BCCCAP00000000000000000000835

WILLIAM OF VAUROUILLON, O.MIN. 311 Marches 1462, and a less known one on the meaning of Ecce filius tuus. Not all details are clear, especially of the circumstances of the latter controversy. It is quite evident, however, that the question of the so-called filiation of St. John the Evangelist came first; we suspect indeed that because of it William came to Rome, and so became involved in the dispute on the Blood of Christ. In neither controversy is he mentioned as minister provincial; likely, then, he was out of office in 1461. On the other hand, there are some grounds for believing that on being relieved of his office he may have returned to Paris to teach, or perhaps to Poitiers. Thus Pius II speaks of him as having come to Rome from Paris: Adventa– verat ex gymnasia Parisiensi Vilhelmus nomine, ordine Minor, natione Gallus. Yet this may mean only that he was a doctor of the University of Paris. On the other hand, Domenico de' Domenichi, speaking of the filiation controversy, says it arose because of a sermon to the people of quidam antiquus magister, et qui multos annos cathedram rexerat; that William is meant is implied in the title of the question. Finally, as we shall see, Gilles Charlier cites a retraction of 1466 in which he is simply called maistre guillem vorillon. These are, let us admit, very tenuous grounds for suggesting that Vaurouillon returned to the lecture-hall in 1461. Yet he must have preached the sermon in some well-known city, where inquisitors were to be found who would report it to Rome. The first notice of the sermon or controversy on St. John is found in a question or tract of Domenico de' Domenichi dated 1462: Quaestio de relationibus et necessitate fundamenti earum magistri Dominici episcopi Brixiensi tune Torcellani contra magistrum Gui– lelmum Britonem dictum Aquilam ordinis minorum anno Domini 1462 103 • The question is raised, Dominic begins, because a certain aged master preached to the people that the words of Christ on the cross : Ecce filius tuus were of such power and efficacy that through them the Evangelist could have been made the natural son of the Blessed Virgin. When this was reported to the Roman Curia as something erroneous and scandalous, and this same master had defended it through the teachings of other scholastics, especially of Francis de Mayronis, Dominic was invited to give his opinion in the group of theologians at the Curia. As a consequence, he after– wards drew up the present Question 104 • The magister antiquus, 10s Cod. Vat. lat. 6234, f.68r, and Paris B.N. lat. 12390, f.3lr, which adds Varallon after Guillelmum. In the Paris manuscript, f.3lr-4lv, and in the printed editions, the tract somehow follows Dominic's De sanguine Christi, under the title De filiatione Ioannis evangeliste ad B.V.M. (ed. Venetiis 1557 and 1563, f.93-130); cf. Hubert JEDIN, Studien iiber Domenico de' Domcnichi (1416-1478) (Akad. der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes– und Sozialwissenschaftlichen IGasse, Jahrgang 1957, n.5), Wiesbaden 1957, 188, 268-275. 1 04 The question begins: « Ista questio mota est propter hoe, quad quidam antiquus