Cologne, 18.02.2017

by Andrea Colli

 

The lectures in this conference had two main purposes. The first was to explore the nature, the sources and the diffusion of Godin’s text, as case study of the contrasts between freedom of teaching and educational policy. The second main purpose was to investigate the function assumed by the teaching-learning activities on the diffusion of some theological and philosophical topics in the Late Medieval Schools, with particular attention to the Dominican Schools.

The meeting extended over three days and was divided into four sessions (I. Starting Point: Lectura Thomasina as Case Study; II. Contextualizing Godin’s Lectura Thomasina; III. Godin’s Contemporary Friars within the Parisian Dominican School; IV. Teaching Activities and Systematization of 13th-Century Theology), moderated by Andreas SPEER (Cologne), Guy GULDENTOPS (Cologne), Fiorella RETUCCI (Lecce) and Maarten J.F.M. HOENEN (Basel).

An inaugural speech by Speer, supervisor of TEACHPOL’s project opened the Conference in the afternoon of the first day. Speer stressed the potentialities of an intensive study on Lectura Thomasina, by underlining the expected connections between the forthcoming critical edition of this work and other late medieval writings edited and investigated by Thomas Institute’s Team in the recent years. Speer referred particularly to the most recent published volumes of the critical edition of Durandus of Saint Pourçain’s Commentary on the Sentences, successful outcomes of Durandus-Project. For concluding, Speer hoped that the conference was targeted not only to disseminate consolidated results, but rather to open new stimulating scenarios in the researches on the Late Medieval Schools.

Speer’s introductory words were followed by the opening lecture of the first session by Francesca BONINI (Cologne-Lecce). Through a detailed analysis of the manuscript tradition and of the currently available secondary literature, Bonini – editor of Lectura Thomasina’s Book I within the scope of her PhD –, presented a comprehensive overview on the structure of Godin’s text and its characterizing aspects. According to Bonini, despite having the same structure of a Commentary on the Sentences, the Lectura is largely drawn up as a collection of Aquinas’ verbatim quotations. However, William’s intention is not to provide just simple rote copying, but rather to combine and reasonably arrange some different Thomistic theses. Even if the notion of “Thomism” begins to have a true significance after Aquinas’ canonization, Bonini argued then that the Lectura can be likely considered a first example of “Thomistic Textbook”.

The next speaker was Alessandro PALAZZO (Trento), whose paper was devoted to the subject of angelic knowledge of distant things in Thomas Aquinas and in the Lectura Thomasina. With his quaestio utrum distantia localis impediat locutionem unius angeli cum alio William of Peter of Godin entered the complex debate on locutio angelica. Among the spectrum of sources on offer at the time, Godin was profoundly influenced by the arguments advanced by the Correctoria corruptorii “Circa” in defense of Thomas Aquinas, as Palazzo displayed through a series of valid comparisons. However, and somewhat surprisingly, in Aquinas’ writings this subject does not seem to be so valuable as both the Correctorial Literature and Godin claimed. In fact, Palazzo showed that both in Summa contra Gentiles, II, 96, n. 9 and in Summa theologiae, Ia, q. 55, a. 2 Thomas handles only marginally the problem of locutio angelica without raising many of the problems that thirty years later Godin identified. It means then that concerning this specific topic William’s intention is not simply to repeat a “Thomistic doctrine”, but rather to use Aquinas’ quotations in order to support his own original position. On Palazzo’s interpretation this example is not an isolated case study, but rather one of several examples which display the radical reworking of Aquinas’ positions by Godin.

The final lecture of the session, titled “Peter of Godin on Form and Matter”, was given by Fabrizio AMERINI (Parma). By matching Godin’s quaestio utrum informitas materiae praecesserit tempore formationem suam with the article of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae specifically devoted to this subject (Ia, q. 66 art. 1) Amerini established some textual correspondences between the two texts, then he proposed an accurate reconstruction of Godin’s position on the thorny problem of the metaphysical relation between form and matter. He showed that Godin’s view adheres essentially to Thomas theses, in order to overcome the objections raised by William of La Mare in his Correctorium fratris Thomae, which is verbatim quoted by Godin within the counterarguments. Amerini showed that the working method of Godin involves also the discussion of some practical applications of hylomorphic principle. The quaestio utrum anima sit composita ex materia et forma is largely grounded on Aquinas’ soul-body doctrine in reply to the Correctorial Literature. Finally, Amerini indicated rapidly some differences between Godin’s approach to this topic and that of some Italian Dominican scholars, such as Stephan of Rieti, Francis of Prato, and Gratiadeus of Ascoli. This latter and attractive aspect of his lecture will be in-depth analyzed – Amerini assured – in the proceedings of the conference.

The morning session of the second day opened with Andrea COLLI (Cologne), who lectured on “Die Correctoria Corruptorii als Quellen der Lectura Thomasina”. By carrying out a statistical analysis of the personal names explicitly mentioned in the four books of the Lectura Thomasina, Colli showed that Godin does not usually refer to his contemporaries. Three quotations of Etienne Tempier are rare exceptions of this attitude. A close study of these references emphasized two characterizing aspects of the Lectura Thomasina: firstly, the condemnation of 1277 considerably influenced Godin’s approach to many controversial topics and his assimilation of Aquinas’ doctrines; secondly, as the lectures of the previous day at least partly displayed, William of La Mare’s Correctorium fratris Thomae and subsequently the Dominican replies, i.e. the Correctoria corruptorii represent remarkable sources of Godin’s text. As Colli pointed out, in many quaestiones Godin not only allude to these works, but he combines and quotes them word-for-word, giving the impression that he intends to write an update and reasoned version of them.

The second speaker of the day was Maxime MAURIÈGE (Cologne). His contribution intended to answer the question “Ist der Brügger Kommentar eigentlich eine lectura Thomasina?”. Mauriège started his lecture from a detailed commentary on Lectura Thomasina’s II, dist. 12, q. 1 (utrum corporum superiorum et inferiorum una sit). After comparing the structure Godin’s text with the quaestio of Anonymous Commentary of Bruges devoted to the same subject, Mauriège observed that some crucial passages of Godin’s arguments are quotations or paraphrasing of Anonymous’ Commentary. That Godin’s way of quoting is not a mere transcription is however confirmed by a curious and notable omission: he chooses not to refer to the passage from the Anonymous’ Commentary, which likely includes Eckhart’s opinion. According to Mauriège, this is a persuasive evidence, on the one hand, of the political role played by the Lectura Thomasina, on the other hand, of the different nature of Anonymous of Bruges, that therefore it cannot be considered a Thomistic Textbook like Godin’s text. In conclusion, Mauriège presented his significant discovery of another manuscript handing down this question of Anonymous of Bruges as marginalia in Troyes, Bibliothèque municipal, Ms. 145.

Wouter GORIS (Bonn) closed the session on the context of Godin’s Lectura Thomasina with a lecture on the dispute between Godin and Scotus on matter as the principle the individuation. Debating on the ratio essentialis individuationis, the central issue for both Godin and Scotus turns out to be whether unity entails distinction from others. Godin and Scotus agree that only the level of transcendental unity is fully explicative of created and uncreated individuality. Their mutual understanding, however, only gives sharper contrast to their doctrinal differences. Godinus insists that multiplication under one species is a regional phenomenon confined to material beings. According to him, an unified account of individuation is compatible with a regional explanation of distinctness secundum diversa genera esse, which Scotus rejects. For Goris, the dispute whether unity entails distinction opposes ultimately possibility to potentiality as rival explanations of numerical multiplication under one species. In the third session, speakers addressed the question of the influence of the Lectura Thomasina on the 14th-century Dominican Schools. The large number of Lectura’s manuscripts suggests that William’s text served a crucial function in the diffusion of several Thomistic doctrines, as, indeed, confirmed by several critical studies .

The first lecture, titled “James of Metz on the Procession of the Holy Spirit (and the Generation of the Son)” was delivered by Chris SCHABEL (Cyprus). Based on the assumption that in many circumstances James of Metz adopts or criticizes Godin’s position , Schabel started his lecture by compiling a statistical table of the correspondences between Godin’s Lectura Thomasina and the two redactions of James of Metz’s Commentary on the Sentences relating to the definition of the theological notions of processio and generatio. According to Schabel, William’s questions, which could have contributed to shaping James’ opinions on this topic, should be primarily Utrum Pater genuit Filium natura, Utrum in divinis sit aliqua persona quae procedat per modum amoris et voluntatis, and Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio inquantum sunt unum. However, and somewhat unexpectedly, the identified parallelisms do not provide any sure indication about a relationship between the writings of the two Dominican theologians concerning this theological subject. By analyzing in detail one of the question at issue (I Sent. dist. 6), Schabel displayed clearly that Godin and James structure their arguments from a different perspective. Accordingly, Schabel concluded his lecture with a intensive study to reconstruct the sources of two James’ redactions.

In the second lecture of the afternoon Jean-Luc SOLÈRE (Boston) spoke on the topic “Hervé Nedellec against James of Metz and Durand of Saint-Pourçain on the intensification of qualities”. Despite of Schabel’s plan, Solère’s intention was not primarily to consider Godin’s opinion, but rather to shape the contours of the debate on the intensification of qualities in the 14th-century Dominican Schools. However, given the core of the conference, Solère proposed a detailed comment of Godin’s question devoted to the topic at issue (Lectura Thomasina, I, dist. 17). Through this introductory, and at first sight occasional, remarks, Solère identified Godfrey of Fontaines’ Quaestiones ordinariae as reliable source of Godin’s arguments, and thus contributing significantly to the definition of what is Lectura Thomasina’s background. Then, in pursuing the central aim of his lecture, Solère showed that Godin has not considerably influenced the following debate on the problem of the intensification of qualities in the Dominican School. As Solère elegantly stressed, both James of Metz’s Commentary on the Sentences and Durand’s Redaction A of I Sent. dist. 17 contrast principally Herve of Nedellec’s opinion.

The conclusion to this engaging session was a presentation on “Durandus’ Lektüre der Lectura Thomasina: Ein Überblick” by Thomas JESCHKE (Cologne). Jeschke, editor within the framework of Durand’s Project, focused on the Lectura Thomasina as source of Durand’s Commentary on the Sentences. Through an introductory and fruitful analysis of Godin’s historical background, Jeschke firstly identified Peter of Auvergne, John of Paris and Meister Eckhart as the most prominent contemporaries and, maybe interlocutors, of Godin; secondly, he showed that Durand of Saint Pourçain was presumably a scholar of Godin around 1300. By assuming as his starting point some conflicting hypotheses on the correlation between Godin and Durand, Jeschke started a non-systematic (he declared) comparison between the Lectura Thomasina and the different redactions of Durand’s Commentary on the Sentences. He classified then three sort of examples: in some cases, Godin does not seem to have any considerable influence on Durand’s arguments; in a second series of cases, Godin’s text appear as intermediary between Durand and Thomas Aquinas; in some other circumstances Durand quotes almost verbatim the Lectura Thomasina. According to Jeschke, this multifaceted approach reveals a reasoned and selective use of Godin’s text. The session concluded with a lively debate on the core of the meeting: speakers and moderators addressed the issue of the nature of Godin’s Lectura Thomasina and of its influence on the Dominican Schools.

Both in the morning and in the afternoon sessions the lectures presented a complex and intriguing scenarios. Godin emerges as a leading figure between 13th and 14th century, enough to dispute against Duns Scotus on the grave problem of principium individuationis. Traces of Godin’s text are evidently within the Dominican Schools. At the same time, when Godin’s influence is expected, there are not any explicit quotations of his position. Solving this mystery was not the aim of the conference. By contrast, according to the organizers, this open question represents a massive incentive to the improvement of research.

The last day of the conference featured a short, but very high-level, session on “Teaching Activities and Systematization of 13th-Century Theology”. As opportunely stressed by the moderator, Maarten J.F.M. HOENEN (Basel) the two planned lectures provided the opportunity to explore some outstanding problems occurred in the previous sessions: first, the diffusion and the systematization of the 13th-century theological doctrines not only in the Dominican School, but also in other educational contexts; second, the emergence of the concept of “Thomism” in the teaching materials.

In the first lecture, titled “Peter of Candia’s Inaugural Questions: Debating his Teachers”, Stephen F. BROWN (Boston) provided a typical example of the first aspect. Brown focused on Peter of Candia’s Introductory Sermons on the Sentences. Firstly, in evident opposition to the cases illustrated in the previous sessions, Brown noted the poetic and literary form of the text. Then, through an extensive and fascinating reading of some passages, Brown showed that Candia’s Sermons are a mirror of the features characterizing a 14th-century theologians also in the concrete details.

The final lecture of the conference was delivered by Catherine KÖNIG-PRALONG (Freiburg i. B.). In her presentation, titled “The Systematization of Teaching in Ambrosius de Alemania’s Thomistic Concordantiae”, König-Pralong focused on another issue discussed in the previous days, i.e. the diffusion of the Thomistic doctrines in the Dominican Tradition. The case study was Peter of Bergamo’s and Ambrosius de Alemania’s Concordantiae dictorum et conclusionum divi Thomae de Aquino. As clearly defined in the prologue, Peter and Ambrosius aim to carry out an “exegetical” analysis of Aquinas’ writings, by stressing ethimologie/analogie id est concordantie. Their project is thus essentially based on a semantic analysis of 1222 doubts (dubia) and 393 keywords. Therefore, exhaustiveness, principle of economy and completeness may be the fundamental requirements for approaching Thomas’ writings. The Concordantiae does not represent an isolated case of this literary genre. This is however one of the most significant examples of the late medieval sanctification of Thomas Aquinas’ thought.

Andreas Speer was entrusted with the conference’s conclusions. He emphasized that the meeting covered new problems, by offering a massive incentive to explore even more deeply several topics: the nature and the potentiality of Godin’s Lectura Thomasina; the effective role played by Godin’s text in the Dominican School, by considering new cases and examples; the definition of the concept of “Thomism” before Aquinas’ canonization. Therefore, rather then bein an opportunity to disseminate definitive outcomes, the meeting was an intensive training to open up new paths of research. Before thanking all contributors for the friendly and lively discussions, Speer announced that the proceedings of the conference will appear as a number of the series “Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales. Bibliotheca” edited by Peeters.