 previous article in this issue | next article in this issue  |
Preview first page |
Document Details : Title: Peter Auriol on the Plurality of Substantial Forms Author(s): SCRIBANTI, Virginia Journal: Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales Volume: 91 Issue: 2 Date: 2024 Pages: 353-424 DOI: 10.2143/RTPM.91.2.3293905 Abstract : This paper analyzes Peter Auriol’s position on the debate over the unicity or the plurality of substantial forms. In line with most supporters of the plurality of forms, in several questions considered here (Sent. 2, d. 34, q. 2, Sent. 3, d. 21, q. un., art. 3, and Sent. 4, d. 11, art. 4, q. 1 – analyzed according to the multiple versions of Auriol’s Sentences commentary that are available) Auriol maintains a forma corporeitatis in addition to a (rational) soul as a crucial element of his position. He presents the forma corporeitatis as a sort of hybrid between a substantial and an accidental form, giving it features that pertain to each of them. The analysis of the aforementioned questions is necessary in order to evaluate which aspects remain consistent in Auriol’s work (e.g., the definition of form of corporeity as a middle form that gives being only in a certain respect; the description of Auriol’s plurality of forms as consisting of one form and multiple matters) and which ones, by fluctuating, threaten the consistency of his theory (e.g., the different kinds of distinction that are said to exist between form of corporeity and soul; the application of a plurality of substantial forms to every animal or only to human beings). |
|
