Johannes Capreolus, Defensiones theologiae divi Thomae Aquinatis, ed. Paban–Pègues, Tours 1900, vol. 2, pp. 103–104, Dist. XVII q.2 art.1, III. Argumenta Scoti, Cattonis, et aliorum — reporting Duns Scotus, in II Sent.
Reported. These are not John Duns Scotus's own words. The Latin below is John Capreolus's report of him — staged as the first of the Argumenta Scoti against the second conclusion, before Capreolus answers it; Capreolus cites only in secundo and names no redaction, so which redaction of Scotus this is cannot be recovered. It is evidence for what John Capreolus wrote about John Duns Scotus, and never for what John Duns Scotus wrote.
In the second place it is argued against the same conclusion, by proving that contraries can be together in complete and settled act, and not only in becoming.
Scotus argues first in this way, in his second book. If contraries could not naturally be in the same subject at once, it follows that when some subject is continuously changed from one contrary form into another, either the form being destroyed would have a last instant of its being, or the form being generated would have a first instant of its being. The consequence is plain enough. For the instant joining the whole time in which the subject is under the form being expelled to the whole time in which it is under the form being generated will be either the last instant of the preceding time or the first of the following one; for this time and that time exclude one another entirely, if contraries are not granted to be together; and again, there is no middle time between them, otherwise for some time the subject would lack both forms; and consequently the same instant joins them both. But the consequent is false as to its first part, as is plain from Physics VI (text 31); and likewise as to the second, for otherwise there would be a first change, and a first having-changed, or a first part of the motion that follows the later form — of cooling, for instance, if the subject is moved from hot to cold; which is unacceptable. — It is confirmed. Because, just as in such a motion there is no first remission of the form being cast off, so there is no first generation of the form being brought in.
Fresh draft (Claude), approved by Wilson Pruitt · cc-by · published at bonaventure.wrootpress.com. This page quotes it; that is its home.
Johannes Capreolus, Defensiones theologiae divi Thomae Aquinatis, ed. Paban–Pègues, Tours 1900, vol. 2, pp. 103–104, Dist. XVII q.2 art.1, III. Argumenta Scoti, Cattonis, et aliorum — reporting Duns Scotus, in II Sent. · pd
⛔ Three things are declared on this note and none of them is a detail. The words are Capreolus's report of Scotus, not Scotus's own. The redaction is unknown — Capreolus cites him only as in secundo, and the Lectura, the Ordinatio and the Reportatio do not always agree — so this edition says so rather than choosing one (RULINGS.md ruling 9A), and with the redaction unknown the place is unknown too. And the text being reported is not on this distinction: it is from Scotus's second book, on the physics of contraries. ⭐ What he argues is the exact opposite of Wodeham's argument two notes away, and both are staged against the same conclusion. Scotus says contraries must be able to coexist in complete and settled act, because otherwise a continuous change would have either a last instant of the old form or a first instant of the new one, and neither can be granted. Wodeham says they cannot coexist in any degree at all. Capreolus's position — that they coexist in potency and in becoming but not in complete and settled act — is the middle both of them are squeezing. ⚠ The section heading Capreolus gives is Argumenta Scoti, Cattonis, et aliorum, but only this first argument is attributed to a man by name. Walter Chatton is named in the heading and nowhere else, so he is not a witness on this page; the edition will not supply an attribution its source declines to make.