Upload
manticora-venerabilis
View
237
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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',