ABSTRACT
An interpretation of a text can be judged successful or unsuccessful against a number of distinct criteria. In terms of the comprehensiveness with which they fit the data of Aristotle's text, Robert Kilwardby's is the best of the medieval interpretations. Aristotle could not have accepted Richard Campsall's Thesis that what is possible is actual; some Aristotelian possibilities are sometimes unactualized. Arguably, Kilwardby's interpretation evinces a deep congeniality with Aristotle's text by recognizing the notions of the per se and species as implicit in that text. Kilwardby's interpretive framework seems alien to Aristotle's text to the extent that it embraces the notion that assertoric propositions ought to be generally required to be simpliciter. Jean Buridan's system is the most unified; he uses a single ampliated understanding of all modal propositions in all contexts. Buridan's idea that all modal propositions ought to be ampliated to the possible hardly seems to be congenial with Aristotle's explicit treatment of some contingency-propositions as unampliated.
