Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Marco Sgarbi

Versoris, Johannes

  • Christophe GeudensEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_572-2


Johannes Versoris (probably died after 1482) was a Master of Arts active at the University of Paris in the fifteenth century. He wrote a number of influential commentaries on the corpus Aristotelicum, Peter of Spain’s Summulae logicales, and Thomas Aquinas’s De ente et essentia which were frequently reprinted between 1480 and 1500, especially in Cologne. Since Versoris’s commentary work bears traces of both Thomist and Albertist thought, the question of his relation to the contemporary schools of thought is highly controversial and as yet unresolved.


Fifteenth Century Parisian Scholar Realist Philosopher Metaphysical Notion Corporeal Substance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Alternate Names

Johannes Versor; Johannes Versorius; Jean Le Tourneur (flourished c. 1435–1458)


Little is known about the life of Johannes Versoris, a realist philosopher and celebrated commentator on Aristotle who taught at the University of Paris during the fifteenth century. Although generally called “Versor” in the scholarly literature, there is some evidence that his actual name might have been “Versoris” (that is, “son of Versor” or Le Tourneur) – at least that is how he is referred to in Parisian documents of the time, and this spelling also appears on his (undated) epitaph. The name Versoris first crops up in 1435, when he is mentioned as a Master of Arts in a document pertaining to the Norman nation (natio Normannorum) of the University of Paris. Since at Paris students were supposed to have reached the age of twenty before the title of magister artium could be conferred, it is reasonable to conjecture that Versoris was born around 1410. In 1449 the Arts Faculty proposed him as rector of the Paris studium, but he refused the post; when in 1458 his name was put forward again, this time he accepted. Information on the activities and whereabouts of Versoris after his rectorate is scarce: it is only in 1478 that the Paris documents again mention a certain Johannes Versoris, who, however, is referred to as a Master of Arts not in the natio Normannorum but in the natio Picardorum, the Picardian nation. It is not impossible, nevertheless, that these notices concern one and the same person – and scholars generally assume that they do – although this cannot be proven. If this identification is correct, Versoris probably spent his entire career teaching at the Paris Arts Faculty and may have died after 1482, as the last reference to the Picardian Versoris occurs in this year.

As part of his teaching activity at Paris, Versoris composed commentaries on nearly the entire Aristotelian corpus (although the attribution of some commentaries is problematic, pace Flüeler 1994: 80–84), the Summulae logicales by the thirteenth-century logician Peter of Spain (Versoris 1981) and Thomas Aquinas’s De ente et essentia (Versoris 1486) – in total, his writings are preserved in some 180 manuscripts (Seńko 1958/1959). Versoris is also said to have been the author of a commentary on the Ars minor by the ancient grammarian Donatus, although this attribution is probably spurious (Kneepkens 2004; Versoris 1489). His expositions of Aristotle enjoyed a certain popularity at the University in Paris, from where they spread to Cologne, Prague, and Cracow during the second half of the fifteenth century (Markowski 1968; Kuksewicz 1973; Šmahel 1980). All of his commentaries were printed multiple times before the turn of the century, mostly in Cologne (Rhodes 1970; Lohr 1971: 290–299). Risse (1965: 282) counted 23 editions of his commentary on Peter of Spain between 1473 and 1639, which makes Versoris “the most popular commentator” on Peter’s Summulae of the era (Ashworth 2008: 621). His questions on Aristotle’s physical works and Thomas’s De ente et essentia were even translated into Hebrew by the Spanish Jewish scholastic Eli Habillo in the course of the 1470s (Rothschild 1994).

It is unclear whether Versoris ever held a position at the University of Cologne. Despite lack of proof, older studies generally assume that he did (De Wulf 1925; Meersseman 1935; Weiler 1962). Yet his name does not appear in the acts or matriculation lists of the university (Weijers 2003), and contemporaries consistently refer to Versoris as a Parisian scholar (Parisiensis). It seems unlikely, therefore, that he was ever actively engaged in teaching at one of the Cologne bursae, although it has been suggested that he was on good terms with the Cologne Masters of Arts, especially those affiliated to the Thomist Bursa Corneliana and Bursa Montana (Meuthen 1988: 185; Tewes 1993: 189–190). This could account for the fact that Versoris’s commentaries on Aristotle and Peter of Spain were printed no fewer than thirty times in Cologne during the 1480s and 1490s (Corsten 1981). It has also been suggested, moreover, that sometime during the heydays of his academic career, Versoris stayed in the Iberian peninsula. This hypothesis, though controversial, could account for the fact that the aforementioned Spaniard ‘Eli Habilio in the preface to his translation of Versoris’s commentary on the Physics refers to the Parisian scholar’s name in such a familiar wording that it suggests a personal acquaintance. Moreover, in the Hebrew chronic Shebet Yehudah (c. 1510), one finds the curious reference to a certain king Alfonso (possibly Alfonso V, King of Portugal between 1438 and 1481, or Alfonso V, King of Aragon between 1416 and 1458) who addressed a series of questions on the trustworthiness of Jews to a savant called Weyrśōrīś. Given the present state of our knowledge on Versoris’s life, it is impossible to determine whether this reference actually concerns our Parisian philosopher or not. Whatever the case, Versoris’s commentaries were well known in this part of Europe, and the numerous manuscripts of Versoris’s works that are still preserved in Spanish libraries today testify to this popularity (Rothschild 2013: 309–314).


A fifteenth-century Master of Arts, Versoris taught during a period which was marked by the formation of the so-called schools of thought. In Versoris’s Parisian setting, Thomism flourished and Albertism was gaining influence under the impulse of Johannes de Nova Domo (†1418), while nominalism was in decline (eventually to be banned by a royal decree in 1474). Given this predominantly realist milieu, it is hardly surprising that Versoris set himself up as a proponent of the via antiqua, the realist school of thought associated with followers of Thomas and Albert. Yet the question of which type of realist philosophy Versoris adhered to (and especially his predilection for Thomism or Albertism) is a controversial one. Ever since Prantl (1870: 220–221), Versoris has generally been regarded as a Thomist philosopher and logician, although it seems closer to the truth and more in accordance with contemporary testimonies to characterize him as an eclectic thinker – indeed, his pupil Dominique of Flanders may have listed him among the adherents of Thomism, but he added that Versoris occasionally embraced the teachings of Albert the Great (sed Albertizabat - see Mahieu 1942: 22; Lohr 1971: 290). Matters are further complicated by the fact that Versoris himself, unlike many of his contemporaries (such as Heymeric de Campo or Arnold of Tongeren, two convinced Albertists), never explicitly expressed his loyalty to either Thomas or Albert. As regards his ideas on physics and moral philosophy (see Versoris 1484, 1967a), there is consensus that Versoris was heavily indebted to Thomas (Birkenmajer 1925; Sère 2007; Saarinen 2011; Müller 2016). This also holds true for his interpretation of the Metaphysics (Versoris 1967b; Bakker 2014). The situation is less clear, however, in his commentaries on the Organon (Versoris 1967c, 1967d). Bos (2002) emphasized Versoris’s Albertism in his questions on the Categories; Rutten (2005: 323), mainly on the basis of Versoris’s explanations of the logica vetus, described his doctrinal profile as “indistinct and at best a blurred form of Thomism” and insisted that in his own time he was seen as an authority in his own right rather than a representative of either movement. This is in line with the interpretation by Krause (1991: 520), who suggested the possibility of “Versorism” as a distinctive subcurrent of Thomism.

It can easily be seen why the question of Versoris’s relation to Albert and Thomas causes so many difficulties, since Versoris’s balancing of the interpretations of both realist philosophers may be considered a guiding thread leading through his oeuvre, and at different occasions he appears to align himself quite randomly with either of them. The following examples may suffice to demonstrate this point. In his commentary on the Isagoge, Versoris (1967d: f. 21r-v) briefly touches upon the problem of incipient forms (inchoatio formae), a question related to Aristotle’s discussion of the principles of form, matter, and privation (see Physics I.9, 192a16-34). Briefly put, the problem of inchoatio formae concerns the question of whether or not matter contains some innate aptitude for receiving a particular form. Albert answered this question in the positive, Thomas in the negative. Versoris himself closely paraphrases Albert’s text and merely points out that Thomas held a different opinion. However, when discussing the same issue in his commentary on the Physics, Versoris rejects Albert’s view in favor of the opinion held by Thomas (see Rutten 2005: 304–312 for discussion). The same pattern can be discerned in Versoris’s account of substance and being, as expressed mainly in his commentaries on the logica vetus and Thomas’s De ente et essentia. As regards the notion of substance, discussed in his commentary on the Categories (Versoris 1967d: f. 30r), Versoris embraces the explanation of Albert that this term entails a threefold meaning: (a) the metaphysical notion of essence, (b) the logical notion of the first thing predicable, and (c) individual substance (Bos 2002: 71–73). Furthermore, in his commentary on the Isagoge, he equally agrees with Albert when he claims that a universal should be understood in terms of the forma totius and has, moreover, a threefold mode of being: ante rem, in re, and post rem (Versoris 1967d: ff. 7v-14r; Rutten 2007: 129–132). However, when Versoris, in his commentary on De ente et essentia (Versoris 1486: sig. D5v), discusses the notion of being (esse) as composed of essence (esse essentiae) and existence (esse existentiae), he aligns himself with the interpretation of St. Thomas that actual existence really (realiter) differs from essence and merely notes that Albert holds the opposite opinion (Riesco Terrero 1960; Krause 1991: 510). As regards the principle of individuation, which is also discussed in the commentary on De ente et essentia (Versoris 1486: sig. D1v), Versoris agrees with Thomas that signate matter accounts for the numerical distinction of corporeal substances; he rejects the opinions held by Giles of Rome and Albert, who explained individuation in terms of quantity and matter respectively (Krause 1991: 514–515; Rutten 2005: 316–319).

As a possible solution to the problem of Versoris’s doctrinal inclination, Rutten (2005: 319–324) suggested that Versoris’s predilection for either Albert or Thomas is related to the specific work he was commenting on. In the case of the Isagoge or Categories, for example, he had no choice but to follow Albert, since Thomas never composed a commentary on these works. When he did have a choice, however, it appears that he decidedly embraced the interpretations of the doctor angelicus (see the examples from the Physics or De ente et essentia explained above). This could also account for the fact that, when Versoris paraphrases the explanations of Albert and notes a difference of opinion between Albert and Thomas, he never proves Thomas wrong – in some instances he even he even refers to the opinion held by the Albertistae, which implies that he did not consider himself as one of them (Rutten 2005: 314).

Since Versoris was a university teacher whose entire oeuvre consists of questions, paraphrases and summaries of school authors, the question of the originality of his thought is perhaps not the correct one to ask. Medieval or early modern school teachers were not supposed to be original. Rather, they were supposed to explain the texts prescribed by the university statutes and render these texts intelligible by making use of a fixed set of commentators who were considered authoritative. Versoris’s popularity, therefore, was not based on the fact that his commentaries contained some original insights into, or elaborations on, the matter he explained (although in some cases they do, see Bakker 2014: 611–612), but instead on his ability to present interpretations excerpted from the great philosophers of previous ages in a synoptic, lucid, and accessible way. As a compiler and interpreter, Versoris was, together with the Scotist Petrus Tartaretus and the nominalist George of Brussels, one of the most successful of his time.



Primary Literature

  1. Versoris, Johannes. 1484. Glossulae in Aristotelis philosophiae naturalis libros. Toulouse: Heinrich Mayer [commentary on Aristotle’s Physica, De coelo et mundo, De generatione et corruptione, Meteora, De anima and Parva naturalia].Google Scholar
  2. Versoris, Johannes. 1486. Quaestiones super De ente et essentia sancti Thomae de Aquino. Köln: Heinrich Quentell.Google Scholar
  3. *Versoris, Johannes. 1489. Commentum super Donatum Minorem. Heidelberg: Friedrich Misch.Google Scholar
  4. Versoris, Johannes. 1491. In libros Economicorum. Köln: Heinrich Quentell [edition of the first book in Anna Słomczyńska. 1986. Ab Henrico de Oyta usque ad Georgium lignicensem quinque commentariorum in Aristotelis Economica conscriptorum editio. Medievalia philosophica polonorum 28: 70–94].Google Scholar
  5. Versoris, Johannes. 1492. Libri Politicorum Aristotelis cum commento multum utili et compendioso magistri Johannis Versoris. Köln: Heinrich Quentell [extracts of third book edited by Martin Grabmann. 1941. Die mittelalterlichen Kommentare zur Politik des Aristoteles. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung 10: 5–78].Google Scholar
  6. Versoris, Johannes. 1967a. Quaestiones super libros Ethicorum Aristotelis. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva Verlag [reprint of 1494 Cologne edition].Google Scholar
  7. Versoris, Johannes. 1967b. Quaestiones super Metaphysicam Aristotelis. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva Verlag [reprint of 1494 Cologne edition].Google Scholar
  8. Versoris, Johannes. 1967c. Quaestiones super omnes libros novae logicae. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva Verlag [reprint of 1494 Cologne edition].Google Scholar
  9. Versoris, Johannes. 1967d. Quaestiones super totam veterem artem Aristotelis. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva Verlag [reprint of 1494 Cologne edition].Google Scholar
  10. Versoris, Johannes. 1981. Petri Hispani Summulae logicales cum Versorii Parisiensis clarissima expositione. Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms [reprint of 1572 Venice edition].Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Ashworth, Earline J. 2008. Developments in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In Handbook of the history of logic. Volume 2: Mediaeval and renaissance logic, ed. Dov M. Gabbay and John Woods, 609–643. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker, Paul J.J.M. 2014. Fifteenth-century Parisian commentaries on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In A companion to the Latin medieval commentaries on Aristotle’s “Metaphysics”, ed. Fabrizio Amerini and Gabriele Galluzzo, 575–629. Leiden-Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  3. Birkenmajer, Aleksander. 1925. Die Wiegendrucke der physischen Werke Johannes Versors. In Bok- och bibliotekshistoriska studier tillagnade Isak Collijn pa hans 50-arsdag, ed. Axel Nelson, 121–135. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  4. Bos, Egbert P. 2002. John Versor’s Albertism in his commentaries on Porphyry and the Categories. In Chemins de la pensée médiévale. Études offertes a Zénon Kaluza, ed. Paul J.J.M. Bakker, 47–78. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
  5. Corsten, Severin. 1981. Universität und Buchdruck in Köln. Versuch eines Überblicks für das 15. Jahrhundert. In Buch und Text im 15. Jahrhundert. Arbeitsgespräch in der Herzog-August-Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel vom 1. bis 3. März 1978, ed. Lotte Hellinga and Helmar Härtel, 189–201. Hamburg: Hauswedell.Google Scholar
  6. De Wulf, M. 1925. Histoire de la philosophie médiévale II: De Thomas d’Aquin jusqu’à la fin du Moyen Âge. Louvain: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
  7. Flüeler, Christoph. 1994. Die verschiedenen literarischen Gattungen der Aristoteleskommentare: Zur Terminologie der Überschriften und Kolophone. In Manuels, programmes de cours et techniques d’enseignement dans les universités médiévales. Actes du colloque international de Louvain-la-Neuve (9–11 septembre 1993), ed. Hamesse Jacqueline, 75–116. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
  8. Kneepkens, C.H. 2004. Some notes on the revival of modistic linguistics in the fifteenth century: Ps.-Johannes Versor and William Zenders of Weert. In John Buridan and beyond. Topics in the language sciences, 1300–1700, ed. Russell L. Friedman and Sten Ebbesen, 69–120. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
  9. Krause, Feliks. 1991. La structure ontique des substances séparées chez Jean Versor. In Historia Philosophiae Medii Aevi. Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, ed. Burkhard Mojsisch and Olaf Pluta, 489–520. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: B.R. Grüner.Google Scholar
  10. Kuksewicz, Zdzisław. 1973. Albertyzm i tomizm w XV wieku w Krakowie i Kolonii. Doktryna psychologiczna. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
  11. Lohr, Charles H. 1971. Medieval Latin Aristotle commentaries. Authors: Johannes de Kanthi-Myngodus. Traditio 27: 251–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mahieu, Léon. 1942. Dominique de Flandre (XVe or XV e siècle). Sa métaphysique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  13. Markowski, M. 1968. Nauki wyzwolone i filozofia na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Studia mediewistyczne 9: 91–115.Google Scholar
  14. Meersseman, Gilles G. 1935. Geschichte des Albertismus. Heft II: Die ersten Kölner Kontroversen. Roma: Institutum historicum FF. Praedicatorum.Google Scholar
  15. Meuthen, Erich. 1988. Kölner Universitätsgeschichte I: Die alte Universität. Köln/Wien: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Müller, Jörn. 2016. Der Kommentar zur Nikomachischen Ethik von Johannes Versor (†1485). Ein Beitrag zur Thomistischen Schulbildung. In Ethik und Politik des Aristoteles in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Christoph Strosetzki, 93–122. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  17. Prantl, Carl. 1870. Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande. Vierter Band. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
  18. Rhodes, Dennis E. 1970. Two fifteenth-century editions of Johannes Versor. Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 45: 89–96.Google Scholar
  19. Riesco Terrero, José. 1966. El ser en la metafisica de Juan Versoris. Salmanticensis 13: 373–384.Google Scholar
  20. Risse, Wilhelm. 1965. Bibliographia logica. Verzeichnis der Druckschriften zur Logik mit Angabe ihrer Fundorte, vol. 1, 1472–1800. Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
  21. Rothschild, Jean-Pierre. 1994. Questions de philosophie soumises par ‘Eli Habilio à Šem Tob ibn Šem Tob, v. 1472. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 61: 105–132.Google Scholar
  22. Rothschild, Jean-Pierre. 2013. Les deux portraits d’un maître latin dans la littérature hébraïque: Johannes Versoris (Jean Le Tourneur), son oeuvre traduite par ‘Eli Habilio (Aragon, années 1470) et son personnage (imaginaire?) chez Salomon Ibn Verga (av. 1508/1520). In Portraits de maîtres offerts à Olga Weijers, ed. Claire Angotti, Monica Brînzei and Mariken Teeuwen, 309–324. Turnhout: Brepols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rutten, Pepijn. 2005. Secundum processum et mentem Versoris: John Versor and his relation to the schools of thought reconsidered. Vivarium 43: 292–336.Google Scholar
  24. Rutten, Pepijn. 2007. Duae opiniones probabiles: Der Kölner Wegestreit und seine Verbreitung an den Universitäten des 15. Jahrhunderts. In University, Council, City. Intellectual Culture on the Rhine (1300–1550), ed. Laurent Cesalli, Nadja Germann and Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, 113–134. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
  25. Saarinen, Risto. 2011. Weakness of will in renaissance and reformation thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Seńko, Władysław. 1958/1959. Les manuscrits des commentaires d’Armand de Bellovisu, de Gérard de Monte et de Jean Versor sur le De ente et essentia de St. Thomas d’Aquin. Mediaevalia philosophica Polonorum 2: 13–18, 3:7–16.Google Scholar
  27. Sère, Bénédicte. 2007. Penser l’amitié au Moyen Âge. Étude historique des commentaires sur les livres VIII et IX de l’Éthique à Nicomaque (XIII e -XV e siècle). Turnhout: Brepols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Šmahel, František. 1980. Paris und Prag um 1450. Johannes Versor und seine böhmische Schule. Studia zródloznawcze 25: 65–77.Google Scholar
  29. Tewes, Götz-Rüdiger. 1993. Die Bursen der Kölner Artisten-Fakultät bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Köln/Wien: Böhlau Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weijers, Olga. 2003. Le travail intellectuel à la Faculté des arts de Paris: textes et maîtres (ca. 1200–1500). V: Répertoire des noms commençant par J (suite: à partir de Johannes D.). Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
  31. Weiler, Anton G. 1962. Heinrich von Gorkum (†1431). Seine Stellung in der Philosophie und der Theologie des Spätmittelalters. Hilversum: P. Brand.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArtsKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Section editors and affiliations

  • Paul Richard Blum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLoyola University MarylandBaltimoreUSA