Skip to Site NavigationSkip to main content
This site works best using the most recent versions of Firefox, IE, Chrome, and Safari. Some features of this site may not display properly if you are using an operating system more than 5 years old, or a browser from a similar era.
Change font: A B Choose the Cantata One font Choose the Dukeplus font
Change style: RRP Accessible Choose default styling Choose accessible styling

The Richard Rufus of Cornwall Project

Preparing Critical Editions of Rufus' Extant Works


An Annotated Select Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources

Primary Sources in Print

Adam de Marisco, Epistolae.
Monumenta Franciscana, ed. J. Brewer, London 1858.

Describes Rufus and his decision to leave Oxford for Paris in 1253. Asks that Fr. Thomas Bacon be appointed Rufus' secretary, adding that many friars are grateful for the opportunity to serve Rufus since he permits them to make private use of the writings they copy for him.

Alexander de Hales, Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum, ed. V. Doucet, G. Gál et al.
Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica 12–15, Quaracchi 1951–1957.

Lists almost 100 citations of Alexander in Rufus' Oxford theology lectures (Sententia Oxoniensis).

__, Quaestiones disputata antequam erat Frater, ed. V. Doucet, G. Gál et al.
Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica 19–21, Quaracchi 1960.

Another source quoted in Rufus' Oxford theology lectures.

Anonymi magistri artium (c. 1245–1250) Lectura in l. De anima, ed. R. Gauthier.
Grottaferrata 1985.

Gauthier shows Richard Rufus' great influence on this author, citing him as Pseudo Peter of Spain.

Anonymi magistri artium (c. 1246–1247) Sententia super II et III De anima (Oxford, Bodleian Libr., Lat. Misc. c. 70, f. 1ra–25b, Roma, Bibl. naz. V.E. 828, f. 46vb, 48ra–52ra), ed. B. Carlos Bazán.
Louvain 1998.

This commentary is less influenced by Rufus than the previous work.

Bartholomaeus Anglicus, De proprietatibus rerum.
Nuremburg 1492.

Cites Rufus' lost In Aristot. Meteora.

Bonaventura, Commentaria in IV libros Sententiarum, Opera omnia I–IV.
Quaracchi 1882–1889.

The most importance influence on Rufus' Parisian theology lectures.

Franciscus de Marchia, Sent., IV d.1 q.1, ed. C. Schabel.
“Francis of Marchia's Virtus derelicta and the Context of Its Development,” Vivarium 44 (2006) 60–80.

Accepts Rufus' views on projectile motion.

Guillelmus Altissiodorensis, Summa aurea, ed. J. Ribaillier.
Paris-Rome 1980.

Member of the commission appointed to expurgate the libri naturales by Gregory IX and an important influence in 13th-c. Paris.

Guillelmus de Auvergne, Opera omnia.
Paris 1674 (reprint Frankfurt am Main 1963).

Bishop of Paris in the first half of the 13th c. More influenced by Avicenna than Aristotle; an important contemporary who may have influenced Rufus.

Ioannis de La Rochelle, Summa de anima, ed. J. Bourgerol.
Paris 1995, Textes Philosophiques du Moyen Age 19.

Holder, like Alexander of Hales of the Franciscan chair in theology at Paris. Contributor to the Summa Halesiana, old-fashioned in his approach to theology.

Philippus Cancellarius Parisiensis, Summa de bono, ed. N. Wicki.
Berne 1985, 2 volumes.

An author whose opinions are frequently cited in Rufus' philosophical works.

Pseudo Petrus Hispanus (Pedro Hispano), Obras Filosoficas III, ed. Manuel Alonso.
Madrid 1952.

Partial and defective edition of Rufus' In Aristot. De anima

Robertus Grosseteste, Commentarius in VIII libros Physicorum Aristot., ed. R. Dales.
Boulder, Colorado, 1963.

Quotes Rufus as “Magister Ricardus” and adopts his argument against the eternity of the world.

__, Commentarius in Posteriorum analyticorum libros, ed. P. Rossi.
Florence 1981.

Oldest surviving Western commentary on Aristotle's Analytica posteriora. Oddly there are few points of contact with Rufus' In Aristot. Analytica posteriora.

__, “De finitate motus et temporis,” ed. R. Dales.
Traditio 19 (1963) 245–266.

This treatise preserves a somewhat different redaction of a text that also appears in Grossesteste's notes on Aristotle's Physics, the section that quotes “Magister Ricardus.”

__, “De libero arbitrio,” ed. N. Lewis.
Mediaeval Studies 53 (1991) 1–88.

First recension of the work that most influenced Rufus' Scriptum in Metaphysicam Aristotelis (SMet).

__, “De luce,” ed. E. Guidubaldi.
Dal “De luce” di R. Grossatesta all'Islamico “Libro della scala.”

Florence 1978. Often useful in trying to understand Rufus' views on light.

__, Hexaemeron, ed. R. C. Dales and S.Gieben.
London 1982.

Also quoted in SMet.

__, Die philosophischen Werke, ed. L. Baur.
Münster 1912.

Complete collection, now available online:

Roger Bacon, Compendium of the Study of Theology, ed. T.S. Maloney.
Leiden 1988.

Information on Rufus' influence.

__, Questiones supra lib. IV Physic., ed. F. Delorme et R. Steele.
Opera hactenus inedita (OHI) 8, Oxford 1928.

Very early Parisian Physics commentary that resembles Rufus' lectures on Aristotle at Paris in its genre.

__, Questiones supra lib. octo Physic., ed. F. Delorme et R. Steele.
in OHI 13, Oxford 1935.

Like Rufus, Bacon refers to works written before he became a Franciscan in an odd fashion, speaking of works written “in another state.”Cites and often disagrees with Rufus.

__, Questiones supra lib. Primae philosophiae, ed. R. Steele et F. Delorme.
in OHI 10, Oxford 1930.

Disagrees with Rufus on Platonic ideas.

Thomas de Eccleston, Tractatus de adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, ed. A. G. Little.
Manchester 1951.

The source of most of the biographical information on Rufus.

Secondary Sources

F. Amerini, “Utrum inhaerentia sit de essentia accidentis. Francis of Marchia and the debate on the Nature of Accidents.”
Vivarium 44 (2006) 97–150.

Describes the interpretative problems presented by Aristotle's teachings on accidents. Amerini distinguishes three schools, the first of which reduces accidents entirely to modes of substance. Notes that Rufus holds (SMet 7.1.Q3–6) that accidents have no nature apart from substance. In fact, Rufus claims further that accidents are unintelligible apart from substance, since we cannot understand them without also understanding substances. Accidents are not entities but modes of being, not true modes of being, but only logical modes. So Rufus seems to be a reductionist, a position held by few according to Amerini.

Barbet, J., “Notes sur le manuscrit 737 de la Bibliothéque municipale de Toulouse.”
Bulletin d'information de l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes 5 (1965) 7–51.

Transcribes 13th-c. table of contents.

Brams, J., “Le premier commentaire médiéval sur le ‘Traité de l'âme’ de Aristote?”
Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 68 (2001) 213–227.

Announces the discovery of a new manuscript of In Aristot. De anima, Florence, BN Conv. soppr. G.iv.853 (F853) by J. De Raedemaeker. Remarks that there are marginal notes attributing it to “Magister Alesander” and to “Alexander Magnus.” Suggests that its attribution to Alexander or to Richard Rufus will be a capitivating question. Remarks that Gauthier did not deny the claim that it was the earliest surviving De anima commentary, only held that Alonso's arguments for the claim were not decisive. Holds mistakenly that collation of F853 and Erfurt, UB, Dep. Erf., CA Q.312 (Q312) shows that Q312 depends on F853 and not vice versa.

Brown, S. F., “The Eternity of the World Discussion at Early Oxford.”
Mensch und Natur im Mittelalter, ed. A. Zimmermann & A. Speer, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 21, Berlin 1991, I: 259–280.

Prints an excerpt from Rufus' Oxford theology lectures, Sent. II d.1 q.1, Balliol 62, ff.103–105.

--. "Translation and Transmission of Greek Philosophy,"
Columbia History of Western Philosophy, New York 1999, pp. 230-244.

On Rufus' assessment of Maimonides' position on the Eternity of the World.

Bauer, R., "Naming Particulars: A Thirteenth-Century Debate on Whether Individuals Have Proper Names,"
Ph.D. Diss., University of Toronto 2015.

Discuses Rufus and seven other Thirteenth-Century philosophers. Notes Rufus' claim that proper nouns are not names properly speaking.

Callus, D., “Two Early Oxford Masters on the Problem of Plurality of Forms: Adam of Buckfield – Richard Rufus of Cornwall.”
Revue neoscolastique de philosophie 42 (1939) 425–429.

Based on his Oxford theology lectures, notes that Rufus raised doubts about the doctrine of plurality of forms.

Catto, J. I., “Theology and Theologians 1220–1320.”
The Early Oxford Schools, Oxford 1984, pp. 471–517.

Describes Rufus as “an independent and eclectic master.”

Crowley, T., Roger Bacon: The Problem of the Soul in His Philosophical Commentaries.
Louvain 1950.

Great study of Bacon's psychology.

Dales, R. C., “The Influence of Grosseteste's Hexaemeron on the Sentences Commentaries of Richard Fishacre, O.P. and Richard Rufus of Cornwall, O.F.M..”
Viator 2 (1971) 270–300.

Establishes that Grosseteste exercised influence in 13th-century Oxford.

De Libera, A., “La littérature des Abstractiones et la tradition logique d'Oxford.”
The Rise of British Logic, ed. O. Lewry, Toronto 1982, pp. 63–114.

Discusses the evidence for identifying Richard Rufus as Richardus Sophista, the Magister Abstractionum.

De Rijk, L., Some Earlier Parisian Tracts on Distinctiones Sophismatum.
Nijmegen 1988, p. xxii.

Establishes the dating of Prague, Metr. Kap. 80, an important SMet manuscript.

DeWitt, R. & Long, J., "Richard Rufus's reformulations of Anselm's Proslogion argument."
International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2007), 329-347.

Rufus "subjects Anselm's argument for God's existence in his Proslogion to the most trenchant criticism since Gaunilon wrote his response on behalf of the `fool'. Anselm's argument is subtle but sophistical, claims Rufus, because he fails to distinguish between signification and supposition."

Donati, S., “The Anonymous on the Physics in Erfurt.”
Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 72 (2005) 232–362.

Views the Sententia Oxoniensis, Scriptum in Metaphysicam Aristotelis (SMet), and the Memoriale in Metaphysicam Aristotelis as certainly by Rufus, but raises doubts about the attribution of In Aristot. Physicam and In Aristot. De anima. Claims that if Rufus wrote both SMet and those works, his lack of consistency would suggest that he was not an insightful thinker. Correctly notes that the marginal citation of Richard in Marchia codex Chigi B.vii.13 is not in the original hand. Claims that it refers to article 2 as a whole on celestial motion, contrary to Wood who refers it only to the last paragraph of article 2, which describes a form that is strictly speaking neither successive nor permanent. See also Schabel, who refers the citation to article 3.

--. "English Commentaries Before Scotus, A Case Study: The Discussion on the Unity of Being,"
A companion to the Latin medieval commentaries on Aristotle's Metaphysics, ed. F. Amerini & G. Galluzzo, pp. 137-207.

Doucet, V., “Prolegomena.”
Summa halesiana IV p.1, Quaracchi 1948, pp. 243–245.

A discussion of Rufus' life and works not rendered obsolete by the works of Raedts or Wood.

Dowden, B., "The Infinite,"
The Internet Encyclopedia, ISSN 2161-0002, 6 November 2016.

"Aristotle said the past is infinite because, for any past time we can imagine an earlier one. It is difficult to make sense of his belief ... After all, the past has an end, namely the present, so its infinity has been completed and therefore is not a potential infinity. This problem with Aristotle’s reasoning was first raised in the 13th century by Richard Rufus of Cornwall. It was not given the attention it deserved because of the assumption for so many centuries that Aristotle couldn’t have been wrong about time."

Ebbesen, S., “Roger Bacon and the Fools of His Times.”
Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen Âge Grec et Latin 3 (1970) 40–44.

Raises problems for the attribution of the Abstractiones to Richard Rufus, since the doctrine Bacon criticizes was espoused by many.

Etchemendy, Matthew X., & Wood, Rega, "Speculum animae: Richard Rufus on Perception and Cognition,"
Franciscan Studies 69 (2011) 53-140.

Gál, G., “Commentarius in Metaphysicam Aristotelis cod. Vat. lat. 4538, fons doctrinae Richardi Rufi.”
Archivum franciscanum historicum 43 (1950) 209–242.

Auguste Pelzer discovered Rufus' Metaphysics commentary and convinced V. Doucet of its authenticity. Doucet turned over the task of researching the attribution to Gál. Gál concluded – prematurely, as he later decided – that it was not a work by Rufus. Rufus' references as a Franciscan theologian to himself as a secular author misled Gál. The article provides a guide to an enormous commentary. It lists the titles of the questions and publishes excerpts.

__, “Opiniones Richardi Rufi Cornubiensis a censore reprobatae.”
Franciscan Studies 35 (1975) 136–193.

Correctly attributes the Metaphysics commentary to Rufus and documents his influence on Scotus. Prints substantial excerpts from the Paris theology lectures as well marginal notes censuring Rufus. Notes Rufus' anticipation of Ockham's views on relations.

__, “Viae ad exsistentiam Dei probandam in doctrina Richardi Rufi.”
Franziskanische Studien 38 (1956) 177–202.

Publishes substantial excerpts from Rufus' Oxford theology lectures and brief excerpts from Assisi 138. Shows that Rufus anticipated both Thomas' criticism of Anselm's Proslogion proof for God's existence and Scotus' modal proof for the existence of God.

Gauthier, R., “Le traité De anima et de potenciis eius.”
Revue des science philosophiques et théologiques 66 (1982) 3–55.

Here Gauthier began the process of revising our assumptions about Parisian Aristotelianism. The treatise he included cites Aristotle and Averroes in the year 1225, considerably earlier than was once believed possible.

__, “Notes sur les débuts [1225–1240] du premier ‘Averroïsme.’ ”
Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 66 (1982) 321–374.

The continuation of the previous article.

__, “Notes sur Siger de Brabant.”
Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 67 (1983) 201–232, 68 (1984) 3–49.

Includes a discussion of various 13th-c. views on the soul, with special reference to the relation between the agent and possible intellect.

Hackett, J., “Roger Bacon and the Reception of Aristotle in the Thirteenth Century.”
Albertus Magnus and the Beginnings of the Medieval Reception of Aristotle in the Latin West: From Richard Rufus to Franiciscus de Mayronis, ed. L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, M. Dreyer, & M. Aris, Münster 2005, pp. 219–247.

Describes Bacon's attack on Rufus' theory of names as Averroist and Rufus as an Averroista.

Henquinet, F. M., “Autour des écrits d'Alexandre de Hales et de Richard Rufus.”
Antonianum 11 (1936) 189–218.

Reviews and corrects Pelster's attributions of minor works to Rufus.

___, "Un recueil de questions annoté par S. Bonaventure,"
Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 25 (1932) 553-555.

Notes that Bonaventure annotated Assisi, Sacro convento 138, a collection of questions by Robert Grosseteste, Adam Marsh, Richard Rufus, and a number of Parisian masters on subjects treated in Lombard's Sentences. Henquinet thinks it was probably transcribed for Bonaventure's use.

Karger, E., “Richard Rufus as a Source for Albertus Magnus.”
Albertus Magnus and the Beginnings of the Medieval Reception of Aristotle in the Latin West: From Richard Rufus to Franiciscus de Mayronis, ed. L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, M. Dreyer, & M. Aris, Münster 2005, pp. 425–453.

Describes Albert's use of Rufus' account of universals: “ Albert composed the chapter of his Metaphysica which deals with the question of how a quiddity relates to the individuals of which it is the quiddity by borrowing entire sections from the chapter of Rufus's Scriptum in Metaphysicam Aristotelis where Rufus deals with the same question. In so doing, however, he ... seriously alters the sense of the original.

__, “Richard Rufus on Naming Substances.”
Medieval Philosophy and Theology 7 (1998) 51–67.

Describes the development of Rufus' metaphysical views from the painstaking reconstruction of Aristotelian naming theory found in MMet to “a striking example of ‘Christian Aristotelianism’.”

__, “Richard Rufus's Account of Substantial Transmutation.”
Medioevo 27 (2002) 168–191.

Describes Rufus' theory of substantial transformation based on a metaphysics which posits incomplete beings,which reconciles Augustine with Aristotle. The view was adopted by Bonaventure, Albert the Great, and Roger Marston, but criticized by Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, and John Duns Scotus.

Ker, N. R., “From ‘Above Top line’ to ‘Below top line’, a change in scribal practice.”
Celtica 5 (1960) 13–16.

An important criterion for dating Rufus manuscripts before or after 1250.

__, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books.
2nd ed., London 1964, p. 10.

Indicates that Oxford New College 285 once belonged to the Franciscan library at Hereford.

Köpf, U., Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13. Jahrhundert.
Tübingen 1974.

Describes as unparalleled Rufus' claims for the sufficiency of Scripture as theology.

Künzle, P., Das Verhältnis der Seele zu ihren Potenzen.
Freiburg 1956.

Describes Rufus' position on the relation between the agent and possible intellect as stated in his Oxford commentary. Also surveys the history of the controversy until the time of Aquinas.

Lagerlund, H., "Introduction,"
The Terminological and Conceptual Roots of Representation in the Soul in Late Ancient and Medieval Philosophy. Aldershot 2007.

Rufus on ideas.

N. Lewis, "Robert Grosseteste and Richard Rufus of Cornwall on Unequal Infinites," in Robert Grosseteste: His Thought and Impact, ed. J. Cunningham, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 21, Toronto, 2012, pp. 227-256.“

Lewry, O., “Oxford Logic 1250–1275: Nicholas and Peter of Cornwall on Past and Future Realities.”
The Rise of British Logic, ed. O. Lewry, Toronto 1982, pp. 63–114.

Describes Rufus' influence on thirteenth-century British logic.

Little, A. G., “The Franciscan School at Oxford in the Thirteenth Century.”
Archivum franciscanum historicum 19 (1926) 842–845.

Basic biographical information on Rufus, by the foremost historian of the early Franciscan Order in this century.

Little, A. G., and F. Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians.
Oxford 1934.

Describes Balliol 62 as “the highest point of accuracy ... met in scholastic manuscripts.”

Long, R. J., “The First Oxford Debate on the Eternity of the World.”
Recherches de philosophie et théologie médiévales 65 (1998) 54–98.

Describes Rufus' defense of Robert Grosseteste and his attack on Richard Fishacre.

__, “Of Angels and Pinheads: The Contributions of the Early Oxford Masters to the Doctrine of Spiritual Matter.”
Franciscan Studies 56 (1998) 239–254.

Maier, A., Zwei Grundprobleme der scholastischen Naturphilosophie.
Rome 1968.

Notes that Bacon rejected impetus theory but left his opponent unidentified.

Noone, T., An Edition and Study of the Scriptum super Metaphysicam, bk. 12, dist. 2: A Work Attributed to Richard Rufus of Cornwall.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1987.

Correctly attributes the Metaphysics to Rufus, citing Leonard Boyle. Conducts a sustained argument against Raedts who disputed the attribution. Publishes substantial portions of the commentary on Lambda. Incorrectly raises doubts about the authenticity of the Oxford theology lectures preserved in Balliol 62. Assuming that that work is inauthentic, Noone speculates on the time and place the Scriptum was written. Opts for Oxford in the 1240s. So far only Noone has expressed reservations about the authenticity of the Oxford lectures.

__, “Richard Rufus of Cornwall and the Authorship of the Scriptum super Metaphysicam.”
Franciscan Studies 49 (1989) 55–91.

Reproduces the dissertation's biographical discussion.

__, “Richard Rufus on Creation, Divine Immutability, and Future Contingency in the Scriptum super Metaphysicam.
Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 4 (1993) 1–23.

__, “Roger Bacon and Richard Rufus on Aristotle's Metaphysics.
Vivarium 35 (1997) 251–265.

Noone, T., and R. J. Long, “Fishacre and Rufus on the Metaphysics of Light: Two Unedited Texts.”
Roma, magistra mundi: Itineraria culturae medievalis: Mélanges offerts au pére L. E. Boyle à l'occasion de son 75e anniversaire, ed. J. Hamesse, Textes et études du moyen âge 10, Louvain-la-Neuve 1998, 2: 517–548.

Normore, C., “The Matter of Thought.”
In Representation and Objects of Thought in Medieval Philosophy, ed. H. Lagerlund, Aldershot 2007, pp. 117–133.

Normore traces modern disputes about the nature of thought (think Chisholm vs. Sellars)... Since Aristotelians assume that understanding or thought requires that the mind take on the form it thinks, the question is what purity requires. ... Aquinas embraced the second alternative ... By contrast Richard Rufus rejected the dilemma... the mind can take them on, and the mind can understand itself by understanding its own idea or species.

Pattin, A., “Le commentaire de Richard Rufus de Cornwall sur la Métaphysique d'Aristote (probablement vers 1250).”
Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 44 (2002) 97–105.

Dated in the text of the article as “probablement du XIIIe siècle.” Includes an edition of part of the first question in SMet based on two of the four surviving manuscripts, together with a number of useful notes.

Pelster, F., “Die älteste Abkürzung und Kritik vom Sentenzkommentar des hl. Bonaventura.”
Gregorianum 17 (1936) 195–223.

Second major work rediscovered, the Parisian theology lectures. Notes Rufus' anticipation of Scotus' formal distinction.

__, “Der Älteste Sentenzenkommentar aus der Oxforder Franziskanerschule.”
Scholastik 1 (1926) 50–80.

First major work rediscovered, the Oxford theology lectures. Establishes that Rufus was the author of the first surviving Oxford Sentences commentary by a bachelor of theology.

__, “Neue Schriften des englischen Franziskaners Richardus Rufus von Cornwall.”
Scholastik 8 (1933) 561–568.

Announces the discovery of “De intellectu divino” and other minor works in Assisi 138.

__, “Richardus Rufus Anglicus O.F.M. (c. 1250), ein Vorläufer des Duns Scotus in der Lehre von der Wirkung der priesterlichen Lossprechung.”
Scholastik 25 (1950) 549–552.

Notes Rufus' influence on Scotus.

Plevano, R., “Richard Rufus of Cornwall and Geoffrey of Aspall: Two Questions on the Instant of Change.”
Medioevo 19 (1993) 167–232.

A good discussion of Rufus on the instant of change, based on a minor work. Edits Toulouse 737, fol. 158.

__, “Two British Masters and the Instant of Change.”
Aristotle in Britain during the Middle Ages, Proceedings of the International Conference of Cambridge (Trinity College, April 8th–11th, 1994), organized under the Auspices of the Société Internationale pour l'Etude de la Philosophie Médiévale, ed. J. Marenbon, Rencontre de philosophie médiévale 5,Turnhout 1996, pp. 91–116.

Compares Rufus with Geoffrey of Aspall.

Raedts, P., Richard Rufus of Cornwall and the Tradition of Oxford Theology.
Oxford 1987.

A survey of the literature on Rufus' life and works, this book deals chiefly with Rufus' Oxford lectures. Compares Rufus with Richard Fishacre and Robert Grosseteste and shows his independence of them. Shows the care Rufus took not to take credit for Bonaventure's views. Excellent codicology.

Rudavsky, T., "Divine Omniscence and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosopy,"
Divine Omniscence and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy, ed. T. Dusavsky, Dordrecht 2009, pp. 161-181.

Rufus, and Bonaventure following Rufus, reject the distinction between God's abolute and ordained power on the grounds that acting inordinately is not a power, just as being able to sin is not a power. Discussion based on excerpts quoted by G. Gál.

Schabel, “Francis of Marchia's Virtus derelicta and the Context of Its Development.”
Vivarium 44 (2006) 60–80.

Rejects the claim that the marginal citation of Bonaventure and Richard in Chigi B.vii.13 refers to Richard Rufus. Holds that it refers to Richard Middleton instead and a discussion of sacramental efficacy. Expresses concern about taking “away from Marchia his most famous idea.” Holds that the attribution of In Physicam Aristotelis to Rufus “must be stronger if we are to rewrite th history of the reception of Aristotle's Physics in the West.”

Synan, E., “The ‘Introitus ad sententias’ of Roger Nottingham, O. F. M..”
Mediaeval Studies 25 (1963) 259–279.

Circa 1350, the last known reference to one of Rufus' works before the 20th-c. Cites Rufus, Sent. Oxon. I d.44 q.2, an argument that sin does diminish the pulchritude of the universe, from the Oxford theology lectures.

Vijgen, Jörgen, “The Status of Eucharistic Accidents ‘sine subiecto’”
An Historical Survey up to Thomas Aquinas and Selected Reactions, Berlin 2013.

Discusses Rufus' position on the claim that the accidents that remain after Eucharistic consecration can exist without inhering in a subject. This study treat the position stated in Rufus' Sententiae Parisienses as it relates both to Aquinas and to the debate in the 12th century, starting with Berengar of Tours and including the early theological Summae.

Wallace, W., Prelude to Galileo.
Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht 1981.

Documents Galileo's reliance on Antonius Menu and others for his early notebooks.

Weisberg, M., and R. Wood, “Richard Rufus's Theory of Mixture: A Medieval Explanation of Chemical Combination.”
Chemical Explanation: Characteristics, Development, Autonomy, ed. J. E. Earley, Sr., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 988, New York 2003, 282–292.

Wood, R., “Angelic Individuation: According to Richard Rufus, St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas.”
Individuum und Individualität in Mittelalter, ed. A. Speer, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 24, Berlin 1996, pp. 209–229.

Illustrates Bonaventure's borrowing from Rufus, compares Rufus with Aquinas.

__, “Causality and Demonstration: An Early Scholastic Posterior Analytics Commentary.
with R. Andrews, Monist 79 (1996) 325–356.

Announces the discovery of the commentary, publishes an excerpt. The surviving fragment is now available on line: In Aristot. Analytica posteriora.

__, “Distinct Ideas and Perfect Solicitude: Alexander of Hales, Richard Rufus, and Odo Rigaldus.
Franciscan Studies 53 (1993) 7–46.

A discussion of Rufus and his contemporaries on ideas. Publishes an excerpt from Odo illustrating Rufus' influence.

__, “The Earliest Known Surviving Metaphysics Commentary.”
Medieval Philosophy and Theology 7 (1998) 39–49.

Reports the discovery of the commentary, dates it, and establishes its authenticity.

__, “Early Oxford Theology.”
Mediaeval Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard: Current Research, ed. G. R. Evans, Leiden 2002, 1: 289–343.

__, “The Influence of Islamic Aristotelianism.”
The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, ed. R. Pasnau, forthcoming.

Illustrates the decisive but different character of the influence of Avicenna and Averroes on Scholasticism. Rufus appears in the section on elemental composition.

__, “Individual Forms: Richard Rufus and John Duns Scotus.”
John Duns Scotus: Metaphysics and Ethics, ed. L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, & M. Dreyer, Leiden 1996, pp. 251–272.

Compares Rufus and Scotus on individuation. Notes Rufus' anticipation of Scotus on individual forms.

__, “Interpreting Aristotle on Mixture: Problems about Elemental Composition from Philoponus to Cooper.”
with M. Weisberg, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20 (2004) 681–706.

Compares Rufus' account of elemental composition favorably with those of Philoponus, Avicenna, Averroes, and Cooper. Draws on Rufus, In Aristot. De generatione et corruptione.

__, “Richard Rufus: Physics at Paris before 1240.”
Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica 5 (1994) 87–127.

Describes Rufus' discussion of place. Trying to answer the question how the heavens can be in a place, Rufus argues that in its most general sense place indicates a fixed relation of a surface to the center of the earth. Compares Rufus with Grosseteste, Bacon, and Aquinas.

__, “Richard Rufus and Aristotle's Physics.”
Franciscan Studies 52 (1992) 247–281.

Presents the evidence for attributing the Physics commentary preserved in Erfurt, Quarto 312, to Rufus; publishes his account of projectile motion.

__, “Richard Rufus and English Scholastic Discussion of Individuation.”
Aristotle in Britain during the Middle Ages, Proceedings of the International Conference of Cambridge (Trinity College, April 8th–11th, 1994) Organized under the Auspices of the Société Internationale pour l'Etude de la Philosophie Médiévale, ed. J. Marenbon, Rencontre de philosophie médiévale 5, Turnhout 1996, pp. 117–143.

Shows the influence of Rufus' theories of individuation..

__, “Richard Rufus and the Classical Tradition: A Medieval Defense of Plato.”
Néoplatonisme et philosophie médiévale: Actes du Colloque international de Corfou 6–8 octobre 1995 organisé par la Société Internationale pour l'étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, ed. L. G. Benakis, Rencontres de philosophie médiévale 6, Turnhout 1997, pp. 229–251.

__, “Richard Rufus' De anima Commentary: The Earliest Known, Surviving, Western De anima Commentary.”
Medieval Philosophy and Theology 10 (2001) 119–156.

Explains the attribution.

__, “Richard Rufus of Cornwall.”
A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. J. Gracia and T. Noone, Oxford 2003, pp. 579–587.

A general introduction.

__, “Richard Rufus on Creation: The Reception of Aristotle's Physics in the West.”
Medieval Philosophy and Theology 2 (1992) 7–30.

Discusses the development of Rufus' views on the eternity of the world from 1235 to 1255. Describes Rufus' version of the argument Kant presents in his “First Antinomy of Pure Reason.”

__, “Richard Rufus' Response to Saint Abelard.”
Anselm and Abelard: Investigations and Juxtapositions, ed. G. Gaspar and H. Kohenberger, Toronto 2006, pp. 87–102.

Describes the intricacies of Rufus' arguments against Anselm's ‘Ontological’ Proof.

__, “Richard Rufus' Speculum animae: Epistemology and the Introduction of Aristotle in the West.”
Die Bibliotheca Amploniana, ed. A. Speer, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 23, Berlin 1995, pp. 86–109.

First study of Rufus' epistemology, also announces a new work.

__, “Richard Rufus' Significance in the Western Scientific Tradition.”
Albertus Magnus and the Beginnings of the Medieval Reception of Aristotle in the Latin West: From Richard Rufus to Franciscus de Mayronis, ed. L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, M. Dreyer, and Marc-Aeilko Aris, Münster 2005, pp.455–489.

Describes the introduction of Aristotle's metaphysics and natural philosophy as the introduction of a scientific paradigm or as the adoption of consensus practice. Discusses the different reactions to three challenges to Aristotelian natural philosophy Rufus presented. The immediate success of his defense of Christian creationism is contrasted with gradual acceptance of his views on place, on the one hand, and, on the other, the long term resistance to his account of projectile motion encountered.

__, “Roger Bacon: Richard Rufus' Successor as a Parisian Physics Professor.”
Vivarium 35 (1997) 222–250.

Explains Bacon's opposition to Rufus.

__, “The Works of Richard Rufus of Cornwall: The State of the Question in 2008.”
Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 76 (2009) 1–73.

Replies to the article Donati published in 2005.

Zimmermann, A., “Some Aspects of the Reception of Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics in the Thirteenth Century.”
Ad litteram, ed. M. Jordan and K. Emery, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1992, pp. 217–227.

Discusses Rufus on the subject of metaphysics. Calls attention to Bacon's use of Rufus' Metaphysics commentary. Notes Rufus' use of symbols, an early instance of the argumentatio in terminis common in the fourteenth-century.