(PDF) Daniel A. Di Liscia

Daniel A. Di Liscia* The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart de Wesalia (A Textual Analysis) Abstract It can hardly be questioned that the history of Western philosophy is to a good extent also a history of texts. For medieval philosophy it is likewise valid, from the thirteenth century onward, that these texts are mostly connected to university teaching and, at the same time, for good or not, to the Aristotelian philosophy. This fact is easily verifiable for the major commentaries on the Aristoteles latinus and for almost each European university as well. The present contribution deals with a part of the later commentary tradition on the Metaphysics at the late medieval German universities. It focusses on a text – a quaestiones commentary on the Metaphysics – the transmission of which is extraordinarily complex. It examines two late medieval authors: John of Wesel (Johannes 1 Rucherat de Wesalia), less known for his Aristotelian commentaries than Ludwig–Maximilians-Universität München / Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. * Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, project LI 2597/1-1. I would like to express my gratitude to Edith D. Sylla for the many suggestions and correcting remarks about my English and about the content of this paper. Of course, she is not responsible for any remaining mistakes. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 57 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21747/21836892/fil35a3 Daniel A. Di Liscia for his confrontation with the Roman Church, and Nicholas of Amsterdam, whose work has received considerable attention in recent scholarship. Both philosophers were active at several German universities during the first half of the fifteenth century and commented on many Aristotelian texts, including the Metaphysics. This paper emerged from an analysis of a manuscript (Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, F VIII 7) conveying a quaestiones commentary attributed to John of Wesel. After some basic information, a more detailed comparison shows, however, that this text runs essentially identical with one of Nicholas’ versions of his own commentary. Finally, a proposal of interpreting this fact considering the university standards of the time is included. Keywords: Medieval text tradition; Medieval university teaching; Metaphysics; Buridanism. Authors: Aristotle; John of Wesel; Nicholas of Amsterdam. Las cuestiones sobre la Metafísica atribuidas a Johannes Rucherart de Wesalia (Un análisis textual) Resumen Es un hecho difícilmente cuestionable que la historia de la filosofía occidental es también, en buena medida, una historia de textos. Para la filosofía medieval es igualmente válido que, desde el siglo XIII en adelante, estos textos se relacionan sobre todo con la docencia universitaria y, al mismo tiempo, para bien o para mal, con la filosofía aristotélica. Este es un hecho fácilmente comprobable para los principales comentarios al Aristoteles latinus y, al mismo tiempo, para casi todas las universidades europeas. La presente contribución se ocupa de una parte de la tradición tardía de los comentarios a la Metafísica en las universidades alemanas de la Baja Edad Media. Se centra en un texto, un comentario en quaestiones sobre la Metafísica, cuya transmisión es extraordinariamente compleja. Examina dos autores medievales tardíos: Johannes Wesel (Johannes Rucherat de Wesalia), menos conocido por sus comentarios aristotélicos que por su confrontación con la Iglesia Romana, y Nicolás de Amsterdam, cuya obra ha recibido considerable atención en recientes estudios. Ambos filósofos fueron miembros de varias universidades alemanas durante la primera mitad del siglo XV y comentaron varios textos aristotélicos, incluyendo la Metafísica. Este artículo surge a partir del análisis de un manuscrito (Basilea, Universitätsbibliothek, F VIII 7), el cual transmite un comentario en quaestiones atribuido a Johannes Wesel. Luego de ofrecer alguna información básica, una comparación más detallada muestra, sin embargo, que este texto es esencialmente idéntico a una de las versiones del comentario de Nicolás de Amsterdam. Finalmente, 58 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart se incluye una propuesta de interpretación de este hecho considerando los standars universitarios de la época. Palabras clave: Tradición textual medieval; Docencia universitaria medieval; Metafísica; Buridanismo. Autores: Aristóteles; Johannes Wesel; Nicolás de Amsterdam. Introduction In a previous paper I discussed some aspects of Johannes Rucherat de Wesalia’s commentary on the Physics1. I offered the tabula questionum and referred to his analysis of accelerated motion in connection with the mathematisation of natural philosophy initiated in the fourteenth century by the Oxford calculatores. Continuing my research on the same author, to whom I refer indistinctly as «John of Wesalia» or «John Rucherat» or even «John Rucherat of Wesalia», I shall now focus on his questions on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. This brief textual analysis could serve, so I hope, as a useful basis for further studies on the content of the text itself as well as on the connection of this text with other, similar, texts belonging to the late medieval commentary tradition on the Aristotelian corpus. As the study of the corresponding tabulae quaestionum will show, this commentary, which according to one manuscript is to be attributed to John Rucherat, is closely connected with the commentary attributed to Nicholas of Amsterdam, especially with one of its versions. I. Biographical Background Let me start by giving a basic background about John Rucherat of Wesalia (c. 1425–1481) and his work. John Rucherat attracted historians’ attention first of all because of his criticism of the Church. He questioned the Pope’s potestas and was opposed to indulgences, two issues against which he composed treatises2. His «error in materia fidei» led to the «only Inquisition 1 Di Liscia, D. A., «Der Kommentar des Johannes Rucherat de Wesalia zur aristotelischen Physik: Seine Bedeutung und Überlieferung», Codices manuscripti et impressi, 99/100 (2015) 9–28. 2 For bibliography and general biographical details see Samoray, Reinhard, Johann von Wesel. Eine Studie zur Geistesgeschichte des ausgehenden Mittelalters. Diss., Univ. Münster 1954. and Benrath, G. A., «Rucherat, Johann, von Wesel», Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, 8 (1992) cols. 298–304. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 59 Daniel A. Di Liscia trial that was conducted against a theology professor in the fifteenth century»3. Already for nineteenth–century scholarship Rucherat was considered one of «Luther’s predecessors»4. Indeed, the impact of the trial would not have been so profound had he not already been a university professor with a considerable production on several topics of philosophy and theology. He commented on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, on logic, natural philosophy and, allegedly, on metaphysics. As background, it is important to take note of his activity at the newly founded university of Basel after 1461 and, above all, of his previous relationship with the University of Erfurt, one of the most prestigious universities at the time in the German countries. At Erfurt he was Baccalaureus (1442), Magister artium (6/1/1445), Licentiatus theologiae (c. 18/10/1456), and Doctor theologiae (15/11/1456). During 1456/57 he was Rector of the University and Vice–rector in 14575. II. The Basel Manuscript It is probable that John Rucherat could have dealt with Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the context of university teaching. Even if Samoray does not mention a commentary on this text, one, written in the form of quaestiones, seems to be conserved in a Basel manuscript – the only extant copy known of this text: B = Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, F VIII 7, ff. 1r–261v: Inc.: «Circa initium metaphysice aristotilis quaeritur primo. Utrum methaphisica sit sapientia. Pro intellectu questionis sciendum quod... » (f. 1r). Expl.: «... claram visionem beatificam nos producat qui solus princeps toti mundo presidet atque summe delectabitur sempiterne vivit et regnat super omnia eternaliter benedictus Dominus noster ihesus christus, amen» (f. 259v). 3 Kleineidam, E., Universitas Studii Erffordensis. Überblick über die Geschichte der Universität Erfurt Teil II: Spätscholastik, Humanismus und Reformation 1461–1521, Benno Verlag [Erfurter Theologische Studien, 22], Leipzig2 1992, p. 108. 4 Ulman, C., Johann Wessel, ein Vorgänger Luthers. Zur Characteristik der christlichen Kirche und Theologie in ihrem Uebergang aus dem Mittelalter in die Reformationszeit, F. Perthes, Hamburg 1834. 5 See Benrath, op. cit., pp. 302–303. 60 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart Manuscript Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, F VIII 7, (f. 1r) with the incipit of the Exertitium Metaphysice attributed to John of Wesalia. (© Basel, Universitätsbibliothek) Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 61 Daniel A. Di Liscia B was written in full pages, most likely by one and the same hand throughout. The metaphysical questions are the only text in the manuscript (ff. 135r and 260r are blank). It contains numerous marginal and interlineal remarks of a reader who has surely read the text not long after the copy was made (but who is probably not the copyist). These remarks are sometimes only the reader’s mark-up of points to note when reading or teaching; sometimes, however, they belong to the text itself (for an example of both cases, fol. 81r). The manuscript was numbered throughout by a modern hand at the superior right corner. It must be emphasised that the attribution to John of Wesalia is unequivocal. The following statement can be read inside the book cover: «In illo libro continentur Disputata sive Exercicium Magistri Johannis de Wesalia sacre theologie professoris super Libris Methaphysice Aristotelis». And again, on fol. 1r: «Liber Cartusiensis Basiliensis proveniens a confratre d. Iacobo Louber (…). Exertitium Metaphysice Wesalie…». Given that Wesalia’s commentary on Aristotle’s Physics is known as «Exertitium Physicum», these questions on the Metaphysics might also be called «Exertitium Metaphysice/ Metaphysicum» making evident its purpose and function as a textbook. The copy belonged to the Carthusian monastery at Basel6. A tabula quaestionum was included at the end of the manuscript (ff. 260v–261v), which all in all coincides with the questions in the text, although some questions present a slightly different formulation. The he only extant copy of this text, this manuscript was mentioned first by Max Burckhardt, and later included by Charles Lohr in several of his bibliographical studies7. III. John Rucherat of Wesalia and Nicholas of Amsterdam Johannes Rucherat, of course, was not the only magister teaching on this text. Lectures on Metaphysics were highly appreciated in late medieval 6 For further details regarding the material features of the manuscript see the description that Martin Steinmann offered in 1984 and his additions until 2005, available in (24.10.2019): https://aleph.unibas.ch/F/CPKSC7M4IBE4U2CJB7UJCL98UHY8N2F24X9FE7AEQMJ6AD 6FT618824?func=direct&local_base=DSV05&doc_number=000117541. 7 Burckhardt, Max, «Aus dem Umkreis der ersten Basler Universitätsbibliothek», Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 58/59 (1959), p. 173, fn. 73. Lohr, Charles H., «Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries Authors: Johannes de Kanthi – Myngodus», Traditio 27 (1971), p. 277; Lohr, Carolus Aristotelica helvetica. Catalogus codicum latinorum in bibliothecis Confederationis Helveticae asservatorum quibus versiones expositonesque operum Aristotelis continentur, Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz [Scrinium Friburgense 6], Freiburg 1994, pp. 138-39; Lohr, Charles H., Latin Aristotle Commentaries I.1 Medieval Authors A–L. Sismel, Edizioni del Galluzzo, Firenze 2013, p. 328. 62 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart university, especially in the German countries8. During his stay in Erfurt, Johannes must have come in contact with the texts of a previous colleague of the same university, Nicolaus Theoderici de Amsterdam (c. 1390–1438), a fifteenth century philosopher who has received much more attention in the past few years than Johannes Rucherat of Wesalia himself9. Nicholas of Amsterdam was active in at least three different German universities: Cologne (1407), Erfurt (1412–1414), and Rostock/Greifswald (1422). According to Pluta he must have died during the first days of the university of Rostock’s exile period at Greifswald (1437–1443)10. Nicholas wrote on logic and commented on many of Aristotle’s works, including the Metaphysics. Apparently, he gained some fame as an extraordinarily competent (subtilissimus) commentator of this text, as one of his students attested11. Unlike Wesalia’s commentary, Nicholas of Amsterdam’s commentary on the Metaphysics – also quaestiones – is conserved in several manuscripts. Pluta lists nine copies and distinguishes two redactions12. One is conveyed in the manuscript København, Kongelige Bibliotek, Cod. Ny kgl. saml. 190 4°, ff. 62ra–11vb and 124ra–166ra (=ms. N in Pinborg 1964; in this paper, however, 8 Gabriel, Astrik, «Metaphysics in the curriculum of Studies of the Mediaeval Universities». En Wilpert, P. (ed.), Die Metaphysik im Mittelalter. Ihr Ursprung und Ihre Bedeutung. Vorträge des II. internationalen Kongresses für mittelalterliche Philosophie, Köln (31. August – 6. September 1961), W. de Gruyter & Co. [Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2], Berlin 1963, pp. 92–102; see for instance p. 97 for the university of Vienna and p. 98 for the University of Leipzig. 9 See especially Włodek, Zofia, «Le commentaire de Nicolas d’Amsterdam sur le De anima d’Aristote. Introduction – Textes inédits», Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 11 (1963) 23–42; Pinborg, Jan, «Die Aristoteles–Quaestionen des magister Nicolaus von Amsterdam», Classica et mediaevalia XXV (1964) 244–261; Pluta, Olaf, «Materialism in the Philosophy of Mind. Nicholas of Amsterdam’s Quaestiones De anima», in Bakker, P. J. J. M. – Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (eds.), Mind, Cognition and Representation. The Tradition of Commentaries on Aristotle’s De anima. Ashgate Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Aldershot 2007, pp. 109–126; Dewender, Thomas, «Nicholas of Amsterdam on Infinity», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter, 15 (2012) 200–244; Bakker, Paul J. J. M., «Nicholas of Amsterdam on Accidental Being: A Study and Edition of Two Questions from his Commentary on the Metaphysics», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter, 15 (2012) 131–180; Wöhler, Hans–Ulrich, «Der operationale Konzeptualismus des Nikolaus von Amsterdam vor dem Hintergrund der Universaliendebatte», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 15 (2012) 26–36; Wöhler, Hans–Ulrich, «Nicolaus de Amsterdam Quaestiones circa libros Metaphysicae Aristotelis, Liber VII, Quaestio 12: Utrum ponenda sint aliqua universalia realia a singularibus secundum esse distincta», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 17 (2014) 221–250; and the seminal paper by Pluta, Olaf, «Nicholas of Amsterdam: Life and Works», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 16 (2013) 185–265. Pluta 2013; Bos, provides an edition of Nicholas’s Commentary on the Old Logic in: Bos, Egbert P., Nicholas of Amsterdam. Commentary on the Old Logic. Critical edition with introduction and indexes, John Benjamin’s Publishing Company, Amsterdam – Philadelphia 2016. 10 Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 191. 11 Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 190. 12 Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 233. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 63 Daniel A. Di Liscia Ka), and further manuscripts from Berlin, Greifswald (2 copies), Wolfenbüttel, and Zeitz. This redaction is attributed to Nicholas in several manuscripts. In addition, one of the Greifswald manuscripts gives us 1429 as a terminus ante quem13. I shall call this redaction Nic1. Another redaction («different redaction», according to Pluta) is conveyed in the manuscripts München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 28395, ff. 1ra–103ra (= M2) and St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 840 ff. 1r–205r (S)14. I shall refer to this different redaction as Nic2. Both, ‘Nic1’ and ‘Nic2’ are only identifying labels without carrying any importance or (even less) the sequences of composition. IV. The tabula quaestionum of Johannes Rucherart’s Exertitium Metaphysice A comparison of the tabulae quaestionum will help to clarify the relationship between the commentary on the Metaphysics of Johannes of Wesalia and that of Nicholas of Amsterdam. As I will show, they are similar but not identical. Of course, connections to further commentaries belonging to the same teaching context cannot be excluded. The table for comparison has five columns. From left to right, the first one includes the questions book by book of all redactions or versions. They are, so to say, «abstract», since no single redaction contains all these questions at once15. Without carrying any importance or (even less) the sequences of composition, I used ‘Nic1’ to name the redaction that has been studied by most scholars and that is conveyed – apparently – in a larger number of manuscripts)16, and ‘Nic2’ to name the «different redaction»17 conveyed in three manuscripts. Nic1 appears on the second and Nic2 on the third column. The fourth and fifth columns are reserved for manuscript B, offering first the occurrence of a question within the text of the manuscript and, finally, its occurrence in list added at the end (260v–261v: tabula questionum). At the end of each book I added some remarks about the differences or similarities of all these redactions. 13 Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 234. 14 Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 243–250. 15 I have checked all details I offered about Nic1 using the manuscript Ka de visu. For Nic2 and B and could make use of manuscripts M2 and B. For this latter manuscript, however, I worked mostly on scans provided by the university library, where I could initiate my survey on the manuscript in October 2014. I am grateful to Renate Würsch and other collaborators of the library for their help. For S, the additional manuscript of Nic2, I used a microfilm. 16 Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 233. 17 Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 243. 64 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart For the sake of clarity, I avoided repetitions (queritur, utrum, sit… et.) and considered some of the different formulations that, in my opinion (and because of the limited scope of the paper), were more significant. I did not mark off many cases of trivial divergence, like for instance «Utrum accidentia debeant diffiniri per sua subiecta» (in Nic2=B) and «Utrum accidentia debeant definiri per sum subiectum» (Nic1). I attempted to pay more attention to details that could be useful considering the current state of research.1819 Quaestio Nic1 Nic2 B B List Text Liber I Utrum methaphisica sit sapientia. I.1 I.1 I.1, 1r–4v I.1 Utrum methaphisica sit dignissima scientiarum aut I.2 I.2 I.2, 4v–8v I.2 noticiarum. Utrum methaphisica sit prima philosophia. I.3 I.3 I.3, 8v–10v I.3 Utrum omnes homines natura scire desiderent. I.4 I.4 I.4, 11r–13v I.4 Utrum sensus visus preceteris (inter ceteros: Nic1, Nic2) sit I.5 I.5 I.5, 13v–16r I.5 magis diligendus. Utrum actus et generationes sint circa singularia. I.6 I.6 I.6, 16r–18v I.6 Utrum expertus non artifex certius operetur artifice non I.7 I.7 I.7, 18v–21v I.7 experto. Utrum scientie priorum et ex paucioribus sunt certior quam 1.8, 21v–23v 1.8 ex additione dictis. Remarks: Nic1=Nic2=B for qq. 1–7 (and same sequence). B adds a q. 8 at the end. Liber II Utrum comprehensio veritatis certa et evidens sit possibilis. II.1 II.1 II.1, 24r–29r II.1 Utrum comprehensio veritatis sic quidem sit facilis sic quidem II.2 II.2 II.2, 29v–31v II.2 difficilis. Utrum prima causa sit a nobis cognoscibilis. II.3 II.3 II.3, 32r–35v II.3 Utrum deum esse per solum metaphisicum sit demonstrabile. II.4 II.4 II.4, 36r–38v II.4 Utrum prima principia sint nobis naturaliter nobis cognita. II.5 II.5 II.5, 39r–42r II.518 Utrum in causis processus in infinitum sit possibilis. II.6, 42r–46v Remarks: Nic1=Nic2=B for qq. 1–5 (and same sequence). B adds a q. 6 at the end. Liber III Utrum unius scientie sit omnia genera causarum considerare. III.119 III.1 III.1, 47r–49v III.1 18 The word «causa» was written and deleted before «principia». 19 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum ad unam scientiam pertineat consideratio omnium causarum. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 65 Daniel A. Di Liscia Utrum res magis sciatur per causam formalem quam finalem. III.2 III.2 III.2, 50r–51v III.2 Utrum de primis principiis demonstrationis similiter de III.4 III.3 III.320, 52r–54v III.3 substantia et accidentibus possit esse una scientia. Utrum differentia faciat rem magis scire quam genus. III.3 Utrum universalia sint principia essendi singularium. III.5 Remarks: Nic2=B for qq. 1–3 (and same sequence). Nic1¹ Nic2=B by (a) adding 2 qq. (3 and 5); (b) sequence of the qq. 3 « 4 is altered. Liber IV Utrum omnium rerum considerativa sit una scientia. IV.3 IV.2 IV.1, 54v–57r IV.1 Utrum omnes habitus intellectuales et actus intelligendi sint IV.1 eiusdem speciei specialissime. Queritur unde scientie demonstrative capiant unitatem ex IV.2 IV.1 IV.2 57v–60r IV.2 parte principiorum vel ex parte conclusionum21 Utrum ens sit subiectum methaphisice. IV.4 IV.3 IV.3, 60v–63r IV.3 Utrum univocum sit ad substantiam et accidentes. IV.522 IV.4 IV.4, 63v–67v IV.4 Utrum negationes sint entia. IV.8 IV.7 IV.5, 67v–72r IV.5 Utrum ens et unum convertantur. IV.6 IV.5 IV.6, 72v–76r IV.6 Utrum in eadem re esse et essentia realiter differant. IV.7 IV.6 IV.7, 76v–80v IV.7 Utrum contradictio sit maxima oppositio. IV.9 IV.8 IV.8, 81r–83v IV.8 Utrum circa primum principium contingat errare. IV.1023 IV.9 IV.9, 84r–87v IV.9 Utrum hec propositio «idem simul inesse et non innese eidem IV.1124 IV.10 IV.10, 88r–90v IV.10 et secundum idem» impossibile sit principium. Utrum non–ens possit intelligi. IV.12 Utrum qui non–unum intelligit nichil intelligat. IV.11 IV.11, 91r–96r IV.11 Utrum duo ad invicem contradictoria esse simul vera sit IV.13 IV.12 IV.12, 96v–102r IV.12 possibile. Remarks: Nic1=Nic2=B for 12 qq., but in different sequence. Qq. 1, and 12 of Nic1 are not contained in Nic2 and B. Qq. 1,2, (inverted), and 11 of Nic2 and B are not contained in Nic1. 1 20 The formulation in Nic2 and in B runs: Utrum de primis principiis demonstrationis omnium scientiarum sit una scientia. 21 In think that in this question the beginning should be «unde» (as in B), not «utrum», like in Nic1 and Nic2 according to Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 245. The question is about «whence» the demonstrative sciences take their unity, not whether they take unity from somewhere. 22 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum ens univoce significet substantiam et accidens. Ed. Bakker, Paul J. J. M., «Nicholas of Amsterdam on Accidental Being…», art. cit., pp. 165-72. 23 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum possibile sit aliquem errare circa primum principium. 24 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum hec propositio «idem eidem simul inesse et non inesse» apponendo alias condiciones ad contradictionem requisitas sit primum principium. 66 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart Liber V Utrum distinctio nominum multiplicium pertineat ad V.1 V.1 V.1,103v–104v V.1 methaphisicum. Utrum quatuor sint genera causarum. V.2 V.2 V.2, 104v–108r V.2 Utrum Policletus sit causa per accidens et statue factor per se V.725 V.3 V.3, 108r–110v V.3 statue, sumpto quod Policletus sit statue factor. Utrum diffinitio elementi sit bona qua dicitur elementum V.3 V.4 V.4, 110v–112v V.4 est «ex quo componitur aliquid primo inexistente indivisibili specie in aliam speciem». Utrum bene dividatur in unum, numero, specie, genera et V.826 V.5 V.5, 113r–115v V.5 analogia. Utrum ens bene dividatur in ens secundum se et ens secundum V.6 V.6, 115v–118r V.6 accidens. Utrum entium modorum ad aliquid relativa sint de per se in V.7 V.7, 118v–121v V.7 predicamento relationis. Utrum deum esse causam Sortis sit Deus, supposito quod V.8 V.8, 121v–124v V.8 Deus causet vel conservet Sortem. Utrum convenientie et diversitates rerum sint res vel V.9 V.9, 124v–128v V.9 dispositiones addite rebus convenientibus et diversis. Utrum causalitates et effectualitates sint dispositiones V.10 V.10, 129r–131r V.10 supperaddite causis et causatis. Utrum relatio sit ens extra animam distinctum a suo V.4 V.11 V.11, 131v–134v V.11 fundamento. Utrum definitio continui sit bene data qua dicitur «continuum V.5 est cuius motus secundum se est unus et indivisibilis et impossibile est aliter esse». Utrum accidens cum subiecto faciat unum. V.6 Utrum inter duo extrema poterit esse una relatio numero. V.9 Remarks: Nic1=Nic2=B for 6 qq., but in different sequence. Nic2=B for 11qq, = sequence. Nic1 add qq. 5, 6 and 9, not contained in Nic2 and B. The qq. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Nic2 and B are not contained in Nic1. Liber VI27 Utrum solius metaphysice sit considerare quid est. VI.828 VI.1 VI.1, 135v–136v VI.1 Utrum philosophia theorica bene dividatur in physicam, VI.729 VI.2 VI.2, 137r–139v VI.2 1 mathematicam et metaphysicam. 25 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum statue factor sit per se causa statue et Policletus sit causa per accidens ponendo quod Policletus sit statue factor. 26 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum unum bene dividatur in unum genere, unum specie, unum numero et unum analogia. 27 Attention should be given to the fact that Nic1 includes as first question the same title as in B, book VIII.5: Utrum celum habeat materiam. 28 The formulation in Nic1 is strongly divergent: Utrum sola metaphysica sit rerum quidditatum considerativa. 29 The formulation in Nic1 is strongly divergent: Utrum tantum tres sint scientie speculative, scilicet metaphysica, mathematica et physica sive naturalis philosophia. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 67 Daniel A. Di Liscia Utrum de ente per accidens sit scientia. VI.530 VI.3 VI.3, 140r–141r VI.3 Utrum omne futurum de necessitate eveniat. VI.9 VI.4 VI.4, 141v–144v VI.4 Utrum verum et falsum sint circa compositionem et VI.2 31 VI.5 VI.5, 141v–146v VI.5 divisionem in mente. Utrum ad veritatem afirmative requiratur compositio in re VI.332 VI.6 VI.6, 147r–149v VI.6 significata vel rebus significatis et ad ad veritatem negative divisio in re significata vel rebus significatis requiratur. Utrum ex eo quod res est vel (post vel: vel scr. et del. B) non VI.7 VI.7, 149v–152r VI.7 est propositio sit vera vel falsa. Utrum verum et ens per accidens a consideratione metaphisice. VI.8 VI.8, 152v–154r sint pretermittenda. Utrum una propositio possit dicere verior alia. VI.4 Utrum ens per accidens habeat causam per se et determinatam. VI.6 Remarks: Nic2=B throughout. Nic1 shows strong divergences: (a) 2 qq. (7 and 8) of Nic2=B are not contained; (b) 2 qq. (4 and 6) are added; (c) different formulation of many questions; (d) q.1 in Nic1 is contained in Nic2=B as q. VIII.5. Liber VII33 Utrum substantia sit prior accidente ratione notitia et tempore. VII.134 VII.1 VII.1, VII.1 154v–156v Utrum forma sit prior et magis ens materia et composito. VII.235 VII.2 VII.2, VII.2 156v–158v Utrum in dictis secundum accidens sit idem «ipsum» et «esse VII.336 VII.3 VII.3, VII.3 ipsum» sicut in dictis secundum se. 159r–161v Utrum accidentis aliqua sit diffinitio. VII.4 VII.4 VII.4, 162r–165r VII.4 Utrum accidentia debeant diffiniri per sua subiecta. VII.5 VII.5 VII.5, VII.5 165v–167v Utrum in generatione <forme: add. B List> substantiali VII.6 VII.6 VII.6, VII.6 1 forma vel totum compositum generetur sive fiat. materia, 167v–169v Utrum propter generationem substantiarum sensibilium VII.8 VII.7 VII.7, VII.7 neccese sit ponere substantias separatas. 169v–171v 30 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum de ente per accidens possit esse scientia. 31 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum verum et falsum sint circa compositionem et divisionem in anima. 32 If this question corresponds to a question in Nic1, then to this: Utrum ad veritatem propositionis affirmative requiratur et sufficiat ita esse in re sicut per ipsam significatur. 33 Nic1 adds a question (VII.11): utrum genera et species et differentiae significent formam vel totum compositum which seems to correspond to VIII.1 in Nic2=B. 34 Slightly different formulation in Nic1: Utrum substantia sit prior accidente definitione, notitia et tempore. 35 Ed. Bakker, Paul J. J. M., «Nicholas of Amsterdam on Accidental Being…», art. cit., pp. 173-180. 36 In Nic1 the formulation is lacking the important addition «sicut in dictis secundum se». 68 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart Utrum omne quod fit, fiat a sibi simili. VII.7 VII.8 VII.8, VII.8 171v–172v Utrum in diffinitione totius debeant poni partes. VII.937 VII.9 VII.9, 173r–175r VII.9 Utrum in substantiis materialibus forma sit tota quidditas. VII.10 VII.10 VII.10, VII.10 175v–177v Utrum universalia realia sint ponenda. VII.1238 VII.11 VII.11, VII.11 177v–180v Utrum singularia sint diffinibilia. VII.1439 VII.12 VII.12, VII.12 181r–183v Utrum in simplicibus sit questio quid est. VII.16 VII.13 V I I . 1 3 , VII.13 183v–185r Utrum species contrahantur ad individua per differentias VII.13 essentiales. Utrum de re non sensata possit haberi conceptus singularis. VII.15 Remarks: Nic2=B throughout. Nic1 adds 2 qq. at the end (13 and 15) and presents some different formulations. Q. 11 corresponds to q. VIII.1 in Nic2=B. Liber VIII Utrum genera et species differentie significent compositum vel VII.11 VIII.1 VIII.1, VIII.1 formam. 185v–187v Utrum entium universi perfectio specifica sit more numerorum VIII.140 VIII.2 VIII.2, VIII.2 ymaginanda. 187v–192v Utrum secundum pluralitatem predicatorum perfectionalium VIII.2 VIII.3 VIII.3, VIII.3 rebus maior perfectio sit attribuenda. 193r–196r Utrum forma alterius speciei cum composito eiusdem sit VIII.341 VIII.4 VIII.4, VIII.4 perfectionis cum eo. 196r–197v Utrum celum habeat materiam. VI.1 VIII.5 VIII.5, VIII.5 198r–200v Utrum accidens sit compositum ex realiter differentibus VIII.4 1 Remarks: Nic2=B throughout. Nic1 adds a q. (4) at the end. Nic1 seems to be a more chaotic redaction: (a) it includes 2 qq. (VII.11 and VI.1) that are apparently out of place, and (b) the added question is as well thematically connected (it seems to belong to book VII). Liber IX Utrum idem agere possit in se ipsum. IX.142 IX.1 IX.1, 201r–203r IX.1 Utrum actus et potentia sint diverse et opposite res. IX.243 IX.2 IX.2, 203v–206v IX.2 37 The formulation in Nic1 contains «partes materiales». 38 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum sint ponenda aliqua universalia realia a singularibus secundum esse distincta. Ed. Wöhler, “Nicolaus de Amsterdam Quaestiones…», art. cit., pp. 225-231. 39 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum termini singulares sint definibiles. 40 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum rerum ordinis universi perfectio specifica sit more numerorum imaginanda. 41 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum forma sit eiusdem speciei cum composito. 42 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum idem agat in se ipsum et patiatur a se ipso. 43 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum actus et potentia opponantur. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 69 Daniel A. Di Liscia Utrum differentia per Philosophum assignata inter potentias IX.4 IX.3 IX.3, 206v–209v IX.3 rationales et irrationales sit bene data. Utrum actus sit prior potentia ratione substantia et tempore IX.644 IX.4 IX.4, 210r–213v IX.4 Utrum potentia irrationalis sit causa oppositorum IX.3 Utrum actus sit prior potentia IX.5 Utrum esse intelligibile competat rei secundum quod est in IX.7 actu. Remarks: Nic2=B throughout. Nic1 adds 3 qq. (3, 5, 7). The sequence is in comparison to Nic2=B strongly altered. Liber X Utrum omne mensurabile mensuretur uno. X.1 X.1 X.1, 214r–216r X.1 Utrum diffinitio contrarietis sit bene data qua dicitur in hoc X.245 X.2 X.2, 216r–217v X.2 decimo contrarietas est perfecta differentia maxima. Utrum contingat plura uni esse contraria. X.346 X.3 X.3, 218r–219r Utrum prima contrarietas sit habitus et privatio. X.4 X.4 X.4, 219r–221r X.3 Utrum omnia media contrariorum componantur ex contrariis. X.547 X.5 X.5, 221r–223r X.4 Utrum corruptibile et incorruptibile sint diversa genera. X.6 X.6 X.6, 223r–225v X.5 Remarks: Nic2=B throughout. Nic1 presents some different formulations. Liber XII Utrum diversitas effectuum proveniat ex diversitate XII.1 XII.1 XII.1, 226r–228r XII.1 materiarum et efficientium. Utrum eadem sint principia et elementa substantiarum et XII.2 XII.2 XII.2, XII.2 accidentium. 228v–231r Utrum primus motor sit actus vel potentia. XII.3 XII.3 XII.3, 231r–233r XII.3 Utrum una intelligentia vel mobile moveat tanquam causa XII.5 XII.4 XII.4, 233r–236r XII.4 efficiens et finalis. Utrum intentio Aristotelis suique Commentatoris fuit quod XII.6 XII.5 XII.5, 236r–240r XII.5 primus motor moveat primum mobile efficienter et non solum in genere causa finalis. Utrum celum secundum substantiam eius dependeat a primo XII.7 XII.6 XII.6, XII.6 motore tanquam a causa efficiente. 240r–242v Utrum Deus sit delectatio et vita. XII.8 XII.7 XII.7, 243r–244r XII.7 Utrum primus motor sive Deus sit omnino simplex. XII.4 XII.8 XII.8, XII.8 1 244v–247r Utrum tot sunt intelligentie quot sunt motus corporum XII.948 XII.9 XII.9, XII.9 celestium. 247r–250v 44 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum actus sit prior potentia tempore et ubstantia, id est perfectione. 45 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum definitio contrarioum sit bene posita qua dicitur «contrarietas est eorum quae sunt sub eodem genere maxima differentia vel perfeta differentia». 46 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum tantum unum uni sit contrarium. 47 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum omnia media componantur realiter ex extremis contrariis. 48 Formulation in Nic1: Utrum numerus intelligentiarum sit adaequatus numero motuum caelestium. 70 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart Utrum ad salvandum apparentiam in motibus celestium X.10 XII.10, XII.10 corporum sint ponendi orbes eccentrici et episcirculi sperici.49 251r–253r Utrum secundum ordinem orbium celestium in situ XII.10 XII.11 XII.11, XII.11 sumendum sit ordo ipsorum suorumque astrorum et 253v–255r intelligentiarum eis appropriatarum in perfectione. Utrum Deus intelligat se et alia a se. XII.11 XII.12 XII.12, XII.12 255v–257v Utrum in universo sit tantum unum princeps. XII.13 XII.13 XII.13, XII.13 258r–259v Utrum in lumine naturali notum sit Deum esse XII.12 Remarks: Nic2=B throughout. Nic1 shows a high degree of coincidence with Nic2=B. It differs by (a) changing the sequence of some questions (4 « 8), (b) by lacking q. 10 of Nic2=B, and (c) by adding a last q. 12 that is not contained in Nic2=B. V. Concluding Remarks It is still too an early state of research on these texts to draw any definitive conclusion. More texts must be compared, more critical editions of at least some selected questions of both redactions must be prepared, and the different sources and contexts must be explored still more precisely. Nevertheless, some provisional remarks and some – perhaps not extremely cautious – questions could be of use for future research. 1) It is evident that there is a close connection between the text conveyed in the Basel manuscript B and the redaction Nic2, attributed to Nicholas of Amsterdam. It is true that B adds a question II.6, and there are some changes of order in the respective sequences, but all in all the similarities are striking. In the context of my research project on the tradition of De perfectione specierum, (including an edition of the fundamental text by Jacobus de Napoli50), I have prepared a critical edition of the question Utrum entium universi perfectio specifica sit more numerorum ymaginanda (VIII.1 in Nic1, and VIII.2 in Nic2 and B) and can confirm that the texts of M2, S and B are the same (besides, of course, the critical variants). The text conveyed in Nic1 runs, of course, parallel in many passages, but it represents, in fact, another redaction. 2) 1 How should the relationship between Nic2 and B be established? We cannot ignore the fact that B states an unambiguous attribution to John of Wesalia. Cases of wrong attributions are not rare in the medieval text tradition; 49 I read «episcirculi» in B. Nic2 contains «epiciculi» in M2 and «epiculi» in S (Pluta, «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit., p. 249). 50 DFG, Project N° LI 2648/2–1, see also Di Liscia, D., «Perfections and Latitudes. ...», forthcoming. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 71 Daniel A. Di Liscia this case could also be one. The attribution statement is probably a later addition, but this fact does not immediately mean that it is wrong (and thus it is understandable that the text was included in Lohr’s list under the name of John of Wesalia). There is one more fact to be mentioned in this context: none of the two further manuscripts that conveys Nic2 includes any trustworthy attribution. Modern catalogues have indeed attributed this text to Nicholas of Amsterdam, but, as a matter of fact, neither M2 nor S include any attribution51. 3) Thus, taken only Nic2 and B into consideration, one could, with good reasons, assert that there is no such Nic2 redaction. Instead, one could affirm that this is, simply, the quaestiones commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics (also called Exertitium Metaphysicum/Metaphysice) written by master Johannes Rucherat of Wesalia, of which we knew before only one manuscript (B) and we now know of two more (M2 and S, i.e. Nic2). 4) The previous conclusion is, however, unacceptable. For, as Pluta has already shown Nic2 runs in general parallel to Nic1 and the attribution of Nic1 to Nicholas of Amsterdam is – for many reasons that I cannot describe here – out of discussion52. Yet, I am not trying to say that this redaction is the first, not even the better one (in fact, I find that the order of the questions and the formulation in Nic1 is by no means superior to those of Nic2). 5) Thus, looking at the table of comparison, we find two «extreme» possibilities: a) Nic1 and B with assumable attributions respectively to Nicholas of Amsterdam and John of Wesalia. b) Somewhere in the midst of both is Nic2, without any attribution. The easiest way to solve this puzzle of questions, redactions, formulations, sequences, and attributions is simply to target the weakest member: manuscript B was wrongly attributed to John Rucherat. The added question in B is only an added question, as it is not unusual for scholastics commentaries. Consequently, Nic2 is not made of two manuscripts of Wesalia’s commentary; rather,1 B is a not particularly good copy of Nic2 including this one attribution. This could be the case. It is even likely that this is the right solution. After all, neither Nic2 nor B convey questions to book XI and we know that this book 51 M2 comes from Erfurt (end of the fifteenth century). The manuscript itself does not contain any mention to Nicholas of Amsterdam. The attribution was included in the catalogue following Pinborg («Die Aristoteles–Quaestionen…», art. cit.) and Lohr («Medieval Latin … Narcissus – Richardus», art. cit.). See Glauche, Günter, Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Clm 28255 – 28460, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1984, p. 83). The same happens with S, in which the catalogue’s attribution can neither be verified (see https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/description/csg/0840/Lohr). 52 Pluta «Nicholas of Amsterdam…», art. cit. 72 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart was not commented in Rostock, where Nic1 should have emerged53. Nevertheless, to end these concluding remarks with a general question that I shall let open to further investigations, I would like to ask whether we have here a more complex constellation than our usual characterization by «texts», «author X», «incipit/desinit», and tabula questionum is able to grasp. A good part of the fifteenth–century Aristotelian «text tradition» is built upon texts that were fundamentally composed two or three generations before. Nicholas and Johannes’ time is a time of «questiones accurtate» and abbreviations for students. The questions in Nic1 are clearly attributed to the master Nicholas of Amsterdam, but perhaps there was a more complex text dynamic at work at fifteenth–century universities. Johannes of Wesalia, the something younger Erfurt scholar, could have known and used Nicholas’ text to compose his own commentary that, perhaps, in itself and by its own purpose was not thought to be that different. References Bakker, Paul J. J. M., «Nicholas of Amsterdam on Accidental Being: A Study and Edition of Two Questions from his Commentary on the Metaphysics», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter, 15 (2012) 131–180. Benrath, Gustav A., «Rucherat, Johann, von Wesel», Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, 8 (1992) cols. 298–304. Bos, Egbert P., Nicholas of Amsterdam. Commentary on the Old Logic. Critical edition with introduction and indexes, John Benjamin’s Publishing Company, Amsterdam – Philadelphia 2016. Burckhardt, Max, «Aus dem Umkreis der ersten Basler Universitätsbibliothek», Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 58/59 (1959)155–91. Dewender, Thomas, «Nicholas of Amsterdam on Infinity», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch 1 für Antike und Mittelalter, 15 (2012) 200–244. Di Liscia, Daniel A., «Der Kommentar des Johannes Rucherat de Wesalia zur aristotelischen Physik: Seine Bedeutung und Überlieferung», Codices manuscripti et impressi, 99/100 (2015) 9–28. Di Liscia, Daniel A., «Perfections and Latitudes. The Development of the Calculators’ Tradition and the Geometrisation of Metaphysics and Theology», in Di Liscia, Daniel A. – Sylla, Edith D. (eds.), Quantifying Aristotle. The Impact, Spread and Decline of the Calculatores Tradition, Brill, Leiden–Boston e.a., forthcoming. 53 Pluta 2013: 242. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 73 Daniel A. Di Liscia Gabriel, Astrik, «Metaphysics in the curriculum of Studies of the Mediaeval Universities». En Wilpert, P. (ed.), Die Metaphysik im Mittelalter. Ihr Ursprung und Ihre Bedeutung. Vorträge des II. internationalen Kongresses für mittelalterliche Philosophie, Köln (31. August – 6. September 1961), W. de Gruyter & Co. [Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2], Berlin 1963, pp. 92–102. Glauche, Günter, Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Clm 28255 – 28460, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1984. Kleineidam, Erich, Universitas Studii Erffordensis. Überblick über die Geschichte der Universität Erfurt Teil II: Spätscholastik, Humanismus und Reformation 1461–1521, Benno Verlag [Erfurter Theologische Studien, 22], Leipzig2 1992. Lohr, Charles H., «Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries Authors: Johannes de Kanthi – Myngodus», Traditio 27 (1971) 276–77. Lohr, Charles, H., «Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors: Narcissus – Richardus», Traditio 28 (1972) 281–396. Lohr, Carolus Aristotelica helvetica. Catalogus codicum latinorum in bibliothecis Confederationis Helveticae asservatorum quibus versiones expositonesque operum Aristotelis continentur, Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz [Scrinium Friburgense 6], Freiburg 1994. Lohr, Charles H., Latin Aristotle Commentaries, I.2: Medieval Authors M–Z. Unione Accademica Nazionale [Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Subsidia, XVIII], Firenze 2010. Lohr, Charles H., Latin Aristotle Commentaries I.1 Medieval Authors A–L. Sismel. Edizioni del Galluzzo, Firenze 2013. Pinborg, Jan, «Die Aristoteles–Quaestionen des magister Nicolaus von Amsterdam», Classica et mediaevalia XXV (1964) 244–261. Pluta, Olaf, «Materialism in the Philosophy of Mind. Nicholas of Amsterdam’s Quaestiones De anima», in Bakker, P. J. J. M. – Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (eds.), Mind, Cognition and Representation. The Tradition of Commentaries on Aristotle’s De anima. Ashgate Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Aldershot 2007, pp. 109–126. Pluta, Olaf, «Nicholas of Amsterdam: Life and Works», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 16 (2013) 185–265. Samoray, Reinhard, Johann von Wesel. Eine Studie zur Geistesgeschichte des ausgehenden Mittelalters. Diss., Univ. Münster 1954. Steinmann, Martin (1984/ 2005). Description of the manuscript Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, F VIII 7, available in (24.10.2019): https://aleph.unibas.ch/F/CPKSC7M4IBE4U 2CJB7UJCL98UHY8N2F24X9FE7AEQMJ6AD6FT6-18824?func=direct&local_ base=DSV05&doc_number=000117541. Ulman, C., Johann Wessel, ein Vorgänger Luthers. Zur Characteristik der christlichen Kirche und Theologie in ihrem Uebergang aus dem Mittelalter in die Reformationszeit, F. Perthes, Hamburg 1834. 74 Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 The Questions on the Metaphysics attributed to Johannes Rucherart Włodek, Zofia, «Le commentaire de Nicolas d’Amsterdam sur le De anima d’Aristote. Introduction – Textes inédits», Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 11 (1963) 23–42. Wöhler, Hans–Ulrich, «Der operationale Konzeptualismus des Nikolaus von Amsterdam vor dem Hintergrund der Universaliendebatte», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 15 (2012) 26–36. Wöhler, Hans–Ulrich, «Nicolaus de Amsterdam Quaestiones circa libros Metaphysicae Aristotelis, Liber VII, Quaestio 12: Utrum ponenda sint aliqua universalia realia a singularibus secundum esse distincta», Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 17 (2014) 221–250. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 35-36 (2018-2019) 57-75 75