One of the world's great philosophers, William of Ockham's On the Connection of the Virtues (De connexione virtutum) provides insightful perspectives on ordinary issues of human conduct. Written in reasonably simple and nontechnical language, it is translated into English here for the first time. Ockham's views on many subjects have been misunderstood, his views on ethics as much as any. This book is designed to avoid some pitfalls that arise in reading medieval philosophy generally and Ockham in particular. Wood begins (...) her introduction with an account of what is known about Ockham's life and works and with a discussion of his place in the history of philosophy, followed by a brief general guide to his views. Finally, there is a historical account of the medieval debate on the connection of the virtues, to which Ockham's treatise is an important contribution. Problems of interpretation are addressed in the commentary, which follows the translation. Translation, commentary, and introduction provide students of Ockham's treatise with what they need to appreciate his stance on ethical issues and to approach his arguments critically. (shrink)

In this volume, the world's foremost Scotus scholars collaborate to present the latest research on his work.

This chapter contains sections titled: The Norwich Lectures The Oxford Lectures Lost works by Wodeham Conclusion Note.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:“Garrulus sum et loquax et expedire nescio. Diu te tenui in istis, sed de cetero procedam.” These are the words of Richard Rufus of Cornwall, a thirteenth-century Scholastic and lecturer at the Universities of Paris and Oxford. Rufus is apologizing to his readers: “I am garrulous and loquacious, and I don’t know how to be efficient. I have detained you with these things a long while, but let me (...) now proceed to another topic.” This apology introduces the third part of the Speculum animae, a preliminary modern edition of which we publish here. In this short treatise, Rufus presents a unique Aristotelian theory of perception, describes what is and is not intelligible, and finally proves to his own satisfaction the immortality of the rational soul. To us this would hardly seem the place to apologize for being long-winded; indeed, we might wonder how Rufus could accomplish such an ambitious task in such a short treatise. We would certainly not accuse him of excessive verbosity. But Rufus was a man of exceptional humility, who once referred to himself as the least of the lesser thinkers of his time.1Despite Rufus’s humility, he was no minor figure in the development of Scholastic philosophy. A teacher at the Universities of Paris and Oxford ,2 he is the author of the earliest known, surviving lectures on several of Aristotle’s major texts, including the Metaphysics, the Physics, De generatione et corruptione, and De anima3 . In fact, Rufus was one of the very first lecturers to teach the libri naturales at Paris after a ban on such instruction was effectively lifted in 1231 A.D. His works were influential not only among his contemporaries, but also among later authors, particularly John Duns Scotus. Roger Bacon, though a harsh critic of Rufus, acknowledged Rufus’s influence and fame decades after his death, albeit among what Bacon termed the “vulgar multitude.”4The Speculum animae is one of Rufus’s later works. He begins the treatise by posing the following question: “In what way is the soul all things?” This refers, of course, to a familiar doctrine Aristotle establishes in the De anima—that the soul is, in some way, all things —and Rufus is here seeking to clarify it. But this is, in fact, only the first of five questions addressed in the Speculum. The five questions Rufus posits and answers in this treatise are, in order:1. In what manner is the soul all things?2. In what manner do a sensible and the sense, or an intelligible and the possible intellect, become one?3. What is predicated and of what is it predicated?4. What is intelligible?5. What is the cause of the immortality of the soul?In this short work, therefore, Rufus addresses apparently diverse topics including perception, understanding, logic, and the nature of the soul. But, in fact, the Speculum is principally a summary of Rufus’s theory of human perception and understanding. Like other medieval theories of perception and understanding, Rufus’s theory centers around the notion of species, a kind of form that is received in the soul when a person senses something or grasps something intellectually.5 In this, and in other aspects of the theory, Rufus was heavily dependent on Aristotle and St. Augustine. Rufus was working in a philosophical tradition based on Aristotle’s categories that had been accepted for centuries in the West. But in his lifetime, the Aristotelian corpus was enlarged to include Aristotle’s psychology and more generally his natural philosophy and metaphysics, together with the commentaries of Averroës . As is well known, this philosophical tradition was respected and continued not just by Rufus but by many authors after his time.So what makes Rufus’s theory.. (shrink)

One of the first to teach the new Aristotle, Richard Rufus of Cornwall here presents exciting accounts of divisibility, growth, and Aristotelian mixture which transform our understanding of the introduction of Aristotelian natural philosophy to the West and provide insight into the early history and prehistory of chemistry.

Richard Rufus of Cornwall was educated as a philosopher at Paris where he was a master of arts. 1 In 1238, after lecturing on Aristotle’s librinaturales, Rufus became a Franciscan and moved to Oxford to study theology, becoming the Franciscan master of theology in about 1256 and probably dying not long after 1259. 2.

Erfurt Quarto 290 includes two commentaries on Aristotle40, 1 chiefly on the basis of a thirteenth-century ascription to Richard Rufus, deciphered by Fr. Leonard Boyle; the aim of this essay is to show that the author of the commentary on folios 4640, the Scriptum, but that seems misleading since Noone also claims that what we have is a record preserved by its auditors, a reportatio. And in medieval scholarly practice, a reportatio is distinguished from a scriptum, which is a written (...) version corrected by the author and meant for publication. In order not to prejudice the question whether this commentary is reportatio or a scriptum, we will call it the DissertatioinMetaphysicamAristotelis, taking the term from the workPlacetnobisnuncparumperdissereredequadampropositionequamdicitAristotelesin56 probably dates from around 1235, but the basis for that claim will be stated at the end of this paper. (shrink)

The English Franciscan philosopher and theologian, Adam of Wodeham (d. 1358), was a disciple and friend of William of Ockham; he was also a student of Walther Chatton. Nevertheless, he was an independent thinker who did not hesitate to criticize his former teachers - Ockham sporadically and benevolently, Chatton, frequently and aggressively. Since W odeham developed his own doctrinal position by a thorough critical examination of current opinions, the first part of this introduc tion briefly outlines the positions of the (...) chief figures in the English controversy over indivisibles. The second part of the introduction pre sents a summary of Wodeham's views in the Tractatus de indivisibilibus, lists the contents of the treatise, and considers the question of its date and its chronological position in the context of Wodeham's other works. In the third part, the editorial procedures used here are set forth. 1. THE INDIVISIBILIST CONTROVERSY In the literature of the 13th and 14th centuries, the term 'indivisible' refers to a simple, un extended entity. Consequently, these indivisibles are not physical atoms but either mathematical points, temporal instants or indivisibles of motion, usually called mutata esse. I THOMAS BRADWARDINE (d. 1349), roughly contemporary with Wodeham, classified the positions it was possible to take regarding indivisibles. He described his own view as the common view, that of "Aristotle, A verroes, and most of the moderns," according to which a "continuum was not composed of atoms (athomis) but of parts divisible without end. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Conclusion.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Richard Rufus wrote the commentary on Aristotle’s Physics I published in 2003 as well as two commentaries on the Metaphysics. Rufus’ Aristotle commentaries date from the 1230’s as is clear from his own and Roger Bacon’s references. Twice in an undisputed Metaphysics commentary Rufus cites the distinctive and unchanging views about instantaneous change he stated «in Physicis» or «super librum Physicorum». Of course, some of his other opinions changed. In the course of claiming (...) that these changes do not militate against the attribution, this article addresses the general question: What are the appropriate standards for an attribution? (shrink)

A sequel to Gracia’s Introduction to the Problem of Individuation in the Early Middle Ages prepared by sixteen well-known historians of medieval philosophy, one advantage offered by this collection of essays is the broad coverage it provides: Avicenna and Averroes ; Maimonides, Gersonides, Bedersi ; Albert the Great and Roger Bacon ; Bonaventure and Buridan ; Aquinas ; Henry of Ghent ; Godfrey of Fontaines, Peter of Auvergne, John Baconthorpe and James of Viterbo ; Scotus ; Hervaeus Natalis, Richard of (...) Mediavilla, Durand of Saint Pourçain ; Walter of Burley ; William of Ockham ; Cajetan and Giles of Rome ; Javellus and Francis Sylvester Ferrar ; Francis Suárez ; John of Saint Thomas ; Leibniz. (shrink)