1. Vesperae
  2. Vesperae Community
  3. Authors
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://vesperae.zettacloud.ro/jspui/handle/123456789/466
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJohn of Macliniaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-08T17:14:05Z-
dc.date.available2024-01-08T17:14:05Z-
dc.identifier.urihttps://vesperae.zettacloud.ro/jspui/handle/123456789/466-
dc.titleJohn of Macliniaen_US
vesperae.author.bibliographyY PMA, « La résompte incomplete, » p. 260. Y PMA, « La résompte incomplete, » pp. 259-260; W. J. COURTENAY, Parisian Scholars in the Early Fourteenth Century. A Social Portrait, Cambridge 2004, p. 179.en_US
vesperae.date.start1353en_US
vesperae.date.end1353en_US
vesperae.author.educationJohn of Maclinia is one of the sources of the question “Utrum voluntas fidelis viatoris per gratiam eternalem possit ad summam gloriam eternaliter ordinari,” at ff. 214ra-223v in ms. Paris, BnF, Lat. 14576,684 whose author references his vesperies. We read at f. 215va: “Oppositum tamen huius propositionis reverendus pater meus et magister, qui septimo loco incepit, posuit contra me in vesperiis suis.” The corresponding marginal note reads: “Contra magistrum Iohannem de Maclinia.” Ypma, studying this question on the premise that its author is Alphonsus Vargas, identifies this Iohannes as an Augustinian, elected provincial at the chapter held in 1353.685 As both Ypma and Courtenay have already shown, many people bear this name, some around the same time,686 which is why, due to the lack of any further clarifications, John of Maclinia remains ambiguous at the time being.en_US
vesperae.work.notesHis vesperies have not survived, but the author of the question in the Parisian manuscript expands on the subject discussed during Maclinia’s vesperial disputation, f. 215va: 140 “My reverend father and master, who incepted in the seventh place, posited the opposite of this proposition against me in his vesperies. And with regards to this proposition, this is how I proceed: I first show that his reasoning does not hold, and secondly, I show the reasons I made elsewhere and which have not been solved. About this matter, this reverend doctor argued by means of a sole reason as follows: God cannot separate from volition, as it is an absolute thing which does not include a relation or relative mode, the entire tendency towards the object, which tends in it truly and really, therefore it is not possible for the blessed to formally have in his will volition or love through which he loves God beatifically – not even from God’s absolute power – and not love. The consequence seems to be valid, because, if the opposite is held, volition does not tend towards the object truly and really, which opposes the antecedent. The antecedent is proved as follows: volition, of its own being and circumscribed nature and by means of all extrinsic relation and relative mode, is a certain tendency towards the object, therefore God cannot separate from it any such tendency. The consequence is supposed. And the assumed antecedent is proved, because, through that alone, volition is brought in the object by means of which it is volition intrinsically and essentially; but volition itself is volition only through its object, and not by means of an extraneous relation or relative mode, therefore.”687 The author of the question then proceeds to refute his arguments. Therefore, Maclinia defined volition as the tendency towards its object in a true and real way, but we cannot say what the larger subject of his vesperies was.en_US
Appears in Collections:Authors

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
Test File.txt3 BTextView/Open

Show simple item record Show TEI document


Items in Vesperae are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.