John Pecham on Life and Mind Caleb G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2014 John Pecham on Life and Mind Caleb G. Colley University of South Carolina - Columbia Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Colley, C. G.(2014). John Pecham on Life and Mind. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/ 2743 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOHN PECHAM ON LIFE AND MIND by Caleb Glenn Colley ! Bachelor of Arts Freed-Hardeman !University, 2006 Bachelor of Science Freed-Hardeman !University, 2006 Master of Liberal Arts ! Faulkner University, 2009 ! ! Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2014 Accepted by: Jeremiah M.G. Hackett, Major Professor Jerald T. Wallulis, Committee Member Heike O. Sefrin-Weis, Committee Member Gordon A. Wilson, Committee Member Lacy Ford, Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! © Copyright by Caleb Glenn Colley, 2014 All Rights !Reserved. !ii ! ! ! ! DEDICATION To my parents, who have always encouraged and inspired me. Et sunt animae vestrae quasi mea. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !iii ! ! ! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of people have spent generous amounts of time and energy to assist in the preparation of this dissertation. Professor Girard J. Etzkorn, the editor of Pecham’s texts, is not listed as a committee member, but he read my manuscript in its early form and made many helpful suggestions. My entire committee worked together thoughtfully, eagerly, and patiently to help me succeed, and each member of the committee contributed unique and valuable guidance. Among other things that each individual did are the following: Professor Wilson has been encouraging of this project. Before a word of the dissertation was written, Professor Sefrin-Weis helped me with Latin and later helped me refine my translations of Pecham. Professor Wallulis helped me structure the project and to creatively consider how the dissertation process could serve me intellectually and professionally. Professor Hackett has spent much of the past three years showing me this project’s potential and pushing me to achieve it. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !iv ! ! ! ABSTRACT The interpretive work of analytic philosophers in the Thomist tradition, such as Anthony Kenny and Robert Pasnau, has been significant not only for historical accounts of medieval thought, but also for contemporary philosophy. It is remarkable that in all of this literature, the great opponent of Aquinas in philosophy and theology, John Pecham (d. 1292), is largely omitted. In this dissertation I will examine two Pecham texts that have not been properly studied to date, and that deal with the issues of the life and mind of the human person. The first text is the Tractatus De Anima. The Tractatus is from the latter part of Pecham’s career, and so stated positions in this work can be treated as his mature views. The second work is the fifth of Pecham’s disputed Quaestiones De Anima 1 David C. Lindberg, “Biographical Sketch,” John Pecham and the Science of Optics, ed. Lindberg (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), 5-6; Decima Douie, Archbishop Pecham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 11. !v (probably 1269-12711), which situates him in the context of debates with Aquinas and Latin Averroism.2 I will show how these two texts support the following thesis: John Pecham’s philosophical anthropology is based on a distinctive, original synthesis of Neoplatonic metaphysics, and is a significant alternative to Aquinas’s anthropology. Proving this thesis to be correct will involve showing that, in his controversy with Aquinas, Pecham was neither insisting on a minor point nor obviously misguided (as has been alleged in contemporary literature), but was rather working to defend and preserve what he considered to be broadly important truth. By providing an interpretation of central texts and showing Pecham’s distinctiveness, I hope to open the question of his significance. I will first describe who Pecham was and what he did. To place Pecham in his historical context, I will discuss a movement, Neo-Augustinianism, in which he was a 2 Modern usage, following Fernand van Steenberghen, suggests the use of “heterodox Aristotelianism” or “radical Aristotelianism” instead of “Latin Averroism” (Thomas Aquinas and Radical Aristotelianism [Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1980]; Aristotle in the West: The Origins of Latin Aristotelianism [Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts, 1955], 204-208; John F. Wippel, Mediaeval Reactions to the Encounter Between Faith and Reason [Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995], 14; cf. John Marenbon, Late Medieval Philosophy [New York: Routledge, 1987], 73-74). However, I think “Latin Averroism” denotes the movement more clearly. Marenbon writes that Van Steenberghen is “right to stress that the so-called Averroists wished to be Aristotelians, and that they were in many respects distant from Ibn Rushd’s real thought; but the link with Averroes—Ibn Rushd as seen through Latin eyes—is essential to their approach” (“Dante’s Averroism,” Poetry and Philosophy in the Middle Ages: A Festschrift for Peter Dronke, ed. Marenbon [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 353). !vi leader. While it is difficult to determine precisely the positions that constituted Neo- Augustinian philosophy, it is possible to understand generally what the movement was and how Pecham’s views relate to it. As I explicate Pecham’s philosophical psychology, it will become obvious that he cannot be construed as being simply an “Augustinian,” but rather nuances of his positions must be appreciated. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !vii ! ! ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS ! DEDICATION……………………………………….………………………………..…….iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………..………………………..iv ABSTRACT……………………………….…………………………..……………….……v INTRODUCTION………………..…..……………………………….………………………1 CHAPTER 1: PECHAM AND NEO-AUGUSTINIANISM……………….…..………………….37 CHAPTER 2: EXPOSITION OF QUAESTIO FIVE IN PECHAM’S QUAESTIONES DE ANIMA……96 CHAPTER 3: EXPOSITION OF PECHAM’S TRACTATUS DE ANIMA.……………….………..158 CHAPTER 4: AQUINAS AGAINST LATIN AVERROISM…………………………………… 229 CHAPTER 5: PECHAM AND HIS SOURCES………………………….……..……..………304 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION - PECHAM AND AQUINAS……………….….…………….…425 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………….…512 ! ! ! ! ! !viii ! ! ! ! ! INTRODUCTION John Pecham was a Franciscan theologian who took both a strongly anti-Thomist position and a strongly anti-Averroist position in late-13th-century debates in philosophy of mind. Following a successful career as a theologian, Pecham was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1279 until his death in 1292. Despite the facts that (1) he represented a viable theological and philosophical perspective in his day, (2) he was involved directly in major debates with Aquinas and other masters at the university of Paris, and (3) a number of his philosophical writings are extant, Pecham has been studied far less than other medieval thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Bonaventure, and the Latin Averroists. My thesis is this: John Pecham’s philosophical anthropology is based on a distinctive, original synthesis of Neoplatonic metaphysics, and is a significant alternative to Aquinas’s anthropology. Arguing for this thesis will involve supporting a number of sub-theses, which will be largely based on my exegesis of Pecham’s texts (primarily in chapters two and three of the present study), especially his Tractatus De Anima1 and quaestio five of his 1 Ed. P. Gaudentis Melani (Florence: Stabilimenti Grafici Vallecchi, 1948). All references to the Pecham’s Tractatus are to the Tractatus De Anima, unless otherwise noted. !1 Quaestiones De Anima.2 I will also refer to relevant passages in others of Pecham’s works: Quaestiones De Beatitudine Corporis et Animae,3 Quaestiones Selectae ex Commentario Super I. Sententiarum,4 other portions of Pecham’s commentary on the first book of Peter Lombard’s Sentences,5 the Summa de Esse et Essentia,6 and Pecham’s Quodlibeta Quatuor.7 It is particularly important to give an exposé of the Tractatus and quaestio five in detail. Both texts are replete with Pecham’s citation of his philosophical and theological sources, and a consideration of how Pecham organizes and uses these sources to advance his agenda is the subject of the fifth chapter of the present study. Both texts contain arguments throughout that will serve as evidence to support claims I make about Pecham’s position in comparison with Aquinas’ position. This is the subject of the sixth chapter. Furthermore, with the exception of Girard Etzkorn’s and Hieronymus Spettmann’s work, the Pecham texts have not been studied in-depth in the scholarship (usually study of Pecham has been done briefly and only to aid in understanding Aquinas’ work). The present study is an effort to begin to correct this oversight. Though the 2 Quaestiones Disputatae, ed. Girard Etzkorn, Franciscana Scholastica 28 (Grottaferrata: College of St. Bonaventure Press, 2002). Unless otherwise noted, all references to Pecham’s Quaestiones refers to the Quaestiones De Anima. 3 This text is also included in Etzkorn’s Quaestiones Disputatae. 4 Johannis Pechami Quaestiones: Tractantes