We know of three commentaries on Aristotle by Theodoricus de Magdeburg: The Quaestiones super De physica, the Quaestiones super De substantia orbis, and the Quaestiones super De anima. This paper presents an analysis of some of Thedoricus’ s questions with regard to three main topics: Matter and Substance, God, and Man and Soul. The investigation of the first two works – and of the first two topics respectively – starts with an assessment of their contents. It turns out, however, that (...) Super De physica scarcely differs from Super De substantia orbis and that the few differences are rather superficial. Theodoricus’ s Super De anima mainly expounds the theory of the intellect. The analysis concentrates on his role in the debates with other Latin Averroists such as John of Jandun. It is evident that Theodoricus, even in his disagreement with other philosophers, essentially relies on Averroistic thought; but he also strikes out in new directions. These two characteristics of his philosophy – consistency and originality – mark him as an outstanding thinker in the tradition of Latin Averroism. (shrink)

We know of three commentaries on Aristotle by Theodoricus de Magdeburg: The Quaestiones super De physica, the Quaestiones super De substantia orbis, and the Quaestiones super De anima. This paper presents an analysis of some of Thedoricus' s questions with regard to three main topics: Matter and Substance, God, and Man and Soul. The investigation of the first two works - and of the first two topics respectively - starts with an assessment of their contents. It turns out, however, that (...) Super De physica scarcely differs from super De substantia orbis and that the few differences are rather superficial. Theodoricus' s Super De anima mainly expounds the theory of the intellect. The analysis concentrates on his role in the debates with other Latin Averroists such as John of Jandun. It is evident that Theodoricus, even in his disagreement with other philosophers, essentially relies on Averroistic thought; but he also strikes out in new directions. These two characteristics of his philosophy - consistency and originality - mark him as an outstanding thinker in the tradition of Latin Averroism. (shrink)

Giles of Orleans' philosophy evolved from an orthodox Christian interpretation of Aristotle to an Averroism; and his successive commentaries testify to this evolution: De generatione version I, De generatione version II, Physics version I and Physics version II. The first work presents orthodox Christian solutions, the second and the third testify to some Averroistic influences and the last is a clearly Averroistic commentary. Giles did not obey the regulation of 1272 which forbade the masters of the facilitas artium to discuss (...) theological problems. De generatione I discusses the question of world history as a chain of eternal reversions and solves it according to Christian orthodoxy. De generatione II and Physics I put forward the question whether accidents can exist without substance. The first work cites amply the Aristotelian solution and tries to reconcile it with a Christian understanding of the problem, whereas the second commentary accepts the opinion of Thomas Aquinas. In De generatione II and Physics II, Giles inquires whether an annihilated substance can reappear. The first commentary cites arguments for the negative answer, but it also gives a short declaratio fidei. The second commentary cites an and an orthodox solution, stating that one can solve the problem on two different planes - Christian or philosophical, both offering a different solution and unable to be reconciled. All three questions are listed in Tempier's Condemnation of 1277 - propositions 92, 196 and 215 - censuring heterodox answers. (shrink)