A Thirteenth-Century Interpretation of Aristotle on Equivocation and Analogy

References

• 1991 . Medieval Philosophy and Theology , 1 For full bibliographies and more information on the matters touched on here, see E.J. Ashworth, ‘Signification and Modes of Signifying in Thirteenth-Century Logic: A Preface to Aquinas on Analogy,’ 39–67; E.J. Ashworth, ‘Analogy and Equivocation in Thirteenth-Century Logic: Aquinas in Context,’ Mediaeval Studies (forthcoming); E.J. Ashworth, ‘Equivocation and Analogy in Fourteenth Century Logic: Ockham, Burley and Buridan,’ Historia Philosophiae Medii Aevi. Studien Zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, B. Mojsisch and O. Pluta, eds. (Amsterdam: B.R. Gruner forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . [2] and Aristotle [10]
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous [1], Of the two sets of questions edited by Ebbesen I shall use only the first (the SF commentary).
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . “ [1] ” . In Categories lal-6 in Aristotle [2], 5: “Aequivoca dicuntur quorum nomen solum commune est, secundum nomen vero substantiae ratio diversa, ut animal homo et quod pingitur. Horum enim solum nomen commune est, secundum nomen vero substantiae ratio diversa; si enim quis assignet quid est utrique eorum quo sint animalia, propriam assignabit utriusque rationem.”
   Google Scholar
• Kretzmann , N. and Stump , E. , eds. 1988 . The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts, Vol. I: Logic and the Philosophy of Language Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . I have borrowed much of this translation from the translation of Peter of Spain, 89.
   Google Scholar
• Boethius . [2], col. 164
   Google Scholar
• Boethius . 1981 . “ [2] col. 164. See also the discussion by S. Ebbesen ” . In Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi: A Study of Post-Aristotelian Ancient and Medieval Writings on Fallacies 181 – 2 . Leiden : E.J. Brill . 1,!
   Google Scholar
• Simplicius . [2], Vol. I, 39
   Google Scholar
• 1974 . Metaphysics See the frequently cited Aristotelian tag: “ratio quam significat nomen est definitio” IV.1012a24–5). I take the Latin from Jacqueline Hamesse, Les Auctoritates Aristotelis: Un florilege médiéval. Étude historique et edition critique. Philosophes médiévaux XVII (Louvain: Publications Universitaires; Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, 124 [116]. This florilegium (which dates from between November 22,1267, and 1325) is an extremely useful guide to the commonplace tags picked up and used by almost all logical writers.
   Google Scholar
• Boethius . [2], col. 166; Simplicius [2], 39
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . “ [9] ” . In Sophistical Refutations 166al5–20, quoted from Boethius's translation in Aristotle [10]: “Sunt autem tres modi secundum aequivocationem et amphiboliam: unus quidem quando vel oratio vel nomen principaliter significat plura, ut piscis et canis; alius autem quando soliti sumus sic dicere; tertius vero quando compositum plura significet, separatum vero simpliciter, ut ‘scit saeculum’ “(9).
   Google Scholar
• Sophistical Refutations Of course, some examples were drawn from 165b30- 166al5. Thus ‘discere’ illustrated mode one, ‘expediens’ mode two and both ‘laborans’ 'sedens' mode three.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous [1], 116
   Google Scholar
• ‘consignificatio,’ Peter of Spain [1], 105; Lambert of Auxerre [1], 149. They both used the term but for a term to have consignificatio is for it to have consignificata or modi significandi.
   Google Scholar
• Ebbesen , S. 1987 . “ ‘The Semantics of the Trinity According to Stephen Langton and Andrew Sunesen,’ in ” . In Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains. Aux origines de la ‘Logica Modernorum.’ Actes du septième symposium européen d'histoire de la logique et de sémantique médiévales. Centre d'études supérieures de civilisation médiévale de Poitiers Edited by: Jolivet , Jean and de Libera , Alain . 426 – 7 . Napoli : Bibliopolis . See
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . “ [9]: ” . In Sophistical Refutations 166al-6
   Google Scholar
• For full details see the first paper cited above in n. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous [1], 119
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., 120; John Duns Scotus [2], 26B.
   Google Scholar
• 109 – 10 . Peter of Spain [1], 99
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous [1], 117
   Google Scholar
• 1967 . De Interpretation It may be related to the division between general and special signification found, for instance, in a commentary on apparently written by Nicholas of Paris ca. 1250; see J. Pinborg, Die Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters Band XLII, heft 2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 27, n. 27.
   Google Scholar
• Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's 331 – 555 . For a discussion of Alexander, see Ebbesen, Sophistici Elenchi, Vol. I, 286–9. Ebbesen has edited the fragments of the commentary in Vol. II
   Google Scholar
• Excerpta ex Alcuini Dialectics 189 – 92 . See Aristotle [2], LXXVII-LXXVIII. The text is reprinted as ‘Paraphrasis Themistiana’ in Aristotle [2], 133–75. It is copied by Alcuin: see Aristotle [2]
   Google Scholar
• For the date see Simplicius [2], xi.
   Google Scholar
• Rosier , I. , ed. 1988 . L'ambiguïté: cinq études historiques Lille : Presses Universitaires de Lille . For some discussion and references, see F. Desbordes, ‘Homonymie et synonymie d'après les textes théoriques latins,’ in 66; S. Ebbesen, ‘Paris 4720A: A 12th Century Compendium of Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi,’ Cahiers de l'institut du moyen-âge grec et latin 10 (1973), 12–13; H. Lyttkens, The Analogy between God and the World: An Investigation of its Background and Interpretation of its Use by Thomas of Aquino (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells 1953), 58–77. Greek commentators on the Categories (other than Simplicius), such as Ammonius, were not used until the Renaissance.
   Google Scholar
• Boethius . [2], col. 166: “Consilio vero, quia ea quaecunque hominum voluntate sunt posita.”
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . “ [6] ” . In Nicomachean Ethics 1096b26: “Non enim assimulantur a casu equivocis.” I cite the translation of Grosseteste: Aristotle [7], 381.
   Google Scholar
• Aubenque , P. 1989 . “Sur la naissance de la doctrine pseudo-aristotelicienne de l'analogie de l'être,” . Les études philosophiques , 3/4 : 298 – 9 . [special issue on analogy]
   Google Scholar
• 42 – 4 . For all the divisions, see Pseudo-Augustine, in Aristotle [2], 136–7; Boethius [2], col. 166; Simplicius [2]
   Google Scholar
• 299 – 300 . See discussion in Aubenque
   Google Scholar
• Desbordes comments: “La traduction scrupuleuse de BOECE. devait être passablement énigmatique pour un Latin, animal n'ayant jamais désigné en Latin la représentation graphique, ni même une classe de tableaux représentant des êtres animés quelconques” (64).
   Google Scholar
• Boethius . “ [2], col. 166: “Horum autem alia sunt secundum similitudinem, ut homo pictus et homo verus quo nunc utitur Aristoteles exemplo.” Perhaps Boethius did not mention the word ” . In ‘animal’ Cf. here because he was listing equivocal things, but in medieval sources it is often clear that ‘homo’ is being used as an equivocal term in the illustration of this case: see e.g. Aquinas in his commentary on Physics VII, lectio 8, number 947.
   Google Scholar
• ‘animal’ John Duns Scotus [3], 452A. He was dealing with the objection that if were equivocal, then all terms would be equivocal: see 450B.
   Google Scholar
• Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's 190 – 3 . “Non enim assimulantur a casu equivocis. Set certe ei quod est ab uno esse, vel ad unum omnia contendere, vel magis secundum analogiam.” (Aristotle [7], 381). Ebbesen argues that all four subdivisions are based on a theory of concept formation: see Sophistici Elenchi Vol. I
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . [2]: Pseudo-Augustine, 137; Alcuin, 190; Simplicius [2], 42
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . “ [6] ” . In Nicomachean Ethics 1131a31–2. “Proporcionalitas enim equalitas est proporcionis, et in quatuor minimis” (Aristotle [7], 458). This is the version that Aquinas used for his commentary. Although it is sometimes attributed to William of Moerbeke, the identity of the man who revised Grosseteste's original text has not been established.
   Google Scholar
• Owens , J. 1957 . The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Edited by: Owen , G. E.L. Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies . See Metaphysics 117–18; G.E.L. Owen, ‘Logic and Metaphysics in Some Earlier Works of Aristotle,’ in Logic, Science, and Dialectic: Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy (London: Duckworth 1986), 182, n. 7.
   Google Scholar
• The phrase ‘focal meaning’ was applied to Aristotle by Owen (see 184).
   Google Scholar
• For details, see the second paper cited in n. 1. The classification of analogia in relation to mode two depended in part on the role assigned to metaphor (translatio or transumptio).
   Google Scholar
• 1988 . Metaphysics 15 – 16 . But for a discussion of the appearance of the word ‘attribution’ in philosophical vocabulary after 1220 and its relation to Latin translations of Aristotle's see R. Andrews, ‘Peter of Auvergne's Commentary on Aristotle's Categories: Edition, Translation, and Analysis,’ 2 vols. (Diss., Cornell University, vol. I
   Google Scholar
• Avicenna . [2]: “ens. est intentio in qua conveniunt secundum prius et posterius.” (f.72vb).
   Google Scholar
• Algazali . 1989 . Les études philosophiques , 3/4 : 330 – 3 . [1]: “Convenientia sunt media inter univoca et equivoca: ut ens quod dicitur de substantia et accidente. esse vero prius habet substantia deinde accidens mediante alio: ergo est eis esse secundum prius et posterius.” (sig. a 3va). Albert the Great tells us that convenientia are what the Arabs called analoga: see the discussion in A. de Libera, “Les sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l'analogie de l'être,” [special issue on analogy]
   Google Scholar
• Averroes . 1978 . [1]: “nomen entis non significat decem praedicamenta pura aequivocatione, neque univoce: non restat igitur quod significet ea, nisi aliquo modorum analogiae, et sunt scilicet significationes nominum significantium plures res, quae tamen referuntur ad unam rem secundum prius et posterius.” (Vol. VIII, f.364ra). As Lyttkens points out (77), he does not use the word . ‘analogia’ , in the relevant section of his main commentary: “.nomen ens dicitur multis modis, & non aequiuoce, sicut canis, qui dicitur de latrabili & marino: neque uniuoce, ut animal de homine, & asino: sed est de nominibus quae dicuntur de rebus at[t]ributis eidem, et sunt media inter uniuoca & aequiuoca” (f.65rb). In Les Auctoritates Aristotelis, reference to analogy is confidently added both to Aristotle's text and to Averroes's commentary (122 [88] and 123 [107]). Roger Bacon wrote “in IV Metaphysicae Aristoteles dicit quod ens non est aequivocum sed analogum” (K.M. Fredborg, L. Nielsen, and J. Pinborg, ‘An Unedited Part of Roger Bacon's Opus maius: De signis,’ Traditio 34 116.
   Google Scholar
• Kretzmann , N. , Kenny , A. and Pinborg , J. , eds. 1982 . Summa Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . All this vocabulary is used by Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), whose has been described as “one of the earliest medieval works to be based on full knowledge of the Aristotelian corpus and the Arabic commentators” (‘Biographies’ in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 856. For representative quotations from his Summa, see Lyttkens (125–6).
   Google Scholar
• Metaphysics E.g. 1003a33–5 in Aristotle [5]: ‘Ens autem multis quidem dicitur modis, sed ad unum et unam aliquam naturam et non equivoce, sed quemadmodum salubre omne ad sanitatem.’ (60). Cf. Metaphysics 1030a28–1030b13 (128–9).
   Google Scholar
• For the Latin, see n. 44.
   Google Scholar
• Peter of Spain, 177
   Google Scholar
• Summa Theologiae See e.g. Thomas Aquinas [3] la q. 13 a. 5c. Aquinas allows equivocation in a broad sense to include analogy: ST la q.13 a.10 ad 4.
   Google Scholar
• Porphyrii Phoenicei Introductio Severino Boetho Interprete in Averroes [1]: ‘Et si omnia quis entia uocet, aequiuoce (inquit) nuncupabit, sed non uniuoce’ (Vol. 1, f.5vb). In Les Audoritates Aristotelis, words have been added so that the phrase reads ‘Si aliquis omnia praedicamenta entia vocet aequivoce et non univoce, ea nuncupabit, id est analogice’ (300 [7]). Cf. Peter of Spain [1]: “Licet enim ‘ens’ dicatur de illis decern, tamen equivoce sive multipliciter dicitur de ipsis, et ideo non est genus” (19). For the reconciliation of Aristotle and Poprhyry, see Aquinas [3], ST la q.13 a.10 ad 4.
   Google Scholar
• ‘ens,’ See nn. 44 and 45 above. Without talking about Simplicius [2] noted that some people joined the last two subdivisions of deliberate equivocation together and called them ‘ut unum’ (43). He also added that some placed them between univocation and equivocation on the grounds that unequal participation in a certain characteristic (ratio) was involved, so that more than the name was common.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous [1], 133–4. For another three-fold division, see Simon of Faversham [1]. For criticisms of the three-fold division, seejohn DunsScotus [3], 446A–447A and [2], 20A–25A. For further references to the three-fold division, see the second and third of the papers cited in n. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle . “ [8] ” . In Physics VII 249a22–5; Anonymous [1], 133; Les Auctoritates Aristotelis, 155 (193).
   Google Scholar
• ‘ens’ It will be noted that what the anonymous author says here is not entirely consistent with his earlier use of as an example of mode two equivocation (Anonymous [1], 117), unless the thought is that ‘ens’ said of substance and accident is to be treated differently than when it is said of two kinds of accident.
   Google Scholar
• I would like to thank the Canada Council for the Killam Research Fellowship which enabled me to do the research for this paper, and Norman Kretzmann for his help and encouragement.
   Google Scholar