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)

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)

Dans cette question sur le livre II des Sentences, Guiral Ot demande si la créature, avant sa création, a un être propre, distinct de celui du Créateur : d’une part, Dieu crée ex nihilo ; avant la création, il n’y a donc rien, hormis Dieu ; d’autre part, Dieu connaît et veut de toute éternité ce qu’il produira avant de le produire ; les créatures ont bien un être-connu et un être-voulu en Dieu. Pour répondre à cette difficulté, Duns Scot (...) avait admis un être possible et un être relatif des créatures dans la pensée divine. Mais, avec plus de subtilité encore, Guiral Ot aperçoit neuf manières pour les choses d’être dans la pensée divine avant d’être créées. C’est le déploiement de ces modes d’être ainsi que leur articulation que nous révèle l’édition de cette question. (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.

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)

_ 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.