L. M. De Rijk on Peter of Spain

Notes and Discussions L. M. DE RIJK ON PETER OF SPAIN In our previously published review of De Rijk's edition of the Tractatus of Peter of Spain we undertook to publish such details and technical considerations as were inappropriate to a general book review. 1In the present note we present evidence for some of the claims in our review as well as supplementary information that may be helpful to those who will be using De Rijk's edition. As we pointed out in our review, one of De Rijk's most interesting contributions to the history of logic in the introduction to his edition is his hypothesis that there were two divergent logical traditions in the first half of the thirteenth century, one associated with Oxford, the other with Paris. 2 He assigns William of Sherwood to the former tradition and Peter of Spain to the latter, and he offers as evidence for his hypothesis comparisons of the texts he takes to be paradigmatic of the two traditions: Paris Introductiones antique (P l) Summule antiquorum 3 (P2) Peter's Tractatus (P.H.) Oxford Cure sit nostra (O1) Ut dicit (02) Introductiones parisienses (03) William's Introductiones ( W. S.)4 In our review we claimed that De Rijk had not established his hypothesis; we shall now show the basis of our negative judgment. He organizes his evidence under thirteen comparisons designed to exhibit the Oxford-Paris split? The first three are comparisons of passages on the same subjects. In comparison (1) P1, O1, and P.H. closely Peter of Spain (Petrus Hispanus Portugalensis): Tractatus calledafterwards Summule Logicales, First Critical Edition from the Manuscripts with an Introduction by L. M. De Rijk, Philosophical Texts and Studies(WijsgerigeTeksten en Studies), vol.22 (Assen:Van Gorcum, 1972).Our reviewappears inPhilosophical Review 84 (1975):560-567. Pp. lxix-lxxx. J On the special character of this treatise and the problem of its relationship with Peter's Tractatus see below. 4BesidesP.H., all thesetexts have been edited exceptfor P1, whichis generouslyexcerptedby De Rijk in his first "GenuineText" article (Vivarium 6 [1968]: 1-34), pp. 24-29. P2, "GenuineText" I, pp. 9-24; O1, Logica Modernorum II (2), pp. 413-451; 02, Logica Modernorum II (2), pp. 375-411; O3, Logica Modernorum II (2), pp. 353-373; W.S. (by Martin Grabmann), Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historischeAbteilungno. 10 (1937).For W.S. see also the many corrections in John Malcolm, ''On Grabmann's Text of William of Sherwood," Vivarium 9 (1971): 108-118;and the annotated translation by Norman Kretzmann, William of Sherwood's Introduction to Logic (Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1966). Pp. lxxii-lxxx.The comparisons are introduced with thesewords: "Quite a number of doctrinal or textual divergenciesbetweenWilliamand Peter can be pointed out. 1only mention a few of them. In order to bring them out in greater relief the corresponding passages from, respectively,the Paris compendium [P1] and those of the Oxford tradition willbe added" (p. lxxii).Citing the corresponding passagesin the other [325] 326 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY resemble one another while W.S. seems to be in a class by itself. No others are cited, but in fact the corresponding passages in 02 and 03 show that for purposes of this comparison they, too, belong in the group including PI and P.H. In (2), which is one of the comparisons which suits De Rijk's hypothesis best, the four putative Oxford treatises are quite similar to one another and different from P1 and P.H., which are much alike. Comparison (3) presents the same pattern of resemblances and differences as does (2), but in a much less extensive sample. In (4) De Rijk compares the divisions of propositions, presenting only P.H. as representative of the Paris tradition; but the division in P.H. most closely resembles that in O1, whereas W.S. looks like an improvement and elaboration on 03. 6 The division in 02 is more primitive than that in W.S. or in 03, and yet De Rijk concludes that "it can easily be seen" that the division in W.S. "is also found" in 02 as well as in 03 (p. lxxv). Comparison (5) simply notes...