Wednesday, September 22, 2010

A Strange Remark of William of Varouillon

The following comes from the commentary on the Sentences by William of Varouillon, a fifteenth-century Franciscan theologian. Scotist, maybe, probably with Bonaventurian modifications. In his discussion of the divine ideas he makes the following weird comment, which I shall not bother to translate.

Guillelmus de Varouillon, I Sent. d.36 q. 1 (ed. 1502 f. 61ra)

"Et si obicitur quod sic dicetur est doctori subtili contradicere qui posuit quidditates rerum et essentie esse distinctas ab esse essentie et ab eterno, quantum mihi dicens intelligere doctorem subtilem dedit.

Dico quod non est opinio sua imo in presenti distinctione ex intentione oppositum dicit inveniendo quod totum quod est in creatura est ex tempore bene tamen est ibi distinctio formalis sicut inter humanitatem et animalitatem et ceteras quidditates non enim videt quomodo posset esse creatio aut annihilatio si istud poneretur. Unde rerum ante suum existere solum ponit esse ydeale quod est ens rationis in mente divina nec apparet de qua serviret istud esse essentie unde patet quod ista opinio est aut gandista a Gandavo aut provincialis a Francisco de mayronis qui fuit de provincia provincie aut turonica a Boneto non scotica a doctora subtili sicut eroum quidam somniando dicit quod iste quidditates ortum habuerunt non in scotia aut francia verum dicit sic accipiendo sed locis predicti.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Couldn't resist playing with it...
How about this:

62va: Et si obiicitur quod sic dicere est doctori subtili contradicere, qui posuit quidditates rerum et essentie esse distinctas ab esse essentie et ab eterno, quantum mihi dicens intelligere Doctorem Subtilem dedit, dico quod non est opinio sua; immo in presenti distinctione ex intentione oppositum dicit, innuendo quod totum quod est in creatura est ex tempore; bene tamen est ibi distinctio formalis sicut inter humanitatem et animalitatem et ceteras quidditates; non enim videt quomodo posset esse creatio aut adnihilatio si istud poneretur; unde rerum ante suum existere solum ponit esse ydeale, quod est ens rationis in mente divina; nec apparet de quo serviret istud esse essentie. Unde patet quod ista opinio est aut gandavista a Gandavo, aut provincialis a Francisco de Maronis, qui fuit de provincia Provincie, aut turonica a Boneto, non scotica a doctore subtili, sicut eorum quidam somniando dicit quod iste quidditates ortum habuerunt non in Scotia aut Francia; verum dicit, sic accipiendo, sed locis predictis.

And if it is objected that to say so is to contradict the Subtle Doctor, who posited that the quiddities of things and of the essence were distinct from the being of essence and so from eternity, which to me amounts to saying that the Subtle Doctor conceded it, I say that it is not his opinion, rather in the present disinction intends the opposite, suggesting tha the whole that is in the creature is temporal, but certainly this formal distinction is there in the sense of being between humanity and animality, and between the other quiddities; for he does not understand how creation or annihilation can exist if this were posited; whence he only posits the ideal being of things before their existence, which ideal being is a being of reason in the divine mind; nor is it clear for what he would use this being of essence. Whence it is clear that this opinion either is Ghentian, from Henry of Ghent, or Proven├žal from Francis of Meyronnes, who was from the province of Provence, or Touraine from Nicolas Bonetus, but not Scots from the Subtle Doctor, just as one of those dreamers said that these quiddities come not from Scotland or France; he is right, if we take these quiddities in this sense, but rather it comes from one of the aforesaid places.


Somniando could be a joke from Solemnis, referring to a Ghentian. Who do you think he's talking about?

-Bubba

Lee Faber said...

I have no idea... William V. died fairly late in the fifteenth century, so perhaps its a reference to Gerson, who had a project of restoring theology to its alleged thirteenth century via antiqua sobriety. I know he attacks teh formalizantes, perhaps he also denied their root in Scotus.