Practica geometriae.--De grammatica.--Epitome Dindimi in philosophiam.

English summary: Gilduin (1155) was, from 1113, the first abbot of the community of the Canons Regular of St Augustine, soon to become an abbey, under the auspices of St Victor of Marseille, on the left bank of the river Seine. After the death of his confrere Hugh, who was of German descent and the leading figure of the Victorines, on 11 February 1141, abbot Gilduin took care that the writings of Hugh were collected and compiled in a representative complete (...) edition. This 'Gilduin-edition' - as it is called in Medieval scholarship - comprises four volumes, the first of which is reconstructed herewith and presented in print. This volume follows the 2008 edition of Hugh's theological summa, De sacramentis christiane fidei. Then as now we are dealing with a critical albeit historical text. This new volume contains nine works, among which the first ever complete edition of Hugh's Cronica surely stands out. German description: Gilduin (+ 1155) war ab 1113 der erste Abt der einige Jahre zuvor gegrundeten und bald zur Abtei erhobenen Gemeinschaft von Augustinerchorherren unter dem Patronat des hl. Victor von Marseille, auf dem linken Ufer der Seine. Nach dem Tode seines Mitbruders Hugo, des aus Deutschland stammenden fuhrenden Kopfes der Viktoriner, am 11. Februar 1141 hat Abt Gilduin dafur gesorgt, daa die Schriften Hugos gesammelt und in einer reprasentativen Gesamtausgabe zusammengestellt werden. Diese in der internationalen mediavistischen Forschung so genannte,Gilduin-Ausgabe' der Werke Hugos von Saint-Victor umfaat vier Bande, deren erster hiermit rekonstruiert und im Druck vorgelegt wird. Dieser Band folgt somit auf unsere im Jahre 2008 besorgte Ausgabe der theologischen Summe Hugos, De sacramentis christiane fidei. Damals wie heute handelt es sich um einen kritischen, wenngleich historischen Text. Dieser neue Band umfaat neun Werke, unter denen insbesondere die uberhaupt erste vollstandige Ausgabe von Hugos Cronica hervorzuheben ist. (shrink)

In various letters written to Mersenne in 1640 and 1641, Descartes mentions the Summa philosophiae quadrapartita of Eustachius a Sancto Paulo. But nothing that he says would lead us to believe the work an important influence on his thought. Nonetheless, when we turn to the Summa we are immediately struck by what seem to be “Cartesian” elements in its presentation. For example, a distinction is drawn between formal logic and “natural” logic. Formal logic is seen as a convenience in (...) learning the sciences, but natural logic alone is found to be the absolutely essential requirement. And this natural logic is basically a product of the natural light. It is not difficult to see in these passages a foreshadowing of Descartes’ new conception of method. Like Eustachius, he too maintains that the natural functions of the mind are all that we require in the pursuit of truth. But we shall find even more interesting similarities between the two men. (shrink)

No single text could be considered more important in the history of philosophy than Descartes' Meditations. This unique collection of background material to this magisterial philosophical text has been translated from the original French and Latin. The texts gathered here illustrate the kinds of principles, assumptions, and philosophical methods that were commonplace when Descartes was growing up. The selections are from: Francisco Sanches, Christopher Clavius, Pierre de la Ramee, Francisco Suárez, Pierre Charron, Eustachius a Sancto Paulo, Scipion Dupleix, Marin (...) Mersenne, Pierre Gassendi, Jean de Silhon, François de la Mothe le Vayer, Charles Sorel, and Jean-Baptiste Morin. (shrink)

Intentional states appear to relate thinkers to objects and situations even when these latter do not exist. Given the concern to allow that thought is a mode of engagement between subject and world, many writers have presented relational theories of intentionality and introduced odd relata to account for thought of the non‐existent. However there are familiar epistemological and ontological objections to such accounts which give reason to look for other ways of accommodating the appearance of relationality. A little explored possibility (...) is to countenance not odd relata but odd relations, ones not requiring existent terms other than those which ground the relation on the side of the subject. Proposals to this effect by Findlay and Grossmann are underdescribed and not obviously different from more familiar odd relata theories. Here a more developed view is explored, which derives from scholastic accounts of intentionality, in particular that presented by John of St Thomas, as this has been elaborated and defended in recent writings by John Deely. While judging it to fail, I suggest that it leads us towards an older tradition according to which the intentionality of thought is constituted by the occurrence of the forms of things in the mind. ‘Formally and principally the whole difference between a mind‐independent relation and a mind‐dependent one comes down to this, that a physical relation has a mind‐independent fundament with a coexistent terminus while a mental relation lacks such a foundation.’(Joannes a Sancto Thoma, Cursus Philosophicus: Ars Logica; Tractatus de Signis)1. (shrink)

This paper inquires into how the new techniques of 14th-century physics, especially the doctrines of the maxima and minima of powers and the latitudes of forms, were applied to the issue of propagation of light. The focus is on several Prague disputed questions, originating between 1377 and 1409, dealing with whether illumination has infinite or finite reach and whether illumination’s intensity remains constant (uniformis) or is rather uniformly decreasing (uniformiter difformis). These questions are contextualised through examination of Oxford, Paris, and (...) Prague sources of the era (John Dumbleton, John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Albert of Saxony, Henry of Langenstein, John of Holland) to construct a fresh survey of late medieval theories of light. Along the way, the discovery of a hitherto unknown Prague disputation from the 1370s is announced, and new evidence for the dating and Central European dissemination of Jacobus de Sancto Martino’s De latitudinibus formarum and Nicole Oresme’s Questiones super Geometriam is uncovered. (shrink)

Le livre, issu d’une thèse de doctorat soutenue à l’Université de Trente, est consacré à l’étude du neuvième livre, De debito coniugali, des Disputationes de sancto matrimonii sacramento du jésuite espagnol Tomás Sánchez, publiées en trois tomes entre 1602 et 1605. À partir de l’analyse des sources citées par le théologien et des modalités de réception de l’œuvre, l’auteure est en mesure d’en démontrer l’originalité et le rôle novateur dans le contexte de la nouvelle doctrine du mariage élabo...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Originality of Descartes’s Conception of Analysis as DiscoveryBenoît TimmermansAccording to Descartes, his Meditations employ the method of analysis. This method of proof, says Descartes, “shows the true way by means of which the thing in question was discovered methodically and as it were a priori.” 1 Such a definition of analysis poses a problem that seems to have attracted little attention among commentators until now, namely, why Descartes (...) considers analysis a method of discovery whereas the Scholastic tradition asserts just the contrary, that synthesis allows the discovery of new things, whereas analysis is a method for judging findings or verifying them a posteriori. What is more, the definition that Descartes gives of his analysis contains another divergence, this time brought up by the commentators, 2 for he curiously considers analysis an a priori movement and not an a posteriori movement as dictated by tradition.These issues are all the more important as the analytical method acquired particular prestige in the seventeenth century. This prestige concerned not only philosophy (Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, etc.) but science as well. Thus algebra lost some of its rough edges and gradually took on the name of “analysis.” 3 Descartes created a type of geometry that was soon dubbed “analytic,” and Leibniz developed his analysis infinitorum or differential and integral calculus. If the scientific revolution and the new philosophies that were associated with it attached so much importance to a method that had already been known in ancient Greece, was it not due to a change of the meaning of analysis or at least a rearranging of some of its functions? This is the question that we propose to [End Page 433] tackle while trying to determine to what extent Cartesian analysis breaks with the forms of analysis that preceded it. 4To do this we shall first examine the teachings of Scholastic philosophy concerning the connections between analysis and discovery in general and then study the logical possibilities of discovery through analysis that draw their inspiration from Aristotle’s Analytics and that were developed extensively by the School of Padua in the sixteenth century. Finally, we shall attempt to determine whether the mathematical definition of analysis derived from the works of Euclid and Pappus gives grounds for the correlation with discovery.The Link Between Analysis and Discovery According to the ScholasticsOne might well think that Descartes was completely unaware of the contradiction between his definition of analysis and the teachings of the Scholastics. Had not he always exhibited a true disdain for the latter? However, in September 1640, that is, four months before writing his text on analysis, Descartes began girding for the Jesuit Fathers’ objections to his Meditations. This involved looking for an “abstract of the whole of scholastic philosophy, this would save the time it would take to read their huge tomes.” 5 He finally found what he was looking for in the shops of Leiden, namely, Eustachius a Sancto Paulo’s Summa Philosophiae. There is reason to believe that Descartes read this opus with interest, for two months later he referred to it as “the best book of its kind ever made.” 6 Later he said that he would definitely have chosen the Summa Philosophiae as the basis for refuting the School’s doctrine if he had not given up such a project. 7 Now, Eustachius a Sancto Paulo’s Summa Philosophiae is categorical on the subject of analysis versus synthesis. Analysis of a definition “is perfectly compatible with the doctrines for teaching and learning; as for the other disciplines of discovery, the other method, that is the composite or synthetic method, must be used.” 8According to the Scholastic doctrine as stated by Eustachius a Sancto Paulo, analysis thus plays a part in the teaching of well-known things and in all processes of appraisal, assessment, or judgment. This is easy to explain if one considers that, etymologically, analysis breaks links (ana-luein), goes backward, or climbs back up from the consequences to the principles. Starting from an observation, proposition, or question, it wends its way back to the simplest, [End Page 434] surest items of knowledge that shed light on and verify said starting... (shrink)

El artículo estudia las huellas que, en la producción agustiniana dle período indicado en el título, han dejado las siguientes obras ambrosianas: Del fide, De Spiritu Sancto, Exameron, De paradiso, Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam y Exposito Ps. 118.

What does Descartes's embryology look, if related to the Scholastic theories of his time? In order to reply to this question, the present chapter aims at sketching a portrait of the embryological epigenetics Descartes could find in his recognized Scholastic sources (the Commentaries on Aristotle by Toledo, the Coimbra Jesuits, Suárez, and Rubio, as well as the Summae by Eustachius a Sancto Paulo and Abra de Raçonis), a tradition that received and incorporated in the Aristotelian-Galenic body many novelties from (...) Renaissance medicine, especially Fernel, Paré, and Vallès. It being impossible to deal extensively with the whole of the contents of these works, I picked up three issues in particular, corresponding to the first three paragraphs of this paper: 1) the nature of the semen, and the action of the vis formativa, as well as its relationship with vital heat and temperaments; 2) the problem of the real and/or rational distinction(s) between the generative, the nutritive, and the augmentative powers; 3) the epigenetic order of generation of vital organs, i.e. the right sequence over which the fundamental organs of a living body are generated and then ensouled. In the last paragraph I integrate these reconstructions with some conclusions about Descartes' own theory. (shrink)

In the Glossary-codex, Vat. Lat. 1469, written in the year 908, fol. 83 has been assigned to ‘glossae collectae.’ They begin : In Passione Apostolorum. Iussit eum inaumachia cathomis consumi. Cathomis: uirgis nodosis. Hie naumachia forum signat Romanorum quod Prorostris dicitur eo quod rostra, etc.. In Sancto Sebastiano. Saturnus apocatasticus : id est dispositor et destructor fatorum. Annus tuus ex diametro susceptus est. Diametrum est, etc. ‘Glossae collectae’ from the Bible and from Jerome's prefaces come next.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:What Are Dead Bodies For?:An Augustinian ThanatologyPhilip PorterIntroductionSt. Augustine's De cura pro mortuis gerenda is one of the earliest sources for Christian thought on dead human bodies. In this work, he examines traditional Christian practices of care for the dead and provides a theological interpretation of those practices. In De cura, Augustine does not aim primarily to help the reader discern what are licit and illicit behaviors, but rather (...) to discover what is occurring in the context of the funerary practices of Christians with reference to the economy of salvation. It examines, in other words, how the bodies of the departed Christian faithful, both the saints and ordinary believers, affect and are affected by the prayers of the living and the dead. For this reason, De cura is an invaluable resource for reflection on Christian practices surrounding relics. Augustine maps some of the possible avenues of interchange between the living and the dead while ruling out others. In doing so he provides fodder for theological reflection upon the question of what Christians should think is happening when they view, pray before, kiss, or touch to their bodies the pieces of bone, flesh, blood, hair, clothing, jewelry, or footwear of the Church's saints.The following examination consists in two parts. The first is a close look at De cura in which I will argue that the conclusions of that work concerning the physical remains of Christian's are best considered in light of Augustine's ecclesiology. The second involves a speculative extension of the findings in the first part to show how relics work. This speculation is useful and warranted because the Catholic Church has had relatively little to say on this matter magisterially. While the Church teaches that the veneration [End Page 561] of relics is beneficial and provides some guidance as to what the practice ought to entail, the question of how the particular matter of saintly bodies functions remains ambiguous. In these two parts I will show that relics may be understood as a sacrament of the Church's unity. They are visible signs of the invisible unity of the Church across time and space.De cura pro mortuis gerendaProximityAugustine's De cura is a response to a question from his fellow bishop, Paulinus of Nola. Paulinus is interested in the question of ad sanctos burial, the Christian practice of interring the dead near the earthly remains of martyrs (ad sanctos). This practice was thought to give "some access to their intercessory powers or special assistance on Judgment Day."1 Paulinus wants a theological answer about the liceity and function of ad sanctos burial, for which he turns to Augustine. On the whole, Augustine is set against the idea that mere proximity to a martyr's remains aids in the salvation of the departed. But his words on the subject are nuanced, and he seeks to provide an orthodox explanation of the practice.2 He describes the benefit of ad sanctos burial primarily in terms of memoria. As Peter Brown has argued, memoria was not understood as a passive faculty by the citizens of the ancient world. Instead, memoria was an active tool to facilitate social cohesion, especially in the context of client–patron relations.3 This is how Augustine thinks of it, and explains the comforts provided by funerary arrangements with reference to it.I do not see what aid those [comforts] are to the dead, except this: that when they reflect upon where the bodies of those whom they love may be buried, they should entrust them by prayer to the same saints who have undertaken, like patrons, to aid them before the Lord.4The client–patron relationships of the late ancient world alluded to by Augustine in this passage involve the active bonds of intercession. Proximity to the saints might serve as an actuator of memoria, but not simply by virtue [End Page 562] of the physical closeness of the bodies. Instead, as Augustine goes on to claim, "When, therefore, the soul reflects upon where the body of a dearly beloved person has been buried, and it meets in that place the name of a venerable... (shrink)

“Domino regi piissimo, gratia Dei celsissimo, Carlo vere carissimo, regno Christi rectissimo, ultimus namque Cathuulfus, tamen vester servulus, intimo corde puro in spiritu salutem sancto.” In a flurry of flattery, humility, and sycophantic superlatives the Insular scholar and Carolingian courtier known to us as Cathwulf commenced his famous letter to Charlemagne. Composed almost certainly early in the year 775, Cathwulf's letter to the youthful Frankish king is a unique work. His name is associated with no other text, and indeed (...) the letter to Charlemagne exists in only a single manuscript, an indicator perhaps of restricted contemporary circulation. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Descartes’ Meditations: Background Source Materials ed. by Roger Ariew, John Cottingham, and Tom SorellRichard A. WatsonRoger Ariew, John Cottingham, and Tom Sorell, editors. Descartes’ Meditations: Background Source Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. xviii + 170. Cloth, $54.95. Paper, $18.95.This volume includes primarily source materials from authors who were contemporary to Descartes’s composition of the Meditations. Thus there are no selections from Augustine, Aquinas, and Montaigne, for (...) example, who were more influential on the Meditations than some of the authors excerpted. Of course their influence is already amply documented by such scholars as Gilson and Gouhier. Probably the most important source included is Suárez, whose role is championed by Jean-Luc Marion in several works. Readers should look for the forthcoming Index Augustino-Cartèsian: Textes et Commentaire by Zbigniew Janowski (Paris: J. Vrin) for a startling challenge to the view that Descartes is Suárezian.In the volume under review, Eustachius a Sancto Paulo is of special interest because Descartes thought of refuting him item by item (but decided exposition of his own view would be adequate). In his youth Descartes had a definite interest in Petrus Ramus, although Beeckman told him his method consisted of tired old tricks. Francisco Sanches and Pierre Charron are important for their expositions of sceptical arguments and attitudes. Christopher Clavius is Descartes’s direct predecessor in mathematical analysis, and none of Descartes’s protests that he never read the man has convinced anyone. Scipion Dupleix is a fine example of how the Old Philosophy appeared to the New Philosophers, and Marin Mersenne, of course, compiled material on every subject Descartes ever had an interest in. Pierre Gassendi exercised Descartes’s ire more than any other commentator on the Meditations, and Descartes again probably read Gassendi’s continuing criticisms even though he claimed he wouldn’t. [End Page 366]Of special interest is Jean de Silhon, an old friend of Descartes’s who published a book containing a proto-cogito three years before the Meditations appeared. François de la Mothe le Vayer represents the libertine strain many detect in Descartes’s writings, while Jean-Baptiste Morin provides fodder for those who detect Descartes’s piety, although Descartes asserts that the man is an idiot for defending the immobility of the earth. Finally, Charles Sorel provides an example of the deductive mode of exposition in a text that shows that the notion of a unified science was more than Cartesian. One contemporary who was left out and should have been included was the Augustinian Guillaume Gibieuf.But overall, this is an interesting and useful collection of works Descartes doubtless knew. [End Page 367]Richard A. WatsonWashington UniversityCopyright © 1999 Johns Hopkins University Press... (shrink)