^{page 213 note 1} Aureoli, Petrus, Scriptum super primum Sententiarum prol. q. 2 a. 4 n. 120 (ed. Buytaert, E.; I [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1952] 209). In this respect Wodeham's attack on Aureol is an interesting anticipation of E. Gilson's attack on William Ockham's theory of intellectual intuition as paving the way for the breakdown of Scholasticism; cf. Gilson, E., The Unity of Philosophical Experience (London 1938) 90–91; id., Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York 1955) 490.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} Courtenay, W. J., Adam Wodeham (Leiden 1978) 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 213 note 3} Day, S., Intuitive Cognition (St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1947) iii.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 4} Duns Scotus, Joannes, Quodlibet VI a. 1 §§ 18–19 (ed. Alluntis, F. [Madrid 1968] 212); Ordinatio II d. 3 p. 2 q. 2 §§ 318–22 (ed. Vaticana VII 552f.).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 5} Scotus, , Quodlibet XIII a. 2 § § 27–42 (ed. Alluntis, 455–62; trans. Alluntis, F. and Walter, A., God and Creatures: The Quodlibetal Questions [Princeton, N.J. 1975] 292); Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 12 § 6 (ed. Wadding X 574). Cf. Day, Intuitive Cognition 39–139.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 6} Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 45 q. 2 § 12 (ed. Wadding, X 182).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 7} Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 45 q. 3 § 17 (ed. Wadding, X 207).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 8} Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 8 § 5 (ed. Wadding, X 498).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 9} Scotus, Quodlibet VI a. 1 §§ 20–21 (ed. Alluntis, 214f.).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 10} Actually in this context Scotus prefers to speak of cognition ‘citra intuitivam.’ Cf. Quodlibet VII a. 2 §§ 19–23 (ed. Alluntis, 257–63): De quocumque obiecto scientiae potest haberi cognitio simpliciter distinctissima abstractiva obiecti citra intuitivam; Deus autem est per se obiectum alicuius scientiae; ergo de ipso potest haberi talis notitia distinctissima citra intuitivam et per consequens propositum; quia illa non ponerat aliquem extra statum viae, et tamen virtualiter et evidenter est includens omnes veritates necessarias de Deo.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 11} I will be chiefly concerned with question 2 of Aureol's, Peter prologue, in which he asks whether God can confer a light by means of which theological truths could be known scientifically, since it is in that question that Aureol treats Scotus’ distinction between abstract and intuitive cognition at greatest length: Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 3–4 (ed. Buytaert, esp. I 197, 211f.). Cf. Dreiling, R., Konzeptualismus in der Universalienlehre des Franzis-kanerbishofs Petrus Aureoli (BGPhMA XI 6; Münster i. W. 1913).Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 12} Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 §§ 27–29 (ed. Buytaert, I 184f.).Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 13} Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 102–11 (ed. Buytaert, I 203–206).Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 14} Scotus, , Quodlibet XIII a. 2 §§ 17–26 (ed. Alluntis, 451–54).Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 15} Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 74–79 (ed. Buytaert, I 197f.). Whether beatific vision is essentially an absolute or relative entity is a difficult point in Scotus’ theology. Aureol seems to have claimed that beatitude is formally a real relation for Scotus. Hiquaeus (Hickey, Anthony, o.f.m. † 1641), in his commentary on book IV of the Sentences, claims that it is clear from Quodlibet XIII that Scotus intended beatitude to be an absolute entity and that the real relation is a necessary concomitant. Cf. Scotus, , Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 3 §§ 27–32 (ed. Wadding, X 355–57); Hiquaeus, , Commentaria in IV Sent. ad mentem Scoti, loc. cit. §§ 64–65 (ed. Wadding, X 360).Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 16} Scotus, , Quodlibet XIII a. 1 §§ 8–16 (ed. Alluntis, 447–50).Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 17} Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 93–95 (ed. Buytaert, I 201f.). Scotus had certainly considered this argument: Quodlibet XIII a. 2 §§ 54, 56 (ed. Alluntis, 467).Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 18} Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 102–11 (ed. Buytaert, I 203–206). Cf. Boehner, P., ‘Notitia intuitiva of Non-existents according to Peter Aureole, o.f.m. (1322),’ Franciscan Studies 8 (1948) 388–410.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 19} Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 1 & 3 §§ 31–32, 55–58 (ed. Buytaert, I 696–700, 712–14). Vanni-Rovighi, Sofia in ‘La Filosofia patristica e medievale’ (Storia della filosofia [Rome 1969] I 253–55) claims that Aureol does not understand esse apparens as an intermediate entity distinct from the object apprehended, pointing to I Sent. d. 9 a. 1, ‘non est aliquid reale impressum intellectui subiective, aut phantasmati, sed nec aliquid reale subsistens, sed est ipsamet res habens esse intentionale conspicuum et apparens.’ But in other places Aureol clearly indicates that esse apparens is an entity, although it is an intentional or conceptual, not a real, entity. Cf. I Sent. d. 3 q. 14 (ed. Buytaert, I 713): ‘Ergo necesse est dicere quod per intellectionem tanquam rei simillimam res capiat quoddam esse, ita ut esse intellectum non sit denominatio sola, sed quoddam esse intentionale diminutum et apparens.’ He states explicitly that esse intentionale or esse apparens is not the act of apprehension and it cannot be the external object itself since it has no real being. Therefore it must be a being distinct from both the object and the act of apprehension. Aureol seems to want to claim that esse apparens is both the same as and different from the object. It is an entity formed by the sense or intellect when the object is apprehended and in that sense it is an unreal entity, different from the external object. In another sense, since Aureol wants to hold that the external object is itself perceived, it is the same as the external object; it is the thing itself, existing as intuited (exsistens in ultimate intuitu) by the mode of appearance (per modum apparentis).Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 20} de Ockham, Guillelmus, Scriptum in I Sent. prol. q. 1 (edd. Gál, G. and Brown, S., Opera Theologica I [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1967] 70f.).Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 21} Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. qq. 12–13 (edd. Gal, G. and Wood, R., Opera Theologica V [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1981] 258).Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 22} Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. prol. q. 7 (OTh I 183–206 esp. 186ff., 193).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 23} Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (edd. Etzkorn, G. and Kelly, F., Opera Theologica IV [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1979] 239f.).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 24} Chatton, Gualterus, Lecturae in I Sent. prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, J., ‘The Second Question of the Prologue to Walter Chatton's Commentary on the Sentences,’ Nine Mediaeval Thinkers [ed. O'Donnell, J. R.; Toronto 1955] 241f.).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 25} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 248f.).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 26} Scotus, , Quodlibel VI a. 1 §§ 18–19 (ed. Alluntis, 212f.).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 27} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 242f., 248f.).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 28} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 4 (Cambridge Gonville Caius 281/674 fols. 115^rb–119^rb).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 29} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 § 77 (fol. 127^ra): Licet Ockham habeat aliud dicere. Nec minim, quia ipse ponit quod per intuitionem albedinis scitur evidenter ipsam esse quando est et non esse quando non est. Et ideo habet circa talia ponere iudicium infallibile. Posset haberi. Sed non ego, quia pono quod sive albedo sit sive non sit, visio eius semper inclinat ad uniforme iudicium. (In this and subsequent citations of Wodeham's prol. q. 2 and q. 6 reference will be to a transcription by Gál, Gedeon.)Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 30} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 § 77–78 (fol. 127^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 31} Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 § 120 (ed. Buytaert, I 209).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 32} Scotus, makes a similar argument; cf. Quodlibet XIII a. 2 § 29 (ed. Alluntis, 456); Opus Oxon. IV d. 49 q. 8 § 5 (ed. Wadding, X 498).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 33} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987). Aureol's first experimentum is probably also to be considered within the context of medieval optics. His confrere Pecham, John used the phenomenon of after-images to argue that light results not from visual rays issuing from the eye, but from luminous rays entering the eye. Cf. Pecham, , Perspectiva communis I prop. 1 (ed. Lindberg, D. C., John Pecham and the Science of Optics [Madison, Wis. 1970] 62; cf. also p. 34).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 34} Averroës, , In De somno et vigilia Aristotelis (ed. Iuntina VI 201^vb–202^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 35} Ibid. fol. 202^ra.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 36} Aureoli, , Scriptum prol. q. 2 a. 2 §§ 80–92 (ed. Buytaert, I 198–201).Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 37} Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 1 and 3 §§ 31–35, 55–58 (ed. Buytaert, I 696–700, 712–14).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 38} Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 4 a. 1 (ed. Buytaert, I 696f.). Pecham also used much the same arguments to show that forms appearing in mirrors are not seen by means of impressions made in the mirrors. Cf. his Perspectiva communis II prop. 19 (ed. Lindberg, 168; cf. p. 47f.). Cf. above note 33.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 39} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 40} Aureoli, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 2 (ed. Buytaert, I 696–8).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 41} Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (OTh I 244f.).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 42} Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. q. 16 (OTh V 370).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 43} Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. qq. 12–13 (OTh V 286f.).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 44} Ockham, , Quaestiones in III Sent. q. 3 (edd. Kelley, F. and Etzkorn, G., Opera Theologica VI [St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1982] 105–14, 117–20).Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 45} Ibid. Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 46} Ockham, , Quaestiones in II Sent. qq. 12–13, 14, and 16 (OTh V 261–67, 316–19, 378).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 47} Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. , prol. q. 1 (OTh I 39–44).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 48} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 242). Interestingly, Aureol uses ths same analogy with light when claiming that intellectual intuition does not lead to error; cf. Scriptum prol. q. 2 n. 120 (ed. Buytaert, I 209).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 49} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 244f.).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 50} Ibid. (245).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 51} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 34–35 (edited below).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 52} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 52–54, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 53} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 43, 49, 51, 59.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 54} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 43, 49, 57, 59; Ockham, , Quaestiones in III Sent. q. 3 (OTh VI 105–14, 117–20).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 55} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 43, 49, 53, 57, 59.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 56} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 12.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 57} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 242). Chatton's final conclusion is sufficiently conciliatory toward Aureol's view to prompt Luciano Cova, ‘Francesco di Meyronnes e Walter Catton nella controversia scolastica sulla notitia intuitiva de re non existente,’ Medioevo 2 (1966) 245, to argue that there was a ‘large convergenza con Aureolo, Pietro, nonostante la polemica in precedenza sviluppata circa l'intuizione “naturaliter” prodotta.’Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 58} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 32; Chatton, Reportatio in II Sent. d. 1 q. 2 a. 4 (cod. Paris B.N. lat. 15887 fol. 87^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 59} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 33–34.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 60} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, 243, 249).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 61} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.3 (PL 42.986f.).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 62} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 50.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 63} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 42, 43, 53, 57, 59; Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 64} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 52, 53, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 65} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 66–67.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 66} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 54, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 67} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 § 61 (fol. 126^ra): Ubi notandum imprimis quod evidentia complexa dupliciter potest intelligi. Vel scilicet proprie pro apprehensione complexa quae est ipsa propositio evidens suo modo; vel pro iudicio evidenti suo modo causato mediante propositione evidenti quo iudicio iudicatur sic esse a parte rei vel non esse. Illam propositionem voco evidentem suo modo quae ex talibus componitur simplicibus apprehensionibus est aliter quod ipsa informante animam non potest sibi non apparere sic esse in re sicut ipsa significat sive ipsa sit vera sive falsa, licet per rationem vel experientiam aliunde posset convinci non sic esse quandoque; sicut est illa propositio quam format videns baculum cuius pars est in aqua significans baculum esse fractum, quae quidem — ut supra dixi — habet visionem baculi et aquae partem sui.Google Scholar

Aut magis stricte: illa est evidens propositio qua posita nec potest non apparere sic esse sicut ipsa significat nec non esse sicut apparet. Et ideo forte omnis propositio evidens isto secundo modo significans rem esse categorice est necessaria.

Tertio modo, adhuc strictius: illa est evidens propositio quae habet duas istas condiciones et ultra hoc, stante generali Dei influentia, nata est necessitare intellectum in quo est ad assentiendum sic esse sicut ipsa significat.

^{page 232 note 68} Ibid. Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 69} See above note 67.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 70} Ibid.; cf. Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 66–67.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 71} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 §§ 54, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 72} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 3 § 28; q. 6 § 76 (fol. 127^ra); q. 2 § 29 (fol. 109^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 73} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 §§ 61, 75 (fols. 126^ra-rb, 126^vb–127^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 74} Wodeham, , Lectura secunda prol. q. 6 §§ 77, 101 (fols. 127^ra, 128^rb).Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} Lectura secunda prol. q. 2 concl. 3–4 (cod. Gonville-Caius, 281/674 fol. 109^rb-va).Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 2} Wodeham, postponed the answer to this question. Cf. Lectura secunda prol. q. 4: Quarto quaero de articulo omisso prioris quaestionis: Utrum per visionem causetur ‘esse aliquod apparens’ vel ‘esse visum’ distinctum a visione et visibili (cod. cit. fols. 115^rb–119^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 3} Cf. Chatton, Gualterus, Lecturae prol. q. 2 Secundo contra secundam conclusionem (ed. O'Callaghan, 242).Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 4} Loc. cit. Secundo sic (242).Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 5} Q. 2 concl. 5–6 (cod. cit. fol. 110^ra-rb).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 6} Aureoli, , Scriptum I prooem. q. 2 a. 3 § 111 (ed. Buytaert, I 205).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 7} Loc. cit. § 104 (204).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 8} Loc. cit. §§ 121 et 120 (209). Cf. ibid. § 115 (207).Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 9} This is the first experiment adduced by Aureol, in the via experientiae: loc. cit. §§ 81–82 (ed. Buytaert, I 198).Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 10} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 11} Averroës, , In De somno et vigilia (ed. Iuntina, [Venetiis 1550–1553] VI fols. 201^vb–202^ra); Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 83 (ed. Buytaert, I 199).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 12} Algazel, , Physica tract. 5 (ed. Muckle, J. T., Algazel's Metaphysics [Toronto 1933] 192f.).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 13} Averroës, , In De somno et vigilia (fol. 202^ra); Aureoli, loc. cit. § 84 (ed. Buytaert, I 199).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 14} Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 85f. (199).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 15} Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 86 (199).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 16} Cf. Averroës, , In De anima II text. 138 (ed. Crawford, F. S. [Cambridge, Mass. 1953] 339ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 17} Cf. Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.2 (PL 42.986): sensus autem oculorum non ob aliud sensus corporis dicitur, nisi quia et ipsi oculi membra sunt corporis: et quamvis non sentiat corpus exanime, anima tamen commixta corpori per instrumentum sentit corporeum, et idem instrumentum sensu vocatur; Averroës, loc. cit. (n. 11); Aureoli, , loc. cit. § 90 (200). Although Aureol indicated that this is an answer to the first instantia in § 21, in fact it seems to be an answer to the second.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 18} Cf. supra § 13; Aureoli, loc. cit. § 91 (200).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 19} Cf. supra §§ 20–21 and n. 17 (note that this argument repeats § 21 which is out of place); Aureoli, loc. cit. § 92 (200f.).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 20} Cf. supra § 20 and n. 16; Aureoli, , ibid. Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 21} Cf. supra § 20; Aureoli, , ibid. Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 22} Lectura secunda prol. q. 22 (cod. cit. fol. 109^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 23} Cf. supra § 13, the first of the experientiae. Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 24} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 (ed. O'Callaghan, ).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 25} Cf. supra § 5 – § 9; Chatton, , loc. cit. (ed. O'Callaghan 242f.), where six slightly different, but closely related, arguments are presented.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 26} This is the second, not the fourth, question of Chatton's prologue: loc. cit. Ad primum (ed. O'Callaghan, 243).Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 27} Loc. cit. Secundo, contra secundam conclusionem and Ad tertium dico (242, 244). Chatton bases his reply to Aureol on this distinction between causation and conservation.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 28} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 1 (ed. Reina, M., ‘La Prima Quaestione del Prologo del ‘Commento alle Sentenze’ i Walter Chatton,’ Rivista critica di storia della filosofia 25 [1970] 59 and 65).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 29} Augustinus, , De Genesi ad litt. 8.12.26 (PL 34.383).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 30} Cf. supra § 29; Scotus, In IV libros Sent. (Reportatio Paris.) II d. 1 q. 4 § 7 (ed. Wadding, XI–I 252); Chatton, Reportatio in II Sent. d. 1 q. 2. a. 4 (cod. Paris B.N. lat. 15887 fol. 87^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 31} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 Sexto arguit (ed. O'Callaghan, 243). Cf. Ad tertium (244).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 32} Ibid. Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 33} Loc. cit. (245f.).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 34} Loc. cit. Secundo sic (242).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 35} Loc. cit. Quarto sic (242).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 36} Loc. cit. Ad tertium and Ideo dico (244f.). Cf. supra § 13.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 37} Loc. cit. (245).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 38} The example to which Wodeham is referring here is taken from another series of experiments adduced by Aureol, , Scriptum I d. 3 q. 14 a. 1 (ed. Buytaert, II 696f.); Chatton, quotes and answers these experiments as well as those from the second question of this prologue. As a matter of fact, Aureol's example is of a stick rapidly whirled, but not lighted. But Chatton when he answers this experiment, misnumbers it Ad tertiam and indicates that the stick is lighted (ed. O'Callaghan, 241, 244). It should also be noted that Chatton again refers to this experiment when answering the experiments of Aureol's prologue, instead of answering the fifth experiment.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 39} In §§ 41–43 Wodeham is replying to § 39 on the basis of his interpretation of Augustine.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 40} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 and 2 (PL 42.987, 986).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 41} Loc. cit. § 2 (PL 42.985).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 42} Loc. cit. § 2 (PL 42.985).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 43} Cf. supra § 40. Here Wodeham again begins to adduce objections against his own position.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 44} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987). Note that this is Chatton's, not Wodeham's, interpretation of Augustine.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 45} Chatton, , Lecturae prol. q. 2 Ad primum pro secunda conclusione (ed. O'Callaghan, 245).Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 46} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 47} Cf. supra § 40, § 44.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 48} Namely, , the subject of light, not the luminous body.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 49} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.3 (PL 42.986f.).Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 50} Cf. Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.3.6 (PL 42.988f.).Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 51} Cf. supra § 46.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 52} Marginal, note: Istam conclusionem teneo magis.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 53} Cf. Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2–3.2–6 (PL 42.985–89).Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 54} Wodeham, is asking here why Chatton does not adopt the explanation provided by a vehement imagination in the case of after-images. It seems to Wodeham that this reply is at least as suitable for the first experiment (§ 13) as for the second (§ 14).Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 55} Another reply to the argument adduced in § 46.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 56} Cf. supra § 46.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 57} Cf. supra § 47.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 58} Another reply to § 47.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 59} Cf. supra § 48.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 60} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 61} Cf. supra § 46. Marginal note: Et hoc tenet totum Scotum. Cf. Ordinatio I d. 3 p. 1 q. 4 § 239 (ed. Vaticana, III 145 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 62} Cf. supra § 48.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 63} Cf. Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (OTh IV 250).Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 64} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.2.4 (PL 42.987).Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 65} Cf. supra § 14.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 66} Cf. supra n. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 67} Cf. supra § 15. Note that in §§ 64–65 Wodeham is restating the objection.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 68} Cf. supra § 15, § 64.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 69} Cf. Scotus, , De anima q. 9 § 7 (ed. Wadding, II 520).Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 70} Cf. supra § 15, § 65.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 71} Cf. Chatton, , Lectura prol. q. 2 Ad secundum dico (ed. O'Callaghan, 246).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 72} Cf. supra § 16.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 73} Cf. supra § 17.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 74} Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (OTh IV 250).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 75} Augustinus, , De Trinitate 11.4.7 (PL 42.989).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 76} Ockham, , Scriptum in I Sent. d. 27 q. 3 (Oth IV 250).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 77} Cf. supra § 18, § 61 n. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 78} Cf. supra § 18.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 79} Cf. supra § 20.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 80} Cf. supra § 10.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 81} Cf. supra § 23.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 82} Cf. supra § 24.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 83} Cf. supra § 25.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 84} Cf. supra § 26.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 85} Cf. supra § 27.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 86} Cf. supra § 1.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 87} Lectura secunda prol. q. 4 (cod. cit. fol. 115^va–b). See also the introduction to this edition, note 8.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 88} Cf. supra § 2.Google Scholar