An Edition of Walter Burley's "Quaestiones Super Librum Posteriorum" From Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge Ms 668*/645, with a Doctrinal Introduction [Book Review]
Dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada) (
1981)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
Walter Burley was a vigorous and versatile writer on philosophical subjects, both in the form of commentaries on Aristotle and independent works. The Quaestiones Super Librum Posteriourm, attributed to 'domino Waltero de Burley', was composed sometime between 1299-1307 while he was teaching in the Arts Faculty at Oxford. This work is preserved in Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge MS 668*/645, a collection primarily of logical works by Oxford scholars made before 1306 or 1307. This commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics includes twelve quaestiones on the text and three sections of ad litteram interpretation interspersed between the questions. The titles of the questions are: An mere logicus possit facere demonstrationem ex principiis propriis. An aliquis sit syllogismus demonstrativus. Utrum aliquis posset acquirere aliquam scientiam de novo. Utrum homo possit per suas potentias naturales absque illustratione agentis superioris devenire in cognitionem cuiuslibet conclusionis in demonstratione. Utrum omnis demonstratio sit syllogismus faciens scire. Utrum ad scientiam proprie dictam requiratur cognitio omnium causarum. Utrum propositiosit per se vera in qua praedicatur genus de differentia. Utrum quaeribilia et vere scibilia sint eadem numero. Utrum quaestio quid est sit quaestio pertinens ad demonstratorem. Utrum quaestio si est sit quaestio pertinens ad demonstratorem. Utrum ad concludendum passionem de subiecto sit definitio subiecti medium vel definitio passionis. Utrum omnis quaestio sit quaestio medii. ;Questions four and seven are of particular interest. In Question four, Walter Burley uses illumination theory to distinguish the philosophical sciences from theology. The principles and, thus, the conclusions of philosophy are derived solely from the light of natural reason. Theology, on the other hand, owes its principles to divine illumination and, therefore, its conclusions as well. Thus, philosophy and theology as disciplines are constituted in radically distinct manners, each unable to foster or profit from the other. It seems that Burley's isolation of these disciplines is a reaction to the Condemnation of 1277, and is designed to protect some ground on which the philosopher may legitimately speculate without either replacing or contradicting the conclusions of science of revelation. . . . UMI