Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

368 Ria van der Lecq
first mode than in the second, and more in the first two modes than in the
third, because in the third mode the diversity concerns the consignifications
or modes of signifying (modi significandi) of one significate, whereas in the
first two modes there are several significates involved. 109
Now, it should be noted that the notion of consignification (consignificatio) was
used in at least three contexts. 110 First, it was said that syncategorematic terms,
like ‘every’, ‘all’, ‘both’, ‘only’ and many others, 111 don’t have signification, but
only consignification. Second, verbs were said to consignify time. Third, in grammatical
discussions (see above, p. 355) ‘consignification’ was another term for
mode of signifying. Essential modes of signifying included noun, verb or adjective;
accidental modes were such features as case, number, and gender. The laborans
syllogism is an example of equivocation caused by consignification of time, and
in the episcopi syllogism the cause of equivocation is consignification of case. An
important distinction between the two is that, according to many authors, consignification
of time could not be influenced by context, whereas consignification
of case could. Many 13 th -century logicians believed that the signification of words
and many of its modes of signifying were fixed by imposition, which means that
they cannot be altered by context or speaker intention. 112
From the discussion in a treatise called Summe metenses, ascribed to Nicholas
of Paris and dated around 1250, it becomes clear that analogical terms are said
to be equivocal in the second sense of equivocation mentioned by Peter of Spain.
For example, being (ens) isfirst(per prius) said of substance, and afterwards (per
posterius) of accidents, and ‘healthy’ is first said of an animal, in which health
inheres, and afterwards of urine, which is a sign of health. 113 In his work on
fallacies Thomas Aquinas also reduces analogical terms to the second mode of
equivocation. 114 Late 13 th -century authors usually adopt the standard division of
equivocation, as given by Peter of Spain. The first mode involves a plurality of
significates that are equally represented. In the second mode these significates are
unequally represented; the secondary signification takes place through attribution
or transference (transumptio). The third mode involves a plurality of modes of
signifying. 115 Some others give a somewhat different account. 116
The discussions on analogy were influenced by the recovery and translation of
Aristotle’s Metaphysics and by Arabic sources. In these works analogy was related
to the question how being (ens) could be predicated of both substance and accidents.
The answer was that ‘being’ was neither a univocal nor an equivocal term,
109ibid., p. 105.
110For details see: Ashworth [1991, pp. 53–61].
111The standard textbook for this topic was William of Sherwood’s Treatise on Syncategorematic
Words.
112Ashworth [1992, pp. 106–7].
113For references, see Ashworth [1992, p. 112].
114De fallaciis, p. 406.
115E.g. the commentaries in Incerti auctores, ed. Ebbesen.
116See for instance the Elenchi commentaries of Simon of Faversham and Duns Scotus, referred
to in Ashworth [1992, p. 118].