Edition of Quaestio 10a Dist. 2ae of Ockham's Ordinatio

EDITION OF QUAESTIO 10a DIST. 2ae OF OCKHAM'S ORDINATIO In preparing this preliminary critical edition of the tenth question of the second distinction of Ockham's Ordinario or Commentary on the First Book of Sentences, we have examined completely one Incunabala-edition, and the four most accurate manuscripts. Our primary source of the information relative to the description and evaluation of the manuscripts has been the article of Father Philotheus Boehner in The New Scholasticism for July, 1942, entitled The Text Tradition of Ockham's Ordinatio. The Incunabula-edition is that of Lyons (1495), which differs so very slightly from the only other edition (Strassburg, 1486) that it was deemed unnecessary to cite the latter. The edition is indicated in the footnotes by E. The first manuscript of the four studied, presenting the first "redaction", is indicated by F, which stands for Firenze (Bibl. Naz. A. 3. 801). This manuscript was written probably in the first half of the 14th century, that is, before the death of Ockham. The second manuscript is referred to as T (Troyes 718) written in the early 14th century. The third manuscript, Ma (Paris, Bibl. Mazarine 894) written in the 14th century, is very important because it belongs to a different family from the other three manuscripts studied. The fourth manuscript, Ob (Oxford, Balliol College 229) was written before 1368 according to the catalogue. With F and T it forms one family of manuscripts, distinct from Ma. All four of the manuscripts seem to have much better texts than the Incunabula-edition. In particular, it should be noted that all four manuscripts contain a long passage at the end of the text, which passage is omitted almost entirely by the Edition. 173 174EDITION OF QUAESTIO 10a DIST. 2ae Summary of the Contents of this Question Ockham's title of the question, namely, whether there is only one God, is identical with the one employed by Scotus in his Oxford Commentary on the Sentences. Ockham follows closely with a long and faithful presentation of particular arguments of Scotus, taken almost verbatim from the Oxoniense. Thus the first section of this question of Ockham (A to G) is devoted entirely to the arguments of Scotus. We have checked this portion very carefully with the Oxoniense as found in the Vives Edition as well as in the Assisi manuscript (Assisii, Comm. cod. 137). Our intention was to point out any important differences between these two versions in the passages followed by Ockham. However, there have been no substantial differences which could in any way affect the understanding of this section. The Assisi manuscript does contain many clauses and even sentences not found in the Vives text. However, Ockham does not cite any of these. On the other hand Ockham often gives the exact wording of the Assisi text, as for example in the title of his question. In the second section Ockham presents his doubts with regard to particular arguments of Scotus. Even here Ockham frequently quotes Scotus, often to support his own argumentation. In this part of the question we must not look for Ockham's own proof, which is offered elsewhere. Here he examines the proof of Scotus, accepts the main conclusions, and offers his own objections —objections which are directed mainly against the logical procedure whereby Scotus has reached these conclusions. It is clear then, that no attempt is made by Ockham to give a full picture of Scotus' long and painstaking proof. The objections offered by Ockham are directed against certain points in the logical development of Scotus' proof. Ockham's Presentation of Scotus' Proof Ockham repeats Scotus' proof and divides it into two articles according to the arrangement in the Oxoniense. EVAN ROCHE, O.F.M.175 Article 1. The existence of an Ens Primum. a.Proof of a First Being in efficient causality. b.Distinction between causes per se and per accidens. c.Three distinctions between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causes. d.Impossibility of an infinite series of essentially ordered causes, shown by five proofs. Article 2. Unicity of the First Nature, shown by four proofs. Portions of Scotus' Proof Omitted by Ockham It may be well to enumerate briefly...