Abstract
The importance of Pierre Abelard’s position in the history of logic has been stressed by the editions of the Glosse Letterali edited by M. Dal Pra1, of the Dialectica edited by De Rijk2, and, more recently by the publication of two texts which Minio Paluello attributes to the Palatine Master.3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Scritti filosofici, Milan 1954. These will be abbreviated to G.L.
Dialectica Assen 1956. Second, reviced edition, Assen 1969. This will be abbreviated to D.
Abaelardiana inedita, Rome 1958.
Geyer, Untersuchungen, Beiträge, XIII, 1933.
Cousin, Ouvrages inédits d’Abelard, Paris 1836, p. CLVI.
Prantl, Storia delia logica in Occidente, Età medievale, Florence 1937, pp. 304–8.
Cousin, op. cit., and Petri Abaelardi opera hactenus seorsim edita…, Paris 1859.
Philosophische Schriften, Münster 1919, 1921, 1927. Abbreviated to G.G.
See G.G., pp. 16, 127, 403, and G.L., p. 235; G.G., pp. 38, 246, 334–5, and G.L., p. 221.
See p. 79, note 39.
G.G., pp. 291 (25) and 389 (7).
G.G., p. 394 (10–26).
Dal Pra, ‘Introduzione’, in G.L., pp. xxix-xxxii.
D., p. 146 (10–7).
G.G., p. 505 (3–5).
D., pp. 269 (1–3), 329 (4), 482 (4–6).
D., pp. 146 (10–20), 496 (18–26).
Abaelardiana inedita, Rome 1958.
Id., pp. xiiff., xli.
Dal Pra, op.cit., p. XIII.
Geyer, op.cit., pp. 598–602.
D’Olwer , ‘Sur la date de la Dialectique d’Abelard’, Revue du Moyen Age, 1945, Nr. 1, p. 389.
One can see, for example, the acritical and yet nominalistic position of Abelard in the literal notes (see pp. 39–40): this would seem to indicate an influence of the Roscellinian solution on the young master of dialectic who would only have felt himself ready for taking up an explicit and personal stand in Ingredientibus, and therefore certainly some years later.
Geyer, op.cit., p. 606.
D’Olwer, op.cit., p. 376.
See pp. 65–8 with regard to the passages which refer to the ‘dictum’ theory, and pp. 77–9 for the ‘quaestio de maximis propositionibus’ discussed both in Ingredientibus and Dialectica.
G.G., pp. 104 (26)-105 (38), and D., p. 552 (15ff.). Prantl, op.cit., p. 141, note 314.
Geyer, op.cit., pp. 602–3.
D’Olwer, op.cit., p. 390.
See pp. 47, 55–56, and 69, note 94.
D’Olwer, op.cit., p. 375.
Id., p. 376.
De Rijk, ‘Introduction’, in D., pp. xxii, note 9, and xvii, note 3.
For example to indicate the universal in Dialectica Abelard uses “nomen, dictio, vocabulum et vox”. But consider the remark on p. 59.
See pp. 72 and 74–75.
See pp. 86–87.
G.G., pp. 419ff., 337ff.
D., pp. 210–22, 118–20.
D., p. 146 (10–7).
De Rijk, op.cit., p. xiii.
Gilson , La philosophie au moyen âge, Paris 1934, p. 139; cf. Boetius, P.L., p. LXIV.
Boetius, P.L., pp. LXIV, 19.
‘Sermo’ used as ‘nomen’ is nevertheless present elsewhere in Boetius (P.L., pp. LXI, 169). Notwithstanding, before Reiners (Der Nominalismus in der Frühscholastik, Münster 1910) noted and specified the accepted meaning of this term, neither Prantl nor Remusat had thought it could be translated other than by ‘discourse’ or ‘judgement’.
G.G., pp. 522ff.
Abelard uses this term in the commonly accepted meaning in G.L., p. 299 (10).
Boetius, P.L., pp. LXIV, 84.
G.G., pp. 25ff.
Gilson, op.cit., p. 287.
G.L., pp. 43–67; G.G., pp. 111–305; D., pp. 51–110.
The question of the editions of the Boetian commentary has been approached and discussed by Minio Paluello and De Rijk (De Rijk, op.cit., pp. xiii-xvi, and Minio Paluello, ‘Note sull’ Aristotele latino medievale’, Riv. di Fil. Neo-Scol, 1958 Nr. 10, pp. 110–11 and Nr. 11, pp. 217–48).
D., p. 146 (10–2).
D., p. 146 (10–2).
G.L., pp. 155–203; D., pp. 535–98; G.L., pp. 205–330; D., pp. 263–413.
D., pp. 232–51.
D., pp. 479–533.
Minio Paluello, ‘Adam of Balsham “Parvipontanus”’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, 1954, p. 3, pp. 136ff.
Minio Paluello, ‘Adam of Balsham “Parvipontanus”’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, 1954, pp. 136ff. See also De Rijk, op.cit., p. xix.
G.G., p. 2 (12–5); G.G., p. 111 (11–2); G.L., p. 213 (1–5); less noteworthy are the references in G.G., p. 319 (18–9) and in G.G., p. 455 (35ff.). Note also in Abael. inedita the reference to the Analitici on p. 10 (22) and the references to the Elenchi Sofistici on pp. 13 (17) and 30 (29) belonging to the comment on De Interpretatione.
G.G., p. 509 (1–8).
G.G., p. 400 (33ff.).
G.G., pp. 400 (2ff.) and 489 (2ff.).
De Rijk, op.cit., p. xvii. As for the identifications of the ‘translations’ on which Abelard most likely worked, see De Rijk again, who re-uses the considerations of Geyer and Minio Paluello on this point (op.cit., p. xviii).
G.G., p. 394 (10–25).
G.G., p. 394 note 1.
De Rijk, op.cit., p. .
The term ‘usus’ in the expression “usus adhuc Latinorum cognovit” (D., p. 146 (10–2)) is interpreted, as Geyer and De Rijk observed, as ‘traditional basis of doctrine’ rather than as ‘knowledge’. In this sense this would mean not only that the traditional ‘corpus’ does not exhaust the whole of the known texts, but also suggests a wider availability of texts which are not usually used to advantage. The expression ‘quidam libellus’ referred to the Elenchi Sofistici (see note 59) is evidence of this limited knowledge and use.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1969 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Beonio-Brocchieri Fumagalli, M.T. (1969). Introduction. In: The Logic of Abelard. Synthese Historical Library, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3384-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3384-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3386-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3384-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive