Early Fourteenth-century Franciscans and Divine Absolute Power

EARLY FOURTEENTH-CENTURY FRANCISCANS AND DIVINE ABSOLUTE POWER Many historians of medieval thought hold that the most distinctive characteristic of fourteenth-century philosophy is the rise and spread of nominalism. By nominalism they understand the doctrine that a universal name (and the concept allied to it) stands for a group of individuals, but that this concept itself does not represent a nature common to those individuals. This doctrine began with William of Ockham (c.1285-1347) in the early part of the century and later gained a number of adherents , but a more obvious aspect of that thinker's teaching, which also became widespread in the fourteenth century, is his interpretation of divine absolute power which removes necessity from the natural and supernatural orders. Though it is possible to find a relationship between the definition of nominalism given above and this interpretation of divine power, the latter had a life of its own. Indeed, in fourteenth-century commentaries on the Sentences, nominalism as such is muted while this interpretation of divine absolute power is blatant. Most, or perhaps all, nominalists followed this interpretation of divine absolute power, but some non-nominalists also accepted it. For example, Gerard of Siena (d. 1336),1 in his commentary on the first book of the Sentences, rejected the nominalist theory of universals: ". . . probo quod universale, quantum ad esse abstractum, sit quid reale."2 Yet he accepted the doctrine that there is no necessity in the created universe. All creatures are contingent, and God can treat them in some particular way or in exactly the opposite way. Otherwise, Gerard held, God would be determined by His creatures, which is absurd. Nothing in creatures, then, is an obstacle to the divine absolute power: 1 See "Gerhard v. Siena, OESA," Lexikonfür Theologie und Kirche (1960 ed.) [LTK]4: 722-23 and F. Stegmüller, Repertorium commentariorum in Sententias Petri Lombardi (Würzburg: Schöning, 1947) 1: 115-16. 2 D.3, q.3, a.3 (Padua, 1598) fol. 183rb. 198LEONARD A. KENNEDY Totum quod in creatura est est quid contingens. Quapropter nihil est in creatura ita iustum quod necessitet eum [Deum] ita ad hoc agendum quin non possit agere oppositum, nam totum quod est in creatura ideo est iustum quia a Deo volitum, et non e converso. Si enim ideo aliquid esset a Deo volitum quia est iustum, tune rectitudo divinae voluntatis dependeret ab ipsa creatura, quod est absurdum.5 We shall see that a similar interpretation of divine absolute power may be found in the writings of John Duns Scotus (c.1266-1308) who, on the matter of universals, was not a nominalist but a realist. In the fourteenth century no one spoke of a "nominalist school." Damasus Trapp claims that the term nominalism was certainly not used before 1380, and perhaps not before 1400.4 It is our contention that the most distinctive characteristic of fourteenth-century philosophy is the beginning and widespread acceptance of the interpretation of divine absolute power referred to above. The present article will compare the doctrines of five early fourteenth-century Franciscans on divine absolute power, first with one another and then with the teachings of Scotus and Ockham. Finally, whatever conclusions may be drawn from these comparisons will be drawn. The five Franciscans whose doctrines will be compared are John of Bassolis, Peter Aureoli , Francis of Meyronnes, William Rubio, and Adam Wodeham. John of Bassolis (c.1280-1345) studied at Paris in the early 1300s, and was one of Scotus's favorite pupils. His commentary on the Sentences, which he finished at Rheims in 1313, was published at Paris in 15 17.5 Peter Aureoli (c.1280-1322), who became regent master at Paris in 1318, composed his commentary between 1316 and 1318. It was published at Rome between 1596 and 1605.6 Francis of Meyronnes (fl.1328) became master of theology at Paris in 1323. His commentary was written between 1320 and 1321 and published at Venice in 1520.7 William Rubio (fl.1336) was a student at Paris from 1315 to 1325. During part of his stay there, he studied under the well3 D.43, q.l, a.3, fol. 586rb. 4 "Gregorio de Rimini y...