James Of Viterbo Research Articles

James of Viterbo on Seminal Reasons as inchoationes formarum

Abstract This article examines James of Viterbo’s theory of seminal reasons as inchoate forms (inchoationes formarum). James intends this theory to explain how the eduction (eductio) of substantial forms from the potency of matter does not entail that such forms are created ex nihilo. Substantial forms that come to be in generation preexist in matter as forms in potency. The form in potency is an inchoation of, or aptitude or propensity for, the form that comes to be in act. Generation is thus understood by James to be a modal change, for the form in potency and the form in act are one and the same thing (res); they differ only with regard to their mode of being. James’s theory of inchoate forms is a development of Bonaventure’s theory of seminal reasons, but reformulated with the help of Simplicius and Averroes.

Le statut ontologique du plaisir

The aim of this paper is to study some aspects of the Medieval Latin reception of Aristotle’s theory of pleasure (Eth. Nic. X). First, I introduce Aristotle’s position, with special attention to the problem of the ontological status of pleasure and the relationship between pleasure and the different genera of causes (viz. formal and final causality), as well as the somehow ambiguous exegesis of Michael of Ephesus. Second, I take into account the interpretation given by Albert the Great in his first commentary on the Ethics. Finally, I present some theological issues raised by Albert’s interpretation, in the discussions about beatific vision. The authors taken in account are James of Viterbo, Radulphus Brito, Peter Auriol and William of Ockham.

John of Paris: Beyond Royal and Papal Power ed. by Chris Jones

John of Paris: Beyond Royal and Papal Power. Edited by Chris Jones. [Disputatio, vol. 23.] (Turnhout: Brepols. 2015. Pp. xiv, 421. €100,00. ISBN 978-2-5033280-6).John of Paris has not been studied as systematically as other Dominicans like Thomas Aquinas or as other anti-papal polemicists such as Dante, Marsilius of Padua, or John Wyclif. This makes him a prime candidate for that latest milk cow of academic publishing: the Companion genre of collected articles.The editor, Chris Jones, introduces his apt volume with a nice survey of John of Paris's life and of recent scholarship. On June 26, 1303, John of Paris signed a petition originating at the court of King Philip the Fair that called for a general council against Pope Boniface VIII. John's famous work, De potestate regia et papali, forms part of this conflict. It is not, however, his only surviving work: John also authored an attack on critics of Thomas Aquinas with the Correctorium Corrupti 'Circa, ' a criticism of secular attacks on mendicant privileges in De confessionibus audiendis, and a censure of Arnald of Villanova's prediction of the Antichrist's advent with his Tractatus de Antichristo, a critique of transubstantiation in his Determinatio de modo existendi corporis Christi in sacramento altaris, some comparatively uncontroversial sermons, and a neglected Sentences Commentary. Each of these receives some attention-though the treatment of preaching and confession is scant-but the book really does not go all that far beyond Royal and Papal Power. The majority of articles are focused on the De potestate regia et papali. There are traditional analyses of its political theory by Joseph Canning, Gerson Moreno-Riano, Takashi shogimen, and Bettina Koch. A more unconventional theoretical analysis is offered by Lidia Lanza and Marco Toste, who examine John's distinct use of the Aristotelian four causes (efficient, formal, material and final) when discussing the relation of temporal to spiritual power.But the stand-out piece in the collection is by historians' historian, Karl Ubl, who recently argued that On Royal and Papal Power went through several revisions and originated in early 1302 as a response to a Quodlibet in Paris by James of Viterbo, O.E.S.A., (the papalist author of De regimine Christianorum). Ubl builds on his now foundational work by taking issue with Brian Tierney's Foundations of Conciliar Theory, which reduced John of Paris's ideas to nothing more than a logical consequence of canonistic thought. Looking at the treatment of jurisdiction from the Sentences Commentary to On Royal and Papal Power, Ubl demonstrates how John came to formulate his radical idea of consent-that rightful jurisdiction comes from below rather than from above-and that this formulation was little influenced by canon law. Having precisely traced the radicalization of John's thinking on papal immunity/accountability, Ubl comes to the general conclusion: Canonists . …

James of Viterbo on the Nature and Division of the Categories

James of Viterbo on the Nature and Division of the Categories

Über natürliche und übernatürliche Gottesliebe

The doctrinal part of this study focuses on the early fourteenth-century debate concerning whether human beings are to love God more than themselves. The main protagonist in the debate is Durand of St. Pourcain, who argues that we are to love God more than ourselves, and not only by a charitable love (caritas) but also by a natural kind of friendship (amor amicitiae). Durand, who is best known in the secondary literature as an opponent of Thomas Aquinas, holds himself in this case close to Aquinas's doctrine. Even some harsh critics of Durand and defenders of St. Thomas, like John of Naples and Peter of Palude, do not differ from Durand in their general view, merely criticizing some of Durand's arguments and little details in his position rather than offering an alternative position. Indeed, all the participants in this debate argue against James of Viterbo, who claims in his Quodl. II, q. 20 that we have to assume a greater natural friendship towards ourselves than towards God. In the historical-philological part of this study, Book III, d. 29, q. 2 of Durand's Sentences Commentary in its first redaction (of which we do not possess any manuscripts) is reconstructed on the basis of Peter of Palude's text, which accurately transmits Durand's treatment of the topic.

James of Viterbo and the Late Thirteenth-Century Debate Concerning the Reality of the Possibles

This paper reconstructs the teaching of James of Viterbo on the ontological status of the possibles, and compares his position with those of Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines. James holds that possibles are real only in a qualified sense, as objects of God's power and knowledge. While James appears to have been influenced by Henry in his explanation of divine knowledge of creatures, in his analysis of the possibles he makes no use of Henry's theory of esse essentiae, and he denies Henry's claim that divine ideas function as exemplar causes of the possibiles. James' theory is actually much closer to that of Godfrey, although Godfrey himself was highly critical of James' teaching.

Godfrey of Fontaines on the Medieval Custom of Dividing the Bodies of Certain Prominent Persons for Burial in Separate Places

GODFREY OF FONTAINES ON THE MEDIEVAL CUSTOM OF DIVIDING THE BODIES OF CERTAIN PROMINENT PERSONS FOR BURIAL IN SEPARATE PLACES John Wippel* Godfrey of Fontaines served as a Master (Magister) in the theology faculty of the University of Paris from 1285 until ca. 1303/1304 and, along with Henry of Ghent, Giles of Rome and, to a lesser degree, James of Viterbo, was one of the most prominent members of that faculty from the time of Thomas Aquinas’s death in 1274 until the beginning of the fourteenth century.1 Godfrey and Henry are both well known for having made the quodlibetal question a major vehicle for disseminating their philosophical and theological thought. This distinctive type of disputation had developed to a high degree of sophistication within the theology faculty at Paris in the course of the thirteenth century, and was selected by Thomas Aquinas on twelve different occasions during his two teaching periods as a Master in theology there (1256–1259 and 1268–1272). Quodlibetal disputations are so named because, unlike other university disputations, their theme was not set by the presiding Master. Rather, questions could be raised by anyone who was present (a quolibet) and about any legitimate topic (de quolibet). Not surprisingly, the particular questions raised by those in attendance often reflected topics of great interest to the audience and at times were occasioned by well known historical events. Moreover, questions were sometimes raised which could be extremely sensitive from a religious or philosophical or political standpoint, and which might also be intended to embarrass the presiding The Jurist 67 (2007) 311–340 311 * School of Philosophy, Catholic University of America. 1 For still the most complete but necessarily dated study of Godfrey’s life and career see Maurice De Wulf, Un théologien-philosophe du XIIIe siècle. Étude sur la vie, les oeuvres et l’influence de Godefroid de Fontaines (Brussels: M. Hayez, 1904). For a general presentation of his metaphysical thought and for additional secondary literature see my The Metaphysical Thought of Godfrey of Fontaines: A Study in Late Thirteenth-Century Philosophy (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1981). On his life see pp. xi–xxi. For an update on more recent literature concerning his career see my “Godfrey of Fontaines at the University of Paris in the Last Quarter of the Thirteenth-Century ,” in Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Studien und Texte, ed. Jan A. Aertsen, Kent Emery, Jr., andAndreas Speer (Berlin-NewYork: Walter de Gruyter, 2001) 359–389. 312 the jurist Master. Masters could refuse to entertain a particular question, but it was evidently not good form to do so unless the question was clearly frivolous or unless the Master had determined or would determine it elsewhere . Masters in theology were not obliged to conduct quodlibetal disputations (which were held twice in the academic year, in Advent and in Lent), and many of them rarely did so. But figures such as Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent (15 Quodlibets), and Godfrey (15 Quodlibets) obviously relished the challenge posed by them.2 Well before Godfrey’s time the custom of dividing the bodies of recently deceased prominent persons, especially royalty and nobility, had come to be practiced in Northern Europe (it was at times referred to as the mos teutonicus or gallicus), as well as in England.At times very practical considerations might lead to such a decision, such as the death of a prominent person in a distant land. Because of the difficulties involved in preserving and transporting an entire body for an extended period of travel, the practice had arisen of extracting the entrails and the heart from the body of the deceased, and then of boiling the body until the skin had been removed and the bones exposed. The bones would then be transported back to the person’s homeland for permanent burial. On some occasions the bones might be buried in one location, and the heart in another . One justification for separate burial of different parts of the body was the belief that by burying the remains of the deceased in two...

James of Viterbo: On Christian Government (De regimine Christiano). Edited, translated, and introduced by R. W. Dyson. Rochester, N.Y.: The Boydell Press, 1995. xxvii + 160 pp. $45.00.

James of Viterbo: On Christian Government (De regimine Christiano). Edited, translated, and introduced by R. W. Dyson. Rochester, N.Y.: The Boydell Press, 1995. xxvii + 160 pp. $45.00. - Volume 65 Issue 4

Johannes Klenkok: a friar's life, c. 1310-1374 (review)

Reviews 175 have chapter 17 of John of Paris's Of royal and Papal power, which is a very effective criticism of Thomas's argument. One would like to have more from John of Paris on property as well. However, no selection will satisfy everyone. To the 'Suggestions for further reading' should be added two translations by R. W . Dyson: Giles of Rome, On ecclesiastical power (Woodbridge, 1986) and James of Viterbo, On Christian government (Woodbridge, 1995). These are important contributions to the church-state controversy on the Papalist side, which is not well-represented in this anthology. John Kilcullen School of History, Philosophy and Politics Macquarie University Ocker, Christopher, Johannes Klenkok: a friar's life, c. 1310-1374 (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 83, part 5), Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, 1993; paper; pp. viii, 116; R.R.P. US$15.00. This monograph presents the life of what the author calls 'a moderately successful friar' (p. 5). It is an attempt to move beyond what Ocker identifies as the two dominant stereotypes of the late medieval friar: the bad friar characterized by a range of different moral failings, and the theologian friar known by his intellectual achievement. By describing in detail the life and career of Johannes Klenkok, an Augustinian from Saxony who died from the plague while a minor penitentiary in Avignon, Ocker attempts to show how the late medieval friar was involved in a complex network of local and regional obligations within the different communities of town, diocese, and religious order. The interaction with these communities and the web of resulting dependencies, argues Ocker, necessitated a constant adaptation of his theology to various public roles and practical interests. The uncertainty of the known documentation on Klenkok's early life and education allows Ocker to discuss a range of issues concerning the organization of the provincial and general schools of the Augustinians. This is one of the more illuminating sections of the book, for it provides us with much detail of scholastic organization, as Klenkok advanced through the ranks of lector in Magdeburg, bachelor in Paris, and master in Oxford, and then assumed the office of provincial of Saxony and Thuringia, 176 Reviews professor at the Augustinian 'general school' in Erfurt, inquisitor in Olomouc, and penitentiary in Avignon. The reader is reminded again of how international the world of even 'a moderately successful friar' of the fourteenth century could be. Ocker shows how Klenkok was regarded highly as a theologian by his younger contemporaries but then was largely forgotten after his death. His one claim to later fame was his ongoing attack on the Sachsenspiegel as the basis of Saxon law. This brought Klenkok notoreity, threats against his life, and conflict - not only with secular authorities such as the city council of Magdeburg, but also with such clerics as Walter Kerlinger, the powerful Dominican inquisitor, and Herbord of Spangenburg, a member of an Erfurt chapter and Erfurt city scribe. Klenkok's position on the Sachsenspiegel had been shaped by the strong Augustinian commitment to Papal absolutism and he consequently regarded such legal codes as a challenge to that authority. Ocker argues that Klenkok's inability to gain strong support from local bishops, inquisitors, and even members of his own order demonstrates how universal principles could not simply be applied to local conditions if they were to upset the complex web of regional and local political support and dependency. Such insights by the author are valuable, yet they are little developed in this book. Its strength is not conceptual. Its value lies in the presentation and discussion of the detail of scholastic, and particularly Augustinian, life in the fourteenth century. By building on the wealth of recent investigation by scholars such as Damasus Trapp, Adolf Zumkeller, and William Courtenay, it demonstrates how our understanding of that fourteenth-century world is being progressively shaped by regional and local realities. Charles Zika Department of History University of Melbourne Ratchnevsky, Paul, Genghis Khan: his life and legacy , ed. & trans. T. N. Haining, Oxford and Cambridge Mass., Blackwell, 1991; cloth; pp. xvii, 313; 25 illustrations, 2 dynastic tables, 1 map, glossary, main personalities, chronology; R. R. P. AUS$55.00 [distributed in...

D'Avicenne à Averroès, et retour. Sur les sources arabes de la théorie scolastique de l'un transcendantal

The scholastic doctrine of transcendentals is inherited from Arabic philosophy to a certain extent. This dependance is clearly illustrated in the construction of the problematic of the transcendental one, which is identical with being, and of the numerical one, which is not. The scholastic discussion as a whole reproduces the major themes of Avicenna's position, then of Averroes' criticism of Avicenna. This article attempts to reconstruct the complex of questions, topics, and arguments which constitute this problematic by tracing its evolution through the analysis of anonymoussophismataand of texts by Nicholas of Paris, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and James of Viterbo. Two stages are distinguished: the first is centered on the distinction between the transcendental and numerical one; the second, essentially German (Dietrich of Freiberg and Berthold of Moosburg), is centered on the subordination of the Aristotelian to the Platonic concept of the transcendental one. Along the way, it is shown that, with the exception of the German philosophers, the understanding of Avicenna's position is constantly filtered through Averroes' interpretation.

Jacobi de Viterbio O. E. S. A. Disputatio prima de quolibet, and: Jacobi de Viterbio O. E. S. A. Disputatio secunda de quolibet (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 257 moment Anselm wishes to conciliate two demands: (1) an ordering which permits one to put 'greater than' to work, and (2) the clear and intended sense of the formula to remove what it expresses from the order itself. Vuillemin characterizes these twin exigencies as (1) resemblance and (2) transcendence. He identifies them by noting carefully how Anselm himself uses his touted formula; hence they characterize the proof as Ansekn himself executes it, and clarifies that execution in meeting Gaunilon's objections. This careful presentation is certainly the distinguishing feature of this work. Vuillemin carries it out initially without explicit recourse to set theoretic notions, so that his later use of these conceptual tools can be judged to sharpen Anselm's original intent rather than impose alien concerns. Both Vuillemin's original reading and his subsequent analysis are guided by a keen sense for Anselm's dialectical preoccupations, as may be testified by his refusing to bring what Anselm is doing under the harmonizing rubric of "ontological proof." Vuillemin is able to appreciate how precisely the proof of the Proslogion appears to be adapted to its object by the way in which the original formula displays the transcendent character of God. He is also able to show that the price of so perfect a fit are the antinomies which that same formula generates as it is put to work. Yet in the process we are schooled that much more in learning how to exercise our reason at her limits. And if Anselm's desire to conclude to divinity remains blocked by apparently inescapable antinomies, his original intent of using the formula he had stumbled upon to exercise our reason in a manner calculated to put down foolish and fiat denials finds fresh vindication in Vuillemin's clear yet creative analysis. DAVIDBURRELL,C.S.C. University o[ Notre Dame Jacobi de Viterbio O. E. S. A. Disputatio prima de quolibet. Edited by Eelcko Ypma, O. E. S. A. (Wiirzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1968) Jacobi de Viterbio O. E. S. A. Disputatio secunda de quolibet. Edited by E. Ypma, O. E. S. A. (Wtirzburg; Augustinus-Verlag, 1969) James of Viterbo (ca. 1272--1308), a member of the Order of Augustinian Hermits, succeeded Giles of Rome as magister regens of the order at Paris no later than 1293 and held that post until 1299 or 1300 when he left to assume a similar position in the order's studium generale at Naples. He is probably best known for his markedly papalist treatise, De regimine christiano (1301-1302), of which there exists a modern edition by H. X. Arquillibre. Since James not only taught at Paris but had also studied there from 1275 to 1281 or 1282 and again from 1285 to 1293, his writings represent an important and interesting source of information on philosophical ideas and debates current in Paris during the last quarter of the thirteenth century. According to P. Glorieux, the first series of James's quodlibetal disputations was held in 1293-1294 and the second in 1294-1295. While there may be some question as to these datings, 1 it is certain that the first two quodlibets had a wide circulation at Paris and that various masters, such as Godfrey of Fontaines, owned copies of them. Of special note among the twenty-two questions which comprise the first quodlibet are the fourth, which raises the problem of whether essence and esse are really distinct in creatures and presents James's own interesting viewpoint; the fifth, which concerns the divine knowledge of the "possibles"; the seventh, which contains an interesting discussion of the will and its relation to the intellect; and the twelfth, which contains not only a full and well-informed presentation of various positions on the nature of the 1 For a reexamination of the dating of James's first quodlibet, see John F. Wippel, "The Dating of James of Viterbo's Quodlibet 1 and Godfrey of Fontaines' Quodlibet 8," Augustiniana 24 (1974). 258 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY agent intellect (based in great part on Philoponus and Themistius), but also some of James's own basic ideas on the nature of intellectual cognition and its relation to sense knowledge...