ASCOLI, WYLTON, AND ALNWICK ON SCOTUS’S FORMAL DISTINCTION: TAXONOMY, REFINEMENT, AND INTERACTION

Timothy B. Noone (Washington, DC)

Historians of philosophy as well as philosophers of a realist inclination have devoted considerable study to Scotus’s formal distinction. Th e former have explored the origins of the formal distinction, locating its source in the writings of such thirteenth-century fi gures as St. Bonaven- ture, Richard Rufus, and Peter John Olivi.1 Th e latter have emphasized the importance of the formal distinction for establishing an ontological foundation for moderate realism in epistemology. Fr. Allan Wolter, O.F.M., for example, has argued that the formal distinction, rightly understood, has its analogue in the philosophy of Aquinas in the form of a distinction of reason with a basis in the thing. Furthermore, he claims that the ontology of the formal distinction allows a moderate realist to account for the partial nature of our knowledge inasmuch as each of the formally distinct features of a thing may be conceived without another being adequately understood.2 Yet among both historians of philosophy and philosophers there has been considerable disagreement about whether the formal distinction should be understood as a subtype of the real distinction, as a unique subtype of the distinction of reason

1 F. Pelster, “Die älteste Abkürzung und Kritik vom Sentenzenkommentar des heiligen Bonaventura. Ein Werk des Richardus Rufus de Cornubia (1253–1255)”, Gre- gorianum 17 (1936), pp. 218–220, and G. Gál, “Viae ad exsistentiam Dei probandam in doctrina Richardi Rufi , OFM”, Franziskanische Studien 38 (1956), pp. 182–186, showed the signifi cance of the background in Rufus, while the masterful study of B. Jansen, “Beiträge zur geschichtlichen Entwicklung der Distinctio formalis”, Zeitschrift für katholische Th eologie 53 (1929), pp. 317–344 and 517–544, traced the history of the distinction through Continental fi gures such as Bonaventure, Peter John Olivi, Petrus de Trabibus, and Matthew of Aquasparta. 2 A.B. Wolter, “Th e Formal Distinction”, and “Th e Realism of Scotus”, in Th e Philosophical Th eology of John Duns Scotus, ed. A.B. Wolter – M.M. Adams, Ithaca, NY – London 1990, pp. 27–53. “Th e Formal Distinction” originally appeared in John Duns Scotus, 1265–1965, ed. J.K. Ryan – B.M. Bonansea, Washington, DC 1965 (Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, 3), pp. 45–60; “Th e Realism of Scotus” originally appeared in Th e Journal of Philosophy 59 (1962), pp. 725–736. Cf. M.J. Gra- jewski, Th e Formal Distinction of Duns Scotus. A Study in Metaphysics, Washington, DC 1944, p. 101. 128 timothy b. noone or as introducing a third type of distinction, intermediate between a real distinction and a distinction of reason. Such a disagreement fi nds resonances in the understanding and characterization of the formal distinction from the fourteenth cen- tury onwards. In his baccalaureate thesis published in 1663, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, drawing upon a medieval tradition of which he was probably unaware, described John Duns Scotus’s formal distinction as one “intermediate between a real distinction and one of reason”.3 Likewise, in his notes to his personal copy of Daniel Stahl’s Compen- dium Metaphysicae in the section on the ‘Explanation of the Types and Modes of Distinction’, Leibniz writes that “the Scotists posit a kind of distinction that is intermediate between a real distinction and a distinc- tion of reason, calling it a formal distinction ex natura rei . . .”.4 What I would like to explore here is part of the medieval discussion behind Leibniz’s identifi cation, or, as we shall see, possible misidentifi cation of the formal distinction as an intermediate distinction by focusing upon two of the more prominent fi gures in the early history of Scotism, James of Ascoli and William Alnwick, and a non-Scotist supporter of the formal distinction, Th omas Wylton.5

3 “Tribuitur [distinctio formalis] communiter Scoto ut media inter realem et ratio- nis . . .” (G.W. Leibniz, Disputatio metaphysica de principio individui, § 24 in Sämtliche Schrift en und Briefe, hg. von der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaft en zu Berlin, VI. Reihe, Bd. 1, Berlin 1971, p. 18). 4 “A Scotistis statuitur genus distinctionis medium inter realem et rationis distinctio- nem, vocaturque formalis ex natura rei . . .” (G.W. Leibniz, Notae ad Danielem Stahlium, W. Tab. XXI, in Sämtliche Schrift en und Briefe, VI. Reihe, Bd. 1, p. 30). 5 James of Ascoli was known to have been present among the masters of theology who approved the proceedings against Marguerite de la Porée in May, 1310; hence his Quodlibeta are placed either in that year or the preceding year (1309–1310). In addition to his Quodlibeta, he is known to have authored some ordinary questions, a Commentary on the Sentences, and a Tabula of Scotus’s writings. Th omas Wylton, also known as Th omas Anglicus, was a member of Merton College, Oxford from 1288–1301 where he was probably associated with Walter Burley and may also have studied under Th omas Sutton prior to the latter’s entry into the Dominican order. Receiving permis- sion from his bishop, Wylton went to Paris to study theology in 1304; he obtained his mastership in theology in 1312. Th ough he probably remained in Paris until 1316, he returned to St. Paul’s shortly thereaft er. He did return to Paris once more in the period 1320–1322 before returning to England; he died in 1327. William of Alnwick is known to have been living in the house at Paris (probably for his lectorate) during the academic year 1302–1303, for in June of 1303 he sided with the King of France and against the Pope during the crisis at the University of Paris in 1303. He taught at both Paris and Oxford in the period 1314–1318 and thereaft er taught at Bologna (ca. 1322) and Naples. He died at Avignon in 1333.