Cette nouvelle enquête sur I'allégorie de la spoliatio Aegyptiorum pourra paraître de prime abord désuète vu le nombre d'auteurs qui en ont déjà parlé. Nous avions nous-même, il y a plus de cinquante ans, rédigé une brève note intitulée “Les dépouilles des Égyptiens” dans le volume Le magistère chrétien, éd, et trade Gustave Combes et Jacques Farges, Bibliothèque augustinienne, 11 (Paris, 1949), 582–84, à propos d'un passage du De doctrina christiana 2.40.60–61, aù Augustin commente l'épisode biblique relatant la fraude des Israélites à leur départ d'Égypte. Par la suite nous n'avons cessé de nous intèresser à ce thème et d'enrichir notre propre dossier par des enquêtes personnelles tout en prêtant attention aux publications s'y rapportant et dont nous donnons la liste dans une première note qui révèle le succès littèraire et historique de cette allégoric biblique.

During the Middle Ages, Christians largely accommodated themselves to the small number of Jews who lived amongst them. Augustine (354–430) explained that God had punished the Jews after their rejection of Jesus by destroying the Temple and sending them into exile. Their survival was divinely guaranteed, however, because the presence of the Jews, Augustine believed, testified to the authenticity of Scripture and the fulfillment of the prophecies upon which Christianity built its faith. The Jews themselves, of course, argued that God had never truly rejected his chosen people. By claiming the Jews as their witnesses, Christians inadvertently accepted the Jews' identity as the descendants of the biblical children of Israel.

Due especially to the pioneering work of Lottin, philosophers and theologians interested in the medieval discussion of the human conscience are today well aware that the Scholastic debate was framed principally in relation to two words, conscientia and synderesis. In the now classic formulation of the distinction between those two terms by Thomas Aquinas, synderesis is understood as the special habitus of the practical intellect whereby human beings know the basic principles of morality, whereas conscientia is the act whereby the practical reasoning powers of a human being apply the fundamental principles to the particular matter at hand. It is also generally acknowledged by scholars today that the argument about the relationship between conscientia and synderesis began many years prior to Thomas's work, that the medieval debate was originally spurred by the introduction of the strange term synderesis into the conversation, and that the term entered the discussion by means of an enigmatic passage in Jerome's Commentary on Ezekiel. Finally, most scholars acknowledge that the appearance of synderesis in the medieval manuscripts of Jerome's commentary is in all likelihood a corruption of the Greek word syneidēsis, which is the standard correlate in Greek Patristic literature for the Latin conscientia.

Der Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Bibliotheca Laurentiana macht auf die Blätter 75r–82v (Quaternionis initium in f. 79r) des Cod. Pl. 71, 3 folgendermaßen aufmerksam:

When Venantius Fortunatus agreed to the request of Radegund and Agnes to versify the Vita Sancti Martini (VSM, pr. 29–30), he was well aware that he was not the first to write such a poem. About a century earlier Paulinus of Périgueux had versified Sulpicius Severus's Life of Martin (Vita) and books 2 and 3 of the Dialogues (Dial.), which contained supplementary stories about Martin's life. Fortunatus cites Paulinus's poem in the introductory section to the VSM (1.20–21) and, as frequent parallels in language demonstrate, clearly knew his predecessor's work well. But, as successive scholars have noted, the two poems, though sharing the same subject matter, create a very different impression. The VSM is unusual in Fortunatus's poetic corpus in its use of the hexameter and its narrative content. In this paper I will analyze the structure and style of Fortunatus's single venture into hagiographical epic in order to demonstrate the special qualities he brings to his narrative of the life of Saint Martin. I move from considering narrative structure, in the poem as a whole and in individual episodes, to a close analysis of style, concluding with a discussion of the function and distinctive features of the scenes in heaven with which books 2, 3, and the Martin portion of book 4 conclude. In so doing I will argue that the particular qualities of Fortunatus's poem, far from being extrinsic rhetorical flourishes, contribute to the poem's efficacy as an epic of meditation on Martin and his powers.

The manuscript sources of the Mozarabic or Old Hispanic liturgy have been thoroughly described and analyzed, with the exception of an early-eleventh-century book of saints' offices that has been considered missing since the late nineteenth century from the Cathedral Archive of Toledo. In October 2001, I identified this lost book as manuscript B2916 in the library of the Hispanic Society of America in New York, where it has been since its acquisition by the Society's founder, Archer Huntington. HSA MS B2916 is the only codex of the Old Hispanic liturgy preserved outside Europe. This manuscript is a curious book, comprising the offices for the feasts of Saint Martin (November 11), Saint Emilianus or Millán (November 12), and the Assumption of the Virgin (August 15). The matins lessons of the first two offices consist of the entirety of, respectively, the Vitae of Martin by Sulpicius Severus and of San Millán by Braulio of Saragossa. Because the manuscript was in a private collection and has remained uncatalogued, it has gone unnoticed for the last century, a period that saw the maturation of modern study of the Mozarabic rite. The contents of the book were not unknown during this time, however, because some specialists have consulted the copy (today in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid) made in 1752 by the polymath Jesuit Andrés Marcos Burriel. Indeed, it was Clyde Brockett's remarkably accurate handmade copy of the Burriel copy that made the identification of the manuscript possible, even at two removes. While the Burriel copy is useful, many important aspects of the original manuscript deserve notice.

On 7 March 1277, étienne Tempier, bishop of Paris, issued a decree condemning 219 ”errors“ that were henceforth not to be taught in the university under threat of excommunication. So much has been written about this episode, from the thirteenth century onwards, that it scarcely needs introducing. Indeed, a leading scholar in the field has implied that nothing remains to be said about the events themselves since the standard problems either have been solved or are insoluble owing to the absence of documents. Yet the continuing speculation is a clear sign that the episode is poorly understood. Major studies of the last twenty-five years have offered markedly different interpretations of the intentions of those involved and the effects of their actions. Much effort has gone into condemning or excusing Tempier, but we still have little idea of where, and in what context, the condemned articles originated, rendering such judgments at best premature. The present study will attempt to address this problem by reexamining the text of the condemnation and other related sources to argue that they contain important evidence that has so far been overlooked.

Einleitung

Der Kommentar zu den Analytica posteriora im Óuvre Walter Burleys

Walter von Burley lebte von 1275/76 bis 1344/45,1 seine frühesten datierten Werke schrieb er zu Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts in Oxford.2 In den 1330er Jahren, nachdem er etwa zwanzig Jahre lang an der Pariser Universität studiert und gelehrt hatte, lebte er wieder in England und gehörte zum Gelehrtenzirkel um den Bischof von Durham, Richard von Bury.3 Zu jener Zeit plante er, ein “compendium de dictis in logica” zusammenzustellen, worunter wohl eine Sammlung von bündigen Kommentaren zum erweiterten Aristotelischen Organon (ars vetus und logica nova) zu verstehen ist. Hiervon sind die Kommentare zur ars vetus in vielen Handschriften und frühen Drucken verbreitet: zu Porphyrios' Isagoge, Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift, Ps.-Gilbertus Porretanus' Liber sex principiorum und Aristoteles' De interpretatione.4 Der letzte Kommentar dieser Gruppe, der zu De interpretatione, ist auf den 5. August 1337 datiert.5 All diese Bücher der ars vetus hatte Burley bereits früher, z.T. mehrfach, kommentiert.

In this article I propose to examine the Trinitarian controversy that developed in the years 1308 to 1325 between the Dominican Durandus of St Pourçain (ca. 1275–1334) and his order, especially in the connection between this controversy and the growth of a Dominican sense of corporate identity. The connection is not at first obvious, but we shall see how the evolution of Durandus's theological thought reflects to a great degree the doctrinal transformation of his order, a transformation which is also illustrative of the doctrinal preoccupations of fourteenth-century Scholasticism.

From the earliest Christian centuries, the doctrine of divine generation brought forth an abundant and controversial literature. From the Father-Son terminology in the Old and New Testaments, to the Gospel of John's repeated naming of Christ as, unigenitus a patre, only begotten of the Father, to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed's proclamation of “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father,” to the Council of Chalcedon's proclamation that the divine Son was “begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead,” the articulation was vast and prolific. Further, the formula that emerged victorious and enduring in late antiquity still challenged and urged later theologians to write treatises on the doctrine for centuries to come. That the Father is presented as uniquely the Father of the Son, and the Son uniquely the Son of the Father is a dogmatic formula based on revelation, but how God begets God without either making himself or another God was a question formulated to approach theologically the complexities of the divine Trinity, particularly the relation among the three distinct divine persons in one divine nature.