The catalogues of works by John Buridan include a commentary on the De secretis mulierum by pseudo-Albertus Magnus. The same commentary is also attributed to Buridan in more general studies on medieval natural philosophy as well as in catalogues of manuscripts and repertories of incipits of medieval scientific writings. In most cases, a unique manuscript copy of this commentary is mentioned, namely Erfurt, Universitätsbibliothek, Dep. Erf., CA Q.299. However, in her Répertoire of Masters of Arts at the (...) University of Paris, Olga Weijers claims that Buridan’s commentary on De secretis mulierum can also be found in a different redaction in another manuscript: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ms. lat. 8513. This article examines the question of the attribution of these texts to Buridan. First, it argues that the Parisian text is not a commentary by Buridan on De secretis mulierum but rather a different version of pseudo-Albertus’ work, and second, that Buridan can be considered the author of the quest... (shrink)

This article provides the first edition of a series of eight Quaestiones de secretis mulierum by John Buridan. The introduction discusses the manuscript tradition and the relationship between Buridan’s quaestiones and pseudo-Albertus Magnus’ treatise De secretis mulierum, concluding that Buridan’s questions constitute a genuine commentary on pseudo-Albert’s text. Specifically, the eight questions by Buridan seem to be an extensive elaboration on the preface and on the first chapter of pseudo-Albert’s text.

Albert the Great extracts the best contributions of Neo-Platonism and Aristotelism. He examines the Aristotelian doctrine on the desire for truth present in human nature and the science of Metaphysics, which allows for an inkling of the source of such desire, but this desire is examined more in-depth by the Pseudo-Dionysius, being Theology the science that grants more answers and the most universal because it enables for greater perfection, not just intellectual but of the whole person.

This study tries to identify the core elements of the teaching of Albert the Great on the possibility of a natural knowledge of God and its sources in the negative theology of Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite.

Diese Ausgabe bietet erstmals den vollständigen lateinischen Text des ersten Buches des Kommentars zum Liber de causis in kritischer Edition mit deutscher Übersetzung. Sie entstand als ein Gemeinschaftswerk aller Editoren und Mitarbeiter an der in Progreß befindlichen Editio Coloniensis, der kritischen Gesamtausgabe der Alberti Magni Opera Omnia. Albertus Magnus - der Beiname "der Große" ist seit dem 14. Jahrhundert belegt, nachdem ihm schon die Zeitgenossen den Ehrentitel "doctor universalis" verliehen hatten - wird in den Annalen der Philosophiegeschichte zwar (...) stets respektvoll genannt; aber der Schatten seines großen Schülers, Thomas von Aquin, legte sich lange Zeit so sehr über sein Werk, daß die herausragende Stellung, die Albert für die Grundlegung und Ausgestaltung der Metaphysik in der Philosophie des Mittelalters einnimmt, erst neuerlich wieder in das Zentrum der Forschung gerückt ist. (shrink)

Within the deep philosophical reflection of the thirteenth century are commonly heard names such as Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure. However, little is said of those disciples of lesser brilliance who spread the thought of their teachers. Such is the case of Ulrich of Strasbourg. This Dominican friar, a fellow student of Thomas Aquinas in Cologne, studied under Albertus Magnus the De Divinis nominibus of Pseudo-Dionysius. Years later, Ulrich wrote a work called Summa de (...) bono where, in dealing with beauty, a unique Neoplatonic synthesis operates, but from the original perspective of his master. This paper analyses the concept of beauty present in Ulrich of Strasbourg to show how there is as much clear dependence on Albertian Neoplatonism as there is originality in the presentation of the topic. (shrink)

Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotle says in Posterior Analytics I.2 and Physics I.1 about how we obtain first principles of a science. At Posterior 71b35–72a6, Aristotle states that what is most universal (καθόλου) is better-known by nature and initially less-known to us, while the particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον) is initially better-known to us, but less-known by nature. At Physics 184a21-30, however, Aristotle states that we move from what is better-known to us, which is universal (καθόλου), (...) to what is better-known absolutely, which is particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον). This paper turns to two of Aristotle’s most notable medieval commentators—Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas—to resolve this apparent contradiction. The key to Thomas and Albert’s solutions, we will argue, is a twofold distinction between a sense-perceptive and scientific universal, and the particulars as sensed individuals and as differentiating attributes. Our Synthetic treatment of these distinctions contributes to the ongoing scholarly effort to understand the Stagyrite’s complex theory of knowledge. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:ALBERTUS MAGNUS AND THE NOTION OF SYLLOGISTIC MIDDLE TERM J. M. HUBBARD College of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota ABERT THE GREAT is recognized as one of the great scientific minds of the Middle A:ges, both for his commentaries on Aristotle's scientific works and for his own contributions to the study of nature. His contributions to the science of logic go largely unnoticed, however. This is probably (...) due to the ascendency of the Summulae tradition in medieval logic a.bout the time of Albert's death, for the Summulae traidition is quite different from the one represented in his commentaries on the logical writings of Aristotle. I should like to remedy this a bit by looking at how he understands the concept of middle term in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. There are two points with which we can begin this study. First, Albert insists that Ar.istotle's remark that second and third figure syllogisms are imperfect when compared to those of the first figure does not mean that they somehow lack the necessity cha.racteristic of syHogisms of the first figure. On the contra;ry, all syllogisms, in whatever figure, conclude necessa,rily. This is what it is to be a syllogism. First figure syllogisms are perfect with respect to us, for in them the necessity of consequence, which is the very na;bure of the syllogism, is manifest to us in a way that it is not in syllogisms of the second and third figures. Hence, the marks perfect and imperfeot refer not to the syllogisms in themselves but to the syUogisms in relation to us.1 1 Albertus Magnus, Oommentares CYn the Prior Analytics, Bk. I, Tr. 1, Ch. 8, pp. 469-71. See also Tr. 1, Ch. 6, p. 467, and Tr. 1, Chs. 5 and 6. Page 115 116 J. M. HUBBARD Seoond, the notion of syllogism is coextensive with the notion of middle term, for the middle term is the root and cause of the necessity that characterizes the syllogism. This is why some other kinds of argument, induction and example for instance, are not syllogisms strictly speaking, but only in a loose and improper sense; they lack a true middle term.2 What is it, then, to be a middle term of a syllogism on Albert's reading of Aristotle? Is the middle term middle in some quantitative sense, then? Although Albert uses the expressions scope, breadth, contain, etc., he is quite explicit that the notions of figure and term are transferred " metaphorically " from quantity to properly logical considerations.8 For logic deails not with quantity and its relations, but with relations that exist between things as conceived by the mind, the most fundamental of which is the relation of predica.bility. To be predicable is to be sayable of many things, and although a predicable can be considered a whole in relation to the things of which it is said (its parts then), such talk is metaphorical and not literal. A predicable (whole) is sayable of many things but is not constituted by them. Dog, for instance, is sayable of Fido and Rover, but being a dog is not being Fido and Rover. A whole in the ordinary sense, on the other hand, is not sayable of its parts and is composed of them. One could not say that a wall is a house, but a house is composed, among other things, of a wall. The notions of figure and term, and therefore of middle term, are taken from the quantitative aspects of things and trans£erred to properly logical things. This being so, the notion of middle term cannot be reduced to something quantatative, spatial organization for example. From these remarks one can anticipate how Albert would respond to the suggestion that the middle term is the one that is middle in universality with respect to the other two. This references will be to Oommentaria in Prioru.m A.nalytiooru.m in Opera Omnia, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris: Vives, 1890), Vol. 1. 2 Bk. II, Tr. 7, Ch. 4, p. 794. a Bk. I, Tr. I, Ch. 2, pp. 460-61. ALBERTUS MAGNUS AND THE MIDDLE TERM 117 would... (shrink)

Giovanni Santinello in his insightful analysis and Italian translation2 of Nicholas of Cusa’s sermon “Tota Pulchra Es, Amica Mea” rightly points out that this sermon is the only work in which Nicholas deals systematically with the theme of beauty. Yet, he also points out that this theme pervades Nicholas ’s other works, even though it does not surface in them extensively. Santinello goes on to exhibit the direct borrowings that Nicholas makes from Pseudo-Dionysius’s De Divinis Nominibus and from (...) class='Hi'>Albertus Magnus’s commentary Super Dionysium De Divinis Nomin- ibus. Santinello then explores the issue of Nicholas ’s originality and concludes that “il pensiero estetico del Cusano ha una sua notevole originalità, e … il concetto albertista del bello … trova la sua giustificazione nel sistema filosofico e nelle convinzioni estetiche che sono proprie del Cusano.”. (shrink)

On how medieval philosophy is not (only) theology.

Gedachtnis und Erinnerung sind grundlegende Phanomene unseres geistigen Lebens, mit denen sich das abendlandische Denken seit der Antike intensiv auseinander gesetzt hat, von Platon uber Augustinus bis zu gegenwartigen Forschungen in der empirischen Psychologie und Neurophysiologie. Bei Albertus Magnus finden sich uber sein ganzes Werk verteilt immer wieder intensive Reflexionen zu dieser Thematik; sie zeigen, dass er den Fragen, wie und woran man sich (wieder-)erinnert, eine grundlegende anthropologische Bedeutung zugemessen hat. Eine Schlusselstellung fur das Verstandnis in Alberts Oeuvre (...) besitzt dabei sein Kommentar zur aristotelischen Schrift "Uber Gedachtnis und Wiedererinnerung" (De memoria et reminiscentia), dessen kritische Edition zeitgleich in der "Editio Coloniensis" erscheint. Die von Jorn Muller vorgelegte philosophische Lekture dieser Schrift weist nach, dass Albert auf der Basis arabischer Deutungen eine auaerst originelle Interpretation der aristotelischen Gedachtnislehre prasentiert, deren problemgeschichtliche Stellung in der Forschung bisher weitgehend verkannt worden ist. Albert begreift Gedachtnis und Erinnern im Wesentlichen akthaft, also von ihren Vollzugen aus, und zwar als eine Ruckkehr zu der vergangenen Sache, insofern sie vergangen ist. Damit der Leserschaft uber die vorgelegte Interpretation hinaus die Moglichkeit gegeben wird, diese Konzeption selbst Schritt fur Schritt nachzuvollziehen, ist dem Text als Anhang die erste vollstandige Ubersetzung von Alberts Kommentar ins Deutsche beigegeben. (shrink)

Excerpt from Albertus Magnus: Beitrge zu Seiner Wrdigung Eine hiervon wesentlich verschiedene Richtung verfolgt der kleine Aufsatz an dritter Stelle. Es ist darin der Versuch gemacht, aus den Aussprchen Alberts den Standpunkt zu rekonstruieren, welchen die Scholastik in ihrer Betrachtung der Welt und in ihren Versuchen der Naturerklrung einnahm, und war ich namentlich bestrebt, die Probleme heraustreten zu lassen, welche den manch mal sehr abstrakt und fremdartig klingenden Errterungen zu grunde liegen. Mehr noch als in den beiden voranstehenden, (...) war leider bei dieser letzten Untersuchung die Beschrnkung auf das engste Ma geboten. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

In dialogue De natura caelestium spirituum quos angelos vocamus, published in 1499 in Florence, Juraj Dragišić mentioned different philosophical and theological authors and their works. Croatian scientists in their papers dedicated to Juraj Dragišić mention these authors and their work. This paper intends to commit the majority of its attention to Christian authors mentioned by Dragišić in his dialogue, to list most of the referred names and show who does he mention the most. Thus, in this paper in the context (...) of Dragišićʼs discussion on angels, the following authors are cited primarily: Albertus Magnus, Ambrose, Anselm of Canterbury, Augustine of Hippo, Bede, Boethius, Bonaventure, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Duns Scotus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory the Great, Henry of Ghent, John of Damascus, John Chrysostom, Hieronymus, Origen and Thomas Aquinas. These authors can be divided into two groups: patristic writers and medieval Church writers. (shrink)

Albertus Magnus favours the Aristotelian definition of the soul as the first actuality or perfection of a natural body having life potentially. But he interprets Aristotle's vocabulary in a way that it becomes compatible with the separability of the soul from the body. The term “perfectio” is understood as referring to the soul's activity only, not to its essence. The term “forma” is avoided as inadequate for defining the soul's essence. The soul is understood as a substance which (...) exists independently of its actions and its body. The article shows that Albertus' terminological decisions continue a tradition reaching from the Greek commentators, and John Philoponos in particular, to Avicenna. Albertus' position on another important issue is also influenced by Arabic sources. His defense of the unity of the soul's vegetative, animal and rational parts rests on arguments from Avicenna and Averroes. It is shown that Averroes' position on the problem is not clearcut: he advocates the unity thesis, but also teaches the plurality of the generic and individual forms in man. This double stance is visible in the Latin reception of Averroes' works, and also in Albertus, who presents Averroes both as supporter and opponent of the plurality thesis. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: I II III IV V VI VII VIII.

During the past three decades, Aristotle studies have been significantly influenced by a series of ground-breaking investigations of the zoological works, especially the Historia animalium. As a result, contemporary Aristotle scholars have developed a clearer and more consistent interpretation of the zoology and have demonstrated its consonance with Aristotle’s logic and metaphysics. This revolution in Aristotle studies was anticipated by the medieval natural philosopher Albertus Magnus. As the first thinker since Theophrastus to pursue an Aristotelian research program in (...) the life sciences, he interpreted Aristotle’s animal histories as a series of pre-demonstrative researches preparatory to causal explanation as prescribed in the Posterior Analytics and the Topics. The medieval anticipation of these recent developments in Aristotle studies provides a compelling comparison of the interpretation of Aristotle now and then. (shrink)

The German philosophical culture of the Middle Ages is inextricable linked to the thought of Albert the Great. This volume brings together 14 papers, which deal with Albert's influence from the points of view of mysticism, philosophy, and the history of universities.