Scotistic Flair

It only works in latin.

Ordinatio IV d.3 q.3 n.100 (XI 192):

"Et ideo non urget nos illa dubitatio, Decretum 1, quaestione 1, "Detrahe", ne forte asinus bibat sacramentum, quae vere est dubitatio asinina, quia illa ablutio non durat nisi in fieri, et quantumcumque posset aqua bibi vel huc vel illuc transfundi, ipsa ablutio non."

Also, a few pages later he said beer and mead were not proper matters for baptism.

A Warm and Fuzzy Syllogism

I have not read much in medieval sacramental theology, so I do not know if this position is common or not. It came up when I was reading a series of questions on the efficacy of circumcision; the question I have quoted from below is from one dealing with whether there was some remedy for original sin prior to the institution of circumcision.

Duns Scotus, Ordinatio IV d.1 pars 4 incidentalis q.2 n.389 (XI 138):

"Nullo tempore dimisit Deus cultores suos sine remedio necessario ad salutem; sed omni tempore-post lapsum-fuit necessaria ad salutem deletio originalis; ergo quocumque tempore erat aliquod remedium efficax ad deletionem illius peccati"

At no time did God leave his worshippers without a remedy necessary for salvation; but at every time after the fall the removal of original [sin] was necessary for salvation; therefore at every time there was some efficacious remedy for the removal of that sin.

Peter Thomae Contra Scotus

After reading William of Alnwick and the huge amount of space he devotes to criticizing Scotus, Peter Thomae turns out to be a bit of a disappointment in his treatise of the same name as William's. He is much more concerned with Auriol (Ledoux didn't allege any Auriol in his fontes, but maybe it hadn't occurred to him to look). Peter does have some brief comments which I have posted below. He does mention Scotus's Oxford position with the four instants of nature but hasn't directly criticized it (yet; I have only read the first two questions), and seems to be on the whole defending Scotus's Parisian position. On the whole is rather mild compared to Alnwick.

Peter Thomae, Quaestiones de esse intelligibili, q. 2 a. 3 (from mss. NP1W):

"Tertium dubium circa dicta videtur esse quia Scotus, cuius doctrinam sequor ut plurimum, videtur dicere quod intellectus divinus producat creabilium quidditates in esse cognito. Hoc enim ipse dicit distinctione 35 Primi in responsione ad unum argumentum ubi enim dicit quod divinus intellectus in primo instanti intelligit essentiam suam sub ratione mere absoluta. In secunda autem instanti producit quidditates creabilium in esse intelligibili.

Ad tertium dubium, si Scotus velit dicere quod divinus intellectus ut ab essentia distinctus producat quidditatem in esse intelligibili, loquendo proprie de productione, non teneo cum ipso. Si tamen dicatur quod ista productio est mere equivoca et metaphorica ut ipse etiam videtur dicere, detur sibi, licet improprie dicatur."

Translation:

The third doubt seems to be because Scotus, whose doctrine I follow as do many, seems to say that the divine intellect produces the quiddities of creatable things in 'the act of being thought'. For this he says in distinction 35 of the first Book [of the Sentences] in response to an argument where he says that the divine intellect in the first instant understands his own essence under an aspect merely absolute. In the second however he produces the quiddities of creatable things in intelligibile being.

To the third doubt, if Scotus meant to say that the divine intellect as distinct from the essence produces a quiddity in intelligibile being, speaking properly about production, I do not hold this with him. If however it is said that that production is merely equivocal and metaphorical as he himself seems to say, let it be granted him, althought he spoke improperly."

Oh yes; if you don't know who Peter Thomae is, consult Bert Roest's website for a list of literature. Basically, he was born in Galicia (no one knows when), and ended up at the franciscun studium in Barcelona, later served as Papal penitentiary and abbreviator for John XXII, and seems to have fallen out of favor under Benedict XII as he was jailed on charges of sorcery. He died in prison in Noves, in the spring of 1340.

Alnwick contra Scotus

For all of you just dying to know what went on in the 14th century after Scotus came up with his controversial views on the production of the quiddities of creatures by the divine intellect (see the previous post, the only one listed under the "intelligible being" rubric), here's some relief. Apparently, according to the 17th century Scotist Mastrius (and even this info is second hand, though T. Hoffmann has written a book on this), the 15th and 16th century Scotists accept Scotus's view of the production of creatures in intelligible being and the instants of nature theory that this requires. But the 14th century boys I've looked at are pretty incensed by it. Here is Alnwick, from his Quaestiones de esse intelligibili (ed.Ledoux, p. 136). This is from q.5, which is devoted to analyzing the basic position that Scotus adopts, though Alnwick says it is common to many "moderni". In the first excerpt he is responding to Scotus and refuting him on his own terms.

"Again, second, I prove the same by means of another principle of one holding the opposite, namely that the divine essence, compared to no other, represents all other things, and not by a relation of reason. Then so: whatever befalls the divine essence according to itself and not by the comparison of the intellect, befalls itself prior according to reason than other things are understood. But the divine essence, according to its absolute and infinite perfection, represents all other secondary objects, and not by a relation of reason; therefore other things are first represented by the essence than they are understood by the divine intellect, therefore other things are not instituted by God in intelligibile being by an act of divine understanding. Hence John Dons [sic], who says that creatures are instituted in intelligible being by an act of divine understanding, and nevertheless that the essence according to its absolute perfection represents all other things, says expressly the opposite, because if the divine essence according to its absolute perfection represents all other things, then first they are repsresented to the intellect than they are understood by the divine intellect, and so first they are intelligible before they are understood by the divine intellect."

Here is another argument, one from the beginning where he is also directly criticizing Scotus's position (Ledoux 125):

"Again, third thus: a creature is first intelligible before it is understood by God, therefore it is not constituted by an act of divine understanding. The consequence is clear, because nothing is constituted by an act posterior to it. I prove the antecedent, becase every other intelligible in act that is understood by God is represented by the divine essence, because the essence is the means of understanding all other things. But the essence first represents all intelligibiles before the intellect understands them, because it has the capacity to represent from it itself and not from the intellect. For the intellect does not grant the power of representing other intelligibiles to the essence, because to represent all intelligibiles is a pure perfection (perfectionem simpliciter), because in anything it is better to be something than not to be. But the intellect does not grant a pure perfection to the essence. Therefore a creature first is an intelligible represented by the divine essence than the intellect understands, thefore, etc.

The argument is confirmed: to represent many in act is of greater perfection than to represent fewer; therefore to represent infinite intelligibiles in act is of infinite perfection, but the divine essence, since it is an infinite sea, does not have infinite perfection from the divine intellect, therefore neither does it have from the intellect that it can represent infinite intelligibiles in act. Since therefore the essence distinctly represents infinite intelligibiles, it follows that the essence, as preceding the act of understanding, represents in act infinite intelligibiles, and as a consequence creatures have intelligibile being before God understands them."

According to Tim Noone's article where he edits Scotus's Reportatio account of the divine ideas, Scotus is reviving the opinion of Bonaventure. One question one might ask as well in this context (I think Alnwick dismissed it as not directly germain to the question but said he'd discuss it elsewhere) is how all this relates to the procession of the other two Trinitarian persons. Are persons and creatures understood by the divine intellect in the same instant of nature as creatures? That seems inconveniens somehow.

Perhaps I should mention, the person in question here is William of Alnwick, Scotus' socius at Paris, who is responsible for the Additiones magnae, a sentence commentary, the questions I've translated here, a Quodlibet and some sermons (including one on the beatific vision). He was made a bishop in Italy, and died around 1333.

From the Realm of Spells and Fairies

Stump, Aquinas, 61:

"Aquinas's account of the virtues is rich and complex, and his discussion them is situated in an intricate network of medieval lore. This lore includes the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, at least three of which are twins of the intellectual virtues: courage, piety, fear, counsel (consilium), wisdom, scientia (generally translated as 'knowledge'), and understanding. In addition, Aquinas also weaves into his account the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit...and the seven beatitudes."

Lore?! What is medieval lore? So anything that might come from a theological tradition such as the Bible and not from the fertile minds of analytic philosophers counts as lore. These days I am becoming increasingly aware that the study of medieval philosophy is considered at worst a waste of time by philosophy departments and at best a branch of history. With friends like Stump, "Medieval philosophy" doesn't need enemies.

Letter of Pope Benedict XVI on Duns Scotus

From Giovanni Lauriola: http://www.centrodunsscoto.it/articoli/Articoli_html/Papa_per_Scoto.htm

RECENSIONE
BENEDICTI XVI
SUMMI POTIFICIS
EPiSTULA APOSTOLICA
Venerabili Fratri
IOACHIMO SIRE. CXD1NALI MEISNBR
Archiepiscopo Co1othensi
cunctisque ex toto orbe terrarum participibus
congressus scientifici internationalis
DCC annis elapsis ab obitu beati Ioannis Duns Scoti

Laetare, Colonia urbs, quae doctissimum ac pientissimum virum Ioannem Duns Scotum intra tua moenia quondam recepisti, qui die VIII mensis Novembris anno MCCCVIII e vivis discessit et ad caelestem patriam profectus, eiusque magna admiratione ac vener servas exuvias.
Quem porro Venerabiles Servi Dei Paulus VI et Ioannes Paulus II, Decesores Nostri, amplissimis verbis, exaltarunt, illum Nos quoque nunc merita laude circumadare volumus eiusque patrocinia invocare.

Iure quidem meritoque septimum nunc ab eius pio transitu centenarium celebratur. Ac dum hac felici occasione in diversis mundi partibus in honorem beati Ioannis Duns Scoti acroases integraque opera publici iuris fiunt necnon conventus aguntur, inter quos sollemnis paratur ille Coloniensis, qui diebus V-IX proximi mensis Novembris evolvetur, muneris Nostri officium esse putamus hoc in ambitu quaedam dicere de tam eximio viro, qui bene meritus est de doctrina Ecclesiae et de scientia hominum amplianda.

Ipse enim pietatem cum intellectuali investigatione coniungens, iuxta illam sum precem: “Primum rerum Principium mihi ea credere, sapere ac proferre concedat, quae ipsius placeant maiestati et ad eius contemplationem elevent mentes nostras”1 , subtilissimo ingenio arcana veritatis tam naturalis quam revelatae ita profunde penetravit ac exinde talis generis doctrinam deprompsit, ut Doctor Ordinis, Doctor Subtilis et Doctor Marianus appellatus sit ac dux Scholae Franciscanae necnon lux et exemplar totius populi christiani evaserit.

Animos itaque doctorum virorum et omnium credentium ac non credentium convertere desideramus ad viam ac rationem quam Scotus secutus est in statuenda concordia inter fidem et rationem, in definienda tali modo natura theologiae, ut iugiter extulerit actionem operationem, praxim, amorem potius quam pura speculationem quo in opere exsequendo ductus fuit Magisterio Ecclesiae ac sano sensu critico circa incrementum notitiae veritatis, atque persuasum sibi habebat scientiam tantum valere quantum ipsa in praxim deduceretur.

In fide catholica confirmatus, veritates fidei lumine naturalis rationis conatus est inte1legere, illustrare et defendere. Quapropter nihil reliqui fecit quominus veritates omnes, et naturales et supernaturales, quam ex uno eodemque Fonte promanant, in consonantiam deduceret.

Prope Sacram Scripturam divinitus inspiratam, Ecclesiae auctoritas ponitur. Ipse videtur sequi sancti Augustini effatum: “Evange1io non credere, nisi Ecclesiae credidissem”2. Nam auctoritatem supremam Successoris beati Petri Doctor noster in peculiarem lucem haud raro ponit. Secundum sententiam eius “licet Papa non possit dispensare contra ius naturae vel divinum (quia sua potestas est utroque illo lure inferior), tamem cum sit

1-Duns Scotus, Tractatus de primo Principio, c.1,1(ed. Muller M.).
2 Idem, Ordinatio I d. 5, n. 26.

Successor Petri, Principis Aposto1orum habet eandem potestatem quam et Petrus”.

Itaque Ecc1esia Catholica, quae tamquam Caput invisibile habet ipsum Christum, qui in beato Petro ac Successoribus eius suos Vicarios reliquit, a Spiritu veritatis directa, est authenticus custos depositi revelati et regula fidei. Ecclesia est firmum et stabile criterium canonicitatis Sacrae Scripturae. Ipsa enim “decrevit qui sunt libri habendi in auctoritatem in canone Bibliae”4

Alibi respondet quod “eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, quo conditae, et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia catholica eo Spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides, Spiritu scilicet veritatis edocta”5

Postqum ex ratione theologica variis argumentis probaverat ipsum factum praeservationis Beatae Virginis Mariae a peccato originali, omnino paratus erat hanc sententiam reicere, si constaret quod repugnaret auctoritati Ecclesiae, dicendo: “Si auctoritati Ecc1esiae et auctoritati Scripturae non repugnet, videtur probabile, quod excellentius est, attribuere Mariae”6.

Primatus voluntatis in lucem ponit Deum ante omnia esse caritatem. Hanc caritatem huic amorem, Duns Scotus prae oculis habet cum theologiam vult reducere ad unum habitum, ad theologiam practicam. Ad eius menten, cum Deus sit “formaliter dilectio et formaliter caritas”7 , bonitatis suae et amoris radios liberalissime communiçat extra se 8. Revera, ex amore Deus “elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus sancti et immacu1ati in

3 Idem, Rep. Par. IV d. 33, q. 2, n. 19.
4 Idem, Ordinatio I, d. 5, n. 26.
5 Ibid., IV, d. 11, q. 3, n. 15.
6 Ibid., IV d. 26, q. 1, n. 13.
7 Ibid., I d. 17, n. 173.
8 Cf ibidem, Tractatus de primo Principio, c. 4, n. 127 (ed. Muller M.)

conspectu eius in caritate, qui praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Iesum Christum in ipsum” (Eph 1, 3 4).

Tamquam fidelis assecla sanctis Francisci Assisiensis beatus Ioannes assidue contemplatus est et praedicavit Filii Dei incarnationem et passionem salvificam. At caritas seu amor Christi ostenditur peculiari modo non solum in Calvariae loco, sed etiam in sanctissimo Eucharistiae sacramento, absque quo “periret omnis devotio in Ecclesia, nec exhiberetur actus latriae Deo nisi propter reverentiam huius”9 . Porro, hoc sacrametum est sacramentum unitatis et amoris, quo inducimur ut amemus ad invicem, et ut amemus Deum tam quam bonum commune et condiligendum ab aliis.

Et quemadmodum hic amori haec caritas, fuit initium omnium, ita etiam in amore, in caritate tantum erit nostra beatitudo: “volitio sive dilectio est simpliciter vita aeterna, beata et perfecta”10.

Cum vero Nos ab initio officii Nostri caritatem ante omnia praedicavimus, quae Deus ipse est, laetanter cernimus huius Beati doctrinam singularem locum huic praebere veritati, eandemque nostris temporibus censemus maxime pervestigandam et docendam. Quapropter perlibenter obsecundantes precibus Venerabilis Fratri Nostri Ioachimi S.R.E. Cardinalis Meisner, Archiepiscopi Coloniensis, damus hanc epistulam Apotolicatn qua beatum Ioannem Duns Scotum cupimus honorare eiusque Nobis caelestem intercessionem efflagitare. Denique iis, quod quolibet modo in hoc internationali congressu aliusque de hoc S. Francisci eximio filio inceptis promovendis intersunt, Apostolicam Nostram Benedictionem imo ex corde e1argimur

9 Idem, Rep. Par., IV d. 8, q. 1, n. 3
10 Ibid., IV d. 49, q. 2, n. 21.

Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die XXVIII mensis Octobris, anno MMVIII, Pontificatus Nostri quarto.

Pico della Mirandola on the Sects of Philosophers

I've done gone and gotten myself interested in renaissance philosophy. I'm starting with Pico and Ficino and will move on from there. The following is from Pico's treaties On the Dignity of Man, transl. by C.J. Wallis p.22-24:

"Further, in each school there is something notable that it does not have in common with theothers. But let me now begin with ourselves, whom philosophy has at least reached. In John Scotus there is certain vigor and breadth. In Thomas, a solidity and equilibrium. In Aegidius, a terseness and precision. In Francis, a sharpness and pointedness. In old Albert, spaciousness and grandeur. In Henry, so it seems to me, there is always something sublime and venerable. Among the Arabs, there is in Averroes a firmness and steadiness. In Avempace and in Alfarabi, something grave and well meditated. In Avicenna, something divine and Platonic. Among the Greeks universally there is, especially, a certain brilliance and chasteness of philosophy. In Themistius, elegance and concision. In Alexander, steadfastness and learning. In Theophrastus, a serious working out of things. In Ammonius, a smoothness and pleasingness. And if you turn to the Platonists, to go over a few of them: in Porphyry you will be pleased by an abundance of materials and a complex religion. In Iamblichus you will feel awe at a more hiddenen philosophy and at the mysteries of the barbarians. In Plotinus there is no one thing in particular for you to wonder at, for he offers himself to our wonder in every part; and while he speaks in a divine manner about divine things, and of human things in a manner far above man, with a learned indirectness of discourse, the sweating Platonists scarcely understand. I pass over the more recent: Proclus, abounding in Asiatic fertility, and those who have flowed from him, Hermias, Damascius, Olympiodorus and many others, in all of whom there always shines that to theion, that is, divine something, the peculiar emblem of the Platonists. Further, if there is a school which attacks truer doctrine and ridicules with calumny the good causes of thought, it strengthens rather than weakens truth, and as by motion it excites the flame rather than extinguishing it. Moved by this reasoning, I have wished to bring into view the things taught not merely according to one doctrine (as some would desire), but things taught according to every sort of doctrine, that by this comparison of very many sects and by the discussion of manifold philosophy, that radiance of truth which Plato mentions in his Letters might shine more clearly upon our minds, like the sun rising from the deep.

Lost Works of Scotus

Marianus de Florentia, Compendium Chronicarum Fratrum Minorum (Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 2 [1909], p. 631)

"Item eodem anno 1308, in conventu Coloniensi Agrippine, Germanie Superioris excessit frater Iohannes de Donis, theologus magnus et eximius doctor, ubi honorifice sepultus, in magna veneratione habitus est. Hic natione de Scotia fuit, qui ab Universitate Parisiensi inter ceteros doctores Doctor Subtilis appellatur. Fuit enim toti seculo stupendus, quia ita in scribendo et disputando fuit acutissimus, ut a nullo suo tempore vinci poterat. Scripsit duo egregia et diversa scripta super Magistrum Sententiarum, quorum primum Oxoniense, alterum vero Parisiense appellatur. Scripsit etiam super omnes ferme Aristotilis libros, presertim super Methaphisicam. Item, super 4or Evangelistas. Item, super Epistolas Pauli. Item, super Genesim ad literam. Item, sermones tam de tempore quam etiam de Sanctis, per totius anni circulum. Item, Quodlibeta aliqua. Item, Tractatum de Primo rerum Prinnipio. Item, Collationes Parisienses. Item, Tetragreumatha quedam"

New Blog

For those of you who want even more texts than those which we sometimes post here at The Smithy, take a look at the new blog listed below. His library is better than mine so I hope he posts often.  

http://doctorsubtilis.blogspot.com

St. Bonaventure on the Veneration of Images

In III Sententiarum, d. 9 a.1 q.2:

"It should be said that the introduction of images in the Church was not without rational cause. For they were introduced on account of a triple cause, namely on account of the ignorance of simple folk, on account of the slowness of affections and on account of the weakness of memory. Images were introduced because of the ignorance of simple ones because those who cannot read the scriptures are able to more clearly read the mysterious of our faith in sculptures and pictures just as in the scriptures. They were introduced on account of slowness of affection so that men, who are not excited to devotion in those things that Christ did for us when they perceive them with their ears, might at least be excited when they discern them in figures and pictures just as if present to bodily eyes. For our affection is excited more by those things which we see than those which we hear. They were introduced on account of weakness of memory, because those things which are heard alone, are more easily given to oblivion than those things which are seen. For it is frequently verified by many that which is accustomed to be said: the word enters through one ear and goes out through another. Furthermore, one is not always quick to commit to memory by means of words past benefits supplied. Therefore it was made by the dispensation of God that images might be made, especially in churches, so that the ones seeing them might be reminded about the benefits given to us and about the virtuous deeds of the saints.

Since therefore the image of Christ has been introduced for representing him who was crucified for us, neither does it offer itself to us for itself but for him, therefore all reverence which is shown to it is shown to Christ. And therefore the worship(cultus) of latria ought to be shown to it. And this is what Augustine says in Book III of On Christian Doctrine: "he who venerates such a sign divinely instituted, of which he understands the power and signification, does not venerate this thing which he sees and which passes away, but rather that to which all such are referred."

Ad obj. 1-2: To that therefore which is objected in contrary, that it was prohibited for anyone to make for himself an image, it should be said that for that time it was prohibited, in which time God had not yet assumed human nature. For then, since God was entirely spirit, he was infigurable; and therefore to make an image of him was error and impiety. <...> God on account of his inward mercy was made man and held conversation with man, he did miracles, suffered, was crucified; these things are written for the memory of men and for our teaching. But because not all know letters nor are free for reading, the fathers decreed to describe certain triumphant images for ease of memory.

Ad obj. 5: To that which was objected, that that seems to be idolatry, it should be said that that is true, if the images are adored with respect to themselves, so that something divine is believed to be there. Now however it is not so, indeed the minds of the faithful venerate in an entirely different manner, and therefore they are not guilty of idolatry. And if you object that they are the occasion of error, it should be said that even the sacred letters were and are even today and also to other creatures sometimes the occasion of error; nevertheless, not on account of this should the letters be destroyed and the creatures that erred be destroyed, because this is a matter of divine judgement so that the good into more goods and evil into more evils are converted. So also it is to be understood about the images.

Ad obj. 6: To that which was objected that that does not have authority from scriptures, it should be said that the Apostles handed down many things which were not written. Hence the Apostle (Paul: I Cor. 2,2, II Thess. 2,14) praised those who held the traditions and the Church has preserved faithfully what she received from the Apostles. And so it is clear that images of this sort are not novelties, but are divine traditions and of apostolic sanction."

Visions of Gonsalvus

Alvaro Pelagio (d. 1349) De statu et planctu ecclesiae lib. 2 c. 67 fol. 169v-170r:

"Et quamquam sanctae memoriae frater Gonsalvus hispanus de provincia Galiciae, nobilis genere, sed nobilior vita et moribus et evangelica paupertate, vere frater minor et zelator ardentissimus Regulae et dominus paupertatis... et dominicae humilitatis, cum quo in loco fratrum de Luca scutellas lavi in eadem pelvi lapidea, magister in theologia realissimus verbo et opere, de maioribus mundi litteratis in trivio et quadrivio, qui parum post mortem suam Parisiis, in visione quibusdam fratribus nostris apparuit gloriosus in throno residens cum corona aurea et sceptro, qui dixit tunc quod sedes throni sibi assignata erat in caelo, quia purissime in Ordine iustitiam observaverat... generalis, magister noster, totum Ordinem expropriaverit in vita sua et sententiam excommunicationis tulerit contra omnes fratres subditos et praelatos, nisi intra certum terminum illis a quibus habebant reditus vel eorum haeredibus resignarent, quod et factum est... Et ipse cum patribus sanctis requiscit in pace beati Francisci verus vicarius et successor"

Opera Omnia XI

I noticed yesterday that a new volume of the Ordinatio is now available from www.fratiquaracchi.it , covering Book IV d.1-7, at the hefty price of 160 euros. Support the cause, buy one today; you shelled out money for the Obama campaign, America, now its time for Scotus.

Oh yes. There is also a new Futurama movie out, "Bender's Game". buy it!

700 Years!

Happy optional memorial, everyone! Today is the 700th anniversary of his death in Cologne. Here's to another 700 years. May he soon be canonized and take his rightful place as Doctor Ecclesiae. Here is a prayer to that effect:


O Doctor Subtilissime, Ioannes, qui Deiparae Custos fidus fuisti; quamque Adam non foedaverat, Immaculatam clarius tu primus perpexisti; nostri tuam da mentibus doctrinam datam coelitus ad Matris laudem Christi.

v. Protege nos, Virgo praeservata ab omni macula.
R. Ut liberati a peccatis omnibus, per te perveniamus ad Praeservatorem tuum.

Oremus:

Deus, qui per Immaculatam Virginis conceptionem dignum Filio tuo habitaculum praeparasti: et qui per hoc lucis mysterium Seraphicam S. Francisci Religionem illustrare, atque in ea gloriosum Doctorem Subtilem Ioannem Scotum mirificare dignatus es: praesta quaesumus; ut qui ex morte Filii Mariae praevisa, eam ab omni labe praeservasti, nos quoque mundos eius intercessione ad te pervenire concedas. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.



And the collect for today from the Liturgia Horarum, proprium Coloniense:


Domine Deus, fons omnis sapientiae, qui Beatum Ioannem
presbyterum, Immaculatae Virginis assertorem,
nobis magistrum vitae et scientiae dedisti, concede, quaesumus,
ut, eius exemplo illuminati, et doctrinis nutria,
Christo fideliter adhaereamus. Qui tecum vivit.

Proclus, Scotus and the Trinity

The following is a highly interesting bit from Proclus, the platonic theologian. At the outset, I do not think that this is directly applicable to the Trinity. Obviously, Trinitarian processions are not from higher orders of being to lower ones. But if we drop this element from the passage, it bears striking resemblance to Duns Scotus' theory of Trinitarian processions (see the various posts in which Michael was disputing with the energetic easterners). Basically, what I have in mind is the idea that the Father, in generating the Son, transmits everything to him save for his own personal property. This includes the power of spiration, and guarantees that the productive principal of the Holy Spirit is the same for both Father and Son. 

Now Scotus does mention Proclus once or twice by name, albeit not in this context. The proposition of Proclus quoted below is quite similar to the first proposition from the Liber de causis (omnis causa primaria plus est influens super causatum suum quam causa universalis secunda), which Scotus probably did read.

Propositio 56 (ed. Dodds 55) "All that is produced by secondary beings is in a greater measure produced from those prior and more determinative principles from which the secondary were themselves derived.

For if the secondary has is whole existence from its prior, thence also it receives its power of further production, since productive powers reside in producers in virtue of their existence and form part of their being. But if it owes to the superior cause its power of production, to that superior it owes its character as a cause in so far as it is a cause, a character meted out to it from thence in proportion to its constitutive capacity. If so, the things which proceed from it are caused in virtue of its prior; for the same principle which makes the one a cause makes the other an effect. If so, the effect owes to the superior cause its character as an effect.

Again, it is evident that the effect is determined by the superior principle in a greater measure. For if the latter has conferred on the secondary being the causality which enabled it to produce, it must itself have possessed this causality primitively (prop. 18), and it is in virtue of this that the secondary being generates, having derived from its prior the capacity of secondary generation. But if the secondary is productive by participation, the primal primitively and by communication, the latter is causative in a greater measure, inasmuch as it has communicated to another the power of generating consequents."

Aristotle's Tomb

I am about to post a series on Henry of Harclay's first ordinary question (recently edited by M. Henninger), which concerns theories of end-time chronologies based on Daniel and Revelation. Here is a foretaste, a story related by Alexander Neckham in De naturis rerum. Harclay does not give a refutation of this view.

p. 63 of Henninger's ed. and transl.: "We should also look at the remarkable story Alexander Neckham tells in the second book of On the Nature of Things, in the chapter called 'On the Jealous'. It concerns the evidence for Antichrist's coming. He writes that Aristotle, the Philosopher, when about to go the way of all flesh, gave instructions that all of his subtlest writings were to be placed with him in his tomb, so that they could be of no use ot those who came after him. When he was alive, he fortified a place for his tomb with his own hands so that to this day no one has been able to enter it. This place, Neckham writes, will be given over to Antichrist when he comes. Antichrist, then, will work wonders by means of the cunning inventions to be found in Aristotle's writings, so much so that the folish will take him for God. At that time, if anyone were to know where Aristotle's tomb was and were to see it lying open, that person could (if this story is true) argue that Antichrist had come.

Alexander's exact words are these: 'I would be unwilling to write that Aristotle was afflicted with so deadly a plague as jealousy, if I did not mean to insult so wicked a monster. When he was going the way of all flesh, this philosopher ordered his most subtle writings to be walled up with him in his tomb, so that they could be of no use to those who came after him. He prepared the place of his tomb and the surrounding area so that no one, even to this day, is able to enter it; I do not know wheteher he did this by natural means or by some skill he had (I shall hardly suggest he used the unnatural means of magical arts.). Some people say that this place will yield to the wiles of Antichrist, and they think that he will examine the writings contained therein. So Antichrist's messengers, as they say, will bring Aristotle's secrets to the eyes of him who will be the idol of abomination and desolation."

I guess we know where his fabled dialogues are.