Le franciscain Guiral Ot inclut, dans son commentaire sur I Corinthiens, des questions discutées aussi dans son commentaire sur l’ Éthique et dans ses questions parisiennes sur les Sentences (1327-1328). Cet article fournit une tabula quaestionum des commentaires de Guiral Ot sur I Cor. et sur l’Épître aux Galates, ainsi que l’édition de deux questions, l’une tirée du commentaire sur l’ Éthique et l’autre des questions sur l’ Éthique et sur les Sentences. Une analyse révèle que les lectures sur I (...) Cor., données à Toulouse entre l’automne 1323 et le printemps 1326, ont suivi la composition du commentaire sur l’ Éthique, également rédigé à Toulouse, probablement pas avant l’année universitaire 1322-1323. (shrink)

The Quaestiones super Physica Aristotelis traditionally attributed to Iohannes Canonicus survive in over 35 manuscripts and at least 8 printings from 1475 to 1520. Yet historians have disagreed about the century, the place of origin, the name and the institutional position of the author. This brief paper combines old and new evidence proving that the text was authored by an Augustinian Canon Regular of the Cathedral of Tortosa named Francesc Marbres, a Catalan from Barcelona, while he was Master of Arts (...) at the University of Toulouse around 1330. (shrink)

This article offers the first critical edition of the most important version of Francis of Marchia's famous question 1 of his commentary on Book IV of the Sentences, in which the Franciscan theologian puts forth his virtus derelicta theory of projectile motion. The introduction attempts to place Marchia's theory in its proper context. The theory might seem to us an obvious improvement on Aristotle, but rather than an immediate and complete break with tradition that all scholastics quickly adopted, Marchia's virtus (...) derelicta was more a stage in a gradual process that had begun many decades before and did not find universal acceptance among his first successors. Moreover, Marchia himself did not take the theory to what might seem the obvious conclusion that Jean Buridan would draw, because Marchia employed the virtus derelicta to explain more phenomena than just projectile motion. (shrink)

Cet article propose une édition critique des questions 7-9 de la Lectura sur les Sentences (Oxford, 1332-1333) de Thomas Bradwardine, où sont abordés la grâce et le mérite avant la publication de son monumental De causa Dei en 1344. La plus longue des trois, la question 7, a également été attribuée à Richard FitzRalph. Après avoir examiné les arguments en faveur de l’attribution à Bradwardine, l’article démontre comment le futur archevêque de Cantorbéry commençait seulement à réagir aux tendances pélagiennes dont (...) il avait été témoin l’année précédente. (shrink)

This research note identifies for the first time the principium on book I of the Sentences by the prolific polymath Henry of Langenstein. This discovery, when combined with the four principia of the Augustinian Denis of Modena, provides the evidence necessary to demonstrate that Langenstein lectured on the Sentences at Paris in 1371-1372. The note also establishes the identity of the other eight bachelors of theology who participated in the principial debates that year.

Building on the recent scholarship of Bonnie Kent, Christian Trottmann, and especially L.M. de Rijk, this volume gathers together studies by other specialists on Odonis, covering his ideas in economics, logic, metaphysics, ethics, natural ...

Himbert of Garda was a little-known Franciscan theologian who studied at Paris around 1320 and probably served as Francis of Meyronnes’ secretary. His commentary on the Sentences provides precious insights on the development of Franciscan thought at Paris, connecting Francis of Meyronnes’ refined presentations of doctrine with raw academic debates between bachelors and masters in the Faculty of Theology. An appendix presents Himbert’s discussion of intrinsic degrees in Book I d.36, and both redactions of his treatment of the formal distinction (...) in the context of the divine attributes in Book I d.8, as well as parallel texts from Francis of Meyronnes. A second appendix provides a full question- and citation-list for Himbert’s commentary on the Sentences. (shrink)

Since 1991 the Franciscan Francis of Marchia, master of theology at the University of Paris (fl. 1320), has begun receiving his due attention as an exciting and innovative thinker. This volume examines his doctrines in cosmology, physics, metaphysics, ethics, and politics.

This article offers the first critical edition of the most important version of Francis of Marchia's famous question 1 of his commentary on Book IV of the Sentences, in which the Franciscan theologian puts forth his virtus derelicta theory of projectile motion. The introduction attempts to place Marchia's theory in its proper context. The theory might seem to us an obvious improvement on Aristotle, but rather than an immediate and complete break with tradition that all scholastics quickly adopted, Marchia's virtus (...) derelicta was more a stage in a gradual process that had begun many decades before and did not find universal acceptance among his first successors. Moreover, Marchia himself did not take the theory to what might seem the obvious conclusion that Jean Buridan would draw, because Marchia employed the virtus derelicta to explain more phenomena than just projectile motion. (shrink)

Pierre Duhem and Eugenio Randi have investigated the later-medieval history of the problem of whether the existence of more than one world is possible, determining that Aristotle's denial of that possibility was rejected on theological grounds in the second half of the thirteenth century, but it was Nicole Oresme in the mid-fourteenth century who gave the strongest philosophical arguments against the Peripatetic stance, opting instead for Plato's position. For different reasons, neither Duhem nor Randi was able to examine Gerald Odonis' (...) question on the subject. In this text, edited here, Odonis also opposes Aristotle for philosophical reasons and sides explicitly with Plato. Was Oresme aware of Odonis' opinion? (shrink)

Pierre Duhem and Eugenio Randi have investigated the later-medieval history of the problem of whether the existence of more than one world is possible, determining that Aristotle's denial of that possibility was rejected on theological grounds in the second half of the thirteenth century, but it was Nicole Oresme in the mid-fourteenth century who gave the strongest philosophical arguments against the Peripatetic stance, opting instead for Plato's position. For different reasons, neither Duhem nor Randi was able to examine Gerald Odonis' (...) question on the subject. In this text, edited here, Odonis also opposes Aristotle for philosophical reasons and sides explicitly with Plato. Was Oresme aware of Odonis' opinion? (shrink)

This article presents a critical edition from the six surviving witnesses of Landulph Caracciolo’s , Scriptum in I Sententiarum, d. 23, a text that has never appeared in print before. A short introduction begins to set Landulph’s treatment of intentions and intentionality in this text into its historical, philosophical, and theological context, in particular linking it to the positions of John Duns Scotus and Peter Auriol.

The famous Epistola Luciferi, written in late 1351 or early 1352, caused quite a stir in the Avignon of Pope Clement vi, quickly became a medieval best-seller, and thereafter remained topical, being copied and printed down to the present day. Traditionally ascribed to Nicole Oresme or Henry of Langenstein, the letter was attributed to the Cistercian Pierre Ceffons by Damasus Trapp in 1957. Trapp merely took Ceffons’ authorship for granted, however, and in the most thorough study of the Epistola Luciferi (...) and of the entire genre of Devil’s letters, her 1982 PhD dissertation, Helen C. Feng rejected the attribution. Presenting codices and works of Ceffons of which Trapp was unaware, this article argues in favor of Ceffons’ responsibility for the Epistola Luciferi, while offering a new critical edition of the letter, an English translation, and a supplemental list of manuscripts and editions. (shrink)

In Lyon in 1497 Badius printed the Sentences questions and other material attributed to the Dominican Robert Holcot, active at Oxford in the early 1330s. It turns out that the so-called De imputabi...

In Lyon in 1497 Badius printed the Sentences questions and other material attributed to the Dominican Robert Holcot, active at Oxford in the early 1330s. It turns out that the so-called De imputabi...

Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale, Volume 62, Issue, Page 335-338, January 2020.

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 1-2, pp 126 - 175 The famous _Epistola Luciferi_, written in late 1351 or early 1352, caused quite a stir in the Avignon of Pope Clement VI, quickly became a medieval best-seller, and thereafter remained topical, being copied and printed down to the present day. Traditionally ascribed to Nicole Oresme or Henry of Langenstein, the letter was attributed to the Cistercian Pierre Ceffons by Damasus Trapp in 1957. Trapp merely took Ceffons’ authorship for granted, however, (...) and in the most thorough study of the _Epistola Luciferi_ and of the entire genre of Devil’s letters, her 1982 PhD dissertation, Helen C. Feng rejected the attribution. Presenting codices and works of Ceffons of which Trapp was unaware, this article argues in favor of Ceffons’ responsibility for the _Epistola Luciferi_, while offering a new critical edition of the letter, an English translation, and a supplemental list of manuscripts and editions. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 340 - 359 Gerard of Abbeville was a secular master of theology at the University of Paris and a contemporary of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure. In the context of reviewing Stephen Metzger’s new two-volume book on Gerard, this paper first adds some new information about Gerard’s early career, notably concerning benefices he claimed in Saint-Omer, Tournai, and Amiens. Afterwards, the salient features of Metzger’s volumes are presented: his placement of Gerard in his institutional (...) context; his characterization of Gerard’s doctrines of wisdom, knowledge, and contemplation in comparison with those of Gerard’s contemporaries; and his editions of texts. In the end, the chronological repercussions of maintaining that Vat. lat. 1015 reflects the original sequence of Gerard’s _Quodlibeta_, Metzger’s future focus, are discussed. (shrink)

The first of two volumes on special theological disputations from ca. 1230-1330 in which audience members asked the era's greatest intellectuals questions de quolibet, "about anything." The variety of the material and the authors’ stature make the genre uniquely fascinating.

The second of two volumes on special theological disputations from ca. 1230-1330 in which audience members asked the era’s greatest intellectuals questions de quolibet, “about anything.” The variety of the material and the authors’ stature make the genre uniquely fascinating.

This article examines the author, date, place, sources and reception of the Quaestiones libri Physicorum by the Catalan Augustinian Canon Francesc Marbres, usually attributed to “John the Canon.” The Quaestiones are perhaps the most influential philosophical work by an Augustinian Canon in the university era. From Barcelona, Marbres became a Canon of Tortosa Cathedral, a Master of Arts at Toulouse, and an advanced student in theology, probably at Paris, where he died. In his Quaestiones, compiled around 1330, his main sources (...) were works, primarily Sentential commentaries, by Franciscan theologians active at Paris from John Duns Scotus to Gerald Odonis. The Quaestiones survive in only two fourteenth- century manuscripts, described here, but at least 37 manuscripts and eight printings from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries attest to its later reception, which is traced down to the present day. Appended to the article is an annotated question- and citation-list. In part II of this... (shrink)

This is Part II of a two-part study on the questions on Aristotles’ Physics by Francesc Marbres, the artist commonly known as “John the Canon.” Although written around 1330, only two fourteenth-century manuscripts preserve the work, but it became so popular around 1450 that dozens of fifteenth-century manuscripts containing the work survive and it was printed eight times from 1475 to 1520. Here the manuscripts and early prints are described, and then an attempt is made to trace the tradition of (...) the text using structural differences, the colophons and variant readings in the question-titles and small passages. These three sets of data turn out to be insufficient for constructing a stemma; instead they provide evidence of extensive contamination, suggesting that many scribes and printers employed more than one witness. This conclusion reinforces what we learn from marginalia and from information about the Oxford curriculum: the questions on the Physics by the mysterious “John the Canon” played an active rol... (shrink)

This is Part II of a two-part study on the questions on Aristotles’ Physics by Francesc Marbres, the artist commonly known as “John the Canon.” Although written around 1330, only two fourteenth-century manuscripts preserve the work, but it became so popular around 1450 that dozens of fifteenth-century manuscripts containing the work survive and it was printed eight times from 1475 to 1520. Here the manuscripts and early prints are described, and then an attempt is made to trace the tradition of (...) the text using structural differences, the colophons and variant readings in the question-titles and small passages. These three sets of data turn out to be insufficient for constructing a stemma; instead they provide evidence of extensive contamination, suggesting that many scribes and printers employed more than one witness. This conclusion reinforces what we learn from marginalia and from information about the Oxford curriculum: the questions on the Physics by the mysterious “John the Canon” played an active rol... (shrink)