The Works of John Duns Scotus

(What follows here is the section on Scotus's works from The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus, corrected and amplified in light of further information. I would especially draw your attention to Giorgio Pini's discovery of the long-lost Expositio in Metaphysicam, which I did not know about when I wrote the essay for the Companion.)

We know very little with certainty about the details of Scotus's life and the chronology of his writings, and the evidence and arguments used to establish what we do know are sometimes forbiddingly complex. I make no attempt here to lay out all the speculations or even to adjudicate all the controversies. What follows is therefore a partial and inevitably controversial account of Scotus's life and works. It would, I believe, command wide acceptance among students of Scotus; I indicate some points of dispute in the text and offer extensive references for those who wish to explore these matters in more detail. (1)

II. Scotus's Works

What follows is a discussion of Scotus's works in a rough chronological order (since no precise order can be given). For each work I indicate the best available edition, if any. (Note that the Wadding edition of 1639 is not a critical edition and must therefore be used with care; the Bonaventure and Vatican editions are critical editions.) More detailed discussions of the nature, authenticity, authority, and chronology of Scotus's works can be found in the critical prefaces to volumes 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Bonaventure editon and volumes 1, 4, 6, 7, 17, and 19 of the Vatican edition.

These works are collectively known as the parva logicalia, or "little logical works." They have traditionally been dated to early in Scotus=s career, possibly as early as 1295, although the evidence currently available does not permit any definitive dating. There is substantial evidence that these are genuine works of Scotus. (21) The manuscript tradition for each of these works contains ascriptions to Scotus. Antonius Andreas, an early and generally faithful follower of Scotus, includes summaries of Scotus's questions on the Isagoge and Praedicamenta in his own works. And Adam Wodeham, who is noted for his accurate citations of Scotus, twice cites the questions on the Perihermenias in his Lectura secunda.

The Lectura contains Scotus's notes for the lectures he gave on Books 1 and 2 of the Sentences as a bachelor theologian at Oxford. It is therefore his earliest theological work, and since the later revision of these lectures, the Ordinatio, was never completed, it is the only Oxford commentary we have on certain parts of the Sentences. For example, Scotus never dictated a revised version of Book 2, dd. 15-25, and the Vatican edition of the Ordinatio will not contain questions on those distinctions.

We also have a set of lecture notes on Book 3, the Lectura completa, which exists in only three manuscripts and has not yet been edited. These lectures were also given at Oxford, but later, possibly during Scotus's exile from Paris in 1303-04. We have no Lectura at all on Book 4. Some have argued that Scotus never lectured on Book 4 at Oxford, but Wolter suggests that "the total absence of any Oxford lectures on Bks. III and IV before Scotus went to Paris may be a consequence of the destructive raids on the university libraries of England in 1535 and 1550." (22)

While some scholars deny the authenticity of the question-commentary on Aristotle=s De anima, the attributions to Scotus in the manuscript tradition and its explicit citation by Adam Wodeham provide strong evidence in favor of its authenticity. Further discussion of the authenticity and dating of the work should be sought in the critical edition.

The editors of the critical edition say that "this work of the Subtle Doctor has come down to us in a disorderly state," (23) with questions ordered differently in different manuscripts, single manuscripts in multiple hands, questions transcribed more than once in a single manuscript, and the ordering of paragraphs within questions varying from one manuscript to another. Nevertheless, they say, "the meaning of the text which has come down to us is rarely compromised." (24)

The Questions on the Metaphysics have traditionally been dated early, a tradition that the Vatican editors follow, (25) but the editors of the critical edition argue that no single dating is possible for the entire work: "we suggest that these questions were composed and revised over an extended period of time and that certain questions stem from a period late in Scotus's career." (26) Indeed, detailed textual analysis by Dumont, Noone, and the editors themselves strongly suggests that Books 7 through 9 date in their present form to late in Scotus's career; Wolter notes that Book 7 must date between Book 2 of the Ordinatio and Book 2 of the Reportatio. (27) On the other hand, Richard Cross argues that Book 5 of the Questions on the Metaphysics must predate the Lectura, and therefore that the first five books should all be dated to before 1300. (28)

Scotus also wrote an Expositio on Aristotle's Metaphysics. The Expositio was lost for centuries, but a manuscript containing the work was recently discovered by Giorgio Pini, who is preparing an edition. See Pini, "'Notabilia Scoti super Metaphysicam': Una testimonianza ritrovata dall'insegnamento di Duns Scoto sulla 'Metafisica'," Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 89 (1996): 138-180.

The Expositio super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis printed as Scotus's in the Wadding edition is the work of Antonius Andreas.

An ordinatio is a text that the instructor himself has set in order in preparation for publication (that is, copying by the official university scribes and distribution to the booksellers). Scotus's Ordinatio is his revision of the lectures he gave as a bachelor at Oxford, based on the Lectura. We can clearly discern at least two layers of revision. The initial revision was begun in the summer of 1300 and left incomplete when Scotus departed for Paris in 1302; it probably did not get much past Book 2. Further revisions were made in Paris; we know that Scotus was still dictating questions for Book 4 as late as 1304, as well as updating the parts he had already revised while still at Oxford. These updates were usually in the form of marginal additions or interpolated texts that reflected what Scotus taught in Paris. Our picture of the nature and extent of the second layer of revisions is, however, still murky, in part because the Vatican edition of the Ordinatio has reached only to Book 2, d. 3, and no critical edition of the Paris Reportatio is available at all (see below). Much further study is needed in order to understand just how much the Ordinatio represents the views Scotus held at Oxford and how much he revised it to reflect developments in his views in Paris. At present, however, the most plausible view would seem to be that of Wolter, who wrote that it is a

serious and inexcusable mistake for scholars writing on Scotus today to regard his Ordinatio as a seamless garment rather than a work begun in Oxford and left unfinished when he left Paris for Cologne. It is particularly unwise to consider the basic text of the eleven volumes of the Vatican edition so far printed as necessarily representative of his final views simply because parts were updated with a view to what he taught later in Paris. (29)

And Wolter argues persuasively that Ordinatio 1 "is simply a more mature expression of his early views, and needs to be supplemented by the later positions he held which can be found in the reports of his lectures at Cambridge and Paris." (30)

The Collationes represent disputations in which Scotus participated at Oxford and Paris. Dumont notes that "The Collationes are perhaps the least studied of Scotus's theological works, yet the fact that Scotus himself refers to them several times in the course of revising his Ordinatio indicates their importance." (31) He argues that the Oxford Collationes were disputed either during Scotus's exile from Paris in 1303-04 or at some time between 1305 and his death in 1308. (32) The Paris Collationes were presumably disputed at various times between 1302 and 1307.

A reportatio is a student report of a lecture. We have a number of reportationes of Scotus's lectures at Paris, and the relationship among the various versions is unclear. There are also questions about the order in which he commented on the Sentences. One plausible view is that he commented sequentially on all four books in the academic year 1302-03, being interrupted near the end by his exile from Paris, and resuming with Book 4 upon his return in the spring of 1304. There are future-tense references in Book 4 to topics he will treat in Book 3, presumably in the academic year 1304-05, when he may have given another complete course of lectures on the Sentences. The one clear fact is that Scotus himself personally examined a reportatio of his lectures on Book 1, which is therefore known as the Reportatio examinata. Since this work represents Scotus's most mature commentary on the matters treated in Sentences 1, it is of paramount importance in understanding his thought and its development. In a most welcome development, a preliminary edition (with English translation) by Allan B. Wolter and Oleg V. Bychkov of the first 21 questions has recently been published by the Franciscan Institute (2004). What the Wadding edition prints as Reportatio 1 is actually Book 1 of the Additiones magnae.

The Vatican editors (33) identify the following versions of the Reportatio:

 

The Additiones magnae on Books 1 and 2 of the Sentences were compiled by William of Alnwick, Scotus's companion and secretary, from Scotus's lectures at both Oxford and Paris, but principally from the latter. (In fact, some manuscripts call the Additiones "Lectura Parisiensis.") They were most likely produced between 1312 and 1325. (35) The Vactican editors take a dim view of Alnwick's faithfulness to the mind of Scotus, at least as regards the Additiones on Book 2, d. 25, (36) but their opinion is not generally shared, and surely Dumont is correct in saying that the evidence available to us "gives every indication that the Additiones are faithful to Scotus." (37) Three manuscripts of Additiones 2 contain an explicit attributing the Additiones to Scotus and identifying Alnwick not as their author but as their compiler:

Here conclude the Additions to the second book of Master John Duns, extracted by Master William of Alnwick of the Order of Friars Minor from the Paris and Oxford lectures of the aforesaid Master John. (38)

In their earliest appearances, the Additiones were identified as an appendix to Scotus's Ordinatio, but they gradually came to be inserted into the Ordinatio itself to supply material where Scotus had left the Ordinatio incomplete -- a process that attests to the belief of Scotus's contemporaries and immediate successors in the authenticity of the Additiones. Furthermore, the Additiones are cited in the early fourteenth century as an authentic work of Scotus, in particular by Adam Wodeham. So although the precise occasion or purpose of Alnwick's compilation is not clear, there is overwhelming evidence that the Additiones represent the teaching of Scotus himself.

It was part of the duty of a regent master to conduct quodlibetal disputations, so called because "they could be about any topic whatever (de quolibet) and could be initiated by any member of the audience (a quolibet).@ (39) Scotus's Quodlibetal Questions were disputed in either Advent 1306 or Lent 1307. He then revised the questions, completing the revision up through the last question, q. 21.

This short treatise in natural theology, once taken to be an early work, is now generally believed to be one of Scotus's later works, and perhaps his very latest. About half of it is taken verbatim from Book 1 of the Ordinatio. Wolter observes that

A careful analysis of the [manuscripts] leads one to conclude that Scotus had considerable secretarial help in composing the final draft. He seems to have contented himself with sketching the main outlines of the treatise and entrusted his personal amanuensis or other scribes with the task of filling in the substance of the work from those sections of the Ordinatio he had indicated. This would explain why certain words were deleted that should have been copied, or conversely why words or phrases were added that could hardly have been intended when the amanuensis on occasion obviously strayed beyond the section Scotus wanted copied. It would also account for the unusual turn of phrase, or other stylistic differences between this and Scotus=s other writings. (40)

The resulting text is accordingly sometimes obscure, and De primo principio is therefore best read in conjunction with the parallel treatments in the Ordinatio and the Reportatio examinata.

Near the end of De primo principio Scotus notes that he has been discussing metaphysical conclusions about God, reached through natural reason, and he announces his intention to provide a companion volume treating matters of faith. Some have identified this companion volume with the so-called tractatus de creditis, Theorems 14 to 16 of the Theoremata. This identification is, however, difficult to maintain in the face of apparent doctrinal discrepancies between De primo principio and the tractatus de creditis. Largely because of such discrepancies, the authenticity of the Theoremata is highly disputed. In my view, the balance of the evidence demands that we reject the attribution of this work to Scotus, but the matter is by no means settled. (41) The editors of the new critical edition, in fact, judge that "both external and internal arguments . . . speak in favor of Scotus's being the author of the text of the Theoremata," although perhaps neither the title of the work nor its organization derives from Scotus. Readers can judge for themselves whether the arguments adduced for this claim (Bonaventure 2:576-580) are sufficient to support the editors' conclusion.

NOTES

1. The account that follows relies on Wolter 1993, 1995, 1996; S. Dumont 1996, 2001; Noone 1995; and the introductions to the critical editions of Scotus's works (see the chart of editions, below). I am grateful to Timothy B. Noone for his helpful remarks on an earlier draft of this essay.

21. For a more detailed examination of this evidence and a discussion of the dating of the logical works, see Bonaventure 1:xxvi-xxxi. The other logical works that appear as Scotus's in the Wadding edition are inauthentic.

22. Wolter 1993, 34.

23. Bonaventure 3:xxxiii.

24. Bonaventure 3:xxxvii.

25. Vatican 19:41*-42*.

26. Bonaventure 3:xlii.

27. S. Dumont 1995; Noone 1995; Wolter 1996, 52.

28. Cross 1998, 245-246.

29. Wolter 1996, 39-40.

30. Wolter 1996, 50.

31. S. Dumont 1996, 69.

32. Both dates pose certain problems. For a thorough discussion of the evidence, see S. Dumont 1996.

33. Vatican 1:144*-149*, 7:4*-5*.

34. Reportatio 1E is thought by many to be an amalgam of Henry Harclay's lectures and Scotus's own work. But see Balic 1939, 2:4-9.

35. For the arguments that establish these dates, see Wolter 1996, 44.

36. Vatican 19:39*-40*, note 3.

37. S. Dumont 2001, 767; see also Bali 1927, 101-103, and Wolter 1996, 44-45

38. Expliciunt Additiones secundi libri magistri Iohannis Duns extractae per magistrum Gillermum de Alnwick de ordine fratrum minorum de Lectura Parisiensi et Oxoniensi pracedicti magistri Iohannis. The wording given here is that of Oxford, Balliol College, MS 208, f. 40v. Vat. lat. 876, f. 310v, and Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Lat. Fol. MS 928, f. 35vb, have similar explicits.

39. Kenny and Pinborg 1982, 22.

40. Wolter 1966, x-xi.

41. For a different view, see Ross and Bates, ch. 6 in this volume, sec. II.