Quaestio utrum omnia eveniant de necessitate aut aliqua sic et aliqua non

The only date regarding the work of Cambiolus is that of 1333 found in Ms Vat. Ottob. 318 at fol. 8r: “Expl. questio determinata per magistrum Cambiolum Bononiensem in Bononia, quam disputavit 1333”. As Maier notes, indeed, the codex mostly contains “Quaestionen, die in den 20er, 30er un 40er Jahren des 14. Jahrhunderts in Bologna disputiert werden” (Maier 1944: 138).
It has been suggested that the quaestio, attributed to Cambiolus Bononiensis by Ermantinger (1954: 44), is nothing more than a reportatio of a course on Physics by Thaddaeus de Parma (Cheneval 1988; Saccenti 2023: 88; 93).

Natural Philosophy

Necessity

Physics

Studies

Maier A., Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des italienischen Averroismus im 14. Jh., “Quellen und Forschungen aus den italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken” 33, 1944: 149
Cheneval F., Utrum omnia eveniant de necessitate: Textedition und Studie der gleichnamigen Quaestio von Thaddeus von Parma (Cod. Vat. Lat. 6768), “Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie” 35, 1988.
Ermatinger C. J., Averroism in Early Fourteenth Century Bologna, “Mediaeval Studies” 16, 1954: 35-56: 44
Lohr C. H., Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries Authors A-F, “Traditio” 23, 1967
Maier A., Die Vorlaufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert: Studien zur Naturphilosophie der Spätscholastik, Roma 1949
Saccenti R., “Understanding and Acting: Deliberation, the Practical Intellect, and Moral Science at the University of Bologna (Gentile da Cingoli, Angelo d’Arezzo, and Cambiolo da Bologna)”, in Fedriga R. (ed.), Willing and Understanding. Late Medieval Debates on the Will, the Intellect, and Practical Knowledge, Leiden 2023: 84-105

Editions

Kuksewicz Z., Averroïsme Bolonais au XIVe siècle. Edition des textes, Wroclaw-Varsovie-Cracovie 1965: 171-182

Questio est, utrum omnia eveniant de necessitate aut aliqua sic et aliqua non. Et videtur primo, quod omnia eveniant de necessitate, quia omnis effectus habens causam per se…

Dico hic, quod dato, quod motus celi in se sit necessarius, tamen motus celi istius entis per accidens fortuiti vel causalis est causa remota valde, et ideo non causat illud ens per accidens, nisi mediante causa secunda, que est immediata illi effectui per accidens evenienti, talis autem causa immediata impedibilis est, ideo et cetera. Deo gratias.

Matteo Stettler