vivarium - vol 38, nos. 1-2, 2000
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
1/288
Vivarium
Volume 38
2000
Reprinted
ith he
permission
fthe
original ublisher
by
Periodicals Service
Company
Germantown,
NY
2007
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
2/288
Printed
n cid-free
aper.
This
eprint
as
reproduced
rom
he
best
riginal
dition
opy
vailable.
NOTE
OTHEREPRINTDITION:
In ome
asesfull
age
dvertisements
hich
o not dd o
the
cholarly
alue
f
his olumeave een
mitted.
As
result,
ome
eprinted
olumes
ay
ave
rregular
agination.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
3/288
/';-=09 )(8*
=-0/']
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
4/288
VIVARIUM
AN
INTERNATIONAL
OURNAL
OR
THE
PHILOSOPHY
AND
INTELLECTUAL
IFE
OF THE MIDDLE AGES
AND
RENAISSANCE
vivariums devotedn
particular
o the
profane
ide
of
medi-
aeval
philosophy
nd the ntellectualife
f
the
Middle
ges
nd
Renaissance.
editors
L.M. de
Rijk,
Leiden)
H.A.G.
Braakhuis,
Nijmegen)
C.H.
Kneepkens,Groningen)
W.J.
ourtenay,Madison)
E.P.
Bos,
(Leiden).ecretary
f
he
ditorialoard: .H.
Kneepkens.
Allcommunications,xcepthose f a businessature,hould e
addressedoProf.
r.
C.H.
Kneepkens,ijksuniversiteitroningen,
Faculteiter
etteren,
akgroep
ediaevistiek,
.O. Box
716,
700
AS
Groningen,
he Netherlands.
,
advisory Tullio
Gregory,
Rome)
Albert
immermann,
Cologne)
J.E.
committee
Murdoch,
Cambridge,
A).
publishers
Brill, eiden,
he Netherlands.
published Twice
early.
pril
nd
October;
a.
280
pages
early.
Copyright
000
by
Koninklijke
rill
V, den,
he
etherlands
All
rights
eserved.
o
part
f
his
ublicationay
e
eproduced
translated,
tored
n
a retrieval
ystem
or
ransmitted
n
ny
orm
r
by
ny
meanslectronic
mechanical,
hotocopying,ecording
r
therwise,
ithout
rior
ritten
permission
f
he
ublisher.
Authorization
o
hotocopy
tems
or
nternalr
ersonal
use s
grantedy
rill
rovided
hat
the
ppropriate
ees
re
aid irectly
o
Copyright
Clearance
enter,
22 Rosewood
rive,
uite10
Danvers,A01923, SA. eesre ubjecto hange.
PRINTEDNTHE
NETHERLANDS
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
5/288
CONTENTS
OF
VOLUME XXXVIII
(2000)
Russell E. Friedman Introduction 1
Lauge O.
Nielsen
William
Duba
The
Immaculate
Conception
n
the Works
of Peter Auriol
5
Lauge
O. Nielsen
The Debate between
Peter Auriol and
Thomas
Wylton
n
Theology
and
Virtue
35
Alessandro D.
Divine Ideas and
Exemplar
Causality
n
Conti
Auriol
99
Chris
Schabel
Place,
Space,
and the
Physics
f
Grace
in
Auriol's Sentencesommentary 117
Charles Bolyard
Knowing
naturaliter.uriol's
Propositional
Foundations
162
Russell L. Friedman
Peter
Auriol on
Intellectual
Cognition
of
Singulars
177
Antonie Vos
Scotus on Freedom
and the
Foundation
of
Ethics.
An
Utrecht
Contribution
195
Antonie Vos
The Scotian
Notion
of Natural Law
197
Henri Veldhuis
Ordained and
Absolute
Power
in
Scotus'
Ordinatio44 222
Eef
Dekker
The
Theory
of Divine
Permission
ccord-
ing
to Scotus' Ordinatio
47
231
Nico den
Bok
Freedom
n
Regard
to
Opposite
Acts and
Objects
in
Scotus'
Lectura
39,
45-54
243
St. Kirschner
Oresme
on
Intension
and
Remission of
Qualities
n
His
Commentary
n Aristotle's
Physics
255
Reviews
Jacqueline Leclercq-Marx,
a
sirne
dans
la
pense
et dans l'art de
l'Antiquit
t du
Moyen Age.
Du
mythe aen
au
symbole
chrtien
rev. y
Harry
Tummers)
275
William
.
Courtenay,
arisianScholars
n
the
Early
Fourteenth
Century.
A
Social
Portrait
rev.
y
Sten
bbesen
277
Books Received
281
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
6/288
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
7/288
2
INTRODUCTION
arrived
n
Paris
in
order
to
qualify
for
his
doctorate.
Auriol read
the
Sentences
t
Paris
1316-18,
and
by
late 1318
he
was
the Franciscan
regent
master
n
theology
here. Auriol served as
regent
master
n
Paris until
1320
or
1321,
lecturing
n the
Bible,
and
holding
Quodlibetal
disputa-
tions.
n
1321,
he was elevated
by
his
mentor,
ope John
XXII,
to the
position
f
Archbishop
f
Aix-en-Provence,
ut Auriol died
soon
after,
n
early
1322.
The extant
works
of
Auriol
are
predominantly
heological
n
nature,
and
include several Biblical commentaries nd
a
treatise
on
apostolic
poverty. he mostsignificantf his works,however, rom theological,
philosophical,
nd historical
oint
of view
are
his
commentaries n the
Sentences
Besides
the
Scriptum
we
have
reportationes
f lectures hat Auriol
held on
all
fourbooks
of
the
Sent.,
ome
of which have
obviously
een
reworked
y
Auriol himself.
A
versionof his
commentary
n
books
II-
IV
was
published
n
Rome
in
1605
(along
with
Auriol's
ingle
Quodlibet),
but
the relationbetween
these
published
texts
nd
other versions ound
only
n
manuscripts,
s
well
as the relation etween
he
published
criptum
and
the extant
reportationes
n
book
I
of the Sentences
is
complex,
nd
his-
torical tudyhas been slow to get underway.2
As should be clear from
he
above,
one of the
major
tasks
n
Auriol
studies s to
establish he relative
rdering
f
his
works:
nly
n
this
way
will
we be
able
to
trace
the
development
f
his
ideas and
thereby
eter-
mine his
matureviews.
n
the
first
aper
below,
William Duba
attempts
to show the
relative
rdering
f
Auriol's
works
having
to do with
Mary's
Immaculate
Conception.
t is
fairly
well-known hat Auriol was
an
early
supporter
f
the Immaculate
Conception,
nd
he
actually
ddressedthe
issue
n
written orks t least three
imes: wice
n
commentaries n
book
III of the Sentencesnd once in separatetreatises evoted to the issue.
Through
an
analysis
of the
texts and Auriol's
argumentation
n
them,
Duba
reconstructs
probable
relative
order,
n
the
process laying
out
some fundamentaleatures f Auriol's
deas
on the mmaculate
onception.
One
way
of
determining
he
probable
order
of
and dates forworks
f
Auriol s
through dentifying
he
contemporaries
hom Auriolconfronted
in
his various works. One of Auriol's
most notable
opponents
was the
English
ecular
theologian,
homas
Wylton.
n
Wylton's
ase
we are
so
2
For he
most ecent
tudy
f
he
ssues,
eeL.O.
Nielsen,
eteruriol's
ay
ithWords:
The
Genesis
f
eteruriol'sommentariesn eterombard'sirstnd ourthooks
f
he entences
in:
G.R. Evans
ed.),
Mediaeval
ommentariesn
he entences
f
eterombard
Leiden
forth-
coming)
nd
the
iteratureeferredo there.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
8/288
INTRODUCTION
3
fortunates to
have
writings
f his that are directed
gainst
Auriol.
n
his
contributiono this
volume,
Lauge
O. Nielsen charts
AurioPs and
Wyl
on's
exchange
on the nature
of
what is
practical
nd
speculative
s
well
as of
virtue,
nd he arrives t the conclusion that this
particular
debate took
place
when Auriol was a bachelor of the Sentences
n
Paris.
As his debate with
Wylton
makes
clear,
Auriol was
something
f a
controversial
igure
n
his
time,
offering
nnovative
nd
often
rovocative
views.
AurioPs
apacity
o
provoke ppears
to remainundiminished
ith
the
years,
s
Alessandro
onti shows
n his
article.Conti ooks at
AurioPs
theory f divine deas against hebackdrop f ThomasAquinas' andJohn
Duns
Scotus'
viewson
this
ssue.
Conti concludes hatAurioPs
heory
n
the matter
learly
llustrates
the
sharp
conflict etween
he
Greek
ogico-
metaphysical pparatus
(in
the
form of
medieval Aristotelianism nd
Neoplatonism)
nd
(some of)
the chief
contents
f
the Christianfaith .
So clear
is
this
conflict
n
Auriol,
n
fact,
that Conti accuses
Auriol of
heretically
olding
hat creationwas
necessary.
In
his
contribution,
hris
Schabel examines
AurioPs
deas in
matters
traditionally
tudied
by
historians f
science: the latitude
of forms nd
therelated ssuesofplace, space, and local motion.Here, as in so many
areas
of his
thought,
uriol was
innovative,
erhaps
most
particularly
n
his
ideas on
place,
and
Schabel
suggests
hatAurioPs
departure
rom
he
Aristotelian
heory
n
this ssue
can
perhaps
be
looked at as
a
small
step
on
the
way
to the
Newtonian
worldview.
Moreover,
n
appendices
to his
article,
chabel
offers
n
edition f hitherto
navailable
texts,
nd
on
the
basis
of
this
material
he is able to show the
development
f
AurioPs
thought
n
these
topics.
The volume
rounds
out
with
two examinations
f
aspects
of AurioPs
epistemologynd noetics. n his article,CharlesBolyarddeals with the
foundationf
AurioPs
heory
f
knowledge:
er
e
notae
ropositions.
everal
scholastics efore
Auriol,
notably
Aquinas
and
Scotus,
basically
consid-
ered
per
e
notae
ropositions
o be
analytic
ropositions
n
which
the
pre-
dicate s
included
n
the
subject.Bolyard
hows
that,
n
contrast
o
these
earlier
hinkers,
uriol stressed he
psychological
imension f
per
e
notae
propositions,
.e. that
they
were
propositions
hat
one
understood
wifdy
and
without he
necessity
f
a
teacher.
Moreover,
Bolyard
argues
that
the
slamic
thinker
lhazen
was a
particularlytrong
nfluence
n
AurioPs
theory
f
per
e notae
ropositions.
In
his
article,
Russell
L. Friedman
discusses he
way
Auriol tackles he
problem
f ntellectual
ognition
f
singulars. corollary
o AurioPs
noted
conceptualism
one of the reasonsfor
his
being
regarded
s a forerunner
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
9/288
4
INTRODUCTION
of Ockham
is
that
only
individuals
have real extra-mental
xistence.
Further,
n
contrast
o several
other Franciscan hinkers
e.g. John
Duns
Scotus),
Auriol denies
that
every
ndividualhas
a
distinguishingntelligi-
ble
property.
ow,
then,
an the
human
ntellect
ave
cognition
f
really
existing ingulars?
Auriol
adopts
a
position
that reminds
omewhat
f a
very
well
developed
version f
Thomas
Aquinas' theory
n the same
issue,
with
the human intellect
aving
mediate
knowledge
f
singulars
hrough
the
phantasm.
The
guest
editors
of the
present
volume would like to take this
op-
portunityo thank the editorialboard of Vivariumand especiallyC.H.
Kneepkens,
or
he
nvitation o
compile
the
volume.
We
hope
thatthese
studies
will
contribute o
the
ongoing
process
of
elucidating
eter
Auriol's
significance
or
medieval
philosophy
nd
theology.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
10/288
The Immaculate
onception
n
the Works
f
Peter
Auriol
WILLIAM
DUBA*
One
of
the
major
theological
ssues
traditionally
iscussed
n
commen-
tarieson book
III
of the
Sentencess the Immaculate
Conception.
Peter
Auriol,O.F.M.,
figures
mong
the first cholastic
defenders
f this doc-
trine, nd the variousversions fhis Sentencesommentariesestifyo his
consistent efense
f the
conception
f
Mary
without he
stain
of
Original
Sin.
In
addition o
his Sentences
ommentaries,
e
produced
two
separate
works
on the Immaculate
Conception:
the treatise
e
concepitone
containing
Auriol's
systematic xposition
f
the
doctrine,
nd
the
Reper-
cussorium
ditumontradversariumnnocentiaeatris
ei
reflecting
is
polemic
response
o
a critic f the former ext.
ince
these
treatises
ave
tradition-
ally
been dated to
winter
1314-1315,
scholars
nterested
n
the textual
tradition
f
book
III
have
used them
n
their
ttempts
o
date Auriol's
commentaries. onversely, hoseoccupiedwithAuriol'spositionon the
Immaculate
Conception
have
had
to
consider the
relationship
etween
the
texts
o
determine
Auriol's mature
opinion.
Nevertheless,
hese two
groups
reach
contradictory
onclusions
oncerning
he relative
dating
of
the
principal
exts
n
question.
In
this
rticle,
shall
briefly
eview hese
conclusions,
nd evaluate
the
criteria sed to reach them.This
evaluationwill
suggest
fresh
pproach
to
the
problem,
namely,
ne
that
seeks to establish
he order of
the texts
by
means
of
a
detailed consideration f textual
and doctrinal
parallels.The conclusion hat willreachwillbe that the treatmentontained n
the
onger ommentary,
ound
n
a
single
manuscript
nd the 1605 Rome
edition,
ntedates
he
separate
treatises,
nd the one
in
the shorter om-
mentary,
ublished
by
Buytaert
n
1955,
was
composed
afterwards.
The textual ituation
for
Auriol's
commentary
n
book
III
of
Peter
Lombard's Sentences
s
quite
complex,
nd
establishing
n
detail
the
rela-
tions
among
the
various
redactions,
nd
between these redactions nd
* The uthor ouldike othank.Nielsen,. Friedman,. Boughan,. DelPunta,
C.
Schabel,
.
Tachau,
.
Trifogli,
nd he
ibrary
f
he
ranciscanonvent
f
Mnster
for
heirssistance
n
preparing
his
rticle.
Koninklijke
rill
V,
Leiden,
000
Vivarium,8,1
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
11/288
6 WILLIAM UBA
their
manuscript
nd
printed
witnesses
s a
daunting
ask.
The lack
of
any
firm ates of
composition
or
ny
ofthetexts
ggravates
his
problem.1
In
what
follows,
shall
argely
imit
myself
o
considering
he two main
redactions,
hat
s,
the
reportatio
f
72
questions
xemplified
y
manuscripts
L,
P
and
T
and the
22
distinctions iscussed
n
manuscript
and
the
1605 Rome
edition,
X.
Manuscript
N,
reporting
text
slightly
ifferent
from
PT,
does not receive
eparate
attention
ere,
as
it
does
not
reflect
any
material
differences,
nd,
in
fact,
seems to be
an
abbreviation.2
Manuscript
C
reports
text similar
to
SX,
but
presents
ome
unique
problems hat willbe treated n a laterstudy.For the sake ofbrevity,
will
use
LPT
to
refer o the
collection
f
72
questions,
nd SX for the
22
distinctions.3
1
n
discussing
urioPsommentaries
n
book
II
of
he
ent.,
follow
he
igla
sed
y
E.
Buytaert
n
his
Auroli'
unpublishedeportatio
II
d.
3,
q.
1-2 in: Franciscan
tudies,
5
(1955),
59-74 nd V.
Heynck,
ie
Kommentare
es .
Aureoli
um
ritten
entenzenbuch
in:
Franziskanische
tudien,
1
1969),
-77,
hat
s:
Florence,
ibi.
aurenziana,
lut.
2
dex.
12
=
L);
Florence,NG,
B.
VI.
121
= N);
Paris,
N,
Lat.
17,484
=
P);
Sarnano,
C,
E
92
=
S);
Toulouse,M,
243
=
T).;
to
these
addX for he
605Rome
rinted
di-
tion ndC for
alamanca,U,
2295.
2Cf.Buytaert955op.rit.,bove, . 1),162-3.
3
Indeed,
t s
easier
o
discuss
anuscript
itnesses
nd theredactionsttributed
o
them:
LPT N
S
X
C
Collatio
nd
- -
-
-
quaestiones
ordinatae
dd.
1-4,
-22 dd.
1-4,
dd.
1-22,
ut
9(part)-22
shorter
d.
5,
3-
copied
s
question
d.
23
appendix
72
quaestiones qq.
1-42
qq.
47-72
qq.
47-72
s
qq.
42-72
one
(missing
ast dd.
27-40
sextern,
ot
sextern),
ut
N)
shorter
Additionalotes:
(1)
Presumably,elplin,
d.
sem.,
6/85 ontainsnother
itnesso
LPT;
have
ot
been
ble oconfirmhis. f. .
Wiodek,
ommentairesur
es
entences.
upplment
u
Rpertoire
deF.
Stegmller
'aprs
esmss e a
Bibliothque
uGrand
eminaire
e
Pelplin,
in:Mediaevalia
Philosophica
olonorum,
(1961),
3-8.
(2)
X
is
the
1605
Rome
dition,
ue
n
part
o the fforts
f
Cardinal ostanzo
orri
of arnano. .Doucet, ommentairesures entences.upplmentuRpertoireeM. F.Stegmller
Florence
954, 7,
n.
661,
declareshat is
withoutoubt
he
asis
f
X. Anexamina-
tion f he extsonfirms
his;
comparison
f he atter
art
f he
manuscript,
he
art
shared ith
NPT,
hows hat is
very
nreliable,
ith
many
ariant
eadings.
or
he
most
art,
shares
's
variants;
hen doesnot
eport
he ame ariants
S,
it
usu-
ally
hows vidence
f
marginally
uccessful
ttempt
t correction.
oreover,
any
f
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
12/288
THE MMACULATEONCEPTION 7
As
Sentences
ommentaries,
PT
and SX
are
linked, lthough
not nec-
essarily
irectly,
o Auriol's various ectures n the Sentences.s we shall
see,
the differences
n
structure
nd
content
point
to their not
being
different
edactions f
essentially
he same text. Auriol lectured
on
the
Sentences
t least
twice,
possibly
hree
times: at
Toulouse
ca.
1313-1315
and at Paris
1316-1318,
and
possibly
t
Bologna
ca.
1312.
Thus,
these
commentaries
ere almost
certainly omposed
in the
second decade of
the fourteenth
entury.
Among
the
expositors
f
Peter Auriol's
doctrine
of the
Immaculate
Conception,Leo Rosato is the most recentto have proposeda textual
order.
n
his
monograph
he
notes
that,
among
other
things,
PT
and
the De
conceptione
hare
a
good
deal
of
terminology,
ost
notably
he dis-
tinction
etween he
contraction
f
Original
Sin de iure nd de
facto
SX,
on
the other
hand,
does not
show such close affinities
ith
the treatises.
Largely
n
this
basis,
Rosato
concludesthat
LPT
is
dependent
n the De
conceptione
and SX
precedes
t.4
The last scholar
to consider
n
detail the textual
problem
of
book
III,
Valens
Heynck,
reaches
a different
onclusion.
Heynck rightly
ritiques
Rosato'sassumptionhat erminologicalimilaritymplies nyorder mong
the texts.5 et he
further
rgues
that
they mplyproximity
n
time.
In
an
article
dedicatedto Auriol's
commentary
n
book
III
of the Sentences
he tries o
relate
LPT
and
SX
to Auriol'sknown
Reportationes
or he other
books.
Since
many
of Auriol's commentaries n the other books of the
Sentences
ave been associated
with
his lectures at
Paris
or
Toulouse,
Heynck
seeks
to find tructural
nd
stylistic
arallels
that
mply
com-
mon
origin.
or
Heynck,
here re two seriesof
Reportationes
orthe other
books:
a versionrevised
by
the
author
for books
I,
II and
IV;
and a
"stricteportatioof Auriol's ectures efore evision.6 ccording oHeynck,
X's
variantsrom can
be
explained
y mbiguous
r
llegible
bbreviations
n
the at-
ter
ext.
or similaronclusionn the
erivation
f
he
rinted
dition
or
art
f he
Scriptum
n
rimum
rom
manuscript
t
Sarnano,
eeSchabel
n
this
olume,
ppendix
.
4
L.
Rosato,
octrina
e
mmaculata
.V.M.
onceptione
ecundumetrmureoliRoma
59,
5-16.
ther
ecentreatmentsfAuriolndthe mmaculate
onception
re:
.
Manelli,
Pietro
ureoli
. Min.
f
1322),
la
questione
el
ebitum
eccati
n
Maria
Napoli
961;
A.
Di
Lella,
hemmaculate
onception
n he
Writingsf
eterureoliin:
Franciscan
tudies,
(1955),
46-58;
nd
F.
De
Guimaraens,
.F.M.
Gap.,
a doctrinees
heohgiens
ur 'imma-
cule
onception
e 250
1350 n:Etudes
ranciscaines,
.s.
11:9
1952),
81-203;
.s. 11:10
(1953),3-51, 67-87.
5
V.
Heynck,
eview f
L.
Rosato,
octrinae
mmaculata
.V.M.
Conceptione
ecundum
Petrmureoliin:
Franziskanische
tudien,
1
(1959),
31-3,
t
p.
433.
6
Fordiscussionsn the ariousersionsf
Auriol's
ommentariesn
the
ther
ooks,
principally
n
book
,
see .
Brown,
etrusureoli'e unitate
onceptas
ntis
Reportatio
arisiensis
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
13/288
8 WILLIAM UBA
internal
nd external vidence
points
o the derivation f
both
reportationes
from
AurioPs ectures
t
Paris
in
the
period
1316-18.
Based on
a
stylis-
tic
analysis,Heynck
declares
that
LPT is
somewhat imilar o
the
strict
reportatio,
nd SX
slightly
ess so to the revised ersion.7
eynck
hentakes
the mmaculate
Conception uestion
nd
uxtaposes
X and
LPT
to
show
that these texts
do
not derive
from he same lecture.
Heynck
concludes
on
the
basis
of
terminological
imilarity
n
the
Immaculate
Conception
discussions hat
LPT
is
contemporary
o
the
De
concepitone,
nd hence
is
a
reportatio
f AurioPs ectures t
Toulouse.
Since SX has
some
stylistic
affinitieso therevisedreportationeshe associates hemwithAurioPsParis
lectures.As further
roof
of the
sufficiency
f
such criteriafor
deter-
miningdating
of
manuscripts, eynck
cites DettlofFs
laim
that,
when
giving
lecture
on a
topic
previously
reated,
Auriol
does
not
slavishly
copy
his
preceding
iscussion,
ut rather
reats
he ssue
anew,
albeitwith
the
same
arguments.
o
SX
need show no
traces
f the
preceding
ebate.
According
to
Heynck,
t
is an
incomplete
revisionof AurioPs
Parisian
lectures,
ever ntended
or
irculation. or
this
eason,
whenAurioPs ari-
sian
reportatio
as
circulated,
AurioPs"editors"
had
to scramble o
fill
he
hole leftby this ncomplete ext,whichexplains why manuscripts PT
are
composites
f
AurioPs Parisian
collatio n book
III,
three
quaestiones
ordinatae
n
the first
istinction,
nd
72
questions.8
Heynck's
account does not
stand
up
to
scrutiny.
irst,
ll
of
AurioPs
Sentencesectures ccurredwithin
few
years
of
each
other;
shared ter-
minology
may
argue
for
temporalproximity,
ut is
not
sufficiently
re-
cise
to be
of
use
here.
Second,
although
here
may
be similaritiesetween
in
Sententiarum,
ist.
,
p.
1,
qq.
1-3et
p.
2S
qq.
1-2),
n:
Traditio,
0
(1995),
99-248;
Schabel,eterureoln ivineoreknowledgend utureontingents:criptumn rimmententiarum,
distinctions8-39
in:Cahiers e l'Institutu
Moyen gegrec
t
atin,
5
1995),
3-212,
at
pp.
78-82;
.O.
Nielsen,
eteruriol's
ay
ith ordsin:Gillianvans
ed.),
ommentaries
onPeterombard'sentencesLeiden
forthcoming).
7
Heynck
969
p.cit
, above,
.
1),
36-59.His chief
rguments
or he imilarities
betweenX and the revised
eportationes
(found
n
page
59)
are:
A)
the ormula
rguo
quod
ollows
he
ositing
f
he
uestionhroughout.B)
The
questions
ften
egin
ith
referenceo the ombard's
ext,
lthough
X doesnot
lways
ave he irect
uotation
found
n
the ther ooks.
G)
the
ndividual
uestionsary
onsiderably
n
ength.
8
Heynck
969
op.cit.,
bove,
.
1),
67-8,
Andererseits
ntspricht
s durchauser
Eigenart
nd
Selbstndigkeit
ureolis,
a er
vier
ahre pter,
ls
er an der
Pariser
Universitt
eine
entenzenvorlesungen
ber as
dritte uch
hielt,
ie
Frage anz
neu
angepacktat,wennrauchhier mgroenndganzenieselbe nsichtertritt.ir
machen
a
auch onst
ie
Beobachtung,
a
unser ranziskaner
n all den
Fllen,
o
er
wiederumieselben
ragen
ehandelt,
ich
nicht
infach
iederholt,
ondernummin-
desten
ine
neue
Darstellung
ietet.";
f.W.
Dettloff,
ie
Entwicklung
er
kzeptations-
nd
Verdienstlehreon uns cotusisLuther it
esonderer
ercksichtigung
er
ranziskanertheologen
Mnster963.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
14/288
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
15/288
10
WILLIAM UBA
examine
parallel
texts o see where contextual
iscrepancies
an indicate
a
possible
order.
Before
analyzing
he texts
by
means of
these two
criteria,
amely,
consideration f
parallel
texts or videnceof relations f
dependence
nd
an evaluation of the relative
pecificity
f
the
arguments,
t
is
useful o
establish he context f
this
analysis
by
sketching
he
status
uaestionis
n
the mmaculate
onception,
he circumstances
urrounding
urioPs
reatises,
and
the
formof these treatises nd
of
the treatments
n
LPT
and SX.
1. Context
The basic terms f the Immaculate
Conception
debate were
understood
by
AurioPs
contemporaries
1sfollows.
Humans born
via
carnal union
contract
Original
Sin at
conception,
nd are
infected
with t until
bap-
tism
or some
other
divine act of
removal.
n
the case of
Mary,
it
was
agreed
that,
at the momentof her birth
he
did not have the stain
of
Original
in. The
problem
nder
discussion
as:
Did
she
ever ave
Original
Sin?
Could she have been
conceived without
ontracting riginal
Sin?
In theXlllth century,ome theologians nswered hisquestion n the
affirmative. he first cholastic treatments
definitely
ssociated with
Immaculist
position
are
those of the Franciscans
William of Ware and
John
Duns
Scotus.
Most
theologians ontemporary
ithAuriol
opposed
the Immaculate
Conception.10
As has been
noted,
the chief
sources that we
have
for
ascertaining
AurioPs
position
n
the mmaculate
Conception
re his
separate
reatises,
the De
concepitone
nd
the
Repercussorium.
he circumstancesf the treatises'
composition
elp
determine heir
pecific
ontent
nd
purpose,
nd con-
sequentlymanyof theirdifferencesromAurioPsdiscussions f the issue
in his
Sentencesommentaries.
Moreover,
a balanced examination f the
evidence
will
help clarify
he events
urrounding
he
composition
f
the
treatises,
nd
confirm heir
dating,
which
has untilnow been assumed.
Roughly
a
dozen
medieval
manuscripts
ontain
copies
of
the De con-
ceptions^
alf
of
those also
possess
the
Repercussorium
H
Several
printed
er-
10
Gulielmi
uarrae
oannis
uns
coti
Petriureoli
uaestiones
isputatae
e mmaculata
onceptione
Beatae
ariae
irginis,
d.
[Lemmen],
n:Bibliotheca
ranciscanacholasticaedii
evi,
(Quaracchi904), 3-94Tractatuseconceptione, 94-153. epercussorium; C. Balie,oannes
Duns cotus.octor
mmaculatae
onceptionis
Roma 1954.
De
Guimaraens
952-53
p.cit
above,
.
4)
provides
hemost
omplete
nventory
f cholastic
pinion
n
thematter.
11
Manuscripts
ith
opies
f theDe
conceptione
nd the
Repercussorium
Dsseldorf,
Staatsarchiv
V.97;Erfurt,
mplon. ,
131;
Klosterneuburg,
tiftsbibl.
72;
Rome,
N
Sessor.
405
100);
ankt-Florian,
tifstbibl.38.
Manuscripts
ith
nly
he e
conceptione:
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
16/288
THE
MMACULATEONCEPTION
1 1
sions
of
the
texts
were
made, among
which
the most
mportant, extuallyand
historically,
re
the version
hat he
XVIIth-century
mmaculist
edro
de Alva
y
Astorga,
.F.M.,
prepared
nd
the 1904 edition f the
Quaracchi
editors.12 t the end of AurioPs
exts,
Alva
y
Astorga upplies
text hat
describes he circumstances
urrounding
he De
conception
:
Forwhen
aid rother
eter as ector
n
the onventf he riars
inor
f
oulouse,
it
happened
hat
e
preached
n the
house
fthe
Friars reacher
n
the east f
the
onception
f he lessed
irgin,
nd n the
ermonhat
e
made othe
lergy,
he
dduced
ertain
rguments,
hich
rediscussed
bove,
hattwas
ious
obelieve
that
od
preserved
he lessed
irgin
rom
ontractingriginal
in;
for
God
could
dothis,nd t suited im odothis,nd, erhaps,twasdone,nasmuchs said
feast
as ble o
be
egitimately
elebrated,
s
was
xplained
bove. utwhen
cer-
tain riar reachereard
his,
e
preached
o
the
lergy
n the
ollowing
unday,
showingy
rguments
hat
heBlessed
irgin
ontracted
riginal
in he resolved
from
is wn
rguments,
onfirming
is
osition
ith is wn
rguments,
hich
re
alsodiscussed
bove,
evertheless
dding
nd
sserting
hat aidBrother
eter im-
self ad ffirmedhattwere
o,
butneverthelessad
ntirely
uried
t
under oubt
and
pious
redulity;
herefore
aid
Brothereter
olemnly
isputed
his
uestion
n
the chools
f
he
eculars,
ndwith ll
religious,
octors, asters,
ndthe emain-
ing
lerics
resent,
n
the
resence
f
he
ntiretudiumhe determinedn
theman-
ner
ndicatedbove.And his
appened
n
the
foresaid
ity
f
Toulouse,
n
the
year
f
he
ncarnationf he ord
314,
n
the
igil
fSaint homas he
Aposde[December1], ouis, ing f he ranks,ewlyeigning,ndwith ualhard,ishop
of
Toulouse
resent;
he
Apostolic
ee
being
t
the ime acant.13
Admont,
tiftsbibl.
40;Assisi,
C
193;Douai,
BM
518;Munich,
LM
3590;
Vatican
City,
at.Lat.
10275.
n
addition,rras,
M
400
876),
s
a
highly
utilated
opy
f
what
ppears
o
be a
slight
eworking
f
he
e
concepitoney
certain aturinus
ementis,
O. Carm. .
Pelster,
Zur
berlieferung
es
uodlibet
ndnderer
chrifien
es etrus
ureoli.F.M.
in:Franciscantudies
4,
1954),
92-411,
t
p.
392,
ndicates
ruges,
ibl.
pls.
heca
116n.
1
as a
Spanish
ranslation..
Glorieux,
pertoire
es
Matres
n
hologie
e
Paris u
XIIIe icleParis
933,
44-8,
lso ists s
manuscripts
unich 91 and
1502,
s well s
Krakow
600,
ut,
n
the
ase
f
Munich,
t s not learwhat e
s
referring
o, nd,
or
Krakow,havenotbeen ble oconfirmhis. dditionally,esignals manuscriptn
Naples
ithouturther
pecification,
nd
Chartres
28,
which
as
ince een
estroyed.
12
. deAlva
Astorga,
onumenta
ntiqua
eraphica
ro
mmaculata
onceptione
irginis
ariae
ex
variis
uctoribus
eligionis
eraphicae
n
unum
omportata
t ollectaLovanii
665;
r.
Gulielmi
Guarrae
Qg. isput,
e mmac.
oncept.
.M.V.ed.
[Lemmen]
904
op.cit
, above,
.
10).
Unless
oted,
his ext ill eferothe dition
ttributed
o
Lemmen.his ditions
based
on
the
manuscripts
rom
rfurt,sseldorf,
ssisind heBiblioteca
azionale
n
Rome.
13
Alva
Astorga
665
< p.cit
, above,
.
12),
9,
places
his
assage
t the
nd
f
he
section
ttributed
o "Petrus
ureoli
e
Verberia",
ut ies t
direcdy
o the e
conceptione
which
ppears
t
the
eginning,xplaining,
Ad
inem
rimi
ractatusetri
ureoli,
xta-
banthaec
verba
raetermissa
b
Impressoribus."
have
notfound his
assage
n
the
surviving
anuscripts
hat have xamined.
evertheless,
he ubricothe
panish
rans-
lationeportedyPelster954 op.cit.,bove, . 11),392, learlyerivesromuch
description,
nd,
moreover,
stablishesterminusnte
uem
f 1475 or ts
Latin
riginal.
Furthermore,
lva
y
Astorga
665
i
p.cit
, above,
.
12),
1,
himselfndicateswomanu-
scripts
ontaining
urioPs
reatise,
ne of
which
resumably
erved
s
the
base
for is
edition,
pecifying
hat he
exts
"repertus
olosae n
Francia
n
Bibliotheca
uxensi,
t
Parisiis
pud
D. D. Cancellarium."
he
manuscript
t the
Collge
e Foix
ould
have
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
17/288
1
WILLIAM UBA
So, according
o this
passage,
the
original
reatise rose from debate
betweenAuriol and at leastone Dominican
opponent;
more
specifically,
it
represents
systematic
xposition
f
the doctrinad
oints
touched
upon
in
AurioPs
ermon
on
the Immaculate
Conception.14
uriol's
determina-
tion
did not
settle
he
ssue,
s his
subsequent
epercussorium
learly
ddresses
a
critic
f the
De
conceptione.
Such
a
chronology
its
he
circumstantial
vidence
extremely
ell. We
know
from
ndependent
ources
that
Auriol
was
Lector
t the
Franciscan
Studiumf
Toulouse ca.
1313-1315.
As Auriol's
writings
how,
the mma-
culateConceptionwas a controversialssue in the earlyXlVth century;
Dominican
theologians
n
general vehemently ejected
it.15
Moreover,
the
purported
ate
for the
sermon,
December
8, 1314,
the feastof the
Immaculate
Conception,
fellon
a
Sunday
and hence coincided
withthe
second
Sunday
in
Advent;
in
the
XlVth
century, unday
sermons
at
the
University
f Toulouse
were
given
n the
Dominican
Convent.16
hus,
there
would have
been
nothing
xtraordinary
bout Auriol's ermon ccur-
belongedo he ndowmentade yCardinalierreeFoix;manyf he ollge'bookswere
riginallycquired
y
heCardinal hen etook
ossession
f he
apal alace
f
Peiscola
fterhe bdication
f
the chismaticlement
III
in
1429
P.
Foumier,
es
bibliothques
es
ollges
e 'Universite Toulousein:
Bibliothque
e l'Ecolede
Chartes,
51(1890),
43-76;
M.
Faucon,
a Librairie
es
apes
'Avignon
sa
formation
sa
composition
ses
catalogues
1316-1420),
aris
1886,
.
2,
109].
Thus,
t
is
probable
hat
ntry
16
in
the
atalogue
fPeiscola
ca. 1411-1415),
iz.,
Item ractatuse
conceptioneirginis
Marie
ditus fratreetro
ureoli",
s
n
fact he
manuscript
hat lva
Astorga
s
refer-
ring
o
[H.M.Julien
e Pommerolt
J.
Monfrin,
a
Bibliothque
ontificale
Avigrion
t
Peiscola
endant
eGrandchisme'Occident
t
a
dispersion
Rome
991,
3-54].
nfortunately,
at the ime
lva
Astorga
aw he
odex,
he
ibrary
f
Foix
hadbeen n
decay
or
hree
quarters
f
century;
1668
nspection
evealedhat
hree
uarters
f
the
manuscript
booksnthe atalogueeremissing.hortlyhereafter,large ortionf hose emain-
ing
were
ncorporated
nto
he
Bibliothqueoyale
L.
Delisle,
e cabinetesmanuscrits
e
la
Bibliothque
mpriale
ationalew.
2-4],
aris
868-1881,
.
1,
494-509].
he
copy
f
Auriol'smmaculate
onception
reatiseas notbeen
ound. orhave identified
he
copy
hat
storga
ocates
n
the ollectionf heChancellor
fFrance.
14
uch sermonas
not
een
ound. s
with
many
f he ermons
hat
.B. chneyer,
Repertorium
erateinischen
ermones
es
Mittelalters
iir
ie
eit
on 150-1350
9
vols.,
Mnster
1969-80,
ol.
: Autoren:
-P,
ttributes
o
Auriol,
he neon the
mmaculate
onception,
viz.,
.
594,
no.
152,
Candorst uciseternae
is
dentical
o one hat e attributesn bet-
ter
uthority
o Francis
eyronnes;
n
any
ase,
n
doctrinal
rounds,
uch sermon
s
incompatible
ith
uriol's
osition,
nasmuch
s
t
places riginal
in
n
the ational
oul,
instead
f,
s Auriol
onsistendy
aintains,
ocating
t n he
ensitive
ppetite;
f. ranciscus
deMayronis,ermonesVenetiis493, .142vab.
15
ee
the
atalogue
f
pponents
ompiledy
De
Guimaraens
953
op.cit
,
above,
.
4),
172-86.
16
J.Verger,
a
prdication
ans
es niversitsridionales
n:
Cahiers
e
Fanjeaux,
2
1997),
275-93,
t
p.
279.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
18/288
THE
MMACULATEONCEPTION
13
ring
n
a convent hat
harbored ittle
ympathy
or ts doctrinal
ontent,or the
opinions
of its author.
In
any
case,
one of the
manuscript
itnesses
o
both the De
conceptione
and the
Repercussorium
Roma,
BN
Sessor.,
1405
(100),
is dated to
1315,
providing
urther
upport
or uch
chronology.
Moreover,
numerousman-
uscripts
f
the De
conceptione
ontain rubrics
ating
the text
to
1314;
oth-
ers
further
pecify
hat the
Repercussorium
s
of
the
same date.17
herefore,
the De
conceptione
as
composed
at
Toulouse
in
December,
1314,
and the
Repercussoriumhortly
hereafter,
robably
before
April,
1315.
The form f these treatises eflects hreemajorconcerns.First,Auriol
seeks o establish he
theoretical rameworkor he
mmaculate
Conception
by explaining
what
Original
Sin
is,
how it
is
transmitted,
nd how it is
possible
hat
God
preventedMary
from
ontracting
t.
Second,
he
works
to
supply
n
exegetical
model
that
renders
he
Immaculate
Conception
compatible
with
authority.
uriol claims that the
numerous
arguments
from
Scripture
nd
authority
gainst
the
position
use the terms
of
the
debate
equivocally.
n
favorof the
Immaculate
Conception,
aside from
authoritative
assages,
Auriol also reasons
from
general
rules and analo-
gousdoctrines o exemptMaryfrom in.Third,Auriolustifies he valid-
ity
of
holding
theological osition
hat
acks
any
explicit criptural
asis
and
finds t best few
defenders
mong
the Church
Fathers.He does this
by
elaborating
n
understanding
f Christian
doctrine hat
restricts he
type
of beliefs hat are
held with
certainty,
nd excludes
the Immaculate
Conception
from
hat
group.
Thus
he determines hat
certain
theologi-
cal
views,
he Immaculate
Conception
ncluded,
re
opinable.
These
goals
determine he
shape
of
AurioFsDe
conceptione.
his
shape
can
perhaps
be best
explainedby
breaking
t down
according
o
chapter:
1.
objections
o the
Immaculate
Conception
2.
theoretical
ramework: efinition f
terms:
onception,
Original
Sin,
17
E.g.,
Klosterneuburg,
tiftsbibl.,
72
late
XIV
c.),
f.36vb:
Explicit
ractatuse con-
ceptione
arie
irginis
ditus
fratreetro
ureolirdinisratrum
inorum,
agistro
sacre
heologie
n
Tholosa,
nno
omini
MCCCXIIII."One of he
manuscripts
sed
n
the
Quaracchi
dition,
amely
rfurt,
ibl.
Amploniana,.
131, ates,
ccording
o W.
Schurr,
eschreibendes
erzeichni
er
mplonianischen
andschriften-Sammlung
u
Erfurt
Berlin
1887, 93,
fromhe
arly
IVth
entury,
s ofSouthern
rench
rovenance,
nd con-
tains he ollowingubrics:a)for he econceptione:Innomineominitunigenitiarie
incipit
ractatuse
conceptione
iusdem
nviolatearie
ditus fratreetro
ureoli,
rdi-
nis
ratrum
inorum,
pud
holasamnno
omini CGCXIIII."
b)
for he
epercussorium:
"Incipitepercussorium
ditumontra
dversariumnnocentiae
atris
ompositumer
fratrum
etrmur.
e ordine
inorum,
nno t
oco
upradictis."
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
19/288
14 WILLIAM
UBA
and
contraction,
heir arious
enses,
nd
the ndication
f
which ense
is
primary
3. theoreticalramework:ivine
ower,
nd
the
possibility
f
the mmaculate
Conception
4.
exegetical
model:
arguments
rom
uthority
n
favor f the mmaculate
Conception
5.
A.
opinability:
he
conception
f the
Virgin
s a
matter
n which the-
ological opinion
s licit
B.
exegetical
model: the
types
f
responses
o be
given
to
the author-
ities cited to thecontrary
6.
responses
o
specific bjections
aised
n
chapter
1,
on the
basis
of 5B.
Attachedto the
end
of
chapter
6 is
a
brief
uestion
on
whether
he
feastof the
Conception
of the
Virgin
hould
be celebrated.
The
Repercussorium
s
composed
n
response
o
a
critic,
nd
largely
ddresses
the theoretical
nderpinnings
f
AurioPs
position.
t is
divided nto
eight
conclusiones.he first ix
deal with
different
spects
of AurioPsdoctrine f
Original
Sin;
the seventh
defends
orporeal
formation
'animal
concep-
tion')
as
a
significate
f
conception;
and the
eighth
contains AurioPs
defense f
virtually
very
other
position
he holds in thefirst reatise.
Turning
o the
Sentences
ommentaries,
uriol
discusses
he
mmaculate
Conception
n
book
III,
d.
3,
the locus
lassicus or the debate concern-
ing
the
conception
f
Mary.
These treatmentsf the mmaculate
onception
obviously espond
to a
very
different
et
of
requirements. eing
part
of
a
much
larger
work,
he
author
does not need to
elaborate
his
position
on related
doctrines,
uch as
Original
Sin and
Divine Power. At the same
time,
the structure
f
AurioPs
argumentation
s at
least
in
part
dictated
bythe conventionsfSentencesommentaries; hereasAuriolconcentrates
on his own
thesis
n
the
treatises,
n
the
commentaries
e
also
evaluates
other theories
oncerning
he
conception
f the
Virgin.
The
treatments
f the
mmaculate
Conception
ound
n the
two
Sentences
commentaries
lso
vary onsiderably
mong
themselves. he text
eported
by
SX
is
several imes
onger
han
thatfound
n
LPT;
thus
ny arguments
from mission
n LPT
will
have to be viewed
with
particular kepticism,
as
such omissions ould
very
well
be
due to this
stylistic
istinction.
Thus,
n
the
SX
version f
book
III,
d.
3,
Auriol rticulateshe
following
structureor he relevant rticlesn thefirstuestion, oncerninghe ssue
of
Mary's
sanctification hen she was conceived
conceptioassiva):
1
presentation
nd
resolution f
authorities
ro
nd contrahe mmaculate
Conception
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
20/288
THE
MMACULATE
ONCEPTION
15
2.
one
impossibleway
in which
Mary
was
initiallyanctified,
hat
asso-
ciated with
Henry
of
Ghent,
namely
n
the same instant
n
which she
was
conceived
n
Original
Sin
3.
three
possible
ways
in
which
Mary
was
initially
anctified
A. she was
in
Original
Sin
for the
first
nstant,
nd sanctified
n
the
time
contiguous
with
that
nstant
B.
she was conceived
mmaculately
C.
she
was
conceived
n
Original
Sin,
and was
sanctified ome time
thereafter
4. determinationf whichofthe threepositions houldbe held,namely
B.,
the
mmaculate
Conception,
nd
how,
namely
s
opinion,
not
with
certitude
5.
whether he feast
of the
Conception
of
Mary
should be
celebrated.
LPT's treatment
f the
Immaculate
Conception
question
s
similar
o
SX,
inasmuchas the
two treat
possible
and
impossibleways
of
under-
standing
he
conception
f
Mary.
Yet,
in LPT
the
mmaculate
Conception
is
treated in a
separate
question
that unites
the
arguments
for
the
position'spossibility,
ts
authoritative
upport,
nd the
declaration
hat
it is
actually
he
case;
the
remaining
ossible
and
impossible
ways
that
interest
uriol
are
discussed
n
the
following
uestion,
producing
he fol-
lowing
tructure:
Question
1: whether
he
Blessed
Virgin
was conceived
n
Original
Sin
I.
authorities
ro
and
contra
II.
response:
A.
rule:
since we
read
very
ittle
bout
Mary
in
Scripture,
o
her
should be attributed hatever s worthy fher lofty tate
B.
God
was
capable
of
preserving
Mary
C.
Mary
was,
in
fact,
preserved
rom he stain
of
Original
Sin
D.
the feastof the
Conception
of
Mary
can be
celebrated
III.
resolution f the
authority
ontra
Question
I:
whether,
f
Mary
were
conceived
n
Original
Sin,
she
could
be
sanctified
n
the same
instant
I.
arguments ro
and
contra.
II.
response:
A. as formulated,his
position
s
impossible,
cf.
Article2 of
SX)
B.
it s
possible
hat
Mary
was
conceived n
Original
in and
sanctified
in
time
contiguous
with that
nstant
cf.
3a
of SX
above).
III.
Resolution
f
the
argument
ontra
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
21/288
16
WILLIAM
UBA
Withthese
distinctions
n
mind,
et us now consider he
relations
mongthe texts.
2.
Textual arallels
The
fact that Auriol elaborates
his
doctrine
f
Original
Sin
in
the trea-
tises
on
the Immaculate
Conception,
but,
owing
to the
comprehensive
nature f Sentences
ommentaries,
nly
needs to
refer o
it n
his
mmaculate
Conception
discussions
n LPT
and
SX allows
us to
see
clearly
what role
theseparatetreatises lay n the formulationf hispositions. he polemic
nature of the
debate surfaces
n his
repeated
reformulations
f substan-
tially
he same
position.
Further,
he structure f
his
discussion
oncern-
ing
Original
Sin
in
one of his Sentences
ommentaries
irmly
ssociated
with Auriol's
Parisian ecturesof 1317-18 reflects
uriol's
ast formula-
tion of
his
position.
Finally,
when the
De
conceptione
ntegrates
Auriol's
doctrine
f
Original
Sin into
the
discussion
oncerning
he
Immaculate
Conception,
he
text
betrays igns
of
having
been
reworked;
compari-
son
witha
parallel passage
in SX
shows that
the
discussion
n
that com-
mentary as been adapted imperfecdyo thenew context.
In the
treatises,
uriol formulates
is doctrine
of
Original
Sin
three
times: twice
in
the De
conceptione
nd once
in
the
Repercussorium.
irst,
Auriol lists the
significates
f
Original
Sin. The
term
"Original
Sin"
Auriol
claims,
can
be
used
to refer o
any
one
of its three elements:
causal, material,
nd
formal.
1)
With
respect
o its
cause,
Original
Sin
refers
o
the
sinful
ct
of seminal
onception
hat
begins
he
process.
How
carnal
union serves as
a
cause
of
Original
Sin Auriol
explains
n
the
course
of
elaborating
he material
spect
of
Original
Sin.
In the material ense,OriginalSin is (2A) in itself omething ositive,
but
is
(2B) privative
with
respect
o
Original Righteousness.
hat
is,
ust
as
OriginadRighteousness
s forAuriol
the naturalobedience
of the
sen-
sitive
ppetite
o the
human
will,
so
Original
Sin
materially
s
the
rebel-
lion of
the sensitive
ppetite against
the
will. Auriol
repeatedly
nsists
that
in
this
sense
Original
Sin
is not
merely
he
privation
f
Original
Righteousness,
ut
is
a
positive
ttribute,
ither
ne created
and
inflicted
by
God as
punishment,
r one
that
sproutedup
after
he removal
of
Original
Righteousness.18
18
r.Gulielmiuarrae
Qg.
isput,
e mmac.
oncept.
.M.V.
ed.
Lemmen]
904
op.
it
,
above,
.
10):
De
conceptione
39,46;
Repercussorium
104.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
22/288
THE
MMACULATEONCEPTION 17
(3)
The
formal
spect
of
Original
Sin
is the offense
o God constituted
by original
ebellion,
hat
s,
(2)
the
material
spect.
Thus,
Original
Sin
is the
"imputability,
ffense,
nd
guilt"
that arises
n
those
possessing
2).
In
the
De
conceptione
uriol
then raises and
resolves series of
objec-
tions
to
his
position.
To
meet
these
objections,
Auriol
provides
his
sec-
ond formulationf
Original
Sin,
explaining
he
quiddity
f
Original
Sin
(I)
in
relation
o
Original
Sin itself this
orresponds
o
the
positive
mate-
rial sense
2A)
discussed
bove;
(II)
in
relation o its
opposite,
orrespond-
ing
to
the
privative
material
ense
(2B); (III)
in
relation
o its
subject
of
inherence, amelythe sensitive ppetite, n whichthe material lement
is
present;
nd
(IV)
in
relation
o
God,
that
s,
its formal
spect
3).
This
second
formulation
llows
Auriol to consider nd to
refute he
opinions
of
his adversaries.
ndeed,
in
this
manner,
he
is able
to attack
n
turn
the
positions
hat
Originad
in is
(Ol)
merely
he
privation
f
Original
Righteousness,02)
a
habit
inhering
n
the rational
oul,
and
(03) pri-
marily
ssociated
with human
nature.19
In the
first
ix
conclusionesf
the
Repercussorium
Auriol
responds
o
his
opponents
n
the
matter f
Original
in.
Taking
ach
conclusio
n
turn,
uriol
reiterates:CI) That thesensitiveppetiteby nature s indifferento the
will;
habitual
rebellion s
something
dded,
and hence
positive.
C2)
That
this
omething
dded to the
sensitive
ppetite,
he
privation
f
Original
Justice,
r habitual
rebellion,
s
not
the
formal
lement,
C3)
which is
rather
he
offense o God and the hate
in
God.
Moreover,
C4)
the
cause
of
Original
Sin is
libidinous
conception.
Finally,
he
clarifies hat
(C5)
Original
Justice
nhered
n
the
sensitive
ppetite,
and
(C6)
that
when
Adam
transgressed,
e
was
acting
on behalfof all
human
nature.20
Thus,
in
the
treatises,
uriol
provides
three
separate
formulationsf
OriginalSin. The first ontainshispositive xposition fthe three enses;
the
second
distinguishes
is
theory
rom
he
opinions
of
others;
nd
the
third
s a
polemic
reelaboration f his
position.
This testifieso
the
hotly
contested ature
of Auriol's
doctrine f
Original
Sin.
Indeed,
the
Reper-
cussoriumAuriol's
response
o
his
adversaries,
onsists
mainly
f
the
expo-
sitionof his
doctrine f
Original
Sin
When
Auriol
considers
he same
problem
n
the
printed ommentary
forbook
II,
associated
with
his Paris
lectures
f
1317-18,
he draws
upon
19
e
conceptione
in:Fr.
Gulwlmiuarrae
Qg. isput,
e mmac.
oncept.
.M.
.,
d.
Lem-
menl
904
op.cit.,
bove,
.
10),
t
39-47.
20
Repercussorium
n:Fr.
Gulielmiuarrae
Qg. isput,
e
mmac.
oncept.
.M.V.
ed.
Lem-
men]
904
op.cit.,
bove,
.
10),
t 96-137.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
23/288
18
WILLIAM UBA
the formulation
f the
Repercussorium(C1)-(C3)
form
the structural
nd
materialbasis forAuriol's discussion f the
topic
n d.
30,
article
2;
and
(C4)
shows similaritieso the first rticle
f dd.
32-33.21
hus
Aurioldoes
not
nevitably
estructure
is
arguments.
ather,
his
imilarity
hows
that
when he reconsiders
n
issue,
he
does
so with
ready
consultation
f
his
previous
reatments.
herefore,
we should
expect
to
find ubstantial im-
ilarities etween
parts
of Auriol's Immaculate
Conception
treatises nd
his discussionof
the Immaculate
Conception
in
d.
3,
book
III of his
Sentences
ommentary.
StrongparallelsbetweenSX and theDe concepitoneurface rom con-
sideration
f how Auriol
ntegrates
is discussion f
Original
Sin into his
discussion
f the
possibility
f the
Immaculate
Conception.
Auriol
begins
chapter
three
of the De
concepitone
y arguing
for the
possibility
f
the
Immaculate
Conception.
In
fact,
he
tacitly
mixes two distinct
ines of
argumentation.
uriol
beginsby
claiming
hat,
t the
firstnstant
f
Mary's
conception,
God could have
prevented
Mary
from
ontracting riginal
Sin and conferred race
on her. Auriol
deploys
series
of reasons
why
this
s
so;
chief
mong
these
are the
claims
that divine
agency
s
supe-
rior o natural gency, legislator an privilegen individual rom law,
and,
since the soul
is
capable
of
receiving
Grace
at the firstnstant
f ts
existence,
God
can conferGrace at the firstnstant.22
ithout
ndicating
the
divergence,
Auriol then
proceeds
to demonstrate
hat,
at
the first
instant f
Mary's
existence,
God
could
have removed
tollere)riginal
Sin.
The differences
of
some
importance:
he series f
arguments
bove
main-
tains
that,
by
divine
action,
Mary
could
have never
ad
Original
Sin;
the
second,
on the other
hand,
implies
that
Mary
could have
had
Original
Sin
at the
irst
nstant
f
her xistence.his
apparent
difficulty
as an
easy
solution:Auriol is probablyusing the verb tolleren a loose sense that
does not
imply
hat
ts
object
ever existed.
A
parallel
passage
in SX
makes
explicit
he two lines
of
reasoning.
n
thisSentences
ommentary,
uriol treats he same
issue
when
arguing
hat
at the
first
nstant
f
Mary's
existence,
God was able to
infuseGrace
and
remove
guilt.
To
support
his
position,
nd to
show
how it fitswithin
he
frameworkf his
theory
f divine
power,
he
argues separately
or
the
n-
fusion
of Grace and the
exclusionof
guilt.
He
starts
with three of the
arguments
or the
possibility
f the infusion
f Grace
at the
firstnstant
21
X:
284a-285b
for
he
iglum
X',
see
above,
.
3).
22
De
conceptione
in:
Fr.
Gulielmi
uarrae
Qg.Disput,
e mmac.
oncept.
.M.
,
ed.
[Lemmen]
904
op.dt.,
bove,
.
10),
t
49-52.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
24/288
THE
MMACULATEONCEPTION
19
that
are
also
found
n the De
conceptione.
hen
he
turns
o
the
exclusion
of
guilt
nd
presents
version
ofthefirst
rgument
resent
n the
trea-
tise.
Thus,
SX makes
explicit
he two lines
of
argumentationmplicit
n
the De
conceptione
Auriol s
arguing
for the
possibility
f an
immaculate
conception
irst
romthe
perspective
f conferral f
grace,
and
second
from
he
perspective
f the exclusion f
guilt.
uch a
relationship
etween
SX and
the
De
conceptione
however,
does not suffice o
suggest
n
order
between he texts.
A
closer
comparison
f the
argument
or he exclusion
f
Original
Sin
sharedby thetwo textsdoes suggest direction fdependence. n par-
ticular,
f
we examine the
argument
or the exclusionof
guilt
common
to both
texts,
we
discover
substantially
he
same
argumentation
eing
employed
n different
ontexts. he
argument
s it
appears
in
SX
reads:
I
ask,
what o
you
mean
y Original
in'?"
ither
A)
t
s the
rivation
f
Original
Righteousness
ithn
aversion
obliquitas)
o
t,
whichversion
s
concupiscence,
nd
this
oncupiscence
s a relationf
reason,
incen relation
o that
ower,
hich
as
materially
he
pposite
f
Original
in,
t
s disobedient.ut
ormally
riginal
in
is
imputability,
ince t s
not
sin
unlesst s
imputed;
nd
this
mputability
s
removedn
baptism,
ut
hatwhichs
material,
amely
oncupiscence,
emains.
Thereforesay hatt spossiblehat he oul f he lessedirgin aswithoutin
at the
irstnstant.
If
B)
you
hould
ay
hat hematerial
lement
here
ignifies
he
tain
f
in,
say
hat odcould
uspend
t.
Equally,
od
could emovehat
ickly
uality,
ince
ure
leshn and
of tself
s
not
nfected,
s
Christad leshnd
yet
is lesh asnot
nfected
y
ny
ickly
ual-
ity,
nd
hus
he ction
of
nfecting]
ould ot
ollow,
ince heres no
agent
hat
would tain.
But
f
C) you
posit
hat
riginal
in s the
ack
f
Original
ighteousness
ith
the
equirement
f
having
t
um
ebito
,
I
say
hat
od
could lso
removenddis-
miss he
equirement.
Similarly
oncerning
A)
hat versionith
mputation,
n
this
ase
God
could t
the irstnstantfexistenceot mpute,ndthat uality,hichsthe awofthe
bodily
embers
lex
membrorum),
e
could
uspend,
nd
he couldmake t
such hat
itwere
ot
resent,
nd hus
t
could e that t
the
nstantfher
onception,
he
didnothave
Original
in.23
23
:
f.
24vb;
:
382b:
Quaero uid
maginariser
peccatum
riginale?
ut nim
st
privatio
um
bliquitate
riginali,
uae
obliquitas
st
oncupiscentia,
t haec
concupis-
centiast
espectus
ationis,
uia
n
ordine
d
llam
otentiam
st
nobediens,
uaepoten-
tiaerat
pposita
eccato
riginali
aterialiter,
edformaliterst
mputabilitas,
uia
non
est
eccatum
isi
mputetur;
thaec
mputabilitas
uferturn
baptismo,
edremanetllud
quod stmateriale,cilicetoncupiscentia.deodico uod ossibilest uod nima eatae
Virginis
uit
ine
eccato
n
primo
nstanti.
Si
dicas
uod
icitbi
materialeer:
'
materia materia
riginale]
maculam
eccati
[X peccatoris
,
sed el.
C],
ico
uod
Deus
potuit
am
uspendere.
tem,
eus
potuit
illam
ualitatem
orbidam
movere,
um
ura
arode
se
non it
nfecta,
uia
Christus
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
25/288
20
WILLIAM
UBA
In
this
passage,
Auriol
arguesdialectically,emonstrating
hat
regardlessof which
understanding
f
Original
Sin his
opponent
may
have,
it is
within
God's
power
to
prevent
Mary
from
ontracting.
hus,
he
presents
position
A),
what we know
from he
De
conceptione
o
be
his
own
opin-
ion,
namely
that
Original
Sin is
materially
oncupiscence
nd
formally
imputability,
nd states
hat
t
is
possible
that
Mary
was
conceivedwith-
out this
mputability.
hen,
he
considers
osition
B),
which
holds
Original
Sin to
be
a
"sickly uality" qualitas
morbidathat nheres
n
the
flesh;
ince
the fleshof Christ did
not
possess
such a
quality,
t
is not
a
necessary
property; husGod could remove it. Auriol then reportsposition C),
which
maintains hat
Original
in
is the
privation
f
OriginalRighteousness
coupled
with
the
obligation
consideratio
oci
naturalis
t
cilicet
uperficies
st
n
cor-
pore
naturalisto
t
lio,
t lla
uperficies
stbene
mobilis
t
subiective
t obiective
Note hat
he
assagemay
e
corrupt.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
146/288
PLAGE,
PACE,
NDTHE
PHYSICS F GRACE 141
Letus first
peak
f he
eparationracticed
n
conceptual
xistence
esse
ognito
.
the ntellectan bstractparticularagnituderomnyubject,ormagnitudean
take
onceptual
xistenceithouthe
ubject
n
which
t
nheres
aving
lso
oexist
conceptually;
hus o
abstracts
nothing
therhan o considerhiswithout
onsid-
ering
hat. e who
ccomplishes
uch n abstraction
s
not
ying.
uch n abstrac-
tion hat
eparates
magnitude
rom
ny
ubject
nd sensible atters
properly
mathematical;
athematicians,
n
fact,
onsider
he
magnitudes
f
bodieswithout
having
o know
n
what
way
hese
magnitudes
xist.67
Even
this
assage, specially
ith tsesse
ognition,
eems o be
an
extrapolation
from
Auriol.68
f
Duhem is
right
hat
Bonet's
position
could,
or
would,
otherwise ave
been
inspiredby
Ockham,
then
perhaps
Auriol exerted
someinfluencen the Venerable
nceptor's pinion.69
Moreover,
Bonet's
words
n
the
quoted
paragraph
re
almostwithout
oubt the
inspiration
forFranciscus oletus
1532-1593),
whose
opinion
Edward Grant
uses to
illustratehe Renaissancetrendwithin he
Aristotelian
radition
o under-
mine
the
Philosopher's
oncept
of
place
and
space.70
How Auriol's the-
ory
nfluenced he course of
physics
hen
s an
interesting
uestion.
But the
present
nalysis
s
merely
briefand
somewhat
superficial
introductiono some of Auriol's
physical
theories. t is
clear,
however,
thatdiscussions f a 'purely'philosophicalor scientific aturecan be
found
n
theological
ritings.ronically,
uriol'smove
away
fromAristotle
on the
issue of
place
and
space
is more
purelyphilosophical
han
many
slightly
ater
departures
n
non-theological
ontexts,
which
may
demon-
strate he
nfluence
f the
condemnations f
1277
or at
least
of the debate
over
God's
power.71
t
is
also
clear,
however,
hat
for Auriol
the
inter-
play
between
theology
nd
philosophy
s
constant,
r rather here s no
67Duhem985,36. have odisagree,owever,ithuhem'slaim hatpacewhich
merely
as
sse
ognitum
xists
nly
ithinhe
ntellect.
68
Atthe ime
onet as
perhaps
uriol's
ost
ympathetic
eader
f
ny
ignificance
in
the
ontextffuture
ontingents
cf.
chabel
994,
45-56),
o there
ay
e
a
general
influence
ere.
69
It s
nteresting
hat
lgra
995,
30,
alls
Ockham's
osition
the
nly
eally
atis-
factoryAristotelian]
olutiono
the
roblem
t
ssue ere."
70
On
Toletus,
ee Grant
976,
55-9,
sp.
157,
where,
lthough
rant oes
not
ive
the
atin,
he
osition
escribeds a
paraphrase
fBonet.
quote
romnother
dition,
Toletus
615,
.
122ra:
Altero odo n
communi
bstrahendo,
b hocvel lio
pacio
in-
gulorum
orporum,pacium
n
communi
otius undi
n
quo
modo unt
orpora;
bstra-
hendo,
nquam,
b
hoc vel lio
corpore,
t
haecconsiderado
onest
ficta,
ed vera.
Siquidembstrahentiumon stmendacium.. et ta onsideramusoc paciumbstrac-
tum n
communi,
on
habito
espectu
d subiecta
ingularia,
icutmathematicus
on-
sidrt
uantitatem
n
abstracto. ." Toletus
lso knew nd
refuteduriol's
pinion
equatinglace
with bi
although
e
assigned
t
to certain oderni.
f.Toletus
615,
f.
1
ra-b nd
118vb-119ra.
71
On this
ssue ee
e.g.
Grant
976 nd
Murdoch
998.
-
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol 38, Nos. 1-2, 2000
147/288
142
CHRIS CHABEL
division:
Theological
truths re
scientific
ata,
and natural
phenomena
impact
theological
iscourse.
n
the
present
ontext,
t
is
perhaps mpos-
sible to
tell
whether
AurioPs doctrine f
place
was
developed
ndepend-
ently,
r
grew
out
of his
theory
f the intension
f
grace,
or
even
had
its
origins
n an
effort
o
explain
the nature of
angels
and
glorified
od-
ies.72 t
may
in