Part of the Synthese Historical Library book series (SYHL, volume 1)


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


Salient Motif Logical Work Reidel Publishing Company Logical Text Logical Corpus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Scritti filosofici, Milan 1954. These will be abbreviated to G.L. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dialectica Assen 1956. Second, reviced edition, Assen 1969. This will be abbreviated to D. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abaelardiana inedita, Rome 1958.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geyer, Untersuchungen, Beiträge, XIII, 1933.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cousin, Ouvrages inédits d’Abelard, Paris 1836, p. CLVI.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prantl, Storia delia logica in Occidente, Età medievale, Florence 1937, pp. 304–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousin, op. cit., and Petri Abaelardi opera hactenus seorsim edita…, Paris 1859.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Philosophische Schriften, Münster 1919, 1921, 1927. Abbreviated to G.G. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See G.G., pp. 16, 127, 403, and G.L., p. 235; G.G., pp. 38, 246, 334–5, and G.L., p. 221.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See p. 79, note 39.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.G., pp. 291 (25) and 389 (7).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.G., p. 394 (10–26).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dal Pra, ‘Introduzione’, in G.L., pp. xxix-xxxii.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D., p. 146 (10–7).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.G., p. 505 (3–5).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D., pp. 269 (1–3), 329 (4), 482 (4–6).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D., pp. 146 (10–20), 496 (18–26).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abaelardiana inedita, Rome 1958.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Id., pp. xiiff., xli.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dal Pra, op.cit., p. XIII.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Geyer, op.cit., pp. 598–602.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D’Olwer , ‘Sur la date de la Dialectique d’Abelard’, Revue du Moyen Age, 1945, Nr. 1, p. 389.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geyer, op.cit., p. 606.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D’Olwer, op.cit., p. 376.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G.G., pp. 104 (26)-105 (38), and D., p. 552 (15ff.). Prantl, op.cit., p. 141, note 314.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geyer, op.cit., pp. 602–3.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D’Olwer, op.cit., p. 390.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See pp. 47, 55–56, and 69, note 94.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D’Olwer, op.cit., p. 375.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Id., p. 376.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Rijk, ‘Introduction’, in D., pp. xxii, note 9, and xvii, note 3.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    For example to indicate the universal in Dialectica Abelard uses “nomen, dictio, vocabulum et vox”. But consider the remark on p. 59.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See pp. 72 and 74–75.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See pp. 86–87.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G.G., pp. 419ff., 337ff.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    D., pp. 210–22, 118–20.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    D., p. 146 (10–7).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    De Rijk, op.cit., p. xiii.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gilson , La philosophie au moyen âge, Paris 1934, p. 139; cf. Boetius, P.L., p. LXIV.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boetius, P.L., pp. LXIV, 19.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    ‘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’.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    G.G., pp. 522ff.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Abelard uses this term in the commonly accepted meaning in G.L., p. 299 (10).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Boetius, P.L., pp. LXIV, 84.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    G.G., pp. 25ff.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gilson, op.cit., p. 287.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    G.L., pp. 43–67; G.G., pp. 111–305; D., pp. 51–110.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    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).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    D., p. 146 (10–2).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    D., p. 146 (10–2).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    G.L., pp. 155–203; D., pp. 535–98; G.L., pp. 205–330; D., pp. 263–413.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    D., pp. 232–51.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    D., pp. 479–533.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Minio Paluello, ‘Adam of Balsham “Parvipontanus”’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, 1954, p. 3, pp. 136ff.Google Scholar
  57. 56a.
    Minio Paluello, ‘Adam of Balsham “Parvipontanus”’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, 1954, pp. 136ff. See also De Rijk, op.cit., p. xix.Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    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. Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    G.G., p. 509 (1–8).Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    G.G., p. 400 (33ff.).Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    G.G., pp. 400 (2ff.) and 489 (2ff.).Google Scholar
  62. 61.
    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).Google Scholar
  63. 62.
    G.G., p. 394 (10–25).Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    G.G., p. 394 note 1.Google Scholar
  65. 64xvii.
    De Rijk, op.cit., p. .Google Scholar
  66. 65.
    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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1969

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations