Rega Wood and Zita V. Toth Nec idem nec aliud: The Powers of the Soul and the Origins of the Formal Distinction Abstract: This article shows that Scotus’ notion of the formal distinction originated with Richard Rufus of Cornwall and belongs in the tradition of early Franciscan the- ology.We confirm Fr Gedeon Gál’s discovery that Richard Rufus was the ancient doc- tor whom Scotus had in mind when introducing the distinction. Focusing on the re- lation of the powers of the intellectual soul, we compare Rufus’ notion of formal predication both with Scotus’ formal distinction and with earlier Franciscan discus- sions of this topic.We focus on Alexander of Hales and the Summa Halesiana, show- ing the decisive role of Augustine’s authority played in this discussion. Important in this context is the notion of virtual containment. We also explore the possibility that Rufus formulated his claims about predication as a way to clarify Alexander of Hales’ claim that its powers constitute the intellectual soul substantially but not essentially. Finally, we seek to clarify the similarities and differences between Scotus’ account of these powers and that of his predecessors.We conclude by suggesting that this Fran- ciscan tradition is an important instance of thoughtful philosophers seeking to rec- oncile faculty psychology with the unity of the human soul. ‘[I]t is no easier to comprehend [the formal distinction] than the Trinity of persons in the unity of its essence,’ as William of Ockham complained.¹ Alluding to the fact that the formal distinction was used in the trinitarian contexts, Ockham rightly indi- cates that the formal distinction itself is rather puzzling. It is not, however, a puzzle we will try to solve, and we will also leave aside trinitarian questions for the most part. Instead, our aim is to show that Scotus’ notion of the formal distinction origi- nated with Richard Rufus of Cornwall and belongs in the tradition of early Francis- can theology as it bears on the question of how the soul and its powers are related. We will proceed as follows. First, we look at how Scotus and Rufus explain the formal distinction, and confirm what Fr Gedeon Gál already pointed out, namely, Note: This paper originated in a presentation by Rega Wood at a conference organized by Lydia Schu- macher, ‘Thirteenth-Century English Franciscans’ (14 August 2020). We are grateful to the partici- pants for their contributions to the discussion. Rega’s name appears first because she began the project.  Ockham, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (Ordinatio) I, d. 2, q. 1, in Opera Theologica 2, ed. S. Brown and G. Gál (St Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1970), p. 17; see also I, d. 2, q. 3 (ed. Brown and Gál, Opera Theologica 2: 78). See also, Allan B. Wolter, ‘The Formal Distinction,’ in The Philosophical Theology of John Duns Scotus, ed. Marilyn McCord Adams (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1990), p. 27 in pp. 27– 41. OpenAccess. © 2021 Rega Wood and Zita V. Toth, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684834-008