340 H. SHAPIRO AND F.

SCOTT

differentie in recto. In diffinitione accidentium ponuntur

genus accidentis in recto et
differentia in obliquo, quia differentia accidentis est suum subiectum, ut si simitas
debeat
diffiniri per suum genus quod est concavitas et hoc in recto et
per suum subiectum
quod est nasus et hoc in obliquo, sic dicendo simitas est concavitas nasi vel in
naso.
Item, alia est differentia quod in diffinitione substantie non cadit
aliquod extrinsecum
a predicamento substantie, quia substantia non diffinitur
per aliquod accidens sed in
diffinitione cuiuslibet accidentis cadit aliquod extrinsecum a predicamento illius accidentis:
scilicet, suum subiectum quod est in predicamento substantie.
Notandum tamen quod in diffinitione completissima accidentis non
ponitur suum
subiectum sed loco illius ponitur eius diffinitio.

EXPLICIT

San Jose State College, Cal. Herman Suaprro and Frederick Scorr.

NINETEEN LESS PROBABLE OPINIONS

OF PETER LOMBARD

Both the corporate character of the theological

enterprise in the middle ages,
and the freedom with which mediaeval masters entered the
fray against the
most formidable “authorities,” are visible in the resistance
by theologians to
certain theses upheld in the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Successive editions of
the Sentences, and of commentaries on that durable work, are not
uncommonly
garnished with lists of opinions, proposed by the Master of the Sentences to
be sure, but collected under the rubric that
they are “generally,” communiter,
or “today,” not defended, above all, not defended
by the masters of Paris.
Often enough, this detail in the tradition of
university theology has been
given at least cursory notice, and F. Stegmiiller has counted the formulation
of these lists a noteworthy stage in the
development of theology grounded on
the Sentences. In particular, he has remarked that the lists
burgeoned from
the symmetrically distributed eight opinions, two from each of the four
that even Bonaventure declined to accept, until it reached a maximum Books,
of
twenty nine.t No doubt the list tended to lengthen with the passage of time,
but it would be excessively simple to give this
tendency an absolute value.
Bonaventure’s eight can be reckoned as nine, and even he
qualified the errors
he could not help mentioning as those
“especially,” praecipue, unpalatable to
the theologians of his generation,? thus
inviting us to suppose that he might
well have mentioned more.

1 F. Stegmiilier, Repertorium Commentariorum In Sententias Petri Lombardi

(Wiirzburg,
1947) 1, x.
2 Bonaventure put together as one the two theses on
angelic merit from II Sent.,
dist. 5 and dist. 11, here listed as number 6 and number
7; his qualification of the
 LESS PROBABLE OPINIONS OF PETER LOMBARD 341

Despite repeated advertence to the rejected opinions, historians refer their

readers to an extremely limited number of published lists. That of Bonaventure
occurs, not only in his Commentaria in IU Libros Sententiarum where it makes
two appearances,? but also in the Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis;*
finally, the Quaracchi editors have included both the list of Bonaventure and
another, dated by Du Plessis d’Argentré at 1300, and composed of twenty six
erroneous opinions, in their edition of the Sentences.®> The list first printed by
Du Plessis d’Argentré in 1728 has- had much success: reprinted by J. de
Ghellinck in his article on Pierre Lombard in the Dictionnaire de théologie
catholique,® it had long since been taken up by Jean Aleaume for his 1757
Antwerp edition of the Sentences;" it then entered Migne’s Patrologia when the
Aleaume text of the Sentences was chosen for that collection.8 Since each
master had his reasons for accepting or rejecting positions of the Master, every
list that circulated offers the historian of mediaeval theology a point of
departure for a whole series of theological, canonical, and even philosophical
evaluations.

II

The budget of commonly rejected opinions edited here was written by an

English scribe who had found barely enough blank parchment for this purpose
on folio 88” of the British Museum’s Harleian MS 3243; the whole left column
and one third of the right column on that page had been used by another
scribe to copy a series of theological aphorisms by Master Richard of
Campsall.9 Using a bold, upright hand, the second of the two scribes managed
to crowd on to his page the statement of nineteen “less probable opinions from

Master’s departure from the more common and more probable opinions as occurring
praecipue in octo locis is to be found in his comments on II Sent., dist. 44, dubium 3;
both points have been noted by J. de Ghellinck, “Pierre Lombard,” Dictionnaire de
théologie catholique t. 12, 2 partie, col. 2014.
3 In addition to II Sent., dist. 44, dubium 3, the Praelocutio that
opens the received
text of Bonaventure’s commentary on II Sent. contains his list; although the Quaracchi
editors expressed some misgivings on the Praelocutio, since it is transmitted in a single
codex, when they adduced Bonaventure’s list in their prolegomena to the 1916 edition
of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, it still appears in their 1938 manual edition of
Bonaventure’s Commentaria in IV Libros Sententiarum 2, 2.
4 Ed. H. Denifle et A. Chatelain
(Paris, 1889) 1, 220-221, no. 194.
5 Petri Lombardi Libri IV Sententiarum
(Quaracchi, 1916) 1, Ixxviii, n. 1.
6 Du Plessis
d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum (Paris, 1728) 118 sqq., has not been available
to me; see de Ghellinck, art. cit. cols. 2014-2015.
7 Petri Lombardi Novariensis,
Episcopi Parisiensis, Sententiarum Libri Quatuor.. Per Joannem
Aleaume, Parisiensem Theologiae Professorem... restituti.. (Antwerpe, 1757) 630-632.
8 PL 192, 519 B
sqq. for the text of the Sentences; the rejected opinions are listed
961-964.
® “Sixteen
Sayings by Richard of Campsall on Contingency and Foreknowledge,”
Mediaeval Studies 24 (1962) 250-262.
342 E. A. SYNAN

the Books of the Sentences, those which the doctors do not sustain” at the price
of filling out the remainder of the right column and then by. writing clear
across the bottom margin-to-the-very edge-of the parchment. As an item
written in to make use of space left over when the more considerable elements
of the codex had been completed, this list of erroneous opinions must postdate
the only component that carries a date. This is the text of a discussion of
“insolubles” by Roger Nottingham O.F.M., carried on near the end of June,
1343.10 Although considerably longer than the list of Bonaventure, who had
read the Sentences at Paris between 1250 and 1254, this enumeration is only
slightly shorter than the list of theses that was to occupy the Inquisitor,
Nicolaus Eymericus O.P., during October and November 1397, when he
composed his Declaratio articulorum xxii magistri sententiarum.1 From the
point of view of its length, the present list of nineteen opinions is plausible
enough for the second half of the fourteenth century.
Spelling and punctuation have been normalized, essential references supplied,
and the opinions have been numbered, in sequence for easy reference, by
Arabic numerals in pointed brackets.

ra
Haec sunt opiniones minus probabiles librorum sententiarum, quas non sustinent doctores:

IN PRIMO LIBRO SUNT ISTAE:

Prima est quod caritas, qua diligimus deum et proximum, est spiritus sanctus; distinc-
tione 17, capitulo primo.1
<2>
Secunda est quod nomina numeralia dicta de deo, ut unus, trinitas, respectu dicuntur
solomodo privative; distinctione 24, capitulo primo.?

<3> dicuntur privative;

Tertia est quod nomina relativa, ut simile, aequale, etc., solum
distinctione 31, capitulo primo.8
<4>
quod aliquando scivit; distinctione 4,
Quarta est quod deus scit omne enunciabile
<capitulo>> ultimo.4

10 The ‘Insolubilia’ of Roger Nottingham O.F.M.,” Mediaeval Studies 26 (1964)

257-270; the date is given in the colophon of this text, p. 270.
11 Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum... J. Quétif et J. Echard (Paris, 1719 sqq.) 1, 718, s. v.
Nicolaus Eymerici, no. 34.
1 References are by volume and page to the 1916 Quaracchi edition of the Sentences,

see above, note 5; 1, 106.

2 ed. cit. 1, 154.
8 ed. cit. 1, 191-192.
4 ed. cit. 1, 258, chapter 3.
 LESS PROBABLE OPINIONS OF PETER LOMBARD 343

<b>
Quinta est quod deus potest quidquid aliquando potuit; distinctione 44, capitulo
ultimo.
IN SECUNDO LIBRO SUNT HAEC:

<6>
Prima est quod angelis praemium praecessit meritum; distinctione 5, capitulo ultimo.é

Secunda est quod in merito, respectu essentialis praemii, angeli proficiunt usque ad
judicium; distinctione 1], capitulo quarto.?
<8>
Tertia nihil transit extrinsecum, sed ab Adam
est quod in veritate humanae naturae,
descendit tota veritas corporum humanorum; distinctione 30, capitulo Quibus responderi8
IN TERTIO LIBRO SUNT HAEC:
<9> .

Prima est quod anima separata a corpore sit persona; distinctione 5, capitulo ultimo®

<1l0>
Secunda est quod Christus in triduo, anima separata a corpore, fuerit homo; distinc
tione 22, capitulo primo.10
IN QUARTO LIBRO SUNT ISTAE:

<u>
Prima quod sacramenta legalia non justificabant, etiam si in fide et devotione fierent;
distinctione 1, capitulo secundo.11
<12>
Secunda est quod baptizati baptismo Johannis, non ponentes spem in illo, et habentes
fidem trinitatis, non erant baptizandi baptismo Christi; distinctione 2, capitulo ultimo,12
quasi diceret baptismus Johannis, cum impositione manus, acquipollebat baptismo
Christi.

Tertia est quod, sicut deus potuit dare alicui homini potestatem baptizandi et abluendi
ab intra, sic potuerit ei communicare, vel alteri creaturae, potestatem consecrandi, ita
quod potuerit creare per ministrum; distinctione 5, capitulo ultimo.18

5 ed. cit. 1, 270-271, chapter 2.

6 ed. cit. 1, 328-329, chapter 6.
7 ed. cit. 1, 355; in the edition, the text occurs in chapter 2, which is also the last

chapter—just such variations in the internal divisions of the work justify our
locating texts by volume and page.
8 ed. cit. 1, 467,
chapter 14,
9 ed. cit. 2, 571-572, chapter 3.
10 ed. cit. 2, 650-651.
11 ed. cit. 2, 746-747, chapter 4.
12 ed. cit. 2, 754, chapter 6.
13 ed. cit. 2, 776, chapter 3.
344 E. A. SYNAN

<4>
Quarta est quod haeretici, ab ecclesia praecisi vel excommunicati, non habent potestatem
consecrandi; distinctione 13, capitulo Ili vero.14

<b>
Quinta est quod episcopi simoniaci degradati non habent potestatem ordinandi;
distinctione 25, capitulo De simoniacis.15

<b>
Sexta est quod scientia discernendi, prout nominat habitum sciendi, sit clavis; distinc
tione 19, capitulo primo.16

Septima est quod maritus sponsae alicujus per consensum de praesenti, quam ille non
cognovit, ex. illa copula bigamus judicatur, et ad sacras ordines accedere prohibetur;
distinctione 27, capitulo ultimo.17
;

<18>
Octava est quod cognoscens sororem uxoris legitimae non potest postea uxori debitum
reddere;. distinctione 34, capitulo De hiis,18 cujus habetur contrarium express Extra: De
€0 qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris suae, capitulo Jordanael9 et capitulo Discretionem. 20

<19>
Nona est quod ille qui, vivente uxore legitima, contr<‘axer>> it cum alia, volens tamen
ab ea recedere, et cogitur ab ecclesia in reddendo debito, incipit excusari
per obedientiam et
timorem; distinctione 38, capitulo secundo,21 cujus habetur contrarium expresse Extra:
De sententia excommunicationis, capitulo -Inguisitioni.22

Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies Edward A. Synan.

_ THE «DE. HOMINE » OF ULRICH OF STRASBOURG

The chief work of Ulrich of Strasbourg (c. 1228 - c. 1278) is his Summa de
Bono. The part of this work with the philosophy of man (Book IV,
tractates 4-6) has been found dealing
in only one This fact is striking,
since manuscript.?
de Bono has been discovered
Summa in twenty-two manuscripts,
the
14 ed. cit.
2, 816, chapter 1.
15 ed: cit.
2, 909, chapter 2.
16. ed. cit. 2, 867.
17 ed. cit. 2,.922-924,
chapters 8-10.
18 ed. cit. 2, 956,
chapter 5.
19 Decretals of
Gregory IX, lib. 4, tit. 18, c. 11 (Friedberg ed. Corpus Iuris Canonici,
vol. 2, col. 700). Cfr. legislation on the point by the Third Lateran Council, 1179
(Mansi, ed. Florence, 1759-1798, 22, col. 428, no. 4 and 3.)
20 Decretals of
Gregory IX, 4, 13, 6 (col. 698).
21 Sentences, ed. cit. 2, 972,
chapter 3.
22 Decretals of
Gregory IX, lib. 5, tit. 89, c. 44 (ed. cit., 2, col. 908).
1 Louvain,
Bibliothéque de l’Université, Ms. D 320. The section in question is
contained in ff. 293°-320r. It has never been edited.