Godfrey of Fontaines' Quodlibet Xiv on Justice As A

GODFREY OF FONTAINES’ QUODLIBET XIV ON JUSTICE AS A GENERAL VIRTUE: IS IT REALLY A QUODLIBET?

John F. Wippel

Godfrey of Fontaines has long been recognized as one of the lead- ing Masters in the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris in the final decades of the thirteenth century, and his underlying philosophical thought has also proved to be of considerable interest and value. His work is particularly relevant to the theme of this book because he selected quodlibeta as his major vehicle for disseminating his personal philosophical and theological positions. While a number of his Ordinary Disputed Questions survive, at least in abbreviated form, their significance pales in comparison with that of his fifteen Quodlibeta, all of which have been published. These are based on quodlibetal disputations he conducted at the University of Paris from 1285 until ca. 1303/04.1

1 For what is still the most complete if necessarily dated study of Godfrey’s life and career see M. De Wulf, Un théologien-philosophe du XIIIe siècle. Étude sur la vie, les oeuvres et l’influence de Godefroid de Fontaines (Brussels 1904). For a general presentation of his metaphysical thought and for other secondary literature see my The Metaphysical Thought of Godfrey of Fontaines. A Study in Late Thirteenth-Century Philosophy (Washington, DC, 1981). Also on his life see there 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, J.A. Aertsen, K. Emery, Jr., and A. Speer, eds. (Berlin- New York 2001), pp. 359–89. Godfrey’s Quodlibeta have been edited in the series Les Philosophes Belges (henceforth cited as PB plus volume and page numbers): vol. 2: Les quatre premiers Quodlibets de Godefroid de Fontaines, eds. M. De Wulf and A. Pelzer (Louvain 1904); vol. 3: Les Quodlibets cinq, six et sept, eds. M. De Wulf and J. Hoffmans (Louvain 1914); vol. 4: Le huitième Quodlibet, Le neuvième Quodlibet, Le dixième Quodlibet, ed. J. Hoffmans (Louvain 1924, 1928, 1931); vol. 5: Les Quodlibets onze et douze, Les Quodlibets treize et quatorze, ed. J. Hoffmans (Louvain 1932, 1935); vol. 14: Le Quodlibet XV et trois Questions ordinaires de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. O. Lottin (Louvain 1937). In preparing their editions the various editors have used the following manuscripts: Quodlibeta I and II (long version): Paris, BNF, lat. 14311, 15364, 15845; Quodlibeta III and IV (long version): for Quodlibet III, qq. 1 and 2: the same three Paris manuscripts; for Quodlibet III, qq. 3–16 and Quodlibet IV: Paris, BNF, lat. 14311; Quodlibeta III and IV (short version): Paris, BNF, lat. 15846, 15364, Cambrai 435 (408), Paris, BNF, lat. 15841; Quodlibeta V, VI, VII: Paris, BNF, lat. 14311, 15842, Pembroke 288 john f. wippel

Nonetheless, certain unanswered questions remain about some of Godfrey’s Quodlibeta in their written form. For instance, it is well known that only reportationes survive of his first four Quodlibeta. It has been suggested that this is because in the case of these four Quodlibeta Godfrey himself did not submit a revised and corrected version to the University stationer, which would have served as the exemplar of his final and determined version of each of these disputations. Even so, the organization of these reportationes indicates that they do not reflect the first day’s oral disputation, where any number of questions would have been raised in haphazard fashion without any over- all organizing plan. Rather the surviving reportationes of each of them indicates that Godfrey had taken the time to impose an organizing plan on them before presenting his oral determination on the sec- ond day of the disputation. Moreover, there are signs suggesting that Godfrey may have had a more complete written version in his personal possession, since one occasionally sees references in these reportationes to the liber magistri for content missing from particular questions within these Quodlibeta.2

College, Cambridge 170; Quodlibeta VIII, IX: Paris, BNF, lat. 14311, l5842, Pembroke College, Cambridge, 170; Quodlibet X: Paris, BNF, lat. 15842, 14311, Pembroke College, Cambridge, 170, BAV, Vat. lat. 1032, Borghese 302, 301; Quodlibeta XI, XII: Paris, BNF, lat. 15842, 14311, Pembroke College, Cambridge, 170, BAV, Vat. lat 1031, Borghese 302; Quodlibeta XIII, XIV: Paris, BNF, lat. 15842, 14311, Pembroke College, Cambridge 170, BAV, Vat. lat. 1032, 1031, Borghese 302, 301; Quodlibet XV: Louvain G 30. For valuable descriptions of these and many other manuscripts which contain greater or lesser numbers of Godfrey’s Quodlibeta or excerpts see J. Hoﬀmans and A. Pelzer, Étude sur les manuscrits des Quodlibeta, in PB 14.143–321. For the dating of Godfrey’s Quodlibeta see Glorieux I, pp. 149–51. Glorieux’s pro- posed datings are still defensible in large measure, although certain unmistakable references in Godfrey’s Quodlibet VIII to James of Viterbo’s Quodlibet I have led me to propose slight revisions for the dates of Quodlibeta VII through XIV. I would place Quodlibet VII in either the academic year 1290/91 or 1291/92, Quodlibet VIII in 1292/93, Quodlibet IX in 1293/94, Quodlibet X in 1294/95, Quodlibet XI in 1295/96, Quodlibet XII in 1296/97, Quodlibet XIII in 1297/98, Quodlibet XIV in 1298/99 and, here in agreement with Glorieux, Quodlibet XV ca. 1303/04. See my The Metaphysical Thought of Godfrey of Fontaines, pp. xxiii–xxviii and, concerning Quodlibet XV, the Appendix to the present chapter. 2 On the texts of the ﬁrst four Quodlibeta as reportationes see Les quatre premiers Quodlibeta de Godefroid de Fontaines, eds. De Wulf and Pelzer, PB 2.xv–xvi. Note that the editors have also published in the same volume an abbreviated version of the text for Quodlibeta III and IV. The editors also note that within these Quodlibeta certain questions simply end with the words: Responsio in libro Magistri (Quodlibeta II, q. 10; III, 13–16) or: Respondeo dicendum...In libro magistri (Quodlibet II, qq. 13 and 14). In his extensive and later study of Godfridian manuscripts in Italy and Vatican City, in his analysis of Vat. lat. 1032 Pelzer adds other examples of similar references (Quodlibet II, qq. 9 [not q. 10], 13, 14; Quodlibet III, qq. 7, 8, 9, 10, 13–15).