Abstract

The study of the medieval philosophical and theological problem of future contingents and divine foreknowledge has occupied many modern scholars' attention, but no systematic investigation or synthetic discussion has appeared, and no one has examined the Franciscan Peter Aureol's important role closely. This dissertation attempts to remedy this situation in a limited way by investigating Aureol's thought on the issue and the impact of his solution on succeeding generations. ;Aureol's most important work, the ordinatio version of his commentary on Peter Lombard's Sentences, dates from 1317. In distinctions 38 and 39 of this work , Aureol elaborated a radical theory of contingency and foreknowledge in order to save divine perfection and human free will: Future-tensed propositions are neither true nor false, but neutral ; God does not in any sense have foreknowledge, but knows the future not as future but indistantly, by being the eminent similitude of all that occurs. ;Aureol's discussion was extremely influential for the next 150 years, and conflicted with standard accounts of logic and God's omniscience. Until Peter de Rivo defended Aureol's view during the controversy over future contingents at the University of Louvain 1465-1475 , reactions to Aureol's opinion on the issue were almost always negative. During this period many undertook sustained attacks on several facets of Aureol's theory, for example: John Baconthorpe, Francis of Meyronnes, Francis of Marchia, Landulphus Caracciolo, Michael of Massa, Walter Chatton, Nicolas Bonet, Adam Wodeham, Gregory of Rimini, Alphonsus Vargas, James of Eltville, Pierre d'Ailly, Peter of Candia, Henry of Langenstein, Pierre de Nugent, and John Capreolus . ;Aureol's own University of Paris was much more concerned with his threat than was Oxford, however, which remained isolated from Aureol's ideas on the topic throughout the period