Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning

Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Humanities and Social Sciences

Volume 24

General Editor Shahid Rahman (Lille, UMR 8163)

Managing Editor Juan Redmond (Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile)

Area Editors Argumentation and Pragmatics Frans H. van Eemeren (Amsterdam) Zoe McConaughey (Lille, UMR 8163) Tony Street (Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge) John Woods (British Columbia/King’s College)

Argumentation and Rhetoric Gabriel Galvez-Behar (Lille, UMR 8529) Leone Gazziero (Lille) André Laks, (Princeton/Panamericana) Ruth Webb (Lille, UMR 8163)

Decision Theory, Mathematics, Economy Jacques Dubucs (IHPST-Paris 1) Karine Chemla (CNRS, SPHERE UMR7219, Université de Paris) Sven Ove Hansson (Stockholm)

Cognitives Sciences. Computer Sciences Yann Coello (Lille) Eric Gregoire (CRIL-Lens) Henry Prakken (Utrecht) François Recanati (ENS, Paris)

Epistemology and Philosophy of Science Gerhard Heinzmann (Nancy) Sonja Smets (ILLC, Amsterdam) Göran Sundholm (Leiden)

Logic Michel Crubellier (Lille, UMR 8163) Dov Gabbay (King’s College) Tero Tulenheimo (Lille, UMR 8163)

Political Science and Sociology Jean-Gabriel Contamin (Lille) Franck Fischer (Rutgers) Josh Ober (Stanford) Marc Pichard (Lille, MESHS-Nord Pas de Calais) Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning (LAR) explores links between the Humanities and Social Sciences, with theories (including decision and action theory) drawn from the cognitive sciences, economics, sociology, law, logic, and the philosophy of science. Its main ambitions are to develop a theoretical framework that will encourage and enable interaction between disciplines, and to integrate the Humanities and Social Sciences around their main contributions to public life, using informed debate, lucid decision-making, and action based on refection. • Argumentation models and studies • Communication, language and techniques of argumentation • Reception of arguments, persuasion and the impact of power • Diachronic transformations of argumentative practices LAR is developed in partnership with the Maison Européenne des Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société (MESHS) at Nord - Pas de Calais and the UMR-STL: 8163 (CNRS). This book series is indexed in SCOPUS. Proposals should include : • A short synopsis of the work, or the introduction chapter • The proposed Table of Contents • The CV of the lead author(s) • If available: one sample chapter We aim to make a frst decision within 1 month of submission. In case of a positive frst decision, the work will be provisionally contracted—the fnal decision about publication will depend upon the result of an anonymous peer review of the complete manuscript. The complete work is usually peer-reviewed within 3 months of submission. LAR discourages the submission of manuscripts containing reprints of previously published material, and/or manuscripts that are less than 150 pages / 85,000 words. For inquiries and proposal submissions, authors may contact the editor-in-chief, Shahid Rahman at: [email protected], or the managing editor, Juan Redmond, at: [email protected]

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11547 Isabelle Chouinard • Zoe McConaughey Aline Medeiros Ramos • Roxane Noël Editors

Women’s Perspectives on Ancient and Medieval Philosophy Editors Isabelle Chouinard Zoe McConaughey Philosophy Department, Université de Université de Lille, UMR 8163 Savoirs Montréal Textes Langage Montreal, Canada Lille, France Centre Léon Robin, Sorbonne Université Philosophy Department Paris, France Université du Québec à Montréal Montreal, Canada Aline Medeiros Ramos Philosophy Department, Université du Roxane Noël Québec à Montréal Faculty of Philosophy, Montreal, Canada University of Cambridge Cambridge, United Kingdom Department of Philosophy & Arts Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Trois-Rivières, Canada

ISSN 2214-9120 ISSN 2214-9139 (electronic) Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning ISBN 978-3-030-73189-2 ISBN 978-3-030-73190-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73190-8

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Foreword

I was a graduate student by the time I had my frst chance to take a class with a female professor. In college, I had double-majored in Classics and Philosophy, and while both departments were full of wonderful faculty members, all of them were men. At the time, I barely noticed this—I was more struck by how few of my fellow classmates were women. In upper-level seminars, I was often the only “girl” in the class, and everyone would turn in their seats to see my reaction when the authors we were reading made pronouncements about women. One particularly egregious pas- sage in Hesiod’s Works and Days sparked a running joke: Hesiod warns young men that attractive women only talk to them for their storehouses—so for the rest of the semester, whenever I was chatting with one of the guys in the class, another one was likely to lean over and whisper loudly: “You know she’s just after your barn, right?” My classmates weren’t making fun of me—in fact, they made it clear in a number of ways that they liked and even respected me. If anything, they were trying to show their solidarity by laughing at how ridiculous they thought Hesiod’s claim was. But I was the only person in the class that particular joke applied to, and it always reminded me that I was the “Other” in that context. Rather than being the exception, that experience became really more of the rule. In my senior year, for instance, a famous logician came to give a talk. I had just been accepted into the graduate program at Cornell, and I was looking forward to talking with the (male) speaker, whose work I admired. The auditorium was packed with students from several neighboring schools; as I squeezed past knees to reach the seat a friend was saving for me, I heard two guys whispering and realized they were talking about me. “She is kind of cute,” one of them said. “Right!” the other one laughed—“A ‘philosopher babe’.” I spent the talk intensely aware of their scrutiny. Afterwards, they both came up to talk to me. “So,” one asked with a grin, “are you in a philosophy class?” When I straightened up and replied rather stiffy, “Actually, I’m going to grad school for it in the fall,” the only response I got was a surprised, “So, do you enjoy philosophy, then?” Yes, in fact I do enjoy philosophy! But I’m not sure I would still be in the feld if it weren’t for the group of women I became friends with in grad school. Although only two of the twenty-some professors on the philosophy faculty were women (and

v vi Foreword only one of those two was tenured), almost half of the students in the graduate program identifed as women, and the difference that made to my experience was immense. It wasn’t so much that it was a big deal to me to have other women around—it was more that it fnally felt like it wasn’t a big deal for ME to be around. A friend of mine calls this the Rule of Three. When there’s just one of you, she says, you become the representative for your entire demographic. When there are only two of you, one of you becomes the “good” representative for your demographic and the other gets labeled “bad” in comparison. When there are three or more of you, however, the dynamics shift and you start to get to be a real person. All of this is to say that the representation of women matters in the history of philosophy, and not—as the editors of this volume rightly note—because there is some sort of magical ‘essence of femininity’ that “yields a privileged access to some kind of special philosophical stance.” The central reason this volume exists is sim- ply to help counteract the under-representation of women in existing scholarship in the history of ancient and medieval philosophy. Philosophy is an inherently communal enterprise, and the isolation of any person or group is counter-productive to that enterprise. The isolation of fully half the human species should seem particularly worth attempting to overcome. I can imagine potential readers expecting a book written, edited, and reviewed entirely by women to focus on the thoughts of ancient and medieval women, and/or to offer feminist critiques of the theories of men from those periods. In my opinion, the fact that this book doesn’t do this is one of its greatest strengths. The goal of this volume is to increase female representation in the history of ancient and medieval philosophy; it is not a set of essays on ancient and medieval women philosophers, or a work in the history of feminist philosophy. As the editors note in their preface, and as the authors brilliantly demonstrate throughout the collection of essays, “there is not one, but many women’s perspectives corresponding to the great diversity of women’s scholarship in ancient and medieval philosophy, which includes works on feminist topics, but is not limited to it.” In short, philosophy as a robustly communal enterprise functions best when peo- ple of all sorts write on topics drawn from the entire history of the discipline. It would be a shame to seek to include a fuller range of voices in philosophy and to then constrain those voices to particular topics, fgures, or methods. The dialogic structure of the book furthers the aim of philosophy as the work of community: the series of essays are set up as a conversation, not as a series of points/counterpoints or arguments and counter-arguments. In this way, the volume demonstrates how philosophy can build up as well as tear down, generate as well as deconstruct. The women who put this book together represent a wide variety of philosophical views, approaches, and goals, and this set of essays itself complements a variety of other approaches to increasing the representation of women in the history of philosophy. In so doing, it constitutes a welcome addition to scholarship in the history Foreword vii of ancient and medieval philosophy. As Elizabeth Spelman says in Inessential Woman, “No one ought to expect the forms of our liberation to be any less various than the forms of our oppression” (1988, p. 32). This volume stands to be signif- cant—not just for the strength of the work included here, but for the future work the breadth of vision represented in these essays will inspire.

Grand Rapids, MI, USA Christina Van Dyke February 15, 2021 Editors’ Preface

This book is a collective work built on the efforts of 62 women, including authors, reviewers, and editors. It features ten original contributions to different felds of ancient and medieval philosophy, all of which have been peer-reviewed in a double- anonymous process. Each contribution is accompanied by one or two response-and- discussion papers by scholars, thus opening new perspectives and engaging in further refections on the matters at hand. Such a model provides the reader with a broader philosophical discussion of the topics addressed by the articles. This volume expands upon an earlier project. In 2017, Philippa Dott, then PhD student at Université Laval (Canada) and Université de Strasbourg (France), was attending a conference on ancient philosophy in Montreal (Canada). She could not help but notice that, despite the presence of many women in the audience, she was the only woman among the 15 panellists. This led her to think about the many other instances in which women were underrepresented in the various events she attended that were devoted to the history of philosophy. Teaming up with fellow graduate students from various universities, Dott spearheaded an effort to organize a conference which would aim to showcase and celebrate the work of women researchers working in ancient and medieval philosophy. Thus was born the Symposium in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy—Feminine* Perspectives, which took place at Université du Québec à Montréal (Canada), from March 15 to 17, 2018. An offspring of the Symposium, this volume is rooted in the same motivation. Its editors are former members of the organizing committee of the conference, and the book contains certain contributions that were presented during the Symposium, as well as several additional contributions. The call for papers followed criteria similar to those of the Symposium, including that all contributions were to be made by women, whom we invited to write on the topic of their choice within the realm of ancient and medieval philosophy. For this volume, an additional criterion was that we wanted the peer reviewers to be exclusively women as well. By adopting such practices, this book aims to be feminist in its approach and its process, while not necessarily having feminist philosophy as its subject matter. This is what the title Women’s Perspectives on Ancient and Medieval Philosophy aims to capture. Indeed, we have chosen to focus on the perspectives of women, not because

ix x Editors’ Preface we believe that being a woman yields a privileged access to some kind of special philosophical stance, but rather in order to remedy the problem of representation mentioned above. Hence, the plural: there is not one, but many women’s perspectives corresponding to the great diversity of women’s scholarship in ancient and medieval philosophy, which includes works on feminist topics, but is not limited to it. Far from being an isolated effort, this book is our contribution to an ever-growing number of initiatives which endeavour to showcase the work of women in philosophy. Overall, such enterprises can be subsumed under two approaches: one brings women philosophers from the past, who happened to be passed over or forgotten by the dominant academic view, to our attention; the other strives to promote the research of present-day women working in all areas of philosophy. Examples of the frst kind of venture include Mary Ellen Waithe’s germinal opus A History of Women Philosophers, which was published between 1987 and 1995. More recently, in 2020, Rebecca Buxton and Lisa Whiting published The Philosopher Queens, a book about women philosophers, written by women working in philosophy. Also notable is the Center for the History of Women Philosophers and Scientists at Paderborn University. Online, Project Vox honours the work of women philosophers of the early-modern period. Initiatives of the second type include the UNESCO International Network of Women Philosophers’ Women Philosophers’ Journal; the International Association of Women Philosophers; the Society for Women in Philosophy (SWIP), which has many chapters across North America and Europe; and the Red de Mujeres Filósofas de América Latina. Some efforts are also being made more specifcally in the feld of the history of philosophy. For example, the Women in Ancient Philosophy group, based at the Humboldt University of Berlin, organizes workshops and conferences where women specializing in ancient philosophy can network and share their research. In joining the second kind of initiative – that is, promoting the work of present- day scholars, in this case with a focus on the history of ancient and medieval philosophy – it is now our great pleasure to introduce the writings of the contributing authors, who hail from many different countries and backgrounds. Although our collective book in no way purports to provide a comprehensive account of any one particular philosophical period, our authors’ contributions, covering topics from the sixth century BCE to the ffteenth century CE, nevertheless address certain pivotal moments and players in the history of philosophy. Each part has the same structure: it features, frst, a paper which sets up the discussion, and then, one or two responses which discuss or expand on it. Part I begins with Maddalena Bonelli’s “Women Philosophers in Antiquity: Open Questions and Some Results,” which interrogates the conspicuous quasi- absence of women fgures in the philosophical canon, with a special emphasis on ancient philosophy. Some of the questions left open by Bonelli are then picked up by Katharine R. O’Reilly in her response “Women Philosophers in Antiquity and the Reshaping of Philosophy,” which also examines the implications of altering our views on the canon for the philosophical discipline in general. Editors’ Preface xi

In Part II, Mariana Gardella Hueso’s “Cleobulina of Rhodes and the Philosophical Power of Riddles” highlights the relevance of Cleobulina’s riddles for the history of ancient thought. Indeed, in composing her riddles, Cleobulina invites us to think differently about everyday objects, and to recognize the limits of human under- standing. Anna Potamiti’s response, “The Riddles of Cleobulina” provides further contextual elements, allowing us to recognize how Cleobulina’s riddles represent a specifc kind of riddle, the ainigma. Potamiti then explores the possibility that ainig- mata may be associated with a female tradition of riddling. In Part III, in “What Happened to the Philosopher Queens? On the ‘Disappearance’ of Female Rulers in Plato’s Statesman,” Annie Larivée draws upon Michèle Le Doeuff’s concept of déshérence to shed new light on the role of women in Plato’s political writings. On this basis, she argues that the Republic and the Statesman present similar views on this matter, even though this similarity has traditionally been overlooked. A response by Emily Fletcher, titled “Women and Childrearing in the Republic,” builds upon the work done by Larivée. Fletcher uses the concept of déshérence to show how the recognition of the critical value of childrearing in Plato’s political project informs certain radical social policies in Republic V, where the importance of childrearing justifes its being transformed from women’s responsibility into a responsibility shared by men and women in the city as a whole, thus removing it from the private sphere and transferring it to the public one. Part IV begins with Julie Giovacchini’s “Sexual Freedom and Feminine Pleasure in Lucretius,” which investigates Lucretius’ denunciation of love as it appears in De Rerum Natura. Giovacchini draws the reader’s attention to two aspects of the text which are often overlooked, namely the eulogy of the vagrant Venus and the study of feminine sexual pleasure. In doing so, she paints a general portrait of an Epicurean sexual ethos based on diversity and reciprocity, and she shows how the Epicurean account of sexuality acquires coherence once it is read with feminine sexuality and pleasure in mind. In her response, “An Epicurean Community of Women,” Natania Meeker uses Giovacchini’s insights as a springboard to initiate a broader discussion about the place of women’s experiences within the Epicurean framework. Izabela Jurasz opens Part V with “Destiny, Nature and Freedom According to Bardaisan and Alexander of Aphrodisias: An Unknown Aspect of the Controversy Against Determinism,” a work which explores the extensive similarities between Bardaisan’s and Alexander of Aphrodisias’ treatments of the notions of nature, determinism, and fate. Isabelle Koch’s response, “How to Limit Fatalism? A Comparison Between Alexander of Aphrodisias and Bardaisan,” complements this study with an examination of the ways in which the two authors ft in an anti-fatalist tradition, as well as the role they play in the emergence of the concept of free will in late antiquity. Then, with “Bardaisan of Edessa on Free Will, Fate, and Nature: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Origen, and Diodore of Tarsus,” Ilaria L. E. Ramelli broadens the discussion by exploring connections between Bardaisan’s views and those of not only Alexander of Aphrodisias, but also Origen and Diodorus of Tarsus. xii Editors’ Preface

In Part VI, Mathilde Cambron-Goulet and François-Julien Côté-Remy,1 through their paper “Plotinus and Porphyry on Women’s Legitimacy in Philosophy,” draw our attention to views expressed by Plotinus and Porphyry which could support women’s inclusion in their circles. To accomplish this, the authors also present a prosopography of the women mentioned by Porphyry himself in his texts. Jana Schulz pens a reply entitled “Soul, Gender and Hierarchy in Plotinus and Porphyry,” which focuses on Plotinus and Porphyry’s idea of a genderless soul and raises certain points of disagreement with Cambron-Goulet and Côté-Remy’s thesis. Their thesis is then supported by Alexandra Michalewski, who examines elements of Plotinus’ life and school as recorded by Porphyry in her “Women and Philosophy in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus.” Part VII moves on to the medieval period with Roxane Noël’s “Abelard’s homo intelligitur Puzzle: On the Relation Between Universal Understandings and a World of Singulars.” Noël proposes an interpretation of the concept of nature in Peter Abelard’s philosophy that aims to clarify how Abelard uses it in his solution to a particular problem having to do with universal concepts. Irene Binini’s response, “Some Further Remarks on Abelard’s Notion of Nature,” focuses on the role of the concept in the discussion of future contingents and conditionals in order to draw attention to certain problems to which Abelard’s account of natures is vulnerable. Next, in Part VIII, Elena Băltuță attends to the thirteenth-century philosopher Robert Kilwardby in her paper “Does Bodily Pain Have an Intentional Character? Robert Kilwardby’s Answer.” She shows how, for Kilwardby, bodily pain is not a mere physical sensation, but rather an intentional state which possesses representa- tional content. Sonja Schierbaum’s response, “Scaring Away the Spectre of Equivocation,” focuses on Băltuță’s methodological framework, especially her use of the notion of dialogue. She proposes an amended version of Băltuță’s argument which does not fall prey to the diffculties she identifes in it, while preserving the conclusion that, according to Kilwardby, bodily pain is an intentional state. Part IX features Aline Medeiros Ramos’ “Is Ars an Intellectual Virtue? John Buridan on Craft,” in which she expounds on John Buridan’s conception of craft as an intellectual virtue, while also commenting on the reasons why the status of craft as a virtue has been somewhat overlooked. Jenny Pelletier’s response, “William Ockham on Craft: Knowing How to Build Houses on the Canadian Shield,” complements Medeiros Ramos’ piece by presenting the conception of craft put forward by William Ockham, a contemporary of John Buridan who is often considered as his philosophical forerunner. The fnal part of the volume, Part X, transports the reader to the ffteenth century. In “The Fruit of Knowledge: To Bite or Not to Bite? Isotta Nogarola on Eve’s Sin and Its Scholastic Sources,” Marcela Borelli, Valeria A. Buffon, and Natalia G. Jakubecki discuss Isotta Nogarola’s stance on original sin, and specifcally her contention that Eve did not sin more than Adam. Through their review of Nogarola’s

1 François-Julien Côté-Remy is the only man fguring in the table of contents of this volume, since he has the role of co-author. Editors’ Preface xiii sources, the authors show that most of her references to early Christian writings are, in fact, taken from scholastic sources, and that Nogarola’s ingenuity consists in subverting misogynistic scholastic arguments in order to build a case favourable to women. Marguerite Deslauriers’ response, “Why Eve Matters in the History of Feminist Arguments,” evaluates the signifcance of Nogarola’s depiction of Eve by comparing it with relevant pro-woman works of the same period.

Montreal, Canada Isabelle Chouinard

Lille, France Zoe McConaughey

Montreal, Canada Aline Medeiros Ramos

Cambridge, United Kingdom Roxane Noël Acknowledgements

This book represents the culmination of many years of work, and its publication would not have been possible without the support we have received. First, we would like to thank the Centre Léon Robin (UMR 8061, CNRS/Sorbonne Université), the Laboratoire Savoirs, Textes et Langage (UMR 8163, CNRS/Université de Lille), the École Doctorale Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société (Université de Lille), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (through Professor Mélissa Thériault, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières) for providing the funding which allowed for this volume to be completed in a timely manner and in keeping with the standards of proper scholarship. An essential element of any serious scholarly publication is a rigorous and anonymous peer-review process. Thus, we wish to thank the reviewers who kindly agreed to volunteer their time and expertise to evaluate submissions and to provide the authors with useful guidance on how to improve their contributions. The reviewers’ work served as the solid foundation upon which our work, as editors, has been built. As this book is an offspring of the Symposium in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy—Feminine* Perspectives (Montreal, March 2018), we also thank the other members of the organizing committee for this event: Jeanne Allard, Sarah Clairmont, Anna-Christine Corbeil, Léa Derome, Philippa Dott, Delphine Gingras, and Charlotte Lemieux. We wish to especially thank Jeanne Allard, as she was directly involved with the earlier stages of the editing process of this volume.

xv xvi Acknowledgements

We are also grateful to Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, director of the Centre Léon Robin, for his advice and guidance. Finally, we thank Peter Gillies (also on behalf of our authors) for his meticulous copyediting and proofreading efforts.

Montreal, Canada Isabelle Chouinard Lille, France Zoe McConaughey Montreal, Canada Aline Medeiros Ramos Cambridge, United Kingdom Roxane Noël Contents

Part I Women Philosophers in Antiquity 1 Women Philosophers in Antiquity: Open Questions and Some Results �� 3 Maddalena Bonelli 2 Women Philosophers in Antiquity and the Reshaping of Philosophy �� 17 Katharine R. O’Reilly

Part II The Riddles of Cleobulina of Rhodes 3 Cleobulina of Rhodes and the Philosophical Power of Riddles �� 31 Mariana Gardella Hueso 4 The Riddles of Cleobulina: A Response to Mariana Gardella Hueso’s “Cleobulina of Rhodes and the Philosophical Power of Riddles” �� 47 Anna Potamiti

Part III Women in Plato’s Republic and Statesman 5 What Happened to the Philosopher Queens? On the “Disappearance” of Female Rulers in Plato’s Statesman �� 61 Annie Larivée 6 Women and Childrearing in the Republic �� 91 Emily Fletcher

xvii xviii Contents

Part IV Lucretius on Women’s Sexuality 7 Sexual Freedom and Feminine Pleasure in Lucretius �� 103 Julie Giovacchini 8 An Epicurean Community of Women: A Response to Julie Giovacchini �� 123 Natania Meeker

Part V Bardaisan of Edessa and Alexander of Aphrodisias on Fate, Nature, and Freedom 9 Destiny, Nature and Freedom According to Bardaisan and Alexander of Aphrodisias: An Unknown Aspect of the Controversy Against Determinism �� 133 Izabela Jurasz 10 How to Limit Fatalism? A Comparison Between Alexander of Aphrodisias and Bardaisan �� 161 Isabelle Koch 11 Bardaisan of Edessa on Free Will, Fate, and Nature: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Origen, and Diodore of Tarsus �� 169 Ilaria L. E. Ramelli

Part VI Plotinus and Porphyry on Women 12 Plotinus and Porphyry on Women’s Legitimacy in Philosophy �� 179 Mathilde Cambron-Goulet and François-Julien Côté-Remy 13 Soul, Gender and Hierarchy in Plotinus and Porphyry: A Response to Mathilde Cambron-Goulet and François-Julien Côté-Remy’s “Plotinus and Porphyry on Women’s Legitimacy in Philosophy” �� 201 Jana Schultz 14 Women and Philosophy in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus �� 211 Alexandra Michalewski

Part VII The Concept of Nature in Peter Abelard 15 Abelard’s Homo Intelligitur Puzzle: On the Relation Between Universal Understandings and a World of Singulars �� 221 Roxane Noël 16 Some Further Remarks on Abelard’s Notion of Nature �� 239 Irene Binini Contents xix

Part VIII Robert Kilwardby on Bodily Pain 17 Does Bodily Pain Have an Intentional Character? Robert Kilwardby’s Answer �� 255 Elena Băltuță 18 Scaring Away the Spectre of Equivocation: A Comment �� 267 Sonja Schierbaum

Part IX John Buridan and William Ockham on Craft 19 Is Ars an Intellectual Virtue? John Buridan on Craft �� 275 Aline Medeiros Ramos 20 William Ockham on Craft: Knowing How to Build Houses on the Canadian Shield �� 303 Jenny Pelletier

Part X Eve’s Sin in Isotta Nogarola 21 The Fruit of Knowledge: To Bite or not to Bite? Isotta Nogarola on Eve’s Sin and Its Scholastic Sources �� 321 Marcela Borelli, Valeria A. Buffon, and Natalia G. Jakubecki 22 Why Eve Matters in the History of Feminist Arguments �� 343 Marguerite Deslauriers

Index of Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Names (pre-1600) �� 351

Index of Modern and Contemporary Names (post-1600) �� 355