< Back to previous page

Project

The status of the soul in the Franciscan tradition after Duns Scotus. William of Alnwick’s and Peter Auriol’s positions on the intellectual soul

This research aims at considering the positions on the status of the soul of two Franciscans, William of Alnwick and Peter Auriol, whose conclusions diverge sharply while starting from a common background (both studied in Paris at the beginning of the XIV century and both came into contact with the studium of Bologna). Firstly, Alnwick’s and Auriol’s positions must be located in the historical framework in which they develop. In fact, the dispute over the soul was a crucial issue during the XIV century, in the decades following the Council of Vienne (1311-1312). The dogma defined in Vienne opened the field to multiple questions: what are the relationships not only between the intellectual soul and the sensitive and vegetative ones, but also with the body? Which is its destiny? Secondly, the project investigates the sources of such a debate, namely the unicist position of Thomas Aquinas, the pluralism of forms typical of the Franciscan school with focus on the status of the intellectual soul itself and its link with the body, which is connected not only to the  the unicity of the intellect of Averroist heritage, but also to the immortality of the soul. I will highlight the multiple levels on which this dispute plays out: the form-matter and soul-body relationship, the debate over the pluralism of forms, the internal relationship between the parts of the soul and the powers of the soul. The debate on the status of the intellectual soul and its relationship with the body will be studied both from an anthropological and a noetic point of view in the Franciscan framework after Scotus’ proposals and the Council of Vienne, with focus on Alnwick’s and Auriol’s thought.

The analysis of Alnwick’s view will involve the two loci he dedicated to this issue: two questions of his Sentences commentary (Sent. II, d. 15, q. un and Sent. II, d. 17, q. 1) and three determinationes (the 5th, the 6th and the 7th).The two questions from the commentary on the Sentences are to be found only in the ms. Padova, Biblioteca Antoniana, 291 and I intend to transcribe them from it. On the other hand, the manuscript tradition of the determinationes is more complex; as the 5th and the 6th where firstly edited by Faustino Prezioso considering only one manuscript (Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. Palat. 1805) and later all the three determinationes on the soul where transcribed by Zdzislaw Kuksewicz in 1966 and then edited by Dominic Veliath in his PhD thesis in 1967. So, it is important to clarify the status of the manuscript sources, in order to examine not only Alnwick’s position, but also his relationship with his philosophical references and targets - on this issue focused Maier (1949), Prezioso (1964 and 1966), Veliath (1970) and Alichniewicz (1992). 

As for Auriol, I will consider his Tractatus de principiis naturae (that was studied only Duba, 2011 and 2012b), some of the questions from his commentary on the Sentences: Sent. II, d. 12 on the matter-soul relationship (Duba, 2012b), dd. 16-17 on the soul-body relationship (see Baldissera, 1942, Poppi, 1996, Nielsen, 2009, Brenet, 2007, Duba, 2012a), and the critique against the Averroists (Poppi, 1996), d. 19 on the immortality on the soul (Petagine, 2020), together with further questions from Sent. III and Sent. IV.  Besides comparing the position of the Sent. with that of the Tractatus de principiis naturae and the questions on the soul of the Quodlibet (qq. 6-7), my aim is to transcribe as many question as possible related to these themes. I am convinced that only if those loci are taken all together it will be possible to have an overall opinion on Auriol's thesis, which is as original as complex to define.

Date:2 Aug 2021 →  Today
Keywords:Soul, William of Alnwick, Peter Auriol, Intellect
Disciplines:History of philosophy, History of ideas
Project type:PhD project