Thursday, May 22, 2008

Hilarious Quodlibetal Questions

Here's a few howlers that I've picked up while going through Glorieux for dissertation information. I'll keep updating this as time goes on.

Anonymus, Quodlibet, "Whether a soldier with the intention of going to a tournament can be absolved"

Eustache de Grandcourt, Quodlibet I q. 2: "There was a certain monster, having a dyaphragmo above 2 heads, 4 arms and 4 breasts and 2 hearts; but below one instrument of generation and 2 feet; it is asked whether such a monster can contract matrimony"

And again, one that might end up hitting close to home... Quod V q. 3: "Again, the case is such: A woman was married and had a daughter from adultery, but the husband believed that she was his own daughter. In death, the husband left to that daughter 100 books. Afterwards the mother said to her daughter hat she was not the daughter of the dead man, and if he had known he would have never given her the 100 books, and that she should not keep them. Now the question is whether that daughter can retain that legacy from the putative father."

Aegidius, Quodlibet I q.18, "Why men are bald and have a beard and women do not"

Nicolaus de Bar, Quodlibet I q.17 "Whether pygmies are men?"

Nicolaus Trivet, Quodlibet II q. 24: "With it posited that that someone has one withered hand and one useful one, and he commits something for which he merits to have one hand amputated, whether the withered or useful hand ought to be amputated?"

3 comments:

Michael said...

I was reading these out loud to the wife some days ago. She got sick of hearing it before I got sick of reading it. Sigh. Women don't appreciate humor/awesomeness like us nerds do.

Lee Faber said...

nice. in hindsight i think the last one is rather grotesque and horrible. but the one about the women don't have beards is great

Anonymous said...

Because women are a separate category from nerds, or academic, and women have no sense of humour? I'm a woman and I don't find your comment funny, Michael, but that's because it's an unthinkingly sexist statement--not because of some deficiency in my ability to comprehend it.