De puritate artis logicae tractaus longior. With a revised edition of the Tractatus brevior. Edited by Philotheus Boehner (Franciscan Institute Publications. Text series. no. 9.)

franci scan 1nstitu te ~ublications TEXT SERI ES NO.9

Edittd by Eligius M. Buytaert, O. F. M.

Walter Burleigh

DE PURIT ATE ARTIS LOGIC AE TRACT ATUS LONG IOR With a Revised Edition of the Tractatus Brevior Edited by

Philotheus Boehner, O. F. M., Ph. D .

•

'

.

~ PMhli.sJHd by

THE FRANOSCAN INSTITUTE ST. BONAVENTURE, N. Y. E. NAUWELAER TS LOUVAIN, BELGIUM

!ll1ld F. SCHONINGH PADERBORN , GERMANY

Cum penni.ssu superiorum

P.blished with t« aid of t« Vtry Rrrxrmd Minislus ll1lli Provittcul of t« Fri4rs Milwr of t« U~à Stam

C~s

PREFACE The present volume contains two distinct tracts, both of which are called by the manuscripts De Puritate Artis Logicae. The first is distinguished as Tractatus Longior from the second as Tractatus Brevior. The second or the Tractatus Brevior had been published by the editor some three years ago. Since this edition is exhausted and, in the mean time, a second manuscript of the Tractatus Brevior was discovered by A. Maier, we have incorporated the former edition, with its introduction into the present volume with appropriate changes. In the revised edition of the Tractatus Brevior parts which are litterally found in the Tractatus Longior have been omitted; where, however, the two tracts showed greater differences or the context demanded it, the entire text of the Tractatus Brevior was reprinted and the parallel texts indicated by italizising them. The bold numbers at the margin refer to passages in the Tractatus Longior. This will enable the reader to form a better judgement about the relation of the two works. May this edition of a masterpiece of genuine scholastic Logic contribute to a better understanding of our scholastic tradition, especially in logic. The Franciscan Institute

May 3, 1955

INTRODUCTION Magister Walter Burleigh, bom in 1275 probably in England, is a personality of whom little is known. It seems certain that he was not a Franciscan. There can be no doubt that he was an excessive realist of the type Ockham never tired to refute and ridicule. When the V enerabilis I nceptor presents his arguments against the moderni it is quite often Burleigh, the Doctor planus et perspicuus, who is under his fire; Burleigh, in turn, though in a much milder form, reverses the charge by calling Ockham and his followers moderni. It is surprising that historians of scholasticism have shown little interest in Burleigh and his work, since it seems that his kind of realism has definitely provoked the vigorous reaction of medieval conceptualism. However, we firmly believe that Burleigh's logic deserves more attention than is usually accorded it by those historians who share his opposition to Ockham's philosophy. Even if the psychological reason for Ockham's reaction could not be found in the teaching of Burleigh, at least it would have shown how much realistic logicians had in common with the so called nominalistic scholastics. Such a realization would at least help to arrive at a clearer and truer picture of the actual situation at the time of the origin of medieval conceptualism. For this and similar reasons we have extended our studies on Ockham to include a study of Burleigh, especially of his systematic work on Logic, the De Puritate Artis Logicae. This tract is quite frequently encountered in medieval manuscripts, and like most of his other writings it has not been edited, as far as we can ascertain. Since both extemal and internai evidence are in complete accord, its authenticity cannot be doubted. However, in the course of our study we discovered that the tract commonly called De Puritate Artis Logicae (henceforth indicated by TrL) presents a problem of its own, since two different tracts preserved in the manuscripts bear one and the same title. The second of these two VI

I ntl'oduction

VII

tracts (indicated by TrB), is much shorter than TrL and was hitherto unknown. The main part of our present edition is TrL; in the Appendix is found TrB, formerly edited at the basis of one manuscript. How are they related ? From the table of contents we realize that TrL presents only a fraction of medieval logic. Though it contains two major parts, i t has no special introduction to these parts in the beginning; it opens abruptly with the tract on suppositio without even mentioning that the whole work contains another and much longer tract on hypothetical syllogisms. This fact is important and will be called into use later. It is also important to note that the second part deals with a topic rather neglected, though not completely overlooked, by most medieval logicians. Although Boethius' tract on hypothetical syllogisms was well knO\\-ìl to the scholastics, yet the famous scholastic logical Summae such as those of Peter of Spain, Ockham and Albert of Saxony hardly pay attention to such syllogisms. \Vhy then should these two tracts, the one on suppositio and its related subjects, the other on hypothetical syllogisms, bear the title On the purity of the art of logic? Where is the unifying bond? Before we answer·this question, at least tentatively, we would like to present a document which will shed some light on our problem. This will also allow us to determine in a certain way the time and the occasion of composition of TrL. We definitely knmv the terminus ante quem, viz., I329. For this we have the testimony of the scribe of ~'11s. Amploniana (Erfurt) O. 67. It follows o n the same page (fol. I25 v) the transcription of the Summae Logicae of Ockham which was completed by the scribe in I339· The same scribe on the same page introduces then the abbreviation of TrL made by frater J ohannes );icholai, O. F. :\L He writes: Hanc extractionem de logica Burle ordinavit frater Johannes );'icholai, lector de custodia Lincopensi provinciae Daciae, quando studuit Parisius anno Domini :\I°CCC0 XXIX 0 (Schum in his description adds here 1339 with a question mark, however, the date is very clear and no erasion or correction is visible), de cuius logicae commendatione praemisit prologum in hunc modum. Post praecedentem summam editam a fratre (Willielmo Ockham) compilavit Burle alium tractatum de logica in quo pauca continenter utilia realiter nihil ve! sumpta de priori summa ve! de Boethio in libro de categoricis et hypotheticis syllogismis. Quae tamen in ipso iudicavi esse utilia posita

VIII

I nt1'oduction

ultra ea, quae posita {exp. ?) in summa praecedenti vel quae sunt contra ea summa, et opposita iuxta se posita magis elucescant quae dicuntur in melius, breviter in sequentibus colliguntur. Explicit prologus extractoris. Incipit prologus auctoris. Suppositis significatis terminorum ...

illa

Since i t is a good rule of sound historical research not to question the faithfulness of an historical document unless there is a grave reason for doubt, we are bound to accept this testirnony as it is. \Ve do not know why Schum changed the number and added the question mark indicated in his description. Hence we accept Johannes Nicholai's statement that Burleigh wrote TrL after the Summa Logicae of Ockham. There is no reason to doubt that the "praecedens" Summa is the Summa Logicae. This is also proved by the fact that the marginai notes of the abbreviation of TrL sometimes refer to Ockham's Summa Logicae. It is furthermore stated by the scribe, who is identified by Schum as Arno Petri, (our photostat copy shows his name has been erased) that in 1329 ] ohannes Nicholai composed this abbreviation of TrL. Hence, we must admit that TrL was composed by Burleigh before 1329, the date of the abbreviation. The terminus post quem, then, must be contemporary with the completion of the Summa Logicae of Ockham. Unfortunately, the date of the Summa Logicae has not yet been firmly established. I t is certain that it was composed before 1329. But what is the terminus post quem for Ockham's Summa Logicae? For reasons which we need not repeat here, practically ali medievalists are now agreed upon a date dose to 1324. We are now inclined to believe that the Summa Logicae was written, or at least completed, after 1324 - for Franciscus Mayron who became Master of Theology in 1324 is quoted as M agister abstractionum. This, so i t would seem, leaves only the years between 1324-1329, or more probably between 1325-1328 for the tirne of the composition of TrL. Thus far we see that Burleigh wrote a tract on logic after Ockham published his Summa Logicae, and called it 'The purity of the art of Logic'. Though i t is not stated that he wrote against Ockham, the peculiar title suggests at least that he wrote against Ockham and the 'irnpurity' brought by Ockham into logic. Stili, however, the two major parts contained in TrL are not a complete logic but only a small fraction of medievallogic. Before we try to give an explanation of this fact, let us first turn to the other work which bears the title De Puritate Artis Logicae, TrB.

Introduction

IX

The second work (TrB) is found, as far as we know at present, in two manuscripts. The first (L), is preserved in the Hoose Library of the University of Southem California, Los Angeles, and is described as no. 6 in Ricci-Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance M anuscripts in the United States and Canada, vol. I (1935) p. r8. The manuscript is of the 14th century, written in England in a rather difficult hand. It contains Ockham's Expositio super Porphyrium, super Praedicamenta, and super Perihermenias (not mentioned in Ricci). On f. 77r follows the tract of Burleigh under consideration, viz., TrB with Incipit; Ut iuvenes in quolibet problemate ... , and the Explicit (f. 88 fa): ... possunt categorematice vel syncategorematice accipi. Et huic operi terminus imponatur. Explicit Burleus minor. In the prologue, the work is called De puritate artis logicae. The other manuscript (V) was discovered by Anneliese Maier* in Codex Vaticanus Latinus 3066. It was completed in 1347-1349 and contains in addition to the TrB (f. 26-33) the TrL (f. 34-50), as well as works by other authors. In order to compare TrB with TrL, we shall now present the division of TrB, the division which the author intended: for he completed only a part. Those parts not completed will be indicated by an asterisk. I. Pars: De regulis generalibus. I. Particula: De regulis generalibus consequentiarum. 2. Particula: De natura syncategorematum. *3. Particula: De suppositionibus. *II. Pars: De arte sophistica. *III. Pars: De arte exercitativa (De obligationibus). *IV. Pars: De arte demonstrativa. The contents of this outline cover more completely the field of medieval logic. l.;nfortunately only the first two particulae of the first part are actually found in TrB. However, if we now tum again to the division of TrL we discover that it abruptly and without introduction starts with De suppositionibus, which is exactly where TrB stops and was supposed to continue. This immediately suggests that TrL is the continuation of TrB or at least a part of it. Unfortunately, this "easy explanation" meets • Cfr. A. Maier, Einige Probleme der Ockhamforschung in AFH XLVII (1953) 30, footnote 30.

x

Introduction

with grave difficult y when we consider the second tract of TrL. For this deals with hypothe tical syllogisms whilst the second part of TrB was supposed to deal with the Ars sophistica. Of course, it is not impossible to understa nd Ars sophistica in a sense that could apply to hypothe tical syllogisms. Althoug h its most obvious meaning would be 'On the logic of faliacies', yet, it was quite common in the Middle Ages to cali a logician a sophista. Stili, we are not dose enough to the special meaning of 'hypothetical syllogisms'. On the other hand, 'sophism a' does not necessarily mean a faliacy, but also, and certainly in the tracts De sophismatibus, proposit ions or expressi ons difficult from a logica! viewpoin t. It is true that we meet with many sophismata through out this tract. But does that warrant the equation of the tract: De propositionibus et syllogismis hypotheticis with the tract De arte sophistica ? We must confess that we have non satisfact ory explanat ion of this discrepa ncy between TrL and TrB and we must try to find a different solution. For the time being, we should like to cali attentio n to two further indicatio ns of a certain unity between TrL and TrB. First, TrB promises to deal with the Art of disputation or, what is the same, with the Obligationes after the tract De arte sophistica. In ms. Amploni ana Q 259 TrL is followed by a tract De Obligationibus by Burleigh , but after the Explicit of TrL. Secondly, both tracts are called Logica Burleigh. For TrL we have a proof of this in ms. Amploni ana O 67 (written in 1339) and in Vat. Lat. 3066; for TrB we have the explicit in V at. Lat. 3066 and also at least a late testimon y which at the same time proves that TrB was more widely known than the two mss. so far discovered lead us to believe. Mengus Blanche llus Faventin us, a logician of the late rsth century, writes in his Adnotationes ad Summul as Pauli Veniti (Venice rsro, fol. 5 va): Adverte secundo quod de termino syncatego rematico sunt duae opiniones . "Cna est Bur(laei) in logica sua in tractatu De Dictionib us syncatego rematicis, qui vult, quod ad tenninum syncatego rematicum requiritur haec sola conditio, scilicet quod habeat aliquid tale officium distribuen di, pa.rticular izandi, detennina ndi etc., etiam ly nullus, differt, totus infinitus et consimile s dicuntur syncatego rematici. Et dicit ipse: Dicitur syncatego rema quasi consignifi cativum, id est cum aliis significati vum, non quia de se nihil significet, sed quia non habet de se significati onem finitam ve! determina tam, sed finitam

Introd uction

XI

trahit ex adiunctis. L"bi ponit divisionem omnium synca(tegorematum) et numerat omnia, quae habent aliquid tale officium.

These two reasons do not prove the unity of the two tracts De Puritate Artis logicae, we readily admit. In fact, there is even a quite serious objection against our supposed unity, serious at least at first sight. For a detailed comparison of the two works has shown that they have large passages in common. To a certain extent this is true for the first part of TrB which treats of consequences and conditional propositions in generai; however, the often literally-same texts show signs of a different arrangement, and many alterations have been made. In the second part, the chapters on Solum and T antum are literally the same in both tracts, but TrL has of course a longer text since it treats of the various exclusive syllogisms. Likewise the chapters on Praeter, Nisi, Incipit and Desinit are the same in both tracts with the same exceptions. For the part on Non and its two subdivisions and also for the part on the modalities we do not find a parallel in TrL. The chapters on Et and Vel have some parallel passages, but on the whole they must be considered as different. Thè chapter on An, however, has a parallel in TrL. \Ve can therefore say that a substantial part of TrB appears or reappears ( ?) in TrL. If TrL and TrB are two parts of the same work, why then are there quite unnecessary repetitions? The author might ha ve been repetitious - a rather common fault in medieval writings - but it is hard to believe that he should be so to such an extent. On the other hand, it remains a fact, that more than half of TrB had no parallel in TrL. Hence we cannot admit that TrB is an abbreviation of TrL. ~or can we believe that TrB is the work of a compiler different from Burleigh, since TrB is attributed to Burleigh, it is quoted as Burleigh's own by another logician, and because it is written in personal style. The expression, for instance, on p. 245, lin. I2: "I stud tamen non placet mihi. I mmo dico, quod si utraque ... ," is no t found in T r L; instead w e read there: "5 ed istud non est verum, immo si utraque pars ... " Such a personal expression could hardly be expected of a mere compiler. In order to offer some explanation we present the follo-vving two hypotheses. We consider TrB and the TrL both as authentic works of Burleigh. Furthermore we admit that both tracts as they are transmitted to us in the manuscripts are in an unfinished state.

XII

I ntroduction

We know for sure tbat TrL was composed or edited sbortly before 1329. We believe it most probable tbat tbose parts of TrL which bave parallels in TrB are a later redaction and tbat in generai TrB is tbe earlier redaction of tbe work. We believe now that Burleigb conceived of a work entitled De Puritate Artis Logicae independent of Ockbam. The first larger fragment of tbis, tbat is tbe introduction and tbe first two tracts as preserved in TrB were immediately elaborated. Burleigb bad eitber worked on otber parts of tbe intended work as described in tbe introduction to TrB or be started working on tbem witbout yet adding them to TrB. For tbis statement we bave tbe following reason. In tbe manuscript of tbe Britisb Museum we bave tbe following works of Burleigb:

Expositio super Praedicamenta (incomplete at the beginning, it starts (fol. 3 ra): Substantia autem est quae proprie etc .... Haec est secunda pars buius libri et continet 5 capitula ... Explicit (fol. 13 va): ... species et genera subalterna in libro de 6 principiis apparebit etc. Amen. Explicit tractatus datus a magistra Waltero de Burley super librum Praedicamento rum. Expositio Perihermenias. Incipit (fol. I4 Ra): Primum oportet astruere . . . Cum cognitio syllogismi sit finis logices, et cognitio partis praecedit cognitionem totius et syllogismus babet partes ... Explicit (fol. 23 ra): ... quae enuntiant minus contraria quam illa quae enuntiant contraria de eodem. Explicit tractatus libri Perihermenias datus a Magistro Waltero de Burley. Expositio Sex principiorum. Incipit (fol. 23 rb): Forma est compositioni contingens. Quamvis Aristoteles in libro Praedicamentorum ... I t ends abruptly on fol. 33 rb a t t be explanation of the text: Contentio autem oritur . .. (tbe page is mucb blurred). Tbe following page is blank. After tbese tbree works belonging t o tbe E xpositio in artem V eterem immediately ( ~ after fol. 33) follows folio 123. Tbe rest contains works whicb are of special interest to us. We will give the Incipits and Explicits of tbese:

[De exclusivis} Incipit (fol. 123 ra): Circa dictiones exclusivas est sciendum quod dictio exclusiva addita subiecto ... Explicit (fol. 126 rb): ... sed sequitur Sortes differt a solo Platone, igitur Sortes differt ab eo quod non est aliud quam Plato. ex quo

I ntroduction

XIII

non sequitur quod Sortes non differt a Cathone. Expliciun t exclusivae Magistri W. de Burleye. [De Exceptivis } Incipit (fol. 126 va): Hoc signum praeter aliquando tenetur exceptive aliquando diminutiv e. Quando tenetur exceptive ... Explicit (fol. 129 vb): ... principali ter determina t verbum tenet consequen tia. Sed ly praeter Sortem non determina t actum absolute sed subiectum in comparati one ad actum, ideo non oportet consequentia m valere. Excipiunt exceptiva e Magistri W. de Burl'. [De suppositionibus]. Incipit (fol. 130 ra): Eorum quae dicuntur quaedam dicuntur cum complexio ne et quaedam dicuntur sine complexio ne. Ea quae dicuntur sine complexio ne ... Explicit (fol. 133 va): ... quia in praemissi s stat iste terminus duo homines particular iter respectu partium multitudin is et in conclusione stat idem terminus universali ter respectu totius multitudinis et ideo valet quia arguitur a pluribus determina tis ad unum determina tum. Expliciun t Suppositi ones datae a M. W. de Bourl'. [De insolubil}. Incipit (fol. 133 vb): Circa insolubilia quaeruntu r duo, primo circa insolubile simplex, secundo circa insolubile compositum. Circa primum quaeritur an aliqua propositio contingen s simplex sit sic quod nullo modo potest salvi ... Explicit (fol. 138 ra): ... Ideo ad veritatem huius disiunctiv ae non requiritur veritas alterius partis, quia sufficit veritas huius partis. [Tractatu s de Obligationibus}. Incipit (fol. 138 rb): In disputatio ne dialectica sunt duae partes scilicet opponens et responden s. Opus opponent is est ... Explicit (fol. 148 rb): ... Aliter dicunt alii quod non est inconveniens concedere apposita dummodo non fit una obligatio tantum sed plures et diversae. Explicit optimus tractatus de obligation ibus datus a magistro Waltero de Burleye. Anno Domini Millesimo tercentesi mo secundo. Of these tracts none is identica! with any of the parts of either TrB or TrL but the Tract on Suppositi on has large parts in common with TrL. It seems that all of them belong to an earlier date. This is true certainly for the Tractatus de Obligationibus for which the date of compositi on is given (1302). It is very probable far the Tractatus de Suppositio nibus, since it has no defense against

XIV

I ntroduction

Ockha m's criticis m of Burlei gh's definit ion of the Suppositio simplex. I t seems that all these tracts are preserv ed in several manus cripts and hence can hardly be consid ered to be fragme nts of one work. The Tractatus de Obligationibus of the ms. of the British Museum is not identic al with that of Erfurt (Q. 259) to which we referre d earlier. From this follows that Burleig h appare ntly had a wealth of materi al on hand when he started his De Puritate Artis Logica e which he intend ed as a real sum of Logic. However, when Ockha m publish ed his Summa Logicae Burleig h must have felt the need to meet his criticis m and to comple te Ockha m's Logic. It is possibl e, if not probab le that Burleig h now change d his pian and publish ed only the tract on Suppo sition and that on Hypot hetica l syllogisms into which he incorp orated much of his tract on the Syncategoremata. We repeat that we have offered only a hypoth esis and are well aware that this is no solutio n of the intrica te proble m. Only a system atic study of ali the works of Burlei gh and the entire text traditi on may be able to bring light into this proble m. A discussion of the conten t is beyond the scope of this introduction , its main purpos e being to provid e a text of genuin e scholastic logic of which so little is known. Burlei gh's Logic is certain ly of the highes t standa rd inspite of Prantl 's and Michalski's remark s to the contra ry. We have called attenti on to some of its outsta nding achiev ements * and after the first public ation of TrE other histori ans of schola stic logic have made use of it** and have recogn ized the high standa rd of formal ity achiev ed in the logic of this extrem e Realist .

• Mediev al Logic. An Outline of Its Develop ment from 1250 to c. qoo, The Univers ity of Chicago Press, Chicago III. 1952. Bemerk ungen zur Geschic hte der De Morgan schen Gesetze in der Scholastik, in Archiv fUr Pllilosophie 4/2 (1951) pp. 121-12 6. •• Cfr. For instance A. N. Prior, On some Conseq uentiae in Walter Burleig h, in Tlle New Sclwlasticism, XXVII , (1953) 433-46 6. Ernest A. Moody, Truth and Consequence in Mediae val Logic. Studies in Logic and tlle Foundaticms of Matllematics, North-H olland Publish ing Company, Amster dam 1953·

THE TEXT The edition of TrL was made on the basis of the following manuscripts (the sigla are put in front): A Erfurt, Amploniana, Q. 259 fol. 159 r-208 rb. Burleigh's tract follows immediately the Summa Logicae of Ockham which according to the explicit was finished in 1340. Since the same hand continues we can reasonably presume that Burleigh's tract was transcribed in or shortly after 1340. B Brugghe 501, fol. 1-69 v. The ms. was written in the middle of the 14th century. E Erfurt, Amploniana, Q. 291, fol. 51 rb-64 vb; written in the first half of the 14th century. M Munchen, Clm 1o6o; fol. 97 v-130 vb; written in 1347. This ms. also contains the Elementarium or the Tractatus medius Logicae of Ockham. V V aticanus Latinus 2146; fol. 204 v-234 vb; written 1397 in Oxford; it also contains various minor works of Burleigh. Y V aticanus Latinus 3o66; fol. 34 r-50 a; written in 1349· Abbr. Erfurt, Amploniana O. 67; fol. 125 v-134 v. After the Explicit we read the following note apparently coming from the scribe: Quicumque in hoc brevi de logica Burle excepto ( !) studuerit si t cautus et circumspectus diligenter quae legerit discutiendo antequam firmiter adhaereat quibuscumque positis in eodem memorque sit illius monitionis ? qua dicit: Omnem hominem ne certitudinis ( ?) etc., quia non obstante quod plura dicat utilia tamen veris multa interserit ficticia quae habet consequenter dicere tenendo unitatem specificam aliquid esse a parte rei praeter singularia et extra intellectum, cuiusmodi tamen rem nec oculus vidit nec auris audivit nec in cor hominis ascendit nec de ea ( ?) potest ratio in rerum natura esse. The text of the manuscripts did not present any major problem.

We believe that our text is practically safe, since it is based on five mss. written before or around 1350, therefore, within 30 years after the edition of this tract by Burleigh himself. W e gave xv

XVI

The text

AB preference in generai, but never followed either of them slavishly. Most of the relatively few variants were of mind nor imP