3.1 Dial., 2.11, 12

3.1 Dial., 2.11 and 12

At the end of chapter 10 several of the witnesses (Mz, Fr, Pz, Lm) remark that the rest of chapter 10 and chapters 11 and 12 are missing. There is no such remark in Ly, and chapters 10 and 11 are there. Is it possible that the editor of Ly reconstructed chapters 11 and 12 from back-references in later chapters? This does in fact seem quite possible, though it is also possible that the editor of Ly found these chapters in some source no longer extant and even possible that Ockham himself wrote them.

Chapter 11 in Ly begins with a bridge passage:

Student Indeed you have now sufficiently proved by many arguments, although you could bring forward many more, that there should be one person in the government of the Church because greater unity and harmony is thereby produced and fostered. I would, however, very much like to know what sort of person he should be.

The rest of Chapter 11 could well be based on material in Chapter 15. The following table sets out the comparison.

Chapter 11

Chapter 15

Master Concerning what you ask to be explained to you there are two modes of speaking. Some say [1] that no one should rule over everyone else unless he surpasses all the rest in wisdom and virtue. [2] Others say that someone can rule over all the rest even if he does not excel them all in wisdom and virtue;

First, however, tell how answer is made to the things reported above in chapter 2, which seem to militate against the second mode of assertion reported above in chapter 11, for which you have now argued in the last chapter. That mode of assertion seems to me to have some plausibility.

and this mode of speaking is again diversified, since some say [2ai] that if among the Christian people no one is found more excellent than the rest, yet there is found someone good, then such a person should be elected as pope,

Master That mode of assertion is twofold. In one way it is said that if no one is found among the Christian people who is more excellent than all the others, yet there is found someone suitable and good, then such a person should be elected as pope;

but [2aii] if no one good and suitable is found no one should be elevated to so great an office;

but if no one is found who is good and suitable, then no one should be elevated to so great an office.

according to others, [2b] whether someone good is found or not, nevertheless someone should be elected as highest pontiff, and to prove this they rely on the argument that it is better to have a head of any kind than not to have a head at all.

In the other way it is said that whether a suitable person is found or not, someone should be elected to the highest pontificate, because it is better to have any sort of person as head than not to have a head at all.

It is clear that the wording of Chapter 11 could have been taken from Chapter 15. The presentation of possible positions, which I have tagged in square brackets, falls below Ockham's usual standard of clarity.

Chapter 12 begins with an introductory paragraph that a reconstructor could have written from hints in later chapters -- from the absence of any answers to arguments in favour of [2aii] (in the above table) and from the existence of arguments for [2b]:

Student Since I regard as rather unreasonable the second mode of those who say that sometimes the Church should be without a ruler and pastor, since it destroys the whole constitution and hierarchy, I therefore do not want you to bring forward any arguments for it; let us leave it as being vacuous. But the other mode of this second mode -- that someone may be elected as highest pontiff, whatever kind of person he may be, if no one else is found better and more worthy -- this conflicts altogether with the first mode of speaking. Therefore bring forward some arguments and authorities to the contrary, for by them the first mode will be the more confirmed.

As the following table shows, the arguments next brought forward could have been reconstructed from the answers in Chapter 16. If that happened it might explain why the arguments of Chapter 12 are sometimes vague and inaccurate (see comments in square brackets below).

Chapter 12

Chapter 16

Master Against that mode of speaking, and in confirmation of the first, some argue first as follows. That person should be elected as pastor in relation to whom the rest can be called a flock; but they are called a flock in relation to no one except one who surpasses each of them in knowledge and holiness; therefore no one should be elected as highest pontiff who is equal to the rest. The major premise seems to need no proof, but the minor is proved: A pastor should offer to everyone leadership in knowledge, as we read in dist. 63, Ephesios [there is no dist. 63, c. Ephesios; perhaps dist. 43, c. Ephesiis] and in 8, q. 1, Audacter, at the end; similarly also in holiness of life, as is written in 11, q. 3 Praecipue; and consequently he should surpass each of them in such qualities.

Master To the text that says that someone should be elected in relation to whom the rest are called a flock [apparently a single text (perhaps -- as in OQ 3.6, p. 108 -- the text would have been dist. 25, dictum post c. 3, para. 2, col. 92, "let such a person be elected in comparison with whom the rest may be called a flock"), whereas chapter 12 gives three texts, none of which uses this phrase], it is answered that it can have a true sense in two ways. One is that when someone is elected, such a person should be elected in relation to whom the others, good and wicked, can rightly be called a flock. The other is that (because wicked people are always found in the Church) such a person should always be elected in relation to whom the rest, i.e., the wicked, are called a flock; however, it is not always possible to elect someone in relation to whom those who are outstanding in wisdom and virtue can be called a flock.

Also, the same is clear from a text of Pope Symmachus included in 1, q. 1, Ubi sit [error for Vilissimus]. He says, "He who is more outstanding in honour must be regarded as most contemptible unless he excels in knowledge and holiness."

To the other text, which is quoted in 1, q. 1, c. Vilissimus, it is answered that a prelate must be thought most contemptible, i.e. very base, unless he greatly excels the wicked and unworthy in honour, knowledge and holiness, but he should not be thought most contemptible if he does not excel in knowledge and holiness even those who are outstanding in wisdom and virtue.

Moreover, "the more outstanding" and "more holy" should be chosen for the priesthood and should be preferred to everyone, as Jerome says. [Ockham would normally have given the source, 8, q.1, c.15]

To the third, which is by Jerome, it is answered that when there is someone more outstanding, holier, etc., he should be elected to the priesthood; when, however, there is no such person, it is enough to elect someone more outstanding, holier, more learned, and more eminent in every virtue than all the wicked and foolish among the people.

And, as we read in dist. 63, Si forte, Pope Leo says this: "By the judgment of the metropolitan let that person be preferred who is supported by greater learning and merits." [From the reply it seems that Pope Leo had said that "the best" should be elected. The words of dist. 63, c. 36, Si forte do not say precisely this. In dist. 63, c. 19, col. 240, a text of Pope Leo speaks of election of "the best".]

To the text of Pope Leo it is said likewise that when there is someone who is best he should be elected, when there is not someone who is best a good man should be elected.

And Ambrose [says], "Deacons and priests should in behaviour and speech lead the whole of the people living in all respects a secular life"; therefore, also, he who should rule over everyone should lead others, however holy, in life and behaviour. [No reference given. Not found in Ambrose. See 8, q.1, Qualis, col. 597, for a similar passage by Jerome, without the phrase "living in all respects a secular life", which sounds as if it belongs only to the distinction made in the answer.]

To the text of Ambrose it is said that priests and deacons should in behaviour and speech lead the whole of the people living in all respects a secular life, but they need not lead those of the people who live an especially holy life.

Many other arguments and authorities could be brought forward which for the sake of brevity we must pass over.

Other texts [or the other texts] are answered in a similar way.

Ockham's references to canon law are sometimes wrong (e.g. in attributing a text to the wrong person), but not often; if he wrote chapter 12 it falls below his usual standard of documentation. The copyist's error of Ubi sit for Vilissimis suggests that the editor of Ly may not have been the reconstructor, since he would not be likely to miscopy his own text of Chapter 16.

Since the later chapters give particular references to Chapters 11 and 12 we must assume that Ockham did write two such chapters, and it is not impossible that the text of Ly has come down in somewhat defective state from Ockham himself, but it is also possible that they were reconstructed by the editor of Ly or someone else.

Return to Relationship of witnesses to 3.1 Dial., 1

Chapter 11	Chapter 15
Master Concerning what you ask to be explained to you there are two modes of speaking. Some say [1] that no one should rule over everyone else unless he surpasses all the rest in wisdom and virtue. [2] Others say that someone can rule over all the rest even if he does not excel them all in wisdom and virtue;	First, however, tell how answer is made to the things reported above in chapter 2, which seem to militate against the second mode of assertion reported above in chapter 11, for which you have now argued in the last chapter. That mode of assertion seems to me to have some plausibility.
and this mode of speaking is again diversified, since some say [2ai] that if among the Christian people no one is found more excellent than the rest, yet there is found someone good, then such a person should be elected as pope,	Master That mode of assertion is twofold. In one way it is said that if no one is found among the Christian people who is more excellent than all the others, yet there is found someone suitable and good, then such a person should be elected as pope;
but [2aii] if no one good and suitable is found no one should be elevated to so great an office;	but if no one is found who is good and suitable, then no one should be elevated to so great an office.
according to others, [2b] whether someone good is found or not, nevertheless someone should be elected as highest pontiff, and to prove this they rely on the argument that it is better to have a head of any kind than not to have a head at all.	In the other way it is said that whether a suitable person is found or not, someone should be elected to the highest pontificate, because it is better to have any sort of person as head than not to have a head at all.

Chapter 12	Chapter 16
Master Against that mode of speaking, and in confirmation of the first, some argue first as follows. That person should be elected as pastor in relation to whom the rest can be called a flock; but they are called a flock in relation to no one except one who surpasses each of them in knowledge and holiness; therefore no one should be elected as highest pontiff who is equal to the rest. The major premise seems to need no proof, but the minor is proved: A pastor should offer to everyone leadership in knowledge, as we read in dist. 63, Ephesios [there is no dist. 63, c. Ephesios; perhaps dist. 43, c. Ephesiis] and in 8, q. 1, Audacter, at the end; similarly also in holiness of life, as is written in 11, q. 3 Praecipue; and consequently he should surpass each of them in such qualities.	Master To the text that says that someone should be elected in relation to whom the rest are called a flock [apparently a single text (perhaps -- as in OQ 3.6, p. 108 -- the text would have been dist. 25, dictum post c. 3, para. 2, col. 92, "let such a person be elected in comparison with whom the rest may be called a flock"), whereas chapter 12 gives three texts, none of which uses this phrase], it is answered that it can have a true sense in two ways. One is that when someone is elected, such a person should be elected in relation to whom the others, good and wicked, can rightly be called a flock. The other is that (because wicked people are always found in the Church) such a person should always be elected in relation to whom the rest, i.e., the wicked, are called a flock; however, it is not always possible to elect someone in relation to whom those who are outstanding in wisdom and virtue can be called a flock.
Also, the same is clear from a text of Pope Symmachus included in 1, q. 1, Ubi sit [error for Vilissimus]. He says, "He who is more outstanding in honour must be regarded as most contemptible unless he excels in knowledge and holiness."	To the other text, which is quoted in 1, q. 1, c. Vilissimus, it is answered that a prelate must be thought most contemptible, i.e. very base, unless he greatly excels the wicked and unworthy in honour, knowledge and holiness, but he should not be thought most contemptible if he does not excel in knowledge and holiness even those who are outstanding in wisdom and virtue.
Moreover, "the more outstanding" and "more holy" should be chosen for the priesthood and should be preferred to everyone, as Jerome says. [Ockham would normally have given the source, 8, q.1, c.15]	To the third, which is by Jerome, it is answered that when there is someone more outstanding, holier, etc., he should be elected to the priesthood; when, however, there is no such person, it is enough to elect someone more outstanding, holier, more learned, and more eminent in every virtue than all the wicked and foolish among the people.
And, as we read in dist. 63, Si forte, Pope Leo says this: "By the judgment of the metropolitan let that person be preferred who is supported by greater learning and merits." [From the reply it seems that Pope Leo had said that "the best" should be elected. The words of dist. 63, c. 36, Si forte do not say precisely this. In dist. 63, c. 19, col. 240, a text of Pope Leo speaks of election of "the best".]	To the text of Pope Leo it is said likewise that when there is someone who is best he should be elected, when there is not someone who is best a good man should be elected.
And Ambrose [says], "Deacons and priests should in behaviour and speech lead the whole of the people living in all respects a secular life"; therefore, also, he who should rule over everyone should lead others, however holy, in life and behaviour. [No reference given. Not found in Ambrose. See 8, q.1, Qualis, col. 597, for a similar passage by Jerome, without the phrase "living in all respects a secular life", which sounds as if it belongs only to the distinction made in the answer.]	To the text of Ambrose it is said that priests and deacons should in behaviour and speech lead the whole of the people living in all respects a secular life, but they need not lead those of the people who live an especially holy life.
Many other arguments and authorities could be brought forward which for the sake of brevity we must pass over.	Other texts [or the other texts] are answered in a similar way.