vivarium - vol 35, nos. 1-2, 1997

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-35-nos-1-2-1997 1/324
by
Periodicals
Service
Company
Germantown,
NY
2010
Printedn cid-free
CONTENTS OF
Madison,
Wisconsin
Jeremiah
Hackett,
Roger
Bacon
and
Aristotelianism:ntro-
ColumbiaSouth
arolina
duction
129
Costantino
Marmo,
Bacon,
Aristotle
and
all
the
others)
on
Bologna
Lewis
Europ.
53
(ff.
1ra-85rb)
nd
Roger
Bacon
177
Rega
Wood,
Roger
Place of
{JoëlBiard)
125
M.C.
Garand,
Guibert
e
Nogent
t
es
ecrétaires
{E.
Saak)
126
medieval
latonism,
n
argument
ecently
onfirmed
y
Paul
Dutton,
hat
task,"
derived
irectly
rom
he
Timaeus
ndCalcidius'
ommentary. )."
When
onsidering
he
exact
meaning
f
ohn
f
alisbury's
questions,
ommentary
what extent
hylen
necessitatem,
explicitly
The
Aristotelianerm
THE FUNCTION
thefirst
tage
Quia
8 In Timaeo1bforxamplelato eferso the acthatnythinghat as ome o be
must e
f
matter,
.e.
the
proto-
types
all without
vae:
"Passiones
ccipit
hie
frigiditatem,
iccitatem,
t
ceteras.
Humectatam
dicit,
non
humectam,
Fire,the hotand fiery lement, trives y its natureupwards, nd earth,
the solid
us
an
p.
76.
12
When
eferring
and
there-
(í
ecessitas
in
a
reciprocal
manner;
maenativae
n
the
first
hase
of
hyle'
Calcidius,
by
them-
selves,
Bernard
reminds
no
other
principles
outsidethese
three,
scilicet
deus,
hyle
n
accordance
with this t is consistento think hat theformae ativae hatwere actual
already
n
the
ante
hase,
had
become
corporeal
hings.
phase
we
shall
analyse
in the next section.We can formulate he exact question ikethis: How
does the
ualities
of
matter,
nd
call
the
mother
nd
receptacle f visible nd sensible hings ither arthor air orfire rwater,
nor
lacra of
element,
Docet
uae
n
psahyle
ommutentur,
cilicetaec
uattuor
lementaría,
uae
quasi
partes
yles
onsiderantur.
t
hoc
est:
gnita
turns,
depends
that t receives.
opment
Calcidius
explains
n
chapter
272
molded and informed
First
f
all,
intelligible
le-
ments
we are familiar.
philosophy,
according o which an entitymade from hecombination f the intelligi-
bilis
pecies
Bernard's ntimate
another et
of the
the generatioecundathat is, the generation f the sensible world made
present
by
the
formae
nativae.
21
Dutton'sormulations
an
apposite
nation
f
he
ntelligibilispecies
nd
hyle.
or
Fire tself."
that
estque
usus
on
the
verybeginning
formae
lation, nd what s their xactontological tatus?These are the essential
questions
hat
guide
miro
When a
230-2.30
formae
ter
s
arranged
world,
ill
28
On
the
hartrian
echniques
into
proper.
Descending
emergence
f
corporeal
hings;
econd,
the
corporeal
hings
mentsdo not ever occur
them.32
et
us
examine
this
point
more
closely.
In
passage
solve
and
evaporate
The drcuitus
gives
hem.ee
Timaeus,
0d.
32
ee
e.g.
Timaeus6d-ewhere
resocratic
hilosophy
f
appears
constantly
The
deas and the
virtue
of
the
elements,
we
identify hings
one of them and asks
what it
Timaeus.n orderto look at this,we go back to passage 50a.
When
Plato
gives
us
in
passage
50a
permission
o
designate
he
recep-
tacle
by
the
shapeless
and
unqualified
receptaculum
but
we look
with his ernard
receptive rinciple
Idea of Fire
8:
313-7).
The immutable dea of Fire itself,which exists n God's mind, s incom-
municabilis
given
thatthat
s
so,
it
development,
e
says
that
he
sequently,
n
the
part
nature
of
the
material
principle
nd
the
concept
of
fire,
water,
arth
and air before hebeginning f the worldand what their tatewas then"
(48b).
him
to
explain
the
subject
more
closely.
concept
things,
hat
"rctaxvcDH-evn
ma"
translated
y
Calcidius
y
the
erm
that,
without
acrificing
he
principles
f
Platonic
hilosophy
nd
by
means
of
the
formae
atiuae
rogramme,
on
passage
48b-d.
hatwe talk bout these
mixed and visible lements s thoughwe knew what truefire s.43 hen,
after
glossing
lato's
una
Speer,
ie
entdeckte
atur:
ntersuchungen
u
Begründungsversuchen
inercientiaaturalis
THE FUNCTION
Bernard
to
comprehend
hat
the
ntelligible
deas
existing
ternally
son cannot
reach. For
nationsee 8: 244-5; : 264-99,nd8: 366-8. ee alsoCalcidius,n Tim.ap. 47 ed.
J.
Waszink,
1986
Gregory,
ullio,
ote
ul
platonismo
etween
1230 and 1245, the Tractatus as an enormous cademic success. t was
quickly
dopted
of
Spain
and
his
Tractatusn
Canto
XII
(134-135)
"Introduction,"
articularlyp.
XCV-CX.
As
De
Rijk
ndicates,
of
Spain,
author
be Portuguese, nd identifies im as Pope JohnXXI.6 For thisreason,
the historians f the Dominican
Order,
papal
historians,
nd
both
Span-
Tractatusnd
the
Divina
Commedias
groups
nterested
n
the
identity
f
n
determining
hether
Peter
of
Spain
was
a
or
that
Juliani
physician
dentity
This paper argues n favor fthe Dominican thesis. must dmitfrom
the start
nvestigation
hichrefers
of
our
investigations
a
member
of the Dominican Order are much stronger han those which identify
him
as
Pope
John
XXI
(even
stronger
han
those
supporting
account
more
than
700
second
difficulty
profile
which
graphical profilewhich allows us to considerhim the author of the
Tractatus
10
In
it was
example,
n
o
future evisions, he traditional ntellectual rofileof Petrus uliani s a
10
author of
any
authorof the
Tractatuso determine
tory
enough
to
point
is included n a cantowhichtellsof theglory f SaintDominic and the
13
Roma
1970-1978,
ol.
I,
p.
188.
14
rd
d.,
10th
epr.,
irenze
994, .
169.
15
Martìnus
olonus,
oc.
it.:
Et
pontificalemignitatem,
orum
uadam
toliditate
deformabat,
deoutnaturali
ndustria
roparte
arere
ideretur";
acobus
e
Voragine,
Chronicon
muenseed.
Muratori,
erum
talicarum
criptores
X,
col.
52:
"De
cuiusmorte
modicumcclesiaeamnum
uit,
uia
cesco
ipino,
PETRUS ISPANUS
Dominicans,
he
identifications.
inclu-
author nd the
concerning
16
have
theologicalworks,
no
figured
ophy,
the
true
thatthe
tes-
mentators f
believe that
is Pope JohnXXI, nor is there nythingo makeus doubt thetestimony
of
filosofìain
teologia."
21
Commento
lla
Divina
ommedia'anonimo
iorentino
book
in
his
hands,
and
seated
beside
St.
Thomas.
Among
the
early
commentators
nd
n
2.
accepts
Spanish
of
Spain
as
"fiater"
nec-
dotal
though
t
may
be
(the
Tractatus
anuscript,
rfurt,
mplon.
F.
263,
fourteenth
entury).29
Preachers,
s
well).31
Second,
magister
or
"fiater"
was
heated,
was decided that
des
l.
Thomas
on
quin
in:
Xenia
Thomistica,
ol.
II,
1925,
taries
Ferrara,
ationesractatuum
PETRUS ISPANUS
the
copy-
The
fourth
art
of
"obvi-
f Peter
ut
why?
One
possibility
might e thatthe authorof the Tractatus as nota member fthe Order
of
Preachers,
theDominicanonventfEstella. havenot
works
f
Ambrosio
Thegio,
lodius,
acobus
runusa
Scigliano,
uanMiguel
alsonote .
PETRUS ISPANUS
exclusively
reason,
it
previous
tive
s
"writers,"
ut
instead,
Tractatuss
not
surprising.
n
the
final
part
ences
Spain
was
still
iving
t
this
for
econd,
the
member of
claim.
Bernard
Guy's
round
1304,
a
date
by
was deceased. This work constitutes revision nd continuation f the
works f Gérard de Frachet nd Etiennede
Salagnac,
and
many chapters
province
f
Provence
from
province
of
Toulouse. To do this, t relies on the materialprovided by Gerard de
Frachet,
but
presents
first
aints
to
determine
can
"positions"
ather
han
work,
nd
within he Dominican
there xisted clear distinction etweenacts of composition nd acts of
compilation.53
ow,
with
hindsight,
pay special
Masters
nd
provincial
riors,
Peter of
With
regard
an
ascription.
ut
can
and
that
his
ascription
not
require
explanation.
Only
of
all
the
religious
rders,
lfonsi,
yspanus,
cripsit
um-
mulasogicales,"n:TabulacriptorumrdinisraedicatorumCatalogustamsensis),efore
1311,
ublished
quod
PETRUS ISPANUS
bears
the
nscrip-
tion:
prologo:
Edidisti
tem
uperimi
nno
rgutas
ane
nterpretation
fin,
ice:Eodem
tiam
empore
reditor
loruisse
r.
etrus
ispanus,
uctor
ummularum
ogices,
anc-
tus
omo,
t
n
rtibus
issertisimus*
uenta
llí
uetif
eel
sepulcro,ue
dition
through
son to identifyhis"Petrus ispanus" a son of the conventofEstella and
there
buried,
sepultado,
o esmucho o constee frayedroHispano;ntes e éste onsta or a
inscripción
already provided
the entire
a native
Thesis,"
attempted
o
Preachers amed
ing
no
chroniclers ho limit hem-
selves to a transmissionf the basic informationf the existence f the
tomb.
buried there.
zar write
as
Baltasar
orió,
Antonius
Conceptione
enensis
usitanus,
erafino
Razzi,
Juan
de
Marieta,
A.S.
Peregrino,
Alfonso
Fernández,
and
Ambrosio
Altamura
ll
enta,porque en esse año aun no estava fundadoel conventode Estella,
ni
They
Peterof
Spain
t
Estella,
write
to
at
Pisa
(which
s
probably
based
mony,
ladolid
does
f Luis
de Valladolid, hat s to say,the belief hathe committed mistake aused
by homonymy,
was
Order
of
Preachers
Luis de
Valladolid's attribution
Order
collaborators ere still live. s it notpossible hattheauthorof the Trac-
tatus
nd
the
for
with Pedro
falsity
Convent
saurum
auperum
a
recognized
they
are
mistaken.
n
any
case,
PETRUS ISPANUS
ith
Pope
John
XXI.
times
referred
o
as
John
XX,
the
Tractatus.
hy,
hen,
does
he
question
especiallymanuscripts
Spain
O.P.,
renown fJohnXXI, uncovered he character f the authorof the works
contained
n
the
various
manuscripts,
nd
explained
the
exceptional
uc-
cess
of
fourteenth
enturies
here
certainly
existed
large
number
of
writers
amed
mong
them.
When,
and
by
whom,
was
authorship
f
works f
demand revision
manuscripts
are
not
easily
found.
To date, I have not found single estimony ritten efore he nven-
tion of
entury.
commentaries hich
78
Chronica
ed.
Pertz,
Monumentaermaniae
istorica,
criptores
XII,
p.
443:
"Iohannes
XCVII.
1276.
ohannes
igesimusprimus,
atione
ispanus,
nno
omini
il-
sibi itae
MCCCXIV),
simus
rimus,
atione
ispanus,
cohortarentur,
t
pace
nter
e
nita,
rma
n
Saracenos
videantur.escio
uo
pacto
ixi,
ummirum
otius
mnibusideri
ebeat,
t
qui
con-
templatione
electatur,
dem
PETRUS ISPANUS
timo ia dio
X,
omnia
erebantur,
egatos
um
d
Palaeologummperatoremonstantinopolitanum
isit,
canoni i
1635,
p.
152-60
p.
152b):
D
Pedro
uliam,
u
Hispano,
do
nome,
75
Arcebispo
de
Scripsit
anquam
hilosophus
Medicuseleberrimus:ummulas
ogicales,uibus
rtis
flexiones
diverticula
xtricare
roclive
PETRUS ISPANUS
seem to
reach back
which attributes he authorship f the TractatusoJohn XXI seems to
have a late and
of
Preachers
of
the
Syncategoreumata
he
persists
n
using
he
same
identification.
s
far
s
I
know,
not
provide
reasons
I
have
already
ndicated,
following
e
Rijk,
that
a
great
number
of
Tractatus
anuscripts
Library
n
Milan
which
reads:
dred
existingmanuscripts
light
and
a
standard
n
The absence of deliberate eferenceso PopeJohnXXI in the Tractatus
manuscript
radition
ontrasts
o
Spain,
f the Tractatusollected
by Mullally and in view of the descriptions hich he offers s), seven
attribute he Tractatuso
nos.
3
and
44).
These
numbers
re
not
veryrevealing
when
one
explicitlyncorporate
PETRUS ISPANUS
were
printed
etween
1512
and
1527.
nabular editionof the
to
think hat t could in factbe Trutvetter ho is responsiblefor the attri-
bution of the
ques-
tion,
but
in
any
case,
gives
an
unquestioned
ttribution
ciation
of
Peter
of
Spain
tus and
of its
concerning
o
the
dentity
dissemination
In
searching
verify
mypath,but I will imitmyselfo an account of the information hich
I
believecould
it,
that
some-
one who was converted o Christianitys well as to members of the
Order who
the
("
of
substantial
orms
resent
The
problem
the
propositions
hat
were
condemned
be
rejected
n
the
ground
entury
ofGhent's
uodlibet.
hey
were
uppressed
years
earlier,
hat
s,
Among
article
oncerning
he
unity
13
he
dates
hich
enry
rovides
re
ccording
o
the
asteralendar.ee
Wielockx,
Apologia
82
and89.
14
Henry
f
Ghent,
uodlibet
ing
and
questioned
bout
his
stance.
First,
n
substantial orm
Among
the
persons
when
I
discuss
the
standing
a brief
logy
assessed
the
degree
21
Wielockx,
pologia,
69draws
parallel
J.W. rijverseds.),
995,
217-28,
ndCensurend
eresy
His
sole
argument
ests
on
the
assumption
hat
Henry
of
Ghent
used
Thomas
Aquinas's
exact
wording
when
characterizing
he
theory
on
a
distinct
nvestigation
f
Thomas
Aquinas's
ofa privatenature nd hence was no formal ondemnationn the debate
over
the
unity
f
form.
Third,
cardinals
Thomas Aquinas had submitted o the udgment <rbitriumof the theo-
logians
at
that
prior
meeting
of he
by
in
another
way.
1277
inquiry
concerns
views
opiniones
processat Paris takingplace that can be accurately haracterized s an
investigation
plied
n
1277
and
that
he
is
reporting
earsay
videncewhich
probably
irculated
when
he was at theRoman Curia as a theologian f the Sacred Palace {lector
palatii
.30
gation
s,
believe,
nfounded.
30
Pecham
which
Tempier's
plans
were
aborted.
t
is
important
of
hearsay
vidence
dicitur)
Aquinas's
views,
pending
there.
Finally,
Thomas
Aquinas's views n 1277 are connectedto an event that musthave oc-
curred
his
mind,
Initiation265.
32
During
he
pring
f
1270,
ohn
echam
ncepted
t
the
University
f
Paris,
here
he
n
a forum f his fellowmasters f theology t theUniversityf Paris. We
may
afely
ssume
decision
n
the
controversy
support
thesis
Knapwell
aintained
criticism.
he
purpose
of
convenient
and
rhetorically
killful
ay
to
clear, however,
referring
to
in
the
condemnation f 1277 at Oxford.However, s I mentioned bove,it also
appears
as
1277.43
f
seen
in
this
ight,
40
Glorieux,
es
remières
129.
41
Wielockx,
utour415.
42
hat Bourret's ocumentneed
not be taken thatway. It is uncontested hat the 1325 revocation on-
cerned the
thirteenth
entury
s,
whether
it
munication.51
he
debate
any
Thomisticheses.
49
CUP
It is
fora freediscussionn the schoolsof all those articles f Tempier's syl-
labus
aborted
hrough
ntervention
y
1277
ral,
ndeed,
o
ook
theaccused be informed bout thecharges nd to be allowedto respond
to them.The
to the
with
ssessing
in
the
nquiry
gainst
evidence
gives
examined
enizy's
iews
pon
he
rdersf
the
bishop.
articles hat had been
error of Giles's theses. Thus, the proceedings againstGiles of Rome
unfolded
n
two
stages.
Since
originally,
he
articles
nd
Giles's
responses
73
The
body
role f hancellor,asters,piscopalourt,ndpapal ourtncensuringalseeachingt
Henry
John
Pecham
refers,
s
probably
hat
point
in
the
proceedings
when
the
bishop
took
over
the
dossier nd made his aborted ttemptobring t to an end. This occurred
during
he
vacancy
He made
fourteenth
entury
appeal
recant,
he
nationof the crucial role of the recantation; euocatioin the disciplinary
procedures
used
to
per-
sisted n his refusal o recant the 51 errors, nd ifhis processhad been
brought
o
completion.
the
Rome concerned
positions
seemed
ripe
for
reconciliation.
erhaps,
Giles
of
Rome
waited
so long because he thought hatPope HonoriusIV might end a more
favorable
ar
to
him
promoveri
Unfortunately,
owever,
of Rome.
Contrary o what he had sworn,he had defended ositions hatwere on
the
early
as
1271-73,
ositions
that ere eld yGiles fRome.None f heseositionsater eturnedn the ist f51
charged
rrors.
fter
eading
ook
of
Giles's
ommentary
n
hree ecu-
lar masters, e receivedmuch of his higher ducation t Paris. Yet since
almost
that Paris
had a
years
as
regent
master.
Since we knowhe left aris n 1342,we can place hisregency rom1334
to
1342,
his
determination,
icensing,
nd
inceptionprobably
n
1334,
and
his
years
as
a
student
Ökonomica
Hamburg
718,
57;
Helmut
bach,
ebennd
chriften
esKonrad
on
egenberg,
ürzburg
of
maturity
nd
reedom
uggested
y
his
escription
f
his
move
o
Erfurt:
religious rders,
both mendicant
degrees
n
university
rts
faculties.
On
the
other
hand,
training
quivalent
system
f
philosophical
nstruction,
for
Greyfriars.9
bury,
employed
Franciscan
ecturers
o
provide
mendicantorders.
By
the
middle
of
ed.
J.M.
Canivez,
ol.
ll,
Louvain
935,
30-4
Oxford
chools
Oxford
984,
97.
10
W.J.
ourtenay,
chools
nd
cholarsn
Fourteenth-Century
ngland
Princeton
provincial
evel
Paris
by
the
he kind of instructionhat ed to uni-
versity egrees n theology nd canon law was of a technical, cholastic
naturethat
differed
n
around
ccording
own
monastery
nd
abbot,
for
training
particularly
cute
appointment
t
St.
Bernard,
he
nor-
mal
source
of
financial
upport
t
his
level,
f
needed,
St.
Bernard
whateverhe thought seful hat he picked up in his own trainingn the
arts
faculty.
n
no secular
college apart from he Sorbonne or Navarre had a library o rival that
of
qualified
mately
17
inancialesources
and
the
records
the
proctor
of
ntry
orMar.
11,
terGrimerius
onifacii
AUP
propter
onum
acts
t
ex
communiensu
mbarum
artium
While
in
Avignon,
tion
of
candidates,
at Paris untilDecember 1339, 1but inasmuch as fewnames of regent
masters
ppear
in
that
record
n
the
previous
hree
months,
December337 ntil
of
CONRAD F
MEGENBERG 111
When
Conrad
versity
rivileges
n
February
1340.
Privileges
What we do see
incepted
n
1337),
in
May
or
June
of
that
year,
and
incepted
under
Conrad
in
upported
is
appeal
of
Constance,41
in
39
AUP
onrad,
considered
oward
mic
career,
t
is
reported
114 WILLIAM
studies or
financial easons
ever,
the rtsmagisterium.e used t todescribehat e attained hen e nceptednarts
( receperam
rocessu
aureamoctoratust
octennuusedis
ubernator
ilectus
niversi-
tatis
ilius
onorabar ),
o
himself
draft
r
nterrupted
he
normal
sequence,
it wouldbe possiblefor a draft extto have been realized without ne's
actuallyhaving completed
of bachelor of
Urban
118 WILLIAM
authorfound n
Ockham's
position
s
Aristotelemt
Commentatorem.
Nunc
utem
oquendohysice
faculty
ath
based
and
Mellissus,
eeVat.
at.
1087,
in
those
at the
discussed
directly.
n
any
event,
the
contentof
the
While therecords etween anuary nd December 1338 are lost, hefail-
ure of Conrad's
or
during
he
previous
cademic
year,
unlikely
Conrad was involved t that tage. t is likely, owever, hat Conrad had
returned o
mistae
n
1340
proves
ittle,
ince
ardly
ny
names
f
regent
asters
re
isted
n
that
egister
etween
August
nd
December
339.
71
Thiswas
one allowed
natural
philosophy.
72
or
cholarly
iscussion
74
Ökonomica
II,
tr.
1,
ch.
12,
p.
47:
surguntque
iseri
uidam,
ui
e
numquam
ig-
nosnoverunt
iscípulos
t
quod
enitus
esciunt
ocere
resumunttque,
uod
ondolendo
refero,
ales
obilibus
ngeniisocius
eductores
uam
doctores
reficiunt.
ramaticam
indignis
olestant
erisibus
ffirmantes
uod
nulla
artium
y
Conrad
was
ply
a
description
revised n the summeror fallof 1341, in which,parallel to numerous
passages
n
Vat.
lat.
1087,
any-
one
who
belonged
of Orvieto
at the
the oaths.84 ow Conrad would
have reactedto the
political nergy
W.J.
ourtenay,
FIDEM,
ouvain-la-Neuve
994,
ili +
574
p.
Textes
t
chezMaître
ckhart,
. Ghisalberti
propos
Guillaume
'Ockham),
es
uestions
e
ogique
les
bligations
hez
Guillaume
'Ockham
par
P.
Müller,
a
signification'objets
maginaires
els
ue
athématique
théologie
près
cot.
Whewell aw
causis. his does
in
1270s,
translations,
about the
manner
reached Paris.
more,
1240s
and
to
the
the New
Rufus,
Bonaventure,
ohn
Pecham,
Thomas
Aquinas
and
also,
perhaps,
Rufus,
The
sequence
of
papers
in
a
brief
reviewof
the
requirement
f
Manuscript
tudy
we have here an
Place
n
Englishphilosophy
n
INTRODUCTION 1
are found
critical ext
for Bacon's
advocate
of
the
Bacon does.
Roger
Bacon.
In
a
pin?
a
pointless
xercisefor
ny
comments.Bacon was an
trine
f
place,
however,
specially
n
the
Opus
ertium
would
seem
to
have
caused
his
condemnation
thinking
commission
f
1277.
In
Astrology
Order
n
1278.
Aquinas
and
probably
Agent
ntellect.
on the actual role Bacon
played
in
the
complex
that would be
ground
from
which
he
summulist
orm,6
acknowledged
natural nferential
disparate
stration,
nd
assigned
Analytics
tries
ignum.
a
trend
efinition hich erved s model to Albert s the fol-
lowing: "Signum
"representational"
15
e
doctrinahristianaII.
1.1.,
d. .
Martin,
urnhout
962,
2
Corpus
hristianorum,
Series
atina,
2).
16
nferential
igns
note
would have
ignum
nd
an
intelligible
mages
of the soundsof hislanguage, nd these are probably he words notaehat
lack
words-
ignal
2
As
note
1),
1-7;
double
nature.
A
signstands n a double relation: ne to themeaning or thing ignified),
and
transcr.
y
J.
Goering,niversity
f
Toronto,
ho
s
preparing
he
ritical
ditionnd
kindly
llowed
t
significare
alii, arneni non it ui ctu ignificeturon st ignumnactu ed npotentiaan-
tum.
DS
1.1,
1)
According
o
Bacon,
significat
tutum,thocnomenhomo' alis ei. lla tamen elatiouaeest d illum ui ignificat,
quandoque
st
ermanens,
significat
general
features
and
playsa fundamentadole in Bacon's definition f the sign. Taking into
account this
144 COSTANTINOARMO
In DS
quently
evantfor
classificationf
signs,
nd
can
ifference
first indofnatural igns.But thiswould be unfair. he firstype f natu-
ral
signs
s
characterized
y
its
inferential
ature,
which
is
based
clause,both n theological nd logicaltraditions, as used to express he
meaning
igns
loci,
nd
compares
ts
examples
passage
I
just
quoted.
But
a certain
hing, ignifies
lso the
an iconicsign,or (in DS' classification)s thecause of an effect:lso in
this
ase
the
species
ustbe
present
n
the
speaker's
mind
the
image
(token)
f
that
the world
s in
adeo
n
aliis
cripturis
nveniriolet.
hilosophus
junctively
i.e.
in
a
proposition
with
and
of
them,
ccording
o
Xllth-centuryheologians,
ad
a
principal
meaning
which
loci toto niversali
ppositis
SD
11.336,
230),
while
t
in
otics
ppears
154 COSTANTINOARMO
a theoreticallyentralrole,57 ut as a matter f fact he mainlydraws
his
considerations
where he arguesthatplace is the inner imitof a containing ody.1For
instance,
he
place
of
of
place
his Communiaaturalium?
Especially n the last two worksBacon too is much concernedwith the
1
Aristotle,
hysics
Book
V,
especially
liber
rimusommunium
aturalium
Parts
II
and
V,
ed.
R.
Steele,
xford
911
Communia
naturalium
I).
The
two
For,
although
nowhere
n
the
Physics
ristotle
uggests
ofplace in thePhysicss limit, .e., surface, f a containing ody.
In
the
Categories
ristotle
ives
no
explicit
definition
f
place;
in
fact,
he
tion o the
ontinuous
uantities.
or
the
parts
f
a
body ccupysome lace,nd heyoin ogethert a commonoundary.o the artsf he lace
occupied
y
thevarious
arts
of the
clear that uch
place
of
a
body
s
the
region
of
imension
to
place.
quantitative
a
three-
dimensional
lace,
whereas
n
q.
1
1
containing ody,
as Aristotle
states n PhysicsV; (ii) thatplace is something lse from surface, s
Aristotletates
n
the
Categories.
ccordingly,.
10,
of a
containing ody
cientific
evolution
Cambridge
981,
-147.
8
The
questions
re
notnumbered
n
Delorme's
dition.
n
this
dition,
he
uestions
I refero astoq. 10andq. 11 re t183,in. 6-185,in. 1 nd185,in. 2-187,in. 7
respectively.
9
Questiones
ltereì
V,
q.
10,
(i or tans) re in factspecificallynd essentiallyhe same thing.Yet, in
the
Questiones
rime
ference oes
pletely
ifferent.
ere,
the
objection
stantieelatioet>
comparatio
inds
f
quan-
tity
s
taken
seriously,
hen
argument
S)
cannot
a
body
Bacon
in
things
Every
surface
learlybelongs
philosophy
know
very
well
Questiones
ltere
place,
f the
lace.
That
is,
ducing
a
third
dimension
containing ody
Bagliani
eds.),
tudi
ul
XIV
ecolon
memoriai
Annelieseaier
Roma
1981,
7-72.
17
Bacon's
osition
n
he
uestiones
located
n
it,
a surface nd
body.
Yet,
uestion
trumocusabeatrinamimensionem
See
Questiones
rime
IV,
ed.
cit.
above,
i.e.,
a
conflicting
iews
of
place
in
the
Categories
having
threedimensions
a
place
third
dimension.
n
short,
Bacon's
clarified,
tarting
inwhichense he
distance
f
water
and
the
does
not
2),
according
siders he interval
possible
candidate
out
is
only
be
understood
n
a
very
trong
ense,
namely
n
body
located
in
it.
23
On
licet ertiaimensio
willing
o
accept
located
body
ocatingody,
by
Bacon's
analysis
assumes that the
Roughly peaking,
more,
the
dimension
hrough
tradizioneilosofica
edievale,
(1991),
43-466;d.,
Le
questioni
ul
ibro
this work was
dimensional
lace
in
ody.
,29
Bacon adds some short rguments resented y the exponents f this
position,30
ut,
fromhis
report,
adopted
by
theory
that
ccording
owhich
lace
has
third
imension,
.e.,
depth
body,
containing ody;
adopt
the
is
I
say,
herefore,hat,
f
he
containment,
mmobility
nd
depth.34
passage just quoted, but a very mportantmodification as been intro-
duced
here.
For
having
depth
lterehe means
thatplace does have a depth, althoughnot in its own right, ut in a
derivative
way,
since
it
body.
In
the
passage
Ibid.,
83,
in.
0-184,
in.
place
in
the
Categories
39
Categories
in
connection
with
the
requirement
f
place
of
having
a
respect
o
the
depth
ofplace as twodimensional uantity avingust a relation o the depth
of
species
of
quantity f a surface, ince it has no quantitative ropertieswhich dis-
tinguishes
quantitative
property,
ut
a
relation.
This
This
It can be remarked
willbe prevented. acon himself as been, ifnot the creator, ertainly
the most authoritative
come
to
an
end
place
as
two-dimensional
extension,
place
is
as
the
located
body,
as
the
place
In
fact,
this
theory
njoyed
a
great
fortune
n
the
Faculty
to
have
belonged
o
Francesco
Petrarca,
has
recently
een
brought
o
the
*
the
middle
f
the
fourteenth
entury
to the
incompleteness
anony-
De
differentia
nd
the
De
longitudine
Adam
f
Buckfield
at
364,
366,
the ommentaries
anuscripts
fBuckfieldommentaries
cf.
onati,
hysica
1
1
80-81,
Trifogli
see
other
Aristotelianommentaries
y
the
English
master,
commentary
n
Phys.
probabilerigine
nglese
egli
Donati,
aumvorstellungen
mMittelalter
before
pproximately
270.18
n
particular,
he
questions
set of
included
n
Bacon's
accidere
orruptionem
rincipii,
ut
ecundum
debitam
roportionem
f
passages
former
potentiality
f
matter
owardsdifferent
effects:
R,
I,
q.
54,
1
3,
in.
4-1
4,
in. :
Ad
bjectum
e
oc
quam
llud;
lio
modo
ppropriatur
irtusommunis
er
otentiam
ctivamn
mate-
ria
xistentem,
uia
n
materia
utrefacta
st
diversa
otentia
ctiva.
This solution s reported yCliffordn his own treatment f the same
argument:
by
virtue
f
concurrence:
accidens,
efficient
ause,
Clifford
introduces
he
position
dvocated
by
Bacon
vel
gens
on
ntendensllud
uod
ccidit
er
ui
perationem;
t
deo
nonnecesse
relationship
Bacon,
can
be
safely
too
much
concern
for
originality.24
3.
Roger
acon's
Questions
n
Phys.
problematic
ort.
For,
as
already
noted
n
the
introduction,
he
affinity
23
Given
he
lose
ffinity
hich
inks
acon's
uestions
t s not
in
mind.
f
the
nonymous
ommentary
s
only
turylearly
hows,
=
qq.
84-85
(=
postponed
o
Book
V
(not
preserved
n
Ph),
since,
of Book
withthe Aristotelianextnor to be related n any way to thepreceding
questions
n
time,
the
suspicionmight
be
justified
cipaliter
eterminat,
deo
uaestiones
emotu
sque
d
quintum,
eservamus...
30
questions
y
what
willcall
explanatory igressionsf there are any, are exactlythe same. (2) The
logical
structure
mallyiscussedy he ommentatorsnBookII. For list f he uestionsf he om-
mentary
ttributed
o
Henry
f
Gent
f.
R.
Macken,
ibliotheca
anuscripta
enrici
eGandavo
Leuven/Leiden
979,I,
1100-1
12;
of
the
section
concerning
hys.
I,
3
in
both
commentaries;
ere
concrete xamplesof them. The first xampleis taken from he discus-
sion of
principium
otust
tatus
er
e
etc.,
icet
status
diffinitio
aturn
aptitudine
tnon
n
actu.
is almost dentical
sandi,
Ph
prefers
he
expressions
causa
in
habitu
capability
o
laugh
which
is
The second example s takenfrom he discussion bout the natureof
chance
and
luck.
Starting
romAristotle's
ccount
33
intentionem;
rgo
dens;
et
est asus el
trast
between
class
just
described.
will
try
to
Ph
R
Ph34
5)
R35
(5)
5
Ph41 4) R42 (3) 3 0 1 0 0 0
Ph42
3)
R43
(2)
2
0
1
Ph44
5)
R45
(5)
4
0
0
0
1
1
Ph45
7)
R46
(6)
Ph50 4) R51 (4) 4 0 0 0 0 0
Ph51
4)
R52
(3)
3
0
1
i.e.,
corresponding
assages
result
but
tions,
for
n
the
ogical
tructure
5
out
predominate
n
almost
ll
just mentioned ccurringn the treatment fPhys.I, 3 Ph and Bacon's
commentary,
lassification,35
Tertio trum
<Queritur>
trum
empusossit
bstrahi
mathematico.
<QS>
Quod
ic:
ommutata
roportiootest
probari
e
that the
But,
time,
the
possibility
f
considering
ime
ndependently
f
continuous
uantity.37
(2)
The
second
example
is
arallel
assage
s,
of
ourse,
the
compositum
Again,
however,
rom
theyfully
onfirmhe
results
f
and
clearlytestify
o
a
close
relationship
etween
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 35, Nos. 1-2, 1997
a)
that
they
represent
wo
different
Certainly,
o
definite
able
1)
the
38
f
ny
iterary
refinement,omeracesf ral tyleuch s the se f he econderson.or ome xam-
ples,
nBook
I,
throughout
the
whole
nationof elements akenfrom ifferent
lar
expected
Commentaireur es entencese
Yet,
given
the
very
y
and Bacon's
anonymous
ommentary
r,
more
precisely,
bout
the
scope
the
par-
ticular ause on the otherhand,we find a rathervague reference o a
future
ommentary
solve)
this
question
o
e
is
talking
bout
when
n De cáelo t mundoo which the discussion bout the
quali-
Metaphysics
the
present
tense
inquiritur
s
ambiguous);
thirdbook of the
Metaph.
ll,
his
commentary
n
Metaph.
own
course,
do
seem
to
provide
some circumstantialvidence or t.As to the fact hat he three eferences
do
liquo ujusmodi,
quod
hoc
ntelligendum
st
nisi
en-
tury
poor
qual-
ityof the text n the firstection,which, ccording o him, s character-
ised
by
gaps,
transpositions
simply
etain
elorme's
ssumption
ith he
R, II,
quoniam
Bacon's commen-
taryby the answer to the arguments uodnon since, as in Ph, in this
worktwo
distinct
rguments
re
discussed:
too,
what
at
first
sight ppears to be onlyone arguments in fact the resultof an omis-
sion which has
in
minori
i.e.,
exceptionally),
in the
cases
in
whichthe action of their auses is hinderedn someway. (b) The second
class is formed
of this second kind
aequaliter
<QS2R>
Ad
The
argument
same in quantity aequale),must also exist. n both texts hisarguments
rejected
indeterminateauses.
This
explanation
s
missing
n
Bacon's
commentary,
where
only
the
general
tatements
introduced.Given
the
elliptical
har-
acter
part
of
the
part
of
change
and
stasis
n
natural
beings,
identical
with
nature;
As
to
Bacon's
commentary,
found
n
the
question
whether
s
coming
libetsince theycome to be only exceptionally.Nor does it belong to
beings
coming
to
be
in
the textof Ph, however,the finalpart as preserved n Bacon's com-
mentary
71ra,
in.
2-59;
f.
R,
q.
Q.
12
<Quid
sit
natura>
n
generatiser
propagationem
Q.
21
Utrumormaubstantial
itnatura
Ph,
f.
7
vb,
in.
17-36;
f.
R,
q.
22,
91,
lin.
-31).
Q.
22
Utrum
ormaccidentalis
Ph,
Q.
27
Utrumbstrahatbstractione
uae
Q.
articularis
imo;
f.
R,
q.
58,
115,
Un.
3-116,
n.
2).
Q. 58 Si <casus> it ausaper e velper ccidensPh, .73rb,in.1 ab imo-73va,
lin.
7;
cf.
R,
q.
Q.
64
Utrumit
n
pueris
ropositum
lativum
el
practicum
Ph,
Q.
cipii
Ph,
Liber
II
Q.
1
<Utrumubstantia
ossit
xtendi
145,
in.
16-146,
in.
6).
Q.
in.
8-149,
lin.
1).
Q. 7 Si infinitumit npotentia.. an sit npotentiaura n sit bi liquidmix-tum e actu
Ph,
.75vb,in.16-40;f.R,
q.
Q.
25
Q.
f.
77rb,
in.
-38;
f.
R,
q.
ntelligamus
nfinitum
Ph,
f.
77va,
in.
6-67;
Q.
Q.
triusque
Hn.
9-202,
in.
1).
Q. 26Utrumneait n oco Ph, f. 9vb, n. 1-80ra,n. ; cf.R,q. 26,202,Hn.
22-203,
n.
1).
Q,.
27
Utrum
uperficies
it
locoper e, Ph, .80rb, n. 3-40; f.R,q. 31,207,Hn. 9-208,n. 5).
Q.
32
Utrum
Q.
Q.
Q.
uid
int
ecundum
enus,
t
primo
trumint
ubstantiael
accidens
Ph,
compositi,
Q. 77 Utrumempusit nanima t nsubiectoPh, .83rb, n. 0-18;f.R,q. 76,
248,
Un.
1-249,
n.
6).
Q.
utrum
posset
sse
ine
nima
(Ph,
dum
rius
t
posterius.
trum
empus
it
Q.
92
comparatione
of the most
earned Bacon's
the Arabs he felt strongneed to come to terms nlywithAverroes.n
mathematics
studii
heobgiae
c.
4,
n.
86,
Bacon
explicitly
onsiders
his
view,
asking
held that
God has onlyone idea, ust as he has one essence.8 ycontrast, ugustine,
5
exemplar
mnium
erum.
7
Bacon,
uaestiones
upra
ibros
uatuor
hysicorum
ris
o
many.
Rejecting
he
assump-
tion
God
not
only
has
many
for
Physics'.
Some
say
that
there
are
many
diverse
deas
in
huius
implicíssimapecie
dunataint.
12
ent.
x
Not all of Rufus'old-fashioned iewswere as unusual as his defense
of
a
plurality
f
his
commentary
withthisview is that
strictlypeakingthefinal ause or end does not move at all. As Aristotle
ays
efficientause
mutually
ctualize
each
other,
patience
with
he
anguage
of
mutual
causation
of habitual existence anotherof
does not adduce Aristode's
granted.
His
criticism
efficientauses
is
a
step
towards
stablishing
n
Aristotelian
rthodoxy
nd
away
from
the
complicated
notions
of
causality
which
choose
between
glossing
plicated
for
early
scholastics;
the ssue had
,
the
had
analogy
betweenGod
f
prior
to
creation
by
flowing
rom
point,
reated
hings
creaturis
emporis
ntiquitate
ed
implicitate
aturae,
cited
by
name,
but
neither
s
his
dentity
oncealed
now
refers
nfavorably
o
thosewho
try
o
Rufus
dissociateshimself
adically
rom
sentedwhen we
eternal,
ternity
motion s eternal?And
imit s God's
atemporalmode of being eternity. s Bacon puts it: there s nothing
firstn
time
which
s
a
part
of
time;
but
prior
Virtually ll the argumentsdduced by Bacon in favorof his position
are
fact each new
revolution f the sun adds a day to past time,so the assumptionmust
be
rejected.
asically,
his
rgument
laimsthat
f
timewere
nfinite,
here
39
Qso
hysics
VIII,
XIII:
391.
40
Qso
hysics
VIII,
XIII:
beginning
hichs
Argerami,
no
adding,
today
rgu-
ment,
days
before
tomorrow
han
today,
and
hence
today
Bacon concludes his
nly
to
faith,
mentioning
a
philosophical
rrornot
espoused by Aristotle to which Bacon adds that this view has been
imposed
on
Aristotle
y
Averroes.46
tenaciously
o
soon
adopted
pauciores
ies
usque
d
BACON S
case
in
which
Rufus
radically
departed
fromAverroes5
eading
of
Aristotle
nd
even
corrected
wrong,
he
says
only
that
Aristotle
provided
an
incomplete
account,
perhaps
tile
motion,
o
described,
hough
apparently
ontinuous,
would
actually
be
composed
of
projectile
motion
y
stipulating
s
Averroes
puts
it,
Aristode
the
medium
air,
allow-
ing
a
sense
the imits
this
secondary
losely
related
to
antiperistasis
r
replacement
heory,
t
is
an
attempt
o
provide
mechanical
xplanation
f
the
movement
osited
in the air. It somewhatresembles eristalsis,ince it is a processof suc-
cessive,
potester
hune
BACON S
Motion
imparted
it
as
fast
as
a
regulation
all,
a
greater
ffect
n
heavy
produces
an
impression
oth
n
rock
falls,
esuming
ts
naturalmotion.56
One
problem
of
action
at
a
distance.
Following
Averroes,
any
lasting
ction
tor
the
projec-
tile.
Denying
motion
by
the
action
Averroes' n the
which considers nlythe action of the mediumwill not account such
as
projectilesmovingupstream,64
place
That
sphere
s
in
a
accepted
by
many
uthors.
More
importantly,
ven
those
who
rejected
should we believe that
center of world is the place of the outermost phere,or the 9th orb?
After
ll,
when
even
a
part
66
Averroes,
n
Phys
rgo
ropter
hoc
obedit
uic,
circulum
psam
ircumferentiam,
er
outer skinrather han a distinctwrappercontains t. Rufus asks us to
consider
can
As
the
sphererotates, o does the surfacepartx. But it is replaced by another
part,
y,
things
whichdo notchange), n one senseUP is fixed; t is immobileby equiv-
alence.
The
parts
of
sideretur
on
t
huius
orporis
erminus
st,
ed
ut
st
uiddam
mbiens,
ndique
abens
distantiam
centro,
containing
Take the
would maintain hat
anchor,
t
will
always
still n
repeatedly o the problemover a period of forty ears. nitiallyBacon
accepted
demnaturam
unt
ocus.
though
Rufus'
position
s
wrong,
t
is truethathe wouldnotpointto the center s theplace where he was,
but at
ple
est
x
hac
parte
entri,
center as the
This difficultrose is typical f Rufus whenhe is stillgroping oward
a
solution.
By
contrast,
acon's
prose
s
polished.
True,
his
is
This mature
Cum arnen
The most
taining
urface,
nly
the
relation,
irstncluded
n
accidentally, ccordingto the late Bacon, this is because heaven does
not
heaven
contains.Thus Bacon
rejects he view that heaven's place is the convex outer surfaceof the
outermost
phere.
Rufus,
that Averroeshas been
n
Comp
th.,
while
though
Rufus
eft,
ince
neither
weis
a
Franciscan
then,
they
certainly
convent. rom
in
the
Spring
or
Summer
of
1251,
6
of
the
time,
returning
five
ears
fterhat
ontact.fHackett's
lausibleuggestion
hat
disagreed
with
adherentswhileBacon's did not. But the violent ttack n 1292 should
not
tempt
us
to
ignore
Bacon's
1267
continuity
from
Aristotle,
acon
violent motion
and deferred o Averroes n the place of the heavens. It is signof his
regard
o
Averroes
natural
philosophy
thoroughly
and
pace
Weisheipl
understoodmostof it. But he was not in a position o move farbeyond
it.
In
part
f
some
result
n
a
owe to
Bacon is
ably
wished
many
philo-
sophicaland logical errors hat led, in Bacon's eyes, to the decline of
theology
to some of
much
ground
they
share
in
scheme of commentaries
type
f
commentary
s
of
Logic:
cts
f
mentariumuctoris
iterateand
they
ook
truly
om-
parable as literary ocuments n that: 1) theywere, in all probability,
written ithin
fromk.12,d. 2 of he criptumill e cited ereafterromhisditions ed. Noone.
9
many
of
his
questions.
ndeed,
as
John
Chysostom.
Besides
Grosseteste,
thersources
prominent
n
the
Scriptum
commentariess
broader
they
veramateria
t
vera
orma,
uia
una
st
materia
ecundum
ubstantiam;
ed
n
corporibus
est
ub
dimensionibus,
n
ncorporeis
on.
acon,
upra
ndecimum
rimae
(VII,
33):
Est
etiam
riplex
ateria;
uaedampiritualis,
intellectnd
ntelligences
nd
separate
souls,
ate-
ing
The view of
parts
is
clearly
he
more
essen-
re,
to
exist
ndependent
we find
much the
same teaching. or Rufus, oo, the two intellects re part of thehuman
soul and
the
term
possible
part
ofthe
mind,
19
Bacon,
upra
ndeämum
rimae
rationalis,
the
Quaestiones
the eternalnature of truth n book II and Gos knowledgeof future
contingents
n
book
XII.
not
simply
single
Eternal
Truth,
although
It
26
Rufus,
criptum
Grosseteste's olution
both eternal
God,
but
they
may
be
eternalcharacter
f
such truths nly requiresthe Divine Mind for them to obtain and be
known;
he
multiplicity
f
Bacon asks
uam
seen
in
Rufus
nd
Grosseteste;
since
evident
identity
rior
alii,
uod
ncausisdealibus
unt,
study,
God's
knowledge
f
future
ontingents,
hey
blatant
disagreement
s
one of emphasis, nd a failure n Bacon's part to appropriate nd use
the
more
innovative
per
acódeos.
An
example
of
a
per
e
absolute
necessity
is a mathematical roposition uch as 7 + 3 = 10, a proposition hat
could never be
necessity
or
false,
and future
ill
come.
In
answering
ill
heory
f
modality
mplies
can
not
entas,
tex
parte
lia
contingentia
nd it
and
possible
n
will come to
any
use,
so far as I can tell, of the theoryof modality hared by Rufus and
Grosseteste.
42
or
he
praevidit
em
uturam,
makes much more extensive se of Grosseteste's eachings han Bacon.
Such a
n
that
Christian
heologians
to Kleineidam
to be out of
to
and the forms f
non-being
tia
materie,
et
st
um
psa
materiaoncreata.
nde
nota
uod
materiam
sse
n
poten-
tia
d
formam,
angel
in
sent and fromwhich motionwilltakeplace; and let B be another ndi-
visible
ocus,
which
the
angel
could
no
indivisible
n
its
transit,
point
never
traversing
quantum,
because
the latter s made up of an infinite umberofpoints and the infinite,
as
any
reader
of
Aristotle
nows,
cannot
be
possuntgere
angelus
ecundumaec
non
otest
sse
raesens
isi
licuindivisibili
oli,
t
per
ransmu-
tationemiet
b
for hat
puzzling
ubject
n
praesens
there s no proportion f white o lineor substancewhichbelongto dif-
ferent
enera
of
predicaments.
n
like
manner,
ndivisible
piritual
ature
has
no
comparison
or
proportion
o
For his last
BACON N
spiritual
ubstance
maynot need a locus ahans a "conserving lace," it does need a con-
taining lace,28
n
function,
eitherdoes
quod
ocated",
amely,
ontaining,easuring,
ing
Bonaventure
s
taxonomy,
xcept
outermost
ire.As
a
consequence
and
premise
n
this
argument
s
that
spiritual
lished
in
the
Opus
mains.
ny
Christiancholasticore
learly
erceived
ristotle's
thoughtoncerning
he
place
f
heaven;
autnon
ndique,
Scripture
nd
rea-
son. If,however, ne were to claim thatexisting t pointA in heaven,
the
angel
could
operate
here
among
power
beings
operationally
ut
also
according o their ubstanceessenceand nature. his could not be the case
were the
homines
perari,
ropterotestatemagnam
irtutis,
inemutatione
ocali;
contra,
otes-
tas
in
all
substances.35
If
the
objection
more suitableto
medieval
aster.ts
congruit,
ecmulto
agis
thatGod
descended
rom
eaoen:he
vulgarunderstanding
ing
from
the creation nd governance f the world that God exists nd from he
unity
ulgatum
pud
nos,
uod
descendite
alto,
elinquit
ocumliumt
dquirit
novum
ocum,
uem
rius
exuberant
modes,
that
he
piritual
ubstance
cable
only
to
corporeal
space,
however,
tummutabant
ocum,
t
fiebant
n
diversis
ocis;
ed
ubstantia
ngelica
emansit
mmo-
bilis
raesens
cilicet
oelo,
ordering
of
the
parts
of
would
Among
the
propo-
sitions
ondemned
n
Paris
in
1277
by
Bishop
Tempier's
sweeping
nd
epoch-making
induxi aleant
mean hat ithout
resenting
the
nonymous
uthorf
Utrum
mnia
ntia
int
n
oco;bid.,
05
recent
tudy
yWippel,
hich
hallenges
in
his
Opus
maius;
eeDavidC.
Lindberg,
place.55
The
thought-experiment
hatwas
spiritual
matter
ad
ultimately
ailed,
abandoned
even
by
that could dance
on a pinhead, ts shelf ifewas extended,but merely s a modernpar-
ody
studies,
namely,
Roger
Bacon
(Professor
f
Philosophy
MA]
c.
1237-47
a
significant
Roger
Bacon
(1260-74)
and
72 (1995), 33-72.t is clear romhiswell-arguedccounthat homas quinas asan ntended
bject
han onaventure
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is
to
present
strong
ase
for
nterpreting
a via media s
Communiaatu-
3
L.
Bianchi,
169-201;
d.,
Thomas
quinas
Commemorative
ssays
996
Leiden:
Latin Averroism
rom s
contrarium."
8
There
ad
been
strong
nfluencef
Averroesn
the
hilosophers
very
ifferent.heAverroism
gainst
Aristotle
R.A.
Gauthier,
.P.,
Notes
porting
vidence,
nly
he
ssertion
see
Jeremiah
ackett,
hilosophy
nd
Theology
n
Roger
acon's
pus
maius,
n:
R.
BACON, RISTOTLE,
NDTHE PARISIAN
the
help
Paris,
namely,
Thomas
Aquinas.17
The
Opus
maius
part
six,
on
Edition
nd
nglish
ranslation
f
acon's
erspectiva
ith
ntroduction
nd
Notes
Oxford
996;
In
brief,
BACON, RISTOTLE,
agreement,
just
s
will
e
expounded
n
the
booksbout]
moral
hilosophy.24
It is clear then,that there s internal vidence n Bacon's textsfrom
the
1260's
which arose
Aristotle r at
Tullius
ibro
heMenond
haedo
n
theMoralis
hilosophia
1267)
proves
things
hichre
proper
o
theology
is closely inked o the discussions n thistopicat theUniversityf Paris
(c.
1
64-7
).28
He
returns,
s
lowing
ugustine,
illiam
f
Conchesnd
perhaps
Soul,p. t., note ),119-207.or new tudyfthe roblemfthe oul nthe hir-
teenth
entury
p
to
the
1270's,
ee
Richard
parís
of
parts.
They
are:
1)
On
the
production
on
the
unity
nd
plurality
place
just
anquam
artes
iversas
ecun-
(anima
intellectiva)
about the
his
Moreover,
ccording
o
Bacon,
So, too,
heologians.
ess
BACON, RISTOTLE,
NDTHE PARISIANONDEMNATIONS
tions
that
Bacon,
in
this
part,
s
offering
severecriticism f the view ofJohn of La Rochelle as developed by
Richard Rufus
nullo
modo
otest
The ttribution
difference
duced
from
he
potency
of
matter
which
places
Latin
Averroists.
Bacon ends this sectionby stating hat all the arguments bout this
special
substantial
ifferencere
pure
fantasy
nd
nephandos
adunt,
uibus
heologici
ontradicunt,
axime
n
duobus
rticulis,
tothe
BACON, RISTOTLE,
Norman
retzmann,
nthony
enny,
an
Pinborg
eds.),
he
Cambridge
istoryf
Later
Medieval
hilosophyCambridge
982,
02-23.
n
Aristotle's
wn
heory
to
damnation,
t
would
follow,
f
the
body
of
Socrates.
Therefore,
it is impossible or one singlesoul to be separatedfromone body and
enter nother.
penam
soul
in
diverse
persons,
hen,
he
same
person

vivarium - vol 35, nos. 1-2, 1997

Documents