History of the Problem of Universals in the Middle Ages: Notes and Texts

189 Pages·1995·0.921 MB·English

by  Paul Vincent Spade

History of the
Problem of
Universals in the
Middle Ages:
Notes and Texts
(cid:211)(cid:211)
Copyright 1995 by Paul Vincent Spade
This document may be copied and duplicated at will, in whole or in part, in-
cluding printed paper copies, for any non-commercial purpose, provided only
that the above copyright notice accompany any copies made.

Table of Contents
Part One: Notes..................................................................................................8
Porphyry the Phoenician, Isagoge..................................................................9
Boethius, From his Second Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge................15
Peter Abelard, From the “Glosses on Porphyry” in His Logica
‘ingredientibus’............................................................................................17
John of Salisbury......................................................................................17
Outline of Part of the Passage from the Logica ‘ingredientibus’..............17
Notes on the Passage from the Logica ‘ingredientibus’...........................21
John Duns Scotus, Six Questions on Individuation from His
Ordinatio, ii, d. 3, pars 1, qq. 1–6................................................................27
Notes to Question 1..................................................................................27
Note to Question 2....................................................................................27
Note to Question 3....................................................................................28
Notes to Question 4..................................................................................28
Notes to Questions 5 and 6.......................................................................29
William of Ockham, Five Questions on Universals from his
Ordinatio, d. 2, qq. 4–8................................................................................31
Notes to Question 4..................................................................................31
Notes to Question 5..................................................................................33
Notes to Question 6..................................................................................33
Notes to Question 7..................................................................................34
Notes to Question 8..................................................................................36
Part Two: Texts................................................................................................39
Porphyry the Phoenician, From his Exposition of Aristotle’s
Categories by Question and Answer (on Aristotle, Categories, 1,
1a1-2)...........................................................................................................41
Boethius, From His Second Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge, iii,
11..................................................................................................................43
Porphyry’s Text.........................................................................................43
Boethius’ Commentary..............................................................................43
Boethius, From his Second Commentary on Aristotle’s De
interpretatione, ii, 7 (on De int. 7, 17a38–b3)..............................................45
Aristotle’s Text..........................................................................................45
Boethius’ Commentary..............................................................................45
Boethius, Two Texts from His Theological Tractates.................................49
From Contra Eutychen, i.1–71.................................................................49
From De trinitate, i.7–ii.58.......................................................................51
Fridugisus of Tours, On the Being of Nothing and Shadows.......................55
On the Being of Nothing...........................................................................55
On the Being of Shadows.........................................................................57
Odo of Tournai, From his On Original Sin..................................................61
On Genera and Species and Individuals...................................................61
That in Every Case the Individual is to Be Distinguished from the
Species......................................................................................................62
That the Nature’s Guilt Is in the Person’s Guilt........................................62
How Human Nature Does Not Sin by Itself, But Through a Person........63
That Human Nature Cannot Be Transmitted to Other Persons
Without Guilt............................................................................................63
Peter Abelard, Miscellaneous Passages from His Dialectica and
Logica ‘ingredientibus’................................................................................65
From Dialectica, p. 541.24–37.................................................................65
From the Logica ‘ingredientibus’, the “Glosses on the Categories”,
p. 112.5–6.................................................................................................66
From the Logica ‘ingredientibus’, the “Glosses on the Categories”,
p. 113.26–29.............................................................................................67
From the Logica ‘ingredientibus’, the “Glosses on the De
interpretatione”, p. 315.26–37.................................................................67
Passages from the School of Chartres..........................................................69
Gilbert of Poitiers, De trinitate, i, 1, 21 and 27–29, ed. cit., pp. 76–
77..............................................................................................................69
Gilbert, De trinitate, i, 5, 24, ed. cit., p. 144.............................................70
Clarenbald of Arras, Tractatus super Boetii De trinitate, i, 12–15,
ed. cit., pp. 90–91.....................................................................................70
Five Passages from Avicenna, on Common Nature.....................................73
Logica, iii, fol. 12ra...................................................................................73
4
Ibid............................................................................................................73
Metaphysica, v, 1, Van Riet, ed., ii, p. 228.31–36; 1508 ed., fol.
86va............................................................................................................74
Ibid., Van Riet, ed., ii, p. 231.74–81; 1508 ed., fol. 86vb..........................74
Ibid., Van Riet ed., ii, pp. 233.36–234.44; 1508 ed., fol. 87ra..................74
Walter Burley, On Universals......................................................................75
Porphyry’s Text.........................................................................................75
Burley’s Commentary...............................................................................76
Explanation of Porphyry’s questions....................................................76
The usefulness of the Isagoge...............................................................77
Doubts about universals........................................................................78
Discussion of Doubt I...........................................................................79
Discussion of Doubt II..........................................................................80
Discussion of Doubt III.........................................................................81
The Theory that Universals Are the Same as Their Individuals.......81
The Theory that Universals are Distinct from Their Individuals......86
Objections.........................................................................................90
Replies to the Objections..................................................................93
Discussion of Doubt V..........................................................................99
Plato’s Theory...................................................................................99
Augustine’s Theory.........................................................................102
Continuation of the Discussion of Doubt I: The Fictum-Theory........111
Walter Burley, Treatise on Matter and Form (= “On the Two First
Principles”).................................................................................................115
Walter Chatton, Reportatio, i, d. 3, q. 2: “Whether any concept is
common and univocal to God and creature?”............................................121
William of Ockham, Summa Logicae, Part i, Chs. 14–17..........................143
Chapter 14..............................................................................................143
Chapter 15..............................................................................................145
Chapter 16..............................................................................................149
Chapter 17..............................................................................................151
William of Ockham, Commentary on Aristotle’s On Interpretation,
Prologue, §§ 3–10 (Commentary on 16a3–6)............................................157
5
Section 3: What is a passion of the soul or concept?..................................157
Section 4: Is a ‘passion’ a quality of the soul distinct from the act of
understanding?.........................................................................................158
Section 5: Is the ‘passion’ a species of the thing?......................................158
Section 6: Is the ‘passion’ the very act of understanding?..........................159
Section 7: Are passions of the soul specters or ficta?.................................165
Section 8: Are passions of the soul the external things as conceived?.........168
Section 9: Are passions of the soul qualities existing subjectively in the
soul?........................................................................................................169
Objections............................................................................................169
Replies to the objections.......................................................................171
Section 10: Are passions of the soul ficta?................................................174
Replies to the objections in Section 7........................................................174
William of Ockham, Quodlibet 4, Question 35, and Quodlibet 5,
Questions 12–13.........................................................................................177
Quodlibet 4, Question 35: Whether first and second intentions are
really distinguished..................................................................................177
Article 1...............................................................................................177
First intention...................................................................................177
Second intention...............................................................................178
Article 2...............................................................................................179
Ockham’s reply....................................................................................180
Quodlibet 5, Question 12: Whether the universal is singular......................180
Article 1..............................................................................................181
Article 2..............................................................................................182
Quodlibet 5, Question 13: Whether every universal is a quality of
the mind..................................................................................................182
Objection 1.........................................................................................183
Objection 2.........................................................................................183
Objection 3.........................................................................................183
Objection 4.........................................................................................183
Objection 5.........................................................................................183
To Objection 1....................................................................................184
6
To Objection 2....................................................................................184
To Objection 3....................................................................................184
To Objection 4....................................................................................185
To Objection 5....................................................................................185
Index of Names..............................................................................................187
7
Part One: Notes
The following notes supplement those accompanying the translations in my
Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals, (Indianapolis: Hackett,
1994). References to Five Texts will be either by (1) page, paragraph and line
numbers, followed by a brief identifying quotation, or else (2) by page and note
number. If a paragraph spans two pages, I restart the count of line numbers
with the new page. References to a “note” accompanied by the word ‘above’ or
‘below’ refer to notes in this supplementary volume, not to notes in Five Texts.
The notes below should be used in conjunction with the Bibliography in Five
Texts.
Porphyry the Phoenician, Isagoge
Bibliography
Herrán, Carlos M., and La Croce, Ernesto. “La ‘Isagoge’ de
Porfirio: Presentación, traducción, notas y texto griego”, Cuadernos
de filosofia 13 (1973), pp. 139-197. Greek text, Spanish translation
and study. I have consulted this translation in preparing my own.
Porphyry. Porphyrii Isagoge et In Aristotelis Categorias Commen-
tarium, Adolf Busse, ed., (“Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca,”
vol. 4 pars 1), Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1887. The critical edition from
that served as the basis for my translation. See Spade, Five Texts, p.
xvi.
Porphyry. Porphyry the Phoenician: Isagoge, Edward W. Warren,
tr., (“Mediaeval Sources in Translation,” vol. 16), Toronto: Pon-
tifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1975. An alternative
translation I have consulted in preparing my own. In my opinion,
the translation is too free for philosophical use.
Notes
1. (1.1.2 property) Do not understand this as “property” in the sense current
nowadays, namely as any metaphysical feature of a thing. The correct way of
interpreting it here is described later in the Isagoge.
2. (1.1.6 introduction) . Hence the title of the work.
3. (1.2.5 investigation) This passage (“For example … investigation”) is the basis
for Boethius’ famous discussion of universals in his Second Commentary on
Porphyry’s Isagoge (Five Texts, pp. 20–25). But please note the following ter-
minological facts. In the Contra Eutychen (Loeb ed., III.42-45), Boethius says that
Greek is to be translated by ‘substand’ (Latin ‘substare’), whereas
Greek is to be translated by ‘subsist’ (Latin ‘subsistere’). In his Latin
translation of the present passage, however, Boethius translates forms of
as ‘subsist’, not as ‘substand’. It is perhaps not clear whether this
represents a doctrinal decision or only a terminological looseness on Boethius’ part.
In my own translation, I have avoided ‘substand’ as a verb, and translated forms of
as ‘to be real’ or some variation on that (such as ‘has its reality’). For
I have used the traditional translation ‘substance’, despite Boethius’ trans-
lating it as ‘essentia’. (Contra Eutychen, Loeb ed., III.60. See the translation below,
pp. 49–51, text I.)
4. (1.2.7 genus and species) Literally: these things. But it is clear that Porphyry
means genus and species, the topics of the three questions he had listed. He has just
stated that he is not going to try to answer those three questions.
5. (1.2.7 other matters before us) That is, difference, property and accident.
6. (1.2.7–8 in a more logical fashion) . The sense is obscure.
Boethius translated the word as probabiliter = probably, which seems pretty free.
Warren has simply “in logic” (p. 28). Perhaps the word just means “logical” as
contrasted with the more “metaphysical” questions Porphyry has said he will pass
over.
7. (1.3.7 genera) = races. See p. 1, n. 2.
8. (2.8.3–4 with respect to what the thing is) . In Latin this is
called in quid predication and, in English, sometimes “essential” predication. (See
for instance Warren, p. 30.) See also the discussion in n. 10 below.
9. (2.8.6 ‘this’) Porphyry’s use of the neuter article here ( , Busse ed., p.
2.18) indicates that he is thinking of the words themselves, not of the corresponding
objects.
10. (3.12.6 what manner of thing it is) . In Latin this is
called in quale predication, and in English, sometimes “qualitative” predication.
(See for instance Warren, p. 32.) Nevertheless, the connection between this and the
Aristotelian category of quality is only indirect. To a first approximation, we may
describe the situation as follows. In general, if X is predicated (truly) of A, then the
predication is “with respect to what the thing A is” (see n. 8 above) if it groups A
into a natural kind X to which A naturally belongs. The predication is “with respect
to what manner of thing A is”, however, if, for some Y, X describes what manner
of Y the thing A is, where Y is predicated of A with respect to what A is. In short,
the second kind of predication always presupposes a prior classification into natural
kinds. NOTE: In the case of property and accident especially, I have tried to
translate concrete forms of the neuter adjective by adjectives, not by the cor-
responding abstract nouns. Thus risible (not risibility) is a property of man, and
black (not blackness) an accident of the crow. This makes the English sometimes a
bit awkward, but to do it the other way seemed to me unjustified by the Greek.
11. (3.13.7 disposition) . The term refers to one of the Stoic categories.
‘Disposition’ here does not of course mean “mood”, in the psychological sense.
10