Parisian Formalism. Brulefer and Sirect on Petrus Thomae’s Seven Distinctions
(2025) Distinction and Identity in Late-Scholastic Thought and Beyond — ISBN: [978-3-7965-5370-7], p. 169–206, published
Files
No attached file found for this publication.
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- The single most important motif in Formalist literature, from the beginnings of the Formalist tradition in the early fourteenth century until the adoption of Formalist discussions into the Cursus philosophici of Early Modern Scholasticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was the assumption of a plurality of different kinds of distinctions. John Duns Scotus’s formal distinction, of course, plays a crucial role in, and indeed lends name to, this whole literature. Some early Scotists, however, were not content with discussing this peculiar metaphysico- theological invention of Scotus, but rather felt motivated to ask themselves whether there may not in fact be still other ways to distinguish among various aspects of reality. From the very outset, two models competed for acceptance: the model of Francis of Meyronnes (1285–1328) with four kinds of distinctions, and the elaborate doctrine of Petrus Thomae († 1340) with no less than seven different kinds. Though Meyronnes had his followers (known as Maronistae) in the fifteenth century, in the long run Peter’s model was more successful: It remained a topic of critical discussion until as late as the eighteenth century, long after its inventor’s name was forgotten. Even authors critical of the idea that we do indeed need seven different kinds of distinctions in order to grasp reality continued to discuss Petrus Thomae’s distinctions, albeit often with Meyronnes’s modal distinction added on top of them. In this present article, I argue that the long-term success of Petrus Thomae’s doctrine was owed to two extremely influential Scotists active in Paris in the 1480s, Étienne Brulefer (1450/55–1496/99) and Antoine Sirect († ca. 1510). While Brulefer was in favour of a return to a more parsimonious economy of distinctions, Sirect opted for a revised version of Petrus Thomae’s doctrine. In this present contribution, I shall briefly outline Petrus Thomae’s original doctrine, articulated in his Tractatus brevis de modis distinctionum; I shall then investigate how the two Renaissance Scotists responded to the individual parts of the doctrine, i. e., the seven kinds of distinctions; finally, by way of conclusion, the consequences drawn by Brulefer and Sirect from their concern with the seven distinctions, and some later reactions, are considered.
- Affiliations
Citations
Andersen, C. (2025). Parisian Formalism. Brulefer and Sirect on Petrus Thomae’s Seven Distinctions. In Claus A. Andersen, Jacob Schmutz (ed.), Distinction and Identity in Late-Scholastic Thought and Beyond (First edition, p. p. 169–206). Schwabe. https://doi.org/10.24894/978-3-7965-5371-4