Guy de l’Aumône was one of the first Cistercians to study at the College Saint-Bernard in Paris, founded in 1245. He probably wrote his commentary on the Sentences there before 1253. In my article, I show the extent to which he made use of the commentaries of the Dominican Albert the Great and the Franciscan Eudes Rigaud. He selected passages from his sources for his more traditional approach to theology and combined the arguments in a new way. His commentary is an interesting example of the intellectual exchange between the mendicant schools at the University of Paris. Guy follows Albert so closely that I can also show that for Albert’s commentary Guy had Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes Ms 825 from Clairvaux Abbey at hand.
Abstract After the 1450s and down to the eighteenth century, scores of works by university Scholastics active after 1200 were printed, as well as hundreds of new writings in the Scholastic tradition. An analysis of the citations of medieval authors in these later texts reveals not only the importance of being in print for an earlier university theologian’s legacy, but also the individuals, decades, and places that were deemed most important in the eyes of Early Modern writers. This article illustrates the utility of these later works for reception history through the example of Konrad Wimplina’s Epithoma mire breviter, published in 1508.
Scholarly literature has identified two 14th-century masters of the arts named ‘John Aurifaber’: the earlier one was active around 1330 in the city of Erfurt; the later one was a pupil of Lawrence of Lindores and graduated from the University of Paris around 1397. The homonymy between these two Aurifaber has complicated the attribution of a commentary on Aristotle’s Physics , preserved in the manuscript Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, 1423. This paper reassesses the issue in light of L. Tomanek’s recent identification of the Quaestio de eventu necessario rerum quarumlibet , an Averroist-inspired text by the earlier Aurifaber, which defends a deterministic view of future contingents. Notably, similar themes appear in the Leipzig commentary, particularly in Book II, questions 8 ( Utrum propositio de futuro contingenti sit determinate vera vel falsa ) and 9 ( Utrum omnia quae eveniunt eveniunt ex necessitate ). Through a philosophical and textual analysis of these questions, this paper aims to: (1) demonstrate that the solutions in the Quaestio de eventu necessario differ from those in the Questions on the Physics , suggesting distinct authorship; and (2) highlight how the Questions on the Physics present innovative philosophical approaches to the issues of future contingents and divine foreknowledge, proposing a compatibilist solution in a form potentially uncommon in the late medieval period. The article concludes with a critical edition of these two questions.
