoris
learly
howsthatVersor
does
not fit
n
the Thomist-Albertist
ivalry.
The editions hat were
in
all
probability
ommissioned
y
the Bursa
CornelianatheotherThomistic ollegeat Cologne) confirm hat Versor's
writings
were used for
nstruction,
nd also that
they
were revised for
that
purpose:
Some of them
are
only
accuratissimeonecte.. in bursa
mag-
istři orneliie
Dordracod communemcholariumtilitatem
Voull.
1225;
1220
and
1224
similar),
ut
others re a
magistris
urse ornelii
uibuspsas
ncumbit
exercereummo
tudio
tque iligentia
erno eviseconectec emendate
Voull.
1214
and
1216).
From the
fact
that
they
used Versor's textsfor
nstruction,
t
is evident hat the Thomists
n
Cologne recognized
Versor's
affinity
ith
Thomas
Aquinas.
One edition of his
commentary
n De cáelo
included
in thevolumeprintedby Quentellin 1493; Voull. 1229) bears the title
Questiones
ubtilissimen via sanctiThome
magistřiohannis
ersons
uper
ibros
de celo t mundowhich
s an
explicit
onfirmationf
that
recognition.
ut
it is also the
only explicit
tatement f Versor's connection o the
"way
of
Thomas
Aquinas"
n
the tides nd
colophons
f all the
Cologne
editions.
Moreover,
fourof the fiveworks
orrected
y
the Corneliana asters nd
printed y
Quentell
bear
a
woodcuton their itle
ages,
which
s
the ame
in all
four of them: The woodcut
depicts
a
teacher surrounded
y
four
pupils.
Written
elow
it are the words: "Versor cum
discipulis
uis."119
117
bid.
118
f.
nter
l. Meersseman
935
above,
.
6),passim.
119
f.Voulliéme
903
above,
.
1),
520-4
nos.
214, 216, 220,
225).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 122/187
328
PEPIJN
UTTEN
Similar woodcutsdepictingThomas or Albert n the same way can be
found
n
many
works of
the
other
colleges
{Montana
nd
Laurentiana).™
This is
another
lear indication
hat Versor was not
deemed
a
Thomist,
in
which
case
a
woodcut
representing
homas and his
pupils
would have
been
more
appropriate.
nstead,
thesewoodcuts
n
Versor'sworks
edited
by
those Thomists
t
Cologne
who
supposedly
ad the
closest
onnection
to
Versor)121
romote
his
authority
s an
independent
eacher,
n a level
with
Albert nd Thomas.
7. Conclusion
All
of Versor's
ommentaries
n Aristotle nd Peterof
Spain
were
printed
in
Cologne,
most
of them severaltimes.The
Thomists
n
Cologne,
espe-
cially
at
the
Bursa Corneliana
used them for nstruction. et
in
most of
the titles
nd
imprints
here s no linkbetweenVersor nd
theseThomists
which
s
telling recisely
ecause
of Versor's
ffinity
ith
Aquinas.
Rather,
the
titles
uggest
as
does the sheer
quantity
f
editions)
hat
Versor
was
an authorityn a par withAlbert nd Thomas.122 ersor'scommentaries
do not follow he
processus
homistarumr the
processus
lbertistarumbut are
composed
secundum
rocessum
t mentemiusdem ersoris.n the
eyes
of the
Thomists nd
Albertists t
Cologne,
Versor
obviously
had
his
own
way
of
commenting
n Aristotle.
he factthat he was not from he
Cologne
milieu,
hat he was not
a memberof
one of the rival
colleges,
s decisive
here. The books
printed
y
orderof
the
bursae
how how
the
philosophical
schools
n
Cologne
defined hemselves:
y
reference
o the
via
of Thomas
or Albertand
to the
processus
f
theirown
college
(in
most
cases either
theMontana r theLaurentiana.123n this etting, ersorhad to be regarded
as
an
outsider,
ot as a Thomist.
120
f.Voulliéme
903
above,
.
1),
56-7, 1,
66, 70, 197,199, 13,
487
nos.
41,
142,150,
59, 64, 41,
42,932,
1135)
nd
XLVIII-LV. relevant
tudy
f
his
ype
ofwoodcutss
W.L.
Schreiber
nd P.
Heitz,
ie deutschen
Accipies"
nd
Magister
um
is-
cipulis-Holzscfmitte
ls
Hilfsmittel
ur
nkunabel-Bestimmung,Strassburg
908.
121
f.
bove,
2,
andTewes 993
above,
.
8),
389-90.
122
his s
also
uggested
y
he act hat
e
was
mentioneds an
authority;
f.
bove,
§
2,
esp.
n.
28.
Markowski
981
above,
.
22),
83 nd
187,
ven
peaks
f
Versorismus".
123eethe xamplesnnote above nd Hoenen 003 above, . 35),1 -4.The
examples
have
ivenuggest
as
opposed
o
Hoenen,
bid.)
hat
n the ncunables
rom
Cologne
he erms
via" nd
processus"
ave ifferent
eanings,
ince
via" s
generally
connected
ith n authoritative
hilosopher,
hereas
processus"
s
associated
ith col-
lege.My onjecture
ould
e that
via" efersbove
ll tothe
octrinal
ontent
nd hat
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 123/187
VERSOR
ND
HIS RELATION
O
THE SCHOOLS F
THOUGHT
329
In sum, it has been shownthat neitherVersorhimself or his con-
temporaries
ttest
to
his
alleged
Thomism
(not
to
mention
his
alleged
Albertism).
rom
a
doctrinal
oint
of
view,
one
might
till
want to
argue
that
Versor
nevertheless
as
a Thomist.
After
ll,
upon
examination
f
some of the
fundamental
ssues that divided
the
schools of
thought
in
particular
Albertism
nd
Thomism)
in
the
fifteenth
entury,
Versor's
writings
eveal
more
affinity
o
the
thought
f
Thomas
Aquinas
than to
thatof
Albert
he Great.
However,
f
John
Versor
receives
he
designation
"Thomist"
on
account
of this
affinity,
hat
predicate
s not
historically
justified.
n his
proper
historical
ontext,
.e. the
philosophical
school
debates
of
the fifteenth
entury,
ersor
cannot be
regarded
s a Thomist.
Thus
John
Versor's
position
n
the
Wegestreit
as become
clearer
by udging
it in relation
to the four
characteristics
f schools
of
thought
cf. §
1):
Although
his works
were used
by
Thomists
and
his views
accord
with
Aquinas
and the
Thomist school
on
several fundamental
ssues,
they
do
not reveal
any
confessions
f
loyalty
o
Aquinas
and
they
are
certainly
not
exclusively
ased on
Aquinas'
works.
Whetherthat
is
precisely
he
reason why theywere so popular, as Rittersuggested, emains to be
investigated.124
Nijmegen
Radboud
University
ijmegen
Faculty
f
Theology
"processus"
efers ore
o the
edagogical
ractice
theway
ndorder f
xplaining
he
authoritative
exts),
ut his eeds
urther
nvestigation.
124
ee
above,
.
22.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 124/187
330
PEPIJN
UTTEN
Appendices
The
followingppendices
fferome of the
passages
discussed romVersor's
commentaries n the
sagoge
the
Categories
nd Perihermeneias.
n
each case
Versor's source
text
i.e.,
Albert'sor Thomas'
commentary)
s
presented
in
the eft olumn. To facilitate he
comparison,
have
italicised
he
cor-
responding
words.
Therefore,
he
original
talics
n
Borgnet's
dition of
Albert's ext have been omitted.
Appendix
Cf.
§
3.
Albertus
agnus,
ibere
raedicamentis,
r.
,
c.
1,
d.A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia
vol.
),
Parisiis
1890,
66a-67b:
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
ibri
redicamento-
rumrestotelis
above,
.
34),
.
6,
f.
0rb-30va:
Caput
. In
qua ignificarne
ubstantia
ccipiatur.
Jam
de
praedicabilibus
ecundumrdina-
tionem
orum d unum
uod
est
gene-
ralissimůmnordinelio ractandumst. uia
autem mnium
rima
st
ubstantia,
deo
rimo
de ubstantia
icamus.st utemubstantiae
riplex
considerato.na
quidem
ecundum
uod
ub-
stantiast
ars
ntis
rima
t
rincipalis
quae
in evera st t ausa st mnibus
liis
xis-
tendi. ecundautem
ecundum
uod
ub-
stantia
raedkabile
st
rimum,
d
quod
st eductio
omnium
raedicabilium
uae coordinationis.
Tertia
utemecundum
uod
ubstantia
ri-
mům
ubjectum
st,
d
quod
icut
d
subjectum
omnium
uocumque
odo
raedicabilium
est eductio,icutd ddequo st raedicatio.
Primo
uidem
gitur
odo ubstantiast
ens
per
e
existens,
ec
n
alionec b alio
suae xistentiae
ausam abens:thocmodo
substantiast
primum
t vere
ns,
t est
essentianvariabilist
incorruptibilisuae
omnibus
liis ausast xistendi.st utemctus
simplexrimae
ausae,
er uem
mniaub-
sistunt
uaeper
e sunt: ttalemctum
d
similitudinemubstantiae
uae
roducit
rima
causa: t est
per
e existens
uia
non
per
aliud el b alio st
uod
it
ausatum,
ed
ipsumst ausatumrimumn modo xis-
tendi d similitudinem
rimae
ubstantiae
productum.
t haec substantia
implex
st
essentiasicut abetur
x ibro
ausarum.t
Sciendum
rimo uod
ubstantiast
rimum
ens,
uiapřecedit
lia
natura,
iffinitionet
tempore,
t habetur
eptimo
etaphisice.
Ideo epredicamentoubstantieriusractandum
est. t
primo
idendumst n
ua ignificatone
accipiatur
ubstantiaecundum
uod logico
consideratur.st
gitur
irca oc dvertendum
quod,
t
nquit
ominus
lbertus,
ubstantie
est
riplex
onsideratio.
rima st
nquantum
substantiast
prima
t
principalisars
ntis.
Secundast ecundum
uod
st
rimumredi-
cabile
d
quod
st mniumeductio
redicabilium
et
subiicibilium
ue
substantiam
ignificant.
Tercia st ecundum
uod
st
rimum
ubiec-
tum
uod
omnibusubstat.
Primo odo ubstantiast ssentia
implex
que
n
se vere st t omnibusliis st ausa
essendi.t secundum
e nec st
enus
ec st
species
ec ifferentia
ec
roprium
eque
ndi-
viduumec ccidensecuniversaleec
par-
ticulare,
ed
hec omnia ibi ccidunt.t
substantiamoc modo onsideratam
onsi-
dérât
rimushilosophusqui
onsidérât
ualiter
substantiaensibilisd insensibilemeducitur
t
insensibilisd
intellectualem,
t ntellectualisd
divinam.ed substantiaecundo odo on-
sideratastprimumnter mnia icibilia
incomplexa,ue
ubstantiam
ignificant.
deo
ad
ipsam amquam
d
primum
t
simplicis-
simum
redicabile
mnialia
que
ubstantiam
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 125/187
VERSOR ND
HIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS
F
THOUGHT 331
haec ubstantiaecundumrocessumabet
materialitatemt variabilitatemt
particu-
laritatem:
uorum
ihil
abet ecundum
quod
n
prima
ausa
st,
t
secundumoc
quod
st b
ipsa.
Et sicde substantia
gi-
tur,
bi ensibilisubstantiad nsensibilemeduci-
tur,
t
nsensibilis ad ntellectualem
et
ntellectualis
addivinam:
ujusmodi
ractatuse substantia
pertinet
d
primumhilosophum
Philosophum
ed.].
ecundomodo ubstantiast
primum
commune
raedicabile,
d
quod
mne
raedkabile
(quod
st
ubstantia)
educitur.t
quia
nihil
praedicature aliquonisi uodesttotum
ipsius
tformaotius
uae
otumicit
psius,
et esse
psius uod
st
n
potentia
el ctu.
Cum
ubjectum
utem
rimum
n
ubstantia
(de
quo
omnia
lia
praedicantur)
it om-
positum,
portetuod
t
propriumrimum
praedicatum
it
ompositum,
t
forma
otius
totum
sse
otius icens ecundum
uod
est
ipsius
otum,
n
quo praedicatiootest
e-
signali:
t haec st ubstantiae
qua
inten-
dit
ogicus.
aec utem
ubstantiast
rimum
quod upponiturel ubjiciturntota oor-
dinatione
orum,a
er
rdinemescensust
species
pecialissimas
t ndividua:oc nim
est
enus
ormabile
n
omnia
uae
unt
uae
coordinationis
enera
t
pecies
t ndividua.
Et cuilibet
otest atere,uod
haec
otius
illius oordinationisst
primumrincipium
et
est
ompositum,uia
aliter on sset
n
se
per
eexistens.st utem
ompositumormale
a
forma
quae
dicit
otumsse
ecundum
ňmam
notionem
ubstantiae,
n
ua
atioubstantiaentel-
ligi otest
Tertio utemmodo
ubstantia
diciturb actu ubstandiet tunc iciturub-
stantia
uae per
e
substat,
t omnibus
liis
quae
ubstant,
at
uod
ubstant:thocmodo
substantiandividuast ubstantia
ola,
qua
tamen ullaut nferius
atebit,
st
raedica-
tiosed
mnis
ubjicibilitas
mnium
uae uibus-
cumque
ubjiciuntur
st b
ipsa.
Et
quia
nos
in hoc
ibro ntendimuse
praedicabilium
secundumuas
coordinationeseductioned
unum,
deo
anc ubstantiam
rimam
portet
ponere:
uae
tamen
ltima st ecundum
ordinem
rimo
t ecundo odo
ictaeub-
stantiae.ecundumrgo rimamntentionem
substantiast
ssentia,
uae
nec
enus
st,
ec
species,
ec
ndividuumsed st
implex.
ecundo
autemmodo icta
ubstantia
omposita
st,
significanteducuntur.t sicdicituronfuset
in
potentia
otumsse uiuslibet
ubstantie,
t
est
uid
ormabile
t
determinabile
er iffèrentias
ad diversas
pecies
ubstantie.t
hocmodo
logico
onsiderato^
cilicetub ratione
rimi
predicabilis
d
quod anquam
d
genus ene-
ralissimůmmnia
ue
ubstantiam
ignificant
reducuntur.erciomodo st b ctuubstandi
dieta. t hoc modo ola ubstantia
articularis
dicitur
ubstantia,
qua
ulla
redicatio
xit.ed
est ubiectummnium
ue uocumque
odoubi-
idunturt ubstant.t
quia
n
hoc ibrontendit
Philosophuse ordinabilingeneream n
rationeubiicibilis
uampredicabilis,
deo
substantiastomodo
ccepta
tiamonsidérât
logicus,
cilicetubratione
rimi
ubiecti
n
quo
omnia
unt elde
quo
omnia icuntur.
Et sic
patet uomodo
ubstantia
logico
consideratur.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 126/187
332
PEPIJN
UTTEN
etestprimůmenusmnibusequentibus
differenüis
ormabile
t eterminabile
d sse
pecmum
et ndividuorum.
ertio
utem
modo
icta
substantia
st
eterminata
ateria
t
uper-
ficie t
oco
d hoc
ingulare
el llud."
Ibid.,
67a
between
ratio
ubstantiae
intelligi
otest"
nd "Tertio
utem
modo
substantia"):
"Si autem
uaeritur,
uae
sint
omponen-
tia
psum,
um
ihil
abeatnte
e x
uo
om-
poniossitiicendumuodnihilxtrinsecum
ei ante
e
habetntra
e tarnen
abetntel-
lectum
omponentium
psum.
st nim
ns
et est
er
e,
uod
ddit
uper
ns ntellec-
tualem
ompositionem:
uia
exente
st,
t
ex
eo
quod
st
er
e,
st
hoc.
Et,
ut dicit
Boetius,
liud
habet
uo
st
liquid,
liud
habet
uo
oc st t
haec
st orma
omposi-
tionis
jus,
uia
nihil abet
materiae,
uamvis
habeat
d
quod
st
tesse. t
haec st
rima
notio ubstantiae
uae
de omnibus
raedi-
catur
uae
n
recta
inea
praedicamentali
suntnpraedicamentoubstantiae.unt
tarnen
uae
dicuntur
ubstantiae,
on
uia
hanc ubstantiae
ecipiunt
el
participant
rationem,
ed
uia
unt
rincipia
ssentialiter
constituentia
ubstantiam,
icut orma
ici-
tur
ubstantia,
tmateria
icitur
ubstantia,
ut
dicit
ristoteles.
ed
haec
non unt
n
substantia
ecundum
ectum
rdinem
praedicamenti,
ed
reducuntur
d substan-
tiam
t
principia
ubstantiae
er
hanc
ig-
nitatem,
uod
nihil
uod
per
ui
ssentiam
facitubstantiam,stnon ubstantia.oc
igitur
odo ubstantiaonsiderata
logico
t
est
praesentis
ntentionis."
Sed
hic riturubium
e
compositione
ub-
stantiet
est
genus eneralissimům.
es-
pondetominuslbertusuod ubstantia
in
genereeneralissimo
ccepta
icit
liquid
formátůmer
ormam
istinguentem
otum
esse uiuslibet
ubstantie
ecundum
rimariam
notionem
eu rationem
ubstantie,
n
qua
ci-
licet
atioubstantie
rimo
ntelligiotest.
t
huiusmodi
orma
qua
sic sumitur
rima
notio ubstantie
ihilnte
e habet
x
quo
it
composita,eque
e
neque
atione.
t ta ub-
stantia
n
genere
eneralissimo
ccepta
on
est
composita
ompositione
ctuali
x
aliquibus
recedentibus
psam
ormaliter,
t
ideo on st iffinibilis.st arnenic dver-
tendum
uod
secundum
ostrum
odum
intelligent
ubstantia
ntelligitur
omponi
x
ente
t
er
e,
ue quidem
ompositio
nobis
intelligiturer
modum
ompositionis
x ctu
et
potentia,
cilicet
x
quo
st
t
uod
st,
ta
quod
nshabeat
modum
otentie
t
quod
est,
t
per
e
habeat
modum
ctus t
[ex
ed.]
uo
est.
Non amen
st
bi
compositio
ex
genere
t
differentia,
uia
ns ifferentias
habere
non
potest,
um
nihil it
quod
rationemntisubterfugereossit. t sic
patet
uod
materiatformaon ompo-
nunt
ubstantiam
n ommuni
ccepta
eque
etiam
enus
t
differentia,
edut
dictum
st
secundum
ostrummodum
ntelligendi
om-
ponitur
x actu
t
potentia
eu
x
quod
st
et
quo
est."
Appendix
Cf.
§
5.
Albertus
agnus,
ibere
raedicabilibus,
r.
c.
2,
ed.
A.
Borgnet
Opera
mnia,
ol.
),
Parisiis
890,
b-4a:
Johannes
ersor, uestiones
uinqué
redicabi-
lium
orphirii
above,
.
34), .
2,
ff.
vb-3ra:
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 127/187
VERSOR
NDHIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT 333
"CaputI. Utrumogicait ars hilosophiae"
Hanc utemcientiam
ui
modusst mnis
philosophiae,
uidam
ullam
artem
sse
philosophiae
ontendunt,
icenteson isi res
esse
arteshilosophiae,
cilicet
hysicam,
athe-
maticamive
disciplinabilem,
t
metaphysicam
sive ivinam.
Cum nim
iffinitio
icens
uid
t
propter
quid
medium
it n s ien
ia,
t
diffinitio
on
possit
anan isi
ñpliciter
scilicet
uod
aut
concipiat ateriamensibilemquaecummotu
est t
mutatione;
ut
oncipiat
ateriamntel-
ligibilemcujus
ssentia
on st ummotu
t
mutationeecundum
ationem,
uamvis
secundumsse it
n
materia
uae
est um
mutationet
motu,
icut st
magnitudo
t
numerus;
utnec ecundum
ssentiam,
ec
secundumsse
oncipiat
ateriam
ensibilem'.
ide-
tur
uod
philosophia
onhabeat isi res
partes
ssentiales,
icut t Aristotelesicere
videtur.
ropter
uod
nonnulli
ogicam
ci-
entiamive
ationalem,
ullam
artem
icunt
essehilosophiae.
Addunttiam
d
suae ssertionisonfirma-
tionem,
uod
nulliusei
modus,
um e
ujus
modus
st,
enitn
eneris
ui
ivisionem.onstat
autem,
uod
ogica
eneraliter
ietamodus
philosophiae
st.
on
rgo
enireideturd
philo-
sophiae
ivisionemnecvidetur
n
aliqua arte
hujus enerisuod
st
hilosophia
ontineri.
Hanc utem
pinionem
lii
quidam
m-
pugnantes
icunt
hilosophiaeeneralis
sse
intentionem
mnem,
mnium
uocumque
odo
entiumomprehendereeritatem,uantumomini
possibile
st
omprehendere
arn ecundumationem
et
ntellectum.
a
autem
uae
sunt,
icuntur
esse ut b
opere
ostro,
ive
volúntate,
sive
tiam b intellectucientiam
uae-
rente:
ut
natura
eneraliter
icta,
uae
ab
opere
ostro
ausari
on
otest.
t cum
ea
quae
a
natura
unt,
ostraeint ausae
scientiae,
t nonnos umusausa
psorum,
non
potest
e illis sse cientia
ractica.
Relinquiturrgo, uod
de talibus
pud
nos
non
estnisi cientia
ontemplativa,uae
luminentelligentiaeerficitur.orumutem
quorum
os umus ausa
per
voluntatem,
non
otest
sse
pud
os cientia
peculativa,
sed tantum
ractica.
adem
nim unt
n
"Queriturecundo:trumogicaebeatici
pars hilosophie
Arguituruod
non
primo
utoritatehilo-
sophi
exto
Metaphisiceonentis
antumres
partes
hilosophie,
cilicet
hisicam,
athematkam
et
methaphisicam,
rgo
t cetera.
Secundo
rguitur:
iffinitio
stmediumemon-
strationis
acientis
cire
ergo
ot unt
artes
philosophie
t non
plures uot
modis
diffinitionesariantur.eddiffinitioneson ari-
antur
isi
ñpliciter,
uia
veldiffinitio
ei
on-
cipit
motumel materiamensibilemt est
diffinitio
hisica,
el
abstrahltmotu t
materia
ensibili,
icet on matena
ntelligi-
bili et sic est diffinitio
athematica,
el
abstrahit
enitus
motu t matena
am
en-
sibili
uam ntelligibili,uia
talis esbene
potest
sse ine
materia,
t
sic est
diffinitio
metaphisica.
t non
ossuntluribus
odis
rerumiffinitiones
arrari,
rgo
ogica
onst
pars hilosophie.
Tertio
rguitur:
ullius
ei
modusum
e
cuiusstmodusenitn ui
eneris
ivisionem.ed
logica
stmodus
hilosophie,
rgo
on enitndivi-
sionem
hilosophie
anquamars
ius.
In
oppositumrguiturrimouiaphilo-
sophia
ecundum
enus
uu<m> st
ompre-
hensiomnium
uorumeumque
ntium,
ecundum
quod ossibilest ominialia ntia omprehen-
dere
ecundumationemt ntellectum.ed
ogica
est
omprehensio
licuius
ntis,
uia
estde
secundisntentionibusdiunctis
rimis;rgo
est
pars
hilosophie.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 128/187
334
PEPIJN
OTTEN
quolibetcibilirincipiatcausae t eie-
menta
ognoscendi,uae
sunt
rincipia
essendi:
uia
liter
equeretur,
uod
d
quod
scitur
nobis,
on citur
ecundum
d
uod
st,
sed
potius
cireturecundum
d
quod
non
est.Et sicfalso
modo cireturmne
uod
scitur,
uod
bsurdum
st.
Relinquiturgi-
tur
uod
de entibus
natura
ausatis,
on
potest
sse
cientia
er
a
quae
unt
nobis,
sed
potius
cientia
orum abetur
x
prin-
cipiis
ausantibusssentiam
t esse orum
in
natura,uae
nonnisi
per contempla-tionemuntnomnibus.orumutemuae
sunt
nobis,
on
potest
sse cientiaera
apud
nosnisi
er
a
principiauae
unt
n
nobis,
erquae
nos sumus
ausa
eorum,
quae
nobisunt:
ujus
inison st
erum,
sed
bonum,
uod
nobis
onumst. imiliter
igiturlicujushilosophiae
ritntentio
om-
prehendere
eritatem
jus uod
ationisuctu
via est
n
omnem
ognitionem
mnium
eorum
uorumognitio
it
n nobis
er
a
quaecognita
unt
pud
nos,
x
quibus
os
proficiscimurd scientiamncognitorum.rit
igitur
e intentione
hilosophiae
tiam
o-
gica
cientia
uae
est ationalis.
Adhuc
utem
ujusignum
icunt,
uod
pud
Peripatéticoshilosophia
ntres
artesrima
ivi-
sioneivisa
st,
n
hysicam
cilicet
eneraliter
ie-
tarnetethicam
eneraliter
ictam,
t
rationalem
similiter
cceptam.
ico autem
hysicam
ene-
raliter
ictam
quae
comprehendit
tnaturalemt
disciplinalem
t
ivinam.
thicamutem
enerálem
quae
n econtinettmonasticam
t economicam
et ivilem.
ationalemutem
enerálemuae
om-
prehenditmnemodůmeveniendie notod
ignotumuocumque
odo:
uod
er
multa
e-
nera
robationum
it
ut
n
equenti
stendetur.
Manifestumst
gitur,uod
gicaliqua
ars
est
hilosophiae.
Adhuc utemi
aliquid
stde ntentione
philosophiae:
unc oc
maximee ntentione
philosophiae
rit,
ine
uo
ullus
n
philosophia
in
aliquam
evenire
otest
ognitionem.gnorans
autem
ogicam
ullus
gnoti
erfectamotestcquirere
cognitionem
eo
quod
gnorât
odum
er uem
devenire
portet
e noto d
gnoti
otitiam.
Videturrgoogicamraecipuesse e nten-
tione
hilosophiae
"
Secundo
pud
hilosophos
cilicet
eiypoteti-
cos
hibsophia
widitur
rima
ui
ivisionen
hisi-
cam
eneraliter
ictam,
thicam
eneraliter
ictam
et ationalemive ermocionalem
eneraliter
ic-
tam. hisica
ero
eneraliter
ictaecundum
omnes
erypoteticos
omprehendit
aturalem
philosophiam,
athematicam
t
metaphiskam.
thica
vero
eneraliter
ietaontinetub e
monasticam,
yconomicam
t
oliticam.
ationalisutem
ene-
raliterietaomprehenditmnemodumeveniendi
denotod
gnoti
oticiam,
uod er
multa
enera
propositionum
it. rgo
hilosophi
erypotetici
dixerunt
ogicam
sse
artem
hilosophie.
Tertio
rguitur:
lludnecessariost
de
intentione
hilosophie,
ine
uo
ullus
otest
evenire
in
cognitionem
licuius.ednullus
gnoransogi-
cam
licuius
gnotierfectam
otestcquirere
og-
nitionem
ergo
ogica
st
de ntentione
hilosophie
et
pars
ius."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 129/187
VERSOR
ND
HIS
RELATIONO
THE
SCHOOLS F THOUGHT 335
Appendix
Cf.
§
5.
Thomas
e
Aquino,
xpositio
ibri
eryermenias,
lib.
1,
ect.
,
ed.
Leonina,
ditio ltera
retractata,
ol.
*1,
oma-Paris
989,
4.39-
16.138:
"Vbi
portetntelligereuod
na uarum
pe-
rationumntelkctusstndiuisibilium
ntelligencia,
in uantumcilicetntelkctusntelligitbsoluteuius-
cunque
ei
uiditatem
iue ssenciam
er
e
psam,
puta uid
st
homo
el
uid
lbumel
aliud
huiusmodi;
lia ero
peratio
ntelkctusst ecun-
dum
uod
uiusmodi
impliciaoncepta
imul
componit
tdiuidit.icit
rgo
uod
n hac
secunda
peratione
ntelkctus,
cilicet
omponenti
set
diuidentis,
nuenitur
eritast
alsitas,
elinquens
quod
n
prima peratione
on
nuenitur,
t
etiam raditur
n
II
De anima.
. Ad
huius
gitur
uidenciamonside-
randumst
quod
ueritas
n
aliquo
nuenitur
dupliciter:nomodoicutneoquodst erum;
alio
modoicut
ndicenteel
ognoscente
erum;
inueniturutemeritasicutn o
quod
st erum
tamn
implicibusuam
n
ompositis,
et icutn
dicenteel
ognoscente
erum,
on nueniturisi
secundum
ompositionem
t
diuisionem.
Quod quidem
ic
patet.
Verum
nim,
t
Philo
ophus
icitn
VI
Ethicorum,
st onum
intelkctus,nde,e uocunqueicaturerum,portet
quod
it
er
espectum
d ntellectum.
omparantur
autem
d
ntellectumoces
uidem
icut
igna,
es
autemicuta
quorum
ntelkctusuntimilitudines.
Johannes
ersor,
uestiones
rimi
ibrieriher-
meniarumrestotelis
above,
.
34),
q.
3,
ff.
61va-b:
"Sciendumecundo
uod,
t
prius
ice-
batur,
upkx
st
peratio
ntelkctus.na st im-
pliciumntelligentia,uandocilicetntellectus
absolute
ntelligituiuscumque
ei
uidditatem
ive
essentiam
er eipsam,tputauid
st omoel
quid
st
lbum;
t
n
hac
operatione,
thabet
textus,
onestVeritasel
falsitas.
lia st
operatio
ntelkctus
ue
st
ompositio
t
ivisio,
ue
fit um ntellectus
implicia
imul
omponit
t
dividit;
t
n
hac
peratione
ntelkctusicdividen-
tis t
omponentis
st entasel
alsitas.
. Sciendumercio
uod
Veritas
eperitur
in
aliquo upliciter.
nomodoicutn eo
quodest erumeu icutnrequeest era; thoc
modo
eperitur
entasamn
implicibusuam
n
compositis.
liomodonveniturn
liquoamquam
in
ognoscente
t icente
erum;
t ic non>nveni-
tur isi
n
compositione
tdivisionentelkctuset
hocmodo
ntelligiturhilosophus
um icit:
circa
ompositionem
t divisionemntellec-
tus stVeritas
alsitasque,
icut
n
dicentet
cognoscente
erum el
falsum.
Pro cuiusdeclarationest sciendum
quartouod,
t iciturexto
etaphisice,
erum
est onumntelkctus.abeturarnenbiquodverumt falsumuntn
mente,
d est n
intellectu;
onumutem
t malum
unt
n
rebus. x
quo equituruod
e
quocumque
diciturerumecessest
uod
it
er espectum
ad intellectumcuius ntellectuserum t
bonumst
perfectio.
d
ntellectum
omparan-
tur ocesicut
igna
onceptuum
ius;
t
ta
voces
dicuntur
ere
uia
sunt
igna
eri
quod
st
n
conceptione
ntellectus.es utem
ad
intellectum
omparantur
icuta
quorum
on-
ceptiones
ntelkctusuntimilitudines
t
ita
res
nonpotestici eranisi errespectumd
intellectum.ed
si
quereretliquis
trum
res eodemmododicatur era ecundum
quod
ad diversosntellectus
omparatur,
respondetur
uod
non.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 130/187
336
PEPIJN
OTTEN
Considerandumutem uodaliqua es
comparatur
d ntellectum
upliciter.
no modo
sicut
mensura
d
mensuratum,
t
siccom-
parantur
esnaturalesd ntellectum
pecu-
latiuumumanum.t deo
ntellectusicitur
uerus ecundum
uod
onformatur
ei,
al-
sus utem ecundum
uod
discordâtre.
Res autem aturalison
dicitursseuera
per omparationem
d ntellectum
ostrum,
sicut
osueruntuidam ntiqui
aturales,
estimantes
erum
eritatemsse olum n
hoc
quod
estuideri:ecundumoc
enim
sequereturuod ontradictoriassentimul
uera,
uia
contradictoriaaduntub
diuer-
sorum
pinionibus.
icituramen
liqua
es
uerauel falsa
er omparationem
d ntellectum
nostrum,
onssencialiterel
ormaliter,
et
ffectiue,
in
uantum
cilicetata
st
acere
e
eueramel
falsamstimationemet secundumoc
dicitur
aurum
erum el falsum.lio ero odoes
comparantur
d intellectumicutmensuratumd
mensuram,
t
atet
n ntellectu
ractico,ui
st
causa erum.nde
opus
rtificis
icitur
sse
uerumnquantumttingitd rationemrtis,al-
sum eron
quantumeficit
rationertis"
Pro uiusolutioneciendumuintouod
quelibet
es
aturalisonstituíast nteruos
ntel-
lectusscilicet
nterntellectumivinum
d
quem
omparatur
es sicut
rtificiatad
artem
t effectusd causam ive
mensura-
tum d
mensuram;
t
proportionabiliter
dicereture artificialid
intellectumos-
trum
racticum.
deo es
aturalis
er
om-
parationem
d
ipsum
iciturssentialiter
vera
ro
uanto er
ormam
uam mitatur
artem ivinam
eu llud
uod
de re
ipsa
producendoreconceptum
rat
n
ntellectu
divino;t icomninoomparaturdipsam
sicut ensuratumd
mensuram.t
proportion-
abiliter,
tdictum
st,
iceretur
e e
rtificiali
in ordined
intellectumostrum
racticum
ue
verasse
icitur
nquantumttingit
ationemrtis
que
est
n
intellectu
ractico
rtificis,
alsa
verum
nquantumeficit
rationertis.i
ergo
resnaturalis
onstituiturnterntellectum
divinum,
d
quem omparatur
t effectus
ad
causam,
t interntellectumostrum
pe-
culativum,
d
quemomparatur
icut ensurad
mensuratumtuncer espectumd psumon
diciturera
ssentialiterel
ormaliter
ed
ffective,
inquantum
cilicetatast
pud
ntellectumos-
trum e e
facere
eram
xistimationem,
uius
oppositum
ixerunt
liqui antiqui
on-
stituenteserum
eritatemonsistereolum
in hoc
quod
stvideri
obis
eu
pparere.
Ex
quo
errore
equereturuod
duo con-
tradictoria
ssentimul era. t sic
patet
qualiter
eritas
n
aliquo
nvenitur,
ualiter
etiam es
naturalesiversimoded diversos
intellectus
omparate
icunturere."
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 131/187
Theology,hilosophy,ndImmortalityftheSoul in the
Late
Via Moderna
of Erfurt
PEKKA
KÄRKKÄINEN
Abstract
In
1513 the Fifth
ateran Council determinedhat the
immortality
f the
rational oul
s not true
only
n
theology,
ut also
in
philosophy.
he deter-
mination an be related
lso to the actual
teaching
f
philosophy.
n
the
university
f
Erfurt,
artholomaeusrnoldi
e
Usingen
ndjodocus
Trutfetter
wrote
xpositions
n
natural
hilosophy
t that ime.
Usingen's
nd Trutfetter's
expositions
f
De anima
epresent
position,
hich
aithfully
ollows
n
method-
ology
nd
aspirations
he tradition f the
via
moderna.
urthermore,
hey ive
an
interpretation
f the
relationship
etween
hilosophy
nd
theology,
hich
Trutfetteronsidered onsonant
with he ntentionsnd the formulations
f
the Fifth ateranCouncil;and finally, rutfettervenpresents practical
application
f the Council's
recommendations.
In
the
early
16th
century
he
question
of
immortality
s.
mortality
f
the
human soul became
a
crucial
point
in
understanding
he
relationship
between
heology
nd
philosophy
f nature.
As
one
culmination
oint
of
this
evelopment,
he Fifth ateranCouncil
of 1513
determined
n the
point
thatthe
immortality
f
the rational oul is not
only
true
n
theology,
ut
also
in
philosophy,gainst
ome
of
the so-called ecular
ristotelianritics.1
This
determination
an also be related to the actual
teaching
of
phi-
losophy,
s seen
in
the case of the
University
f
Erfurt,
heretwo notable
figures
f the ate
German via modernaBartholomaeus rnoldide
Usingen
(d. 1532)
andjodocus
Trutfetter
d. 1519),
wrote
expositions
n natural
philosophy
t that time. These two
men,
later known
as
teachers f the
young
Martin
Luther,
ncluded section
n
psychology
n
severalof
their
workson natural
philosophy.
Also
in
theircareers
they
were borderline
figures
etween
philosophy
nd
theology.
Whereas both were
originally
1
On the
preceding
iscussionn
immortality
f the oul ee
Eckhardt
eßler,
he
Intellective
oul,
n:
Charles. Schmitt
ed.), ambridge
istory
f
enaissance
hilosophy
Cambridge
1988,
85-534.
he ext f he
etermination
s
cited ere
ccording
oNorman. Tanner
(ed.),
ecrees
f
he cumenical
ouncils,
olume:
Nicaea
to ateran
,
London
990,
05-6.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also vailablenline www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 132/187
338
PEKKA
ÄRKKÄINEN
teachers of philosophyn the artistic aculty, singenlater became an
Augustinián
riar
nd
a
fierce
dversary
f the
Reformation,
hileTrutfetter
movedfrom
he artistic
aculty
o the
theological aculty,
irst o
Wittenberg
in
1506.
In
1510
he came back to
Erfurt,
o the
theological aculty,
ut
in
1515 he
was commissioned s a lecturer
n Aristotle
n
the artistic
faculty,
hich
was
quite
exceptional
for doctorsof
theology.2
To illustrate he
theme,
I
shall treat some relevant
passages
from
Usingen's
and Trutfetter's orkson natural
philosophy,
where
they
dis-
cuss the
problems
f
psychology.
he earliest f them s
Usingen's
Pawulus
philosophie
aturalisrom1499. Next
follows,
hronologically,
is collection
of
questions
called
Exercitium
e
anima
published
n
1507,
several
years
before he Council.
Finally
omes Trutfetter's
nly publication
n
natural
philosophy,
umma n
totam
hysicen^
hich
came out
in
1514,
in
the
year
following
he determination.3
I
shall
not,
however,
egin
by
analyzing
he discussion f the immor-
tality
f the soul
by Usingen
and Trutfetter
mmediately,
ut
I
shall first
make some remarks n theirnominalistmethod
n
general
and then on
theirpsychologyn particular.Only thereafter ill I proceedwith their
views on
immortality
s.
mortality
f the
soul,
particularly
n the central
question
of the
origin
of
human
souls,
focusing
n how it relates o the
question
of the
relationship
etween
theology
nd natural
philosophy.
The
question
of the
origin
of the
soul,
whether here are causes other
than material
beings
n
its
generation
s,
in
the medieval
discussion,
ied
to the
question
of
the
mortality
f the
soul,
and the answerto the
ques-
tion
determines,
hether he soul is conceived
n
a
materialistic
ay
as
mortalwith the
body,
or whether t is seen as
being
immortal,
xisting
in some form fter hebodilydeath.4
2
Erich
leineidam,
niversitastudii
rffòrdiensis
/,
eipzig
992,
05-7.
n
Usingen's
andTrutfetter's
ives,
ee Kleineidam
992, 90-1;
98-9.
3
Bartholomaeus
rnoldie
Usingen,
awulus
hilosophie
aturalis
Leipzig
499;
xercitium
de nimaErfurt
507;
odocus
rutfetter,
umma
ntotam
hysicen:
oc st
hilosophiam
atu-
ralem
onformiteriquidem
ere
ophie:
ue
st
Theologiaer
.
Judocum
sennachcensisn
gimnasio
Erphordensis
lucrabata
t ditaErfurt
514. shall ot iscussere he urther
evelopments
in
the
ater ditions
f
Usingen's
nd Trutfetter's
orks,
hich ould e
interesting
or
the ake f ncreasingumanistnfluence,speciallynUsingen'sritings.
4
Apart
rom his
articular
uestion
here
re several
hemes,
here
he
nterplay
between
heology
nd
philosophy
s
realized.
ee,
for
xample,
he
uestion
n the
lu-
rality
f
forms,
herehe
notion
f
he oul
eparated
romhe
ody lays
n
mportant
role n the
rgumentation.
ee
Usingen,
awulus
ff.
6r .
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 133/187
IMMORTALITYF
THE
SOUL
N THE LATE VIA
ODERNA
F
ERFURT
339
1. Philosophicalethodfthe rfurtiania Moderna
The
University
f Erfurtwas one
of
the most famous
mong
the via mo-
derna f the ate Middle
Ages.
If
we
pass
the
difficult
uestion
of
what,
n
general,distinguished
etweenthe via
antiqua
nd via modernat the
time,
I shall
refer o the witness f the
Erfurtians
hemselves,
hich considers
their
philosophical
method
s a
characteristic
f
their
position.
This is
to
be found
n
Trutfetter'summuleotius
ogice
where the author
cites
the
conclusions f the influential
uodlibetaldispute
n
1497,
which became
a starting ointof the ockhamistic eform f studies n Erfurt.5
According
o Trutfetter's itness he
position
of via moderna
termin-
ist as he calls
it)
is based on
a
careful
nalysis
f the
signification
f the
terms,
hereby
voiding
overlyhasty
conclusions
bout
the
ontological
structure f the
world,
ccording
o the
principle
f
economy.
The error
of the
rival
realist )
osition,
which
presupposesmanyunnecessary
nto-
logical
entities,
s
based on
ignorance
of the art of
dialectic,
particularly
concerning
he connotations f the terms.6 his is seen as an
integral
part
of the semantic
nalysis,
which has been
commonly
onsidered
s
necessary reliminary orkfor he other ciences, .g. in physics r meta-
physics.7
rutfetter otes that
early theologians
nd
philosophers
were
5
Jodocus
rutfetter,
ummuleotius
ogice
Erfurt
500,
f.
M1V-M2V.
6
Trutfetter,
ummuleff.
Mlr
: Nec
portet
llis
ffingere
ntitates
roprias
b aliis
is-
tinctas
ro ualitate
odorum
ignificandi.
inc
n
his multis
ncaute
c
propriam
educ-
tionem
equiritur
etaphysica,
bi
perfacile
onsuleret
ialecticus.cciditnim rrorste
ex sola
artis ialecticaet connotationiserminorumescientia.d
quod
anno
natali
Christiano497
n
universali
isputatione,uam uotlibetum
ocant,
n haec
verba on-
clusimus. ;ummulef.Mlv: Errantgituronnullinpropriameductionemncaute eta-
physicamequirentes,
bidialecticusacile
onsuleret,
uorum,
tveritatiicetAristoteli
nostro,
dversastuniversalium
onfictio,
tque
erum
ignorům
umero
ultiplicado.
7
Trutfetter,
ummulef.Mlv: Sed
cclamant
lii,
uod
de entibusationisihil
urant.
Vadamus,
nquiunt,
d
res,
ilem abentes
erministam,
rridentes
uod
mnia eferátd
signa.
os,
nquiunt,
em
erquirimus,
d rem
mus,
uid
d nosde
terminis,
uasi
de
rebusine
erminis
ossit
sse
ermo,
uasi
ialéctica
enitus
upervacua.
ic
fuitt est
n
pluribus,ui
se
gratis
nvolvuntura t erroribus
nextricabilibus,
uos
ola eit t
potest
dialécticaesolvere
efiniendo,ividendo,
erminorum
enique
onnotationes
um
modis
significandi
ivaciter
xponendo,
ec non
ophismatumaralogisationes
antasticas
ete-
gendo.
ecob d dico ufficere
ialecticen
ro
ognitione
etaphysicae
t
theologiea,
ta
quodplurimorumerscrutatione
aud
opus
it,
uom
dialécticaon
dat
cognitionem
illarumcientiarumedcertis odister xpedit,uoad illas enitur. s Urban otes,
the
passage
s
paraphrased
rom
ean
Gerson's ollectorium
uper agnificat,
ract.
.
See
Wolfgang
rban,
ie viamoderna'n der
Universität
rfurt
m
Vorabender
eformation,
n:
Heiko . Oberman
ed.),
regor
on
imini,
erk
nd
Wirkung
is
ur
eformation
Berlin
981,
311-30,
sp.
327,
n. 54.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 134/187
340
PEKKA ÄRKKÄINEN
alreadyaware of differentigurativemodes of speech, and interpreting
them
presupposes
careful attention o those
figures.
Moreover,
all
the
realists o
observethe
possible equivocations
f
terms,
n
which
they
do
not differ
rom erminists.8
One could
illustrate he difference
y saying
that,
as
in
the
case
of
relational
erms,
t
does not
imply
hat these terms
ignify
ome kind of
relational
ntity
which s
really
distinct rom
ingularbeings,
but rather
that the relational erm
merely ignifies
ll
beings
of its
scope
and addi-
tionally
onnotes
their
tanding
n
relation
o
otherentities.
n a
similar
way,
the existence f severalother entities s
being
really
distinct rom
substances
nd absolute
qualities
was
denied.9
In
addition
to this
general
semantic
orientation,
he
frequently
sed
authorities
re also found
among
the
représentants
f
the via moderna.
Here it
should be
noted
that Erfurtian
eaching
followed
traditionally
along
the lines of
Jean
Buridan
and Marsiliusof
Inghen
rather han that
of
Ockham,
the
Venerabili
nceptoralthough
Ockham,
together
ithPierre
d'Ailly
nd
Gregory
f
Rimini,
was
strongly
avored,
specially
y Usingen
and Trutfetter.10n exampleof thecontinuingmportance f Buridan s
seen,
however,
n
Usingen's
Exercitiume anima
published
n
1507. The
8
Trutfetter,
ummule
.
M2r:
Hancveritatem
mnes
ntiqui
octores,
hilosophi
t
sancti
on
gnorarunt.
.. Et
quia
non
emper
nimadverteruntel dvertere
ogitarunt
ad sermonis
roprietatem,
ed
liquandomproprie,
igurate
t
tropice
unt
ocuti,
ever-
enterunt
nterpretandi
t
llorumicta on
n ensu
uem
erba
aciunt,
ed
potius
uem
ipsi re
e
ferunt
ccipienda,
t ta
eorum
mproprietates
d
proprietatem
unt educen-
dae
nequaquammpliandae.
lioquinuid
mirumi
augetureceptio.
n hac veritate
omnes
eaiistae,
ui
altemon berrant
terministis,
inime
issident,
icet
epius
ominis
aequivocationcomponibilemitemnteros constituât.9
Cf.
Trutfetter,
ummuleMlv:
In
tamnumerosaerum
arietate,
uobus
raedica-
mentis,
ubstantia
t
qualitate,
ntrinsice,
eliquis
cto xtrinsecisabitudinisbunde
significata.impliciter
ulla st
entitas
niversalis,
espectiva,
ndivisibilis,
rivativa,
ut
successiva,
ullum
omplexe
ignificabile,
orma
otius,
ut
totalitas,
quolibetingulari,
absoluto,
c
permanentiequestrata.
willnot
give
detailed
ccount ere f how
therelationetween
ignification
nd
ontology
asunderstood
y
Trutfetternd other
nominalists.
10
ee
Kleineidam
992
above,
.
2),
141.Kleineidam
otes
ibid., 42), ommenting
upon
he
uodlibetalispute
n
1497,
hat
Usingentrongly
avoured
ckham,
ierre
d'Ailly,
nd
Gregory
f
Rimini,
ven
gainst
ld
uthoritiesike uridan
ndMarsiliusf
Inghen.
his
doesnot
ayvery
much
oncerning
he
general
tand
f
these
uthorities,
becausen this articularuestionuridanndMarsiliusepresentedhe pinionhared
by
via
ntiquagainst
he
ontraryosition
fOckham
nd
d'Ailly
seeUsingen,
awulus
f.
125r).
oncerning
he
uthority
f
Ockham,
hich
as
not bsolute
or
Usingen,
ee
Urban
981,
25
nd
329;
but lso
hemuch-favored
regory
f
Rimini as
disregarded
on the
uestion
f
omplexeignificabilia
as we shall
ee.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 135/187
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 136/187
342
PEKKA ÄRKKÄINEN
Psychology, ccording o Usingen,properly onsists fknowledgen the
latter wo
meanings,namely
s
concerning
he soul5 s the
subject
term
of
a
demonstrated
onclusion nd as
an
entity
f which uch
a
conclusion
claims some state of
affairs.16
For
him
t
is
enough
to
say
that ince a
proposition
s assented
hrough
a
previous
demonstration,
hrough
t the truth f some state of affairs
s
also assented
oncerning
he
subject
term
nd the
entity
t
signifies.
his
is
due to
Usingen's
denial of the existence f so-called
omplexeignificabilia.
This means that the conclusion
tself oes not
signify nything
hat its
individual ermsdo not
signify.
o there s
again
no need for uch addi-
tionalentities s
signification
otaleas the
thing ignified y
the
whole
prop-
osition
was called
by Gregory
f
Rimini
and other
adherents
f
complexe
significabilia
octrine. s
a matter f
fact,
he existence
f
complexeignificabilia
was one of the
things
lready
denied
in
the
programmatic uodlibetal
dispute
of 1497. Because there
s
only
one
entity,
he
soul,
which the
conclusion nd its
subject
term
ignify,
here s also no need for diverse
acts of
assent,
which
form
he
psychological nowledge
n
question.
t
is
thevery ame act,whereby heconclusion,tssubject erm, nd thething
signified
re
assented,
which s called
knowledge.
o here also the semantic
analysis
f
signification
ends owards
implifying
heview of the
ontological
structure f
being.17
divisionf the
bject
f
science
o combinet with he
erminology
f Marsilius.he
authenticity
f he dited
ext f he irstedaction
f
Buridan's
uaestiones
asbeen
ues-
tioned.
ee
J.M.M.H
hijssen,
ate-Medieval
atural
hilosophy:
omeecentrends
n
cholarship
in: Recherchese
Théologie
t
Philosophie
édievales,
7
(2000),
58-190,
t 179-80.
However,ince hererenootherditionsf he uestionst handvailable,have elied
on Patar's dition.
16
Usingen,
x.
n.,
.A3r:
Quibus remissisespondetur
d
questionem
er
duas on-
clusiones.
rima onclusio.e anima st cientia
anquam
e scibili emotot remotis-
simo. aec conclusio
abet uas
partes,uarum rima
ult e ilio ermino
nima sse
scientiam
anquam
e scibili
emoto,
uia
lle
otestngredi
onclusionem
emonstrabilem,
ergo otest
emoteciri. ecunda
ult e re
significataer
llum erminům
nima
sse
scientiam
anquam
e
scibili
emotissimo,
uia
lia
potest
ignificaner
conclusionem
demonstrabilem
t subiectum
ius,
ut
patet
n
illa demonstratione
el
consimili,
t
quidquid
nhaeret
orpori
st ctus
orporis,
t
nimanhaeret
orpori,
gitur
nima st ctus
corporis.
17
Usingen,
x. an
,
if.
A2rv:
Idem
nim
ignificant
um
omplexe
ignificabilia
on
sint onendauaeposuit regoriusriminensist Henricuse Hassia tpatet irca .
Physicorum,
sta nim
nquantum
alis
ec
st
ropositio
ec
pars
ius,
uare
emotissime
terminâtctum
dhaesivum
ntellectus,
uorum
xemplaris
eclaratio
atet
nhacdemon-
strationeel
consimili,
t
omne nimal st
risibile,
t omnis
omo
st
nimal
ationale,
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 137/187
IMMORTALITYF
THE
SOUL N
THE LATE
VIA
ODERNA
F ERFURT
343
Similarlyherewereotherdoctrines onnected o thesethemes,where
there was a
notable
disagreement mong
the
adherentsof
the via mo-
derna. or
example,Usingen argues
against
he
position,
hat there
would
be
knowledge
f
the
thing
tself
rimary
o the
propositional
onclusion
concerning
t.
This
passage
is
found
n
Usingen's
earlier
work,
Parvulus
philosophie
aturalis
1499),
where
he notes that this
opinion
s
obscure,
not
internally
onsistent,
ecause
knowledge
of
an
extramental
ntity
includes,
properly peaking,
he
knowledge
f
conceptsthey
ignify,
nd
so
the
contrary
pinion
s easier to
understand
nd
compatible
with the
common
presuppositions
f the via moderna.he issue was also consid-
ered as
being
a
sharply
ivisive
uestion
within he
via modernaas
it was
argued
from he common
presuppositions
f that
chool.
n
the same
way
Gregory
f
Rimini,
whom
Usingen
mentions s an
adherent f
the com-
plexe ignificabilia
octrine,
was
in
many
ways
a
respected
uthority
f
the
via
moderna
n
Erfurt.
Usingen's positions
reaffirm
he
importance
f the
semantic
nalysis
s the
first
tep
in
the
philosophical
method,
s
it was
vehemently
onfessed
y
the Erfurtiansn
1497.
8
The procedureof semantic nalysis lso precedesthe definitionf the
term souP s an
object
of
knowledge
n
psychology,
ifferentiating
t from
the
understanding
f the term
without
eference o its
operations
n
the
body,
contrary
o
metaphysics.
ne
must note here
that
Usingen
con-
ceived the
soul
as
the
substantial orm
f the
body,
and
denied,
together
with the
common tradition
f the via moderna
ckham's
idea of
the
plu-
rality
f
substantial orms
n
man.19
Calling
soul
a
substantial orm
does
not
contradict t
being
a
substance,
when it
informs
he
body,
because
essential
arts
of
substances re
also called
substances.20
urthermore,
he
humansoul is immaterial nd independent f the body,so that after ts
separation
rom
he
body
it
can
exist as a
substance
n
the
meaning
res
per
se
subsistens. 21
igitur
mnis
omo st
risibilis.ciuntur
utem sta ria
cibilia
na
scientia,
uae
est
assensus
onclusionis,
uia
ssentiendo
onclusioni
ropinqueanquam
otali
entatiimul
assentitur
ubiectoius
emote,
d est
artialiter,
trei
ignificatae
er
arn
anquam
biecto
eius
emotissime.
18
Usingen,
arvulus
ff. v-9r.
19Usingen,arvulus,.87r,ccordingowhichhe efenseeliesnGregoryfRimini's
arguments
gainst
cotus nd
Ockham.ee
alsoEx. an.
ff.
2V-E1V.
20
Usingen,
x.
an
,
ff.
5r-C6r.
21
Usingen,
x. an
,
ff.
3r-L4v;
4r-Nlr.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 138/187
344
PEKKA
ÄRKKÄINEN
Soul is consideredby Usingenas the mostgeneralterm n psychology,
which then confers
pon
it the reason for the
unity
f this
science and
for ts distinction
rom ther
ciences.
Soul
is,
however,
nderstood ere
in a
qualified
ense,
namely
onnotatively,
onnoting
ts
operations
n
the
body.22
he
operations
of soul are
not,
strictly peaking,
he
object
of
psychologicalnowledge,
or
s
the soul
n
itself,
part
from hese
perations.
This
is defined
by
describing
he semantic haracter f the term
oul
in
this context.
n
psychology
soul'
is
namely
a connotative
oncept,
ince
it connotescertain
operations
n
the
body.
It
is
defined
s
a substantial
form,
which s called 'soul'
by
virtueof its
vivifying
tatus s a formof
a
body. Solely metaphysics
onsidersthe soul
in an
absolute
manner,
without
ny
concern
whether his ubstantial orm
ctually
nforms
body
or
not,
because
metaphysics
onsiders he
things
from he
viewpoint
f
their absolute formative
rinciples
.
ecundumationesarum
bsolutas).23
Therefore he
notionof a soul
separate
from he
body,
or
a
soul as mover
of celestial
bodies,
is excluded from he
psychological oncept
of soul.24
3. Usingenn Theolog))ndPsychology
This definitioneaves room
for
certain
theological
onsiderations,
s
is
the case
later
n
Exercitium
where
Usingen
treats he
question
whether r
not the
soul is a formof
body
both
on the basis of Catholic
teaching
22
Usingen,
x.an
,
f.A3r: Secundaonclusio.lle erminus
nima
onnotative
aptus
est ubiectum
ttributioniscientiae
e
anima,
uia
huic onvenitiffinitioubiecti
t ausae
assignationsiusdem.bid. .A2V:Quartootandumst ubiectumttributionissse er-
minůmommunissimum
n
aliqua
cientia
otali
quo
sumit nitatemxtrinsicam
t ab
aliis cientiis
rguitivam
istinctionem.
23
Usingen,
x. n. .
A2V:
Tertio otandumst
irca
artemuaesiti,
nimam
upliciter
considerali,
am
rimo
bsolute,
test
uaedam
orma
ubstantial,
on urandon ab
informando
el oris anendo
ieta,
ualiter
nima
eparata
corpore
tiam icitur
nima,
et
tanon ebet
api
n
praesenti,uia
ola
metaphysica
onsidérâtes ecundum
ationes
earum
bsolutas.ecundo
onnotative,
test
uaedam
ormaubstantialisb
informando
dicta
nimans,
d
est
ivificans
orpus,
n
quo
est
rincipium
perationum
italium,
ualiter
diffinit
am
Philosophus
ecundo uius icens
arn sse ctum
orporis,uod
facit ita-
liter
perari
t tadebet
api
n
praesenti.
ee also
bid.,
.A3V.
n Parvulus
f. 1r)
singen
makes o such istinction
etween
bsolutend onnotative
ses f
soul,'
ut
notes,
.g.,
the onceptf body'uch hat t can be understoodabsolutely,s in the ategoryf
substance
nd
in
the
ategory
f
quality,
s it s an abstracterm.
f. similar
is-
tinction
oncerning
od
n
theology
nd
n
metaphysics
nMarsiliusf
nghen,
uaestiones
I, 2,
ed.
Noya,
29,
7-23.
24
Similarilylready
n
1499,
ee
Usingen,
arvulusf.81r.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 139/187
IMMORTALITY
F
THE
SOUL
N THE LATEVIA
ODERNA
F
ERFURT
345
and as a philosophical uestion.25Moreover,the following uestionson
the
unity
f
the intellectual oul and on
immortality
f the rational oul
are
explicidy
reatedbecause
of the
heresies
related to them.26 ere
it
should be
noted,
that the
seminal
quodlibetal dispute
of 1497
already
addressed
the
question
of the
origin
of the human
soul,
among
other
topics,
reaffirming
he Catholic doctrine f the creation nd
immortality
of individual ouls.27
The
questionconcerning
he intellection f
a
soul
separated
from he
body
is a
special
case,
which
Usingen
does not deal with
n
Exercitium
in accordancewith the definitionhat this theme s not treated n
psy-
chology.
n
Pawulus
hilosophie
aturalis
1499) Usingen
has
indeed addressed
such
a
question,
ut also
therehe noted thatAristotle oes not deal with
this theme
n
De anima28
In
Pawulus
Usingen
tends to
make a
difference
etween
pure philo-
sophical
analysis
and
the
philosophical nalysis
from
the
viewpoint
of
Christian
heology.
here he
notes,
commenting
n the text
concerning
habits f the
soul,
that he author reats he
subject
not as
a
pure philoso-
pher,but as a theologian, hat s, as a Catholic philosopher. The dis-
tinction
made
there
s the one between
cquired
and infused
abits,
which
according
o
Usingen
cannot be done
by
a
pure philosopher,
who does
not need the
concept
of infusedhabits.29
As we shall
see,
a similardistinctions seen
in
Usingen's
treatment f
the
origin
f the rational oul
in
Pawuluswhich he
sees
as a
central
ues-
tion
determining
he nature
of the intellectual
oul,
because
many
hea-
then
philosophers
iffer ere
from
he Catholic Christiandoctrine.His
aim
is to
consider,
ot
only
f
the Catholic and heathenviews differ rom
each other,but also in whichrespect heydiffer.30n the indexof ques-
tionsfound t the end of the
work,
he
question
was entitled s
whether
25
Usingen,
x. an
,
if.
L4V-M2V,
uestions
Utrumntellectusumanusit ormaub-
stantial
orporis
umani nd
Utrum,
ircumscripta
ide
atholica,
atio aturalisictaret
intellectumumanumsse ormam
orporis
umani.
26
Usingen,
x.
an ff.M3r-Nlr.
27
Trutfetter,
ummaf.P4r.
28
Usingen,
awulusf.
124r.
29
Usingen,
awulusf.
112v:
Et talis ecundum
utorem
uplex
st,
cilicet
cquisitus
per perationes,t nfusus,d est cquisitusine raeviisperationibus,bi utoroquitur,
non
anquamurus
hilosophus,
ed
tanquamheologus,ui
est
philosophus
atholicus,
quiapuri hilosophi
ihil
overunte habitibusnfusis.
30
Usingen,
awulusf.
1
: Pro
olutione ultarum
uestionumuaepossent
iefieri
de
potentia
ationalit ntellectu
umano,
otandum
st
uid hilosophi
thnicit
gentiles
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 140/187
346
PEKKA ÄRKKÄINEN
human intellect s derived from he potenciesof matter, lthough his
titledoes not
appear
in
the text.The
main
question
can be
formulated,
so that t asks whether he
generation
f
a
human soul
happens by
virtue
of natural
gents,
hat
s,
without
ny supernatural
nfluence.31
he
ques-
tion
was
important
rom
he
viewpoint
f creationistic
heory oncerning
the
origin
of the
soul,
which
Usingen
shared,
ccording
o which human
souls are created
ndividually,
ogether
with
the formation f the
body,
to which
they
are then
infused,
which
was
considered s the
Catholic
Christian
iew on the matter.32
In this
question,
Usingenpresents
ot
only
the three
ommonly
nown
positions
f Alexander
Aphrodisias,
verroes,
nd
Aristotle
s
in
the aver-
age
Buridanian
radition,
ut he
also
presents
lato
as a
fourth
osition.
Concerning
Alexander'smaterialistic
osition,
e
says
that t
is
shared
by
many gentilephilosophers,
hile it is difficulto
falsify
t
merely
n the
basis of naturalreason
(.
ecundum
urum
umen
aturae).
3
He also
maintains
that
manypeople
of his own time share Alexander's
position,
ut
his
tar-
get
here
is hard to
identify.34
n
the 14th
century,
lasius of Parma had
representedhe Alexandrist osition,but the contemporaryhilosophers
favored
mainly
he Averroistic iew.35
Usingen'spoint
reflects,
n
some
sense,
the
position
of the via moderna
in
which Alexander's
position ppears
to be the most convenient orthe
natural reason. He does
not,
however,
hare
Buridan's
and Ockham's)
view that ts falseness annot be
demonstrated
y
arguments
f
natural
reason
alone,
but thinks
nly
that t is difficulto
falsifyffectively.
his
formulation iffers
ignificantly
lso fromPierre
d'Ailly's
formulation
n
his Tractatuse anima that
Alexander's
position
s for the naturalreason
senserunte anima
ationali,
t imul ideatur
n
quo
cum eritateatholicaoncordent
et
n
quo
discordent.
31
Usingen,
arvulus,
.140v:Utrumntellectus
umanusit ductuse
potentia
ateriae.
32
Usingen,
arvulusf.
112v.
creationistic
iews articulatedlso
by ohannes
orsten,
whowas n influential
heologian
n Erfurt
n
the ate15th
entury.
orstenould
lso
explain
he ransmission
f
riginal
in
espite
his
iew,
asing
is
rgumentation
n Giles
ofRome's iews.
ee Adolar
umkeller,rbsünde,
nade
Rechtfertigung
nd erdienst
ach er
Lehreer
rfurterugustinertheologen
es
pätmittelaltersWürzburg
984,
24.
33
Usingen,
arvulusf.
1
v: Haec
pinio
uit
uondam
ultorum
entiliumhilosopho-
rum,
uoniam
ecundum
urum
umen aturaeifficulter
otesteprobali
fficaciter.
34Ibid., .1 v: Ettimeo odie arn ssemultorumnsensatorumominum,uinon
creduntorde ivinis
loquiis
t
scripturae
anctaeestimoniis.
35
Keßler
988,
87
above,
.
1);
Olaf
luta,
ritikerer nsterblichkeitsdoktrin
nMittelalterund
Renaissance
Amsterdam
986,
1.
Such
ontemporaryhilosophers
ncludedietro
omponazzi,
who
ater
ecame amous
or
efending
he
hilosophical
alidity
fAlexander's
osition.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 141/187
IMMORTALITYF
THE
SOUL
N THE LATE
VIA
ODERNA
F ERFURT
347
the most probable.36There are some terminological imilarities o be
observed
n
Lawrence of Lindores5
Quaestiones
e anima
which maintains
that
according
to the natural
ight
of reason
(
tando n
lumine aturali
it
cannot
be conceded as
proved
that
the human
ntellect
s
either mmortal
or
corruptible.
Philosophically
peaking
j
bure
hilosophiceoquendo,
the
opinion
of Alexander
appears
to
be more
probable
than the Averroistic
position.37
distrust f the
probability
f Alexander's
view,
even
in
a
philosophical nalysis,
llows
Usingen
uch
extreme
xpressions
s
of those
who defend
he Alexandrist
osition,
who do not
believe
n
their
hearts
in the divine
sayings
nd the testimonies f the sacred
Scriptures,
nd
who think f the
Christian aith s a
mere fabulation.38
Against
the solution
of
Averroes,
which
presupposes
one common
intellect,
singen
notes
that t is
condemned
by
the
Church. There he
supposedly
has in
mind
the statutes f the
Council of Vienna in
1312,
wherethis
doctrine f
Averroeswas first
ondemned,
lthough
he
mpor-
tance of
Averroes
n
psychology
ersisted
ntil
the late 15th
century.39
Usingen
brings
o
arguments
gainst
his
position,
ut refers o
the author-
ityofAugustine nd further o that ofGregory fRimini,whoseproofs
that
this is not a
correct
reading
of
Aristotle as
Averrois hinks
he
takes for
granted.40
36
On
Buridan,
eePluta
986
above,
.
35),
1;
on
Pierre
'Ailly,
eehis
Tractatuse
anima,
, 1,
ed. Olaf
luta,
ie
philosophische
sychologu
es
eteron
illy
Amsterdam
987,
35,
ndon
his ater
iews,
luta
986,
2.
37
awrencef
Lindores,
uestiones
e nima
III,
4,
citedn
Pluta
986,
07.
38
Usingen,
arvulusf. llv:
Et imeo odie arn
ssemultorum
nsensatorum
ominum,
quinon reduntorde ivinisloquiistscripturaeanctaeestimoniis,ed nnitentesuis
capitibus
icunt
a,
quae
fides
atholica
ocet,
sse
omposita.
n
quorum
ersona
oquitur
sapiens:
x
nihilo ati
umust
postea
rimus
anquam
on
fuerimus.tem
cclesiastes:
Unus
st nteritus
ominumt umentorum
t
aeque
utriusque
onditio,
t
nihil
abet
homo
umento
mplius
tc.Haec
opinio er
catholicam
octrinam
udum
xplosa
st,
quare
on
it ure
atholico
hilosopho.
39
Usingen,
arvulus
f.
1
v: Sed
haec
pinio
amnatast
b
ecclesia,
uia
fide red-
imus
uemlibet
ominem
uum abere
ntellectum
umeraliter
istinctum
b intellectu
alterius. .ee
Keßler 988
above,
.
1),
486.
40
Usingen,
arvulusf.
1
v: Et hoc
dicit
Augustinus
n
secundo e
libero
rbitrio:
Manifestumst
ationalesentes
ingulos
uosque
ostrum
ingulas
abere. t hanc
osi-
tionem
robat
regorius
riminensisirca
ecundum
ententiarumon
fuissee inten-
tione ristotelis,edCommentatoremeridendumsse,uia scribitamntentioniristoteli,
ubi
videasi
placet.
ee
Gregorius
riminensis,
ectura
uper
rimum
t
ecundum
ententiarum
II,
d. 16 et
17,
q.
1,
art.
,
ed. A.
Damasus
rapp
OSA,
Berlin
979,
omus
, 330,
36-331,
. The
argumentgainst
he
Averroistic
osition,
hich
singen
rings
ut
s dis-
cussed
y
Gregory
bid.,
rt.
,
ed.
Trapp,
26,14-9;
27,
-329,
7. The
same
ext
f
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 142/187
348
PEKKA
ÄRKKÄINEN
Plato is passed overbyUsingenwithno discussion oncerningwhether
or not his ideas contradict he Catholic
doctrine,
n
contrast
o
what he
does with the other three
philosophers.Usingen only briefly
escribes
Plato's doctrines f the
pre-existence
f souls and
anamnesis-theory
nd
his
notion of the soul afterdeath.41
Aristotle s
again
discussed
n
detail,
and
particularly
is relation
to
Catholic doctrine
s
examined.
n
evaluating
Aristotle's octrine rom he
viewpoint
of Christian
theology
he detects one
point,
where Aristotle
clearly
deviates
from
t.
This
is the
question
of whether he human soul
is
generated
from the
potencies
of
matter,
where
Usingen
thinks hat
Aristotle lso understands he
generation
here
takingplace by
virtueof
natural
agents
which does
not consider
any supernatural
nfluence. or
this
reason
Usingen
thinks hat Aristotle lso understood
he
generation
of the soul
as
being
derived from he
potencies
of matter
.
entit
nimam
rationalem
duci e
potentiis
ateriae
,
where t
does not
differ
rom he
gen-
eration
f animal souls.
Usingen
understands hat
Aristotle ould not have
known
any
other manner of
generation, eing
a
pure philosopher;
ut
for the Christiantheologian,such an understanding f generation s
insufficient.
he Christiannotion of
creation,
which s not the same as
the
purelyphilosophical
oncept
of
generation, resupposes, ccording
o
Usingen, predisposed
ubject,
where the soul will be
created,
but does
not take
place
by
virtueof natural
agents,
but rather s the divine act
of creation nstead.
Concerning
he
generation
f
the
soul,
Usingen
eems
to
imply
here that there were
no lines of
argumentation
hat Aristotle
could have
established,
ased
upon
his naturalreason. This comes
close,
by
the
way,
to Buridan's view that Alexander's
position,
which
in
this
matters sharedbyAristotle,annotbe falsifiedynatural eason alone.42
Augustine
rom e libererbitirio
, 7,
15 s alsocited
y
Gregory
ere
ed.
Trapp,
26,
33-4).
41
Usingen,
arvuliis,
f.
llv-112r.
42
Usingen,
awulus,
f.
112r
: Sed
quando uaeritur,
n haec
positio
ristotelica
n
omnibus
oncordetum eritate
atholica,
espondetur,uod
ic,
raeter
nam
articu-
lam,
ua
sentit
nimamationalem
enerali,uia
non
eneratur
liomodo
uo
Aristoteles
loquitur
e
generatione,
uia
ecundumristotelem
enerali
st
rocedere
e non sse d
esse
n materia
raedisposita
irtute
gentium
aturalium,
uod
non st liud
uam
duci
de potentiis ateriae.t sic Aristotelesensitnimamationalemducide potentiis
materiae
icut
rutalem,
uia
secundum
umoctavo
hysicorum
on
est
liusmodus
emanandiffectussua
ausa,
uam er
enerationem,uae
st
rocessus
ormaee non
esse
d essevirtute
gentium
aturalium,
uoniam
ctio
pecialis
ei vel
upernaturalis
puro hilosopho
on
uit
ognita
icut st reatioel
nnihilatio... Et
lla
reationimae
rationalisst
uasi
ctio
medianterreationemxtraubiectumt ductioneme
potentiis
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 143/187
IMMORTALITYF
THE
SOUL
N THE LATEVIA
ODEMA
F
ERFURT
349
On the immortalityf the soul afterdeath Aristotle hinks therwise,
according
o
Usingen, greeing
forthe most
part
with the Catholic view
whichunderstands he human soul
as
being
mmortal.
lthough, singen
himself hares the
view
expressed
by
Pierre
d'Ailly
and
Gregory
of
Rimini43
hat
Aristotle
peaks
on thesematters
mbiguously,
nd he refuses
to harmonize
the
contradictory
tatements ound
n
Aristotle's
writings.
In
his
opinion,
Aristotle
s
more
likely
o
hold the
opinion
of the
perpe-
tuity
f the human
soul,
and therefore
onceding
to Christiandoctrine.
It is
evident,
evertheless,
hat
Usingen
understands hisas
a
mere
opin-ion of
Aristotle,
hich s
again groundedupon
no conclusive
philosoph-
ical
proofs.44
A
similar
olution
s evident ater
n
1507,
when
Usingen
discussed ev-
eral related
questions
n
his Exercitiume
anima.
The central
question
of
whether r
not the intellectual oul is derivedfrom he
potencies
f mat-
ter
s
not
discussed
here,
but
Usingen
notes that Aristotles
holding
he
affirmativeiew on the
question against
the Catholic doctrineof cre-
ation.45 n the mmortalityf the soul after odilydeath,whereby singen
is
persuaded
f ts
existence,
s conceded as truth
n
the
philosophy
ecause
it does not contradict he natural
reason,
but
is
proved
on the
contrary
by
dialectical
rguments although
ot
by ogically
alid
proofs. dditionally,
materiae,
uiapraesupponit
ubiectum
ispositum
t tarnenon
producitur
irtute
gen-
tium
aturalium,
uare theologisuandoque
ocatur
reatio,
uandoque
ocatur
ene-
ratio,
ed
non d
sensum
ure hilosophicum.
43
Petrus
lliaco,
ractatuse nima
6, 1,
ed.
Pluta, 5;
Gregorius
riminensis,
ectura
II,
d. 16 et
17,
.
1,
art.
,
ed.
Trapp,
30, 7-331,
.
44Usingen,awulusf.1 r: Etdixitummpliussse erpetuum.tquamvisristoteles
videturalia ensissearnenon dducitfficaces
robationes,uia,
ut Cameracensise
eo
testatur,
uando
ristoteles
oquebatur
e
his,
uae
n
discrimen
eligionům
onabant
et
pertinebantaucis
ransivit
amhoc
otius
liud
ersequendo.uare epetitur
n
plerisque
locis e
eadem e
contrarie
cripsisse,uia
n
primo
e anima
icit: onreminiscimur
post
mortem,
n
secundo ero icit:
eparetur
oc ab hoc
tanquamerpetuum
cor-
ruptibili,uae
duomanifeste
mpugnant
e,
ut
patet
lare. ec
est
pus xponere
t
con-
cordare,
c
si
n
nullo rrassetec
n
aliquo
ibi
ontradixisset,
uodpotius
ivinumst
quam
humanum.
Quia
autem ristoteles
agis
nclinatusuerituic
ositioni
uam
oppositae,ignanter
e
perpetuitate
nimae,
laretx
hoc,
uod
ius
cripta agis
onant
pro
lio.
45
Usingen,
x.an
,
f.L3V: Tertio
otandumst mnemormamubstantialemate-
rialemenerabilemtcorruptibilemepotentiisateriaesse ductamenerandotrur-
sum etransire
n
potentias
ateriae
orrumpendo,uia
secundum
hilosophumrimo
Physicorum
ateriast
rimum
ubiectumalis ormae.t
quid orrumpitur
nhoc
bibit
ultimum,
ed nima ationalisuxta eritatem
atholicamon ic
ducitur,
ed mmediate
a Deo
creatur
n
corpore.
ecretransit
n
morte
ominis
n
potentias
ateriae,
ed
epa-
ratur
corpore
cquirens
sse
er
e
subsistentiae.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 144/187
350
PEKKA
ÄRKKÄINEN
Aristotles reckoned mongtheadherents f mmortality,n spiteofsome
contrary rguments,
hich
Usingen
discusses,
mong
others.46
On the
question
whether
he
human
soul
is the
substantial
ormof
the
body,
Usingen
defines
his view
of the
relation
between
heology
nd
philosophy.
After
discussing
he
question
on the
basis
of the
Catholic
Christian
osition
s a
part
of his
argumentation,47
e asks
n a
separate
question,
f the
position
an be
defended
rom he
standpoint
f the
argu-
ments
of
pure
natural
reason
(utrum
ircumscriptaide
atholica
atio
aturalis
dictaret
ntellectum
umanum
sse
ormam
orporis
umani
.48
His
final
nswer
s
contrasted ithOckham's
position
n his
Quodlibeta
wherethe atterholds
the
view
that
the
natural
reason
cannot
demonstrate
r
prove
as evi-
dently robable
hat
he
ntellectual
oul s
the form
f the
body.
According
to
Usingen
this
s
naturally
elievable
natur
liter
ersuasibile)
nd dialecti-
callyprovable
<
ialectice
onclusibile
,
which
s
enough
for
him
to
answer
his
main
question
affirmatively,
amely
that
according
o the
naturalreason
this
position
s to be
considered
true.49
similar
view
is
expressed
n
Usingen's
Exercitium
hysicorum
oncerning
he
question
whether
t is to
be
conceded,according o thephilosophy fnature, hat theFirstmover s
omnipresent,
hich
he
answers
ffirmatively.
he
answer
s
grounded
n
reasoning
hat
this
ruth,
hich
s known
o
be true
from
evelation,
oes
not contradict
he
principles
f
natural
cience
because
of the
coherence
of
all
truths,
nd this
s a sufficient
ondition
for ts
being
true
also
in
natural
cience.
So
in
theory, singen
ncludes
uch
articles
f
faith,
which
do
not
contradict
he
principles
f natural
cience
as a
part
of the
natural
sciences
themselves.
He
also
finds
t
important
o note
here,
however,
that
this
truth
an
be
deduced
from
he
principles
f natural
science
as
a probable,althoughnot evident, ruth.50
46
Usingen,
x. an
,
ff.
M4V;
lr.
47
Usingen,
x.
an.,
f.
4V-M1V.
48
Usingen,
x.an
,
ff.M1V-M2V.
49
Usingen,
x.
an
,
f.
M2V:
Adtertium
icitur
ecundum
uilhelmum
ckham
on
esse
atione
aturali
videnter
robabile
eldemonstrabile
ntellectum
umanum
sse
or-
mam
orporis
umani,
t
dočet
n
Quodlibeto;
st
nim aturaliter
ersuasibile
tdialec-
tice
onclusibile,
eclusa
t
ircumscripta
ide
atholica,
uod
ufficit
d
veritatem
esponsionis.
An autem
rticuli
idei t
n
conciliis
er
cclesiam
eterminata
int
emonstrabilia
ec
ne,
habet
ideri
n
theologia.
singen
ses
he
xpressions
umen
aturae
ndratio
aturalis
interchangeably,ndhedifferslearlyromawrencef indores'se f he onceptumen
naturae
which
ncluded
nly
vident
r
naturally
emonstrated
ruths.
ee
Usingen,
x.
an
,
f.
Mlr nd
Ex.
Phys.,
.
çlv;
Lawrence
f
Lindores,
uestiones
e nima
III,
q.
4,
cited
in Pluta
986
above,
.
35),
107.
50
Usingen,
x.
hys.,
f.
2r
:
Quibus
raemissis
espondetur
d
questionem
ffirmative.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 145/187
IMMORTALITY
F
THE SOUL N
THE
LATE
VIA
ODERNA
F
ERFURT35
1
FollowingMarsilius f nghen,Usingen explains hatthisdoes not con-
tradict he
idea that
Christian
faith
does
not
depend
on
philosophical
proofs.
Only
some
articles f
faith,
ike
the ones
concerning
he
Trinity
and the
Incarnation,
re
known
only through
evelation;
here are sev-
eral
others hat
re known
by
natural
reason
also,
but one's
faith
n
them
does not
rely
on their
philosophical
emonstrability,
ecause
they
would
be believed
lso,
even when there
were no
philosophical
roofs
or
hem.51
So we can sketch
the
position
n
these controversial
matters
n
Erfurt
before he determinationf the FifthLateran Council. In the
questions
discussed
above,
Usingen
seems
to think hat
in
the controversial
oc-
trines
oncerning
he intellect
here re no evident
philosophical rounds
that would
necessarily
ontradict
he Catholic doctrine.
There are some
doctrines,
ike the soul
being
derived from
potencies
of
matter,
where
pure
philosophers
ike
Aristotle ollow
heir rroneous iews
ystematically,
because
they
know
nothing
f Christian
evelation,
ut Christian octrine
does not
really
contradict heir
views,
but rather ncludes
t since it is
insufficient
n
itself.
otably,
hisdoctrinewas not
among
those ondemned
by
the Fifth ateran
Council,
but
only
the related
uestion
n the
mmor-
tality
f
the soul afterdeath.52
Usingen
does
not
see
in
this doctrine
necessary
onnection
o
the
question
of
immortality,
s
Aristotle
olds both of them.
n
thisdoctrine
Aristotle,
nd most
philosophers,
ven
agreed
with the Christian
ogma,
but their
proofs
were a
type
of dialectical
demonstration,
nd not
logi-
cally
valid
consequences. iscussing
he
question
n the soul as a substantial
form f the
body,
the dialectical
proof
was taken
by Usingen
as
a
philo-
sophically lausibleway ofaffirmingruthn the natural ciences. t may
seem that
this view exceeds the limitsof
natural
philosophy,
which he
set for himself
n
the initial
question
of Exercitiume anima.There he
defined he
knowledge
f the soul
to be founded on the demonstrated
Haec
responsiorobatur
u
o itatet ratione. Ratione
ic,
uia
non
répugnâtrin-
cipiis
aturalisationisum it
erum,
t testaturides
rthodoxa,
edomne erumero
consonai,
rincipia
utem aturalisationismnia unt
eracum nnitanturivine
veritati,
uae
estmetrumt mensuramniumerorum.tiam
otest robabiliter
educi
ex
principiis
aturalis
ationis,
ed non
evidenter,
t dicit
ondorius,
uia
est
quedam
veritasonformisumini aturalisationis,d quampossunt overerincipiaaturalia,
sed
non
evidenter
robare. singen
efers
ere
xplicitly
o Lawrence
f
Lindores
(Londorius).
51
Usingen,
x.
an.,
.
M2V.
52
ee Decrees
f
he cumenicalouncilsed.
Tanner,
05-7.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 146/187
352
PEKKA
ÄRKKÄINEN
truths f thesoul,althoughhe did not discuss herewhether hedemon-
strationmust
be evident
or not.53
One
shouldnote
here
concerning
he
doctrines,
hich he Fifth
ateran
Council
later declared
as
orthodox,
hat
Usingen
thought
hey
were also
philosophically
he most
probable,
although
not
to be demonstrated
y
logically
valid
proofs.
He even
strived o refute
ny arguments
gainst
them,
s
the
Council
also
recommended
nd
urged.54
4. Trutfetternd the ifth ateranum
As one
might xpect,
there
are some
new
aspects
n Trutfetter's
umma
in totam
hysicen,
which came out
in
1514,
the
year
after he decree
of
the
Fifth
ateran Council.
Trutfetter
escribes
his work as
an
epitome
an
introduction
nto natural
philosophy,
which
mainly
describes he
position
of the
via moderna ithout
going
into a detailed
discussion
n individual
topics.55
rutfetter's
ork
can also be considered
s a
nominalist
oun-
terpart
or a via
antiqua ompendium
f
philosophy:
Margaritahilosophica
by Georg Reisch (1503),whichwas actuallyone of its sources.56
The latter
ontainsextensive
iscussions
n
theological
matters
n
its
book
on
psychology,
hich Trutfetter
ould
make use of.57
he
theolog-
ical
interest
n
Margarita
itwell
within
Trutfetter's
oncept,
as he con-
sidered
Summa
ccording
o its title
an
exposition
f natural
philosophy
in
conformity
ith the true
wisdom,
which
is
theology.
Despite
this
emphasis
Trutfetter
oes
not contain
as much
theological
discussion
n
53 eeabove, . 13.54
Decrees
f
he cumenical
ouncils
ed.
Tanner,
06,
7-10.
55
Trutfetter,
umma
5r: Has
siquidem
mnes
uum
nec etiam
n
transitu,
t
dici
solet,
t
superficie
ommemorare
ompendii
atio
inat,
ollibeataltem
ost
abitis
is-
ceptationibus
upervacaneis,
peculationibus
uperioribus,robationibusque
inus
eces-
sariis
aucula
uedam
eneraliora
t necessariora
quae
antillae
etati,
ui
hoc
Epitome
dedicare
onstituimus,
ongruere
t initiatorum
nimos
blectare
imul c
ad altiora
capescenda
reinstruere
aleant)implici
arratione
c stilo
lano,
orum
olum,
uos
nominales
ocant,
ententiam
ecitando
um
nnotationibus
uibusdam
n
marginae
ro
fusiorem
mpliorem
ectionem
raelibare.
he
works
a
compendium
fnatural
hilos-
ophy
n
the
mannerfhis
wn
ompendium
f
ogic
reviarium
ialectice
1500,
ater
nder
thename
pitome
eu reviarium
ogice).
umanist
hristoph
cheurlalls
rutfetter's
umma
compendiumeupotiusnchiridionniversamaturalemhilosophiam,hristophcheurls
Briefiuch,
in
eitrag
ur
Geschichteer
eformation
nd
hrere
eit,
d. F.
F. vonSoden
nd
J.
K. F.
Knaake. ol.
1,
Potsdam
867,
37.
Letter
o Trutfetter
3 December
514).
56
use
here he
1508 dition
f
Margaritahilosophica
Strasbourg
508.
57
ee
e.g.
Trutfetter,
ummaff.
4r
nd
Zlr,
where
eisch
s
explicitly
ited.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 147/187
IMMORTALITY
F
THE SOUL
N
THE LATEVIA
ODERNA
F
ERFURT
353
his exposition s Reisch, and focusesmore along the lines of Usingen's
Powulus
presenting
mainly
an introduction
o natural
philosophy,
with
certain
discussions
n the relevant
heological
ssues.58
The
beginning
f
Trutfeier's
xposition
f
psychology
n
Summa esem-
bles Reisch's
Margarita
but
rearranging
he material
rom
Augustine,
hich
Reisch cites
word-for-word.
irsthe removes
doubts that
no such
thing
as the soul
existswhatsoever.
e
does this
by
an
early
form f
Cartesian
cogito
from
Augustine's
e trinitate.
his states hat
no wise
man
would
deny
the existence
f a
soul,
while the
doubt tselfndicates
living hing,
the
doubting
ndicates
memory
nd
finally doubting
person
under-
stands
himself
oubting.
o
three basic
elements f
a
soul,
namely
ife,
memory
nd
understanding,
re indicated
by
its reflective
cts
concerning
the
very
doubt
of its existence.59
After hat
Trutfetter
roceeds
by
introducing
he
variety
f
opinions
concerning
he
essence
and
origin
of the
soul,
with
a
special
considera-
tion of
their rroneous
nature.
Some of them
mply
he
mortality
f the
rational
oul,
since
they
see
the soul as material
or
being
some
sort of
bodily omposition. e sees theerror f the soul'smaterialnaturerefuted
(as
Reisch
does) alreadyby
Aristotle
n
the first ook
of
De
anima
where
the
Philosopher
reats
ome views
of his
predecessors.60
ater on
Trutfetter
admits,
s
does
Usingen,
that Aristotle
imself s not
unambiguous
on
58
Summa
n
totam
hysicen,
oc st
hilosophiam
aturalem
iquidem
erae
ophiae,
quae
est
heologia,er
D.
Judocum
sennachcensem
n
gymnasio
rphordiensi
lucrabata
et
edita .
ccording
o his riend
hristoph
cheurl,
rutfetter's
ame as o
widespread
in Germanniversitieshat
n
autumn513
ome dherentsf
heviamodernaromhe
UniversityfFreiburgnBreisgauervendysked or rutfetter'sooks, hichcheurl
subsequendy
eliveredo them.
specially
xpositions
f
physics
nd
metaphysics
ere
eagerly
nticipated,
ut
nly
extbooks
n
ogic
were vailable
t
that
ime. ee
Christoph
ScheurVs
riefbuch
ed.von
oden
above,
.
55),
125.
Letter
o
Trutfetter,
5
August
513.)
About
year
fterwards,
rutfetter
adfinishedis
Summand theres
again
vidence
fromcheurl
hat he
writing
f his
irst orknnatural
hilosophy
asno
minorccom-
plishment
or rutfetter.
ee
Christoph
cheurls
rìefluch
ed. von
Soden,
38.
Letter
o
Trutfetter,
3 December
514):
Laborasti
am
ongo empore
t noctes
noctisd.]
i-
xisti
nsomnes,
bsolvistiovum
pus
um
magna
aude,
ervenisti
d dulcem
etam:
ogo
te
quiesce
modo,
bsecroe
resume
ires,
ormi,
de,
bibe, aetare,
ura
valetudinem;
nam evalentealet
rphordia,
alet
riburgum,
alet tudiosa
uventus,
alet
osteritas.
59
Trutfetter,umma,
. X4V:
Tale
equidemliquid
ssenullus
apientum
ubitavit.
Quandoquidemvt eatus ugustinusib. 10De trinitate. 10ait) nimiquisdubitai,
vivit;
i
dubitai,
nde
ubitet, eminit;
i
dubitai,
ubitare
e
intelligit.
60
Trutfetter,
ummaf.X4V: Et
hi
omnes
nimam ortalemsse
enserint,
uia
sive
corpus
sset ive
liqua orporisompositio,
on
posset tique
mmortaliter
ermanere.
See also
bid.,
.Y3r.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 148/187
354
PEKKA ÄRKKÄINEN
the questionof immortalityf the rationalsoul, and cites here Pierre
d'Ailly.
He
even
suspects
hat
mmortality
ould not conform o
Aristode's
ideas on the
eternity
f the world and the denial of
an
actual infinite.61
The interest
n the
question
f
mmortality
onforms
o decisionsmade
by
the Lateran
Council towards he end of the
previous
ear 19
December
1513),
which were
transmitted o Trutfetter
arly
in
1514.
2
In
fact,
Trutfetter's
xposition
follows
long
the basic
guidelinesposed by
the
Council,
which
strictlynjoinneach ndeveryhilosopherho eachesubliclynthe niversi-
ties r
elsewhere,
hat hen
heyxplain
r addresso theirudiencehe
rinciples
or onclusions
f
hilosophers,
herehese
reknowno
deviate
rom
he
rue aith
as
in
the ssertion
f he oul's
mortality
r of
here
eing nly
ne oul rof ter-
nity
f theworld nd other
opics
fthis ind
they
re
obliged
o devote
heir
every
fforto
clarify
or heir
isteners
he
ruthf heChristian
eligion,
o teach
it
by onvincingrguments,
o
far
s thiss
possible,
nd
o
apply
hemselves
o the
full xtentf heir
nergies
o
refuting
nd
disposing
f he
hilosophers'pposing
arguments,
ince
ll
the
olutionsre vailable.63
This kind of method
s followed
quite clearly
n
Trutfetter's
xposition
on De animaculminatingt thepointwhere he presents collection f
certain sentences
concerning
the rational
soul,
which
every
Christian
should
agree upon
for his salvation.64
One must
remember,
n
any
case,
thatTrutfetter as
writing
is Summa
as
a
teacherof
the
theological
aculty,
hich would have
given
him
par-
61
Trutfetter,
umma
3V:
Quid
utem ristoteles
e hac re
senserit,
x libris
psius
autenticis
erspicue
on
habetur,
uia
de his
uae tangunt
ectas t
religiones
ominum
communitermbiguetobscureoquitur.octamenertumst, uodnonnullaibi epug-
nantia
onit.
onvideo
nim
uod
ibi onsonant
undumuisseb
aeterno,
ingulorum
hominum
ingulas
sse nimas
mmortalest
perpetuas
t nonessemultitudinem
ctu
infinitam.ee Petrus
illyaco,
ractatus
e nima
6,
1,
ed.
Pluta,
5.
Also
Gregory
f
Rimini
oted his
rgument
hich
s directed
gainst
he
deaof he
mmortality
f ndi-
vidual
ouls,
ut
ccording
o
him
he
ternity
ftheworld nd
the ctual xistence
f
the nfinite
umberf ouls
re
possible
n
potentia
ei bsoluta.ee
Gregorius
riminensis,
Lectura
II,
d. 16 et
17,
.
1,
art.
,
ed.
Trapp,
31,
-8.Alexander's
ndAverroës'
osi-
tions
redescribed
hortly
eforehat
f
Aristotle,
ollowing
long
he ame
ines s
Usingen
in his arlier orks.
62
A
letter
rom
hristoph
cheurl
o Trutfetterated
3
March 514
learly
ndicates
that
rutfetteras
amiliarith he
ounciliarecision
t
that
ime. ee
Gerhard
beling,
LutherstudienVol.2/2,Tübingen982, 6,n. 60.Anexplicitllegationo thedecrees
found
n
Trutfetter,
ummaf.
Y4r:
Quam uidem
onstitutionem
odernus
ontifex
eo
decimus
n
concilio
ateranense
ovissimisisdiebus
nnovavit.
63
Decrees
f
he cumenical
ouncilsed.
Tanner,
06.
64
Trutfetter,
ummaf.
Y2V.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 149/187
IMMORTALITYF
THE
SOUL
N
THE LATE
VIA
ODERNA
F ERFURT355
ticular nterestn theologicalmatters ere. Interestingly,he Council also
takes a
position
on the
length
f the studies
n
natural
philosophy,
when
immediately
fter
he
afore
cited
passage
it is recommended hat
after
five
years
of studies
n
natural
philosophy,
ne should
proceed
in
this
area
only together
with
theological
tudies,
n
order to avoid the embell-
ishment f heresies
mong
the secular
philosophers.65
On
the
other
hand,
Trutfetter imself nderlines he
importance
f
the
study
of
psychology
or
theologians.
After
having
discussedthe dis-
tinction f the
potencies
of the
soul,
he
emphasizes
the
importance
f
this
study
for
theologians, lluding
to the
theological
notionof the soul
as an
image
of
the
Trinity.Although
he leaves the detaileddiscussion n
the
theological mplications
o
theological
tudies,
he
implies
a connec-
tion
between
philosophicalpsychology
nd
theology,
he former
eing
helpful
n
the clear
exposition
f this
theological
octrine. t is not to be
overseen,however,
hat the
psychological nalogy
was
widely
used,
for
example,
n
the sermons n the
Trinity.66
In
accordance
with
Usingen,
Trutfetter otes that the 'soul'
is
here
usedas a soul connectedwith hebody, excludingGod orvariousmovers
of celestial
bodies,
etc.67He even
explicates
he science of
psychology
n
a similar
manner,
noting
hat
metaphysics
xplicates
he soul
in
absolute
terms,
while
psychology,
s
a
part
of natural
philosophy,
reats t with
terms hatconnotemovement
nd
change.
Of
some interest
s
Trutfeier's
notion that the
absolute termsof
metaphysics
re of the kind that
they
are
essentiallyredicated
f
a
soul.68 therwise e is satisfiedo
distinguish
65Decreesf he cumenicalouncilsed.Tanner,06.66
Trutfetter,
ummaf.Z4r: Seddiceret
uis: uid heologis
um
am tudiosa
isqui-
sitione
istinctionis
otentiarum
nimae;
ideur
amque
elinquendahilosophis.
s sciat
earn on
parum
onferre
heologis
d
convenientem
ssignationemmaginis
eatissimae
Trinitatis
n
nima
ationali,
uam uidam
onsisterestruunt
n
his
ribus
otentiis,
emo-
ria
cilicetntellectu
t
volúntate,
lii
terum
liter,
ecentioresero
n
essentianimae t
duobusctibus obilissimarum
otentiarum,
cilicet
ntellectust
voluntatis,
t
patet le-
nius irca ist. .
Magistři
libri]
.
[Sententiarum]
quae
missafaciod
specialemoten-
tiarum
ractatum
roperans.ontemporaryxamples
fuseof he
sychologicalnalogy
canbe
found,
.g.,
n
Martin
uther,
. Martin
utherserke
Weimar
dition
WA),
Weimar
1883-, , 85, 29-86, ; 4, 599,
10-21.
67
Trutfetter,
ummaf.X5r.
68Trutfetter,ummaf.X6V: Caeterumuianunc e animaractatumnstituimusci-
endum,
on ssenostri
ropositi
unc ractaree anima
er
érminos
bsolutost essen-
tialiter
raedicabiles
e
pronomine
nimam
emonstrante
quodmetaphysica
e ea
considérât),
sed
per
términos otumt mutationem
onnotantes
qui
ad naturalem
hilosophiam
spectant).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 150/187
356
PEKKA ÄRKKÄINEN
psychology romthe othersciences,such as physics,moral philosophy,
rhetoric,
otany,
nd
zoology,
with briefremarks.69
Although part
of
natural
philosophy,
rutfetter
onsiders he
empir-
ical or
rational
philosophical
pproach
to
psychology
nsufficient,
f
its
conclusionswould
strive
gainst
certainbasic
theological
ruths
which,
s
noted
above,
are to
be believed
by
every
Christian t the foundation
f
divine revelation
n
the
Scriptures
nd
in
the
testimony
f the
Catholic
fathers.
s
such,
neither f
these truths ontradict
he
teachings
f
many
pagan philosophers,
ut are
in fact lso found
n
their
writings,
s several
theologians
n
history
ave also noted.70
In
addition
to
its basic
positive
attitude,
Trutfetter's
xposition
does
reveal a
consciously
ominalist
eading
of
the determination
f the
Fifth
Lateran
Council.
First f
all,
he finds t
necessary
o
emphasize,
s
Usingen
did
in his Exercitium
that he does
not
imply houghts
uch that
doctrinal
truths
were to
be understood
y
natural reason
alone.
So,
he alludes to
several
explanations
s to
why
some
theological
ruths
re to be found
in
the
writings
f some
pagan philosophers.
Morover,
his
emphasis
upon
thesedoctrinal entences oncerning he rational oul are to be believed
in
the case of
contradicting
he
philosophical
rgumentation,
hich
eads
to similar
houghts.71
Thereafter
rutfetter
entions
hat
Aquinas
discusses he
doctrines f
the soul
as a form
f
body
and its
mmortality
ut,
as Ockham
has
shown,
his
proofs
re not conclusive.
o Trutfetter
enies,
as does
Usingen,
he
possibility
f
conclusive
hilosophical
roofs
orthese
doctrines,
ut
relies
instead
on ockhamistic
rinciple
f
non-demonstrability
f
the articles
f
faith.Trutfetter
ay
have
thought,
ike
Usingen,
that the
immortality
f
69
Trutfetter,
umma
f.X6V.
70
Trutfetter,
ummaff.
2v-Y3r:
Haec
Veritasatis
bundeque
irmatast anctarum
scripturarum
atholicorum
uoque
doctorum
estimoniis,
uae
cuique
hristiano
onge
amplius
alere ebent
mni
umana
xperientia,
ersuasione
ut
uantumcumque
fficaci
demonstratione.
anc
praeterea
acrae
idei eritatem
ut
et
omne ivinae
eligionis
archanum)
articulatim
iversis
iversa
nvenientibus
ut
Lactantius
it ibri ivi,
nstitu.
7. c.
7.)
philosophi
ttigerunt,
uamvis
ummam
ullus
omprehendere
otuerit.
71
Trutfetter,
umma
f.
Y3r: Nec
tamen
uspiceris
elim
andide
ector,
e
n earn
delapsum
toliditatem,
uo
sentiam
acrae idei
ostrae
nscrutabilia
ystéria
umana
rationeomprehensa,ed a in ibrisentiliumparsa,el xpaternanstructione,elMosi
prophetarumque
viditate
cienditudiosa
ectione,
el
peciali
ivinaut
diabolica
eve-
latione,
el
quia
lla
gentilium
ibris alse
b haereticis
et
Pelagianisotissimum)
scripta
sint,
uo
fidei ostre
rchana
uris
aturalibus
t
non
gratiae
scribebant.
ee also he
previous
ote.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 151/187
IMMORTALITY
F
THE
SOUL
N THE
LATE VIA
ODERNA
F
ERFURT
357
the soul can, in some weakersense,be provedby thephilosophers, ut
belongs basically
o
the articles
f faith.72
Trutfetter's
ollectionof
sentences,
which
he
required
to
be believed
regarding
he
rational
oul,
s
in
itself
n
elucidating
ccount
of his views
on the
relationship
etween
theology
nd
philosophy.
As noted
above,
the
passage
seems
to be influenced
y
the
newly
ssued decree
concerning
the
mmortality
f the
soul. For this
reason Trutfetterlso comes
to note
on the
soul as
being separated
from the
body, although
he had
just
excluded
it
from
the
foregoing
reatise.73
he other
important
ource
seemsto be the Sentences
ommentary
f Gabriel
Biel,
which was used
extensively
n
the Summa.
Trutfetter
ntroduces ome
sentences
oncerning
he
origin
of human
souls. He states hat
rational ouls are created
ndividually
fter he
for-
mation
of their
respective
odies,
and that
they
are infused nto their
bodies, viz.,
unitedto inform
hem as their ssential
orms.74he notion
thathuman souls
are created
ndividually
fter he bodies
s
already learly
articulated
n
the
Sentencesf Peter Lombard
(2
Sent.
17).
Trutfetterites
Lombard word forword earlier n the Summadealingwith the creation
of
man.75
There
he also notes
that this theme was
already
discussed
n
the influential
uodlibetal
dispute
of
1497,
which
preceded
an
extensive
ockhamistic eform
n
the studies of the
philosophical
faculty
of
the
University
f Erfurt. rutfetter
oints
out the
unanimity
f
the
Catholic
position
ormulated
y
Lombard nd the
main conclusion f theErfurtians.76
72
Trutfetter,
ummaf.Y3r:
Nec
prorsus
e
fugit
octoremanctum.
q.
75
ar. 6
animae
mmortalitatem,
tem
6. ar.
1
animamntellectivamsse
ormam
orporis
et
ta
alios lios uosdamictae eritatisrtículos)ttentasseemonstrare,ed d minusfficaciter
effectum
robat
octorubtilisi.
4.
dist. 3.
q.
2.
et
post
GuilhelmumckamGabriel
ubi
upra tque roinde
omini
ola
fide redita.
73
t must e
admittedhat
n
this
espect
here
ad
been
previous
eviations,
.g.
Usingen
ad reatedhe
uestion
f he ntellectionf he oul s
being
eparate
rom
he
body
lready
n
1499,
lthough
e mentions
hat his hemes not ound
n
Aristotle.
ee
Usingen,
arvulus,
.
124r.
74
Trutfetter,umma,
.
Y2V:
Cuique
orpori
am
formatoc sufficienter
ispositoro-
pria eculiarisque
nima deo
creatur,
reandoque
nfunditur
lli,
uae [quod
d.],
an-
quam roprioerfectibili,er
ealem
nformationem,
t
per
e etessentialis
orma,nitur,
ut nibi eo creatoriuofamulans
aioremnnonam ereatur.
75
Trutfetter,
umma,
f.
3v-4r
iting
etrus
ombardus,Sent.,
.
17,
.
2.
76Trutfetter,umma,. P4r: Hocsiquidemntellectut sensu ec secus nno alutis
nostre497
n
disputatione
e
quolibet
nterlia onclusimus.
raelarga
onditorisemen-
tiahomininimantium
restabilissimo
c omniumacile
ptimo
orpus
on inemembrorum
decora t commodaommensurationeonans
apiti
mnemoeli rnatum
nscribendo,
animam
mmortalem
iberi
rbitrii
uñere
raeditam
d
scientias
irtutesqueapescendas
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 152/187
358
PEKKA ÄRKKÄINEN
Apartfrom he word infusion' sed by Lombard,Biel adds the word
'union5
saying
hereto that
rational souls are created
by
God,
and
the
meaning
of Gen.
2:7,
whereby
he soul
is said to be insufflatednto
man,
is to be understood
s God
making
he individual
pirit
nd
uniting
t
with the
man.77 he Council
and Peter Lombard
talk
only
of the infu-
sion
of
souls,
so it
is naturalthat Trutfetter
ombines hese two formu-
lations.The
notion of the
soul as an essential orm
s also found
n
the
determination
f the
Council,
which ites he decreeof
the Vienna Council
of
1312,
whereby
he Averroistic
iew of one commonrational
oul,
which
merely overns
he bodieswithout
eing
their ssential
orm,
as
rejected.78
Furthermore,
ational
ouls
are immaterial nd
independent
rom he
determining
f
a
body
and
not to be located
in
any particular art
of
the
body. Again,
they
are
immutable,
ndivisible,
nd
immortal,
o that
in
death
the soul leaves
the
body,
but without
ransmigration
n an animal
or a
plant.
Their
final
destiny
s to be
led into eternal ife
n
the blessed
vision
f God or
intoeternal
unishment,
oth
according
o their ndividual
merits,
whereby
hey
re reunited
o theirbodies which
they
had before
theirdeath.79
semina
abentem
ndidit
aturalibus
otentiis
c
viribus
odo oelestium
phaerarum
is-
tinctisarn
nsignando
insignendo
d.].
f.
Usingen,
x.
an.,
. L3V: Sed
anima atio-
nalisuxta eritatem
atholicam
on ic
ducitur,
ed mmediate
Deo creatur
n
corpore.
77
Gabriel
iel,
Collectorium
irca
uattuor
ibrosententiarum
II, 17,
.
1
G,
37-8,
d. W.
Werbeck
U.
Hoffmann,
übingen
973-92,
94:
Sexta
pinio
t
catholica
st,
uod
animammediate
Deo creatur
t non ducitur
e
potentia
ateriae.
bid.
I, 17,
.
1
D
2-3,
d.
Werbeck,
91:
Ad
primam
icendum
uod
inspirare'
el insufflare'
ecun-
dum
liam ranslationem
n
praedicta
uctoritate
idem st
uod piritum
aceret'
eum
corporinire. iel cites ereBonaventure'sommentaryn the ame ext. f. also
Trutfetter,
umma
f.P3V:
Quam
ecDeusde sua
ssentia
ut uidam
aeretici
utaverunt),
necde
aliqua
materia
ormatam,
ed
<de> nihiloreatam
nivit.
78
Decrees
f
he cumenical
ouncilsed.
Tanner,
05,
1-5:
Cum lianon olum
er
e
et ssentialiter
umani
orporis
orma
xistât,
icut
n
canone elicis
ecordationis
lementis
papae
V
praedecessoris
ostri
n
generali
iennensi
onciliodito
ontinetur,
erumt
immortalis,
t
pro
corporumuibus
nfunditur
ultitudine
ingulariter
ultiplicabilis,
t
multiplicata,
t
multiplicanda
it.
he term
essentialorm'
n Trutfetternstead
f sub-
stantial
orm'
n
Usingen's
orks
see
Ex. an
,
f.
A2V
nd Parvulusf.
81v)
lludes o the
influence
f he etermination.
ee also
Trutfetter,
umma
f.Y4r: Maledictus
uoque
lle
Averrois
as
non sse ormas
ubstantiales
orporum,
ed
per
ssistentiam
umtaxat
niri
corporibus
roinde
tque
ectores
avibus,
uem
rrorem
cclesia
amnavitt
haereticum
declaravit,t habeturnClementinanicaDe summarinitatet fide atholica,uam
quidem
onstitutionem
odernus
ontifex
eo decimus
n
concilio
ateranense
ovissimis
hisdiebus
nnovavit.
79
Trutfetter,
umma
f.
Y2V:
Immaterialis
iquidem,
ecullam ibi
orporisarticulam
determinans,
ed
omnibus
roprii
orporis
articulis
ota
imul ssistens.
on maior
n
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 153/187
IMMORTALITY
F
THE
SOUL
N
THE LATEVIA
ODERNA
F
ERFURT359
This latterpartof thepassage seems to be influenced y the Council
regarding
he
mmortality
f the soul
only
n
general
erms,
nd
it describes
the different
estinies f the
rational oul
in
far more detailed
a manner
than the Council's
Determination.
n
it Trutfetter
athers
and refutes
various
philosophical
pinions
hatwould contradict
he Catholic
Christian
doctrine.
o
if
he
were at first
nspired
y
the
Determination,
e continues
far
beyond
ts actual
contents.
y doing
this,
he
brings
orth
ome results
of
a
previous
discussion
n
theological
doctrines
n
psychology,
o
point
out to his readers
his
problematic
n
the
very
ntroduction
o
psychology.
One cannot
pass
overthe allusionto similar hemes n the
disputation
by
Trutfetter's
upil
and a fellow
olleague
from
neighboring
niversity
some
years
ater.
n
the
philosophical
heses f the
HeidelbergDisputation
in
1518,
Martin
Luther lso discussed
he
immortality
f the
soul as one
of the themes.
Luther's
main
point
was to show that
Aristotle
ystemat-
ically
teaches
the
mortality
f the
soul,
in
which
Luther
clearly
differed
from
his teachers.
His main
argument
was
linking
he
question
to the
doctrine
f the
eternity
f
the
world,
which
was also noted
by
Trutfetter
as a questionable oint gainstAristotle.n addition o this,he also exten-
sively
iscussed
argely
he textual vidence
fromAristotle n
immortality,
but considered
t
in
support
f
his
own
interpretation.80
5.
Concluding
emarks
Concerning
he
relationship
etween
heology
nd
philosophy
n
the
early
16th
century, singen's
nd Trutfetter's
xpositions
f
De anima re note-
worthy,mainly
n
two
respects.
irstly, hey represent position,
which
faithfullyollows,n methodologynd aspirations,he tradition f the ate
medievalvia
moderna.
econdly,
rom hat
tarting oint
theygive
an inter-
pretation
n
the
relationship
etween
philosophy
nd
theology,
which
maioribus,
ec
minor
n
minoribus,
ed ndivisibilis
npartibilisque,
ec ad membrieo
tionemivisionem
atiens,
ec
retrocedens,
ed
membrumissectumivificare
esinens,
nonmoriens
n
corpore
ec
post
nteritura.
on
n
caelestia,estiarum,
lantarumque
corpora
ut demonumaturas
ransmigrans,
ed mmortalis
erseverans,orpore
xuta
pro
meritorum
uorum
ualitate
nisi
ebitum
liquod
atisfaciendi
dhuc
ropeccatis
venialibus
ut
mortalibus,
uo
ad
culpam
ic
dimissis,
etardaverit)
el
impidissimam
divinitatiseatificamisionem,el eternaeamnationisoenam ox onsequitur.andem
in
adventuistrictiudicis
pso
odem
orpore,uod
hie
per
mortem
eposuerat,
terum
supervestienda
n lio
uoque,
ut
ro
ustitia
remio,
ut
ro
celeribus
oena,
eternaliter
afficienda.
80
Luther, A,
9,
410,
15-420,
.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 154/187
360
PEKKA
ÄRKKÄINEN
Trutfetteronsidered onsonantwith he formulationsf the Fifth ateran
Council of 1513 on the same
matter,
ven
showing
imilar ntentions s
the Council
in
its
expressions;
nd
finally,
rutfetterlso
provides prac-
tical
application
of the Council's recommendations.
University
f Helsinki
Department
f
Systematicheolog)}
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 155/187
Reviews
The
Winged
hariot.
ollected
ssays
n
Plato nd latonism
n
Honour
f
L.M.
de
Rijk
eds.
M. Kardaun
nd
J.
Spruyt.
rill,
eiden-Boston-Köln
000,
xvi 331
p.
ISBN
90 04
11480
Introduction
It s
not oo ate
o
review
good
ook,
hat ot
nly
ffers
complete
ibliography
f
prof.
.M.
de
Rijk
nd detailed
icture
fhis
ively
nterest
n
andof
his
deep
knowl-
edge
f ncient
nd
medieval
hilosophy,
ut
ives
lso
n dea f
howhis chool
ollows
his
path
without
ust
ccepting
he
Word f he
Teacher
or
better,
f he
uriga
as the
tide
uggests),
ut
iscussing
is
nterpretations
nd ometimes
orrecting
hem.
The volume
resents
tself
s a sort
f
monography,
ivided
nto en
hapters,
ach
dealing
ith
neor more
uthors
r
topics,
ollowingchronological
rder.
he
choice
of the hemes
nd
their
istribution
hrough
he
enturies,
rom
ntiquity
o theLate
Middle ges, eflectsomehoweRijk'scientificroduction:ive ver en haptersre
devoted
o
Antiquity
Plato,
f
ourse,
utnot
nly);
ourf hem ealwithheMiddle
Ages;
nd
only
ne s dedicated
o
a
Neoplatonic
uthor
John hiloponus).
In what
ollows,
e
will
resent
nddiscuss
hese
hapters,
ealing
ith he
irst
art
as a
whole,
hen ith
hose bout
llth-century
uthors,
nd
finally
ith he
emnants.
1. The hird
ay
f
he
ogos
In
introducing
his
ollection
f
ssays,
he
ditors
emarkhat
the ore f
Plato's
ork
is
formed
y
he
emantics
nd
ogic
f he
Being"p.
XII). Undoubtedly,y
his
laim
they
ntend
ighlighting
ere,
s in
many
ther
assages,
he ebt heir
tudies
we ode
Rijk's pproachoPlatonicssues,speciallys arguedn hisCommentaryn the ophist.
However,
hey
pecify
hathis hematicomains
developed
nly y
oneofthe
ssays
expressly
evoted
o Platonic
exts.
heeditors
eferoD. O'Brien's
rticle
chapter
wo),
wherehe
uthor
ompares
armenides'
ndPlato's
ositions
bout
whats
not'.On
the
contrary,
e thinkhat
his
reliminary
ssertion
ight
eveal
fruitful
erspective
n
ordero
give
n account
f he irst
art
f he ook s
a whole.
Let us
start,hen,
rom he
end of this
irst
art,
.e.
from heconclusions
hat
M.
Kardaun
raws
n
her
ssay
bout
hePlatonic
onception
f rt.
According
o
her,
this
onception
esultseither
ompletely
egative
owards
or ifferent
romhe
heory
of rtheld
y
Aristotle
n hisPoetics.
eading
latonicrt
heory
n
this ew ndmore
complex
ay
s
made
ossible
y preliminary
econsideration
f he
ivotal
ermmime-
sis
which ardaunhooses
o translate
y
representation'
atherhan
y
he sual
imi-
tation'.heprefersouse he econd ordnly or ignifyingheworse indfmimetic
art,
he ne
mplied
n the
production
f mere
hantasmata
nd,
onsequently,
he
ne
which lato
efusesoadmit
n
the deal
ity
f he
Republic.
onetheless,
t s
possible
o
find
higher
evel
f rtistic
roduction
hich
s
not
ondemned,
ince
t s based
pon
the
epresentation
f
omething
f he
World f deal
Forms.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vwarmm
3,2
Also vailable
nline www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 156/187
362
REVIEWS
Kardaunffirmshat ristotlenheritedrom lato he onsiderationf rtisticitera-
ture s
a mimetic
edium,
n
the
ense hatt
represents
ts
bject
n
picturelike,
mme-
diate,
on-discursive
ay"
p.
161).
To
support
er
hesis,
he cholar
uotes passage
from ristotle's
oetics
1460b),
here
he
poet
s a mimëtës
s
compared
o
a
painter
(, õgraphos
orto
any
ther
mage-maker
<
konopoios(p.
139,
ote
7).
But rewe sure hat
a
literary
exts
mimetic
notwithstanding
tsuse
of
words",
s claimed
y
Kardaun?
A
Platonic
ialogue,
n
particular,
iscusseshe
roblem
f he wo
indsfmimesis-,
he
Sophist
thats
exacdy
he
ialoguenalysed
y
O'Brien
romn
ontologicaloint
fview.
In
his
very)ong
nd
fascinating
verview,
he cholar
nquires
nto third
ntological
wayproposed
y
Plato,
way
hat s able to
go beyond
he
Parmenidean
ichotomy
between
whats'
and whats
not',
he
atter
esulting
nthinkablend
unsayable.
hat
third
ay,ntailingeing
nd
not-being
ithout
ny
ontradiction,
s the
way
fother-
ness,s O'Brienemarksp.55ff.).etusquoteome therassagesf he ialoguere-
ceding
nd
following
hose n
which 'Brien's
ssay
s focused.hetwo
main haracters
of
he
ophist
the
leatic
tranger
nd
Theaetetus,
eed otacklehe
uestions
oncerning
otherness,
ecause
heir
roblem,
irst
f
all,
s to define hat
n
image
s. Theaetetus
claims
hat n eidolon
the erm
hosen
n
the
ialogue
omean
image'
n
general,
s noth-
ing
ut
heteronoiouton
an
other
uch)
n
ts
eing
imilar
o
<
phomoiõmenon
what
s true
(240a).
However,
s soon s
image
eatures
re
fixed
hat
way,
he
haracters
f
he
ia-
logue
anno
onger
peak
bout idolon
viz.
mimëmabut
nly
nd
xpressly
bout
mage
qua
con
eikãn:
40b),
hats about
ne f he wo
indsf
mage
resented
n
the
ialogue.
Thediaeresis
etween
ikõnnd
hantasma
considered
espectively
s the etter
nd
he
worse
ind fmimëma
derives,
n ts
urn,
rom
he
eed or
rasping
he
ophist's
ssence
by clear ormula.heaptestefinitionfhisnatureadbeen oundnhis eing con-
troversialist
<ntilogikos
225b,
32b)
ble o
deny
ny rgumentation
nd,
onsequently,
n
his
eing
n
mage-maker
eidõla
oiein:
34b
also
uoted
y
Kardaun
t
p.
139).
n
fact,
in
denying
verything,
he
ophist
eems
o
possess
real
knowledge
bout
ll
233b-d),
even
hough
laiming
t
cannot
orcely
e
anything
ut n
llusoryoke
234a).
lso he
art
f
creating
mages,
owever,
s
a
joke
foundedn the
reationf
false
ppearances
which,
n
the
aseofthe
ophist,
re "said
mages"
eidõlaegomena
234c).
rom his
t
deriveshat
mages'
ay
f
being,
.e. their
therness,
an notbe
dissociatedrom
he
semantics
fthe
ogos
n
anyway,
lthough
he
diaeresis
oncerningmages
eals ssen-
tially,
n
the
ophist235d-236c),
ith isualrtistic
imëmata.
hereby,
hat
ind f
mages
are
sophistic
iscourses
oncerned
ith?
he conclusive
efinitionfthe
ophistepicts
him
s a
phantasmata
akernd
connects
im
o
a mimëtikëechnë
nly
bleto create
knowledgeoundedn theopiniondoxa).he mimësisracticedithpistëmëviz. he
higher
evel
fmimësisis
considered
nsteads
only
elatedo
sophoslinguisticepresen-
tations
266d-268d).
t remains
ow o understand
hat ind f
mages
he
higher
imë-
sis
hould e concerned
ith.
Let
us eave or
hemomenthe
uestion
nanswered
nd ontinue
eading
he
Mélanges
de
Ryk.
he
opposition
pistëmë-doxa
omes ack
n
J.M.
van
Ophuijsen's
ssay,
hichs
focused
n Plato's
oncept
f
pistis
trust),
onsidered
rom
he
erspective
f ts
possible
influencen
the
ollowingeligious
otion
ffaith.
an
Ophuijsen's
laims
re
negative
about he
egacy
t
ssue,
nless ne
ntends
istis
n
the ense
of
llowing
neselfo be
guided
y,
f
relyingpon,
nother;
reliance
hats
n this ase orrect
orthori)
ecause
the
uide
s the
erson
ho
knows
has pistëmë)"p.
124).
n
the
Republic,
istis
s associ-
ated o
a hierarchical
adder f
knowledge,
n
whicht
s collocatedt
the econd
ung
fromhe ottom,ealing ith oxastikëognitionndopposedo the wo igheregrees
of
knowledge,
hat
re,
romhe
op,
pistëmë
nddianoia.
he ame
pposition
s
also
pre-
sent
n Plato's
Górgiasnot
y
chance,
he
name fa
sophist),
here,
ccording
o
van
Ophuijsen,
there
re
two
ypes
f
persuasion:
ne that
urnishes
elief-upon-trust
ith-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 157/187
REVIEWS
363
outknowing,ndone that oesfurnishnowledgeepisteme)"nd s consequentlyan
instructingeachingype"
see
.
1
5,
or he
uotations
rom
órgiasoo).
Whereas
hetoric,
thats
sophistic
rt,
elongslearly
o the irst
ype,
n the
ontrary
hedidactical
ype
of
persuasion
ill
ertain
o the
philosopher's
or
ophos
)
way
f
peaking
bout
hings.
The
paideutic
urpose
f
hilosopher's
ogos
eads
s
back
xactly
o
he
Republic's
uestions
concerning
ducation
paideia
offutureitizens
n
virtue
f
he
higher
ind fmimesis
in
the
ery ay
n which
hey
re
discussed
y
Kardaun
pp.
143-4).
he
problem
s
really
the
ame,
ince he emantic
reationsf he
ogos
as we have
lready
een,
re
mages.
Following
'Brien's
ightnterpretation
fPlatonicmoves"
n
the
ophist
p.
55ff.),
he
third
ntological
ay
fothernesss
in
themiddle etweenhe wo
ways
resented
y
Parmenides,
ecauset s not
way
f
not-being
n
anyway
t all midamos
Soph.
37b,
240e),
ut
way
f
not-beingand ontemporaneouslyeing)
n
some
espectj os,
ata
ti24 d).Beingotherhan'means ot-beinguabeingifferentrom'.ence, ewould
like o add to O'Brien's
nalysis,ny mage
hares
n
the
not-being
fothernessnsofar
as it
s,
t the ame
ime,
ifferentromnd
n
relationo whatt
represents
its
model:
paradeigma,
35d) cf.
oph.
55d).
n
other
erms,
lato s here
alking
bout he emiotic
naturef
every
mage,
ts
weaving
.
ymploke
of whats' and whats not'
240c)
n
ts
beingomething
hichtandsor
omething
lse.
Qua ther,
ll
mages,
lso hose
elong-
ing
o
the
inguistic
omain,
hare
n
falsehood
n
relationo
their
aradigms
hich
nly
aretruenasmuchs
really
ntõs
240b-c)
eing.
ut t this
oint,
ow an the ontent
of
discourse,
ecessarily
alse
n
virtuef ts emantic
ature,
e
paideutic
nd ble o
offer
nowledge
n
anyway?
There
s
anotherlatonicelevant
assage
hat s not eferredo
n
this
olume,
ut
thatsstrictlyinkedo hesessues,incet alksbout he emanticsf ikonesnd roposes,
once
more,
parallelism
etween
anguage
ndvisual rts.
n
Cratylus
32b-d,
oth n
onoma,
.e.
a
significant
ord,
nd
a
picture
,
õgraphêma
are
firstly
escribed
s mimëmata
(430b-d),
hen
pecified
s eikonesfwhat
hey epresent,
ecause
hey
o
nothave o
be
similar
homoia)
o t
n
all
respects
pantachêi.
Otherwise
hey
n
factwould e a
double,
not
sign
fthe
model.
n
parallel:
heir elationf
imilarity
o themodel
nvolves
semanticelectionf tsfeatures.
ust
his emanticelection
s
the
eason or
escribing
images
s
hetera,
ifferentrom
heir
model,
n
the
ophist.
ut,
n the asis f
he ame
selection,
ikones
ay
e also
defined
s
such',
aturally
n
some
espects,
ince,
hough
false
ua
ther,
hey
re able o
preserveomething
f
what s
represented.
his some-
thing',
hich
n
the
Cratylus432e)
s
called
ypos
trace),
n
the
ophist
orresponds
o
that
true
roportion
lëthinë
ymmetriœ.
35e)
whose
resence
n an
image
llows o
distinguish
eikonesromhe ompleteemanticalsehoodf hantasmata.
The
passages
romhe
ophist
nd
he
Cratylus
how
hat ardauns
right
n
her nder-
lining
heneed or
istinguishing
t east wo latonic
onceptions
f
mimesis.
owever,
we do
not
gree
with er laimsbout henon-discursiveharacterf he
higher
ind f
mimesisthat s the conic
ne,
t least
ccording
o the
erminology
sed
n
the
ophist
(to
which e hall efer
n
the
ollowing
ines
oo).
t s difficulto dmithat he
emantics
of texts mimetic
notwithstanding
tsuseof
words",
fter
eading
n
the
Cratylus
hat
a
single
ord s
considered
y
Plato s a
miměma.
he
conic emantic odel
eems
n
fact
xtendedromhe
meaning
fwords o
that f exts.
esides,
n
the
ophist
at the
level f
propositional
ogoi,
lato ses
nly
ne
erm,
ymploke
weaving),
n
order
o
define
both heir
conic ontentnd heir
iscursive,
hats
syntactical,
omposition.
he
ymploke
of
n
onomand rhëmas
n
fact he east onditiono
create
logos262c)
nd,
onse-
quendy,ts emanticmages,ntheir urnnvolvingweavingfbeingndnot-being.
Not
nly:ogos
elongs
othe
eings
ta
nta)
hich
eriveromhe
ymploke
f
Formsnd
share he
mage
ature
259e).
o,
the
ath
we have ollowed
o far
n
reading
he irst
part
f he
Mélanges
eemso oincide ith ne
f he
many
ensesnwhich
lato's
ntology
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 158/187
364
REVIEWS
mighteread rom semanticnd ogicalerspective,uch s the ditorsintntheir
introduction.
The third
ay
f
otherness,
n themiddle etween
whats' and
whats
not',
s the
semantic
ay
f
inguistic
mages.
heneverhese
re
conic,
hey
re wice
n
the
middle,
as
far s their
imilarity
s
a
third
ay
etween
ruth
nd
falsehood,
etween
dentity
nd
complete
therness.
e thinkhat
t s
ust
n
virtue
f
this
hirdconic
ay
hat
lato
may
till
lace
his
rust
n
ogos,
o such
point
o claim
n the
ophist
hat
without
ogos
any
orm
f
philosophy
ould
ot
xist ither
260a).
ven
f
xpressed
n other
erms,
this
might
e considered
he
hematic
ore f
he
wo
ssays
ot
uoted et:
he ne
by
J.
Mansfeld,
oncerning
he latonic
ialectical
ay
f
proceeding
n
cosmological
ebates
in the haedo
and he
ne
by
D.T.
Runia,
ocused
n theTimaeus.
rust
n
ogos
ets
lato
use t
nd
specially
esttsmost
omplex
echanisms
n
ordero
tacklehe
ighest
ssues
ofhis hilosophy,uch s the osmologicalnes. o,beginningromhe dialecticalethod"
ofdiscussion
Mansfeld,.
13ff.)
p
to the
ategorialyllogism
hich
unia ees
n the
Timaeus
cf.
.
107ff.),
n
Plato's
orks
logica
teris
according
o the wo
cholars,
ould
have
lready
een
hinted
t,
ven
f t hadto
expect
ristotleo
be
explicitely
heorized.
In
conclusion,
t s
clear hat
inguistic
imesiss
not ble
o offer
pisteme
mmediately.
In
the
ophist
263d,
64a-b),
n
fact,
he
ogos
oes
not esult
isjoined
rom
he
reation
of
doxai;
owever,
hese
may
e
correctr
true nd
make oom or
n
nquiry
nto
eing.
Naturally,
his
s not he
ase f
he
pinions
outourtthose
alse nd
inkedo the
han-
tasmata
f
ophistic
iscourses.
n the
ontrary,
he conic
ay
f he
anguage
eems o
be the
way
ollowed
y
he
hilosopher
n
his earch
or ruth
y
races
nd
n
his
ry-
ing
o communicate
ome
nowledge
bout t.
2.
Medievallatonism
almost)
ithout
lato:he
igh
iddle
ges
If,
s we
will
ee,
n the ate
middle
ges
Aristotelian)
ealism
idn't
o
hand
y
hand
with
latonism,
n the
previous
enturies
hings
ent
ifferently.
n IXth
entury,
or
instance,
n authentic
eoplatonic
uthor,
he
s.
Dionysiusreopagita,
tarted
eing
ery
influenciai,
t least
n
theology
nd
metaphysics.
t is
only
n
Xllth
entury,
owever,
that
lato
himself
cquired
prominent
osition
s
authority,
t
least or ome
writers
such
s William
f
Conches,
hanks
o the
Latin ranslation
f
his Timaeus.
he contri-
bution
f
W.
Otten,
evoted
o the
ntegration
f
Christian
ndPlatonic
osmologyy
William,
akes lear
how
deep
was
the nfluence
f Plato'smodel
oth
n
stimulating
speculationsbout heuniverseormation,nd nshapingmethodology.s far s the
first
oint
s
concerned,
illiamf
Conchesook
lato's imaeus
s the
pportunity
o
get
an
nsight
nto
nvisible
ealities
such
s the asic
lements
hat
onstitute
veryhysical
object);
uthe saw
n
t also
literary
odel
orth
o be
continued,
hrough
he
ppli-
cation f
ntegumentum,
hat
s
myth
r
allegoric
arrative,
o
give
rational
ccount
f
nature.
s W. Otten
ays
oncluding
is
hapter,
in nother
ecade r so
Plato
would
succumb
o
Aristotle
n a
scholastic
hange
f
uthorities
hatwould
evolutionise
hilo-
sophical
nd
heologicalpeculation".
his
xplains
hy
he
wo
ollowing
hapters
f his
volume
70
pages,
early
third
f he
whole
ook)
rededicatedo
one he
most
mpor-
tant
llth-century
heologians,
hose
emantic
heories
ave
een tudied
y
de
Rijk
n
various
rticles,
ilbert
e
la Porrée.
s
we will
ee,
Plato
oesnot
ppear
mong
is
sources,
is nfluence
eing
mediated
y
he
derived)eoplatonism
f
Boethius.
Thetwo haptersealwitheryifferentopics.hefirstne,writtenyJ.Spruyt,s
about
he istinction
etween
ifferent
ses
f
anguage
nGilbert'sheories
f he
meaning
of erms
ealing
ith
he
ranscendent
omainnd
thenatural
ne;
he econd
hapter,
by
C.H.
Kneepkens,
roposes
very
nteresting
omparison
etween
eter
elias
nd
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 159/187
REVIEWS
365
Gilbertn some rammaticalnd semanticalroblems.he two haptershare ome
points,
ut fferwo ifferent
pproaches
o the
tudy
fGilbert's
inguistic
nd
eman-
tic
hought
hat
ntegrate
nd
complete
ach
ther
n
a
very
ruitful
ay.
As
ts
uthor
ays
t the
eginning,hapteright
riesto
xplore
ilbert'sdeas s to
how
he
ignificates
ftermsre nfluencedhen
ransportation
rom ne domain
i.e.
the
Transcendent]
o the ther
the
ublunary
ne]
akes
lace"
p.
205).
The
exposition
of
Gilbert's
hought
s
very
etailed;
tdiscussesnd orrects
revious
nterpretations,iv-
ing
not
nlyong
uotations
rom ilbert's
orks,
ut lso
a
difficult
ask
ndeed )
he
English
ranslationsf
ll
of
hem,
hich
elp
nd
guide
he eader
hrough
he ntrica-
ciesofa not
lways erspicuous
atin ext.
s said
bove,
Gilbert'slatonismoesn't
derive rom
lato,
ut
fromhe atin
ssimilationf
Neoplatonism
ade
by
Boethius.
Notionsuch s
participatio
r denominato
the istinctionetweend
quod
st nd d
quo
st
that recentralnGilbert'sndhisfollowers'emantics,tem ack oBoetius'heologi-
cal treatises.
pruyt's
ffortsre
completely
evotedo
the econstructionfGilbert'she-
ories rom is
ommentaries
n
Boethius'
heological
ractsnd
they
ffer
convincing
picture
f
hem,
specially
hen
ealing
ith he otionf
ersona
hat,
n
spite
f ts en-
tral ole
n
rinitarian
heology
nd
ontrarily
oother ords
ertaining
o he
ranscendent
domain,
as ts
roper
sefor
aturali
hings
nd t s tranferredothe ther omain
nly
ex
proportioned
o
that
only art
f
the
ignificative
ontentf
personapplies
o Divine
persons"
p.
234).
Gilbert
orks
ut
his
theory ainly
s
theologian,
nd
sometimes
referso
other
hilosophers,
s at
p.
209.
Some fthem
he
says
hold
hat,
hatever
object hey
peak
bout,
by
he ame ause
s
they
re
esse),
hey
re
something
esse
aliquid).
herefore
heyay
hat he
erb
is'
s said
f
ll
things
quivocally";
ome
th-
ers, nthe ontrary,aintainhatentitieshat ubsistre esse)wingotheirubsisten-
ce and re
something
esse
liquid)
wing
o the
hings
hat
ccompany
he
atter",
hat
is
quantities
nd
qualitiesowing
o all other
ategories,
ubsistent
hings
either
re or
are
something
).
he authorf
his
hapter,eing oherently
nd
xclusively
edicatedo
the
nterpretation
f
Gilbert'sexts
which
s not n
easy
ask),
eaves oweverhe eader
with ome
uestionspen
bout he
dentity
f
hese
hilosophers
ndthe
osition
aken
by
Gilbertn the
ubject. ortunately,
he
following
hapter ives
hereader
hese
answers.
The
approachdopted
y
Kneepkens
n
this
hapter
s the
pposite:
ilbert'sndhis
followers'heoriesre onsidered
n
relation,
nd
n
opposition,
o
those
f
he
hartrians,
and
mong
hem
specially
o
those
f
Peter
elias,
hemostnfluenciai
ommentatorn
Priscian'snstitutiones
rammaticae.
e
doesnot
ry
odescribehe
whole heoriesf he
wo
authors,utpreferesoanalysehe espectiveositionsbout he emanticsf heverb
esse
the
ubstantive
erb)
s a relevant
xample,
n order o show
heir ifferences.he
opposition
etweenhe wo heories
s centeredround hedifferent
onception
f ub-
stances
special
meaning
r res erbif
he erb sse
heydopt. ccording
o Peter e-
lias,
t
signifies
ubstantias it
derives
rom
ubstarewhich
orresponds
o theGreek erm
hypostasis
nd s
tobe identifiedith he earer f
formshat niteshem
o tselfnd o
each
ther,
ut
egardless
f
what orms
hey
re.This s the
eason
hy
he erb sse
s
predicated
roperly
f
substances
as
instances
f the
Aristotelian
ategory),
nd
only
improperly
r
transumptive
f
ccidents.
his
doesnotmean
hat sse
ignifies
verything
in an
equivocal ay significare
mnia
t
quivocum),
ut
nly
hat t s said
quivocally
f
everythingdici quivoce
e
mnibus)
pp.
252-55).
his
oint
s
made,
s
Kneepkens
hows,
very learly
n
the
older
ersionf Helias'
ommentary
n
Priscianus
inor,
hat s
not akennto ccounty he ditorfHelias' umma.tmustlsobesaid hat his oint
ofdoctrine
s
very
ubtle,
ut t s
crucial or he
nderstanding
fboth
heories.
hen
he comes
o
Gilbert's
ndhis
followers'
heory,
t
s
clear
hat
eter elias s
oneof
he
possible
epresentatives
f he
irst
roup
f
philosophers
bove
mentioned,
nd lso
hat
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 160/187
366
REVIEWS
Gilberts "a partisanf hegroupfphilosophershomake distinctionetweenhe
causes
fesse nd esse
liquid",
hat s
substance,
n one
side,
nd
quality
nd
quantity,
on
the
ther,
eavingpart
he
thereven ccidentia
p.
260).
n
the ast
art
f his
hap-
ter,
neepkens
hows owGilbert's
ositions
ere
doptedy
he
orretani,
uch
s Peter
of
Poitiers
nd the uthorfthe
Grammaticaorretana
edited
n
CIMAGL
7, 1988,
y
Fredborg
nd
Kneepkens
we
regret
hat his eferences
missing
n
the
bibliography),
both
n
theology
nd
n
grammar
with
ome elevant
mplications
or
yntax).
n
con-
clusion,
oth
hapters
hed
ight
n each thernd
help
s
getting
betternderstand-
ing
of the emantical
ebate round he
mid-XIIth
entury.nly
ne
point
emains
obscure,
ccording
o us: the ole
f
mpositio
or he reationf hose
erms,
uch s esse
and
bonum,hat,
n
Gilbert's
iew,
ave s their
rimaryeaning
he ivine
orm,
hile
all other
hings
anbe said o
be or
good nly ypartaking
his
orm.
iven he
mpor-tance f mpositioor rammariansnd ogicians,newondershethernd nwhichexts
an
opposition
etween
theologicalerspective
nd
philosophical
newould
merge
n
this
opic,
oo.
3. Late
ntiquity
nd ateMiddle
ges:
s t
ossible
o onciliatelatond ristotle?
Going
ome
teps
ackwards,
hapter
ive,
y
M.
Kardaun,
s followed
y very
nter-
esting
ontribution
n
Philoponus'
ttempt
o reconcilelato's
heory
f
earning
s
rec-
ollection
ndAristole's
heory
fhumanntellect's
otentiality,
onceivedf s that f
writing
ablet
ith o
sign
n it. The authorfthis
ontribution,
rans
.J.
e
Haas,
seems o
focus n this heme
ainly
or
eclaring
is
gratitude
o
prof,
e
Rijk
han or
its onnectiono oneof he ontributionsfhis eacher:s a matterffact, e stresses
the
ole f he eacher'sntellects the
ctiventellecthat
emoveshematerial
mped-
imentsowards
he
knowledge
f ruth
and
hat's
hy
we
lways
we hankso
him",
p.
183).
Thereferenceo
he
Neoplatonic
ccount
fhowmen
et
o he
nowledge
f
niversais,
however,
epresents
lso
link
etweenhis hemes
nd ome
evelopments
f hirteenth-
century etaphysics,
hat ound
n
Scotus'
ritings
nd Scotism kind f
pex.
To the
way
n
which ne
ofScotus'
ollowers,
etrus
homae,
istinguished
heAristotelian
at-
egories
romne
nother,
s devoted
he ast
hapter
f his
olume,
y
E.P. Bos.As the
author
akeslear tthe
nd fhis
ntroductory
emarks,
etrus
homaecan e abelled
a
Platonist",
nly
if ne takes his abel
n
broad
ense"
p.
278).
As
a
matter
f
fact,
even hemost ealisthilosophert the nd f hirteenthenturyould ave ejectedhis
label,
s Scotus imself
mplicitely
id
n his irst
uestions
n
the
eri ermeneias
q.
1).
n
Xlllth
entury,
ll
philosophers
anted
or
pretended)
obe
Aristotelian,
nd
hey
idnot
acceptedeparate
latonicdeas.
t s thenmore
ppropriate
otalk
bout ealismather
than f
Platonism,
or
his
eriod,
nd
this
s what os
ends
p
doingp.
285:
he
i.e.
Petrus
homae]nterprets
he
different
ategories
s
principles
f
hings.
is
conception
is
realist.").onsidering
or
nstance
n
author,
uch s
Robert
rosseteste,
n
spite
fhis
direct
onnectionso
Neoplatonism,
nd
n
particular
o
Philoponus'
ommentary
n the
Posterior
nalytics
would ave
ed to the
ame onclusion:
HIth-century
ealist
hiloso-
pher,
ven
when e
accepted
he xistence
fPlatonic
deas
n
God's
mind,
lways
ried
to
reject
hat
was onceived
f s the
ore
latonism,
hats the tatement
bout
sep-
arate xistence
f deas
cfr.
rosseteste,
n Post.
n
, 1.15,
wherehese
deas
redefined
asmonsters,rodigiaformedy hentellecthentfails ounderstand).etrushomae's
tracts
however
nother
ery
nterestingxample,ogether
ith
he
ogica
ontrackham
by
he
s.
Richard
f
Campsall,
fhow he heoretical
ools
orkedut
y
cotus,
ainly
in
his
heological
ritings
such
s distinctio
ormalis,
ltimata
bstraction
is
heory
f
predi-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 161/187
REVIEWS
367
cationndivinis)ereystematicallyppliedo the iscussionf ogico-metaphysicalrob-
lems,
uch
s the
ntological
tatus
f he
ategories.
Bologna
Stefania onfiglioli
§ 1)
andCostantino
armo
§§
2-3)
Frans e Haas
and
Jaap
Mansfeld
eds),
Aňstotle:OnGenerationnd
Corruption
Book
.
Symposium
ristotelicum.
larendon
ress,
xford
004
47
p.
SBN0
19
924292
Thisvolumes
a collection
f
papers
romhe 15th
ymposium
ristotelicum
eld t
Deurne,
he
Netherlands,
n
1999. t s
organized
n
keeping
ith he ormatf he
ym-
posium,ith ach f hemain articipantsivingclose eadingf pre-assignedor-
tion
fthe
ext,
ocusing
n the tructure
fAristotle's
rguments
nd their elationo
other
exts ithinhe
Aristotelian
orpus
s well s toother
igures,specially
hose ristode
took o
be his
pponents.
he volumeeatures
en
ssaysorresponding
o the en
hap-
ters
fDe Generatone
t
Corruptione
(hereafter
C
),
plus
n
ntroductory
nd
oncluding
essay.
herationale
ehindhe hoice
fGC as the
opic
or he15th
ymposium
the
14th,
ublished
y
Oxford
n
2000,
pplied
he
ame,
hapter-by-chapter
nalysis
o
Metaphysics
II)
s ts
entrality
n
the
evelopment
fAristotle's
hysical
heory,specially
its rticulationf he
oncepts
ot
nly
f
generation/corruption
ut lso f lterationnd
growth/decay,
ll of which re essential
or
nderstanding
he
ccount
n GC I and
Meteorology
V of he onstitution
fhomoeomerous
atter
flesh,
lood,
nd
bone)
rom
the
our lements.
n
this
way,
GC
may
e seen s a text
f
applied hysics
hat s
preparatoryor he ife ciences.hrought,we earn ow he eneralccountfmotion
in
the
Physicspplies
o the
ublunary
ealm,
hich
n turn
rovides
herudimentsor
understanding
he
motionf
ivinghings
n
theDe Anima
ndthe arva
aturalia.
here
is also
he act hat
GC
has
been n
especially
ifficultext
or oth ncient
ndmod-
ern
eaders,
o
that,
s one
of
he
ditors
emarks,
there
s room or
mprovement
n
existingcholarship"
1).
Thevolume ore han
meetsheseims. ach
ssay
rovides
carefully
easoned
xe-
gesis
f
ts
portion
fthe ext s
well s an
interpretation
f
ts
ignificance
ithinhe
broader
rogram
fAristotelian
atural
hilosophy.
f
ourse,
hereheres
nterpretation
theres
also
ontroversy,
ut he ontributors
re t east
orthright
bout heir
isagree-
mentssevered
fwhich
ave een arriedver rom iscussion
t the
ymposium
and
thenotes regenerousnougho allow on-specialistso seepreciselyhat s at stake.
The contributors
re lso iteratebout he
ommentary
raditionn GCfrom
implicius
to
C.
J.
F.
Williams,
o that
or hosenterested
n
ts
mpact
n scientific
osterity,
he
fortunesf
particularnterpretation
or,
more o
the
oint, isinterpretation)
an
be
reli-
ably
racked.
f
course,
Cwasoneof he books
f
Aristotle'
n the rts urriculum
f
medieval
niversities;
hemasters
harged
ith
ecturing
n it were
nfluenced
n
what
they
aid
y
he ommentariesf arlier
igures,specially
y
Averroes
via
Michael cot's
thirteenth-century
atin ranslation
f
his
Middle
ommentary
n
GC),
Avicenna
through
variousntermediaries
nd
eventually
n
a late
hirteenth-century
ranslationfhisKitãb
al-Shifã
,
and
Philoponus
viaAverroes).
One of he
trengths
f he
olumes the
way
ach
ssay
escendso the elevant
ar-
ticulars,
ndthis n two ronts.n the ne
hand,
he
uthorsre
single-minded
bout
tryingo recoverhedialecticalontextfAristotle'srguments,speciallynconnection
with is
eply
o the
tomists,
ismost ormidable
pponents
herehe
heory
f
matter
is concerned.n
the
ther,
hey
redeterminedo followome
f
he
racticalmplica-
tions f
Aristotelian
aturalcience
iven
he
rinciples
fmaterial
hange
ketchedn GC
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailable
nline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 162/187
REVIEWS
367
cationndivinis)ereystematicallyppliedo the iscussionf ogico-metaphysicalrob-
lems,
uch
s the
ntological
tatus
f he
ategories.
Bologna
Stefania onfiglioli
§ 1)
andCostantino
armo
§§
2-3)
Frans e Haas
and
Jaap
Mansfeld
eds),
Aňstotle:OnGenerationnd
Corruption
Book
.
Symposium
ristotelicum.
larendon
ress,
xford
004
47
p.
SBN0
19
924292
Thisvolumes
a collection
f
papers
romhe 15th
ymposium
ristotelicum
eld t
Deurne,
he
Netherlands,
n
1999. t s
organized
n
keeping
ith he ormatf he
ym-
posium,ith ach f hemain articipantsivingclose eadingf pre-assignedor-
tion
fthe
ext,
ocusing
n the tructure
fAristotle's
rguments
nd their elationo
other
exts ithinhe
Aristotelian
orpus
s well s toother
igures,specially
hose ristode
took o
be his
pponents.
he volumeeatures
en
ssaysorresponding
o the en
hap-
ters
fDe Generatone
t
Corruptione
(hereafter
C
),
plus
n
ntroductory
nd
oncluding
essay.
herationale
ehindhe hoice
fGC as the
opic
or he15th
ymposium
the
14th,
ublished
y
Oxford
n
2000,
pplied
he
ame,
hapter-by-chapter
nalysis
o
Metaphysics
II)
s ts
entrality
n
the
evelopment
fAristotle's
hysical
heory,specially
its rticulationf he
oncepts
ot
nly
f
generation/corruption
ut lso f lterationnd
growth/decay,
ll of which re essential
or
nderstanding
he
ccount
n GC I and
Meteorology
V of he onstitution
fhomoeomerous
atter
flesh,
lood,
nd
bone)
rom
the
our lements.
n
this
way,
GC
may
e seen s a text
f
applied hysics
hat s
preparatoryor he ife ciences.hrought,we earn ow he eneralccountfmotion
in
the
Physicspplies
o the
ublunary
ealm,
hich
n turn
rovides
herudimentsor
understanding
he
motionf
ivinghings
n
theDe Anima
ndthe arva
aturalia.
here
is also
he act hat
GC
has
been n
especially
ifficultext
or oth ncient
ndmod-
ern
eaders,
o
that,
s one
of
he
ditors
emarks,
there
s room or
mprovement
n
existingcholarship
1).
Thevolume ore han
meetsheseims. ach
ssay
rovides
carefully
easoned
xe-
gesis
f
ts
portion
fthe ext s
well s an
interpretation
f
ts
ignificance
ithinhe
broader
rogram
fAristotelian
atural
hilosophy.
f
ourse,
hereheres
nterpretation
theres
also
ontroversy,
ut he ontributors
re t east
orthright
bout heir
isagree-
mentssevered
fwhich
ave een arriedver rom iscussion
t the
ymposium
and
thenotes regenerousnougho allow on-specialistso seepreciselyhat s at stake.The contributorsre lso iteratebout he
ommentary
raditionn GCfrom
implicius
to
C.
J.
F.
Williams,
o that
or hosenterested
n
ts
mpact
n scientific
osterity,
he
fortunesf
particularnterpretation
or,
more o
the
oint, isinterpretation)
an
be
reli-
ably
racked.
f
course,
Cwasoneof he books
f
Aristotle'
n the rts urriculum
f
medieval
niversities;
hemasters
harged
ith
ecturing
n it were
nfluenced
n
what
they
aid
y
he ommentariesf arlier
igures,specially
y
Averroes
via
Michael cot's
thirteenth-century
atin ranslation
f
his
Middle
ommentary
n
GC),
Avicenna
through
variousntermediaries
nd
eventually
n
a late
hirteenth-century
ranslationfhisKitãb
al-Shifã
,
and
Philoponus
viaAverroes).
One of he
trengths
f he
olumes the
way
ach
ssay
escendso the elevant
ar-
ticulars,
ndthis n two ronts.n the ne
hand,
he
uthorsre
single-minded
bout
tryingo recoverhedialecticalontextfAristotle'srguments,speciallynconnection
with is
eply
o the
tomists,
ismost ormidable
pponents
herehe
heory
f
matter
is concerned.n
the
ther,
hey
redeterminedo followome
f
he
racticalmplica-
tions f
Aristotelian
aturalcience
iven
he
rinciples
fmaterial
hange
ketchedn GC
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailable
nline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 163/187
368
REVIEWS
I. Theresultsrenot lwaysonsistentith hat efindnother orks,ut he olume
leaves he
mpression
fan Aristotle
trugglingaliantly
o fit he
pieces
ogether
and
struggle
e must
fhe
s
to
bridge
he
ap
between
elatively
nert,
lementary
atterf
the osmosnd he
omoeomerousatter
f
ivinghings,
stuff uch icher
n
possibilities.
From
scholarlyoint
f
view,
heres not
weak ink
n
the ntireollection.
Medievalists,owever,
ill e
especially
nterested
n
three
opics.
irst,
here
s the
ues-
tion f he
lace
fGCvis-à-vishe theribri aturales
n theAristotelian
orpus.
n
the
introductoryssay, yles urnyeat
ontendshat
C
must
ave eenwrittenor n audi-
ence
lready
amiliarith
he
hysics
and hat
tructurally,
as the
hysics
f he
ottom,
GC s twin o
deCáelo..
we
might
hinkfdeCáelo and
GC
as
a
pincer
ovement,
one
tarting
rom
he
ery op
nd
moving
own
o the
lements,
he ther
tarting
rom
the
very
ottom
nd
moving p
to homoeomerous
ixtures,
reating
thehabitat
for he ivinghingsowhich ristotleill evote ismostcrupulousttention14-15).
This
ught
o
suggest
research
rogram
or he
history
fnatural
hilosophy:
ow
did
medieval
eadersf
GC
nd
deCáelo nderstandhese exts
n
relation
othe
hysics?
ith
a few otable
xceptions
I
will
mentionere
nly
he ine olumedited
y
Hans
hijssen
andHenk
raakhuis,
he
Commentary
raditionnAristotle's
De
eneratione
t
orruptione}Bre-
pols,
urnhout
999)
recentcholarsave ended
o
gnore
ommentaries
n
subsidiary
texts
ikeGCwhen
hey
antedo find ut bout
he
heory
nd
practice
fnaturalci-
ence
n
the
Middle
ges.
he
only
roblem
ith his s that
medieval
hilosophers
id
not
gnore
hem,
uggesting
hat ur
picture
fthe
period
ill emain
ncomplete
ntil
we can understand
hat
hey hought
hey
ere
oing
n
theirommentaries
n those
texts.
There s alsothemuch-vexedssue fprimematter,iscussednthreessaysnthevolume.oesAristotleave doctrinef
prime
atter,
nd f
o,
what ormoes ttake
in GC?
Keimpe
lgra
hows
hy,lthoughrime
matter
lays
o role
n the ext f
GC
1.3
ndmodernommentators
ind henotion
basically
n-
ristotelian,
r even ntrinsi-
cally
ncoherent,
any
lder
ommentators,
ncluding
oth
hiloponus
nd Thomas
Aquinas,
ound
t
necessary
o
ascribettoAristotle
n ordero make ense
f henotion
of
non-being
implicité
s
the erminus
quo
f ubstantial
hange
92).
arah roadieol-
lows
with n
essay rguing
hat
or
Aristode,
rime
matter
isa
principle
f
hangenly,
not f
being
requiring
or tsrealization
not
tuffing
ut
potentiality
138).
he then
gives
n
elegant
ereading
fthe ccount
felemental
hange
n GC 1.4
whereby
ach
simple
ransition
romlemento element
ccurss
part
f
four-stagerocess
riven
y
the
ingulargency
fthe
un;
hange
s then nderstood
s
proper
o the ntire
ycle
of ransformations,ithlementaryodieseft,ppropriatelynough,odo the onkey-
work f he
ublunary
orld
141n58).
avidCharles
rovidesslightly
ifferent
nter-
pretationnspired
y
the
oncept
f
logical bject
n KitFine's
easoning
ith
rbitrary
ObjectsOxford
985).
ike he
oncept
f
the
now'
n
Aristotle's
hysics'prime
atter'
is
the
mmaterial
and
hence
mperceptible)
ubstratum
r
ogical
underlier'
hat
ersists
through
lemental
hange
ven
hough
o materialubstanceoes.
hus,
he
oncept
f
prime
atter
raditionally
scribed
o
Aristotle,
.e.,
s materialr
quasi-material
ubstratum,
can be avoided
ntologically,
ollowing
harles'
uggestion,
r
physically,
n
termsf
Broadie's
ycles
f lemental
hange.
Finally,
here
s the
opic
f mixturesreated
n
GC 1.
0,
which
as taken
p
with
renewednterest
n
the
fourteenth
enturyollowing
he
ppearance
f
Avicenna'siber
tertiusaturalium
e
eneratione
t
omtptione.
orothearede
xplores
ome
f he easons
or
the eeminglynduettentionristotleivesomixtures:mixiss not asilylassifieds
a
kind
f
change
ithinne of the
en
ategories,
he
points
ut, nd,
unlike
roper
patkê,
ixed
ngredients
etain
ut o not
isplay
heir
riginalualities,
ince
hey
emain
potentially
eparable
290-92).
f
course,
edieval
ristotelians
ere lso
worriedbout
extra-categorialhenomena,
r at east
bout hose hat
idnot
ppear
o be
ofdivine
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 164/187
REVIEWS
369
origin.rede lso hedsightnAristotle'sarger roject ithninterestingomparison
of
he reatmentsfmixturend
homogenous
attern
GC1.10 ndhomoeomerous
is-
sues f
ivinghings
n
Meteorologica
V.8-12.
What his howss that hile he
Aristotelian
naturalcientistas n economical
ccount
f he
materialniverse
n
terms
f
he
our
elementsnd
heir asic
roperties,
his ame
conomyroduces
a
desperate
hortage
f
differentiaet a
higher
evel f
complexity,
.e.,
when t
comes
o
explaining
henon-
homogenousarts
f
organisms,
or ere nature
eeds ifferentndmore
ophisticated
means f
production
312-13).
hevolume
loses ith brief
ssay y
ohn
ooper
on-
tending
hat ommentatorsince
hiloponus
ave
een
uick
o read
Aristotle's
heory
f
mixture
s
involving
he otal nterfusionf
ngredientsdespite
vidence
n
GC 1.10 o
the
ontrary)
ecause
hey
were
surreptitiously
nfluenced
y
theStoic
doctrine
f
Chrysippus,ccording
o whom a
mixtureontains ithintself
n
fully
ctualizedorm
allof tsngredients325). gain,heater istoryf his toic eadingfAristotlehould
be of
great
nteresto
scholars
s
they
ncover ore f he
ommentary
raditionn
GC.
In
short,
necould ot
hope
or
better
hilosophical
ntroductiono
Aristotle'sC.
In
its
ages,
necan
appreciate
hy
GC
was
of
entral
mportance
o
philosophers
rom
late
ntiquity
ntil he
arly
modern
eriod,houghowadays
e
tend o think
hat
he
Physics
ells s allwe need
o
know
bout he
way
Aristotelians
onceivedf he
workings
of
henatural orld.
Emory niversity,
tlanta,
A
Jack
Zupko
Irène osier-Catach,aparolefficace:ime,ituel,acré.ditionsuSeuil, aris, 004, 80 .
ISBN
2 02 062805
In
her a
parole
omme
cte
1994),
rèneRosier-Catach
ave
us a
foretaste
f
this ook
with
section
n
scholasticiscussionsf he
acramentss
signs.
utwhere hat
hort
discussionas
ssentiallyynchronic,
ere he raceshe
evelopment
f
acramental
pec-
ulative
heology
rom
he
pectacular
nterventionf
Berengarius
f
Tours
ca
1010-1088)
to the
ncompromisinglyhilosophical
pproach
fDuns
cotus
ca 1265-1308).
The book
pens
with forward
y
Alain e
Liberawhich iscusses
wodistinctions
crucialo Rosier's
ase,
hose
etween
ublic
nd
privateigns,
nd between
ign
nd
symbol.
he need or
hese istinctionsas
mply
llustrated
y
he uriousebatesur-
rounding
he aw
of 10
February
004
forbidding
he
wearing
f
religiousymbols
n
schools:hey layedast nd oosewith hedistinctionetweenignsndsymbols,nd
lacked
theological
imension,
ven
hough
uch
f
he
easoningmplicit
n
these ebates
and n
the aw tselferives
romhe atholicismf
pre-revolutionary
rance.
n
his
iew
the
emedy
o the
woolly
hinking
vident
n
that
ontroversy
ies
n
books
ike
his
ne,
which
nvestigates
he
rcheology
f
he
eligiousign
ndrelatests
indings
o modern
work n
anguage
cts.
Rosier-Catach's
wn
ntroduction
laces
he acraments
hemselves
n
the ontext
f
a
societyermeated
ith
eligious
nd ecular
itual,
nd
their
heology
ithints xtra-
ordinarily
ich iscoursen
anguage.
er
aim s to
reconstitutehe
heoreticaloher-
ence fmedieval
hought
n the
acraments
y
xamining
ow
hey
sed
he
anguage
theory
ftheir
imes,
n
approach
edieval
heologians
ould ave
understood:lbert
the
Great itests
tymology
o show hat
heology
asdiscourse
boutGod.However
she oesnot im oclarifyssues fmedievalheology,ut heologians'deas n anguage.
Thisdemands
hefocus n the
ontextualisationf
anguagehrough
ts
communica-
tive
unctions,
hich
ere
nvestigated
n
some
epth yRoger
acon n
particular,
nd
trace he
heologian's
daptation
f he
urrent
inguistic
nd emioticdeas
o
their
wn
purposes.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailablenline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 165/187
REVIEWS
369
origin.rede lso hedsightnAristotle'sarger roject ithninterestingomparison
of
he reatmentsfmixturend
homogenous
attern
GC1.10 ndhomoeomerous
is-
sues f
ivinghings
n
Meteorologica
V.8-12.
What his howss that hile he
Aristotelian
naturalcientistas n economical
ccount
f he
materialniverse
n
terms
f
he
our
elementsnd
heir asic
roperties,
his ame
conomyroduces
a
desperate
hortage
f
differentiaet a
higher
evel f
complexity,
.e.,
when t
comes
o
explaining
henon-
homogenousarts
f
organisms,
or ere nature
eeds ifferentndmore
ophisticated
means f
production
312-13).
hevolume
loses ith brief
ssay y
ohn
ooper
on-
tending
hat ommentatorsince
hiloponus
ave
een
uick
o read
Aristotle's
heory
f
mixture
s
involving
he otal nterfusionf
ngredientsdespite
vidence
n
GC 1.10 o
the
ontrary)
ecause
hey
were
surreptitiously
nfluenced
y
theStoic
doctrine
f
Chrysippus,ccording
o whom a
mixtureontains ithintself
n
fully
ctualizedorm
allof tsngredients325). gain,heater istoryf his toic eadingfAristotlehould
be of
great
nteresto
scholars
s
they
ncover ore f he
ommentary
raditionn
GC.
In
short,
necould ot
hope
or
better
hilosophical
ntroductiono
Aristotle'sC.
In
its
ages,
necan
appreciate
hy
GC
was
of
entral
mportance
o
philosophers
rom
late
ntiquity
ntil he
arly
modern
eriod,houghowadays
e
tend o think
hat
he
Physics
ells s allwe need
o
know
bout he
way
Aristotelians
onceivedf he
workings
of
henatural orld.
Emory niversity,
tlanta,
A
Jack
Zupko
Irène osier-Catach,aparolefficace:ime,ituel,acré.ditionsuSeuil, aris, 004, 80 .
ISBN
2 02 062805
In
her a
parole
omme
cte
1994),
rèneRosier-Catach
ave
us a
foretaste
f
this ook
with
section
n
scholasticiscussionsf he
acramentss
signs.
utwhere hat
hort
discussionas
ssentiallyynchronic,
ere he raceshe
evelopment
f
acramental
pec-
ulative
heology
rom
he
pectacular
nterventionf
Berengarius
f
Tours
ca
1010-1088)
to the
ncompromisinglyhilosophical
pproach
fDuns
cotus
ca 1265-1308).
The book
pens
with forward
y
Alain e
Liberawhich iscusses
wodistinctions
crucialo Rosier's
ase,
hose
etween
ublic
nd
privateigns,
nd between
ign
nd
symbol.
he need or
hese istinctionsas
mply
llustrated
y
he uriousebatesur-
rounding
he aw
of 10
February
004
forbidding
he
wearing
f
religiousymbols
n
schools:hey layedast nd oosewith hedistinctionetweenignsndsymbols,nd
lacked
theological
imension,
ven
hough
uch
f
he
easoningmplicit
n
these ebates
and n
the aw tselferives
romhe atholicismf
pre-revolutionary
rance.
n
his
iew
the
emedy
o the
woolly
hinking
vident
n
that
ontroversy
ies
n
books
ike
his
ne,
which
nvestigates
he
rcheology
f
he
eligiousign
ndrelatests
indings
o modern
work n
anguage
cts.
Rosier-Catach's
wn
ntroduction
laces
he acraments
hemselves
n
the ontext
f
a
societyermeated
ith
eligious
nd ecular
itual,
nd
their
heology
ithints xtra-
ordinarily
ich iscoursen
anguage.
er
aim s to
reconstitutehe
heoreticaloher-
ence fmedieval
hought
n the
acraments
y
xamining
ow
hey
sed
he
anguage
theory
ftheir
imes,
n
approach
edieval
heologians
ould ave
understood:lbert
the
Great itests
tymology
o show hat
heology
asdiscourse
boutGod.However
she oesnot im oclarifyssues fmedievalheology,ut heologians'deas n anguage.
Thisdemands
hefocus n the
ontextualisationf
anguagehrough
ts
communica-
tive
unctions,
hich
ere
nvestigated
n
some
epth yRoger
acon n
particular,
nd
trace he
heologian's
daptation
f he
urrent
inguistic
nd emioticdeas
o
their
wn
purposes.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailablenline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 166/187
370
REVIEWS
The book xamineshe rticulationetweenhenaturefthe acramentalign,he
causality
hich
overns
he
operation
f the
acraments,
he acramental
ormulas,
the ntentionsf minister
nd receiverf the acrament.he
chapters
etting
uthow
thesessues
eveloped
refollowed
y
massive
hapter
n the
rguments
ver
he
words
of consecrationt Mass.Each
of
these
hapters
s
supportedy
an annexe
ontaining
extendedxtracts
rom er
uthorities
xcellently
ranslatednto
rench,
ith heLatin
originals
nd ome ther
mportant
ocuments.
he concludeser ookwith
carefully
crafted
onclusion,
hugh
eries f
ndnotes,
comprehensiveibliography,
nd
ubject
and
person
ndexes.
The first
hapterpens
with n accountfthe ontroversial
laim
yBerengarius
f
Tours
ca 1010-1080)
hat he ubstancefbread
emainedfter
he
wordsf onsecration
hadmade t nto
sign
fChrist. e
supported
is ase
gainst
he
olid efencef he
traditionaloctrinef ranssubstantiationyLanfranc1005-1089)ith massiveossier
from
ugustine,entring
tona dialectician's
xegesis
f
Augustine's
efinition
f he
ign:
Signum
st nim es
raeter
peciemuam
ngerit
ensibusliud
liquid
x se faciens
in
cogitationem
enire.
A ign
s
a
thing
hich,
uite part
romhe utward
ppear-
ance t
presents
othe
enses,
akes
omething
lse ome nto he
mind.]De
doctrina
Christiana
.1.1)
Berengarius
eads his efinition
ery
iterally.
s
a
sign
s
by
nature
erceptible
o the
senses,
nd
presents
omething
ifferent
romtself
aliquid
liud)
o
the
mind,
e draws
the onclusionhat
he
mage
he
ucharist
rings
o the
mind
s
n a relationf imili-
tude o
Christ,
ot
n oneof
dentity.
his emiotic
rgument
e reinforces
y
dialectical
principlesrawnromategories4andPorphyry'ssagoge,ndby he rinciplehatcci-
dents
an
only
e
supported
y
n
appropriate
ubstance:
human
ody
annot
upport
the ccidentsfbread
ndwine.
These
rguments,
s Rosier-Catach
oints
ut,
et
ut he ermsorater
evelopments
in
sacramental
heology.
t would eem heirmost
ong-lasting
esult
as
replacing
he
vague escription
f sacrament
s a
sign
fa sacred
hing
. ignum
ei
acrai)
y
the
definition,
an
outward
ign
f nward
race
nstituted
y esus
hrist ,
hichs still ound
in
modernatechisms.
he mmediate
ssue,
owever,
as
defusing
erengarius's
nter-
pretation
f
Augustine'sign
heory,
nd
developing
rationalasis
or raditionaloc-
trine
y
more
lexibleseofhis
methods.o this
nd
heologians
orked
ndependently
of he
aculty
fArts o build
nterpretation
nto heir
odel f
perception.
heir xam-
ination
f
he
notionf
visibility
et ff
igorous
edefinitionf
Augustine's
erms:
etrus
Cantor ornstance,istinguishesetweenhe directisibilityf omethingmmediately
obviouso the
enses,
nd he
indirect
isibility
f
omething
idden,
ike hand nside
a
glove.
osier-Catach
reditshis
ort
f
thinking
ith
lurringugustine's
lear is-
tinctionetween
ignifier
nd
signified:
or
nstance,
ichard ishacre
d.
1248),
neof
the
ioneers
fAristotelian
hilosophy
t
Oxford,
bserves
hat oth he ensibile
nd he
intelligibile
an
be
signs
nd
ignificates.
is
corollary
as hat he
word,
acrmentummeant
three
hings:
material
ign,
ts
ignificate
res
acramenti
,
and he
ermanent
ffect
f he
sacramental
ite.
Berengarius's
hief
ticking-point,
hat heEucharist
as cause
s well s a
sign
f
grace,
as
dealtwith
y
killedecourse
o dialectic.
ven
hough
acraments
ere
igna
data
y
eason
f heir
nstitution,
homas
quinas
nd
Bonaventurenvoked
he
otency-
and-act
odel hichs
frequent
n
grammar:
ike
wordsacraments
ave natural
pti-tude rpotencyosignify,hichasses oactwhen heirignifications realisedna
context.
he contradictionetween
ignification
y
naturend
ignification
y
nstitution
wasresolved
y
he
ssertion,
hich
eems obe
due o
Roger
acon,
hat
natural
ign
could
e
designated
o
signify
elations,
o that t could
e
in
both
relationf imili-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 167/187
REVIEWS 371
tude nd a causal elation ithts ignificate.aptism,ornstance,asa naturalign
signifyingy
imilitudeith aternd ts
ower
f
leansing,
utChrist
ave
t the asks
of
mpartingrace
nd
cleansingriginal
in
by
nstitution.
Similitude
etweenhristndhis
resence
othemind nd he ack f tbetween
im
and
he read
adbeen ne f
Berengarius'srguments
gainst
ransubstantiation.osier-
Catach races ow he hirteenth
entury
et his
rgumentydeveloping
he
oncept
f
proportional
imilitude.
hiswas
n
part
unction:or
xample,
read ndwine retem-
poral
oods,
he ucharist
piritual.
ut he howshat here
eveloped
distinctionetween
relationf
ign
o
thing y
imilitude,
hich as
natural,
nd
by
nstitution
hich
as
voluntary.
hile
rammarians
ite he
arrel-hoop
anging
eforetaverns a
conventional
sign
fwinewithouturther
omment,
ishacres
among
he irstocite t s a
sign
hich
requiresnterpretation
ecausets
meaningepended
n similitudeot
mmediately
bvi-
ous. t s a sign fwine odrink,ecausetwas part f he arrelhewinewas hipped
in.
Likewise,
ven
f
acramentsidnot ave
physical
imilitude,
hey
ave
conventional
similitude
o
their
ignificatehrough
unction.
This
hapter
lso
traces
evelopmentsndependent
f
Berengarius,
ike
he cholastic
typology
f
demonstrative,
rognostic
ndcommemorative
igns.
t is
through
he
ocial
repercussions
fthese arious
ypes
f
signs
hat acraments
lay
n
importantart
n
teachingeligious
ruthsnd
n
the ohesionf heChristian
ommunity.
here s also
short
ccount,
hich osier-Catachater eturns
o,
fhow iscussions
entred
n
Anselm's
concept
f he ruthf
sign
rectitudo
.
As a
sign
must
e true n
both nstitutionnd
use,
he dministrationf sacramentas
ntimately
inked
ithts nstitution.he rest
of
his
hapter
utlines
he
medievallaborationf
Augustine's
atterndform odel
of he acraments.welfthenturyiscussionf hematteras omewhataphazard,utthe hirteenth
entury
ormalisedt on Aristotle's
ylomorphic
odel. he matterfa
sacramentas
thing
r an
act,
r both
ogether,
nd ts orm as he
poken
ords.
The
form
f he
poken
ormulaas ts
ignification,
hich
efineshe
urpose
nd
ntent,
andfrom hichts
fficacy
s
derived.he
prime
mover
f
this
evelopmentccording
to Rosier-Catachas
Hugh
fSt Cher
1190-1263).
Thetwo ival
ypotheses
bout
he
fficacy
f he
acraments,
physicalausality
nd
causalité-pacte
causalityybindinggreement)
iscussed
n
thenext
hapter,
llustrateow
theologians
eveloped
he
rinciple
f
ign
s cause rom
nalogies
ith heworldt
arge.
Physical
ausality
asfirst ooted
y Stephen
angton
ca 1150-1228),
ho
ompared
sacramentso medicines.t
was
further
evelopedy
Hugh
fSaint-Cher
mong
thers,
who
ppealed
o Avicenna's odel f he
eception
fform
y
matter.vicenna
ostu-
lated wo arallelauses: newhichreparedhemattero receivehe orm,he econd
which
ttributedhe ormo thematter.
ugh
scribed edicinesnd sacramentswo
efficientauses:
pothecaries
repared
edicinesor
specificurpose
nd
God nstituted
the
acraments,
hile
doctordministerededicinend a
ministerhe acraments.
Secondly
he
hypothesis
hat acramentscted
hrough
ome
irtusnherent
n
tsmatter
either
reated
y
God or
placed
n
the
matter
hrough
nstitutionr a
special
nterven-
tion ad ts
ounterpart
n
the ommon
elief,
hich asbiblical
ackingcf.
cclesiasticus
38.4)
hat odhad
given
edicinal
roperties
ocertainubstancest the
ime f reation
and
occasionally
nfusedhemnto
hingslready
n
existence.
In
thatntellectuallimatehe
nalogies
ith
opular
eliefsnwhich
hysicalausality
was
asedwere
nevitably
ubjected
o
earching
cientific
esting.
he
uthortates
lundy
that he
bjections
hus aised
layed
n
importantart
n
the
development
f
causalité-
pacte.o mymindhey ecall he hreemeaningsishacreave heword,acramentum.
Unlikehe irtusreata
f
medicines,
he ature
ndmode f ction
scribedo acraments
could ot e
described
n
physical
erms,
here asno
way
f
knowing
hetherhe irtus
of
sacramentasconferred
t the ime f nstitutionf
dministration,
nd
there as
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 168/187
372
REVIEWS
no sense fhowong he fficacyf sacramentasted.urther,he ssumptionhat he
virtusf sacramentas n nternalccidentan ounterothe
rinciple
hat acraments
are n
relation
o
he
race hey ring.
onsequently
he irtue
f
sacramentdds
othing
its
ssence,
or an t be a basis or ts ction
cf.
Aristotle,
hys.
.2.225.bl
).
Rosier-Catach
ives
ishacre
pivotal
ole
n
the
stablishment
f
ausalité-pacte
in
his
viewGodwas he
nly
roper
ause
f he
acraments.
onsequently
he
ausality
n
the
sacramentsesulted
rom
contractetweenodandMan.Manfulfilledis ontractual
obligations
y
faith
n
the onventionsod
mposed.
his
rincipleheologians
llustrated
by
Augustine'sxample
f
money:
ts alue s not
n
accident
ising
romhe ssencef
the
oins,
ut relationetweent nd ts aluemaintained
y greed
onventions.
hey
also
ompared
acramentso
nsignia
f fficend
rings
ike
weddinging
r
bishop's
ring.
When
ubliclyonferred,
hese ctas
signs iving
he
ecipientparticular
tatus
and mposingesponsibilities.herefersrieflyohow ausalité-pactempingednthe lmost
universalelief
n
magic uring
heMiddle
ges.
he
begins
ith
ugustine's
istinction
between
uperstitiousractices
nd rue
eligion,
nd
goes
n to a briefiscussionfhow
medieval
heologians
sed
Augustine'suling
o
distinguish
etweenhe
acraments,
hich
were
upernatural
nterventions
n
human ffairs
egitimatedy
a
pact
with
God,
nd
magic,
hich as also ntervention
y
supernatural
orces,
ut hesenterventionsere
invited
ypacts
with atan.
From he enor fRosier-Catach's
iscussion,
t s clear
hat
ausalité-pacte
asno
ess
controversialhan
hysical
ausality.unninghrough
er ccount f mid-thirteenth-
century
iscussionss the
mplication
hat he
rgumentsgainsthysicalausality
o not
always
pply,
nd hat everal
heologians,ncluding
homas
quinas
nd
Henry
f
Ghent,
who o not se he erm,ignumfficiensìo denote signwhichroducesneffectnthe
observer,
aw
physical
ausality
s an instrumentf
causalité-pacte.
he
passes
nto the
fourteenth
enturyy howing
ow he
oncept
f
fficacyisplaced
nselm'sectitudo
s
a
measuref he
alidity
f
sacrament.
he
Franciscan,
eter
livi,
ostulated
hat he
administrationf sacramentould
nly
ctuatets
ignification
nd
fficacy
f
he ntentions
ofministernd
recipient
ere onsonantith he
ivine
ntention
overning
ts nstitution.
ThisDuns
Scotus
eveloped
nto definitiveersionf
causalité-pacte,
n order
o refute
Aquinas's
iew f
he
matter.s
a
signumffkiens
sacraments n relations relativeo
correlativeo both ts
ignificate
nd
the
lement
hat hat
ignificate
s
founded
n,
a
relation
n
whichntention
lays pivotal
ole.
he
chapter
inishesith comment
n
discussionsbout
meaning
n
the
Faculty
f
Arts.
osier-Catach
raws ttention
o
two
opposing
endencieshich
un
arallel
o he
heologians'
ausalité-pacte
nd
hysical
ausality
respectively:heAugustiniándea thatword-meaningaspurelyonventional,nd the
Aristotelianiew
dopted
y
he
modistaen
particular,
hat
meaningepended
n
part
n
featuresf he
ignificate.
he eaves he
uestion
fwhetherhere as ome ross-influence
betweenhe
wo aculties
anging
n
the ir.
would hink
here
as.
Quite
deliberately
he uthor
mplies
hat
upporters
f
both
hypotheses
bout he
efficacy
f he acraments
ere
ealing
ith n
assembly
f ntractableariableshat ven
themost
minent,
ike
Aquinas,
onaventurend
Scotus,
ould ot
manage.
he reader
is left ith he ense
hat he ssue f
causality
asnever
esolved,
r
perhaps
t could
not e resolved.
The most
mportant
lement
n
the ubtext
f
Rosier-Catach's
hapter
n sacramental
formulass the
ole f uthoritativeradition
n
building
octrine
n
the ace
f n
almost
complete
ack f
Scriptural
uthority.
he medievaislaimedhat
he acramentalor-
mulas adbeen uthoredy heChurchna manneronsonantith he piritfwhat
Biblicalccountshere
ere. or
xample,
he
baptismal
ormula
N.,
go
te
baptizo
n
nomine
atris,
t
Filii
t
Spiritus
ancti
N., baptise ou
n
the
name f he
Father,
of he on ndof he
Holy pirit.],
s based n Christ's
andateothe
postles,
Euntes
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 169/187
REVIEWS
373
ergo ocete mnes entes:aptizantesos n nomineatris,tFilii, tSpiritusancti.
[Go
forth,herefore,
nd each ll
nations,
aptising
hem
n
the ame
f he
ather,
nd
ofthe
on,
nd of the
Holy pirit.]
Matthew
8.19),
which
heologiansrgued
as
a
command
othe
Aposdes,
ven
fChristad ouchedt
n
termsf
description
f heir
responsibilities.
The secondssue s
the
dequacy
fthe
ormulas,
hose
mportance
ose utofthe
twinssues
f heirnstitution
ndtheir unction
s forms
f
he
acraments.
he
author
remarks
he nconscious
ssumption
n
the atin
hurchhat
atinwas he
anguage
n
whichhese
ormulas
ad
originally
een rafted.
eraccounts
fminuteiscussionsf
the
orcef ach
word
n
the atin
aptismal
ormulahow
he
heologians'eep
oncern
with he
orensicffectf
words. or t s not
nly
he
meaning
hat
s at ssue:t s the
social
unction
f achword
n
the
ormula,
uch s the
riest'sssumption
f
responsi-bilityhroughhe edundantronoun,gothe reciseesignationf he ctby he erb,
baptizo
andthe
recise
esignation
fthe
ecipient
y
te.
Her
nteresting
ection
n the
almost nknown
roposals
hat acramental
ormulashould
e translated
nto hever-
naculars
or
astoral
easonsecall
he
rgumentsustifying
he ntroduction
fvernacu-
lar
iturgiesuring
he wentieth
entury.
gain
hedemonstrates
hat
heological
ssues
were esolved
y
ecular eans:
he
fficacy
f he
ormulasould e
preservedepended
onthe
rinciple
hat
rammar
as
he ame
n all
anguages
nd nAristotle's
rguments
for he
dentity
f the
passions
cross
anguages.
his
guaranteed
he
universality
f
significates,
rto
put
tmore
echnically,
he mitasominis
unity
f he
word),
hichould
not
be
impugned
y anguage
ifferencesecause
hey
were
y
nature
ccidental:or
example,
omond
avGpomoç
ere onsideredhe
same word ecause
hey
hare
he
same efinition,ndpaterndbeireere denticalecauseheyrerelatedy tymology.The ast ubstantive
ssue,
nwhich
heologians
idnot
lways
ee
eye
o
eye,
was he
integrity
f he ormulas
hen
ronounced,
worry
ecause
f he ncertain
atinity
f
many
f hemedieval
arishlergy,
nd,
ne
uspects,
he
tylisticretensions
f he et-
ter ducated.
he one fRosier-Catch's
ccounthowshat
heology
as
becoming
uch
more ormalist
n
ts utlook.
welfth-centuryheologians
ike ernardfClairvaux
rgued
that
f
minister
ad the
proper
ntention,
angling
he
formulaid not
damage
he
meaning,
s the irtusf
formulaesided
n
ts ntention.
n the ther
and,
most
hir-
teenth-century
cholasticsaw
virtuss a featuref he
ign
tself,
nd
rgued
hat he or-
mulas
ad
obe
word-perfect
s
they
ere ot fficaciousnless oth
ignificatum
ndmodus
significarteli
emainedntact.
hey istinguished
odificationsarmfulo the
fficacy
f
sacramentrom armless
ygrammatical
ndrhetorical
nalysis.
or
xample
enitor
a
titleocussingn the ctofbegetting,ould otbe substitutedor aterwhich enoted
the ather
s a
person.
The
hapter
n
ntentionevolves
round
he
bligationsmposed
n
minister
nd
ecip-
ient
y
he ivinenstitution
f he acramentsnd heir
cceptance
y
he hurch.osier-
Catach's
riefook t the
elations
osed
etweennstitution
nd ntentionouldndicate
that
heologians
aw nstitutions akin o
the
mposition
f a word.Where
properly
qualifiedmpositormposed
meaning
na
word,
hrist
s the
roperly
ualifiedimpos-
itor ad
given specific
eaning
othematter
f
sacrament
ndunifiedhe
isparate
elementsfthe acramental
ign. onsequently
heministercts s Christ's
eputy
nd
takes
n
the
bligation
f
ulfilling
he onditions
aiddown
y
he nstitutionf he acra-
ment
n
question.
he
chapter
hen
ives
n accountf he
ively
ebatesbout he
alid-
ity
f acramentsdministered
y
hereticsnd
priests
n
the tate
f
in,
heirntentions
atthe imef dministration,nd heminister'sbligationorespecthe rescribedituals.
Concernhat
ollowing
he itualaid
down
y
he
Church ade t difficulto
udge
he
sincerity
f heminister's
ntention,
roduced
ome iscussion
ver
he
rimacy
fword
or ntention
n
a
liturgical
itual.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 170/187
374 REVIEWS
Theologiansxpectedhe roductionnd eceptionf acramentalormulasobesubject
to a
symmetry
f
ntentionetween inisternd
recipient
f
sacramentnd lso o
harmony
between outhnd
heart .
ven
f
he
rammarianlike
hemodern
inguist,
itmust e
said)
oncentratednthe
roduction
f
n
utterance,
he
heologian
as
qually
interestedts
reception,
hose
fficacy
epended
n the
ntentions,
nowledge
nd ntel-
lectual
apacity
f he
ecipient,
ndhis ssentothe
roceedings.
he
authoretailshe
uncomfortableiscussionsbout orced
aptisms
nd
marriagesrovokedy
heneed or
assent.herole f ssentften
epended
nwhat
ort
f
ausality
he
heologian
oncerned
postulated
or hese acraments.
The ectionn
oaths,
ies nd
perjury
rawshe eader'sttentionothe eenmedieval
sense fthe
esponsibility
f
speaker
o
express
is
meaning
nd the
esponsibility
f
thehearero
reciprocatey nterpreting
im
withinhe
ense
nd
ntent
f
hisutterance.
This ense fresponsibilitynderlieshemportancelaced y heologicalebatesn the
moralnd ocial
epercussions
futterancesnd heir
earing
n
the
alidity
f he acra-
ments.
n
oathwas
public
tterance
alling
odto
witness
he
ruthf statementr
the
incerity
f
promise.
eliberateieswere ins n the
art
f
person
nd lso
cts
withocial
epercussions.
n
utterance
s true
f
he
modes
f
nderstanding
nd hemodes
of
ignifying
atch.
lie
thereforearmshe
ocial
abric
yfrustrating
he
xpressive
and
ommunicative
urpose
f
anguage.
aths
nd
ies
ome
ogether
n
perjury,
hich
callsGodto
witness
he ruthf false
tatement,
r the
alidity
f
promise
nedoes
not ntendo
keep.
Hence,
hough
ies nd
deceptionegate
he
alidity
f
otheracra-
ments,
hey
re
crucially
armful
n
matrimony
hose ssences the
ublic xchange
f
consentetweenride nd
groom.
Underlyinghewholehrustf hishaptersthemoral rinciple,nunciateds earlyas
Hilary
f
Poitiers,
hat he
ignificance
f statementhoulde
udged
ot
nly
n ts
meaning,
ut lsoon ts ntention.his
principle,
hich as
part
f he awof ontract
Rosier-Catach
ootnoteso
Gratian,
he ould lsohavementioned
hatt
had
ts ource
in
Roman aw.
The
problems
osed
heologiansy
he ucharistesult
n
the
ongest
ndmost
omplex
chapter
n
thebook.
he
Eucharists the
nly
acramenthich
rings
bout
omplete
transformationf tsmatter
the
read ndwine ecome he
ody
ndblood f
Christ),
andwhoseacramental
ormula
s ts ole fficientause.Moreoverhewordsf onsecration
are he
nly
acramentalormulaohave
omething
lose overbatim
criptural
uthority:
they
re
a
conflation
f
hewordsttributedo Christ
n
the hree
ynoptic
ospels
nd
in
St
Paul,
1
Corinthians
1.23-24.
nce
again, heologians
ased ll their
rgumenta-
tion nthe atin ext.
The
chapter
pens
with return
o
Berengarius,
ndhis laim
hat
oc st nim
orpus
meumenoted
mpanation
ecausetwas
ogicallynadequate
odenotehe
omplete
rans-
formation
ostulatedy
transsubstantiation.
osier-Catach
hows
ow
heologians
oun-
tered
im
with
ophisticated
se fhis wn
weapons.
he
gives long
ist f
hirteenth-century
paraphrases
hose
urpose
as
exegesis
f this ormuland eliminationf
heresyy
couching
he octrinef ranssubstantiation
n
termsf movementetweenterminus
quo
and terminusd
quern.araphrases
ike
anis
ransitn
fit) orpus
hristiere
cceptable;
de
ane
it orpus
hristifor
nstance,
asnot
cceptable
ecauset
mplied
causal ela-
tionship
etweenhe read
nd he
resence
fChrist.he ums
p
thewhole
rgument
in
an nformativeablewhichmatches
he xtant
araphrases,egitimate
nd
llegitimate,
withmodel entences
rom andbooksfdialecticndthe
rincipleshey xemplify.
Herdiscussionf he ormulashemselvesocussesn how heologianssed rguments
drawn rom
rammar
nd the
Physics
o
clarify
hebalance etween
eaning
nd
per-
formativeunction.s t
denotesubstancendnot
erson,
heneuteremonstrative
ro-
noun, oc,
tateshat oth he ubstance
fbread nd he ubstancefChrist
re
present
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 171/187
REVIEWS 375
onthe ltar. herewasneverompletegreementverwhen he readeased obepre-
sent
nd
Christecome
resent,
nd ver he aturef
resence
othemind.
heologians
hadmore uccess ith he ubstantive
erb,
st
is),
which enotes
xistence
ather
han
change,
nd
ts elation
o
the
onversionf
he lements.
hey
were,
f
ourse,
ound
y
the
Gospel
ext.
uggestions
hattwould ave een
etter
f
Christ
ad
used
itbecomes)
or
a
jussiveubjunctive
sit
r
iat)
ere ismissedn the
grounds
hat st s a
performa-
tive
y
unctionecause sacramentalormula ust
ignify
he utcomef ts
acrament,
which an
only
e
done
y
the
resent
ndicative.he third
ifficulty
asthe
uppositio
ofmeumit didnot eem
ogical
hat t should efero
both
he
erson
ho aid
t and
toChrist howas
being eported.
inally,
onsecrating
he
read
eparately
rom
he
wine
raised he nsoluble
uestion
fwhetherhrist
as
ntirelyresent
nder
oth orms.
Unlike
erengarius
ho
had
applied
he aws
f
dialectic ithout
aking
ontextnto
account,heologiansook t for rantedhat hewords fconsecrationould nly unc-
tionwithinheir
iturgical
ontext.
hey
re the limax f
short arrative
f
heLast
Supper.
osier-Catach'sccount
f he
ively
iscussions
f
he
riest's
ole llustratesow
the
heologians
ollifiednease ith he irect
uotes
n
the
iturgical
arrative
y
lightly
twisting
henormsfdialectic.herewas
greement
hat
riestegins
y
peaking
ecita-
tive
that s
as narrator.
ut
when
e reciteshewords f
consecration,
e is
taking
n
the
ersona
f
Christ,
hich aised he ssue fwhethere s still
peaking
s
narrator,
or
significative
as Christ ad.The
majority
nswero this
onundrumas hat he
riest
was
peaking
oth ecitativend
ignificative,
solution
emanding
eumavedouble
up-
position.
he
development
fthe
heory
f
demonstratio
n
the ate
1240s
wascrucial
n
solving
he
ragmatics
f he ucharistieormulas.
osier-Catach
uccinctly
racests evel-
opmentygrammariansnd ogicianssa prefaceo n accountf he heologians'ejec-tion fdemonstratio
oncepta
concept
f
demonstration)
s the
perative
actornfavourf
demonstratioxercitad intellectum
demonstration
rought
bout o the
ntellect).
he takes
Aquinas
nd
Bonaventures the
pivotal
heorists,
uilding
n ideas rom
many
thers,
including
obert
ilwardby.
owever,
he
gives
uns cotus he inal ord. orhe took
the
rgument
bout he
validity
f the
Eucharistieormula
eyond
nselm'sdeasof
rectitudond ettledn the
fficacy
f
the ormulas a
gauge
f ts
validity.
or
Scotus
the
mechanismf ranssubstantiationas ubstitutionf
nother
eing
atherhan onversion
of
what
ad
been
here,
ndhis eems o be the astword n
the
ubject.
The conclusion
ums
p
the hree
major
essonsfthebook. t
emphasises
hat he
interactionetween
heology
ndthe
anguage
ciencesose utof ources
n
common,
like
Donatus,
risciannd theAristotelian
orpus,
ut hat
hey
sed hem
ifferently
because f he ifferencesnattitudeso anguageetweenrts ndtheology.his s as
one
would
xpect,
ecause
rammar,ogic
nd
theology
avedifferent
bjects,
hich
inevitably
esult
n
different
xpectations
f
data. he secondssues the
elationetween
the
fficacious
ign
f he itle ndmodern
heoriesf
anguage
cts. he author akes
easy
onnectionsetweenhework fGrice n
mplicature,
ustinndSearle's
language
acts ,
nd
Thomas eid's social cts ndthe ctus
xercitatus
act
broughtbout)
r the
signumjficiens
f
hermedieval
heologians.
his
he
strengthensy sidelonglances
t
Augustine
ndothers ho
nalysedanguage
s a tool f
eaching.
erthird
oint
akes
up
an
issuemade
xplicit
y
de
Libera's
oreword,
hedifference
etween
sign
nda
symbol.
he
makes
particularlytriking
emark
hat acramental
heology
s one
mmense
gloss
n
Augustine's
e
doctrinahristiana
drawing
he eader'sttentiono
overridingmpor-
tance f
he
heologians'xegesis
f
Augustine's
efinitionfthe
ign. hey mphasised
the wo elationst entersnto: s a sign roperlyo-called,t s nrelationorealityo
its
ignificate,
ut s a
symbol
t s in
relationo the
person
ho
receivest and nter-
prets
t. This hen
evelops
nto short iscussionf
thedouble alue f the
ign,
s
something
ith
meaning
nd s
something
hat as n
effect
n
ts eceiver.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 172/187
376
REVIEWS
The mostmportantonstantnthis ook s the xplicitankingffaiths an intel-
lectual
ower,
hich
rings
omind t
Anselm'sefinition
f
heology
s
fides
uaerens
ntel-
lectum
faith
n
earch
f
nderstanding),
n
aphorism
hichet ut he
elationship
etween
the ervant
ciencesnd
heology.
hey
re hereo
explain
elief,
ot o overturn
t.As
versatile
andmaids
f
heology,rammar
nddialecticuffer
he
ndignity
f
being
ver-
ruled
r retrainedhen
hey egin
o
push
eyond
he ounds
f anctioned
elief.et
the ate
nd
ontinuing
nacknowledgedresence
f
Berengarius
re
mple
estimony
o he
power
heology
ested
n
the ciences
f he
Trivium.
The econd
mportant
lement
n
his
ooksthe uthor's
areful
nalysis
f he ifference
between
he
heologians'pproach
o
anguage
nd hat
f he
rammarians.
his s
only
to
be
expected
s the wo
ciencesave
ompletely
ifferent
bjects
s far s
language
s
concerned.
he hows
hat,
ven
f
heyxemplifygain
nd
gain
he
rinciple
hat
od
is not ubjectogrammar,heirelativelyrthodoxnalysisfutterancesscoupled ith
a keen ense
f
anguage
n
context,
hethertbe social
r
iturgical.
hetherhiss
due
solely
o
developments
ithin
he
anguage
ciences,
doubt
f
Rosier-Catach
s
n
a
posi-
tion o
determine.
y
own
feeling
s that
heology
tself ith
tsmoral oncerns
nd
medieval
ociety
hich
alued he
poken
anguage
ver he
written,
admuch o
do with
developing
he
trong
ense
f
anguage
unctions
ighlighted
n
this ook.
The third
ssue s the
kill ith
which
heologiansdapted
erengarius's
eapons
o
dealwith he
pectres
e raised.
erengarius'sroblems
ose rom
is
violently
ontext-
free
ealings
ith
ugustine's
efinition,
hich as
ountered,
nconsciously
osier-Catach
implies,
y
he ealisation
hat
ugustine
ad onstructed
is efinitionround
hree
erms,
sign,
ignifier
nd
nterpreting
ind. he
moral nd ocial
evelopments
f
his
rinciple
throughechniqueseneralo themedievalciencesonstituteneof hemostmportantthreads
unning
hrough
hebook. heir ther
chievement,
hose
mportance
o the
sacraments
he uthor
ets ut
n some
etail,
s their
ereading
f
Augustine's
atertight
distinction
etween
ign
nd
thingignified.
his,
f
course,
as relevance
lsewhere:
t
turns
p
n
the
elationetween
es
ndratio
ntelligendi
which
ere onsidered
o be
in
a
relationship
f
hing
o
ign,
nd
his
elationship
as
replicated
n
the
elationetween
ratio
ntelligendi
nd
ratio
ignificando
Since first
eadRosier-Catach's
a
parole
omme
cte have t times
ound
yself
on-
dering
hether
oger
acon's
unctionalist
iew f
grammar
ould ave
ad he
nfluence
it did
fhe had
not een
skilled
heologian.
ut unctionalist
iews
ere ot he
rop-
erty
fBacon
lone,
nd wonder
f
hey
ere
eveloped
n discussions
ith is
friend,
Bonaventure.
he
gives
n excellent
icture
f he
igour
f
heological
iscussion
ndof
its reedomndferocityndoriginalityithinhe oundsfreceivedoctrine.hecites
a whole
alaxy
f
heologians,iving
reditor
ignificant
nnovation
hereredit
s due.
The
mportance
he ccords
he
Franciscan,
onaventure,
ndthe
Dominican,
homas
Aquinas,
s no
surprise,
or
heir
nalysis
f he acraments
with
efinements
rom uns
Scotus),
asstill
hereceived
ersion
n
twentieth-centuryheological
anuals. hat
s
telling,
owever,
s the ttention
iven
esser nown
igures
romhe
arly
hirteenth
entury,
like ichard
ishacre,
ichard
iddleton,
ndWilliam
fMeliton.
y
eason
f heir
io-
neering
ontributions
hey
tand ut
among
he
huge
number
f
theologians
etween
Abelard
nd
William
fHades ho
ontributed
ignificantly
o
he
uilding
f he heoretical
coherence
osier et
ut o find.
The
astvirtue
fthis ook
s the
uthor'sober
ccount
fthe
development
fthe
theory
f he
ignum
fficiens
nd
ts
kinship
ith
modern
deas n
anguage
cts,
hich
ies
at the entrefher nterprise.he srightnshowingow lowwas he evelopmentf
demonstratio
nto
prototype
f he
heory
f
he
ignumfficiens,
ven
f
opics
ssential
o
language
cts,
ike
ntention,
ruth
nd
ignification,
ermeate
he ook.
Her
comparison
ofthe
point
eached
y
Duns
Scotus
ith he
modern
ork f
Searle nd
Austins
a
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 173/187
REVIEWS 377
veryellingommentn thehumanropensityo gnore hat oes n under ne's ose.
One
might
ave
xpected
hat
ighly
itualised
ociety
ohave rawnhe onclusionhat
acts r utterancesould
enerate
heir
wn
ignificates
nd have
major
ffectn the
their
ecipients
omewhatore
xpeditiously.
As Rosier-Catach
ays
n her
ntroduction,
he s not
rimarily
oncernedith acra-
mental
heology.
er
book,
owever,
ives
well-documented,
erceptive
ccountfhow
theologiansevelopednalytical
ools
rom
he
anguage
ciences,
nd
s,
n
effect,
e
Libera's
archeology
f he
eligiousign . y
henaturef
ts
ubject
t s an
extremely
complex
ookwhich emandsareful
eading,
t east
rudimentaryrasp
f
acramen-
taldoctrine
nd,
would
hink,
amiliarity
ith he
philosophical
ontext.ven
hough
those ho
xpect
medieval
asuistry
o
reach irm
onclusions
bout
he acraments
ill
certainly
e
disappointed,
osier-Catach
onclusively
howshat
rgument
nddiscussion
amongheologiansttainedoherencefprinciplendmethod hilellowingor he is-
agreements
ver
major oints
hichurvivedhe hrewd
nalysesy
Alberthe
Great,
Thomas
quinas
ndBonaventure.
I
would
ope
hat istorians
f
heology
ndmedievalists
n
general
ould enefitrom
this ook s much s
I
have.Once
gain
Rosier-Catachasmade
major
ontribution
to our
knowledge
f he
anguagecholarship
f heMiddle
ges.
Darwin
ollege, ambridge
L.G.
Kelly
Claude
anaccio,
ckhamn
ConceptsAshgate
tudies
n
Medieval
hilosophy).shgate,
Aldershot004, i + 197p. ISBN0 75463228
Ockham's
heory
f
oncepts
asbeen
ubject
oheated ebatesor he ast
wentyears.
A
numberf
distinguished
ommentators
arefullynalyzed
he
ignificance
ndfunction
of his
heory
n
philosophy
f
anguage,ntology
nd
pistemology.
et,
espite
he us-
tainedfforto hed
ight
nthisnfluential
octrine,
any
uestions
emainednanswered.
Is Ockham reductionistn his ccountf he asic
tock
f
oncepts?
s
he committed
to the
osition
hat
oncepts
re omehowsimilitudesf
hings
n
theworld? oes he
provide
n
explanation
or he
rigin
f
ogicaloncepts?
hese
nd
many
more
roblems
gave
ise o
controversial
nterpretations.
n
his
highly
nnovativend
stimulating
ook,
Claude anaccio
resents
solution
o
all of
hem,
hus
rovidingcomprehensive
nter-
pretation
nd defensef
Ockham's
heory
f
concepts.
e doesnot onfineimselfo
addingome etailso anongoingebate,ut ntendso demonstratethatmostf he
current
nterpretativeisagreements
bout is
Ockham's]heory
f
oncepts
anbe set-
tled
. ]
on the asis fwhat e
actually
rote.
p.
2)
No
doubt,
hiss
a
bold
laim.
But anaccio
uccessfully
howshat
number
f
disagreements
an ndeed e settled
nd
that he
heory
ckhamefendss
not
nly
oherentndwell
rgued
or,
ut lso ston-
ishingly
imilaro
ontemporary
heories,
specially
o hosehat
ppeal
o
emantic
tomism
and
representationalism.
In
his
econstruction
nd
nterpretation
fOckham's
heory,
anaccioombinescareful
examinationf
key
exts ith critical
ssessment
f
recent
econdary
iterature.his s
certainly
he
ight
ethodo choose.
iven
he
ast mountfrecent
ublications,
t s
not
necessary
o start romcratch hen
pproaching
ckham's
heory.
or hould ne
simply
ummarizehemain
heses
n a
descriptiveay.
Whats neededs a discussionf
the roblemsnd llegednconsistenciesointedutbyrecentommentatorsa discus-
sion
hat
s
based
pon
detailed
nalysis
f
he elevant
rimary
ources.t s
precisely
to this eed hat anaccio
esponds.
e tackleshe rucial
roblems
hatM. McCord
Adams,
. V.
Spade,
.
Normore,
.
Michon,
.
Biard,
.
Karger
nd thers
mphasized
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailablenline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 174/187
REVIEWS 377
veryellingommentn thehumanropensityo gnore hat oes n under ne's ose.
One
might
ave
xpected
hat
ighly
itualised
ociety
ohave rawnhe onclusionhat
acts r utterancesould
enerate
heir
wn
ignificates
nd have
major
ffectn the
their
ecipients
omewhatore
xpeditiously.
As Rosier-Catach
ays
n her
ntroduction,
he s not
rimarily
oncernedith acra-
mental
heology.
er
book,
owever,
ives
well-documented,
erceptive
ccountfhow
theologiansevelopednalytical
ools
rom
he
anguage
ciences,
nd
s,
n
effect,
e
Libera's
archeology
f he
eligiousign . y
henaturef
ts
ubject
t s an
extremely
complex
ookwhich emandsareful
eading,
t east
rudimentaryrasp
f
acramen-
taldoctrine
nd,
would
hink,
amiliarity
ith he
philosophical
ontext.ven
hough
those ho
xpect
medieval
asuistry
o
reach irm
onclusions
bout
he acraments
ill
certainly
e
disappointed,
osier-Catach
onclusively
howshat
rgument
nddiscussion
amongheologiansttainedoherencefprinciplendmethod hilellowingor he is-
agreements
ver
major oints
hichurvivedhe hrewd
nalysesy
Alberthe
Great,
Thomas
quinas
ndBonaventure.
I
would
ope
hat istorians
f
heology
ndmedievalists
n
general
ould enefitrom
this ook s much s
I
have.Once
gain
Rosier-Catachasmade
major
ontribution
to our
knowledge
f he
anguagecholarship
f heMiddle
ges.
Darwin
ollege, ambridge
L.G.
Kelly
Claude
anaccio,
ckhamn
ConceptsAshgate
tudies
n
Medieval
hilosophy).shgate,
Aldershot004, i + 197p. ISBN0 754632288
Ockham's
heory
f
oncepts
asbeen
ubject
oheated ebatesor he ast
wentyears.
A
numberf
distinguished
ommentators
arefullynalyzed
he
ignificance
ndfunction
of his
heory
n
philosophy
f
anguage,ntology
nd
pistemology.
et,
espite
he us-
tainedfforto hed
ight
nthisnfluential
octrine,
any
uestions
emainednanswered.
Is Ockham reductionistn his ccountf he asic
tock
f
oncepts?
s
he committed
to the
osition
hat
oncepts
re omehowsimilitudesf
hings
n
theworld? oes he
provide
n
explanation
or he
rigin
f
ogicaloncepts?
hese
nd
many
more
roblems
gave
ise o
controversial
nterpretations.
n
his
highly
nnovativend
stimulating
ook,
Claude anaccio
resents
solution
o
all of
hem,
hus
rovidingcomprehensive
nter-
pretation
nd defensef
Ockham's
heory
f
concepts.
e doesnot onfineimselfo
addingome etailso anongoingebate,ut ntendso demonstratethatmostf he
current
nterpretativeisagreements
bout is
Ockham's]heory
f
oncepts
anbe set-
tled
. ]
on the asis fwhat e
actually
rote.
p.
2)
No
doubt,
hiss
a
bold
laim.
But anaccio
uccessfully
howshat
number
f
disagreements
an ndeed e settled
nd
that he
heory
ckhamefendss
not
nly
oherentndwell
rgued
or,
ut lso ston-
ishingly
imilaro
ontemporary
heories,
specially
o hosehat
ppeal
o
emantic
tomism
and
representationalism.
In
his
econstruction
nd
nterpretation
fOckham's
heory,
anaccioombinescareful
examinationf
key
exts ith critical
ssessment
f
recent
econdary
iterature.his s
certainly
he
ight
ethodo choose.
iven
he
ast mountfrecent
ublications,
t s
not
necessary
o start romcratch hen
pproaching
ckham's
heory.
or hould ne
simply
ummarizehemain
heses
n a
descriptiveay.
Whats neededs a discussionf
the roblemsnd llegednconsistenciesointedutbyrecentommentatorsa discus-
sion
hat
s
based
pon
detailed
nalysis
f
he elevant
rimary
ources.t s
precisely
to this eed hat anaccio
esponds.
e tackleshe rucial
roblems
hatM. McCord
Adams,
. V.
Spade,
.
Normore,
.
Michon,
.
Biard,
.
Karger
nd thers
mphasized
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailablenline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 175/187
378
REVIEWS
and tries o show itherhat ckham asthe heoreticalesourcesoresolvehem,r
that
hey isappear
fone
combines
ll the
pieces
fhis
heory.
etmefocus n three
problems
hat ave een t the
enterf
cholarly
ebates.
Thefirst
roblem
oncernshe
tatusf onnotativeerms.t swell nownhat ckham
takes
oncepts
o be
parts
f mental
anguage
hat ncludes
oth
bsolutendconno-
tativeerms.ut
how s
the elation
etweenhese wo
ypes
f ermso be understood?
P. V.
Spade
rgued
hat,
deally,
llthe
imple
onnotativeermsrereducibleo bsolute
ones. et his
ould ave atal
onsequences.
or
f
he dealmental
anguage
s
purged
of
imple
onnotative
erms,
here
re no
simple
elational
oncepts.
hat
s,
t has no
concepts
uch s father'r taller'. uthow anthere e
a
language
ithouthese on-
cepts,iven
hat
hey
annote constructed
xclusively
rom on-relationalnes?t seems
that ckham's
eductionist
pproach
s doomedo failure:t
gnores
he
imple
act hat
relationalonceptsrenon-reduciblendnon-eliminable.
Panaccio
onvincingly
howshat his
roblemriginates
rom false
nderstanding
f
mental
anguage.
ckham oesnot
ake his
anguage
o be some ort f deal onstruct.
Nordoeshe choose
reductionist
pproach
hen
xplaining
he arious
ypes
fmental
terms.
n
his
view,
onnotative
ermsre not
dispensable
nd cannot
e
completely
eliminated
n
nominalefinitions.or
nstance,
he
definitionf father' ould e some-
thing
ike male nimal
aving
child',
child'
eing
notheronnotativeerm.
n addi-
tion,
anaccio
oints
ut
that
n
many
ases he onnotativeerms
not
ynonymous
with ts
nominal efinition.he definition
imply
ndicatesthe
ntologicalmport
(p.
90)
of
term,.e.,
tmakes
learwhat
bjects
n
theworldre
ignifiedy
hat erm.
But hese
bjects
an be
signified
n
many
ifferent
ays.
hat
s
why
he onnotative
term annotimplyereplacedythenominalefinition.nd nfact,uite ftent s
not
eplaced
y
he
peaker
tohave
concept
s not he ame
s to
pell
ut tsnominal
definition.
This
ejection
f
Spade's
nterpretation
s farmore han
correctionf small etail.
It elucidateshe
asic
dea hated
Ockhamo ntroducehe
heory
f
mental
anguage.
His aimwasnot o construct
pure anguage
n whichll connotativeermsre
lim-
inated,
ut
o
explain
hat
ind fmentalerms
speaker
cquires
hen e or she s
n
naturalontact ith
bjects
n
theworld.
ince hese
bjects
re
lways
rdered
n a cer-
tain
way,
he et
of
mentad
erms
nevitably
ncludesonnotativeerms
hat
ignify
he
various
rderings.
t s thereforen
ontological
hesishat
urks
n
the
ackground:
rder-
ings
n
theworld
equire
ermshat
o not
imply
ignify
solated
hings,
ut he
way
they
rerelatedo each ther.
Anotherontroversialoints Ockham'shesishatonceptsre similitudesf hings
in
theworld. his
hesis akesense
n
the
ight
fhis
arly
cto-theory,
or
icta
i.e.,
special
ntitiesith
objective
eing )
an ndeed e taken o be intellectual
ictures
f
external
hings.
ut
how an the hesise understood
ithinhe ramework
f he ater
act-theory?
ow an
mentalctbe
a
similitudef
n
external
hing?
ome ommentators
thought
hat
ckhamailedo
provide
satisfying
nswer
o
this
rucial
uestion.
thers
argued
hat e
gave p
the dea f imilitude
nfavorf causal
xplanation
f
oncepts.
Panaccio
trictlyejects
oth
nterpretations.
eferring
o crucial
assages
n Ockham's
later
orks,
e showshat
he deaof imilitude
lays prominent
ole
n
the
ct-
heory.
Andhe contends
hat his deacan be
given
clear ense
f
one
compares
ntellectual
acts o
physical
cts uch s
catching
ball.When
grasp
ball,
my
ands ave cer-
tain
osition
hat itshis all
nd llother alls
hat ave he ame
hape.
ikewise,
hen
I intellectuallyraspnobject, yntellectakes certainposturehat its his bject
and ll other
bjects
hat re
relevandy
ike t.The
mportant
oint
s thatt
fits
many
objects
nd
thereby
ecomes
general
oncept:
What ransformshe
grasping
ct nto
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 176/187
REVIEWS 379
a generalepresentationsthattfitshe hape f he raspedbject,hus esemblingt
to some xtent
(p.
124).
No
doubt,
hiss an
elegant
xplanation
hat as
t
east
wo
dvantages.
irst,
ttakes
Ockham's
alk
bout imilitude
eriously
ithout
urning
t nto naive
icture-theory.
Second,
t makes lear
why
imilitudes
required
n
additiono
causality.
or
causality
relates
n act
to
a
single bject
nly,
hereasimilitudeelatest to
many bjects
nd
thereforenableshe ct o be
a
generaloncept.espite
ts
legance,
anaccio's
xpla-
nationeaves crucial
uestionpen.
n
the aseofthe
ball,
t s understandable
hy
the
osition
f hehands anfit he all:
hematerial
hape
fone
hing
hands)
anfit
thematerial
hape
f nother
hing
ball).
n
the
aseofthe
bject
hat
s
intellectually
grasped,
he imilitudes not o
easily
nderstandable.owcan the mmaterial
posture
of he ntellect
it
he
material
hape
f n
object?
anaccio
requently
ses he
xpressionposture ,nfortunatelyithoutivingt precise eaningnthemmaterialealm. hat
exactly
oes
t mean
hat
my
ntellectakes certain
osture
hent
grasps,
ay,
tree?
Does t
acquireomething
ike n immaterial
hape
f he
ree,
istinguishable
romhe
immaterial
hape
f ball r a house? nd s there one-to-oneelationetweenmma-
terialndmaterial
hapes?
t seems o
me
that he
omparison
ith manual
oncept
(p.
124)
s nformative
nly
f
hese
uestions
re
fully
nswered
questions
hat
nevitably
arise
within
n
ontological
rameworkhat
istinguishes
etweenmmaterialndmaterial
entities.
A
thirdssue hat asbeen
agerly
ebated
y
ecentommentatorsoncernshe
rigin
of
ogical oncepts.
ckham
learly
ncludeshese
oncepts
n
mental
anguage
hen e
claims
hat
hereremental
yncategorematic
erms.
ut n
what asis
re
hey
ormed?
Categorematicermsrenormallyormednthe asis f n mmediateerceptualelation
with
hings
n
the
world;
y eeing
f
tree
nables e o come
p
with he ermtree'.
But heres
no
thing
uch s
an f
thatwould
rigger
he ormationfthe ermif'.
So
how an come
p
with his
yncategorematic
erm?anaccios well ware fthis
problem.
his erm annot
imply
e formedn thebasis f
spoken
r
written
erm.
Otherwise
significantart
fmentad
anguage
ould ecome erivativef onventional
language.
hat s
why
anaccio hinkshat ckhamubscribeso nnatismi
.
these
logical
cts
orrespond
o nnate
apacitiesf
hemind
(p.
154)
his s
a
convincing
xplana-
torytrategy,
ven
f
he extsre
not
ery xplicit,
s
Panacciooncedes.t
provides
n
elegant
nswero the
uestions
f
a)
why
ll
human
eings
re ble o
acquire
he ame
stockf
ogicaloncepts,egardless
f he
bjectshey
re
n
touch
ith,
nd
b)
why
he
formationf hese
oncepts
oesnot
depend
n the
mastering
f
specific
onventional
language.n addition,his xplanatorytrategyicelyllustrateshe trikingimilarity
betweenckham'sndFodor's
pproach
o mental
anguage.
etone
hould ot ver-
look
n
importantonsequence
his
xplanation
as: t makes ckham
o some xtent
rationalist,.e.,
philosopher
ho oesnot
xclusively
ppeal
o
conceptualmpiricism ,1
butwho laimshat
significant
art
f he
onceptualpparatus
s not
cquiredhrough
sensory
xperience.
Panaccio'sareful
nterpretation
hows hatmost
perhaps
ot
ll)
exegeticaluzzles
canbe resolved.nd
he
omparison
e draws
etweenckham's
nd
Fodor's
to
ome
extentlso
Putnam's)
heory
f
oncepts
akeslear
hat heres nofatalncommensu-
rability
p.
181)
etween edievalndmodern
octrines.t s
n
fact he
ommensurability
that llows
im
o
present
ckham
s a
philosopher
ho
laborates
theory
f
oncepts
1
This s how
M. McGord
dams,
Williamckham
Notre ame:Notre ame
University
Press
987, 95,
haracterizesckham's
roject.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 177/187
380
REVIEWS
that sappealingotuttomedievalists,ut lso oanalytichilosophershodefend
representationalist,
xternalist,
ndnominalist
onception
f
oncepts.
hat
merges
rom
hisbook
s a Guilelmus
esurrectusho an
easily ngage
n discussionsith
ontemporary
thinkers.
Humboldt-Universität
u
Berlin
Dominik
erler
Richard
illingham,
De
onsequentiis
mit oledo-Kommentar.
ritisch
erausgegeben,ingeleitet
und
ommentierton
tephanie
eber.
.R.
Grüner,
msterdam/
hiladelphia
003.
(Bochumer
tudienur
Philosophie,
and
8).
xxviii 335
S.,
SBN90
6032
67
X
In derGeschichteer
mittelalterlichen
ogik
st er
ngländer
ichard
illinghamfloruit
um
1350)
weifelsohneekannt
egen
eines
raktates
peculum
uerorum
ive erminusst
in
uem.
iese
Arbeitst ine
mpiristisch
rientierte
ogik,
.h.
n
diesem
all,
ine
ogik
die besonders
ndividuelle
egenstände,
igenschaftsgraden
d.h.
die
Untersuchung
on
Sätzemit
mehr der
weniger',
um
Beispiel
Sortesst
grösser
ls
Plato')
nd
physische
Gegebenheiten
'Anfang',
Ende'
sw.)
erücksichtet.
iese
Logik
st,
laube
ch,
uf iese
Weise
ine ivalisierende
heorieu
der
uppositionslehre
es ummulisten
etrus
ispanus.
Richard
illingham
at
bermehr
eschrieben,
nter
nderenin
Traktate conse-
quentiis.
r.
Stephanie
eber at
n demhier u
besprechenden
uch uf
vorzügliche
Weise ieses
raktat
ritisch
erausgegeben
nd rklärt.
Sie hat
nicht ur as
Traktat
illinghams
n dreiVersionen
nd inen ommentaru
Billinghamsextder ichn Toledo efindet,atedral,ab. 4-27, f. 5r-90v,neiner
kritischen
dition
orgelegt
ndhistorisch
ituiert,
edoch
iesen
uchkritischommen-
tiert.
ie
gibt
weiter
inige
emerkungen
ber
illinghams
eben ndWerke.
Zum
Ersten ie
Editionelbst.
r. Weber
räsentiert
ie
Handschriften,
icht ur
diejenigen
ie zur
Ausgabe
illingham's
rbeiterwendet
erden,
edoch
uchdie
zur
Editiones
Toledo-Kommentars
um
Billinghams
raktat.iese etzte
indet
an ndrei
Versionen
Salamanca,
ibi. niversitaria
882,
f.
20r-123v;
xford,
odleian
ib.,
at.
misc.
E
100,
ff.
6r-62r; oma,
ibl.Casanatense
445,
f. 08
Ar-119v).
s
gibt
inevierte
Version
Barcelona,
CA,
Ripoll
166,
ff.
r-5r),
edoch,
wie Dr.
Weber
agt,
stder
Handschriftu stark
eschädigt,
o dass ine dition
ichtinnvolläre.
Die
Versionennterscheiden
ich
u
sehr
m inen inheitlichen
ext
bzufertigen:
er
apparatus
riticus
ürde nübersichtbar
ein.
n
denEditonen
es
Speculum
uerorumdie
vonA.Maierùn1970 nd, ufneueWeise,onL.M. deRijkn1975hergestelltind,
lässt
ich uch
iese
chwierigkeit
ehen. ast
edes
Manuskript
as inen ext es
péculums
enthält,
ibt
ine
igene
ast
elbständige
ersion.
Im
nterpretationsteil
espricht
r.Weber
um rstenen
olgerungsbegriff
mTraktat
Billinghams.
eiter ommentiert
erVerfasser
ie materielle
olgerung
§
1.2),
nddie
Definitioner
ültigen
nd
ngültigen
olgerung
mToledo-Kommentar
§
1.3).
n
diesem
Interpretationsteil
espricht
ie weiter
ie
speziellen
nd
generellen
egeln,
ie sich
n
Billinghams
raktatorfinden.
ine
Bibliographie
nd ndexe
Eigennamen
nd ateini-
sche
nicht eutsche
Begriffe)
chliessen
as Buch b.
Dr. Weber ehandelt
in
wichtiges
hema: ie
Folgerungslehre.
ie ie
auseinander-
setzt,
stdiese ehre
in neues
lement
n dermittelalterlichen
ogik.
ie
Logik
es
Aristotelesar yllogistisch,nd rientiertufTermini;ieFolgerungslehreagegenuf
Sätze,
asmehr
rinzipiell
st. ie mittelalterlicheehrestnichtuf ieder toa
basiert,
aber
besonders
m
14.
Jahrhundert,
eu entwickelt.
m
12.
Jahrhundert
ab
es
auch
Neueuntwicklungen,
ber
ieMeisteres
14.
Jahrhundert
aben iese
icht
ekannt,
ie
sie
mit
Recht
agt.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailable
nline www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 178/187
380
REVIEWS
that sappealingotuttomedievalists,ut lso oanalytichilosophershodefend
representationalist,
xternalist,
ndnominalist
onception
f
oncepts.
hat
merges
rom
hisbook
s a Guilelmus
esurrectusho an
easily ngage
n discussionsith
ontemporary
thinkers.
Humboldt-Universität
u
Berlin
Dominik
erler
Richard
illingham,
De
onsequentiis
mit oledo-Kommentar.
ritisch
erausgegeben,ingeleitet
und
ommentierton
tephanie
eber.
.R.
Grüner,
msterdam/
hiladelphia
003.
(Bochumer
tudienur
Philosophie,
and
8).
xxviii 335
S.,
SBN90
6032
67
X
In derGeschichteer
mittelalterlichen
ogik
st er
ngländer
ichard
illinghamfloruit
um
1350)
weifelsohneekannt
egen
eines
raktates
peculum
uerorum
ive erminusst
in
uem.
iese
Arbeitst ine
mpiristisch
rientierte
ogik,
.h.
n
diesem
all,
ine
ogik
die besonders
ndividuelle
egenstände,
igenschaftsgraden
d.h.
die
Untersuchung
on
Sätzemit
mehr der
weniger ,
um
Beispiel
Sortesst
grösser
ls
Plato )
nd
physische
Gegebenheiten
Anfang ,
Ende
sw.)
erücksichtet.
iese
Logik
st,
laube
ch,
uf iese
Weise
ine ivalisierende
heorieu
der
uppositionslehre
es ummulisten
etrus
ispanus.
Richard
illingham
at
bermehr
eschrieben,
nter
nderenin
Traktate conse-
quentiis.
r.
Stephanie
eber at
n demhier u
besprechenden
uch uf
vorzügliche
Weise ieses
raktat
ritisch
erausgegeben
nd rklärt.
Sie hat
nicht ur as
Traktat
illinghams
n dreiVersionen
nd inen ommentaru
Billinghamsextder ichn Toledo efindet,atedral,ab. 4-27, f. 5r-90v,neiner
kritischen
dition
orgelegt
ndhistorisch
ituiert,
edoch
iesen
uchkritischommen-
tiert.
ie
gibt
weiter
inige
emerkungen
ber
illinghams
eben ndWerke.
Zum
Ersten ie
Editionelbst.
r. Weber
räsentiert
ie
Handschriften,
icht ur
diejenigen
ie zur
Ausgabe
illingham s
rbeiterwendet
erden,
edoch
uchdie
zur
Editiones
Toledo-Kommentars
um
Billinghams
raktat.iese etzte
indet
an ndrei
Versionen
Salamanca,
ibi. niversitaria
882,
f.
20r-123v;
xford,
odleian
ib.,
at.
misc.
E
100,
ff.
6r-62r; oma,
ibl.Casanatense
445,
f. 08
Ar-119v).
s
gibt
inevierte
Version
Barcelona,
CA,
Ripoll
166,
ff.
r-5r),
edoch,
wie Dr.
Weber
agt,
stder
Handschriftu stark
eschädigt,
o dass ine dition
ichtinnvolläre.
Die
Versionennterscheiden
ich
u
sehr
m inen inheitlichen
ext
bzufertigen:
er
apparatus
riticus
ürde nübersichtbar
ein.
n
denEditonen
es
Speculum
uerorumdie
vonA.Maierùn1970 nd, ufneueWeise,onL.M. deRijkn1975hergestelltind,
lässt
ich uch
iese
chwierigkeit
ehen. ast
edes
Manuskript
as inen ext es
péculums
enthält,
ibt
ine
igene
ast
elbständige
ersion.
Im
nterpretationsteil
espricht
r.Weber
um rstenen
olgerungsbegriff
mTraktat
Billinghams.
eiter ommentiert
erVerfasser
ie materielle
olgerung
§
1.2),
nddie
Definitioner
ültigen
nd
ngültigen
olgerung
mToledo-Kommentar
§
1.3).
n
diesem
Interpretationsteil
espricht
ie weiter
ie
speziellen
nd
generellen
egeln,
ie sich
n
Billinghams
raktatorfinden.
ine
Bibliographie
nd ndexe
Eigennamen
nd ateini-
sche
nicht eutsche
Begriffe)
chliessen
as Buch b.
Dr. Weber ehandelt
in
wichtiges
hema: ie
Folgerungslehre.
ie ie
auseinander-
setzt,
stdiese ehre
in neues
lement
n dermittelalterlichen
ogik.
ie
Logik
es
Aristotelesar yllogistisch,nd rientiertufTermini;ieFolgerungslehreagegenuf
Sätze,
asmehr
rinzipiell
st. ie mittelalterlicheehrestnichtuf ieder toabasiert,
aber
besonders
m
14.
Jahrhundert,
eu entwickelt.
m
12.
Jahrhundert
ab
es
auch
Neueuntwicklungen,
ber
ieMeisteres
14.
Jahrhundert
aben iese
icht
ekannt,
ie
sie
mit
Recht
agt.
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
005
Vivarium
3,2
Also
vailable
nline www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 179/187
REVIEWS 381
Dr.Weberräsentierticht ur illinghamsheorie,ber etzt iesendenhistorischen
Kontext.
illinghams
ext stvielleicht
icht er
wichtigste
ermittelalterlichen
ogik.
Zum
Beispiel
iedes
Ockhams,
uridans
nd
Burleys
ind
mfangreicher
nd
wichtiger.
Dr. Weber ezieht
ich uch ufdiese
n hrem uch.
illinghams
raktatst
her ine
Kompilation.
anfindet
ier ichtmmerlarheiter
Gedanken,
ieman raucht.
ann
undwann eziehtie auchTeiledes
Speculum
uerorumes
Billinghams
abei,
nddas
macht
hr
Buch
ilfreichür
ieses
raktat
S. 167).
Billingham
efiniert
ie
Folgerung
itHilfe es
Konzepts
intelligitur
n : ine
ormelle
Folgerung
st
diejenige
enn
er
onsequent
erstandenirdm
Antezedent.
ie derAutor
agt,
solldiesmit
wird
erstandenbersetzt
erden,
ichtmit twa es ist
verstanden ,
eil
es ihnen m ine
Tätigkeiteht,
icht m ein
objektives
rkenntnis,
ieman s
in
der
neuzeidichen
ogik
meistenfallsersteht.
er
Kontext
er
Folgerungslehre
m
Mittelalter
ist ine ktuelleführteisputation,ft mRahmen erObligationes.illinghamehörtu
der
nglischen
radition,
achwelcher an
onsequentia
inteilt
n materialisnd
ormalis
und
mit
intelligitur
n definiert.
Wie
gesagt ibt
r.
Weber uch ineEditioninesKommentars
u
Billingham.
ies
ist
uchdarum
nteressant,
eil
manvon
diesen
ommentarenochnicht ielweiss.
DieserKommentarbertrifftesonders
as die
speziellen
egeln
er
Folgerungslehre
betrifft,
ieTheorie es
Billinghams.
Der
Autor
eht
on erhistorischen
useinandersetzung
ber u einem
ystematischen.
Dies
macht ieses uch esondersnteressant.
ie weist arauf
in,
assdie mittelalter-
lichen
ogiker
onsequentia
ichtmmertrikt
nterpretieren,
edoch
n
einem rweiterten
Sinn. as Kriterium
intelligitur
n wird
icht
eimateriellen
olgerungen
rfüllt,
ieLehre
beschränktich ichtuf ie ogischenegelnS. 161).
Das
vorliegende
uch st
orgfaltig
ndklar
eschrieben,
nd
gut
dokumentiert.
ie
Bibliographie
cheint
ollständig
nd ktuell.
an findetuchKorrektionenerSumma
Logice
es
Ockhams
zum
eispiel:
er eilüber
bligationes
st
nicht
numstritten
ckhams
(S.
150,
ussnote
4);
n S.
153,
ussnote
3
sagt
iemit
echt,
inen
orrekturvorschlag
F.
Schupps
olgend,
ass
nonin
Ockham,
umma
ogice
II-3.1
ed.
1970,
.
589,
L.
55)
gestrichen
erden
oll).
Die Editionst
guthergestellt.
ur
elten
ättech andere
esungenewünscht.
ch
gebe inige eispiele
usdie
Consequentiae
es
Billinghams
S.
30,
.5 von nten:
ch
chlage
or twas ie:sed
liqui
icunt
quod>
sti
equuntur ;
S.
45,
1.5 vonunten:
quoť
statt
quoď;
S.
45,
1. 3 vonunten:ultimo der ulteriustatt
ultimum ;
S. 45,1.2 vonunten:quando tattquod ;
S.
46,
etzteeile: achsic
atet :
et etera oll
man
esser
treichen;
etcetera
rgänzt
die
Regel
m
Manuskript,
ndhatkeine
ogische
edeutung;
S.
81,
1.9 vonunten:
singularis
ollwahrscheinlichein:
significans ;
S.
82,
1.
2
von ben:
logicali
t naturaliind
ewöhnlich
ie
Formenes
Ablativus;
S.
83,
1.
12
vonunten:tria : ohin erweisterText? rei
Bemerkungen
indet
an
nicht
m
Text.
S.
92,
1.4
von
ben:
quinqué
oll
ielleicht
ein:
sex ?
S.
94,
1.
12
vonUnten:
regulas
ollman esen tatt
regule ;
eiter:dubita
Imperativ)
verstehe
ch
nicht;
S.
98,
etzte
eile,
inVerb ehlt ach
quod ;
S.
100,
.
4
von ben: oll
manhier
ichtesen
wie
twa:terminůmtaremmobiliter
<est>quando ?
In
der ditiones
Toledo-Kommentarsat
Dr.
Weber
inige ragezeichen
nden
Text
eingeführt,
o
siedas
Manuskript
ichtesen onnte.ch habediese
extprobleme
on-
trolliertit er
Handschrift,
berkann iekorrekten
esungen
uchnicht
eben.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 180/187
382
REVIEWS
Noch ineKorrektion:nter enArbeitenillinghamsrwähntr. Weber ine ogica
(S.
xxiii,
r.
13).
Auf .
321
gibt
ie weitere
etails. as von
hr
rwähnte
anuskript,
München,
ayerische
taatsbibliothek
Clm
4385,
f.
107v-112r,
nthält
ichtine
Arbeites
Billinghams,
uchnicht
in
Traktat o
Billinghams
hemenus dem
Traktat
peculum
puerorum
ehandelt
erden,
ieDr. Weber
agt,
onderninKommentar
u dem
peculum
puerorum.1
Zusammen
efasst:
r. Weber at in
ehr
mpfehlenswertes
uch
erfasst.
Universität
eiden
E.P.
Bos
1
Das
ncipit
IRCA
MATERIAM IBRI BILIGAM
Circa
materiam
resentis
ibri
rimo
idetur
ueri uid
it ubiectumuius t
propria
passio;
ecundo
uid
it uctor
uius
ibri;
ertio
uid
it
tilitas
uius
ibri,
cilicet
uare
studetur;
uarto uid
it
ytulus;uinto
t <ultimo>
uid
unt ause
cientie
uiusibri.
Ad
primumespondetur:
oc
omplexumpropositiorobabilisespectu
ermini
mme-
diati
n
ea
positi ,
t
propria
assio
ius st verumelfalsum
robabile .
t icet
n
ibro
Topicorum
tiam
abetur,
arnen
on atione
rimi
ermini
ediati
Das
Explicit
t si diceretur.i
sta
st oncedendahomo antum
urriť,
unc
sta tiam
est oncedendahoctantumurriť,espondetur.erumst, tquando iceretur.arnenlla
hoc antum
urriťnfert
Mmg)
stumtantumomo
urriť,
uia
non efert
reponere,
respondeturuod
non efert
reponere
icet
uoad
erminům
ingulárem
arnenefert
uoad
alium
erminům,
uia
bi hoc antum
urriť,
y
curriť on
distribuite,
ed bi
tantum
hoc
curriť,
bi
y
curriť
istribuitur,
t
ergo
efert
reponere.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 181/187
Books
Received
Albertus
agnus, pera
mnia.omus
Pars A:
Superorphyrium
e V
universalibus,
d.
M. Santos
Noya.
Aschendorff,
ünster. Westfalen
004
xxv
201
pp.
ISBN
3
402 04752
Cahierse 'InstitutuMoyen-Âgerect atin75 2004),20pp. SSN 0591-0358.ontents:
S.
Pedersen,
heTreatise
n he
ising
nd
ettingf igns
scribedo
RogerfHereford
D.
Bloch,
he
Manuscriptsf
he e sensu nd he e
memoria;
hr.Schabel
R.L.
Friedman,
rinitarian
heology
nd
hilosophical
ssues
V]
. Rosier-CatachSt.
Ebbesen,
etruse
AlverniaBoethiuseDacia
Syllogizantemonendum
st
erminus;
Addendat
orrigenda
oCIMAGL
8,
71, 72,
74
Richard
ross,
uns cotusnGod.
shgate,
ldershot
Burlington
005302
pp.
SBN
0 7546
1402
[Hbk]
403
Pbk]
Documentistudiulla
radizione
ilosofica
edievaleXV
(2004)
03
pp.
contents:.
Cerami,
The ristotelian
nalysisf
Generation:
hysics
and
Metaphysics
Luna,
lessandro
di
Afrodisia
Sirianoul ibro della etafisica:ecnicastrutturael ommento
A.
Longo,
Siriano i
precedentire-
ristoteliciel
rincipio
ella
ontraddizione
A. Uña
Juárez,EstudiontroductoriolaQuaestioe deis e anAugustin.latonismomedievomodernidad
M.
Sebti,
ne
pître
nédite
Avicenne,
a
calluq
l-nafsi-l-badan
De
'attachemente
l'âmet
du
orps):
dition
ritique,
raductiont nnotationR.M.
Marcotte,
a conversionar-
dive 'un
hilosophe
Abü l-Barakãt
l-Baghdãdr
mort
ers
45/1150)
ur
L'intellectt
sa
quiddité'Al-£Aql
a
mãhiyyatu-hu);
.
Endress,
If
Godwill
rant
e
ife».
verroes
the
hilosopher:
tudiesn he
istory
f
His
Development
M.D.
Giovanni,
verroes
n
the
Doctrine
f Genus
s
Matter;
.
Piug
Montada,
ustancia
forman
Averroes;
D.L.
Black,
odels
f
he
Mind:
etaphysical
resuppositionsf
he
verroistndThomistic
Accounts
f
ntellectionG.
Galluzzo,
quinas
nthe
tructure
f
Aristotle's
etaphysics;
G.
Pini,
bsolutaonsideratioaturae: ommaso
'Aquino
t a dottrinavicennianael-
l'essenza
M.
Bertagna,
a divisio
extus
el ommentoi
Egidio
omano
gli
Analitici
Posteriori.arteII M. Pickavé, etaphysicss a Firstcience:he ase f eteruriol
A.D.
Conti,
a
conoscenza
el
ingolare
n Walter
urley;
.
Amerini,
homas
quinas,
Alexander
f
Alexandria,
nd aul
f
Venicen he
ature
f
ssence;
ndiceei
manoscritti;
indiceei omi
Franciscana.olletinoella ocietà
nternazionale
i tudi
rancescini,
I
(2004)
i 381
pp.
SSN
1129-230X
ontents: .
Rusconi,
rancesco'Assisila
politica:
l
potere
elle
stituzioni
e l'annuncioella
ace vangelica
F.
Simoni,
'immagine
i Stanislaoi Cracovioella
ro-
duzione
torico-letterariaraXII e XIII
secoloD.
Ruiz,
e
manuscript
L. . 18
(258)
de
l'Archivio
eneralees rèresineursonventuels
Rome;
.
Cadili,
frati
inoriell'an-
tipapa
iccolò
;
E.
Casteen,
ohnfRupesscissa's
ettereverendissime
ater
1350)
n
the
ftermathf
he
lack eathM.T.
Dolso,
manoscrittiella ronicaXIV
Generalium
Ordinis
inorum;
.
Rossi,
frati
inoriVeronael recento:a
un'indagine
ui
esta-
menti:A.B.Langeiii,ettereiPaul abatierCostantinoontani
Stephen
ersh,
eading
lato,
racing
lato. rom ncient
ommentary
o
Medieval
eception.
Ashgate,
ldershot
005
SBN 0 86078
69
1
(Variorum
ollected
tudies
eries)
Giraldusdonis
.F.M.,
Operahilosophica
Volume wo: e intentionibus
by
L.M. de
Rijk.
Brill,
eiden Boston
005
xi
894
pp.
SBN
90 04 11117
©
Koninklijke
rill
V,Leiden,
005 Vivarium
3,2
Also vailablenline
www.brill.nl
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 182/187
384
BOOKS
RECEIVED
Christopherellard,roiret avoir.es rincipese a connaissanceelonicolas'Autrécourt.
Vrin,
aris
005
313
pp.
SBN
2
71161735
1
Itinérairese a
raison.tudes e
philosophie
édiévale
ffertesMariaCândida
acheco.
Éditées
ar
J.F.
Meirinhos.
IDEM,
Louvain-la-neuve
005
XV
444
pp.
SBN
2-503-51987-3
ontents:
rêface'ibliographie
eM.C.Pacheco
Cerqueira
onçalves,
Medievalidade
Crise
u
Hiato?;
.
Hamesse,
propos
e
uelques
echniques'interprétation
t
de
ompilation
es
exts.
araphrases,lorilèges
t
ompendia
O.
Weijers,uelques
bservations
sur
esdivers
mploys
uterme
isputatio;
.A.R.
Nascimento,
hysique
t
mathématique
d'après
n
assage
e a
Physique
Aristo
e;
.M.
da
Cruz
ontes,
l Cristianismo
nteos
valoresulturales:
ashesitacionese a
Patrísticaasta
a
síntesis
gustiniana;
.R.
Guerrero,
La teocraciaslámica:
onocimiento
política
n
l-Fãrãbi;
.P.
Montada,
tica
política
n
Averroes;
.L.L.
de
Oliveira
avier,
nselme
tBonaventure.u
sujet
e
'argument
u
Proslogion;. Bourgain,'art oétique'Abélardans H mnariusaraclitensis;h.
Burnett
D.
Luscombe,
New
tudent
or
eterbelard.he
Marginalia
nBritish
ibrary
Ms Cotton
austina
.X;
.
Meirinhos,
essiner
e
savoir.
n chémaes
ciencesu
XIIe™
siècleans n
manuscript
e
anta
ruz
e
Coimbra;
.
Dahan,
'
Eccléstiaste
ontrelistóte
Les ommentaries
e ccl
,
13
et 7-18 u
XIIe tXIIIe
iècles;
.
Poppi,
'itinerarioonaven-
turiano
lla
lenitudo
apientiae
raant'AntonioDuns
cotoelleollationes
n
Hexaëmeron;
B.
Faesde
Mottoni,
isioni
rivelazioni
el e exteriorist nterioris
ominis
ompositione
i
Davide
i
Augsburg
M.
Toste,
obiles,
ptimi
iri,
hilosophi.
he ole
f
he
hilosopher
inthe
olitical
ommunity
t the
aculty
f
ArtsnParisn
the ate hirteenth
entury;
.A.
de C.R. de
Souza,
edroe
João
Olivi,
.Min.
1248-98)
os imiteso
oderapal
a
esferaemporal;
.A.De
Boni,
ante: canto
XXIII oParaíso.
problema
a conclusão
daviagemooutroundo;.Maierù,Tmaginatioanuductiva»:ogicateologiarinitarianPietroi
Pulkau;
.
Bertelloni,
ristótelesn lRenacimiento.
Sobre
n
apítulo
el
eriplo
el
corpus
ristotélico);
.S. de
Carvalho,
es
passions
ertueuses?
ur a
réception
e a doc-
tyrine
homiste
es
assions
la veille
e
'anthropologie
oderne;
.
Parcerias,
'événement,
a
vérité
haotique
t e
retoure a
difference:
n tinéraire
ntologique
eWhitehead
Jean
e
Ripa,
à
traverse
concept
e
difference;
ndexes
Johannes
uridanus,
ummulae:e
practica
ophismatum,
ntroduction,
riticalditionnd
indexes
y
F.
Pironet.
repols,
urnhout
004
lix
193
pp.
SBN
2
503
51720
Anthonyenny,
New
istory
f
Western
hilosophy
VolumeI: Medieval
hilosophy.
larendon
Press,
xford
005
xvii 334
pp.
SBN 0 19
875275
Alain e
Libera,
étaphysique
t
noétique:
lbert
e Grand.
rin,
aris
005
31
pp.
SBN
2
7116
1638
X
Logiknd heologie.asOrganonm rabischenndm ateinischenittelalterherausgegebenon
D. Perler nd
U.
Rudolph.
rill,
eiden
Boston
005
vi 511
pp.
SBN 90 04
11118
Luigi
Munzi,
Multiplex
atinitas.
esti
rammaticali
atini
ell'Altoedioevo.
apoli
004
105
pp.
SSN
1128-7217
AION.
Annali ell'Università
i
Napoli
L'Orientale'.
ipart.
di studi
el mondo
lassico
el Mediterraneo
ntico. ezione
ilologico-letteraria,
Quaderni
)
contents:
ditions
f:
Quae
unt
uae
nd
Aggressus
Claude
anaccio,
ckham
n
Concepts.shgate,
ldershot
Burlington,
T
2004
xi 197
pp.
SBN 0 7546
3228
Les
elationsulturelles
ntre
hrétiens
tmusulmans
u
moyen
ge.
uelles
eçons
n irer
enos
ours?
Colloque
rganise
la Fondation
inger-Polignac
Paris)
e mercredi
0
octobre
004,
Actes
dités
ar
Max
Lejbowicz.
repols,
urnhout
005
166
p.
SBN
2
50351803
6 (RencontresédiévalesEuropéennes,) contents:M. Cazeaux,ntroduction;
R.
Brague,
a-t-il
u u
Moyen
ge
n
ialogue
ntre'islamt e
christianisme?;
.
Piatti,
Bagdad
Beauvais
Bruges;
.
Jolivet,
es raductions
e 'arabe
u atinu
XIIe
ièclet
es
prémices
'une
ouvelle
hilosophie
e
'esprit
M.
Lejbowicz,
éveloppement
utochtonessumé
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 183/187
BOOKS
RECEIVED 385
et cculturationissimuléeR.Arnaldez,'amourhezes oètesrabest esmystiquesusul-
mansKh. Abou
Diab,
Lesmutationse 'islamismet eurs
mpactséopolitiques
P. Le
Pautremat,
n
slam,
es
ommunautésusulmanesnFrance
;
A.
Besançon,
onclusion
Christian
ode,
ranciscoe
Prato.
acetteneiner
hilosophie
mBlick
uf
Hervaeus
atalis
nd
Wilhelmckham.ranz teiner
erlag,Wiesbaden-Stuttgart
004
316
pp.
ISBN
3 515
08508
Sacrisrudiri.
Journal
n henheritance
fEarly
ndMedieval
hristianity
43
(2004),
13
pp.
SBN
2
503 51479
contents:
.
Leemans,
od ndChrists
Agonothetae
nthe
Writings
f
Gregory
fNyssa;
.
Courtay,
ouvelles
echerchesur a transmissionuDe
Antichristoe
érôme.
P.
Meyvaert,
he uthentic
ialoguesf
Gregoiy
he reat.W.
Verbaal,
Eros m
Kräutergarten:
ine
piritual-pädagogische
ektüreon
Walahfrid
trabos
ortulus;
D.
Bauer,
he ontent
f
anonicalollections.method
f
istorical
nterpretation
L.
Saraceno,Solitudinecomunione:a dimensioneneumaticail ruolocclesialeel harismaremitico.
RomualdoPier amiani
ra harisma
istituzione,
.
Karfiková,
omo
pus emporis.
Die
ewigkeit
nd
eit
ach
er
osmographia
es ernardilvestrisG.
Dinkova-Bruun,
Notes
n oetic
omposition
n he
heologwal
choolsa. 1200 nd
he atin oetic
nthology
from
s.
Harley
56:A Critical
dition
C.
Wollin,
ie
Troiagedichte
es etrus
iga
nden
Carminaurana
CB
102und
B
99a);
.
Portalupi,'ipocrisia
econdoommaso
'Aquino:
analisi
ei emmi
ypocrisieshypocrite;
pera
d redactionem
ransmissa;
ndexodicum
C. Sirat tM.
Geoffroy,'origine
rabeu
rand
ommentaireAverroesu De
anima 'Aristote.
Prémicese 'édition.
rin,
aris
005123
pp.
SBN
2
7116
1749
1
(Sic
et
Non)
Gerard
ontag,
uns
cot. a
métaphysique
e a
singularité.
rin,
aris
005
238
pp.
SBN
2-7116-1729-7
Bibliothèque
es
philosophes)
Voces14 2003) 96pp. SNN1130-3336ontents.a.: A. Cizek, euerkenntnisseberden onatusmetricusnhandes
ehrgedichts
ovusGrecismusonradsonMure
A.
Grondeux,
orpus
icitur
uidquid
ideur t
angitur:rigins
t
njeux
'une
éfinition
E. Pérez
odríguez,
rimiclerus:
studioeun
neologismo
ispánico
R.
Miguel
ranco,
Relacionese
oder
n a
correspondencia
e
Agustín
e
Hipona
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 184/187
/';-=09 )(8*
=-0/']
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 185/187
/';-=09 )(8*
=-0/']
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xliii, No 2, 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-xliii-no-2-2005 186/187
Contributionshould e
submittedn
duplicate
ndbe
accompaniedy
n electronicext
(Microsoftord)
ithern disk r as
an email ttachment
[email protected]).Manuscriptshould e writtenneithernglish,renchr Germanndthe extmust
be
grammatically
orrectnd
n
good iterary
tyle.
he
manuscripts
ust e
numbered
consecutively,
ouble-spaced,
nd
complete,
ncluding
ll
notes,
ibliographical
eferences,
tables,
tc.
An
English
bstractfno more han
00wordshould
ccompany
our
ubmission.
Authorseceive
alley roofs
or
eading,
hichhould e returnedo the
ditor ithin
oneweek f
receipt.ageproofs
reread
y
he
ditor.
The
publisher
eserveshe
ight
o
charge
uthors
or
hanges
ade o
proofs
therhan
correctionf
ompositor's
r conversion
rrors.
Vivariums indexedabstractedn: Artsnd Humanitiesitationndex; ibLing;urrent
Contents;
ietrich's
ndex
hilosophicus;
ndex
o
Black
eriodicals;
nternationale
ibliographie
der eitschriftenliteratur
us llenGebietenes
Wissens;
nternational
ibliography
fBook
Reviews
f
Scholarly
iterature;
nternational
hilosophy
ibi.;
inguistics
nd
Language
Behavior
bstracts;
athSci;
iddle ast:Abstracts
Index;MLA;
M L
A International
Bibliography
f
Books
Articles
n theModern
anguages
nd
Literatures;
ld Testament
Abstracts;
eriodicals
ontents
ndex;
hilosophers
ndex;
eligion
ndex ne:
Periodicals;
Religion
ndex wo:Multi
uthor orks.
©
Copyright
005
y
oninklijke
rill
V, eiden,
he
etherlands
Koninklijke
rill
V
ncorporates
he
mprints
rill cademic
ublishers,
Martinus
ijhoff
ublishersndVSP.
All
ights
eserved.
o
art f
his
ublicationay
e
eproduced,
ranslated,
toredn
a retrieval
ystem,
r ransmittedn
ny
orm
r
y ny
means,lectronic,
mechanical,
hotocopying,
ecording
r
therwise,
ithout
rior
ritten
permissionf
he
ublisher
Authorization
o
hotocopy
tems
or
nternal
r
ersonal
se s
granted
by rillrovidedhatheppropriateeesre aid irectlyo
Copyright
learance
enter,
22
Rosewood
rive,
uite
10,
Danvers,
A
01923,
SA. ees re
ubject
o
hange.
PRINTEDNTHE ETHERLANDS