Schmitt C.B. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Traditional logic
147
occasionally
did
authors such
as the
Thomists
of
Cologne
feel
the
need
to
relate
the new
developments
to the
Organon,
and
their attempt
was
somewhat
perfunctory.
19
For
instance, they related
the new
treatises
on
obligations
to
Aristotle's remark
in
Metaphysics
ix.4
(i047
b
i5~25)
that
a
possible
proposition could
not
imply
an
impossible proposition,
and
they
completely
ignored
the
seemingly much more obvious relationship
between
obligational disputations
and
Aristotle's discussion
of
disputations
in
the
Topics.
20
There
are
three distinct groups
of
these
new
treatises,
and
each
will
be
discussed
in
turn.
The
first group consists
of the
parva logicalia,
or
treatises
dealing
with
the
properties
of
terms. The core
of
the parva logicalia is formed
by
the
treatises which
(in the
printed editions
at
least)
are
found
in
tract
vn of
Peter
of
Spain's Summule logicales,
i.e., the
treatises
on
supposition, relative
terms, ampliation, appellation, restriction
and
distribution.
21
To
these were
later added
a
tract
on
exponibles
and a
tract
on
syncategorematic terms.
22
The
Cologne Thomists noted
that
many people refused
to
ascribe
the
tract
on
exponibles
to
Peter
of
Spain
himself,
and it is
obviously much
too
late
to
have
been written
by
him.
23
Peter
of
Spain
was
neither
the
originator
nor
the sole author
of
the parva logicalia.
Two
other important authors
of
such
tracts were Thomas Maulvelt
(or
Manlevelt), probably
a
mid-fourteenth-
century Englishman, whose works were very popular
in
Germany
in the
fifteenth
century;
and
Marsilius
of
Inghen,
who
probably wrote
his
logical
treatises between 1362
and
1367.
24
He too was
very popular
in
Germany,
and
in
Eastern Europe.
The
second group
of
treatises consists
of
the 'three tracts
of
the moderns',
as
the
Cologne Thomists called them,
i.e.,
tracts
on
consequences,
19.
[Cologne] 1493, f. i
r
~
v
.
They
remarked (f. i
v
): 'Secundo dicendum quod quamvis Arestoteles non
invenit istam logicam quae hie traditur in se et in propria forma istorum tractatuum, tamen invenit
istos
tractatus in
suis
principiis, quia posuit quaedam principia ex quibus
isti
tractatus ulterius
eliciuntur et fiunt.'
20.
Ibid.,
f. i
v
. Although various medieval authors
used
the phrase
disputado
temptativa
(that
used
to
translate the
Greek
phrase for Aristotle's examination argument) in this context, so far as I know
only Boethius of Dacia related obligational disputations to Aristotle's
discussion
in the
Topics:
see
Boethius of Dacia 1969-, vi, 1, pp. 329—31
(Quaestiones super librum Topicorum).
The links were
once more noticed in the sixteenth century: see Nifo
1521b,
f. 151
ra
~
rb
.
21.
Peter of Spain 1972, p. xcix. For an explanation of the terminology, see Maieru 1972.
22.
Both tracts are found, e.g., in [Cologne] 1493 and 1494 and
also
in Versor 1572. However, the
Syncategoremata
is not found, e.g., in [Cologne] 1496.
23.
[Cologne] 1493, f. i
r
. Cf. Peter of Spain 1972, p. xcix, where de
Rijk
says that the tracts on the
properties of terms were supplemented from about 1350 onwards by the tract on exponibles,
'which seven tracts were taken together as
Part Seven
of the
Tractatus
or
Summule\
24. Marsilius of Inghen 1980, p. 9.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
148
Logic
and
language
obligations
and
insolubles.
25
A
great many such tracts survive,
and I
shall
mention only
a few of the
most important
for our
purposes.
Of
those
writing shortly after 1350,
three
names
are
particularly prominent. First,
there
is
the
Englishman Ralph Strode. His insolubles made little impression,
but
there
are
forty
or
more manuscripts containing his consequences, eleven
with
the
obligations
as
well.
There
are
also
ten
printed editions
of the
consequences
and
four
of
the obligations.
26
He was
particularly popular
in
Italy. Second,
there
is Marsilius
of
Inghen,
who
wrote
on
all
three
topics
and
whose
consequences were printed
in an
abbreviated form along with
his
tracts
on
supposition
in
Vienna
in
1512
and
1516. Third,
there
is
John
of
Holland,
who may
have studied
at
Oxford before
he
went
to
Prague,
and
whose
obligations
and
insolubles were popular
in the
fifteenth century,
though they were printed only once
in an
abbreviated form (Vienna
1509).
It
is not
known
who
wrote
the
three
tracts which were commented
on by
the Cologne Thomists,
but
Henry
of
Gorkum
(d.
1431),
the
founder
of
what came
to be
called
the
Bursa Montis,
is
known
to
have written
on
obligations
and
insolubles,
27
and
there
may be
some relation.
The
third
group
of
treatises
has two
sub-groups. First,
there
are
treatises
on sophisms. Here William Heytesbury, from
the
first
part
of the
fourteenth century,
is the
most outstanding figure;
but
later treatises
by
Albert
of
Saxony
(mid
fourteenth century)
and
Paul
of
Venice
were also
to
prove popular, both being printed several times. Heytesbury also wrote
a
tract
on the
composite
and the
divided sense which was
to
have considerable
influence,
though
the
only noteworthy later writer
on
this topic was Paul
of
Pergula.
28
The
material dealt with was very
closely
related
to
that
discussed
in
the
second sub-group
of
treatises, those dealing with
the
proof
of
terms.
These treatises
in turn
overlapped with treatises
on
exponibles
and
syncategoremata because they included
a
discussion
of
exponible terms,
such
as
'only', 'except',
and 'in so far as',
whose presence caused
a
proposition
to
need further analysis. They also discussed
'official'
(or
'functionalisable') terms,
i.e.,
modal terms
and
such terms
as
'knows'
and
'believes'
which govern
a
dictum,
that
is, an
infinitive
and
accusative
25.
For an interesting discussion of the way in which the phrase
logica
modernorum
has been extended in
recent times to refer to all the new developments of medieval logic, see
Antiqui
und
Moderni
1974,
especially pp.
111-15
(N. W.
Gilbert).
Agostino Nifo is a good example of a sixteenth-century
author who used a variety of names to classify his predecessors,
luniores
seem
to be opposed to
writers of the classical period;
neoterici
are more recent writers (cf. the use of the term by Eck, n. 6
above,
and by Bagolinus, n. 8 above);
Sorticolae
(probably logicians who used
Sortes
in their
examples) explicitly included Marsilius of Inghen and Paul of Venice.
26. For details, see
English Logic
1982, pp. 87-8 (Maieru).
27.
Weiler 1962, p. 85. 28. Paul of Pergula 1961.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional logic
149
construction. The
third
type of term discussed was the so-called resoluble
term, whose presence in a proposition indicates
that
it should be shown to be
true
by appeal to an expository syllogism involving a move from general
terms (such as 'human being') to such indicator terms as 'this'. The most
famous author of a treatise on the proof of terms was Richard Billingham.
His Speculum puerorum, also known as Terminus est in quern, was written in
the mid fourteenth century and it became extremely popular, especially in
Southern and Central European universities.
29
As
well
as treatises on individual topics, medieval logicians wrote
summulae, or general textbooks. The most famous example is the thirteenth-
century work by Peter of Spain which
gives
a complete outline of
Aristotelian
logic,
including categories, syllogisms, topics and
fallacies.
More
than
300 manuscripts of this work survive, and about 200 printed
editions, mostly with a commentary.
30
However, it would be a mistake to
think
that
Peter
of
Spain had no rivals. Two other general textbooks were to
be
of
great importance in the fifteenth century. The first is the summulae by
Jean
Buridan, which was printed several times with a commentary by
Johannes Dorp.
31
Buridan's treatise is a reworking of Peter of Spain, but
supposition is discussed in tract iv, and tract vm, on division, definition and
demonstration, was completely new. The second is Paul of
Venice's
Lógica
parva, probably written in
1395—6.
32
Its contents list is worth considering in
some detail. Tract 1 presents the material of the summulae and deals with
terms, nouns, verbs, propositions, equipollence, conversion, hypothetical
propositions, predicables, categories and syllogisms
—
that
is, everything
that
Peter of Spain had covered except for topics and
fallacies.
Tract
11
deals
with
the material of the parva logicalia, i.e., supposition, relative terms,
ampliation and appellation. Tracts in, v and vi are versions of the so-called
'tracts
of
the moderns', i.e., consequences, obligations and insolubles. Tract
iv
is on the
proof
of
terms, including exponibles. The last two tracts contain
objections to the summulae and to the consequences. The Lógica parva was
very
popular. Over seventy manuscripts survive, and it was printed many
times.
33
There were sixteen editions in
Venice
alone, six between 1525 and
1580;
and the last
that
I know
of
was
as late as
1614.
An important feature of
29. De
Rijk's
introduction
to Some Fourteenth-Century Tracts 1982, p. *3*. See ibid, for an
edition
of
some
alternative texts,
by
Billingham
and
others.
See
Maieru
1969 for an
edition
of
Billingham.
30.
Peter
of
Spain
1972, p. c.
31.
Dorp
was
active
in the
German
nation
at the
University
of
Paris
from
about
1393 to 1404, and was
last
heard
of at
Cologne
in 1418: see Antiqui und Moderni 1974, pp. 446, 455
(Gabriel).
For
Dorp's
commentary,
see
Buridan
1499.
32. For the
dating
of
this
work
see Scienza e filosofía 1983, pp. 90-1
(Bottin).
33. For a
list
of the
manuscripts
see
Bottin
1981, pp.
59-60.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
150
Logic
and
language
the Logica parva
is its
close relationship
to the
so-called Logica Oxoniensis,
a
loose
collection
of
treatises which
was
popular
in the
fifteenth century,
especially
in
Italy,
34
and
which
was
printed
a
number
of
times
in
England
up
to
1530.
35
This collection began with
a
brief
summulae
and
among others
included tracts
on all the
topics covered
by
Paul.
A
glance
at the
curricula
of
fifteenth-century universities
will
give
some
idea
of the
part
played
in
logic
teaching
by the
different types
of
medieval
texts.
In
Italy, Paul
of
Venice's
Logica parva was
a
prescribed text
at
Padua
in
1496,
along with works
by
Strode, Heytesbury
and
Paul
of
Pergula.
36
The
Vienna
statutes
of 1389
refer
to
supposition, ampliation, appellation,
obligations,
insolubles
and
consequences;
37
and the
acts
of
the faculty
of
arts
at Vienna show
that
John
of
Holland, Marsilius
of
Inghen, Billingham
and
Heytesbury were read.
38
At
Erfurt
in
1420, Billingham,
John of
Holland
and Thomas Maulvelt were read;
39
and the
Erfurt statutes
of
1412
together
with
the
additions
of
1449 also mention Heytesbury, Albert
of
Saxony,
Buridan
and
Marsilius
of
Inghen.
40
The
Freiburg
im
Breisgau statutes
of
1463
required
the
first
five
tracts
of
Peter
of
Spain,
the
Parva logicalia
of
Marsilius,
and his
consequences.
41
There
was a
cult
of
Marsilius
at
Heidelberg
at the end of the
fifteenth century.
42
Heytesbury
was
read
at
Leipzig
up to
1496, when
he was
withdrawn from
the
curriculum
on the
grounds
that
his
logic
was
of
little value.
43
At
Greifswald
in
1456
there
were
lectures
on the
parva logicalia with exercises
in
Peter
of
Spain
and
sophismata
or sophistria.
4
* Peter
of
Spain's Summule was read
at
Ingolstadt
in
1478,
and
it
was
still mentioned
by the
statutes
of
Ingolstadt
in
1526.
45
In
Poland
34. See
Rijk
1977 for the
Logica Oxoniensis
and
Rijk
1975 for the similar
Logica Cantabrigiensis.
For a
study of the origins and
fortuna
of some of the obligations treatises in the collection, see Ashworth
1985.
35.
See Ashworth 1979a,
1979b,
and (for a similar printed collection associated with Oxford) 1978a.
36. Paul of Pergula 1961, p. vii.
37.
Lhotsky 1965, p. 236. The same list of required tracts was mentioned by [Cologne] 1493 f. i
r
.
38.
Acta Facultatis
Artium
Universitatis Vindobonensis
1968
passim.
Billingham and Heytesbury were
mentioned once; John of Holland's insolubles was mentioned twice and his obligations once;
Marsilius
of Inghen's insolubles was mentioned once, his supposition twice, his consequences four
times and his obligations nine times.
39.
University Records
1944, PP- 296-7. 40.
Antiqui
und
Moderni
1974, pp. 467-8 (Gabriel).
41.
Ott and Fletcher 1964, p. 40. 42.
Antiqui
und
Moderni
1974, pp.
463-4
(Gabriel).
43. Fletcher 1981, p. 30. The text is ordered to be withdrawn 'quia parum fructus in se habeat'. On
p.
35, n. 109, it is identified through the phrase iectio loicae Hesbri'.
44.
Cambridge History
1982, p. 18 (Kenny and Pinborg). Heath 1971, p. 45, noted that works on
sophismata
were more popular than tract vi of Peter of
Spain
(on fallacies). The latter was left to the
second year at Freiburg, Ingolstadt and Tubingen.
45.
Heath
1971^.49.
In 1478 the masters oflngolstadt decided that tracts
I,IV,V
and
VII
of the
Summule
logicales
should be read.
That
is, they omitted the material on predicables, categories and fallacies.
See
ibid.,
p. 59 for the statutes of 1526, which mention the first five tracts of Peter of Spain.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional logic
151
Buridan was popular.
46
In Paris the nominalist faction, in a document of
c.
1474,
showed
that
it prided
itself
on the attention it paid to the properties of
terms, including exponibles, to obligations and to insolubles, unlike the
realists, who were said to neglect and despise these matters.
47
In Scotland
the year 1438 saw some interesting developments at St Andrews Univer-
sity.
48
On 13 October the Congregation ruled
that
Buridan should be read
in place of the
logical
doctrines of Albertus Magnus and the Summule of
Peter
of
Spain. There was such an outcry
that
on 14 November it was ruled
that
the masters could
follow
the via of Albertus, or whomever else they
wished,
provided he was free from errors in
logic
and philosophy. Finally,
in Oxford the Lógica Oxoniensis was read
well
into the sixteenth century, if
publishing history is anything to go by. These scattered remarks do not, of
course, enable one to appreciate the detail of any particular university's
curriculum, but they should be enough to indicate
that
a considerable
variety of authors were read across Europe and
that
there
was no tendency
to read just Aristotle, or just Peter of Spain.
Considerable changes took place in the first thirty years of the sixteenth
century. Some
of
these changes were internal to the medieval tradition, and
I shall examine these first. Some medieval topics simply disappeared.
Although
old sophismata texts were published, new ones were not written.
An
exception is the modest treatise De sophismatibus which
followed
the
treatise on exponibles in George of Brussels' commentary on Peter of
Spain.
49
Treatises on the composition and division of terms also vanished,
though several Italians, including Alessandro Sermoneta and Benedetto
Vettori
(d. 1561) did write a commentary on Heytesbury's treatise.
50
Treatises on syncategoremata were no longer written, no doubt partly
because much of the material was common to other treatises, including
those on exponibles. Billingham's work on the
proof
of
terms seems never
to have been printed, and the topic appears only occasionally. For instance,
both Johannes Gebwiler and Gregorius Breytkopf wrote short sections on
the
proof
of
terms in longer works, and
Nifo
has a chapter on the topic in his
Dialéctica
ludiera.
51
By contrast, separate treatises began to be written on
traditional topics which had usually been discussed in some wider context.
The
most notable example is
that
of treatises on the various divisions of
46. See
Markowski
1971.
47. Antiquiund Moderni 197 4, p. 95,11. 25 (N. W.
Gilbert).
See
also
University Records 1944, pp.
355—60.
48. Acta Facultatis
Artium
Sancti Andree 1964, pp.
48—9.
49.
George
of
Brussels
1491a,
sigs.
G 3
RB
-H 6 .
50. See
Maieru
1972, pp. 35-8, for a
discussion
of
these
commentaries
and
their
authors.
51.
Breytkopf
1507,
sigs.
c v
r
ff.;
Gebwiler
1511,
(tract
111)
sigs.
K 4
v
-M 3
V
;
Nifo
1521b, if.
ii9
ra
ft
c
.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
152
Logic
and language
terms, e.g., categorematic and syncategorematic, complex and incomplex,
first and second imposition or intention, univocal and equivocal. This
material had always been included to some extent in various
summulae
and
commentaries, but now at least twenty distinct treatises were published by
such
authors
as Antonio Coronel,
Johannes
Dullaert,
John
Mair and
Fernando de Enzinas, all of whom taught at the University of Paris.
52
Separate treatises were also written on oppositiones, the
logical
relations
between
different kinds of categorical propositions, and on syllogisms.
At
the same time, separate treatises and commentaries in the old style
continued to be written. Insolubles, consequences and obligations con-
tinued to be the subject of discussion, as did the
parva
logicalia, including
exponibles.
Moreover, various new commentaries on Peter of Spain were
produced in Germany as
well
as in France and Spain. The Paris commentary
by
George of Brussels has already been mentioned, and other Parisian
authors
include Petrus Tartaretus andjohn Mair. Nicholas Tinctor's dicta on
Peter of Spain were published by the Tubingen masters in i486,
53
and
Johannes
Eck's commentary was published in
1516.
Spanish commentators
included Domingo de Soto (Burgos 1529) and Augustinus Sbarroya
(Seville
1533).
While it is
true
that
little of the material in these works was
novel,
there
were occasional flashes of originality. For instance, Thomas
Bricot
put forward a solution to the problem
of
semantic paradoxes which
was
new in detail
if
not in principle;
54
and in their writings on supposition
theory the Parisian masters introduced 'a' and 'b' as special signs of
supposition to help them in the analysis of propositions containing
relational
terms
such as 'Every man has a head' and 'Of every man, some
donkey
is running.'
55
By
about 1530 most of this activity had come to an
abrupt
end. New
commentaries on medieval
authors
disappeared except in Spain, where
Thomas de Mercado's commentary on Peter
of
Spain
was first published as
late as 1571. Treatises on individual topics ceased to be written, with an
occasional
exception such as Antonius Kesler's treatise on consequences of
1623.
5
6
The publication both
of
the newer works in the medieval tradition
and of the older ones virtually ceased.
57
At the same time the university
curricula changed. Authors such as Rudolph
Agricola
and
Johannes
A
good
bibliography
of
works
by
Spanish
authors
can be
found
in
Muñoz
Delgado
1972.
Antiqui und Moderni 1974, p. 483
(Gabriel).
Tinctor
went
to
Ingolstadt
from
Paris.
See
Ashworth
1977 for a
discussion.
See
Ashworth
1978b
for a
discussion.
See
also
Broadie
1983, pp. 50-4.
See
Ashworth
1973a
for a
discussion.
For
more
details
see Cambridge
History
1982, p. 790
(Ashworth).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional logic
153
Caesarius
were required in place of the medieval texts,
58
and Philipp
Melanchthon's simplified summary of Aristotelian
logic
swept Germany.
Later, Petrus Ramus was to enjoy a runaway success. Yet the most
important and influential texts
of
the last years
of
the sixteenth century were
by
no means simplified humanist manuals, and they contained not only
considerably
more syllogistic
logic
than
Lorenzo
Valla,
Agricola
or Ramus
had thought appropriate, but also treatments of such medieval doctrines as
supposition theory.
PHILOSOPHY
OF
LANGUAGE
1350-1600
Speculative
grammar
By
1350 the doctrines of speculative grammar had already lost their
importance for philosophers of language. No original contributions had
been made after 1300, and the theoretical framework had been subjected to
strong attacks.
59
For the period we are concerned with,
there
is only one
brief
work in support of speculative grammar which needs to be
mentioned, the Generalis doctrina de modis significandi grammaticalibus by the
Polish
author
John
of Stobnica
(1470-1518).
60
Otherwise, the two
important pieces of writing were vicious attacks on the doctrine: the
Destructiones
modorum
significandi written by Pierre
d'Ailly
in the last quarter
of
the fourteenth century,
61
and the Invectiva in modos significandi written by
the Westphalian humanist Alexander Hegius (c. 1433—98) in about 1480.
62
There was some publication of the earlier writings. The Expositiones
modorum
significandi
of
Johannes Josse was published in France (undated).
63
The
Quaestiones Alberti de modis significandi was published twice in England
(1496?,
c.
1515),
and Thomas of Erfurt's Grammatica speculativa was
published in a variety
of
places
including Deventer (1489), London
(1515),
Venice
(1499,
1512,
1519),
Pavia (1520) and Paris (1604,
1605).
64
It was
58. For
details
see Cambridge History 1982, pp. 800-1 (L.
Jardine).
59. Cambridge History 1982, p. 256
(Pinborg).
60. See
Gansiniec
i960,
pp.
149-54,
for the
text.
See
also
Pinborg
1967, p. 211.
61. See
Pinborg
1967, pp.
202—10.
62. For an
edition
see
IJsewijn
1971. For
discussion
see Cambridge History 1982, p. 814
(Percival).
63.
Johannes
Josse
c. 1495
[Bodleian
Library,
Oxford].
The
edition
is not
listed
by
Pinborg
1967.
64. To the
list
of
editions
given
by
Pinborg
1967, p. 318, one can add:
London
1515 [STC 272];
Venice
1519
(edited
by
Maurice
O'Fiheley)
[Bodleian
Library];
Pavia
1520
(edited
by
O'Fiheley)
[British
Library];
Paris
1605 (in
Gymnasium
speculativum,
edited
by A.
Gothutius)
[British
Library]. For a
modern
edition,
see
Thomas
of
Erfurt
1972. The Quaestiones Alberti is a
separate
work
by an
otherwise
unknown
author:
see
Pinborg
1967, pp. 93, 309. It has
recently
been
edited:
see
Albertus
Magnus,
Pseudo-
1977.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
154
Logic
and
language
variously
attributed
to
'Albertus'
and to
Johannes Duns Scotus;
and it is
probably because
of its
inclusion
in the
works
of
Scotus
that
it had
some
influence
on the
work
of
the
new
universal grammarians
of
the seventeenth
century.
65
As
can be
inferred from
the
publication record,
at the
beginning
of
the sixteenth century speculative grammar enjoyed
its
greatest popular-
ity
in
England,
and
this
is
born
out by
contemporary references. Thomas
More,
in his
Epistola
ad
Martinum Dorpium, denounced
the
extravagant
delight
some people took
in the
'exceedingly trifling trifles'
put
forward
by
'a certain Albert'.
66
However, this delight was short-lived,
for in
1521
John
Skelton
wrote
in his
poem 'Speke Parott':
Albertus
De
modo significandi
And
Donatus
be
dryven
out of
scole.
While
it is
true
that
the
characteristic doctrine
of the
speculative
grammarians,
that
there
is a
correspondence between
the
modi significandi
of
words,
the
modi intelligendi
in the
mind
and the
modi essendi
in the
world,
is of
little importance
for
understanding
the
philosophy
of
language
put
forward
by
late medieval
and
Renaissance logicians,
it is
also
true
that
the
grammatical classifications
of
the speculative grammarians were often used.
Modi significandi were sometimes appealed
to in
order
to
explain
the
difference
between
a
word's
lexical
meaning
and its
accidental signification,
i.e.,
the
meaning
it
acquired
by
virtue
of
grammatical case;
67
and the
notion
ofcongruitas
or
grammatical correctness appears
in
logic
texts.
68
Albert
of
Saxony
explained
that
a
grammatically correct utterance
is
subordinated
to
a grammatically correct mental construction;
69
and the
Logica Oxoniensis
defined
a
proposition
as a
grammatically correct, perfect, indicative
sentence which signified
the
true
or the
false.
70
Interestingly, this definition
reappeared
in
several later authors.
71
Other notions, such
as
that
of a vox
65.
See
Cambridge History
1982, pp.
815-16
(Percival); Padley 1976, pp. i79fF.
66. In Vives
1979a,
p. 171; for a discussion see Kinney 1981, pp. 182—3.
67.
See Ashworth 1982, p. 75, for some references.
68. See Thomas of
Erfurt
1972, pp.
3o6ff.
69.
Albert
of Saxony 1522, f. 2 : 'causa originalis quare una constructio ex constructionibus ad
placitum
institutis composita est congrua, et alia incongrua, non alia est
nisi
quod ista quam dicimus
congruam
subordinatur uni constructioni mentali congrue, et ilia quam dicimus incongruam
subordinatur uni constructioni incongrue: unde sicut terminus subordinatur termino, et ita oratio
orationi'.
70.
'Propositio est oratio indicativa, congrua et perfecta, verum vel falsum significans': see Ashworth
1979a,
p. 150.
71.
See
Case
1584, p. 17; Sanderson 1618, p. 71; Brerewood 1619, p. 1. These authors all added the
phrase
sine ambiguitate,
which is found in Melanchthon's definition of a proposition: Melanchthon
1834-60,
XIII,
col. 577. Trentman 1976, p. 187, discusses Brerewood but
seems
to interpret his use
of
congrua
as showing the influence of Thomas of
Erfurt
or Roger Bacon.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional logic
155
articulata, which appear
in
sixteenth-
and
seventeenth-century texts,
72
and
which
have been attributed
to the
influence
of
speculative grammarians,
73
are more
likely
to
show
the
influence
of
Roman grammarians mediated
through such humanists
as
Aldus Manutius.
74
In
general,
there
seems
to be a
tendency
in the
secondary literature
to
over-emphasise
the
direct influence
of
speculative grammar
on
sixteenth-
and
seventeenth-century writers.
Heath,
for
instance, says
of
Eck's Elementarius dialecticae
(1518)
that 'the
theories
of the
modistae
are
neatly dovetailed with
the
reinterpreted
Ockham'.
75
He
cites Eck's
use of
such commonplace notions
as
congruitas
and construction
and he
makes much
of
Eck's
concentration
on
mental terms
—
an approach which
is
found
in the
anti-modist Pierre
d'Ailly,
to
mention
but
one
possible source
for
Eck's doctrines.
76
Language
and the
logicians
Medieval
and
Renaissance philosophy
of
language
is
characterised
by two
central doctrines, which
can
only
be
fully
understood
in
conjunction:
the
doctrine
that
spoken language
is
purely conventional
and the
doctrine
that
spoken language corresponds
to a
mental language, which
has
natural
signification.
I
shall begin
by
considering
the
doctrine
that
spoken language
is
conventional, which
has its
origin
in the
works
of
Aristotle,
e.g., De
interpretatione
iv
(17
a
1-2).
The
purely conventional
nature of
utterances,
other
than
'the
groans
of
the sick
or the
barking
of
dogs',
77
was
insisted
on
by
all
logicians from Peter
of
Spain onwards,
and
there
was
very little
discussion
of
alternative
views.
Thomas Aquinas
in his
commentary
on De
interpretatione mentions
the
view
that
names
are the
natural similitudes
of
things.
78
Another
of
these
rare
references
to an
alternative
view
is
found
in
Henry
of
Ghent,
who
explored Augustine's claim
that the
Stoics believed
72.
See, e.g., Seton 1545, sig. A v
r
. For some further references, see Ashworth
1981a,
p. 306.
73.
Trentman 1976, p. 184, cites Seton's definitions of such terms as 'vox, vox articulata, inarticulata
vox,
vox significativa, consignificativa, vox significans ad placitum, naturalis vox' (see Seton 1545,
sig. A v
r_v
) and says 'it is an interesting and worthy representation of the medieval tradition of
speculative grammar'. Incidentally, Trentman in
Cambridge History
1982, p. 821, is wrong when he
says that Seton's work was not published until 1572: editions had already appeared in 1545, 1563,
1568
and 1570.
74.
See Padley 1976, p. 34. See also Ashworth
1981a,
pp. 305-6. Even during the medieval period the
notion was not uncommon. 75. Heath 1971, p. 57.
76.
See Ailly 1980, especially pp. 18-27. He also used the notions of
congruitas
and
constructio:
see
Pinborg
1967, p. 204: 'Congruitas, regimen et constructio competant orationi mentali per se et
proprie.'
77.
Peter of Spain 1972, p. 2 :'Vocum significativarum alia significativa ad placitum, alia naturaliter.
Vox
significativa naturaliter est ilia que apud omnes idem représentât, ut gemitus infirmorum,
latratus canum. Vox significativa ad placitum est ilia que ad voluntatem instituentis aliquid
représentât, ut
homo.'
78. Thomas Aquinas 1964, p. 21, §47.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
i
5
6
Logic
and
language
words
to
have
a
natural origin because
the
sound
of a
word could have
a
natural similarity
to a
thing.
79
Both Thomas Aquinas
and
Henry
of
Ghent
concluded
that
Aristotle's
view
was
correct.
Serious discussion
of the
possibility
of a
naturally significant spoken
language seems
to
have been purely
a
sixteenth-
and
seventeenth-century
phenomenon.
It was due in part to the
rediscovery
of
Plato's Cratylus
and
other classical sources,
in part to the
strong Renaissance interest
in
magic
and
the cabala, with
the
concomitant hope
that a
knowledge
of
natural language
would
enable
one to
exercise some control over
the
objects signified,
and in
part
to
renewed biblical studies.
80
Genesis
2:19
says 'Whatsoever Adam
called
every
living
creature,
that was the
name thereof,
and
this suggested
to commentators
that the
language
of
Adam,
the
original lingua humana,
was
a
natural language, reflecting
the nature of
things. There were
numerous attempts
to
rediscover Adam's language, which
was
often
thought
to be a
form
of
primitive Hebrew.
81
All these issues were reflected
in
the
works
of
later logicians.
For
instance,
in his
Coimbra commentary
Sebastian Couto took
up the
matter
at
some length.
82
After
a
consideration
of
Plato
and
various other sources
he
concluded
that
although language
as
such
is a
natural phenomenon,
its
meaning
is
conventional;
and that
when
Moses
wrote Genesis 2:19
he
meant
to
convey only
that
Adam
had
used
the
Hebrew words still current when Moses was writing.
83
Couto
did
hold
that
the original giver
of
language
was
God;
84
but
this
was not
allowed
to
detract from
the
conventionalist thesis.
It is
important
to
emphasise these
points, because
it is
often erroneously suggested
that the
conventionalist
79.
Henry of Ghent 1520, ff. cclxiiii
r
-vii
v
. See Augustine 1975, pp. 91—9.
80. For references and discussion, see Aarsleff 1982, pp.
59-60,
281-2; Cornelius 1965, p. 5; Grazia
1980, p. 324; Padley 1976, pp.
139-41-
It is interesting to note that the influential grammarian
Francisco Sanchez discussed the
issue
of naturally significative language in the introduction to his
Minerva:
see Sanchez 1587, ff. 5
r
-7
v
. He wrote (f. 6
r
): 'Nomina certe et verba rerum naturam
significare cum Platone assererem libentissime, si hoc
ille
tantum de primaeva omnium linguarum
asseverasset.'
81.
See Cornelius 1965, p. 10; Knowlson 1975, PP-
12—13•
82.
Collegium Conimbricense
1607 (part
11),
cols.
48-59.
For other references, see Ashworth 1981a, pp.
307-8.
83.
Ibid.,
cols. 58-9: 'Ad illud, quod subditur de impositione nominum animalium facta ab Adamo,
variae sunt doctorum interpretationes, inter quas duae praecipuae. Una, dici ea nomina propria
animalium, quia in modo proferendi cohaerebant cum animalium natura et proprietatibus, ut quae
significabat leonem, maiestatem prae se ferret atque terrorem; quae Philomelam, suavitatem.
Secunda verior, significasse Moysem
illis
verbis, ijsdem nominibus appellasse Adamum animalia in
orbis conditione, quibus ea suo tempore Hebraeis nuncupabant.'
84.
Ibid.,
col. 58. Couto's reasons for suggesting God as the original impositor had to do with the
difficulties involved in supposing that either Adam alone or both Adam and Eve together created a
language:
see col. 55. So far as I know, the problem of how the original imposition took place, or
who was responsible, was not often raised, at least by logicians.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008