No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Thirteenth-Century Interpretation of Aristotle on Equivocation and Analogy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
Extract
This paper is a case study of how a few short lines in two of Aristotle’s logical works were read in the thirteenth century. I shall begin with a quick look at Aristotle’s own remarks about equivocation in the Categories and the Sophistical Refutations, as they were transmitted to the West by Boethius’s translations. I shall continue with an analysis of the divisions of equivocation and analogy to be found in an anonymous commentary, on the Sophistical Refutations written in Paris between 1270 and 1280. I have chosen this author’s work to focus on, because it offers a remarkably full account which brings together the elements found in many other logical works from the second half of the thirteenth century. In the course of my analysis I shall attempt to show the part played by four different sources: (1) the Greek commentators of late antiquity; (2) the new translations of Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics; (3) the reception of Arabic works, particularly the commentaries of Averroes; and (4) new grammatical doctrines, notably that of modi significandi. At the same time, I hope to throw some light on the development of the doctrine of analogy as it was understood by late thirteenth-century logicians.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors 1991
References
1 For full bibliographies and more information on the matters touched on here, see Ashworth, E.J. ‘Signification and Modes of Signifying in Thirteenth-Century Logic: A Preface to Aquinas on Analogy,’ Medieval Philosophy and Theology 1 (1991) 39–67; E.J. Ashworth, ‘Analogy and Equivocation in Thirteenth-Century Logic: Aquinas in Context,’ Mediaeval Studies (forthcoming);CrossRefGoogle ScholarAshworth, E.J. ‘Equivocation and Analogy in Fourteenth Century Logic: Ockham, Burley and Buridan,’ Historia Philosophiae Medii Aevi. Studien Zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Mojsisch, B. and Pluta, O. eds. (Amsterdam: B.R. Gruner forthcoming).Google Scholar
2 Aristotle [2] and Aristotle [10]
3 Anonymous [1], Of the two sets of questions edited by Ebbesen I shall use only the first (the SF commentary).
4 Aristotle [1]. Categories 1a1-6 in Aristotle [2], 5: “Aequivoca dicuntur quorum nomen solum commune est, secundum nomen vero substantiae ratio diversa, ut animal homo et quod pingitur. Horum enim solum nomen commune est, secundum nomen vero substantiae ratio diversa; si enim quis assignet quid est utrique eorum quo sint animalia, propriam assignabit utriusque rationem.”
5 I have borrowed much of this translation from the translation of Peter of Spain, Kretzmann, N. and Stump, E. eds. The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts, Vol. I: Logic and the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988), 89.Google Scholar
6 Boethius [2], col. 164
7 Boethius [2] col. 164. See also the discussion by Ebbesen, S.Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi: A Study of Post-Aristotelian Ancient and Medieval Writings on Fallacies (Leiden: E.J. Brill 1981) vol.I, 181-2.Google Scholar
8 Simplicius [2], Vol. I, 39
9 See the frequently cited Aristotelian tag: “ratio quam significat nomen est definitio” (Metaphysics IV.1012a24–5). I take the Latin from Hamesse, JacquelineLes Auctoritates Aristotelis: Un florilege médiéval. Étude historique et edition critique. Philosophes médiévaux XVII (Louvain: Publications Universitaires; Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts 1974), 124Google Scholar [116]. This florilegium (which dates from between November 22,1267, and 1325) is an extremely useful guide to the commonplace tags picked up and used by almost all logical writers.
10 Boethius [2], col. 166; Simplicius [2], 39
11 Ibid.
12 Aristotle [9], Sophistical Refutations 166al5–20, quoted from Boethius’s translation in Aristotle [10]: “Sunt autem tres modi secundum aequivocationem et amphiboliam: unus quidem quando vel oratio vel nomen principaliter significat plura, ut piscis et canis; alius autem quando soliti sumus sic dicere; tertius vero quando compositum plura significet, separatum vero simpliciter, ut ‘scit saeculum’“(9).
13 Of course, some examples were drawn from Sophistical Refutations 165b30- 166al5. Thus ‘discere’ illustrated mode one, ‘expediens’ mode two and both ‘laborans’ ‘sedens’ mode three.
14 Anonymous [1], 116
15 Peter of Spain [1], 105; Lambert of Auxerre [1], 149. They both used the term ‘consignificatio,’ but for a term to have consignificatio is for it to have consignificata or modi significandi.
16 See Ebbesen, S. ‘The Semantics of the Trinity According to Stephen Langton and Andrew Sunesen,’ in Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains. Aux origines de la ‘Logica Modernorum.’ Actes du septième symposium européen d’histoire de la logique et de sémantique médiévales. Centre d’études supérieures de civilisation médiévale de Poitiers Jolivet, Jean and Libera, Alain de eds. (Napoli: Bibliopolis 1987) 426-7.Google Scholar
17 Aristotle [9]: Sophistical Refutations, 166al-6
18 For full details see the first paper cited above in n. 1.
19 Anonymous [1], 119
20 Ibid., 120; John Duns Scotus [2], 26B.
21 Peter of Spain [1], 99, 109-10
22 Anonymous [1], 117
23 It may be related to the division between general and special signification found, for instance, in a commentary on De Interpretation apparently written by Nicholas of Paris ca. 1250; see Pinborg, J.Die Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters Band XLII, heft 2 (Münster: Aschendorff 1967), 27, n. 27.Google Scholar
24 For a discussion of Alexander, see Ebbesen, Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi, Vol. I, 286–9.Google Scholar Ebbesen has edited the fragments of the commentary in Vol. II, 331-555.
25 See Aristotle [2], LXXVII-LXXVIII. The text is reprinted as ‘Paraphrasis Themistiana’ in Aristotle [2], 133–75. It is copied by Alcuin: see Excerpta ex Alcuini Dialectics Aristotle [2], 189-92.
26 For the date see Simplicius [2], xi.
27 For some discussion and references, see Desbordes, F. ‘Homonymie et synonymie d’après les textes théoriques latins,’ in L’ambiguïté: cinq études historiques Rosier, I. ed. (Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille 1988) 66;Google ScholarEbbesen, S. ‘Paris 4720A: A 12th Century Compendium of Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi,’ Cahiers de l’institut du moyen-âge grec et latin 10 (1973), 12–13;Google ScholarLyttkens, H.The Analogy between God and the World: An Investigation of its Background and Interpretation of its Use by Thomas of Aquino (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells 1953), 58–77.Google Scholar Greek commentators on the Categories (other than Simplicius), such as Ammonius, were not used until the Renaissance.
28 Boethius [2], col. 166: “Consilio vero, quia ea quaecunque hominum voluntate sunt posita.”
29 Aristotle [6] Nicomachean Ethics 1096b26: “Non enim assimulantur a casu equivocis.” I cite the translation of Grosseteste: Aristotle [7], 381.
30 Aubenque, P. “Sur la naissance de la doctrine pseudo-aristotelicienne de l’analogie de l’être,” Les études philosophiques [special issue on analogy] 3/4 (1989), 298-9Google Scholar
31 For all the divisions, see Pseudo-Augustine, in Aristotle [2], 136–7; Boethius [2], col. 166; Simplicius [2], 42-4
32 See discussion in Aubenque, 299-300.
33 Desbordes comments: “La traduction scrupuleuse de BOECE. devait être passablement énigmatique pour un Latin, animal n’ayant jamais désigné en Latin la représentation graphique, ni même une classe de tableaux représentant des êtres animés quelconques” (64).
34 Cf. Boethius [2], col. 166: “Horum autem alia sunt secundum similitudinem, ut homo pictus et homo verus quo nunc utitur Aristoteles exemplo.” Perhaps Boethius did not mention the word ‘animal’ here because he was listing equivocal things, but in medieval sources it is often clear that ‘homo’ is being used as an equivocal term in the illustration of this case: see e.g. Aquinas in his commentary on Physics VII, lectio 8, number 947.
35 John Duns Scotus [3], 452A. He was dealing with the objection that if ‘animal’ were equivocal, then all terms would be equivocal: see 450B.
36 “Non enim assimulantur a casu equivocis. Set certe ei quod est ab uno esse, vel ad unum omnia contendere, vel magis secundum analogiam.” (Aristotle [7], 381). Ebbesen argues that all four subdivisions are based on a theory of concept formation: see Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi Vol. I, 190-3.
37 Aristotle [2]: Pseudo-Augustine, 137; Alcuin, 190; Simplicius [2], 42
38 Aristotle [6] Nicomachean Ethics 1131a31–2. “Proporcionalitas enim equalitas est proporcionis, et in quatuor minimis” (Aristotle [7], 458). This is the version that Aquinas used for his commentary. Although it is sometimes attributed to William of Moerbeke, the identity of the man who revised Grosseteste’s original text has not been established.
39 See Owens, J.The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1957), 117-18;Google ScholarOwen, G.E.L. ‘Logic and Metaphysics in Some Earlier Works of Aristotle,’ in Owen, G.E.L.Logic, Science, and Dialectic: Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy (London: Duckworth 1986), 182, n. 7.Google Scholar
40 The phrase ‘focal meaning’ was applied to Aristotle by Owen (see 184).
41 For details, see the second paper cited in n. 1. The classification of analogia in relation to mode two depended in part on the role assigned to metaphor (translatio or transumptio).
42 But for a discussion of the appearance of the word ‘attribution’ in philosophical vocabulary after 1220 and its relation to Latin translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, see Andrews, R. ‘Peter of Auvergne’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories: Edition, Translation, and Analysis,’ 2 vols. (Diss., Cornell University 1988), vol. I, 15-16.Google Scholar
43 Avicenna [2]: “ens. est intentio in qua conveniunt secundum prius et posterius.” (f.72vb).
44 Algazali [1]: “Convenientia sunt media inter univoca et equivoca: ut ens quod dicitur de substantia et accidente. esse vero prius habet substantia deinde accidens mediante alio: ergo est eis esse secundum prius et posterius.” (sig. a 3va). Albert the Great tells us that convenientia are what the Arabs called analoga: see the discussion in de Libera, A. “Les sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l’analogie de l’être,” Les études philosophiques [special issue on analogy] 3/4 (1989) 330-3.Google Scholar
45 Averroes [1]: “nomen entis non significat decem praedicamenta pura aequivocatione, neque univoce: non restat igitur quod significet ea, nisi aliquo modorum analogiae, et sunt scilicet significationes nominum significantium plures res, quae tamen referuntur ad unam rem secundum prius et posterius.” (Vol. VIII, f.364ra). As Lyttkens points out (77), he does not use the word ‘analogia’ in the relevant section of his main commentary: “.nomen ens dicitur multis modis, & non aequiuoce, sicut canis, qui dicitur de latrabili & marino: neque uniuoce, ut animal de homine, & asino: sed est de nominibus quae dicuntur de rebus at[t]ributis eidem, et sunt media inter uniuoca & aequiuoca” (f.65rb). In Les Auctoritates Aristotelis, reference to analogy is confidently added both to Aristotle’s text and to Averroes’s commentary (122 [88] and 123 [107]). Roger Bacon wrote “in IV Metaphysicae Aristoteles dicit quod ens non est aequivocum sed analogum” (Fredborg, K.M.Nielsen, L. and Pinborg, J. ‘An Unedited Part of Roger Bacon’s Opus maius: De signis,’ Traditio 34 (1978), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 All this vocabulary is used by Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), whose has been described as “one of the earliest medieval works to be based on full knowledge of the Aristotelian corpus and the Arabic commentators” (‘Biographies’ in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, Kretzmann, N.Kenny, A. and Pinborg, J. eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982), 856.Google Scholar For representative quotations from his Summa, see Lyttkens (125–6).
47 E.g. Metaphysics 1003a33–5 in Aristotle [5]: ‘Ens autem multis quidem dicitur modis, sed ad unum et unam aliquam naturam et non equivoce, sed quemadmodum salubre omne ad sanitatem.’ (60). Cf. Metaphysics 1030a28–1030b13 (128–9).
48 For the Latin, see n. 44.
49 Peter of Spain, 177
50 See e.g. Thomas Aquinas [3] Summa Theologiae la q. 13 a. 5c. Aquinas allows equivocation in a broad sense to include analogy: ST la q.13 a.10 ad 4.
51 Porphyrii Phoenicei Introductio Severino Boetho Interprete in Averroes [1]: ‘Et si omnia quis entia uocet, aequiuoce (inquit) nuncupabit, sed non uniuoce’ (Vol. 1, f.5vb). In Les Audoritates Aristotelis, words have been added so that the phrase reads ‘Si aliquis omnia praedicamenta entia vocet aequivoce et non univoce, ea nuncupabit, id est analogice’ (300 [7]). Cf. Peter of Spain [1]: “Licet enim ‘ens’ dicatur de illis decern, tamen equivoce sive multipliciter dicitur de ipsis, et ideo non est genus” (19). For the reconciliation of Aristotle and Poprhyry, see Aquinas [3], ST la q.13 a.10 ad 4.
52 See nn. 44 and 45 above. Without talking about ‘ens,’ Simplicius [2] noted that some people joined the last two subdivisions of deliberate equivocation together and called them ‘ut unum’ (43). He also added that some placed them between univocation and equivocation on the grounds that unequal participation in a certain characteristic (ratio) was involved, so that more than the name was common.
53 Anonymous [1], 133–4. For another three-fold division, see Simon of Faversham [1]. For criticisms of the three-fold division, seejohn DunsScotus [3], 446A–447A and [2], 20A–25A. For further references to the three-fold division, see the second and third of the papers cited in n. 1.
54 Aristotle [8], Physics VII 249a22–5; Anonymous [1], 133; Les Auctoritates Aristotelis, 155 (193).
55 It will be noted that what the anonymous author says here is not entirely consistent with his earlier use of ‘ens’ as an example of mode two equivocation (Anonymous [1], 117), unless the thought is that ‘ens’ said of substance and accident is to be treated differently than when it is said of two kinds of accident.
56 I would like to thank the Canada Council for the Killam Research Fellowship which enabled me to do the research for this paper, and Norman Kretzmann for his help and encouragement.