Robert Holcot discusses the principle of causality in q. 3 of Determinationes, a text also preserved in q. 53 (ms. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 236) and q. 58 (ms. Oxford, Balliol College, 246) of Quodlibet I. In this text, Holcot maintains that the relation of causality is not evident. He gives two reasons: first, he calls into question the distinction between cause and effect – since the effect is not encompassed in the cause, it cannot necessarily follow from the cause (...) – and second, he invokes the possibility that God has to produce an effect entirely independent of any natural cause. The solution envisaged by Holcot understands the knowledge of causality as a case of probable knowledge (probabiliter). The relation of causality stems from observing the repetition of the relations between two res, so that when a res is present one can expect another to be present. The present article has two appendices: the first contains the version of the text conserved in mss Pembroke and Balliol, the second instead contains the version conserved in the ms. Düsseldorf, Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek, ms. F. 5 and in some early-modern printed editions. (shrink)

The discussion on the 900 Conclusiones projected and sponsored by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in Rome was cut short by the condemnation of 13 of them by the papal commission in 1487. Princeps Concordiae’s counter-arguments presented in his Apologia, published in the same year, can not be certainly considered a disputatio as Pico had called for; the papal intervention removed in this way the possibility to have a better acquaintance with a work which is still a very difficult one, just (...) for its “unfinished” form. Pedro Garsia’s Determinationes magistrales against Pico’s Apologia are a very poor reply to Pico. In this paper Pico’s arguments against some of the condemned Conclusiones are considered as well as Pedro Garsia’s counter-arguments. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola displays a deep familiarity with medieval logical and semantical doctrines, while Pedro Garsia’s arguments betray a solid ignorance. (shrink)