Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy

2011 Edition
| Editors: Henrik Lagerlund

Radulphus Brito

  • Sander De Boer
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9729-4_428

Abstract

Radulphus Brito (c. 1270–c. 1320) was a famous arts master in Paris, and is considered to be the most important proponent of a particular position in semantics, whose adherents are now called Modistae. He is best known, in his own times and ours, for his views on the semantic and ontological status of second intentions. Brito distinguishes these intentions in first and second as well as in abstract and concrete, and locates the resulting fourfold division in each of the three operations of the intellect (concept formation, judgment, and reasoning). He defended the uncommon thesis that at least some of the second intentions can be located in the Aristotelian categories, because they are caused by the external things themselves rather than by the intellect reflecting upon its acquired first intentions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

  1. Brito Radulphus (1974) Quaestiones in Aristotelis librum tertium De anima, ed. Fauser W. In: Der Kommentar des Radulphus Brito zu Buch III De anima. Aschendorf, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  2. Brito Radulphus (1975) Sophisma “Aliquis homo est species,” ed. Pinborg J. In: Radulphus Brito’s sophism on second intentions. Vivarium 13(2):119–152Google Scholar
  3. Brito Radulphus (1978a) Sophisma “Rationale est animal,” ed. Ebbesen S. In: The sophism ‘Rationale est animal.’ Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 24:85–120Google Scholar
  4. Brito Radulphus (1978b) Sophisma “Omnis homo est omnis homo,” ed. Green-Pedersen NJ, Pinborg J. In: Radulphus Brito: Commentary on Boethius’ De differentiis topicis and the sophism Omnis homo est omnis homo. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 26:1–92Google Scholar
  5. Brito Radulphus (1978c) Quaestiones super De differentiis topicis Boethii, ed. Green-Pedersen NJ, Pinborg J. In: Radulphus Brito: commentary on Boethius’ De differentiis topicis and the sophism Omnis homo est omnis homo. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 26:1–92Google Scholar
  6. Brito Radulphus (1980a) Quaestiones in Aristotelis libros De anima, q. 1.6, ed. Pinborg J. In: Radulphus Brito on Universals. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 35:56–142Google Scholar
  7. Brito Radulphus (1980b) Quaestiones super librum Porphyrii, qq. 5–8, ed. Pinborg J. In: Radulphus Brito on Universals. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 35:56–142Google Scholar
  8. Brito Radulphus (1980c) Quaestiones super Priscianum minorem, ed. Enders HW, Pinborg J. Grammatica speculativa 3/1–2. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad CannstattGoogle Scholar
  9. Brito Radulphus (1998) Quaestiones super Sophistocos elenchos, qq. I.10–19, ed. Ebbesen S. In: Texts on equivocation. Part II. Ca. 1250–1310. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 68:99–307Google Scholar
  10. Brito Radulphus (2008) Quaestiones in Aristotelis libros ethicorum, ed. Costa I. Le questiones di Radulfo Brito sull’ “Etica Nicomachea.” Introduzione e testo critico. Studia artistarum 16. Brepols, TurnhoutGoogle Scholar
  11. For a full list of individually edited questions as well as a list of most of the questions contained in Brito’s works, consult the article by Jean-Luc Deuffic (2002).Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Courtenay WJ (2005) Radulphus Brito, master of arts and theology. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 76:131–158Google Scholar
  2. Deuffic J (2002) Un logicien renommé proviseur de Sorbonne au XIVè s. Raoul le Breton de Ploudiry. Notes bio-bibliographiques. Pecia 1:45–154Google Scholar
  3. Dijs J (2003) Radulphus Brito’s use of intentio in quaestio 9 of his In Peri Hermeneias. In: Braakhuis HAG, Kneepkens CH (eds) Aristotle’s Peri Hermeneias in the Latin Middle Ages. Essays on the commentary tradition, Ingenium, Groningen [etc.], pp 235–256Google Scholar
  4. Ebbesen S (1979) The dead man is alive. Synthese 40(1):43–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ebbesen S (2000) Radulphus Brito. The last of the great arts masters. Or: Philosophy and freedom. In: Aertsen JA, Speer A (ed) Geistesleben im 13. Jahrhundert. Miscellanea mediaevalia 27. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin [etc.], pp 231–251Google Scholar
  6. Ebbesen S (2001) Radulphus Brito on the Metaphysics. In: Aertsen JA, Emery K, Speer A (ed) Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im lezten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Miscellanea mediaevalia 28. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin [etc.], pp 456–492Google Scholar
  7. Ebbesen S, Pinborg J (1981–1982) Gennadios and western scholasticism: Radulphus Brito’s Ars vetus in Greek translation. Classica et Mediaevalia 33:263–319Google Scholar
  8. Hentschel F, Pickavé M (2001) Questiones mathematicales. Eine Textgattung der Pariser Artistenfakultät im frühen 14. Jahrhundert. In: Aertsen JA, Emery K, Speer A (eds) Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im lezten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Miscellanea mediaevalia 28. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin [etc.], pp 618–634Google Scholar
  9. McMahon WE (1981) Radulphus Brito on the sufficiency of the categories. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 39:81–96Google Scholar
  10. Pinborg J (1967) Die Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 42/2. Aschendorff, Münster [etc.]Google Scholar
  11. Pinborg J (1974) Zum Begriff der intentio secunda. Radulphus Brito, Hervaeus Natalis und Petrus Aureoli in Diskussion. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 13:49–59Google Scholar
  12. Pinborg J (1975a) Radulphus Brito’s sophism on second intentions. Vivarium 13(2):119–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pinborg J (1975b) Die Logik der Modistae. Studia Mediewistyczne 16:39–97 (repr. Pinborg J, Medieval semantics. Selected studies on logic and grammar. Ebbesen S (ed) Variorum Reprints, London)Google Scholar
  14. Roos H (1975) Die Kontroverse zwischen Bartholomaeus von Brügge und Radulphus Brito über die Frage: Utrum genus possit salvari in unica specie. In: Sapientiae procerum amore. Mélanges médiévistes offerts à Dom Jean-Pierre Müller OSB. Editrice Anselmiana, Roma, pp 323–342Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sander De Boer
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the History of Philosophy and ScienceRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands