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

II. Francis of Marchia’s Works Known since thefifteenth century as the Doctor succinctus, Francis of Marchia authored several works, of which only a part have been edited. Since this is the first volume to appear in a series dedicated to making Marchia’s works generally available, we supply below a list of Francis’ writings (authentic and doubtful), along with an indication of what has already been edited, in order to provide an overview of the state of research on Francis’ texts. As further volumes in this series appear, the hypotheses and evidence offered below concerning individual works will be nuanced and augmented. 1. Quaestiones in IV libros Sententiarum Francis’ commentary on Peter Lombard’s four books of the Sentences derives from Francis’ teaching at the Franciscan studium at Paris, most likely in the academic year 1319-1320. The extant written commentaries, however, may have been revised later. Numerous versions and redactions of this work survive.32 Major Editions: N. Mariani, Francisci de Marchia sive de Esculo Commentarius in IV librosSententiarumPetriLombardi.QuaestionespraeambulaeetPrologus (=the four principia and the prologue to the Reportatio), Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 31, Grottaferrata 2003. N. Mariani, Francisci de Marchia sive de Esculo Commentarius (=Reportatio I) in IV libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. Distinctiones primi libri a prima ad decimam, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 32, Grottaferrata 2006. N. Mariani, Francisci de Marchia sive de Esculo Commentarius (=Reportatio I) in IV libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. Distinctiones primi libri ab undecima ad vigesimam octavam, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 33, Grottaferrata 2007.33 2. Quodlibet This written work, if the name is correct, would derive from a university exercise. With the exception of one question that also appears at the end of a copy of William of Alnwick’s determinationes (Vatican City, BAV, vat. lat. 32 For further discussion and a list of the editions of individual questions, see our discussion on Francis’ Sentences commentaries, infra, pp. xxIv-xxx. For the full contents and the state of the question concerning the manuscript tradition, see R. Friedman and C. Schabel, “Francis of Marchia’s Commentary on the Sentences”. 33 Father Mariani’s edition of the remaining distinctions of Book I is currently in press and should appear shortly in the same series. XX INTRODUCTION 6768, ff. 98rb-100vb),34 and a separate redaction of two others (neither of which was likely written by Marchia), only one manuscript witnesses this text: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16110, and even then in an extremely fragmentary and faulty manner. A medieval librarian erred in placing the title of this work on folio 125r instead of 126r, and this mistake went unnoticed until very recently. As a result, the Mariani edition publishes nine fragmentary and complete questions, but the first two, questions 1 and 2, in fact come from Scotus’ Reportata Parisiensia. On the other hand, Francis certainly appears to be the author of questions 3-9 (as they are numbered in Mariani’s edition). The place and the date of the disputation cannot yet be determined.35 Edition: N. Mariani, Francisci de Marchia sive de Esculo OFM Quodlibet cum quaestionibus selectis ex commentario in librum Sententiarum, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 29, Grottaferrata 1997. 3. In libros Physicorum Two manuscripts36 carry this work, a literal commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. Francis stays faithful to the genre of the literal commentary, expounding the Philosopher’s views even on the topics where Francis elsewhere disagrees with Aristotle.37 This text could be the product of a course taught at 34 See G. Etzkorn, Iter Vaticanum Franciscanum: A Description of Some One Hundred Manuscripts of the Vaticanus Latinus collection, Leiden 1996, pp. 199-209. 35 W. Duba, “Continental Franciscan Quodlibeta after Scotus”, in: C. Schabel (ed.), Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages. The Fourteenth Century, Leiden 2007, (pp. 569-649), pp. 600-609; “Francesco d’Appignano tra Parigi e Avignone”; “The Authenticity of Francis of Marchia’s Quodlibet: the Testimony of Paris, BNF Ms. Lat. 16110”, Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale 49 (2007), pp. 91-102. The relevant questions from Scotus’ Reportata Parisiansia (d. 3, qq. 6 and 7) have recently been edited and translated in A. Wolter and O. Bychkov (eds.), John Duns Scotus. The Examined Report of the Paris Lecture: Reportatio I-A, St. Bonaventure, NY 2004. 36 Naples, BN, XI. E. 47; Vatican City, BAV, Vat. Ottob. lat. 1816. 37 A. Maier, Zwei Grundprobleme der scholastischen Naturphilosophie, 3rd ed., Rome 1968, p. 161. The question concerning projectile motion confirms this: in his commentary on book IV of the Sentences, Francis criticizes...

Share