Wordtrade.com

Historical Surveys

The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy 2 Volume Boxed Set edited by Robert Pasnau (Cambridge University Press) comprises over fifty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of this period. Starting in the late eighth century, with the renewal of learning some centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, a sequence of chapters take the reader through developments in many and varied fields, including logic and language, natural philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, and theology. Close attention is paid to the context of medieval philosophy, with discussions of the rise of the universities and developments in the cultural and linguistic spheres. A striking feature is the continuous coverage of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian material. There are useful biographies of the philosophers, and a comprehensive bibliography. The volume illuminates a rich and remarkable period in the history of philosophy and will be the authoritative source on medieval philosophy for the next generation of scholars and students alike.

The present pair of volumes succeeds, without superseding, The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, published in 1982 by Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, Jan Pinborg, and Eleonore Stump. It is a considerable privilege to edit the successor to Kretzmann et al, for that volume distils the work of a brilliant generation of scholars without whom our own scholarly careers would be almost inconceivable. These volumes are entirely new, but we expect their predecessor will remain valuable for many years to come, especially for its detailed treatment of medieval theories of logic and the philosophy of language.

The present volumes differ most notably from their predecessor in three ways: first, their scope extends not just to Christian but also to Islamic and Jewish thought; second, they cover not only the later Middle Ages but also earlier centuries; third, they address in some detail the entire spectrum of medieval thought, including philosophical theology.

Each chapter in these volumes stands on its own, but there are numerous points of contact between chapters, and we have liberally supplied cross-references. One could thus in principle begin reading anywhere and eventually, by following these links, make one's way through the whole. Readers will also want to consult the biographies of medieval authors, in Appendix C, for extensive information on the lives and work of the figures discussed in the chanters.

Medieval philosophy emerges after the decline of ancient Greece and Rome, when new cultures begin to produce works of philosophy that are at once inspired by that ancient legacy and yet responsive to new cultural and religious circumstances. There is now some consensus on when and where to place the beginnings of medieval philosophy, understood as a project of independent philosophical inquiry: it begins in Baghdad, in the middle of the eighth century, and in France, in the itinerant court of Charlemagne, in the last quarter of the eighth century' It is less easy to say when medieval philosophy ends, because the methods and doctrines that are characteristic of the medieval period endure, and indeed remain dominant, into what is conventionally called the Renaissance. It is not until the seventeenth century, in Europe, that an indisputably new kind of philosophy becomes dominant.

The present volumes give an overview of the people and ideas that shape philosophy through these Middle Ages, from the eighth through the fourteenth century and beyond. One of the most compelling and challenging features of this era is its global reach. Whereas the study of ancient and modern philosophy confines itself mainly to work done within a homogeneous cultural sphere of at most a few hundred miles, the world of medieval philosophy runs from Oxford to Nishapur and from Fez to Prague, through Islamic, Jewish, and Christian thought, and correspondingly through Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek texts (to mention only the most prominent languages). It is the ambition of these volumes to provide a broad, integrated account of this material.

More than just the modern fancy for multiculturalism impels this holistic treatment of the field. Despite the vast distances and linguistic barriers, the various traditions surveyed in these volumes constitute a continuous and coherent body of thought, such that to study one without the others is liable to distort it.' The philosophical foundations of Thomas Aquinas's theology — to take the most prominent example — are inseparable from the thought of Avicenna and Averroes, while his understanding of God is deeply indebted to Moses Maimonides. Maimonides in turn is writing in Arabic, in the midst of the Islamic culture of North Africa, and his ideas are thoroughly grounded in that philosophical tradition. And while Arabic philosophy is foundational for these other traditions, its influence on the others is so pronounced and immediate that it can hardly be understood as a separate movement. Averroes's great commentaries on Aristotle — again to take just the most prominent example — would be translated into Latin and take their place at the core of the university curriculum at Paris and elsewhere within around fifty years of being written in 1180-90. The only justification for treating these traditions separately is that it is in truth desperately difficult for any one scholar to master so much disparate material.

Although written with an eye toward the future, the chapters that follow are necessarily constrained by the boundaries of our present knowledge. These boundaries, it must be said, do not extend very far. Indeed, another of the most compelling and challenging features of the medieval era is our remarkably poor understanding of it. Like soldiers making a stand against an onrushing enemy (to borrow a famous image from Aristotle), medievalists have banded together around a few authors and texts, leaving vast territory practically deserted. An immense amount of work has been done in the quarter century since the last Cambridge History. Yet even in these concentrated clusters of research, a great deal remains untouched. Much of the work of Thomas Aquinas — by far the most studied medieval author — still awaits a critical edition, or a translation into English, and sophisticated philosophical work has been done only on certain aspects of his thought. For other authors, even well-known Latin ones, the situation is vastly worse, and in Arabic it is worse still, given the many important texts that remain available only in manuscript. It is, moreover, not even clear that Aquinas deserves his status as the most important figure in the field. Our knowledge of other contenders for that title — such as Avicenna, Maimonides, Peter Abaelard, John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and John Buridan —remains too limited to judge the case fairly. With so much exploration still to be done, the medieval era stands as the Wild West of philosophy's history, suited for those who prefer the rugged frontier to a well-cultivated garden.

In an attempt to conceive more clearly the ways in which medieval scholarship might develop in the twenty-first century, I invited five contributors representing a range of interests and perspectives to join me in composing a list of desiderata for research in the century to come. One immediately obvious feature of the lists is how very different they are. They differ with respect to periods and authors, focusing variously on Latin and Arabic texts, and earlier and later centuries. They also differ widely with respect to topics: some raise questions of metaphysics, others of language or ethics, while still others focus on the boundaries of philosophy's intersection with politics, medicine, and law. A still further difference is between those items focused on philosophical problems, as when Dominik Perler poses the question of why radical skepticism was not a medieval concern, and those focused on historical scholarship, as when Martin Stone presses the need for more critical editions. It should go without saying that these last two kinds of desiderata go hand in hand. The most important development for medieval philosophical scholarship in the last twenty-five years has been the Ockham critical edition, which precipitated much of the most sophisticated philosophical work of recent years. There is every reason to expect that further philological work in the editing and translating of texts will lead directly to still more progress of a philosophical sort. Here again, however, we see another challenging feature of the era: the importance of the sort of bedrock historical and philological research that in other historical periods has long since been brought to a very high standard. This is a challenge, but also a compelling feature of the period, because here one can make the sorts of fundamental historical contributions that in ancient philosophy, for instance, were made by famed scholars of previous centuries. It is crucial to the future of medieval philosophy that the broader philosophical community be brought to recognize the importance of such scholarly initiatives, even when they lack the sort of immediate philosophical payoff that the profession has now come to expect in other areas.

THIRTY DESIDERATA FOR RESEARCH ON MEDIEVAL
PHILOSOPHY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

PETER ADAMSON

1. What impact did ideas and problems from Islamic speculative theology (Udell) have on the tradition of Greek-inspired philosophy (falsafa) in Arabic, for instance on thinkers such as Avicenna?
2. What were the distinctive achievements of the Arabic logical tradition, especially in modal logic? What impact did these advances have on other areas of philosophy?
3. Many medieval philosophers did important work in the physical sciences, especially medicine. To what extent did their philosophical thought inform their scientific writing and vice versa%
4. Was the eleventh to the fourteenth century the "golden age of Arabic philosophy"?
5. In what way was practical (political and ethical) philosophy in Arabic and in other traditions as well - dependent on theoretical philosophy .(metaphysics, psychology, and epistemology)?

JOHN MARENBON

1. The Byzantine tradition of Aristotelian commentary.
2. The Avicennian tradition of philosophy in Islam, from ca. 1300 onwards.Philosophy in the Latin West, 1200-1500, outside the universities.
3. The logico-theological schools of Paris in the period ca. 1150 - ca. 1200. The scholastic tradition outside the Iberian peninsula, 1500-1700.

DOMINIK PEELER

1. Some ancient texts were available in translation (Plato's Mow, Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Skepticism) but did not attract interest. Why?
2. Some intellectual centers and schools had extensive interchanges, whereas Others had none. (For instance, William of Ockham and Meister Eckhart were contemporaries, but they do not seem to have been interested in each other.) Why?
3. All medieval philosophers agreed that we can have doubts about this or that example of knowledge, hut never about the possibility of knowledge in general. Why?
4. Medieval philosophers had endless debates about the function of intellect and will or about the relationship between sensory and intellectual faculties, but they basically agreed that there are such things as faculties of the soul. Why did they not question the existence of faculties, as so many early modern philosophers did?
5. Was there any medieval philosopher who held that colors are not to be found in material objects but only in our mind? If not, why? Is this principle the decisive difference between medieval and early modern philosophy?

IRENE ROSIER-CATACH

1. The relationship between law and philosophy of language: for example, theories oflies, of falsity, and the semantics of interpretations. Also, interrelations between Moral philosophy and law: for instance, the problem of intention.
2. Was there a political aspect, purpose, or background to philosophical controversies? Did philosophical and theological theories have political influence, were they themselves influenced by political problems, or were they totally speculative?
3. The development of speculative grammars in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and the various forms of opposition to it. Very little is know about this. Texts should be edited, especially commentaries on Michel of Marbais and Thomas of Erfurt.
4. What was the relevance of the way in which university curricula and the
   faculties were organized on the development of philosophical doctrines?
5. Methodological reflections on the production of knowledge in the Middle Ages: especially how is one to read a text, knowing that very often we have it preserved in many versions, slightly or highly different from each other, sometimes in interpolated versions containing different strata of doctrines. In which way can we then talk of the position of an author?

How are we to handle the anonymous production of texts that is so important in the arts faculty?

M.W. F. STONE

1. The full and synoptic study of medieval moral thought, which incorporates not just the obvious sources of medieval 'moral philosophy,' but also those areas of canon law, pastoral thought, and confessional writings where matters of ethical interest are discussed.
2. The systematic study of the fifteenth-century schools and the pluralism of late medieval philosophy. This will facilitate an improved understanding of the putative transition of 'medieval' to 'modern' philosophy, and the continuation of the scholastic tradition in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
3. The completion of the Opera omnnia of Henry of Ghent and Giles of Rome, and the start of new critical editions of Durand of Saint-Pourcain and Peter Auriol. Within twenty years Henry, Giles, Durand, and Auriol will become a part of the canon.
4. Integration of so-called 'philological' and 'philosophical' methods of interpretation, whereby philological/contextualist approaches are appropriated and then improved by means of firm and assured philosophical analysis.
5. A communal appreciation of the importance and intellectual worth of critical editions. A greater encouragement of younger scholars, especially in North America and the UK, to acquire the skills necessary to complete good editions of texts, and for members of the 'philosophical' community to see that such scholarly endeavors are indispensable to the good order of the subject of medieval philosophy.

ROBERT PASNAU

1. A clearer appreciation of the respects in which Thomas Aquinas is dependent on earlier Latin and Arabic thought, so that we can have a clearer appreciation of the respects in which he is original.
2. An intensive scholarly effort to grasp the brilliant philosophers of the mid-fourteenth century, especially John Buridan and Nicole Oresme.
3. A comprehensive dictionary of Latin philosophical terms.
4. The integration of research into Latin and Arabic sources, so that a continuous story can be told about what is, very nearly, a continuous philosophical tradition across three faiths.
5. A narrative for medieval philosophy that can be taught to undergraduates in a single term, and that would give the field a core curriculum of texts and philosophical problems analogous to those of the early modern era.

The wide range of suggestions for future research reveals still another challenging feature of medieval philosophy: the absence of any settled canon of texts and problems — especially in the English-speaking world. One hundred years ago, medieval scholarship rallied largely around the great theological summae of Thomas Aquinas and others. Within the last half century, considerable attention has been paid to scholastic logical texts, and to natural philosophy. Even within this limited domain there is little sense of a core curriculum, and moreover that domain is far too limited to do justice to the field. Each desiderata list makes its own suggestions about fruitful areas for further investigation. John Marenbon mentions, among other things, the severely neglected field of Byzantine philosophy. Peter Adamson wonders about Arabic logic. Irene Rosier-Catach asks about the relation between legal theory and the philosophy of language. As the field broadens in these and other directions, however, it will face the countervailing challenge of articulating a concise, compelling narrative for the period. Both the ancient and early modern periods have long since embraced such narratives, and the resulting clusters of texts and problems now form a part of what any philosopher must know. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is nothing from the medieval period, except perhaps Anselm's ontological argument and Aquinas's Five Ways, that has achieved this sort of canonical status. This is not because medieval philosophy is less worthy of study, but because scholars in the field have not yet found a unifying narrative that would engage the attention of a broader philosophical audience.

Whether the period deserves such attention depends entirely on the "quality of its philosophical thought. One can hardly study the history of philosophy without being responsive to this concern. For as much as any historian should value historical scholarship for its own sake, as intrinsically worthwhile, the study of philosophy's history has special value because philosophical understanding is valuable, and is often best achieved by setting to one side the assumptions of one's own era and immersing oneself in the most brilliant work of earlier centuries. There is no point in simply insisting that medieval philosophy is worthwhile in this regard; one must show that it is, case by case. The chapters to come do just this across a wide range of areas. Most familiar is medieval work in philosophical theology, and in the development of an Aristotelian metaphysics and ethics. Even here, scholars have barely begun to convey the richness of the extant material. Yet as many of the following chapters show, medieval philosophy goes well beyond these relatively familiar areas, into logic and language, natural philosophy, cognitive theory and epistemology, moral psychology, and much more.

Ultimately, the status among today's philosophers of this or any historical period can be expressed as a function of two factors: the worth we place on the philosophical ideas of that period, as measured against the worth we place on our own contemporary ideas. In view of the second factor, this is not a good time for historical scholarship in any area of philosophy. We live in an era that — for reasons that are unclear — regards with great self-satisfaction its own philosophical accomplishments, to such a degree that it has little time for the ideas of previous generations. Still, to the extent there is room in the profession for historical inquiry at all, it is a good time to study the medieval era. Whereas fifty years ago one could hardly express interest in the topic without risking marginalization, the intervening years have seen a dramatic shift in the field's reputation. Although few philosophers know very much about medieval philosophy, it is now widely recognized as fertile ground for historical inquiry. There is, then, no longer any need for special pleading regarding the merits of medieval philosophy; that case has been made by the labors of prior generations. All that remains for us is to go out and do the work. 

A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages edited by Jorge J. E. Gracia, Timothy B. Noone (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy: Blackwell Publishers) This comprehensive reference volume features essays by some of the most distinguished scholars in the field.

The volume is organized into two sections. In the first, essays cover the historical context within which philosophy in the Middle Ages developed. Topics include the ancient philosophical legacy, the patristic background, the School of Chartres, religious orders, scholasticism, and the condemnation of various views in Paris in the thirteenth century. Within these clear, jargon-free expositions, the authors make the latest scholarship available while also presenting their own distinctive perspectives.

The second section is composed of alphabetically arranged entries on 138 philosophically significant authors – European, Jewish, and Arabic – living between the fourth and fifteenth centuries. These essays contain biographical information, summaries of significant philosophical arguments and viewpoints, and conclude with bibliographies of both primary and secondary sources.

A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages is extensively cross-referenced and indexed, constituting a complete source of information for students and professionals alike.

The Middle Ages is not only the longest period of philosophical development in the West, but also one of the richest and more complex. Its roots go back to ancient philosophy and we are still living with some of its consequences today. Indeed, a very large part of our philo­sophical vocabulary, whether in English, Spanish, or any other western European language, was developed in the Middle Ages, and most of the philosophical problems about which we still worry were first formulated in the version in which we know them in this period. The historical importance of the Middle Ages and its influence in the subsequent history of western thought is difficult to overestimate.

In spite of this, however, the study of the philosophy of the Middle Ages was, until relatively recently, rare outside Roman Catholic contexts. Secular universities, and even Christian colleges from denominations other than Roman Catholicism, rarely offered courses in medieval philosophy, and their faculty seldom did research in the field. The medieval period was mentioned in two kinds of courses: in history of philosophy sequences, the Middle Ages was usually appended to the ancient period, as an afterthought, and was generally given little emphasis; in courses in the philosophy of religion, where arguments for the existence of God were examined, mention was usually made of Anselm's so-called ontological argument and Aquinas's "five ways."

This dismal situation has been changing gradually, although it is still true that most of the leading philosophy departments in the English-speaking world do not yet have special­ists in the Middle Ages. Some do, however, and this has not gone unnoticed in other, less prestigious, places. Medieval philosophy is gradually becoming respectable. First-rank presses are publishing books on medieval philosophy, and even bringing out anthologies of texts to be used in the classroom. Unfortunately, there is still much that needs to be done. For one thing, we do not yet have a book that contains the main facts about, and presents the main views on, the key figures of the period. And, indeed, this is the gap we aim to fill in part with this Companion. The idea behind it is to have, in one volume, most of the back­ground information one needs to approach medieval texts.

With this in mind, we have divided the volume into two parts, which are preceded by a brief introduction. The introduction is intended to give a general impression of the philosophical thought of the age, whereas the first part of the volume itself provides the historical background without which medieval philosophy would be difficult to understand. The seven articles comprising the latter deal with the ancient and Patristic background of the period, the ninth and tenth centuries, the School of Chartres, religious orders, scholas­ticism, and the condemnations of philosophical and theological views by ecclesiastical authorities in 1270 and 1277. The second part is composed of articles of varying length dealing with the main authors of the age and is arranged alphabetically. There are several reasons for this arrangement. First, in this way the volume complements, rather than com­petes with, already available books, for most of the recent histories and companions to medieval philosophy have been organized topically or periodically. Second, it avoids the problem of gaps and narrow perspectives. Topical organization tends to be contentious, perspectival, and controversial, whereas organization by authors is more comprehensive. Third, the use of the volume by a larger audience is enhanced, for anyone who wishes to do something on Aquinas, for example, might consult it regardless of the specificity of his or her interests. A topically arranged volume tends to be used only by those interested in the topics the volume covers. Fourth, there is a matter of depth; essays devoted to particular authors can go deeper than surveys of many authors around a topic; they can get at the heart of the thought of the authors. Finally, the present organization makes possible overall, original interpretations, something that would be more difficult under different arrangements.

The approach and content of each article has been ultimately up to the contributors. The editors have welcomed a variety of historiographical approaches so as to illustrate the current state of scholarship on medieval philosophy. All the same, we have encouraged contributors to consider a problems approach in which the articles on historical figures in particular are presented in the context of the philosophical and theological issues they were trying to address.

Since we are constrained by strict limitations of space, we have had to make choices. First, it was necessary to leave some authors out; and second, we had to choose the space devoted to each author. This was based on our view of the relative historical and philo­sophical importance of the authors in question. Four towering figures received around 10,000 words each (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham) and four others received around 8,000 words (Anselm, Averroes, Avicenna, and Maimonides). The remaining authors were allotted articles of 5,000, 3,000, or 500 words each. Obviously, many authors who got only 500, 3,000, or even 5,000 words deserve more. Indeed, even those to whom we devoted larger articles deserve much more. But to give them more space would have been impossible within the parameters imposed on the project: one physically manageable volume that could be sold at a reasonable price. We intend this volume to be of service to faculty, students, libraries, and persons among the general public with an interest in medieval philosophy. A larger volume, or a multi-volume set, would have done better justice to the authors discussed here, but it would also have had to exclude some of these prospective audiences.

We particularly regret having to leave out some authors either because of the size of the volume or because those who had agreed to compose entries for them were unable to deliver the articles in time for inclusion. Hopefully, the damage to the volume and the inconve­nience to readers will not be too great.

We have made a special effort to be cosmopolitan and inclusive insofar as the contribu­tors are concerned. Often, works of this sort are narrowly parochial in that they include contributors exclusively selected from the Anglo-American and British worlds, and some­times even from particular scholarly traditions. On the contrary, we have tried to be broad both with respect to scholars working in languages other than English, in different coun­tries, and within diverse scholarly traditions. This, we hope, will make the volume repre­sentative of contemporary scholarship in medieval philosophy overall, and more attractive to a larger community of scholars and students.

A few comments about conventions. Single quotation marks have been used only within double quotation marks or to indicate a linguistic term or expression that is being men­tioned rather than used. The names of Islamic and Jewish authors included in the volume have been given in their common Latin form, although the Arabic or Hebrew forms have been recorded. Thus, we have chosen 'Avicenna' instead of `Ibn Sina,  Alfarabi' for `al-Farabi', and so on. The bibliographies of articles on authors have been divided into primary sources and secondary sources. Under 'Primary sources' generally only works by the author are included, although there are a couple of exceptions. The choice of works has been entirely up to the authors of the articles, but we have encouraged them to include mainly recently printed or reprinted works, although in some cases in which only incun­abula or even unedited works exist, some incunabula and manuscripts have been listed. The bibliographies on secondary sources are specific to the authors and thus usually omit general works on the period or on particular topics. Such works are listed in a separate topical bibliography at the end of the volume.

Putting together a volume of this sort requires the effort of many persons. In particular, we are grateful to the authors of the articles who not only delivered them in time for inclu­sion, but adapted themselves to the parameters we had specified and often were willing to revise in accordance with our suggestions. We are also grateful to Stan Grove for doing the index, to Laura Arcilla for the translations of Mauricio Beuchot's articles, to Therese-Anne Druart for helping us with spelling and bilbliographic matters concerning Arabic materi­als, and to our respective universities for their support in the form of academic leaves and secretarial assistance. To Mary Dortch we are particularly indebted for her expert copy­editing and great patience. Gracia's introductory essay, "Philosophy in the Middle Ages," was first published in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, edited by Nicholas Bunnin and Eric Tsui-James. We appreciate their permission to reprint it here. Finally, we are most appreciative of the efforts by Steve Smith, of Blackwell Publishing, who not only came up with the idea for the volume and asked us to undertake it, but also gave us a free hand when it came to its organization and character. Without his support, the publication of the volume would have been impossible.

Chronological List

Augustine (b. 354; d. 430)

Pseudo-Dionysius (fl. ca. 500)

John Philoponus (b. ca. 490; d. ca. 570) Boethius (b. ca. 480; d. 524/5)

Isidore of Seville (b. ca. 560; d. 636) Maximus Confessor (b. 580; d. 662) Albumasar (b. 787; d. 886)

Alkindi (d. ca. 870)

John Scotus Eriugena (b. ca. 800; d. ca. 877) Isaac Israeli (b. ca. 855; d. ca. 955) Alrazi (b. ca. 865; d. ca. 925)

Alfarabi (b. ca. 870; d. ca. 950)

Saadiah (b. 882; d. 942)

Alhacen (b. 965; d. ca. 1040)

Avicenna (b. 980; d. 1037)

Peter Damian (b. 1007; d. 1072)

Avencebrol (b. 1021/2; d. 1057/8) William of Champeaux (fl. ca. 1100) Anselm of Canterbury (b. 1033; d. 1109) Algazali (b. 1058; d. 1111)

Avempace (d. 1139)

Peter Abelard (b. 1079; d. 1142)

Adelard of Bath (b. ca. 1080; d. ca. 1152) Gilbert of Poitiers (b. 1085/90; d. 1154) Bernard of Clairvaux (b. 1090; d. 1153) Peter the Venerable (b. ca. 1092; d. 1156) Peter Lombard (b. 1095/1100; d. 1160) Hugh of St. Victor (b. 1097/1101; d. 1141) Hildegard of Bingen (b. 1098; d. 1179) Peter Helias (b. ca. 1100; d. after 1166) Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173)

John of Salisbury (b. 1115/20; d. 1180) Dominicus Gundissalinus (fl. 1150-90) Averroes (b. ca. 1126; d. 1198)

Alan of Lille (d. 1203)

Moses Maimonides (b. 1138; d. 1204) William of Auxerre (b. ca. 1140; d. 1231) Philip the Chancellor (b. 1165/85; d. 1236) Robert Grosseteste (b. ca. 1168; d. 1253) Alexander of Hales (b. ca. 1185; d. 1245) William of Auvergne (b. 1180/90; d. 1249) Jean de la Rochelle (b. 1190/1200; d. 1245) Albertus Magnus (b. ca. 1200; d. 1280) William of Sherwood (b. 1200/5; d. 1266/71) Richard Fishacre (b. ca. 1205; d. 1248) Richard Rufus of Cornwall (fl. 1231-56) William Arnaud (fl. ca. 1250)

Pierre de Maricourt (fl. ca. 1267)

Peter of Spain (fl. ca. 1267)

Roger Bacon (b. 1214/20; d. ca. 1292) Robert Kilwardby (b. ca. 1215; d. 1279) Bonaventure (b. 1217; d. 1274)

Henry of Ghent (d. 1293)

Ulrich of Strassburg (b. ca. 1220; d. 1277) Thomas Aquinas (b. 1224/6; d. 1274) John Pecham (b. ca. 1230; d. 1292)

Boethius of Dacia (fl. 1270-80)

William of Ware (fl. 1290s)

James of Metz (fl. ca. 1300)

Thomas of Erfurt (fl. ca. 1300)

Martin of Dacia (d. 1304)

Peter of Auvergne (d. 1304)

John of Paris (d. 1306)

Ramon Lull (b. 1232/3; d. 1316)

Roger Marston (b. ca. 1235; d. ca. 1303) Arnaldus of Villanova (b. 1238/40; d. 1311) Siger of Brabant (b. ca. 1240; d. after 1282) Matthew of Aquasparta (b. ca. 1240; d. 1302) Giles of Rome (b. 1243/7; d. 1316)

Peter Olivi (b. ca. 1248; d. 1298)

Richard of Middleton (b. ca. 1249; d. 1302) Godfrey of Fontaines (b. before 1250; d. 1306/9) Dietrich of Freiburg (b. ca. 1250; d. ca. 1310) Thomas of Sutton (b. ca. 1250; d. ca. 1315) Hervaeus Natalis (b. 1250/60; d. 1323) James of Viterbo (b. ca. 1255; d. 1307/8) Simon of Faversham (b. ca. 1260; d. 1306) Vital du Four (b. ca. 1260; d. 1327)

Meister Eckhart (b. ca. 1260; d. 1328) Dante Alighieri (b. 1265; d. 1321)

John Duns Scotus (b. ca. 1266; d. 1308) Thomas Wilton (fl. ca. 1312)

Gonsalvo of Spain (d. ca. 1313)

Henry of Harclay (b. ca. 1270; d. 1317) Radulphus Brito (b. ca. 1270; d. 1320) Durand of St. Pourçain (b. 1270/5; d. 1334) Walter Burley (b. 1274/5; d. in or after 1344) William of Alnwick (b. ca. 1275; d. 1333) Peter Auriol (b. ca. 1280; d. 1322)

William Crathorn (fl. 1330s)

Michael of Massa (d. 1337)

Guido Terrena (d. 1342)

Marsilius of Padua (b. 1280; d. 1343)

Richard of Campsall (b. ca. 1280; d. ca. 1350) Walter Chatton (b. ca. 1285; d. 1343) John of Reading (b. ca. 1285; d. 1346) William of Ockham (b. ca. 1285; d. 1347) John of Jandun (b. 1285/9; d. 1328) Francis of Meyronnes (b. 1288; d. 1328) Gersonides (b. 1288; d. 1344)

Richard Swineshead (fl. 1340-55)

Francis of Marchia (b. ca. 1290; d. after 1344) John Baconthorpe (b. ca. 1290; d. 1345/8) John of Mirecourt (fl. ca. 1345)

Robert Holcot (b. ca. 1290; d. 1349) Thomas Bradwardine (b. ca. 1290; d. 1349) John Buridan (b. ca. 1295; d. 1361) Peter Ceffons (fl. 1348-9)

Richard Brinkley (fl. 1350-73)

Nicholas of Autrecourt (b. ca. 1300; d. after 1350) Robert of Halifax (b. ca. 1300; d. after 1350) Landulph Caracciolo (d. 1351)

Gregory of Rimini (b. ca. 1300; d. 1358) Richard Fitzralph (b. ca. 1300; d. 1360)

Berthold of Moosburg (b. ca. 1300; d. after 1361) Adam of Wodeham (d. 1358)

Richard Kilvington (b. 1302/5; d. 1361) John Dumbleton (b. ca. 1310; d. ca. 1349) Ralph Strode (fl. 1360-87)

William Heytesbury (b. before 1313; d. 1372/3) Albert of Saxony (b. ca. 1316; d. 1390) Nicole Oresme (b. ca. 1320; d. 1382) John Wyclif (b. ca. 1320; d. 1384)

Marsilius of Inghen (b. ca. 1340; d. 1396) Peter of Candia (b. ca. 1340; d. 1410) Hasdai Crescas (b. ca. 1340; d. 1410/11) Pierre d'Ailly (b. ca. 1350; d. 1420) John Gerson (b. 1363; d. 1429)

Paul of Venice (b. 1369; d. 1429)

Jerome of Prague (b. 1370/1; d. 1416)

John Capreolus (b. ca. 1380; d. 1444) Paul of Pergula (d. 1455)

Gaetano of Thiene (b. 1387; d. 1465) Heymeric of Camp (b. 1395; d. 1460) Nicholas of Cusa (b. 1401; d. 1464) Denys the Carthusian (b. 1402; d. 1472) Peter de Rivo (b. ca. 1420; d. 1500) Gabriel Biel (b. before 1425; d. 1495)

Headline 3/h3>

insert content here

WT Main | About WT | Review Links | Contact | Review Sources | Bookstore | Critical Theory Bookstore | Search