In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

VII. Francis’ Doctrine of Creation and Historical Impact: A Preliminary Assessment Without doubt it would be premature to assess Francis of Marchia’s doctrine at this point. The critical edition of his works has just begun, and we hope future detailed doctrinal and historical studies will clarify his views. Nevertheless, we can make a few remarks concerning the first twelve questions of his commentary on book II of the Sentences. His doctrine of creation consists of the following theses: 1) creation is the total production of a thing (that is, of all its intrinsic principles); 2) creation presupposes nothing whatsoever; prior to creation, creatures do not exist in objective or subjective potency; 3) all beings depend actually and continually on God as efficient cause; 4) the creation and the conservation of things are really identical; 5) the relation of creature to God is a real relation only after the production of the creature; 6) the positive relation of dependence of creature on God is really distinct from the creature, while the negative dependence coincides with the creature; 7) God creates immediately everything that he creates by his intellect and will; 8) the action of creation is formally in God; the passion of creation is identical with the creature; 9) God could create the world from eternity, even though, in fact, he created it in time. By this doctrine Francis shows himself to be a thinker who is at once profoundly rooted in the philosophical and theological culture of his time, and yet independent of it. On the one hand, through his methodology and his use of implicit sources he demonstrates his full awareness of the contemporary debate, with respect to which he takes his own position and clarifies his views. Thus his doctrine is profoundly anchored in the culture of his time and the geographic space that delimits it, in this case the discussions at the university of Paris at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries . Within these discussions, he is particularly linked with the Franciscan tradition (present in his writings above all through John Duns Scotus and Peter Auriol), with which he shares some general views and from which he adopted the ideal of poverty that he would defend even in opposition to ecclesiastical authority. On the other hand, Francis does not hesitate to oppose his fellow Franciscans, even the most illustrious ones, and he defends his own positions: keeping to the theme of creation, he distances himself from Scotus with regard to the relation from creature to God (thesis 6) and from Auriol with regard to the status of action, passion and their relation to motion (thesis 8); furthermore, he criticizes Auriol on the relation between creation and conservation (thesis 4), on the modality of the relation from creature to God (thesis 5) and on the immediacy of divine action (thesis 7). Concerning the eternity of the world (thesis 9), he defends an innovative and rare position, breaking with the Franciscan tradition. These few elements, on which addi- LXXV FRANCIS’ DOCTRINE OF CREATION tional analysis will bring further precision, show his independence of spirit as well as the value in studying his thought in its own right. This value and this interest did not escape Francis’ contemporaries and immediate successors. Although a comprehensive study of the reception of his thought has not yet been made, already it is clear that he had considerable influence, that quite a few thinkers took his views into consideration, and that several adopted them.143 His influence is at work notably in William of Ockham’s Opus nonaginta dierum,144 as well as in the philosophical works of Walter Chatton, John of Reading and Aufredo Gonteri Brito.145 Francis Meyronnes knew and criticized Marchia’s theory on the motion of projectiles , and the imposing commentary on the Sentences of William of Rubio, the erstwhile reportator of Francis’ works, also witnesses his influence.146 Michael of Massa explicitly employs Francis’ position on the univocity of being, and tacitly uses other elements of Francis’ thought.147 Gregory of Rimini, followed by Hugolino of Orvieto and Alfonso Vargas of Toledo considered attentively Francis’ view of the status of theology.148 Substantial parts of Paul of Venice ’s Metaphysics commentary come from Francis’ prior effort.149 Finally, John the Canon’s commentary on the Physics witnesses the importance of Francis’ philosophy of nature: John cites him 25 times, third in line after Scotus and Auriol.150 These few indications that we...

Share