REFLECTIONS ON VAT. LAT. 1086 AND PROSPER OF REGGIO EMILIA, O.E.S.A.

William J. Courtenay

One of the most important documents for early fourteenth-century thought is the Sentences commentary and “notebook” of the Augustinian Hermit Prosper of Reggio Emilia, Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 1086. The manuscript contains a remarkable amount of information on and material from theologians active at Paris in the 1310s, including a great many personal reportationes of quodlibetal questions, which have been dated largely on the basis of their being reported by Prosper. Since several of the chapters in this volume deal with this collection, a few words about its dating and the nature of its contents are in order.1 Prosper was born in the 1270s and studied at Paris, probably in the lectorate program of his order, where he is thought to have heard Henry of Ghent before 1291.2 Subsequently he was lector at Milan3 and then returned to Paris to lecture on the Sentences. He incepted as master of

1 The following relies on a close reading of the manuscript, in addition to observa- tions from the following: A. Pelzer, “Prosper de Reggio Emilia des Ermites de Saint- Augustin et le manuscrit latin 1086 de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” Revue Néo-Scolastique 30 (1928), pp. 316–51; Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codices manu scripti recensiti. Codices Vaticani Latini, vol. II, pars prior: Codices 679–1134, ed. A. Pelzer (Vatican City 1931), pp. 654–83; P. Glorieux, “A propos de Vatic. lat. 1086. Le personnel enseignant de Paris vers 1311–14,” RTAM 5 (1933), pp. 23–39; Glorieux, Répertoire II, pp. 328–9 (no. 411); Glorieux II, pp. 233–4; S.D. Dumont, “New Questions by Thomas Wylton,” DSTFM 9 (1998), pp. 341–81; R. Friedman, “The Sentences Commentary, 1250–1320. General Trends, the Impact of the Religious Orders, and the Test Case of Predestination,” in Mediaeval Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, vol. I, G.R. Evans, ed. (Leiden 2002), p. 81n; C. Schabel, “Parisian Commentaries from Peter Auriol to Gregory of Rimini, and the Problem of Predestination,” in Mediaeval Commentaries, p. 254n; W.J. Courtenay, “Radulphus Brito, Master of Arts and Theology,” CIMAGL 76 (2005) (pp. 131–58), pp. 148–50. I am grateful to Chris Schabel and Bill Duba for providing pho- tocopies of sections of Vat. lat. 1086, and to Stephen Brown for allowing me access to his edition of the prologue. 2 Vat. lat. 1086, f. 304ra: “sed ista positio, licet sicut declaretur a doctore sollempni a quo multa profeci, tamen ego non bene intelligo eam.” However, Prosper may have “pro ted” from arguments in the writings of Henry without having heard him personally. 3 Vat. lat. 1086, f. 323r: “Utrum sit una materia superiorum et inferiorum, require xii d. secundi in lectura Mediol;” cf. Pelzer, “Prosper de Reggio,” p. 349. 346 william j. courtenay theology at Paris early in March 1316 and apparently remained there until his appointment in 1318 as examiner for the studia of his order in Italy.4 While in Italy he edited the prologue and questions on the rst distinction of his commentary contained in the rst part of Vat. lat. 1086, ff. 14r–87r.5 He was appointed regent at the convent of his order at Bologna by 1321 and taught there until his death in 1332 or early 1333.6 Vat. lat. 1086 is a combination of two manuscripts that belonged to Prosper, along with some other additions.7 The rst main part, folios 13r–87v, contains a tabula questionum (ff. 13r–v) and what remains of Prosper’s commentary on the Sentences (ff. 14r–87v): forty-three questions on the prologue—also entitled “de quattuor causis theologie,” divided into twenty questions related to its formal cause, six questions concerning its ef cient cause, seven questions on its material cause, and ten ques- tions on its nal cause—followed by questions on the rst distinction. This section of the manuscript breaks off incomplete (f. 87rb), and at many points in the prologue the text also seems un nished. The second part was once a second manuscript, originally numbered ff. 1–226, but renumbered 101–3258 (plus a partial index, ff. 326r–327v) when it was joined to the rst manuscript, which reveals that there is a missing quire (ff. 88r–99v) that was part of Prosper’s commentary, presumably containing questions on distinction two. The tabula questionum on ff. 13r–v contains the titles of the beginning questions on distinction two. Throughout both sections of the manuscript, in the margins and on

4 His responses “in Aula” (the nal stage of inception) took place on 1 March 1316; Vat. lat. 1086, f. 294v; BAV Codices, p. 677: “Utrum Verbum sit principium creaturarum fuit questio magistrorum in aula anno domini 1315 die lune post brandones (1 Mart. an. 1316), ad quam respondit frater Prosper ordinis her sancti augustini.” He was appointed examiner at the General Chapter of the order at Rimini in 1318. There is the possibility that before licensing he held a brief appointment as vicar general of his order in 1311 and was away from Paris during that period; Glorieux, “A propos,” p. 39. 5 The commentary is dedicated to Hugolino, bishop of Faenza (1311–36); Vat. lat. 1086, f. 14r; BAV Codices, p. 654: “domino fratri Hugolino . . . episcopo Faventino . . .” The Prologus to his commentary is being edited by Stephen F. Brown. 6 He was described as master of theology and regent at Bologna in 1321 when he received a payment of 50 orins from Pope John XXII (CUP II, p. 404, n. 4, based on papal records of payment, Introit. et exit. n. 41, f. 155); a papal letter of 19 March 1333 mentions that the position of “magister actu legens in theologia” in the Augustinian convent at Bologna had recently become vacant (CUP II, no. 952, p. 404). 7 This was the judgment of Pelzer, accepted by Glorieux and subsequent scholars. For a full description of the manuscript, see BAV Codices cited above. 8 The discrepancy is caused by two folios numbered 164.