Abstract

The dissertation describes the way that theories of human concept formation came to play a pivotal role in the trinitarian discussion during the period 1250-1325, medieval theologians taking as their point of departure the identification--made by John in his Gospel and later Augustine of Hippo--of the second person of the trinity, the Son, with a mental word or concept. Beginning with Bonaventure, I trace the development of a Franciscan tradition in trinitarian theology that made emanations the significant source of distinction between the persons in the trinity, deemphasizing the more traditional explanation based on relation. I argue that Henry of Ghent should be seen as part of this Franciscan theological current, and that he combined the Franciscan stress on emanations with Aquinas' development of the notion of the verbum mentis. Thus, for Henry, the emanation by which the Son takes being and is distinct from the other two persons is intellectual emanation as a Word, and he uses philosophical psychology to solve trinitarian questions. This identification became the predominate model of the trinity in the Franciscan trinitarian tradition. I show that John Duns Scotus and Peter Aureol adopted Henry's strong use of philosophical psychology in trinitarian theology. Ghent's, Scotus', and Aureol's trinitarian thought, their theories of concepts and concept formation, and the way that they use their concept theory in their trinitarian theologies are detailed. Further I give historical background for understanding the development of their thought, including where they stand in the Franciscan trinitarian tradition, and how they interacted with a rival Dominican trinitarian tradition. One manifestation of the Franciscan trinitarian tradition's emphasis on emanation that we see in the three focal figures of the dissertation is their "marginalization strategies": the different ways various Franciscan scholars tried to minimize their deemphasization of a relation account of personal distinction with a great deal of authority behind it. ;In appendices I provide editions of relevant texts by Peter Aureol, Gerard of Abbeville, Matthew of Aquasparta, William of Ware, Robert Cowton, Thomas of Sutton, Henry of Harclay, and Francis of Marchia