logic at the turn of the twelfth century

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/35

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

logic at the turn of the twelfth century

Documents