This treatise was written c. 1200, and is the earliest known philosophical work by an Oxford master. Its great interest is that it demonstrates the way in which the first generation of scholars used the translations of Greek and Arabic philosophical scientific texts which had just become available in Western Europe.

Carolingian Biblical Culture John J. CONTRENI Qui sim nosse uolens, scito Bibliotheca dicor El ueteris legis ius ueho siue nouae. Ne me sperne, precor, ...

The Quaestiones super Physica Aristotelis traditionally attributed to Iohannes Canonicus survive in over 35 manuscripts and at least 8 printings from 1475 to 1520. Yet historians have disagreed about the century, the place of origin, the name and the institutional position of the author. This brief paper combines old and new evidence proving that the text was authored by an Augustinian Canon Regular of the Cathedral of Tortosa named Francesc Marbres, a Catalan from Barcelona, while he was Master of (...) Arts at the University of Toulouse around 1330. (shrink)

Gennaro Chtjerchia, Dynamics of meaning: anaphora, presupposition, and the the of grammar. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.xv+ 270 pp, £59.95, £31.95 G. Pr...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 63.1 (2002) 41-62 [Access article in PDF] Pure of Heart: From Ancient Rites to Renaissance Plato Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle The philosopher who published Plato for Western thought praised him strangely. Marsilio Ficino commended his translation of the Phaedrus to his soul mate Iohannes Bessarion because in that dialogue Plato sought from God spiritual beauty. "When this gold was given to Plato by (...) God, it shone in him most brilliantly, because he was so pure in heart." The epithet "pure in heart" is not literally Ficino's diction: he wrote "in his Platonic bosom perfectly clean" (Platonico in sinu utpote mundissimo). 1 Although this philological variant insinuates his full meaning, the modern translation conveys his essential import. Ficino and Bessarion were both scholars and priests, convinced of the compatibility of Platonism with Christianity. The recipient of the letter, Bessarion, had defended the Phaedrusvigorously against protestations that, for promoting the criminal activity of pederasty, it was an obscene work of unchaste philosophy. "Love," he declared, "leads many to beatitude." 2 Ficino emphasized that "no one can attain beatitude, which consists in divine contemplation, unless he loves God ardently." 3 To that end he translated the complete works of Plato into Latin with commentaries. He also composed a speculative Theologia platonica. The pair would have approved of the application to Plato of the gospel promise "Blessed are the pure of heart [hoi katharoi t¯e kardia], for they shall see God" (Matt. 5:8). Was this promise not already fulfilled in Plato, even before Jesus' pronouncement? Did not Socrates in the Phaedrus soar to the vision of God in his myth of the charioteer, where among privileged souls he peered over the rim of intelligible being to behold the divine processional and true being? The [End Page 41] myth figured the recollection of the soul's primordial state of innocence, "when we were pure ourselves," and, beholding "the beatific vision," were initiated into its "most blessed" mystery. 4 Bessarion cited the passage defensively, declaring Socrates' speech "most holy." 5The beatitudes, from which "pure of heart" derived, emphatically comprised the opening discourse of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Jesus blessed the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, those hungry and thirsty for righteousness, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers, and those persecuted for righteousness. He pronounced a corresponding good for each type (Matt. 5:1-10). The first four beatitudes promised reversals for the unfortunate; the second four, eschatological rewards for the virtuous. 6 Ficino personalized the beatitudes. He applied them in a letter to an archbishop to his own contrasting status as a priest "of humble fortune." Indicating his slight financial means, he affirmed obedience to his lot, even contentment with his meager possessions. He then wielded the divine reversal of human judgment, so startling in the beatitudes, against his enemies. "I am certainly content with few possessions, even though I am often held in contempt by many; for these many ought to be deemed of little worth. Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are the peacemakers." 7Ficino also philosophized the beatitudes. He argued in Theologia platonica that, although the celestial realm was usually considered fiery, it could be earthy, as poets imagined the Elysian Fields. Jesus' beatitude promising the possession of the earth to the meek was proof. Ficino expounded the nine grades of celestial beatitude as a belief shared by Platonists and Christians. He assigned these grades to varying degrees and combinations of three ends: the fear of divine power, the search for wisdom, and the love of good, which ultimately transformed the soul. This elaborate division Ficino compared to Jesus' beatitudes. "I think that this mystery is signified in the gospel, where the divine oracle nine times calls his disciples blessed, because through nine grades of merit, with God leading, the nine heavens are sought blessedly through nine degrees of contemplation." Despite his philosophical imposition on the biblical text, Ficino qualified his syncretism. The gospel admonished the dismissal of philosophical meanderings to pursue... (shrink)

The paper presents a preliminary estimation of the extent of dissemination of optical texts, ideas, and issues among the masters connected with the Prague faculty of arts in the late 14th and early 15th century. Investigation of this topic, so far rather neglected, is based chiefly on manuscript research. The paper brings evidence that perspectiva was taught in Prague at least since the 1370s. It suggests that investigation of Prague quodlibetal disputations (ca. 1390s – 1410s) and consideration of perspectivist authorities (...) employed in these texts can also shed some light on the issue. However, the paper is mainly devoted to the question on the mechanism of vision disputed by Bohemian arts master John of Borotín (Iohannes de Borotin, 1378 – after 1458) in the quodlibet organised by John Hus in 1411. It is suggested that the single extant exemplar of the question (preserved in the codex Prague, National Library, X.H.18) probably is Borotín’s autograph. The structure and sources of the question are analysed, with the conclusion being that Borotín proposes a compromise between intromission and extramission influenced by John Peckham’s Perspectiva communis. A critical edition of Borotín’s question is appended to the paper. / / / Please note this article is published with Brepols Publishers as a Gold Open Access article under a Creative Commons CC 4.0: BY-NC license. The article is also freely available on the website of Brepols Publishers under this same license. (shrink)

The only external evidence we have of the date of publication of Suetonius' Caesares is the statement of Iohannes Lydus that it contained a dedication to Septicius Clarus as praetorian prefect—a statement, incidentally, which is related to the correct nomenclature of the office, and not in any way to the persons concerned. This dedication, lost along with the opening chapters of Iulius, must accordingly have been made some time during the years 119–22, before Septicius and Suetonius were dismissed from (...) their respective posts, apparently for lack of respect to the empress. What is by no means certain is that the dedicatory epistle was attached originally to the whole series of Lives; nor that all the Lives were completed, far less published, while Suetonius was still employed as ab epistulis to Hadrian. (shrink)

Desde el origen de la Universidad de París en la segunda década del siglo XIII, los enfrentamientos entre los _magistri artium_ y teológos, además de ser muchos, tuvieron fuertes consecuencias contra los primeros: condenas por parte de la Iglesia, excomulgaciones, prohibiciones, y numerosos exilios de aquellos que seguían divulgando las tesis condenadas entre sus estudiantes. El siguiente estudio está basado en la única edición disponible, del _De Laudibus Parisiis_ 1 de Juan de Jandún, uno de los tantos maestros parisinos que (...) se vieron obligados al exilio _._ A lo largo del trabajo se introducirá a este polémico personaje abordando brevemente su biografía, las controversias en las que tuvo participación y, principalmente, el elogio de la ciudad parisina que surgió como respuesta a una de esas disputas vividas. Se mostrará también de qué manera su formación como maestro de artes lo llevará a defender posturas heterodoxas. 1 Iohannes de Janduno : _Tractatus de laudibus Parisius, _ on Le Roux de Lincy, L. M. Tisserand, _Paris et ses historiens aux XIV et XV siécles, _ Paris, 32-79. (shrink)

Boethius and Alcuin of York -- Boethius and Amalrius Symphosius Metensis -- Boethius and Charles II "the Bald" -- Boethius and Iohannes Scottus Eriugena -- Boethius and the cognitive process (De musica I, 1) -- Boethius and Aurelianus Reomensis -- Boethius and Hucbaldus Elnonensis -- Boethii Consolatio Philosophiae -- Boethius and Hrotsvitha Gandersheimensis -- Boethius and Gerbertus Aureliacensis, Boethius and Abbo Floriacensis, Boethius and Notker Labeo seu Teutonicus -- Boethius and Fulbertus Carnotensis -- Boethius and Theodoricus Carnotensis.