Theories of the Proposition: Some Early Sixteenth Century Discussions

THEORIES OF THE PROPOSITION: SOME EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURY DISCUSSIONS i. Prefatory Notes In his excellent book, Theories of the Proposition. Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity,1 Gabriel Nuchelmans carries the story up to Paul of Venice, who died in 1429. In this paper I intend to consider the discussions of propositional sense and reference found in the works of a group of authors connected with the University of Paris in the last decade of the fifteenth century and the first three decades of the sixteenth century. I confine myself to this group not only because it is a group, but because I know of few other sustained discussions of the problem by logicians after Paul of Venice. Two fifteenth century authors, Stephanus de Monte and Andreas Limos raised the matter in the context of insolubilia;2 the Italian Agostino Nifo (1470-1538) discussed it in two places;3 and various other authors, such as the German Jodocus Trutvetter, mentioned the topic only in passing.4 Nor is the matter pursued in 1 Gabriel Nuchelmans, Theories of the Proposition. Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity (Amsterdam/London: North Holland Publishing Company 1973). This work should be consulted for discussion, references and bibliography pertaining to Buridan, Ockham, Gregory of Rimini, and other medieval authors. For further bibliography see E. J. Ashworth, The Tradition of Medieval Logic and Speculative Grammar from Anselm to the End of the Seventeenth Century: A Bibliography from 1836 Onwards (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1978). 2 Andreas Limos, Dubia in Insolubilibus (Parisiis 1499) sig. a ii rb-b iv vb. Stephanus de Monte, Ars Sophistica [Paris, c. 1490?] sign, a vi r-b i r. 8 Agostino Nifo, Dialéctica Ludiera (Venetiis, 1521) fo. 50V-53V, cited as DL. Agostino Nifo, Super Libros Priorum Aristotelis (Venetiis 1554), fols. 6v-7r. Nifo follows Pseudo-Scotus very closely, especially in the latter source: cf. Super Librum I Priorum Quaestio VIII in John Duns Scotus Opera Omnia (Parisius, L. Vives, 1891) II, 98-101. 4 Jodocus Trutvetter, Summule Totius Logice (Erphurdie, 1501) sign. AA vir. 82E. J. ASHWORTH any of the early printed Sentence Commentaries I have examined, including those written by such authors as Celaya and Major.5 The authors I shall discuss are first the two Frenchmen, Thomas Bricot (d. 1516) who did his main logical work in the last decade of the fifteenth century, and Jean Raulin (1443-1514) who entered the Benedictine Order at Cluny in 1497. Second, there is one German, Gervase Waim (c. 1491-1554) who began his studies at Paris in 1507 and was Rector of the University in 1519. Third, there is one Belgian, Pierre Crockaert (Peter of Brussels) (d. 1514) who became a Thomist. Fourth, there are two Scotsmen, John Major (1469-1550) who was taught by Bricot and Pardo before teaching at Paris himself from 1505 to 1517 and again from 1525 to 1531, and George Lokert (d. 1547) who was a pupil of Major. Fifth, there are five Spaniards, Hieronymus Pardo (d. 1505), Juan Celaya (d. 1558), Antonio Coronel, Juan DoIz and Fernando de Enzinas. Finally, there is Hieronymus de Sancto Marco about whom I know little except that he was at one time connected with Oxford, and that he studied theology at Paris.* The contexts in which theories of the proposition were discussed varied. Bricot and Major discussed the matter in their works on insolubilia,7 though what Major had to say was reprinted, somewhat amplified, as a separate section in complete editions of his works.8 This context was a natural one, since in order to solve the problem of semantic paradoxes it was necessary to ask what it was that was true or false, and how these properties were to be defined. DoIz 8 In the earlier editions of his commentary on Sentences I, John Major gives a very brief discussion of some of the main views about objects of faith and knowledge, but he declines to discuss complexe significabilia on the grounds that they are "voluntarle ficta et sine auctoritate et sine ratione:" John Major, In Primum Sententiarum (Parisiis 1519) fol. xvi ra. However...