Boethius de Dacia - Revision history

Hkllm at 13:03, 4 March 2012

2012-03-04T13:03:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 4 March 2012
Line 133:		Line 133:
	SAJÓ, G. 1972: CPhD 5, 1.		SAJÓ, G. 1972: CPhD 5, 1.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	The work has been transmitted anonymously. While it is certain that it contains material of Boethian origin, it may not be wholly Boethian. Apparently it is a student’s reportage of a course given by Boethius or by someone who based himself on Boethius.		The work has been transmitted anonymously. While it is certain that it contains material of Boethian origin, it may not be wholly Boethian. Apparently it is a student’s reportage of a course given by Boethius or by someone who based himself on Boethius.
	The work consists of a prologue, 56 short questions on Book 1 and 12 on Book 2 of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione (On coming to be and passing away). No doubt because of the 1277 condemnation, someone disfigured the text of the last question by overlining, so that most of it became quite illegible. The question Utrum motus primus possit esse perpetuus (Whether the first movement can be perpetual) dealt with whether the world had a temporal beginning, and the conclusion obviously was that only faith requires one to accept the notion of a temporally finite world, whereas science must reject it.		The work consists of a prologue, 56 short questions on Book 1 and 12 on Book 2 of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione (On coming to be and passing away). No doubt because of the 1277 condemnation, someone disfigured the text of the last question by overlining, so that most of it became quite illegible. The question Utrum motus primus possit esse perpetuus (Whether the first movement can be perpetual) dealt with whether the world had a temporal beginning, and the conclusion obviously was that only faith requires one to accept the notion of a temporally finite world, whereas science must reject it.
Line 152:		Line 152:
	SAJÓ, G. 1974: CPhD 5, 2.		SAJÓ, G. 1974: CPhD 5, 2.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	The work has been transmitted anonymously. Parallels with works of undoubted authenticity make certain that there is much Boethian material in the work. The written version preserved is almost certainly a student’s reportage, but it is not quite clear whether the course reported was given by Boethius himself or by someone who based himself on Boethius.		The work has been transmitted anonymously. Parallels with works of undoubted authenticity make certain that there is much Boethian material in the work. The written version preserved is almost certainly a student’s reportage, but it is not quite clear whether the course reported was given by Boethius himself or by someone who based himself on Boethius.

Line 178:		Line 178:
	FIORAVANTI, G. 1979: CPhD 8.		FIORAVANTI, G. 1979: CPhD 8.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	The contents are 120, generally rather short, questions on Aristotle’s Meteorology, dealing with the elementary properties (hot, cold, dry, moist) and various natural processes such as putrefaction, combustion, digestion, coagulation, arefaction (i.e. evaporation), and liquation (i.e. melting).		The contents are 120, generally rather short, questions on Aristotle’s Meteorology, dealing with the elementary properties (hot, cold, dry, moist) and various natural processes such as putrefaction, combustion, digestion, coagulation, arefaction (i.e. evaporation), and liquation (i.e. melting).

Line 207:		Line 207:
	(1) SAJÓ, G. 1954, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976, CPhD 6, 2.		(1) SAJÓ, G. 1954, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976, CPhD 6, 2.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	One manuscript attributes the work to Thomas Aquinas, one to Herveus, in the remaining manuscripts it is anonymous. An abbreviated version by Godfrey of Fontaines appears in the context of other abbreviations of works by Boethius. Style and contents match Boethius as known from certainly genuine works, and there is general agreement that he must be the author.		One manuscript attributes the work to Thomas Aquinas, one to Herveus, in the remaining manuscripts it is anonymous. An abbreviated version by Godfrey of Fontaines appears in the context of other abbreviations of works by Boethius. Style and contents match Boethius as known from certainly genuine works, and there is general agreement that he must be the author.
	This is a treatise, the literary form of which imitates the university quaestio, about a hotly disputed question at the time: whether the world has a temporal beginning. Boethius holds that there is no contradiction in answering “Yes” qua Christian believer and “No” qua philosopher: philosophers can make deductions from philosophical principles only, but creation is no philosophical principle.		This is a treatise, the literary form of which imitates the university quaestio, about a hotly disputed question at the time: whether the world has a temporal beginning. Boethius holds that there is no contradiction in answering “Yes” qua Christian believer and “No” qua philosopher: philosophers can make deductions from philosophical principles only, but creation is no philosophical principle.
Line 228:		Line 228:
	(1) GRABMANN 1924, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976: CPhD 6, 2.		(1) GRABMANN 1924, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976: CPhD 6, 2.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	The work is surely authentic. One branch of manuscripts (five in all) contains an attribution to Boetius Dacus (in one of them without “Dacus”), and Godfrey, who was a contemporary of Boethius, has marked his abbreviation as being an extract from Boethius. Two manuscripts attribute the work to Thomas Aquinas, but this cannot be taken seriously.		The work is surely authentic. One branch of manuscripts (five in all) contains an attribution to Boetius Dacus (in one of them without “Dacus”), and Godfrey, who was a contemporary of Boethius, has marked his abbreviation as being an extract from Boethius. Two manuscripts attribute the work to Thomas Aquinas, but this cannot be taken seriously.

Line 251:		Line 251:
	(1) GRABMANN 1932, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976, CPhD 6, 2.		(1) GRABMANN 1932, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976, CPhD 6, 2.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	The attribution to Boethius de Dacia is not in doubt. It is the one given by four early manuscripts. Seven manuscripts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries just attribute it to Boethius. As early as the beginning of the fourteenth century some people thought the Boethius in question was the ancient philosopher (ca. 480–525), and the work was repeatedly copied together with Gundissalinus’s De uno et unitate, then commonly attributed to the ancient Boethius. Four manuscripts attribute the work to Thomas Aquinas, and one to Giles of Rome, but these attributions have no chance of being right.		The attribution to Boethius de Dacia is not in doubt. It is the one given by four early manuscripts. Seven manuscripts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries just attribute it to Boethius. As early as the beginning of the fourteenth century some people thought the Boethius in question was the ancient philosopher (ca. 480–525), and the work was repeatedly copied together with Gundissalinus’s De uno et unitate, then commonly attributed to the ancient Boethius. Four manuscripts attribute the work to Thomas Aquinas, and one to Giles of Rome, but these attributions have no chance of being right.

Line 287:		Line 287:
	ROSIER-CATACH, I. and EBBESEN, S. in preparation. Due to appear in CPhD 9.		ROSIER-CATACH, I. and EBBESEN, S. in preparation. Due to appear in CPhD 9.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	As transmitted, this complicated discussion of grammatical theory contains ten problemata, the first seven of which are attributed to master Peter of Auvergne, while the three final ones are attributed to Boethius, though initially presented as a sequel to 1–7. As argued in ROSIER-CATACH & EBBESEN 2004, two independent sophismata by the two masters were joined by a medieval editor, who modified the initial sentences of Boethius’ sophisma in order to make it look like a sequel to Peter’s..		As transmitted, this complicated discussion of grammatical theory contains ten problemata, the first seven of which are attributed to master Peter of Auvergne, while the three final ones are attributed to Boethius, though initially presented as a sequel to 1–7. As argued in ROSIER-CATACH & EBBESEN 2004, two independent sophismata by the two masters were joined by a medieval editor, who modified the initial sentences of Boethius’ sophisma in order to make it look like a sequel to Peter’s..

Line 300:		Line 300:
	WIELOCKX, R 2008: CPhD 14.		WIELOCKX, R 2008: CPhD 14.

	===Contents===		====Contents====
	The work consists of four questions on Book I and twenty-two on Book II of Aristotle’s De anima, all in an abbreviated version due to Godfrey of Fontaines, a contemporary of Boethius’s, who also abbreviated other of his works in the same way. The manuscript carries no attribution, but the authorship has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the editor.		The work consists of four questions on Book I and twenty-two on Book II of Aristotle’s De anima, all in an abbreviated version due to Godfrey of Fontaines, a contemporary of Boethius’s, who also abbreviated other of his works in the same way. The manuscript carries no attribution, but the authorship has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the editor.

Hkllm at 13:01, 4 March 2012

2012-03-04T13:01:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 4 March 2012
Line 89:		Line 89:
	Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.		Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.

	~~====-====~~
	===== Incipit =====		===== Incipit =====

Line 121:		Line 120:
	Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.

	~~====-====~~

	=====Incipit=====		=====Incipit=====
Line 141:		Line 139:
	===(4) Quaestiones super Physicam===		===(4) Quaestiones super Physicam===
	Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.
	~~====-====~~

	=====Incipit=====		=====Incipit=====
Line 162:		Line 159:
	===(5) Quaestiones super IVm Meteorologicorum===		===(5) Quaestiones super IVm Meteorologicorum===
	Not mentioned in the Stams catalogue.		Not mentioned in the Stams catalogue.

	~~====-====~~

	=====Title=====		=====Title=====
Line 192:		Line 187:
	===(6) De aeternitate mundi===		===(6) De aeternitate mundi===
	Mentioned in the Stams catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.

	~~====-====~~

	=====Title=====		=====Title=====
Line 219:		Line 212:

	===(7) De somniis===		===(7) De somniis===

	~~====-====~~

	=====Incipit=====		=====Incipit=====
Line 244:		Line 235:

	===(8) De summo bono===		===(8) De summo bono===
	~~====-====~~

	=====Incipit=====		=====Incipit=====
Line 269:		Line 259:
	This text discusses fundamental issues concerning truth, necessity, knowledge and signification.		This text discusses fundamental issues concerning truth, necessity, knowledge and signification.
	Two versions exist, which differ considerably from one another. The “Bruges version” seems to be another scholar’s re-working and expansion of a text that was essentially the same as the “Florence version”. The Bruges version carries seven problemata, only four of which occur in the Florence version (cf. EBBESEN 1993).		Two versions exist, which differ considerably from one another. The “Bruges version” seems to be another scholar’s re-working and expansion of a text that was essentially the same as the “Florence version”. The Bruges version carries seven problemata, only four of which occur in the Florence version (cf. EBBESEN 1993).
	~~====-====~~

	=====Incipit=====		=====Incipit=====
Line 286:		Line 275:

	===(10) Sophisma “Syllogizantem ponendum est terminos”===		===(10) Sophisma “Syllogizantem ponendum est terminos”===
	~~====-====~~

	=====Incipit=====		=====Incipit=====

Hkllm at 12:59, 4 March 2012

2012-03-04T12:59:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 4 March 2012
Line 55:		Line 55:
	=== (1) Modi Significandi ===		=== (1) Modi Significandi ===

	~~====-====~~
	===== Title =====		===== Title =====

Hkllm at 12:58, 4 March 2012

2012-03-04T12:58:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 4 March 2012
Line 85:		Line 85:
	The fundamental study on the work is PINBORG 1967.		The fundamental study on the work is PINBORG 1967.

	== (2) Quaestiones super librum Topicorum ==		=== (2) Quaestiones super librum Topicorum ===

	Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.		Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.
Line 117:		Line 117:
	* GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984.		* GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984.

	== (3) Quaestiones super De generatione et corruptione ==		=== (3) Quaestiones super De generatione et corruptione ===

	Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.
Line 139:		Line 139:
	The work consists of a prologue, 56 short questions on Book 1 and 12 on Book 2 of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione (On coming to be and passing away). No doubt because of the 1277 condemnation, someone disfigured the text of the last question by overlining, so that most of it became quite illegible. The question Utrum motus primus possit esse perpetuus (Whether the first movement can be perpetual) dealt with whether the world had a temporal beginning, and the conclusion obviously was that only faith requires one to accept the notion of a temporally finite world, whereas science must reject it.		The work consists of a prologue, 56 short questions on Book 1 and 12 on Book 2 of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione (On coming to be and passing away). No doubt because of the 1277 condemnation, someone disfigured the text of the last question by overlining, so that most of it became quite illegible. The question Utrum motus primus possit esse perpetuus (Whether the first movement can be perpetual) dealt with whether the world had a temporal beginning, and the conclusion obviously was that only faith requires one to accept the notion of a temporally finite world, whereas science must reject it.

	==(4) Quaestiones super Physicam==		===(4) Quaestiones super Physicam===
	Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.
	====-====		====-====
Line 160:		Line 160:
	The contents are 106 questions on books 1–4 of Aristotle’s Physics. A wide variety of topics is discussed, including the principles of natural philosophy, nature, matter, form, causality, movement, infinity and place.		The contents are 106 questions on books 1–4 of Aristotle’s Physics. A wide variety of topics is discussed, including the principles of natural philosophy, nature, matter, form, causality, movement, infinity and place.

	==(5) Quaestiones super IVm Meteorologicorum==		===(5) Quaestiones super IVm Meteorologicorum===
	Not mentioned in the Stams catalogue.		Not mentioned in the Stams catalogue.

Line 190:		Line 190:


	==(6) De aeternitate mundi==		===(6) De aeternitate mundi===
	Mentioned in the Stams catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.

Line 218:		Line 218:
	This is a treatise, the literary form of which imitates the university quaestio, about a hotly disputed question at the time: whether the world has a temporal beginning. Boethius holds that there is no contradiction in answering “Yes” qua Christian believer and “No” qua philosopher: philosophers can make deductions from philosophical principles only, but creation is no philosophical principle.		This is a treatise, the literary form of which imitates the university quaestio, about a hotly disputed question at the time: whether the world has a temporal beginning. Boethius holds that there is no contradiction in answering “Yes” qua Christian believer and “No” qua philosopher: philosophers can make deductions from philosophical principles only, but creation is no philosophical principle.

	==(7) De somniis==		===(7) De somniis===

	====-====		====-====
Line 243:		Line 243:


	==(8) De summo bono==		===(8) De summo bono===
	====-====		====-====

Line 266:		Line 266:
	The work argues for intellectual understanding as the true realization of human nature, so that the philosopher’s life is the ideal life. Stylistically, the work is highly polished; the vocabulary is not recherché, but the periods are long with many subordinate and parenthetical clauses, the longest period being of almost two printed pages.		The work argues for intellectual understanding as the true realization of human nature, so that the philosopher’s life is the ideal life. Stylistically, the work is highly polished; the vocabulary is not recherché, but the periods are long with many subordinate and parenthetical clauses, the longest period being of almost two printed pages.

	==(9) Sophisma “Omnis homo de necessitate est animal”==		===(9) Sophisma “Omnis homo de necessitate est animal”===
	This text discusses fundamental issues concerning truth, necessity, knowledge and signification.		This text discusses fundamental issues concerning truth, necessity, knowledge and signification.
	Two versions exist, which differ considerably from one another. The “Bruges version” seems to be another scholar’s re-working and expansion of a text that was essentially the same as the “Florence version”. The Bruges version carries seven problemata, only four of which occur in the Florence version (cf. EBBESEN 1993).		Two versions exist, which differ considerably from one another. The “Bruges version” seems to be another scholar’s re-working and expansion of a text that was essentially the same as the “Florence version”. The Bruges version carries seven problemata, only four of which occur in the Florence version (cf. EBBESEN 1993).
Line 285:		Line 285:
	The Florence version is translated in KRETZMANN & STUMP 1988.		The Florence version is translated in KRETZMANN & STUMP 1988.

	==(10) Sophisma “Syllogizantem ponendum est terminos”==		===(10) Sophisma “Syllogizantem ponendum est terminos”===
	====-====		====-====

Line 306:		Line 306:


	==(11) Quaestiones super librum De anima I–II==		===(11) Quaestiones super librum De anima I–II===
	Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.		Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.

Line 315:		Line 315:
	The work consists of four questions on Book I and twenty-two on Book II of Aristotle’s De anima, all in an abbreviated version due to Godfrey of Fontaines, a contemporary of Boethius’s, who also abbreviated other of his works in the same way. The manuscript carries no attribution, but the authorship has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the editor.		The work consists of four questions on Book I and twenty-two on Book II of Aristotle’s De anima, all in an abbreviated version due to Godfrey of Fontaines, a contemporary of Boethius’s, who also abbreviated other of his works in the same way. The manuscript carries no attribution, but the authorship has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the editor.

	==Lost works==		===Lost works===
	*Liber de naturali ortu omnium accentuum ex ipsis proprietatibus rerum. Referred to in Boethius’s Modi Significandi p. 296 (but only in one manuscript). The reference and the title make it clear that the work explained the various types of accentuation of Latin words in terms of their various ways of signifying, and thus denied that accentuation is wholly conventional.		*Liber de naturali ortu omnium accentuum ex ipsis proprietatibus rerum. Referred to in Boethius’s Modi Significandi p. 296 (but only in one manuscript). The reference and the title make it clear that the work explained the various types of accentuation of Latin words in terms of their various ways of signifying, and thus denied that accentuation is wholly conventional.
	*Quaestiones super librum Constructionum. This set of questions on Priscian Minor (= Priscianus, Institutiones grammaticae XVII–XVIII) is referred to in Boethius’s Modi Significandi pp. 106, 112, 120(?), 270 (app.), 309.		*Quaestiones super librum Constructionum. This set of questions on Priscian Minor (= Priscianus, Institutiones grammaticae XVII–XVIII) is referred to in Boethius’s Modi Significandi pp. 106, 112, 120(?), 270 (app.), 309.
Line 336:		Line 336:
	*<Quaestiones> super Rhetoricam. Boethius’s Quaest. Top. pp. 9–10 refers to what he has said “in Rhetorica”, which probably means in questions on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Boethius was among the first to comment on the Rhetoric in Paris.		*<Quaestiones> super Rhetoricam. Boethius’s Quaest. Top. pp. 9–10 refers to what he has said “in Rhetorica”, which probably means in questions on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Boethius was among the first to comment on the Rhetoric in Paris.

	==Spurious==		===Spurious===
	*Sophismata grammaticalia. The manuscript Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. D.2.45, ff. 25rA–36v contains thirteen grammatical sophismata with an introduction and with the heading “Incipiunt determinationes magistri Ruberti de Anglia et magistri Boetii”. The same collection is known from seven other manuscripts, in none of which is there any attribution to Boethius. An edition by ROSIER-CATACH, I. & SIRRIDGE, M. is in preparation. According to ROSIER-CATACH (private communication) the date seems to be ca. 1270, but nothing indicates that Boethius had any role in in its genesis.		*Sophismata grammaticalia. The manuscript Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. D.2.45, ff. 25rA–36v contains thirteen grammatical sophismata with an introduction and with the heading “Incipiunt determinationes magistri Ruberti de Anglia et magistri Boetii”. The same collection is known from seven other manuscripts, in none of which is there any attribution to Boethius. An edition by ROSIER-CATACH, I. & SIRRIDGE, M. is in preparation. According to ROSIER-CATACH (private communication) the date seems to be ca. 1270, but nothing indicates that Boethius had any role in in its genesis.
	*Quaestiones super Priora Analytica. In the 1960s the editors of CPhD considered attributing to Boethius an anonymous set of questions on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics found in somewhat different versions in two manuscripts that contain other works by Boethius. The attribution turned out to be untenable. In scholarly literature the author of this work is sometimes referred to as Pseudo-Boethius. Manuscripts: Brugge, Stedelijke Openbare Bibliotheek 509: 31rA–58rB; Firenze, B. Medicea-Laurenziana, St. Croce 12 sin. 3: 50rA–61rB.		*Quaestiones super Priora Analytica. In the 1960s the editors of CPhD considered attributing to Boethius an anonymous set of questions on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics found in somewhat different versions in two manuscripts that contain other works by Boethius. The attribution turned out to be untenable. In scholarly literature the author of this work is sometimes referred to as Pseudo-Boethius. Manuscripts: Brugge, Stedelijke Openbare Bibliotheek 509: 31rA–58rB; Firenze, B. Medicea-Laurenziana, St. Croce 12 sin. 3: 50rA–61rB.

Hkllm at 12:54, 4 March 2012

2012-03-04T12:54:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 4 March 2012
Line 53:		Line 53:
	* KRETZMANN, N. & STUMP, E. 1988: Logic and the Philosophy of Language (The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts 1), Cambridge.		* KRETZMANN, N. & STUMP, E. 1988: Logic and the Philosophy of Language (The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts 1), Cambridge.

	== (1) Modi Significandi ==		=== (1) Modi Significandi ===

	====-====		====-====

Hkllm at 15:11, 25 February 2012

2012-02-25T15:11:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 25 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			by Sten Ebbesen

	'''Boethius de Dacia''' taught as a master of arts at the University of Paris in the 1270s. He made remarkable contributions to the philosophy of language and of science. His views on philosophical knowledge provoked an angry reaction from the bishop of Paris, who in 1277 condemned a number of Boethian theses. Boethius had performed a radical separation of faith from reason: to him arguments drawn from faith had no part in philosophical investigations, nor should one try to buttress faith with philosophical reasons.		'''Boethius de Dacia''' taught as a master of arts at the University of Paris in the 1270s. He made remarkable contributions to the philosophy of language and of science. His views on philosophical knowledge provoked an angry reaction from the bishop of Paris, who in 1277 condemned a number of Boethian theses. Boethius had performed a radical separation of faith from reason: to him arguments drawn from faith had no part in philosophical investigations, nor should one try to buttress faith with philosophical reasons.

Line 361:		Line 363:
	*ROSIER-CATACH, I. & EBBESEN, S. 2004: “Petrus de Alvernia + Boethius de Dacia. Syllogizantem ponendum est terminos” Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 75, 161–218.		*ROSIER-CATACH, I. & EBBESEN, S. 2004: “Petrus de Alvernia + Boethius de Dacia. Syllogizantem ponendum est terminos” Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 75, 161–218.
	*SKOVGAARD JENSEN, S. 1963: “On the National Origin of the Philosopher Boetius de Dacia,” Classica et Mediaevalia 24, Copenhagen, 232–41.		*SKOVGAARD JENSEN, S. 1963: “On the National Origin of the Philosopher Boetius de Dacia,” Classica et Mediaevalia 24, Copenhagen, 232–41.

	~~Sten Ebbesen~~

	[[Category:Article]]		[[Category:Article]]

Hkllm at 14:28, 16 September 2010

2010-09-16T14:28:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 16 September 2010
Line 334:		Line 334:
	*<Quaestiones> super Rhetoricam. Boethius’s Quaest. Top. pp. 9–10 refers to what he has said “in Rhetorica”, which probably means in questions on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Boethius was among the first to comment on the Rhetoric in Paris.		*<Quaestiones> super Rhetoricam. Boethius’s Quaest. Top. pp. 9–10 refers to what he has said “in Rhetorica”, which probably means in questions on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Boethius was among the first to comment on the Rhetoric in Paris.

	====Spurious====		==Spurious==
	*Sophismata grammaticalia. The manuscript Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. D.2.45, ff. 25rA–36v contains thirteen grammatical sophismata with an introduction and with the heading “Incipiunt determinationes magistri Ruberti de Anglia et magistri Boetii”. The same collection is known from seven other manuscripts, in none of which is there any attribution to Boethius. An edition by ROSIER-CATACH, I. & SIRRIDGE, M. is in preparation. According to ROSIER-CATACH (private communication) the date seems to be ca. 1270, but nothing indicates that Boethius had any role in in its genesis.		*Sophismata grammaticalia. The manuscript Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. D.2.45, ff. 25rA–36v contains thirteen grammatical sophismata with an introduction and with the heading “Incipiunt determinationes magistri Ruberti de Anglia et magistri Boetii”. The same collection is known from seven other manuscripts, in none of which is there any attribution to Boethius. An edition by ROSIER-CATACH, I. & SIRRIDGE, M. is in preparation. According to ROSIER-CATACH (private communication) the date seems to be ca. 1270, but nothing indicates that Boethius had any role in in its genesis.
	*Quaestiones super Priora Analytica. In the 1960s the editors of CPhD considered attributing to Boethius an anonymous set of questions on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics found in somewhat different versions in two manuscripts that contain other works by Boethius. The attribution turned out to be untenable. In scholarly literature the author of this work is sometimes referred to as Pseudo-Boethius. Manuscripts: Brugge, Stedelijke Openbare Bibliotheek 509: 31rA–58rB; Firenze, B. Medicea-Laurenziana, St. Croce 12 sin. 3: 50rA–61rB.		*Quaestiones super Priora Analytica. In the 1960s the editors of CPhD considered attributing to Boethius an anonymous set of questions on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics found in somewhat different versions in two manuscripts that contain other works by Boethius. The attribution turned out to be untenable. In scholarly literature the author of this work is sometimes referred to as Pseudo-Boethius. Manuscripts: Brugge, Stedelijke Openbare Bibliotheek 509: 31rA–58rB; Firenze, B. Medicea-Laurenziana, St. Croce 12 sin. 3: 50rA–61rB.

Hkllm at 14:26, 16 September 2010

2010-09-16T14:26:58Z

Show changes

Hkllm at 14:16, 16 September 2010

2010-09-16T14:16:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 16 September 2010
Line 123:		Line 123:
	=====Incipit=====		=====Incipit=====
	Cum in omni specie entis sit aliquod <summum> bonum possibile, et homo est aliqua species entis, ei est aliquod summum bonum possibile, et debetur ei secundum optimam virtutem quae in eo est, sicut ratio et intellectus.		Cum in omni specie entis sit aliquod <summum> bonum possibile, et homo est aliqua species entis, ei est aliquod summum bonum possibile, et debetur ei secundum optimam virtutem quae in eo est, sicut ratio et intellectus.
	Explicit
			=====Explicit=====
	Dico ergo secundum fidem quod mundus non est aeternus et motus est novus, similiter et illatio est nova, similiter et generatio.		Dico ergo secundum fidem quod mundus non est aeternus et motus est novus, similiter et illatio est nova, similiter et generatio.
	Manuscript
			====Manuscript====
	München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 9559, 83rA–92rB.		München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 9559, 83rA–92rB.
	Edition
			====Edition====
	SAJÓ, G. 1972: CPhD 5, 1.		SAJÓ, G. 1972: CPhD 5, 1.

			===Contents===
	The work has been transmitted anonymously. While it is certain that it contains material of Boethian origin, it may not be wholly Boethian. Apparently it is a student’s reportage of a course given by Boethius or by someone who based himself on Boethius.		The work has been transmitted anonymously. While it is certain that it contains material of Boethian origin, it may not be wholly Boethian. Apparently it is a student’s reportage of a course given by Boethius or by someone who based himself on Boethius.
	The work consists of a prologue, 56 short questions on Book 1 and 12 on Book 2 of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione (On coming to be and passing away). No doubt because of the 1277 condemnation, someone disfigured the text of the last question by overlining, so that most of it became quite illegible. The question Utrum motus primus possit esse perpetuus (Whether the first movement can be perpetual) dealt with whether the world had a temporal beginning, and the conclusion obviously was that only faith requires one to accept the notion of a temporally finite world, whereas science must reject it.		The work consists of a prologue, 56 short questions on Book 1 and 12 on Book 2 of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione (On coming to be and passing away). No doubt because of the 1277 condemnation, someone disfigured the text of the last question by overlining, so that most of it became quite illegible. The question Utrum motus primus possit esse perpetuus (Whether the first movement can be perpetual) dealt with whether the world had a temporal beginning, and the conclusion obviously was that only faith requires one to accept the notion of a temporally finite world, whereas science must reject it.
	(4) Quaestiones super Physicam
			==(4) Quaestiones super Physicam==
	Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.
	Incipit		====-====

			=====Incipit=====
	Quaeritur utrum sit aliqua scientia necessaria praeter philosophicas disciplinas.		Quaeritur utrum sit aliqua scientia necessaria praeter philosophicas disciplinas.
	Explicit
			=====Explicit=====
	(mutilated): Item, corpus naturale non movetur nisi ad locum specie differentem a loco illo in quo erat prius; una pars dimensionis separata non		(mutilated): Item, corpus naturale non movetur nisi ad locum specie differentem a loco illo in quo erat prius; una pars dimensionis separata non
	Manuscript
			====Manuscript====
	München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 9559, 2rA–14rA.		München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 9559, 2rA–14rA.
	Edition
			====Edition====
	SAJÓ, G. 1974: CPhD 5, 2.		SAJÓ, G. 1974: CPhD 5, 2.

			===Contents===
	The work has been transmitted anonymously. Parallels with works of undoubted authenticity make certain that there is much Boethian material in the work. The written version preserved is almost certainly a student’s reportage, but it is not quite clear whether the course reported was given by Boethius himself or by someone who based himself on Boethius.		The work has been transmitted anonymously. Parallels with works of undoubted authenticity make certain that there is much Boethian material in the work. The written version preserved is almost certainly a student’s reportage, but it is not quite clear whether the course reported was given by Boethius himself or by someone who based himself on Boethius.

	The contents are 106 questions on books 1–4 of Aristotle’s Physics. A wide variety of topics is discussed, including the principles of natural philosophy, nature, matter, form, causality, movement, infinity and place.		The contents are 106 questions on books 1–4 of Aristotle’s Physics. A wide variety of topics is discussed, including the principles of natural philosophy, nature, matter, form, causality, movement, infinity and place.
	(5) Quaestiones super IVm Meteorologicorum
			==(5) Quaestiones super IVm Meteorologicorum==
	Not mentioned in the Stams catalogue.		Not mentioned in the Stams catalogue.
	Title
			====-====

			=====Title=====
	Based on the colophon of the only manuscript. It conforms to the way one would expect the medievals to refer to a work like this.		Based on the colophon of the only manuscript. It conforms to the way one would expect the medievals to refer to a work like this.
	Incipit
			=====Incipit=====
	“Quoniam autem quattuor causae determinatae sunt elementorum etc.” Quaeritur hic primo utrum qualitates primae sint causae elementorum		“Quoniam autem quattuor causae determinatae sunt elementorum etc.” Quaeritur hic primo utrum qualitates primae sint causae elementorum
	Explicit
			=====Explicit=====
	Sed in corporibus duris per frigidum comprimens, in talibus non est terra a dominio sed aqua. Expliciunt quaestiones super IVm Meteororum reportatae a magistro Boetio de Dacia.		Sed in corporibus duris per frigidum comprimens, in talibus non est terra a dominio sed aqua. Expliciunt quaestiones super IVm Meteororum reportatae a magistro Boetio de Dacia.
	Size
			=====Size=====
	116 printed pages.		116 printed pages.
	Manuscript
			====Manuscript====
	What was originally one manuscript is now bound in two different volumes. Part (1): Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, 549, ff. 83rA–97vB; part (2): Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, 560, f. 105rA.		What was originally one manuscript is now bound in two different volumes. Part (1): Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, 549, ff. 83rA–97vB; part (2): Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, 560, f. 105rA.
	Edition
			====Edition====
	FIORAVANTI, G. 1979: CPhD 8.		FIORAVANTI, G. 1979: CPhD 8.

			===Contents===
	The contents are 120, generally rather short, questions on Aristotle’s Meteorology, dealing with the elementary properties (hot, cold, dry, moist) and various natural processes such as putrefaction, combustion, digestion, coagulation, arefaction (i.e. evaporation), and liquation (i.e. melting).		The contents are 120, generally rather short, questions on Aristotle’s Meteorology, dealing with the elementary properties (hot, cold, dry, moist) and various natural processes such as putrefaction, combustion, digestion, coagulation, arefaction (i.e. evaporation), and liquation (i.e. melting).
	Literature
			====Literature====
	PINBORG 1969.		PINBORG 1969.
	(6) De aeternitate mundi

			==(6) De aeternitate mundi==
	Mentioned in the Stams catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.
	Title
			====-====

			=====Title=====
	Two manuscripts offer the longer title Liber de concordia fidei christiane et philosophie de eternitate mundi, which may well be original.		Two manuscripts offer the longer title Liber de concordia fidei christiane et philosophie de eternitate mundi, which may well be original.
	Incipit
			=====Incipit=====
	Quia sicut in his quae ex lege credi debent, quae tamen pro se rationem non habent, quaerere rationem stultum est		Quia sicut in his quae ex lege credi debent, quae tamen pro se rationem non habent, quaerere rationem stultum est
	Explicit
			=====Explicit=====
	Huic legi Christi quemlibet christianum adhaerere et credere secundum quod oportet faciat auctor eiusdem legis Christus gloriosus qui est deus benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen.		Huic legi Christi quemlibet christianum adhaerere et credere secundum quod oportet faciat auctor eiusdem legis Christus gloriosus qui est deus benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
	Size
			=====Size=====

	32 printed pages.		32 printed pages.
	Manuscripts
			====Manuscripts====
	Four manuscripts from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century plus the autograph and an apograph of an abbreviated version prepared by Godfrey of Fontaines in the 1270s (see GREEN-PEDERSEN, CPhD 6, 2, VII–XII).		Four manuscripts from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century plus the autograph and an apograph of an abbreviated version prepared by Godfrey of Fontaines in the 1270s (see GREEN-PEDERSEN, CPhD 6, 2, VII–XII).
	Editions
			====Editions====
	(1) SAJÓ, G. 1954, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976, CPhD 6, 2.		(1) SAJÓ, G. 1954, (2) GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. 1976, CPhD 6, 2.

			===Contents===
	One manuscript attributes the work to Thomas Aquinas, one to Herveus, in the remaining manuscripts it is anonymous. An abbreviated version by Godfrey of Fontaines appears in the context of other abbreviations of works by Boethius. Style and contents match Boethius as known from certainly genuine works, and there is general agreement that he must be the author.		One manuscript attributes the work to Thomas Aquinas, one to Herveus, in the remaining manuscripts it is anonymous. An abbreviated version by Godfrey of Fontaines appears in the context of other abbreviations of works by Boethius. Style and contents match Boethius as known from certainly genuine works, and there is general agreement that he must be the author.
	This is a treatise, the literary form of which imitates the university quaestio, about a hotly disputed question at the time: whether the world has a temporal beginning. Boethius holds that there is no contradiction in answering “Yes” qua Christian believer and “No” qua philosopher: philosophers can make deductions from philosophical principles only, but creation is no philosophical principle.		This is a treatise, the literary form of which imitates the university quaestio, about a hotly disputed question at the time: whether the world has a temporal beginning. Boethius holds that there is no contradiction in answering “Yes” qua Christian believer and “No” qua philosopher: philosophers can make deductions from philosophical principles only, but creation is no philosophical principle.
	(7) De somniis
			==(7) De somniis==
	Incipit		Incipit
	Cum omnis actio sit ab aliqua virtute et propter aliquod bonum, sicut propter finem agentis, necesse est ut secundum differentiam virtutum, quae sunt in homine, sit differentia actionum hominis et differentia bonorum sibi possibilium ex suis actionibus.		Cum omnis actio sit ab aliqua virtute et propter aliquod bonum, sicut propter finem agentis, necesse est ut secundum differentiam virtutum, quae sunt in homine, sit differentia actionum hominis et differentia bonorum sibi possibilium ex suis actionibus.

Hkllm at 14:09, 16 September 2010

2010-09-16T14:09:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:09, 16 September 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:
	== (1) Modi Significandi ==		== (1) Modi Significandi ==

	==== Title ====		====-====
			===== Title =====

	The manuscripts give two types of title: (1) Quaestiones super maius volumen (i.e., on Priscianus Maior = Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae I–XVI), (2) Modi significandi. Further, (3) Boethius himself in his Questions on Aristotle’s Topics refers to a “Grammatica nostra”, which may well be this work. For details, see CPhD 4, XXXIV–XXXVII.		The manuscripts give two types of title: (1) Quaestiones super maius volumen (i.e., on Priscianus Maior = Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae I–XVI), (2) Modi significandi. Further, (3) Boethius himself in his Questions on Aristotle’s Topics refers to a “Grammatica nostra”, which may well be this work. For details, see CPhD 4, XXXIV–XXXVII.
Line 64:		Line 65:
	''Et cum omnium rerum deus sit causa, quia primum in entibus est causa posteriorum, ideo relinquitur, quod omnis nostrae scientiae causa est ipse deus, qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen.''		''Et cum omnium rerum deus sit causa, quia primum in entibus est causa posteriorum, ideo relinquitur, quod omnis nostrae scientiae causa est ipse deus, qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen.''

	==== Size ====		===== Size =====

	310 pages in the printed edition.		310 pages in the printed edition.
Line 72:		Line 73:
	* PINBORG & ROOS 1969: CPhD 4.		* PINBORG & ROOS 1969: CPhD 4.

	==== ~~Work~~ ====		==== Contents ====

	Modi significandi consists of a prologue and 134 questions on Priscianus Minor (= Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae I–XVI). Of these the first 28 are “quaestiones grammaticae in generali” treating of the proper field of study of grammar, its delimitation from other sciences, its elementary notions, and the like. There follow questions about each part of speech, namely the noun (29–77), the verb (78–95), the participle (96–101), the pronoun (102–107), the preposition (108–116), the adverb (117–126), the interjection (127–129), and the conjunction (130–134).		Modi significandi consists of a prologue and 134 questions on Priscianus Minor (= Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae I–XVI). Of these the first 28 are “quaestiones grammaticae in generali” treating of the proper field of study of grammar, its delimitation from other sciences, its elementary notions, and the like. There follow questions about each part of speech, namely the noun (29–77), the verb (78–95), the participle (96–101), the pronoun (102–107), the preposition (108–116), the adverb (117–126), the interjection (127–129), and the conjunction (130–134).

	The work was used by John of Dacia and seems to have had a lasting influence on the development of the “modistic” theory of grammar. Although it never acquired wide popularity, its circulation was larger than usual for texts of its kind: the modern editors knew of ten extant manuscripts from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, plus two with near-contemporary excerpts by Godfrey of Fontaines and one lost manuscript. A further lost (partial?) copy used to be in the library of Saint Victor, Paris. The work seems to have enjoyed some fame for a generation or two after its composition.		The work was used by John of Dacia and seems to have had a lasting influence on the development of the “modistic” theory of grammar. Although it never acquired wide popularity, its circulation was larger than usual for texts of its kind: the modern editors knew of ten extant manuscripts from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, plus two with near-contemporary excerpts by Godfrey of Fontaines and one lost manuscript. A further lost (partial?) copy used to be in the library of Saint Victor, Paris. The work seems to have enjoyed some fame for a generation or two after its composition.

Line 85:		Line 87:
	Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.		Mentioned in the Stams catalogue.

			====-====
	===== Incipit =====		===== Incipit =====

Line 93:		Line 96:
	''Et quia iuxta habitum cognosci habet sua privatio, ideo post hoc ad principium de arte sophistica incipientes dicamus.''		''Et quia iuxta habitum cognosci habet sua privatio, ideo post hoc ad principium de arte sophistica incipientes dicamus.''

	==== Size ====		===== Size =====

	229 printed pages.		229 printed pages.
Line 100:		Line 103:
	* GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. & PINBORG, J. 1976: CPhD 6.		* GREEN-PEDERSEN, N.J. & PINBORG, J. 1976: CPhD 6.

	==== ~~Work~~ ====		==== Contents ====

	The work consists of a prologue about the subject-matter of logic and of dialectic in particular, followed by a commentary on Aristotle’s Topics I–VIII. At the beginning of each book, and at certain other points, Boethius gives brief summaries of the contents of Aristotle’s text; each of these summaries is followed by a number of questions, which make up the bulk of the work. There are 159 questions in all.		The work consists of a prologue about the subject-matter of logic and of dialectic in particular, followed by a commentary on Aristotle’s Topics I–VIII. At the beginning of each book, and at certain other points, Boethius gives brief summaries of the contents of Aristotle’s text; each of these summaries is followed by a number of questions, which make up the bulk of the work. There are 159 questions in all.

	Godfrey of Fontaines, a contemporary of Boethius’s, produced an abbreviated version for his private use (edited as an appendix in CPhD 6). The editors knew of eleven other extant manuscripts from the late thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries. A fourteenth-century list of the best commentators on the Organon recommends Boethius on the Topics together with Robert Kilwardby on the Prior Analytics and Thomas Aquinas on the Posterior Analytics (CPhD 6, XIV n. 20). In two related question commentaries on the Topics from early fifteenth-century Prague and Cracow (GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984, 401–2 and 404–5, commentaries No A.36 and A.43), Boethius is repeatedly referred to, but without the epithet “Dacus”. Apparently he was confused with Manlius Boethius. At one point the author of the Cracow text, finding a disagreement between Boethius (the Dane) and Aristotle, comments:		Godfrey of Fontaines, a contemporary of Boethius’s, produced an abbreviated version for his private use (edited as an appendix in CPhD 6). The editors knew of eleven other extant manuscripts from the late thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries. A fourteenth-century list of the best commentators on the Organon recommends Boethius on the Topics together with Robert Kilwardby on the Prior Analytics and Thomas Aquinas on the Posterior Analytics (CPhD 6, XIV n. 20). In two related question commentaries on the Topics from early fifteenth-century Prague and Cracow (GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984, 401–2 and 404–5, commentaries No A.36 and A.43), Boethius is repeatedly referred to, but without the epithet “Dacus”. Apparently he was confused with Manlius Boethius. At one point the author of the Cracow text, finding a disagreement between Boethius (the Dane) and Aristotle, comments:

	Sed quid tunc ad Boethium dicitur? Quod loquitur probabiliter, quia quando sunt duo auctoritates de eadem materia, et unus est magis authenticus sive approbatus quam alter, tunc illi magis authentico magis est credendum. Modo Boethius et Philosophus sunt ambo authentici, sed Philosophus magis (Kraków, BJ 2094, 18rA, quoted from unpublished transcription by GREEN-PEDERSEN). (...when two authorities treat the same matter and one is more authentic or recognised than the other, then the more authentic one should be believed. In the case of Boethius and the philosopher they are both authentic, but the philosopher more so.)		Sed quid tunc ad Boethium dicitur? Quod loquitur probabiliter, quia quando sunt duo auctoritates de eadem materia, et unus est magis authenticus sive approbatus quam alter, tunc illi magis authentico magis est credendum. Modo Boethius et Philosophus sunt ambo authentici, sed Philosophus magis (Kraków, BJ 2094, 18rA, quoted from unpublished transcription by GREEN-PEDERSEN). (...when two authorities treat the same matter and one is more authentic or recognised than the other, then the more authentic one should be believed. In the case of Boethius and the philosopher they are both authentic, but the philosopher more so.)

Line 113:		Line 118:

	Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.		Mentioned in the Stams Catalogue, CPhD 4, XXXII.
	Incipit
			====-====

			=====Incipit=====
	Cum in omni specie entis sit aliquod <summum> bonum possibile, et homo est aliqua species entis, ei est aliquod summum bonum possibile, et debetur ei secundum optimam virtutem quae in eo est, sicut ratio et intellectus.		Cum in omni specie entis sit aliquod <summum> bonum possibile, et homo est aliqua species entis, ei est aliquod summum bonum possibile, et debetur ei secundum optimam virtutem quae in eo est, sicut ratio et intellectus.
	Explicit		Explicit