MacCaghwell's judgment

MacCaghwell's judgment below, from the Wadding edition of Duns Scotus’s works (Wadding-Vivès vol. 5 p.435), concerns the authenticity of the expositio of Aristotle's metaphysics originally attributed to Scotus and published in Luke Wadding's 1639 edition of Scotus's works. It is an example of how even the best scholarship can go wrong.

MacCaghwell and the Irish question

Promoting the cause of Irish nationalism

Hugh MacCaghwell (1571 - 1626) was one of a group of Irish Franciscans who promoted and revived Scotus’s work in the seventeenth century. In his youth, MacCaghwell had worked in the cause of Irish nationalism, sent to the Court of Spain as a special emissary by his employer, Hugh O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone, to solicit aid for the brief and ill-fated Irish rebellion (1593-1603) led by Tyrone. In the same spirit, MacCaghwell later sought to prove that Scotus was Irish, and argued persuasively for this in a biography of Scotus prefixed to his 1620 edition of Scotus’s Commentary on the Sentences (later included in Wadding’s 1639 edition of Scotus’s works).

One of these arguments was that in Book 7 of an Expositio of Aristotle's Metaphysics, then attributed to Scotus, there is a brief example illustrating how 'man' does not have to occur in the definition of the term 'white', but in the definition of St. Frances or of St. Patrick, the term ‘animal’ necessarily occurs [in definitione albi non necessario poni hominem, Sed in definitione, inquit, Francisci, vel S. Patritii necessario ponitur animal]. MacCaghwell argued that if Scotus had been English he would have used St. George as the example, if Scottish, St. Andrew or Columba. But since he used the name of St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, Scotus must obviously have been Irish.

Thomas Dempster

Promoting the cause of Scottish nationalism

This work seems to have come to the attention of the mercurial and Byronic Thomas Dempster (1579 –1625), a ferociously patriotic Scot, then working as professor at the University of Bologna. In 1627 Dempster's posthumous Historia ecclesiastica gentis Scotorum, ("Ecclesiastical History of the Scottish Nation", Bologna, 1627) was published. There, Dempster tried to show that "Bernard (Sapiens), Alcuin, Saint Boniface and Johannes Scotus Eriugena were all Scots, and even Boadicea becomes a Scottish author". It was "one of the most discredited works ever written in the field of Scottish history" according to Morér. Dempster insisted that anyone referred to as Scotus or or as having come from Scotia in historical documents must necessarily have been Scottish. "In the older usage, these terms were in reality much more likely to mean 'Irish' and 'Ireland', but Dempster found this difficult to accept". . Being Scots himself, Dempster included his own autobiography at the end of the book.

Naturally, Dempster argued that both John Scotus Eriugena and his namesake John Duns Scotus were Scots. The former is now generally agreed to be Irish, but about John Duns there was reasonable doubt. Apparently replying to the 'St. Patrick argument', he pointed out a note at the end of the expositio saying "I want everyone reading this to know that both in my views, and in my writing I am following the doctrine of the subtle Doctor etc., John Duns Scotus". Dempster argued that this proved conclusively that the expositio was not written by Scotus at all, but by Antonius Andreas, and (by inference) no conclusion could be drawn about Scotus's nationality.

Both Dempster and MacCaghwell died before Wadding published Scotus's Opera Omnia in 1639. However, in the introduction to the Expositio in the Wadding edition, MacCaghwell's reply to Dempster was included with a brief introduction by Wadding (see below for the full text in Latin).

MacCaghwell's judgment

MacCaghwell begins by claiming that 'no one' denies the authenticity of the expositio, apart from Dempster and his 'friend and colleague' Matthaeus Veglensis. Veglensis was Matija Ferkić (1583–1669), an Italian Franciscan from the island of Krk (Italian Veglia) now in Croatia. His Recognitio peripatetica Aristotelis was published in 1656. He taught at the University of Padua for 35 years, from 1629, before that he was at the University of Bologna, where he would have been a colleague of Dempster, and where he must have learned about and been receptive to Dempster's theory.

MacCaghwell gives two main arguments for the authenticity of the work. The first is that Scotus's questions on the Metaphysics are undoubtedly genuine, and yet there are a number of references in the questions to a separate commentary or expositio. When MacCaghwell checked in the expositio, he found parts there that apparently corresponded. There are links in the text below that take you to the right places.

This first argument is a good example of how scholarship can go wrong. We now know that neither Scotus nor Antonius was the true author of the expositio, but rather Thomas Aquinas. Antonius simply took Aquinas's extensive commentary on the Metaphysics and, without changing either the division or the ordering, altered the wording, only changing the sense to make the work agree with Scotistic Metaphysics. For example, where Aquinas writes "Non enim pupilla nec aer coloratur, sed solum speciem coloris recipiunt secundum esse spirituale, Antonius has "non enim pupilla, vel aer coloratur, sed speciem coloris recipiunt, modo intentionali", i.e. he changes 'nor' to 'or', and changes 'spiritual being' to 'intentional mode'. There are some extracts from the expositio in the Logic Museum here which show how closely the texts correspond.

Hence Scotus was clearly referring to an entirely different work, written by himself and not by Aquinas (probably the genuine expositio by Scotus, recently discovered by Georgio Pini. (It is no coincidence that the references appear to correspond, since they are to a detailed commentary).

McCaghwell's second argument is that since Scotus obviously did write the expositio, these words could not in any way be his, but those of Antonius, who corrected, ordered and added to Scotus's work, which was in disarray (indigestum) and disordered (i.e. after Scotus's untimely and sudden death). Antonius was an editor, not an author. And since Scotus was clearly Irish, not Scots, the nationality question was resolved. He also pointed out that if the author was Antonius, who was Spanish, why did he not choose a suitable patron saint, like St James?

Which was partly correct, in that Antonius was an editor rather than an author, partly incorrect, in that it was mostly Aquinas's work that Antonius was editing, not Scotus's. It was later discovered that the expositio was not authentic, and so the question seemed to be decided in Dempster's favour. The nationality question was forgotten, together with the reference to St. Patrick. (There are no contemporary secondary sources which mention this). Given Antonius was the author, why the reference to St Patrick?

St. Patrick still a problem?

But what about the St. Patrick problem? A closer look at the reference to Patrick shows that it is sandwiched between material sourced directly from Aquinas' commentary, book 7 lect. 4. n. 14, and so is clearly an addition by Antonius. As MacCaghwell points out below, Antonius was Spanish, and thus should have used the name of St. James in the example. Why then did Antonius mention St. Patrick? One possibility is that, given Antonius was attributing the work to Scotus, he wanted an appropriate example, and given that he had a brief, possibly personal connection with Scotus at the University of Paris, and knew that Scotus was Irish, used the Irish patron saint as an example. That would support the Irish claim. Or possibly Antonius did write 'St. James' or something like that, but a later editor changed the name to support the Irish claim.

The text

Latin	English
	Introduction by Luke Wadding
Opus hoc Scoti esse omnes admittunt, nullus expresse negat, praeter unum Thomam Dempsterum, eiusque amicum et collegam, Matthaeum Ferchium Veglensem, Ordinis Minorum Conventualium, virum doctissimum, mihi spectatissimum, qui eodem tempore Bononiae scribebant. Ille ut facilius declinaret quorumdam argumentum ex hoc opere desumptum, quo Hiberni suae genti Scotum adscribebant, opus non ipsius Scoti, sed Antonii Andreae Aragonii esse contendit, cui Ferchius accessit. Uterque novac suae assertionis fundamentum posuit in verbis Aragonii, ad operis finem subiectis. Statim atque uterque prodiit, monui eruditissimum virum P. F. Hugonem Cavellum, qui tunc emaculandi, et tersius recudendi operis laborem subibat. Hoc suum ille protulit iudicium, et operi inter alia praefixit; in eo tamen lapsus, quod Ferchium prius scripsisse, et hunc secutum asserat Dempsterum; prior enim scripsit Dempsterus, quippe quem eo ipso loco Ferchius ex isto opusculo testem compellat.
IUDICIUM R. P. CAVELLI
Caeterum quia auctor quidam, vir alioquin undequaque doctissimus, ex quibusdam verbis ad calcem huius operis positis,inductus, asseruit et aperte scripsit non Scotum, sed Antonium Andream, eius auctorem extitisse; quod et ipsum secutus affirmat quidam Scoto-Britannus; nos ad defensionem rerum nostrarum impulsi, operae pretium esse duximus hunc errorem profundius eruere, et aperta veritate convellere, ne ulterius se dilatet ad aliorum gravium virorum, et doctorum minus dignam aestimationem et praeiudicium veritatis. Conabimur itaque apertis veritatis argumentis, ac virorum gravium testimoniis ostendere, dictum opus genuinum esse Scoti nostri foetum, ornatum tamen, et illustratum a clarissimo eius discipulo Antonio Andrea. Ac in primis ex ipsomet Scoto. cuius in hoc testimonium reliquis omnibus praeferendum est. Is igitur in quaes[436]tionibus Metaphysicalibus, quas ab ipso conscriptas nemo negat, lib. 7. quaest. 1. ad 1. in oppositum, quo probatur accidens essentialiter inhaerere, seu inhaerentiam esse de eius essentia, quia Aristoteles 7. Metaphys. text .5. videtur dicere accidens esse ens, sicut non scibile dicitur scibile. Respondet Scotus his verbis: illud exemplum corrigitur per paragraphum sequentem, sicut exposui lextum, unde exemplum quodlibet aliquid veritatis insinuat. Exponit autem in text. 15. citato, quomodo non scibile est scibile secundum quid non simpliciter, quatenus scilicet scitur non sciri seu non posse sciri. Et paritas stat in hoc, quod sicut scibile per se primo est tale, et non scibile non primo est tale; sic substantia primo est ens, et habet suum quod quid, et accidens posterius seu non aeque primo. Sed similitudo non est in eo, quod sicut non scibile est tantum secundum quid scibile,sic accidens est tantum secundum quid ens seu aequivo ce cum substantia; quia accidens est ens simpliciter, et univoce cum substantia, etsi non seque primo ac ipsa.
Item quaest. 7, §, Dico ergo quod, ad locum Aristotelis 7. Metaphys. text 39. quo suaderi videtur quod quid est non esse idem cum eo cuius est: Quaere, inquit, expositionem textus in glossa iuxta textum. Quaesivi in hoc opere eumdem lextum, et inveni quod bene rem explicat; et in notabili adiuncto, quod vocat glossam iuxta textumt exponit Philosophum refutantem Socratis iunioris parabolam (quam ipse vocat fabulam) qui auferebat materiam a specie, et quidditate, asserens partes non esse de quidditate hominis, sicut nec ses de quidditate circuli.
Item, quaest. 19. eiusdem libri 7. ad 1. quo probatur conceptum Generis non esse alium a conceptu Speciei, quia Aristoteles ibi text. 43. ait, Genus nihil esse, praeter eas quae sunt Generis Species. Respondet dicens: addit aut si est, est quidem ut materia, et exemplificat de voce; et illud membrum est verum, pro quo exemplum adducitur, et oportet intelligi ad manifestandum quod singulare in re correspondet conceptui communi Generis, sicut expositum fuit legendo textum. Locus iste, ad quem se remittit, est in hoc opere ad textum iam allegatum, in quo optime explical quomodo Genus se habet ut materia, quia determinatur per differentias, et quomodo vox quae est genus, sit quasi materia, quam differentiae additae contrahunt ad species.
Item lib. 8. quaest 4. §. Ideo aliter, posita, et refutata sententia eorum, qui dicunt ex materia et forma fieri unum per se; quia illud idem quod prius fuit in potentia per rationem materiae, iam est in actu per formam, et extractio de potentia in actum non largitur multitudinem, sed perfectionem, resolvit in hunc modum: Ideo aliter potest dici, quod sicut dictum est exponendo textum huius capituli, quod realiter, et naturaliter compositum est in potentia propter materiam existentem, quae potest esse aliquid eius. Quod probat ex Philosopho 7. Metaph. text, 22. dicente in omni generatione oportere aliquid proeexistere, quod sit pars geniti; hoc autem bene explicat Doctor in hoc opere, ad text. 15. Vives 6 p.304 circa quem movit dictam quaestionem quartam ad vers. Palam itaque, ubi docet non ideo compositum ex materia et forma; fieri unum per se, quia illud quod prius fuit in potentia per rationem materiae, iam est in actu per formam, ut dicebat illa sententia: Sed quia, inquit, in definitione seu quidditate rei, hoc quidem est ut materia, illud vero ut forma, et hoc quidem, scilicet materia, est potentia, illud vero, scilicet forma, est actu; et text. 13. eiusdem capitis, ostendit accidentia non habere materiam ex qua; nec etiam substantias sempiternas, quia non includunt duas par[437]tes, quarum unn sit potentia, tamen secundum dictam sententiam dicerentur fieri ex materia. Et exponendo locum Philosophi adductum ex 7. Metaph. declarat tam in generatione naturali, quam artificiali manere materiam.
Haec clare convincunt nullam, vel apparentem esse rationem dubitandi, hanc expositionem vere Scoti esse, nisi velimus etiam eius quaestiones in dubium vocare, quas tamen omnes Auctores communi consensu ipsi adscribunt. Verum ad maiorem huius veritatis confirmationem, placet aliquid ex eiusdem Doctoris Theologia in medium afferre, quo facilius, quod hactenus prosecuti sumus, evincamus.
In 4. distinct. II. quaest 3. §. Ad confirmationem. num. 47. proponit locum Aristolelis 7. Metaphys. cap. de unitate defin. text. 43. quo in favorem D.Thom. I. part. quaest. 76. art. 3. 4. probatur unius compositi unam tantum esse formam, et consequenter non dari formam corporeitatis, quia dicitur: Genus nihil est praeter ens, quae sunt Generis Species; et iterum, Finalis Differentia, substantia rei erit, et definitio. Ex quo colligitur, cum Genus nihil sit praeter Species, et Differentia, quae habet rationem formae, dicat totam substantiam rei, non dari aliam et aliam formam in eodem composito, quia tunc si ab una acciperetur Genus, et ab alia Differentia, Genus esset aliquid praeter Spe cies, saltem secundum esse quidditativum. Respondet Doctor, Ad confirmationem, inquit, adductam de 7, Metaphys. cap. de Definitione, capitulum illud non videtur bene exponi, sicut patet in expositione, quam edidi super illud caput: auctoritates autem illae truncatae sunt, et nihil ad B. Prima quidem truncata est, quia sequitur; ergo Genus nihil est praeter eas, quae sunt Generis Species; aut si est, quidem ut materia est; et haec secunda pars disiunctionis vera est; unde ad illud secundum membrum subdit exemplum: vox quidem ut Genus; quam expositionem in terminis habet eodem cap, de Definit. text citato in hoc opere his verbis: Notandum, quod negantes pluralitatem formarum, hinc volunt sumere argumentum, quod unitas definitionis est per hoc, quod Genus nihil sit praeter Generis Species, saltem se undum esse quidditativum. Sed hoc non est verum, quia accipitur auctoritas truncata, nam sequitur: Genus non est praeter eas, quae sunt Generis, Species; aut si est quidem, est ut materia. Secunda pars disiunctionis est vera; unde ad illud secundum membrum subdit exemplum: vox enim Genus est et materia, etc. Haec notavi dum percurrerem opus quaestionum: quod si praefati doctissimi viri assertionem advertissem, plura fortassis ad hoc collegissem. Verum haec ipsa pauca, quae adduxi, satis clare ostendunt, non magis adscribendas Scoto quaestiones in Metaphysicam et Theologiam, quam hanc textus expositionem, quam in utrisque toties citat, et ita quidem exacte, ut in locis ex hac expositione citatis, non solum reipsa id quod asserit, reperiatur, sed aliquando etiam iisdem plane verbis expressum sit, ut in ultimo loco citato, et partim in tertio, qui de eadem auctoritate tractat, visum est.
His accedit non levi argumento auctoritas Mauritii nostri, Doctoris Subtilis fidelissimi quondam interpretis, et in eius operibus examinandis et discernendis vigilantissimi speculatoris, qui sequenti post Scotum saeculo floruit. Is in titulo, quem praefixit huic de quo agimus, Commentario (quod et antea in sua ad eumdem Praefatione annotaverat) ita habet: Ioannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis Ordinis Minorum in 12. libros Metaphys. Aristotelis, secundum novam translationem scriptum, recollectum, ordinatum, et pluribus additionibus decoratum ab excellentissimo ipsius discipulo Antonio Andrea eiusdem Ordinis Provinciae Aragoniae, etc. Quae verba Antonium Andream dicti Commen
[438]tarii non auctorem, sed auctorem seu ampliatorem faciunt, ut qui illum pluribus additionibus decorati; et huc non immerito cuipiam videri possent referenda quaedam Antonii verba inferius adducenda, ex quibus haec primum suborta dubitatio seu coniectura, lilterali duntaxat verborum rigori innixa fomitem sumpsit.
Huic insuper veritati suffragantur omnes, qui Auctorum catalogum texunt, quorum nullus vel verbum de ulla expositione Antonii Andreae in Metaphysicam habet, cum tamen alia eius opera, ut quaestiones in duodecim libros Metaphys. et quatuor libros Sententiarum exacte recenseant. In primis Henricus Willot, qui ex professo catalogum Scriptorum Ordinis nostri textuit, quaestiones quidem Metaphysicae Antonio Andreae, expositionem autem illi nullam, sed Scoto tribuit. Valerius quoque Andreas Taxander in catalogo Scriptorum Hispaniae, qui diligenter Auctorum Hispaniae operum indicem collegit, indicat quidem Antonium in Metaphysicam quaestiones edidisse, Commentarium autem nullum agnoscit. Idipsum loquuntur Conradus Gesnerus in sua Bibliotheca, et Fabianus Iustinianus in indice universali, verbo Metaphysica, quorum posterior Scolum bis nominavit, tanquam duarum diversarum in Metaphysicam lucubrationum auctorem. Bellarminus de Script. Eccles. et Possevinus in Apparatu nullam Antonii expositionem adducunt, bene tamen Scoti, hic expresse, ille tacite. Si ergo nullus Auctorum, vel Scriptorum collector, sive eorum qui generaliter Ecclesiae, sive qui specialiter, et ex professo Ordinis, et nationis dicti Antonii, Scriplores recensent, nullam de huiusmodi Antonii expositione mentionem fecit, mirum est, quomodo post 300. et amplius annos vir ille doctissimus hanc nostri Doctoris expositionem ei voluerit adscribere, quam tamen Scoti esse et ipsius discipuli semper observarunt, et Icca per nos ex ipsomet adducta aperte convincunt.
Ad haec, si dictus Commentarius Antonii esset, numquid vel levem aliquam eius mentionem in quaestionibus super Metaphysicam, vel (si has prius elaboravit) saltem in Theologia, in qua passim Metaphysicalia discutiuntur, fecisset.
Huc spectat alia non levis coniectura, nam Auctor huius operis lib. 7. text. 17. explicata definitione accidentis copulati, dicit in definitione albi non necessario poni hominem, Sed in definitione, inquit, Francisci, vel S. Patritii necessario ponitur animal. Ex quibus verbis cap. 1. vitae Scoti praemissae eius operibus Antverpiae impressis, argumentum confeci seu probabilem suasionem, Doctorem Subtilem Hibernum esse, non Anglum, vel Scoto-Britannum; quia exemplo rem declarans patrono, et patri suae religionis Francisco adiunxit patrem, et patronum nationis Patritium; si enim Anglus esset, Francisco verisimiliter S. Georgium adiunxisset; si Scoto-Britannus, Andream, vel Columbam. Cum ergo Hiberniae patronum adiunxerit, Hibernus et ipse merito censendus est. Quo argumento longe solidius suadetur opus hoc non esse Antonii Andrea? Hispani, qui ad rem exemplo monstrandam, Francisco non Patritium, quem forte parum novit, sed S. Iacobum suae gentis Apostolum copulasset. Ut huic argumento satisfaceret quidam Scoto-Britannus, hoc opus Scoto detraxit, praefati viri doctissimi auctoritate suffultus; quod inter alia me movit, ut conarer ostendere dictam dubitationem nullo niti fundamento.
Superest nunc ut ad rationem, et motivum praefati viri ad asserendum, quod scripsit de dicti Commentarii auctore, respondeamus. Fateor sane rationem ipsius difficilem videri posse iis, qui motiva nostra pro hac veritate confirmanda hucusque adducta non viderunt, quibus mature, et attente expensis facillima apparebit. Stat autem dicta ratio in hoc, quod in fine dicti operis legantur sequentia: Volo autem omnes scire litteram istam [439] legentes, quod tam sententiando, quam notando secutus sum doctrinam illius subtilissimi Doctoris, cuius fama et memoria in benedictione est, qui sua sacra et profunda doctrina totum orbem implevit, et fecit resonare Ioannis Duns Scoti, etc.
Ad hanc rationem itaque respondeo: Cum evidenter constet ex ipso Scoto, tam in Metaphysicis quam Theologicis quaestionibus, hoc opus ipsius esse, dicta verba eius esse nullatenus possunt, sed Antonii Andreae, qui opus castigavit, ordinavit et auxit, ut habetur ex titulo ipsius operis supra posito. In his igitur, quae ipse adiecit de suo sententiando vel notando, protestatur se secutum Doctoris Subtilis mentem Addo, cum ille opus hoc antea indigestum et inordinatum, in ordinem redegisset, multa praetermisisse, primaria praeceptoris sui capita, et sententias seligendo; et in iis quae problematice disputabat, alteram tantummodo partem, quae magis ad eius mentem videbatur accedere, assumendo. quaedam explicationis causa addendo; loco eius vacua, vel cancellata supplendo (constat ex Mauritio etiam in Theologia multa vacua, et cancellata mansisse) in quibus praestandis oportebat nonnulla de suo apponere, et quodam aliquando mutare, et loca corrosa, et exesa, aut obliterata restituere, et sensum, quando necesse erat, coniecturis investigare.
Similia fecit idem Auctor in Scoti quaestionibus super Metaphysicam, teste Mauritio in epistola ad Antonium Trombetam earumdem quaestionum castigationibus praemissa, Quas, inquit, accurate castigavit, primaria sui praeceptoris dicta eligendo: Et post, Sed sicut in Dialecticis, ita et hic obscuriora et difficiliora praetermisit. Verisimile ergo, haec et plura effecisse in castigatione dicti Commentarii, qui minus tritus, minusque notussemper extitit quam quaestiones. Unde et hic locum habet quod ibidem Mauritius iisdem quaestionibus, etiam post castigationem Antonii Andreae accidisse scribit, nimirum quod earum textus varie correctus erat, nunc additione, nunc detractione, ut moris est antiquis Scriptoribus id in margine annotantibus. Neque negaverim praemissorum occasione, castigatorem aliquando Doctoris dictionem, sensu servato, mutasse. Quod, cum integra hac glossa colligere mihi videor ex ultimis verbis ipsius: Nam ego, inquit, quantum sapio, quantumque capio quidquid est hic, quod ipse exprimere intendebat, pes meus eius vestigia secutus est. Quasi diceret opus digerendo, in mutatione, omissione, notatione, suppletione, etc. id tantum posui, quod Doctor exprimere intendebat. Quia tamen alicubi falli putuit, subiungit claudendo opus: Ideo si aliquid aliud repugnans sibi inveniatur quandoque, nunc pro tunc revoco, paratus libenti animo revocare.
Haec sunt, benigne Lector, quae pro veritatis defensione et obiecti argumenti solutione, dicenda occurrerunt, de quibus te monitum volui, et praemunitum, ne dicti Auctoris lectio, de operis huius Auctore dubium te reddere posset. Expositio nostra ad eius rationem iis, qui in antiquorum operibus digerendis et ad praelum parandis, experientiam habent, in quibus multa ex his quae diximus necessario interveniunt, non extorta, sed persuasibilis videbitur. Tu sequi bonique consule, et VALE.

See also

• Antonius Andreas (life)
• Antonius Andreas (work)
• Antonius' expositio on the Metaphysics
• Duns Scotus: his Life and Times (John Edwards)