Opera Omnia (ed. Wadding, selecció — llatí original)
- Language:
- Latin
- Status:
- Selection or partial work
- Authorship:
- Attributed (authorship debated)
- Condition of the text:
- No scanning noise detected (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand)
- Extent:
- ~370,000 words · 1,751 passages
Cite this work
- APADuns Scotus. (n.d.). Opera Omnia (ed. Wadding, selecció — llatí original). Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/duns-scotus/opera-omnia-ed-wadding-seleccio-llati-original
- MLADuns Scotus. Opera Omnia (ed. Wadding, selecció — llatí original). Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/duns-scotus/opera-omnia-ed-wadding-seleccio-llati-original.
- ChicagoDuns Scotus. Opera Omnia (ed. Wadding, selecció — llatí original). Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/duns-scotus/opera-omnia-ed-wadding-seleccio-llati-original.
Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.
What it is about
A selection from the Latin works of Duns Scotus in Wadding's edition: the univocity of being, haecceitas — what makes this individual this one and not another — and the primacy of will over intellect.
Context and history
One thing about this edition should be known. Wadding published it in 1639, and modern scholarship has established that it contains pieces that are not by Scotus: attribution was more generous then than now. It remains the main route of access to the text, which is why it is here, but any citation ought to be checked against the twentieth-century critical edition before being relied on.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
quia non potest fieri unum ex duobus, nisi utrumque sit aliquid positivum extra suam causam, nisi fieret unum ex aliquo et nihilo. Adprimam Ad aliud. cum dicitur quod tunc nem. generatio non esset nisi alteratio ? dico quod licet Aristoteles dixerit generationem non esse alteralionem, tamen non dixit ipsam non esse mutationem. Simililer quamvis dixerit ens in actu non esse subjectura generationis, tamen non dixit quod nihiles^t subjectum generationis ; ista tamen sequeretur, si materia esset ens in potentia, ut potenlia est differentia entis, sicut supra argutum est. Unde dicendum est, sicut dictum estprius, quod materia dicit entitatem posilivam, quae est capax actuum substantialium, qui sunt actus et formaB simpliciter ; sic etiam requirunt subjectum, quod sit ens ; quantus enim est actus, qui inducitur, tanta est potentia, quee supponitur ; sed hoc non impedit quin sit ens positivum. Anliqui tamen, ut imponit eis Aristoteles, aliquod corpus in actu posuerunt esse subjectum generationis, ut patet primo de generationCy text. 1. ut quidam aquam, et quidam terram, etc. et tale corpus est ens in actu complete, et est per se actuale ; ideo forma sibi acquisita est per alterationem, et sic est tantum ens in potentia ad alteralionem et aotum secundum quid. Nam sicut est actus simpliciter, et actus secundum quid^ itaest potentia simpliciter, el potentia socundum qidd correspondentes illis aclibus. Sed in proposito non est subjoclum generationis ens in actu, et si non sit ens in actu complete, lunc non est nihil, necsolum ens in polentia eo modo quo albedo fundamentaliler est ens in potentia, quia solum in potentia sui agentis.