Primary Sources

• Albert the Great. Posteriorum Analyticorum. In Opera Omnia. Edited by Augustus Borgnet. Vivès: 1890–9, Vol. 2, pp.1-232. (Scholar)
• Aristotle. Analytica posteriora: translationes Iacobi, Anonymi sive ‘Ioannis’, Gerardi et recensio Guillelmi de Moerbeke. Aristoteles Latinus, IV 1-4. Edited by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello and Bernard G. Dod. Bruges-Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968.
      [Contains not only the medieval translations, but also an extensive introductory discussion by Minio-Paluello, in Latin, of the history of the translations.] (Scholar)
• Averroës. Aristotelis opera cum Averrois commentatoris, with Magnis Commentariis in Posteriora Resolutoria, in I Part 2a, and Expositionis Mediae in Librum Demonstrationis Aristotelis, IX Quaesita Demonstrativa in Libros Posteriorum, and Diversorum Arabum Quaesita, in I Part 2b. Ed. Iuntina. Venetiis: Apud Iunctas, 1562-74. Reprint: Frankfurt/Mainz: Minerva 1962. (Scholar)
• Buridan, John. Compendium Totius Logicae. Venice 1499. Reprint Edition: Minerva, 1965. Tract VIII: De demonstrationibus, with commentary by John Dorp. (Scholar)
• Burleigh, Walter. Habes accuratissime lector Aristotelis posteriorum opus ac eius luculentissimum interpretum lincolniensem burleumque... Venice: 1514. Reprint: Frankfurt/Mainz: Minerva, 1966.
      [Translated on Longeway's website. (See “Other Internet Resources,” below.)] (Scholar)
• –––. Quaestiones super librum Posteriorum. Edited by Mary Catherine Sommers. Toronto, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1982.
      [A good critical edition. Portions translated on Longeway's website. (See “Other Internet Resources,” below.)]
• Al Farabi. Catalogo de las Ciencias. Ed. A. Gonzales. Madrid: Palencia, 1932. 2d ed. 1953.
      [“De scientiis” is extant in two translations, one by Gerard of Cremona, and a more abbreviated version by Dominicus Gundissalinus. The division of logic in this work mentions five species of syllogism, one of which is demonstrative syllogism, dealt with in the Posterior Analytics. Demonstrative syllogism gives us the most certain knowledge, and is the part of logic toward which the other parts are directed. That is about all it says, but it is one of the earliest sources avalable in the West mentioning the Posterior Analytics. English translation on Longeway's website (see “Other Internet Resources,” below).
• Ikhwan al-Safa. Liber Introductorius in Artem Logica Demonstrationis. Edited by A. Nagy in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 2 no. 5 (1897) 41-64, ix-xii.
      [Probably this is Gundissalinus's translation. Nagy attributes it to Al Farabi, but J.De Boer identified its correct source in Chapter 13 of the Encyclopedia by the society Ikhwan al-Safa. The author is not fully Aristotelian in his epistemology, holding to a Platonic view reducing the natures of material things to mathematicals. But he has thought through his material, and has a clear idea what a demonstration is. English translation on Longeway's website (see “Other Internet Resources,” below).]
• Al Ghazali. “Logica Algazelis: Introduction and Critical Text.” Ed. Charles H. Lohr. Traditio 223-290.
      [Translation by John Longeway, of proemium and fifth maneria, on Longeway's website English translation on Longeway's website (see “Other Internet Resources,” below).] (Scholar)
• Giles of Rome. Egidius super libros Posteriorum Aristotelis. Venice: Bonetus Locatellus, 1488.
• _______. “De medio demonstrationis.” Ed. Jan Pinborg. Miscellanea Mediaevalia 10 (1976) 240-268. (Scholar)
• Grosseteste, Robert. Commentarius in Posteriorum Analyticorum libros. Ed. Pietro Rossi. Florence: 1982.
      [A good critical edition.]
• John of Cornwall = Pseudo-Scotus. In libris Posteriorum Analyticorum Aristotelis quaestiones. In Duns Scotus, Opera Omnia, Vivès, 1891-95, Vol. 1: 342-430. (Scholar)
• Ockham, William. Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (Ordinatio). Prologus et Distinctio I. Eds. Gedeon Gál and Stephen F. Brown. Opera Theologica, vol. 1. St. Bonaventure, New York: Franciscan Institute, 1967. Prologue. Questions 2 through 6. (Scholar)
• –––. Summa Logicae. Eds. Gedeon Gál and Stephen F. Brown. Opera Philosophica, vol. 1. St. Bonaventure, New York: Franciscan Institute, 1974. Part III.II. (Scholar)
• Richard of Conington. Quodlibetal Questions I, Question 1, and “Quaestio de medio in demonstratione potissima,” ed. in Stephen Brown, “Sources for Ockham's Prologue to the Sentences,” Franciscan Studies 26 (1966) 36-65. (Scholar)
• Soto, Domingo de. Commentarii in Libros Posteriorum Aristotelis. Salamanca: 1543.
• Themistius. “Themistius's Paraphrasis of the Posterior Analytics in Gerard of Cremona's Translation.” Edited by J. Reginald O'Donnell. Medieval Studies 20 (1958) 239-315. (Scholar)
• Thomas Aquinas. Commentarium in libros Posteriorum Analyticorum. In Opera Omnia. (Leonine Edition), Vol. I. Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1882.

Primary Sources in English Translation

• Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle. Translated by Fabian R. Larcher. Albany, New York: Magi Books, Inc., 1970.
• Simon of Faversham. Quaestions on the Posterior Analytics.
      [Two sets, both translated on Longeway's website. (See “Other Internet Resources,” below.)] (Scholar)

Secondary Sources

• Bennett, O. 1943.The Nature of Demonstrative Proof According to the Principles of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press. (Scholar)
• Crombie, Alistair C. 1953.Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science, 1100-1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
      [There is much of value in this detailed study, but Crombie insists on making Grosseteste a kind of skeptical Popperian, completely missing the place of divine illumination in his account of demonstrative science. For criticism, see Serene and Koyré.] (Scholar)
• Demange, Dominique. 2005. “Les Second analytiques aux XIIIe siècle et la théorie de la connaisance de Jean Duns Scot.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ecole Pratique de Hautes Etudes. (Scholar)
• Dod, Bernard G. 1970. “The Study of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” Unpublished B.Litt. thesis. Oxford University.
      [ An excellent survey of work before Grosseteste, and a philologically oriented discussion of Grosseteste's commentary.] (Scholar)
• Ebbeson, Sten. 1976. “Anonymus Aurelianensis II, Aristotle, Alexander, Porphyry and Boethius. Ancient Scholasticism and twelfth-century Western Europe.” Cahiers de l'Institut du moyen âge grec et latin 16, 1-128.
      [ Contains the most complete list of fragments of the Alexander/Philoponus commentary.] (Scholar)
• –––. 1977. “Jacobus Veneticus on the Posterior Analytics and Some Early Thirteenth-century Oxford Masters on the Elenchi.” Cahiers de l'Institut du moyen âge grec et latin 2, 1-9.
      [On the commentary on the Posterior Analytics translated by James of Venice. The medieval scholars thought this was by Alexander of Aphrodisias, but it is nearly identical to Philoponus's commentary on Book I. It did not circulate long after its translation, but was so thoroughly mined for glosses that its contents entered into the stream of commentary literature anyway.] (Scholar)
• Goldin, Owen. 1996. Explaining an Eclipse. Aristotle's Posterior Analytics 2.1-10. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Scholar)
• Guelluy, R. 1947. Philosophie et Theologie chez Guillaume d'Ockham. Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts.
      [Useful for the treatment of scientific knowledge in connection with theology in the Ordinatio.] (Scholar)
• Koyré, Alexander. 1956. “The Origins of Modern Science: a New Interpretation.” Diogenes 16, 1-22.
      [A critique of Crombie.] (Scholar)
• Longeway, John L. 1977. “Simon of Faversham's Questions on the Posterior Analytics: a Thirteenth-century View of Science.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University.
      [A thorough and accurate discussion of the commentary in its own right, but errs in its claim that Simon was not influenced significantly by Thomas.] (Scholar)
• –––. 2002. “Aegidius Romanus and Albertus Magnus vs. Thomas Aquinas on the Highest Sort of Demonstration (demonstratio potissima).” Documenti e Studi Sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 13, 373-434. (Scholar)
• McEvoy, James. 1982. The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
      [Chapter 5, 320-350, is especially pertinent to the Posterior Analytics commentary, but it deals only with knowledge of forms, not of those first principles that are propositions or conclusions.] (Scholar)
• Marrone, Steven P. 1983. William of Auvergne and Robert Grosseteste. New ideas of Truth in the Early Thirteenth Century. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
      [The most extensive recent discussion of Grosseteste's Posterior Analytics commentary. Thorough and intelligent, though Marrone does hold that Grosseteste abandoned the illuminationism of the De Veritate in his later scientific works, a view I find scarcely defensible.] (Scholar)
• Mathews, P.L. 1958-1959. “A Study of the Literary Background and the methodology of St. Thomas's commentary on the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle.” Dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts 19, 2980 ff. (Scholar)
• Minio-Paluello, L. 1951. “Note sull'Aristotle latino medievale. IV: La tradizione semitico-latina del testo dei ‘secondo analitici.’” Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, p. 97-124.
      [Hunain ibn Ishaq (809-876) and his son produced a literal Syrian translation of the Posterior Analytics from a good manuscript about 910, which was translated very literally into Arabic by Abu Bishr Matta in 940. This excellent translation was used by Al Farabi, Al Gazali, and Ibn Sina.] (Scholar)
• –––. 1952. “Note sull'Aristotle latino medievale. V: L'ignota versone Moerbekana dei ‘secondi analitici’ usata da S. Tomaso.” Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, p. 389-411. (Scholar)
• –––. 1952. “Jacobus Veneticus Graecus: Canonist and Translator of Aristotle.” Traditio. 8, 265-304.
      [Establishes, by stylistic analysis, that James of Venice is responsible for the vulgate version of the Posterior Analytics in the Middle Ages. The article ended a long-standing dispute whether the vulgate version is James's or Boethius's, and established the importance of stylistic analysis as a technique for establishing authorship.] (Scholar)
• –––. 1954. “Note sull'Aristotle latino medievale. XIV: Frammenti del commento perduto di Alessando d'Afrodisia ai ‘secondi analitici’ tradotto da Giacomo Veneto in un codice di Goffredo di Fontaines, Parigi B.N. lat. 16080.” Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, p. 131-147.
      [Establishes a stylistic resemblance between James's work and certain commentaries on the Posterior Analytics and the Elenchi, cited in medieval works, hitherto attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias.] (Scholar)
• Owens, J. 1964. “The Analytics and Thomistic metaphysical procedure.” Medieval Studies. 26, 83-108. (Scholar)
• Serene, Eileen F. 1979.“Robert Grosseteste on Induction and Demonstrative Science.” Synthese. 40, 97-115.
      [A criticism of Crombie on Grosseteste's account of induction.] (Scholar)
• –––. 1982. “Demonstrative Science.” Chapter 24 of The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Ed. Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
      [Necessarily somewhat superficial, given the format of the volume, but accurate.] (Scholar)
• Vier, Peter C. 1951. Evidence and its Function According to John Duns Scotus. St. Bonaventure, New York: Franciscan Institute. (Scholar)
• Wallace, William A. 1972. Causality and Scientific Explanation. Vol. I: Medieval and Early Classical Science. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
      [Includes discussions of a number of themes in the Posterior Analytics tradition, involving Grosseteste, Albert, Thomas and others.] (Scholar)
• ––– . 1974. “Aquinas on the Temporal Relation Between Cause and Effect.” The Review of Metaphysics. 27, 569-84. (Scholar)
• –––. 1980. “Albertus Magnus on Suppositional Necessity in the Natural Sciences.” In Albertus Magnus and the Sciences, edited by James A. Weisheipl. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, p. 103-28.
      [Traces Thomas's views on the matter to his teacher.] (Scholar)
• –––. 1980. “The Scientific Methodology of St. Albert the Great.” In Albertus Magnus Doctor Universalis, 1280-1980, edited by Gerbert Meyer and Albert Zimmermann. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, p. 385-407. (Scholar)
• –––. 1981. “The Uses of Hypothesis (Suppositio) in Scientific Reasoning.” In Studies in Aristotle, edited by Dominic J. O'Meara. Washington D.C. (Scholar)
• Walton, William M. 1952. “The Second Mode of Necessary or Per Se Propositions According to St. Thomas Aquinas.” The Modern Schoolman, 29, 293-306.
      [Concerns not only the second way of saying per se but also the fourth. A useful survey of material outside the Posterior Analytics commentary.] (Scholar)
• Webering, Damascene. 1953. Theory of Demonstration According to William of Ockham. St. Bonaventure, New York: The Franciscan Institute. (Scholar)
• Weinberg, Julius R. 1965. “Historical Remarks on Some Medieval Views of Induction.” In Abstraction, Relation and Induction. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, p. 121-153. (Scholar)
• –––. 1977. “Ockham's Theory of Scientific Method.” In Ockham, Descartes and Hume. Self-knowledge, Substance and Causality. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press (Scholar)
• Weisheipl, James A. 1958. “Albertus Magnus and the Oxford Platonists.” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 32, p. 124-39.
      [On Albert's relation to Grosseteste, Kilwardby and Bacon on the nature of subalternation of one science to another, and the metaphysical background of the discussion.] (Scholar)
• –––. 1965. “Classification of the Sciences in Medieval Thought.” Medieval Studies 27, p. 54-90. (Scholar)
• Wolter, Allan B. 1947 “The ‘Theology’ of Duns Scotus.” Franciscan Studies 7, 257-273, 367-398. Reprinted, with minor revisions, in The Philosophical Theology of Duns Scotus. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1990, 209-253.
      [Discusses Scotus's contention that demonstration quia, just as much as demonstration propter quid, arises from evident and necessary truths, and thus produces knowledge in the strictest sense.] (Scholar)
• Wood, Rega. 1996. “Causality and Demonstration: An Early Scholastic Posterior Analytics Commentary.” Monist 99, 325-356.
      [For the commentary of Richard Rufus.] (Scholar)