Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:15:22.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adam Wodeham on Sensory Illusions with an Edition of ‘Lectura Secunda,’ Prologus, Quaestio 3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Rega Wood
Rega Wood*
Affiliation:
The Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the third question of the Prologue to his Lectura secunda, Adam Wodeham asks whether intuitive cognition can be naturally produced or conserved when its object is either non-existent or absent. This question was written in reply to Peter Aureol, and in it Adam argues that Peter's definition of intuitive cognition has skeptical consequences. In fact, as Wodeham knew, Aureol held that intuitive cognition was unerring, and he was arguing not for skepticism, but merely against Scotus' definition of intuitive cognition.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 38 , 1982 , pp. 213 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 213 note 1 Aureoli, Petrus, Scriptum super primum Sententiarum prol. q. 2 a. 4 n. 120 (ed. Buytaert, E.; I [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1952] 209). In this respect Wodeham's attack on Aureol is an interesting anticipation of E. Gilson's attack on William Ockham's theory of intellectual intuition as paving the way for the breakdown of Scholasticism; cf. Gilson, E., The Unity of Philosophical Experience (London 1938) 90–91; id., Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York 1955) 490.Google Scholar

page 213 note 2 Courtenay, W. J., Adam Wodeham (Leiden 1978) 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 213 note 3 Day, S., Intuitive Cognition (St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1947) iii.Google Scholar

page 214 note 4 Duns Scotus, Joannes, Quodlibet VI a. 1 §§ 18–19 (ed. Alluntis, F. [Madrid 1968] 212); Ordinatio II d. 3 p. 2 q. 2 §§ 318–22 (ed. Vaticana VII 552f.).Google Scholar

page 214 note 5 Scotus, , Quodlibet XIII a. 2 § § 27–42 (ed. Alluntis, 455–62; trans. Alluntis, F. and Walter, A., God and Creatures: The Quodlibetal Questions [Princeton, N.J. 1975] 292); Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 12 § 6 (ed. Wadding X 574). Cf. Day, Intuitive Cognition 39–139.Google Scholar

page 214 note 6 Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 45 q. 2 § 12 (ed. Wadding, X 182).Google Scholar

page 214 note 7 Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 45 q. 3 § 17 (ed. Wadding, X 207).Google Scholar

page 214 note 8 Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 8 § 5 (ed. Wadding, X 498).Google Scholar

page 214 note 9 Scotus, Quodlibet VI a. 1 §§ 20–21 (ed. Alluntis, 214f.).Google Scholar

page 214 note 10 Actually in this context Scotus prefers to speak of cognition ‘citra intuitivam.’ Cf. Quodlibet VII a. 2 §§ 19–23 (ed. Alluntis, 257–63): De quocumque obiecto scientiae potest haberi cognitio simpliciter distinctissima abstractiva obiecti citra intuitivam; Deus autem est per se obiectum alicuius scientiae; ergo de ipso potest haberi talis notitia distinctissima citra intuitivam et per consequens propositum; quia illa non ponerat aliquem extra statum viae, et tamen virtualiter et evidenter est includens omnes veritates necessarias de Deo.Google Scholar

page 215 note 11 I will be chiefly concerned with question 2 of Aureol's, Peter prologue, in which he asks whether God can confer a light by means of which theological truths could be known scientifically, since it is in that question that Aureol treats Scotus’ distinction between abstract and intuitive cognition at greatest length: Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 3–4 (ed. Buytaert, esp. I 197, 211f.). Cf. Dreiling, R., Konzeptualismus in der Universalienlehre des Franzis-kanerbishofs Petrus Aureoli (BGPhMA XI 6; Münster i. W. 1913).Google Scholar

page 215 note 12 Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 §§ 27–29 (ed. Buytaert, I 184f.).Google Scholar

page 216 note 13 Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 102–11 (ed. Buytaert, I 203–206).Google Scholar

page 216 note 14 Scotus, , Quodlibet XIII a. 2 §§ 17–26 (ed. Alluntis, 451–54).Google Scholar

page 216 note 15 Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 74–79 (ed. Buytaert, I 197f.). Whether beatific vision is essentially an absolute or relative entity is a difficult point in Scotus’ theology. Aureol seems to have claimed that beatitude is formally a real relation for Scotus. Hiquaeus (Hickey, Anthony, o.f.m. † 1641), in his commentary on book IV of the Sentences, claims that it is clear from Quodlibet XIII that Scotus intended beatitude to be an absolute entity and that the real relation is a necessary concomitant. Cf. Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 3 §§ 27–32 (ed. Wadding, X 355–57); Hiquaeus, , Commentaria in IV Sent. ad mentem Scoti, loc. cit. §§ 64–65 (ed. Wadding, X 360).Google Scholar

page 216 note 16 Scotus, , Quodlibet XIII a. 1 §§ 8–16 (ed. Alluntis, 447–50).Google Scholar

page 217 note 17 Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 93–95 (ed. Buytaert, I 201f.). Scotus had certainly considered this argument: Quodlibet XIII a. 2 §§ 54, 56 (ed. Alluntis, 467).Google Scholar

page 217 note 18 Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 102–11 (ed. Buytaert, I 203–206). Cf. Boehner, P., ‘Notitia intuitiva of Non-existents according to Peter Aureole, o.f.m. (1322),’ Franciscan Studies 8 (1948) 388–410.Google Scholar

page 217 note 19 Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 1 & 3 §§ 31–32, 55–58 (ed. Buytaert, I 696–700, 712–14). Vanni-Rovighi, Sofia in ‘La Filosofia patristica e medievale’ (Storia della filosofia [Rome 1969] I 253–55) claims that Aureol does not understand esse apparens as an intermediate entity distinct from the object apprehended, pointing to I Sent. d. 9 a. 1, ‘non est aliquid reale impressum intellectui subiective, aut phantasmati, sed nec aliquid reale subsistens, sed est ipsamet res habens esse intentionale conspicuum et apparens.’ But in other places Aureol clearly indicates that esse apparens is an entity, although it is an intentional or conceptual, not a real, entity. Cf. I Sent. d. 3 q. 14 (ed. Buytaert, I 713): ‘Ergo necesse est dicere quod per intellectionem tanquam rei simillimam res capiat quoddam esse, ita ut esse intellectum non sit denominatio sola, sed quoddam esse intentionale diminutum et apparens.’ He states explicitly that esse intentionale or esse apparens is not the act of apprehension and it cannot be the external object itself since it has no real being. Therefore it must be a being distinct from both the object and the act of apprehension. Aureol seems to want to claim that esse apparens is both the same as and different from the object. It is an entity formed by the sense or intellect when the object is apprehended and in that sense it is an unreal entity, different from the external object. In another sense, since Aureol wants to hold that the external object is itself perceived, it is the same as the external object; it is the thing itself, existing as intuited (exsistens in ultimate intuitu) by the mode of appearance (per modum apparentis).Google Scholar

page 218 note 20 de Ockham, Guillelmus, Scriptum in I Sent. prol. q. 1 (edd. Gál, G. and Brown, S., Opera Theologica I [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1967] 70f.).Google Scholar

page 218 note 21 Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. qq. 12–13 (edd. Gal, G. and Wood, R., Opera Theologica V [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1981] 258).Google Scholar

page 218 note 22 Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. prol. q. 7 (OTh I 183–206 esp. 186ff., 193).Google Scholar

page 219 note 23 Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (edd. Etzkorn, G. and Kelly, F., Opera Theologica IV [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1979] 239f.).Google Scholar

page 219 note 24 Chatton, Gualterus, Lecturae in I Sent. prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, J., ‘The Second Question of the Prologue to Walter Chatton's Commentary on the Sentences,’ Nine Mediaeval Thinkers [ed. O'Donnell, J. R.; Toronto 1955] 241f.).Google Scholar

page 219 note 25 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 248f.).Google Scholar

page 219 note 26 Scotus, , Quodlibel VI a. 1 §§ 18–19 (ed. Alluntis, 212f.).Google Scholar

page 220 note 27 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 242f., 248f.).Google Scholar

page 220 note 28 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 4 (Cambridge Gonville Caius 281/674 fols. 115rb–119rb).Google Scholar

page 220 note 29 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 § 77 (fol. 127ra): Licet Ockham habeat aliud dicere. Nec minim, quia ipse ponit quod per intuitionem albedinis scitur evidenter ipsam esse quando est et non esse quando non est. Et ideo habet circa talia ponere iudicium infallibile. Posset haberi. Sed non ego, quia pono quod sive albedo sit sive non sit, visio eius semper inclinat ad uniforme iudicium. (In this and subsequent citations of Wodeham's prol. q. 2 and q. 6 reference will be to a transcription by Gál, Gedeon.)Google Scholar

page 220 note 30 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 § 77–78 (fol. 127ra).Google Scholar

page 221 note 31 Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 § 120 (ed. Buytaert, I 209).Google Scholar

page 221 note 32 Scotus, makes a similar argument; cf. Quodlibet XIII a. 2 § 29 (ed. Alluntis, 456); Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 8 § 5 (ed. Wadding, X 498).Google Scholar

page 221 note 33 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987). Aureol's first experimentum is probably also to be considered within the context of medieval optics. His confrere Pecham, John used the phenomenon of after-images to argue that light results not from visual rays issuing from the eye, but from luminous rays entering the eye. Cf. Pecham, , Perspectiva communis I prop. 1 (ed. Lindberg, D. C., John Pecham and the Science of Optics [Madison, Wis. 1970] 62; cf. also p. 34).Google Scholar

page 221 note 34 Averroës, , In De somno et vigilia Aristotelis (ed. Iuntina VI 201vb–202ra).Google Scholar

page 222 note 35 Ibid. fol. 202ra.Google Scholar

page 222 note 36 Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 80–92 (ed. Buytaert, I 198–201).Google Scholar

page 222 note 37 Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 1 and 3 §§ 31–35, 55–58 (ed. Buytaert, I 696–700, 712–14).Google Scholar

page 223 note 38 Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 4 a. 1 (ed. Buytaert, I 696f.). Pecham also used much the same arguments to show that forms appearing in mirrors are not seen by means of impressions made in the mirrors. Cf. his Perspectiva communis II prop. 19 (ed. Lindberg, 168; cf. p. 47f.). Cf. above note 33.Google Scholar

page 223 note 39 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

page 223 note 40 Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 2 (ed. Buytaert, I 696–8).Google Scholar

page 224 note 41 Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (OTh I 244f.).Google Scholar

page 224 note 42 Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. q. 16 (OTh V 370).Google Scholar

page 224 note 43 Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. qq. 12–13 (OTh V 286f.).Google Scholar

page 224 note 44 Ockham, , Quaestiones in III Sent. q. 3 (edd. Kelley, F. and Etzkorn, G., Opera Theologica VI [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1982] 105–14, 117–20).Google Scholar

page 225 note 45 Ibid. Google Scholar

page 226 note 46 Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. qq. 12–13, 14, and 16 (OTh V 261–67, 316–19, 378).Google Scholar

page 226 note 47 Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. , prol. q. 1 (OTh I 39–44).Google Scholar

page 226 note 48 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 242). Interestingly, Aureol uses ths same analogy with light when claiming that intellectual intuition does not lead to error; cf. Scriptum prol. q. 2 n. 120 (ed. Buytaert, I 209).Google Scholar

page 227 note 49 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 244f.).Google Scholar

page 227 note 50 Ibid. (245).Google Scholar

page 227 note 51 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 34–35 (edited below).Google Scholar

page 228 note 52 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 52–54, 57.Google Scholar

page 228 note 53 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 43, 49, 51, 59.Google Scholar

page 228 note 54 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 43, 49, 57, 59; Ockham, , Quaestiones in III Sent. q. 3 (OTh VI 105–14, 117–20).Google Scholar

page 228 note 55 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 43, 49, 53, 57, 59.Google Scholar

page 229 note 56 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 12.Google Scholar

page 229 note 57 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 242). Chatton's final conclusion is sufficiently conciliatory toward Aureol's view to prompt Luciano Cova, ‘Francesco di Meyronnes e Walter Catton nella controversia scolastica sulla notitia intuitiva de re non existente,’ Medioevo 2 (1966) 245, to argue that there was a ‘large convergenza con Aureolo, Pietro, nonostante la polemica in precedenza sviluppata circa l'intuizione “naturaliter” prodotta.’Google Scholar

page 229 note 58 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 32; Chatton, Reportatio in II Sent. d. 1 q. 2 a. 4 (cod. Paris B.N. lat. 15887 fol. 87ra).Google Scholar

page 230 note 59 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 33–34.Google Scholar

page 230 note 60 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 243, 249).Google Scholar

page 230 note 61 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.3 (PL 42.986f.).Google Scholar

page 231 note 62 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 50.Google Scholar

page 231 note 63 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 42, 43, 53, 57, 59; Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

page 231 note 64 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 52, 53, 57.Google Scholar

page 231 note 65 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 66–67.Google Scholar

page 231 note 66 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 54, 83.Google Scholar

page 232 note 67 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 § 61 (fol. 126ra): Ubi notandum imprimis quod evidentia complexa dupliciter potest intelligi. Vel scilicet proprie pro apprehensione complexa quae est ipsa propositio evidens suo modo; vel pro iudicio evidenti suo modo causato mediante propositione evidenti quo iudicio iudicatur sic esse a parte rei vel non esse. Illam propositionem voco evidentem suo modo quae ex talibus componitur simplicibus apprehensionibus est aliter quod ipsa informante animam non potest sibi non apparere sic esse in re sicut ipsa significat sive ipsa sit vera sive falsa, licet per rationem vel experientiam aliunde posset convinci non sic esse quandoque; sicut est illa propositio quam format videns baculum cuius pars est in aqua significans baculum esse fractum, quae quidem — ut supra dixi — habet visionem baculi et aquae partem sui.Google Scholar

Aut magis stricte: illa est evidens propositio qua posita nec potest non apparere sic esse sicut ipsa significat nec non esse sicut apparet. Et ideo forte omnis propositio evidens isto secundo modo significans rem esse categorice est necessaria.

Tertio modo, adhuc strictius: illa est evidens propositio quae habet duas istas condiciones et ultra hoc, stante generali Dei influentia, nata est necessitare intellectum in quo est ad assentiendum sic esse sicut ipsa significat.

page 232 note 68 Ibid. Google Scholar

page 233 note 69 See above note 67.Google Scholar

page 233 note 70 Ibid.; cf. Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 66–67.Google Scholar

page 233 note 71 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 54, 83.Google Scholar

page 233 note 72 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 28; q. 6 § 76 (fol. 127ra); q. 2 § 29 (fol. 109vb).Google Scholar

page 234 note 73 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 §§ 61, 75 (fols. 126ra-rb, 126vb–127ra).Google Scholar

page 234 note 74 Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 §§ 77, 101 (fols. 127ra, 128rb).Google Scholar

page 235 note 1 Lectura secunda prol. q. 2 concl. 3–4 (cod. Gonville-Caius, 281/674 fol. 109rb-va).Google Scholar

page 235 note 2 Wodeham, postponed the answer to this question. Cf. Lectura secunda prol. q. 4: Quarto quaero de articulo omisso prioris quaestionis: Utrum per visionem causetur ‘esse aliquod apparens’ vel ‘esse visum’ distinctum a visione et visibili (cod. cit. fols. 115rb–119ra).Google Scholar

page 236 note 3 Cf. Chatton, Gualterus, Lecturae prol. q. 2 Secundo contra secundam conclusionem (ed. O'Callaghan, 242).Google Scholar

page 236 note 4 Loc. cit. Secundo sic (242).Google Scholar

page 236 note 5 Q. 2 concl. 5–6 (cod. cit. fol. 110ra-rb).Google Scholar

page 237 note 6 Aureoli, , Scriptum I prooem. q. 2 a. 3 § 111 (ed. Buytaert, I 205).Google Scholar

page 237 note 7 Loc. cit. § 104 (204).Google Scholar

page 237 note 8 Loc. cit. §§ 121 et 120 (209). Cf. ibid. § 115 (207).Google Scholar

page 238 note 9 This is the first experiment adduced by Aureol, in the via experientiae: loc. cit. §§ 81–82 (ed. Buytaert, I 198).Google Scholar

page 238 note 10 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

page 238 note 11 Averroës, , In De somno et vigilia (ed. Iuntina, [Venetiis 1550–1553] VI fols. 201vb–202ra); Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 83 (ed. Buytaert, I 199).Google Scholar

page 239 note 12 Algazel, , Physica tract. 5 (ed. Muckle, J. T., Algazel's Metaphysics [Toronto 1933] 192f.).Google Scholar

page 239 note 13 Averroës, , In De somno et vigilia (fol. 202ra); Aureoli, loc. cit. § 84 (ed. Buytaert, I 199).Google Scholar

page 239 note 14 Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 85f. (199).Google Scholar

page 239 note 15 Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 86 (199).Google Scholar

page 239 note 16 Cf. Averroës, , In De anima II text. 138 (ed. Crawford, F. S. [Cambridge, Mass. 1953] 339ff.).Google Scholar

page 239 note 17 Cf. Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.2 (PL 42.986): sensus autem oculorum non ob aliud sensus corporis dicitur, nisi quia et ipsi oculi membra sunt corporis: et quamvis non sentiat corpus exanime, anima tamen commixta corpori per instrumentum sentit corporeum, et idem instrumentum sensu vocatur; Averroës, loc. cit. (n. 11); Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 90 (200). Although Aureol indicated that this is an answer to the first instantia in § 21, in fact it seems to be an answer to the second.Google Scholar

page 240 note 18 Cf. supra § 13; Aureoli, loc. cit. § 91 (200).Google Scholar

page 240 note 19 Cf. supra §§ 20–21 and n. 17 (note that this argument repeats § 21 which is out of place); Aureoli, loc. cit. § 92 (200f.).Google Scholar

page 240 note 20 Cf. supra § 20 and n. 16; Aureoli, , ibid. Google Scholar

page 240 note 21 Cf. supra § 20; Aureoli, , ibid. Google Scholar

page 240 note 22 Lectura secunda prol. q. 22 (cod. cit. fol. 109vb).Google Scholar

page 240 note 23 Cf. supra § 13, the first of the experientiae. Google Scholar

page 240 note 24 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, ).Google Scholar

page 240 note 25 Cf. supra § 5 – § 9; Chatton, , loc. cit. (ed. O'Callaghan 242f.), where six slightly different, but closely related, arguments are presented.Google Scholar

page 241 note 26 This is the second, not the fourth, question of Chatton's prologue: loc. cit. Ad primum (ed. O'Callaghan, 243).Google Scholar

page 241 note 27 Loc. cit. Secundo, contra secundam conclusionem and Ad tertium dico (242, 244). Chatton bases his reply to Aureol on this distinction between causation and conservation.Google Scholar

page 241 note 28 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 1 (ed. Reina, M., ‘La Prima Quaestione del Prologo del ‘Commento alle Sentenze’ i Walter Chatton,’ Rivista critica di storia della filosofia 25 [1970] 59 and 65).Google Scholar

page 242 note 29 Augustinus, , De Genesi ad litt. 8.12.26 (PL 34.383).Google Scholar

page 242 note 30 Cf. supra § 29; Scotus, In IV libros Sent. (Reportatio Paris.) II d. 1 q. 4 § 7 (ed. Wadding, XI–I 252); Chatton, Reportatio in II Sent. d. 1 q. 2. a. 4 (cod. Paris B.N. lat. 15887 fol. 87ra).Google Scholar

page 242 note 31 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 Sexto arguit (ed. O'Callaghan, 243). Cf. Ad tertium (244).Google Scholar

page 242 note 32 Ibid. Google Scholar

page 242 note 33 Loc. cit. (245f.).Google Scholar

page 243 note 34 Loc. cit. Secundo sic (242).Google Scholar

page 243 note 35 Loc. cit. Quarto sic (242).Google Scholar

page 243 note 36 Loc. cit. Ad tertium and Ideo dico (244f.). Cf. supra § 13.Google Scholar

page 243 note 37 Loc. cit. (245).Google Scholar

page 243 note 38 The example to which Wodeham is referring here is taken from another series of experiments adduced by Aureol, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 1 (ed. Buytaert, II 696f.); Chatton, quotes and answers these experiments as well as those from the second question of this prologue. As a matter of fact, Aureol's example is of a stick rapidly whirled, but not lighted. But Chatton when he answers this experiment, misnumbers it Ad tertiam and indicates that the stick is lighted (ed. O'Callaghan, 241, 244). It should also be noted that Chatton again refers to this experiment when answering the experiments of Aureol's prologue, instead of answering the fifth experiment.Google Scholar

page 243 note 39 In §§ 41–43 Wodeham is replying to § 39 on the basis of his interpretation of Augustine.Google Scholar

page 244 note 40 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 and 2 (PL 42.987, 986).Google Scholar

page 244 note 41 Loc. cit. § 2 (PL 42.985).Google Scholar

page 244 note 42 Loc. cit. § 2 (PL 42.985).Google Scholar

page 244 note 43 Cf. supra § 40. Here Wodeham again begins to adduce objections against his own position.Google Scholar

page 244 note 44 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987). Note that this is Chatton's, not Wodeham's, interpretation of Augustine.Google Scholar

page 245 note 45 Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 Ad primum pro secunda conclusione (ed. O'Callaghan, 245).Google Scholar

page 245 note 46 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

page 245 note 47 Cf. supra § 40, § 44.Google Scholar

page 245 note 48 Namely, , the subject of light, not the luminous body.Google Scholar

page 245 note 49 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.3 (PL 42.986f.).Google Scholar

page 245 note 50 Cf. Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.3.6 (PL 42.988f.).Google Scholar

page 245 note 51 Cf. supra § 46.Google Scholar

page 246 note 52 Marginal, note: Istam conclusionem teneo magis.Google Scholar

page 246 note 53 Cf. Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2–3.2–6 (PL 42.985–89).Google Scholar

page 246 note 54 Wodeham, is asking here why Chatton does not adopt the explanation provided by a vehement imagination in the case of after-images. It seems to Wodeham that this reply is at least as suitable for the first experiment (§ 13) as for the second (§ 14).Google Scholar

page 246 note 55 Another reply to the argument adduced in § 46.Google Scholar

page 246 note 56 Cf. supra § 46.Google Scholar

page 246 note 57 Cf. supra § 47.Google Scholar

page 247 note 58 Another reply to § 47.Google Scholar

page 247 note 59 Cf. supra § 48.Google Scholar

page 247 note 60 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

page 247 note 61 Cf. supra § 46. Marginal note: Et hoc tenet totum Scotum. Cf. Ordinatio I d. 3 p. 1 q. 4 § 239 (ed. Vaticana, III 145 f.).Google Scholar

page 247 note 62 Cf. supra § 48.Google Scholar

page 248 note 63 Cf. Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (OTh IV 250).Google Scholar

page 248 note 64 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

page 248 note 65 Cf. supra § 14.Google Scholar

page 248 note 66 Cf. supra n. 11.Google Scholar

page 248 note 67 Cf. supra § 15. Note that in §§ 64–65 Wodeham is restating the objection.Google Scholar

page 249 note 68 Cf. supra § 15, § 64.Google Scholar

page 249 note 69 Cf. Scotus, , De anima q. 9 § 7 (ed. Wadding, II 520).Google Scholar

page 249 note 70 Cf. supra § 15, § 65.Google Scholar

page 249 note 71 Cf. Chatton, , Lectura prol. q. 2 Ad secundum dico (ed. O'Callaghan, 246).Google Scholar

page 250 note 72 Cf. supra § 16.Google Scholar

page 250 note 73 Cf. supra § 17.Google Scholar

page 250 note 74 Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (OTh IV 250).Google Scholar

page 250 note 75 Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.4.7 (PL 42.989).Google Scholar

page 250 note 76 Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (Oth IV 250).Google Scholar

page 250 note 77 Cf. supra § 18, § 61 n. 62.Google Scholar

page 251 note 78 Cf. supra § 18.Google Scholar

page 251 note 79 Cf. supra § 20.Google Scholar

page 251 note 80 Cf. supra § 10.Google Scholar

page 251 note 81 Cf. supra § 23.Google Scholar

page 251 note 82 Cf. supra § 24.Google Scholar

page 251 note 83 Cf. supra § 25.Google Scholar

page 251 note 84 Cf. supra § 26.Google Scholar

page 251 note 85 Cf. supra § 27.Google Scholar

page 252 note 86 Cf. supra § 1.Google Scholar

page 252 note 87 Lectura secunda prol. q. 4 (cod. cit. fol. 115va–b). See also the introduction to this edition, note 8.Google Scholar

page 252 note 88 Cf. supra § 2.Google Scholar