Introduction
LifeandWorks
JohnBuridanwasbornaround1300,probablyinthedioceseofArras, Picardy.HeattendedtheColl`egeLemoineinParisonascholarship andthentheUniversityofParis,wherehewasamemberofthePicard Nation.HewasformallylicensedasateachingmasterintheFaculty ofArtsbythemid-1320s.Hisearliestworkswerepolemicalinnature—shorttreatisescriticizingcontemporaryviewsonthenatureof relations,points,anduniversals—buthesoonbecameknownforhis lecturesonlogic,whichwereeventuallyrevisedashislogicalmasterwork,the Summulaededialectica.Thiswork,ostensiblywritten asacommentaryonapopularlogictextbyPeterofSpain,movedfar beyondPeter’sworkinscope,method,andphilosophicalinsight,to becomeoneofthemostwidelyusedlogictextsinthelaterMiddle Ages.BuridanalsolecturedextensivelyontheworksofAristotlethat formedthebasisoftheartscurriculuminParis,writingcommentaries onvirtuallytheentireAristoteliancorpus,including Deanima or On theSoul,theworkeditedhere;indeed,thetextualtraditionindicates thathelecturedonparticularAristoteliantextsmorethanonce,presumablypolishingandfurtherelaboratinghisideasintheprocess.He isacarefulandforthemostpartsympatheticexpositorofAristotle, butneverafraidtorejectthephilosopher’sviewswhenthereisgood reasontodoso.Likethe Summulaededialectica itself,hisAristotlecommentarieswerecopiedandwidelycirculatedatuniversities inCentralandEasternEurope,wheretheyservedastextbooksand referencesourcesforscholarsandstudentsofAristotlewellintothe
sixteenthcentury.1 Buridancontinuedlecturing,writing,andbeing activeinthescholarlycommunityinParisuntilthelate1350s.We donotknowhisexactdeathdate,butitislikelytohavebeenbefore 1361,whenthereisarecordofoneofhissourcesofscholarlysupport beingawardedtoanotherperson.2
VersionsoftheText
ThetextweedithereisthethirdandfinalversionofBuridan’s QuestionsonAristotle’s DeAnima(QuaestionesinAristotelisDeanima). ItisclearlyidentifiedasBuridan’sthirdorfinalsetoflectures(“tertia siveultimalectura”)on Deanima inthecataloguetraditionaswell asinseveralofthemanuscripts.3 FromthiswecaninferthatBuridanlecturedon Deanima ontwopreviousoccasions,althoughwe haveyettofindmanuscriptswecandefinitivelyidentifyasoriginatingfromhisfirstorsecondlectures.
Buridan’sthirdandfinalsetoflectureson Deanima isalsoacompiled[compilatus]text,meaningthatitwasprobablyrevisedbyBuridanhimselffromoriginalclassroomnotestakendownbyastudentor secretary.4 Thetextwepresenthereshowseverysignofhavingbeen
1 See,forexample,theextensiveanalysisprovidedbyAndrews2016ofthe“supercommentary”on Deanima —i.e.,acommentaryonBuridan’scommentaryon Aristotle’s Deanima —byBeroMagnideLudosia,aSwedishmasteractiveat theUniversityofViennabetween1429and1465.Indeed,Buridan’scommentaries wereevidentlysousefulthattheysometimes replaced thetextsofAristotleinthe classroom;asFl¨ueler2008writesinconnectionwithBuridan’scommentaryonthe NicomacheanEthics,“Infact,IamabletoverifythatthemastersoftheFaculty ofArtsinViennadidnotreadAristotleatall!Aristotlewasnotthesubjectofthe lectures;instead,themastersreadBuridan’squestionsontheAristotelian Ethics” (265).
2 ForBuridan’scareerandcomprehensivediscussionofhisphilosophy,see Zupko2003andKlima2008,aswellasZupko’s2018entryonBuridaninthe StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.
3 Forexample,the explicits ofmanuscriptsSandUbelowbothrefertotheirtexts asthe“tertialectura”ofBuridan’s Quaestiones onAristotle’s Deanima
4 Thisisattestedtointhecolophonsoffourmanuscripts(AORandVbelow). Twoofthesemanuscripts(OandR)evengosofarastodescribethequestions as“edited[editae]”byBuridan.Forthesignificanceofcompilationinmanuscript copiesofBuridan’scommentaries,seeFl¨ueler1999,513–15.
wellestablishedinBuridan’slifetime,despiteoccasionalandminor differencesinwordingamongthethreemainfamiliesorgroupsof manuscripts(labeled α, β,and γ) describedbelow.
Buridan’scommentaryprovidesacomprehensivephilosophical treatmentofAristotle’s Deanima,bothintermsofthenumber(51) andlengthofthequestionsraisedaswellasthecomplexityoftheir argumentativestructure.Thetextofthe tertiasiveultimalectura survivesinsome24manuscriptsinvaryingconditionsandstatesof completeness.Again,becausenomanuscripthasbeenidentifiedas containingoneoftheearlierversions,wecannottellhowBuridan’s psychologymighthaveevolvedbetweenthe prima and ultimalectura.Weknowthatsuchamanuscriptonceexistedbecausethereis amedievalrecordofabequesttothelibraryofHeidelbergUniversity ofavolumecontaining“certainquestionsbyBuridanonthebook, Deanima,butnotfromthefinalsetoflectures[quedamquestiones circalibrumDeanimaaBiridano,sednondeultimalectura].”5 Unfortunately,thisvolumehasbeenlost.Wedohave15manuscripts ofasomewhatabbreviatedtextwithfewerquestions,6 whichmaybe theremainsofoneorbothearlierlectures,orlaterabridgementsby ArtsMasterswhousedBuridan’scommentaryasthebasisfortheir ownlectureson Deanima atoneofthenewlyfoundeduniversitiesin EasternEurope,7 orboth.In1991BenoˆıtPatarproducedaneditionof acommentaryorcommentarieson Deanima basedonthreeanonymousmanuscripts,whichheclaimedtobeBuridan’s primalectura, orahithertounidentifiedfirstsetoflecturesonthetext.8 Butdoubts havebeenraisedaboutthevalidityofPatar’sclaim,9 andamorerecentstudyofthesesamemanuscriptsbyPaulBakkerandSanderde
5 Michael1985,705.
6 Descriptionsofeachmanuscriptalongwithtitlesofindividualquestionsare providedinMichael1985,684–89.
7 Fortheseabridgements,whichMarkowski1984terms“r´edactionspragoise,” seeMarkowski1971,1984,and1988.
8 Patar1991.
9 SeethereviewsofPatar’seditionbyStenEbbesen(1994,758–62),Z´enon Kaluza(1995,136–39),andChristophFl¨ueler(1995,218–24).Itshouldbepointed outthattheauthorshipofthetextfoundinthemainmanuscript(Bruges477)from whichPatarconstructedhiseditionhasbeenamatterofdisputeforsometime,and thatnoscholarlyconsensushasformedaroundthequestion.
Boerconcludesthat,despitesomesurfacesimilarities,thereisnoconclusivereasontoattributethetexttoBuridanbecausethecontentsalso exhibitsimilaritiestothe Deanima commentaryofBuridan’syounger contemporary,NicoleOresme.10 Accordingly,BakkeranddeBoer concludethatthemanuscriptsshouldbecataloguedasanonymous commentariesproducedaroundthesametimeandinthesamecontextasthoseofBuridanandOresme.11 Thereisalsoanearlyprinted editionofasetof Quaestiones on Deanima editedbyGeorgeLokert (Paris1516)andattributedtoBuridan,12 butthetextcorrespondsto noneofthesurvivingmanuscripts.ForatimeitwasthoughtthatLokertmighthaveabridgedthetextoftheeditionfromalostmanuscript ofoneoftheearlierredactions.13 Butarecentarticleconcludesthat Buridanisunlikelytohavebeenthesolesourceofthistext.14
Itispossiblethatfurtherstudyofthese15manuscriptswillreveal thattheycontainearlierversionsofBuridan’s Deanima commentary.Untilthathappens,nopicturecanbegivenofthedevelopment ofBuridan’steachingsinpsychology.Thankfully,thattaskcanbe setasidefornowbecausethetexteditedhere,the tertiasiveultima lectura,isanindependentworkandclearlyintendedassuchbyits author.Init,Buridanrefersnumeroustimestohiscommentarieson otherworksofAristotle,butnevertohisearlierlectureson Deanima; nordoesheeversuggestthatanargumentorconclusionexpressedin thefinalversionrepresentsachangefrom,oranelaborationof,apositiontakenpreviously.15 Thismakesitmorelikelythattherelation betweenearlierandlaterversionsof acommentarywasinBuridan’s
10 Forexample,theworkcontainedintheBruges477manuscriptmakesextensive useoftheperspectivisttraditioninitsdiscussionofthepropagationandreception ofsensible species,whichissomethingwefindinOresme’spsychologybutnot Buridan’s.
11 BakkeranddeBoer2012.
12 GeorgiusLokertScotus1516.Thevolumecontainsacollectionoftexts,includingeditionsofBuridan’s Quaestiones onAristotle’s Deanima aswellasonthe booksofthe ParvaNaturalia
13 SeeMichael1985,716–17.
14 deBoer2014.
15 Elsewhere,Buridandoesnothesitatetotelluswhenhechangeshismindabout something,asinhistreatmentofself-referentialparadoxesinthe Sophismata (Summulaededialectica IX,Chapter8,SeventhSophism:“Everypropositionisfalse”; tr.Klima2001,967–68).
mindoneofsupersessionratherthancontinuousdevelopmentandrefinement;inotherwords,Buridandeliveredhis tertialectura on De anima withtheideathatitwouldbehis“official”treatmentofthe subject,replacingearliercommentaries.16
Genre
Likeothertextsinthemedievalgenreof quaestiones,Buridan’scommentaryisdividedintoparticularproblemsorissues(the quaestiones) hetakestoberaisedbytheauthoritativetextunderdiscussion:inthis casethethreebooksofAristotle’s Deanima.Hedevotes6questions toBookI,25toBookII,and20toBookIII.Inkeepingwiththe standardformofsuchcommentaries,eachquestionisheadedbythe Latinverb“quaeritur ”(“itisasked”)followedbytheinterrogative pronoun“utrum”(“whether”)andthequestionunderconsideration (e.g.,inq.9ofBookIII,“quaeriturutrumintellectushumanuspossit seintelligere”[“itisaskedwhetherthehumanintellectisabletounderstanditself”]).17 Typically,thetopicquestionisbasedonalemma fromtheLatinversionofAristotle’stext;wehaveidentifiedwhere thisissoinouredition.Butjustasoften,andnotunlikereadersof Aristotleinourowntime,Buridanisinterestedinpursuingissues thataretangentialtoAristotle’s discussion.Forexample,inq.14of BookIII,heusesAristotle’s Deanima III.6(430b 21)remarkabout pointsbeingunderstoodasprivationsasanopportunitytopresent hisowndivisibilistsolutiontotheproblemofanalyzingcontinuous magnitudes—asolutionalsodiscussedatlengthinotherworks, wherethetopicseemsmoregermane.18 Butthisisnotsurprising.In fact,themedievalgenreof quaestiones wasmorefreewheelingthan
16 Thischaracterizationalsoseemsborne outbythemanuscripttradition.The tertiasiveultimalectura wasevidentlytheversionofchoiceforcopyingandfurther propagation,asitssurvivingcopiesfaroutnumberanyother Quaestiones on De anima attributedtoBuridan.
17 Inthetranslation,weactuallyrenderedtheseasdirect“yes/no”questions(“Is thehumanintellectabletounderstanditself?”)toindicatemoreclearlythedisputationalcharacterofthediscussion.
18 Forexample,inBookVI,qq.1–4ofhis Quaestiones onAristotle’s Physics (Paris1509,93vb –98va )
itsoriginsasacommentaryonaprescribedtextmightsuggest,tothe pointwhereArtsMasterssuchasBuridanfeltnocompunctionabout reusingmaterialstheyhadpresentedonotheroccasionsandinother contexts,muchinthewayuniversitylecturersdotoday.19
AlthoughthereisnoevidencetosuggestArtsMasterswererequiredorevenexpectedtotreatofcertaintopicsintheircommentaries,aloosebutidentifiabletraditionofquestionsdevelopedaround thetextofthe Deanima, 20 usuallykeyedtospecificpassages,such asAristotle’sremarkinBookII,chapter5(418a 13)thatnoerroris possibleregardingpropersensibles(discussedbyBuridaninq.11of BookIIofhiscommentary),orinBookIII,chapter10(433b 5–6), aboutthecontrarietyofappetites(whichBuridantreatsinq.18of BookIII).Butthegenreofferedplentyofroomforanauthortopose hisownquestionsandtoexploretheimplicationsofAristotle’steachingsviapassagesinothertexts,in thiscasethepsychologicaltreatises ofAristotle’s ParvaNaturalia (qq.24–25ofBookII),aswellasthe controversialinterpretationsofotherauthorities,suchasAverro¨esand AlexanderofAphrodisias(qq.3–6ofBookIII).
Therewereothermedievalgenresofcommentary,suchasthe expositio,orliteralcommentary,which, asthenamesuggests,involved closerexplicationoftheactualwordingofanauthoritativetext,dividedlemmaticallyintosectionsandarguments.21 Fivemanuscripts havebeenidentifiedascontainingBuridan’s expositio onAristotle’s Deanima;22 theseappeartorepresentthreedifferentredactionsof
19 Likewise,Buridanexplicitlyconnectsq.8ofBookIIIofhis Deanima commentary,“Utrumintellectuspriusintelligituniversalequamsingulare,quameconverso”(seeIII.8,par.43below),withq.7ofBookIofhis Physics commentary, “Utrumuniversaliasuntnobisnotiorasingularibus”,whichcoversmuchofthe samematerial(ed.StreijgerandBakker,76–77)
20 SeethecomprehensivestudyinChristensen2018.
21 Thedivisionofthetextofthethreebooksof Deanima isduetoitscommentators,beginninginlateantiquity,most likelyforpurposesofteachingandstudy.The mostinfluentialmedievaldivisionwasthatofAverro¨es(1126–1198),whose Long CommentaryonDeanima appearedintheWestinaLatintranslationbyMichael Scotaround1225.Fromthenon,medievalcommentatorson Deanima,including bothAlberttheGreatandThomasAquinas,wereabletoreadandstudyAverro¨es’ commentary,oratleastexcerptsthereof.Buridansometimesquotesfromitverbatim,e.g.,inIII.2,par.6andIII.3,par.7below.
22 Michael1985,677–83.
thesamecommentary,whichwouldcorrespondtothethreeversions ofthequestioncommentarythatprobablywouldhaveaccompanied them.23 Asindicatedabove,the expositio andthe quaestiones both originatedasclassroomlectureson atextthatstudentswererequired to“read”fortheirbachelor’sdegree.
WedonotknowpreciselyhowBuridangavehislecturecourses, butthereissomeevidencetosuggestthathispracticewastodeliver the expositio orliteralcommentaryonagivenpassageandthenany quaestiones hetooktoberaisedbyitincloseproximity,perhapseven onthesameday.24 Ifthisiscorrect,thepedagogicalbenefitwouldbe tobringthephilosophicaldiscussionintoalignmentwiththeletterof thetext.Bethatasitmay,thepracticewasusuallynotfollowedwhen thelecturesweretranscribedandrevisedforpublicationandcopying becausethetwoworkswerealmostalwaysboundseparately.None ofthesurvivingmanuscriptsofthe Quaestiones editedhereisbound withitscorresponding expositio.
Authenticity
JohnBuridanisclearlytheauthorofourtext.Inadditiontoitbeing ascribedtohimbynameinmanymanuscripts,25 therearenumerousreferencesinittoothercommentariesweknowwerewrittenby Buridan,i.e.,his Questions onAristotle’s Physics, Meteorology, De caelo, Metaphysics,and NicomacheanEthics,aswellastoBuridan’s ownlogicalmasterwork,the Summulaededialectica.Ascanbeseen
23 Michael1985,718.OnBuridan’s expositiones (or“dicta”insomemanuscripts),seeFl¨ueler1999,502–506.
24 BystudyingthewatermarksonacopyofBuridan’s expositio and quaestiones onAristotle’s Metaphysics writtenduringBuridan’slifetime(ParisBNlat.16131), ChristophFl¨uelerdiscoveredthatthescribeusedsheetsofpaperfromthesame reamtowritefirsttheliteralcommentaryandthenthequestion(s)correspondingto it,beforeproceedingtothenextpassagefromAristotle,showingthat“thecommentarieswerewrittendowninanalternatingfashion,butatthesametimeperiod,and intwodifferentfascicles”(Fl¨ueler1999,509).
25 Forexample,amongthemanuscriptsusedforthisedition,Buridanisidentified astheauthoroftheworkinthe explicit toBookIinmss.AandT(seeI.6,par.19 below)andagaininthe explicit totheentiretextattheendofBookIII,inmss.A andV(seeIII.20,par.19below).
fromthe apparatusfontium ofouredition,thesereferencesareaccurateandalmostalwaysrelevanttothetopicunderdiscussion.Finally, theargumentsanddoctrinespresentedinourtextareallrecognizably Buridanianinthesensethattheyfitthecharacteristicallynominalist positionshedefendsinotherworks,aswellasemployingthesame kindoffine-grainedlogicalandconceptualanalysistodefendthem.
Dating
WedonotknowpreciselywhenBuridandeliveredthelectureson De anima thatbecamethecommentaryeditedhere.Thereisareference inq.11ofBookIIItocertainarticlesfromthe1347ParisianCondemnationoftheviewsofthetheologian,JohnofMirecourt,whowas Buridan’scontemporary.Sincethisdoesnotappeartobealaterinterpolation,itgivesusa terminuspostquem:ourtextmusthavebeen composedafter1347.Asfora terminusantequem,thereareonly twoclearreferencestothe Deanima commentaryinBuridan’sother works,suggestingthatitwaswrittenfairlylateinhiscareer.These areinBookX,q.2ofhiscommentaryonthe NicomacheanEthics, andinBookI,q.7ofhiscommentaryonthe Meteorology. 26 IfBernd Michaelisrightthatthelattercommentarydatesfrom1357/58,27 thenthe tertialectura ofBuridan’s Deanima commentarymusthave beenproducedbetween1347and1358.Buridan’sprobabledeath dategivesusa terminusantequem onlyslightlylater.Weknowfrom hisbeingmentionedina1358jurisdictionaldisputeattheUniversityofParisthathewasstillaliveinthatyear,28 butprobablynot after1361,whenoneofhisbeneficeswasreassigned,somethingthat
26 BuridanbrieflyreferstoBookII,q.10andBookIII,q.10ofhis Quaestiones inAristotelisDeanima (theworkeditedhere)inBookX,q.2ofhis Quaestiones superdecemlibrosEthicorumAristotelisadNicomachum (Paris1513,f.205rb ;tr. Kilcullen2001,516).ThereferenceinBookI,q.7ofthe Quaestionesinlibros MeteorologicorumAristotelis istoBookII,q.18ofthe QuaestionesinAristotelis Deanima.Forfurtherdetails,seeMichael1985,673–74and706–8.AsMichael demonstrates,thereferencescanonlybetothethirdandfinalversionofBuridan’s commentary.
27 Michael1985,659–75.
28 TheavailableevidenceiscanvassedinMichael1985,399–404.MichaelbelievesBuridan’sactualdeathdatetobeOctober11,1360.
wouldtypicallybeoccasionedbythedeceaseofitsincumbent.So, ourtextwasprobablycomposedbetween1347and1358,andalmost certainlybefore1361.
BerndMichaelspeculatesfurtherthatourtextmighthavebeen writtenlaterinthe1350sbecausetheMirecourtreferenceinBookIII, q.11includesareferencetoanotherlatework,thefinalversionof Buridan’s Questions onAristotle’s Physics.Heconcludes,“ofallthe worksofBuridanwhichoriginatedinthe1350s,the tertialectura of the Deanima isevidentlyoneofthelast.”29
Manuscripts
Twenty-threemanuscriptshavebeenidentifiedcontainingthetextof the tertiasiveultimalectura ofBuridan’s QuaestionesinAristotelis Deanima. 30 NoneofthemappearstohavebeencopiedduringBuridan’slifetime;theearliestthatcanbereliablydated(A = Berlin566) waswrittenin1382,morethantwodecadesafterBuridan’sdeath. ThisisnotunusualinthecaseofBuridan.ChristophFl¨uelerhas foundthatonlysevenofapproximately250survivingcopiesofBuridan’sworksweredefinitively producedduringhislifetime.31 Buridan’sreputationmeantthathisworkswerecopiedoften,and,aswe shallseebelow,recopiedatotherplacesfarfromParis,anactivitythat continuedwellintothefifteenthcentury.
29 Michael1985,708.
30 Fulldescriptionsofmostofthemanuscriptsinourlistareavailableinthetwo mostcomprehensivemanuscriptstudiestodate:the1985doctoraldissertationof BerndMichael,whichgivesthestateofprimarytextresearchonBuridanupto about1978,andtheeditor’sintroductiontoPatar1991.Seealsofootnote68below.
31 Fl¨ueler1999,501.Fl¨ueleralsocontendsthatthesmallnumberofmanuscripts datingfromBuridan’slifetimeindicates“hisfamewasestablishedonlyafterhis death”(ibid.501–502).Wetendtoagree,ifby“fame”ismeantBuridan’sfame outsideParis.BuridanwasfamousduringhislifetimeinParis,ashiscareerinthe University(twiceservingasitsRector,in1328and1340)attests.
BasedonthepioneeringresearchofEdmondFaral,32 supplementedbymorerecentstudiesbyCharlesLohr,33 ZdzisławKuksewicz,34 JozefdeRaedemaeker,35 RyszardPalacz,36 PeterC.Marshall,37 BerndMichael,BenoˆıtPatar,ChristophFl¨ueler,PaulBakker, andSanderdeBoer,38 thefollowingmanuscriptshavebeenidentified ascontainingthetextofthe tertiasiveultimalectura ofBuridan’s Quaestions on Deanima (precededbytheletterdesignationusedin thisedition):
1.[A]:Berlin,Staatsbibliothek566,ff.1ra –65ra 39
2.[B]:Firenze,BibliotecaNazionaleCentrale,Conv.Soppr. A.5.1365,ff.228ra –267vb 40
3.[C]:Firenze,BibliotecaNazionaleCentrale,Conv.Soppr. C.4.263,ff.1ra –68rb 41
4.[D]:Krakow,BibliotekaJagiellonska2083,ff.70r –117v 42
5.[E]:Li`ege,Biblioth`equedel’Universit´e346C,ff.53r –95r 43
32 Faral1946and1949.
33 Lohr1970,172–74.
34 Kuksewicz1961.
35 deRaedemaeker1963.
36 Palacz1970.
37 Marshall1983.
38 BakkeranddeBoer2012.
39 Michael1985,694;Patar1991,40*:northernItalianprovenance;dated1382 bythescribe.
40 Michael1985,695;Patar1991,46*–47*:incomplete(textendsinthemiddle ofBookIII,q.4);northernItalianprovenance;Michaeldatestothefifteenthcentury.
41 Michael1985,695;Patar1991,38*:northernItalianprovenance(Augustinian friaryofPadua,accordingtothe explicit );Michaeldatestotheendofthefourteenth orbeginningofthefifteenthcentury.
42 Michael1985,696;Patar1991,38*:incomplete(textendsinBookIII,q.4); probablyproducedinKrakow;Michaeldatestotheendofthefourteenthorbeginningofthefifteenthcentury.
43 NotlistedinMichael1985;Patar1991,38*–39*;themanuscriptisdescribed inStreijger,Bakker,andThijssen2010,17;provenanceunknown;Patardatesto c.1370asthetextisboundwithacopyofa QuaestionesDelongitudineetbrevitate vitae withthatdate.
6.[F]:Milano,BibliotecaAmbrosianaP.120sup.,ff.74 ra –135va 44
7.[G]:M¨unchen,BayerischeStaatsbibliothekClm742,f.2r –52vb 45
8.[H]:M¨unchen,BayerischeStaatsbibliothekClm18794,f.93r –195v 46
9.[I]:Oxford,BodleianLibraryCanonauct.class.lat.278, f.2r –36r 47
10.[J]:Oxford,BodleianLibraryCanonmisc.393,1ra –75vb 48
11.[K]:Perugia,BibliotecaCommunaleAugustaN.43,ff.3ra –60ra 49
12.[L]:Roma,BibliotecaAngelica480(D.7.6),ff.6ra –75vb 50
13.[M]:Roma,BibliotecaAngelica592(F.6.4),ff.113 ra –187vb 51
14.[N]:Roma,BibliotecaAngelica593(F.6.5),ff.93ra –148ra 52
44 Michael1985,696;Patar1991,39*:provenanceunknown;Michaeldatesto thefifteenthcentury.
45 Michael1985,696;Patar1991,41*:provenanceunknown,butms.waspurchasedfromthecollectionoftheItalianhumanistPetrusVictorius(1499–1585); dated1387inthe explicit,1388inthe tabulaquaestionum.
46 NotlistedinMichael1985;Patar1991,39*:provenanceunknown;dated1401 inthe explicit.
47 Michael1985,696–97;Patar1991,41*–42*:northernItalianprovenance,possiblyPaduaorBologna(Michael);dated1394inthe explicit.
48 NotlistedinMichael1985;Patar1991,39*:northernItalianprovenance,probablyPadua;dated1401inthe explicit toBookI;authormisidentifiedasBlasiusof Parmainthecontentsummary.
49 Michael1985,734;Patar1991,42*:provenanceuncertain;dated1394inthe explicit.
50 Michael1985,697–98;Patar1991,39*–40*:northernItalianprovenance; scribeidentifieshimselfasamasterat Piacenza,onthebasisofwhichMichael suggeststhems.waswrittenc.1398–1402.
51 Michael1985,698;Patar1991,45*:northernItalianprovenance;dateuncertain,butprobablyfourteenthcentury(codexalsocontainsacopyofAlbertof Saxony’scommentaryon Decaelo madeinBolognaanddated1368inthe explicit ; anotherpartofthecodex[butnottheonecontainingBuridan’s Quaestiones on De anima]isdated1382).
52 Michael1985,698–99;Patar1991,42*–43*:northernItalianprovenance (writtenbyastudentinPerugia,accordingtothe explicit );dated1396inthe explicit
15.[O]:Sarnano,BibliotecaCommunaleE.14,ff.1va –46vb 53
16.[P]:Sarnano,BibliotecaCommunaleE.143,ff.1ra –66ra 54
17.[Q]:Treviso,BibliotecheComunali420A,ff.48ra –87vb 55
18.[R]:Citt`adelVaticano,Reg.lat.1959,ff.1ra –69vb 56
19.[S]:Citt`adelVaticano,Vat.lat.2164,ff.122ra –234rb 57
20.[T]:Citt`adelVaticano,Vat.lat.11575,ff.22ra –87rb 58
21.[U]:Wien, ¨ OsterreichischeNationalbibliothekcod.5437,ff.176ra –228vb 59
53 Michael1985,699;Patar1991,45*(wherethems.iserroneouslylistedas ‘E.68’):incomplete(missingBookII,qq.1and15–25,aswellasBookIII,qq.1–2);provenanceuncertain;fourteenthorfifteenthcentury,butprecisedateuncertain.
54 Michael1985,699–700;Patar1991,43*:incomplete(missingthelastsections ofeachquestioninBookI,qq.1–3andmostofBookII,q.5);northernItalian provenance,possiblyPadua;dated1302inthe explicit,whichisimpossible(more likely1402,withamissing‘c’inthescribe’s‘millesimoccco secundo’).
55 Michael1985,734;Patar1991,44*–45*:provenanceunknown;dated1419in the explicit toBookII.
56 Michael1985,701–2;Patar1991,45*–46*:provenanceunknown;dated1404 inthe explicit.
57 Michael1985,589–90,700–1;Patar1991,38*:provenanceunknown;precise dateunknown,butanotherms.inthesamecodexisdated1398inthe explicit and appearstohavebeenwrittenaroundthesametime.Michaelnotesthatthecodex forthemostpartcontainsworksonnaturalphilosophyandwaswrittenbytwo scribes:PetrusdeAllamania,whowrotethefirstpartbetweenAprilandJune1398 (ff.1–120,containingacopyofBuridan’s Quaestiones onAristotle’s Physics),and HenricusdeWestphalia,whowrotethesecondpart(ff.122–311,beginningwith ourtext,the tertialectura ofBuridan’s Quaestiones onAristotle’s Deanima,on f.122)probablyaroundthesametime.Thecolophonindicatesthatthecodexwas producedinBolognain1398–99underthedirectionofMasterDinusdeFlorentia. ItisunclearhowthecodexcametobeinthepossessionoftheVaticanLibrary.
58 Michael1985,701;Patar1991,46*:probablynorthernItalian,fromBologna, Padua,orPavia(MichaelnotesthatthepaperonwhichitiswrittenisfromFerrara); dateuncertain,butprobablylatefourteenthorearlyfifteenthcentury.
59 Michael1985,702–3;Patar1991,43*–44*:centralEuropeanprovenance(Vienna);dateuncertain,butcodexcontainsworkswrittenbetween1390and1416. MissingtwofoliosfromBookIII.
22.[V]:Wien, ¨ OsterreichischeNationalbibliothekcod.5454,ff.2ra –56vb 60
23.[W]:Wien, ¨ OsterreichischeNationalbibliothekcod.5374, ff.35ra –91vb 61
Thislistdoesnotincludemanuscriptscontainingeitherabbreviatedsummariesorshortexcerptsofthetext,butonlymanuscriptsthat containthefull,ornearlythefull,authentictextofthe tertialectura. Wehaveexaminedcopiesofall23manuscriptslistedabove,fully collatingseveralquestionsandpartsofotherquestions.
Herearefullerdescriptionsofeachofthemanuscriptsweused (AETVW):62
[A]:Berlin,Staatsbibliothek566,ff.1ra –65ra
Ouroldestdatablemanuscript(1382)iswrittenonpaperandpartof acodexcontaining12quires(originally13),allwritteninthesame handandinastylesuggestingItalianprovenance.Thescribeidentifieshimselfas“FredericusdeMeyssena,”althoughthenameisnot attestedelsewhere,asfarasweknow.Michaelbelievesthatthecodex probablybelongedtothelibraryof theFranciscancustodialschoolin Barbarano.Itwaspurchasedbefore1895bytheBerlinlibraryfroma dealerinPadua.
ThetextofBuridan’s tertialectura isclearlywrittenwithrelativelyfewgrammaticalandstructuralerrors.Thescribesometimesoffersdisjunctivereadings(e.g.,“restringuiturvelrefertur ”for“restringuitur ”inBookIII,q.1),asifheisunsureaboutthereadingofhis sourcemanuscript,orhewascopyingfrommorethanonemanuscript anddecidedtonotedifferentreadings.
60 Michael1985,703;Patar1991,44*:centralEuropeanprovenance(Vienna); dated1397inthe explicit.
61 Newms.recentlydiscoveredbySanderdeBoer(andsonotlistedinMichael orPatar).Thetextwasmiscataloguedasanautographcopyofthe Quaestiones on Deanima ofHenryTottingofOyta(c.1330–97)in FranzUnterkircher(1969,79); centralEuropeanprovenance(Vienna);dated1393inthe explicit.
62 MostofourcodicologicalinformationhereisfromMichael1985.
[E]:Li ` ege,Biblioth ` equedel’Universit ´ e346C,ff.53r –
95r
Thiscodexhasbothpaperandparchmentleaves.Streijgeretal.2010 notethatit“containsAlbertofSaxony’s QuaestionessuperlibrosDe caelo andseveralworksbyJohnBuridan,suchashis Quaestiones on Deanima, Meteora,and ParvaNaturalia,”aswellasananonymous Quaestiones on Degenerationeetcorruptione,whichcanbe attributedtoBuridan.63 Theprovenanceisunknown.Asnotedabove, itscopyofBuridan’s QuaestionesDelongitudineetbrevitatevitae is dated1370.Patar1991describesthehandas“certainlyfourteenth century,”concludingthat“itisveryprobablethatthe Quaestiones on Deanima [inE]arefromthesameera,whichwouldmeanthatthe Li`egeversion[ofthetext]isverycloseintimetothelastlecture givenbythePicardmaster.”64 Butintheabsenceoffurtherevidence, suchassomeindicationthatthetwotextsareinthesamehandor writtenonpaperwithmatchingwatermarks,thisconclusionstrikesus aspremature.
ThetextofEisalsoclearlywrittenwithrelativelyfewerrors.The versoofsomefolioswasdifficulttoreadinourcopybecausethe bindingdidnotopenflatwhenthemanuscriptwasphotographed.
Thismanuscriptiswrittenonpaper,datingfromtheendofthefourteenthorbeginningofthefifteenthcentury,andcontainsworksonnaturalandmoralphilosophybyJohnBuridanandUgoBenzi.Michael notesthatTcontainspaperproducedinFerrara,suggestingthatT mighthavebeencopiedatBologna,orperhapsatanothernorthern ItalianuniversitysuchasPaduaorPavia.65 Itisnotknownwhenthe codexenteredtheVaticanlibrary,butthereisevidencethatitwas alreadypartofanotherVaticancollectioninthefifteenthcentury.
63 Streijger,Bakker,andThijssen2010,17.
64 Patar1991,38*–39*.
65 Michael1985,701
Tappearstohavebeenwrittenbytwoscribes,withthesecond takingoverfromthefirstatfolio15r ,inthemiddleofBookII,q.8. Patarsuggeststhatthescribesmighthavebeenworkingfromtwo differentexemplars.66 Themanuscriptshowssignsofwaterdamage beginningatfolio37r (towardstheendofBookII,q.20)becoming progressivelyworseuntiltheend.Thismakesthetextdifficulttoread inplaces.
[V]:Wien, ¨ OsterreichischeNationalbibliothekcod. 5454,ff.2ra –56vb
Thismanuscriptiswrittenonpaperandboundinacodexcontaining worksonnaturalphilosophy.Asnotedabove,the explicit indicates thatthemanuscriptwasproducedinViennain1397.Thescribeeven recordshisname,“Nicolaijdefarchashida(?).”Asfarasweknow,he isnotattestedelsewhere.Themanuscriptseemsfromthebeginningto havebelongedtotheArtsFacultyattheUniversityofVienna—hence theownershipmark,“Liberfacultatisarcium,”inthelowermarginof f.1ra .
[W]:Wien, ¨ OsterreichischeNationalbibliothekcod. 5374,ff.35ra –91vb
Thismanuscriptiswrittenonpaperandboundinacodexalongwith theglossofanunidentifiedtreatiseonnaturalphilosophywrittenin anotherhandanddated1438,aswellasasingleanonymousquestion, “Utrumappetitusvelfantasiaesuntcausae,”alsowritteninanother hand.Thescribeofourtexttellsusinthe explicit (f.91rb ) thatit wasproducedinthe studiumgenerale inViennain1393;hisname is“HenricusOltinghideOytha,”whichledtothemisidentificationof thistextinthecatalogueoftheAustrianNationalLibraryasanauto66 Patar1991,46*.
graphofHenryTottingofOyta’s Quaestiones on Deanima.Henry (c.1330–97)wasaphilosopherandtheologianinhisownrightwho wouldlikelyhavebeeninViennawhenthemanuscriptwaswritten. HewasactiveinPrague,Paris,andVienna,wherehediedin1397.In additiontohisownsetof Quaestiones onAristotle’s Deanima (as yetunedited),healsocomposedan abbreviationofAdamWodeham’s commentaryonthe Sentences.SoHenrymayverywellhavebeenour scribeinthecaseofWeventhoughthecommentaryisnothis.
Whoeverhewas,ourHenrywasatalentedscribewithaverylegiblehand.Hisversionofthetextistheoldestdatable(1393)fromthe α orcentralEuropeanfamily(seegroupingsbelow).Asmentioned above,SanderdeBoerrecentlydiscoveredthetrueidentityofthetext containedinthismanuscriptbuthisworkcametoourattentiononly afterwehadfinishedadrafteditionbasedonAETV.
Methodology
Foroureditionwedecidedtofollowa“best-textstrategy”ofproducingthephilosophicallymostreliableanddoctrinally mostcoherent textjustifiableonthebasisofavailablemanuscriptevidence,instead ofa“criticaledition”inthetechnicalsense,wherewewouldattempt toreproducethe—perhapsmerely hypothetical—textattherootof aproperlyreconstructedstemma.
Weperformedfoursoundingsagainstthe23manuscriptslisted above:21linesfromBookI,q.1;19linesfromBookII,q.2;117lines fromBookIII,q.1;and29linesfromBookIII,q.13.Thesesoundingsallowedustoidentifythree groupsbaseduponsharedomissions, additions,andvariations:DHUVW(α),BGMRT(β),andtherest (γ).Mostofthemembersof α (andnoneofthemembersof β) have acentralEuropeanprovenance:UVWwerecopiedinViennaandD
inKrakow(althoughHisunknown).67 However,wewerenotableto identifyanyfurthermajorgroupingsfromthesesoundings.68
Havingmadetheseinitialdivisions,wechosethebesttext(s)from eachofthesethreegroups,namelyAETVW.
WeinitiallyselectedVascontainingthebesttextinthe α family.WeeliminatedDandUonthegroundsthatthesemanuscripts wereincomplete.69 VandHbothofferedgoodreadings.However, basedonoursoundingstherewererelativelyfewvariantsbetween themandfurtherchecksrevealedomissionsinotherquestionsinboth manuscripts,someuniqueandothersshared.70 Intheabsenceofdecisiveevidencefromsoundings,wechoseVbecausetwooftheeditors
67 Whenoureditionwasinfinalcopyediting,webecameawareofanother manuscriptcontainingthe tertialectura ofBuridan’s Quaestiones on Deanima: Lambach,Benediktinerstift,Col.175,ff.163va –203rb .Wewereunabletoobtaina copyofthismanuscriptbeforegoingtopress,butwiththehelpofanotherscholar whohadaccesstoacopywewereabletotest53linesfromoureditionofBook III,q.1againstit.Basedonthisreading,theLambachseemednottobelongto eitherour α or β groups,whichwouldplaceitin γ.Oneinterestingfeatureisthat itappearstohavebeenproducedinPrague,whichwouldmakeittheonly β or γ manuscriptwithacentralEuropeanprovenance.Hereisthe explicit,onf.203rb :“Et patetsatisperdictaquomodoprocedantrationesquefiebant.Etsicestfinisquestionisetconsequenteromniumaliarum. <illegible> ExpliciuntlongequestionesDe animamagistriIohannisByridanireportatePrageperWernerumdeDrisponscede (Drispenscede?)annoDominimillesimotricentesimoLXXXVtoinvigiliaSancti IohannisBaptistehoravicesimaprimaante cenam.”WearegratefultoPaulBakker forhisgenerousassistancewiththismanuscript.
68 Sseemstobeinaclassbyitself.Wehadinitiallyincludeditinourdraft apparatus untilitsunreliabilitybecameclear.Sfrequentlygavevariantreadings foundinnoothermanuscript,goingfarbeyondthetaskofacopyistandoften enteringintotherealmofspeculation.Itisalmostasifthescribehadenough philosophicaltrainingtofeelcomfortableaugmentingandcorrectingtheargument ashewentalong.Hence,weremovedSfromouredition.
69 DendsatBookIII,q.4.Uismissinganentirefolio,fromBookIII,q.14,par.4, “etsiquisdicat ...”toBookIII,q.15,par.17,“... maneretinorganocorporeo phantasiae’;andanother,fromBookIII,q.17,par.25,“postemissionemspermatis ”toBookIII,q.19,par.15,“... sibiconvenientia”. Italsocontainsablankspace inBookIII,q.20, omittingtextfrompar.9“Itemincontinensmovetursecundum ...”topar.10“...aguntcumrationeetnihilcontra.”
70 Forexample,Hhasuniquegapsof12wordsatII.15,par.3,3wordsatIII.10, par.9,8wordsatIII.15,par.17,and15wordsatIII.17,par.19,aswellasa10-word gapsharedwithUVatIII.5,par.7.HVWshare5-wordgapsatII.17,par.24and III.6,par.14,althoughintheformercasethemissingtextisaddedinthemarginof W.
knewthatitwasreliable,havinguseditbeforetoconstructworking editionsofBooksIIandIIIintheirdissertations.71
AfterWwasbroughttoourattention,weaddedittooursounding,butwereunabletodiscernanymajordifferencesbetweenitand V.Sincewehadalreadycompletedourinitialedition,andsinceW (1393)isolderthanV(1397),wedecidedtoreadtheentiretextagain againstW,addingittothecorefamilyofbesttextsalongsideAETV.72
WeselectedTascontainingthebesttextfromthe β group (BGMRT).WeeliminatedBonthegroundsthatitwasincomplete (endsinthemiddleofBookIII,q.4).ThadfewergapsthanGMR.
WeselectedAandEfromthe γ group(ACEFIJKLNOPQS).We eliminatedOPbecausethesewereincomplete(OismissingBookII, qq.1and15–25,aswellasBookIII,qq.1–2;Pomitsthelastsections ofeachquestioninBookI,qq.1–3andmostofBookII,q.5).We eliminatedSbecauseitwassuchanoutlier,asmentionedabove.AE sharedsimilarhomoioteleutonicgapsandhadthefewestomissionsin oursoundings.73 However,wewerenotabletodetermineifAorE wasthebettermanuscript,sowedecidedtouseboth.A,asitturns out,wasalsotheoldestdatablecopy(1382).
TheEdition
TheLatintextproducedhereistheworkofthreedifferenteditors: PeterHartman(BookI),PeterG.Sobol(BookII),andJackZupko
71 Seen.75below.
72 Afterfinishingtheedition,wecannowsafelysaythatWissuperiortoV.For instance,thereisa78-wordgapinUVthatspansparagraphs14and15ofBookII, q.1,anda24-wordgapinUVinpar.30.However,Wisnotfreeofgaps,witha uniquegapof10wordsatIII.2,par.20,aswellasgapsof8wordsatI.4,par.8,6 wordsatIII.8,par.16,and12wordsatIII.13,par.9,thelattersharedwithAT(UV havethetext).
73 Eisalsooneofonlytwomanuscripts(theotherbeingW)toincludeanegative argument(thoughadifferentoneineachcase)missingfromthebeginningofIII.16, par.3,inallothermanuscripts—allofwhich,oddly,includethereplytothis argumentatIII.16,par.20.TheargumentsuppliedbyW(writtenbeneaththe columnonf.87vb ofW)looksmoregermanetothereplythantheargumentsupplied byE,sowe’vegiventhereadingofWinthemaintextoftheedition,withthetext ofEinthe apparatus
(BookIII).74 AlthougheacheditortookprimaryresponsibilityforestablishingandrevisingBuridan’stextfromoursourcemanuscripts accordingtoprinciplesagreeduponatthestartoftheproject,theentiredrafttextwasthoroughlyproofreadmultipletimesandrechecked againstthesourcemanuscriptsbymembersoftheeditorialteam.Subsequently,theLatintextwasreviewedonitsownbyseveralexternal proofreaders.
Weclassicizeallspellings(inthemaintextaswellasinthe apparatusfontium)accordingtotheOxfordLatinDictionary,usingtheevolvedspelling(e.g., tamquam/numquam/eamdem over tanquam/nunquam/eandem)anddistinguishing“u”and“v.”We donotnotevariationsinwordorder,andweignorecertaincommonvariants(e.g., eoquod /quia; ergo/igitur ; etsicetiam/ettunc; huius/istius; ille/iste; nec/neque; scilicet /videlicet ; sive...sive/seu... seu; vel/aut /seu;etc.).Wedonotrecordvariantsinvolvingsentence particlessuchas etiam, enim, autem, tamen,etc.unlessthemeaning isaffected,orcategorematictermswithequivalentmeaning,e.g., sintdistinctae/distinguantur.Wesilentlycorrectobviouserrorsinthe caseendingsofnounsandadjectives andthenumber/mood/voiceof verbs.Wewriteoutallnumeralsinthetext.Asfarasthestructureof eachquestionisconcerned,wehave suppliedthenumberedparagraph divisionsintheedition/translation,whichoftenalignwithparagraph markerssuppliedbythescribesofourmainmanuscripts(thoughwe havenotnotedwhentheydonot).Wedonotrecordvariantsinthe firstwordofparagraphs(Item; Deinde; Demum; Primo; Secundo; etc.) ortheordinalnumberingofarguments.Wehavestandardized theopeningofeachquestionsothatitcontainsatitlequestionbeginningwiththeinterrogativepronoun“Utrum”intheLatineditionand sothatitposesanactualquestionintheEnglishtranslation,ending withaquestionmark.Wedonotrecordother proforma verbiage connectedwiththeopeningorclosingofaquestion(e.g.,“Quaer-
74 Someyearsbeforethepresentprojectbegan,theeditorsofBooksIIandIII producedpreliminaryworkingeditionsofthoseBooksaspartoftheirdoctoraldissertations(seeSobol1984andZupko1989),bothofwhichcirculatedinformally foryearsintheabsenceofapropercriticaleditionofthe ultimalectura ofBuridan’s Quaestiones on Deanima.Thepresentedition/translationismuchimproved becauseitcontainsthecompletetextandisbasedonbettermanuscripts.
