Careful examination of the arguments used in the De aeternitate mundi attributed to Boethius of Dacia shows that this is not a work of radical Aristotelianism, but a teaching text aimed at showing students how to approach the question of the eternity of the world in their disputations. A comparison of the text with some of the articles condemned in 1277 demonstrates that the articles do not originate from the text and that the work was not targeted by Tempier. What (...) is learned from the text about disputations on the eternity of the world is then used to show another way of reading these articles which is consistent with Tempier’s assertion that they were put forward by students during disputations and to some extent enables one to reconstruct the debates as they happened. This also shows how the students distorted the arguments of their masters for their own ends, which in turn suggests how the so-called ‘double truth’ may have been inspired by the De aeternitate mundi or a text like it. Finally, this helps explain the apparent reaction against the arguments used in the De aeternitate on the part of a number of philosophy teachers during the 1270s. (shrink)

Eric G. Forbes, Lesley Murdin and Francis Willmoth , The Correspondence of John Flamsteed, First Astronomer Royal. Volume 1: 1666–1682. Bristol and Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing, 1995. Pp. xlix+955. ISBN 0-7503-0147-3. £140.00, $280.00.Heinz-Jurgen Hess, James G. O'Hara and Herbert Breger , Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Dritte Reihe, Mathematischer, naturwissenschaftlicher und technischer Briefwechsel: Volume 3, 1680–1683; Volume 4, 1683–1690. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991, 1995. Pp. lxx+895; lxvi+747. ISBN 3-05-000766-4, DM 490.00 ; 3-05-002602-2, DM 490.00 .Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann , (...) Samuel Pufendorf. Gesammelte Werke, Band 1: Briefwechsel . Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996. Pp. xxix+453. ISBN 3-05-001920-4. DM 298.00.The editing of the correspondence of major figures in intellectual history is an essential scholarly activity. Yet in this country in recent years it has neither been the priority it should be, nor has it received the support that it deserves. Of course there have been exceptions to this, perhaps notably – for the early modern period – the epic one-man effort of Esmond de Beer in his later years in producing The Correspondence of John Locke . A further exception, the edition of The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg by A. R. and M. B. Hall, was unfortunately flawed by the need to change publishers midway in the series, which has led to a marked disparity in the availability of the latter part of the set compared with its early volumes. In any case, like the Locke edition, this was conceived in the heady days of the 1960s and early 1970s, and few have ventured such enterprises since. Virtually the only exception is Noel Malcolm's edition of the manageable-sized Correspondence of Thomas Hobbes . Moreover, it is revealing of the acute need to justify the publication of such material felt by editors and publishers alike that the promotional leaflet for this edition went so far as to claim that it was ‘one of the most important scholarly publications of the twentieth century’ – a claim that is the more ironic in view of the quite significant shortcomings in its method of presenting the material that it contains. (shrink)