This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
On Abraham Shalom’s biography, see H.A. Davidson, The Philosophy of Abraham Shalom. A Fifteenth-Century Exposition and Defense of Maimonides, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1964, p. 1; cf. also Id., Shalom, Abraham ben Isaac, in Encylopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1971, Vol. 14, cc. 1270–1271; Sirat, A History, pp. 392–393.
On the contents of the Neveh Shalom, see Davidson, The Philosophy; cf. also H. Tirosh-Rothschild, The Political Philosophy of Rabbi Abraham Shalom: The Platonic Tradition (in Hebrew), “Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought” 9 (1990), 409–440.
See Davidson, The Philosophy, pp. 13–15. On the traces of the Philosophia Pauperum, see p. 1, note 5; p. 72, note 60.
Abraham Shalom’s translation is preserved (incomplete: it ends in the middle of the paragraph on the rational faculty of the section devoted to the De anima) in the unique ms. Hamburg, Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek, hebr. 265 (cf. M. Steinschneider, Catalog der hebräischen Handschriften in der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg, Hamburg 1879, p. 110, number 266): see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 465. Another, less literal Hebrew version of the same work was written in Germany in the fourteenth century; in this text, unlike Shalom’s, all references to Christianity found in the Latin original are omitted: see Y.T. Langermann, Another Hebrew Translation of Philosophia Pauperum (in Hebrew), “Kiryath Sepher” 64 (1993), 1103–1104.
This translation is preserved in two manuscripts: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, hébreu 991, and Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, Houghton Library, hebrew 38, ff. 1r–57v. Shalom’s introduction and the incipits of the questions were published according to the manuscript now in Harvard, by A. Jellinek, Marsilius ab Inghen/Haqdamat ha-ma‘atiq ha-she’elot ve-ha-teshuvot ‘al Mavo’, Ma’amarot u-Melisah le-he-hakam Marsilyo, Leipzig-Wien 1859; on the text, see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 469, and Manekin, Scholastic Logic, pp. 132–133 and note 37 (on the question of authorship), and pp. 143–144 (list of questions, translated into English).
See Carreras y Artau, Filosofia cristiana, Vol. 2, pp. 582–585.
Cf. J.-P. Rothschild, Questions de philosophie soumises par ‘Ēlī Habilio à Sēm Tōb Ibn Šem Tob, v. 1472, “Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age” 61 (1994), 105–132 (a list of the short mentions of Habillo in earlier bibliographies is on p. 109 note 14). Cf. also Id., ‘Eli Habilio, philosophe juif et traducteur de latin en hébreu (flor. ca. 1465–post 1477), “Mediaevalia” 5–6 (1994), 9–20; Id., Les philosophes juifs d’Espagne au XVe siècle, pp. 1296–1297.
Some authors surnamed “Habillo” lived in Palestine and in the Balkans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (cf. the data collected in Rothschild, Questions, p. 109 note 15), but we do not know whether they were relatives of Eli. A Rabbi Jacob ben Joseph Habillo “from the sages of Castile, now in Monzón” (apparently a brother of Eli) owned the ms. London, British Library, Or. 6365 (see there, f. 246v), which contains some of Eli’s translations (cf. G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, Vol. 3, London 1915, pp. 184–186, number 889). Habillo’s family may have moved from Castile to Aragon during the fourteenth century, when many Jews left Castile, largely as a consequence of the Castilian civil war begun in 1356: see M. Diago Hernando, La movilidad de los judós a ambos lados de la frontiera entre las coronas de Castilla y Aragòn durante el siglo XIV, “Sefarad” 63 (2003), 237–282.
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, p. 113; the manuscript (olim De Rossi 489), a copy of Moses ben Nahman’s (Nahmanides) commentary on the Pentateuch, is described in Richler and Beit-Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts, p. 114, number 595.
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, pp. 112–113; see also below.
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, p. 107. For 1471 as a possible date, see Zonta, La filosofia antica, p. 271 note 34.
Ms. London, Or. 6365, f. 2v (according to the quotation in Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 185): he-hakam Versoryo’ asher hayah zeh yamim me‘at be-Paris hibber sefarim..., “the scholar Versor who was in Paris some years ago (and) wrote books...” (according to Rothschild, Questions, p. 112–113; but the sentence might also mean: “the sage Versor who, some years ago, while in Paris, wrote books...”).
Cf. below, note 46. Cf. also Zonta, La filosofia antica, p. 86 note 32; there I point out that Aristotle’s Metaphysics was not studied in fifteenth century Spanish Universities (see J. Riesco Terrero, La metafisica en España (siglos XII al XV), “Repertorio de historia de las ciencias ecclesiasticas en Españna” 4 [1972], 203–259, pp. 204 ff.), but it was certainly studied in Paris (from 1200 onwards: cf. A. Gabriel, Metaphysics in the Curriculum of Studies of the Mediaeval Universities, in P. Wilpert and W.P. Eckert [eds.], Die Metaphysik im Mittelalter, “Miscellanea Mediaevalia” 2, Berlin 1963, 92–102). As a matter of fact, in the fifteenth century in the Arts faculties of some European universities, book I (Alpha maior) of the Metaphysics was studied with some limitations which closely agree with Habillo’s statements: e.g., according to the statutes of 1405, in Bologna only the proemium of this book (corresponding to chapters 1–2) was studied; in Oxford the whole book seems to have been excluded from study, since in its major parts (i.e., the parts not translated by Habillo) it treated of “the opinions of the ancients” (liber in quo pro magna parte tractatur de opinionibus antiquorum). See A. Maierù, Gli atti scolastici nelle università italiane, in L. Gargan and O. Limone (eds.), Luoghi e metodi di insegnamento nell’Italia medioevale (secoli XII—XIV), Galatina 1989, 247–288, pp. 266–267 and note 67. Finally, traces of knowledge of the curriculum of Christian Universities have been found also in Hasdai Crescas’s The Light of the Lord (Or ha-Shem) (Crescas apparently refers to Christian Universities as “their comprehensive schools” [battey midrashehem ha-kolelim]): see Pines, Scholasticism, p. 539 note 99.
See Rothschild, Questions, p. 112.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 321. Steinschneider supports his claim by pointing out that a passage (reporting the opinion of a certain Isaiah) quoted in the commentary on al-Ghazali’s Intentions ascribed to “Maestro Manuel” is found also in Eli Habillo’s translation of Versor’s questions. Moreover, it should be noted that the ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, hébreu 907 that contains most of the passages ascribed to Eli/Manuel, contains also a passage of Habillo’s translation of Versor’s questions on the De caelo (cf. Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 8).
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, pp. 118–129.
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, pp. 116–117.
Cf. Neubauer, Catalogue, cc. 792–793, no. 2279; Beit-Arié and May, Addenda and Corrigenda, c. 437. To the works mentioned above, one might add two poetic compositions ascribed to a certain Eli ben Joseph “the young” (ha-sa‘ir, like in the ms. Parma, parmense 2978: see above), in the ms. London, British Library, Or. 2538, ff. 65v–72v: see Margoliouth, Catalogue, pp. 516–517 (number 1100), esp. note ++, p. 517.
See Rothschild, Questions, pp. 116–117, and Zonta, La tradizione ebraica, pp. 39*–41*.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 87; Rosenberg, Logic and Ontology, pp. 110–111; Rothschild, Questions, p. 115; cf. the description of the two manuscripts in Neubauer, Catalogue, cc. 487, no. 1364 (ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hunt. 519), and 868, no. 2451 (ms. Oxford, Christ Church College Library, no. 200). According to Beit-Arié and May, Addenda and Corrigenda, c. 228, the former manuscript should be dated back to c. 1467–1469; this date constitutes the terminus ante quem for the writing of this work.
Mss. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, hébreu 907, and hébreu 909: see Zotenberg, Catalogue, pp. 157–158. Cf. Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 321, and Rothschild, Questions, p. 115 and note 46.
Ms. Hamburg, Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek, hebr. 265 (Steinschneider 267), ff. 62r–158v: see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. 483–484. Rothschild (Questions, p. 114, nos. 3–4) believed that the ms. New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, microfilm 2341, ff. 352v–353v contained a second copy of the work; however, Rothschild himself has recently shown that these folios contain a partial and abridged anonymous Hebrew translation of pseudo-Thomas’s De potentiis animae. Cf. J.-P. Rothschild, An unknown Hebrew translation of Ps.-Thomas Aquinas, De potentiis animae (in the circle of the Ibn Shem Tovs, Spain ca. 1450–1475), paper read at the international colloquium Hebrew to Latin-Latin to Hebrew. The Mirroring of Two Cultures in the Age of Humanism, The Warburg Institute, London, October 18th–19th, 2004. As shown by Caterina Rigo, this translation is an abridgement of Habillo’s version (see below, list of Habillo’s works, on number D.1.4.). Cf. C. Rigo, Le traduzioni dei commenti scolastici alDeAnimaeseguite da Yehudah b. Mosheh nella tradizione filosofica ebraico-italiana dei secoli XIII–XIV, in F. Vattioni (ed.), Sangue e antropologia nel Medioevo, “Sangue e antropologia” 8, Roma 1993, Vol. 2, 1073–1095, p. 1087 note 42.
A. Jellinek, Die VI. und VII. Frage aus den “Quaestiones disputatae de anima” von Thomas von Aquino, s.d., s.l.
See Richler and Beit-Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts, p. 359, number 1316; see also G. Tamani and M. Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, Venezia 1997, p. 140.
Ms. Hamburg, Staats-und Universitaetsbibliothek, hebr. 265, ff. 161r–165v: see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. 484–485 (according to which this text is preserved also in the ms. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parmense 2631, ff. 117r–121r); see also Manekin, Scholastic Logic, p. 133 and note 41 (according to which the text preserved in Parmais another Latin work on universals, translated by Habillo).
See Steinschneider, Catalog, p. 112, number 267; Id., Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 484; A. Jellinek, Philosophie und Kabbala, Vol. 2, Leipzig 1854, pp. 26–31.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. 487–488; for an updated list of manuscripts, cf. Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 7 (but it should be noted that the mss. Parma, De Rossi 281 [now parmense 2261], and Turin, Valperga 181 [now in the Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, A. VI. 25], found in Rothschild’s list, do not contain this work). A comparison between the mss. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, hébreu 1000 and Parma, parmense 2978 (mentioned above) backs Steinschneider’s suggestion that the former is an autograph by Habillo (see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 488).
See Margoliouth, Catalogue, Vol. 3, pp. 184–185; cf. also Rothschild, Questions, p. 111 and note 29 (transcription of part of the introduction), and J.-P. Rothschild, Motivations et méthodes des traductions en hébreu du milieu du XIIe à la fin du XVe siècle, in G. Contamine (ed.), Traductions et traducteurs au Moyen Age, Paris 1989, 279–302, p. 289.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 488; Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 9. For its datation, see Neubauer, Catalogue, c. 870, no. 2453.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 488; Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 10. The manuscript, copied in Provence around 1500, is described in Neubauer, Catalogue, cc. 869–870, no. 2453; cf. also Beit-Arié and May, Addenda and Corrigenda, c. 481.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 484 (who seems to ascribe the questions to Thomas himself!); Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 13.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 488; Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 8 (the ms. Paris, hébreu 907, ff. 96r–102v, contains only a short part of book I, corresponding to questions 2–5).
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 489; Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 12 (for a complete list of the manuscripts that contain this translation in whole or in part).
See below, pp. 180–181.
See below, pp. 182–183.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 470; see also Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, p. 140. The translation includes some notes by Habillo: see Rosenberg, Logic and Ontology, p. 110.
On this datation, see Rothschild, Questions, p. 107; cf. also above, where the alternative datation “6 elul 5231” (23 August 1471) is suggested.
See the edition in J.-P. Rothschild, Les traducteurs hébraiques du Liber de causis latin, thèse de doctorate inńdite, Paris 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 174–243; cf. also Id., Les traductions du Livre des causes et leurs copies, “Revue d’histoire des textes” 23 (1994), 393–484.
See M. Zonta, The Original Text of Vincent Ferrer’s Tractatus de unitate universalis Discovered in an Unknown Hebrew Translation?, “Bulletin de philosophie médiévale” 39 (1997), 147–151.
See Zonta, La tradizione ebraica, p. 36*, notes 155 and 157, and pp. 40*–41*; cf. also Zonta, La filosofia antica, pp. 85–86, 258, 271. The colophon of the translation reads as follows: Nishlamah haqdamat “mah she-’ahar ha-teva‘” le-’Aristo ve-hi’ bi-tehillat ha-ma’amar ha-rishon ve-’eyn ba-ma’amar ha-hu’’ ahar zeh raq sippur de‘ot ha-qadmonim be-hathalot u-bittulam. Ve-lazeh hu’ mimmah she-’eyn bo to‘elet ve-lo’ yiqqare’ mimmennu bi-yeshivot ha-Noserim zulat zeh, “here ends the introduction to Aristotle’s Metaphysics: it is found at the beginning of book I (i.e., Alpha maior), and, after this, there is only the exposition and confutation of the opinions held by the Ancients about the principles. For this reason, this book is useless, and, apart from this short introduction, it is not read (= studied?) in Christian universities”. This translation was probably made as an introduction to Habillo’s lost commentary on Averroes’s Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics (see above, list of Habillo’s works, on number B.1.), for the purpose of supplying part of book Alpha maior, not included in Averroes’s work.
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, pp. 107–108, 114. Manekin (Scholastic Logic, p. 133) holds that the anonymous Hebrew texts on logic and universals in the ms. Parma, parmense 2631, ff. 117r–126v and 144v–148r, are “probably... translated by Habillo”.
See also what Habillo himself writes in his introduction to Versor’s questions on the Physics (below).
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, pp. 114–115.
For a description of the manuscript before the fire, see B. Peyron, Codices Hebraici manu exarati Regiae Bibliothecae quae in Taurinensi Athenaeo asservatur, Torino 1880, p. 200, number 188 (where the text is wrongly identified as “William of Ockham’s philosophical questions”; this mistake is repeated by Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 470, and Rothschild, Questions, p. 114, no. 5); Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, pp. 162–163, number 122 (where the text is identified correctly). A description of the contents of this manuscript (including many quotations from its introduction) is contained in an unpublished letter, sent shortly after its acquisition by one of its owners, Tommaso Valperga di Caluso, to Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi on 7 October 1795 (Valperga mistakenly identifies the text as Habillo’s questions on Thomas’s De ente et essentia). This letter is preserved in Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Lettere autografe di uomini illustri, cassetti 109–123.
See Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, p. 124, number 58; Richler and Beit-Aríe, Hebrew Manuscripts, pp. 349–350, number 1290. A microfilmed copy of the manuscript is in the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts of the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem, number 13425.
These were the three major philosophical schools of late fifteenth century Spanish Christian Scholasticism. Thomism seems to have prevailed in Catalonia, while Scotism was strong at the University of Lérida, in Aragon; “Nominalism” (in some cases, following Ockham’s doctrines) was accepted at the Universities of Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares (in the old kingdom of Castile) at the beginning of the sixteenth century (cf. Carreras y Artau, Filosofia cristiana, Vol. 2, pp. 578–585).
On this work, see M. Gensler, Catalogue of Works by or Ascribed to Antonius Andreae, “Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum” 31 (1992), 147–155, p. 154. The work is preserved in at least two manuscripts: Assisi, Biblioteca Conventuale, no. 970, ff. 97r–101r (fifteenth century) and Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria, no. 1580, ff. 113ra–114va (according to Gensler: 110d–114d) (fourteenth century). (The latter manuscript contains also, on ff. 1r–110v, a copy of Andreas’s questions on the Metaphysics.) On Habillo’s use of Andreas’s work, see Zonta, Arabic and Latin Glosses, pp. 47–48; Id., The Relationship, pp. 155–156.
Published in Franciscus de Mayronis, In Libros Sententiarum, Quodlibeta, Tractatus Formalitatum, De Primo Principio, Terminorum Theologicalium, Declarationes, De Univocatione, Venetiis 1520 (repr. Frankfurt a.M. 1966), ff. 263ra–268va.
See below, p. 186.
This short passage was first published in Sermoneta, Scholastic Philosophic Literature (quoted above, Historical Introduction, note 127), p. 140.
The subsequent description of Scotus’s doctrine of universals seems based upon a Scotist Scholastic compendium, rather than upon a direct knowledge of Scotus’s works. On Scotus’s doctrine, see Noone, Universals and Individuation, pp. 105–112.
The last paragraph refers to Scotus’s doctrine of “modal distinction”, about which cf. King, Scotus on Metaphysics, pp. 25–26.
Habillo might be referring to the difficulty of interpreting the Hebrew names of God in Maimonides’s Guide of the Perplexed, part I, chapter 61 (see the English translation by Shlomo Pines in Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, Vol. 1, Chicago-London 1963, pp. 147–150).
For some comments on this passage, see Zonta, La filosofia antica, p. 119.
I have been unable to locate the literal source of this passage. However, one can compare it with John the Canon, Quaestiones super VIII libros Physicorum, book I, q. 5: Diffinitio [e.g., “rational animal”]et diffinitum [e.g., “man”]distinguuntur ex natura rei (cf. Joannis Canonici Super octo libros Physicorum quaestiones, Venetiis 1481, f. 24ra, ll. 43–44).
Cf. the Tractatus formalitatum... Francisci Mayronis, ed. cit., f. 265ra, ll. 58–62: Modi distinctionum sunt septem, quoniam quae distinguuntur aut distinguuntur ratione, aut ex natura rei, aut distinctione formali, aut distinctione reali, aut distinctione essentiali, aut distinctione se totis subiective, aut distinctione se totis obiective. Cf. also Antonius Andreas’s Tractatus abbreviatus de modis distinctionum, ms. Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria, no. 1580, f. 113ra, ll. 10–17: Prima distinctio est: eorum quae distinguuntur quaedam distinguuntur ratione, quaedam ex natura rei. Secunda distinctio est: eorum quae distinguuntur ex natura rei, quaedam distinguuntur realiter, quaedam distinguuntur formaliter, quaedam essentialiter. Tertia distinctio est: distinctorum essentialiter quaedam distinguuntur se totis subiective, quaedam se totis obiective.
This passage is almost a literal translation of the corresponding passage of the Tractatus formalitatum... Francisci Mayronis, ed. cit., f. 265rb, ll. 32–45: Distinctio rationis vel illa distinguuntur ratione quae distinguuntur per actum collativum vel comparativum intellectus, vel alicuius potentiae collativae (...) iuxta doctrinam Aristotelis III De anima, ubi ait: intellectus agens est omnia facens. (...) Actus ipsius intellectus est duplex. Primum est simplices quidditates rerum apprehendens, et iuxta istum modum nec est identitas nec distinctio. Secundum est comparare vel dividere, et penes istum modum creatur distinctio rationis, qualis est via de Athenis ad Thebas, quae solum est rationis. Andreas’s Tractatus treats the same question differently: cf. ms. Padua, ff. 113ra, l. 17–113rb, l. 1: Illa distinguuntur ratione, non quidem ratione reali reperta in re distinguibili vel distincta secundum rationem, idest in intellectus fabricatione, quaecumque distinguuntur per actum collativum seu comparativum intellectus possibilis vel alterius potentiae collativae (...). Dico autem actum collativum quod duplex est actus intellectus possibilis, scilicet: primarius sive rectus et secundarius sive reflexus sive comparativus. Primarius actus dicitur quo fertur in obiectum absolute; secundarius sive collativus quo fertur in obiectum ipsum alii comparando. (...) Ergo dicitur distinctio rationis vel aliquid distinguitur ab alio ratione quando id distinguitur ab illo non quidem primo sive recto actu intellectus possibilis seu alterius potentiae, sed quando actu secundo sive reflexo, quod quidem actus reflexus dicitur comparativus non solum autem intellectus possibilis est potentia collativa-scilicet voluntas et imaginatio (...). Praedictae duae potentiae possunt creare vel originare distinctionem rationis.
This passage seems to reflect both the Tractatus formalitatum (ed. cit., f. 265va, ll. 1–6: Circa distinctionem ex natura rei queritur per quod distinguuntur ex natura rei, et dico quod illa quae habent esse praeter opus intellectus. [...] Vel aliter: illa distinguuntur ex natura rei de quibus praedicata contradictoria possunt verificari praeter opus intellectus) and Andreas’s Tractatus (ms. Padua, f. 113rb, ll. 6–10: Illa distinguuntur ex natura rei precise quorum distinctio precise dependet ex rationibus propriis terminorum et non ab actu alicuius potentiae collativae qualis est distinctio hominis ab asino).
The source of the above “division” is, with some alterations, the Tractatus formalitatum... Francisci Mayronis, ed. cit., f. 265va, ll. 18–35: Secundo noto quot modis investigatur talis distinctio, et breviter dico quod quattuor modis, scilicet per quattuor genera oppositionum, scilicet: contrariam, contradictoriam, relativam et privativam. Per relativam sic: nam movens et motum opponuntur relative, et applicantur intellectui et voluntati. Nam voluntas vult et est movens: nam ipsa est tamquam regina in regno et imperat intellectui quod intelligat; ergo ipsa est movens, intellectus vero movetur. Ergo distinctio est inter ista praeter fabricationem intellectus, non realis (ed.: realem) secundum Augustinum, ergo ex natura rei. Secundo per oppositionem contrariorum: et sic investigatur distinctio ex natura rei inter ens ad se et ens ad aliquid, quae opponuntur proprie, et applicantur subiecto et propriae passioni. Nam subiectum est ens ad se: puta hominem; propria passio est ens ad aliquid: puta risibilita [tem]; ergo distinctio est inter illa non realis, ergo ex natura rei. Tertio per oppositionem privativam (...) (this form of distinction is omitted by Habillo). Quarto et ultimo per oppositionem contradictoriam, applicando ista duo contradictoria, scilicet constituere et non constituere; nam partes constituunt, totum vero non constituit. Ergo est distinctio inter illa non realis, ergo ex natura rei.
Cf. Tractatus formalitatum... Francisci Mayronis, ed. cit., f. 263va, ll. 2–3: Formalitas non est ratio diffinitiva rei adaequate.
This is an explicit, literal quotation of the Tractatus formalitatum secundum doctrinam Francisci Mayronis, ed. cit., f. 263va, ll. 11–12: Formalitas est quidditas uniuscuiusque rei, sive ipsum sit diffinibile, sive non.
The literal source of this quotation is the definition of “formality” in Nicholas Bonet’s Formalitates. See Nicolaus Bonet, Formalitates secundum viam doctoris subtilis, Venetiis 1489 (copy in Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Stamp. Barb. BBB III 16, variously paged), on f. 1va, ll. 31–34, of the text of Bonet’s work: Illud est formalitas, vel quidditas, quod idem est: quod additum alteri variat rationem eius formalem, scilicet, constituti ex illo cui additur, vel per se est inclusum in ratione formali alicuius.
Cf. Andreas’s Tractatus, f. 113rb, ll. 10–17: Illa distinguuntur formaliter quaecumque inter se habent quod unum ab alio ultimative abstractum non includit quidditative reliquum, sicut in divinis bonitas a virtute et sapientia ultimative abstracta non includunt se quidditative, sive istis rationibus quidditativis, licet includant se identice. In this case, the definition given in the Tractatus formalitatum is different (ed. cit., 265va, ll. 37–40: Quae distinguuntur formaliter... sunt illa quorum praedicata non ponuntur in eadem diffinitione, scilicet in diversis, ut homo et asinus).
Cf. Andreas’s Tractatus, f. 114ra, ll. 7–26 (this passage is included in the discussion of the distinctio realis): Praedicatio quidem essentialis distinguitur secundum mentem Scoti in quolibet significatu suo, quia quaedam est praedicatio identica, quaedam formalis. Ad praedicationem autem identicam duo necessario requiruntur: primum est quod primum et secundum sunt idem essentialiter (... ). Secundum est quod utrumque extremum scilicet secundum et primum vel eorum alterum sit infinitum vel formaliter sicut in divinis, vel permissive sicut in transcendentibus simpliciter (... ). Prima autem praedicatio est formalis in qua primum pertinet identice ad rationem quidditativam.
These “divisions” are almost literally taken from the Tractatus formalitatum... Francisci Mayronis, ed. cit., ff. 266rb, l. 56-266va, l. 12 (although in this work they are treated under the heading “real distinction”): Sciendum est quod concretum quantum ad praesens spectat est quadruplex (sic) differentia. Nam prima est secundum quod superior concernit suum inferior; exemplum sicut animal concernit hominem. Secundum est secundum quod natura concernit suum suppositum, ut humanitas Petri. Tertia, secundum quod una ratio quidditativa concernit aliam; exemplum sicut genus differentiam. Quarta, secundum quod accidens respicit subiectum, ut coloratum lignum. Quinta, secundum quod relatio concernit suum proprium subiectum, ut filiatio concernit filium. Secundum ergo numerum et diversitatem praedictarum concretionum numerantur vel diversificantum abstractiones, ita tantum quod primus modus abstractionis est secundum quem superius abstrahitur ab inferiori, ut sicut animal abstrahitur ab homine; secundus modus est secundum quem natura abstrahitur a proprio supposito, ut humanitas a Socrate; tertius modus est secundum quem una ratio quidditativa abstrahitur ab alia, sicut animalitas a rationabilitate, et e contrario; quartus est secundum quem relatio abstrahitur a suo fundamento, ut sicut filiatio abstrahitur a filio. Circa quae quattuor sunt hic notanda: primum quod in divinis possunt fieri quattuor abstractiones, sive quattuor modi abstrahendi. (Habillo accepts only the following three abstractions.) De primo patet quod ibi superior abstrahitur ab inferiori, sicut ens ab hoc ente, et sapientia ab hac sapientia, scilicet divina, et sic filiatio ab hac filiatione, scilicet divina. De secundo patet, nam essentia divina potest abstrahi a quolibet supposito, sic divinitas a Patre, Filio et Spiritu Sancto. De tertio patet, nam essentia divina potest abstrahi a quolibet attributo, ut divinitas a bonitate. This topic is discussed in a very similar, though not identical, way in Andreas’s Tractatus, ff. 113va, l. 20–113vb, l. 11 (where, like in Habillo, it is treated under the heading “formal distinction”).
On this doctrine, cf. the Tractatus formalitatum, ed. cit., f. 263rb, ll. 13–21.
This division is taken from the Tractatus formalitatum... Francisci Mayronis, ed. cit., f. 266rb, ll. 1–18: Nota quot modis investigatur distinctio realis. Et breviter dico quod quattuor modis. (...) (Habillo omits the first mode.) Secundo modo via generationis. Nam si unum generatur, reliquum vero non, illa realiter distinguuntur, et isto modo investigamus inter materiam et formam. Nam forma generatur, materia vero non, quia est ingenerabilis et incorruptibilis, ex I Physicorum. Tertio via corruptionis, et hoc sic: nam quando aliqua sic se habent quod unum corrumpitur, reliquum vero non, illa realiter distinguuntur, et isto modo investigatur inter relationem et fundamentum, accidens et subiectum. Nam relatio corrumpitur manente fundamento, ut patet (...). Si diceres ex quo illa sunt corrupta est distinctio inter illa, dico quod non, nam distinctio realis duo extrema requirit in actu. Quarto via separationis. Nam quando aliqua sic se habent quod separata existunt vel possunt esistere, illa realiter distinguuntur, ut Socrates et Plato.
This definition reflects both Andreas’s Tractatus (f. 114rb, ll. 10–17: Illa distinguuntur essentialiter quaecumque inter se habent quod uno existente aliud non existit vel non opus existere, ut quando unum est natum prius alio vel quando uno corrupto vel destructo non opus aliud corrumpi, vel quando unum potest poni sine alio per potentiam aliquam in actuali existentia, sicut homo et angelus), and the Tractatus formalitatum (ed. cit., f. 266va, ll. 36–38: Illa distinguuntur essentialiter quae per aliquam potentiam possunt esse separata, ut materia et forma, accidens et substantia).
Cf. the Tractatus formalitatum, ed. cit., f. 266va, ll. 41–45: Distinctio realis simpliciter in plus se habet quaedam essentialis. Nam bene sequitur: distinguuntur essentialiter, ergo realiter; tantum non convertitur in divinis. In creaturis autem convertibiliter se habent, quoniam quaecumque distinguuntur realiter distinguuntur essentialiter, et e converso. Scotus upholds the doctrine according to which there is a real distinction between the three persons of the Trinity, but no real distinction in God’s essence: see J. Ross and T. Bates, Duns Scotus on Natural Theology, inThe Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus, 193–237, on p. 233, note 68.
The source of this passage is Andreas’s Tractatus, f. 114rb, ll. 18–24: Illa distinguuntur se totis subiective quaecumque inter se habent quod realitates eorum sunt distinctae numero vel individuo vel in actuali existentia vel quando realitas unius est particularizata et divisa a realitate alterius, sicut Petrus et Andreas et quaelibet individua eiusdem speciei.
For the model of this passage, cf. Andreas’s Tractatus, f. 114rb, ll. 24–31: Illa distinguuntur se totis obiective quod numquam inveniuntur in aliquo una realitate seu ratione quidditativa vel a quibus non potest abstrahi aliquis conceptus univocus realis seu propriae rationis sicut sunt differentiae formales et individuales et alia quae habent conceptum quidditativum et qualitativum sicut ens et bonum.
On this doctrine, see King, Scotus on Metaphysics, pp. 18–21.
See Antonii Andreae Super XII libros Metaphysicorum quaestiones, Vicentiis 1477 [copy in Pavia, Biblioteca Universitaria, 111 G 15], ff. 1rb–8vb (book I, q. 1: Utrum ens simpliciter sumptum quod est commune Deo et creaturae sit scientiae metaphysicae subiectum primum primitate adaequationis) and ff. 41vb–43ra (book IV,q. 4: Utrum istud principium: impossibile est idem simul esse et non esse, sit firmissimum et notissimum).
Cf. the Tractatus formalitatum... Francisci Mayronis, f. 267rb, ll. 7–13: Omnia illa quae sunt diversa distinguuntur se totis obiective. (...) Aliud est dicere aliqua esse diversa et differentia. (...) Iuxta quod dicit Scotus quod omnis differentia differentium reducitur ad aliqua diversa.
Cf. Andreas’s Tractatus, f. 114rb, ll. 31 ff. (Quotiens distinguitur distinctio, totiens et identitas) and f. 114rb, l. 40-114va, l. 2: Descriptiones istarum identitatum (ms. identitatis) sunt accipiendae per oppositionem ad descriptiones supradictas de modis distinctionum.
In Medieval Hebrew, asmut usually has the meaning of “essence” (cf. J. Klatzkin and M. Zobel, Thesaurus philosophicus linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris, Lipsiae 1928–1933, Vol. 3, pp. 160–161).
Cf. Rothschild, Questions, in particular pp. 106–108.
For a description of this manuscript (olim De Rossi 457), cf. Richler and Beit-Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts, p. 359, number 1316; cf. also Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, pp. 139–140, number 84. Rothschild, Questions, pp. 118–120, notes 57, 60 and 63, has shown that the manuscript contains some scribal errors which cannot be reasonably ascribed to the author. A palaeographical comparison with the ms. parm. 2978 (an autograph by Habillo) appears to confirm Rothschild’s statement.
On the technique of the Scholastic quaestio in this work, see Rothschild, Questions, p. 116.
Gonter (in Hebrew letters, g-n-t-y-r) is a Catalan or Aragonese reading of Gualterus (the usual Latin rendering of the first name of Walter Burley), not a transcription of “Inghen”, as implicitly supposed by Rothschild, Questions, p. 117.
Cf. Gualterus Burlaeus, Expositio in libros octo Physicorum, Venetiis 1482, f. 15va, ll. 1–2: Univocum dicitur tribus modis: communiter, proprie et magis proprie.
In the ensuing discussion, Shalom argues that “there is a great difference between the two matters and the two generations: as one matter is simple and the other is composite, so one generation is absolute and the other is according to alteration (hishtanut), as is clear from De generatione, book I, summa 3, chapter 3, question 1; and these two generations are called in their language (i.e., in Latin) generatio simpliciter dicta et generatio secundum quid, since the intention of the former is substantial form, which substantiates prime matter only, while the intention of the latter is formtogether with the accidents common to composite matter—and the difference between them is great for those who know the truth through the study of philosophy” (f. 63r, ll. 8–15). The source of this passage is very probably Marsilius of Inghen’s Quaestiones de generatione et corruptione. See Marsilius, De generatione et corruptione cum expositione Aegidii, Venetiis 1500, f. 50rb, ll. 48–56, 59–61 (book I, quaestio 3: Utrum generatio sit alteratio): Quantum ad primum, est notandum quod duplex est generatio, scilicet generatio simpliciter et secundum quid dicta. Patuit quid sit utrumque ex praecedenti quaestione. (Cf. ibidem, ff. 48vb’50ra, book I, quaestio 2: Utrum aliquid possit simpliciter generari et corrumpi.) Secundo est notandum quod generatio aliquando accipitur pro dispositione praevia disponente materiam ad introductionem formae substantialis, et sic non differt ab alteratione, sicut patet per commentatorem, aliquando autem per introductionem formae substantialis, et sic dicitur generatio simpliciter (...). Generatio secundum quid connotat simplicem productionem secundum aliquod praedicamentum aliud a praedicamento substantiae, ut productionem albedinis aut consimilis.
See above, note 106.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shalom, A. (2006). Abraham Shalom and Eli Habillo. In: Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3716-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3716-3_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3715-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3716-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)