De puritate artis logicae tractaus longior. With a revised edition of the Tractatus brevior. Edited by Philotheus Boehner (Franciscan Institute Publications. Text series. no. 9.)

278 Pages·2010·14.3 MB·English

by  Walter Burleigh Burley

franciscan 1nstitute ~ublications
TEXT SERI ES NO.9
Edittd by Eligius M. Buytaert, O. F. M.
Walter Burleigh
DE PURITATE ARTIS LOGICAE
TRACTATUS LONGIOR
With a Revised Edition of the Tractatus Brevior
Edited by
Philotheus Boehner, O. F. M., P h. D .
-
• .
'
~
PMhli.sJHd by
THE FRANOSCAN INSTITUTE
ST. BONAV ENTURE, N. Y.
!ll1ld
E. NAUWELAER TS F. SCHONINGH
LOUVAIN, BELGIUM PADERBORN, GERMANY
Cum penni.ssu superiorum
P.blished with t« aid of t« Vtry Rrrxrmd Minislus ll1lli
C~s Provittcul of t« Fri4rs Milwr of t« U~à Stam
PREFACE
The present volume contains two distinct tracts, both of which
are called by the manuscripts De Puritate Artis Logicae. The first
is distinguished as Tractatus Longior from the second as Tractatus
Brevior. The second or the Tractatus Brevior had been published
by the editor some three years ago. Since this edition is exhausted
and, in the mean time, a second manuscript of the Tractatus
Brevior was discovered by A. Maier, we have incorporated the
former edition, with its introduction into the present volume with
appropriate changes. In the revised edition of the Tractatus Brevior
parts which are litterally found in the Tractatus Longior have
been omitted; where, however, the two tracts showed greater
differences or the context demanded it, the entire text of the
Tractatus Brevior was reprinted and the parallel texts indicated
by italizising them. The bold numbers at the margin refer to
passages in the Tractatus Longior. This will enable the reader to
form a better judgement about the relation of the two works.
May this edition of a masterpiece of genuine scholastic Logic
contribute to a better understanding of our scholastic tradition,
especially in logic.
The Franciscan Institute May 3, 1955
INTRODUCTION
Magister Walter Burleigh, bom in 1275 probably in England,
is a personality of whom little is known. It seems certain that he
was not a Franciscan. There can be no doubt that he was an ex
cessive realist of the type Ockham never tired to refute and ridicule.
When the V enerabilis I nceptor presents his arguments against
the moderni it is quite often Burleigh, the Doctor planus et per
spicuus, who is under his fire; Burleigh, in turn, though in a much
milder form, reverses the charge by calling Ockham and his follow
ers moderni.
It is surprising that historians of scholasticism have shown
little interest in Burleigh and his work, since it seems that his kind
of realism has definitely provoked the vigorous reaction of mediev
al conceptualism. However, we firmly believe that Burleigh's
logic deserves more attention than is usually accorded it by those
historians who share his opposition to Ockham's philosophy.
Even if the psychological reason for Ockham's reaction could not
be found in the teaching of Burleigh, at least it would have shown
how much realistic logicians had in common with the so called
nominalistic scholastics. Such a realization would at least help
to arrive at a clearer and truer picture of the actual situation at
the time of the origin of medieval conceptualism.
For this and similar reasons we have extended our studies on
Ockham to include a study of Burleigh, especially of his systematic
work on Logic, the De Puritate Artis Logicae. This tract is quite
frequently encountered in medieval manuscripts, and like most
of his other writings it has not been edited, as far as we can as
certain. Since both extemal and internai evidence are in complete
accord, its authenticity cannot be doubted. However, in the
course of our study we discovered that the tract commonly called
De Puritate Artis Logicae (henceforth indicated by TrL) presents
a problem of its own, since two different tracts preserved in the
manuscripts bear one and the same title. The second of these two
VI
I ntl'oduction VII
tracts (indicated by TrB), is much shorter than TrL and was
hitherto unknown. The main part of our present edition is TrL;
in the Appendix is found TrB, formerly edited at the basis of one
manuscript. How are they related ?
From the table of contents we realize that TrL presents only
a fraction of medieval logic. Though it contains two major parts,
i t has no special introduction to these parts in the beginning;
it opens abruptly with the tract on suppositio without even men
tioning that the whole work contains another and much longer
tract on hypothetical syllogisms. This fact is important and will
be called into use later. It is also important to note that the second
part deals with a topic rather neglected, though not completely
overlooked, by most medieval logicians. Although Boethius'
tract on hypothetical syllogisms was well knO\\-ìl to the scholastics,
yet the famous scholastic logical Summae such as those of Peter
of Spain, Ockham and Albert of Saxony hardly pay attention to
such syllogisms.
\Vhy then should these two tracts, the one on suppositio and
its related subjects, the other on hypothetical syllogisms, bear
the title On the purity of the art of logic? Where is the unifying
bond?
Before we answer·this question, at least tentatively, we would
like to present a document which will shed some light on our
problem. This will also allow us to determine in a certain way
the time and the occasion of composition of TrL. We definitely
knmv the terminus ante quem, viz., I329. For this we have the
testimony of the scribe of ~'11s. Amploniana (Erfurt) O. 67. It
follows o n the same page (fol. I25 v) the transcription of the
Summae Logicae of Ockham which was completed by the scribe
in I339· The same scribe on the same page introduces then the
abbreviation of TrL made by frater J ohannes );icholai, O. F. :\L
He writes:
Hanc extractionem de logica Burle ordinavit frater Johannes );'icholai,
lector de custodia Lincopensi provinciae Daciae, quando studuit Parisius
anno Domini :\I°CCC0XXIX0 (Schum in his description adds here 1339 with a
question mark, however, the date is very clear and no erasion or correction
is visible), de cuius logicae commendatione praemisit prologum in hunc
modum. Post praecedentem summam editam a fratre (Willielmo Ockham)
compilavit Burle alium tractatum de logica in quo pauca continenter utilia
realiter nihil ve! sumpta de priori summa ve! de Boethio in libro de categoricis
et hypotheticis syllogismis. Quae tamen in ipso iudicavi esse utilia posita
VIII I nt1'oduction
ultra ea, quae posita {exp. ?) in summa praecedenti vel quae sunt contra ea
illa
quae dicuntur in summa, et opposita iuxta se posita magis elucescant
melius, breviter in sequentibus colliguntur. Explicit prologus extractoris.
Incipit prologus auctoris. Suppositis significatis terminorum ...
Since i t is a good rule of sound historical research not to question
the faithfulness of an historical document unless there is a grave
reason for doubt, we are bound to accept this testirnony as it is.
\Ve do not know why Schum changed the number and added the
question mark indicated in his description. Hence we accept
Johannes Nicholai's statement that Burleigh wrote TrL after the
Summa Logicae of Ockham. There is no reason to doubt that the
"praecedens" Summa is the Summa Logicae. This is also proved
by the fact that the marginai notes of the abbreviation of TrL
sometimes refer to Ockham's Summa Logicae. It is furthermore
stated by the scribe, who is identified by Schum as Arno Petri,
(our photostat copy shows his name has been erased) that in 1329
] ohannes Nicholai composed this abbreviation of TrL. Hence,
we must admit that TrL was composed by Burleigh before 1329,
the date of the abbreviation.
The terminus post quem, then, must be contemporary with the
completion of the Summa Logicae of Ockham. Unfortunately,
the date of the Summa Logicae has not yet been firmly established.
I t is certain that i t was composed before 1329. But w hat is the
terminus post quem for Ockham's Summa Logicae? For reasons
which we need not repeat here, practically ali medievalists are now
agreed upon a date dose to 1324. We are now inclined to believe
that the Summa Logicae was written, or at least completed, after
1324 - for Franciscus Mayron who became Master of Theology
in 1324 is quoted as M agister abstractionum. This, so i t would seem,
leaves only the years between 1324-1329, or more probably
between 1325-1328 for the tirne of the composition of TrL.
Thus far we see that Burleigh wrote a tract on logic after Ock
ham published his Summa Logicae, and called it 'The purity of the
art of Logic'. Though i t is not stated that he wrote against Ockham,
the peculiar title suggests at least that he wrote against Ockham
and the 'irnpurity' brought by Ockham into logic. Stili, however,
the two major parts contained in TrL are not a complete logic
but only a small fraction of medievallogic. Before we try to give an
explanation of this fact, let us first turn to the other work which
bears the title De Puritate Artis Logicae, TrB.
Introduction IX
The second work (TrB) is found, as far as we know at present,
in two manuscripts. The first (L), is preserved in the Hoose Library
of the University of Southem California, Los Angeles, and is
described as no. 6 in Ricci-Wilson, Census of Medieval and Ren
aissance M anuscripts in the United States and Canada, vol. I
(1935) p. r8. The manuscript is of the 14th century, written in
England in a rather difficult hand. It contains Ockham's Ex
positio super Porphyrium, super Praedicamenta, and super Peri
hermenias (not mentioned in Ricci). On f. 77r follows the tract
of Burleigh under consideration, viz., TrB with Incipit; Ut iuvenes
in quolibet problemate ... , and the Explicit (f. 88 fa): ... possunt
categorematice vel syncategorematice accipi. Et huic operi terminus
imponatur. Explicit Burleus minor. In the prologue, the work is
called De puritate artis logicae.
The other manuscript (V) was discovered by Anneliese Maier*
in Codex Vaticanus Latinus 3066. It was completed in 1347-1349
and contains in addition to the TrB (f. 26-33) the TrL (f. 34-50),
as well as works by other authors.
In order to compare TrB with TrL, we shall now present the
division of TrB, the division which the author intended: for he
completed only a part. Those parts not completed will be indicated
by an asterisk.
I. Pars: De regulis generalibus.
I. Particula: De regulis generalibus consequentiarum.
2. Particula: De natura syncategorematum.
*3. Particula: De suppositionibus.
*II. Pars: De arte sophistica.
*III. Pars: De arte exercitativa (De obligationibus).
*IV. Pars: De arte demonstrativa.
The contents of this outline cover more completely the field
of medieval logic. l.;nfortunately only the first two particulae of
the first part are actually found in TrB. However, if we now tum
again to the division of TrL we discover that it abruptly and
without introduction starts with De suppositionibus, which is
exactly where TrB stops and was supposed to continue. This
immediately suggests that TrL is the continuation of TrB or at
least a part of it. Unfortunately, this "easy explanation" meets
• Cfr. A. Maier, Einige Probleme der Ockhamforschung in AFH XLVII
(1953) 30, footnote 30.
x
Introduction
with grave difficulty when we consider the second tract of TrL.
For this deals with hypothetical syllogisms whilst the second
part of TrB was supposed to deal with the Ars sophistica. Of
course, it is not impossible to understand Ars sophistica in a sense
that could apply to hypothetical syllogisms. Although its most
obvious meaning would be 'On the logic of faliacies', yet, i t was
quite common in the Middle Ages to cali a logician a sophista.
Stili, we are not dose enough to the special meaning of 'hypo
thetical syllogisms'. On the other hand, 'sophisma' does not nec
essarily mean a faliacy, but also, and certainly in the tracts
De sophismatibus, propositions or expressions difficult from a
logica! viewpoint. It is true that we meet with many sophismata
throughout this tract. But does that warrant the equation of the
tract: De propositionibus et syllogismis hypotheticis with the tract
De arte sophistica ?
We must confess that we have non satisfactory explanation
of this discrepancy between TrL and TrB and we must try to
find a different solution. For the time being, we should like to cali
attention to two further indications of a certain unity between
TrL and TrB.
First, TrB promises to deal with the Art of disputation or,
what is the same, with the Obligationes after the tract De arte
sophistica. In ms. Amploniana Q 259 TrL is followed by a tract
De Obligationibus by Burleigh, but after the Explicit of TrL.
Secondly, both tracts are called Logica Burleigh. For TrL we
have a proof of this in ms. Amploniana O 67 (written in 1339)
and in Vat. Lat. 3066; for TrB we hav e the explicit in V at. Lat. 3066
and also at least a late testimony which at the same time proves
that TrB was more widely known than the two mss. so far dis
covered lead us to believe. Mengus Blanchellus Faventinus, a
logician of the late rsth century, writes in his Adnotationes ad
Summulas Pauli Veniti (Venice rsro, fol. 5 va):
Adverte secundo quod de termino syncategorematico sunt duae opiniones.
"Cna est Bur(laei) in logica sua in tractatu De Dictionibus syncategorematicis,
qui vult, quod ad tenninum syncategorematicum requiritur haec sola conditio,
scilicet quod habeat aliquid tale officium distribuendi, pa.rticularizandi,
detenninandi etc., etiam ly nullus, differt, totus infinitus et consimiles dicuntur
syncategorematici. Et dicit ipse: Dicitur syncategorema quasi consignifica
tivum, id est cum aliis significativum, non quia de se nihil significet, sed
quia non habet de se significationem finitam ve! determinatam, sed finitam
Introd uction XI
trahit ex adiunctis. L"bi ponit divisionem omnium synca(tegorematum) et
numerat omnia, quae habent aliquid tale officium.
These two reasons do not prove the unity of the two tracts
De Puritate Artis logicae, we readily admit. In fact, there is even
a quite serious objection against our supposed unity, serious at
least at first sight. For a detailed comparison of the two works
has shown that they have large passages in common. To a certain
extent this is true for the first part of TrB which treats of con
sequences and conditional propositions in generai; however, the
often literally-same texts show signs of a different arrangement,
and many alterations have been made. In the second part, the
chapters on Solum and T antum are literally the same in both
tracts, but TrL has of course a longer text since it treats of the
various exclusive syllogisms. Likewise the chapters on Praeter,
Nisi, Incipit and Desinit are the same in both tracts with the
same exceptions. For the part on Non and its two subdivisions
and also for the part on the modalities we do not find a parallel
in TrL. The chapters on Et and Vel have some parallel passages,
but on the whole they must be considered as different. Thè chapter
on An, however, has a parallel in TrL. \Ve can therefore say that
a substantial part of TrB appears or reappears ( ?) in TrL.
If TrL and TrB are two parts of the same work, why then are
there quite unnecessary repetitions? The author might hav e been
repetitious - a rather common fault in medieval writings - but
it is hard to believe that he should be so to such an extent. On the
other hand, it remains a fact, that more than half of TrB had no
parallel in TrL. Hence we cannot admit that TrB is an abbrevia
tion of TrL. ~or can we believe that TrB is the work of a compiler
different from Burleigh, since TrB is attributed to Burleigh, it
is quoted as Burleigh's own by another logician, and because it is
written in personal style. The expression, for instance, on p. 245,
lin. I2: "I stud tamen non placet mihi. I mmo dico, quod si utraque ... ,"
is no t found in T r L; instead w e read there: "5 ed istud non est
verum, immo si utraque pars ... " Such a personal expression could
hardly be expected of a mere compiler.
In order to offer some explanation we present the follo-vving
two hypotheses.
We consider TrB and the TrL both as authentic works of
Burleigh. Furthermore we admit that both tracts as they are
transmitted to us in the manuscripts are in an unfinished state.
XII I ntroduction
We know for sure tbat TrL was composed or edited sbortly before
1329. We believe it most probable tbat tbose parts of TrL which
bave parallels in TrB are a later redaction and tbat in generai
TrB is tbe earlier redaction of tbe work. We believe now that
Burleigb conceived of a work entitled De Puritate Artis Logicae
independent of Ockbam. The first larger fragment of tbis, tbat
is tbe introduction and tbe first two tracts as preserved in TrB
were immediately elaborated. Burleigb bad eitber worked on otber
parts of tbe intended work as described in tbe introduction to
TrB or be started working on tbem witbout yet adding them to
TrB. For tbis statement we bave tbe following reason. In tbe
manuscript of tbe Britisb Museum we bave tbe following works
of Burleigb:
Expositio super Praedicamenta (incomplete at the beginning, it
starts (fol. 3 ra): Substantia autem est quae proprie etc .... Haec
est secunda pars buius libri et continet 5 capitula ...
Explicit (fol. 13 va): ... species et genera subalterna in libro de
6 principiis apparebit etc. Amen. Explicit tractatus datus a magi
stra Waltero de Burley super librum Praedicamentorum.
Expositio Perihermenias. Incipit (fol. I4 Ra): Primum oportet
astruere . . . Cum cognitio syllogismi sit finis logices, et cognitio
partis praecedit cognitionem totius et syllogismus babet partes ...
Explicit (fol. 23 ra): ... quae enuntiant minus contraria quam
illa quae enuntiant contraria de eodem. Explicit tractatus libri
Perihermenias datus a Magistro Waltero de Burley.
Expositio Sex principiorum. Incipit (fol. 23 rb): Forma est com
positioni contingens. Quamvis Aristoteles in libro Praedicamen
torum ... I t ends abruptly on fol. 33 rb a t t be explanation of the
text: Contentio autem oritur ... (tbe page is mucb blurred). Tbe
following page is blank.
After tbese tbree works belonging t o tbe E xpositio in artem
V eterem immediately ( ~ after fol. 33) follows folio 123. Tbe rest
contains works whicb are of special interest to us. We will give
the Incipits and Explicits of tbese:
[De exclusivis} Incipit (fol. 123 ra): Circa dictiones exclusivas
est sciendum quod dictio exclusiva addita subiecto ...
Explicit (fol. 126 rb): ... sed sequitur Sortes differt a solo Platone,
igitur Sortes differt ab eo quod non est aliud quam Plato. ex quo