# Duns Scotus



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 1, 2009)

Is there anywhere that sells his works? Are they even available?


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 1, 2009)

*Where's Androogle when you need him*

The Internet Guide to Bl. John Duns Scotus


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 1, 2009)

Thanks!


----------



## Witsius (Feb 3, 2009)

Attempting to delve into medieval philosophy in the near future, so I did get a copy of his 
A Treatise on God as First Principle: Amazon.ca: John Duns Scotus: Books
not to be confused with:
The Treatise on God As First Principle: John Duns Scotus: Amazon.ca: Books
which I would have preferred.
Also, this one I also purchased may come in handy:
The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus: Amazon.ca: Thomas Williams: Books

Witsius

BTW, what is your interest in Duns Scotus?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Feb 4, 2009)

Dear Benjamin,

The works of Duns Scotus are notoriously difficult to locate, even in libraries. Only a very few have been translated into English.

The main editor of Duns' works after the reformation was a Catholic Franciscan by the name of Luke Wadding. A number of publications appeared subsequently that were based on Waddings' edition. However, in recent years it was discovered that Wadding's collection contains many works that were not written by Scotus himself.

The most reliable critical edition of his works are the _Opera Omnia_ that the Vatican is currently publishing. They are far from finished, but the product they are producing is magnificent (and magnificently expensive!). I have used them in my own research and am very happy with them. However, they all are (of course) in Latin. I know of no project for their complete translation.

The best English secondary source that looks at Duns' thought is Richard Cross' work, _Duns Scotus_.

Every blessing,

Marty.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 4, 2009)

I would be interested if you thought he was a good guy or a philosophical villain. The radical orthodoxy guys, who have influenced me much, villainize him. Colin Gunton and Justo Gonzalez give him a more favorable light.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Feb 5, 2009)

Dear Jacob,

Yes, it's a really interesting question indeed. In a nutshell, the classic catholic interpretation of medieval church history goes like this: when coming out of the "dark ages" (500-1000 roughly) the Catholic Church comes to a highpoint in the 12th century, and to a certain extent, the 13th century particularly seen in the work of Thomas Aquinas. Then, decay set in with decadent theologians who cared little about piety and much with intellectual titillation. The start of the decay was Duns Scotus who introduced a voluntaristic view of God, and reached the depths of darkness with William of Ockham who crystallized full-blown nominalism. This allowed him to question the authority of the Pope etc. And from Ockham theology went down hill entirely, resulting in the reformation which was the greatest disaster in Christendom.

Now Milbank and his cohorts are Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics and seem to have embraced this (Catholicesque) reading of history. And, of course, they think the doctrine of "participation" as seen in Aquinas is the great panacea.

Personally I think the interpretation is flawed. People like Heiko Oberman and William Courtenay (amongst others) have shown that nominalism was no decadent movement at all, and that Scotus and Ockham were not making the wild speculations of which they have been accused. Rather, they were developing a *relational *theology rather than the more abstract being-centred theology of Aquinas and co. Indeed, it would seem that Scotus developed his theology precisely in response to the church's anxiety about the use of Aristotelianism as seen in Bishop Tempier's condemnations of 1277 at Paris. These condemnation contained some propositions found in Aquinas' teaching; he was a controversial figure initially. Moreover, the reformation did not happen because of nominalism (In my humble opinion) even if many of the reformers were nominalists themselves.

Having said that I think Milbank is a very intelligent, articulate, and penetraing theologians, who has a great criticism of modernity. I heard him in person several time last year and he has an encycolpaedic understanding of the Christian tradition at least up until Aquinas. I don't think he's grasped the reformation and post-reformation era that well. But then again I wonder if he cares.

I think the real rot sets in, with the combination of the scientific, intellectual (Enlightenment), industrial, and political revolutions in the late 17th and 18th centuries that all combine to produce a secular world that attempts to push religion into the private world of opinion, and expel it from the public world of fact.

Blessings brother,

Marty.


----------

