¹ The life, writings and teaching of Aureoli have been described in detail by A. Teetaert in his article, “Pierre Auriol,” in DThC12/2 (Paris, 1935): cols. 1810–81. In this article Teetaert has summarized in admirable fashion all the literature touching our author up to the year 1931. The starting point of any study of Aureoli, it must be used cautiously since new studies have appeared. E. M. Buytaert (Peter Aureoli. Scriptum super Primum Sententiarum, 2 vols. [St. Bonaventure, N.Y., 1953–56]) has brought the materials on the life and writings of Aureoli up to the year 1952 in the introduction to his edition, 1:vii-xxi. On the question of Scotus as the teacher of Aureoli, see the clarifications noted by V. Heynck in Franziskanische Studien 35 (1953), 469–70, and Franziskanische Studien 46 (1964), 179.Google Scholar

² For a doctrinal study of the various positions on the topic ‘Unity of Being,’ see Brown, S. F., “Avicenna and the Unity of the Concept of Being: The Interpretations of Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus, Gerard of Bologna and Peter Aureoli,” Franciscan Studies 25 (1965): 117–50. For a defense of Henry of Ghent's position, see idem, “Richard of Conington and the Analogy of the Concept of Being,” Franziskanische Studien 48 (1966): 297–307. For defenders of Scotus's theory of univocity against the criticisms of Aureoli, see Fitzpatrick, N., “Walter Chatton on the Univocity of Being: A Reaction to Peter Aureoli and William of Ockham,” Franciscan Studies 31 (1971): 88–177, and S. D. Dumont, “The Univocity of the Concept of Being in the Fourteenth Century: II. The De ente of Peter Thomae,” Mediaeval Studies 50 (1988): 186–256, esp. 193, 218–21, 238–47. For the position of Gerard of Bologna, see Brown, S. F., “Gerard of Bologna's Quodlibet I, qu. 1: On the Analogy of Being,” Carmelus 31 (1984): 143–79. For a defense of Aureoli's position, see Boulnois, O., “Une question inédite sur l'univocité,” Archives d'Histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen-âge (AHDL) 60 (1993): 293–331.Google Scholar

³ Commentariorum in I Sententiarum pars prima, auctore Petro Aureolo Verberio, O.M. (Rome, 1596) and Buytaert, Peter Aureoli, Scriptum, 2:471–523.Google Scholar

⁴ Valois, N., “Pierre Auriol, Frère Mineur” in Histoire littéraire de la France (Paris, 1886), 33:527.Google Scholar

⁵ Dreiling, R., Der Konzeptualismus in der Universalienlehre des Franziskanererzbischofs Petrus Aureoli, BGPhMA 11/6 (Münster, 1913), 214–17.Google Scholar

⁶ Valois, “Pierre Auriol,” 500–01.Google Scholar

⁷ J. a Trittenhem, Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (Cologne, 1581), fol. 101v; Dreiling, Der Konzeptualismus, 20, n. 6.Google Scholar

⁸ Birkenmajer, A., Vermischte Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, BGPhMA 20/5 (Münster, 1922), 220–25.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Pelster's, F. review of Birkenmajer's book in Theologische Revue 23 (1924), 448ff. The manuscript he pointed to is cod. 292 in the library of St. Anthony in Padua.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Pelster, F., “Estudios sobre la transmisión manuscrita de algunas obras de Pedro Aureoli O.F.M. († 1322),” Estudios eclesiásticos 9 (1930): 462–79; 10 (1931): 449–74.Google Scholar

¹¹ A. Maier (“Zu einigen Sentenzenkommentaren des 14. Jahrhunderts,” in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 51 [1958], 371), says that Pelster overlooked the fact that the endings differ. This contradicts Pelster's own words (“Estudios” 466). Pelster's article was already written before he had a chance to see Borghese cod. ms. 123. Before the article was printed, however, he had the time to jot down what he considered the essentials, noted the difference in endings, added a list of question-titles from book 1, and did not push the matter further.Google Scholar

¹² Maier, A., “Literarhistorische Notizen über Petrus Aureoli, Durandus und den ‘Cancellarius,’” Gregorianum 29 (1948): 218–20.Google Scholar

¹³ Maier, “Zu einigen Sentenzenkommentaren,” 269–93.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The prologue and distinctions 1–8 have been edited in a new edition, based mainly on Vat. lat. cod. 329: Buytaert, Peter Aureoli. Scriptum (n. 1 above).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ehrle, F., Historia Bibliothecae Romanorum Pontificum tum Bonifatianae tum Avenionensis (Rome, 1890), 1:319.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Maier, A., Codices Burghesiani Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Studi e Testi, 170 (Vatican City, 1952), 161.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Maier, “Zu einigen Sentenzenkommentaren,” 369–409.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Pelster, “Estudios sobre la transmisión,” 469–79.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Minciotti, L., Catalogo dei Codici manoscritti esistenti nella Biblioteca di Sant’ Antonio di Padova (Padua, 1842), 83 and A. Iosa, I Codici manoscritti della Biblioteca Antoniana (Padua, 1886), 185.Google Scholar

²⁰ Maier, A., “Zu einigen Sentenzenkommentaren,” 392–93.Google Scholar

²¹ This argument from style and format is based on a parallel argument concerning the redaction problem of book 3 of Aureoli's Sentences formulated by V. Heynck in his review of L. Rosato's Doctrina de immaculata B.V.M. conceptione secundum Petrum Aureoli in Franziskanische Studien 41 (1959), 433.Google Scholar

²² Maier indicated that she did not examine the tabula quaestionum of Toulouse, cod. 243 herself, but accepted Pelster's declaration that the table corresponds to the Padua and Berlin manuscripts. The tabula quaestionum for all four books is found in Toulouse, cod. 243, fols. 124r^b–127v^b. The date, partially erased but readable, is found on fol. 127v^b. A comparison of the tabulae of Borghese, cod. 123 and Toulouse, cod. 243 reveals their independence. The number and type of variants attest to this independence.Google Scholar

²³ See, e.g., dist. 3, q. 4 (fol. 56v^b): “Responsio. Hic fuit magna pugna inter Hieronymum et Augustinum, et hoc in duobus punctis. Primus punctus erat quoad licentiam legalium, utrum fuerint statim post Pentecosten prohibita. Et dicebat Hieronymus quod sic …” (lacuna of six lines). Then: “Sed Augustinus contra eum, quia …” (lacuna of about 45 lines). (Cf. IV Sent. [ed. 1605], 45^b). In dist. 12, p. 2, q. 1 (fol. 79r^a) the case is the same: “Sed oppositum est, quia sensus attingit illa accidentia separata, igitur et intellectus, quia plus potest quam sensus …” (lacuna equal to 27 lines of omitted text: cf. ibid., 114^ab). Here, then, are the same kind of omissions and blanks in a reportatio manuscript. Other instances of such omissions may be found in fols. 62v^b, 63v^a, 66v^a, 113r^a. In the printed edition of 1605 these blanks and omissions are not present. Our search, however, does show that reportatio manuscripts of Aureoli do have similar omissions.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Buytaert, E., Peter Aureoli. Scriptum, 1:xviii-xxi.Google Scholar

²⁵ One important question to be examined is the date of the Reportatio on books 1 and 2 found in Vat. lat. cod. 6768. Maier, using the Quodlibet of Wylton as a measure, has set it after 1316 at Paris. Is her argument solid? Does its location in a codex with a number of Bologna masters not rather point to its earlier origin when Aureoli himself was at Bologna (1312)? Also, why does this text find itself used in the Berlin and Padua manuscripts after distinction 32?Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Buytaert, Peter Aureoli. Scriptum, 2:469–523.Google Scholar

²⁷ Padua, Bibl. di Università, cod. 1580, fols. 167r–79r; Padua, Bibl. di Sant’ Antonio, cod. 173, fols. 47r–49r. The latter manuscript does not give the complete text.Google Scholar

²⁸ Pelster says that Cardinal Ehrle told him that he had heard of another manuscript at Wolfenbüttel. The librarian there says no such work exists. Maier also indicated in correspondence that she was unable to track down this manuscript.Google Scholar

²⁹ Maier, , Codices Burghesiani (n. 16 above), 161.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ehrle, , Historia Bibliothecae Romanorum Pontificum (n. 15 above), 1:319.Google Scholar

³¹ Maier, “Zu einigen Sentenzenkommentaren,” 374–76.Google Scholar

³² Cf. Minciotti, Catalogo dei Codici, 83; Iosa, I Codici (n. 19 above), 185.Google Scholar

³³ Cod. 572, fol. 16: “Item, primus Aureoli super sententias cum tabulis copertus corio albo.” The catalogue dates from 1397.Google Scholar

³⁴ The lacunae are found on fols. 31v^b–32r^a, fols. 58v^b and 73v^a.Google Scholar

^a Petrus Lombardus Sententiae in IV libris distinctae 1, dist. 2, cap. 1 (ed. I. Brady [Grottaferrata, 1971], 1:2, 61). Cf. Augustinus De Trinitate 1.2.4 (PL 42:822; CCL 50:31).Google Scholar

^b Aristot. Praedicamenta 4.1b25–28.Google Scholar

^c Aristot. Metaph. 4.2.1003a32–b12.Google Scholar

^d Aristot. Metaph. 5.7.1017a23–29.Google Scholar

^e Aristot. Physica 1.2.185a20–23.Google Scholar

^f Aristot. Metaph. 5.1.1012b34–1013a20.Google Scholar

^g Aristot. Metaph. 5.1.1012b34–1013a20.Google Scholar

^h Aristot. Metaph. 5.1.1013a17–19.Google Scholar

ⁱ Aristot. Physica 1.3.186a10–15.Google Scholar

^j Aristot. Metaph. 5.2.1013a24–35.Google Scholar

^k Aristot. Anal. Poster. 1.4.73b32–74a3.Google Scholar

^l Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 12, com. 4 (ed. Iuntina [Venice, 1562–74], 8:292DE).Google Scholar

^m Aristot. De anima 3.8.431b20–23.Google Scholar

ⁿ August. De Trinitate 15.2.nn. 2–3 (PL 42:1057–58; CCL 50A:462).Google Scholar

^o Avicenna Metaph. 1.6 (ed. S. Van Riet, 1:31–32; ed. Venetiis, , 1508, fol. 72r^b): “Dicemus igitur quod res et ens et necesse talia sunt quod statim imprimuntur in anima prima impressione, quae non acquiritur ex aliis notioribus se, sicut credulitas quae habet prima principia …”Google Scholar

^p Aristot. Physica 1.1.184a 17–21.Google Scholar

^q Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 12, com. 51 (ed. Iuntina, 8:337AB).Google Scholar

^r Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 12, com. 2 (Ibid., 8:291HI).Google Scholar

^s Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 10, com. 8 (Ibid., 8:257FG).Google Scholar

^t Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 3, com. 10 (Ibid., 8:49BC).Google Scholar

^u Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 3, com. 10 (Ibid., 8:49BC).Google Scholar

^v Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 5, com. 14 (Ibid, 8:117G).Google Scholar

^w Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 4, com. 2 (Ibid., 8:66DE).Google Scholar

^x Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^y Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^z Cf. Duns Scotus, Ioannes Ordinatio 1, dist. 3, p. 1, q. 3 nn. 131–33 (ed. Vaticana, 3:81–83).Google Scholar

^a2 Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^b2 Cf. Aristot, . Physica 3.4.249a22–23.Google Scholar

^c2 Aristot. Historia Animalium 1.6.491a19–24.Google Scholar

^d2 Aristot. Metaph. 10.2.1053b28–33.Google Scholar

^e2 Aristot. Metaph. 4.4.1006b8.Google Scholar

^f2 Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^g2 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 3, com. 10 (ed. Iuntina, 8:49BC).Google Scholar

^h2 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 3, com. 10 (Ibid., 8:49B-D).Google Scholar

ⁱ² Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^j2 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 3, com. 10 (ed. Iuntuna, 8:49B-D).Google Scholar

^k2 Aristot. Metaph. 7.13.1039ab.Google Scholar

^l2 Aristot. Metaph. 9.1.1045b35.Google Scholar

^m2 Cf. Duns Scotus, Ioannes Ordinatio 1, dist. 3, p. 1, q. 3, nn. 134–36 (ed. Vaticana, 3:83–85).Google Scholar

ⁿ² Aristot. Metaph. 7.1.1028b14.Google Scholar

^o2 Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^p2 Cf. Duns Scotus, Ioannes Ordinatio 1, dist. 3, p. 1, q. 3, n. 161 (ed. Vaticana, 3:99–100).Google Scholar

^q2 Cf. Duns Scotus, Ioannes Ordinatio 1, dist. 3, p. 1, q. 3, nn. 132–33, 159–61 (Ibid., 3:81–83, 97–100), et praesertim Ordinatio 2, d. 3, p. 1, qq. 5–6, nn. 170–75 (Ibid., 7:475–78).Google Scholar

^r2 Cf. Andreas, Antonius In Sententias 1, dist. 3, q. 2 (cod. Vat. lat. 1113, fol. 57r^a): “Ad aliam, cum dicitur quod ‘si conceptus entis esset unus unitate determinatae rationis, tunc rationes speciales entium adderent aliquid ei quod non esset, et ita essent nihil’, solutum fuit prius. Dico tamen quod non addunt aliquid differens realiter ab ente; addunt tamen rationes speciales quae sunt aliae a ratione entis non alietate oppositionis vel disparationis sed alietate determinationis et inadequationis, sicut inferius dicitur esse aliud a superiori. Et ex hoc non sequitur quod sint non-ens, quia idem argumentum potest fieri de speciebus respectu generis.”Google Scholar

^s2 Cf. de Alnwick, Guillemus In Primum Sententiarum q. 8 (ed. Stephen D. Dumont, Mediaeval Studies 49 (1987), 69–70: “Ad hoc ad primam probationem, cum dicitur omne univocum ad aliqua seipso non descendit in illa, dicendum quod verum est ‘seipso’ in universali accepto, sed vel per differentias vel per modos intrinsecos perfectionis, qui non sunt proprie aliqua addita enti sed gradus intrinseci entis.” Cf. etiam Antonius Andreas Quaestiones subtilissimae super duodecim libros Metaphysicae Aristotelis 1, q. 1, a. 3 (ed. Venetiis, 1495), fol. 3v^b: “Sed hoc non obstante conveniunt in aliquo conceptu reali imperfecto et inadequato realitati, cuiusmodi conceptus entis qui ut sic abstrahitur ab omni modo intrinseco realitatis Dei et creaturae qui sunt finitum et infinitum. Unde conceptus entis formaliter non est finitus nec infinitus positive, sed communis utrique, abstrahens ab utroque.” Cf. etiam Ioannes Duns Scotus Ordinatio 1, dist. 8, p. 1, q. 3, nn. 108, 139–50 (ed. Vaticana, 4:202–03, 222–27).Google Scholar

^t2 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 2, com. 11 (ed. Iuntina, 8:33KL).Google Scholar

^u2 Aristot. Metaph 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^v2 Aristot. Metaph. 8.3.1043b28–33.Google Scholar

^w2 Avicenna Metaph. 5.6 (ed. Van Riet, 2:281; ed. Venetiis, ., fol. 90v^a).Google Scholar

^x2 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 10, com. 1 (ed. Iuntina, 8:250AB).Google Scholar

^y2 Averroes In Aristot. De anima 1, com. 8 (ed. F. S. Crawford [Cambridge, MA, 1953], 12).Google Scholar

^z2 Averroes In Aristot. De anima 1, com. 8 (Ibid., 12).Google Scholar

^a3 Avicenna Metaph. 5.2 (ed. S. Van Riet, 2:245; ed. Venetiis, , fol. 87v^b).Google Scholar

^b3 Aristot. Metaph. 4.1.1003a21–22.Google Scholar

^c3 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 4, com. 1 et 2 (ed. Iuntina, 8:64D-65G).Google Scholar

^d3 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 9, com. 1 (Ibid., 8:226A).Google Scholar

^e3 Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^f3 Aristot. Topica 6.6.144a9.Google Scholar

^g3 Aristot. Anal. Poster. 1.4.73a37–73b5.Google Scholar

^h3 Aristot. Topica 6.6.144a9.Google Scholar

ⁱ³ Avicenna Metaph. 5.6 (ed. Van Riet, 2:281; Venetiis, fol. 90v^a).Google Scholar

^j3 Avicenna Metaph. 5.5 (ed. Van Riet, 2:269; Venetiis, fol. 89v^a).Google Scholar

^k3 Avicenna Metaph. 5.5 (ed. Van Riet, 2:269; Venetiis, fol. 89v^a).Google Scholar

^l3 Aristot. Praedicamenta 5.3b 10–17.Google Scholar

^m3 Aristot. Anal. Poster. 1.4.73a37–73b5.Google Scholar

ⁿ³ Ibid.Google Scholar

^o3 Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–27.Google Scholar

^p3 Aristot. Metaph. 9.8.1049b4–1051a3.Google Scholar

^q3 Aristot. Metaph. 3.3.998b23–37.Google Scholar

^r3 Liber de causis prop. 5 (6), nn. 57 et 61 (ed. A. Pattin, Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 28 [1966], 147–48): “Causa prima superior est omni narratione…. Quod est quia narratio non fit nisi per loquelam, et loquela per intelligentiam, et intelligentia per cogitationem, et cogitatio per meditationem, et meditatio per sensum. Causa autem prima est supra res omnes, quoniam est causa eis; propter illud ergo fit quod ipsa non cadit sub sensu et meditatione et cogitatione et intelligentia et loquela; non est ergo narrabilis.”Google Scholar

^s3 Pseudo-Dionysius De divinis nominibus 1, n. 5 (PG 3:594): “Illam igitur divinam supraquam substantiam quodcunque est illa supraquam essentia bonitatis, quae supra bonitatem est….”Google Scholar

^t3 Aristot. Anal. Poster. 1.2.72a28–29.Google Scholar

^u3 Aristot. Metaph. 2.1.993b30–31.Google Scholar

^v3 Averroes In Aristot. De anima 3, com. 19 (ed. Crawford, 441).Google Scholar

^w3 Augustinus De Trinitate 8.3 (CCL 50:272; PL 42:949).Google Scholar

^x3 Eustratius In Aristot. Ethicorum 4 (ed. H. Paul F. Merken, The Greek Commentaries on the Nicomachaean Ethics of Aristotle [Leiden, 1973] 1:49–50).Google Scholar

^y3 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 12, com. 51 (ed. Iuntina, 8:337AB).Google Scholar

^z3 Averroes In Arist. Metaph. 12, com. 36 (Ibid., 8:318B-319D).Google Scholar

^a4 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 12, com. 51 (Ibid., 8:337AB).Google Scholar

^b4 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 12, com. 36 (Ibid., 8:318F–319D).Google Scholar

^c4 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 12, com. 18 (Ibid., 8:305DE).Google Scholar

^d4 Aristot. Metaph. 1.9.990a33–993a10.Google Scholar

^e4 Averroes In Aristot. Metaph. 13, com. 4–5 (1078b7–1080a12).Google Scholar

^f4 Aristot. Metaph. 13.4–5.1078b–1080a 12.Google Scholar

^g4 Aristot., Metaph. 14.1–6.1087a28–1093b29.Google Scholar

^h4 Extravagantes 1.1.2 (ed. A. Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, 2:, col. 6–7); Enchiridion Symbolorum [ed. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 1976], 433): “Reprobamus etiam et condemnamus perversissimum dogma impii Almarici cuius mentem sic pater mendacii excaecavit, ut eius doctrina non tam haeretica censenda sit, quam insana.”Google Scholar