The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century
While Oresme and Ockham had significantly different perspectives on the ontological status of the extension (quantitas or magnitudo) of substances and accidents, as well as on local motion, evidence of the misattribution of Ockham’s views on quantitas to Oresme can be found in 21 texts from the 15th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/methodos, |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Sprache: | Anglais |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Methodos
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
openedition-oai:revues.org:methodos_11870 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
openedition |
| collection |
OpenEdition Journal |
| language |
Anglais |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/OpenEdition Journals/ |
| topic |
Guillaume d’Ockham Nicole Oresme Jean Buridan Marsile d’Inghen statut ontologique de la quantitas ou magnitudo statut ontologique du mouvement local raréfaction et condensation attribution erronée de vues ockhamistes à Oresme commentaires sur la Physique d’Aristote Université de Vienne au XVe siècle Université de Landshut au XVe siècle Johannes Stedler de Landshut Jodocus Gartner de Berching Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl Georgius Tudel de Giengen Udalricus de Tubing Martinus Hainczel Henricus Platerberger Georgius Freypüchler Georgius Eysenhuet Johannes Paereit Fridericus Sunczel Nicole Oresme William Ockham Johannes Buridanus Marsilius of Inghen ontological status of quantitas or magnitude ontological status of local motion rarefaction and condensation misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics University of Vienna in the fifteenth century University of Landshut in the fifteenth century Johannes Stedler de Landshut Jodocus Gartner de Berching Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl Georgius Tudel de Giengen Udalricus de Tubing Martinus Hainczel Henricus Platerberger Georgius Freypüchler Georgius Eysenhuet Johannes Paereit Fridericus Sunczel |
| spellingShingle |
Guillaume d’Ockham Nicole Oresme Jean Buridan Marsile d’Inghen statut ontologique de la quantitas ou magnitudo statut ontologique du mouvement local raréfaction et condensation attribution erronée de vues ockhamistes à Oresme commentaires sur la Physique d’Aristote Université de Vienne au XVe siècle Université de Landshut au XVe siècle Johannes Stedler de Landshut Jodocus Gartner de Berching Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl Georgius Tudel de Giengen Udalricus de Tubing Martinus Hainczel Henricus Platerberger Georgius Freypüchler Georgius Eysenhuet Johannes Paereit Fridericus Sunczel Nicole Oresme William Ockham Johannes Buridanus Marsilius of Inghen ontological status of quantitas or magnitude ontological status of local motion rarefaction and condensation misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics University of Vienna in the fifteenth century University of Landshut in the fifteenth century Johannes Stedler de Landshut Jodocus Gartner de Berching Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl Georgius Tudel de Giengen Udalricus de Tubing Martinus Hainczel Henricus Platerberger Georgius Freypüchler Georgius Eysenhuet Johannes Paereit Fridericus Sunczel Kirschner, Stefan The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century |
| description |
While Oresme and Ockham had significantly different perspectives on the ontological status of the extension (quantitas or magnitudo) of substances and accidents, as well as on local motion, evidence of the misattribution of Ockham’s views on quantitas to Oresme can be found in 21 texts from the 15th century produced at the University of Vienna. These include 20 commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics and Platerberger’s “Philosophicae veritatis compendium.” In these texts, Oresme is mentioned either independently or alongside Ockham.Regarding local motion, the Ockhamist view was initially attributed solely to Ockham. However, by the 1450s, this view became exclusively associated with Oresme, and eventually, the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion was attributed to both philosophers. The misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme subsequently spread from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt by the late 15th century.In terms of the personal preferences of the respective authors, Ockhamist perspectives on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo remained influential at the University of Vienna until the 1470s. During the first half of the 15th century, the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion was predominant, but from the mid-15th century onward, there appears to be a lack of clear advocates for the Ockhamist view on local motion. This trend extended to interpretations of quantitas or magnitudo by the century’s end, with Buridanist views gaining preference.Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.) undoubtedly served as a key reference for lectures on Aristotle’s Physics, influencing the sequence and titles of the Quaestiones, as well as the discourse surrounding his views, which were frequently cited, regardless of whether they were accepted. Consequently, the Ockhamist counterarguments to Buridan’s views on quantitas, magnitudo, and motus localis do not seem to stem from direct engagement with Ockham’s writings but appear to be strategic responses to Buridan’s theories. Conversely, the shift toward non-Ockhamist views in the latter half of the 15th century does not necessarily indicate that Buridan’s arguments were regarded as more persuasive than before. For instance, in texts adopting a Buridanist or non-Ockhamist position on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo, Buridan’s crucial argument for the independent existence of quantitas or magnitudo is notably absent. Instead, reliance on classical authorities such as Aristotle and Averroes was often considered sufficient to support a non-Ockhamist viewpoint. This context should also be understood against the backdrop of a general flattening of medieval disputational culture. |
| author |
Kirschner, Stefan |
| author_facet |
Kirschner, Stefan |
| author_sort |
Kirschner, Stefan |
| title |
The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century |
| title_short |
The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century |
| title_full |
The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century |
| title_fullStr |
The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century |
| title_full_unstemmed |
The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century |
| title_sort |
misattribution of ockhamist views to oresme at the university of vienna in the 15th century |
| publisher |
Methodos |
| publishDate |
2025 |
| container_title |
URI:https://journals.openedition.org/methodos |
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.4000/15c9d https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/11870 |
| _version_ |
1877291849886990336 |
| spelling |
openedition-oai:revues.org:methodos_11870 https://doi.org/10.4000/15c9d urn:doi:10.4000/15c9d en https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/11870 2025-12-12T01:00:00Z info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess article info:eu-repo/semantics/article urn:handle:20.500.13089/15c9d https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century Methodos Savoirs textes langage - UMR 8163 info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/1769-7379 info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/1626-0600 URI:https://journals.openedition.org/methodos Kirschner, Stefan Guillaume d’Ockham Nicole Oresme Jean Buridan Marsile d’Inghen statut ontologique de la quantitas ou magnitudo statut ontologique du mouvement local raréfaction et condensation attribution erronée de vues ockhamistes à Oresme commentaires sur la Physique d’Aristote Université de Vienne au XVe siècle Université de Landshut au XVe siècle Johannes Stedler de Landshut Jodocus Gartner de Berching Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl Georgius Tudel de Giengen Udalricus de Tubing Martinus Hainczel Henricus Platerberger Georgius Freypüchler Georgius Eysenhuet Johannes Paereit Fridericus Sunczel Nicole Oresme William Ockham Johannes Buridanus Marsilius of Inghen ontological status of quantitas or magnitude ontological status of local motion rarefaction and condensation misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics University of Vienna in the fifteenth century University of Landshut in the fifteenth century Johannes Stedler de Landshut Jodocus Gartner de Berching Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl Georgius Tudel de Giengen Udalricus de Tubing Martinus Hainczel Henricus Platerberger Georgius Freypüchler Georgius Eysenhuet Johannes Paereit Fridericus Sunczel While Oresme and Ockham had significantly different perspectives on the ontological status of the extension (quantitas or magnitudo) of substances and accidents, as well as on local motion, evidence of the misattribution of Ockham’s views on quantitas to Oresme can be found in 21 texts from the 15th century produced at the University of Vienna. These include 20 commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics and Platerberger’s “Philosophicae veritatis compendium.” In these texts, Oresme is mentioned either independently or alongside Ockham.Regarding local motion, the Ockhamist view was initially attributed solely to Ockham. However, by the 1450s, this view became exclusively associated with Oresme, and eventually, the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion was attributed to both philosophers. The misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme subsequently spread from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt by the late 15th century.In terms of the personal preferences of the respective authors, Ockhamist perspectives on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo remained influential at the University of Vienna until the 1470s. During the first half of the 15th century, the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion was predominant, but from the mid-15th century onward, there appears to be a lack of clear advocates for the Ockhamist view on local motion. This trend extended to interpretations of quantitas or magnitudo by the century’s end, with Buridanist views gaining preference.Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.) undoubtedly served as a key reference for lectures on Aristotle’s Physics, influencing the sequence and titles of the Quaestiones, as well as the discourse surrounding his views, which were frequently cited, regardless of whether they were accepted. Consequently, the Ockhamist counterarguments to Buridan’s views on quantitas, magnitudo, and motus localis do not seem to stem from direct engagement with Ockham’s writings but appear to be strategic responses to Buridan’s theories. Conversely, the shift toward non-Ockhamist views in the latter half of the 15th century does not necessarily indicate that Buridan’s arguments were regarded as more persuasive than before. For instance, in texts adopting a Buridanist or non-Ockhamist position on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo, Buridan’s crucial argument for the independent existence of quantitas or magnitudo is notably absent. Instead, reliance on classical authorities such as Aristotle and Averroes was often considered sufficient to support a non-Ockhamist viewpoint. This context should also be understood against the backdrop of a general flattening of medieval disputational culture. Bien qu’Oresme et Ockham aient développé des conceptions sensiblement divergentes quant au statut ontologique de l’extension (quantitas ou magnitudo) des substances et des accidents, ainsi qu’en matière de mouvement local, on trouve des témoignages d’une attribution erronée des thèses ockhamiennes relatives à la quantitas à Oresme dans vingt et un textes du XVe siècle produits à l’Université de Vienne. Il s’agit de vingt commentaires sur la Physique d’Aristote ainsi que du Philosophicae veritatis compendium de Platerberger. Dans ces textes, Oresme est mentionné soit de manière autonome, soit conjointement avec Ockham.S’agissant du mouvement local, la position ockhamiste fut d’abord exclusivement attribuée à Ockham. Toutefois, dès les années 1450, elle en vint à être exclusivement associée à Oresme, avant d’être finalement attribuée aux deux penseurs. Cette attribution erronée des thèses ockhamistes à Oresme se diffusa par la suite de Vienne à l’Université d’Ingolstadt vers la fin du XVe siècle.En ce qui concerne les préférences doctrinales des auteurs concernés, les positions ockhamistes sur le statut ontologique de la quantitas ou de la magnitudo demeurèrent influentes à l’Université de Vienne jusqu’aux années 1470. Durant la première moitié du XVe siècle, l’interprétation ockhamiste du mouvement local prédominait ; toutefois, à partir du milieu du siècle, on constate une absence notable de défenseurs explicites de cette position. Une évolution comparable s’observe, à la fin du siècle, dans les débats sur la quantitas et la magnitudo, marqués par une préférence croissante pour les positions buridanistes.Le commentaire de Buridan sur la Physique (ult. lect.) servit indubitablement de référence fondamentale pour l’enseignement de la Physique d’Aristote, influençant à la fois l’ordre et l’intitulé des Quaestiones, ainsi que les discussions portant sur ses thèses, lesquelles étaient fréquemment évoquées, qu’elles fussent adoptées ou non. Par conséquent, les contre-arguments ockhamistes formulés contre les vues de Buridan sur la quantitas, la magnitudo et le motus localis ne semblent pas résulter d’un engagement direct avec les textes d’Ockham, mais plutôt d’une réponse stratégique aux positions buridaniennes. Inversement, le recul des thèses ockhamistes dans la seconde moitié du XVe siècle ne saurait être interprété comme une reconnaissance accrue de la force des arguments buridaniens. Ainsi, dans les textes adoptant une perspective buridaniste ou non ockhamiste sur le statut ontologique de la quantitas ou de la magnitudo, on observe l’absence notable de l’argument central de Buridan en faveur de l’existence indépendante de ces entités. Ce silence doctrinal s’explique par un recours fréquent à l’autorité des classiques – Aristote et Averroès notamment – jugée suffisante pour appuyer une position non ockhamiste. Ce phénomène doit également être appréhendé dans le cadre plus large d’un affaiblissement progressif de la culture médiévale de la disputatio. |