Symbols used in the texts:

[x]        the editors delete x for sense
<x>      the editors add x for sense
*    =    lectio incerta
Vb  =    Vat. Borghese lat. 329
X    =    Rome, 1596 edition of the Scriptum
Bo  =    Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria ms. 2243 (used occasionally)

Unless otherwise noted, the orthography in the texts has been classicized in order to make searching the texts easier.

*NB*: the same restrictions apply to the use of the texts offered here as apply to all texts offered on the Editions & Translations on the Web section of the Auriol Homepage. They are all Copyright: Russell L. Friedman, Lauge O. Nielsen, and Chris Schabel. Thanks.

Petri Auriol Scriptum super primum Sententiarum

Tabula quaestionum

(1) Prologue, part 1: utrum studio theologiae et solo naturali ingenio aliquis habitus acquiratur alius a fide

(2) Prologue, part 2: utrum dari possit a Deo lumen aliquod viatori, virtute cuius theologicae veritates scientifice cognoscantur

(3) Prologue, part 3: utrum theologicus habitus sit practicus vel speculativus

(4) Prologue, part 4: utrum habitus ex studio theologico acquisitus sit unus vel plures

(5) Prologue, part 5: utrum habitus theologicus habeat pro subiecto Deum sub ratione deitatis

(6) d. 1, part 1: utrum beatus frui possit essentia praescindendo ipsam conceptibiliter a personis

(7) d. 1, part 2: utrum fruitio sit unicus et simplex actus voluntatis

(8) d. 1, part 3: utrum appetitus de necessitate fruatur ultimo fine per intellectum apprehenso

(9) d. 2, part 1: utrum Deus includatur infra conceptum entis quem habet viator

(10) d. 2, part 2: utrum Dei esse egeat testimonio vel sit aliquid per se notum

(11) d. 2, part 3: utrum secundum regulam Scripturarum in uno Deo sit trinitas personarum, vere et proprie accipiendo personam

Collation and text RLF. I’ve read the entire question afresh against Vb. The changes I had to make to Buytaert’s edition were few, although occasionally important. Buytaert’s paragraph numbering; no line numbering (references should continue to be to Buytaert; see “Note on Buytaert” above).

(12) d. 3, part 1: utrum unitas Dei possit ex creaturis demonstrative concludi

(13) d. 3, part 2: utrum per rationem vestigii in creaturis reperti possit declarari trinitas personarum

(14) d. 3, part 3: utrum per rationem imaginis possit demonstrari quod sit trinitas personarum in Deo

(15) d. 4, part 1: utrum haec sit concedenda: ‘Deus genuit Deum’, vel sua opposita, scilicet ‘Deus non genuit Deum’

(16) d. 4, part 2: utrum in solo Deo praedicetur abstractum de concreto, vel e converso

(17) d. 5: utrum aliquo modo sit concedendum quod essentia in divinis generet aut generetur

Collation and text RLF. Buytaert’s paragraph numbering; no line numbering (references should continue to be to Buytaert; see “Note on Buytaert” above).

(18) d. 6: utrum Pater genuerit Filium natura an voluntate aut necessitate

(19) d. 7, part 1: utrum posse Filium generare sit aliqua potentia productiva quae existat in Patre

(20) d. 7, part 2: utrum possint esse plures filii in divinis

(21) d. 8, part 1: utrum in omni alio citra Deum differant essentia et esse

(22) d. 8, part 2: utrum solus Deus sit proprie incommutabilis

(23) d. 8, part 3: utrum pluralitas attributorum repugnet divinae simplicitati

Collation CDS; text RLF. Buytaert’s paragraph numbering; no line numbering (references should continue to be to Buytaert; see “Note on Buytaert” above).

(24) d. 8, part 4: utrum in Deo sit aliquis modus compositionis

(25) d. 9, part 1: utrum possit necessaria ratione probari quod in Deo sit generatio activa et passiva

Because Auriol holds that active and passive generation are literally the same as the Father’s intellectual generation of the Son as a Word or concept, this question deals at great length with the issue of concept formation.
The text here was originally included as Appendix 4 of Russell L. Friedman, “In principio erat Verbum: The Incorporation of Philosophical Psychology into Trinitarian Theology, 1250-1325” (PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1997). The version here supersedes the earlier version, since several misreadings, typos, and mispunctuations have been corrected (also with help of a collation of part of the text against Vb by CDS); the line numbering here does not correspond to that in the earlier version. The text stays very close to the Vb version, but it has been edited from both Vb (ff. 166ra-73rb) and from Br = Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, Ms. 3624 (ff. 142vb-50rb), with several readings also checked against Bo = Bologna, Biblioteca universitaria, ms. 2243 (ff. 107rb-11rb); the text has not been collated with the early printed edition (X, pp. 315a-31b), but includes the page numbering for easy reference. An abbreviated apparatus is given as footnotes: NB that the apparatus is not exhaustive, not including transpositions and scribal self correction.

(26) d. 9, part 2: utrum generatio mensuretur aeternitate

Collation CDS; text RLF

(27) d. 10: utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat ut amor

Collation CDS; text RLF

(28) d. 11: utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque <Patre et Filio>

Collation CDS; text RLF

(29) d. 12: utrum Spiritus Sanctus emanet uniformiter a Filio et a Patre

Collation CDS; text RLF

(30) d. 13: utrum generatio et spiratio sint productiones alterius rationis

Collation CDS; text RLF

(31) d. 14: utrum temporalis processio Spiritus Sancti sit eius proprietas

Collation CDS; text RLF

(32) d. 15: utrum cuilibet personae conveniat invisibiliter mitti aut mittere

Collation CDS; text RLF

(33) d. 16: utrum Spiritus Sanctus visibiliter debuit mitti

Collation CDS; text RLF

(34) d. 17, part 1: utrum charitas sit aliquis habitus creatus in anima vel ipsamet Spiritus Sancti persona

(35) d. 17, part 2: (utrum caritas possit augeri), aa. 1-2

This text was edited from all manuscripts containing it by Chris Schabel. It was used in Schabel’s study “Place, Space, and the Physics of Grace in Auriol’s Sentences commentary”, Vivarium 38/1 (2000), pp. 117-61, and pp. 158-59 of that article are a study of the manuscript tradition for this section of Auriol’s Scriptum.

(36) d. 18: utrum donum sit proprietas constitutiva Spiritus Sancti

(37) d. 19, part 1: utrum una persona sit in alia immansive per circumincessionem

(38) d. 19, part 2: utrum personae divinae sint omnino coaequales

(39) d. 19, part 3: utrum veritas secundum suam formalem rationem sit in anima vel in rebus

(40) d. 20: utrum potentiam generandi claudatur sub omnipotentia

(41) d. 21: utrum dictiones exclusivae vel exceptivae admittantur in divinis

Collation CDS; text RLF

(42) d. 22: utrum possit Deus proprie nominari aut aliquo nomine designari

Collation CDS and FW; text FW

(43) d. 23: utrum nomen personae significet in divinis aliquid primae aut secundae intentionis

(44) d. 24: utrum numerus sit proprie et formaliter in divinis

(45) d. 25: utrum significatum personae sit commune tribus quod re plurificatur in eis

(46) d. 26: utrum personae divinae constituantur proprietatibus relativis in esse suppositali et personali, et eisdem suppositaliter distinguantur

Collation CDS; text RLF

(47) d. 27, part 1: utrum generare et paternitas, vel generari et filiatio sint eadem realiter in divinis

(48) d. 27, part 2: utrum verbum creatum et increatum emanet ut intellectio actualis, vel sicut obiectum positum in esse formato

Probably Auriol’s most central discussion of concepts and their formation. This text appeared originally as Appendix 3 of Russell L. Friedman, “In principio erat Verbum: The Incorporation of Philosophical Psychology into Trinitarian Theology, 1250-1325” (PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1997), where it was edited from five manuscripts plus the early printed edition (in addition to Vb and Bo, I used manuscipts Br = Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale, Ms. 3624; Pa = Paris, BnF, Ms. latin 15363; and Vn = Vendôme, Bibliothèque municipale, Ms. 72 – these manuscripts were chosen on the basis of a full collation of all 12 manuscripts in which the text is found, and my results can be found in Appendix 1 of my dissertation “In principio”). I have gone through the text again from start to finish, and this has affected mostly the punctuation. I have made no attempt to totally recollate the text with the manuscripts, although I have checked a few apparently problematic spots in the manuscripts. This version supersedes the version found in my dissertation.

(49) d. 28: utrum innascibilitas sit proprietas constitutiva Patris

Collation CDS; text RLF

(50) d. 29: utrum nomen principii significet notionem distinctam

(51) d. 30, part 1: utrum aliqua relatio sit in rerum natura, circumscripto omni opere intellectus, vel sit omnis relatio in sola apprehensione

(52) d. 30, part 2: utrum Deus ex tempore referatur ad creaturam relatione reali

(53) d. 31: utrum aequalitas et similitudo sint reales relationes in Deo, vel rationis, aut sint nulla relatio

(54) d. 32: utrum sit concedendum quod Pater et Filius diligant se Spiritu Sancto

(55) d. 33: utrum proprietates personales sint ipsae personae aut divina essentia

(56) d. 34: utrum essentialia nomina debeant appropriari personis

(57) d. 35, part 1: utrum intelligere secundum suam rationem formalem vere et proprie sit in Deo

Collation CDS; text RLF. From a purely textual standpoint, this question is interesting, because the Borghese manuscript drops several lines of text, presumably per homeoteleuton (e.g. ll. 150-53, 531-32, 693-94). Thus, this confirms that, although the Borghese is a manuscript of exceptional value, a critical edition of Auriol’s Scriptum based solely on it would in places give a flawed text.

(58) d. 35, part 2: utrum obiectum verum adaequatum intellectionis divinae sit essentia Dei, vel ens universale

Collation and text Chiara Paladini

(59) d. 35, part 3: utrum omnes creaturae secundum proprias suas naturas et rationes quidditativas sint in Deo vita et in verbo ipsius

Collation and text Chiara Paladini

(60) d. 35, part 4: utrum Deus cognoscat singularia cognitione certa

Collation and text RLF

(61) d. 36, part 1: utrum omnia sint praesentia aeternaliter Deo secundum aliquod esse, vel existentiae vel essentiae, aut saltem ut cognita obiecta

Collation CDS; text RLF

(62) d. 36, part 2: utrum ideae sint ponendae in Deo

Collation CDS; text RLF

(63) d. 37: utrum Deus sit ubique per essentiam, praesentiam, et potentiam

Collation CDS and FW; text FW

(64) d. 38: utrum Deus sit praescius contingentium futurorum

This text was originally published by Chris Schabel in CIMAGL 65 (1995). The text presented here is precisely the same as the printed version, except that the orthography has been classicized to the greatest extent possible (a few medieval spellings may have slipped by – please let me know if you find any). The apparatus criticus and apparatus fontium found in the printed version have been omitted, and no line numbering is given, since all references and quotations should be to the printed text.

(65) d. 39: utrum immutabilitas divinae praescientiae excludat contingentiam rerum vel secum compatiatur earum contingentem eventum

See the notes to d. 38.

(66) d. 40: utrum praedestinati de necessitate et immutabiliter salventur, ita quod immutari non possit

(67) d. 41: utrum sit aliqua causa vel meritum ex parte praedestinati vel reprobati

(68) d. 42, part 1: utrum sit ponenda in Deo activa potentia executiva actionum quae sunt ad extra

(69) d. 42, part 2: utrum Deus vere et proprie sit omnipotens

(70) d. 43: utrum potentia Dei activa sit infinita intensive seu virtualiter et in vigore

(71) d. 44: utrum rerum universitatem Deus potuit facere meliorem

(72) d. 45: utrum in Deo voluntas sit id ipsum secundum rem et rationem quod divina essentia, nullo penitus addito intrinsece et formaliter, sed tantum extrinsece et per modum connotati

(73) d. 46: utrum ratio voluntatis vere et proprie sit in Deo

(74) d. 47: utrum voluntas Dei efficax semper et immutabiliter impleatur

(75) d. 48: utrum humana voluntas ex hoc solo sit recta quod est conformis voluntati divinae

Collation CDS and FW; text FW. In addition to what the title suggests, the third article of the Scriptum‘s final distinction offers a discussion on the nature of theology. Auriol basically repeats what he has said in the first section of his prologue to the same work (ed. Buytaert), yet by dedicating himself to the problem of subalternating science, which within theology was championed by Thomas Aquinas and some of his followers, he chooses a narrower focus as compared to the prologue. Evidence in the manuscripts suggests that this portion of d. 48 goes back to Auriol¨s first semester of teaching at Paris (1316/17).