Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T13:41:19.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Commentary of Conrad of Prussia on the De Ente et Essentia of St. Thomas Aquinas, Introduction and Comments by Joseph Bobik, transcription of the manuscript by James A. Corbett and Joseph Bobik, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1974, 203 pages. 39.50 Glds.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

Eike-Henner w. Kluge
Eike-Henner w. Kluge
Affiliation:
University of Victoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews/Comptes rendus
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 440 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Grabmann, Martinus, “De Commentariis in Opusculum S. Thomae Aquinatis De Ente et Essentiae” Acta Pont. Acad. Rom. S. Thomae Aquinatis et Religionis Catholicae, Nova Series, vol. V (1938).Google Scholar

2 For Bobik's discussion of this, see pp. 1–2 of the Introduction.

3 Several minor typographical errors are: p. 12,1. 76 ‘nihil’ not ‘nomm’; p. 41,1. 9 ‘humanitas’ not ‘humanits’; p. 46,1.464, ‘etiam’ not ‘etaim’; p. 53,1.16, ‘quia’ not ‘qui’; p. 62 last line “quiditate’; p. 71,1. 6, ‘quod’ not ‘quad’; p. 74,1. 751–2 ‘sic’ not ‘Sic’, and comma, not period; p. 125, There is something missing in the first line of the last paragraph of Lectio VI.

4 For a partial discussion of this, see Moody, E.A., The Logic of William of Ockham (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; and Kluge, E.-H.W., “William of Ockham's Commentary on Porphyry I, Franciscan Studies, vol. 33, annual XI (1973), Introduction (pp. 171–202)Google Scholar.