Analiza i Egzystencja


ISSN: 1734-9923    eISSN: 2300-7621    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/aie.2026.75-07
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS  DOAJ  DOAJ

Issue archive / 75 (2026)
Richard Brinkley on the Limits of the Sensitive Power: A First Look at His Epistemology

Authors: Claudia Appolloni ORCID
KU Leuven
Keywords: Richard Brinkley; Sense perception; Epistemology; Fourteenth-century Oxford; Franciscan theology; Faith and reason.
Whole issue publication date:2026
Page range:32 (137-168)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

This paper examines the role of and limits to the sensitive power in the epistemology of Richard Brinkley, drawing on the recent discovery of his complete Lectura super Sententias. Preserved in Florence (BNCF, Conv. Soppr. G.III.367, ff. 47rA–137rA), the commentary substantially expands Brinkley’s available theological corpus and makes it possible to examine the intersection of theories of sense perception, epistemology, and theology in his work. Focusing on quaestio 1 of the Prologue, the article shows that Brinkley considers sense cognition to be unreliable as, in his view, even the proper sensibles and optimal conditions do not preclude error. Brinkley grounds assent to Christian doctrine in intellectual evidence, which is understood as propositional apparentia, and distinguishes natural reason, which is limited to a partial knowledge of appearances, from human reason as illuminated by the divine light. Thus, Brinkley’s model indicates a theologically motivated limitation of natural reason and a possible use of skeptical argumentation in service of a theory of illumination.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Primary Sources
2.Adam Wodeham. (1990). Lectura secunda in librum primum Sententiarum. Prologus et distinctio prima. (R. Wood & G. Gál, Eds.). St. Bonaventure University.
3.Aristotle. (1984). De anima (R.-A. Gauthier, Ed.). In Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia (Vol. 45/1). Commissio Leonina.
4.Averroes. (1953). Commentarium magnum in Aristotelis de anima libros (F. S. Craw- ford, Ed.). Medieval Academy of America.
5.Gregory of Rimini. (1981). Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum (Vol. 1, Super Primum, Dist. 1–6) (D. Trapp, Ed.). De Gruyter.
6.John Ripa (1970). Lectura super primum Sententiarum: Prologi. Quaestiones ultimae (A. Combes & F. Ruello, Eds.). Vrin.
7.Richard Brinkley. (1987). Summa Nova de Logica (Vol. 5, Theory of Sentential Reference) (M. J. Fitzgerald, Ed.). Brill.
8.Walter Chatton. (1989). Lectura in Sententias. In C. Wey (Ed.), Walter Chatton: Reportatio et Lectura super Sententias. Collatio ad Librum Primum et Prologus. Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies.
9.William Ockham. (1967). Scriptum in Librum Primum Sententiarum: Ordinatio. Prologus et distinctio I (G. Gál & S. Brown, Eds.). St. Bonaventure University.
10.William Ockham. (1980). Quodlibeta septem (J. C. Wey, Ed.). St. Bonaventure University.
11.William Ockham. (1984). Quaestiones variae: Tres Quaestiones disputatae (Quaestiones III–V: De aeternitate mundi, De causalitate finis, De intellectu agente) (G. J. Etzkorn, F. E. Kelley, & J. C. Wey, Eds.). St. Bonaventure University.
12.Secondary Sources
13.Albanese, G., Bertelli, S., Gentili, S., Inglese, G., & Pontari, P. (2021). Dante e il suo tempo nelle biblioteche fiorentine (Vol. 2) [Dante and his time in the Florentine libraries]. Mandragora.
14.Amerini, F. (2019). Guglielmo di Ockham, l’onnipotenza divina e l’intuizione del non-esistente [William of Ockham, divine omnipotence, and the intuition of the non-existent]. Quaderni di Noctua, 5, 812–877.
15.Appolloni, C. (forthcoming). Richard Brinkley’s Lectura super Sententias: A rediscovery from the Franciscan Library of Santa Croce.
16.Baneu, A. (Ed.). (2025). The art of taking notes at the university: Étienne Gaudet (Paris, ca. 1320–1392). De Gruyter.
17.Bertelli, S. (2025). La biblioteca e i manoscritti di Santa Croce [The library and the manuscripts of Santa Croce]. In S. Bertelli & A. Gatti (Eds.), I manoscritti della Biblioteca di Santa Croce a Firenze. I. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. Fondo Plutei sinistri (pp. xi–xix). Mandragora.
18.Bertelli, S., & Gatti, A. (2025). I manoscritti della Biblioteca di Santa Croce a Firenze. I. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. Fondo Plutei sinistri [The manuscripts of the Library of Santa Croce in Florence (Vol.1): Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. Left Plutei Collection]. Mandragora.
19.Bolyard, C. (2025). Medieval skepticism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/skepticism-medieval/
20.Cesalli, L. (2004a). Richard Brinkley O.F.M., De propositione (Summa logicae V.1–5). Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 71, 203–254.
21.Cesalli, L. (2004b). Ubi est propositio? Richard Brinkley sur les lieux de la proposition (Summa logicae I, 1–5) [Ubi est propositio? Richard Brinkley on the location of the proposition (Summa logicae I, 1–5)]. In A. Maierù & L. Valente (Eds.), Medieval theories on assertive and non-assertive language (pp. 445–471). Olschki.
22.Cesalli, L. (2008). Richard Brinkley contra «dialecticae haereticos» (Summa logicae, II). Une conception métaphysico-logique de l’universel [Richard Brinkley contra dialecticae haereticos ( Summa logicae, II): A metaphysical-logical conception of the universal]. Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 19, 277–333.
23.Cesalli, L. (2013). Richard Brinkley on supposition. In E. P. Bos (Ed.), Medieval supposition theory revisited (pp. 275–303). Brill.
24.Cesalli, L. (2020). Richard Brinkley. In H. Lagerlund (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy: Philosophy between 500 and 1500 (1st ed., pp. 1666–1670). Springer.
25.Fitzgerald, M. J. (1987). Richard Brinkley’s theory of sentential reference: “De significato propositionis” from Part V of his “Summa Nova de Logica”. Brill.
26.Friedman, R. L., & Fornasieri, G. (2026). Peter Auriol. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2026 ed.). https://plato.- stanford.edu/archives/spr2026/entries/auriol/
27.Gál, G., & Wood, R. (1980). Richard Brinkley and his Summa logicae. Franciscan Studies, 40, 59–101.
28.Grellard, C. (2004). Comment peut-on se fier à l’expérience? Esquisse d’une typologie des réponses médiévales au scepticisme [How can one rely on experience? Outline of a typology of medieval responses to scepticism]. Quaestio, 4, 116–123.
29.Grellard, C. (2005a). Sicut specula sine macula. La perception et son objet [Sicut specula sine macula: Perception and its object]. Chôra, 3, 229–250.
30.Grellard, C. (2005b). Croire et savoir. Les principes de la connaissance selon Nicolas d’Autrécourt [Belief and knowledge: The principles of knowledge according to Nicholas of Autrecourt]. Vrin.
31.Grellard, C. (2014). De la certitude volontaire. Débats nominalistes sur la foi à la fin du Moyen Âge [On voluntary certainty: Nominalist debates on faith at the end of the Middle Ages]. Publications de la Sorbonne.
32.Grellard, C. (2016). Histoire des philosophies et des théologies de l’Occident [History of the philosophies and theologies of the medieval West]. Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études (EPHE), Section des sciences religieuses, 123. http://journals.openedition.org/asr/1474
33.Grellard, C. (2018). Le scepticisme au Moyen Âge, de Saint Augustin à Nicolas d’Autrécourt [Scepticism in the Middle Ages, from Saint Augustine to Nicholas of Autrecourt]. Cahiers philosophiques, 153(2), 55–78.
34.Grellard, C. (2020). Certainty. In H. Lagerlund (Ed.), Encyclopedia of medieval philosophy (pp. 353–355). Springer.
35.Houston, J. (1994). Reported miracles: A critique of Hume. Cambridge University Press.
36.Kaluza, Z. (1989). L’oeuvre théologique de Richard Brinkley, O.F.M. [The theological work of Richard Brinkley, O.F.M.]. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 56, 169–273.
37.Karger, E. (1999). Ockham’s misunderstood theory of intuitive and abstractive cognition. In P. V. Spade (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Ockham (pp. 204–226). Cambridge University Press.
38.Karger, E. (2004). Ockham and Wodeham on divine deception as a skeptical hypothesis. Vivarium, 42, 225–236.
39.Kennedy, L. A. (1983). Philosophical scepticism in England in the mid-fourteenth century. Vivarium, 21(1), 35–57.
40.Lagerlund, H. (Ed.). (2010). Rethinking the history of skepticism: The missing medieval background. Brill.
41.Lanza, M., & Speranzi, D. (2021). Firenze, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, Conventi Soppressi, G.III.367 [Florence, Central National Library, Suppressed Convents, G.III.367]. Manus Online. https://manus.iccu.sbn.it/cnmd/0000304359
42.Nannini, A. (2024). Introduction. Studi sull’Aristotelismo medievale (secoli VI–XVI) 4(4), 9–24.
43.Nannini, A. (forthcoming). Dialectic between the known and the knower: John Ripa as a reader of Peter Auriol.
44.Pegoretti, A. (2022). Schede per le scuole dei religiosi (Minori, Predicatori, Servi di Maria) [Profiles of the schools of the religious orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, Servites)]. In L. M. Livraghi & G. Tomazzoli (Eds.), “Per l’intelletto umano / e per autoritadi”: Il contesto di formazione e diffusione culturale del poema dantesco (pp. 33–50). Franco Cesati.
45.Pegoretti, A. (2024). Novità da Santa Croce [New findings from Santa Croce]. Letture Classensi, 52, 15–35.
46.Perini-Santos, E. (2006). La théorie ockhamienne de la connaissance évidente [The Ockhamist theory of evident cognition]. Vrin.
47.Perler, D. (2008). Seeing and judging: Ockham and Wodeham on sensory cognition. In S. Knuuttila & A. P. Kärkkäinen (Eds.), Theories of perception in medieval and early modern philosophy (pp. 151–169). Springer.
48.Robert, A. (2023). Tout ce qui apparaît est vrai : Nicolas d’Autrécourt, l’épicurien malgré lui [Everything that appears is true: Nicholas of Autrecourt, the Epicurean in spite of himself]. Cahiers philosophiques, 173, 81–101.
49.Salvestrini, A. (2022). Apparentia in the thought of Nicholas of Autrecourt: Intentionality, intersubjectivity, and probabilism in the status of mental being. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 30, 953–972.
50.Schabel, C., & Girard, C. (2022). Gregory of Rimini. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/gregory-rimini/
51.Shields, C. (2016). Aristotle: De anima. Oxford University Press.
52.Silva, J. F. (2025). Perception in medieval philosophy. In A. Szakolczai & P. O’Connor (Eds.), Elgar encyclopedia of political anthropology (pp. 598–603). Edward Elgar Publishing.
53.Silva, J. F., & Toivanen, J. (2020). Perceptual errors in late medieval philosophy. In B. Glenney & J. F. Silva (Eds.), The senses and the history of philosophy (pp. 106–130). Routledge.
54.Smith, A. M. (2001). Alhacen’s theory of visual perception. American Philosophical Society.
55.Spade, P. (1969). An anonymous fourteenth-century treatise on insolubles: Text and study (unpublished master’s thesis). Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
56.Spade, P., & Wilson, A. (1995). Richard Brinkley’s “Obligationes”: A late fourteenthcentury treatise on the logic of disputation. Aschendorff.
57.Tachau, K. (1987). Wodeham, Crathorn and Holcot: The development of the complexe significabile. In L. M. de Rijk & H. A. G. Braakhuis (Eds.), Logos and pragma: Essays on the philosophy of language in honour of Professor Gabriel Nuchelmans (pp. 161–188). Ingenium.
58.Tachau, K. (1988). Vision and certitude in the age of Ockham: Optics, epistemology and the foundations of semantics 1250–1345. Brill.
59.Trapp, A. D. (1979). Einleitung [Introduction]. In A. D. Trapp (Ed.), Gregorii Riminensis OESA Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum (Vol. 9, pp. xi–xxxiv). De Gruyter.
60.Van der Heijden, M., & Roest, B. (2025). Richardus Brinkel. In M. van der Heijden & B. Roest (Eds.), Franciscan authors, 13th–18th century: A catalogue in progress. https://franciscanauthors.rich.ru.nl/index.html.
61.Wood, R. (1982). Adam Wodeham on sensory illusions with an edition of “Lectura secunda,” Prologus, quaestio 3. Traditio, 38, 213–252.