Review Egbert P. Bos. Marsilius of Inghen
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Review Egbert P. Bos. Marsilius of Inghen: Treatiseson the Propertiesof Terms. A First Critical Edition of the 'Suppositiones','Ampliationes', 'Appellationes', 'Restrictiones' and'Aliena- tiones' with Introduction, Translation, Notes, and Appendices.Synthese Historical Library, 22. Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983. ix + 274 pp. By producing this edition and translation of a group of Marsilius of Inghen's logical treatises, E. P. Bos has rendered a signal service to the history of logic in the later middle ages. The period from 1350 to 1500, during which Marsilius's works were produced and read, has been much neglected. Few original texts are available, other than in facsimile editions of early printed material, and the recent CambridgeHistory of Later MedievalPhilosophy, despite its heavy concentration on logic, tells us virtually nothing of the years after 1350. In order to overcome this neglect, it is essential to have good access to the textbook literature; for it is only by analyzing this that one can come to understand the types of logical theory which were presented, how theories developed and changed, and what part their study played in the university curriculum. The group of texts which Bos has chosen to edit is largely concerned with problems of reference. The issues discussed range from the reference of concrete nouns in standard categorical propositions to the variations introduced by the presence of relational terms, temporal modifiers, and intentional verbs. Marsilius's discussion is clear, organized, and occasionally innovative. For instance, he disagreed with Buridan over the closely linked questions of whether reference could be extended to cover imaginary objects, in addition to past, present and future objects; and whether words such as 'chimera', which purport to pick out impossible objects, can have a referent. However, it must be noted that these doctrinal differences do not play a large role in Marsilius's presentation; nor is there much emphasis on sophisms and counter-examples of the sort found in Paul of Venice's Logica Magna.Marsilius's texts are preeminently teaching texts, directed, it would seem, toward the younger student (cf. p. 63). In his study of Marsilius, Bos does not purport to present "a complete and thorough discussion of his teachings, nor to locate them properly in the history of philosophy" (p. 17). Even with respect to the properties of terms, the subject im- mediately at issue, Bos's analysis of doctrinal matters and their development is piecemeal, and presented only incidentally in the body of the notes to the text. Bos's approach may disappoint the reader, but it is easy to understand and to justify given the nature of what he has done. On the one hand, Bos's aim is to present us with the essential raw material for a full study of doctrinal developments. On the other hand, the book is already long and tightly packed even without such a study, for in it we 1 The CambridgeHistory of Later MedievalPhilosophy, edited by Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny and Jan Pinborg, Cambridge, New York etc. 1982. find an introduction which treats of Marsilius's life and works; an exhaustive listing of all the manuscripts; a thorough discussion of the editorial principles adopted; lengthy notes; four appendices, including one which gives an overview of the dif- ferences between Buridan and Marsilius; and several indices. While the general outlines of Bos's presentation are perfectly satisfactory, there are some minor points which need comment. I shall begin with a few scattered remarks. First, in his discussion of Marsilius at Paris, Bos does not mention William Buser, under whom Marsilius incepted in 1 362, and from whom Marsilius drew much of the material in his treatise on obligations. Second, the so-called Hagennaw commen- tary was in fact first published in Basel, in 1487.3 Third, there is no indication in the text of which sections have been discussed in the footnotes, though such an indication would have been of great help to the reader. Fourth, Ashworth 1977 (cited on p. 192) does not appear in the bibliography. Finally, the note on p. 245 (referring to p. 240.12) is misleading. 'Disiunctiue' in this context surely refers not to the doctrine of ampliation, but to the fact that in "Sortes will run" the future time picked out is either tomorrow or the next day or the day after that, and so on, whereas in "Sortes will run tomorrow" there is a restriction which rules out any such disjunction of future times. A point which strikes me as less minor has to do with Bos's handling of the terms 'Logica moderna' and 'Parva logicalia'. He claims that the logicamoderna embraced both treatises on the properties of terms and the three treatises on consequences, insolubles and obligations; and he supports this claim by a reference to an early (-1962-) remark by De Rijk (p. 44). However, he ignores Gilbert's discussion of the issue, in which Gilbert shows that in fact the relevant fifteenth-century usage of the phrase was to pick out just the three treatises on consequences, insolubles and obligations.4 Bos also identifies the so-called parva logicaliaas embracing both groups of treatises, and in support he cites a very-poorly footnoted passage by Boehner (p. 3, p. 46). Again, Gilbert points out that the source quoted, the Cologne Copulata tractatuumparvorum logicaliumof 1493, makes an explicit distinction in its subtitle between the parva logicaliaand the three other treatises ;5 and the same is true of the 1494, 1496 and 1498 editions of this work that I have consulted. It is also relevant to note that the 1463 statutes of Freiburg im Breisgau seem to make a distinction between the parva logicalia and the consequences when they write that the books to be read include: "Parva Logicalia magistri Marsilii, scilicet supposiciones, ampliaciones, appellaciones, restricciones, et alienaciones, similiter et ambas partes Consequenciarum eiusdem. "6 This reference to the Freiburg statutes suggests another interesting issue to which Bos might have paid more attention, namely the actual importance of Marsilius's work as measured by its use in the fifteenth century. Apart from the evidence pro- vided by the large number of manuscripts which survive, there is some readily available evidence of Marsilius's place in the university curriculum, which can be 2 See C. H. Kneepkens, The MysteriousBuser Again: William Buser of Heusdenand the Obligationes Tract Ob rogatum, in: English Logic in Italy in the ]4th and 15th Centuries, edited by A. Maierù, Napoli 1982, p. 152. 1 The full title is Commentumnovum In primum et quartum tractatus Petri hispani cum commentoparvorum logicaliumMarsilii. A copy is to be found in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 4 N. W. Gilbert, Ockham, Wyclifand the Via Moderna', in: MiscellaneaMediaevalia 9. Antiqui und Moderni, edited by A. Zimmermann, Berlin, New York 1974, pp. 111-115. 5 Gilbert, op. cit., pp. 112-113. 1 H. Ott and J. M. Fletcher, The MediaevalStatutes of the Facultyof Art.sof the University of Freiburg im Breisgau, Notre Dame, Indiana 1964, p. 40. 159 .