Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

Peter Abelard and His Contemporaries 149
emerges only an indicator that this linkage is present, not as an explanation of how
it is present. The Melidunenses seem to have a view which simply combines the
Abelardian and conventional approaches; they claim that syllogisms are able to
draw their strength not only from their formal arrangement but also from topical
relations that exist between their terms [Green-Pedersen, 1987, p. 199]. The view
of the Parvipontani on this matter is not presently known [Iwakuma, 2004, p.
324].
These are a few examples of the school divisions which dominate the study
of logic in the late twelfth century. Notice that these examples have all issued
from the more distinctively non-Aristotelian elements in Abelard’s work. On the
more conventional Arisotelian elements in logical theory at this time that natural
deference to authority might be expected to have produced more nuanced forms
of disagreement, and perhaps more consensus. In fact scholarship has not yet
uncovered equally compelling examples of four-way (or five-way, if one includes
the Nominales) division on logical issues distinct from the ones on which Abelard
was most innovative. If this remains the trend then it will be testimony indeed to
the magnitude of Abelard’s influence upon his contemporaries.
The relationship of the schools is not exclusively one of mutual disagreement.
The earliest systematic study into their relationship — found in L.M. de Rijk’s
Logica modernorum — in fact suggests certain themes in common in their treatment
of basic semantic theory. While most recent research into this era has sought
to distinguish the schools by charting opposing positions in debate, de Rijk has
sought to discover how the development of twelfth century theory ultimately leads
to the emergence of the terminist tradition in the thirteenth. His approach emphasizes
themes held in common by the schools, and the resulting analysis identifies
two key lines of historical development.
(i) First, and perhaps most importantly, there is the increasing tendency to pay
close attention to the role of context in determining meaning. De Rijk argues
that this change is found in the grammatical theory of the period. Eleventh
century grammatical approaches are characterized by the belief that what the word
means is what it was initially imposed to mean, not how it is used in particular
contexts [de Rijk, 1967a, pp. 113-114]. Twelfth century approaches, with their
growing interest in syntactic theory, are more open to the idea that placement
in a particular construction can legitimately influence a word’s meaning in that
context [de Rijk, 1967a, pp. 115-17]. This approach is certainly to be found in
Abelard’s work, and in his later glosses on Aristotle and his theological works the
notion of translatio is regularly employed. By this term is meant some kind of
transferrence of meaning brought about by context, as in “the meadows smile,”
where “smile” is used to mean “are flowering” [Abelard, 1921, p. 121 (29–35)].
This is not an equivocal use, because equivocation involves a word’s having more
than one imposed meaning, and that is not the case with “smile” here; it still has
just one imposed meaning, and simply acquires another temporary meaning when
preceded by “the meadows.”
Use of this notion of translatio as a staple of semantic theory becomes fairly