Abstract
This chapter uncovers a less investigated aspect of the relationship between the two most important scholastic schools of the Renaissance, Thomism and Scotism: the influence of Scotist literature on distinctions as seen in some sixteenth-century Thomists. The chapter has a primary focus on Chrysostomus Javelli’s engagement in his discussion of divine attributes with the Scotist doctrine of distinctions, but also considers other Thomist sources. First, the beginnings of the highly specialised Scotist literature on distinctions are traced back to the start of the fourteenth century; I show how some early followers of Duns Scotus, in particular Francis of Meyronnes and Petrus Thomae, systematised Scotus’ ontology of the various grades of being by compiling lists of subtle distinctions to be applied to various levels of reality. I give some indications as to the later reception of these models of distinctions in the Scotist school. Special attention is paid to Étienne Brulefer, since his summary of Petrus Thomae’s model of seven distinctions was Javelli’s source for the Scotist doctrine. I then investigate how Javelli worked with Brulefer’s summary, and how he sought to integrate the Scotist doctrine into his own discussion of divine attributes. Thomists traditionally allowed only a rational or mental kind of distinction among divine attributes, and between them and the divine essence. Javelli, however, endeavours to show how the Thomist position may be reconciled with the Scotist doctrine of a formal or ex natura rei distinction. He did not always endorse this conciliatory approach; I hypothesise that he changed his mind on the subject over time. Finally, I show how other Renaissance Thomists reacted to the Scotist system of distinctions; in particular, I draw attention to the Thomists Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Bartolomeo Manzoli, and Mattia Gibboni da Aquario, who all wrote treatises on Thomist distinction theory modelled on the Scotist system of distinctions. In some of this literature, lists of distinctions based on Thomist metaphysics were compiled in order to replace the Scotist system. I argue that Javelli’s approach is more conciliatory and, in fact, has some overlap with the concordist thought of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who himself considered Scotus and Aquinas to be in fundamental agreement as regards the distinction between divine attributes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I use the edition of Javelli’s Quaestiones on Aristotle’s Metaphysics found in the 1568 Lyon edition of his Totius rationalis, naturalis, divinae ac moralis philosophiae compendium, vol. I; the work is there called Super duodecim Metaphysices Aristotelis libros ad mentem Aristotelis et S. Thomae utplurimum decisae. The work was first published, along with other of Javelli’s Aristotelian works, at Venice in 1534, after it had been revised and completed by Javelli in January of 1532, during which time he was in Cremona; see Tavuzzi 1990, 478, and 1991, 115; Cordonier and De Robertis 2021, 41.
- 2.
- 3.
One version of the treatise, edited by Egbert P. Bos under the title De distinctione predicamentorum, appeared as an appendix to Bos 2000. The other version was edited by Celia López Alcalde under the title Tractatus brevis de modis distinctionum in Thomae 2011, with a Catalan translation by Josep Batalla and an English one by Robert D. Hughes. I shall refer to both versions and, whenever relevant, point out the differences between them.
- 4.
In the following, I refer to a later printed edition of the first treatise.
- 5.
Javelli 1568, 892b–893a: ‘Circa genere distinctionum Scotistarum adverte quod ut extraxi ex tracta. formalitatum Stephani Burlifer, sunt septem.
Prima dicitur distinctio rationis, et est illa, quae fit per intellectum collativum praecise, ut Sortes est Sortes. Nam Sortes in praedicato differt ratione a seipso posito in subiecto. Dico autem praecise, quoniam ibi non accipitur distinctio rationis, quae proveniat ex parte rei ratiocinabilis, sed quae est solum ex parte intellectus ratiocinantis. Nam distinctio rationis ex parte rei idem est, quod distinctio ex natura rei. Haec Stephan.
Secunda dicitur distinctio ex natura rei, et est inter duo extrema, de quibus praedicata contradictoria possunt verificari praeter omne opus intellectus, sic distinguuntur totum et partes. Nam totum est constitutum, partes non sunt constitutae. Partes sunt constituentes, et totum non est constituens. Sic distinguuntur genus et differentia, quoniam genus dividitur differentiis, differentiae autem non dividuntur differentiis, ergo de eis verificantur praedicata contradictoria, ex consequenti distinguuntur ex natura rei.
Tertia dicitur distinctio formalis, et est quando aliqua duo non se mutuo includunt in primo modo per se, ut passio et subiectum, actio et passio, genus et differentia.
Quarta dicitur distinctio realis, quae est inter quaecunque, quorum unum potest ab altero separari, ut materia et forma, ad mentem Scoti, subiectum et accidens commune.
Quinta dicitur distinctio essentialis, quae est inter duas essentias, quae per aliquam potentiam possunt abinvicem separari, ut Sortes et albedo, et nota quod licet in creatis quaecunque distinguuntur realiter, distinguantur essentialiter, non tamen in Deo secundum Theologos, nam haec est vera, pater et filius distinguuntur realiter, non tamen essentialiter, quoniam distinctio essentialis est absoluta, quae non cadit in Deo, cum sit omnino simplex.
Sexta dicitur distinctio se totis subiectivae, et est quando duo extrema sunt distincta realiter et actu existunt, et tamen non possunt convenire in uno aliquo subiecto, ut duo individua eiusdem speciei, et quaecunque oppositionem habent adinvicem, ita quod non possunt eidem simul inesse. Haec tamen distinctio est alia a distinctione reali, quia in illa non requiritur separatio actualis, sed sufficit potentialis, in hac vero requiritur separatio actualis, unde anima et corpus non distinguuntur hac distinctione, quia conveniunt in uno composito distinguuntur tamen realiter, quia sunt abinvicem separabilia.
Septima dicitur se totis obiectivae, et est quando extrema non conveniunt in aliquo uno conceptu reali quidditative, ut duae ultimae differentiae, quae sunt primo diversa, ens et non ens, et secundum viam Thomist. Deus et creatura, substantia et accidens, quae in nullo conceptu reali univoco conveniunt. Haec est summa distinctionum secundum mentem Scoti’.
- 6.
Note that Thomae 2011, 286–288, in contrast to Brulefer, does differentiate between a rational distinction founded in the ratio of a thing and one that is fabricated by a ratio, i.e., an intellect; however, only the latter is of relevance in his system of distinctions (this differentiation is not found in the version edited by Bos; see Bos 2000, 296). For Petrus Thomae on rational distinction, see Bridges 1959, 57–68; Andersen 2011, 111–119.
- 7.
- 8.
Brulefer 1485–90, 1v: ‘Illa etiam sunt res et res […] quorum unum est generans et aliud genitum, quia nulla res seipsum gignit, secundum Augustinum libro primo De trinitate, ut in divinis pater et filius’.
- 9.
- 10.
The version edited by Bos, which in this respect is closer to Brulefer, has ‘conceptus unicus’ or ‘conceptus unus’ instead of ‘conceptus univocus’; Bos 2000, 302 and 312.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Javelli 1568, 892a: ‘Prima conclusio, istae dispositiones non distinguuntur realiter ab essentia primi principii, nec inter se, imo identice una est altera; probatur, ubi sunt plura entia realia absoluta distincta realiter, ibi est compositio realis, quia non est intelligibile quod plura conveniant in uno absoluta et distincta realiter ab eo in quo sunt, et inter se, quin sit ibi compositio, aut ex eis, aut cum his’.
- 14.
Javelli 1568, 892a: ‘Secunda conclusio, licet sint idem realiter cum substantia primi principii et inter se, tamen distinguuntur formaliter et ratione’.
- 15.
Ibid., references Averroes 1562/1962, 323aC (In Met. XII, comm. 39): ‘Multiplicitas igitur in Deo non est nisi in intellectu differentia, non in esse’; and Avicenna 1980, 430 (Liber de philosophia prima VIII, cap. 7): ‘[…] nulla autem harum duarum facit in sua essentia debere esse multitudinem ullo modo nec variationem’.
- 16.
Javelli 1568, 893a: ‘Sed distinguuntur ratione ex parte intellectus, quae est prima species distinctionis. Quia intellectus de unaquaque potest formare proprium conceptum, sed non tantum ratione ex parte intellectus, imo et ex natura rei, quae est species secunda distinctionis, nam sumptis duabus perfectionibus divinis puta intellectu et voluntate, de eis verificantur praedicata contradictoria, nam de intellectu verum est dicere, quod intelligit, et de voluntate verum est dicere, quod non intelligit, ergo distinguuntur ex natura rei, et distinguuntur distinctione formali, quae est tertia species distinctionis, quoniam una perfectio non praedicatur de alia in primo modo per se formaliter, sed identice, unde nec intellectus est voluntas formaliter econverso’.
- 17.
Javelli 1568, 894a: ‘Et maxime quia aequipollet distinctioni actuali repertae in perfectionibus creatis, unde sicut in nobis ista duo non contradicunt: intellectus intelligit, voluntas non intelligit, quia est distinctio actualis, et non identitas, inter intellectum creatum et voluntatem, sic in Deo ista duo non contradicunt, intellectus intelligit, voluntas non intelligit, quia inter ea. stat distinctio virtualis aequipollens illi actuali’.
- 18.
Notably, this hypothesis has implications for the dating of the Tractatus de transcendentibus. The date of composition of this opuscule remains unknown. No separate edition is listed in Tavuzzi 1991, 114; it was only printed in posthumously published collections of works by Javelli. It seems unlikely that Javelli would first develop his differentiated conciliatory stance on the Thomist and Scotist theories of distinctions and then later go back to the idea of a simple opposition between the two; hence, the Tractatus clearly predates the Quaestiones on Aristotle’s Metaphysics (revised and completed in January of 1532; see the references in the introductory section). The fact that the Tractatus is referenced in the latter work seems to confirm this hypothesis of relative chronology; see Javelli 1568, 735b.
- 19.
Raynaud 1622, 601b (speaking of the divine attributes): ‘[A]pud Commentatorem vocantur dispositiones, apud Avicennam proprietates, apud Algazelem designationes, ut advertit Iavellus 12. Met. q. 19. post Capreol. in 1. d. 8. q. 4. concl. 1. in fine.’ Italics as in the original.
- 20.
Instead, an example of Javelli’s influence is found in the Calvinist tradition: Alsted 1613, 239–240, quotes all of Javelli’s account of the totally subjective and the totally objective distinctions, including Javelli’s assessment of the Thomist view of the totally objective distinction; Alsted explicitly refers to Javelli.
- 21.
Manzoli 1518, unpaginated *3v: ‘Nam qui formalitates ignorat quamvis animi viribus excellat, is mihi tantum a docto viro distare videtur, quantum rudis et informis materia ab ea quae arte ellaborata praestantissimam formam accepit, perficiunt siquidem formalitates animum nostrum atque condecorant non secus ac forma materiam’.
- 22.
Aquario 1605, 24: ‘Patet ergo ex dictis, quot sunt species distinctionum apud S. Thomam; caeterae vero quas aliqui formalizantes introducunt, vel reducuntur ad supradictas, vel aequivalent nihilo’.
- 23.
Pico della Mirandola 1998, 366: ‘De distinctione ex natura rei non debent discordare Thomistae et Scotistae, si suos doctores fundamentaliter intelligant’; ‘De attributorum distinctione non discordant Thomas et Scotus’.
References
Alsted, Johann Heinrich. 1613. Metaphysica tribus libris tractata. Herborn: N.N. [Christoph Corvinus].
Andersen, Claus A. 2011. Introduction. In Pere Tomàs [Petrus Thomae]. Tractatus brevis de modis distinctionum, ed. C. López Alcalde and J. Batalla, 12–270. Santa Coloma de Queralt: Obrador Edèndum.
———. 2016. Metaphysik im Barockscotismus. Untersuchungen zum Metaphysikwerk des Bartholomaeus Mastrius. Mit Dokumentation der Metaphysik in der scotistischen Tradition ca. 1620–1750. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Aquario, Mattia Gibboni da [Mathias Aquarius]. 1584. Dilucidationes in XII. libros primae philosophiae Aristotelis. Rome: Bartolomeo Bonfadini and Tito Diani.
——— . 1605. Formalitates iuxta doctrinam Angelici Doctoris D. Thomae Aquinatis. Naples: Constantino Vitali.
Andersen, Claus A., and Rafael Ramis Barceló. 2022. Jaume Janer OCist († after 1506) and the tradition of Scoto-Lullist metaphysics. Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 64: 167–207.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1888. Pars prima Summae theologiae, quaestiones 1–49. In Opera omnia, ed. Leonina, vol. 4. Rome: Typographia Polyglotta.
———. 1961. Liber de veritate catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium seu Summa contra gentiles, ed. P. Caramello, P. Marc, and C. Pera, vol. 2. Turin/Rome: Marietti.
Averroes. 1562/1962. Commentaria in libros XII Metaphysicorum Aristotelis. In Aristotelis omnia quae extant opera, vol. 8. Venice: Giunta. Reprint Frankfurt a.M.: Minerva.
Avicenna. 1980. Liber de philosophia prima sive scientia divina, V–X. In Avicenna Latinus, ed. S. van Riet, vol. 4. Louvain/Leiden: Peeters/Brill.
Bolliger, Daniel. 2003. Infiniti contemplatio. Grundzüge der Scotus- und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Bos, Egbert P. 2000. Petrus Thomae’s De distinctione predicamentorum (with a working edition). In The winged chariot: Collected essays on Plato and Platonism in honour of L. M. de Rijk, ed. M. Kardaun and J. Spruyt, 277–312. Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill.
Bridges, Geoffrey G. 1959. Identity and distinction in Petrus Thomae, O.F.M. New York: Franciscan Institute Publications.
Brulefer, Stephanus. Ca. 1485–1490. Formalitates in doctrinam Scoti. Paris: N.N. [Guy Marchant].
Bubenheimer, Ulrich. 1977. Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Cajetan [Thomas de Vio]. 1888. Commentaria in primam partem Summa theologiae, quaestiones 1–49. In Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia, ed. Leonina, vol. 4. Rome: Typographia Polyglotta.
Capreolus, Ioannes. 1589. In libros Sententiarum amplissimae quaestiones pro tutela doctrinae S. Thomae. Venice: Girolamo Scoto.
Copenhaver, Brian P. 2022. Pico della Mirandola on trial. Heresy, freedom, and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cordonier, Valérie, and Tommaso De Robertis. 2021. Chrysostomus Javelli’s epitome of Aristotle’s Liber de bona fortuna. Examining fortune in early modern Italy. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Courtenay, William. 2011. Early Scotists at Paris: A reconsideration. Franciscan Studies 69: 175–229.
D’Ettore, Domenic. 2018. Dominic of Flanders’ critique of John Duns Scotus’ primary argument for the univocity of being. Vivarium 56: 176–199.
De Robertis, Tommaso. 2022. Per una storia della ricezione del Liber de bona fortuna nel Cinquecento italiano: Crisostomo Javelli e Girolamo Garimberti. Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 101 (1): 112–131.
Duns Scotus, John. 1950. Ordinatio. Liber primus, distinctio prima et secunda, ed. C. Balić et al. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.
———. 1997. Quaestiones super libros metaphysicorum Aristotelis. Libri VI–IX, ed. R. Andrews et al. New York: The Franciscan Institute.
———. 2008. The examined report of the Paris lecture. Reportatio I-A, ed. A.B. Wolter and O.V. Bychkov, vol. 2. New York: The Franciscan Institute.
Edelheit, Amos. 2007. The ‘scholastic’ theology of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Between biblical faith and academic skepticism. Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 74: 523–570.
———. 2022. A philosopher at the crossroads. Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola’s encounter with scholastic philosophy. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Heider, Daniel. 2012. Suárez and Javelli on transcendentals and divisions of being. In Universalità della ragione. Pluralità delle filosofie nel medioevo, ed. A. Musco, C. Compagno, S. D’Agostino, and G. Musotto, 849–859. Palermo: Officina di Studi Medievali.
Javelli, Chrysostomus. 1568. Totius rationalis, naturalis, divinae ac moralis philosophiae compendium, vol. 1. Lyon: Jacopo Giunta.
Karlstadt, Andreas [Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein von Karlstadt]. 1508. Distinctiones Thomistarum. Wittenberg: Ioannes Gronenberg.
King, Peter. 2004. Duns Scotus on mental content. In Duns Scotus à Paris 1302–2002, ed. O. Boulnois, E. Karger, J.-L. Solére, and G. Sondag, 65–88. Turnhout: Brepols.
Manzoli, Bartolomeo [Manzolus, Bartholomaeus]. 1518. Formalitates secundum viam Sancti Thome. Libellus de diffinitionibus. Bologna: Girolamo de Benedictis.
Meyronnes, Francis of [Mayronis, Franciscus de]. 1520/1966. In libros sententiarum, Quodlibeta, Tractatus formalitatum, De primo principio, Terminorum theologicalium declarationes, De univocatione. Venice: Ottaviano Scoto. Reprint Frankfurt a. M.: Minerva.
Noone, Timothy B. 2009. Ascoli, Wylton, and Alnwick on Scotus’s formal distinction: Taxonomy, refinement, and interaction. In Philosophical debates at Paris in the early fourteenth century, ed. S.F. Brown, T. Dewender, and T. Kobusch, 127–149. Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill.
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. 1942. De hominis dignitate, Heptaplus, De ente et uno, e scritti vari, ed. E. Garin. Florence: Vallecchi.
———. 1998. [Conclusiones nongentae]. In Syncretism in the West. Pico’s 900 theses (1486). The evolution of traditional religious and philosophical systems, ed. S.A. Farmer. Tempe: Medieval & Renaissance texts & studies.
Raynaud, Théophile. 1622. Theologia naturalis sive entis increati et creati intra supremam abstractionem ex naturae lumine investigatio. Lyon: Claude Landry.
Sarnano, Constanzo [Constantius Buccafocus]. 1590/1911. Conciliatio dilucida omnium controversiarum quae in doctrina duorum summorum theologorum S. Thomae et subtilis Ioannis Scoti passim leguntur. Lyon: Giunta. Reprint Rome.
Tavuzzi, Michael. 1990. Chrysostomus Iavelli O.P. (c. 1470–1538). A biobibliographical essay. Part I. Biography. Angelicum 67: 457–482.
———. 1991. Chrysostomus Iavelli O.P. (c. 1470–1538). A biobibliographical essay. Part II. Bibliography. Angelicum 68: 109–121.
———. 1993. Some renaissance thomist divisions of analogy. Angelicum 70: 93–121.
Thomae, Petrus. 1957. Quodlibet, ed. M.R. Hooper and E.M. Buytaert. St. Bonaventure: The Franciscan Institute.
——— [Pere Tomàs]. 2011. Tractatus brevis de modis distinctionum, ed. C. López Alcalde and J. Batalla. Santa Coloma de Queralt: Obrador Edèndum.
———. 2015. Quaestiones de esse intelligibili, ed. G.R. Smith. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
———. 2018. Quaestiones de ente, ed. G.R. Smith. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Werner, Karl. 1887. Der Endausgang der mittelalterlichen Scholastik. Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller.
Zahnd, Ueli. 2015. Easy-going scholars lecturing secundum alium? Notes on some French Franciscan sentences commentaries of the fifteenth century. In Mediaeval commentaries on the sentences of Peter Lombard, ed. P.W. Rosemann, vol. 3, 267–314. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
Work on this chapter was funded by the Czech Science Foundation (project: Theory of Cognition in Baroque Scotism, no. GAČR 20-01710S) while I was affiliated with the University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice (Czech Republic), Faculty of Theology, Department for Philosophy and Religious Studies. I thank both of the editors of the present volume for the invitation to contribute a chapter on Javelli’s engagement with the Scotist tradition and for advice on research literature. I also thank Daniel Heider for comments on a draft version of this chapter, Robert Andrews for proofreading and comments, and the anonymous reviewers for many further improvements.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Andersen, C.A. (2023). Javelli and the Reception of the Scotist System of Distinctions in Renaissance Thomism. In: De Robertis, T., Burzelli, L. (eds) Chrysostomus Javelli. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 243. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27673-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27673-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27672-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27673-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)