318
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ARTICLES

THE FATE OF COMMENTARY IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SCHOOLS, C.1550–1640

Pages 519-536 | Published online: 05 Oct 2012
 

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank conference audiences in Amsterdam, Cambridge and Leicester and the two anonymous referees for valuable commentary on earlier versions of this essay.

Notes

1 For an overview of the late scholastic and Aristotelian traditions and their historiography, see M. Edwards, ‘Aristotelianism, Descartes and Hobbes’, Historical Journal, 50:2 (2007), 449–64; also C. Mercer, ‘The Vitality and Importance of Early Modern Aristotelianism’, in The Rise of Modern Philosophy: The Tension Between the New and Traditional Philosophies from Machiavelli to Leibniz, edited by T. Sorell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 33–67.

2 E. Panofsky, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism: An Inquiry into the Analogy of the Arts, Philosophy, and Religion in the Middle Ages (Milwaukee, WI: New American Library, 1976).

3 W. Costello, The Scholastic Curriculum in Seventeenth-Century Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958), 4.

4 Costello, Scholastic Curriculum, 10.

5 A. Grafton, Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450–1800 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 8.

6 D. Des Chene, Physiologia: Natural Philosophy in Late Aristotelian and Cartesian Thought (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), 7; also D. Des Chene, ‘Aristotelian Natural Philosophy: Body, Cause, Nature’, in A Companion to Descartes, edited by J. Broughton and J. Carriero (Chichester: Blackwell, 2008), 17–32 (17–18).

7 J. Webster, Academiarum examen, or the Examination of Academies (London, 1654), 96.

8 Webster, Academiarum examen, 96. Similar aspirations appear in Robert Boyle's Certain Physiological Essays (London, 1669), 11, 18.

9 G. Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican, translated by S. Drake (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1953), 56–7. On Galileo's rhetorical strategies, see N. Jardine, ‘Demonstration, Dialectic and Rhetoric in Galileo's Dialogue’, in The Shapes of Knowledge from Renaissance to Enlightenment, edited by D. Kelley and R. Popkin (Dordrecht: Springer, 1991), 101–21.

10 R. Descartes, Oeuvres, edited by C. Adam and P. Tannery, 11 vols. (Paris: Vrin, 1996), vol. 6, 11. See R. Descartes, A Discourse on the Method, translated by I. Maclean (Oxford: Oxford World's Classics, 2006), lxiv–lxv for a brief discussion of this image.

11 A. Grafton, ‘The World of the Polyhistors: Humanism and Encyclopedism’, in A. Grafton, Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as Revelation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 167–80; also M. Feingold, ‘The Humanities’, in The History of the University of Oxford Volume IV: Seventeenth-Century Oxford, edited by N. Tyacke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 251–2.

12 T. Sprat, The History of the Royal Society of London for the Improving of Knowledge (London, 1667), 16.

13 See The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies, edited by P. Dear (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991); S. Clucas, ‘A Knowledge Broken: Francis Bacon's Aphoristic Style and the Crisis of Scholastic and Humanist Knowledge Systems’, in English Renaissance Prose: History, Language, Politics, edited by N. Rhodes (Tempe, AZ: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997), 147–72; B. Vickers, ‘The Royal Society and English Prose Style: A Reassessment’, in Rhetoric and the Pursuit of Truth: Language Change in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, edited by B. Vickers and N. Streuver (Los Angeles, CA: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1985).

14 Mercer,‘Vitality’, 38–67; Edwards, ‘Aristotelianism’, 449–58.

15 For different perspectives on this approach, see D. Garber, ‘Towards an Antiquarian History of Philosophy’, Rivista di storia della filosofia, 2 (2003), 27–37 and I. Maclean, ‘Language in the Mind: Reflexive Thinking in the Late Renaissance’, in Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Conversations with Aristotle, edited by C. Blackwell and S. Kusukawa (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999).

16 R. Ariew, Descartes and the Last Scholastics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999).

17 C. Leijenhorst, The Mechanisation of Aristotelianism: The Late Aristotelian Setting of Thomas Hobbes' Natural Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 2002).

18 Exceptions include I. Maclean, ‘Cardano and Scaliger on the Interpretation of Natural Signs’, in Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, edited by B. Vickers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 231–52 and L. Brockliss, ‘Rapports de structure et de contenu entre les Principia et les cours de philosophie des collèges’, in Descartes: Principia Philosophiae, 1644–1994, edited by J-R. Armogathe and G. Belgioioso (Naples: Vivarium, 1996), 491–516.

19 T. Hobbes, Leviathan, edited by R. Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 472.

20 See, inter alia, Commentaries-Kommentare, edited by G. Most (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1999); Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation, edited by M-O. Goulet-Cazé (Paris: Vrin, 2000); A. Grafton, ‘Commentary’, in The Classical Tradition, edited by A. Grafton, G. Most and S. Settis (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2010), 225–33; Il commento filosofico nell'occidente latino (secoli xiii–xv), edited by G. Fioravanti, C. Leonardi and S. Perfetti (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002); F. Del Punta, ‘The Genre of Commentaries in the Middle Ages and Its Relation to the Nature and Originality of Medieval Thought’, in Was ist Philosophie in Mittelalter?, edited by J. Aertsen and A. Speer (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1998), 138–51.

21 N. Siraisi, Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: The Canon and Medical Learning in Italian Universities after 1500 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), 178.

22 See Der Kommentar in der Renaissance, edited by A. Buck and O. Herding (Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1975); On Renaissance Commentaries, edited by M. Pade (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2005) and Der Kommentar in der fruhen Neuzeit, edited by R. Häfner and M. Völkel (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006).

23 This term is Charles Schmitt's, via Wittgenstein: C. Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 111–12. See also H. Thijssen, ‘Some Reflections on Continuity and Transformation of Aristotelianism in Medieval (and Renaissance) Natural Philosophy’, Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofia medievale, 2 (1991) and E. Grant, ‘Ways to Interpret the Terms “Aristotelian” and “Aristotelianism” in Medieval and Renaissance Natural Philosophy’, History of Science, 25 (1987), 335–58.

24 See J. Kraye, ‘Philologists and Philosophers’, in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, edited by J. Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 142–6; also Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition, edited by D. Di Liscia, E. Kessler and C. Methuen (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997).

25 A. Simmons, ‘Jesuit Aristotelian Education: The De anima Commentaries’, in The Jesuits: Culture, Sciences and the Arts, 1540–1773, edited by G. A. Bailey, S. J. Harris, T. F. Kennedy and J. O'Malley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 552–37; also C. Lohr, ‘Jesuit Aristotelianism and Sixteenth-Century Metaphysics’, in Paradosis: Studies in Memory of Edwin A. Quain, edited by H. Fletcher and M. Schuete (New York: Fordham University Press, 1976), 205.

26 G. Pace, ΑRIΣΤΟΤΕΛΟϒΣ ΦϒΣΙΚΗΣ ΑΚΡΟΑΣΕΩΣ ΒΙΒΛΙΑ Θ: Aristotelis Stagiritae, peripateticorum principiis, naturalis auscultationis libri viii. Julii Pacius a Beriga cum graecis tam excusis quam scriptis codicibus accurate contulit, latina interpretatione auxit, & commentariis analyticis illustravit (Frankfurt, 1596).

27 Collegium Conimbricense, Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis (Coimbra, 1591).

28 E.g., T. Broman, ‘J. C. Reil and the “Journalization” of Physiology’, in Dear, Literary Structure, 13–42 (14–18).

29 O. Weijers, ‘La structure des commentaries à la Faculté des arts: quelques observations’, in Fioravanti et al., Il commento filosofico, 17–41.

30 C. Lohr, ‘Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors A-B’, Studies in the Renaissance, 21 (1974), 230–2. See also J. Céard, ‘Les transformations du genre du commentaire’, in L'automne de la renaissance, 1580–1630, edited by J. Lafond and A Stegmann (Paris: Vrin, 1981), 101–15.

31 Charles Schmitt emphasizes this, favouring the term ‘Aristotelianisms’: Schmitt, Aristotle, 10.

32 Lohr, ‘Commentaries’, 230.

33 O. Weijers, ‘The Literary Forms of the Reception of Aristotle: Between Exposition and Philosophical Treatise’, in Albertus Magnus und die Anfänge der Aristoteles-Rezeption im lateinischen Mittelalter von Richardus Rufus bis zu Franciscus de Mayronis, edited by L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, M. Dreyer and M-A. Aris (Munich: Aschendorff, 2005), 580.

34 Broman, ‘Journalization’, 14–15.

35 Lohr ‘Commentaries’, 230.

36 See R. Colie, The Resources of Kind: Genre-Theory in the Renaissance (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973), 76–102; also A. Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).

37 A. Grafton, ‘Quattrocento Humanism and Classical Scholarship’, in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms and Legacy: Volume 3: Humanism and the Disciplines, edited by A. Rabil (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 23–66 (28–31).

38 B. Keckermann, Opera omnia quae extant tomus primus (Cologne, 1614), 61: ‘Textuales Peripateticos voco, qui textum tantum Aristotelis sic explicant, ut ad verba et phrases propè singulas singulos, eosque saepe prolixos conficiant Commentarios […] eos, qui penè nihil aliud in Philosophia tradunt, quam quod et quomodo in textu Aristotelis reperiunt, ita ut philosophari idem illis sit ac textu Aristotelis inhaerere, ac singulis eius phrases ac propè syllabas scrupulosis rimari […].’

39 C. Schmitt, ‘The Rise of the Philosophical Textbook’, in The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, edited by C. Schmitt and Q. Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 792–804. See e.g. R. Serjeantson, ‘Proof and Persuasion’, in The Cambridge History of Early Modern Science vol. 3: Early Modern Science, edited by L. Daston and K. Park (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 165–6 and Des Chene, ‘Aristotelian Natural Philosophy’, 18.

40 Schmitt, ‘Textbook’, 804. For the same phenomenon in classical scholarship, see Grafton, ‘Commentary’, 230.

41 P. Reif, ‘The Textbook Tradition in Natural Philosophy, 1600–1650’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 30 (1969), 17–32; C. B. Schmitt ‘Galilei and the Seventeenth-Century Textbook Tradition’, in Novità celesti e crisi del sapere: atti de convegno internazionale di studi Galileiani, edited by P. Galluzzi (Florence: Giunti Barbèra, 1983), 217–28; S. Perfetti, ‘How and Why the Medieval Commentary Died Out: The Case of Aristotle's Zoological Writings’, in Fioravanti et al., Il commento filosofico, 429–43; D. Lines, ‘Teaching Physics in Louvain and Bologna: Frans Titelmans and Ulisse Androvandi’, in Scholarly Knowledge: Textbooks in Early Modern Europe, edited by E. Campi, S. De Angelis and A-S. Goering (Geneva: Droz, 2008), 183–203.

42 S. Gaukroger, The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210–1685 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 147; for a more sceptical view, see A. Blair, ‘Natural Philosophy’, in Cambridge History of Early Modern Science Volume 3, 365–405 (370–1).

43 C. Martin, ‘With Aristotelians Like This, Who Needs Anti-Aristotelians? Corpuscular Chemistry in Niccolò Cabeo's Meteorology’, Early Science and Medicine, 11:2 (2006), 135–61; also M. Edwards, ‘Digressing with Aristotle: Hieronymus Dandinus’ De corpore animato (1610) and the Expansion of Late Aristotelian Philosophy', Early Science and Medicine, 13:2, (2008), 127–70.

44 H. Hotson, Commonplace Learning: Ramism and Its German Ramifications, 1543–1630 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 146; Schmitt, ‘Textbook,’ 801, 803–4.

45 Schmitt, ‘Textbook’, 804.

46 See C. Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries II: Renaissance Authors (Florence: Olschki, 1988), 235–6; F. W. Strieder, Grundlage zu einer hessischen Gelehrten und Schriftsteller Geschichte seit der Reformation bis auf gegenwartige Zeiten, 17 vols. (Marburg, 1781–1831), vol. 8, 218; S. Kusukawa, ‘Nature's Regularity in Some Protestant Natural Philosophy Textbooks, 1530–1630’, in Natural Law and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Europe: Jurisprudence, Theology, Moral and Natural Philosophy, edited by L. Daston and M. Stolleis (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 105–22 (117–20).

47 J. Magirus, Physiologia peripatetica ex Aristotele eiusque interpretibus collecta et in vi libros distincta, in usum Academiae Marpurgensis (Frankfurt, 1597). See Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries, 235–6. Henceforth I cite the 1616 Wittenberg edition.

48 J. Heilbron, Elements of Early Modern Physics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982), 1.

49 P. Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1982),103.

50 D. McKitterick, A History of Cambridge University Press Volume I: Printing and the Book Trade in Cambridge, 1534–1698 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 364; J. Magirus, Physiologiae peripateticae libri sex cum commentariis (Cambridge, 1642).

51 R. North, Notes of Me: The Autobiography of Roger North, edited by P. Millard (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 92.

52 H. Fletcher, The Intellectual Development of John Milton, 2 vols. (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1961), vol. 2, 159, 168, 176. See also M. Feingold, The Mathematicians' Apprenticeship: Science, Universities and Society in England, 1560–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 96–8.

53 Holdsworth's Directions are reproduced in Fletcher, Intellectual Development, vol. 2, 623–55.

54 J. McGuire and M. Tamny, Certain Philosophical Questions: Newton's Trinity Notebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 15–17; see R. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 84.

55 The Frankfurt 1619, Geneva 1629 and Cambridge 1642 editions, amongst others, include Bartholin's text.

56 J. Magirus, Physiologiae peripateticae libri sex, cum commentariis (Wittenberg, 1616), 9.

57 See, e.g., B. Pererius, De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principus et affectionibus, libri quindecim (Rome, 1576), praefatio, 1.

58 Magirus, Physiologiae, 379, 382 : ‘Ossium substantia (B) Ossa Graecis dicuntur osa, Eorum substantia quoniam durissima est & succissima, sequitur inde, eandem esso maxime terream, hoc est, plus terra, quam reliquorum elementorum participare. Sensus sunt expertia, quoniam per istorum substantiam, multa nervorum portio disseminatur, quorum beneficio partes omnes sentiunt.’

59 See, e.g., Magirus, Physiologiae, 380 (nerves, arteries and veins), 532 (sound) et passim.

60 Magirus, Physiologiae, 15: ‘Physica (A) est corporum naturalium scientia. Arist. 5 Metaph cap.

61 Magirus, Physiologiae, 16: ‘Physices (A) definitio constat genere & subiecto, quae secundum partes est explicanda: Hic autem primo inter quosdam est contentio, an Physica pars sit Philosophiae differens a Metaphysica & Mathematica; cum certissimum sit, illam sub natura contineri? Huic dubio per distinctionem respondemus hoc modo.

62 Magirus, Physiologiae, 16–17.

63 Reif, ‘Textbooks’, 29.

64 Reif, ‘Textbooks’, 18–19.

65 Kusukawa, ‘Nature's Regularity’, 118.

66 P. Melanchthon, Commentarius de anima (Wittenberg, 1540). See P. Petersen, Geschichte der Aristotelischen Philosophie im protestantischen Deutschland (Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1921), 13–118.

67 P. Melanchthon, Liber de anima, recognitus ab authore (Wittenberg, 1552).

68 S. Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy: The Case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 75–123; also W. Eckart, ‘Philipp Melanchthon und die Medizin’, in Melanchthon und die Naturwissenschaften seiner Zeit, edited by G. Frank and S. Rhein, Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten, 4 (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1998), 183–202.

69 J. Magirus, Anthropologia, hoc est commentarius eruditissimus in aurem Philippi Melanchthonis libellum de Anima, dedicatio.

70 R. Serjeantson, ‘The Soul’, in The Oxford Handbook of Seventeenth Century Philosophy, edited by D. Clarke and C. Wilson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 120; S. De Angelis, Anthropologien: Genese und Konfiguration einer ‘Wissenschaft vom Menschen’ in der frühen Neuzeit (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010).

71 J. Stigel, De anima, commentarii D. Philippi Melanchthonis explicatio (Wittenberg, 1581); V. Strigel, In Philippi Melanchthonis libellum de anima notae breves et eruditae (Jena, 1590); R. Snell, In aurem Philippi Melanchthonis de anima, vel potius de hominis physiologia, libellum, commentationes utilissimae: cum lectissimis aliorum annotationibus sedulo collatae (Frankfurt, 1596); also J. Grunius, Liber de anima [] in diagrammata methodica digestus [] a J. Grunio (Wittenberg, 1580).

72 See Hotson, Commonplace Learning.

73 Blair, ‘Natural Philosophy’, 369.

74 J. Magirus, Corona virtutum moralium, universam Aristotelis summi philosophi ethicen exacte enucleans (Frankfurt, 1601). On Magirus's plagiarism of Golius, see Lohr, Commentaries, 236.

75 R. Goclenius, In M. Clementis Timpleri metaphysicam praefatio (Hanau, 1606).

76 T. Bright, In physicam [] Scribonii [] animadversiones Timothei Brighti (Cambridge, 1584).

77 N. Taurellus, Alpes Caesae, hoc est Andr. Caesalpini Itali, monstrosa et superba dogmata, discussa et excussa (Frankfurt, 1597).

78 J. C. Scaliger, Exotericarum exercitationum liber quintus decimus, De subtilitate, ad Hieronymum Cardanum (Paris, 1557).

79 Hotson, Commonplace Learning, 148–50.

80 See Martin, ‘Aristotelians’.

81 Grafton, Defenders of the Text; A. Blair, ‘Humanist Methods in Natural Philosophy: The Commonplace Book’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 53 (1992), 541–51; R. Yeo, ‘John Locke's “New Method” of Commonplacing: Managing Memory and Information’, Eighteenth-Century Thought, 2 (2004), 1–38.

82 Leijenhorst, Mechanisation; Des Chene, Physiologia.

83 E. Gilson, Index scholastico-cartésien (Paris: F. Alcan, 1913); R. Dalbiez ‘Les sources scolastiques de la théorie cartésienne de l’être objectif. A propos du Descartes de M. Gilson', Revue d'histoire de la philosophie, (1929), 464–72; Ariew, Descartes and the Last Scholastics, 58–76; H. Hattab, Descartes on Forms and Mechanisms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

84 See R. Ariew, ‘Descartes and the Late Scholastics on the Order of the Sciences’, in Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 35–64.

85 D. Des Chene, ‘Descartes and the Natural Philosophy of the Coimbra Commentaries’, in Descartes' Natural Philosophy, edited by S. Gaukroger, J, Schuster and J. Sutton (London: Routledge, 2000), 29–45 (29).

86 F. Toletus, Commentaria una cum quaestionibus in octo libros Aristotelis de physica auscultatione (Cologne, 1574). See Lohr, Commentaries, 458–61.

87 Antonio Rubius taught philosophy in Jesuit colleges in Mexico and published a range of Aristotle commentaries, including Physics and De anima commentaries and Logica mexicana (1603).

88 R. Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 185.

89 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 232: ‘I'ay achepté la Philosophie du frère Eust. a sancto P, qui me semble le meilleur liure qui ait jamais esté fait en cette matiere.’

90 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 233: ‘Et mon dessein est d'ecrire par ordre tout un Cours de ma Philosophie en forme de Theses, où sans aucune superfluité de discours, ie mettray seulement toutes mes conclusions, auec les vrayes raisons d'où ie les tire, ce que ie croy pouuir faire en fort peu de mots: & au mesme liure, de faire imprimer un Cours de Philosophie Ordinaire, tel que peut estre celuy du Frere Eustache, auec mes Notes à la fin de chaque question, où i'adjousteray les diverses opinions des autres, & ce qu'on doit croire des toutes, & peut-estre à la fin ie feray une comparaison de ces deux Philosophies.’

91 Ariew, Descartes and the Last Scholastics, 24ff; Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 523.

92 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 259–60.

93 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 280.

94 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 286.

95 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 470.

96 In later letters, Descartes appeared to preserve the possibility of resurrecting the ‘scholastic war’ as a gambit in his dealings with the Jesuits; Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 480.

97 Ariew, ‘Order of the Sciences’.

98 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 259.

99 Descartes, Oeuvres, vol. 3, 491–2.

100 Ariew, Descartes and the Last Scholastics, 31.

101 L. Brockliss, ‘Rapports de structure et de contenu’; S. Gaukroger, Descartes' System of Natural Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 54–63.

102 R. Goclenius, Lexicon philosophicum (Frankfurt, 1613), 399: ‘Commentarii sunt commentationis quasi foetus et effectus externi. Commentatio enim est occulta (id est, interna) mentis agitatio.’ On Descartes's engagement with Goclenius, see A. Gabbey and R. Hall, ‘The Melon and the Dictionary: Reflections on Descartes’ Dreams', Journal of the History of Ideas, 59:4 (1998), 651–68.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.