Guillelmi Petri De Godino Lectura Thomasina. Book II, Distinctions 1-22 (Recherches De Theologie Et Philosophie Medievales - Bibliotheca, 19) 9789042945845, 9789042945852, 9042945842

Citation preview

Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales Bibliotheca 19.2.1

GUILLELMI PETRI DE GODINO LECTURA THOMASINA Distinctiones 1-22 libri Secundi

edidit

Andrea Colli

PEETERS

GUILLELMI PETRI DE GODINO LECTURA THOMASINA Distinctiones 1-22 libri Secundi

Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales

BIBLIOTHECA

Editorial Board

Russell L. Friedman, Wouter Goris, Guy Guldentops, Maarten Hoenen, Fiorella Retucci, Andreas Speer, Carlos Steel, David Wirmer

Bibliotheca is a series published by the editorial board of Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales. It contains studies on medieval thought and editions of medieval philosophical and theological texts. Cover: Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, Hs. 475, f. 78r

Bibliotheca 19.2.1

Guillelmi Petri de Godino Lectura Thomasina Distinctiones 1-22 libri Secundi

edidit

Andrea Colli

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - BRISTOL, CT 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2021 – Peeters – Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. D/2021/0602/50 ISBN 978-90-429-4584-5 eISBN 978-90-429-4585-2





To my parents



CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................... 13* II. Prolegomena to the Edition ................................................. 1. The Manuscript Tradition ........................................... 2. Independence of the Witnesses .................................. 3. Structure and Features of the Manuscripts ................. 4. Genealogical Relations among the Witnesses ............. 5. Sources ...................................................................... 6. Principles of the Edition ............................................ 7. List of Abbreviations .................................................. 8. List of Symbols ..........................................................

17* 17* 20* 22* 25* 38* 51* 52* 52*

III. Bibliography ...................................................................... 1. Manuscripts and Archive Documents .......................... 2. Early Printed Editions ................................................. 3. Modern Editions and Critical Editions ........................ 4. Secondary Literature....................................................

53* 53* 54* 54* 60*

IV. Guillelmi Petri de Godino Lectura Thomasina Liber II (Distinctiones 1-22) < Distinctio prima > ........................................................ 1 Quaestio secunda: Utrum creare sit solius Dei ........... 18 Quaestio tertia: De creaturis. Utrum sint propter Dei bonitatem ............................................... 28 Quaestio quarta: Utrum anima composita sit ex materia et forma...................................................... 30 : Utrum anima rationalis debuerit uniri tali corpori .......................................... 38

8*

CONTENTS

Distinctio secunda : Utrum omnium aeviternorum sit unum aevum ......................................................... 40 Quaestio secunda: De creaturis spiritualibus. Utrum inceperint esse ................................................ 51 Quaestio tertia: Utrum possint esse plures angeli unius speciei..................................................... 52 : De caelo empyreo. Utrum sit corpus lucidum .......................................... 65 Distinctio tertia : Utrum omnes angeli reducantur ad unum genus.......................................... 67 Quaestio secunda: Utrum debuerint esse substantiae separatae in magno numero....................... 75 Quaestio tertia: De angelis. Utrum per suam essentiam intelligant.................................................... 77 Quaestio quarta: Utrum angelus in primo instanti suae creationis potuerit et cetera...................... 81 Distinctio quarta : De angelis. Utrum fuerint creati beati vel non....................................................... 84 Quaestio secunda: Utrum angeli intelligant per species innatas vel acquisitas................................... 89 Distinctio quinta : De peccato primi angeli. Utrum fuerit peccatum superbiae .............................. 97 Distinctio sexta : De angelis superioribus. Utrum intelligant per species magis universales.......... 102 Quaestio secunda: De casu primi angeli et sociorum eius. Utrum debeat locus assignari.......... 107 Quaestio tertia: Utrum in daemonibus sit ordo praelationis................................................................ 111 : Utrum angeli statim post unum actum meritorium sint et cetera............... 112 Distinctio septima : De voluntate daemonis. Utrum sit totaliter obstinata in malum...........................117



CONTENTS



9*

Quaestio secunda: Utrum daemones verum effectum naturalem possint inducere...............................124 Distinctio octava : De daemonibus. Utrum possint esse intra corpora hominum............... 129 : De Deo. Utrum in istis corporalibus figuris umquam apparuerit.................... 132 Distinctio nona : De hierarchiis. Utrum sint connexae................................................... 134 : Utrum hierarchiarum connexio et distinctio ordinum sit a natura................. 140 : Utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura..................................... 145 Distinctio undecima : Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio................ 151 Quaestio secunda: Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur.......... 161 : Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad sui custodiam........................... 164 Distinctio duodecima : Utrum corporum superiorum et inferiorum una sit materia secundum essentiam..... 168 Quaestio secunda: Utrum omnia quae numerantur creata in principio et cetera.................... 180 : Quomodo possit salvari septennarius dierum numerus.................................... 182 Quaestio quarta: Utrum sint tantum quattuor coaequaeva, scilicet caelum empyreum et cetera......... 183 Distinctio decima tertia : Utrum informitas materiae tempore praecesserit formationem suam.................... 185 : Utrum post opus creationis necessarium fuerit opus distinctionis.......... 195 Quaestio tertia: De luce. Utrum sit accidens.............. 197 Quaestio quarta: Utrum in die fuerint producta luminaria......................................... 204

10*

CONTENTS

: De ornatu trium elementorum.... 206 Distinctio decima quarta : Utrum supra firmamentum sint aliquae aquae, quod innuitur et cetera................. 208 : Utrum convenienter debuerint aquae congregari in unum locum............... 213 Distinctio decima quinta : Utrum corpora caelestia sint animata...................................................................... 220 Quaestio secunda: Utrum causalitas corporum superiorum extendatur ad motum liberi arbitrii......... 232 Quaestio tertia: De Deo. Utrum requieverit die septimo................................................................ 235

: Utrum omnium hominum sit unius intellectus possibilis..................................... 239 : De homine. Utrum sit magis ad imaginem Dei quam angelus....... 253 : Utrum anima humana sit creata a Deo extra corpus...................................... 255 : Utrum paradisus de quo fit mentio in littera sit locus corporalis....................... 258 Distinctio decima octava : Utrum in materia corporali sint aliquae rationes seminales.................................... 260 Quaestio secunda: Utrum anima humana immediate producatur a Deo et cetera....................... 265 Distinctio decima nona : Utrum homo simpliciter ante peccatum esset impassibilis................................. 268 Quaestio secunda: Utrum anima humana secundum se sit corruptibilis...................................... 271 : Utrum in statu innocentiae pueri per generationem nati et cetera...... 275 Distinctio vigesima : Utrum mulier debuerit de costa viri formari .................................................. 281 Distinctio vigesima prima : De tentatione. Utrum sit appetenda.................................................. 289



CONTENTS



11*

Distinctio vigesima secunda : De ignorantia. Utrum excuset peccatum........................................... 296

V. Appendix I ............................................................................303 VI. Appendix II .........................................................................315 VII. Index nominum et operum ................................................329







Introduction* William of Peter of Godin and his commentary on the Sentences, the Lectura Thomasina, played an important role in the initial reception of Thomas Aquinas’ thought, and they have recently been the subject of various publications and studies.1 In particular, Francesca Bonini’s Introduction to the first volume of this series features an exhaustive presentation of Godin’s profile and provides an accurate description of the manuscript tradition of the work.2 Editing the first half (dist. 1-22) of Book II of the Lectura Thomasina means to engage in this line of research by focusing on another essential aspect of Godin’s work. Several topics covered by this part of the text, such as the eternity of the world (dist. 1), the principle of individuation (dist. 3, 4, 8, 9) or the soul-body problem (dist. 1 and 16), had been discussed thoroughly in a lively debate on some of Aquinas’ controversial theses, which took place between the end of the 13th century and

* I thank Lee Klein (University of Cologne) for English language revisions. 1.  Cfr. C. Schabel, “Dominican Anti-Thomism: James of Metz’s Question on Divine Foreknowledge, with a Rebuttal from the Correctorium Iacobi Metensis”, in: Przegląd Tomistyczny 20 (2014), pp. 35–72; J.W. Peck – C. Schabel, “James of Metz and the Dominican Tradition on the Eternity of the World, ca. 1300,” in: Medioevo 40 (2015), pp. 265-300; F. Bonini, “The Lectura Thomasina of William of Peter of Godin and the Question Utrum esse et essentia differant in rebus creatis”, in: Archiv für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur 21 (2015), pp. 97-126; A. Colli, “Tommaso prima del Tomismo. Annotazioni per un’edizione critica delle Lectura Thomasina (II libro)”, in: Divus Thomas 120 2 (2017), pp. 163-194; M. Olszewski, “William of Godin on the Knowability of God. A Critical Edition and Study of His Commentary on the Sentences”, in: Przeglad tomistyczny 24 (2018), pp. 45-68; A. Colli, “Transcriptions, Paraphrases and Abbreviations. Rewriting Thomas Aquinas in the Lectura Thomasina”, in: M. Meliadò – S. Negri (eds.), Praxis des Philosophierens, Praktiken der Historiographie. Perspektiven von der Spätantike bis zur Moderne (Geist und Geisteswissenschaft, vol. 2), Freiburg i.B. 2018, pp. 21-42; Id., “Il problema dell’unità dell’intelletto agli inizi del XIV secolo. Guglielmo di Pietro di Godino in difesa della noetica tommasiana”, in: Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 112 (2020), pp. 147-164; A. Speer – A. Colli – F. Bonini (eds.), The Lectura Thomasina in Its Context. Philosophical and Theological Issues (Bibliotheca, vol. 18), Leuven 2020. 2. F. Bonini, “Historical Introduction to the Text”, in: Guillelmi Petri de Godino, Lectura Thomasina, I, prol.- dist. 27 (Bibliotheca, vol. 19.1.1), ed. F. Bonini, Leuven 2021, pp. 17*-62*.

14*

INTRODUCTION

the first decades of the 14th century.3 Therefore, a complete reconstruction of Godin’s commentary on the Sentences, including its sources, and especially its polemical targets regarding these matters, makes it possible to understand the contours of the initial assimilation of Aquinas’ discourse into the Dominican studia and, more generally, into late medieval theological schools.4 Godin usually does not explicitly quote his sources or his opponents. For instance, Thomas Aquinas is rather rarely mentioned by named in all four books of the Lectura.5 Therefore, it is certainly noteworthy that, among the very few names mentioned in the second book, there are four direct references to articles condemned by the bishop of Paris. In three cases, the French Dominican theologian alludes to Tempier’s syllabus (dist. 2, q. 3: Utrum possint esse plures angeli unius speciei; dist. 13, q. 1: Utrum informitas materiae tempore praecesserit formationam suam; 3.  Cf. P. Glorieux, “Comment les thèses thomistes furent proscrites à Oxford, 1284- 1286”, in: Revue Thomiste 32 (1927), pp. 259-291; D.A. Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford, London 1946; P. Glorieux, “Pro et contra Thomam. Un survol de cinquante années”, in: T.W. Kohler (éd.), Sapientiae procerum amore. Mélanges médiévistes offerts à dom Jean-Pierre Müller O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70ème anniversaire (Studia Anselmiana, vol. 63), Roma 1974, pp. 255-287; R. Wielockx, “Autour du procès de Thomas d’Aquin”, in: A. Zimmermann (ed.), Thomas von Aquin. Werk und Wirkung im Licht neuerer Forschungen, Berlin–New York 1988 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia, vol. 8), pp. 413-488; J.F. Wippel, “Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277,” in: The Modern Schoolman 72 (1995), pp. 233-272; R. Hissette, “L’implication de Thomas d’Aquin dans les censures parisiennes de 1277”, in: Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 44 (1997), pp. 3-31; Id., “Philosophie et théologie en conflit: Saint Thomas a-t-il été condamné par les maîtres parisiens en 1277?”, in: Revue Théologique de Louvain 28 (1997), pp. 216-226; J.M.M.H. Thijssen, “1277 Revisited: A New Interpretation of the Doctrinal Investigations of Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome”, in: Vivarium 35 (1997), pp. 72-101; J.F. Wippel, “Bishop Stephen Tempier and Thomas Aquinas: A Separate Process against Aquinas?”, in: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 44 (1997), pp. 117-136; R. Hissette, “Thomas d’Aquin compromis avec Gilles de Rome en mars 1277?”, in: Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 93 (1998), pp. 5-26; Id., “Thomas d’Aquin directement visé par la censure du 7 mars 1277? Réponse à John F. Wippel”, in: J. Hamesse (ed.), Roma, magistra mundi. Itineraria culturae mediaevalis. Mélanges offerts au Père L.E. Boyle à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire (FIDEM. Textes et études du Moyen Âge, vol. 10.1), Louvain-la-Neuve 1998, pp. 425-437; J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Censures and Heresy at the University of Paris, 1200-1400, Philadelphia 1998; R. Wielockx, “A Separate Process against Aquinas. A Response to John F. Wippel”, in: J. Hamesse (ed.), Roma Magistra Mundi, vol. 10.2, pp. 1009-1030; Id., “Procédures contre Gilles de Rome et Thomas d’Aquin. Réponse à J.M.M.H. Thijssen”, in: Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 83 (1999), pp. 293-313; P. Porro, Tommaso d’Aquino. Un profilo storico-filosofico, Roma 2012, pp. 464-480. 4.  For more remarks on the same vein, see A. Colli, “From the Condemnations to the Schools. The Correctorium Literature in the Lectura Thomasina”, in: A. Speer – A. Colli – F. Bonini (eds.), The Lectura Thomasina in Its Context, pp. 35-66. 5.  Cf. F. Bonini, “The Lectura Thomasina: an Early Thomistic Sentences Commentary,” in: A. Speer – A. Colli – F. Bonini (eds.), The Lectura Thomasina in Its Context, pp. 23-28.



INTRODUCTION

15*

dist. 15, q. 1: Utrum corpora caelestia sint animata) and in the other case to a proposition censured by William of Auvergne in 1241 (dist. 9, q. 1: De hierarchiis. Utrum sint connexae).6 This means that, despite the fact that Godin wrote his texts around 1300,7 that is, almost thirty (or sixty!) years after these ecclesiastical interventions, their effects, in particular that of the Condemnation of 1277, constantly reached into medieval teaching activities. The large number of verbatim quotations from the four different versions (Circa, Quare, Quaestione, Sciendum) of the Correctoria corruptorii (1280s)8 further emphasizes that Godin was significantly influenced by the polemical atmosphere that had preceded the composition of the Lectura Thomasina. The Correctorium literature effectively represents the most considerable effort to defend Aquinas’ teaching against his opponents, in particular the Franciscan master William de la Mare. However, these texts do not provide a systematic exposition of Thomas’ doctrines: as is well known, their purpose is to reply to the criticism on a case-by-case basis. The Lectura Thomasina, on the contrary, was not specifically conceived of as a reaction to these censures, but it aimed at expounding Peter Lombard’s Sentences according to the thought of Thomas Aquinas. Thus, Godin’s text was basically written to introduce Dominican scholars to Aquinas’ thought, as is confirmed by the innumerable verbatim quotations from his writings (Super Sententiarum libros, Summa Theologiae, Summa contra Gentiles, De aeternitate mundi, and Quaestiones de veritate).9 However, a second and consequent objective was certainly to warn the students of the most frequent criticisms against Thomas Aquinas coming from the Parisian theological domain.

6.  Cf. A. Colli, “From the Condemnations to the Schools”, pp. 38-43. 7. Cf. B. Decker, Die Gotteslehre des Jakob von Metz. Untersuchungen zur Dominikanertheologie zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, vol. 42.1), Münster 1967, pp. 28-29; F. Bonini, “Historical Introduction to the Text,” pp. 33-36. 8.  Cf. A. Colli, “From the Condemnations to the Schools,” pp. 44-46. 9. Cf. M. Grabmann, “Kardinal Guilelmus Petri de Godino O.P. († 1336) und seine Lectura Thomasina”, in: M. Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Scholastik und Mystik, vol. 2, München 1936, pp. 559-576; W. Goris, M.  Pickavé, “Die Lectura Thomasina des Guilelmus Petri de Godino (ca. 1260–1336). Ein Beitrag zur Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte”, in: J. Hamesse (ed.), Roma, magistra mundi, vol. I, pp. 83-109, in particular, pp. 84-85; F. Bonini, “Historical Introduction to the Text”, pp. 37*-46*.

16* In this sense, when the French Dominican theologian refers to the condemnations promoted by the bishop of Paris, to William de la Mare’s Correctorium fratris Thomae or to other 13th-century theologians involved in the debate concerning “Thomism” and “anti-Thomism”, he aims at improving his presentation of Aquinas’ theses by referring to hypothetical objections and corresponding counterarguments. Providing the opportunity to explore Aquinas’ thought in the context of its first reception in medieval theological reflection, the Lectura Thomasina may be a representative example of a theological textbook aimed at introducing students to the Thomistic thought. *** The present critical edition was begun in the framework of the individual research project “TEACHPOL – Freedom of Teaching and Political Control: The Case of Thomas Aquinas’ Assimilation in William of Peter of Godin’s Lectura Thomasina (14th C.)” (Marie SkłodowskaCurie Individual Fellowship, Horizon 2020 – Project number 657033) and was concluded, thanks to the contribution of the Heinrich Hertz Foundation, in the context of the individual research project “Das thomistische Leib-Seele-Problem in der Lectura Thomasina Wilhelms Petrus von Godino. Kritische Edition mit einleitender Studie”. Above all, I want to thank Andreas Speer for his consistently optimistic view on my work and my research activity in general. Then, a special thanks goes to Stephen Francis Brown and Alessandro Palazzo for their helpful suggestions and to Francesca Bonini, who has constantly shared the principal results of her study of Book I of the Lectura Thomasina with me. Last but not least, I would like to thank my numerous colleagues from the “dream team” of the Thomas Institute for the many pleasant discussions and for making my five-year stay in Cologne memorable. Cologne, December, 10, 2020





II. Prolegomena to the Edition 1. The Manuscript Tradition The second Book of the Lectura Thomasina has been transmitted by thirteen manuscripts (these are both complete witnesses and fragments):10 Ba: Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, ms. B III 6: ff. 31(34)ra-64(67)vb. From f. 31(34)ra: “non oportet quod habeat infinitas species numerorum quia tantum habet species rerum naturalium […]”; to dist. 44: f. 64(67)vb “[…] secundum quam aliquis super emulatur meliora et ex quadam honestate non necessitate”. Be: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, ms. Theol. lat.: ff. 33va-69rb. Bol: Bologna, Biblioteca Comunale dell’Archiginnasio, ms. A 986: ff. 40vb-72rb. ff. 50va-51vb: blank paper E: Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, ms. 505: ff. 71rb-137rb. G: Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, ms. 475: ff. 28rb-66rb. H: Helsinki, Yliopiston kirjesto fragment scholastik (without numeration) dist. 1 (incomplete): Inc.: “circa prima distinctio secundi libri primo 10.  For a detailed paleographical description of all manuscripts, together with an extensive and accurate bibliography, see F. Bonini, “Prolegomena to the Edition”, in: Guillelmi Petri de Godino, Lectura Thomasina, I, dist. 1-27, ed. F. Bonini, pp. 63*-93*.

18*

PROLEGOMENA

quaeritur utrum mundus possit fuisse ab aeterno et videtur quod non solum mundum esse ab aeterno sit impossibile sed etiam quamcumque aliam creaturam.” Des.: […] ita quod quamvis homo posset creari a Deo ab aeterno non tamen potuit creare nisi tempore determinato sed tu dices quo modo ergo homo fuit perfectus ab aeterno et non potuit generare”. Kl: Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, ms. 281: ff. 40va-76vb N: Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, ms. VII C 30: ff. 37ra-70va P: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Lat. 3039: ff. 33ra-58va Pi: Pisa, Biblioteca del Seminario Arciv. S. Caterina ms. 44: ff. 35va-65vb V: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ms. Vat. Lat. 869, ff. 189ra-199vb ff. 189ra-189vb: dist. 1 q. 1. Inc.: “circa principium secundi libri quaeritur primo utrum mundus posset fuisse”. Des.: “Ad illud de lapidibus dico quod non valet quia tu ponis unum ex quo sequitur inconveniens.” ff. 190ra-199vb: from dist. 17 (incomplete) to dist. 41. Inc.: “quod non dependet ab alio secundum suum esse potest a Deo creari sine eo sed anima rationalis non dependet a corpore secundum suum esse.” Des.: “ideo de unitate actus moralis videndum est secundum unitatem ipsi voluntatis videt et convenit unum”. W1: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek ms. 1590: ff. 26va-45rb According to Thomas Kaeppeli the manuscript begins at f. 26ra with the “quaestio prima utrum essentiae rerum creatarum sint ab aeterno”.11 If it is, this would be a significant reading variant, as the first question in all other manuscripts is, albeit with some small differences, “circa distinctionem primam quaeritur utrum mundus 11 T. Kaeppeli, “Guillelmus Petri de Godino Baionensis”, in: Id., Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, vol. II, Rome 1970-1993, p. 153.



PROLEGOMENA

19*

possit fuisse ab aeterno”. Moreover, contrary to what the incipits of all other manuscripts say, the opening lines of W1 do not allude to the first distinction, but rather to an unspecified “quaestio prima.” Even though Kaeppeli transcribed only a few lines of the question of what he considers the beginning of Book II in W1, the dissimilarities with the topic covered by the first question handed down by all other manuscripts are really too profound to give the impression that they are mere reading variants. Therefore, Kaeppeli assumed the existence of two different incipits in Book II. However, a more careful analysis of f. 26 of W1 reveals that at the end of this “quaestio prima utrum essentiae rerum creatarum sint ab aeterno” (f. 26va) the same scribe started transcribing what I conjecture to be the real beginning of Lectura Thomasina’s Book II: “Circa principium secundi libri quaeritur primo utrum mundus possit esse ab aeterno.” Presumably, in his description, Kaeppeli was deceived by the references to the eternity of the essences included in the first lines of W1’s “quaestio prima”. He considered it likely to be just an alternative redaction of the first question of the second book contained in all other manuscripts. By contrast, Book II begins at f. 26va, whereas the “quaestio prima” is a completely different kind of text, handed down between the transcription of Books I and II. Therefore, it is not included in the present critical edition.12 W2 : Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, ms. 1590: ff. 151ra164vb ff. 151ra-164vb: from dist. 1 to dist. 24. Inc.: “Circa distinctionem sexti libri quaeritur primo utrum mundus possit fuisse ab aeterno.” Des.: “nullo tamen modo sine Creatore numerante se sequitur ipsam servaret.”

12.  An in-depth analysis of this double incipit with a critical edition of the question “Utrum essentiae rerum creatarum sint ab aeterno” is conducted in my article “William of Peter of Godin and the quaestio utrum essentiae rerum creatarum sint ab aeterno (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek ms. 1590)”, in: Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale 45 (2020), forthcoming.

20*

PROLEGOMENA

2. Independence of the Witnesses The presence of singular errors and readings in every manuscript suggests that none of them was directly copied from another. A list of selected cases supporting this claim is provided below. Ms. Ba

*dist. 5 q. unica (98,25): voluntate] nobilitate Ba *dist. 8 q. 1 (129,14): hominis] nostram Ba *dist. 9 q. 1 (136,49): rege] principe Ba *dist. 16 q. 1 (251,196): intelligibiles] intentionales Ba *dist. 19 q. 1 (268,5): ante peccatum] simpliciter Ba

Ms. Be

*dist. 1 q. 3 (29,33): essentiam] creaturam Be *dist. 2 q. 1 (50,197): anima] natura Be *dist. 5 q. unica (101,82): inclinabilitas] intelligibilitas Be *dist. 12 q. 4 (183,5): coaequaeva] coaequalia Be *dist. 15 q. 1 (226,113): operationem] approximationem Be

Ms. Bol

*dist. 1 q. 4 (34,80): phantasmata] fundata Bol *dist. 2 q. 1 (41,20): aeviternorum] ternorum aevi Bol *dist. 3 q. 1 (70,66): a natura] ab anima Bol *dist. 6 q. 2 (108,8): primo visis] praemissis Bol *dist. 11 q. 2 (161,15): assistere] add. divinis alios et aliquos mitti Bol

Ms. E

*dist. 2 q. 1 (40,4): secundam] quintam E *dist. 3 q. 3 (80,60): eliciti] illiciti E *dist. 6 q. 1 (107,86): argumentum] articulum E *dist. 12 q. 1 (179,205): partem] add. in partibus ita possumus dicere in caelo et ideo non sequitur quod materia quae est sub una parte sit in potentia ad aliam quia materia propter partem non est E *dist. 15 q. 1 (227,133): terminus] talis E

Ms. G

*dist. 1 q. 1 (10,160): quinto] secundo G *dist. 2 q. 3 (56,85): subiectum] substantiam G *dist. 9 q. 2 (143,54): qua] secundum quam G *dist. 12 q. 1 (172,88): naturaliter] totaliter G *dist. 15 q. 1 (218,90): essentiales] substantiales G



PROLEGOMENA

21*

Ms. H

*dist. 1 q. 1 (10,167): dantis] creantis H

Ms. Kl

*dist. 1 q. 2 (23,95): creare] communicare Kl *dist. 3 q. 1 (68,30): qualiter] qualitas Kl *dist. 5 q. unica (101,67): sumitur] accipitur Kl *dist. 6 q. 3 (111,5): iustitiae] prudentia Kl *dist. 16 q. 1 (250,187): naturalibus] add. et non in supernaturalibus Kl

Ms. N

*dist. 1 q. 2 (20,32): creari dicitur] creatur N *dist. 2 q. 1 (41,30): multitudinem] multiplicitatem N *dist. 5 q. unica (100,57): dicendum est] dicunt et melius N *dist. 7 q. 1 (121,73): praeterea] quod probant sic N *dist. 11 q. 1 (155,78): operatione] add. abstracta N

Ms. P

*dist. 1 q. 1 (10,171): Ad omnia illa per ordinem respondendum est] sed omnes istae rationes non concludit ideo est respondendum ad eas P *dist. 6 q. 4 (116,58): dicendum est] non valet talis positio nec etiam rationes valent P *dist. 9 q. 1 (136,47): potest gubernationem] gubernari potest P *dist. 12 q. 1 (177,165): dico] est dicendum P *dist. 19 q. 3 (276,27): corporum] corruptibilium P

Ms. Pi

*dist. 1 q. 2 (22,75): minoris] b Pi *dist. 3 q. 2 (76,24): sustinere] sufficere Pi *dist. 7 q. 1 (123,103): vertibile] variabile Pi *dist. 9 q. 2 (144,64): articulo] angelo Pi *dist. 18 q. 2 (267,30): vel creatur] tale quid de novo creatur Pi

Ms. V

*dist. 1 q. 1 (2,29): demonstrativas] add. non V *dist. 18 q. 2 (266,10): materiam] aliam V *dist. 19 q. 2 (273,27): ratio] positio V *dist. 20 q. unica (287,112): non] tamen V *dist. 22 q. unica (299,62): affectum] effectum V

22*

PROLEGOMENA

Ms. W1

*dist. 1 q. 4 (36,112): negationem] receptionem W1 *dist. 6 q. 1 (105,58): diversis rebus] differentiis W1 *dist. 9 q. 2 (144,66): bonitate] voluntate W1 *dist. 11 q. 2 (163,45): de exequendis] dei exequens W1 *dist. 14 q. 1 (208,13): in primis operibus] ipsis operationibus W1

Ms. W2

*dist. 1 q. 4 (30,6): pura] prima W2 *dist. 3 q. 1 (74,127): tertius] alius W2 *dist. 8 q. 1 (129,14): imaginationem] voluntatem W2 *dist. 19 q. 3 (276,32): intentione] necessitate W2 *dist. 22 q. unica (301,90): moderatae] add. operam quando ignorantiam incurrit W2

3. Structure and Features of the Manuscripts Thirteen manuscripts transmit either a complete version or fragments of the second book of the Lectura Thomasina and have been considered in this edition: Ba Be Bol E G H Kl N P Pi V W1 W2. Here, only that part of the text running from dist. 1 to the end of dist. 22 is edited. The text is transmitted in a fragmentary way by: - Ba (from the final lines of the second question of dist. 4); - H (fragment of the first question of dist. 1); - V (fragment of the first question of dist. 1 and from dist. 17 onwards); - W2 (from dist. 1 to the end of dist. 24). Six manuscript witnesses transmit Book II’s Tabula quaestionum: - Ba (ff. 29vb-30vb); - Be (f. 1v); - E (ff. 266ra-272vb); - G (ff. 99rb-102rb); - P (ff. 1ra-2rb); - Pi (ff. 65vb-66rb). These tabulae, however, present considerable omissions and do not reflect the real sequence of the topics discussed in the respective manuscripts. For this reason, they are not edited in the present volume.



PROLEGOMENA 

23*

Bol N P Pi usually transmit the incipit of Peter of Lombard’s Sentences at the beginning of each distinction. These are indicated in the critical apparatus. Pi gives a title in red ink preceding each question, with the exception of the cases of the first question of distinction 1 (f. 35va). These titles are adopted in the present critical edition, rather than using editorial titles. W1 has been corrected by a second hand, which frequently revised the main text, added words or sentences in the margins. As regards the section of the second book edited in the present volume, almost all of the manuscripts that transmit the text in its entirety (Be Bol E G Kl N P Pi W1 W2) contain the same collection of questions. Two significant exceptions are N and P. These manuscripts, not stemming from a common model, present certain singular variants, omissions and very long additions (in some case, entire questions). Moreover, their structure, i.e., the sequence of the distinctions and the questions, does not correspond to that transmitted by the other witnesses. N lacks two questions: dist. 13, q. 5 and dist. 18, q. 2. Then, it presents a number of additions that, in some cases, form entire arguments or counterarguments not transmitted by any other manuscript.13 Lastly, two questions are exclusively handed down by this witness:14 *dist. 19 q. 2 (f. 56rb): Iuxta hoc quaeritur sine argumentis utrum immortalitas primorum parentium fuerit a natura vel gratia […] In hoc quod proprietas animae quodammodo in corpus redundabunt ut corpus agile et lucidum et spirituale efficiatur et impassibile. *dist. 20 q. 1 (ff. 57rb-57va): Item quaeritur et cetera. Hic quaeritur utrum primum peccatum primorum parentium fuerit aequale […] Responsio. Quamvis poena mortis temporalis a parte corporis aequalis fuerit, tamen poena aeternae mortis a parte animae, maior debebatur mulieri.

A detailed analysis of these questions and their respective sources shows that they are just a “patchwork” of verbatim quotations from the second book of Peter of Tarentaise’s In Sententias, in particular from dist. 19 and 22.15 There is not sufficient evidence to establish their au13.  For editorial reasons, the longest additions or variants (approximately more than five lines) are separately edited in the Appendix I (pp. 303-314). 14.  The texts are separately transcribed in Appendix II (pp. 315-327). 15.  Petrus de Tarantasia, In IV Libros Sententiarum, ed. Tolosae 1652.

24*

PROLEGOMENA

thorship, but it is rather unlikely that these two questions form a part of Godin’s Lectura Thomasina. Firstly, they are not transmitted by the other manuscripts; secondly, they are, in effect, a mere transcription of entire arguments from Tarentaise’s Commentary on the Sentences. N features certain important differences in the sequence of the questions when compared to the other manuscripts: *dist. 9 q. 3 (145-150) > dist 10, q. 2 (ff. 47rb-47vb) *dist. 11 q. 2 (161-163) > dist. 10 q. 1 (ff. 47ra-47rb) *dist. 11 q. 3 (164-167) > dist. 11 q. 2 (ff. 48va-48vb) *dist. 13 q. 3 (197-204) > dist. 13 q. 4 (ff. 50va-51ra) *dist. 13 q. 4 (204-205) > dist. 13 q. 3 (f. 50va with significant omissions) *dist. 19 q. 1 (269-271) > dist. 19 q. 2 (ff. 55vb-56rb with significant omissions) *dist. 19 q. 3 (275-280) > dist. 20 q. 1 (ff. 56rb-56vb) *dist. 20 q. unica (280-288) > dist. 18 q. 2 (f. 55ra)

P entirely lacks dist. 16, q. 2 and includes four questions that are not transmitted by any other manuscript.16 *dist. 8, q. 1 (ff. 39vb-40ra): Solet etiam in quaestione versari. Circa distinctionem octavam quaeritur primo utrum angeli boni vel mali in corporibus assumptis exerceant opera vitae […] sicut per oculum designatur virtus cognitiva angeli et per alia membra aliae eius virtutes, ut Dionysius docet, ultimo capitulo Caelestis Hierarchiae. *dist. 11, q. 2 (f. 42ra): Secundo quaeritur sine argumentis utrum angeli proficiant in aliqua cognitione […] quod est ultimum virtutis suae ad capiendam rerum cognitionem immediate in visione divinae essentiae. *dist. 16, q. 1 (ff. 45vb-46ra): His excursis et cetera. Circa distinctionem decimam sextam quaeritur primo utrum imago Dei in aliqua creatura inveniri possit […] ut sic nomen imaginis in creaturas descendat a Filio, sicut a Patre nomen paternitatis, ut habetur ad Ephesinos III. *dist. 16, q. 2 (f. 46ra): Secundo quaeritur sine argumentis utrum imago differat a similitudine […] similitudo autem ad habitus consequentes, scilicet innocentiam et iustitiam.

These four questions are basically transcriptions from Thomas Aquinas’ writings. In detail: *dist. 8, q. 1 is a mosaic of quotations from Summa theologiae I, q. 51, art. 3 and Super Sententiarum libros, II, dist. 8, q. 1, art. 1; *dist. 11, q. 2 is based on two long verbatim quotations from Super Sententiarum libros, II, dist. 11, q. 2, art. 1; *dist. 16 q. 1 is a copy of Super Sententiarum libros, II, 16, q. 1, art. 1; *dist. 16 q. 2 is a complete transcription of Super Sententiarum libros, II, 16, q. 1, art. 4.

16.  Cf. note 14.



PROLEGOMENA 

25*

As a number of passages of the Lectura Thomasina are long verbatim quotations from Aquinas’ writings, it should not completely be dismissed that Godin may also be the author of these questions. However, in the Lectura Thomasina, Aquinas’ quotations are generally inserted in a broader reflection, including also other sources and Godin’s reworking; by contrast, these four questions transmitted by P seem to be mere transcriptions. P features certain important differences in the sequence of the questions when compared to the other manuscripts: *dist. 8 q. 1 (129-132) > dist. 8 q. 2 (ff. 40ra-40rb) *dist. 8 q. 2 (132-133) > dist. 8 q. 3 (f. 40rb) *dist. 11 q. 1 (151-160) > dist. 10 q. 1 (ff. 41ra-41va) *dist. 11 q. 2 (161-163) > dist. 10 q. 2 (ff. 41va-41vb) *dist. 11 q. 3 (164-167) > dist. 11 q. 1 (ff. 41vb-42ra) *dist. 16 q. 1 (239-252) > dist. 17 q. 1 (ff. 46ra-46vb) *dist. 16 q. 3 (255-257) > dist. 17 q. 2 (ff. 46vb-47ra) *dist. 16 q. 4 (258-260) > dist. 16 q. 3 (f. 47va)

4. Genealogical Relations among the Witnesses Conjunctive errors and significant variants lead to the hypothesis that Bol and Pi stem from a common model, here called ζ.

*dist. 1 q. 1 (9,145): creare] procreare BolPi *dist. 1 q. 2 (21,53-62): prima … alio] hic potest introduci quod inferius est scriptum si placet BolPi *dist. 1 q. 3 (26,159): inducere] add. vel producere BolPi *dist. 1 q. 4 (31,12): in ista quaestione] hic BolPi *dist. 2 q. 1 (40,7): una] add. nostra BolPi *dist. 3 q. 1 (74,148): subordinetur] sit subordine BolPi *dist. 4 q. 1 (88,76): intuetur] add. imaginem sive BolPi *dist. 4 q. 2 (93,77): tertio sic arguitur] sed arguitur tertio BolPi *dist. 7 q. 1 (117,11): praeterea] add. in casu BolPi *dist. 7 q. 1 (118,15): “Contrarium dicit Augustinus, De fide ad Petrum: ‘Daemones non possunt carere mala voluntate’, neque (poena] poenitentia BolPi) *dist. 9 q. 3 (147,34): futuris] add. ampliorem et BolPi *dist. 11 q. 2 (161,16): Deo] add. assistere BolPi *dist. 14 q. 2 (218,94): nec sua ratio valet qua dicit quod locus ratione qualitatum (similium] naturalium BolPi) *dist. 15 q. 3 (238,44): unde dictum est in benedictione operarum crescite et (multiplicamini] add. et replete terram BolPi)

26*

PROLEGOMENA

The existence of conjunctive errors and shared variants between ζ (Bol and Pi) and P lead to the hypothesis that they descend from the common source γ.

*dist. 1 q. 1 (11,178): quia dubium multum est apud (multos] add. antiquos BolPPi) *dist. 1 q. 2 (24,124): quandoque inferior causa agens non in virtute propria, sed in virtute primi agentis] add. scilicet Dei BolPi; add. scilicet ipsius Dei P *dist. 1 q. 2 (25,141): quod enim calor naturalis habeat (creare] generare BolPPi) *dist. 1 q. 4 (34,81): quod in (omni intelligentia] intellectiva potentia BolPPi) *dist. 2 q. 1 (47,129-131): secundum hoc magis accedunt ad rationem mensurae (extra genus vel homogeneae] homogeneae vel etherogeneae BolPPi) *dist. 3 q. 1 (70,72): quilibet angelus habet esse aliud a quidditate et quaecumque alia (creatura] natura BolPPi) *dist. 4 q. 1 (86,38): sicut medicus cognoscit futuram (sanitatem] infirmitatem BolPPi) *dist. 4 q. 1 (86,47): debuit sua confirmatio] de beatitudine suae consequenda aliquid BolPi; de sua beatitudine consequenda aliquid P *dist. 4 q. 1 (88,71): secundum triplicem corporalis visionis (differentiam] modum BolPPi) *dist. 5 q. unica (99,45): quae possunt (accrescere] consequi BolPPi) *dist 6 q. 1 (103,21): quanto aliquid plus appropinquat ad naturam alicuius (primi] quod est primum BolPPi) *dist. 6 q. 2 (108,14): dixerunt quod supremus (inter eos] eorum BolPPi) *dist. 7 q. 2 (125,12): agentia naturalia] agens naturale BolPPi *dist. 8 q. 1 (131,47): ideo etiam ipsi possunt (immutare] super BolPPi) *dist. 9 q. 1 (136,52): nam angeli eas recipiunt in (plena] pura BolPPi) *dist. 9 q. 3 (146,15): Maior, patet per Isaiae XII: dicitur enim ibi ‘annuntiate quae (ventura] futura BolPPi) *dist. 11 q. 1 (154,57): et habet alias species in abscondito (memoriae] in corde BolPPi) *dist. 11 q. 1 (161,13): Quorum quosdam videmus quod immediate regis praecepta audiunt et a suo conspectu numquam (recedunt] add. aliqui sunt BolPi; add. alii sunt P) *dist. 15 q. 2 (233,37): quae sunt sine materia, sicut formae (artificiales] artificiatorum BolPPi) *dist. 16 q. 1 (242,53): secundum hoc invenitur gradus (in dominio] dominatio BolPPi) *dist. 18 q. 1 (262,38): ita quod in fine alterationis (necessitatur] habet necessitatem BolPPi)

The existence of conjunctive errors, omissions, and common variants among the model γ (Bol, P, and Pi) and Kl suggests that they are closely related and belong to the same branch of the manuscript tradition a. *dist. 1 q. 1 (11,176-177): dubium multum est apud multos (quid sit anima humana vel utrum sit incorruptibilis] utrum anima humana sit incorruptibilis BolKlPPi) *dist. 1 q. 1 (15,253): et ideo pro illo instanti quod continuatur tempori in quo non (erant] creantur BolKlPPi) *dist. 1 q. 2 (23,100-101): necessario oportet quod (cum] tota BolKlPPi) *dist. 1 q. 4 (33,48): secundo arguunt quod haec positio est contra (philosophiam] Philosophum BolKlPPi) *dist. 1 q. 4 (36,105): similiter] naturaliter BolKlPPi *dist. 1 q. 4 (36,118-119): ut in IV libro Deo dante declarabitur] om. BolKlPPi



PROLEGOMENA 

27*

*dist. 2 q. 1 (47,133-134): Quantitas autem, quae tenet gradum superiorem et quasi medium, habet mensuram partim homogeneam (et partim non] om. BolKlPPi) *dist. 2 q. 1 (49,172-173): quia licet quantitas sit secundum aliquid nobilior, tamen (simpliciter] si sumatur BolKlPPi) *dist. 6 q. 4 (113,21): circa] quantum ad BolKlPPi *dist. 12 q. 1 (178,191): materia eiusdem rationis est in istis inferioribus et in caelo, tunc illa corpora sunt ad invicem transmutabilia (cum caelo] sicut in istis inferioribus BolPPi; cum istis inferioribus et cum caelo Kl) *dist. 13 q. 1 (184,23): quod materia non potuit esse sine forma in sequenti (lectione] loco BolKlPPi) *dist. 13 q. 2 (196,26): quia cum omnis (motus] virtus BolKlPPi) *dist. 16 q. 3 (255,6): quia post (separationem] separari BolKlPPi) *dist. 16 q. 4 (258,11): amoenissimus ut nullus homo perturbationibus impeditus spiritualibus deliciis (quiete] avide BolKlPPi) *dist. 16 q. 4 (259,26-27): tamen sol directe pertranseat super (zenit] cavum BolKlPPi capitis) *dist. 18 q. 2 (266,20): Et econverso quorumcumque principiorum operationes (sunt] possunt esse BolKlPPi) *dist. 19 q. 3 (279,70): nec perfectum usum (membrorum] corporis BolKlPPi) *dist. 20 q. unica (282,17): ut scilicet sicut Deus est principium totius (universi] creaturae BolKlPPi)

As far as the other branch of the tradition (b) is concerned, E, G, and V seem to stem from a common model, here called h. *dist. 1 q. 1 (6,95-96): haec (autem dictio] haec praepositio EGV) *dist. 1 q. 1 (6,105-106): non enim ponitur, si creatura (semper] ex nihilo fuit facta E; ex nihilo facta fuerit G) *dist. 1 q. 1 (8,131): non videtur repugnare creaturae, unde creatura (est] add. possibile EGV) *dist. 1 q. 1 (14,228): unde et quando (numerantur] terminantur EG) *dist. 2 q. 1 (45,107-108): non tamen supra naturam angelorum, cum (ibi] angelus EG) *dist. 2 q. 3 (56,71-72): cum in eadem parte materiae non possit esse, nisi una forma numero, nec per istam materiam signatam (satiatur] solvatur EG) *dist. 2 q. 3 (57,90): omnis distinctio, quae est per materiam (subtracta] non subiectam EG) *dist. 3 q. 1 (74,135): tamen intellectus potest eandem (rem] naturam EG) *dist. 3, q. 2 (76,18): videmus autem quod corpora incorruptibilia, quae sunt (perfectiora] magis perfecta EG) *dist. 3 q. 4 (82,13-14): Ergo non potuit esse malus in primo instanti in quo (incepit] cepit EG) *dist. 4 q. 1 (85,28): unde et gratia ‘semen Dei’ (vocatur] nominatur EG) *dist. 5 q. unica (98,25): nisi (secundum quod] ut EG) *dist. 6 q. 1 (106,66): non oportet, sed (limpidius] simplicius EG) *dist. 6 q. 2 (109,23-24): cum peccatum eorum fuerit superbia, maius motivum habuerunt (supremi angeli] superiores angeli E; angeli superiores G) *dist. 6 q. 4 (113,12-13): Modo ita est quod quandoque operatio factiva est ipsius finis, (quandoque] add. non factiva quidem quando finis EG) *dist. 7 q. 1 (119,44): qui posuit quod voluntas (cuiuscumque] cuiuslibet angeli EG) *dist. 9 q. 1 (137,65-66): quae iam aliquo modo multiplicantur et magis determinantur et secundum tales rationes accipitur (secunda hierarchia] hierarchia media EG)

28*

PROLEGOMENA

*dist. 9 q. 3 (146,19-20): Aliqua enim sunt futura, quae ex causis suis (de necessitate] necessario EG) *dist. 9 q. 3 (146,21-22): Aliqua quae non (de necessitate] necessario EG) *dist. 11 q. 2 (162,22-23): Ex hoc patet secundum, scilicet quod non omnes in ministerium (mittuntur] mitti dicuntur EG) *dist. 11 q. 3 (166,49): Et confirmati] consecrati EG *dist. 14 q. 2 (214,35-37): Secundum est quod quanto aliqua sunt formaliora, tanto sunt maiora et magis de intentione et (perfectione] portione EG) *dist. 15 q. 1 (231,195): Secundo est considerare in motu naturalitatem (motus] add. unde motus EG) *dist. 18 q. 1 (261,28-29): et illa proprie dicuntur rationes seminales, quod patet secundum (intentionem] interpretationem EGV) *dist. 18 q. 1 (263-264,65-66): Sed ista inchoatio formae e converso primo (potest dici] dat EG) *dist. 18 q. 1 (264,67-68): “ista potentia activa coagit agenti exteriori (excitanti] producti EG) *dist. 18 q. 1 (264,79): Item quod (aliquid] aqua EGV) *dist. 19 q. 2 (273,41-42): propter defectum (autem causae] agentis EG) *dist. 21 q. unica (315,10): Praeterea. Illud in quo virtus alicuius (manifestatur] maioratur EGV) *dist. 22 q. unica (300,72-73): quae non est causa actus cum non causet involuntarium nullo modo peccatum diminuit nec (excusat] alleviat EGV)

Omissions or shared variants suggest the derivation of h (E, G, and V) and W2 from a common model, d. *dist. 1 q. 4 (31,18-19): impossibile est quod secundum partem sui sit materia, quia cum materia ex opposito dividatur (cum forma et actu] contra formam et actum EGW2) *dist. 2 q. 1 (45,103-104): sed constat quod caelum et quodcumque aliud corpus est (imperfectissimum] non est perfectissimum EGW2) *dist. 3 q. 2 (76,20-22): Et ideo rationabile est quod substantiae immateriales excedant secundum multitudinem substantias (materiales] non separatas EGW2) *dist. 7 q. 2 (126,41): Ergo ab isto est (inducere] producere EGW2) *dist. 7 q. 2 (127,49-50): Error autem praecedentium proveniebat ex hoc quod credebant formam (posse] per se EGW2) *dist. 9 q. 3 (145,3): Iuxta hoc] circa distinctionem 10 EGW2 *dist. 11 q. 3 (165,21-22): Manifestum est autem quod in rebus agendis cognitio et (affectus] effectus EG; effectus sed. corr. W2) *dist. 13 q. 3 (202,76-78): Sed nec istae rationes concludunt nec modus ponendi valet quod enim dicunt quod stella influit plus propter maiorem (condensationem] densitatem EGW2) *dist. 13 q. 5 (206,16): Et (animalia] add. autem EGW2) *dist. 13 q. 5 (207,23): ideo congrue ista tria elementa istis (tribus] add. generationibus EGW2) *dist. 13 q. 5 (207,24): animalibus] animalium EGW2 *dist. 14 q. 2 (215,44-45): ita quod non occupabit totum concavum aeris, sed (partem] add. perfecte EGW2) *dist. 15 q. 1 (224,72): dat etiam modum qualiter haec duae (partes] add. duorum EGW2)



PROLEGOMENA 

29*

*dist. 15 q. 1 (226,104): angelus non habeat virtutem motivam aliam quam (voluntatem] virtutem EGW2) *dist. 15 q. 1 (231,196): scilicet motus est conveniens naturae rei motae. Et ratio huius accipitur ex natura (rei] add. motae EGW2) *dist. 16 q. 1 (244,95): unde ex intellectu possibili et forma (intellecta] add. actu EGW2) *dist. 16 q. 1 (244,96): Cuicumque igitur (coniungitur] unitur EGW2) *dist. 16 q. 4 (259,25-26): Et ideo etiam regio, quae est (sub aequinotiali] in aequinotiali EGW2) *dist. 19 q. 3 (278,60): iterum (quantum ad] circa EGW2)

Conjunctive errors and variants suggest that N and W1 derive from a common model, e, which originated a second branch within tradition b. *dist. 1 q. 1 (7,124-125): non ponitur aliquis ordo eius quod factum est ad nihil (quasi oportuerit] quia non ordinat NW1) *dist. 1 q. 1 (11,76-77): quia dubium multum est apud multos (quid sit anima humana vel utrum sit incorruptibilis] quod anima sit incorruptibilis NW1) *dist. 1 q. 2 (22,83): ideo agens naturale producit effectum (medium] immediate NW1) *dist. 2 q. 1 (51,215-216): non oportet quod simul incipiant, sicut patet de omnibus (temporalibus] corporalibus NW1) *dist. 2, q. 3 (55,67-68): sed quia per dimensiones (numeratur] demostrant NW1) *dist. 3 q. 1 (68,37): quanto plus appropinquat ad (Deum] ei NW1) *dist. 3 q. 1 (72,94-95): Nam si considero (angelum] hominem NW1) *dist. 6 q. 1(103,30-31): quod quanto aliquis est melioris (ingenii] complexionis NW1) *dist. 6 q. 1 (105,60): ad primum dicendum] quia manifestum est NW1 *dist. 7 q. 1 (118,28): cum sit quidam intellectus secundum naturam et (mentes] manentes NW1) *dist. 7 q. 2 (127,58): sicut per coniunctionem lapidum fit (pons] paries NW1) *dist. 9 q. 1 (136,35): sicut] quasi NW1 *dist. 9 q. 2 (140,4-5): utrum hierarchiarum connexio et distinctio (ordinum] gradum NW1) *dist. 9 q. 3 (148,44-45): Et ideo hoc modo angeli non cognoscunt futura, nisi quando sunt iam (actu] add. nisi eis revelentur vel per visionem in verbo vel inferiores per revelationem superiorum qui ea in verbo videnti cognoscant NW1) *dist. 13 q. 2 (195,12-13): quas Augustinus vocat ‘rationes seminales scibiles’, inquantum ex eis (seminalia] alia NW1) *dist. 14, q. 2 (217,76): apud (aliquos] add. secundum quid locentur elementa proprie NW1) *dist. 14 q. 2 (218,87-88): quod habent conformitatem maiorem ad primum mobile, quod caret (contrario] add. et omni contrarietate NW1) *dist. 15 q. 3 (237,31-32): quando habet desiderium (quietatum] add. quiescens NW1) *dist. 16 q. 1 (252,211-212): tamen eadem forma potest habere aliquid de utraque quasi (existens] consistens NW1) *dist. 16 q. 2 (253,16): unde vermis qui oritur] causatur NW1 *dist. 18 q. 1 (261,26-27): potentia passiva ad formam quae ipsi materiae inest in sua (creatione] add. dicitur ratio seminalis NW1) *dist. 19 q. 2 (273,37): Secundo hoc idem (ostenditur] patet sic NW1) *dist. 21 q. unica (295,104): Ad secundum dicendum (quod] add. patientia hominis NW1)

30*

PROLEGOMENA

Finally, d (E, G, V, and W2) together with e (N and W1) and Ba, and Be originate from b. *dist. 6 q. 4 (113,3-4): Secundo ostendetur quod statim post primum actum (meritorium] meriti BaBeEGNW1W2) consecuti sint beatitudinem *dist. 12 q. 4 (199,12-13): quod est materia, (idest faciunt numerum in operibus creationis] om. BaBeEGNW1W2)

There are not enough elements to exactly determine the position of H in the stemma. The limited variants hint at some affinities with family b, but its lineage is nevertheless uncertain. *dist. 1 q. 1 (1,5-6): mundum (ab aeterno fuisse] esse ab aeterno BeHV) *dist. 1 q. 1 (3,43-44): scilicet artifex est causa (artificiati] artificiatorum HNW1) *dist. 1 q. 1 (7,118): Tertio] Creatio EGHW2 *dist. 1 q. 1 (10, 171): per ordinem respondendum est] respondendum est per ordinem H VW1W2

Significant errors, omissions, and variants lead to the hypothesis that the two branches of the manuscript tradition (a and b) stem from a corrupted archetype X. 1) dist. 1 *dist. 1 q. 1 (7,118-119): Tertio, inquam, modo quo dicitur aliquid factum esse ex nihilo] Tertia inquam (rno (coni. responsio vel interpretatio) dicit quibus dicitur aliquid factum esse ex nihilo Be; Itaque modo dicitur aliquid factum est ex nihilo Bol; Creatio inquam modo quo factum aliquid dicitur ex nihilo EG; Creatio modo quo dicitur aliquid factum esse H; Ego inquam modo dicit quibus dicitur aliquid factum esse ex nihilo Kl; Primo inquam ut dicit quaestio ab esse factum ex nihilo est, ut dicatur quid esse, sed esse aliquid N; Isto inquam modo dicitur aliquid factum esse ex nihilo P; Isto itaque modo dicitur aliquid factum esse ex nihilo Pi; Tertio inquam modo quo dicitur aliquid factum ex nihilo est V; Tertio inquam modo dicit quo dicitur aliquid esse factum ex nihilo est W1; Creatio) (generatio sed al.m. in marg. corr.) inquam modo dicit quo aliquid dicitur factum ex nihilo est quid est, sed aliquid esse W2. (Thom., De aetern. mundi (87,165-168): Tertia, inquit, interpretatio qua dicitur aliquid esse factum de nihilo)

2) dist. 9 The first two questions of dist. 9 (De hierarchiis. Utrum sint connexae and Utrum hierarchiarum connexio et distinctio ordinum sit a natura) are handed down by all manuscripts. However, Ba, Be, Bol, Kl, P, Pi, and W1 contain also a fourth (sic) question:



PROLEGOMENA

31*

*Ba (f. 34vb): Quarto quaeritur utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia *Be (f. 44va): Quarto quaeritur utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia *Bol (f. 49vb): Quarto quaeritur utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura *Kl (f. 51vb): Quarto quaeritur utrum secundum suas species cognoscunt futura vel non entia *P (f. 40vb): Quarto quaeritur utrum per suas species futura cognoscant *Pi (f. 44vb): Quarto quaeritur utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura *W1 (f. 32va): Quarto quaeritur utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia

The same question must have been handed down by d (E, G, and W ), as the first and the unique question of dist. 10: 2

*E (f. 91vb): Circa distinctionem 10 utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia *G (f. 36rb): Circa distinctionem 10 quaeritur utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia *W2 (f. 157ra): Circa distinctionem 10 quaeritur utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia

As most witnesses of both branches of the manuscript tradition (a and b) hand down this question on angelic knowledge of future events or non-existents, as part of dist. 9, this is probably the most plausible reading, though the absence of a third question is indeed difficult to explain. Presumably, this omission is due to a lacuna in the archetype X, which the model d tries to correct by considering the question belonging to dist. 10. 3) dist. 10 (?) and 11 The different sequence of the questions included in dist. 10 and 11 is another reason to suppose the existence of a lacking archetype X. As mentioned above, d (E, G, and W2) transmit the question Utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia as quaestio unica of dist. 10.

32*

PROLEGOMENA

In model ζ (Bol and Pi), dist. 10 contains three questions: Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio; Utrum omnes angelorum hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant; Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui. The first two questions, are also transmitted by P, which however – as mentioned above17 –, considers the question Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui to be the first question of dist. 11. Ba, Be, and Kl do not hand down dist. 10. In fact, the questions Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio; Utrum omnes angelorum hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant; Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui are transmitted as part of dist. 11. W1 surprisingly seems to adopt the reading of model ζ (Bol and Pi), although it has a different origin. However, the original version of the text was presumably modified by the intervention of a second hand: the number “10” seems to result from a correction of the text, as the different ink used to draw the figure “1” and the evident signs of scraping suggest. Before conjecturing about the existence and the structure of dist. 10, a survey on the transmission of dist. 11 is required, as the sequence of the questions in these two distinctions is profoundly interrelated. Ba, Be, E, G, Kl, and W2 transmit, as part of dist. 11, the questions which model ζ (Bol and Pi) considers to be part of dist. 10. As mentioned above, W1 originally hands down dist. 11, which was presumably corrected as dist. 10 by a second hand. All these variants of dist. 10 and 11 are summarized in the following table:18

17.  Cf. p. 25*. 18.  For the variants of N and P see pp. 23*-25*.

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui

11 q.2

11 q.3

Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui

Utrum omnis angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui

10 q.3

11 q.1

Utrum omnes angelorum hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Bol (f. 50rb)

10 q.2

Be (f. 45ra)

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

Ba (f. 35va)

10, q.1

Dist

Utrum singulis homini deputetur angelus ad custodiam

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel tantum aliqui assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

Utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura

E (f. 91vb)

Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel tantum aliqui assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

Utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura

G (f. 36rb)

Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

Kl (f. 52rb)

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

P (f. 41ra)

Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

Pi (f. 45ra)

Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad custodiam sui

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio

W1 (f. 32va)

Utrum singulis hominibus deputentur angelus ad custodiam sui

Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur vel aliqui tantum assistant

Utrum distantia localis impediat locutione unius angeli cum alio

Utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia

W2 (f. 157ra)

PROLEGOMENA

33*

34*

PROLEGOMENA

From a comparative analysis of the order of the questions in dist. 10 and 11, we can assume that either the original editorial project of Lectura Thomasina’s Book II does not cover the existence of dist. 10 or that omissions and errors are present in a hypothetical archetype X. In fact, despite signs of the presence of dist.10 in Bol, E, G, N, P, Pi, W1, and W2, they do not indicate a reliable variant: - model ζ (Bol and Pi) hands down, as part of dist. 10, three questions that all other manuscripts hand down as part of dist. 11; - model d (E, G, and W2) hands down a single question as part of dist. 10 (Utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura vel non entia), but – as mentioned above – this seems to be part of dist. 9, as all other manuscripts hand down this variant; - in W1, the numbering of dist. 10 and 11 was presumably modified by a second hand, therefore, I assume that the manuscript originally does not hand down dist. 10, but the same variant as Ba, Be, and Kl; - P partly adopts the variants of ζ, partly introduces some particular additions19; - N transmits a completely different sequence of questions20. Moreover, the omission of dist. 10 does not represent an isolated case with regard to the commentaries on the Sentences composed at that time: for example, John of Paris, one of the most significant sources for Godin’s work21, omits the same distinction in his commentary22. In conclusion, the conjectured order of the questions from dist. 9 to dist. 11 is as follows: Dist. 9 : De hierarchiis. Utrum sint connexae (BaBeBolEGKl(N)PPiW1W2) : Utrum hierarchiarum connexio et distinctio ordinum sit a natura (BaBeBolEGKl(N)PPiW1W2)

19.  Cf. p. 24*-25*. 20.  Cf. p. 23*. 21.  Cf. F. Bonini, “The Lectura Thomasina: An Early Thomistic Sentences Commentary”, in particular, pp. 23-24; Id., “Historical Introduction to the Text”, in: Guillelmi Petri de Godino, Lectura Thomasina, I, pp. 37*-38*. 22. Cf. Iohannes Parisiensis (Jean Quidort), Commentaire sur les Sentences, Reportation, Livre II, ed. J.-P. Muller, Roma 1964 (Studia Anselmiana, vol. 47).



PROLEGOMENA 

35*

: Utrum angeli secundum suas species cognoscant futura (BaBeBolKl PPiW1) Dist. 11 : Utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio (BaBeEGKl(N)W1W2) Quaestio secunda: Utrum omnes angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittantur (BaBeEGKlW1W2) : Utrum singulis hominibus deputetur angelus ad sui custodiam (Ba BeEGKl(N)W1W2)

4) dist. 13 and 14 In dist. 13 (Quaestio tertia: De luce. Utrum sit accidens), a significant conjunctive error further leads to the hypothesis that all manuscript witnesses stem from a common corrupted archetype X. At the end of the question, Ba, Be, Bol, E, G, Kl, Pi, W1, and W2, transmit a series of counterarguments, which is completely unrelated to the topic of discussion. The question concerns the definition and the nature of light, while this part of text focuses on the natural place of the water: *Ba (ff. 40rb-40vb): Modo insurgunt hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod mare sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *Be (ff. 49ra-49va): Modo insurgunt hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod in aere sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *Bol (ff. 55rb-55va): Modo insurgit hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod mare sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *E (ff. 99vb-100rb): Modo insurgunt aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod mare sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est de ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *G (ff. 39rb-39va): Modo insurgunt hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod mare sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est de ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *Kl (ff. 56rb-56va): Modo insurgunt hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod in aere sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *Pi (ff. 48va-48vb): Modo insurgunt hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod in aere sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *W1 (ff. 34va-34vb): Modo insurgit hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod mare sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum gradum naturae ordinatarum *W2 (ff. 160ra-160rb): Modo insurgit hic aliquae difficultates, quia non videtur quod mare sit locus naturalis aquae … hoc est ratione formarum essentialium ad invicem secundum naturae gradum ordinatarum

36*

PROLEGOMENA

P completely omits this part of the text, probably because the scribe has noticed the error in advance. N hands down this particular addition as part of dist. 14 (