John BuridanQuaestiones super libros

De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis

History of Scienceand Medicine Library

VOLUME 17

Medieval andEarly Modern Science

Editors

J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Radboud University NijmegenC.H. Lthy, Radboud University Nijmegen

Editorial Consultants

Jol Biard, University of ToursSimo Knuuttila, University of HelsinkiJohn E. Murdoch, Harvard University

Jrgen Renn, Max-Planck-Institute for the History of ScienceTheo Verbeek, University of Utrecht

VOLUME 14

John BuridanQuaestiones super

libros De generatione etcorruptione AristotelisA Critical Edition with an Introduction

Edited by

Michiel StreijgerPaul J.J.M. Bakker

Johannes M.M.H. Thijssen

LEIDEN BOSTON2010

Cover illustration: Hesburgh Library, University of Notre Dame, MS 22, fol. 7r (detail). Theportrait depicts John Buridan and appears in his commentary on Aristotles NicomacheanEthics. The manuscript dates after 1416 and originated in Bologna.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Buridan, Jean, 1300-1358.Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis : a critical edition with an

introduction / John Buridan ; edited by Michiel Streijger, Paul J.J.M. Bakker, Johannes M.M.H.Thijssen.

p. ; cm. -- (History of science and medicine library ; v. 17) (Medieval and early modernscience ; v. 14)

Latin; editorial matter in English. Based on Michiel Streijger's thesis (doctoral)--RadboudUniversity Nijmegen, 2008, presented under the title: Johannes Buridanus' commentaar op Degeneratione et corruptione. Editie en inleidende studie

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.ISBN 978-90-04-18504-3 (hardback : alk. paper)1. Aristotle. De generatione et corruptione. 2. Science--Early works to 1800. 3. Philosophy of

nature--Early works to 1800. I. Streijger, Michiel, 1974- II. Bakker, Paul J. J. M. III. Thijssen, J.M. M. H. IV. Title. V. Series.

Q151.A63B872 2010500--dc22

2010012373

ISSN 1872-0684ISBN 978 90 04 18504 3

Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Life and works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. John Buridans commentaries on Aristotles De generatione et

corruptione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.. The Expositio of Aristotles De generatione et corruptione . . . . 6.. The Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione. 9

... Version A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9... Version B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

.... Description of the manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.... The manuscript tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

. The edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

quaestiones super librosde generatione et corruptione aristotelis

liber i

. Utrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit scientia . . . . . . . . . . 37. Utrum ad corruptionem rerum corruptibilium corrumpatur

scientia de eis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. Utrum vox significet idem re existente et corrupta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. Utrum si impossibile est elementa generari, impossibile est ea

alterari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56. Utrum corpus sit divisibile secundum quodlibet signum eius

et secundum quemlibet punctum eius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61. Utrum possibile est aliquid simpliciter generari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67. Utrum omnis generatio unius sit corruptio alterius . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74. Utrum in animato sit alia forma substantialis ab anima . . . . . . . . 80. Utrum omnis generatio differt ab alteratione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

vi contents

. Utrum illa descriptio generationis est bona in qua diciturgeneratio est transmutatio totius in totum non manentealiquo sensibili . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

. Utrum rarefactio sit proprie augmentatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100. Utrum in augmentatione viventis cibus augetur vel corpus

animatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106. Utrum id quod augetur manet simpliciter idem ante et post . . . 111. Utrum eius quod augetur quaelibet pars augeatur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116. Utrum augmentatio fiat secundum partes formales et non

secundum partes materiales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120. Utrum augmentatio sit motus proprie, distinctus a motu

locali, ab alteratione et a generatione substantiali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125. Utrum omne animatum quamdiu vivit nutritur, sed non

quamdiu vivit augetur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131. Utrum omne agens in aliquod passum tangat illud passum . . . . 137. Utrum omne agens agendo repatiatur et omne passum

patiendo reagat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143. Utrum possibile est esse actionem ab aequalitate vel etiam a

proportione minoris inaequalitatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150. Utrum formae substantiales elementorum suscipiunt magis et

minus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156. Utrum formae substantiales elementorum maneant in mixto . . 163. Utrum mixtio sit possibilis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172. Utrum quod est simpliciter corruptum possit reverti idem in

numero. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

liber ii

. Utrum tantum sint quattuor primae qualitates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189. Utrum quattuor primarum qualitatum duae sunt activae,

scilicet calidum et frigidum, et duae passivae, scilicethumidum et siccum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

. Utrum sint quattuor elementa et non plura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200. Utrum ignis sit contrarius aquae et aer terrae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205. Utrum aqua sit primo frigida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210. Utrum caliditas aeris et caliditas ignis sunt eiusdem rationis

sive eiusdem speciei, differentes solum secundum intensius etremissius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

. Utrum qualitas symbola maneat eadem in generato quae fuitin corrupto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

contents vii

. Utrum elementa habentia symbolum facilius et citiustransmutentur ad invicem quam non habentia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

. Utrum quaelibet duo elementa non habentia symbolumpossent transmutari in quodlibet tertium elementum et quodhabentia symbolum non possent sic transmutari ad tertium . . . 233

. Utrum omne mixtum quod est circa medium locum sitcompositum ex omnibus simplicibus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

. Utrum possibile sit esse aliquod mixtum simpliciter etperfecte temperatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

. Utrum calidum, frigidum, humidum et siccum, id estquattuor primae qualitates, sint principalia agentia ingeneratione mixtorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

. Utrum sint generationes et corruptiones perpetuae . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256. Utrum possint perpetuari in hoc mundo generationes et

corruptiones, si non essent plures motus caelestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Index Nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265Index Locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

This page intentionally left blank.

PREFACE

This volume presents a critical edition of John Buridans Quaestionessuper libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis. The edition hasevolved out of the doctoral dissertation of Michiel Streijger, JohannesBuridanus commentaar opDe generatione et corruptione. Editie en inlei-dende studie (vi + pp.), which was supervised by Paul Bakker andHans Thijssen. Prepared at the Center for the History of Philosophy andScience at the Faculty of Philosophy of Radboud University Nijmegen,it was publicly defended on January , . The goal of the presentvolume, with its English introduction, is to make Buridans text avail-able to a larger readership. The editors are grateful to the following col-leagues, who asmembers of themanucript committee or during the pub-lic defense offered helpful suggestions for the improvement of the textand the editorialmethod: Cecilia Trifogli, Bert Bos, Henk Braakhuis, Ste-fano Caroti, Arpd Orbn and Marc van der Poel.

The Editors

INTRODUCTION

. Life and works

John Buridan was one of the most talented and influential philosophersin fourteenth-century Paris.1His fame extendedwell into the seventeenthcentury. As with many medieval thinkers, details about his life are scant.He first emerges from the documents on February , , as rectorof the University of Paris. Given that the usual term for a rector wasthree months, Buridanmay have been elected rector in December .2The position of rector was only open to regent masters of arts, and theminimum age for the masters degree was twenty-one. On the (plausi-ble) assumption that Buridan did not become rector immediately aftergraduation, it is generally conjectured that Buridan was born sometimebetween and (or even as early as ), and started his aca-demic teaching career at the Arts Faculty around .

John Buridan originated from the diocese of Arras. This made himbelong to the Picard Nation at the University of Paris.The often repeatedtradition that he was born in the town of Bthune is spurious. Buridans

1 The most complete and most reliable biography of John Buridan and survey of hisworks is still B. Michael, Johannes Buridan: Studien zu seinem Leben, seinen Werken undzur Rezeption seiner Theorien im Europa des spten Mittelalters, PhD dissertation, FreieUniversitt Berlin, ( vols.). See also O. Weijers, Le travail intellectuel la facultdes arts de Paris: textes et matres (ca. ), , Turnhout (Studia artistarum,), , for a listing of Buridans works and a bibliographical guide. An updatedshort biography and list of publications is also provided by J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Buridan,John (Jean), in: N. Koertge (ed.), New Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Detroit ,: . Biographical information about Buridans financial situation is providedin W.J. Courtenay, Philosophys Reward. The Ecclesiastical Income of Jean Buridan,Recherches de thologie et philosophie mdivale, (), . Surveys of Buridansphilosophical views are given by J. Zupko, John Buridan: Portrait of a Fourteenth-CenturyArts Master, Notre Dame (in) (Publications in mediaeval studies), and G. Klima,John Buridan, Oxford (Great medieval thinkers).

2 See S. Sechler, Rectors of the Fourteenth-Century University of Paris: An Institutionaland Prosopographical Study, doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison(wi), , .

introduction

university education is not documented. During his training at the ArtsFaculty, he belonged to theCollge duCardinal Lemoine,which providedhim with a roof and financial support. According to its statutes, Buridanmust have left the college as soon as he started to perform administrativefunctions at the university, such as rector at the end of . In ,Buridan was elected rector of the university for a second time. On thebasis of indirect evidence, it is plausible that he also held other importantfunctions within his nation, such as that of proctor and of treasurer,although it is unknown when precisely he did so.

At some date before , Buridan visited the papal court at Avignon.There is also evidence for a second visit, around .During one of thesetrips (or possibly still other trips which are not documented), Buridanmade the observations reported in his commentary on Aristotles Mete-ora about the Cvennes and about the height of Mont Ventoux.3 Buri-dans name is last mentioned in a university document of July , ,which settles a jurisdictional dispute between the Picard and the Englishnations. He probably died around October , , but no later thanJune , , on which date one of his benefices had received a newowner.

Buridan did not belong to a religious order, and, as far as we know,he never sought to obtain a degree in theology. For these reasons, hehas been presented as an independent, real philosopher. Independent,because he was not involved in any of the doctrinal disputes of thereligious orders, and a real philosopher, because he made philosophyinto a career in itself, which lasted almost forty years.

Over the past decade, much work has been done in editing and study-ing John Buridans works. From this work it emerges that Buridan wasa prolific and important philosopher. Yet, many particular aspects of histhought are as yet unexamined. His most important works are the Sum-mulae de dialectica, a voluminous compendium of logic and semantics(presented as a commentary on the authors revised version of Peter ofSpains Tractatus), the Questions on Aristotles Physics (Quaestiones superlibros Physicorum, secundum ultimam lecturam), and the Questions onAristotlesEthics.4 Certain parts of the Summulae are nowdated to around

3 Cf. Buridans Quaestiones in libros Meteorologicorum Aristotelis, I, qq. and .See also Michael, Johannes Buridan, : , n. , and E. Faral, Jean Buridan. Matre sarts de lUniversit de Paris, Paris (Histoire littraire de la France, /), .

4 Buridans main work of logic, the Summulae de dialectica, consists of eight treatises(tractatus). Buridan presented his Sophismata as the ninth treatise of the Summulae, butit is clear that the work had an independent origin. A new edition of the Summulae

introduction

and . Buridans commentary on the Physics, at least accordingto its final version, was written sometime between and . Buri-dan worked on his commentary on the Ethics over a long period, fromthe s until his death in (or ).

Buridans works originated from his teaching, in particular of Aristo-tles works, which in the fourteenth century were firmly established inthe university curriculum. All students at Paris were required to readAristotle. As a consequence, the literary genre that enjoyed a central roleat the university was the commentary.5 Not the dialogue, the essay, orthe inquiry, but the commentary was the chosen medium of philosophi-cal discourse. Commentaries have come down to us in many forms. Themost popular type was the commentary in the form of a set of questionson a text by Aristotle. Originally, such questions were related to actualdisputations in the arts faculty.The questions that were raised concernedspecial problems that themaster had encountered during his explanationof the text (or expositio). In the course of the thirteenth century, both theexplanation of the text and the questions originating from it came to bepart of what was called the ordinary lecture (lectio ordinaria), that is, thelecture given by a master on a text from the official program at a stipu-lated time and place.6

(published in the series Artistarium) is in progress, which supersedes earlier editions.The entire Summulae de dialectica has been translated by G. Klima, [John Buridan],Summulae de dialectica, New Haven (ct) (Yale library of medieval philosophy),though this translation is not based on the most recent critical edition. Only a fewparts of Buridans voluminous Quaestiones super libros Physicorum, secundum ultimamlecturam, have so far been edited, most recently by J.M.M.H. Thijssen, The Debateover the Nature of Motion: John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Albert of Saxony. Withan Edition of John Buridans Quaestiones super libros Physicorum, secundum ultimamlecturam, Book III, q. , Early Science and Medicine, (), . Buridans mainwork in the field of practical philosophy, his Quaestiones in decem libros Ethicorum, isonly available in manuscripts and Renaissance editions (most importantly the Paris edition, reprinted by Minerva in Frankfurt am Main in ).

5 See G. Fioravanti, C. Leonardi and S. Perfetti (eds.), Il commento filosofico nellocci-dente latino (secoli XIIIXV). Atti del colloquio Firenze-Pisa, ottobre , orga-nizzato dalla SISMEL (Societ Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino) e dallaSISPM (Societ Italiana per lo Studio del Pensiero Medievale), sotto legida della SIEPM,Turnhout (Rencontres de philosophie mdivale, ).

6 See F. del Punta, The Genre of Commentaries in the Middle Ages and its Relationto the Nature and Originality of Medieval Thought, in: J.A. Aertsen and A. Speer (eds.),Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Akten des X. Internationalen Kongresses fr Mittelal-terliche Philosophie der Socit Internationale pour lEtude de la Philosophie Mdivale,. bis . August in Erfurt, Berlin (Miscellanea mediaevalia, ), ,esp. . See also O. Weijers, La disputatio la Facult des arts de Paris (environ): esquisse dune typologie, Turnhout (Studia artistarum, ), , and Ead.,

introduction

In what way do Buridans commentaries fit into this general frame-work? Buridan frequently produced two or three different versions of aset of lectures, in the form both of expositio and of quaestiones.7 This isalso the case with the Questions on Aristotles De generatione et corrup-tione, edited in this volume, which have been transmitted in two ver-sions. The order of composition of the different versions of Buridanscommentaries usually is clear, even though their dating is not. Often,the expositions refer to a fuller treatment of certain issues in the ques-tion(s) (in quaestione or in quaestionibus). This strongly suggests thatBuridans discussion of the questions took place separately fromhis expo-sition and discussion of Aristotles texts, and that he had already selectedthe questions that he would discuss when he delivered his exposition.It is very unlikely that Buridans sets of questions on the Aristoteliantexts represent actual disputations. Presumably, Buridan dictated hisquestions about a text in the classroom during a lecture that was dis-tinct from the lecture in which he delivered the exposition of that sametext.

The route, however, from oral lecture to written commentary was along one.8 Unfortunately, not all the layers of communication whichcover the oral origins of a written set of questions are entirely under-stood. Did Buridan, for instance, lend his authorial approval to a spe-cific set of questions, or are they the unauthenticated notes of a lis-tener? When did Buridan decide to authenticate his commentary andmake it available for a larger audience? How did previous generationsof students cope with his lectures, that is, before the availability of awritten version? And how did the commentaries circulate in the cen-ters of learning? How were they, for instance, multiplied and distributedin Paris or in other university towns such as Prague and Vienna? Andfinally, why were they still reproduced after the masters death? Did theyacquire an importance that transcended that of Buridans students in

La disputatio dans les facults des arts au moyen ge, Turnhout , (Studia artistarum,), .

7 For a complete overview, see the second volume of Michael, Johannes Buridan.8 For a thorough analysis of this process, based on Buridans commentaries on the

Metaphysics, see C. Fleler, FromOral Lecture toWritten Commentaries. John BuridansCommentaries on Aristotles Metaphysics, in: S. Ebbesen and R.L. Friedman (eds.),Medieval Analyses in Language and Cognition. Acts of the symposium The CopenhagenSchool of Medieval Philosophy, January , , Kbenhavn (Historisk-filoso-fiske Meddelelser, ), .

introduction

Paris? Only very few of these questions can be solved with respect tothe text edited in the present volume, the Questions on Aristotles Degeneratione et corruptione.

In the older literature, it has been suggested that John Buridan hadgrouped around him a coherent inner circle of students and followers,which included Albert of Saxony, Themon Judaeus, and Nicole Oresme,whowere alleged to form the so-called Buridan school. It is certain, how-ever, that none of these thinkers studied under Buridan in any officialway. It is more helpful to perceive them and Buridan as contemporarythinkers who were interested in a number of similar philosophical topicsand who at times were in fact each others opponents, as their respec-tive texts clearly document.9 Other fourteenth-century thinkers againstwhose views Buridan argues in his writings are Walter Burley, Nicholasof Autrecourt, Gregory of Rimini, and the lesser-known Giles of Fenoand Michael de Montecalerio.10

Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Buridans writingshad a huge impact on philosophical thought in Europe.Themanuscriptsand early printed editions of his works were disseminated in all cornersof Europe and were read (pronuntiata), for instance, at the universitiesof Krakow, Prague, Rostock, Saint Andrews, and Vienna. Their dissem-ination is linked to the position that Buridans text had obtained on thecurriculumat these universities. Rather than lecturing directly onAristo-tles texts and providing their own commentaries,masterswould typicallyread and dictate Buridans commentaries. This was also the case with hisQuestions on De generatione et corruptione, which have thus been pre-served for posterity.

9 A more detailed discussion of Buridan and the Buridan school is provided inJ.M.M.H.Thijssen, The Buridan School Reassessed. John Buridan and Albert of Saxony,Vivarium, (), , and Id., The Debate over the Nature of Motion.

10 For details, see Michael, Johannes Buridan, : . On Montecalerio, see W.J.Courtenay, Michael de Montecalerio: Buridans Opponent in his Quaestio de puncto,Archives dhistoire doctrinale et littraire du Moyen Age, (), , and J.Celeyrette, An Indivisibilist Argumentation at Paris around : Michel of Monte-calerios Question on Point and the Controversy with John Buridan, in: C. Grellardand A. Robert (eds.), Atomism in Late Medieval Philosophy and Theology, Leiden (Medieval and early modern science, ), .

introduction

. John Buridans commentaries onAristotles De generatione et corruptione

..The Expositio of Aristotles De generatione et corruptione

Buridans Expositio of Aristotles De generatione et corruptione has beenpreserved in the following two manuscripts:11

. Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, Amploniana, Q. .12

Paper and parchment; mm; ff.; second half of the four-teenth century (a part of the manuscript was dated in ). The manu-script contains works by several different authors, among whom JohnBuridan, Nicole Oresme, and John of Wasia, who wrote several parts ofthe manuscript while at Paris. John ofWasia was later to become the firstdean of the faculty of theology at Cologne. The manuscript belonged toAmplonius Ratinck. In addition to Buridans Expositio onDe generationeet corruptione, the manuscript contains his commentary on De motibusanimalium.

Ff. rava: De generatione et corruptione. Iste liber de generationecontinet duos libros partiales. Primus . . . idem enim non potest pluriesgenerari simpliciter, sed bene potest secundum quid, sicut eadem aquapotest multotiens generari calida, id est fieri calida. Et est finis istius librietc. Expliciunt dicta magistri Iohanis Birydenis.

. Citt del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. .13

Parchment; mm; I+ff.; th c. (partly written in ).One of the owners of this manuscript was Francesco della Rovere, wholater became Pope Sixtus IV. He probably acquired it in his time asa master of arts at the University of Padua. The manuscript contains

11 The following description of the two manuscripts is based on Michael, JohannesBuridan, : . Note that Michael distinguishes two versions of the Expositio,because of the different incipits and explicits in the twomanuscripts. C.H. Lohr, MedievalLatin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors: Jacobus-Johannes Juff, Traditio (), , esp. , nr. , does not distinguish between several versions of the Expositio.

12 See M. Markowski, Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latino-rum quae in Bibliotheca Amploniana Erffordiae asservantur, Wrocaw , , , ,, , , and .

13 See A. Maier, Codices Vaticani Latini. Codices , Citt del Vaticano ,, and B. Patar, Introduction, in: [John Buridan], Expositio et quaestiones inAristotelis De caelo, ed. B. Patar, Louvain-la-Neuve, Leuven, Paris (Philosophesmdivaux, ), **.

introduction

several of Buridans Expositiones on Aristotles libri naturales, and bearsthe title (f. v): Beridanus super tota philosophia Aristotelis. However,the Expositio on De generatione et corruptione is anonymous.

Ff. vava: De generacione et corrupcione etc. Iste liber inty-tulatur de generacione et corrupcione et continet duos libros parciales.Primus . . . et huiusmodi factio vel reversio est generacio secundum quidet non simpliciter. Idem enim non potest pluries generari simpliciter,quare etc. Et sic est finis secundi libri de generacione etc. Explicit exposi-cio totius libri de generacione.

In the Expositio, Buridan explains the logical structure of Aristotles text(divisio textus), and its meaning (sententia). Occasionally, he refers toquaestiones for a more elaborate discussion of a problem. The ErfurtExpositio contains four such references to quaestiones. One of thosereferences is put in the past tense (nr. ), one in the future tense (nr. ),and two are introduced with the formula debet videri/tractari (nrs. and ).

. F. va: Sed restat respondere ad istam proposicionem possibiliposito in esse nichil sequitur impossibile. Ad quod ego dico quod siin illa de possibili sit universalitas et distribucio, non oportet quodponatur in esse cum distribucione, sed per singulares seorsum, utdicebatur in questione (reference to I, q. in version B or to I, q. in version A).

. F. rb: Et tu debes exponere quod generacio unius dicitur corrupcioalterius, non secundum locucionem de veritate et proprietate ser-monis, sed concomitative, sicut magis debet videri in questionibus(reference to I, q. in version B or to I, q. in version A).

. F. rb: Utrum autem talis qualitas egrediatur de potencia composititam racione forme quam racionematerie vel solum racionematerie,licet magis attribuatur composito propter eius maiorem noticiam etmaterie ignoranciam, debet tractari in questionibus (reference to II,q. in version B or to I, q. in version A).

. F. ra: Utrum autem omnes isti modi vel non omnes et qui eorumsint veri perscrutandum erit in questionibus (reference to II, q. inversion B or to II, q. in version A).

The Vatican Expositio too has references to quaestiones. Again, the refer-ences are both in the past tense (nrs. , , and ), and in the future tense(nrs. , , and ). In one case, the subjunctive mood is used (nr. ).

introduction

. F. ra: Unde dictum fuit in questione quod talis universalis depossibili non oportet quod ponatur in esse per universalem, sed persingulares et ille bene essent possibiles (reference to I, q. in versionB or to I, q. in version A).

. F. vb: Et deberes exponere quod generacio unius dicitur essecorrupcio alterius non secundum proprietatem sermonis, sed con-comitative, sicut dicetur in questionibus (reference to I, q. in ver-sion B or to I, q. in version A).

. F. ra: Et cause quare sic loquimur magis expresse fuerunt inquestione (reference uncertain).

. F. va: Utrum tamen illa qualitas egrediatur de potencia materiesolum dicetur in questionibus (reference to II, q. in version B or toI, q. in version A).

. F. va: Sed restat dubitacio: cum forma non possit existere sinemateria nec transire de una materia in aliam, videtur quod si partesmaterie defluunt, oportet defluere partes forme que illammateriamdefluentem informabant; de hoc videbitur in questionibus (referenceuncertain).

. F. va: Vult ergo probare istam primam conclusionem capituliquod sunt quattuor corpora elementaria generabilium et corrup-tibilium et non plura; et queratur exposicio in questione (referenceto II, q. in version B).

. F. vb: Quarta proprietas est quod ignis dicitur contrarius aque etaer terre et de hoc dictum est in questione (reference to II, q. inversion B or to I, q. in version A).

From these references, no firm conclusions can be drawn either aboutthe (chronological) relation between the (two versions of the) Expo-sitio and the sets of quaestiones in general, or about the mutual rela-tions between a specific Expositio and a specific set of quaestiones (ver-sion A, or version B, respectively). It is noteworthy, however, that allreferences in the (two versions of the) Expositio can be traced back inboth sets of quaestiones, with one exception. Reference nr. in the Vat-ican Expositio can only relate to Book II, q. of version B (Utrum sinttantum quattuor elementa). There is no equivalent question in versionA. Although the question might be embedded in some other questionin version A, the tentative conclusion one may draw from this one ref-erence is that the Vatican Expositio is related to version B of the Quaes-tiones.

introduction

..The Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione

Asmentioned above, there are two clearly different sets of quaestiones onDe generatione et corruptione: version A, preserved in three manuscripts,and version B, preserved in fourteen manuscripts. The most notabledistinguishing features between both sets are the titles of the quaestionesand the presence of a Prologue in all manuscripts of version A. Otherdifferences between the two versionsA andBonly transpire after a carefulcomparison of the texts.14

... Version A

The following three manuscripts contain version A of the Quaestiones:15

. Citt del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. .Paper; mm; ff.; th c. The manuscript contains worksof natural philosophy, and it is the only manuscript that provides theentire text of version A. The text is anonymous, and is preceded by aPrologue (ff. rara), which indicates the position ofDe generationeet corruptione among Aristotles other libri naturales: (f. ra) Circaprimum librum de generacione et corrupcione notandum quod scienciahuius libri est pars quedam sciencie naturalis. Ideo ad videndum quemlocum teneat inter partes principales sciencie naturalis, enumerenturille partes principales sciencie naturalis. Prima pars tractat de entibusnaturalibus in communi . . . 16

Ff. rarb: Primo queritur utrum vox significet idem re existenteet non existente . . . Hoc intendit Aristoteles. Tamen alio modo etiampotest corrumpi. Et sic complentur questiones super librum de genera-cione. Expliciunt questiones super totum librum de generacione.17

14 For a detailed analysis of the differences between the versions A and B, seeM. Streij-ger, Johannes Buridanus commentaar op De generatione et corruptione. Editie en inlei-dende studie, PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen, , .

15 See Michael, Johannes Buridan, : .16 The prologue has been edited in J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Johannes Buridanus over het

oneindige. Een onderzoek naar zijn theorie over het oneindige in het kader van zijnwetenschaps- en natuurfilosofie, PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen, ( vols.), : .

17 The titles of the quaestiones have been edited in A. Maier, Verschollene Aristote-leskommentare des . Jahrhunderts, in: Ead., Ausgehendes Mittelalter. Gesammelte Auf-stze zur Geistesgeschichte des . Jahrhunderts, I, Roma (Storia e letteratura, ),, at .

introduction

. Cesena, Biblioteca Malatestiana, S. VIII. .18

Parchment; mm; I++I ff.; . The codex contains a collec-tion of works on natural philosophy among which a set of Quaestioneson the Physics attributed to John Buridan. The manuscript is incomplete(damaged) and only contains the list of titles of quaestiones and a short-ened version of the Prologue.The text itself of theQuaestiones super librosDe generatione et corruptione has been removed. The manuscript wasonce owned by Bernardus a Campanea, when the text was still intact.19

Ff. rarb (Prologue): Incipit ordo istius libri de generacione ad alioslibros naturales secundum magistrum Iohannem Bridam. Prima parssciencie naturalis tractat de entibus naturalibus in communi . . . Huncordinem libri de generacione ad alios hic scripsi20 propter duo: primo,quia utilis est ad evidenciam omnium que dicentur; secundo, quia ipsumIohannes Bridam ponit in exposicione libri de generacione, cuius libriquestiones secundum eundem Iohannem infra dicentur vel ponentur.Quarum questionum est sequens tabula per rubricas protensa. Amen.

Then follows at f. va the table of titles: Hec est tabula questionum libride generacione et corrupcione disputatarum Parisius per reverendumdoctorem magistrum Iohannem Bridan et sunt numero , ita quodquestiones primi sunt , secundi vero . Tabula questionumprimi libri.Prima questio est . . . 21 (Note the attribution to John Buridan.)

. Citt del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. .22

Parchment; mm; II+ff.; c. . The manu-script contains various works of natural philosophy, among others, byJohn Buridan, Nicole Oresme, and Roger Swineshead. It also belonged to

18 See G. Avarucci et al., Catalogo di manoscritti filosofici nelle biblioteche italiane, :Cesena, Fabriano, Firenze, Grottaferrata, Parma, Firenze (Corpus PhilosophorumMedii Aevi. Subsidia, ), , and F. Lollini and P. Lucchi (eds.), Libraria Domini.I manoscritti della Biblioteca Malatestiana: testi e decorazioni, Bologna , , (and passim).

19 Bernardus a Campanea and his book collection are discussed in J.M.M.H.Thijssen,The Book-Collection of Bernardus a Campanea de Verona (fl. end th /beginning thcentury): the Dissemination of English and French Natural Science in Italy, Scriptorium, (), , and S. Caroti, I codici di Bernardo Campagna. Filosofia e medicinaalla fine del sec. XIV, Roma .

20 The term scripsi here refers to the activities of the copyist, rather than of the author.21 The tabula of titles has been edited and discussed in J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Buridan,

Albert of Saxony and Oresme, and a Fourteenth-century Collection of Quaestiones onthe Physics and on De Generatione et Corruptione, Vivarium, (), , at .

22 See Maier, Codices Vaticani Latini, .

introduction

Bernardus a Campaneas collection.23TheQuaestiones onDe generationeet corruptione in this manuscript (ff. v r) actually is a mixed text. Itis composed as follows:

a. Ff. vr: Book I, qq. , anonymous. This text neither corre-sponds to the known witnesses of version A, nor to that of versionB.

b. Ff. rv: The anonymous book I is followed by the Prologueand Book I qq. and of version A, which are attributed to JohnBuridan: Expliciunt questiones primi de generacione secundumillum, sed ponuntur alie due disputate per Iohannem Bridam cumquodam suo prohemio.

c. Ff. vr: Next follows book II of theQuaestiones, which is identi-cal to the other witnesses of version A.The questions of book II arefollowed by another question, which is identical to q. of book Iin the other witnesses of version A.

In the table of contents of this codex (f. IIr), book II and parts of book Iare attributed to John Buridan: Questiones de generacione et corrup-cione Aristotelis partim secundum Bridanum. One of the owners of themanuscript, Bernardus a Campanea, added the following information inhis own hand: scilicet super secundo libro et in fine primi libri sunt duequestiones secundum ipsum Bridanum.

The textual transmission of version A is fairly complex. In manuscriptVat. lat. , the text is anonymous. The Cesena manuscript provides aclear attribution of the Quaestiones to John Buridan, but, unfortunately,has only preserved the table of the titles. The text contained in Vat. lat. seems to be a conflation of twodifferent texts, one ofwhich is explic-itly attributed to Buridan. In the past, Anneliese Maier has attributed thesets of Quaestiones in the two Vatican manuscripts to Nicole Oresme.24She did not know, however, the Cesena manuscript, nor the genuinetext of Oresmes commentary, which was edited in by Stefano

23 See Caroti, I codici di Bernardo Campagna, .24 A. Maier, An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenschaft, (Studien zur Natur-

philosophie der Sptscholastik, ), Roma (Storia e Letteratura, ), , laterrepeated in Ead., Verschollene Aristoteleskommentare des . Jahrhunderts. The attri-bution to Oresme was contested inThijssen, Buridan, Albert of Saxony and Oresme andMichael, Johannes Buridan, : , who independently of each other suggested thatthe text was another version of Buridans known Quaestiones super libros De generationeet corruptione.

introduction

Caroti.25 At present, there are no reasons to doubt that versionA is indeeda version of John Buridans Quaestiones super libros De generatione etcorruptione.26

... Version B

The text of version B of John BuridansQuaestiones super De generationeet corruptione has been preserved in the following fourteenmanuscripts.With the exception of the Leipzig manuscript, all these witnesses havealready been mentioned in the secondary literature.27

Signature Date Siglum

Basel, Universittsbibliothek, F. I. th c. BBasel, Universittsbibliothek, F. V. Ca. CBerlin, Staatsbibliothek, Lat. fol. / DBuenos Aires, Biblioteca Nacional, R Early th c. JKrakw, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, Ca. KKrakw, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, FKrakw, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, End th c. GErfurt, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, End th c. E

Amploniana, F. Leipzig, Universittsbibliothek, Middle th c. LLige, Bibliothque de luniversit, C HMnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. Ca. MMnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. Ca. NPraha, Knihovna Metropolitn Kapituly, L. st half th c. PWien, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, CVP Ca. W

25 See Nicole Oresme, Quaestiones super De generatione et corruptione, ed. S. Caroti,Mnchen (Verffentlichungen der Kommission fr die Herausgabe ungedruckterTexte aus der mittelalterlichen Geisteswelt, ). See also C.H. Lohr, Medieval LatinAristotle Commentaries. Authors: Narcissus-Richardus, Traditio, (), , at.

26 See Streijger, Johannes Buridanus commentaar op De generatione et corruptione,, for a comparative examination of the three manuscripts of the A version.

27 See especiallyMichael, Johannes Buridan, : . BerndMichael was so kind asto bring the Leipzigmanuscript (L) to our notice and to provide a description of it.Wherepossible, we have included literature about the manuscripts not mentioned in Michael.

introduction

.... Description of the manuscripts

B = Basel, Universittsbibliothek, F. I. .28

Paper; mm; ff.; th c.Themanuscript contains philosoph-ical works by, among others, Nicole Oresme, John Buridan and Albert ofSaxony. The prologue and the table of questions are lacking. On f. vbpart of book I, q. . is missing. The manuscript was owned by PetrusMedici de Ulma, a medical doctor and master at Heidelberg, and latercame into the possession of the University of Basel.29

Ff. ravb: Circa inicium librorumde generacione et corrupcionequeritur primo questio talis utrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibussit sciencia . . . Et secundum ea que dicta sunt procedunt raciones quefiebant. Et sic est finis etc. Expliciunt questiones de generacione et cor-rupcione.

C = Basel, Universittsbibliothek, F. V. .30

Paper; mm; ff.; th c. (). This manuscript also con-tains philosophical works by Nicole Oresme, John Buridan, and Albertof Saxony. The part which contains our text is dated on July, , asis clear from the colophon. The prologue is lacking. At f. rb is a tableof questions, which is repeated at f. vb. The beginning of I, qq. and the beginning of q. are missing. The numbering of the questionsdeviates from the usual order in version B. The manuscript originatedat Prague, and later came into the possession of the same Petrus Medicide Ulma who owned manuscript B.Themanuscript was purchased fromhim by the University of Basel.

28 Cf. B.M von Scarpatetti, Katalog der datierten Handschriften in der Schweiz inlateinischer Schrift vom Anfang des Mittelalters bis , : Die Handschriften der Bib-liotheken von Aarau, Appenzell und Basel, : Text, Zrich , , and C.H. Lohr, Aris-totelica Helvetica: catalogus codicum latinorum in bibliothecis Confederationis Helveticaeasservatorum quibus versiones expositionesque operum Aristotelis continentur, Fribourg (Scrinium Friburgense. Sonderband, ), .

29 For bio-bibliographical information on Petrus Medici de Ulma, see E. Wickers-heimer, Dictionnaire biographique des mdecins en France au Moyen Age, Genve (Hautes tudes mdivales et modernes, /), : a, and D. Jacquart, Supplmentto E. Wickersheimer, Dictionnaire biographique des mdecins en France au Moyen Age,Genve (Hautes tudes mdivales et modernes, ), .

30 Scarpatetti, Katalog der datierten Handschriften, ; Lohr, Aristotelica Helvetica,.

introduction

Ff. rarb: Circa primum librum de generacione: utrum de ge-neralibus (!) et corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et secundum ea que dictasunt procedunt raciones que fiebant. Et sic patet questio. Expliciuntquestiones libri de generacione reverendi magistri Iohannis Biridani perPetrum Fru. Prage scripte anno domini o cycli aurei numeri solis kalendas iulii.

D = Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Lat. fol. .Paper; mm; I++I ff.; end th c. (/). The manu-script contains philosophical works by Albert of Saxony and John Buri-dan. The prologue and the table of questions are lacking. Probably, themanuscript originated at Erfurt. Later, it came into the possession ofmas-ter Richard Karstens of the University of Leipzig.

Ff. ravb: Circa librum de generacione et corrupcione primoqueritur utrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Etsecundum ea que dicta sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant ante opposi-tum. Et sic est finis. Deo graciarum actiones exhibentur. Expliciunt que-stiones dictorum de generacione et corrupcione diversorum. In nominedomini amen.

J = Buenos Aires, Biblioteca Nacional, R.31

Paper; mm; ff.; early th c. In addition to BuridansQuaes-tiones on De generatione et corruptione, this manuscript contains hisQuaestiones on the Physica, the Parva naturalia, and De anima, and anExpositio of De anima and De caelo. The text of De generatione is pre-ceded by a prologue (f. rava) that is identical to the one that precedesversion A.

Ff. vara: Ergo descendendo ad librum de quo intendimus, sci-licet de generacione et corrupcione, formatur talis questio: utrum de ge-nerabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et secundum ea que dictasunt procedunt raciones que fiebant ante oppositum viis viis (!) suis.Et sic est finis istarum questionum super librum de generacione et cor-rupcione reverendi magistri Iohannis Buridani quondam (?) subtilissimiphilosophi. Benedictus dominus deus in secula seculorum Amen.

31 For an extensive description of this manuscript, see D.A. Di Liscia, El libroencadenado: Eine Sammelhandschrift naturphilosophischer Schriften von Jean Buridan(Ms. Buenos Aires, Biblioteca Nacional R), Vivarium, (), .

introduction

E = Erfurt,Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, Amploniana F. .32

Paper; mm; +I ff.; end th. c. The manuscript containsworks byMarsilius of Inghen and John Buridan.The text is preceded by aprologue (f. rava) that is identical to the one preceding version A.33 Atleast some parts of this manuscript originated at Prague. The codex wasobtained by Amplonius Ratinck.

Ff. vava: Queritur primo utrum de generabilibus et corrup-tibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et sic per ea que dicta sunt procedunt racionesque fiebant in oppositum. Et sic est finis questionumde generacione. Deogratias etc.

K = Krakw, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, .34

Paper; mm; +I ff.; end th c. (). The manuscript con-tains several works, among others, by Buridan. The first part of thecodex (ff. ) originated in Prague, in . The second part is of alater origin, and possibly also from Prague. The prologue is lacking. Thetext is followed by a table of questions on f. ra. One of its ownerswas Lucas de Magna Cosmin (d. /), who studied at Prague andKrakow.

Ff. vavb: Utrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia. . . Et secundum ea que dicta sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant anteoppositum. Et sic est. Expliciunt questiones de generacione et corrup-cione etc.

F = Krakw, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, .35

Paper; mm; +IIIff.; ca. . The codex containsworks by Albert of Saxony, Nicole Oresme and John Buridan.Themanu-script originated in Prague. Subsequently, it was moved to Krakow. Theprologue, the table of titles and the first thirteen questions are miss-ing.

Ff. rarb: Oppositum vult Aristoteles, scilicet quod augmenta-cio fit adveniente corporeo, scilicet cibo . . . Et secundum ea que dicta

32 See Markowski, Repertorium commentariorummedii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorumquae in Bibliotheca Amploniana Erffordiae asservantur, .

33 For the text of the prologue, see Thijssen, Johannes Buridanus over het oneindige, :.

34 M. Kowalczyk et al., Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Medii Aevi latinorum quiin Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, , Wrocaw , .

35 M. Kowalczyk et al., Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Medii Aevi latinorum quiin Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, , Wrocaw , .

introduction

sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant ante oppositum. Et sic est finis.Laus tibi sit, Christe. Amen. Expliciunt questiones de generacione etcorrupcione Byrydany magistri Parariensis (!) Prage reportate. Explica,Domine, potenciam tuam.

G = Krakw, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, .36

Paper; mm; ff.; end th c. (ca. ). The manu-script contains works by Albert of Saxony, Nicole Oresme and JohnBuridan. The prologue and the table of questions are lacking. Our text iswritten by several hands. Possibly it originated at Prague. In the secondquart of the th c., the manuscript was acquired by Johannes Puska, amaster at the arts faculty of the University of Krakow. Subsequently, inthe second half of the th c., the manuscript was purchased by JacobusPetrus de Boxicze, at the University of Krakow.

Ff. rarb: Hic incipiunt questiones super de generacione etcorrupcione reverendi magistri byridani. Et prima questio exstat talis:utrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et secundum eaque dicta sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant ante oppositum. Et est finisquestionum libri de generacione et corrupcione. Expliciunt questiones degeneracione et corrupcione.

L = Leipzig, Universittsbibliothek, .Paper; mm; ff.; middle of the th c. The prologue is lack-ing. On the upper cover of the manuscript, the text is wrongly attributedto Marsilius of Inghen: Item questiones Marcilii super de generacione etcorrupcione.37

Ff. rara: Circa librum de generacione et corrupcione queriturprimo utrumde generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et secun-dum ea que dicta sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant ante oppositum.Et sic est finis.

36 Kowalczyk et al., Catalogus codicum, : .37 The manuscript is not included in the various catalogues of works by Marsilius of

Inghen. See C.H. Lohr, Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors: Johannes deKanthi-Myngodus, Traditio, (), , at , M. Markowski, KatalogdzieMarsyliusza z Inghen z ewidencja rekopisw, Studiamediewistyczne, (), , at , and Id., Die handschriftliche berlieferung derWerke des Marsilius vonInghen, in: H.A.G. Braakhuis and M.J.F.M. Hoenen (eds.), Marsilius of Inghen. Acts ofthe International Marsilius of Inghen Symposium organized by the Nijmegen Centre forMedieval Studies (CMS), Nijmegen, December , Nijmegen (Artistariumsupplementa, ), , at .

introduction

H = Lige, Bibliothque de luniversit, C.38

Paper and parchment; mm; ff.; (?). The manuscriptcontains Albert of SaxonysQuaestiones super librosDe caelo and severalworks by John Buridan, such as his Quaestiones on De anima, Meteora,and Parva naturalia. The Quaestiones on De generatione et corruptioneare anonymous. The prologue is lacking. At f. rb there is a table ofquestions.

Ff. rbrb: Queritur circa librum de generacione et corrupcioneutrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et secundumea que dicta sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant. Et sic est finis istiusquestionis et tocius libri de generacione et corrupcione.

M = Mnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. .39

Paper; mm; +ff.; th c. (). The manuscriptcontains works by Albert of Saxony, Nicole Oresme and John Buridan.The manuscript was copied at Prague by Johannes Krichpaum fromIngolstad, sometime between and . According to one of thecolophons at the end of a question, our text was written in : (f. ra)Et sic patet hec questio secunda die post festum Iohannis anno .

Ff. rarb: Queritur primo circa inicium primi libri de genera-cione et corrupcione utrum de generalibus (!) et corruptibilibus sit sci-encia . . . Et secundum ea que dicta sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant.Et sic patet questio. Expliciunt questiones secundi de generacione et cor-rupcione.

N = Mnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. .40

Paper; mm; ff.; (ff. ), (ff. ). Thiscodex, which comprises two separate manuscripts, contains works byHenry Totting of Oyta and John Buridan. One manuscript was copied

38 See F. Masai and M. Wittek, Manuscrits dats conservs en Belgique, : ,Bruxelles, Gent , , nr. (and planche ), and A. Pattin, Repertorium commen-tariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum quae in bibliothecis belgicis asservantur,Leuven, Leiden (Ancient and medieval philosophy, ), .

39 See Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae regiae Monacensis, ed. altera, I.,Mnchen , ; M. Markowski, Buridanica quae in codicis manu scriptis biblio-thecarum Monacensium asservantur, Wrocaw , ; and J. Agrimi, Le Quaestionesde sensu attribuite a Oresme e Alberto de Sassonia, Firenze (Pubblicazioni dellaFacolt di Lettere e Filosofia dellUniversit di Pavia, ), . See also Bndictinsdu Bouveret, Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe sicle, , Fribourg (Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia, ), , nr. .

40 See K.Halm et al.,Catalogus codicum latinorumBibliothecae regiaeMonacensis, II.,

introduction

in at Prague by Johannes Verniger of Brixen. The manuscript withour text was copied in at Vienna by Conrad Verniger of Brixen.The two manuscripts were possibly joined together at Prague.The codexwas subsequently acquired by the Benedictine Abbey of Tegernsee. Theprologue is lacking.

Ff. ravb: Queritur circa primum de generacione utrum degenerabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et secundum ea que dictasunt procedunt raciones que fiebant ante oppositum. Et sic patet. Expli-ciunt questiones super de generacione et corrupcione ipsius Byridanireportate per Conradum Verniger de Brixina pro tunc Wienne degen-tem anno lxxviii die etc.

P = Praha, Knihovna Metropolitn Kapituly, L. .41

Paper; mm; ff.; th c. (before ). The codex contains,among other things, works of natural philosophy byAlbert of Saxony andJohn Buridan. In , it was bequeathed to the Prague student Johannesde Plana. The prologue is lacking.

Ff. vbrb: Circa inicium libri de generacione et corrupcione que-ritur ista questio utrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit sciencia. . . Et secundum ea que dicta sunt procedunt raciones que fiebant anteoppositum. Et sic est finis huius libri. Expliciunt questiones de genera-cione et corrupcione.

W =Wien, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, CVP .42

Paper; mm; ff.; th c. (). This manuscript containsworks by Nicole Oresme and John Buridan. Our text originated atPrague, and was copied by several scribes. It is preceded by the prologueof the A version (f. rava). The text is incomplete: the end of q. , qq. and the beginning of q. of book I are lacking. So are the end ofq. and the title of q. of book II.

Ff. vava: Nunc ergo descendendo ad librum de quo intendimus,scilicet de generacione et corrupcione, formaretur et sic finitur

Mnchen , reprint Wiesbaden , ; Markowski, Buridanica quae in codicismanu scriptis bibliothecarum Monacensium asservantur, and ; and Patar,Introduction, **.

41 The manuscript contains all questions, not merely , as Michael, JohannesBuridan, : asserts.

42 See M. Markowski, Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latino-rum quae in bibliothecis Wiennae asservantur, Wrocaw , .

introduction

prologus libri de generacione et corrupcione etc. Utrum de generabilibuset corruptibilibus sit sciencia . . . Et per ea que dicta sunt proceduntraciones que fiebant. Deo laus. Expliciunt questiones magistri Biridanisuper de generacione et corrupcione reportate Prage sub annomillesimotrecentesimo lxxo in die sancti Petri ad vincula.

Four of the manuscripts (C, F, N and W) provide information about theprovenance and the context in which they originated.

C Expliciunt questiones libri de generacione reverendi magistri Iohan-nis Biridani per PetrumFru. Prage scripte anno domini o cycli aureinumeri solis kalendas iulii (rb).

F Expliciunt questiones de generacione et corrupcione Byrydany ma-gistri Parariensis (!) Prage reportate (rb).

N Expliciunt questiones super de generacione et corrupcione ipsiusByridani reportate perConradumVerniger de Brixina pro tuncWien-ne degentem anno lxxviii die etc. (vb).

W Expliciunt questiones magistri Biridani super de generacione et cor-rupcione reportate Prage sub annomillesimo trecentesimo lxxo in diesancti Petri ad vincula (va).

These manuscripts contain explicit references to the provenance of themanuscripts and the status of the text.Manuscripts C, F andWoriginatedas reportationes at the University of Prague.43 Obviously, John Buridannever lectured at the University of Prague. However, the masters of thisuniversity used Buridans text and dictated it to their own students. Fromthe statutes of this university, it is clear that it was common practiceto use Buridans text for lectures.44 This was happening as early as thes of the fourteenth century, within a decade after Buridans death. Themanuscripts E, K, andG are also to be situated in Prague.Themanuscript

43 Manuscript M does not mention a place of origin in the colophon to BuridansQuaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione, but Prague is mentioned in thecolophons to several other works in the samemanuscript: Expliciunt questiones quatuorlibrorum metheororum Byridani finite Prage anno domini oto(rb); Expliciuntquestiones super totalem librum de sensu et sensato collecte parysius per reverendummagistrum Albertum de Rychmersdorf pronunciate Prage in quadam bursa tunc tem-poris, anno ccclxv, feria proxima post assumptionem Virginis gloriose per JohannemKrichpaumumde Ingolstat, finite in die sancti Bernhardi (rb); Hic est finis questionumde longitudine et vite brevitate in Praga anno domini millesimo cccolxviio in vigilia glo-riosissimeAnnunciacionis virginisMarie per JohannemKrichpaumumde Ingol. (va).

44 Cf. A. Dittrich and A. Spirk (eds.),Monumenta historica universitatis Carolo-Ferdi-nandae Pragensis, , Praha , , nr. .

introduction

N is a reportatio from the University of Vienna.There too, Buridans textswere used as textbooks.45

....The manuscript traditionThe textual tradition of version B of Buridans Quaestiones super librosDe generatione et corruptione has been established on the basis of a fullcollation of twelve manuscripts (and soundings of the two manuscriptsJ and H). Shared accidents, such as scribal errors, (homeoteleutic) omis-sions, and additions, make it possible to reconstruct the transmission ofthe text.46The idea behind this method is, that manuscripts sharing suchaccidents go back, either directly or indirectly, to a common ancestorin which these also occur. Accidents are defined as textual variants thatoccur in at least two text witnesses. This does not mean that individualreadings found in one manuscript are useless for establishing the textualtransmission. However, they will need further analysis in order to throwlight on the relation of the manuscripts.

This procedure reveals that M occupies a unique position amongthe surviving manuscripts. It stands apart, because it is free from theshared accidents of all the other witnesses. All other manuscripts havea common ancestor, and form family I. The connection between themanuscripts of family I against M becomes clear from the followingpassages (individual passages are neglected):

Accident : I, q. , 221

M (+ H) Family I

Unde licet concedamus quod conclusiodemonstrata vel demonstrabilis estimmediatum scibile, tamen concedidebet quod per scientiam huiusmodiconclusionis sciuntur res significatae perillam conclusionem sive per terminoseius. Unde absurdum est dicere quodmedicus non habeat scientiam deinfirmitate et herbis. Absurdum etiamest dicere quod nullam habeamusscientiam de animalibus et lapidibus.

Unde licet concedamus quod conclusiodemonstrata vel demonstrabilis estimmediatum scibile, tamen concedidebet quod per scientiam huiusmodiconclusionis sciuntur res significatae perillam conclusionem sive per terminoseius. Unde absurdum est dicere quodmedicus non habeat scientiam deanimalibus et lapidibus.

45 Cf. R. Kink, Geschichte der kaiserlichen Universitt zu Wien, Wien , reprintFrankfurt am Main , : , titulus XXVI.

46 For a useful overview of the various kinds of accidents that may occur, see L.D. Rey-nolds and N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek andLatin Literature, Oxford , , and M.L. West, Textual Criticism and EditorialTechnique, Stuttgart , .

introduction

The reading in bold is lacking in the manuscripts of family I, whichmakes the passage meaningless (or in any event less meaningful). Notethat H shares this reading with M. However, as will be explained morefully below, H occupies a peculiar position in the textual tradition.

Accident : I, q. , 28

M Family I

Et arguitur primo quod sic per aliquasauctoritates quia: dicit Commentatorquinto Metaphysicae quod anima estforma in subiecto in actu, et hoc contraformam simplicium, scilicet quattuorelementorum. Et patet quod ipse nonloquitur de actu accidentali, quia sicformae elementorum adveniunt beneenti in actu, scilicet disposito per primasqualitates. Ideo est intentio sua quodanima est in subiecto in actu per aliamformam substantialem.

Et arguitur primo quod sic per aliquasauctoritates quia: dicit Commentatorquinto Metaphysicae quod anima estforma in subiecto in actu, et non performas simplicium, scilicet quattuorelementorum. Et patet quod ipse nonloquitur de actu accidentali, quia sicformae elementorum adveniunt beneenti in actu, scilicet disposito per primasqualitates. Ideo est intentio sua quodanima est in subiecto in actu per aliamformam substantialem.

Only the reading in M et hoc contra formam makes sense and is, asa matter of fact, the reading found in the cited passage in Averroes(Averroes, In Metaphysicam, V, comm. , f. E).

Accident : I, q. , 276

M (+G, H) Family I

Ad aliam dicerem quod magnitudinumpenetratio sit impossibilis, quiasubiectum magnitudinum non plusdistet per eas quam distaret perunam. Sed tamen dico quod additiomagnitudinis ad magnitudinem ineodem subiecto non est impossibilis ubisubiectum plus distaret per illas duasmagnitudines quam per unam. Et sicest in proposito. Unde sicut caliditasaddita caliditati in eodem subiectoreddit subiectum calidius, sic extensiosive magnitudo addita extensioni ineodem subiecto reddit subiectumextensius.

Ad aliam dicerem quod magnitudinumpenetratio sit impossibilis, quiasubiectum magnitudinum non plus distetper eas quam distaret per unam. Sedtamen dico quod additio magnitudinisad magnitudinem in eodem subiectonon est impossibilis ubi subiectum plusdistaret per illas duas magnitudines quamper unam. Et sic est in proposito. Undesicut caliditas addita caliditati in eodemsubiecto reddit subiectum extensius.(calidius et extensius J)

The manuscripts of family I share a homeoteleutic error, which is absentin M (and in G and H). Yet, on the basis of other shared accidents (seebelow), G clearly belongs to family I.

Although manuscript M obviously is a very important witness, itcannot be the original or the common ancestor of the manuscripts of

introduction

family I. This option is ruled out by a number of omissions in M thatdo not occur in any of the other manuscripts. If M were the commonancestor of the manuscripts of family I, these omissions (or at leastsome of them) would also have to occur in the manuscripts of familyI. Moreover, all manuscripts of family I have individual readings that arenot shared by any of the other manuscripts. For this reason, the commonancestor of family I is not among any of the surviving manuscripts andshould be considered lost [b].

The manuscripts of family I appear to consist of two main groups:

Family I.: CDEJKWFamily I.: BFGLNP

Family I.

The manuscripts of family I. can be distinguished from those of familyI. by a certain number of shared accidents (omissions, additions, andscribal errors). A few examples of accidents shared by the manuscripts offamily I. are the following:

Shared omissions of family I.

q. , 5: generatum] om. CDEJKW q. , 89: quando dicitur quod] om. CDEJKW q. , 1415: immo scirent facere domos novas] om. CDEJKW q. , 16: sciendum est quod] om. CDEJKW (+B) q. , 20: dicere] om. CDEJKW q. , 3: quodam modo] om. CDEJKW q. , 12: nunc] om. CDEJWK q. , 2223: est1 . . . definitio] om. CDEJKW q. , 1819: aliqua . . . igitur] om. CDEJKW q. , 2: dico naturaliter] om. CDEJKW q. , 2: unamquamque . . . et] om. CDEJKW q. , 1315: non . . . ego] etc. CDEJKW q. , 1516: remaneret] om. CDEJKW

Shared additions of family I.

q. , 3: demonstrabilibus] add. et demonstratis CDEJKW q. , 8: de1] add. necessariis vel de CDEJKW q. , 15: actum1] add. qui est generacio CDEJKW q. , 4: tonitruum] add. significatur CDEJKW

introduction

Shared errors of family I.

q. , 12: concluditur] elicitur CDEJKW q. , 2: corruptibilibus] naturalibus CDEJKW q. ; 17: scibile] scire (sciri J) CDEJKW q. , 18: scientiam] conclusionem CDEJKW q. , 79: isti termini scibile et scientia sunt relativi sed non oportetquod res extra sint relativae] isti termini scibile et sciencia non sunttermini relativi sed res extra et ergo non sint relative CDEJKW

q. , 3: praesentia] presens CDEJKW q. , 6: et] quam CDEJKW q. , 20: explicaveris] applicaveris CDEJKW q. , 12: alterationes] generaciones CDEJKW q. , 2021: non sit conveniens] sit contraria CDEJKW q. , 22 caliditas2] calefaccio CDEJKW q. , 23: possibilitate] possibili CDEJKW

The manuscripts of family I. are distributed over two subgroups. Themanuscripts CDEJW share a number of accidents that are absent inK. For this reason, they have a common ancestor [d]. This ancestor,however, is no longer extant, since all the copies of this subgroup arecharacterized by individual variant readings as well.The following sharedaccidents (omissions and scribal errors) of manuscripts CDEJW indicatethat they constitute a subgroup against K.

Shared omissions of subgroup CDEJW

q. , 1112: remaneret veritas categoricae affirmativae de inesselicet nulla] om. CDEJW (+B)

q. , 17: tonitruo] om. CDEJW q. , 7: alicuius duo] om. CDEJW q. , 12: eam] om. CDEJW q. , 18: hoc nomen2] om. CDEJW

Shared errors of subgroup CDEJW

q. , 1: quaestionem] dubitacionem CDEJW q. , 2: significato vocis] voce CDEJW q. , 16: mutetur] moveatur CDEJ (maneantur W)

The manuscripts C and D constitute a further subgroup (against E, JandW), as is clear from the following examples of shared omissions anderrors.

introduction

Shared omissions of C and D

q. , 2: Deum] om. CD q. , 301: de . . . scitur] om. CD (+J) q. , 24: nullum . . . licet] om. (hom.) CD q. , 13: quae est] om. CD q. , 11: concipio] om. CD

Shared errors of C and D

q. , 9: mutetur] non sit CD q. , 12: loco] luce CD q. , 16: significare] significative CD

Shared omissions, errors and additions also reveal that the manuscriptsE, J andW are closely related. It is noteworthy that the additions in EJWoriginate from version A of Buridans Quaestiones super libros De gene-ratione et corruptione. In addition, the manuscripts E, J and W are dis-tinguished from all other manuscripts of version B, because they containthe prologue, which is also contained in all manuscripts of version A.

Shared omissions of E, J and W

q. , 9: et sexto Ethicorum] om. EJW q. , 1415: hoc . . . Posteriorum] om. EJW q. , 2123: licet . . . cadens] om. EJW q. , 8: supponitur igitur] om. EJW q. , 7: scibile et scientia] om. EJW

Shared additions of E, J and W

q. , 10: conclusionis] add. demonstrate vel EJW q. , 17: per] add. intellectum vel per EJW q. , 6: haec . . . quaestione] dico quod hec auctoritas non estad propositum quia Aristoteles accipit ibi est pro vero et non estpro falso et hoc satis apparet dicit enim statim ut diametrum essesimetrum EJW

q. , 5: praeterito] add. et ergo licet non manent res pro quibusterminus supponit in proposicione affirmativa et categorica quia sicterminus non supponit nisi pro presentibus tamen bene manent respro quibus termini supponunt in proposicionibus de preterito velde futuro eodem modo scilicet quo pro nobis supponunt EJW

q. , 7: divisibile] add. si autem sit corpus ingenium tunc secun-dum quemlibet eius partem est composita ex partibus etrogenis igi-

introduction

tur adhuc secundum quemlibet ad eius partem divisibile sicut patetper racionem precedentem et sic patet caritas questionis W: add. siautem sit corpus heterogeneum tunc tamen quelibet pars est adhuccomposita ex partibus homogeneis igitur adhuc secundum quamli-bet eius partem est divisibile sicut patet per racionem precedentemigitur etc. patet igitur veritas questionis EJ

Shared errors of E, J and W

q. , 1: corruptibilium] scibilium EJW q. , 9: iste terminus scientia sit relativus] sunt relativa EJW q. , 6: continuativum] continuacionem EJW

Family I.

Family I. is composed of manuscripts BFGLNP, as is clear from thefollowing accidents (omissions and scribal errors) shared by thesemanu-scripts:

Shared omissions of family I.

q. , 5: quod non] om. BFGLNP q. , 7: apprehendere] om. BFGLNP q. , 22: quod vacuum est] om. BFGLNP q. , 1: componi] om. BFGLNP q. , 12: animal compositum] om. BFGLNP q. , 10: semper] om. BFGLNP q. , 15: naturalem] om. BFGLNP q. , 10: congregatum] om. BFGLNP q. , 22: qualitatum] om. BFGLNP

Shared errors of family I.

q. , 5: conceptus] intellectus BFGLNP q. , 19: non valet] nulla BFGLNP

Within family I., the manuscripts FGLNP share a number of accidents(omissions, variant readings and a rearrangement of a text passage)which do not occur in B.

Omission shared by FGLNP

q. , 2122: tripliciter potest esse de aliquo scientia demonstrativa]om. FGLNP

introduction

Variant readings shared by FGLNP q. , 19: non sunt intelligibilia] sunt huiusmodi FGLNP q. , 1011: et potentia intellectiva non essent distinctae] non dis-tingueretur a potentia intellectiva FGLNP

q. , 18: faciliter] valde faciliter FGLNP q. , 12: anima] mente FGLNP q. , 17: manente] manifeste FGLNP

Rearrangement of a text passage shared by FGLNP q. , 46: necessarium perpetuum impossibile aliter se haberesimiliter idem debemus intelligere per ista nomina contingens cor-ruptibile et possibile aliter se habere] contingens corruptibile etpossibile aliter se habere similiter per ista nomina necessariumperpetuum impossibile aliter se habere FGLNP

Finally, the manuscript H has a somewhat peculiar position. At times, itis the only manuscript which, together with the manuscript M, gives acorrect reading. Yet, at the same time, readings which are typical of thefamilies I. (in a number of cases more specifically subgroup CDEJW)and I. (in a number of cases more specifically subgroup FGLNP) bothoccur in H.

Shared variant readings of CDEJKW and H q. , 89: quando dicitur quod] om. CDEJKW + H q. , 15: actum1] add. qui est generacio CDEJKW + H q. , 1516: remaneret] om. CDEJKW + H q. , 1112: remaneret veritas categoricae affirmativae de inesselicet nulla] om. CDEJW + H

Shared variant readings of BFGLNP and H q. , 5: quod non] om. BFGLNP + H q. : 22: quod vacuum est] om. BFGLNP + H q. , 19: non valet] nulla BFGLNP + H q. : 15: naturalem] om. BFGLNP + H q. , 46: necessarium perpetuum impossibile aliter se haberesimiliter idem debemus intelligere per ista nomina contingens cor-ruptibile et possibile aliter se habere] contingens corruptibile et pos-sibile aliter se habere similiter per ista nomina necessarium per-petuum impossibile aliter se habere FGLNP + H

What does the occurrence of thesemiscellaneous variant readings signifyfor the position of manuscript H in the text tradition? Obviously, H

introduction

is contaminated and contains variant readings that are characteristicof several different families and subgroups. Possibly, the copyist wasdrawing upon several manuscripts that belong to different branches ofthe tradition. For this reason, H has not been used for the edition. Anadditional reason for leaving H aside is the fact that the correct readingsof H also occur in any of the other manuscripts that were used for thisedition.

The results of the examination of the manuscript tradition can begraphically represented in the following stemma. It should be notedthat the stemma only represents a part of the history of the textualtransmission, since many manuscripts may have been lost.

[a]

[b]

[c]

K

C D

H

E J W

F G L N P

B[d]

[e] [f]

[g]

[h]

M

Stemma codicum

.The edition

The examination of the manuscript tradition of version B of BuridansQuaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione indicates thatthe manuscripts M, B and K are most suitable as the foundation for an

introduction

edition. In principle, the edition follows the text of M, unless its readingis improbable according to the understanding of the editors. In thosecases, readings of B and/or K have been followed. In those rare caseswhen the readings of neither M, nor B or K seemed to make sense, othermanuscripts have been taken into account.

It should be noted that the text of M contains certain peculiarities.It is not very precise in the modi of the verbs (at least according to thestandards of classical Latin), and is at times rather curt at places where Band K offer more elegant readings. Yet, also in those cases, M has beenfollowed throughout. The text of M has been fully collated with B and K,and the variant readings of B and K are all included in the critical appara-tus.The cases in whichM has not been followed, are also indicated in theapparatus. When other manuscripts have been used, the sigla of thesemanuscripts appear immediately after the bracket. When the text hasbeen emended, the editors used the abbreviations coni. or suppl. Certainvariant readings have been systematically ignored: ergo/igitur/ideo;iste/ille; sic/ita; vel/aut/sive/seu; scilicet/videlicet; nec/neque;super/supra; variants in word order, unless they are significant. Thus,the critical apparatus allows readers to decide whether or not they agreewith the decision of the editors.

The major division into books and questions comes from the manu-scripts. The numbering of the rationes quod sic/quod non and therationes in oppositum ismade by the editors.The punctuation of the textismade by the editors according tomodern conventions.The editors haveput a colon after the word quia whenever it does not have the meaningbecause, but rather serves the function of a colon. Defining and non-defining relative clauses are distinguished by the absence and presence ofcommas. All abbreviations have been solved, with the exception of etc.Sometimes the etc. in phrases like igitur etc. at the end of an argumentismissing. In these cases the editors have not supplied it.The editors havealso made a distinction between different meanings of ex quo. When itmeans since, the editors have written it as one word (exquo). Titles ofbooks cited by Buridan are indicated in italics; huius when referring toAristotlesDe generatione et corruptione, has been printed in italics in theedition.

The orthography of editions of medieval texts is often a point ofdebate. The present edition follows the rules of classical Latin and intro-duces the Renaissance u/v distinction. So the reader will, for instance,find hiemem rather than hyemem, quaeritur instead of queritur, hisinstead of hiis, and vel instead of uel. The editors have used the end-

introduction

ing -ae for gen. and dat. sing. fem. and nom. plur. fem.The editors havechosen not to retain the spelling of the manuscripts in order to make iteasier for non-medievalists to understand the text. In the critical appa-ratus however, the orthography of the manuscripts has been retained asmuch as possible.

Next to the apparatus with the variant readings, there is a second appa-ratus to be found at the bottom of the page, which contains the referencesto the sources quoted in the text. Only explicit references have been iden-tified. Internal references within Buridans Quaestiones super libros Degeneratione et corruptione (version B) are indicated by book and quaes-tio. References to Aristotles texts are identified by its title, book, chap-ter and pagination of the Bekker edition. If a quotation also occurs inthe Auctoritates Aristotelis, this has been indicated. References to Aver-roes are identified by title, book and number of the commentary. Refer-ences are given according to the Giunta edition.47 ReferencestoAverroesDe anima are according to the edition by F.S. Crawford.48Thebibliographical details of all other references are provided in the appara-tus. The abbreviations used in the critical apparatus are according to theconventions recommended by the S.I.E.P.M.:49

add. addiditcodd. codicesconi. coniecimuscorr. correxitexp. expunxithom. homoeoteleutoninv. invertitmarg. margineom. omisitpraem. praemisitscr. scripsitsuppl. supplevimus

47 Aristotelis opera cum Averrois commentariis, Venezia , reprint Frankfurtam Main .

48 Averroes, Commentariummagnum in AristotelisDe anima libros, ed. F.S. Crawford,Cambridge (ma) (Corpus commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, Versioneslatinae, /).

49 See A. Dondaine, Abrviations latines et signes recommands pour lapparat cri-tique des editions de texts mdivaux, Bulletin de la Socit Internationale pour lEtude dela Philosophie Mdivale (S.I.E.P.M.), (), .

introduction

. Bibliography

Agrimi, J., Le Quaestiones de sensu attribuite a Oresme e Alberto de Sassonia,Firenze (Pubblicazioni della Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia dellUniversitdi Pavia, ).

Albert the Great, De generatione et corruptione, ed. P. Hossfeld, Mnster (Opera omnia, /).

Anonymus, Liber de causis, ed. A. Pattin, Leuven .Anonymus, Liber sex principiorum, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, Brugge, Paris

(Aristoteles latinus /).Aristotelis opera cum Averrois commentariis, Venezia , reprint Frank-

furt am Main .Avarucci, G., et al., Catalogo di manoscritti filosofici nelle biblioteche italiane,

: Cesena, Fabriano, Firenze, Grottaferrata, Parma, Firenze (CorpusPhilosophorumMedii Aevi. Subsidia, ).

Averroes, Commentarium magnum in AristotelisDe anima libros, ed. F.S. Craw-ford, Cambridge (ma) (Corpus commentariorum Averrois in Aris-totelem, Versiones latinae, /).

Bndictins du Bouveret, Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines auXVIe sicle, , Fribourg (Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia, ).

Caroti, S., I codici di Bernardo Campagna. Filosofia e medicina alla fine del sec.XIV, Roma .

Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae regiae Monacensis, ed. altera, I.,Mnchen .

Celeyrette, J., An Indivisibilist Argumentation at Paris around : Michel ofMontecaleriosQuestion on Point and the Controversy with John Buridan, in:C. Grellard and A. Robert (eds.), Atomism in Late Medieval Philosophy andTheology, Leiden (Medieval and early modern science, ), .

Courtenay, W.J., Michael de Montecalerio: Buridans Opponent in his Quaestiode puncto, Archives dhistoire doctrinale et littraire du Moyen Age, (),.

, Philosophys Reward.The Ecclesiastical Income of Jean Buridan, Recher-ches de thologie et philosophie mdivale, (), .

Dittrich, A., and A. Spirk (eds.), Monumenta historica universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandae Pragensis, , Praha .

Dondaine, A., Abrviations latines et signes recommands pour lapparat cri-tique des editions de texts mdivaux, Bulletin de la Socit Internationalepour lEtude de la Philosophie Mdivale (S.I.E.P.M.), (), .

Faral, E., Jean Buridan.Matre s arts de lUniversit de Paris, Paris (Histoirelittraire de la France, /).

Fioravanti, G., C. Leonardi and S. Perfetti (eds.), Il commento filosofico nellocci-dente latino (secoli XIIIXV). Atti del colloquio Firenze-Pisa, otto-bre , organizzato dalla SISMEL (Societ Internazionale per lo Studiodel Medioevo Latino) e dalla SISPM (Societ Italiana per lo Studio del Pen-siero Medievale), sotto legida della SIEPM, Turnhout (Rencontres dephilosophie mdivale, ).

introduction

Fleler, C., From Oral Lecture to Written Commentaries. John Buridans Com-mentaries onAristotlesMetaphysics, in: S. Ebbesen and R.L. Friedman (eds.),Medieval Analyses in Language and Cognition. Acts of the symposium TheCopenhagen School of Medieval Philosophy, January , , Kbenhavn (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser, ), .

Giles of Rome, Commentaria in libros De generatione et corruptione, Venezia, reprint Frankfurt am Main .

Halm, K., et al., Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae regiae Monacensis,II., Mnchen , reprint Wiesbaden .

Hamesse, J., Les auctoritates Aristotelis. Un florilge mdival, Leuven, Paris (Philosophes mdivaux, ).

Jacquart, D., Supplment to E. Wickersheimer, Dictionnaire biographique desmdecins en France au Moyen Age, Genve (Hautes tudes mdivaleset modernes, ).

John Buridan,Quaestiones in decem libros Ethicorum, Paris , reprint Frank-furt am Main .

, Quaestiones in Praedicamenta, ed. J. Schneider, Mnchen (Verf-fentlichungen der Kommission fr die Herausgabe ungedruckter Texte ausder mittelalterlichen Geisteswelt, ).

, Quaestiones super libros Physicorum, Paris , reprint Frankfurt amMain .

Kink, R., Geschichte der kaiserlichen Universitt zu Wien, Wien , reprintFrankfurt am Main .

Klima, G., [John Buridan], Summulae de dialectica, New Haven (ct) (Yalelibrary of medieval philosophy).

Klima, G., John Buridan, Oxford (Great medieval thinkers).Kowalczyk, M., et al., Catalogus codicummanuscriptorumMedii Aevi latinorum

qui in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, , Wrocaw ., et al., Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Medii Aevi latinorum qui in

Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, , Wrocaw .Liscia, D.A. Di, El libro encadenado: Eine Sammelhandschrift naturphiloso-

phischer Schriften von Jean Buridan (Ms. Buenos Aires, Biblioteca NacionalR), Vivarium, (), .

Lohr, C.H., Medieval LatinAristotleCommentaries. Authors: Jacobus-JohannesJuff, Traditio (), .

, Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors: Johannes de Kanthi-Myngodus, Traditio, (), .

, Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors: Narcissus-Richardus,Traditio, (), .

, Aristotelica Helvetica: catalogus codicum latinorum in bibliothecis Confe-derationis Helveticae asservatorum quibus versiones expositionesque operumAristotelis continentur, Fribourg (Scrinium Friburgense. Sonderband,).

Lollini, F., and P. Lucchi (eds.), Libraria Domini. I manoscritti della BibliotecaMalatestiana: testi e decorazioni, Bologna .

Maier, A., Verschollene Aristoteleskommentare des . Jahrhunderts, in: Ead.,Ausgehendes Mittelalter. Gesammelte Aufstze zur Geistesgeschichte des .Jahrhunderts, I, Roma (Storia e letteratura, ), .

introduction

, An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenschaft (Studien zur Natur-philosophie der Sptscholastik, ), Roma (Storia e Letteratura, ).

, Codices Vaticani Latini. Codices , Citt del Vaticana .Markowski, M., Die handschriftliche berlieferung der Werke des Marsil-

ius von Inghen, in: H.A.G. Braakhuis and M.J.F.M. Hoenen (eds.), Mar-silius of Inghen. Acts of the International Marsilius of Inghen Symposiumorganized by the Nijmegen Centre for Medieval Studies (CMS), Nijmegen, December , Nijmegen (Artistarium supplementa, ), .

, Katalog dzieMarsyliusza z Inghen z ewidencja rekopisw, Studiamedie-wistyczne, (), .

, Buridanica quae in codicis manu scriptis bibliothecarum Monacensiumasservantur, Wrocaw .

, Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum quaein Bibliotheca Amploniana Erffordiae asservantur, Wrocaw .

, Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum quaein bibliothecis Wiennae asservantur, Wrocaw .

Masai, F., and M. Wittek, Manuscrits dats conservs en Belgique, : ,Bruxelles, Gent .

Michael, B., Johannes Buridan: Studien zu seinem Leben, seinen Werken und zurRezeption seinerTheorien im Europa des sptenMittelalters, PhD dissertation,Freie Universitt Berlin, ( vols.).

Nicole Oresme, Quaestiones super De generatione et corruptione, ed. S. Caroti,Mnchen (Verffentlichungen der Kommission fr die Herausgabeungedruckter Texte aus der mittelalterlichen Geisteswelt, ).

Patar, B., Introduction, in: [John Buridan], Expositio et quaestiones in AristotelisDe caelo, ed. B. Patar, Louvain-la-Neuve, Leuven, Paris (Philosophesmdivaux, ).

Pattin, A., Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorumquae in bibliothecis belgicis asservantur, Leuven, Leiden (Ancient andmedieval philosophy, ).

Porphyry, Isagoge, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, Brugge, Paris (Aristoteles latinus/).

Punta, F. del, The Genre of Commentaries in the Middle Ages and its Rela-tion to the Nature and Originality of Medieval Thought, in: J.A. Aertsenand A. Speer (eds.), Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Akten des X. Inter-nationalen Kongresses fr Mittelalterliche Philosophie der Socit Interna-tionale pour lEtude de la Philosophie Mdivale, . bis . August inErfurt, Berlin (Miscellanea mediaevalia, ), .

Reynolds, L.D., and N.G.Wilson, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmis-sion of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford .

Scarpatetti, B.M von, Katalog der datierten Handschriften in der Schweiz inlateinischer Schrift vom Anfang des Mittelalters bis , : Die Handschriftender Bibliotheken von Aarau, Appenzell und Basel, : Text, Zrich .

Sechler, S., Rectors of the Fourteenth-Century University of Paris: An Institutionaland Prosopographical Study, doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison (wi), .

introduction

Streijger,M., Johannes Buridanus commentaar opDe generatione et corruptione.Editie en inleidende studie, PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen,.

Thijssen, J.M.M.H., Buridan, John (Jean), in: N. Koertge (ed.), New Dictionaryof Scientific Biography, Detroit , : .

, Buridan, Albert of Saxony and Oresme, and a Fourteenth-century Col-lection of Quaestiones on the Physics and on De Generatione et Corruptione,Vivarium, (), .

, Johannes Buridanus over het oneindige. Een onderzoek naar zijn theorieover het oneindige in het kader van zijn wetenschaps- en natuurfilosofie, PhDdissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen, ( vols.).

, The Book-Collection of Bernardus a Campanea de Verona (fl. end th/beginning th century): the Dissemination of English and French NaturalScience in Italy, Scriptorium, (), .

, The Buridan School Reassessed. John Buridan and Albert of Saxony,Vivarium, (), .

, TheDebate over theNature ofMotion: John Buridan, NicoleOresme andAlbert of Saxony. With an Edition of John Buridans Quaestiones super librosPhysicorum, secundum ultimam lecturam, Book III, q. , Early Science andMedicine, (), .

Weijers, O., La disputatio la Facult des arts de Paris ( environ):esquisse dune typologie, Turnhout (Studia artistarum, ).

, La disputatio dans les facults des arts au moyen ge, Turnhout ,(Studia artistarum, ).

, Le travail intellectuel la facult des arts de Paris: textes et matres (ca.), , Turnhout (Studia artistarum, ).

West, M.L., Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique, Stuttgart .Wickersheimer, E., Dictionnaire biographique des mdecins en France au Moyen

Age, Genve (Hautes tudes mdivales et modernes, /).Zupko, J., John Buridan: Portrait of a Fourteenth-Century Arts Master, Notre

Dame (in) (Publications in mediaeval studies).

QUAESTIONES SUPER LIBROSDE GENERATIONE ET CORRUPTIONE ARISTOTELIS

LIBER I

i.

Quaeritur primo circa initium primi libri De generatione et corruptioneutrum de generabilibus et corruptibilibus sit scientia.

Et arguitur quod non quia: Quod non est, non contingit sciri, ut habetur primo Posteriorum;

sed generabilia non sunt, quia quod est generatum non est amplius gene-rabile, et antequam ipsum sit generatum ipsum non est (et sic apparetquod generabile non est); igitur generabilia non contingit sciri.

Secundo. De singularibus non est scientia, ut habetur primo Poste-riorum et sexto Ethicorum; sed generabilia et corruptibilia sunt singula-

ria, quod patet in prooemioMetaphysicae, ubi dicitur quod actus et ope-ratio sunt circa singularia; igitur de ipsis non est scientia.

Tertio. Omnis scientia est de necessariis, de perpetuis et impossibi-libus aliter se habere, ita quod scientia proprie dicta non est de contingen-tibus nec de possibilibus aliter se habere.Hoc totumpatet primoPosterio-

rum. Sed generabilia et corruptibilia sunt contingentia et non necessaria,quia possunt esse et non esse; sunt etiam possibilia aliter se habere, immocontinue mutantur. Ergo de ipsis non est scientia.

Quarto. De illis non est scientia quae non sunt intelligibilia (hocpatet de se); sed generabilia et corruptibi