{"title":"THE WORKS OF RICHARD RUFUS OF CORNWALL: THE STATE OF THE QUESTION IN 2009","authors":"Rega Wood","doi":"10.2143/RTPM.76.1.2037160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Richard Rufus wrote the commentary on Aristotle's Physics I published in 2003 as well as two commentaries on the Metaphysics. Rufus' Aristotle commentaries date from the 1230's as is clear from his own and Roger Bacon's references. Twice in an undisputed Metaphysics commentary Rufus cites the distinctive and unchanging views about instantaneous change he stated «in Physicis» or «super librum Physicorum». Of course, some of his other opinions changed. In the course of claiming that these changes do not militate against the attribution, this article addresses the general question: What are the appropriate standards for an attribution?","PeriodicalId":41176,"journal":{"name":"Recherches de Theologie et Philosophie Medievales","volume":"103 1","pages":"1-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recherches de Theologie et Philosophie Medievales","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/RTPM.76.1.2037160","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20
Abstract
The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Richard Rufus wrote the commentary on Aristotle's Physics I published in 2003 as well as two commentaries on the Metaphysics. Rufus' Aristotle commentaries date from the 1230's as is clear from his own and Roger Bacon's references. Twice in an undisputed Metaphysics commentary Rufus cites the distinctive and unchanging views about instantaneous change he stated «in Physicis» or «super librum Physicorum». Of course, some of his other opinions changed. In the course of claiming that these changes do not militate against the attribution, this article addresses the general question: What are the appropriate standards for an attribution?
大量证据表明，理查德·鲁弗斯撰写了亚里士多德2003年出版的《物理学》的评论，以及《形而上学》的两篇评论。鲁弗斯的亚里士多德评论可以追溯到1230年代，从他自己和罗杰·培根的参考文献中可以清楚地看出这一点。在一篇无可争议的形而上学评论中，鲁弗斯两次引用了他所说的“in physics”或“super librum Physicorum”中关于瞬时变化的独特而不变的观点。当然，他的一些其他观点也改变了。在声称这些改变不会影响归因的过程中，本文解决了一个普遍的问题:什么是归因的适当标准?
期刊介绍：
The Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales / Forschungen zur Theologie und Philosophie des Mittelalters (formerly Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale of the Abbaye Mont César) provides a forum for original, high-quality research on all aspects of theology and philosophy from Augustine and the Early Middle Ages up to late scholasticism. Recent articles have included highly focused studies on particular facets of the medieval philosophical or theological tradition, broader reconsiderations of received views in the history of medieval theology and philosophy, and editions of texts and manuscript studies.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
