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 discipline with 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 reopen 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 of twelfth-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

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.1 Three, Porphyrys Isagoge, 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 brief De 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. Abelard Dialectica (Peter Abelard, 1970, 146): Sunt autem tres quorum septem codicibus omnis in hac arte eloquentia latina armatur. Aristotelis enim duos tantum, Praedicamentorum scilicet et Periermenias libro<s>, usus adhuc Latinorum cognouit; Porphyrii uero unum, qui uidelicet de quinque uocibus conscriptus, (genere scilicet, specie, differentia, proprio et accidente), introductionem ad ipsa praeparat Praedicamenta; Boethii autem quattuor in consuetudinem duximus, Librum uidelicet Diuisionum et Topicorum cum Syllogismis tam Categoricis quam Hypotheticis. 2 The texts are available in the Aristoteles 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 MinioPaluello, 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 usually contaminated by c, and c by a. The version usually used, in the twelfth century and throughout the Middle Ages was c but in manuscripts contaminated to a greater or lesser extent by a. So Minio-Paluello (AL I, 14, ix-lxiii; Minio-Paluello, 1962): his scholarship is exquisite, but the reconstruction is so complicated that is 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 Working Catalogue displayed on the Glosulae website. 4 Editions: Categorical syllogisms: Boethius (2001) for De syllogismo categorico and Boethius (1847, 76194) for Introductio ad syllogismos categoricos 2003, 46); Hypothetical syllogisms: Boethius (1969); De divisione: Boethius (1998); De topicis differentiis: Boethius (1990), translation and commentary Boethius

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.7 All 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.8 But this work had no serious bearing on how logic was studied in the period around 1100, and most of the logicians have a rather inaccurate view of the contents of the Prior Analytics. It was when Abelard came to know the Prior 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). The De definitione, attributed in the Middle Ages to Boethius but in fact by Marius Victorinus, was also 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) 159-294 8 See Iwakuma (forthcoming-b), adding to the discussion given by Minio-Paluello in AL III, 1-4 on pp. ix, 433-6 and in Minio-Paluello (1954). Iwakuma points to a passage in Bernard of Utrechts Commentum ad Theodulum ( Huygens, 1970, 66:20-67:209), written between 1079 and 1099, and a passage in a commentary on the De topicis differentiis from the late eleventh century in B2, ms Pommersfelden, cod. 162764, f. 7r. 9 See Martin (forthcoming). 10 See Rosier(-Catach) (1986).

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 share the 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.13 Boethius, 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 as designating 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, alphanumeric designations have been assigned to them. In the case of the Isagoge (I), the Categories(C) and On Interpretation (H), they refer to the Working Catalogue (see Bibliography: Abbreviations for details of publication, revision and availability on the web). For De topicis differentiis (B), they refer to the catalogue in Green-Pedersen (1984). Yukio Iwakuma has also assigned numbers to commentaries on De divisione (D), De syllogismis categoricis (SC) and De syllogismis hypotheticis (SH) in Forthcoming-a. 12 See the Introduction to the Working Catalogue. Iwakuma presents an analysis of the form of the twelfthcentury 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 main source for the early medieval Isagoge glosses and for P2 and C4. 14 There were also problem commentaries (the best known is Abelards Logica 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 that the chronology of the commentaries is far less fixable than has been believed.

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 particular take 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 16

See Iwakuma (1999) 94-7. 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 in theology to produce an authoritative text of a particular master. 17 See below, p. 8 and see the Working Catalogue under C8 Complex 18 The passage is added in Paris BN 13368, f. 216vb. See Iwakuma (forthcoming-d).

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, he turns 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 the Isagoge, Categories and On Interpretation up to the end of the twelfth century, and there is also a (chronologically broader) catalogue of De 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 the mentality of a cataloguer rather than an historian, seeking at all costs to assign the commentaries he listed to an author or at least a date; this tendency was exacerbated in the Addendum to the Catalogue, although the new version of the Catalogue for the Categories commentaries only, on this website, is far more circumspect.

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 and De 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 another fragment of one (B26), a commentary on De categoricis syllogismis (SC6), a partial commentary on De 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.26 It 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 21

They are edited in Peter Abelard (1969). Edited in Iwakuma (1992) 74-100 22 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 classroom 23 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 the rest 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 this section of clm 14779 are probably from the same school and suggests that some might be by Roscelin.

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 earliestpreserved version and four revisions falling into two groups) On On Interpretation: H11 and H9 (3 MSS; H9 is a version of H11, but considerably different)31 On De divisione: D8 (= Paris BN 13368, f. 191rb-4vb ; Assisi 573, f. 68ra-78vb) On De 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 28

See Iwakuma (1999) 101-2 and Iwakuma (forthcoming-a) Edited in Iwakuma (forthcoming-d). Iwakuma has made available the camera ready copy: a link is planned 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.

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 Dialectica by Gerlandus (probably of Besanon), and the Dialectica of Peter Abelard.38 The two Dialecticas do not, as might be expected, make a radical break away from the commentary form. Abelards Dialectica 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 the Logica Ingredientibus, although he sometimes abbreviates it so severely as to make it nearly incomprehensible. Gerlandus states explicitly in his prologue 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 38

Peter Abelard (1969) 43-67 Garlandus (1959); Peter Abelard (1970) 39 Peter Abelard (1970) 146:23-5 40 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

The dating of the two Dialecticas is difficult. Abelards Dialectica 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 The Dialectica 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.45 A date between 1100, at the very earliest, and any time in the 1120s is 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 of Introductiones from the middle or later part of the twelfth century are known.46 But some Introductiones must have been written by c. 1117 or earlier, because Abelard refers in his Dialectica to his Introductiones parvulorum (which there are no reason to identify, as has often been done, with his so-called literal commentaries).47 Two sets of Introductiones, 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 1080.48 These Introductiones 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 and school: a part of a commentary on De topicis differentiis, notes, sophismata and Introductiones 41 See Mews (1985), 74-104; De Rijk (1986) 103-8; Mews (2005, 43) where he proposes 1112 1117/8. 42 Iwakuma (1992) 47-54 43 Iwakuma (1992) 52-3 44 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 a use in the Dialectica of Aristotles Topics, a text that Thierry was one of the first Latin writers to know. But Thierrys 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) 74-5 48 Iwakuma (2003b). One set is said, in the manuscript, to be secundum Wilgelmum, the other secundum magistrum G. Paganellum. De Rijk (1967, 130-46) discovered the first of these treatises, and he 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

the Isagoge 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 his De 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.49 De grammatico has usually been dated to 1080-5, after Anselm wrote his Monologion and Proslogion, though an earlier dating has been urged.50 The 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 write about 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 subjects of 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, Priscians Institutiones, 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, with further bilbiography, is Adams (2000) 50 Southern (1990) 65 and n. 35 51 PL 160, 1071-1102. I am grateful to Christophe Erismann for supplying me with a text based on this edition in Migne, but with his own notes of variant readings. There is an English translation (Odo of Tournai, 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

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 a relatively 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 conference web-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

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 authors intentions that make their evidence less than straightforward. At the opening of De 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 59

See Fredborg (1986), 13, 29, 30. See Fredborg (2003). 60 For the whole passage see Anselm (1946) I, 285 (and cf. 289); for revised version: II, 9-10.

13

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) 64:31-8 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 patentissimis argumentorum rationibus ipsum commutare (immo destruere!) compuli. Erat autem in ea sententia de communitate uniuersalium ut eamdem essentialiter rem totam simul singulis suis inesse astrueret indiuiduis, quorum quidem nulla esset in essentia diuersitas sed sola multitudine accidentium uarietas. Sic autem istam tunc suam correxit sententiam, ut deinceps rem eamdem non essentialiter sed indifferenter diceret. Et quoniam de uniuersalibus in hoc ipso praecipua semper est apud dialeticos quaestio ac tanta ut eam 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, in tantam lectio eius deuoluta est negligentiam, ut iam ad caetera dialecticae uix admitteretur quasi in hac scilicet de uniuersalibus sententia tota huius artis consisteret summa.
62

14

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 his Historia 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 about logic 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 64

Hermann of Tournai (1883) 275. Hermann of Tournai (1883) 275: Denique dominus Anselmus Cantuariensis episcopus in libro quem fecit de Verbi incarnatione non dialecticos huiusmodi clericos, sed dialecticae appellat hereticos: Qui nonnisi flatum, inquit, universales putant esse substantias (Anselm had added the remark about heretics of dialectic in the revised version of his treatise.) 65 Bouquet (1781) 3 66 See Iwakuma (1999) 96-7.

15

differentiis and De 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 be found 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 twentiethcentury 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 of Champeaux. Although study of Abelards mature discussions of universals (in the Logica
67 68

Iwakuma (1999) 96; Hansen (2005) 46-7 Iwakuma (forthcoming-c) 69 Michaud (1869) 70 Already, though, nearly a hundred years ago, Franois Picavet (1911) had attacked these myths with his customary incisiveness.

16

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; it is 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.72 But, by placing this Dialectica 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 on De topicis differentiis, and his analyses of them, show how eagerly this
71 72

He also discovered the Introductiones secundum Wilgelmum (cf. above, p. 10-11). Garlandus (1959), liii-lv. In many ways, De Rijks analysis of Garlandus is more perceptive (despite the too early dating of the Dialectica) than the more recent discussions of vocalism and in voce exegesis, my own very much included. 73 Green-Pedersen (1984)

17

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 particular semantic 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 shared among 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 75

Green-Pedersen (1974) Jolivet (1992) 76 See above, nn. 21-36, where his transcriptions and editions of material that he and others put at the turn of the twelfth century are mentioned. He has also many other transcriptions of commentaries that have either not been discussed, or been considered as having been written a little later in the twelfth century.

18

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. 7 above78 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 He
77

See above, p. 10 for the Limoges treatise. Iwakuma presents his arguments for this attribution in forthcoming-c. He quotes from B1 (Munich, clm 14779, f. 87v): ..... Similiter quando dicit omnis ratio disserendi, omnis mittit nos ad divisivas partes dialec/ticae, id est ad Dialecticam Roberti et Guidonis Lingonensis, ut illae partes / dividantur in scientiam inveniendi et in scientiam iudicandi, quia quas cum que 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 everyone regards it as belonging to the series that includes P5, H5 and D7 because it is copied with them in the same manuscript. 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 his forthcoming edition of P3 (Iwakuma, forthcoming-d), Iwakuma summarizes and, in some points, extends his arguments.; see also Iwakuma (2003a).

19

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 his Isagoge 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 Pariss Dialectica. 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 83

See Iwakuma (1999) 114. Iwakuma (1992) 45-6

20

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 this understanding 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 his Didascalicon.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 85

A full discussion of them is given in Mews (1998) 50 55, and cf. 68-73 (using Iwakumas work). Mews (1992) 14, 33 86 Mews (1991), (1992), (1997), (1998) 87 Mews (2005a); Mews (2005b) 28-42

21

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, by understanding 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.92 In 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 89

For example, the commentary in Oxford, Corpus Christi College 233 (H7) (2003) 378-82 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

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 Iwakumas position 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 literaryhistorical 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

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.100 For example, in her thesis and especially in her most recent work, she has begun to show how the early twelfth logicians, like Garlandus, who concerned 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 and Logica 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) For a short example, see Cameron (2004). 101 See Cameron (forthcoming).
100

24

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 and De 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 that relate 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 conference about the attribution and dating of these commentaries.

25

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 of As 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 of A? 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 of different 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 pronounce A 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 characteristics x, y and z. The only named figure we know who had characteristics x, y and z is 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.
103

If you think that an argument of such form has force, consider: I read that a bearded university professor, weighed down by books, stumbled crossing the road in New York and was crushed by a stretchlimo on its way to the airport, and you are the only bearded professor I know in New York, and you always walk around with a bagful of heavy books,. Should I begin to write your obituary without further enquiry?

26

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 positions may 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 strong prima 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 the Monologion, 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

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 be circular, 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

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, and who let me see his forthcoming work and the related transcriptions; and to Margaret Cameron and Irne Rosier-Catach, who read and commented on this synthse in earlier versions.

29

Bibliography Abbreviations
AHDLMA - Archives dhistoire doctrinale et littraire du moyen ge CIMAGL Cahiers de lInstitut du moyen ge grec et latin Working Catalogue Medieval Latin Commentaries and Glosses on Aristotelian logical Texts, before c. 1150 AD as republished and revised with Supplement to the Working Catalogue and Supplementary Bibliography in J. Marenbon, Aristotelian Logic, Platonism, and the Context of Early Medieval Philosophy in the West, Aldershot and Burlington, Vermont; Ashgate, 2000. A scanned, but uncorrected version of the Catalogue, without the Introduction, is available on the Glosulae website; there are many errors introduced by the scanning. For the Categories, there is also a corrected, revised (December 2006) version on the website.

Adams, M.M. (2000) Anselms De grammatico or Anselms Introduction to Aristotles Categories, 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 (XIIeXVe 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

Boethius (1969) De hypotheticis syllogismis, ed. L. Obertello, Brescia; Paideia (Istituto di Filosofia dellUniversit di Parma, Logicalia 1) Boethius (1978) De topicis differentiis, trsl. and ed. E. Stump, Ithaca and London; Cornell U.P. Boethius (1988) In Ciceronis Topica, trsl. and ed. E. Stump, Ithaca and London; Cornell U.P. Boethius (1990) De topicis differentiis kai hoi buzantines metafraseis ton Manouel Holobolou kai Prochorou Kudone, ed. D.Z. Nikitas, Athens, Paris and Brussels; Academy of 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 the Latin Middle Ages, Groningen-Haren; Ingenium (Artistarium supplementa 10) Burnett, C. (ed.) (1993) Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical texts. The Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Traditions, London; Warburg Institute (Warburg Institute 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-century Grammar 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; Brill De Rijk, L. M. (1967) Logica Modernorum II Assen; Van Gorcum Erismann, C. (2002) Generalis essentia. La thorie rignienne de lousia et le problme des universaux, AHDLMA 69, 7-37 Erismann, C. (2004) Processio id est multiplicatio. Linfluence latine de lontologie de Porphyre : le cas de Jean Scot rigne, Revue des sciences philosophiques et thologiques 88, 401-60 31

Erismann, C. (2005a) Un autre aristotlisme ? La problmatique mtaphysique durant le haut moyen ge. A propos dAnselme, Monologion 27, Quaestio. Annuario di storia della metafisica 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 medieval solution to the problem of universals in Documenti e studi per la storia della filosofia medievale: Gli universali Fredborg, K.M. (1986) The Commentaries on Ciceros De Inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium by William of Champeaux, CIMAGL 17 (1976) 1-39 Fredborg, K.M. (2003) Abelard on Rhetoric in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West 1100-1540. 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 to Orleans 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, Notre Dame, 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 secundum G. 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 and Rosier-Catach, 313-328 Iwakuma, Y. (2003b) William of Champeaux and the Introductiones in Aristotles Peri Hermeneias in the Latin Middle Ages. Essays on the commentary tradition, ed. H.A.G.

32

Braakhuis and C.H. Kneepkens, Groningen-Haren; Ingenium (Aristarium supplementa 10), 1-30 Iwakuma, Y. (forthcoming-a) Prologues of Commentaries on the Logica vetus Literature in the 12th Century announced to appear in Didascalia 3 Iwakuma, Y. (forthcoming-b) Addenda to Minio-Paluellos Testimonia de Analyticis prioribus in Marenbon and Street (forthcoming) Iwakuma Y. (forthcoming-c) Vocales Revisited, in Proceedings of SIEPM Kyoto conference, 2004, ed. C. Burnett and T. Shimizu Iwakuma, Y. (forthcoming-d) AHDLMA Edition of P3 (Pseudo-Hrabanus on Porphyry) in

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 reception of the Prior Analytics in the first half of the Twelfth Century in The Prior Analytics in Two 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 et mdivale 53, 130-84 (reprinted in Mews, 2001) Mews, C.J. (1991) St Anselm and Roscelin : some new texts and their implications. 1. The De incarnatione verbi and the Disputatio inter Christianum et Gentilem, AHDLMA 58, 5598 (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. A vocalist 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

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 his influence 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, daprs des 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 medievale. XV. Dalle Categoriae Decem pseudo-agostiniane (temistiane) al testo vulgato aristotelico boeziano, Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica 54, 137-47 (reprinted in Minio-Paluello, 1972, 448-58) Peter Abelard (1967) Historia Calamitatum, ed. J. Monfrin, Paris; Vrin Peter Abelard (1969) Scritti di logica, ed. M. dal Pra, Florence; Nuova Italia (2nd edn) Peter Abelard (1970) Dialectica, ed. L.M. de Rijk, Assen; Van Gorcum Picavet, F. (1911) Roscelin philosophe et thologien daprs la lgende et daprs lhistorie, Paris; Alcan Rosier(-Catach), I. (1986) Note sur une surprenante citation des Topiques dAristote au XIe sicle, Bulletin de philosophie mdivale 28, 178-84 Rosier(-Catach), I. (1993) Le commentaire des Glosulae et des Glosae de Guillaume de Conches sur le chapitre De voce des Institutiones Grammaticae de Priscien CIMAGL 63, 115-44 Rosier-Catach, I. (2003a) Ablard et les grammairiens : sur la dfinition du verbe et la notion d'inhrence in La tradition vive, Mlanges d'histoire des textes en l'honneur de Louis Holtz, ed. P. Lardet, Turnhout; Brepols, 143-159 Rosier-Catach, I., (2003b) Priscien, Boce, les Glosulae in Priscianum, Ablard : les enjeux des discussions autour de la notion de consignification, Histoire Epistmologie Langage, 25/2, 55-84. Rosier-Catach, I., (2003c) Ablard et les grammairiens : sur le verbe substantif et la prdication, Vivarium, 41/2, 176-248

34

Rosier-Catach, I., (2004a) Les discussions sur le signifi des propositions chez Ablard et ses contemporains in Medieval Theories on Assertive and Non-assertive Language, ed. A. Maier and L. Valente, Rome; Olschki, 1-34 Rosier-Catach, I., (2004b) The Glosulae in Priscianum and its Tradition in Papers in Memory of Vivien Law, ed. N. McLelland and A., Mnster Nodus Publikationen, 81-99 Rosier-Catach, I.,(forthcoming-a) Les Glosulae super Priscianum: smantique et universaux, Documenti e studi per la storia della filosofia medievale: Gli universali Rosier-Catach, I., (forthcoming-b) Priscian on Divine Ideas and Mental Conceptions : the discussions in the Glosulae in Priscianum, The Notae Dunelmenses, William of Champeaux and Abelard in The Many Roots of Medieval Logic, ed. J. Marenbon Southern, R.W. (1990) Saint Anselm. A portrait in a landscape , Cambridge; Cambridge University Press

35