Upload
shatakan
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
1/35
Logic, c. 1080 -1115: a synthesis
What should a synthesis of logic c.1080-1115 be synthesizing? Clearly, what we know especially, what has been discovered in the last few years and may not yet be generally
known about logic in these years. It is easy, however, to overlook the complexity
involved in this apparently simple formulation, and to think of logic at this time as if it
were a fixed area of ground, which we are illuminating and rendering visible, section by
section, with the searchlights of scholarship: the synthesis, then, would be an account of the
contents of these areas, especially those that had been lit up most recently. But this simile is
very misleading. There is no fixed area of ground. True, logic was a recognized disciplinewith its own textbooks and lectures on them, and by looking at them, and their echoes in
other disciplines (grammar, rhetoric, theology), a basic subject-area can be delimited. But
making sense of this area requires selection from it, and that selection will reflect an
individual or shared programme of research, with presumptions and priorities linked to
todays academic disciplines, such as philosophy and history.
Moreover, there is a problem of chronological delimitation. The dates I have given,
1080 1115, mark a period that specialists have tended to regard as a unit, starting with the
beginning of the surge in interest in Aristotelian logic and finishing just before Abelards
mature logical works. Although I shall make these period markers my guidelines (and I
shall refer to the years they delimit simply as the period), because this is what
philosophers and historians have recently done, it is an open question (which I shall re-
open at the end) whether these years should be thought to form a period in the history of
logic.
These methodological considerations have determined the structure of this
synthesis. In the first section, I shall set out some basic material about the syllabus oftwelfth-century logic, its relation to other disciplines, the forms in which the logicians of
the period have left their work and the documentary evidence about individual teachers. In
the second, I shall look at some of the different research projects which have shaped our
present conception of the field. The third section is more opinionated. I shall suggest some
1
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
2/35
conclusions that follow from the work of the last ten or so years, about what we know, and
what we do not know of the field, and what that field should be, and how, as scholars
philosophers and historians working together, we might most profitably proceed.
I - Some Basic Information
The curriculum
The study of logic in the early Middle Ages centred around the study of a small corpus of
ancient logical texts.1Three, PorphyrysIsagoge, the Categories and On Interpretation, all
available in translations by Boethius,2 had been known since the ninth century or even
earlier; serious study of the Categories and On Interpretation did not begin, though, until
the eleventh century previously, the doctrine of the Categories was studied through a
much-glossed paraphrase, the Categoriae Decem, whilst On Interpretation was considered
discouragingly difficult.3 Five more texts had come into circulation around the year 1000:
Boethiuss two monographs on categorical syllogisms and his textbook on hypothetical
syllogisms, his briefDe divisione and his discussion of topical reasoning, De topicis
differentiis.4 (A second work of Boethiuss on the topics, his commentary on Boethiuss
1 Cf. AbelardDialectica (Peter Abelard, 1970, 146): Sunt autem tres quorum septem codicibus omnis inhac arte eloquentia latina armatur. Aristotelis enim duos tantum, Praedicamentorum scilicet et Periermeniaslibro, usus adhuc Latinorum cognouit; Porphyrii uero unum, qui uidelicet de quinque uocibusconscriptus, (genere scilicet, specie, differentia, proprio et accidente), introductionem ad ipsa praeparatPraedicamenta; Boethii autem quattuor in consuetudinem duximus, Librum uidelicet Diuisionum etTopicorum cum Syllogismis tam Categoricis quam Hypotheticis.2 The texts are available in theAristoteles Latinus (Aristotle, 1961 -):Isagoge - I,6-7; Categories I,1-5; On
Interpretation II. The textual history of the translation of the Categories, as reconstructed by Minio-Paluello, is very complicated: Boethiuss final version (a) was combined at some time with another version
(x), also probably by Boethius, to form a composite version (c). But, in the manuscripts, a is usuallycontaminated by c, and c by a. The version usually used, in the twelfth century and throughout the MiddleAges was c but in manuscripts contaminated to a greater or lesser extent by a. So Minio-Paluello (AL I, 1-4, ix-lxiii; Minio-Paluello, 1962): his scholarship is exquisite, but the reconstruction is so complicated thatis hard to think that everything could not easily have happened quite otherwise.3 An up-to-date listing of glossed MSS and their affiliations is given in the version of the WorkingCatalogue displayed on the Glosulae website.4 Editions: Categorical syllogisms: Boethius (2001) forDe syllogismo categorico and Boethius (1847, 761-94) forIntroductio ad syllogismos categoricos 2003, 46);Hypothetical syllogisms: Boethius (1969);Dedivisione: Boethius (1998);De topicis differentiis: Boethius (1990), translation and commentary Boethius
2
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
3/35
Topica, had been available since Carolingian times, but it was never a textbook in the
logical curriculum.)
For studying these texts, many of the early medieval logicians found the
commentaries of Boethius indispensable. He had provided them with two on the Isagoge
(the first, in dialogue-form, was his earliest work on logic, using Marius Victorinuss
translation of Porphyrys text, not his own as in the second commentary),5 two on On
Interpretation (an easier, first editio, and a far more detailed second editio)6 and one on the
Categories.7All were well known to logicians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but it
was the second Isagoge and On Interpretation commentaries, rather than the first, which
they tended to use.
It has recently been pointed out that there was even in the late eleventh century
some knowledge of the text of the Prior Analytics.8But this work had no serious bearingon how logic was studied in the period around 1100, and most of the logicians have a rather
inaccurate view of the contents of thePrior Analytics. It was when Abelard came to know
thePrior Analytics, at the time he wrote his Logica Ingredientibus, that the text seems to
have had some important influence.9 Similarly, the genuine Aristotelian Topics in
Boethiuss translation did not start to be used until the time of John of Salisbury, but there
is a surprising citation from it in a logical text from the early twelfth century.10
(1978). TheDe definitione, attributed in the Middle Ages to Boethius but in fact by Marius Victorinus, wasalso studied, but to my knowledge it was not an important part of the twelfth-century curriculum: it is not,for instance, included in Abelards list of set texts (see above, n. 1).5
Boethius (1906).6 Boethius (1877, 1880)7 Boethius (1847) 159-2948 See Iwakuma (forthcoming-b), adding to the discussion given by Minio-Paluello inAL III, 1-4 on pp. ix,433-6 and in Minio-Paluello (1954). Iwakuma points to a passage in Bernard of Utrechts Commentum adTheodulum ( Huygens, 1970, 66:20-67:209), written between 1079 and 1099, and a passage in acommentary on theDe topicis differentiis from the late eleventh century in B2, ms Pommersfelden, cod.162764, f. 7r.9 See Martin (forthcoming).10 See Rosier(-Catach) (1986).
3
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
4/35
The Form of Commentaries
The greater part of the evidence for teaching and thought about logic in the period is in the
form of continuous commentaries on the texts of the logical curriculum.11
They all sharethe form of being passage by passage treatments of the texts: the first few words of a
passage (a lemma) are written out, and there follows a discussion. But they fall into two
main types.12 The model for the most widespread type, the composite commentary, was
provided by Boethiuss commentaries, where each section of the text was discussed
discursively, and problems were raised, explained and resolved.13Boethius, however, did
not go in detail through every word of the text (although the elementary first editio on On
Interpretation does from time to time gloss individual sentences). The twelfth-century
logicians added an element of literal, phrase by phrase commentary, quite often put in the
first person, so that the commentator is speaking for Aristotle, Porphyry or Boethius, as if
these authors were to have paused to explain their texts more explicitly and ponderously. In
the other, slightly less common type, literal commentary, this very detailed commentary
predominates, and discursive discussion is more limited. Literal commentaries are, then,
distant formally from the model of Boethius, and they are usually distant in content too,
whereas some composite commentaries contain many passages borrowed from, or closely
based on, Boethius. Literal and composite should not, however, be thought of asdesignating two completely distinct classes: literal commentaries contain some more
discursive comments, and composite commentaries can have sections where the exegesis is
merely literal.14
11 For the sake of convenience in referring to so many anonymous commentaries, alphanumericdesignations have been assigned to them. In the case of theIsagoge (I), the Categories(C)and On
Interpretation (H), they refer to the Working Catalogue (see Bibliography: Abbreviations for details ofpublication, revision and availability on the web). ForDe topicis differentiis (B), they refer to the catalogue
in Green-Pedersen (1984). Yukio Iwakuma has also assigned numbers to commentaries onDe divisione(D),De syllogismis categoricis (SC) andDe syllogismis hypotheticis (SH) in Forthcoming-a.12 See the Introduction to the Working Catalogue. Iwakuma presents an analysis of the form of the twelfth-century logical commentaries close to, but not quite the same as, this in Forthcoming-d.13 The way in which Boethius acted as a model can be seen from how his commentaries were the mainsource for the early medievalIsagoge glosses and for P2 and C4.14 There were also problem commentaries (the best known is AbelardsLogica Nostrorum petitioni
sociorum), which concentrated on discussing the difficult issues, with very little or no literal commentary.None of these has been dated to before c. 1120, but they should be born in mind, since it will turn out thatthe chronology of the commentaries is far less fixable than has been believed.
4
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
5/35
All these commentaries belong to the activity of teaching and learning logic in the
cathedral schools, and especially in the schools of Paris, which were beginning to become
important in the early twelfth century. But what exactly is their relation? Were they drawn
up to be read out by the master, or are they, rather, lecture-notes taken by students? A few
commentaries notably one on On Interpretation (H5) contain passages recording
questions, discussion and humorous (sometimes obscene) asides that appear to be a very
direct record of what went on during a particular set of lectures.15 Other commentaries give
the impression of having been more formally written up. Probably there is a range of
different relationships between the various texts that survive and the lectures with which
they are connected, and it goes beyond a simple choice between teachers text or lecture
notes, since lecture notes might be presented to a teacher for correction, 16 or they might
form the basis of a students own lectures, with passages revised ands his own particulartake on controversial issues added.
These are conjectures, but one thing at least is clear: the twelfth-century logical
commentaries were not usually conceived of or created as literary works, produced by a
given, single author. They are, for the most part at least, records of teaching and learning,
in which individual masters views on issues may well play an important role, but which
draw often on many sources. The relations between different versions of the same basic
commentary show how freely one master would feel he could borrow from and adapt the
teaching of another.17 The result is that commentaries have a layered form, with extra
material added, perhaps in a number of stages. Where we have manuscripts of different
versions, it is easy to see how the later versions are layered, with a stratum that follows the
earlier commentary, and one or more strata added. For example, in P3, after a discussion of
Porphyrys questions shared by the three manuscripts, one of the manuscripts, now in Paris,
adds a passage giving an alternative discussion of the phrase only in bare, pure thoughts,
in which it is related to non-existents, such as chimaeras.18 If we had only the Paris
manuscript, it would not be so clear that this paragraph was an added layer. We should
15 See Iwakuma (1999) 94-7.16 See the discussion of how Abelards Sententie were composed in Mews (1986) 160, citing Bischoff(1967). There would be a difference, though, in that there was not the concern in logic that there was intheology to produce an authoritative text of a particular master.17 See below, p. 8 and see the Working Catalogue under C8 Complex18 The passage is added in Paris BN 13368, f. 216vb. See Iwakuma (forthcoming-d).
5
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
6/35
suspect, therefore, that there are often layers of this sort within commentaries for which
only one manuscript survives, or in the earliest version we have of a commentary that went
on to be further revised.
A rough modern parallel might make the nature of these twelfth-century
manuscripts more vivid. Imagine someone teaching an elementary logic course who has
produced a detailed handout, using a standard textbook which she feels free to copy other
logicians (she is just using it to teach, as was intended), and free also to change wherever
she can improve on the presentation or disagrees on the stance the author has taken on a
controversial issue, or where she finds a passage out of date. Suppose, now, a student
downloads the handout, but revises it in line with extra comments the teacher makes in her
lectures, and in the light of a conversation he has with her about some issues which he
found puzzling. Then, three years later, when he is asked to lecture on the same subject, heturns to his revised handout and uses it as the basis for his own lecture handout, but adding
some new material, reflecting his own views and some very recent controversies. What
results will be a document that, potentially, can tell a good deal about how logic is taught,
and about both teachers views but it will not be easy, without further information, to
extract this information; and the wrong way to go about it would be to try and find who is
the documents author.
The early twelfth-century commentaries
A Working Catalogue has been drawn up that aims to list all the commentaries we know
on theIsagoge, Categories and On Interpretation up to the end of the twelfth century, and
there is also a (chronologically broader) catalogue ofDe topicis differentiis commentaries
and list of commentaries on the other Boethian textbooks.19 Although at the end of this
piece I shall call into question the easy distinction that is often made between logic from
the beginning of the twelfth century and logic from the period 1115-40 (hence my scare
quotes), there is certainly a group of commentaries from these lists which researchers up
19 These materials are listed in n. 11. Unfortunately, the compiler of the Working Catalogue showed thementality of a cataloguer rather than an historian, seeking at all costs to assign the commentaries he listedto an author or at least a date; this tendency was exacerbated in the Addendum to the Catalogue, althoughthe new version of the Catalogue for the Categories commentaries only, on this website, is far morecircumspect.
6
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
7/35
until now have assigned to the period c. 1100-1115 and distinguished from other,
supposedly later pieces: -
Literal commentaries
Commentaries on the Isagoge (P5), On Interpretation (H4), De divisione (D7) in
Paris BN 13368;20
Commentaries on the Isagoge (Disputata Porphyrii P7)21, On Interpretation
(H5)22 andDe topicis differentiis (B1)23 in Munich clm 14779;
The commentary on On Interpretation in Oxford, Corpus Christi College 233 (H7)
(distantly related to H4 and H5);
Commentaries belonging to a collection of material in Pommersfelden
Schlossbibliothek 16/2764, including two fragments of, or notes from, Isagoge
commentaries (P4a, P4b), a commentary on De topicis differentiis (B3)24 and anotherfragment of one (B26), a commentary on De categoricis syllogismis (SC6), a partial
commentary onDe hypotheticis syllogismis (SH6), and some logical notes..25
(Commentaries in Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum, MacClean 165, P6 and C6:
these may belong to this group in principle, but they have been hardly studied.)
The commentaries listed here in Paris BN 13368 (P5, H4) are usually considered to be
Abelards early works, but this attribution is now being questioned, especially in the case
of C5. They are related to the commentaries in the Munich clm 14779, and H5 seems to
preserve a fuller version of the same lectures as H4, including personal references that may
suggest a link with Abelard.26It is this link with Abelard usually, it has been presumed,
the young Abelard that has provided the reason for dating the commentaries in the Paris
and Munich manuscripts to the very first years on the twelfth century. The Pommersfelden
20 They are edited in Peter Abelard (1969).21
Edited in Iwakuma (1992) 74-10022 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website. Iwakuma (1999, 94-7)transcribes the passages of asides in H5 that seem to go back to Abelards classroom23 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website.24 Now edited in full in Hansen (2005).25 See Iwakuma (1992) 62-5, where (103-11) he edits P4a and P4b. Iwakuma has made transcriptions of therest of this material, except B3 (see note above for edn): a link is planned from the Glosulae website.26 Iwakuma (1992, 58-62) once attributed P7 to Roscelin. Luscombe (1962, 225-34) argued that it was by a
pupil of Abelards. Iwakuma also (1992, 61) considers that the other commentaries and logical notes in thissection of clm 14779 are probably from the same school and suggests that some might be by Roscelin.
7
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
8/35
material must, however, be this early, since the manuscript is dated to the end of the
eleventh/ beginning of the twelfth century.
Composite commentaries
There is a group of what might be called standard composite commentaries:
commentaries that, unusually, are preserved in more than one manuscript, often in different
versions:27-
On the Isagoge: P3 (3 MSS; consisting of an earliest-preserved version and two
independent revisions);28
On the Categories: C8 complex: C8,29 C7 and C1430 (6 MSS; consisting of an earliest-
preserved version and four revisions falling into two groups)
On On Interpretation: H11 and H9 (3 MSS; H9 is a version of H11, but considerablydifferent)31
OnDe divisione: D8 (= Paris BN 13368, f. 191rb-4vb ; Assisi 573, f. 68ra-78vb)
OnDe topicis differentiis: B8 (3 MSS); B1032
6. On De syllogismis hypotheticis:SH3 (=Munich clm 14458, f. 59-82 ; Orleans 266, pp.
78b-118a; Munich clm 14779, f. 66r-7r)33
Although datings and attributions have been proposed for a number of these commentaries
(see Section II, below), there is little that can be established solidly, except to place them
somewhere in the period c.1090 c. 1140 (see Section III, below).
Other composite commentaries that have been considered to belong to the period
include: -
P14, which has some relation to P3.34
P16, which is thought to be early because it is heavily dependent on Boethius.35
P15, which is made up of extracts from P3 and P15. 36
27 See Iwakuma (1999) 101-2 and Iwakuma (forthcoming-a)28
Edited in Iwakuma (forthcoming-d). Iwakuma has made available the camera ready copy: a link isplanned from the Glosulae website.29 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website.30 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website.31 H9 is being edited by Onno Kneepkens.32 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website.33 See Iwakuma (1999) 101 and Iwakuma (forthcoming-a).34 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website.35 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website.36 Transcription by Iwakuma: a link is planned from the Glosulae website.
8
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
9/35
C5, which is generally described as one of Abelards literal commentaries and has
been published with them.37 Unlike those commentaries, however, it is a fragment, without
any attribution, and it is composite in form. Its attribution and dating are matters for
discussion.
The Treatises and their Form
Two long and important logical treatises survive from the earlier part of the twelfth
century: the Dialecticaby Gerlandus (probably of Besanon), and theDialectica of Peter
Abelard.38 The two Dialecticas do not, as might be expected, make a radical break away
from the commentary form. AbelardsDialectica is addressed to his brother Dagobert and
said to be for the education of his nephews,39 but comparison with the set of commentaries
known as the Logica Ingredientibus (c. 1119) shows that Abelard is using his lecture
material. He deals, usually section by section, with the material of each of the textbooks in
the curriculum, allowing himself some occasional rearrangements. In general, he seems to
have included more of the discussion that took place in the lectures here than in the overt
commentaries which form theLogica Ingredientibus, although he sometimes abbreviates it
so severely as to make it nearly incomprehensible. Gerlandus states explicitly in hisprologue that his object is to introduce beginners to the teachings of Aristotle, who tends to
be too concise, and Boethius, who is prolix and difficult to grasp. In the course of his
treatise, Gerlandus goes through each of the ancient textbooks, except for On Division,
writing terse paraphrases followed by sections full of nit-picking questions (what he calls
sophismata). Formally, his work is closest to the literal commentaries (but with the added
sophismata), whereas Abelards Dialectica is close formally to composite commentaries.
As well as these long treatises, a fragmentary treatise (the Limoges Treatise) on the
Categories in Paris, BN, lat. 544, 94r 101v has recently been discovered, and has been
placed by its finder, on doctrinal grounds, at the turn of the twelfth century.40
37 Peter Abelard (1969) 43-6738 Garlandus (1959); Peter Abelard (1970)39 Peter Abelard (1970) 146:23-540 This treatise was discovered by Yukio Iwakuma and is discussed at length, with citations, in Iwakuma(forthcoming c). He calls it the Limoges Treatise because of its provenance, St Martial de Limoges. The
9
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
10/35
The dating of the twoDialecticas is difficult. AbelardsDialectica used to be dated
towards the end of his life, after 1140, but recent opinion has put its completion before
1117, and quite possibly rather earlier than that.41 TheDialectica was thought by its editor
to have been written by Garlandus the Elder, who worked in the first part of the eleventh
century. But it has been argued convincingly that the author of the Dialectica was
Gerlandus of Besanon.42 This attribution still leaves room for a wide range of dates. There
are parallels between the treatise and P5 (the literal commentary usually attributed to
Abelard) and Abelards Dialectica, but, if there is influence, it is not clear in which
direction.43 Gerlandus was still alive in 1149, when he travelled to Frankfurt with Thierry
of Chartres, and the single manuscript of his Dialectica could be as late as 1130.44 His
knowledge in this work of a passage from the Aristotles own Topics might also point away
from an early dating.45A date between 1100, at the very earliest, and any time in the 1120sis possible.
It may be the case that a different form of short logical treatise, called
Introductiones, also existed even before the beginning of the twelfth century. A number
ofIntroductiones from the middle or later part of the twelfth century are known.46 But
someIntroductiones must have been written by c. 1117 or earlier, because Abelard refers
in hisDialectica to hisIntroductiones parvulorum (which there are no reason to identify, as
has often been done, with his so-called literal commentaries).47Two sets ofIntroductiones,
rather similar to each other and attributed, one to a Master G., one to (the same person?) a
Master William Paganellus, have been published and placed by their editor slightly before
1080.48TheseIntroductiones are short works that are not concerned at all with the matter of
manuscript (BN lat 544) also contains other logical material that Iwakuma dates to the same period andschool: a part of a commentary onDe topicis differentiis, notes,sophismata andIntroductiones41 See Mews (1985), 74-104; De Rijk (1986) 103-8; Mews (2005, 43) where he proposes 1112 1117/8.42 Iwakuma (1992) 47-5443 Iwakuma (1992) 52-344 On the dating of the MS, see the letter from F. Gasparri quoted in Iwakuma (1992) 48-9. On Gerlandus
and Thierry, see Mews (1998) 72-3. As Mews remarks too, Irne Rosier(-Catach) (1986) has pointed to ause in theDialectica of Aristotles Topics, a text that Thierry was one of the first Latin writers to know. ButThierrys scholarly activity seems to date from the 1120s, or later, onwards.45 See n. 10.46 Some are treated in De Rijk (1967).47 Peter Abelard (1970) 174:1, 232:10-12, 269:1, 329:4; cf. Mews (1985) 74-548 Iwakuma (2003b). One set is said, in the manuscript, to be secundum Wilgelmum, the othersecundum magistrum G. Paganellum. De Rijk (1967, 130-46) discovered the first of these treatises, andhe attributed it tentatively to William of Champeaux. Iwakuma accepts this attribution for both treatises,which he believes must date from very early in his career. The date of the earlier manuscript is mid-twelfth
10
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
11/35
theIsagoge or the Categories, but with how propositions are constructed from words, and
how arguments are made up using propositions; there is a very strong emphasis on topical
argument. The ancient textbooks (On Interpretation, Boethiuss treatises on syllogistic and
hisDe topicis differentiis) are ultimately behind the teaching, but often distantly.
Two other logical, or quasi-logical, treatises are known, which were written by
theologians. The first is Anselms De grammatico, a dialogue on the problem of
denominatives that is raised by the Categories.49De grammatico has usually been dated to
1080-5, after Anselm wrote his Monologion andProslogion, though an earlier dating has
been urged.50The second treatise does not sound like a logical work at all: it is the De
peccato originali by Odo of Tournai (or Cambrai).51 Odo was a logician, turned ascetic
monk. As a master of logic at Tournai, he had apparently written a number of logical
treatises, none of which survives. But when, later in life, his monks urged him to writeabout the problem of Original Sin, he produced a treatise that contains whole chapters that
could come from a manual of logic. De peccato originali was probably written between
1096 and Odos death in 1113.52
Logic and the Trivium
There were close connections between studying logic, and studying the other two subjectsof the trivium: grammar and rhetoric. Both these disciplines have their own synthses on
this web-site: my purpose here is just to underline the links with logic.
The longest and most advanced of the textbooks used in the grammar curriculum,
PrisciansInstitutiones, had been commented on since the ninth century. This project and
conference takes its title from the Glosulae the commentary on Priscian from the period.
The writers of the Glosulae, both to the main part of the Institutiones (Priscian major),
and the concluding books (Priscian minor), knew about the logicians debates and were
century.49 Ed. in Anselm (1946) I; with translation and commentary, Henry (1964). A good recent study, withfurther bilbiography, is Adams (2000)50 Southern (1990) 65 and n. 3551PL 160, 1071-1102. I am grateful to Christophe Erismann for supplying me with a text based on thisedition in Migne, but with his own notes of variant readings. There is an English translation (Odo ofTournai, 1994), but the notes and the Introduction are of limited value for historians of logic.52 Odos translator, Resnick, suggests 1096-1105 (Odo of Tournai, 1994, 26).
11
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
12/35
willing to bring them into their grammatical commentary not without reason, because
Priscian had his own, Stoic philosophical source, Apollonius Dyscolus. A striking example
is the long discussion that begins the Glosulae on the definition of utterance (vox), which
is almost identical, although differently arranged, to passages in the standard Categories
commentary (C8).53 There are philosophical elements, too, in the related Notae
Dunelmenses, a series of notes and reports of masters views, written by someone who
knew the Glosulae.54
Dating this grammatical material is no less problematic than for the logic, as the
main Synthse makes clear. As with the logical commentaries, the Glosulae is a layered
work, and some, at least, of the layers are discernible through looking at the different
manuscripts.It used to be thought that one manuscript of the Glossulae on Priscian major
(Cologne, Dombibliothek 201), dated from the late eleventh century, so providing arelatively early terminus ante quem for the earliest surviving version of the commentary,
but now that manuscript has been re-dated to the twelfth century. The Notae Dunelmenses
report above all, and as if the writer had heard them in person, the views of a Master G.,
and they have been found in a number of cases to correspond with other reports of the
teaching of William of Champeaux.55 Since it is sometimes made clear that Master G.
disagrees with what the Glosulae says, some version of the commentary must have been in
existence during William of Champeauxs teaching career (if the identification of Master
G. is correct): therefore in all probability before he became Bishop of Chlons-sur-Marne
in 1113. Moreover, Abelard knows the teaching of the Glosulae by the time he writes his
Dialectica (perhaps even before 1113).56
It was neither in his logical nor his grammatical teaching, but in a course of lectures
on rhetoric by William that Abelard, on his own account, made his famous attack on
William of Champeauxs theory of universals.57 William was clearly a teacher of rhetoric.
Moreover, positions on the theory of universals have been found by those studying the
rhetorical commentaries of the time, especially one associated with William of
53 The vox section is edited in Rosier(-Catach) (1993). Texts of the Glosulae are available on the conferenceweb-site.54 For an edition by Frank Cinato, complete with electronic indices, see the Glosulae web-site.55 See Rosier-Catach (forthcoming).56 See the discussion of Rosier-Catachs work in Part II, below.57 The passage is discussed in the following section.
12
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
13/35
Champeaux.58 There is also a close connection between logic and rhetoric brought about by
the fact that the fourth book of Boethiuss De differentiis topicis, a central text for the
logicians, is devoted to the rhetorical topics. Most logicians did not comment on it, but
Abelard includes a long digression on rhetoric in his commentary, which is copied by one
commentator to form a commentary on this final book.59
Testimonies and Known Masters
Faced with this mass of material that is mostly anonymous, and therefore hard to place or
date, it is important to ask what sort of evidence about where and when particular masters
taught. The hope might be that the historian of philosophy could as a matchmaker, happily
uniting names with texts. The danger is that, out of eagerness to earn her keep, she will
promote arranged marriages, yoking together couples that have never met and should never
have been brought together.
The two most important testimonies about logic at the turn of the twelfth century
are the beginning of Anselms De incarnatione Verbi and some passages in Abelards
Historia calamitatum. Both have the advantage of coming from the hands of well-known
authors, indeed the two greatest philosophers of their time, and appearing in texts that can
themselves be securely dated. There are, however, considerations about the authorsintentions that make their evidence less than straightforward.
At the opening ofDe incarnatione Verbi (first version 1091-2), Anselm addresses
Roscelin. He says that logicians like Roscelin
think that universal substances are merely the breath of an utterance (flatum vocis)
and are not able to understand colour as other than the body, or a persons
wisdom as other than his soul.60
The problem in interpreting this passage is to judge how accurately Anselm is representing
his opponent. Given that he believes that Roscelins position on the Trinity is heretical,
might he be, not describing his logical views, but caricaturing them?
58 See Fredborg (1986), 13, 29, 30.59 See Fredborg (2003).60 For the whole passage see Anselm (1946) I, 285 (and cf. 289); for revised version: II, 9-10.
13
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
14/35
In his Historia Calamitatum, Abelard tells of how he came to Paris, where the
discipline of logic flourished especially, with William of Champeaux as the teacher there;
and how William turned from favouring, to persecuting him, when he tried to refute his
views and sometimes seemed to have the upper hand in disputations.61 Abelard does not
say a word about the content of his, or Williams, arguments. A few paragraphs later,
however, he gives some more detail when he describes an incident that took place when he
returned, c. 1108, to Paris after a period of illness spent in his native Brittany: -
Then I returned to him [William] in order to hear his lectures on rhetoric. We
exerted ourselves in disputing with one another, and in the course of these
disputations I forced him through the most clearly reasoned arguments to change
his old view about universals, indeed to reject it. He held the view about the
commonness of universals according to which the same thing as a thing(essentialiter) is at one and the same time whole within its single individuals, which
do not differ as things (in essentia) but only through the variety of their many
accidents. He corrected his view by saying from then on that the thing is the same,
not as a thing, but through non-difference (non essentialiter sed indifferenter). And,
since for logicians the chief question about universals has always been in this so
much so that even Porphyry, writing about universals in his Isagoge, does not
presume to give a conclusion, saying To treat of this is extremely profound
when William had no choice but to correct, or rather abandon, this view, his
lectures came to be so badly regarded that they were hardly accepted on the other
parts of logic, as if the whole of this art were contained in that one view, on
universals.62
61 Peter Abelard (1978) 64:31-862 Peter Abelard (1978) 65:80 66:100:Tum ego ad eum reuersusut ab ipso rhetoricam audirem, inter
caetera disputationum nostrarumconamina antiquam eius de uniuersalibus sententiam patentissimisargumentorum rationibus ipsum commutare (immo destruere!) compuli. Erat autem in ea sententia decommunitate uniuersalium ut eamdem essentialiter rem totam simul singulis suis inesse astrueretindiuiduis, quorum quidem nulla esset in essentia diuersitas sed sola multitudine accidentium uarietas. Sicautem istam tunc suam correxit sententiam, ut deinceps rem eamdem non essentialiter sed indifferenterdiceret. Et quoniam de uniuersalibus in hoc ipso praecipua semper est apud dialeticos quaestio ac tanta uteam Porphyrius quoque in Isagogis suis cum de uniuersalibus scriberet definire non praesumeret, dicens:Altissimum enim est huiusmodi negotium. Cum hanc ille correxerit immo coactus dimiserit sententiam, intantam lectio eius deuoluta est negligentiam, ut iam ad caetera dialecticae uix admitteretur quasi in hacscilicet de uniuersalibus sententia tota huius artis consisteret summa.
14
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
15/35
The first view held by William is usually labelled Material Essence Realism; a fuller
account of it, along with his own counter-arguments, can be found in both of Abelards
mature Porphyry commentaries (from c. 1119, and c. 1125). But Abelard may not have
developed by 1108 the same arguments that he would later use. Nor is it clear whether
Material Essence Realism was Williams invention, or merely the theory he happened to
have adopted. Moreover, Abelard wrote hisHistoria calamitatum probably c. 1131, nearly
a quarter of a century after this dispute with William, and with the aim of preparing for his
re-entry into the Parisian schools by casting his controversial career and personal life in a
favourable light, under which he was the victim of envy. It would not be surprising if he
had magnified the importance of his difference with William or the extent of his
intellectual victory.
There are also chronicle sources which provide some names and suggestions aboutlogic in the late eleventh century. In Hermann of Tournais account (written 1142 or later)
of the restoration of the abbey at Tournai by Odo (who would go on to write De peccato
originali), he describes a certain master Rainbertus of Lille as reading logic in the same
way as certain contemporaries in voce.63 He contrasts Rainbertus unfavourably with Odo,
who read logic for his pupils in re in the manner of Boethius and the ancient doctors (
eandem dialecticam non iuxta quosdam modernos in voce, sed more Boetii antiquorum
doctorum in re discipulis legebat). Hermann goes on to apply to logicians like Rainbertus
the comment that Anselm addresses to Roscelin.64 A chronicle from Fleury (c. 1110)
records that at the time when Lanfranc died, that is to say, 1087, the eminent logicians were
John, who argued that the art of logic is concerned with utterances (vocalis), and his
followers, Robert of Paris, Roscelin of Compigne and Arnulf of Laon.65 Of these names,
Roscelin is well known through Anselms testimony, and it may be possible to connect
Robert and Arnulf with some of the anonymous material. It is common for twelfth-century
authors to use their own names at times in logical examples,66 and to use place names, river
names and so on of their own towns in the same way. The commentaries on De topicis
63 Hermann of Tournai (1883) 275.64 Hermann of Tournai (1883) 275: Denique dominus Anselmus Cantuariensis episcopus in libro quemfecit de Verbi incarnatione non dialecticos huiusmodi clericos, sed dialecticae appellat hereticos: Quinonnisi flatum, inquit, universales putant esse substantias (Anselm had added the remark aboutheretics of dialectic in the revised version of his treatise.)65 Bouquet (1781) 366 See Iwakuma (1999) 96-7.
15
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
16/35
differentiis andDe categoricis syllogismis in the Pommersfelden manuscript from the turn
of the twelfth century use the name Arnulfus in this way, and there is a mention of Laon:
so there seems reason to think of Arnulf of Laon as the person who gave these lectures (or,
possibly, who wrote them down).67 The Limoges treatise uses the name Robert as an
example, suggesting that it might have been written by Robert of Paris.68
II - Some Research Projects
Logic at the turn of the twelfth century has been the subject of historians and
philosophers attention for a surprising length of time. Until recently (and still, in some
cases, even now), the only edition of parts of a logical commentary from the time would befound in Victor Cousins Ouvrages indits dAblard, published in 1836. Roscelin and
William of Champeaux loomed large in nineteenth-century histories of medieval
philosophy, inspiring discussions of a length apparently inversely related to the amount of
information available, and reaching its apogee in the work of the Abb Michaud, who
happily discoursed for 200 pages on Williams logic, without even claiming to have any
texts of it.69 Accounts of Roscelin were even more fanciful.70 But then William and
Roscelin were historiographically necessary for Abelard in the same way that, in twentieth-
century presentations, Siger of Brabant and Bonaventure have been made necessary for
Aquinas.
A great thinker must take the middle way, the juste milieu, between the two
extremes of excessive radicalism and rigid orthodoxy. Given the focus not that of any
medieval thinkers themselves, but of nineteenth-century (and earlier) historians of
philosophy on the problem of universals, it is not surprising that it was over this question
that Abelard was shown to strike the balance, with his conceptualism, between the
excessive nominalism of Roscelin and the equally unbalanced realism of William ofChampeaux. Although study of Abelards mature discussions of universals (in the Logica
67 Iwakuma (1999) 96; Hansen (2005) 46-768 Iwakuma (forthcoming-c)69 Michaud (1869)70 Already, though, nearly a hundred years ago, Franois Picavet (1911) had attacked these myths with hiscustomary incisiveness.
16
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
17/35
Ingredientibus and Logica Nostrorum Petitioni) has shown that he was never a
conceptualist, this dialectical construction has continued to cast its shadow over the modern
debate. Logic at the turn of the twelfth century still tends to be seen in terms of a conflict
between realists and nominalists (even if they are given a different label). The difficult
question is whether this is how the sources show, unmistakably, that things were; or
whether it is a mere habit of thinking, a historical schema that has, through familiarity,
come to seem too comfortable to sacrifice.
Although important work was done on William of Champeaux, Roscelin and their
period throughout the twentieth century, I shall concentrate here on some recent research
projects, most of them connected with members of the Glosulae project. But I shall begin
with a group of modern pioneers.
The Pioneers: De Rijk, Green-Pedersen and Jolivet
The work of Lambertus de Rijk, Niels Green-Pedersen and Jean Jolivet provides the
immediate background for the current research projects I shall be describing.
De Rijk was responsible for editing both Abelards Dialectica long known, and
partially published by Cousin and the Dialectica of Gerlandus, which was previously
unknown.71
Abelards treatise is not only the most important logical work of the century; itis also the fullest source for what was being taught just before and around 1100, because
Abelard from time to time reports the views held by his master William (of Champeaux),
or more rarely those of his other teacher, Roscelin. In his preface to Gerlanduss work, De
Rijk notes what he calls its problemless nominalism, anticipating a theme that would
become important in discussion of him.72But, by placing thisDialectica in the first half of
the eleventh century, he obscured its possible links with early twelfth-century logicians.
In The Tradition of the Topics, Niels Green-Pedersen surveyed the whole tradition
of topical argumentation from antiquity to the late Middle Ages.73 His catalogue of
commentaries onDe topicis differentiis, and his analyses of them, show how eagerly this
71 He also discovered theIntroductiones secundum Wilgelmum (cf. above, p. 10-11).72 Garlandus (1959), liii-lv. In many ways, De Rijks analysis of Garlandus is more perceptive (despite thetoo early dating of theDialectica) than the more recent discussions of vocalism and in voce exegesis, myown very much included.73 Green-Pedersen (1984)
17
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
18/35
text was studied at the turn of the twelfth century. He also managed to provide plausible
evidence for the views on this subject of William of Champeaux, by extracting from
commentaries in Orleans 266 the opinions attributed to Master William who is very
probably William of Champeaux, since one of the views fits exactly what Abelard says
William thought.74
Whereas De Rijk and Green-Pedersen brought new materials to the understanding
of logic in the period, Jolivet synthesized what was already known in order to give
philosophically coherent accounts of Roscelins thinking. Jolivet presents it as
characterized fundamentally by a particularsemantic theory that concentrates on the
reference of words to things, by contrast with the usual Boethian semantic triangle of
words, thoughts and things.75
The Master Builders: Iwakuma and Mews
One scholar, Yukio Iwakuma, has through his discoveries, transcriptions and editions of
texts provided study of twelfth-century logic with the solid foundations it previously
lacked, despite the pioneer work of De Rijk and Green-Pedersen. In a profusion of articles,
packed with unpublished manuscript material, he has erected a superstructure on them, less
stable, but impressive and influential. Iwakumas transcriptions, always generously sharedamong other researchers though only slowly reaching print, include a large number of the
commentaries listed above.76 And, in a series articles from 1992 until today (listed in the
bibliography), he has developed a detailed and distinctive theory of how logic developed in
the period.
According to the historiographical scheme inherited from the nineteenth century
that, in the period immediately before Abelard, there were logicians, Roscelin above all,
who could be considered more extreme nominalists than Abelard. But, aside from
Anselms report of Roscelin, there were few details. In his 1992 article on Vocales and
his forthcoming Vocales Revisited, Iwakuma adds texts, names and doctrines. He
74 Green-Pedersen (1974)75 Jolivet (1992)76 See above, nn. 21-36, where his transcriptions and editions of material that he and others put at the turnof the twelfth century are mentioned. He has also many other transcriptions of commentaries that haveeither not been discussed, or been considered as having been written a little later in the twelfth century.
18
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
19/35
identifies a school of logicians whom he calls vocalists or vocales in his earlier article
and, in the later one, recognizing that contemporaries reserved the term vocales for Abelard
and his followers, prevocalists. The chronicle accounts (see above, pp. 15-16), he
believes, name the main protagonists: John (otherwise unknown); his pupils Roscelin,
Arnulf of Laon and Robert of Paris. To these he adds Gerlandus, now recognized as
Gerlandus of Besanon; Iwakuma believes he wrote his Dialectica c. 1100. Another
Dialectica, mentioned in anonymous De topicis differentiis commentary as having been
written by Robert of Paris, is believed by Iwakuma to survive in part in what he has
christened the Limoges Treatise.77 All the literal commentaries listed on p. 7above78
most of which Iwakuma has transcribed or edited are ascribed by him to, as he now calls
them, prevocalists, who include therefore the young Abelard, supposedly author of literal
commentaries on the Isagoge, Categories,79 On Interpretation and De divisione (P5, C5,H5, D7).
Iwakuma also brings into his story of the development of twelfth-century logic the
group of composite commentaries which he was the first to label as standard. He believes
that, mainly among these, he can identify a corpus of works that were written by the most
famous logician at the turn of the twelfth century, Abelards teacher, William of
Champeaux. Early in his life, Iwakuma contends, William wrote the Introductiones of
Master G. and of Master William Paganellus.80 A little later, he went on to write P3, C8 (in
its original version), H11 and P14. B8 and B10 are, he believes, related to a lost
commentary by William, and the revised versions of C8 are the works of Williams
students, as it seems in his view is H9. Iwakumas arguments for these attributions are
based on shared prologue-patterns and the fact of being copied in multiple manuscripts,
which he considers to show that they were all written by a single, influential master.81 He77 See above, p. 10 for the Limoges treatise. Iwakuma presents his arguments for this attribution inforthcoming-c.He quotes from B1 (Munich, clm 14779, f. 87v): ..... Similiter quando dicit omnis ratiodisserendi, omnis mittit nos ad divisivas partes dialec/ticae, id est adDialecticamRoberti et Guidonis
Lingonensis, ut illae partes / dividantur in scientiam inveniendi et in scientiam iudicandi, quia quas cumque partes principales / habet genus, easdem attribuit unicuique suo inferiori.78 Except for P6, C6 and H7, on which Iwakuma has not written.79 In fact, C5 is a composite commentary, and I have listed as such. But Iwakuma and almost everyoneregards it as belonging to the series that includes P5, H5 and D7 because it is copied with them in the samemanuscript. Yet it is a mere fragment, without attribution.80 Iwakuma (2003b)81 The fullest presentation of these arguments is in Iwakuma (1999) 101-22; in the Introduction to hisforthcoming edition of P3 (Iwakuma, forthcoming-d), Iwakuma summarizes and, in some points, extendshis arguments.; see also Iwakuma (2003a).
19
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
20/35
also finds parallels between doctrines in these commentaries and those in the
Introductiones, and between doctrines attributed to William of Champeaux in other sources
and some passages in C8 and H11; whilst P14 is attributed to him because it has passages
identical with P3 and it refers in passing to the indifference theory of universals, which
William adopted, according to Abelard, after he had been forced to give up Material
Essence Realism.82
There was, on Iwakumas view, a philosophical division between the prevocalists
and William of Champeaux one which, though respecting the contours of the traditional
opposition between the nominalist Roscelin (who belongs to the pre-vocalists) and the
realist William, is far more subtle and complicated. In his original paper on vocales,
Iwakuma pointed, as characteristic of their position, to the claim that Porphyrys intention
in hisIsagoge is to treat five utterances (voces). He goes on to say this claim implies one of a more general character in fact, a new
characterization of the whole of logic. The Isagoge, being the first textbook in a
standard course of logic to maintain that it discusses voces, is tantamount to saying
that the proper subject of all logic is voces.83
In his forthcoming article on prevocalists, Iwakuma stresses that this prevocalist position
should not be confused with the metaphysical position that Abelard would take later, in
propounding what was labelled as vocalism and, later, nominalism. William of
Champeaux, he says, had no metaphysical views about universals when he wrote his
Introductiones, or even, in the 1090s, when he wrote the first version of P3 which, in
Iwakumas view, gives no hint of the controversy on universals or even of prevocalism.
The revision of P3 in the Paris manuscript witnesses Williams reaction to prevocalism, as
does, in greater detail, C8. Abelard, says Iwakuma, had arrived in Paris in about 1100,
having read Robert of ParissDialectica. William responded to his prevocalism in an open
manner, trying to conciliate it with the traditional way in which he had considered the
Isagoge and the Categories to be about things by admitting two interpretations for
passages, one in which the words as taking as signifying things, and the other in which they
signify other words. Meanwhile, contact with William profoundly affected Abelards own
approach to logic, and finally led him to come out with his metaphysical position, the
82 See Iwakuma (1999) 114.83 Iwakuma (1992) 45-6
20
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
21/35
rejection of the reality of genera and species, with which he attacked the theory of Material
Essence Realism that William had just formulated, or which perhaps he only formulated
once the controversy had begun.
Constant Mews is another historian who has brought together a whole variety of
evidence in order to build up a broad picture of intellectual life around the year 1100 his
interests are far wider than logic. Like Iwakuma, he has found the chronicle reports of
eleventh-century masters who read logic in voce suggestive:84 he even puts forward the
novel hypothesis that the Master John mentioned by the Historia Francica is the Johannes
de Aingre mentioned in the colophon to the 1488 edition of the Glosulae by Arrivabenus.85
Mews finds signs in the Glosulae of what he considers to be a vocalism like that of
Roscelin according to him not a view about universals, but a concentration on voces and
a conception of logic and grammar as related arts of language. And Mews tries to use thisunderstanding of vocalism and give a picture of Roscelin as a serious logician and
theologian, rather than a mere rebel against orthodoxy.86
Mews has used Iwakumas discoveries and hypotheses not only to build up his
own, more theologically-centred understanding of the vocalists but also, in a recent essay,
accepting the attributions of the logical Introductiones and commentaries to William of
Champeaux, Mews has urged the breadth of this masters intellectual vision. It brought
together, he believes, logic (dialectica), grammar and rhetoric all as branches of a single
logica, which was itself designed to serve theology, a pattern that Williams successor at St
Victor, Hugh, would develop in hisDidascalicon.87
The Grammarians and the Rhetoricians: Kneepkens, Rosier-Catach,
Fredborg and Ward
Onno Kneepkens is a specialist in medieval grammatical theory, who has devoted years to
a close study of twelfth-century commentaries on the logical text that, more than any other,
is inseparably linked to the grammarians concern, On Interpretation. His studies draw on a
84 A full discussion of them is given in Mews (1998) 50 55, and cf. 68-73 (using Iwakumas work).85 Mews (1992) 14, 3386 Mews (1991), (1992), (1997), (1998)87 Mews (2005a); Mews (2005b) 28-42
21
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
22/35
wide range of unpublished texts (including some commentaries that are hardly discussed by
anyone else88) and give the rare chance to compare thematically-similar passages from the
different works. Kneepkens has been reserved about making attributions; with regard to the
standard commentary on On Interpretation, his chronology differs from Iwakumas, and he
underlines the links with Abelards mature work.89
Irne Rosier-Catach has started out, by contrast, from an explicitly grammatical
work the Glosulae to Priscian and examined the web of connections that link it to
Abelard and his predecessors. More than a decade ago, she focused attention on the
remarkable section at the beginning of the Glosulae on the definition of vox, which is
entirely logical in its concerns and which, as the research group she inaugurated has shown,
runs parallel with the standard Categories commentary.90 A set of highly detailed studies
has not only shown Abelards knowledge and use of ideas in the Glosulae, but also how, byunderstanding the grammatical theories, passages in his works that had seemed obscure
become comprehensible.91 These studies have also helped to build up a reliable dossier of
opinions that were recognized by writers of the time as being William of Champeauxs.92In
her most recent work in the area, in collaboration with Margaret Cameron, Rosier-Catach
returns to theories of the utterance and explores the complex interrelations of the logical
and grammatical commentaries, taking account of the framework provided by Iwakumas
hypotheses, but not relying on it.93
Twelfth-century rhetoric has been the least intensively studied of the three
disciplines of the trivium, but Marta Fredborg and John Ward have struggled, and continue
to do so, against this neglect. Fredborg has argued for the attribution of two rhetorical
commentaries to William of Champeaux,94 and John Ward (along with Juanita Rys) is
engaged in editing them.95
Philosophers and Sceptics: Erismann, Jacobi and Cameron
88 For example, the commentary in Oxford, Corpus Christi College 233 (H7) (2003) 378-8289 Kneepkens has generously made available his transcriptions of this material to other scholars in the field.90 Rosier(-Catach) 1993; Rosier-Catach (2004b) gives a good summary of research on the Glosulae.91 See Rosier-Catach (2003a), (2003b), (2003c), (2004a), Forthcoming-b.92 See Rosier-Catach (2003a), (2003b); Cameron and Rosier-Catach (forthcoming).93 Cameron and Rosier-Catach (forthcoming).94 Fredborg (1986)95 Cox and Ward (2006) is a very important publication in opening up this until now relatively obscure area.
22
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
23/35
It has not been usual to look back in order to understand logical debate in the period, except
to the ancient textbooks themselves. The earlier medieval logical tradition has been treated
as irrelevant to the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. Christophe Erismann has challenged
this position with a bold theory that links William of Champeauxs Material Essence
Realism (as described by Abelard) with the views of his near contemporary, Odo of
Tournai, with Anselm and, looking back, with Eriugena and then with a tradition that can
be traced back ultimately to elements in Boethius and Porphyry. Erismanns contention is
that a series of logically-linked theses, constituting the view called Material Essence
Realism, were held by thinkers in this centuries-old tradition. Although Erismann does not
claim direct influence of Eriugena on early twelfth-century logicians, he makes it seem
unlikely that Eriugenas views had no effect.96 His view is sharply at odds with Iwakumasposition that Material Essence Realism was only invented by William of Champeaux, c.
1108. His work also points attention to the importance of Odo of Tournais De peccato
originali, as an extended logical discussion that, unlike so much other material, is firmly
attributed and can be dated within about ten years.97
Erismann writes as a philosopher, analysing the argumentative content of texts
rather than, like many in this area, concentrating more on dating or attribution. Klaus
Jacobi is better qualified than almost anyone to write philosophically about these logicians,
as he has done on Abelard, Gilbert of Poitiers and many later writers. Yet rather, in this
field Jacobi has put his philosophical acumen to the service of scepticism about literary-
historical constructions. In a paper presented to the 2005 Glosulae conference,98 Jacobi
asked whether, on the basis of the evidence that had been presented, the Introductiones
attributed to William of Champeaux had a high probability of being his. He accepted that
they were associated with William, but argued it was more probable that they were copies
by students of his teaching. He also raised queries about the commentaries, wondering
whether they too might not be the work of students.
Earlier that morning, participants had heard a balanced but more wholeheartedly
sceptical case made by Margaret Cameron, whose arguments, reached completely
96 Erismanns position is proposed in detail in Erismann (2005b); see also Erismann (2002), (2004), (2005a)for briefer, pulbished treatments.97 See Erismann (forthcoming)98 It is unpublished, but it can be telecharged and listened to from the Glosulae web-site.
23
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
24/35
independently from Jacobis, are put forward in detail in her Toronto PhD. 99 She assesses
in detail each of the rather tenuous links relation to the Introductiones, supposed
coherence of the standard commentaries as a group, adherence to doctrines elsewhere
attributed to William that Iwakuma uses to make his case. Pointing to the methodological
weakness of many of the arguments used for the attribution, and to how even the evidence
used is more ambiguous than had been supposed, Cameron suggests that we should be
content to see the commentaries as deriving ultimately from teaching at Notre Dame, and
showing how different twelfth-century logicians addressed and developed a set of problems
in diverse ways. For Cameron is not merely a sceptic, she is a philosopher. Her most
important achievement is perhaps to have shown why this unpromising material can be
philosophically interesting.100For example, in her thesis and especially in her most recent
work, she has begun to show how the early twelfth logicians, like Garlandus, whoconcerned themselves with utterances were doing more than pursue a somewhat demented
exegetical strategy. Their attention to utterances as physical things highlights what remains
today an issue in the philosophy of language: how can something have two different sets of
characteristics, one set physical, one set semantic?101
III An Opinionated Conclusion
As the last section shows, there is a diversity of research projects within the area. Yet, with
the exception of the sceptics, and those who have concentrated on the philosophical themes
rather than questions of chronology and attribution, scholars have been working, in
different ways and with different ends, on a common project, which revolves around the
Priscian Glosulae, the figure of William of Champeaux and the idea that the grammar,
logic and rhetoric of the period immediately before Abelard (the mature Abelard of the
Dialectica andLogica Ingredientibus), form a coherent object of study. It is as if we have
been constructing a building, although there is no architect in charge or plan to be
followed. There are, therefore, many disputes about the exact shape of this or that part of
the building, where a window should be and where a door, but none the less, the house is
99 Cameron (2005); the arguments are very briefly summarized in Cameron (2004)100 For a short example, see Cameron (2004).101 See Cameron (forthcoming).
24
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
25/35
taking on some sort of shape. I want to pose some awkward questions about it. Are the
foundations sound? Are the building methods reliable? Is the building where it should be?
Are the Foundations Sound?
There is a relatively limited number of well-established dates and facts on which are
founded many of the arguments about the chronology and attribution of logical works in
the period. Some are fairly firm, but foundations are as weak as their weakest element.
There are two important foundational facts which have now been thrown into doubt.
First, one of the few pieces of logic apparently from c. 1100 that seemed to be
securely attributable and datable are the set of literal glosses on the Isagoge, Categories,
On Interpretation andDe divisione attributed to Abelard and sometimes (mis)described as
his Introductiones parvulorum. This attribution is now being questioned, and it seems
particularly weak for the Categories commentary, a fragment in a different style from the
other commentaries, and without any ascription in the manuscript.102
Second, it used until very recently to be considered certain, because of the supposed
date of the earliest manuscript, that the earliest version of the Priscian Glosulae were
written before 1100. Since the Glosulae contain a discussion about utterances that runs
parallel with the standard Categories commentary, as well as many other passages thatrelate it to the whole range of logical commentaries, it provided a reason to bring the dating
of various pieces back to c. 1100 or earlier. Now, however, the dating of the manuscript has
been moved to the twelfth century and a date of 1110 or even slightly later seems perfectly
plausible for the first version of the Glosulae.
Are the Building Methods Reliable?
No. There are at least six respects in which the types of argument used to move from
foundational facts to conclusions about chronology and attribution are far too weak to be
depended on.
102 Margaret Cameron, Chris Martin and myself will be giving a presentation to the Glosulae conferenceabout the attribution and dating of these commentaries.
25
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
26/35
First, in many of these arguments, scholars have used a classic way of attributing
anonymous texts: finding in them doctrinal parallels with the thinking of a particular,
identifiable figure. Given the nature of these early twelfth-century commentaries, however,
this method is not a reliable way of determining authorship; and, indeed, determining
authorship is not a very useful or appropriate task. The classic method of parallels is based
on the assumption that the work to be attributed is an integral, original product by one
writer, A. If a number ofAs characteristic ideas appear in the anonymous text, then it
seems plausible that the single author of the whole text is by A. Even on this assumption,
the conclusion is open to question: why not a follower or imitator ofA? But the method
loses its point entirely, given the way that early twelfth-century commentaries originated as
records of teaching, where ideas and interpretations were often taken over without
acknowledgement; that they often, therefore, have different layers, representing the work ofdifferent teachers. We cannot even be sure from reports that A said x that x was a view
devised by A and specially linked with him, rather than simply one that he accepted and
repeated. And, suppose we can be certain that, say, four passages in a commentary do
express As characteristic views, that does not entitle us to conclude anything about the
origins of the rest of the commentary, let alone pronounceA its author.
Second, arguments for attribution in this area are sometimes of that peculiar sort
which uses our ignorance as if it gave support for knowledge. They take the form: whoever
wrote this commentary had characteristicsx,y andz. The only named figure we know who
had characteristicsx,y andzis A. Therefore A wrote this commentary.103
Third, other attributions are based on iterated modal inflation. An attribution
mentioned on Page 5 as reasonably possible is probable on p. 22 and, by the end of the
article, likely, though no evidence has been adduced beyond that cited originally. In a
subsequent publication, the author takes the authorship as certain and uses it as evidence
for the reasonably possibility of another attribution. And so on.
Fourth, parallels are all too often adduced without a consideration of context, of
how a particular point is being used in an argument, or an argument within a discussion.
103If you think that an argument of such form has force, consider: I read that a bearded universityprofessor, weighed down by books, stumbled crossing the road in New York and was crushed by a stretch-limo on its way to the airport, and you are the only bearded professor I know in New York, and you alwayswalk around with a bagful of heavy books,. Should I begin to write your obituary without further enquiry?
26
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
27/35
The technology which has made it so easy to draw up tables which supposedly compare
two or three works with scientific accuracy or its incautious users must bear a lot of
blame. Precision is not always illuminating.
Fifth, the assumption seems to be made that work on logic proceeded at a uniform
pace in every centre from which manuscripts survive, and that when a view became
fashionable or was discredited in one place, it was fashionable or despicable everywhere.
The possibility that some commentaries in the manuscripts may be the work of masters
relying on what they learned twenty years before, isolated from new intellectual currents,
or too conservative in disposition to change their views, is not envisaged. One result is a
highly linear way of conceiving the history of a discipline, which can produce its own,
secondary distortions. For example, prevocalism is seen as a movement that preceded the
standard commentaries; yet study of the texts suggests that, although some of the positionsmay have been different, the sorts of concern with utterances as physical items and
semantic tokens were shared.
Sixth, it tends to be that the onus is on those who would contest an attribution to
prove their case. Certainly, where there is strongprima facie evidence, such as an author
issuing a work under his or her own name, it is the doubter who must produce the
arguments to convince. (Suppose, for instance, someone questioned whether Anselm wrote
theMonologion, or Abelard the Theologia Christiana.) But where the texts are anonymous
and there are no obvious indications that link them to an author, then it is wise to withhold
assent to any attribution until an overwhelming case has been made. Unfortunately,
scholars are inclined to make attributions when the case is far from overwhelming, and
then their colleagues feel a certain hesitation in not at least granting their positions partial
acceptance, as if it were a matter of respect not to disagree to openly with a doubtful view.
Is the Building in the Right Place?
A number of the new discoveries and fresh doubts along with new research that will be
discussed at the Glosulae conference104 are beginning to suggest that it is wrong to think
that c.1115 marks any sort of period boundary in the development of medieval logic,
convenient though it may be to speak of before Abelard (i.e. the mature Abelard). This
104 For example, Cameron and Rosier-Catach (forthcoming)
27
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
28/35
conclusion is suggested by two types of argument. First, much of the material that we have
usually considered as being from c. 1100-1110 may well be from a decade, or two or three
later. It is generally accepted that some of the later versions of the standard commentaries
may date from the 1120s. But it may be that even the original version of, for example, C8
is from this period or later. Gerlandus might have written his Dialectica in the 1120s. C5
(attributed to Abelard, and to c.1105) might well be from the 1130s and not by Abelard.
Second, and much more powerfully: apart from any particular re-datings, there is a general
lesson to be learned, that dating of an anonymous work to a particular decade in the early
twelfth century is, at best, a risky business, and perhaps, to be honest, an impossible one.
Palaeographers rarely accept that a twelfth-century manuscript can be dated very precisely.
Logical texts tend to lack the sort of references to events in the world that can give the clue
for a precise dating. And arguments based on the development of doctrine are likely to becircular, since we do not have enough securely dated material to establish the lines of this
development with any certainty. There are some give-away signs that help to date a
commentary to the 1130s or 40s (or even later), such as passages recording the contrasting
arguments of Master P. Abelard and Master A. (Alberic). But a lack of these signs does
not mean that a twelfth-century commentary must antedate these decades.
It would, therefore, be sensible to abandon the idea of basing a project of research
around the Glosulae, the near-chimerical William of Champeaux and logic of the period
1080 1115. At the least, the area of research needs officially to embrace the 1120s and
1130s (as it does, de facto). Whether some genuine break occurs at the time when logicians
band themselves into schools in the 1140s and 1150s is itself an important topic for
investigation. A great advantage of this wider time-scale is that we can properly include a
whole host of further research projects, many of them being carried out by participants in
the Glosulae project. For example, there is the work of Chris Martin on Abelardss logic
and the reactions to it; of Peter King and Andy Arlig on both Abelard an Joscelyn of
Soissons; of Sten Ebbesen on the schools of the later twelfth century and of Klaus Jacobi
on a range of themes in mid-twelfth-century logic.
Although the answers I have suggested to these questions seem to undermine some of the
work that is being done in the area, they should not be taken to suggest that there is any
28
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
29/35
lack of good reasons for studying logic from this period. There is the hope that among the
material some work of real philosophical importance will be found. Given the broader
time-span that seems appropriate, the period includes at least one body of genuinely
exciting logic that of Abelard. Perhaps some other pieces of great interest will be found.
There is certainly philosophical interest, too, in setting out and comparing the themes
followed and the positions taken by logicians and philosophers of lesser stature (and who
will probably remain anonymous) though no point in searching out the detail of their
arguments and disagreements.
This material also lends itself to history: the history of philosophy, as it was
pursued within a set of cultural assumptions and an institutional framework, and in its
relation to other branches of learning. It provides the opportunity, in a forum such as this
colloquium, to investigate how, at a time when it was beginning to excite the best minds,the study of logic took place. What was its relation to the other disciplines, such as the two
remaining arts of the trivium, grammar and rhetoric, and the nascent science of theology?
What were the aims of its practitioners? What was its attraction? What was its place in the
social and economic life of the times?
My own suggestion for future work is, therefore, that we combine a sceptical
attitude to the scholarly constructions that we may be too enthusiastic to build with
openness to these larger philosophical and historical questions.105
105 I am very grateful to Yukio Iwakuma, with whom I had long conversations while writing this piece, andwho let me see his forthcoming work and the related transcriptions; and to Margaret Cameron and IrneRosier-Catach, who read and commented on thissynthse in earlier versions.
29
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
30/35
Bibliography
Abbreviations
AHDLMA - Archives dhistoire doctrinale et littraire du moyen ge
CIMAGLCahiers de lInstitut du moyen ge grec et latin
Working Catalogue Medieval Latin Commentaries and Glosses on Aristotelian logicalTexts, before c. 1150 AD as republished and revised with Supplement to the WorkingCatalogue and Supplementary Bibliography in J. Marenbon, Aristotelian Logic,Platonism, and the Context of Early Medieval Philosophy in the West, Aldershot andBurlington, Vermont; Ashgate, 2000. A scanned, but uncorrected version of the Catalogue,without the Introduction, is available on the Glosulae website; there are many errorsintroduced by the scanning. For the Categories, there is also a corrected, revised(December 2006) version on the website.
Adams, M.M. (2000) AnselmsDe grammatico or Anselms Introduction to AristotlesCategories,Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 11, 83-112
Anselm (1946) Opera omnia I, ed. F.S. Schmitt, Edinburgh; Nelson
Aristotle (1961-)Aristoteles Latinus, ed. L. Minio-Paluello and others, Bruges and Paris ;Descle de Brouwer
Biard, J. (1999) (ed.)Langage, sciences, philosophie au XIIe sicle, Paris; Vrin
Biard, J. and I. Rosier-Catach (2003) (eds) La tradition mdivale des Catgories (XIIe-XVe sicles), Louvain and Paris; Peeters
Bischoff, B. (1967) Aus der Schule Hugos von St Viktor in Mittelalterliche Studien 2,Stuttgart; Hiersemann, 182-7 (from an article originally published in 1935)
Boethius (1877, 1880) Commentarii in librum Aristotelis Peri Hermeneias, ed. C. Meiser,Leipzig; Teubner
Boethius (1906) In Isagogen Porphyrii Commenta, ed. S. Brandt, Vienna and Leipzig;Tempsky and Freitag (CSEL 38)
30
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
31/35
Boethius (1969)De hypotheticis syllogismis, ed. L. Obertello, Brescia; Paideia (Istituto diFilosofia dellUniversit di Parma, Logicalia 1)
Boethius (1978)De topicis differentiis, trsl. and ed. E. Stump, Ithaca and London; CornellU.P.
Boethius (1988) In Ciceronis Topica, trsl. and ed. E. Stump, Ithaca and London; CornellU.P.
Boethius (1990) De topicis differentiis kai hoi buzantines metafraseis ton ManouelHolobolou kai Prochorou Kudone, ed. D.Z. Nikitas, Athens, Paris and Brussels; Academyof Athens/Vrin/Ousia (Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Philosophi Byzantini 5)
Boethius (1998) De divisione, ed. J. Magee, Leiden, Boston and Cologne; Brill(Philosophia Antiqua 77)
Boethius (2001) De syllogismo categorico: critical edition, ed. C. Thomsen Thrnqvist,Ph.D. dissertation, University of Gothenburg
Bouquet, M. (1781)Recueil des Gaules et de la France, Paris; Palaret
Braakhuis, H.A.G. and C.H. Kneepkens (ed.) (2003) Aristotles Peri Hermeneias in theLatin Middle Ages, Groningen-Haren; Ingenium (Artistarium supplementa 10)
Burnett, C. (ed.) (1993) Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical texts. TheSyriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Traditions, London; Warburg Institute (WarburgInstitute Surveys and texts 23)
Cameron, M. (2004), Whats in a Name? Students of William of Champeaux on the vox
significativa, Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch 9, 93-114
Cameron, M. (2005) William of Champeaux and Early Twelfth Century Dialectic,unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto
Cameron, M. (forthcoming) Garlandus Explained: a theory of vocalism
Cameron, M. and Rosier-Catach, I. (forthcoming) Vox and Oratio in early twelfth-centuryGrammar and Dialectic, paper for the (2nd) Glosulae conference
Cox, V. and J. Ward (2006) The Rhetoric of Cicero in its Medieval and Early Renaissance
Commentary Tradition, Leiden; BrillDe Rijk, L. M. (1967)Logica Modernorum II Assen; Van Gorcum
Erismann, C. (2002) Generalis essentia. La thorie rignienne de lousia et le problmedes universaux,AHDLMA 69, 7-37
Erismann, C. (2004) Processio id est multiplicatio. Linfluence latine de lontologie dePorphyre : le cas de Jean Scot rigne,Revue des sciences philosophiques et thologiques88, 401-60
31
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
32/35
Erismann, C. (2005a) Un autre aristotlisme ? La problmatique mtaphysique durant lehaut moyen ge. A propos dAnselme,Monologion 27, Quaestio. Annuario di storia dellametafisica 5, 143-60
Erismann, C. (2005b) La gense du ralisme ontologique durant le haut Moyen ge,unpulbished thse de doctorat, Universit de Lausanne, cole Pratique des Hautes tudes,
Paris
Erismann, C. (forthcoming) Immanent Realism. A reconstruction of an early medievalsolution to the problem of universals inDocumenti e studi per la storia della filosofiamedievale: Gli universali
Fredborg, K.M. (1986) The Commentaries on Ciceros De Inventione and Rhetorica adHerennium by William of Champeaux, CIMAGL 17 (1976) 1-39
Fredborg, K.M. (2003) Abelard on Rhetoric in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West1100-1540. Essays in Honour of John O. Ward, ed. C.J. Mews, C.J. Nederman and R.M.Thomson, Leiden; Brill (Disputatio 2), 55-80
Green-Pedersen, N.J. (1974) William of Champeaux on Boethius Topics according toOrleans Bibl. Mun 266, CIMAGL 13 (= Studia in honorem Henrici Ross)13-30
Green-Pedersen, N.J. (1984) The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages, Munich;Philosophia Verlag
Henry, D.P. (1964) The De Grammatico of St Anselm: the theory of paronymy, NotreDame, Ind.; University of Notre Dame Press (University of Notre Dame Publications in
Mediaeval Studies 18)
Huygens, R.B.C. (1970) Accessus ad auctores Bernard dUtrecht; Conrad dHirsau,Dialogus super auctores, Leiden; Brill
Iwakuma, Y. (1992) Vocales, or Early Nominalists, Traditio 47, 37-111
Iwakuma, Y. (1993) The Introductiones dialecticae secundum Wilgelmum and secundumG. Paganellum, CIMAGL, 63, 45114
Iwakuma, Y. (1999) Pierre Ablard et Guillaume de Champeaux dans les premires
annes du XIIe sicle: une tude prliminaire in Biard (1999), 92-123
Iwakuma, Y. (2003a) William of Champeaux on Aristotle's Categories in Biard andRosier-Catach, 313-328
Iwakuma, Y. (2003b) William of Champeaux and the Introductiones in Aristotles PeriHermeneias in the Latin Middle Ages. Essays on the commentary tradition, ed. H.A.G.
32
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
33/35
Braakhuis and C.H. Kneepkens, Groningen-Haren; Ingenium (Aristarium supplementa 10),1-30
Iwakuma, Y. (forthcoming-a) Prologues of Commentaries on theLogica vetus Literaturein the 12th Century announced to appear inDidascalia 3
Iwakuma, Y. (forthcoming-b) Addenda to Minio-Paluellos Testimonia de Analyticisprioribus in Marenbon and Street (forthcoming)
Iwakuma Y. (forthcoming-c) Vocales Revisited, in Proceedings of SIEPM Kyotoconference, 2004, ed. C. Burnett and T. Shimizu
Iwakuma, Y. (forthcoming-d) Edition of P3 (Pseudo-Hrabanus on Porphyry) inAHDLMA
Jaff, P. (1869) Codex Udalrici, Berlin (Bibliotheca rerum germanicarum 5)
Jolivet, J. (1992) Trois variations mdivales sur luniversel et lindividu: Roscelin,Ablard, Gilbert de la Porre,Revue de la mtaphysique et morale 1, 115-55
Luscombe, D. (1962) Peter Abelard and his School, unpublished Kings College,Cambridge Fellowship dissertation
Martin, C. (forthcoming) Not a single tiny proposition had they added: the receptionof the Prior Analytics in the first half of the Twelfth Century in The Prior Analytics inTwo Traditions, ed. J. Marenbon and T. Street (forthcoming)
Mews, C.J. (1985) On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard, AHDLMA 52, 73-134
(reprinted in Mews, 2001)
Mews, C.J. (1986) The Sententie of Peter Abelard, Recherches de thologie ancienne etmdivale 53, 130-84 (reprinted in Mews, 2001)
Mews, C.J. (1991) St Anselm and Roscelin : some new texts and their implications. 1. TheDe incarnatione verbi and theDisputatio inter Christianum et Gentilem,AHDLMA 58, 55-98 (reprinted in Mews, 2002)
Mews, C.J. (1992) Nominalism and Theology before Abaelard : new light on Roscelin of
Compigne, Vivarium 30, 4-34 (reprinted in Mews, 2002)
Mews, C.J. (1998) St Anselm and Roscelin : some new texts and their implications. 2. Avocalist essay on the Trinity and intellectual debate c. 1080-1120, AHDLMA 65, 39-90(reprinted in Mews, 2002)
Mews, C.J. (2001)Abelard and his Legacy, Aldershot; Burlington, Ver.; Ashgate
33
8/2/2019 Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century
34/35
Mews, C.J. (2002) Reason and Belief in the Age of Roscelin and Abelard, Aldershot;Burlington, Ver.; Ashgate
Mews, C.J. (2005a) Logica in the Service of Philosophy: William of Champeaux and hisinfluence on the study of language and theology in the twelfth century paper given at
Glosulae conference, February 2005 (available on the web-site)Mews, C.J. (2005b)Abelard and Heloise, New York; Oxford University Press
Michaud, E. (1867) Guillaume de Champeaux et les coles de Paris au XIIe sicle, daprsdes documents indits, Paris ; Didier
Minio-Paluello, L. (1972) Opuscula: the Latin Aristotle, Amsterdam; Hakkert
Minio-Paluello, L. (1954) Note sullAristotele Latino medievale. VIII. I Primi Analatici:la redazione carnutense usata da Abelardo e la Vulgata con scolii tradotti dal greco,Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica 46, 211-23 (reprinted in Minio-Paluello, 1972, 229-41)
Minio-Paluello, L. (1962) Note sullAristotele Latino medie