Franciscan Studies

SOURCES FOR OCKHAM'S PROLOGUE TO THE SENTENCES Medieval scholars have long known the influence, either positive or negative, of certain authors on the thought of William of Ockham. Quite naturally the presence of Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, John Duns Scotus and Peter Aureoli could surely be counted upon. In studying the Prologue of William's Commentary on Book I of the Sentences we have found that such expectations have not been frustrated: these outstanding men have left their trace, even in these early questions. Less expected was the discovery of a fair number of minor authors whose works are still unedited : John of Reading, Richard of Conington, Robert Cowton and William of Alnwick.1 John of Reading appears in question 3 of William's Prologue, where the Venerable Inceptor discusses the nature of the distinction between a property and its subject. He quotes Reading verbally, picking pieces here and there from the second question of his Prologue to the Commentary on the Sentences. Richard of Conington shows up in the fifth question of Ockham's Prologue. The discussion centers on the middle term in a demonstratio potissima. Once more Ockham quotes his source verbatim, and here he provides lengthier citations, taken from Richard's Quodlibet I, quaeslio 1. In the tenth question of William's Prologue, where Ockham asks if only operations of a sensitive power can be considered as praxis, we meet Robert Cowton. Cowton's Prologue to the Sentences, question 7, is quoted verbally and at great length. The arguments Ockham culls from Cowton's work differ solely in their order from the text of Cowton conserved in Oxford, Merton College, cod. 93, f. 26. Finally, in the twelfth question of his Prologue, Ockham introduces William of Alnwick as the chief defender of the speculative nature of theology. Here Ockham abandons his tendency to quote verbally and simply summarizes the arguments found in the second question of Alnwick 's Prologue to Book I of the Sentences. Once, however, the argu1 Guillelmus de Ockham, Scriptum in I Sententiarum. Opera theologica (St. Bonaventura, N.Y., 1967) I, 130—131 (John of Reading); 15g—162 (Richard of Conington) ; 277·—-279 (Robert Cowton) ; 325—328 (William of Alnwick) . Ockham's Sources37 ments of Alnwick himself are examined and their excessive length is noted, it becomes evident that Ockham was forced for sake of brevity to cut them short. There are perhaps other figures who appear in William of Ockham's Prologue, e. g., William of Ware and Richard of Mediavilla seem present, but here we are on less certain ground. We have picked out the four we mentioned (Reading, Conington, Cowton and Alnwick) because their identity is certain and they are cited at such length. An edition of the question quoted by Ockham from each of these four authors would provide us with a good background for understanding the position of Ockham himself. For this reason we will edit these four questions in a two-part article. In the present part we will edit the questions of John of Reading and Richard of Conington. In part two (Franciscan Studies, 1967) we will publish the questions of Robert Cowton and William of Alnwick. John of Reading When E. Longpré discovered a partial Commentary on Book I of the Sentences belonging to John of Reading in the Biblioteca Nazionale of Florence, he examined it quite closely. He found in Reading the first Scotistic critic of the nominalism of Peter Aureoli and William of Ockham, and he placed the Commentary of this 45th Franciscan lector at Oxford between the years 1319—1322.2 The discovery that Ockham himself cites Reading forces us to reconsider Longpré's conclusions. Evidently, Reading is not only an Ockham critic ; he is also an Ockham source, and his Commentary on the Sentences must be studied carefully as the sourcebook for other questions of Ockham's Senetnces. Furthermore, the dating of Reading's Sentences must be recomputed. The most plausible solution would be that Reading made two redactions of at least part of Book I of the Sentences. The first redaction would be the one quoted by Ockham; the second redaction would be the one which...