Questiones elencorum (Artistarium) 9070419378, 9789070419370

Citation preview

QUESTIONES ELENCORUM

ARTISTARIUM 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

9

JOHANNES BURIDANUS

QUESTIONES ELENCORUM

edited with an introduction, notes and indices

by R. VAN DER LECQ and H.A.G. BRAAKHUIS

Nijmegen Ingenium Publishers

1994

ISBN 90 70419 37 8 Copyright 1994 by Ingenium 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 \Hillen permission from the publisher. PRINTED by KRIPS REPRO MEPPEL, THE NETHERLANDS.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

At the completion of this edition we wish to express our gratefulness to the members of the staff of the Biblioteka Jagiellonska in Krakow for their hospitality. We are also grateful to all those colleagues in Utrecht and Nijmegen who have assisted with the solution of some textual and editorial problems. It goes without saying that the responsibility for the errors that remain are entirely ours. R. van der Lecq (Utrecht University) H.A.G. Braakhuis (Catholic University Nijmegen)

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. The manuscript and the text 2. Authenticity and date of the tract 3. Some remarks on the content of the work

ix xi Xlll

xv xv

3.1

Insolubilia

3.2

The (non-)distinction of propositions and the Statute of1340

xix

Ockham as a source

xxx

3.3

4. Books and articles referred to

JOHANNES BURIDANUS, QUESTIONES ELENCORUl\l

xx xvi

1

TABULA QUAESTIONUM

129

INDI«

131

A. Index locorum

133

B. Index verborum

135

C. Index sophismatum et exemplorum

147

vii

INTRODUCTION

1. The manuscript and the text As far as we know John Buridan's Questions on the Sophistici Elenchi have only been transmitted in one manuscript: Krakow, Biblioteka ]agi,ellonska 736. 1 According to Markowski2 the manuscript was written in Prague in the last third of the 14th century. At that time Prague was the centre of Buridanism in Central Europe. The manuscript consists of various commentaries on works of Aristotle, written in different hands, and is preceded by the following words, which indicate its contents and former owner: In isto volumine continentur Questiones Alberti de Saxonia super Posteriorum, item Questiones elencorum Buridani, item quedam questiones ad ordinarias et quedam dicta super Phisicorum cum aliis, date per venerabilem virum magistrum J ohannem de Radochoncza. 3 Then follow: lra-50va: Albertus de Saxonia: Questions on the Analytica Posteriora. Inc.: Incipiunt questiones reverendi magistri Alberti super Posteriorum et est prima questio utrum scientie de demonstratione sint quatuor cause, scilicet materialis, formalis, efficiens et finalis. Expl.: quia acquisitio fit mediantibus determinationibus preexistentibus, sed intellectus ex se assentit talibus et sic est finis questionum etc. Expliciunt questiones reverendi magistri Alberti super Posteriorum etc. 50va-51rb: A fragment of Marsilius of Inghen's commentary on the Sophistici Elenchi.4 Inc.: Utrum de sillogismo sophistico sit scientia, et arguitur primo quod non. De non ente non est scientia ...

1 Parts of the manuscript have been described by Markowski in M. Markowski & Z. Wlodek, &pertorium, pp. 51-53. 2 M. Markowski, Johannes Buridans Kommentaren zu Aristoteles' Organon zn Mitteleuropas Bibliotheken, pp. 9-20, esp. pp. 16-18. 3 Johannes de Radochoncza studied in Prague and Cracow, was from 1408 master of arts and from 1433 master of theology in Cracow. He died ca. 1450. See Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce w Okresie Przedkopernikanskim, Wroclaw 1971, p. 359, n. 120. Cf. B. Michael, Johannes Buridan, Tl. 1, p. 354. According to Markowski, it is through this master that the manuscript arrived from Prague in Cracow. 4 We owe the ascription to Marsilius of Inghen to Sten Ebbesen (The Summulae, Tractatus VII De fallaciis, p. 159), who refers to Marsilius' text in MS Ven. Mar. VI 146: 110ra-110va.

xi

INTRODUCTION

Expl.: ... et per consequens significaret illum terminum syllogismus sophisticus, similiter hec est demonstrabilis.

51va-80rb: Johannes Buridanus: Questions on De Sophisticis Elenchis (Questiones Elencorum). Inc.: Incipiunt questiones Elencorum reverendi magistri Buridani ... Expl.: Expliciunt questiones libri Elencorum magistri Buridani. Amen. Then follow in another hand and in one column: 8lr-l 99r: 91 questions. First question: utrum primum principium inmediate causet seu causavit omnia. Last question: utrum terminum ampliari ultra possibilia sit possibile. 197v-199r: table of the preceding 91 questions. After three white pages the manuscript continues in two columns: 202vb-230vb: Anonymus: Abbreviatio I-XII librorum Metaphysicae Aristotilis. Inc.: Omnes homines scire desiderant per naturam, cuius ratio est, quod perfectio naturalis hominis est scire. Omnes autem homines naturaliter scire desiderant ... Expl.: ... est in primo principio universi sicut superius est ostensum. Erit igitur necessario unus princeps. 230rb-232ra: Anonymus: Abbreviatio libri De proprietatibus elementorum pseudoAristotilis. Inc.:

ostquam premissus est a nobis sermo de proprietatibus in libro De celo et mundo, hie adhuc aliqua sunt addenda ... Expl.: ... hec autem de distinctione marium et fluviorum sufficiant pro presenti, ut videatur, quod eodem modo in aliis questionibus perscrutantur. 233rb-236vb: Anonymus: Abbreviatio I-VIII librorum Physicae Aristotilis. Inc.: uomodo illa, per que entia in esse producunt et subsistunt, sunt illa, per que veraciter cognoscuntur, per sua autem principia et intrinseca elementa res causate ... Expl.: ... vel principium quietis ... sensibilis sed in medio ... 237va-242ra: Anonymus: Abbreviatio librorum Physicae Aristotilis. Inc.: uomodo ista, per que entia in esse producunt et subsistunt, sunt illa, per que veraciter cognoscuntur, per sua autem principia et intrinseca elementa res causate ...

xii

INTRODUCTION

Expl.: ad mobile in loco et ... super aliquam quantitatem. 244ra-266ra: Guillelmus Ockham: Summulae in libros Physicae Aristotilis.5 Inc.: Studiosissime sepiusque rogatus a literatis quam plurimis qui ... quas circa difficillima naturalis scientie querentibus soleo ... Expl.: ... secundum aliam, igitur secundum quamlibet et pono tertio sicut partes ... liber Phisicorum magistri Wylhelmi de Ockam. The text of John Buridan's Questions on the Sophistici Elenchi has been written in a clear handwriting but contains several obvious mistakes. Moreover, the manuscript has suffered considerable water damage, so that in one corner at the end of each column the text is difficult to read if not completely destroyed. Fortunately, with the help of an ultra-violet lamp it has been possible to decipher most of the damaged parts of the text, so that a reliable edition can be presented. The scribe has not always been very careful or may have had as his basis a text that was difficult to read. In a number of instances he has corrected himself, but nevertheless, several mistakes do remain, which we have tried to correct. As to the edition itself, the orthography of the Krakow manuscript has largely been maintained. Places where the scribe corrected himself, mostly by striking out the erroneous writings, have not been indicated. Capitalisation and punctuation have been adapted to modern usage. Paragraph numbers have been inserted in order to clarify the structure of the argumentation.

2. Authenticity and date of the tract As has been noted, the Questions are twice ascribed to Buridan, both in the incipit and in the explicit. It should be borne in mind that this explicit ascription stems from surroundings and a time, namely the University of Prague in the last third of the 14th century, in which one had a fairly good knowledge of the production of Buridan and other Parisian masters such as Albert of Saxony and Marsilius of Inghen. Further, the ascription occurs in a manuscript that contains also ascriptions to Albert of Saxony and possibly Marsilius of Inghen which have been verified by other witnesses. Although in the case of our Questions such other witnesses are missing, there is no need in our view to cast doubt on the ascription of this work to Buridan. As we shall see and as has also already been noticed by others, 6 there are some divergences of opinion

5 Cf. also S. Brown, Guillelmi de Ockham, Brevis Summa, pp. 20*-21*. 6 So, with regard to the theory of equivocation, by S. Ebbesen. See his Can Equivocation Be Eliminated, esp. pp. 107-109.

xiii

INTRODUCTION

between our tract and other tracts that are known with certainty to be works by Buridan, but these divergences can easily be explained as natural changes of mind or refinements within the development of thought of one and the same author. At any rate, thev do not threaten the coherent unity of a thoroughly nominalist semantic theory, that emphasises the role concepts and rationes play in our coping with reality.7 Moreover, it may be noticed that in the literature the ascription of our tract to Buridan never has been doubted.8 On the surface, Buridan's Questions on the Sophistici Elenchi seem to follow the Aristotelian treatise very closely. If we look at the tabula questionum, it is clear that the su~jects discussed are all taken from the first seven chapters of the Sophistici Elenchi. Closer study of the text shows that Buridan leans heavily upon Peter of Spain's Tractatus, but, more importantly, it also shows that he does not hesitate to modify Aristotle's point of view (e.g. 12.4.4, 27.4.6) or even to disagree with him, especiallv where the issue of the ad placitum signification of nouns is at stake (e.g. in question 6) .9 As has been remarked elsewhere,10 it is difficult to establish even a relative date of Buridan's works. The present treatise contains onh' one - problematic reference to one of his other works (see 19.3.2). The main cause of the problem is the fact that Buridan used to repeat former lectures in a revised form, so that even explicit references to other works are no reliable indication for a relative date of his works. The best way to proceed, therefore, is to analyse some important topics in Buridan's works. One subject has been studied by Hubien, who analysed Buridan's ideas on the fourth figure of the syllogism. 11 This analysis shows that his doctrines on this subject were completely developed in De consequentiis, dating from 1335 or shortly thereafter.12 Another su~ject in which Buridan shows a clear doctrinal development is the problem of the insolubilia. An analysis of this topic in Buridan's works (see below, 3.1) shows that the questions on the Sophistici Elenchi should be dated before the Sophismata and the commentary on the Metaphysics and may have

7 The nominalist position, in the sense of a basically Ockhamist position, is especially clear from Qu. 10.3.2.2. 8 Cf. for this especially M. Markowski, numerous publications, and S. Ebbesen, the article quoted in note 6 and also his The Chimera's Diary, pp. 135-140. 9 Buridan's irreverent attitude towards the Aristotelian tradition has also been noticed by Sten Ebbesen, The Summulae, Tractatus VII De fallaciis, p. 142. 10 See e.g. J. Pinborg, The Summulae, Tractatus I, p. 72, Ria van der Lecq's introduction to the Questions on the Perihermeneias, and also B. Michael, Johannes Buridanus, Tl. 2, passim. 11 H. Hubien, John Buridan on the fourth syllogism, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 49e annee, 113 (1975) pp. 271-285. 12 See H. Hubien, Johannis Buridani Tractatus De Consequentiis, p. 9-10, but cf. also B. Michael, Johannes Buridanus, Tl. 2, pp. 557-558.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

been written a short time after the commentary on the Analytica Posteriora.13 It is also plausible that the commentary was written before Tractatus VII of the Summulae (De fallaciis). In the next chapter we shall give some evidence for the thesis that the questions on the Sophistici Elenchi should be considered as a relatively early work of Buridan's, basing ourselves on the discussion of two elements of the contents of the treatise, i.e. the theory of the insolubilia and the view on the (non-) distinction of propositions.

3. Some remarks on the content of the work 3.1 Insolubilia The treatment of the problem of the insolubilia may give us some evidence for a relative date of the Questiones elencorum. The subject is discussed in question 19 of the present work. Someone who is not familiar with the discussions on paradoxes may wonder whv the subject is treated here at all. Question 19 is one of the few questions in this work that contain no reference at all to Aristotle's text and at first sight it seems to have no connection with the subject of fallacies. The reason that the subject is discussed here is that paradoxes were very often considered as originating from the fallacy secundum quid et simpliciter. l 4 From that point of view an insoluble proposition, like 'Sortes 2 albus secundum dentes'. 15.3.1.1.2 Secundo notandum quod aliquando est bona consequentia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, aliquando autem non. Exemplum primi, nam sequitur 'est homo alb us; ergo est homo'. Exemplum secundi, nam non sequitur 'est3 homo mortuus; ergo est homo', nee sequitur 'est homo al bus secundum dentes; ergo est homo albus'. 15.3.l.l.3 Tertio notandum quod semper in ratione4 dicti secundum quid includitur ratio dicti simpliciter. Sed hoc variatur tripliciter. Nam uno modo in ratione dicti secundum quid includitur ratio dicti simpliciter in recto et cum remanentia omnimoda eorundem terminorum, verbi gratia, de isto dicto secundum quid 5 de isto dicto simpliciter 'homo'. Ratio enim 1 ad] suppl. 2 et ... homo] suppl. 3 est] enim C 4 ratione] oratione C 5 homo albus et] suppl.

75

JOHANNES BURIDANUS

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

'hominis albi' est: homo albus est animal rationale albedine coloratum. Ecce qualiter in illa diffinitione includitur 'animal rationale', quod est diffinitio 'hominis'. Secundo modo in ratione dicti [68rb] secundum quid bene includitur ratio dicti simpliciter, non tamen in recto, sed in obliquo. Verbi gratia, sicut in isto dicto secundum quid 'homo depictus' bene includitur diffinitio 'hominis' in obliquo sed non in recto. Nam homo depictus non est animal rationale, sed bene est similitudo representativa animalis rationalis. Ecce diffinitionem hominis in obliquo. Tertio modo in ratione dicti secundum quid bene includitur ratio dicti simpliciter, sed non cum omnimoda remanentia eorundem terminorum, hoc est: non mediante verbo eiusdem temporis verificabilis de dicto secundum quid mediante quo verificatur de dicto simpliciter. Verbi gratia, sicut est de isto dicto secundum quidl 'homo mortuus'. Uncle non dicimus quod homo mortuus est animal rationale, licet bene dicamus 'homo mortuus fuit animal rationale'. Ecce mutationem verbi presentis in verbum preteriti temporis. Similiter non dicimus quod homo generandus sit animal rationale, licet bene dicamus quod homo generandus erit animal rationale. 15.3.1.2.1 Tune sit prima conclusio: quando in ratione dicti secundum quid includitur ratio dicti simpliciter in recto et non in obliquo cum remanentia omnimoda eorundem terminorum ad intellectum predictum, tune a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter est bona consequentia. Et tenet per locum a parte in modo ad suum totum. Verbi gratia, sicut 'homo2 albus est; ergo homo est'. 15.3.1.2.2 Secunda conclusio: quando in ratione3 dicti secundum quid non includitur ratio dicti simpliciter in recto et non cum remanentia eorundem terminorum, licet bene in obliquo, tune a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter non est bona consequentia. Patet hoc, nam non sequitur 'est homo depictus; ergo homo est'. Sciendum tamen quod taliter qualiter in ratione dicti secundum quid includatur ratio dicti simpliciter, bene dictum simpliciter sequitur ad dictum secundum quid. Et ideo, licet non sequitur 'est homo mortuus; ergo est homo', tamen bene sequitur 'est homo mortuus; ergo fuit homo'. Similiter, licet non sequitur 'est homo generandus; igitur est homo', tamen bene sequitur 'est homo generandus; igitur erit homo'. Similiter non sequitur 'est homo depictus; ergo est homo', tamen bene sequitur 'est homo4 depictus; igitur est similitudo representativa hominis'.

1 2 3 4

quid] simpliciter add. C homo] praem. est C ratione] oratione C est homo] homo est C

76

QUESTIONES ELENCORUM

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

15.3.2 Quantum ad secundum sciendum est quod dupliciter possumus decipi in credendo quod est bona consequentia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, licet non sit. Primo, quia omnium dictorum secundum quid ad eorum dicta simpliciter est similis proportio secundum vocem. Uncle [68va] sicut se habet 'homo' ad 'hominem album' vel econverso, ita se 1 videtur habere 'homo' ad 'hominem mortuum' et econverso. Et quando propter talem similitudinem credimus esse bonam consequentiam ab uno dicto secundum quid ad unum dictum simpliciter, que2 tamen non valet, quia ab uno alio dicto secundum quid ad suum dictum simpliciter est bona consequentia, decipimur fallacia figure dictionis. Verbi gratia, ut si aliquis fatuus crederet istam consequentiam esse bonam 'est homo mortuus; ergo est homo', propter hoc quod ista est bona 'est homo albus; igitur est homo', cum qua videtur habere aliqualem similitudinem, hie deciperetur fallacia figure dictionis, cuius causa apparentie est similitudo oration um. Secundo modo possumus decipi credendo consequentiam a secundum quid ad simpliciter esse bonam que tamen non valet, propter hoc quia nobis apparet quod ratio dicti simpliciter includitur in ratione dicti secundum quid 3 credimus quod de nullo posset verificari dictum secundum quid quin etiam de eo posset verificari dictum simpliciter. Modo hoc est falsum in multis, sicut patet ex precedenti articulo. Et talis deceptio non provenit solum secundum vocem, sed secundum rationem. Propter quod dicitur fallacia extra dictionem. Et talis vocatur fallacia secundum quid ad simpliciter. 15.3.3.1 Quantum ad tertium ponam istam conclusionem quod ponenda est fallacia secundum quid et simpliciter, quia secundum earn contingit nos decipi, sicut patet ex predictis. 15.3.3.2 Secunda conclusio quod est fallacia extra dictionem. Probatur, nam sicut patet ex iam dictis non solum provenit ex parte vocis vel scripti, sed etiam ex parte rationis et conceptus. 15.3.4 Quantum ad quartum dico quod fallacia secundum quid ad simpliciter est deceptio qua credimus ex dicto secundum quid sequi dictum simpliciter, licet non sit ita. Causa apparentie huius fallacie est aliqualis inclusio rationis dicti simpliciter in ratione dicti secundum quid. Causa vero defectus est quod ratio dicti simpliciter non includitur in ratione dicti secundum quid in recto et manentibus eisdem terminis. 15.3.5 Quantum ad quintum sciendum quod sex possunt distingui modi huius fallacie. 1 se] habet add. C 2 que] qui C 3 et] suppl.

77

JOHANNES BURIDANUS

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

15.3.5.l Primus quando arguitur a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter negative. Verbi gratia, 'Sortes non est homo albus; ergo Sortes non est homo', 'Sortes non est homo mortuus; ergo Sortes non est homo'. 15.3.5.2 Secundus modus huius fallacie est quando arguitur affirmative a dicto secundum quid 1 simpliciter, ubi additio ampliat dictum simpliciter ad standum [68vb] pro preteritis vel futuris vel possibilibus. Verbi gratia, 'Cesar est homo mortuus; ergo Cesar est homo', 'Antichristus est homo generandus; ergo Antichristus est homo', 'rosa intelligitur; ergo rosa est'. Uncle ly 'mortuus' est dictio ampliativa pro preteritis, ly 'generandus' est ampliativum pro futuris, ly 'intelligitur' ampliativum pro possibilibus. 15.3.5.3 Tertius modus huius fallacie committitur, quando arguitur affirmative a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, et determinatio est restringens terminum cui additur, ad standum pro paucioribus quam staret si sibi non adderetur. Verbi gratia, 'Sortes est albus monachus; ergo Sortes est albus'. Uncle propter istum terminum 'monachus' hie terminus 'albus' restringitur solum stare pro albis secundum cappam. 15.3.5.4 Quartus modus huius fallacie committitur, quando arguitur affirmative a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, et additio trahit totum cui additur, ad significationem inpropriam et methaphoricam. Verbi gratia, 'est homo depictus; igitur est homo'. Uncle hec dictio 'depictus' trahit istum terminum 'homo' ad significationem inpropriam et figurativam. 15.3.5.5 Quintus modus huius fallacie committitur, quando ex dicto secundum quid infertur dictum simpliciter, ubi ita est quod dictum simpliciter supponit pro toto et determinatio pro parte illius totius, ita tamen quod illa pars non sit maior pars vel principalior pars istius totius et quod illa determinatio non determinet illam partem in toto sic quod non posset aliis inesse. Verbi gratia, 'Ethyops est albus secundum dentes; ergo Ethyops est albus'. Et dixi quod illa pars non sit maior pars totius illius. Uncle si esset maior pars istius totius, bene valeret consequentia. Uncle posito quod sit aliquod scutum cuius maior pars sit alba2 et minor nigra3, sequitur bene 'scutum est album', ex eo quod album dicitur cuius maior pars est4 alba; et hoc intelligitur: pars maior secundum se et quodlibet sui. Etiam notanter dixi quod non sit principalior pars istius totius. Iterum bene valeret consequentia nee committitur aliqua fallacia. Uncle bene sequitur 'Sortes est virtuosus' propter hoc quod anima est principalior pars ipsius. 1 ad dictum] suppl. 2 alba] et vocetur add. C 3 nigra] etiam vocetur a add. C 4 est] sit (?) C

78

QUESTIONES ELENCORUM

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

Etiam notanter dixi quod illa determinatio non determinet etc., quia si illa determinatio determinaret aliquam partem in toto et non posset [69ra] esse determinatio alterius, iterum bene valeret consequentia. Uncle bene sequitur 'Sortes est symus secundum nasum; ergo Sortes est symus'. Symitas enim non potest esse determinatio alicuius alterius partis quam nasi. Similiter bene 1 sequitur 'Sortes est crispus secundum caput; ergo Sortes est crispus'. Uncle crispitudo non est determinatio alicuius alterius partis in Sorte nisi capitis. 15.3.5.6 Sextus modus huius fallacie bene propinquus illi2 committitur, quando arguitur a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter et ubi determinatio cui apponitur additio supponens pro parte, non potest simpliciter alicui attribui nisi conveniat sibi toti nulla parte exclusa. Et ideo ista consequentia non valet 'homo3 movet se primo secundum animam; ergo homo movet se primo'. Uncle movere se primo non convenit alicui nisi illud moveat se secundum quamlibet partem. Iuxta istum etiam modum huius fallacie non sequitur 'hec propositio 'homo est asinus' significat taliter, qualiter est; ergo est vera'. Antecedens mere verum est et consequens falsum. Uncle illa 'homo est asinus' significat hominem esse et ita est. Sed consequentia non valet. Sed esse verum non attribuitur alicui nisi taliter sit qualiter ipsa significat quantum ad totalem eius significationem, et non sufficit 4 taliter sit, qualiter ipsum significat quantum ad eius significationem partialem. Similiter 5 illum modum solvitur hoc quod solet argui de isto insolubili 'Sortes dicit falsum' et de consimilibus. Uncle solet sic argui: dicat Sortes istam 'Sortes dicit falsum' et nullam aliam. Tune Sortes sic dicendo vel dicit verum vel falsum. Si dicat verum et cum non dicat nisi istam 'Sortes dicit falsum', sequitur quod hec sit vera 'Sortes dicit falsum'. Et si sic, verum est quod Sortes dicit falsum; non ergo dicit verum. Igitur si dicit verum, non dicit verum. Si autem dicatur quod sit falsum et cum dicat se dicere falsum, tune taliter est qualiter ipse dicit. Et ultra: taliter est, qualiter ipse dicit; ergo dicit verum. Breviter illa ultima consequentia non valet, quia ad hoc quod dicit verum non sufficit quia taliter sit in pane qualiter ipse dicit, sed requiritur quod taliter sit in toto. Uncle ad hoc quod dicit verum requiritur quod qualitercumque dicit esse, quod ita est. [69rb] Modo sic non est in proposito de Sorte sic dicente. Cum ipse dicit 'Sortes dicit falsum', ipse dicit unam

1 bene] non C 2 illi] ille C

3 homo] hominem C 4 quod] suppl. 5 iuxta] suppl.

79

JOHANNES BURIDANUS

propositionem significantem se esse veram et significantem se esse falsam. Et per consequens