Remigio, Auriol, Scotus, and the Myth of the Two-Year Sentences Lecture at Paris
William Duba and Chris Schabel
Abstract
In his sermo finalis on the Sentences, Remigio de’ Girolami OP introduced the next bachelor to read the Sentences, Bernard of Auvergne. This detail allows us to date Remigio’s lectures on Peter Lombard’s Sentences at Paris to the year 1297-98 and to confirm that he read the four books in the order I-IV-II-III. It also indicates that, by that time, bachelors at Paris read the Sentences over the course of a single academic year, thereby falsifying the myth that, until around 1318, their lectures took two years. Thus Peter Auriol OFM read the Sentences in the order I-IV-II-III at Paris in the academic year 1317-18, not in 1316-18, and John Duns Scotus lectured in the sequence I-IV-II-III in 1302-03, stopping midway through book III when he refused to adhere to the king of France’s appeal against Boniface VIII. These findings raise the question whether a two- year lecture cycle was ever the rule. When compared against what we know about Sentences lectures, even the case for Thomas Aquinas teaching the Sen- tences across two years is, in its current state, unconvincing.
As is often the case, a conjecture or an unsubstantiated assertion by one scholar becomes an accepted fact in a subsequent account. —William J. Courtenay1
In late June 1298, a Dominican who was lecturing on the Sen- tences, Remigio de’ Girolami, concluded his year of teaching with a speech, having as its theme Ecclesiasticus 18:6: “When a man hath done, then he will begin” (Cum consumaverit homo tunc incipiet). After a protheme in which he associates homo with both
1 W.J. Courtenay, “Early Scotists at Paris: A Reconsideration,” in: Franciscan Stud- ies 69 (2011), pp. 175-229, at p. 210.
Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 84(1), 143-179. doi: 10.2143/RTPM.84.1.3212078 © 2017 by Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales. All rights reserved. 144 W. duba and C. Schabel a lecturer and a listener in a classroom, he bridged back to the theme: To the matter at hand it can be truly said: when a man hath done listening to the book of the Sentences, then he will begin to listen to it, namely because the past audition is almost nothing with respect to the future. And again, when a man hath done reading the Sentences, then a man will begin to read it, namely, because the man who has already read it is almost nothing with respect to the man who will read it.2 Thereby Remigio ends his lectures on the Sentences with a refined take on “You ain’t heard nothing yet: wait till you hear the next guy.” Remigio names his successor, “frater Bernardus de Claromonte,” bet- ter known as Bernard of Auvergne, and makes a pun on his name, calling him bona nardus (“good nard”), saying that he lectures de claro (“brilliantly”) because of his excellence, and more or less associating monte with mountains of wisdom.3 Remigio’s praise neatly crystallizes the problem facing historians of universities and of university thought. On the one hand, Remigio’s speech matches conventions of the genre. Fifty years later, the Cistercian Pierre Ceffons gave a speech at Paris introducing his successor, William of Cappel, with mocking praise.4 Remigio’s parsing his successor’s name reflects the practice of Robert Holcot, who in the 1330s finished his lectures on the Sentences at the Dominican convent of Oxford with a similar play on the name of his successor, Roger Gosford.5 On the other hand, we do not have enough examples of the genre to determine these conventions;
2 Remigio de’ Girolami, “Prologus in fine Sententiarum,” in: E. Panella, Il “De subiecto theologie” [1297-1299] di Remigio dei Girolami O.P., Milan 1982, pp. 73-75, at p. 73: “Potest ergo ad propositum vere dici: cum consumaverit homo audire librum Sententiarum, tunc incipiet ipsum audire, quia scilicet auditio preterita quasi nichil est respectu auditionis future. Et iterum cum consumaverit homo legere librum Sententiarum, tunc incipiet ipsum legere homo, quia scilicet homo qui iam legit quasi nichil est respectu hominis lecturi.” 3 Remigio, “Prologus,” ed. Panella, p. 74: “Lector autem Sententiarum futurus con- respondenter quatuor proprietatibus enumeratis ad ostendendum excessum ipsius in eis, bene vocatur frater Bernardus de Claromonte.” 4 A. Corbini, “Pierre de Ceffons et l’instruction dans l’Ordre cistercien: quelques remarques,” in: K. Emery, Jr. – W. J. Courtenay – S. M. Metzger (eds.), Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts, Turnhout 2012, pp. 549-574, at pp. 563-564, edition pp. 568-574. 5 K. H. Tachau, “Looking Gravely at Dominican Puns: The ‘Sermons’ of Robert Holcot and Ralph Friseby,” in: Traditio 46 (1991), pp. 337-345, at pp. 340-341. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 145 the only other final speech that has attracted attention is one by Ralph Friseby, another Oxford Dominican from the 1330s, and he does not introduce his successor.6 Prescriptive documents such as statutes make the situation murk- ier. The first such mention of a ceremonial conclusion to Sentences lectures comes from the statutes for the University of Bologna in 1364, a series that claims to be based on the practice for Paris. These statutes state that in their final lecture “each [bachelor] shall com- mend the bachelor who is supposed to be his successor in the month of October,” and that bachelors should limit their criticism of their colleagues to their ceremonial first lectures (principia) and their final lecture.7 But a final lecture (lectio ultima) is not a final speech (sermo finalis): a university speech follows the rhetorical rules of medieval sermons, beginning with the theme (a short passage, usually from the Bible) and elaborating on it, while a university lecture investigates an issue, usually by asking one or more questions and arguing the merits. Such is the case, at least, for the final lecture of the Franciscan Land- olfo Caracciolo at Paris in 1319.8 And neither speech nor lecture matches the statutes. Although the Dominicans Holcot and Remigio do praise their replacements, they do not criticize the other bachelors reading the Sentences (sententiarii). This same can be said for Pierre Ceffons. On the other hand, Landolfo’s lecture takes the form of a classroom question and does not mention his successor. Confusing matters more, while Landolfo’s lecture does resemble the Bologna statute in that Landolfo uses it to criticize contemporary theologians,
6 In addition to the article by Tachau just above, see also S. Wenzel, Preaching in the Age of Chaucer: Selected Sermons in Translation, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 298- 315; id., Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England: Orthodox Preaching in the Age of Wyclif, Cambridge 2005, pp. 126-127. 7 F. Ehrle, I più antichi statuti della facoltà teologica dell’università di Bologna, Bologna 1932, p. 23: “Ultimam vero lectionem possunt omnes simul perficere, in qua quisque recommendet debentem sibi succedere lectur
1. Sentences Lectures at Paris: One or Two Years? Books I-II-III-IV or I-IV-II-III? That there should be so little unambiguous information on reading the Sentences seems surprising, especially given the huge number of Sentences commentaries that survive. In fact, for historians of phi- losophy and theology, the defining moment of a medieval bachelor of theology was not the inception ceremony, but his lectures on Peter Lombard’s Sentences.10 “Reading the Sentences,” as it was called, required the theologian to elaborate a coherent and comprehensive philosophy and theology. The Sentences commentaries that have come down to us constitute one of the primary stores of systematic thought, and their relationship with a datable series of lectures in the classroom provides a tempting chronological axis from which to spin out narra- tives tracing philosophical and theological debates, especially at the University of Paris. Yet the relationship between written Sentences
9 Duba, “Masters and Bachelors at Paris in 1319.” 10 H. Denifle, “Quel livre servait de base à l’enseignement des maîtres en théologie dans l’Université de Paris?,” in: Revue Thomiste 2 (1894), pp. 129-161. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 147 commentaries and the classroom exercise has always posed a chal- lenge, and establishing precisely when a bachelor lectured on the Sen- tences often incurs difficulty. The overwhelming majority of extant Sentences commentaries from before the Black Death were substan- tially revised after the bachelors’ lectures. Consequently, arguing from the surviving written work back to the classroom activity usually involves the sort of sophisticated exegesis that results in likely conjec- tures rather than solid conclusions, and opponents quickly falsify these conjectures by appealing back to the distinction between the oral exercise and the written record. The earliest statutes from the University of Paris to discuss the obligation of reading the Sentences are those that the editors, Denifle and Chatelain, date to “after 1335”: Bachelors in theology who are to read the Sentences, and those of the four mendicant orders who are to read the Bible, shall give their principia between the feast of Exaltation of the Holy Cross [September 14] and the feast of Saint Denis [October 9]. And should there be so many that they cannot all finish, nevertheless, there shall only be one principium on any given day. And always, when the bells of Saint-Jacques toll prime immediately after the aforesaid feast of Saint Denis, those who did not give their principia shall do so, nor in that faculty [of theology] shall any lectures be given at any hour, until all the aforesaid principia are fully and completely given. If, however, there should be fewer principia, such that they are finished before the feast of Saint Denis, nevertheless, there shall not be lectures in that faculty at any hour from the day after the Exaltation of the Cross until the day after Saint Denis [...] Bachelors in theology who begin reading the Sentences on the day after Saint Denis are held to finish on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul [June 29]. If however, it should happen that they are ill between said feasts of Denis and the apostles, or for some other reason or reasons refrain from reading on some legible days, then they are held to give as many lectures after the afore- said feast of the apostles as they refrained from giving between the feasts of Denis and the apostles.11
11 H. Denifle and A. Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (henceforth CUP), 4 vols., Paris 1889-97, II-1, no. 1188, p. 692: “Item, nota, quod bachalarii in theologia qui debent legere Sententias, et illi qui habent legere Bibliam in quatuor Ordi nibus Mendicantium, debent facere principia sua infra festum Exaltationis Sancte Crucis et festum beati Dionysii. Et presupposito quod tot sint quod non possint complere, tamen non sit in quolibet die nisi unum principium. Et semper in primis Sancti Iacobi immedi- ate post predictum festum beati Dionysii illi qui non fecerunt faciunt, nec legitur aliqua hora in ipsa facultate, quousque omnia predicta principia sint facta totaliter et completa. 148 W. duba and C. Schabel
In the Faculty of Theology, the first three weeks of the academic year, running from September 15 to October 8, were primarily reserved for bachelors on the Sentences to give their principia, that is, ceremonial inaugural lectures. Excluding Sundays and the feast day of Saint Matthew (September 21), this schedule allowed roughly 19 days for theologians’ principia. After Saint Denis (or after all prin- cipia had been given, whichever came later), bachelors would begin lecturing on the Sentences, they would lecture on every “legible day” (a day that was not a Sunday, major feast day, or reserved for other university functions), and they would finish their lectures on June 29, unless they had missed lectures during the year, in which case they would make them up afterwards. The requirement that bachelors are to finish reading the Sentences implies that they read the Sentences in one academic year. A later set of statutes, which the editors date to the late fourteenth century, makes this explicit and further specifies when bachelors would give their principia on the remaining three books of the Sentences.12 None of the statutes specifies the sequence in which the books are to be read.
Tamen si pauciora essent principia, ita quod finita essent ante festum beati Dionysii, nichilominus non legitur in ipsa facultate a crastino Exaltationis Sancte Crucis usque ad crastinum sancti Dionysii in aliqua hora. — Item, nota, quod studentes in theologia, si sint seculares, habent ibi audire per septem annos antequam admittantur ad lecturam Biblie, sed regulares admittuntur in sexto anno. — Item, nota, quod admissi ad lecturam Biblie debent solum legere duos libros, et tales sicut voluerint eligere, scilicet unum de veteri Testamento, et alium de novo, exceptis illis de quatuor Ordinibus Mendicantium, qui debent Bibliam continue legere per duos annos, et etiam unus de Sancto Bernardo. — Item, nota, quod bachalarii in theologia, qui incipiunt legere Sententias in crastino sancti Dionysii, tenentur finire in festo apostolorum Petri et Pauli. Tamen si contingeret illos infirmari infra predicta festa Dionysii et apostolorum, vel propter aliam causam aut causas dimitterent legere in aliquibus diebus legibilibus, tunc tenerentur tot lectiones legere post predictum festum apostolorum, quot dimiserunt infra predicta festa Dionysii et apostolorum.” The requirement (not translated) that students in theology need seven (seculars) or six (regulars) years before being allowed to lecture on the Bible is the basis for dating the statutes to post-1335. Benedict XII’s reforms of the religious orders in 1335 and 1336 (CUP II-1, no. 992, p. 450; no. 1002, p. 464) mention the requirement of six years, the editors interpret this as the pope’s reducing the requirement from seven to six years, and conclude (p. 691): “haec statuta hac forma non ante an. 1335 condita esse.” Needless to say, this inference is not a very satisfying means of dating the statutes. 12 Denifle – Chatelain, CUP II-1, n. 1189, p. 700: “Item, quod quilibet bacalarius lecturus Sententias incipiat eas temporibus consuetis, et continuabit lecturam quatuor librorum Sententiarum usque ad vacationes, nisi esset infirmitate aut alia legitima causa impeditus, in quo casu tenebitur tempore vacationum proxime sequenti perficere quod obmiserat de lectura, exceptis cessationibus per Universitatem conclusis, et legationibus the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 149
In 1941, Palémon Glorieux stated the common opinion, which still reigns, and to the perpetuation of which we have also contributed: The four books of the Lombard had to be read and commented in their entirety. In the thirteenth century, this lecture was spread over two years [...] Later (the statutes of 1335), the lecture did not last more than a year.13 According to the common opinion, at the University of Paris bach- elors lectured on the Sentences over two academic years, and sometime in the fourteenth century the required time was reduced to a single year.14 Leading scholars will occasionally refer to non-existent statutes of the University of Paris that required a two-year lectureship,15 or explain how, in the mendicant convents, the two-year lecture cycle meant that two bachelors were giving simultaneous lectures on dif- ferent parts of the Lombard’s work.16 For specialists working on fourteenth-century material, the challenge has been to identify exactly when the lectures on the Sentences changed from two years to one. Two decades ago, for reasons outlined below, the leading scholar of the mechanics of the Faculty of Theology at Paris in this period, William J. Courtenay, summarized collective thinking on the matter: a two-year series was the norm down until the lectures of the Franciscan Peter Auriol in 1316-18, and then the term was reduced ipsius de consensu facultatis, per dictos bacalarios nullatenus procuratis. Quo casu non tenebitur supplere quod deerat de lectura, sed pro perfecto bacalario habebitur, factis tamen per eum quatuor principiis, quantum commode per eum fieri poterit [...] Item, quod carmelita faciat suum secundum principium prima die Ianuarii legibili, et alii baca- larii consequenter. Tertium faciat carmelita prima Martii, et alii consequenter. Quartum faciat ipse carmelita prima Maii, et alii consequenter.” 13 P. Glorieux, “Sentences (commentaires sur les),” in: Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, vol. 14.2, Paris 1941, cols. 1860-1884, at col. 1862. 14 Cf., e.g., P. Glorieux, “L’enseignement au moyen âge. Techniques et méthodes en usage à la Faculté de Théologie de Paris, au XIIIe siècle,” in: Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 35 (1968), pp. 65-186, at pp. 116-117: “Tant que la lecture des Sen- tences s’étendait sur deux années, la répartition des matières pouvait se faire sans trop de peine.” 15 E.g., J.-P. Torrell, Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin: sa personne et son œuvre, Paris 2015, p. 73: “Selon les statuts de l’université, les deux années suivantes étaient donc consacrées à l’enseignement du Commentaire des Sentences du Lombard (c’est-à-dire 1252-54 ou 1253-55).” 16 Courtenay, “Early Scotists at Paris,” p. 208: “Even in a period in which reading the Sentences at Paris often spread across two years, the mendicant orders, including the Franciscans, fielded a new bachelor every year. Thus a new bachelor was beginning to read the Sentences when the bachelor appointed in the previous year was beginning his second year of reading.” 150 W. duba and C. Schabel to one year.17 Scholars working with Sentences commentaries after Auriol have treated a one-year Sentences lecture as the rule. For example, in his 1956 study of Augustinians in the fourteenth century, starting with Dionysius de Borgo Sansepolcro in 1316-17 (since corrected to 1317- 18), Damasus Trapp generally assumed that his subjects and their con- temporaries lectured over one year, with the exception of Facinus de Ast, who Trapp claimed lectured over the “biennium” 1361-63.18 Since then, the main two-year anomalies after Auriol have been removed, most recently with Courtenay re-inspecting the evidence for the Fran- ciscan Peter of Candia’s alleged two-year reading in 1378-80, conclud- ing that they actually took place in one year, 1378-79.19 Thus it seemed that Auriol’s lectures were the last ones to span two years, and we also subscribed to this view. The first Franciscan to read the Sentences after Auriol was Landolfo Caracciolo, who began lecturing on the Sentences in 1318; since Landolfo gave his final lecture (lectio finalis) in June 1319, he could not have lectured for more than a year.20 Our edition and analysis of Landolfo’s lectio finalis revealed just how contemporary Sentences lectures were prosecuted. Landolfo concluded the academic year with the final question from his lectures on book III of the Sentences, confirming that at his time bachelors at Paris read the four books of the Sentences in the following sequence: I-IV-II-III.
17 W. J. Courtenay, “Pastor de Serrescuderio (†1356) and MS Saint-Omer 239,” in: Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 63 (1996), pp. 325-356, at pp. 328-329, n. 9. See also R. L. Friedman, “The Sentences Commentary 1250-1320. General Trends, The Impact of the Religious Orders, and the Test Case of Predestina- tion,” in: G. R. Evans (ed.), Mediaeval Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Current Research, vol. 1, Leiden 2002, pp. 41-128, at pp. 99-100. 18 D. Trapp, “Augustinian Theology of the 14th Century: Notes on Editions, Margina- lia, Opinions, and Book Lore,” in: Augustiniana 6 (1956), pp. 146-274, at p. 240 for Facinus. 19 W. J. Courtenay, “Theological Bachelors at Paris on the Eve of the Papal Schism. The Academic Environment of Peter of Candia,” in: K. Emery, Jr. – R. L. Friedman – A. Speer – M. Mauriège (eds.), Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Trib- ute to Stephen F. Brown, Leiden 2011, pp. 921-952, at p. 923. Thus, given the contradic- tory explicits to book I of the questions of Gerald Odonis, noted in C. Schabel, “The Sentences Commentary of Gerardus Odonis, OFM,” in: Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 46 (2004), pp. 115-161, at pp. 124-125, we should now reject the single reference to 1326 and accept a reading of books I-IV-II-III in 1327-28. 20 Duba, “Masters and Bachelors at Paris in 1319,” with Landolfo Caracciolo, In tertium librum Sententiarum, d. 40, q. unica,” ed. Schabel – Duba; S. Knuuttila and A.I. Lehtinen, “Change and Contradiction: A Fourteenth-Century Controversy,” in: Synthèse 40 (1979), pp. 189-207. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 151
At the beginning of the year (as documented in the later statute), Land- olfo and his colleagues held principia. On each day, a single sententiarius would deliver a sermon-like speech on Peter Lombard and the Sen- tences, give an oath to teach right doctrine, and then defend a question on a topic related to the prologue or first book of the Sentences, while criticizing the theses of his colleagues who preceded him. During the academic year, the bachelor would give a similar principium for each of the remaining three books of the Sentences, with another speech, usually on the same theme (and often involving a pun on the bachelor’s name), and a question in which he would engage his colleagues (socii) in a running debate.21 This pattern of reading the Sentences in the sequence I-IV-II-III over a single academic year has been confirmed several times for sub- sequent authors. Most notably, two years after Landolfo’s lectures, the Benedictine Pierre Roger replied to the principia of the Franciscan Francis of Meyronnes, and he identified two of his replies as the first question on book IV, given on 21 January 1321, and the first ques- tion on book II, given on 14 April 1321, thus leaving ample room for book I at the beginning of the academic year and somewhat less time for book III at the end.22 Since the bachelors debated each other four times over the course of a year, they all had to be lecturing on the books of the Sentences in a single academic year, and in the same order. Moreover, since the first principia debates for which we have records come from around 1315, it has been natural to assume that principia enforced on all bachelors the same sequence of books.23
21 On principia see Courtenay, “Theological Bachelors at Paris on the Eve of the Papal Schism.” In 2015, W. Duba and M. Brînzei organized a workshop in Paris on principia on the Sentences and are currently preparing the proceedings for publication. See also the discussion in W.O. Duba, The Forge of Doctrine: The Academic Year 1330-31 and the Rise of Scotism at the University of Paris, Turnhout 2017, pp. 50-62. 22 A. Maier, “Der literarische Nachlaß des Petrus Rogerii (Clemens VI.) in der Borghe- siana,” in: Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 15 (1948), pp. 332-356, reprinted in: eadem, Ausgehendes Mittelalter. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geistesgeschichte des 14. Jahrhun- derts, vol. II, Rome 1967, pp. 255-315, at pp. 257-260; J. Barbet, Introduction to François de Meyronnes – Pierre Roger. Disputatio (1320-1321), Paris 1961, p. 15. 23 W.J. Courtenay, “Francis Caracciolo, the Paris Chancellorship, and the Authorship of Two Quodlibeta in Vat. lat. 932,” in: Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 80 (2013), pp. 49-83, at p. 70, n. 76: “Since the practice of bachelors debating each other in preliminary exercises before commenting on each book of the Sentences had not yet evolved, a bachelor did not need to follow the same order of books as the other bachelors.” 152 W. duba and C. Schabel
Before the 1310s, we have no evidence for principial debates, but the principial sermons or speeches delivered before lectures on each book were already part of the curriculum in the first half of the thir- teenth century, when they were referred to as introitus. Indeed, in a celebrated study, Marie-Dominique Chenu identified a manuscript containing a series of such introitus from the 1240s, along with lec- tures on the Sentences.24 Since the Sentences became a regular part of the theology curriculum in the second quarter of the thirteenth century,25 this means that there were probably principia on the Sen- tences from the very beginning. When theologians began to pro- nounce a sermo finalis, however, is still uncertain. In this context, the Florentine Dominican Remigio de’ Girolami provides a valuable witness to Parisian practice. Towards the end of his career, Remigio transcribed his collections of sermons and speeches, including a group of what he called sermones prologales, and these have attracted the attention of scholars, particularly those inter- ested in the Dominican convent of Florence at the time of Dante,26 or the function of the Dominican studia.27 Scholars owe their greatest debt to Emilio Panella for the work he has done to reconstruct Remi- gio’s life and writings, particularly with regard to his notebooks.28
24 M.-D. Chenu, “Maîtres et bacheliers de l’Université de Paris v. 1240. Description du manuscrit Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 15652,” in: Études d’histoire littéraire et doctrinale du XIIIe siècle, Paris 1932, pp. 11-39. 25 C. Angotti, “Les débuts du Livre des Sentences comme manuel de théologie à l’Université de Paris,” in: L. Roche (ed.), Université, Église, Culture. L’Université Catholique au Moyen-Âge, Paris 2007, pp. 59-126. 26 C.T. Davis, “Education in Dante’s Florence,” in: Speculum 40 (1965), pp. 415- 435; M.M. Mulchahey, “Education in Dante’s Florence Revisited: Remigio de’ Girolami and the Schools of Santa Maria Novella,” in: R.B. Begley – J.W. Koterski (eds.), Medi- eval Education, New York 2005, pp. 143-181; D. Carron, “Remigio de’ Girolami dans la Florence de Dante (1293-1302),” in: Reti medievali Rivista: Dante attraverso i docu- menti. II. La partecipazione politica a Firenze, forthcoming. 27 M.M. Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study...” Dominican Education before 1350, Turnhout 1998, pp. 384-396. 28 E. Panella, “Per lo studio di fra Remigio dei Girolami († 1319), Contra falsos ecclesie professores cc. 5-37,” in: Memorie domenicane n.s. 10 (1979), pp. 1-313 (mono- graph volume); id., Il “De subiecto theologie” [1297-1299] di Remigio dei Giorlami O.P.; id., “Remigiana: note biografiche e filologiche,” in: Memorie domenicane 13 (1982), pp. 366-421; id., “Nuova cronologia remigiana,” in: Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 60 (1990), pp. 145-311. See also the website maintained by Panella, containing his research and publications on Remigio, as well as updates: url= http://www.e-theca.net/emiliopan- ella/remigio/index.htm. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 153
Remigio was appointed Master of Theology by papal mandate in 1304-05, but he had left Paris by 1301, and had lectured on the Sentences there some time before then.29 Among the sermones prologales in his notebook, there are several on the Sentences, including a sequence that Mulchahey describes: Equally illuminating is the small group of prologues to the Lombard’s Sen- tences found in fra Remigio’s notebook. There are six in all: one to introduce the Lombard generally, as a sort of commendation of the Sentences to paral- lel the master’s inaugural commendation of Sacred Scripture; two different ways to introduce the second book; one to introduce the important Chris- tological material of the third book; one to introduce the fourth book; and one which is not really a prologue at all, but a conclusion to the completed cycle of lectures on the Lombard. Remigio here seems to be writing not as a master, but as a cursor Sententiarum, for the schedule he describes is the standard cursory one which will see all four books treated in a single year. He also discloses that the normal progress through the Sentences was to pro- ceed from the first book, to the fourth, and then to backtrack to pick up the second and the third.30 Remigio de’ Girolami read the Sentences in the order I-IV-II-III, and he himself says so in his principium on book IV of the Sentences, which Mulchahey cites and translates: And for this reason the reading of the fourth book of the Sentences is placed before the reading of the second and third book: because it is more necessary to the faithful owing to the obligation to receive the sacraments; because it is more beneficial owing to the administration of the sacraments; because it is more clear owing to the lesser difficulty of its questions; and because it is more opportune owing to the fact that clerics have less time for study at this time of the year. For clerics cannot attend classes so easily during Lent because they are occupied in administering the sacraments.31 While Mulchahey then argues that Remigio gave these lectures at Florence and not Paris, by 2005 she appears to have changed her mind, stating: “Remigio is describing the Sentences being read ‘inte- graliter’ in one academic year and a cursor’s reaching his midway point
29 Panella, Il “De subiecto theologie”, pp. 11-14; see also M.M. Mulchahey, “The Dominican Studium Romanae Curiae: The Papacy, the Magisterium and the Friars,” in: Emery – Courtenay – Metzger (eds.), Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders, pp. 595-599. 30 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study”, pp. 392-393. 31 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study”, p. 394. 154 W. duba and C. Schabel in the text by early spring [...]. The prologue just quoted, for exam- ple, almost certainly dates to his span of teaching in Paris as cursor Sententiarum,” using this case as a warning that not all of Remigio’s speeches were given in the Dominican studium at Florence.32 In the same study, Mulchahey points to the situation being more complicated, and a definitive discussion of the problem will have to await her forthcoming book, Dominican Teaching in Dante’s Florence. In the meantime, the following observations are relevant for deter- mining how these texts relate to the situation at Paris. In Remigio’s sermon notebook (Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. sopp. G. 3. 465), according to Panella’s catalogue, there are thirteen sermones prologales on the Sentences (numbers in brackets refer to Pan- ella’s designation in our note33). In two of the speeches (3.19: “Last year we read the first book of the Sentences, but now we intend to read the second book,” followed by 3.21: “Every year we read from the Sentences, in which indeed we are said to converse when we read the third book”), Remigio refers to the practice of lecturing on one book per year, and it is likely that this cycle consists of those two
32 M.M. Mulchahey, “Education in Dante’s Florence Revisited,” p. 160. 33 [3.15, f. 308ra-b] Qui habet pennas annuntiabit sententiam. Eccles. 10[:20] (On the Sentences in general) — [3.19, ff. 311vb-312rb] Cum consumaverit homo tunc incipiet. Eccli. 18[:6] (book II): “Nos etenim anno preterito de Sententiis legimus primum librum, modo autem intendimus legere librum secundum.” — [3.21, f. 312rb-vb] In proverbiis etc. [Eccli. 8: 9] (book III): “Quolibet enim anno legimus de Sententiis, in quo quidem conversari dicimur dum tertium librum legimus.” — [3.23, f. 314va-b] Qui postulasti tibi sapientiam etc. [III Reg. 3:11] (book I): “In isto etiam eodem verbo quatuor causas primi libri Sententiarum conspicere possumus.” — [3.28, f. 318va] Opera tua perfice. Eccli. 3[:19]. Istud verbum altera die (= the sermon 3.27) proponebatur in prosecutione lectio- num nostrarum de evangelio beati Luce, quod quidem non incongrue potest resumi in prosecutione lectionum nostrarum de Sententiis. Nam quartum librum legere incumbit ad presens.” — [3.32, f. 322ra-b] Caput eius aurum optimum [Cant. 5:15]. (Sentences in general): “Tanguntur etiam quatuor cause libri Sententiarum [...]” — [3.35, ff. 327va- 328ra] Septimus angelus etc. [Apo. 11:15]. (Sentences in general): “Tanguntur etiam in verbo premisso quatuor cause libri Sententiarum [...]” — [3.38, f. 332rb-va] Fundamentum secundum saphirus [Apo. 21:19] (Sentences in general): “Tanguntur etiam in verbo pro posito quatuor cause libri Sententiarum [...]” — [3.42, f. 337ra-vb] Quartus angelus tuba cecinit [Apo. 8:12]. (book IV): “Liber iste Sententiarum qui secundum consuetudinem antiquam a nobis exponi post primum librum [...]” — [3.43, ff. 336vb-338rb] Qui habet pennas, etc. [Eccles. 10:20]. (book IV): “convenit huius quarti libri continentie [...]” — [3.44, ff. 338rb-340ra] Qui habet pennas, etc. [Eccles. 10:20] (book II) — [3.45, ff. 340ra- 341rb] Qui habet pennas, etc. [Eccles. 10:20] (book III) — [3.46, f. 341rb-vb] Cum consumaverit homo tunc incipiet. Eccli 18[:6] (sermo finalis). the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 155 speeches as well as the next two Sentences speeches in the manuscript (3.23, on book I, and 3.28, on book IV), thus covering all four books. Moreover, the last speech, (3.28), begins with the same theme (Eccli. 3:19: “Opera tua perfice”) as the previous sermon, followed by the explanation: “This phrase was brought forth the other day in pursuing our lectures on the Gospel of Saint Luke, and indeed it can be taken up not incongruously in pursuing our lectures on the Sen- tences.” This speech reveals that Remigio was also lecturing on the Bible at the same time, which is undoubtedly a sign that this cycle belongs to his provincial lectures, since Parisian bachelors either lec- tured on the Bible or the Sentences, but not both at once. Continuing through Remigio’s sermon book, there are three gen- eral speeches on the Sentences (3.32, 3.35, 3.38), each with a different theme but with practically verbatim the same protheme (“Tanguntur [...] quatuor cause libri Sententiarum”); in each case, they share their theme with the speech immediately preceding them (3.31, 3.34, 3.37), and those speeches introduce a contiguous series of lectures on Paul’s epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians. On the other hand, there are four speeches (3.15, 3.43, 3.44, 3.45) with the same theme (Eccles. 10:20: Qui habet pennas annuntiabit sen- tentiam). Moreover, the last three do not follow the standard sermonic practice of announcing the entire theme; rather, they replace the last two words, annuntiabit sententiam, with etc., implying that they are part of a series. As we noted above, bachelors of the Sentences at Paris chose either the same theme for all four principia or related themes. Hence, if we were to identify Remigio’s Parisian principia speeches among his sermones prologales, then Qui habet pennas would be the best candidate. This identification has the advantage that the last three appear in the manuscript in sequence and are immediately followed by Remigio’s sermo finalis, which, as we will momentarily show, is definitely Parisian. The disadvantage of this observation is that (3.42), Quartus angelus tuba cecinit, the speech that describes the sequence I-IV-II-III, is not linked to any sequence on the Sentences. Even so, Remigio’s Qui habet pennas sequence is ordered in the manuscript I-IV-II-III, so he most likely read the Sentences at Paris in that order. In summary, there are two groups of speeches on the Sentences in Remigio’s notebook that are definitely from his lectures in the Florence convent. One is a group of four speeches (3.19, 3.21, 3.23, 156 W. duba and C. Schabel and 3.28), one for each book of the Sentences, that attest to the pat- tern of lecturing on one book per year while also lecturing on the Bible. The other is a group of three general speeches on the Sen- tences, and these are linked by their themes to an ongoing series of lectures on the Bible. Of the remaining speeches, one introduces book IV and claims that the practice is to read the Sentences in the order I-IV-II-III; the other four use the same theme, Qui habet pen- nas annuntiabit sententiam, and each introduces a different book of the Sentences, appearing in the manuscript in the order I-IV-II-III. And the last three of these immediately precede the final speech. This final speech, Remigio de’ Girolami’s sermo finalis, was, as we have seen, the vehicle to introduce the new lector on the Sentences, Bernard of Clermont, also known as Bernard of Auvergne. It is highly unlikely that Bernard of Auvergne would have first lectured on the Sentences in Florence, rather than in a Dominican studium in France, although we are fairly certain that he later did so in Paris.34 The best explanation for Remigio’s speech, therefore, is that it was delivered in the Dominican convent at Paris. The Dominicans at Paris rotated their bachelors of the Sentences between members of the province of France and members of other provinces. In the early fourteenth century we begin to have good records of which Dominican lectured on the Sentences, and working backwards from the end of the Franciscan Peter Auriol’s lectures in 1318 we have the following chart:35 1293-94: eckhart of Hochheim (Meister Eckhart) (province of Germany) 1294-95: John Quidort (of Paris) (vicariate of the Île-de-France)
34 For a recent discussion of Bernard’s career, see R.L. Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature, ca. 1260-1330,” in: C. Schabel (ed.), Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages. The Fourteenth Century, Leiden 2007, pp. 401-491, at pp. 414-418, and the literature cited there. 35 Based on W.J. Courtenay, “Durand in His Educational and Intellectual Context Courtenay,” in: A. Speer – F. Retucci – T. Jeschke – G. Guldentops (eds.), Durand of Saint-Pourçain and his Sentences Commentary. Historical, Philosophical, and Theological Issues, Leuven 2014, pp. 13-34, at pp. 21-22; personal communication with Maxime Mauriège; W.O. Duba and C. Schabel, “Ni chose, ni non-chose. The Sentences-Com- mentary of Himbertus de Garda, OFM,” in: Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 53 (2011), pp. 149-232, at p. 189, n. 71. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 157
1295-96: Rambert of Primadizzi of Bologna (province of Lom- bardy) 1296-97: unknown (province of France) 1297-98: Someone from a ‘Foreign’ province 1298-99: Someone from the province of France 1299-1300: william of Peter of Godin (province of Provence) 1300-01: James of Metz (vicariate of Champagne-Lotharingia) 1301-02: Romeus of Bruguera (province of Spain) 1302-03: hervaeus Natalis (vicariate of Brittany) 1303-04: Berengar of Landorre (province of Toulouse) (probable date) 1304-05: laurence of Nantes (vicariate of Brittany) (or 1306-07) 1305-06: John Picard of Lucemberg (province of Germany) (probable date) 1306-07: yves of Caen (vicariate of Normandy) (or 1304-06) 1307-08: John of Parma (province of Lombardy) 1308-09: durand of Saint-Pourçain (vicariate of Burgundy) 1309-10: John (of Regina) of Naples (province of Sicily) (proba- ble date) 1310-11: Peter of Palude (vicariate of Burgundy) 1311-12: theodoric of Saxony (province of Saxony) 1312-13: John of Pré (vicariate of Normandy) 1313-14: william of Laudun (province of Provence) 1314-15: James of Lausanne (vicariate of Burgundy) 1315-16: matthew Orsini (province of Rome) 1316-17: unknown (province of France) 1317-18: Raymond Bequin (province of Toulouse)
The chart does not indicate whether they lectured over a one- or two- year period, but merely gives the first year of their lectorate. Bernard of Auvergne was from Clermont, in the vicariate of Burgundy in the province of France, so, if the chart is correct, the latest that Bernard could have begun lecturing at Paris would have been in 1298. On this reckoning, Remigio himself started his term as sententiarius in the fall of 1297. The rotation of ‘foreign’ and French sententiarii and the I-IV-II-III sequence of lecturing have momentous consequences for the theory that, at the time, bachelors lectured on the Sentences over a two-year 158 W. duba and C. Schabel period. If Remigio had lectured for two years, first over books I and IV and then over books II and III, then he would have introduced another member of a ‘foreign’ province to begin his Sentences lectures in the fall, in this case William of Peter of Godin, and not Bernard of Auvergne. If Remigio and other Dominicans lectured over a two- year period, every ‘foreign’ Dominican would always introduce another ‘foreign’ Dominican and every ‘French’ Dominican would always introduce another ‘French’ Dominican, which is not the case with the Italian Remigio introducing the French Bernard. The only other possibility would be that Remigio was introducing not the bachelor who would begin lecturing on book I in the fall, but the one who would lecture on book II, meaning that the person he introduced in his last lecture on book III, Bernard, had already lec- tured on books I and IV and was going to take Remigio’s place as the bachelor in charge of lecturing on books II and III. Let us look again at Remigio’s speech, for he himself excludes this interpretation: When a man finishes reading the book of the Sentences, then a man will begin reading it, namely because the man who has already read it is quasi nothing with respect to the man who will lecture [...] The future lector on the Sentences [...] is called well frater Bernardus de Claromonte. Because frater, he will read with exceeding civility [...] Because Bernardus, he will read with exceeding virtue [...] Because de Claro, he will read with exceeding eloquence [...] Because de Claromonte, he will read with exceeding wisdom [...].36 The future lector of the Sentences will read, in the future tense, the book of the Sentences. Thus Remigio de’ Girolami lectured on books I, IV, II, and III of the Sentences at Paris in one year, and then intro- duced Bernard of Auvergne, who then did the same. In short, already at Paris in the late 1290s bachelors of the Sentences lectured on the textbook in one academic year, as they are known to have done in the late 1310s and afterwards.
36 Remigio, “Prologus,” ed. Panella, pp. 74-75: “Et iterum cum consumaverit homo legere librum Sententiarum, tunc incipiet ipsum legere homo, quia scilicet homo qui iam legit quasi nichil est respectu hominis lecturi [...] Lector autem Sententiarum futurus [...] bene vocatur frater Bernardus de Claromonte. Quia ergo frater leget cum excedenti civilitate [...] Sed quia Bernardus leget cum excedenti virtute [...] sed quia de Claro leget cum excedenti eloquentia [...] Sed quia de Claromonte leget cum excedenti sapientia [...].” If one wrongly takes librum to refer to just one of the four books, Bernard would still not start reading in October the same book that Remigio finished in June. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 159
If this is the case, then we have to revisit all other Parisian lectors on the Sentences down to the late 1310s from at least the late 1290s, if not earlier. The two most obvious examples are Franciscans: John Duns Scotus, because of his importance, and Peter Auriol, because of the apparent strength of the evidence for a two-year lectorship.
2. Redating Peter Auriol’s Parisian Lectures on the Sentences If the Dominican Remigio de’ Girolami lectured on all four books of the Sentences at Paris over only one academic year, 1297-98, when, if ever, did anyone act as bachelor of the Sentences at Paris for two years? We are not referring to a possible exception whereby, for some reason, an individual may have been asked to repeat his lectures, but rather to an alleged practice according to which someone read two books at Paris during one year and the other two the next. For over a century it has been taken for granted that Peter Auriol delivered his lectures on the Sentences at Paris in the two academic years 1316-17 and 1317-18, even when eventually that meant believ- ing that soon or immediately after Auriol’s lectures the term was reduced to one year. The source for the 1316 date is the Chronicle of the XXIV Generals of the Franciscan Order: The seventeenth Minister General of the Order was Michael of Cesena, a master [of theology] from the province of Bologna, who was elected in the Chapter General that was held at Naples in 1316. And in that same Chapter General Brother Peter Auriol, a man of great achievement, was elected to read the Sentences at Paris, with said Minister General approving, although some sycophants tried as much as they could to block it, saying to the Minister General that Peter had opposed him in the election. To this, the General gave a noteworthy response. He said: “Far be it that such a light of the Order be extinguished on account of any offense to me.”37
37 Chronica XXIV generalium ordinis minorum, Quaracchi 1897, pp. 470-471: “De- cimus septimus Generalis Minister Ordinis fuit frater Michael de Cesena, magister de Provincia Bononiae, electus in capitulo Neapolitano anno Domini MCCCXVI celebrato. — Et in eodem capitulo fuit electus ad lecturam Sententiarum Parisius magnae sufficien- tiae frater Petrus Aureoli, dicto Generali volente, quamvis aliqui adulatores dicentes Ge- nerali, quod sibi in electione se opposuerat, niterentur ipsum pro viribus impedire. Quibus verbum notabile Generalis respondit: «Absit, inquit, ut pro quavis offensa a me tantum lumen Ordinis exstinguatur».” 160 W. duba and C. Schabel
It would seem that Auriol was named to read the Sentences at the Chapter General in late May 1316. On 14 July 1318, Pope John XXII recommended to the chancellor of Paris that Auriol be promoted to Master of Theology, and on 13 November Auriol was already called a regent master.38 Seeing that single colophons in manuscripts dated Auriol’s Parisian lectures on book II to 1318 and those on book IV to 1317, and supposing that Parisian bachelors lectured on the four books in numerical order, I-II-III-IV, in his 1906 entry on Auriol in the His- toire littéraire de la France Noël Valois reasoned that Auriol must have given two complete cycles of lectures on the four books of the Sentences at Paris, the first in 1316-17, hence the 1317 colophon for book IV, and the second in 1317-18, hence the 1318 colophon for book II.39 In his 1913 book on Auriol and conceptualism, Raymond Dreiling responded with internal evidence showing that Auriol must have read in the sequence that we have found Remigio de’ Girolami describing above, I-IV-II-III, so there was no need to posit for Auriol a double- lecture on the Sentences at Paris. Still, given the 1316 and 1318 refer- ences noted above, and perhaps because a two-year lecture series was then the standard assumption, Dreiling simply concluded that Auriol lectured once over the two-year period 1316-18.40 Although Alexan- der Birkenmajer instead preferred the I-II-III-IV sequence and sug- gested that one of the colophons was incorrect,41 Franz Pelster, in an article from 1931, more cautiously expressed the same view as Dreil- ing, that Auriol read I-IV-II-III, “probably” starting in 1316, and finishing 1318.42 Amadeus Teetaert also agreed with Dreiling’s sequence in his large 1935 entry on Auriol in the Dictionnaire de
38 Denifle – Chatelain, CUP II, pp. 225 and 227. 39 N. Valois, “Pierre Auriol, frère Mineur,” in: Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. 33, Paris 1906, pp. 479-527, at pp. 484-486. 40 R. Dreiling, Der Konzeptualismus in der Universalienlehre des Franziskanerbischofs Petrus Aureoli (Pierre d’Auriole), Münster 1913, pp. 25-27. 41 A. Birkenmajer, Vermischte Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, Münster 1922, pp. 220-225. 42 F. Pelster, “Estudios sobre la transmisión manuscrita de algunas obras de Pedro Aureoli,” in: Estudios eclesiasticos 9 (1930), pp. 462-479, and 10 (1931), pp. 449-474 at p. 468 and n. 2 in the latter, a view adopted by A. Maier, “Literarhistorische Notizen uber P. Aureoli, Durandus und den ‘Cancellarius’ nach der HS Ripoll 77bis in Barcelona,” in: Gregorianum 29 (1948), pp. 213-252, reprinted in: eadem, Ausgehendes Mittelalter. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geistesgeschichte des 14. Jahrhunderts, Rome 1964, pp. 139-173 and 466-467, at p. 142. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 161
Théologie catholique, in which he surveyed previous opinions.43 In the introduction to his edition of Auriol’s Scriptum, in 1952 Eligius Buy- taert thus asserted that Auriol lectured on the Sentences in the two years noted above and claimed that he did so in the sequence I-IV- II-III, citing his “next article” in support, although this next article never seems to have been printed.44 No one appears to have questioned the assumption that Auriol began reading in 1316, but in 1969 Valens Heynck published an article on Auriol’s book III in which he reviewed the old evidence and provided additional support for the 1316-18, I-IV-II-III scenario. Crucially, the explicit in two of the four manuscripts of the Parisian Reportatio on book I, for Heynck, placed the end of the lectures on that book at Easter (here following Vat. lat. 6768, f. 29rb): “Haec de toto primo libro, cuius ultima quaestio finiatur in passione Christi, merito cuius Deus Pater nos salvare dignetur.” Heynck thus reasoned that Auriol lectured on book I from October 1316 to Easter 1317 (which fell on 3 April), on book IV from early April 1317 until the summer break, on book II from October 1317 until early 1318, and on book III until the summer break in 1318.45 The fact that the medieval calendar year began variously on Christ- mas, 1 January, 1 March, 25 March, and Easter allows for some flexibility in interpreting dates. At the University of Paris in the four- teenth century, Easter marked the beginning of the calendar year, that is, three or four months after 1 January.46 This practice does not
43 A. Teetaert, “Pierre Auriol ou Oriol,” in: Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, vol. 12.2, Paris 1935, cols. 1810-1881, at cols. 1813 and 1831-1833. 44 See the introduction Peter Aureoli Scriptum Super Primum Sententiarum, ed. E.M. Buytaert, 2 vols., St. Bonaventure, NY, 1952-56, vol. 1, p. xv and n. 31. The evidence is not provided in E.M. Buytaert, “Aureoli’s Unpublished Reportatio III, dist. 3, Q. 1-2,” in: Franciscan Studies 15 (1955), pp. 159-174. 45 V. Heynck, “Die Kommentare des Petrus Aureoli zum dritten Sentenzenbuch,” in: Franziskanische Studien 51 (1969), pp. 1-77, at pp. 1, n. 2 (colophons in Firenze, BNC, A.3.120, f. 123ra, for 1318 and book II, and Toulouse, BM, 243, f. 124ra, for 1317 and book IV, along with others mentioning Paris), 71-73 (internal references in books II and IV indicating a I-IV-II-III reading), and 76 for the book I explicit. 46 A ready proof of this practice at Paris is Pierre Roger’s 1320-1321 series of prin- cipia, cited above, n. 22: one of his replies to Francis of Meyronnes he identifies as being the first question on book II, given on 14 April, the Tuesday before Easter, 1320. Easter in 1320 (new style) fell on 30 March, and in 1321 it fell on 19 April. Therefore Pierre Roger must be referring to 1321 (new style), hence beginning the new year with Easter. 162 W. duba and C. Schabel present a problem for the 1317 (old style) date of Auriol’s lectures on book IV, which Heynck contends began after Easter 1317 on all reckonings, but it might cause difficulties for Heynck’s statement that Auriol finished book II “in early 1318,” since, if the colophon to book II follows the Parisian dating system, the 1318 date means that Auriol was still lecturing on book II in the last week of April. Nevertheless, if we were to hypothesize that Auriol lectured on the Sentences over only one academic year, 1317-18, we could retain the Parisian dating for both colophons. Auriol could have read book IV between January and April of what was then considered 1317 in Paris, although we would label it 1318. Then he would have begun reading book II, which he would have finished after Easter 1318 on all reckonings, before turning sometime in May or even early June to the briefer lectures on book III. The problem with this, as Heynck probably would have pointed out had someone formulated this objec- tion, is that Auriol finished reading book I at Easter, which fell on 23 April in 1318, such that if Auriol lectured on the prologue and book I from October 1317 to Easter 1318, it would have been difficult for him to cover the next three books in the remaining time before the summer break, and indeed, since Easter marked the beginning of 1318, it would be impossible to explain the 1317 (old style) date associated with his lectures on book IV. One could object that no one would be lecturing on the Sentences on Easter day, but Heynck could have responded that the scribe intended it in a vague way, meaning some time before the holiday break in regular classes. One could also claim that this explicit, or one or both of the colophons, refers to the date that the scribes completed their tasks, but this is a very unlikely interpretation of the colophons, at least. Unfortunately for Heynck, there is one serious problem with his scenario: he both misread and misinterpreted the explicit to book I. Rather than saying “cuius ultima quaestio finiatur in pas- sione Christi,” the two manuscripts actually read quite clearly “cuius ultima quaestio firmatur in passione Christi.”47 Even if we were to
47 Russell L. Friedman, Lauge O. Nielsen, and Chris Schabel have fully collated all manuscripts for all redactions of the unprinted questions on book I, and with William Duba they hope to publish these versions at some point. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 163 accept Valens Heynck’s reading as a correction of the manuscripts’ firmatur to finiatur, it would make little sense for the scribe to use the subjunctive when describing the circumstances in which the question was finished: “Let this last question be finished on the Pas- sion of Christ.” More importantly, the reason we read that “These for the whole first book” or (in the Berlin witness) “Let these suffice for the reportationes of the whole first book,” and then (in both manuscripts) “whose last question is anchored in the Passion of Christ, by Whose merit let God the Father deign to save us,”48 is simple: the last question that Auriol asks in this version of book I (distinction 48, question 4) is “Utrum passio Christi placuerit matri suae et sanctis iuste et rationabiliter, et eodem modo de martyribus.” That is, the subject of the final question is Christ’s Passion, and the explicit refers not to the lecture’s completion at Easter, but to the topic of the end of the book. In short, Heynck’s valiant and worthy effort to confirm the dating of Peter Auriol’s Parisian lectures on the Sentences to 1316-18 falls apart. We can now start instead with the hypothesis that Auriol lec- tured on book I from October 1317 to January 1318 (new style, 1317 old style), on book IV in January-March 1318 (1317 old style), on book II in March-May 1318 (ending in 1318 on all reckonings), and on book III in May-June 1318. We have clear confirmation for this new dating from someone who must now be considered Auriol’s Augustinian socius, Dionysius de Borgo Sansepolcro. In the sole surviving witness to his questions on the Sentences, Erfurt CA 2o 131, the colophon to the first book reports that he completed his lectures on that book on 12 January 1317, which is our 1318. Clearly Dionysius had to have read all four books in one academic year, the first book from October to January, more or less as stipulated in surviving statutes from a half century later. Indeed, Damasus Trapp thought that he had found a reference to Auriol on folio 4r of the Erfurt witness, in what he thought was the
48 The text in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, theol. lat. 536, f. 103rb, is this: “Hec sufficiant quo ad repportationes totius primi libri, cuius ultima qu
Prologue, but which Courtenay has recognized as the first Principium, precisely where one would expect a reference to a socius.49 What about the evidence that Auriol began lecturing in the fall of 1316? This turns out to be quite weak. First, the note recording the May 1316 assignment of Auriol to read the Sentences at Paris does not even specify precisely when he would do so. Second, back in 1930 Michael Bihl argued that the report was suspect for other reasons: (a) it does not come from the acts of any Chapter General, but from a chronicle dating from around 1370, over half a century after the fact; (b) it suggests that the Chapter General appointed Auriol, when the order’s statutes specify that this choice belonged to the Minister General.50 There are other reasons to assume that Auriol would have begun his lectures in 1317 instead. Courtenay argues that the Dominican custom was to make the assignment fifteen months in advance and then to confirm it the following year, a system that Courtenay uses as a ballpark guide to Franciscan practice.51 One would assume that Auriol would have needed more time to prepare for his Sentences lectures than little over three months, and he could have done this in Paris while under the lighter load of bachelor lectures on the Bible, although it was necessary neither for him to read the Bible at Paris nor for him reside there. In addition, any difficulty in explaining Auriol’s extensive familiarity with very recent Parisian ideas in his own Parisian lectures disappears if he began his Sentences lectures in the fall of 1317, and he would also have had more time to put the finishing touches on his giant Scriptum, the presentation copy of which, for Pope John XXII, was finished on 19 May 1317.52
49 D. Trapp, “The Quaestiones of Dionysius de Burgo, O.S.A.,” in: Augustinianum 3 (1963) pp. 63-78, at pp. 68, 71 (not correcting to 1318), and 78; W.J. Courtenay, “The Transformation of Sentential Principia in the Early Fourteenth Century,” and also (with editions of pertinent sermons) F. Wöller, “Inaugural Speeches by Bachelors of Theology. Principial Collationes and Their Transmission (1317-1319),” both in the forthcoming Brepols volume on Principia edited by M. Brînzei and W. Duba (above, n. 21). 50 M. Bihl, “Formulae et documenta e cancellaria Fr. Michaelis de Cesena, O.F.M., ministri generalis 1316-1328,” in: Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 33 (1930), pp. 106- 171, at pp. 107-109. 51 Courtenay, “Pastor de Serrescuderio,” p. 334. 52 We do not think that the new dating contradicts otherwise the discussions in most of the literature cited above nor in S.F. Brown, “Petrus Aureoli: De unitate conceptus entis (Reportatio Parisiensis in I Sententiarum, dist. 2, p. 1, qq. 1-3 et p. 2, qq. 1-2),” in: the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 165
There is no longer any compelling reason to maintain that Auriol lectured on the Sentences over a two-year period. It would be a remarkable coincidence for Auriol to have been the last Franciscan to lecture on the Sentences over a two-year period in any case. It makes much better sense simply to conclude that he read the Sentences in one academic year, 1317-18.
3. John Duns Scotus For most sententiarii at Paris before Auriol the darkness returns again; we do not have sufficient data about both the beginning and the ending of their lectures to determine whether they lectured for one or two years, but positing a one-year lecture on the Sentences at Paris in the first decades of the fourteenth century would solve a number of other dating problems. For example, Francis Caracciolo is mentioned in a papal bull of 18 August 1308 as being advanced in theological studies, that is, not yet having achieved the rank of bach- elor, and yet in autumn 1310 he appears as the chancellor of the University of Paris.53 William J. Courtenay observes: As stated earlier, Parisian practice in this period called for a two-year reading of the Sentences in the order of I, IV, II, III. University statutes, however, did not require that these lectures be spread across a biennium, but only that all four books should be commented on. Thus Caracciolo’s lectures on Book III would have occurred in 1311 if he followed the two-year pattern, or in 1310 if he chose to complete this academic requirement in one year. But since he
Traditio 50 (1995), pp. 199-248; C.D. Schabel, Theology at Paris 1316-1345: Peter Auriol and the Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents, Aldershot 2000, pp. 69-75; L.O. Nielsen, “Peter Auriol’s Way with Words: The Genesis of Peter Auriol’s Commentaries on Peter Lombard’s First and Fourth Books of the Sentences,” in: Evans (ed.), Mediaeval Commentaries, pp. 149-219, and F. Wöller, Theologie und Wissenschaft bei Petrus Aureoli: Ein scholastischer Entwurf aus dem frühen 14. Jahrhundert, Leiden 2015, pp. 17-25. 53 Courtenay, “Francis Caracciolo.” Incidentally, the bull, which is cited in Denifle – Chatelain, CUP II-1 (no. 686, p. 147, n. 1), until now has been known to survive only in the papal register (Città del Vaticano, Archivium Secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. 55, cap. 582, f. 114v), which mentions two copies, one sent to Francis, and one sent in eundem modum to the papal notary James de Normannis, archdeacon of Narbonne, as well as the archdeacon of Bar-sur-Aube in the diocese of Langres, and finally the prévôt of Chalautre-la-Grande (diocese of Troyes). This latter document survives as what used to be the wrapper for the 1338 catalogue of the library of the Collège de la Sorbonne, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, N.A.L. 99, pp. B-A. 166 W. duba and C. Schabel
could not have completed the reading of the Sentences until June 1310 at the earliest, and 1310-1311 was not a «jubilee» year in which licensing normally occurred, it would appear that Caracciolo became chancellor while he was sententiarius or a formed bachelor of theology, a highly irregular event from the standpoint of academic programs at Paris.54 While a chancellor who was merely a formed bachelor would be irregular, it would seem impossible for a sententiarius to serve as one, since reading the Sentences entailed a major teaching burden. Thus, Courtenay himself suggests a one-year Sentences reading: “It is also possible that he completed his responsibilities as sententiarius in one year, 1309-1310, thus placing his lectures on Book III in late spring of 1310.”55 The hypothesis that, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, Parisian bachelors lectured on the Sentences in the sequence I-IV-II- III over the course of a single calendar year would also resolve one of the most disputed points of John Duns Scotus’ biography, namely what years he read the Sentences at Paris. Of course, given the pas- sionate intensity with which the question was disputed in the mid- twentieth century, here we must limit ourselves to considering purely elements extrinsic to Scotus’ doctrine. In the 1920s, André Callebaut announced the proof that Scotus read the Sentences at Paris in the academic year 1302-03, based on a colophon he found in Worcester Cathedral Library F 69, a manu- script containing Scotus’ Parisian reportatio on books I, II, and III (to d. 17), and IV. A tabula quaestionum follows books I-III and lists the titles of all four books.56 The question list on book I ends with the colophon: “Expliciunt questiones super primum Sententiarum/ date a Fratre I. Dons Scoto ordinis/ fratrum minorum Parisius anno domini Mo/ Tricentesimo secundo intrante tercio.”57 The one for book IV has a similar colophon: “Expliciunt questiones sententiarum
54 Courtenay, “Francis Caracciolo,” p. 67. We have not been able to locate his earlier statement. 55 Courtenay, “Francis Caracciolo,” p. 69. 56 A. Callebaut, “Le bienheureux Jean Duns Scot, bachelier des Sentences à Paris en 1302-1303,” in: La France Franciscaine 9 (1926), pp. 293-317. In 1923, F. Pelster, “Handschriftliches zu Skotus mit neuen Angaben über sein Leben,” in: Franziskanische Studien 10 (1923), pp. 1-32, at pp. 8-9, published the colophon. 57 Worcester, Cathedral Library F 69, f. 158va. The text “I. Dons Scoto” is written over a rasura in different ink. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 167 date a/ fratre Ihoanne Duns (ante)dicto in studio Parisius/ anno domini Mo CCCo IIIo.”58 On this basis, Callebaut speculated that Scotus had a late start due to the ongoing royal-papal difficulties, and began lecturing on book I later in the term, so that he would lecture on book I across Easter 1303, explaining the intrante tercio; he also claimed that Scotus read the Sentences in the order I-IV-II-III.59 Although he does not take up Callebaut’s discussion of a late start, which depends largely on speculation, Ephrem Longpré assumed that Scotus lectured for a single year, 1302-03.60 Subsequent scholars, however, tried to stretch Scotus’ Parisian lec- tures on the Sentences over two years. Given the order I-IV-II-III,61 this meant that Scotus read books I and IV in 1302-03 and the other two books in the next year. Yet Scotus could not have been at Paris at the beginning of the 1303-04 academic year. In mid-June 1303, King Philip’s struggle with Pope Boniface was approaching its critical conclusion. The king made a host of charges, including heresy, against the pope and called for a council. For support, Philip summoned leading Church prelates as well as representatives of the University of Paris to the Louvre on 13 and 14 June. From the prelates, he had a letter of adhesion on 15 June; from the university, on 21 June. On 24 June, royal representatives went to the mendicant convents to obtain their support, and the Franciscans were visited either on that day or the day after. For the Franciscan convent survive letters of adhesion and non-adhesion, and John Duns Scotus figures among the non-adherents. The non-adherents had to leave Paris immediately.
58 Worcester, Cathedral Library F 69, f. 160va. Again, from the I of Iohanne to the n of the putative abbreviation ante there is a rasura and the rest of Iohanne as well as Duns has been written over. Thus, antedicto is someone’s conjecture; while Callebaut, “Le bienheureux Jean Duns Scot,” p. 293 reads dicto, already in 1932, antedicto appears in the review article by A.G. Little, “Chronological Notes on the Life of Duns Scotus,” in: English Historical Review 47 (1932), pp. 568-582, at p. 575. 59 Callebaut, “Le bienheureux Jean Duns Scot,” pp. 294-297. 60 E. Longpré, “Le B. Jean Duns Scot, Pour le Saint Siège et contre le gallicanisme (25-28 juin 1303),” in: La France Franciscaine 11 (1928), pp. 137-162. 61 For Scotus, this was long suspected, but first demonstratively shown by Pelster, “Handschriftliches zu Skotus,” p. 9: “Was nämlich bereits Wadding auf grund ver- schiedener Zitate annahm, wird durch die angeführten Unterschriften vollauf bestätigt: Skotus ist von der Erklärung des ersten Buches unmittelbar zu jener des vierten übergegan- gen. Er konnte also erst im folgenden Schuljahr 1303/1304 die beiden letzten Bücher erklären und blieb dann worhl bis zur Erlangung des Magisteriums in Paris.” 168 W. duba and C. Schabel
In August, Boniface VIII suspended the University of Paris from the granting of degrees.62 John Duns Scotus had to leave Paris in late June 1303, just a few days before the end of the academic year. He could not return in time for the start of lectures in 1303-04. In a summary of the debate, and in particular against the solution proposed by Antonie Vos,63 William J. Courtenay provides two possibilities. First, Scotus returned to Paris in 1303-04 and finished lecturing. Boniface VIII died on 11 October 1303, and Benedict XI lifted the suspension on licensing Masters of Theology on 18 April 1304. Citing a royal letter dated 18 November 1303 addressed to the Count of Boulogne, Courtenay argues that, soon after the death of Boniface [...], the royal prohibition on the return of exiled students and masters was lifted, and by November steps were taken to facilitate the return of scholars from the British Isles [...] It is possible there- fore that Scotus could have returned to Paris in late autumn of 1303 and completed his lectures by the end of that academic year, in July 1304.64 Certainly, Philip wrote Count Robert VI of Boulogne in Novem- ber 1303, noting the complaint of the “masters and scholars of the University of Paris” that they were being unjustly charged a road tax (pedagium) and were for this reason being arrested and otherwise bothered. He further asked that they be allowed to pass without issue.65 Yet it was not until April of the following year that the king
62 W.J. Courtenay, “Between Pope and King: The Parisian Letters of Adhesion of 1303,” in: Speculum 71 (1996), pp. 577-605. 63 A. Vos, The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus, Edinburgh 2006, pp. 64-66, 84-86. 64 Courtenay, “Early Scotists at Paris,” pp. 192-193. This view was also expressed by F. Pelster, “Hat Duns Scotus in Paris zweimal das dritte Buch der Sentenzen erklärt? Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Natur und Geschichte der Reportata und Principia,” in: Gregorianum 27 (1946), pp. 220-260, at p. 223: “Scotus hat einmal in Paris die Senten- zen erklärt von etwa Herbst 1302 bis Sommer 1304 in der Ordnung l. 1, 4, 2, 3 (bis dist. 17 einschliesslich). Falls er infolge der königlichen Verordnung im Sommer 1303 ausge wiesen sein sollte, so hat diese Verbannung jedenfalls nur kurze Zeit gewährt.” 65 Denifle – Chatelain, CUP II-1, no. 638, p. 105: “Philippus Dei gratia Fran- corum rex. Dilecto et fideli nostro . . comiti Bolonie, salutem et dilectionem. Ex parte dilectorum nostrorum . . magistrorum et scolarium Universitatis Parisiensis nobis fuit expositum quod gentes vestre a scolaribus per districtus vestros transeuntibus, Parisius venientibus et a suis servientibus pro equis suis quos ducunt ac pro rebus quas deferunt ad sustentacionem ipsorum sine fraude, pedagia levant et exigunt, ipsos propter hoc arrestando, impediendo et multipliciter molestando. Quare mandamus vobis quatinus si est ita, gentes vestras a predictis desistere facientes districtius iniungatis eisdem ut scolares Parisius per loca et districtus vestros transeuntes cum familia et rebus suis ad the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 169 lifted the taxes on the masters and scholars of the university, and only in mid-May did Benedict XI inform Philip that he had remitted the disobedience of prelates and university masters who had refused to answer Boniface’s summons. Also at that time, Philip wrote again to the Count of Boulogne and to the bailli of Amiens, repeating his request for safe passage.66 In other words, while it seems possible that Scotus could have returned as early as November 1303, this appears rather unlikely, because the situation was not resolved until the fol- lowing spring. The other option mentioned by Courtenay is the one defended by Vos, namely that Scotus lectured on books II and III at Paris in the academic year 1304-05. For this position, Courtenay brings up two pieces of evidence that Vos cites, and points out that they rather argue for its improbability. First, Gonsalvus of Spain, the Minister General of the Franciscan Order, wrote to William, the guardian of the Paris convent, on 18 November 1304, noting that the next bachelor to be presented for the license of Master of The- ology was Giles of Longny, and after him, according to the statutes of the order, he was to present for the license a bachelor from a province other than France. That bachelor, Gonsalvus says, should be John Scotus; and if the chancellor should be disposed to license two bachelors at once, then the other bachelor should be Albert of Metz, if he can get back to the convent in time.67 Albert of Metz, like Scotus, did not side with the king, and thus had to leave Paris. While this letter does imply quite strongly that Scotus, unlike Albert, was in Paris at the time, it seems unlikely that Scotus’ name would be suggested for the license before he had completed the formal requirement of lecturing on the Sentences. In other words, Scotus had probably finished reading the Sentences by then. The second piece of evidence comes from Scotus’ own reportatio on book III. In the version contained in the manuscript Casale sustentacionem ipsorum in scolis necessariis sine fraude libere absque molestacione indebita permittant taliter pertransire, quod super hiis ad nos non referatur querela. Actum Parisius die lune post festum beati Martini hiemalis anno Domini MoCCCo tercio.” 66 Denifle – Chatelain, CUP II-1, no. 644, p. 113, and nos. 646-648, pp. 114- 115. 67 Edited in A.G. Little, The Grey Friars in Oxford, Oxford 1892, p. 220. 170 W. duba and C. Schabel
Monferrato B2, a note appears immediately preceding the first ques- tion on distinction 18: Note that the next two questions do not come from the lectura on book III but occurred during the principium of brother Giles, our master; in the first of which lord Giles responds in his vesperies; but in the second, brother John Scotus responds in the aula.68 The principium in question is the principium in theologia, that is, the inception ceremony. In the first part, the vesperies, the candidate performs his last functions as a bachelor of theology, and that includes responding to a question, instead of determining it (as masters do). In the second part, the aula, held in the morning in the bishop’s hall, the promoting master endows the candidate with the insignia of a Master of Theology, most notably placing the biretta on his head, and the newly-appointed master performs his first duties, preaching by giving a speech (also called a principium), teaching by supervising a bachelor’s response to a question, and disputing with other masters.69 These questions in the text of Scotus’ reportatio therefore come from this event for Giles of Longny, who in November 1304 was the next Franciscan in line to be named Master of Theology. Courtenay and Vos agree that Giles of Longny was promoted in early 1305. Cour- tenay, however, points out the weakness in claiming that the quaes- tiones appear in Scotus’ commentary at a point when Scotus was giv- ing his lectures: the duty of responding in disputations, such as the vesperies and aula of a promotion procedure, was reserved to formed bachelors, that is, bachelors who had already completed their lectures
68 Casale Monferrato, Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile B 2, f. 110ra: “Nota quod due questiones sequentes non sunt de lectura tercii sed fuerunt in principio fratris Egidii magistri nostri, de quarum prima respondet dominus Egidius in vesperiis; de secunda, vero, frater Io. Scotus in aula. Prima est hec.” The same note, from a Valencia manuscript, is quoted in E. Longpré, “Le ms. 139 de la cathédrale de Valencia. Etude sur les réporta- tions de Duns Scot,” in: Revue néo-scolastique de philosophie 36 (1934), pp. 437-458, at p. 458. 69 Glorieux, “L’enseignement au Moyen Age,” pp. 141-146; L. Hödl, “Die Aulien des Magisters Johannes von Polliaco und der scholastische Streit über die Begründung der menschlichen Willensfreiheit,” in: Scholastik 35 (1960), pp. 57-75; B.C. Bazán, “Les ques- tions disputées, principalement dans les facultés de théologie,” in: B.C. Bazán – J.F. Wippel – G. Fransen – D. Jacquart (eds.), Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médecine, Turnhout 1985, pp. 13-149, at pp. 112- 122; C. Schabel, “John of Pouilly’s Quaestiones ordinariae de scientiae Dei,” in: Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 81 (2014), pp. 237-272. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 171 on the Sentences. Scotus should not have served as a respondens unless he had finished his lectures. If anything, the appearance of these quaestiones shows that Scotus could not have been reading the Sen- tences in 1304-05.70 Courtenay shows that there is rather weak evidence for Scotus’ lecturing at Paris for at least some of 1303-04; at most, one must concede that Scotus could have heard the news of Boniface’s death and of Philip’s possible rescinding of the ban in early November, and so decided to cross the channel in the winter, hoping that he would obtain safe passage to Paris. Courtenay also successfully demonstrates that 1304-05 is extremely unlikely. He concludes: “In the end, this evidence does not settle the question of when Scotus returned to Paris and completed his lectures on the Sentences.”71 The astute reader will have already seized our conclusion: when Sco- tus left Paris, he was not halfway through his lectures on the Sentences; he was at their end. We have seen that the evidence from Remigio de’ Girolami supports a one-year Sentences lecture, and that a one-year lecture would solve numerous problems for the biography of Peter Auriol as well as those of other theologians in the years after Scotus. So it is at least possible for Scotus to have lectured on the Sentences only in 1302-03. Moreover, a one-year lecture would best match the surviv- ing evidence. The dates given for the completion of book I, “1302, going into 1303,” and of book IV, “1303,” match what we know about how lectures on the Sentences were spread over one year, especially given that the University of Paris followed the French court in using Easter as the beginning of the calendar year. As we saw above, Dionysius of Borgo Sansepolcro finished his lectures on book I on 12 January and Pierre Roger delivered his first question on book IV on 21 January, and so Scotus’ finishing his lectures on book I in January 1303 (new style) would qualify as “1302, going into 1303.” Likewise, Pierre Roger gave his first question on book II on 14 April, which meant that he had to have finished book IV some days earlier; in 1303, Easter fell on 7 April, and so if Scotus followed a one-year lecture pattern, he would have
70 Courtenay, “Early Scotists at Paris,” pp. 194-195. The question that Scotus responds to, “Utrum sit necessarium ponere habitum caritatis in anima Christi propter actum fruitionis beate” (f. 110rb), matches the subject matter of the middle of book III, namely the nature of the created soul of Christ. 71 Courtenay, “Early Scotists at Paris,” p. 195. 172 W. duba and C. Schabel finished his lectures on book IV in mid-April, and the recorded year would be 1303. When the king’s inquisitors showed up at the Francis- can convent on the feast of Saint John the Baptist (24 June) or the day following, there were only four legible days left in the academic year. Even if the disruptions began in the middle of June, Scotus would have been denied only ten lectures at most. Scotus could have lectured in a single year, and it would have been appropriate for him to do so. But did he? Take the notion that the trouble with the king caused Scotus to miss only the last four lectures or so. What impact would that have on his commentary on the 40 distinctions of book III? The earliest surviving, complete and original reportatio of a Sentences lecture is that by William of Brienne, a Fran- ciscan and a Scotist, who lectured at Paris in 1330-31; William gave a total of thirteen lectures on book III. If we cut his commentary off four lectiones early, his lectures on book III would end with distinction 23.72 Similarly, a study of Landolfo Caracciolo’s questions on the Sentences in 1318-19 used references to lectiones to calculate that the original series consisted of approximately 131 individual lectures, thus fitting comfortably into one academic year, 1318-19, but too few for two years.73 Of these 131 lectiones, Landolfo Caracciolo gave seven on book III, covering 60 columns in one manuscript (Lüneburg, Rats- bücherei, Ms. Theol. 2o 48); three-sevenths of the way through would put the break halfway through distinctions 19 and 20.74 Scotus’ Paris- ian reportatio on book III in the tradition associated with a Worcester manuscript (IIIA) ends with distinction 17; another manuscript of the reportatio contained in a Barcelona manuscript infamously ends distinc- tion 17 with the note: “Usque huc legit frater Iohannes Duns Parisius. Aliud de Anglia.”75 It is therefore entirely plausible that Scotus’ lecture on the morning of 25 June 1303 was supposed to begin with book III, distinction 18. At the end, we must take the side of the party not mentioned in Courtenay’s article, namely that of the editors of Scotus’
72 Duba, The Forge of Doctrine, Appendix A. 73 C. Schabel, “The Commentary on the Sentences by Landulphus Caracciolus, OFM,” in: Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 51 (2009), pp. 145-219, at pp. 158-159. The estimations for the numbers of lectiones in sequence are 50 for book I, 37 for book IV, 37 for book II, and only 7 for book III. 74 Schabel, “Landulphus Caracciolus,” pp. 201-203. 75 Barcelona, Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó, Ripoll 53, f. 43rb. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 173
Oxford Lectura on book III, where, after documenting the internal references between the works, they conclude: Such a dependence cannot be explained unless it is admitted that Duns Scotus expounded the books of the Sentences at Paris in this order: I, IV, II, III. The last, therefore, coming into the year 1303, is book III, which how- ever, Duns Scotus could not finish, because, when on 25 June 1303, he refused to sign the petition of Philip IV against Pope Boniface VIII, he was thenceforth expelled from France and returned to Oxford.76 Longpré once suggested that Scotus returned to Paris to complete the task of lecturing on book III, actually doing a full lecture this time,77 but whether Scotus finished, did not finish, returned to finish, or finished at Oxford is beyond our scope. What matters is that John Duns Scotus could have lectured in one year, in the order I-IV-II-III, it would have been appropriate for him to do so, and the evidence best fits such a solution. Potuit, decuit, et fecit.
Conclusion: Bonaventure and Aquinas Thanks to the speech of Remigio de’ Girolami, we have been able to resolve, at least partially, the confusion concerning the dates of the Parisian Sentences lectures of some of the most important thinkers of the fourteenth century. They lectured on the Sentences over one year, and they lectured on the books of the Lombard in the sequence I-IV- II-III. But now we have two questions: How far back does this pat- tern go? Where did the idea of a two-year Sentences cycle come from? For the sequence I-IV-II-III, we may have a fairly approximate idea of when it ended, but not when it began. A sententiarius at Paris in 1338-39, Pierre d’Allouagne O.S.B., kept his notebook, and from that notebook we can see that his notes on the Sentences reflect the order I (48 lectiones)-IV-II-III.78 A decade later, in 1348-49, Pierre
76 B. Hechich et al, “Prolegomena,” in: B. Ioannis Duns Scoti O.F.M. Lectura in librum tertium Sententiarum a distinctione decima octava ad quadragesimam (Opera omnia XXI), Vatican City 2004, p. 9*. 77 Longpré, “Le ms. 139 de la cathédrale de Valencia,” especially pp. 454-458. 78 St.-Omer, Bibliothèque de l’Agglomération 504, ff. 7ra-97va; see S. Livesey, “Pierre d’Allouagne and Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque de l’agglomération 504,” in: C. Angotti – M. Brînzei – M. Teeuwen (eds.), Portraits des maîtres offerts à Olga Weijers, Turnhout 2013, pp. 381-392. 174 W. duba and C. Schabel
Ceffons appears to have given his Principia on the Sentences in the order I-II-III-IV.79 As for when it began, Ignatius Brady has claimed that Bonaventure himself in the 1250s read the Sentences in the order I-IV-II-III,80 but Adriano Oliva has characterized his observations as “incomplete.” Both Brady’s argument and Oliva’s refutation depend on the Quaracchi edition, which, as Brady points out, did not ques- tion the order I-II-III-IV and, he suggests, adjusted the readings accordingly.81 Oliva, for his part, has shown that the written version of Aquinas’ Sentences commentary has no traces of a sequence other than I-II-III-IV.82 On the other hand, one begins to doubt whether any sententiarius at Paris was obliged to spend more than a year at the task. The strong- est case made so far for two years has been put forth by Adriano Oliva for Thomas Aquinas. Oliva’s brilliant study distinguishes itself on this topic from all preceding literature by eschewing twentieth-century auctoritates for a return to the sources, except for one small detail. To determine how long Aquinas lectured on the Sentences, Oliva takes Aquinas’ surviving commentary, the subject of extensive revision, and tries to figure out how many lectiones it contains. Through a system- atic analysis of the term lectio, he discovers that Aquinas’ use of it correlates to a phenomenon of division. In his commentary, Aquinas begins each distinction of the Lombard with a divisio textus. In addi- tion, there are fourteen distinctions that, halfway through, have another divisio textus. In three places in his commentary, Aquinas refers to one of the halves of these distinctions as a lectio. Oliva there- fore infers that a divisio textus marks the beginning of a lectio, and
79 Based on internal references, according to Schabel’s complete transcription of Cef- fons’ Principia, for future publication, but see C. Schabel, “The Genre Matures. Parisian Principia in the 1340s, from Gregory of Rimini to Pierre Ceffons,” in the forthcoming Brepols volume on Principia edited by Duba and Brînzei (above, n. 21). 80 I. Brady, “The Edition of the ‘Opera Omnia’ of Saint Bonaventure (1882-1902),” in: Il Collegio S. Bonaventura di Quaracchi. Volume commemorativo del centenario della fondazione, Grottaferrata 1977, pp. 121-143, at pp. 132-134. 81 Brady, “The Edition of the ‘Opera Omnia’ of Saint Bonaventure,” p. 133: “(if they were the original readings),” n. 3: “One must challenge the editors here, once they admit (II, 223, note 1) that they have substituted ostendetur for ostenditur on the basis of one codex and the editio princeps. It is impossible at present to have recourse to the manuscripts for full evidence.” 82 A. Oliva, Les débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin et sa conception de la sacra doctrina, Paris 2006, pp. 243-253. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 175 concludes: Aquinas gave 196 lectiones.83As a confirmatio, he performs another calculation. The texts that Aquinas calls lectiones have an average of 7,200 words; dividing the total words of his commentary by this number, one comes up with 172 lectiones.84 The one point where Oliva relies on auctoritates is an appeal to Glorieux for the practice of lecturing on the Sentences, specifically for the number of lectiones on the Sentences in a year. Oliva argues: If one accepts the average number of 100-130 teaching days a year, one must conclude that Thomas could not have taught the Sentences in one year; he needed to dedicate two years to it.85 The number he gives as 100-130 comes from Glorieux’s 1969 study, where Glorieux refers to his own work on Peter Plaoul’s lec- tures in 1391-92. To be precise, on the pages Oliva refers to, Glo- rieux only gives one number: Peter Plaoul’s 132 lectiones, and Jeffrey Witt has recently revised this number to 134.86 Moreover, this num- ber matches what we have seen for earlier in the fourteenth century. Chris Schabel, above, counted 131 lectiones for Landulfo Caracciolo’s 1318-19 lectures; William Duba found 126 lectures in William of Brienne’s original reportatio for 1330-31; and William J. Courtenay found that Pastor of Serrescuderio in 1332-33 followed the same pace through book IV, distinction 15, at which point he was compelled to
83 Oliva, Les débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin, pp. 237-238: “Le Ier livre des Sentences est divisé en 48 distinctions, dont 6 (dist. 3, 8, 15, 17, 19, 37) sont à leur tour divisées en deux par Thomas: ce livre comporte donc pour Thomas qui le commente 54 unités. Avec ses 44 distinctions, dont 5 (dist. 1, 3, 11, 24, 42) sont divisées en deux, le Livre II compte 49 unités. Pour le IIIe Livre : 40 distinctions, dont 2 seulement (dist. 3, 34) sont divisées en deux, le total est de 42 unités. Quant au Livre IV, du fait de ses 50 distinctions, dont seule la première est divisée en deux, il compte 51 unités.” 84 Oliva, Les débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin, p. 239: “Si donc on choisis- sait comme critère pour calculer le nombre de cours donnés en classe, la longueur moy- enne d’une unité, nous pourrions conclure que Thomas a donné environ 172 cours sur les Sentences.” 85 Oliva, Les débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin, p. 240: “[...] si l’on accepte le nombre moyen d’environ 100-130 jours de leçons par an, il faut conclure que Thomas n’a pas pu enseigner les Sentences en un an; il a dû y employer deux années. Notons, au passage, que les résultats acquis ici excluent ipso facto que Thomas ait enseigné les Sentences durant quatre ans.” 86 Glorieux, “L’enseignement au moyen âge,” pp. 116-117; J. C. Witt, “Peter Plaoul’s Lecture Commentary on the Sentences: A Canonical Ordered List of Lectures,” in: Manuscripta 58 (2014), pp. 159-270. 176 W. duba and C. Schabel follow the pope’s order to finish early, and only by hurrying through the remaining lectures did he manage to finish with 95 lectiones.87 Therefore, if Thomas Aquinas had roughly the same number of legible days for the Sentences as his fourteenth-century counterparts, then he would have had around 130 lectures, not 100. The 196 lec- tiones calculated by Oliva are simply too few for two entire years: at best, they would last a year and a half. Moreover, all the calculations for the total number of Sentences lectures in the fourteenth century refer to the situation after the introduction of principial disputations. If, prior to their introduction, bachelors began their lectures on or around 14 September (and we will admit that this is not an inference that can be supported by evidence), then there would have been 19 more legible days in the year, and we should be looking at around 150 lectiones. Furthermore, Oliva’s calculation leaves out a very simple fact: with only around 130 lectiones in a year, and 182 distinctions in the Lom- bard’s Sentences, no one-year cycle could permit one lecture for each of the distinctions. His inference from divisio textus to lectio is thus invalid. At most his evidence supports the inference that, when a divisio textus appears in the middle of a distinction, there are at least two lectiones. For while he may have shown that two divisiones textus in the same distinction means at least two lectiones, he has not dem- onstrated that one divisio textus means one lectio. Again, take William of Brienne, nearly 80 years later. From the original reportatio, we can say that his 360 questions appear in 126 lectiones on the Sentences, including nine lectiones on the Prologue. Of the remaining lectiones, at least 43 consider the same distinction as the preceding lectio. Therefore, if William had revised his commentary into a Scriptum like Aquinas did, giving a divisio textus for each distinction and for each lectio inside a distinction, he would have 182 distinctions with 52 cases of an internal divisio textus.88 On Oliva’s method of calcula- tion, this would mean 234 lectiones, even more than Aquinas has.
87 Courtenay, “Pastor of Serrescuderio,” pp. 347-348. 88 Duba, The Forge of Doctrine, pp. 124-129. William of Brienne’s example also shows the invalidity of the assumption that divisiones textus are convertible with lectiones; in roughly 15 of the 52 cases, William starts a new lectio without any formulaic beginning, but merely as the continuation of the previous day’s lecture. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 177
Moreover, Aquinas’ Sentences commentary is significantly longer than those of some of his contemporaries, but not twice as long. In the later thirteenth century, Aquinas’ commentary is said to span 216 pecia, while that of Peter of Tarantaise, the Dominican who lectured a few years later, only has 152.89 This length is more likely due to Aquinas’ miraculous capacity for writing rather than his tendency to speak slowly (and, one supposes, to take two years to say what could be said in one). Indeed, someone given to speculative calculation could quickly reduce Aquinas’ supposed 196 lectiones to a number closer to the 130-150 lectiones that constituted an academic year’s worth of lectures by a mid-thirteenth-century bachelor of theology. Thomas Aquinas may be at the origin of the two-year myth. Palé- mon Glorieux repeats the myth often, but the closest he gets to citing a source is in his initial study of Pierre Plaoul, where he refers explic- itly to Aquinas: At the end of the fourteenth century, when Pierre Plaout assumed the lec- turer’s chair as sententiarius, the reading of the Lombard was a much different scholarly exercise from that which it was, for example, at the time of Saint Thomas. It only took one year instead of two.90 Perhaps the repeated assertions of a two-year lecture for Thomas Aquinas lie at the origin of the myth. Pierre Mandonnet’s edition of Aquinas’ Sentences commentary begins with an avertissement that pre- sents the lecture years as 1254-56 in a passage that mixes hagiography and biography.91 Oliva’s research has considered the entirety of the
89 Denifle – Chatelain, CUP I, n. 530, p. 646: “Librorum theologiae et philoso- phiae et iuris pretium ab Universitate Parisiensi taxatum quod debent habere librarii pro exemplari commodato scholaribus.” 90 P. Glorieux, “L’Année universitaire 1392-1393 à la Sorbonne à travers les notes d’un étudiant,” in: Revue des Sciences Religieuses 19 (1939), pp. 429-482, at p. 461: “À la fin du XIVe siècle, au moment où Pierre Plaoust monte en chaire en qualité de sententi- aire, la lecture du Lombard est bien différente comme exercice scolaire de ce qu’elle était par exemple au temps de saint Thomas. Elle n’occupe plus qu’une année au lieu de deux.” 91 Cf. P. Mandonnet, “Avertissement,” in: S. Thomae Aquinatis Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi episcopi Parisiensis, vol. 1, Paris 1929, p. v: “L’Écrit de saint Thomas d’Aquin sur les quatre Livres des Sentences de Pierre Lombard, représente la première grande composition théologique du Docteur angélique. Elle reproduit son enseigne- ment comme bachelier sententiaire à l’université de Paris, pendant les deux années scolaires 1254-1256. Il n’avait guère que trente et un ans lorsqu’il acheva. C’est assez dire que nous sommes en présence d’une œuvre de jeunesse. Cependant Thomas d’Aquin s’y trouve déjà tout entier. Son premier historien, Guillaume de Tocco, a signalé le succès et l’autorité 178 W. duba and C. Schabel evidence for Aquinas’ two-year Sentences lecture, and the strongest case he has made so far is based on a calculus that, as far as we can tell, cannot hold, and in any case comes up short of the required number of lectiones for a two-year cycle. While we cannot on this basis prove that Aquinas lectured in only one year, we do appeal to our colleagues to produce more conclusive evidence. Of course, few Sentences commentaries survive from before Thomas. Marie-Dominique Chenu, in introducing one of the earliest collec- tions to scholarly scrutiny, one from the 1240s, tries to fit the groups of sententiarii into two-year patterns. He himself must admit in a note: “We do not have solid data that would permit to propose with confidence, as a regular cycle, at this point, teaching the book of the Sentences over two years by a bachelor of a school of theology.”92 Indeed, a common thread running through the best scholarship is this lack of conviction concerning a sentential biennium.93 Oliva tac- itly adjusts Glorieux’s number of lectiones given over a year to fit his evidence, and couches his conclusion in a conditional. Courtenay suggests cautiously that Francis Caracciolo might have given his Sen- tences lectures in one year. Indeed, Courtenay’s work fluctuates between one- and two-year solutions. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Courtenay dates Sentences lectures down to and including exceptionnels qui s’attachèrent à ce premier enseignement: «Factus autem bachellarius [...] in labiis eius tanta est divinitus effusa doctrina, ut omnes etiam Magistros videretur excedere, et ex claritate doctrinae Scholares plus ceteris ad amorem scientiae provocare.» Parlant de l’œuvre elle- même, Bernard Guidonis la qualifie ainsi, vers le temps de la canonisation du saint (1323): « Opus disertum, intellectu profundum, intelligentia clarum, et novis articulis dilabatum.» Et Jean de Colonna, dans la notice qu’il a consacrée au saint Docteur: «Scripsit super quatuor libros Sententiarum, cui non invenitur adhuc simile, cum plures alii post eum scripserunt.»” 92 M.-D. Chenu, “Maîtres et bacheliers de l’Université de Paris v. 1240,” p. 32, n. 3: “Nous ne possédons pas les données fermes qui permettraient de proposer avec assurance, comme un cycle régulier, à ce moment, l’enseignement sur deux années du livre des Sen- tences par le bachelier d’une école de théologie.” For a detailed description of the manu- script, see V. Doucet, Prolegomena in librum III necnon in libros I et II “Summa fratris Alexandri” (Summa theologica doctoris irrefragabilis Alexandri de Hales, ordinis minorum 4), Quaracchi 1948, pp. cccxlv-ccclv. P. Glorieux, “Les années 1242-1247 à la Faculté de Théologie de Paris,” in: Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 29 (1962), pp. 234- 249, uses Doucet’s and Chenu’s work to produce a semi-fictional account of studying in the Faculty of Theology; he assumes rather than proves a two-year biennium. 93 For example, it remains unclear when precisely and for how long Albertus Magnus lectured on the Sentences; see Albertus Magnus, Super I librum Sententiarum. Distinc- tiones 1-3, ed. M. Burger, Münster 2015, pp. XXIII-XXV. We thank Guy Guldentops for pointing this out. the myth of the two-year sentences lecture 179
Auriol’s to a biennium, such that, for example, he assigns the Domin- ican Durand of Saint-Pourçain’s lectures to the biennium 1308-10 and those of his confrère William of Peter of Godin to the biennium 1299-1301.94 At other times, however, Courtenay’s unease with the assumed two-year reading leads him to speak of a “sentential year” in the period before Auriol.95 While we do not pretend to the level of scholarship of those mentioned above, we have long shared this feel- ing of cognitive dissonance as we perpetuated the myth in the four- teenth century.96 From at least 1297, at the University of Paris, Sen- tences lectures lasted only one year. Before that date, we have yet to see a convincing argument for a two-year lecture cycle. Until now we have clung to this myth through faith based on inevidence.
William Duba Institut des Études Médiévales, Université de Fribourg Rue de l’Hôpital 4 CH-1700 Fribourg Suisse [email protected]
Chris Schabel Department of History and Archaeology University of Cyprus P.O. Box 20537 CY-1678 Nicosia Cyprus [email protected]
94 Courtenay, “Durand in His Educational and Intellectual Context,” pp. 18 and 27-28. 95 E.g., W.J. Courtenay, “Radulphus Brito, Master of Arts and Theology,” in: Cahiers de l’Institut du moyen-âge grec et latin 76 (2005), pp. 131-158, at p. 133, n. 7. 96 The only other possible source for a two-year Sentences lecture that we have found occurs in a document dated 1378-81 and published by Franz Ehrle as Urban VI’s reform of the faculties of theology in Northern Italy, Ehrle, I più antichi statuti, pp. ccii-cciii: “(ca 1378-81) Cod. Vatic. lat. 783 f. 33v: Copia statutorum sanctissimi domini nostri Urbani sexti pro facultate teologie in universitatibus Bononie, Padue, et aliis Ytalie partibus magistrandis [...]”; [cciii]: “Item bachalarii lecturam Sententiarum hoc ordine prosequantur, videlicet quod duos libros Sententiarum legant in primo anno, alios duos in sequenti et bibliam cursorie ante vel post lecturam Sententiarum per unum annum, ut in Parisius et in Anglie studiis est asuetum.” It is difficult to see how anyone would read this statement as evidence for a two- year Sentences lecture at Paris, however, since the reference to Paris and England clearly refers to the varying placement of the Bible lectures, not the length of the Sentences lectures.