Frustra fit per plura (IV)

My occasional posts on ‘Ockham's razor’ are knocked into a cocked hat by the more systematic research of the idiosyncratic Scotus scholar Antonie Vos, whose massive book The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus (2006) includes a section entitled ‘Methodological parsimony: the razor Scoti’ (§8.2).  This should be the first port of call for anyone researching the history of the principle.

Here are the formulations quoted by Vos on pp. 304f.:

Numquam est ponenda pluralitas sine necessitate  (QM I.4)
Pluralitas numquam ponenda est sine necessitate  (IV.2)
Numquam ponenda sunt plura sine necessitate  (VII.12)
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate  (VII.12)
Nihil non manifestum ponendum est a philosophantibus sine necessitate  (VII.18)
Non est ponenda pluralitas entium sine ratione  (Lect. II.2)
Plura non sunt ponenda sine necessitate  (II.14)
Sed haec positio ponere videtur pluralitatem sine necessitate  (Ord. II.2)
Pluralitas specierum non videtur ponenda sine necessitate manifesta  (III.34)

Vos points further to Lectura I.2.202 and Ordinatio IV.11.3 and IV.11.14, which I'm afraid I don't have to hand.

Frustra fit per plura

Ocham of Beyond Necessity has spotted an occurrence in Auriol's Scriptum (1316) of the principle still known as Ockham's Razor:

‘Praeterea, non debet poni superfluum aut aliqua distinctio sine causa, quia frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.’
(S I.8.21 §33)

Ocham writes: ‘it may be a Franciscan expression, and I think Scotus used it.’  Well, here is an instance from the Franciscan Ramon Llull's Liber reprobationis aliquorum errorum Averrois (1310?):

‘Quod Deus non agat immediate in istis inferioribus, sic probatur: Impossibile est, quod entia nobiliora frustrentur a suis operationibus.  Sed si Deus in istis ageret immediate, intelligentia et caelum frustrarentur in operationibus suis, quae sunt nobiliora entia.  Ergo impossibile est Deum agere in istis.
Quod autem intelligentia et caelum frustrarentur, patet; quia frustra fit per intelligentiam, caelum et etiam per Deum, quod posset fieri per Deum solum.  Si enim frustra fit per plura, quod potest per pauciora fieri et si sic non haberent operationes proprias, et per consequens non haberent naturas proprias; quod est impossibile.’ (d. 2 pars 7)

Llull – who apparently met Scotus in 1297 – rejects this argument on the grounds that celestial motions would not be in vain if God acted immediately on terrestrial things.  So presumably he accepts the principle.  Did Averroes, too, or at least some Averroists?