8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

1/164

Vivarium

Volume 15

1977

Reprinted ith hepermission ftheoriginal ublisher

by

Periodicals

Service

Company

Germantown,

NY

2013

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

2/164

Printed

n cid-free

aper.

This

eprint

as

reproduced

rom

he

best

riginal

dition

opy

vailable.

NOTE O

THE

REPRINT

DITION:

In

ome

ases

full

age

dvertisements

hich

o not dd

o

the

cholarly

alue f his

olume

ave

een mitted.

As

result,

ome

eprinted

olumes

ay

ave

rregular

agination.

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

3/164

VIVARIUM

AN

INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL

FOR

THE

PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE

OF

THE

MIDDLE AGES AND

RENAISSANCE

VOLUME

XV

1977

J%

E.

J.

BRILL

-

LEIDEN

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

4/164

VIVARIUM

AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALFOR THE PHILOS-

OPHY

AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF

THE

MIDDLE

AGES

AND RENAISSANCE

vivarium s devoted

n

particular

o

the

profane

side of

mediaeval

hilosophy

nd the ntellectualife

f

the

Middle

Ages

and

Renaissance.

editors

C.

J.

de

Vogel, Utrecht)

L. M. de

Rijk, Leyden)

H. A.

G.

Braakhuis,

Nijmegen)

F. F.

Blok,

Amsterdam)

J.

IJsewijn,

Louvain).

Secretary

f

he Editorial

oard Prof. . M.

de

Rijk.

Allcommunications,xcepthose f business ature,hould

be

addressed

o C.

H.

Kneepkens,

atholieke

Universiteit,

Erasmuslaan

0,

8.26,

Nijmegen,

he Netherlands.

advisory

Marie-Therse

'AJverny,

Paris-Poitiers)

Tullio

Gregory,

committee

(Rome)

-

Paul

Oskar

Kristeller,

New York)

-

Jan Pinborg,

(Copenhagen)

Albert

immermann,

Cologne).

publishers

E.

J.

Brill,

Leiden,

The

Netherlands.

published

Twice

yearly,

ay

nd

November;

a

160

pagesyearly.

Contributions

ubmitted

o

vivarium

should

preferably

bewrittenn English, rench r German. he manuscriptsshouldbe typewrittennd double paced,exceptfor ong

quotations

nd footnotes.

dequatemargins1

inch)

hould

be left at

each

edge

of

the

sheet. Footnotes

hould

be

numbered

ontinuously

hroughout

ach

article,

hey

may

be

placed

either

t

the

foot f

the

page

or at the

end ofthe

text.

Contributors

eceive

5

off-prints

ree

f

charge.

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

5/164

CONTENTS

OF

VOLUME

XV

(1977)

. . KNEEPKENS The Relatio simplex n theGrammatical

Nijmegen

Tracts

of

the Late

Twelfth

nd

Early

Thirteenth

entury

1

L. a. Kennedy

The Soul's

Knowledgeof tself

An un

Windsor,

Ontario

published

Work

attributedo St. Thomas

Aquinas

31

E.

p. bos

An

Unedited

Sophism by

Marsilius

ofLeiden

Inghen

'Homo estbos

46

E.

j.

ASHWORTH

Chimeras

and

Imaginary

Objects:

A

Waterloo

Ontario

Study

in

the

Post-Medieval

Theory

of

Signification

57

L.

m. de

rij

On

Ancient and

Mediaeval

Semantics

Leiden

and

Metaphysics

81

h.

a. G.

BRAAKHUis

The Views

of

William

of

Sherwood on

Nijmegen

Some Semantical

Topics

and

Their

Relation to

Those

of

Roger

Bacon

...

hi

arpad

p. ORBN

Anonymi

Teutonici

commentum

in

Utrecht

Theodoli

eclogam

e

codice

Utrecht

U.B.

22

editum

5)

143

book review 159

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

6/164

Vivarium

V,

i

(1977)

The

Relatio

simplex

in the Grammatical Tracts

of

the

Late

Twelfth

and

Early

Thirteenth

Century

*

C. H. KNEEPKENS

I. Introduction

In fairly

several

elaborate

thirteenth

and

century

systematized

treatises

doctrine

on

syntax

concerning

there

the

appears

relatio

a

fairlyelaborate and systematizeddoctrineconcerning he relatio

and the

relative

nouns and

pronouns.1

An

important

part

of

the

discussion on

this

subject

was devoted to

the

distinction

between

the

relatio

personalis

and the relatio

implex

and

to

the

various

types

of

the

latter.

The

grammarians

f that

period

spoke

of

a

relatio

personalis

when

the

antecedent

and

its relative

supposited

for

the

same

appella

-

tum

and of a

relatio

implex

when the

antecedent

and its

relative

did

not

supposit

for

the same

appellatum.

However,

the

origin

nd

the

early

development

of

the

relatio

implex

and consequently hedistinction ntherelatiobetweenrelatio ersonalis

and

simplex

must

not

be

looked for

n

the

writings

of

grammarians.

Certain

rules in

connectionwith

the

proper

use of

the

relatives in

the

proposition

the

logicians

of

the

early

twelfth

entury

found in

Pris-

cian's Institutiones

rammaticae,

ompelled

them

to

adapt

an

improper,

but

figurative

inguistic usage,

the

relatio

indifferens

r

simplex

in

their

discussions,

esp.

on

universais.

They

were

used

to

illustrating

this

kind of relatio

with

the

example

'

mulier

quae

damnavit

salvavi

in

whichthe

antecedent

and the

relative each

denote a

different

erson,viz. Eve and

Mary,

but the relative refersto the antecedent in its

connotative or

general

meaning.2

The

grammarians

f

that

period

did

not

pay

much

attention

to

this

*

I

wish

o

express

my

hanks

o

Prof. . M.

de

Rijk

and

Mr.H. A.

G.

Braakhuis

for

heir

seful

ommentsnd

criticisms. am

also

indebted

o Mrs

Deborah

Gil

and to

Mr E.

Kellerman

who

were o kind

as

to

read

the

paper

and

to

correct

he

offences

committed

gainst nglish rammar.

1

For

a

more

omprehensive

iscussion

f the

notion

f

therelatio

implex

nd

its

first

tage

of

development,

ee

my

paper

Mulier

Quae

Damnavit,

alvavi*

A Note on theEarlyDevelopmentftheRelatio implex,n: Vivarium, IV

(1976),pp.

1-25.

2

Cf. Mulier

Quae

,

p. 4.

I

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

7/164

distinction

n

the relatio which

was,

in

fact,

based

upon

semantic

con-

siderations.

Generally, they accepted

only

the relatio

personalis

3 In

the thirdquarter of the twelfth enturythe attitude of the gramma-

rians

to

the relatio

implex

altered

drastically,

nd in

several

gramma-

tical

writings

of

that time we find

it

used rather

frequently.

This

interest

resulted

n the

incorporation

f

this semantic

distinction nto

the

doctrine

of the relatives

and the relatio

n

general,

that

formed,

n

its

turn,

a

part

of their doctrine

concerning

yntax.

In the

present

paper

I

shall discuss

some

of the

texts that are

exem-

plary

with

respect

to this

stage

of

development

of

the relatio

implex

II. The Grammatical Treatises of the Late Twelfth and Early

Thirteenth

Century

A.

The Glose

Promisimus

In

the

Glose 'Promisimus'

a

reportatio

n the Priscianus

maior

dating

from

the

1170s

and

preserved

only

in

the MS

Oxford

Bodl

Laud

.

lat

67,

4

the

glossator

makes

frequent

use

of the

notion

of

the

relatio

implex

n order

to

explain

the

meaning

of

Priscian's

statements,

but he does

not

deal

with the distinction

between

the

relatio

simplex

and the relatiopersonalis in a systematicway. So we have to piece

together

his

view

of

it from everal

parts

of the

gloss.

The

glossator

peaks

of a

relatio

personalis

when the

antecedent and

its

relative

both stand

for the same

thing

de eodem)t

nd

in

that

case

there

is

a

correct

grammatical

usage,

as

can be

gathered

from the

following

tatements

[f.

23rb]

Marcus,

dest

Tullius

. .

sed

nota

quod

relatio acta

per

d

non

est

personalis;

um

enim

per

nomen

gitur

e

re,

per

relatiuum

gitur

e

ipso

nomine'.

[f.

86va]

Licet

enim

per

hoc

relatiuum

ui

et eius

antecedens

umquam

proprie agaturniside eodem. .'.

The

relatio

implex

stands

in

opposition

to

the

relatio

personalis

and

is

actually

not a real

relatio

[f.

35vb]

Et

ideo

dicimus

uod

ibi est

simplex

elatio,

icut

mulier

ue

dampnauit,

aluaui.

Et

simplex

elatio

onest

relatio,

icutmeus ntrin-

secus

st

prime

ersone,

ontarnen

st

prime ersone'.

3

Ibid.,

pp.

12-15

nd

p.

18.

4

For

a

description

f

he

MS,

and for he

ontentsf heGlosesee R. W.

Hunt,

Studies

n

Priscian

n

the

Twelfth

entury,

I.

TheSchool

f

Ralph

ofBeauvats,

in: Mediaeval nd Renaissance tudies, I (i95)>PP- I"56>esp-PP- 1 S(l->

and L. M.

de

Rij

,

Logica

Modernorum.

Contribution

o the

History

f

Early

Terminisi

ogic

II,

1

(Assen

1967),pp.

255-262.

2

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

8/164

The

glossator peaks

of this kind of

relatio,

when the

auctoreslet the

antecedent

and its relative

stand

for diverse

things.

This

always

takes

place

translative

[f.

86

va]

Tamen

liquando pud

auctores

er

lia

(sc.

per

hoc

relatiuum

ui

et eius

ntecedens)

e diuersis

gitar,

ed

translatiue,

t n

Ouidii

astonim

'ex

uero

ositum

ermansit

quirria

nomen

que

deus

campo

rospicitpse

suo'

(Ov.,

Fast

II,

859-60)'.

The difference

n

acceptance

between

the

antecedent

and

its

relative

in

one and the

same

proposition

can be further

iversified:

1. The

relative

and

its antecedent each

stand

for

different

hing

res)

of

the

same

maneries

[f. 27ra] Sed nimis st simplex sta relatio.Nam cumaliis simplicibus

relationibus

er

relatiuum

gatur

de

rebus

eiusdem

maneriei

altem

de

quibus

per

antecedens,

t

'mulier

ue dampnauit,

aluaui

et

item

quas

Boree

piritus

ufert

euis recreat

/)

Zephirus

rondes'

Both.,

Cons.

I,

M.

5.

20.)'.

2.

The

relative

refers

n alia

significatione

o its

antecedent:

[f.

27ra]

potestas

(sc. litterarum)

utem

ipsa

prc>nuntiatio

ropter

quam

t

figure et

nomina

acta sunt

(

=

Priscian,

,

8).

Non

mutantur.

Sed

nimis st

simplex

elatio

.

. Hic

non sic

sed cum

pronuntiatio

ro

modo

pronunciandiccipiatur,

oc

relatiuumuam n alia significationead eumrefertur,cilicet n qua accipitur ro psopronunciato,destele-

mento1

[f.

39vb]

quamquam

ixi

quod

F

est muta

quamuis

ntiqui

romanorum

etc. EAM

=

Priscian,

,

46),

d est hanc

figuram

primm

au

representa-

ba^

Et est

simplex

elatio,

um

prius

acciperetur

rout

epresentat

h,

quod

quidem

dixit.Per

earn

ero

referatur

rout

epresentauit

au,

sicut

'

manus

mee,

ue

uos

fecerunt,

lauis

confixe

unt',

per

manus

orporales

manus

ntelliguntur,er

que spiri

u les'.

3.

The

antecedent

stands

for

the

res,

and the

relative

stands for

the

noun,

i.e.

is

accepted

materialiter

[f.

23rb]

Marcus,

d est

Tullius

. .

sed

nota

quod

relatio

acta

per

d

non

est

personalis.

umenim

er

nomen

gatur

de

re,

per

relatiuum

gitur

e

ipso

nomine.

uod

patet

n

hoc

exemplo

alba

id

est andida

.

Si

id

referret

res

llius

ictionis

d

quam

refertur,

otius

eberet

oni

n

plurali

uam

n

singulari.

ed refert

omen

t non

res. Est

enim

ensus:

Alba,

d

nomen

significat

andida*.

4.

The

antecedent stands for

the noun

itself

(materialiter),

nd

the

relative for

the

res

of

the

antecedent

[f.

23rb]

...id

nomen

ignificat

andida.

Et

simile

nueniturex

uero

positum ermansitquirrianomen,ue deus e campoprospicitpse suo

(Ov.,

Fast.

I,

859-60) per

ue

gitur

e

re sui

antecedentis,

er

ntecedens

uerode

ipso

nomine'.

3

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

9/164

5-

The

relative and the antecedent

both stand

for the

same maneries:

[f. 48rb]

Magister

ic

legit

nomen

est

pars

orationis

que unicuique

(=

Priscian, I,

22),

ut

que

simplicem

aciat relationem

nec

ponitur

propterliquodnominatori ,sicutdiciturhocnomenSocrates estpars

orationisine

qua

nonest

perfecta

ratio'

Non dico sine hac

parte

rationis

"Socrates"

sed ine

lla

parte

rationis

ue psum

st,

cilicet

inenomine

sed

aliter st

n hac

pars

orationis

ue

unicuique

propter

elatiuum,

uod

non

proaliquo

appellatorum

onitur,

ed

pro

manerie'.6

[f.

24'b]

littera est

minima

ox,

id est

minor

mnibus

ocibus itteratis

aliis

a se. Dicimus

uod

se

non

facit

ersonalem,

ed

simplicem

elationem

et refertur

d

maneriem,

cilicet

st

minor

f.24]

mnibus ocibus ittera-

tis

aliis a

se,

d est

a littera'.

[f.

29vb]

qua

caret

aspiratio

(=

Priscian,

,

16).

Simplex

st

relatio,

sicut

libi

Priscianus

ractans e

articulis

it

qui

n eis nullus st

(Priscian,

XII, 26) perquifit implex elatio d hoc nomenensuse

B.

Robert

Blund

In the

Summa

in

arte

gramatica,

preserved

only

in

the MS London

BM

Royal

2

D

XXX,1

ff.

9ra-94vb

nd

I03ra-i06vb,

by

the

English

master

Robert

Blund,

who flourished

n

the

last

quarter

of the

twelfth

century,8

we

find

systematic

reatment

f

the relatio

nd the

relatives

in five

chapters

1. De

relativis

f.

8gva)

2. De construction elativorumf. gorb)

3.

De

hoc

pronomine

sui*

(f. 90

va)

4.

De

relativis

nominbus

f.

9irb)

5.

De

relativis

yroj>rietatum

f.

92ra_b).

6

Cf.

De

Rijk,

Logica

Mod.

I, 1,

p.

256.

The relative

ue

heremakes

simplex

relatio,

ecause

t does

not

refero

an

appellatum

f hemaneries

pars

orationis'

but

to

pars

orationis

tanding

or

he

maneries

tself.

n

consequence,

e

Rij

'

s

Statement

o

8 on

p.

528

needs

partial

orrection:

he

grammarians

sed

to

speak

of

a

simplex

elatio

nly

n the

case

of

a

relative

lause

co-ordinate

r

subordinate). smaybe concluded rom obertBlund's tatementcf.below,

p.

20)

in the

case

of

homo

st

pecies',

hey

wouldhave

spoken

f

a

suppositio

simplex.

n

fact,

he

xample

obert

dduces

here n order

o llustratehis

ype

of

supposition,

s

'

homo

st

dignssima

reatura'

the same

as we find n

the

Fallacie

parvipontane

ed.

L.

M. de

Rijk,

Logica

Modernorum.

Contribution

tothe

History f

Early

Terminist

ogic,

(Assen

962),p.

562

2)

s

an

example

ofthe second

kind

f

univocation.

For

the nsertion

f

this

relatio

implex

n

this

category,

f.

below,

p.

17

and

2.

7

For

a detailed

escription

f

he

MS,

see

De

Rijk,Logica

Mod.

I, 1,

pp.

22-5.

8

The

question

f he

dentity

f

Robert

lund

s

extensively

reated

y

De

Rijk,

Logica

Mod.

I, 1,

pp.

255-257;

o the

iterature

isted here

noteon

a Master

RobertBlundbyA. B. Emden n hisDonors fBooks oS. Augustine'sbbey

Canterbury,

xford

Bibliographical

ociety.

Occasional

Publication

no.

4,

Oxford

968,

.

21,

can be

added.

4

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

10/164

In

order

not

to

go

beyond

the

scope

of this

paper,

I will

limit

my

remarks

o the first

hapter,

De relativis. This is subdivided nto

three

sections

1.

De relatione

Quid

sit relatio

?,

f.

89)

2.

De

speciebus

relationis

< ue

species

relationis

,

f.

89

va)

3.

De

varietatibus

elativorum

f.

8gvb).

AD

i

:

De relatione.

n

this section Master Robert

starts

with

the

definition f relatio taken from

Priscian, XII,

16:

'

Relatio

est

antelate

cognitionis

epresentation

nd

not

with the one

which often

occurs

in

later

tracts:

Relatio estantelate ei

representation10

ince,

however,

his

definition

oes

not hold for all

kinds

of

relationes Robert

proposes

to

define relatio

as follows:

'Relatio nil aliud

est

quam

secunda

cognitio'.

Next there

follows discussion

on the

meaning

of

the

adjective

secunda

in

this

definition,

whereby

ecunda

s

explained

with the

phrase

quasi

secundaria id

est socialis et

exigitiua

consortii

AD

2

De

speciebus

relationis.

There are

three main

divisions of the

relatio

nto

species

given

by

Robert

{

ecleptica: qui legit, isputt

i.

relatio

non-ecleptica'Socratesurrit,uidisputtor 'Socrates urritt

(

sive absoluta

ipse

disputt

inplicitavolutaxplicita

sive

sive

involuta:

[

'

i

I

J

,

intrasumpta

'

idem

st

1

1

'

I

I

J

]

/

disiuncta

coniuncta:

gramaticum

:

proficia

disputt'

'

disputt

'

'Socrates,

'Socrates

Socrates

Socrates

et musicum

'

studet,

uidet

currit,

qui

'

/

'Socrates,

ui

currit

I

coniuncta:

isputt

I

'Socrates

urrit,

ui

]

disputt'

,

intrasumpta

[ J

'

Socrates

idet

e*

i 1

disiuncta

J

1

'

Socrates

tudet,

t

pse

explicita

ive

proficiaevoluta I

I /

coniuncta

'si

Socrates

urrit,

1 '

(=

inmediata)

pse

mouetur

extrasumpta

/

disiuncta

'Socrates

urritt

I

personalis

^

(=

mediata)

ipse

mouetur

3.

relatio

(

simplex

For

the

text,

ee

Appendix

.

10

E.g.

in

the

works f Master

oncius nd of

Peter

de

Isolellis,

n the

Summe

Metensescf.De Rijk,LogicaMod. I, i, p. 480),or with hevariant ecordatio

in

Peter

f

Spain's

Tractatus

ed.

De

Rijk,

Assen

1972,

.

185),

nd n

Lambert

of

Auxerre's

ogica ed.

F.

Alessio,

irenze

971,

.

235).

S

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

11/164

Robert

speaks

of

a relatio

personalis,

when the

antecedent

and the

relative both

stand

for

the same

appellatum,

nd

of a

relatio

implex

whentheydo not. The relatio implex s subdivided

into

seven species:

1.

The antecedent

and its

relative both stand

for

different

ppellata

of

the same

maneries,

.g.

'homo

nuenit

itter

s,

qui

inuenit

dialeticam'

'

mulier

ue

damnauit saluaui

}

Bor

dum

quas

spiritus

ufert,

mitis

Zefirus

reuehat

rondes*

2.

The

antecedent

and its

relative

both

stand

for the maneries

e.g.

'

homo

est

dignssima

creatura

cui

soli

competit

ti

ratione'

3.

The

antecedent

stands

for the

maneries

and

the relative for

an

appellatum

of

that maneries

e.g.

'homo est

dignssima

creatura

qui

inuenit itters , '

serpens

est callidissimum nimalium,

qui

uenitad

mulier

m'

4.

The antecedent

stands

for

an

appellatum

and the

relative

for

the

maneries

e.g.

'

homo

nuenit

itter

s,

qui

est

dignssima

creatura

5.

The

antecedent

stands

for

the res

(= appellatum

,

and

the

relative

for

the

noun

itself

(materialiter)

e.g.

'

homo

est

Socrates

nomen

ppellatiuum'

6. The

antecedent stands

for the

noun itself

{

materialiter

,

and

the

relativefor heres e.g. 'homo stnomen5m [quod MS] Socrates'

7.

The antecedent

and its

relative

are

used

equivoce e.g.

'cams

latr

bile,

qui

etiam est

ceruleus

,

'

manus

mee clauis

confixe

unt

gw

wos

ecerun

AD

3:

De

varietatibus

elativorum.

he

subdivision

of the relatio

im-

plex

is

followed

by

a

list

of the sixteen

varietates

elativorum

the

sixteen

main combinations

hat can

occur

n a

r^a^'o-proposition.

They

are

derived

from

he four

ways

of

acceptance

of

a noun in a relatio

1. ad agendum de manerie

2. ad

agendum

de re

=

de

appellato

3.

ad

agendum

de

nomine

4.

nuncupative.

So

when the

antecedent

stands

for

the

maneries the

relative

can

stand

for hat

maneries

or

a rss

of that

maneries or the noun

[materia-

liter),

or can

be used

nuncupative,

tc.

Apart

from hese sixteen

varie-

ties,

there

are

also

nine

derived

varieties:

When the antecedent stands fora res, the relative can stand for:

I.

a. res

eadem,

e.g.

'homo

est

Marcus,

qui

est

Tullius

6

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

12/164

b. res

alia termino

retento

n eadem

significatione,

.g.

'

mulier

que

damnauit,

aluaui

;

c.

res

alia

in alia

significatione, .g.

'

canis hic latrai

qui

etiam

natat

in

mari

;

2. a.

maneries

eadem,

e.g.

'

homo

est

Socrates

gw

s

dignssima

crea

wra'

b. maneries

in

equivoco, e.g.

'

canis hic

latrai

habundat

in

mari

;

3.

a. nomen

idem,

e.g.

Socrates

g'wo

qui

MS]

deriuatur b

humo*

b.

synonymum

ius

nominis,

.g.

'owo

Socrates

quod

apud

Gre-

cos est nomencommune;

4.

a.

nuncupative, e.g.

4'ste

s Socrates

uocatur*

When the antecedent stands

for a maneries

the

relative can stand

for:

1. a.

maneries

eadem,

e.g.

'Aowo

dignssima

creatura

parent

cetera nimando

;

b.

maneries

in

equivoco, e.g.

(canis est

amicissimum animal

qui

etiam

habundat

n

mare

Britannico

;

2. a. res eiusdem maneriei,e.g. lhomoestdignssima creatura

Socrates

b. res

n

equivoco, e.g.

'cam's

habundat

n

mari

qui

etiam

hic

atra

3.

a. nomen

dem,

e.g.

'Aowo

dignssima

creatura

gwa

deriuatur

b

humo

;

b.

synonymum

ius

nominis,

.g.

'owo

dignssima

creatura

quod

apud

Grecos

st

s s'; 11

3.

a.

maneries,

e.g.

'

animal rationale

uocatur

homo

s

dignssima

creatura

;

4.

a.

nomen

idem,

e.g.

'iste uocatur Socrates

s

nomen

pro-

prium*

b.

synonymum

ius,

e.g.

'

animal rationale

uocatur

homo

quod

apud

Grecos

st nomen

ommune

So

there are

25

varieties,

and

in

only

two

of them

is the

relatio

personalisfound: when the antecedentand its relativeboth stand for

the

same

res

and

when the antecedent

and its relative both

stand

for

the same

nomen.

n the other

23

cases

we have a relatio

implex

But

this

numbercan be

enlarged,

ccording

to Master

Robert;

and he

gives

an

example

taken from he

Gospel

of St.

John:

'

"diabolus est mendax

et

pater

eius",12

d

est mendacii

where

the relative eius

refers

o

the

noun

mendacium

implied

n the

adjective

mendax

This

kind

of relatio

simplex

will

be called

in later tracts

ad

agendum

de

appellato

nominis

coniugati

cum

suo

antecedente*13

Master Robert ends this sectionwith the remarkthat as there are

demonstrationes

4

and

relationes

implices,

there are also

appositiones

simplices,

e.g.

'tunc

flos Hesperie

Latii

nunc sola iuuentus concidi

15

adiectiones

implices

e.g.

'mundus

globatus

tc. circumcurrenserras

;16

11

The

reading

f

theMS

is

uocatur

12

J

h.

8,

44.

Note

Robert's

xpression:

non

tarnen

npossible

st

lias

inue-

nire* see

below,

.

20.

13

See

below,

.

22.

14

Abailardmade

the amekinds

fobservation

ith

egard

o the demonstra-

tive

pronouns,

f.

my

paper

"Mulier

Quae" p.

6.

On

f.

86vb,

Robertmakes

distinctionetweenhedemonstratioimplexndpersonalis'Demonstrationum

alia

personalis,

lia

simplex.

ersonalis

st

quando

ea res demonstrature

qua

agitur. implex

icitur

uando

aliquid

pecialiter

emonstratur

t de manerie

agitur,

t

demonstrando

lbedinem

ocratis

icatur hie

color st

n

Platone

id est huiusmodi

olor. imiliter

hecherba

enditur ome et aliuddemonstratur

quia

res

pecialiter,

t de alio

agitur

uia

de

manerie.

imiliter

t

hic

qui

super

te

pedibus

mbulaui.

Cum

personalis

emonstratio

it

per

hoc

pronomen

go

et

personalis

t

simplex er

hoc

pronomen

u,

magis

amen donee

it

implex

demonstratio

ronomine

ercie

ersone'.

16

Lucan.,

Phars.

I,

196-7.

ie

Cf. Mart.

Cap.,

VIII,

par.

814

(ed.

Dick,

p. 43o12*15):

mundus

gitur

x

quattuor

lementis

sdemque

otis n

sphaerae

modum

lobaturglobatus

s

the

variant eadingn the MSS tradition L R1 b and in the editio rinceps)

terramn

medio

moque

efixam eternis

aeli

raptibus

ircumcurrens

uadam

ratione iscrimint'.

8

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

14/164

comparationes

implices

e.g.

'NerineGalathea himomichidulcior

yble

17

and

suppositiones implices.

This

does

not mean

the

(logical)

suppositio

simplex

of the

type

'

homo

est

dignissima

creatura'

where

per

nomen

agitur

de

aliquo

indeterminatebut the

suppositio

implex

that runs ike

the relatio

implex

and that can

only

be

explained

by

means

of

a relatio

simplex

e.g.

the

word dies in

the

example

' "

dies crescunt

,

id est

iunt

maiores

quam

ipsi

fuerint

quam ipsif

d

est

quam

dies'.

And the

appo

sitio,

diectio

nd

comparatio

implex

must be

understood

n

the

way.18

In

the section De

relativis

roprietatumi

obert

Blund deals

with

the

relatio

implex gain.

He denies

that

the

relativa

proprietatum

an cause

a

relatio

personalis

since

in a relatio

by

a

relativum

roprietatis

here

always is a transitus d appellationem lteriuspersone tad aliam quali

tatem.

Therefore,

n

the

case of

a relatio

by

a relativum

roprietatis

we

always

have

a

relatio

implex.1*

C. An

Anonymous

UMMA

DE

RELATIVIS

Closely

related to

the text of

Robert Blund

is the

anonymous

Summa

de

relativis

preserved

n

the MS Bern

Bong

x9,

ff.

3r-i39v

formerly

a

part

of

the MS

St.

-Victor,Paris,

JJJ

7).

20

The

Summa must

be dated

17

Ver

.,

.

VII, 37.18Addtothese simplicesthereciprocatioimplex: .9ovbReciproce onitur

dupliciter:

n

simplici eciprocatione

t in

personali.

n

personali

uando

prorsus

adem

persona

ignificaturgens

et

paciens.

n

simplici onitur,

t

apud

Priscianum

nuenitur

prepositio

ibi

preponitur,

t

"inperterritus"

(Priscian,

III,

7).

Aliter

arnen

uper

hoc

quandoque

icebamus

ie

pronomen

ibi

poni

n

simplici

ransitione

N.B.

simplex

ransitio

oes

not

tand

n

opposi-

tion

to

personalis

ransitio,

ut

to

reciprocatio)

censentes,

t esset

sensus:

Prepositio

reponitur

ibi,

d

est

alii

prepositioni.

uia

tarnen

oc

non

exprimit

ilia

ocutio,

riori

t

potiori

dheremus

entencie,

t

aliqua

reciprocatio

implex

dicatur

quemadmodum

t

aliqua

demonstratio

t

aliqua

relatio,

ut

supra

diximus,

implex

st. Et

earn

implicem

icimus,

uia

non

transit b eadem

specie.Nonenim liud st prepositioreponituribi quam prepositioreponitur

prepositioni

19

MS f.

92rb:

Relatiua

proprietatum

emper

d

appellatiua

eferunturt cum

eis

idem

significant

ec

transitm

ppellationis

xcludunt,

t

cum

dicitur

'Socrates

st

albus et talis

est

Plato

,

idem

ntelligitur

c

si

diceretur

Socrates

est

lbus

et Plato

est

lbus'

et

ipsa

transitm

ppellationis

on

excludunt. it

enim

ransitus

d

appellationem

lterius

ersone,

ed etiam

d

aliam

ualitatem.

Vnde nobis

uidetur

quod

semper

relatiua

proprietatum

implicem

aciunt

relationem'.

20

For a

description

f

the

whole

MS,

see

H.

Hagen,

Catalogus

odicum

ernen-

sium,

ern

1875,

p.

433-437;

detailed

escription

f

the

part

of

the

MS

that

inter

lia

contains

this

Summa,

nd its

history

re

given by

E.

Pellegrin,

ManuscritseV bbaye eSaint-Victortd'anciensollgeseParis la Biblio-

thque

municipale

e

Berne,

la

Bibliothque

aticane

t

Paris,

BEC,

103

(I942)

PP-

69-98,

sp.

pp. 76-79,

nd E.

Pellegrin,

ssai

d'identification

e

9

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

15/164

after

Robert

Blund,

but

earlier

than the tracts

edited

by

Fierville.21

Since

it

refers everal

times to

the views

held

by

Robert

Blund,

here

called R. Lincolniensis,whose Summa can onlybe traced in England,

we

may

suggest

an

English

origin

for this

Summa,

too.22

The

composition

of this Summa

is looser

than Robert Bluns.

It

starts

with

a

general

exposition

on the

relatio

and

gives

as a definition

'

Relatio est

antelate

ignificationis

efietitio'

scribed

to

Priscian. Next

Robert's

observations

re

repeated,

.e.

the need

for notherdefinition

'

Relatio

nichil

aliud est

quam

secunda

cognitio

,

and the

meaning

of

secunda

n the

latter definition.

he

author

goes

on

to the

second

part,

De

speciebus

relationist

uite

abruptly,

nd

gives

the

following

cheme:

l

implicita

ive nvoluta

=

intrinseca)

relatio

personalis

(

explicita

ive evoluta

=

extrnseca)

(

simplex

The

author

speaks

of a

relatio

personalis

when

the

antecedent and

its relative

both

stand

for

the same

appellatum,

or both

for the

same

noun

(materialiter)

and

of a

relatio

simplex

n

the other cases.

A

sub-

division of

the

relatio

implex

s

made

into the

relatio

implex

per

relati-

vumsubstantiae nd the relatio implexperrelativtimroprietatis.

The

relationes

implicesper

relativum

ubstantiae

re dealt

with

first,

and here

we,

in

fact,

get

the third

section

of Robert's

chapter

De

relativis,

iz

De

varietatibus

elativorum.

he

author

says

that a word

can

be used

in three

different

sages

in a

proposition:

1.

ad

agendum

de

re

sive

de

appellato

proprie

2. ad

agendum

de

manerie

3.

ad

agendum

de

nomine.

MasterR. Lincolniensis,he argues,adds a fourth sage, viz when a

word is

used

nuncupative

but

this

seems

to

him

to be

quite

different.

When

the

antecedent

stands

for

the

res

(=

appellatum)t

he

relative

can be

used

in

eight

ways

according

to

the

author,

n

order

to cause

a

relatio

implex

but

in fact

he lists

ten

ways:

the nrs

1.

b.,

1.

c.;

2.

a.,

2. b.

;

3.

a.,

3.

b.

;

and

4.

a.

already

dealt

with

by

Robert

Blund

in

his

fragments

isperss

ansdes

manuscrits

es

bibliothques

eBerne

tde Paris

in

Bulletind'information

e

l'Institut

de

Recherches

t

d'Histoire

es

Textes,

no

9 (i960),pp. 24-25.21Cf.Unegrammaireatinenditeu XIIIe sicled. Ch.Fierville,ans 1886,

pp.

60-69

nd

pp.

186-190.

or

the

text

of

the

Summa,

ee

Appendix

.

22

Cf.De

Rijk,

Logica

Mod.

I, i,

p.

257.

IO

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

16/164

section

about the varietatibus

elativorum.

o

these

seven

kinds,

three

others

are added:

1. the kindalreadymentioned n Robert Blund's Summa: ad agendum

de

appellato

nominis

coniugati

23

.g.

'

diabolus

est

mendax

cuius

ipse

est

pater

;

2.

the relative

stands

for

the

res that is

only secondarily signified

y

the

antecedent,

e.g.

'

non mea

scripta

legant

qui

sum sumotus ad

Istrum'

24

3.

a relativum ubstantiae

s used

in

stead

of a

relativum

ualitatis e.g.

'

nos

genus gnauum quod

tecto

audet

et umbra

25

For thosecases in which the antecedent stands for hemaneries, he

same

possibilities

orthe

relative

are

listed

as

in

Robert's Summa.

The

same holds for

the

cases

in

which

the antecedent is

used

materialiter

positum

with

the

exception

that unlike

the

author's own statement

n

the

section on the

relatio

personalis

mentioned

above,

in the

proposi-

tion

where

the

antecedent

and

its

relative both

stand for he same

noun

{

materialiter

,

here a relatio

implex

s

said to occur.

The

five

ways

in

which,

ccording

to

Robert

Blund,

the

antecedent

s used

nuncupative

are then

appended.

Next there followsa discussionon a fewcases where the relativum

substantiae

does not referto

a

single

word,

but to a clause.

This

is

followed

by

a

section

where the

question

what

the relative

qui

refers

to in

the

example 'ego

sum

dignus qui regam

rem

publicam

is dealt

with as well

as

a

number

of

other

questions

of the

same

kind.

The

section on the relativa

proprietatum

tarts

with

the

division

of

the relativa

proprietatum

nto

1. relativa

qualitatis

:

quahs

talis

2. relativa

quan

tit

tis

quantus

tantus

3.

relativa numeri :

quot

tot

4.

relativa ordinis

:

quotus

totus.

Whereas the relativa

substantiaehave the

function of

referring

o

substantive nouns

or

words used

substantially,

the

relativa

proprieta-

tum n

their

turn

refer o

adjectival

nouns or

words

used

adjectivally

in

the

proposition.

Like Robert

Blund,

the

author of the

Summa states

that the relativa

proprietatum

ause

a

relatio

implex

26 n the

proposi-

23

See

above,p.

8.

24Cf.Ov.,E.P. 3, 4, 91.

25

uv.

7, 105

26

Cf.

bove,

p.

9,

n.

19.

II

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

17/164

tion

'

Socrates

est albus

talis

est

Plato* the

predicate

term

albus

has a

double function:

t

denotes

(.

ignificai

id

est

appellai)

the

substance,

and it links (: ignificai id estcopulat) the quality [albedo).The white-

ness

of

Socrates,

however,

s

not identical

to the

whiteness of

Plato,

but the

same

in

specie.

So

the

antecedent

and

its

relative ink

the

same

in

specie

quality

to different

ersons.

Thereforewe have to

speak

of

a relatio

implex.

And the

same holds

for the other

kinds

of the

relativa

proprietatum

The

Master

of the

Summa

mentions

one

exception,

how-

ever: when the antecedent

and its

relative both

concern the same

persona.

In fact

this

happens

only

in

propositions

of the

type

Socrates

est

albus

et talis

dicitur sse* Here

we

have

a

relatio

personalis

according

to the author.

The

discussion

of the

relationes

er

nomina

relativa s

followed

by

the

section about

the

pronominalis

elatio to

which the author

applies

the

same

procedure

as

to the

nominalis

relatio First

a

discussion of the

pronoun

and

the

pronominalis

elatio n

general,

and

next of

ts

species

The relationes

ronominalis

re divided

into the

relatio

ersonalis

nd

the relatio

implex

The

author

speaks

of

a

relatio

personalis

when

the

antecedent

and its

relative

both

stand

for the

same

person

[persona)

orwhen theyboth stand forthe same word [materialiter). he discus-

sion of the relatio

simplex

is

not so

extensive

here as in the

section

about the nominalis

relatio.The

author

only

lists

the

following

ases:

1. when the antecedent

stands

for he maneries

r its own

significatum

and the

relative

pronoun

forthe

same

maneries

or

significatum

e.g.

'

substantia

est

quiddam

et

psa

est

genus

;27

2. when the relative

pronoun

tands for

celatum

ualitatis

e.g.

'

nescio

quid

sit

amans

at tamen

llud

eram,28

d

est

illius modi

;

3. a. when the antecedentstands for an appellatumt nd the relative

pronoun

tands

for

he

word

tself

materialiter)e.g.

fuideoAnchi

sidemt

d est

Eneam'

;

b.

when the relative

pronoun

refers

materialitero a clause

significa-

tive

positat

e.g.

*

tropos

neten

29

d est

homo

ueni

Next the author

discusses

questions

about

constructions

f

the

type

'

Socrates

uel Plato

currit t

pse

mouetur

,

and

makes

a

remark on

the

27

IsagogePorphyrii,.

22

(Translatiooethii,

d. L.

Minio-Paluello,

ristoteles

Latinus I 6-7,Bruges-Paris966, . Q19).

28

Cf.

Ov.,

Her.

ii,

32.

29

v0p)7ro

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

18/164

demonstratio

implex

and the

adiectio

simplex

but

he

leaves

the in-

vestigations

nto them

to

a

diligens

ngenium'

He

ends

the

Summa

with

a listingof the adverbiarelativa.

The attention the

grammarians

of the

late twelfth

enturypaid

to

the

relatio fits

well

into

the

general pattern

of a

growing

nterest n

syntax

since

the

middle

of

that

century,

n

interest hat

resulted

nter

alia in a number of

treatises

especially

devoted to

syntax (e.g.

Robert

Blund's Summa

in

arte

gramatica

the Summa

of

Master

R.,

quoted

by

Master

Hugutio,30

nd

Master

Hugutio's

Summa

itself,

Peter

of

Spain

{non-papa)'

Absolutacuiuslibet

1

nd

Master Nicolaus

De

grammatica

etde omnigenere onstructionum32)The relatio implex s now ntegrated

in

considerations

on

the relatio the

relatives

and their

application

in

the

proposition.

The view that

the relatio

implex

in

opposition

to the relatio

persona-

lis

owes its

origin

to an

improper

inguisticusage,

which means

that

it

is

a

figura cf.

The

Glose Promisimus' Robert

Blund,

and

the

author

of

the Summa de

relativis)

33

s

still

retained. But an

important

change

with

respect

to

the

previous

period

exists

in

the fact

that the

distinc-

tion relatio

implex

personalis

s

not

yet

considered as

an

apt

tool

in

the discussionson the universalia but that it has been transferredo

the field

of

the

newly

developed

theories

of

meaning,

the

result of

the

interaction f

grammar

nd

logic during

the twelfth

entury: Equivo-

cation and

univocation,

the

distinction

n

the

meaning

of a

common

noun

betweenthe

significatio

nd the

appellatio

the

meaning

of a

noun

in

the

proposition

4

have become constructive

eatures

n

the

gramma-

tical doctrine

about the

relatio

simplex.

This

does

not

mean that

the

30

For

these

masters nd their

ctivities,

ee M.

Grabmann,

Mittelalterliches

Geistesleben,Mnchen926, p.iio-iii, andL.M.deRijk, omeNewEvidence

on

Twelfth

entury

ogic

Alberic nd

the

School

of

Mont

Ste

Genevive,

n:

Vivarium,

V

(1966), p. 1-57, sp. pp. 18-19.

31

Cf. R. W.

Hunt,

Absoluta. he Summa

of

Petrus

Hispanus

on

Priscianus

minorin:

Historiographiainguistica,

I

(1975), p. 1-23.

32

This

tract s

preserved

n

two

MSS

(Douai,

.

.

2

and

Valenciennes,

.

.

397)

*-

J-

Pinborg,

ie

Entwicklung

er

Sprachtheorie

m

Mittelalter,

ei-

trge.

XLII,

2,

Miinstei

.

W.

1967,pp. 329

and

336 C 6).

33

See for

the

Glose

above,

p.

2,

forRobert

Blund's

Summa

below,

p.

19:

'et

hic

etiam

duplex

ntercidit

igura, igura

cilicet

elationis,

t

figura uod

hoc

nomen anis

ponitur

ro

eius

sinonimo',

nd

for

he Summa

de relativis

below,

.

29:

'cauendum

utem

n

talibusne

extendatur

igura'.

34Cf. bove, p.6,10.For the developmentfthetheory fmeaningn the

twelfth

entury,

ee

De

Rijk, Logica

Mod.

II,

1,

and

J.

Pinborg, ogik

und

Semantikm

Mittelalter.

in

berblick,

tuttgart 972,

p. 43-76.

I

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

19/164

grammarians

imply adopted

here the theories

of

meaning

as

they

oc-

cur

in the

tracts

of

early

Terminist

ogic.

Their

point

of

departure

in

this respect remained the relatiopropria

=

personalis, nd their cri-

teria

were either

that

both

extremes

of the relatio

must,

denote the

same

appellatum

=

res

=

persona)

or the

same

word,

notwithstand-

ing

the

general

acceptance

that

in the

latter case we are

also

dealing

with

a

translatio,

iz the translatio

grammaticorum

So one would feel

inclined

to

admit that in each case

where the extremes

of

a relatiode-

note

the same

(thing),

the

medieval

grammarian

used

to

speak

of

a

relatio

personalis

But there

appears

to be an

important exception:

When

the

extremes

denote

the

same

maneries,

hey

counted

t

as

part

of relatio implex

An

innovation that

obviously originates

fromRobert Blund is

the

introduction

of the

fourth

way

of

using

a noun

in

a

proposition,

viz

nuncupative,

n

this context.

n a

foregoing

ection of

his

Summa

Robert

argued

that a noun used

nuncupative

neither s used

significative

or

materialiter

but takes

a

middle

position:

construed

with a vocative

verb

it is a

nota nominationis

'Nobis

placet

quod

nomen

proprium

um uerbo

uocatiuo

nec

ponitur

materialiter

ec

ponitur ignificatine,

ed

medium abemus

oni,

cilicet

nuncupatiue.resentat nim e nomen ropriumn oratione, t nota sit

nominationis;

t dicimus

roprie oni,

non tarnen

ignificatiue

onitur'.35

The Master

of

the Summa

de relativishas

problems

with

t

and

can-

not

accept

it

in

the same

way

as

the other

three

usages

of a noun

in a

proposition

'Quarto

modo

ponitur

ictio

nuncupatiue

ecundum

R. Lincolniensem.

Videtur

amen

uod

hie modusdiuersus

it

ab

aliis

ponendi

modis.

Vnde

alias

determinabitur'

38

That the

nuncupative

se

of

a

word caused

troubles o other

gramma-

rians,too, appears from heQuaestionesgrammaticaleshat are extant

in the MS

Mnchen

BS Clm

ij2io

(s.

Xllex

?/IH),

ff.

04r-i24v:

collection

of

questions

about

the

meaning

of

adverbs,

prepositions,

nd

about

deviant

constructions

Inc.

:

irca

significationem

duer-

biorum

multe et

uarie

emergunt

questiones

.

.). Expounding

the ex-

ample

'hoc

est nomen

quod

uocabunt

um}

Jer.

23,

6)

the

author

points

to the fact

that

if

we

have here

a

relatio

personalis

i.e. ad

terminm

discretum

the

propositions

1

ego

uoco

te

hoc nomen and

1

ego

uoco

te hoc

nomine

both

ought

to

be

correct.

In that case

we

should

have

an

36

MS

London

BM

Royal

2 D XXX

,

f.

83^.

se

See

below,

.

21.

14

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

20/164

accusativus

nstrumentalisnd an ablativus

nstrumentais,

which

s

in-

correct.

The

solution

to

this

problem

ies

in the

distinction

n

the

relatio

between

1. the

relatio

personalis

when the relative

refers o what

is

supposited

by

the

antecedent,

and in the same

way;

2.

the relatio

generalis

ive

simplex

of which several

species

occur:

a.

when the

antecedent

supposits

for

the maneries

and the

relative

refers o unum de

manerie

e.g.

'

serpens

st

callidior

animantibus

ceteris

qui

decepit

Euam'

(cf.

Gen.

3,

1)

b.

when

the

antecedent

supposits

for

unum

de

manerie

and the

relative

refers o the

maneries

e.g.

'

hoc enim

facit

articulus

pud

Grecos qui apud nos non reperitu' (cf.Priscian,XVII, 132)

c.

when the

antecedent

supposits

for

something,

nd the

relative

refers o

the

same

thing,

but

alio

modo,

e.g.

'

hoc

est

nomen

quod

uocabunt um

;

here the

relative

quod

is used alio

modo

=

nun-

cupative?1

By

the

time we come to the

tracts on

relatives

n

the

middle of

the

thirteenth

entury

the

question

of the

nuncupative

use

of

a

word

in

a

relatio

has

disappeared.

For lack ofeditionsofgrammaticaltexts, t is hard to trace in how

far

the other

"

simplices"

-

except

for

the

demonstratio

implex

that

still

occurs

in

companion

of

the relatio

simplex

in

the

Resolutio

octo

partium

rationis

f

the

fifteenth

entury

cholar

Johannes

Versor

38

37

For

the ext

ofthis

uaestio,

ee

Appendix

.

38

For

the

details fhis

ife,

f.Ch. H.

Lohr,

Medieval

atin

Aristotle

ommen-

taries.

Authors:

ohannes

e Kanthi

Myngodus,

n:

Traditio,

XXVII

(1971),

pp.

290-291.

Versor eals with he

demonstratio

nd

the

relatio

personalis

nd

simplex)

n

the

chapter

n the

pronoun

f his

Odo

partium

rationis

xplanatio

accomodatissima

-

Octo

artium

rationis

esolutio

utulentissima,

d.

Heidel-

berg1489apud FriedrichMisch, ies 1318): 'sciendumprimo uod relatio

et

demonstratio on

sunt modi

significandi

ronominis:

ed sunt

quedam

accidentia

iue

quedam

proprietates

onsequentes

modm

emonstrationis

t

referentis.

icut

enim

vita

que

rsultat

x

vnione

orporis

um

anima

non est

anima

nec

corpus

ita

demonstratio

t

relatio

non

sunt

modi

demonstrantist

referentis.

t

ideo non

ponuntur

b autore

nter

ccidentia

ronominis.

nde

relatio st

ante

ate rei

recordatio. t est

duplex

cilicet

implex

t

personalis.

Simplex

st

quando

relatiuumefertdem n

spetie

t non

n

numero um

uo

antecedente,icut

bi

mulier amnauit

ue

saluauit.

ed

relatio

ersonalis

st

quando

relatiuum

efert

dem n

numero um

uo

antecedente,t

Sortes

urrit

et

ille

disputt,

ciendum

ecundo

quod

duplex

st

demonstratio:

cilicet

d

sensum

t

ad

intellectum.

emonstratiod

sensum

st

quando

demonstratur

resque subij itur ensui t visuivel auditui.Demonstratiod intellectumst

quando

res

absens

demonstratur

er aliquod

signum

n

intellectu

xistens.

Demonstrationum

lia

simplex

lia

personalis.

emonstratio

ersonalis

st

IS

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

21/164

have survived

Robert

Blund

and

his

follower,

he

Master of the

Summa

de

relativis,

but

surely,

n

the case

of Robert's

suppostilo simplex

it

must have been

too hard

a

job

to

competeagainst

the

"real"

suppositio

simplex.

Appendix

A

Robert

Blund,

Summa

n arte

grammaticacap.

De relativis

MS

London,

M

Royal

D

XXX,

ff.

8va-orb

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

22/164

et

dem st

musicum. t

interest

nter

nplicitam

iue

nuolutam

elationem

t

eclipticam:

n

eclptica

nimnon

profertur

ntecedens,

ed

subintelgitur

t

apponi

potest.

mplicita

iue nuoluta

rofertnr

ine

omni

ubauditione t

nil

deestad perfectionem.ncongruenim dicituraliquididemestgramaticumet musicum'.

xplicita

dicitur iue euoluta

quando proferturrimam

aciens

cognitionem

t

sequitur

relatiuum

ecordationemaciens

iue

cognitionem

iterans,

t

Socrates urritt

pse

disputt'.

Rursus.

xplicitaruminplicitarum

S]

alia

intrasumpta,

lia

extrasumpta.

Intrasumpta

uandoponitur

elatiuum

um uo antecedente

n

eadem

implici

oratione,

t 'Socrates idet

e',

Socrates

tudt,

t

pse

proficia

non

enimut

principium

acit lterius rationis.

xtrasumpta uando

pecedit

ntecedens t

sequitur

elatiuum

uasi

principium

aciens lterius

rationis,

t

Socrates urrit

et

pse

mouetur'

Intrasumptarum

lia

coniuncta,

lia

disiuncta.

oniuncta

uando

ntecedens

et

relatiuum

nmediate

oniunguntur,

t 'Socrates

ui

currit,

isputt

;

uel

inmediatentelligunturoniungi,t Socratesurrit,uidisputt*.dem enim st

'Socrates

urrit,

ui

disputt

et 'Socrates

ui

currit,

isputai'.

Disiuncta,

ut

quando

liquo

medio ntercedente

oniunguntur,

t

Socrates

idet

e',

Socrates

studt,

t

pse proficia.

Extrasumptarum

imilis

est diuersitas.

Quedam

enim

mediata,

quedam

inmediata.

ediata

uando

llud

uod

orationes

oniungit,nter[f.

9vb]ponitur,

ut

'

Socrates urrit

t

ipse disputt'.

nmediata

quando

illud

quod

orationes

coniungit,

ecedit,

t si Socrates

urrit

ipse

mouetur'

Item.Relationum

lia

simplex,

lia

personalis.

ersonalis

uando

ntecedens

ponitur

ro liquo

ppellato

t

pro

eodem

onitur

elatiuum,

t

quando

ntece-

dens

primamognitionem

acit

e

aliquo

et

relatiuum e eodem

ecordationem

facit, t Socratesurrit,uidisputt'. implex uandononproeodem umitur

antecedenst relatiuum.

Simplicis

utem

eptem

unt

dicunt

MS]

species.

rima st

quando

antece-

dens sumitur

ro

aliquo

appellato

t

relatiuum

ro

alio,

ut si

dicatur

homo

inuenit

iteras,

ui

inuenit

ialeticam'ut

in

Theologia

mulier

ue

damnauit,

saluaui

etc.

Et tale inuenitur

pud

Boetium Boree um

quas

spiritus

ufert,

mitis

efirus

euehat

rondes'.*0

Secunda

species

quando

antecedens

relatiuum

onitur ro

aliquo

appellato,

ed

utrumque ro

manerie,

t

homo st

dignssima

reatura,

ui soli

competit

ti rationeuel

dominarieterisnimantibus'41

Et tale ait

Priscianus

in

tractatu

ronominis

hoc stendit

ensus,

ui

nullus

n

eis

repperitur'

42

Terciaspeciesest quandoper antecedensgiturde manerie t relatiuum

ponitur ro aliquo appellato,

t si dicatur homo st

dignissima

reatura,

ui

inuenit

iteras'.

t hic tale nuenitur

serpens

st

allidissimum

nimai,

ui

uenit

ad

mulierm43

Quarta

pecies

st

quando

econuerso

ccidit,

uando

antecedensumitur

ro

aliquo

ppellato

t relatiuum

ro

manerie,

t si dicatur

homonuenit

iteras,

ui

est

ignissima

reatura'.

t

apud

Priscianumale nuenitur

arttculusicdiscernit

apud

eos,

ui apud

nos

non nuenitur44

Quinta

species

est

quando

per

antecedens

gitur

de

re,

per

relatiuum

e

40

Both.,

Cons.

,

M.

5.

20.

41

Cf.Gen.

.

28.

42Cf.Prise.,nst. ram.XII, 26.

43

Cf.

Gen.

,

i.

44

Cf.

Prise.,

nst.

gram.

XVII,

132.

17

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

23/164

nomine,

t

si dicatur

homo st

ocrates,

uod

st

nomen

ppellatiuum'

Similiter

hic

Marcus

urrit,

d

est

Tullius' Sensus

st:

d est

Tullius:hoc nomen

Marcus,

id est

hoc

nomen

ullius,

d

est

significatuod

llud.

Sexta econuersouandoper ntecedensenomine,errelatiuumere,utsidicaturhomo stnomen,

ui [quod

MS]

est Socrates'. t tale

apud

Ouidium

Fastis nueniturex

uero

ositum

ermansit

quirria

omen,

ue quod

MS]

deus

e

campo rospexit

pse

suo'.*6

Septima

pecies

st:

In

equiuocatione

onsiderato,

t

si

dicatur

canis est

latrbile

qui

etiam

st eruleus'.

t tale

n

Theologia eperitur

manusmee

lauis

confixe

unt,

ue

uos

fecerun

Cum

enim icitur

manus

onfixe

unt,

ntelligitur

de manibus

arnalis ubstantie. ed

cum dicitur

ue

uos

fecerunt,

ntelligitur

de

Diuina

Potentia.

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

24/164

quod

tu non

censeris,

d

est

quod

tu non

uocaris,

uasi

dicit:

Non

uocaris

iniquus.

icebatur nim

pse

pius

Eneas.

Et sic octo modis ariatur

elatiuum,

quando

per

ntecedens

gitur

e re.

Rursus.Agatur er ntecedensemanerie,errelatiuumotest gideeadem

manerie

uel

de

manerie)

n

equiuoco.

e

eadem

manerie,

t homo st

ignssima

creatura,

ui

parent

etera nimando*.

e

manerie

n

equiuoco,

ut

'

canis

est

amicissimum

iue domesticum

nimal,

ui

etiamhabundat

n

mari

Britannico'

Agatur

tem

er

ntecedense

manerie,

er

relatiuum

otest gi

de re

eiusdem

maneriei el de

re n

equiuoco.

e re

eiusdem

maneriei,

t

homo st

dignssima

creatura,

ui

est

Socrates'. e re in

equiuoco,

'

canis

habundatn

mari,

qui

etiam

ic

atra

Agatur

tiamde manerie

er

ntecedens,

er

relatiuum

otest

gi

de

nomine,

sed de nomine odem el de eius

sinonimo.

e

eodem,

t

homo

st

dignssima

creatura,

uod

deriuatur

b humo'

De

eius

sinonimo,

t 'homo st

dignssima

creatura,

uod

pud

Grecos

st

nomeny

ommune'.

Agaturtemperantecedense manerie,elatiuumotest oninuncupatiue,

ut

homo st

dignssima

reatura,

uod

nimai

rationale

ensetur'.

t

ita

septem

modis ariatur

elatiuum

uando

per

antecedens

gitur

e

manerie.

Rursus.

Agatur

e nomine

er

ntecedens,

er

relatiuum

otest

gi

de

nomine

eodem el de eius inonimo.

e nomine

odem,

t

homo

st

nomen

ppellatiuum,

quod

deriuatur

b

humo'.

De eius

sinonimo,

t

'

homo

stnomen

ppellatiuum,

quod

pud

Grecosst

nomencommune'.

t

tale nuenitur

pud

Boetiumn

ibro

diuisionumcanis

in

lingua

barbara

orte

impliciter

icitur,

uod apud

nos

multipliciter'

48 t hic

etiam

upliciter

ntercidit

igura, igura

cilicet

elationis

et

figura

uod

hocnomen

anis

ponitur ro

ius inonimo.

on enim oc

nomen

canis

st

apud

barbaros.

Agaturtemde nomine erantecedens,er

relatiuum

otest gi

de re.

Hicnondiuiditur,uia nonpecedit omen n aliqua significatione,ed tantum

materialiter

onitur,

t homo

stnomen

ppellatiuum,

ui

est

Socrates'.

Agatur

tem

per

ntecedens

e

nomine,

er

relatiuum

otest

gi

de

manerie,

ut homo stnomen

ppellatiuum,

ui

est

dignssima

reatura

[Nec

agi

de manerie.

Hic diuiditur

ropter

ationem

redictam

MS]

De

nomine tem

quando agitur

er

antecedens,

t

relatiuum

otestponi

nuncu-

patiue,

ut

'Socrates

st

nomen

roprium,ui

iste uocatur'.

t

sic

quando per

antecedens

gitur

e

nomine,

elatiuum

uinqu

modisuariatur.

Rursus.

onatur ntecedens

uncupatiue,

elatiuum

oni

potest

uncupatiue,

ut

'iste uocatur

ocrates,

ui

et Ule

uocatur'. er relatiuum

tiam

potest

gi

de

re,

ut

'iste

uocatur

ocrates,

ui ipse

est

[uocaturMS].

Per relatiuumtem

potest gide reimanerie,t animal ationaleocatur omo,uiestdignssima

creaturaNec

agi

de manerie

el

agi

de re

hic

diuiditur,

uia

nomen um

uerbo

uocatiuo nominationem

eterminans

on

ponitur

n

aliqua significatione.

Potest tem

er

relatiuum

gi

de

nomine,

ed

de nomine

odem

el

eius

inonimo.

De

eodem,

t

iste ocatur

ocrates,

uod

st

nomen

roprium'.

e eius

inonimo,

ut

animai

ationale ocatur

omo,

uod

pud

Grecos st

nomen ommune. Et

his

quinqu

arietatibus

um

predictis

ollectis

elatiui

uinqu

t

uiginti xaugent

uarietates.

In ilio octonario

arietatum

uando

per

antecedens

gitur

de

re,

quoquo

modo uarietur

elatiuum,

na sola inuenitur

ersonalis

elatio,

uando

per

antecedens

t

relatiuum

gitur

de eadem

re.

Relique septem implices

unt.

In ilio septenario uandoagiturde manerie, ulla personalis,ed omne

simplices

eperiuntur.

48

Both.,

e

divisione,

L

64, 879A.

19

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

25/164

In

quinario uando

agitur

e

nomine,

na

sola inuenitur

ersonalis

elatio,

quando

cilicet

er

ntecedenst

per

relatiuum

gitur

e eodem

omine.

elique

quatuor implices

unt.

In alio quinarioquando poniturnomennuncupatiue, ulla nisi simplexinueniturelatio. arum utem

xempla

nducenti

atebunt.

Ex

predictis

icet

olligere

res t

uiginti

pecies implicis

elationis.

f.90rb]

Non

tarnen

npossibile

st alias

inuenire,

i

quis

hoc

consideret

uod

ad

nomen

positum

n

designatione

ubiecti

it elatio d

formam

ertinens.

ale est

llud

'diabolus st

mendax t

pater

ius

,49

d est

mendacii. conuerso

otest

forte

accidere.

ugebitur

rgo

numerus elationum.

Nota

quod

sicut

uedam

demonstrationes

t relationes

e

quibus

dictum

st,

simplices

nueniuntur,

imilitert

quedam uppositiones,

ed

et

quedam ppo-

sitiones t

quedam

adiectiones

t

quedam

etiam

omparationes.

on dicimus

hic

simplicemuppositionem,

bi

per

nomen

gitur

e

aliquo

ndeterminate,

t

'homo stdignssimareatura,sed simplicemuppositionemue habetse ad

modum

implicis

elationis t

que

non

nisi

simplici

elatione

nterueniente

potest xplicari,

t dies

crescun,

d est fiunt

maiores

uam psi

fuerint,

uam

ipsi,

d est

quam

dies.

implex ppositio

it,

t

apud

Lucanumtunc os

H

esperie,

Latii nunc

ola

uuentus

oncidi

50

uasi

flos

Hesperie

ccidit

unc.Hoc

dicimus

pro

antiquis.

Qui

flos

nunc

est sola iuuentus

atii,

d

est

flosLatii nunc

ola

iuuentus.

oc

dicimus

ro

modernis,

t

per

simplicem

elationemlla

simplex

expliceturppositio.

implex

diectio

it,

t in

astrologia

mundus

lobatus

tc.

circumcurrens

erras*

51

um

diciturmundus

lobatus

n modum

pere,ntelligitur

de totalimachina. um

dicitur

ircumcurrens

erras,

ntelligitur

e

firmamento.

Et hec dicitur

implex

diectio.

Fit enim

n

transitu

ppollinis,

um hic ad

totalem

machinam,

ic

ad firmamentm

espiciat

hoc nomen

mundus.

it

simplex omparatio,t VirgiliusNerneGalathea himomichidulcior le*.2

Aliter

nim icitur himum

ulce t aliter

nimal.

Appendix

Anonymi

umma

de relativis

MS

Bern,

Burgerbibliothek

J9,

f.

3T-I3r

3

(De

relatione

onsiderandum

st

quid

sit

relatio t

que

et

quot

species

elationis. elatio

igitur

ic describitur

Prisciano:

Relatio st

ntelate

ignificationis

epetition

descriptio

atis

conueniens

st

circa

species

llas

quas

includit.

ed

hec

descriptio onconuenit mnirelationi. st enimquandoquerelatio, bi non

antecedit

onnitio,

t hic

idem

urrit

t

disputt'.

t

quia

hec

descriptio

inus

sufficiens

st,

nos sufficientem

elationis

emus

descriptionem

Relatio

gitur

nichil

liud

est

quam

ecunda

ognitio.

ed

secunda

on

dicitur

espectu

rime

in

ordine,

ic nec

prima

dicitur

espectu

ecunde.

Cum

enim dicitur

rima

cognitio,

ecunda

ognitio, rima

t

secunda

on

notant rdinem. ed

prima

cognitio

icitur

uasi principalis

t

per

se

sufficiens,

d est

non

exigitiua

on-

sortii.

erbi

ratia.

um

dicitur

Socrates

urri

hecdictio

ocrates

acit

rimam

J

h.,

,

44.

60

Luc.,

Phars.

I,

196-7.

51

Mart.

Cap.,

De

nuptiis

VIII,

814.62Verg., el VII, 37.

63

inspected

hisMS

only

n

microfilm.

64

Cf.

Prise.,

nst.

gram.

XII,

16.

20

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

26/164

cognitionem

e

re,

d est

principlem

t non

exigitiuam

onsortii.

umadditur

'et

pse

mouetur*ibi hoc

relatiuum

pse

facit

ecundam

otitiam,

d est

ecunda-

riam,

d est socialem

t

exigitiuam

onsortii.

xigit

nim

elatiuum

onsortium

alterius,umper e suminonpotest. imiliterumdicituridem st ramaticumetmusicum',dem acit ecundam

ognitionem,

d est ecundariamt

exigitiuam

consortii.

uare

non

congrue

icitur idem

est

gramaticum

sed

desideratur

consortium,

t dicatur

idem

st

gramaticum

t

musicum

Similiterum dicitur

'is

qui

currit,

ouetur'

utrumque

elatiuum acit bi secundam

ognitionem,

d

est

secundariam,

t

exigit

onsortium.

trumque

nim bi

determinatur

er

reliquum.

ed obicitur

ic: Hoc relatiuum

s

facit secundam

ognitionem

respectu

ui

ergo ui

facit

rimam

ognitionem

espectu

s

quod

sic

refellitur

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 15, NOS. 1-2, 1977

27/164

mitis

efirus

eueit

rondes'.56

t

apud

Ouidium

qui

color

lbus

erat,

nunc

st

contrarius

lbo'.5*

[2] aliquando

ponitur

d

agendum

de alio

appellato

antecedentisn alia

significatione,t

1

canis st atrbilehic, uinatat nmari. Similiternueniturn

Tehologia

manusmee ueuosfecerunt,lauis onfixeunt'. erantecedensnim

agitur

e

manu

passibili,

d est

de

manucarnalis

ubstantie,

er

relatiuum e

Diuina

Potentia,

ue

nos

creauit.

[3] aliquandoponitur

elatiuum

d

agendum

e

appellato

nominis

oniugati

cum uo

antecedente,

t diabolus

st

mendax,

uius

pse

est

pater'.51

[4] quarto

modo

ponitur

elatiuum

d

agendum

e

re alicuius

ictionis

ntel-

lecte

n

antecedente,

t

apud

Priscianum

meus eruus st uius

re

mptus

st'.58

Perhocrelatiuum

uius

gitur

e rehuius

enitiui

ei

ntellecti

nhoc

possessiuo

meus. ed de

hoc

dubium

otest

sse,

n dicenda it

implex

n

personalis.

uod

enim it

personalis,

idetur

uia

eandem

ersonam

uam

refert oc

relatiuum

cuius,

ignificat

oc

possessiuum

eus ntrinsecus.

uod

uero

it

implex,

idetur

quia prorsus e alioagitur errelatiuumt de aliopersuum ntecedens. um

enim

ossessiuum

ronomen

uas

significat

ersonas,

lteram

cilicet

xtrinse-

cus et alteram

ntrinsecus,

on

utramque

upponit

ocutioni,

ed llam antum

quam significat

xtrinsecus,

ersonam

cilicet

ossessionis.

t

quia

de hoc

dubium sse

potest,

n

dicenda

it

simplex

n

personalis,

ccirco n

questione

relinquatur.

imilis

elatio

nuenitur,

t

apud

Ouidium

nonmea

cripta egas,

qui

sum

umotus

d

Istrum'

9

[5] aliquandoposito

antecedente

d

agendum

e

re

ponitur

elatiuum d

agendum

e

manerie

n eadem

significatione,

t

'Socrates st

homo,

ui

est

dignissima

-us

ic

semper

MS]

creaturarum

ei',