Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- General Introduction
- 1 ALBERT THE GREAT: Questions on Book X of the Ethics
- 2 BONAVENTURE: Conscience and Synderesis
- 3 GILES OF ROME: On the Rule of Princes (selections)
- 4 PETER OF AUVERGNE: Commentary and Questions on Book III of Aristotle's Politics (selections)
- 5 HENRY OF GHENT: Is It Rational for Someone without Hope of a Future Life to Choose to Die for the Commonwealth?
- 6 GODFREY OF FONTAINES: Does a Human Being Following the Dictates of Natural Reason Have to Judge that He Ought to Love God More than Himself?
- 7 JAMES OF VITERBO: Does a Human Being Have a Greater Natural Love for God than for Himself, or Vice Versa?
- 8 GODFREY OF FONTAINES: Reply to James of Viterbo on Love of God and Self
- 9 HENRY OF GHENT: Is a Subject Bound to Obey a Statute When It Is Not Evident that It Promotes the Common Utility?
- 10 GODFREY OF FONTAINES: Are Subjects Bound to Pay a Tax When the Need for It Is Not Evident?
- 11 JAMES OF VITERBO: Is It Better to Be Ruled by the Best Man than by the Best Laws?
- 12 JOHN OF NAPLES: Should a Christian King Use Unbelievers to Defend His Kingdom?
- 13 WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: Using and Enjoying
- 14 AUGUSTINE OF ANCONA: Summa on Ecclesiastical Power (selections)
- 15 WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: Is an Errant Individual Bound to Recant at the Rebuke of a Superior?
- 16 JEAN BURIDAN: Questions on Book X of the Ethics
- 17 JOHN WYCLIF: On Civil Lordship (selections)
- Index
4 - PETER OF AUVERGNE: Commentary and Questions on Book III of Aristotle's Politics (selections)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- General Introduction
- 1 ALBERT THE GREAT: Questions on Book X of the Ethics
- 2 BONAVENTURE: Conscience and Synderesis
- 3 GILES OF ROME: On the Rule of Princes (selections)
- 4 PETER OF AUVERGNE: Commentary and Questions on Book III of Aristotle's Politics (selections)
- 5 HENRY OF GHENT: Is It Rational for Someone without Hope of a Future Life to Choose to Die for the Commonwealth?
- 6 GODFREY OF FONTAINES: Does a Human Being Following the Dictates of Natural Reason Have to Judge that He Ought to Love God More than Himself?
- 7 JAMES OF VITERBO: Does a Human Being Have a Greater Natural Love for God than for Himself, or Vice Versa?
- 8 GODFREY OF FONTAINES: Reply to James of Viterbo on Love of God and Self
- 9 HENRY OF GHENT: Is a Subject Bound to Obey a Statute When It Is Not Evident that It Promotes the Common Utility?
- 10 GODFREY OF FONTAINES: Are Subjects Bound to Pay a Tax When the Need for It Is Not Evident?
- 11 JAMES OF VITERBO: Is It Better to Be Ruled by the Best Man than by the Best Laws?
- 12 JOHN OF NAPLES: Should a Christian King Use Unbelievers to Defend His Kingdom?
- 13 WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: Using and Enjoying
- 14 AUGUSTINE OF ANCONA: Summa on Ecclesiastical Power (selections)
- 15 WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: Is an Errant Individual Bound to Recant at the Rebuke of a Superior?
- 16 JEAN BURIDAN: Questions on Book X of the Ethics
- 17 JOHN WYCLIF: On Civil Lordship (selections)
- Index
Summary
Introduction
Peter of Auvergne was regent master in the Faculty of Arts at Paris between 1272 and 1295. The connection between his appointment as Rector in 1275 and his role in the controversy with more radical Aristotelians in the faculty is unclear. Traditionally considered to be a follower of Thomas Aquinas, at least initially, he also came under the influence of Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines, finally becoming a master of theology by 1296. He was made Bishop of Claremont in 1302 and died in 1303.
Peter of Auvergne produced two commentaries on Aristotle's Politics. The first of these was a continuation of Thomas Aquinas's unfinished commentary on the work, which had broken off in the middle of Book III (at 12 80a6). Peter's completion of this text stands alongside his work on modist logic as his most significant contribution to the teaching of the Faculty of Arts at Paris. Although it cannot be dated with any greater precision than to the period in which Peter was regent master, his part of the commentary was probably composed some time in the 1270s. Far more certain is the influence it soon exerted as it became the standard exposition of William of Moerbeke's translation of Aristotle's text. The primary aim of this ‘literal’ (that is, phrase by phrase) commentary was to impose order and discipline on a difficult and often opaque original.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts , pp. 216 - 256Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2000