Summulae de praedicabilibus (Artistarium) 9070419386, 9789070419387

Citation preview

JOHANNES BURIDANUS SUMMULAE DE PRAEDICABILIBUS

ARTIST ARIUM A Series of Texts on Mediaeval Logic, Grammar & Semantics EDITORS L.M. de RIJK Leiden & E.P. BOS Leiden

H.A.G. BRAAKHUIS Nijmegen & C.H. KNEEPKENS Groningen Secretary of the Series P.J.J.M. BAKKER Nijmegen

ARTISTARIUM

10-2----

JOHANNESBURIDANUS

SUMMULA E DE PRAEDICABILI BUS

introduction, critical edition and indexes by

L.M.DE RIJK

Nijmegen Ingenium Publishers

1995

To my granddaughter Akkede Rijk

lSBN 90 70419 38 6 Copyright 1995 by lngenium Publishers, P.O. Box 1342, 6501 BH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher. PRINTED by KRIPS REPRO MEPPEL, THE NETHERLANDS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Acknowledgements II. Introduction 11.1. The editorial project Il.2. John Buridan and his Summulae II.3. Treatise II, De Praedicabilibus: on its general structure and contents 11.3. l. John Buridan as commentator of Aristotle and Peter of Spain II.3.2. A summary of its contents 11.4. List of manuscripts hitherto known Il.5. Description of manuscripts used 11.6. Stemma codicum IL 7. Editorial principles II.8. The critical apparatus II. 9. Orthography. Punctuation 11.10. Headings 11.11. Apparatus of quotations Il.l2. Bibliography 11.12. l. Primary literature II.12.1.1. John Buridan II.12.1.2. Other primary literature 11.12.2. Secondary literature III. Text and apparatus III. I. Index capitulorum et partium III.2.' Sigla codicum; signa in apparatu critico adhibita III.3. Textus et apparatus IV. Indexes IV .1. Index of Quotations IV.2. Index of Names and Terms

vii ix xi xi xvii xvii xviii xxi xx ii xxxii xxxvi xxxviii xxxix xi xl xli xii xli xiii xliii

3

5 7

65

67 69

I. Acknowledgements

The editor of the present fascicle has taken much profit from the preliminary edition of Buridan's Summulae our colleague Professor Hubert Hubien (Liege) has put at the disposal of the Buridan Society, for which we owe him sincere thanks. My Leyden colleague Dr. E. P. Bos deserves my gratitude for his typographical assistance, especially when it came to inserting the critical apparatus. The Buridan Society would like to express its gratitude to Prof. M. Markowski (Krakow), Dr. K. Friis-Jensen (Copenhagen) and Dr. L. Valente (Heidelberg) for their help with the description and identification of manuscripts. Prof. M. Sirridge (Baton Rouge) and R. Friedman, M.A., (Iowa), kindly read the introduction and suggested linguistic improvements.

vii

II. INTRODUCTION

II.I. The editorial project The present fascicle is the second of nine planned. The intention is to issue the first complete edition of Buridan's Summulae, which contains eight treatises, supplemented with a new edition of his Sophismata. The plan is being realized by an international team composed of scholars from Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands. A first and overly optimistic version of the project was discussed in 1975 at the Third European Symposium on Medieval Logic and Semantics, which was devoted to the logic of John Buridan. In 1986 The Buridan Society was formed with the explicit purpose of producing an edition of the Summulae, and guidelines for the work were laid down. The following scholars joined the Society: E.P. Bos, H.A.G. Braakhuis, S. Ebbesen, H. Hubien, R. van der Lecq, F. Pironet, L.M. de Rijk, J.M.M.H. Thijssen. To make the task manageable, it was decided to aim only at an edition based on a handful of manuscripts carefully selected on the advice of H. Hubien, who had made pilot studies of the tradition. Also, considering that all participants in the project were scholars with many other obligations and hence likely to be distracted from the work on Buridan at unpredictable times, it was decided to publish each fascicle of the work as soon as it was finished without regard to regular intervals or an orderly progression from fascicle I to fascicle 9. The present fascicle, N° 2, is the second to appear; we hope that it will soon be followed by others.

Il.2. John Buridan and his Summulae John Buridan - Iohannes Buridanus - was one of the most influential philosophers of the Late Middle Ages. Born at Bethune, in the diocese of Arras in Artois, at an unknown date, perhaps in the 1290s, but not later than 1304/5, he was active as a master of arts at the University of Paris from about the 1320s till his death, 1361 being the terminus ante quern of his death I, or even the very year of his death, because at that date John's benefice went to somebody else. 1 See John Buridan's Tractatus de infinito. Quaestiones super libros Physicorum secundum ultimam lecturam, liber Ill, quaestiones 14-19. An edition with an introduction and indexes by J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Nijmegen 1991, p. xi.

xi

John Buridan, Summu/ae, De Praedicabilibus

His philosophical production is closely connected to his work as a university teacher and consists primarily of commentaries on Aristotle, some of which have been edited in recent years2, as has also his treatise on conse2 On logic: M.E. Reina, 'Giovanni Buridano: Tractatus de suppositionibus', in Rivista critica di storia del/afilosofia 12 (1957), pp. 175-208 and 323-352. S. Ebbesen, 'The Summulae, Tractatus VII, De fallaciis' (excerpts), in The Logic of John Buridan. Acts of the Third European Symposium of Medieval Logic and Semantics, ed. J. Pinborg, Copenhagen 1976, pp. 139-160. N.J. Green-Pedersen, 'The Summulae of John Buridan, Tractatus VI, De locis' (excerpts), in ibidem, pp. 121-138. J. Pinborg, 'The Summulae, Tractatus I, De introductionibus' (excerpts), in ibidem, pp. 71-90. Johannes Buridanus, Sophismata. Critical edition with an introduction by T.K. Scott, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1977. R. van der Lecq, 'Buridan on modal propositions' (appendix: Questiones Longe in Perihermeneias, liber II, questio 7), in English Logic and Semantics: from the End of the 12th Century to the Time of Ockham and Burley, Acts of the 4th European Symposium on Mediaeval Logic and Semantics, ed. H.A.G. Braakhuis, C.H. Kneepkens, L.M. de Rijk, Nijmegen 1981, pp. 441-442. Johannes Buridanus, Quaestiones in Praedicamenta, hrsg. von J. Schneider, Miinchen 1983. Johannes Buridanus, Questiones longe super librum Perihermeneias, edited with an introduction by R. van der Lecq, Nijmegen 1984 (Ph. D. thesis University of Utrecht 1983). Tractatus de differentia universalis ad individuum, ed. S. Szyller, in Przeglad Tomistyczny, III (1987), pp. 137-178. Johannes Buridanus, Summulae. In Praedicamenta. Introduction, Critical Edition and Appendices by E.P. Bos, Nijmegen 1994. Johannes Buridanus, Questiones Elencorum, ed. by R. van der Lecq and H.A.G. Braakhuis, Nijmegen 1994 (Artistarium 9). There are no modern editions of Buridan's commentary on the Metaphysics, but the latter has been edited as In Metaphysicen Aristotelis quaestiones argutissimae Joannis Buridani in ultima praelectione ab ipso recognitae et emissae, ac ad archetypum diligenter repositae recognitae rursus accuratione et impensis Jodoci Badii Ascensii ad quartum Idus Octobris, Parisiis 1518 (reprint with title: Kommentar zur Aristotelischen Metaphysik, Frankfurt/Main 1964). There are no modern editions of his works in moral philosophy, but the Ethics commentary is available in an early printed edition, Johannes Buridanus, Quaestiones super decem libros Ethicorum, Paris 1513 (reprint Frankfurt/Main 1968). On natural philosophy: E.A. Moody, 'John Buridan on the Habitability of the Earth', in Speculum 1941 (16), pp. 415-425 (an edition ofBuridan's Quaestiones super libris De caelo et mundo, book II, qu. 7). Johannis Buridani Quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo et mundo, edited by E.A. Moody, Cambridge (Mass.) 1942. V. Zoubov, 'Jean Buridan et Jes concepts du point au quatorzieme siecle', in Medieval Renaissance Studies, 1961 (5), pp. 43-95 (with an edition of Buridan's Quaestio de puncto). F. Scott and H. Shapiro, 'John Buridan's De motibus animalium', in Isis 1967 (58), pp. 533552. G. Federici Vescovini, Le Quaestiones de Anima di Biagio Pelacani da Parma, Florence 1974 (in the introduction, pp. 44-51, a list of questions and part of the first question of the third redaction of Buridan's Quaestiones De anima is presented). P.C. Marshall, 'Parisian Psychology in the MidFourteenth Century', in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Mayen Age, 1983 (50), pp. 101-193 (contains portions of book II, qq. 12-13 of the first redaction of Buridan's Questiones de Anima, and book II, qq. 9-10 of the third redaction). P.G. Sobol, John Buridan on the Soul and Sensation. An Edition of Book II of his Commentary on Aristotle's Book On the Soul( ... ), Indiana 1984. J.A. Zupko, John Buridan's Philosophy of Mind. An Edition and Translation of Book llf of his 'Questions on Aristotle's De anima' (Third Redaction), with Commentary and Critical and Interpretative Essays, 2 vols., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1990 (Philos. Diss., Cornell University 1989). B. Patar, Le traite de l' ame de Jean Buridan (Prima /ectura). Edition, Etude critique et doctrinale, Louvain-Ia-Neuve 1991. John Buridan's Tractatus de infinito, Quaestiones super libros Physicorum

xii

Introduction

quences3. And then there is his Summulae or Summa Logica( e), undeservedly neglected y historians of logic because it has never been printed. True, there are printed books from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries purporting to contain the work, but they do not really do so. The genuine text consists of (a) the lemmata of the Summulae proper, i.e. a brief presentation of standard lore, as found in an adapted and interpolated version of Peter of Spain's Summulae or Tractatus 4 , where the material is presented in such a way as to be easily memorized. Peter's work was originally composed about 1230. As Pinborg5 has pointed out, the way Buridan speaks about his choice of Peter's work permits the conclusion that "using Peter of Spain's manual was not the obvious thing to do", and Pinborg may well have been right in his conjecture that Buridan was the first to introduce Peter's manual as a textbook at university level in Paris, where it had earlier been used only at less exalted levels of education. Buridan made his choice out of the different versions available then, but did not make a version of his own, as may appear from his frequently criticizing that 'auctor's' text quoted in the lemmata. (b) Buridan's own, very extensive comments on the standard material, which he often criticizes or re-interprets in ways its authors could scarcely have imagined. In the Renaissance edition John Dorp's comments have taken the place of John Buridan's and thus the reader has no means of seeing how original Buridan was. The Summulae consists of eight treatises, as follows: I. On Introductory Items, also called On Propositions6 II. On Predicables

secundum ultimam lecturam, liber Ill, quaestiones 14-19. An edition with an introduction and indexes by J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Nijmegen 1991 (a revised edition of Thijssen's Ph.D. dissertation: Johannes Buridanus over het oneindige. Een onderzoek naar zijn theorie over het oneindige in het kader van zijn wetenschaps- en natuurfilosofie, Nijmegen 1988, vol. II). 3 Johannis Buridani Tractatus de consequentiis, ed. H. Hubien, Edition critique, Louvain/Paris 1976. 4 See Peter of Spain (Petrus Hispanus Portugalensis), Tractatus, called afterwards Summule logicales. First Critical Edition from the Manuscripts with an Introduction by L.M. de Rijk, Assen 1972, § 6 of the introduction. 5 J. Pinborg, 'The Summulae, Tractatus I, De introductionibus', in The Logic of John Buridan. Acts of the Third European Symposium of Medieval Logic and Semantics, ed. J. Pinborg, Copenhagen 1976, p. 72. 6 'Introductiones' covers a broader field than just propositions, though the latter are predominant. Cf. Peter of Spain, Tractatus ( ... ),ed. L.M. de Rijk, pp. lxxxix-xci.

xiii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

III. On Categories IV. On Suppositions V. On Syllogisms VI. On Topics VII. On Fallacies VIII. On Definitions, Divisions, and Demonstrations. Buridan himself at one time regarded his Sophismata as treatise IX, but there is no genuine connection between treatise IX and the rest, which are quite differently organized?. Buridan's basic idea was to 'read', i.e. comment on, Peter of Spain's handy introduction to logic, the Tractatus or Summulae. He took over a text that had already been considerably altered in the course of transmission and he himself subjected it to further changes, and major ones at that. Peter's work contains twelve treatises. Buridan fused 8-12 (on relatives, ampliation, appellation, restriction, and distribution) with the treatise on supposition. That left seven treatises, but then he added an eighth to deal with demonstration, and also division and definition, subjects that Peter had neglected, as had other authors of 13th-century handbooks of logic. The basic text underlying Buridan's eighth tract is less easily identified. It is not found in any interpolated text of Peter's Summulae, it is uncertain if it is by Buridan's own hand. The first major survey of logic to include a chapter on demonstration was William of Ockham's Summa Logicae, which may be only about ten years older than Buridan's, but it is unknown to what degree, if any, Buridan, or his exemplar, was inspired by Ockham. In any event, by adding treatise VIII Buridan produced a book covering all the main subjects of Aristotle's Organon as well as such medieval additions to logic as the doctrine of the properties of terms. As Buridan commented on Peter of Spain, he seems to have grown increasingly irritated with the text at his elbow, and sometimes simply dispensed with it, using instead an alternative text to comment on (thus IV and VII). In the present treatise Peter's text still plays a role, though it has been thoroughly revised (see § 11.3, below).

7 Joel Biard has made a French translation based upon the critical edition to be published soon by Miss Fabienne Pironet: Buridan, Sophismes. Introduction, traduction et notes par J. Biard, Paris 1993.

xiv

Introduction

Buridan' s Summulae is a highly structured work. At first glance it presents itself as alternating pieces (partes) of basic text and commentary, but those partes are but the smallest independent units in a strictly hierarchical division of the basic text carried out and presented according to the conventions of literal commentaries (expositiones). A preface to the whole work announces which treatises the basic text (the revised Peter of Spain, that is) will contain. The commentary on the first pars of each treatise informs the reader about which chapters the treatise under discussion contains; the commentary on the first pars of each chapter announces the partes of that chapter, and, finally, the commentary usually divides each single pars into particulae or clausulae. Buridan numbers his treatises ('tractatus'), chapters ('capitula'), parts ('partes'), and this numbering can be used for purposes of reference. We indicate 'Treatise 3, chapter I, part 3', and this by means of such headings as '3.1.3' recommend its use for references (it is a much more durable system than, e.g., referring to our page numbers). Whereas there can be no doubt that the Summulae were composed for didactic purpose at the Arts Faculty in Paris, their date of composition is harder to ascertain. None of our sources simply dates the work in absolute terms. A relative chronology in Buridan' s total production is difficult to establish, not only because many works remain as yet unedited, but also because it is known that he 'read' the same authoritative texts several times during his long career, and each 'reading', i.e. teaching course, is likely to have produced its own written version of the lectures. Hence cross-references are of dubious value for establishing the relative chronology. It is perfectly possible for some version of work A to refer to work B while some version of work B refers to work A. Buridan 'read' the Summulae several times and it seems that none of our manuscripts reflects the first 'reading', since so far as we know at present all manuscripts contain the following editorial remark at 1.1. l: "Istum librum dividemus in novem tractatus, quorum primus erit de propositionibus [... ], nonus erit de practica sophismatum, sed in hac lectura istum ultimum tractatum ego non exsequar cum Iectura aliorum octo tractatuum." A terminus a quo for either the first or the last version of the work is not really available as we do not know when Buridan started to teach, but anything earlier than the 1320s seems utterly unrealistic. As for a terminus ante quern, the

xv

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

best suggestion so far seems to be 1335. H. Hubien has made a strong case for dating Buridan' s De consequentiis to 13358. Now if this date holds, and if certain ideas of the Summulae are on their way to the stage of development evidenced by De consequentiis, we have 1335 as a terminus ante quern. This may indeed be the case9, and so it may be that no major revision of the Summulae took place after 1335. But did minor revisions take place? Does a reference to the Metaphysics commentary prove anything except that the version(s) of the Summulae we know received their finishing touch after some version of the questions on the Metaphysics? With the great uncertainty surrounding Buridan's production, we must still admit that we are not able to date any version of the Summulae with anything like precision. They all must fall within the approximate limits of 1325 and 1360, and it is likely that the first version was made in the 1320s or early 1330s. It is also probable that later editions were largely identical with the first one. But at the same time it should not be ruled out that such changes as were introduced with each subsequent version may have been of high theoretical importance. We are not in a position now to see the development of Buridan' s thought via the different versions of the Summulae. The present edition may help clear the path for relevant research. There is a possible clue to a date around 1336 in Summulae VIII (3.5.2 of the planned edition). There Buridan clearly refers to the epistemological position held by Nicholas of Autrecourt cum suis concerning the unique role of the principle of non-contradiction, and especially Autrecourt's thesis that from the existence of A one cannot infer that of B with proper evidence. He ascribes this position ('error quorundam') to sheer ignorance of logic. 'Et ex istis dictis manifestus est error quorundam nunc legentium qui dicunt nullam posse esse evidentem probationem secundum quam concludimus per aliquid esse aliud esse, ut si per motum esse volumus probare motorem esse vel per domum esse parietem esse. Dicunt enim non posse esse evidentem probationem esse nisi sit reducibilis ad primum principium complexum. ( ... ) Isti ergo supponunt falsum, puta quod illud solum

8 See Johannis Buridani Tractatus de consequentiis, ed. H. Hubien, Edition critique, Louvain/Paris 1976, p. 9. 9 See J. Pinborg, 'The Summulae, Tractatus I, De introductionibus' (excerpts), in The Logic of John Buridan (... ),Copenhagen 1976, p. 73.

xvi

Introduction

principium sit evidens et quod omne aliud principium possit et indigeat probari per illud. Et hec sunt absurda et dicta ex ignorantia logice' .1 O A fair number of preserved manuscripts (eighteen known to us so far) testify to the popularity of the Summulae during the late 14th century and well into the 15th, especially at the Central European studia (Erfurt, Prague, Vienna, Krakow), cf. II. 4, below. Later, Buridan's work could only exercise its influence indirectly through John Dorp's commentary on it; it itself was never printed. The extent, however, of its direct and indirect influence still awaits exploration.

II.3. Treatise II, De Praedicabilibus: on its general structure and contents II.3.1. John Buridan as commentator of Aristotle and Peter of Spain The present edition contains the second tract, De praedicabilibus, which deals with the five 'predicables', introduced by the Neoplatonist commentator of Aristotle, Porphyry (c. 233-c. 304 A.D.) in his introductory book (/sagoge) to the Stagirite's Categories, viz. 'genus', 'species', 'differentia', 'proprium', and 'accidens'. From as early as the eleventh century, medieval authors commented upon Boethius' (480-524) translation of, and commentary upon, this work. Buridan's discussion of the predicables is mainly based on the corresponding tract of Peter of Spain's manual. His comments are preceded by the complete text of the lemma from Peter to be discussed. It should be no surprise that Buridan's quotations should go back to an adapted version of Peter's text. Four specimina will suffice to illustrate this. Buridan's first lemma runs as follows: 'Praedicabile' quandoque sumitur proprie, quandoque communiter. Praedicabile proprie sumptum est quod praedicatur de pluribus; praedicabile communiter sumptum est quod praedicatur sive de uno solo sive de pluribus. De uno solo, ut 'Socrates' praedicatur de se ipso, dicendo

IO For the date (c. 1336) of this Parisian controversy at the Sorbonne, see Zenon Kaluza, 'Nicolas d' Autrecourt. Un amide la verite', in Histoire litteraire de la France (t. XLII, fasc. !), Paris 1995, and L.M. de Rijk, Nicholas of Autrecourt. His Correspondence with Master Giles and Bernard of Arezzo (... ),Leiden 1994, p. 5 and 121.

xvii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

'Socrates est Socrates'; de pluribus, ut 'animal' de homine et de equo, et 'homo' de Socrate et Platone, et sic de aliis. Peter's opening chapter is more concisely drawn upl I: 'Predicabile' quandoque sumitur proprie; et sic solum dicitur predicabile quod de pluribus predicatur. Quandoque sumitur communiter; et sic dicitur predicabile quod de uno si ve de pluribus predicatur. Sometimes, on the other hand, Buridan's lemma is shorter than Peter's text, e.g. his second one: Unde 'praedicabile' proprie sumptum idem est quod 'universale'. Sed differunt, quia praedicabile definitur: quod est aptum natum praedicari de pluribus; et universale: quod aptum natum est esse in pluribus. Peter's text contains one sentence more: Unde 'predicabile' proprie sumptum et 'universale' idem sunt; sed differunt in hoc quod predicabile diffinitur per dici, universale autem per esse. Est enim predicabile quod aptum natum est dici de pluribus. Universale autem est quod aptum natum est esse in pluribus.12

l/.3.2. A summary of its contents 2.1.1. The opening chapter discusses preliminary items. In this section the technical use of the word 'praedicabile' is explained. Buridan' s terminism notably appears from his definition of the term 'praedicabile' properly used, in which the phrase 'praedicari de pluribus' equals 'supponere pro pluribus'. 2.1.2. The formal difference is discussed which exists between 'praedicabile' and 'universale', in spite of their being said convertibly of one another. Buridan feels

11 Cf. p. 17, 4-7, ed. De Rijk. 12 Jbid., p. 17, 7-11.

xviii

Introduction

obliged to reject Hispanus' view of the matter. Again, Buridan's terminism comes to the fore in his identifying 'inesse' and 'praedicari vere et affirmative'. 2.1.3. The division of the predicables is given, including an alternative one given by those who start from the erroneous assumption that the main division of the predicables should be based upon the distinction 'in quid' versus 'in quale'. 2.2. Chapter II deals with genus. 2.2.1. The common definition of genus is given and explained. Equivocal terms (such as 'canis') are said not to be the genus of their different meanings. Buridan's terminism makes him underline that if 'animal' is said to be predicated of 'man', both the subject and the predicate term have material supposition. 2.2.2. The concepts 'idem ('differens' or 'diversum') genere, specie' etc. are discussed. It is noteworthy that the identification of 'subject-substrate' and 'accident' (which is found in some versions of Hispanus' text: 'in aliquibus libris') is rejected by Buridan (lines 75 ff.). 2.2.3. The phrases 'in eo quod quid' and 'in eo quod quantum' etc. are explained. 2.2.4. - 2.2.5. An alternative definition of 'genus' and the latter's usual division into 'genus generalissimum' and 'genus subalternum'. 2.2.6. The definition of 'genus generalissimum' is given and completed by Buridan. In line with common doctrine, the 'genus generalissimum' is divided into the ten categories, and 'ens' is said not to be their 'genus superveniens'. 2.2.7. presents the definition of 'genus subalternum'. Again, the role of material supposition is pointed out. 2.3. This chapter discusses 'species'. 2.3.1. - 2.3.4. 'Species' is defined and divided. Buridan corrects Peter of Spain's definition of 'species specialissima'. The 'Porphyrian Tree' is introduced and explained. 2.3.5. contains the definition of 'individuum' and discusses some interesting 'dubia' on this matter, e.g. the question whether, contrary to the definition of 'individual', individual terms such as 'Johannes' may be predicated of many. Buridan rejects such suggestions by pointing to the equivocation involved in the use of proper names said of diverse individuals. Also the peculiar position of the term 'deus' is discussed. 2.4. Chapter IV deals with 'differentia'. 2.4.1.-2.4.5. The logical use of the word 'differentia' is explained. In Buridan's view, the phrase 'differentibus specie' found in the common definition should be

xix

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

dropped. An alternative definition of 'differentia' is mentioned, and the use of the phrases 'differentia constitutiva' and 'differentia divisiva' is explained. Finally, a corollary is added. 2.5. This chapter deals with 'proprium'. 2.5.1.-2.5.2. The predicable 'proprium' is defined. In this context, some key terms (e.g. 'praedicatio essentialis' versus 'praedicatio denominativa') are discussed, including Buridan's favourite device 'connotatio aliena'. 2.6. This chapter deals with 'accidens'. 2.6.1. Porphyry's definition of the predicable 'accidens' is explained along the lines of terminist logic. Buridan remarks that the 'adesse' of the definition should not be taken in the sense of 'inesse secundum inhaerentiam proprie dictam', rather 'adesse alicui subiecto' is equivalent to 'praedicari vere et affirmative de illo'. 2.6.2. Another definition of 'accidens' is given. In an interesting 'dubitatio', Buridan discusses the relationship between 'praedicabile' and 'praedicatum' and that between the four 'predicates' found in Aristotle's Topics and the five 'Porphyrian predicables'. 2.6.3. A third definition of 'accidens' is discussed. 2.6.4.-2.6.5. 'Accidens' is divided into 'accidens separabile' and 'accidens inseparabile', and the proper nature of the latter is explained. 2.7. The final chapter deals with the specific properties of each of the five predicables and the properties they have in common. It contains a great number of interesting incidental remarks on various matters, such as 'praedicatio univoca' vs 'praedicatio aequivoca', and the distinction between 'real priority' and 'formal priority' (2.7.2.); the diverse grammatical 'modi significandi' (2.7.4.); and the logical difficulties involved in the use of comparatives and superlatives (e.g. 'albius' as the species of 'hoc album' and 'illud album'). In the seventh chapter, four of Buridan's five lemmata are completely lacking in Peter's text. Conversely, Peter's final sections (De predicatione and De

denominativis, p. 25, 8-32) are missing in Buridan's tract on the predicables, but both from a doctrinal and from a didactic point of view this omission is quite understandable, as these items are more properly discussed in the third tract, De praedicamentis .13

13 See Johannes Buridanus, Summulae in Praedicamenta, ed. E.P. Bos,§ 3.1.3.

xx

Introduction

Buridan' s work consists of elementary exegesis as well as extensive objections and dubitationes in which specific questions are dealt with, mostly in an original fashion. 11.4. List of manuscripts hitherto known

The editors are aware of the following manuscripts of Buridan's Summulae with the author's own commentary. Read the dates as follows: 15.0 = 15th c.; 14.2 = second half of the 14th c.; 15.1 =first half of the 15th c.; 14.2115.1=either14.2 or 15.1.

Erfurt, Amp!., 20 302 Erfurt, Ampl., 20 305 Krakow, B. Jag., 662 Krakow, B. Jag., 703 Krakow, B. Inst. Teol. Ksiezy Misjon., 171 Miinchen, Bay. Staatsbibl., CLM 7708 Oxford, Magdalen, 88 Praha, St. Kn., Osek 39 Torino, BN, D III 27 (462) Uppsala, BU, C 609 Vaticano, Pal. lat., 994 Vaticano, Vat. lat., 3020 Warszawa, BN, akc. 1819 Wertheim, Evangelische Kirchenbibl., 157 Wien, ONB, lat. 5365 Wien, ONB, lat. 5420 Wien, ONB, lat. 5466

Siglum F

Date 14.2/15.1 1378 14.2 14.2

Summulae lr-155ra lr-97v 1ra-126rb 2ra-170ra

Sophismata 155rb-191vb 98r-va (fr.) 126va-156vb 170rb-18lva

1371

3ra-182vb

183ra-219ra

14.0115.0 15.0 14.2

68r-95r(syll.) missing missing 1r-139 lra-160ra missing

1372 1374 14.2/15.1

1ra-98ra 3r-112va 2r-119v

98ra-1l7rb missing 120ra-137vb

T

1384

1r-104ra

missing

D

1375

1r-96v

97ra-115rb

w

1363 vel 1384 14.2 14.2 15.0

2ra-135vb lra-126ra lra-128ra lra-140ra

missing 126va-148vb l 28ra-162rb 140rb-168ra

v

xxi

G I J

K

H M 0

u E

A

B

c

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

The Buridan society intends to publish detailed descriptions of the manuscripts on a later occasion. For the manuscripts used in this fascicle, see the next paragraph.

II.5. Description of manuscripts used

The rich manuscript collections of the Vatican library include two copies of our tract. One is our best manuscript, Pal. lat. 994 (our E), the other is Vat. lat. 3020 (our D), which is among the copies of minor importance, but contains a beautiful coloured picture of the so-called 'Arbor porphyriana'. The only other copy of the Summulae found in Italy is Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale D III 27 (our T), which is most useful for the constitution of the text. The Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna possesses three copies, viz. lat. 5365, 5420 and 5466, of which only cod. 5420 (our B) is of interest, because of the others' frequent erroneous readings and various interpolations. The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich has only one copy (of minor use), viz. CLM 7708. Another copy is found in the Evangelische Kirchenbibliothek at Wertheim (Baden-Wi.irttemberg, Germany), cod. 157. The University Library of Uppsala has preserved the Summulae in a fifteenth century copy (C 609), which does not rank among our valuable sources. So much for the libraries of Western Europe. In the Eastern European manuscript collections a remarkably great number of manuscripts contain Buridan's Summulae, viz. four in Poland, two in Erfurt, one in Prague. One of the Polish manuscripts belongs to the Biblioteka Narodowa (cod. 1819) in Warsaw. The three others are found in Krakow, two of them in the Biblioteka Jagiellonska (B.J. 662 and 703), one in the Biblioteka lnstytutu Teologicznego Ksiezy Misjonarzy, cod. 171(olim627, antea 827), which, going under the label 'Stradom MS', is among the manuscripts used for the present edition (our K). The two

copies from the Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek in Erfurt are Amplon.2° 302 and 2° 305 (our G). The Prague manuscript is cod. Osek 39 of the Statni Knihovna. It is of minor use. The edition of this fascicle is based on MSS ETBKG.

xx ii

Introduction

E = Citta de! Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 994, a paper and vellum codex (saec. 14.2/15.1), measuring 300x225 mm, ff. V + 160, contains our tract on ff. 13vb-l 7vb, where it occurs in the third quire of the manuscript. Our tract is written in one hand, which also wrote the other tracts of the Summulae. The (relatively few) corrections are all in the same handwriting. We owe the codicological information to Dr. K. Friis-Jensen. In a great many cases, E has what may be taken as the better reading, quite sometimes accompanied by V, where all other MSS have erroneous or less acceptable readings. Here are some specimina: . 2.1.l, p. 9, 50: 'quia' E: 'probo quia' T: 'probo quod' B: 'probatio quia' G: 'probatur quia' KV. 2.1.2, p. 12, 26: 'hie non capio (EV: accipitur cett.) universale'. 2.1.3, p. 13, 21: 'respectu eiusdem respectu cuius dicitur' E: 'respectu illius (eius GBV; eiusdem K) de quo est' T. 2.2.l, p. 15, 19: 'ubi iste terminus' EV, where all other MSS omit 'ubi'. Ibid.: EV do not have the interpolation 'in ista propositione' found in all other MSS. Ibid., p. 15, 20: 'hoc totum' E (om. V): 'hec oratio' cett. 2.2.2, p. 19, 46-47: 'eadem substantia scilicet homo' EV: 'idem scilicet sor est homo et album' GK: 'idem sorest homo et albus' T: 'idem scilicet sorest homo et est al bus' B. Ibid., p. 21, 77: After 'diverse res' all other MSS (except V) have an interpolation; likewise after 'albo idem'. 2.2.6, p. 25, 28: 'quod isti termini' EV, where all other MSS have diverse (interpolated) readings. 2.3.l, p. 28, 24: 'secundum unam rationem et impositionem' EV: 'secundum [rationem] impositionem vel secundum unam rationem' T: 'secundum impositionem et unam rationem' BGD: 'secundum scilicet impositionem et unam rationem' K. Ibid., p. 28, 26: 'signanter et demonstrative' E, where the others have various wrong readings. 2.3.3, p. 30, 8-9: 'genus generalissimum et speciem specialissimam' E, where the others have various wrong readings. 2.3.5, p. 34, 41: 'plures dii similes illi Deo qui est' EV, where the others have wrong or less acceptable readings.

xxiii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

2.4.1, p. 38, 60 'nullum rationale est equus' E: 'nullus equus est rationalis' cett. (including V). Ibid., p. 38, 65: 'modo capiendi' EV: 'modo capiendo' cett. 2.5.1, p. 43, 27-28: 'omne illud quod est homo est risibile et omne illud quod est risibile est homo' E: 'omnis homo qui est risibilis [risibile 11 et omne risibile quod est est homo' TBG: 'omnis homo qui est est risibilis et omne risibile quod est est homo' K: 'omne risibile est homo et omnis homo est risibilis ad hunc sensum quod omne risibile quod est est homo et econverso' V. 2.6.1, p. 47, 12: After 'substantialis' all MSS except E have various interpolations. Ibid., p. 47, 13: 'tamen non est accidens igitur' E: 'praeter illius subiecti corruption em' TD: 'praeter subiecti corruptionem' B: 'praeter subiecti illius corruptionem' GK, where apparently the interpolation (taken from ibid., ad finem) has superseded the correct reading found in E. 2.6.4, p. 55, 12-13: 'nigrum respectu hominis dicitur separabile et respectu Ethiopis dicitur inseparabile' E: all other MSS have various wrong readings. 2.6.5, p. 56, 24: 'sic inseparabile est a corvo' E: in all other (various) readings the phrase 'a corvo' is missing. 2.7.1, p. 57, 9: 'hoc est dictu' E: 'hoc est dictum' cett. (including V). 2.7.4, p. 61, 11: 'inquirere an in omnibus vel in quibus [aliquibus V]' EV: 'inquirere an in aliquibus aliis' T: 'inquirere an in aliis vel in quibus' SC: 'inquirere in aliis vel in quibus' B: 'inquirere an aliis vel in aliquibus' G: 'requirere (!) an in aliquo vel in aliquibus' K. 2.7.6, p. 63, 18: 'castum album virtuosum' E: 'virtuosum et iustum et album' T: 'virtuosus (') iustum album et huiusmodi' BG: 'virtuosum album iustum et huiusmodi' K. On the other hand, E has some obviously erroneous readings, among them a few omissions and interpolations. Here are some examples: 2.1.3, p. 12, 6: EV are the only MSS to add the superfluous 'de pluribus'. 2.2.1, p. 15, 23-24: E has a serious omission due to haplography (see our critical apparatus), and, on top of that, instead of the correct reading 'in quomodo se habet' (which is only found in n it has: 'in quomodolibet aliter' (p. 15, 28). 2.2.2, p. 18, 31: 'dividit' wrongly EV: 'describit' cett. Ibid., p. 19, 53: after 'idem', only EV read superfluously 'nomine'.

xxiv

Introduction

Ibid., p. 20, 75: 'in aliquibus libris sic invenitur exemplum'; correctly T: 'in exemplo

aliquorum librorum est' E. Ibid., p. 21, 82: EV have an error due to haplography. 2.3.5, p. 34, 48: E has an interpolation at the end of the third chapter. 2.4.3, p. 40, 7: E reads 'addere differentiam' instead of 'apponere differentiam' cett. 2.4.5, p. 41, 10: E has an interpolation at the end of the fourth chapter.

2.5.2, p. 45, 21-22: E reads 'per modum adiacentem' instead of 'per modum adiacentis' cett. Ibid., p. 45, 30: E omits (with TB) 'terminus singularis'. 2.6.1, p. 48, 20: 'in libro suo de accidente' TBGK: E has an interpolation. Ibid., p. 50, 61: E reads 'una' instead of 'vera'. 2.6.2, p. 51, 25: E has the bizarre reading 'quintum praedicabile scilicet speciem' instead of 'quinque species praedicabilium'. 2.6.5, p. 56, 16: E has an interpolation. 2.7.1, p. 57, 10: E reads 'simul' instead of 'summulis'. 2.7.3, p. 60, 11: E reads 'refertur' instead of 'infertur'. 2.7.4, p. 61, 15: E reads 'similitudinem' (with D) instead of 'considerationem'. Ibid., p. 61, 18-19: E strangely has 'dubitatur quare unum de quo alterum est concretum' instead of 'derivatur unum de altero sicut concretum ab abstracto', which is rightly read by the manus corrigens of K. 2.7.6, p. 63, 15: E reads 'undique' instead of 'utique' .14 There are only a few corrections made by E's manus corrigens, of which that found at 2.2.2, p. 18, 40 is certainly mistaken, since the correct reading 'specie' has been changed into 'numero'. T = Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale D III 27 (462), anno 1372. We have no codicological description of this manuscript. It contains our tract on ff. 1 lra l 5ra written in one hand, the same that also copied the remaining tracts and the greater part of the (relatively few) corrections made to our textl5. T is one of our better copies. In some passages it is the only MS to provide what may be considered the correct reading: 14 For some other examples, where all our MSS including E are wrong, see below, p. xxxiii f. 15 For a number of extensive additions to the tract De praedicamentis see the critical edition by E.P. Bos, appendix,§ IV.I.

xxv

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

2.1.1, p. 10, 61-62: 'signato' ( ... ) 'signatis' T, where EGBK wrongly read 'significato' and 'significatis', respectively. 2.2.1, p. 15, 28: 'in quomodo se habet' T, where all others have a less acceptable reading. 2.2.2, p. 18, 32: 'circa quam' T: 'circa quod' cett. Ibid., p. 21, 84: 'differentia numero' T, where the other MSS have diverse inferior readings. 2.2.3, p. 23, 9-10: only T has the correct text where all the others suffer from haplography. 2.4.1, p. 35, 19-20: 'eligit illud membrum' T, where the others all have various inferior readings. 2.6.5, p. 56, 16: 'equum' Codd (including T), where E adds the superfluous 'vociferantem', and VBGK 'vociferare'. 2.7.6, p. 64, 31: 'non sic necesse et quod' T, where the other MSS either omit 'sic', or read 'hoc' (EV). However, T also presents a great number of mistaken, or less probable readings: 2.1. l, p. 8, 23-24: 'actionem et passionem' instead of 'actum et potentiam'. Ibid., p. 9, 40: 'ponit Aristoteles' instead of 'ponit auctor' (meaning Peter of Spain). 2.1.2, p. 11, 15: 'res' instead of 'rationes', and 'dicitur praedicabilis' instead of 'dicitur praedicabile'. 2.2.2, p. 18, 32: 'grammaticus dicit genus esse' instead of 'genus dicitur esse', and (p. 18, 33) 'secundum significationem' instead of 'secundum praedicationem'. Ibid., p. 19, 51: 'dicit' instead of 'describit eadem nomine quod', as an attempt to solve a haplography problem. 2.2.6, p. 26, 30: 'suppositorum' instead of 'sumptorum'. 2.3.1, p. 29, 39: 'semper' erroneously for 'supple'. 2.3.4, p. 31, 13: 'communiter' (with D) for 'consequenter'.

2.5.1, p. 43, 26-27: 'isti termini ( ... ) restricte acceptum (!)' for 'isti termini (... ) restricti ad ea quae sunt'. 2.5.2, p. 44, 13: 'convertibiliter' for 'universaliter'. Ibid., p. 44, 17: 'aut' instead of 'termini'. 2.6.2, p. 51, 20: 'nominative' erroneously for 'denominative', and 'duo praedicabilia' for 'duas species primas praedicabilium' (p. 51, 21). 2.6.3, p. 54, 12: 'ipsa omnino' for 'ilia oratio'.

xx vi

Introduction

2.6.5, p. 56, 17: 'possumus ipsum intelligere' instead of 'Averroes intelligens ipsum credidit' (cett.), and 'creatorem' for 'creativum'. 2.7.4, p. 61, 18: 'dubitatur utrum' instead of 'derivatur unum'. T has also some interpolations, e.g. at 2.7.4, p. 61, 20, after 'sed divinum bene': 'sic gratia exempli differentia praedicatur in quale'. On the other hand, at 2.1.1, p. 10, 72 'eo modo' has been omitted by T, as well as at p. I I, I2 the second 'omne' In many cases T has alternative readings that seem quite acceptable by themselves, but are not shared by the other MSS. At times they make an impression of pedantic didacticism. I have made a selection, just to make clear to the reader what I mean to say by calling the Tversion rather sophomoric. At 2.1.1, p. 10, 66 T has 'flumine' instead of 'fluvio'; at 2.1.2, p. I2, 28 'secundum quod supponit' instead of the plain 'secundum suppositionem'; at 2.2.2, p. 20, 59 'et notandum quod auctor' for 'deinde'; 2.5.I, p. 43, 29-30 'quarto modo acceptum' for 'ultimo modo dictum'; at 2.6.4, p. 55, I6 'ut si pes abscindatur ab aliquo homine' instead of 'ut si abscindatur sibi pes'; at 2.7.2, p. 59, 19 'si pro aiiquibus termini supponunt' for the usual 'pro quibus termini supponunt', and 'universaliora' instead of the common 'magis universalia' (p. 59, 23). Sometimes T shares the correct reading with only E (mostly accompanied by V). 2.2.2, p. 22, 93: 'quaecumque' EVT: quae BK: quia G; ibid., p. 22, 95: 'illamet' EVT: 'ipsamet' K: 'illarummet' B: 'illa enim' G. Ibid., p. 22, 101: 'bene dicuntur idem' EVT: 'bene dicuntur eidem' B: 'bene dicuntur eadem et differentia ideo eadem' GK. 2.2.7, p. 26, 8: 'cum tamen differant' EVT: 'cum tamen differunt' B: 'cum differant' K: 'tamen differunt' G. 2.4.1, p. 36, 24: 'dicit secunda clausula' EVTD: 'dicitur ergo (igitur) in secunda clausula' BKG. Ibid., p. 37, 40: 'differenter' EVT: 'difformiter' BGD. 2.7.3, p. 60, 5: 'componi dicitur' codd. including EVT: 'componitur' BK: 'componitur vel componi dicitur' G. At other times T is the only MS to share an erroneous reading with our best copy E, e.g. in the lemma quoted in 2.6.3, p. 54, 5: 'dicit Porphyrius' instead of 'dicit Aristoteles'. At 2.6.4, p. 54, 6: ET share the erroneous reading 'singularis' (for 'substantialis') with BD.

xx vii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

K = Krakow, Biblioteka Instytutu Teologicznego Ksiezy Misjonarzy 171 (olim 627, antea 827; labelled "Stradom MS", after the street where the Institute is situated) is a paper manuscript of 220 folios (measuring 297x215 mm) written in two columns, (sacc. 14.2/15.1). It contains our tract on ff. 17vb-24ra in one handwriting. There are many corrections, partly in what seems to be a different hand from the manus principalis. A 15th-century Ex-libris on the inside of the front cover reads: 'Iste liber est Canonicorum Regularium Monasterii Corporis Christi in Cazimiria'. This means that the MS was already at that time in Krakow, where it probably stayed, although its precise location is unknown, until K. Michalski acquired it for the library where it is now kept. We owe this information to Professor S. Ebbesen. K belongs (with G: see below) to a subdivision of family a and may be adduced as a useful text witness, in addition to our principal sources E and T. At times K is the only copy to present the preferable reading: 2.1.2, p. 12, 24: 'deus qui' K: 'deus quia' cett. 2.1.3, p. 13, 11: 'alienam connotationem' K: 'aliquam connotationem' cett. Ibid., p. 13, 25: 'aliqui autem volunt' KV: 'alii autem volunt' E: 'aliqui enim volunt' B: 'volunt enim aliqui' T: 'aliqui enim ponunt' G, where 'autem' surely is the correct reading. Ibid.: 'ea' is wrongly omitted by the other MSS. 2.2.1, p. 15, 23-24: 'Et ponitur ( ... ) individuorum'; except for Kand V, all our MSS (ETBGD) omit this sentence, due to haplography. 2.2.5, p. 24, 5: 'divisio generis et erit manifesta' K: 'divisio erit manifesta' EVBD: 'manifesta scilicet divisio generis' T: 'divisio generis et est manifesta' G. The affinity of K and G should be noticed. 2.2.6, p. 25, 19: 'taliter' (K, together with G !): 'talis' cett. 2.5.2, p. 45, 30-31: 'terminus singularis de terrnino singulari' K: 'de termino singulari terminus singularis' GD: 'de termino singulari' ETB. 2.6.2, p. 52, 42: 'respectu praedicatorum' K: 'respectu praedicabilium' cett. 2.7.1, p. 57, 15: K rightly omits 'simul' before 'adinvicem'. 2.7.2, p. 59, 28: K correctly reads 'quam speciem quando species cognoscitur', where the other MSS all have 'quarn species cognoscatur'. Sometimes K has the correct reading together with only one of the other MSS: 2.1.2, p. 11, 18: 'innatus' TK: 'natus' V: 'natum' E: 'innatum' BGD.

xx viii

Introduction

2.6.2, p. 53, 47: 'accidens' V: 'scilicet accidens' TK: 'scilicet accidentis' £cBG: om. E.

2.7.4, p. 60, 4: except for Kand E, all our MSS omit 'se' before 'habent'. 2.7.4, p. 61, 18: 'derivatur unum' BK: 'dubitatur unum' VD: 'dubitatur utrum' T: 'dubitatur quare unum' E: where, again, there is some affinity with G, which reads 'derivatur concretum'. The manus corrigens of K is rather active, and has good reasons to be so because of the great many scribal errors in K. At 2.6.1, p. 47, 11 K wrongly reads 'convenit aliis accidentibus' (instead of 'convenit aliis ab accidentibus'), which is reasonably (though conjecturally) corrected by Kc into 'convenit aliis q uam accidentibus'. At least once Kc 's reading is important for the constitution of the text: at 2.7.4, p. 61, 18 Kc reads 'de altero sicut concretum ab abstracto', where all other MSS have inferior readings: 'altero sicut certum est' (!) K: 'quo alterum est concretum' £: 'quo alterum est certum' VBD: 'quo alterum est certum vel creditum' (!) T: 'quo alterum est abstractum' G. More important, it may be surmised from this passage that the corrector of K had an exemplar of our tract at his disposal that was not dependent upon some member of the a or p families. Unfortunately, there are in our tract no other specimina to support this surmise. Of course, K also presents a number of erroneous readings. Here are some of them: 2.1.2, p. 12, 21: K reads (with G, it should be noticed again) 'iste terminus universale' instead of 'terminus universalis'. 2.1.3, p. 13, 27: 'vel essentialiter dictum' for 'essentialiter vel accidentaliter'. 2.2.2, p. 21, 85: 'aliquando' instead of 'abinvicem'. 2.2.6, p. 24, 5: 'dicitur' for 'dividitur'. 2.3.4, p. 31, 9: 'subordinata' (with D) for 'subordinate'; ibid., p. 31, 14: 'ponuntur altere (!) differentie' for 'ponuntur a latere differentie'. 2.3.5, p. 32, 21: 'duarum intentionum' for 'secundarum intentionum'. Ibid., p. 34, 44: 'individui animal'(!) for 'individualis'. 2.5.2, p. 46, 50: 'huiusmodi' instead of 'efficitur' cett. Kc. 2.6.1, p. 48, 30: 'particulariter' for 'per adesse'. 2.6.2, p. 52, 33: 'tantum' for 'certum' cett. Kc. 2.6.5, p. 56, 16: 'audiret' for 'audivisset' cett. 2.7.3, p. 60, 7: 'subdividatur' for 'definiatur' cett. Kc.

xx ix

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

B = Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vindobonensis palatinus latinus 5420, saec. 14.2 (ante 1395), chart., mm. 290x210. An ex-libris says: 'Emi hanc summam uno floreno aureo ungarico anno Domini 1395'.16 The MS contains our tract on ff. 16ra-2 l vb, written by one hand. Although B belongs to our secondary sources, it is more than once of use for establishing the correct text. At 2.2.2, p. 21, 83 only B has the preferable reading 'dividit', where the other MSS all have 'dividitur'. Likewise B has at 2.7.6, p. 63, 15 'utique' where all others wrongly read 'undique'. At 2.1.2, p. 11, 18 B has (with K) the correct reading 'qua' ('quia' ETGV: 'quo' D). At 2.7.4, p. 61, 18 B has (with K) the correct reading 'derivatur' where the other MSS all read 'dubitatur'. On the other hand, B contains some obvious errors, at times due to the negligence of its scribe, it seems. E.g. at 2.1.2, p. 12, 22-23 it reads 'praedicare' instead of 'praedicari'; at ibid., p. 12, 25 'verificationem' ('distinctionem' V) for 'distributionem'; at 2.2.2, p. 20, 63 'possunt' for 'ponit' (or 'posuit' TG), and at 2.3.5, p. 32, 13 B has 'Albertus' (three times) while all others read 'Robertus' ('Ropertus', 'Rupertus'). Obviously B belongs to the same branch of the a family as Kand G.17 G = Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, 2° 305, a paper manuscript (ff. I + 98), dating from 1373 and measuring 294x224 mm, contains our tract on ff.

10va-14va, all written in one hand. The date is given in the colophon, f. 97vb: 'Explicit loyca reverendi magistri Byridani reportata Prage per manus Luce de Wienna. Incepta in vigilia Petri et Pauli et finita in crastino Bartholomei. Anno domini millesimo cccmo septuagesimo tercio'. The codicological information about this MS derives from Prof. S. Ebbesen. The scribe of G, or of its exemplar, is time and again rather careless; e.g. in writing 'sic' instead of 'sicut' (as at 2.1.l, p. 9, 42); at 2.1.2, p. 12, 21: 'iste terminus universale' (with K) for 'terminus universalis'; at 2.1.3, p. 13, 10 'aut ad' ( !) for 'addat' (KBGcV) or 'addit' (ET); at 2.1.3, p. 13, 17 'subalternum' for 'superveniens', and at 2.2.2, p. 18, 35 'ad istum intentum non' for 'non ad istum sensum'; ibid., p. 21, 85: 'sicut hie fuit' for 'sicut dictum fuit'; at 2.6.5, p. 56, 14 'essent duo' instead of 'esset differentia'. At 2.3.5, p. 34, 44 G has the proper 16 Private communication by prof. M. Markowski (Krak6w). 17 See below, p. xxxiv. For differences between Band KG see below, ibid.

xxx

Introduction

name 'Chunradus' (apparently the (or a) scribe's name) for the usual 'Johannes'. - The same hand made only a few corrections, many fewer than it should have, I am afraid. On the other hand, G sometimes provides the correct reading, at times against all our other MSS. For example, at 2.2.2, p. 18, 35: 'ad istum sensum quad' G: 'ad istum sensum quia' cett. At 2.3.1, p. 28, 19 G's reading (with Kand D) seems to be the preferable one: 'de pluribus numero solum differentibus', as at 2.3.5, p. 33, 30: 'oportet exponi', where the others read 'potest'. Ibid., p. 32, 12: G has (with our best MS E and the manus corrigens of D) 'quolibet', where VBKD read 'de quolibet' and T has 'quocumque'. At 2.2.6, p. 25, 25 it has (with KBD) the correct reading 'idea nulla' G: 'idea non' T: 'ergo nullum' E. At 2.7.2, p. 58, 16 it shares with K the correct reading 'contingit' ('conceduntur' EBD: 'conceditur quad' T). At 2.5.2, p. 46, 51 G has (with only EVK) the correct reading 'pro eodem supponentes'. G is rather close to K, as we have seen before, and seems to belong with K to the subdivision [y] of the a family. I have used a full transcription of the manuscripts E, T, B, Kand G, and, as a rule, their readings are all mentioned in the critical apparatus. D = Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 3020, a paper manuscript of 156 folios, interleaved with a few vellum folios, and dating from 1384, measuring 297x230 mm, contains a rather bad copy of our tract on ff. 20vb30va, all written in the same hand. I have made a complete transcription of it. D clearly belongs to the a family and seems to come rather close to B. However, to record its readings in our apparatus is, except for a few passages, of no use. It will serve, therefore, as a codex raro allatus. Its beautiful coloured 'Arbor Porphyriana' occurring on the vellum folio 25r has been reproduced in the present edition. V = Wertheim (Germany), Evangelische Kirchenbibliothek (or: Historische Bibliothek in der Stiftskirche) 157 (anno 1362 vel 1384) a paper manuscript of 139 folios measuring 280x215 mm., contains a copy of our tract on ff. 16vb-21ra. We owe this codicological information to Dr. L. Valente. This manuscript is sometimes useful for the constitution of the text. E.g. at 2.2.1, p. 15, 23-24 V does not suffer from an omission that is found in all other copies, except for K, and at 2.2.2, p. 21,

xx xi

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

78 it (again, with only K) does not omit 'suum' before 'totum', and shares with only our best MS E, the words 'quae non sunt', where the others all wrongly read 'quod non est'. At 2.7.6, p. 63, 16 V has the lectio probabilior 'multa sunt nomina ( ... ) sic recipientia', where the other MSS read 'multa nomina ( ... ) sunt recipientia'. On p. 63, 17 V alone has 'grammaticam', whereas the others read 'grammaticum'. Most of the time, however, it presents erroneous or less probable readings, partly sharing them with other MSS (mainly from the KBG group). For this reason, like D, it is only incidentally adduced in our critical apparatus. Besides, as we have seen, it shares some readings with our best manuscript E.

IL 6. Stemma codicum The unique position of E as a source for our text has been dealt with in the previous sectionl8. There are, however, also some striking similarities between E and our second copy of high rank, T. On the other hand, there is a rather close relationship between B, K and G as against ET, as is clear from passages in which this triplet presents a common reading which is different from that found in the other MSS. I give some specirnina in support of both the relationship between B, K and G and that between E and T: 2.1.2, p. 11, 14: after 'termini' the triplet BKG has the same interpolation, which is missing in ET. Ibid. BKG reads 'sic dicuntur diversi', where E has 'differunt' and T 'differunt sic'. 12,26: 'aut' BKG: 'vel' ET. 2.1.3, p. 13, 10: 'addat' BKGcv ('aut ad'(!) G): 'addit' ET. 2.2.1, p. 16, 32: 'non intendimus hie nisi de praedicabilibus univocis' BKG (with D ), where EV and T obviously make attempts to repair a deficiency (viz. omissions of the word 'nisi') of their exemplar(s): EV reading '( ... ) de praedicabilibus equivocis', while T has '( ... ) de equivocis sed solum de praedicabilibus univocis'. 2.7.4, p. 61, 18: BKG (correctly) 'derivatur': ET 'dubitatur'. 2.2.2, p. 17, 21: BKG wrongly reads 'parvae clausulae', while EV reads 'particulae' and T 'clausulae'.

18 Above, II. 5.

xxxii

Introduction

On the other hand, there are some similarities between K and G l 9 not shared by B. The opening lemma of our tract offers some nice examples: 'sumptum' KG (with ET) against 'captum' in B; 'est' KG (with ET) against 'dicitur solum illud praedicabile' in B; 'communiter' KG (with ET) against 'improprie vel communiter' in B. One should recall those passages in which only B has the c ect reading, e.g. 2.2.2, p. 21, 83: 'dividit', and 2.7.6, p. 63, 15 'utique' .20 On account of the above observations the following surmises may be advanced: [1] E shows its unique position by its manifest dissimilarities from all our other text witnesses. To the above evidence two more possible pieces may be added. 2.1.1, p. 9, 33-37:E reads: res ( ... ) non praedicantur nee subiciuntur ( ... ) sed conceptus ( ... ) vel termini vocales vel scripti mentalibus vel conceptibus subordinati sicut alias dictum est. TBKG and D all have:

res (... ) non praedicantur nee (vel G) subiciuntur ( ... ) sed conceptus ( ... ) vel (aut T) termini vocales vel (aut TBG) scripti mediantibus ( convenientibus D) illis conceptibus significativi sicut alias dictum est.

The passage referred to must be looked for in the first tract of the Summulae, De introductionibus, I 1, 6, ed. Pinborg21: voces non significant res extra animam nisi mediantibus conceptibus quibus subordinantur, nee etiam scripturae significant conceptus aut res alias nisi quia significant voces istos conceptus designantes.

19 See above, p. xxxi ff.

20 See above, p. xxviii. 2 1 See Jan Pinborg, The Summulae ( ... ),in The Logic of John Buridan ( ... ),Copenhagen(... ), p. 84. Pinborg used the following four manuscripts for his partial edition of Tract I: Krakow, Biblioteka Jagiellonska 662, Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, Amplon. F 302, Uppsala, University Library C 609, and Wien, Osterreichische Nazionalbibliothek, lat. 5365. Our Ts reading (f. 1vb) of this passage comes very close to Pinborg's edition, but our E reads (f. 2ra) the second part of the passage: 'nee etiam scripturae significant conceptus aut alias res extra animam nisi mediantibus vocibus istos conceptus designantes (!).'

xxxiii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

Obviously, our manuscripts all present deficient readings of the De praedicabilibus passage, which, I guess, may have run some way like this: res non praedicantur nee subiciuntur in propositionibus, sed conceptus in mente ( ... ) aut termini vocales vel scripti mediantibus illis conceptibus quibus subordinantur significativi (... ). If my surmise be correct, E wrongly having 'mentalibus vel' instead of 'medi-

antibus illis' surely is due to the scribe's misreading the latter phrase. The other MSS have omitted 'quibus subordinantur', a trace of which phrase has been left in E's (erroneous) reading 'subordinati', whereby the nominative case may have

superseded the correct reading 'significativi' found in the other MSS. Anyway, the dissimilarity between E and the other MSS clearly comes to the fore. Another possible clue may be found at 2.2.2, p. 20, 63-64, where BKG correctly read 'si sint aliqua nomina synonyma definibilia', but E omits 'synonyma' and T has 'definibilia synonyma'. This might be seen as a clue that the exemplar(s) of E and T originally had omitted the word 'synonyma', and that, after this word had been supplied in the margin of the exemplar of T, it was inserted into the text by a copyist at the wrong spot. If so, this also may be taken as evidence for the difference between E and both T and BKG. I would propose, for these and the foregoing22 reasons, to mark out two different traditions, that of E (to be labelled the

p family)

and that of TBKG (the a

family). [2] Within the a. family, T has its own position, which clearly differs from that of the other members of the family, as we have seen in the previous section.23 [3] As to the subdivision BKG, Kand G are closer to one another than to B.2 4 [4] It should be noticed, further, that, in spite of the common readings, none of the MSS used for the present edition was copied from one of the others. Their mutual

independence is easily gathered from our analyses made in the previous section. First, there is E's unique position among our MSS; then, T's independence from the group consisting of BKG should be taken into consideration. On the other hand, there are some unmistakable differences between B and KG that cannot be

22 See the remark about E's unique position among our text witnesses, above, § II. 5. 23 Above, § 11 5. 24 See above, p. xxxi.

xx xiv

Introduction

explained as merely due to scribal errors, and, thus, are likely to point to B having not been copied from either Kor G, or the other way round. Finally, despite the close relationship between Kand G, the one cannot be taken as deriving from the other.2 5 [5] It may be of some interest to point out that our oldest text witness, G definitely does not rank among the better manuscripts, as is clear from our analysis in the previous section. In addition to the mutual independence of all our copies, this fact provides some evidence for a respectable circulation of Buridan's Summulae in the second half of the fourteenth century, before it was nearly pushed out in the next century by John Dorp's commentary. The question may arise, now, whether the diverse manus corrigentes have possibly had one of the other MSS at their disposal. In order to answer this question one should first distinguish three kinds of corrections: [a] corrections of the 'on second inspection' type, i.e. those which are made by the same scribe, or the corrector, and are the result of another, more careful reading of the same exemplar. Thus trivial scribal errors often are corrected by the same hand most of the time. [b] corrections of the 'on second thought' type, or 'conjectural emendations', i.e. changes which are made to emend obviously deficient or corrupt passages, without another exemplar being consulted. Thus, e.g., the manus corrigens of K supplied 'quam' after 'aliis', instead of the missing preposition 'ab'. Another specimen of such (attempted) emendations may be seen in the vicissitudes of the corrupt passage of the opening chapter of our tract we have discussed above. 26 [c] corrections of the 'on second opinion' type, i.e. those made after consulting another manuscript. Only the last type is of concern to us, now. In my view, only the manus corrigens of K should come into consideration on this score. However, I have found no correction made by Kc that should, or could, be ascribed to its consulting any of the other four manuscripts. Because of the foregoing observations the following stemma codicum may now be established:

25 All this has been argued for in the previous section. 26 P. xxxiv.

xxxv

John Buridan, Summu/ae, De Praedicabilibus

(I)

a

T

/~

// IV\ [x]

B

[y]

K

~

~

E

G

II. 7. Editorial principles

The edition assumes the correctness of the stemma presented in II.6. The editor's aim is to present the text of E, with two modifications: The editor's general preference for E to all our other MSS is easily supported by what has been remarked about the (relative) qualities of this unique manuscript of the Summulae. This preference also determines our selecting and evaluating the alternative readings occurring in the various MSS. E's readings will be set aside only if they obviously do not make sense, or suffer from minor errors, such as apparent omissions or interpolations. In such cases, the editor being left with the a family, his first attention will concern T, since T is remarkably free from errors and mistaken readings that are only due to the scribe's ignorance or negligence, which surely cannot be said of BKG (let alone such copies as D ). However, in several cases in which both E and Tare likely to give incorrect or less probable readings, the remaining members of the a family may present good ones. Our codices raro allati (V and D, which have both

xxxvi

Introduction

been completely collated) are only recorded in the critical apparatus if they seem to augment the reader's insight in rather complicated textual situations. Generally speaking, E's reading is accepted unless a) it raises unsurmountable problems regarding sense or consistency, or b) the other MSS (TKBGDV) unanimously conspire against E in a matter not entirely devoid of interest. More than once, when all readings occurring in our MSS must be held, or are likely, to be mistaken, the present editor had to resort to conjectural emendation of the text. Thus, for example, the editor felt compelled to intervene in the following cases: 2.1.1, p. 9, 33-37: for this passage see above, p. xxxiii. 2.1.3, p. 13, 12: 'ergo': 'enim' codd., and: 'enim': 'ergo' codd. 2.2.2, p. 19, 57: 'etiam quod sit ratio eadem in mente', where all MSS present various inferior readings; see our critical apparatus. Ibid., p. 21, 78: 'partes quae sunt totum, quod non est idem sibi'; all MSS have inferior readings. 2.3.5, p. 33, 29: 'terminus individuus': 'terminus singularis sive individuus' E: 'terminus individuus sive (vel K) singularis' TKG: 'terminus individualis vel terminus singularis' B. 2.4.1, p. 36, 23: 'expositiones membrorum sequentes': 'expositionem (expositiones K) membrorum sequentium' EBcKG: 'expositionem membrorum sequentes (!) B: 'declarationem trium membrorum sequentium' T: 'declarationes membrorum sequentes' D: 'sequentium membrorum oppositiones' V. 2.4.5, p. 41, 8: 'aut etiam quae sunt vocatae': 'que sunt vocate' E: 'aut etiam vocate' TBK: 'aut etiam voco' G. 2.5. l, p. 43, 25: all MSS contain an interpolated clause, though variously worded. In E it appears as 'quia forte ridebit'. I have deleted this clause. 2.6.2, p. 50, 6: 'et in hoc dicatur praedicabile ita quod praedicabile sit ibi genus': 'et in hoc dicatur praedicabile' K: 'ita quod praedicabile sit ibi genus' T: 'ita quod dicatur praedicabile' EBDc: 'ita quod diceretur praedicabile' G: 'ita quod differt (!) praedicabile' D. Ibid., p. 52, 41: 'praedicata principalia': 'praedicata seu praedicabilia' EBKG: 'praedicata et praedicabilia' T. 2.6.5, p. 55, 4: 'abesse': 'abesse et adesse' ET: 'adesse vel abesse' BG: 'adesse vel abesse etc.' K: 'adesse et abesse' D.

xxxvii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

The apparatus given in the present edition is intended to provide the reader with plausible alternatives to our text in matters of consequence, and to enable him to reconstruct the text, not only as it is read by our basic manuscript, but also as it occurs in the four other manuscripts used for the edition. Of course, insignificant variants, such as 'ergo'/' igitur', 'vel' /' aut' (when interchangeable), 'iste' /' ille', and so on, as well as insignificant changes in word-order will not be taken into consideration.

ll.8. The critical apparatus The apparatus is positive: for every reading reported, the manuscripts that have it are listed. A simple entry has this form: 'x TBK: y E: z G', i.e. manuscripts TBK read 'x', E reads 'y' and G reads 'z'. The first reading is always a lemma, i.e. identical with the reading adopted in the text. Minor variants between a group of manuscripts which agree in the main are sometimes indicated in parenthetical additions with an entry, as e.g. 'substantiales ETV: et sic bene convenit eis quarta proprietas add. KG (convenit K: patet G)'.

Negative apparatus is used only when all manuscripts except E have the reading adopted in the text. Each entry is complete in the sense that it informs about the rea, 1gs of all five manuscripts at the place concerned. If some manuscript is not available for comparison, because it has a larger lacuna around the variant place, its 'reading' is registered as def = deficit. If a manuscript has a text so deviant that it makes no sense to ask whether it has any of the readings attested in the remaining

manuscripts, it is reported to read alia or aliter. The apparatus registers: 1. All cases in which our text deviates from that of E. 2. All cases in which two or more manuscripts carry a different reading from the one adopted. 3. Miscellaneous readings which seem interesting as regards contents or history of the text.

xx xviii

Introduction

Exceptions to (1) and (2) occur: la. When the rejected reading of E is an obvious and insignificant slip like an omission to put a line over 'ro' to make it spell 'ratio'. Also, ante correcturam errors (our 'on second inspection' errors; see above, p. xxxv) corrected by the scribe himself are not adopted. 2a. When the variation between the manuscripts concern matters generally considered of no consequence (such as choice between 'ergo' and 'igitur'; headings, which are not part of the text to be commented on by Buridan; 'glossa', 'sequitur' and 'textus' to announce the author's text and Buridan's commentaries; 'etcetera' when it is obviously meaningless and merely serves to fill up a line of the manuscript; or between equivalent word-orders) and the text has been established according to the principles described in II.7, above. For the abbreviations used in the apparatus, see our list of the sigla, below, p. 5.

11.9. Orthography. Punctuation In matters of orthography and punctuation we have not followed the manuscripts. The punctuation is our own, and is not based on the manuscripts, which, like all medieval manuscripts, are rather careless in this matter. The orthography is classicizing and differs very little from the one used e.g. by Lewis and Short's well-known Latin Dictionary27. Some of the most salient discrepancies between medieval practice and ours are: I. We always write 'ae' when classical norm requires it; Buridan always wrote 'e' in such cases. This forces us to decide between adjectival and adverbial interpretation of such ambiguous medieval forms as 'maxime'. 2. The distribution of 'ci' and 'ti' in front of a vowel is regulated according to classical norm, meaning e.g. that we always write 'dictio' whereas medieval practice allows both 'dictio' and 'diccio'; similarly we always write 'condicio' when dealing with the noun derived from 'condico', whereas medieval practice allows both 'condicio' and 'conditio' in this case (as well in the case of the derivative of 'condo', which we would write 'conditio'). 27 The present editor has, rather reluctantly, acquiesced to the general editorial arrangement to present both text and apparatus in classicised form.

xx xix

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

3. Some Greek words appear in forms which were rarely or never used in the Middle Ages. Thus we write 'Aristoteles', 'dialectica', 'Coriscus', not 'Aristotiles', 'dialetica', 'Coruscus'. We invariably say 'Socrates' though the MSS tend to use the short forms 'Sortes' or 'Sor'. As for the medieval word 'quiditas' /'quidditas' we have chosen the spelling with one 'd' since it is, in our experience, the commonest one in medieval manuscripts, and moreover it is etymologically the sounder: quid-itas is modelled on qual(e)-itas and quant(um)itas. Manuscript abbreviations have been solved, except for those still in use, such as 'etc.' ('and so on'), either in the sense of 'et sic de aliis', or when it refers to the remaining words of a text or formula well known to the medieval reader or hearer, e.g. in "genus est praedicabile de pluribus etc.", where Porphyry's wellknown definition of genus is meant "genus est praedicabile de pluribus differentibus specie in eo quod quid''.28 Autonymous use of words or phrases is only marked by inverted commas if it is explicitly indicated in the context, e.g. hoc nomen 'homo'.

II.JO. Headings Most manuscripts contain clues or marginal headings for indicating new chapters, but not for paragraphing. As a rule, the headings and numbers indicating chapters, parts of them, or so-called 'clausulae' are editorial additions, but, at times, they are based on indications found in (some of) our copies. Most of our manuscripts introduce Buridan's comments on the preceding lemma with the word 'glosa', either in the text, or in the margin. I have omitted such indications. The headings are not registered in the apparatus criticus.

II.11. Apparatus of quotations. Our apparatus of quotations identifies explicit quotations made by Buridan, and no more. Thus we do not identify the numerous tacit quotations or echoes of Porphyry's /sagoge. 28 This use of 'etc.' in the manuscripts should be well distinguished from its use to merely indicate the end of a major part of a tract, where, in fact, it serves as a (very!) full stop. This use is ignored, i.e. not printed in the text nor recorded in the apparatus.

xi

Introduction

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Il.12. Bibliography ll.12.1. Primary literature 11.12.1.1. John Buridan lohannis Buridani in Vlll Physicorum libros Questiones, Parisiis 1509 (reprint Frankfurt I Main 1963). Johannes Buridanus, In Metaphysicam Aristotelis Questiones, Parisiis 1518 (reprint Frankfurt I Main 1964). lohannis Buridani Quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo et mundo, edited by E.A. Moody, Cambridge (Mass.) 1942. Johannes Buridanus: in Reina, M.E., 'Giovanni Buridano: Tractatus de suppositionibus,' in Rivista critica di storia delta filosofia 12 (1957), pp. 175-208 and 323-352. Johannes Buridanus: in F. Scott and H. Shapiro, 'John Buridan's De motibus animalium ',in Isis 1967 (58), pp. 533-552. Johannis Buridani Tractatus de consequentiis, ed. H. Hubien. Edition critique, Louvain/Paris 197 6. Johannes Buridanus, Sophismata. Critical edition with an introduction by T.K. Scott, Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt 1977. John Buridan, John Buridan on self-reference. Chapter eight of Buridan's Sophismata, with a translation, an introduction, and a philosophical commentary by G.E. Hughes, Cambridge etc. 1982. Johannes Buridanus, Quaestiones in Praedicamenta, hrsg. von J. Schneider, Mlinchen 1983. Johannes Buridanus, Questiones longe super librum Perihermeneias, edited with an introduction by R. van der Lecq, Nijmegen 1984 (Ph. D. thesis, University of Leiden, Meppel 1983). Johannes Buridanus: in P. G. Sobol, John Buridan on the Soul and Sensation. An Edition of Book II of his Commentary on Aristotle's Book on the Soul (... ), Indiana, 1984.

xii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

Jean Buridan 's Logic. The Treatise on Supposition, the Treatise on Consequences, translated, with a philosophical introduction by Peter King, Dordrecht 1985 (Syn these Historical Library, 27). Johannes Buridanus, Tractatus de differentia universalis ad individuum, ed. S. Szyller, in Przeglad Tomistyczny, III (1987), pp. 137-178. Johannes Buridanus: in J.M.M.H. Thijssen, John Buridan 's Tractatus de infinito. Quaestiones super libros Physicorum secundum ultimam lecturam, liber III, quaestiones 14-19. An edition with an introduction and indexes by J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Nijmegen 1991 (revision of: J.M.M.H. Thijssen, Johannes Buridanus over het oneindige. Een onderzoek naar zijn theorie over het oneindige in het kader van zijn wetenschaps- en natuurfilosofie. Deel I: studie; deel II: teksten. Nijmegen 1988 (Ph.D. thesis)). Johannes Buridanus: in J.A. Zupko, John Buridan 's Philosophy of Mind. An Edition and Translation of Book III of his 'Questions on Aristotle's De anima' (Third Redaction), with Commentary and Critical and Interpretative Essays. 2 vols., Ann Arbor (Mich.) 1990 (Ph. D. thesis, Cornell University 1989). Johannes Buridanus: in B. Patar, Le traite de l' ame de Jean Buridan (Prima lectura). Edition, Etude critique et doctrinale, Louvain-la-Neuve 1991. Johannes Buridanus, Summulae. In Praedicamenta. Introduction, Critical Edition and Appendices by E.P. Bos, Nijmegen 1994.

Il.12.1.2. Other primary literature Anonymus, De Sex Principiis, in L. Minio-Paluello, Aristoteles Latinus I, 6-7, under the titel: Anonymi Fragmentum vulgo vocatum 'Liber de Sex Principiis', Bruges/Paris 1966. Averroes, Opera omnia, Venetiis 1560. Biagio Pelacani da Parma: in G. Federici Vescovini, Le Quaestiones de Anima di Biagio Pelacani da Parma, Firenze 1974. Boethius, De divisione, ed. Migne, PL 64, Parisius 1860. Nicholas of Autrecourt, His Correspondence with Master Giles and Bernard of Arezzo. A Critical Edition from the Two Parisian Manuscripts with an Introduction, English Translation, Explanatory Notes and Indexes, by L.M. de Rijk, Leiden/New York/London 1994.

xiii

Introduction

Peter of Spain, Tractatus, called afterwards Summule logicales. First Critical Edition from the Manuscripts with an Introduction by L.M. de Rijk, Assen 1972.

II.12.2. Secondary literature Biard, J., 'Le cheval de Buridan. Logique et philosophie du langage dans l' analyse d'un verbe intentionnel', in 0. Pluta, (ed.), Die Philosophie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. In memoriam Konstanty Michalski (1879-1947), Amsterdam 1988, pp. 119-137. Bos, E.P., 'Mental Verbs in Terminist Logic. John Buridan, Albert of Saxony, Marsilius oflnghen', in Vivarium 16 (1978), pp. 56-69. Geach, P.T., 'A Medieval Discussion of Intentionality', in Logic Matters, Oxford 1972, pp. 129-138. Kaluza, Z., 'Nicolas d' Autrecourt. Un ami de la verite', in Histoire litteraire de la France. Tome XLII, fasc. 1, Paris 1995. Lecq, R. van der, 'John Buridan on Intentionality', in E.P. Bos, (ed.), Medieval Semantics and Metaphysics. Studies dedicated to L.M. de Rijk, Nijmegen 1985 (Artistarium, Supplementa II), pp. 281-290. Maieru, A., 'Significatio et connotatio chez Buridan', in J. Pinborg, (ed.), The Logic of John Buridan, (... ),pp. 101-114. Moody, E.A., 'Buridan and a dilemma of Nominalism', in E.A. Moody, Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science and Logic, Collected Papers, Los Angeles 1975, pp. 353-370 (first written in 1962). Nuchelmans, G., '«Appellatio rationis» in Buridan's Sophismata IV, 9-15, in 0. Pluta (ed.), Die Philosophie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. In memoriam Konstanty Michalski (1879-1947), Amsterdam 1988, pp. 67-84. Pinborg, J., Logik und Semantik im Mittelalter. Ein Uberblick, Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt 1972. Pinborg, J. (ed.), The Logic of John Buridan. Acts of the Third European Symposium of Medieval Logic and Semantics, Copenhagen 1976. Pinborg, J., 'The Summulae, Tractatus I, De introductionibus', in J. Pinborg (ed.), The Logic of John Buridan. Acts of the Third European Symposium of Medieval Logic and Semantics, ed. J. Pinborg, Copenhagen 1976, pp. 71-90. Rijk, L.M. de, 'On Buridan's Doctrine of Connotation', in J. Pinborg, (ed.), The Logic of John Buridan, (... ),pp. 91-100.

xii ii

John Buridan, Summulae, De Praedicabilibus

Rijk, L.M. de, Some Fourteenth Century Tracts on the Probationes Terminorum. Martin of Alnwick O.F.M., Richard Billingham, Edward Upton and Others, Nijmegen 1982 (Artistarium 3). Rijk, L.M. de, 'The Origins of the Theory of the Properties of Terms', in N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny and J. Pinborg (eds.), The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge 1982, pp. 161-173. Rijk, L.M. de, 'John Buridan on Universals', in Revue de metaphysique et de morale (on the theme 'Les universaux'), 1992, pp. 35-59. Rijk, L.M. de, 'On Buridan's View of Accidental Being', in E.P. Bos and H.A. Krop (eds.),John Buridan, Master of Arts. Some Aspects of his Philosophy, Nijmegen 1993, pp. 41-51. Rijk, L.M. de, 'On a Special Use of 'ratio' in 13th and 14th Century Metaphysics', in M. Fattori and M.L. Bianchi, (eds.), Ratio. VII Colloquio Internazionale (Roma, 9-11gennaio1992), 1994, pp. 197-218.

xliv

III. TEXT AND APPARATUS

Ill.I. Index capitulorum et partium

loHANNIS BURIDANI SUMMULARUM TRACTATUS SECUNDUS

DE PRAEDICABILIBUS

2.l. De praedicabilibus 2.1.1. De distinctione huius nmninis 'praedicabile' 2.1.2. De assignatione convenientiae et differentiae inter 'praedicabile' et 'universale' 2.1.3. De divisione praedicabilium

2.2. De genere 2.2.1. De definitione generis

7 7 11 12

14 14

2.2.2. De 'differentibus specie'

16

2.2.3. De 'in eo quod quid' 2.2.4. De alia definitione generis 2.2.5. De divisione generis

23

2.2.6. De genere generalissimo

24

2.2.7. De genere subalterno

26

2.3. De specie 2.3.1. De definitione speciei 2.3.2. De divisione speciei et declaratione membrorum 2.3.3. Corollarium 2.3.4. Explicatio dictorum 2.3.5. De descriptione individui

27 27

2.4. De differentia 2.4.1. De hoc nomine 'differentia'

34

23 24

29 30 30 31

34

3

Johannes Buridanus, Summulae

2.4.2. De definitione differentiae 2.4.3. De alia definitione differentiae 2.4.4. Notabile 2.4.5. Corollarium

39 40 40 41

2.5. De proprio 2.5 .. 1. De diversis acceptionibus 'proprii' 2.5.2. De definitione proprii

42 42 44

2.6. De accidente 2.6.1. De definitione accidentis 2.6.2. De alia definitione accidentis 2.6.3. De tertia definitione accidentis 2.6.4. De divisione accidentis 2.6.5. De remotione unius dubii

47 47 50 53 54 55

2. 7. De communitatibus et proprietatibus praedicabilium 2.7. l. De comparatione omnium praedicabilium ad invicem 2.7 .2. De comparatione generis, speciei et differentiae simul ad proprium et accidens simul 2.7.3. De comparatione generis et speciei simul ad speciem 2.7.4. De comparatione generis et speciei simul ad differentiam 2.7.5. De comparatione proprii et accidentis ad invicem 2.7.6. De comparatione accidentis ad omnia alia praedicabilia simul

57 57

4

58 60 60 62 62

Ill.2. Sigla codicum

E

T

= Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. = Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale D III 27 (462)

lat. 994

K =Krakow, Biblioteka Instytutu Teologicznego Ksiezy Misjonarzy 171 (olim 627, an tea 827)

= Wien, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 5420 G = Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, Amplon. 2° 305

B

Codices raro adhibiti D = Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat.lat. 3020 V

=

Wertheim, Evangelische Kirchenbibliothek (vel: Historische Bibliothek in

der Stiftskirche) 157

Signa in apparatu critico adhibita

add.

= addidit (addiderunt) = ceteri codices

cett. codd. = plerique ornnesve codices Codd.

ornnes codices

corr. = correcturn coni. = conieci def. del.

= deficit (deficiunt) = delevit (deleverunt)

Ee = rnanus quae correxit textum manuscripti E

Emg = manus in rnargine quae correxit texturn rnanuscripti E exp. = expunxit (expunxerunt) inv. = invertit (inverterunt) iter. = iteravit (iteraverunt) om. = omisit (omiserunt) ? = illegibilis dictio 5

III.3. Textus et apparatus

5

10

2.1. [TRACTATUS SECUNDUS] [DE PRAEDICABILIBUS] 2.1.1. [DE DISTINCTIONE HUIUS NOMINIS 'PRAEDICABILE']

Praedicabile quandoque sumitur proprie, quandoque communiter. Praedicabile proprie sumptum est quod praedicatur de pluribus; praedicabile communiter sumptum est quod praedicatur sive de uno solo sive de pluribus. De uno solo, ut Socrates praedicatur solum de se ipso, dicendo 'Socrates est Socrates'; de pluribus, ut animal de leone et de equo, et homo de Socrate et Platone, et sic de aliis. [cf. PH 17, 4-7]

2.1.1. E 13vb; V !6vb; T lira; K 17vb; B 16ra; G !Ova. 6quandoque ... proprieETG sumiturdupliciterquandoque proprieB estquod [praedicatur] proprieKlproprie Codd. et add. TKI quandoque Codd. : sumitur add. GI communiter Codd. et improprie add. B 7 sumptum ETKG captum Bl est ETKG: dicitur solum illud praedicabile B 8 praedicabile EBKG om. Tl comm uniter ETKG improprie vel communiter Bl 9 sive Tom. EBKGVI solum EBc om. TBKGV 10 ipso codd. om. VI alterum socrates EBKccv homo K 11 secundum et codd. om. Tl et sic de aliis codd.: om. TB. 11. Abbreviatione 'PH' post lemmata refertur ad Petri Hispani Tractatus, ed. L.M. de Rijk, Assen 1972. 7

Johannes Buridanus, Summu/ae

15

20

25

30

Iste secundus tractatus determinat de praedicabilibus. Et continet septem capitula. Et primum est de distinctione huius nominis 'praedicabile' et de eius divisione; secundum est de genere; tertium est de specie; quartum de differentia; quintum de proprio; sextum de accidente; septimum de communitatibus et proprietatibus praedicabilium. Primum capitulum continet tres partes: prima est distinctio huius nominis 'praedicabile'; sccunda est assignatio convenientiae et diffcrentiae inter ista nomina 'praedicabile' et 'universale'; tertia est divisio praedicabilium. Partes patebunt. Circa primam partemettotum tractatum notandum estquod isti termini 'praedicatum' et 'praedicabile' non differunt secundum significationem nisi penes actum et potentiam. Et licet dicamus quod Porphyrius determinat de praedicabilibus et Aristoteles in libro Topicorum de praedicatis, tamen non debemus credere quod in hoc Aristoteles et Porphyrius velint ponere differentiam in suis determinationibus de illis penes actum et potentiarn, immo uterque vocat genus 'quod praedicatur etc.', idest quod aptum naturn est praedicari. Secundo notandum est quod, licet ornnis vox significativa ad placiturn materialiter sumpturn possit in propositione subici et praedicari, non tamen ornnis

13 iste Codd.: est add. Kl tractatus Codd. in quo add. K: huius operis add. VI praedicabilibus codd. Be pluribus Bl 14 huius codd. Kc om. K/nominis codd. termini V 15 primum de E om. codd./prius est codd. erit Bl est EKG eritB om. TV! quartum Codd. est add. K 16 sextum Codd. est add. G 18 continet codd. habet Tl tres ETBcGKcv om. B rasura in Kl distinctio EV divisio TB de distinctione KG/nominis codd. termini V 19 assignatio ... differentiae coni. assignatio differentiae Tassignatio convenientiae BV de convenientia et differentia KG convenientia EI ista nomina EBKG ista duo nomina V illud nomen T 20 partes patebunt E secunda ibi Unde praedicabile tertia ibi Praedicabile autem T alii aliter. 22 partem Codd. est sciendum add. Tl notandum est EKGV notandum B om. T 23 secundum TBGV penes EK! penes codd. secundum El actum et potentiam codd. actionem et passionem T 25 praedicatis codd. Be praedicamentis BG/ in hoc EBKG per hoc Tom. V 26 velint EKGD vellent TB volunt VI de illis codd.Kc om. K 27etc. EB om. TKG 28 praedicari Codd. de pluribus add. V 29 placitum Codd. tamen( ! ) add. B 30 possit Ee G potest T posset BK om. El et EB vel TKG aut VI non tamen ET tamen non Be KG om. B tamen propter hoc non V 30-31 omnis ... praedicari ETBCKG om BVI et codd. om. B. 25. Aristoteles, Topica IV 1, 120 bl2-VI 14, 151 b24.

8

De Praedicabilibus

35

40

45

50

vox significative sumpta potest sic subici vel praedicari. Et non intendimus hie de terminis innatis praedicari nisi significative sumptis. Tertio notandum est quod res quae sunt praeter operationem animae (ut lapides vel plantae), non praedicantur nee subiciuntur in propositionibus, sed conceptus in mente (quantum ad propositiones mentales), aut termini vocales vel scripti mediantibus illis conceptibus quibus subordinantur significativi, sicut alias dictum est. Et haec dicuntur praedicabilia secundum quod innata sunt praedicari de aliqt us subiectis in aliquibus propositionibus. Et ita etiam possunt dici subicibilia inquantum etiam possunt subici aliquibus praedicatis in aliquibus propositionibus. Tune igitur notandum est quantum ad distinctioncm quam ponit auctor, quod aliquis terminus praedicatur, vel est innatus praedicari, de pluribus et aliquis de uno solo, sicut ipse exemplificat. Et utrumque horum dicitur praedicabile, capiendo hoc nomen 'praedicabile' communiter. Tamenhocnomen 'praedicabile' propriesumptum restringitur ad supponendum solum pro terminis de pluribus praedicabilibus. Et secundum hanc propriam acceptionem intendit Porphyrius determinare de praedicabi us. Sed tune est magna dubitatio utrum aliquis terminus sit praedicabilis solum de uno. Et apparet quod non, quia ille esset iste terminus 'Socrates', vel alius terminus quern vocamus singularem vel discretum. Sed hoc non est verum, quia iste terminus 'Socrates' est praedicabilis de pluribus, quia non praedicatur res de re

31 hie Codd. nisi add. T 32 innatis praedieari codd. om. VI nisi Ec KG om. ETBV 33 est TBKG om. EV 34 vel plantae EKGetplantaeBVet ligna Tl nee codd. vel G 35 aut Tvel cett.I voeales codd. mentales VI vel EKV aut TBG 36 mediantibus illis TBKGV eonvenientibus illis D mentalibus vel El quibus subordinantur coni. coll. huius operis tractatu primo (I 1,6 ed. Pinborg) subordinati E om. cett.I significativi TBKGD significativis V om. E 37-38 et ... propositionibus ETBG et ita possent etiam dici subieibilia inquantum possunt subiei in aliquibus propositionibus Kc om. K 38 etiam EBG om. TKVI 40 tune igitur EV tune ergo GB item tune ergo T quarto Kl est ETBK om. GVI auetor codd. aristoteles T 41 innatus codd. natus T 42 sieut codd. sic GI et codd. om. T 42-43 hoc nomen codd. om. T/tamen ETBVunde KG 44 restringitur codd. refertur G sol um add. EKG! sol um TBV om. EG/et Codd. sic add. TBKG quia sicut add. V 45 acceptionem ETGVpropriamaeeeptionemK signifieationemB. 47 tune codd. om. Tl solumETB om. KGV/ 48 uno Codd. solo add. TKGV! ille codd. maxime( !) K om. GI iste codd. tune G vel set vel alius G vel alter EBKV aut alter T 49 hoc codd. om T/49-50 iste terminus codd. om. TISO Socrates codd. om. GI est codd. om.BI quia E probo quia T probatio quia G probatur quia KV probo quod B. 40. Petrus Hispanus, Tractatus I, videsis introductionem editionis De Rijk, p. xiiii f. 9

Johannes Buridanus, Summulae

55

60

65

70

(loquendo de rebus praeter operationem animae existentibus, ut de lapidibus vel arboribus), sed terminus significativus de alio terrnino significativo praedicatur, ut ante dictum est. Modo constat quod iste terminus 'Socrates' de valde multis terminis praedicatur, ut de istis: 'homo', 'animal', 'album', 'musicum' etc. Nam 'homo est Socrates', 'animal est Socrates', 'album est Socrates', et sic de aliis. Et sine dubio credo quod dubitatio procedit via sua, et quod omnis terminus vere praedicabilis vel subicibilis in propositione affirmativa veraest vere praedicabilis non sol um de uno, sed de multis seu de multorum terrninorum diversorum unoquoque. ldeo oportet exponere quod terminus singularis, ut 'Socrates', non est innatus praedicari de pluribus, idest non est innatus supponere pro pluribus divisim, idest pro plurium unoquoque, sic intelligendo quod, signato aliquo pro quo supponit, non est innatus supponere pro aliquo alio, vel etiam, signatis aliquibus pro quibus supponit coniunctim, non est innatus supponere pro aliis, ut 'iste populus', nisi hoc fuerit aequivoce; vel nisi hoc fuerit propter denominationem totius a parte principaliori; vel propter unitatem secundum continuationem in succedendo diversas partes adinvicem in aliquo, ut in fluvio aut aliquo tali modo (quod non hie tractandum est, sed ubi quaeri debet de identitate partium ad suum totum, ut quomodo iste terminus 'Secana' est terminus singularis, licet non sit eadem aqua, scilicet quae anno praeterito). Praedicabile ergo proprie sumptum, de quo hie intendimus, sic describitur quod sit terminus aptus natus praedicari de pluribus, idest supponere pro pluribus, et non pro uno solo, eo modo quo nunc de termino singulari dicebamus.

51 vel Codd. de add. KG 52 significativo codd. significative T 53 terminus codd.~ om. Kl terminis EBGV om. TK significativis add. V 54 istis Vis tis socrates ETB istis terminis socrates add. KG 55 animal codd. om. B rationale add. V risibile add. cett./ musicum etc. codd. om. VI animal est socrates ETBV om. KG/ album est socrates codd. om. El aliis EV multis aliis TBK aliis multis G 56 et E om. cett./ credo codd. hoc credo G/via sua TVvias suas EB viis suis KGDI quad codd. om. T 57 vere codd. Be om. B/vel codd. sive Tet Vlveracodd. om. T 59utsocratesETB om. KG 61 plurium codd. in add. Kl signato Tsignificatocett./ supponit codd. vet aliqua pro qui bus supponit coniunctim add. V 62 aliquo alio KG alio ETB om. V 62-63 vel ... supponere om. V 62 signatis Tsignificatis EBKG 63 iste codd. isti termini( I) T 64 vel nisi hoc fuerit EBcG vel nisi hoc B vel nisi fuerit K om. T 65 in codd. ut in G 66 in aliquo codd. Kc om. Kl fluvio EKGV fluviis B flumine Tl aut EB aut in KVvel Tde G 67 quaeri debet EV quaeretur BGquaeritur Tidem quaeretur Kl quomodocodd. om. V68 secana TBKVD sequanaE viltania( ?) GI est EV sit TBKGI eadem aquaETBKcG aqua K idem secana V 68-69 scilicet ... praeterito E quae nunc est secana [vltania Get quae anno praeterito erat [fuit 71 secana [viltania G] TBKGD qui erat anno praeterito et secana qui nunc est secana V 70 ergo ETB igitur K om. G/sumptumEGV dictum TBKI intendimus EKG intenditurTBI sit£ estcett./ natus codd.Bc om. Bl idest ... pluribus codd. om. EV 72 et codd. om. Bl eo modo codd. om. Tl dicebamus ETB dicebatur V diximus G declaravimus Kc declaramus K.

10

De Praedicabilibus

2.1.2. [DE ASSIGNATIONE CONVENIENTIAE ET DIFFERENTIAE INTER 'PRAEDICABILE' ET 'UNIVERSALE']

5

lo

15

Unde praedicabile proprie sumptum idem est quod universale. Sed differunt, quia praedicable definitur: quod est aptum natum praedicari de pluribus; et universale: quod aptum natum est esse in pluribus. [cf. PH 17,7-11] Haec est secunda pars secundum auctorem nostrum. Quae non est vera de proprietate sermonis. Si enim A est idem quod B, non differt ab eo. Ideo dimitto litteram suam, et dico quod isti termini 'universale' et 'praedicabile' non sunt idem, sed dicuntur idem convertibiliter, sic quod omne praedicabile est universale, et econverso. Et sic de illis significative sumptis vere et affirmative dicitur hoc praedicatum 'idem'. Omne enim praedicabile et universale sunt idem, et, econverso, et omne universale et praedicabile. Sed tamen isti termini differunt secundum rationem, quia secundum diversas rationes impositi sunt ad significandum easdem res. Nam relative dicuntur isti termini 'praedicatum' et 'subiectum', et isti etiam 'praedicabile' et 'subicibile'. Terminus enim ea ratione dicitur praedicabile qua innatus est praedicari de subiecto, et subicibile ea ratione qua innatus est subici praedicato in propositione. Sed idem terminus dicitur ea ratione universale qua indifferenter significat plura et innatus est

2.1.2E14ra,V17ra, T llrb, K 18ra, B !6va, G !!vb. 4 unde praedicabile codd. praedicabile autem Bl proprie ... universale codd.Kc idem est praedicabile K 5 definitur Codd. per dici vel add. G 6 esse in ETBcGv inesse Kin B 7 haec codd. et GI quae codd. £Com. El proprietate codd. virtute B 9 universale et praedicabile E praedicabile et universale cett. 10 omne codd. om. Tlpraedicabile est universaleEBGVuniversaleest praedicabile TK! sic ETV om. EKG 10 sumptis Codd. praedicatur add. El dicitur codd. om. E 12 praedicabile et universale codd. universale et praedicabile Tl et econ verso codd. om. El et omne E etiam omne Ket sic omneBG om. T 13 et TBKG est EV! praedicabile Codd. suntidemadd. TBKG 14termini Codd. praedicabileetuniversaleadd. BKGuniversaleetpraedicabile add. TV! differuntE differunt sic Tsic dicuntur di versi BKGVI rationem EBV diversam rationem Trationes KG 15 rationes codd. res Tl easdem codd. eas Tl etiam Codd. termini add. G 16 praedicabile codd. praedicabilis T 17 qua coni. qui a Codd. 18 qua BK quia ETGV quo DI innatus TK natus V innatum BGD natum El praedicato codd. om. K 19 ea codd. ilia El qua coni. quia Codd. 20 sine respectu codd. om. GI ad codd. aut Kl vel ETV aut BKG. 11

Johannes Buridanus, Summulae 20

supponere pro pluribus, sicut dictum est, sine respectu ad subici vel praedicari. Nee est credendum quod terminus universalis insit terminis sub se contentis, nisi accipiendo 'inesse' pro 'praedicari vere et affirmative', ita quod non differant praedicari et inesse nisi secundum vocem. Et est notandum quod, licet aliquando dicatur universale secundumcausalitatem

25

(ut Deus, qui est causa plurium), et universale secundum distributionem (sicut propositio dicitur universalis), aut aliis modis, - tamen hie non capio 'universale' nisi pro termino communi secundum significationem plurium, immo, melius loquendo, secundum suppositionem pro pluribus, sicut dictum est prius.

2.1.3. [DE DIVISIONE PRAEDICABILIUM] Praedicabile autem proprie sumptum dividiturin genus, speciem, differentiam, proprium, et accidens. [cf. PH 17, 12-3]

s

Is ta tertia pars dividithoc nomen 'praedicabile' in suas species. Cumenim praedicabile dicatur ex eo quod est aptum natum praedicari, rationabile est quod secundum diversos modos praedicandi distinguamus species (aut modos) contentas (aut contentos) sub hoc genere 'praedicabile'. Omne ergo quod praedicatur de aliquo, vel

21 terminus universal is ETBVD iste terminus universale KG 22 accipiendo ETG capiendo V sumendo BK! inesse codd. esse in G/pro Tper affirmative Kpro eo quod est EBGVI vere et affirmative codd. om. K 23 praedicari codd. praedicare Bl nisi codd.Ec om. E 24 et ... secundum codd.Bc om. B 25 qui est causa plurium Kc qui est plurium K quia est causa plurium TBGD quia videmus quod est causa plurium EV25-26 et ... universalis codd.Kc om. K 25 et codd. om. Tl distributionern ETBcKcc distinctionern V verificationern B 26 autBKG vel ET/ capio EVaccipitur codd. Ii add. T 28 suppositionem codd. quod supponit Tl sicutEKGV ut TB. 2.1.3. E 14ra, V 17ra, TI Iva, B 16vb, K 18rb, GI Ira. 3 au tern codd. om. Kl proprie sumptum codd. om. V3 proprium codd. Kc om. K 6 praedicari Codd. de pluribus add EV 7 distinguamus EKV distinguimus TBG 8 hoc genere EVhoc nornineKG isto termino Thoe nomine vel termino Bl omne ergo T ergo E omne igitur B omne enim KG omne illud igitur VI vel ETKcGV aut B non K. 12

De Praedicabilibus

10

praedicatur de illo essentialiter, scilicetita quod neuter terminus super significationem alterius addat extraneam connotationem; vel praedicatur denominative, scilicet ita quod unus terminus addat super significationem alterius alienam connotationem. Apparet ergo quod haec divisio sit sufficiens, quia datur per opposita. Si enim praedicetur essentialiter modo praedicto, tune praedicatur in quid, vel in quale. Et

15

si in quale, est differentia. Et si in quid, tune si praedicetur de pluribus differentibus specie, vocatur genus; si autem praedicetur de pluribus numero differentibus sol um, tune dicitur species; sed etiam si praedicetur de pluribus differentibus specie et habeat genus superveniens, adhuc dicitur species, sicut post dicetur. Si vero praedicetur denominative, tune vel est convertibile secundum praedicationem cum eo de quo praedicatur, vel non. Si sic, tune respectu illius dicitur proprium; et si non,

20

tune respectu illius dicitur accidens. Sic ergo manifestum est quod omne praedicabile respectu eiusdem respectu cuius dicitur praedicabile, dici debet vel genus, vel species, vel differentia, vel proprium, vel accidens. Dubitationes contra hanc divisionem videbuntur quando de singulis membris erit determinandum in speciali.

25

Aliqui au tern volunt ea alio modo distinguere, dieentes quod omne praedicabile est praedicabile in quid vel in quale. Si in quid, tune est genus vel species. Si in quale, hoc est essentialiter vel accidentaliter. Si essentialiter, sic est differentia; si acciden-

9 illo codd. eo Tl scilicet EBGV om. IK/ita ETGcv sic K om. BG 10 addatBKGCVaddit £Taut ad(!) GI extraneam connotationem ETKGcv aliquam significationem extraneam B extraneam significat connotationem G 10-1 I vel ... connotationem codd.Ec om. E IO denominative EBKG accidentaliter sive denominative TV I I addat BKG addit £CTV I alterius alienam Kc alienam alterius K alterius aliquam cett. I2 ergo coni. enim Codd.I datur TK om. EBGV!enim coni. ergo Codd. 13 et codd. om. B 14est codd. tune est Tsic est KG/ et codd. om. Tl tune codd. et K 15 vocatur EGVtunc vocatur K dicitur TB I6 tune E om. codd./ etiam codd. et El specie Codd. ut genus subalternum add. Kl et E ut G habeat codd. 17 superveniens codd. subaiternum GI dicitur codd. est Tl post EBcv postea TKG prius Bl dicetur codd. dicebatur B I 8 tune vel est codd. vel tune hoc est Bl cum codd. de EV 19 dicitur codd. vocatur KG! sic ergo TC sic igitur BK tune ex hiis Vergo E 2I eiusdem ... dicitur E eiusdem de quo est Killius de quo est Tei us de quo est BCV 23 dubitationes Codd. autem add. TBGV/ videbuntur codd. videntur G 24 erit determinandum E erit determinatum TBV determinatur KG 25 aliqui autem volunt KV alii autem volunt E aliqui enim volunt B volunt enim aliqui T aiiqui enim ponunt GI ea K om. cett./ alio modo TBG alium modum EV per alium modum £C om. Kl distinguere dicentes codd. distinguendi ostendere dicendo VI si EBV et si TKG! tune codd. sicut V26 siEBV etsi KG si vero T/inquale codd. om. K27 hoc est EV tune velBKG tune Tl essentialiter vel accidentaliter codd. accidentaliter vel essentialiter dictum K si ... differentia Tom. cett./ si Codd. est add. T 13

Johannes Buridanus, Summulae

taliter, tune vel convertibiliter, , vel non convertibiliter, . Sed hoc totum est male dictum, quia plurima sunt praedicabilia quae 30

nee praedicantur in quid nee in quale, sed in quantum (ut 'bicubitum', 'tricubitum'), vel in quot (ut 'tria', 'quattuor'), vel in ubi (ut 'in domo', 'in stabulo'), vel in quando (ut 'heri', 'eras'). 2.2. [DEGENERE] 2.2.1. [DE DEFINITIONE GENERIS]

5

Genus est quod praedicatur de pluribus differentibus specie in co quod quid, ut 'animal' praedicatur de homine et de equo, quae differunt specie. [cf. PH 17, 22-4] Hoc secundum capitulum est de genere. Quod continet septem partes: prima est una definitio generis; secundaest declaratio illius particulae 'differentibus specie' positae

10

in definitione generis; tertia est declaratio illius particulae 'in eo quod quid'; quarta est quaedam alia definitio generis; quinta est divisio generis in genus generalissimum et genus subaltern um; sex ta est de genere generalissimo; septima est de genere subalterno. Partes patebunt.

28 vel Codd. est add. Tl prius convertibiliter codd. convertibile Tl alterum convertibiliter EV etc. BG om. TK. ]29 male TBGVD valde EK an male Kl plurima TBKG plura EV 30 bicubitum tricubitum EV bicubitum TKG bebicubitum( I) B 31 quot codd. quod sic saepius Bl tria codd. vel add. TBG tres aut Kl ut ... stabulo V ut in domo in loco E ut in loco vel in domo T ut in domo vel extra domum vel in vico KG om. Bl vel in EV vel etiam in T aut BKG! heri eras E heri T 32 heri vel eras etc. KG heri eras vel postcras V heri vel eras aut in domo vel extra domum(') B. 2.2.1. E 14ra, V 17rb, T llva, K 18va, B 16vb, G llra. 5 quid Codd. est add. B 6 praedicatur Codd. in quid add. EKG/ de codd. om. Bl equo Codd. in quid add. Tl quae codd. qui T 8 hoc Codd. est add. Bl quod codd. et Tl unaEBV om. TKG 9 illius codd. huius T 8 est codd. om. GI quid Codd. est add. B 11 prius est codd. om. Bl genus EV om. cett. 12 prius est codd. om. B 13 partes patebunt E secunda ibi Ad cognoscendum tertia ibi Illud autem quarta ibi Aliter autem quinta ibi Genus dividitur sexta ibi Genus generalissimumest septima ibi Genus subalternum T alii aliter. 14

De Praedicabilibus

15

20

25

Auctornosterin principio istius capituli praemittitquasdam alias 'generis' acceptiones. Quas dimisi, quia non multum faciunt ad propositum. Requirat eas in Porphyrio qui vult. Sed tune pro expositione huius definitionis sciendum est quod non ornne genus praedicatur actu, immo aliquando subicitur, ut dicendo 'animal est album', ubi iste terminus 'animal', qui est genus, subicitur. Ideo debet glossari 'praedicatur', idest 'est aptum natum praedicari'. Et quia idem significant hoc totum 'aptum natum praedicari' et 'praedicabile', ideo debet dici: genus est praedicabile de pluribus etc. Et ponitur ibi 'praedicabile' ad modum generis. Et differt per hoc genus a dictionibus syncategorematicis, quae nee sunt innatae praedicari nee subici. Et ponitur ibi 'de pluribus' ad differentiam terminorum singularium, scilicet individuorum. Et ponitur ibi 'differentibus specie' ad differentiam speciei specialissimae. Et ponitur ibi 'in eo quod quid' ad differentiam aliorum praedicabilium, puta differentiae, proprii et accidentis, quae non praedicantur in quid, sed in quale, vel in quantum, vel in quomodo se habet, sicut dicit Porphyrius.

14 noster codd. om. Tlistius E huius cett./ praemittit codd. po nit K om. Tl gen eris codd. Kc om Kl acceptiones codd. posuit add. T 15 multurn codd. bene Tlrequirat EGV et requirat TBK I porphyrio ETBV principio porphyriiKG I 6 vultETB volueritKG velit V 17 pro ... definitionisEV propterexpositionernhuiusdefinitionis TD propter expositionem definitionis B circa huiusrnodi definitionis expositionem KG 18 irnmo codd.Kc om. KG/ dicendo EV si dico cett./ album codd. homo 19 ubi EV om. cett.lqui codd. om. Bl genus ETV unurn genus KG unum genus qui(!) Bl subicitur codd. in ista propositione add. TBKGI ideo codd. ergo Tl glossari Codd. quod add. BK 20 idest est coni. idest quod est TBK idest EV quod est G/ natum Codd. estadd. Vlsignificantcodd. significatB quodadd. G et...praedicaricodd. om. V/hoctoturnE haecoratio TBKG 21 et Codd. hoc nomen add. TBKG 22 prius et codd. om. Tl ibi EV hie cett.I ad TBKG per EV 22-23 a ... syncategorematicis EKV ab illis dictionibus syncategorematicis BG et syncategorernaticis (!) Tl innatae EKG innata T innati BVI praedicari nee subici TBKG subici nee praedicari EV 23-24 et ponitur ... individuorurn KV om. cett. 24 et codd. om. T sic saepius/ specialissimae codd. quae non est genus add. EBD que non potest esse genus add. V 25 alterum ibi ETV om. BKG/ quid Codd. est add. BK 26 puta EV scilicet cett. 27-28 vel in quomodo se ha bet T vel in quomodolibet aliter E vel aliter V aut quomodolibet aliter BKGDI sicut Codd. prius add. V. 15. Porphyrius, Jsagoge, p. 6, 2 sq. 28. Ibidem.

15

Johannes Buridanus, Summulae

30

35

40

Notandum quod, licet iste terminus 'canis' praedicetur de latrabili, de pisce marino et de caelesti sidere, tamen non est genus ad illa, nee iste terminus 'ens' ad decem praedicamenta, quia non praedicantur de eis univoce, sed aequivoce. Nos autem non intendimus hie nisi de praedicabilibus univocis, non prout 'univocum' distinguiturcontra 'denominativum', sedsolumcontra 'aequivocum 'et 'analogum'. Ideo intelligere oportet, vel apponere, in definitione generis istum terminum 'univocum', ut quod "genus est praedicabile univocum de pluribus differentibus specie in eo quod quid". Notandum quod exemplum positum post definitionem, quod animal praedicatur de ho mine et de equo, de bet intelligi secundum suppositionem materialem, idest iste terminus 'animal' praedicatur de istis terminis 'homo', 'equus'. Ideo etiam animal non est genus, sed iste terminus 'animal'. 2.2.2. [DE 'DIFFERENTIBUS SPECIE']

5

Ad cognoscendum hoc membrum 'differentibus specie' oportet scire quod 'differens' dicitur tot modis quot modis dicitur 'idem'. (2) Idem' dicitur tripliciter, scilicet idemgenere, idem specie, idemnumero. (3) Eadem genere dicuntur quaecumque sunt sub eodem genere, ut homo et equus sub animali.

29 latrabili codd. animali latrabili T30 nee codd. nee est Be ut est B 32 intendimus codd. determinamus Bl hie codd. om. GI nisi ... univocis BKGD de praedicabilibus aequivocis EV de aequivocis sed solum de praedicabilibus univocis T 32-33 non prout ... analogum codd. hoc prout aequivocum distinguitur contra univocum sed de univocis hoc prout univocum distinguitur contra denominativum sed solum contra aequivocum vel analogum V 32 alterum non BKGD et hoc E hoc V om. T 33 distinguitur BKGD non distinguitur ET! et T vel cett. 34 intelligere oportet E competit interserere T expedit subintelligere BKG expedit intelligere VI istum terminum EV istam clausulam cett. 35 ut ... univocum codd. om. Tl alterum

univocumEBV univoceKG 36 quid codd est add. B sic saepius 37 definitionem Codd. scilicetadd. TKG 38 debet intelligi codd. etiam debet subintelligi B 39praedicatur KG om. cett./ istis terminis ETBV isto termino KG/ equus EV et equus TB et de is to termino equus KG! ideo etiam codd. et K 39-40 animal ... genus T genus non est animal GV genus est non animal EBc D genus non animal B non iste terminus genus Kl 40 animal Codd. est genus add. TV. 2.2.2. E 14rb, V l 7rb, T 11 vb, B 17ra, K 18vb. 4 quot modis codd. quod Bl alterum idem Codd. autem add. TV enim add. KG 5 specie idem numero TKcG specie et idem numero BV numero idem specie E numero Kl eadem TKG eodem B idem EV 6 sunt codd. om. KG! genere Codd. continentur add. KG/ sub animali ETGV substantiali BK. 16

De Praedicabilibus

10

15

20

(4) Eadem specie dicuntur quaecumque sub eadem specie continentur, ut Socrates et Plato sub homine. (5) Idem numero dicitur tripliciter: idem nomine vel definitione, idem proprio, idem accidente. (6) Eadem nornine dicuntur quorum res est una, nomina vero plura, ut 'Marcus', 'Tullius'. (7) Eadem definitione dicuntur quorum unum est definitio alterius, ut animal rationale mortale et homo. Eadem proprio dicuntur quorum unum est proprium alterius, ut homo et risibile. (9) Eadem accidente dicuntur quorum unum est accidens alterius, ut Socrates et album. (10) Similiter 'differens' dicitur tripliciter, scilicet genere, specie, numero. (11) Differentia genere dicuntur quaecumque sub diversis continentur generibus, ut homo sub hoc genere animal, et arbor sub hoc genere planta. (12) Differentia specie dicuntur quaecumque sunt diversarum specierum, ut homo et asinus. (13) Differentia numero dicuntur quaecumque faciunt diversum numerum, ut Socrates et Plato. [cf. PH 17,25-18,17) In ista secunda parte sunt valde multae clausulae. Prima di cit quod tot modis dicitur 'differens' quot modis dicitur 'idem'. Et hoc est protanto quia isti termini 'idem', 'differens' non simpliciter opponuntur sed relative, quia bene verificantur de eodem simul, sed non respectu eiusdem, ut quia Socrates est idem sibi et diversus Platoni.

7 quaecumque Codd. sunt add. TB/ continentur EGV sunt K om. TB 8 idem numero dicitur BKG eadem numerodicuntur ETV/triplicitercodd. om. T idem TBKG eademEV 9 eadem codd. idemB 11-12 animal ... homo TBK homo et animal rationale mortale EV om. G 12-13 eadem ... alterius codd. om. G 13 risibile codd. risibilis E 14 differens ... scilicet EV dicitur differens cett. 15 specie EV differens specie et differens TK differens specie et G differens specie differens Bl numero Codd. dicitur add.(!) G 16 dicuntur EV sunt cett. 17 genere Codd. quod est add. EV dicuntur EV sunt cett. 18 quaecumque sunt EBKV om. TG/ specierum codd. om. K 19 differentia codd. dicitur(!) GI dicuntur E sunt cett. 20 plato codd. et sic de aliis add. T 21 clausulae T particulae EV parvae clausulae BKGD/ dicit ETBV est GK/ tot codd. tot et T ad 22: Nota differt quando construitur cum ablativo mediante prepositione a vel ab tune ilium ablativum confundit sequentem ut sordiffert alapide quando vero sine propositione (!)tune non confundit ut differens specie nomero etc. ideo male dicunt qui volunt quod Ii specie in diffinitione generis stet confuse et distributive nam talis ablativus ponitur tanquam determinans et limitans differentiam et equivalet uni adverbio differentibus specie idest specifice differentibus numero idest numeraliter in imo margine Em 21 estETB om. KGV/protanto codd. patet V 23 differens Codd. sive divers um add. EBKGV/ sed relative codd. sed relative opponuntur E secundum realem oppositionem V./ 24 platoni codd. respectu platonis B.

17

Johannes Buridanus, Summulae 25

30

35

Quot autem modis dicitur unum oppositorum, tot modis dicitur et reliquum (primo Topicorum). 2. Secunda clausula dividit idem in idem genere, idem specie, et idem numero. Sed Aristoteles (quinto Metaphysicae) addit quartum modum, scilicet mproportione seu analogia. Tamen ilium modum auctor dimisit, quia extendit se ad nonunivoca, de quibus non intenditur hie, sicut dixi prius. 3. Tertia clausula describit eadem genere: eadem genere sunt quaecumque sub eodem genere continentur. Circa quam notandum quod genus dicitur esse superius ad speciem secundum praedicationem, quia de pluribus praedicatur quam species, idest pro pluribus supponit. Circa quod notandum quod termini qui dicuntur species, dicuntur idem secundum genus, non ad istum sensum quod sint idem vel iidem adinvicem, nee quod eodem modo supponant, sed solum ad istum sensum quod eorum est idem genus praedicabile in quid sub quo continentur, ut isti termini 'homo', 'asinus' sub isto termino 'animal'. 4. Proportionaliter exponitur quarta clausula, scilicet quod Socrates et Plato

40

dicuntur idem specie, quia sub eadem specie continentur, ut sub homine, idest sub isto termino 'homo'.

25 quot autem codd. quot £C tot El oppositorum codd. relativorum Tl tot modis codd. om. GI et G ut V om. cert.I primo E ut habetur primo BKGV ut et habetur primo T 27 in Codd. tria add. Kl genere idem specie codd. specie idem genere E 28 modum EV membrum cert. 29 analogia EBO annologia(!) V annologo T anoloya Kc anoloyce Kl modum codd.Bc om. BG/ se codd. om. K 29-30 non-univoca codd. non-univocam G 30 non ... hie T non ... in hoc tractatuEBG non ... hie in hoc tractatu K auctor non curavit nee intenditur in hoc tractatu V 31 describit codd. dividit EV/ prius genere codd. genera Bl alterum eadem genere E quia eadem genere V quod ipsa TEO om. Kl quaecumque Codd. sunt add. T quae sunt add. B 32 continentur EV sunt KG om. TB! quam T quod cert.I genus ... esse B genus dicitur EGV genus est K gramaticus( ! ) dicit genus esse T 33 praedicationem codd. significationem T vel secundum suppositionem add. TV vel suppositionem add. EB vel suppositionem de pluribus add. G de pluribus vel suppositionem depluribus K de pluribus depluribus(!) Klpraedicaturcodd. om. B 34 idestcodd. scilicet Tl circa ... notandum

EV notandum ergo T notandum igitur est B notandum est igitur KG/ dicuntur EV sunt cett. 35 idem Codd. vel eidem adinvicemadd. Bl non codd. vel non B om. GI sensum codd. intentum non G/ iidem coni. eidem B eadern ETGV idem K 36 prius quad TO om. cett./ eodem rnodo EV pro eodem vel pro eisdem T pro eodern vel eisdem BG pro eodem nee pro eisdem Kl solurn codd. om. EV 37 isti termini codd. om. EV 39 proportionaliter codd. consimiliter GI quod Codd. isti termini add. EV/ plato Codd. idest isti termini add. KG idest is ti termini sortes et plato add. B 40 prius specie codd. numero( ! ) El alterum specie Codd. numero superscr. Eel ut sub hornine codd. om. B 41 termino Codd. cornrnuni add. BG. 26. Aristoteles, Topica I 15, 106 bl4-15. 28. Aristoteles, Metaphysica V 9, 1018 a12-13. 18

De Praedicabilibus

45

50

55

5. Sed in quinta clausula auctor sic subdividit idem numero quod eadem numero dicuntur quaecumque pro eadem re supponunt. Et hoc si sunt termini diversi, qui ad istum sens um dicuntur idem numero quod de eis personaliter sumptis vere affirmatur hoc praedicatum 'idem'. Verbi gratia, isti termini 'homo' et 'album' dicuntur idem sic quod vere dicimus 'homo et album sunt idem', quia eadem substantia, scilicet homo. Unde sequitur 'sunt idem numero; ergo sunt idem'. Sed non sequitur 'sunt idem genere; ergo sunt idem', sed solum sequitur quod eorum sit idem genus. Tune ergo dividit auctor idem numero in idem nomine vel definitione, in idem proprio et in idem accidente. 6. Deinde in sexta clausula ipse describit eadem nomine quod eadem nomine dicuntur quorum nomina sunt plura, res vero una, idest quod res est eadem pro qua supponunt. Sic enim dicimus quod Marcus et Tullius sunt idem, quia idem homo vocatur Marcus et Tullius. Verum est quod secundum hanc expositionem quicumque termini dicerentur idem numero, illi dicerentur idem nomine. Sed forte ad specificandum istos modos auctor intendit quod non solum requiritur quod res pro qua supponunt sit eadem, sed etiam quod sit ratio eadem in mente correspondens utrique nomini. Et isto modo nomina synonyma dicerentur idem nomine.

42 sic subdividit coni. sic dividit E subdividit cett./ quod EV quod autem potest describi quod T quod etiam aliter potest describi quod B quod etiam potest describi quod KG 42-43 eadem numero TKG eidem numero Eidem numeroet Vsubeodem numeroB 43 recodd. specie T/hoc si suntEhoc sunt Thaec suntG hii sunt Vhoc modo BK 44 qui EBGV quia Tom. K/istum sensum TBc KG ipsum sensum Vistum B ipsum El quod G quia cett./ personaliter E significative cett. 46 idem sic TBD idem numero sic KG idem numero Eidem VI quod coni. quia Codd. 46-47 eadem ... homo EV idem scilicet socrates est homo et album KG idem socrates est homo et albus T idem scilicet socrates est homo et est albus B 47 prius sunt idem codd. eadem E sunt eadem VI alterum idem codd. eadem EV 48 non Codd. sic add. KDI genere B genere vel specie G specie vel genere cert.I sit EV est cett. 49 genus Codd. vel eadem species add. TBKG/ auctor codd. om. K 50 et in TGVvel inKvel EB 51 deindecodd. et TlipseEVom. cett./ describit ... nominecodd.