John Buridans Questions On Aristotles de Anima Iohannis Buridani Quaestiones in Aristotelis de Anima Gyula Klima Full Chapter PDF

John Buridan’s Questions on
Aristotle’s De Anima – Iohannis

Buridani Quaestiones in Aristotelis De
Anima Gyula Klima
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/john-buridans-questions-on-aristotles-de-anima-iohan
nis-buridani-quaestiones-in-aristotelis-de-anima-gyula-klima/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Petit manuel de survie en médecine intensive-

réanimation : 80 procédures en poche Nicolas Lerolle
https://ebookmass.com/product/petit-manuel-de-survie-en-medecine-
intensive-reanimation-80-procedures-en-poche-nicolas-lerolle/
80+ Python Coding Challenges for Beginners: Python

Exercises to Make You a Better Programmer. No Prior
Experience Needed: 80+ Python Challenges to Launch ...
Journey. Katie Millie
https://ebookmass.com/product/80-python-coding-challenges-for-
beginners-python-exercises-to-make-you-a-better-programmer-no-
prior-experience-needed-80-python-challenges-to-launch-journey-
katie-millie/
Introduction to 80×86 Assembly Language and Computer

Architecture – Ebook PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-8086-assembly-
language-and-computer-architecture-ebook-pdf-version/
Biological Reaction Engineering: Dynamic Modeling

Fundamentals with 80 Interactive Simulation Examples
3rd Edition Elmar Heinzle
https://ebookmass.com/product/biological-reaction-engineering-
dynamic-modeling-fundamentals-with-80-interactive-simulation-
examples-3rd-edition-elmar-heinzle/
„■■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■...“ : ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■ 80-■■■■
■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ 2-■ ■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■■■■■■ Edi
■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
https://ebookmass.com/product/%d0%b1%d1%8b%d1%82%d1%8c-
%d1%82%d0%b5%d0%b1%d0%b5-%d0%b2-
%d0%ba%d0%b0%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bb%d0%be%d0%b6%d0%ba%d0%b5-
%d1%81%d0%b1%d0%be%d1%80%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba-%d0%b2-%d1%87%d0
Aristotle, De motu animalium: Text and Translation

Oliver Primavesi
https://ebookmass.com/product/aristotle-de-motu-animalium-text-
and-translation-oliver-primavesi/
L'oeuvre de John Cleland: Mémoires de Fanny Hill, femme

de plaisir / Introduction, essai bibliographique par
Guillaume Apollinaire John Cleland
https://ebookmass.com/product/loeuvre-de-john-cleland-memoires-
de-fanny-hill-femme-de-plaisir-introduction-essai-
bibliographique-par-guillaume-apollinaire-john-cleland/
El Puño de la Fe John Bentley
https://ebookmass.com/product/el-puno-de-la-fe-john-bentley/
Another Man's Shoes John C De Groot
https://ebookmass.com/product/another-mans-shoes-john-c-de-groot/
Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action 9
Gyula Klima
Peter G. Sobol
Peter Hartman
Jack Zupko
John Buridan’s
Questions on Aristotle’s
De Anima – Iohannis
Buridani Quaestiones
in Aristotelis De Anima
Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature,
Mind and Action
Volume 9
Editor-in-Chief
Gyula Klima, Fordham University, New York, USA
Series Editors
Russell Wilcox, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Hendrik Lagerlund, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Jonathan Jacobs, CUNY, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, USA
Dan Bonevac, University of Texas, Austin, USA
Sarah Borden, Wheaton College, Wheaton, USA
Edward Feser, Pasadena College, Pasadena, USA
Jorge Garcia, University of Buffalo, New York, USA
William Jaworski, Fordham University, New York, USA
Joseph E. Davis, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
Stephan Meier-Oeser, Academy of Sciences of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
Jose Ignacio Murillo, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Calvin Normore, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA
Penelope Rush, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Jack Zupko, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action provides a forum for
integrative, multidisciplinary, analytic studies in the areas of philosophy of na-
ture, philosophical anthropology, and the philosophy of mind and action in their
social setting. Tackling these subject areas from both a historical and contempo-
rary systematic perspective, this approach allows for various “paradigm-straddlers”
to come together under a common umbrella. Digging down to the conceptual-
historical roots of contemporary problems, one will inevitably find common strands
which have since branched out into isolated disciplines. This series seeks to fill the
void for studies that reach beyond their own strictly defined boundaries not only
synchronically (reaching out to contemporary disciplines), but also diachronically,
by investigating the unquestioned contemporary presumptions of their own disci-
pline by taking a look at the historical development of those presumptions and the
key concepts they involve. This series, providing a common forum for this sort of
research in a wide range of disciplines, is designed to work against the well-known
phenomenon of disciplinary isolation by seeking answers to our fundamental ques-
tions of the human condition: What is there? – What can we know about it? –
What should we do about it? – indicated by the three key-words in the series title:
Nature, Mind and Action. This series will publish monographs, edited volumes,
and commented translations.
Gyula Klima • Peter G. Sobol • Peter Hartman •
Jack Zupko
John Buridan’s Questions on

Aristotle’s De Anima –
Iohannis Buridani
Quaestiones in Aristotelis De
Anima
Gyula Klima Peter G. Sobol
Department of Philosophy McFarland
Fordham University WI, USA
New York, NY, USA
Peter Hartman Jack Zupko

Department of Philosophy Department of Philosophy
Loyola University Chicago University of Alberta
Chicago, IL, USA Edmonton, AB, Canada
This work was supported by National Endowment for the Humanities

ISSN 2509-4793 ISSN 2509-4807 (electronic)
Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action
ISBN 978-3-030-94432-2 ISBN 978-3-030-94433-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94433-9
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publica-
tion does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments
We have benefited greatly from the assistance of others since embark-

ing on this project over a decade ago.
To organize the project and coordinate our efforts during the ini-
tial phase, the editors and translators held meetings at the Radboud
University Nijmegen, the University of Western Ontario, Université
du Québec à Montréal, the University of Wisconsin (Madison), the
University of Winnipeg, and Fordham University. We are grateful to
those institutions for hosting us, and in particular to Hans Thijssen,
Paul Bakker, Henrik Lagerlund, and Claude Panaccio, for inviting us
and providing welcome surroundings in which to work.
Sharon Alford spent many hours on the microfilm reader at Emory
University library preparing digital copies of our manuscripts from
microfilms for all of us to use. Peter King offered technical advice on
editing medieval texts and assistance to the project in its early stages.
We were able to rely on outside readers to spot errors and infelic-
ities in the draft text of our Latin edition, and in this capacity, we are
happy to acknowledge the expert eyes of Robert Andrews, Joël Biard,
and Claude Panaccio. We have not adopted their thoughtful sugges-
tions in all cases, however, and we are of course responsible for any
errors that remain.
Portions of the translation were tested in a number of venues,
such as Gyula Klima’s graduate seminar at Fordham University, Jack
Zupko’s philosophical Latin reading group at the University of Al-
berta, and the students in Peter Hartman’s philosophy graduate semi-
nar at Loyola University Chicago. Again, with the translation, Claude
Panaccio’s keen understanding of fourteenth-century philosophical
discourse helped us in many places where the manuscripts did not.
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI
Finally, we thank the National Endowment of the Humanities,

whose financial support in the form of a Grant for Editions and Trans-
lations (RZ-50988-09) made the edition and translation possible, as
well as a grant for a supporting conference co-sponsored by Fordham
University in 2012 (RZ-51468-12), which yielded a volume of accom-
panying interpretive essays edited by Gyula Klima, Questions on the
Soul by John Buridan and Others: A Companion to John Buridan’s
Philosophy of Mind (Springer 2017).
Introduction
Life and Works
John Buridan was born around 1300, probably in the diocese of Arras,
Picardy. He attended the Collège Lemoine in Paris on a scholarship
and then the University of Paris, where he was a member of the Picard
Nation. He was formally licensed as a teaching master in the Faculty
of Arts by the mid-1320s. His earliest works were polemical in na-
ture — short treatises criticizing contemporary views on the nature of
relations, points, and universals — but he soon became known for his
lectures on logic, which were eventually revised as his logical mas-
terwork, the Summulae de dialectica. This work, ostensibly written
as a commentary on a popular logic text by Peter of Spain, moved far
beyond Peter’s work in scope, method, and philosophical insight, to
become one of the most widely used logic texts in the later Middle
Ages. Buridan also lectured extensively on the works of Aristotle that
formed the basis of the arts curriculum in Paris, writing commentaries
on virtually the entire Aristotelian corpus, including De anima or On
the Soul, the work edited here; indeed, the textual tradition indicates
that he lectured on particular Aristotelian texts more than once, pre-
sumably polishing and further elaborating his ideas in the process. He
is a careful and for the most part sympathetic expositor of Aristotle,
but never afraid to reject the philosopher’s views when there is good
reason to do so. Like the Summulae de dialectica itself, his Aris-
totle commentaries were copied and widely circulated at universities
in Central and Eastern Europe, where they served as textbooks and
reference sources for scholars and students of Aristotle well into the
VII
I NTRODUCTION VIII
sixteenth century.1 Buridan continued lecturing, writing, and being

active in the scholarly community in Paris until the late 1350s. We
do not know his exact death date, but it is likely to have been before
1361, when there is a record of one of his sources of scholarly support
being awarded to another person.2
Versions of the Text

The text we edit here is the third and final version of Buridan’s Ques-
tions on Aristotle’s De Anima (Quaestiones in Aristotelis De anima).
It is clearly identified as Buridan’s third or final set of lectures (“tertia
sive ultima lectura”) on De anima in the catalogue tradition as well
as in several of the manuscripts.3 From this we can infer that Buri-
dan lectured on De anima on two previous occasions, although we
have yet to find manuscripts we can definitively identify as originat-
ing from his first or second lectures.
Buridan’s third and final set of lectures on De anima is also a com-
piled [compilatus] text, meaning that it was probably revised by Buri-
dan himself from original classroom notes taken down by a student or
secretary.4 The text we present here shows every sign of having been
1 See, for example, the extensive analysis provided by Andrews 2016 of the “su-
percommentary” on De anima — i.e., a commentary on Buridan’s commentary on
Aristotle’s De anima — by Bero Magni de Ludosia, a Swedish master active at
the University of Vienna between 1429 and 1465. Indeed, Buridan’s commentaries
were evidently so useful that they sometimes replaced the texts of Aristotle in the
classroom; as Flüeler 2008 writes in connection with Buridan’s commentary on the
Nicomachean Ethics, “In fact, I am able to verify that the masters of the Faculty
of Arts in Vienna did not read Aristotle at all! Aristotle was not the subject of the
lectures; instead, the masters read Buridan’s questions on the Aristotelian Ethics”
(265).
2 For Buridan’s career and comprehensive discussion of his philosophy, see
Zupko 2003 and Klima 2008, as well as Zupko’s 2018 entry on Buridan in the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
3 For example, the explicits of manuscripts S and U below both refer to their texts
as the “tertia lectura” of Buridan’s Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De anima.

4 This is attested to in the colophons of four manuscripts (AOR and V below).
Two of these manuscripts (O and R) even go so far as to describe the questions

as “edited [editae]” by Buridan. For the significance of compilation in manuscript
copies of Buridan’s commentaries, see Flüeler 1999, 513–15.
IX I NTRODUCTION
well established in Buridan’s lifetime, despite occasional and minor

differences in wording among the three main families or groups of
manuscripts (labeled α , β , and γ ) described below.
Buridan’s commentary provides a comprehensive philosophical
treatment of Aristotle’s De anima, both in terms of the number (51)
and length of the questions raised as well as the complexity of their
argumentative structure. The text of the tertia sive ultima lectura
survives in some 24 manuscripts in varying conditions and states of
completeness. Again, because no manuscript has been identified as
containing one of the earlier versions, we cannot tell how Buridan’s
psychology might have evolved between the prima and ultima lec-
tura. We know that such a manuscript once existed because there is
a medieval record of a bequest to the library of Heidelberg University
of a volume containing “certain questions by Buridan on the book,
De anima, but not from the final set of lectures [quedam questiones
circa librum De anima a Biridano, sed non de ultima lectura].”5 Un-
fortunately, this volume has been lost. We do have 15 manuscripts
of a somewhat abbreviated text with fewer questions,6 which may be
the remains of one or both earlier lectures, or later abridgements by
Arts Masters who used Buridan’s commentary as the basis for their
own lectures on De anima at one of the newly founded universities in
Eastern Europe,7 or both. In 1991 Benoı̂t Patar produced an edition of
a commentary or commentaries on De anima based on three anony-
mous manuscripts, which he claimed to be Buridan’s prima lectura,
or a hitherto unidentified first set of lectures on the text.8 But doubts
have been raised about the validity of Patar’s claim,9 and a more re-
cent study of these same manuscripts by Paul Bakker and Sander de
5 Michael1985, 705.
6 Descriptionsof each manuscript along with titles of individual questions are
provided in Michael 1985, 684–89.
7 For these abridgements, which Markowski 1984 terms “rédactions pragoise,”
see Markowski 1971, 1984, and 1988.

8 Patar 1991.
9 See the reviews of Patar’s edition by Sten Ebbesen (1994, 758–62), Zénon
Kaluza (1995, 136–39), and Christoph Flüeler (1995, 218–24). It should be pointed
out that the authorship of the text found in the main manuscript (Bruges 477) from
which Patar constructed his edition has been a matter of dispute for some time, and
that no scholarly consensus has formed around the question.
I NTRODUCTION X
Boer concludes that, despite some surface similarities, there is no con-

clusive reason to attribute the text to Buridan because the contents also
exhibit similarities to the De anima commentary of Buridan’s younger
contemporary, Nicole Oresme.10 Accordingly, Bakker and de Boer
conclude that the manuscripts should be catalogued as anonymous
commentaries produced around the same time and in the same con-
text as those of Buridan and Oresme.11 There is also an early printed
edition of a set of Quaestiones on De anima edited by George Lokert
(Paris 1516) and attributed to Buridan,12 but the text corresponds to
none of the surviving manuscripts. For a time it was thought that Lok-
ert might have abridged the text of the edition from a lost manuscript
of one of the earlier redactions.13 But a recent article concludes that
Buridan is unlikely to have been the sole source of this text.14
It is possible that further study of these 15 manuscripts will reveal
that they contain earlier versions of Buridan’s De anima commen-
tary. Until that happens, no picture can be given of the development
of Buridan’s teachings in psychology. Thankfully, that task can be
set aside for now because the text edited here, the tertia sive ultima
lectura, is an independent work and clearly intended as such by its
author. In it, Buridan refers numerous times to his commentaries on
other works of Aristotle, but never to his earlier lectures on De anima;
nor does he ever suggest that an argument or conclusion expressed in
the final version represents a change from, or an elaboration of, a po-
sition taken previously.15 This makes it more likely that the relation
between earlier and later versions of a commentary was in Buridan’s
10 For example, the work contained in the Bruges 477 manuscript makes extensive
use of the perspectivist tradition in its discussion of the propagation and reception
of sensible species, which is something we find in Oresme’s psychology but not
Buridan’s.
11 Bakker and de Boer 2012.
12 Georgius Lokert Scotus 1516. The volume contains a collection of texts, in-
cluding editions of Buridan’s Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De anima as well as on the

books of the Parva Naturalia.
13 See Michael 1985, 716–17.
14 de Boer 2014.
15 Elsewhere, Buridan does not hesitate to tell us when he changes his mind about
something, as in his treatment of self-referential paradoxes in the Sophismata (Sum-

mulae de dialectica IX, Chapter 8, Seventh Sophism: “Every proposition is false”;
tr. Klima 2001, 967–68).
XI I NTRODUCTION
mind one of supersession rather than continuous development and re-

finement; in other words, Buridan delivered his tertia lectura on De
anima with the idea that it would be his “official” treatment of the
subject, replacing earlier commentaries.16
Genre
Like other texts in the medieval genre of quaestiones, Buridan’s com-
mentary is divided into particular problems or issues (the quaestiones)
he takes to be raised by the authoritative text under discussion: in this
case the three books of Aristotle’s De anima. He devotes 6 questions
to Book I, 25 to Book II, and 20 to Book III. In keeping with the
standard form of such commentaries, each question is headed by the
Latin verb “quaeritur” (“it is asked”) followed by the interrogative
pronoun “utrum” (“whether”) and the question under consideration
(e.g., in q. 9 of Book III, “quaeritur utrum intellectus humanus possit
se intelligere” [“it is asked whether the human intellect is able to un-
derstand itself”]).17 Typically, the topic question is based on a lemma
from the Latin version of Aristotle’s text; we have identified where
this is so in our edition. But just as often, and not unlike readers of
Aristotle in our own time, Buridan is interested in pursuing issues
that are tangential to Aristotle’s discussion. For example, in q. 14 of
Book III, he uses Aristotle’s De anima III.6 (430b 21) remark about
points being understood as privations as an opportunity to present
his own divisibilist solution to the problem of analyzing continuous
magnitudes — a solution also discussed at length in other works,
where the topic seems more germane.18 But this is not surprising. In
fact, the medieval genre of quaestiones was more freewheeling than
16 This characterization also seems borne out by the manuscript tradition. The
tertia sive ultima lectura was evidently the version of choice for copying and further
propagation, as its surviving copies far outnumber any other Quaestiones on De
anima attributed to Buridan.
17 In the translation, we actually rendered these as direct “yes/no” questions (“Is
the human intellect able to understand itself?”) to indicate more clearly the disputa-
tional character of the discussion.
18 For example, in Book VI, qq. 1–4 of his Quaestiones on Aristotle’s Physics
(Paris 1509, 93vb –98va ).

I NTRODUCTION XII
its origins as a commentary on a prescribed text might suggest, to the

point where Arts Masters such as Buridan felt no compunction about
reusing materials they had presented on other occasions and in other
contexts, much in the way university lecturers do today.19
Although there is no evidence to suggest Arts Masters were re-
quired or even expected to treat of certain topics in their commen-
taries, a loose but identifiable tradition of questions developed around
the text of the De anima,20 usually keyed to specific passages, such
as Aristotle’s remark in Book II, chapter 5 (418a 13) that no error is
possible regarding proper sensibles (discussed by Buridan in q. 11 of
Book II of his commentary), or in Book III, chapter 10 (433b 5–6),
about the contrariety of appetites (which Buridan treats in q. 18 of
Book III). But the genre offered plenty of room for an author to pose
his own questions and to explore the implications of Aristotle’s teach-
ings via passages in other texts, in this case the psychological treatises
of Aristotle’s Parva Naturalia (qq. 24–25 of Book II), as well as the
controversial interpretations of other authorities, such as Averroës and
Alexander of Aphrodisias (qq. 3–6 of Book III).
There were other medieval genres of commentary, such as the ex-
positio, or literal commentary, which, as the name suggests, involved
closer explication of the actual wording of an authoritative text, di-
vided lemmatically into sections and arguments.21 Five manuscripts
have been identified as containing Buridan’s expositio on Aristotle’s
De anima;22 these appear to represent three different redactions of
19 Likewise, Buridan explicitly connects q. 8 of Book III of his De anima com-
mentary, “Utrum intellectus prius intelligit universale quam singulare, quam e con-
verso” (see III.8, par. 43 below), with q. 7 of Book I of his Physics commentary,
“Utrum universalia sunt nobis notiora singularibus”, which covers much of the
same material (ed. Streijger and Bakker, 76–77)
20
See the comprehensive study in Christensen 2018.
21 The division of the text of the three books of De anima is due to its commenta-
tors, beginning in late antiquity, most likely for purposes of teaching and study. The
most influential medieval division was that of Averroës (1126–1198), whose Long
Commentary on De anima appeared in the West in a Latin translation by Michael
Scot around 1225. From then on, medieval commentators on De anima, including
both Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, were able to read and study Averroës’
commentary, or at least excerpts thereof. Buridan sometimes quotes from it verba-
tim, e.g., in III.2, par. 6 and III.3, par. 7 below.
22 Michael 1985, 677–83.
XIII I NTRODUCTION
the same commentary, which would correspond to the three versions

of the question commentary that probably would have accompanied
them.23 As indicated above, the expositio and the quaestiones both
originated as classroom lectures on a text that students were required
to “read” for their bachelor’s degree.
We do not know precisely how Buridan gave his lecture courses,
but there is some evidence to suggest that his practice was to deliver
the expositio or literal commentary on a given passage and then any
quaestiones he took to be raised by it in close proximity, perhaps even
on the same day.24 If this is correct, the pedagogical benefit would be
to bring the philosophical discussion into alignment with the letter of
the text. Be that as it may, the practice was usually not followed when
the lectures were transcribed and revised for publication and copying
because the two works were almost always bound separately. None
of the surviving manuscripts of the Quaestiones edited here is bound
with its corresponding expositio.
Authenticity
John Buridan is clearly the author of our text. In addition to it being
ascribed to him by name in many manuscripts,25 there are numer-
ous references in it to other commentaries we know were written by
Buridan, i.e., his Questions on Aristotle’s Physics, Meteorology, De
caelo, Metaphysics, and Nicomachean Ethics, as well as to Buridan’s
own logical masterwork, the Summulae de dialectica. As can be seen
23 Michael 1985, 718. On Buridan’s expositiones (or “dicta” in some manus-
cripts), see Flüeler 1999, 502–506.
24 By studying the watermarks on a copy of Buridan’s expositio and quaestiones
on Aristotle’s Metaphysics written during Buridan’s lifetime (Paris BN lat. 16131),

Christoph Flüeler discovered that the scribe used sheets of paper from the same
ream to write first the literal commentary and then the question(s) corresponding to
it, before proceeding to the next passage from Aristotle, showing that “the commen-
taries were written down in an alternating fashion, but at the same time period, and
in two different fascicles” (Flüeler 1999, 509).
25 For example, among the manuscripts used for this edition, Buridan is identified
as the author of the work in the explicit to Book I in mss. A and T (see I.6, par. 19
below) and again in the explicit to the entire text at the end of Book III, in mss. A
and V (see III.20, par. 19 below).
I NTRODUCTION XIV
from the apparatus fontium of our edition, these references are accu-
rate and almost always relevant to the topic under discussion. Finally,
the arguments and doctrines presented in our text are all recognizably
Buridanian in the sense that they fit the characteristically nominalist
positions he defends in other works, as well as employing the same
kind of fine-grained logical and conceptual analysis to defend them.
Dating
We do not know precisely when Buridan delivered the lectures on De
anima that became the commentary edited here. There is a reference
in q. 11 of Book III to certain articles from the 1347 Parisian Con-
demnation of the views of the theologian, John of Mirecourt, who was
Buridan’s contemporary. Since this does not appear to be a later in-
terpolation, it gives us a terminus post quem: our text must have been
composed after 1347. As for a terminus ante quem, there are only
two clear references to the De anima commentary in Buridan’s other
works, suggesting that it was written fairly late in his career. These
are in Book X, q. 2 of his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics,
and in Book I, q. 7 of his commentary on the Meteorology.26 If Bernd
Michael is right that the latter commentary dates from 1357/58,27
then the tertia lectura of Buridan’s De anima commentary must have
been produced between 1347 and 1358. Buridan’s probable death
date gives us a terminus ante quem only slightly later. We know from
his being mentioned in a 1358 jurisdictional dispute at the Univer-
sity of Paris that he was still alive in that year,28 but probably not
after 1361, when one of his benefices was reassigned, something that
26 Buridan briefly refers to Book II, q. 10 and Book III, q. 10 of his Quaestiones
in Aristotelis De anima (the work edited here) in Book X, q. 2 of his Quaestiones
super decem libros Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nicomachum (Paris 1513, f. 205rb ; tr.
Kilcullen 2001, 516). The reference in Book I, q. 7 of the Quaestiones in libros
Meteorologicorum Aristotelis is to Book II, q. 18 of the Quaestiones in Aristotelis
De anima. For further details, see Michael 1985, 673–74 and 706–8. As Michael
demonstrates, the references can only be to the third and final version of Buridan’s
commentary.
27 Michael 1985, 659–75.
28 The available evidence is canvassed in Michael 1985, 399–404. Michael be-
lieves Buridan’s actual death date to be October 11, 1360.

XV I NTRODUCTION
would typically be occasioned by the decease of its incumbent. So,

our text was probably composed between 1347 and 1358, and almost
certainly before 1361.
Bernd Michael speculates further that our text might have been
written later in the 1350s because the Mirecourt reference in Book III,
q. 11 includes a reference to another late work, the final version of
Buridan’s Questions on Aristotle’s Physics. He concludes, “of all the
works of Buridan which originated in the 1350s, the tertia lectura of
the De anima is evidently one of the last.”29
Manuscripts
Twenty-three manuscripts have been identified containing the text of
the tertia sive ultima lectura of Buridan’s Quaestiones in Aristotelis
De anima.30 None of them appears to have been copied during Buri-
dan’s lifetime; the earliest that can be reliably dated (A = Berlin 566)
was written in 1382, more than two decades after Buridan’s death.
This is not unusual in the case of Buridan. Christoph Flüeler has
found that only seven of approximately 250 surviving copies of Buri-
dan’s works were definitively produced during his lifetime.31 Buri-
dan’s reputation meant that his works were copied often, and, as we
shall see below, recopied at other places far from Paris, an activity that
continued well into the fifteenth century.
29
Michael 1985, 708.
30 Full descriptions of most of the manuscripts in our list are available in the two
most comprehensive manuscript studies to date: the 1985 doctoral dissertation of
Bernd Michael, which gives the state of primary text research on Buridan up to
about 1978, and the editor’s introduction to Patar 1991. See also footnote 68 below.
31 Flüeler 1999, 501. Flüeler also contends that the small number of manuscripts
dating from Buridan’s lifetime indicates “his fame was established only after his
death” (ibid. 501–502). We tend to agree, if by “fame” is meant Buridan’s fame
outside Paris. Buridan was famous during his lifetime in Paris, as his career in the
University (twice serving as its Rector, in 1328 and 1340) attests.
I NTRODUCTION XVI
Based on the pioneering research of Edmond Faral,32 supple-

mented by more recent studies by Charles Lohr,33 Zdzisław Kuk-
sewicz,34 Jozef de Raedemaeker,35 Ryszard Palacz,36 Peter C. Mar-
shall,37 Bernd Michael, Benoı̂t Patar, Christoph Flüeler, Paul Bakker,
and Sander de Boer,38 the following manuscripts have been identified
as containing the text of the tertia sive ultima lectura of Buridan’s
Quaestions on De anima (preceded by the letter designation used in
this edition):
1. [A]: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek 566, ff. 1ra –65ra39
2. [B]: Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr.

A.5.1365, ff. 228ra–267vb40
3. [C]: Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr.

C.4.263, ff. 1ra –68rb41
4. [D]: Krakow, Biblioteka Jagiellonska 2083, ff. 70r –117v42
5. [E]: Liège, Bibliothèque de l’Université 346 C, ff. 53r –95r43

32 Faral 1946 and 1949.
33 Lohr 1970, 172–74.
34 Kuksewicz 1961.
35 de Raedemaeker 1963.
36 Palacz 1970.
37
Marshall 1983.
38
Bakker and de Boer 2012.
39 Michael 1985, 694; Patar 1991, 40*: northern Italian provenance; dated 1382
by the scribe.
40 Michael 1985, 695; Patar 1991, 46*–47*: incomplete (text ends in the middle
of Book III, q. 4); northern Italian provenance; Michael dates to the fifteenth century.
41
Michael 1985, 695; Patar 1991, 38*: northern Italian provenance (Augustinian
friary of Padua, according to the explicit); Michael dates to the end of the fourteenth
or beginning of the fifteenth century.
42 Michael 1985, 696; Patar 1991, 38*: incomplete (text ends in Book III, q. 4);
probably produced in Krakow; Michael dates to the end of the fourteenth or begin-
ning of the fifteenth century.
43 Not listed in Michael 1985; Patar 1991, 38*–39*; the manuscript is described
in Streijger, Bakker, and Thijssen 2010, 17; provenance unknown; Patar dates to
c. 1370 as the text is bound with a copy of a Quaestiones De longitudine et brevitate
vitae with that date.
XVII I NTRODUCTION
6. [F]: Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana P.120 sup., ff. 74ra –135va44
7. [G]: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 742, f. 2r –52vb45
8. [H]: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 18794, f. 93r –

195v46
9. [I]: Oxford, Bodleian Library Canon auct. class. lat. 278,

f. 2r –36r47
10. [J]: Oxford, Bodleian Library Canon misc. 393, 1ra –75vb48
11. [K]: Perugia, Biblioteca Communale Augusta N.43, ff. 3ra –60ra49
12. [L]: Roma, Biblioteca Angelica 480 (D.7.6), ff. 6ra –75vb50
13. [M]: Roma, Biblioteca Angelica 592 (F.6.4), ff. 113ra–187vb51
14. [N]: Roma, Biblioteca Angelica 593 (F.6.5), ff. 93ra –148ra52
44 Michael 1985, 696; Patar 1991, 39*: provenance unknown; Michael dates to
the fifteenth century.
45
Michael 1985, 696; Patar 1991, 41*: provenance unknown, but ms. was pur-
chased from the collection of the Italian humanist Petrus Victorius (1499–1585);
dated 1387 in the explicit, 1388 in the tabula quaestionum.
46 Not listed in Michael 1985; Patar 1991, 39*: provenance unknown; dated 1401
in the explicit.
47 Michael 1985, 696–97; Patar 1991, 41*–42*: northern Italian provenance, pos-
sibly Padua or Bologna (Michael); dated 1394 in the explicit.

48 Not listed in Michael 1985; Patar 1991, 39*: northern Italian provenance, prob-
ably Padua; dated 1401 in the explicit to Book I; author misidentified as Blasius of
Parma in the content summary.
49 Michael 1985, 734; Patar 1991, 42*: provenance uncertain; dated 1394 in the
explicit.
50
Michael 1985, 697–98; Patar 1991, 39*–40*: northern Italian provenance;
scribe identifies himself as a master at Piacenza, on the basis of which Michael
suggests the ms. was written c. 1398–1402.
51 Michael 1985, 698; Patar 1991, 45*: northern Italian provenance; date un-
certain, but probably fourteenth century (codex also contains a copy of Albert of
Saxony’s commentary on De caelo made in Bologna and dated 1368 in the explicit;
another part of the codex [but not the one containing Buridan’s Quaestiones on De
anima] is dated 1382).
52 Michael 1985, 698–99; Patar 1991, 42*–43*: northern Italian provenance
(written by a student in Perugia, according to the explicit); dated 1396 in the explicit.
I NTRODUCTION XVIII
15. [O]: Sarnano, Biblioteca Communale E.14, ff. 1va –46vb53
16. [P]: Sarnano, Biblioteca Communale E.143, ff. 1ra –66ra54
17. [Q]: Treviso, Biblioteche Comunali 420 A, ff. 48ra –87vb55
18. [R]: Città del Vaticano, Reg. lat. 1959, ff. 1ra –69vb56
19. [S]: Città del Vaticano, Vat. lat. 2164, ff. 122ra –234rb57
20. [T]: Città del Vaticano, Vat. lat. 11575, ff. 22ra –87rb58
21. [U]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. 5437, ff. 176ra –

228vb59
53 Michael 1985, 699; Patar 1991, 45* (where the ms. is erroneously listed as
‘E.68’): incomplete (missing Book II, qq. 1 and 15–25, as well as Book III, qq. 1–
2); provenance uncertain; fourteenth or fifteenth century, but precise date uncertain.
54 Michael 1985, 699–700; Patar 1991, 43*: incomplete (missing the last sections
of each question in Book I, qq. 1–3 and most of Book II, q. 5); northern Italian
provenance, possibly Padua; dated 1302 in the explicit, which is impossible (more
likely 1402, with a missing ‘c’ in the scribe’s ‘millesimo ccco secundo’).
55 Michael 1985, 734; Patar 1991, 44*–45*: provenance unknown; dated 1419 in
the explicit to Book II.

56 Michael 1985, 701–2; Patar 1991, 45*–46*: provenance unknown; dated 1404
in the explicit.
57 Michael 1985, 589–90, 700–1; Patar 1991, 38*: provenance unknown; precise
date unknown, but another ms. in the same codex is dated 1398 in the explicit and
appears to have been written around the same time. Michael notes that the codex
for the most part contains works on natural philosophy and was written by two
scribes: Petrus de Allamania, who wrote the first part between April and June 1398
(ff. 1–120, containing a copy of Buridan’s Quaestiones on Aristotle’s Physics), and
Henricus de Westphalia, who wrote the second part (ff. 122–311, beginning with
our text, the tertia lectura of Buridan’s Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De anima, on
f. 122) probably around the same time. The colophon indicates that the codex was
produced in Bologna in 1398–99 under the direction of Master Dinus de Florentia.
It is unclear how the codex came to be in the possession of the Vatican Library.
58 Michael 1985, 701; Patar 1991, 46*: probably northern Italian, from Bologna,
Padua, or Pavia (Michael notes that the paper on which it is written is from Ferrara);
date uncertain, but probably late fourteenth or early fifteenth century.
59
Michael 1985, 702–3; Patar 1991, 43*–44*: central European provenance (Vi-
enna); date uncertain, but codex contains works written between 1390 and 1416.
Missing two folios from Book III.
XIX I NTRODUCTION
22. [V]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. 5454, ff. 2ra –

56vb60
23. [W]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. 5374,

ff. 35ra –91vb61
This list does not include manuscripts containing either abbrevi-

ated summaries or short excerpts of the text, but only manuscripts that
contain the full, or nearly the full, authentic text of the tertia lectura.
We have examined copies of all 23 manuscripts listed above, fully
collating several questions and parts of other questions.
Here are fuller descriptions of each of the manuscripts we used
(AETVW):62
[A]: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek 566, ff. 1ra–65ra

Our oldest datable manuscript (1382) is written on paper and part of
a codex containing 12 quires (originally 13), all written in the same
hand and in a style suggesting Italian provenance. The scribe iden-
tifies himself as “Fredericus de Meyssena,” although the name is not
attested elsewhere, as far as we know. Michael believes that the codex
probably belonged to the library of the Franciscan custodial school in
Barbarano. It was purchased before 1895 by the Berlin library from a
dealer in Padua.
The text of Buridan’s tertia lectura is clearly written with rela-
tively few grammatical and structural errors. The scribe sometimes of-
fers disjunctive readings (e.g., “restringuitur vel refertur” for “restrin-
guitur” in Book III, q. 1), as if he is unsure about the reading of his
source manuscript, or he was copying from more than one manuscript
and decided to note different readings.
60 Michael 1985, 703; Patar 1991, 44*: central European provenance (Vienna);
dated 1397 in the explicit.
61 New ms. recently discovered by Sander de Boer (and so not listed in Michael
or Patar). The text was miscatalogued as an autograph copy of the Quaestiones on

De anima of Henry Totting of Oyta (c. 1330–97) in Franz Unterkircher (1969, 79);
central European provenance (Vienna); dated 1393 in the explicit.
62 Most of our codicological information here is from Michael 1985.
I NTRODUCTION XX
[E]: Liège, Bibliothèque de l’Université 346 C, ff. 53r –

95r
This codex has both paper and parchment leaves. Streijger et al. 2010
note that it “contains Albert of Saxony’s Quaestiones super libros De
caelo and several works by John Buridan, such as his Quaestiones
on De anima, Meteora, and Parva Naturalia,” as well as an anony-
mous Quaestiones on De generatione et corruptione, which can be
attributed to Buridan.63 The provenance is unknown. As noted above,
its copy of Buridan’s Quaestiones De longitudine et brevitate vitae is
dated 1370. Patar 1991 describes the hand as “certainly fourteenth
century,” concluding that “it is very probable that the Quaestiones on
De anima [in E] are from the same era, which would mean that the
Liège version [of the text] is very close in time to the last lecture
given by the Picard master.”64 But in the absence of further evidence,
such as some indication that the two texts are in the same hand or
written on paper with matching watermarks, this conclusion strikes us
as premature.
The text of E is also clearly written with relatively few errors. The
verso of some folios was difficult to read in our copy because the
binding did not open flat when the manuscript was photographed.
[T]: Città del Vaticano, Vat. lat. 11575, ff. 22ra–87rb

This manuscript is written on paper, dating from the end of the four-
teenth or beginning of the fifteenth century, and contains works on nat-
ural and moral philosophy by John Buridan and Ugo Benzi. Michael
notes that T contains paper produced in Ferrara, suggesting that T
might have been copied at Bologna, or perhaps at another northern
Italian university such as Padua or Pavia.65 It is not known when the
codex entered the Vatican library, but there is evidence that it was
already part of another Vatican collection in the fifteenth century.
63 Streijger,
Bakker, and Thijssen 2010, 17.
64 Patar
1991, 38*–39*.
65 Michael 1985, 701
XXI I NTRODUCTION
T appears to have been written by two scribes, with the second

taking over from the first at folio 15r , in the middle of Book II, q. 8.
Patar suggests that the scribes might have been working from two
different exemplars.66 The manuscript shows signs of water damage
beginning at folio 37r (towards the end of Book II, q. 20) becoming
progressively worse until the end. This makes the text difficult to read
in places.
[V]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod.

5454, ff. 2ra–56vb
This manuscript is written on paper and bound in a codex containing
works on natural philosophy. As noted above, the explicit indicates
that the manuscript was produced in Vienna in 1397. The scribe even
records his name, “Nicolaij de farchas hida(?).” As far as we know, he
is not attested elsewhere. The manuscript seems from the beginning to
have belonged to the Arts Faculty at the University of Vienna — hence
the ownership mark, “Liber facultatis arcium,” in the lower margin of
f. 1ra .
[W]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod.

5374, ff. 35ra–91vb
This manuscript is written on paper and bound in a codex along with
the gloss of an unidentified treatise on natural philosophy written in
another hand and dated 1438, as well as a single anonymous question,
“Utrum appetitus vel fantasiae sunt causae,” also written in another
hand. The scribe of our text tells us in the explicit (f. 91rb ) that it
was produced in the studium generale in Vienna in 1393; his name
is “Henricus Oltinghi de Oytha,” which led to the misidentification of
this text in the catalogue of the Austrian National Library as an auto-
66 Patar 1991, 46*.

I NTRODUCTION XXII
graph of Henry Totting of Oyta’s Quaestiones on De anima. Henry

(c. 1330–97) was a philosopher and theologian in his own right who
would likely have been in Vienna when the manuscript was written.
He was active in Prague, Paris, and Vienna, where he died in 1397. In
addition to his own set of Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De anima (as
yet unedited), he also composed an abbreviation of Adam Wodeham’s
commentary on the Sentences. So Henry may very well have been our
scribe in the case of W even though the commentary is not his.
Whoever he was, our Henry was a talented scribe with a very leg-
ible hand. His version of the text is the oldest datable (1393) from the
α or central European family (see groupings below). As mentioned
above, Sander de Boer recently discovered the true identity of the text
contained in this manuscript but his work came to our attention only
after we had finished a draft edition based on AETV.
Methodology
For our edition we decided to follow a “best-text strategy” of produc-
ing the philosophically most reliable and doctrinally most coherent
text justifiable on the basis of available manuscript evidence, instead
of a “critical edition” in the technical sense, where we would attempt
to reproduce the — perhaps merely hypothetical — text at the root of
a properly reconstructed stemma.
We performed four soundings against the 23 manuscripts listed
above: 21 lines from Book I, q. 1; 19 lines from Book II, q. 2; 117 lines
from Book III, q. 1; and 29 lines from Book III, q. 13. These sound-
ings allowed us to identify three groups based upon shared omissions,
additions, and variations: DHUVW (α ), BGMRT (β ), and the rest
(γ ). Most of the members of α (and none of the members of β ) have
a central European provenance: UVW were copied in Vienna and D
XXIII I NTRODUCTION
in Krakow (although H is unknown).67 However, we were not able to

identify any further major groupings from these soundings.68
Having made these initial divisions, we chose the best text(s) from
each of these three groups, namely AETVW.
We initially selected V as containing the best text in the α fam-
ily. We eliminated D and U on the grounds that these manuscripts
were incomplete.69 V and H both offered good readings. However,
based on our soundings there were relatively few variants between
them and further checks revealed omissions in other questions in both
manuscripts, some unique and others shared.70 In the absence of deci-
sive evidence from soundings, we chose V because two of the editors
67 When our edition was in final copyediting, we became aware of another
manuscript containing the tertia lectura of Buridan’s Quaestiones on De anima:

Lambach, Benediktinerstift, Col. 175, ff. 163va–203rb. We were unable to obtain a
copy of this manuscript before going to press, but with the help of another scholar
who had access to a copy we were able to test 53 lines from our edition of Book
III, q. 1 against it. Based on this reading, the Lambach seemed not to belong to
either our α or β groups, which would place it in γ . One interesting feature is that
it appears to have been produced in Prague, which would make it the only β or γ
manuscript with a central European provenance. Here is the explicit, on f. 203rb : “Et
patet satis per dicta quomodo procedant rationes que fiebant. Et sic est finis questio-
nis et consequenter omnium aliarum. <illegible> Expliciunt longe questiones De
anima magistri Iohannis Byridani reportate Prage per Wernerum de Drisponscede
(Drispenscede?) anno Domini millesimo tricentesimo LXXXVto in vigilia Sancti
Iohannis Baptiste hora vicesima prima ante cenam.” We are grateful to Paul Bakker
for his generous assistance with this manuscript.
68 S seems to be in a class by itself. We had initially included it in our draft
apparatus until its unreliability became clear. S frequently gave variant readings
found in no other manuscript, going far beyond the task of a copyist and often
entering into the realm of speculation. It is almost as if the scribe had enough
philosophical training to feel comfortable augmenting and correcting the argument
as he went along. Hence, we removed S from our edition.
69 D ends at Book III, q. 4. U is missing an entire folio, from Book III, q. 14, par. 4,
“et si quis dicat ...” to Book III, q. 15, par. 17, “. . . maneret in organo corporeo
phantasiae’; and another, from Book III, q. 17, par. 25, “post emissionem spermatis
...” to Book III, q. 19, par. 15, “. . . sibi convenientia”. It also contains a blank space
in Book III, q. 20, omitting text from par. 9 “Item incontinens movetur secundum
...” to par. 10 “... agunt cum ratione et nihil contra.”
70
For example, H has unique gaps of 12 words at II.15, par. 3, 3 words at III.10,
par. 9, 8 words at III.15, par. 17, and 15 words at III.17, par. 19, as well as a 10-word
gap shared with UV at III.5, par. 7. HVW share 5-word gaps at II.17, par. 24 and
III.6, par. 14, although in the former case the missing text is added in the margin of
W.
I NTRODUCTION XXIV
knew that it was reliable, having used it before to construct working

editions of Books II and III in their dissertations.71
After W was brought to our attention, we added it to our sound-
ing, but were unable to discern any major differences between it and
V. Since we had already completed our initial edition, and since W
(1393) is older than V (1397), we decided to read the entire text again
against W, adding it to the core family of best texts alongside AETV.72
We selected T as containing the best text from the β group
(BGMRT). We eliminated B on the grounds that it was incomplete
(ends in the middle of Book III, q. 4). T had fewer gaps than GMR.
We selected A and E from the γ group (ACEFIJKLNOPQS). We
eliminated OP because these were incomplete (O is missing Book II,
qq. 1 and 15–25, as well as Book III, qq. 1–2; P omits the last sections
of each question in Book I, qq. 1–3 and most of Book II, q. 5). We
eliminated S because it was such an outlier, as mentioned above. AE
shared similar homoioteleutonic gaps and had the fewest omissions in
our soundings.73 However, we were not able to determine if A or E
was the better manuscript, so we decided to use both. A, as it turns
out, was also the oldest datable copy (1382).
The Edition
The Latin text produced here is the work of three different editors:
Peter Hartman (Book I), Peter G. Sobol (Book II), and Jack Zupko
71 See n. 75 below.
72 After finishing the edition, we can now safely say that W is superior to V. For
instance, there is a 78-word gap in UV that spans paragraphs 14 and 15 of Book II,
q. 1, and a 24-word gap in UV in par. 30. However, W is not free of gaps, with a
unique gap of 10 words at III.2, par. 20, as well as gaps of 8 words at I.4, par. 8, 6
words at III.8, par. 16, and 12 words at III.13, par. 9, the latter shared with AT (UV
have the text).
73 E is also one of only two manuscripts (the other being W) to include a negative
argument (though a different one in each case) missing from the beginning of III.16,
par. 3, in all other manuscripts — all of which, oddly, include the reply to this
argument at III.16, par. 20. The argument supplied by W (written beneath the
column on f. 87vb of W) looks more germane to the reply than the argument supplied
by E, so we’ve given the reading of W in the main text of the edition, with the text
of E in the apparatus.
XXV I NTRODUCTION
(Book III).74 Although each editor took primary responsibility for es-
tablishing and revising Buridan’s text from our source manuscripts
according to principles agreed upon at the start of the project, the en-
tire draft text was thoroughly proofread multiple times and rechecked
against the source manuscripts by members of the editorial team. Sub-
sequently, the Latin text was reviewed on its own by several external
proofreaders.
We classicize all spellings (in the main text as well as in the
apparatus fontium) according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, us-
ing the evolved spelling (e.g., tamquam/numquam/eamdem over
tanquam/nunquam/eandem) and distinguishing “u” and “v.” We
do not note variations in word order, and we ignore certain com-
mon variants (e.g., eo quod/quia; ergo/igitur; et sic etiam/et tunc;
huius/istius; ille/iste; nec/neque; scilicet/videlicet; sive . . . sive/seu . . .
seu; vel/aut/seu; etc.). We do not record variants involving sentence
particles such as etiam, enim, autem, tamen, etc. unless the meaning
is affected, or categorematic terms with equivalent meaning, e.g.,
sint distinctae/distinguantur. We silently correct obvious errors in the
case endings of nouns and adjectives and the number/mood/voice of
verbs. We write out all numerals in the text. As far as the structure of
each question is concerned, we have supplied the numbered paragraph
divisions in the edition/translation, which often align with paragraph
markers supplied by the scribes of our main manuscripts (though we
have not noted when they do not). We do not record variants in the
first word of paragraphs (Item; Deinde; Demum; Primo; Secundo;
etc.) or the ordinal numbering of arguments. We have standardized
the opening of each question so that it contains a title question begin-
ning with the interrogative pronoun “Utrum” in the Latin edition and
so that it poses an actual question in the English translation, ending
with a question mark. We do not record other pro forma verbiage
connected with the opening or closing of a question (e.g., “Quaer-
74 Some years before the present project began, the editors of Books II and III
produced preliminary working editions of those Books as part of their doctoral dis-
sertations (see Sobol 1984 and Zupko 1989), both of which circulated informally
for years in the absence of a proper critical edition of the ultima lectura of Buri-
dan’s Quaestiones on De anima. The present edition/translation is much improved
because it contains the complete text and is based on better manuscripts.
I NTRODUCTION XXVI
itur consequenter nono . . . ”) except at the beginning and ending of

each Book. Finally, we use double quotation marks in the edition
and translation for verbatim quotations, but italics in the edition and
single quotes in the translation when a word or phrase is mentioned.
The apparatus is in two tiers. First, the apparatus fontium gives
the source(s) of all identifiable references in the body of the text. We
provide the Latin wording for all direct quotations but also for some
paraphrases too, such as when it seemed to us that the wording of
the source contributed to the way Buridan frames and/or discusses the
question. We also give internal references: on the Latin side when the
reference is to another Book or question of the work (BURIDANUS,
QQ. De an.); on the English side if the reference is elsewhere in the
same question.
Needless to say, for a work that is a commentary on Aristotle’s De
anima, Buridan quotes often from the letter of the philosopher’s
text, as well as from other relevant authorities, both ancient and me-
dieval. At other times, he loosely paraphrases what Aristotle says, or
else broadly alludes to an Aristotelian teaching in a certain work. We
do not know which source(s) Buridan had at his elbow as he wrote,
but in all cases, we have endeavored to provide a modern reference
for the source or text in question, with Bekker numbers where ap-
propriate. In the case of literal quotations, we provide an apparatus
fontium reference to the Aristoteles Latinus, along with the word-
ing of the passage from that edition.75 In the vast majority of these
cases, Buridan’s De anima quotations follow William of Moerbeke’s
thirteenth-century Latin — or so-called “nova [new]” — translation
of the De anima almost verbatim, though there are occasions where a
quotation appears to have come from a florilegium or compilation of
authorities such as the Auctoritates Aristotelis, in which case we have
supplied a reference to the late thirteenth-century florilegium with
that title edited by Jacqueline Hamesse. We record manuscript vari-
ants for quoted passages only where we could not find any witnesses
with verbatim text of either the Aristoteles Latinus or the Auctoritates
75
In keeping with our policy of classicizing all spellings according to the Oxford
Latin Dictionary, we have changed the medieval spellings in quotations from the
Aristoteles Latinus to their classical equivalents.
XXVII I NTRODUCTION
Aristotelis,76 and we judged that the misquotation affected the way

Buridan understood the passage in his subsequent remarks.
The second tier, the apparatus criticus, provides the variant read-
ings we have recorded from AETVW.
Our apparatus uses the following abbreviations:
add. addidit
corr. correxit
del. delevit
exp. expunxit
hom. homoioteleuton
inf. infra
inv. invertit
lin. lineam
marg. margine
om. omisit
praem. praemisit
ras. rasura
rep. repetivit
sup. supra
The Translation
As with the Latin edition, our English translation is the work of three
different translators: Peter Hartman (Book I), Gyula Klima (Book II),
and Jack Zupko (Book III). This might seem a recipe for inconsis-
tency given natural differences in the way English speakers express
themselves, to say nothing of differing stylistic preferences in trans-
lating medieval philosophical texts. But in practice we found that even
76 Our manuscripts exhibited interesting variations in the precise wording of their
Aristotle quotations, despite their having originated from the same source text(s),
with A (= Berlin 566) usually offering the reading closest to the modern edited
versions found in the Aristoteles Latinus and Auctoritates Aristotelis.
I NTRODUCTION XXVIII
our initial drafts read well together, and were harmonious where it re-
ally mattered, which is to say, on points of doctrine. Stylistic niceties
were discussed at length by the editors/translators in person at meet-
ings during the first three years of the project, resulting in a basic
equivalence lexicon of stock phrases and technical terms for use in re-
vision. As the project moved along, particular translation issues were
discussed and resolved by the translators via email. The translation
of each Book was then carefully proofread by the other translators, as
well as tested in other venues such as our graduate seminars and Latin
reading groups.
On the handful of occasions where we could not agree about how
to render a particular passage, the final decision was always left to the
translator of the Book in question, just as its editor had final say over
how the Latin text should read.
Tabula Contentorum
Agnitio V
Introductio VII
Liber Primus 2
I. 1 Utrum subiectum proprium in scientia libri De anima sit
anima vel ille terminus anima vel corpus animatum vel
quoddam aliud aut nihil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. 2 Utrum omnis notitia sit de numero bonorum, id est utrum
omnis notitia sit bona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
I. 3 Utrum omnis scientia sit de numero honorabilium. . . . . . . 30
I. 4 Utrum scientia de anima sit de numero difficillimorum. . . . 42
I. 5 Utrum universale nihil est aut posterius est. . . . . . . . . . . 52
I. 6 Utrum accidentia magnam partem conferant ad
cognoscendum quod quid est. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Liber Secundus 84
II. 1 Circa secundum librum de anima quaeritur primo utrum
omnis anima sit actus substantialis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
II. 2 Utrum omnis anima sit actus primus corporis organici. . . . . 104
II. 3 Utrum definitio animae sit bona qua dicitur anima est actus
primus substantialis corporis physici organici habentis
vitam in potentia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
II. 4 Utrum in eodem animali sit eadem anima vegetativa et
sensitiva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
II. 5 Utrum potentiae animae sint distinctae ab ipsa anima. . . . . 156
XXX
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements V
Introduction VII
Book I 3
I. 1 Is the proper subject of the science discussed in De Anima
the soul, the term ’soul’, the living body, something else,
or nothing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I. 2 Is all cognition counted among good things, that is to say,
is all cognition good? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
I. 3 Is all knowledge honorable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
I. 4 Is the science of the soul one of the most difficult
sciences? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
I. 5 Is a universal nothing or posterior? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
I. 6 Do accidents contribute a great deal towards cognizing
what something is? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Book II 85
II. 1 Concerning the second book of De Anima we ask first: Is
every soul a substantial act? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
II. 2 Is every soul the first act of an organic body? . . . . . . . . . 105
II. 3 Is the definition of the soul which says that the soul is the
first substantial act of an organic physical body that has
life in potency a good definition? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
II. 4 Are the vegetative and sensitive souls the same
in an animal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
II. 5 Are the powers of the soul distinct from the soul itself? . . . 157
XXXI
TABULA C ONTENTORUM XXXII
II. 6 Utrum potentiae animae debeant distingui per actus aut

obiecta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
II. 7 Utrum tota anima sit in qualibet parte corporis animati. . . . 188
II. 8 Utrum naturalissimum operum in viventibus sit generare
sibi simile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
II. 9 Utrum sensus sit virtus passiva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
II.10 Utrum necesse est ad sentiendum esse sensum agentem. . . . 266
II.11 Utrum sensus possit decipi circa sensibile proprium sibi. . . . 286
II.12 Utrum sensibilia communia sint per se sensibilia. . . . . . . . 306
II.13 Utrum numerus, magnitudo, figura, motus, et quies sint
sensibilia communia et per se. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
II.14 Utrum color sit proprium obiectum visus. . . . . . . . . . . . 346
II.15 Utrum ad videndum colores lumen requiratur propter
colorem vel propter medium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
II.16 Utrum sit idem sonus quando ego loquor quem quilibet
vestrum audit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
II.17 Utrum odor multiplicatur realiter per medium vel
spiritualiter seu intentionaliter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
II.18 Utrum species qualitatum proprie et per se sensibilium
habeant in medio vel in organo instantaneam generationem
et multiplicationem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
II.19 Utrum tactus sit unus sensus vel plures. . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
II.20 Utrum sint tantum quinque sensus exteriores. . . . . . . . . . 504
II.21 Utrum sensibile positum supra sensum faciat sensationem,
id est, sentiatur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
II.22 Utrum praeter sensus exteriores oportet ponere unum
sensum communem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
II.23 Utrum oporteat praeter sensum communem ponere alios
sensus interiores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
II.24 Utrum organum sensus communis sit in corde vel in
cerebro seu in capite; nullus enim alibi ponitur illud
organum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
II.25 Utrum in organis exterioribus sensuum subiective fiat
actualis sensatio vel solum receptio specierum sensibilium
et non sensatio nisi in corde. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
XXXIII TABLE OF C ONTENTS
II. 6 Should the powers of the soul be distinguished by their

acts or objects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
II. 7 Is the whole soul in every part of the animate body? . . . . . 189
II. 8 Is it the most natural operation of living things to generate
their like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
II. 9 Is sense a passive power? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
II.10 Is an agent sense necessary in order to sense? . . . . . . . . . 267
II.11 Can sense be deceived about a sensible proper to it? . . . . . 287
II.12 Are common sensibles per se sensible? . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
II.13 Are number, magnitude, shape, motion and rest common,
per se sensibles? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
II.14 Is color the proper object of sight? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
II.15 Do we need illumination to see color because of the color
or because of the medium? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
II.16 When I speak, do each of you hear the same sound? . . . . . 369
II.17 Is odor is propagated through a medium in its real being,
or in its spiritual or intentional being? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
II.18 Do the species of proper and per se sensible qualities have
instantaneous generation and propagation in the medium,
or in the organ of sense? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
II.19 Is touch one sense or several? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
II.20 Are there only five external senses? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
II.21 Does a sensible object placed on a sense produce
sensation? That is, is it sensed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
II.22 Is it necessary to postulate a single common sense? . . . . . . 549
II.23 Is it necessary to posit other internal senses in addition to
the common sense? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
II.24 Is the organ of common sense in the heart or in the brain
or in the head (for it is not taken to be anywhere else)? . . . . 585
II.25 Does actual sensation take place in the external senses as
in a subject, or only the reception of sensible species, with
sensation taking place only in the heart? . . . . . . . . . . . 611
TABULA C ONTENTORUM XXXIV
Liber Tertius 630

III. 1 Circa tertium librum De anima quaeritur primo utrum
intellectus humanus sit virtus passiva ab intelligibili. . . . . . 632
III. 2 Utrum oporteat intellectum esse denudatum ab eo quod
ipse intelligit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646
III. 3 Utrum intellectus humanus sit forma substantialis corporis
humani. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
III. 4 Utrum intellectus humanus sit forma inhaerens corpori
humano. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674
III. 5 Utrum sit unicus intellectus quo omnes homines
intelligentes intelligant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690
III. 6 Utrum intellectus humanus sit perpetuus. . . . . . . . . . . . 702
III. 7 Utrum intellectus possibilis sit pura potentia sic quod non
sit aliquis actus, sicut nec materia prima. . . . . . . . . . . . 718
III. 8 Utrum intellectus prius intelligat universale quam
singulare, vel e converso. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
III. 9 Utrum intellectus humanus possit se intelligere. . . . . . . . 764
III.10 Utrum necesse sit ad hoc quod homo intelligat concurrere
active intellectum agentem, praeter intellectum possibilem. . 782
III.11 Utrum actus vel etiam habitus intellectualis sit idem quod
anima intellectiva vel sit res sibi addita. . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
III.12 Utrum omnis intellectio simplex sit vera. . . . . . . . . . . . 822
III.13 Utrum non ens possit intelligi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
III.14 Utrum punctum monstretur vel intellegatur ut privatio. . . . . 854
III.15 Utrum intellectus sit reservativus specierum
intelligibilium, cessante actuali intellectione. . . . . . . . . . 866
III.16 Utrum intellectus humanus possit intelligere plura simul. . . 890
III.17 Utrum in homine sit anima intellectiva alia ab anima
sensitiva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
III.18 Utrum in homine est appetitus appetitui contrarius. . . . . . . 922
III.19 Utrum natura faciat aliquid frustra vel etiam deficiat
aliquando in necessariis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
XXXV TABLE OF C ONTENTS
Book III 631

III. 1 Concerning Book III of De Anima we ask first: Is the
human intellect a passive power as regards an intelligible
object? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633
III. 2 Must the intellect be devoid of what it understands? . . . . . 647
III. 3 Is the human intellect the substantial form of the human
body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
III. 4 Is the human intellect a form inhering in the human
body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675
III. 5 Is there a unique intellect by which all humans understand
when they are thinking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691
III. 6 Is the human intellect everlasting? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703
III. 7 Is the possible intellect pure potency in the sense that it is
not any kind of actuality, just like prime matter? . . . . . . . 719
III. 8 Does the intellect understand the universal before the
singular, or vice versa? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729
III. 9 Can the human intellect understand itself? . . . . . . . . . . 765
III.10 Is the active contribution of an agent intellect, apart from
the possible intellect, necessary for a human being’s act of
understanding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783
III.11 Is the intellectual act or even its habit the same as the
intellective soul, or a thing added to it? . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
III.12 Is every simple act of thinking true? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
III.13 Can a non-being be understood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
III.14 Is a point represented or understood as a privation? . . . . . . 855
III.15 Does the intellect preserve intelligible species once the
actual act of thinking has ceased? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
III.16 Can the human intellect understand more than one thing at
once? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
III.17 Does the intellective soul in a human being differ from the
sensitive soul? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
III.18 Is one appetite contrary to another in a human being? . . . . 923
III.19 Does nature do anything in vain, or is it even sometimes
deficient in what is necessary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
TABULA C ONTENTORUM XXXVI
III.20 Utrum potentia motiva secundum locum sit vegetativa

vel sensitiva vel intellectiva vel appetitiva vel aliqua alia
potentia animae praeter istas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Index Fontium 985

XXXVII TABLE OF C ONTENTS
III.20 Is the locomotive power the vegetative, sensitive,

intellective, appetitive, or some other power of the soul
besides these? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Works Cited 959
Index of Names 973
Index of References in the Footnotes to the Translation 975
Index of Terms in the Footnotes to the Translation 979

List of Contributors
Peter Hartman, Department of Philosophy, Loyola University

Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Gyula Klima, Department of Philosophy, Fordham University, New

York, NY, USA
Research Center for the History of Ideas, Institute of Hungarian
Research, Budapest, Hungary
Peter G. Sobol, McFarland, WI, USA
Jack Zupko, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, AB, Canada
XXXIX
Liber Primus
2
Book I
3
L IBER I Q UAESTIO 1 4
Utrum subiectum proprium in scientia libri De anima

sit anima vel ille terminus anima vel corpus animatum
vel quoddam aliud aut nihil.
1. Et arguitur primo quod sit corpus animatum, quia operatio-

5 nes et passiones hic consideratae sunt compositi ex corpore et anima
et non animae sine corpore nec corporis sine anima. Unde etsi in-
telligentiae, quae aliquando vocantur animae corporum caelestium, et
Deus, qui etiam aliquando vocatur anima mundi, intelligant sine mi-
nisterio corporis, tamen de huiusmodi intellectione non consideratur
10 in hoc libro. Similiter etiam si anima humana post mortem separata a
corpore intelligat, tamen de hoc non consideratur hic. Sed subiectum
huius scientiae debet poni proprium et adaequatum sic quod per se
et principaliter in hac scientia considerata ad ipsum attribuantur; ergo
etc.
15 2. Item per idem arguitur quia subiectum proprium alicuius scien-
tiae debet habere passiones consideratas in illa scientia; anima autem
non habet tales, sed sunt communes sibi et corpori; ergo etc.
3. Et hoc confirmatur quia haec scientia est naturalis. Modo
in secundo Physicorum dicitur quod considerans formam naturali
1 proprium ] et adaequatum add. W || in scientia ] om. AE || anima ] vel in

scientia huius libri quem communiter solemus vocare librum de anima add. W 5
compositi ] compositae T corporis animati scilicet compositi ex materia et forma
seu W 7 aliquando ] solum W 8 aliquando ] om. AE 9 intellectione ] consi-
deratione AE 11 subiectum ] proprium add. AET 12–13 proprium . . . attribuan-
tur ] cuius proprie sunt primae et principales passiones in hac scientia consideratae
AET 16 passiones ] proprias add. T || consideratas ] constitutas T || scientia ]
dicitur subiectum add. in marg. E in qua dicitur subiectum add. T
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

G. Klima et al., John Buridan’s Questions on Aristotle’s De Anima – Iohannis Buridani
Quaestiones in Aristotelis De Anima, Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind
and Action 9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94433-9 1
5 B OOK I Q UESTION 1
Is the proper subject of the science discussed in De An-

ima the soul, the term ‘soul’, the living body, something
else, or nothing?
1. First, it is argued that its proper subject is the living body.

The activities and attributes considered here belong to the composite
of soul and body, not to the soul without the body, nor to the body
without the soul. It is for this reason that even though the intelli-
gences1 (which are sometimes called the souls of the heavenly bodies)
and God (sometimes called the soul of the world) engage in thought
without the aid of a body, nevertheless this kind of thinking is not stud-
ied in this book. Likewise, even if the human soul existing apart from
the body after death does engage in thought, this is not studied here.
However, we should postulate the subject of this science to be proper
and adequate in such a way that the things studied in this science are
primarily and per se attributed to the subject;2 therefore, etc.3
2. Again, by the same token, the proper subject of a science ought
to have the attributes studied in that science. Yet the soul does not have
these attributes, for they are common to it and the body; therefore, etc.
3. This is confirmed as follows. This is a natural science. How-
ever, in Physics II Aristotle declares that someone who studies a form
1
The intelligences are immaterial intellective beings (usually identified as angels),
some of whom carry out cosmological tasks such as rotating the heavenly spheres.
2 For Buridan’s discussion of the subject of a science, see Summulae de dialectica
8.3.5. According to that discussion, the adequate subject of a science is the genus to
which whatever is considered in the science is attributed per se (on its own account)
and primarily (not on account of something else).
3 Usually, when the conclusion to be drawn is obvious, medieval authors and scribes
indicate it with this phrase (“therefore, etc.” or just “therefore”) rather than spelling
it out. The translation will preserve this feature of the text.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

G. Klima et al., John Buridan’s Questions on Aristotle’s De Anima – Iohannis Buridani
Quaestiones in Aristotelis De Anima, Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind
and Action 9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94433-9 1
20 consideratione oportet quod consideret “materiam usque ad quid” et

sic compositum.
4. Et iterum de corpore vivente hic consideratur non tamquam de
passione nec tamquam de parte nec tamquam de principio nec tam-
quam de causa subiecti huius scientiae; ergo tamquam de subiecto.
25 5. Item haec scientia est una pars per se et principalis scientiae
naturalis; ideo subiectum eius debet esse aliqua pars per se subiectiva
subiecti totalis scientiae naturalis, scilicet entis mobilis; anima autem
non est per se ens mobile sed corpus animatum; ergo etc.
6. Item quaelibet scientia debet supponere de subiecto suo proprio
30 quid est et quia est, ut habetur primo Posteriorum; et hoc non suppo-
nitur hic de anima sed investigatur quid est anima secundo huius; ergo
etc.
7. Item nec illa anima est subiectum proprium huius scientiae, nec
ista, et sic de aliis; ergo nulla.
35 8. Oppositum arguitur per communem huius scientiae denomi-
nationem, Aristoteles enim et omnes alii vocant eam scientiam de ani-
ma et non scientiam de corpore animato. Unde Aristoteles in princi-
pio libri De sensu et sensato, continuans scientiam parvorum librorum
naturalium ad scientiam huius libri, dicit “in libro isto determinatum
20 materiam usque ad quid ] A RISTOTELES, Phys. II.2 194a22–23 (Ar. lat. VII.1
52.7): “Eiusdem autem scientiae est cognoscere speciem et materiam usque ad hoc.”
Auc. Ar. 2.59 (ed. Hamesse, 145): “Materia et forma sunt eiusdem consideratio-
nis.” 30 primo Posteriorum ] A RISTOTELES, An. post. I.1 71a 11–12. 31 se-
cundo huius ] A RISTOTELES, De an. II.1–2 412a 1–413a10. Cf. B URIDANUS, QQ.
De an. II.1–3. 39–42 in libro . . . habentibus ] A RISTOTELES, De sensu 1 436a1–
3 (Ar. lat. XIII.2 3.1–3): “Quoniam autem de anima secundum ipsam determinatum
est et de virtute qualibet ex parte ipsius, consequens est facere considerationem de
animalibus et vitam habentibus omnibus, quae sunt proprie et quae communes ope-
rationes eorum.”
22 consideratur ] constituitur T 23 parte ] subiecti add. in marg. W 24 causa ]
esse W || huius scientiae ] om. W 27 subiecti ] om. W 29 suo ] om. W ||
proprio ] primo A om. TW 33 proprium ] om. W 34 aliis ] singulis A singulis
aliis E
7 B OOK I Q UESTION 1
as a natural philosopher must also study “its matter up to a point,” and

so the composite.4
4. Again, the living body is studied here, but it is not studied as
an attribute, part, principle, or cause of the subject of this science.
Therefore, it is studied as its subject.
5. Again, this science is a per se principal part of natural science,
and so its subject ought to be some per se subjective part of the whole
subject of natural science, namely, a being capable of motion. How-
ever, the soul is not per se a being capable of motion, whereas the
living body is; therefore, etc.5
6. Again, each science should assume what its proper subject is
and that it exists, as Posterior Analytics I maintains. However, this is
not assumed here about the soul, but rather what the soul is is investi-
gated in De Anima II; therefore, etc.6
7. Again, neither this soul nor that soul, etc., is the proper subject
of this science; therefore no soul is the subject of this science.
8. The opposite is argued for by appeal to what this science is
usually called, for Aristotle and everyone else calls it the science of
the soul, not the science of the living body. Accordingly, at the begin-
ning of On Sense and What is Sensed Aristotle connects the science
discussed in the Brief Essays on Natural Philosophy7 to the science
4 According to Aristotle, material forms are supposed to be defined with reference to
the kind of matter they inform. His classic example is the definition of ‘snubness’,
which ought to be defined as the ‘concavity of a nose’.
5 A subjective part is a part of a universal whole. More precisely, it is a specific or
less generic term that can be put as the subject-term for a more generic predicate-
term (the universal whole) in a per se universal predication. For instance, ‘human’
is a subjective part of ‘animal’, for the universal predication “Every human is an
animal” is per se, that is, essentially true. Likewise, ‘living body’ is a subjective
part of ‘a being capable of motion’, for “Every living body is a being capable of
motion” is a true, per se, universal predication. By contrast, ‘soul’ is not a subjective
part of the term ‘a being capable of motion’, because “Every soul is a being capable
of motion” is not a true, per se, universal predication, for the soul, being a form,
is moved only per accidens, on account of the motion of the body it informs. For
more on the notion of a subjective part in medieval philosophy, see Arlig 2015.
6 See II.1–3 for Buridan’s discussion of what the soul is.
7
The Brief Essays on Natural Philosophy (Parva naturalia) is the collection of nat-
ural works discussing issues related to the soul and the body, e.g., On Sense and
What is Sensed, On Memory, etc.
40 esse de anima secundum se ipsam et de virtute qualibet ex parte ipsius

et consequenter determinandum esse de animalibus et vitam habenti-
bus.”
9. In ista quaestione dimitto opinionem modernorum multorum
non volentium in una totali scientia aggregata ex pluribus diversis con-
45 clusionibus et demonstrationibus assignare aliquod subiectum unum
proprium, sed tot subiecta quot sunt conclusiones demonstratae in ea
ex diversis terminis constitutae, verbi gratia in totali geometria et in
totali metaphysica etc. Hanc enim opinionem alibi satis improbavi; et
pertinet eius improbatio magis proprie ad scientiam libri Posteriorum,
50 nam in illo libro debet videri quod oportet talem scientiam habere uni-
tatem ex unitate alicuius unius considerati principaliter in illa scientia
ad quod omnia alia prout in illa scientia considerantur habent attri-
butionem. Et hoc vocamus in proposito subiectum proprium et adae-
quatum huius scientiae. Et non vocamus illud proprium subiectum et
55 adaequatum illius scientiae quia acceptum sit in qualibet conclusione
demonstrata vel demonstrabili per illam scientiam vel in illa scientia,
nec etiam quia illa scientia illi subiecto inhaereat, sed quia nihil in
illa scientia consideratur nisi ea ratione qua attribuitur ad ipsum, vel
quia est pars eius vel passio vel principium vel privatio vel contrarium
60 partis aut passionis, scilicet secundum attributionem propinquam vel
remotam.
10. Hiis ergo suppositis notanda est in proposito differentia huius
scientiae ad scientiam parvorum librorum naturalium, scilicet quia in
hac scientia non consideratur nisi de anima secundum se et de eius po-
65 tentiis et operationibus ea ratione qua se tenent ex parte animae et de
43 opinionem modernorum multorum ] E.g., O CKHAM, Expositio in libros Physi-

corum Prologus; Summa logicae I.30. 48 alibi ] B URIDANUS, QQ. An. post. I.23.
Cf. QQ. Porph. Isa. 3.
45 aliquod ] om. T || unum ] sibi add. W 46 subiecta ] om. AET 47 con-

stitutae ] dicunt fore assignanda add. W 48 metaphysica ] mathematica TW ||
etc. ] plura subiecta esse asserunt secundum pluralitatem consequentiam(!) in eis
assignatorum et demonstratorum W || alibi ] ego Buridanus add. A 50 talem ]
totalem W 54–55 Et . . . scientiae ] hom. T 58 scientia ] om. W || vel ] ut
AET 60 partis aut ] alicuius AET || passionis ] contrarium add. T
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
[522] Bunting, 59, 62, 43, 51, 52, and 61, respectively; also first
volume of records for each meeting.
[523] See map.
[524] Bunting, 49.
[525] Min. Kennett Mo. Mtg., 11-7-1715, 28.
[527] Futhey & Cope, Hist. Chester Co., 302f.; Jordan, Hist.
Del. Co., II, 423ff.
[528] See page 42, Philadelphia 107, Abington 154, Darby.
[530] Ibid., 1-15-1778, 626.
[531] Ibid., 1-14-1779, 658.
[533] Ibid., 7-12-1781, 741.
[534] Ibid., 10-11-1781, 746.
[535] Ibid., 9-11-1783, 787.
[536] Ibid., 5-13-1783, 795.
[537] Ibid., 5-12-1785, 814.
[539] Ibid., 2-14-1788, 874.
[540] Ibid., 1-14-1790, 914.
[542] Horsham School Com. Minutes, 1-27-1783.
[544] Ibid., 3-14-1793, 39.
[545] Ibid., 2-12-1795, 83.
[547] Ibid., 5-14-1795, 91.
[548] Futhey & Cope, Hist. Chester Co., 302.
[550] Ibid., 8-16-1798, 199.
[551] Min. New Garden Mo. Mtg., 3-6-1773, 174.
[553] Ibid., 5-1-1779, 22.
[554] Ibid., 8-7-1779, 34.
[555] Ibid., 3-5-1785, 234.
[556] Ibid., 8-6-1785, 256.
[557] Ibid., 1-7-1786, 275.
[558] Ibid., 4-1-1786, 290.
[559] Ibid., 8-5-1786, 312.
[561] Deed No. 88, Chester Co. (the deed is deposited in a
fireproof at Orthodox Meeting House, custody of Edgar Haines,
West Grove, Pa.).
[562] Min. Horsham Sch. Com., 1-27-1783.
[563] Min. Chester Q. Mtg., 12-2-1701.
[564] Ibid., 9-1-1703.
[565] Ibid., 12-2-1707.
[566] See page 122.
[567] See first book of Goshen Mo. Mtg. Records.
[568] Advices of the Yr. Mtg., 250.
[569] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 1-8-1779.
[570] Ibid., 6-11-1779.
[571] Futhey and Cope mention a school at Birmingham as
early as 1753, Hist. Chester Co., 302.
[572] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 6-11-1779.
[573] Ibid.
[574] Ibid., 1-11-1782.
[575] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 3-8-1782.
[576] Ibid., 1-9-1784.
[577] Ibid.
[578] Ibid., 8-6-1784.
[579] Ibid., 8-5-1785.
[580] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 8-11-1786.
[581] Ibid., 8-10-1787.
[582] Ibid., 7-6-1792.
[583] See page 132.
[584] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 4-10-1795.
[585] Ibid., 8-5-1796.
[586] See page 132.
[587] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 8-11-1797.
[588] Ibid.
[589] Ibid., 8-10-1798.
[590] See page 131.
[591] See page 73f.
[592] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 1-6-1797.
[593] Min. Chester Q. Mtg., 9-9-1719.
[594] Ibid., 3-10-1725.
[595] See page 122; also Bunting, 51.
[596] Min. Bradford Mo. Mtg., 6-18-1762.
[597] Ibid.
[598] Ibid., 12-13-1765.
[599] Ibid., 4-7-1767.
[600] Ibid., 8-14-1767.
[602] Ibid., 2-12-1779.
[603] See page 133f.
[606] Ibid., 6-16-1781.
[607] Ibid., 2-16-1781.
[608] Ibid., 6-16-1781.
[609] Ibid., 9-14-1781.
[610] Ibid., 2-15-1782.
[611] Ibid., 8-15-1783.
[612] Ibid., 2-13-1784.
[614] Min. Uwchlan Mo. Mtg., 8-3-1763, 22.
[615] Ibid., 3-1-1765, 66.
[616] Ibid., 11-7-1782, 132.
[617] Ibid., 12-5-1782, 106.
[619] Ibid., 2-5-1784, 162.
[620] Ibid., 2-10-1785, 184.
[621] Min. Bradford Mo. Mtg., 8-9-1787, 235.
[622] Min. London Grove Mtg., 12-3-1794, 56.
[623] Ibid., 3-4-1795, 62.
[624] Ibid., 7-1-1795, 73.
[626] Futhey and Cope, Hist. Chester Co., 239.
[627] Min. Sadsbury Mo. Mtg., 3-6-1739, 7.
[628] Ibid., 6-21-1769, 180.
[629] Ibid., 1-20-1779, 297.
[630] Ibid., 2-20-1779, 298.
[632] Ibid.
[633] Ibid., 3-21-1787, 39f.
[634] Ibid., 6-17-1789, 70.
[635] Ibid.
[636] Futhey and Cope, Hist. Chester Co., 239.
[639] Ibid., 5-23-1792, 109.
[640] Ibid., 7-10-1792, 112.
[641] Min. Sadsbury Mo. Mtg., 4-17-1793. 120.
[642] Ibid., 5-13-1793, 121.
[643] Ibid., 9-18-1793, 125.
[644] Ibid., 12-10-1793, 128.
[645] Ibid., 1-7-1798, 175.
[647] Ibid., 4-24-1799, 187.
[648] Bunting, 40, 39, 19 and 42, respectively; also first vols. of
each respective meeting’s records.
[649] Smith, Hist. Del. Co., 138; see also page 41, chapter on
Philadelphia.
[650] Ibid., 139.
[651] Clarkson’s Penn, I, 259; Hazard’s Annals, 695.
[652] Rec. Upland Court, 121; Smith, Hist. Del. Co., 121;
Hazard, Annals, 462.
[653] Would not likely take the case to court.
[654] It appears from a record of sale that the court house was
sold to Robert Wade, 1686. (Record of sale quoted in Jordan,
Hist. Del. Co., I, 112.)
[655] Jordan, Hist. Del. Co., I, 104; Smith, Hist. Del. Co., 137.
[656] Smith, Hist. Del. Co., 166.
[657] Rec. of Chester Mo. Mtg., 1687, I.; Smith, 166.
[658] Smith, 188.
[659] Jordan, II, 441.
[660] Jordan, II, 441.
[661] Ibid.
[662] Ibid.
[663] Min. Chester Mo. Mtg., 1-27-1800.
[664] Jordan, II, 43-45.
[665] Ibid.
[666] The absence of any mention of it in the meeting records.
[667] The writer was unable to find a record of this deed.
[668] No committee reports were noted before that date.
[669] See chapter on Negroes, page 228.
[670] Min. Chester Mo. Mtg., 1-28-1782, 87.
[671] Ibid.
[672] Ibid.
[673] Ibid., 4-29-1782.
[674] Ibid.
[675] Ibid., 7-28-1783, 130.
[676] Ibid.
[677] Min. Chester Mo. Mtg., 4-30-1792, 347.
[678] Ibid., 12-26-1796, 447.
[679] Ibid., 1-27-1800, 508.
[680] Ibid., 5-30-1791, 319.
[681] Min. Chester Mo. Mtg.
[682] Ibid., 9-23-1785, 177.
[683] Min. Chester Q. Meeting, 12-3-1689, 7.
[684] Min. Chester Q. Mtg., 6-14-1732, 128.
[685] Ibid., 9-13-1732, 129.
[686] Ibid., 6-13-1739, 154.
[687] Advices, 250.
[688] Min. Chester Q. Mtg., 5-13-1754, 218.
[689] Smith, Hist. of Del. Co., 166.
[690] Ibid.
[691] Ibid.
[692] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 7-7-1692, 54.
[693] Ibid., 9-20-1693, 56.
[694] See Falls p. 87f.; Abington, p. 105ff.; and Buckingham, p.
96f.
[695] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg. 7-5-1758, 441; 7-5-1750, 322.
[696] Ibid., 12-3-1778, 263.
[697] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg.
[698] Ibid.
[699] Ibid., 2-25-1779, 259.
[700] See page 154.
[701] Ibid., 3-1-1781, 319.
[702] Ibid., 3-29-1781, 320.
[703] Ibid., 1-1-1784, 10.
[704] Ibid., 7-29-1784, 22.
[705] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 3-29-1787, 68.
[706] Ibid., 11-1-1787, 79.
[707] Ibid., 4-2-1789, 99f.
[708] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 1-28-1790, 114. (For entire report
see page 23).
[709] Ibid., 8-2-1792, 157.
[710] Ibid., 11-29-1792, 160.
[711] Ibid., 3-28-1793, 165.
[712] Ibid., 5-2-1793, 166.
[713] Ibid.
[714] Ibid., 7-26-1796, 207.
[715] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 8-2-1798, 243.
[716] Jordan, II, 432.
[717] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg. 1739, 258; 7-5-1750, 322.
[718] Ibid., 8-3-1797, 226.
[719] Ibid., 8-2-1798, 243.
[720] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 1739, 258. (Other bequests were
made by Blunston and ... the value of which in 1791, amounted to
£97 15/6; the committee reporting thereon, add: “we are united in
opinion it will be best to lay out the money in a building on the
meeting lot and in order thereto have had an estimate made for a
house 16 ft. by 26 ft. from out to out, two stories high with a cellar
under the whole, which amounts to £160 or thereabouts.” A
Committee was appointed to see whether this would be according
to the wish of the donor, Darby Minutes 12-29-1791, 145. In 1792
the committee reported it would be best to build the house for the
master’s accommodation with the money of the legacies, and use
the rents arising therefrom for the schooling of poor children,
Darby Minutes, 2-2-1792, 147.)
[721] Smith, Hist. of Del. County, 347.
[722] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 1-11-1731, 189.
[723] Ibid., 1-11-1757, 300.
[724] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., see also page 228, chapter on
Negro education.
[725] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 4-10-1759, 28.
[726] Ibid., 12-8-1768, 220.
[727] Ibid., 1-7-1759, 18.
[728] Advices, 250.
[729] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 8-14-1778, 133.
[730] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 10-13-1778, 139.
[731] Ibid., 7-13-1779, 169.
[732] Ibid., 7-10-1781, 233.
[733] Min. Phila. Q. Mtg., 8-6-1781, 235.
[734] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 9-7-1782, 260.
[735] Ibid., 7-11-1786, 4.
[736] Ibid., 7-13-1790, 8.
[737] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 7-12-1791, 24.
[738] Jordan, II, 429.
[739] Min. Concord Mo. Mtg., 8-4-1779, 94.
[740] Jordan, II, 430.
[742] Ibid., 12-5-1781, 193.
[743] Ibid.
[744] Ibid., 3-3-1784, 275.
[745] Ibid., 8-4-1779, 94.
[746] Ibid., 8-9-1786, 370.
[748] Ibid., 6-5-1782, 213.
[749] Ibid., 8-9-1786, 370; see page 164.
[750] For example, the plan suggested in 1746 and elaborated
in the years following.
[751] Advices, 250.
[752] Advices, 250.
[753] Min. Concord Q. Mtg., 8-12-1754, 218.
[754] Ibid., 8-10-1778, 358.
[755] Ibid., 8-9-1784, 413.
[756] Ibid., 8-12-1793, 477; Min. Warrington and Fairfax Q.
Mtg., 9-20-1784, 175ff.
[757] Phila. Q. Mtg. in the earliest years transacted
considerable detail business, which, years later, it did not touch.
[758] Several definite references are: Min. Middletown Mo.
Mtg., 6-6-1778, 409 and 12-4-1783, 562; Min. Horsham Mo. Mtg.,
II, 12-28-1796.
[759] Min. London Grove Mo. Mtg., 11-4-1795, 78; Min. Darby
Mo. Mtg., 2-3-1791, 133.
[760] To turn to the text of a plan of subscription, see “school
support” in index.
[761] See page 168.
[763] Ibid., 8-16-1798, 199.
[764] Min. London Grove Mo. Mtg., 11-4-1795, 78.
[765] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 2-3-1791, 133.
[767] Min. Buckingham Mo. Mtg., 4-1-1793, 302.
[769] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 10-26-1701, 316.
[770] To find the text of legacies granted, turn to legacies, in the
index.
[772] Attention is called to the fact that during the years
mentioned in the following table currency greatly depreciated.
This depreciation was most marked in 1779, when, in January,
the ratio was 8 to 1; and in November of the same year 38½ to 1.
See Dewey, D. R., Financial History of U. S., 39; also page 212.
[773] Min. Penn Charter School Overseers, I, 301.
[774] Buckingham Mo. Mtg., 12-7-1778, 194.
[775] Ibid., 4-1-1793, 302.
[776] Min. Wrightstown Mo. Mtg., 12-7-1790, 60.
[777] Min. Falls Mo. Mtg., 11-6-1799, 288.
[779] Min. Horsham School Committee, 3-18-1793.
[780] See page 14ff.
[781] Min. London Yr. Mtg., 3-16-1692, 68.
[782] The yearly meetings also established schools; such was
the case in London Yearly, and Philadelphia followed in 1799 with
the establishment of Westtown Boarding School in Chester
County. Justice cannot be done to that institution in this work. The
reader is referred to Dewes, A History of Westtown Boarding
School.
[783] Min. London Yr. Mtg., 3-17 to 24-1703, 114; 5-26 to 31-
1760, 339.
[784] Min. London Yr. Mtg., 3-16 to 19-1692, 68.
[785] Ibid., 4-2 to 7-1745, 268.
[786] Ibid., 4-9 to 11-1690, 52; 4-1 to 4-1691, 60.
[787] Ibid., 3-13 to 17-1695, 89.
[788] Ibid.
[789] Ibid., 4-2 to 10-1718, 160.
[790] Ibid., 5-31 to 6-5-1773, 399.
[791] Ibid., 3-29 to 4-3-1732, 210; 4-9 to 11-1690, 52.
[792] Min. Phila. Yr. Mtg., 7-16 and 17-1694, 39.
[793] Advices from Burlington and Philadelphia Yr. Mtg., 1746,
1750, 1753, 1755, 1777, and so forth, page 250ff. Also the yearly
meeting minutes records for those years, deposited at 304 Arch
Street, Phila. (The first reference is the more accessible.)
[794] The reader is referred to the account of establishing
schools in Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware Counties, etc.
[795] These references are, respectively, to the five points
stated below:
a. Min. Westland Mo. Mtg., 11-11-1786, 12; 3-10-1787, 19.
b. Min. Horsham Mo. Mtg., 4-28-1784.
c. Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 11-29-1719, 57.
d. Min. Kennett Mo. Mtg., 12-15-1796, 146.
e. Min. Chester Mo. Mtg., 1-27-1800, 508; Min. Concord Mo.
Mtg., 8-9-1786, 370.
[796] See the Advices, 250; or the Book of Discipline which
has, under the head of schools, a statement of the various
recommendations of the yearly meetings. See also Yearly
Meeting Minute Books at 4th and Arch Streets, Phila., for years
1746, 1753, 1755, 1777, and 1778.
[797] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 2-29-1698, 229; P. C. S. M., I, 13.
[798] Deed No. 33, mentioned in P. C. S. M., I, 13.
[799] Ibid., 40.
[800] Ibid., 147.
[801] Friends’ Intelligencer, 8-15-1896, 539; Min. Abington Mo.
Mtg., 1-26-1722, 124.
[802] Min. Warrington and Fairfax Q. Mtg., 9-20-1779, 73.
[803] Ibid., 77; Warrington Mo. Mtg., 8-7-1779, 46.
[804] Deed No. 88 New Garden Township, Chester County.
(The original is in Orthodox Friends Meeting House, West Grove,
Pa.)
[805] Min. New Garden Mo. Mtg., 8-6-1785, 256.
[807] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 4-10-1795.
[808] Ibid., 3-8-1782.
[809] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 3-28-1793, 165.
[810] Min. Buckingham Mo. Mtg., 4-10-1794, 314.
[811] Jenkins, Historical Col. of Gwynedd, 396.
[812] Ibid.
[813] Min. Middletown Mo. Mtg., 12-1-1693-4, 64.
[814] Ibid., 1-1-1699, 114.
[815] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 5-25-1740, 318.
[816] In 1701 they had begun a school house which was to be
60 by 24 feet. Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 4-27-1701, 298.
[817] The schoolroom described is in Merion Meeting House,
which may be reached from Philadelphia via P.R.R. to Narberth,
Pa.; from thence a ten-minute walk.
[818] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 3-8-1782.
[819] Min. Falls Mo. Mtg., 12-3-1794, 169; for value of money
see page 212.
[820] Ibid., 9-4-1799, 283.
[821] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 4-27-1701, 298.
[822] Ibid., 11-25-1744, 379; P. C. S. M., I, 40. Parts of the
school buildings were at times used as tenant property thus
affording a supporting income, P. C. S. M., I, 22.
[823] P. C. S. M., I, 56.
[824] Ibid., I, 39.
[825] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 9-25-1715, 10ff.
[826] P. C. S. M., I, 95 and 37.
[827] Min. Bradford Mo. Mtg., 6-18-1762; 4-7-1767; 8-14-1767.
[828] P. C. S. M., I, 29 and 25.
[829] Ibid., 31.
[830] Ibid., 95.
[831] Ibid., 37.
[832] P. C. S. M., 72.
[833] Ibid., 151ff.
[834] Ibid.
[836] P. C. S. M., I, 76 and 79; also I, 198.
[837] P. C. S. M., see list of scholars; number is approximate.
[838] Pemberton Mss., Vol. 3, p. 2.
[839] P. C. S. M., I, 102f. (Rules adopted in 1748.)
[840] Robert Proud Mss. Collection, No. 20, pp. 3-7. The rules,
he states, were drawn up for his use in the school in 1780.
[841] The rules presented, taken from records of the Overseers
of the Schools in Philadelphia, are quite like those later drawn up
by Horsham School Committee. There is nothing additional in the
later ones and they were doubtless patterned after them.
(Horsham Sch. Com. Min., 1-27-1783).
[842] Robert Proud Mss., No. 156, 45.
[843] Logan Mss. Letter for 4th month, 12th, 1704. Vol. I, 49. (J.
Dickinson was away on a voyage of some length.)
[844] Vaux, Memoirs of Benezet, 15f.
[845] Watson, Annals, I, 291-2.
[846] See page 181.
[847] P. C. S. M., I, 137.
[848] Ibid., 150.
[850] See page 78.
[851] Page 78.
[852] See list of printed rules for the school in custody of P.C.S.
[853] Min. Horsham Sch. Com., 1-27-1783 (also mentioned in
the monthly meeting minutes very frequently).
[854] See page 78f.
[855] P.C.S.M., I, 84.
[856] Pa. Gazette, No. 1449, 1756.
[857] Ibid., No. 824, 1744.
[858] Pa. Pocket and Daily Advertiser, No. 2385, 1786.
[859] Ibid., No. 2386, 1786.
[860] A list of printed rules issued by the Board, found in the
depository for the P.C.S.M., in the Provident Life and Trust
Building, Phila.
[861] Darby Meeting employed B. Clift to teach a whole year
with the exception of two weeks. (Darby Min., 7-7-1692, 54).
[862] Ibid.
[863] See page 183f.
[865] P. C. S. M., I, 117.
[867] Some copies and volumes of these illustrious news
sheets are found in the Norris Ms. Collection.
[868] Norris Ms. Collection—The Student’s Magazine. The little
volumes are unpaged; page references are impossible.
[869] Norris Ms. Collection.
[870] Ibid.
[871] P. C. S. M., I, 135.
[872] Phila. Mo. Min., 1-25-1771, 430.
[873] London Yr. Mtg. Min., 4-2 to 10-1718, 160. Phila. Advices
XXX, page 250 (for years from 1746-1778). Also a copy of the
Discipline containing the digested recommendations on schools,
p. 386ff. (In first National Bank, Newtown, Pa.).
[874] Col. Rec., I, LXVI.
[875] Extracts from London Yr. Mtg. Min., pub. 1802, 124.
[876] Crouch, Collection of His Papers, 183.
[877] Col. Rec., I, 36.
[878] P. C. S. M., I, 33.
[879] P. C. S. M., 14.
[880] Ibid., 90.
[881] Ibid., 117.
[882] Ibid., 145.
[883] Ibid., 221.
[884] A letter written to John Penn, Penn Ms. Collections, I,
233.
[885] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 7-30-1779, 151; 1-30-1784, 123ff.
Also, Min. Horsham Sch. Com., 1-27-1783; Min. Horsham Prep.
Mtg., 1-24-1783, and Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 2-28-1793, 165, give
some of the books which were used in the schools.
[886] P. C. S. M., I, 138.
[887] Hildeburn, II, 332.
[888] Ibid., I, 39.
[889] Pa. Gaz., No. 1245, 1752.
[890] Ibid., No. 1499, 1757.
[891] Ibid., No. 1861, 1764.
[892] Ibid., No. 1556, 1758.
[893] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 3-30-1770, 370.
[894] P. C. S. M., I, 138.
[895] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 2-28-1793, 165.
[898] Min. Byberry Prep. Mtg., 12-26-1792.
[899] Ibid., 8-26-1789.
[900] Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 5-8-1789, 55.
[901] Min. Sadsbury Mo. Mtg., 6-17-1789, II, 70.
[902] Hildeburn, I, 39 (published in London 1697).
[903] Ibid., II, 100.
[904] Prowell, I, 540.
[905] In 1689 Phila. Mo. Mtg. authorized W. Bradford to print
certain of G. Fox’s papers. These are not named and it hardly
seems probable that Fox’s Primmer was in the list. Bradford’s
request for permission (Genealogical Publications, II, 139), H. S.
P.
[906] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 12-25-1697-8, p. 227 (G. S. P. P.)
[907] Hildeburn, I, 38.
[908] Smith, Supplement to Catalogue of Friends Books, 262.
[909] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 11-29-1696-7, 211. (G. S. P. P., Vol.
4).
[910] Pastorius’s Common Place Book (Mss.) H. S. P.
[911] The Primer of Stephen Crisp is also mentioned frequently
with that of Fox, as being used in the schools. (Min. Abington Mo.
Mtg., 8-27-1735, 207).
[912] Hildeburn, II, 21, 114, 341, 340, and 343, respectively.
[913] Hildeburn, I, 318.
[914] P. C. S. M., I, 240.
[915] Prowell, I, 541.
[916] See page 191.
[917] Chiefly in the Norris Mss. Collections.
[918] A scale, having units of known value, which is used in
measuring accomplishment in handwriting.
[920] Prowell, I, 540.
[921] Elihu Underwood was teacher at Warrington in York
County in 1784 (See Warrington Mo. Mtg. Min., 1-10-1784, 47.)
[922] Norris Ms. Collection, H. S. P.
[923] P. C. S. M., I, 64.
[924] Ibid., 26; also Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 7-30-1779, 151.
[925] In 1741 Buller advertised the teaching of writing,
arithmetic, merchants’ accounts, navigation, algebra, and other
parts of the mathematics to be taught at the “Public School.” (Pa.
Gaz. No. 673, 1741).
[926] Ibid., 84.
[927] Ibid., 101.
[928] Ibid., 122.
[929] Ibid., 131.
[930] Ibid., 133.
[932] Ibid., 7-30-1779, 151.
[933] P. C. S. M., I, 33.
[934] Ibid., 14.
[935] Alexander Seaton, who came to the English School about
1754 (P. C. S. M. I, 117) had been teaching a school of the same
nature in the upper part of the city, in which he taught
mathematics. That school was also under the direction of the
Board. (P. C. S. M., I, 90).
[936] Ibid., 80.
[937] Ibid., 104f.
[938] Ibid.
[939] A list of the rules for the government of the schools,
printed, in the P. C. S. depository.
[940] See page 189.
[942] Ibid., 464.
[943] P. C. S. M., I, 235.
[944] See page 57.
[945] Pa. Gaz., Apr. 16, 1730.
[947] Pastorius, Common Place Book (Mss.) H. S. P.
[948] Books of Charles and Isaac Norris in Norris Ms.
Collection.
[949] Books chiefly of Norris, I. Griffiths, and King, in the Norris
Ms. Collection.
[950] P. C. S. M., I, 104f.
[951] See page 195.
[952] See Norris Ms. Collection, H. S. P.
[953] P. C. S. M., I, 239.
[954] Ibid., 75.
[955] For instance, F. D. Pastorius, Anthony Benezet, Robert
Proud, Christopher Taylor, and many others.
[956] Min. London Yr. Mtg., 4-9 to 11-1690, 52; 4-1 to 4-1691,
60; 3-13 to 17-1695, 89; also collected Advices of Philadelphia
and Burlington Yr. Mtg., 250ff.
[957] Min. Byberry Prep. Mtg., 2-22-1786.
[958] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 7-6-1792; Min. Kennett Mo. Mtg.,
5-12-1785, 814; Min. Radnor Mo. Mtg., 7-11-1786, 4; Min.
Uwchlan Mo. Mtg., 12-5-1782, 136; 11-7-1782, 132.
[959] Deed No. 88, New Garden, Tp., Chester Co. (In Fireproof
of Orthodox Friends in West Grove, Pa.).
[960] Min. Goshen Mo. Mtg., 8-11-1797; Min. Ken. Mo. Mtg., 3-
14-1793, 39.
[961] Min. Goshen Mtg., 8-5-1796.
[962] P. C. S. M., 1, 3, 33, and 90; Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 7-17-
1692, 54; Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 1-29-1700, 254; 4-24-1720, 63.
[963] Col. Rec. I, 36.
[964] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 6-26-1784, 64.
[965] P. C. S. M., I, 58.
[966] Ibid., 5f.
[967] Ibid., 175.
[968] Ibid., 208.
[969] Ibid., 139.
[970] Ibid., 141.
[971] Ibid., 265.
[972] P. C. S. M., I, 237.
[973] Ibid., 245.
[974] Ibid., 116.
[975] See Yearly Meetings’ Advices, 250.
[976] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 7-7-1692, 54; 9-20-1693, 56.
[977] 2 Pa. Arch. XIX, 248.
[978] Bean, 680.
[979] There is found no record of his removal by letter, though
he may have done so without, which, however, was not according
to practice.
[980] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 5-26-1689, 154.
[981] Ibid., 3-29-1691, 146.
[982] Weekly Mercury, Nov. 29, 1733.
[983] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 11-28-1697, 227.
[984] Ibid., 1-29-1700, 254.
[985] P. C. S. M., I, 64.
[986] Ibid., 101.
[987] Ibid., 90.
[988] Ibid., 266.
[989] Ibid., 175.
[990] Ibid., 334.
[991] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 1-30-1784, 123.
[992] P. C. S. M., I, 33.
[993] Simpson’s Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, 53. Min.
Phila. Mo. Mtg., 1-30-1784, 128.
[994] Ibid., 1-31-1699, 244.
[995] Ibid., 1-27-1702, 326.
[996] P. C. S. M., I, 126.
[997] Ibid., 221.
[998] P. C. S. M., I, 130.
[999] Ibid., 161.
[1000] Ibid., 158.
[1001] Min. Darby Mo. Mtg., 7-7-1692, 54.
[1002] P. C. S. M., I, 133.
[1003] Ibid., 274.
[1004] Ibid., 131.
[1005] P. C. S. M., I., 123.
[1006] Ibid., 131.
[1007] Min. Phila. Mo. Mtg., 5-26-1689.
[1008] In the references at the right hand margin of the table
“Ph” refers to Minutes of Philadelphia Monthly Meeting for the
date given; Darby refers to Minutes of Darby Monthly Meeting.
[1009] Futhey and Cope, 308.
[1010] From an old account book in possession of Albert Cook
Myers, Moylan, Pa.
[1011] Dewey, D. R., Financial History of the U. S., 39.
The reader is reminded of the fact that because of greatly
depreciated currency the amounts paid, as shown in the above
table, did not represent so much absolute increase. That some
exact idea of the extent of depreciation of the continental currency
may be gained, there is given the following table for the year
1779, when the depreciation became most marked.
Jan. 14, 1779 8 to 1

Feb. 3 10 to 1
Apr. 2 17 to 1
May 5 24 to 1
June 4 20 to 1
Sept. 17 24 to 1
Oct. 14 30 to 1
Nov. 17 38½ to 1
The fact of such depreciation was not officially recognized by

Congress until March 18, 1780, it being then provided that paper
be accepted for silver at a ratio of 40 to 1.
[1012] See page 20.
[1014] Ibid., 1-31-1699, 244.
[1015] Ibid., 1-27-1702, 326.
[1016] P. C. S. M., I, 130.
[1017] Ibid., 158.

John Buridans Questions On Aristotles de Anima Iohannis Buridani Quaestiones in Aristotelis de Anima Gyula Klima Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

John Buridans Questions On Aristotles de Anima Iohannis Buridani Quaestiones in Aristotelis de Anima Gyula Klima Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Buridans Questions On Aristotles de Anima Iohannis Buridani Quaestiones in Aristotelis de Anima Gyula Klima Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Buridan’s Questions on

Aristotle’s De Anima – Iohannis

Petit manuel de survie en médecine intensive-

80+ Python Coding Challenges for Beginners: Python

Introduction to 80×86 Assembly Language and Computer

Biological Reaction Engineering: Dynamic Modeling

Aristotle, De motu animalium: Text and Translation

L'oeuvre de John Cleland: Mémoires de Fanny Hill, femme

El Puño de la Fe John Bentley

Another Man's Shoes John C De Groot

John Buridan’s Questions on

Peter Hartman Jack Zupko

This work was supported by National Endowment for the Humanities

We have benefited greatly from the assistance of others since embark-

Finally, we thank the National Endowment of the Humanities,

Life and Works

sixteenth century.1 Buridan continued lecturing, writing, and being

Versions of the Text

as the “tertia lectura” of Buridan’s Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De anima.

Two of these manuscripts (O and R) even go so far as to describe the questions

well established in Buridan’s lifetime, despite occasional and minor

see Markowski 1971, 1984, and 1988.

Boer concludes that, despite some surface similarities, there is no con-

cluding editions of Buridan’s Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De anima as well as on the

something, as in his treatment of self-referential paradoxes in the Sophismata (Sum-

mind one of supersession rather than continuous development and re-

(Paris 1509, 93vb –98va ).

its origins as a commentary on a prescribed text might suggest, to the

the same commentary, which would correspond to the three versions

on Aristotle’s Metaphysics written during Buridan’s lifetime (Paris BN lat. 16131),

lieves Buridan’s actual death date to be October 11, 1360.

would typically be occasioned by the decease of its incumbent. So,

Based on the pioneering research of Edmond Faral,32 supple-

1. [A]: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek 566, ff. 1ra –65ra39

2. [B]: Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr.

3. [C]: Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr.

4. [D]: Krakow, Biblioteka Jagiellonska 2083, ff. 70r –117v42

5. [E]: Liège, Bibliothèque de l’Université 346 C, ff. 53r –95r43

6. [F]: Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana P.120 sup., ff. 74ra –135va44

7. [G]: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 742, f. 2r –52vb45

8. [H]: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 18794, f. 93r –

9. [I]: Oxford, Bodleian Library Canon auct. class. lat. 278,

13. [M]: Roma, Biblioteca Angelica 592 (F.6.4), ff. 113ra–187vb51

sibly Padua or Bologna (Michael); dated 1394 in the explicit.

15. [O]: Sarnano, Biblioteca Communale E.14, ff. 1va –46vb53

16. [P]: Sarnano, Biblioteca Communale E.143, ff. 1ra –66ra54

17. [Q]: Treviso, Biblioteche Comunali 420 A, ff. 48ra –87vb55

21. [U]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. 5437, ff. 176ra –

the explicit to Book II.

22. [V]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. 5454, ff. 2ra –

23. [W]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. 5374,

This list does not include manuscripts containing either abbrevi-

[A]: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek 566, ff. 1ra–65ra

or Patar). The text was miscatalogued as an autograph copy of the Quaestiones on

[E]: Liège, Bibliothèque de l’Université 346 C, ff. 53r –

[T]: Città del Vaticano, Vat. lat. 11575, ff. 22ra–87rb

T appears to have been written by two scribes, with the second

[V]: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod.