Peter of Auvergne (d. 1304)

Author(s):  
Robert Andrews

Peter of Auvergne, a thirteenth-century Parisian master, wrote extensively on logic, natural philosophy and theology. His thought progresses from modism in logic to an independent synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy along the lines begun by Thomas Aquinas, culminating in a theology reconciling the ideas of his teachers Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines. His reputation has been based largely on his association with Aquinas, but recent investigations have shown the independence of his thought.

Traditio ◽  
1964 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 385-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Wippel

If a definitive history of the controversy during the final decades of the thirteenth century regarding the real distinction between essence and existence still remains to be written, an exposition of the views expressed by Godfrey of Fontaines on this point may provide one more step in this direction. It seems probable that Godfrey had studied in Paris during Thomas' final years there (1269-1272) and that he may have studied under Henry of Ghent as well as under Siger of Brabant. He lectured as Master of theology at Paris for some thirteen years (1285-1297), and again around 1303-1304, when he composed his fifteenth Quodlibetal Question. Giles of Rome had also studied at Paris under Thomas (1269-1272) and served there as Bachelor in theology (1276-1277), and later as Master in theology (1285-1291). Henry of Ghent had taught at Paris around 1271 (apparently on the faculty of Arts) and later, beginning in 1276, on the faculty of Theology. Between 1276 and 1292 he delivered the courses which resulted in his Summa and in his Quaestiones Quodlibetales. Because Godfrey was familiar with the work of Thomas Aquinas (in Q[uodlibet] 2 q.3 one finds an almost verbatim reproduction of a section of Thomas' De aeternitate mundi), because he witnessed the famed debate on the real distinction between Henry of Ghent and Giles of Rome, and because his work was well known to Duns Scotus, clarification of his own position should be of historical interest. In addition, it is to be hoped that such a study will show that his views are distinctive enough to merit investigation for their own sake.


Author(s):  
Francesco Del punta ◽  
Cecilia Trifogli

Giles of Rome was one of the most eminent theologians and commentators on the works of Aristotle at the University of Paris in the second half of the thirteenth century. He was probably a pupil of Thomas Aquinas, who exerted a deep influence on Giles’ metaphysical and theological thought. Giles’ reception of Aquinas’ positions, however, was often critical and original. For historians of medieval philosophy, Giles’ name is mainly associated with the doctrine of ‘the real distinction’ between essence (essentia) and existence (esse). According to this doctrine, essence and existence are two completely distinct things (res) of which the ontological structure of every created being is composed. On the issue of the relationship between essence and existence Giles took a firm position against his contemporary Henry of Ghent, who maintained that existence is a mere relation of the essence of a created being to its creator. Giles was also involved in the debate over the unity of the substantial form in composite substances, another burning issue in the thirteenth century. As a commentator on Aristotle’s works, Giles made original contributions to the tradition of Aristotelian natural philosophy, especially in his treatment of extension, place, time and motion in a vacuum.


Traditio ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 147-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. R. Laird

It is well known that in the Middle Ages mathematics had little part in the study of nature. Natural philosophy, which had in its purview all of nature and natural things, was considered fundamentally distinct from mathematics, both in subject matter and in method. Yet there was a handful of sciences in which mathematics and natural philosophy came together, sciences that were to have a very significant role in later scientific thought. These were what Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, called the ‘intermediate sciences’ (scientiae mediae), since they were thought of as in some way intermediate between the natural and the mathematical; they included astronomy, optics, harmonics, and sometimes mechanics. They were also known as the ‘subalternate sciences,’ since they were considered under, or subalternate to, pure mathematics, and sometimes to natural philosophy as well.


Author(s):  
Corey L. Barnes

Before he gained the status of received authority, Thomas Aquinas influenced scholastic thought by shaping conversations around and by establishing approaches to specific topics. Scholastic thinkers engaged in these conversations and with these specific topics in various ways, both directly and indirectly. While the Correctoria controversy reflected direct engagements with Aquinas, whether critical or supportive, the majority of scholastic engagements with Thomas was more indirect. Typical examples can be found in the works of Giles of Rome, Siger of Brabant, Godfrey of Fontaines, and Henry of Ghent. Among other topics, these thinkers engaged with Thomas on the possibility of an eternal world, on the unicity of substantial form, and on the relationship between esse and essentia. Engagements with Aquinas were complicated by Stephen Tempier’s condemnations of 1277, which touched upon some Thomistic positions and more generally reframed scholastic approaches to philosophical speculations with theological bearings.


Vivarium ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 320-339
Author(s):  
Joke Spruyt

Abstract Thirteenth-century views on consequences have not yet received much attention. Authors of this period deserve closer scrutiny, because of their profound interest in the nature of consequence. The fundamental feature of a consequence was captured in the claim that its antecedent is the cause of its consequent. At the same time authors systematically discussed consequences in terms of truth-preservation. This paper considers the requirements of syllogistic argument and consequences in general, including the role of ‘cause’ in the identification of syllogisms proper, looks at different descriptions of consequence, moves on to discussions of the syncategorema ‘si’ – in syncategoremata treatises by Peter of Spain, Henry of Ghent, Nicholas of Paris and William of Sherwood, as well as some sophismata tracts – and explores what thirteenth-century authors make of the truth-functional characterisation of consequence, showing how it clashes with the authors’ insistence on a causal connection between antecedent and consequent.


Traditio ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 235-276
Author(s):  
Barbara Obrist

TheLiber de orbe, attributed to Māshā'allāh (fl. 762–ca. 815) in the list of Gerard of Cremona's translations, stands out as one of the few identifiable sources for the indirect knowledge of Peripatetic physics and cosmology at the very time Aristotle's works on natural philosophy themselves were translated into Latin, from the 1130s onward. This physics is expounded in an opening series of chapters on the bodily constitution of the universe, while the central section of the treatise covers astronomical subjects, and the remaining parts deal with meteorology and the vegetal realm. Assuming that Gerard of Cremona's translation of theLiber de orbecorresponds to the twenty-seven chapter version that circulated especially during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, it was, however, not this version, but a forty-chapter expansion thereof that became influential as early as the 1140s. It may have originated in Spain, as indicated, among others, by a reference to the difference of visibility of a lunar eclipse between Spain and Mecca. Unlike the twenty-seven chapterLiber de orbe, this expanded and also partly modified text remains in manuscript, and none of the three copies known so far gives a title or mentions Māshā'allāh as an author. Instead, the thirteenth-century witness that is now in New York attributes the work to an Alcantarus:Explicit liber Alcantari Caldeorum philosophi. While no Arabic original of the twenty-seven chapterLiber de orbehas come to light yet, Taro Mimura of the University of Manchester recently identified a manuscript that partly corresponds to the forty-chapter Latin text, as well as a shorter version thereof.


Author(s):  
E.P. Bos

AbstractThe Regular lecture on the Bible (Lectura ordinaria super sacram scripturam), a commentary attributed to Henry of Ghent (1220-96), is one of the most remarkable medieval commentaries on the Bible of the late thirteenth century. In this work the author wishes to give what he labels "a commentary according to the literal and historical sense". In the epilogue to the work he writes explicitly, that he leaves aside a spiritual exposition.2 This would not be a "spiritual commentary" in any sense of the word.


2021 ◽  
Vol 153 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-318
Author(s):  
Alexander Fidora ◽  
Nicola Polloni

This contribution engages with the problematic position of the mechanical arts within medieval systems of knowledge. Superseding the secondary position assigned to the mechanical arts in the Early Middle Ages, the solutions proposed by Hugh of St Victor and Gundissalinus were highly influential during the thirteenth century. While Hugh’s integration of the mechanical arts into his system of knowledge betrays their still ancillary position as regards consideration of the liberal arts, Gundissalinus’s theory proposes two main novelties. On the one hand, he sets the mechanical arts alongside alchemy and the arts of prognostication and magic. On the other, however, using the theory put forward by Avicenna, he subordinates these “natural sciences” to natural philosophy itself, thereby establishing a broader architecture of knowledge hierarchically ordered. Our contribution examines the implications of such developments and their reception afforded at Paris during the thirteenth century, emphasising the relevance that the solutions offered by Gundissalinus enjoyed in terms of the ensuing discussions concerning the structure of human knowledge.


Author(s):  
John P. Doyle

The seventeenth-century Portuguese Dominican, John of St Thomas or John Poinsot, was a major figure in late scholastic philosophy and theology. Educated at Coimbra and Louvain, he taught both disciplines in Spain: at Madrid, Plasencia and Alcalá. Aspiring to be a faithful disciple of Thomas Aquinas, he published a three-volume Cursus philosophicus thomisticus (Thomistic Philosophical Course) and before he died began the publication of a Cursus theologicus (Theological Course). His philosophical writing was explicitly on logic and natural philosophy. However, in both his philosophical and theological works, he treated many metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues. His logic is divided into two parts, formal and material. Of particular interest is his semiotic doctrine which appears in the second part. In natural philosophy, he explained Aristotle with a Thomistic slant. While following Aquinas in theology, John at times developed his master’s doctrine along new lines. Both in his own time and after he has had considerable authority within scholasticism, especially for Thomists. Among those whom he has influenced in twentieth-century Thomism are Joseph Gredt, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Santiago Ramirez, Jacques Maritain and Yves Simon.


Author(s):  
William E. Mann

A twelfth- and early thirteenth-century philosopher who may have taught at Paris, David of Dinant was noted for a heretical, pantheistic view that identified God, mind and matter. None of his works survive intact, and we know of them primarily through the works of other authors. His major work, the Quaternuli, was condemned at Paris in 1210. His heretical views were influential enough to receive critical attention in the works of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document