/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:03:57 PM

VIVARIUM
AN INTERNATIONALJOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY
AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND
RENAISSANCE
vivarium
inparticular
is devoted
totheprofane
sideofmediaeval
philosophy
andtheintellectual
lifeoftheMiddle
AgesandRenaissance.
- H.A.G.Braakhuis,
- C.H. Kneepkens,
EDITORS
L.M. de Rijk,(Leiden)
(Nijmegen)
- WJ.Courtenay,
- E.P. Bos,(Leiden)
- D. Perler,
(Groningen)
(Madison)
M.G.M.
van
der
Poel,(Nijmegen).
(Basel)
oftheEditorial
Board:Prof.
C.H.Kneepkens.
Secretary
Allcommunications,
thoseofa business
should
be addressed
nature,
except
toC.H.Kneepkens,
Faculteit
derLetteren,
Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen,
Vakgroep
P.O.Box716,9700AS Groningen,
TheNetherlands.
Mediaevistiek,
- Albert
- -J.E.
ADVISORY
TullioGregory,
Zimmermann,
Murdoch,
(Rome)
(Cologne)
COMMITTEE (Cambridge,
MA).
PUBLISHERS Brill,
TheNetherlands.
Leiden,
PUBLISHED Twiceyearly.
XLII(2004)(320pp.):EUR 138(USD172)forinstitutions,
SUBSCRIPTION
Volume
andEUR
67(USD83)forprivate
inclusive
andpacking.
Price
includes
subscribers,
ofpostage
online
subscription.
orders
areaccepted
forcomplete
volumes
orders
Subscription
only,
taking
effect
with
thefirst
issueofanyyear.Orders
onanautomayalsobeentered
matic
basis.Cancellations
willonly
beaccepted
ifthey
arereceived
continuing
before
October
1stoftheyearpreceding
theyearinwhich
thecancellation
istotakeeffect.
Claims
formissing
willbemet,
issues
free
ofcharge,
ifmade
within
three
months
ofdispatch
forEuropean
customers
andfivemonths
for
customers
outside
Europe.
orders
orsubscription
Subscription
maybe madeviaanybookseller
agency,
ordirect
tothepublisher.
OFFICES
America
TheNetherlands
North
Brill
BrillAcademic
Academic
Publishers
Publishers
Ste.601
P.O.Box9000
112Water
Street,
MA02109
PALeiden
NL-2300
Boston,
Tel. 1-617-263-2323
Tel.+31-71-53.53.566
Fax1-617-263-2324
Fax+31-71-53.17.532
Email:cs@brillusa.com
E-mail:
cs@brill.nl
Allpricesandpostage
& handling
areexclusive
ofVAT in EU-countries
charges
outside
theEU).
(VATnotapplicable

Nowenjoyfreeonlineaccess to thisjournal
VisittheBrill-Website
withyourprint
subscription.
at http:/
www.brill.nl
andenter
theonline
section.
journals
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
ISSN 0042-7543.
ISSN 1568-5349
(Print
version);
(Online
version)
in The Netherlands
Printed

Printed
on acid-free
paper

15:03:57 PM

:
Ablardet les grammairiens
*
et la prdication
sur le verbesubstantif
IRENE ROSIER-GATACH

0. Introduction
comme en attesAblard est en constantdialogue avec les grammairiens,
Ce dialogue
tentles nombreusesrfrences Priscienet aux grammatici.
et
de
sa
dans
l'laboration
un
rle
pense logico-linguistique
majeur
joue
constitueun facteurimportantdans son volution.La questiondu verbe
de ces chanet de la prdicationest tout faitcaractristique
substantif
et
L.M.
de Rijk,
tudes
de
R.
Hunt
l'ont
bien
montr
les
comme
ges,
dans
cette
C.
Mews1.
C'est
et
M.
C.H.
de
Fredborg,
Kneepkens
puis
mme perspectiveque nous nous proposonsde la reprendreici, en mettanten parallleles analysesqu'Ablarddveloppesurles diffrents
usages
avec celles proposesdans les Glosulaeet en montrant
du verbe substantif
l'importancedans ce dbat de certainspassages de Boce, deux clairages
mieuxfairecomprendrel'volutionde sa pense2.
qui peuventcontribuer
* Nousavionsprpar
Modernorum
tudepourle colloque30 Years
la prsente
Logica
van Wetenschappen
Nederlandse
Akademie
(The Royal
organis
par la Koninklijke
en 1997,en hommage
au Pr.de Rijk,mais
ofArtsandSciences),
Netherlands
Academy
C.H.
Nousremercions
avonstempche,
d'yassister.
personnelles,
pourdes raisons
dansVivarium
de l'offre
, o ellea mieuxsa
Kneepkens
qu'ilnousa faitede la publier
heureuse
de
et sommes
et de l'dition
qui l'accompagne,
placeen raisonde sa longueur
consonttpournousunpointde rfrence
la ddier
au Pr.de Rijk,dontlestravaux
modernorum
de la Logica
l'apparition
antrieure
surcettepriode
, dont
tant,notamment
a
Ce travail
lesdveloppements
ultrieurs.
quelpointelleprparait
il a si bienmontr
relidessciences
l'EcolePratique
desHautesEtudes(Section
faitl'objetd'unsminaire
unetable-ronde
et 2000-2001,
et d'uneprsentation
en 1999-2000
Sorbonne),
gieuses,
Cambridge,
en mars2001. Jeremercie
JohnMarenbon,
organise
parJohnMarenbon
travail.
Ce
surle prsent
et Constant
Mewspourleursremarques
Margareta
Fredborg
de L.M. de RijksurAristote
travail
taitachevlorsqu'est
ouvrage
parule monumental
desproblmes
de cettetude l'histoire
que nousavons
(De Rijk2002); la contribution
renduedansles notesque nousavons
dansle par.3 n'estqu'imparfaitement
discuts
insres.
1 Hunt1941-43
1978; Mews
1977; Kneepkens
; De Rijk1967,101 sq.; Fredborg
1987,21 sq.
2 De nombreuses
l'analysedu verbe
tudesontt consacres
et importantes
Vivarium
41,2

BrillNV,Leiden,2003
Koninklijke
- www.brill.nl
online
Alsoavailable

15:04:07 PM

176

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

Les Glosulaein Priscianum

sont un texteen constantevolution,attestant
de gnrationsdiffrentes
de rdacteurs/compilateurs.
La premiregnrationdes Glosulaecorrespondau commentairesur les Institutiones
I-XVI
3
(Priscienmajeur) conservpar les ms. K et M4 ; l'criturede K l'a fait
identifier
comme tantdes annes 10805.Nous appelons seconde gnration des Glosulae
un ensemblede textes: d'une part,les versionsextrapoles des premiresGlosulaesur Priscienmajeur,que l'on retrouvedans
le ms. C6 notamment,d'autre part les Glosulaesur les Institutiones
XVIIXVIII (Priscienmineur),que l'on trouveen au moinsdeux versions7.On
le ms. F ' qui est une version
dispose de deux tmoinssupplmentaires,
abrge des Glosulaesur PriscienMajeur, mais qui faisaitoriginellement
partie d'un des manuscritscomportantles Glosulaesur PriscienMineur8:
pour la sectionque nous avons tudie,F semble copi sur C pluttque
sur les premiresversions,mais ce serait confirmer(voir infra).Le ms.
V9 comportedes extrapolations
: certainessectionssont diffrentes
des

substantif
Voirde Rijk1967,vol2/l,183sq
et203sq.,1970,xl-xlvii,1981a,
parAblard.
Malcolm
223-34et285-97,
1981b,1986,99-103et 108sq.,Tweedale
1976,195-8,
1979,
Kretzmann
1982,Jacobi1980et 1986,Jolivet
1991,241 sq., Pinzani1992,154 sq.,
Marenbon
1999.
3 Ms. K = Cologne
DomB. 201,fin11esicle,f. lra-74rb
manuscrite
; surla tradition
etimprime
voirHunt1941-43
et Gibson1979; surla diffusion
desGlosulae
voirGibson
1979,241-6.
4 Ms.M - Metz,
Bibl.Mun.1224,f. Ira-11Orb,12esicle.
5 Le terminus
a quoestde 1050,en raisond'unemention
de 'Lanfredus'
quipeutren Lanfranc
du Bec.
voyer
6 Ms. C - Chartres
B. Mun.209 (248),f. l-86v; ce manuscrit
a tdtruit
la
pendant
l'Institut
dernire
maisunecopieenestheureusement
deRecherches
etd'Histoire
guerre,
desTextes Paris.Malheureusement,
la copien'estpascomplte,
necomporte
puisqu'elle
auxInstitutiones
xn,5, GLK II, 579: 29); nous
que lesfs1-13et 34-68r
(correspondant
f : 86v,qui comporte
avonsen outrele dernier
l'excursus
ajout la findu commentairesurle livreXVI desInstitutiones
ditparHunt1941-43,
224, savoir
grammaticaei
' verbo
les Opiniones
dwersorum
deSsum
substantivo
.
7 Unepremire
matre
Guido(Guyd'Etampes
version,
quia tattribue
?),estdis238; L = Londres
2713; et
, BM Burney
, BM Harley
persedanstroisms.(ms.B = Londres
0 = Orlans,
BiblMun.90); voirG.H. Kneepkens
1978.Uneseconde
A = ms.
version,
Arsenal
910, f. 133ra-140vb,
en estproche,
maiss'arrte
Paris,
aprsla glosesurInstit.
l'dition
de ce dernier
XVII,32; voirDe Rijk1967,119; Margareta
Fredborg
prpare
etje la remercie
de m'avoir
d'tudier
sa transcription.
commentaire,
permis
8 Ms.F = Paris,BnF,nouv.acq.lat.1623,f.1-56,12esicle.Ce manuscrit,
quiappartenait
au monastre
bndictin
de Fleury,
faisait
initialement
du ms.d'Orlans
90,
partie
unepartied'uncommentaire
surlesInstitutiones
XVII-XVIII(voirn. 8); il
qui contient
auxpp.247-358
dums.d'Orlans,
tvolesparLibrien 1841;
correspondait
quiavaient
voirGibson1979,237-8,Kneepkens
1978,115.
9 Ms. V(Tractatus
= Rome,Vat.lat.1486,f. lra-90vb
; voirFredborg
glosarum
Prisciani)
1977,Gibson1979,252-4.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

177

, avec des explileons contenuesdans les manuscritsanciens des Glosulae

cationssupplmentaires,
tandisque d'autressont littralement
identiques.
On y trouvedeux sectionsou sententiae
, l'une insredans le chapitresur
le verbe,l'autre la findu Tractatus
, qui donnentdes opinionsde matres connus,la premirenous intressantparticulirement
ici, puisqu'on
trouvela mentionde matreW. dans une discussionsur le verbe et le
verbe substantif.
Nous disposonsd'une ditionincunable,trsfautive,et
manifestement
sur diffrents
manuscrits(voirinfra),o les Glosulae
copie
constituentune glose marginaleau texte des Institutiones
, contrairement
aux autresmanuscrits,
Par
qui prsententun commentairelemmatique10.
ailleurs,les NotaeDunelmenses11
, un ensemble de notes sur les Institutiones
,
sont un tmoin essentielpour comprendreles dbats de l'poque entre
grammairienset logiciens,et contiennentde trs nombreusesmentions
de matresidentifispar leurs initiales.
Nous rsumeronsd'abord brivementles conclusionsauxquelles nous
sommes parvenue, au terme d'une confrontationentre Ablard et les
Glosulae
, sur trois questions: la dfinitiondu verbe et la notion d'inhrence (qui constituele premiervolet de la prsentetude), la signification des parties consignificatives
, la thorie de la propositionet la
notion de dictum12. Ces conclusionsconstituentdes hypothses,qui
restentnaturellement
vrifier.Les Glosulaein Priscianum
bien
constituent
la source d'Ablard. En comparant(1) les opinionscitespar Ablard et
attribuespar lui G., V. ou W.13,(2) les passages lus dans les textes
, (3) les opinionsattribues
apparents la seconde gnrationdes Glosulae
10Edition
Prunulus
deVrone,
ralise
Venise
Arrivabenus,
parBenedictas
parGeorgius
1488.VoirGibson1977,1979.Surla mention
Iohannis
deAingre
dansle
, que l'ontrouve
voirl'hypothse
de Mews1992,selonlequelle
ellerenverrait
uncertain
Iohannis
colophon,
taitunarsvocalis.
Gibson1979signale
en outreun
quiavaitenseign
que la dialectique
manuscrit
de Bruxelles,
et unmanuscrit
incunable.
fragmentaire,
copisurl'dition
11 LesNotae
Dunelmenses
du dbutdu 12esicle,sontcontenues
dans
, datant
galement
le ms.D = Durham,
Cathedral
c. IV. 29,f.2ra-215va;
voirHunt1941-43,
Gibson
Library
a montr
au
taient
1979,242-3.M. Fredborg
quelesnotessurle De inventione
identiques
Inprimis
Guillaume
commentaire
de Champeaux
1976.
; voirFredborg
qu'elleattribue
12Rosier-Catach
Cf.aussi,pourla section
surla vox
, les
2003a,2003bet ( paratre).
desGlosulae
ditsdansRosier1993et discuts
dansRosier2003c, comparer
passages
avecceuxde Guillaume
de
tudis
et dits
2003.
parIwakuma
13Cettehypothse Champeaux
soient
dsigns
n'implique
pas que touslesmatres
parcesinitiales
la mmepersonne.
On saiten effet
de celles-ci
se cachent
desmatres
que souschacune
comme
en atteste
en particulier
le ms.Orlans
266(voirKneepkens
diffrents,
1993,64Dunelmenses.
Les mentions
fait matre
V./W./G.,
5) aussibienque lesNotae
qu'Ablard
sontreprises
etdiscutes
antdansIwakuma
1999etIwakuma
destudes
2003, partir
rieures
surle sujet.

15:04:07 PM

178

IRENEROSIERGAT
ACH

Guillaume de Champeaux (ou W./V.) dans d'autres textescontemPriscianiet les NotaeDunelmenses

essentielleglosarum
porains (le Tractatus
ment), nous avons propos l'hypothseque Guillaume de Champeaux
tait associ la seconde
gnrationdes Glosulae.En plus de ces parallde l'ArsenalA, qui prserveune des versions
on
notera
le
ms.
les,
que
des Glosulaesur Priscienmineur,se trouva Saint-Victor, o enseigna
Guillaumede Champeaux,et qu'on peuty lireune mentionde iWillelmusm,
la premirepersonne,en un endroito l'autre versiondu mme commentairesubstitueFulcovelHerberte'15.
Quoiqu'il en soit de ces difficiles
nous
verrons
questionsd'attribution16,
que les dveloppementsd'Ablard,
ses prises de positionschangeantessur la prdication,avec les thories
dites de l'identitet de l'inhrence,sont claires d'un jour nouveau si
on les confronteavec les Glosulaein Priscianum.
de textedansles Glosulae in Priscianum
1. Problmes
de transmission
R.W. Hunt puis L.M. de Rijk ont attirl'attentionsur les dveloppementsimportantsque l'on pouvait lire dans les Glosulaeet textesappaet sur leur influencesur les grammairiens
rentssur le verbe substantif,
et les logicienspostrieurs.On sait que des listesd'opinionssur le verbe
substantifaccompagnentd'ailleursces textes,opinions parfoisindiques
par les initiales de ceux qui les professent(Lanfrancus,Garmundus,
de pouvoiridentifier17.
Durandus de Anglia etc.),et qu'il seraitintressant

14VoirFredborg
1988,n. 6.
15Instit.
ad XVII, 10,ms.A, f. 135ra:Quandoenimaudio'Willeime'
ex
intelligo
; , f.9rb: Quandoenimaudio
natura
vocativi
'veni'vel'audi'velilliquid
huiusmodi.
'FulcovelHerberte'
illudintelligo
'Fulcoveni'vel'audi'.
lbLa possibilit
soit1auteur
des Glosulae
semble
carter,
carla preque Guillaume
mireversion
esttropancienne.
surl'auteur
Aucune
dfinitive
(oulesauteurs)
hypothse
n'a tpropose.
de ce commentaire
Voirlesdiscussions
de Mews1992(cf.supra
, n. 10),
de Champeaux,
1988,Reilly1993,vol.1, 22-6,Rosier2003a.SurGuillaume
Fredborg
rhtoricien
et grammairien,
voirJolivet
l'article
de C. Mews,
1991,et prsent
logicien,
en prparation
des travaux
(Mews, paratre),
synthse
qui faituneutileet complte
concernant
cetauteur.
Guillaume
estprobablement
n danslesannes1060(1070?)et
morten 1122.
17Deuxlistessontdites Hunt1941-43,
l'unese trouvant
la findu ms.C des
par
f.86v(d.ibid.,
Dunelmenses
II (d.ibid.,
Glosulae,
31-2),l'autredanslesNotae
35-6).Une
troisime
se trouve
la findums.M desGlosulae
liste,
, f.1lOvasignale
parM. Fredborg,
lesmmes
Certaines
se trouvent
dansla section
vb,avecen partie
opinions.
opinions
[1]
desGlosulae
en annexe.
Ces listessontreprises
la gnration
suivante
que nousditons
de Conches,
Hlie(voirinfra
, n. 29).
parGuillaume
puisPierre

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

179

Avant toute chose, il imported'claircirla situationcomplique que

, ce qui montrerabien l'imporprsentela traditionmanuscritedes Glosulae
tance des remaniementssuccessifssubis par le texte original. Le long
extraitdes Glosulae
jadis dit par R.W. Hunt comme un passage unique,
partirdu ms. de Chartres(C)18 corresponden fait l'amalgame de
deux passages [1] et [2] distinctsdans les premiersmanuscrits,K et M.
Le passage [1]19se trouvaitoriginellement
dans le chapitresur le verbe,
20
juste avant Instit.VIII, 38, le chapitresur le temps.Le passage [2] tait
situ,dans M, mais aussi dans V, dans le chapitresur le pronom,et
a t accol [1] par C. Nous n'avons donc pas originellement
un texte
continucomportant[1] + [2], comme le donne penser l'extraitde C
dit par R.W. Hunt ; et [2] ne constituepas exactementune extrapolation de C par rapportau manuscritplus ancien comme le proposait
L.M. de Rijk, qui a reprisune partie du mme passage partirdu ms.
Si on lit attenK2' mais le dplacementd'un passage contenuailleurs22.
tivementles deux passages,on voit que [1], dans le chapitresur le verbe,
et que la dernire
prsenteune srie d'opinions sur le verbe substantif,
dans
notre
est
donne
comme
(numroteA6
dition)
l'opinion soutefait
elle
va
tre
de
c'est
nue par la plupart (jblerique)
;
dveloppe
qui
dans le chapitresur le pronom (en [2], partirde C2), ce qui a pouss
le rdacteurde C a accoler ce passage au prcdent,dans le chapitresur
le verbe (aprs Instit.VIII, 37).
La prsenced'un dveloppementsur le verbe substantif,
savoir [2],
dans le chapitresur le pronom des Institutiones
, s'explique aisment.En
Instit.XIII, 19, Prisciens'intressait
la personneet la catgoriedes termes construitsavec les verbes,opposant ceux de premireet deuxime
personnes,qui requirentun pronom, la troisime,qui requiertun nom,
une dsignation.En XIII, 20, il aborde ensuite
sauf s'il s'agit d'effectuer
le cas, fortdiffrent,
des verbes substantifset vocatifs,qui peuvent se
construireavec des noms au nominatif la premireet seconde per23.Pour expliquercette
sonne, en raison de leur valeur dmonstrative

18Hunt1941-43,
225: 9-226:21.
19Correspondant
l'dition
Hunt,225: 9-226: 21.
20Correspondant
: 7.
l'dition
Hunt,226: 22-228
21De Rijk,1962-67,
vol.II/1, 102-4.
22Cf.Fredborg
1977,23,n. 5.
23Instit.
autem
etvocativis
solisideoadiunXIII,20,GLK III,p. 13: 7-11 : Substantivis
nominativi
verbis
et primaeet secundae
nominum,
ipsa
quodvidentur
personae
guntur
habere.
Ostendunt
enimsubstantiam
haecverbavimdemonstratvam
ipsarum
personarum

15:04:07 PM

180

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

le glosateurdfinitles propritscaractristiques
des parties
particularit,
du discours.Il donne d'abord celle du nom, puis celle du verbe substantif,et insre ce propos un long dveloppementsur les verbes substantifset vocatifs.
Reprenons en dtail, car la situationest plus complexe. Nous avons
divisle contenudu passage sur le verbe substantif,
que nous ditonsen
en
diffrents
identifis
annexe,
blocs,
par des lettres: (A)-(F),pour mieux
faire apparatre les variations.Nous rsumonscette situationen deux
tableaux,que nous aillonsensuitecommenter.
Sections
(A)

(B)

(C)

(D1)

j (D2)

P]
_Q]
avant
38
ad
M,V
VIII,
XIII, 20 apr.(B) apr.(C)
C

avantVIII, 38 [-]

apr.(A)

(E)

(F)

apr.(D1)

apr.(E)

manquants
apr.(G) Folios
pour
XIII, 20

ad XIII, 20 [-]
[-]
apr.(B)
I la avantVIII, 38 [-]
apr.(A)
apr.(C)
Ib
ad XIII, 20 apr.(B) apr.(C)
apr.(D1)

M,V
C
F
/

Instit.
avantVIII, 38
(A)
(A)+ (C) + (D2)
H
(A)+ (C) + (D2)= la

apr.(E)
apr.(E)

Instit.
XIII, 20
+
(B) (C) + (D1)+ (E) + (F)
Folios
manquants
(B) + (E) + (F)
(B) + (C) + (D1)+ (E) + (F) = Ib

Tous les manuscrits(sauf F, nous y reviendrons)comportent[1] = (A),

dans le chapitresur le verbe,avant VIII, 38. Mais la place et le contenu
de [2] est variable selon les manuscrits.Dans M et V, les sections(BF) de [2] se trouventdans le chapitresur le pronom,en XIII, 20. Par
contre,C accole [2] [1] dans la section sur le verbe, mais avec des
modifications.
D'une part, C omet la sectioninitialede ce long passage,
savoir(B), qui constituait
la glose initialesur XIII, 20, laquelle n'a natu-

velnominationem,
inqua similiter
substantia
necegent
demonstratur,
pronominibus,
quae

demonstrationem
substantiae
significant.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

181

Tellement
qui se trouve
plus de raisond'treau milieud'un dveloppement
maintenantdans le chapitresur le verbe. D'autre part, C raccourcitla
finde la section [2] telle qu'elle figuraitdans le chapitresur le pronom
dans M et V, puisqu'il substitue (D1) une sectionde quelques lignes
(D2). Cette section [2] s'arrtel dans C, puisque nous ne trouvonspas
la sectionfinale(E-F), qui poursuivait,dans M et V,
, la comparaison
entreverbessubstantifs
et vocatifs
commence
en
(D). Malheureusement,
dj
la seule copie conserveen microfichesdu ms. C, aujourd'hui disparu,
ne possde pas les folioscorrespondantaux Institutiones
XIII, 20, et il n'est
donc pas possiblede savoirce que C avait en cet endroit.Nous pouvons
penser deux hypothses,(a) Soit C a dplac le bloc [2](C-D2) dans le
chapitredu verbe,en laissantune partie du dveloppementsur le verbe
substantif,
peut-treseulementsa dernirepartie (E-F), dans le chapitre
sur le pronom,(b) Soit il a recopi le bloc [2](C-D2) dans le chapitresur
le verbe,touten laissantla section[2]=(B-F) dans son entierdans le chapitresur le pronom o elle tait originellement.
L'dition incunable et le ms. F peuventnous aider rflchirsur ces
deux hypothses.En effet,l'incunable prsentele passage sur le verbe
substantif
en deux endroits: une premirefois (la) dans le chapitresur
le verbe,en suivantle rattachement
du bloc [2](C-D2) au prcdent,opr
par C, avec exactementles mmes modifications
par rapportaux premires versionsdes Glosulae
: ommissionde (B), substitution
de (D2) (D1) ;
une seconde fois (Ib) dans le chapitresur le pronom: or en cet endroit,
nous trouvonsl'ensemblecomplet(B-F), tel qu'il taitoriginellement
dans
K et M, et tel qu'il se trouveencore dans V. En outre,la et /, pour la
section (C) qu'ils ont en commun,n'ont pas les mmes leons: la suit
manifestement
C, et Ib est proche de M-V, et souventdavantage de V
que de M (voir l'apparat). Si l'on considrele regroupementdes passages, la situationde doublet que prsentel'incunable faitpluttpencher
en faveurde l'hypothse(b). Mais si l'on considreles leons diffrentes
retenuesdans la et dans Ib on a deux possibilits: soit l'incunable suivait les manuscritsles plus anciens qui donnaientla section(B-F) dans le
chapitresur le pronom,et a simplementcopi C pour la sectiondplace dans le chapitresur le verbe - ce qui ne nous dit rien sur ce que C
avait gard dans le chapitresur le pronom; soit l'incunable a suivi les
manuscritsanciens dans le chapitresur le pronom,et non pas C, parce
que C n'avait plus en cet endroitles dveloppementssur le verbe substantifen leur totalitdu faitqu'il les avait dplacs dans le chapitresur
le verbe,ce qui nous donne l'hypothse(a). Quoiqu'il en soit,le faitque
l'incunable ait ici et passimsuivi plusieursmanuscritsou un manuscrit
contaminrend l'interprtation
de son tmoignageproblmatique.

15:04:07 PM

182

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

Une indicationsupplmentairesur ces remaniementsnous est fournie

par le ms. F. En effet,F (f. 3 Ivb) omet tout simplementl'excursus(A)
sur les diffrentes
enchaopinionsdonnes propos du verbe substantif,
nant directementla findu passage VIII, 37 sur le passage VIII, 38 : De
Par ailleurs,dans le chapitresur le pronom, il donne la glose
tempore.
initialesur XIII, 20 = [2](B), mais la faitsuivredirectementdes sections
(E-F), en modifiantet abrgeantle texte.F omet donc en faitl'ensemble de la sectionregroupepar C, savoir (A) + (C-D), ce qui incite
penser qu'il a travaill partirde C. En outre,la prsence de la glose
sur XIII, 20 suivie immdiatementpar la section (E) peut fairepenser
que C avait dplac la section(C-D) du chapitresur le pronom dans le
chapitredu verbe,sans la laisserdans le chapitredu pronom,o il avait
gard simplement(B) -I-(E-F) ce qui correspond notre hypothse(a).
Ceci expliqueraitaussi que I (=Ib) ait recopi ces sectionssur les manuscritsles plus anciens,qui l'avaientdans le chapitresur le pronom,et non
sur C, qui l'avait dplace.
du verbe
2. La definition
substantif
essentielles
du verbesubstantif
sehnles Glosulae etAblard
2.1. Les proprits
Les Glosulaes'interrogent,
dans leur commentairesur le chapitreconsasur la manire dont la dfinitiondu verbe
cr au verbe des Institutions,
convenir
au
verbe
substantif,
qui ne semble pas signifierune
pourrait
actionet une passiondfinie,commeles autresverbes(cf.texteen annexe:
[1]=(A)). Aprsavoirmentionnplusieursopinions ce sujet(A2-5),qu'il
elles rapportent, la finde cette
seraitintressantde pouvoir identifier,
une
soutenue
un
section,
par
grand nombre de grammairiens
position
( plerque
), qui leur semble pertinente(A6). Celle-ci va tre reprisedans
le chapitresur le pronom [2](C2), ce qui a certainementconstitula
raisonpour laquelle le ms. C l'a accole au dernierparagraphede la section [1] dans le chapitresur le verbe. Une foistablie la signification
du
verbe substantif,
l'auteur va dcrireles fonctionsqu'il peut occuper et
dtaillerses diffrentes
constructions
(C3 sq.).
Selon la positionretenue,le verbe 'es possde une double nature,que
: une nature ou
dnote son appellationmme de verbum
substantivum
vient
de
ce
est
verbum
une
autre
,
propritqui
qu'il
qui vientde ce qu'il
est substantivum.
, il signifiel'action et la passion comme inhren(a) En tant que verbe
tes (opinionqui est dcritecomme rare). 'Es est dit signifier
l'action,

15:04:07 PM

ABELARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

183

au sens o il signifietoutesles actionsqui peuventtre signifiespar les

autresverbes,la lecture,la courseetc. en tantqu'elles sontdans des sujets
(A6, C2, C324).
il signifie toutesles choses en leur essence,
(b) En tant que substantifs
c'est--direen tant qu'elles existent ou toutesles dix essencesen tant
qu'elles existent (ibid.).
Une consquenceimportantede cetteconceptionest que le verbe substantifest considr comme quivoque, et ce double titre,(a) Tout
d'abord, en tant que verbe
, il signifiequivoquementtoutesles actions et
tre
signifiespar les verbes; (b) ensuite,en tant
passions qui peuvent
il
que substantif,signifiequivoquementtoutesles essences,toutesles choses en tant qu'elles existent,substances,qualits etc., cette seconde quivocit tant leve dans le cas o il est utilisen tertium
adiacens
, puisque
la naturede l'attributest alors manifeste(C2 et 5)25.Cette seconde quivocit (b) est analogue celle du nom ens' qui renvoiequivoquement
toutesles essences(C2 ; cf. A2). On notera que le glosateur,annonant par anticipation,plus haut dans le chapitre,le dveloppementque
l'on trouvedans notrepassage en (A), avait pluttmis l'accent sur la premire quivocit(a) :
De substantivis
autemetvocativis
verbis
restt
: dequiquaestio,
quidnamsignificent
sententias
insequenti
busvarias
Sufficiat
autemad praesens
magistrorum
ponemus26.
quod
dicimus
: substantivum
verbum
add.M) nonessedicendum
unumverbum,
sed
(idest
- estenimaequivocum
cumnonunameteandem
actionem
inesse
multa,
significet
sedmultas
etvariasactiones
(Kf.28rb,M f.5lva)
Il est intressant
de remarquerque cettedouble quivocit,que l'on rencontreici dans la premireversiondes Glosulae
, est ensuitesignalecomme
une opinion soutenue par MagisterW27,ce qui confirmeque l'on met
sous le nom de Guillaumede Champeaux des thsesqu'il a certainement
24Voirinfra
n. 62 et 63.
25VoiraussiSententia
dansle Tractatus
Prisciani
I, uneopinion
(ms.
glosarum
rapporte
du premier
etpas1977,37: 21-6.Pourl'quivocit
F), cit.parFredborg
type(actions
voirNotae
Dunelmenses
cite.
sions),
II, ms.D, f.35r,premire
opinion
26Commel'avaitnotR. Hunt(1941-43,
se trouve
dansF
196,n. 2), cettemention
a laissde cttoutle passage la finde VIII, 37,ce qui mon(f.29ra),qui pourtant
treque c'estbienuneversion
abrge.
27Sententia
I rapporte
dansV,d.Fredborg
1977,37: 3-8: Vel secundum
magistrm
W. 'sum'aequivocum
estad omnesactiones
etpassiones
etad omnesessentias.
Atqueex
actionem
velpassionem,
sicutceteraverba
eo, quodverbum
est,solumhabetcopulare
solum.
solum
suasactiones
etpassiones
rebus
ut'legit'
lectionem
subiectis,
copulant
copulat
'Socrates
essentiam
Exeo vero,quodverbum
substantivum
est,copulat
essentiarum,
utpote

estanimal'.

15:04:07 PM

184

IRENEROSIER-GATACH

professeset contribu populariser,sans qu'il en soit ncessairement

se voitparfoisexplil'auteur28.La double signification
du verbe substantif
que de manire gntique: les verbes ont d'abord t inventspour
signifierles actions et les passions comme adjacentes,et l'on a ensuite
et
copulatwum
qui puisse signifier,
jug ncessaired'inventerun vocabulum
donc coupler, toutesles essences en tant qu'essences29.Certains en ont
un autre type d'quivotir argumentpour assignerau verbe substantif
des actionset passionsd'une part,
cit,venantde sa double signification,
des essencesd'autrepart. Selon le tmoignagedes NotaeDunelmenses
, maen arguantque les deux significations
treG. auraitrejetce typed'quivocit,
accien tantque signification
sonthirarchises,
principaleet signification
une distinctionimportantequ'il
dentelleou secondairerespectivement30,
utiliseen d'autresoccasions31.
deux
ou natures du verbe 'tre'dfinissent
Les deux significations
fonctions.Sa natureverbale (a) lui confreune valeur de couplage (C3),
sa nature de substantif
(b) le rend apte coupler les essences, rendre
cohrentes celle que signifiele sujet et celle que signifiele prdicat
aptumestad hocut quassignificai,
(C4 : namex hocquodomnesresin essentia
libetressibi coherentes
copulare
possit).Ces fonctionsse ralisentdiversement
contextesd'emploi. Dans ces textes,les grammairiens
selon ses diffrents
natura
du verbe,et
bien entred'un ct la significatio,
, proprietas
distinguent
Le
d'un autre ct la fonctionexerce dans une construction{officium).
termevisest souventquivalentaux premires,comme dans l'importante
28Pourd'autres
voirRosier-Catach
2003a.
exemples,
29Notae
Dunelmenses
228-9(septime
; Guillaume
II, citparHunt1941-43,
cite)
opinion
BnFlat.15130,f.27va(cf.Pierre
de Conches,
Glosae
inPriscianum,
ms.Paris,
Hlie,Summa
: 82): (1)Dicunttamen
Priscianum
197: 77-198
, d.Reilly,
quidamquodhocverbo
super
inprimainventione
actionem
talem'sum'idest'inter
reslocum
quamdam,
significaverunt
estad substantiam
idest
obtineo'
; seddeindetranslatum
significandam.
Ergonaturaliter,
sed ex translatione
substantiam.
Undedicit
ex primainventione
actionem,
significat
naturaliter
estin actione
velin passione.
Priscianus
: omneverbum
(2) Aliidicunt
quod
actionem
et
'sum'significat
omnia,
(3) Et dicunt
quod'sum'significat
ergoet actionem.
ut'sumlegens',
hiesignificat
actiosednonperse immoexadiuncto
passionem,
participii,
actionem
hiesignificat
nem,'sumlectus',
(4)Aliidicunt
quod'sum'significat
passionem.
etsubiecti,
ubiesttertium
adiacens
ut'Socrates
esthomo'... .
idestinherentiam
predicati
30Notae
: Cumautem
'curritur'
'cursus
fit'intelligitur,
Dunelmenses
, D, f.9bisva
significatio
hancsignificationem
estabusivaet ex accidenti
ei data.Undenecpropter
aequivocum
licetdiversa
sitab alia,cumnonex principali
eaminventione
habeatsedex
iudicatur,
accidenti
etc.Eademenimratioestqua M.G.vultdefendere
substantivum
ab aequivocaut inhaerentem
etc.et posteaiuxtahanc
actionem
tione,quodprincipaliter
significat
ex accidenti
substantiam
undeappellatur
substantivum
sig/9bisvb/nificationem
significat
et estsubstantivum
verbum
verbietc.
verbum,
quasi
species
31VoirRosier-Catach
2003a.

15:04:07 PM

ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS
ABLARD

185

(C3), mais
affirmation
suivante: secundum
vimverbi<est> habetcopulare
il est parfoisutiliscomme synonyme officium32,
ce double usage rendant
parfoisl'expos imprcis.Il y a en tout cas une relationtrs explicite
entrela natureet la fonction.On retrouveracetteide chez Ablard,qui
va galementlier les propritsintrinsquesdpendant de l'imposition
la fonctionque le termeoccupe dans une proposition
, inventio)
(impositio
De mme que, pour les Glosulae
, les propritsintrinsquesdu
(officium).
intervenir
termepeuventse maintenir l'tat latent,sans ncessairement
dans une constructiondonne (c'est le cas, comme nous le verrons,de
o le verbe estest suivi d'un attribut),
la vis verbidans les constructions
dfinitune aptitude,par exemple
de mme, pour Ablard, l'institution
l'aptitude coupler, qui n'est pas ncessairementen acte dans une
donne33.
construction
Ablard mentionnel'opinion de ceux qui suiventPriscien (<quidam
Prisciano
adhaer
entes
une double valeur,
), et accordentau verbe substantif
verbale et substantive,en des termesexactementidentiques ceux des
Glosulae
, et, d'ailleurs,dans la Dialctica
, avec la formulequ'il utilisefr
. . . 34.
de son matre: memini
quemmentpour renvoyer l'enseignement
Il garde l'ide d'une double valeur pour le verbe substantif,
une valeur
substantiveet une valeur verbale,mais avec des modifications
importandes grammairiens
tes pour la seconde. Il accepte donc la vissubstantivi
(b),
' a t
selonlaquellele verbe'tre
impos toutesles chosesen tantqu'essenles
ces35,mais rejetteavec virulencela vis verbitelle que la dfinissent

32Gbsulae,
annexe(C4): ... sedaliud<est> agerede vocibus
perse consideratis,
L'usagemdiinoratione
relatis.
aliudde eisdem
ad vimetofficium
posite
quodhabent
valde cestermes
estmarqu
II, 19 (GLK II, 55: 20-21):
parle passagedesInstitutiones
Nonenimdeclinado,
estcontemplanda
sedvisetsignificatio
, pasuniuscuiusque
partis
n'estpastrsriche cetendroit.
Surd'autres
desGlosulae
sagesurlequelle commentaire
l'histoire
destermes
et vis
contextes
, ainsique les
officium
pertinents
quant cettenotion,
de Guillaume
de Conches
et de la Summa
de Pierre
commentaires
desGlosae
Hlie,voir
Fredborg
1973b,22-7.
33Dial.I, 129: 25-6: Quoditaquedixitverbum
essenotameorumque de
semper
subomneverbum
monstravit
habereofficium
alteropredicantur,
predicatum
copulandi
referendum
immoad verborum
iectonecilludsemper
ad temporum,
comprehensionem
tarnen
secundum
necaliquidcopulare
est.Potest
enimverbum
; semper
perse proferri
suamcopulativum
est.
inventionem
34Dial.I, 133: 5-7,citinfra
, n. 66; Sup.Per.,346: 13-24.
35Dial.I, 131 : 4-9: ... ut'est'quodsubstantivum
eo videlicet
verbum
dicitur,
quod
alicuius
adiacentiam.
suamsitimpositum,
nonsecundum
omnibus
secundum
essentiam
rerum
essentias
inherentiam
Undeetiamquaslibet
potest,
quod
copulare
equesecundum
itaetiam'egonuncuconcedunt.
Sicutenim'sumPetrus'
etiamde nuncupativo
dicimus,
n. 37).
... . Sup.Per.347 : 32-7(citinfra
porPetrus'
proferimus.

15:04:07 PM

186

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

Glosulae(a), savoir que le verbe tresignifierait

toutesles actionset passions et la repense comme une valeur de couplage (vis copulandi
). Alors
il
dans
la
Dial,
s'tait

vivement
refusant
que
oppos Aristote,
l'intgration de la consignification
temporelledans la dfinitiondu verbe36,il
remetcelle-ci au premierplan dans Sup. Per. et l'associe la valeur de
couplage comme caractristiquede tout verbe37.Le verbe substantifse
voit attribuerune double fonction.La premireest donc cettevaleur de
), qui lui permetde coupler le prdicatau sujet
couplage (viscopulandi
nous verronsultrieurement
selon quelles modalits.La seconde est ce
nomme
la
valeur
), qui lui permet
qu'Ablard
predicative(vispraedicandi
de poser la chose qu'il prdique et qu'il signifie, savoir l'existence,
de mme qu'un verbecomme 'curri
, couple et pose la chose qu'il signifie,
la course. Enfin,Ablard mentionnela thse de la double quivocit,
, et selonla vissubstantivy
quivocitselonla visverbi
pour la rejeter.Comme
nous le verronsil la critiquedans la Dial, mais plus encore dans le Sup.
Per.,en commentantun passage essentielde Boce, surlequel nous reviendronsde faon approfondie: nous voulonsque le verbe substantif,
selon
savoir en tant qu'il signifietoutesles
une seule et mme signification,
choses en leur essence,soit substantif,
et verbe. . . 38.

36Dialctica
I, d.t., 123,2-5: voirde Rijk1986,89-91.
37Sup.Per.,347: 32-7: Ita edam'ens',cumidem
dicatetde praedicamentis
semper
dicitur
etin eademsignificatione
simuletsubstantivum
estetverbum,
substanaequivoce
in eo quodpersonas
tivum
suasin essentia
continet
etnonex adiacenti
quidem
significai
autemin eo quodveltempus
velcopu(exaccidentali
significatione
B),verbum
significat

larehabet,
B a.c.)reddit.
orationis
A,perfectionem
perquodpropositionem
(perfectionem
Ibid
assezproche
estcite,sansattribution,
., 361: 21; Sup.Top.,274: 36-7.Uneopinion
danslesNotae
Dunelmenses
35 (adVIII,51,GLK
II, ms.D, f.35r,cit.parHunt1941-43,
hocverbum
nonesseinventum
ad significandas
actioII, 414: 8 sq.): Aliiautemdicunt
nesvelpassiones
utadiacentes,
sedad significandas
resin essentia
etsubstantia
quaslibet
illudnuncupaverunt,
verbum
autem
sua,undeetsubstantivum
appellaverunt
propter
quasdamproprietates
conveniunt
utpropter
declinationem
quesolisverbis
quashabet,
perverbalesmodos,
distinctionem
secunpropter
personarum,
propter
significationem
temporis
dumdiscretionem
verbalium
ad ultimum
edampropter
vimcopulandi,
in quo
vocum,
maxime
fuitnecessarium
... . Le grammairien
la signification
actionetde pasrejette
sionen s'appuyant
surPriscien
lui-mme
: Nechuicsententie
obestquoda quibusdam
dicitur
nonpossehocmodoesseverbum
cumquodestprincipale
verbinonhabeat,
id
estsignificationem
actionis
velpassionis.
id estin tractatu
Ipseauctorenimin sequenti,
de cognatone
a communi
ceterorum
verborum
et subtemporum,
excipiet
significatione
stantiva
etvocativa
verba.Undemanifeste
demonstrat
ab hacetiamdiffinitione
excipienda
et passionis
mentionem
facitet ab omnibus
aliispreceptis
esse,secundum
quodactionis
in quibusde significatone
ac>tionis
etpassionis
etc.
agitur
38Sup.Per.,347: 23-325et 34-35: Volumus
in eadem
substantivum
itaqueverbum
scilicet
in essentia,
et substantivum
retentum,
esse,et
significatione
quodomniasignificat

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

187

2.2. La vis copulandi

Cette valeur de couplage, viscopulandi
ou vis copulationis
, dpend la fois
d'un passage du PeriHermeneias
(16b7), o Aristotedfinitle verbe comme
marque de ce qui est affirmde l'autre [terme]) (estsemper
eorum
quae
AL
d'un
sur
le verbe
de alteropraedicantur
nota
et
autre
,
7, 2-3),
passage
substantif
(16b 22-25), dont nous montrerons
plus bas l'importance.C'est
en discutantce dernierque Boce introduitle verbe copulare
, que repren39- dont le mritene
drontles Glosulaeen en tirantle nologismecopula
l'opinion reue40.
revientdonc pas Ablard, contrairement
Ablard mentionnedes opinions divergentessur l'interprtation
de la
celles des
dfinitiondu verbe, dont certainesrenvoientmanifestement
ait
Sur le plan chronologique,il sembleque la viscopulandi
grammairiens.
t d'abord introduitepar les Glosulaedans leurs discussionssur les verbes substantif
et vocatif41.En effet,les dveloppementssur la dfinition
du verbe en gnral se concentrentdans un premiertemps essentiellement sur les difficults
et sur la distincposes par la notion inhrence
tion des verbespar rapportaux noms drivs(nomina
Par contre,
sumpta).
dans les textesde la seconde gnrationdes Glosulae(et avec des mentionsexplicites matreW.), cetteviscopulandi
est intgredans la dfinition
du verbe en gnral,comme une de ses troisproprits42.
C'est donc dans les passages sur le verbe substantif
que s'introduitchez
les grammairienscettevaleur de couplage, mme si l'expressionviscopulandin'y apparat pas encore. Elle est clairementlie la valeur verbale (secundum
vimverbihabetcopulare
un double
(C3)). Et elle intervient
en
raison
de
sa
le
double signification, verbe 'tre*peut
titre,puisque,

in ipso... et in eademsignificatone
simulet substantiet idemsemper
notri
verbum,
vumestetverbum
. Voirinfra
, par.4.2.
39Voirinfra
citsnote60.
, par.3, et lespassages
40Cf.Kahn1972,142,Kretzmann
is the
1982,492,n. 18,Kahn1986,5 (Abelard
oftheclassical
ofthecopula),Nuchelmans
inventor
orat leastthecodifier
1992,
theory
de la notion
de copulechezAristote,
voirDe Rijk2002,32 sq;
14-6,etc.Surl'absence
dansl'laboration
de cettenotion,
voiribid
247.Surle rled'Ammonius
., 235.Il est
noter
esteffectivement
utilis
dansla Dialctica
de Garlandus
(cf.ibid.,
237)quele terme
copula
de l'ouvrage
ont
etl'attribution
(d.De Rijk,57: 31-59: 37).Maisla datation
Compotista
a tprotremis
en causeparY. Iwakuma
etunedatation
(1992,47-54),
plustardive
auxcrits
de logique Ablard
pose,postrieure
(cf.infra).
41Un autrecontexte
le problme
tantde savoirce qui le disestceluidu participe,
la signification
du verbe,alorsqu'ila en commun
de l'inhrence
d'unaccident.
tingue
des Glosulae
Des positions
sontdfendues
, et
A., qui suitl'opinion
opposes
parmatre
matre
W.; voirRosier-Catach
2003a.
42VoirRosier-Catach
2003a.

15:04:07 PM

188

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

raliser la fois le couplage de l'action et de la passion (ex hocquodest

ei actionem
concedamus
, ibid.),et le couplage de toutes les
verbum,
copulare
essences en tant qu'essences (cf. passage cit. supra),ainsi que l'explique
bien matreG.43.C'est donc par croisementd'une propritgnraleavec
ces deux significations,
que cettedouble aptitudeau couplage va trerendue possible,bien que, nous le verrons,elle ne soit pas toujoursactualiva tre dgage
se. On comprendainsi, d'une part que la vis copulandi
et ainsi
comme propritgnrale du verbe et intgre sa dfinition,
d'actionet de passion,d'autrepartqu'Ablard,
dissociede la signification
d'action et de pasune fois qu'il a t de la vis verbicette signification
la vis verbi.
cette vis copulandi
sion, va identifier
Avec la seconde gnrationdes Glosulaeet textesapparents,la viscopulandiest en effetrapatriedans la dfinitiondu verbe en gnral,et lui
de
est assignecomme une troisimeproprit, ct de la signification
de
l'action et de la passion en tant qu'inhrentes,et de la signification
la personneen laquelle inhrel'action et la passion. On trouveplusieurs
du verbe,
de la viscopulandi
dans la dfinition
tmoinsde cetteintgration
Priscien
C
des
Glosulae
sur
soit
dans
le
ms.
ce
majeur44,dans les
que
dans les NotaeDunelmenses
Glosulaesur Priscienmineur45,
46,et cetteide est
nommmentattribue MagisterW. dans une extrapolationdes Glosulae
contenuedans le ms. V47.Cette vis copulandi
, prsentedans les verbes
43MatreG<uido?>, ms.O, p. 386b,d. Kneepkens
1978,120,n. 36: Verbasubetexhocquodsuntsubstantiva,
verbahabent
stantiva
exhocquodsunt
significant
copulare,
aliicopulare.
Ex hoc
Et propter
hocduo habentunamessentiam
ressuasin essentia.
: 'Istaresest
adiicopulant,
habent
huncsensum
autemquodunamessentiam
quoddicunt
ilia'.
44Le passagese trouve
desms. M
dansC f.34raet dansl'incunable
; il estabsent
et V.
45Ms.A,f. 137ra(ad XVII, 17),cit.dansRosier2003a,n. 24.
46Notae
Dunelmenses
2, ms.D ad VIII, 1,f.34vb,cit.dansRosier2003a,n. 24.
47Sententia
d.parFredborg
desGlosulae
1977,35: 3, V, f.42rb-43va,
I, extrapolation
actionem
: omneverbum
W : haecsententia
37: 14: M<agistri>
significat
principaliter
hunc
secundum
nonsecundum
velpassionem
secundum
quodinhaeret
quodinhaeret,
secundaria
. . . Estet aliorverborum
omnium
modum
significatio
quodscilicet
personam
et tertiam
secundum
significet
quodactiovelpassioinestilli,ei. . . Habetautemverbum
- nonex hocquodestverbum,
nonhabet- secunsignifications
quiailludomneverbum
Priscianum
valetsecundum
dumquamcompositum
habet
intellectum
, ut 'lego'tantum
(XVII,
est'ego'nisicausa
17,GLK III, 118)quantum
'egolego'necaliquomodoaddendum
inCategoriis
<non>significant
discretionis.
(cf.2a10-11),'incomplexa
QuodveroAristoteles
secundum
hoc
estde 'currit'
verum
velfalsum
uthomo,<album>,curri,
intelligendum
hocquodtaleverbum
est.Hancautemsignificationem
nonsecundum
quodestverbum,
illudnon
ut 'legitur'.
Infinitivus
habentomniaimpersonalia
et quaedam[im]
personalia
falsumve
sedcompositum
verum
habet.Necdicoomniahuiusmodi
intellectum,
significare,

15:04:07 PM

ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS
ABELARD

189

est toujoursassocie l'ide que le verbe produitune intellecl'indicatif,

Le passage de Prisciensur la comtion compose {compositum
intellectum).
pltude des verbes de premirepersonne(XVII, 17) fournitle contexte
de la discussion,puisqu'effectivement
'lego'prsente lui seul l'intellection
ce mmepassagequ'Ablard
d'une proposition
entire.C'est en renvoyant
et
cette
cette
critiquejoue un rle importantdans
critique
conception48,
is49.Ce parallle confirme
l'laborationde sa thoriedu dictum
proposition:
bien la relationentrela seconde gnrationdes Glosulaeet Guillaume de
Champeaux, et met nouveau en videncel'influenceque ces textesont
eu sur Ablard. Or cette discussionintervient,
chez Ablard, propos
d'un passage du PeriHermeneias
, qui, par l'intermdiairedes commentaires de Boce, s'avre jouer un rle capital dans les discussionssur le
verbe substantif,
et dans l'laborationde deux thoriesde la prdication,
nous
tudierons
ultrieurement.
que
et Bocesurle verbesubstantif
3. Porphyre
3.1. Les difficults
de Peri Hermeneias 16b20-25
La traductionde Boce du passage sur le verbe substantif,que nous
reproduisonsci-dessoustelle que nous le lisonsdans l'ditioncritique,est
en faitsusceptible,pour la clause en italique (x), de deux lectures,selon
'
qu'on comprend(1) qu'il s'agit l des verbes'esse'et 'nonesse {treet n'tre
pas ne sont pas signes d'une chose), comme l'diteur,ou (2) que l'on
considreque le verbe,sujetde la phrase(w),l'estencoredans (x),l'expos
sur le verbe substantif
ne commenantque dans la clause suivante(y)50:
ut 'legerevaleo',ergo<***> legerenontarnen
i.e. necfuithocex
verum
velfalsum,

inditum
sedex usuhominum
verbo,
prima
positione
postea.
48Sup.Per
., 357-9.
49Sup.Per.,358: 32 VoirJacobi& al. 1995,Rosier-Catach
( paratre).
sq.
monattention
surla
Barneset BarbaraCassind'avoirattir
Je remercie
Jonathan
retedu textegrec,la position
difficult
de ce passage.
Surlesdiffrentes
leonspossibles
nueparles commentateurs
Ammonius
la leoncorrespongrecs(Alexandre,
qui retient
retient
dant 1 avecla lecture
de (x),Porphyre
qui,selonAmmonius,
mtalinguistique
la leon2),etparBoce,voirWagner
1971,Weidemann
1994,181-7(quioptepourla
(2),contre
Ackrill
etla majorit
desmodernes
lecture
(1))et
correspondant
quichoisissent
et De Rijk2003(210-227),
l'extensive
discussion
de De Rijk2002(215-48)
qui
critique
dcrit
en outrede manire
dtaille
leschoixet hsitations
de Boce,ainsique le dveIl optepour(2),d'ola
de Thomasd'Aquin,
lesdeuxlectures.
loppement
quijustapose
is nota signofthething's
traduction
: Forit [i.e.theverbtakenbyitself]
[i.e.the
semantic
valuesignified
byit]being(thecase),ornotbeing(thecase).Theword'be-ing',
ifitis usedbarely,
Forbyitself
itis nothing,
butithelpssignify
is notsucha signeither.

15:04:07 PM

190

IRENEROSIER-GAT
ACH
secundum
se dictaverbanomina
et significant
sunt,
(v)Ipsaquidem
aliquid- cons- (w)sedsi estvelnonest,
tituenimqui dicitintellectum,
et qui auditquiescit
*esse
3
enim
estreivel'non
nondum
esse',
(x)Meque
signum
(y)necsi hocipsum
significai,
'est'(est]ensReJz)purum
dixeris.
autem
(z) Ipsumquidemnihilest,consignificat
nonestintelligere
3,
(PeHermeneias
compositionem,
quamsinecompositis
quandam
AL II/ 1-2,7 : 14-19).
d. Minio-Paluello,
16b20-25,

La premirelecture(1) seraitquelque chose comme: (v) En eux-mmes

et par eux-mmesces verbes sont des noms, et signifient
quelque chose.
et l'espritde celui qui
Celui qui les prononce constitueune intellection,
l'entendse trouveau repos, (w) mais il ne signifiepas encore ce qui est
'
3 ou Vte
ou n'est pas. (x) Et *tre
, (y) et pas
pas n'estpas le signed'unechose
non plus si 'tre' est prononc seul par lui-mme. Il est induitpar la
typographiede l'dition critique,que nous avons reproduite,qui d'une
' '
part insre les guillemetsautour de esse et 'nonesse' d'autre part rattache le membre de phrase en italiques non la clause qui prcde (w)
(qui porte sur le verbe en gnral),mais celle qui suit (portantelle sur
'es), formantainsi un bloc (x-y).Boce, en un courtpassage introductif
de In PH2 , semble comprendrele textede cettefaon,puisqu'il le glose
clairementen disantque 'tre'qui est un verbe,et 'n'trepas' qui estun
rien :
verbeindfini,ne sontpas signesd'une chose et donc ne signifient
est rei essevel nonesse,taiequiddam
est: 'esse',quodverequeenimsignum
reiid estnihil
verbum
bumest,vel'nonesse',quodinfinitum
est,nonestsignum
nonponitur
'esse'enimnisiin aliquacompositione
[De Rijk2002,
perse significat.
nisiin aliqua
justetitre
de lire: 'esse'enim<nihilsignificat>
220,n. 110propose
lesguillemets).
[non]ponitur
] (InPH2, 76: 10-5- je restitue
compositione
et implique la foisde ne pas
(2) La seconde lectureest fortdiffrente,
des verbesdans (x) et donc de ne pas
avoir une lecturemtalinguistique
mettreles verbes entreguillemets,mais aussi de ponctuerautrementle
texte,en rattachantla propositionen italiques(x) celle qui la prcde
comme formantun bloc (w-x),lecturequi semble plus plausible en raison du 'mm'qu'elle comporte.Le sens est alors le suivant(correspondant une ponctuationdiffrente
de celle de l'dition): ... (w) mais il
ne signifiepas encore ce qui est ou n'estpas ; (x) il (= le verbe)ne signifie
en effetpas qu'une chose est ou n'est pas. (y) Et il en va de mme de
'tre9
prononc par lui-mme; (z) en lui-mmeil n'est rien... . Cette
(248).
somesortofcomposition,
which
cannot
be thought
ofwithout
whatis composed
Nousrenvoyons
cestudes
la tradition
nousconcenpourtoutce quiconcerne
grecque,
trant
icisurBoceet soninfluence.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

191

seconde lecture correspondexactementau dcoupage du passage que

donne Boce dans son premiercommentaire,et la glose qu'il en propose. En effet,il glose d'abord le bloc (w-x)(In PHI , 64 : 13-4),comprenantdonc que la phraseen italiques(x) parle toujoursdu verbeen gnral,
et ne sert qu' renforcerce qui est dit dans la phrase prcdente(w),
que le verbe ne signifiepas l'existenceou la non existence:
Cumenimdico'curri
hocipsum'curri
sedsi est aut
significai
quidemaliquid,
ESTNONDUM
ENIM
NON
SIGNIFICAT
ESSESIGNUM
ESTREIAUTNON
ESSE.Quod
; NEQUE
tantum
valettamquam
si dicam: id quoddico'curri
nonsignificai
esseipsum
cursumautnonesse.Si enimsignificare^
itadicere
tur: 'currere
est'vel'currere
non
est'.Nuncautem'currinondsignt
esseipsamremvelnonesse.Dicitur
enim
solum
etestintellectus
sedequeadfirmationem
quidam,
significat
equenegationem,
idcirco
... (InPHI, 64: 22-65: 4).
quodequeponitremessenecearninterimit
Puis Boce propose en un second bloc (y-z) la suite du texte: Nec si
hoc ipsumest purumdixeris. Ipsumquidemnihil est . . . (65 : 9-12), o
il est question,alors et alorsseulement
, du verbe substantif
, n. 52).
(cf. infra
Dans son deuximecommentaire,Boce propose,aprs la justification
de
la premirelecturedu passage rapporteci-dessus,une justification
de la
'
seconde,qu'il prfre(In PH2 , 76 : 26-7), introduitepar un veVqui mar: il comprendalors(x) comme
que bien qu'il s'agitd'une lecturealternative
et
comme
du
verbe
en gnral,et non du verbe
appuyant(w),
parlant
la diffrence
de la premireglose d'abord propose:
substantif,
du passagecitplushaut)Vel certeomneverbum
dictum
(suiteimmdiate
perse
sedsi estvelnonest,nondum
Nonenimcum
significat
quidemaliquid,
significat.
idcirco
autesseautnonessesignificat.
fuerit,
aliquiddictum
Atquehocestquod
ait: equeenimsignum
est rei essevel nonesse.Etenim
dsiquamremverbum
gnt,esseeiusvelnonessenonestsignum
ipsumverbum,
quodde illare dicitur,
ac si sicdiceret
: nequeenimsignum
estverbum
reiessevelnonesse,
quoddicitur
hocestde qua dicitur
si
re,utid quoddicoreiessevelnonessetalesit,tamquam
dicamremipsamsignificare
essevelnonesse... (InPH2,76: 15-26).
La lecture(1) spare donc (v-w)de (x-y-z)faisantcommencerl'expos sur
le verbe substantif
en (x) ; la lecture(2) spare (v-w-x),qui porte sur le
verbe, de (y-z) qui porte sur 'es. Notons qu'Ablard semble choisirla
seconde lecture,sans s'y tendreparticulirement
: il glose d'abord (v-w)
:
357
en
le
(Sup. Per.,
16-35), puis (x)
comprenantcomme rattach ce

qui prcde (ibid.,357 : 35-6 : Vere non significatsensumaffirmationis

vel negationis,quia non est signumrei esse vel non esse. A descriptione
significandi
quod est signumesse ; cf. Ed. Sup. Per.,83 : 41-2), et enfin
(y-z)(Sup.Per.,357 : 36 sq.), en prtant,nous allons le voir,une attention
particulire (z).

15:04:07 PM

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

192

Pour la traditiongrecque, se pose la difficultsupplmentaire,qui

de la lecture alternatived'un
concerne en fait les deuxinterprtations,
dans
d'une
forme
verbale
(y), et de dterminers'ils
participepluttque
doiventtrepriscomme autonymesou non. Les consquencessontimporne se prsentepas pour
tantes,sur le plan doctrinal.Or cette difficult
la
choisit
lecture
Boce, parce qu'il
autonymiqueet lit majoritairement

'ens'
le
considrant
'est'
(par ex. In PH2 , 78 : 19-20)51.Pour
quivalent
cetteraison,la discussion,va, chez lui, se focalisersur le verbe 'esf pour
la maniredont on peut dire qu'il n'est rien, et si (et comdterminer
vaut selon qu'il est utilisseul (purum)ou non,
cette
affirmation
ment)
et la (ou les) valeur(s)du
ainsi
l'attention
sur la signification
polarisant
'
verbe est. Cette attentionparticulireva avoir des rpercussionsessentiellessur les dveloppementsdu xie et du xnesicles.
3.2. eEs n'estrien
sur l'affirmation
d'Aristote,selon laquelle 'est' n'estrien,
S'interrogeant
Boce explique que celui-cine veut pas dire qu'il n'a pas de signification
(ce qui contrediraitsa naturede verbe),mais seulementqu'il ne signifie
dictum)52.
pas encore le vrai et le faux quand il est utilisseul (simpliciter
Boce se pose ensuitela questionde savoir pourquoi, selon Aristote(cf.
son intellectionqu'en jonction avec autre chose.
(z)), il ne constituerait
il
Pour rpondre, va passeren revueles diffrents
typesd'emploidu verbe
le cas o il est utilisseul (1), de celui o il est
en distinguant
substantif,
utilisen compositionavec un prdicat(2). Dans In PHI , il prendl'exemple d'un prdicatsubstantiel(2.1), dans In PH2 celui d'un prdicatnon
substantiel(2.2). Nous avons ainsi:
est(In PH2)
(1) Homoest (In PHI), Socrates
(2.1) Homoanimalest (In PHI)
est(In PH2)
(2.2) Socrates
philosophus

51Voirles rfrences
De Rijk2002,219 sq. et 244 sq. et De
citesn. prcdentes;
2002,221,n. 12et 2003,214,n. 20 pourlesrfRijk2003,215sq. (cf.respectivement
comment
Thomas
rences
Boce).De Rijk(2002,238-41
; 2003,223-6)montre
galement
ducommentaire
nouvelle
d'Ammonius,
peutau contraire
grce sa connaissance
d'Aquin,
cettedifficult.
dessolutions
voirlesimplications
importantes
52InPHI, 65: 17-24: Nec si hoc ipsum
est purum
dixerisessealiquidautnonesse
nihil
dictum
autnegat,
idcirco
id estautaffirmat
quodipsumestsimpliciter
significai,
habeatequefalsinihilsignificet,
sedquodnihilequeveritatis
est,nonquodomnino
sedad veritatis
id estnonnihilestad significationem,
tatis,
falsitatisque
significationem,

de qua nunctractabitur.

15:04:07 PM

ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS
ABLARD

193

Dans son second commentaire,il nous prcise la source de ces distincdonne par Alexandre
tions, savoirPorphyre,qui discutel'interprtation
ce
mme
de
passage.
est compos un
Dans In PHI , Boce explique que lorsque 'tre*
'homoesi
il
ou plus
dans
a
alors
une
valeur
comme
existentielle,
(1),
sujet,

il
l'tre
du
dans
les
termes
de
constitue
l'auteur,
sujet ;
prcisment,

il

composerou couplerdeux
lorsqu'ilest utilisavec un prdicat, sert
4
choses, et l'exemple donn homoanimalesf comporteun prdicatsubstantiel
(2.1). QEsne prenddonc sa valeur,soitd'existence,soitde couplage
des choses, que lorsqu'il est actuellementcompos avec, respectivement,
un sujet (1), ou un sujet et un attribut(2.1), ce qui justifiel'affirmation
Aristote: c'est toujoursquand il est pris dans une certainecomposition
pour
que estsignifiequelque chose53.Relevons cet usage du verbe copulare
indiquerla compositionou conjonctionde deux choses[duasrescopulaiatque
componit).
Dans In PH2 , l'analyse des deux contextesd'emploi fait suite une
oppositionentre Alexandre et Porphyre,que Boce rapporte,quant

4
cetteaffirmation
que 'est' n'est rien. Selon Alexandre, es ou ens'est
quivoque,puisque toutesles catgoriessontquivoques,ne sontpas sous
un genreunique et peuventtreprdiquesde toutechose. Or toutterme
quivoque, employseul, ne signifierien, moins qu'il ne soit volontairementutilispour signifier
l'une des choses qu'il signifie.En conclusion,
'es ne signifierien,du faitqu'il signifieplusieurschoses,d'o l'affirmation
Aristote54.
C'est certainementce passage d'Alexandre,sur l'quivocit

53In PHI, 65: 24-66: 25 (suitede la n. prcdente)

: Curautemnihilverifalsique
: aut
Est enimduobusmodisdicitur,
utverum
ostendit.
monstraret,
falsumque
designet
utcumdico: 'Homoest',ipsum
cumunamremquamlibet
constituit,
compositione
propria
enunessehominem
constituit
etfitexinde
'est'cumhomine
iunctum
atquecompositum
cumduaeresperipsiusverbicompositionem
tiatio
; autrursus
iunguncopulationemque
tur,utest: 'Homoanimaiest'; homonamqueetanimaicopulantur
per
atqueiunguntur
in enuntiatione
verifalsique
id quoddicitur
'homoanimaiest'.Ergosi omnis
significatio
estincompositione
eiusquoddicitur
est,cumautsuacompositione
aliquidesseconstituit
viseiusquaein enuntiationibus
autduasrescopulaiatquecomponit,
propositionibusque
inquibushoc
inverifalsique
scilicet
monstratur
designatione
praeter
ipsascompositiones,
estconsignificare
nullaest.. . . Recteigitur
dictum
soletefficere,
quandam
compositionem,

nonvaleret.
sinecompositis
intellegi
quae
54InPH2,
estclaire
comme
cellede Porphyre,
77: 3-13; cetteposition
d'Alexandre,
ce qui
voirDe Rijk,2002,223et 229-35,
2003,217-23,
d'Ammonius,
parle tmoignage
estla
un argument
constitue
pourpenserque Ammonius
supplmentaire
pourl'auteur
entre
sourcede Boce(voirDe Rijk2002,224,n. 122pourun rappelde l'opposition
ce sujet; 2003,227).
deuxopinions

15:04:07 PM

194

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

des catgories,qui est la sourcedu deuximetyped'quivocit(b) dcrit

, et des discussionsultrieuressur le mme sujet que l'on
par les Glosulae
xne
au
rencontre,
sicle, chez PierreHlie ou les Porrtains55.
Porphyrepropose une autre explication,selon ce que rapporteBoce :
' ne
Alistteveut dire que le verbe 'tre
dsigne aucune substance,mais
est toujours(littralement)
une conjonction.Lorsque 'tre*
est employseul
'
il
sert

la
des
choses
sont
esi dit:
(1),
; Socrates
indiquer conjonction
qui
' Socrates
aliquideorumest quae sunt, Socrate est quelque chose parmi les
choses qui sont. Lorsqu'il est construitavec un prdicat,et l'exemple est
celui d'un prdicatd'accident(2.2), 'Socrates
philosophaest, je dis (a) que
Socrate participe la philosophie,mais, en outre,(b) je conjoinsSocrate
et la philosophie.Selon cette explication,le verbe 'tre'se trouvedonc
bien avoir une valeur de conjonction la foisdans le cas (1) et dans le
cas (2), par (b). Porphyrepeut ainsi conclureque 'est ne signifiepas de
cuiusdam
chose, mais n'a qu'une valeur de conjonction{vimconiunctionis
obtinet
, nonrei). Il ne prend cettevaleur que lorsqu'il est dans une composition avec d'autres termes,signifiantainsi soit la conjonction des
choses qui sont,en (1), soit la conjonctiond'autre chose selon la participation, en (2.2)56. Dans In PHI , Boce privilgie,dans le cas (2.1),
le couplage des choses signifiespar le sujet et le prdicat,qui se
trouve releverde la substancedans l'exemple choisi; dans In PH2, il
,
accepte, dans le cas (2.2) qui concerne l'attributaccidentelphilosophies
l'opinionde Porphyreselon laquelle est ralise la foisune conjonction
selon la participationet un couplage des choses. Mais il ne suit pas
vide la copule :
Porphyrepour ce qui est d'attribuerune signification
dans ses deux commentaires,
Boce interprte
le passage d'Aristotecomme
55VoirKneepkens,
2000.
56InPH2, 77: 13-78: 8 : Porphyrius
veroaliamprotulit
expositionem,
quaeesthuiusmodi: sermohic,quemdicimus
monstrat
sed semper
'est',nullam
perse substantiam
est: velearumrerum
velalterius
aliquaconiunctio
quae sunt,si simpliciter
apponatur,
secundum
Namcumdico: 'Socrates
est'hocdico: 'Socrates
eorum
participationem.
aliquid
estquaesunt'et in rebushisquaesuntSocratem
; sinverodicam: 'Socrates
iungo
phi: 'Socrates
Rursus
hicquoqueSocratem
est',hocinquam
losophus
philosophia
participt'.
cuiusdam
obtinet,
philosophiamque
coniungo.
Ergohocestquoddicovimconiunctionis
nonrei.Quod si compositionem
solumdicumnihil
aliquamcopulationemque
promittt
omnino
est purum
id estsolum
:
dixeris,
significat.
Atquehocestquodait: necsi ipsum
nonmodonequeveritatem
sedomnino
nihilest.Et quodsecunequefalsitatem
dsignt
tusestplanumfecit
: consignificat,
autemquandam
compositionem,
quamsine
inquit,
COMPOSITIS
nonestINTELLIGERE.
Namsiestverbum
cuiuscompositionis,
coniunctionisque
damvimetproprium
obtinet
etsineconiunctione
nihil
locum,
purum
praedicatum
significat,
sedearnipsamcompositionem
cumfuerint
coniuncta
ea quaecomponunquamdsignt,
sinecompositis

veroquidsignificet
nonestintelligere.
tur,significare
potest,

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

195

voulant simplementdire qu'elle ne signifiele vrai et le faux que quand

il est conjoint d'autres termes57.
Ablard reprend,dans son Sup. Per.,les gloses de Boce, pour affirmer
avec lui que le verbe 4es n'a pas lui seul la valeur d'une affirmation
(ou d'une ngation),mais prend seulementcette valeur en composition.
Contrairement M.W. (voir supra2.2), il refused'admettreque la vis
copulantidu verbe lui confre, l'tat isol, une intellectioncompose
intellectus
{compositus
), qui correspondeau sens de la propositioncomplte
Il rejettegalementl'opinionde Porphyre,selon laquelle
ou son dictum.
et ne fele verbe substantif
n'auraitpar lui-mmeaucune signification,
raitune conjonction que joint d'autrestermes,en disantque Porphyre
n'entendparler ici que de la valeur que le verbe substantifa quand il
est construitavec un attribut(= cas(2)). En effet,pour Ablard,le verbe
4tre
'
possde une valeur existentiellequand il est construitseul, et ne
adiaperd celle-ci(ou ne devraitperdre celle-ci)que construiten tertium
cens
, comme copule : comme nous le verronsplus bas, c'est seulement
n'a pas de signification
dans ce cas que le verbe substantif
qui renvoie
une chose, et ne correspondqu' un mode de concevoir {modusconci, par. 4.2.2).
piendi59)
(voir infra
57In PH2, 78: 8-26(suitede la n. prcdente)
: Vel certeitaintelligendum
estquod
nihilest,nonquotiiam
nihil
sedquoniam
nihil
verum
demonsaitIpsum
falsumve
quidem
significet
tuncfitenuntiatio,
verodicto
dictum
sit.Cumenimconiungitur
, si purum
tre^
simpliciter
est: ipsaquiverbonullaverivelfalsisignificatio
fit.Et sensus
quidemtotushuiusmodi
sunt(namet qui dicitintellectum
constituit
et qui audit
demverbaperse dietanomina
affirmationem
sed quamquam
negationemve
significent
aliquidverba,nondum
quiescit)
Namquamvis
nondum
tarnen
subsistendi
eiusreisignum
remdsignent,
est,
significant.
velfalsum
inveniri.
necsi hocipsumestvelensdixerimus,
poterit
aliquidex eo verum
verum
velfalsum
estsedin compotarnen
, nondum
significet
aliquid
Ipsumenimquamquam
sine
sitione
fitenuntiatio
etin ea Veritas
etfalsitas
nascitur,
falsitatemque
quamveritatem
est. Surla position
d'Aristote
hisquaecomponuntur
intellegere
impossibile
coniungunturque
de signification,
voirDe Rijk2002,37 (etn. 104); 244-5; 304-5;
quant cettevacuit
voiribid.,
surcellesde Porphyre
et d'Ammonius,
227.
58Sup.Per.,
nonimplere
sensum
affirmationis
verbum
357: 36-9: Necsihog.Ostendit
ceteris
vide
velnegationis
tur,quodvimmaximam
copupersubstantivum,
quoddignius
;
adiacens
etiamaliasvocescopulattertium
lationis
habet,quia nonsolumse,verum
ex vi
tamensententia
estin nulloverbovelintellectum
358: 32-4: "Nostra
propositionis

satisegimus.
vocisincludi
veldictum
de quo in expositione
proponi,
praedictorum
59Sup.Per.,358: 34-359
multum
: 8 : Porphyrius
autemhoclocoperversam
exposi'est'substantivum
verbum
tionem
habere
videtur,
perse sinealiisvociquodtesteBoethio
faciendo
cumaliispositum
vultomnisignificatione
carere
ettamen
busprolatum
significare
et significatione
eiusstatim
de qua coniunctione
supponitur
quandamconiunctionem,
SINECOMPOSITIS
NONEST
et rursus
: QUAM
CONSIGNIFIGAT
AUTEM
GOMPOSITIONEM
QUANDAM
invicopulationis
tanhoclocoverbum
INTELLIGERE
. Etestsolutio
accipit
quodPorphyrius
habet.
nonalicuius
reiintellectum
inquaquidem
vimodum
tantum
facit,
tum,
concipiendi
ait: si dicam: 'Socrates
UndeBoethius
iuxtaetiamexpositionem
est',id
philosophus

15:04:07 PM

196

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

Ce passage de Boce est l'un de ceux qui sont l'originede l'usage

des termescopulatio-copulare
que l'on trouve dans les Glosulaepuis chez
il
Ablard: s'agit bien d'une liaison des chosessignifiespar le sujet et le
prdicat(cf. textecit n. 53 : duas res copulai aut componit). Notons
, dont on l'introducque c'est de ce verbe que sera drivle nom copula
tion semble reveniraux Glosulae60.
La distinctiondes diffrents
usages du
va structurer
le dveloppementsur le verbe substantif,

verbe substantif
la fois dans les Glosulaesur Priscien,et chez Ablard.
Rursus
hicquoqueSocratem
participt.
quodestSocrates
philosophia
philosophiamque
coniunctionis
nonrei, ac si
obtinet,
coniungo.
'Ergohocquoddico'est',vimcuiusdam
vimmaximam
diceret
: licetexvicopulationis
ad propositionem
faciendam
verbum
habeat,
nontarnen
ex ea significativum
est. Cf.Sup.Per.,338: 20 sq.
60K f.41rb,M f.69rb: Opponitur
et vocativa
verbanoniunergo.Si substantiva
inprima
nominativis
nominum
etsecunda
sinepronominibus,
frustra
videguntur
persona
turPriscianus
ea ab aliisverbis,
cumin hocnondiffrant
ab illis,quod(ab illis
separare
verbaduplicem
unamcum
add.K) sicsolvitur.
Substantiva
et vocativa
naturam,
gerunt
- communem
in hocquodsicutaliaverba
aliamsibipropriam
aliisverbis
communem,
insubiecto
inprimaquidem
etsecunda
locohabent
de nominibus
positis
primo
predicali
in tertia
verononsemper,
ut 'egoSocrates
mediantibus
persona
semper
pronominibus,
etvocativa
verba,ut'egoSocrates
lego','tuPlatolegis','illehomolegi,itasubstantiva
inhocquodfrequenter
siciungunvocor'etcetera;
sum','egoSocrates
autem,
propriam
turnominativis
casibusut tertio
locoadiaceant
et in primaquidemet secunda
persona
eospredicali
subiciautempronomina
estquandopuraest,quandocumnominafaciant,
vel'egoSocrates
sumSocrates'
etcetera,
ut'egosumSocrates',
tivis,
'egovocorSocrates'
verbis.
Nullum
enimverbum
estcopula
nisisueactionis
uelpasquodaliisnonconvenit
aliamvimconiunctionis
hisexceptis
et sicverbasubstantie
etvocandi
cumnomisionis,
On retrouve
nativis
habent
le terme
dansun texteattribu

copula
quamaliaverba.
Guillaume
de Champeaux,
lesIntroductiones
dialecticae
artis
secundum
G. Paganellum,
magistrm
d.Iwakuma
estiliaquaealiapraedicatum
etsubiec1993,90: Praedicativa
propositio
subiectum
ut'homo',praedicatum
ut 'animad',
est'est'copula
tum,ut 'homoestanimal',
voirnotamment,
dansla Dial.,137: 2 (citinfra
,
quaecopulaiistaduo. PourAblard,
n.90)ou 132: 19: . . . 'sede,'curri,
etc.quenumquam
solius
officium
tenent
... ,
copule
et dansle Sup.Per.,351: 28-34,la glosede la dfinition
d'Aristote
(16b7): Haec<est>
autemproprietas,
de altero,
estnota,id estcopula
quodverbum
semper
praedicatorum
id estcopulativum
estpraedicatorum,
de altero
quaepraedicata
quamdeipsisverbis
copulantibus
necesse
estpraedicari.
enimverbum
subici
Nunquam
copulativum
praedicati
potest,
ut'lego'vel'legis'vel'leginunquam
inpropositione
alicuipotest
sedpraedicari,
subici,
; ibid.,
vifungitur
scilicet
etpraedicati.
352: 14-16:
quandoscilicet
gemina
<copulantis>
verbacopulativa
suntnota,id estcopula
vocum
de sub, earum
aliquando
quaedicuntur
On retrouve
iecto.
cettedernire
H15 = GDS (Glossae
'docglosedansle commentaire
trinae
ms.BN lat.15015,f. 185ra,
d'utiliser
P.
sermonm'),
quem'aaimablement
permis
estnotaeorum
id estuniversalium,
veleorum
quaepraedicantur,
King: Verbum
quae
insubiecto,
id estindividuorum,
dicuntur
sedsemper
insubquaenonproprie
praedicari
iectoponuntur.
Secundum
hocperpraedicari
de subiecto
nottuniversalia,
peressein
subiecto
Et tuncnotaprocopula
Velindeverbum
notadicitur
singularia.
accipitur.
quod
de altero praedicantur.
accidentia
Sed quiaaccidentium
quae semper
significai
quaedamsuntuniversalia,
<ea> de subiecto
insubnott;
sunt,
praedicari
quaeverosingularia

iectodicitesseexistentia.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

197

4. 'Est' dansdesprdications
de secundo adiacente61
Si l'on considreles analysesproposespour le verbe substantif
selon les
divers contextesd'emplois, on constate non seulementdes divergences
entre les grammairienset Ablard, mais encore des variationsnotables
dans les positionssoutenuespar Ablard, entre la Dialcticaet la Logica
Comme on le verra,les troiscas distinguspar Boce dans
(Ingredientibus'
ses commentaires(1), (2.1) et (2.2) sont analyss.
4.1. L'analysedesgrammairiens
Etant donne qu'ont t poses, pour le verbe substantif,
deux valeurs,
la visverbiet la vissubstantivy
il va s'agir de montrerla maniredont chacune de ces valeurs se ralise,en fonctiondes troiscontextesd'emploi.
On noteraque l'analysede ces contextesest mene dans la sectioncontenue originellement
dans le chapitredu pronom(C) des Glosulae.Selon les
Glosulae
, le verbe substantif,
pris seul ou secundoloco(ex. Socrates
est),(a)
selon la visverbi
, couple toutesles actions et passions qu'il signifieen
la diffrence
des autresverbesqui ne peuvent coupler
disjonction62,
en propre; (b) selon la vissubque l'action ou la passion qu'ils signifient
il a une valeur existentielleet pose l'existencedu sujet,puisqu'il
stantivy
signifieque 'Socrate est un de ceux qui existent' on reconnatl'analyse de Porphyrerapportedans In PH2 , pour le cas (1) (C3). Dans un
second temps,on voit Matre G./W. inflchircette analyse,en transposant de la signification
la prdicationla thse de la double quivocit.
Il admet (a) : 4Socrates
est' selon la vis verbi
, quivaut prdiquertoutes

61Nousemployons commodit
le coupledesecundo/
tertio
adiacente
par
quin'estpasencore
utilis
l'poqued'Ablard,
et ne le serapas avantle milieu
du 13esicle,
bienque tertium
adiacens
le soient.
Voirl'tudeimportante
de
, dj chezBoce(etAristote),
(tertio)
Nuchelmans
et explicite
les difficults
de la terminologie
utilise.
On
1992,qui dtaille
trouve
membre
du couple: simpliciter,
loco
... ; pourle
pourle premier
perse,proprie,
primo
secondsoitsecundo
locoou peraccidens
estprdiqu
en
(si on considre
que le verbetre
second
soitinterpositum
tertium
adiacens
ou autres
lieu,enplusde l'attribut
tertium,
lui-mme),
de ce type,
sa placeou sonrleen tantque troisime
expressions
quandon renvoie
constituant
dansla proposition
et doncadjointaux autrestermes.
Les Glosulae
utilisent
locoet tertium
adiacens.
Pourle grec,voirDe Rijk2002,306-14.
respectivement
primo
62C3: Cumenimdico'Socrates
'est'inviverbi,
actiones
est',si consideremus
quas
Grammaticalement,
idest
lectionem
etalieis
subdisiunetione
cumSocrate.
significat,
copulat
subdisiunetione
peutdterminer
le complment
('est'coupleavec
soit signifier
('est'
lesactions
savoir
la lecture
etc.endisjonction)
ou coupler
Socrate,
qu'ilsignifie,
... en disjonction
estplus
coupleavecSocrateles actions
etc.).La secondealternative
et estexplicite
dansle textede la notequi suit.
plausible,

15:04:07 PM

198

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

les actions en disjonction,d'o l'quivalence avec Socratelit ou marche

ou
il
la
etc.
Mais
modifie
:
selon
vis
cet
nonc
substantiv
frappe
(b)
quivaut
prdiquer toutes les essences en disjonction,d'o l'quivalence avec
Socrateestun homme
etc.63
, ou un ne,ou la blancheur
4.2. L'analyseAblard
Ablard rejettefermementl'analyse que les grammairiensfontselon la
vis verbi
, et l'quivocitqu'elle implique il s'agit ici de la premiredes
deux types d'quivocit (a). Il mentionnedans la Dial, une analyse de
l'quivocitproche d'une des analyses cites dans les Glosulae(A2), et
dveloppe partirdu parallleavec certainsverbesqui, comme le dpoune action avec
nent 'amplecto
64,sont quivoques parce qu'ils signifient
une formepassive65.Puis l'on retrouve,avec la formulehabituelle,la position des Glosulae
, qu'il critique.Si le verbe 'tre'signifiait
quivoquement,
selon sa valeur verbale,une action ou une autre en tant qu'adjacente, il
ne devraitpas tre appel substantif
66. Quoi de plus ridicule,dit-il
63MatreG<uido?>, ms.O, p. 372a,d. Kneepkens
1978,120,n. 36: Non enim
unamtantum
actionum
velpassionum,
sedomnessubdisiunctione,
quandoest'est'prinutcumdico'Socrates
velpassiones
subdisiuncest',omnesactiones
cipaliter
predicatum,
tionepredico,
idestvellegitvelambulat
velpercutitur
velaliquidaliorum.
Et hocverbo
Ex hocautemquodestsubstantivum
in hacsignificatione
rareusisuntauctores.
omnes
resin essentia
Et hocmodoacceptum
itemestequivocum,
significai.
quiaita'est'accepomnes
utessentias
subdisiunctione
tumprincipaliter
essentias
utcum
predicatum
prdicat,
dico'Socrates
velhomovelasinusveletiamalbedo.Et ita de omnibus
est',intelligo
;
maxime
ab actoribus
de 'est'. VoirSententia
secundum
I, d.
quamsignificationem
agitur
1977,3-8,cit.supra
, n. 27.
Fredborg
64VoirInstilVIII, 14-15,
VIII, 26,VIII, 83.
65Dial.I, 132: 26-33: Utquidenim,sicutin aequivocatione
sua 'ens'acceptum
verbumdicitur
restrictum
verbum
non
multiplex,
ipsum
quoquead quamlibet
significationem
dicatur
sicut'amplector'
etquaesuntaequivoca?
Sicutenimaequivocum
nomen
simplex,
itaaequivocum
multa
nomina
secundum
verbum
multa
dicitur,
significationem
multiplicem
verbasecundum
multas
dicendum
estatquein singulis
significationes
acceptum
simplex
> singulas
ut etiam< secundum
rerum
essentias
verbaqueant,
sicutet nomina,
verbum,
substantiva
esse.
66Dial I, 133: 5-28: 'Est'quoquememini,
secundum
quandoin vi verbiponitur,
adiacentiam
actionum
autpassionum
dicunt.
Nec tuncquidem
quarumlibet
equivocum
substantivi
tenere
sedadiectivi,
tum(?)quidem,
cumdicimus
'Socrates
est'
significationem
actionem
vel cursum
velaliam,
atquein vi verbi'est'utimur,
aliquamut adiacentem,
. . . Sediamprofecto
<si> gramaticum
verbum
'est',
oportet
intelligi
atqueattribu
ponitur
maleipsumsubstantivum
utarbitror,
Nec si omnium,
auctoriappellant.
philosophorum
tatespercur<r>ant,
hancsignificationem
in 'est'verbopercipient,
de actione
autpassione
utvidelicet
cumdicitur
: 'Socrates
est',ipsumamarevelamarivelaliquamaliamactionemautpassionem
habereintelligat
utestimo,
; necratioeorum,
monstrare,
poterit
que
actiones
in iacendovelvivendo
autqualiter
actioiacendi
a positione
diversa
intelligantur

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

199

encore dans Sup. Per.,que d'entendredans 'egosum' soit 'egoaudio' soit

'
egoamor"etc67.Employ seul, le verbe 6es a une double fonction,une
viscopufonctionde copule (<officium
copulanti,
copule
) ou de couplage (<officium
il
lantis
)68: couple bien quel) et une fonctionde prdicat{officium
predicati
que chose, et ce quelque chose est ce qu'il signifie, savoir l'existence.
Cette prdicationest dite propre prcismentparce que le verbe subS'il rejte donc l'analyse prostantify garde sa signification
premire69.
, substituant celle-ci la valeur
pose par les Glosulaeselon la vis verbi
de couplage, Ablard admet tout fait l'analyse qu'elles proposaient
selon la vis substantiv
qui a pour origine,nous l'avons dit, Porphyreet
Boce : en disant Petrusest, on dit que Pierreest l'une des choses existantes{Petrus
estaliqua de existentibus
Ce fonctionnement
du verbe
rebus)10.

sitautvitaactioa vitaqualitate
an potius
anicontraria
morti,
que animatio
intelligitur,
mationi
haberi
nonpoterit.
De 'habere'
; idemenimduocontraria
autem,
quodactionem
ex eo fortasse
videbitur
facit
quamcumque
aliquando
significet,
quod'haberi'passivum
in alium
actionis
quodqueaccusativum
regatcasumsecundum
significationem
passionem
infererentis.
nonessepassivum
autnonomnem
Oportet
itaquevel'haberi'
significatione

ex actione
inferri.
passionem
67Sup.Per.,
347: 21-2.Cf.la critique
virulente
de la thsede l'quivocit
etde sesprofaiteparPierre
Priscianum
Hlie,Summa
, 198,83-91: Alii
longements
thologiques,
super
utcumdicitur
ab
dicunt
omnem
actionem
et passionem,
quod'sum'significai
equivoce
fortasse
velbiberevelquodlibetaliudquodverboposaliquo,'sum',dicitse comedere
hiiquodcumaliquisdicit,'Deusest',fortasse
testsignificali.
Et dicunt
mentitur,
quia
dicerequod'Deusestasinus'velaliquidaliudfalsum
huiusmodi.Immoquando
potest
eisproponitur
'homoest',velaliquod
huiusmodi
statim
'Estquid?',istud
Aristotelis
querunt,
esttercium
fortasse
simpliciter
quandoque
postponentes
quod'est'quandoque
ponitur,

adiacens.
nichil
eosestdicendum.
Sed quiapianeinsaniunt,
contra
68Dial.II, 161: 31-2: Sedtuncquidem
cumsimpliciter
officio
funpredicatur,
duplici
; cf.ibid.,162: 9-10; 163: 34-6: Primolocoet
et predicati
et copule.
scilicet
gitur,
tuncpredicatur,
cumsimpliciter
de aliquodicitur
hocmodo'Socrates
est'; tunc
proprie
Sup.Per.,
nonsolumhabetcopulare,
sedetiamrempredicatam
p. 359: 22-28,
ponere.
cit.infra
, n. 71.
69Dial.I, p. 134: 28: . . . verbain enuntiationibus
modoper
positamodoproprie,
hocmodo: 'Petrus
accidens
dicuntur
autempredicantur
est','Petrus
; proprie
predicali
sed
curri
vi funguntur,
cumnonsolumcopulandi
officium
; hicenimgemina
tenent,
ce point(cf.De
etiamreipredicate
habent
... . En faitAblard
hsite
significationem
il semble
: danscertains
bieninterprter
le faitquele verbe
Rijk
passages
'es 1970,xlv-xlvt)
une
toutes
lesessences
en tantqu'essences
comme
unesortede signification,
signifie
il affirme
res
dansd'autres
au contraire
le prdispose
, mciis
passages,
que cetteproprit
treunepurecopule,
coupler
uneautrechoseque lui-mme
parcequ'il
prcisment
des
ne signifie
, la diffrence
rien,qu'iln'est tird'aucune
proprit
parlui-mme
essenOr c'estprcisment
insiste
surla valeur
de copulado
verbes
adjectifs.
quandAblard
il n'admet
la valeurd'adjacence
te, dansla Dialctica
, etque corrlativement
qu'enla' fai faireduverbe'tre
une
duprdicat,
santdriver
de la nature
accidentelle
qu'ilcherche
purecopule.Cf.Dial.I, 132.
70Dial.I, 135: 6-8: Cumautem
continet
remetiam
dicitur,
atque
predicatam
proprie

15:04:07 PM

200

IRENEROSIERGATAGH

substantif
n'est pas diffrent
de celui des verbes adjectifs: dans les prdicationsde secundo
adiacente
les
verbes couplentet ne sontpas coupls
,
: tout comme 'es couple l'exiset couplentla chose qu'ils signifient

savoirla course71.
tencequ'il signifie,currit9
couple la chose qu'il signifie,
Dans la Dialctica
, l'accent est mis sur le couplage de l'essence, copulatioessentie
, et il propose pour le verbe adjectifla mme glose que pour
le verbe substantif
: 'Petruscurritquivaut Petrusestunusde currentibusm
.
La valeur de couplage et la valeur predicativesont parfaitement
explici= ambulantem
tes dans la glose classique: ambulare
esse13.
La caractristi '
que propre du verbe treest de pouvoir coupler la foisla chose qu'il
, et de prdiquer autre
signifie,dans les prdicationsde secundoadiacente
chose (la chose signifiepar le prdicat),dans les prdicationsde tertio
Il partage cette seconde caractristiqueavec le verbe vocatif,
adiacente.
dont il se distingue d'autresgards74.
existentium
indeterminate
veluti
cumdicitur:
'Petrus
attribuii,
est',hocest
aliquamrerum
; Sup.Per.,
'Petrus
estaliquadeexistentibus
rebus'
347: 25-7: Veluti
cumdicitur
'Homo
est'et 'Albedoest',eumdem
'est'verbum
ac si diceret
estaliquid
tenet,
ubiquesensum
; ibid.,
de numero
exsistentium.
362: 20-3: Atvero'est'verbum,
quodomniainessentiacontinet,
ensconiungit,
cumdicitur
: 'egosum',ac si diceprimolocopraedicatum
rem: 'egosumaliquidde exsistentibus'
... . Comparer
selonBoce(cf.supra,
Porphyre,
; Glosuiae
n. 56): Socrates
estunumde
(C3): Socrates
aliquideorumestquaesunt
existentibus
.
71Sup.Per.,
351: 39 sq.; 359: 23-30: Etsciendum,
verbaquaepraequodpersonalia
dicaripossunt,
ut si dicasint,omniasesecopulare
cuiuscumque
significationis
possunt,
tur: 'Socrates
'esse'et 'legere'
etgemina
vi
est','Socrates
legit',
perse ipsapraedicantur
habent
etcopulantis,
utsimuletpraedicentur
etse ipsa
funguntur,
quiaetvimpraedicati
Sicenimdicitur
'estcurrens'.
Duoveroverbaessedicun'currit',
copulent.
quasidiceretur
vocesdiversas
a se,substantivum
scilicet
etnuncupativum,
tur,quaesolapossunt
copulare
: ibid.,
cumdicitur
veluti
'IsteestSocrates',
'Istenuncupatur
Socrates'
362: 7-10.
72Dial.I, 132: 6-10.
73Sup.Porph
essealicuiveraciter
vi
., 16: 39-17: 6 : Estautem
praedicari
coniungibile
enuntiationis
verbisubstantivi
ut'homo'diversis
verbum
vere
persubstantivum
praesentis,
ut'currit'
et 'ambulai'
de pluribus
vimsubpotest
coniungi.
Ipsaetiamverba,
praedicata
stantivi
verbiincopulando
inPeriErmeneias
habent.
UndeAristoteles
secundo
[Boethius,
In PHI, p. 14: 12]: 'In his,inquit,
in quibus'est'noncontingit,
<ut> in eo quodcurrereet ambulare,
idemfaciunt
sicposita,ac si 'est'adderetur.
Et rursus
: 'Nihil[est],
differ
hominem
ambulare
et hominem
ambulantem
esse'.
inquit,
74Cettequestion
du parallle
entreverbesubstantif
et verbevocatif
mriterait
d'tre
tudie
VoirlesGlosuiae
ce parallle
partir
de (C8)jusqu'
pourelle-mme.
quiabordent
la finde notre
souvent
ce rapprochement,
ettoujours
en
passage(C12).Ablard
rappelle
mentionnant
lesgrammairiens
(cf.Dial.,134: 4-5: Soletita<que>,memini,
grammatiin nuncupativo
corum
sententia
nullam
secundum
differentiam
etsubstansignificationem
tivoverboaccipere
citsn. 35 et 71; ou Sup.Per.,360: 3-5,362: 37...); lespassages
'
363: 24. On doitse souvenir
de propositions
comme''chimera
estchimera
que l'analyse
a la valeurd'unverbevocatif,
d'ola glose'chireposesurl'ideque le verbesubstantif
mera
vocatur
chimera
(Sup.Per.,361: 12-22).

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

201

5. eEs dansdesprdications
de tertioadiacente
5.2. L'analysedesgrammairiens
une
adiacente
Pour les prdicationsde tertio
, les grammairiensintroduisent
distinctionen fonctionde la nature de l'attribut.Les Glosulaeprcisent
d'emble un point important: mme si le verbe possde une valeur verbale et une valeur substantivepar lui-mme{perse), ces valeurs ne sont
misesen uvre,ou actualises,dans une construction
pas ncessairement
donne (C4).
Lorsque le prdicatrelvede la substance,ex. 4Socrates
estanimal' le
la
verbe substantif,

sa
vis
chose
substantivy
grce
signifiepar anicouple
cum
re
hominis
mal avec la chose signifiepar homme
animalis
{rem
copulai),
il exprimela conjonction'cohrente'des essences signifiespar le sujet
et le prdicat- on retrouveici l'analyse que Boce mentionnaitpour le
cas (2.1) dans In PHI. Mme si le verbe garde toujourssa valeur verbale propre(signification
de l'actionet de la passion),celle-cine joue plus
adiacens(C4 ; C6). Cette formulation
aucun rle quand il est tertium
tmoigneen faitde l'imprcisionde la notion de visverbiqui inclut la
foisla signification
d'action et de passion et la valeur de couplage. Matre
G. rectifiecetteimprcision,en prcisant,de maniretrscohrente,que
ce n'estpas la visverbidans sa totalitqui est exclue dans un tel contexte,
mais seulementla signification
d'action et de passion, puisque la valeur
Le verbe 'tre'en
de couplage,qui en relvegalement,resteprsente75.
ralise
donc le couplage et, en tantque substantif,
tantque verbe,effectue
le couplage des essences, explicitdans la glose : 'Ista res est illa' On
notera que les Glosulae
, comme Matre G. ou Matre W., ne parlentpas
seulementde couplage des res, mais aussi de couplage des essences76.
Lorsque le prdicatrelve de l'accident,ex. 4Socrates
estalbus' (et le
cas est le mme quand il s'agit d'un prdicat quivoque, comme dans
'Latratileanimalest canis
'), c'est la blancheurqui est prdique, mais
est
et copulare
elle n'est pas couple (ici la distinctionentrepraedicare
bien souligne): on ne peut dire qu'il y a couplage (i.e. identit)de deux
75Matre
G<uido?>, ms.O, p. 372a,d.Kneepkens
1978,120,n. 36: Et notandum
actioexnatura
verbinonhabettuncsignificare
estquod'est'quandosittertium
adiacens
et retinet
sedhancsolamproprietatem
nemvelpassionem,
quodunamremaliicopulat
inessesuoaliiconiexverboquodsolum
estverbis.
Quodverounamessentiam
copulare

verbum.
: 'staresestilla',hochabetex hocquodestsubstantivum
itautdicatur
ungit
76Sententia
substantivum
cit.supra
est,copuI, texte
, n. 27: Ex eo vero,quodverbum

'Socrates
estanimal'.
latessentiam
essentiarum,
utpote

15:04:07 PM

202

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

res, puisque la blancheurest, en tantqu'accident,d'une autre natureque

le sujet. Pour le cas d'un prdicat quivoque, l'identitest galement
impossible,pour la raison,semble-t-il,
qu'un termequivoque ne dit rien,
ne renvoie aucune chose, et est comme de l'air ; or on ne peut dire:
. Les Glosulaeexpliquentensuiteque de tel'cettechosequi aboieestcetair'11
les propositionsont un double sens (C5) :
la proposition
(a) selon la valeur de la prdication(ex vi predicationis),
'Socrates
estalbus' veut dire que la blancheurinhre en Socrate.
), la propositionsignifie
() selon la valeur substantive(ex vi substantivi
que cette chose qui est Socrate est un corps blanc , ou que Socrate
est une chose blanche. De la mme faon, dans le cas d'un prdicat
avec le sens:
quivoque, celui-cipeut avoir une acceptionextensionnelle,
est
Vune
des
de
cettechosequi estun animalaboyant
significations(chien'de sorte
la mme
que les deux expressionsde partet d'autrede la copule signifient
chose (consignificant).
a donc deux
Une propositiono un accidentest dit de son fondement
sens: elle effectue la foisla prdicationde l'accident,dont elle dit qu'il
inhreen son sujet,et ralisele couplage des resdnotespar le sujet et
en comle prdicat,comme c'tait le cas pour les prdicatssubstantiels,
4
de
la
dnote
une
le
relevant
chose
albus'
prdicat
qualit,
prenantque
blanche. On retrouvecette thoriedu double sens chez Matre G., qui
explique clairementque, selon la valeurde prdication,c'est la blancheur
comme inhrenteau sujet,alors que
(albedo)qui est prdique et affirme
selon la valeur substantive,c'est la chose blanche, et non la blancheur
comme essence, qui est couple au sujet78.Cette thoriedes deux sens
d'une propositionva tre critique par Ablard dans les SuperTopica
Glossae: une foisencore,il attribuera son matreW. une analyseque l'on

77L'ona peuttreiciun chode la position

d'Alexandre
rapporte
parBoce,selon
unterme
nesignifiant
aucunechosede manire
nesignifie
dtermine,
laquelle
quivoque,
rien; cf.supra
n. 54.
78MatreG<uido?>, ms.O, p. 372a,d. Kneepkens
1978,120,n. 36: Videndum
estcuminhacpropositione
'Socrates
estalbus'et'albedo'predicetur
de Socrate
etponainvisubstantivi
turibi'est'substantivum
utrum
verbiquantum
ad preverbum,
accipiatur
dicatum.
Si enimaccipiatur
in vi substantivi
cumverbum
substantivum
verbi,
coniungat
resin essentia
estalbedo',quodfalsum
: 'Socrates
est.Sed notaaliumsensua,dicetur
sumhuiuspropositionis
'Socrates
estalbus'ex vi predicationis,
aliumex vi substantivi
Ex vipredicationis
verbi.
hocsolumintendit
hecpropositio
Socrati,
quodalbedoinhereat
exviverosubstantivi
hocdicitquodiliaresqueestSocrates
estresalba.Hocenimsolum
in sensuad vimsubstantivi
dicithecpropositio
: 'Socrates
estresalba'.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

203

trouvedj dans la premireversiondes Glosulaesur PriscienMajeur, et

qui est reprisedans les Glosulaesur PriscienMineur.
Nous reconnaissonschez les grammairiens
une analyseproche de celle
proposepar Porphyre,selon le tmoignagede Boce dans In PH2 , pour
le cas (2.2), puisqu'il dgageait galementdeux valeurs diffrentes
dans
l'nonc ' Socrates
estphilosophus'
La diffrenceest que, pour la seconde
valeur,au lieu de dire que le sujet participe la qualit signifiepar
le prdicat,on dit maintenantque la qualit inhre dans le sujet. La
notiond'inhrence(inherere,
inesse)tant caractristiquede la relationdes
accidents la substance,l'on comprendque la prdicationpar inhrence
soit rserveaux prdicatsaccidentels.
On peut rsumerces analysesdes grammairiensen un tableau :
Glosulae
BoceExemplesValeurs
duverbe
substantif
(a) exviverbi
(b)exvisubstantivi
= Socrates

Socrates
est
actiones
estunum
(C2+3)(1)
quas
id est
de existentibus
significai,
lectionem
etaliassub
disunctione
copulat

cumSocrate
est [ ]
remanimalis
cum
(C4) <2.1) Socrates

animal
rehominis
copulat
= illaresqueest
homoesteademres
queestanimal
Sensde la proposition
(P)exvisubstantivi
(oc)exvi
praedicationis
est [- ]
Socrates
estalbedo solum
(C5) (2.2) Socrates
- illaresqueest intendit
albus
Socrates
estalbum propositio
corpus
quodalbedo
= Socrates
inhereat

estalbares
Socrati
d'Ablard
5.2. Les deuxanalyses
Ablardva modifierson analyseentrela Dialctica
et la Logica'Ingredientibus'.
5.2.1. L'analysede la Dialctica
Dans la Dialctica
, Ablard privilgietoujours,pour le verbe substantif
utiliscomme copule, la vissubstantivi
, et l'ide des Glosulaeselon laquelle,

15:04:07 PM

204

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

toutesles choses en leur essence,il a pour fonctionde coupler

signifiant
toutes les choses en leur essence79.C'est cause de cette description
entenduecomme signiqu'Ablard critiquela visverbides grammairiens,
ficationd'action et de passion80.Pour pouvoir coupler autre chose que
ne signifiepas l'action et la paslui-mme,il fautque le verbe substantif
sion, ce qui est pour cette raison interditaux verbes adjectifs: on dit
'
' Socrates
' et
currit
homom.
esthomo
pas Socrates
Mais l'on se trouve alors devant une difficult,
si l'on admet que le
existentiam
verbe 6es comporte cette ide d'existence(tantum
et
continet)

seulement
non
selon
selon
l'essence
et
signifie
l'adjacence (secundum
alicuiusadiacentiarri)
essentiam
tantum
, nonsecundum
pour expliquerqu'il puisse
y avoir prdicationde choses qui soit n'existentpas, comme des chimres82,soit des accidents,comme la blancheur83.
Ablard,en avanantune

une
difficult
dont
les Glosulaesemblaient
solution,
rpond
premire
difficilement
se sortir,ayant du mal concilierla signification
d'inhattribueau verbe
rence reconnue tous les verbes et la vis substantivi
De ce fait,certainssemblaientsoutenirque dans ces prdicasubstantif.
tions de termesaccidentels,c'tait principalementl'adjacence de l'accident qui tait signifie,
ce qui contredisaitla valeur substantivedu verbe
4tre
' Ablard va maintenir,comme valeur premirede la prdication
d'un termeaccidentel,le couplage des essences,qui relve de la nature
et correspond vis substantivi
des grammaipropre du verbe substantif,
riens (), et fairede l'adjacence ou de l'inhrencede la qualit (a) une
valeur drive,seconde, qui dpend uniquementde la nature accidentelle du prdicat et ne se manifesteque dans le cas o le prdicat est
:' est impos paraccidentel.C'est en effetparce que le prdicat'album
tird'une blancheuradjacente, qu'il confrecettevaleur d'adjacence ou
d'inhrence,qui est seulement implique (;innuitur
), titresecond. C'est
donc le couplage de la chose informepar la blancheur qui corres'
estalbus
'Socrate
pond au senspremierde la proposition('Socrates
signifiant
est un de ceux qui ont pour formela blancheur'),et qui est proprement
, qui la foisprexprimpar le verbe. Il en va de mme pour 'currit
79Dial. I, 132: 17-20: Per'est'verosubstantivum,
utdictum
est,verbum,
quodomni ; cf.Gbsulae
bus<secundum>
essentiam
suamimpositum
rescopulali
est,quelibet
potest.
(C4).
80Cf.textecitsupra
n. 67.
81Dial.II, 159: 11 sq.; Sup.Per.,362 : 14-20.
82Ibid.,135: 18sq.; Sup.Per.,361: 12sq. Il s'agiticidesproblmes parl'interposs
du chap.11 du PeriHermeneias.
VoirMarenbon
1999.
1999,Rosier-Catach
prtation
83Dial.I, 131
: 26 sq.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

205

dique que le sujet est ce qui a la course ('Petruscurrisignifiant'Pierre

est un de ceux qui courrent'),et donne entendreque la course est attribue en adjacence au sujet - le verbe possdant les deux valeurs dans
des gramOn noteraqu'Ablardreprendla terminologie
sa signification84.
mairiens,en disant qu'il y a, dans une copulatioessentiae
, une relation
intransitive
entrele sujet et le prdicat,parce que les choses qu'ils dsisont
est naturellement
dpengnent
identiques.Cette ide d'intransitivit
dante de l'analyse extensionnellede l'attribut: la prdicationrevient
exprimerque le verbesubstantif
couple deux choses,et que donc le terme

et
le
terme
attribut
sont
le
nom de la mme chose. Et ceci vaut
sujet
dans tous les cas o 6esest tertium
adiacens
, que le prdicatsoit un terme
substantiel{animal)ou un termeaccidentel{albus)(interprt
comme alba
Par

la
intransitive
relation
,
resf5.
opposition
qui correspond l'identit
de dnotation,il peut y avoir copulatio
essentie
et relationtransitive
, lorsque
les choses dnotessont diffrentes,
comme dans 'chimera
estopinabilism.
Comme nous l'avons dit, dans les prdicationsde secundoadiacente
, le
9 est

verbe 'tre
selon
une
pris
acception propre parce qu'il couple,
comme les autresverbes,la chose qu'il signifie.Dans toutesles prdications de tertio
adiacente
, quelle que soit la nature du prdicat(substantif
84Dial.I, 131: 33-132:13: Sed profecto
magisad sensum
propositionis
atquead
officium
substantivi
verbiillampredicationem
albeiudico,que estde subiecto
pertinere
dinis,
quodab 'libo'nominatur,
quamearnque estde adiacentia
ipsius,
queper'album'
determinatur.
Cumenimaliquem
dicimus
essealbum,
hocest
proponimus
ipsumessealisecundum
essentie
illudquodesse
informantur,
quemex hisque albedine
copulationem
informata.
Sed quoniam
hocest
resalbedine
dicitur,
proprie
per'est'verbum
predicatur,
albedine
per"'albi'nomen
ipsumattribuitur"
designatur
quodei ex adiacente
impositum
Illaitaqueprediinherentia
adiacentis
albedinis
innuitur.
est,ex ipsaquoquepropositione
ex verbis
cadoessentie
proprie
propositionis
que in eo estquodhocilludessedicitur,
Sic quoqueet
innuitur.
; iliaveroque estadiacentie
attributio,
exprimitur
quodammodo
- enimquidicit'Petrus
inceteris
verbis
substantivi
verbi
continent
queetiam
copulationem
in ipsapropositionis
id quodPetrus
situnusde currentibus
curri,
-, proprie
proponit
sententia
essentie
essentie
scilicet
alicuius
eorumque cursum
suscimonstratur,
predicatio
sedmagis
nonsecundum
id quodestipsa,per'currisignificatur,
piunt.Sed quoniam
id quodcursum
expredicatione
albedinis
adhesecundum
subiecti
habet,
quoqueessentie
; cf.Dial.Ill, 329: 33-5: Tantum
rentia
forme
innuitur.
illuacciitaque'predicare
si 'hocilludesse'diceremus,
tantum
pimusquantum
per'removeri'
quantum
per'non
esse'.
85Dial.II, 159: 33: ... cumdicitur
: 'Socrates
esthomo',illisque
duobuscasibus
intransitive
cumeorumad se substantias
'Socrates'
et 'homo'verbum
coniungitur,
copu ; ibid.,
intransitive
lai interpositum
166: 16: Oportet
autem
subiecto
copupredicatum
in eademre ipsiusimpositio
in subiecto
inveniatur
; veluticumdicitur
lali,utvidelicet
nomina
esseopor'homoestanimal'
vel'albus'et'homo'et'animal'
vel'album'eiusdem
585: 33 sq.
tet. ; cf.aussiibid.,
86Dial.II, 163: 38-164
: 2.

15:04:07 PM

206

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

ou adjectif),il couple autre chose que lui-mme et ne prdique pas

la chose qu'il signifie,prenantune pure valeur de copule87.Pour cette
raisonles prdicationssontdites impropres, expressionqu'Ablard utilise chaque fois qu'un termeprend dans une constructionune valeur
qui n'est pas celle qu'il a en vertu de son imposition.Ablard qualifie
celles-ci,en une acceptionnouvellede l'expression,de prdicationsper
accidens.C'est le cas galementquand ce qui est prdiqu est un nonexistantcomme la chimre puisqu'il ne retientplus sa signification
d'essence, mais seulement sa fonctionde couplage (cuminterpositum
. . . teneat
essentie
nonhabeatsed tantum
88).
copulationis
officium
significationem
Ablard rpond ainsi la questionde dpart: si le verbe substantif
peut
coupler des choses qui ne sont pas des essences,c'est parce que quand
il est ainsi mis en tertium
adiacens
, il exprimesimplementque le sujet et
l'attributdnotentla mme chose89.Un passage de la Dial, semblepourtant admettre,avec rserve,que la copule garde sa valeur existentielle,
' donc 'Petrusest90.Mais Ablard
en acceptantl'infrence'Petrusesthomo
qui
prcise que ceci vient uniquementde la nature du prdicat 'homo*,
est le nom d'une chose existante.En d'autres termes,dans les prdicationsen tertium
adiacens
, de mme que, avec un prdicataccidentel(albus),
la valeur d'adjacence n'est pas imputable la naturede la copule, mais
est implique secondairementen raison de la nature de ce prdicat,de
la valeur d'existencen'est pas
mme, avec un prdicatsubstantiel(homo),

la
ad
eius
de
), mais
interpretations
pertinet
copule (nec
imputable au sens
est peut-tre prsenteen raison de la nature de ce prdicat ou de
ad predicationem
cetteprdication(quantum
'hominis').
Dans un second temps,Ablard se ravise et revientsur cette solutionpour en proposerune seconde: il est impossiblede dire que le verbe
87Dial.II, 135: 2-6,161: 32-3,et ibid.,162: 11-2:Cum enimmedium
interiacet,
;
nonetiamreminse aliquam
continet
tantum
quampredicet
copulaiquodsubiungitur,
Dial.II, 163: 34-8.
88Dial.I, 135: 11-3.
89Dial.I, 134: 32-135
: 1: Peraccidens
autemetnonproprie
cum
dicitur,
predicali
ita: 'Petrus
esthomo'.Neque
ad eiustantum
ipsumpredicato
copulationem
apponitur,
enimhicinterpositum
continet,
quoquerempredicatam
quippeiam'homo',
superflue
supsed tantum
; necsi iamaliquidpreter
poneretur,
quodsubiungitur
predicatimi
copulat

in
in eodemloco'hominem'
hominem
essetattributum,
subiunctum.
copularetur
90Dial.I, ipso
136: 37-137
: 6: At veromichiomnisillaverbipredicado
peraccidens
utdictum
adiacens
cum
videtur,
est,tertium
interponitur,
atqueimpropria
quandoipsum,
utin ea
nonrem,utdictum
sedsoliuscopuleofficium
habeat,
est,predicatam
contineat,
ad eiusinterpre: 'Petrus
esthomo'vel'albus'.Necquidem
quantum
quoquequa dicitur
: 'Petrus
tationem
ex eo quoddicitur
esthomo',
inferri
'Petrus
est',sedforpertinet,
potest

'hominis
tasse
adpredicationem
reitantum
nomen
est.
' quodexistentis
quantum

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

207

substantif
seraitune pure copule, sans aucune valeur existentielle,
puiscette
fonction
de
se
fonde
sur
une
que
copule
prcisment
signification
En outre,commentadmettreque l'on puisse parler de
secundum
essentiam.
dans une construction
correctecomme 'chimera
estopiprdicationimpropre
? Il trouvealors un autre moyenpour effacerla valeur existennabilism
tiellede la copule, en donnantune nouvelledfinitionde la prdication
accidentelle: quand estse trouveen tertium
adiacens
, il ne faitqu'un avec
le prdicat,il n'est qu'une partie du prdicat.Ceci lui permetd'chapdu sujet et
per aux problmesde consignifications
temporellesdiffrentes
du prdicat: en disant'eritsedens'si l'on appliquaitla copulatio
essentie,
on
devraitposer la glose avec un sens divis,fausse: (il-sera)(un-de-ceux (du fait qu'un substantifou un participe
qui-sont-assis-actuellement)
dnote toujoursun prsent),ce qui n'est pas le cas si le verbe et le prdicat constituent
un groupe unique, qui prend en entierle tempsfutur:
il-sera-un-de-ceux-qui-seront-assis
. Cette ide sera reprise dans le
Sup.Per.,et Ablard prciseraalors que cetteanalyseo la copule ne fait
qu'un avec le prdicatne s'applique en fait que lorsque la vritde la
propositionl'exige, mais pas dans tous les cas, le sens des propositions

exigeanttoujours,pour tre dtermin,une facultde discernement

(discretio)
pour savoir si elles doiventtre prisesselon leur sens propre ou
'
selon leur sens impropre92.
Ainsi, dans l'exemple nulluspuereritsenex'la
copule doit garder sa valeur pleine, porteuse de la valeur temporelle,
puisqu'il est vrai (au sens divis) que (aucun-de-ceux-qui-sont-actuelledes enfants
93.
ment-des-enfants)
(ne sera)(l'-un-de-ceux-qui-sont-actuellement
C'est essentiellement
cause des problmes de corfrencetemporelle
des propositions,mais
(qui se posent non seulementdans l'interprtation
tablir
les
de
conversion
et
d'infrencesyllogistigalementpour
rgles
associesau chapitre11 du PeriHermeneias
que), et des problmesparticuliers
chapitrequi fournissaitl'ide d'une double analyse par composition
et par divisiondes groupes complexes-, que la deuxime dfinitionde

91Dial.I, 138: 7-10:At veroquomodo

locutiopropria
ubipredicatio
verbi
dicetur,
fuerit
neceamin qua inventum
estsignificationem
tenuerit
? Nequeeniminimpropria
ventum
fuitin officio
soliuscopulationis,
verum
utdictum
simul,
est,in sig<nificati>one
existentium
est,indequelibet
quodetiam,ut dictum
potest,
quibuslibet
copulare
quod
omnibus
essentiam
suamimpositum
est.
(nominibus
d.)secundum
92Sup.Per.,350: 19-21: Et attende
hancdiscretionem,
quandovidelicet
singularum
dictionum
servamus
et quandonon,maximam
vimhaberein
propriam
significationem

determinandis
93Sup.Per.,propositionibus.
350: 32-6.

15:04:07 PM

208

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

Mais c'est pluttdans la contila prdicationperaccidens

a t introduite94.
nuitde la premiresolutionproposeque se dveloppela pensed'Ablard
dans ses textesultrieurssur la prdication.
5.2.2. L'analysede la Logica 'Ingredientibus'
surle Peri Hermeneias
Le commentaire
, Ablard cherchait montrerque, dans ces prdicaSi, dans la Dialctica
existenadiacente
tions de tertio
, le verbe substantif
perdait sa signification
le
verbe
substantif
tielle,dans Sup. Per. il va plus loin en affirmant
que
de chose
n'a aucune intellection,qu'il n' exerce aucune signification
ibi exercei
), qu'il est uniquementpos pour signifier
(inulliusrd significationem
Cette analyse est introduiteprcismenten
l'affirmation
et la ngation95.
94Cf.notamment
sa nouvelle
de la prla manire
dontAblard
interprtation
reprend
Marenbon
1999.
dication
, dansDial.II, 170: 31 sq.; surtoutceci,voirsurtout
peraccidens
doncpasd'accord
nousne sommes
Comme
pourdireque cette'singleJohnMarenbon,
intressante
ofpredication',
ofverbphrases'
ou 'two-pieces
parses
theory
partanalysis
la vritable
thorie
d'Ablard
constituerait
avecdes thories
modernes,
(voir
parallles
diffrente
de cespassages,
Marenbon
1999,Rosier-Catach
1999).Pouruneinterprtation
cits
voirKretzmann
1976,286sq. et295-302,
Jacobi1983et 1985,166(etlespassages
d'Ablard
n. 110).La chronologie
logiques
psenaturellement
propose
pourlesuvres
Eneffet,
dansla Dial.,Ablard
desa pense.
reconstructions
del'volution
surlesdiffrentes
l'analyse
de la copulecomme
de communis
d'unepartqualifie
indpendante
opinio
partie
qui la considre
commeunepartiedu prdicat
la novissima
sententia
paropposition
nonnulli
deplusieurs
ensuite
),
opinion
personnes
(encore
quecomme
qu'ilnela reprenne
danstous
du prdicat
d'autre
complexe
s'applique
que cettethorie
partsemble
penser
l'inverse
lescas,alorsque dansle Sup.Per.il montre
qu'ellene s'applique
quelorsque
entre
le sujetet le prdicat
lies la corfrentialit
descontraintes
l'exigent.
temporelle
'Ingredientibus
la Logica
avoirl'impres, on pouvait
Quandonjugeaitla Dial,postrieure
la thorie
du prdicat
dans
en adoptant
sionqu'Ablard
radicalisait
sa position
complexe
manifestement
il n'enva plusainsi,etil apparat
la Dial.Avecunechronologie
inverse,
ne poun'a tdveloppe
phrases
que pourexpliquer
que certaines
que cettethorie
de la copule
maisseulement
en faisant
vaienttreinterprtes
selonleursensordinaire,
du prdicat.
liesau temps
unepartiedu prdicat,
en raisonde difficults
J. Marenbon
estlie la conception
convaincante
de cettethorie
montre
de manire
que l'abandon
La chronoau paragraphe
suivant.
de la copule,
dontnousparlerons
syncatgormatique
ouJacobi,
a
de Kretzmann,
Tweedale
lesreconstructions
logieancienne,
qui dterminait
convaincants
ulttinverse
au moyen
parMews1985(aveclesremarques
d'arguments
lesdeuxuvres
commecontemporaines
rieures
de De Rijk1986qui considre
; Mews
ontpu avoirtcomposes
de la Dialctica
1995,28 et 53 penseque certaines
parties
1997et 1999,201-2,date
avant1113,et qu'ellea ttermine
en 1117-19;Marenbon
et la Logeade 1118-1120).
la Dial,de 1116-1117
95VoirNuchelmans
1973,140sq.; Tweedale1976,231 sq.; Jacobi1985,146sq.;
avecMarenbon
1999quandil montre
noussommes
d'accord
qu'ils'agitvritablement
la post-datation
de la Logica
de la copule,
d'unenouvelle
thorie
quiconfirme
parrapport
la Dialctica.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

209

rponseau passage d'Aristotecommentpar Porphyreet Boce, que nous

avons lu ci-dessus{supra,par. 3). Ablard reprendla formuled'Aristote,
la compodans les termesde Boce, selon laquelle le verbe 'tre'consignle
sition,mais ne la signifiepas. Le verbe 'tre'a pour fonctionde conjoindre ou de disjoindreles intellections
signifiespar le sujet et le prdicat,
mais il nesignifie
cette
pas
conjonctionou disjonction.En d'autrestermes,
la seconde gnrationdes Glosulaeet
et contrairement
ce qu'affirmaient
une intellection
Matre W., le verbe n'a pas comme tertiasignificatio
la valeur
intellectus)
compose (compositus
qui reposeraitsur la vis copulanti,

et
lui
donnerait
une
intellection
et
donc le
predicative, qui
compose
sens d'une proposition (cf. par. 2.1. supraet textes des n. 44-47).
Cette conception,cite de manire anonyme,est critiqueAblard, en
arguantqu'elle impliqueraitun redoublementinutile,puisque l'on aurait
l'intellection
de la propositionune premirefoisavec la propositionelleune
seconde
fois avec le verbe96.Ce n'est pas parce que le coumme,
sans le verbe substanplage du sujet et de l'attributne peut s'effectuer
ce couplage - on pourrait
tif,explique Ablard, que celui doit signifier
tout aussi bien dire alors que puisque le couplage ne peut se fairesans
le sujet et l'attribut,alors chacun d'eux devraitsignifierle couplage et
avoir l'intellectionde la proposition.La solution d'Ablard repose sur
l'analyse gnrale qu'il propose pour le fonctionnementdes parties
, analyse dans laquelle s'insre prcismentle passage que
consignifiantes
nous discutonssur le verbe substantif.
La difficult
dans
qu'il rencontrait
la Dial, pour adopter la positiondes dialecticiens,selon laquelle les parties consignifiantes
n'ont pas de signification,
taitqu'il taitalors difficile

leur
contribution
l'intellection
du tout qu'est la
d'expliquer
smantique

l'utilisation
d'une
notion
Grce
nouvelle, celle attentio
,
proposition.
d'origineaugustinienne,utilisenotammentpour expliquerl'intellection
associe aux termesuniversels,Ablard dveloppe une thorienouvelle

96Sup.Per.,
actionem
esseintel339: 32-5: Quodsi quisdicatipsamverbiinterpositi
totius
lectum
scilicet
resintellectas
is utiqueessetintellectus
perterminos,
coniungentem,
iterum
habeatur,
superflue
propositionis,
qui cumpertotampropositionem
perverbum
; cf.ibid.,
sensum
affirmationis
vel
haberetur
357: 36-9: Ostendit
verbum
nonimplere
ceteris
videtur,
copulationegationis
persubstantivum,
quoddignius
quodvimmaximam
Le
nishabet,quia nonsolumse, verumetiamaliasvocescopulattertium
adiacens.
sur
o s'labore
la thorie
du dictum,
estunediscussion
contexte
de ce dernier
passage,
surles
l'intellection
des propositions,
les considrations
qui faitintervenir
explicitement
Ce sontcesproblmes,
dontl'oriverbes
etlesverbes
de premire
personne.
impersonnels
desgrammaidiscuts
danslesextraits
gineestle mmepassagede Priscien,
qui taient
rienssurYintellectus
que nouscitions
plushaut.
compositus
signifi
parle verbe,

15:04:07 PM

210

IRENEROSIERGATAGH

et de la copule comme actesde l'esprit

des syncatgormes
, ne possdant
mais contribuant l'intellectionglobale de la propoaucune intellection,
Le verbe substantif
effectuel'acte de conjoindreou de disjoindre
sition97.
et cet acte participe l'intellectionde la proposition,
des intellections,
uneintellection.
L'intellectionde la proposition,dit-il,se
sans trelui-mme
trois
un
acte
de
actes,
correspondant l'intellectiondu sujet,
compose
un autre correspondant celle du prdicat,et un acte mentalpar lequel
la premireest lie la seconde98.Aucun verbe n'a donc l'intellection
d'une proposition.Ceci ne veut pas dire que l'on puisse accepterl'opinion de Porphyre,rapportepar Boce, selon laquelle le verbe substanloco
tifn'aurait,prononcseul, aucune signification.
,
Employseul,secundo
il a bien une valeur existentielle.
Mais quand il est utiliscomme copule,
et n'a aucune
selon la vis copulationis
, alors il n'est que consignifiant
la
ne
chose du prdisignification
propre qu'il couplerait, couplant que
in
intellectu
sed
rempraein se tenet,
cat (inilsignificationis
copulet, tantum
quam
dicatisuppositi,
Sup.Per.,362 : 32-499).Cette conceptionsyncatgormatique
de la copule, mise en lumirepar K. Jacobi, est tout faitcaractristiEn montrantque
que du commentaired'Ablard sur le PeriHermeneiasm.
et
contribue
l'intel
un
acte
de
le verbe substantif
l'esprit,
correspond
lection de la propositionsans possder lui-mme d'intellection(necest
nonest,sitpars intellectus
totius
si ea actio,quae intellectus
propositioincongruum,
de
faire
de
la
ou
Ablard
viter
nis,ibid.),
composition vis copulandi
peut
part entiredu verbe substantif
adiacens
une signification
,
pris en tertium
conceptionqui avait conduitMatre W. dire, tortselon Ablard,qu'il
aurait ainsi lui seul l'intellectiond'une propositioncomplte.
Notre auteur est ici face deux exigences qui s'avrentdifficiles
concilier: en premierlieu, il soutientque le verbe substantif
signifietoutes les choses en tant qu'essences,ce qui lui sert expliquerd'un ct
la valeur existentielle
qu'il prend lorsqu'ilest utilisseul, de l'autre qu'il
97Sup.Per
des syncatgormes
ou partiescon., 335: 18-340:18. Surla question
avecles Glosulae
etmodifie
sa position
entre
la
, Ablard
signifiantes
dialogue
galement
d'attendo
voirRosier-Catach
Dial,et le Sup.Per.voirRosier-Catach
2003b.Surla notion
( paratre).
98Sup.Per.,339: 20 sq.
99Cf.
aussiSup.Per.,
esttertium
necsignificativum
452: 2-7: . . . ubiverbum
adiacens,
locoet imaginem
omnium
sicutquandopraedicatur
exsistentium
accipividebatur,
primo
intellectui
Gumverotertium
id estinteriacet,
exsistenadiacet,
praesentat.
quiaimaginem
tiumtunenontenet,
sedad solamcopulationem
nonvidebatur
eo
significativum
ponitur,
sineimaginatione
intellectus
essenonvidetur
...
quod
100
Jacobi1986.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

2 11

en tertium
adiacensle couplage toutesles essences,qu'elles
puisse effectuer
soient exprimespar un nom, un pronom,un participe,ou mme une
en second lieu, il souhaiteraitpour cettederniretche un
proposition101;
termequi ait une pure fonctionde copule, et qui - pour les raisonsexposes plus haut - ne possde aucune intellectionpar lui-mme. Cette
seconde exigenceva le conduire mettreau second plan la signification
essentie
d'essence, et par l-mme la fonctionde copulatio
, qu'il retenait
comme tantla fonctionprincipaledu verbe substantif
dans la Dialctica.
Mais c'est bien parce que cette signification
d'essence est toujoursprsente{quiasignificationem
essentiae
et ne s'effacejamais totalement,
tenet)
qu'il

a
dans
toute
y
prdication couplage des essences, bien que ce ne soit
vis par le locuteuren ralisant
pas ce couplage qui soit principalement
une prdication.' Socrates
estalbus' exprimeprincipalementque la blancheur inhreen Socrate, comme le disaientdj les Glosulae(cf. (a)). La
essentie
n'intervient
copulatio
qu' titrede connotation,secondairement,
cause de la signification
du verbe substantif,
et parce qu'il n'existepas
de copule parfaitement
existentielle.
pure, dgage de toute signification
En disant 'Socrates
estalbus' l'intentionpremiredu locuteurest de prdiou conjoignant,
querdu sujet la blancheuren adjacence, tout en couplant
le sujetde la blancheur(ipsum
albedine
secondairement,
), en essence102.
affectum
L'ordre de prioritdes deux analyses,par identit,et par inhrence,
sont ici inverses,par rapport la Dialctica.Dans la Dial, la valeur premireest la copulatio
essentie
et la valeur seconde,qui provientde la nature
accidentelledu prdicat,l'inhrencede la qualit. Dans Sup.Per.la valeur
premireest l'inhrencede la qualit et la valeur seconde, le couplage
101Sup.Per.,352 : 18-22,360: 13-5.
102Sup.Per.,360: 15-361
:3: Et cumin essenta
ei
quaelibet
significet,
numquam
essentiae
deest,quiaubiqueperipsum<proponitur>
copulatio
aliquidaliudesse,etiam
veluticumdicitur
'Isteestalbus'(. . .) Duo itaqueconiunquandoadiectivis
adiungitur,
inadiacentia
Socrati
albedoscilicet
etalbum,
idestipsum
guntur
per'album'
praedicatum,
in essentia.
affectum
Solatamen
albedopraedicatur,
intendialbedine,
quiasolaconiungi
tur.Nonenimquicquid
conisedid solum,
coniungitur,
praedicatur,
quodpropositione
facit'Socrates
estalbus',solamalbedinem
inesse
ungiintenditur.
Qui enimpropositionem
Socratiostendit,
et si haberet
verbum
albedinem
perquodpossetsimpliciter
copulare
itaquodnilsubiecti
sicfaceret.
Sed quianonestverbum
Socrati,
attingeret,
profecto
per
tantum
non
ad substantivum,
habet,
significationem
quodid fiatvenit
quodquiaessentiae
In essentia
sineconiunctione
essentiae.
verononpotest
albedoSocrati
potest
ipsum
proferri
turin adiacenutscilicet
dicatur
'Socrates
estalbedo'.Unde,utetalbedocopule
copulali,
tiaet secundum
subiectum
albedinis
coniunctio
essentiae
vereponatur,
adiectivum
quod
adiacentem
et
est'album'coniungitur
verbo,quodet formam
quamsignificai
praedicet
albedinem
tamentantum
fundamentum
essentialiter
; secundum
quodnominat
coniungat

est,poniintenditur.
vi,utdictum
praedicetur,
quiain tantum

15:04:07 PM

212

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

du verbe substandes essences,qui a pour originela valeur existentielle

le fait qu'il contiennetoutesles choses in essentif(plus littralement,
tia, qu'il signifietout in essentia
) : il pose de ce fait toujoursque
, la valeur d'inh'quelque chose est quelque chose' 103.Dans la Dialctica
rence avait t mise au second plan pour viterun cueil qu'Ablard
pouvait trouverchez les grammairiens, savoir que si elle intervenait
pour caractriserla prdication,alors ceci semblaitimpliquerqu'elle tait
une propritsignifie
par la copule; Ablardprfredire que cettevaleur
dans la prdicationqu'en raison de la nature
du
d'inhrencen'intervient
Cette
ide
est
directement
est
accidentel.
et
seulement
lorsqu'il
prdicat,
inspirepar les grammairiensquand ils disentque la valeur d'inhrence
en fonction
est prsentelorsqu'on considrela copule ex vi praedicationis,
de la nature de la prdication,donc de celle du prdicat,alors que la
du verbe. Dans Sup.
valeur d'identita pour originela naturesubstantive
verbe
la
la
du
substantif
de
Per., question
quand il est copule
signification
mais
est rsoluede manireradicale en disantqu'il n'a pas d'intellection
Il
voir
attribuer
une
fonc
donc
se
un
acte
de
correspond
l'esprit. peut
tion,celle d'exprimerl'inhrencedu prdicatdans le sujet,sans que ceci
ait pour consquencefcheuseque cetteinhrencesoit une signification.
sur la notiond'inhrencecommeproprit
Le dbat avec les grammairiens
n'est
aussi
signifie plus
prsentqu'il l'taitau momentde la rdactionde
la Dialctica.Mais cette notion d'inhrenceva ressurgirdans un autre
, et c'est alors une autrediscussionque Ablard
contexte,celui des Topiques
mettanten jeu la fois un choix phiva mener avec les grammairiens,
la
sur
la
nature
de
dialectiqueet des positionsontologiques
losophique
de
sur la nature des universaux.Elle dbouchera sur une raffirmation
la solutionqu'Ablard avait dveloppe sur l'analyse de la prdication,
dans Sup. Per.,permettantde mieux comprendreles raisonsde son changementd'attitude.
Les Super Topica Glossae
Dans le commentairesur le De differentiis
de la LogicaeIngredientibus'
topicis
Ablard adopte la mme analyse que dans son commentairesur le Peri
hermeneias.
Mais le contextede l'analyselui donne une touteautreporte.
Le problme est abord partird'un passage du DDT consacr aux
questions prdicatives: dans toute question de ce type, dit Boce, on
inhaepraedicatus
s'interrogepour savoirsi le prdicatinhreau sujet(utrum
103
Dbutdu textecitn. prcdente.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

213

reatsubiecto
), c'est--dires'il inhre(inest)en tantque genre,accident,proou
dfinition.
Dans ces questionsde inesseon doit donc dterminer
pre
est
des
celui
quel
quatres modes d'inhrence(modiinhaerendi)
qui est en
Il

est
noter
ce
contexte
est
l'un
des
rares
o
Boce
utilise
jeu104.
que
le verbe inhaerere.
Ablard pose d'emble une alternative,qui situe l'ende
la
discussion
: la questionde Boce concerne-t-elle
les termes
jeu
sujet
et prdicat,donc des voces
ou
est-ce
un
,
que par
processusde translation
on ne parle pas en fait des resque ces termessignifient105
? Il semble
bien, lorsqu'on se demande si Socrate est homme,ou s'il est blanc, que,
selon le sens, on s'interrogesur des choses. Mais d'autre part quand on
pose une relationd'galit,par exemple dans la dfinition,il est clair
qu'on ne comparepas des chosesmais des termes,puisque l'animalrationnel mortelest rellementidentique l'homme: les termesd'un nonc
dfinitoires
sontgaux (i.e. de mme extension106)
et les choses qu'ils dsisont
comme
le
relve
D'ailleurs,
Ablard,Boce parle
gnent
identiques107.
dans le passage des termes
sujet et prdicat,et pose donc la question de
l'inhrenceet de ses modes comme une questionportantsur des voces108.
Ce qui est particulirement
intressantdans le long passage des Sup.
c'est
Ablard
Top.,
qu'
dveloppe sa solutionen discutantles positionsde
son matreGuillaume de Champeaux et de ses disciples( praeceptor
noster
Willelmus
deux sens dans
usquesequaces
109).Il rapportequ'ils distinguaient
la proposition4Socrates
estalbus' : un sens grammatical,un sens dialectique.
(1) Selon les grammairiens,il y a couplage des essences (copulatio

104
DDT TV,PL 64, 1205C/1
186B-C.
105Sup.Top.,269: 36-8; cf.Boethius,
DDT IV, PL 64, 1177A-D,
1186B-C.
Le passage
de l'dition
Dal Praestfautif,
etne dpend
; il doittrelu
que d'undesdeuxmanuscrits
aveclescorrections
vol.II/1,183-6,
1986,115-6etIwakuma
apportes
parDe Rijk1962-7,
1996.Surce commentaire,
voirDe Rijk1962-67,
vol.II/1,116-22,
Green-Pedersen,
1977,
partir
desdeuxmanuscrits,
le pas2003(quidite,
1984,422,Iwakuma
1999,Fredborg
l'dition
Dal Pra,256: 34-268: 29).
sage
correspondant
106
Cetteexplicitation
estjustifie
59 : 9-19,cit.infra
par le passagede Sup.Porph.
n. 133.
107Cf.Sup.Top.,285: 34-286
: 17 ou aussiGlossulae
, 555: 33-5.
super
Porphyrium
108Sup.
: 2 ( proposdu passageDe Differentiis
1186C: Nil
Top.,270: 31-271
Topicis
aliudquaeritur
nisian subiecto
inhaequippein praedicatiuis
quaestionibus
praedicatus
reat) : Ex hisitaqueverbis
Boetiiquaestionis
sensus
terminos
exquibus
magiscirca
propositio
versali
videtur.
Namcum<post>quaestionem
de
constat,
quamcircaressignificatas
inhaerentia
dicitrestare
de aliquoquattuor
modorum
inhaerentiae
praedicati
quaestionem
vocale
cuiusessepossint
hiiquattuor
modiinhaeipsiuspraedicati,
oportet
praedicatum
accipi
rentiae.
nonest
secundum
nostram
sententiam
dici, necetiam
praedicatum
dinitio
Quippereale
genus

turnisivox
universales
concedimos
esse.
, quiasolasvoces
, idestdemultis
praedicabiles
109Sup.Top.,271: 38 sq.

15:04:07 PM

2 14

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

et constructionintransitive,
ou, en d'autrestermes, conjonction
essentie)
des choses dnotes par le sujet et le prdicat{coniunctio
nominatorum
) ; la
selon
ce
sens
le
du
la
effectue
fondement
de
proposition
couplage
qualit avec le sujet en signifiant
que le sujet de la blancheurest en cohsion essentielleavec Socrate, c'est--direque Socrate est cela-mmequi
est affectpar la blancheur110.(2) Selon les dialecticiens,la proposition
On retrouvecettethoexprimel'inhrencede la qualit dans le sujet111.
rie,assigne matreW., dans un commentairesur le De diffrentiis
,
Topicis
propos de cette mme question de Boce sur l'inhrence,et exactement dans les mmes termesque ceux que rapporteAblard112.
On reconnatdans cettethorieles deux sens distinguspar les Glosulae,
avec cette qualificationsupplmentaireque le sens dpendant de la vis
substantwi
est appel ici sens grammaticalet que celui dpendantde la vis
est appel sens dialectique(respectivement
() et (a) dans le
praedicationis
tableau ci-dessus),ce qui constituepeut-trela contributionpropre de
Guillaume cette analyse. Selon le sens grammatical,tel que le conoit
Guillaume,il y a toujoursconjonctionou couplage des essences
, des choessentiae
inter
ses nommes par le sujetet le prdicat(<coniunctio
nominata,
'
estalbus' o c'est le fondement
copulatio
essentiae),
que ce soit dans Socrates
'
estalbedo'o c'est la blancheur
, ou dans Socrates
qui est coupl in essentia
est
in
essentia
.
Ces
deux
noncs
sont donc jugs diffrents
qui
couple
le
si
l'on
trouve
le
mme mode de couplage
par grammairien,
puisque
y
in essentia
les
choses
sont
sont
diffrentes
,
(le fondement/la
qui
couples
Le dialecticienannule cettedistinctionet juge ces deux nonqualit)113.
110Sup.Top.,272: 19-21,
cit.infira.
111Sup.Tob
., 272: 31-5.
112
Textecitpar GreenPedersen
1974,21-2et pluscompltement
par Kneepkens
W. dicitunamquamque
1993,65,n. 6 (ms.Orlans
266,p. 213b): M. tarnen
proposietquestionem
tionem
habereduossensus,
unumgramaticum
etaliumdialecticum.
Verbi
'Socrates
estalbus'habethunegramaticum
: Socrates
estalbares,ethuncdialecgratia.
ticum
: albedoinheret
Socrati.
Et iterum
hecquestio'utrum
Socrates
esthomovelnon
esthomo'habetiliumgramaticum,
ethuncdialecticum
utrum
quemproprie
generat,
predicatum
inhereat
subiecto
essecommunem
omnibus
; quemhiedicitBoetius
predicativis
Cf.De Rijk1962-67,
vol.II/1, 183sq.
questionibus.
113Sup.Top
ea copulat,
eisdem
secundum
termi., 272: 4-31: Quodquiaintransitive
nalemsignificationem,
solamconiunctionem
essentiae,
consignificat
quaeverbosubstantivo
omniain essentia
edamnominata
nominis
et
considrt,
exprimitur,
significare
praedicati
secundum
id scilicet
dicitur
esseipsumalbum,
id estipsumquod
subiecti,
quodSocrates
albedine
estaffectum;
ethiitantum
essentiae
fundamenti
albedinis
ad Socratem
copulationem
attendunt.
solamnominationem
intransitive
Quippe'album',quodsecundum
copulatur
solumfundamentum
nominando
albedinem
verodeterminando
circa
Socrati,
significai,
nonnominando.
Undeilliquivimintransitionis
attendunt
inconstructione,
fundamentum,

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

215

cs quivalents,puisqu'il considreexclusivement
la prdication,et qu'est
dans les deux cas prdique la blancheur,et exprimel'inhrencede la
qualit114.Ce n'est pas le sens dialectique,pourtantjug suprieur,
mais le sens grammatical,qualifide plus expressifet plus dtermin,
qui, selon Guillaume,permetd'valuer la valeur de vritde la proposition115.
Le sens dialectiquedoit par contreintervenirpour rpondre
la questioninitialede Boce, celle de savoir si le prdicatinhreen tant
que genre,accident,etc.116.
Ablardva rejeterla positionde Guillaumeet sa thoriedes deux sens,
parce qu'elle implique, un double titre,un ralismequ'il ne peut accepter,d'une part comme conceptionde la dialectique,d'autre part comme
thoriedes universaux.
Ablard refused'accepter qu'il y ait deux sens dans une proposition,
bien qu'il conoive que deux disciplinesdiffrentes
puissentavoir sur une
mme propositiondeux analyses distinctes,un point qu'il dveloppe
Il lui semble incohrentd'admettreque les proposiplusieursreprises117.
tionssimples,mais galementles hypothtiques,
doiventtre prisesselon
le sens grammaticalet la copulatio
essentiae
estsubstan(puisque 'Si Socrates
'
tia, Socrates
nonest qualitas n'est acceptable que parce que Socrate n'est

maxime
ad coniunctionem
nominatorum
secundum
fit,utsit
respiciunt,
quamintransitio
senstis
albedinis
essentialiter
cohaeret
scilicet
est
Socrati,
grammatkus
quodsubiectum
quodipseSocrates
estaffectum.
Similiter
autemsi dicatur
'Socrates
estalbedo',coniunctioipsum
quodalbedine
nemessentiae
internominata
considrt
et hicaccidens
inessentia,
ibijundamentum
inessentia
Socrati
et ubiqueeumdem
in essentia,
scilicet
modm,
retinentes,
copulatur
copulationis
secundum
diversitatem
rerum
diversos
habent
sensus
; et in hisduabusprocopulatarum
'Socrates
estalbedo'et 'Socrates
estalbus',quippeibiinessentia
Socrati
positionibus
qualitas
hiefiindamentum
inessentia
Socrati
dicicopulatur,
qualitatis
coniungitur,
quia<ibi> inSocrate
Ibid.,272: 38-9: Ibivero,scilicet
turesseipsaalbedo,hic[sunt]
albedinis
subiectum.

in grammatico
tantum
essentiae
attenditur.
sensu,
114Sup.Top.,272: copulatio
31-38:At verodialectici,
sicutdicebat,
qui maxime
praedicationemattendunt,
eumdem
sensum
inhisduabus
'Socrates
estalbus'
accipiunt
propositionibus
et'Socrates
estalbedo',
inutraque
diciquiaalbedoquaetantum
praedicatur
propositione
turinhaerere
Socrati.
Et hicquidem
dialectici
sensus
etsuperior
quodammodo
generalior
dicitur
ad sensum
attenditur
habensse
quantum
grammaticum,
quiahielargein essentia

ad inhaerentiam
essentiae
et adiacentiae.
115Sup.Top.,273: 3-10; confirm
n. 112,
parle passagecommentaire
djmentionn
citparKneepkens
habetdialecticum
et gramati1993,65, n. 6: Si omnispropositio
cumsensum,
tuncista'Socrates
estalbedo'habetgramaticum
istum
: Socrates
estillecolor
verohune: albedoinheret
Socrati.
cumverussit,quare
albedo,dialecticum
Qui sensus,
iliumnonestverapropositio
? Adquod
dicunt
esseveram
nullam
nisiverum
propter
propositionem

habeat
sensum.
gramaticum
116Sup.Top.,273: 10-5.
117
VoiraussiSup.Porph.
, 17: 112-28
; 58: 33-59: 4.

15:04:07 PM

216

IRENEROSIER-GATACH

rellement
pas une qualit), alors que les questionsprdicatives,qui porle veut Boce, sur l'inhrencedu prdicatdans le sujet et
comme
tent,
des
rapportstopiques entre termes,doiventtre prises selon
dpendent
' et la
sit qualitasvel non
le sens dialectique. La question ' UtrumSocrates
' doit tre

estqualitas
pris selon le mme sens pour que
rponse Socrates
la premire118.
la seconde rponde vritablement
de Boce en disAblard dveloppesa propresolution l'interrogation
tinguantla questionde l'inhrencede celle des modes d'inhrence.Elle
se laisse rsumerainsi: la questionde Boce, est-ceque le prdicatinhre
la question des modes
au sujet, concerne les choses {de rerum
sensuU9),
Dans le premiercas, on s'interroge,
d'inhrenceconcerne les termes120.
pour savoir soit si la chose dnote par le sujet est la mme chose que
estun homme?121
celle dnote par le prdicat[Est-ceque Socrate
), soit si la
chose Socrate est affectepar la blancheur[Est-ceque Socrateestblanci).
118Sup.Top.,273: 21-35.
119Sup.Top.,275: 7-13: Quodautemdicitur
quaestione
quaeri
suprainpraedicativa
Veluti
dererum
sensu
inhaereat
utrum
hic,nonde vocibus
subiecto,
accipimus.
praedicatus
utrum
scilicet
estalbus5
'utrum
Socrates
esthomo'vel'Socrates
inistaquaestione
quaeritur
sitresipsapraetermini
ressubiecti
eiusinhaereat
subiecto
suo,id estutrum
praedicatus
ea . . . ; id. 275: 18-29.
utrum
afficiatur
dicativelquaeritur
120Sup.Top.,276: 31-9: Atverocumconstat
id estconstat
rem
aliquidinessealicui,
rerum
adpropriea sensu
in se habere,
animarevertens
remipsius
praedicati
ipsamsubiecti
id estutrum
terinipsisterminis
terminorum
considrt
tates
quidsitmoduspraedicationis,
veltamquam
subiecto
id estconveniat,
minus
termino,
inhaereat,
genusipsius,
praedicatus
utrum
diffinitio
veltamquam
etc.,hocestquodait: In omni
quaeritur
quaestione
praedicativa
Cum
inse habeatrespraedicati.
termini
ressubiecti
subiecto
inhaereat
, id estutrum
praedicatus
termini
autem.Proponitur,
id estveredicitur
aliquidinessealicui,id estrempraedicati
eritetc.; ethoclocorelaaut maius
inesse
reisubiecti,
terminus,
id,videlicet
praedicatus
: id hocpotest
fortasse
sic
tiopropositions
fit,ac si ita diceremus
quodestid ad vocem
dubifacilius
utvidelicet
dicatur
praedicativa
quaestione
quodin omnidialctica
exponi,
subiectae
voxverecopuletur
scilicet
tetur
de terminis
voci,sicut
, utrum
ipsius
praedicata
et modus
inherentie
entreinherentia
... . Surla distinction
, voiraussiGarlandus,
disponit
Dialctica
, 91 : 22-30.
121Cf.Sup.Top.,253: 40-254: 20: . . . cumquaeritur
hie
homositanimal',
: 'Utrum
ressubiecti
hocestutprobetur
ad subiectum,
inhaerentiae
praedicati
requiritur
probatio
sitnomen
Namlicet'terminus'
esserespraedicati.
vocis,remquoquealiquando
proprie
adsensum
rerum
adsignificationem
dnott
, nihil
; nisienim
quaestioapplicetur
pertranslationem
a quadescendit
derebus
sicut
nis.Quippe
, sedpervoces.
agitnondevocibus
quaestio
quoque
propositio
: '<utrum>
resilia
taleestac si diceret
'utrum
homositanimal',
Cumenimquisquaerit
si esthomoest
: 'Utrum
cumquaerit
quae homoestsitiliaquae estanimal'.Similiter
Undebene
?' nondepropositionibus
sedde rebus
animal
perpartes
propositionum.
agitur,
ADPRAEid estConsequatur,
ESSE
PROPONITUR
ait: UTRUM
RESQUAE
COMITETUR,
CONSEQUENS
taleestac si dicevidelicet
animal
ad positionem
hominis,
cedentem,
quod
ponatur
ipsum
ad
Taleestergo
sitea quaeestanimal3.
retur
: (Utrum
si estresiliaquaeesthomo,
, quantum
est
illud
essehoc,
velsi illud
esse.
hocadillud
sensum
hocilli
, hoc
, velconsequi
, inhaerere
' acsidkeretur
dubitali
taleestperquaestionem
quasidubium
quaerietproponi
Quodaitin quaestione

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

217

Cette inhrence dont parle Boce, explique Ablard, est une inhrencedes choses (inhaerentia
rerum
d'ailleurs
) expressionque l'on rencontre
il
dans les GlosulaesuperPriscianum
minorem
dans
o
est prun
contexte
,
cismenttraitdes questions122.
Celle-ci comportedeux espces, l'inhrence d'essence {inhaerentia
essentiae
) correspondantau premierexemple,et
l'inhrenced'adjacence (inhaerentia
adiacentiae)
correspondantau second.
C'est elle qu'il convientde considrerlorsqu'onveut dterminersi ce que
dit la propositionest vrai ou non. Mais une foisl'inhrencepose, selon
ces deux modes,l'esprit,dit Ablard, peut se dtournerdes choses,pour
s'occuperdes propritsdes termes, passer de la questionde l'inhrence
celle des modes d'inhrence,et ainsi se consacrer ce qui constitue
proprementl'analyse dialectiquede la prdication: il fautalors dterminer la manire dont le prdicatinhre au sujet, c'est--direl'inhrence
des termes
. On se demande alors, en considrant
(inhaerentia
terminorum)m
les vocesprdicatet sujet,et les relations(d'galit,de supriorit,
de prdicabilitetc.) qu'ils entretiennent,
'animal'
inhre en
si, par exemple,
'homme' en tantque genre,dfinition,
Alors que,
propre,ou accident124.
pour dterminerces rapportstopiques,Guillaume avait besoin de poser
un sens dialectique, distinctdu sens grammatical, Ablard refuse
cette diffrence,
mais introduit la place une distinctionentreles deux
typesd'inhrence,et affirmeque les rapportstopiques se situentau seul
vocumou terminorum
.
plan de Yinhaerentia
illaresilliinhaereat,
utrum
itasitutin propositione
utvidelicet
hocesthaecsit
dicitur,
utvidelicet
si istasitetiliasit.
illa,velad illamconsequatur
122
la transcription
de Margareta
f. 138va(j'utilise
A,ad XVII,22 (GLKIII, p. 121:9),
: Sciendum
estquodhicnonagitur
de omniinterFredborg,
queje tiens remercier)
substantia
velde
nisitantum
de ea in qua simpliciter
velde ignorata
rogatione
queritur
inquibusqueritur
Nonenimhicagitur
de interrogationibus
de inherenignorata
qualitate.
tiarerum
veldedeconsecutione
ad antecedens,
sicut
he:'Utrum
So. sithomo?',
consequentis
'Utrum
etde similibus.
sinevoceintersi esthomo,estanimal?'
Nequede illisquefiunt
et de huiusmodi,
sedtantum
de illisagitur,
sicuthec'legis?',
'videshominem?'
rogativa
in quibusvelignorata
<substantia>
velignorata
Et accipe
utdiximus,
qualitas
queritur.

substantiam
etqualitatem.
large
123Sup.Top.,270: 31 sq. (cit.supra
n. 120);
n. 109); 271 : 13-5; 276: 31-9(cit.supra
ad ipsumdubiutin praedicativa
280: 7-9; cf.254: 20-32: Quodautem,
quaestione,
tari an SUBIECTO
refertur
,
etc.,ad illaspraedicativas
fiunt
quae deinhaerentia
quaestiones
: 'Utrum
hocsitanimal',
haecde inhaerentia
est.
nondemodo
inhaerentiae
cumdicitur
, veluti
vel'inhaereat
id est
Si quisautemquaerat
: 'Utrum
animalsitgenushominis',
homini',
Undein sequentibus
dicetquodcum
de eo utgenus,
demodo
estinhaerentiae.
praedicetur
Sedprofecto
sitmodusinhaerendi.
constiterit
questio
quisnam
aliquidinessealicui,restt
omnisquaestio
de modoinhaerentiae
estetiamde inhaerentia,
quaestio
quianonpotest

a praedicativa
terminorum
descendere
ipsiusnonrequirat.
propositione
quaede inhaerentia
124Sup.Top.,
: 25.
276: 40-277:18; 279: 17-281

15:04:07 PM

218

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

de connatreexactementla positionde
A-t-ondes lmentspermettant
les
autrement
Guillaume,
critiques d'Ablard ? En tant que
que par
il
a
une
bien
dfendu
raliste125,
logique qui soit in re,comme le monOn pourraitdonc
trentles extraitspublis par N.J. Green-Pedersen126.
la questiondes modes d'inhrencecomme
s'attendre ce qu'il interprte
portantsur des res, puisque pour lui les predicables(genre,espce etc.)
sont des res: dire que la blancheurinhreen Socrate en tantqu'accident
Or nous possdonspourreviendrait parler d'une chose universelle127.
tant un tmoignagequi rapporteque Matre W. soutenaitque les rapports topiques concernaientles voceset les consquences les choses128.
L'explicationtientpeut-tre ce que, ainsique l'expliqueAblard,puisqu'il
des choses
, ceux qui sou, mais seulementdes voces
n'y a pas de dfinition
la dfinitiondu
tiennentque les predicablessont des choses transfrent
nom la chose qu'il signifie,et parlentainsi de la chose, en tant qu'elle
est l'objet de la dfinition129.
Avantd'envisager
le secondpan de la critiqued'AblardcontreGuillaume
rerum,
de Champeaux, qui a trait sa conceptionde Yinhaerentia
, il nous
fautinsistersur le faitque cettedistinctionentreces deux acceptionsde
la notion d^inhrence
est dj dans la Dialctica
, et se maintientintacteen
diverspassages de sa Logka.Le passage le plus explicitese trouvedans la
125Surl'opposition
surla question
desuniver Guillaume
de Champeaux
d'Ablard
de Libera1996,132sq.; id. 1999,281sq.
19822
saux,voirnotamment
Tolivet,
ri9691,
126
VoirGreen-Pedersen
1974et 1984,165sq.; Iwakuma
2003.
127Cf.Jolivet
1991,242-3.
128Commentaire
surle De sylbgismis
, ms.Orlans
266,182b,cit.parIwakuma
categoricis
inter
fieri
huiusmodi
res,ethabitudo
2003,8 : M.W.dicitquodsatispotest
consequentia
definitum
vele converso
'Si
etlocuspotest
notari
inter
, sicutubidefinitio
ipsasvoces
probat
estinterres
Socrates
esthomo',etc.consequentia
Socrates
estanimalrationale
mortale,
invocibus
... ; cf.aussiuncommentaire
surle PeriHermeneias
ethabitudo
potest
assignari
= H20,ms.Orlans266,p. 260b-261a,
cit.ibid.,10:... Contrahocdicebat
magister
: si 'Socrates
rerum
de quibusagit,
W. sicessedeterminandum
esthomo'estveragratia
celledeBoce,
la position
de Guillaume
tuncSocrates
esthomo... . On peutcomparer
dansle passagesuivant:
Boce,DDT PL 64, 1177B:Quae cumitasint,in predicaIn hypotheticis
tivaquaestione
dubitatur
an subiecto
termino
inhaereat.
vero
praedicatus
illudtantum
an illamremquae praecedit
comitetur
id quod
quaestionibus,
quaeritur
VoiraussiFredborg
esseproponitur.
1977.
1976,23 sq.,Green-Pedersen
sequens
129Cf.Ablard,
non
definitio
., 270: 34-271: 9 Quipperealepraedicatum
Sup.Top
nostram
sententiam
dicitur
nisiuoxquiasolasuoeesuniest,necetiamgenussecundum
hiiqui resquoque
id estde mullspraedicabiles
esse.At fortasse
concedimus
verselles,
esseconcedunt,
cumgenusautproprium
velaccidens
resessedixit,
universales
definitions
nomine
translationem
rem
a definitone
scilicet
; quotiens
significatam
designabunt
quoque
perquamdam
utanimalrationale
mortale
ipsaresperdefinitionem
significabitur,
quiaesthomo,cum
definitio
tunc
sit,id estsignificatum
perdefinitionem,
quandodefinitione
designabitur,

definitum
uocabulum
dicatur,
quandoperdefinitum
designabitur.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

219

Dialctica
, prcismentdans le troisimetrait(les Topiques), au chapitre
sur les lieux. Ablard y distinguetroissens du verbepredican.
Le premier
a traitaux relationsentreles termessujet et prdicatdans une proposition [secundum
enuntiationem
Les deux seconds ont rapportaux
vocabulorum).
relationsd'inhrenceentre choses (secundum
reruminherentiam/
,
coherentiam)
tre
soit
des
cohrence
de
deux
soit
des
qui peuvent
(de
matires),
rapports
ou d'adhrence
Comme
rapports'adjacence
(d'une formedans une matire)130.
dans le Sup. Top.,Ablard se sertde la distinctionlorsqu'ilconsidreles
entretermes131,
rapportstopiques
puisque, comme il l'explique,il n'y aurait
aucun sens parler d'inhrenceen un sens rel: Socrate n'inhrepas
rellementdans l'homme, ni l'homme dans l'animal: Par consquent
quand on dit que le prdicatest par rapportau sujetplus grand ou gal,
on considrel'nonciationdes mots(voces),
et non l'essencede la chose132
.
On retrouveracetteide dans le commentairesur Porphyrede la Logica

130
Dial.III, 329: 19-35: Tribusautemmodis'predicali'
unoquidem
secunsumitur,
dum
enuntiationem
vocabulorum
ad se invicem
in constructione,
duobus
verosecundum
rerum
ad se inherentiam,
autcumvidelicet
in essentia
coheret
sicutmateria
autcum
materiato,
alterum
alterisecundum
adiacentiam
ut forma
materie.
Ac secundum
adheret,
quidem
enuntiationem
omnisenuntiatio
tamveraquamfalsa,tamaffirmativa
cathegorica
quam
etsubiectum
habere
velutetiamiste: 'omnis
homoestlapis',
dicitur,
negativa,
predicatum
'nullus
homoestlapis'. . . Sed nonde hisinpropositione
seddepredicatione
tantum
agitur,
rerum
solumque inessentia
sicutin
, itascilicet
, queverbosubstantivo
consistt,
exprimitur,
LibroCathegoricorum
ostendimus
Sillogismorum
[cf.155: 25 sq.]. Tantumitaque'predicali
illuaccipimus
si 'hocilludesse'diceremus,
tantum
quantum
per'removeri'
quantum
per
'nonesse'.Surl'inhrence
destermes,
voiraussiDial.II, 164: 6 (enrfrence
au De
cat.deBoceI, PL 64,797D): Partes
idestmetas,
terminos,
nominamus,
syll.
queextreme
suiquantitatem
terminant
ac finiunt
autemmedium
Si
; verbum
compositi
interponitur.
velitBoetius
ac subiectum
simigitur
predicatum
proprie
quandoinpredicatum
accipere,
idestcathegoricam,
in Cathegoricis
dividit
dicens
: 'dividitur
plicem,
propositionem
sillogismis
autemsimplex
in duaspartes,
in subiectum
ut 'homoestaniet predicatum,
propositio
de homine
ad principales
mal','homo'subiectum
est,'animai'
predicatur
partes
respiciendumest,idestsubiectum
et proprium
ad se inherentiam
monsquorum
propositio
predicatum,
Cf.aussiDial.III, 353: 10 sq.,cit.infra.
trat.
131
Dial.III, d.cit.,
457: 25 sq.; cf.suprapourlesSup.Top.VoirGreen-Pedersen
1984,
169sq.
132
Dial.II, 165: 35-66: 15: ... etquandodicitur
: 'homoestanimal',
simioportet
literconfiteli
realiter
quodanimal
quodipsehomoestac de homine
predicatur
atqueipsi
nonesthomine
in essentia
... Atveromagispreimmoad<est>prorsus
inheret,
maius,
dicationem
secundum
verbapropositionis
reiexistentiam
nostrum
est
quamsecundum
facimus
enunattendere
secundum
de eodemdiversas
quilogicedeservimus,
quodquidem
tiationes
hocmodo: 'Socrates
estSocrates'
vel'homo'vel'corpus'
vel'substantia'.
Aliud
enimin nomine
'Socratis'
'hominis'
velceteris
; sednonest
quamin homine
intelligitur
aliaresuniusnominis
subinheret
Quoditaquepredicatum
quodSocrati
quamalterius.
; cf.Dial.
reireducitur.
iectomaiusvelequaledicitur,
advocum
nonadessentiam
enuntiationem,
Ill, 409: 9-410: 2.

15:04:07 PM

220

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

o Ablard parle de la prdicationcomme vritd'inh(Ingredientibus'

rence, qui dpend des diversmodes (contenance,supriorit,
galitetc.)
Par contre,la vritou la faussetd'une proexistantentreles termes133.
position affirmative
dpend de l'inhrencedes choses, et Ablard note
: la proposition4omnis
essentie
que c'est ce seul plan que joue la copulatio
'
homoestlapis est fausseparce qu'elle pose une inhrence
, c'est--diredans
n'existe
ce cas une cohrence
, qui
pas134(i.e. qui correspond un tat de
ne reposepas sur une telle
chose inexistant).La vritd'une hypothtique
prdication d'inhrence, puisque la propositionprcdentepeut trs
bien tre l'antcdentd'une hypothtiquevraie135.C'est ce qui permet
d'expliquerque la vritdes propositionsn'est pas ncessaire,alors que
celle des consquencesl'est, indpendammentde l'existencedes choses,
136.La distincthseforte Ablard que l'on retrouverachez les Nominales
est invoqueen d'autres
tionde ces deux acceptionsde la notioninhaerere
Ablard
contextes,par exemple, propos des adverbes de modalit137.
explique que les adverbesne peuventqualifierl'inhrencerelle (moda: en
lit de sensu
, qu'on nommeraensuitede r)mais l'inhrencevocale138
133Sup.Porph
ad enunautem
unomodoquantum
., 58: 34-59: 9 : Accipitur
praedicari
siveaffirmativam
sivenegatvam
. . . Alio
sivefalsam,
tiationem
solam,siveveramscilicet
secundum
constructionis
modopraedicari
sumitur
nontantum
enuntiationem,
simplicem
animal
secundum
dehomine
secundum
inhaerentiae
verum
veritatem,
quamscilicet
potius
ipsius
nomen
homini
veraciter
nonedamlapis,cumhocvidelicet
dicitur,
coniungibile
praedicari
ad
modusin praedicatione,
scilicet
Hic autemsecundus
sit,illudverominime.
quantum
Eorumenimquaede aliispraediveritatem
inhaerentiae
aliosmodossubse continet.
, plures
contends
sicutmaiora
velaequacabiliasunt,
de eisutde prorsus
praedicantur,
quaedam
termini
nominationem
continent
.
subiecti
lia,quaetotam
134
homo
si omnis
omnis
homo
Dial.III, 353: 5-23: "... Si omnis
estlapis
, tune
lapisestasinus
ad 'hominem'
estasinus
. . . Sed si 'lapis'viminferentie
tenet
ex predicatione
querosiveex
rerum
coherentiam.
Sednullainreestcohesecundum
vocum
enuntiationem
, sivesecundum
predicatane
nullam
rentia
adhominem.
enuntiationis
lapidis
Quodsiad solampredicationem
respiciamus,
tenet
. . . Qui enimdicit: 'omnishomoestlapis',per
etiamprobabilitatem
consequentia
vocumquidemenuntiationem
rerum
ostendit
coherentiam
que nonest,et ideofalsaest
.
sicutconsequens
antecedens
ipotetica
cathegorica
135
nullam
viminfeDial.III, 354: 10-3: Patetinsuper
verepredicationem
inherentie
illitotius
cumvidelicet
termirentie
conferre
consequentie
complexioni,
equein omnibus
scilicet
sinthabitudinis,
sivecohereant
sive
nisipsacomplexio
sit,cuiuscumque
recipienda
19811 [1987],193sq.
non.; cf.aussiibid.457: 19-24et II, 154-160;voirJolivet
136
Dial.II, 160sq.; III, 264: 38 sq.; 279: 8 sq.; 282: 30-33: Patetet ex hoc
differentia
etipotetice
enuntiationis
cumhec,utsupraquoquediximus,
actum
cathegorice
illanecessitatum
utdiximus,
inherentie
consecutionis
rerum,
ostenderet,
quequidem,
ipsis
VoirTweedale1988,223 sq.,Martin
incommutabilis
consistit.
quoquerebusdestructis
1987& 1992,Marenbon
1977,202sq.
137
Dial.II, 191sq.
138
Dial.II, 194: 25-26; 198: 1-6: [Apropos
estalbus
de nullus
homo
] "Nulloenimmodo
naturahominis
albedini
affirmativa
etiamest,cumscilicet
convenire
rpugnt,
possibile

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

221

disant'Socrates
estepiscopus'on ne peut parlerde l'inhrence(ou
possibilit
cohrence) relle de (l')vque en Socrate (puisque Socrate est, au
moment o on parle, un lac), ce qui est encore plus manifesteavec
'
est esse lapidem
'139.Contre Guillaume de
l'exemple Socratem
impossibile
des modalitsde dictoH0
, Ablard
Champeaux,partisand'une interprtation
soutientque la modalitagit au plan de denuntiatio
, et dit la maniredont
le termeprdicatest joint au termesujet141.
Revenons maintenant Yinhaerentia
rerum
, qui constituele deuxime
voletde la critiquecontreGuillaumede Champeaux. Selon Ablard,une
4
' montre
esthomo
propositionn'a qu'un seul sens: Socrates
que l'homme
inhreessentiellement
en Socrate,c'est--direque Socrateest un homme,
'Socrates
est albus' pose l'inhrencede la blancheur dans le sujet. On a
ainsideux modes de l'inhrencedes choses,l'inhrenced'essence,et l'inhrence d'adjacence. Cette prdicationpar inhrence,ainsi entendue,est
ce qui est principalement
vis par celui qui faitune proposition.En effet,
en disant ' Socrates
est albus' on a l'intentiond'affirmer
l'inhrencede la
blancheurdans le sujet,qui est ici une inhrenced'adjacence. Par ailleurs,
comme nous l'avons dit, en dpit de l'analyse syncatgormatique
de la
Ablard
reconnat
la
n'est
totalement
vide
de
copule,
que
copule
pas

sens: du faitqu'elle signifietoutesles choses in essentia

, elle ne peut tre
prononcesans qu'il y ait conjonctiondes essences. En consquence,il
fautqu'il y ait quelque chose qui soit coupl in essentia.
Or, comme,dans
le cas d'une prdicationaccidentelle,la qualit ne peut tre couple in
essentia
nonpotestverealbedoSocraticopulan
( in essentia
), il fauttenird'une
, et d'autre part que quelque
part que la qualit est couple in adiacentia
dicatei quodpropositio
dicit.Necetiammodalis
sedsimplex,
appellali
potest,
quiasimattribuit
subiecte
essentie.
Undenecullaestibimodificatio
pliciter
possibile
proprositionis
rerum
necderebus
seddesensu
... VoirKnuuttila
inherentie,
quippe
agitur,
propositionis
1993,83 sq.
139
Dkl.II, 193: 18-30.
140
Dial.II, 195: 12 sq.; voirKnuuttila
1993,87.
141
Dial.II, 194: 25-31; Sup.Per
uelfalso,
cum
484: 7-24: Haecautem,
possibiliter
dicimus
Socrate
sedente
'Socrates
currit
uelfalso',
modiin sensunonsunt;si
possibiliter
enimmodiin sensuessent,
ut inhaerentiam
verbiquasipriuspropositam
et
oporteret
constitutam
si enimnonproponetur
modificarent;
priusinhaerentia,
quomodo
ipsamodificabitur?
. . . Cumenimdicimus
: 'Socrates
currit
id est'Socrates
curpossibliter'
potest
ullomodoconstituimus,
ut quomodo
sedid
rere',nonin eo cursum
insit,
ostendamus,
VoirIwakuma
solummonstrare
currere.
intendimus,
1992,111-2,
quodpossit
pourles
de Magister
W. de telsexemples,
danscertains
casdu moins,
une
analyses
quimontrent,
dere: cf.De modalibus
: UndeM.W.exponebat
eas
, Orlans266,p. 254b-255a
analyse
<modales>in negativo
: 'Socratem
esseanimalestpossibile',
id estnon
sensu,utistam
Cf.aussiGarlandus,
natura
reiSocratem
esseanimal.
Dial.,81: 18 sq.
rpugnt

15:04:07 PM

222

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

chose d'autre est coupl in essentia

, savoirle fondementde la qualit142.
Si la prdicationd'inhrenceest ce que le verbe substantif
ralise titre
le
des
essences
est
ce
essentiae)
premier, couplage
(<copulatio
qu'il ralise
titresecond, uniquementparce qu'il n'est pas une pure copule143.
Ablards'oppose donc surplusieurspoints la conceptionde Guillaume
de Champeaux. Il unifiel'analyse de la prdication.L'inhrence,distingue en inhrenced'essenceet inhrenced'adjacence, que Guillaumeassignait au sens reconnu la propositionpar le dialecticien,devientle sens
premierde la prdication.La valeur de couplage ne dpend pas d'un
sens autrequi seraitreconnupar le grammairien,
mais de la natureimparfaitedu verbe substantif,
qui signifieles choses en leur essence. Une prdicationexprime la foisl'inhrence,celle d'une qualit dans le cas d'une
prdicationaccidentelle,et le couplage. Mais, et c'est l le point fortde
la critiquecontreGuillaume,Ablard n'admet pas que le couplage soit
seulementcouplage des essences,et qu'il n'y ait qu'un seul mode de cou, qui ne se diversifierait
plage, le couplage in essentia
que selon la nature
des essences couples, savoir le fondementde la qualit, dans 'Socrates
estalbedo
'144.Il refuseainsi
estalbus' et la qualit elle-mme,dans 'Socrates
le ralismeimpliqudans la conceptiongrammaticalede l'inhrenceselon
les choses attribue Guillaume. S'il admet comme Guillaume qu'il y a
du fondementde la qualit145,
dans 'Socrates
estalbus'
couplage in essentia
il affirme
a
en
la
outre
de
mais
in
adiacentia
, cette
qu'il y
couplage
qualit,
l'inhrence.Le pointimportant
qualit mme dont la prdicationaffirme
de la critiqueest qu'il ne peut y avoir prdicationou couplage in essentia
d'un accident,du faitqu'un accidentexistencessairement
en un sujet146.
A partirdu constatqu'il ne pouvaity avoir couplage des essencesdans
le cas d'une prdicationaccidentelle,puisque la substanceSocratene pouvait tre dite identique l'accident blancheur( nullomodo. . . illamrem
142Sup.Top.,274: 34-275: 7 (aveclescorrection
de De Rijk,1962-67,
vol.II/1,204).
Cf.Sup.Per.,360: 15-361
: 3, citsupra
, n. 102.Cf.aussiSup.Per.,353: 18-23: Et hoc
estquodait: verbum
estnotaeorumquaede alteropraedicantur,
hocestsemsemper
sivecumaliisaccidentium
acciest,quaevidelicet
per,siveperse dictum
designativum
dentiapraedicantur
de alteroet inhaerent
suosubiecto,
estaliudesseab
quodnecesse
noninessentia,
sedutpraedicata,
id estut inhaeipsis,et insuper
ipsaaccidentia
dsignt

rentia
subiecto.
143Sup.Top.,274: 32-3.
144Sup.Top.,274: 24-31.
145Cf.Sup.Top.,272: 12-3: Hiitantum
essentiae
fundamenti
albedinis
copulationem

ad Socratem
attendunt.
146Cetteideest
ende nombreux
dsla Dialctica,
voir596: 28-32,
exprime
passages,
De Rijk1981a,16-9.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

223

esta Socrate
cumSocrate
, comme
)147,les Glosulae
quealienenature
copulare
potest
Guillaume de Champeaux (selon sa conception du sens grammatical)
concluaientque seul tait couplle sujet de la blancheur,en tant que
la qualit. A partirde
dterminpar la qualit, tandis qu'tait prdique
la mme prmisse,Ablard pose qu'il y a en outre couplage de la quaIl peut maintenircette positiondu fait que pour lui la
lit in adiacentia.
blancheurn'est pas une chose ou une essence universelle- une concep148- mais un accident
tion que nous trouvons l'inversedans les Glosulae
particulier,une blancheursingulire,relle, qui peut tre couple avec
rerum
un sujetparticulier149.
Uinhaerentia
, dans le cas de l'inhrenced'adjal'associationd'une
cence (.Socrates
estalbus),est donc fondamentalement
formeaccidentelle un sujet: puisque quand nous entendons' Socrates
estalbus' . . . par 'albus'nous couplonsseulementdans notreespritla blancheur,et non pas ce-qui-est-affect
par la blancheur, Socrate. Le point
de clivage tientbien la nature des universaux: puisqu'il n'y a pas de
il ne peut y avoirprdicationd'un accidentcomme
blancheuruniverselle,
'
estalbedo''tant inacceptala blancheurin essentia
, la proposition Socrates
ble150.Les prsuppossontologiquesde l'analyse de la prdicationsont
ainsi,dans les Sup. Top., commedans le Sup.Per., bien mis au premierplan.
147Cf.annexe(C5)et supra
, n. 76.
148Glosulae
, ad VIII, 1, d. Fredborg
1977,26: 15-9:Sed 'albedo'qualitas,
quam
inoculo
inesttotaliter,
utsi verbigratia
albumperminimum
individuum
suum,
significai
dicimus
totamremuniversalem
hancalbedinem
subsistere
, quae estalbedo,ibidemesse
affirmamus.
Talisenimestnatura
quaItaque'albealbedinem
ipsorum
incorporeorum.
actionem
nonhabet,sedsignificai
litatem
gratiaalbedinis
qualitatis
quandam
significare
etper
succedenter
transit
sedperpartes
venientem
ad corpus
quaesimultotanoninest,
subsistere
minimam
dies,quamlicet
quemadmodum
perhibetur,
partem
componentem
Haec autem
nonhabundamus.
velipsumlibere
vocarevelalbationem
quia nominibus
Il resterait
mieux
totasimulinest.
actioperpartes
transit,
venit,
numquam
perpartes
si ellesontuneposition
la premire
version
desGlosulae
tudier
philosopourdterminer
desGlosulae
cohrente.
, notam1992,montre
positions
quecertaines
Kneepkens
phiquement
aussibien
c'est--dire
sontphilosophiquement
ment
surlesparonymes,
neutres,
compatibles
'
de 'resuniversalis
On notera
avecle ralisme
que cetteexpression
qu'avecle nominalisme.
'Materia
de
surle De inventinone
aussifrquemment
dansle commentaire
se retrouve
Tulli,
diaGuillaume
de Champeaux
1976,13)maisaussidanslesIntroductiones
(voirFredborg
G.Pageneilum
artis
lecticae
secundum
1993,
, quiluisontaussiattribues
(voirIwakuma
magistrm
58-9).
149Surcetteconception
des
de l'insparabilit
et du principe
desaccidents
particuliers
voirMarenbon
accidents
chezAblard,
1997,118sq. et 155sq.; surles consquences
ibid.,140-3.
pourla prdication,
150Le coupleinadiacentia/
chezlescommendiffrentes
a suscit
desanalyses
inessentia
Kretzmann
tateurs
modernes
1982,497-8,De Rijk1986,110.Dansces
; voirnotamment
et
il n'existe
entouscas,il semble
quedessubstances
pourAblard
quepuisque
passages
ne
il doiveposerque (a) la blancheur
et diffrences)
desformes
(accidents
particulires,

15:04:07 PM

224

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

La questionde Boce : est-ceque le prdicatinhreau sujet,peut ainsi

recevoirune rponseprcise, condition(1) de la distinguerde celle des
modes d'inhrence, qui concerneles termes(inhaerentia
vocum)l5'et (2)
de poser qu'elle concerne seulementl'inhrence des choses (;inhaerentia
dont deux espces doiventtre distingues,l'inhrenced'essence
rerum),
Socrates
esthomo
estalbus
) et l'inhrenced'adjacence (.Socrates
(.
)152,(3) de coml'inhrence
ne
tre
identifie
l'inhrence
d'adjacence
prendreque
peut
d'un accident in essentia
, mais seulement l'inhrenced'un accident in
adiacentia
dans un sujet,et
, en tant qu'accidentparticulierncessairement
au double couplagede l'accidentinadiacentia
et de son fondementinessentia.
Conclusion
Le problme auquel Ablard a faireface, dans son analyse du verbe
1'officium
est qu'il drive,comme les grammairiens,
de
substantif,
copulandi

sa signification de toutesles essencesen tantqu'essences [Dial) ou du

(Sup.Per.): cettesignification,
fait qu'il signifie
toutesles chosesin essentia
lui
confre
une
valeur
d'existence
qui
quand il est utilisseul,faitdifficult
il
est
utilis
comme
En
effetpour pouvoircoupler autre
quand
copule.
chose , savoir la chose signifiepar le prdicat,il doit lui-mmetre
vide de sens. Pluttque de dfendrela thse qu'il y a chez Ablard des
thoriesdiffrentes
du verbe substantif
ou de la prdication,on pourrait
dire qu'il dveloppe diffrentes
stratgies,qui sont fonction la fois des
objectifsprincipaux qu'il se fixe objectifscritiques souvent, contre
Guillaume de Champeaux et les grammairiensnotamment-, des tensions entre des exigences de diffrentsordre auxquelles il a faire
face - ainsi, si la copule tait une pure copule, ceci impliqueraitque le
verbe substantifsoit quivoque en ses deux usages, ce qui semble peu
souhaitable- mais aussi des instruments
d'analyse qu'il se donne. Un
dans
la
Dial,
est
la
objectifimportant,
critiquedes grammairienset de
ce qui impliquerait
peuttrecoupleinessentia,
qu'ilexisteun accident
qui subsiste
par
soi-mme
ou nommer
, (b) qu'ellene peuttrecouple
que le terme
puissednoter
en tantque dansun sujet,(c) que seulle fondement
de la
, c'est--dire
que inadiacentia
la choseindividuelle
soitcouplinessentia.
Dansle coupleinherentia
essenblanche,
qualit,
tiaevs.inherentia
adiacentiae
inessentia
vs.inhaerere
inadiacentia
estmis
(ou inhaerere
), essence
et adjacence
poursubstance
(homo)
pouraccident
(albus)
(cf.Sup.Top.271; cf.aussipar
Cat
VoirTolivet
., 140:5-9).
1975,538-43, De Rijk1981a,19-24.
exemple
Sup.
151Sup.Top.,275: 24-38.
152Cesdeuxmodesinterviennent
dansla discussion
surlesuniversaux,
danslesGlossulae
, 520: 15 sq.
super
Porphyrium

15:04:07 PM

ABELARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

225

leur conceptionde l'inhrence,qui, quelles que soientses interprtations,

un contenusignificatif,
semble confrerau verbe substantif
incompatible
avec
sa
fonction
de
Ablard
copule. Pour cette raison, il met au
pour
second plan la valeur d'inhrence,en la faisantdpendredu seul prdicat, lorsqu'ilest accidentel,et situeau premierplan le couplage des essenne rencontre
ces. Dans la Dial., la rflexionsur les partiesconsignifiantes
le
fera
dans
le
comme
elle
du
verbe
substantif,
Sup.Per.grce
pas l'analyse
des gramau passage du PH 16b20-25et restedpendantedes suggestions
mairiens.En effet,la critiquequi en est faitene dbouche pas sur une
Ablard retenantl'ide que ces parconceptionradicalementdiffrente,
de maniredrive,du terme
tirentleur signification,
ties consignifiantes
auquel elles sont jointes ce qui explique d'ailleurs que cette valeur
seconde d'inhrenceque possde le verbe es soit prcismentimpute
il rsoutla difficult
la naturedu prdicat.Dans la Logica(Ingredientibus'
et la
les
la
de
vider
dans
Dial.,
parties consignifiantes
qui l'empchait,
savoirque si tel taitle cas, on se trouvait
copule de toutesignification,
dans l'impossibilitd'expliquer leur fonctionsmantique au sein de la
comme actes
Grce sa thorienouvelledes syncatgormes
proposition153.

la
Ablard
de l'esprit
, qu'il applique
peut expliquer comment
copule,
une partie qui n'a pas d'intellectionpeut nanmoinscontribuerau sens
du toutdont elle est partie.Ceci lui permetde remettreau premierplan
l'inhrence: admettreque la prdicationsoit fondamentalement
l'expression de l'inhrencedu prdicat dans le sujet n'a plus les consquences
indsirablesqu'il cherchait repousserdans la Dial. Il accepte alors, de
fondesur la signification
faonplus cohrente,que la valeurexistentielle,
essentia
des
choses
in
celle
du
verbe
, ne se manifeste
substantif,
premire
au titre
et
se
maintienne
secundum
adiacens
est
,
pleinementque lorsqu'il
d'une simple valeur seconde, accidentellepourrait-ondire, puisque due
adiacensXbA.
On
aux dfautsdu langage, lorsqu'il est construiten tertium

153Commel'explique
dansla Dial.,quela
le faitde considrer,
K. Jacobi,
justetitre
de celledu terme
drive
sa signification
en tantque partie
auquel
consignifiante,
copule,
ola copule
dela prdication
va bienavecla seconde
elleestadjointe
accidentelle,
analyse
dansSup.Per
ne faitqu'unavecle prdicat
., la nouvelle
(Jacobi1986,158).Parcontre,
ce qui explique
danscettedirection,
n'entrane
dessyncatgormes
plusAblard
analyse
du prdicat
aveccettethorie
sesdistances
certainement
complexe,
prenant
qu'ilprenne
estbiencelui
soinde direqu'ils'agitd'unusage impropre
, et que l'usage propre
de l'nonc
comme
du prdicat
o la copuleestdistincte
(cf.supraet n. 92).
partie
154Mews1987,26-39meten parallle
surla predide la pensed Ablard
l'volution
'Summi
entrela Theologia
et la Logica
cationentrela Dialctica
, avecceluique l'ontrouve
3etla
au
second
cas

mettre
les
deux
aboutit
dans
volution
Christiana
boni
,
qui
Theologia

15:04:07 PM

226

IRENEROSIER-CATAGH

voit donc que troissolutionssont envisagespour tenter effacer la

du verbe substantif
dans son usage de copule : dans la Dial.,
signification
soit lui attribuerune pure valeur de couplage, d'identit,en assignant
l'inhrence la seule naturedu prdicat,soit en faireune partiedu pravancer qu'elle correspond un acte
dicat, dans la Logicacingredientibus'
de l'intellect,contribuant la signification
de l'ensemblede la proposition sans correspondreelle-mme aucune intellection155.
Nous avons vu qu'intervenaient
deux thsesphilosophiquesfortes.La
premireest de nature ontologique: il est impossiblede concevoirun
accident autrementqu'en tant qu'accident particulieret en dpendance
d'un sujet, puisqu'un accident existe in adiacentia
; il devientpossible de
parler d'inhrenced'une forme,si l'on entendpar l que la forme(indi, et que son fondementl'est in essentia
viduelle)est couple in adiacentia
seul un ralistecomme Guillaume pouvait admettreque la forme(uniLa seconde est une thse vocaliste sur
verselle)soit couple in essentia.
la nature de la dialectique,qui doit se fairein voce
Une
, et non in re156.
essene
, ne s'intressant
analysequi s'en tiendrait la copulatiti
qu'aux choses dnotes par le sujet et le prdicat (nominata),
ne pourraitexpliquer
ni les rapportstopiquesentreles termesd'une propositionni les rapports
de consquence entre les propositions.A ce niveau d'analyse, ce n'est
rerum
terminorum
plus Yinherentia
qui doit tre considre,mais Yinherentia
ce qui est parfaitementconsonantavec le tmoignaged'un texte ano, les premiers
nyme,qui oppose la positiondes Reaies celle des Nominales
affirmant
qu'une chose estprdiqued'une chose,les secondsqu'un terme
est prdiqu d'un terme157.
Ces dveloppementspermettent
de rpondre un problmequi pouvait a priori tre troublant: pourquoi le nominalisteAblard aurait-il
finalementmis au premierplan la thse de la prdicationpar inhrence,
desessences.
Le pointcrucial,
surle planthologique,
estde dtermiplanla prdication
nerque toutes
lesformes
ne sontpas desessences,
ainsique le notebienuncommentateuranonyme
; cf.Marenbon
1997,156sq. (etn. 45,p. 159).
153
VoirMarenbon
1999.
156
VoirIwakuma
1992.
157Ms. Mnchen,
Gim14458,f.56rb,cit.parIwakuma
et Ebbesen1992,181,texte
12a : "Stricte
dicitur
termino
viverbisubstantivi
<in>
seil.)terminm
(praedicari
copulali
veraaffirmativa
et de praesenti
'Terminm
termino
propositione[m]
simpliciter.
copulali'
dictum
estad differentiam
inquibusnonterminus
termino
hypotheticarum
propositionum,
sedpropositio
scilicet
ut 'Si
antecedenti,
copulatur,
propositioni,
(] sed ms.)consequens
Socrates
esthomo,Socrates
rem
realium,
(] sedms.)estanimal'.Veladdifferentiam
quidicunt
derepraedicari
determino"
Dansla suite,
l'auteur
, nosterminm
anonyme
parlede nosnominales.
VoirLibera1999,139et 152.

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

227

alors que l'inhrencesemble impliquerprcismentune analyse raliste

du prdicatcomme renvoyant une forme- et c'est d'ailleursen ce sens
cette thse tout au long du Moyen Age, par opposique va fonctionner
tion l'analysepar identit,caractristiqued'une analyse extensionnelle
Ce n'est pas en ces
du prdicat,soutenuepluttpar les nominalistes158.
doit
se
l'avons
le
nous
vu, que
termes,
poser. La solution
problme
d'Ablard dpend d'une thse fortesur la nature de la logique, qui se
trouve l'originede l'oppositionentre vocaleset reaies.Ablard, comme
vocaliste, ne peut pas se contenterd'une analyse par copulatio
essentie
,
comme peut le faire un grammairien,qui serait,en cela, raliste au sens o il parleraitdes chosesdnotespar le sujet et le prdicat.Le
des voces,et pas seudialecticiendoit s'intresseren outre la prdication
une vritableanalyse
des res.Il pourra dorseffectuer
lementau couplage
de la prdication,en analysantles relationsentreles termes,relalogique
d'accident sujet.
tionsde genre espce, de suprieur infrieur,
Il me semble que le mouvementde la pense d'Ablard se laisse ainsi
mieux saisir, quand on considre son volution dans le contexte des
discussionsavec ses contemporains.Les Glosulae
, hritires la fois de
Boce et de Priscien,jouent un rle majeur dans l'histoiredes thories
la distinction
par leur dfinitiondu verbe substantif,
logico-linguistiques,
adiacens
adiacenset en tertium
entrel'usage en secundum
, la distinctionentre
valeur de couplage et valeur d'inhrence,l'introducvaleur existentielle,
tion de la notionde copula- pour ne citerque les thmesqui ont t ici
et en considrantleurinfluence
tudis.C'est donc la foisen elles-mmes
sur Ablardet les dialecticienscontemporainsqu'elles mritentd'tretudies. D'autres confrontations
pourraientencore tre tentes: pour ne
mentionnerqu'une piste,en prolongementde la prsentetude, il vauet verbe vocadraitla peine de creuserle parallleentreverbe substantif
tifou nuncupativum
, et repris
, longuementcommentdans les Glosulae

de
notion
la
de
cette
clef
donner
couplage
par Ablard, qui pourrait
des essences, o la prdicationest envisage comme un couplage
des choses nommes par le sujetet par le prdicat.C'est effectivement
dans le contexted'une rflexionsur les verbes vocatifsque Priscienutilise cette notion de nominatio
, et que les Glosulaedveloppentl'ide que,
' ' et ' Socrates'
nomment la mme chose.
dans 4egovocorSocrates'
, ego
158Encoreque,commel'a montr
n'est
Malcolm1972,uneanalysepar inhrence
univer unenature
qu' condition
comme
le prdicat
raliste
de prendre
renvoyant
d'uneforme
l'inhrence
comme
Ockham
selle; un nominaliste
peuttrsbienadmettre
non-universelle
individuelle).
(ex.uneblancheur

15:04:07 PM

228

IRENEROSIER-GAT
ACH

Les discussionslogico-grammaticalesdu tournantdes xie-xnesicles

un momentimportantde la longue histoiredu verbe 'tre'.
reprsentent
Il est fascinantde voir comment elles se dveloppentsur fond d'une
confrontation
originalede passageset de problmesemprunts des sources logiqueset grammaticalesanciennes,dont rsultentde nouvellesquestionset de nouvellesrponses: le verbe 'est' est-ilun verbe part entire,
a-t-ildes valeursdiffrentes,
s'agit-ilde propritssmantiquesou de proces
valeurset propritssont-elleshirarchises
constructionnelles,
prits
ou indpendantes,sont-ellesgalementprsentesdans tous les contextes
d'emplois159.En raison du primat accord au smantique et l'ide
d' imposition, on tend vouloirfonderles propritsconstructionnelsur des propritssmantiques, fairedpendrela
les, ou fonctionnelles,
la
fonction(<officium
de
nature(significatici),
et donc la valeur copulativede
)
la valeur existentielle.
C'est lorsque la smantiquedu verbe 'tre' rejoint
la problmatiquelogico-grammaticale
des partiesconsignifiantes
ou syn
s'ouvre
une
une
catgormes,que
possibilitpour
pure copule , une
fois repens sur de nouvellesbases le problme de la compositionalit
smantique.C'est ainsi partirde cettelecturede nouvellede Boce et
de Priscienque les Glosulaeet Ablard distinguent,
de manire durable,
une valeurde couplage (viscopulandi)
l'introduction
du terme
prnisepar
et
articulent
les
du
sens
la
de
de
ses
,
copula
valeurs,des
questions
copule,
diffrents
modes de la prdication,mais aussi de l'analysede la structure,
du contenu,et de la vritdes propositions.
Universitde Paris 7
CNRS UMR 7597

Annexe
K - Cologne
Dom B. 201, fin 1Ie sicle,f. lra-74rb; M - Metz, Bibl.Mun.
1224, f. Ira-11Orb, 12esicle; F = Paris,BnF, nouv. acq. lat. 1623, f. 156 ; C = Chartres
B . Mun. 209 (248), f. l-86v ; V = Rome, Vat. lat. 1486,

159Surlesdiffrentes
d'Aristote
surcettemmequestion
desvaleurs
du
interprtations
verbesubstantif,
voirDe Rijk2002,24-59,etla bibliographie
cite.Toutle problme
est
desavoir
sicesvaleurs
selaissent
ramener
unevaleur
premire
(etde dterminer
laquelle)
ou s'ily a uneradicale
entre
cesvaleurs,
selonla formule
constitue,
htrognit
laquelle
de Russell
to thehumanrace.
rapporte
parL.M. de Rijk a disgrace

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

229

f. lra-90vb,/ = d. GeorgiusArrivabenus,Venise1488160[l'incunablea
certainespartiesdu passages deux fois,une foisdans le chapitreVIII sur
le verbe la , une autre foisdans le chapitreXIII sur le pronom = Ib].
[1] aprs Instit.VIII, 37, dans tous les manuscritssauf F : K f. 31rb ; M
f. 55vb ; V f. 47vb ; C f. 37rb; I (la) f. 103r161
actiovidetur,cum omne verbumprincipaliter
(A) 1. Dignum quesitu162
an verba substantiva164,
nem vel passionem significai163,
que determinaverba esse iudicentur.De
tam actionemvel passionem non significant,
sententias.
quorum significatonediversasponamus magistrorum165
actioneutrum
et
'sum'
esse168
autem
Aiunt166
significare
quidam167
2.
non rem aliquam determinateque170sub aliqua decernessentianem169,
- est enim
rum contineatur171
equivocumverbum-, sed equivocantesin
actionem
vocant
actione,
quicquid non est passio sive sit qualitas sive
Cum
aliud.
ergo 'sum' non unam sed multaset variassignificet
quodlibet172
;
actiones, non unum verbum sed multa rationabiliteresse173affirmant
subcum
non
nomen
'ens174'
non
unum175,
significet
quemadmodum
seu etiam substantiascum aliqua una proprietate,sed multa
stantiam176
160
la conclusion
de M. Gibson(1979,241),que
confirme
desmanuscrits
Notrelecture
l'estdu Rhin),tandis
K estle reprsentant
que
(qu'ellelocalise
uniqued'unerecension
nousl'avonsdit,
unemmefamille,
M C F ainsique V appartiennent
qui tmoigne,
les leonsde
internes.
Nousavonsdoncsuivide prfrence
remaniements
d'importants
tout
le plusancien,
le manuscrit
K qui semble
contre
cettefamille,
palographiquement
manuscrits
ontdu texte.
l o lesautres
deslacunes
en prsentant
161Hunt(1941-43)
d'untexteunide C commes'ils'agissait
a ditle texte partir
[1] (A),p. 225: 9-226:
dansnotrenumrotation,
respectivement,
que,qui correspond
certains
: 7. De Rijk(1967,vol.II/1) a repris
21 et [2] (C2-7),
passap. 226: 22-228
partir
de pourle passage
et a ajoutla collation
de Hunt(102-4),
gesde l'dition
[1] (A6),p. 102.
162quesitu
K M] inquisitu
C la quesitaV
163significai
K
KM Vla] significet
164
verbaV
K M C Ia] substantiva
verbasubstantiva
165
K
M C Vla] magistrorum
ponamus
magistrorum
ponamus
166
KM VC] Amant
Ia
Aiunt
167quidamK M V C] quidem
la
168'sum'esseK M C Id] suntV
169et add.V
170
determinate
quo V
que K C M la] determinato
171
K
M C VId] continetur
contineatur
172
V
K aliquidC la; quodlibet
M (V)]quelibet
aliud]aliudquodlibet
quodlibet
173
C la
esseK M V] esserationabiliter
rationabiliter
174
ensKM C V] eisla
175
unumK M V] unumnomenC la
nomen
176unamadd.V

15:04:07 PM

230

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

convincituresse177.
Nec mirumsic iudicaride 'sum', cum etiam 'amplector178'equivocum179,quod verbum esse constat180
non unum verbum,
non
actionem
vel
sed
quia181
simpliciter
passionem
utrumque simul
immo diversaesse affirmetur,
significat182,
quod in diversisconstructionibus manifestatur.
sententiadissidentesquicquid
3. Alii vero non prorsusa supradicta183
est184'sum' significareut actionemautumant; actiones vero ille confuse
et indeterminatesunt, si per se 'sum' proferatur,
sive etiam de aliquo
ut
si
dicam
'Socrates
est'. At si sit
enuncietur185,
sum',
'ego
simpliciter
tertiumadiacens, actio quidem eius in oratione ilia determinatur186,
ut
cum dico 'Socrates est animal', animal187
in
rem
hac
quippe
propositione
ab 'est' significaliut actionemaffirmant.
Sed cum omne verbum,ut dictumest,actionemvel passionemnon simpliciter
sed adiacentes188
significet189,
si res animalis actio [est190]verbi esse concedatur,in premissapropositione191
Socrati adiacere192
perhibetur,quod absonum est193.
4. Rursus194
aliqui neque tantumactionem195
neque tantumpassionem196
a 'sum' designali volunt,sed actionem197
quando198de rebus substantialibus enunciatur199,
vero
passionem200 quando de quibuslibetaccidentibus,
ut 'homo est', 'color est' ; et est diversuma verbiscommunibus,cum ilia
177convincitur
esseK M V inv.C la
178amplector
K M C Ia] plector
V
179
verbum
add.C la
180esseconstat
KM
constat
esseC la
181 K M C la] V] V
quia
quam
182significat
KM VI' significet
C
183supradicta
K M C la] predicta
V
184estKM la] om.C
185enuncietur
K M C V] enuncientur
la
186determinatur
K M C V] derivatur
la
187animalK M C la] om.V
188adiacentes
la adiacenter
V
KMC] adiacent
189significet
K M C Id] om.V
190[est]KM V] om.C la
191
K M V] propositione
C la
premissa
propositione
premissa
192
K M C V] adiacens
adiacere
la
193Cetteposition
estrpte
dansla seconde
cf.[2](C7),
et il y estfaitallusection,
sion la finde [2](C2).
194Rursus
K M C V] Prorsus
la
195actionem
activum
velactumVIa
KMC]
196
K M C V] passivum
Ia
passionem
197actionem
la om.V
activum
KMC]
198quandoK M C la] om.V
199enunciatur
K M C V] annunciatur
la
200passionem
K M C V] passivum
la

15:04:07 PM

ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS
ABLARD

231

in eodem subiectoactionemet passioneminter/I103v/dumsignificent201,

'est' vero semperin diversis.
5. Iterumquidam deum omnium rerumactorem considerantes'est'
in ipso designareactionem202,
astruant204
ex hoc quod omnia fecit203,
; in
in
hoc
creata
sunt.
omnibusautem ab eo creatis205
quod
passionem,
tarnenplerique singuloruminventionemet proprieta6. Diligenter206
vertem vocabulorumattendentes,cum ab auctoribus'est' substantivum
bum videantvocari207,
nequaquam huiusvocabuli quod est 'substantivum'
inventionemotiosam esse arbitrantur.Constituentes208
igiturduplicem
ipsius 'est209'naturam,aliam ei ex hoc quod diciturverbumproprietasubstantivum
attributamesse defendunt211.
tem,aliam ex hoc quod est210
Ex hoc enim /V 48ra/ quod diciturverbum actionemvel passionem212
in-/K 31va/herentemipsum est213quidem214designarequis dubitet215
?
Ex hoc autem quod est substantivum
omnes res in essentiaquidem, scilicetin hoc quod existunt,
dicitur
; secundumquam significationem
significare
maxime agiturab auctoribusde 'est', secundumaliam raro. Concedunt
actionem216
non unam, sed omnes eas que a verbis
igitur'est' significare
omnibusactionemsignificantibus217
notantur,ut lectionem,cursumet simiin
subiectis.Ex quo patet 'est' non unum posse
lia,
quantum insunt218
dici verbumconvenientersed multa219.
[2] ad XIII, 20 dans K f. 3 Iva, M f. 97ra, V f. 78va, F f. 47va, Ib f.
177r (absentdans C f. 37ra, et dans Ib f. 103v)
201significent
K M C la] significet
V
202actionem
MC Vla] auct+ lacunaK,velpassionem
add.M
203fecit
KM C Ia] sintV
204astruant
K] affirmant
C Ia astruunt
MV
205creatis
K M C Ia] creaturis
V
206Diligenter
K M] Diligentius
C VIa
207videant
M vocariiudexvideretur
V
vocariK C Ia] vocarivideant
208Constituentes
K M C Ia] Considerantes
V
209estKM C V] esseIa
210estKM C Ia] om.V
211defendunt
M C VIa] lacunain K
212actionem
K M C V] activum
velpassivum
la
velpassionem
213estM C VIa] om.K
2,4quidem
K M C Ia] om.V
215dubitet
C Vla
KM] dubitat
216significare
K M C la] actionem
V
actionem
significare
217significantibus
V
K M C la] definientibus
218insunt
K M C la] fiunt
V
219Suivipar: Quoniam
De tempo(VIII,37) = dbutde la section
quae occuruntur
KM
ribusverborum

15:04:07 PM

232

IRENEROSIER-CATAGH

(B) 1. substantias autem (XIII, 20, GLK III, 13:7) dixit,quoniam220

nominativinominumsubstantiasvel vocativisverbisadiunctipossunt,et
si vero cum aliis222verbis
primam et secundam significarepersonam221,
hoc idem habere nequeunt,quod hucusque proper se adiungantur223,
vel vocativisverbis
cum225
substantivis226
batumest.Modo autemqueritur224,
/I 177v/primamvel secundampersonam228
nominativinominumiuncti227
significarevaleant, cum in229coniunctionealiorum verborumidem retievidenostendere.Ad huius rei231
causam ingreditur
nere non possunt230,
nec non etiam233
vel vocativorum232
tiam nominum et substantivorum
esse235
97rb/ investigandas234
aliorumverborumpropriassignificationes/M
censeo. Est igiturnominumproprietassubstantiamcum qualitate significare.Verbi gratia,'homo' animal formtmrationalitate236
dsignt.
(C) aprs (B) dans M, V, lb (chap. XIII) ; aprs (A) dans C f. 37ra, la
f. 103v (chap. VIII) ; absent dans F
hoc quod suntverba consi2. Substantivaautem verba, secundum237
scilicetsubstantiam
inesse
vel
actionem
substantiis,
derata238,
passionem239
secundum
hoc240quod
vi
aliorum
verborum
vel
ex
significant,
agere
pati

220quoniam
K M F lb] quodV
221primam
K secundam
M F] p1ets. per.significare
etsecundam
significare
personam
Ib
et secundae
Vprimae
etprimam
significare
personae
significare
personam
222cumaliisKM VIb] aliisV
223adiungantur
F
K M Ib] adiunguntur
V adiungatur
224queritur
K M VF] quareIb
225cumKM F Ib] curV
226verbis
add.Ib {om.
postvocativis)
227nominativi
M iuncti
nomiK C F Ib]adiuncti
nominativi
nominum
nominum
iuncti
nominum
V
nativi
228primam
K VF] p1vels. per.M primae
velse.perso.Ib
velsecundam
229in KM F Ib] om.V personam
230possunt
K M VF] possint
Ib
231reiKM VIb] causamF
232verborum
add.V
233etiamK M F Ib] om.V
234proprias
K C F Ib]propriam
significationes
investigandas
significationem
investingandasM
235esseKM F Ib] om.V
236animad
KM V] animal
formtm
rationalitate
rationalitate
formtm
Ib substantiam
F
cumrationali
qualitate
237secundum
K M V C la lb] perV
238verbaconsiderata
K M C la Ib inv.V
239actionem
velpassionem
K M V] actiones
velpassiones
la C actione
velpassione
Ib
240veroadd.VIb

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

233

sunt substantivaomne x241essentiasin quantum existunt242

notant. Si
actionem
vel
'sum'
resquis ergo querat quam
passionem243
significet244,
non
unam
actionem
ut
univoca
sed
omnes
actiones246
verba,
pondetur245
ab aliis verbisdesignatas'sum'247significare
ut actiones.Unde non unum
verbumsed multa per se consideratum248
iudicandum249
est, quemadmodum nec 'ens' unum nomen sed multa iudicatur250.
Aliis tamenvidetur251
omnes252
res que ab 'est'253copulantur254
vocare actiones255.
3. Est256sciendumautem quod257cum 'est258'duplicemhabeat vim259,
unam ex hoc260quod est261verbum,aliam262ex hoc263quod est264subsecundumvim verbi habet265
? actionem
stantivum,
copulare. Sed quid266
vel passionemquam267significat
communecum aliis verbis.
quod habet268
Cum enim dico 'Socrates est', si consideremus269
'est' in vi verbi,actiones270quas significat,
idest lectionemet alias sub disiunctione271
copulai
241XKM VC la] om.Ib
242substantiis
. . . existunt
KM VIb] om.C la
243x essentias
. . . passionem
K M C la Ib] om.V
244'sum'significet
K M Ib]'sum'significat
C la ; inquantum
existunt
. . . 'sum'significet]
velpassionem
'sum'V
significet
245respondetur
K M C Ib] regula
la responde
velrespondetur
V
246omnes
actiones
K M Ib] actiones
omnesC VomnesIb
247habetadd.V
248consideratum
K C Vla Ib] considerata
M
249iudicandum
K M V C Ib] iudicatum
la
250iudicatur
K M C la Ib] iudicantur
M
251Aliisvidetur
KM VIb] Aliividentur
C la]
252omnesK M C la] omnisVIb
253ab 'est'KMC Vla] abestIb
254copulantur
K M V C la] copulatur
Ib
255Cetteopinion
ressemble
celledonne
plushauten [1](A3); cf.la finde [2](C2).
256EstK M C VIbi] om.la
257quodK C la] om.M VIb
258estKMC la Ib] om.V
259habeatvimK M C Ia] vimhabeatVIb
260hocKM C VIb] eo la
261estC Vla Ib] om.KM
262aliamK M C la Ib] alteram
V
263hocKM CVIb] eo la
264estC Vla Ib] om.KM
265habetK M C la Ib] habeatV
266sedquid? actionem
velpassionem
actionem
velpassionem
quasMC] sed lacuna
la actionem
velpassionem
velpassionem
secundum
quamIb
quodactionem
quas
267quamKM VIb] quasC om.la
268habetK M C la Ib] habeatV
269consideremus
remV
K M C la Ib] considera
270actiones
K
M C Vla Ib] adiectiones
271disiunctione
la
K M C VIb] divisione

15:04:07 PM

234

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

Socratem existentibusannumecum Socrate. Si autem in vi substantivi,

idest272
Socrates
est
unum273
de
dicere intendo.
existentibus,
rare,
quod
/K 63rb/ copulare ei actionem275
Cum igiturex hoc quod est verbum274
nullumquidem ad verbi278
ex hoc quod est substantivum277,
concedamus276,
nec
tamen
earn ab eo omnino280
habentes279,
significationem
respectum
verbi
cum
copulet282.
proprietatem
separantes281
4. Illud positum,in propositionediversasessentiasconvenienterad se
affirmamus.
Nam ex hoc quod omnes res in essentia
invicemiungere283
est
ad
hoc
ut
quaslibetres sibi coherentescopularepossignificai,aptum
est animal',excluso285
sit.Verbi gratia,cum dico 'Socrates284
respectuvernon286prorsus tamen verbi287proprietateseparata,
balis significationis,
copulat enim ipsum 'est', quantum ad officiumquod exercetin oratione
rem animaliscum re homiin vi substantivi288
consideramus.Unde apte289
nis copulat.Non tamennegamusidem 'est' per se290consideratumin ipsa
orationevim verbiobtinere.Sed aliud est agere de vocibus291
per se consiad vim et officiumquod habent in oratione
deratis,aliud de eisdem292
Nam
relatis293.
quantumad vim huius orationis'Homo est animal',
posite
se
tantum
sed cum aliis, hoc solum294
non
'est',
significat/V78rb/
per

272estKM C VIb] om.Ia

273unusM C Ib] unumla uniusK
274ex hocquodestverbum
vel/K 63rb/inestviverbi
M C] exhocquodestverbum
Ib
K velin vi verbiex hocquodverbum
estVvelin vi verbiex hocquodestverbum
275ei actionem
K M C la Ib inv.V
276velsitin substantias
add.K velin vi substantivi
add.VIb
277essentias
add.Ib
278ad verbiKM C Via] Ib
279habentes
C VIa
K M Ib] habemus
280ab eo omnino
M la] eamab eo K omnino
ab eo C Ib omnino
ab ea V
281separantes
M Ib] separantem
K separamus
C la separate
V
282Namadd.supra
lin.C
283iungere
K C Id] coniungere
M Ib affirmans
affirmamus
affirmamus
V
coniungere
284Socrates
K C Ib] homoM VIa
285excluso
K M C la
exeludoV
286nonKM VC] utIb]
Ia
287tamen
verbiK M C la Ib inv.V
288substantivi
K M C la Ib] om.V
289apteKM VIb] aperte
C la
290idem'est'perse K M V] idem'est'C idestla idem se Ib
per
291agerede vocibus
M C VIb] de vocibus
K facere
de vocibus
la
agere
292eisdem
K M V C la] eiusdem
Ib
293relatis
KM V C la] realisIb
294hocsolumK M C
la lb inv.V

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

235

quod illa res que est homo sit eadem295res que est animal. Hoc autem
ex vi verbi habere non potest,immo ex vi substantivi./C37va/
5. Planum vero est id quod diximusde 'est' posito in orationibusin
in essentia297,
ut in 'Homo est aniquibus alterumde alteroenunciatur296
mal' et298similibus.Sed ubi accidens de suo fundamento,ut 'Socrates est
albus' vel299e converso, seu equivocum de sua300significationevel e
conversopredicantur301,
aliquis videtursubessescrupulus.Si enim quando
dico302'Socrates est albus'303ad304albedinem305
resque ibi predicatur306
in
nullo
modo
'est'
vi
substantivi
nec
etiam
in
vi
verbi,
piciam,
acceptum,
illam rem que aliene nature est307a Socrate308copulare potest309
cum310
Socrate.Nam non311
illa res'. Iterum313
cum dico
potestdici 'Hec res est312
'Latrabile animal est canis', si simpliciterequivocam vocem predicare314
considero315,
quomodo vox ilia que est quidam aer316rei illi317que est
latrabile318
animal per 'est' substantivumcopuletur? Ignoro enim qualiter319
diceretur'Hec res est aer ille320'.Sed nota alium sensumesse huius
'Socratesestalbus' ex vi predicationis,alium ex vi substantivi
propositionis

295eademKM V iliaC Ia
Ib]
296enunciatur
K C Ia lb] annunciatur
MV
297in essentia
K M V C Ib' om.Ia
298in add.K
299velKM V C la] etlb
300suaKM Vlb] suiC la
301predicantur
K M C la] ponitur
Vlb
302dicoKM C la lb] om.
V
303in vi substantivi
add.V
304ad KMC la lb] om.V
305qualitatem
add.M Vlb
306predicatur
K M V C] ponitur
C la lb ibipredicatur]
V
interpre
307alienenature
estKMC la] alieneestnatureVlb
308Socrate
K C la] a re Socratis
M Vre So. Ib
309
KMC VIa] potest
Ib
copulare
potest
copulare
310cumKM C V utIa
Ib]
311nonKM V C la
om.V
312estM C Vla Ib]Ib]
cumK
313Iterum
M C la] ItemK VIb
314predicare
KM VIb] om.C la
315considero
K M C la
consideraret
V
316quidamaerK M CVIb]
aerquidamIb; sednotaadd.etexpunct
M
la]
3,7illiKMC la Ib] illireiom.V
318latrabile
KM V C Ib] latrabila
la
319enimqualiter
C la] qualiter
enimK M VIb
320aerilleK] illeaerM V C la Ib

15:04:07 PM

236

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

Ex vi enim predicationishoc solum322

verbi321.
intenditpropositiohec323
albedo
inhereat
ex
vi
vero
substantivi
hoc dicit,quod ilia
Socrati,
quod
res que est Socratesest album corpus324.
Similitercum dico 'latrabileanimal est canis325',si326respiciamad vim verbi substantivi,
intendodicere
illa
animal
res
est
latrabile
est
'canis' ;
quod
que
aliqua significationum327
hoc328
vero
ad
ille
due
voces
dico, quod
quantum
predicationem,
ilia
ab
vel
res
hac
voce331
'canis'.
consignificant329, quod
significatur330
Idem in conversisattende332.
esse equi6. Adverteetiam 'est' secundumutramqueproprietatem333
vocum. Nam cum omnes334
actionesque significantur
ab aliis verbisdicamus ab 'est' significali335,
constatin vi verbiacceptum'est' non esse unum
consideratum/M 97va/ omnes res
verbum.Item cum in vi336substantivi
in hoc quod existuntsignificet337,
in omnibusvero338rebus una eademaliam
que realisproprietasesse non possit aliam enimhabentsubstantie,
ceteris
esse
vero qualitates339
et sic de
-, equivocum
convincitur,
que equiet determinatur
vocado restringitur
quando est tertiumadiacens in proindifferenter
positione.Nam quando per se primo loco340predicatur341,
licet ibi agere de342'est', cum equaliterse habeat ad vim verbiet ad vim
est. Numquam tamen in vi343verbi
ut superiusdeterminatum
substantivi,
tertiumadiacens secundumhanc sententiamreperitur344.
321verbiK M C la Ib] om.V
322solumKM V C Ib] om.la
323propositio
hecK M' hecpropositio
C Vla Ib
324quia(quodla) hocdicithecpropositio
insensuquantum
ad vimsubstantivi
'Socrates
estlibares'add.C Ia
325canisM C Vla Ib] aliquasignum
canisK
326si K VC la Ib] om.M
327significationum
M C Id' signum
K significado
Ib significatione
V
328hocK M C la] om.VIb
329consignificant
K M V C Ib] significant
la
330ila ressignificatur
K M C la Ib] illeressignificantur
V
331ab hacvoceK M C la Ib] ad hancvocemV
332attende
K M C la Ib] attendit
V
333velsignificationem
add.C la
334omnesK M C la Ib] om.V
335dicamus
K M C la] abestsignificali
dicamus
VIb
ab 'est'
336verbiadd.C la significali
337significet
K M C la Ib] significai
V
338veroKM C la Ib] om.
V
339qualitates
M Ib V] qualitatem
K quantitates
C quantitatis
la
340per
locoM V
se primo
locoM Ib]primo
locoperse K C la perse in primo
341predicatur
K M C Id] ponitur
VIb
342de KM C
quodIb
343vi KM VCVia]
Ia] vimIb
344reperitur
K M V C Ib om.la

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

237

alia sententiain qua 'est' dicitur346

omnesres significare
7. Est quippe345
ut essentiaset easdem omnes ut actiones,et accipituractio large ut qualitas in nomine,secundumquam sententiam'est'347
ut tertium
positum348
vim
adiacens in propositionibus349
etiam350
quantum ad vim orationum351
Id
verbiconceditur352
habere,scilicetactionemet353
passionemsignificare.
enim quod predicate actio eius esse conceditur354.
considerahabere vocativa verba ex hoc quod
8. Rursus aliam vim355
sunt verba, aliam ex hoc quod356vocativa. Ex vi enim verbi significant
subiectum357
agere vel pati. Ex vi vero vocativicertamet determinatam
habent358
significationem.
Significantquippe omnia vocationem,passionem scilicetinnatamet iudicantur359
idem verbum,sicut 'ensis, 'muero',
communehaec verba cum aliis
; igitur361
'gladius' idem nomen habent360
verbis362
ex vi verbi copulare rem quam dsignant363,
vocationemscilicet
cum
substantivis.
Et
hoc
loco
ut
ipsam,
ipsis
quando
primo364
ponitur365,
cum dico 'ego vocor', non quod aliquis me vocet,idest366
non quod susab aliquo agentein me, sed369
est dicere'ego vocor'
cipiam367
passionem368
mihi
inest371
in
vocatio.
Sed
hoc372
officio
raro inveniuntur373
quasi370
345quippeK M C la Ib om.V
346'est'dicitur
K M C la Ib inv.V
347estK V C Ib om.la
348positum
K M C la Ib] expositum
V
349propositionibus
CVla Ib] pronominibus
KM
350etiamKM V C la] etIb
351orationum
KM VIb] orationis
C la
352conceditur
KM VIb] concedunt
C la
353etKM C la] velM VIb
354Cf.supra
et la findu paragraphe
[2](C)2.
355vimK M [1](A)3
C la Ib om.V
356sunt. . .
quodK M C Ib] om.la suntadd.VIb
357subiectum
K M C la] substantivum
VIb
358habent
K M C la Ib] habeantV
359iudicantur
KM VIb] videntur
C la
360habent
K M C la Ib] habeantV
361igitur
K M] ergola Ib VC
362verbis
K C Vla om.M Ib
363dsignant
KM VIb] significai
C Ia
364locoprimo
K M C la] primo
loco VIb
365
locoponitur
M C Vla] locoprimo
K primo
locoponuntur
Ib
predicantur
366primo
idestKM C la] scilicet
M VIb
367suspiciam
K M C la] recipiam
Ib accipiam
V
368passionem
KMC Vla] possessionem
Ib
369sedKM C la] etM VIb
370quasiK M C la] idestVIb
371mihiinestK M C la] inestmihiVIb
372hocKM C la Ib om.
V
373inveniuntur
M C la] ponuntur
K VIb

15:04:07 PM

238

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

huiusmodiverba,cum ad hoc proprienon sunt374

inventa.Habent edam375
verba ex vi vocationisquam376significant
et
copulare vocabula rerum377
maximepropria378
cum rebusde quibus enunciantur379
in quo conveniunt
a verbissubstantivis.
et differunt380
Conveniuntquidem in hoc quod aliud
suas
actiones
vel
copulantquam
passiones.Differuntautem in hoc quod
substantivacopulant quaslibet res cohaerentes381
ad se invicem382,
haec
vero sola nominacum rebusquas nominantgratia383
edam ipsorumnomiUt si dicam 'ego vocor Socrates',
num easdem res sibi ipsis iungunt384.
per 'vocor' copulatur'Socrates'hoc nomencum re subiectaquam significai
'ego', et sic eandem rem notant(et sic eadem res copulantursibi ipsi385)
'ego', 'vocor' et 'Socrates'. Et nota quantum ad officiumhuius orationis386'vocor' non considerate387in vi verbi, sed388potius in vi /K
63va/vocationis.Non tamen prorsusseparamusproprietatemverbi cum
ibi copulet quod est389
verborumex qua vi ad hoc descendimusut vocain essentiasvelut substantia391
tiva verba ipsas res390
significa/la104r/re
dicamus.
(D) = (D1) aprs (C) dans JT(63va),M (97va), V (78vb), lb (177v) (chap.
XIII) ; (D2) aprs (C) dans C (37va), la (104r) (chap. VIII), la fin de
(D2) commencela sectionsur le tempsdu verbe (VIII, 37)

374suntKMC] sintM la Ib def.V

375eademadd.K M C la om.Ib; verba. . . etiamkom.
om.V
376quamK M C la lb] quodV
377rerum
K C Vla Ib om.M
378rerum
M om.ibi, add.etmaxime
K VIb]etmaxime
rerum
etmaxime
propria
propria
enunciantur
C la
vocabula
post
propria
379enunciantur
K M C la Ib] annunciantur
V
380et differunt
K M V C Ib] om.la
381cohaerentes
M
K C Vla Ib] adhrentes
382se invicem
K M C la Ib om.V
383gratia
K M] generaC la, igitur
VIb
384iungunt
K M C la] coniungunt
VIb
385etsic. . . sibiipsiK M V]om.C la ; etsiceademressibiipsicopulatur
ante
Socrates
V- postSocrates
Ib
386orationis
M VIb
huiusK C la] huiusorationis
387consideratur]
KMC Vla Ib
considerali
388sedKM V Clalb
389visadd.V
390ipsasresK M V C la] resipsasIb

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

239

(D)
(D1)
KMVIb

P5
c, la

verba
9. Ex hocenimquodhuiusmodi
nominationem
convenire
significant
subiectis392
/V 79ra/rebus
ex earum
idestgratiaipsorum
nomivocabulis393,
dicunt394
res395
suis
num,equipollenter
nominibus
Undeconsequendesignali.
ter habemusres easdem396
existere.
Nam quando quis dicit397
'ego vocor Namquandodico'egovocorSocrates',
exismanifestarehocintelligo
Socrates',hoc398
quodhaecsubstantia
intelligit
haec
verba
per
quodipse399
significeturtitcui nomenest Socrates,
a 'vocor'velsuscipiat
vocationem
illam
a 'vocor'400,
sepassionem
designatam
cundumhocquodnomenistud401
'Socrates'est ei impositum,
non tarnen402
quod hunesensumhabeatilla propositio. Si enim hunc sensumhaberet
rei,scilicet
Socratis403,
nequevocabulum
sed denequeipsa res404
predicaretur,
terminatio
essetpredicati
vocationis405
scilicet406
reiverbique primolocopredicaretur407,
quod non convenit.Est
igitursensushuiuspropositionis
'ego
vocor Socrates'ex vi vocativiverbi
idemcumsensuhuius'ego sumSocratesnon iste','nomenest mihiSoc391inessentias
velutsubstantia
M ] velut
inessentia
K la velut
inessenipsassubstantias
tiaC in essentia
velut?
subiecta?
Vin essentias
velutsubstantias
Ib
392subiectis
K M Ib] substantivas
V
393vocabulis
K M V] vocalibus
Ib
394dicunt
KM V] debent
Ib
395
add.M VIb
ipsas
396easdemK M VIb ipsasantecorrectionem
K
397quisdicitKM VIb' dicola
398hocKM C hic V
399ipseKM la Ib]
Ib] isteV
400a Vocor'K M
Ib om.V
401nomen
istudK inv.V
402nontarnen
K M V] tarnen
nonIb
403Socratis
K M Ib] resSo. V
404ipsaresK M] res
ipsaVIb
405vocationis
K M V] notationis
Ib
406scilicet
M VIb om.K
407predicaretur
K M] ponitur
VIb

15:04:07 PM

240

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

rates408.
Nam si hie essetsensuseius
in ilia410
necessario409
ageretur
propositionede 'Socrates'nominevocis,scilicet411
de materiali412
nonde
imposito
nominerei,quod item413
non convenit/I 178r/,cum idem debeatsignificare'ego vocor'414
et 'Socrates'.Et
sic vocativaverba similemvim substantia415
haberedinoscuntur
ex hoc
nomine'Socrates',et ita est.
habereeandemvim
Et in hocdicuntur
habereeandemvim et in hoc dicuntur
vocativaet substantiva417
verba
vocativaverba416.
in qua dicuntur418
vocativaverbadesignare419
ut actio10. Est alia sententia
nemvel passionem,
nonvocationem
remillam,sed ipsa nominaque copulant.
Sed de hac dias420
(E) aprs (D1) dans K (63va), M (97va), V (79ra), lb (177v) (chap. XIII) ;
les f correspondant ce passage du chapitreXIII dans C sont manquants; F (31rb) aprs (B)
verborumsubstantivorum
et vocati11. Considerata autem natura421
vorumad proprietatem
aliorumverborumflecteoculum422.
Omnia autem
408nomenestmihiSocrates
K lb def.V
M] mihiestnomenSocrates
409'egosum. . . necessario
K M Ib negadohom.
om.V
410illaKM lb] ipsaV
411scilicet
M VIb, lacunaK
412imadd.K
413itemKM Ib om.V
414Socrates
K
add.etexpunct.
415substantias
K M Ib] substantivi
V
4,6haberedinoscuntur
ex hocnomine
'Socrates'
et itaest.Et in hocdicuntur
habere
eandem
vimvocativa
verbaK] haberedinoscuntur
hom.
om.M Ib dinoscunt
hom.
om.V
Cetaccident
interprter
: C (suivi
estdifficile
textuel,
intressant,
pourtant
parl) a ncessairement
d'unmanuscrit
abrgla section
(D1)pourproduire
(D2) partir
qui,comme
K (et la diffrence
de M V) n'avaient
pas faitle sautdu mmeau mmesurdignoscunt(ur).
417et substantiva
C om.la
418subadd.etexpunct.
K
419designare
K V C la Ib] designali
M
420suivipar: Quoniam
De tempoquae occuruntur
(VIII,37) = dbutde la section
ribusverborum
dansC etla. On notera
que dansC 'Sed de hacalias'estcritcomme
unefinde chapitre,
en bas du f 37va,qu'iln'ya pas de f 37vb,le chapitre
suivant
au f 38ra.
commenant
421natura
K M Ib] naturas
Vdef.
F
422Considerata
autem
natura
. . . SedKM VIb] Substantiam
autem
velvocativa
verba
F (correspond
essentias
eisadiuncta
au dbutdu par.(C2))
significant
quasnomina

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

241

alia verba non principaliter

sed prinessentiasa nominibus423
designatas424
essentiis
inesse
actones
vel
significant.
cipaliter425
quasdam
ipsis
passiones426
Ut si dicam 'homo legi 'legi non principaliteranimal rationalemorilli substantie429
sed lectionemhabere actum428
inesse dsignt430.
tale427,
subSed si431dicam 'homo sum' in hac oratione'sum' ex vi substantivi432
stantiam /M 97vb/ cum rationalitatedemonstrat433
sicut nomen sibi
cum dico 'homo vocor', 'vocor' in hac
adiunctum,idest'homo'. Iterum434
orationesubstantiamhominissignificat435.
'Vocor' enim in hac oratione
hoc dicit,non per se tarnensed cum aliis436,
quod 'homo' istudvocabulum mihi convenit.Et cum 'vocor' in hac orationehoc dicat,equipollenter est dicere,quia 'vocor' in hac oratione437
substantiamcum rationalitate in me significat438.
Hiis consideratisattendequia439prima et secunda
verbi
demonstrationem440
persona cuiuscumque
significant.Est ergo441
causa quare nominativinominumsubstantiasvel vocativisverbis442
iuncti
in primamet secundam443
substantiva
personamtransferantur,
quia ipsa
verba444et vocativa verba ita significant
res in essentia quemadmodum
nominativi445
nominum446.
Et ideo demonstrationem
quam substantivavel

423nominibus
K M V] nomine
Ib def.V
424designatas
K M VIb om.F
425essentias
a nominibus
. . . principaliter
hom.
om.V
426velpassiones
K M VIb om.F
427animalrationale
mortale
KM VIb' substantiam
cumrationalitate
F
428habereactumK M] hunelb actum
huneVhuneactumF
429substantie
KM VIF Ib
430Omniaautemalia. . . inessedsignt.
KM Vlb]post
: equipolenter
estdicere,
quia
'vocor'in oratione
substantiam
cumrationalitate
in mesignificat.
F
431Sed si K M] si autemVIb utsi F
432'sum'ex vi substantivi
K M VIb om.F
433demonstrat
KM VIb] dsignt
F
434Iterum
K M lb] ItemVRursus
F
435inhacoratione
. . . significat
KM VIb] substantiam
F
cumrationalitate
demonstrat
436non se tarnen
sedcumaliisK M VIb om.F
per
437in hacoratione
K M Ib om.Vin oratione
F
438Voirn. 274.
439attende
estquodF
quiaKM Vlb] attendendum
440demonstrationem
VIb] demonstratione
K demonstrativum
M def.
F
441ergoKM VIb]
M def.
F
igitur
442verbidemonstratione
. . . verbis
K M Vla om.F
443primam
et secundam
K M Vlb] secundam
etprimam
V
444verbaK M Ib om.VF
*
445nominativi
K M Ib om.Vdej,F
446itasignificant
resin essentia
. . . nominum
KM VIb] illisnominativis
consignificant
in eisdem
solissubstantiiis
F

15:04:07 PM

242

IRENEROSIER-CATACH

vocativa447verba in prima vel secunda persona significant448

possunt
conferre449
nominativisnominum quorum substantiassignificant.Verbi
'homo' ex se non habet demonstrationem,
sed quia
gratia,hoc nomen450
in eadem substantia,ideo 'homo' bene potestiungi
'sum' ei451consignificat
cum 'sum' et inde sumere452
demonstrationem
et sic primeefficitur453
persone - sicut454
idem455nomen,idest 'homo', cum pronomineprime persone in eadem substantiasibi456consignificante
idest cum 'ego' iungereab ilio pronomineacciperet,
tur,in coniunctioneipsam demonstrationem
et prime efficeretur
Hoc
autem
nominativi458
nominumcum
persone457.
aliis verbisque extraneeet secundariosubstantiamsignificant
habere non
'Homo'
enim
cum
nisi
mediante
possunt.
'lego'
'ego'459iungi non potest,
eandem substantiam
quia 'lego' non principaliter
significat
quam 'homo460',
et ideo 'lego' non potest conferre461
demonstrationem462
'homo' scilicet
ut463
efficiatur
edam465
mediante
; quando
prime
persone464
iungitur
'ego',
semperin eadem parte orationisponiturcum 'ego'. Sed cum substantias et vocativisverbis466
iunguntur,ut quibusdam placet, et sine opere
est
oratio467.
Aliis uero videturad complendamrecpronominum piena
tam orationemsignificantem,
scilicetverumvel falsumsemperapponendum pronomenvel supplendumin prima scilicetet secunda persona. Sed
hoc interestquia nominativinominumiuncti cum his ponunturin alia
in aliis verbis469.
parte orationisquam ipsa pronominaquod non est468
447quamsubstantiva
K M VF] velvocationem
velvocativa
Ib
448significant
K M VF] signanter
Ib
449conferre
K VF Ib' conferri
M
450hocnomen
KM VIb' istudnomen
post'homo'F
451'sum'ei K M V ino
. F Cicero
Ib
452sumere
KM VIb] sumit
F
453efficitur
K M V] effici
Ib est.F
454si add.F
455idemKM F] illudIb
456in eademsubstantia
sibiK M VIb ino.F
457primeefficetur
M F Ib] efficetur
KV
persone
prime
persone
458nominativi
KM VIb]vocativi
F
459nisimediante
K M VIb om.F
460egoadd.V 'ego'
461conferre
KM VIb] ei dareF
462utadd.F
463scilicet
utK M VIb om.F
464efficiatur
K M VIb inu.F
persone
465etiamK M
Ib om.V
466nomina
add.Ib
467etsineoperepronominum
M Ib]etestplenaoratio
estpienaoratio
sineoperepronominum
K sineoperepronominum
F
et estplenaoratioV def.
468estVIb] om.KMdef.F
469Sed cumsubstantias
K M VIb om.F
etvocativis
. . . verbis

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

243

(E) dans KM V F Ib
12. Litterasic exponitur:substantivisautem solis et vogatiuis verbis
PRIMEET SEGUNDE
NOMINATIUI
PERSONE(XIII, 20), ideo ADIUNGUNTUR470
NOMiNUM
per se471quia heg ipsa472verba, idest substantiuaet vocatiua
HABENT473
nominumquibus
vimDEMONSTRATION^474
ipsiussubstantierei475
sine coniVerba
dico477
idest
discreta
idest478
adiunguntur476.
ipsa,
per se,
unctionepronominisaccepta. Quomodo substantiuaet vocatiua uerba
vim demonstratiuamhabeant, ipse supponit, quia huiusmodi uerba479
OSTENDUNT
SUBSTANTLAM
ipsiusPERSONIS,
idest significant
ipsas personasin
uel
ostendunt
nominatioessentiaquod est proprium480
substantivorum,
nemILLAM,scilicetpassionem,secundumhoc quod ipsa inestipsis personis. Sed quia posset aliquis dicere quod per481hoc ad demonstrationem
demonstrator substantia
substantiererumsubditin qua nominatione482
dicat483
:
vocativa484
nominauerba
rerum,quasi
ipsa
que omnia significant
tionemex hac significatione
habent ipsas res quodammodo in essentia485
est, vel aliter ostendesignareuti substantiva,quod supra ostensum486
dunt487
idestvocabula rerum,et maximepropria488
convenominationem,
nire ipsis personis,quod est uocativorum489.
Et ne quis490intelligeret
hoc
esse alienum a substantiaquam deberet demonstrare,addit491in qua

470adiunguntur
F] ad K M ad vimIb
471perse KM VIb om.F
472ipsaKM Ib om.VF
473habent
K M om.Vverbam. ha. Ib
in?habent
(Prise.)]
474demonstrationis
K M] demonstratvam
F demo.VIb
475reiKM Vla om.F
476videtur
habereadd.F
477dicoKM VIb om.V
478idestM VIb] et.K F
479ip K quiahuiusmodi
uerbaK M VIb om.F
480proprium
M VIb] proprie
K
481perKM V]om.Ib def.
F
482nominatione
M VIb lacuna
K def
.F
483dicatK V' d. M diceret
Ib def.
F
484vocativa
K M Ib V] vocant
F
def.
485essentia
K VIb] essentias
M def.
F
486quodsupraostensum
K M Ib] utsupradictum
V defF
487ostendunt
K VIb] ostendit
M def.
F
488maxime
ino.VIb defF
propria
489ostendunt
substantiam
. . . vocativorum
KM VIb]ostendendum
estquod
ipsepersone
substantiva
velvocativa
verbasubstantiam
velnominationem
idest
ipsarum
personarum
nomen
convenire
reiF
490quisKM VIb] aliquisF
491additKM VIb] supponit
F

15:04:07 PM

244

IRENEROSIER-GATAGH

convenirerebus
nominatione,idest in hoc quod vocabula ostenduntur492
substantia
similiter
demonstratur
per ipsa uerba. Et
quas nominant493,
vocatiua
verba
ita/V
79rb/ostendunt
subsubstantiva/K
63vb/et
quia
nominativinomistantiamrerum,ideo non494egent, subintelliguntur495
num pronominibus,ut mediantibuseis coniungantur496
ipsis uerbis que
substantie497.
'Cicero'
significant
demonstrationem
enim,iste
pronomina
'sum5
sine
bene
cum
nominatiuus,
'ego' positoquidem secum
potestiungi
in eadem parte orationis,ut si dicam 'ego sum Cicero', quod non est in
aliis uerbis.Nemo enim rectedicit 'ego lego Cicero' nisi in eadem parte
orationis,in subiectoscilicet,intelligatponi 'Cicero'498cum 'ego'. Quidam
autem nichilsupplentesabsolutedicuntquod 'Cicero' iste nominativus499
libere500
potestiungi cum501'sum' sine 'ego', ut dicam 'Cicero sum', et
erit ita502perfectussensus,ut si503dicerem504
'ego Cicero sum', quod in
'Cicero lego', sed est
Non506enim recte dicitur507
aliis uerbis non est505.
dicens
soloecismus,nisi addam508pronomen
'ego Cicero' et hoc ideo
non511ipsam substantiamin essenquia509alia uerba, ut iam diximus510,
sed actionemuel passionemin ipsa substantia513.
tia sua512demonstrant,

492vocabula
F
ostenditur
KM VIb] nomen
ostenduntur
493rebusquasnominant
KM VIb] reiF
494 ipsaverba.Et quia. . . nonKM VIb' Quodautemsupponit,
necF
495per
illiadd.F
496coniungantur
F
M V def.
K Ib] iungantur
497utmediantibus
videre
dicunt
. . . absolute
quod
quodKM VIb' Ad hocrespicetur
verbaipsaidestperse
velvocativa
dixerat
ipsaverbaquasidicat.Itasubstantiva
superius
nminum
demonstrant
sineadiectione
quiaut nominativi
ipsamsubstantiam,
pronominis
adiunctione
Nonegentillinominativi
cumipsisiungantur.
quiapronomina
pronominum
F
substantie
demonstrationem
significant
498poni'Cicero'inu.VIb
499nominativus
om.K
500Ubere
F
KM VIb] libenter
501cumKM Ib F om.V
502itaKM VIb om.F
503utsi KM VIb] sicutF
504dicerem
F
KM VIb] dicemus
505nonestK M VIb]
F
minime
contingit
506NonKM VIb] NemoF
507dicitur
KM VIb] dicitF
508addamKM VIb] addatF
509illaadd.F
5,0utiamdiximus
F
K M VIbpost
: demonstrant
511principaliter
add.F
512in essentia
suaK M VIb om.F
513GUM
IGITUR
pan, 20,GLK III, 13 : 12)Ib

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

245

Bibliographie
Sources
Abrviations
utilises
d'Ablard
cites:
pourlesuvres
Ed.Sup.Per.= Editio
Scritti
Periermeneias
Aristotelis
super
, d.M. Dal Pra,Pietro
Abelardo,
filosofici,
Rome- Milan1954
Dial.= Dialctica
Dialctica
, d. L.M. de Rijk,Petrus
Abaelardus,
, Assen1970
d. B. Geyer,
Peter
Abaelards
I.
Periermeneias,
Philosophische
Schriften,
Sup.Per.= Glossae
super
'Ingredientibus
DieLogica
i. W. 1927514
', Mnster
= Glossae
Peter
Abaelards
I.
, ed. B. Geyer,
Sup.Porph.
Porphynum
Philosophische
Schriften,
* super
DieLogica
ki.W. 1919
', Mnster
Ingredientibus
Glossae
Scritti
Rome-Milan
, d.M. Dal Pra,Pietro
Abelardo,
Sup.Top.- Super
Topica
filosofici,
1954
Autres
abrviations
:
In PHI - Boethius,
Commentarii
inlibrum
Aristotelis
PeriHermeneias,
editio
, d. C. Meiser,
prima
Teubner
1877
InPH2- Boethius,
Commentarii
inlibrum
Aristotelis
PeriHermeneias,
secunda
d. C. Meiser,
editio,
Teubner
1880
andDe Interpretation
Ackrill,
e,Oxford.
J.L.1993(1963),Aristotle.
Categories
auXIIesicle,
Paris.
Biard,
sciences,
J. (d.).1999,Langage,
philosophie
Boethius.
inlibrum
Aristotelis
PeriHermeneias
1880,Commentarii
, ed. C. Meiser.
and Nominalism
in theTwelfth
dans:
Courtenay,
W.J.1991,Nominales
Century,
et al. (ds.),Lectionum
varietates.
PaulVignaux
11-48.
J.Jolivet
Hommage
(1904-1987),
Dal Pra,M. 1954,Pietro
Scritti
Abelardo,
, Rome- Milan.
filosofici
S. 1992,Whatmustonehavean opinion
Ebbesen,
about,dans: Vivarium
30,62-79.
K.M. 1973a,The Commentaries
on Cicero'sDe inventione
and Rhetorica
ad
Fredborg,
Herennium
ofChampeaux
del'Institut
duMoyen-ge
Grec
et
, dans: Cahiers
byWilliam
Latin17,1-39.
K.M. 1973b,The Dependence
of Petrus
Helias'Summa
Priscianum
on
Fredborg,
super
William
ofConches'
Glose
Priscianum
del'Institut
duMoyen-Age
Grec
, dans: Cahiers
super
etLatin13,1-57.
K.M. 1976,The Commentaries
on Cicero'sDe inventione
and Rhetorica
ad
Fredborg,
Herennium
ofChampeaux
del'Institut
duMoyen-ge
Grec
et
, dans: Cahiers
byWilliam
Latin17,1-39.
K.M. 1977,Tractatus
Glosarum
m ms.Vat.lat. 1486,dans: Cahiers
Prisciani
Fredborg,
del'Institut
duMoyen-ge
Grec
etLatin
21,27-44.
K.M. 1988, Speculative
, dans: P. Dronke
Fredborg,
grammar
(d.),A History
ofTwelfthWestern
176-95.
Century
Philosophy,
Cambridge,
K.M. 2003, Abelardon Rhetoric
and
, dans: C. Mews,C. Nederman
Fredborg,
R. Thomson
andRenewal
intheLatinWest
1100-1540.
inHonour
(ds.),Rhetoric
Essays
O. Ward,
54-80.
Turnhout,
ofJohn
B. 1919,Glossae
dans: Peter
Abaelards
I. Die
Geyer,
super
Porphyrium,
Philosophische
Schriften,
i. W., 1-109.
' Mnster
Logica
'Ingredientibus
B. 1921,Glossae
dans: Peter
Abaelards
I. Die
Praedicamenta,
Geyer,
super
Philosophische
Schriften,

i. W., 111-305.
', Mnster
LogicaIngredientibus
514
K. Jacobi,qui m'a permis
de consulter
sondition
des Glossae
Je remercie
super
Periherrneneias
Celle-ci
de corriger
l'dition
de Geyer,
, en prparation.
permet
qui estfon=
desurle ms.de Milan A (Biblioteca
M 63sup.,
ff.lra-72rb),
Ambrosiana,
grce la
= B (Deutsche
collation
du ms.de Berlin
lat.fol.624,ff.97r-146r).
Staatsbibliothek,

15:04:07 PM

246

IRENEROSIERGATAGH

B. 1927,Glossae
Periermeneias
Abaelards
, I. Die
, dans: Peter
Philosophische
Schriften
Geyer,
super
*
i. W.,307-503.
', Mnster
LogicaIngredientibus
: thePrinted
Editions
M.T. 1977, TheCollected
Works
onPriscian
1470-1859
Gibson,
,
Medievali
dans:Studi
, serieterza.18/1,249-60.
Institutiones
M.T. 1979,The EarlyScholastic
GLOSULEtoPriscian,
Grammaticae
:
Gibson,
dans:Studi
Medievali
The TextanditsInfluences,
, ser.3. 20, 1, 35-54.
on Boethius'
to
Green-Pedersen,
Topicsaccording
N.J.1974,WilliamofChampeaux
del'Institut
duMoyen-ge
OrleansBibi.Mun.266, dans: Cahiers
grecetLatin13,
13-30.
of'Maxima
and'LocusDifferentia'
Green-Pedersen,
N.J.1977,The Doctrine
Propositio'
inCommentaries
from
onBoethius'
the12th
, dans: Studia
Mediewistyczne
Century
Topics
18,38-78.
intheMiddle
Mnchen.
Green-Pedersen,
Ages,
N.J.1984,TheTradition
oftheTopics
in theEleventh
and Twelfth
Centuries.
Hunt,R.W. 1941-43, Studieson Priscian
andRenaissances
Studies
dans:Medieval
I. Petrus
HeliasandhisPredecessors,
1, 2,
inthe
in: R.W.Hunt,1980,Collected
ontheHistory
194-231[repr.
ofGrammar
Papers
Middle
ed. byG.L. Bursill-Hall,
Amsterdam].
Ages,
dans: Traditio
Y. 1992,Vocalesor earlynominalists,
XLVII,37-110.
Iwakuma,
secundum
G. Paganellum,
dans:
dialecticae
artis
Y. 1993, Introductiones
Iwakuma,
magistrm
etlatin
Cahiers
del'Institut
duMoyen-ge
63,45-114.
grec
dans:Didascalia
Y. 1995,Mminalia,
1,47-88.
Iwakuma,
ofAnselm
andhisContemporaries
Y. 1996, Therealism
, dans: D. Luscombe
Iwakuma,
Anselm:
Aosta
& G.R. Evans(ds.),
120-35.
, BecandCanterbury,
Manchester,
danslespremires
annes
deChampeaux
Ablard
etGuillaume
Y. 1999, Pierre
Iwakuma,
dans:Biard(d.)1999,93-123.
du XIIesicle:unetudeprliminaire,
andtheIntroductiones
ofChampeaux
Y. 2003, William
, dans: H. Braakhuis
Iwakuma,
onthe
intheLatin
Middle
Perihermeneias
Aristotle's
etC.H. Kneepkens
Ages.
Essays
(ds.),
Tradition
1-28.
, Groningen-Haren,
Commentary
Schriften
des
in denlogischen
berPrdikationstheorie
Jacobi,K. 1980,Diskussionen
Abaelardus
Abailardus.
Versuch
einerUbersicht
Petrus
, dans: R. Thomas
(d.),Petrus
undWirkmg,
Werk
Trier,165-79.
(1079-1
142).Person
undAussagen
K. 1981,Die Semantik
Ausdrcke,
Ausdrcksfolgen
sprachlicher
Jacobi,
zurPerihermeneias
imAbailards
Kommentar
7, 41-89.
, dans: Medioevo
dans:
ofwordsandpropositions,
K. 1983,AbelardandFrege.Thesemantics
Jacobi,
81-96.
diStoria
dellaLogea,Bologna,
Atti
delConvegno
Internazionale
andrunctions
ofthe
intotheMeaning
s Investigations
K. 1986,PeterAbelard
Jacobi,
etJ. Hintikka
(ds.),TheLogicofBeing,
SpeechSignest, dans: S. Knuuttila
145-80.
Dordrecht,
to thedictum
Ch.,King,P. 1996,Fromintellectus
K., Strub,
verus/falsus
propositioJacobi,
ofPeterAbelard
nis: The Semantics
andhisCircle
, dans: Vivarium
34, 15-40.
leVnrable
Ablard-Pierre
ablardienne
,
, dans: Pierre
J. 1975, Notesdelexicographie
Jolivet,
: Ablard
dulangage
delapense
mdivale
dans: id.Aspects
,
, doctrines
Paris,531-43[repris
.
Paris]
Paris.
dulangage
etthologie
Arts
chez
Ablard,
J. 19822
[19691],
Jolivet,
dialecticien
et thologien,
de Champeaux,
Jolivet,
J. 1991,DonnessurGuillaume
auMoyen
deSaint-Victor
dans: J. Longre
Paris/Turnhout,
Age,
parisienne
(d.),L'abbaye
235-51.
andexistence
forcopula
, dans:S.M. Sternet
Kahn,Ch. H. 1972,On theterminology
and
Presented
Tradition.
andtheClassical
al. (ds.),Islamic
byhisFriends
Essays
Philosophy
141-58.
toRichard
Walzer,
Oxford,
Pupils
on theVerb lo be and theConceptof Being,
Kahn,Ch. H. 1986,Retrospect
etJ. Hintikka
1-28.
dans: S. Knuuttila
Dordrecht,
(ds.),TheLogic
ofBeing,

15:04:07 PM

ABLARD
ET LES GRAMMAIRIENS

247

C.H. 1978,MasterGuidoand His Viewon Government:

On Twelfth
Kneepkens,
dans: Vivarium
16,1978,108-41.
Century
Linguistic
Thought,
G.H. 1992,Nominalism
andGrammatical
intheLateEleventh
and
Kneepkens,
Theory
Anexplorative
Centuries.
EarlyTwelfth
Study
, dans: Vivarium
, 30,34-50.
C.H. 1993.Orlans266 andtheSophismata
Collections:
Master
Kneepkens,
Joscelin
ofSoissons
andtheinfinite
words
intheearlytwelfth
, dans: S. Read(d.),
century
inMedieval
andGrammar
for
Sophisms
Logic
(ActsoftheNinthEuropean
Symposium
Medieval
St Andrews,
Tune1990),Dordrecht,
64-85.
LogicandSemantics,
C.H. 2000, Grammar
andSemantics
intheTwelfth
: Petrus
Helias
Kneepkens,
Century
andGilbert
dela Porre
ontheSubstantive
Verb, dans: M. Kardaun
andJ.Spruyt
Chariot
in Honourof
, Collected
(ds.),TheWinged
Essayson Platoand Platonism
K.M. de Rijk,Leiden,237-75.
S. 1993,Modalities
inMedieval
York.
Knuuttila,
, London/New
Logic
N. 1982, Theculmination
oftheOldLogicinPeter
Abelard
Kretzmann,
, dans: Robert
L. Benson
etG. Constable
Renaissance
andRenewal
intheTwelfth
, Oxford,
(ds.),
Century
488-511.
of theidentity
and inherence
theories
of the
Malcolm,
J. 1979, A reconsideration
17,383-400.
copula,dans: Journal
oftheHistory
ofPhilosophy
nominalism
andthecommentaries
on theCategories
from
Marenbon,
J. 1992,Vocalism,
theearlier
twelfth
dans: Vivarium
30,51-61.
century,
la prdication
et le verbe'tre',
dans:Biard(d.)1999,
Marenbon,
J. 1999,Ablard,
199-215.
andGlosses
on Aristotelian
Marenbon,
J. 1993,MedievalLatinCommentaries
Logical
Before
c. 1150A.D., dans: Charles
Burnett
andCommentaries
on
Texts,
(d.),Glosses
Aristotelian
Texts:
theSyriac,
Arabic
andMedieval
LatinTraditions
77-127
Logical
, London,
witha supplement
2000,77-1401.
[repr.
inj. Marenbon
Marenbon,
Abelard,
J. 1997,ThePhilosophy
ofPeter
Cambridge.
Platonism
Medieval
in
Marenbon,
, andtheContext
J. 2000,Aristotelian
Logic,
ofEarly
Philosophy
theWest
, Ashgate.
C. 1986, On Dating
theWorks
ofPeter
Abelard
d'Histoire
Doctrinale
Mews,
, dans: Archives
etLittraire
duMoyen
, 52 (anne1985),73-134.
ge
oftheEvolution
ofPeterAbelard's
on Signification
Mews,C. 1987,Aspects
Thought
andPredication
etA. de Libera(ed.),Gilbert
dePoitiers
etsescontem, dans: J.Jolivet
du septime
de logiquemdivale,
Poitiers
17-22
porains
(Actes
symposium
europen
Juin1985),Napoli,15-41.
andTheology
before
Abaelard
: NewLighton Roscelin
of
Mews,C. 1992Nominalism
, dans: Vivarium
30,4-33.
Compigne
Authors
oftheMiddleAges,Vol.II, no.5, London.
Mews,C. 1995,Peter
Abelard,
Logicain theservice
ofPhilosophy:
William
ofChamp
eauxand
Mews,C. ( paratre),
hisInfluence
on theStudyoftheArtsofLanguage
and Theology
in theTwelfth
Abtei
Sankt
Viktor
undden
zurPariser
, dans: RainerBerndt
Century
(d.),Studien
Viktorinen
(Berlin
2004).
L. 1962,Aristoteles
III 1-4,Bruges-Paris.
Latinus
Minio-Paluello,
G. 1992,Secundum/
tertium
adiacens.
Vicissitudes
distinction
Nuchelmans,
, Amsterdam/New
ofa logical
York/
Oxford/T
okyo.
R. 1992,La grammatica
diAbelardo
Pinzani,
, Parma.
logica
Vescovo
diLucca
dialectice
artis
Pozzi,L. 1975,Guiglielmo,
, Summa
, Padova.
L. 1993,Petrus
Summa
Priscianum
Helias,
, Toronto.
Reilly,
super
modernorum
: A contribution
tothe
Terminist
Rijk,L.M.(de),1962-67,
Logica
ofEarly
History
Logic.
I: OntheTwelfth
Theories
andEarly
ofFallacy
(1962)11,1: TheOrigin
Century
Development
andIndices
, 11,2: Texts
oftheTheory
ofSupposition
(1967),Assen.
on Twelfth
andthe
Rijk,L.M. (de),1966, SomenewEvidence
century
Logic: Alberic
SchoolofMontSteGenevive
, dans: Vivarium
4, 1-57.
(Montani)

15:04:07 PM

248

IRENEROSIER-GATACH

Dialctica
, Assen.
Compotista,
Rijk,L.M. (de),1969,Garlandus
Abae
Dialctica
Jardus,
, Assen.
Rijk,L.M. (de),1970, Petrus
semantic
viewsin thelightoflaterdevelopments,
Rijk,L.M. (de),1981a,Abailard's
C.H. Kneepkens,
& L.M.de Rijk(ds.),1981,English
dans: H.A.G.Braakhuis
Logic
totheTimes
andBurleigh
andSemantics
theEndoftheTwelfth
,
ofOckham
from
Century
in De Rijk1989: VI].
1-58[repr.
Nijmegen,
Semantik
aufdesmittelalterderneuplatonischen
Rijk,L.M. (de),1981b,Die Wirkung
imMittelalter.
Akten
desVI
undErkenntnis
licheDenkenberdas Sein, dans: Sprache
Internationalen
1977,Bonn
, 29 august-3
[=Miscellanea
Sept.
Philosophie
Kongress
furMittelalterliche
in De Rijk1989:V].
Medievalia
19-35[repr.
13],Berlin,
Semantics
and His Doctrine
ofBeing,dans:
Rijk,L.M. (de),1986,PeterAbelard's
Vwarum
24,85-127.
A Chapter
ofBeing.
ofBoethian
Notion
Semantics",
Rijk,L.M.(de).1988, On Boethius's
andInference
inMedieval
dans: N. Kretzman
1-29
, Dordrecht,
(ed.),Meaning
Philosophy
in De Rijk1989: I].
[repr.
Semantics
andMetaphysics
Studies
inMedieval
toReality.
,
Language
Rijk,L.M.(de),1989,Through
d. byE.P. Bos,Northampton.
andOntology,
vol.I et II, Leiden.
Semantics
Rijk,L.M. (de).2002,Aristotle:
Guide? ,
on De Interpretatione
(ch.3): Is He a Reliable
Rijk,L.M. (de).2003, Boethius
dessavoirs
oula chane
207-27.
dans: A. Galonnier
, Louvain,
(d.),Boce
desXIC-XIIC
sicles
auxconfins
I. 1988, Lesparties
dudiscours
, dans: Langages
,
Rosier,
92,37-49.
de Conches
sur
de Guillaume
desGbsulae
etdesGlosae
I. 1993,Le commentaire
Rosier,
deITnstitut
de Priscien
Grammaticae
De voce
desInstitutiones
le chapitre
, dans: Cahiers
duMoyen-ge
srecetlatin
63, 115-44.
I. 1997,Pratarident
, dans:Alainde Libra,Abdelali
Rosier-Catach,
Elamrani-Jamal,
Jean
etphilosophie.
etAlainGalonnier
Paris,155-76.
Hommage
Jolivet,
(ds.),Langages
le principe
de compositionalit
de translatio,
I. 1999,La notion
, etl'anaRosier-Catach,
dans: Biard(d.)1999,125-64.
chezAblard,
accidentelle
lysede la prdication
du verbeet la
: surla definition
et lesgrammairiens
I. 2003a, Ablard
Rosier-Catach,
en
d'histoire
destextes
notion
d'inhrence
vive,
, in: P. Lardet(d.),La tradition
Mlanges
143-59.
deLouisHoltz
l'honneur
, Turnhout,
: lesenjeux
inPriscianum
I. 2003b, Priscien,
, Ablard
Boce,les Gbsulae
Rosier-Catach,
de consignification
autourde la notion
desdiscussions
, dans: Histoire
Epistemologie
XXV/2,55-84.
Langage
entresignification
'ad
surl'opposition
mdivales
I. 2003c.Variations
Rosier-Catach,
& C.H. Kneepkens
naturelle
et signification
, dans: H.A.G.Braakhuis
placitum'
Tradition
Middle
ontheCommentary
inthe
Latin
Aristotle's
PeriHermeneias
,
Essay
Ages.
(ds.),
165-205.
Nijmegen,
Lesdiscussions
chezAblard
despropositions
surle signifi
I. ( paratre),
Rosier-Catach,
on Medieval
du Symposium
danslesActes
et sescontemporains
, paratre
Logic
andSemantics,
Rome,juin2002.
onUniversais
M.M. 1976,Abailard
, Dordrecht.
Tweedale,
of theOld Logic,dans:
Tweedale,M.M. 1982,Abailardand theCulmination
Medieval
A. Kenny,
N. Kretzmann,
ofLater
History
J. Pinborg
(ds.),TheCambridge
143-57.
, Cambridge,
Philosophy
De Interpretatione
H. 1971,Aristotles,
3, 16b19-25, dans: R.B. Palmerand
Wagner,
inMemory
andEssays
intheHumanities
Philomathes.
Studies
R. Hamerton-Kelly,
ofPhilip
Merlan
, The Hague,95-115.
Berlin.
Perihermeneias.
Ubersetzt
underlutert,
H. 1994,Aristoteles,
Weidemann,

15:04:07 PM

PetrusHispanas O.P., AuetorSummularum

(III)
" or "PetrusFerrarteli"?
"Petrus
Alfonsi
ANGEL D'ORS

This studyis intended to complementand continue my article Petrus

1in which
andproblems,
documents
Summularum
(II). Further
HispanusO.P.,Auctor
I presentedsome freshdocumentsin favour of the attributionof the
" who was a member of the Order of
Tractatusto a "PetrusHispanus
Preachers.In this article,I revisedsome of the analysesand hypotheses
to the
I had proposed in my firstarticle,2in particularthose referring
reliabilityof what I called the "Estella tradition".I also tried to determine the nature of the true problem surroundingthe attributionof the
"
"
Tractatus
to a "PetrusAlfonsi
(not the same as PetrusHispanusrecentio
withwhom he had sometimesbeen confused,and who was no otherthan
Pedro Snchez Ciruelo). Finally,I exploredthe possiblelinkbetweenthe
" and the Court of the
"auctorSummularum
Kings of Castile and Leon (by
" foundin the Tractatus
"
and its posof
the
exemplurri
example
examining
sible allusion to real historicalevents,as well as the Cantiga CBN 472
"
(= CB 365) by AlfonsoX the Wise, and its possibleallusionto the auctorSummularum
".
In this articleI also devoted myselfto examiningsome of the argumentsput forwardby Simon Tugwell3against some of the hypotheses
" which I had
"
concerningthe possible identityof the auctorSummularum
proposedin my 1997 article.In particular,I focusedon Tugwell's argu" with
of the "auctorSummularum
mentsagainst the possible identification
"
Petrus (who signed as witnessa document
threefigures:a first"Magister

1 A. d'Ors,Petrus
andproblems
documents
Summularum
, in:
O.P.,Auctor
(II). Further
Hispanus
39 (2001),209-54.
Vivarium,
2 A. d'Ors,Petrus
35 (1997),21-71.
Summularum
O.P.,Auctor
, in:Vivarium,
Hispanus
3 S. Tugwell,
37
onSome
Comments
Petrus
, in: Vivarium,
identifications
Proposed
Hispanus:
ofthewritofhisedition
makesuseofthefruits
In hisarticle,
Tugwell
(1999),103-13.
Dominico
Guidonis
de Sancto
Bernardi
Gui on St. Dominic:Scripta
, in:
ingsof Bernardo
vol.XXVII,Roma1998.I shall
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
Monumenta
Ordinis
Histrica,
as Tugwell
1999andTugwell1998respectively.
refer
to thesetwoworks
Vivarium
41,2

BrillNV,Leiden,2003
Koninklijke
Alsoavailable
online- www.brill.nl

15:04:12 PM

250

ANGELD'ORS

concerningthe nuns of the Conventof Santa Maria in Tempulo in Rome

"
in 1220), a second "Magister
Petrus
(to whom Grard de Frachet refers
"
"
in his VitaeFratrum
as rector
scholarum
Burdegalisaround 1238), and espe"
(who was a memberof the
cially,the figureof PetrusHispanusconversus"
In
Dominican
in
early
my view, Tugwell's argucommunity Bologna).
mentswere not conclusive,which is why I maintainedthat these three
figuresshould not be crossedoffthe list of people we should investigate
in order to determinethe true identityof the "auctorSummularum
".
In this article,due to theircomplexity,I reservedfor a futurestudy
the analysisof the problemssurroundingthe figureof "PetrusFerrarteli"
, is attributed)
, the Legenda
(to whom the firstLegendaSanciiDominici
prima
and his possible relationshipwith the "auctorSummularum
", as well as of
the argumentsput forwardby Tugwell againstthe hypothesisthat these
two figuresmightbe the same person. This is the task which now faces
me. But before going throughit, I shall firstbring forwardsome new
documentsconnectedwith the issues I examined in my earlierarticles.
1. Additions
to the1997 and 2001 articles
In my two earlier articlesI pointed out that therewere three authors,
Graziolo de' Bambaglioli (the author of commentarieson La Divina
and Taegio and Plodius (authorsof worksrelatedto the hisCommedia),
toryof the Order of Preachers),whose testimoniescould be of interest
in the contextof the problem of the identityof "PetrusHispanus,auctor
Summularum
", but whose worksI had been unable to locate. I have not
advanced at all on thisfront,but in the process of searchingforthem I
have found some otherswhich offertestimonieseither concerningthe
"auctorSummularum"
or "PetrusHispanus"which are worthmentioning.
a) Lo qual gi luce in dodici libelli
In the fieldof the editionsof and commentarieson La Divina Commedia
I have been unable to make any progressin my researchinto the originsof the traditionwhichholds "PietroIspano" to be "lectorin Bolonia".
With the help of Susana Gmez I was able to locate the manuscriptand
the editionof the Chiose(latine)al Paradiso
,4 the work of Petrarch,and I
4 F. Palermo,
I manoscritti
Palatini
diFirenze
FirenzeI860,Liriche
e
, Biblioteca
Palatina,
delParadiso
diDante
come
sononelCodice
Palatino
CLXXXautografo
di Francesco
parte
Alighieri
Petrarca
, 736.

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

251

verifiedthat this does not provide any informationabout the possible

"
.
identityof the auctorSummularum"
b) De Ordine Predicatorum
In my 1997 article5I indicated that of the 51 printededitionsof the
Tractatus
listed by Mullally, according to the descriptionshe gives, 7
acknowledgedPope John XXI as their author,while only 2 gave the
identityof theirauthor as a memberof the Order of Preachers.I had
not investigatedthe printededitionsof the Tractatus
since, considering
them to belong to too late a period, in which the confusionbetween
"
"Petrus
I preHispanus and Pope John XXI had alreadyarisen;therefore,
sumed that theymightnot provide any interesting
data. None the less,
chance has broughtdescriptionsof some editionsof and commentaries
on the Tractatus
before my eyes which have forced me to change my
view, showingthe need to carry out a systematicexaminationof the
printededitionsand commentarieswhichwill doubdess yield freshinformation about the true identityof the "auctorSummularum".
This task, which I have scarcelybegun, has already provided some
results:fiveworkswhich must be added to the collectionof
interesting
testimoniesthat attributethe Tractatusto a member of the Order of
worPreachers,two of which are of particularimportanceand therefore
thy of being the subject of a section of its own (sectionc). The other
threeare, first,an editionof the Tractatus
publishedwithoutinformation
as to the printer,place or date of publication,but which the catalogues
of incunablesdescribe as the work of Juan Hurus in Zaragoza around
are attributedto a mem1495, in the colophon of which the Summulae
ber of the Order of Preachers:
Petri
virichetissimi
ordinis
summularum
liberdyalectice
arhyspani
pre-/-dicatorum:
/-tis
fundamentum:
feliciten
Deo gratias
Explicit
(lvii
v)6
This editiondoes not supplyany new information.
It is only one more
the Tractatus
to a memberof the Order of Preachers.
testimony
attributing
Its only interestlies in the fact that it is an incunableprintedin Spain,
where one mightperhaps expect a more accurate memoryof the true
"
"
identityof PetrusHispanus to be conserved.

5 A. d'Ors1997[op.cit.,above,n. 2),64.
6 Thereis a copyofthisedition
in theBiblioteca
Nacional
in Madrid,
1-2475.

15:04:12 PM

ANGELD'ORS

252

The second work which deserves mentionis not an edition of the

Tractatus
, but a commentaryon it by Peter of Brussels(Peter Crockaert,
fl514), which was printedseveraltimes(1508, 1512):
fra-/-tris
Petride
admodum
Title:
utilis
Summularum
artisdia-/-letice
interpretado
fratrum
insacratheolo-/-gia
formati
meritissimi
sacri/ordinis
bruxellis
bachalarii
predunacumfructuo-/-sis
eiusdem
ordinis:
icatorum
hispani
supertextum
magistri/Petri
in conventu
Parisiensi.
Pe-/-tro
ab eodemfratre
compilatis
quibusdam
quotlibetis
Annoter-/-tio
reformationis
eiusdem.
Petrihispani/predicatorum
: Admodum
utiles
etcompendiose
supermagisti
Colophon
de bruxellis,
conordinis:
summularum
textum
quedam:fratris/Petri
explanationes
in sacrapaginabachalarii
forordi-/-nis
eiusdem:
ventus
viteregularis
Parisiensis,
ex
cumfru-/-ctuosis
matimeritissimi:
argumentatiunculis
quotlibetalibus
quibusdam
/Paris,
finiunt
feliciten
diviThomeaquinatis
fonte
depromptis:
amplissimo/doctrine
in
Godefridi
de marnes
Andrem
boucard.
Impensis/autem
impresse
permagistrm
salutifere
.1508.Die
Annoincarnationis
vicidiviIacobicom-/-morantis
pellicano
veromensis/Iunii
vigesimaoctava.7
But Peterof Brussels,who was a memberof the Order of Preachersand
of Maior's school, on the one hand, and
an outstandingrepresentative
the Thomistschool,on the other,does not confinehimselfto statingthat
"
"Petrus
,
Hispanas was a memberof the Orderof Preachers.In theProhernvum,
, he also tellsus:
discussingthe reason for the titleof the Tractatus
summula-/-rum
hecoratio.
Isteesttractatus
huiusli-/-bri
Estergotitulus
magisti
et sum/similiter
tractatus
Istedicit/utilitatis
Petrihispani.
brevitatem,
presentiam:
multi-/-tudinem:
innu-/-mero
tractatuum
mularum.
magisti,
plurali
propter
ponitur
soliditatem:
do-/-ctrine
et auctoritatem:
excellentiam/et
scribens
petri,
experientiam
expreclaro
dicitur
fuit
oriundus/
predquecastella
hispani,
quiaexea parte/hispanie,
ordine
icatorum
(a3r).
In this text,Peter of Brusselsjoins the traditionrepresentedby Luis de
Valladolid, who assertsthe Castilian originof Peter of Spain, and like
"
Luis de Valladolid,he also tellsus of thedoubletitleof hiswork," Tractatus
"
and Summula'UnlikeLuis de Valladolid,however,he does not attribute
the HystoriabeatiDominicito him. This fact mightbe explained by the
simple reason that this was not the rightplace to referto otherworks
by Peter of Spain, but it could also be an indicationthat the attribution
was a lateradditionwhichdid not formpart
beatiDominici
of thisHystoria
of Luis de Valladolid's originadtext.The fact that both authorsconsidered Peter of Spain to be fromCastile ratherthan Estella mightalso
In a strictsense there is no any incompatibility
raise some difficulties.
between the two places of origin,as the Prioryof Santo Domingo in
7 See

Geral
, vol.II, SculoXV, Iisboa 1942,237-45.
Portuguesa
Bibliografia

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

253

Estella originallybelongedto the Dominican provinceof Castile,and the

town of Estella had close linkswith the kingdomof Castile. However,
" and "Stella
" casts a shadow of
the orthographicsimilarityof " Ca-stella
doubt upon these accounts.
The testimonyof Peter of Brussels,who, like Luis de Valladolid, was
linked to the Dominican Prioryin Paris, depends in all probabilityon
the latter'sown testimony.This would seem to detractfromits importance. However,insofaras it is part of a different
literarytraditionwith
an immediatelink with the Tractatus
itself,it takes on new interestand
importance:the testimonyof Peter of Brussels,which paid directattention to the Tractatus
and doubtlessalso to many of the commentarieson
it would seem not to depend exclusivelyon Luis de Valladolid's testiin his Dominican
mony,butprobablyto reflecta well consolidatedtradition
or Parisian environment.It thereforeprovidesa good reason in favour
of the reliabilityof the testimonyofferedby Luis de Valladolid.
The thirdworkwhich deservesmentionis the Expositio
Summularum
by
to
AugustinusSbarroya,printedin 1533, which attributesthe Summulae
"Petrus
ordinis
.8
It
is
one
more
attributHispanus
predicatorum" yet
testimony
to a memberof the Order of Preachers.
ing the Tractatus
c) PetrusAlfonsiHispanus
While the threetestimoniesscrutinisedabove are only of relativeimportance, as they do not contributeany new informationabout the problem of the identityof the "auctorSummularum
", the two last testimonies
whichI foundcould be regardedas documentsof a decisiveimportance.
, but notjust any editions:one of them
They are two editionsof Tractatus
is the "first"printededitionof the Tractatus
that thereis any record of,
de
Westfalia
Paderbonensis
and TheodoricusMarti
publishedbyJohannes
8 Fol.i(r):
tractatus
summularum
Petrihispani
ordinis
"Expositio
primi
magisti
predicatorum
editaa fratre
in sacratheologia
Cordubensi
eiusAugustino
sbarroya
presentato
demordinis
Fol.Liii(r):
fuitopushocannodomini
.1524.octobris
professore."
"Inceptum
.15.diefinemque
undecima
die martii
annosequentis.
veromandaaccepit
Impressioni
tumestanno.1532."Fol.liii(v):
insuaexcussit
officina
Bartholomeus
"Hispali
perezAnno
domini
tertio
menseveroMartio."
Fol.
trigessimo
supramillessimum
quingentessimum,
edictaa fratre
i(r):"Expositio
quartitractatus
magisti
petriHispaniordinis
predicatorum
eiusdem
insacratheologia
ordinis
Fol.xlv(v):
"Hecpauca
augustino
sbarroya
presentato."
de sillogismis
dictabenignis
lectoribus
faciant
satis.Nonautemmefugit
omniaque dicta
suntminimam
essepartem
eorum
Intentio
tamen
meafuittantum
soliquedicipoterant.
dioraetutiliora
an ob eorum
multitudinem
ex parteconproponere.
Quodetiamvereor
fuerim.
Finisquartitractatus."
sequutus

15:04:12 PM

254

ANGELD'ORS

in Aalst on 26 May 1474; the otheris a later edition (c. 1486) by the
"
same printer(a mysteriouspatternhas long connected"PetrusHispanas
with Holland). Only the rarityof this "first"editioncan explain why its
importancehas not been emphasised until now. It has the following
colophon:
a fratre
Petroalfonci
ordieditarum
feliciter
Textussummularum
Hispano:
Explicit
flandrie.
PerJohannem
de
In Alostooppidocomitatus
nispredicatorum
Impressus
Marti.AnnoDomini.M
cumsociosuo.Theodorico
Vuestfalia
Paderbornensem
CCCC LXXIIIFMaydieXXVI.Amen.9
"
Here not onlydoes it tellus that"Petrus
Hispanas belongedto the Order
"
of Preachers,but it also givesus his name: PetrasAlfonsi
Hispanas This
is the firstecho of this ancientDominican tradition,representedby the
the Tractatus
Catalogues of Stams,Pignonand Saint Ann,whichattributes
tradition
linked
a
different
in
the
of
to a "PetrasAlfonsi
",
literary
sphere
the
Since
this
is
Tractatus
itself.
of
the
to
the
precisely first
history
direcdy
printededition,which mustrelyheavilyon the earliermanuscripttradition,and which,unlikethat otherfamilyof editionswhich attributesthe
"
to a "Petrus
Tractatus
to Pope John XXI, attributesthe Summulae
Alfonsi
who at the timewould seem alreadyto be an almostcompletelyunknown
figure(who confersno added prestigeon thiswork),thiseditionendows
the ancient Dominican traditionwith a high degree of reliability.
In my view,thisfirstprintededitionof the Tractatus
tipsthe scale deci" with
"auctorSummularum
the
which
identifies
the
tradition
towards
sively
a certain"Petrus
Alfonsi But the problemis thatwe know nothingmore
of this "PetrusAlfonsi
", and that,as I indicatedin my earlierarticle,at
the veryroot of thistraditiontheremightbe a confusionbetween"Petrus
" and the famous"Petrus
a JewishconSummularum
Alfonsi",
Hispanus,auctor
Other documentsare needed to resolvethis
vertof the twelfth
century.10
issue and to provide a more detailed profileof the figureof the "auctor
".
Summularum
d) PetrusHispanus conversus
In my 2001 articleI examinedTugwell's argumentsagainstthe possible
" withthe
figureof "PetrusHispanusconidentityof the "auctorSummularum
9 See M. F. A. G. Campbell,
auXVesicle
Annales
dela Typographie
Nerlandaise
, La Haye
Geral
1874,393-4(1396and 1397);Bibliografia
Portuguesa
{op.cit.,above,n. 7), vol.II,
168.
p. 10
A. d'Ors2001{op.cit.
, above,n. 1),241-2.

15:04:12 PM

SUMMULARUM
PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

255

versus
", who was linked,accordingto Galvano della Fiamma's account,
to the Dominican communitiesin Bologna and Milan. Tugwell's argu" as
of the title "conversus
mentsare based mainly on the interpretation
"
"
Hispanus could
"lay brother",whichwould seem to mean thatthis Petrus
not have devotedhis lifeto intellectualtasks.In view of Tugwell's argumentsI examined two hypotheses:on the one hand, that in the period
"
"
in which the Order of Preacherswas takingshape the title conversus
meaning (perhaps novice or monk); and on
mighthave had a different
the other,that Galvano mighthave wronglyidentifiedtwo different
peo"
"conversus
a
and
to
St
Dominic
sent
a
Bologna,
by
(lay brother)
ple,
"Petrus
in
Maria
della
Mascarella
cell
of
Santa
at
the
Hispanus"living
Bologna whichdepended on the AugustininPrioryof Roncesvalles,and
intothe Order of Preachers(whichI regarded
whichwas laterincorporated
as the most probable hypothesis).
H. Petitothas told us of a documentwith a certaininterest,which
thatGalvano confusedtwo different
would seem to supportthe hypothesis
"Petrus
".n This is a pontifical
of
conversus
the
name
under
Hispanus
figures
letterconcerningthe introductionof the Order of Preachersto Italy,in
which the Pope asks supportforthe work of the new Order:
vobis
et exhortamus
devotionem
vestram
attente,
perapostolica
Rogamus
proinde
fratres
filios
mandantes
dilectos
P.., I.., R.., latores
presentium,
scripta
quatinus
Deo gratam,
utileministerium
etreligionem
credimus
ordinis
Predicatorum,
quorum
ad quoddeputati
ineorum
laudabili
ad officium
confoventes,
predicationis
proposito
Sedisrevereospronostra
et apostolice
ac habentes
sunt,curetis
benigne
recipere
insuiseisnecessitatibus
Dei gratis
etfideliter
assistatis
endacommendatos,
quiverbum
. . .12
proponentes,
The interesthere lies in the initials"P., I., R." whichstandforthe names
of the threemembersof the Order of Preachersreferredto in the letter. AlthoughLaurent dates this letteron the 26 of April 1216, Petitot
thoughtthatit was connectedwiththe firstexpeditionsentby St Dominic
to Bologna in 1218 which,accordingtoJordanof Saxony,had fourmemand a fiater
deNavarra
bers: "Johannes
Bertrandu'
", "fiater
'fiaterChristianus"
conversus".
However, these three initialsdo not tally with the names of
the membersof thisfirstDominican mission.
11H. Petitot
O.P., ViedeSaint
, Saint-Maximim
(Var)1925,324-26(p. 325);
Dominique
translation
deGuzmn
L.Jacinto
Vida
deSto.Domingo
Petitot,
Peas),
byVeremundo
(Spanish
1931,351-3.
Vergara
12Fr. M. Hyacinthus
Monumenta
Histrica
S.P.N.Dominici
, Fase.I, Historia
Laurent,
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
S. Dominici
Histrica,
XV),Paris
(Monumenta
Diplomatica
1933,104,LXXXVII.

15:04:12 PM

256

ANGELD'ORS

Petitotinterpreted
these threeinitials"P., I., R." as the initialsof the
" and
"
de Navarra
Riardus but
names of "PetrusHispanus
", Iohannes
"fiater
ofJordanof Saxony.Perhaps
he feltthathe had to questionthe testimony
thisis partlydue to the factthathe ignoredwhen was the letterwritten
(in 1216, two years prior to the firstDominican expeditionto Bologna,
which suggeststhat those who then representedthe Order before the
Roman Curia mightbear no relationto the expedition);anotherreason
mightbe that Petitotdid not know of the presencein Bologna of some
Spaniardswho lived in the cell of Santa Maria della Mascarella,a dependency of the AugustininPrioryof Roncesvalles,and who were later
"
Riardus
receivedintothe Order of Preachers.Petitotconsideredthat"fiater
was one ofJohnof Navarre'scompanionswhomJordanof Saxonywrongly
"
"
gave the name of "fiaterBertrandu'and that PetrusHispanus was the
"
was knownwithinthe Order.13
name by which "fiaterChristianus
of the initials"I." and "R." as
My opinion is that the interpretation
initialsof the names "Iohannesde Navarra!'and "fiaterRiardus
", who we
knowplayeda majorrole duringthestageat whichthe Order of Preachers
was introducedto Italy,is highlylikely,but thatthisdoes not mean that
we have to questionJordan of Saxony's testimonyeitherby identifying
" with
Riardus
Bertrandui'as Petitotdoes, or by adding the
"fiater
"fiater
" to the list of the membersof the Order who
name of "fiaterRiardus
took part in that firstexpeditionto Bologna, as Mamacho and many

13Petitot
dominicains
sesontdemands
n. 11),325-6:"Leshistoriens
1925{op.cit.,
above,
saintDominique
trois
les
noms
de
ces
tre
P.,
I.,
R.,
dsigns
par
religieux
quelspouvaient
nousa mende ce quele B.Jourdain
La difficult
de Bologne.
provient
pourla fondation
Frre
uncertain
FrreBertrand,
lesnomsde cestroisFrres:
tionn
Jeande Navarre
on s'en
ne concordent
de cesreligieux
Les initiales
FrreChrtien.
et enfin
pas,comme
Il estremarest-il
insoluble?
Le problme
dansla lettre.
aveccellesindiques
rendcompte,
D ne
FrreBertrand.
au sujetde ce certain
hsite
quabletoutd'abordquele B.Jourdain
du clbre
FrreBertrand
le faitobserver
comme
saurait
trequestion,
chard,
justement
frres
fontl'undespremiers
de Garrigue.
quiaurait
Quelestdoncce FrreBertrand
On peutse dmander
ne connat?
et qu'aucunde noschroniqueurs
de Bologne
dateurs
et s'ilne s'agitpas du FrreRicarddontnosannals'iln'ya pas eu quelqueconfusion
Le motRicard
de Bologne.
savent
trsbienqu'ilfutle premier
istesdominicains
prieur
R. D'autrepart,le FrreChrtien
serait
galeque nousmentionne
dsign
parl'initiale

et ce nomcorrespond
dansl'OrdrePierred'Espagne,
mentle B. Jourdain
s'appelait
I. [...]. Si doncl'onadmetque les
estdesign
P.Jeande Navarre
l'initiale
parla lettre
etFrre
Pierre
furent
venus Bologne
trois
Jeande Navarre
d'Espagne,
religieux
premiers
dansla lettre
aveccellesindiques
de leursnomsconcident
lesinitiales
Ricard,
pontificale:
maisnon
commesatisfaisante,
cettesolution
bienentendu,
P., I., R. Nousproposons,
certaine".
comme

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

257

otherhistoriansof the Order of Preachersdid.14I agree withD'Amato15

thatit seems more likely,especiallyin the lightof the date of the letter,
" were one of the canons who was
that "fiaterRiardus
already livingat
the cell of Mascarella before this firstDominican mission arrived in
Bologna.
of the initial"P.", it is enough to sketch
Regardingthe interpretation
out the problem.Among the membersof the firstDominican communityin Italy therewas one personwhose initialwas "P.", who mightbe
a "Petrus
. On the otherhand, the figureof "PetrusHispanusconHispanus"
"
versusshowsthe existenceof one "PetrusHispanus"among the firstmembers of the Italian Dominican community,
whom some historiansof the
" and otherwith
Order of Preachershave identified
with"fiaterChristianus
'
"
the fiaterconversus(and yet others,like Galvano della Fiamma, with
"
both). It is my view that there are no grounds for identifyingPetrus
" with
", and if the initial"P." refers,as Petitot
Hispanus
"fiaterChristianus
"
", it does not seem that the lattercan be
proposes,to a PetrusHispanus
"
"
identifiedwiththe "fiaterconversus
", as it seems unlikelythat a conversus
of the Order of Preachers
(lay brother)could lead the representatives
beforethe Roman Curia. It seems more reasonableto thinkthatthe initial "P.", like the "R.", belongsto one of the canons of Roncesvallesliving at the cell of Santa Maria della Mascarella who thenjoined the Order
of Preachers.We cannot rule out the possibilitythat it was our "Petrus
". Despite Tugwell's opinion, it would there, auctorSummularum
Hispanus
" from
fore appear to be imprudentto exclude "PetrusHispanusconversus
the list of figuresto be investigatedwith a view to identifying
the read
"auctorSummularum
".
The traditionwhich derives fromthe commentarieson the Paradiso
"
make me inclined to thinkthat it was preciselythis "PetrusHispanus

14See d'Ors2001 cit.,above,n. 215,n. 10.We finda more

ver{op.
1),
ambiguous
sionofthissamesolution
in theworkofD. G. Fornasini,
La Chiesa
Priorale
e Parrochiale
di
S. Mariae S. Domenico
detta
della
Mascarella
inBologna
del
, Bologna1943,11-2:"La cronaca
convento
dell'Ordine
deiPP. Predicatori
ha registrato
il fatto
conquestetestubolognese
ali parole(3): In quest'anno
Patriarcha
(1218)dopola festadi Pasqua,del beatissimo
Domenico
mandati
vennero
a BolognaFra Giovanni
di Navarra,
Fra Bertrando,
Fra
Cristiano
e il laicoFraPietro
sotto
il priorato
di FraRiccardo,
uomodi somma
spagnolo,
venerando
innocenza
di vita,il qualefuil primo
gravit,
peret,e peruna singolare
Priore
Pocodopose ne agginusero
altridue,e ciofraMicheleda Uzeroe
bolognese.
lo spagnolo
Fra Domenico,
uominituttidi grandevirt".
Conventus
"(3) Chronica
Bononiensis
et etc.,Romae,1903".
15See d'Ors2001[op.cit.,above,n. 1),221,n. 21.

15:04:12 PM

258

ANGELD'ORS

whom Dante refersto, and thatthisis the verysame "Petrus

Alfonsifrom
Estella who is creditedwithwritingthe Tractatus.
2. The Legenda prima, "PetrusFerrandi",the"Leyenda castellana" and
the"Legendae Sancti Dominici"
The testimoniesand problemssurroundingthe figureof "PetrusHispanus
,
" were
auctorSummularum
exploredin my last article,and so the moment
has now come to examinethe figureof Pedro Ferrando,his possiblerela"
and the argumentsput forwardby
tionshipwiththe auctorSummularum",
"
Tugwell against the identificationof Pedro Ferrando with the auctor
The new documentsI have found,which I have described
Summularum".
in the firstsectionof the presentstudy,and which seem to support,on
the one hand, the hypothesisof the identityof the "auctorSummularum"
"
"
with "Petrus
", and on the otherwith a PetrusHispanus (who was
Alfonsi
"
probablyfromEstella and who was confusedby Galvano with the con"
versussent by St Dominic to Bologna), mighttemptus to assume that
such a task is futile.
However,I believethatour knowledgeof the figureof Pedro Ferrando
is tangled in a web of problemswhich do not allow us to exclude the
"
"
possibilitythat he was the PetrusHispanus of Bologna or, despite the
"
". Althoughthese
in names, that he was PetrusAlfonsi
explicitdifference
hypothesesare highly improbable, the biographical profile of Pedro
Ferrandomakes it possibleto considerthat his figureis not entirelysep" and the
arate fromthe generalproblemof "PetrusHispanus
Corpusthat
XXI.
For
these
reasons I
has until now been attributedto Pope John
thinkthat it is stillusefulto examine in this contextthe problemssur"
". But the perspectivemustnow not
Ferrandi
roundingthe figureof Petrus
" but that of the author of the
"
be that of the auctorSummularum
Legenda
that are no less complex
primawhich, as we shall see, raises difficulties
".
than those we encounteredin the contextof the "auctorSummularum
In my view, as I pointed out in my last article,the analysesand testimoniesprovidedby SimonTugwellO.P. on thesubjectof Pedro Ferrando,
as well as on the Legenda
primashed considerablelighton some of the
questionsI examinedin my 1997 article,and have obliged me to rectify
some errorsI made in that paper. But, as I also mentionedin my last
article,Tugwell's analyses are flawed because of his acceptance of the
" withthe
"Estella tradition"whichlinksthe "auctorSummularum
Prioryof
Santo Domingo in Estella. Because of his acceptance of the "Estella tradition",all of Tugwell'sargumentsseem to be intendedto show not only

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

259

that Pedro Ferrando,who was buried in Zamora, cannot be identified

" who was buried in Estella
with the "PetrusHispanus
(who was supposthe
author
of
the
Summulae
but
also
that
the
author
of the Summulae
edly
),
is not the authorof the Legenda
: Pedro Ferrando,in his view,is the
prima
is "Petrus
authorof the Legenda
, whereasthe authorof the Summulae
prima
" who was buried in
Estella,and who is not the same as Pedro
Hispanus
Ferrando.
Once the reliabilityof the "Estella tradition"has been questioned,if
the resultsof Tugwell's analyseswere to be accepted (takingthe Legenda
"
"
to
withoutany attribution
primaas the only ancient Legendatransmitted
a particularauthor,and maintainingthat this should be identifiedwith
the VitabeatiDominiciattributedby Gil de Santarmto Pedro Ferrando),
the testimonyof Luis de Valladolid (who ascribesthe Summulae
and one
"Petrus
beati
Dominici
to
a
unknown
author
named
")
Hystoria
Hispanus
single
would allow us to conclude that Pedro Ferrandois not only,as Tugwell
asserts,the author of the Legendaprima
, but also, counter to Tugwell's
"
Summularum".
But is Luis de Valladolid's testimony
conclusions,the auctor
reliable? Are Tugwell's analyses conclusive? What is the relationship
between the Legendaprima
, the Vita beatiDominiciattributedto Pedro
beatiDominici
to the "auctor
Summularum'?
attributed
Ferrando,and theHystoria
In principle,Tugwell's analyses are not inconsistentwith Luis de
Valladolid's testimony,
but the twojoined together(whichwould lead to
the conclusionthat "PetrusFerrandois the "auctorSummularum
") seem to
come into conflictwith that other,more ancient,Dominican tradition
(represented
by the Catalogues of Stams,Pignon and Saint Ann)16which
attributesthe Summulae
to a "Petrus
". There is no doubt that this
Alfonsi
traditionrepresentsthe main obstaclein the way of the attribution
of the
Summulae
to Pedro Ferrando.This old Dominican traditionis in itselfnot
"
Ferrandi"
incompatiblewithTugwell's analyses(accordingto which Petrus
"
is the authorof theLegenda
Summularum
"Petrus
is
the
auctor
,
prima
Alfonsi"
"),
"
or with the testimonyof Luis de Valladolid ("PetrusAlfonsi
being the
" and also the author of a
"auctorSummularum
beatiDominici
), but
Hystoria
it does renderthese two testimoniesmutuallyincompatible.
"
"
If, as Tugwell says,thereis a singleancient Legendawhose authoris
unknown,and which should be attributedto Pedro Ferrando, and if
"
"Petrus
"
", then it would be necessaryto
Alfonsi is the auctorSummularum
16See d'Ors1997{op.cit.,above,n. 2),49,andd'Ors2001{op.cit.,above,n. 1),23942.

15:04:12 PM

260

ANGELD'ORS

" with "Petrus

conclude that Luis de Valladolid confused"PetrusAlfonsi
"
"
Ferraudiand attributedboth theirworksto a single PetrusHispanus If,
on the otherhand, in accord with the testimonyof Luis de Valladolid,
" is also the author of a
beatiDominici
the "auctorSummularum
, we
Hystoria
would have to conclude eitherthat Tugwell's analysescontain an error
(and that thereis more than one "Legenda"of unknownauthorship,one
"
"
"
or that the tradition
Alfonsi and anotherby PetrusFerraudi"),
by Petrus
"
"
the Summulae
to PetrusAlfonsi is erroneous(and that "Petrus
attributing
Ferraudi"is the "auctorSummularum
").
Where does the errorlie? In principle,on the groundsof its antiquity
whichreflectit, the old Dominican traand the natureof the testimonies
to a "Petrus
the Summulae
ditionattributing
", now reinforced
Alfonsi
by the
testimonyof the firstprintededitionof this work,seems worthyof our
trust.But if we accept this,there are two problems.On the one hand
" to corroborate
about this "PetrusAlfonsi
we have no other information
of thistradition(which,as I said in my earlierarticle,could
the reliability
"
" withthe famous"Petrus
have confusedthe "auctorSummularum
Alfonsi of
whichhas reached
On the otherhand,theinformation
thetwelfth
century).
matchesup the biographicalprofilewhichwould
Ferraudi"
us about "Petrus
of Luis
". Againstthe testimony
be appropriateforthe "auctorSummularum
de Valladolid we can bringforwardthatit was writtentoo late, and the
both worksto the same
whichattributes
factthatit is the onlytestimony
"Petrus
".
For
his
Hispanus
part, against Tugwell's analyseswe can bring
forwardthat, as we shall see, there would seem to be more than one
" with an unknownauthor.
ancient "Legenda
In principle,ifthe questionis set in theseterms,it seemsthatwe ought
" is a "Petrus
"
to accept the hypothesisthat the "auctorSummularum
Alfonsi
whose identitywe do not know; and that,untilfurtherdocumentscome
"
to light,the only questionthat can be set is whetherthis "Petrus
Alfonsi
beatiDominiciattributedto him by Luis of
is the author of the Hystoria
"
or
not.
The
Valladolid,
figureof PetrusFerraudi"would thereforeseem,
as Tugwell thinks,to have nothingto do with the problemof the "auctorSummularum
", and would only be relevantinsofaras he is the author
beatDominici
of a VitabeatiDominici
, whose relationshipwith the Hystoria
" remainsto be
attributedby Luis of Valladolid to the "auctorSummularum
determined.Nevertheless,even if we leave aside the possibilitythat the
"
Summularum"
Catalogue of Stams mightbe misleadingand thatthe auctor
could be Pedro Ferrando,in my opinion,as I have pointed out before,
his biographicalprofileenables us to suggestthat he is not completely
"
"Petrus
unconnectedwiththe generalproblemsurrounding
Hispanus(prob-

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

261

ably he ought to be recognisedas the authorof some of the worksthat

were formerly
thoughtto have been writtenbyJohn XXI), and it therefore seems appropriateto analyse here the testimoniesconcerningthe
figureof Pedro Ferrando.
Accordingto Tugwell, our knowledgeof Pedro Ferrando,as well as
the attribution
of the Legenda
primato him, reston verysolid foundations
I
seemed
not
to accept in my 1997 article.In thisrespect,
which,however,
the historicaldata seem to back Tugwell's thesis,thoughin my view not
as firmlyor as definitively
as he seems to believe. However, my rejection of thisthesisin my 1997 articlewas not actuallya rejectionso much
as the consequence of my scant knowledgeof the bibliographyconcerning Pedro Ferrandoand the LegendaSanctiDominiciattributedto him. My
" and not on the "
interestcentredratheron the "auctor
Summularum
Legenda
prima",and as a resultof acceptingthe "Estella tradition"as reliable,my
researchchieflyfocusedon thosefigureswho could be identified
withthe
"Petrus
" who was
Summularum
, auctor
Hispanas
supposedlyburiedin Estella.
ObviouslyPedro Ferrando,who accordingto an old traditionwas buried
in Zamora, could not be this "PetrusHispanus
", and thisaccountsformy
failureto investigatehis biographyin more detail in my 1997 paper. I
thinkthatthiswas my main error:more carefulexaminationof the figure
of Pedro Ferrandoand the Legenda
primawould have enabled me to avoid
some of the pitfallswhich I then encountered,and would have rendered
and hypothesesI made, which now
unnecessarymany of the reflections
seem futile.
In my 1997 articleI made, at least, threemajor mistakeswhich must
now be rectified.My main errorwas to regardthe "Leyenda castellana"
of St Dominic, attributedto Pedro Ferrando,as a mere translationof
the Legenda
SanctiDominici
whichis also attributedto him. Althoughthere
are obvious correlationsbetweenthe two texts,a simplereadingsuffices
to reveal that the relationshipbetween them is not one of translation:
narratives(the relationshipbetween the
theyare certainlytwo different
"
" constitutes
SanctiDominici
a fur"Leyenda castellana"and other Legendae
therproblem).
My second errorwas the idea that the worksattributedto Jordan of
Saxony and Humbert of Romanis mightnot be by these authors,but
that these figures,in theirpositionas General Masters of the Order of
Preachers,mighthave commissionedothersto writethem (perhaps,the
"auctor
The historicaldata contributedby Tugwell seem to
Summularum").
the
thesis
that
and Humbertprobably,did write
support
Jordancertainly,
these worksbeforethey became General Masters, and that theywrote

15:04:12 PM

262

ANGELD'ORS

themthemselves,
eitheron theirown initiativeor because theywere commissionedto do so (yetanotherproblemhere is the relationshipbetween
Humbert'sLegendaSanciiDominiciand the "Leyenda castellana").
,
My thirderrorconcernsthe chronologyof the LegendaSanciiDominici
attributed
to Pedro Ferrando,and the "Leyendacastellana".In the Spanish
versionof my article,when I discussedthesetextsI said simplythatthere
was "una antigua("early")versincastellana",but in the Englishtextthe
words"an earlierCastilianversion"creptin. Thus my 1997 articleseemed
to indicate that I agreed with L. A. Getino,17who defendedthe thesis
thatthe "Leyenda castellana"predatesthe Latin "Legendae
". This was not
my intention.When I pointed out the antiquityof the Castilian biography of St Dominic my only purpose was to point out that this could
have been writtenat a time when both Pedro Ferrando and the "auctor
Summularum"
were stillalive (a hypothesiswhich,strictly
speaking,I now
also regard as wrong).My 1997 articledoubtlesscontains many other
but these are less pertinentto our presentconcern.
errors,18
a) The Legenda Sanct Dominici (Legenda prima)
I mustturnnow to the problemscaused by the figureof Pedro Ferrando
and the Legenda
SandiDominici
(theLegenda
prima
) attributedto him. In my
view, these are two different
problemswhich we must distinguishand
in
order
to
avoid
drawingprematureconclusionswhich could
separate
influence
our
negatively
subsequentanalysiswhichwillbe directedtowards
"
the genuine author of the "Legenda
prima on the one hand,
identifying
" on the other. The available historical
and the true "auctorSummularum
17L. G. AlonsoGetino,Origen
castellanas
delsigloXIII sobre
Sto.
delRosano
y Leyendas
deGuzmn
, Vergara1925.
Domingo
18Mymainerror
to trust
on thereliability
ofthe"Estella
tradiwas,without
doubt,
- seed'Ors
ofwhich
wasoneofthechief
ofmylastarticle
tion",therevision
objectives
- . However,
out
other
lesser
errors
tobe pointed
2001{op.cit.,above,n. 1),230-4
ought
in theOrderof
scholartim"
to be an internal
hereas well:I tookthe"rector
position
- d'Ors1997(op.cit.,above,n. 2),31- , although
- 1999
toTugwell
Preachers
according
n.
113
such
a
does
not
exist
this
does
not
rule
out
(op.cit.,above, 3),
(however,
position
thepossibility
thata member
oftheOrderofPreachers
couldhaveheldsucha position
" was
I considered
thatthe"auctor
Summularum
todo withthe
outside
theOrder).
nothing
the
1997
tasks
of
Order
of
Preachers
d'Ors
(op.cit.,above,n. 2),37- , which
founding
I considered
thattheTractatus
hadprobobscure
certain
ofhisbiography.
might
aspects
- d'Ors1997(op.cit.,
inToulouse
which
above,n. 2),48- , a hypothesis
ablybeenwritten
which
ofthehypothewassubordinate
totheacceptance
oftheEstella
tradition
(from
many
"
at thattimewerederived,
thelinkbetween
the"auctor
Summularum
sesI formed
including
between
theSummulae
andtheinternal
andtheCourtoftheKingsofNavarre,
organisationoflearning
intotheOrderofPreachers,
etc.).

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

263

data allow us to assert,first,

thatPedro Ferrandowrotea VitabeatiDominici
,
the textof which is strictly
is
and
that
there
second,
speakingunknown;
a LegendaSanciiDominici
whose authoris also, strictly
speaking,unknown.
The attributionof this LegendaSanctiDominicito Pedro Ferrando allows
us to solve both problemsat one stroke,which is why such a solution
seems likelyand tempting.Good reasons can be said to exist in favour
of thisconclusion(adduced by Tugwell in his article).But thereare also
some problemswhich conjure up doubts regardingthe solidityof such a
conclusion(problemswhich Tugwell evades, or does not seem to regard
as sufficiently
relevant).For the sake of greaterclarity,it will be beneficial
to look firstat the problems posed by the LegendaSanctiDominici(the
Legenda
prima).
The Legenda
SanctiDominici
(or Legenda
) is a textwhichwas handed
prima
down as anonymousuntil 1911. The firsteditionwe are aware of is in
Mombritius'Sanctuarium
of 1479.19In 1899, Pie Mothon O.P. republished
it in the beliefthatit was unpublished.20
He consideredit to predatethe
of
the
reform
of
Humbert
of Romanis (in 1260). In
imposition
liturgical
1911 it was publishedagain, thistimeunderthe name of Pedro Ferrando,
by F. Van Ortroy.21
Finally,in 1935, M. H. Laurent22publisheda critical editionof thisLegenda
it to Pedro Ferrando.At pre, also attributing
sent (at least) the followingmanuscriptsof the Legendaare known (all of
which are unattributed):

19Mombritius,
Sanctuarium
, Miln1479,BHL 2235(2nded.,Paris,t. I, 1910,429-43).
20PieMothon
SacriOrdinis
Fratrum
IV (1899),296O.P.,in:Analecta
Praedicatorum,
- Paris,BnF,lat.
319.Thisedition
wasprepared
from
twofourteenth-century
manuscripts
intheform
ofreadings
fortheoffice
ofSt Dominic),
and
1309,fols.319r-320r
(fragment
in theform
ofreadings
fortheOffice
ofSt
Paris,BnF,lat.3820,fols.39r-39v
(fragment
- anda modern
Archive
oftheOrderofPreachers,
XDominic)
copy(Rome,General
982).
21F. Van Ortroy,
Pierre
Ferrand
O.P.etlespremiers
deS. Dominique
de
biographes
fondateur
l'ordre
desFrres
Prcheurs
XXX (1911),27-87.Edition
, in:Analecta
Bollandiana,
prepared
fromtheeditions
and Mothon,
and thethirteenth-century
by Mombritius
manuscript:
R 394(formerly
de la Ville394;ant.
Wroclaw,
Breslau,
University
Library,
Bibliothque
S. IV, 2 a 41),fols.lr-38r(priorto 1259,as it stillincludes
thetextconcerning
Diego
of OsmawhichtheGeneralChapter
ofValenciennes
heldin thatyearordered
to be
corrected).
22H. Laurent
Sancti
Dominici
auctore
Petro
in:Monumenta
Histrica
O.P.,Legenda
Ferrando
SanctiPatrisNostri
fase.II, in: Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
Dominici,
Thisedition
wasprepared
fromtheeditions
of
Histrica,
XVI, Roma 1935,197-260.
Mothon
andVan Ortroy
whichtheyused),buttaking
Mombritius,
(andthemanuscripts
as a basisthenewthirteenth-century
Theol.,
manuscript:
Gttingen,
University
Library,
to 1242;itincludes
at theendsixantiphons
anda response
from
109,fols.lv-34v(prior

15:04:12 PM

264

ANGELD'ORS
manfols.140-183v
Bibi,Nac.,Alcob.CXXXIII/24,
century,
(thirteenth
1) Lisbon,
after
Laurent's
discovered
edition).
byTugwell
uscript
Bibi.Universit,
Theol.,109,fols.lv-34v(thirteenth
century,
prior
2) Gttingen,
to 1242,basisforLaurent's
edition).
Lambeth
Palace,356,fols.91-99(thirteenth/fourteenth
century).
3) London,
- formerly
de
Bibi.Uniw.,R 394,fols.lr-38r
Breslau,
Bibliothque
4) Wroclaw,
la Ville394;ant.S. IV, 2 to 41 (thirteenth
century,
priorto 1259,basisfor
Van Ortroy's
edition).
Univ.Bibl.,Salem9, fols.151-169v
(fourteenth
century).
5) Heidelberg,
Bibl.MediceaLaur.,Strozzi
4, fols.98-104(fifteenth
century).
6) Firenze,
sevenoftheOrderofPreachers,
Archive
X-982(copyfrom
7) Rome,General
to thetextpublished
whichseemsto be related
by
century
teenth-eighteenth
Mombritius).
in theform
century,
fragment
(fourteenth
8) Paris,BnF,lat.1309,fols.319r-320r
ofSt Dominic).
fortheOffice
ofreadings
in theform
century,
fragment
(fourteenth
9) Paris,BnF.,lat.3820,fols.39r-39v
ofSt Dominic).
fortheOffice
ofreadings
in theform
A.8 (o G),fols.247r-248v
ofSt Peter's,
(fragment
10) Rome,Archive
ofSt Dominic).
fortheOffice
ofreadings
in theform
A.9 (o H), fols.135v-137v
ofSt Peter's,
(fragment
11) Rome,Archive
ofSt Dominic).
fortheOffice
ofreadings

as Tugwell has indicated,reflectthe existenceof two

These manuscripts,
narratives:one which probablypredated the approval by the
different
General Chapter of the Order; and a later one, which contained the
modifications
approved by this General Chapter (probablyheld in 1236
of thisLegendaalso exist,one
or 1238). At least threemoderntranslations
into French23and two into Spanish,24also presentedas the workof Pedro
Ferrando.
of "this" textto Pedro Ferrandothereforehas its oriThe attribution
carriedout by Altaner,
of F. Van Ortroy(subsequently
in
the
research
gin
Scheeben, Laurent,Barth and Tugwell, among others).It is the consethe resultsobtainedon the one hand fromexamquence of synthesising
and
the
comparingthe text of the Legendawith other
manuscripts
ining
textsconcerningthe life of St Dominic and the historyof the Order of
Preachers;and on the otherhand fromstudyingthe historicaltestimonies
concerningthe biographersof St Dominic. Examinationof the manuscriptsand text of this Legendareveals its dependence on the Libellasde
areconofStDominic
as faras themiracles
thistextis closer,
ofStDominic;
theOffice
thanto thateditedbyVan
or byMothon,
to theone editedbyMombritius
cerned,
Ortroy).
23D. Delalande
PredesPrcheurs,
Frre
andD. Mesnard,
1934,21-82.
Juvisy
Dominique,
24M. Gelabert
deGuzman
visto
Santo
andJ. M. Milagro,
,
porsuscontemporneos
Domingo
Madrid1966);L. GalmsMas andV. Gmez
1sted.,Madrid1947(2nded. revised,
Madrid1987.
Fuentes
deGuzman.
Garca,Santo
parasuconocimiento,
Domingo

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

265

initiisOrdinisPredicatorum
by Jordan of Saxony,25as well as its independence fromany otherknownbiographyof St Dominic (whichseem rather
to draw on it). The textof thisLegendacan be regardedas a reworking
of the text ofJordan of Saxony, which it followsliterallyat times,but
omittingthe passages of the Libellaswhich do not have St Dominic as
protagonistand adding some details about his familybackground,journey to Spain, and other thingshe did in the south of France or Italy,
"
pacis".
includingthe Testamentm
The correctionsto the various manuscriptswhich reveal the traces of
agreementsmade at variousGeneralChaptersof the Order of Preachers,26
as well as the facts about the dates at which other biographiesof St
Dominic were written,enable us to conclude that"this"Legenda
was written between 1234, the year in which St Dominic was canonised (as it
mentionsthe miraclesperformedby St Dominic which were approved
at the end of the canonisationprocess on 3 July 1234) and 1242 (the
year in which the General Chapter of Bologna orderedone of the passages of this Legendato be corrected).It was used in the heart of the
Order of Preachersuntil 1247 (when it was replaced by the Legendaby
Constantineof Orvieto),or, at the outsidelimit,until 1260, the year in
In all
which Humbertof Romanis officially
imposed the thirdLegenda.21
in
work
it
secwas
on
after
which
the
1235
(the year
probability
begun
ond editionofJordan of Saxony's Libelluswas circulated)and concluded
before1239 (by which timeit alreadyseems to have been currentin the
Order of Preachers).All of thispermitsus to conclude that "this"Legenda
"
"
SanctiDominici
is, in fact,the firstof the Legendae
", that is, the Legenda
".
prima
On theotherhand,theLectionarium
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
{Leccionario
Keble
contains
an
abbreviated
version
of
Oxford,
Regensburg.
College, 49)
25Ed. H. C. Scheeben,
vol.
in:Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
Histrica,
XVI,Rome1935,1-88.
26"Monemus
ubisemetipsum
et volumus
de legenda
beatiDominici
quodabradatur
divina
conservatum
licetincarnis
asserit,
1242,Monumenta
[. . .]" (Bolonia
integritte
gracia
1999(op.cit
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
Histrica,
., above,
III, 24- quoted
byTugwell
in rubrica
Oxomensis
n. 3), 105)."InVitabeatiDominici
ubidicitur:
'qualiter
episcopus
'beatus
instituit
deleatur:
et dicatur:
monasterium
de Pruliano',
Oxomensis',
'episcopus
hoc
Dominicus'
etc.Similiter
ibidem
in textuubidicitur:
'Dei servus
Didacus',deleatur
totum
et dicatur
'beatusDominicus'"
1259,B. Reichert
O.P.,Actacapitu(Valenciennes,
lorum
1911(op.cit.,above,n. 21),37).
, t. I, p. 98- quotedbyVan Ortroy
generalium
27"Mandat
estin
utantur
beatiDominici
legenda
quae inserta
Magister
quodfratres
B. Reichert
et alia deinceps
nonscribantur",
,
O.P.,Actacapitulorum
lectionario;
generalium
t. I, p. 105- quotedbyVan Ortroy
1911(op.cit.,above,n. 21),38.

15:04:12 PM

266

ANGELD'ORS

thisLegenda
prima.It is widelyaccepted that thismanuscriptcontainsthe
firsteditionof Humbertof Romanis' Leccionario
, preparedin responseto
the instructions
issued by the General Chapter of 1246 when Humbert
" is
a "LegendaSanciiDominici
was Provincialof France. In thisLeccionario
".28Since at this date the Legenda
attributedto one "PetrusHispanus
prima
this
enables
seems to be the onlyofficially
recognised"Legenda", testimony
" as its author. It is this same Leccionario
us to recognise"PetrusHyspanus
" was
which informsus that the Legendaby "PetrusHyspanus
approved by
one of the General Chaptersof the Order of Preachers.
The textualtraditionof the Legenda
, its manuscriptsand editions
prima
which predate Van Ortroy'seditionof 1911, does not allow us to draw
any other conclusion:it does not permitus to say anythingabout the
", the author of the Legendaprima.This
identityof this "PetrusHyspanus
"
" could be the "auctorSummularurri
"PetrusHispanus
(whichwould fitLuis
or Pedro Ferrando(accordingto Gil de Santade Valladolid's testimony),
Summularum
or even Pedro Ferrando,"auctor
rem'stestimony),
", ifwe want
"
of this "PetrusHyspanus
to reconcileboth testimonies.The identification
with Pedro Ferrando,which was advocated by Van Ortroyand is generally accepted today, is a conclusionwhich has been reached on the
basis of researchof anotherkind,which is no longerlinkedto the textual traditionof the Legenda
, but to the historyof the biographies
prima
of St Dominic.
thefigureof Pedro Ferrando
I shalldiscussbelow the issuessurrounding
and the historyof the biographiesof St Dominic,but firstI thinkit would
be usefulto make a few points about the relationsbetweenthisLegenda
primaand Jordan of Saxony's Libellus.As I have already said, thereare
literalresemblancesbetweenthe two works,but in the Legenda
significant
new features.Among these,particularattenthereare also some striking
tion has been drawn to the information
given about St Dominic's famor
his
or
his
about
events
journey to Spain, and about
during youth
ily,
these
featureshave come to be
Over
the
the "Testamentm
years
paris".
and have led historiansof the Order of
regardedas highlysignificant,
Preachersto inquireintothe sourceswhichmighthave provideditsauthor
In responseto this question,it has been
with thisvaluable information.
28"Frater
a capitPetrus
beatiDominici
legendam
approbatam
Hyspanus,
quiconposuit
"In festoS. Dominici,
In translatione
frater
ulo generali.
beatiDominici"
(fol.78va-vb);
H. M. Barth,
Die
cumapprobatione
PetrusHyspanus
(fol.129vb),
generalis"
capituli
Humberts
vonRomans
Fratrum
in ersten
Lektionar
(1246),in: Archivm
Dominikuslegende
LTV(1984),83-112(pp. 109and 101).
Praedicatorum,

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

267

supposed that the author was a Spaniard and that he came across the
factsconcerningSpain in Spain itself(wherethisworkwas probablyalso
composed), and that this informationis thereforelikelyto be reliable.
"
"
However,St Dominic's Testamentm
pacis has been regardedas nothing
more than a literarydevice which lacks a historicalbasis.29
In my opinion, these conclusionsare the resultof a deficientunderstandingof the problem which overlooksthe different
purposes of the
Libellasand the Legenda.
The Libellusis a historyof the Order of Preachers,
whereas the Legendais a biographyof a saint writtenimmediatelyafter
his canonisationand only 13 yearsafterhis death. What we regardtoday
as precious informationabout the life of St Dominic provided by the
Legenda
primamighthave been well known to Jordan of Saxony (and to
all of St Dominic's companions),and Jordan mightnot have includedit
in his Libellusbecause he thoughtit irrelevantto the historyof the Order
of Preachers.However,thisinformation
would have been relevantforthe
author of the Legendaprimawhen he was writingthe life of the Saint.
Only 13 years afterhe died, when some of his closestcompanionswere
stillalive, the compilationof the eventsin the Legendaapparentlywould
not have entailedmuch difficulty,
and it does not require special explanation today either. I consider it unnecessaryto presuppose that the
authorhad a special, close link to Spain (stillless, that the Legendamust
have been writtenin Spain) in orderto account forthe information
conin
tained the Legendawhich is not in Jordan of Saxony's Libellus.I can
findno reason why we should rule out the possibilitythat the writerof
the Legenda
mighthave gatheredtheseaccountsoutsideSpain. The writer
even
have heard them fromSt Dominic himself,since he could
might
have been one of St Dominic's firstcompanions,an eyewitnessto some
of the very events he reports(and even a witnessof the " Testamentm
"
pacis of St Dominic in Bologna), or else he mighthave collected the
in the course of the canonisationprocess.
information

29"In theMidi,Dominic
waspartofa predominantly
whosememmission,
Spanish
returned
to Spain;so it wasprecisely
with
bers,oncetheorderwasestablished,
mainly
material
thatFerrando
wasabletoenrich
thestory."
1999[op.cit.,
above,
Spanish
(Tugwell
n. 3), 106)."Ferrando
is alsothefirst
writer
to claimthat,before
he died,Dominic
fortohisfriars
thethree
virtues
ofcharity,
andvoluntary
mally
'bequeathed'
humility
poverty,
andthathe pronounced
a curseon anyone
whointroduced
intotheorder.
It
possesions
is mostunlikely
thateither
thetestament
orthecurseis historical,
andR. Creytens
O.P.
thattheyshould
be regarded
as a literary
device."
1999,(op.cit.,above,
argued
(Tugwell
n. 3) 106,n. 11).

15:04:12 PM

ANGELD'ORS

268
b) "PetrusFerrandi"

" is
As far as the figureof "PetrusFerrandi
concerned,the oldest explicit
and unequivocal referenceto him is the testimonyof Giles of Portugal
30
(Giles of Santarm)(c. 1184/1190-1265), who was beatifiedin 1748. He
31have been attribConstantini
was a doctor (the Quaestiones
superViaticum
uted to him),and was the Provincialof the Order of Preachersin Spain
is a lettersent
forthe periods 1233-1242 and 1244-1249.32His testimony
to Humbertof Romanis, who was then the General Master,which was
of 1258, in which he
takenup by Grard de Frachetin his VitaeFratrum
about some figuresin the Spanishprovinceof the Order
givesinformation
of Preacherswho had recendydied. He mentionsthe names of Frater
FraterDominicusconversus
Petrusmedicus,FraterMrtiusconversus,
, Frater
Pedro
of
all
Ferrandi
Petrus
Ferdinandus
Ferrando,
whom,except
,
, and Frater
of Santarmand Lisbon.
Dominicancommunities
belongedto thePortuguese
Pedro Ferrandois also the onlyone whose completename we are given.
RegardingPedro Ferrando,Giles of Santarmreportsthe following:
Petrus
Ferrandi,
i) Cumfrater
nutritus
etdoctus
sanctissime
fuerat,
ii) qui a pueroin ordine
nostri
beatiDominici
descripsit,
iii) qui etvitam
patris
in multis
locis,
iv) doctor
infirmaretur,
v) tandem
apudZamoram
etfaciem
altissimum
stantem
frater
viditipsumsupramontem
vi) quidamdevotus
stantes
et a sinistris
duosiuvenes
utsol,et a dextris
eiusresplendentem
splenhancdixisset
michi
visionem
diefrater
Cumautemsequenti
didosnimis.
quam
ad
Et cumvenissem
moriturum.
in proximo
Petrum
intellexi
fratrem
viderat,
es
in lectoin quo ipseiacebat,[...], et quiavirgoet doctor
eumet sederem
me ut
Tuncrogavit
adiutorio
et Christi
eas beatevirginis
acquisisti.
discipuli
30See Enciclopedia
Sanctorum
deiSanti/
Bibliotheca
, 3thed.,Roma1995,964-5.
31SeeMaryFrances
anditsCommentaries
TheViaticum
Middle
inthe
,
Wack,Lovesickness
Ages.
1990.
Philadelphia
32The Catalogus
Anno
1970-71
Ordinis
Provinciae
conventum
etfiatrum
Praedicatorum,
Hispaniae
casas
delosconventos,
Editorial
y religiosos
Catlogo
OPE),or themorerecent
(Guadalajara,
1993(Salamanca
dela Orden
dePredicadores
deEspaa
dela Provincia
, Anno
1992),giveus the
of Spain:1) 1221:SueroGmez;2) 1233:Gilesof
following
sequenceof Provincials
ofSegovia;4) 1244:GilesofSantarm;
5) 1249:Peterof
Santarm;
3) 1242:Dominic
basisforthis
I do notknowwhatthedocumentary
ofSegarra.
Huesca;6) 1252:Arnaldo
is conAs faras GilesofSantarm
is,butit seemsto raisesomeproblems.
chronology
which
wereusumorethanthethree
he seemsto be assigned
cerned,
four-year
periods
thatthere
is some
which
seemstoindicate
in theOrderofPreachers,
allythemaximum
allotshimtheperiod1249On theother
lacunaeinthischronology.
hand,Qutif-Echard
withhisroleas corandseemstofitbetter
three
is exactly
1261,which
four-year
periods,
thedeathofPedroFerrando),
ofHumbert
ofRomanis
(towhomhe reports
respondent
to theofficially
butdoesnothaveanyrelationship
chronology.
accepted

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUCTORSUMMULARUM
(III)

269

nonestordo
ait:Fratres
fratres
omnesanteeumvocarem.
Quibusastantibus
tantum
diligat
[. . .]
quemdominus
in domino.33
hiisverbis
coramcunctis
fratribus
obdormivit
vii)Finitis
This textby Giles of Santarm,which Grard de Frachet incorporated
in thefirsteditionof his VitaeFratrum
, was revisedby Humbertof Romanis
beforeit was officially
propagated,who introducedthe followingchange:
in multis
annis
extiterat.M
locisHyspanie
multis
iv) doctor
of Romanis,
de Frachet-Humbert
This textfromGiles of Santarem-Grard
which is the fundamentalbasis for all the later Dominican literarytraditionsurroundingthe figureof Pedro Ferrando,givesus foursignificant
"
pieces of information:that he was educated fromchildhood "zVzordine
"
"
(ii); thathe descripsita VitabeatiDominici(iii); that he was a doctorand
places (iv and vi) Humbert specifiedthat he taught
taughtin different
in Spain ; and that he fell ill and died in Zamora (v and vii). As we
know the date at which Grard de Frachetwrotehis VitaeFratrum
, 1258,
we can state that Pedro Ferrando must have died beforethat date. If,
on the other hand, we take into considerationthe fact that Grard de
Frachet received this informationfromthe document sent by Giles of
Santarmto Humbertof Romanis, and that Giles of Santarminforms
fromPortugalof the death of Pedro Ferrando as somethingthat had
happened some time before,it would seem clear that Pedro Ferrando's
death musthave occurredsome years previously.
The testimoniesconcerning Pedro Ferrando provided by Giles of
Santarem'sletterseem to be reliable;thereis no doubt thattheyare the
mosttrustworthy
of all the accountsthathave been handed down to us.35
these
testimonies
are not so precise and unequivocal as they
However,
at
first
seem.
The
most
exact and unambigousis that concerning
might
the place of his death, Zamora, a name which could referto the cityof
Zamora, or to the provinceor diocese of Zamora (an ambiguitywhich
does not seem to be particularlyimportantat the moment). Giles of
Santarmdoes not tellus anythingabout the place wherePedro Ferrando

33See Tugwell1999(op.cit.,above,n. 3), 103.I quoteherethetextprovided

by
whotakesintoaccount
unknown
toLaurent
andwhich
differs
conTugwell,
manuscripts
from
thetexteditedbyhim.
siderably
34See Tugwell
1999(op.cit.,above,n. 3), 104.
35In reality,
thefigure
ofPedroFerrando
takesshapeon thebasisofthesetestimonies:
in
ourPedroFerrando
is themember
oftheOrderofPreachers
whosedeathis reported
thistext.

15:04:12 PM

270

ANGELD'ORS

was buried,and no tracesof his grave remaintoday.RegardingZamora,

it mightbe relevantto point out thatit was part of the ancientKingdom
of Galicia, which with Asturiasformedpart of the Kingdom of Len,
and which,in turn,was integratedinto the Kingdom of Castile at the
end of 1230 underthereignof FerdinandIII the Saint.ThereforeZamora,
from1230 onwards,was at once Galicia, Len and Castile,and the people of Zamora were Galicians, Leonese and Castilians.
The testimoniesreferring
to Pedro Ferrando'sactivities,whetheras a
teacherin manyplaces or as the biographerof St Dominic,presentmore
for our presentpurposes. Giles of Santarm does not
seriousdifficulties
tell us anythingabout the places or the institutions
schools
(universities,
to
orders
or
or
where
Pedro
Ferrando
cathedrals, royalschools)
belonging
could have taught,nor does he provideany information
whichcan enable
us to identify
the textof the VitabeatiDominici
thathe attributes
to Pedro
Ferrando.
Looking at the places where Pedro Ferrando mighthave taught,the
correctionintroducedby Humbert of Romanis adds the detail that he
was a teacher "m multislocisHyspaniaemultisamis". Besides, in the sixteenthcentury,Hernando del Castillo introduceda furtherremarkby
saying that Pedro Ferrando (whom he calls Pedro Hernndez) "Ley
muchos aos en diversosconventosde Espaa" (read formany years in
different
religiouscommunitiesin Spain):
el gransiervo
de Diosfray
PedroHernndez.
i) Muritambin
sancddad
ii) El qualentroen la ordenmuynio.Y vivien ellacongrandissima
aosen diversos
conventos
de Espaa.
iv) Leymuchos
la vidade SanctoDomingo
conmuchadiligencia.
Mas paratraerla
iii) Escrivio
en el alma,
queparadexarla
estampada
puestaen quadernos.
de das,y estando
en el Convento
de amoraenfermo,
v) Siendoya hombre
estarevelacin.
Vio fray
Pedropuesto
vi) tuvounsancto
frayle
queallimorava,
en la cumbre
de un monte
msresplandeciente
alto,conel rostro
que el sol,
doshombres
hermosura
moos,de la mayor
y hazianle
compaa
que podia
todoel convento,
lesdixo,
[. . .] De ay pocoestando
ymaginarsse.
presente
lo muchoque Diosamavaestaorden,
y comoqueraseren ellaservido
[. . .]
vii)Y conestaserenidad
partial cielo.
Y estoque escrevimos
es traslado
de una cartaque el S. frayGil escrivio
al
General
dandole
cuentadelglorioso
finde fray
PedroHernandez.36
Umberto,

36Pmera
dela Historia
General
deSanto
dePredicadores
parte
, Madrid
Domingo
y desu Orden
Alberti
introduces
a moregeneric
andimprecise
that
1584,314v.Leandro
remark,
saying
PedroFerrando
"etlitteras
in pluribus
docuerat."
illustribus
Hispaniae
gymnasiis
(Deviris
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
libri
sex
, inunum
, Bononiae
1517,188r).
congesti

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

271

It is necessaryto ask as to the meaning of these observations,and to

establishwhethertheyhad any grounds.It seems obvious thatHernando
del Castillo'stestimony
depends directlyon thatof Humbertof Romanis,
and thatthe specifictranslationof "locis" as "conventos"is not based on
information
which Hernando del Castillo (or
any kindof complementary
of
his
have
at
had
his
any
sources)might
disposal.It seems to have been
no more than a poetic licence in the face of a lack of precise information about his possibleactivityas a teacherat some university.
Similarly,
we must understand Hernando del Castillo's testimoniesthat Pedro
Ferrando "entr en la orden muy nio" (enteredthe order as a child),
died "siendo ya hombrede das" (well advanced in years) and died "en
el Convento de amora" as furthercases of poetic licences.
As far as the remarkadded by Humbert of Romanis is concerned,
Tugwell supposes that Humbert knew the geographicalarea in which
Pedro Ferrando had exercisedhis teachingactivities,and that this was
what led him to introducethisdetailin Giles of Santarem'stext.Tugwell
interpretsthis remarkas "restrictive"in function,that is, provided in
order to exclude the possibilityof his having taughtoutside Spain.37
In myview,Tugwell'sinterpretation
is highlyproblematic.The "only"
in
introduced
Humbert
Giles
of Santarem'stextabout Pedro
change
by
Ferrandois thisone about the places where he taught.Besides,it is very
strangethat someone who is supposed to have knowledgeof the figure
" to a "Petrus
"
of Pedro Ferrando, who attributesa "Legenda
Hispanus
), and who is himselfthe author of a LegendaSancti
(LeccionamRegensburg
Dominici
on
the
(based
Legenda
prima)shouldnot also have introducedsome
" whichGiles of Santarmattrib"
detailsconcerningthe VitabeatiDominici
utes to Pedro Ferrando.Humbert'sremarkseems to springnot fromhis
knowledgeof Pedro Ferrando,but fromhis completelack of knowledge:
it was probablythe lack of any otherinformation
about Pedro Ferrando
(at least, under this name) which led Humbert to add the detail that
Pedro Ferrando taughtin Spain, since the only informationhe had at
his disposal came fromSpain. We can thereforeconclude nothingabout
the places in which Pedro Ferrandotaught.
As far as the VitabeatiDominiciwhich Pedro Ferrando "descripsiis
"
concerned,the use of the verb descripsi
mightindicatethat this is not
a completelyoriginalwork,but ratheran extract,compilationor translation, writtenon the basis of some earlier work (although this is not
37See Tugwell
1999{op.cit.,above,n. 3), 104.

15:04:12 PM

272

ANGELD'ORS

as all the knownbiographiesof St Dominic belong

particularly
significant,
in this category).BernardGui in 1304 is the firstperson to give us the
"
"
"
incipitof the Legenda attributedto Pedro Ferrando: BeatusDominicus
.38The testimoniesof Taegio,39
adhucpuerulus
sub nutreis
custodia
constitutum"
AntoniusSenensis,40
AmbrosiusAltamura41
and many otherhistoriansof
the Order of Preachers,direcdyor indirectly,
are based on Gui's words.
The incipitquoted by Bernard Gui does not correspondto the incipit
a major difficulty
forthose
of the Legenda
prima,whichdoubtlessconstitutes
should
be
attributed
to
Pedro
Ferrando.
who believethatthe Legenda
prima
However, historiansof the Order of Preachersagree unanimouslythat
Bernard Gui did not have at his disposal any copy of the Legenda
prima,
and thattherefore
the incipit
whichhe quotes is onlya reconstruction
put
which
is
unreliable.
This
Gui
therefore
himself,
quite
opintogetherby
utestimo" by means of which Gui
ion is supportedby the clause "incipit
to some of the later versionsof his work,as well
introducedthis incipit
as by the lack of any referenceto the Legendaof Pedro Ferrandoin the

38See Tugwell1998[op.cit.,above,n. 3), 106.

39"Frater
virdeodevotus,
ac vitesanctitate
in diviPetrus
Ferrandi,
religione
insignis,
satiseruditus
et antiquitatum
ordinis
nisscripturis
diligentissimus
perscrutator,
legendam
Dominicus
beatiDominici
'Beatus
adhucpuerulus
subnutreis
cuscompilavit,
queincipit:
todiaconstitutus'.
Hancposteiuscanonizationem
primum
compilavit,
quamcapitulum
Chronicam
brevem
etiamordinis
generale
postmodum
approbavit.
tempore,
quo beatus
Tholosam
venit
ethospitem
convertit
ad fidem,
Dominicus
suumhereticum
etfinem
primo
invitamagisti
Humberti
annodomini
facit
cod.Roma,Archivium
1254",in:De insigniis,
Generale
Ordinis
Praedicatorum,
XIV, 54, if. 173v-174r
(quotedbyH. Ch. Scheeben,
Petrus
Ferrandi
Fratrum
on p. 330).
2 (1932),329-47,
Praedicatorum,
, in:Archivm
40"Frater
Petrus
Ferdinandi
ex regnoGalliciae,
virpiuset devotus,
Hispanus,
neque
B. Dominici
nostri:
'BeatusDominicus
ineruditus,
compilavit
legendam
patris
quaeincipit
a patrenostro
adhucpuerulus'.
Chronicam
etiamord.scripsit,
Dominico
ineipiendo
usque
Claruisse
ad vitamgeneralis
Ord.Humberti.
videtur
circaannum1270",in:
Magisti
Bibliotheca
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
Antonio
eiusdem
Fratrum
R. P. magistro
, authore
Senensi,
lusitano,
dominicanae
alumno
, Paris1585,195.
familiae
"Anno1259.Petrus
siveFerdinandi
viraequedoctus,
etprobus,
Hernandes,
Hispanus,
annosindiversis
Conventibus
Provinciae
VitamSanctissimi
legitmuitos
Hispaniae.
Scripsit:
nostri
Patriarchae
'BeatusDominicus
adhucpuerulus'.
ItemscripDominici,
quaeincipit
sitChronicon
ordinis
ss. Patrenostro
Dominico
ineipiendo
usquead vitamGeneralis
Clarusmiraculis
volavit
ad superos,
anno1259.Castillus
1. p.,
Mag. Ord.Humberti.
Lusitanus
In Biblioth.,
Plodiusp. 2, lib. 1, Martyrol.
1,2, c. 59. Huiusmeminerunt
in:Bibliothecae
dominicanae
R. P. M.Ambrosio
Altamura
, admodum
Dominic.",
, Roma1677,16a.
42The clause"incipit
utestimo
", sinceitwasintroduced
byGuiin a secondredaction
ofhiswork,
hasbeeninterpreted
as an expression
ofdoubt.Butitcouldalso
byTugwell
be interpreted
as an expression
ofa personali
which
wasnotbasedon earlier
litopinion,
which
wouldcanceloutthevalueofthisargument.
I am grateful
to Sten
sources,
erary
forhisobservations
Ebbesen
on theinterpretation
ofthisclause.

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUCTORSUMMULARUM
(III)

273

writtenby Gui himself.Indeed, these factsdo not

LegendaSanciiDominici
of the Legenda
enable us to rejectthe attribution
primato Pedro Ferrando
the
differences
between
of
the
view
incipitquoted by Gui
(in
important
and the incipitof the Legendaprima),but they do not provide with any
either.I shalldiscussbellowsome other
thatattribution
reasonssupporting
account.
of
Bernard
Gui's
aspects
Finally,Giles of Santarem'stextwhichtellsus thatPedro Ferrando"a
"
et doctus
sanctissime
nutritus
fiierat also raises some questions.
pueroin ordine
"
If the usual interpretation
is accepted, according to which " in ordine
whichmay also give rise
means the Order of Preachers(an interpretation
to doubts),this text would seem to referto Pedro Ferrando's entering
the Order of Preachers,but Giles of Santarmdoes not tell us anything
about the place and timeof thisevent.Was it in Spain or outsideSpain?
In which year? If we suppose that he joined the Order of Preachersin
Spain, then as the Order of Preacherswas introducedto Spain in 1217,
" would lead us to conof the expression"a puero
the literalinterpretation
clude that Pedro Ferrandowas born after1200 (because if he had been
over 17 he could no longerhave been consideredto be "puer").Following
ifwe assume thatPedro Ferrandocame into contactwith
thishypothesis,
in Spain, then
the Order of Preachersimmediatelyafterits establishment
he would have been 18 when St Dominic made his journey to Spain
(1218); 21 when St Dominic died (1221); littlemore than 35 when,if we
"
" to
"
attributethe "Legendaprima
him, he wrote his VitabeatiDominici
(1235-1238);and, as we knowthatPedro Ferrandodied some yearsbefore
1258, he must have been littleover 55 when he died. There is nothing
surprisingabout this chronology.But given the same assumptions,there
would also be no reason to suppose thatPedro Ferrandodid not accompany St Dominic at the end of his journey to Spain, and that he was
not sentas "novice" ("conversus
") to Bologna to completehis studiesthere.
We can thereforesay nothingcertain about the place in which Pedro
Ferrando studied and began his teaching; and nothingabout his life
betweenhis joining the Order of Preachersand his death in Zamora.
Accordingto Giles of Santarem's testimony,there would also be no
reason to rule out the possibilitythat Pedro Ferrandomighthave joined
the Order of Preachersoutside Spain, in the south of France, and that
he could have belongedto the royalembassypresidedover by Diego de
Acevedo, Bishop of Osma (around 1203). In this case Pedro Ferrando
would have had to have been born before 1190, and could have joined
the Order of Preachersbetween1207 and 1216, even beforethe pontifical
approval of the new order. This seems to be what Taegio maintains,

15:04:12 PM

274

ANGELD'ORS

since he takes Pedro Ferrando to be one of the "fratres,

qui cumbeato
Dominico
beati
Thokse
as
does
who sug,43
Barth,44
regulam Augustini
elegerun
that
Pedro
Ferrando
be
the
same
as
Pedro
de
Madrid, one
gests
might
of St Dominic's earliestcompanions,a memberof the firstmissionsent
to Spain in 1217, and about whomno otherinformation
has been handed
down to us. If thisis the case, then it would no longerpossible to think
"
that Pedro Ferrandomightbe the same as the "conversus
("novice") sent
by St Dominic to Bologna (as he would then have been over 28), but it
would stillbe possible for Pedro Ferrando to have taken the Cistercian
habitin theyearsprecedingthepapal approvalof the Order of Preachers,
as othercompanionsof St Dominic did, and he could stillbe identified
" monachussent
as the "conversus
("
")
by St Dominic to Bologna.
In the lightof the foregoinganalysis,it seems that our knowledgeof
Pedro Ferrando(and of "Petrus
Hispanusconversus
"), againstTugwell'sopinion, is not constructedon firmfoundations.It would seem ratherto be
shroudedin vaguenessand confusion.However,as faras Pedro Ferrando
is concernedTugwell not only uses the testimoniesof Giles of Santarm
and Humbert of Romanis, but also draws on the testimonyof Bernard
Gui who, in 1304, writingabout the historyof the biographiesof St
"
natione
de Gakxia
". Tugwell
Dominic,presentedPedro Ferrandoas Hyspanus
considersthat Bernard Gui's statementof the Galician originsof Pedro
Ferrando45has its originsin some complementary
source of information
which is independentof Giles of Santarem'stestimony(whichGui must
have heard fromsome Spanish Dominican),but he is not aware that as
Zamora was an integralpart of the ancientkingdomof Galicia, such a
remarkseems to be a mere geographicalinferencedrawn fromGiles of
Santarem'saccount,whichprovidesno freshinformation
about the birth-

43See Scheeben
1932(op.cit.,above,n. 39),330.Scheeben
rejects
Taegio'stestimony
becausehe thinks
thatthelatter
confused
PedroFerrando
withPedrode Madrid,
but
Barth(seenote44)hassuggested
thatthisis notreally
a confusion,
butthatthetwoare
oneandthesame.
really
44"HttePetrus
dervielleicht
mitdeminLibellus
erwhnten
Petrus
Madritensis
Ferrandi,
identisch
aus eigenem
Antrieb
wrensicher
mehrEinzelheiten
ist,die Legende
verfat,
aus derkastilischen
undsdfranzsischen
Zeitdeshl.Dominikus
zu erwarten
gewesen",
H. M. BarthO.P.,DieDominikuslegende
imersten
Lektionar
Humberts
vonRomans
(1246),in:
Archivm
Fratrum
LTV(1984),83-112,
Praedicatorum,
esp.98.
45The testimony
ofBernard
Guiwasalsothesourceforthelatertestimonies
which
theGalician
ofPedroFerrando.
See A. PardoVillarO.P.,Noticias
de
recognised
origins
escritores
dominicos
de Estudios
II (1946-1947),
461, in:Cuadernos
algunos
gallegos
Gallegos,
476;Gran
XII, Santiago-Gijn
1974,107.
Enciclopedia
Gallega

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

275

place of Pedro Ferrando.Tugwell does not provide any othertestimony

referring
explicitlyto the figureof Pedro Ferrando.As a resultof all this,
we can say nothingwithany degree of certaintyabout the birthplaceof
Pedro Ferrandoon the basis of Giles of Santarmand BernardGui's testimonies.There is nothingto rule out the possibilitythat he mighthave
Stellaoriundus
". Nor is there anythingcertainto be said about
been "fife
the date and place of his entryinto the Order of Preachers,the places
where he may have taught,or the Vita beatiDominiciwhich Giles of
Santarmattributesto him.
None the less, the worksof Giles of Santarmor BernardGui are not
the only sourceswhich referto Pedro Ferrando.It would be usefulnow
to examine the othertestimoniesconcerninghis figurebeforelookingin
greaterdetail at the question as to whetherPedro Ferrando wrote the
Legenda
prima.
When we want to go beyond the testimoniesof Giles of SantaremGrard de Frachet-Humbert
of Romanis on the one hand, and Bernard
about Pedro Ferrando,
Gui on the other,in search of new information
in order to reconstruct
his biographymore precisely,we run into three
On the one hand, the best-knownhistoriesof the Order of
difficulties.
witha greateror lesserdegree
Preachersconfinethemselves
to reworking,46
of licence,the testimoniesof theseearlierwriters,and are unreliable.We
have already examined the testimonyof Hernando del Castillo, who
reworkedGrard de Fraches textquite freely,but failedto provideany
or reliable.The same can be said
additionalupdates that are significant
de todos
of many other historieslike, for example, the Historiaeclesistica
los santosde Espaa (Cuenca 1596) byJuan de Marieta:
de
natural
de las montaas
de la provincia
de Castilla,
83. FrayPedroHernndez,
hombre
Galicia,
y fuede losprimeros
padresde la orden,
muydoctoy muysanto,
la vidade
y dejescrita
y setenta,
porquefloreci
porlosaosde mily doscientos
brevedela Ordenhastasutiempo
nuestro
(Libro
yunacrnica
padreSto.Domingo,
XIII,p. 209v).
This testimony
byJuan de Marieta seems to be the productof an eclectic reworkingof the testimoniesof Giles of Santarm, Bernard Gui,
46Grard
in hisDe
workwasthesourceforJohannes
de Fraches
testimony
Meyer's
zurGeschichte
undForschungen
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
Viris
Illustribus
(ed.P. vonLo,Quellen
in Deutschland,
desDominikanerordens
virgo
Hyspanus,
Leipzig1918),33-4:"61.Petrus
indivernutritus
fuitetdoctor
in ordine
sanctissime
a nativitate,
a puericia
predicatorum
sibibeatavirTandemapparente
sislociset multis
extitit
et multavolumina
descripsit.
Zamorensis
obdormivit
fratribus
conventus
coram
cunctis
Johanne
ewangelista
gineetsancto
I owemyknowledge
in domino."
ofthistextto SimonTugwell.

15:04:12 PM

276

ANGELD'ORS

AmbrosioTaegio47and Anthonyof Sena.48From Giles of Santarem'stext

on the deathof Pedro Ferrandoin Zamora Marietainfersthathe belonged
to the provinceof Castile,while fromBernardGui he infersthat Pedro
Ferrandowas "bornin the mountainsof Galicia". On thebasis of Taegio's
account (or some relatedwork),Pedro Ferrandois presentedby Marieta
as one of "los primerospadres de la Orden", the author of a "crnica
breve de la Orden".49Anthonyof Sena seems to have providedthe date
of Pedro Ferrando's"floruit",
"por los aos de mil y doscientosy setenta".
This analysismakes it clear thatJuan de Marieta did not have at his
over and above what was in the earlierliterary
disposal any information
sources,whichhe merelycombinedand rewrote.The same could be said
of many other textsconcerningPedro Ferrando,which depend entirely
on the literarytraditionsderivingfromthe work of Giles of SantaremGrard de Frachet-Humbert
of Romanis.
The second problemwhichlies in our way when we tryto go beyond
to fourthesefirsttestimoniesis the factthatin the Spain of the twelfth
teenth century,the name "PetrusFerraudi"(Pedro Fernndez, Pedro
Hernndez) is verycommon,which means that great caution should be
"
"
exercisedwhen using any testimony
concerninga PetrusFerraudiwhere
the dependence on or relationto the testimonyof Giles of Santarmis
not explicit.So, for example, we oftenfind the signatureof a "Petrus
Ferraudi
meriuus
maior(or mrius
regis)in Castella"in documentsconnected
withthe courtof the kingsAlfonsoVIII and Henry I of Castile between
to a Pedro Fernndezwho is "maestre
1211 and 1214, as well as references
de la Orden de Santiago",who cannot apparentlybe identifiedwithour
Pedro Ferrando.50
thatis, the
Finally,the oppositeproblemalso besetsour investigations,
of
have
names
that
different
authors
used
(or mighthave
great variety
"PetrusFerraudi
to
refer
to
our
from
the
most
trivialvari", ranging
used)
ants (like"Petrus
Ferdinandi
Pedro
Fernndez
and
Pedro
",
Hernndez,used
by Anthonyof Sena, Hernando del Castillo and Juan de Marieta), to
othersthat are far fromtrivial(like the genericnames "PetrusHispanas
",
"Pedro Espaol", or the more specific"PetrusHispanusconversus"
or Peter

47See note39.
40See note40.
49See notes39 to 41.
50SeeJulioGonzalez,
El RanodeCastilla
enla poca
VIII, Madrid1960,vol.
deAlfonso
III, 936-7.

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

277

withour Pedro
of Madrid), and which can only be linkedhypothetically
Ferrando.Even the most trivialvariantshave given rise to certainconfusion,as in the case of Hernando del Castillo,who, when declaringthe
de SantoDomingo
sourcesused in writinghis Primera
partede la HistoriaGeneral
, stated:
y de su Ordende Predicadores
de Miln,
crnicas
de la ordenF.JuanColona,F. Ambrosio
Que aunqueescrivieron
sancti
F. Galvande Fiamma
F. Geronymo
F. Bernardo
de Castris
Vincentii,
Milans,
Y dela vidadelbienaventurado
Sancto
deBononia,
F. Leandro
deBononia.
Domingo
Provincial
de
F.JuanHispano,
F. Pedro
Fernndez
, T. Thomasde Senis,F. Conrrado
lo
escrevian
callando
Germania,
nieras,
y F. lutino:
peroparecequede proposito
de milagros
y cuentos,
que paraloa de los
que hazemsal caso,y haziendole
Sanctos
bastanpocos:y paraimitarlos,
no es menester
ninguno.
In thispassage, Hernando del Castillo seems to stripPedro Fernndez's
" VitabeatiDominici
" of its
authority,along with other biographiesof St
Dominic and otherfamoushistoriesof the Order of Preachers.He seems
to take Pedro Fernndez as being different
fromPedro Hernndez, as
the followingtwo statementsdo not seem to be comprehensibleas referring to the work of one and the same person: "de propositoescrevian
nieras,callando lo que haze ms al caso", and "Escrivio la vida de
Sancto Domingo con mucha diligencia.Mas para traerlaestampada en
el alma que para dexarla puesta en quadernos".
Proceedingwith due caution, and leaving aside for the momentthe
I thinkthat it is necessaryto take into conquestionof theirreliability,
siderationat least fivecomplementary
testimonies
to thosecontributedby
of
Toledo
the
Acts
of
the
Provincial
(1250); the testiChapter
Tugwell:
mony of Qutif-Echardconcerningthe relations between Etienne de
Bourbon and Pedro Ferrando; manuscript846 of the Library of the
Universityof Leipzig; manuscript31 in the ProvincialPublic Libraryof
Tarragona; and the work of AmbrosioTaegio.
The Acts of the ProvincialChapter of Toledo in 1250, whichI quoted
" who residedat that
in my previousarticle,51
mentiona "PetrusFerrandi
timein the Dominican Prioryat Toledo, whichwas assignedto the new
Prioryin Seville. If we take into account the fact that Ferdinand Ill's
entryinto Seville,which was the culminationof his reign,took place in
22 December 1248, and that Toledo was home to the court,where the
campaignsforthe reconquestof Murcia,Jan, etc. were preparedbetween
1243 and 1245, this document suggestsa certainparallel between the

51d'Ors2001{op.cit.,above,n. 1),211.

15:04:12 PM

278

ANGELD'ORS

"
"
itineraryof this PetrusFerraudiand the itineraryof the Reconquest,as
" with the court and
well as a possible connectionof this "PetrusFerrandi
the person of Ferdinand III the Holy, and his son Alfonso,the future
Alfonso X the Wise, and Rodrigo Ximnez de Rada, Archbishopof
Toledo. The date of this General Chapter,and the factthat this "Petrus
"
Ferrandi
belonged to the Order of Preachers,make it possible to think
" could be our Pedro Ferrando.52If we
that this "PetrusFerrandi
accept
thishypothesis,
Pedro Ferrandowould seem to have a verysimilarprofile
" seems to
to the one which the analysis of the example of "exemplum
"
larum"
,53
requireforthe auctorSummu
is concerned,Etienne de
As far as the testimonyof Qutif-Echard54
Bourbon55(| c. 1261) is said to have had a personal connectionwith a
certain"PetrusFerrandi
", who theyalso thinkworkedwith St Dominic in
the south of France and later became Provincialof Spain. Lecoy de la
Marche, in the "Introduction"to his editionof the work of Etienne de
I am unaware of the source of these
Bourbon,repeatsthese assertions.56
claims (the firstpart of which seems to be build on Taegio's grounds),
since althoughEtienne de Bourbon's workactuallydoes referin various
Petrus
",57it does not provideus withany inforHispanas
places to a "fiater
mation that could enable us to identifyhim with "PetrusFerrandi Nor
"
of Qutif-Echardrelatethis"PetrusFerrandi
does the testimony
explicitly
to our Pedro Ferrando,but there is no reason to rule out theirbeing
the same person.Regardinghis positionas Provincialof Spain, the official
catalogueof the earliestProvincialsof Spain does not includehis name,58

52A. PardoVillarassumes
thatbotharethesamePedroFerrando.
SeeA. PardoVillar
dealgunos
escritores
dominicos
II
de Estudios
O.P.,Noticias
, in: Cuadernos
gallegos
Gallegos,
461.
(1946-47),
53d'Ors2001(op.cit, above,n. 1),243-8.
54"Clarssimos
suaeaetatis
seuinordine
seuinsculoviroscognovit,
ac cumeisfamiliariter
conversatus
de iisnarrat,
eiusseculiilustrare
est,multaque
quaehistoriam
possunt.
In ordine
in terris
quidemeosvidit,
qui S. Dominici
Albigensium
adjutores
praedicantis
fuerunt:
nostros
Matthaeum
Parisiensem,
Aurelianensem,
primm
priorem
Reginaldum
ordinis
S. Dominici
socium
virm
II, [. . .] Dominicum
Jordnm
magistrm
Hispanum
eximiae
Petrm
Ferrandi
Humbertum
masanctitatis,
Hispaniae
aliquando
provincialem,
ordinis
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
V,. . Scriptores
I, 184.
gistrm
55A. Lecoyde la Marche,
Anecdotes
etapologues
tirs
durecud
indit
historiques,
lgendes
d'tienne
deBourbon
duXIIIesicle
, dominicain
, Paris1877.
56Lecoyde la Marche1877(op.cit.,above,n. 55),xi.
57"Audivi
a quodamsancto
virofratre
. . "Audivi
a quodam
dicto,
Pfetro],
Hispano
fratre
P. Hispano
. . .", Lecoyde la Marche1877(op.cit.,above,n. 55),217and349.
58See note32.

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUCTORSUMMULARUM
(III)

279

but as I have said before(see note 32), this catalogue seems to contain
some lacunae, whereforethis claim cannot be disqualified.
and does not
Qutif-Echarstestimonyis thus fraughtwithdifficulty,
enable us to draw any secure conclusions.We do not know why the
"
"Petrus
with"Petrus
Hispanus whom Etiennede Boubon knewis identified
or if thisis or is not our Pedro Ferrando.Nor is it knownwhat
Ferrandi",
thegroundsare forconsidering
thelatterto be a companionof St Dominic
and Provincialof Spain. At least, however,we can state that therewas
" who was active in the south of
a "PetrusHispanus
France, and whom
"Petrus
could
relate
to
a
who
was firsta comFerrandi",
Qutif-Echard
of
St
Dominic
and
later
Provincial
of
and
that this does
panion
Spain,
not come into conflictwithany of the thingswe know about our Pedro
Ferrandoor the "auctorSummularum
".
" was a
If we look at the assertionthat this "PetrusFerrandi
companion
of St Dominic, the figureof Peter of Madrid comes to mind (who was
a memberof thatroyalembassypresidedover by Diego of Osma which
took St Dominic to the southof France),as does the "PetrusHispanusconversusin Milan (whom Galvano describedas "BeatiDominicisodus"). If,
on the otherhand, we focus on his rank as Provincialof Spain, we are
led to thinkof Peterof Huesca (1249-1252),59the onlyProvincialof Spain
we know of named "Pedro". The appearance of Peter of Huesca on the
scene entanglesus in furtherdifficulties
and problems.This Peter's link
"
withHuesca bringsus back to the eminent"Petrus
Alfonsiof the twelfth
centurywho was baptisedin that city,and who mightlie at the root of
" to "Petrus
the (in thiscase, erroneous)attribution
of the "Summulae
".
Alfonsi
We also know of his linkwith Giles of Santarm(the authorof the first
informationabout the life of Pedro Ferrando),whom he visitedin the
DominicanPrioryof Santarmduringtheyearsin whichhe was Provincial.60
" be identifiedwith Peter of Huesca
Should this "PetrusFerrandi
(or at
the
or
would
we
to
assume
that
confused
least,ought
two),
Qutif-Echard
" was also
it be more accurate to suppose that "PetrusFerrandi
Provincial,
even thoughhis name is not in the officialcatalogue of Provincialsof
Spain?
59See note32.
60Hernando
events
thelifeof
delCastillo,
whenreporting
themiraculous
surrounding
Gilesof Santarm,
tellsus ofthisvisit:"Y unode estosque dudavanfuefrayPedro
a Sanctarem
condesseode
Hostense
Provincial
de la Provincia
de Espaa,que llegando
visto.
Masel porfiava
veresteprodigio,
hallo losfrayles
llenosdello:y llanosporaverlo
sinoa suspropios
en no admitir
otrostestigos,
ojosy manoscomosanctoThomashizo
conlas llagasdelSeor"(p. 349va).

15:04:12 PM

280

ANGELD'ORS

he tells
If, finally,we go directlyto Etienne de Bourbon's testimony,
whom
he
us onlyof a "Petrus
without
describes
further,
Hispanui'
specifying
as a "saintlyman". The onlythingthatcan be deduced withany degree
" was
of certaintyfromthisaccount is thatthis"PetrusHispanus
active,for
at least part of his life,in the south of France, which leads us to think
Petrus
scholarum
or perhaps,of the
of the "magister
, qui eratrector
Burdegalis",
" mentioned
in the contextof
Gui61
Bernard
other "PetrusHispanus
by
Stephanusof Alvernhatz,the seventhProvincialPriorof Provence(1249),
and the predecessorof Grard de Frachet. His reputationfor sanctity,
on the otherhand, also recallsthe unknown"Fray Pedro Espaol", whose
miraclesare mentionedby Thomas de Cantimpr,and whom some hiswithPeterof Madrid, and state
toriansof the Order of Preachersidentify
to have died in 1244.62If these testimonieswere reliable,we would at
least be able to distinguishFray Pedro Espaol (= Peter of Madrid, d.
these authors
1244) fromPedro Ferrando(d. c. 1258), but unfortunately
presenttheiraccountswitha shadow of doubt. On the otherhand, Pedro
Ferrandohas also on occasions been held to have a reputationforsancand so no conclusionscan be drawnin thisrespect.We lack sufficient
tity,63
informationto determinewhetheror not there was a Pedro Ferrando
who was Provincialof Spain, or to disentanglethe relationsbetweenthis
"Petrus
Hispanus"known to tienne de Bourbon, and Peter of Madrid,
Pedro
Fray
Espaol, Peter of Huesca, our own Pedro Ferrando,and still
"
".
less, the auctorSummularurri
Thirdly,in manuscript846 of the Libraryof the Universityof Leipzig
(fourteenth
century),we read:

61"Indevero
veniens
dumessetin locoqui
Carcassonam,
postterminationem
capituli
in brachio
dicitur
casucecidit,
et fuitlaesusgraviter
& in crure;
ideo
Escalas,inopinato
fratrem
Petrum
transmisit
Benedicti
ad magistrm
ordinis
Hispanicumfratre
Stephano
fratrem
Theutoniae
tuneagebat,
Theutonicum,
Johannem
quiinpartibus
proabsolutione
a provincialatus
absolutus
antecapitulum
labore& onereobtinenda;
fuitque
perlitteram
Veterum
etmonumentorum
Martne-Durand,
, vol.VI, 422.
generale.",
scriptorum
62"Algunos
fueel Compaero
de SantoDomingo,
dezir,que esteFrayPedro
quieren
Y fuel que fund
en
que embidesdeTolosa, EspaaconotrostresCompaeros.
Y el que cuydde el Monasterio
Madrid
el primer
Convento.
de las Monjasde Santo
el Real,y se llamFray
Pedro
Madin.
el quefueeste
, d porhecho,
Domingo
Serafino
Fray
Pedro
Pedro
Madin.
Perotodoestoestenduda.Y elMaestro
, de quienhablaCantiprato,
Fray
Makenda
Con que solohablamos
de esteFrayPedroincognomi, no pudodeslindarla.
dela Sagrada
deSto.Domingo
nato",
, t.II, Madrid,
Juande Sarabiay Lezana,Annales
Religion
1709,41b.
biAccording
to thetestimony
ofAmbrose
ofAltamura,
Clarusmiraculis
volavit
ad
anno1259"(seenote41).See alsonote39.
superos,

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUCTORSUMMULARUM
(III)

281

inlegendam
beati
necnon
eximii
Petri
Ferrandi
reverendi
Incipit
prologus
primus
magisti
patris
devitaet
Praedicatorum.
In summa
Dominici
etprimi
sacri
ordinis
fratrum
patriarche
fundatoris
obitu
necnon
etmiraculis
beati
Dominici
nostri
edita
desunt).64
patris
per(cetera
This text,which is of great importancegiven that it is the only one in
"
of the manwhichthe name of "Petrus
Ferrandi
appears in the framework
"
"
"
uscripttraditionof the Legenda'presents PetrusFerrandias the author
of a LegendaSanctiDominici(the lost text of which is unknown),but also
in mula statementwhichleads us beyondthe "doctor
as "eximius
magister",
of Giles of Santarem-Grardde
tis locis (Hyspaniemultisannisextiterat)"
Frachet-Humbertof Romanis, and which enables us to thinkthat the
teachingactivitiesof Pedro Ferrandowent beyond the bordersof Spain.
I shall returnto thistestimony
when discussingthe problemof the attribution of the Legendaprimato Pedro Ferrando, but the descriptionof
"
Pedro Ferrando as "eximius
magisterseems to suggestthat some written
work other than the Legendashould be attributedto him, to justifyhis
reputationas magister.
Fourthly,manuscript31 of the ProvincialPublic Libraryof Tarragona,
which dates fromthe fourteenth
century,containsa copy of the gramis attributedin some manuscripts
Absoluta
cuiuslibet
which
maticalSumma
,65
to "PetrusHelie", but which is now recognisedas the work of "Petrus
Hispanus(non papa)",66and whichis cataloguedin thislibraryas the work
" on the basis of a note written a later hand in the
Ferrandus
of "Petrus
by
"
petr'
upper marginof the page which statesclearly Incipitsumamagisti

64H. Ch. Scheeben,

virorum
clarissimoetadditiones
ad legendas
S. Dominici
Notae
aliorumque
saec.XIII, in:A.S.O.P.XVII,an. XXXIII (1925)et an. XXXIV(1926),
rum
Ord.Pratd.
Roma,pp. 681-710(p. 681,n. 1).
65At present
whichhandles
ofthisgrammatical
summaare known,
15 manuscripts
andis also
Institutions
booksXVII andXVIII ofPriscian's
(.Priscianus
minor),
grammaticae
inartem
ThisSumma
Prisciani
deconstructione
or Summa
librum
calledSumma
grammaticam.
super
vandeConstructio
HetLeerstuk
Hetiudicium
constructionis.
hasbeenedited
byC. H. Kneepkens,
'absoluta
Summa
cuiusvanPetrus
volIV: Werkuitgave
inde2deHelft
vande12deEeuw,
Hispanus3
1987.
libe
, Nijmegen
66See R. W. Hunt,!Absoluta
in:
onPriscianus
' The'Summa'
'Minor',
ofPetrus
Hispanus
constructionis.
Hetiudicium
II/1 (1975),1-23;C. H. Kneepkens,
Historiographia
Lingistica,
eninleivande12deEeuw
HetLeerstuk
vandeConstructio
inde2deHelft
, vol.1, EenVerkennende
attributed
to
Theabsoluta
cuiuslibet
dende
Studie
, Nijmege1987,515-32;C. H. Kneepkens,
andRoger
Bacon
notes
onitstransmission
andtheusemade
P. H. Some
, in:
ofitbyRobert
Kilwarby
inSpain
andRenaissance
I. Angelelli
andP. Prez-Ilzarbe
, HildesheimLogic
(eds),Medieval
Hunthasattributed
to this"Petrus
Zrich-New
York2000,373-402.
(nonpapa)"
Hispanus
Priscianum
maior
Strenuum
summa
thegrammatical
, booksI toXVI
{Summa
super
negotiatorem
C. H. Kneepkens
hasargued
fordoctrinad
oftheInstitutiones
reasons,
grammaticae
), although
thisattribution
1987,I, 524-5).
(seeKneepkens
against

15:04:12 PM

282

ANGELD'ORS

but to whichlaterhands have added, first,a word whichis hard to read,

but which could be read as "Ferrandi
", and also, on top of this,"Helias".
R. W. Hunt dated this work to the last quarterof the twelfthcentury,
althoughC. H. Kneepkensseems to admit that it could have been writ"
ten at the beginningof the thirteenth
century.This PetrusHispanus(non
papa)" mightperhaps be identifiedwith a Pedro Espaol who, in 1213,
enteredas a monk in the Monasteryof St Martial in Limoges.67
"
"
Althoughthe readingof the name Ferrandiin this Tarragona manuscriptis not clear, and it is the work of a later hand, the date 1213
leads us to thinkimmediatelyof St Dominic and the people who worked
withhim in the south of France in the yearsjust beforethe foundingof
the Order of Preachers.The relationbetweenthis "PetrusHispanus(non
papa)" and our Pedro Ferrandois highlyhypotheticaland problematic.
However,ifwe takeintoaccountthe close relationsbetweenSt Dominic's
companionsand the Cistercianmonksin the years immediatelypreceding the foundingof the Order of Preachers,and, in the lightof this,we
look into the figuresof Peter of Madrid (who workedwith St Dominic
in the south of France until 1217, and whose relationshipto Pedro
Ferrando is not clear), and "Peter the Grammarian" (a master at the
we
Universityof Palencia in the firstdecades of the thirteenth
century),68
cannot rule out the possibilitythat theycould be one and the same.69
Finally,AmbrosioTaegio70 and, probablybuildingon him, Anthony
of Sena, Juan de Marieta, AmbrosioAltamuraand many otherhistorians of the Order of Preachers,attributeto Pedro Ferrandoboth a Vita
67"Hocanno[1213]fecimus
monachum
Petrm
sacerdotem
magistrm
l'Espanol
pro
amoredei,et conventus
administravit
ei vestimenta
tamin lectoquamin dorso,et ipse
nobisdedittreslibellos,
scilicet
Artem
Decretales
lusteiudicate,
etquandam
praedicandi,
Summam
deSaint-Martial
Itier,see H. Dupls-Agier,
(Bernard
superdecretales"
Chronique
deLimoges,
lesmanuscripts
la Socit
del'histoire
deFrance
, 1825-1891
publie
d'aprs
originaux
pour
90 and337).Theidentification
ofthisPeterofSpainwiththe"Petrus
1874,
(1874),Paris
" whowrote
theAbsoluta
cuiuslibet
hasbeensuggested
ontheonlybasisoftheexisHispanus
tenceofa copyofthisAbsoluta
in St Martial
BnF,lat.5505).Thiscopyseemsto
(Paris,
havebeenmadebefore
raises
somedoubts
aboutthisidentification.
1213,which
However,
thatthisPeterofSpainalready
atthisdateas a master
andpriest,
andprobgiven
figures
withSt Martial
before
he entered
as a monkin 1213,it seems
ablyhadsomecontact
thatthetwowerethesameperson.
quite
likely
w See d Ors2001(op.cit.,above,n. 1),246-7,notes67 and68.
This Petrus
hasbeenidentified
as "Petrus
Hispanus
Hispanus
(nonpapa)"forstrictly
reasons
whichmadeitimpossible
forhimto be identified
withPopeJohn
chronological
reasons
thatenableus to ruleouttheidentification
ofthe
XXI; I knowofno doctrinal
author
ofthisgrammatical
workwiththe"auctor
Summularum".
70See note39.

15:04:12 PM

SUMMULARUM
PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

283

beatiDominiciand a Chronica
of the Order. Van Ortroyand Scheeben
Chronicato Pedro Ferrando, although
the
attribution
of
this
accepted
it
as
Tugwell regards
impossible.71
These are all the testimoniesI know which referexplicitlyto "Petrus
Ferranti".None of these testimoniesenable us to reach any conclusions
about the relationshipbetweenour Pedro Ferrandoand "Petrus
Hispanu'
"Peter of Madrid", "PetrusHispanasconversu'"Peter of Huesca", "Petrus
"
", "Fray Pedro Espaol", or PetrusHispanus(non papa)". It is
Alfonsi
scarcelycrediblethat all these names should belong to one person. But
they are names of people whose biographiesare very close, and who
have sometimesbeen confused,and who are hard to distinguishon the
basis of the informationavailable so far. It is also probable that these
names did not all belong to different
people. But we shall have to find
otherways of unravellingthis knottyproblem.
c) The "Leyenda castellana" of St Dominic
In the Conventof Dominican nuns of Santo Domingo el Real in Madrid,
codex is preservedconsistingof 246
a miscellaneousfourteenth-century
folios (3 lost) which include various Castilian texts about St Dominic
Guzmn, St Thomas Aquinas and St Peter Martyr.There are fivetexts
to St Dominic: i) Life of St Dominic (lr-34v); ii) Sr Cecilia's
referring
account of the miraclesof St Dominic (37r-50r),iii) Declarationsby the
witnessesin St Dominic's canonisationprocess (50v-78v),iv) The Nine
Ways of Prayerof Saint Dominic (79r-87v),and v) continuationof the
Life of St Dominic- miraclesof St Dominic- (87v-98v).
No other ancient manuscriptof this Life of St Dominic is known,
althoughin the Archive of the Order of Preachersin Rome a partial
copy of thiscodex is preserved,dated 1739 and withthe catalogue numof the Life
ber X.982. In 1899,J. P. Mothon publishedsome fragments
In 1925, L. A. Getino published
of St Dominic fromthis manuscript.72
Then in 1985,Maria Teresa Barbadillo
thetextof thisLifeof St Dominic.73
de la Fuente publisheda criticaleditionof this text.74

71S. Tugwell
1999[op.cit.,above,n. 3), 109,n. 20.
72A.S.O.P.
361-9.
IV, 1899-1900,
73Origen
deGuzmn
XIIIsobre
Sto.Domingo
castellanas
delsiglo
delRosario
, Vergara
y Leyendas
1925,99-149and217-25.
74VidadeSanto
toNicasio
Edicin
, 2 vols.,Madrid1985.I amgrateful
Domingo.
y estudio
ofthisedition.
abouttheexistence
thanks
towhomI learnt
Salvador
Miguel,

15:04:12 PM

284

ANGELD'ORS

In thiscodex fromSanto Domingo el Real, the Life of St Dominic is

conservedwithouta title,as an anonymouswork. It was L. A. Getino,
who consideredit to be an originalcompositionpredatingthe Legenda
primaand the firsttextin Castilianprose,who firstattributedit to Pedro
Ferrando. Textual analysescarriedout on this "Leyenda castellana" by
Manning,75Barbadillo and Tugwell,76have shown that the set of thesis
hold by Getino is untenable.The palaeographicand linguisticanalyses
performedby Barbadillohave shownthat thistextwas copied and written in the fourteenth
century,probablyin the second halfof the century,
and that,accordingly,"this"Castiliantextcan neitherpredatethe Legenda
primanor be the workof Pedro Ferrando.On the otherhand, the analysis of the relationsbetweenthis"Leyenda castellana"and other"Legendi
of St Dominic has shownthatthistextis closerto Humbertof Romanis'
Legendathan to the Legenda
prima(and closer to the second redactionof
the Legenda
primathan the first),and that it has a certainrelationshipto
di San Francesco
the Legenda
AureaofJacobus de Voragine and I Fioretti
, all
of which would seem to confirmthat the "Leyenda castellana" cannot
prima.
predate the Legenda
reasons to reject two of
These analyses thereforeprovide sufficient
Getino's theses:we are not lookingat the firsttext of Castilian prose,
and nor is thisa Life of St Dominic datingfrombeforethe Legenda
prima.
But is thereany reason to rejectGetino's thirdthesis?Do we have any
reason to state that this is not the Vita beatiDominiciwhich Giles of
Santarm attributesto Pedro Ferrando?
It seemscertainthatPedro Ferrandowas not the authorof the Castilian
textconservedin the Conventof Santo Domingo el Real in Madrid, but
this Castilian text does not seem to be an original composition.It is
rather,like the othertextspreservedin thiscodex, a literaltranslationof
an earlierLatin "Legenda".
It is certainlynot a translationof the "Legenda
" or
prima
any otherknownLatin "Legenda".It thereforeseems that there
was once another Latin "Legenda",now lost, that was distinctfromall
those known today. Regarding the dating of this lost "Legenda",the
conclusionsdrawn fromthe analysesof the "Leyenda castellana" which

75W. F. Manning,
AnoldSpanish
Dominic:
Sources
andDate
, in:U. T. Holmes
life
ofSaint
Studies
inHonor
Denis
Matthias
Ford.
andA. T.Denomy
(eds),Medieval
ofJeremiah
Cambridge
Mass.1948,139-58.
76S. Tugwell
1999{op.cit.,above,n. 3), 107-11.

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

285

led us to regard it as late fourteenthcenturyare, in this case, quite

useless.
As I have alreadyindicated,the analysesof the textof the "Leyenda
castellana" have broughtout its close relationshipwith the Legendaby
Humbertof Romanis, the LegendaAureaof Jacobus de Voragine, and I
Fioretti
di San Francesco
(althoughno Latin antecedentis knownfortwo of
itschapters).However,as Tugwellhas pointedout,77in some of itschapters
this"Leyenda castellana"reliesmore directlyon the second redactionof
the Legenda
primaor the Libellasby Jordan of Saxony (and, accordingto
also
Altaner,78 the Legenda
by Constantineof Orvieto)than on Humbert's
of
these
Use
Legenda.
earlysourcesto writea Life of St Dominic at some
date after 1260, that is, after the approval and recommendationof
Humbert'sLegendaas the only "Legenda",is somewhatstrangeand surprising.Might it not be the case that,defyingthe widelyaccepted opinion, the Latin originalof this "Leyenda castellana"were not a sequel of
Aureaor of I Fioretti
di San Francesco
Humbert'sLegenda
, but
, of the Legenda
the actual originalsource fromwhich these textsdraw?
as a work
Dominican traditionhas alwaysregardedHumbert'sLegenda
"
"
a
few
additions.
from
the
earlier
However,
Legendae plus
deriving
new featuresin comparison
Humbert'sLegendacontainshighlysignificant
of Constantineof Orvieto,and which
withthe Legenda
primaor the Legenda
cannot be regarded as mere additions, since they constitutegenuine
rectifications
of the earlier "Legendae
", in which Humbert'sLegendacoincides with the "Leyenda castellana" (and thereforewith the Latin original of thistext),and such changeswould be hard to explain in the work
of an authorwho had not directlywitnessedthe eventshe is reporting.
The attributionof the foundingof Prouille to St Dominic, ratherthan
to Diego of Osma, and the referenceto Montreal ratherthan Fanjeaux
as the site of the miraclein which St Dominic's textwas rescued from
the bonfire,are the most significantdifferences.Might this lost Latin
"Legenda"not have been the source which Humbert of Romanis used?
This is a daringhypothesiswhich calls forfurtherresearch;but as yet I
know of no reason to reject it. If the Latin original of the "Leyenda
Aureaand on /
castellana"depends on Humbert'sLegenda
, on the Legenda
this
text
has
to
be
dated
to
the fourteenth
Fioretti
di San Francesco
then
,

77S.
1999[op.cit.,above,n. 3), 109-11.
78SeeTugwell
1948[op.cit
., above,n. 75),143.
Manning

15:04:12 PM

286

ANGELD'ORS

centuryand can thereforenot have been writtenby Pedro Ferrando.

However,if it is the source of theseworks,its datingmustbe from1240
to 1260, and Pedro Ferrandocould have been its author.
d) "Legendae Sancti Dominici"
As I indicatedabove, the attribution
of theLegenda
primato Pedro Ferrando
is a consequence of Van Ortroy'sresearchinto the manuscripttradition
of the Legenda
prima,on the one hand, and the historyof the biographies
of St Dominic, on the other. Let us now turn to Van Ortroy'sanalyses of this historyof the biographiesof St Dominic. Before embarking
on this,it would be usefulto weigh up the resultsthatwe have achieved
so far.
The foregoingsectionsexaminedthe problemssurroundingthe Legenda
"
"
, PetrusFerrandiand the "Leyenda castellana".Our analysesof the
prima
Legenda
primaenabled us to conclude thatthisLegendadepends direcdyon
, that it was writtenbetween 1236 and 1239,
Jordan of Saxony's Libellus
"
and that it can be attributedto a "PetrusHispanus
(whose identityis
uncertain).
" allowed us to conclude that he died
Our analysesof "PetrusFerrandi
in Zamora, that he taughtin variousplaces, and thathe was the author
of a VitabeatiDominici(the text of which cannot be identifiedwith certainty,but which,accordingto the testimonyof the Leipzig manuscript,
It seems possiblethat
seems to belong to the traditionof the "Legendae").
Pedro Ferrandocould have been one of St Dominic's earlycompanions
and one of the firstProvincialsof Spain, that he exercisedhis magisteriumin Toledo and Seville (among otherplaces), and was close to the
courtof Kings FerdinandIII the Holy and AlfonsoX. And it seems not
impossiblethathe mighthave takenthe Cistercianhabitbeforethe Order
of Preacherswas founded,that he residedin Bologna at the time when
the Order was being introducedto Italy, or that he wrote the Summa
of grammar"Absolutacuiuslibe.
Finally,our analysesof the "Leyenda castellana" suggestthat a Latin
existed,now lost,whichwas closelyrelatedto Humbertof Romanis'
Legenda
Legenda(and also to the second redaction of the Legendaprima),which
mightwell have been writtenbetween 1240 and 1260, and which could
have been Humbert'ssource forhis Legenda.
"
To sum up, we can say thatwe know of two different
Latin "Legendae
(theLegenda
primaand the Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana"),and
two authorsnamed "Petrus" ("PetrusHispanus
", to whom the Regensburg

15:04:12 PM

SUMMULARUM
PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

287

"
attributes
the Legenda
", to whom Giles
, and PetrusFerraudi
prima
Lectionary
of Santarm attributesan unspecifiedVitabeatiDominici
), and that the
Ferraudi"
in
Can
we
"Petrus
can
be
set
the
terms:
identify
problem
following
Ferrando?
to
Pedro
with"Petrus
and
attribute
the
",
Legenda
prima
Hispanus
from "Petrus
Or ought we to assume that "PetrusFerrandois different
"
"
", and that PetrusHispanus is the author of the Legendaprima
Hispanus
and "PetrusFerrandothe author of the Latin originalof the "Leyenda
castellana"?
The knowledgeof this "PetrusHispanus
", to whom the Legenda
primais
a
to
attribute
is
what
led
Luis
of
Valladolid
attributed, probably
Hystoria
" to whom
"
"Petrus
beatiDominicito the "auctorSummularum
Alfonsi
(the
anotherDominican traditionrefers),and so the same problemcan be set
in the followingterms.With whom should "PetrusHispanus
", the author
- with "PetrusFerraudi"or with "Petrus
be
identified
of the Legenda
,
prima
"? In my view, as I have triedto show through
auctorSummularum
Alfonsi,
informationto give a definitive
the foregoingstudy,we lack sufficient
answerto thisquestion.We can onlyconcludethatPedro Ferrandowrote
a "Legendd'but we cannot determinewhich one.
In reality,the problemwhetherto attributeone of the Latin "Legendae
" could be stillmore
to "PetrusFerrandi
complex,since, on the one hand,
thereis anotherLife of St Dominic which could be regardedas the Vita
beatiDominici
which Giles of Santarmattributedto Pedro Ferrando;and
Dominican traon the other,thereare otherauthorsto whom different
Lives of St Dominic.
ditionshave attributedunidentified
Life
of
St
Dominic
which could be attributedto
this
third
Regarding
Pedro Ferrando,we know of the existenceof anotherCastilianLife,this
one in verse,of which we know only the followingsixteenlines:
vosquierocontar,
De SanctoDomingo
e pormar.
que fizmillmilagros
portierra,
Nacien Calaroga,
que es muygrandlugar,
que en aquellaalfozdizno tienepar.
Su PadrefueFelisde losde Gudman,
su MadrefueJoana,que congrandafn
le parien el dia delSeorSanJuan.
SoDoaJoana,que tenauncan,
e uncirioardiente,
que dabaamadas,
que portodoel mundoeranresplandadas;
de Apostatadas
porquefueflagelo
de losAlbigenses,
que eranlevantadas.
aosse fuea un PadreAbat,
De Catorce
congrandcaridat,
porquele criasse
de grandsantidat,
que fueen el convento
que dizde la Vid,cercado fuenat.

15:04:12 PM

288

ANGELD'ORS

These lines have been handed down to us throughtwo opposingliterary

traditions.79
One of these is Augustinin,80
and claims that St Dominic
to
the
Praemonstratensian
Order
before the foundingof the
belonged
Order of Preachers,81
and whichhas conveyedthese sixteenversesto us.
'Vidade
79Theseliterary
traditions
havebeenstudied
Unaantigua
byW. F. Manning,
Santo
en
existido
en
in:
Analecta
Sacra
XL
', verso,
Tarraconensia,
Domingo
ha
algn
tiempo?,
deGuzmny
elmonasterio
deSanta
327-35;
(1967/2),
JuanJosVallejoO.S.A.,Santo
Domingo
Maradela Vid.La tradicin
vtense
sobre
lafiliacin
delSanto
, in:C. AnizIriarte
premostratense
O.P. and L.V. Daz Martn,
Santo
deCaleruega.
Contexto
Cultural.
III Jornadas
de
Domingo
Estudios
Salamanca
andBrianFrrely
Medievales,
1995,319-38;
O.P.,FuSanto
Domingo
enel monasterio
deSantaMaradeLa Vid?,
in: Archivo
de Guzmn
Cannigo
premostratense
XVI (1995),155-96.
didnotknowabout
Dominicano,
Unfortunately
VallejoandFrrely
to Manning's
butdid
research,
J.J. Vallejoaddedsomedatarelevant
Manning's
paper.
notknowsomeofhismostimportant
therescueofline12,
contributions,
particularly
inmostsources,
which
is omitted
which
transcribe
only15 ofthese16lines.Vallejoonly
adiofthe16lines.
knows
of 15,yetFrrely
knows
80According
research
to Manning's
(1967;op.cit.,above,n. 79),thistradition
originatedinthework,
Garcia(d. 1705),Chronica
Ordinis
Praemonstratensis
lost,ofEmmanuel
today
is thesource
forthelaterworks
Dissertalo
VI, no CXII),which
byJosNoriega,
(chapter
Histrica
deSancto
Dominico
de Guzman
auctore
R. P. Mg.Fr.
, ordinis
praedicatorum
patriarcha,
deNoriega,
Salamanca
LouisHugo,Historia
monas1723,5-6,andbyCharles
Joseph
Stephano
teriorum
Ordinis
Praemonstratensis
inregno
ofNancy,
Hispaniae
(ms.993oftheMunicipal
Library
is theonlyonewhichcontained
line12.Thisled Manning
to think
p. 59).The latter
be theresult
ofa forgery
thattheselinescouldperhaps
byE. Garcia.However,
J.J.
outtheworkofJosBravoVillalobos,
demostrativas
como
Sto.
Noticias
Vallejohaspointed
deN P. S. Norberto
delConvento
dela Vid(ms.,c. 1665),
deGuzmn
fueCannigo
y prior
Domingo
as theoldestsourcein which15 oftheselinesareto be found,
whichmeansthatwe
shoulddispel,
or at leastqualify,
The existence
oftwotraditions,
Manning's
suspicions.
onewhichtellsus ofonly15 lines,andanother
whichrelays16,suggests
theexistence
ofa common
source
which
musthavebeenolderthanall thoseweknow.On theother
which
claims
to support
hisargument
hand,thelexicalanalysis
through
Manning
against
theauthenticity
oftheselinesseemsnotto be conclusive
as thedifferent
sources
either,
offer
manylexicalvariants.
81Other
traditions
closetothisoneanddepending
onit,which
maintain
exist,
literary
thatStDominic
toseveral
different
orders
before
thefoundation
ofthe
belonged
religious
In thecontext
OrderofPreachers.
ofthequestions
we arediscussing,
thesingular
work
deSanto
enla Ordert
deSantiago,
Alcal
byJosLpezArguleta,
Apologa
porelhbito
Domingo
ofa special
mention.
Theauthor
claims
thatSt Dominic
tothe
1725,is worthy
belonged
OrderofStJames.
In thispolemical
to
work,
Lpez
Arguleta
gives
particular
importance
"
the"Legenda
and claimsthatthefactthatthis
byPedroFernndez
(PedroFerrando),
workwaslostorforgotten
wastheresult
ofa deliberate
in
anti-Spanish
campaign
raging
theveryheartoftheOrderofPreachers
after
General
Master:
FrayMuniowaselected
"Y si FrayPedroFernndez,
tambin
la VidadelSantoquarenta
aos
Espaolescribi
antesque Apoldia,
su nombre
en el proemio
cmo, porquno se menciona
segundo,
sciendum
, dondesemencionam
Jordn,
quecomienza:
Fray
FrayConstantino,
FrayUmberto,
comoescritores?"
a Historiadores
Fr.Jordn,
Fr.
y FrayGerardo,
(p. 4); "Y tocante
callando
a Fr.PedroFernandez
Constantino,
y Fr.Umberto,
Espaol,
parecnos,
queestas
Crnicas
enla Cartaparael General
mencionadas
Fr.Nicols,
nopudiendo
serCrnicas
ni sabindose
de Theutonia,
de otroespaol,
la Vidade SantoDomingo,
que escribiesse

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

289

The otheris a Dominican tradition,82

which depends on the Augustinin
and
which
is
linked
about St Dominic's family
to
the
discussion
one,
In
attention
is
focused
only on lines 1-2 and lines 5-7,
background. this,
which contain information
about St Dominic's family.Accordingto the
Praemonstratensian
tradition,these lines were conservedin a thirteenthcenturycodex,83which, if true,would make them very ancient; today,
about this codex.
however,we have no precise information
The supposed antiquityof these lines has also drawn the attentionof
scholarsinterestedin the originsof Castilianpoetry,who have cast doubt
on the poem's early datings and even on its authenticity.Although
Menndez Pidal accepts that it may be both ancientand genuine,Mil,
Menndez Pelayo and Doncieux considerthatits metricsdo not allow a
thirteenth-century
dating;84and Manning even goes so far as to consider
inventionlinked to the polemic
that it could be an eighteenth-century
whicharose around the questionas to whetherSt Dominic had belonged
Order.
to the Praemonstratensian
de este,acasode latin
no sonotrasCrnicas
que losescritos
que Fr.PedroFernandez,
antes
remitidos
Fr.Theodorico.
Escribi
de Castilla,
y al estiloentonces
pocoelegante,
de Santo,y dexando
en Opinion
delaode 1258,en que se diceavermuerto
apartesu
delSantoen Espaa,seria
no es dudable
estilo,
y predicacin
que quanto lossucessos,
dondeniuna
de coordinada,
maspuntual
su Historia,
despues
que la de Fr.Theodorico
en Espaa.Y siendoigualmente
solapalabratienede averel SantoPredicado
Espaolas
no es de
de Fr.PedroFernandez,
estapredicacin
del Santo,y la persona,
y Historia
de Fr.Theodorico,
en la historia
estraar,
y solose mencionen
que las igualeel silencio
Fr.Constantino,
Fr.Umberto,
comoHistoriadores
Fr.Jordn,
ganando
y Fr.Gerardo,
de Cronistas,
de 1290a 1300el titulo
estoen el tiempo
de las emulaciones
que porsu
Levanto
Fr.PedroFernandez."
porserEspaol
estilo,
responded
(p.208).Leonardo
perdi
deSto.
in hisCrisis
Americana
sobre
el canonicato
ofthesetraditions
to thearguments
regular
for
deOsma
enla SantaIglesia
Cathedral
deGuzmn,
, MadridMDCCXLI,108-14,
Domingo
de Frachet.
ofApoldiaandGrard
which
he usestheworks
ofBernard
Gui,Theodoric
Leonardo
Levanto
PedroFernndez,
of LpezArguleta
To thearguments
concerning
de Theodorico
el Ven.P. Fr.PedroFernndez,
"No,noperdi
queenla Historia
replied:
niporel estilohumilde;
sinoporno
niporEspaol,
se hiciera
de l honorfica
mencin,
tenido
las manosTheodorico"
porno haverlos
hallarse
y susEscritos,
(p. 113).
82According
whichalsodepends
on
to Manning's
thisDominican
tradition,
research,
S.
De Guzmana
in theworkofAntonin
theworkofE. Garcia,originated
Bremond,
stirpe
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
histrica
demonstratio
Dominici
, Roma1740,103,which
familiae
Jundatoris
in turn
Annales
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
influenced
T. M. Mamachi's
(Roma1756,13),which
theselinesintothe
andit washe whobrought
arethesourceofL. A. Getino's
work,
andtheauthor
oftheLegenda
castellana"
the"Leyenda
context
oftheproblems
surrounding
prima.
83According
deSilos,
oftheVidadeSanto
toJosNoriega,
thisis a manuscript
Domingo
to
at thepresent
whichhasnotbeenidentified
day.According
byGonzalode Berceo,
theselineswouldhavebeenwritten
Bravo,
byGonzalode Berceo.
Jos
84R. Menndez
, t. I, Madrid1968,130.
Pidal,Romancero
Hispnico

15:04:12 PM

290

ANGELD'ORS

and date to one side (I am

Leaving the decisiveissues of authenticity
inclinedto opt fora date in the fifteenth
or sixteenthcentury),it would
also seem that thisis not a fragmentof a largerbiographicalwork,but
rathera completecompositionin itself,the purpose of which is not to
narratethe life of St Dominic but to announce his connectionwith the
Monasteryof La Vid, which leads us to thinkthat the author,whether
medieval or modern,whetherfollowingan old traditionor inventinga
was closerto the
persuasiveargumentforuse in the currentcontroversy,
Praemonstratensian
Order than to the Order of Preachers.In any case,
it seems that a text of this kind cannot be regardedas part of the tra" of St
dition of the "Legendae
Dominic, and so, regardingthe Leipzig
we can excludethepossibility
thatthisis the VitabeatiDominici
manuscript,
which Giles of Santarmattributes
to Pedro Ferrando.The firstof these
freshproblemswould be thus resolved.
As far as other authorscreditedwith writingunidentified
Lives of St
Dominic are concerned,the historiesof the Order of Preachersin the
sixteenthcenturyprovidesus with at least four names: John of Spain,
Thomas of Senis, Conrad Provincialof Germany,and Justin.85
According
to T. Kepelli,86Galvano della Fiamma was the firstto considerConrad
and Justinto have been biographersof St Dominic,and AmbrosioTaegio
was the firstperson to provideus with some quotationsof these biographies. Kepelli's analyses of the textsby Conrad and Justinquoted by
Taegio reveal a close relationship,on the one hand, between the text
attributedto Conrad and the Legendaof Theodoric of Appoldia, and on
the other,between the text attributedto Justinand Humbert'sLegenda.
Kepelli concludesby denyingthatthesebiographiesexisted,sayingthat
the worksin question are merelyAppoldia's and Humbert's "Legendae
",
and that Galvano had misattributed
them to Conrad and Justin.
The problem is unlikelyto be as straightforward
as this. I shall not
look here at the questionconcerningthe biographyattributedto Conrad
(who seems to have been activeat the end of the thirteenth
century,and
who thereforeis not relevantto the issues under discussionhere),87but

85We findthesefournamesin thetextofHernando

delCastillo
quotedabove.
86T. KepelliO.P.,Deuxprtendus
deSaint
etfire
Conrad
,
biographes
Dominiqiie:
fire
Justin
in:Antonianum,
20 (1945),227-44.
87According
- ConradofTrebensee
to Altaner,
ConradProvincial
of Germany
(d.
1300)- wouldbe theauthor
ofTheMneWays
Dominic
other
authors
, which
ofPrayer
ofSaint
attributed
toTheodoric
ofApoldia.
See Manning
1948{op.cit.,above,n. 75),155,n. 19.

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

291

it is necessaryto examine the figureand workofJustin,who was active

in the mid-thirteenth
century,accordingto Leandro Alberti,and whose
of
supposedbiography St Dominic is dated 1242.
The reason why Kepelli denied the existenceof the work attributed
to Humbert'sLegenda
to Justinlies in its similarity
, but as we have seen,
from
the Latin original of the "Leyenda castellana", though different
if
were
its
it
with
it
has
a
close
Humbert's Legenda
and,
,
relationship
Italian
oriand
The
1260.
source,musthave been writtenbetween 1240
of Santo Domingo
in
of
the
Convent
works
the
codex
of
all
the
other
gin
el Real (Sr Cecilia's account of the miraclesof St Dominic, Declarations
of the witnessesin St Dominic's canonisationprocess,Life of St Thomas
Aquinas, Life of St Peter Martyr)does not rule out the possibilitythat
the Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana" could have had the same
Were this
thatthismighthave been Justin'swork.88
origin,and therefore
"
in
favour
of
a
it
would
be
identifyingPetrus
major argument
possible,
"
prima")with Pedro Ferrando (and,
Hispanus"(the author of the Legenda
if Luis de Valladolid's testimonyis to be accepted, of Pedro Ferrando
I lack argumentsto supportthe attribution
withthe "auctorSummularum").
of the Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana" to Justin,but know no
reason to rejectthis attributioneither.89
I can say nothingabout the biographyof St Dominic attributedby
Hernando del Castillo to Thomas of Senis (Thomas Nesis de Fonte
Senensis,1357/58-1390)whichis not relevantto our presentpurposefor
chronologicalreasons as well. RegardingJohn of Spain (also known as
John of Castile),he seems to be the same as John of Navarre,one of St
Dominic'searliestcompanions,who was sentfirstto Paris,thento Bologna,

88One argument
of thetextsin thecodexof Santo
in favour
oftheItalianorigin
wasa copy
thatthere
whoinforms
ofLeander
delRealis thetestimony
Alberti,
Domingo
in thePriory
ofSt
ofthesixteenth
at thebeginning
castellana"
ofthe"Leyenda
century
1948{op.cit.,above,n. 75),140.
in Bologna.
See Manning
Dominic
89According
oftheLegenda
1911(op.cit
toVanOrtroy
., above,n. 21),49,in thetexts
ofSt
to Romebya nephew
toJustin,
attributed
Taegio,a journey
quotedbyAmbrosio
Guiis quoted.Werethis
theworkofBernard
in 1300is mentioned;
Dominic
Besides,
couldnot
castellana"
ofthe"Leyenda
thecase,itwouldbe clearthattheLatinoriginal
in 1242.I havenothadthe
workhavebeenwritten
norcouldJustin's
beJustin's
work,
inan eighteenth-century
ediwhich
toconsult
onlyis accesible
Taegio'swork,
opportunity
as despite
these
aredisconcerting
's analyses
is lost;butVan Ortroy
tionas theoriginal
of
in hiszeal to defend
theattribution
twodecisive
byhimself,
putforward
arguments
havebeenthetrueauthor
that
headmits
toPedroFerrando
theLegenda
Justin
might
prima
havebeentheLegenda
andthatthismight
ofRomanis,
toHumbert
attributed
oftheLegenda
quotedbyTaegio(p. 52).

15:04:12 PM

292

ANGELD'ORS

and who was a witnessin the canonisationprocess. Anthonyof Sena90

and Ambrose of Altamura91(among others)attributethe Office of St
Dominic to him, and also a Legenda
, but in my viewJohn of Navarre's
supposed Legendais nothingotherthan his declarationduringthe canonisationprocess.
Aside fromthe supposedbiographiesof St Dominic attributedtoJohn
of Spain, Thomas of Senis and Conrad of Trebensee,to the best of my
knowledgethe repertoireof lives of St Dominic which predate the work
of Bernard Gui is as follows:
de Sajonia(fi237):libellas
deinitiis
Ordinis
Praedicatorum,
1235;
Jordn
Petrus
Ferrandi
, 1236/39;
(?)- : Legenda
Hispanus-Petrus
prima
Annimo-Petrus
Ferrandi
of the"Leyenda
(?)/Iustinus
(?)- : theLatinoriginai
1240/60
castellana",
(?);
ingestis
etmiraculis
sanctorum
,921243;
Jeande Mailly(j*c. 1260):Abbreuiatio
Bartholomew
ofTrent(c. 1195-1251):
Liber
ingesta
sanctorum
,931244/5;
epilogorum
Constantine
ofOrvieto:
sancti
Domini?*
1247;
Legenda
Vincent
de Beauvais:
historale
,95c. 1250;
Speculum
Geraldde Frachet
Vitae
Fratrum
,%1258/60;
(1205-1271):
Humbert
ofRomans
sancii
Dominici
,971256/1260;
(c. 1200-1277):
Legenda
de Cerrato:
sancii
c. 1270;
Dominici?*
Rodrigo
Legenda
90"Etprimo
locooccurrunt
in quovisconsaccubitus
soient
Hispaniduo,qui primos
essusemper
amare.Unuseorum
vocatur
frater
Ioannesde Monte,
SacraeTheol.doctor
& B. Dominici
nostri
socius:
frater
Ioannesde Castillia,
amboviripii
alter,
insignis
patris
& eruditionis
de Laudibus
beataeVirginis,
&
librum,
egregiae,
quorum
primus
composuit
dicitur
& claruit
an. 1226.Secundus
verocomposuit
Officium
B. Dominici
Mariale,
patris
nostri.
Claruit
circaannum1262",Bibliotheca
Fratrum
Legendam
quoqueilliuscompilavit.
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
R. P. magistro
Antonio
eiusdem
dominicanae
, authore
Senensi,
lusitano,
familiae
alumno
, Paris1585,131.
91"Anno1234.P. F. Ioannesde Castilla
virpiusac eruditus
Hispanus
composuit:
Officium
Sanctissimi
& accurate
eiusdem
vitam.
Duo exnostris
Patriarchae,
composuerunt
dictum
P. F. Ioannesde Castilla(utdixi)& Reverendissimus
P. F.
Officium,
scilicet,
Constantinus
Bibliothecae
dominicanae
R. P. M. Ambrosio
Urbevetanus.",
, ad modum
Episcopus
Altamura
, Roma1677,6a.
92In M.-D.Chapotin,
LesDominicains
Paris1892,317-24.
d'Auxerre,
93Epilogus
insanctum
Dominicum
Derhl.Dominikus
, in:B. Altaner,
, Breslau1922,229-39.
Anedition
ofthisworkis beingprepared
Millennio
byEmorePaolias partoftheseries
Medievale
Sismel-Edizioni
delGalluzzo.
published
by
94Ed. H. Ch.Scheeben,
in:Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
vol.
Histrica,
XVI,Rome1935,261-352.
95Bibliotheca
Latina
, no.2220.
Hagiographica
Ed. B. M. Reichert,
in:Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
vol.
Histrica,
I, Louvain1896.
97Ed. A. Walz,in:Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
vol.XVI,
Histrica,
Rome1935,353-433.
98Ed. T. M. Mamachi,
Annalium
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
volumen
, Rome 1756,
primm
deGuzmn
C. Palomo
312-34;V. D. Carro,Domingo
, Madrid1973,775-801;
Appendix,

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

293

Etienne
de Salanhac
De quattuor
inquitus
Deum
ordinem
(1*1291):
praedicatorum
insignititi,"
c. 1277;
aurea,100
1271/1288;
JamesofVaragine:
Legenda
101
Dietrich
ofApolda:Legenda
Sancii
c. 1290;and
Dominici,
Bernard
Gui(c. 1261-1331):
S. Dominici,102
c. 1304-1308.
Catalogas
Magistrorum,
Legenda
Exceptingthe Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana",these are the
Lives of St Dominie examinedby Van Ortroywhichled him to attribute
"
the Legenda
". As the Legenda
primato PetrusFerraudi
primawas the only
"
" with an unidentified
author
did
not know of the
Legenda
(Van Ortroy
of
the
Leccionario
which
attributes
it to a "Petrus
testimony
Regensburg
Hispanus
"), and Giles of Santarm had attributeda VitabeatiDominicito
"Petrus
"
" was
Ferrandi
Ferrandi
", the conclusionwould seem obvious: Petrus
the author of the Legendaprima.None the less, the appearance on the
scene of thisnew Legenda(the Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana"),
also authorless,
is a major hindrancein theway of Van Ortroy'sargument.
These fourteenbiographiesof St Dominic, thoughcloselyinterrelated,
"
traditions:
",
belongto threedifferent
i) the traditionof the Legendae
literary
, which pays attentiononly to the life
inauguratedby the Legendaprima
and miraclesof St Dominic; ii) the traditionof the historiesof the Order
of Preachers,inauguratedby theLibellus
, whichfocusesparticularly,
though
not exclusively,
on St Dominic as the founderof the Order of Preachers;
and iii) the traditionof saints' lives,which centreson St Dominic as a
man who led a holy and exemplarylife,and who was canonised during
in the framework
the same century.Furthermore,
of the traditionof the
" a distinctionmust be made between those which won the
"
Legendae
approval and officialrecognitionof the General Chapters of the Order
of Preachers,and those which did not.
Leaving aside the obvious textualdependenciesbetween the various
works,three of them, those of Constantineof Orvieto, Theodoric of
de
Appoldia and BernardGui, as well as Etienne de Bourbon's Tractatus
donisSpiritus
Sancii(c. 1260),103containreferences
to earlierbiographies,
septem

Santo
deGuzmn
trans1971,Spanish
Iglesias,
Domingo
y losDominicos
Espaoles,
Guadalajara
57-116.
lation,
Ed. T. Keppeli,
in: Monumenta
Ordinis
Fratrum
Praedicatorum
vol.
Histrica,
XXII,Rome1949.
100Iacopoda Varazze,
ed.G. P. Maggioni,
2 vols.,Firenze
1998,718-44.
aurea,
Legenda
101
Libellus
devita
... S. Dominici,
ed. G. Cuperus
in:ActaSanctorum,
562-629.
(Cuypers),
102Ed. in:Tugwell
1998(op.cit.,above,n. 3).
A. Lecoyde la Marche,
Anecdotes
etapologues
tirs
durecud
indit
historiques,
lgendes
d'tienne
deBourbon,
Paris1877.

15:04:12 PM

294

ANGELD'ORS

helpingus to determinetheirchronologicalsequence. These cross-references were essentialto Van Ortroy'sarguments.The referencesare as

follows:
diminuta
minus
ordinata
"Etecceex omnibus
resecans,
supplens,
composuperflua
nonnulla
sanedepriori
videlicet
ibisunt
nens,opusoffero
legenda,
prout
requisitum,
etmaxime
positaminime
dedignatus,
quodam,
quempriussuperhoc
quede tractatu
felicis
memorie
Iordanus
disseruit,
[...]. Audacter
magister
assumpta
cognovi.
namque
eorum
etparva
profiteor
quodincomparatione
quedenovosuntaddita,
paucasimul
censensa
suntque priorediciocontinebat".
from
Constantine
ofOrvieto
to
(Letter
Master
oftheOrderofPreachers).104
252),Generad
JohnofWildeshausen
("fi
From the textof thisletterwe can conclude that Constantinewrotehis
LegendawhenJohn of Wildeshausenwas stillalive, and thereforebefore
1252, and that at thisdate two biographiesof St Dominic were already
whichhe called
available,the LibellasofJordanof Saxony,and the Legenda
the "Legenda
prior".Van Ortroydid not take into considerationthe Latin
originalof the "Leyenda castellana",and so he assumed that the Legenda
to whichConstantinereferred
musthave been none otherthantheLegenda
attributesto "Petrus
, the Legendawhich the Leccionario
Regensburg
prima
this obliges us to maintain
Hispanas". If we accept this interpretation,
eitherthat the supposed Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana" had
not yet been written,or thatit was not knownto Constantine.However,
"
given the close relationshipbetween the Legendaattributedto Petrus
" and
, it could also be that Constantinedid not
Jordan'sLibellus
Hispanus
two
different
works
them
as
(thatis, that he regardedthe Legenda
regard
" as a mere extractfromthe Libellus and that what
"Petrus
Hispanus
),
by
he calls the "Legenda
prior"was the Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana". Only a more carefulscrutiny
of the relationsbetweenConstantine's
will enable us to respond to this
and
the
castellana"
Legenda
"Leyenda
the
Acts
of
the
General
Chapter of Cologne in 1245,
question.Although
which seem to referto a singleLife of St Dominic, seem to back Van
this cannot be considereda definitiveargument,as
Ortroy'sopinion,105
the Acts of the General Chapter of Valenciennesin 1259 seem to refer
to a singleLife of St Dominic,106
when we knowthatby thisdate at least
were in existence.
two "Legendae"

104See Van Ortroy

1911(op.cit.,above,n. 21),28-9.
105"Etmandamus
omnibus
de beatoDominico
fratribus,
sciunt,
quialiquodmiraculum
ea quae in vitasua scripta
sunt,quandopoterunt
testimonio,
praeter
sequenti
capitulo
scribant."
1911(op.dt., above,n. 21),29.)
(SeeVan Ortroy
106See note
26.

15:04:12 PM

SUMMULARUM
PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

295

In second place, in Etienne de Bourbon's work we can find several

referencesto a "Legendanova
In legenda
Itemaudivietin legenda
novalegitur;
novabeatiDominici
legitur.107
These referencesindicate the existenceat this date (around 1260) of at
" to which
an old one and a "nova".The "Legenda
nova
least two "Legendae",
tienne de Bourbon refersseems to be that of Constantine,the last of
those writtenup to that time. But tienne de Bourbon tells us nothing
"
about the numberof "Legendae
priorto this.Thereforewe can draw no
theLatin originalof the "Leyenda
conclusionsfromthistestimony
regarding
castellana".
in thisrespectis the testimony
of Theodoric of
Much more significant
Apoldia:
secundus
nostri
Ordinis
beatusIordanus,
Sciendum
paternoster
quodvenerabilis
libellum
de initio
Ordinis
sanciiDominici
successor
composuit
dignissimus,
Magister,
est.Posteademandato
sancti
Dominici
[. . .] De quolibello
Legenda
conscripta
prima
Frater
beatiJohannis
exstitit,
Magister
qui quartusa sanctoDominico
episcopi,
Sanctus
Pater
ediditmultainsignia
Constantinus
secundam
superaddens.
legendam
tertiam
conflans
ordinis
expraedictis
succedens
Humbertus,
Legendam,
Magister
quintus,
multis
nonmodicum
qui VitasFratrum
ampliavit;
qui etiamlibrum,
superadditis,
suadevotione
& diligentia
dicitur,
compilavit.108
In this text,Theodoric of Apoldia expresslyindicatesthe close depen"
dence betweenthe "Legenda
, and
prima and Jordan of Saxony's Libellus
as
the
second
and
Humbert's
Constantine's
Legendaas
Legenda
recognises
"
Humbert's
He
also
indicates
that
e" of St Dominic.
the thirdof the Legenda
". According
is theproductof themergingof thetwoearlier"Legendae
Legenda
therewould be no place forthe supposedLatin
to Theodoric'stestimony,
originalof the"Leyendacastellana",whichoughtto be laterthanHumbert's
"
Legenda.Given this,we would seem to be forced to agree that Petrus
"
"
"
primato
Hispanus and PetrusFerrandiare one, and attributethe Legenda
Pedro Ferrando.
and take the probIn principle,we could accept Theodoric'stestimony
which Giles of Santarmattributes
lem concerningthe VitabeatiDominici
to Pedro Ferrando as solved: it is the Legenda
prima.In my view, this is
the most probable hypothesis,but thereis a shadow of doubt (whichis

107See Van Ortroy

1911[op.cit.,above,n. 21),35 and37.
108
ordinis
Praedieatorum
exvariis
Acta
antiquioribus
scriptor,
quaeF. Theodoricus,
suppar
Ampliora,
1998{op.cit.,
in:ActaSanctorum
monumentos
, Aug.T. I, p. 562,3. See alsoTugwell
collegia
above,n. 3),38.

15:04:12 PM

296

ANGELD'ORS

what stops us fromdeclaringthe problem solved),firstbecause of the

date of this testimony,1290, thirtyyears afterthe officialrecommenda"
"
tion of Humbert'sLegenda
, which leftsome of the Legendaeout of circulation, and probably consigned to oblivion. Secondly because of
Theodoric's attributionof the VitaeFratrum
by Grard de Frachet to
who
is
known
to
have
revised
Humbert,
it, but who did not writeit.
Third because of Theodoric's silence regardingRodrigo of Cerrato's
, which had been writtentwentyyears before.Finallybecause of
Legenda
"
the noveltieswith which Humbert'sLegendaupdates the two "Legendae
which supposedlyconstituteits sources.
Theodoric's silence regardingRodrigo of Cerrato'sLegendashows that
his enumerationis not exhaustive.His attribution
of the VitaeFratrum
to
Humbert shows that his information
is not precise. How, then,can we
ensure that the Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana" did not meet
the same fate as Rodrigo of Cerrato's Legendaor the VitaeFratrum
by
Grard de Frachet?Mightit not be the case that,just as Humbert'srevision of the VitaeFratrum
led Theodoric to forgetGrard de Frachet's
Humbert's
work,
Legendamighthave led him to forgetthe Latin original
of the "Leyenda castellana",whichservedas its source?Could it not also
"
thatTheodoricconfinedhimselfto the "Legendae
be, alternatively,
officially
the
General
of
the
Order
of
Preachers,
approved by
Chapters
leaving
out the otherson the groundsthattheyhad not been officially
approved?
The new featureswhichHumbert'sLegenda
presentswithrespectto the
" that
two "Legendae
supposedlyconstituteits sources also raise the question as to what groundsTheodoric had for makingsuch an assertion.
Did Theodoric know and examine the text of the firstthree "Legendae
",
or was he just repeatinga common opinion which held that Humbert's
had emergedfromthe mergerof two earlier"Legendae
"? Everything
Legenda
seems to indicatethatTheodoric did not know the Legenda
, and, in
prima
" that Humbertused be
such a case, could not perhapsthe two "Legendae
"
not the two officially
", as Theodoric seems to think?
approved Legendae
Could insteadone of thembe preciselythe Latin originalof the "Leyenda
?
castellana",which has such a close relationshipto Humbert'sLegenda
The fourthand finaltestimony
the
of
St
Dominic
concerning biographies
is that of Bernard Gui, whose workis extantin various different
redactions,the firstdatingfrom 1304, which tells us the followingabout the
historyof St Dominic's biographies:
Gestapreclara
beatiDominici
fratres
viripreclari.
conscripserunt
qui sequuntur
omnium
venerabilis
frater
ac patermagister
Iordanis
eiussuc(a) Primo
(sic),
dignus
inlibelloseutractatu
De principio
ordinis
fratrum
cessor,
suo,quemintitulavit
pre-

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

297

antecanonizationem
etgenerale
dicatorum,
approbavit.
Quilibellus
ipsius,
capitulum
inprologo
fratribus
universis.
Vita
hocmodo:Filiusgratie
coheredibus
incipit
glorie
ibiautem
ibidem
insecundo
Vita
autem
seulegenda
(2ndredaction:
incipit
incipit
capitulo
dem
insecundo
hocmodo):
capitub
Dominicus.
Huiustemporibus
fuitquidamadolescens
nomine
natione
de Galexia,
frater
Petrus
Ferrandi,
(b) Secundo
Hyspanus
postcanoscripsit
Et generale
similiter
Heclegenda
nizationem
sancti
Dominici.
approbavit.
capitulum
adhucpuerulus
subnutreis
: incipit
utestimo
): BeatusDominicus
(2a redaccin
incipit
custodia
constitutus.
de mandato
frater
Urbevetanus,
Constantinus,
(c) Tertioscripsit
qui fuitepiscopus
Theutonici
ordinis
fratris
Iohannis
venerabilis
[...].
patris
magisti
Geraldus
de Fracheto
Lemoviciensis
etiam
dilectus
deoethominibus
frater
(d)Scripsit
dyocesis
[. . .]
ordinis
nichilominus
venerabilis
magister
quintus,
(e) Scripsit
paterfrater
Hymbertus
et
fratris
PetriHyspani
unamcompilationem
ex compilatione
[. . .] conflans
prefati
exlegenda
Petri
unam
fratris
Constantini
prefati
fratris
(2ndredaction:
conflans
compilationem
Ferrandi
etfratris
Constantini
[. . .]).
Lombardus
suamconflavit
omnium
frater
Iacobusde Voragine
compila(f)Ultimo
sicutet de aliissanctis,
tionem
moresuoin Vitissanctorum
novis,
proutibipatet
Ianuensis
suam
de Voragine
Lombardus
Frater
Iacobus
postmodum
archiepiscopi
(2ndredaction:
ibietdealiissanctis
suoin Vitis
sanctorum
sicut
more
, prout
novis,
fecit
compilationem
conflavit
dem
patet.
deconventu
Theutonicus
Thedericus
deAppoldia
Saxonie,
Erfordensi
tempore
provinde
(g)Frater
librum
novum
ordinis
nostri
Munionis
etiussu
venerabilis
intitulavit,
quem
septimi
maistri
patris
etdeordine
sancti
Dominici
De vitaetobitu
etmiraculis
instituit,
quem
compilavit
predicatorum
annum
domini
M.CC nonagesimum
circa
[. . J).109
BernardGui's text,the firstversionof which seems to predatehis knowing the work of Theodoric of Apoldia (as he only includes a reference
to this in the second redaction),seems to reflectthe same traditionas
"
Ferrandi
the latter,but adds an importantdetailin thatit identifiesPetrus
,
" as the author of the second
biographyof St Dominic. Gui's
Hispanas
text,therefore,
may provide a definitivesolutionto our problem.
None the less, I feel that Gui's text stillraises some importantprob"
"
lems. First,as I have pointedout, the incipitof PetrusFerrandsLegenda
which Gui recordsdoes not correspondto that of the Legenda
prima.It is
have had
to
not
seem
Gui
does
that
I
have
also
as
true,
pointed out,
and
that
this
at
his
the
of
, as the
incipit
disposal,
Legenda
prima
any copy
"
"
reconstrucut estimoindicates,seems to be Gui's own
expression incipit
which
of some other,lost,Legenda
tion (or perhaps Gui quoted the incipit
he believes to have been writtenby Pedro Ferrando).But, in fact,it is
it is not certainthatGui
of the Legenda
not the incipit
, and therefore
prima
Theodoric of Apoldia,
unlike
this
to
is here referring
Legenda.Moreover,
Gui does not emphasize that the Legendaprimadepends heavilyon the
109
1998(op.cit.,above,n. 3), 105-8.
Tugwell

15:04:12 PM

298

ANGELD'ORS

Libellas
containedwithinJordanof Saxony's
, but rathertellsus of a Legenda
libellas.Mightit not be that,as I have indicatedin the case of Constantine,
Gui does not regardthe Legenda
workfromthe Libellus
,
primaas a different
and that he takes the second biographyof St Dominic to be the Latin
originalof the "Leyenda castellana"?I have also said that the informa" seems
tion which Gui givesabout the Galician originsof "PetrusFerraudi
to be a mere geographicalinferencedrawn from Giles of Santarem's
information
about his death in Zamora.
featureof Gui's workis the sinHowever,perhapsthe mostsignificant
"
"
"
in
which
the
names
"Petrus
gular way
Hispanas and PetrusFerrandiare
combined.In referring
to Humbert'sLegenda
, Gui writesin the firstredaction "ex compilatone
. . . PetriHyspani"and in the second,"ex legenda
. . . Petri
"
Ferrandi
". And when referring
to
the
of
directly
supposed Legenda Petrus
in a textwhichwould seem to be common to both redactions,
Ferrandi",
he combines both by naming a "PetrusFerrandi
". In my view
, Hispanus
this is of tremendoussignificance.
Simon Tugwell, on the basis of the contrastbetween the texts by
BernardGui and Theodoric of Apoldia (assumingthatboth referto the
same "second" Legenda),considersthat Gui had some additional infor" and his
mationabout "PetrusFerrandi
, and thatit was thisinforLegenda
" as the author of
mation which enabled him to identify"PetrusFerrandi
the Legenda
prima.But Tugwell has also pointed out the peculiar nature
of Gui's historiographical
work,which is marked by an effortto make
the data and testimoniesat his disposal agree with one another.110
It is
that
Gui's
text
shows
that
this
is
not
a
in
case
which
my opinion
clearly
Gui mighthave additional informationavailable, but instead that Gui
feels obliged to reworkthe informationat his disposal for the sake of
consistence.To explain Gui's text,the onlythingthathas to be assumed
is that he had at his disposal a copy of the Lectionarium
(in which the
"Petrus
is
attributed
to
and
a
Legenda
prima
Hispanus
")
copy of Grard de
Frachet's VitaeFratrum.
That is, in 1304 Gui followedthe same reasonattributes
a Legenda
to "Petrus
ing as Van Ortroyin 1911: ifthe Lectionarium
to "Petrus
", and Giles of Santarmattributesa VitabeatiDominici
Hispanus
Ferrandi
", thereis nothingmore naturalor more directthan to identify
"Petrus
"
"
"
Hispanus with PetrusFerrandiin orderto bringthese two pieces
of information
into agreement.Our problemis to findout whetherthis
reflectsthe historicalreality.In my view, we shall not be able to solve
110See
1998[op.cit.,above,n. 3).
Tugwell

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

299

thisconundrumuntilmore detailed analysesof the Latin originalof the

"Leyenda castellana" have been carried out, enablingus to date it and
to investigateits relationshipto the otherLegendae.
" have
Now that these four referencesto the historyof the "Legendae
been examined,I thinkit is possibleto say that althoughtheyadd some
" and "Petrus
reasons in favour of the hypothesisthat "PetrusHispanus
"
Ferrandiare the same person,these are not conclusive.The Latin original of the "Leyenda castellana",which could be the workbyJustin,but
whichGiles of Santarmattribwhichmightalso be the VitabeatiDominici
utesto Pedro Ferrando,constitutes
the main obstaclein theway of acceptAlthoughSimon Tugwell considersthat
ing this conclusiondefinitively.
"it would be perverse"to deny that the Legenda
puma is the workwhich
Giles of Santarmattributesto Pedro Ferrando,as long as the problem
concerningthe Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana" is unsolved,
"
doubtswillpersist.It is veryprobable,but not certain,that"Petrus
Hispanus
is "Petrus
Ferrandi
", and thattheLegenda
primais theworkof Pedro Ferrando.
But doubts stillremain.
3. The "Legendae Sancti Dominici" and the"auctor Summularum"
"
Summularum
whichexplicitly
relatethe "auctor
The onlyknowntestimonies
of Luis of Valladolid
to the biographiesof St Dominic are the testimonies
Pisa
seems
to
and the table of St Catherineof
(which
depend on the former), which I examined in my 1997 article.The testimonyof Luis of
Valladolid is as follows:
n 12:Frater
summam
Petrus
de natione
Gastelle,
logicalem,
que
scripsit
Hispanus,
in quo libroviamfacilem
ad dialecticam
Tractatus
ut communiter
nuncupatur,
et
et composuit
invenit
ac tradidit.
Itemdictavit
eleganter
hystoriam
adquirendam
nostri111
totum
officium
beatiDominici
patris
fortwo reaH. C. Scheeben112
disqualifiedLuis of Valladolid's testimony
sons. First,that,since he thoughtthat Luis of Valladolid was referring
here to "PetrusFerrandi
", whom Van Ortroyhad alreadyidentifiedas the
author of the Legenda
, his testimonyabout the Gastilianoriginof
prima
"Petrus
" was in contradiction
withthe moreauthoritative
testimony
Hispanus

111Tabula
von
in: H. Ch. Scheeben,
Die Tabulae
Actorum
Ordinis
Praedicatorum,
Ludwigs
Fratrum
imChor
derPredigerbrder
von
St.Jakob
inParis
Valladolid
Praedicatorum,
, in:Archivm
1 (1931),223-63(p. 255).
112H. Ch. Scheeben
1932(op.cit.,above,n. 39),329-31.

15:04:12 PM

300

ANGELD'ORS

of Bernard Gui, who said that he was a Galician. Second, because Luis
" to be the authorof the Trac
of Valladolid considered"Petrus
Ferraudi
tatus,
when it was already "known" that the Tractatus
was the work of "Petrus
Iuliani", Pope John XXI.
Since then,the testimony
of Luis of Valladolid has been systematically
and
has
been
consideredwith the object of explaining
disqualified,
only
the originof its confusion,which has always been located in the figure
of one or other "PetrusAlfonsi
", whom the Stams Catalogue listsas the
"auctorSummularurri
". AlthoughLuis of Valladolid does not mentionthe
name of "PetrusAlfonsi
with the "auctor
", and althoughhis identification
'
Summularurri
had also been rejected,it has alwaysbeen thoughtthatLuis
" to "Petrus
of Valladolid wronglyattributedthe "Summulae
", and
Alfonsi
"
that he also wronglyattributedthe Legenda
the
work
prima",
by Pedro
to
this
Ferrando,
figure.
Once the attributionof the Tractatus
to John XXI has been rejected,
the second of Scheeben's reasonsis automaticallyinvalidated.And as far
as the firstreason goes, I thinkthat thistoo could be regardedas unac"
", the author
ceptable,eitherbecause it is uncertainthat PetrusHispanus
"
of the Legenda
with Petrus
or because
Ferraudi",
prima,shouldbe identified
" is "Petrus
even if this "PetrusHispanus
FerrandV'as seems highlylikely,
" are not
Gui's words about the Galician originof "PetrusFerrandi
particand as Galicia belongedto Castile from1230 onwards,
ularlysignificant,
there is no contradictionbetween Bernard Gui's testimonyand that of
Luis of Valladolid.
should
Obviouslythisdoes not mean thatLuis of Valladolid'stestimony
be taken as watertight
reliableinformation,
but only that the arguments
like
against his testominyare groundless.Luis of Valladolid's testimony,
all the otherswe have examined,could be wrong.But thereis no reason forus to doubt thisone more than any other.In my view, the foregoinganalyseshave showntwo things.First,the figureof Pedro Ferrando
is perfectly
consistentwiththatof the "auctorSummularum".
Second, there
are no conclusiveargumentsthatcompel us to statethatPedro Ferrando
was the authorof the Legenda
prima.In thiscase, Luis of Valladolid's tes"
"
"
be
could
either
Ferrandi
".
true,
timony
regarding Petrus
Alfonsior Petrus
"
"
The attribution
to Petrus
BeatiDominici
", in Luis
Hispanus of the "Officium
of Valladolid's testimony,
as Scheeben has shown,does not seem impossible, and so thereis no reason forus to cast doubt on his testimony.
The problemis thatLuis of Valladolid does not specifywho the "Petrus
"
Hispanus he talksof is, or which Legendahe attributesto him, and nor
does he provide us with any other data to help us identifythe "auctor

15:04:12 PM

SUMMULARUM
PETRUSHISPANUS
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

301

"
SummularumGiven that at least two "PetrusHispanus
exist,and at least
"
"
two Legendaewith unidentifiedauthors,we cannot know whetherthe
"
HystoriabeatiDominicithat Luis of Valladolid attributesto the auctor
" is the
Summularum
Legendaprimaor the Latin originalof the "Leyenda
is "Petrus
Summularum
castellana".Nor can we be certainwhetherthe auctor
"
"
". We remainin the same place:
Ferrandior some other PetrusHispanus
" the "auctorSummularum
" or "PetrusFerrandi
"?
is "Petrus
Alfonsi
4. By wayofconclusion
On reachingthis point, readers mightthinkthat they are in no better
positionnow thantheywere afterreadingthe Proceedingsof the Provincial
Chapter of Spain of the Order of Preachersheld in Toledo in 1250, to
of "Peters" we
which I referredin my 2001 article.The proliferation
in
these
still
further
foundtherehas been multiplied
pages. The identity
"
is wrapped in the same doubts and shadows,
of the auctorSummularum
attributedtoJohn XXI, which
of the Corpus
and the distribution
formerly
is
alreadyappeared practicallyinsuperable, now even more problematic:
"
medicus
to the "Pedros" examinedhere we mustadd the figuresof "Petrus
"
Hispanus
(whosedeath is reportedby Giles of Santarm),as well as Petrus
"PetrusIuliani" and "Petrus
whom
some of
to
Compostelanu'
Portugalensis'
the worksin this Corpusare attributedin the manuscripts.
What have we gained?For the moment,little.We can say thatthrough
"
the new documentsexaminedwe have managed to confirmthatthe auc"
torSummularum
belonged to the Order of Preachers,and the hypotheses
" witha "Petrus
of the "auctorSummularum
about the possibleidentification
"
"
"
", or withthe PetrusHispanus confusedby Galvano withthe conAlfonsi
" sent to
versus
Bologna by St Dominic, have been strengthened.
I thinkthat I have also shown that the reasons Tugwell puts forward
against some of the hypothesesI suggestedin my 1997 articleare not
"
conclusive,and that more researchis needed into the figuresof Petrus
" and Pedro
Ferrando,as thereare good reasonsto think
Hispanusconversus
". The only one of the
that one of them could be the "auctorSummularum
six candidatesI proposedin my 1997 articlewho can be completelyruled
. But the list of
out is still"Petrus
Gallus,in FranciaPriorprovincialis"
, natione
candidateshas now been lengthenedconsiderably.
And just as in my 1997 article I shed doubt, I like to believe with
good reasons and to good effects,on the commonlyheld view that the
" was
"auctorSummularum
Pope John XXI, in the presentpaper I shed
doubt on anothercommonlyheld view (thistime perhaps undermining

15:04:12 PM

302

ANGELD'ORS

the argumentsrather than drawing new conclusions)which takes for

of the Legenda
primato Pedro Ferrando.It is, howgrantedthe attribution
research
will confirmthis common view
that
future
ever, quite possible
which has now been challenged,but it will also doubtlessshed new light
". This challenge has at least
on the problem of the "auctorSummularurri
betterdefinedthe natureof the problem.It is now necessaryto solve the
doubt raised by the Latin originalof the "Leyenda castellana":to determine whetherit is thirteenthor fourteenthcentury,whetherit is the
source of, or is based on Humbert'sLegenda
, and whetherit is the work
. If it wereJustin'swork,or dated
ofJustinor of some "PetrusHispanus"
fromthe fourteenth
century,we would have good reasonsforidentifying
"Petrus
prima,with Pedro Ferrando.
Hispanu' the author of the Legenda
Were this the case, it would only remainto determinewhetherthe tesin
timonyof the Stams Catalogue or of Luis of Valladolid is trustworthy
"
"
"
Ferraudi"
ordertherebyalso to determinewhether Petrus
Alfonsior Petrus
The otherquestions,thoseconcerningthe relais the "auctor
Summularum".
"
"
tionshipbetween PetrusHispanus and St Dominic, his possible activity
in the south of France and Italy,and his possiblepositionas Provincial
the
of Spain, will certainlyhelp to solve thisproblem,and to reconstruct
"
biographyof the auctorSummularum".
But, in my view, once again, the main contributionof this paper is
that it has broughttogethertestimoniesfromvery diversespheres,and
placed side by side problemsthat have until now been examined independently,but which are undoubtedlyclosely related. The problem of
the "auctorSummularum
", connectedwiththe historyof the editionsof La
withthebirthof Galaico-Portuguese
DivinaCommedia
and itscommentaries,
of Bologna and Palencia, and
lyrics,with the historyof the universities
the culturaland politicalhistoryof Spain in the thirteenth
century,which
was a decisiveera in the historyof the Reconquest and the receptionof
Arab and Greek cultures,has now been broughtinto the contextnot
primaand the historyof
only of the problemof the authorof the Legenda
the biographiesof St Dominic, but also of the historyof the founding
era of the Order of Preachersand its Provincialsof the Provinceof Spain,
and theoriginsof Castilianliterature.
Only cooperationbetweenresearchers
in these different
areas can bring new documentsto lightwhich might
be able to yield the solutionto the set of problemsassociatedwith the
".
name of "PetrusHispanus
In my opinion,futureinvestigations
will confirmthat "PetrusHispanus,
"
was fromEstella; that he was linkedto the collegiate
auctorSummularum

15:04:12 PM

PETRUSHISPANUS
SUMMULARUM
O.P.,AUGTOR
(III)

303

churchof Roncesvallesand its dependencyof St Maria della Mascarella

in Bolonia; thathe was receivedinto the Order of Preachersin a moment
close to its foundation,and also thatlater he went back to Spain, where
he was connected to the court of the kings of Castile and Leon, and
" will
wherehe eventuallydied (The "auctor
Summularum
probablybe found
to be the same as, firstly,
the "Petrus"(P.) at the head of the listof those
who representedthe Dominican Order at the Roman Curia in 1216; sec"
"
"
" sent
ondly,the PetrusHispanus who was mistakenforthe conversus
by
" who
"
St Dominic to Bolonia in 1218; and thirdly,the MagisterPetrus
signedas a witnessin Rome in 1220). Additionally,it will be confirmed
that "PetrusFerrandowas the author of a "LegendaSanctiDominici
", but
thathis activitywas not limitedto the bordersof Spain (againstthe testimonyof Humbert of Romanis, accordingto TugwelPs interpretation).
"
"
However,I do not know whetherthe existenceof Petrus
Alfonsiwill be
confirmed(although I am inclined to think it will), and of two old
"
"Legendae" writtenby unidentifiedauthors,both referredto as Petrus
"
Hispanus (and thisI regardas possible,althoughperhaps not too likely),
"
or of only one, the "LegendaPrima
". On these future
", by PetrusFerraudi
investigations
depends the reliabilityof the testimoniesof the Catalogues
of Stams, Pignon, Saint Ann, and Luis de Valladolid, and whetherwe
" is "Petrus
"
"
must conclude that the "auctorSummularum
Alfonsi or Petrus
Ferrando.
Madrid
Universidad
Complutense

15:04:12 PM

Reviews
TheFormation
s De AnimaintheLatinWest:
Hasse,Avicenna3
ofa Peripatetic
Dag Nikolaus
- NinoAragno
Editore.
LondonTheWarburg
Institute
ofSoul1160-1300.
Philosophy
Vol. 1)x + 350pp.
andTexts,
NewSeries,
Institute
Studies
2000.(Warburg
Turin,
ISBN0 854811257
ofAvicenna
ofdoctrines
thereception
thisbookpresents
Asthetitlepromises,
(IbnSina)
ofthe
witha goodoverview
West,[ix]Hassebegins
on thesoulbytheLatinmedieval
in thefieldtoday,
heputs
LikemanyIslamicists
on theIbnSinaArbus.
stateofresearch
- I myself
findthisan oddtradition
oftheGreeksources
consideration
aside,orbrackets,
viewofAvicenna's
Gutas'
to
Hassesubscribes
researchers.
forhistorical
developmental
ofhisphilosophical
viewsin thecourse
different
where
Avicenna
works,
activity:
develops
trawiththePeripatetic
hisposition
ina continuous
ofreworking
"different
process
stages
thetransit."[vii;4] Thisbookconcerns
himself
from
dition
andeventually
emancipating
Latinus
in theDe Anima
oftheAvicenna
doctrines
as contained
ofAvicenna's
mission
(Fi
Westin thethirteenth
to theLatinmedieval
century.
NefsoftheShifac)
in thelate
withGundissalinus
theLatinauthors
Hassebeginsby surveying
starting
doctrines
on thesoul:e.g.,MichaelScot,John
whotookup Avicenna's
twelfth
century
Albert
theGreat,ThomasAquinas.[4-79]I can
William
ofAuvergne,
de la Rochelle,
Richard
forinstance,
authors
worth
ofsomeomitted
think
Kilwardby,
espeexploring:
to
Albert
Hasse
attributes
that
in
of
the
[117;93; 97; 196;231]originality
cially light
theGreatplagiarist.
Ebbesen's
claimofAlbert's
beingrather
despite
Hassethough
makesmany
are informative,
Hasse'sdiscussions
historically.
especially
andexplanation
than
demand
moresupport
thatcertainly
ontheauthors
pronouncements
often
andparticularly
as he disagrees
as theyaresometimes
he gives,
cryptic,
particularly
a "hodge-podge"
of
withotherscholars
today.E.g.,he saysthatMichaelScotpresents
him
commend
butthatwe shouldrather
ofthesoulin hisastrological
theories
writings,
hefinds
William
ofAuvergne's
andbroadapproach."
forhisopen-mindedness
[27]Again,
critical"
and "highly
"remarkable"
[42],butthengoeson to chargehimwith
writings
as a philosopher?
we think
ofMichaelorWilliam
"confusion"
[46].Whatthenshould
ofAvicenna's
withtheassessment
Hasseforinstance
On current
disagrees
scholarship,
andMarmura.
Manexample
famous
Pines,
Rahman,
[86]ForHasse
byDavidson,
Flying
the
ofthehumansoulfrom
is theindependence
themainpointforAvicenna
(Arbus)
orAugustine,
thatI
ofDescartes
doesnotherehavethecogito
argument
body.Avicenna
Ratherhe hasme affirming
andhencemyexisting.
cannotdenymythinking
onlythe
butnotofmyself.
or"corebeing"
ofmyhuman
essence
existence
[81-3;86] Hassethinks
haveconfused
theissue.Still,
Latintradition
andthesubsequent
thattheLatintranslations
from
or corebeingwoulddiffer
ofmyessence
itis notclearto mehowtheaffirmation
valuHassedoesmakemany
ofmy"self"
theaffirmation
Still,
(eveninIbnSina'sArabic).
from
Avicenna
thequotations
suchas noting
current
ableobservations
scholarship,
regarding
deAnima.
Summa
inthecriticad
edition
ofJeande la Rochelle's
overlooked
[49n. 217]He
- especially
ifthey
do notagreewith
translations
oftheArabic
somecurrent
alsocriticizes
ofAvicenna.
hisinterpretation
[132-3]
De
someotherkeytopicsin Avicenna's
theFlying
Man,Hassediscusses
Apartfrom
andtheintellect.
ofshellfish,
Anima
: themotion
estimation,
vision,
nerves,
prophecy,
light,
thereon
andsomeofthescholarship
accusestheLatinauthors
Heretoohe sometimes
and
in theirtranslations
[107n. 40; 113;123-4;133n. 308; 188n. 621]ofconfusion
onthenature
theAvicenna
Aristotle,
makes,
against
interpretations,
e.g.,onthedistinctions
docoflight.[114-5]Still,as above,Hassecouldhavedonemoreto makeAvicenna's
thatthe
forhismajortheme,
evidence
Hassedoesgiveconvincing
trinelessobscure.
Vivarium
41,2

BrillNV,Leiden,
Koninklijke
2003
- www.brill.nl
online
Alsoavailable

15:04:38 PM

REVIEWS

305

ofAvicenna's
andfollowing
cerinfluence
as attested
bycitations,
quotations,
psychology,
wanedin thelatter
thirteenth
taindoctrines,
[91-3;105; 117;243-314]Hasse
century.
influence
untilthesecdoctrines
ofestimatio
andintentio
hada strong
saysthatAvicenna's
Aristotle's
to them,
cameinto
ondpartofthethirteenth
where
theory,
century,
opposed
inlight
ofthecontinued
influence
ofAvicenna
onScotus
andeven
vogue.[141;147]Still,
inmetaphysics,
Avicenna's
doctrines
stillremained
wemight
wonder
whether
on Ockham
of
in thenatural
albeitsomewhat
dueto theCondemnations
sciences,
disguised,
perhaps
thecontinued
influence
ofAvicenna
the1270's.Hassehimself
admits
there,
e.g.,on the
influence
for
nature
oflight[125-6].
Yetheconcludes
thatAvicenna's
waned,
particularly
on account
oftheir
Aristotle
as The Philosopher.
thetheologians,
accepting
dogmatically
[232-3]
Latinauthors
Avicenna
ondetermining
which
follow
Hasseplacesgreat
priimportance
I findhismethod
a bitpositivist:
Aristode
or Averroes.
as opposed
to following
marily,
without
worhe takesas decisive
an author's
Avicenna
orusinghisterminology,
quoting
is beingquotedforotherpurposes.
muchaboutwhether
Avicenna's
Scripture
rying
an author
Mandepends
onwhether
uses
Hasse'sverdict
ontheFlying
largely
Accordingly
than'theexistence
ofhimself'.
ofhisessence'
rather
thephrase"theexistence
likewise,
and "(partial)
theinfluence
ofAvicenna,
Hassecounts
to determine
adaptaquotations
ofthe
whichareapparently
'usesofthedoctrines
without
tions",
usingtheterminology
an insiscf.ix; 250]These"adaptations"
wouldinclude
Avicenna's
De Anima'.
[234-314;
a physical
location
foreachofthesenses.
tenceon "faculties"
andon having
[57;63] In
various
authors
Hasse
enumerates
citations
from
the
Avicenna's
influence
then,
showing
andnotestheir
distinctive
anddoctrines,
usesofAvicenna's
e.g.,forAlbertus
terminology
offdiscussing
As he hasbracketed
Magnus.[62-8]YetI findhisdiscussion
incomplete.
theLatinauthors,
likeAvicenna
Hasseleavesitundecided
whether
thelaterGreek
sources,
or Galen.For
likeAlexander,
be following
earliersources,
himself,
might
Simplicius,
to
treatment
ofhowanimals
HassepuzzlesoverAvicenna's
instance,
things
judgeyellow
Aristotle
or Themistius.
be sweetwithout
425b3;inDe An., 81,35[425a21-2;
discussing
certain
disoffollowing
Avicenna
andnotAristotle
Hassetakesas instances
82,14]Again,
whereas
wemight
ofhuman
cussions
ofDemocritos
etal. andofthesocialnature
beings,
Aristotle.
takethemto be following
[236-7;262;291]
it is notobvious
literature
on Aristotle's
as thecurrent
attests,
Moreover,
psychology
ornot?
which
doctrines
to attribute
toAristotle:
e.g.,doeshe havea "faculty-psychology:
andpractical
reason
toanimals?
DoesAristotle
admit
theestimative
980a27[Metaph.
faculty
that
himself
havea theory
ofthefourintellects
DoesAristotle
b27;Eth.Nic.1141a26-8]
inAristotle's
Hasseadmits
thatthere
aresomehints
Hasseattributes
toAvicenna?
theory
from
Avicenna's
oftheestimative
theory
[141],butis at painsto distance
imagination
whohave
likeAlbert
andperhaps
these.Still,Hassetakesthosecommentators,
Aquinas,
a wrong
ofAvicenna.
withAristotle
as having
Avicenna
[148-50;
interpretation
agreeing
Avicennian
intotheright
"forces
thecomplex
theory
152-3]Atbest,Hassesays,Albert
corset
ofAristotle's
[148]
philosophy."
it wouldalso
is. Accordingly,
I am notcertain
howstraight-laced
Aristotle
However
oftheDeAnima.
ForheusesAlbert's
moreofAristotle
outside
helpifHassewoulddiscuss
oftopicsandnot
Avicenna's
ofdreams
to showthathe is following
discussion
sequence
his
doctrines
from
thatAlbert
is usingAristotle's
eventhough
he alsoadmits
Aristotle's,
controversial
he makes
thesomewhat
other
[65-6;284-5]Again,
writings
(likeDe Somniis).
andnotAristotle
becausehe has
follows
Avicenna
claimthatPetrus
non-Papa
Hispanus
ButAristotle
ofgleaning
truth
from
thetheories
ofhispredecessors.
theformer's
method
I. [58-9;232-3]
himself
doesthis,e.g.,inMetaphysics
I, De Anima
I, Physics
regularly
is. Ifwe lookat,
ofthefourintellects
itis notclearhowdistinctive
thetheory
Again,
as well
fourintellects,
we canmakeoutperhaps
apud:inDe An.100,16,
say,Themistius,
neverrememthattheactiveintellect
thatHasseattributes
to Avicenna,
as thedoctrine
&
berstheintelligibles.
, in: G. Endriss
oftheIntellect
(Cf.Arthur
Hyman,TheTheory

15:04:38 PM

306

REVIEWS

andtheAristotelian
Tradition
We canpicture
, Leiden1999,192-3.)
J. Aertsen
(eds),Averroes
or Alexander
andtheninterpreting
andcommenting
Avicenna
Themistius
reading
upon
In contrast,
HassetakesgreatpainstotakeAvicenna
not
thedoctrines
contained
therein.
ofAristotle's
De Anima.
a merecommentary
or paraphrase
to havewritten
[1] Perhaps
itis a modern
foible
to insist
toomuchon individual
creativity.
though
ingiving
ininsisting
thatAvicenna
from
Aristotle
a theHasseis certainly
right
departs
We might
Aristotle's
method
ofexplaining
oryofprophecy.
saythathe is stillfollowing
However
hisphenomena
include
intuitive
ofessences,
thephenomena.
Avicenna's
knowledge
itrain,healing
thesick,andsorcery.
owngenius,
theEvilEye,making
Unlike
us,
[157-61]
theLatinmedievais,
as wellas themainstream
Islamic
tradition
tothisday,hadnoprobtheexception
lemaccepting
thesephenomena,
withperhaps
oftheEvilEye.Thoselike
in making
Albert
andAquinas
differed
Hasseargues,
thesepowers
mostly,
dependupon
divine
hada morenaturalistic
ofprophecy.
theory
[163;166-73]
grace,whileAvicenna
"
"
Hassehasa rather
of ma'nanas "connotational
attribute".
He
strong
interpretation
' is
observes
thattheusualLatintranslation
ofHntentio
andwasoften
disrightly
misleading
themselves.
wants
'connotational
[142;145]He instead
ambiguated
bytheLatinmedievais
"anattribute
oftheobjectwhich
hasa connotation
fortheperceiver".
attribute",
namely
a sheepseesa wolfandhastheconnnotational
of
attribute
[132;cf.145]Forinstance
withthisdiscussion
is thatHassedoesnotconsider
in
fear.One trouble
otherpassages
"ma'nan"
Avicenna
where
meanssimply
'whatismeant',
muchlikea Stoiclekton
orFregean
sense.(Asit doesgenerally
et al. (Cairo,1959).)
, ed. El-Khodeiri
Al-Maqlt
throughout
inherLexique
forAvicenna
ismuchmorepersuasive.
Another
Goichon,
(Paris,
1938),
problemis thathedoesnotlinkup hisdiscussion
toAristotle's
doctrine
ofincidental
{peracddens)
[Butcf.138]
perception.
oftheintellect.
Hassehasa longdiscussion
ofAvicenna's
He takesittobe origtheory
inalin thatAvicenna
fourintellects
1) recognizes
2) takestheactiveonetobe "thegiver
offorms,"
tobe identified,
withthelowest
celestial
the
3) compares
perhaps,
intelligence
activeintellect
notwithlightas Aristotle
didbutrather
withtheSunas Augustine
[and
thattheactiveintellect
neverhasanymemory
oftheintelPlato?]did,and4) maintains
butrather,
hasopenaccesstodirect
onceactivated,
intuition
ofthem
atwill.[174ligibles
Avicenna
admits
abstraction
oftheuniversais
from
senseperceptions
ofsingulars
89] Still,
as well.[200-1]I wouldhavefound
Hasse'sdiscussion
easierto follow
ifhe wouldhave
in themselves
in theintellect.
theuniversais
from
theuniversais
,
distinguished
[Al-Madkhal
ed.G. Anawati
etal.,Cairo1952,15,1-6[= Logica
2rcol.2]] ForHassedoesnotresolve
withdirect
intuitive
accessto forms
wouldneedto abstract
of
whysomeone
knowledge
universais
from
atall.Indeed,
Hasse'sinsistence
"Oriental"
singulars
given
uponAvicenna's
on prophecy
insistence
andmysticism,
Avicenna
turns
outtobe a theosopher
morethan
a philosopher,
or scientist.
logician,
Hasseendsby discussing
Gilson'sthesisof the"augustinisme
whichhe
avicennaisanf'
as
"the
activeintellect
withtheChristian
God."[231;205].
specifies identifying separate
intheearlythirteenth
He classifies
authors
onthisissue.[205-21]
After
thattime,
century
he is silent
on further
butpresumably
wouldrejectcandidates
likeAquinas,
candidates,
ofGhent,
andScotuson account
ofhisinsistence
onAvicenna's
influence.
Henry
waning
Hassehasan extensive
ofprimary
andsecondary
some
sources,
bibliography
including
I canthink
ofsomeomissions,
likethevolume
edited
manuscripts.
byEndriss
(cited
above)
andTheodor
desphibsophisch-anthropologischen
Diskurses
imdreizehnten
Khler,
,
Grundlagen
Jahrhundert
Leiden2000,although
theseperhaps
aretoorecent.
AlsoHassehasfocussed
on thepsyliterature
andon thenon-Greek
literature:
theformer
limitation
chological
maybe hinof "intentio"
and thelatterhisprojectoflocating
a distinctively
deringhisdiscussion
Avicennian
influence
on Latinmedieval
a richsource
Still,Hassehaswritten
philosophy.
bookwithmanyprovocative
claims.
Kutztown

Allan Bck

15:04:38 PM

307

REVIEWS

siueSumma
communium
distinctionum
Matthew
ofOrlans
(Mattheus
Aurelianensis),
Sophistaria
accidentium.
Editedwithan introduction,
notesand indices
circa
byJoke
sophismata
des
Brill:
undTextezurGeistesgeschichte
2001(Studien
Leiden-Boston-Kln,
Spruyt.
Mittelalters,
LXXIV).x + 581pp.ISBN90 04 118977.
have
ofthemaleor ofthefemale
Thelasttwogenerations
ofmen(whether
persuasion)
in theunderstanding
ofmedieval
roleinformseenhugeprogress
logicandofitspivotal
is that
One important
we havelearned
thing
ingthescholastic
wayofdoingphilosophy.
didnotjustaimmostoftheir
fireat thesophisthehumanists
oftheearly16thcentury
In aiming
forderision.
at thesophismata
mata
becausethatwasan easytarget
theywere
under
culture.
The liberty
to testall sortsoftheories
at theheartofscholastic
aiming
- thatwas(andremains)
occur
conditions
thatcommon
sensewould
extreme
saycouldnever
ifsuccsis measured
In thelateMiddleAges,
coherence.
thekeytosuccess,
bytheoretical
a first
classtestlab.
theinstitution
ofdebating
sophismata
provided
oftexteditions.
Whilequitea fewscholars
nowunderstand
is stilla dearth
this,there
a lotof
Eventreatises
meantforstudents
at a rather
lowlevelofeducation
presuppose
scholars
ornever
andso they
areextremely
difficult
thatmodern
knowledge
rarely
possess,
of
it is mostpleasant
to be presented
witha bulky
edition
to edit.On thisbackground,
ofOrlans'
a 13th-century
workin thesophismatic
tradition.
Andthatis whatMatthew
is.
Sophistaria
In the13th-century
there
weretwoprincipad
works
on sophismata
waysoforganizing
ofsophismata.
andcollections
Either
themateriell
couldbe organized
by(typeof)syn- usually
In praca distinction.
orbythelogical
toolusedtosolvethesophism
categoreme
whileusingthe
it proved
difficult
to ignore
oneprinciple
oforganization
tice,however,
so we commonly
findthetwomethods
combined
or conflated.
The workattribother,
a discussion
utedtoMatthew
ofOrlans
is fundamentally
oftypes
oflogical
tool,butsince
themaindivision
is
at mostto onetypeofsyncategoreme,
manysuchtoolsarerelevant
si, modais,
intochapters
abouttypesofsyncategoreme:
exclusives,
negations,
exceptives,
& desinit,
an, anddistributives.
incipit
andediting
Thereis a fineDutchtradition
forinvestigating
works,
sophismata-related
with
contributions
bothfrom
H.A.G.Braakhuis1
andL.M.deRijk.2
JokeSpruyt's
significant
ofproblems
bookis a welcome
addition
to theirworks,
us withdiscussions
providing
I warmly
morethana hundred
recommend
thebookforuseby
regarding
sophismata.
butnothing
is so gooditcouldnotbe better,
so I shallspendmostofthisreview
scholars,
in thebook,andon correcting
errors.
on adding
information
notfound
occasional
ofSpruyt's
onthetidepage,which
Thecontents
bookarenotquitecorrectly
described
an
notesandindices".
Thereis,indeed,
an edition,
says"Editedwithan introduction,
introduction
andindices,
butI havenotmanaged
tofindthenotes.
andits
TheINTRODUCTIONcontains
account
ofthegenreofsophistariae
(1) a brief
to similar
ofauthorship,
date,andplaceoforigin;
(3)
(2) a discussion
relationship
genres;
contained
inmsToledo,B. delCabildo
a description
ofthecontents
ofa related
sophistaria
ofthecontents
ofthemanofMatthew's
94-26;(4) a summary
work;(5.1)a description
oftheeditorial
Thosearethesort
used;and(5.2)an account
uscripts
principles
applied.
is
in thepreface
andmuchvaluable
information
ofthings
oneexpects
to a goodedition,
waswritten
andproofbutoneis leftwiththeimpression
thattheintroduction
presented,
it requires
The English
couldhaveuseda loving
readin a hurry.
hand,andsometimes
somethinking
tocatchtheintended
sense.Thuson p. 60,lines5-6,wearetoldthatms
is mistaken
for'adveR contains
several
errors,
amongthemthat"inVI, 44 'desiniens'
instead
ofadveniens
."
niens'".Themeaning
is: " erroneously
readsdesiniens
"
is on exclusives
Someminor
ofp. 9 "Thenextchapter
(myitalslips:Atthebottom
is on exceptives
", andon p. 21 permodum
ics)shouldhavebeen"Thenextchapter
actus
exerciti.
On p. 59,aboutmid-page
exercitus
shouldbe something
likepermodum
Vinnrnm
4-19

(f!)C
oninIri
iiIreRrill1NJV
.eiHen 900*3

15:04:51 PM

308

REVIEWS

a reference
toparagraph
be to 1.161,anda fewlinesfrom
"1.162"should
thebottomofthepagewe find"in11,121[manuscript]
R privdes
ofthe
[sic!]theending
with
thesuperfluous
'movetetur'
I suppose
oPcurri".
[sic!]instead
sophisma
"privdes"
is a meretypofor"provides",
buta lookat thepassage,
(p. 190,line19)andthe
thatR doesnotaddanything
what
Rather,
strongly
apparatus
suggests
superfluous.
Sortes
Sortes
movetur"
movetur,
really
goeson is thatR has"tantum
ergotantum
instead
of"tantum
Sortes
Sortes
currit".
movetur,
ergotantum
In CHAPTER1 Spruyt
first
and syncategoreumata
literature
in the
placesthedistinctiones
ofa medieval
framework
withambiguity.
Thismuchis uncontroversial,
but
preoccupation
I am notsurethat(p. 1) "Generally
in theunravelling
themediaevals'
interest
speaking,
ofambiguous
whohadstated
thatinordertosolvefalexpressions
goesbacktoAristotle,
onemustattempt
laciousarguments,
to destroy
a premise
or to drawdistinctions
(Soph,
el.18,176b33-177a5)."
Ofcourse,
a 13thcentury
couldnothelpbeinginfluenced
logician
Elenchi
wastheoriginal
causeofthestrong
, butI doubtthattheElenchi
bytheSophistici
- rather,
inambiguity
medieval
interest
anotherwise
inthesubject
motivated
interest
caused
theElenchi
to becomethefirst
readin theschools.
partoftheArsNovato be standardly
Asforthesophismatic
subdivides
thesyncategoreme-oriented
works
into
genres,
Spruyt
twotypes,
as thediscussion
concentrates
onthesyncategoremes
themselves
according
(genre
or on thesophismata
andthewaysto solvethem(genre
In
syncategoreumata)
distinctiones).
thisclassification
De Rijkwhoin 1988editeda
follows,
amongothers,
adopting
Spruyt
onDistinctiones
number
oftexts
under
thegeneric
title
ofTracts
.3Asa first
Sophismatum
rough
ofthematerial,
thisdivision
is probably
buttheborders
between
thetwo
sound,
sorting
arerather
andcloserexamination
ofall oftherelevant
texts
fluid,
types
maywellforce
us to replace
thesimple
withsomemoresubtle
classification.
dichotomy
In theintroduction
to his 1988edition,
De Rijkproposed
thatsophistaria
or sophistria
be theproper
fora distinction-oriented
oneofthe
work,
and,indeed,
might
designation
mssofMatthew
ofOrlans'workdoesdescribe
it thus(msT: explicit
sophistaria
magisti
takesovertheterminology
raisesT's
Matthif.
Spruyt
suggested
byDe Rijk,andtherefore
ofthecontents
to thestatus
oftitleofthework(Sophistaria
shecau), though
description
addssiveSumma
communium
distinctionum
circa
accidentium
title
, thealternative
sophismata
tiously
+ theauthor's
ofmsR' hieexplit
summa
Mathei
beingbasedonthecolophon
magisti
AurelQ
owndescription
ofhisaim:communes
distinctiones
accidunt
insophismatibus
[. . .] intendimus
quesepe
(P-83).
We may,ofcourse,
decideto usesophistariae
fordistinction-oriented
works
as opposed
to thesyncategoreme-oriented
Butit maybe a little
to use
syncategore(u)mata.
dangerous
medieval
terms
fortheclasses
becausethatsuggests
thatwe
produced
byourdichotomy,
areusinga well-established
medieval
division
intogenres,
eachwitha nameofitsown.
De Rijkhimself
in 19885pointed
to theinconsistency
ofmedievali
andmy
terminology,
ownimpression
isthat13th-century
fortheseveral
offallacyandsophisterminology
types
mata-related
literature
waslessthanstable,
I amnotsurethatthedesignation
sophist(a)ria
wasrestricted
tothedistinction-oriented
andI amnotsurethatsophist(a)ria
typeofwork,
andarssophistica
couldnotbe synonyms.
Thematter
coulddeserve
somethorough
invesI havenotcarried
outthenecessary
butletmeshowwhyI think
there
research,
tigation.
is a problem.
A distinction-oriented
workinmsPrahaMK M.80:151rA-156rA
thatbytheDe Rijkcriteria
to be sophistaria
hasthefollowing
arssophistica.
Spruyt
ought
colophon:
Explicit
Boethius
ofDacia in hisquestions
on theTopics
twicerefers
to hisownarssophistica.
Thefirst
reference
is as follows:
universalie
additum
termino
nondistribuii
signum
aequivoco
ipsumprosuppositis
cuiuslibet
voxenimnondistribuitur,
sedressignificata
sicut
significati;
pervocem,
in artenostra
declaravimus
evidentes.6
sophistica
perradones

15:04:51 PM

309

REVIEWS

ina distinctionorsyncategoremeaboutthequantifier
omnis
Thiscouldrefer
toa remark
in a a section
aboutequivocaButtheremark
couldalsohaveoccurred
oriented
work.
is this:
Elenchi.
The secondreference
oftheSophistici
tionin a workaboutthefallacies
Iuxtahocsciredebes,quodquaedamestdivisio
formales,
qua diviperdifferentias
in species;
talisdivisionis
et a privatione
sionegenusdividitur
speciesspecialissima
dividitur
Aliaestdivisio
estindividuum.
per
qua species
specialissima
permateriam,
- differentia
solum
permateriam
plurasupposita,
quaeomniasuntunuminforma
nonsequitur
tarnen
unomodo,quodhomositindividuum;
et sic nihilprohibet
in arte
sicutdeclaravimus
sedestfallacia
sitindividuum,
accidentis,
quoduniversale
sophistica.7
falarssophistica
wasabouttheAristotelian
thatBoethius'
Thispassagestrongly
suggests
withthearsdemodis
is a goodchancethatitwasidentical
lacies,andthere
arguendi
sophisandin a waythatmakesit certain
eorum
to whichhe refers
ticeetsolutionibus
elsewhere,
:
thatitdealtwiththeloreoftheElenchi
etquotmodishocconetcumdefectu,
Sedratiocinari
aliquidde aliquoapparenter
de hoc
motivm
et ex partecuiusaccipitur
ex partecuiusaccipitur
defectus,
tingit,
de modis
estinarte,quamscripsi
Et manifeste
de hocdictum
estliberElenchorum.
eorum.8
et solutionibus
arguendi
sophistice
totheauthor's
is a reference
In Boethius'
onPriscian
sophistria.
Only
Majorthere
questions
casethatitwasinserted
buteveninthesomewhat
twomsstransmit
thereference,
unlikely
Thepassagereads:
is no reasonto doubtitsinformation.
there
editor,
bya medieval
ad
communis
aufertur
termini
communi
comparado
[. . .] sublato
signoa termino
comdnott
Si enimdicatur
quodhocquodest'homo'perse {namely
supposita.
nec
ad supposita,
turhaberecomparationem
nullam
vide
ad supposita},
parationem
insophissicut
manifeste
declaravimus
necdesuomodosignificandi,
desuosignificato
- logicaonly
inmssAd andF}.9
in logica{sicut
triaquadam,
quamordinavimus
thequotations
couldbe a workofthedistinctiones
Thesophistria
sophismatum
type.Butfrom
discustherelevant
couldverywellhavecontained
aboveitis clearthatthearssophistica
terms
andtheir
between
common
sionoftherelationship
,
, andtheroleofomnis
supposita
andarssophistica.
to identify
andso it is verytempting
above,
But,I concluded
sophistria
wasa workon fallacies.
thearssophistica
ofgenrein this
In sum:we stilldo notknowverymuchaboutmedieval
perceptions
we cansaywith
to be donebefore
areaofscholastic
logic.Thereis a pieceofresearch
andwhatsortof
werecommonly
howmanygenres
recognized
certainty
anyreasonable
namecovered
whatsortofproduct.
and date.One manuscript
discusses
introduction
CHAPTER2 of Spruyt's
authorship
Matthias"
Aurel"andanother
Mattheus
(Toledo
"Magister
"Magister
(Ripoll109)offers
no name.Spruyt
twooffer
"tentatively"
optsforMattheus
94-25),whiletheremaining
be a Dominican
thesuggestion
thatthismight
Aurelianensis
(p. 3), and thendiscusses
thesuggestion,
She righdy
of Francein othersources.
referred
to as Matthew
rejects
shesays,
willnotwork."TheDominican
oneofhercounter-arguments
Father",
though
The
Mattheus"
butalways
"isneverreferred
toas Matthias,
nothing.
(p. 3). Thatproves
neednothavefolinthemanuscripts
ofthesophistaria
found
confusion
Mattheus/Matthias
Matthew
doesnottellus whysheprefers
lowedthemanin all contexts.
Spruyt
Actually,
thatthe
onecould,I suppose,
to Mathias,
argueforherchoiceon theground
though
a source
in theRipollmanuscript
with"Mattheus"
suggests
"Aurel(ianensis)"
occurring
abouttheauthor's
well-informed
thatwasrather
identity.

15:04:51 PM

310

REVIEWS

As regards
thedateofthework,
tellsus that"Braakhuis
hasassumed
thatit
Spruyt
between
the1220'sand1230'softhethirteenth
Here
from
theperiod
century".
originates
havebeen'about',as appears
from
hersource,
Braakhuis's
1979disser'between'
should
which
hasthewording
"rondde twintiger/dertiger
tation,10
eeuw",i.e.
jarenvande 13de
himself
"aboutthe20sor 30softhethirteenth
Braakhuis,
however,
century".
expressed
in verycautious
indruk
kanditop dit
terms,
adding"maarmeerdeneen voorlopige
thiscan be no morethana provisional
moment
nietzijn",i.e. "butforthemoment
is supported
to Spruyt
dating
"bythewayin
impression".
According
pp. 3-4,Braakhuis'
in thetreatise
hasbeenorganised.
The sophismata
discussed
aretypical
whichthetreatise
thisperiod.
It hasa balofthekindofthings
during
brought
up fordiscussion
examples
inwhich
allkinds
structure
anditis quitean elaborate
ofprobwork,
anced,systematical
in thesyncategoremata
treatises
lemsthatalsofeature
are extensively
It would
analysed."
havebeenuseful
to knowexactly
whichothertexts
from
the1220sor 1230sarebeing
referred
to- itis noteasyto think
ofanysecurely
datedones.
a paragraph
"Thelinkofourworkwith
As regards
theplaceoforigin,
(p. 4) starts
Parisian
anditsconnection
withtheUniversity
ofParisis furthermore
authors,
suggested
In spiteoftheword"furthermore",
considerations."
we havenotprebysomedoctrinal
fora Parisian
connection.
Thedoctrinal
conbeenoffered
evidence
viously
anyargument
with
andNicholas
ofParisagainst
Peter
sistsin a caseofagreement
JeanLepage(Pagus)
ofGhent.
Thismaycarry
someweight,
Parisis a likely
ofSpainandHenry
andanyway
ofa sophistaria.
Butwe mustnotforget
thatthough
Peterof
placeforthecomposition
nota Parisian,
we do notknowwhenor wherehisSummulae
was
Spainwasprobably
SinceDe Rijk's1972edition
oftheworkhisdating
(1230s)hasbeengenercomposed.
and it maybe right,
butfewhaverealized
thatit hungon a mistaken
allyaccepted,
inToulouse
identification
ofa commentator,
Guillelmus
witha person
whotaught
Arnaldi,
between
ante
1235and1244.Thisidentification
quem.
gaveca. 1240as a terminus
Unfortunately,
halfa century
we nowknowthatArnaldi's
workwaswritten
later.Of course,
regular
willknowaboutthefrustrating
readers
of Vivarium
ofresearch
on theidentity,
vagaries
timeandlocality
ofPeterofSpainfrom
35 (1997)and
Angeld'Ors'papersin volumes
39 (2001)ofthisjournal.
Fora discussion
ofthedate,see 39 (2001)244f.,
note66.
CHAPTER3 oftheintroduction
thecontents
ofthecollection
ofsophismata
that
presents
I callDistinctiones
itsnumber
in De Rijk's1988listofsuchworks.
2.13after
Sophismatum
in several
Thisparticular
workis found
Gonville
& Caius344/540
mss,viz:Cambridge,
in Spruyt's
listp. 4, n. 8]; Erfurt,
CA 4276;Roma,S. Isidoro1/10;
[notmentioned
Sankt
Stiftsb.
Marc.Z. lat.302(1873).
Florian,
XI.632;Toledo,B. Cabildo94-26;Venezia,
TheToledomsis interesting
bybeinginthesamehandas ms94-25ofthesamelibrary,
whichcontains
theworkbyMatthew
of Orlans,
andDistinctiones
2.13 is likely
to be
withMatthew's
so a comparison
is veryrelevant.
The
work,
approximately
contemporary
collection
remains
butthere
is a 1995edition
ofoneofitssophismata.11
unedited,
CHAPTER4 is an extensive
ofMatthew's
somediscussion
, including
summary
Sophistaria
ofdoctrinal
issuesandcomparison
withother13th-century
authors.12
Asthestructure
ofthewholeworkis notquiteeasytoseefrom
account
and
Spruyt's
notquiterecoverable
herdivision
either
from
ofthetextintoparagraphs
andheruseof
I shallanalyze
a partofthechapter
on exceptives
of:
headers,
(ch.III). It consists
1.0 A statement
to theeffect
thatwe shallfirst
lookatpraeter.
[ 1]
1.1.0 A rule:Quando
totexpiuntur
estoratio
, tunc
quot
supponuntur
falsa.[ 1]
1.1.1 Presentation
ofa relevant
Omnis
homo
abomni
homine
se,
sophisma,
differ
praeter
quam
andofitsdisproof,
inwhichtheruleis used.[ 2]
ofa solution
thatthemensupposited
andthoseexcepted
1.1.2. Presentation
claiming
arenotsupposited
andexcepted
in thehe sameway,becauseomnis
homo
makes

15:04:51 PM

REVIEWS

311

them
be supposited
subquadam
while
theanaphoric
semakes
multitudine,
pronoun
thembe supposited
subdivisione.
[ 3]
A listofquestions
1.1.3
to be discussed,
viz.(i) Utrum
totexcipiuntur
quot
supponuntur,
etutrum
eodem
relativum
suum
antecedens
sine
velcum
modo,
,
(ii)Utrum
refert
signo
signo
etfalsitate
ofa sophisma
theprima
is the
(iii)De ventate
primae
(indiscussions
sophismatic
itself).
[ 3]
proposition
1.1.4
Rationes
quodsic& quodnonofquestion
(i). [4-10]
1.1.5
Rationes
quodsic& quodnonofquestion
(ii).[ 11-17]
1.1.6
Rationes
ofquestion
quodsitfalsa& quodsitvera
(iii).[ 18-24]
1.1.7
determination
ofquestion
to the
(solutio)
Magisterial
(iii)[ 25].Withanswers
in step1.1.1[25] andto opposing
disproof13
presented
arguments
givenin
step1.1.6[26-30].
Determination
of question
1.2.9
to opposing
(i) [ 31]. Withanswers
arguments
givenin step1.1.4[32-36].
ofquestion
1.2.10 Determination
ontwoother
(ii)[ 38],withexcursions
sophismata
- viz.Omnis
towhich
thesamesolution
is relevant
homo
etilkestaliquis
homo
est,
velduscontradictoria
estvera
[ 39]andOmnis
propositio
[ 39]- andwithanswers
to arguments
in step1.1.5[40-42].
presented
A rule(distinction):
Haecdictio
1.2.0
teneri
veldiminutive.
praeter3
potest
exceptive
[ 43]
Presentation
ofa relevant
1.2.1
Decern
sunt
and
sophisma,
praeter
quinqu
quinqu,
mention
ofthefactthatmanyusethedistinction
1.2.2
of 1.2.0to solveit.
Listofquestions
to be discussed:
istadistinctio
1.2.3
et
teneat,
(i) Utrum
(ii)De ventate
huius
orationis.
falsitate
[ 43]
anddetermination
of
1.2.4sqq. Discussion
[44-78]
' non (i)-(ii).
A rule:Haecdictio
1.3.0
huius
actus
praeter
excipit
simpliciter
respectu
"excipere".
[ 79]
1.3.1
Presentation
ofa relevant
Omnis
homo
Socratem
sophisma,
praeter
excipitur.
[ 79]
Mention
ofthefactthattheruleis usedto rebutthedisproof.
1.3.2
[ 79]
1.3.3
Listofquestions
to be discussed:
oratio
Socratem
(i) Utrum
praedicta
ponat
excipi
'
'
huius
, (2) Utrum
simpliciter
respectu
praedicati
excipere
possit
fieri
exceptio
simpliciter.
willactually
turnuplater:
De ventate
etfalsitate.
[ 79]Thelistomits
(iii),which
1.3.4sqq. Discussion
anddetermination
of(i)-(iii).
[80-108].
A statement
to theeffect
thatwe shallfirst
lookat nisi.[ 159]
2.0
Presentation
ofa relevant
nisiinhocinstanti.
2.1.1
Nihilestverum
sophisma,
[ 159]
Listoffourquestions
to be discussed.
2.1.2
[ 160]
&c. [ 161sqq.]
2.1.3sqq. Discussion
Fromthisanalysis
itbecomes
obvious
thattheelementary
blockoftheworkis
building
a sophisma
withaccompanying
orproblemata
as theywerealsocalled,about
questions,
matters
to proof,
or solution
andusually
& falonedeventate
relating
disproof
including
sitate
Theproof,
andsolution
arepresented
primae.
(= corpus
disproof
sophismatis)
very
briefly
or evenomitted,
becausetheywerewell-known
standard
ones.This,in fact,is a very
ofsophisma-cum-problematibus
incollections
common
form
ofsophismata.
Whatdistinguishes
a merecollection
Matthew's
workfrom
ofsophismata
is hisarrangement
ofthematerial
(2) particular
(3) logicaltool,andhisselecby(1) typeofsyncategoreme,
syncategoreme,
tionofa single
to elucidate
theuseofeachlogicaltoolrelevant
sophisma-cum-problematibus
to a particular
syncategoreme.
CHAPTER5.1presents
thefourknown
viz.T = Toledo,B. Cabildo94-25;
manuscripts,
R = Barcelona,
Archivo
de la Coronade Aragn,
Ripoll109;V = Vat.lat.4546;P =
whileFis assigned
thedate
Paris,BNF,lat.16618.T andR aredated"s.XIII ad.fin.",H
"s. XIII-XIV",andP (inwhichtheworkis incomplete)
receives
a veryprecise
dating:
"anno1325".Now,theexistence
offourmanuscripts
attests
to a certain
fameforthe
- itmayhavebecome
work
a classic
Thatwouldhelpexplain
thelateness
ofthe
ofsorts.

15:04:51 PM

3 12

REVIEWS

twoor moregeneraremarkable
thatall fourmsswereexecuted
mss,forit is,indeed,
arethatlate.In the
tionsafter
thesupposed
dateofcomposition.
If,thatis,theyreally
a 13thandI suspect
as I shallexplainbelow,
caseofP thedateof1325is unfounded,
notfrom
the
the13thcentury,
andprobably
date.V seemsto meto be from
century
to sayanything
forcerofa paleographer
butI amnotenough
veryendofthecentury,
therelevant
ofmsR cautiously
tain.The mostrecent
partofthems
assigns
description
a preference
fortheearlier
or
without
to thesecondhalfofthe13thcentury
expressing
thelaterpartofthathalf-century
period.15
onmsT starts
witha strange
Thesection
"Toledo,
Chapter
library
pieceofinformation:
I suppose
whatshouldhavebeensaidis whatis said
Biblioteca
delCabildo)".
(formerly
"
Biblioteca
delCabildo
afterwards:
almost
, nowArchivo
y Biblioteca
Capitulares".
immediately
hasnotseenthems.Norhas
becausetheeditor
Thedescription
ofT is brief,
apparently
arethesameas thoseof
andlay-out
buthe wonders
whether
itsmeasures
thereviewer,
Ifsuchis
in ch.3 waswritten
to Spruyt
ms94-26,whichaccording
bythesamescribe.
at thesametimeandbythesame
thecase,thetwocopiesmayhavebeencommissioned
be
The matter
customer,
might
theywereevenmeantto be boundtogether.
perhaps
worth
into.
looking
withincipits,
butthelistis
it contains
ofRipoll109liststheworks
The description
an
thereadershouldconsult
ofthemanuscript
Fora thorough
description
incomplete.
16
from1997.
article
byCI. Lafleur
Matthew's
work
ofVat.lat.4546,themscontains
to Spruyt's
According
description
mademe
threehundred
folia.Thisat first
almost
on if.12r-305,
i.e. theworkoccupies
fora workrelatwhich
wouldbe mostunusual
believe
thatweherehada luxury
edition,
I do not
thatdream.
oflogic.A lookat a microfilm
Though
quashed
ingtotheteaching
clearthatthesizeofthepageis verysmall.
havethemeasures
ofthems,itseemspretty
ofOrlans(?)"and "contents
Matthew
liststhecontents
ofif. 1-11as "author:
Spruyt
In fact,theworkin casecovers12 leaves(lessllv, whichwasoriginally
"Sophistaria".
musthavebeengluedtothe
onethatformerly
leftblank),
thefirst
beingan unnumbered
in a handthatseemstobe roughly
conwritten
coverofthevolume.
(wooden?)
Though
thetwelve
leavesclearly
form
a unit
Matthew's
withtheonethatwrote
work,
temporary
with
oftheir
ownwitha different
thantherestofthems.Thustheneighbourhood
ruling
I propose
to baptize
Matthew's
workoffers
no reasonto assumea common
authorship.
becauseit consists
ofa seriesofrulesorgatheanonymous
workRegulae
Syncategorematum
A fewrelevant
arementioned,
butwithout
nizedbysyncategoreme.
lengthy
sophismata
- infact,
andthesections
oneachsyncategoreme
thewholeworkis veryshort
discussions
so he is a very
The contents
oftherulesagreebadlywithMatthew's
text,
veryconcise.
candidate
forthetitleofauthor.
unlikely
in 1991and
Nationale
AsforParis16618,I haveexamined
themsintheBibliothque
as follows:
cansupplement
Spruyt's
description
mm150x 191,ff.165.
Codexcompositus
a-Q, saec.14.1& 13.2,membr.,
(partes
i.e.:
Durandi",
a) 1-39+ 165"Compilatio
de Nogento?>
Comm.
inPorphyrium
lrA-6vA
<Gerardus
Comm.
inArist.
Cat.
6vA-26rA
+ 165rA Comm.
Int.cumduobus
inArist.
26rA-39vB
prooemiis
etsophismata
"Sicut
dicit
Anon.,
) 40rA-114rA
Regulae
grammaticalia
Remigius"17
114rB-l
17vvac.
situnaparsorationis
118rAnon.,Quaestio
utrum
dictio
(frgm.).18
aequivoca
<Matthaeus
Aurelianensis>,
Sophistaria
y) 119-136v
etgrammaticalia
Anon.,Sophismata
5) 137r& 138r-152v
logicalia
inArist.
137v-138r
SE,prooemium
Anon.,Commentarvi
(finemutil.).19
inArist.
De Anima
, finemutil.
Anon.,Quaestiones
e) 153r-160r
sivesophismata
64vAnon.,Qmestiones
grammaticalia
Q 161-1

15:04:51 PM

3 13

REVIEWS

I haveno notes
Part(y)consists
oftwoquaternions,
and 127-136.
119-126
Unfortunately
abouttheprobable
dateofthispart,butat leastthere
is no reason
tothink
itwascopied
in thecolophon
ofpart(a) on f. 165r,butthat
mentioned
in 1325.Thatyearis,indeed,
forpart(y).
is irrelevant
as dux
whichroughly
comesto this:T functions
CHAPTER5.2 explains
theratio
edendi,
a satisfactory
text.If not,helpis primarily
andis followed
whenever
it provides
sought
it
fromV.Nextin rankcomesR,andP is at thebottom
ofthescaleofnobility,
though
I haveno reasontodoubtthegensituations.
canbe ofusein someotherwise
desperate
ofcasesin whichone
eralcorrectness
ofSpruyt's
ofthemss,butherexamples
ranking
"
At11.26"istaP: aliqua20
TVR
hasto resort
to P as a lastresort
arenotall convincing.
P thatis wrong,
in 11.38
it is actually
and confronted
withthetwicerepeated
variant
excludat
is defen"excludat
P: excluditur
TVR"I wouldoptforexcluditur
anyday,though
we aretoldon p. 59,andthe
sible.AtIV.15 "P leavesoutthesuperfluous
'solutioni'",
"0 P: solutioni
TVR' Theproblem
is
adloc.(295.10)confirms
thedistribution
apparatus
harmless.
runs:Et
is indeedsuperfluous,
itis alsoentirely
Thesentence
thatwhilesolutioni
consentimus.
Without
solutioni
istasolutio
sitprobabilis,
tarnen
[+ solutioni
P] magis
priori
quamvis
wouldmentally
it from
thepreceding
solutio.
Withit,he couldsavea
thereader
supply
mental
little
energy.21
Ifanyone
a lotofhardwork.
doubts
TheEDITION itself
it,all he hasto do
represents
In fact,onemight
so
is to lookat theampleapparatus.
thevalueofrecording
question
onesiftherewereno
it wouldhavebeeneasierto findtheimportant
manyvariants,
us thatonemanuscript
hasErgoinlocohuius
entries
liketheonethatinforms
Ergo
against
arethere,
and
locohuius
intheothers
variants
(p. 216.22).But,at anyrate,theimportant
I seeno
I havenotactually
checked
theeditor's
themanuscripts,
though
readings
against
reasonto distrust
herinformation.
an essentially
correct
textwith
On thewhole,
theeditor
alsoseemsto haveproduced
texts
havebeen
a sensible
Thisis no smallfeatin viewofhowfewsimilar
punctuation.
thewrong
or failed
to noticea
shehasselected
Sometimes,
however,
reading
published.
a number
ofemenofvarious
ofthebooksuggested
reading
parts
corruption.
Unsystematic
as follows:
to me,whichI communicate
below.Readtheentries
dations
toread
cum(with
Atp. 86,line1 theedition
hasquod,butI propose
86.1 quod]cumTV.
TV)
I propose
toread
tenebit
hastenebitur;
tenebitAtp. 290,line5, theedition
290.5tenebitur]
records
that
nomanuscript.
even
theapparatus
reading
from
though
tometobecorrupt.
Theiliathat
occurs
at p. 227,line27 seems
227.27"filial
:
Listofproposed
emendations
86.1
quod]cumTV
and
should
have
been
114.9
etquoddebeatremanere
italicized
universale]
there.
itis thesecond
stated
with
the
line,
half
oftherule
joined
preceding
correct
Autratione
Rationeautemforme.
150.25
Cf.thealmost
forme]
enimforme.
ofVR:Ratione
reading
153.20
ista]aliquaTVR.
154.8
quoniam]
quod
is tobesaved,
oneshould
emend
154.10
If thereading
quia autem]Suspect.
ibi
asfollows
: Quiaautemfactagenerali,
fiatinto
fitandpunctuate
dicitur.
...
fitspecialis,
veritatem
et falsitatem.]
Cumergomultiplex,
Non162.7-8
consequitur
sensical.
some
text
is missing
after
Perhaps
multiplex.

15:04:51 PM

314

REVIEWS

essehornin]
essehominem.
Cf.theapparatus.
cumpossitduossensushabere]cumpossint
duo {ordiversi}
sensus
haberi.
Cf.theapparatus.
in partepropositione]
168.17
in propositione
P.
ex quibus]principia
ex quibus
172.15
principium
infinitum/a
182.7,26,
186.8,23,24infinit<iv>um/a]
183.4
Delete
<cuius>
183.5
alius]aliudP
183.13-15
Delete
thetwoinserted
words
ad aliquid.
Read
: Ens
, anddonotitalicize
in potentia
ad aliquid,
si sintpluraperque possit
eodem
finiri,
modofinitur
perunumetperalterum.
excludit
V
201.1
excludat]
sicuttotum
ad ipsum
totum.
<Et> ipsum
totum
dico
201.21-22
comparator
- totum,
sicuttotum
ad ipsum
dico,uni'universale']
comparatur
versalie.
modum
modum
modum
216.8
accipit
aacipit
significandi]
accipit
significandi
demonstret
tobethemsreading,
220.25
demonstrarei]
(which
actually
appears
seeapparatus)
tunc
222.19
tamen]
VP
225.5
probationem]
improbationem
227.27
tkt
estsubmultitudine
estsubmultitudine
intellectum
or
228.26
intellectu]
submultitudine
Cf.app.
intelligitur.
tantum.
hasperformed
thesameemendation
230.21
terminm]
herself
Spruyt
at 231.1
that
thesamereading
beadopted
inboth
; theargument
requires
places.
Delete
<Sed>. The textis perfectly
andidiomatically
246.7,24
intelligible
correct
without
theaddition.
De modoprobandi]
De modoimprobandi
281.5
tenebit
290.5
tenebitur]
the
asfollows'.
293.16-19
Change
punctuation
Ergocumhecdictio'si5nonope- estenimequivocado
ratoractoalem
secundum
multiplicitatem
- nonenimpotest
actualem
actomulta
multiplicitatem
significare,
manifestum
estquodhecdictio'si' nonpoterit
equivocali.
293
app. 12proter]
propter
et <si> magis,
296.6
due]et magisdue
tamenV.Alternatively,
297.6
the
could
bechanged
into
quoniam]
punctuation
etquoniam
nonquelibet,
similiter
is much
the
dico,butV'sreading
best.
either
298.2
orconpotestaliquidcognoscere]
potestaliquidcognosci,
VRP
tingit
illiquid
cognoscere
341.16
Delete
<simpliciter>
nonsequitur
'omnis
homovelasinus;
342.20-22
homo'vel'ergo
ergoomnis
omnisasinus'.Sed sicfietdescensus
iste'homovelasinus']non
'omnishomovelasinus,
sequitur
ergoistehomo'vel 'ergoiste
sedsicfietdescensus:
'istehomovelasinus'.
asinus',
TR
404.20
copularent]
copulent
Delete
<autem>
426.4
435.15
tribus
tribus
hominibus
hominis]
437.4
Delete
<sed>. Theaddition
does
notchange
thesense
, butitissuperfluous.
It isperfectly
correct
tosayAliquiddesinit
inesseSorti.
idiomatically
Non albedoinse,quoniam
adhucconveniet
ei; sedalbedocum
164.2
166.2

15:04:51 PM

REVIEWS

315

i.e.Something
ceasesto be in Socrates.
Notwhiteness
excessu,
byitself,
foritwillstillbelongto him,butwhiteness-cum-exceeding.
- nevidea440.16-18 Et huicsolutioni
esseveram
queponitprimam
magisconsentio
- , quodsitveraquam
turcommuni
contradicere
opinioni
quamplures
ponunt
esseveram,
conquodsitfalsa.]Ethuicsolutioni,
queponitprimam
magis
sentio
ne videarcommuni
contradicere,
opinioni
quoniamplures
ponunt
a change
this
invokes
from
ofpunctuation
quodsitveraquamquodsitfalsa.
Apart
videar
andquoniam
forvideatur
reading
forquam.Thereading
quoniamis
aboyields
therequired
sense.
supported
bymsR, andV offers
quia,which
StenEbbesen

Copenhagen

1 Braakhuis,
Tractaten
over
Termen
H.A.G.,De 13deEeuwse
, vols.1-2,
Syncategorematische
Diss.,Leiden:Meppel1979.
2 Notably
De Rijk,L.M. (ed.),Some
Earlier
Parisian
Tracts
onDistinctiones
,
Sophismatum
Leiden1992.
1988;id.,PeterofSpain,Syncategoreumata,
Nijmegen
3 De Rijk,L.M. (ed.),Some
Earlier
Parisian
Tracts
onDistinctiones
, Nijmegen
Sophismatum
1988.
4 See Spruyt's
at p. 526.
apparatus
5 Some
Earlier
Parisian
Tracts
, pp.x-xi.
6Boethius
librum
&J.Pinborg,
Dacus,Quaestiones
, ed.N.J.Green-Pedersen
super
Topicorum
Danicorum
MediiAevi(= CPhD)VI.1: 118.
Corpus
Philosophoroum
7 Boethius
Dacus,op.cit.,CPhDVI.1: 132.
8 Boethius
Dacus,op.cit.,CPhDVI.1: 8.
9 Boethius
siveQuaestiones
Priscianum
ed.J. Pinborg
Dacus,Modisignificandi
maiorem
super
& H. Roos,CPhDIV: 285.
10Braakhuis,
tractaten
over
termen
H.A.G.,De 13deeeuwse
, Meppel1979,
syncategorematische
vol.I, p. 32.
11Deusseitquicquid
scivit
wasedited
in:Ebbesen,
Selected
S., Thirteenth-century
texts,
Logic.
in:CIMAGL,65 (1995),213-361,
at pp. 226-36.
12Anoversight:
On p. 24,n. 24 Spruyt
mentions
Erfordensis'
Tantum
unum
Anonymus
in S. Ebbesen
est(msErfurt
CA 4328),
butfailstomention
thatitwasedited
& H.A.G.
TAKTMUNUMEST' in:
Braakhuis,
(- Roberti
?) Sophisma
Anonymi
Erfordensis
Kwardby
CIMAGL,67 (1997),105-25.
13Spruyt's
that
edition
has"ad probationem"
at 225.5,andtherefore
indicates
wrongly
theargument
answered
is thatof24.As maybe seenfrom
theapparatus,
mssP and V
havethecorrect
improbationem.
14"ad.fin."surely
means"late","towards
theend",andifitwerenotforthefullstop
after
'ad.' I wouldreadit as 'ad finem'.
15Lafieur,
dela
commente
dums.Ripoll
109, in:id. (ed.),L'enseignement
Claude,Description
" dums.
au XIIIesicle.
Autour
du "Guide
del'tudiant
109, Turnout
1997;at
Ripoll
philosophie
563.
p. 16
Lafieur,
op.cit.
17Cf.Irne
Lessophismes
au XIIIesicle
17 (1991),
Rosier,
, in: Medioevo,
grammaticaux
175-230.
18Ed. S. Ebbesen,
in:CIMAGL,62 (1992),118.
19Ed. A. Tabarroni
A Fragmentary
ontheSophistici
& S. Ebbesen,
13th-century
Commentary
inmsParisBN lat.16618
Elenchi
, in:CIMAGL,60 (1990),121-8.
20In theintroduction,
ofTVRis givenas alique
is
, which
admittedly
p. 59,thereading
TVRactually
offer
butaccording
to theapparatus
to p. 153.20oftheedition
nonsense,
"nonsolvuntur
whichmakesbeautiful
sensein thecontext:
aliqua,
aliquasophismata
per
"
andboldface).
hanc"namely
distinctionem
sedalique
argumentationes
"proprie,
(myitalics

15:04:51 PM

316

REVIEWS

Thecontrast
isbetween
notanysophismata
andsome
, 'aliqu-'beingusedbothwhere
arguments
theEnglish
hasanyandwhere
ithassome.
21Incidentally,
theparagraphing
needsemendation
at thispoint.Thefirst
Vk linesof
withthepreceding
two,inwhich
onesolution
hasbeenpresented.
II.15 belong
together
of11.15presents
an alternative
whichis finally
in the
The remainder
solution,
rejected
sentence
quotedabove.
D. F. Pring-Mill,
DerMikrokosmos
Ramon
Hulls:EineEinfiihrung
indasmittelalterliche
Robert
Weltbild
bersetzt
vonUlli Roth.Frommann-Holzboog,
, aus demKatalanischen
Cannstatt
2001(Clavis
Pansophiae
9),148pp.,14ill.,cl.ISBN3 7728
Stuttgart/Bad
20026
Theworks
oneofthemostoriginad
thinkers
ofhisage,
ofRamonLlull(ca. 1232-1316),
intheRenaissance.
madea lasting
ontheEuropean
Llullhad
mind,
especially
impression
around1287and1297(with
togainsupport
forhisArsat the
success)
varying
attempted
ofParis,andcertainly
hispupilLe Mysier
didmuchto ensure
theendurance
university
inspiteoftheantilullist
ofNicholas
ofhismaster's
andJean
teachings
campaigns
Eymeric
Gerson.
Butitwasin theRenaissance
andtheBaroqueperiodthatLullianstudies
came
at thehandsofmensuchas Cusanus,
to fullblossom,
Lefvre
Bruno
notably
d'taples,
andtheyoung
Leibniz.
TheverynameofLlullevoked
visions
ofesoteric
knowledge
(sputo him)or simply
riousalchemical
andcabalistic
works
cameto be attributed
incurred
in a letter
derision
foritsloquaciousness
hadsuggested
of 1619).
(as Descartes
The idea thatwineripens
withage no doubtmotivated
(also
Frommann-Holzboog
on theinstigation
ofCharlesLohr)to produce
a newGerman
translation
ofan
partly
on Llullwritten
in Catalansomefourdecades
originad
monograph
byRobert
Pring-Mill
Lul-li(Palmade Mallorca,
Ramon
Hullsis a
1961).DerMikrokosmos
ago:El microcosmos
boundbooklet
andappears
as volume
9 oftheseriesClavis
(Eine
handsomely
Pansophiae
in Renaissance
Bibliothek
derUniversalwissenschaften
undBarock,
eds.C. Lohrand
W. Schmidt-Biggeman)
so far,hasseento thepublication
ofattractive
facsimile
which,
Postel's
oftheSefer
Fludd'sUtriusque
cosmi
1552edition
of,e.g.,Guillaume
Jezirah,
reprints
historia
Llull'sOpera
edition
to
, and,significantly,
(inthe1651Strassbourg
byZetzner),
whichthisnewtranslation
is no doubtconsidered
a companion
volume.
a former
ofSpanish
at theUniversity
ofOxford,
whohaspubPring-Mill,
professor
andLatin-American
lished
on Llullandon Spanish
is a professed
devoliterature,
widely
teeofLlullandhis'structural'
Christian
TheDoctor
Illuminatus
is consistently
philosophy.
referred
to as El Beat/ DerSelige
andtheformat
itself
ofthemonograph,
so theexplicit
is dedicated
at theendofthebookexplains,
totheglory
ofGod.Thusithasthree
parts
oftheTrinity)
thenumber
andthirteen
ofChrist
andhis
(inhonour
chapters
(matching
in partone(analogous
twelve
threechapters
to thethreepowers
ofthesoul),
apostles),
sixchapters
in parttwo(thesixsensesofman)andfourchapters
in thefinalpart(the
fourelements).
Thisstructure,
in theexplicit,
is basically
meantas an embelexpounded
lishment
inmore
lulliano
is no direct
between
thesoul,thesenses,
, sincethere
relationship
theelements
andthechapters
ofthebook.Roughly
thefirst
speaking,
partofthebook
deads
withLlull'slifeandwork,
thesecondpartwiththegeneral
medieval
world
picture,
andthefinad
onewithLulliancosmology.
aimis to introduce
notso much
Pring-Mill's
theworking
oftheLullian
andsubstrates
thegeneral
ofmedieval
art,butrather
principles
on whichtheartis basedandthrough
whichit is bothmeaningful
andfuncthought
tional.
therefore
addresses
a moregenerad
interested
notonlyinphiPring-Mill
readership,
or theology
butalso in literature,
and hencethebookautomatically
elicitsa
losophy
withLewis'sDiscarded
or Boyde's
bookson Dante.LikeLewis,Pringcomparison
Image
Millgivesa cleargeneral
sketch
ofthemedieval
world
comview,buthisscopeis limited
Thisbecomes
evenmoreapparent
on comparison
ofthismonograph
paredto Lewis's.
Koninklijke
BrillNV,Leiden,2003
- www.brill.nl
Alsoavailable
online

Vivarium
41,2

15:04:51 PM

316

REVIEWS

Thecontrast
isbetween
notanysophismata
andsome
, 'aliqu-'beingusedbothwhere
arguments
theEnglish
hasanyandwhere
ithassome.
21Incidentally,
theparagraphing
needsemendation
at thispoint.Thefirst
Vk linesof
withthepreceding
two,inwhich
onesolution
hasbeenpresented.
II.15 belong
together
of11.15presents
an alternative
whichis finally
in the
The remainder
solution,
rejected
sentence
quotedabove.
D. F. Pring-Mill,
DerMikrokosmos
Ramon
Hulls:EineEinfiihrung
indasmittelalterliche
Robert
Weltbild
bersetzt
vonUlli Roth.Frommann-Holzboog,
, aus demKatalanischen
Cannstatt
2001(Clavis
Pansophiae
9),148pp.,14ill.,cl.ISBN3 7728
Stuttgart/Bad
20026
Theworks
oneofthemostoriginad
thinkers
ofhisage,
ofRamonLlull(ca. 1232-1316),
intheRenaissance.
madea lasting
ontheEuropean
Llullhad
mind,
especially
impression
around1287and1297(with
togainsupport
forhisArsat the
success)
varying
attempted
ofParis,andcertainly
hispupilLe Mysier
didmuchto ensure
theendurance
university
inspiteoftheantilullist
ofNicholas
ofhismaster's
andJean
teachings
campaigns
Eymeric
Gerson.
Butitwasin theRenaissance
andtheBaroqueperiodthatLullianstudies
came
at thehandsofmensuchas Cusanus,
to fullblossom,
Lefvre
Bruno
notably
d'taples,
andtheyoung
Leibniz.
TheverynameofLlullevoked
visions
ofesoteric
knowledge
(sputo him)or simply
riousalchemical
andcabalistic
works
cameto be attributed
incurred
in a letter
derision
foritsloquaciousness
hadsuggested
of 1619).
(as Descartes
The idea thatwineripens
withage no doubtmotivated
(also
Frommann-Holzboog
on theinstigation
ofCharlesLohr)to produce
a newGerman
translation
ofan
partly
on Llullwritten
in Catalansomefourdecades
originad
monograph
byRobert
Pring-Mill
Lul-li(Palmade Mallorca,
Ramon
Hullsis a
1961).DerMikrokosmos
ago:El microcosmos
boundbooklet
andappears
as volume
9 oftheseriesClavis
(Eine
handsomely
Pansophiae
in Renaissance
Bibliothek
derUniversalwissenschaften
undBarock,
eds.C. Lohrand
W. Schmidt-Biggeman)
so far,hasseento thepublication
ofattractive
facsimile
which,
Postel's
oftheSefer
Fludd'sUtriusque
cosmi
1552edition
of,e.g.,Guillaume
Jezirah,
reprints
historia
Llull'sOpera
edition
to
, and,significantly,
(inthe1651Strassbourg
byZetzner),
whichthisnewtranslation
is no doubtconsidered
a companion
volume.
a former
ofSpanish
at theUniversity
ofOxford,
whohaspubPring-Mill,
professor
andLatin-American
lished
on Llullandon Spanish
is a professed
devoliterature,
widely
teeofLlullandhis'structural'
Christian
TheDoctor
Illuminatus
is consistently
philosophy.
referred
to as El Beat/ DerSelige
andtheformat
itself
ofthemonograph,
so theexplicit
is dedicated
at theendofthebookexplains,
totheglory
ofGod.Thusithasthree
parts
oftheTrinity)
thenumber
andthirteen
ofChrist
andhis
(inhonour
chapters
(matching
in partone(analogous
twelve
threechapters
to thethreepowers
ofthesoul),
apostles),
sixchapters
in parttwo(thesixsensesofman)andfourchapters
in thefinalpart(the
fourelements).
Thisstructure,
in theexplicit,
is basically
meantas an embelexpounded
lishment
inmore
lulliano
is no direct
between
thesoul,thesenses,
, sincethere
relationship
theelements
andthechapters
ofthebook.Roughly
thefirst
speaking,
partofthebook
deads
withLlull'slifeandwork,
thesecondpartwiththegeneral
medieval
world
picture,
andthefinad
onewithLulliancosmology.
aimis to introduce
notso much
Pring-Mill's
theworking
oftheLullian
andsubstrates
thegeneral
ofmedieval
art,butrather
principles
on whichtheartis basedandthrough
whichit is bothmeaningful
andfuncthought
tional.
therefore
addresses
a moregenerad
interested
notonlyinphiPring-Mill
readership,
or theology
butalso in literature,
and hencethebookautomatically
elicitsa
losophy
withLewis'sDiscarded
or Boyde's
bookson Dante.LikeLewis,Pringcomparison
Image
Millgivesa cleargeneral
sketch
ofthemedieval
world
comview,buthisscopeis limited
Thisbecomes
evenmoreapparent
on comparison
ofthismonograph
paredto Lewis's.
Koninklijke
BrillNV,Leiden,2003
- www.brill.nl
Alsoavailable
online

Vivarium
41,2

15:04:58 PM

3 17

REVIEWS

withBoyde's
reconstructions
ofDante'sworld.
sizeofthe
Yet,giventhemodest
probing
Ramon
Hullsstillcontains
anduseful
book,DerMikrokosmos
necessary
preliminaries
insights
forthebeginning
student
ofLlull.
In thefirst
introduced
to thelifeandtimesof
partofthebookthereaderis briefly
RamonLlullwhowasbornin Palma(thenknown
as theCiutatde Mallorques)
shortly
after
theChristian
oftheisland.
a placeofconflicting
reconquest
Majorcawouldremain
creeds
fora longtimeandthiswastogreatly
influence
hisfamous
vision
Llull,whoafter
onMountRanda(1274),dedicated
himself
tothestudy
other
Latinand
of,among
things,
A prolific
Llull
withthesolepurpose
ofconverting
Muslims
toChristianity.
Arabic,
writer,
hadalready
madesignificant
contributions
to Catalanliterature
buthisnewstudies
lead
- i.e. a
to theproduction
ofhisArs,which,
on thebasisofsharedintellectual
positions
reconciliation
ofPlatonism
andAristotelianism
which
Christian
andMuslim
thinkers
Jewish,
- sought
wouldagreeupon
to expound
theChristian
doctrines
of theTrinity
and the
Incarnation
andmakethemacceptable
to non-Christians.
His art,in a way,is an artof
To meettheuniversal
claimsofhisArs,Llullhad to relyon a commonly
persuasion.
worldpicture,
thevarious
ofwhichPring-Mill
in thesecond
elements
discusses
accepted
on Sambursky's
World
Thereis a
partofhisbook(partly
relying
Physical
oftheGreeks).
on thegreatchainofbeingandthehierarchic
structure
ofreality
from
chapter
ranking
theelementary
domain
to thedomain
ofGod.Therearechapters
on thefourelements,
thefour
andthefour
onthecelestial
andastrology,
onPythagorean
humours,
qualities
spheres
number
andnumber
on therelation
between
themicroand,finally,
theory
mysticism,
andmacrocosmos.
The descriptions
areterseandgeneral
butnevertheless
lucidandpertinent
to thesubject
ofthebook.
Mostimportant
ofcourseare LlulPsapplications
ofthesesharedideas.He waspro- a tradition
influenced
De Trinitate)
foundly
byAugustinin
(i.e.Augustine's
neoplatonism
thathadinspiring
inAnselm
andtheVictorines
ofCanterbury,
Bonaventure
representatives
andthatgaveLlulltherequired
intellectual
fortracing
reflections
oftheTrinity
background
inthestructure
In Chapter
ofreality
on thebasisofanalogy).
2, Pring-Mill
(mainly
gives
a brief
ofLlull'sdoctrine
ofthedignities,
therelative
andthecombinasurvey
principles
withan alltooterse
ofthree
ofLlull's
tory
figurae
(A,T, S). (Readers
principles,
explanation
in theLullianartanditsfigures
interested
hadbestturnto therelevant
works
byYates
andBonner,
Alexander
Fidora's
edition
andtranslation
oftheArsbreor,morerecently,
ofninedivine
vis[Hamburg,
area series
, Magnitudo,
1999].)Thedignities
(Bonitas
predicates
in theGodhead,
buteachof
Duratio,
Potestas,
etc.)whichare one and interchangeable
in theworld,
in a ternary
In Chapters
11 and
unfolds
ofsubordinate
which,
principles.
in greater
to Llull's
studies
Llull'sdoctrines
12,Pring-Mill
detail,
paying
specialattention
in substances
as
correlative
whichhe distinguishes
andconcordantia)
triads,
matter,
(form,
wellas in actions
andwhich,
whatsomecameto regard
(agent,
action)
through
patient,
as abstruse
innovations
ofArabic),
he desiginspired
byhisknowledge
linguistic
(perhaps
in
natedbymeansofthesuffixes
and-are(sothat,e.g.,Bonitas
wouldunfold
-tivum,
-bile,
thetriadbonificativum,
and bonificare,
andso on).After
tracedthedevelbonificarle
having
ofLlull'sArsin various
Llull'sdoctine
on theanalworks,
opment
Pring-Mill
expounds
:
macro-and microcosmos
a chapter
fromtheLibre
dehome
ogybetween
by analysing
ofLlull's
comes home"('man,howis man')inorder
todemonstrate
theefficiency
"home,
ofsouland
Whereas
scholastic
thinkers
likeAquinas
wouldposittheunity
terminology.
ofform
andmatter,
Llullpostulates
three
form,
act,andmatbodyin terms
principles:
a setoftiva,
are
thetiva
ter,eachcomprising
, andbiliarespectively.
, forinstance,
Among
onenotonlyfinds
theintellectwum
orthememoratioum
ofthesoul)butalso
(active
principles
Llull'swayof
thesensitivm
andVegetativum
ofthebody),
which
illustrates
(active
principles
in hisdepiction
It
worlds
ofmanas microcosmos.
thespiritual
andmaterial
interweaving
a valuable
is especially
thischapter
on Llull'santhropology
thatmakesthemonograph
thatalthough
the
introduction
tothethought
ofEl Beat.In hisepilogue
Pring-Mill
argues
in applying
skills
this
medieval
worldpicture
is a 'discarded
image',Llull'sinterpretative

15:04:58 PM

318

REVIEWS

in creation,
modelforfinding
correlatives
oftheTrinity
and
maystillelicitinspiration
- an appealing
forthosewhoregard
theDoctor
Illuminatus
notonlyas a
surprise
position
ofthefaith.
heroofCatalanculture
butalsoas a defender
Itisa pitythecontents
ofthebookhavenotbeenupdated,
somemodifications
although
A subtitle
indasmittelweremadein relation
to theoriginal
[EineEinhrung
publication.
alterliche
wasaddedtoslightly
thescopeofthebook,as wellas somefootWeltbild)
expand
on Llull
notesanda bibliography
at theend.Unfortunately,
someimportant
publications
eventhough
remain
wasacknowledged
Yates,Bonner)
unmentioned,
(Hillgarth,
Pring-Mill
as an authority
on Llullbyall.Thislatter
Lohrand
pointwillno doubthavepersuaded
thepublishers
tomakePring-Mill's
Catalanmonograph
known
toa widerreadership
but
inthecontext
a work
witha clearer
oftheClavis
series
onewouldhaveexpected
Pansophiae
in theRenaissance
on Lullism
andtheBaroqueperiod.As it nowstands,
Der
bearing
an accessible
Mikrokosmos
Ramon
Hullsprovides
and rudimentary,
butalsoknowledgable
introduction
to Llull'sthought.
Groningen

JanR. Veenstra

De Obligationibus.
Rekonstruktion
einer
Brill,
Hajo Keffer,
sptmittelalterlichen
Disputationstheorie.
a Ph.D.
Leiden-Boston-Kln
2001,pp. ix + 290.ISBN 90 04 122486 (Originally
- Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitt
ofPhilosophy
thesis,
Greifswald,
Faculty
1999.)
Treatises
on obligations
contain
oneofthemostimportant,
of
yetpuzzling,
developments
inthelatetwelfth
medieval
isfound
Keffer
logic.Obligational
terminology
century
(though
doesnotmention
wasalready
in Parisby1240-1250.
andthetheory
well-advanced
this),
In 1302Walter
wrotea treatise
whichsummarized
muchprevious
and
material,
Burley
laidthefoundations
forlaterdevelopments.1
Another
treatise
wasby Roger
important
1330and 1335),whopresented
whatcameto be calledthenova
Swyneshed
(between
to theantiqua
ofBurley
andhisfollowers.
The treatises
dis, as opposed
responsio
responsio
cussedtherulesforobligational
at leastat thepractical
which,
level,were
disputations,
forstudents.
one to
logicalexercises
Theygottheirtitlebecauseof therulesobliging
thethreelegitimate
ofresponding,
'concedo'
employ
ways
('I
grant
it'),
'nego'
('I
it'),
deny
' amin doubtabout in certain
and'dubito
('I
it'),
ways.2
The mostimportant
ofthedifferent
ofobligational
andtheoneon
types
disputation,
whichKeffer
waspositio.
In thistypeofdisputation,
thefirst
theoppofocusses,
player,
a proposition
which
thesecondplayer,
therespondent,
nent,
beganthegamebypositing
hadto admit,
thatitwaslogically
andthento grant
whenever
itwas
provided
possible,
Thispositum
in content.
wasnormally
anditwasusually
triviali
Nextthe
false,
proposed.
had to propose
a seriesofotherpropositions,
whichcouldbe either
trueor
opponent
false.In replying
tothese,
therespondent
hadtofollow
therulesofthegame.According
to theantiqua
followed
from
thesetformed
, ifa proposition
, the
responsio
bythepositum
andthenegations
ofpropositions
it hadto
denied,
propositions
already
granted,
already
If a proposition
be granted.
wasinconsistent
withthesetso determined,
it had to be
Ifa proposition
denied.
wassuchthatneither
itnoritsnegation
followed
from
thesetso
it wascalledimpertinens
or irrelevant,
andtherespondent
hadto reply
to it
determined,
tohiscurrent
In theusualrules,
stateofknowledge.
oncean irrelevant
according
proposition
hadbeenadmitted
intothesequence,
it (oritsnegation)
becamerelevant,
butin
thenovaresponsio
insisted
thatirrelevant
shouldmaintain
, RogerSwyneshed
propositions
their
status.
ForSwyneshed,
a matter
relevance
wasstrictly
ofa relation
between
thepositum
andthosepropositions
thatfollow
from
or areincompatible
withit alone.Thisproducedtwoseparate
setsofresponses,
oneinvolving
relevant
andoneinvolving
propositions,
Koninklijke
BrillNV,Leiden,
2003
- www.brill.nl
Alsoavailable
online

Vivarium
41,2

15:04:58 PM

318

REVIEWS

in creation,
modelforfinding
correlatives
oftheTrinity
and
maystillelicitinspiration
- an appealing
forthosewhoregard
theDoctor
Illuminatus
notonlyas a
surprise
position
ofthefaith.
heroofCatalanculture
butalsoas a defender
Itisa pitythecontents
ofthebookhavenotbeenupdated,
somemodifications
although
A subtitle
indasmittelweremadein relation
to theoriginal
[EineEinhrung
publication.
alterliche
wasaddedtoslightly
thescopeofthebook,as wellas somefootWeltbild)
expand
on Llull
notesanda bibliography
at theend.Unfortunately,
someimportant
publications
eventhough
remain
wasacknowledged
Yates,Bonner)
unmentioned,
(Hillgarth,
Pring-Mill
as an authority
on Llullbyall.Thislatter
Lohrand
pointwillno doubthavepersuaded
thepublishers
tomakePring-Mill's
Catalanmonograph
known
toa widerreadership
but
inthecontext
a work
witha clearer
oftheClavis
series
onewouldhaveexpected
Pansophiae
in theRenaissance
on Lullism
andtheBaroqueperiod.As it nowstands,
Der
bearing
an accessible
Mikrokosmos
Ramon
Hullsprovides
and rudimentary,
butalsoknowledgable
introduction
to Llull'sthought.
Groningen

JanR. Veenstra

De Obligationibus.
Rekonstruktion
einer
Brill,
Hajo Keffer,
sptmittelalterlichen
Disputationstheorie.
a Ph.D.
Leiden-Boston-Kln
2001,pp. ix + 290.ISBN 90 04 122486 (Originally
- Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitt
ofPhilosophy
thesis,
Greifswald,
Faculty
1999.)
Treatises
on obligations
contain
oneofthemostimportant,
of
yetpuzzling,
developments
inthelatetwelfth
medieval
isfound
Keffer
logic.Obligational
terminology
century
(though
doesnotmention
wasalready
in Parisby1240-1250.
andthetheory
well-advanced
this),
In 1302Walter
wrotea treatise
whichsummarized
muchprevious
and
material,
Burley
laidthefoundations
forlaterdevelopments.1
Another
treatise
wasby Roger
important
1330and 1335),whopresented
whatcameto be calledthenova
Swyneshed
(between
to theantiqua
ofBurley
andhisfollowers.
The treatises
dis, as opposed
responsio
responsio
cussedtherulesforobligational
at leastat thepractical
which,
level,were
disputations,
forstudents.
one to
logicalexercises
Theygottheirtitlebecauseof therulesobliging
thethreelegitimate
ofresponding,
'concedo'
employ
ways
('I
grant
it'),
'nego'
('I
it'),
deny
' amin doubtabout in certain
and'dubito
('I
it'),
ways.2
The mostimportant
ofthedifferent
ofobligational
andtheoneon
types
disputation,
whichKeffer
waspositio.
In thistypeofdisputation,
thefirst
theoppofocusses,
player,
a proposition
which
thesecondplayer,
therespondent,
nent,
beganthegamebypositing
hadto admit,
thatitwaslogically
andthento grant
whenever
itwas
provided
possible,
Thispositum
in content.
wasnormally
anditwasusually
triviali
Nextthe
false,
proposed.
had to propose
a seriesofotherpropositions,
whichcouldbe either
trueor
opponent
false.In replying
tothese,
therespondent
hadtofollow
therulesofthegame.According
to theantiqua
followed
from
thesetformed
, ifa proposition
, the
responsio
bythepositum
andthenegations
ofpropositions
it hadto
denied,
propositions
already
granted,
already
If a proposition
be granted.
wasinconsistent
withthesetso determined,
it had to be
Ifa proposition
denied.
wassuchthatneither
itnoritsnegation
followed
from
thesetso
it wascalledimpertinens
or irrelevant,
andtherespondent
hadto reply
to it
determined,
tohiscurrent
In theusualrules,
stateofknowledge.
oncean irrelevant
according
proposition
hadbeenadmitted
intothesequence,
it (oritsnegation)
becamerelevant,
butin
thenovaresponsio
insisted
thatirrelevant
shouldmaintain
, RogerSwyneshed
propositions
their
status.
ForSwyneshed,
a matter
relevance
wasstrictly
ofa relation
between
thepositum
andthosepropositions
thatfollow
from
or areincompatible
withit alone.Thisproducedtwoseparate
setsofresponses,
oneinvolving
relevant
andoneinvolving
propositions,
Koninklijke
BrillNV,Leiden,
2003
- www.brill.nl
Alsoavailable
online

Vivarium
41,2

15:05:05 PM

REVIEWS

319

irrelevant
Asa result,
onecoulddenya conjunction
bothofwhosepartshad
propositions.
andgrant
a disjunction
bothofwhosepartshadbeendenied.
beengranted,
in thegameofobligations
tothe
Thetaskoftheopponent
wastoleadtherespondent
an inconsistent
anddenying
thesame
set,either
pointofaccepting
byexplicitly
granting
a proposition
whichoughtto havebeendenied
or bygranting
(ordenying)
proposition,
on thelatter
likemanyofthetexts
focusses
themselves,
case,which
Keffer,
(orgranted).
inmetalinguistic
"P mustbe granted
and
involves
theaccusation,
couched
terms,
(denied)
intosuch
P." Thetaskoftherespondent,
ofcourse,
wastoavoidfalling
youdeny(grant)
a trapwhileremaining
obedient
to therules.
Thebiggest
onobligations
hastodo withtheir
bytreatises
purpose.
problem
presented
connected
withthetheories
ofconsequences
andofinsolubles.
Theywerecertainly
closely
withundergraduate
other
connected
Equally
certainly
theywereclosely
training.
Among
conithasbeensuggested
thattheyalsopresented
theories
ofcounter-factual
possibilities,
a theory
andthatthey
thatthey
ofbelief-revision,
ditionals,
thoughtpresented
represented
in whichretrospective
construction
of a possible-world
takesplace.While
experiments
with
insolubles
which
I shallsaymore
Keffer
theconnection
below),
(about
generally
ignores
whileconcluding
thatobligations
couldserve
he payssomeattention
to theother
views,
theoofproviding
exercises
andmeeting
a morepurely
thedualpurpose
undergraduate
ofsucha theoretical
interest.
retical
interest.
Thechief
topicofhisbookis thedelineation
"a sympathetic
intothemedieval
Keffer
teilnehmenden
{einen
entry"
Zugang
hopestoachieve
a particular
aboutthedualinterest
ofobligations
andby
texts
byformulating
hypothesis
toexamine
it.Theexamination
is intended
hermeneutics"
usingwhathe calls"structural
thatthe
the"historical
thatis,theinterest
to dojusticeto thetension
between
interest",
ofobligations
authors
andthe"structhemselves,
study
mayhavehadforthemedieval
havein thestudy
ofcertain
turalinterest"
thatmodern
andphilosophers
phelogicians
between
thoseofdialogue
anddebate,
whilebringing
outthecloserelationship
nomena,
hermeneutics
aretransposition
thetwointerests.
The threeelements
ofstructural
(berenterandreview
The first
reconstruction,
tragung),
(berprfung).
stepofthehermeneutic
claims
intoterms
suitable
authors
their
bytransposing
priseis tomakesenseofmedieval
are
statements
formodern
to usethistransposition
to showthattheiroriginal
interests,
of
to identify
thetheme
indeedendowed
withsensebythecurrent
andthereby
reading,
havethecharacter
of "a very
theirwork.Keffer
disputations
arguesthatobligational
andthattheyseemtoprovide
abstract
andartificial
discourse-situation"
(Gesprchssituation)
ofobjecta modelforobject-oriented
). The notion
(sachorientierte
Streitgesprche
disputations
Keffer
suchdisoriented
canthenbe takenas a general
theme.
distinguishes
disputations
in whichtheworst
from
rhetorical
mayin theendbe
arguments
putations
disputations
In an object-oriented
themostconvincing,
dispugiventhattheyarethemosteloquent.
to be
is required
theaimis to clarify
thefactsofthecase,andtherespondent
tation,
thanhis
oftheopponent
whenthesearebetter
readytobe convinced
bythearguments
which
theconservation
tworulesareparticularly
own.In suchdisputations,
rule,
important,
andtheplausibility
to maintain
theoriginal
therespondent
rule,which
position,
requires
claims.
therespondent
to acceptthemoreplausible
requires
main
andhereKeffer's
is reconstruction,
Thesecond
enterprise
stepofthehermeneutic
modelofobjectan elaborate
formal
is hisRekonstruktionslogik
achievement
, which
provides
as itusesclassiofhissystem,
insofar
oriented
He recognizes
thelimitations
disputations.
cal propositional
indexicals,
logic,
temporal
logicand quantificational
logicand ignores
outbythethird
as is brought
witha widerangeofsemantic
issues.
Nonetheless,
together
and
theresults
oftransposition
on therelation
between
orgeneral
reflection
step,review,
modbetween
theinformal
ofreconstruction,
thereis a closecorrespondence
theresults
model.
authors
andtheformal
elsofan object-oriented
bymedieval
disputation
presented
interest
between
thehistorical
Thisconfirms
Keffer's
aboutthecloserelations
hypothesis
interest.
andthestructural

15:05:05 PM

320

REVIEWS

thetworesponhimtoanalyse
thedifferences
between
reconstruction
alsoallows
Keffer's
theconservation
siones.
The antiqua
rule,whilethenovaresponsio
responsio
priviprivileges
chosen
thederivation
ofarbitrarily
false
rule,chiefly
bynotallowing
legestheplausibility
kindofimplausibility,
insofar
itallowsa certain
Atthesametime,
statements.
contingent
subsets
ofpropositions,
to include
inconsistent
as it allowsa correct
provided
disputation
Thisunfortunate
result
is the
mixrelevant
andirrelevant
thatsuchsubsets
propositions.
oftheconditions
underwhichobligations
ofthenovaresponsio"
s modification
consequence
thatanypropooftheantiqua
anditsrelated
areaccepted,
responses
requirement
rejection
relations
toprewithandlogical
toinaccordance
withitsconsistency
sition
be responded
is thatthenovaresponsio
A consequence
ofthesedifferences
viously
granted
propositions.
status
ofproposiis dynamic,
theobligational
whiletheantiqua
is static,
allowing
responsio
P which
a proposition
is known
Forinstance,
tionstochange
as thedisputation
proceeds.
T or Q', butmustbe
after
thepositum
to be falsemustbe deniedifit appears
directly
'P or Q,'andtheadditional
ifitappears
after
'notQ'
proposition
granted
is that,
their
feature
ofbothresponsiones
Themostimportant
differences,
theydo
despite
If P mustbe granted
iftherulesarecorrectly
notallowconflicting
applied.
obligations
in
thenit cannot
be denied(orgranted)
at a particular
(ordenied)
pointin a sequence,
of"obligational
thenextstep.Keffer
makesmuchuseofthisfeature
consistency
along
beiKorrektheit
he seesas basicforobject-oriwithcorrectness"
),which
(Verpflichtungskonsistenz
which
seemtoshowthatthe
thestudy
ofselected
enteddisputations.
sophismata
Through
showeither
anddenied,
andwhosesolutions
mustbe bothgranted
verysameproposition
or thattheruleshavenot
ofobligational
is mistaken,
thattheappearance
inconsistency
ofhishypothathe hasfound
further
confirmation
beencorrectly
he concludes
applied,
wereconcerned
withobject-oriented
thesis
thatthemedievais
disputations.
ofwhat
Keffer's
Someofthemostinteresting
investigation
partsofthebookinvolve
thatis,thosesophismata
whichinvolve
he calls"regelsprachliche
disputaSophismata",
suchas "tobe granted"
and"isthepositum
tionswhose
contain
", which
posita
expressions,
between
usesa
therulesthemselves.
Keffer
aretakenfrom
, which
Disputlogik
distinguishes
relation
toportray
theprocess
ofdispuandan implication
language
specially-formulated
andAnalyselogik
outthemetalinguistic
tationas foundin medieval
texts,
, whichcarries
He points
outthatmedieval
authors
usedthe
assessment
ofthestepswithin
a disputation.
areprobofAnalyselogik
within
andthattheregelsprachliche
Sophismata
Disputlogik,
concepts
becausestatements
from
lematic
", can be confused
, suchas "P is thepositum
Disputlogik
He thensetsup a formal
withstatements
from
LANwiththeaidof
Analyselogik.
language
oftheantiqua
canbe represented
as LOGA
andthatofthe
whichtheDisputlogik
responsio
from
eachotherwithrespect
to their
novaresponsio
as LOGy Theselogicsdiffer
implicain thatthelatter
to define
andclarify
the
andfrom
serves
tion-relation,
Rekonstruktionslogik
theformer
theserelarelations
within
whereas
disputations,
portray
logical
object-oriented
inferences
whichhold
tionsin obligation-specific
Nonetheless,
terminology.
theycapture
inavoiding
while
makwithin
succeed
, andthey
Rekonstruktionslogik
obligational
inconsistency
havearisen.
ingitplainwhythatappearance
might
a further
notonewhich
was
Keffer
alsodiscusses
feature
ofthenovaresponsio
, though
thepresence
ofobligation-sensitive
rules.Herehe
confined
to thenovaresponsio
, namely
mustbe granted"
hasinmindthemodification
oftherule"Every
positum
bytheaddition
withthepositio"
oftheextraclauses
thatitis notinconsistent
(non
repugnans
posi"provided
adhocpertinente).
and"provided
thatithasno obligation
relevant
toit"(sine
obligatione
tioni)
mustbe treated
as ifit is irrelevant
The proviso
thatin suchcasesthepositum
has,he
in whichtheepistemic
a trivializing
insofar
as itproduces
staclaims,
effect,
disputations
is theonlyfactor
whatresponse
is tobe
tusofthepropositions
determining
putforward
thatthepurpose
ofobligation-sensitive
rulesis thistrivializing
given.Keffer
speculates
andthatit wouldenableoneto discuss
thecorrectness
ofone'sresponses
within
effect,
thedisputation
without
thediscussion
to disputational
He
beingitself
subject
obligations.
alsoremarks
thatmostauthors
eschewed
the
rules,thereby
obligation-sensitive
avoiding
effect.3
trivializing

15:05:05 PM

REVIEWS

321

inrelation
totheactual
theinterest
ofthisdiscussion,
itis somewhat
Despite
misleading
between
thetwo
texts.
oneneedsto makea sharper
distinction
thandoesKeffer
First,
whichI havefound
clauses.
Thefirst
clauseis muchmorewidely
usedthanthesecond,
in onlya handful
conofEnglish
sources.
it wasusednotjustagainst
Moreover,
posita
in general,
rule-related
butagainst
"You
taining
posita
including
expressions
problematic
as irreledo notexist".4
Nordidit necessarily
thatproblematic
be treated
posita
require
The
it wasusedto prevent
theveryadmission
ofsuchposita.
vant,forin someauthors
whichis brought
outby one possible
secondclauseseemsto haveanother
function,
or
to sophismata
oftheform"P is thepositura
", whereP is either
impossible
approach
butfalse.Suchsophismata
inference:
"Every
contingent
typically
gaverisetothefollowing
P is thepositum
P mustbe granted."
mustbe granted;
Threeapproaches
; therefore
positum
inBuser,
are
werenowpossible.
On oneapproach,
found
theinference
andthepremisses
"P
andit is recognized
thatit is perfectly
to denyP whilegranting
granted,
legitimate
mustbe granted".
On a secondapproach,
foundin Brinkley,
theinference
is rejected
in Darii.
theform
ofa syllogism
becausethesecondpremiss
doesnotproperly
preserve
P is notin factthepositum
in question,
ofthedisputation
forthepositum
is theentire
"P is thepositum
iftheform
is preserved,
one
". Alternatively,
oftheinference
proposition
ofthedisputation
in question.
mustrejectthesecondpremiss
as notbeingthepositum
thisapproach
hasthedisadvantage
thattheinference
doeslookas ifit hasa
However,
correct
and theminorpremiss
doeslookas ifit is thepositum.
Hencethethird
form,
the
which
Keffer
doesnotconsider,
setsouttoblocktheinference
bydenying
approach,
in thefirst
ruleas stated
The ruleis saidto holdonlywiththeextraclause
premiss.5
" canbe
P is thena positum
"sineobligatione
ad hocpertinente".
, so that"P is thepositum
In thisexamoftherequired
so thatP canbe denied.
butP is nota positum
sort,
granted,
" which
tobe P rather
than"P isthepositum
istreated
as irrelevant.
Moreover,
ple,itseems
seemsto focuson theacceptability
ofa particular
inferencetheinterest
oftheauthors
rather
thangeneral
effects.
form,
trivializing
in genIn fact,a concern
withinference
seemsto lie at therootofthenovaresponsio
whose
characteristic
theses
thatonemaydenya conjunction
eral,including
Swyneshed's
have
havebeengranted,
andthatonemaygrant
a disjunction
whosedisjuncts
conjuncts
I haveargued
bibin an article
thatdoesnotappearin Keffer's
beendenied.
elsewhere,
theclaimthatSwyneshed
wasanimated
thatthereis evidence
to support
by
liography,
a single
thatpremiss
thebelief
thata validinference
maybe
requires
premiss,
though
If
P andQ" is therefore
notan acceptable
inference.6
andthat"P,Q therefore
complex,
didnot
itcastsdoubton Keffer's
claim(p. 177)thatthenova
responsio
myclaimis correct,
involve
a different
viewoflogicalconsequence,
butonlyofthesetsofpropositions
(relevantandirrelevant)
towhichitcouldbe applied.
or
ofthetexts,
Another
doesnotdojusticeto thecomplexities
placein whichKeffer
references
totherelaatleast,thosebelonging
totheEnglish
is inhisverybrief
tradition,
sources
which
andinsolubles.
On p. 109hementions
three
tions
between
reject
obligations
thathe knows
ofno
remark
whathe calls"antinomische
", andmakesthecurious
posita
to deal
medieval
nameforthem.He notesthatpropositional
enough
logicis notstrong
in hisconclusion
themamongtheissues
withthem,
andlater,
he includes
(pp.269-270),
unaware
oftheviewsomeandinvestigation.
Keffer
is apparently
further
work
demanding
in theframetimes
thatan insoluble
is a specialkindofsophisma
presented
putforward
withWilliam
workof an obligational
Thisviewis particularly
associated
disputation.7
theanonymous
author
ofObligationes
andtheOxford
tradition.8
Forinstance,
Heytesbury
on
andtworulesin hissection
cuminsolubilibus
secundum
usum
Oxonifi
fourtheses
presents
andthenwrites
etsuppositionibus
sufficiant,
insolubles,
(f.49 rb):"Ethecdictade regulis
in hac pertinente".
Thatat leastsome
habitis
et suppositionibus
obligationum
regulis
is notincompatible
rulesas weapons
insolubles
medieval
authors
usedobligational
against
that
butitdoessuggest
withKeffer's
thesis
thatobligations
arefact-oriented
disputations,
hasto be takenverywidely.
The sameremark
thenotion
ofa fact-oriented
disputation
of "obligational
couldbe madeaboutthemedieval
consistency
alongwith
requirement

15:05:05 PM

322

REVIEWS

forthewaysin whichsucha requirement

couldbe realized
often
takeus
correctness",
Keffer's
formal
as he himself
realizes.
framework,
beyond
I shallconclude
withsomegeneral
remarks
aboutthelimitations
ofthebook.Keffer
in perspective,
doesattempt
to puttheobligations
literature
withrespect
to bothother
medieval
and theinstitutional
buthisremarks
are unavoidably
setting,
logicalwritings
andlargely
basedon someoutdated
sources.
he haslimited
brief,
Moreover,
secondary
hisresearch
texts
himself
tocontemporary
intomedieval
text-ediobligations
byconfining
in facsimile
available
tions.10
He hasthusexcluded
authors
editions,
including
especially
in earlyprinted
he hasexcluded
authors
available
Albert
ofSaxony;
editions,
including
Marsilius
ofInghen
andRalphStrode;
andhehasexcluded
thewealth
ofmanespecially
material
available.11
Theselimitations
areveryunderstandable,
Keffer's
focus
uscript
given
on Rekonstruktionslogik,
butas I havesuggested
to
above,theycastdoubton theextent
canbe supported.
whichsomeofhishypotheses
in giving
a veryfairanddetailed
Keffer
succeeds
account
of
Despitetheselimitations,
themainfeatures
ofthetheory
ofpositio
formal
modelwillundoubt, andhiselaborate
notjustto historians
oflogic,butto thosewhoworkin conedlybe ofgreatinterest,
oflanguage.
temporary
logicandphilosophy
Waterloo

E. J. Ashworth

1 In hisbibliography,
Keffer
liststheedition
ofthisworkas published
mistakenly
by
theFranciscan
St.Bonaventure,
NewYork,1963.In fact,itis an unpublished
Institute,
Louvain
dissertation
from
thesameyear.
2 Oneofthemanytypographical
errors
thatdisfigure
Keffer's
bookis theconstant
use
of"dubio"for"dubito".
3 The
Keffer
refers
toinBuser(p. 261,n. 77)is,however,
misconstrued.
Buser
passage
theuseoftheobligation-sensitive
notbecauseoftheeffect
rules,
rejects
theyhaveon disbutbecausetheyblocktheadmission
ofproblematic
putations,
posita
altogether.
4 SeeRichard
f.19ra,in:Salamanca,
Biblioteca
dela Universidad,
Obligatiories,
Billingham,
MS 1735,ff.89r-95v),
f. 19 ra; Obligations,
ad Usum
sig.C v v in: Ubellus
Sophistarum
D i v.
Oxoniensium
C v r-sig.
, (Londoniis,
1510),
sig.
5 Obiectiones
secundum
usum
Oxonie
NewCollegeMS E
, f. 21 r in: Oxford,
obligationum
Obiectiones
casuum
ad Usum
289,ff.21r-23v;
, sig.F i r in:Ubellus
Sophistarum
Cantabrigiensium
F vi r.
([London]
sig.E vi v-sig.
6 See E.1497),
desObligationes
Autour
deRoger
la "nova
in:Les
J.Ashworth,
Svuyneshed:
responsio
tudes
no.3 (1996),341-360.
philosophiques,
7 Fordiscussion
oftheliterature
andoftheissue,seeA. de Libera,
Bulletin
histoire
de
la logique
mdivale
et thologiques,
71 (1987),
[2], in: Revuedes sciences
philosophiques
590-634,
especially
pp. 613-630.
8 See F.
TheRelations
between
Insolubles
andObligations
inMedieval
Pironet,
, in:
Disputations
Medieval
Formal
andConsequences
Dordrecht, Insolubles
, ed.Mikko
Logue.
Obligations
Yijnsuuri,
Boston-London
2001,95-114.
9 Rome,Biblioteca
Casanatense
MS 85,ff.43ra-49vb.
Thesamemanuscript
contains
another
Tres
sunt
modi
alsolinks
work,
anonymous
respondendi
(ff.22 va-23va)which
obligationsandinsolubles.
10Keffer
doesnotinclude
all ofthese.Forinstance,
he doesnotrefer
toWyclif
orto
Fortheformer,
in note11;forthelatter,
see thebibliography
see E. J.
JohnTarteys.
"
The"Obligationes
: Edition
andIntroduction
e Studi
Ashworth,
, in:Documenti
ofJohn
Tarteys
SullaTradizione
Filosofica
3 (1992),653-703.
Medievale,
11Forreferences
A Catalogue
see E. J. Ashworth,
Treatises:
"Obligationes"
ofManuscripts,
Editions
andStudies
de philosophie
36 (1994),118-47.
, in:Bulletin
mdivale,

15:05:05 PM

REVIEWS

323

Venator
First
Critical
Edition
the
Johannes
Anglicus,
Logica.
fiom
Manuscripts
byL.M.de Rijk,
Cannstatt
1999(Grammatica
2 vols.Frommann-Holzboog,
Stuttgart-Bad
Speculativa,
6.1-2)607pp.ISBN 3 772819206
A coupleofdecadesago theeditors
PaulofVenice's
discovered
thatlarge
Logica
Magna
andthe
wereloansfrom
theLogica
ofoneJohannes
Venator
orJohnHuntman,
portions
lateNorman
Kretzmann
andFrancesco
delPuntaeachtranscribed
onehalfofthework,
butthendecided
toleavethejob ofdoinga realedition
tothemanwhohasedited
more
medievali
elsesincetheinvention
ofprinting:
Lambertus
Mariede Rijk.
logicthananyone
inthe80sandmostofthe90s,butnow
De Rijkgavetheproject
lowpriority
Apparently
Huntman
's Logica
can be readin twoof thebeautifully
volumes
of Grammatica
printed
Speculativa.
in Oxford
is plausibly
identified
witha scholar
attested
from
the1370s
JohnHuntman
anda coupleofdecades
meansthatPaulofVenicecouldeasily
which
havemet
onwards,
himduring
hisstaytherein the1390s,whenJohn'sbook,whatever
theexactdateof
wouldstillbelongto recent
in thefield.
literature
theLogica
, an
composition,
Apartfrom
extant
Insolubilia
bearsattribution
toJohnHuntman.
The Logica
of
givestheimpression
butnotofa greatone.AsforJohn's
scholar,
beingtheworkofa competent
placeinthe
oflogic,
wemaylearnmorewhenthepresent
edition
becomes
theobjectofscholhistory
At themoment
it is clearthatJohnusedworksby Burley,
arlystudies.
Heytesbury,
and Hopton(se De Rijkat p. 9 oftheintroduction),
whilehe
Billingham,
Ferribridge
himself
wasusedbyPaulofVenice.
hasapproximately
thefollowing
structure:
John's
Logica
I.i
De terminis
mediatis
et immediatis
I.ii
De consequentia
I.iivii Discussion
ofsixdubia,
thefirst
twoofwhichareactually
whilethe
sophismata,
restarequaestiones.
II.i
De universali
affirmativa
et negativa
(aboutexposition)
II.ii-viiDiscussion
ofsixdubia
andtwosophismata
, fourquaestiones
III.i
Ill.ii
IILiii
Ill.iv
III.v
III.vi
IlI.vii

De dictionibus
exclusivis
De ventate
et falsitate
propositionis
De propositionibus
modalibus
De quibusdam
mirabilibus
propositionibus
De scireet disputare
De incipit
et desinit
De potentia
activaetpassiva(intension
andremission
&c.)

rV.i-viiDe hypotheticis.
rational
conditional,
Subtypes:
(p ergoq), causal,disjunctive,
local
copulative,
temporal,
'aliud
rV.viii De propositionibus
ratione
huius
verbi
'differt'
velhuiusdictionis
exponendis
quam'
rV.ix-xDe negatione
rV.xi De relativis
(anaphoric
pronouns)
I said"approximately
thefollowing
structure"
becauseitwilltakemoreworkandmore
ratioofthetraditions
oftheperiodthanI possess
toworkouttheunderlying
knowledge
nalefortheorderofsubjects
A first
dividiscussed.
helpis offered
byDe Rijk'schapter
in thenumbers
sion(reflected
I.i-IV.xi
tableofcontents
about)andsetoutin a detailed
onpp.29-46.Thetable,
doesnotalways
reveal
thecharacter
oftheeachchapter
however,
BrillNV,Leiden,2003
Koninklijke
Alsoavailable
online- www.brill.nl

Vivarium
41,2

15:05:13 PM

324

REVIEWS

Thusthequestion
"Utrum
or sophism,
forinstance).
aliquisterminus
significai
(question
thevagueheader
"De quinto
aliud"ishidden
under
dubio,
quod
aliquidquinonsignificai
abouttheorigin
oftheheaders
used
termini."
De Rijksaysnothing
estde significatione
withhelp
buttheyseemto havebeenmadeup byhimself
in thetextandin theindex,
in thetext.In thecasejustcitedthetextstarts
fromindications
(p. 150):"Quintum
termini:
Utrum
dubium
estistudde significatione
significai
aliquidqui
aliquisterminus
is still
ofthecontents
is a greathelp,there
nonsignificat
aliud."So,whilehistabulation
selection
oftopics
isclearly
ofa specifically
Huntman's
Atanyrate,
roomforcloser
analysis.
andso is thewayhe dealswiththem
andspecifically
character,
14th-century
English
a
of
and
often
much
of
never
bare
is always
somedisputation,
there
it,
just
presentation
notabilia
orwhatever.
rules,
from
about1400anda Vaticanmsthat
The edition
is basedon a Pistoiamanuscript
than
ofa higher
to be somehat
but,De Rijkclaims,
generally
quality
younger,
appears
to theintroduction
sinceP is incomplete.
P, whichis lucky
According
(p. 17),thecritiandit doesindeedlookas ifonlyquiteinsignificant
is virtually
cal apparatus
complete,
isremarktheapparatus
oftheergo/igitur
havebeenexcluded.
variants
this,
Considering
type
an editor
shouldhave
areremarkably
alike.Ideally,
i.e. thetwomanuscripts
ablybrief,
textwitness,
butconsidering
how
as an independent
usedPaulofVenice'squotations
thetextwouldlikely
from
andhowlittle
muchwork
thatwouldrequire,
it,I believe
profit
Paulas well.
thatDe Rijkdidtheright
thing
bynotcollating
oftaking
themostclassensible
basedontheprinciple
De Rijkusesa very
orthography
usedintheLateMiddleAges.Thisgivesthetexttheright
sicalofthevariants
commonly
But
whilenotmaking
itimmoderately
difficult
toreadfornon-philologists.
sortofflavour
the
whilehe hasgiventhetextthismedieval
look,De Rijkhasclassicized
orthographical
he sayson p. 17,"hassometimes
takenthelibtextin onecurious
way."Theeditor",
inP andV, where
thesubinstead
oftheindicative
found
a subjunctive
ertyofprinting
rather
than'when',
when
'cum'meaning
is urgently
'because',
needed,
junctive
e.g.after
can hardly
be
wouldgivea wrong
sense."Thoughthematter
themanuscript
reading
I cannot
withtheindicathisis a decision
withwhich
calledimportant,
agree.Causalcum
a characin scholastic
textsthatemending
it awaymeansremoving
tiveis so common
teristic
feature
oftheuseofmoodsin suchtexts.
withthe
areunlikely
to experience
Usersofthisedition
manycasesofdisagreement
emendations.
Thushissinguchoiceofreading
or withhisconjectural
seasoned
editor's
at a placewhereonemanulrem
at 83.9(I citebypageandline)is a finecorrection
andtheotherinferiorem.
The conjecture
makesthetextsaywhatthe
hassuperiorem
script
is easyto understand
from
a paleoandat thesametimethecorruption
senserequires,
a
ofthesubject,
De Rijkhasproduced
to hismastery
graphical
pointofview. Thanks
makessense,or at leastso muchsensethatdeficiencies
canreatextthatalmost
always
thanon themanuscripts
or theeditor.
be blamedon Huntman
rather
Further,
sonably
thearguDe Rijk'spunctuation
is ofa sensible
through
typethathelpsguidethereader
a tendency
hiseditorial
to
mentation.
regards
Myonlylittle
complaint
against
procedure
words.
theinserted
words
do notchange
thesense,
insert
Mostly
unnecessary
explanatory
buton a fewoccasions
theydo. Someexamples:
sinenegatione,
velaliquo<termino>
habente
ad suumsuperbis
52.13-14"Abinferiori
The addition
oftermino
is notwarranted;
vimnegationis
etiamvaletconsequential'
aliquo
ofa negation
cannot
be a
andas a matter
offactthething
thathastheforce
is neuter,
a dictio
The author
couldhavewritten
itmustbe a syncategoreme,
suchas tantum.
term,
I do
thetext.Incidentally,
"velaliquadictione
butthere
is no needto correct
habente",
ofno better
thantherather
drasbefore
butI canthink
notliketheetiam
valet,
remedy
it.
ticoneofexcising
estterminus
velpri54.4-5 "Terminus
officialis
positivm
importans
aliquodofficium
termini
<termini>
concernentes
actum
vativum
vel infinitivm.
Suntautemhuiusmodi

15:05:13 PM

REVIEWS

325

ofthe
is superfluous;
themeaning
is "Anofficial
term
is a term
mentis."
Thesupplement
andtermini
sort.
. . . Sucharethoseterms
that. . . .",huiusmodi
beingthepredicate
following
terwhereas
De Rijk'sideamusthavebeento takehuiusmodi
concernentes
&c. thesubject,
concernentes
etc.as thepredicate.
mini
as thesubject
andtermini
<vel> persuamuniversalem
disiunctive:
56.21-22"Indefinita
negnegativa
probatur
but
The extravelis innocuous,
sibicorrespondentia".
velperduodemonstrativa
atvam,
superfluous.
estaliquis
'tuAntichristum
nonvides;et tues; <et Antichristus
78.22 "nonsequitur
makesexplicit
the
nonvides'".The editor's
addition
hominem
homo>;ergotualiquem
is thenameofa man.An editor
shouldnotput
that'Antichrist'
implicit
presupposition
down
neverwrote
suchexplanatory
comments
ofhisownintothetext.ThatHuntman
inwhich
clearfrom
thefollowing
the"missing
is reasonably
(79.1-11),
paragraph
premiss"
there
arefiveexactly
cases,in all ofwhichDe Rijkhasaddedan extrapremiss.
parallel
albumeritnigrum;
of theargument
'tantum
367.12-14in an analysis
ergoomne
in antecedente
solum
eritalbum':"ly'nigrum'
a partepredicati
supponit
nigrum
positum
et in consequente
indifferenter
que
pronigris
que erunt,
supponit
copulative
pronigris
Atfirst
blushtheaddition
looks
suntet nonerunt
et pronigris
que <suntet> erunt."
to havedoubts
whenon thenextpage,at 368 3ff.onereadsabout
butonestarts
fine,
huiusverbi'erivel'fuit',
communis
that"terminus
respectu
supponens
peoplewhothink
indifferenter
sivea partepredicati,
siveponatur
a partesubiecti
supponit
prosuissignificatis
ifI wereto
In fact,
etprosuissignificatis
que <suntet> erunt."
que suntet nonerunt,
a
of
I
excise
vel
would
correct
because,
here,
fiiitis not
Jui
obviously,
subject
anything
and future
to standforpresent-but-not-future
objectsalike.Butquitelikely,
ampliated
forthe
velJui,sinceusually
aboutampliation
Huntman
didwrite
theoffensive
talking
forthepast.
aboutampliation
future
walkshandin handwithtalking
huius
makes
no
Theinserted
<huius>antecedentis".
368.7-8 "Ettuncad probationem
to sayprobatio
andactually
it is morecommon
contribution
to thesenseofthepassage,
thanwith,
evenwhena
without
thedemonstrative
antecedentis
article)
(or:definite
pronoun
is beingreferred
to.
definite
antecedent
oftheauthor,
is laudably
brief.
It dealswiththeidentity
to theedition
Theintroduction
featheedition,
themanuscripts,
thework's
and,an unusual
tradition,
placeinthelogical
and
concedere
bothkeyterms
a useful
little
ture,it includes
{antecedens,
explaining
glossary
A little
couldhave
moreattention
likeergo
andipse.
usesofwords
thelike)andunclassical
contains
suchphrases
as (p. 15)"muchmoreomissions"
which
beenpaidtotheEnglish,
and(I presume)
fewcorcorrections"
for"manymoreomissions"
and"very
little
"very
A hugedifference
hasbecomea 'hugh'oneonp. 16,andon p. 19 an 'either'
rections".
infelicities
do not,however,
'or'.Suchminor
oftherequired
is picked
up by'but'instead
oftheintended
to a correct
raiseanyreadobstacles
message.
understanding
Threecorrections:
cod.Thott
581:
Univ.Library
In theindexofmanuscripts
on p. 21,for"Copenhagen,
notfamilThott
581:n. 34".Readers
Bibliotk
Det Kongelige
n. 31" read"Copenhagen,
in Copenhagen
shouldknow(1) thatall mssformerly
iarwiththesituation
keptin the
wasnever
collection
arenowin theRoyallibrary,
(2) thattheThott
University
library
in theUniversity
Library.
read<cum>constantia.
79.13 For<cum>aconstantia
read
552.1 Forpositones
positiones.
StenEbbesen

Copenhagen

15:05:13 PM

326

REVIEWS

Die Universitt
Wien
imMittelalter.
undForschungen.
PaulUiblein,
Schiftenreihe
des
Beitrge
Universittsarchivs
Universitt
vonKurtMhlberger
Wien,11. Band.Herausgegeben
undKarlKadletz.
1999.675 Pp. ISBN 3 85114492 9.
WUV-Universittsverlag
oftwenty
anda coupleofbookreviews
Thisvolume
is a reprint
articles
between
published
1951and 1998.The latemedieval
ofViennaplayssomerolein all ofthem,
university
butthere
is nogenuine
unified
theme.
Thearticles
lotsofprosopographical
details
provide
at or somehow
connected
withtheuniversity,
aboutpersons
details
aboutcharworking
andfinances,
andso on. Obviously,
no onedealing
withanything
related
ters,buildings
totheearly
ofViennainthe14thor 15thcentury
canafford
toneglect
Uiblein,
university
all thewell-researched
no generad
from
details
thathe
but,I am afraid,
picture
emerges
Ifthere
hasextracted
from
as wellas published
sources.
aresomemaintheunpublished
materialia.
The devilis in thedetails,
ses,theyarewellhiddenamongtheaccumulated
andtheyshouldbe takenseriously,
butsometimes
theauthor's
attention
to themseems
In a scathing
to makehimlosesight
ofwhatis important.
review
ofan edition
Uiblein
thehaplesseditor
withnotunderstanding
thattheabbreviation
dnsshouldbe
charges
as dominus
rather
thandomnus,
resolved
andbeingguilty
ofnumerous
othermisreadings
nochberrchtliche
("eineimmer
(sic!)AnzahlvonLesefehlern",
p. 559).We arenottold
iftheyareas insignificant
whattheyconsist
as domnus
in,andonecannot
helpwondering
fordominus.
Whilebowing
toUiblein's
ofthedetails,
thereviewer
mustsaythatrarely
has
mastery
he seensucha forbidding
collection
ofarticles.
Andthough
theGerman
is,ofcourse,
itis lessthaninviting.
It'sbeena longtimesinceI haveseenso manyhalf-page
flawless,
halfa pagelong,occasionally
evenlonger!
periods.
Literally
Use ofthisbookforpurposes
ofreference
mustbe recommended
there
is
(fortunately
a thorough
indexofnamesofpersons
andplaces),
butit cannotbe recommended
for
ordinary
reading.
StenEbbesen

Copenhagen

Koninklijke
BrillNV,Leiden,
2003
- www.brill.nl
Alsoavailable
online

Vivarium
41,2

15:05:23 PM

BooksRecved
EditedbyA.M.
Abbo
andRamsey
: Commentary
ontheCalculus
ofVictorius
ofAquitane.
ofFleury
Oxford
Peden.Published
forTheBritish
2003
Press,
university
Academy
byOxford
Britannici
MediiAevi,15)liii& 159pp. ISBN0 19 7262600
(Auctores
& C.H.
ed. H.A.G.Braakhuis
Aristotle's
Perhermeneias.
ontheCommentary
Tradition,
Essays
2003(Artistarium.
Publishers,
Supplementa,
Ingenium
Groningen-Haren
Kneepkens.
Iwakuma,
Y.,
X), xli & 509 pp. ISBN 90 7041942 4. contents:Introduction;
St. Ebbesen,Questions
andSophismata:
William
andtheIntroductiones;
ofChampeaux
andLiteracy
in theDe interpretatione
Peter
; A. Perreiah,
Tracking
ofAuvergne
Orality
andJohnDunsScotus's
Tradition
TheModistae
; R. Andrews,
Quaestiones
super
onMental
intheEarly
Fourteenth
C. Panaccio,
Debates
;
Perihermeneias;
Language
Century:
deGautier
duPerhermeneias
desnoncs
danslescommentaires
;
Burley
JolBiard,Le statut
s Perihermeneias
ontheNature
in Ockham'
M. Kaufmann,
TheDiscussion
oftheConcept
desPeter
vonPolen
DerKommentar
zu De interpre; M.H. Markowski,
Wysz
Commentary
Discussion
onSyncategoremata
desAristoteles
Mesino
deCodronchi's
tatione
; G. Roncaglia,
I. Rosier,
Variations
mdiandMental
inhisQuaestiones
onDe interpretatione;
Language
etsignification
naturelle
vales
surl'opposition
entre
"ad placitum"
; L.M. de Rijk,
signification
Brito
DunsScotus
andRadulphus
TheLogic
inBoethius,
Names
Abelard,
; J. Dijs,
ofIndefinite
9 ofHisIn Perihermeneias;
Chr.Strub,
Brito'
s Useo/Tntentio
inQuaestio
Radulphus
andGrammar.
inAbelard:
A NoteontheRelationship
;
ofDialectic
Propositio
una/multiplex
andJohn
DunsScotus,
Peter
Abelard
TheSemantics
inJohn
ofComplex
J. Sprayt,
Expressions
toThomas
Boethius
Buridan
Theories
; AllanBck,Aquinas
; F. Beets,
Aquinas:
ofPrediction
from
in1277',
inLogic
Condemned
at Oxford
The10thThesis
onPredication
Tabarroni,
; Andrea
Commentaries
onDe interandtheTwelfth-Century
C.H. Kneepkens,
Aristotle's
Transposition
Truth
andFalsity
asModal
AnExploratory
Notions:
20bl-12:
; S. Knuuttila,
Study
pretatione,
Buridan'
s
onDe interpretatione,
Some
Medieval
Comments
12,22al3; E. Karger,
John
menmanuscripts
Between
General
ModalFormulae
Relations
; indices;
oftheLogical
Theory
tioned;BIBLIOGRAPHY
du texte
la Rhtorique
d'Aristote.
Edition
Averros
critique
(IbnRud),Commentaire
moyen
et tablespar MarounAouad.Vol. I:
commentaire
arabeet traduction
franaise,
du
ettraduction
Introduction
ettables
, Vol. III: Commentaire
, Vol. II: Edition
gnrale
ettraditions,
Commentaire.
Vrin,Paris2002(Textes
5) x & 501,v & 705,vi& 450
pp.ISBN2 71161610X (3 volumes)
A Critical
Edition
withIntroduction
Ubercelietmundi.
Pseudo-Avicenna,
byOliverGutman.
Leiden-Boston
2003(Aristoteles
Semitico-Latinus,
Brill,
14)xlii& 281pp. ISBN90
04 132287
deJandun.
dusujet.
La notique
selon
T.-B.Brenet,
Vrin,Paris2003(SicetNon)
Transferts
Jean
505pp.ISBN2 711616533
von
Animae
beiThomas
Das System
derPassiones
derSinnlichkeit.
Alexander
Brungs,
Metaphysik
Studien
undVortrge,
Halle/Saale
Hallescher
2002(Akademische
6)
Aquin.
Verlag,
211ISBN 3 929 887
Clarendon
Ierodiakonou.
Sources
anditsAncient
Press,
, edited
byKaterina
Philosophy
Byzantine
Oxford2002vii & 309 pp. ISBN 0 19 9246130. contents;K. Ierodiakonou,
BasilofCaesarea
Interaction
Greek-Latin
Introduction
; P. Kalligas,
; S. Ebbesen,
Philosophical
On Political
ontheSemantics
Names
O'Meara,TheJustinianic
; Dominic
Dialogue
ofProper
the
onHuman
itsNeoplatonk
Sources
Sciences*/
Action,
; MichaelFrede,
John
ofDamascus
Hellenic
inthe
anon
andHuman
Freedom
Will,
;J.Barnes,
Philosophy
Heiberg,
J.Dufly,
Syllogistic
'
Psellos
Psellos
inByzantium
andthe
Mission
; K. Ierodiakonou,
Paraphrasis
ofMichael
Lonely
Counter'ToEvery
There
is
a
De interpretatione;
B. Bydn,
onAristotle's
Argument':
Argument
in
Movement
TheAnti-Logical
Theodore
Metochites'
; K. Ierodiakonou,
Defence
ofScepticism
Oracles:
ontheChaldaean
Commentators
theFourteenth
P. Athanassiadi,
Byzantine
Century,
Vivarium
41,2

BrillNV,Leiden,2003
Koninklijke
- www.brill.nl
Alsoavailable
online

15:04:03 PM

328

BOOKSRECEIVED

Psellos
andPlethon
Plethon
andScholarios
onAristotle
; G. Karamanolis,
; L. Benakis,
Epilogue:
Current
Research
inByzantine
indexlocorum,
indexof names
Philosophy,
Cahiers
del'Institut
duMoyen-ge
etlatin
contents:
, 72 (2001),272pp.ISSN 0591-0358.
grec
MoreEvidence
B. Schartau,
testimonia"
musical
, II; P. Harsting,
ofByzantine
practice
of
A
s Transcription
Menander
Rhetor
ontheWedding
: Angelo
Poliziano3
; St. Ebbesen,
Speech
Porretan
onAristotle's
R.L. Frieman,
Trinitarian
and
Commentary
Categories;
Theology
Issues
Parisian
Astronomer
; F.S. Pedersen,
Philosophical
Anonymous
of1290:art1
Cahiers
deI Institut
duMoyen-ge
etlatin
contents:
, 73 (2002),263pp.ISSN 0591-0358.
grec
IoannisPapathanasiou,
inthe8th-10th
Centuries.
OnOralandWritten
Notation
Byzantine
Transmission
TheLongitudes
Russell
Chant,
ofEarly
Byzantine
JohnNorth,
ofWinchester,
Trinitarian
andPhilosophical
Issues
L.Friedman,
II; AnneGrondeux,
Theology
Sophismata
FritzS. Pedersen,
Parisian
Astronomer
Avenoniensis;
Anonymi
Anonymous
of1290:Part2;
" & Communia
"Visitatio
StenEbbesen,
Communia
Addenda
etcorrigenda
to
"Feminae";
ciMAGL
67, 71,72
IrneCaiazzo,Lectures
mdivales
deMacrobe.
LesGlosae
Colonienses
Vrin,
superMacrobium.
Paris2002(tudes
de philosophie
mdivale,
83) 352pp.ISBN2 711615405
Le contemplateur
etlesides.
Modles
dela science
divine
duNoplatonisme
au XVIIIesicle.
tudes
runies
par O. Boulnois,
J. Schmutz,
J.-L.Solre.Vrin,Paris2002(Bibliothque
d'histoire
de la philosophie.
Nouvelle
Srie)338pp.ISBN2 711615669. contents:
C. D'AnconaCosta,Proclus,
s, leLiberde Causisetla science
Introduction-,
divine',
Deny
O. Boulnois,
Ce dont
Dieun'apas ide.Problmes
de l'idalisme
mdival
-XIVe
(XIIIe
G. NevesPinto,La science
dufutur
chezThomas
sicles);
contingent
d'Aquin
parGerson;
A. Santogrossi,
La science
divine
dudivin
etdunon-divin
DunsScot,
T. Hoffmann,
Les
chez
ides
comme
essences
crables
C. Michon,
Omniscience
humaine
chez
, libert
Franois
Meyronnes;
etimmutabilit
divine.
partir
duTractatus
deGuillaume
deOckham;
L. Renault,
Remarques
L'assimilation
duconnu
auconnaissant
dansla tradition
aristotlicienne
etsa critique
parGuillaume
UnDieuindiffrent.
La crise
dela science
divine
durant
la scolastique
d'Ockham;
J. Schmutz,
Science
divine
etphilosophie
selon
Malebranche.
Contribution
l'hismoderne;
Bardout,
J.-Chr.
toire
dessources
dumalebranchisme;
V. Carraud,
Connatre
comme
Dieuconnat:
Omniscience
et
deraison
Lesatavars
del'attribut
summe
auxvii*
principe
suffisante.
mtaphysiques
intelligens
etlesapories
dela science
indexes
sicle;
divine,
J.L.Solre,
Bayle
Documenti
e studisullatradizione
XIII (2002)614 pp. contents:
filosofica
medievale,
A. Bertolacci,
TheStructure
Science
intheIlhiyyt
ofMetaphysical
(DivineScience)of
Avicenna's
Kitbal-ifa'
LeNotule
LibriPosteriorum
di
(BookoftheCure);D. Cannone,
Robert
ilcommento
adAnalitici
Posteriori
I, 4, 73a34-b24
Kilwardby:
(perse);G. Galluzzo,
Aristotele
e Tommaso
sulproblema
dell'unit
delladefinizione;
Ph.L.Reynolds,
Per
d'Aquino
seAccidents
andtheTheology
Eucharist
inThomas
A. Corbini,
, Accidental
Being
ofthe
Aquinas;
dellaconoscenza
neicommenti
doTommaso
e diEgidio
Romano
L'oggetto
d'Aquino
agliAnalitici
La divisiotextus
nelcommento
di Egidio
Romano
Secondi;M. Bertagna,
agliAnalitici
Posteriori.
Parte
Romanus
andAlbertus
vs.Thomas
I; J. Longway,
Aegidius
Magnus
Aquinas
ontheHighest
SortofDemonstration
F. Amerini,
Il problema
(demonstratio
potissima);
dell'dentit
traunacosae la suaessenza.
medievale
di Metafisica
Notesull'segesi
eta6;
P. Porro,
LeQuaestiones
attribuite
a Enrico
diGand:
elementi
superMetaphysicam
perun
indicedei manoscritti;
indicedei nomi
dottrinale;
sondaggio
Discussio
litis
meditate
EinStreitgedicht
des
LazarietMarie
Drogode Altovari,
super
Magdalene.
13.Jahrhunderts.
PeterLang,Berne.a. 2002
Hrgg.vonMichaelPeterBachmann.
des Mittelalters,
(Lateinische
SpracheundLiteratur
34) 331 pp. ISBN 3 906769
518
Guillaume
Somme
delogique
Traduction
et notesdeJolBiard,
d'Ockham,
, III. 1ervolume.
Grellard
et KimSangOng-Van-Cung.
Introduction
deJolBiard.diChristophe
tionsT.R.,Mauvezin
2003xviii& 242pp. (236pp. textelatin+ 242pp. traductionfranaise
et tabledesmatires)
ISBN 2 90567046 0

15:04:03 PM

BOOKSRECEIVED

329

intheThirteenth
andKabbalah
Brill,
Century.
Christianity
J.Hames,TheArtofConversion.
Harvey
Leiden/Boston/Kln
2000(TheMedieval
Mediterranean,
26) xiii& 332pp.ISBN
90 04 117156
von
Texte
desSeienden.
Die Univozitt
DunsScotus,
zurMetaphysik.
Herausgegeben
Johannes
& Ruprecht
T. Hoffmann.
Vandenhoeck
2002(Sammlung
1)xlvi& 234
Philosophie
pp.ISBN 3 525 306008
Amsterdam/
andthe
TheMinor
L.G.Kelly,
Modistae,
Philosophy
Benjamins,
ofGrammar.
Theobgy,
of Linguistic
Studiesin theTheorieand History
2002 (Amsterdam
Philadelphia
vol.101)X &
in theHistory
oftheLanguage
SeriesIII: Studies
Sciences,
Science,
588111768 (US)
236pp.ISBN90 27245908 (Eur.)/1
contents:
Pedro
Mediavalia.
Textos
e Estudos
, 15-16(1999),xlii& 193pp.ISSN 0872-0991.
Tesoro
delosproves.
Verso
emJudeu-Castelhano
(sc.XV).Introduo,
Aljamiado
Hispano,
de Carvalho
Mendes
edioe ndices
porMariaAdliaSoares
do
de letras
da Universidade
Mediavalia.
Textos
e Estudos
, 19 (2001),161pp.- Faculdade
DunsEscoto,
o pensvel
e a metafisica
P. Parcerias,
ISSN 0872-0991.
contents:
Porto,
de MariaCndidaPacheco
virtual.
Prefcio
vonG. FrankundU. Kpf.UnterMitarbeit
Melanchthon
unddieNeuzeit.
Herausgegeben
Cannstatt
2003(MelanchthonvonS. Lalla,Frommann-Holzboog,
Stuttgart-Bad
derStadtBretten,
Bd 7) 370pp.ISBN 3 772822150
Schriften
du savoirchezles scolastiques,
et le maniement
de travail
de Gersonide
Les mthodes
dephilosoet. Weijers.
S. Klein-Braslavy
ditparC. Sirat,
Vrin,Paris2003(tudes
LXXXVI)394pp. ISBN 2 711616010
phiemdivale,
de R. Imbachet
au Moyen
Thories
del'intentionnalit
Dominik
Perler,
Age.Avant-propos
ix & 163pp. ISBN 2
PierreAblard)
C. Michon.
Vrin,Paris2003(Confrences
711616525
Tre Studisu Platone,
Il problema
dell'intuizione.
Kant,Husserl.
Bibliopolis,
Napoli2002
A. Brancacci,
ISBN 88 7088413 9. contents:
di filosofia,
1) 193pp.
(Quaderni
" & Introduzione
Il problema
difilosofia
G. Gigliotti,
dell'intuizione
; F. Aronadio,
"Quaderni
kantiana
allacocezione
Trasensazione
edesperienza.
inPlatone
Un'introduzione
; A. Aportone,
su alcuni
e intuizione
. Consiedrazione
La grammatical
dell'intuizione
; P. Spinicci,
empirica
interna
deltempo
sullacoscienza
temi
delle
Lezzioni
diHusserl
Yu and
Medievais.
EditedbyJiyuan
totheEarly
From
theAncients
andHappiness:
Rationality
N.Y.2003(Rochester
ofRochester
Press,
Rochester,
J..Gracia.TheUniversity
Jorge
introduction:
xi & 252pp. ISBN 1 58046130 1. contents:
in Philosophy)
Studies
totheMedievais
From
theAncients
andHappiness:
; PartI.
Gracia,Rationality
J.Yu/J.J.E.
Socrates
inPlato's
andEgoism
D. Morrison,
TheAncients:
; C.C.W.
Rationality,
Happiness,
?
Socrates'
Count
andHappiness
PlatoonRationality
; J. Yu, WillAristotle
Happy
Taylor,
andHappiness
onPleasure
Ethics
andthe
Socrates
Mcomachean
; B. Inwoord,
;J.Annas,
Epicurus
inthe
andHappiness
inSeneca
andHappiness
; R. Bett,Rationality
Rationalization,
Reason,
andtheDisunity
Reason's
Ascent:
Traditions'.
Greek
; M.L. McPherran,
of
Happiness
Skeptical
TwoConcepts
G. Matthews,
Virtue
inPlatoandPlotinus
; PartII. The EarlyMedievais:
Boethius's
andHappiness:
inAugustine
; J. Marenbon,
Interpreting
Rationality
ofHappiness
on
Anselm
Ratioquaerens
beatitudinem:
Consolation
Sanford,
; J.J.E.Gracia/J.
ofPhilosophy
Ethics
andSininAbelard's
andHappiness
; works
Reason,
; W.E.Mann,Happiness,
Rationality
cited;subjectindex;nameindex
Revue
d'histoire
destextes
, XXXI (2001)368 pp. ISBN 2 271 060982 3. contents:O.
deThmistios
dition
desdiscours
unenouvelle
; M. DecorpsBallrieux,
critique
Prolgomnes
IdePerg
desConiques
dutexte
La tradition
manuscrite
(livres
d'Apollonios
grec
Foulquier,
onAristotle's
Milanmanuscripts
ofthecommentary
Reflections
regarding
IV)] S. Alexandru,
im
Alexandrinus
desClemens
S. Ihm,Die%itate
ascribed
toGeorgios
Pachymeres'
Metaphysics
- Florilegium.
delle
La preistoria
E. Malaspina,
Maximus
zurTextkonstitution;
Beispiele
Bibl.nat.,Lat.15085e Leipzig,
diParis,
delDe dementia
tradizione
recenziore
(Aproposito

15:04:03 PM

330

BOOKSRECEIVED

La traduction
indirecte
dela Chronique
d'Isidore
Stadtbibl.,
Rep.I, 4, 47);J.C.Martn,
deSville
desprogrammes
dereconstruction
; F. Woerther/H.
Khonsari,
L'application
phyXI
surl'ordinateur
l'tude
dela traduction
manuscrite
d'untexte:
duchapitre
lognique
l'exemple
C. Mac/Th.Schmidt,
de/'Ars
Rhetorica
duPseudo-Denys
d'Halicarnasse;
J.-F.Weiler,
desmanuscrits
Leclassement
etlaphybgntique:
lecasdeGrgoire
deNazianze
parla statistique
etdeBasile
leMinime.
Howe/M.
Stemmatic
; L.R.Mooney/A.C.
Barbrook/Chr.J.
Spencer,
a test
case
ofLydgate's
fortheapplication
ofsoftware
Analysis
KingsofEngland:
developed
for
Diehandschriftliche
tomanuscript
stemmatics
der
; R. Kakobi,
evolutionary
biology
berlieferung
Akten
des5. Oekumenischen
Konzils
zuKonstantinopel
; Chr.Gadrat/A.
Grondeux,
Fragments
demanuscrits
d'Andr
G. Lano,Catalogue
desmanuscrits
latins
conservs
la biblioVerriet,
del'Institut
deParis,
D. Nebbai,
Archives
etbibliothques
thque
catholique
(Cycle
thmatique
del'Institut
derecherche
etd'histoire
destextes)
Revue
d'histoire
destextes
T. Dorandi,
, XXXII(2002)317pp.ISBN2 271057493. contents:
III B 29 (B) etsurla composition
surleNeapolitanus
desViesdesphilosophes
Remarques
deDiogene
nouveaux
desmanuscrits
des
Larce;
J.H.Sautel,lments
pourleclassement
grecs
romaines
deDeny
s d'Halicarnasse
VI X); G. Bady,N. Tchernetska,
(livres
Antiquits
Unnouveau
tmoin
direct
desScholies
auxProverbes
lePontique
d'vrage
(Cambridge,
Trinity
Coll.0.1.55)',
B. MnkOlsen,Chronique
desmanuscrits
latins
(IX-XIIesicles),
classiques
Lesinterpolations
mdivales
dansla tradition
manuscrite
V;M.-Th.Cam,C. Jacquemard,
deM. Cetius
Faventinus
Bracciolini
e le Filippiche
di Cicerone',
le
; G. Magnaldi,
Poggio
Liberd'Angele
de Foligno:D. Poirel,
LeLiberd'Angele
deFoligno:
surunexemenqute
D. Nebbiai-Dalia
etetlesspirituels.
Apropos
deslimes
d'Arnaud
Guarda,
Angle
plardisparu,
deVilleneuve
Leslivrets
associs
au Libersororis
Lelle;notes:J.
(1311);P. Stirnemann,
terenciano
enla Biblioteca
dela Catedral
de
Velaza,Terentius
Pompelonensis
(c): unbifolio
C. Schubert,
latinm
43.Eberhard
von
Graecismus
Bthune,
Pamplona;
Jenense
Fragmentm
andWilliam,
orTowhom
wasRichard
XI, 117-175undXII, 79-137;R. Spahl,Richard
Rolle's
Emendatio
vitaepredicated
Robert
Grosseteste
andtheBeginnings
Tradition.
at the
ofa British
Theological
Papersdelivered
Grosseteste
Oxford
on 3rdJuly2002.EditedbyMaura
heldat Greyfriars,
Colloquium
O'Carroll.Istituto
storico
dei Cappuccini,
Roma2003 (Bibliotheca
Seraphico
69) 373pp.ISBN88 8800115 8
Capuccina,
HenriD. Saffrey,
desanciens
au Moyen
Vrin,Paris2002
L'hritage
geet la Renaissance.
desdoctrines
de Lntiquit
(Histoire
28) 318pp.ISBN 2 711615960
classique,
Between
GodandMan.Essays
in Greek
andChristian
Academia
Bogoljub
ijakovi,
Thought.
SanktAugustin
2002127pp.ISBN 3 896652184
Verlag,
Silva.
Estudios
deHumanismo
1 (2002).239pp.ISSN 1579-7392.
contents:
Clsica,
y Tradicin
G. Morocho
renacentista
deloshombres
Gayo,El Humanismo
y la unidad
y delospueblos;
Tres
delRenacimiento:
Lutero
e Ignacio;
M. Andrs
Erasmo,
Martn,
J.L.Abelln:
figuras
Humanismo
P. Escandn,
El Humanismo
cristiano
defray
deDada;
y Reforma
espaola;
Jacobo
deLatn
enla Sevilla
delsiglo
humisticos
enEspaa:
XVI;L. Gil,Losestudios
J.Gil,Profesores
A. GmezMorenoy T. Jimnez
Entre
Calvente,
pasado,
futuras;
presente,
perspectivas
edenismo
clsica:
etmito
dela EdaddeOroenla Espaa
delosReyes
Catlicos;
y aemulatio
destinatario
dela gramtica
italiana
en
Maestre,
J.M.Maestre
FrayLuisdeLon,
princpal
latn
deBenito
Arias
F. Rico,Petrarca
Montano;
Christianas;
y lasletras
M.J.SabariaViejo,
El cardenal
detextos
cortesianos
enel sigloXVIII;C. Varela,El taller
Lorenzana
, editor
colombino
historiogrfico
TizianaSuarez-Nani,
Lesanges
etlaphilosophie.
etfunction
dessubstances
Subjectivit
cosmologique
lafinduXIIIesicle.
de philosophie
Vrin,Paris2002(tudes
mdivale,
spares
82)
204pp. ISBN2 711615146
TizianaSuarez-Nani,
Connaissance
etlangage
desanges
selonThomas
et Gillesde
d'Aquin
Rome.
de philosophie
Vrin,Paris2002(tudes
mdivale,
85) 271pp.ISBN2 7116
15723

15:04:03 PM

BOOKSRECEIVED

331

andConcepts.
PaulThorn,
Medieval
ModalSystems.
Problems
Ashgate,
Aldershot/Burlington
in Medieval
Studies
xiv& 216pp.ISBN0 754608336
2003(Ashgate
Philosophy)
Pico
StevenVandenBroecke,
TheLimits
, andtheCrisis
, Louvain
ofRenaissance
ofInfluence.
Brill2003(Medieval
andEarlyModern
Science,
4) xvi,316pp.& 12illustr.
Astrology.
ISBN90 04 131698
C. Codoer,
Sermo
Voces
148pp.contents:
; M.-Th.
, 12-13(2001-2002)
y susadjetivaciones
deM. Cetius
etspcialis
dansl'abrgd'architecture
Cam,Le lexique
prive
technique
enladocumentacin
latina
asturleonesa
Lasformaciones
adverbiales
conmente
Faventinus
, M. Prez,
auMoyenetpratique
delaprosodie
(s. VIII1230);EisaMarguin-Hamon,
Champ
thoque
au service
de
desnouveaux
modles
/'art
de liredeJeandeGarlande,
prosodiques,
Ageclassique:
Sobre
heredar
der
enla documentacin
la lectura
duvers
, her
o,herencia
; J.A.Pascual,
mtrique
II
delatn:
A propsito
deunnuevo
diccionario
latina
medieval
; J.G.Martn/D.
Paniagua,
dellalinguaLatinadeConte,
Dizionario
Pianezzola
(Firenze,
2000)
y Ranucci

15:04:03 PM

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:05:42 PM

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:05:42 PM

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:05:42 PM

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:05:42 PM

VIVARIUM
AN INTERNATIONALJOURNALFOR THE PHILOSOPHY
AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND
RENAISSANCE
inparticular
vivarium
is devoted
totheprofane
sideofmediaeval
philosophy
andtheintellectual
lifeoftheMiddle
AgesandRenaissance
- H.A.G.Braakhuis,
- C.H. Kneepkens,
editors
L.M. de Rijk,(Leiden)
(Nijmegen)
- W.J.Courtenay,
- E.P. Bos,(Leiden).
D. Perler,
(Madison)
(Groningen)
- M.G.M.vanderPoel,(Nijmegen).
(Basel)
oftheEditorial
Board:
Prof.
C.H.Kneepkens.
Secretary
Allcommunications,
ofa business
those
should
be addressed
nature,
except
toC.H.Kneepkens,
Faculteit
derLetteren,
Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen,
Vakgroep
P.O.Box716,9700AS Groningen,
TheNetherlands.
Mediaevistiek,
- Albert
- J.E.Murdoch,
advisory
TullioGregory,
Zimmermann,
(Rome)
(Cologne)
committee (Cambridge,
MA).
publishers Brill,
TheNetherlands.
Leiden,
published Twiceyearly,
ca. 320pagesyearly.

Copyright
Brill
2003byKoninklijke
, TheNetherlands
NV,Lden
Allrights
reserved.
bereproduced
in
Nopartofthis
stored
' translated,
publication
may
a retrieval
inany
orbyanymeans
, ortransmitted
, electronic
,
system
form
mechanical
orotherwise
written
, photocopying,
, without
recording
prior
permission
ofthe
publisher.
tophotocopy
items
orpersonal
Authorization
forinternal
useisgranted
that
byBrill
provided
theappropriate
toCopyright
feesarepaiddirectly
Clearance
Center
Drive
910
, 222Rosewood
, Suite
MA01923,USA.Feesaresubject
tochange.
Danvers,
PRINTED
INTHENETHERLANDS

15:05:42 PM

CONTENTS

OF VOLUME

XLI (2003)

Joke Spruyt

The Forma-Materia
Device in Thirteenthand
Semantics
1
CenturyLogic
Stephan Grotz
Zwei Sprachenund das Eine Wort:Zur
Identittvon MeisterEckhartsWerk
47
Olli Hallamaa
DefendingCommon Rationality:Roger
Roseth on TrinitarianParalogisms ....
84
Lodi Nauta
Lorenzo Valla's Critiqueof Aristotelian
120
Psychology
ThomasSren Hoffmann Dimensionen des Erkenntnisproblems
bei GirolamoFracastoro.Ein Beitragzur
des aristotelischen
GnoFortentwicklung
in
Renaissance 144
seologie der italienischen
Irene Rosier-Catach
surle verbe
Ablardet les grammairiens:
substantif
et la prdication
175
Angel d'Ors
PetrusHispanusO.P., AuctorSummularum (III). "Petrus Alfonsi"or "Petrus
Ferrandi"?
249
Reviews

Dag Nikolaus Hasse, Avicenna's De

Animain theLatinWest:The Formation
of Soul 1160of a Peripatetic
Philosophy
1300 {rev.byAllanBck)
304
Matthewof Orlans (MattheusAurelianensis),Sophistariasive Summa comcirca sophismata
muniumdistinctionum
accidentium.Edited with an introduction,notesand indicesbyJ. Spruyt(rev.
307
)
byStenEbbesen
RobertD.F. Pring-Mill,Der Mikrokosin
mos Ramon Llulls: Eine Einfhrung
aus
dem
das mittelalterliche
Weltbild,
Katalanischen bersetztvon U. Roth
316
(rev.byJan R. Veenstra)
De
ReKeffer,
Obligationibus.
Hajo
konstruktion
einer sptmittelalterlichen
) 318
(rev.byE.J. Ashworth
Disputationstheorie
JohannesVenatorAnglicus,Logica. First
Critical Edition fromthe Manuscripts
by L.M. de Rijk (rev.byStenEbbesen) 323

15:05:42 PM

iv

CONTENTS

(Reviews cont.)

Paul Uiblein,Die Universitt

Wien im Mittelalter.Beitrgeund Forschungen(rev.by
StenEbbeser)
326

Books Received

327

15:05:42 PM

induplicate
be accompanied
andpreferably
should
be submitted
Contributions
bya disk.
an ASCIIWordareaccepted
andMicrosoft
BothWordPerfect
wordprocessing
programs;
diskis alsoacceptable.
formatted
in either
French
or German
andthetextmust
shouldbe written
English,
Manuscripts
The manuscripts
mustbe numbered
andin goodliterary
correct
be grammatically
style.
all notes(ina separate
biblioandcomplete,
file),
including
double-spaced,
consecutively,
etc.
references,
tables,
graphical
forreading,
whichshould
be returned
to theeditor
within
Authors
receive
galley
proofs
arereadbytheeditor.
oneweekofreceipt.
Pageproofs
tocharge
authors
forchanges
madetoproofs
other
than
reserves
theright
Thepublisher
ofcompositor's
orconversion
errors.
correction
Citation
in:ArtsandHumanities
Vivarium
isindexed/abstracted
Index;ATLARDB;Current
FRANCISdatabase;
Internationale
IndexPhilosophicus;
Dietrich's
Contents;
Bibliographie
Literatur/International
ofBookReviews
Wissenschaftlicher
of
derRezensionen
Bibliography
derZeitschriftenliteratur
ausAllenGebieten
Internationale
Literature;
Bibliographie
Scholarly
from
all FieldsofKnowledge;
ofPeriodicals
Iter
desWissens/International
Bibliography
totheMiddle
Linguistic
Bibliography/Bibliographie
LinguisGateway
AgesandRenaissance;
on theModern
ofBooksandArticles
Bibliography
Languages
tique;M L A International
Periodicals
and Index;Old Testament
and Literatures;
MiddleEast:Abstracts
Abstracts;
IndexOne:Periodicals
Contents
Index;Religion
Index;The Philosopher's
(RIO);Religion
Works.
IndexTwo:Multi-Author

Brill
TheNetherlands
Copyright
2003byKoninklijke
NV,Leiden,
bereproduced,
stored
in
Allrights
reserved.
Nopart
translated,
ofthis
publication
may
ortransmitted
inany
orbyanymeans,
a retrieval
electronic,
system,
form
orotherwise,
without
written
mechanical,
recording
prior
photocopying,
permission
ofthe
publisher.
orpersonal
useisgranted
tophotocopy
items
Authorization
forinternal
theappropriate
to
that
feesarepaiddirectly
provided
byBrill
Suite
Clearance
222Rosewood
Drive,
910,
Center,
Copyright
tochange.
MA01923,USA.Feesaresubject
Danvers,
PRINTED
INTHENETHERLANDS

15:05:42 PM

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

15:05:42 PM