Anonymus D'Orvillensis' Commentary on Aristotle's Categories

195 Pages·2013·23.01 MB·English

my

Anonymus D’Orvillensie!
Commentary on Aristotle's Categorles

Sten Khhesen

| frst introsiaced Anonymus 1 Ondilenss in “wo Nominalis ‘Tests’
CIMAGL 61 (1997) 429-440, and printed some small excempts from the
work, Here comes a complete edition!

Tn CMAGL G11 described the text as follows

Ms Oxford, Bodlsion Library, DOrvile 20? consis of thros quis, 24
‘perchmone ives in all (teaaures; ca. 212 mm by 142), The prologoe sans
1A and the work cods abruptly af the botiom of € 24¥B, ina comment on
Categortes (Eatio Cowpossa) 15, 15625. Since tis i only felines from
the end of Aristotle's work all that bas boen fost may be a columma or less,
probubly vnltea en a single leaf cr just om a ali of parchmeal, which at
some lime fal ont of the book. The ma seme ts have bn executed carb in
the 13th cemury and the late Osrund Lewy took the txt to be aboat con
luzmporary wid the ma? T finda nie [2k century date of ccrmpostion some
‘shat more ely. The author may have had tle or no sequainance with the
osterior Analytics, for he quotes the #riar Analytics 3§ liber analeticorunt
(1x8) without attoepting to distinguish ic fom the Posterior Anabtes, By
contrast, he soc gute Taziia withthe Sophiitel Blench aiee sketching
de Galenc division oF polysemny ino actual. cute and appari, be says
this “in Efonchisplenis sole dstingu” (1498). He also quotes the Topics
(11D) and Sex Principia (17%, and in a marginal dition 11D). Refsnes
2 De Generations ct Corraptione and the Physice are eonspicaausly abet,

| thinks L may have 10 change my mind on one point: it does seem likely
that the text is about comemporary with the ms, for it looks as if the
sutbor himsclf has been at work in the ms, revising his text. 1 stl prefer a

2 ile bnving done de sie ransrpton from phot, T have also pont dans
‘wth TheD'OniMis amuse in Duke Hanoy Library. 1 onl Ui wank tae
Fal of the Bodleian Litrary for their fend atin towands anders of ract-
script.

0 Lewy, ‘The Liver Sox Pimcipionam’ in Jisivet & A. de Libera (ods), ibe
Poles et sx cantemparains cis dt septiéoe sompsiin swopsen Phistire
de Ja gigas ede ta séscigne meckevees = listory of Lage 5, Napali 1887, 7,
251278, al yp. 2610
2M

12tb-comtury date of composition, but tawards the very end of the cen-
try, aad the ms could probably’ be as old as that

1. Author's Corrections?

Ms D'Onville 207 (=) is very neally executed ia a vegular Mand Gra
‘yrote small but sfill clearly readable lelerk, lwo columas ta a page, each
measuring ca, mm, 175 x $5, Traply space was lel fora Rew iiials wo be
painted, but the rubsicator never carne, This is ma cough draft: it could be
4 good professionel apouraph of a pre-existing work, or i could be the
anthor’s fii copy of his draft version, Tam inclinod to think thatthe latter
is the case and thatthe author cominued to revise is text while copying it

contains several visible correstions, including several marginal addi
tions of some length, Apparently, there was only one corrector, and he
‘was identical with the main scribe. He expunged or draw a line though
‘matter to be deleted and added replaccments or entirely new mater ove
he line or in che margins, usualy with a sign clearly indicating where the
replacement of new text was to be inserted, 1 have found na significant
differences between the main text and the corrections, whetber in script of
sn he colour of the ink

Some of these secondary interventions are corrections of ordinary
serial errors. An interesting ome ocours an 18rA, where the ms aiers
thiy

Gacralissiun bulus presiicament os positio. ct est positio propuctas

haben [aliquid quod pertnec ad omamentam vel cutimuestum eorpors]]

‘garesaliquo modo pasta!

The cancelled words belong in 4 definition of the catogary of Aahinus
that occurs a litle less than one ccilumn later (18°B). This cold indicate
use of a model with a page similar to that of O, so thatthe seribe's cyes
could stay from column A into cokuran B. At any rato, the error presup-
‘poses that ~ at least for this part of the work ~ the seribe was copying @
‘model rather than composing aes text.

1s uncectain whether serial or authorial fllbiliy is responsible for a
contraria en I8¥A. that ought to be oppesita and was corrected accord=

naly. What makes che case interesting is that the co-rection was per-
231

formed ix serdhundo. Having, written eordraria, the seribe cancalled it,
‘wrote opposi above it and continued with fin the linc

‘Many corrections definitely do not rectify seribal errors. They add new
‘material or reformulate the text. A particularly clear example occurs on f.
218:

Oearual-roet: Finite procemialims accedtt Avetor ad principale propesi-

on Bt quia non tench Actor nisi de termi, den inchocrn a euperiart

dus: sermonem

Ccomscreo rex: Fins provemmlalbus eividte Aucror sermonem uf tra per

grads ditsionss accede ud proscipedepropesttun
‘The oviginel aveedit — sermemem was cancelled by writing va over
‘accedit” and cat aver ‘sernionem’ ‘The tex! tt replace it, divide —
ropositum, was added in the wargin, Obviously, this is intentional refor-
ulation, not x correction of rome scribal blunder.

‘Another yood example occurs on £ 8A, in the chapter about quan-
ty. Paralle additions arc made in parallel sections, one dealing with sur-
faces and the other with bodies:

(1) Nos disimus quod species superfivici sunt bieobilis, ricbitio, scut et

Finca Yaequivocatix hin aominibus ad incam et ad uperfcienv.

(@) Nos dicims de soldtate slow de soperieis. XE stlter acquivocamus
‘usec nominal species soldat “leno” “rcubiio’

Major seorgarizations of the text acour in two cases. On 2VA-B, the
commentary on 120 efere

72) A presentation vf te four possible combinations of (ct) being in a sub-
jot and (oot) being said of a subject.

£2) Aa explonauon of th terme ‘being in a subyece and bring aid of a sub-

£3) An onyscton tthe explanation as preset and rete
14) Ax cern rating to Aristove's nation of bing in subject
(9) The expositio of Avistate’ tant.
(6) Objections
‘Before he bezan to smite (6) the scribe realized that the objection in (4}
‘belonged with those in (6). He therefore marked it for transposition by in-
2,

serting the sign. a the bogiming and.5, atthe end of section (4), while
vriling cat the insertion point berween (5) and (6). While the ewo first.
signs are clerly secondary additions the final. is noc squeezed in any-
vere, but stands nicely on the line

Ifthe seribe of O was a mere scribe, his model must have been untidy,
so that it was possible to make mistakes about where a block of text be-
longed. Ifhe was also the author, his mode! may have aes an untidy drat
version af the commentary in which all he material 4o he used had not yet
been finaly aranged in a denice order.

A sinilar ease occurs on f. 8v. The situation is this; Tho author has
promised to treat af Four questions:

‘idenctan eat <n primo quid st Lines quid superficie, quid solidity <it>

sccundo ox quibus conser Hine, superficie, solidtas: <i cero quare an-

raven wie cunluauas quatlales; <n quela quoeod fiat cornea
Sufatia seoundurne38

‘As amutter of fict, however, the questions are taken up in the order Hi
‘esi. The treatment ofthe frst two points Gnishes atthe very bottom of
80B, that of jv starts at the top of 8vA and that of ff near the botlom of
8A. Apparently the scribe derected the jump from i ta iv hefore he hegan
‘writing if Four liters indieste the correct order: .a. at the end of A, sb,
before fi, .c,at the end of fit, d, before 7. OF these, a, ¢ and d ave in the
‘margin while & stands in the line, and so i no secondary addition,

Again, we aright be dealing either with a scribe who discovers that he
tas skipped a passage, but more probably we are watching wn author who
discovers chat he isnot following the plan announced by himsclf.

‘A correction on fol SrA ig unupual in thac it changes a lemma
(Categories 9.\1b2-3) from ite Falito composite form vo that of Transioe
ti Beth, The fest version of the text ran galefacere enim ad frigid
fet contrarcun est, the revised version says colefacere ent at frigid
“fett contrarium habent. The change from od into et in the lemma made
‘the following est nonsensical, and an appropriate substitution was per-
oceed. A fowlines later follows the lemma calefacere vt ed frigid. At
tis place the composite and the Hoethian translation exhibit the same
cad‘et vatiation as before. The way this repeated variation is reltected in mx
2

© suggests (1) thatthe scribe was using a model that had au! an both oc-
‘asions: (2) thatthe devision to use e7 instead was taken before tho second
‘occurrence of the Jemima was copied. However, while remembering to
rite ofthe second time, the sotibe absent-miadedly copied wlso the ad of
his model, Discovering his mistake, he cancelled the ad When, one line
later, he reached the third place at which the two translations offer ad and
«4, respectively, he wrote delectari et contristar), leviny no sign that he
‘knew the competing reading delectar! au comtriiar

‘Towards the end of 181: we Tru Lis
Adiquid habera cance paiionam diversas porest habere dispositincs, at
aliquid sedens potcet [[pabore pares uno et alia oda dieporias] ease ca
tim ve! quadramny. Bt aliquid habens randem depositions, powrstha-
bore diversas pasitones, pout enn ese dens vel stag ef usted,

Tn the pc. version a concrete cxample has been substituted for a vague

ahstrwt description, From a pedagogical point of view, this isan amclio-

ration ofthe text

‘At IIB (on 615) a backereference co Aristotle was corected fom
ple sx verbia Auctoris, qui ait supers “quod austin gon est per se sumete
sed sclum ad relaronemt aterios dics”

into

patel nx verbia Auetoris, qui ait supers "quod anvemn tom sa per ae sumare
sed aolum ad respecrvm arin dita”

‘Here the change was for the worse inthe sense thet. cf relationer actually
‘was part of a verbatim quotation of Cat $°32, though ad respectum
makes nicer opposite to per se. A very similar case occurs at 145A Wwhea
851.32 is quoted ia the comment on 8°35 (aoe apparatus) Original anthor
(oF Rot: the man wha intervenes here is ng “corroenar”, whe discovers a
niismalch between model and copy, but someone who is editing the text

‘Were scribe, author and revivor one und the same person? That seems
likely to have been the ease, The changes introduced into the text are tno
many and often of a wenng type for an ordinary seribe, but they are nether
25

sax may or as radical as one would expect f someone tried to make his
‘ows commentary by revising an old one

serve and author are iemtical. the date of the manuserip, i knovin,
‘would fx the date af composition, On peleographical grounds ii hardly
possible Wo devide helween a fate 12thcestury and an early 13th-cemtury
dave, What ther clues do we have ta the date of composition?

2, Dating hy quotations

Anonymos T’Orvilleass shows his roots in twelftecatary culture
‘when quoting cluxsical non-philosophical iterature. Fisst, by quoting such
texts at all, second by hiy selection of authors: Vergil, Ovid, Lucan and
Status; Cisero, De mventione. Some, and pechaps al, of these quotations
were heirlooms ffom the tradition of commentaies on the Categories.
‘Thus when he adduced the Vergilign “olisque nolas et nomina mandat”
(eneie 3.444) to shows that mina can be use in a wide sense (2¥A),
this was no uavelty, since the same quolatina had already been used ear~
liee, and for the same purpose, by the uuthor of Lhe Categories commen
tary in ms Padova, BU 2087: 20B — probably decades ener.

‘The author's famlirity with Aristodle’ Prior Armalytics, Topics aul So-
listed Refwtavions makes a date bafere 1140 unlikely, His apparent lack
of acquaintance with any Aristotelian works besides those and the Ars
Veber fvours a uwvelfth-ceatury date, although rome masters may have
‘walked in the darkness of ignorance umtil about 1220.

‘One passage (21vB-22rA) is distantly dependent on the Nicamachean
Ejhies Ti gut our Anonymus shows no avareness of the origin:

‘Virtus enim eet medium vitionim vsinqus redastor fut] ‘quia’ amnisvir-

‘us dun kabel vila extrema, ut lngitas media est iter svartiam ct prodigali-

tate, frtitado mvodia eel inler Gidea ot tomentatcn, ot prodigalits

avacifag et tomerits midi comer est
‘This in surely a oan from some 12th-c. source, A sirikingly similar pas-
sage occurs in Anonymus Aureliauensis 1 Comm, Arist. SE, CIMAGL 34
(0999): 33:

‘Virtus ost modivm yinorom ntormque redactum. Dicihur autem sapientiavir-
‘us quidam proportions, nam wir eonficiur ex quibustam propritatibus
srcamstanlium vitorual, wade dictar mod sora, ut ca quae est ine le
22s

neil of prodigalitatom sive cffusionom; tonaetas ost ct ratinenda ot non
retinenda, quando oportt ot quando now oportt,rtinete prodigalis vero
sot expose ot expeudenda et non annendenda, ec quando oportt et quando

‘non oporet virus media inter its arts, quasdam 2b hoe, quaadam ab

ila vito suscipit popritates.

An @cqursus on homosomeric snd anhomoeomeric parts of animals
(13vA) contsing doctrine and terminology fiom Aristotle's De pardibus
Grimabture 2,1, Whe mediating source was Michel Scot's translation, thi
‘would presumably make any. date before 3, 1220 improbable > ‘There is
nothing, however, inthe passage that could noc be had from Nemesiuy of
Emesa’s De natura hominis, translated by Burgundio of Pisa in 1165, «TF
Borgundio's translation was the source, as seems Tkely, we gel 1165 a5 a
termins a quo.

Finally, the D°Orville commentator was Gailiar with the Liber Sex
Prineipioram, of at least he had heard of tt (1eB, 17¥B). Altboogh the
date of thar wark is not Known either, avquaintance will iL indicabes a very
late 12th-century ora 13tb-century origin,

3. Date by Equivacation
Anoaytmus D’Onvillensis offeen a rather elaborate definition of equivo-
cation, and one that its ito an evoluLionary serics with other attested
members. Firs io priailive version,
Ancriymus Aurefianenis 1, Common. ast. SK, CRAGT. 34 (1979) RS
Aoquivacatio est mubiplicias dictionis ex diversi insinrionibus diver
signifcams,
Annyrus Cunlabigiesia, Comm, Aritt, SE, caaca 87 (1997) 133,

Acquivocatio est multiplisias dictions plus significa 2s diversis iassius
‘ima,

in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (1982), p. 79, BG. Ded a
Sious ie date “telge 1220" to Miclae's wunsoion of De animus. Michael ix
coaitouly asuied (0 Lave done aoe af is ramsaion in ie 12205

Cl une apparatus of the elu, below. Forte dae of Busgunbo's ransation, see G.
Verbeke & 38 Moacho (eS), Némssius @Emese, De mane hominis, CLOAG
suppl 1, Bri Lelden, 1975 at. fee.
236
‘Then a version with au extza clause (underlined)

atiziae fonatinenses, of De Rijk, Logica Modernamum 72. (Assen 1967)
64; arquivocato est rerom dversarum ce divers insttationibus vel ex uaa
lasttuone qualiscumgue dasignatio

‘Next vomes Anaymus D’Orvillenis

eA: Aequivosato active est mutiplicitas detonis diversa sigaiicautis x
diversi institutonibus vel ex uaa facta propte ila siemicands
‘The following represents the the culmination ofthe development

Anonymas Lemonacensis, Kalloviae, 31.1401, CIMACT 68 (1968) 13
Acquivocano cst multplatas dichanis arversasigaticanis x ra festinti-
‘onc vs ex cers nstntonibns fue vel fis propter ila siguiicanda

‘The explanations of the defiiton offered by the London Fadlaviae (F),
D’Orvillensis (0) and Lemovicensis (7) ace alae sitar

3.0. Al rercovionera mulpcilis quae et in eraone. 5. empiblog, dictum
st“ dom”

ADL "Militar dictions” dena diferenbm multipictate ratios, quae
pon el uate;

2, O: “vera siguiicuns” appaniny ad reretinem Getons vers consenis-
canis, wees,

2 Ls"diveessgnificante’ dio a dffroniam ditions quae plu consign,
amon eon ext dio aoguvecs, wt hase dicuo ‘ee quse signcarsngulace
‘peru ‘ev purer:

3.8: ex diversi insitutinibes” dco progr boc nomen canis’ quod ex diverse
instinvonibus divers amit,

3.0. "ox diverse intitutontba a emtianem diconis qune divers significa
cctaulations, uit

UT "ex uit insitione ve ex divetsisintiioibud” ad aire stone
ass uonon sigaiicar proprc,aiad inpropia, wt lee varbum ide qoad propre
squint eiderg ompopis sgt Nore

44-8; exw instintions” dio prope huiusmodl nmin ‘eto aetio™
440 “sel x wn initaione”appoaite a comprehen noes yeaa,
‘tee’ cezhorum communi,
4.1 ct nara gud dictionam anguivecaram aliae significant pare una ints
‘one lise x planbus inctinviobus, ex naa iniazione significa pla ageing

mem 4 actaly occur afer tem 8.
2

sebolisdesognia ia ol omnia vera coammnis; ex divers insationias signi.
‘ar para omnes alae ditions equate

5.0: “tala proper fle signicanft wl remotionem pronomizum, que diversa
signin, oe, sed son Fam davern pepler ila senicants

‘51s "ata ve fis propler ila aguconda” dco 20 ifeetiam prooominam,
‘ge, Viel plu Sigel, a iatoone. nom lamen sunt seguir ~ va Er,
hoe ponorten “eg” sigs me ex solution, nem ume Ext itr Rope
‘me Sigtienodon ill nim qui inst ae promotes “ego con hab espe ad
vag mma generator a apelibtsaum proltorem

“6 8: "ewalscunoe designatio” digo dua Sve vo sigulko vel cmsiont pra
opie wl umm propre lid tansunpive, vel pr evel cum ali, 2 how prove
et acquvoctio,

‘The table shows that Anonyrmas L’Orvillensis is closest lo Anonyemus
Lemovicensis aud so close, indeed, that a0 major chronological grap is
likely to have separated them. in our edition of the Limoges fallacies,
ivakuma and 1 argued for a date between 2190 and 1210 So “about
1200" would seem co be the date to assign to Antonymus D’Orvillensis,

‘Who are We?

‘The text repeatedly uses the first person plural (dicimas"), sometimes
‘with an emphatic "Nos" as well, In many cases this just means “T", as
‘when a dubiatio is rsised and the answer is introduced by “(Nos) diei-
mys". Hut sometimes it seems to mean “The philosophical school fo which
Tbclone”

‘The evidence is fatiy clear concerning the thesis null: formae snest
forma:

A quia dicomus quod forms non inst formas, dco mllom gems et null

‘posi haber difisentam isi gmacra ce speies prio pragdteamor

15 ea coim qventas, ot null proprictas tues proprietall secundum nos,

longitude propricis, ergo lines non est sublctum longitu, quia sic

forma nest Formac, quod Secunda nas flu at

160A Ft sciendumn quod pracdiea repula susgite& quam novtra pusitione,

ex e0seiicet quod dicims quod null formu inet formu, guia shoe sump

te ‘albuen' continatur subicctione in praedicamento qualtais accideret

Femnar 63 1593) by,
ne

roprictatom ince qualiat Rationes autem: quibus praciclara positions
probannis alibi expos

19 Primo dicims quod haze flea st “Chnis oppositio et rlatio", quia
sens relatia propricas est, crgn apposiuo proprictas cst, ergo ines Sub~
seamtac vol eubstamti, seounlom mas qui dicimus quod foenae aot. inst
terra,

(Of 4A, Pee x: yuu dict Aust ura universlin que nant prasdicamin-
tala vel esse in primis substankis vel dic de primia bse data nligh
quod mulla forma inest forma; 6vls: Hie expreasam habomas auctriatom.
ued formar new inst forma, 4: Eta Bocthis in commetto: "Quaedam,
proprictates ute quac non sur in aliquibus, sed aos surous mils, ut tempus
ellos, st hoc wou recipcaus, omnis er forma im aliquo est. 9B: Sed.
si comederem fbrmam iaesse forme, hne dicerem de mani quod quate
simplex pars corporis contali comiactur m aligua senphc) parte mani.
2673: Sed hi laguor ae i forma init formas, quia'st-forma non nit formas,
‘une tiangulato qualitas nen incric tango Prout est qUAnKAAS Std prout cst
tals superfeies, se. tale coxpus.

As the quovations show, the thesis was important to Anonymms
‘DOnsllensis, although he was sling occasionally to consider what might
bbe said Fane did not accept it, The text does not exclude an intarpretation
of the First person plurl as plurals matestatis, but the fact that the thesis
is known to have been on the programmatic list of at east onc twelfh-
century school mals this rather improbable, In the form Jn mula proprie=
tale est proprieéas the thesis occurs as N" HIL14 in Compendia logicae
Porretamum [CIMAGI. a6 (1983)], Our author does act, however, use the
charssteristis Porrctancaa terminology.

‘The following thesis isso intimately related vo the nomsinaist claim that
rething grows" that itis hard to think of the first person phural as meaning
anything but “we nominaists

3r8 Mle nobis, qui dcimes quod ail ert Socrates quod rondo sit i aliqua,

ars addr vel subtrshatr, sie abel:

2ivB Mai eegulae vider pose induciinstantia posabiis corundum nas,

(gui cima quod orenis demo parts ct nmi adéitio ct. amnis partim

‘tansponmo vara ersomant tus,

70. Cums Maron, “Tee Loge of Growth: welt Century Nomanalsts and the De-
‘elapnint of Cheer of Ih Inearnaion eden Phitcopty and Theology 7
(aes