PETER AUREOL (AURIOLE, ORIOLE, etc.), Peter. – Franciscan philosopher and theologian, born in the diocese of Cahors c. 1280 (?), died at Avignon or Aix on 10 (?) January 1322.
Nothing is known about the early years of A.’s life; the date and place of his birth are unknown, as is the time of his entry into the Franciscan Order. In the year 1304, as he himself states in one of his later writings, he was studying in Paris, probably as a disciple of Duns Scotus. In 1311 he first emerges as an author with a *Tractatus de paupertate et de usu pauperae rerum* (published in *Firmamenta trium ordinum beatissimi Patris nostri Francisci*, Paris 1511). In 1312 he was lector at the *Studium generale* of the Franciscans in Bologna; there he composed his first philosophical work, the *Tractatus de tribus principiis* (unpublished). In 1314 he taught in Toulouse and there composed a *Tractatus de conceptione B. Mariae Virginis* (1st ed. Mainz 1490, critical ed. see bibl.), which was to occupy an important place in the history of theology: in it he defended *ex professo* for the first time the thesis that Mary was immune from original sin from the very first moment. While in Toulouse, A. was also active as a preacher: a sermon on the Immaculate Conception, delivered on 8 December 1314, gave rise to a lively debate and occasioned a second work on this theme: *Repercussorium editum contra adversarium innocentiae Matris Dei* (published together with the *Tractatus*), in which the arguments of the treatise are taken up and further developed. At the general chapter of the year 1316, A. was assigned to Paris as *baccalarius sententarius*. In the autumn of 1316 he began his lectures on the *Sentences* of Peter Lombard, which lasted for two years. He probably commented on the four books in the following order: I, IV, II, III, as others did at the time. The third book remained unfinished because by the summer of 1318, following a personal intervention by John XXII, A. became *magister theologiae*. The literary tradition of his commentary on the *Sentences* presents various puzzles and has given rise to much discussion. It is preserved in two or three different versions: 1) a *reportatio*, i.e., notes taken by a student from his Paris lectures, comprising all four books (only ms. of bk. I; bks. II–IV published in vol. II of the *Commentary on the Sentences*, see bibl.); 2) a *reportatio* of the third book, perhaps deriving from lectures given by A. in Bologna or Toulouse (mss., a small part published in the cited edition); 3) a very extensive version of bk. I (a so-called *ordinatio*) compiled and published by the author himself and dedicated to John XXII (cited ed., vol. I). For a long time it was supposed that this *ordinatio* was the final and definitive version, compiled after the Paris lectures, and presumably in the years 1318–1319. But it has recently been shown that the relationship is the reverse: the great commentary on bk. I of the *Sentences* was already complete when A. began teaching in Paris, and was probably dedicated to the Pope on the occasion of his accession to the throne (Aug. 1316). It may date from the same course of lectures from which we have the third book in a *reportatio*. From A.’s Paris years comes his *Compendium sensus litteralis totius divinae Scripturae*, which enjoyed wide diffusion and was later often printed (first in Strasbourg c. 1475; critical ed. see bibl.) and a *Quodlibet* with 16 questions (not 16 *Quodlibeta*, as is often read; published together with the *Commentary on the Sentences*). His teaching as *magister* lasted only two years; already toward the end of 1320 he was named provincial of the province of Aquitaine, and in February 1321 was appointed bishop of Aix. John XXII himself conferred episcopal ordination upon him. Even this activity was brief. A. died in January 1322 in a reputation for holiness, probably during a stay at the papal curia. He was never, as a long-standing tradition claims, a cardinal.
His doctrinal position is difficult to define and has hitherto been studied only partially. A. did not align himself with any school and followed his own path in all matters: he polemicized against everyone and was therefore attacked by all. “Quia manus eius contra omnes... manus omnium contra eum” [“Because his hand is against all... the hand of all is against him”], says St. Antoninus of him in his chronicle. In the history of 14th-century thought his position lies between Durand of St. Pourçain and William of Ockham; indeed, his contemporaries regarded A. as a continuator of Durand’s ideas, and posterity as a precursor of Ockham. On the whole, his philosophy is characterized by skeptical and empiricist traits. To date, only individual chapters of it are fairly well known, especially his theory of universals and his epistemological and psychological theories. A. upheld a form of conceptualism that attributes a certain psychological reality to the universal concept but does not posit anything corresponding to it outside the intellect. This doctrine strongly influenced the genesis of Ockham’s nominalism without itself being nominalistic. Recent studies have also illuminated individual points in A.’s logic, ontology, and metaphysics (the theory of “propositiones neutrae,” which are neither true nor false, and its application to the problem of divine foreknowledge of future contingents; problems of “intensio et remissio formarum,” infinity, the plurality of forms, motion, etc.). The solutions A. offers are always original and novel; traditional theories are generally rejected by him, sometimes not without irony. Thus, for example, he declares regarding the
doctrine of the Intelligences and their influence on terrestrial physics, a fundamental doctrine of Scholastic physics: “hoc est refugium miserorum in philosophia, sicut Deus est refugium miserorum in theologia” [“this is the refuge of the wretched in philosophy, just as God is the refuge of the wretched in theology”] (Sent. IV, dist. 1, q. 1). Yet what he substituted for the rejected theories was not always better than they were. In any case, his ideas were accepted by none and combated by many, and subsequently fell quickly into oblivion. Only 20th-century studies have awakened the interest and esteem that this great and original thinker deserves.