Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

Developments in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries 611
Part One: Historical Overview
1 ARISTOTLE: TEXTS AND COMMENTARIES
The Organon of Aristotle played a central role throughout the medieval and postmedieval
period, at least in principle. 7 During the medieval period, the Organon
was divided into two parts. The Logica vetus or ‘Old logic’ consisted of Boethius’s
translations of the Categories and Perihermenias along with Porphyry’s Isagoge
or introduction to the Categories; and it was already known by the beginning of
the twelfth century. The Logica nova or ‘New logic’ consisted of the Prior and
Posterior Analytics, theTopics and the Sophistici Elenchi. Boethius’s translations
of the Prior Analytics, Topics and Sophistici Elenchi were recovered from about
1120 on, and they were completed by James of Venice’s translation of the Posterior
Analytics. Other translations of all these works were produced during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but none of them seem to have shaken the virtual
monopoly of Boethius and James of Venice, which endured into the sixteenth
century. 8 From the thirteenth century on both the Logica vetus and the Logica
nova were firmly embedded in the university curriculum, though some exception
must be made of the Topics, at least in the later period. Sometimes it was omitted
altogether, and sometimes only certain of its Books were to be read. 9 Even in the
sixteenth century, the interest in Aristotle’s Topics was somewhat modified. The
Jesuit Ratio Studiorum of 1586 referred to the commitment to follow Aristotle in
logic, but noted that the Topics (except for Books I and II) and also the Sophistici
Elenchi should be passed over, though they added that the material of the topics
and fallacies should be presented in some more orderly way. 10 These exhortations
were shown to be effective by the brief treatment given to both the Topics and
the Sophistici Elenchi in the Coimbra commentary. 11
From the beginning of the medieval period, Aristotle’s text was accompanied
by explanation and commentary. 12 In the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries
7One has to be cautious because students who were supposed to read Aristotle himself may
often have read secondary sources instead.
8For details, see B. G. Dod, “Aristoteles latinus” in the Cambridge History of Later Medieval
Philosophy, edited by N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny and J. Pinborg (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982), pp. 45–79, especially pp. 74–75; and the introductions to the various volumes
in the Aristoteles latinus series. The use made of various translations is sometimes difficult to
establish: see introduction to Leonine editions of Aquinas’s Aristotle commentaries.
9For details, see Ashworth, “Traditional logic,” p. 143, and N. J. Green-Pedersen, The Tradition
of the Topics in the Middle Ages (München, Wien: Philosophia Verlag, 1984), p. 90.
10K. Kehrbach, Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica Band V (Berlin, 1887), pp. 129–130, p.
138.
11Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis e Societate Jesu. In universam dialecticam Aristotelis
(Cologne 1607; reprinted Hildesheim, New York, 1976), II, columns 733–766.
12For a listing of Aristotle commentaries in the medieval period, see C. H. Lohr, “Medieval
Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors A-F,” Traditio 23 (1967), 313–413; “Authors G-I,”
ibid., 24 (1968), 149–245; “Authors Jacobus-Johannes Juff,” ibid., 26 (1970), 135–216; “Authors
Johannes de Kanthi-Myngodus,” ibid., 27 (1971), 251–351; “Authors Narcissus-Richardus,” ibid.,
28 (1972), 281–396; “Authors Robertus-Wilgelmus,” ibid., 29 (1973), 93–197; “Supplementary