This volume contains the first critical edition of the Scriptum super III-VIII libros Politicorum by Peter of Auvergne as well as a pragmatical edition of Books III-VIII of the medieval Latin translation of Aristotle's Politics. Intended as the continuation of Aquinas' unfinished commentary on the first three books of the Politics, the Scriptum became-together with Aquinas' commentary-the commentary on the Politics. From its appearance in the late thirteenth century to the end of the sixteenth century, the Scriptum represented (...) the most authoritative and influential interpretation of Books III-VIII of the Politics.The introduction to the volume provides both an overview of Peter's political thought and a case study of the production and dissemination of a university text. An examination of the manuscripts traces the preparation of the text from its first transcription and revision by a scribe close to the author-if not the author himself-to the preparation of the finished exemplar and its diffusion through the system of peciae. The introduction also explains how the text was adapted to fit the standards of humanistic Latin when it was first printed in the fifteenth century: its language was adjusted to humanistic standards, many formulations were reshaped, and passages were suppressed. These changes were subsequently preserved in all later editions of the text. Freed from this humanistic patina with which it has been transmitted since the early age of printing age, the Scriptum is now restored to its original version. (shrink)

In his Quaestiones supra librum De Caelo et Mundo which are preserved in the manuscripts Vienna, Dominikanerkonvent 150/120, fols. 47ra-68va and Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 3493, fols. 95ra-136rb, Peter of Auvergne deals with the question of whether there is one world or whether there can be many worlds 24). Peter raises this question because Aristotle refutes the existence and possibility of a plurality of worlds in De Caelo I, 8-9. I shall first discuss the three sets of questions (...) on De Caelo attributed to Peter of Auvergne . In the second section I shall present the answers of authoritative ancient and medieval scholars on the problem of whether a plurality of worlds exists or is possible . Finally I shall examine Peter’s question and indicate its probable sources. (shrink)

This study comprises an analysis of the Categories commentary of Peter of Auvergne, based upon an edition from the manuscripts, and supplemented by a translation. Much information about other Categories commentaries has been included to place the work in its historical and philosophical perspective. ;Peter of Auvergne, active in Paris in the late thirteenth century, had a long career as an Aristotelian commentator and continuator of Thomas Aquinas. His Categories commentary provides me the occasion to survey (...) the genre of Categories commentaries from the early Middle Ages, with special emphasis on those few commentaries known to immediately precede Peter of Auvergne, and on those he influences. Peter is an early representative of the modistae, philosophers who stressed the parallel connections among being, understanding, and signifying, and who are typified by their use of the modi significandi as a tool of analysis. ;This study, the first full-length analysis of a medieval Categories commentary, serves as a guide to the issues generated by Aristotle's Categories. As a comparative study it shows that the genre of Categories commentaries, within a fairly invariant format, allows for a continuous adaptation and development of ideas. As a specific study of an individual commentary, it shows the details of Peter of Auvergne's interests in linguistic analysis, theology, and the exegesis of Aristotle. ;The questions in Peter of Auvergne's commentary are generalizably of two kinds: short, superficial questions which imitate earlier traditions, and more complex questions which attempt original interpretations. Not suprisingly, the latter sort of question finds more parallels in later commentators, including Simon of Faversham, Radulphus Brito, and John Duns Scotus. ;This dissertation, beginning from a thorough exegesis of a central figure, by tracing derivative and influencing themes, gives a dependable picture of the debates conducted in connection with the Categories in the High Middle Ages. I have had the responsibility of editing many of the primary sources I needed. The extensive appendices contain, besides an edition of Peter's Questiones super Praedicamentis, a transcription of another related commentary, Anonymus Matritensis: Questiones super Praedicamentis, and many relevant texts grouped by category. (shrink)

Cet article présente la première édition critique du commentaire sur le De longitudine et brevitate vitae Aristotelis de Pierre d’Auvergne, ainsi qu’une édition de la traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Le texte est particulièrement intéressant, parce qu’il fait partie, semble-t-il, du projet de Pierre d’Auvergne de compléter les commentaires sur les Parva naturalia de Thomas d’Aquin. L’introduction étudie aussi le concept philosophique de ‘vie’ chez Aristote.

Dopo aver considerato i caratteri generali dei prologhi di Tommaso ai commenti aristotelici, ed in particolare i proemi alla Fisica e al De sensu et sensato, l'A. dimostra come Pietro di Alvernia utilizzi queste due fonti tomiste nel suo proemio al De sensu. Del proemio, diviso in sette sezioni esaminate singolarmente, viene data anche una edizione critica in appendice , che si basa sull'unico manoscritto che tramanda il testo, conservato a Oxford, Merton College, 275. Nell'ultima parte del saggio l'A. propone (...) alcune considerazioni finali, ribadendo che la fedeltà di Pietro al testo di Tommaso non può considerarsi «tomismo», ma rivela piuttosto il bisogno avvertito da Pietro di una guida all'interpretazione dei testi aristotelici. (shrink)

Possediamo un testo parallelo delle prime sei lezioni sul terzo libro, in cui possiamo mettere a con-fronto la dottrina di Pietro con quella di s. Tommaso. Il confronto proposto verte sul tema delle inclinazioni naturali e, segnatamente, sul loro rapporto con il bene e con il diritto naturale. Si presentano in sinossi su tre colonne il testo di Aristotele (nella traduzione latina di Guglielmo di Moerbeke utilizzata dai due commentatori), il commento di s. Tommaso ed il commento di Pietro d’Alvernia. (...) Alla fine di ciascuna sezione ho sviluppato alcune considerazioni conclusive di taglio teoretico. L’elemento teoreticamente più interessante introdotto da Pietro è costituito dall’affermazione che l’uomo “è nato per perfezionarsi” quanto al corpo e quanto all’anima ed ha a questo una esplicita in-clinazione naturale: “[Homo] natus est perfici et naturaliter inclinatur ad hoc quod perficiatur”. Qui si riecheggia l’ontologia tommasiana delle inclinazioni naturali e la metafisica del bene che le è sotte-sa. Bonum est quod omnia appetunt, ma le sostanze appetunt quella perfezione a cui sono inclinate in virtù della loro propria forma, cum unumquodque sit id quod est per suam formam. Il bene è dunque ciò che viene richiesto dalla forma dell’ente, per giungere alla piena realizzazione del dinamismo insito nella forma stessa, dinamismo che si placa solo nella piena attualizzazione di sé, ossia nella perfezione dell’ente. Bisogna notare l’attitudine di Pietro ad usare la categoria dell’inclinazione naturale, anche quando il testo aristotelico non la contiene. È necessario indugiare un po’ su questo tema, giacché in esso - a nostro giudizio - è possibile leggere il fondamento dell’etica classica, così spesso frainteso dai moderni. L’uomo è una creatura strutturalmente “indigente”: homo pluribus indiget. Quest’indigenza, per usare la terminologia di Hume contro lo stesso Hume, è un is da cui consegue rigorosamente un ought. L’indigenza è un fatto, è una carenza costatabile empiricamente; ma costatare una carenza significa scoprire nell’essere fattuale il dover essere: lo stato in cui la carenza è tolta. L’uomo, imperfectus et ex parte animae et ex parte corporis, in ragione della sua stessa imperfezione, rimanda all’uomo “perfetto”, come la potenza rimanda all’atto ed anzi è preceduta dall’atto. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 255 - 285 This paper examines the authorship and reception of the medieval translation of Sextus Empiricus’ _Outlines of Pyrrhonism_. It is shown that its traditional ascription to Niccolò da Reggio cannot be maintained, because the translation must have circulated already in the late 1270s. Its author is difficult to identify: the closest stylistic parallels are found with the anonymous translator of Aristotle’s _De partibus animalium_. With Alvaro of Oviedo and the otherwise unknown (...) Johannes de Peretis two early readers can be named. Though a copy was accessible in Viterbo at this time and another copy possibly travelled around in Italy in the 1320s, no philosophical or other impact can be determined. A single reference is found in Peter of Auvergne’s _Quaestiones_-commentary on Aristotle’s _Politics_. Its origin is difficult to assess. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the reception of Avicenna’s well-known “flying man” thought experiment in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Latin philosophy. The central claim is that the argumentative role of the thought experiment changed radically in the latter half of the thirteenth century. The earlier authors—Dominicus Gundissalinus, William of Auvergne, Peter of Spain, and John of la Rochelle—understood it as an ontological proof for the existence and/or the nature of the soul. By contrast, Matthew of Aquasparta and Vital du Four used (...) the flying man as an argument for the soul’s ability to be directly aware of itself. A detailed analysis of the views of these authors shows interesting philosophical differences between them and reveals how one of the crucial premises of the original thought experiment—namely that the flying man is unaware of his body—loses its importance due to the changes in the argumentative role that is assigned to it. The most radical example of a new way of understanding bodily self-awareness is Peter Olivi’s so-called ‘man before the creation.’. (shrink)

Several medieval commentators on De caelo II, 7 investigate the question of whether local motion causes heat. I analyse the theories of Averroes, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Auvergne, John of Jandun, John Buridan and Nicole Oresme and two anonymous theories. Although all of these authors agree that local motion generates heat, each of them presents his own explanation of the heating effect of motion. Averroes, Thomas Aquinas, John of Jandun and John Buridan argue that motion (...) is the per se cause of heat. Their explanations of the heating effect of motion are based on metaphysical considerations such as the relation between a subject and its characteristics or perfections and the causal order in a genus. Albert the Great, Peter of Auvergne, Nicole Oresme and the anonymous commentators, on the contrary, defend the thesis that motion is the accidental cause of heat. Their explanations refer to physical processes caused by motion. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the reception of Avicenna’s well-known “flying man” thought experiment in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Latin philosophy. The central claim is that the argumentative role of the thought experiment changed radically in the latter half of the thirteenth century. The earlier authors—Dominicus Gundissalinus, William of Auvergne, Peter of Spain, and John of la Rochelle—understood it as an ontological proof for the existence and/or the nature of the soul. By contrast, Matthew of Aquasparta and Vital du Four used (...) the flying man as an argument for the soul’s ability to be directly aware of itself. A detailed analysis of the views of these authors shows interesting philosophical differences between them and reveals how one of the crucial premises of the original thought experiment—namely that the flying man is unaware of his body—loses its importance due to the changes in the argumentative role that is assigned to it. The most radical example of a new way of understanding bodily self-awareness is Peter Olivi’s so-called ‘man before the creation.’. (shrink)

This translation of selections from the De universo grew out of a graduate seminar on William of Auvergne held at Marquette University in 1995. It translates and annotates large parts of the De universo and of the De anima.

In this paper, I examine Scotus’s claim that the categories are the subject of a propter quid science. In order to see the significance of this claim, I first trace the development of the idea that the categories are the subject of a science from Martin of Denmark, Peter of Auvergne, and Simon of Faversham. I then turn toDuns Scotus’s account of the categories as the subject of a propter quid science. Throughout the discussion, I concentrate on the (...) fundamental problems confronting anyone who claims that there is a science of the categories: namely, how they, being ten, can have an appropriate unity. Scotus, as we will see, will answer this problem by claiming that the intellect causes a greater unity in second intentions than the corresponding unity that exists in the world. As a consequence, Scotus contends that the categories are the subject of a propter quid science, one that is radically different from the science of metaphysics. (shrink)

An essential challenge of Aristotle’s Politics arises from the juxtaposition of contrasting and competing arguments in favour of virtuous monarchy, on the one hand, and the collective superiority of “the many”, on the other. This paper examines the purely theoretical reception of this contrast in the writings of some late medieval Aristotelians by focusing on a key section in Politics Γ (1280a8–1284b34). After reviewing Aristotle’s problematic position, the paper discusses its interpretation in the commentaries of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas/ (...) class='Hi'>Peter of Auvergne and Walter Burley, as well as its use in the works of Giles of Rome, John of Paris and Marsilius of Padua. On that basis, finally, the paper outlines some general trends with regard to how medieval scholars dealt with Aristotle’s idea of the rule of the many as opposed to that of one or few virtuous persons. (shrink)

This volume brings together eleven essays by the distinguished philosopher of science, Peter Achinstein. The unifying theme is the nature of the philosophical problems surrounding the postulation of unobservable entities such as light waves, molecules, and electrons. How, if at all, is it possible to confirm scientific hypotheses about "unobservables"? Achinstein examines this question as it arose in actual scientific practice in three nineteenth-century episodes: the debate between particle and wave theorists of light, Maxwell's kinetic theory of gases, and (...) J.J. Thomson's discovery of the electron. The book contains three parts, each devoted to one of these topics, beginning with an essay presenting the historical background of the episode and an introduction to the philosophical issues. There is an illuminating evaluation of various scientific methodologies, including hypothetico-deductivism, inductivism, and the method of independent warrant which combines features of the first two. Achinstein assesses the philosophical validity of both nineteenth-century and modern answers to questions about unobservables, and presents and defends his own solutions. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Boethii Daci Aliorumque Sophismata by Boethius of DaciaJulie Brumberg-ChaumontBoethius of Dacia. Boethii Daci Aliorumque Sophismata. Edited by Sten Ebbesen and Irène Rosier-Catach. Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi, 9. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2021. Pp. 624. Hardback, 400.00 DKK.This volume offers a reliable and accurate scholarly edition of two collections of thirteenthcentury sophismata (logical and grammatical puzzles) contained in ms. Brugge, Stedelijke Openbare Bibliotheek 509 (=B) and (...) ms. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana 12 sin. 3 (=F). Taken together, these two collections constitute a set of twenty-three sophismata called "Sophismata Florentino-Brugensia" in the catalogue published by Sten Ebbesen and Frédéric Goubier (A Catalogue of Thirteenth-Century Sophismata [Paris: Vrin, 2010]). These sophismata were previously available only in partial editions. Specifically, the two versions of the sophisma "Omnis homo de necessitate est animal," previously both ascribed to Boethius of Dacia, were partially edited from F by Grabmann in 1940 and from B by Roos in 1962. Other sophismata in this collection have been previously edited by Ebbesen, but their editions should now be considered "obsolete," according to the editor himself (9). Each sophisma is identified by an S followed by a number (S1, S2, etc.). In turn, each sophisma deals with several issues or problems, each one of which is identified by a P followed by a number (P1, P2, etc.). The volume is very usefully completed by an index of explicit and implicit references to other works and an index of parallel passages, both compiled by Kristian Thomsen Purreskov (591–601). Finally, this edition is accompanied by a selective but still rich index of words, where special attention has been dedicated to the sophismata by Boethius of Dacia (603–24). All the material is presented in a clear and accurate way. There are only a few minor material errors (specifically, the running titles for problems in S4 are messy; at 33, "a*" should be read as "b*"; at 49, "S14" should be read as "S18").Sten Ebbesen is the sole editor of all sophismata except for the three that deal with grammatical subjects, for which Irène Rosier-Catach is the main editor, with Ebbesen serving as a coeditor.Concerning the authorship of each sophisma, Ebbesen follows the indications contained in F, but he also provides some independent discussions (24–26). Thus, he ascribes two sophismata to Boethius of Dacia, ten to Peter of Auvergne, one to an otherwise unknown Nicholas of Normandy, and the remaining ten to anonymous masters. They are listed in detail in the "Index sophismatum et problematum" (65–69).After a summary of the contents of the volume, Ebbesen's introduction contains five sections of different lengths: first, a history of the edition (7–9); second, a general description of the structure and functioning of sophismata (9–13); third, a description of the seven manuscripts used for the edition (14–22); fourth, a discussion about authorship (22–58); and fifth, an explanation of the principles of the edition (58–62). In the third section, Ebbesen provides a wealth of information about manuscripts, stemma codicum, and evaluations of variants, especially about the relationship between S and B for the sophismata contained in both manuscripts. In this regard, Ebbesen establishes that B and F are probably not two independent reportationes of the same oral disputation, that they had a common ancestor, and that they do not depend on one another (25–32). The fourth section, about authorship, demonstrates that the collection contained in F is earlier than that contained in B. One major result is that the text copied in B (S1B) ("Omnis homo de necessitate est animal") is not by Boethius of Dacia (35). Because of F priority, that manuscript is chosen as the main witness for those sophismata or parts of sophismata that are common to F and B.The second section makes an extremely significant historical and doctrinal contribution to the history of logic, particularly the history of logical practices and their textual records. [End Page 705] Three constitutive parts of a sophisma are identified: first, the sophismatic sentence itself; second, a brief disputation (called here corpus sophismatis) about the sophismatic sentence... (shrink)

In response to a charge of subjectivism, Kuhn in his Postscript emphasizes the importance of "values" (accuracy, simplicity, explanatory power, etc) that are shared by scientists generally. However, Kuhn adds, these values are applied differently by different scientists. By employing a comparison with partially subjective views of Carnap on confirming evidence, this paper raises questions about Kuhn's position on values by considering ways it might be interpreted as subjective and ways it may not.

One of the main features of the contemporary environmental crisis is that no one has a clear picture of what is taking place. Environmental problems are real enough but they bring home the inadequacy of our knowledge. How does the natural world relate to the social world? Why do we continue to have such a poor understanding? How can ecological knowledge be made to relate to our understanding of human society? Reconstructing Nature argues that the division of labor is a (...) key but neglected factor underlying people's inability to adequately understand and relate to the natural world. The argument extends Marx's theory of alienation to account for inadequate knowledge and therefore inadequate concern for nature. Using recent developments in "critical realist" philosophy, the book aims to find ways of reorganizing knowledge in the light of ecological consciousness. It also corrects the emphasis of much environmental literature by focusing on production rather than consumption. (shrink)