Front matter
The Quodlibetal Questions Translated with an Introduction, © Notes, and Glossary by — Felix Alluntis, O.F.M. ~
pe ane wae =
a :
JEay
God and Creatures
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2024 https://archive.org/details/godcreaturesquod0000duns_i3n2
John Duns Scotus
GOD AND CREATURES
The Quodlibetal Questions Translated with an Introduction, Notes, and Glossary by Felix Alluntis, O.F.M. and Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M.
The Catholic University of America Press Washington, D.C.
Copyright © 1975 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press,
Princeton and London All rights reserved Reprinted by arrangement with Princeton University Press
CORRIGENDA
p. 337, 1.6 read "intellectual" for "intellect" p. 539, 1.16 read ''commodi'' for '"'iustitiae''
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Duns, Joannes, Scotus, 12652-1308?
God and creatures.
Translation of Quodlibeta.
Reprint of the ed. published by Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
1. Theology, Doctrinal.
I. Alluntis, Felix.
II. Wolter, Allan Bernard, 1913- .
Ill <Title;
[BX1749.D8213
1981] 230" -2 80-28098
ISBN 0-8132-0557-3
Contents Abbreviations Acknowledgments Introduction XVil Prologue Question One: IN DIVINE THINGS, IS IT THE ESSENTIAL
OR THE NOTIONAL THAT IS MORE IMMEDIATE
TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question Article I Preliminary Remarks 1. The Meaning of '"Essence''
2. The Meaning of "Essential" and "Notional"
3. The Meaning of "More Immediate"
Article II Solution of the Question Article III Reply to various Objections Reply to the Initial Argument Question Two: COULD THERE BE SEVERAL
PRODUCTIONS OF THE SAME TYPE IN GOD?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question Article I An Evaluation of the Reasons for the Negative Conclusion Article II - Solution of the Question 1.
Indirect Argument or the Reductio ad impossibile 2. The Positive Proof 3. Confirmation from the Philosopher Article III Objections and their Solutions Question Three: ARE THESE TWO COMPATIBLE:
A RELATION RELATED TO ITS OPPOSITE IS A REAL
THING; AND, AS RELATED TO THE ESSENCE, IT IS
ONLY AN ASPECT?
Arguments Pro and Con
CONTENTS
Body of the Question Article I Is the Relation of Origin a Thing and, if so, What Kind of Thing?
Article II As Related to the Essence, is the Relation a Thing and What Kind of Thing?
1. The Relation as Related to the Essence is a Thing 2.
Logical Consideration of the Statement 'The relation as related to the essence is a thing."
3. Solution of the Principal Question Article III Resolution of various Doubts Reply to the Initial Argument
Question Four: COULD THE FIRST DIVINE PERSON
REMAIN CONSTITUTED AS A PERSON, DISTINCT FROM
THE OTHER PERSONS, APART FROM THE
RELATIONSHIP OF ORIGIN?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question
Article I Is it Repugnant that the First Person be Constituted by a Relation?
Article II By What Relation could the First Person be Constituted?
Article III What is the Interrelation of those Relations Admittedly Present in the First Person?
Is there some Distinction of Properties in the First Person?
2. From What Considerations could One Prescind and still have the First Person?
Reply to the Initial Argument
105, Question Five: Is THE RELATION OF ORIGIN
FORMALLY INFINITE?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question
Article I The Meaning of the Question Article II Solution of the Question: Paternity is not Infinite
1. The First Principal Reason
'The Second Principal Reason
3. The Third Principal Reason
Article III Objections and Answers Reply to the Initial Argument vl
CONTENTS Question Six: Is "EQUALITY" IN THE DIVINE A REAL
RELATION?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I. Is there a Real Foundation for Equality in the Divine?
1. The Foundation for Equality in General
2. The Foundation of Equality in God 3. Is Each of these Foundations for Equality Real?
1) First question: Is magnitude in God something extramental?
2) Second question: Is eternity a real or extramental basis for equality?
3) Third question: Is power a real basis for equality?
Article II Are the Terms Related really Distinct?
Article III Is Equality in the Persons according to an Extramental Foundation?
Reply to the Initial Arguments ke) Lays
Question Seven: CAN IT BE DEMONSTRATED BY
NATURAL AND NECESSARY REASON THAT GOD IS
OMNIPOTENT?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question Article I The Necessary Distinctions
1. Demonstration of Simple Fact and of the Reasoned Fact
2. Two Meanings of Omnipotence Article II Solution of the Question
1. Concerning the First Conclusion 2. Concerning the Second Conclusion 3. Concerning the Third Conclusion
4. Concerning the Fourth Conclusion 5. Concerning the Fifth Conclusion Reply to the Initial Arguments
Reply to the Argument about Infinite Power
Reply to the Argument about the Generation of the Son 185, 3. Reply to the Argument about the Creation of the Angels
vii
CONTENTS Question Eight: DOES THE DIVINE WORD HAVE SOME
CAUSALITY OF HIS OWN AS REGARDS CREATURES?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I Is there some Formal Aspect of Causation Proper to the Word?
1. Negative Answer: Three Proofs 2. Objection to these Proofs 3. Answer to the Objection Article II Is some Mode or Order in Causing Proper to the Word?
Article III Is some Relationship of Causality or any Relationship of His to a Creature Included per se in the Word's Constitutive Property?
Reply to the Initial Argument
Question Nine: CAN GOD BRING IT ABOUT THAT AN
ANGEL INFORM MATTER?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I The Meaning of the Question Article II Answer to the Question Article III Some Objections and their Solutions Reply to the Initial Argument
Question Ten: CAN GOD CONVERT THE EUCHARISTIC
SPECIES INTO SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY EXISTING?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I The terminus a quo or the Separated Quantity Article II The terminus ad quem or What Preexists Article III About the Conversion Itself Reply to the Initial Arguments
Question Eleven: IF BOTH BODY AND PLACE REMAIN,
CAN GOD CAUSE THE BODY NOT TO HAVE UBIETY?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question a7
Article I Given Place in General, is it Repugnant for a Body in General to Lack Ubiety?
vill
CONTENTS Article II Given Body in General, is it Repugnant to Place in General that no Ubiety Exist?
Article III Given this Body, this Place, but this Body
not Present in this Place, is it Possible that this Body should Lack this Ubiety?
Article IV If this Body and Place Exist and this Body is Present in this Place, can it still Lack this Ubiety?
Reply to the Initial Argument
Question Twelve: Is THE RELATION OF A CREATURE
TO GOD AS CREATOR THE SAME AS THE RELATION
TO GOD AS CONSERVER?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question Article I Is the Real Relation of the Creature to God
as Creator and as Conserver the Same?
Article II Can a Thing be Said to be at once Created and Conserved?
Article III Can Something be Created without being Conserved after the Instant of Creation?
Reply to the Initial Arguments
Question Thirteen: ARE THE ACTS OF KNOWING AND
APPETITION ESSENTIALLY ABSOLUTE OR
ESSENTIALLY RELATIVE?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question Article I There is some Absolute Entity Involved in Every Operation including Intellection Article II How this Absolute Entity is Related to the Object Connected with It
1. The Operation, Some Claim, must Involve a Real Relationship to the Object
2. How are We to Understand the Claim that the Operation Implies a Relation?
3. Analysis of the Arguments in the First Section Article III Is a Relationship to the Object Essential
to the Act of Knowing or Appetition?
Article IV The Question Understood as Referring to the Subject Reply to the Initial Argument
CONTENTS Question Fourteen: CAN THE SOUL LEFT TO ITS
NATURAL PERFECTION KNOW THE TRINITY OF
PERSONS IN GOD?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question Article I Imperfect Knowledge
1. Knowledge of the Terms "God" and "Trinity"
2. Knowledge of the Proposition "God is a Trinity"
=e)
Article II Perfect Immediate Knowledge Article III Mediate Knowledge Question Fifteen: Is THE POSSIBLE INTELLECT
ACTIVE OR PASSIVE AS REGARDS THE CONCEPT
OF A CREATURE?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I Formation of the Word according to the Manner in Which We Understand in the Present Life
11.
In the Intellective Part of the Soul there is an Active Principle of Intellection o40
2. Which Factor is Active in Intellection?
3. Is it the Agent or the Possible Intellect That is Active in Intellection?
Article II How the Notion or Word is Formed in the Intellect of the Blessed in Heaven Reply to the Initial Arguments
Question Sixteen: ARE FREEDOM OF WILL AND
NATURAL NECESSITY COMPATIBLE AS REGARDS
THE SAME ACT AND OBJECT?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I Is there Necessity in any Act of the Will?
Article II Can Freedom and Necessity Coexist in the Will?
Article III Can Natural Necessity ever Coexist with Freedom?
Reply to the Initial Argument
CONTENTS Question Seventeen: ARE ACTS OF NATURAL LOVE
AND MERITORIOUS LOVE SPECIFICALLY THE SAME?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I The Meaning of Natural Dilection or Love Article II The Meaning of Meritorious Love or Dilection Article III Solution of the Question Reply to the Initial Argument
Question Eighteen: DOES THE EXTERIOR ACT ADD
SOME GOODNESS OR BADNESS TO THE INTERIOR ACT?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question
Article I The Source of Moral Goodness or Badness Article II The Source of Laudability and Culpability
Article III Is the Goodness or Laudability of the External Action Distinct from That of the Interior Act?
1. The Exterior Act has Its Own Moral Goodness 2. The External Act is Imputable Reply to the Initial Argument Question Nineteen: Is THE UNITY IN CHRIST OF THE
HUMAN NATURE WITH THE WORD MERELY THE
ASSUMED NATURE'S DEPENDENCE UPON THE WORD?
Arguments Pro and Con Body of the Question Article I The Type of Unity to be Posited Here
Article II The Possibility of Such a Union on the Part of the Assuming Person
First Proof 2. Second Proof
3. Proofs Proposed by Others 4. Objection to the Conclusion of this Article Article III The Possibility of Such a Union on the Part of the Assumed Nature
1. What Constitutes Created Personality?
2, Can a Human Nature Depend upon an Extrinsic Person?
Reply to the Initial Argument
CONTENTS Question Twenty: DOES A PRIEST WHO IS OBLIGED
TO SAY A MASS FOR EACH OF TWO DIFFERENT
PEOPLE SATISFY HIS OBLIGATION BY SAYING
ONE MASS FOR BOTH?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question Article I The Value of the Mass in virtue of the
Celebrant's Personal Merit Article II The Value of the Mass by reason of the Merit of the Universal Church
1. Can the Priest Apply the Merit due in virtue of the Sacrifice?
2. Can the Priest Apply Such a Good at Will?
3. One Mass does not Benefit Each of Several as Much
as it Would if Offered for One Alone Article III Does the Priest Satisfy his Obligation to Both by One Offering?
Reply to the Initial Argument
Question Twenty-One: CAN ONE WHO ADMITS THAT
THE WORLD IS ETERNAL DEFEND THE POSITION
THAT ANYONE COULD ALWAYS BE FORTUNATE?
Arguments Pro and Con
Body of the Question Article I The View that Someone is Fortunate 1. The Existence and Nature of Good Fortune
The Reportatio Version: Can Those Who Admit the World is Eternal also Admit that a Man is Fortunate Body of the Question ai
1. The View that Someone can be Fortunate 2. About Aristotle's View that the World is Eternal
Appendix Addition 1.11
Addition 1.38
Addition 7.38
Addition 9.53
Addition 11.15
Addition 12.28
Addition 13.56
Xil
CONTENTS Addition 14.25
Addition 15.79
Addition 18.23
Addition 20.49
Glossary
Index of Authors
Index of Subjects
Xili
Abbreviations Bibliotheca franciscana scholastica medit aevt, cura Patrum Collegii S. Bonaventurae. Ad Claras
Aquas, Florentiae, 1903ff.
BFS Corpus commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem.
Ed. H. A. Wolfson, D. Baneth, F. H. Fobes. The CCAA Medieval Academy of America, Cambridge, Mass., 1953.
Corpus christianorum, series latina. Turnholti:
Typographi Brepols editores Pontificii.
CCSL Corpus scriptorum ecclestasticorum latinorum.
Vindeboniae: Academia Vindebonensis, 1866ff.
CSEL Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, accurante J. P. Migne, Parisiis, 1857ff.
PG Les Philosophes Belges: Textes et études.
Collection publiée par ]'Institut Supérieur de PhB Philosophie de l'Université de Louvain. Louvain,
1901ff.
Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina, accurante J. P. Migne, Parisiis, 1844ff.
PE XiV
Acknowledgments We are grateful to both the American Philosophical Society for grants No. 5533 and 5968 from the Penrose Fund and to the Catholic University of America for supplementary research grants that made our collaboration possible. Most of Wolter's work on the glossary was done as part of a larger research project on Duns
Scotus' thought during his tenure as Senior Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities. We also wish to thank the Catholic University of America Press for permission to reprint the translation of question seven, which appeared in Volume 4 of Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy edited by J. K. Ryan.
F.A.
A.B.W.
} = SoA Re Garett aire a 1s itll = ts <a Yh fh /{
Introduction John Duns Scotus, known as the Subtle Doctor, was a scholastic theologian and philosopher who for four centuries or more after his death had a profound influence on Western philosophical thought.
The American scientist and philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce considered him the greatest speculative mind of the Middle Ages and one of the "profoundest metaphysicians that ever lived."! Though
Scotus' Latin has neither the simplicity of St. Thomas' nor the beauty of St. Bonaventure's, one seventeenth-century theologian writing about his moral philosophy declares the Scotist school to be more numerous than that of all the others combined.? Two international congresses devoted to his thought within the last decade bear witnéss to the continuing interest in his ideas.? Yet as his sobriquet suggests, he is a deep and difficult thinker. Almost invariably his thought develops through an involved dialogue with unnamed contemporaries that taxes the patience of most readers. As one philosopher puts it, his way of writing is "exploratory rather than finished, intended to record Duns Scotus' thought for himself, rather than communicate it to less thorough and critical minds."'* Yet de1 Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, ed. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), Vol. 1, p. 10, par. 1.29: "Duns Scotus and William Ockham are decidedly the greatest speculative minds of the Middle Ages as well as two of the profoundest metaphysicians that ever lived." Of the two, it is clear Peirce regarded Scotus as the superior. See, e.g., pars. 1.6, 1.16, 1.10f.
2 See the testimony, for instance, of the seventeenth-century Cistercian theologian, John Caramuel y Lobkowicz. In this connection see F. Bak,
"Scoti Schola Numerosior Est Omnibus Aliis Simul Sumptis," Franciscan Studies xvi (1956), 144-65.
2 The proceedings are published in the first five volumes of a new series entitled Studia scholastica-scotistica. Those of the Second International
Scotistic Congress held at Oxford and Edinburgh, Sept. 11-17, 1966, appear in first four volumes under the title De doctrina Ioannis Duns Scoti
(Romae, 1968); those of the Third International Scotistic Congress held at Vienna, Sept. 28-Oct. 2, 1970, are in a single volume entitled Deus et Homo ad mentem I. Duns Scoti (Romae, 1972).
4A, Hyman and J. J. Walsh, Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York, 1967), p. 556.
XVil
INTRODUCTION
spite this forbidding style that repelled the humanists of the Renaissance and won for him the dubious honor of being dubbed the original "dunce," poets like Gerard Manley Hopkins or Thomas Merton found his writings inspiring and his insights unrivaled "be rival
Italy or Greece."® The questions Scotus discusses in this last of his major works were not of his own choosing. They were originally proposed to him in the course of a public debate and reflect some of the interests and concerns of the theological faculty and student body at the University of Paris at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Nevertheless in revising them for publication he wove in so much of his basic philosophy and theology as to make this work one of the mainstays on which his reputation as a thinker depends. It contains the "marrow of his teaching," as Luke Wadding put it, presented "with greater clarity, with a method more facile and with arguments more solid.' It is of paramount importance in assessing Scotus' final position on a wide range of topics.
I Life and Works Only after the fourteenth century, when his name had become a legend in theological and philosophical circles, did writers attempt to reconstruct something of Scotus' early life. Especially among. those who venerated him as a saint, fact was mingled with fable, and by the seventeenth century, when his following was at its greatest, critical historians found it practically impossible to sift truth from fiction. Luke Wadding, the great historian of the Franciscan order, confessed that the place and date of his birth as well as his age and the date of his death are particularly uncertain." Writing in the second half of the last century, Ernest Renan remarks it would be difficult to find a famous man of the Middle Ages whose life is less known than that of Duns Scotus.®
> "Duns Scotus's Oxford." Sonnet 44, Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins, grd edn., ed. W. H. Gardner (London, 1948), p. 84. See also Thomas Merton, "Duns Scotus," Figures for an Apocalypse (New York, 1947), pp. 4849, and "Hymn for the Feast of Duns Scotus," The Tears of the Blind
Lions (New York, 1949), pp. 6-7.
6 L. Wadding's '"'Praefatio ad lectorem," to Tome xu of Joannis Duns Scott opera omnia (Lugduni, 1639), no pagination.
7 "Patria, aetas, mors haec plus ceteris incerta," L. Wadding, Annales Minorum v1 (Romae, 1733), p. 41.
8E. Renan, "Jean Duns Scot," Histoire littéraire de la France xxv (Paris, 1869), 404.
XVili
INTRODUCTION
A half-century of patient research, however, has disclosed a number of facts. The early fourteenth-century manuscript tradition, for instance, provides statements to the effect that John Duns is a Scot, from Duns, who belonged to the English province of Friars Minor?
(the religious order founded by St. Francis of Assisi) and that he "flourished at Cambridge, Oxford, and Paris and died in Cologne.''?°
Having rejected Wadding's earlier suggestion that John might even have been born in Ireland, scholars agree today that Scotland is his native land. But even as late as a decade ago, they had not settled on the exact place of his birth. The fact that in the manuscripts he is called both "John Duns" and "John of Duns" suggested that Duns might be either the name of his family or of the place of his birth or both. In choosing 1966 for the International Congress to commemorate the seventh centenary of his birth, however, and in raising a cairn near the Pavilion Lodge of the Duns castle in Berwickshire, scholars honored a long tradition not only as to the site where he was born but also as to approximately when. The details of his parentage, his early schooling at Haddington, and the story of his entry into the Franciscan order as found in the so-called Tweedy transcription of the Chronicle of Scottish Franciscans cannot be trusted.1! The earliest reliable date we have of Scotus is that of his ordination at St. Andrew's Church in Northampton on March 17,
1291, by Oliver Sutton, Bishop of Lincoln.1? In view of the minimum age requirements for the priesthood, Scotus could hardly have been born later than March, 1266, and certainly not in 1274 as earlier historians claimed.
The Scots belonged jurisdictionally to the English Franciscan province. Their principal house of studies was at Oxford. Bramp9 See C. Bali¢, "Life and Works of John Duns Scotus," John Duns Scotus,
1265-1965, ed. J. K. Ryan and B. Bonansea, in Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 3 (Washington, D.C., 1965), 2ff.
10 The colophon of the early fourteenth-century MS. 66 of Merton College reads: "Haec de ordinatione ven. fratris J. Duns de ordine fratrum
Minorum, qui floruit Cant., Oxon. et Parisiis et obiit in Colonia."
11H. Docherty, "The Brockie Forgeries," The Innes Review xvi (1965), 79-127; idem, '"The Brockie MSS. and Duns Scotus," De doctrina Ioannis
Duns Scoti (Acta Congressus Scotistici Internationalis Oxonii et Edimburgi 11-17 sept. 1966 celebrati), 1 (Romae, 1968), 329-60.
12E. Longpré, "L'ordination sacerdotale du bx. Jean Duns Scot. Document 17 mars 1291," Archivum Franciscanum Historicum xxl
(1929), 5462.
X1X
INTRODUCTION
ton!* has given the most plausible account of Scotus' studies there, based on the statutes of Oxford University. The theological program leading to the mastership in theology would have lasted some thirteen years. The last four of these would have been spent as a bachelor of theology. Of these four, the first year was usually devoted to preparing lectures on Peter Lombard's Sentences and the second year in delivering them.
The bachelor's role at this stage was not to give a running commentary on this theological textbook but rather to raise and answer questions of his own on topics that roughly paralleled the subject
"distinctions" in Lombard. Consequently the topics John discusses in his Lectura oxoniensis range over the whole field of theology.
When the bachelor had finished his year of lectures, he began to revise and enlarge them with a view to publication. Such a revised version was called an ordinatio, in contrast to his original notes
(lectura) or a student's report (reportatio) of the actual lecture. If the lecturer himself corrected such a report, it was called a reportatio examinata. From a date mentioned in the second question of the prologue, it is clear that Scotus was already at work in 1300 on what would become his major work, the commentary on the Sentences known as the Ordinatio or Opus oxoniense.1+
University statutes demanded that the third year be devoted to lectures on the Bible; during his final year, the bachelor formatus, as he was called, was required to take part in public disputations under different masters including his own. This last year can be dated rather precisely in Scotus' case. He is named among the twenty-two Franciscans, including two masters of theology, Adam of Howden and Philip of Bridlington, presented to Bishop Dalderby on July 26, 1300, for faculties to hear confessions in the friars' church at Oxford." Since the Franciscans had only one chair of theology at the university and there was a long list of trained bachelors waiting to incept or present their inaugural lectures, regent masters
(i.e., those who occupied the official chair) were replaced annually.
Adam was the twenty-eighth and Philip the twenty-ninth Oxford master, so that Philip's year of regency was just beginning. This must have coincided with Scotus' final and thirteenth year, since he
18C.
K. Brampton, "Duns Scotus at Oxford, 1288-1301," Franciscan Studies XxIv (1964), 5-20.
14 Ordinatio, Prol. n.112
(1, 77).
15 A. G, Little, The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford, 1892), pp. 63-64.
INTRODUCTION
was the bachelor respondent under Master Bridlington.t¢ This would mean, Brampton argues, that by June of 1301, Scotus had completed all requirements for the mastership in theology, yet in view of the long line ahead of him, there was little hope of incepting as an Oxford master for perhaps a decade to come.
When the English province's turn came to provide a talented candidate for the Franciscan chair of theology at the more prestigious
University of Paris, Scotus was selected. One reportatio of his Parisian lectures indicates that he began his commentary in the autumn of 1302 and continued to June of the following year.17 But before the term came to an end the long-festering feud between King
Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface VIII came to a head. Philip had taxed Church property to support his wars with England and the Pope excommunicated him. The monarch retaliated by calling for a general council of the Church to depose Boniface. He won the support of the university and French clergy generally. On June 24,
1303, a great anti-papal demonstration occurred. Mendicant friars marched through the streets of Paris. Berthold of St. Denis, Bishop of Orléans and ex-chancellor of the university, together with two
Franciscans and two Dominicans addressed the demonstrators. The next day royal commissioners examined each member of the Franciscan friary to determine whose side he was on. Some seventy friars, mostly French, favored Philip whereas the rest (over eighty) sided with the Pope. Among the latter were John Scotus and Master
16 The evidence, discovered by Longpré, is contained in quarternus VI, q.20, of MS. Worcester Cath. gg; cf. A. G. Little and F. Pelster, Oxford
Theology and Theologians c. A.D. 1282-1302 (Oxford, 1934), p. 310. Cf.
E. Longpré, "Philippe de Bridlington O.F.M. et le bx. Duns Scot,"
Archivum Franciscanum Historicum xxii (1929), 587-88. On the role of the bachelor as respondent see Little and Pelster, op. cit., pp. 31-36.
17 MS. F. 69 in Worcester Cathedral Library is one of the earliest manuscripts of the Reportata parisiensia. The colophon at the end of the list of questions in the first book (fol. 158va) reads: ""Expliciunt quaestiones super primum Sententiarum datae a fratre [J. Dons Scoto written over erasure] ordinis fratrum minorum Parisius anno domini Mp? trecentesimo secundo intrante tertio."" And at the end of the list of questions in the fourth book
(fol. 160va) we read: "Expliciunt quaestiones Sententiarum datae a fratre J[ohanne Duns] antedicto in studio Parisius anno domini M°CCC°lIII."
See A. G. Little, "Chronological Notes on the Life of Duns Scotus," English Historical Review xtvit
(1932), 575; C. K. Brampton, of. cit., 11 ff.
XXi
INTRODUCTION
Gonsalvus of Spain.!® The royal penalty was exile from France within three days. Boniface responded with a bull of August 15, 1303, suspending the university's right to grant degrees in theology and civil or canon law. As a result of his harassment and imprisonment by the King's mercenaries, however, Boniface died in October. He was succeeded by Pope Benedict XI, who in the interests of peace lifted the ban against the university in April, 1304, and not long after the King did everything to facilitate the return of the exiled students.
Just where Scotus and Master Gonsalvus spent their exile is not clear. It could be that Scotus' Cambridge lectures stem from this period, though he may have given them before coming to Paris. Be that as it may, before the summer of 1304 Scotus was back in Paris, for he functioned as bachelor respondent in the disputation in aula
(in the hall of the bishop) when his predecessor, Giles of Ligny, was promoted to master. Meanwhile Gonsalvus had become Minister
General, or head, of the Franciscan order during the Pentecost General Chapter of 1304. On November 18 of that year he wrote to the Franciscan superior at the Paris friary that the next bachelor to be licensed as regent master was "Friar John Scotus, of whose laudable life, excellent knowledge and most subtle ability as well as his other remarkable qualities I am fully informed, partly from long experience, partly from report which has spread everywhere.''?®
Presumably Scotus became master sometime in 1305. The period following his inception seems to have been one of great literary activity. Aided by associates and secretaries, he set out to finish the Ordinatio begun at Oxford, using not only the Oxford and Cambridge lectures but his Parisian ones as well. There is manuscript
18 Longpré discovered the early fourteenth-century document containing the names of the friars who sided for or against the king in the Archives
Nationales in Paris and published its contents in France franciscaine x1 (1928), 137-62, under the title "Le b. Jean Duns Scot O.F.M. pour le Saint
Siége contre le Gallicanisme, Paris 25-8 juin 1303." A separate edition with practically the same title was published at Quaracchi (Florence) in 1930.
For an identification of the friars of the English province listed there, see A. G. Little, Chron. Notes, p. 576.
18 Gonsalvus' letter dated at Ascoli in the March of Ancona, Nov. 18, 1304, and addressed to William, guardian at Paris (or his vicar), and the masters, has been frequently printed: see, e.g., H. Denifle and A. Chatelain,
Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis
(Paris, 1889), 117; and Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 220. A complete English translation can be found in Little, Chron. Notes, pp. 577-78.
XXil
INTRODUCTION
evidence of a magisterial dispute he conducted with Guillaume Pierre Godin, O.P., against the thesis that matter is the principle of individuation,?® but to date no questions publicly disputed ordinaire, that is to say, in regular turn with other regent masters, have been found. Some questions of this sort undoubtedly existed but they may have been incorporated in the Ordinatio.?* Scotus did engage in one solemn quodlibetal disputation during his regency, which is the work translated here. Though not as extensive in scope as the Ordinatio, these Quaestiones quodlibetales are hardly less important as they represent some of his most mature thinking. Indeed one could say that his fame as a philosopher and theologian rests largely on these two major works.
Of the minor works the most important and extensive are the Quaestiones subtilissimae super libros Metaphysicae Aristotelis.
These may represent questions discussed privately for the benefit of the Franciscan student philosophers and theologians. The same is true of the series of logical questions occasioned by Porphyry's
Isagoge and Aristotle's De praedicamentis, De interpretatione, and De sophisticis elenchis. The relatively short but important De Primo
Principio, a compendium of what reason can prove about God, draws heavily on the Ordinatio and may have been completed by a confrere only after Scotus left Paris to lecture as professor of theology at the Franciscan study house in Cologne for the fall term of 1307.
November 8, 1308 is the traditional date of Scotus' death. His remains lie in the nave of the Franciscan church near the Cologne cathedral, where he is venerated as a saint.
Apparently most of his works were still in an unfinished state at the time of his death. This is true not only of the Quodlibet, the last question of which is only partially revised, but also the Ordinatio
20 Cf, F. Pelster, ""Handschriftliches zu Skotus mit neuen Angaben tber sein Leben," Franziskanische Studien x (1923), 16. The question is found in Cod. Amplonianus Fol. 369 of the Stadtbibliothek, Erfurt
(fols. 71vb75rb).
21 We have found several references to a quaestio ordinaria in manuscripts of Scotus' quodlibet, and in each instance an appropriate referent on the same topic can be found in the Ordinatio. More important, there is at least one clear reference in Codex 137, bibliotheca communalis Assisi, the early fourteenth-century attempt of a critical edition of the Ordinatio, to a quaestio ordinaria as the source of the section copied by the scribe; cf. fol. 78vb.
XXili
INTRODUCTION
of the questions on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Eager pupils completed the works by substituting materials from reportationes and possibly from ordinary disputations for the questions Scotus left undictated. Despite their imperfect form, however, these works were widely circulated. Even today they are found in hundreds of manuscripts, and from 1472 onwards went through more than thirty different editions.
II The Quodlibetal Disputation The quodlibet represents a type of scholastic exercise generally practiced in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Its golden age lasted from 1250 to 1320.22 Introduced in the faculty of theology at Paris, this form of disputation soon spread to Oxford (probably at John Peckham's suggestion) , Bologna, Toulouse, and Cologne.** It was also adopted by the faculties of arts, medicine, and law.** Disputations of this sort took place twice a year: before Christmas (in the second or third week of Advent) and before Easter (around the fourth week of Lent).?° The origin of this disputation goes back as far as 1230 to 1235 and may have been introduced by the masters of the new religious orders of Dominicans and Franciscans.?®
Although it involved a number of bachelors as opponents and respondents, the quodlibetal disputation was essentially a magisterial function or exercise in the sense that it had to be conducted under' the direction, authority, and control of a regent master, that is, one who held one of the professorial chairs in his respective faculty at the university.2" The initial respondent to the objections raised was a bachelor.?§ University statutes ordained that no bachelor could be
22 P. Glorieux, "Ou en est la question du Quodlibet?" Revue du Moyen Age Latin 1 (1946), 412; idem, "Quodlibeti" in Enciclopedia Cattolica x (Citta del Vaticano, 1953), col. 437.
23 Glorieux, "Quodlibeti," col. 438.
24 The regulations for the faculties of arts and medicine are well known.
We know less about those in the faculty of law. The quodlibetal disputation was adopted as well in the Studia generalia of the religious orders of Franciscans, Dominicans, and Hermits of St. Augustine with certain variations and adaptations.
25 Glorieux, "Quodlibeti," col. 436.
26 Glorieux, "Le Quodlibet et ses procédés rédactionnels,'
Divus Thomas (Series tertia) xv1 (1939), 61.
27 Glorieux, "Ou en est la question du Quodlibet?" 413.
28 Glorieux, "Quodlibeti," col. 436.
XXIV
INTRODUCTION
licensed as a master unless he had participated at least once in a quodlibetal dispute, since this was particularly suited to test the candidate's presence of mind, the extent of his knowledge, and the depth of his philosophical and theological preparation. After this initial dialectical encounter, however, it was the master himself who discussed these questions in depth and then "determined" them, that is, gave the definitive solution.?°
In contrast to the ordinary disputations of a master which the bachelors attended, the solemn quodlibetal dispute drew a larger audience. Anyone present, whether a master, a bachelor, a student, or simply one who came to listen, could pose a question or raise an objection. All courses were suspended so that everyone, including the masters, could attend.*° The disputation could center on any problem whatsoever (de quolibet) proposed by any listener whatsoever (a quolibet). Only if the question was trivial, irrelevant, or uninteresting could the master refuse to entertain it. The ordinary disputations (quaestiones disputatae) also contained many questions, but they were all interrelated by reason of their subject matter or in virtue of some common text of Holy Scripture. A quodlibetal dispute, on the other hand, not only included many questions but covered a wide variety of topics.* The fact that the questions came from the audience gave the quodlibetal disputation an element of surprise as well as a vital character. The problems posed reflected the interests and preoccupations of the day and the currents of ideas prevalent in university circles.
The unforeseen character or unexpected nature of the questions that might be raised, which could be subtle, difficult or delicate, required the authority and scientific talent of a true master. Apparently not all masters dared engage in such a dispute or had the selfconfidence required to undertake such a task. Since it was not obligatory, some never put themselves to this challenging exercise, yet we know of a hundred or more masters who did, some of them many times.*?
Quodlibetal questions are important for gauging the philosophi29 Tbid.
30 Ibid. In one quodlibetal discussion Roger Marston conducted, no less than twenty-five masters participated.
31 Glorieux, La littérature quodlibétique 11; Bibliothéque Thomiste xx1 (Paris, 1935), 45ff.
32 Glorieux, ""Quodlibeti," cols. 436-37.
XXV
INTRODUCTION
cal-theological thought of the period, of a particular author, and of the general history of the times. The very nature of the dispute prevented it from being limited in scope and left it open to an infinity of problems. Any vital topic, any novel or challenging view on a contemporary subject, be it economic, social, or political, could be brought up, and the regent master could be expected to give his opinion about it. Quodlibets, in a word, contain valuable insights into the personal opinions of a master and often expressed his mind on a score of topics never touched on in any other work.**
During the first day of regular classes following the solemn disputation, the master would discuss with his students the questions debated in the public session after freely arranging them in some orderly fashion. There can be no doubt about the existence of this review session in which the master analyzed the questions with his disciples, corrected possible errors or inaccuracies in their reports, made his terminology and ideas more precise, distinguished the essential from the incidental, classified the questions and gave them a definitive answer.*4 A few extant quodlibets are in the form of reportationes (i.e., first reports taken down at the public dispute), whereas others obviously represent a later redaction or corrected version. Reports of the public disputation reflect the lack of order in which the questions were presented, for anyone could raise any problem he wished at any time; as a result there is no semblance of order in the sequence of the questions. Occasionally, of course, one problem might suggest a second, or a particular solution might give rise to a further question. Generally those in attendance prepared their questions ahead of time but presented them when they had the chance to do so. In contrast to reportationes of this sort, the redaction or revision prepared by the master exhibits a coherent pattern or logical order. It reflects the second session or the later work of the master in the tranquility of his study as he edited the text for transcription by copyists and for public dissemination.**
A master of theology in the thirteenth century had certain set categories he might use to group the questions in some orderly fashion. God and creatures, visible and invisible creation, creation and redemption, faith and mores, realities and symbols were favorite
88 Glorieux, La littérature quodl. 1, 45ff.; "Ou en est la question du Quodlibet?" 411.
84 Glorieux, "Le Quodlibet et ses procédés rédactionnels," 6ef.
35 Tbid., 65.
XXVi
INTRODUCTION
headings.** Once the master had selected his major division, it was easy for him to set up further subdivisions.
Some authors designate at the outset the division headings they have adopted, whereas others simply present the questions according to some specific order but without mentioning it expressly. Still others not only indicate their classificatory scheme but try to justify their choice and at times may even mention the circumstance of the dispute that accounts for the questions raised. Some begin with a list or summary of all the questions to be treated, whereas others start with a prologue in which some scriptural or patristic citation introduces the general theme of the quodlibet and leads more or less rapidly to a presentation of its major divisions.?7
Knowledge of the various editorial techniques is often helpful in identifying a quodlibet, dating it, or determining how complete the manuscripts are that contain it. Thus we can show, for instance, as Glorieux notes, that Quodlibet XI of St. Thomas is incomplete, a point to be considered in evaluating the manuscripts that present it in an apparently completed form.** III Scotus' Quodlibet As the manuscripts indicate, Scotus disputed and determined this quodlibet at Paris. Since he could not have incepted as master before 1305 and since he was teaching at Cologne before the end of 1307, it is one of his very latest works. While its authenticity has never been in doubt, there were some who believed the set of questions represented two quodlibetal disputes, the first of which included the first seven or eleven questions whereas the second comprised those that remained. Wadding, on the contrary, maintained that Scotus held but one such dispute. Contemporary writers have generally accepted his viewpoint,*® and suggest Advent of 1306 or Lent of 1307 as its most probable date.*? The number of questions it contains is no counterargument since the average quodlibet included between twenty and twenty-five questions and there are some that have as many as forty or fifty distinct questions.*#
With the exception of the last question, which in the Wadding36 Ibid.
37 Tbid., 77-81.
38 Ibid., 83ff.; "Ou en est la question du Quodlibet?" 410.
39 |, Wadding, "Praefatio ad lectorem."
40 Glorieux, La littérature quodl. u, 153.
41 [bid., 11f.
XXVil
INTRODUCTION
Vivés edition is in part the reportatio version, it is clear that Scotus' quodlibet is cast in the form of an ordinatio. In the tradition of the Franciscan masters,'? it opens with a prologue introduced by a line from Scripture:
" 'All things are difficult,' says Solomon, 'because man's language is inadequate to explain them.' ''** Scotus then goes on to interpret these words of Ecclesiastes ascribed to "David's Son" in such a way as to suit his purposes. The distinction of things or beings, he explains, can help us classify the difficult questions that were presented to him. Like the metaphysician that he is, Scotus proceeds to divide being in terms of four classic disjunctions: created or uncreated, self-existent or not self-existent, necessary or possible, finite or infinite. The uncreated, self-existent, necessary, infinite being we call God, whereas the finite, possible, dependent being goes by the common name of creature. Questions, he tells us, were raised as regards both categories.
According to John Damascene's description, the divine perfections or attributes merge to form a simple infinite sea of substance.
Nevertheless, Scotus, with his penchant for logical analysis, attempts to separate conceptually the various divine features within the Trinity and arrange them in some kind of ontological order. The logical tool he uses for this purpose is that of non-mutual implication or entailment. If the notion of B implies A, but that of A does not entail B, then A is in some sense prior to B. On this basis, he argues that questions about God in himself (ad intra) are prior to those which involve a relationship of the divine nature to creatures
(ad extra). By the same token, within God, essential features (common to all three persons because of the divine essence they share) are prior to the notional features characteristic of only one or two persons. The first question as to whether the notional or essential is more immediate to the divine essence deals with these various priorities and sets the stage for the sequence in which the remaining questions are to be treated.
Since no questions were raised about essential features ad intra, however, Scotus begins with the five questions raised about the Trinity of persons. The first of these (Could there be several productions of the same type in God?)** is basically concerned with explaining why there is a trinity and only a trinity of persons in God.
The second (Are these two compatible: a relation related to its op- #2 Glorieux, "Le Quodlibet et ses procédés rédactionnels," 81.
43° Cf ont. a* Quodl..Q. 2:
XXV111
INTRODUCTION
posite is a real thing; and, as related to the essence, it is only an aspect?)** is concerned with showing that three really distinct persons in God does not entail that there are also three gods. What is commonly said to constitute each person is the unique way in which the persons are related to each other in terms of their eternal origin.
Consequently, Scotus' next two questions throw light on how this relationship of origin was conceived: Could the first divine person remain constituted as a person, distinct from the other persons, apart from the relationship of origin?+¢ Is the relation of origin formally infinite?*7 Underlying these two theological questions is the more fundamental philosophical problem as to whether absolutes or relations are most basic to distinction, and whether it is meaningful to call what constitutes the uniqueness of a person or subsistent individual a perfection. A final question under this subheading is whether the "equality" characteristic of the three divine persons represents a real relation.
After investigating what pertains to God internally, in particular the relationships of person to person, says Scotus, "it remains to study what pertains to God externally, i.e., properties that imply a relationship of God to creatures. Here two sorts of questions could arise, one about the subject of the relation, the other about the term or object to which it relates. Two questions were raised about the subject, one general, the other particular. The first question is this:
Can it be demonstrated by natural and necessary reason that God in general, and not just one particular person, is omnipotent? The second question pertains to one perso: in particular: Has the Son or Word of God some causality of his own as regards the creature?''#® The last questions raised about God, says Scotus, "concern omnipotence in relation to its object. There are three questions, the first of which is about omnipotence in relation to an immaterial substance and it is this: Can God bring it about that an angel inform matter? 'The second question has to do with omnipotence's relation to an accidental form to which it gives existence in a supernatural way and it is this: Can God convert the Eucharistic species into something preexisting? The third question concerns omnipotence in relation to an accidental form existing in a natural fashion and it is this: Can God bring it about that while both body and place exist, the body has no ubiety or local presence?''*®
45 Quodl. Q. 3.
46 Quodl. Q. 4.
47 Quodl. Q. 5.
CA OI I 9
49 Cf. 9.1.
XX1X
INTRODUCTION
"Once the questions raised about God have been answered, some questions about creatures follow: first about all creatures in general, then about certain creatures in particular. One question about creatures in general was asked and it is this: Is the created thing's relation to God as creator the same as its relation to him as conserver?
. 5° As for creatures in particular the only questions raised concerned those endowed either with sensation or intellective life. One question common to either form of life was this: Are the acts of knowing and appetition essentially absolute or essentially relative?
.. 51 The next questions have to do with what pertains particularly to creatures possessing intellectual life. The first of these concern things common to men and angels; the next have to do with what is proper to man. Common to men and angels are intellect and will.
Concerning the intellect two questions were raised: one, about the object of the intellect; the other, about the active cause of intellection. The first question was whether the soul, left to its natural perfection, can know the Trinity of persons in God. The same question can be asked as regards the angel... .©? The next question concerns the cause of intellection, or how the intellect passes from [potency] to act. The question is this: Granted that the blessed in heaven have some concept or 'word' of the creature as seen in the divine essence, is the possible intellect purely passive as regards such knowledge?
53 The next questions deal with the will, first, with its action in general; second, in particular with the distinction between two intrinsic acts of the will; and third, with the distinction between an intrinsic and extrinsic act. The first question is this: Are freedom of will and natural necessity compatible in the same subject as regards the same act and object? .
. .** The next question raised is this:
Are acts of natural love and meritorious love specifically the same?
.. > The next question concerns the interrelation of the extrinsic and intrinsic acts and asks whether the extrinsic adds some goodness or badness to the intrinsic.''5*
Though these questions are developed more with an eye to man, the general principles used to discuss them are applicable to any rational creature endowed with intellect and will. Though Scotus does not spell this out explicitly, the last three questions involve man or human nature. The first has to do with how the human nature of Christ was united to the Word or second person of the TrinOE, TUE.
SE Ci ale olke 82 Ct gat.
BCH, Wie, SS Cis Ont ei Ch lake SN(Chi, ileal XXX
INTRODUCTION
ity: "Is the unity of human nature with the Word in Christ merely the human nature's dependence upon the Word?''s? And in this question he develops his theory of what it means to be a created person. The penultimate question concerns the role of the priest as a person and as an official of the pilgrim Church in offering the sacrifice of the mass. It asks whether a priest who is obliged to say a mass for each of two different people can satisfy his obligation by saying one mass for both.** The final question, only partially revised, apparently concerns the possibility of reconciling divine providence in man's regard with the Aristotelian conception of the eternity of the world. The question, however, is developed within a more narrow philosophical context by using the doctrine in the short treatise, De bona fortuna, attributed in Scotus' day to Aristotle, with his teaching on the eternity of the world: "Can one who admits that the world is eternal defend the position that anyone could always be fortunate?''®?
Each question, however it may fit into this general plan, still represents a distinct treatise in itself and touches on a far wider variety of theological and philosophical problems than one might suspect from the wording of the question itself. Scotus uses the customary tripartite scholastic format: the question is introduced with short initial arguments pro and con, next follows the body or corpus, and finally the question ends with answers to the initial counter-arguments. Not only had the corpus become the most important portion of the question by the close of the thirteenth century, but in Scotus' day it had become exceedingly complex because the most important objections and counter-arguments were discussed, often in dialogue fashion, within the confines of the corpus itself. However, in the Quodlibetal Questions there is less of this internal dialogue, perhaps, than in his other writings.
IV Some Observations about the Present Translation The 1968 Spanish translation of Scotus' Quodlibetal Questions by F. Alluntis® is accompanied by what virtually amounts to a new version of the Latin text found in the Luke Wadding® edition reSUGia1g ae 58 Cf. 20.1.
59 Cf. 21.1.
60 Cuestiones Cuodlibetales (Obras del Doctor Sutil Juan Duns Escoto), Latin text and Spanish translation with an introduction, summaries, and notes by Felix Alluntis, O.F.M. (Madrid, 1968).
61 Joannis Duns Scoti opera omnia, 12 vols. (Lugduni, 1639).
XXXI1
INTRODUCTION
printed by L. Vivés.*? Alluntis has divided the text into appropriate articles, divisions, and subdivisions so that it is possible to follow the involved dialogue of argument and counter-argument that made the use of this important source of Scotistic thought so difficult in the older editions. He has also introduced a new numbering system for the paragraphs to facilitate cross references. With the exception of the first question where we have restored a portion of the text relegated to a footnote in the Spanish edition, we have followed this numbering system, but to make it an even more effective and convenient reference device, we put before each paragraph number the number of the question followed by a decimal point. Thus 7.44, for example, would refer to question seven, paragraph number 44 in the Alluntis edition. For completeness, the traditional numbers of the Wadding edition (with all the mistakes of omission and duplication) are added in brackets in the margin. As in the Spanish version, the translators have introduced the divisions and sub-divisions they have added to the text without benefit of brackets.
Since the Wadding-Vivés edition has some obviously erroneous readings, fortunately most of them minor, the translators consulted
Dr. Carl Bali¢, O.F.M., director, and other members of the Scotistic Commission in Rome engaged in preparing the critical Vatican edition of Scotus' Opera omnia. Of the more than eighty manuscripts available to the Commission, three, all of the early fourteenth century, were recommended as necessary and sufficient for revising the Latin text. Two are from the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich,® Clm 8717 and Clm 26309, which we have designated respectively as M, and Mp. Marginalia in the first suggest that the scribe who corrected it had access, if not to Scotus' own notebooks, at least to the information these contained; it may even represent the earliest form of Quodlibetal Questions still extant. The second, which contains substantially the same version, has a colophon giving the name of the scribe and a completion date of 1311. The third manuscript (F. 60 of the Cathedral Library of Worcester) contains
82 Joannis Duns Scoti opera omnia, 26 vols.
(Parisiis, 1891-95).
63 A description of the contents of these two MSS. can be found in F. Pelster, Handschriftliches, pp. 17-21. For additional material on Clm.
8717 confer Pelster's second article "Eine Miinchener Handschrift des beginnenden vierzehnten Jahrhunderts mit einem Verzeichnis von Questionen des Duns Scotus und Herveus Natalis," Franziskanische Studien
XVII_ (1930), 253-72; V. Doucet, "A propos du Cod. lat. Monacensis 8717,"
Archivum Franciscanum Historicum xxvi (1933), 246-47.
XXX1l
INTRODUCTION
additions suggesting a partial revision of the earlier text. Though M, and Mz seem to belong to the same family, omissions in one not made by the other and vice versa suggest they stem from a common source rather than that either is directly dependent on the other.
The third, which we designate as W, seems to some extent closer to the Wadding-Vivées version.
As M, clearly indicates, the revision or ordinatio of the Quodlibet was left unfinished. Question 21 ends abruptly with the words:
"Tertium membrum"
(Cf. 21.16) with the marginal note: "Finis.
Quodlibet repertum in suis quaternis. Quod sequitur est de Reportatione."°* M, and W, on the other hand, simply append the original report of the question in its entirety, whereas the WaddingVivés text tries somewhat unsuccessfully to avoid overlap by eliminating the first part of the reportatio covered in the main by the material in the revised version. A simple comparison of the first part of the reportatio version (which we have translated in its entirety) indicates how extensive was the additional material Scotus wove into the framework of the question as originally "determined."
This might explain also how it would have been possible to discuss, at least briefly, in a single session the set of questions that make up this Quodlibet. Another interesting aspect revealed by the manuscripts is that in several places Scotus refers to a quaestio ordinaria where he has treated objections raised, but not answered, in the expanded revision of the present work.
Judging from the three MSS as well as internal evidence, we are of the opinion that most of the Additions found in the WaddingVivés texts were added by hands other than Scotus. Since they are useful, however, in providing references, usually to the ordinatio, where solutions to objections left unanswered can be found, we have added them in the Appendix. On the other hand, additions found in all or some of the MSS we have used, if relevant to a better understanding of the text, have been put into footnotes. Some of these seem to be simply earlier versions of parallel passages and probably would have been eventually eliminated had Scotus lived to see the revision of the Quodlibet completed.
A glossary of technical terms has been included to reduce the number of explanatory footnotes. Since each question represents an integral treatise in its own right and may be read independently of 64 Clm. 8717, fol. 85vb: "The end! The Quodlibet as found in his notebooks. What follows is from the 'reportatio.' "
XXXIlli
INTRODUCTION
the others, we have usually marked with an asterisk the first occurrence of such terms in each question or where one of them recurs after a long interval.
Scotus usually formulates his main arguments in syllogistic form with major and minor premises, possibly to facilitate identification of the principle to which the intricate network of supporting proofs, objections, and counter-objections refers. To enable the reader to see at a glance to what Scotus is referring, we have included in brackets the appropriate paragraph number directly in the text except where the statement he is challenging or proving is immediately obvious from the context.
KAS A.B.W.
XXXIV
God and Creatures
Prologue 0.1
"All things are difficult," says Solomon, and immediately adds the reason why he thinks they are difficult: "Because man's language is inadequate to explain them.' The distinction of things or beings can serve as the basis for classifying or distinguishing the difficult questions that have been raised. Now a thing* [res] is primarily classified (1) as created or uncreated, (2) as having being of itself or having it from another, (3) as necessary or possible, (4) as finite or infinite. The uncreated, self-existent, infinite, and necessary thing or being we call God. The created, the "from another," the possible [i.e., contingent], the finite goes by the common name of "creature." Some questions were raised regarding both types of things.
0.2
What is more, in the divine, according to Augustine,? "thing"
[or being] is taken either essentially or notionally* [i.e., personally]: "The things to be enjoyed are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity itself, the one supreme thing, common to all who enjoy it." In the first part of the text cited, "thing" is taken personally, in the second "essentially." As regards the divine, some of the questions raised concerned the essential, some the notional or personal. But only one question was asked about how the essentials are ordered to the notional elements. It is this question that will be discussed first because its solution will indicate in what order the remaining questions should be treated.
1 Eccl. 1:8.
2 Augustine, De doctrina christiana 1, ¢.5, n.5: PL 34, 21; CCSL 30, 9.
= > a awa : if) = a } Sey, = :
~~ ~ i ae = a ° Pe <8 '
: a = aad ~ - a =~ 'Syeur ~ i : bh, ae ; a nat Sa = :
== 7 aw rn :
= a —S oe «eee ee ee ee
a , of ra =a iy +
Sm ro et oF an sige eu '
Pe = la ae" eee ee , =a 4 preneay nor Mellie ns : s mits f Raabe gy litt" Eeagep a Sa Ave vid.
Te Semel wth ph wap WA liglin wae Ta peined® wil Geum dq ipey see eemey te tout , Acs wh vl tied pe taba lad ie vcdsetip sift 6 teem oe stent ths hing 'ants pict! i wida ii) Med Pipaatiee hag y —* he Sv) Sel bya wl :
AG a Yr ae ; Al = a we = - . i