Godfrey of Fontaines' Disputed Questions 9 and 10 (Bruges 491): by Godfrey or by Giles of Rome?

GODFREY OF FONTAINES' DISPUTED QUESTIONS 9 AND 10 (BRUGES 491) : BY GODFREY OR BY GILES OF ROME? In addition to his fifteen QuodUbetal Questions and three Ordinary Questions which have been edited in the series Les Philosophes Belges,1 it is generally acknowledged that Godfrey of Fontaines was responsible for other Disputed Questions. Seventeen of these are named in an interesting table in the Vatican manuscript Borghese 164. As A. Pelzer has illustrated in detail, of these seventeen, sixteen corresponding questions are in fact found in the important Bruges manuscript 491.2 At least thirteen of the questions assigned to Godfrey 1 For these see T 2: Les quatre premiers Quodlibets de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. M. De Wulf and A. Pelzer (Louvain, 1904); T. 3. Les Quodlibets cinq, six, et sept, ed. M. De Wulf and J. Hoffmans (Louvain, 1914); T 4: Le huitième Quodlibet (Louvain, 1924), Le neuvième Quodlibet (Louvain, 1928), Le dixième Quodlibet (Louvain, 1931), ed. J. Hoffmans; T. 5: Les Quodlibets onze et douze (Louvain, 1932), Les Quodlibets treize et quatorze (Louvain, 1935), ed. J. Hoffmans; T. 14: Le Quodlibet XV et trois Questions ordinaires de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. O. Lottin; Etude sur les manuscrits des Quodlibets, J. Hoffmans and A Pelzer (Louvain, 1937)· 2 See in T. 14 of Les Philosophes Belges, pp. 259-61 (hereafter cited as PB 14.259-61) for his study of Borghese 164. As he indicates, the entire manuscript is an alphabetical table, with many references to works by Thomas Aquinas, the Correctorium of William of la Mare, works by Richard of Middleton, and the Quodlibets of Giles of Rome, Godfrey of Fontaines, Henry of Ghent, and James of Viterbo. For the seventeen Disputed Questions attributed to Godfrey by this index see pp. 260-61. They appear under the words anima (f. 2?), circonstancia (f. 5r), forma (f. gv), habitus (f. ior), tempus (f. 2ir), voluntas (ft. 2iv, 22r), videre (f. 22v), and virtus (23r). Also for a description of this manuscript see A. Maier, Codices Burghesiani Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Studi e Testi 170 (Città del Vaticano, !952), p. 213. For Pelzer's study of the Bruges manuscript see PB 14 293-300, especially pp. 297-99 (listing of Godfrey's Disputed Questions which are contained in Bruges 491). Also on this manuscript see A. Dondaine, in A. De Poorter, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque publique de la ville de Bruges (Paris, 1934), PP- 561-70; and G. Meersseman, "De Sententiënkommentaar (Cod. Brugen 491) van de Gentse lektor Philip O.P. (1302-4)," in Studia Mediaevalia in honorem Godfrey of Fontaines' Disputed Questions 9 and 10217 by Borghese 164 are also contained in another Vatican manuscript, Borghese 122.3 Moreover, of the twenty questions included in this particular set of questions in Borghese 122, fifteen are explicitly Usted under the heading "Quaestiones Godefridi disputatae et abbreviatae " in a table at the end of that same manuscript.4 In light of this evidence and in light of criticisms raised by others against his earlier denial in 1913 that the Disputed Questions contained in Borghese 122 were to be assigned to Godfrey of Fontaines, admodum Reverendi Patris Raymundi Josepht Martin (Bruges, 1948), pp. 383-407 (to be used with caution in its remarks about the section of Bruges 491 containing abbreviations of Godfrey's Quodlibets, and Disputed Questions, we would stress). For more recent discussion of the authorship of the anonymous commentary on the Sentences found in the latter part of this manuscript, see T. W. Köhler, Der Begriff der Einheit und ihr ontologisches Prinzip nach dem Sentenzenkommentar des Jakob von Metz O P. Studia Anselmiana, 58 (Rome, 1971) pp 184-86. 8 For these see ff. I53r-i73r. See Pelzer, PB 14.282-83 for a listing of all twenty questions which appear in this series, including the thirteen mentioned in Borghese 164. See ? 287 for a helpful chart where Pelzer coordinates the questions contained in Bruges 491, Borghese 122, and those listed in Borghese 164. Also, for another description of this manuscript see Maier, Codices Burghesiani , pp. 159-60. 4 See f. i75ra (at bottom of column), and repeated in column b, but...