The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century

doi:10.4000/15c9d

HOME
ABOUT
- RESULTS
- differences
- BENEFITS
- HISTORY
- TEAM
- LOCATION
- FACILITIES
- BANKING
- MEMBERSHIPS
- APPROVALS
- LICENCES
- SUPPLIERS
- SPONSORSHIPS
- MEDIA
- PRIVACY
AUCTIONS
SHIPPING
FEES
- TS REWARDS
TOOLS
guides
FAQ
CONTACT
- CONNECT

VEHICLES
BRAND
- JAPANESE CARS
  - DAIHATSU
  - EUNOS
  - FORD
  - HONDA
  - ISUZU
  - LEXUS
  - MAZDA
  - MITSUBISHI
  - MITSUOKA
  - NISSAN
  - SUBARU
  - SUZUKI
  - TOYOTA
- GERMAN CARS
- AMERICAN CARS
- BRITISH CARS
- ITALIAN CARS
- FRENCH CARS
- SWEDISH CARS
- KOREAN CARS
TYPE
- mobility
- VENDING
- instruction
- TAXIS
- AMBULANCES
- FIRE ENGINES
- HEARSES
- LIMOUSINES
- COMMERCIAL
CLASS
FUEL
TRUCKS
minitrucks
- DAIHATSU
- HONDA
- MAZDA
- MITSUBISHI
- NISSAN
- SUBARU
- SUZUKI
- DUMP
- CRANE
- CAMPER
- REFRIGERATED
- 4WD
- NEW
BUSES
MOTORHOMES
- YAHOO!
- RAKUTEN
- DEALER

PARTS
- FREE REPORT
- PARTS CONTAINERS
- PARTS SYSTEMS
- PARTS PROTECTION
- BODY SHELLS
- DISMANTLING
- ONLINE PARTS
- NEW PARTS
- INTERIOR PARTS
- EXTERIOR PARTS
  - BONNETS
  - BUMPERS
  - GRILLES
  - FENDERS
  - DOORS
  - TRUNKS
  - SPOILERS
  - LIGHTS
  - EMBLEMS
  - CAMERAS
- ENGINES
- TRANSMISSIONS
- WHEELS & TYRES
  - WHEELS
  - TYRES
CUTS
PERFORMANCE PARTS
TRUCK PARTS
MOTORBIKE PARTS
- MOTORBIKE ENGINES
- MOTORBIKE ACCESSORIES

MOTORBIKES
MARINE
FORKLIFTS
MACHINERY
AGRICULTURAL
OTHER
COUNTRY
- AUSTRALIA
- CANADA
- KENYA
- MYANMAR
- NEW ZEALAND
- PAKISTAN
- TANZANIA
- UNITED STATES

CARVIEW

MOTORHOMES

Select Language

HTTP/2 200 content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 x-delivered-content: full vary: Accept-Encoding accept-ranges: bytes content-encoding: gzip age: 113494 strict-transport-security: max-age=0 content-length: 161244 The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century

Navigation – Plan du site

Methodos

Savoirs et textes

Accueil Numéros 25 DossierThe Misattribution of Ockhamist V...

Sommaire - Document précédent - Document suivant

25 | 2025
Les mathématiques médiévales dans le monde latin

Dossier

The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century

L’attribution erronée de vues ockhamistes à Oresme à l’Université de Vienne au XVe siècle

Stefan Kirschner

https://doi.org/10.4000/15c9d

Résumés

English Français

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 15^th 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.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Mots-clés :

Nicole Oresme, Guillaume d’Ockham, 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

Keywords:

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

Haut de page

Plan

1. Introduction

2. The Different Views on the Ontological Status of Extension (quantitas or magnitudo) and the Process of Rarefaction according to Oresme, Ockham, Buridan, and Marsilius of Inghen

3. The different views on the ontological status of local motion (motus localis) according to Oresme, Ockham, and Buridan

4. Vienna Commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics from the 15th Century with Misattributions of Ockhamist Views to Oresme

4.1. München, Universitätsbibliothek, 4° Cod. ms. 823

4.1.1. München, Universitätsbibliothek, 4° Cod. ms. 823, Qu. I.8

4.1.2. München, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. ms. 4° 823, Qu. IV.11

4.2. Johannes Stedler from Landshut

4.3. Jodocus Gartner de Berching

4.4. Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl

4.5. Transitional Period (Mid-15th Century)

4.6. Second Half of the 15th Century

4.6.1. Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, Cod. IV F 18 (1449/1450); Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801 (1453/1454) and Cod. 1097

4.6.2. Martinus Hainczel de Memming(en)

4.6.3. Henricus Platerberger

4.6.4. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, Ms 957

4.6.5. Georgius Freypüchler

4.6.6. Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951 and Cod. 5190; München, BSB, Clm 24872

4.6.7. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 5909 and Clm 19846

4.6.7.1. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 5909

4.6.7.2. München, BSB, Clm 19846

5. From Vienna to Ingolstadt

Texte intégral

PDF 1,1M Partager par e-mail

1. Introduction

1 See Daniel A. Di Liscia (2003), Zwischen Geometrie und Naturphilosophie. Die Entwicklung der Formla (...)

1Oresme and Ockham held completely different views on the ontological status of the extension (quantitas or magnitudo) of substances and accidents, as well as on the ontological status of local motion. However, in Physics commentaries produced in the 15th century at the University of Vienna, Oresme is regularly credited with Ockhamist views, initially only regarding the extension of substances and accidents, and from around the mid-15th century also regarding local motion. In these attributions Oresme is either mentioned alone or together with Ockham. So far, this interesting phenomenon of reception history has only been noted in passing,1 without a detailed analysis taking place.

2After the introductory remarks in Chapters 1 to 3, Chapter 4 discusses 19 different Physics commentaries produced at the University of Vienna, as well as Heinrich Platerberger’s “Philosophicae veritatis compendium.” The analysis proceeds in chronological order, where texts are either dated or can be temporally contextualized based on content or external criteria. For a comprehensive overview of the texts, misattributions, and the personal stance of the authors, refer to Table 1 in Chapter 7. Chapter 5 demonstrates that the tradition of misattributing Ockhamist views to Oresme extended from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt towards the end of the 15th century. For an overview of the relevant texts in this respect, refer to Table 2 in Chapter 7. Chapter 6 provides two examples of 15th-century Viennese Physics commentaries where such misattributions do not occur. In chapter 8, the results are discussed, and in chapter 9, some concluding remarks are presented.

2 See fns. 236, 271, and 274.
3 Utrum omnis res extensive et situaliter habens partem extra partem sit magnitudo; see Jean Buridan (...)
4 Utrum motus localis sit res distincta a loco et ab eo quod localiter movetur; see Jean Buridan (201 (...)
5 Utrum rarefactio et condensatio sint possibiles vel utrum possibile sit aliquid rarefieri vel conde (...)

3All 25 Physics commentaries discussed in Chapters 4 to 6 share the common characteristic of being organized according to the order and titles of the Questions found in the ultima lectura of Buridan’s Physics commentary, even if some Questions are occasionally missing or there have been reorganizations in their sequence. Usually, Buridan’s Questions VII.7 and VII.8 are combined into one Question. New Questions that are not contained in Buridan’s Physics commentary occur very rarely.2 The Questions relevant to our topic are, in the numbering of Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.), I.8,3 III.7,4 and IV.115.

4The investigation begins in Chapter 2 with an overview of the essential characteristics and differences in the views of Oresme, Ockham, Buridan, and Marsilius of Inghen regarding the ontological status of extension and the process of rarefaction. In Chapter 3, the views of Oresme, Ockham, and Buridan on local motion are briefly presented. Given the extensive relevant secondary literature on the topic, both chapters will focus on the core statements of the respective proponents. The selection of the mentioned authors is based on their relevance to the respective questions, whereas, for example, Albert of Saxony, the founding rector of the University of Vienna, surprisingly plays no significant role in the texts examined here.

6 Cf. Michael H. Shank (1988), “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand”. Logic, University, and (...)

5Views that align with or are influenced by Ockham’s perspectives are referred to as “Ockhamist”. The use of terms such as “nominalistic” or “nominalism” has been largely avoided, as they are too vague or overly broad and tend to obscure the clear differences in opinions, for example, between Buridan and Ockham on numerous questions in natural philosophy.6

6In all citations from the texts discussed here, classical orthography has been used, except for the use of “e” instead of diphthongs. Proper names of individuals and geographical designations have been preserved in their original spelling, but are always capitalized. Only spellings such as “Biridanus” or “Byridanus” have been silently standardized to “Buridanus.” Often, Buridan’s and Marsilius’s names in the manuscripts are abbreviated to just “b” or “B,” and “m” or “M,” respectively, which is not explicitly noted in the citations. Oresme’s name appears in the manuscripts, when written out, as “Orem” or “Oren,” and Ockham’s name appears as “Okkam,” “Occam,” “Occan,” “Occon,” or “Ocon.” Therefore, abbreviations such as “Ore” or “Occa” with a line above cannot be definitively disambiguated. In these and similar cases, the transcriptions “Ore[m]” and “Occa[m]” have been chosen, respectively.

2. The Different Views on the Ontological Status of Extension (quantitas or magnitudo) and the Process of Rarefaction according to Oresme, Ockham, Buridan, and Marsilius of Inghen

7 Francesca Bruno (2019), The Quantity Debate in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. A Question at (...)

7Characteristic of Oresme’s view of accidents is that he does not consider them accidental forms, but rather only so-called condiciones or modi of the substance. Oresme regards accidents as distinct from the substance, but he assigns them a lower ontological status than that of the commonly accepted accidental forms. For Oresme, motion, being-in-a-place (esse in loco), the quantity of a substance, and qualities (such as esse album) are examples of such condiciones or modi.7

8 William Ockham (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis, ed. by Stephanus Brown, St. Bonaventure (NY) (...)

8While for Oresme, the quantity of a substance is distinct from the substance itself, Ockham believed that the quantity of a substance or of a quality is not a separate entity, not a res absoluta, which would be distinct from the substance or the quality in reality.8 This very view of Ockham is regularly and mistakenly attributed to Oresme in the Vienna Physics commentaries.

9 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam (Books I-VII), ed. by Stefano Caroti, Jean Celeyret (...)

9Since Oresme assumed that quantitas represents a condicio or behavior of the substance, which, although it does not possess the ontological status of an accidental form, still constitutes an independent entity, he preferred the view that during rarefaction, a new quantitas, a new esse quantum, is continuously present at each moment.9 In contrast, Ockham argues that during rarefaction, no new quantitas is acquired, and no previous one is lost; rather, the one that was already there persists. Regarding this point as well, the view of Ockham is attributed to Oresme in the Vienna Physics commentaries.

10 William Ockham (1985), Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Libri IV-VIII, ed. by R. Wood, R (...)
11 Explicitly mentioned in William Ockham (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis (Op. phil., Bd. VI), (...)

10Since, for Ockham, quantitas is not distinct from the substance or the extended quality in question, he attributes rarefaction or condensation solely to a local motion of the substance’s or the quality’s parts. In rarefaction, the parts move further apart, while in condensation, they move closer together.10 However, Ockham does not always explicitly mention that such a process is only feasible if, during rarefaction, the parts simultaneously also expand, and during condensation, they contract.11 Otherwise, a vacuum would form during rarefaction or a penetration of dimensions would occur during condensation, both of which were considered inconceivable.

12 Cf. Francesca Bruno (2019), The Quantity Debate, p. 27-34; Robert Pasnau (2011), Metaphysical Theme (...)

11Ockham’s explanation of rarefaction poses a significant issue.12 If the expansion of the whole is explained by the expansion of all its parts, it must be assumed that the extension of each individual part occurs due to the extension of the parts of that part, and so on, leading to an infinite regress. Furthermore, a logical fallacy of circular definition is committed when expansion is “explained” by expansion.

13 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.14, p. 515-516, l. 81-125; p. 519, l. 205-2 (...)
14 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.14, p. 515-516, l. 81-125; p. 519, l. 207-2 (...)
15 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525-526, l. 133-151.
16 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 523-524, l. 63-118.
17 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525, l. 133-135.

12In his Physics commentary, Quaestio IV.14, which addresses whether something can be condensed, Oresme also describes how, during condensation, the parts move closer together through local motion and simultaneously become denser.13 The same applies to rarefaction, where the parts move further apart.14 Thus, Oresme’s proposed mechanisms for rarefaction or condensation align with Ockham’s view. However, it is essential to emphasize that, from an ontological perspective, there is a clear distinction between Oresme and Ockham regarding the process of rarefaction or condensation. Since for Oresme the quantitas of a substance, which represents a condicio of the substance—its “such-bigness”—is an independent reality, he consequently assumes that during rarefaction, a new quantitas, that is, a new esse quantum, is continuously present at each moment as an independent entity15 Oresme provides a fair exposition of how the Ockhamist perspective can be defended,16 yet he explicitly states that he considers his own viewpoint to be the most reasonable among all possible perspectives.17

18 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525, l. 119-132.
19 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525, l. 129-132.
20 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525-526, l. 133-151.

13In particular, Oresme differentiates himself from the widespread belief that quantity constitutes an independent accidental form, based on his personal ontology of accidents.18 For him, assuming that a new quantity is present at every moment while positing that quantity is an accidental form seems absurd, as it would lead to an infinite production of things in a short time.19 This difficulty can be avoided by considering quantity, as Oresme does, as an independent reality, but not as an accidental form. Since quantity has a lower ontological status than an accidental form, the problem of infinitely generating things is averted because the arising quantities do not undergo a generatio simplex, but merely a generatio secundum quid.20

14The texts discussed in this article, which all follow the structure of Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.), naturally place a strong emphasis on Buridan’s views, with Marsilius of Inghen’s position also typically considered. Therefore, a brief overview of the positions of these two natural philosophers is warranted.

21 See, for example, Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secund (...)
22 See Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lec (...)

15For Buridan, the extension (magnitudo, dimensio) of a substance – or of all things possessing spatial dimensions, including specific qualities like heat and cold – is an independent entity and thus not identical to the substance or quality itself.21 In his argumentation, he first recalls the empirical knowledge that air can be significantly expanded through heating and compressed through cooling. For example, when air is held over hot coals in a glass vessel, it expands and thins within the vessel. Placing the vessel with its opening facing downward into cold water causes the water to rise rapidly in the vessel due to cooling and consequent compression, i.e., volume reduction, of the air; as otherwise, a vacuum would form.22

16Buridan’s main argument for the independent ontological status of extension is as follows: On one hand, air can be readily expanded with heat and compressed with cold; on the other hand, it is impossible to compress a bellows fully filled with air with sealed openings, or significantly expand a half-filled bellows with similarly sealed openings. Therefore, something must offer resistance to the intended expansion or compression, and for Buridan, this is the magnitudo or dimensio of the air, distinct from the substance of air.

23 Regarding this and the preceding paragraph: Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Phys (...)

17The matter cannot be what resists since even more matter could be present in a smaller space, nor can the substantial form of air provide resistance because, during cooling, the substantial form of air occupies a smaller volume. The heat of the air also cannot be the reason for the inability to compress the bellows in the described situation, as a small piece of glowing iron contains much more heat. Arguing that the raritas of the air is what poses resistance, according to Buridan, only affirms his view; one could say that this raritas, when considered as a separate factor, represents nothing other than the distinct entity he demands. Buridan posits that through this independent entity, not only does the substance obtain its extension, but all extended qualities, such as heat or cold, do as well: „ponamus dimensionem distinctam a materia et forma, a caliditate et frigiditate et huiusmodi qualitatibus, qua praedicta omnia sunt extensa“.23

24 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)

18Regarding the process of rarefaction, Buridan maintains that a new extension does not arise at every moment of rarefaction while the previous one disappears; rather, the existing extension persists as the new one joins.24 Buridan’s perspective is much less intuitive than one might initially assume, and the subsequent discussion in Chapter 4.1.2 will elucidate the counterintuitive consequences of his view.

25 Marsilius of Inghen (1518), Questiones subtilissime Johannis Marcilii Inguen super octo libros phis (...)
26 Marsilius of Inghen (1518), Questiones subtilissime […] super octo libros phisycorum, f. 56rb.
27 Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Marsilii inguen Doctoris resolutissimi abbreviationes super octo libros (...)
28 Marsilius of Inghen (1501), Questiones exquisite, f. c3v.

19Marsilius of Inghen is frequently mentioned in the Physics commentaries discussed here. Like Buridan, Marsilius believes that quantitas is a distinct entity from substance and qualities.25 However, while he does not make a definitive decision in his Quaestiones on Aristotle’s Physics regarding whether a new quantitas is continuously present during the course of rarefaction or if all emerging quantitates persist and thus exist simultaneously,26 he opines in his Abbreviationes on Aristotle’s Physics, contrary to Buridan, that during rarefaction a new quantitas arises at every moment while the previous one perishes.27 In his Quaestiones on De generatione et corruptione, Marsilius also considers this perspective to be the “safer solution” (securior solutio).28

29 Cf. Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lec (...)
30 Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Abbreviationes super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis, f. 19vb, l. 17 (...)

20Another significant difference from Buridan is that, in his Abbreviationes, Marsilius does not simply view the process of rarefaction, regarding its ontological status, as the succession of individual quantities or magnitudes,29 but as an ontologically distinct fluxus.30 His explanations in the Abbreviationes were crucial for the reception of Marsilius’s views in the Physics commentaries discussed here.

3. The different views on the ontological status of local motion (motus localis) according to Oresme, Ockham, and Buridan

31 Stefan Kirschner (2014), “Oresme’s Theory of Motion”, p. 87. For Oresme’s concept of motion, see al (...)
32 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.6, l. 100-101.
33 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.6, l. 100-116; Qu. III.7, l. 44-81, 163-16 (...)

21When focusing on a brief overview of the core ideas and essential differences between the views of Oresme, Ockham, and Buridan regarding the ontological status of local motion, the following can be stated: in contrast to Ockham and Buridan, Oresme establishes a concept of motion that is intended to apply to all types of motion, including quantitative changes (augmentatio and diminutio), qualitative changes (alterationes), and changes in location (motus localis).31 Ontologically speaking, for Oresme, motion is a fluxus, a successive entity that is distinct from permanent things (res successiva distincta a rebus permanentibus).32 However, he clarifies that such a fluxus, for him, does not represent a separate accidental form but only a behavior (modus [se habendi]) or condition (condicio) of the mobile.33 Oresme thus applies his specific perspective on accidents (see above, Chapter 2) to motion as well.

34 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.7, l. 44-46.
35 Nicole Oresme (1968), Le livre du ciel et du monde, ed. by Albert D. Menut & Alexander J. Denomy, C (...)

22Oresme’s definition of motion is: “moveri est aliter se habere continue quam ipsum mobile prius se habebat respectu sui et non respectu cuiuscumque extrinseci.”34 Thus, it depends on the internal behavior of the mobile and not on its relation to external things. This decisive feature of his concept of motion can also be found in his Livre du ciel et du monde.35

36 The explanations by Gartner (see Chapter 4.3) may serve as an example; see München, Bayerische Staa (...)

23In most of the Physics commentaries discussed here, Oresme is indeed credited with a similar or even identical definition of motion, but this does not mean that the same concept was meant by it. The definition of motion attributed to Oresme clearly refers, as is evident from the context, to an Ockhamist concept of motion; that is, Oresme’s view that motion is a distinct entity in addition to the things involved in the motion is completely ignored.36

37 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.7, l. 75-81.
38 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)

24According to Oresme, a body in motion possesses a condicio within itself that was not present before the motion, and this is called motion. Oresme supports this with a thought experiment similar to one found in Buridan’s work: let’s imagine that there is only one body in the world, and that it alternately moves in one hour and rests in the following hour, then moves again in the next hour, and so on. Since there is nothing external to which the body or its parts behave differently, it follows that while in motion, the body possesses the mentioned condition within itself.37 Similarly, Buridan derives from a similar thought experiment, in which God transforms the entire world into a continuum and then sets it in motion, that local motion must represent an independent reality.38

39 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)
40 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)
41 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)
42 Stefan Kirschner (2014), “Oresme’s Theory of Motion”, p. 94.

25However, the essential difference between Buridan and Oresme lies in the fact that, for Buridan, local motion holds a significantly higher ontological status than it does for Oresme. For Buridan, local motion is something that is inherent to the mobile as “dispositio inherens”39 or “dispositio superaddita,”40 much like whiteness in a wall,41 meaning that local motion possesses the ontological rank of an accidental form. Oresme views such an opinion as the worst of all, although this does not necessarily imply that this invective was directed personally towards Buridan.42

43 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)
44 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.7, l. 157-161. Also in his Livre du ciel e (...)

26In accordance with the high ontological status that Buridan assigns to local motion, he concludes that God could separate local motion as an independent entity from a moving body by annihilating the body but allowing the local motion to remain. According to him, it is no more inconvenient to assume motion without a mobile than to assume whiteness without something that is white,43 which references the miracle of the Eucharist. Conversely, Oresme posits that motion, conceived as a condicio, cannot be separated by any force,44 as it does not possess the ontological status of an accidental form.

45 Cf. William Ockham (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis (Op. phil., vol. VI), book III, ch. 5, p. (...)
46 William Ockham (1984), Quaestiones in libros Physicorum Aristotelis (Op. phil., vol. VI), Qu. 22, p (...)
47 William Ockham (1984), Quaestiones in libros Physicorum Aristotelis (Op. phil., vol. VI), Qu. 22, p (...)
48 See Herman Shapiro (1957), Motion, Time and Place, p. 114-117, especially fn. 283.

27In contrast to Oresme and Buridan, Ockham maintains that motion is, as is well known, not an entity of its own that is distinct from permanent things.45 According to Ockham, the term “motus localis” simply signifies that the mobile is continuously in a different place. In this description, only those things that were already present before the local motion began – namely, the mobile and its continuously changing locations – are involved. Therefore, the concept of “motion” does not represent a unique successive entity. It is therefore accurate to state that local motion is the mobile successively acquiring space, or conversely, that local motion is the space continually acquired by the mobile.46 However, this does not mean that Ockham believes the place of a body is simply the space it occupies. From his explanations, it is clear that he refers to the space surrounding or containing the body (spatium continens),47 implying that, based on the concept of place specified by Ockham elsewhere,48 it is ultimately the body or bodies that contain the located body and function as its place.

49 See Chapter 4.2 (Stedler), chapter 4.4 (Widman de Dinkelsbühl), and chapter 6 (anonymous Physics co (...)
50 Gregorius Ariminensis OESA (1979), Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum, Tomus IV, Super s (...)

28In the Physics commentaries discussed here, Ockham’s view of local motion is represented by the statement “motus (localis) est mobile met,” or similar formulations. Equating local motion with the traversed space (spatium pertransitum) or the space described by the mobile (spatium a mobili descriptum) or the space in which the mobile moves, on the other hand, is attributed, in the rare cases in which this view is mentioned at all, to Gregory of Rimini.49 These formulations attributed to Gregory of Rimini in a few of the Physics commentaries examined here sound as if he held the view that the place of a body is the space that it occupies. However, there is no evidence to support this. Furthermore, Gregory of Rimini does not refer to spatium, but rather to locus, when he explains that the motus localis or latio is the place acquired by the moving body.50

4. Vienna Commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics from the 15th Century with Misattributions of Ockhamist Views to Oresme

4.1. München, Universitätsbibliothek, 4° Cod. ms. 823

51 München, Universitätsbibliothek (hereinafter abbreviated as “UB”), 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 108r-164v, 1 (...)
52 Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica quae in codicibus manu scriptis bibliothecarum Monacensium (...)
53 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 87r. Cf. Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universität (...)
54 In the matriculation records, he is listed as Tyboldus Rewter de Wasserburga; see [Franz Gall] (195 (...)
55 Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, p. 293.
56 Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, p. 294.

29The oldest Physics commentary from the 15th century produced at the University of Vienna, in which misattributions of Ockhamist views to Oresme appear, is found in the Codex Munich, University Library, 4° Cod. ms. 823.51 Markowski dates the work to around 1423.52 This indirect dating is based on the fact that the Physics commentary belongs to the same part of the codex as a De anima commentary dated to 1422, which was completed on October 3, 1422, by Dyebaldius Rewtter de Wasserburga in Vienna.53 Rewtter had enrolled at the University of Vienna on April 14, 1422.54 However, the text of the Physics commentary was not written by Rewtter de Wasserburga, but by three other scribes.55 Due to the Viennese context of the De anima commentary, the Physics commentary is classified as “Commentarium wiennense super libros physicorum Aristotelis.”56

57 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 151v.
58 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142r: “Alia <est> via [...nd add. et del.] Buridani [Ryridani Ms.] (...)
59 Variants of Engelin’s name are Angelus, Angeli, Egeli, Engellin, Jacobus Apothecarii de Ulma; see E (...)
60 Auctarium Chartularii Universitatis Parisiensis (1894), ed. by Henricus Denifle, O. P. & Aemilius C (...)
61 [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Vol. 1, 1391 II, R 11 (p. 38).
62 Elisabeth Tuisl (2014), Die Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Wien im Mittelalter, p. 193-194. (...)

30In the text itself, there is a mention of the Danube, which clearly refers to Vienna, as no other city along the Danube had a university at that time.57 Furthermore, the unknown author points out in Qu. IV.11 that Jacobus Angeli de Ulma held Buridan’s viewpoint.58 Jacobus Engelin59 (around 1360 - before 1427), born in Ulm, studied in Paris (licentiatus in artibus in 1383)60 and enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1391 as a Master of Arts and a licentiate in medicine.61 Engelin was unequivocally the personal physician of the Austrian dukes Albrecht III and Leopold IV, probably also of Albrecht IV, and perhaps even Albrecht V.62 However, it is also possible that the reference is to another person, namely the son of Jacobus Engelin, who shared the same name, which would not necessarily exclude a Viennese context (see Chapter 4.1.2 for more information).

63 In detail, the following picture emerges: Questions I.1-I.13 on f. 108v-122v of the Physics comment (...)

31The commentary is structurally oriented towards Buridan’s Physics commentary (ultima lectura), but it lacks many Questions, and the sequence of Questions is in part significantly altered compared to Buridan’s. Only four Questions from Book II are available, the discussion on motion in Book III is completely missing except for a fragment of Qu. III.13, and only Questions III.14 and 15 are available regarding the problem of infinity. Books IV and V are also very incompletely represented, while Questions related to Books VI to VIII are entirely absent.63

4.1.1. München, Universitätsbibliothek, 4° Cod. ms. 823, Qu. I.8

64 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 112v: “Circa questionem due sunt opiniones, una Magistri Buridani, (...)
65 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 113v: “Secundum Orem tunc quantitas est substantia met magna.”

32For our purposes, it is a fortunate circumstance that the unknown author extensively addresses Questions I.8 and IV.11. In Qu. I.8 (Utrum omnis res situaliter habens partes extra partes eius sit magnitudo), it is noted right at the beginning that there are two opinions on this matter, namely those of Buridan and Oresme. The view of Buridan is the more common one and is, as stated by the unknown author, endorsed by “all our Masters.” The corresponding conclusion according to Buridan’s view is: “nulla substantia est sua magnitudo, sed magnitudo est accidens substantie superadditum.”64 As for the purported view of Oresme, the unknown author states that, for Oresme, the extension of a substance is the substance itself.65 However, as noted above (see Chapter 2), this is actually Ockham’s view.

66 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 113v: “Secundum Orem tunc quantitas est substantia met magna. Et i (...)

33Furthermore, Oresme is credited with responding to the aforementioned argument presented by Buridan (see Chapter 2), according to which, under certain experimental conditions, only the extension of air remains as resistance against compression, suggesting that the extension of air must be an independent entity. The following case distinction is made: If the air is in its natural state, it would resist compression itself (and not an extension ontologically distinct from it) because it is put into a state of indisposition (indisponitur) by the compression. Even if one assumes that the air would not be so indisposed by the attempted compression as to be subject to violence, it would still resist, as it would at least be prepared for an application of force (ad violentiam disponeretur). The second possible scenario involves hypothetically assuming that the air has been extended beyond its natural disposition, implying that it now has no reason to resist compression. In this case, Oresme is said to believe that the walls of the vessel containing the air would instantly contract until the air returns to its natural disposition, thereby allowing it to resist further compression.66

67 The emphasis placed here on the expansion of air occurring through the movement of the container wa (...)
68 See the end of the quotation in fn. 66.

34Such a recourse to the possibility of instantaneous motion is also found in another alleged response by Oresme to a further, now opposite, thought experiment. In this scenario, it is assumed that the air, due to a progressive widening of the container in which it is situated, is placed in an increasingly natural disposition, giving rise to a tendency towards further rarefaction.67 This highly contrived thought experiment posits that despite the air’s inclination to expand further, resistance is encountered when attempting to widen the sides of the vessel. Since the air itself is not responsible for this resistance, it must be the extension of the air itself that provides resistance, aligning with the Buridan perspective. The response that can be offered to this argument is, of course, that the sides of the vessel would instantly move apart.68 Although Oresme is not explicitly named in this instance, it is evident from the context and the analogy to the other thought experiment involving air compression that this response is attributed to Oresme.

35Thus, the situation can be summarized as follows: the purported Oresmian view – that air is not extended by the addition of an independent entity but is inherently extended – is confronted by thought experiments involving situations in which resistance against the compression or expansion of the air would be expected, yet the air itself can no longer be considered the source of that resistance. In a Buridan-like sense, one could deduce that something else, envisioned as an independent entity – namely, the air’s magnitudo – provides the resistance. The solution to this dilemma, it is suggested, lies in Oresme’s (purported) assumption that, in such cases, an instantaneous volume decrease or increase occurs, meaning no resistance is exerted.

69 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.13, p. 507, l. 66-75.

36It must be noted, however, that in reality, Oresme had a completely different understanding of the ontological status of quantity from that attributed to him in this Physics commentary (see Chapter 2). Furthermore, in his own Physics commentary, there is no discussion of Buridan’s arguments concerning the ontological status of extension or the processes of rarefaction and condensation. Regarding the reference to instantaneous motion, this would be compatible with Oresme’s basic views, as he stated in his Physics commentary that instantaneous motion is also naturally possible if no resistance is present. In (hypothetical) examples, he mentions, among other things, the motion of a grave simplex in a vacuum. Furthermore, something warm would suddenly (subito), i.e. instantly, heat up a body if it offers no resistance and is suddenly brought close to the warm object.69 However, the possibility of instantaneous rarefaction or condensation is not addressed in any of his known works.

37It should be added that Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl, who also attributes to Oresme the view that quantity does not represent an independent entity, in a similar discussion addressing objections to the alleged Oresmian view, also explores the thought experiment involving air extended beyond its natural disposition but provides an alternative solution to the problem that does not require the assumption of instantaneous motion (see below, Chapter 4.4).

4.1.2. München, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. ms. 4° 823, Qu. IV.11

70 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 138r: “Utrum in rarefactione proprie dicta quantitas precedens man (...)
71 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 143r-144r.

38In Quaestio IV.11, the question arises as to whether, during a rarefaction, the previous extension (quantitas) remains alongside the newly added quantitas. The author points out that there are three different views on this matter, namely those of Marsilius, Buridan, and, thirdly, Oresme.70 Since the third view, which is discussed much later71 after an extensive examination of Marsilius’s and Buridan’s views, corresponds in content to Ockham’s position, there is a misattribution of Ockham’s view to Oresme, even though neither the name Oresme nor Ockham appears later.

72 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 143r-v: “Alia via est que a multis reputatur esse verisimilior pri (...)
73 See above, fn. 64.

39The unknown author does not explicitly endorse any of the three views. However, he indicates that the third view – according to which extension is not an independent entity and rarefaction and condensation occur solely through a change of place without anything new emerging or anything existing perishing – is considered by many to be the more likely scenario.72 This statement stands in contrast to what is presented in Qu. I.8, where Buridan’s view on the ontological status of quantity or magnitude is described as more common and endorsed by “all our Masters.”73

74 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 141v: “Marsilius dicit quod rarefactio non sit quantitates, sed po (...)

40It was mentioned earlier that Jacobus Angeli de Ulma is specifically named as a proponent of Buridan’s view. In comparison to most other Physics commentaries discussed here, it is notable that not only Buridan’s view on the process of rarefaction or condensation is extensively examined, but also Marsilius’s view. One aspect of Marsilius’s view, specifically the ontological classification of rarefaction as an autonomous fluxus superadditus, receives a clear rejection.74

75 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142v-143r: “Nota tamen quod semper aggregatum ex precedente et seq (...)

41Before delving into the purported view of Oresme, it is essential to illustrate, based on the detailed explanations of the Physics commentary under consideration, Buridan’s complex view. According to Buridan, in a rarefaction, the previously existing quantitas remains when the new one is added each time. Therefore, one must imagine the process as follows: At every moment of rarefaction, a new total quantitas is added, not just the difference between the new quantitas and the old quantitas. Both the previous quantitas or quantitates and the new quantitas or quantitates added during the process are inherent in the entire subject. Since the duration of rarefaction is infinitely divisible, an infinite number of quantitates are found in a subject.75

76 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142r: “Et oportet dici secundum hanc viam [i.e. Buridan’s view] qu (...)

42To understand this precisely, it is important to distinguish between “inhere” (inherere) or “inform” (informare) and “extend.” Following the presentation in the Physics commentary under examination, the following interpretation arises: If, for example, a substance is extended from one foot to two feet, according to Buridan, the initial quantity, as well as all the other quantities newly added during the rarefaction from one to two feet, are preserved. The initial quantitas, together with all the other quantitates acquired during this rarefaction process, informs the entire subject. If one were to claim, for instance, that the initial quantity of one foot only informs one foot of the later object that is two feet in size, a migration of this accident from one subject to another would occur, which is impossible.76

77 See the quotation in the preceding footnote.

43The initial quantitas of one foot, after or during the process of rarefaction, is not capable of extending the subject on its own, as it would either extend the entire subject or only a part of it. If it extended the entire subject, it would extend it to two feet – the new size – and thus no new quantitas would be needed to obtain a subject of two feet, as the original quantitas would have been capable of doing so. If it extended the subject to one foot, the contradiction arises that after rarefaction, the subject would simultaneously be one foot and two feet in size. It is also implausible that the initial quantitas of one foot only extends a part of the subject after rarefaction, as there is no reason to suggest why it should be this part rather than another.77

78 See the quotations in fn. 75 and 76.
79 See the quotation in fn. 75; see also München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142v: “Corollarie <sequitur>: Quantita</sequitur> (...)
80 See the quotation in fn. 58.
81 See the last sentence of the quotation in fn. 75. Also refer to München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 14 (...)

44The problem is ultimately solved by recognizing that all quantitates contained in the subject together are necessary to extend the subject to two feet;78 otherwise, the quantitates not involved in this cooperation would be redundant. Together, all these quantitates are required for the substance to possess the new extension. It should be noted that during a rarefaction of a substance from one foot to two feet, all quantitates contained within it represent the current dimension of the expanding substance. Consequently, after such a rarefaction, an infinite number of quantitates non communicantes bipedales exist within the substance.79 This mutual penetration of these quantitates, which is allowed while the penetration of bodies is excluded, led to the postulate that all these quantitates do not – unlike bodies – exist extra invicem, thus allowing for such simultaneous existence.80 By assuming that after rarefaction an infinite number of quantitates exist in a subject, and that individually, none of them can extend the subject on its own, the objection that the subject, if an infinite number of quantitates inheres in it, should actually be infinitely large is overcome.81

82 See the quotation in fn. 72.
83 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 143r-143v: “Alia via est que a multis reputatur esse verisimilior (...)
84 See the penultimate sentence of the quotation in the previous footnote.

45Next, the third view, allegedly Oresme’s view, will be discussed in more detail. This view is initially said to be considered by many to be more probable (verisimilior) than the previous views (i.e., those of Buridan and Marsilius).82 Building on the assumption that quantitas does not represent an independent entity, but that everything that is extended is extended by itself, i.e., without the addition of any particular accident (quantitas sit res met magna), the processes of rarefaction and condensation are solely attributed to the movement of the parts of the respective body, without anything new emerging or anything previously existing perishing. The rule is that parts that were directly adjacent before also remain adjacent after rarefaction or condensation, while parts that had distance between them will be further apart after rarefaction, as the part in between expands. This means that apart from the center or central point of an expanding body, no part can be identified that is not in motion.83 In Chapter 2, the problematic nature of such an interpretation was already pointed out, as it involves a regressus in infinitum. The discussion contains an interesting brief remark that it is supposed that motion is the mobile,84 which corresponds to Ockham’s view of local motion. Since the Quaestiones of the third book, which usually deal with the concept of motion, are missing, there are otherwise no further indications of the stance the unknown author took on the question of the ontological status of local motion.

85 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 144r: “Alia vide in disputatis. Hanc questionem sic collegi de lib (...)
86 Karl Heinz Burmeister (2003), “»... der in fremden landen were uff der schuol«. Die Baccalaurei und (...)

46Towards the end of the Quaestio, the unknown author provides the interesting note that he compiled the Quaestio from the books of his magistri because it was necessary to provide a useful answer to the question at hand.85 In this context, it is particularly interesting that Jacobus Engelin was mentioned earlier as a proponent of Buridan’s view. Unfortunately, no corresponding Physics commentary by Jacobus Engelin is known. However, it may refer to his namesake son, who enrolled at the University of Vienna on April 14, 1412, and obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree on March 5, 1414. Furthermore, he enrolled in the Law Faculty of the University of Vienna in 1417, and in the same year, he became a Licentiatus and Magister artium at the University of Paris. In 1428, he is documented as a student of medicine in Montpellier. From 1433 to 1455, he served as the Chancellor of the Medical University of Montpellier.86 Theoretically, it would be possible that Jacobus Engelin Jr. returned to the University of Vienna as a Parisian master sometime between 1417 and 1428. However, so far, nothing has been found in the (edited) records of both the University of Paris and the University of Vienna. It is purely speculative, but considering that the oldest Viennese Physics commentary found to date, which attributes an Ockhamist view of quantitas to Oresme, dates back to the early 1420s and mentions Magister Jacobus Engelin as a representative of Buridan’s view, it could be that Engelin Jr. was directly or indirectly involved in the misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme.

4.2. Johannes Stedler from Landshut

87 Regarding Johannes Stedler of Landshut, see Monica Brinzei (2022), “A Student’s Notes on the Plague (...)
88 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 1r-257r; f. 257r: “Disputata reverendi magistri Störler. Expliciunt dispu (...)
89 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis (...)

47The Munich Codex Clm 497 contains the Physics commentary of the Viennese Master Johannes Stedler from Landshut,87 dated to the year 1430 and previously considered lost.88 Stedler was assigned the lecture on Aristotle’s Physics on September 1, 1430.89

90 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 181r-182r: “Utrum rarefactio et condensatio sint possibiles et utrum aliq (...)
91 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 24v-25r: “Et ideo via opposita videtur esse probabilior scilicet Ore[m] s (...)
92 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 24v.
93 See the quotation in fn. 91.

48The rather concise discussion in Quaestio IV.1190 does not mention any views other than Buridan’s, but in Quaestio I.8, Stedler argues extensively in favor of the view that “quelibet res habens situaliter partem extra partem est sua magnitudo” and attributes this Ockhamist opinion, which he finds more probable than Buridan’s opinion, to Oresme.91 Stedler certainly engages with Buridan’s main argument,92 but only to a certain extent. According to Buridan, the fact that a bellows filled with air, with its openings sealed, cannot be compressed can be explained only by asserting that the magnitudo of the air, as a distinct entity, exerts resistance (see Chapter 2 for further context). As we have seen in Chapter 4.1.1, this main argument had been expanded via thought experiments with a series of complex additional conditions and fortified against classical counterarguments. This, in turn, led to renewed counter-reactions from proponents of an Ockhamist view of quantitas, culminating in the concession of instantaneous motion (for an alternative solution, see Chapter 4.4) in cases where all conceivable resistances disappear. Otherwise, one would have been forced to concede to Buridan that quantitas does indeed possess its own being and exerts resistance as an independent entity. Stedler was certainly aware of these sophisticated thought experiments, but he does not engage in further discussions, instead taking the position that these are hypothetical conditions that do not naturally occur.93

94 Clm 497, f. 26r: “Sic respondetur ad questionem quod questio est falsa unde secundum Buridanum null (...)
95 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “Respondetur dicendo quod rarefactio fiet per motum elongationis par (...)
96 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “[...] ille partes que ante rarefactionem fuerunt immediate post eru (...)
97 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “[...] in condensatione: partes immediate non erunt immediatiores, s (...)

49In his summary, Stedler considers Oresme’s (purported) view of quantitas or magnitudo to be “more true” than Buridan’s, employing the classic nominalistic argument of “non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate” to support his position.94 In this context, Stedler interprets rarefaction as the “motion of elongation of parts from one another,” while condensation occurs “by the approximation of parts to each other.”95 He argues that neither a vacuum will be formed during rarefaction nor will penetration of bodies occur during condensation, as the parts that were adjacent before rarefaction will remain adjacent afterward, while those that were further apart will become even more separated due to the rarefaction of the part between them.96 The same principles apply to the process of condensation: parts that were adjacent will continue to be adjacent, while those that were further apart will be drawn closer together.97

50As mentioned earlier, in Quaestio IV.11, Stedler does not discuss any views other than Buridan’s. This is surprising because one might have expected him to repeat the arguments he presented in Quaestio I.8 here again. However, it should be noted that the text of Quaestio IV.11 appears to be incomplete, as it first abruptly ends after presenting a counter-argument to Buridan’s third conclusion on this topic without providing an answer, and secondly, there is about half a page of blank space in the manuscript before the next Quaestio, titled “Whether time is motion,” starts, as if intended missing text was to be inserted here.

98 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 120r: “[…] et secundum illum modum motus localis est mobile met quod habe (...)
99 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 119v-121v.

51Regarding the ontological status of local motion, Stedler correctly attributes to Ockham the view that local motion is the mobile itself (motus localis est mobile met)98 and defends it against numerous objections.99 There is no misattribution of Ockham’s view on local motion to Oresme. As we will see, such misattributions only occur from the mid-15th century onwards.

100 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 121v: “Est tamen etiam alia opinio quam tangit Gregorius de Orringo [or O (...)
101 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 121v: “Prime due vie sunt communiores, secunda tamen est probabilior.”

52Furthermore, Stedler briefly mentions Gregory of Rimini’s view that ontologically, local motion is the space in which the mobile moves.100 However, there is no further discussion of this view. Finally, Stedler concludes that the first two views, i.e., those of Buridan and Ockham, are more common, but nevertheless, the second one, i.e., Ockham’s, is more probable.101

4.3. Jodocus Gartner de Berching

102 Clm 19674, f. 3r-183r; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 52-53; f. 3r: “Disputata Mag (...)
103 Regarding Jodocus Gartner from Berching (also Berchingen, Perching, Perchyn, Persching) in Bavaria, (...)

53The third oldest of the dated Physics commentaries originating in Vienna that are being discussed here is that of Jodocus Gartner de Berching from the year 1438 or 1439 (hereinafter referred to as “G1”).102 Gartner enrolled at the University of Vienna in the summer semester of 1415. He became a Master of Arts in 1424, serving as Dean of the Faculty of Arts on multiple occasions since 1433. Additionally, he studied theology, obtaining his Bachelor’s degree in 1441, followed by his Licentiate in 1449, and later his Doctorate in Theology.103

104 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (hereinafter abbreviated as “ÖNB”), Cod. 4999, f. 2r-170v; (...)
105 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 1r: “Symon Weyssennpacher studens wienn<ensis>”; f. 22v, end of Qu. I.8: “Sequitu</ensis> (...)
106 [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Vol. 1, 1436 I, A 5 (p. 192).
107 Regarding Symon (also Simon) Weyspacher (also Weispacher, Weissenpacher) de Lewbesdorf (also Lewber (...)
108 For example, see Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 22v: “quod omnis substantia magna est ipsa substantia met (...)
109 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 22r: “igitur rarefactio est motus filior [sic!] quam condensatio. Hoc prob (...)

54Furthermore, another Physics commentary by Gartner is known, although undated (hereinafter referred to as “G2”), which is significantly different from G1 and is also considered here.104 This second commentary is likely from around the same time, as the transcript, which appears to be lecture notes, was written by Symon Weyspacher de Lewbesdorf,105 who enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1436.106 He was admitted to determination on June 29, 1438, with retroactive admission on September 1, 1438, due to his absence on the first admission date. On April 4, 1441, Weyspacher was admitted as a licentiate for inception, and in 1442 he was mentioned in the Acta Facultatis as master.107 Terminological uncertainties in the formulation of Ockhamist views108 and noticeable spelling errors109 could indicate that the reportatio originates from the early period of Weyspacher’s studies.

110 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 88r-v: “Tamen est alia opinio que mihi plus placet quod motus sit mobil (...)
111 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 2r: “Opinio Okkam: Motus localis est ipsum mobile met.”
112 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 95r: “Et <ad> maximum argumentum [ibi add.] Buridani <dicitur> quod omnia possunt s</dicitur> (...)

55Like Stedler, Jodocus Gartner de Berching is also an Ockhamist. Regarding the ontological status of local motion, Gartner de Berching clearly expresses his preference for the view that “motus sit mobile met.”110 In the relevant Quaestio on this topic (G1, Qu. III.7), he does not mention a specific proponent of this view. However, the correct attribution of this view to Ockham can be found in a brief overview that precedes the actual Physics commentary;111 this overview presents the main opinions on certain topics discussed in the commentary. It remains unclear whether the information included in this list comes from Gartner de Berching himself. Similar to G1, in G2, the Ockhamist view on local motion is presented without mentioning any representative and is referred to as probable.112

113 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 22r: “Et quia argumenta Buridani non demonstrant, ideo est alia opinio (...)
114 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 128r: “Est adhuc alia via magistri Nicolai Orem dicentis quod magnitudo (...)
115 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 2r: “Opinio Orem et Okkam: Quantitas est substantia met magna.”
116 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 21v: “Propter ista motiva est alia positio quod magnitudo substantie sit m (...)
117 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 129r: “Alia <est> opinio Oren dicens quelibet res habens partem extra partem es</est> (...)

56Gartner de Berching takes a different approach regarding the ontological status of quantity. In both G1, Qu. IV.8113 and G1, Qu. IV.11114, he clearly assigns Ockham’s position on quantity or magnitude solely to Oresme. However, in the aforementioned overview of the main opinions on certain topics discussed in the commentary (G1), this view is attributed to both Oresme and Ockham.115 In G2, Qu. I.8, the Ockhamist view is not attributed to a specific author; in one instance, only “moderni” are mentioned.116 Nevertheless, in Qu. IV.11 (G2), this opinion is attributed to Oresme.117

118 See the quotation in fn. 113.
119 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 23r: “Per hoc respondetur ad questionem quod est falsa quia aliqua res (...)
120 See the second quotation in fn. 116. What one would expect is a formulation such as the following: (...)

57In G1, Gartner explicitly refers to Buridan’s arguments as not being conclusive. Therefore, there is another opinion, namely, Oresme’s, which posits that each substance is its own magnitudo, since all phenomena could be explained without assuming a magnitudo distinct from the substance.118 It is all the more surprising, then, that the closing sentence of Qu. I.8 in G1 gives the impression that Gartner only supports the Ockhamist position regarding the extension of qualities, but not regarding substances,119 which would be highly inconsistent and difficult to justify logically. In any case, there are no such restrictions or ambiguities in G2. There, the Ockhamist view – albeit in terminologically incorrect wording – “quod omnis substantia magna est ipsa substantia met vel omnis res magna est ipsa res magna met” is clearly described as the more probable one.120

58An examination of Buridan’s main argument (see above, Chapter 2) only takes place in G1. Gartner was, of course, aware that Buridan’s main argument had since been significantly expanded through a thought experiment that considers common objections to Buridan’s interpretation (see above, Chapter 4.1.1). Gartner’s rather brief and sometimes unclear discussion of this thought experiment will be discussed in the next chapter, as his approach resembles that of Widman de Dinkelsbühl.

121 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 128r: “Est adhuc alia via magistri Nicolai Orem dicentis quod magnitudo (...)
122 See for example München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 263v (See the quotation in fn. 263); München, BSB, Clm (...)
123 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 22r: “[...] per motum localem fit [sic Ms.?] quod partes extensibiles in r (...)

59The process of rarefaction and condensation is explained by Gartner de Berching in line with the purported opinion of Oresme that magnitudo is the res magna itself, along with a corresponding local motion of the parts of the respective substance.121 However, unlike Stedler (cf. Chapter 4.2), his explanation is rather brief and fails to mention a crucial aspect: namely, that a separation of the parts from the center, or, in the case of condensation, an approach of the parts to the center, alone is not sufficient; instead, the parts themselves must also undergo rarefaction or condensation; otherwise, a vacuum would form or physical penetration would occur. Presenting the process of rarefaction or condensation – under the premise that the magnitudo of a substance ontologically does not differ from the substance itself – in such a shortened manner is a phenomenon that frequently occurs in other Physics commentaries as well.122 In G2, the motion of the parts of a substance in the case of rarefaction or condensation is already described in Qu. I.8. Interestingly, there is a subsequent addition that mentions “partes extensibiles,” which expresses that the parts themselves also undergo extension or rarefaction.123

4.4. Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl

124 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 1r-390v; f. 390v: “Expliciunt disputata super octo libris physicorum Arist (...)
125 [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Vol. 1, 1419 I, R 85 (p. 123); Martin G. En (...)
126 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis (...)
127 Regarding Widman (also Wydman, Wideman, Widemman), see Charles H. Lohr, Traditio 27 (1971), p. 303; (...)

60In Codex 4950 of the Austrian National Library, there is a copy of Johannes Widman de Dinkelsbühl’s Physics commentary dated to the year 1439.124 Widman enrolled as “Johannes Widemman de Dinkespuhel” at the University of Vienna in the summer semester of 1419,125 obtained his Master of Arts Degree in 1425, and was assigned the lecture on Aristotle’s Physics on September 1, 1429.126 He served as Dean of the Faculty of Arts in the winter semester of 1436 and the summer semester of 1439.127

128 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 55v: „Propter illa tamen motiva vel concludenda est alia opinio magistri N (...)

61After a very detailed discussion of the views of Buridan and Marsilius on the ontological status of magnitudo (Qu. I.8), Widman de Dinkelsbühl points out that there is also the view of Magister Nicolaus Orem that every extended thing is its own extension.128

129 See above, Chapter 4.1.1.

62The subsequent detailed discussion of objections to this purported view of Oresme is particularly interesting. As mentioned above,129 Widman de Dinkelsbühl presents one of the thought experiments discussed as an objection to Oresme’s proposed view, which appears in the Physics commentary described in Chapter 4.1. However, he provides a different solution that does not rely on instantaneous motion.

130 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 55v-56r (The starting point is a counterargument against the purported vie (...)

63The thought experiment starts from Buridan’s argument that the empirical fact that a bellows filled with air, with its openings sealed, cannot be compressed can only be explained by the magnitudo of the air as an independent entity exerting resistance (see above, Chapter 2). Common objections to Buridan’s interpretation have already been taken into account. One assumption is that the air in the bellows has been rarified beyond its natural disposition, meaning it does not resist compression because compressing it would return it to a natural and desired state. Furthermore, it is assumed that the air in the bellows has been expanded so much by local motion that the heat of the air no longer correlates with the degree of expansion, meaning the heat of the air also does not oppose compression. Finally, it is assumed that the external air surrounding the bellows has a tendency to compress the bellows and that all conceivable resistances are excluded.130

64In such a case, the author of the Physics commentary found in Codex Munich, University Library, 4° Cod. ms. 823 has postulated that Oresme assumes that the walls of the vessel containing the air contract instantly until the air returns to its natural disposition, and – it should be added – that this state then resists further compression (see above, Chapter 4.1.1).

131 See the quotation in the previous footnote.

65However, Widman de Dinkelsbühl has a different solution at hand. He also assumes that the air is compressed until it reaches its natural disposition, but he does not postulate an instantaneous compression; rather, he endorses a successive compression. Even if one does not assume a limitatio (i.e., a fundamental limitation of the force of the heavy body pressing the bellows together, which would result in resistance and thus succession), a resistance against an instantaneous compression of the bellows would still be offered by natura communis. Because without a successive compression, two unnatural phenomena would arise, namely, an instantaneous change and the formation of a vacuum (between the surrounding air and the instantaneously compressed bellows). Accordingly, Widman de Dinkelsbühl assumes that not only the air contained in the bellows but also the surrounding air resists an instantaneous compression of the bellows.131

132 See the quotation in fn. 130.
133 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 56r-56v: “Et nota circa hoc quod dictum fuit si in casu posito fieret comp (...)

66Widman de Dinkelsbühl recognizes the possibility of instantaneous compression of the bellows only under two alternative conditions: 1. If the whole process occurs in a vacuum and the compressing heavy body is a grave simplex (i.e., a heavy body that has no internal resistance), the bellows would be instantaneously compressed until the air contained in it regains its natural disposition (because then it itself resists further compression).132 2. The second possibility also assumes that the process takes place in a vacuum. Widman explains that if the air is capable of filling the vacuum by expanding without destruction, it resists and the bellows cannot be instantaneously compressed. However, if the air cannot expand and fill the vacuum without its own destruction, the compression of the bellows occurs instantaneously, as it is inconceivable that God would instruct the air to destroy itself.133

67Widman’s explanations are completely unclear about where one should imagine the vacuum in this second case study. Since he discusses the air in the bellows and its ability to expand to fill the vacuum, one must assume that in one part of the bellows there is air and in another part, there is a vacuum. This cannot, however, be what is meant at all. Alternatively, it may be that in this second case study, Widman did not intend to refer to the compression of the bellows but rather its further expansion. This interpretation would align best with the initial conditions and the hypothetical actions of the air in the bellows.

134 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 22r-22v: “Et quia argumenta Buridani non demonstrant, ideo est alia opi (...)
135 While the question of the fundamental possibility of instantaneous motion plays a central role in G (...)

68A comparison with Jodocus Gartner de Berching is fitting here, as he also addresses the mentioned thought experiment, but does so less extensively than Widman. He also refers to natura communis, but his perspective and reasoning differ from Widman’s. For Gartner, the substantial form of the air, insofar as it is natura communis, exerts resistance to prevent the formation of a vacuum, as the air can follow only successively, not instantaneously.134 Apparently, Gartner only considers the external, surrounding air in his interpretation, as he refers to “following,” which can only pertain to the external air that would need to move up if the bellows were compressed instantaneously. Thus, while Gartner fundamentally rejects the possibility of an instantaneous compression of the bellows, Widman does not completely rule this out under certain, albeit extremely hypothetical, conditions.135

136 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 57r-v: “Sic ergo ultimate pro ista questione sunt due opiniones: una dicen (...)

69From the course of the discussion, it becomes clear that Widman prefers the Ockhamist view on quantitas or magnitudo. In conclusion, he contrasts Buridan’s viewpoint with the Ockhamist opinion once more and points out how the response to the Quaestio would differ according to each of these opinions. Although this comparison does not contain a judgment, Widman’s preference is evident by bringing up Buridan’s main argument (“sua ratio Achilles”), i.e., the bellows argument, again with the remark that it can be easily answered.136

137 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 57v: “Nota, ut allegat Albertus in sua summa ubi tractat de predicamento s (...)
138 See Summary Table 1 in Chapter 7.

70After finishing the discussion of Qu. I.8, Widman de Dinkelsbühl adds some remarks and supplements. Among other things, he mentions that Albert of Saxony reported in his logic treatise that Ockham was of the opinion that “substantia magna esset sua magnitudo” and how Albert opposed this view.137 Oresme is not mentioned by Widman de Dinkelsbühl at this point, but given his earlier mention of Oresme, it is likely that Widman de Dinkelsbühl – like some other authors138 – assumed that both Oresme and Ockham held the aforementioned view. This assumption is further supported by the fact that both authors are mentioned together in other parts of the additions and remarks to Qu. I.8.

139 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 58r: “Notandum quod opinione magistri Nycolai Orem cum quo stat Okkam quod (...)
140 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 55v: “Arguitur sic: sequitur quod penetratio corporum et dimensionum esset (...)
141 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “Sed contra hoc arguitur sic: Sequitur quod penetratio corporum esse (...)
142 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 128r: “Quod penetratio corporum et dimensionum est possibilis patet de (...)
143 Cf. William Ockham (1986), Tractatus de quantitate, Qu. 3, p. 77, l. 311 – p. 78, l. 327.
144 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)

71According to Widman de Dinkelsbühl, Oresme and Ockham believed that a penetration of dimensions was possible if one dimension represented an actus and the other a potentia. Additionally, a combination of two actual and one potential dimension was feasible. An example of this would be the penetration of whiteness, sweetness, and materia prima (in the case of milk, it should be added).139 The reason for such an explanation was a common counterargument against Ockham’s view of quantitas or magnitudo. If the magnitudo of a quality ontologically constitutes the respective quality itself, then when two qualities, such as whiteness and sweetness, inhere in a substance (in this case, milk), this results in a penetratio corporum et dimensionum. In the main text of Qu. I.8, Widman addresses this counterargument and refutes it with the well-known observation that, according to Aristotle, the penetration of bodies is only impossible if the bodies exist extra se invicem, which does not apply to qualities.140 The same argument can be found in Stedler141 and Gartner142. Comparable statements are not found in Oresme, but they are reminiscent of Ockham’s response to an objection by Richardus de Mediavilla against his view of the ontological status of quantitas.143 However, this does not necessarily mean that the Viennese authors drew inspiration from one of Ockham’s works, as Buridan, in his Physics commentary, discusses Ockham’s view without mentioning him by name.144

145 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 304r (see the quotation in fn. 147).
146 As is customary in such examples, no precise statement was made about how to imagine such a “bipeda (...)
147 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 304r: “Est preterea tertia opinio tenens quod quantitas sit met substantia (...)
148 See, for example, Stedler (see the quotation in fn. 96).

72In the discussion of the processes of rarefaction and condensation (Qu. IV.11), Widman de Dinkelsbühl presents a third viewpoint: that quantitas is the substance itself. He explains how those who hold this opinion describe the processes of rarefaction and condensation through elongation and approximation of the parts of the substance. He does not name specific proponents of this view, but rather refers to them generically as “illi” (those people).145 It is worth noting that his relatively detailed description of how the behavior of the parts of a substance should appear in the case of rarefaction, from a two-foot body (bipedale)146 to a four-foot body (quadrupedale), demonstrates that he either did not fully understand the process or was less precise in his formulations. This is particularly evident in his concluding statement, in which Widman claims that the parts of the substance, which were previously in immediate contact, should no longer be considered as immediate after rarefaction, but rather would be separated from each other.147 However, this is precisely what should not occur, as other authors have made clear.148

149 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 228r: “Est tamen alia opinio ut supra tactum est reverendi magistri Wilhel (...)

73Widman de Dinkelsbühl regards Ockham’s view (whom he mentions by name) on local motion, according to which local motion is the moving object, as probable. However, he considers Gregory of Rimini’s opinion, which states that ontologically, local motion is the space in which the mobile moves, to be even more likely.149 The fact that Ockham held both nominalistic perspectives (see above, Chapter 3) is not taken into account by Widman and was probably not even known to him.

4.5. Transitional Period (Mid-15th Century)

74It is noticeable that in the older Physics commentaries – namely, those previously discussed by Stedler, Gartner de Berching, and Widman de Dinkelsbühl – a misattribution of Ockham’s views to Oresme is observed only in relation to the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo, but not in connection with local motion. Regarding the oldest Physics commentary discussed here (see Chapter 4.1), no statement is possible on this matter, as the corresponding Quaestio on local motion is missing. However, in the Physics commentaries definitively written after 1450, Oresme is credited with both Ockham’s view on quantitas and his view on local motion.

150 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 2r-268v. Date on f. 268v: “[...] per infinita secula seculorum et ceter (...)
151 For biographical information about Georgius (also Georius) Tudel (also Tüdel) de Giengen (also Gyen (...)
152 Regarding Fernando of Cordova, see John Monfasani (1992), “Fernando of Cordova. A Biographical and (...)
153 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 1r: “In isto libello continentur questiones octo librorum physicorum cu (...)

75Especially intriguing, in terms of a kind of transitional period, is the Physics commentary dated 1448 by Georgius Tudel de Giengen,150 who was the Dean of the Faculty of Arts in Vienna that year.151 The year 1448 was likely of special importance for Tudel, as on September 20, 1448, he achieved a brilliant victory as a Baccalaureus formatus in theology in a primarily theological discussion against Fernando of Cordova, who had presented his theses the day before. Fernando of Cordova, described by Monfasani as “part charlatan, part Wunderkind, and part learned scholastic,” traveled extensively throughout Europe and displayed his erudition in disputations at various universities.152 In the Munich Codex Clm 19847, which contains Tudel’s Physics commentary, Tudel’s triumph is also mentioned, with a note that Fernando had called himself the “lux mundi.”153

154 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 22v: “Alia est opinio communis quod omnis res magna sit sua magnitudo, (...)

76In Qu. I.8 of his Physics commentary, Tudel mentions the view that “omnis res magna sit sua magnitudo,” only briefly and without attributing it to a specific person. He refers to this view as common or more common than Buridan’s view, suggesting caution against multiplying entities. Furthermore, he states that this view is more probable compared to Buridan’s standpoint.154

155 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 172r: “Ultimo est sciendum quod est opinio alia que dicit quod omnis re (...)

77However, in Qu. IV.11, Tudel clearly attributes to Nicolaus Oresme (Orem) the Ockhamist view that every extended thing per se is its own quantitas and that the magnitudo of a substance is not distinct from the substance.155

156 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 131r: “Sed ista omnia [The reference is to counterarguments against Ock (...)
157 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 130ar: “Contra opinionem Nicolai Occa[m] arguitur [...].” The remaining (...)
158 See Johannes Schlageter (2003), “N. v. Ockham OFM”, Lexikon des Mittelalters, Vol. 6, München, DTV, (...)

78In his discussion on whether local motion ontologically differs from place and the locally moved mobile, Tudel defends Ockham’s standpoint.156 Among the six explicit mentions of Ockham, there is one mention where Ockham is given the first name Nicolaus.157 While a theologian named Nicolaus of Ockham (circa 1242 – circa 1320)158 is certainly not the reference here, it is clear that William Ockham is meant. This raises the question of whether a simple case of mistaken identity lies behind the attributions of Ockham’s positions to Oresme. This is supported by the fact that Oresme is referred to in the texts as “Orem” or “Oren,” while “Ockham” is spelled “Ocon,” “Occon,” “Occan,” “Occam,” or “Okkam,” making it easy to confuse the two names both visually and auditorily.

159 See Summary Table 1 in Chapter 7.

79However, the regularity with which Oresme is credited with Ockham’s views in numerous Physics commentaries that have a Viennese context argues against a mere mix-up of names. Moreover, there are texts where both Oresme and Ockham are explicitly mentioned as advocates of the same view.159

160 Regarding Udalricus (also Ulricus) de Tubing (also Tübing, Tübingen), see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Ma (...)
161 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 195r-360r; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 53-54; f. 19 (...)
162 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 268r (only explicit mention of Oresme): “Consequenter sciendum quod de (...)

80A special position is also held by the Physics commentary of Udalricus de Tubing, who became Master of Arts in 1446.160 In his commentary, a copy of which is dated to the year 1452,161 Oresme is credited with Ockham’s view on local motion,162 while Ockham himself is not mentioned by name.

163 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 209r, l. 10.
164 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 209r, l. 9.

81Regarding the ontological status of quantitas, the situation is more complicated. In Qu. I.8, two opinions are presented: Buridan’s and a second opinion where “Marsilii” appears to have been added later in a different ink to the heading “secunda opinio.”163 Just before that, another note, also in a different ink and likely added later, announces: “Sequitur opinio alia ipsius Marsilii.”164 However, this second opinion does not correspond to that of Marsilius of Inghen; instead, it aligns entirely with the Ockhamist view commonly attributed to Oresme.

165 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 300r-v: “Consequenter dicendum ad questionem secundum Orem [with a line (...)

82In Qu. IV.11, Udalricus specifically names Oresme and presents his purported explanation of the processes of rarefaction and condensation. This explanation is based on the assumption that neither a new quantitas is generated nor an existing one perishes, owing to the pure local motion of the parts of the affected object. Furthermore, he attributes to Oresme the view that quantitas is the res quanta itself, as is customary in such discussions.165 Udalricus further elaborates on the differing opinions of Buridan and Marsilius concerning the processes of rarefaction and condensation, without explicitly stating which of the three perspectives – Buridan’s, Marsilius’s, or the Ockhamist view ascribed to Oresme – he ultimately prefers. This neutral stance is also evident in Udalricus’s comparison of Buridan’s view with the purported Oresmian view on the ontological status of local motion (Qu. III.7).

4.6. Second Half of the 15th Century

4.6.1. Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, Cod. IV F 18 (1449/1450); Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801 (1453/1454) and Cod. 1097

166 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, Cod. IV F 18, f. 1r-130r, dates at the end of Book 1 (f. 3 (...)

83The oldest Viennese Physics commentary, which clearly attributes both Ockham’s position regarding the ontological status of quantitas and his view on local motion to Oresme, dates from the years 1449 to 1450 and is located in the Czech National Library in Prague.166 The author is unknown. The Viennese context is indicated by the remark: “Isto modo intitulantur libri phisicorum per communem scolam wiennensem et specialiter per magistrum Buridanum,” found at the end of the list of Questions on folios 131r to 132r. Furthermore, on fol. 132v, there is a list of lectures and exercises that were to be completed in accordance with the decrees and statutes of the University of Vienna to obtain the degree of Master.

167 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 86r: “Verum est, est alia opinio ipsius Orem q (...)
168 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 16v: “Sed verum est quod oppositum Buridano be (...)

84After discussing Buridan’s and Marsilius’s views on rarefaction, the unknown author in Qu. IV.11 refers to another opinion ascribed to Oresme, which holds that the magnitudo of a substance is not distinct from the extended substance and that, according to this view, no separate magnitudo is created in the process of rarefaction.167 This view is described as probable and simpler, and the author cites Qu. I.8 to support this assessment. Indeed, in Qu. I.8, Buridan’s view is clearly rejected, and the Ockhamist position on quantitas, which is not ascribed to a specific proponent in this case, is fully endorsed.168

169 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 63r: “Verum est quod propter illud argumentum (...)
170 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 63r-63v.

85The view that “motus localis sit ipsum mobile met quod movetur,” which is attributed to Oresme,169 is also defended against a series of counterarguments. At the same time, the arguments showing that local motion constitutes an independent entity and therefore differs from both the mobile and the place, as presented by Buridan, are responded to accordingly.170 It can thus be assumed that the author of the Physics commentary in the Prague Codex IV F 18 favored the Ockhamist position on the question of local motion, even though this preference is not explicitly expressed. This note is particularly significant because in another Physics commentary containing nearly the same arguments (Melk 801, see below), a decision in favor of Buridan’s view is surprisingly reached in the end.

171 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 207-561 (digitally accessible at https://manuscripta.at/digli (...)
172 As examples of such content and linguistic correspondences, the following text passages shall be me (...)
173 This will be the subject of a separate study and cannot be discussed in detail here.

86There is another anonymous Physics commentary, unfortunately undated but likely composed no later than 1475 (Melk 1097),171 that exhibits significant similarities to the previously discussed text in certain sections and is partly identical to it,172 both in terms of the discussions on quantity and local motion. Therefore, it is justified to consider this Physics commentary as also originating from the University of Vienna. Given the substantial similarities with Prague, IV F 18, it is plausible that the original composition date of the Physics commentary in the Melk Codex 1097 may be in the 1450s. Another indication of an earlier date of composition, rather than the first half of the 1470s, is that the author of the Physics commentary in Melk Codex 1097 has adopted numerous passages from Gartner more or less verbatim in the discussion of the impetus theory (Qu. VIII.12).173

174 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 248: “Verum est Buridano et Marsilio bene potest teneri oppos (...)
175 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 364: “Est alia opinio ipsius Orem similiter Occam quod motus (...)
176 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 250: “Nec sequitur secundum illam opinionem probabilem quod [ (...)

87It is noteworthy that in Melk 1097, in Qu. I.8, Oresme is explicitly credited with the view that „omnis res extensa et situaliter habens partem extra partem sit sua magnitudo,“174 whereas this attribution is absent in Prague IV F 18. Conversely, the reference to Oresme is completely missing in Qu. IV.11 in Melk 1097. Regarding local motion, the Ockhamist position is attributed to both Oresme and Ockham in Melk 1097,175 while in Prague IV F 18, only Oresme is mentioned as the proponent. The generally positive attitude towards the Ockhamist view on quantitas is also evident in Melk 1097.176

177 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 192r - 350r; colophon (f. 350r): “[…] adhuc ipsa trinitas est (...)
178 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“1447 bis 1471 [this should read (...)
179 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should rea (...)
180 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should rea (...)

88Furthermore, concerning the discussion of local motion in the Prague manuscript, there are substantive and textual similarities with a Physics commentary personally written by the Magister regens during the years 1453 to 1454 (Melk 801).177 According to the Acta Facultatis Artium of the University of Vienna, on September 1, 1452, magistri Leonardus [Egerer] de Perching178 and Erhardus de Weitra179 were each assigned to the lecture on Aristotle’s Physics. There is no corresponding entry in the records for the year 1453. On September 1, 1454, Wolffgangus de Lauffen became the Magister regens for the lecture on Aristotle’s Physics.180 It remains unclear to whom the Physics commentary should be attributed.

181 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 262r-v. Of course, the direct attribution of the Ockhamist con (...)
182 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 263r: “Ex istis ultimate respondendum est ad illam questionem (...)

89The thematic, sometimes verbatim, similarities between Prague IV F 18 and Melk 801 pertain to the discussion of local motion. The purported responses of Oresme to the arguments upon which Buridan based his conception of local motion, as well as the series of counterarguments against the purported Oresmean view of local motion, including their refutations, correspond closely to each other.181 Regarding the refutation of Buridan’s arguments, there is also agreement with Melk 1097; however, the objections against Oresme’s (purported) view and their refutation are absent in Melk 1097. As mentioned earlier, the author of Melk 801 ultimately opts for Buridan’s view of local motion,182 whereas the author of Melk 1097 does not specify which view of local motion he favors.

183 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 208v-209r: “Alia opinio est ipsius Orem quod ipsa substantia e (...)

90There are no significant similarities in the discussions of quantitas and rarefactio between Prague IV F 18 and Melk 801. It is also noteworthy that the author of Melk 801 considers the Ockhamist view regarding quantitas or magnitudo, which he attributes to Oresme, to be “much probable” (multum probabilis), but asserts that it is simpler to uphold Buridan’s perspective by adhering to the common sayings of the natural philosophers on the topics of rarefaction, condensation, and local motion.183

4.6.2. Martinus Hainczel de Memming(en)

184 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should rea (...)
185 Joseph Aschbach (1877), Geschichte der Wiener Universität. Zweiter Band. Die Wiener Universität und (...)
186 München, BSB, Clm 481, f. 1r-188r (Qu. I.1 is incomplete, missing a little over two pages at the be (...)
187 München, BSB, Clm 481, f. 185r: “finita sexta feria post Michaelem Anno M cccc lx vj^to[= October 3 (...)
188 The explicit and the colophon of the manuscript Zwettl, Zisterzienserstift, Cod. 418 read as follow (...)

91Martinus Hainczel was assigned the lecture on Aristotle’s Physics on September 1, 1466184. Additionally, he served as the Dean of the Vienna Faculty of Arts during the winter semester of 1466.185 One of the three textual witnesses186 of his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics dates from that same year,187 while another manuscript is from 1471.188

189 In this and the following quotations from Hainczel’s Physics commentary, “K” stands for the Klagenf (...)
190 In his introductory remarks at the beginning of Qu. IV.11, Hainczel briefly presents the views of B (...)
191 K, f. 29r; M, f. 19r; Z, f. 27v: “Corollarium. Nulla substantia est magnitudo. Similiter nulla [One (...)

92Hainczel unequivocally states that he considers the view that magnitudo (or quantity) is not different from substance, that during rarefaction no new quantity is generated, and that rarefaction can be attributed solely to the local motion of the substance’s parts as the more probable one.189 He ascribes this Ockhamist view to Oresme in Qu. IV.11.190 Previously, in Qu. I.8, he had already associated Oresme with the Ockhamist concept of magnitudo, albeit in a somewhat more convoluted manner.191

192 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5506, f. 1v-208r; colophon (f. 208r): “Amen et cetera. Et sic est finis. In vigilia (...)
193 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5506, f. 47r-v: “Est tertia via N<icolai> [add. sup. lin.] Orem ut patet in primo p (...)

93Hainczel’s Qu. IV.11 exhibits intellectual kinship with the corresponding Quaestio of an anonymous Physics commentary dated to 1454 or possibly 1459, which covers only Books 4 to 8 (Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. 5506).192 In this Physics commentary, many of the considerations, thought experiments, arguments, and counterarguments discussed by Hainczel are also included, usually in more detail. The misattribution of the Ockhamist view of quantitas or magnitudo to Oresme, as well as the assessment that Oresme’s (purported) view is more likely than those of Buridan and Marsilius, are also present in this manuscript.193

194 See the quotation in fn. 189 and the second quotation in fn. 190.

94As a justification for his decision in favor of the Ockhamist position, Hainczel, besides referring to the general principle of “non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate,” argues that the Ockhamist view avoids certain difficulties that arise when assuming an independent reality of magnitudo.194 He refers to various issues that emerge when, through thought experiments, one imagines what would happen if the magnitudo were removed from a substance, assuming it represents an independent entity. Such thought experiments were common, so much so that it was generally no longer explicitly mentioned that this would require divine intervention.

195 K, f. 29v; M, f. 19v; Z, f. 28r: “Item tunc sequitur quod [om. Z] si auferretur magnitudo rei quod (...)

95For instance, the question arises as to whether a body from which its magnitudo has been removed (ablata magnitudine) can still be in a place or occupy a place, and whether its parts can still be distinguished, even though it no longer possesses extension.195

196 K, f. 30r; M, f. 19v; Z, f. 28v: “Ad tertium dicendum [om. K] quod tale corpus in casu argumenti no (...)
197 K, f. 30r; M, f. 20r; Z, f. 28v: “Ad quartum [consequenter K, M (loco ‘ad quartum’)] dicitur quod t (...)
198 Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Marsilii inguen Doctoris resolutissimi abbreviationes super octo libros (...)
199 K, f. 30r; M, f. 20r; Z, f. 29r: “Consequenter notandum [om. M, Z] <quod> dicitur secundum Marsilium quod</quod> (...)

96One possible response to such a thought experiment is that prior to the thought experiment, the body represented a continuum accidentale, whose parts were situationally spread out. After the removal of the magnitudo, a continuum essentiale is present, whose parts constitute a unum simpliciter but without possessing partes extra partes situaliter.196 Therefore, after the removal of its quantity, the body no longer occupies a place commensuratively (i.e., not in the usual three-dimensional sense), but definitively.197 An alternative response, as Marsilius suggested, is that the parts of a body deprived of its magnitudo converge into an indivisible point;198 yet Hainczel considers this unlikely.199

97The difficulties arising from this and other thought experiments, in which one imagines that the magnitudo assumed as an independent entity – constituting the extension of substances and qualities – is removed, led Hainczel to prefer the Ockhamist view, in which such problems naturally do not arise.

200 K, f. 101v; M, f. 84r; Z, f. 126v: “Alia est via [via est Z] Orem et originaliter Occam [etiam K, Z(...)
201 K, f. 102r; M, f. 84v; Z, f. 127r: “Motivum illius vie [What is meant is the purported view of Ores (...)

98Hainczel also attributes the Ockhamist position to Oresme in the question concerning the ontological status of local motion (Qu. III.7), specifically regarding whether local motion is distinct from place and the mobile, noting that Oresme’s view originates from Ockham.200 This is the first instance in the texts under discussion where both names are mentioned together in relation to the ontological status of local motion. Furthermore, Hainczel demonstrates how, from the Ockhamist standpoint, Buridan’s arguments that attribute independent reality to local motion can be refuted. However, he does not explicitly state that he prefers the Ockhamist view. In addition to the usual principle of “frustra multiplicantur entia sine necessitate,” Hainczel cites as a reason for an Ockhamist stance the fact that God is capable of moving a mobile successively from one place to another without creating something new,201 which would be the case if motion itself were something that existed independently.

4.6.3. Henricus Platerberger

202 Platerberger (also Platterberger, Platenberger, Platerwerger) was born in Nuremberg and enrolled at (...)

99Based on Platerberger’s202 “Philosophicae veritatis compendium,” it becomes clear that the widespread misattribution of Ockhamist positions to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th century was not limited to commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics.

203 Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, CC 52, f. 1r-160v (hereinafter “Kr”); Melk, Benediktinerstift, Cod (...)
204 Kr, f. 154vb; cf. Hauke Fill (2000), Katalog der Handschriften des Benediktinerstiftes Kremsmünster (...)
205 Me, p. 600.

100Platerberger’s “Compendium of Philosophical Truth” is preserved in at least four manuscripts.203 The oldest dated textual witness is a transcription by Wolfgangus Heyfel(der) from 1471, who was a student at the University of Vienna at that time. The transcription is based on dictation by the bachelor Andreas Ungarus de Ullacz.204 The second oldest textual witness is dated to 1474.205

206 Kr, f. 26vb; Me, p. 217; Sa, f. 42v: “Est tamen [om. Kr] alia opinio probabilis [om. Sa] Nicolai [N (...)
207 Kr, f. 114vb; Me, p. 462; Sa, f. 196r: “Sed tamen [om. Kr] illa [om. Sa; hec Kr] via est contra Ari (...)

101Platerberger frequently mentions not only Oresme alone but also together with Ockham, as we first saw with Hainczel in relation to local motion.206 Platerberger considers the Ockhamist viewpoint on magnitudo as probable (probabilis), but after presenting the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion, he hastens to point out that it opposes Aristotle.207

208 Kr, f. 26vb; Me, p. 217; Sa, f. 42v: “Consequenter dicendum est [est dicendum Kr; Sa] quod aer tali (...)
209 Compare the quotation in the previous footnote with Hainczel (see the quotation in fn. 135) and Pra (...)

102Platerberger’s presentation is clear and suitable for a handbook, but lacks originality. This is evident, for instance, in his handling of Buridan’s main argument (see above, Chapter 2) that the resistance exerted against the compression of a bellows with sealed openings can only be explained by the existence of an independent factor, namely the magnitudo of the air, which should be considered an independent accident resisting this external influence. The counterarguments presented by Platerberger from an Ockhamist perspective208 are only highly abbreviated versions of arguments known, for instance, from Hainczel (see Chapter 4.6.2) and the Physics commentary in Prague, Czech National Library, Cod. IV F 18 (see Chapter 4.6.1).209

210 The following two manuscripts were used: Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, CC 134, f. 164r-210v, dat (...)
211 Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, CC 134, f. 187r.

103In his other compendium, titled “Fundamentum philosophiae naturalis,” Platerberger addresses the topics of quantitas, magnitudo, rarefactio, and motus localis in a manner that is clearly different from his “Philosophicae veritatis compendium,” and far less extensive as well.210 Furthermore, Platerberger does not mention either Oresme or Ockham by name in his “Fundamentum philosophiae naturalis” with regard to any of the aforementioned topics. Without any discussion, Platerberger aligns himself in the “Fundamentum” with Buridan’s view regarding the ontological status of local motion,211 whereas his explanations on quantity or magnitude and rarefaction do not permit a definitive statement regarding his personal stance, as he does not delve into the competing views.

4.6.4. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, Ms 957

212 Graz, Universitätsbibliothek (hereinafter abbreviated as “UB”), Ms 957, f. 1r-147r (digital copy: h (...)
213 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 15r-15v: “Alia est opinio Magistri Nicolai Orem qui dicit quod substantia magn (...)
214 Cf. Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 17r-17v (see the quotations in fns. 172 an (...)

104The anonymous and undated Vienna Physics commentary located in Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, Ms 957212 exhibits a typical structure regarding the discussion of the quantitas issue and the modus rarefactionis, which we have already encountered in other Physics commentaries. As an alternative to Buridan’s notion of magnitudo, the (purported) Oresmian view is presented, asserting that the extension of a substance is not really distinct from the substance itself, followed by two counterarguments against Buridan’s bellows argument (see above, Chapter 2).213 These counterarguments can also be found in the Physics commentaries in Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18 and Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, as well as in Hainczel and Platerberger.214

215 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 95r: “Ulterius sciendum quod secundum Orem rarefactio illo modo est possibilis (...)

105Regarding the modus rarefactionis, the familiar view emerges that Oresme believes rarefaction occurs solely through a local motion of the parts of the substance and not through the generation of a new quantitas.215 The statement “non fit per nove quantitatis adgenerationem” indirectly confirms once again that quantitas is not considered as a separate entity. The author does not make a decision on which view to prefer regarding the ontological status of quantitas.

216 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 63r-v: “Sed moveri localiter secundum Orem est aliter et aliter secundum se [s (...)
217 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 64r: “Item una ratio Buridani est quod motus sit distinctus et cetera quia dic (...)

106It is noteworthy that the discussion on motion includes numerous mentions of Oresme that extend beyond Qu. III.7. In Qu. III.7, Oresme is credited with the usual Ockhamist view of local motion, according to which it is not distinct from the mobile. However, the author further asserts that Oresme believed time to be synonymous with the sky. This conclusion is based on equating time with the motion of the heavens, which, from an Ockhamist ontological perspective, is not distinct from the heavens themselves.216 Other references to Oresme pertain to a defense of his (purported) view against Buridan’s main argument (the thought experiment of an all-encompassing continuum created and moved by God; see above, Chapter 3) and additional objections.217 Significant similarities are observed with the following Physics commentaries: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19675 (f. 88r); Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18 (f. 63r); Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801 (f. 262r-v); and Cod. 1097 (pp. 364-365).

218 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 64v-65r (Qu. III.8): “Ulterius sciendum secundum Orem loquendo de necessitate (...)
219 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 68v (Qu. III.11): “Item tenendo Orem videlicet quod motus sit mobile met tunc (...)
220 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 69v (Qu. III.12): “Sed secundum Orem vel Occan questio est simpliciter falsa q (...)

107In addition to references in Qu. III.7, mentions of Oresme can also be found in Qu. III.8 (“Utrum de necessitate motus localis sit habere terminos positivos preter fluxum scilicet terminum a quo et terminum ad quem”). The alleged response of Oresme to this question is naturally adapted to the attribution of the Ockhamist view of local motion to him.218 Accordingly, there is also an interpretation of Aristotle’s definition of motion from the perspective of Oresme’s (purported) Ockhamist understanding of local motion.219 Only in Qu. III.12 (“Utrum omnis motus sit subiective in mobili”) is Ockham named alongside Oresme when presenting the nominalistic standpoint.220

108Just as in the discussion of quantitas or magnitudo, the author remains neutral on the question of motus localis by not explicitly stating a preference for either view. Due to this neutral stance on these two topics, as a comparison with the works listed in Table 1 (see Chapter 7) shows, it is very unlikely that the commentary was composed in the first half of the 15th century or towards the end of the 15th century. The similarities mentioned with the works discussed in the previous chapters 4.6.1 to 4.6.3 also suggest that the commentary likely originates from the 1450s, 1460s, or 1470s.

4.6.5. Georgius Freypüchler

221 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 1r–329v; ibid., f. 329v: “Qui [i.e., God] fratrem Gregorium in Ebersperc (...)
222 See Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1471 bis 1497. Acta Facult (...)

109Georgius (also Gregorius) Freypüchler, who took his vows at Ebersberg Monastery, completed his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics on September 28, 1491. At that time, he was residing at the University of Vienna.221 On July 12, 1490, he was admitted for determination, and on March 9, 1492, he was admitted as a licentiate for inception.222

223 Cf. Stefan Kirschner & Andreas Kühne (2015), “The Decline of Medieval Disputation Culture and the ‘ (...)
224 This concerns, for example, the passages cited in fns. 226 and 227 from München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. (...)

110Freypüchler’s Physics commentary is primarily a compilation of definitions, distinctions, corollaries, authorities, and annotations in the style of his era, with a very rudimentary actual discussion part. The decline of medieval disputational culture223 becomes all too evident in such texts. Like with other texts, certain passages in his commentary literally coincide with excerpts from other works. In this case, there are significant correspondences with the anonymous and undated Physics commentary in München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 24872224.

225 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 34v: “Magnum secundum Buridanum substantiale est magnum quod est substan (...)
226 For example, the explanation for the magnum substantiale compositum (München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 34v (...)

111In Freypüchler’s commentary, a comparison of Buridan’s and Oresme’s views is presented in a diagram associated with Qu. I.8, illustrating the different uses of the term “magnum.” Both authors are attributed with distinguishing between a magnum substantiale and a magnum accidentale in the same way.225 However, it must be noted that these distinctions do not concern the ontological status of magnitudo; they merely highlight that both accidents and substances are extended, a fact that was undisputed until the question of the ontological status of extension was raised. Further conceptual differentiations, such as a magnum substantiale simplex and a magnum substantiale compositum, are then made only for Buridan. All in all, one cannot shake off the impression that the diagram contains some errors or inconsistencies.226

227 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 33v (partly in margine): “Magnitudo secundum Buridanum est accidens natu (...)
228 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 201r: “Corollarium. Secundum Marsilium et Orem omnis [mo add. et del.] r (...)

112There are no further mentions of Oresme in Qu. I.8. Freypüchler considers Buridan’s view that magnitudo is an independent accident to be the more probable one.227 In Qu. IV.11, conflicting statements arise regarding Oresme. It is noted that, according to Marsilius and Oresme, any rarefaction is an accidental motion (motus accidentalis), while, on the contrary, according to Ockham, for whom a res magna is the magnitudo, rarefaction is a substantial motion (substantialis motus).228

229 The emphasis here is on “every” (omnis rarefactio), because there are cases in which, even under th (...)

113This is the only instance in the discussed texts where an author attributes a non-Ockhamist view to Oresme. The fact that Freypüchler mentions that, according to Marsilius and Oresme, every rarefaction is an accidental motion excludes any compatibility with Ockham’s view, as it clearly presupposes that quantity is an independent accident subject to change.229

230 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 202r: “Sed Orem et eum sequentes dicunt qui tenent quod non oportet quan (...)

114While a clear distinction between the views of Oresme and Ockham has been made at this point, two pages later, Oresme “and those who follow him” are attributed the Ockhamist position, asserting that a distinction between quantitas and substance is unnecessary and that rarefaction does not result from the emergence of a new quantity but rather from a mere displacement of the substance’s parts.230 Given such contradictions, one gets the impression that text components from various sources were pieced together here without careful consideration of whether they form a logically consistent presentation.

231 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 145r: “An motus localis sit substantia vel accidens. Respondetur quod al (...)
232 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 145v: “Si modus Occam staret sequeretur quod idem esset motus naturalis (...)
233 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 146r: “Item moveri localiter secundum Buridanum et Marsilium est rem ali (...)

115Freypüchler presents a similarly inconsistent picture in the discussion of how Oresme and Ockham positioned themselves regarding the ontological status of local motion. On one hand, he attributes the Ockhamist view to Oresme and likely to Ockham as well, although the text reads “actio” instead of “occam” – this must be a misspelling, as “actio” is contextually inappropriate. A personal name is expected at that point, especially since the following sentence explicitly refers to more than one individual (secundum eos).231 On the other hand, in the discussion of the Ockhamist conception of local motion, Ockham is mentioned three times, whereas Oresme is not mentioned once.232 It is only in the definitions of local motion according to Buridan and Marsilius on one side, and Oresme on the other – common at the University of Vienna for decades and undoubtedly taken by Freypüchler from other works – that Oresme is named again.233

234 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 146v: “Dicitur ‘per accidens’ propter materiam primam que non movetur lo (...)
235 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 146v: “Respondetur ad questionem per duas conclusiones. Prima: Motus loc (...)

116It is noticeable that Freypüchler, as seen in his explanation of the components of these definitions, has not understood a crucial element of Buridan’s concept of local motion at all. The “aliquod accidens” inhering in the moving body is, for Buridan, the autonomous entity of motion, whereas Freypüchler omits the “aliquod” and completely misinterprets “per accidens” as the opposite to “per se.”234 All in all, Freypüchler sides with the Buridanian view that the motus localis is indeed ontologically distinct from both the place and the moving body.235

4.6.6. Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951 and Cod. 5190; München, BSB, Clm 24872

236 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 1r-141v. Book VIII is very incompletely preserved. If the sequence of Ques (...)
237 Susana Zapke (2014), “Musikalische Bildungs- und Ausbildungsprofile im Wissensraum Wien, 15. Jahrhu (...)
238 Susana Zapke (2014), “Musikalische Bildungs- und Ausbildungsprofile”, p. 358 (edition of the course (...)
239 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 67v, within a text passage in the margin: “turris Sancti Steffani.”

117The anonymous Physics commentary found in Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex 4951 (hereinafter referred to as “V.4951”), was likely written at the end of the 15th century.236 The text is part of a compilation manuscript. The last tract included in the manuscript is Thomas Bradwardine’s Arithmetica communis, which is dated to 1501.237 On folio 163v of the codex, there is a list of lecture topics along with the names of corresponding lecturers. These lectures align with the curriculum of the Vienna Faculty of Arts for students in the initial stages of their studies.238 Furthermore, the Physics commentary includes a specific reference to Vienna, mentioning St. Stephen’s Cathedral.239

240 The first three Questions in V.5190 are missing. There is a list of all Questions on f. 290r-292v. (...)
241 For M.24872, see Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 58-59.
242 Compare, for example, the quotations from V.4951 and M.24872 in fn. 245.

118There are very close thematic and linguistic similarities between V.4951 and two other anonymous and undated Physics commentaries, namely Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex 5190, fol. 1r-289r (hereinafter referred to as “V.5190”)240 and München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 24872, fol. 3r-273r (hereinafter referred to as “M.24872”).241 Nearly all of V.4951, Qu. I.8, and the entirety of V.4951, Qu. IV.11, appear in more or less identical form in Questions I.8 and IV.11 of M.24872, covering approximately 60% and 80% of the text, respectively.242 A similar situation applies to V.5190, where nearly all of Qu. I.8 and Qu. IV.11 are present in practically identical form in Questions I.8 and IV.11 of M.24872. However, the percentage for Qu. IV.11 is somewhat lower in V.5190, as it lacks four arguments at the end of Qu. IV.11 that are present in V.4951. Given that the relevant manuscript page (V.5190, f. 202r) is half empty, it may have originally been intended to add the missing arguments. In short, the discussions in Questions I.8 and IV.11 of V.4951 and V.5190 form a subset of the corresponding Questions in the more extensive commentary of M.24872. Qu. IV.11 of V.5190, in turn, forms a subset of Qu. IV.11 in V.4951. Despite all the thematic and literal similarities between V.4951 and V.5190, it cannot be definitively concluded that they are two versions of the same text due to some existing differences and the widespread practice of creating compilations.

243 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 17r: “Respondetur ad questionem quod magnitudo sit distincta a substantia (...)
244 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 17v-18r; Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 18r-19r; München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 20v (...)
245 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 93v: “Notandum quod circa hanc questionem sunt tres opiniones multum famos (...)
246 Compare the quotations in the preceding footnote with the following statement by Hainczel (K, f. 14 (...)

119In Question I.8 of the three Physics commentaries discussed in this chapter, only Buridan is mentioned among the 14th-century authors. His view, that magnitudo is distinct from substantia magna, is supported243and justified with references to Aristotle and Averroes. Additionally, arguments against the Ockhamist stance are presented, and Ockhamist arguments are refuted.244 It is only in Question IV.11 that Oresme is credited with the Ockhamist viewpoint that magnitudo is not distinct from substance. This attribution occurs in a brief overview of the three prevalent viewpoints on the process of rarefaction, represented by Buridan, Marsilius, and – allegedly – Oresme.245 Interestingly, this comparison mirrors a passage from Hainczel.246 Direct, nearly verbatim parallels with Hainczel are also noticeable in other sections of Question IV.11. However, these correspondences do not affect the assessment of the contrasting viewpoints, as Hainczel showed a preference for the purported Oresmian and thus Ockhamist stance on quantitas or magnitudo (refer to Chapter 4.6.2), whereas the authors of the discussed text group in this chapter endorse Buridan’s perspective.

247 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 67v: “Una est opinio famosa ipsius Orem et Occan [or Occon] et sequacium t (...)
248 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 68r: “Respondetur ad questionem secundum opinionem que apparet probabilior (...)
249 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 68r-v; Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 140r-141r; München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 126 (...)

120Additionally, in Qu. III.7, which addresses the question of the ontological status of motus localis, several passages in V.4951 harmonize in content and often verbatim with those in V.5190 and M.24872. This includes sections attributing the view that local motion is the moving body to both Ockham and Oresme.247 However, in all three texts, the competing view that motus localis is an independent accident inhering in the mobile is deemed more probable.248 The discussion in V.5190 and M.24872 is much more detailed compared to that in V.4951. For instance, V.4951 presents only four arguments in favor of the Ockhamist position and their refutation (all of which are also present in M.24872 and V.5190), whereas M.24872 and V.5190 contain eight such arguments.249

121Due to the strong content links to V.4951, it can be assumed that M.24872 and V.5190 were also composed at the end of the 15th century.

4.6.7. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 5909 and Clm 19846

250 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 1r-196v; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 62.
251 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 2r-339r; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 61.

122Two additional Physics commentaries containing misattributions of Ockhamist views to Oresme have been identified but not yet discussed: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 5909250 and Clm 19846251.

123Due to their concise explanations, the two Physics commentaries present challenges for comparison. However, since the texts can largely be understood as excerpts from and paraphrases of explanations found in other Viennese texts, both in terms of content and style, there is no objection to the assumption of a Viennese context.

124The two Physics commentaries, Clm 5909 and Clm 19846, likely originate from the end of the 15th century. This assumption is based on criteria related to their content. In both commentaries, the views of Buridan are endorsed regarding the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo as well as motus localis. As shown in Chapters 4.6.5 and 4.6.6, such a combination seems to be typical of the end of the 15th century.

4.6.7.1. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 5909

252 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 22v: “Respondetur ad questionem: Res magna secundaria est res realiter d (...)
253 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 101v: “Est enim opinio ipsius Orem et Occon et ipsorum sequentium que op (...)
254 See the two quotations in fn. 253; also note the supplement – probably added by another hand – “exc (...)
255 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 139v, at the top margin: “Sed secundum Buridanum <et> [illeg. et bi add.(...)
256 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 139v, in the margin: “Modus rarefactionis secundum Occan <est> quod nulla sub</est> (...)

125The unknown author of the Physics commentary in Codex 5909 at the Bavarian State Library in Munich opposes the Ockhamist perspective on both the questions of quantitas or magnitudo252 and local motion.253 Like other Physics commentaries, he attributes the view that motus localis is “ipsa res met que movetur localiter” to both Ockham and Oresme.254 Regarding quantitas or magnitudo, in Qu. IV.11, the Ockhamist stance is attributed once to Oresme and Ockham – at least implicitly255 – and twice to Ockham alone.256

257 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 139v: “Occan et Orem alium [aliam Ms.] tenent modum et loquuntur permisc (...)

126Another passage in Qu. IV.11, where Oresme and Ockham are mentioned together as representatives of an alternative view to Buridan and Marsilius regarding the modus rarefactionis, deserves closer examination.257 In analogy to other Viennese Physics commentaries, one would typically expect the subsequent statement that rarefaction, according to Oresme and Ockham, occurs through a mere change in the location of the parts of the substance, perhaps accompanied by some counterarguments against Buridan’s bellows argument (see this main argument by Buridan above, Chapter 2). However, here it is cryptically stated that Oresme and Ockham speak “permiscue” about rarefaction, heating (calefactio), and other specific motions, leaving it unclear what the author exactly means by “permiscue.” If this term is intended to suggest that Oresme and Ockham considered different motions, such as rarefaction and heating, in a unified way (so to speak, mixed together), this could apply to Oresme (cf. above, Chapter 3); however, since there are no further indications of this, it seems unlikely that the author possessed these specific insights.

258 William Ockham (1977), Scriptum in librum primum sententiarum. Ordinatio. Distinctiones IV-XVIII, e (...)

127Next, as a justification (“nam”), a quote from Ockham’s Sentences commentary is cited258. This is remarkable, as it is the only instance in all the discussed texts where a literal quotation from one of Ockham’s works is used. In addition to the author’s misattribution regarding the augmentatio of any forma substantialis instead of the correct term – a forma accidentalis, as used by Ockham – the quote does not pertain to the topic of how to conceive the modus rarefactionis. The quote does not address rarefaction; rather, Ockham is defending his position that with an augmentatio of a qualitative form – meaning its intensification – the previous form remains and does not perish.

4.6.7.2. München, BSB, Clm 19846

259 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 62r: “Respondetur secundum mentem Marsilii, Buridani et omnium modernor (...)
260 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 61r: “Magnum secundarium est illud cui aut [corr. ex vel] parti eius in (...)
261 München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 20v: “Magnum secundarium est cui vel parti eius inheret vel coassistit (...)

128In Qu. I.8 of this commentary, it is stated that magnitudo is distinct from a res magna secundaria (referring to substances and accidents) but not from a res magna primaria (referring to magnitudo itself). The author references Marsilius, Buridan, “all moderns,” as well as Thomas Aquinas.259 A similar statement was made earlier, with Buridan, Marsilius, Aristotle, Albert (likely Albertus Magnus), and the commentator, i.e., Averroes, mentioned.260 This passage is found verbatim in Clm 24872 (see Chapter 4.6.6 for this Physics commentary), which is certainly not a coincidence; the only difference is that Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome are additionally listed as authorities there.261

262 Only in the following argument supporting the author’s view is the opinion briefly mentioned that c (...)
263 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 263v: “Occan et Orem dicunt quod accidens quantitas non sit distinctum (...)

129The entire Question I.8 in Clm 19846 is largely a simple collection of definitions and propositions. Competing opinions, such as Ockham’s view on magnitudo, are not addressed at all in Question I.8.262 This differs in Question IV.11. There, the usual statement appears that, for Ockham and Oresme, quantitas is not distinct from substance, so that rarefaction consists of an “elongatio partium ab invicem” (stretching apart of parts from each other).263 Such a brief statement presupposes that the recipients understand that “elongatio partium ab invicem” is not meant to be taken literally. Instead, as explained in other Physics commentaries, this separation of parts does not imply that immediately adjacent parts no longer touch each other, but rather that the parts expand while maintaining immediate contact (despite the phrase “ab invicem”). One must wonder whether the lack of such an essential explanation is due not only to the handbook-like nature of this text but also to the possibility that the details of this view of the modus rarefactionis were no longer of interest, and it was merely about being able to recite different opinions.

264 See the quotation in the preceding footnote.

130In his rejection of the Ockhamist view of quantitas in Question IV.11, the author is again brief and notes that this viewpoint has been refuted in the first and second books of Aristotle’s Physics.264

265 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 205r: “Movetur propter opinionem Orem et Occan quod [quia Ms.] mobile a (...)
266 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 206r: “Respondetur ad questionem. Motus localis est distinctus a loco e (...)
267 Aristotle, Top., II.7.113a29-30.
268 For example, see München, BSB, Clm 6029 (Freypüchler; see Chapter 4.6.5), f. 146v, in the margin: “ (...)
269 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 206v: “Motis nobis moventur omnia que in nobis sunt. Respondetur quod i (...)

131Concerning the ontological status of local motion, in Question III.7, the reader learns that the question arises partly due to Oresme’s and Ockham’s view that the mobile is not distinct from local motion.265 However, a genuine discussion of this view does not take place. The non-Ockhamist position is supported and substantiated with some arguments.266 Among the very few counterarguments, there is one that exemplifies extreme content condensation, rendering it incomprehensible without background knowledge. It argues against the view that motus localis is distinct from the mobile: If local motion were distinct from the thing that is locally moved, then it would be distinct from itself, which is impossible. This conclusion arises because local motion is also moved. As Aristotle states in the second book of the Topics, when we are moved, everything within us is moved,267 and local motion is indeed within us. The response to this argument is that Aristotle’s statement applies only to things that are inherenter and permanenter within us, whereas local motion, being a purely successive thing, is not permanenter within us. This detailed argumentation originates from other Physics commentaries.268 In Clm 19846 itself, the entire discussion is shortened to merely reproducing Aristotle’s statement and the response to it.269

5. From Vienna to Ingolstadt

270 Albrecht Liess (1980), “Die artistische Fakultät der Universität Ingolstadt 1472-1588”, in Laetitia (...)

132The Faculty of Arts at the University of Ingolstadt, founded in 1472, was strongly influenced by the University of Vienna from the very beginning. Almost half of the statutes of the Ingolstadt Faculty of Arts were borrowed from Vienna, and some provisions from Leipzig were also incorporated. By the end of 1472, 44 artistic masters had enrolled in the university’s register, of whom 15 were from Vienna and 13 from Leipzig.270

271 München, BSB, Clm 3848, f. 1v-263v (digital copy: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb001 (...)
272 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 119r-235v (cf. Mieczysław Markowski [1981], Buridanica, p. 49). Accordi (...)
273 Sunczel (also Sintzel) originated from Wittlich and enrolled at the University of Ingolstadt on Oct (...)
274 Pierre Duhem (1959), Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic (...)
275 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 2r-215v (cf. Mieczysław Markowski [1981], Buridanica, p. 60). Upon comp (...)
276 See below, fn. 294.

133There are indications that the Viennese tradition of attributing views to Oresme that actually originate from Ockham spread to the University of Ingolstadt. Several writings are relevant in this regard: the anonymous and undated Physics commentary contained in the codex München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3848;271 the Physics commentary by the Masters Georgius Eysenhuet and Johannes Paereit, who worked at the University of Ingolstadt;272 and the “Collecta et exercitata” on Aristotle’s Physics written by Fridericus Sunczel273 at the University of Ingolstadt, which was first published in print in 1499 in Hagenau. As indicated by a date in Qu. VIII.2, 1499 is also the year of composition of the text.274 Additionally, it is appropriate to discuss the anonymous Physics commentary contained in the codex München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19679275 in this chapter, as there is likely a connection to the University of Ingolstadt based on an ownership note276.

277 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 4, f. 27v, l. 7-8: “iam sunt rara tempora, iam sunt bona tempora in Au (...)
278 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 1, Qu. I.9, f. 23r: “Item utrum quantitas sit distincta a re quanta su (...)
279 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 8, f. 13v-14v (Qu. VIII.12); Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et ex (...)

134Clm 3848 could have originated at the University of Vienna, as the term “Austria” is mentioned once in the text.277 Since Vienna was the only Austrian university in the 15th century, it is likely that the commentary was composed there. However, Clm 3848 also shows a connection to Ingolstadt due to a noticeable thematic similarity with Sunczel. In both works, the Ockhamist stance on quantitas is attributed not only to Oresme and Ockham but also to the Pythagoreans and Platonists,278 a unique combination that does not appear in any other text. Another close connection between Clm 3848 and Sunczel is evident in the Quaestio dealing with projectile motion; almost all of the numerous and sometimes very detailed additional marginal notes, written by the same hand as the main text, correspond to passages in Sunczel’s work from 1499.279 However, this does not necessarily mean that these notes were taken from the printed edition, as they could also come from a handwritten source.

280 See the first two quotations in fn. 278; furthermore, see Clm 3848, Book 1, Qu. I.9, f. 23v: “Respo (...)
281 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 3, Qu. III.8, f. 17v: “Respondetur ad questionem: motus localis est re (...)
282 See the quotation from Sunczel in fn. 278.

135Both the unknown author of Clm 3848 and Sunczel adopt the view that magnitudo or quantitas is an independent accident.280 They also reject the Ockhamist perspective on local motion.281 In the corresponding Quaestio (III.8 in Clm 3848 and III.6 in Sunczel), no authors other than Aristotle and the commentator (Averroes) are mentioned. However, Sunczel, in a brief side note to Qu. I.8, mentions Oresme alongside Ockham as proponents of the view that “motus sit mobile”282.

283 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Qu. IV.11, f. 26v: “Prima Burdiani. Et dicit primo quod quantitas sit res r (...)
284 Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et exercitata, Qu. IV.10, f. [m5]v: “Respondetur quod omissis [ (...)

136In the question of how to conceive the process of rarefaction, the author of Clm 3848 presents the classic three views: those of Buridan, Marsilius, and finally the Ockhamist position, which, as usual, is attributed to both Ockham and Oresme.283 He does not make a decision on which view to prefer. Sunczel, on the other hand, consciously avoids mentioning the views typically referred to in the context of modus rarefactionis and opts for a perspective that, as will be discussed later, corresponds to that of Paulus Venetus without naming him284.

285 See the note on folio 1r, transcribed in Maximilian Schuh (2013), Aneignungen des Humanismus, p. 18 (...)
286 Maximilian Schuh (2013), Aneignungen des Humanismus, p. 182.

137The Codex München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19844, which contains the Physics commentary by Eysenhuet and Paereit, belonged to Leonhard Estermann from Wasserburg, who presented this volume to the Tegernsee Monastery in 1491 when he took his vows there.285 Estermann enrolled at the University of Ingolstadt on May 17, 1483, and obtained his Bachelor’s degree in September 1485, followed by his promotion to Master in January 1488286.

287 All information extracted from Christoph Schöner (1998), “Eisenhut (Eysenhuet), Georg, † 1495 Amber (...)

138Eysenhuet hailed from Pressath and enrolled at the University of Ingolstadt on June 16, 1473. He obtained his Master’s degree in January 1477. During the winter semester of 1483/84 and the summer semester of 1488 (until July 31), he served as Dean of the Faculty of Arts, and in the summer semester of 1484, he was the Rector of the University of Ingolstadt. Eysenhuet also studied theology and was awarded a Doctorate in Theology on July 30, 1488. In August 1488, he left Ingolstadt to accept a position as a preacher in Amberg, where he died of the plague in 1495287.

288 All information extracted from Christoph Schöner (1998), “Parreut (Tolhopf, von der Grün), Johannes (...)

139Johannes Parreut (also Paereit) enrolled as “Johannes von der Grün de Bairreut” at the University of Ingolstadt on May 20, 1478. He was awarded his Master’s degree in January 1482. During the winter semester of 1488/89, he served as Dean of the Faculty of Arts. By 1493, he had left Ingolstadt but returned briefly for his licentiate promotion on February 15, 1494, and later for his Doctorate in Theology on July 29, 1494. Paereit passed away in Braunau in 1495 due to the plague288.

140It can be assumed that Eysenhuet’s and Paereit’s Physics commentary was written between 1482 (Paereit’s Master’s promotion) or 1483 (Estermann’s enrollment at the University of Ingolstadt) and 1488 (Eysenhuet’s departure to Amberg).

289 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 132v: “Conclusio. Res extensive habens partes non est sua magnitudo, ho (...)
290 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 209r: “Modus rarefactionis secundum Buridanum est talis: Cum rarefacien (...)

141Eysenhuet and Paereit adopt the Buridanian standpoint regarding the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo and do not mention any alternative views.289 In the discussion of the process of rarefaction, additional notes assess Buridan’s view as probable, Marsilius’s view as less likely, and the view attributed to Oresme and Ockham – which assumes that quantitas is not an independent accident but substance – as false290.

291 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 209v: “Nota. Rarefactio et condensatio secundum Paulum Venetum sunt mot (...)

142Interestingly, towards the end of the Quaestio, there is a reference to the view of Paulus Venetus, who is mentioned by name and from whom a literal quote from his “Summa naturalium” is provided. According to Paulus Venetus, rarefaction is a movement ad ubi and ad qualitatem, but not ad quantitatem, as the quantitas remains the same; it only becomes larger or smaller in the case of condensation. Therefore, rarefaction is not a motion towards a greater quantitas, but towards a greater extension of the quantitas, which is not quantitas but a modus quantitatis291.

143This evaluation of Paulus Venetus’s view in the manuscript represents an addition written by the same hand as the main text, and it cannot be determined whether Eysenhuet and Paereit themselves referenced Paulus Venetus or if Estermann made the addition on his own initiative. As mentioned, a clear preference for Paulus Venetus’s view on the process of rarefaction was observed in Sunczel, suggesting that a positive attitude towards Paulus Venetus’s views may have been typical at the University of Ingolstadt.

292 See above, foontnote 290.
293 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 176r: “Respondetur ad questionem quoad primam partem quod motus localis (...)

144The mention of Oresme – together with Ockham – is limited to Qu. IV.11 in Eysenhuet and Paereit, where it is associated with the false attribution of the Ockhamist position regarding the ontological status of quantitas,292 as commonly known from Vienna. In the question of the ontological status of local motion, Eysenhuet and Paereit do not mention Buridan, Marsilius, Oresme, or Ockham, but rather refer to other authors (Petrus de Aquila, Alexander Hales, Paulus Venetus). The authors adopt the view that local motion differs both from place and from the mobile293.

294 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 1v: “Hunc librum obtulit deo et sancto Quirinio Monasterio in Tegernsee (...)
295 See above, fn. 275.
296 In contrast to the order of Questions in Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.) and the other Ph (...)
297 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 174v: “Sed secundum Orem et Ocon qui dicunt quod non oportet quantitate (...)
298 See the citation in the previous footnote.
299 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 21r: “Alia ratio. Rarefiat aliquid pedale id est res unius pedis in qua (...)

145The codex München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19679, also belonged to Leonhard Estermann,294 suggesting that the anonymous Physics commentary295 it contains is likely connected to the University of Ingolstadt. The unknown author of Clm 19679 mentions in Qu. IV.17,296 in the usual style, Oresme and Ockham as proponents of the view that quantitas is not distinct from substance and that rarefaction does not occur through the generation of a new quantitas, but solely due to a local motion of the substance’s parts. According to this view, the parts that were touching each other before the rarefaction and were immediately adjacent continue to touch after the rarefaction, but overall are further from the central parts than before297. In other words, the parts of the substance expand. The reverse applies to the process of condensation. This view of Ockham and (purportedly) Oresme is described in Qu. IV.17 as “satis probabilis” and “facilior”298. However, this contradicts a statement in Qu. I.8. In Qu. I.8, after attributing to Oresme the view that nothing is added in rarefaction, an argument is made against it, asserting that a magnitudo is added299. Thus, in Qu. I.8, the Buridanian view is supported.

300 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 123r-126v: “Utrum motus localis sit res distincta <a loco et> ab eo [et a loco (...)
301 See for example München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 125r-125v: “Item secundum Orem sequitur quod daretur [d (...)
302 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 120v: “Motus localis secundum Occon et Orem est accidens et substantia, (...)

146In Qu. III.7300 of Clm 19679, numerous arguments are presented in support of the idea that local motion ontologically differs from the mobile and from place, along with various counterarguments against the Ockhamist perspective on local motion. The author’s personal stance is therefore anti-Ockhamist, with only Oresme being mentioned in Qu. III.7 by name as a proponent of the Ockhamist view of local motion, not Ockham himself. The focus in relevant sections is on the implications arising from the implicit equating of motus localis and mobile, which the author found unacceptable301. An Ockhamist would have likely addressed these implications. The author’s anti-Ockhamist stance is also evident from a remark in Qu. III.6 (Utrum motus sit vel utrum hec sit vera: ‘motus localis est’), where it is noted that, according to Ockham and Oresme, local motion is both an accident and a substance, but that this view is not widely supported302.

6. Counterexamples

303 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 3r-125v (cf. Mieczysław Markowski [1981], Buridanica, p. 59-60); f. 125 (...)
304 Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 59-60, 144.

147Of course, there are also Viennese Physics commentaries from the 15th century in which no misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme occurs, as evidenced by the following two examples. The first concerns the Physics commentary of Martinus de Gugugeya,303 about whom nothing else is known. Markowski assigns the work to the beginning of the 15th century304. A Viennese connection is evident from noticeable content and linguistic similarities with other Viennese Physics commentaries on the question of the ontological status of local motion (see below). Because of these connections in content, Martinus’s commentary can probably be assigned to the period from the 1440s to the 1470s.

305 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 22r-22v: “Questio utrum omnis res extensive et situaliter habens partem (...)
306 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 22r-24v; see for example f. 22v: “et sic non sequitur [vel sequeretur] (...)

148Martinus de Gugugeya’s commentary is incomplete, extending only to the 2nd Quaestio of Book 5. Furthermore, some Questions from the third and fourth books are missing, including Qu. IV.11, so nothing can be said about how he envisioned the process of rarefaction. Regarding quantitas, he explicitly rejects Ockham’s view, mentioning him by name and discussing his arguments from the “Summa logicae,”305 and instead defends Buridan’s view306. It is a remarkable circumstance that an author directly refers to a work by Ockham, and Martinus’s familiarity with Ockham’s original arguments could explain why the usual misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme is not found in his work.

307 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 86v-88r.
308 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 88r: “Sed prima via magis conveniens est quod sit fluxus distinctus a l (...)
309 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 87v: “Item ad eandem conclusionem volo quod dominus deus hunc lapidem p (...)
310 See fn. 308.
311 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 88r: “An autem sit possibile deum hunc lapidem reponere ad diversas par (...)

149In the question of the ontological status of local motion,307 Martinus seems to lean towards Ockham’s view, although he does not name him explicitly. Somewhat surprisingly, he then asserts that Buridan’s view, stating that local motion is a “fluxus distinctus a loco et a mobili,” is “more suitable” (magis conveniens)308. Martinus extensively addresses the problem of whether God could move a stone from one place to another without generating a new entity, namely motion as fluxus and thus as an independent reality309. Ockham’s followers affirmed this, while those who considered local motion as a separate entity argued that this was not possible. Ultimately, Martinus does not make a decision on this issue, and after referring to Buridan’s view on local motion as “more suitable,”310 he adds somewhat resignedly that God himself knows well whether He could position a stone in different places consecutively without the emergence of an additional fluxus311.

312 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lectura (...)
313 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 87v-88r.
314 Cf. Udalricus de Tubing (see Chapter 4.5; München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 269r); Praha, Národní knihovn (...)

150An interesting detail in Martinus’s handling of the question of whether local motion differs from the mobile and from place is quite revealing. Martinus delves extensively into Buridan’s arguments312 against equating local motion with the mobile and demonstrates how these arguments can be refuted313. Some of these arguments and refutations are found in a very similar manner, sometimes with noticeable linguistic similarities, in other Viennese Physics commentaries314. The only difference is that in the other commentaries, either in the introductory sentence or elsewhere in the corresponding passage, Oresme is explicitly named as the proponent of the defended view, while Martinus refrains from mentioning any names. It is impossible to determine whether Martinus drew inspiration from other texts for his explanations or whether, conversely, his explanations served as a model for others.

315 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 217v-279v.
316 Regarding Martinus Hämerl (also Hämerel, Hämern, Hämerlin, and other names), see Thomas Maisel & In (...)
317 Regarding Erhardus de Weitra, see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregist (...)
318 Maria Mairold (1988), Die datierten Handschriften in der Steiermark außerhalb der Universitätsbibli (...)
319 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 250v: “Tertio modo capitur locus pro equalitate distantie v (...)

151Another Viennese Physics commentary that does not contain any false attributions to Oresme is represented by the anonymous and undated Quaestiones in the manuscript Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749315. The codex also includes Martinus Hämerl’s316 “Dicta meteororum,” with a copy dated to 1444, as well as the commentary “In Analytica Posteriora” by Erhardus de Weitra,317 produced at the University of Vienna and written in 1450.318 A clear connection of the Physics commentary to Vienna emerges from the mention of Vienna and the Kahlenberg319.

320 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243v: “Solutiones rationum Buridani vide in disputatis.”

152Generally, the Quaestiones in this Physics commentary are discussed quite briefly and often cover only one page or less. However, there seems to have been a more detailed version, as in Qu. III.7, for example, there is a reference to reviewing the refutations of Buridan’s arguments in the Disputata320.

321 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 254r: “Corollarium. Respondendum: questio simpliciter est v (...)

153Qu. I.8 of the Physics commentary, which addresses the ontological status of quantitas, is missing. Additionally, Quaestiones I.1 to I.4 and I.9 to I.13 are also absent. As with the other Quaestiones, the discussion regarding the possibility of rarefaction and condensation in Qu. IV.11 is very brief, typically spanning just one page. The author’s personal stance on the modus rarefactionis is not evident, as he merely summarizes various views, including Ockham’s, whom he explicitly names321.

322 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243r: “Pro conclusione responsali sunt tres vie, una videli (...)
323 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243v: “Conclusio responsalis: Motus non est distinctus a mo (...)
324 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243v: “Sed secundum opinionem <Gregorii> tunc motus localis nec est m</Gregorii> (...)

154A different picture emerges in the question of the ontological status of local motion. Three different views are presented: those of Buridan, Ockham, who is also mentioned by name, and Gregory of Rimini, who holds the view that ontologically, local motion is “the space described by the mobile” (cf. above, Chapter 3).322 The author clearly opts for the Ockhamist view that local motion is not distinct from the mobile, but is the mobile itself. He distinctly expresses that God could achieve, without generating a new accident, the successive presence of something in various locations and presents an original justification for this. He posits that even a secondary cause, such as a horse, is capable of moving its rider to different locations without generating a new entity in the rider (somewhat inaccurately referred to by the author as a motus novus), for if this were the case, an impetus would need to be produced in the rider, which is not the case323. At the very end, there is once again a brief mention, without further commentary, of the view of Gregory of Rimini324.

7. Summary Tables

155Table 1 provides an overview of the texts of Viennese origin discussed in this article that contain misattributions of Ockhamist views to Oresme, as well as the personal inclinations of the respective authors regarding the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo, and local motion. An author is considered a proponent of an Ockhamist view if he personally declares it as probable or more likely, in comparison to other views. Merely stating that the Ockhamist view is considered by others to be the probable one is not sufficient to classify the author as holding an Ockhamist position. The same criteria apply to assessing whether someone holds a Buridanist or non-Ockhamist view. The more general term “non-Ockhamist” view is used when an author espouses a non-Ockhamist perspective without referring to Buridan, and Buridan is not otherwise mentioned by name in the discussion (see nos. 19-20 in Table 1). In cases where there is no explicit statement by the author about which opinion he prefers, the classification “neutral” is applied.

156The Physics commentary in München, BSB, Clm 3848, which likely originated in Vienna, is listed in Table 2 due to its content connections to Ingolstadt (see above, Chapter 5).

157The following abbreviations were used: Anon. = Anonymous, qu. = quantitas, mag. = magnitudo, mot. loc. = motus localis, Ockh. = Ockhamist view, Burid. = Buridanist view, UB = Universitätsbibliothek (University Library), BSB = Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Bavarian State Library), ÖNB = Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Austrian National Library), Stiftsbibl. = Stiftsbibliothek (Monastery Library).

Table 1: Viennese Physics Commentaries with Misattributions of Ockhamist Views to Oresme

No.	Author	Ms.	Date	Ockhamist view on quantitas/mag-nitudo attributed to	Ockhamist view on local motion attributed to	The author’s personal stance
1	Anon.	München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 108r-164v, 170r-174v	c. 1422	Oresme (Qu. I.8; Qu. IV.11 [indirectly])	Qu. missing	qu./mag.: neutral
2	Johannes Stedler de Landshut	München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 1r-257r	1430	Oresme (Qu. I.8)	Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: Ockh.
3	Jodocus Gartner de Berching	Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 2r-170v	Not before 1436	“moderni” (Qu. I.,8); Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	No specific author mentioned	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: Ockh.
4	Jodocus Gartner de Berching	München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 3r-183r	1438 or 1439	Oresme (Qu. I.8 and IV.11); Oresme and Ockham (f. 2r, list of different opinions)	Ockham (f. 2r, list of different opinions)	qu./mag.: unclear statements mot. loc.: Ockh.
5	Johannes Widman de Dinkels-bühl	Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 1r-390v	1439	Oresme (Qu. I.8); Oresme and Ockham (Qu. I.8); Ockham (Qu. I.8)	Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: Ockham’s view on local motion is probable; Gregory of Rimini’s view (motus localis sit spatium in quo mobile movetur) is more probable.
6	Georgius Tudel de Giengen	München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 2r-268v	1448	Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	„Nicolai Occam“ (Qu. III.7); Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: Ockh.
7	Anon.	Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, Cod. IV F 18, f. 1r-130r	1449-1450	Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	Oresme (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: neutral
8	Udalricus de Tubing	München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 195r-360r	1452	Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	Oresme (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: neutral mot. loc.: neutral
9	Magister regens (not clearly identifiable)	Melk, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 801, f. 192r-350r	1453-1454	Oresme (Qu. I.8 and IV.11)	Oresme (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: Burid.
10	Anon.	Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5506, f. 1v-208r (only Books IV-VIII)	1454 or 1459	Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	First three books missing	qu./mag.: Ockh.
11	Martinus Hainczel	München, BSB, Clm 481, f. 1r-188r; Klagenfurt, UB, Pap.-Hs. 74, f. 2r-218r; Zwettl, Zisterzienser-stift, Cod. 418, f. 1r-249v	1466	Oresme (Qu. I.8 and IV.11)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: neutral
12	Henricus Platerber-ger	Consulted manuscripts:Kremsmün-ster, Benediktinerstift, CC 52, f. 1r-160v; Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 901, p. 151-600; Salzburg, Erzabtei St. Peter, Benediktinerstift, Library, b V 11, f. 1r-274r	1471 (Kremsmün-ster, CC 52) 1474 (Melk, 901)	Oresme; Oresme and Ockham	Oresme and Ockham	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: Ockhamist view of local motion is against Aristotle
13	Anon.	Melk, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 1097, p. 207-561	Manu-script copy probably no later than 1475; original composi-tion date may be in the 1450s	Oresme (Qu. I.8)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Ockh. mot. loc.: neutral
14	Anon.	Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 1r-147r	Likely from the 1450s, 1460s, or 1470s	Oresme (Qu. I.8 and indirectly in Qu. IV.11)	Oresme (Qu. III.7 and III.11); Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.12)	qu./mag.: neutral mot. loc.: neutral
15	Georgius Freypüch-ler	München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 1r–329v	1491	Oresme (Qu. IV.11, however inconsistent statements)	Oresme (Qu. III.7); Ockham (Qu. III.7); Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Burid. mot. loc.: Burid.
16	Anon.	Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 1r-141v	End of the 15th century, not after 1501	Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Burid. mot. loc.: Burid.
17	Anon.	Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 1r-289r	End of the 15th century due to close connec-tion to Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951	Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Burid. mot. loc.: Burid.
18	Anon.	München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 3r-273r	End of the 15th century due to close connec-tion to Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951	Oresme (Qu. IV.11)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Burid. mot. loc.: Burid.
19	Anon.	München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 1r-196v	Probably end of the 15^th century	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. IV.11); Ockham (Qu. IV.11)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Burid. mot. loc.: non-Ockh.
20	Anon.	München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 2r-339r	Probably end of the 15^th century	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. IV.11)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.7)	qu./mag.: Burid. mot. loc.: non-Ockh.

158Chapter 5 illustrated how the misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme spread from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt by the late 15th century. For an overview of the relevant texts on this topic, see Table 2. Since Buridan is not mentioned in the Quaestio regarding the ontological status of local motion in the works listed in this table, the view that local motion is distinct from place and the mobile, and constitutes an ontologically independent accident is classified in this table not as “Buridanist” but as “non-Ockhamist” (abbreviated as “Non-Ockh.”).

Table 2: The Spread of Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt

No.	Author	Ms.	Date	Ockhamist view on quantitas/ magnitudo attributed to	Ockhamist view on local motion attributed to	The author’s personal stance
1	Georgius Eysenhuet and Johannes Paereit	München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 119r-235v	Between 1482/1483 and 1488	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. IV.11)	No specific author mentioned	qu./mag.: Burid. Paulus Venetus’s view on the modus rarefactionis is presented in detail mot. loc.: Non-Ockh.
2	Fridericus Sunczel	Printed in Hagenau	1499	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. I.8)	Oresme and Ockham (Qu. I.8)	qu./mag.: Burid.; concerning the modus rarefactionis Sunczel prefers the opinion of Paulus Venetus; mot. loc.: Non-Ockh.
3	Anon.	München, BSB, Clm 3848, f. 1v-263v		Oresme and Ockham (Qu. I.8 and IV.11)	No specific author mentioned	qu./mag.: Burid. (Qu. I.8); neutral (Qu. IV.11) mot. loc.: Non-Ockh.
4	Anon.	München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 2r-215v		Oresme (indirectly in Qu. I.8); Oresme and Ockham (Qu. IV.17)	Oresme (Qu. III.7); Oresme and Ockham (Qu. III.6)	qu./mag.: inconsistent statements (Qu. I.8: Burid.; Qu. IV.17: Ockh.) mot. loc.: Non-Ockh.

159In Chapter 6, two counterexamples of Viennese Physics commentaries from the 15th century have been presented in which no misattributions of Ockhamist views to Oresme occur. For an overview of these texts, see Table 3.

Table 3: Viennese Physics Commentaries without Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme

No.	Author	Ms.	Date	Ockhamist view on quantitas/ magnitudo attributed to	Ockhamist view on local motion attributed to	The author’s personal stance
1	Martinus de Gugugeya	München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 3r-125v	Likely from the 1440s-1470s	Ockham (Qu. I.8) Qu. IV.11 missing	No specific author mentioned	qu./mag.: Burid. mot. loc.: Burid.
2	Anon.	Admont, Benediktiner- stift, Cod. 749, f. 217v-279v	After 1450	Ockham (Qu. IV.11) Qu. I.8 missing	Ockham	qu./mag.: neutral mot. loc.: Ockh.

8. Discussion

160A total of 25 different Physics commentaries and Platerberger’s “Philosophicae veritatis compendium” were examined. The authors are named in 11 of these Physics commentaries, and 23 of them are either dated or allow for approximate dating. The oldest commentary dates from the early 1420s, while the most recent writings were produced in the last decade of the 15th century. Twenty-three of the 26 works were conclusively or very probably produced at the University of Vienna (Nos. 1-20 in Table 1, No. 3 in Table 2, and Nos. 1-2 in Table 3). The Viennese context is evident in cases where the authors are known, based on their confirmed teaching activities at the University of Vienna. One exception is the Physics commentary by Martinus de Gugugeya (no. 1 in Table 3), about whom nothing further is known. However, content criteria suggest that the work was composed at the University of Vienna. For anonymous commentaries, substantial criteria were used to attribute them to an origin within the Viennese context. This involved direct matches with documented Viennese works, or the texts were easily identifiable as summarizing interpretations and theses known from Viennese sources in terms of content and style. References to geographic locations like St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, the city of Vienna, Austria, or the Danube served as additional indicators for assigning commentaries to the University of Vienna.

161Four of the examined works have a direct or indirect connection to the University of Ingolstadt (see Table 2). These were used to show that the tradition of misattributing Ockhamist views to Oresme spread from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt by the late 15th century (see Chapter 5).

162With the exceptions of the two counterexamples (see Chapter 6), all the texts examined here contain the misattribution of Ockham’s view on quantitas to Oresme, either solely mentioning Oresme or alongside Ockham. In a subset of these texts, there is also a misattribution of the Ockhamist perspective on local motion to Oresme, again mentioning Oresme alone or in conjunction with Ockham. While more Viennese Physics commentaries may contain these misattributions, and additional counterexamples may emerge, it is apparent that this tradition was deeply rooted.

163Ockhamist views on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo were prevalent at the University of Vienna until the 1470s. With regard to local motion, the Ockhamist interpretation was predominant in the first half of the 15th century. Only Widman de Dinkelsbühl considers Gregory of Rimini’s standpoint to be even more plausible than Ockham’s (see Chapter 4.4). In the manuscript Munich, University Library, 4° Cod. ms. 823, the corresponding Quaestio is absent, preventing a statement in this case.

164However, from the mid-15th century onwards, there seems to be no clear advocate of the Ockhamist view on local motion, a trend that extends to the interpretation of quantitas or magnitudo by the end of the century. Instead, a neutral stance is adopted, or the corresponding Buridanist view is preferred. In the works produced towards the end of the 15th century, there is a noticeable trend of increasingly mentioning other authorities for a non-Ockhamist view alongside Buridan, such as Aristotle, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas, and Giles of Rome. In the Physics commentaries No. 19 and 20 in Table 1, whose authors hold a non-Ockhamist view on local motion, Buridan is no longer mentioned at all in the corresponding Quaestio. The result of these developments is reflected in the works discussed in Chapter 5, which were created at the University of Ingolstadt, founded in 1472, or that have a close connection to this university, notwithstanding the conflicting statements in Clm 19679 regarding the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo (see Table 2).

165Regarding local motion, the shift of the personal preferences of the respective authors in Vienna seems to align with the observation that in the 1450s, the Ockhamist perspective on local motion was attributed solely to Oresme (and not to Ockham as previously), and later to both Oresme and Ockham. However, these trends should be approached with caution given the limited scope of the texts analyzed.

325 Konrad von Megenberg accused Ockham of equating quantitas with substance; see William J. Courtenay (...)
326 Sigrid Müller (2006), “Theology, Language and Reality in Fifteenth-Century Via Moderna”, in Lodi Na (...)

166In the texts where the purportedly Oresmean, or actually Ockhamian, view of quantitas is endorsed – or at least a neutral position is taken – objections against Buridan’s bellows argument (see Chapter 2) play a significant role. This applies to the first 14 texts listed in Table 1, with Udalricus de Tubing and the unknown authors of the Physics commentaries No. 1 and 14 refraining from favoring a specific view. Genuine arguments drawn from Ockham’s works asserting that quantitas or magnitudo are not distinct from extended substance or quality are not directly verifiable in these texts. Individuals familiar with Ockham’s works likely did not entertain the notion of misattributing these arguments to Oresme, as seen in Martinus de Gugugeya (see Chapter 6), who referenced arguments from Ockham’s “Summa logicae”. However, the availability of original Ockhamian writings at the University of Vienna is questionable. Müller attributes the Ockhamist leanings (“touch”) of the Viennese theological faculty in its early years mainly to the influence of Heinrich Totting of Oyta, as Viennese libraries at the time lacked works by Ockham. This scarcity of Ockhamian literature could have been a lingering effect of Konrad von Megenberg’s polemics, a staunch opponent of Ockhamist physics325 and Rector of the St. Stephan’s School in Vienna from 1342 to 1348.326

167In the texts where the Buridan standpoint or a non-Ockhamist stance on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo is taken (Nos. 15-20 in Table 1), it is noticeable that Buridan’s bellows argument, and thus his main argument, is not addressed. The nature of these texts is also different, as they consist more of collections of definitions, explanations thereof, and pre-made conclusions and doctrines, with the discussion component significantly reduced.

168Of course, the question arises as to the origins of the aforementioned misattributions of Ockhamist views to Oresme. As previously discussed in Chapter 4.5, one might initially consider a simple case of name confusion due to the similar appearance and pronunciation of “Oresme” as “Orem” or “Oren” and “Ockham” as “Ocon,” “Occon,” “Occan,” “Occam” or “Okkam.” However, the consistent misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme over eight decades in numerous Viennese Physics commentaries contradicts this explanation. Furthermore, both Oresme and Ockham are often cited together as proponents of the same viewpoint (see Tables 1 and 2).

327 Robert Pasnau (2011), Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671, p. 408-412, 416; Stefano Caroti (2004), « Les (...)
328 Nicole Oresme (1968), Le livre du ciel et du monde, p. 372, l. 327-344.

169The Ockhamist counterposition to Buridan’s perspectives on quantitas or magnitudo and motus localis, evident in the Viennese Physics commentaries under examination, does not seem to have derived from direct engagement with Ockham’s works but rather to have arisen as a deliberate response to Buridan’s theories. This may have originated from one or more authors who, while aware of Oresme’s contrasting views to Buridan, did not fully grasp Oresme’s nuanced arguments, particularly his complex ontology of accidents. After his Physics commentary and other early works, Oresme seldom elaborated on his ontology of accidents, possibly due to indirect consequences stemming from the condemnation of Mirecourt’s views in 1347.327 Although Oresme did not propose, as condemned in 1347, that accidents were not distinct from substance, his concept of accidents as mere condiciones or modi of a substance was equally at odds with traditional interpretations concerning the Eucharistic miracle, as was the officially censured proposition. For this implies a logical contradiction, and therefore cannot be brought about even by God, that accidents, which are merely behaviors of a substance, can exist without the corresponding substance. Notably, in his later work “Livre du ciel et du monde,” Oresme maintained his original perspective – at least regarding the ontological status of motion – emphasizing that alterations and local motions are intrinsic behaviors of the body and that, while having their own being as accidents, they are inseparable from the body.328 However, terms corresponding to the Latin “condicio” or “modus” are conspicuously absent in this work.

170Until now, there is no solid evidence as to who might have been the first to attribute the Ockhamist view on quantitas or magnitudo to Oresme. The only vague lead that could be further pursued involves Jacobus Angeli Jr., who may have directly or indirectly been involved in this misattribution (see Chapter 4.1.2, at the end).

329 See the end of the quotation from München, Universitätsbibliothek, 4° Cod. ms. 823, in fn. 83 (“qui (...)

171Regarding the false attribution of the Ockhamist view of local motion to Oresme, this could simply have been a natural consequence of it having already become customary to associate the Ockhamist view concerning quantitas with him. This conjecture is based on the following consideration: The Ockhamist view on quantitas was inseparably linked to the notion that rarefaction or condensation is solely attributable to a local motion of the parts of the substance in question. For some, as evidenced in the first of the texts discussed here,329 this was automatically associated with the idea that local motion does not possess its own being but is ontologically the mobile itself. It would then have been only a small step to attribute to Oresme, in a sense, “consistently,” the Ockhamist view of local motion, as happened from the mid-15th century onwards.

330 See Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, Vivarium, 42/1 (2004), p. 29-38.

172All the Physics commentaries discussed here share the commonality that they follow the order and titles of the Questions in the “ultima lectura” of Buridan’s commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, even if Questions are occasionally missing or have been rearranged. Therefore, it is not surprising that even among those authors who reject Buridan’s position or consider it less likely than the Ockhamist view, Buridan still plays a significant role. His views are always cited, referenced, and discussed, usually with his name mentioned. However, it should not be overlooked that the views of Marsilius of Inghen, especially concerning the modus rarefactionis, are regularly presented or at least mentioned. Marsilius’s views are discussed in great detail in Physics commentaries 1 and 10 (see Table 1) as well as by Widman de Dinkelsbühl, Hainczel, and Platerberger. In contrast, it is noticeable that Albert of Saxony, the founding rector of the University of Vienna, does not play a significant role in the texts discussed here. This is all the more astonishing, considering that Albert of Saxony, in terms of the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo, held an Ockhamist position in his Physics commentary and raised objections to Buridan’s arguments.330

331 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 334-338; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1984), « L’influence (...)
332 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 338-340; František Šmahel (2007), Die Präger [sic!] Univ (...)

173As Michael primarily demonstrated through the frequency with which Buridan’s works were copied and through medieval catalogues of institutional and private libraries, Prague emerged as a stronghold of Buridanism among Central European universities, especially in the second half of the 14th century.331 However, national tensions between Bohemians and Germans intensified at the University of Prague. These conflicts were also evident on an intellectual and doctrinal level. Bohemian masters developed a philosophical realism following in the footsteps of Wyclif, while German and Polish masters showed a strong affinity for Buridanism. The dominance of Buridanism abruptly ended in 1409. The Kuttenberg (Kutná Hora) Decree of 1409, which granted the Bohemian nation a majority voice in all important decisions, led to a massive exodus of German and Polish masters and students, primarily to the universities of Kraków, Vienna, Erfurt, and Heidelberg.332 Moreover, this exodus led to the founding of the University of Leipzig in the same year. Simultaneously, the Kuttenberg Decree and its consequences marked the definitive victory of Wyclif’s philosophical realism at the University of Prague.

333 For the founding of the University of Vienna, see, for example, Paul Uiblein (1995), Mittelalterlic (...)
334 Paul Uiblein (1995), Mittelalterliches Studium, p. 98-99.

174The University of Vienna, founded in 1365 by Duke Rudolf IV of Austria, achieved full viability only through a fundamental reorganization in 1384.333 The founding rector and intellectual father of the University of Vienna, Albert of Saxony, had studied and taught in Paris. However, in 1366, he was appointed Bishop of Halberstadt. The influence of Prague on the young University of Vienna is evident in the fact that out of the first 20 or 21 masters in the Faculty of Arts, eight had obtained their master’s degree in Prague, six or seven in Paris, and four or five in Vienna.334

335 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 341, 346-347.
336 Harald Berger, Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne, 17 [52] (2019), p. 87-118.
337 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 342; Mieczysław Markowski (1983), “Abhandlungen zur Logi (...)
338 Mieczysław Markowski (2003), “Nieznane dzieła wiedeńskie z logiki i filozofii przyrody w rękopisach (...)
339 Paul Uiblein (1995), Mittelalterliches Studium, p. 17-18; Michael H. Shank (1988), Unless You Belie (...)

175Especially, Buridan’s works on natural philosophy and his commentary on the Ethica were highly popular at the University of Vienna from the beginning.335 Buridan’s influence is also clearly evident in the field of logic,336 although Marsilius surpassed him in this area.337 Generally, the University of Vienna is considered a “stronghold of Buridanism” (Markowski) in the 15th century.338 The extent to which Buridan was associated with the University of Vienna by his contemporaries is evident in the fact that he was considered its founder in the 15th century.339

340 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 341; see the edition of the statutes of the Faculty of A (...)
341 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 343-344.
342 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 344-345. The works mentioned by Michael are the Physics (...)

176As indicated by the statutes of the Viennese Faculty of Arts from 1389, Buridan’s commentary on Aristotle’s Physics was considered a quasi-canonical work on which the Masters should base their disputations – or on a work equivalent to Buridan’s Quaestiones.340 Accordingly, Viennese copies of Buridan’s Physics commentary (ultima lectura) can already be traced back to the 1390s.341 Michael already observed that “around 1450, there was a common model for Physics lectures at the Viennese Faculty of Arts, derived from Buridan’s Quaestiones on the ‘Physica’ (ult. lect.),” and referred to six of the works discussed in this article.342

9. Conclusions

177Although Oresme and Ockham held quite different views regarding the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo, as well as local motion, a misattribution of Ockham’s views on quantitas to Oresme has been identified in 21 different texts produced at the University of Vienna in the 15^th century (including 20 different Physics commentaries as well as Platerberger’s “Philosophicae veritatis compendium”), which either mention Oresme alone or alongside Ockham. As for local motion, the Ockhamist perspective was initially correctly attributed only to Ockham. In the 1450s, a shift occurred whereby this position was associated exclusively with Oresme; later, the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion was attributed to both Oresme and Ockham. Moreover, the tradition of misattributing Ockhamist views to Oresme spread from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt by the late 15th century.

178Regarding the personal attitudes of the respective authors, it can be stated that Ockhamist views on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo were prevalent at the University of Vienna until the 1470s. Concerning local motion, the Ockhamist interpretation dominated in the first half of the 15th century. However, from the mid-15th century onward, there seems to be a lack of clear proponents of the Ockhamist view on local motion – a trend that also extends to the interpretation of quantitas or magnitudo by the end of the century. Instead, the corresponding Buridanist standpoint gained preference.

179Undoubtedly, Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.) served as a standard model for lectures on Aristotle’s Physics, both in terms of the sequence and titles of the Quaestiones, as well as his views, which, regardless of whether the respective author endorsed them or not, were always cited and discussed. Hence, the Ockhamist counterposition to Buridan’s perspectives on quantitas, magnitudo, and motus localis does not seem to have stemmed from direct engagement with Ockham’s works but rather as a deliberate response to Buridan’s theories. On the other hand, the trend towards non-Ockhamist views observed in the second half of the 15th century may not necessarily have been due to Buridan’s arguments being considered more convincing than they were before. For instance, in texts where the Buridan standpoint or a non-Ockhamist stance on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo is taken, Buridan’s bellows argument – and thus his main argument – is not addressed (nos. 15-20 in Table 1). A recourse to older authorities (Aristotle, Averroes) was often deemed sufficient to support a non-Ockhamist standpoint.

180Similarly, regarding the ontological status of local motion, in the works produced towards the end of the 15th century, there is a noticeable trend of increasingly mentioning other authorities for a non-Ockhamist view alongside Buridan, such as Aristotle, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas, and Giles of Rome. In the Physics commentaries No. 19 and 20 in Table 1 and Nos. 1-4 in Table 2, whose authors hold a non-Ockhamist view on local motion, Buridan is no longer mentioned at all in the corresponding Quaestio.

181Thus, surprisingly, Buridan’s presence was greatest when his views on quantitas or magnitudo and local motion were rejected or, at best, met with neutrality, while during a time when non-Ockhamist views corresponding to Buridan’s standpoint became established, the relevance of his arguments seems to have significantly declined.

182Lastly, another trend that can be identified is the flattening of discussions throughout the 15th century, leading to a decline in medieval disputational culture. In any case, the texts increasingly take on the character of collections of definitions, explanations thereof, and pre-made conclusions and doctrines, with the discussion component significantly reduced.

343 Christine Glaßner (2010), “Wiener Universitätshandschriften in Melk. Bemerkungen zum Lehrbetrieb an (...)

183Recent secondary literature has repeatedly called for a comprehensive study of the works of lecturers active at the University of Vienna to enable a reliable assessment of the doctrinal orientation of the Viennese Faculty of Arts and its individual lecturers.343 The author hopes that this study will prove to be useful for this purpose.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Acta Facultatis Artium Universitatis Vindobonensis 1385-1416 (1968), ed. by Paul Uiblein, Graz/Wien/Köln, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.

Albert von Sachsen (2010), Logik, Lateinisch - Deutsch, ed. by Harald Berger, Hamburg, Meiner.

Aschbach, Joseph (1865), Geschichte der Wiener Universität im ersten Jahrhunderte ihres Bestehens, Wien, Verlag der K. K. Universität.

Aschbach, Joseph (1877), Geschichte der Wiener Universität. Zweiter Band. Die Wiener Universität und ihre Humanisten im Zeitalter Kaiser Maximilians I., Wien, Wilhelm Braumüller.

Auctarium Chartularii Universitatis Parisiensis (1894), ed. by Henricus Denifle, O. P. & Aemilius Chatelain, Vol. 1, Paris, Fratres Delalain.

Auctarium Chartularii Universitatis Parisiensis (1897), ed. by Henricus Denifle, O. P. & Aemilius Chatelain, Vol. 2, Paris, Fratres Delalain.

Berger, Harald (2019), “Zur Literaturproduktion im Buridanismus am Beispiel der anonymen Quästionen zur Ars Vetus im Cod. 5461 der ÖNB Wien”, Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 17 [52], p. 87-118.

Berger, Harald (2025), “Heinrich Platerberger aus Nürnberg. Ein Wiener Professor der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts”, in: Thomas Csanády & Erich Renhart (eds.), Libri Voravienses. Studien zur Bibliothek des Augustiner Chorherrenstifts Vorau, Graz, Uni-Press, p. 219-239.

Brinzei, Monica (2022), “A Student’s Notes on the Plague in Codex Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 4497”, Chôra. Revue d’études anciennes et médiévales 20, p. 367-377.

Bruno, Francesca (2019), The Quantity Debate in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. A Question at the Intersection of Physics, Metaphysics, and Theology. Diss., Cornell University.

Buridan, Jean (2010), Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis, ed. by Michiel Streijger, Paul J. J. M. Bakker & Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Buridan, Jean (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, ed. by Michiel Streijger & Paul J. J. M. Bakker, Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Buridan, Jean (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, ed. by Michiel Streijger & Paul J. J. M. Bakker, Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Burmeister, Karl Heinz (2003), “»... der in fremden landen were uff der schuol«. Die Baccalaurei und Magistri in artibus der Universität Paris aus dem Bistum Konstanz und dessen näherer Umgebung, 1329 bis 1499”, Alemannia Studens 11, p. 23–90.

Caroti, Stefano (1993), “Oresme on Motion (Questiones super Physicam, III, 2-7)”, Vivarium 31, p. 8-36.

Caroti, Stefano (1994), « La position de Nicole Oresme sur la nature du mouvement (Questiones super Physicam III, 1-8): problèmes gnoséologiques, ontologiques et sémantiques », Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 61, p. 303-385.

Caroti, Stefano (2000), « Nicole Oresme et les modi rerum », Oriens - Occidens. Sciences, Mathématiques et Philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Âge classique 3, p. 115-144.

Caroti, Stefano (2000), “Modi rerum e res artificiales in alcuni commenti parigini alla Physica del secolo XIV”, in: Stefano Caroti & Roberto Pinzani (eds.), Ob rogatum meorum sociorum. Studi in memoria di Lorenzo Pozzi, Milano, F. Angeli, p. 189-213.

Caroti, Stefano (2000), “Modi rerum and Materialism: A Note on a Quotation of a Condemned Articulus in Some Fourteenth-Century Parisian De Anima commentaries”, Traditio 55, p. 211-234.

Caroti, Stefano (2001), “Time and modi rerum in Nicole Oresme’s Physics Commentary”, in Pasquale Porro (ed.), The Medieval Concept of Time. Studies on the Scholastic Debate and its Reception in Early Modern Philosophy, Leiden/Boston/Köln, Brill, p. 319-349.

Caroti, Stefano (2004), « Les modi rerum… encore une fois. Une source possible de Nicole Oresme: le commentaire sur le livre 1^er des Sentences de Jean de Mirecourt », in Stefano Caroti & Jean Celeyrette (éds.), Quia inter doctores est magna dissensio. Les débats de philosophie naturelle à Paris au XIV^e siècle, Firenze, Leo S. Olschki, p. 195-222.

Caroti, Stefano (2016), “Nicole Oresme and William Ockham”, in Christian Rode (ed.), A Companion to Responses to Ockham, Leiden/Boston, Brill (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 65), p. 225-253.

Celeyrette, Jean & Edmond Mazet (1998), « La hiérarchie des degrés d’être chez Nicole Oresme », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 8, p. 45-65.

Celeyrette, Jean (2000), « Le statut des mathématiques dans la Physique d’Oresme », Oriens - Occidens. Sciences, Mathématiques et Philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Âge classique 3, p. 91-113.

Celeyrette, Jean (2017), « Les Questions sur la Physique du ms Cesena Malatestiana S VIII 5 », in Christophe Grellard (éd.), Miroir de l’amitié. Mélanges offerts à Joël Biard à l’occasion de ses 65 ans, Paris, J. Vrin (Études de Philosophie Médiévale, 106), p. 353-369.

Courtenay, William J. (2008), Ockham and Ockhamism. Studies in the Dissemination and Impact of His Thought, Leiden/Boston, Brill (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 99).

Dewender, Thomas (2016), “Responses to Ockham: John Buridan”, in Christian Rode (ed.), A Companion to Responses to Ockham, Leiden/Boston, Brill (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 65), p. 173-196.

Di Liscia, Daniel A. (2003), Zwischen Geometrie und Naturphilosophie. Die Entwicklung der Formlatitudenlehre im deutschen Sprachraum, München, Univ., Diss.

Duhem, Pierre (1959), Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. Tome X, Paris, Hermann.

Enne, Martin G. (2010), Teiledition der Matrikel der Rheinischen Nation der Universität Wien. 1415 – 1442, Universität Wien, Magisterarbeit (https://utheses.univie.ac.at/detail/9194#).

Fill, Hauke (2000), Katalog der Handschriften des Benediktinerstiftes Kremsmünster, Teil 2: Zimeliencodices und spätmittelalterliche Handschriften nach 1325 bis einschließlich CC 100. Katalogband, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 270; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Schrift- und Buchwesen des Mittelalters II,3,2).

[Gall, Franz] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien. I. Band, 1377-1450, Graz/Köln, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger (Publikationen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Reihe 6: Quellen zur Geschichte der Universität Wien, 1. Abteilung).

Gall, Franz (1967), “Gründung und Anfänge der Wiener Universität”, in Les Universités Européennes du XIV^e au XVIII^e Siècle. Aspects et Problèmes. Actes du Colloque International à l’occasion du VI^e Centenaire de l’Université Jagellonne de Cracovie 6 - 8 Mai 1964, Genève, Librairie Droz, p. 48–55.

Glaßner, Christine (2010), “Wiener Universitätshandschriften in Melk. Bemerkungen zum Lehrbetrieb an der Wiener Artistenfakultät”, in Kurt Mühlberger & Meta Niederkorn-Bruck (eds.), Die Universität Wien im Konzert europäischer Bildungszentren. 14.–16. Jahrhundert, Wien/München, Oldenbourg/Böhlau, p. 87-99.

Goddu, André (1999), “Ockham’s Philosophy of Nature”, in Paul Vincent Spade (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, Cambridge, UK/New York/Melbourne/Madrid, Cambridge University Press, p. 143-167.

Göhler, Hermann (2015), Das Wiener Kollegiat-, nachmals Domkapitel zu St. Stephan in Wien 1365-1554, Dissertation von Hermann Göhler (†) Mai 1932, ed. by Johannes Seidl, Angelika Ende & Johann Weißensteiner, Wien/Köln/Weimar, Böhlau.

Gregorius Ariminensis OESA (1979), Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum, Tomus IV, Super secundum (dist. 1-5), ed. by A. Damasus Trapp, Manuel Santos-Noya & Manfred Schulze, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter.

Guldentops, Guy (2015), “The Concise Groundwork of Moral Philosophy: An Anonymous Thomist-Buridanist Opusculum”, Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 82, p. 89–193.

Keil, Gundolf (2005), “Engelin, Jakob”, in Werner E. Gerabek, Bernhard D. Haage, Gundolf Keil & Wolfgang Wegner (eds.), Enzyklopädie Medizingeschichte, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, p. 355.

Kirschner, Stefan (1997), Nicolaus Oresmes Kommentar zur Physik des Aristoteles. Kommentar mit Edition der Quaestionen zu Buch 3 und 4 der aristotelischen Physik sowie von vier Quaestionen zu Buch 5, Stuttgart, Steiner.

Kirschner, Stefan (2000), “Oresme on Intension and Remission of Qualities in His Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics”, Vivarium 38/2, p. 255-274.

Kirschner, Stefan (2014), “Oresme’s Theory of Motion”, in Jean Celeyrette & Christophe Grellard (éds.), Nicole Oresme philosophe. Philosophie de la nature et philosophie de la connaissance à Paris au XIV^e siècle, Turnhout, Brepols (Studia artistarum 39), p. 83-104.

Kirschner, Stefan & Andreas Kühne (2015), “The Decline of Medieval Disputation Culture and the ‘Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory’”, in Wolfgang Neuber, Thomas Rahn & Claus Zittel (eds.), The Making of Copernicus. Early Modern Transformations of a Scientist and His Science, Leiden/Boston, Brill, p. 13-41.

Lhotsky, Alphons (1965), Die Wiener Artistenfakultät, Wien, Österr. Akademie der Wissenschaften; Graz/Wien/Köln, Böhlau in Komm.

Liess, Albrecht (1980), “Die artistische Fakultät der Universität Ingolstadt 1472-1588”, in Laetitia Boehm & Johannes Spörl (eds.), Die Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in ihren Fakultäten, vol. 2, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 9-35.

Lohr, Charles H. (1968), “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries, Authors G-I”, Traditio 24, p. 149-245.

Lohr, Charles H. (1971), “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors: Johannes de Kanthi – Myngodus”, Traditio 27, p. 251-351.

McCord Adams, Marilyn (1987), William Ockham, 2 vols., Notre Dame (IN), Univ. of Notre Dame Press.

Maier, Anneliese (1955), Metaphysische Hintergründe der spätscholastischen Naturphilosophie, Roma, Ed. di Storia e Letteratura.

Mairold, Maria (1988), Die datierten Handschriften in der Steiermark außerhalb der Universitätsbibliothek Graz bis zum Jahre 1600. 1. Teil: Text. 2. Teil: Tafeln, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Katalog der datierten Handschriften in lateinischer Schrift in Österreich 7).

Maisel, Thomas & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II (UAW Cod. Ph 7). Personen-Nennungen im Zusammenhang mit Prüfung, Graduierung und Verteilung der Vorlesungsthemen (1416 bis 1447). Nr. 3233 bis 9262. Texterfassung: Andreas Bracher, Wien (downloadable at https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:217).

Maisel, Thomas & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471. Personen-Nennungen im Zusammenhang mit Prüfung, Graduierung und Verteilung der Vorlesungsthemen. Nr. 9263 bis 16527. Texterfassung: Andreas Bracher, Wien (downloadable at https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:217).

Maisel, Thomas & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1471 bis 1497. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 2: 1471 bis 1497. Personen-Nennungen im Zusammenhang mit Prüfung, Graduierung und Verteilung der Vorlesungsthemen. Nr. 16528 bis 21914. Texterfassung: Andreas Bracher, Wien (downloadable at https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:217).

Markowski, Mieczysław(1981), Buridanica quae in codicibus manu scriptis bibliothecarum Monacensium asservantur, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk/Łódź, Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.

Markowski, Mieczysław (1983), “Abhandlungen zur Logik an der Universität Wien in den Jahren 1365-1500”, Studia Mediewistyczne 22/1, p. 53-77.

Markowski, Mieczysław (1984), « L’influence de Jean Buridan sur les universités d’Europe Centrale », in Zénon Kaluza & Paul Vignaux (éds.), Preuve et raisons à l’Université de Paris. Logique, ontologie et théologie au XIV^e siècle, Paris, J. Vrin, p. 149-163.

Markowski, Mieczysław (1998), “Burydanizm w nie znanym wiedeńskim komentarzu do Fizyki Arystotelesa w kodeksie 418 Stiftsbibliothek w Zwettl”, Studia Mediewistyczne 33, p. 195-200.

Markowski, Mieczysław (2003), “Nieznane dzieła wiedeńskie z logiki i filozofii przyrody w rękopisach Biblioteki Arcyopactwa Św. Piotra w Salzburgu”, Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 36, p. 165-170.

Markowski, Mieczysław (2008), Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum qui in bibliothecis austriacis: Admont, Furt bei Göttweig, Graz, Heiligenkreuz, Klagenfurt, Klosterneuburg, Kremsmünster, Linz, Melk, Salzburg, Sankt Florian, Vorau, Zwettl asservantur, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności.

Marsilius of Inghen (1501), Questiones exquisite clarissimi Marsilii in libros Aristotelis de generatione et corruptione, Argentine in officina Martini Flach iunioris.

Marsilius of Inghen (1518), Questiones subtilissime Johannis Marcilii Inguen super octo libros phisycorum secundum nominalium viam, Lugduni per [...] Johannem Marion.

Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Marsilii inguen Doctoris resolutissimi abbreviationes super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis etc., Venetiis heredum nobilis viri q. Domini Octaviani Scoti civis ac Patricii Modoetiensis et sociorum.

Mazet, Edmond (2000), « Un aspect de l’ontologie d’Oresme: l’équivocité de l’étant et ses rapports avec la théorie des complexe significabilia et avec l’ontologie oresmienne de l’accident », Oriens - Occidens. Sciences, Mathématiques et Philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Âge classique 3, p. 67-89.

Michael, Bernd (1985), Johannes Buridan. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinen Werken und zur Rezeption seiner Theorien im Europa des späten Mittelalters, 2 parts, Berlin (Diss., Freie Universität Berlin).

Monfasani, John (1992), “Fernando of Cordova. A Biographical and Intellectual Profile”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82/6, p. i-x, 1-116.

Müller, Sigrid (2006), “Theology, Language and Reality in Fifteenth-Century Via Moderna”, in Lodi Nauta (ed.), Language and cultural change. Aspects of the study and use of language in the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), Peeters, p. 1-21.

Müller, Winfried (1981), “Die Anfänge der Humanismusrezeption in Kloster Tegernsee”, Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige 92, p. 28-90.

Ockham, William (1944), Tractatus de successivis, ed. by Philotheus Boehner O. F. M., St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure College.

Ockham, William (1974), Summa logicae, ed. by Philotheus Boehner, O. F. M., Gedeon Gál, O. F. M. & Stephanus Brown, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. I).

Ockham, William (1977), Scriptum in librum primum sententiarum. Ordinatio. Distinctiones IV-XVIII, ed. by Girardus I. Etzkorn, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. theol., vol. III).

Ockham, William (1978), Expositio in librum praedicamentorum Aristotelis, ed. by Gedeon Gál, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. II).

Ockham, William (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis, ed. by Stephanus Brown, St. Bonaventure (NY), St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. VI).

Ockham, William (1984), Quaestiones in libros Physicorum Aristotelis, ed. by Stephanus Brown, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. VI).

Ockham, William (1984), Quaestiones in librum quartum Sententiarum (Reportatio), ed. by Rega Wood, Gedeon Gál, O.F.M. & Romualdo Green, O.F.M., St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. theol., vol. VII.).

Ockham, William (1985), Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Prologus et libri I-III, ed. by Vladimirus Richter & Gerhardus Leibold, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. IV).

Ockham, William (1985), Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Libri IV-VIII, ed. by R. Wood, R. Green, G. Gál, J. Giermek, F. Kelley, G. Leibold & G. Etzkorn, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. V).

Ockham, William (1986), Tractatus de quantitate, ed. by Carolus A. Grassi, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. theol., vol. X).

Oresme, Nicole (1968), Le livre du ciel et du monde, ed. by Albert D. Menut & Alexander J. Denomy, C. S. B., Madison/Milwaukee/London, The University of Wisconsin Press.

Oresme, Nicole (2013), Questiones super Physicam (Books I-VII), ed. by Stefano Caroti, Jean Celeyrette, Stefan Kirschner & Edmond Mazet, Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Pasnau Robert (2011), Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Paulus de Venetiis (1476), Summa naturalium, Mediolani, Cristoforus Valdarfer Ratisponensis.

Reuter, Marianne (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München. Band 5. Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften aus der Quartreihe, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Rexroth, Frank (1992), Deutsche Universitätsstiftungen von Prag bis Köln. Die Intentionen des Stifters und die Wege und Chancen ihrer Verwirklichung im spätmittelalterlichen deutschen Territorialstaat, Köln/Weimar/Wien, Böhlau.

Schlageter, Johannes (2003), “N. v. Ockham OFM”, Lexikon des Mittelalters, Vol. 6, München, DTV, col. 1185-1186.

Schöner, Christoph (1998), “Eisenhut (Eysenhuet), Georg, † 1495 Amberg”, in Laetitia Boehm, Winfried Müller, Wolfgang J. Smolka & Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472-1826, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 95-96.

Schöner, Christoph (1998), “Parreut (Tolhopf, von der Grün), Johannes, † 1495 Braunau”, in Laetitia Boehm, Winfried Müller, Wolfgang J. Smolka & Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472-1826, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 301.

Schöner, Christoph (1998), “Sintzel (Sünzel, Wittlich), Friedrich”, in Laetitia Boehm, Winfried Müller, Wolfgang J. Smolka & Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472-1826, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 400-401.

Schuh, Maximilian (2013), Aneignungen des Humanismus. Institutionelle und individuelle Praktiken an der Universität Ingolstadt im 15. Jahrhundert, Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Shank, Michael H. (1988), “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand”. Logic, University, and Society in Late Medieval Vienna, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press.

Shapiro, Herman (1957), Motion, Time and Place according to William Ockham. St. Bonaventure (NY), Franciscan Institute.

Šmahel, František (2007), Die Präger [sic!] Universität im Mittelalter. The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Selected Studies, Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Stöllinger, Christine (1979), “Gartner, Jodocus, von Berching”, in Kurt Ruh, Gundolf Keil, Werner Schröder, Burghart Wachinger & Franz Josef Worstbrock (eds.), Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, col. 1097-1099.

Sunczel, Fridericus (1499), Collecta et exercitata Friderici Sunczel Mosellani liberalium studiorum magistri in octo libros Phisicorum Arestotelis in almo studio Ingolstadiensi, Hagenau, Johannes Rymman.

Sylla, Edith D. (2015), “Guide to the text”, in Michiel Streijger & Paul J. J. M. Bakker (eds.), John Buridan, Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, Leiden/Boston, Brill, p. XLIII-CLXXXVI.

Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H. (2004), “The Buridan School Reassessed. John Buridan and Albert of Saxony”, Vivarium 42/1, p. 18-42.

Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H. (2009), “The Debate over the Nature of Motion: John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Albert of Saxony. With an Edition of John Buridan’s Quaestiones super libros Physicorum, secundum ultimam lecturam”, Book III, q. 7, Early Science and Medicine 14, p. 186-210.

Truhlář, Joseph (1905), Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum latinorum qui in C. R. Bibliotheca Publica atque Universitatis Pragensis asservantur. Pars prior, Pragae, Regia Societas Scientiarum Bohemica.

Tuisl, Elisabeth (2014), Die Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Wien im Mittelalter. Von der Gründung der Universität 1365 bis zum Tod Kaiser Maximilians I. 1519, Göttingen, V & R unipress.

Ubl, Karl (2005), “Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Die Anfänge der Universität Wien im 14. Jahrhundert”, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 113, p. 63-89.

Uiblein, Paul (1978), Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien (1396-1508), II. Band, Wien, Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.

Uiblein, Paul (1995), Mittelalterliches Studium an der Wiener Artistenfakultät. Kommentar zu den Acta Facultatis Artium Universitatis Vindobonensis 1385-1416, 2nd edition, Wien, WUV-Universitätsverlag.

Weijers, Olga (2010), “The various kinds of disputation in the faculties of arts, theology and law (c. 1200–1400)”, in Marion Gindhart & Ursula Kundert (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, p. 21-31.

Zanin, Fabio (2000), “Nicole Oresme: I modi rerum come soluzione del problema del tempo”, in Guido Alliney & Luciano Cova (eds.), Tempus aevum aeternitatis. La concettualizzazione del tempo nel pensiero tardomedievale. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Trieste, 4–6 marzo 1999, Firenze, Olschki, p. 253-265.

Zapke, Susana (2014), “Musikalische Bildungs- und Ausbildungsprofile im Wissensraum Wien, 15. Jahrhundert. Dokumente zu ihrer Erschließung”, in Alexander Rausch & Björn R. Tammen (eds.), Musikalische Repertoires in Zentraleuropa (1420-1450). Prozesse & Praktiken, Wien/Köln/Weimar, Böhlau, p. 347-375.

Zupko, Jack (2003), John Buridan. Portrait of a Fourteenth-Century Arts Master, Notre Dame (IN), Univ. of Notre Dame Press.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See Daniel A. Di Liscia (2003), Zwischen Geometrie und Naturphilosophie. Die Entwicklung der Formlatitudenlehre im deutschen Sprachraum, München, Univ., Diss., p. 48, fn. 119; Stefan Kirschner (2014), “Oresme’s Theory of Motion”, in Jean Celeyrette & Christophe Grellard (éds.), Nicole Oresme philosophe. Philosophie de la nature et philosophie de la connaissance à Paris au XIVe siècle, Turnhout, Brepols (Studia artistarum 39), p. 83-104, at p. 101-103.

2 See fns. 236, 271, and 274.

3 Utrum omnis res extensive et situaliter habens partem extra partem sit magnitudo; see Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, ed. by Michiel Streijger & Paul J. J. M. Bakker, Leiden/Boston, Brill, Qu. I.8, p. 79-92.

4 Utrum motus localis sit res distincta a loco et ab eo quod localiter movetur; see Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, ed. by Michiel Streijger & Paul J. J. M. Bakker, Leiden/Boston, Brill, Qu. III.7, p. 73-80.

5 Utrum rarefactio et condensatio sint possibiles vel utrum possibile sit aliquid rarefieri vel condensari; see Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. IV.11, p. 299-305.

6 Cf. Michael H. Shank (1988), “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand”. Logic, University, and Society in Late Medieval Vienna, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press, p. xiii: “Given the inevitable ambiguities of these terms [nominalism, via moderna] in current historiography, it has seemed preferable to describe the positions of individual thinkers rather than to give them labels that only spread confusion”; Thomas Dewender (2016), “Responses to Ockham: John Buridan”, in Christian Rode (ed.), A Companion to Responses to Ockham, Leiden/Boston, Brill (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 65), p. 173-196, at p. 176: “In fact, Buridan’s nominalism does not, unlike Ockham’s, always lead to parsimonious results”; see also Jack Zupko (2003), John Buridan. Portrait of a Fourteenth-Century Arts Master, Notre Dame (IN), Univ. of Notre Dame Press, p. 146: “by Buridan’s time, it is better to think of it [nominalism] as a practice or way of doing philosophy, rather than as a piece of doctrine.”

7 Francesca Bruno (2019), The Quantity Debate in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. A Question at the Intersection of Physics, Metaphysics, and Theology. Diss., Cornell University, p. 98-121; Robert Pasnau (2011), Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671, Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 247-252; Stefano Caroti (2004), « Les modi rerum… encore une fois. Une source possible de Nicole Oresme: le commentaire sur le livre 1^er des Sentences de Jean de Mirecourt », in Stefano Caroti & Jean Celeyrette (éds.), Quia inter doctores est magna dissensio. Les débats de philosophie naturelle à Paris au XIV^e siècle, Firenze, Leo S. Olschki, p. 195-222; Stefano Caroti (2001), “Time and modi rerum in Nicole Oresme’s Physics Commentary”, in Pasquale Porro (ed.), The Medieval Concept of Time. Studies on the Scholastic Debate and its Reception in Early Modern Philosophy, Leiden/Boston/Köln, Brill, p. 319-349; Stefano Caroti (2000), « Nicole Oresme et les modi rerum », Oriens - Occidens. Sciences, Mathématiques et Philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Âge classique 3, p. 115-144; Stefano Caroti (2000), “Modi rerum and Materialism: A Note on a Quotation of a Condemned Articulus in Some Fourteenth-Century Parisian De Anima commentaries”, Traditio 55, p. 211-234; Stefano Caroti (2000), “Modi rerum e res artificiales in alcuni commenti parigini alla Physica del secolo XIV”, in: Stefano Caroti & Roberto Pinzani (eds.), Ob rogatum meorum sociorum. Studi in memoria di Lorenzo Pozzi, Milano, F. Angeli, p. 189-213; Jean Celeyrette (2000), « Le statut des mathématiques dans la Physique d’Oresme », Oriens - Occidens. Sciences, Mathématiques et Philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Âge classique 3, p. 91-113; Edmond Mazet (2000), « Un aspect de l’ontologie d’Oresme: l’équivocité de l’étant et ses rapports avec la théorie des complexe significabilia et avec l’ontologie oresmienne de l’accident », Oriens - Occidens. Sciences, Mathématiques et Philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Âge classique 3, p. 67-89; Fabio Zanin (2000), “Nicole Oresme: I modi rerum come soluzione del problema del tempo”, in Guido Alliney & Luciano Cova (eds.), Tempus aevum aeternitatis. La concettualizzazione del tempo nel pensiero tardomedievale. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Trieste, 4–6 marzo 1999, Firenze, Olschki, p. 253-265; Stefan Kirschner (2000), “Oresme on Intension and Remission of Qualities in His Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics”, Vivarium 38/2, p. 255-274, at p. 263-272; Jean Celeyrette & Edmond Mazet (1998), « La hiérarchie des degrés d’être chez Nicole Oresme », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 8, p. 45-65; Stefan Kirschner (1997), Nicolaus Oresmes Kommentar zur Physik des Aristoteles. Kommentar mit Edition der Quaestionen zu Buch 3 und 4 der aristotelischen Physik sowie von vier Quaestionen zu Buch 5, Stuttgart, Steiner, p. 38-41, 52-61, 73-76, 121, 141-142.

8 William Ockham (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis, ed. by Stephanus Brown, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. VI), Lib. III, Cap. 12; William Ockham (1974), Summa logicae, ed. by Philotheus Boehner, O. F. M., Gedeon Gál, O. F. M. & Stephanus Brown, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. I), Pars I, Cap. 43-44; William Ockham (1978), Expositio in librum praedicamentorum Aristotelis, ed. by Gedeon Gál, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. II), Cap. X; William Ockham (1984), Quaestiones in librum quartum Sententiarum (Reportatio), ed. by Rega Wood, Gedeon Gál, O.F.M. & Romualdo Green, O.F.M., St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. theol., vol. VII.), Qu. VI, p. 71-78, l. 6; William Ockham (1986), Tractatus de quantitate, ed. by Carolus A. Grassi, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. theol., vol. X), Qu. 3; William Ockham (1985), Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Prologus et libri I-III, ed. by Vladimirus Richter & Gerhardus Leibold, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. IV), I.4.4-5. Cf. Francesca Bruno (2019), The Quantity Debate, p. 12-52; Robert Pasnau (2011), Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671, p. 288-293; André Goddu (1999), “Ockham’s Philosophy of Nature”, in Paul Vincent Spade (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, Cambridge, UK/New York/Melbourne/Madrid, Cambridge University Press, p. 143-167, at p. 150-151; Marilyn McCord Adams (1987), William Ockham, 2 vols., Notre Dame (IN), Univ. of Notre Dame Press, vol. 1, p. 169-213; Anneliese Maier (1955), Metaphysische Hintergründe der spätscholastischen Naturphilosophie, Roma, Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, p. 176-198.

9 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam (Books I-VII), ed. by Stefano Caroti, Jean Celeyrette, Stefan Kirschner & Edmond Mazet, Leiden/Boston, Brill, Qu. IV.15, p. 525-526, l. 136-151; see also Francesca Bruno (2019), The Quantity Debate, p. 86-97; Stefano Caroti (2016), “Nicole Oresme and William Ockham”, in Christian Rode (ed.), A Companion to Responses to Ockham, Leiden/Boston, Brill (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 65), p. 225-253, at p. 233-237.

10 William Ockham (1985), Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Libri IV-VIII, ed. by R. Wood, R. Green, G. Gál, J. Giermek, F. Kelley, G. Leibold & G. Etzkorn, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. V), V.4.2, p. 369-370, l. 14-31; William Ockham (1984), Quaestiones in libros Physicorum Aristotelis, ed. by Stephanus Brown, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. phil., vol. VI), Qu. 92–97, especially Qu. 93, p. 649, l. 81-83; Qu. 94, p. 652-653, l. 19-23; Qu. 95, p. 656, l. 28-31; Qu. 96, p. 657, l. 27-30; Qu. 97, p. 658, l. 33-47; William Ockham (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis (Op. phil., vol. VI), lib. III, Cap. 12, p. 285, l. 17 – p. 286, l. 28; p. 288, l. 92 – p. 289, l. 109; p. 291, l. 168-178. Cf. Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen (2004), “The Buridan School Reassessed. John Buridan and Albert of Saxony”, Vivarium 42/1, p. 18-42, at p. 30. Anneliese Maier (1955), Metaphysische Hintergründe, p. 192-198. Marilyn McCord Adams (1987), William Ockham, vol. 1, p. 178-184. André Goddu (1999), “Ockham’s Philosophy of Nature”, p. 149.

11 Explicitly mentioned in William Ockham (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis (Op. phil., Bd. VI), lib. I, cap. 13, p. 193, l. 71 – p. 194, l. 85; lib. III, Cap. 12, p. 285, l. 22 – p. 286, l. 24 (“partes moti dilatantur et extenduntur et fiunt magis distantes et occupantes maiorem locum quam prius”; see also p. 289, l. 105-107).

12 Cf. Francesca Bruno (2019), The Quantity Debate, p. 27-34; Robert Pasnau (2011), Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671, p. 304.

13 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.14, p. 515-516, l. 81-125; p. 519, l. 205-206.

14 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.14, p. 515-516, l. 81-125; p. 519, l. 207-217.

15 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525-526, l. 133-151.

16 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 523-524, l. 63-118.

17 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525, l. 133-135.

18 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525, l. 119-132.

19 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525, l. 129-132.

20 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.15, p. 525-526, l. 133-151.

21 See, for example, Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, Qu. I.8, p. 87, l. 22-23: “ego pono conclusionem quod nulla substantia est magnitudo;” p. 88, l. 21-22: “ponamus dimensionem distinctam a materia et forma, a caliditate et frigiditate et huiusmodi qualitatibus, qua praedicta omnia sunt extensa;” p. 89, l. 17-18: “posita sic magnitudine distincta a substantia et qualitate.”

22 See Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, Qu. I.8, p. 87, l. 22 – p. 88, l. 5; Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. IV.11, p. 300, l. 24 – p. 301, l. 2.

23 Regarding this and the preceding paragraph: Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, Qu. I.8, p. 88, l. 6 – p. 90, l. 6; see also Jean Buridan (2010), Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis, ed. by Michiel Streijger, Paul J. J. M. Bakker & Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, Leiden/Boston, Brill, Qu. I.11, p. 102, l. 7 – p. 103, l. 14. Cf. Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, Vivarium, 42/1 (2004), p. 29-38; Robert Pasnau (2011), Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671, p. 301-308; Francesca Bruno (2019), The Quantity Debate, p. 54-73.

24 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. IV.11, p. 304, l. 21-24; Jean Buridan (2010), Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione, Qu. I.11, p. 105, l. 1-7.

25 Marsilius of Inghen (1518), Questiones subtilissime Johannis Marcilii Inguen super octo libros phisycorum secundum nominalium viam, Lugduni per [...] Johannem Marion, f. 8rb; cf. Marsilius of Inghen (1501), Questiones exquisite clarissimi Marsilii in libros Aristotelis de generatione et corruptione, Argentine in officina Martini Flach iunioris, f. c3r; Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Marsilii inguen Doctoris resolutissimi abbreviationes super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis etc., Venetiis heredum nobilis viri q. Domini Octaviani Scoti civis ac Patricii Modoetiensis et sociorum, f. 3vb. In terminological terms, Marsilius in the first book of his Abbreviationes speaks of the extensio and not the quantitas of a substance, which, however, amounts to the same thing because of the synonymity of these terms. In the Abbreviationes, Marsilius considers the Ockhamist interpretation of extensio to be plausible (probabilis), but his personal opinion is that the view that the extensio of a substance is different from the substance itself is even more plausible (probabilior).

26 Marsilius of Inghen (1518), Questiones subtilissime […] super octo libros phisycorum, f. 56rb.

27 Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Marsilii inguen Doctoris resolutissimi abbreviationes super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis, f. 19va, l. 5-23; f. 19vb, l. 1-20.

28 Marsilius of Inghen (1501), Questiones exquisite, f. c3v.

29 Cf. Jean Buridan (2015), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, Qu. I.8, p. 90, l. 7–14.

30 Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Abbreviationes super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis, f. 19vb, l. 17-20: “nec est motus rarefactionis dimensio que acquiritur, sed est quidam fluxus secundum quantitatem ad maiorem quantitatem quo infinite quantitates in potentia acquiruntur in subiecto”.

31 Stefan Kirschner (2014), “Oresme’s Theory of Motion”, p. 87. For Oresme’s concept of motion, see also Stefano Caroti (1993), “Oresme on Motion (Questiones super Physicam, III, 2-7)”, Vivarium 31, p. 8-36; Stefano Caroti (1994), « La position de Nicole Oresme sur la nature du mouvement (Questiones super Physicam III, 1-8): problèmes gnoséologiques, ontologiques et sémantiques », Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 61, p. 303-385; Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen (2009), “The Debate over the Nature of Motion: John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Albert of Saxony. With an Edition of John Buridan’s Quaestiones super libros Physicorum, secundum ultimam lecturam”, Book III, q. 7, Early Science and Medicine 14, p. 186-210. For a critical comment on Thijssen’s interpretation of Oresme’s concept of motion, see Stefan Kirschner (2014), “Oresme’s Theory of Motion”, p. 91.

32 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.6, l. 100-101.

33 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.6, l. 100-116; Qu. III.7, l. 44-81, 163-168.

34 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.7, l. 44-46.

35 Nicole Oresme (1968), Le livre du ciel et du monde, ed. by Albert D. Menut & Alexander J. Denomy, C. S. B., Madison/Milwaukee/London, The University of Wisconsin Press, p. 372, l. 328-335.

36 The explanations by Gartner (see Chapter 4.3) may serve as an example; see München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (hereinafter abbreviated as “BSB”), Clm 19674, f. 88r-v: „Tamen est alia opinio que mihi plus placet quod motus sit mobile met et secundum illam opinionem moveri localiter est rem se aliter et aliter habere prius et posterius [f. 88v] quantum est ex parte sui taliter qualiter non posset percipi nisi perciperetur <mutatio> situs propinquitatis aut distantie illius [rei add. et del.] <rei> ad aliam rem. Vel est rem aliter et aliter se habere prius et posterius quantum est ex parte sui in ordine ad locum verum vel imaginarium.” Gartner is one of those who attribute the Ockhamian concept of motion to Ockham himself (see Chapter 7, Table 1). In later authors, either Oresme alone or both Ockham and Oresme together are credited with these or similar definitions of motion; see, for example, below, Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 63r (see the quotation in fn. 169); Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 262r (see the quotation in fn. 181); Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 364 (see the quotation in fn. 175).

37 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.7, l. 75-81.

38 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. III.7, p. 76, l. 2-20.

39 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. III.7, p. 78, l. 25-26.

40 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. III.7, p. 79, l. 10.

41 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. III.12, p. 112, l. 8-11.

42 Stefan Kirschner (2014), “Oresme’s Theory of Motion”, p. 94.

43 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. III.7, p. 79, l. 13-16.

44 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. III.7, l. 157-161. Also in his Livre du ciel et du monde Oresme states that motion is an accident that is by no means separable from its substance (Nicole Oresme [1968], Le livre du ciel et du monde, p. 372, l. 340-344).

45 Cf. William Ockham (1984), Summula philosophiae naturalis (Op. phil., vol. VI), book III, ch. 5, p. 262, l. 12-15; ch. 6, p. 265, l. 37-39; ch. 7, p. 267, l. 25-26; p. 269, l. 61-68; ch. 10, p. 281, l. 14 – p. 282, l. 41; William Ockham (1985), Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Prologus et libri I-III (Op. phil., vol. IV), book III, ch. 2, § 6-8; William Ockham (1944), Tractatus de successivis, ed. by Philotheus Boehner O. F. M., St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure College, p. 45-49. See also Marilyn McCord Adams (1987), William Ockham, Vol. 2, p. 799-852; Herman Shapiro (1957), Motion, Time and Place according to William Ockham. St. Bonaventure (NY), Franciscan Institute, p. 24-91.

46 William Ockham (1984), Quaestiones in libros Physicorum Aristotelis (Op. phil., vol. VI), Qu. 22, p. 452, l. 17-18.

47 William Ockham (1984), Quaestiones in libros Physicorum Aristotelis (Op. phil., vol. VI), Qu. 22, p. 452, l. 18-25.

48 See Herman Shapiro (1957), Motion, Time and Place, p. 114-117, especially fn. 283.

49 See Chapter 4.2 (Stedler), chapter 4.4 (Widman de Dinkelsbühl), and chapter 6 (anonymous Physics commentary Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749).

50 Gregorius Ariminensis OESA (1979), Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum, Tomus IV, Super secundum (dist. 1-5), ed. by A. Damasus Trapp, Manuel Santos-Noya & Manfred Schulze, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, dist. 1, qu. 4, p. 147, l. 29 – p. 150, l. 14.

51 München, Universitätsbibliothek (hereinafter abbreviated as “UB”), 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 108r-164v, 170r-174v. A digital copy is accessible at https://discover.ub.uni-muenchen.de/collection?utf8=%E2%9C%93&f%5Bcollection_faceting%5D%5B%5D=Mittelalterliche+Handschriften+%28bis+1530%2F40%29&search_field=all_fields&q=823. On folios 165r to 169v, there are two Questions that do not belong to the Physics commentary; see Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München. Band 5. Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften aus der Quartreihe, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, p. 294.

52 Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica quae in codicibus manu scriptis bibliothecarum Monacensium asservantur, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk/Łódź, Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, p. 151.

53 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 87r. Cf. Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, p. 293.

54 In the matriculation records, he is listed as Tyboldus Rewter de Wasserburga; see [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien. I. Band. 1377-1450, Graz/Köln, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger (Publikationen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Reihe 6: Quellen zur Geschichte der Universität Wien, 1. Abteilung), 1422, I, R 4 (p. 135).

55 Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, p. 293.

56 Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, p. 294.

57 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 151v.

58 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142r: “Alia <est> via [...nd add. et del.] Buridani [Ryridani Ms.] quam tenuit dominus Jacobus Angeli de Ulma videlicet quod tempore rarefactionis quantitas precedens manet cum quantitate acquirenda in eodem subiecto adequate et penetrative sic quod ubi est aliqua unius ibidem est aliqua alterius et simul totum reddunt maius et cetera. Penetratio ubi maior de per se sequitur quantitas non est impossibilis, sed bene penetratio corporum extra invicem [extra invicem repet.] est impossibilis.”

59 Variants of Engelin’s name are Angelus, Angeli, Egeli, Engellin, Jacobus Apothecarii de Ulma; see Elisabeth Tuisl (2014), Die Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Wien im Mittelalter. Von der Gründung der Universität 1365 bis zum Tod Kaiser Maximilians I. 1519, Göttingen, V & R unipress, p. 193.

60 Auctarium Chartularii Universitatis Parisiensis (1894), ed. by Henricus Denifle, O. P. & Aemilius Chatelain, Vol. 1, Paris, Fratres Delalain, col. 657.

61 [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Vol. 1, 1391 II, R 11 (p. 38).

62 Elisabeth Tuisl (2014), Die Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Wien im Mittelalter, p. 193-194. The last mention of Engelin can be found in a document from the Ulm Council in January 1409. It is unknown at which university he had studied medicine. In the history of medicine, Engelin is particularly known for his German-language treatise on the plague (circa 1400), which is documented in over 40 manuscripts. See Gundolf Keil (2005), “Engelin, Jakob”, in Werner E. Gerabek, Bernhard D. Haage, Gundolf Keil & Wolfgang Wegner (eds.), Enzyklopädie Medizingeschichte, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, p. 355.

63 In detail, the following picture emerges: Questions I.1-I.13 on f. 108v-122v of the Physics commentary in München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823 (hereinafter abbreviated as “M”) correspond, by title, to the first 13 Questions of the first book of the ultima lectura of Buridan’s Physics commentary (hereinafter abbreviated as “B”). B I.14 is missing; M I.14-I.16 (f. 122v-125v) corresponds to B I.18-I.20, and M I.17 (f. 125v) corresponds to B I.15. B I.16-I.17 and B I.21-I.24 are missing. Following the Questions of the first book, there is a Question corresponding to B II.8 on f. 126r-128v. The remaining available Questions of the second book appear much later. The following assignments can be made: f. 157v-158v: B II.4, f. 164v and f. 170r-171v: B II.9, f. 171v-173r: B II.10, f. 173r-174v: B II.12, but without an explicit Question title; f. 174v contains B II.13 (only the title, no text; the Physics commentary ends completely here). Two Questions not belonging to the Physics commentary are found on f. 165r to 169v; see Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, p. 294. Regarding the third book: f. 148r-148v corresponds to B III.13 (incomplete); f. 148v-152r corresponds to B III.14; f. 152r-153v corresponds to B III.15; f. 153v-157r corresponds to B III.16. As there are six blank pages before f. 148r, it can be assumed that an original transcript of Questions on the concept of motion was planned but not realized. The commentary on the fourth book of Aristotle’s Physics is represented by the following Questions: f. 128v-129r: B IV.4; f. 129r-131r: B IV.7, f. 131r-131v: B IV.8; f. 132r-134v: B IV.9 (incomplete, with four blank pages before f. 132r); f. 134v-138r: B IV.10; f. 138r-144r: B IV.11; f. 144r-145v: B IV.12; f. 145v-147v: B IV.13. The commentary on the fifth book contains only the following Questions: f. 159r-161r: B V.4 (incomplete, with two blank pages before), f. 161r-162r: B V.5, f. 162r-164r: B V.6. As previously mentioned, the Questions for Books VI, VII, and VIII are completely missing. See also Marianne Reuter (2000), Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, p. 294, who, however, arrives at somewhat different conclusions regarding the number and type of available Questions.

64 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 112v: “Circa questionem due sunt opiniones, una Magistri Buridani, alia Magistri Orem. Prima communior est quam tenent omnes nostri magistri, pro qua ponitur conclusio ista: nulla substantia est sua magnitudo, sed magnitudo est accidens substantie superadditum.”

65 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 113v: “Secundum Orem tunc quantitas est substantia met magna.”

66 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 113v: “Secundum Orem tunc quantitas est substantia met magna. Et ille dicit quod aer ultra dispositionem naturalem rarefactus comprimeretur in instanti. Et dicit quod argumentum nihil concluderet. Et Buridanus quando arguit: aer resistit et non materia nec forma, dicit quod totum quantum resisteret. Et quando dicitur: ‘potest per frigefactionem’ et cetera, conceditur quia ista aptius instrumentum est comprimendi quam motus localis. Etiam in simili non sequitur: aqua potest stare sub minori frigiditate, ergo aqua non resistit calefacienti [sequitur add.]. Respondetur ad [circa Ms.] illam [corr. ex illeg.] rationem [positionem Ms.; corr. ex illeg.] que probat <compressioni> laterum [corr. ex illeg.] vesice resistere [resisti Ms.] aliquid et cetera, ista ratio faciliter solvitur. Dicitur enim quod quando aer naturaliter est dispositus quod aer resistit quia per talem compressionem indisponitur. Sed contra solutionem ponatur quod aer sit ultra suam naturalem dispositionem rarefactus, tunc stat argumentum quia utique aer tunc non resistit neque aliquod accidens preter magnitudinem, non caliditas quia talis appetit magis [unum add. et del.] uniri, quia hoc proficit eam. Sed concederet Orem quod tunc instantanee comprimerentur latera usque ad naturalem dispositionem aeris. Sed ponatur quod aer sit naturaliter dispositus, tunc adhuc aer resistit comprimenti et non <quantitas> aer<is>. Patet quia posito quod aer per talem compressionem non ita indisponitur quod violentare<tur>. Ibi diceretur quod aer resisteret adhuc quia quamvis non violentaretur tamen ad violentiam disponeretur. Sed diceres [d. Ms.]: nihil resisteret alteri nisi quod de per se intendit eius corruptionem, sed comprimens non de per se intendit corrumpere aerem, igitur non resistit. Dicatur negando argumentum, immo dicatur aliquid resistit alteri quod non de per se intendit ipsum corrumpere, ut grave resistit conanti ipsum sursum movere qui motus non disponit de per se ad eius corruptionem. Verum est etiam quod non semper aliquid resistit alteri quod de per accidens conatur ipsum corrumpere. Patet de gravi sursum existenti quod non resistit moventi ipsum deorsum [corr. ex seorsum] et in casu quo post motum corrumperetur. Ponatur casus quod aer sit naturaliter dispositus in vesica, non tamen limitetur [limine Ms.?]. Pono consequenter quod per aliqualem elongationem seu rarefactionem laterum vesice naturalius disponatur et iterum per maiorem naturalissime disponatur, tunc arguitur [?]: utique aer sit naturaliter dispositus successive dilatari [dilatare Ms.] per elongationem laterum, tunc quero quid resistat elonganti latera. Et non potest dici quod aer, quia appetit dispositionem vel maiorem raritatem, igitur quantitas, quod est pro Buridano. Dicitur quod instantanee elongarentur et cetera.”

67 The emphasis placed here on the expansion of air occurring through the movement of the container walls likely stems from the intention to forestall the argument that, if the expansion is caused by heat, the heat of the air is suitable for the expanded state of the air and therefore resists further expansion.

68 See the end of the quotation in fn. 66.

69 Nicole Oresme (2013), Questiones super Physicam, Qu. IV.13, p. 507, l. 66-75.

70 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 138r: “Utrum in rarefactione proprie dicta quantitas precedens maneat cum nova acquirenda, de quo sunt tres modi distincti: unus Marsilii, secundus Buridani, tertius Orem.”

71 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 143r-144r.

72 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 143r-v: “Alia via est que a multis reputatur esse verisimilior prioribus que tenet quod quantitas sit res met magna. Et ulterius tenet quod rarefactio et condensatio fiunt per solum motum localem partium sine alicuius novi generatione aut prioris corruptione ita quod [f. 143v] in rarefactione partes solum elongantur ab invicem.”

73 See above, fn. 64.

74 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 141v: “Marsilius dicit quod rarefactio non sit quantitates, sed ponit [ponunt Ms.] fluxum superadditum continuum quem vocat rarefactionem et illo motu quantitates acquiruntur. [Cf. Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Marsilii inguen Doctoris resolutissimi abbreviationes super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis, f. 19vb, l. 17-20.] Sed hoc est plurificare entia sine necessitate, quia circumscripto tali fluxu adhuc per calefactionem potest acquiri maior quantitas et subiectum potest fieri rarius, ergo non est ponendus talis fluxus.”

75 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142v-143r: “Nota tamen quod semper aggregatum ex precedente et sequenti aliquante extendit, ut si rarefit [pedale add. et del.] pedale ad bipedalitatem, tunc aggregata ex priori semper et posteriori antequam attingitur bipedalitas extendunt plus quam pedaliter. Corollarie sequitur quod semper quantitas sequens erit ita longa, lata et profunda sicut subiectum sit secundum precedens. Corollarie sequitur quod completa rarefactione ibi sunt infinite quantitates non communicantes bipedales. Patet quia omnes [omnis Ms.] manent simul precise in eodem subiecto, et cum subiectum sit tunc bipedale, tunc [et add. et del.] etiam ille quantitates, quia semper accidens denominatur <in> tantum sicut subiectum suum. Corollarie <sequitur>: quamvis tunc sint ibidem infinite quantitates bipedales, nulla tamen [f. 143r] extendit tunc subiectum bipedaliter, sed solum aggregatum ex eis simul. Patet manifeste ex prioribus. Nec sequitur: ibi sunt infinite quantitates bipedales [ergo add. et del.] non communicantes, ergo hoc est infinite magnum, quia quamvis hoc sit verum, tamen non extendunt bipedaliter.”

76 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142r: “Et oportet dici secundum hanc viam [i.e. Buridan’s view] quod quantitas precedens informabit totum subiectum simul <cum> secunda quia si solum informaret aliquam partem, tunc cum prius informasset totum, exiret de subiecto in subiectum, quod est impossibile. Corollarie sequitur: quamvis quantitas pedaliter iam existens prius inherat subiecto post rarefactionem bipedali tamen ipsa non extendit post bipedaliter, sed aggregatio ex ea et nova adgenita extendit bipedaliter. Diceres: extendit ipsa tamen post aliquante vel non. Apparet mihi quod ipsa <non> coniuncta alteri nihil extendit, quia vel extenderet partem vel totum. Si totum, tunc extenderet bipedaliter, et sic nova superflueret quod non est dicendum secundum Buridanum [partem add.]. Item si extenderet pedaliter, tunc subiectum esset pedale, et tamen est bipedale [bipedali Ms.], et sic idem esset pedale et bipedale. Nec extendit partem, quia non apparet quare potius [potius quare Ms.] unam quam aliam, igitur nullam. Etiam cum inheret toti, non apparet ratio quare potius unam quam aliam, ergo apparet mihi pro nunc quod aggregatum ex precedenti et nova simul et coniunctim extendit subiectum, et nulla pars [et add.] extendit illud [eum Ms.] bipedaliter, si rarefactio est facta [us add. et del.] usque ad bipedalitatem a pedalitate.”

77 See the quotation in the preceding footnote.

78 See the quotations in fn. 75 and 76.

79 See the quotation in fn. 75; see also München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142v: “Corollarie <sequitur>: Quantitas quantocumque parvo tempore acquisita inheret toti subiecto et tanta [tanto Ms.] est sicut totum subiectum. Corollarie <sequitur>: Precedens et nova inherent precise eidem subiecto. Corollarie <sequitur>: Quantitas est extensibilis. Patet quia fit maior.”

80 See the quotation in fn. 58.

81 See the last sentence of the quotation in fn. 75. Also refer to München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 142v: “Arguitur contra hanc viam: rarefiat pedale usque [adpe add. et del.] ad bipedalitatem, tunc sequitur quod completa rarefactione ibi esset infinita magnitudo. Consequens <est> falsum, quia solum bipedale est. Probatur quia continue acquiritur maior quantitas priori quarum quelibet excedit priorem vel plus extendit quam prior, et sunt infinite, igitur. Dicitur quod non plus extendit quia prior extendit pedaliter, immo nulla intermedia extendit pedaliter. Sed arguitur aliter: tempore intermedio acquiruntur infinite quantitates quarum quelibet nata est tante extendere sicut hec certa data denotando unam versus principium rarefactionis quantamcumque [quantumcumque Ms.] parvam, et tamen manent omnes simul; sequitur propositum. Item eedem non sunt communicantes, quia nulla est pars alterius. Dicunt aliqui quod sint communicantes, non sic quod una sit pars alterius, sed quia sunt in eodem subiecto. Sed hoc nihil valet quia tunc gradus caliditatis essent communicantes, quod falsum est. Patet tamen quia inherent eodem subiecto. Respondetur igitur aliter concedendo quod tempore intermedio acquiruntur infinite quantitates, sed negatur quod quelibet tante extendat sicut hec certa data, immo dico quod nulla aliquante extendat, scilicet [sed Ms.] nisi aggregatum ex priori et posteriori extendit, et in fine aggregatum ex omnibus acquisitis <quantitatibus> extendit.”

82 See the quotation in fn. 72.

83 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 143r-143v: “Alia via est que a multis reputatur esse verisimilior prioribus que tenet quod quantitas sit res met magna. Et ulterius tenet quod rarefactio et condensatio fiunt per solum motum localem partium sine alicuius novi generatione aut prioris corruptione ita quod [f. 143v] in rarefactione partes solum elongantur ab invicem. Nec ex hoc sequitur quod partes que prius fuerunt immediate post non sunt immediate, sed partes distantes [distantiones Ms.] facta rarefactione plus distant propter hoc quod pars media per quam distant fit maior. Ita de condensatione [dicitur add.] <per> approximatione<m> partium. Et sic patet quod ibi non committitur vacuum. Sed dicitur: Vel igitur omnes partes ab invicem elongantur vel aliqua et aliqua non. Non omnes, quia instantia de centro est quod non movetur et tamen rarefit. Dicitur quod quelibet pars illius quod rarefit elongatur ab alia secundum se vel suas partes. Sed d<e> parte centrali dicitur quod non movetur secundum [sed Ms.] se, sed secundum alias [suas Ms.] partes, immo secundum quaslibet partes secundum certam divisionem eo quod non est assignabilis pars extra centrum quare illa movetur [What is probably meant is: que non movetur]. Corollarie <sequitur> quod illud quod rarefit non habet se aliter et aliter prius et posterius [posterior Ms.] in ordine ad motum, quia supponitur quod motus sit mobile met. Tamen habet se intrinsece aliter et aliter secundum suas partes, cum par<tes> posterius magis distant quam prius.”

84 See the penultimate sentence of the quotation in the previous footnote.

85 München, UB, 4° Cod. ms. 823, f. 144r: “Alia vide in disputatis. Hanc questionem sic collegi de libris magistrorum meorum de questionibus disputatis quia tunc necessitas pro responsione utiliori fuit mihi sic colligendi.”

86 Karl Heinz Burmeister (2003), “»... der in fremden landen were uff der schuol«. Die Baccalaurei und Magistri in artibus der Universität Paris aus dem Bistum Konstanz und dessen näherer Umgebung, 1329 bis 1499”, Alemannia Studens 11, p. 23–90, at p. 32; Elisabeth Tuisl (2014), Die Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Wien im Mittelalter, p. 194-195; [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Vol. 1, 1412 I, R 19 (p. 90); Acta Facultatis Artium Universitatis Vindobonensis 1385-1416 (1968), ed. by Paul Uiblein, Graz/Wien/Köln, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, p. 415, 419, 450; Auctarium Chartularii Universitatis Parisiensis (1897), ed. by Henricus Denifle, O. P. & Aemilius Chatelain, Vol. 2, Paris, Fratres Delalain, col. 220, 225-226.

87 Regarding Johannes Stedler of Landshut, see Monica Brinzei (2022), “A Student’s Notes on the Plague in Codex Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 4497”, Chôra. Revue d’études anciennes et médiévales 20, p. 367-377. There (p. 373), Stedler’s Physics commentary is mentioned as lost (cf. Charles H. Lohr [1971], “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors: Johannes de Kanthi – Myngodus”, Traditio 27, p. 251-351, at p. 283). Stedler (referred to as Johannes Strädlare de Langhüta in the document) died of the plague in 1436 (Brinzei, p. 372). For Stedler, see also Martin G. Enne (2010), Teiledition der Matrikel der Rheinischen Nation der Universität Wien. 1415 – 1442, Universität Wien, Magisterarbeit (https://utheses.univie.ac.at/detail/9194#):Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II (UAW Cod. Ph 7). Personen-Nennungen im Zusammenhang mit Prüfung, Graduierung und Verteilung der Vorlesungsthemen (1416 bis 1447). Nr. 3233 bis 9262 (downloadable at https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:217), first mention of Stedler: no. 3384.

88 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 1r-257r; f. 257r: “Disputata reverendi magistri Störler. Expliciunt disputata super octo libris physicorum reverendi magistri Johannis Stedler de Lanczhuta finita feria quarta in die sancti Luce Ewangeliste hora quasi quarta in lectorio subordinariarum disputationum Studii Wiennensis anno cccc° xxx° et cetera” [= October 18, 1430]; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 51-52. A digitized version of the codex is available at https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00124295?page=,1.

89 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, p. 75.

90 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 181r-182r: “Utrum rarefactio et condensatio sint possibiles et utrum aliquid sit possibile rarefieri.”

91 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 24v-25r: “Et ideo via opposita videtur esse probabilior scilicet Ore[m] scilicet quod quelibet res habens situaliter partem [f. 25r] extra partem est [que Ms.] sua magnitudo et si cum argumento Buridani poneretur quod aer esset rarefactus intra [ultra Ms.] follem ultra naturalem dispositionem non manente [mutata Ms.] complexione naturali alia et sit aer exterior condensatus ad naturalem dispositionem et deponendo limitationem, respondetur quod ille casus non est naturalis, igitur non debet admitti.” In fact, the external air should be condensed “ultra naturalem dispositionem” and not “ad naturalem dispositionem,” as claimed by Stedler, to prevent it from providing resistance to the compression of the bellows.

92 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 24v.

93 See the quotation in fn. 91.

94 Clm 497, f. 26r: “Sic respondetur ad questionem quod questio est falsa unde secundum Buridanum nulla substantia est magnitudo sua, sed est extensio distincta ponenda contra scientiam [?]. Sed dicit Orem quod questio est vera, et illa secunda opinio est verior quia [quod Ms.] non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate.” The reading of “scientiam” is uncertain, and the question arises as to whether an adjective may have been omitted.

95 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “Respondetur dicendo quod rarefactio fiet per motum elongationis partium ab invicem et condensatio per approximationem partium ad [ab Ms.] invicem.”

96 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “[...] ille partes que ante rarefactionem fuerunt immediate post erunt immediate nec distabunt ab invicem, sed quecumque partes distabant post hoc plus distabunt [distabant Ms.] propter rarefactionem partis medie inter eas.”

97 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “[...] in condensatione: partes immediate non erunt immediatiores, sed mediatiores et distantes [distans Ms.] post hoc minus distabunt [distabant Ms.].”

98 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 120r: “[…] et secundum illum modum motus localis est mobile met quod habet se aliter et aliter sicut dictum est, et ille modus ascribitur Okkam.” Furthermore, on folio 119v, at the beginning of the presentation of Ockham’s view, there is a marginal note (probably by another hand): “Opinio magistri Wilhelmi Okkam.”

99 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 119v-121v.

100 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 121v: “Est tamen etiam alia opinio quam tangit Gregorius de Orringo [or Orringa] quod motus sit spatium pertransitum.”

101 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 121v: “Prime due vie sunt communiores, secunda tamen est probabilior.”

102 Clm 19674, f. 3r-183r; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 52-53; f. 3r: “Disputata Magistri Jodoci Gartner de Perching super octo libros phisicorum.” At the end of the Questions on Book 2 of Aristotle’s Physics, the year 1438 is mentioned (see Mieczysław Markowski [1981], Buridanica, p. 52). The anonymous commentary on De Anima found in the same codex (f. 186r-292v) is dated to 1439 (see Markowski, Buridanica, p. 84-85).

103 Regarding Jodocus Gartner from Berching (also Berchingen, Perching, Perchyn, Persching) in Bavaria, see Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinen Werken und zur Rezeption seiner Theorien im Europa des späten Mittelalters, 2 parts, Berlin (Diss., Freie Universität Berlin), p. 344, fn. 188; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II (the first mention of Gartner is listed under no. 3842); Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471. Personen-Nennungen im Zusammenhang mit Prüfung, Graduierung und Verteilung der Vorlesungsthemen. Nr. 9263 bis 16527. Texterfassung: Andreas Bracher, Wien (downloadable at https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:217); Christine Stöllinger (1979), “Gartner, Jodocus, von Berching”, in Kurt Ruh, Gundolf Keil, Werner Schröder, Burghart Wachinger & Franz Josef Worstbrock (eds.), Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, col. 1097-1099; Martin G. Enne (2010), Teiledition der Matrikel der Rheinischen Nation der Universität Wien. 1415 – 1442. Gartner is documented as a licentiate of theology in 1449, not only in 1451 as stated by Michael and Stöllinger. See Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, no. 9741.

104 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (hereinafter abbreviated as “ÖNB”), Cod. 4999, f. 2r-170v; f. 57r: “Disputata magistri Jodoci Garttneri. Et sic est finis huius primi libri magistri [crossed out; there are more words that are heavily crossed out and illegible]”; f. 144v (end of the 5th book): “disputa<ta> Garttneri”; f. 170v, colophon: “Disputa<ta> Garttneri physicorum. Sit laus deo et omnibus sanctis”; in a separate small frame: “laus deo et sancto Bartholomeo”. However, at the end of the second book, a Magister Redus (the reading is uncertain) is mentioned as the author (f. 81r): “Et sic est finis istius secundi libri per magistrum Redum [?].”

105 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 1r: “Symon Weyssennpacher studens wienn<ensis>”; f. 22v, end of Qu. I.8: “Sequitur alia questio et cetera. Symon.”

106 [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Vol. 1, 1436 I, A 5 (p. 192).

107 Regarding Symon (also Simon) Weyspacher (also Weispacher, Weissenpacher) de Lewbesdorf (also Lewbersdarf, Lewbersdorff), see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, nos. 6994, 7014, 7756, 8209.

108 For example, see Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 22v: “quod omnis substantia magna est ipsa substantia met vel omnis res magna est ipsa res magna met et sic de aliis”.

109 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 22r: “igitur rarefactio est motus filior [sic!] quam condensatio. Hoc probatur quia hoc est filius [sic!] [corr. ex filus]”. A “v” in Latin words was probably often pronounced as an “f” in the German-speaking region at that time, as this pronunciation is common in German words that are not borrowed from other languages. Therefore, in some of the texts discussed here, you may find “inficem” instead of “invicem,” or conversely “vollis” instead of “follis”. However, Weyspacher’s use of “filior” instead of “vilior” and “filius” instead of “vilius” is quite noticeable and is typically expected from a beginner.

110 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 88r-v: “Tamen est alia opinio que mihi plus placet quod motus sit mobile met et secundum illam opinionem moveri localiter est rem se aliter et aliter habere prius et posterius [f. 88v] quantum est ex parte sui taliter qualiter non posset percipi nisi perciperetur <mutatio> situs propinquitatis aut distantie illius rei [deleted in the manuscript] ad aliam rem. Vel est rem aliter et aliter se habere prius et posterius quantum est ex parte sui in ordine ad locum verum vel imaginarium. Et si omnia ad invicem continuarentur, tunc quando totum universum moveretur, tunc haberet se aliter et aliter in ordine ad locum verum vel imaginarium; licet non ad verum sufficit, tamen quoad [quod ad Ms.] imaginarium.”

111 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 2r: “Opinio Okkam: Motus localis est ipsum mobile met.”

112 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 95r: “Et <ad> maximum argumentum [ibi add.] Buridani <dicitur> quod omnia possunt salvari dicendo quod ipsum mobile sit res met [This wording is another example of significant terminological uncertainties in formulating Ockhamist views]. Sciendum quod est alia opinio et probabilis quod motus sit res met vel mobile et non sit accidens distinctum contra mobile. Et dicit consequenter quod quidquid movetur localiter, hoc est motus localis sui ipsius. Et moveri localiter secundum hoc est rem habere se aliter et aliter secundum prius et posterius quantum est ex parte sui sic quod non potest percipi aliter et aliter se habere nisi percipiatur mutatio situs secundum propinquitatem vel distantiam ad aliam rem secundum se vel suas partes, ut sint due naves equaliter moventes et non possum videre aliquid in litore, tunc non possum percipere illam rem moveri [movere Ms.] nisi percipiam mutationem illius situs unius ad aliam. Et dicit illa via quod motus per se est nature permanentis.”

113 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 22r: “Et quia argumenta Buridani non demonstrant, ideo est alia opinio Nicolai Orem qui dicit quod omnis substantia magna est sua magnitudo quia omnia possunt salvari non ponendo eam esse distinctam.”

114 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 128r: “Est adhuc alia via magistri Nicolai Orem dicentis quod magnitudo est res met magna.”

115 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 2r: “Opinio Orem et Okkam: Quantitas est substantia met magna.”

116 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 21v: “Propter ista motiva est alia positio quod magnitudo substantie sit met magna et quelibet res magna est ipsa met magna” (This wording is another example of significant terminological uncertainties in formulating Ockhamist views). Ibid., f. 22v: “Respondetur igitur ad questionem secundum Buridanum quod questio est falsa quia secundum eum res visibilis per solam ablationem magnitudinis fit invisibilis. Sed omnis substantia que extenditur per accidens distinctum extenditur. Sed secundum aliam viam, scilicet modernorum et probabiliorem quod omnis substantia magna est ipsa substantia met vel omnis res magna est ipsa res magna met et sic de aliis <questio est vera>.”

117 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 129r: “Alia <est> opinio Oren dicens quelibet res habens partem extra partem est sua magnitudo met, et sic rarefactio fit per elongationem partium rei quante ab invicem, sed condensatio per approximationem talium partium rei quante ad invicem. Et sic oportet dicere secundum illos qui dicunt quod substantia sit sua magnitudo met. Et etiam salvatur quod non fit [sit Ms.] vacuum. Respondetur igitur ad questionem quod questio est vera secundum omnem opinionem, secundum Marsilium, Buridanum et Oren [with a line over the name “Oren”] et cetera.”

118 See the quotation in fn. 113.

119 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 23r: “Per hoc respondetur ad questionem quod est falsa quia aliqua res habens partes extra partes non est sua magnitudo, ut patet de substantia magna.” Regarding the extension of qualities, however, Gartner seems to adhere to the Ockhamist view, as can be seen from the following corollary mentioned half a page earlier (f. 23r): “Corollarium. Impossibile est esse albedinem quin sit extensa cum sit sua extensio.”

120 See the second quotation in fn. 116. What one would expect is a formulation such as the following: “quod magnitudo substantie est ipsa substantia met vel omnis res magna est sua magnitudo”.

121 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 128r: “Est adhuc alia via magistri Nicolai Orem dicentis quod magnitudo est res met magna et consequenter dicit quod rarefactio stat per hoc quod partes extremales elongantur et recedunt a parte centrali, sed condensatio fit e converso <per hoc> quod partes extremales appropinquant centro. Et sic dicit quod rarefactio fiat per solum motum localem.”

122 See for example München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 263v (See the quotation in fn. 263); München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 190v (See the quotation in fn. 245); Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 254r (See the quotation in fn. 321); München, BSB, Clm 19847 (Tudel de Giengen), f. 172r (See the quotation in fn. 155); Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950 (Widman de Dinkelsbühl), f. 304r (See the quotation in fn. 147); Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 93v (See the quotation in fn. 245).

123 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4999, f. 22r: “[...] per motum localem fit [sic Ms.?] quod partes extensibiles in rarefactione magis elongantur a centro, sed in condensatione appropinquent centrum [quod partes extensibiles… appropinquent centrum add. sup. lin. et in marg.] [quod una pars elongatur alteri et partes distant tunc add.], et sic non est imaginandum quod ille partes que prius fuerunt mediate fierent immediate.”

124 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 1r-390v; f. 390v: “Expliciunt disputata super octo libris physicorum Aristotelis philosophie principis per venerabilem necnon sagacem virum artium magistrum Iohannem de Dinkchelspuhel finitis per me [The following is something crossed out with a thick bar. The name likely begins with Wolfgangus; cf. f. 375v, line 9: “Anno domini 1439 Wolfgangus”] sub anno domini M° cccc° tricesimo nono in vigilia Sancti Michaelis archangeli”.

125 [Franz Gall] (1956), Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Vol. 1, 1419 I, R 85 (p. 123); Martin G. Enne (2010), Teiledition der Matrikel der Rheinischen Nation der Universität Wien. 1415 – 1442, p. 88.

126 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, p. 68, no. 5549.

127 Regarding Widman (also Wydman, Wideman, Widemman), see Charles H. Lohr, Traditio 27 (1971), p. 303; Hermann Göhler (2015), Das Wiener Kollegiat-, nachmals Domkapitel zu St. Stephan in Wien 1365-1554, Dissertation von Hermann Göhler (†) Mai 1932, ed. by Johannes Seidl, Angelika Ende & Johann Weißensteiner, Wien/Köln/Weimar, Böhlau, p. 330-331; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, first mention of Widman: no. 4203; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, no. 9491. The town name “Dinkelsbühl” corresponds to the modern spelling. For the numerous medieval spelling variants, see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471; Martin G. Enne (2010), Teiledition der Matrikel der Rheinischen Nation der Universität Wien. 1415 – 1442, p. 140-141.

128 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 55v: „Propter illa tamen motiva vel concludenda est alia opinio magistri Nicolay Orem scilicet quod quelibet res magna est sua magnitudo.” With “illa tamen motiva vel concludenda,” various objections against a separate ontological status of magnitudo, as well as the conclusions resulting from the refutation of these objections, are intended; specifically, the problems arising from the views of Buridan and Marsilius.

129 See above, Chapter 4.1.1.

130 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 55v-56r (The starting point is a counterargument against the purported view of Oresme): “Ad idem arguitur sic: Sint latera follis elongata ab invicem et foramina bene sint obstructa, tunc volenti comprimere latera aliquid resistist, et non aliud nisi quantitas. Ibi dicendum est quod aer resistit et caliditas [f. 56r] et quantitas scilicet aer. Unde aer resistit quia illa dispositio est sibi conveniens et per consequens inclinatur ad eam, igitur resistit volenti ipsum comprimere. Similiter caliditas resistit quia etiam sui natura nata est sic elongare partes aeris, et sic inclinatur ad hoc. Sed d<iceres>: Volo quod aer sit rarefactus ultra eius dispositionem naturalem, tunc enim non resistit aer. Ibi dicitur quod caliditas adhuc resistit. Et si ponitur quod caliditas non sit conveniens pro tanta rarefactione immo quod aer per solum motum localem sit sic rarefactus et quod aer exterior inclinetur ad comprimendum latera, ibi dicitur quod illo stante adhuc latera follis resistant quia in eis est levitas ignea. Similiter comprimens resistit quia non est grave simplex. Sed seclusis illis dico quod latera comprimuntur usque ad naturalem dispositionem aeris sibi convenientem, et hoc fit successive etiam non ponendo limitationem. Et ulterius dico quod natura communis resistit, et sic aer interior <et> similiter exterior resistunt, et sic licet possunt stare sub minori quantitate, non sequitur quod igitur non resistunt, sed sequitur quod igitur non resistunt a natura propria. Sed quod hoc fieret successive patet quia alias fierent duo innaturalia, scilicet mutatio instantanea et cetera aut [?] vacuum. Sed si ponitur quod fieret hoc in vacuo et si poneretur ibi grave simplex, tunc dicitur quod latera in tali casu comprimerentur instantanee usque ad naturalem dispositionem aeris. […] Sed verum est si aer in folle esset nimis rarus ultra eius dispositionem naturalem et quod caliditas non appeteret tantam raritatem, similiter quod aer extrinsecus esset nimium condensatus, tunc nullum illorum resisteret ut natura propria, sed ut natura communis. Ex quo patet quod non sequitur: aer exterior appetit compressionem laterum, similiter aer interior, igitur non resistunt. Sed bene sequitur quod ergo non resistunt a natura propria, sed adhuc resistunt a natura communi, quia secundum illam aer extrinsecus appetit replere vacuum et aer interior resistit ut non fiat mutatio instantanea [instantanee Ms.].”

131 See the quotation in the previous footnote.

132 See the quotation in fn. 130.

133 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 56r-56v: “Et nota circa hoc quod dictum fuit si in casu posito fieret compressio in vacuo et cetera quod si talis compressio fieret in tali vacuo quod <si> aer in folle posset se tantum rarefacere quod repleret vacuum absque sui corruptione, tunc latera non comprimerentur instantanee, immo aer resisteret et rarefaceret se pro repletione vacui. Si autem aer rarefactus taliter non posset absque sui corruptione se <rarefacere et> replere vacuum, tunc in tali casu latera [f. 56v] comprimuntur instantanee usque ad naturalem aeris dispositionem, et non resisteret aer nec rarefaceret se pro repletione vacui, quia non dirigeretur a domino deo glorioso sic se rarefacere, quia non dirigit ipsum ad sui corruptionem. Et in tali casu non potest taliter rarefieri absque sui corruptione.”

134 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 22r-22v: “Et quia argumenta Buridani non demonstrant, ideo est alia opinio Nicolai Orem qui dicit quod omnis substantia magna est sua magnitudo quia omnia possunt salvari non ponendo eam esse distinctam. Ad primam rationem Buridani dicitur quod aer resistit et hoc si non est ultra suam dispositionem naturalem rarefactus. Patet quia quodlibet ens resistit tantum quantum potest cuilibet volenti eam reducere a sua naturali dispositione. Si autem talis aer esset rarefactus ultra dispositionem naturalem sibi convenientem, tunc caliditas et complexio aeris resisterent [corr. ex resisteret] cum [cui Ms.] aeri talis quantitas esset conveniens. Corollarium. Si omnia resistentia essent ablata scilicet magnitudo et cetera adhuc latera non comprimerentur instantanee sed successive quia forma substantialis aeris in quantum est natura communis resisteret ad impediendum vacuum [f. 22v] quia aer non potest instantanee subsequi ad replendum sed successive.” With the resistance that the heat of the air is supposed to exert, it is likely understood that heat, by its nature, tends to expand the parts of the air and thus tends to resist the compression of the air. In this context, a passage from Widman de Dinkelsbühl is enlightening: “Similiter caliditas resistit quia etiam sui natura nata est sic elongare partes aeris, et sic inclinatur ad hoc” (Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 56r; see the quotation in fn. 130). The statement that the complexion (complexio) of the air would resist compression, even though the air is assumed to be rarified beyond its natural state and thus compression would actually be desirable, also requires clarification by referring to other Physics commentaries, particularly Hainczel’s. What is likely implied here is that with the compression of the air, the heat could act more effectively and put the air into an even more unfavorable state. Hainczel (see Chapter 4.6.2) provides a vivid example: when someone has a swollen foot, they would prefer not to have it compressed, as the pain would be even greater than before (see the quotation in the following footnote).

135 While the question of the fundamental possibility of instantaneous motion plays a central role in Gartner and Widman, in Hainczel, whose Physics commentary is discussed in Chapter 4.6.2, a concrete answer to this thought experiment is lacking because he does not specify whether the compression of the bellows up to the natural disposition of the air contained within would occur instantaneously or successively. See the following quotation (“K” stands for the Klagenfurt manuscript (f. 30v), “M” for the Munich manuscript (f. 20r), and “Z” for the manuscript in the Cistercian Library of Zwettl (f. 29r-v); for the manuscripts of Hainczel’s Physics commentary, see below, Chapter 4.6.2, fn. 186): “Ad argumentum autem Buridani de folle [de folle om. K] dicendum [de volle add. K] quod aer resistit et ipse aer taliter qualificatus non appetit stare sub minori quantitate. Si [sed K] enim habet cum tali qualificatione minorem [qual add et del. M] quantitatem [om. K, Z], tunc ex quo [Z, f. 29v] qualitates essent plus unite quam prius et fortiores in agendo, plus indisponeretur aer a sua complexione. Simile adducitur exemplum de pede inflato. Habens enim huiusmodi pedem sic qualificatum non vellet eum esse minorem quia tunc plus doleret quam prius. Si autem ponitur quod aer sit naturaliter dispositus, tunc item aer resistit quia naturale est cuilibet [cuiuslibet K, Z] rei ut resistat [resistit K] volenti ipsam [ipsum Z] abducere [adducere K] a naturali dispositione. Sed [om. K, M] si ponitur quod aer sit rarefactus per solum motum id est [id est om. M] localem [locum K, M, Z] et non per alterationem et quod aer extrinsecus sit condensatus ultra naturam et [ibi K] queritur quid [quod M] tunc resistat, dicitur quod nihil, immo latera comprimerentur usque ad dispositionem naturalem [naturalem dispositionem Z], nec experientia est in oppositum.”

136 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 57r-v: “Sic ergo ultimate pro ista questione sunt due opiniones: una dicens quod quelibet res habens extensive situaliter partem extra partem sit sua magnitudo, et sic questio ut proponitur est vera. Alia est opinio Buridani dicens quod non quelibet res situaliter extensive habens partem extra [f. 57v] partem [situaliter add. et del.] est sua magnitudo, licet bene aliqua ut magnitudo met, et sua ratio Achilles sic potest formari: Ponatur enim casus quod aer in vesica sit rarefactus ultra naturalem dispositionem per solam distractionem et aer extrinsecus sit condensatus ultra naturalem dispositionem, et ponatur via Aristotelis quod non sit ponenda limitatio in agentibus secundis et quod caliditas aeris in vesica non appetit illam quantitatem sed minorem, tunc nisi quantitas distincta a substantia aeris resisteret comprimenti aerem [aeri Ms.] sequitur impossibile scilicet mutatio instantanea aeris, unde non est resistentia [mutatio Ms.] ex parte aeris extrinseci nec intrinseci nec ex parte caliditatis quia quodlibet appetit minorem [maiorem Ms.] quantitatem. Sed ad illam rationem potest dici faciliter ut patet ex dictis, et tantum de questione illa et opinionibus suis.”

137 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 57v: “Nota, ut allegat Albertus in sua summa ubi tractat de predicamento substantie, tunc Okkam fuit illius opinionis quod substantia magna esset sua magnitudo, et eius argumentum ut allegat Albertus fuit tale: Illud quod secundum sui mutationem est susceptibile contrariorum est substantia ut patet in predicamentis; quantitas est huiusmodi. Et Albertus in hoc repugnans sic dicit quod maior non est vera, unde non convenit domino deo. Sed Aristoteles dicens [Cat. 5.4a10-b4] hoc maxime proprium esse substantie <secundum sui mutationem esse susceptibilem contrariorum> voluit quod esset proprium maxime substantie id est prime substantie.” See Albert von Sachsen (2010), Logik, Lateinisch - Deutsch, ed. by Harald Berger, Hamburg, Meiner, Tractatus I, Cap. 19, p. 192, l. 22 – p. 194, l. 13.

138 See Summary Table 1 in Chapter 7.

139 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 58r: “Notandum quod opinione magistri Nycolai Orem cum quo stat Okkam quod quedam sunt dimensiones sic se habentes quod una est actus et alia potentia [et add.], penetratio talium bene est possibilis ut albedo et materia et cetera. Si due sunt actus et tertia potentia, tunc item possunt se penetrare ut albedo, dulcedo et materia. Et dimensiones non se sic habentes non possunt se penetrare.”

140 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 55v: “Arguitur sic: sequitur quod penetratio corporum et dimensionum esset possibilis. Consequens <est> contra philosophum. Patet argumentum quia albedo et dulcedo in lacte [que add.] penetrant se et quelibet est sua magnitudo. Negatur consequentia, nec est contra philosophum quarto physicorum, quia vult quod penetratio corporum extra se invicem existentium non est possibilis.”

141 München, BSB, Clm 497, f. 25r: “Sed contra hoc arguitur sic: Sequitur quod penetratio corporum esset possibilis. Hoc est contra Aristotelem primo physicorum. Argumentum probatur quia albedo et dulcedo penetrant se in lacte et ille sunt dimensiones. Ad argumentum: Conceditur, sed ad Aristotelem dicitur quod penetratio corporum ex<tra> se invicem situaliter existentium est impossibilis.”

142 München, BSB, Clm 19674, f. 128r: “Quod penetratio corporum et dimensionum est possibilis patet de materia, forma [as add. et del.], albedine et dulcedine in lacte. Et Aristoteles in quarto huius loquitur de penetratione corporum extra se invicem existentium que est impossibilis.” Also see the anonymous Physics commentary in Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801 (cf. Chapter 4.6.1), f. 208v: “Dicendum est consequenter secundum illam opinionem quod penetratio corporum est bene possibilis, etiam magnitudinum. Patet de albedine et dulcedine lactis. Sed penetratio corporum extra se invicem existentium – illa non est possibilis naturaliter loquendo.” With “illa opinio” at the beginning of the quotation, the (purported) Ockhamist view of Oresme regarding quantitas or magnitudo is referenced.

143 Cf. William Ockham (1986), Tractatus de quantitate, Qu. 3, p. 77, l. 311 – p. 78, l. 327.

144 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. IV.11, p. 304, l. 8-15.

145 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 304r (see the quotation in fn. 147).

146 As is customary in such examples, no precise statement was made about how to imagine such a “bipedale,” whether as a cube with a volume of two cubic feet or more like a rectangular body with a length of two feet.

147 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 304r: “Est preterea tertia opinio tenens quod quantitas sit met substantia. Illi dicunt quod rarefactio et condensatio fiunt per solum motum localem ita quod non per nove quantitatis acquisitionem et per motum localem, id est per elongationem et approximationem partium et per nullius quantitatis nec corruptionem nec generationem, et illi salvant quod non fiat vacuum in rarefactione illo modo: Si bipedale debet rarefieri ad quadrupedalitatem, tunc oportet primum semipedale recedere et in locum suum non succedit alia medietas primi pedalis, sed medietas secunde medietatis et sic huic [?] succedit in locum eius et rarefit et occupat tantum locum quantum eius totum occupavit. Et sic consequenter imaginando de altera semipedalitate primi pedalis, et deinde de semipedalitatibus secunde pedalis usque quod fiat quadrupedale, et sic partes que prius non distabant iam distant et que fuerunt prius immediate iam sunt mediate.”

148 See, for example, Stedler (see the quotation in fn. 96).

149 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4950, f. 228r: “Est tamen alia opinio ut supra tactum est reverendi magistri Wilhelmi Okkam probabilis dicens quod motus localis sit mobile met.” Ibid.: “Sed est tertia opinio probabilior secunda [i.e. Ockham’s view] dicens quod motus localis sit spatium in quo mobile movetur et illam tenet magister Gregorius de Orringia [corr. ex Orringua].”

150 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 2r-268v. Date on f. 268v: “[...] per infinita secula seculorum et cetera. Anno domini M° et cetera xl8. Expliciunt disputata questionum librorum physicorum B<uridani> exercitata per Magistrum Georium de Giengen, ab eodem scripta per me Ulricum de Landaw [Udalricus Kaegerl de Landau; cf. https://d-nb.info/gnd/103147705]”.Cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 49-50. The codex is accessible online at https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00140228?page=,1. On folio 1r, it is noted that Magister Udalricus de Landau brought the codex and presented it to the Tegernsee Monastery: “Attulit et obtulit Monasterio Sancti Quirini in Tegernsee magister Udalricus de Landau”.

151 For biographical information about Georgius (also Georius) Tudel (also Tüdel) de Giengen (also Gyengen) in Württemberg, see Joseph Aschbach (1865), Geschichte der Wiener Universität im ersten Jahrhunderte ihres Bestehens, Wien, Verlag der K. K. Universität, p. 526-527; Paul Uiblein (1978), Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien (1396-1508), II. Band, Wien, Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs, p. 645-646; Charles H. Lohr (1968), “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries, Authors G-I”, Traditio 24, p. 149-245, at p. 159; Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 344, fn. 190; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, first mention of Tudel de Giengen: no. 6052; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471.

152 Regarding Fernando of Cordova, see John Monfasani (1992), “Fernando of Cordova. A Biographical and Intellectual Profile”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82/6, p. i-x, 1-116 (quotation on p. 1). For the disputation with Tudel de Giengen, see ibid., p. 19-21, 71-72; for Fernando of Cordova’s theses, see ibid., p. 73-82.

153 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 1r: “In isto libello continentur questiones octo librorum physicorum cum argumentis et notabilibus ex questionibus Buridani in cuiuslibet questionis initio positis quas disputavit reverendus vir Magister Georius de Giengen ordinarie sacre theologie baccalaureus formatus qui et victoriosissime disputando triumphavit de Magistro Vernando qui se lucem mundi appellavit in presentia reverendissimi domini, domini Cardinalis Joh<annis> S<ancti> Angeli in aula universitatis Wienne.” The cardinal in question is Juan Carvajal; see John Monfasani (1992), Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82/6, p. 17.

154 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 22v: “Alia est opinio communis quod omnis res magna sit sua magnitudo, et est communior alia propter cavere multiplicitatem entium. Et sic secundum Buridanum [Wiridanum Ms.] questio ut proponitur est falsa, sed secundum alteram opinionem probabiliorem questio est vera.”

155 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 172r: “Ultimo est sciendum quod est opinio alia que dicit quod omnis res quanta per se est sua quantitas et magnitudo substantie non est distincta a substantia, sed est ipsa met substantia. Unde in lacte quantitas est materia, forma, albedo, et est opinio Nicolai Orem. Unde secundum eum rarefactio sic notificatur: est augmentatio qua corpus occupat maiorem situm quam ante occupabat sine ingressu alicuius corporis extenti et per solam partium ab invicem elongationem. Condensatio precise per oppositum dicendo per approximationem partium. Sed densum est extensum quod habet multum de materia aut aliqua [?] substantia cuius partes non sunt ab invicem multum elongate per motum localem. Sed rarum est extensum quod habet parvum de materia aut aliqua [?] substantia cuius partes sunt multum ab invicem elongate. Consequenter dicit illa opinio quod rarefactio et condensatio fiunt per solum motum localem quando alique partes prius distantes postea plus distant. Condensatio est quando partes prius [plus Ms.] distantes postea minus distant. Et sic secundum illam opinionem in rarefactione nulle partes prius immediate postea fiunt ab invicem distantes sicut etiam in condensatione nulle partes distantes fiunt [minus distantes add.] <immediate>. Consequenter dicit quod rarefactio et condensatio multo facilius fiunt per alterationem ita quod calefactio est instrumentum aptissimum ad raref<ac>iendum et frigefactio ad condensationem. Tamen per solum motum localem absque alteratione illa possunt fieri.”

156 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 131r: “Sed ista omnia [The reference is to counterarguments against Ockham’s view of local motion] possunt salvari dicendo quod motus localis sit mobile met, et non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate.” Ibid.: “Est igitur alia via ipsius Occam scilicet motus est mobile met et secundum illam viam possunt solvi omnes rationes Buridani.”

157 München, BSB, Clm 19847, f. 130ar: “Contra opinionem Nicolai Occa[m] arguitur [...].” The remaining mentions of Ockham (always without the first name and mostly written as “Occa” with a line above) can be found at the following places: f. 129v, line 8; f. 129av, penultimate line; f. 130av, line 3; f. 131r, line 24; f. 132r, line 28.

158 See Johannes Schlageter (2003), “N. v. Ockham OFM”, Lexikon des Mittelalters, Vol. 6, München, DTV, col. 1185-1186.

159 See Summary Table 1 in Chapter 7.

160 Regarding Udalricus (also Ulricus) de Tubing (also Tübing, Tübingen), see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, first mention of Udalricus: no. 8349; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471.

161 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 195r-360r; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 53-54; f. 195r: “Disputata magistri Vdalricj de Tubing in octo libros physicorum”; f. 360r, colophon: “Finitus est liber iste per me Christianum Wacca…m [or Macca...m?] de Salczburga [or Saltzburga] in hac alma universitate studii wiennensis et cetera. Anno domini M° cccc° lii° in secunda feria ante festum Michaelis” [= September 25, 1452].

162 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 268r (only explicit mention of Oresme): “Consequenter sciendum quod de [add. sup. lin.] ista materia sunt due opiniones: una Marsilii et Buridani, alia Orem.” The “alia via” presented by Udalricus de Tubing on f. 268v to f. 269r corresponds to the Ockhamist view on local motion.

163 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 209r, l. 10.

164 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 209r, l. 9.

165 München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 300r-v: “Consequenter dicendum ad questionem secundum Orem [with a line above it] quod rarefactio et condensatio fiunt sine nove quantitatis generatione aut antique quantitatis corruptione, sed per solum motum localem. In rarefactione partes prius aliqualiter distantes post hoc plus distabunt, sed in condensatione partes prius distantes post hoc minus distabunt. Sed nec in rarefactione nec in condensatione partes prius immediate erunt post hoc mediate quia alias discontinuarentur, nec partes prius mediate erunt post hoc immediate quia [f. 300v] alias fieret penetratio corporum. Et sic secundum Orem rarefactio et condensatio fiunt per solam approximationem vel elongationem partium prius non immediatarum ad invicem vel ab invicem [in approximatione add.]. Et secundum eum bene salvatur quod igitur nec erit vacuum nec penetratio nec discontinuatio. Et illa via ponit quantitatem rei esse rem <m>et quantam.”

166 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, Cod. IV F 18, f. 1r-130r, dates at the end of Book 1 (f. 39r: 1499), at the end of Book 6 (f. 112r: 1499), and at the end of Book 7 (f. 118v: 1450). Cf. Joseph Truhlář (1905), Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum latinorum qui in C. R. Bibliotheca Publica atque Universitatis Pragensis asservantur. Pars prior, Pragae, Regia Societas Scientiarum Bohemica, p. 287-288.

167 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 86r: “Verum est, est alia opinio ipsius Orem que tenet quod magnitudo substantie non sit distincta a substantia magna et secundum eam nulla magnitudo saltem extendens generatur in rarefactione. Et illa opinio est probabilis et facilior quam alia, sicut dictum fuit in illa questione: Utrum quelibet res habens situaliter et cetera.” The reference pertains to Qu. I.8.

168 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 16v: “Sed verum est quod oppositum Buridano bene potest sustineri quia frustra ponitur tale accidens. Et ergo respondetur ad illam questionem aliter quam Buridanus et dicendum est quod omnis res extensive et situaliter habens partem extra partem sit sua magnitudo et quod Sor<tes> met sit sua magnitudo et quod albedo met sit sua magnitudo et sic de aliis rebus extensis.”

169 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 63r: “Verum est quod propter illud argumentum est una alia opinio eiusdem philosophi cuius cognomen dicitur Orem que tenet quod motus localis sit ipsum mobile met quod movetur. Et secundum illam opinionem successio salvatur ex hoc quod mobile habeat se aliter et aliter secundum prius et posterius in ordine ad aliquem locum verum vel imaginarium. […] Consequenter dicit illa opinio quod moveri localiter est rem quantum est ex parte sui habere se aliter et aliter secundum prius et posterius qualiter non potest se habere nisi appareat mutatio [sive vel sine add.] situs partium talis rei in ordine ad aliquam rem veram vel imaginariam quiescentem vel non consimiliter motam.” [In margine: “Moveri localiter secundum Orem”]. Ibid.: “Arguitur: Si illa opinio ipsius Orem staret, sequitur [...].”

170 Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 63r-63v.

171 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 207-561 (digitally accessible at https://manuscripta.at/diglit/AT6000-1097/0608/scroll?sid=4a5dfe54e83814818dc1bd09018284af). Two texts located in the same part of the codex as the Physics commentary are dated to 1475 (https://manuscripta.at/hs_detail.php?ID=40765).

172 As examples of such content and linguistic correspondences, the following text passages shall be mentioned: Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 249-250: “Verum est quod potest etiam aliter solvi argumentum Buridani quod ipse valde reputat quod in folle sic obstructo et lateribus ab invicem elongatis nulla est resistentia positiva sed solum privativa, scilicet propter defectum instrumenti condensantis, scilicet frigiditatis, sine qua ut dicit Buridanus non potest fieri magna condensatio. Et sic quamvis omnia que essent in aere appeterent minorem quantitatem, tamen propter absentiam instrumenti requisiti ad obtinendum minorem quantitatem non possunt minorem quantitatem attingere, ut in simili homo volens ascendere super domum similiter nihil resistit positive quin posset ascendere. Nequit tamen ascendere nisi habuerit scalam vel aliud instrumentum requisitum ad ascensum. Sic etiam in proposito positive nihil resistit volenti comprimere latera follis, sed tamen non fit compressio quia [p. 250] non est ibi frigiditas requisita ad condensationem.” Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 17r-17v: “Aliter potest etiam dici ad illud argumentum Buridani et ut apparet probabilius et melius quod in folle sic obstructo et lateribus ab invicem elongatis nulla sit resistentia positiva sed solum privativa scilicet propter defectum instrumenti condensantis videlicet frigiditatis sine qua non potest fieri magna condensatio, et sic quamvis omnia que essent in aere appeterent minorem quantitatem, tamen propter absentiam instrumenti requisiti ad obtinendum minorem quantitatem non possunt minorem quantitatem attingere. Ut in simili homini volenti ascendere super aliquam altam domum nihil resistit positive, et tamen non potest ascendere nisi habuerit scalam vel gradum vel aliud instrumentum requisitum ad ascensum. Sic etiam nihil resistit asino quin possit generare hominem, et tamen non generat hominem quia asinus non habet instrumenta pro generatione hominis requisita. [f. 17v] Sic etiam in proposito nihil positive resistit volenti comprimere latera follis et tamen nulla vel modica fit ibi compressio quia non est ibi frigiditas requisita ad condensationem.”

173 This will be the subject of a separate study and cannot be discussed in detail here.

174 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 248: “Verum est Buridano et Marsilio bene potest teneri oppositum. Et esset dicendum cum magistro Nicolao Orem quod omnis res extensa et situaliter habens partem extra partem sit sua magnitudo et quod Sortes sit sua magnitudo met et quod albedo magna sit sua magnitudo <et sic> de [?] aliis [?] extensis quia frustra ponitur tale accidens, et non sunt plurificanda entia sine necessitate.” Oresme is mentioned by name again on p. 250: “Item ubi est plus de materia, ibi est plus de extensione, sed non sequitur quod ubi est plus de materia quod ibi sit maior extensio secundum opinionem magistri Nicolai Orem et cetera.” To explain this train of thought, the following text passage from the Prague Codex, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, is helpful (f. 17v): “Ad idem. Si materia prima esset sua magnitudo, tunc sequitur quod ubi esset plus de materia prima, ibi esset maior magnitudo. Argumentum patet quia materia prima est sua magnitudo, igitur ubi est plus de materia prima, ibi est maior magnitudo. Ad argumentum negatur sequela, et ratio est quia ille terminus ‘maior’ in illa propositione ‘ibi est maior magnitudo’ denotat maiorem extensionem, modo non oportet quod semper ubi sit plus de materia prima quod ibi sit maior extensio quia in uno pedali terre plus est de materia prima quam in 20 [atramento alio corr. sup. lin. ex secundo] vel 30 [atramento alio corr. ex tribus] pedalibus aeris, et tamen unum pedale terre non est plus extensum quam unum pedale aeris. Unde non attenditur [a... add. et del.] maior [maioris Ms.] extensio [extensionis Ms.; talis add. et del.] ex multitudine materie sed attenditur penes extensionem in se ita quod ubi est maior extensio ibi sit maior magnitudo.”

175 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 364: “Est alia opinio ipsius Orem similiter Occam quod motus localis sit mobile met et secundum illam opinionem successio salvatur penes hoc quod mobile habet se aliter et aliter secundum prius et posterius in ordine ad locum verum vel imaginarium.”

176 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 250: “Nec sequitur secundum illam opinionem probabilem quod [...].”

177 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 192r - 350r; colophon (f. 350r): “[…] adhuc ipsa trinitas est prima et simplicissima substantia cui celum et omnia que terre ambitu continentur laudem et gloriam dicant in secula seculorum Amen. Finitus per magistrum regentem ipsum in vigilia sancti Nicolai [= December 5th] anno 1453°. Sed defectus trium questionum complebatur quarta feria ante festum Magni Confessoris anno 1454 [= Wednesday before September 6, 1454, i.e. September 4, 1454].”

178 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, no. 10963.

179 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, no. 10981.

180 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, no. 11544.

181 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 262r-v. Of course, the direct attribution of the Ockhamist concept of local motion to Oresme is also not missing (f. 262r): “[…] est alia opinio et contraria Buridano et est magistri Orem dicentis quod motus sit mobile met videlicet quod mobile iam sit super spatio a et postea super spatio b et sic consequenter et secundum illam opinionem successio que est in motu locali salvatur per hoc quod mobile habet se aliter et aliter prius et posterius in ordine ad locum verum vel imaginarium.”

182 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 263r: “Ex istis ultimate respondendum est ad illam questionem secundum Buridanum quod motus localis est res distincta a mobili capiendo mobile pro <eo quod> movetur [moveri Ms.] localiter. Etiam est res distincta a loco in quo movetur mobile.”

183 Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801, f. 208v-209r: “Alia opinio est ipsius Orem quod ipsa substantia extensa sit met sua magnitudo et non sit accidens ab ea distinctum. Non tamen vult illa opinio negare quin adhuc aliqua magnitudo sit accidens. Patet quia aliqua frigiditas, aliqua albedo et aliqua sensatio. Nam secundum illam opinionem quelibet res extensa extenditur se ipsa intrinsece. Dicendum est consequenter secundum illam opinionem quod penetratio corporum est bene possibilis, etiam magnitudinum. Patet de albedine et dulcedine lactis. Sed penetratio corporum extra se invicem existentium – illa non est possibilis naturaliter loquendo. Et ista opinio respondet ad opinionem magistri Buridani factam de lateribus follis et dicit quod in casu priori posito non sit aliquid resistens [fo vel so add. et del.] positive, sed privative, quia aer inclusus privatur [caliditate add. et del.] frigiditate que ipsum condensaret ut attingeret suam naturalem dispositionem [f. 209r], et tunc aer resisteret cum haberet eandem. Et licet ista opinio sit [sint Ms.] multum probabilis, tamen salvando communem modum loquendi naturalium philosophorum de rarefactione, condensatione et motu [moto Ms.] locali facilius est tenere viam Buridani.” See also f. 291v-292r: “Alia est opinio ipsius Orem dicentis quod in rarefactione sive in condensatione nulla nova quantitas generatur. Nam secundum eum magnitudo non est distincta a substantia magna, et sic [f. 292r] ipse non ponit tales quantitates.”

184 Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, p. 150, no. 14977.

185 Joseph Aschbach (1877), Geschichte der Wiener Universität. Zweiter Band. Die Wiener Universität und ihre Humanisten im Zeitalter Kaiser Maximilians I., Wien, Wilhelm Braumüller, p. 450. For Hainczel, including variants of his last name, see Hermann Göhler (2015), Das Wiener Kollegiat-, nachmals Domkapitel zu St. Stephan in Wien 1365-1554, p. 378-379; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, first mention of Hainczel: no. 10089.

186 München, BSB, Clm 481, f. 1r-188r (Qu. I.1 is incomplete, missing a little over two pages at the beginning; the manuscript is available online at https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00124281?page=1); Klagenfurt, Universitätsbibliothek, Pap.-Hs. 74, f. 2r-218r (available online at https://ubdocs.aau.at/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https://ubdocs.aau.at/open/voll/handschriften/AC04835336.pdf); Zwettl, Zisterzienserstift, Cod. 418, f. 1r-249v. The Klagenfurt and Munich manuscripts appear to be closely related, as both contain additions at the bottom of Qu. I.8 that include a list of questions starting with “Item inquire quid sit magnum.” One of the questions to be examined reads (Klagenfurt, f. 29v and Munich, f. 19r, lower margin): “Item an secundum Orem accidens sit magnitudo”. Furthermore, both manuscripts have a list of all Questions contained in the entire commentary at the end (Klagenfurt, f. 217v-218r; Munich, f. 186v-188r).

187 München, BSB, Clm 481, f. 185r: “finita sexta feria post Michaelem Anno M cccc lx vj^to[= October 3, 1466].” The dating is repeated once again on f. 188r, along with the attribution to the author: “M<agister> Hainczel de Memming Anno domini M cccc lx vj^to feria quarta ante Colomanni [= October 8, 1466].” For the colophon of the manuscript Klagenfurt, Universitätsbibliothek, Pap.-Hs. 74 (f. 217r), see Mieczysław Markowski (2008), Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum qui in bibliothecis austriacis: Admont, F urt bei Göttweig, Graz, Heiligenkreuz, Klagenfurt, Klosterneuburg, Kremsmünster, Linz, Melk, Salzburg, Sankt Florian, Vorau, Zwettl asservantur, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności, p. 55.

188 The explicit and the colophon of the manuscript Zwettl, Zisterzienserstift, Cod. 418 read as follows (f. 249v): “Deus autem gloriosus salvator hominum, consolator mestorum, remunerator bonorum, punitor perpetuus finaliter in nequatia mortali decedentium est omnino independens [corr. ex dependens], immensus, indivisibilis, simplicissimus, absque multiplicitate, diversitate, solicitudine, separatione intrinseca, cui sit laus, honor, potestas per omnia seculorum secula. Amen. Deo gratias 1471° in vigilia nativitatis Marie. Creator et plasmator meus […] Amen. Per manus Ade Wagner de Hannbach [or Haumbach?] illis temporibus scolaris [scolarem Ms.] alme universitatis studii wyennensis. Sancta Helena. W. S. W.” Regarding Adam Wagner (also Wagnar) de Hannbach, see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, nos. 16917 and 17025. Further dating of the Zwettl manuscript to the year 1471 can be found on f. 155v (“Sequitur quartus liber 1471°”) and on f. 187v (“Sequitur quintus liber phisicorum 1471”). The author is named on the front cover page as follows: “Collecta super 8 libros physicorum M<agistri> Martini [corr. ex Henrici] Hainczel [The h is faded] de Memming.” For the Zwettl manuscript, see Mieczysław Markowski (2008), Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum qui in bibliothecis austriacis [...] asservantur, p. 53-54; Mieczysław Markowski (1998), “Burydanizm w nie znanym wiedeńskim komentarzu do Fizyki Arystotelesa w kodeksie 418 Stiftsbibliothek w Zwettl”, Studia Mediewistyczne 33, p. 195-200.

189 In this and the following quotations from Hainczel’s Physics commentary, “K” stands for the Klagenfurt Manuscript, “M” for the Munich Manuscript, and “Z” for the Zwettl Manuscript. K, f. 30r-v; M, f. 20r; Z, f. 29r: “Alia <est> via de quantitate sive extensione probabilior quod magnitudo sit res met [om. K] magna [K, f. 30v] et non distincta a substantia, et tunc res magna [et non distincta a substantia, et tunc res magna om. K] est [et K, Z] sua magnitudo et [om. Z] habet[habent Z] se ipsa partes extra partes situaliter. Et tunc difficultates mote secundum viam precedentem de ablatione magnitudinis non habent [habet K, M] locum. Motivum illius opinionis est quia omnia possunt facilius salvari sic dicendo quam alio modo.” For Hainczel’s assessment of this view as the more probable one, see also the second quotation in the following footnote.

190 In his introductory remarks at the beginning of Qu. IV.11, Hainczel briefly presents the views of Buridan and Marsilius and then mentions a third view (K, f. 144v; M, f. 121v; Z, f. 175r): “Tertia est magistri Nicolai Orem qui tenet quod rarefactio non fiat per nove quantitatis adgenerationem, quia non ponit [posuit Z] magnitudinem distinctam contra substantiam, sed dicit eam fieri per partium [ad invicem add. et del. M] elongationem.”

See also the following quotation (K, f. 148r; M, f. 124v; Z, f. 178v): “Alia est via magistri Nicolai [om. K] Orem qui [que Z] dicit rarefactionem fieri per solum motum localem scilicet per elongationem partium rarefactibilis ab invicem, et condensatio per approximationem, et igitur [ibi Ms.] non generatur quantitas quia quantitas non est distincta a substantia. Et secundum hunc modum partes prius distantes et mediate postea [post Z] plus distabunt, e converso [eiusdem (loco ‘e converso’) K] in condensatione. Sed tam in condensatione quam in [om. M] rarefactione omnes partes prius immediate postea [post Z] etiam erunt immediate, et etiam omnes prius [posterius K] mediate postea etiam erunt mediate [om. K], licet plus vel minus distent. Et sic non sequitur fieri vacuum vel penetrationem. Unde si bipedale [pipedale K] rarefiat ad quadrupedale, medietas primi pedalis recedit a loco in quo est per unum pedale, id est partes eius tantum elongantur quod postea fuerit [fiunt K, M] pedalis magnitudinis [maius K], et secunda medietas similiter extenditur pedaliter. Et illa via est magis probabilis, et non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate.”

191 K, f. 29r; M, f. 19r; Z, f. 27v: “Corollarium. Nulla substantia est magnitudo. Similiter nulla [One would actually expect: ‘sed illa est falsa’; perhaps it is a copying error] magnitudo est distincta a re magna. Prima pars est conclusio prima [prima conclusio Z] Buridani et [om. K, Z] secunda pars probatur quia magnitudo per se etiam [etiam per se Z] est res [corr. ex re M] magna, et sic esset [corr. ex illeg. M; est Z] distincta a se ipsa [et cetera add. M]. Corollarium. Secundum omnes illa est vera: ‘magnitudo est [substantia add. et del. M] distincta a substantia magna’ [In the sense of: some magnitude is distinct from the substantia magna]. Similiter secundum omnes illa est falsa: ‘magnitudo est distincta a re magna.’ Primum patet de magnitudine secundum Buridanum et secundum [om. Z] Orem de albedine. Secundum patet propter distributionem huius termini ‘re magna’ [magna re K] [This means that the magnitude itself is also a res magna, but of course, it is not distinct from itself].” Explanation of “et secundum Orem de albedine” (“and according to Oresme regarding whiteness”): Since according to Ockham the magnitude of a quality is the quality itself, which is distinct from the substance, one can say that the statement “magnitudo est distincta a substantia magna” is also true for Ockhamists, because it is to be interpreted in the sense of “some magnitude is distinct from the substantia magna.”

192 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5506, f. 1v-208r; colophon (f. 208r): “Amen et cetera. Et sic est finis. In vigilia ascensionis 54° [or 59°].”

193 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5506, f. 47r-v: “Est tertia via N<icolai> [add. sup. lin.] Orem ut patet in primo physicorum et primo de generatione [de augmentatione add.] de [add. in marg.] rarefactione [add. in marg.] que tenet quod rarefactio solum fiat per motum localem partium rarefactibilis scilicet per elongationem partium rarefactibilis a centro eius [add. sup. lin.] et ab invicem et condensatio fiat per oppositum, scilicet per appropinquationem partium condensabilis ad invicem et ad centrum eiusdem, et non per adgenerationem nove quantitatis neque corruptionem eiusdem. Et fundatur in hoc quod quantitas, id est dimensio sive magnitudo, non sit distincta a substantia aut qualitate magna <sive> quanta, sed magnitudo substantie sit substantia magna. Et videtur primo physicorum quod quelibet res habens partem extra partem situaliter est sua magnitudo. Et sic isto modo rarefactio et condensatio sunt possibiles per solum motum localem sine adgeneratione nove quantitatis ita quod in [f. 47v] rarefactione partes prius distantes et mediate postea [vel posterius] plus distabunt sine generatione quantitatis et in condensatione partes prius distantes postea [vel posterius] minus distabunt et tam in rarefactione quam condensatione omnes partes que prius fuerunt immediate ad invicem manebunt immediate s... [illeg.] <et> in rarefactione erunt plus mediate, sed in condensatione erunt minus mediate, ita quod rarefactio fit per solam elongationem et recessum partium rarefactibilis ab invicem et a centro, sed condensatio fit per solam approximationem partium condensabilis ad invicem et centrum. Et videtur via probabilior aliis <scilicet> Buridani et Marsilii quia non sit multiplicare [multiplicat Ms.] entia sine necessitate. […] Respondetur primo ad questionem quod ipsa est simpliciter vera secundum omnes opiniones <id> est Buridani, Marsilii et N<icolai> [add. sup. lin.] Orem quia tam secundum Buridanum quam Marsilium rarefactio fit per nove quantitatis adgenerationem facientis partes rarefactibilis plus distare et secundum Buridanum precedens quantitas manet in rarefactione cum sequenti, sed secundum Marsilium non, sed infinite producuntur quantitates [add. in marg.] tempore rarefactionis et quelibet solum instantanee durabit, et nulla manet nisi ultime introducta. Sed secundum N<icolaum> Orem rarefactio non fit sic per nove quantitatis adgenerationem nec quantitas talis est distincta, sed solum per motum localem scilicet elongationem partium ab invicem et a centro, sed condensatio fit per approximationem earundem partium ad invicem et ad centrum.” The reference “ut patet in primo physicorum“ and later again „et videtur primo physicorum“ in the first quotation probably indicates that the author has discussed the (purported) view of Oresme in the corresponding Quaestio of the 1st book. Unfortunately, the first three books are missing.

194 See the quotation in fn. 189 and the second quotation in fn. 190.

195 K, f. 29v; M, f. 19v; Z, f. 28r: “Item tunc sequitur quod [om. Z] si auferretur magnitudo rei quod tunc talis [nec add. et del. M] res nec esset divisibilis nec indivisibilis. Non indivisibilis quia haberet adhuc medietates, nec divisibilis quia omnis divisio saltem continui est ratione extensionis, et ablata magnitudine talis res non erit amplius extensa. Item totale [tale K; corr. ex tale M] corpus post ablationem magnitudinis non esset in loco nec alicubi [alicui K] esset. Similiter non videtur quomodo partes illius [talis M] corporis haberent se ad invicem et ad locum.”

196 K, f. 30r; M, f. 19v; Z, f. 28v: “Ad tertium dicendum [om. K] quod tale corpus in casu argumenti non esset magnum nec [neque K] continuum saltem accidentale, licet esset continuum essentiale, et adhuc partes essent unite ad invicem et sibi continuate continuitate non accidentali sed essentiali [essentiale K]. Pro quo notandum [nota M] quod continuum essentiale est res habens diversas partes constituentes [continuentes K] unum simpliciter. Et continuitas talis rei in re est ipsa res met continua ut magnitudo, materia, compositum [compositum, materia K] et cetera [et cetera om. K, Z]. Sed continuum accidentale est unum simpliciter habens partes extra partes ratione magnitudinis extendentis, vel [corr. ex sive M] est res se ipsa habens partes extra partes [ratione magnitudinis… partes extra partes om. Z] situaliter, et talis continuitas est accidens distinctum a substantia, scilicet ipsa magnitudo. Et sic ad argumentum negando argumentum quod non esset divisibile. Et si dicitur: divisio est ratione magnitudinis, dicendum est [om. M, Z] quod divisio continui accidentalis est ratione magnitudinis, sed non oportet quod hoc sit verum de omni continuo [corr. ex continuum M]. Unde continuum in genere est ens divisibile cuius omnes partes simul faciunt unum simpliciter vel cuius partes [om. K] copulantur ad terminum communem, et sic ramus pro una parte aridus et pro [om. K, M] alia viridis non est continuum quia non est unum simpliciter.”

197 K, f. 30r; M, f. 20r; Z, f. 28v: “Ad quartum [consequenter K, M (loco ‘ad quartum’)] dicitur quod tale corpus in casu posito est in loco definitive et non commensurative. Dicitur autem res esse [om. Z] in loco definitive quia continetur in illo loco et non in alio, sed commensurative res dicitur [dicitur res M] esse in loco que est in loco [que est in loco om. K, Z] secundum partes situaliter extra invicem correspondentes partibus loci. Consequenter dicitur quod tale corpus non haberet partes extra partes situaliter ratione cuius [cuius ratione K, M] non dicitur esse in loco commensurative, sed haberet partes habentes ordinem ad partes loci ita quod respectu loci una pars esset sursum [sive (?) add. Z], alia deorsum, sed nulla pars talis corporis respectu alterius esset sursum vel deorsum quia tunc caput [corr. ex capit Z] non plus distaret a pedibus quam [a add. K] genua [genuis K]. [This probably means that with a mere distinction between above and below, without specifying by reference to a space how much one thing is further above or below something else, no distance indications are possible. In this case, the head is above the feet, and the knees are also above the feet, but from a simple “above,” it is not clear that the head is significantly more above the feet than the knees.] E converso autem sit [fit Z] de corpore Christi sub speciebus in sacramento altaris cuius partes habent ordinem inter se quia magne sunt, sed non in ordine ad locum quia non commensurantur loco.”

198 Marsilius of Inghen (1521), Marsilii inguen Doctoris resolutissimi abbreviationes super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis, f. 19vb, “ad novam” and “ad decimam”.

199 K, f. 30r; M, f. 20r; Z, f. 29r: “Consequenter notandum [om. M, Z] <quod> dicitur secundum Marsilium quod tale corpus conflueret ad punctum indivisibile quia tunc <partes> non haberent [haberet Z] resistentiam et appetunt [appareant K] se [corr. ex seu Z] unire, igitur [om. Z]. Corollarium. Si tale esset calidum ut 6 [esset Z] ablata [ablate K] magnitudine non fieret [esset K] infinite calidum quia licet partes caliditatis unirent se quoad situm, tamen non [non tamen K] intensive quia adhuc quelibet pars caliditatis maneret in suo subiecto et non penetrarent se mutuo quod tamen requiritur ad intensionem. Nec sequitur secundum Marsilium quod partes iam stent violente quamvis posterius [postea K, M] confluerent [confluerunt K] quia [om. K] adhuc appetunt sic stare propter melius posse agere. Probabilius tamen dicitur quod partes manerent [maneant K] in consimili situ ita quod non confluerent [confluerunt K] nec propter solam corruptionem quantitatis partes [par K; om. Z] condensantur vel confluunt, sed propter compressionem, modo ibi non esset comprimens.”

200 K, f. 101v; M, f. 84r; Z, f. 126v: “Alia est via [via est Z] Orem et originaliter Occam [etiam K, Z] qui dicit motum localem esse mobile met, et hec via respondet ad motiva Buridani. Ad primum de [et K] continuatione universi [corr. ex ursi Z] dicit [dicitur Z] quod illud totum moveretur circulariter et localiter, et licet non haberet se aliter et aliter ad aliquid extrinsecum [et add. et del. K] nec ratione intrinseci nec ratione habitudinis partium, tamen haberet se aliter et aliter in ordine ad locum imaginarium secundum accessum vel [et Z] recessum.” The refutation of further arguments by Buridan follows after this. For the argument by Buridan mentioned in this quotation, see Chapter 3 above.

201 K, f. 102r; M, f. 84v; Z, f. 127r: “Motivum illius vie [What is meant is the purported view of Oresme] est quia deus potest ponere successive mobile de uno loco in alium absque hoc quod velit aliquid novi produci. Etiam frustra multiplicantur entia sine necessitate.” Cf. the detailed discussion on this in Martinus de Gugugeya’s Physics commentary (München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 87v; see Chapter 6).

202 Platerberger (also Platterberger, Platenberger, Platerwerger) was born in Nuremberg and enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1442. In 1444, he became a Bachelor of Arts, in 1452 a Licentiate of Arts, and in 1454 a Master of Arts. Regarding Platerberger’s university career, see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, first mention of Platerberger: no. 8617; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471; Harald Berger (2025), “Heinrich Platerberger aus Nürnberg. Ein Wiener Professor der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts”, in: Thomas Csanády & Erich Renhart (eds.), Libri Voravienses. Studien zur Bibliothek des Augustiner Chorherrenstifts Vorau, Graz, Uni-Press, p. 219-239, at p. 224-226; Guy Guldentops (2015), “The Concise Groundwork of Moral Philosophy: An Anonymous Thomist-Buridanist Opusculum”, Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 82, p. 89–193, at p. 102-104.

203 Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, CC 52, f. 1r-160v (hereinafter “Kr”); Melk, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 901, p. 151-600 (hereinafter “Me”); Salzburg, Erzabtei St. Peter, Benediktinerstift, Bibliothek, b V 11, f. 1r-274r (hereinafter “Sa”); St. Florian, Augustinter-Chorherrenstift, Cod. XI 635, f. 1r-174v. The St. Florian manuscript is incomplete; the text breaks off towards the end of the fourth of the five articles of the compendium (see Harald Berger [2025], “Heinrich Platerberger”, p. 232). Platerberger’s “Philosophicae veritatis compendium” is also referred to in Kr (f. 1r) as “Fundamentum seu compendium philosophiae naturalis” and in Sa (f. 1r) as “Compendium philosophiae naturalis.” The manuscripts Kr, Me, and Sa were used for citations from Platerberger’s “Compendium.” Berger mentions three further manuscripts of Platerberger’s “Compendium,” including Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek, CC 134, f. 164r–210v, and München, BSB, Clm 2839, f. 99r–123r and 123v–124v (schemata); see Harald Berger (2025), “Heinrich Platerberger,” p. 231–232. However, since these texts differ considerably from Platerberger’s “Compendium” in both content and length (cf. footnote 210), in my opinion they more likely represent Platerberger’s “Fundamentum philosophiae naturalis,” as is also noted on f. 164r of the Kremsmünster manuscript.

204 Kr, f. 154vb; cf. Hauke Fill (2000), Katalog der Handschriften des Benediktinerstiftes Kremsmünster, Teil 2: Zimeliencodices und spätmittelalterliche Handschriften nach 1325 bis einschließlich CC 100. Katalogband, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 270; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Schrift- und Buchwesen des Mittelalters II,3,2), p. 283-284. Regarding Andreas Ungarus, see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, nos. 14685 and 14790. In the faculty records, Hor and Örr are specified as the respective places of origin for Andreas Ungarus.

205 Me, p. 600.

206 Kr, f. 26vb; Me, p. 217; Sa, f. 42v: “Est tamen [om. Kr] alia opinio probabilis [om. Sa] Nicolai [Nicolaij Kr] Orem et Wilhelmi [Wilhelmus Me] Occam [Okam Me; Occan Sa] quod quelibet res magna sit [est Kr] sua magnitudo quia non sunt [om. Kr] entia multiplicanda [multiplicanda entia Kr; Sa] sine necessitate.” Kr, f. 110ra; Me, p. 450; Sa, f. 187v: “Dubitatur an rarefactio et condensatio sint motus substantiales vel accidentales. Respondetur secundum Aristotelem, Buridanum [Buridanum, Aristotelem Kr], Marsilium et Landorium quod sint motus accidentales quia rarefactio in re est generatio nove quantitatis [qualitatis Me], condensatio vero est corruptio quantitatis, modo quantitas est accidens. Sed secundum Orem et Occam qui dicunt [qui dicunt om. Me] quod quelibet res magna sit sua magnitudo, tunc rarefactio substantie [substantiale Me] est motus substantialis, sed rarefactio accidentis est motus accidentalis, quia in re est quantitas, modo quantitas est res met magna.” Kr, f. 112vb; Me, p. 457; Sa, f. 193r: “Tertia opinio est Nicolai [Nicolaij Kr] Orem quod quantitas sit res met magna et quod rarefactio non fiat per nove quantitatis [quantitatis nove Sa] adgenerationem [generationem Sa] nec condensatio [corr. ex condensationem Me] per quantitatis corruptionem, sed rarefactio fiat [fieret Kr, Sa] per hoc quod partes extremales que prius minus distabant a parte centrali postea [post Me] magis distant.” Kr, f. 114ra; Me, p. 460; Sa, f. 195r: “Dubitatur quis sit modus rarefactionis secundum Nicolaum [om. Me] Orem qui tenet quod magnitudo sit res met magna et rarefactio non fiat per nove quantitatis generationem.” Kr, f. 114va; Me, p. 462; Sa, f. 196r: “Sed tamen est alia opinio Wilhelmi Occam et Nicolai [corr. sup. lin. ex n Me; om. Sa] Orem quod motus localis sit in re illud quod movetur localiter ita videlicet quod omnis res que movetur localiter est suus motus localis.”

207 Kr, f. 114vb; Me, p. 462; Sa, f. 196r: “Sed tamen [om. Kr] illa [om. Sa; hec Kr] via est contra Aristotelem tertio [tertii Sa] physicorum, qui dicit [Phys., III.3.202a13–14] quod motus localis est [sit Sa, Kr] subiective in mobili. Modo compositum substantiale [om. Me] esset motus localis, et tamen [om. Kr, Me] non esset [est Kr, Sa] in aliquo subiective. Etiam secundo de anima dicit quod motus sit sensibile commune.”

208 Kr, f. 26vb; Me, p. 217; Sa, f. 42v: “Consequenter dicendum est [est dicendum Kr; Sa] quod aer taliter [realiter Me] complexionatus in folle resistit cum tali qualitativa [qualificativa Kr] dispositione disconvenienti [attramento alio corr. in sibi convenienti Me]. Licet enim aer appetat [appetit Kr] esse minor, tamen cum alia dispositione sibi convenienti [disconveniente Kr; disconvenienti Sa]. In simili <homo> habens pedem inflatum appetit [appeteret Sa] habere minorem, sed non cum violenta [atramento alio corr. ex illeg. Me] compressione que est dolorosa et cetera [et cetera om. Kr, Sa]. Vel potest dici et melius quod in tali casu nulla sit resistentia positiva sed privativa propter defectum instrumenti condensantis.”

209 Compare the quotation in the previous footnote with Hainczel (see the quotation in fn. 135) and Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 17r: “Ad hoc [i.e. Buridan’s bellows argument; see Chapter 2] potest dici uno modo quod aer resistit et hoc ideo quia aer est nimium calefactus, et si aer fieret minor, tunc caliditas eius plus posset agere in aerem corrumpendo aerem. Nam si aer condensaretur cum illa qualitativa dispositione sub qua est ita extensus, tunc caliditas et alie qualitates venirent [corr. ex veniunt] ad materiam magis densam [corr. ex extensam] in qua essent maioris [aptilitatis add.] activitatis quam in materia rara quia virtus [corr. sup. lin. ex ista] unita fortior est quam sit dispersa. Et ergo si condensaretur aer cum illa qualitativa dispositione, ille qualitates fierent tante activitatis quod statim corrumpere<n>t aerem, et igitur aer rarefactus resistit ne condensetur tali qualitativa dispositione manente. Sed bene appetit aer esse sub minori quantitate cum alia [corr. in marg. ex cum minori] dispositione qualitativa scilicet sibi conveniente. Exemplum in simili de cognoscentibus: Si enim homo habuerit pedem multum inflatum et tumescentem qui [corr. ex quam] doleret, talis homo non appetit pedem esse minorem [cum add. et del.] sub illa dispositione qualitativa tumefaciente et inflante que est in pede, ut patet manifeste quia cum pes per aliquid comprimitur utique valde intense dolet, et quanto plus comprimitur de tanto plus dolet quia tempore compressionis vel compressione facta qualitates disconvenientes plus agunt quam alias. Sic etiam in proposito potest dici quod aer met resistat quia si fieret minor, qualitates ipsius plus agerent ad corruptionem ipsius.” (For the continuation of this quotation, see fn. 172.)

210 The following two manuscripts were used: Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, CC 134, f. 164r-210v, dated to 1474; München, BSB, Clm 2839, f. 99r-123r (dated to 1499; digitized version available at https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00134377?page=,1). For the topics of rarefaction, quantity, or magnitude, see Kremsmünster, CC 134, f. 186r-187r; München, Clm 2839, f. 112r-112v; for local motion, see Kremsmünster, CC 134, f. 187r-191r; München, Clm 2839, f. 112v-115r.

211 Kremsmünster, Benediktinerstift, CC 134, f. 187r.

212 Graz, Universitätsbibliothek (hereinafter abbreviated as “UB”), Ms 957, f. 1r-147r (digital copy: https://unipub.uni-graz.at/obvugrscript/content/pageview/6570666). Vienna references are derived from the following passages: f. 83v, l. 19, 23, and 26: “turris sancti Steffani” (see also f. 88r, l. 7 and 8); ibid., f. 62v, l. 7-8: “Sortes mutans se instantanee a Wienna ad Romam”.

213 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 15r-15v: “Alia est opinio Magistri Nicolai Orem qui dicit quod substantia magna sit met sua magnitudo et non res superaddita. Et sic diceretur ad questionem eam concedendo. Et motivum suum est quia non sunt plurificanda entia sine necessitate, sed omnia possunt salvari non ponendo magnitudinem esse distinctam a substantia magna, igitur et cetera. Et ad Aristotelem respondet qui dicit: ‘Si quantitas et substantia sunt’ et cetera [Phys., I.2.185b3-4], dicit quod Aristoteles voluit tantum quod quantitas et substantia essent duo secundum rationem et non secundum rem. Vel dicitur quod fuerit alterius opinionis, tamen primum est melius. Et ad motivum Buridani de folle respondetur quod ipse aer in tali casu sic repugnat stante illa qualificativa dispositione, nam si fieret minor, tunc caliditas et alia accidentia essent in materia densiori [tensiori Ms.] et per consequens fortius agere<n>t et tandem posse<n>t corrumpere aerem. Ideo aer sic complexionatus resistit. Vel dicitur et melius quod nullum resistens sit ibi positivum, sed bene privativum, ut defectus frigiditatis ex quo talis est mater condensationis. Corollarium secundum Orem. Non omnes magnitudines sunt eiusdem [f. 15v] speciei, quia magnitudo Sortis et magnitudo asini non sunt eiusdem speciei quia [l add. et del. Ms.] magnitudo Sortis est ipse Sortes met, sed magnitudo asini est asinus.”

214 Cf. Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18, f. 17r-17v (see the quotations in fns. 172 and 209); Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097, p. 248-249; Hainczel (see the quotation in fn. 135); and Platerberger (see the quotation in fn. 208).

215 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 95r: “Ulterius sciendum quod secundum Orem rarefactio illo modo est possibilis videlicet quod solum fit per motum localem ita quod non fit per nove quantitatis adgenerationem, et sic secundum eum nulle partes que prius non distabant distabunt facta rarefactione, et quecumque partes que prius erant immediate, posterius etiam erunt immediate [in mediate Ms.].”

216 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 63r-v: “Sed moveri localiter secundum Orem est aliter et aliter secundum se [se secundum Ms.] habere prius et posterius quantum est ex parte sui sic quod non potest percipi aliter et aliter se habere nisi percipiatur mutatio situs secundum propinquitatem vel distantiam secundum se vel partes suas ad aliam rem veram vel imaginariam. [f. 63v] Ad questionem respondetur secundum Orem quod est falsa quia nullus motus localis est distinctus a mobili, sed omnis talis in re est ipsum mobile quod movetur localiter. Ratio sua est ista quia non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate, sed omnia possunt sufficienter salvari in philosophia dicendo quod motus sit mobile met et non accidens superadditum, igitur et cetera. […] Corollarium. Ista auctoritas Aristotelis – motus consistit in continuo fieri et corrumpi – intelligitur sic secundum Orem: ad hoc quod aliquod mobile moveatur localiter tantum requiritur quod continue habet se <aliter> prius et posterius. Ultimo dicendum est secundum Orem quod nulla datur res pure successiva nec motus celi nec tempus quia secundum Orem motus celi est celum met. Sic etiam tempus in re est motus in celo, et sic tempus est celum.” For Ockham’s view “that time, in the strict sense, is the motion of the heavenly sphere that moves the fastest,” see Marilyn McCord Adams (1987), William Ockham, Vol. 2, p. 885 (quotation) and p. 893.

217 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 64r: “Item una ratio Buridani est quod motus sit distinctus et cetera quia dicit Buridanus: ponatur quod deus continuet omnia ad invicem et faciat unum continuum accidentale, tunc deus potest illud movere sine omni extrinseco quia ponatur quod omnia extrinseca amoveantur ad imaginationem, adhuc [et add. sup. lin.] <movetur et tale moveri> non est ex alio nisi quia aliquid de novo in eo est genitum quod est distinctum ab eo, <et> non ab extrinseco quia, ut supponit casus, <hoc est ad imaginationem totaliter circumscriptum>, igitur et cetera. Sed Orem ad illam rationem dicit quod adhuc possit imaginari aliquod extrinsecum <ad> quod tale continuum habet se aliter et aliter per modum accessus et recessus. Corollarium. Motus est de essentia termini ad quem, et hoc secundum Orem, id est motus capit denominationem specificam a termino ad quem et hoc [adhuc Ms.] quando movetur ad talem terminum. Corollarium. Sed d<iceres>: Partes motus non sunt simul ibi. Respondetur quod illud [corr. ex ad] dictum velit tantum quod alteritas motus non semper est consimilis et cetera.”

218 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 64v-65r (Qu. III.8): “Ulterius sciendum secundum Orem loquendo de necessitate naturali tunc questio particulariter est vera quia datur certus motus localis qui de necessitate habet terminos positivos ut patet de motu celi qui non potest non habere terminos positivos ex quo celum naturaliter non potest non esse. [According to the principle “motus est mobile,” the local motion of the heavens is the heavens, and these are naturally imperishable.] [f. 65r] Sed tenendo Orem et loquendo de [add. sup. lin.] sphera generabilium et corruptibilium et item naturaliter, tunc questio est iterum falsa quia nullus motus localis de necessitate naturali habet terminos positivos, cum quilibet talis naturaliter non potest esse post [per Ms.] eius desitionem aut ante eius inceptionem. Sed questio conceditur ad hunc sensum secundum Orem: Omnis motus localis qui fit in sphera generabilium et corruptibilium de necessitate naturali habet terminos positivos in tantum quod est in rerum natura.”

219 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 68v (Qu. III.11): “Item tenendo Orem videlicet quod motus sit mobile met tunc definitio sic intelligitur: motus est actus moventis vel mobilis existentis in continua et actuali adquisitione vel deperditione [plus add.] de tali actu simpliciter vel secundum quid. Unde secundum Orem mobile adquirit motum licet nullum motum adquirit. Vel dicitur sic addendo hoc: vel hoc est mobile aliter se habens secundum prius et posterius taliter quod [quia Ms.] non potest percipi aliter et aliter se habere nisi in ordine ad aliquod extrinsecum.” Ibid., f. 69v: “Et definitio debet exponi secundum Orem <sic>: est ens quod continue habet se aliter et aliter secundum prius et posterius. Sed moveri secundum ipsum ut in tertio est rem se habere aliter et aliter secundum prius et posterius taliter quod non potest percipi aliter se habere nisi ad aliquod extrinsecum verum vel imaginarium et cetera.”

220 Graz, UB, Ms 957, f. 69v (Qu. III.12): “Sed secundum Orem vel Occan questio est simpliciter falsa quia instantia est de toto composito quod movetur localiter et tamen nulli inheret. Sed ipsi concedunt sic quod ille terminus ‘motus’ predicetur accidentaliter <et> denominative et cetera de ly ‘mobile’ ut illa est accidentalis: ‘mobile est motus.’ Corollarium secundum Orem: omnis motus qui fit mere naturaliter dempto motu locali substantiali <et> augmentativo [augmentatur Ms.] est subiective in mobili ut patet de generatione.” Ibid., f. 70r: “Et secundum Buridanum ly ‘in’ in titulo questionis dicit circumstantiam accidentis ad subiectum id est circumstantiam inhesionis. Sed secundum Orem importat circumstantiam cause formalis vel inhesionis vel sensum intransitivum et cetera.”

221 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 1r–329v; ibid., f. 329v: “Qui [i.e., God] fratrem Gregorium in Ebersperck professum pro tunc in almo gimnasio wiennensi morantem salvum in finem libelluli huius diligenter atque attente collecti conservavit. Qui prefatum finem attingere ex sua pietate voluit. In profesto principis gloriosi archangeli Michaelis. [...] Anno d. M cccc° lxxxxj° 28 septembris.” There are three references to St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna: turris S[ancti] Steffani (Clm 6029, f. 145r), turris S[ancti] Steffani (f. 146r), T[urris] S[ancti] S[tefani] (f. 146v). See also Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 57-58, regarding this manuscript.

222 See Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1471 bis 1497. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 2: 1471 bis 1497. Personen-Nennungen im Zusammenhang mit Prüfung, Graduierung und Verteilung der Vorlesungsthemen. Nr. 16528 bis 21914. Texterfassung: Andreas Bracher, Wien (downloadable at https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:217), nos. 20821 and 21263.

223 Cf. Stefan Kirschner & Andreas Kühne (2015), “The Decline of Medieval Disputation Culture and the ‘Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory’”, in Wolfgang Neuber, Thomas Rahn & Claus Zittel (eds.), The Making of Copernicus. Early Modern Transformations of a Scientist and His Science, Leiden/Boston, Brill, p. 13-41; Olga Weijers (2010), “The various kinds of disputation in the faculties of arts, theology and law (c. 1200–1400)”, in Marion Gindhart & Ursula Kundert (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, p. 21-31, at p. 31.

224 This concerns, for example, the passages cited in fns. 226 and 227 from München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 33v. For the Physics commentary in the codex München, BSB, Clm 24872, see Chapter 4.6.6.

225 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 34v: “Magnum secundum Buridanum substantiale est magnum quod est substantia. Magnum secundum Buridanum accidentale est magnum quod est accidens ut albedo et cetera. Magnum secundum Orem substantiale est magnum quod est substantia ut forma. Magnum secundum Orem accidentale est magnum quod est accidens ut albedo.” To say the least, it is peculiar that form is cited as an example of a “magnum secundum Orem substantiale,” especially since it is a fundamental principle of Aristotelian natural philosophy that even a substantial form is not a substance.

226 For example, the explanation for the magnum substantiale compositum (München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 34v) is as follows: “quod sibi vel parti eius inheret ut magnitudo,” which makes no sense and rather indicates that some content has become mixed up or omitted. Generally, other conceptual distinctions were common, such as the distinction between magnum essentialiter and magnum accidentaliter, as seen in Hainczel (K, f. 29r; M, f. 19r; Z, f. 27r; for the manuscripts, see above, fns. 186 and 189): “Magnum autem [sed magnum Z] capitur dupliciter: uno modo essentialiter, et tunc est res divisibilis [extensive add. M] in plures partes extensive [om. M] sine magnitudine extendente. Sed magnum accidentaliter est res divisibilis [extensive in plures partes sine magnitudine add. et del. M] habens partes extra partes situaliter per magnitudinem sibi inherentem vel coassistentem vel est met talis quantitas sic habens partes.” Another popular distinction was between magnum primarium and magnum secundarium, which can also be found in the text discussed here (Clm 6029, f. 33v): “Magnum est duplex. Magnum primarium est res habens se ipsa intrinsece et essentialiter partes extra partes et non per aliquod sibi additum. Et tale magnum non est distinctum a magnitudine et proprie est magnitudo. Magnum secundarium est cui vel parti eius inheret vel coassistit magnitudo. Et tale est distinctum a sua magnitudine.”

227 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 33v (partly in margine): “Magnitudo secundum Buridanum est accidens nature permanentis habens partes extra partes natum extendere de sui natura. […] Corollarium. Magnitudo secundum Buridanum est accidens distinctum a substantia magna per quod substantia est extensa, vel accidens se ipso habens partes extra partes situaliter, essentialiter et intrinsece se ipso.” The second part of the sentence (“vel accidens” ...) means that magnitudo, which itself is also a res magna, intrinsically and essentially possesses partes extra partes situaliter, i.e., extension; otherwise, one would have to assume that magnitudo would become a res magna through another magnitudo, resulting in an infinite regress. Ibid., f. 34r: “Nota. Magnitudo secundum Buridanum et Marsilium. Magnitudo est accidens existens dimensio que se ipsa habet partes extra partes situaliter ratione cuius subiectum suum et alia sibi coassistentia habent partes extra partes situaliter.” Ibid., f. 34r: Item ad questionem [Qu. I.8: Utrum omnis res extensive et situaliter habens partes extra partes sit sua magnitudo] secundum [ma add. et del.] Buridanum quod sit falsa et probabilius est quod magnitudo sit accidens distinctum a substantia magna quia est unum principium quod omne illud quod advenit alicui rei post suum esse completum est accidens, sed sic est de magnitudine, ergo et cetera.”

228 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 201r: “Corollarium. Secundum Marsilium et Orem omnis [mo add. et del.] rarefactio est motus [add. in marg.] accidentalis. Sed secundum Ocam qui tenet quod res magna sit magnitudo met tunc est substantialis motus.”

229 The emphasis here is on “every” (omnis rarefactio), because there are cases in which, even under the Ockhamist assumption of equating extension with the extended, a rarefaction can be described as motus accidentalis, albeit with a different meaning. See the second quotation from Platerberger’s “Compendium” in fn. 206 for more on this.

230 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 202r: “Sed Orem et eum sequentes dicunt qui tenent quod non oportet quantitatem distinctam ponere a substantia quanta: Rarefactio non fit per nove quantitatis adgenerationem, sed fit per solum motum localem partium extremalium a partibus centralibus.” The sentence is obviously grammatically incorrect at the beginning. Perhaps the following was intended: “Secundum [sed Ms.] Orem et eum sequentes [dicunt add.] qui tenent quod non oportet quantitatem distinctam ponere a substantia quanta, rarefactio non fit […]”. Of course, this does not change the content in any way.

231 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 145r: “An motus localis sit substantia vel accidens. Respondetur quod aliquis <motus localis> est substantia ut quando lapis movetur tunc est substantia secundum Orem et actio [lege Occam]. Et quando accidens movetur localiter secundum eos est accidens ut motus albedinis deorsum est ipsa albedo met.”

232 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 145v: “Si modus Occam staret sequeretur quod idem esset motus naturalis et violentus. Probatur quia quando lapis movetur sursum est violentus et deorsum est naturalis. Respondetur quod ipse concedit secundum suam viam quia dicit quod motus naturalis et violentus differant solum ratione et non re. Item motus est subiective in mobili – Aristoteles tertio physicorum –, et illa non potest salvari nisi motus sit accidens. Respondetur secundum Occam: motus est subiective in mobili, et ille terminus ‘motus’ predicatur denominative de termino sequente mobile ut ‘Sortes est motus’” (see also the explanations in Jean Buridan [2016], Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. III.12, p. 111, l. 24 – p. 112, l. 7). Ibid., f. 146r: “Motus est actus imperfectus. Secundum Occam sic debet intelligi, id est quamdiu aliquid movetur [motum Ms.] non est perfecte motum. Exemplum: aqua interim quod calefit numquam est calefacta.”

233 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 146r: “Item moveri localiter secundum Buridanum et Marsilium est rem aliter et aliter se habere secundum prius et posterius quantum est ex parte sui per aliquod accidens sibi inherens aut coexistens [lege coassistens] ratione cuius secundum se vel suas partes mutat locum. Item moveri localiter secundum Orem est rem aliter et aliter se habere secundum prius et posterius quantum est ex parte sui ad locum verum vel imaginarium.” See above, Chapter 3, for issues with these and similar definitions of motion attributed to Oresme.

234 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 146v: “Dicitur ‘per accidens’ propter materiam primam que non movetur localiter.”

235 München, BSB, Clm 6029, f. 146v: “Respondetur ad questionem per duas conclusiones. Prima: Motus localis est realiter distinctus a loco. […] Secunda conclusio: Motus localis est realiter distinctus a re que movetur localiter.”

236 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 1r-141v. Book VIII is very incompletely preserved. If the sequence of Questions in Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.) is taken as a basis, Questions VIII.1-2 and VIII.12-13 are missing. For the remaining Questions in Book VIII, often only a few lines are present, while large blank spaces remain on the pages, which were likely intended to be filled with text later. This is also true for Q. VII.2. Questions VI.1 and VI.2 are combined into one Question. Q. VII.1 appears twice, with its content not yet verified for consistency. Following Q. II.6, a Question is inserted that is not found as a separate Question in Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.): “Utrum scientie medie pertineant plus ad philosophum quam ad mathematicum” (f. 54r). Apparently, in this case, the great doubt (dubitatio magna) discussed by Buridan within Q. II.6–regarding whether “the so-called middle sciences (scientiae mediae), such as astronomy, perspective (or optics), and music, [...] should be said to be more natural than mathematical, or more mathematical than natural”–was transformed into an independent Question. See for this topic complex Edith D. Sylla (2015), “Guide to the text”, in Michiel Streijger & Paul J. J. M. Bakker (eds.), John Buridan, Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri I-II, Leiden/Boston, Brill, p. XLIII-CLXXXVI, at p. CLVI-CLXII (quotation on p. CLIX); Jean Celeyrette (2017), « Les Questions sur la Physique du ms Cesena Malatestiana S VIII 5 », in Christophe Grellard (éd.), Miroir de l’amitié. Mélanges offerts à Joël Biard à l’occasion de ses 65 ans, Paris, J. Vrin (Études de Philosophie Médiévale, 106), p. 353-369.

237 Susana Zapke (2014), “Musikalische Bildungs- und Ausbildungsprofile im Wissensraum Wien, 15. Jahrhundert. Dokumente zu ihrer Erschließung”, in Alexander Rausch & Björn R. Tammen (eds.), Musikalische Repertoires in Zentraleuropa (1420-1450). Prozesse & Praktiken, Wien/Köln/Weimar, Böhlau, p. 347-375, at p. 358.

238 Susana Zapke (2014), “Musikalische Bildungs- und Ausbildungsprofile”, p. 358 (edition of the course list: ibid., p. 359).

239 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 67v, within a text passage in the margin: “turris Sancti Steffani.”

240 The first three Questions in V.5190 are missing. There is a list of all Questions on f. 290r-292v. The influence of humanism is evident in this manuscript, as the diphthong “ae” is occasionally written out or represented as “e” with a cedilla.

241 For M.24872, see Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 58-59.

242 Compare, for example, the quotations from V.4951 and M.24872 in fn. 245.

243 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 17r: “Respondetur ad questionem quod magnitudo sit distincta a substantia magna.” Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 18r: “Respondetur ad questionem <quod> magnitudo est distincta a substantia magna.” Ibid., f. 18r: “Respondetur ad questionem quod magnitudo sit distincta a substantia magna. Probatur illis dictis auctoritatibus” (Between the initial response to the question and the repeated response on the same page, there is a list of relevant quotations from Aristotle and Averroes). München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 20v: “Respondetur ad questionem quod magnitudo sit distincta a substantia magna.”

244 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 17v-18r; Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 18r-19r; München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 20v-21v.

245 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 93v: “Notandum quod circa hanc questionem sunt tres opiniones multum famose. Prima est Buridani qui tenet quod magnitudo sit accidens distinctum a substantia magna et quod rarefactio fiat [fiet Ms.] per nove quantitatis generationem et quod quantitas prius acquisita maneat cum quantitate postea acquirenda. Secunda est Marsilii qui concordat cum Buridano in duobus punctis, sed in tertio discordat. Dicit enim quod pars prius acquisita non maneat cum quantitate posterius acquirenda. Tertia est magistri Nicolai Orem qui tenet quod rarefactio non fiat per nove quantitatis adgenerationem quia non posuit magnitudinem distinctam a substantia, sed dicit rarefactionem fieri per elongationem partium.” Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 201v: Circa hanc questionem sunt tres opiniones multum famosae. Prima est Buridani qui tenet quod magnitudo [corr. in marg. ex substantia] sit accidens distinctum a substantia magna et quod rarefactio fiat per nove quantitatis generationem et quod quantitas prius acquisita maneat cum quantitate posterius acquirenda. Secunda est Marsilii qui concordat cum Buridano in duobus punctis, sed in tertio discordat. Dicit enim quod pars <quantitatis> prius acquisita non manet cum parte posterius acquirenda. [Note possibly by a different hand in the margin: “quia si maneret, tunc duo corpora manerent in eodem loco <et> essent simul.”] Tertia est magistri Ni<co>lai Orem qui tenet quod rarefactio non fiat per nove quantitatis adgenerationem quia non posuit magnitudinem distinctam a substantia, sed dicit rarefactionem fieri per elongationem partium [Note possibly by a different hand in the margin: “non est tenenda”]. München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 190v: “Notandum quod circa hanc questionem sunt tres opiniones multum famose. Prima est Buridani que tenet quod magnitudo sit accidens distinctum a substantia magna. Et motivum eius est quod rarefactio fiat per nove quantitatis generationem et quod quantitas prius acquisita maneat cum quantitate posterius acquirenda. Secunda est Marsilii qui concordat cum Buridano in duobus punctis sed in [corr. ex illeg.] tertio discordat. Dicit enim quod pars prius acquisita non manet cum quantitate posterius acquirenda. Tertia est magistri Nicolai Oremi [or Oremii] qui tenet quod rarefactio non fiat per nove quantitatis adgenerationem quia non posuit magnitudinem distinctam a substantia, sed dicit rarefactionem fieri per elongationem partium.”

246 Compare the quotations in the preceding footnote with the following statement by Hainczel (K, f. 144v; M, f. 121v; Z, f. 175r; for the manuscripts, see above, fns. 186 and 189): “Secundo notandum quod circa hanc questionem sunt tres opiniones multum [om. K, M] famose. Prima est Buridani qui tenet quod magnitudo sit [est Z] accidens distinctum a substantia magna et quod [generatio add. et del. K] rarefactio fiat per nove quantitatis adgenerationem [corr. ex generationem K] et quod quantitas prius acquisita maneat cum quantitate posterius acquirenda. Secunda est Marsilii qui concordat cum Buridano in primis duobus punctis, sed in tertio discordat. Dicit enim quod pars prius acquisita non manet [maneat Z] cum quantitate posterius acquirenda. Tertia est magistri Nicolai Orem qui tenet quod rarefactio non fiat per nove quantitatis adgenerationem, quia non ponit [posuit Z] magnitudinem distinctam contra substantiam, sed dicit eam fieri per partium [ad invicem add. et del. M] elongationem.”

247 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 67v: “Una est opinio famosa ipsius Orem et Occan [or Occon] et sequacium tenens motum localem esse rem ipsam que movetur localiter. Alia est opinio aristotelica et quasi omnium aliorum que apparet probabilior quod motus localis non sit ipsa res met que movetur localiter neque locus neque spatium, sed est unum accidens inherens mobili.” Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 68r: “Secundum Orem et Occan [or Occon] nullus motus localis est distinctus a mobili et ab eo quod movetur localiter, cum entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate.” Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 137v: “Prima opinio est Orem et Occan et ipsos sequentium qui tenent quod motus localis sit ipsa res met que localiter movetur. Alia est probabilior et aristotelica et quasi omnium preter dictos duos que tenet quod motus localis non sit ipsa res met que movetur localiter, neque locus neque spatium, sed est unum accidens inherens mobili.” Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 139v-140r: “Respondetur secundum Orem et Occan: Nullus motus localis est distinctus a re mobili et ab eo quod movetur localiter, [f. 140r] sed quilibet motus localis est ipsa res met que movetur localiter. […] Arguitur: Motus localis non est distinctus ab eo quod movetur localiter. Probatur ratione Orem et Occan sic: entia non sunt mulitplicanda sine necessitate, ergo.” München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 125r: “Est opinio una famosa scilicet ipsius Orem et Occan et ipsorum sequacium que opinio tenet quod motus localis sit ipsa res met que movetur localiter. Sed est alia opinio que apparet probabilior et est famosior et aristotelica et est quasi omnium qui de illa materia scripserunt exceptis illis duobus Orem et Occan quod motus localis non sit ipsa res met que movetur localiter neque locus neque spatium, sed unum accidens inherens mobili et illud clarius infra deducetur.” München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 126v: “Respondetur secundum Orem et Occam [or Occan]: Nullus motus localis est distinctus [distincta Ms.] a re mobili et ab eo quod movetur localiter sed quilibet motus localis est ipsa res met que movetur localiter et rationes alique ipsorum infra deducentur. Arguitur: Motus localis non est distinctus ab eo quod movetur localiter et per rationem Orem et Occan entia non sunt mulitplicanda sine necessitate, ergo.”

248 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 68r: “Respondetur ad questionem secundum opinionem que apparet probabilior quod motus localis est distinctus realiter a re que movetur localiter et a loco. Probatur per Albertum, Sanctum Thomam, Egidium de Roma, Buridanum, Marsilium, Commentatorem et Aristotelem qui [quia Ms.] omnes concordant in illa conclusione. Et probatur specialiter auctoritate Aristotelis in quarto topicorum ubi dicit: ‘Neque superabundantia superabundans neque vehementia vehemens nec motus mobile’” [Aristotle, Top., IV.5.126b27-33]. Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 139r: “Respondetur ad questionem secundum probabiliorem opinionem quod motus <localis> est distinctus realiter a re que movetur localiter et a loco. Probatur per Albertum, Sanctum Thomam, Egidium de Roma, Marsilium, Buridanum, Commentatorem <et> Aristotelem qui omnes concordant in illa conclusione. Item Aristoteles quarto topicorum: ‘Neque superabundantia superabundans neque vehementia vehemens quemadmodum disciplina disciplinatum nec motus mobile’.” München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 125v: “Respondetur ad questionem secundum opinionem que apparet probabilior quod motus localis est distinctus realiter a re que movetur localiter et a loco. Veritas illius [vel istius] conclusionis probatur per Albertum, Sanctum Tho<mam>, Egidium de Roma, Buridanum, Marsilium, per Commentatorem et Aristotelem qui omnes concordant in ista conclusione. Et probatur specialiter illa conclusio auctoritate Aristotelis in quarto topi<corum> ubi dicit expresse: ‘Neque superabundantia [neque add.] superabundans neque vehementia vehemens quemadmodum disciplina disciplinatum’.”

249 Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951, f. 68r-v; Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 5190, f. 140r-141r; München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 126v-127v. The first argument (“entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate”) is only mentioned in V.4951 but not discussed, while it is extensively treated in V.5190 and M.24872. In V.5190, there is also a ninth argument, albeit incomplete, at the end.

250 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 1r-196v; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 62.

251 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 2r-339r; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 61.

252 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 22v: “Respondetur ad questionem: Res magna secundaria est res realiter distincta a sua magnitudine. Sed res magna primaria est sua magnitudo met. Hec conclusio probatur per philosophum rationibus prius allegatis contra Parmenidem et Mellis<s>ium.” By “res magna primaria,” the magnitudo itself is meant, which is also a res magna. The term “res magna secundaria” refers to a substance or an accident that attains extension through the addition of an extension (magnitudo) that is ontologically distinct from them. In the case of substances, the extension (magnitudo) inheres in the matter, whereas in the case of accidents, the magnitudo imparts extension through “coassistentia.” See also fn. 278.

253 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 101v: “Est enim opinio ipsius Orem et Occon et ipsorum sequentium que opinio tenet quod motus localis sit ipsa res met que movetur localiter. Et est alia opinio que apparet probabilior aristotelica que tenet quod motus localis non sit ipsa res que movetur localiter neque locus neque spacium sed est unum accidens inherens mobili ut clarius probabitur in [re add. et del.] responsione.” Ibid., f. 102v: “Responsio ad aliam partem quesiti. Motus localis distinguitur a re mobili secundum probabiliorem opinionem Aristotelis, Sancti Thome, Egidii de Roma [Rome Ms.] et aliorum demptis Orem et Occon. Probatur auctoritate Aristotelis quinto physicorum: Non est motus motus nec generationis generatio nec omnino mutationis mutatio. Unus motus non est subiectum alterius motus, sed si motus localis esset ipsum mobile, tunc unus motus esset subiectum alterius.” For very similar statements in the codices Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951 and 5190, as well as München, BSB, Clm 24872, see above, fns. 247 and 248.

254 See the two quotations in fn. 253; also note the supplement – probably added by another hand – “excluditur opinio Occon quod motus sit [vel esset] ipsum mobile met”, which appears above the subsequent definition of local motion as an independent accident (München, BSB, Clm 5909, Qu. III.6, f. 99r): “Motus localis secundum alios est accidens quo mobile mutat situm quantum est ex se, quia turris in qua nullus est motus localis et licet continue mutetur quoad locum, hoc tamen non est ex se, sed ex parte aeris circumstantis.”

255 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 139v, at the top margin: “Sed secundum Buridanum <et> [illeg. et bi add.] Marsilium [quod add.] <rarefactio et condensatio> sunt species accidentales <motus> quia rarefactio in re est nove quantitatis generatio [nove generationis quantitas Ms.], sed con<densatio> eiusdem corruptio. Sed secundum Orem et Occan tunc rarefactio et condensatio substantie est substantia, sed accidentis est accidens. Et unus <motus> scilicet rarefactio est acquisitivus <et> alter <scilicet> con<densatio> deperditivus, sed non secundum Orem.” Explanation: If the quantitas or magnitudo is not considered an independent accident, then, for example, in the case of rarefaction, no new entity – i.e., no new quantitas – is created; thus, the rarefaction of a substance or accident is the substance or accident itself. For a similar statement, see Platerberger (Kr, f. 110ra; Me, p. 450; Sa, f. 187v; for the manuscripts, see above, fn. 203): “Dubitatur an sint motus acquisitivi vel deperditivi. Respondetur secundum Buridanum et Marsilium quod rarefactio est motus acquisitivus quia per eam acquiritur nova [corr. ex novai Me] quantitas. Sed condensatio est motus deperditivus quia per eam deperditur vel [sive Sa] corrumpitur magnitudo sive quantitas, immo in re est corruptio quantitatis, sed verum est <quod> secundum Orem condensatio non est motus deperditivus.”

256 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 139v, in the margin: “Modus rarefactionis secundum Occan <est> quod nulla substantia nova generatur nec deperditur, sed partes distantes magis [illeg. add.] <removentur> per motum localem a centralibus. Ratio sua est quia dicit quod quantitas non [distinc add.] <est> distincta a re quanta.” Clm 5909, f. 139v: “Item secundum Occan sequeretur illud quod pedale esset bipedale. Ponatur quod quantitas pedalis rarefiat ad bipedalem, tunc bipedalitas [corr. ex bipedalis] esset adhuc pedalitas quia nihil esset generatum nec deperditum. Similiter [?] in condensatione bipedalitas esse pedalitas.” Explanation: If ultimately the quantitas is not ontologically distinct from the substance and the substance remains the same, it can be inferred that, for example, in a rarefaction where the extension of a substance changes from pedalitas to bipedalitas, the bipedalitas would still be a pedalitas, since ontologically speaking, nothing new has been added.

257 München, BSB, Clm 5909, f. 139v: “Occan et Orem alium [aliam Ms.] tenent modum et loquuntur permiscue de rarefactione, calefactione et aliis motibus [modis Ms.] specialibus. Nam Occan dicit primo sententiarum dis<tinctione> 17ma q<uestione> 5ta: In augmentatione cuiuslibet forme substantialis [Ockham: “accidentalis”] forma precedens non corrumpitur, sed manet. Si enim corrumperetur forma precedens, multa sequerentur inconvenientia et multe difficultates. Sequeretur enim primo quod infinite forme quarum nulla est pars alterius fuissent actualiter pertransite quia non est dare certum numerum formarum corruptarum et de novo generatarum sicut nec certus numerus instantium. Secundo sequeretur quod esset dare ultimum <instans> rei permanentis in esse. Quia accipio unam formam corruptam in illo [suo Ms.] motu. Illa fuit, et non in tempore, ergo in aliquo instanti. Et non nisi in uno quia si [add. sup. lin.] fuisset in pluribus, aliquando fuisset cum alia forma eiusdem rationis, et sic haberetur propositum. Ergo precise in illo instanti fuit, et <ita> illud instans fuit ultimum et primum sui esse. Etiam sequitur quod naturaliter potest fieri quod aliqua res permanens [quod add.] tantum durat pro instanti.”

258 William Ockham (1977), Scriptum in librum primum sententiarum. Ordinatio. Distinctiones IV-XVIII, ed. by Girardus I. Etzkorn, St. Bonaventure (NY), The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University (Op. theol., vol. III), p. 491, l. 11 – p. 492, l. 4.

259 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 62r: “Respondetur secundum mentem Marsilii, Buridani et omnium modernorum, similiter etiam Sancti Thome, quod magnitudo est distincta a re magna secundaria et non primaria.” Clm 19846 features two paginations in different colors. The violet numbers represent a count starting from the first leaf of the codex. According to this count, the list of Questions of the Physics commentary is located on f. 2r-8r. The red leaf numbering begins with the first page of the Physics commentary, which corresponds to f. 15r in the aforementioned count. The folio references in the citations in this and the following footnotes refer to the red leaf numbering.

260 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 61r: “Magnum secundarium est illud cui aut [corr. ex vel] parti eius inheret vel coassistit magnitudo. Et tale est distinctum a sua magnitudine secundum Buridanum, Aristotelem, Marsilium, Alber<tum> et Commentatorem.”

261 München, BSB, Clm 24872, f. 20v: “Magnum secundarium est cui vel parti eius inheret vel coassistit magnitudo. Et tale est distinctum a sua magnitudine secundum Buridanum, Aristotelem, Marsilium, Albertum, Commentatorem, Thomam et Egidium de Roma.”

262 Only in the following argument supporting the author’s view is the opinion briefly mentioned that caliditas is its own magnitudo (München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 62r): “Probatur [add. in marg.] ratione: Quantitati nihil est contrarium, sed caliditati aliquid est contrarium. Et si est sua magnitudo, sequitur quod quantitati aliquid est contrarium.”

263 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 263v: “Occan et Orem dicunt quod accidens quantitas non sit distinctum a substantia, et sic rarefactio est elongatio partium ab invicem in re magna. Et hec opinio non tenetur quia est reprobata primo et secundo physicorum.”

264 See the quotation in the preceding footnote.

265 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 205r: “Movetur propter opinionem Orem et Occan quod [quia Ms.] mobile a motu locali non distinguitur.”

266 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 206r: “Respondetur ad questionem. Motus localis est distinctus a loco et a mobili localiter.”

267 Aristotle, Top., II.7.113a29-30.

268 For example, see München, BSB, Clm 6029 (Freypüchler; see Chapter 4.6.5), f. 146v, in the margin: “Arguitur contra secundam conclusionem: Si motus localis esset distinctus a re que movetur localiter, tunc esset distinctus a se ipso, quod est impossibile. Sed sequela probatur quia motus localis movetur etiam localiter, nam dicit Aristoteles secundo topicorum: ‘Motis nobis moventur omnia que in nobis sunt [Top., II.7.113a29-30].’ Respondetur quod illa auctoritas de rigore est falsa, sed intelligitur sic: Motis nobis et cetera que in nobis sunt inherenter et permanenter.”

269 München, BSB, Clm 19846, f. 206v: “Motis nobis moventur omnia que in nobis sunt. Respondetur quod intelligitur: que in nobis sunt inherenter <et> permanenter, sed deus non est in nobis inherenter nec motus localis permanenter et cetera.” The reference to God pertains to the idea that, while God is present in humans, He is not moved with them when they move (unlike, for example, an inhering accident).

270 Albrecht Liess (1980), “Die artistische Fakultät der Universität Ingolstadt 1472-1588”, in Laetitia Boehm & Johannes Spörl (eds.), Die Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in ihren Fakultäten, vol. 2, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 9-35, at p. 12-14.

271 München, BSB, Clm 3848, f. 1v-263v (digital copy: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00106132?page=,1). On folios 259r to 261v, there is a list of the Questions discussed in this Physics commentary. The Question that, in Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.), is the fourth of the eighth book follows in this manuscript after the list of Questions on folios 262v to 263v. Additionally, the commentary exhibits several irregularities. There are some Questions (e.g., I.21, I.22, II.12, II.14, III.6, III.14) that do not appear in Buridan’s Physics commentary. Most of these additional Questions are not mentioned in the aforementioned list. The list is also generally unreliable. The first two Questions of Book 1, which correspond to Buridan’s Questions I.1 and I.2, are not mentioned in the list. In contrast, Questions VI.3 and VI.4 are listed, which are missing in the commentary itself. In Question II.7, we see again the phenomenon that a dubitatio, which Buridan discusses in Question II.6, has been transformed into an independent Question (cf. above, fn. 236). In Book 1, there is a Question, “Utrum una cognitio formetur ex alia,” which does not appear in Buridan’s Physics commentary; it occurs twice as Questions I.5 and I.27, with similar content but different wording. Question I.13 likely represents a summary of Buridan’s Questions I.12 and I.13. The same applies to Question III.15 and Buridan’s Questions III.14 and III.15. The combination of Buridan’s Questions VII.7 and VII.8 on the Aristotelian rules of motion into a single Question is also common in other Physics commentaries. In this commentary, the corresponding Question VII.7 is titled “Utrum quilibet motus sit cuilibet motui comparabilis.” With these notes, only a few aspects have been addressed. Specifically, an examination of how the added Questions relate in content to Buridan’s text would need to be conducted, which, however, cannot be accomplished within the scope of this work.

272 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 119r-235v (cf. Mieczysław Markowski [1981], Buridanica, p. 49). According to a table of contents on folio 1v (transcribed in Maximilian Schuh [2013], Aneignungen des Humanismus. Institutionelle und individuelle Praktiken an der Universität Ingolstadt im 15. Jahrhundert, Leiden/Boston, Brill, p. 191-192, fn. 184), which comes from Schwerzenbeck, the librarian of Tegernsee Monastery, the Physics commentary was written by the two Masters Georgius Eysenhuet and Johannes Paereit.

273 Sunczel (also Sintzel) originated from Wittlich and enrolled at the University of Ingolstadt on October 20, 1489. He obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in June 1491 and his Master’s degree in January 1493. In terms of courses in the Faculty of Arts, he lectured twice on “De anima” (summer semester 1493, winter semester 1493/94) and once on “Libri topicorum” (summer semester 1494). During the summer semester of 1501, Sunczel served as the dean of the Faculty of Arts. In addition, Sunczel studied medicine and earned his medical degree in 1501. (All information extracted from Christoph Schöner (1998), “Sintzel (Sünzel, Wittlich), Friedrich”, in Laetitia Boehm, Winfried Müller, Wolfgang J. Smolka & Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472-1826, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 400-401.)

274 Pierre Duhem (1959), Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. Tome X, Paris, Hermann, p. 187; cf. Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et exercitata Friderici Sunczel Mosellani liberalium studiorum magistri in octo libros Phisicorum Arestotelis in almo studio Ingolstadiensi, Hagenau, Johannes Rymman, Qu. VIII.2, f. [q5]r. Although Sunczel’s commentary is predominantly structured according to Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.), there are some missing Questions (e.g., Buridan’s Questions I.3, I.19, III.6, III.15, IV.7, V.7) and occasional changes in the sequence of the Questions, as well as some additional Questions that are not present in Buridan’s work (e.g., Qu. I.5, I.9, I.20, II.9, II.14, III.11). Interestingly, some of these are title-matched with additional Questions also found in Clm 3848. For instance, Qu. I.5 corresponds to the two Questions I.5 and I.27 in Clm 3848 (where the Question appears twice, but in different versions), and Qu. III.11 corresponds to Qu. III.14 in Clm 3848. This is another indication of a relationship between these two commentaries, which will be discussed in further detail in the following paragraph of this chapter.

275 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 2r-215v (cf. Mieczysław Markowski [1981], Buridanica, p. 60). Upon comparing the order of Questions with Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.), the following observations can be made: The commentary begins with Qu. I.4. Questions III.8 and III.9 are swapped in order. Furthermore, Qu. IV.11 comes after Qu. IV.16, meaning it is the last Question of the fourth book.

276 See below, fn. 294.

277 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 4, f. 27v, l. 7-8: “iam sunt rara tempora, iam sunt bona tempora in Austria.” The pagination starts anew within each individual book, always beginning with 1. Only page 1 of Books 2 to 6 and 8 also carries the folio number that continues across books (in the case of Book 4, this is f. 166r).

278 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 1, Qu. I.9, f. 23r: “Item utrum quantitas sit distincta a re quanta sunt opiniones. Prima Pitag<or>orum, Pla[tonicorum], Oren, Ocon, qui dicunt quod quantitas sit res met quanta et non distinguatur ab ipsa. Secunda Alberti, Th[ome], Buridani qui dicunt quod quantitas sit accidens distinctum a re quanta. Illa <est vera>: res magna secundaria est distincta a magnitudine, sed non primaria.” Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et exercitata, Qu. I.8, f. c2r: “Nota tercio quod presens questio est mota propter aliquos qui dixerunt quod quelibet substantia magna esset sua magnitudo met. Et de hac opinione fuerunt platonici pytagorici orem et occan qui etiam tenent ex eadem ratione quod motus sit mobile. Alia vero est opinio et nunc veritas quod magnitudo sit accidens de qua fuit Aristoteles [Ares. in the original], Albertus et communiter omnes moderniores philosophi ut infra patebit multis autoritatibus.” The distinction between a res magna primaria and a res magna secundaria (or a magnum primarium and a magnum secundarium) found in the quotation from Clm 3848 was common. A res magna secundaria is understood to be a substance or an accident that obtains its extension through magnitudo. In the case of a substance, this occurs through inherence, while in the case of an extended accident, it occurs through “coassistence” (coassistentia) or “coassisting” (coassistere), as one accident cannot inhere in another accident. The magnitudo itself, on the other hand, is a res magna primaria, since it inherently possesses parts outside of parts; if it were a res magna due to another magnitudo, it would lead to an infinite regress. Cf. München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 1, Qu. I.9, f. 23r: “Magnum primarium est res se ipsa habens partes extra partes ut magnitudo. Magnum secundarium est res cui <vel> parti eius inheret vel coassistit magnitudo vel quod per aliquid superadditum dicitur magnum.”

279 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 8, f. 13v-14v (Qu. VIII.12); Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et exercitata, Qu. VIII.11, f. [r5]r-[r6]r. The entire Physics commentary contained in Clm 3848 features numerous marginal notes, the origins of which have not yet been verified. The marginal notes on Questions I.8 (the problem of quantitas) and IV.11 (rarefaction and condensation) do not originate from Sunczel. A very detailed marginal note at the bottom of f. 24v on Qu. IV.11 is inspired by Platerberger (Kr, f. 110ra-va; Me, p. 450-451; Sa, f. 188r-v; for the manuscripts, see above, fn. 203) and discusses the reasons why nature has arranged for rarefactions and condensations. This provides further evidence of a Viennese context of origin.

280 See the first two quotations in fn. 278; furthermore, see Clm 3848, Book 1, Qu. I.9, f. 23v: “Respondetur ad questionem: Res magna secundaria est res magna realiter distincta a sua magnitudine, vel substantia magna est res realiter distincta a sua magnitudine”; Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et exercitata, Qu. I.8, f. c2r: “Conclusio. Magnitudo est accidens distinctum realiter a substantia magna.”

281 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Book 3, Qu. III.8, f. 17v: “Respondetur ad questionem: motus localis est res realiter distincta a loco et a re que movetur localiter”; Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et exercitata, Qu. III.6, f. i4r: “Conclusio. Motus localis est distinctus realiter a qualibet substantia mobili et a loco.”

282 See the quotation from Sunczel in fn. 278.

283 München, BSB, Clm 3848, Qu. IV.11, f. 26v: “Prima Burdiani. Et dicit primo quod quantitas sit res realiter distincta a re quanta, ut dictum et probatum est in primo libro. Secundo dicit quod semper introducatur nova quantitas. Tertio quod quantitates que acquiruntur semper manent simul. [In margine: “Motivum eius fuit quia iste quantitates sunt eiusdem speciei, ergo una non corrumpit alteram quia omnis corruptio debet fieri a contrariis.”] Secunda opinio ipsius Marsilii qui etiam concedit primum et secundum ipsius Buridani, sed discordat in tertio quia dicit quod semper precedens quantitas corrumpitur et sequens habet omnem vim quam habuerunt precedentes quantitates. Et ratio vel motivum eius fuit quia si iste magnitudines simul manerent, tunc penetrarent se. Sed Buridanus haberet respondere quod penetratio non sit impossibilis in quantitate sicut [sed ut Ms.] in substantia. Tertia opinio Oren et Ocon [or Ocan] qui negant omnia predicta tria [This refers to the three core statements of Buridan’s view mentioned at the beginning of the quotation]. Et dicunt quod partes substantie dilatentur ab invicem et non adgeneretur aliquod novum accidens. Et dicunt quod sit eadem quantitas in rarefactibili et condensibili [The likely meaning is “in rarefactione et condensatione”].

284 Fridericus Sunczel (1499), Collecta et exercitata, Qu. IV.10, f. [m5]v: “Respondetur quod omissis [obmissis in the original] opinionibus que hic communiter solent recitari quod talis est modus rarefactionis […] In motu condensationis vel rarefactionis manet eadem quantitas in numero a principio usque ad finem, licet eadem aliquando fit maior aliquando minor.”

285 See the note on folio 1r, transcribed in Maximilian Schuh (2013), Aneignungen des Humanismus, p. 182, fn. 129. Estermann donated over 30 manuscripts and incunabula to Tegernsee Monastery, thus proving to be one of the most important mediators of humanistic texts. See Winfried Müller (1981), “Die Anfänge der Humanismusrezeption in Kloster Tegernsee”, Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige 92, p. 28-90, at p. 69-70; Maximilian Schuh (2013), Aneignungen des Humanismus, p. 181-182, 190-192, 208-210.

286 Maximilian Schuh (2013), Aneignungen des Humanismus, p. 182.

287 All information extracted from Christoph Schöner (1998), “Eisenhut (Eysenhuet), Georg, † 1495 Amberg”, in Laetitia Boehm, Winfried Müller, Wolfgang J. Smolka & Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472-1826, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 95-96.

288 All information extracted from Christoph Schöner (1998), “Parreut (Tolhopf, von der Grün), Johannes, † 1495 Braunau”, in Laetitia Boehm, Winfried Müller, Wolfgang J. Smolka & Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472-1826, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, p. 301.

289 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 132v: “Conclusio. Res extensive habens partes non est sua magnitudo, hoc est magnitudo substantie non est substantia.”

290 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 209r: “Modus rarefactionis secundum Buridanum est talis: Cum rarefaciens applicatur rarefactibili tunc producit continue novam quantitatem et precedens manet cum sequente et uniunt (?) se penetrative ita ut facta rarefactione partes se uniunt cuius ratio est quia quantitas prima [p Ms.] et secunda [se Ms.] sunt eiusdem speciei [Note in the margin: probabilis].”
Modus rarefactionis secundum Marsilium: Cum rarefaciens <et cetera> ut superius, quantitas precedens non manet cum parte sequenti et precedens corrumpitur <et> sequens manet, cuius ratio est quia licet iste quantitates sunt eiusdem speciei, tamen sunt dimensiones quas repugnat simul esse – quarto physicorum. [Note in the margin: Est minus probabilis.]
Modus rarefactionis secundum Orem et Ocon: Quando rarefaciens applicatur rarefactibili partes extremales elongantur a centralibus et partes se tangunt. Illa opinio presupponit [?] [or premittit?] <quod> quantitas esset substantia [substantias Ms.]. [Note in the margin: Est falsa ut patet [?] primo physicorum.]”

291 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 209v: “Nota. Rarefactio et condensatio secundum Paulum Venetum sunt motus ad ubi et ad qualitatem, non ad quantitatem. Primam partem probat quia per motum condensationis et rarefactionis aquiritur novum ubi ut novus locus et nova qualitas scilicet raritas et densitas. Secundum probatur quia secundum Commentatorem quarto physicorum in motu condensationis et rarefactionis manet eadem quantitas numero a principio usque ad finem licet eadem aliquando fit maior, aliquando minor. Obicitur quod sint motus ad quantitatem quia rarefactio est motus ad maiorem locum, igitur ad maiorem quantitatem. Tenet consequentia per Commentatorem primo de generatione et Aristotelem quarto physicorum [Phys., IV.8.216a26-b16]: Quantitas est per se occupativa loci omnibus aliis circumscriptis. Ibi dicitur: concedo consequentiam, et dicitur quod rarefactum habet maiorem quantitatem quam prius habebat, sed non aliam quantitatem quia eadem est maior quam prius fuit. Et dicitur quod rarefactio et condensatio non est motus ad maiorem vel minorem quantitatem, sed ad maiorem et minorem extensionem quantitatis que extensio non est quantitas, sed modus quantitatis [Instead of “modus quantitatis”, the ms. has “motus ad quantitatem”].” Cf. Paulus de Venetiis (1476), Summa naturalium, Mediolani, Cristoforus Valdarfer Ratisponensis, f. b5rb, Quarta conclusio; f. b5rb, Quarto arguitur; f. b5va, Ad quartum.

292 See above, foontnote 290.

293 München, BSB, Clm 19844, f. 176r: “Respondetur ad questionem quoad primam partem quod motus localis distinguatur a loco.” Ibid.: “Ad secundum sensum <questionis> dicitur quod motus localis distinguatur a mobili.”

294 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 1v: “Hunc librum obtulit deo et sancto Quirinio Monasterio in Tegernsee pro salute anime sue frater Leonhardus Esterman de Wasserburg magister in artibus et hic monachus professus”.

295 See above, fn. 275.

296 In contrast to the order of Questions in Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.) and the other Physics commentaries discussed here, in Clm 19679, the Question “Utrum rarefactio et condensatio sint possibiles” (f. 173r-174v) is not the eleventh of the fourth book, but the last.

297 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 174v: “Sed secundum Orem et Ocon qui dicunt quod non oportet quantitatem distincte ponere a substantia quanta rarefactio non fit per nove quantitatis generationem sed fit solum per motum localem. Modus rarefactionis ipsius Orem et Ocon est talis: Quando rarefaciens applicatur rarefactibili, tunc partes extremales moventur et elongantur localiter a partibus centralibus. Nec sequitur quod fit [quod^t Ms.] vacuum in medio talis corporis quia omnes partes immediate et tangentes se ante rarefactionem etiam tangunt se et sunt immediate in rarefactione et post rarefactionem. Sed tunc partes extremales plus distant a centralibus quam ante rarefactionem. Sed in condensatione tunc partes extremales magis appropinquant et moventur [manentie Ms.] ad partes centrales absque tamen penetratione earum quia partes que prius fuerunt immediate etiam modo sunt immediate, sed [secundum Ms.] partes que prius magis distabant ab invicem nunc [non Ms.] minus distant ab invicem. Et sic patet quod in rarefactione secundum istam viam et satis probabilem et faciliorem non oportet fieri vacuum nec in condensatione penetratio corporum.

298 See the citation in the previous footnote.

299 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 21r: “Alia ratio. Rarefiat aliquid pedale id est res unius pedis in quantitate [id est res unius pedis in quantitate add. sup. lin.] ad bipedalitatem circumscriptis omnibus aliis extrinsecis. Facta rarefactione tunc illud pedale sit bipedale et extenditur ad bipedalitatem, et non se ipsa, ergo per aliquid distinctum quod est magnitudo. Sed Orem dicit quod ibi nihil sit adgenitum. Contra. Tunc arguitur sic: hec aqua [corr. ex illeg.] est bipedalis et nihil est deperditum nec adgenitum in ea, ergo est pedalis aqua quod est falsum. Sed nos dicimus quod hic magnitudo sit adgenita.”

300 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 123r-126v: “Utrum motus localis sit res distincta <a loco et> ab eo [et a loco add.] quod localiter movetur.”

301 See for example München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 125r-125v: “Item secundum Orem sequitur quod daretur [darem Ms.?] primum instans [corr. ex instansns] esse motus localis. Probatur quia motus localis [f. 125v] asini datur primum instans esse quia asini datur primum instans esse, igitur motus localis asini, ex quo pro eodem instanti incipiunt esse, sed [secundum Ms.] cum datur primum instans esse illius asini et ille asinus est motus localis, igitur datur primum instans motus localis. Arguitur contra Orem: Omnis motus localis est tempus et motus angeli est motus localis, igitur <motus angeli est tempus, et motus angeli est angelus, igitur> angelus est tempus. Tenet consequentia a convertibili ad convertibile. Ultra: Angelus est tempus, igitur est numerus. Ultra: Est numerus, igitur est quantitas discreta. Quod autem sit numerus patet per definitionem temporis.”

302 München, BSB, Clm 19679, f. 120v: “Motus localis secundum Occon et Orem est accidens et substantia, sed tamen [?] communiter non tenetur. Secundum autem opinionem Aristotelis et Commentatoris est accidens.” The statement “Motus localis secundum Occon et Orem est accidens et substantia” means that, under the assumption that local motion is ontologically the same as the mobile, local motion, with respect to the substance that moves locally, is considered the substance; whereas, regarding any accident inhering in the substance and thus moving along with it, local motion is regarded as the accident. However, it is not implied, of course, that local motion itself represents an ontologically independent accident.

303 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 3r-125v (cf. Mieczysław Markowski [1981], Buridanica, p. 59-60); f. 125v: “Expliciunt disputata reverendi Magistri Martini de Gugugeya et cetera”.

304 Mieczysław Markowski (1981), Buridanica, p. 59-60, 144.

305 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 22r-22v: “Questio utrum omnis res extensive et situaliter habens partem extra partem est sua magnitudo. Contra conclusionem responsalem Buridani: Illud quod secundum sui mutationem est susceptibile successive contrariorum secundum sui mutationem est substantia, sed magnitudo est huiusmodi. Minor probatur quia tales qualitates contrarie non accipiuntur nisi in quanto [quantum Ms.] per se. Argumentum probatur per experientiam quia in nullo est aliqua qualitas contraria nisi in quanto per se, igitur. Item ad idem: Substantia per se et intrinsece maioratur et minoratur et sine quocumque alio, ergo est per se sua magnitudo. Argumentum probatur quia substantia rarefit et condensatur, modo rarefactio fit nullo alio ingrediente et condensatio fit nullo alio egrediente. Argumentum patet per Aristotelem quarto physicorum [quarto physicorum add. in marg.]. Confirmatur: Punctum non est quid distinctum a substantia, ergo nec linea nec superficies nec corpus. Tenet consequentia quia est par ratio hic et ibi. Et antecedens probatur sic [sequitur rasura]: aut esset quantitas aut qualitas, sed nullum illorum est dicendum, igitur. Quod non quantitas quia tunc non esset punctum quia omne punctum est indivisibile et nulla quantitas est indivisibilis. Item si magnitudo esset distincta a substantia, tunc deus posset conservare substantiam absque magnitudine et etiam sine motu locali illarum partium. Patet consequentia quia omne posterius potest a priori absolvi, et hoc per dei potentiam ad minus. Modo talis quantitas est posterior substantia, ergo et cetera. Sed quod hoc sit falsum <probatur> quia vel talis substantia esset in eodem loco in quo prius erat vel in alio loco. Si dicitur quod in eodem: Contra: Tunc est per se extensa, et sic superflue ponitur magnitudo distincta a [ab Ms.] substantia. Item ad idem: Substantia illius ligni habet ex se et essentialiter partes extra invicem situaliter, ergo. Argumentum probatur quia tota illa substantia [f. 22v] precise correspondet toti magnitudini, et partes illius substantie partibus illius magnitudinis. Ista sunt argumenta Magistri Wilhelmi Occa[m] [or Acca[m]] in logica sua contra Buridanum.” Cf. William Ockham (1974), Summa logicae, p. 132, l. 17 – p. 135, l. 91.

306 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 22r-24v; see for example f. 22v: “et sic non sequitur [vel sequeretur] intentio Occa[m].” Martinus de Gugugeya argues here that Ockham’s reasoning (cf. William Ockham (1974), Summa logicae, p. 134, l. 84 – p. 135, l. 91), which claims that a substance inherently possesses extension without any additional magnitude, is not conclusive. He asserts that if one imagines removing the extension or magnitude of the substance, the spatial arrangement of its parts would collapse. Both Ockham’s and Martinus’s arguments involve a petitio principii, as they each presuppose the very point they aim to prove. In Ockham’s case, the assumption is that a substance is already extended without the addition of a particular quantity. In contrast, Martinus assumes that without introducing magnitude as an independent accident that imparts extension, the substance cannot possess extension at all.

307 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 86v-88r.

308 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 88r: “Sed prima via magis conveniens est quod sit fluxus distinctus a loco et a mobili.” In this context, “prima via” refers to Buridan’s view.

309 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 87v: “Item ad eandem conclusionem volo quod dominus deus hunc lapidem ponat ad diversas partes illius spatii absque hoc quod velit aliquid novi [corr. ex nove] produci. Tunc talis lapis movetur sine motu locali. Argumentum patet quia nos percipimus hunc lapidem mutare locum sive situm, ergo movetur localiter. Respondetur ad argumentum secundum aliquos quod iste lapis in tali casu non movetur localiter quia non habet se aliter et aliter intrinsece per motum sibi inherentem aut sibi coassistentem. Sed hoc apparet falsum quia secundum hunc motum nos perciperemus hunc lapidem mutare situm in ordine ad alia, ergo ex solutione secundi argumenti Buridani talis motus localis esset. Et alii dicunt quod casus sit impossibilis recte sicut nulla existente albedine est impossibile quod deus faciat rem albam sine albedine. Sed verum est hoc item non videtur bene posse dici quia dominus deus potest hunc lapidem in illo loco annihilare et eundem lapidem in alio loco reproducere, ergo hic annihilare et in alio loco reproducere absque hoc quod velit aliquid aliud produci. Modo non apparet quod hoc sit facilius sibi quam quod hunc lapidem ipso manente successive ponat ad diversas partes spatii absque hoc quod velit aliquid novi [corr. ex nove] produci. Nec videtur simile esse de albedine et de illo quod debet moveri localiter quia ad hoc quod aliquid sit album requiritur albedinem sibi <inherere>. Hanc autem inherentiam non valet complere prima ca<u>sa, sed ad moveri [corr. ex movere] localiter requiritur movens movere [moveri corr. ex movere Ms.], modo movere est [et Ms.] agere, et illam activitatem potest deus se solo immediate nullo instrumento superaddito <et sic etiam deus se ipso et sine instrumento potest> ponere hunc lapidem ad diversas partes spatii. Item sicut deus se ipso et sine instrumento potest creare caliditatem, sic etiam deus se ipso et sine instrumento posset lapidem hunc movere localiter <absque hoc quod velit aliquid novi produci>.”

310 See fn. 308.

311 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 88r: “An autem sit possibile deum hunc lapidem reponere ad diversas partes huius spatii sine fluxu, hoc ipse bene scit.”

312 Jean Buridan (2016), Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). Libri III-IV, Qu. III.7, p. 73, l. 24 – p. 74, l. 14; p. 74, l. 21 – p. 75, l. 8.

313 München, BSB, Clm 19675, f. 87v-88r.

314 Cf. Udalricus de Tubing (see Chapter 4.5; München, BSB, Clm 19869, f. 269r); Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky, IV F 18 (see Chapter 4.6.1), f. 63r; Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 801 (see Chapter 4.6.1), f. 262r-262v; Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 1097 (see Chapter 4.6.1), p. 364-365; Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, Ms 957 (see Chapter 4.6.4), f. 63v-64r.

315 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 217v-279v.

316 Regarding Martinus Hämerl (also Hämerel, Hämern, Hämerlin, and other names), see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, nos. 6001, 6025, 6442, 6543, 6659, 6906, 7038, 7254, 7682, 7876, 8197, 8226, 8429, 8568, 8704.

317 Regarding Erhardus de Weitra, see Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1416 bis 1447. Acta Facultatis Artium II, nos. 8498, 9013, 9155; Thomas Maisel & Ingrid Matschinegg (2007), „Wiener Artistenregister“ 1447 bis 1471 [this should read: 1497]. Acta Facultatis Artium III (UAW Cod. Ph 8), Teil 1: 1447 bis 1471, nos. 9535, 9862, 10008, 10272, 10632, 10700, 10981; https://www.alcuin.de/philosopher.php?id=2415.

318 Maria Mairold (1988), Die datierten Handschriften in der Steiermark außerhalb der Universitätsbibliothek Graz bis zum Jahre 1600. 1. Teil: Text. 2. Teil: Tafeln, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Katalog der datierten Handschriften in lateinischer Schrift in Österreich 7), p. 73.

319 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 250v: “Tertio modo capitur locus pro equalitate distantie vel propinquitatis ad celum vel ad terram vel ad aliquod aliud corpus per quod iudicamus aliquid moveri vel quiescere, et sic capimus locum cum dicimus ‘Wienna est in eodem loco in quo fuit ante centum annos quia est in eadem distantia ad calvum montem’ et cetera.” With “calvus mons” the Kahlenberg is meant, which is now located in the 19th district of Vienna.

320 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243v: “Solutiones rationum Buridani vide in disputatis.”

321 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 254r: “Corollarium. Respondendum: questio simpliciter est vera. Et secundum Buridanum et Marsilium rarefactio et condensatio fiunt per nove quantitatis adgenerationem, sed secundum Okan simpliciter [similiter Ms.] fiunt solum per elongationem partium rarefactibilis ab invicem, ut patet inspicienti et cetera.”

322 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243r: “Pro conclusione responsali sunt tres vie, una videlicet Buridani que dicit quod motus localis [add. sup. lin.] sit distinctus a mobili [mobile Ms.] et sit accidens. Secunda via est Okan que dicit quod sit mobile met. Tertia est [dor add. et del.] Gregorii Doringa [Gregory of Rimini] qui dicit quod motus sit spatium a mobili descriptum et cetera.” The reading “Doringa” is uncertain, as there is either another “o,” an “e,” or an abbreviation sign above the “o.” However, it is clear from the context that Gregory of Rimini is meant.

323 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243v: “Conclusio responsalis: Motus non est distinctus a mobili et a loco in sensu copulativo, sed est ipsum mobile met, licet sit distinctus a loco. Illa probatur [probatur repet.] <et> cetera quia omnia possunt salvari dicendo quod motus localis sit mobile met, et non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate, igitur frustra poneretur tale accidens. Argumentum probatur quia dicendo quod mobile successive existens super diversis partibus spatii ita quod prius super una et postea super alia moveretur localiter omnia salvarentur, et non est dicendum quin deus possit hoc facere sine accidente novo, quia secunda causa ut equus potest mobile applicare ad diversas partes spatii sine accidente novo producto in tali mobili, ut patet de equo mediante quo assessor applicatur ad diversas partes spatii sine motu novo in eo producto, quia si in eo produceretur motus novus, tunc etiam in eo deberet impetus produci quod est falsum. Solutiones rationum Buridani vide in disputatis.”

324 Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 749, f. 243v: “Sed secundum opinionem <Gregorii> tunc motus localis nec est mobile [corr. sup. lin. ex spatium] ut patet nec locus ut patet, sed est spatium a mobili descriptum et cetera.”

325 Konrad von Megenberg accused Ockham of equating quantitas with substance; see William J. Courtenay (2008), Ockham and Ockhamism. Studies in the Dissemination and Impact of His Thought, Leiden/Boston, Brill (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 99), p. 147, 197-198, 276-277, 325-326.

326 Sigrid Müller (2006), “Theology, Language and Reality in Fifteenth-Century Via Moderna”, in Lodi Nauta (ed.), Language and cultural change. Aspects of the study and use of language in the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), Peeters, p. 1-21, at p. 19.

327 Robert Pasnau (2011), Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671, p. 408-412, 416; Stefano Caroti (2004), « Les modi rerum… encore une fois », p. 197; Stefano Caroti, Traditio, 55 (2000); Stefan Kirschner (1997), Nicolaus Oresmes Kommentar, p. 29-30.

328 Nicole Oresme (1968), Le livre du ciel et du monde, p. 372, l. 327-344.

329 See the end of the quotation from München, Universitätsbibliothek, 4° Cod. ms. 823, in fn. 83 (“quia supponitur quod motus sit mobile met”).

330 See Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, Vivarium, 42/1 (2004), p. 29-38.

331 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 334-338; cf. Mieczysław Markowski (1984), « L’influence de Jean Buridan sur les universités d’Europe Centrale », in Zénon Kaluza & Paul Vignaux (éds.), Preuve et raisons à l’Université de Paris. Logique, ontologie et théologie au XIV^e siècle, Paris, J. Vrin, p. 149-152; Harald Berger (2019), “Zur Literaturproduktion im Buridanismus am Beispiel der anonymen Quästionen zur Ars Vetus im Cod. 5461 der ÖNB Wien”, Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 17 [52], p. 87-118, at p. 87-88.

332 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 338-340; František Šmahel (2007), Die Präger [sic!] Universität im Mittelalter. The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Selected Studies, Leiden/Boston, Brill, p. 38-39, 159-171.

333 For the founding of the University of Vienna, see, for example, Paul Uiblein (1995), Mittelalterliches Studium an der Wiener Artistenfakultät. Kommentar zu den Acta Facultatis Artium Universitatis Vindobonensis 1385-1416, 2nd edition, Wien, WUV-Universitätsverlag, p. 9-34; Frank Rexroth (1992), Deutsche Universitätsstiftungen von Prag bis Köln. Die Intentionen des Stifters und die Wege und Chancen ihrer Verwirklichung im spätmittelalterlichen deutschen Territorialstaat, Köln/Weimar/Wien, Böhlau, p. 108-146; Franz Gall (1967), “Gründung und Anfänge der Wiener Universität”, in Les Universités Européennes du XIV^e au XVIII^e Siècle. Aspects et Problèmes. Actes du Colloque International à l’occasion du VI^e Centenaire de l’Université Jagellonne de Cracovie 6 - 8 Mai 1964, Genève, Librairie Droz, p. 48–55; František Šmahel (2007), Die Präger [sic!] Universität im Mittelalter, p. 31-32; Michael H. Shank (1988), Unless You Believe, p. 3-25; Karl Ubl (2005), “Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Die Anfänge der Universität Wien im 14. Jahrhundert”, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 113, p. 63-89.

334 Paul Uiblein (1995), Mittelalterliches Studium, p. 98-99.

335 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 341, 346-347.

336 Harald Berger, Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne, 17 [52] (2019), p. 87-118.

337 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 342; Mieczysław Markowski (1983), “Abhandlungen zur Logik an der Universität Wien in den Jahren 1365-1500”, Studia Mediewistyczne 22/1, p. 53-77, at p. 61, 74, 77.

338 Mieczysław Markowski (2003), “Nieznane dzieła wiedeńskie z logiki i filozofii przyrody w rękopisach Biblioteki Arcyopactwa Św. Piotra w Salzburgu”, Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 36, p. 165-170, at p. 169-170.

339 Paul Uiblein (1995), Mittelalterliches Studium, p. 17-18; Michael H. Shank (1988), Unless You Believe, p. 28.

340 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 341; see the edition of the statutes of the Faculty of Arts from April 1, 1389, in Alphons Lhotsky (1965), Die Wiener Artistenfakultät, Wien, Österr. Akademie der Wissenschaften; Graz/Wien/Köln, Böhlau in Komm., p. 223-262, at p. 255 (Titulus XXVI).

341 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 343-344.

342 Bernd Michael (1985), Johannes Buridan, p. 344-345. The works mentioned by Michael are the Physics commentaries by Gartner and Tudel, as well as the Physics commentaries contained in the following codices: Praha, Czech National Library, Cod. IV F 18; Graz, UB, 957; Klagenfurt, Universitätsbibliothek, Pap.-Hs. 74 (Hainczel), and Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4951 (see Table 1, Nos. 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, and 16).

343 Christine Glaßner (2010), “Wiener Universitätshandschriften in Melk. Bemerkungen zum Lehrbetrieb an der Wiener Artistenfakultät”, in Kurt Mühlberger & Meta Niederkorn-Bruck (eds.), Die Universität Wien im Konzert europäischer Bildungszentren. 14.–16. Jahrhundert, Wien/München, Oldenbourg/Böhlau, p. 87-99, at p. 98; Sigrid Müller (2006), “Theology, Language and Reality”, p. 19, footn. 64.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Stefan Kirschner, « The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century », Methodos [En ligne], 25 | 2025, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2025, consulté le 15 janvier 2026. URL : https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/11870 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15c9d

Haut de page

Auteur

Stefan Kirschner

IDREF : https://idref.fr/050234889
VIAF : https://viaf.org/viaf/39530985
ISNI : https://isni.org/isni/0000000038320051
BNF : https://data.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb13491861s

University of Hamburg, Department of Biology, Research Group History of Science

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page

Sommaire - Document précédent - Document suivant

Navigation

Index

Auteur
Mots-clés

Numéros en texte intégral

25 | 2025
Les mathématiques médiévales dans le monde latin
24 | 2024
Les humanités numériques à l’ère du Web 3.0
23 | 2023
Gelan. Rire, faire rire, penser le rire
22 | 2022
Argumentation et philosophie arabe du langage
21 | 2021
L’exercice en art
20 | 2020
Lire
19 | 2019
Dire et vouloir dire dans les arts du langage anciens et tardo-antiques
18 | 2018
Usages contemporains de Descartes
17 | 2017
L'événement
16 | 2016
La notion d'Intelligence (nous-noein) dans la Grèce antique
15 | 2015
Philosophie et littérature
14 | 2014
Dire et vouloir dire
13 | 2013
Pratiques de l'interprétation
12 | 2012
Un siècle de chimie à l'Académie royale des sciences
11 | 2011
L'instrument de musique
10 | 2010
Penser la fiction
9 | 2009
L'autre Husserl
8 | 2008
Chimie et mécanisme à l'âge classique
7 | 2007
La comédie d'Aristophane et son public
6 | 2006
Science et littérature
5 | 2005
La subjectivité
4 | 2004
Penser le corps
3 | 2003
Figures de l'irrationnel
2 | 2002
L'esprit. Mind/Geist
1 | 2001
La philosophie et ses textes