Abstract

The essay casts doubt upon the view that Albert was criticizing or was dependent upon Thomas Manlevelt's logico-philosophical views, and counter argues that it is in fact Manlevelt who knows and cites Albert's views in his recently edited Porphyrian Questions, rather than vice versa. The argument for this conclusion proceeds in two stages. First, it is argued that the brief comment Albert makes about ‘conjunct descent’ in treating the definition of merely confused supposition his Perutilis Logica does not conclusively show that Albert is criticizing the logico-philosophical view of Thomas Manlevelt, as the notion of ‘conjunct descent’ is already present in the work of Heytesbury. Hence, Albert may have been referring to him, since the unique contribution of Thomas Manlevelt to the definition of merely confused personal supposition appears completely unknown to Albert. Second, it is argued that the views in the Porphyrian Questions on the nature of the continuum, quantity, and disposi..