Lectura super Sententias Liber I Distinctiones 3-7

493 Pages·2008·48.632 MB·Latin

by  Walter Chatton, Joseph C. Wey, Girard J. Etzkorn (eds.)

WALTER CHA'ITON
Lectum San [fas
super ren
Liber I, distinctiones 3—7
This volume constitutasthe second of project publish critical cditicmsof
part a to
all the commentariesof Walter Chatton the Sentenmof Peter Lombard. The
on
quartatia Sententia,the written of the Chatton's lectures delivered
Inpar account
during the 1321—1324, publishedby the Institute in Evc-volumcs: Prologm
years was
(1989), Libri I—IV (2002-2005),edited by Hoscph C. ch, and Girard ].
CSB
Etzkorn. The project begunby FathcrWey with his edition of 'the Pmlqgma,fter
was
which he entrustedtypescriptsof the Repartanaond the Utrum togetherWlth docu-
mentationof ProfessorEtzkorn that the project could be continued.
to
sources so
The deura Sententiapxr,esentedhere,is Charton"ssecond
Inpar commenmry.
Chatton commentedonly distinctions 1 through 17 of Book I of the Sentenm.
on
This volume containsdistinctione.3—7T. he of the edition is provide
purpose to
scholarsand historiam of medievalthought with reliable with accompanying
a text
documentatlonthat should allow for evaluationof Chatton's in
an accurate oeuvre
its historical andprovidethe basisfor translationsanddetajledstudies.
context
As in the mmm, Chatton'smain in the baurg PeterAurcoli
opponents are
and William of Ockhamwhose opinions and cited in almost
argumentsare every
questionof distinction. With rcgatd Ockham, it has beenshown that he
every to
and Chatton in the Franciscan friary, either in Londcm in Oxford,
were same Ut
and that Adam Wodeham, while being faithful disciple of Ockham, likcwise
a was
the of Chattonï RqäadatioT.htoughout the Lzmtra,Chattondcfendsthe
reportatur
Opinionof Duns Scotusi,n particular relating the divine
on matters to nature,cssencc,
and and the *principleof mdividuationf
person to
The critical edition adopts the "rationalmethod' establishedby the eminent
medievalist, Victorin Doucet, which is designed retrieve the author's
OFM, to mean-
ing from the surviving manuscripts.The Unum sunrivcsin only manuscripts.
two
The readings of Florencc, Bibl. Nat. Conv. Sappr. C.5.357 [: F] have been
generallyfavored those of Paris,Bibl. Nat. lat. 15, 886 [: A] becausethe Paris
over
manuscriptis omissionsand faulty readings.Mjsreadings,marginal
more prene to
and omissions relegatcd the criticus. References authors
notes are to apparatus to
(someunnamed) thoroughly documentedin the fontium.
are apparatus
STUDIES AND TEXTS 158
WALTER CHATTON
Lectum Sententia:
super
Liber I, distinctiones 3—7
E dited,with intmductz'aonnd lgy
note:,
an
'I'JOSEPH
c. WEV, andGIRARD]. ETZKORN
csn
PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
ACKNOWIEDGEMENTS
This book has been published with the help of from
a gram
the Canadian Federation for the Hmnanitics and Social Scientes,
through the Aid Scholarly Publicatitms Programme, using funda
to
providedby the SocialSciencesand HumaniticsRescarchCouncil of Canada.
LIBRAR? AND ARCHIVES CANADA CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION
Walter, of Chatton, 1285—1343
ca.
Lectum Sententia/s WalterChatton edited,with
super ; an
introductionand byJosephC. ch andGirard]. Etzkorn.
notes,
(Studiesand ISSN 0082—5328156,158)
texts, ;
To be completein 3 vola.
Text in Latin. '
Includesbibliographjcarleferencesandindexes.
Contents: 1.Liber I, distinctlones1—2 [2]. Liber I, distinctiones3—7.
v.
—
ISBN 978—0—8884546——10(bound; 1). ISBN 978—0—88844—158-4
v.
—
(bound: 2)
v.
1. PeterInmbard, Bishop of Paris, 1100—116S0e. ntentianunlibri IV
ca.
.
2. CatholicChurch Doctrines Earlyworks 1800. 3. Theology
to
— — —
Early works 1800. I. Wey,]osephC. II. Etzkom, Girard].
to
III. Pontifical Institute of MediaevalStudjes. IV. Title. V. Series:
Studjes and (Pontifical Institute of MediaevalStudjcs) 156, 158.
texts ;
B765.P3384620073 23012 2007—901385—6
BX1749*
C 2008
PontäïmIlmdtu)?qfMedicamS! tudia:
59Qnam?Pari: ClemenEt m
Tamnta,Ontaria,CanadaM55' 2C4
www.pims.ca
PRINTED IN CANADA
Contents
Introduction
vu
GUALTER] DE CHA'ITON,
()FM
deura SententiaL: iber I, distinctiones3—7
Inpar
Distinctio 3
Q. 1: Utrum rationalis sit habetealiquem universalem
creatura nata conceptum
Deo ?
communem et creaturae
Q. 2: Utrum aliquis communissit univocusDeo 70
conceptus et creaturae
Q..3: Utrum viator possitconcipereDeum quiditativoDei 713
conceptu
Q. 4: Utrum Deum sit naturaliterviatori 176
esse per senotum
Q. 5: Utrum sit obiectumadacquatumintellectusnostri 200
ens
Q. 6: Utrum primacognitiointellectusviatorissit cognitiopropriasingularis
275
Q. 7: Utrum entissit prima cognitiointellectusprimitate
conceptus
generationis236
Q. 8: Utrum imaginisplus differant vestigii 259
partes quampartes
Distinctio 4
Q. 1: Utrum Deus Deum 239
generet
.
Q. 2: Utrum haecsit 'Deus Pater Filius SpiritusSanctus' 3H
vera est et et
Distinctio 5
Q. 1: Utrum essentia vel 325
generet generetur
Q. 2: Utrum Filius de substantiaPatris 340
generetur
Q. 3: Utrum prius sit divina producta cognita
natura persona quamcreatura
357
Distinctio 6
Q. unica:Utrum Patergenuit Filium voluntate vel naturali necessitate369
Distinctio 7
Q. 1: Utrum essentiadivina sit potentiagenerandi 393
Q. 2: Utrum Filius possit 418
generare
Appendix 437
Bibliography 438
Indexes
Auctore; Sa'þta 443
et
Domina 445

Introduction
Walter Chatton born around 1285 in the town of Chatton in Northurnbria. He
was
Ordet of FriarsMnor early The biographicailtem has
mtcred the at an age. next
ordained subdcaconby john of Halton, Bishop of Carlislein 1307.
him being
&
During his Erst setof lecturus(1321—1323c)a, lledthe chartaäa,on the Sentenmof
Lombatd, it is probable that he togetherwith Wllliam of Ockham and the
Peter
latter's noteworthydisciple,Adam Wodcham, togetherin the Franciscan
most were
Laudum] Presumably, this time, both Ockham and Chatton
Smdl'm in
at were
wniüng their "rums" to be regent mastersat the University of Oxford. For Ock-
this materia.]jzesdincehe summoned Avignon in 1324under
ham, to
never was
auspiciumof holding and possiblyhereticaldoctrinas.There.is other
erroneous one
itcm which can be.added to Chatton's biography.It seemsthat he and another
unidendfledEnim: accusedof wid'lholding pair of booksfrom their rightful
were &
clerk named de Penteth. Chatton and the werden of the Oxford Elim
owner, a
representedtheir communityregardmgthis charge the Mayor's March
at court on
28 1330.2Walter Chatton becamethe Efty—thirdFranciscau
regent master at
Oxford in 1330?In all likeljhood,the questionsof the[Adam Fromtheperiod
stem
of 1323—132p4rior Chatton's rt.":gtmcyT.4he of his (1333—1343)
to rest carcer was
in Avignon where he scrved examine:of the wüu'ng'sof Thomas
spem as an
Waleys,O.P. andDurand of St. Pourgajnunder PopesBenedictXII and Clement
VI. The latter appointcdhim the Welsh Seeof St. Asaph, dünldng that the
to
incumbentDavid of Bley'tlmhad clied.Walter Chatton,however,died late in 1343
beforethe Secof St.Asaphhad becomevacant5
Apparcntly,Chatton'sviews the efflcacyof the pcrdurcd for
sacraments
on
time.,according historiamof the Council of Trent: "The 'sacramental
some to an
argument',that is, certitudebased the objectivecfEcacyof the had
a on sacramenta,
actuallybeenhinted by the earlyscholasticsf,rom Anselm of Laon and Peter
at.
..
1. Ser:Gedeon Gäl and Stephen Brown, "Introductio," in Ockham, SummalogicaeO, Ph
I, 53*—55*W. illiam Caunemy has suæestedthat Oxford might be the Elim where
pp.
Ockham, Wodeham, and Chatton residjng: W.]. Comensy, "Ockham, Chatton and
were see
theLanden Studium,i"n Die GæenwaOü ckbmx,cd. Wilhelm VosscnkuhlandRolf Schönber-
(Weinhcim:VCH Acta Humaniom,1990), 327—337.
gcr pp.
2. AB. EundemA, Bingrapbicnag! l'n'ertif tbaUnivmfy qf 0394er A.D. 7500(Londün:
m
Oxford University Press, 1957—1959),1: 395. I wish thanks Dr Rondo
to express my to
Kat]: for uning attention this biographicalitem.
my to
3. A.G. Littlc, TbeGngFyrian in Oag'är(dOxforcl:ClaxmdonPrcss,1892), 60, 170.
pp.
4. Cf. W.] CourtenayA, damWadebmA: n Iamdudian Hi: Lg/äandWdüng:(Leiden:
ta
.
Btill, 1978) 66—74fo; r datingChattnn'sUdura for the 1323—1324,
pp. a.::gumcnts years see
SP. Bmwn,
"Walter Chatton'sLszra and William of Ockham'sQnaerffanuin Iljbm: Pyd-
Micha," in Eng: HamrfngAllanB. Waltere; d.William A. Frank and Girard]. Etz-
m
kom
(St.BonaventuraN, ? andscan Institute,1985), 81—115e,specially 92.
: pp. p.
5. Cf. I.C. Brady,"Walter of Chatton," in NewCatba/iEr ngckpcdia1, 5vois. (New 1in::urkz
McGraw—Hill,
1967),14: 788.
VIII INTRODUCTI ON
Lombatd, but it only developedafter 1300by the Dominicam Peterdc Palude
was
and Durandus de S. Porciano. It fully worked and integratcd in the
was out
scholastictradition by the FranciscansWalter of Chatton and Anfrcd Gc-ntta-ri.Ha
The Present Edition
This volume contains Walter Chatton's Larum: his second the
or conmentary on
Saureamof PeterLombard. The first volume of Chatton's theologicalworks, edited
by joscph C. Wey, contajncdthe prologuewhich is the for both the Reponatia
same
and the Udura. The Repadatiae,dited by Fathcr ch and myself publishedin
was
four volumes (2002—2005a)n, d the precedingvolume of the baurg, containing
book I distinctions1—2a, ppearedin 2007?For the descriptionof the manuscripts
usedin the volume, Fr. Wey'sintroduction the Erst volume."
present see to
Regardjngthe manuscriptsfor thesedisdncüonsof the Lamia, it should be
noted that the Pariscodex,ParisBibl. Nat. lat. 15,886[: A] cndsin the middle of
paragraph20 uf distinction 7 question 1. In the disdnctions contained in this
volume,there 72 omissionsby homoioteleutonin manuscriptA comparcd
to
are
19 such omissions in codex Florence, Bibl. Naz. Conv. Soppr. C.5.357 [: P]. In
general,the readingsof F qualitativelybetter and hance the readingsof this
are
manuscdpthave beenpreferred.The Paris manuscript,for example,consistendy
wütes *tres' Where the meaning clearly requires 'tenninus' Lest there bc
any
misunderstandmgin, this volume in previouseditions havefollowedwhat the
as we
eminent medievalist Victotin Doucct called the 'rational method', namer
a
consistenteffort establishthe mtelligibile according the mind and
to most text to
intcnt of the author.Conscqucntly, times haveselectedthe readingsof the
at we
Florencemanuscript.s,ometimesthe rcadingsof the Parismanuscript.
As confirmation although hardly needed for the authenticityof Ock-
&
— —
ham's.S'mjbtuimn I Sent.C, hattoncitesthe 'Saiptumi'n paragraph26 of distinction 3
question 3. Walter frequently refers his Prologue the .S'mtemwby
to to
own
explicitlyusingtheword *Pmlaguf frequentintervalla?
at
Some of Chatton's Views in their Historical Context
As he did pravicauslyinr his ReþodatiaW, alter Chatton regularly his Lectum
pattcms
according parallel of PeterAureoli and Wüliam of Ockham.In the
to treatments
Erst questionof this volume, Chatton prima facie dealwith the
purports to
very
6. Hubertjcdin, HirtegvqftbeCaumiq/ uænt, E. Graf (London:T. Ndson, 1957-
trans.
1961)2: 251.
7. WalterChatton,Medad!) udum .ïentmtiarC: alidioadLibrumprimum Pmlogm,
:! uper :!
ed.JosephC. Wey (T PontificalInstitute of MediaevaSl tudies,1989).Walter Charmi],
Dromo:
Ræortaiïa SententiaL:iberI. dxl'hïm'ian1a—r 9and 10—43e,d.jaseph C. 1376a)!nd Giraxd].
ngber
Etzkom, 2 1:015(.Toronto: Pontilical Institute of MediaevalSmdjcs,2002);Ranrwia Sen-
Itque:-
tmhhx:LiberH (Pomum: PontiflcalInstitute of Mcdiaafal Studics,2004);Walia .ngt-eSrer:-
tanfiarL:ibri IH—IV(Tarento:PnntiiicalInstituteof McdievaSl tadius2, 005);Liminau: perSemm-
l'zhrL, iberI, Martianus1! —2(T Pontifice]Instituteof MediaevaSl tudia, 2007).
Dromo:
B.SecChatton,Rgbonariaunum- .S'entenhhr,4—8.
ut ngbar
pp.
9. Cf. infra, dist. 9, q.1, 6, B;dist. 10, q.1, n.78;d1'5t. 11, 2, 17.
nn. q. n.
INTROD [' CTION IX
question of univocity, inherited if will from Scatus,viz. whether þamaviatorhas
you
univocal attributable and Güd. However, the entire First
concept to creaturas
a
article dcaJswith the defensaand justiEcation of what has be known
to
come as
Chatton's proposition anti-razor, namely that where 'things'
or two are not
sufficient 'explain' situation.then third 'thing" is requiredand if this
to a & proves
insufücient,then forth is requiredand Forthl" The remaindcrof article 1 Gf
a so
question 1 of distinction 3 is devotcd the justiücatiün of Chatton's position
to
regardingthe extra-mcntalreality of relationsin opposition Ockham'sviews
to to
the [n dcfcnceof his opinion, Chatton mulu'plies from
contrary. argumenta reason
and authority,includingthe invokjng of numberof propositionscondemnedby
a
StephenTempierin 1277.As havepreviouslynoted,Ockham summoned
we was
provincia] chapter of the.Friars Minor in 1323 wherein he required
to a was to
justify his position telations." It be indeedlikely that Chatton instru-
on may was
mentzl in inauguxatingthis 'summons.'In article 2 Gf distinctinn 3, author
our
tacklesopposingviews of the of viz. Peter Aurenlj's nodon of the
nature concepts,
abiectiwmand Ockham's view of the affixa, both of
concept as 311.m: concept as
whom be defendingthe divine simplicity and immutability against
may seenas a
plurality of divine *ideasfIn the light of Chatton'scriticismsof the fdum' theory,
Ockhamchanged(it would prior Chatton'sUriam) his view of the
seem ta concept
and consideredit be quality of the mind, i.c. having subjecliveexistenceI.t is
to &
only in article 3 of distinction 3 question 1 that Chatton finally around
gets to
defending univocity together With darilications of his vicws of sigm'Ecationand
supposition.In question2 of distinction 3, Walter dcalswith the problem
to
as
whetherthere be univocal and God whereinhe
can & conceptcommon to creaturas
the position of Aureoli who denjessuch univoca] and whetcin
opposes a concept
Walter seeks reflua Ockham's notions defending univocity and in 211of this
to
favon'ngthe opinion of Duns Scotus.
Question 3 of distinction 3 takes such *thorny' issues what of
up as to sort per
predicationis applicable Gad, Wl'lichhe takes in detailin the
se to up greater next
—
questionof distinction 3 againstthe viewsof PeterAureoli andWillimn of Ockham
plus the possibility of the blessedin heavcn having vision of the godhead
a
—
without having vision of in the godhcadand Enally how deal with
a persons to
paralogismussternmingfrom trying apply Aristotelian syllogistic the divinity,
to to
for example *the divine is the Ferber; the. divine is the Son;
essence esscncc
thereforethe Fatheris the Snnf Apparently,this led medievaltheologiam
to
some
advocata 'Früütadan lügic.'12Chatton again invokcs his anti-tazor principle in
a
paragraph65 of this questionand again his of the extra-mental
rcturns to support
realityof relationsin paragraphs60, 152—157.
10. Cf. Rondo Keclc, Fama! Onfalagin tb: FaudeantCb entumTbsCbatranPn'ncg'balned
OckhamR? azprP, hD dissertationI,ndianaUniversity Bloomington,2002.
—
11. Cf. Girard ]. Etzkom, "Ockham Provincial ChaptenA Preludc Avignon,"
at a to
Anbivum FrancfxcanuHmidarimm 83 (1990): 557—567T. his article is full of typographical
I giventhe opportunity reviewtheproofs.
errürsas wasnot to
12.Cf. H.G. Gelber,[Agit andtheTrinfgvA: Clafbqf Vahmin SabamaT":baugbg7.500—
1335,PhD dissertaiion,University of Wisconsin,1974.
X INTRODUCTION
In the subsequenqtuestionChattontacklesthe difEcultproblemregardmgthe
intellectualknowledgeof singulus, Erst in opposition Ockham and secondly
to
against the vicws of Aurcoli. Ockham claimcd that in this life have
we can
intellectualknowledgeof singdarsbecausethe EIStintellectualknowledge Erst
as
generatedis intuitive knowledgeof extra-mcntal.remibileIf. that the
an some were
Chatton,then would need In his lengthy
case,retorta we not our senses. response,
author makes *obliquc' allusion what consider be 1122]
our an to some to a
distinction betweenthe soul's intellectualand sensitiva It is well known
pawem.
that Ockham, in departurefrom his pdnciple, posited souls in
a rare raznr two
ratione]and sensitivasaul.Chattonalludes this distinctly in distinction
man,a a to
3 question7 where.Ockham Scotus.Regardingthe intellectae.k! nawledgc
opposes
of singulas,PeterAureoli held that the intellectcould distinguishbetween
not two
individuis altogethersimilarand thus posited '.ringulamvagani, tion he
a & 110 may
have inheritcd from Henry of Ghent, In his reply, Walter alludcs
to an argument
which had become proverbia], namely that if this then couldn't love
were so, we an
individual.His Enal is that have individual
response we can a conceptproper to an
by of description.In arguinghe dismisscstangentiallythe view that
way a proper so
individualis 'formally*distinct by 'collection' of accidents.
are a
In the lastquestionof distinction3 dealingwith man's intcllectandwill
mcmory,
the imagoDei,the 'incvitable'questionadses whetherthe faculties potencies
as asto or
of the saul somehowdistinct from anotherand from the scu].As might be
are one
acpected,Chatton sidesWith Scotus'sformel distinction.Ockham had criticizcd
Scotus'sview and thoughpositing soulsin the VenerableInceptor claimed
two man,
that the intellect than the saul 'intellecting'and the will than
wasno more 1:10more
the soul willing. Chatton by noting that 'Me/lama valmtafis
rctorts m not per se
predication doesthe deEnitionof the intellectincludethe deünition of the Will.
nor
Likewise, this does accord well with Ockhamä claim that there 50:quin
nor are two
Chattonalso that experiencecertainactivitiesof the saul occum'ng
man. wars we as
in certainbodily for example expcdenceintellection occurting in the
organa, we as
haadand in the foot. Article 2 of flüs questionis devoted how the saul is
not to
related knowing andwilling, wherefrve opinions cited, of Wlüchsalvage
to are none
God.
man'sbeing the imageof Chattonconcludesby sayingthat While
memory,
intellectand will identica], this does that they really
ate not per se yet not mean are
distinct. His preferredphmseologyi,t would is that there is non-formal
seem, a
identitybetweenthe of the.saulandtheirrelation the saulitself.
powers to
In distinction 4 question 1, emitled "UtrumDeu: Deum', author Erst
generat
our
dcemsit elucidatcthe various madesof supposition and signilication
necessaryto
in opposition, typically, William of Ockham. In the question,seekjng
to next to
avoid positing 'fourth thing' in the divinity which he believesimplicit in the
a
opinion of Ockham,Chatton adducasthe homely exampleof th.:cc-sided
a stone
with threedifferentimages its sides.
on
In the Efth distinctiondealingwith 'generationi'n the divinity, Chattonagain
defends the views of Scotus which Ockham clajmed have rcfutcd. However,
to
with regard the principles of generation,Henry of Ghent used the 'analogy'
to
Whercbythe divine is regarded 'qua-materiæwhich Ockham ridiculed
essence as
sayingthat might just well that the Godheadis *qumf—wfnmInf the last
one as say
INTRODUCTION X]
question of distinction 5, Chatton deals with the various mades of priority
mentionedby Aristodc in the Categoria whether they apply the diviniry ad
as to to
and ad
infra to creaturas exim.
In distinction 6, Chattondivideshis in lessthan dubiadealjng
treatment ten
me
principallywith divinegenerationadintra.Most if all theologiamof the period
not
sought avoid real distinetion between intellect and will in defencc
to any memory,
of the simplicity of the divine In this distinction, might be expected,
esscnce. as
Chatton seeks refute and/or refme the opinions of William of Ockham and
to
Aurcoli. In distmction 7, the discussioncontinuas regardingthe divine
Peter
pro-
ductive (potentiaa)d intra.Becausethe Son does this does
power not generata, not
imply impotency in the Son, but rather that generation is appropriately
any not
ascribed the second of the Trinjty. Typically Chatton sceks dcfend
to person to
Scatusandrcfute refinethe of PeterAurcoli andWilliamof Ockham.
or arguments
A rathercuriousphcnomcnon in the last questionof this volume,
occurs very
viz. question2 of distinction 7. A of four adducedin effort
set argumentsare an to
explain why the Son does have active generative and avoid
not an power to
positing fourth in the Trinity. The first that in the Fathcr,
& person argumentstates
the generativa is exhaustcd.1T3he second maintajnsthat this
powcr argument
generativa is always and adequate of genürmzing.TMhese
powcr constant an power
actuallytaken from Henry of Ghent, although secondhand in
two argumentaare a
the mrgin attributesthe Erst the SubdcDoctor. While this attribution
argumentto
is clearlymistaken,Chatton's explanationof the would
two arguments appearto
indicatethat he is attempting give them favorableintcrpretation, which is
to a not
surpn'singif he considered them be the view of Scotus, given Chatton's
to
penchantfor supportingthe opinionsof the SubtleDoctor. Actually,Scotusattacks
these both in his RqoadatiaPadxienxiIx—A and in his Quodlibet,
two arguments
question2, have pointed in the footnotes. (Cf. Dist. 7 2 50—51.)
as we aut C]. nn.
The third of the four is definitcly the opinion of Scotushjmself.I have
arguments
beenable identify the author of the fourth We led wonder
not to argument. are to
if perhapsin this Chatton is heii- faulty unclear tradition, which
case to a or text
would be odd given the fact that he is lecturing decadesafter the dcath of
two
Scotus.Pcrhaps the eventualidentiücation of the author of the fourth
argument
will throw light the problem.
on
In conclusion,I would be remissifI did mention indebtcdness JosephC.
not to
my
Wey, who pioneeredthe works of Chatton with his edition of the Prologue
CSB
to
the Sentenrea:nd kindly handcd the transcriptions of the Rgparratia
over to me as
well the baurg with helpful annotationsand suæestionsI. would likewiscthank
as
ProfessorThereseDruart,]ack andFranccsZupko and Gordon andLinda Wilson
who various times hosts I sought documentthe refcrred
at were my as to sources
by Walter Chatton.
to
13. Henrici de Gandavo, Summa, 54, 8 (reprint of 1520 Paris ed. Franciscan
art.
q.
Institute Publications, 1953),2: fol. 101rE.
14. Ibidu fo]. 101rF.