8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
1/156
/';-=09 )(8*
=-0/']
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
2/156
VIVARIUM
An nternational
ournal
or
he
Philosophy
nd Intellectual
Life
f
he
Middle
Ages nd Renaissance
Aims
Scope
Vivariums an international
ournal
edicated o the
history
f
philosophy
nd
the
history
f
deas
from
he
arly
Middle
Ages
o
the
arly-modern
eriod.
t
takes
particular
nterest
n
the
profane
ide f
philosohy
nd ts
elationship
ith
other reas f
thought
nd
earning
rom
hese
eriods.
t is
widely
ecognized
as
an
unrivalled
esource
or he
history
f
ogic,
emantics
nd
metaphysics.
t
publishes hilosophical
nalyses
s well s
historicaltudies f
deas,
exts
nd
the nstitutionalontext fmedievalndearly-modernhoughtnd earning.t
also welcomes ditions f texts.t
publishesnnually
special
ssuedevoted o
a
particular
heme r
philosopher.
Editor
L.W. Nauta
Groningen)
EditorialBoard
L.M. de
Rijk
Leiden),
AG.
Braakhuis
Nijmegen),
.H.
Kneepkens
Groningen),
W.J.
ourtenay
Madison),
.P. Bos
(Leiden)
nd
D.
Perler
Berlin).
Advisory ommittee
T.
Gregory
Rome),
.
Zimmermann
Cologne),
.E.
Murdoch
Cambridge,
A).
InstructionsorAuthors
Contributionso the
ournal
hould e sent s an e-mail
ttachmentnd
paper
version o
Lodi
Nauta,
Faculty
f
Philosophy,niversity
f
Groningen,
ude
Boteringestraat
2,
9712
GL
Groningen,
ie
Netherlands
style
heet s availablet
www.brill.nl/vivrcanbe
obtained
rom he
ditor.
Contributionsust e written
n
English
UK
or
US),
Frenchr
German;
hey
must e
grammatically
nd
tylistically
orrect.
anuscripts
ust e
clearly
ype-
written ith umberedages, ouble pacingndwidemarginshroughout.se
footnotes,
ot ndnotes.itle ndname f
he uthorhould
ppear
n a
separate
title
age
n
order o facilitate
nonymous
eer-review.
ach article houldbe
accompanied
y
10-line
bstract,
hich hould tate he
principal
onclusions
of he
aper
nd
2-6
keywords,
or
ndexingurposes;
oth bstractnd
keywords
should
e
n
English.
Authors f
accepted
ontributionseceive ne setof
proofs
or
roofreading.
The
publisher
eserveshe
right
o
charge
uthors or orrections
adeto the
proofs
ther han
orrections
f
rrorshat
ccurred
n
the
ypesetting
rconver-
sion
process.
Authorseceive
complimentaryopy
f he ssue
n
which heirrticle
ppears
(in
the ase ofmulti-authoredontributions,
opies
re ent othefirst-named
author)
s
well s
a PDF
file f heir
ontribution
or
rivate
irculation.
Vivarium
SSN
0042-7543,
nlineSSN
1568-5349)
s
published
times
year
by
Brill,
lantijnstraat
,
2321
JC
Leiden,
he
Netherlands,
el
31
0)71
5353500,
fax
31
(0)71
5317532.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
3/156
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
4/156
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
5/156
/';-=09 )(8*
=-0/']
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
6/156
BRILL
LEIDEN
BOSTON
2009
by
Koninklijke
rill
V,Leiden,
he
Netherlands
Koninklijke
rill
V
incorporates
he
mprints
RILL,
Hotei
ublishing,
IDC Publishers,rtiusijhoffublishersndVSP.
All
ights
eserved.
o
part
f
his
ublicationay
e
reproduced,
ranslated,
tored
in
retrieval
ystem,
r
ransmitted
n
ny
ormr
by ny
means,
lectronic,
mechanical,
hotocopying,
ecording
r
therwise,
ithout
rior
ritten
permission
f he
ublisher.
Authorizationo
photocopy
temsor
nternalr
personal
use s
granted
y
he
ublisherrovided
hat
the
ppropriate
ees
re
aid irectly
o
Copyright
Clearance
enter,
22
Rosewood
rive,
uite
10,
Danvers,
A
01923,
SA.Fees re
ubject
o
hange.
Printed
n
heNetherlands
on
cid-free
aper).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
7/156
i}
u%*
BRILL
VIVA
RIUM
Vivarium
7
2009)
-23
www.brill.nl/viv
Robert Grosseteste's Conclusiones
and
the
Commentary
on the Posterior
Analytics1
David
Bloch
UniversityfCopenhagen
Abstract
This rticlexamineshe
nature
f
Robert rosseteste
commentary
n
Aristotle
Posterior
nalytics
ith
articular
eferenceo his
conclusionsconclusiones
.
It is
argued
using
ook
1,
chapter
,
of he
ommentary
s a
case
tudy)
hat he
imple
demonstrative
ppearance
f he
ommentary,
hichs
very
much he esultf he 4
conclusions,
s
n
part
n
llusion.
hus,
he
xposition
n
the
ommentary
s not im-
ply ased n the trictrinciplesf he osteriornalyticsnd n the roof-procedures
of
Euclidean
eometry;
atherhe
ommentary
s a
complicated
ixturefdifferent
elements
f
welfth-century
exts
nd he
cholarship
f
Grosseteste
day.
Keywords
Robert
rosseteste,ristode,
osterior
nalytics,
edieval
ogic,
emonstrativecience
I.
Introduction
Robert rossetestecommentaryn thePosteriornalyticss a somewhatdio-
syncratic
iece
of work.2t
is,
of
course,
literal
ommentary,
ut there s a
long
way
to the
more
regular
ype
f the
thirteenth
entury.
n
a
relatively
recent
rticle,
ten Ebbesen even
used the
heading
Literal
Commentary
without
rinciples
o
describe his
particular ommentary,
eaning
hat
Grossetesteoes nothave
standard
rocedure
n
the ndividual
hapters,
ut
1}
Textsre
ited romoth
rinted
ditions
nd
medieval
anuscripts
n
the
resent
rticle.
However,haveometimesadehangesn rthographynd/orunctuation.ll ranslations
are
my
wn. owe
hankso ten bbesen
nd he ditorial
oard
f
Vivariumor
omments
and riticism.
2)
Robertus
rosseteste,
ommentarius
n Posteriorum
nalyticorum
ibros
ed. Pietro ossi
(Firenze981).
Koninklijke
rill
V,
eiden,
009
DOI:
0.1
63/156853408X383015
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
8/156
2
D. BlochVivarium
7
2009)
-23
ratherllowshimselfocomment,xplain, efine,onclude tc. ntheorder
he seesfit.3
n
this
rticle shall xamine
he
ommentary
nd
try
o
establish
its
naturemore
recisely.
n
particular,
shall
focus ttentionn
the onclusio-
nes s relevanto this
urpose.
At first
eading
he
ommentary
eems o be
composed
n strict
nd sound
methodologicalrinciples.
rosseteste
roceeds
hapter
y
hapter
although
his
divisions
nto
hapters
o not
lways
orrespond
ith he nes
usednowa-
days.
n
each
chapter
e
interprets
ristotle's
ext,
f
course,
ut it is
done
with
heuse ofhisown
conceptual
ools: definitions
herefore
must
e
false.43
he
undesirable
4)
simply
annot e
inferred.
William nd Alberts omments n the Socrates-Minus
rgument
how
that
hey
ame to the ameconclusion s van
nwagen
oes
n
theDescartes-
Minus
Argument,
ut
by
a
differentoute.
They
reason:A
and
C
must
havebeendifferent
bjects
efore
,
ince
A is the
numerically
ne and whole
and
complete
ocrates'
nly
fter
. On their
nalysis,
before
i.e.
Socrates-
Minus,
ould not
really
e
any
ort f
numerically
ne,
whole nd
complete
physical bject
t all
before
because
t
s
only
fier
that
A
in
fact ecomes
whole ndcomplete hysical bject, n itself umericallyne per eunum).AA
This is clear from heir
ejections
f Parts
a],
[],
and
[y],
which
mply
that
A
mustbe some ort f
numerically
ne whole nd
complete
before
.
Hence,
like van
Inwagen,
hey
would
also claim that
premise
2)
of the
Descartes-Minus
rgument
s
false,
nd the entailment
f the undesirable
(4)
of the Descartes-Minus
rgument,
rom
1), (2),
and
(3)
cannottake
place.
Hence,
their
rguments
nd conclusions
re historical orerunnersf
Peter an
nwagens.
42)
an
nwagen,
The octrine
f
Arbitrary
ndetached
arts',
25-126.
43)
bid.,
26.
44)
f. lso
Heytesbury,
ophismata
f.
47va-vb.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
75/156
M.
.
Fitzgerald
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-73 69
4. A pragmatic esolution o theModem Descartes-Minus rgument:
Embracing
he
dentity
f
ndiscernibles,
nd a Weak
Antrhopic rinciple'
Albert
nd
Williams
nalysis
ftheir ocrates-Minus
rgument
s
philosophi-
cally
nteresting
oday
because
t
provides
s with a
pragmatic
esolution
to the
modernDescartes-Minus
rgument.
t is Alberts nsistence
n
the
Socrates-Minus
rgument
hat ocratesmustbe a man whole
nd
complete
and
numerically
ne
n
himself,
n
particular,
hat
uggests pragmatic
eso-
lution o the
Descartes-Minus
rgument.
he
pragmatic
esolution e has
n
mind s thatwe mustbe able to discernocrates o be whole nd complete
and
numerically
ne
in
himself,
hether
eforeduring,
r
after
t.
Indeed,
Leibniz'saws s
really
compound
f
an
epistemological
nd
a
metaphysical
claimwith
espect
o
physical bjects.
As I
see
t,
he
ndiscernibilityf
denti-
cals s
the
metaphysical
laim. t maintains:
Necessarily,
f
wo
physical
bjects
are
numerically
dentical,
hen
they
have all the same
properties
nd are
indiscerniblerom ne
other,
.e. we cannot
iscern
hem
o be differentrom
one another. he
dentityf
ndis er b le
,
on the
ther
and,
s the
pistemo-
logical
laim. t
maintains:
Necessarily,
f
two
objects
re
ndiscerniblerom
one other nd have all the sameproperties,henthey renumericallyne
physical
bject
becausewe cannotdiscern hemto
be differentrom ne
another. he
metaphysical
laim is
logically
necessary,
ut the
necessity
involved
n
the
pistemological
laim s at best
nlynaturally
ecessary,
iven
the
way
we
perceive
hysical bjects.
ndeed,
Hans
Reichenbach,
hetwenti-
eth-century
hysicist-philosopher,
as
pointed
ut theres a
crucial
pistemo-
logical
ifficulty
nherent
n
the our-dimensionalist
ccount f
physical
bjects.
In
uch
space
i.e.
our-dimensional
ne]
ven he uman
ody
ould efour-dimen-
sional,nd ts erceptualpparatusouldeveryifferent.nsteadf he wo-dimensional
retina
f he
ye,
here
ould
e
three-dimensionaletina.
hereashe isual
xperience
of he hird
imension,
he
depth,
s now
chieved
rimarilyy
he
ombinedffect
of he wo
yes
nd s therefore
ualitatively
ifferentromhe
xperience
f he ther
two
imensions,
he hree-dimensional
xperience
n
four-dimensional
pace
ould e s
immediatestwo-dimensional
xperiences
n
ur
hree-dimensional
pace.
he
ombined
effectf
he wo hree-dimensional
ictures
n he etina
ould
upply
swithhe isual
experience
f he our-dimensional
pace.
f
we
ry
o
magine
uch
xperience
n
ermsf
our
resent
ensations,
e
hall indhatherere
ertainimitations.he ew
erceptual
experience
ewishodescribe
ould ave ew ense
ualities
hat
onot xist
nderhe
conditionsith hich e re amiliar.
We an
hereforendicate
nlyndirectly
i.e.
ia
bstractathematical
odels]
hat
kind f
erceptual
xperiences
ouldesult
n
uch
world.45
45)
Hans
Reichenbach,
he
hilosophyf pace
nd
Timetransi. aria
eichenbach
nd
John
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
76/156
70
M
J.
Fitzgerald
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-73
Hence,even f a givenfour-dimensionalemporalwhole s madeup of its
four-dimensional
emporal arts,
here
s no natural
ossibility,
ith ur
pres-
ent
perceptual
pparatus,
hatwe
can see
rdiscern
ither hefour-dimensional
parts,
r
thefour-dimensional
hole
o be
in tself whole
nd
complete
nd
numerically
ne
space-time
orm.
We
simply
o
not discern
ne
temporal
slice
of t
from nother
r
the
whole nd
complete
emporal
worm.
o be
discernible
or
s
simply
means hat
f
our
perceptual
pparatus
s function-
ing
normally
nd a
physical
bject
s
directly
resent
o
us,
thenwe
perceive
t
to be as
it s so
geometrically
tructured.
or
thing
o be
numerically
ne and
whole ndcomplete hysicalbject or s s fort to bea setof patiallyoor-
dinated
physical
lements
nd
nothing
more.
This means
physical
bjects
arediscernable
y
us
precisely
ecause
hey
re
n fact o
three-dimensionally
structured,
.e.
three imensional
bjects
re
in
themselves
umerically
ne
and
whole nd
complete per
e
unum t
erfectibilis)
I am
appealing
ere o
the
weakform
f
what
Roger
enrose
alls he
4
anthropicrinciple
i.e.
... the
universe
e
perceive
bout us
must
be of
such a
nature
s will
produce
nd
accommodate
eings
who
can
perceive
t. 46
lthough
realize
he
nthropic
principles
verall
rgumentative
alue
may
e of
imited
se,
nevertheless,
ased
on thecosmicmicrowave
ackground
adiation rom he
Big
Bang
at2.7 K
(i.e.
2.7
degrees
above
absolute
ero),
our
three-dimensional
erceptual
ability
eems
pretty
eliable
ndicator
f
thethree-dimensional
tructure
f
Freund,
ith
ntroductory
emarks
y
Rudolf
arnap
New
ork,
958),
91.
Prof.
enneth
Curry,biologist
t
the
University
fSouthern
ississippi,
akesssue
ith
eichenbachs
account
ere.
n
private
onversation
ith
e,
rof.
urry
as
ointed
ut
if
have
ccurately
understood
is
iew),
hat
lthough
ur etinal
tructure
tthe issue
evel
f
rganization
s
primarily
wo-dimensional,
he erve
ndings
t the
ellularevel
ave
three-dimensional
arrangementndwill ive s imitedhree-dimensionalerceptualbilityvenfwehad nly
one
ye.
While
his
hree-dimensional
isual
bility
s further
nhanced
yhaving
wo
yes,
Reichenbachs
laim
hat
he hree-dimensional
nhancement
s
qualitatively
ifferent
rom
the
wo-dimensional
etinal
mage
n he
issue
s
uspect.
or
xample,
t ould e
biologically
possible
o
nhance
hree-dimensional
ision
y pacing
he
yes
arther
part,
nd
ltering
he
eyes
nderlying
etinal
tructure.
his
mightive
s
enhanced
hree-dimensional
ision,
ut
would
ot mount
o
ny qualitative
ifference
etween
his
ew isualization
nd he
revi-
ous
ne.
oth
ssentially
ould
e
hree-dimensional
isualization.
oreover,
uch
n nhance-
ment
ould
nly
elp
s
n
eeing
istant
bjects,
nd
would e
ost or
earbybjects,
s s
he
case
ow
with
ery
mall
bjects.
rof.
urry,
owever,
oes
gree
ith eichenbachs
ain
point,amely,hatny qualitativeifferenceetweenhree-dimensionalnd our-dimensional
visualization
ould
eunlike
nything
nyone
an ow
iologically
magine.
46)
Roger
enrose,
he
oad
o
Reality:
Complete
uideo
he aws
f
he
niverse
New
ork,
2005),
8.6,
57-8.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
77/156
M.
J.
Fitzgerald
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-73
7
1
physical bjects n the universe t large, . at leastout to the imits f the
observable
niverse hich
extends o a distance
hat ncludes round
1011
galaxies,
ontaining
ome
1 80
aryons. 47
e
simply
o
not
directlyerceive
four-dimensional
hysical bjects
s whole
nd
complete
nd
numerically
one. The
perduran
ist ccount
f
physical bjects
s that hree-dimensional
physical bjects,
ike
Socrates,
re
really
ncompleteour-dimensional
hysical
objects
These atter re
only
whole nd
complete
nd
numerically
ne when
theirmaterial
emporal
worms
aper
ut
of
existence,
.e. death
n
the ase
of
organisms. pistemologically,
hey
re
only
indirectly
ccessible
o
us,
namely,ia mathematical odels.But,discerninghree-dimensionalhysical
objects
s
numerically
ne and
whole nd
complete
ver ifferent
imes,
eems
to be
an
evolved
ragmatic
atural
apacity
fhuman
eings
hathas survival
valuefor hem.Human
beings
eemto haveevolved
ia natural election o
be able to discern
three-dimensionalhole nd
complete
nd
numerically
one
enduring
ion,
ay,
s a threat o their
urvival,
uthavenotevolved o
as
to discern
a
perduring
our-dimensional
ion
space-time
orm o be such
a threat. o
great
urvival
dvantage
as been conferred
n us as
surviving
organismso discern four-dimensionalerduringion,
but
there
oes
seem
to be
a
survival
dvantage
onferredn us to discern
three-dimensionalne.
Four-dimensional
survivalalue would
have
o
be cashed
n
by
the
perdu-
rantists our
ability
o
conjoin
ll the
temporal
lices f
the
ion,
perceive
that
onjunction,
ndthen ake
light
tthat
onjunction,
hich s no
mprove-
ment n
perceiving
he hree-dimensional
ion as
in
himself
umerically
ne
and whole nd
complete.
ur three-dimensional
atural
erceptualapaci-
ties,
herefore,
eem to function s the
epistemic
nd
pragmatic round
o
resolve heDescartes-Minus
rgument.
his sort f
epistemic
nd
pragmatic
groundingeems o bepreciselyhat s ackingntheperdurantistvaluations
of
the Descartes-Minus
rgument,
ut
is not
lacking
n
the evaluation f
the
ocrates-Minus
rgument
y
our
fourteenth-century
ogicians.
ocratess
whole nd
complete
nd
numerically
ne
in
himself',
n
their
nalysis.
While it is
true
thatwe can conceive f some abstract our-dimensional
temporal
ocrates r
Descartes,
ur
discerning
f
any
patially
oordinated
elemental ifferences
etween he three
nd four-dimensional
ocrates r
Descartes an
only
ccomplished
y
omparing
wo
very
ifferentnd abstract
geometrical
tructures ith one another.
A
four-dimensional
space-time
Socrates r Descartes s conceivednd locatednly ndirectly,ia an abstract
47)
bid,
18.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
78/156
72
M
J.
Fitzgerald
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-73
representationf a certain ype fgeometrictructure.either redirectly
perceivable y
us,
precisely
ecause
hey
re not
temporally
nd
numerically
complete
n
the
present.
Although
eithermedieval
ogician
xplicitly
aintains hat
ocrates
as
physical
temporal
arts, perdurantist
ight
laim
hat heir
cceptance
f
Socrates
aving
hysical
qualitativearts
s no
more
omplicated
han laim-
ing
thathe has
temporal
arts.
et,
orWilliam
nd
Albert,
he
physical
ual-
itative
arts
f
physical
bject
re
ignificandy
ifferent
rom he
ontemporary
perduran
ists
hysical
temporalarts.
orboth
William
nd
Albert,
ualita-
tiveparts fa physicalbject retemporallyound to thepresentime, nd
spatially
ounded
y
he
kind f
physical
bject
t
s. he
temporalarts
f
four-dimensional
bject
for he
perdurantist
renot
o
temporally
r
spatially
bounded,
nless he
bject
was
suddenly
o
cease o exist n
the
present.
According
o
perdurantists
e are
merely
metaphysically
prejudiced
n
the
three-dimensional
ay
whenwe
carve
up
the
spatial
pread
f
physical
objects.48 perdurantist
ight
laim that
Socrates-Minus
nd Socrates re
numerically
istinctnd
discerned
o be
so,
even
hough
hey
ccupy
he ame
space.
Socrates-Minuss all of
Socrates
xcept
is
finger
nd
is
mapped
nto
Socrates ith ll
his
fingers.
e
directly
ee both f
them
ccupying
he
ame
space
at the same
time,
because
Socrates-Minus
ills
p
the
same
space
as
Socrates
except
or
finger.
ence,
we can
see them s
numerically
istinct,
yet
oth
n
the ame
pace.
William
would
probably
eply
o
such
perdurantisty
rguing
hat
iven
perdurantist
ccount
we
should also see an
infinite
umber f
Socrates-
Minuses
filling p
the
same
space
as
Socrates t the
same time
except
or
some
part.
This,
he
would
think,
ouldbe too
absurd or
he
perdurantist
o
defend. lbert,n the ther and,wouldprobablyrgue hat ocrates-Minus
simply
oesnot xist t the
ame ime nd
n
the
ame
roperpace
with
ocrates
and ten
fingers.
ocrates-Minus
s
simply
ot
in
himself,
hole
nd
complete
and
numerically
ne. 49
evertheless,
n
their
eplies
o
the
perdurantist,
oth
Albert
nd Williammake n
implicit
pistemological
ppeal
o our
mmediate
perceptual
warenessfSocrateso avoid he
perdurantist
conclusion.
In
conclusion,
he
primary
hortcoming
f
the
ontemporaryerdurantist
Descartes-Minus
rgument
s that
n
emphasizing
he
metaphysical
laim
n
Leibnizs
aws,
hey
latandy
isregard
ts
pistemological
laim.
erdurantism,
48)
Loux,
etaphysics
228-229.
49)
Impossible
st
uod
uo
orpora
int imul
er
e n
eodemoco
roprio.
L
tract
,
no.
59,
51.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
79/156
M.
J.
Fitzgerald
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-73
73
ifembraced,wouldconstantlyequire s to reformulateour-dimensional
objects
nto
morefamiliar hree-dimensional
nes,
to
generate
ny
sortof
plausible
aturalized
pistemology.
he
rejection
fSocrates-Minuss a
really
existing
bject,
y
bothAlbert nd
William,
nd
the
requirement
hatwhat-
ever
bject
s
being
onsideredmustbe
in
itself
umerically
ne whole nd
complete,
eminds s
today
hat he
medieval
ragmatic
esolution o the
Socrates-Minus
rgument
lso can be
applied
o the
ontemporary
escartes-
Minus
Argument.
ence,
the
contemporary
escartes-Minus
rgument
s
far
more
medieval,
r
perhaps
he
medieval
ocrates-Minus
rgument
s far
moremodern,hanhasbeenpreviouslyhought.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
80/156
h /*
f)
BRILL
VIVA
RIUM
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96
www.brill.nl/viv
John
Wyclif
and the
Theory
of
Complexly
Signifiables
Richard
Gaskin
Universityf iverpool
Abstract
John
Wyclif
laims hat herere elations
f
ssential
dentity
ndformal
istinctness
connecting
niversais,
omplexly
ignifiables,
nd ndividuals.
n
some
espects
yc-
lif
position
n
complexly
ignifiables
oincides
ith
what callthe dvanced es
theory,
he iew hat
omplexly
ignifiables
re
eally
dentical ith ut
ormally
is-
tinct rom
orldly
ndividuals.
uttheres no
question
n
Wyclif
treatment
fa
reductionf
complexlyignifiables
o ndividuals.
argue
hat
Wyclif
opulates
is
most undamentalntologicalevelwith ropositionallytructuredntitiesothndi-
vidual nd
universal,
nd
hat his
pproach
s
uperior
othat f tsnominalist
ivals.
But
Wyclif
hares
ith ther ersionsf he
dvanced
es
heory
n
mplausible
heory
of
dentity,
nd
this ffectshe oherencefthe
laimed
eal
dentity
etween
ndi-
vidualsnd
omplexly
ignifiables.
Keywords
complexly
ignifiables,
dentity,
ssence,
ormal
istinction,ealism,
niversais
1 Introduction
According
o the atemedieval
heory
f
complexly
ignifiablescomplexeig
nificabilid
,
championed
y
Adam
Wodeham
nd
Gregory
f
Rimini,
heulti-
mate
ignificate
f a
spoken
r written eclarative
entence,
nd
the
object
f
scientificnd
theological
ssent, issent,
nd
knowledge,
s an
extra-categorial
worldly
tructure
anonically
pecified
y
nominalizing
he entence
n
ques-
tion.Thus the
ignificate
f
thesentence God is three nd one
( Deus
est
trinus t
unus )
s taken
o be the
object
hatGod
s three
nd
one
.
eumesse
trinumtunum)}Thetheory asdevelopednoppositionoth o William f
0
A.
Wodeham,
ecturaecundan
Primmententiarum.
rologus
tDistinctio
rima,
d
.
R.Wood ndG.
Gal,
St.
onaventura,
990),
sp.
80-208;
regory
f
Rimini,
ectura
uper
Koninklijke
rill
V, eiden,
009
DOI: 0.1
63/156853408X345927
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
81/156
R. GaskinVivarium
7
2009)
4-96 75
Ockham,whoheld herelevantignificatend bearer fpropositionalttitudes
to be a
propositio
entalisand to Walter
hatton,
who heldthat herelevant
itemwas
in
the
implest
ind f
case)
the
ignificate
f the
entences
ubject,
typicallynon-complex
xtra-mentalndividual
God,
n
the aseofour am-
ple
sentence.2
n
contrast ith he
simple
res
heory
f
Chatton,
ome ater
philosophers,
uch
s
Andr
e Neufchteaund
Hieronymus
ardo,
dopted
what
we
might
all n advanced es
heory,
hich
greed
with
Gregorys
heory,
in
the irst
nstance,
ut imed
o reconcilehe
esultingntology
ith
Aristote-
lian
category
heory,
nd
usually
lso
with
nominalism,
y
arguing
hat om-
plexlyignifiablesouldbe reduced o ndividuals.3hedoctrineypicallyook
the articulatedorm
f
claiming
hat
ppropriate
omplexly
ignifiables
nd
individuals
re
really
denticalut
ormally
istinct.
o,
for
xample,
od would
be
really
dentical
ith,
ut
formally
istinct
rom,
he
ntity
hat
God
s three
and one Elsewhere
havediscussedhe dvanced es
heory
n
some f tsnom-
inalistmanifestations.4ut
the
theory
lso ent tself o
a
realist
onstruction,
and t s on a
prominent
uchversion
fthe
heory
hat wish o focus ere.
John
Wyclif
rote is famous
reatisen
universais
ith he
principal
im
of
defending etaphysical
ealism. ut
n
the
ourse
f
pursuing
his
bjective
he
developed
version f the
theory
f
complexly
ignifiables
hat s of con-
siderable istoricalnd
systematic
nterest.
orresponding
o these wo fea-
turesof
its
interest,
he
discussion
which followshas two main
aims,
a
descriptive
ne and a
polemical
ne. Alessandro onti noted
n
1997
that
until he
publication
n
1985
of
thefirst
ritical
dition
f
Wyclif
treatisen
universaischolars ad
generally eglected
Wyclif philosophy
n
favour f
his
theology
nd
politics.5
onti own
work,
long
with hat f
others,6
as
Primumt ecundumententiarumt./, rologustDist. -6,ds.A.TrappndV.Marcolino
(Berlin,981),
sp.
-40. n the
heory
enerally,
ee
G.
Nuchelmans,
ate
cholastic
nd
Humanistheories
f
he
roposition
Amsterdam,
980),
-140;
.
J.
Ashworth,
anguage
nd
Logic
n
he ost-Medievaleriod
Dordrecht,974),
7-76;
tudiesnPost-Medievalemantics
(London,985),
h. V.
2)
For eferenceso he elevant
exts,
ee
my
Complexeignificabilia
nd
Aristotle's
ategories
,
inj.
Biardnd . Rosier-Catach
eds.),
atraditiondivalees
atgories
Louvain,003),
87-
205,
n.
and
.
3)
See
my
Complexeignificabilia
nd he ormal
istinction',
nA.
MaierndL. Valente
(eds.),
edievalheories
f
ssertivend
Non-Assertive
anguage
Rome,004),
95-516.
4)
See rt.it., reviousote.5)
A.
Conti,
Analogy
nd
ormal
istinction:n the
ogical
asis f
Wyclif
Metaphysics',
Medieval
hilosophy
nd
Theology
, 1997, 33-65,
t
p.
134.
6)
Here shall e
specially
oncerned
ith
pade's
Introduction'o
John
yclif:
nUniversais
(Tractatus
e
Universalibus
,
trans.
Kenny
Oxford,
985).
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
82/156
76
R.
Gaskin
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96
gone omeway orectifyinghatmbalance, ut ofcourse here smuch till
to be
done,
and one
aspect
f
Wyclif
philosophy
hathas
suffered
ndue
neglect
ven
from
istoriansf
ogic
nd
anguage
s his
realistic
reatmentf
the
heory
f
complexly
ignifiables.
hat
argely
escriptive
rogramme
s
the
topic
f
2-4
of
his
aper.
As for
my
polemical
genda,
twill
be
argued
hat
Wyclif
version f
the
theory
f
complexly
ignifiables,
hough
ot
without
difficulty,
s
philosophically
uperior
o ts
main
nominalist
ivals
4-5).
The
principal
espect
n
which
t s
problematic
s
one that
t
shareswith
ts
rivals,
and stems
rom he
very
dea of
attempting
o
combinereal
dentity
ith
formal istinctness;or headvanced es heory as
difficulty
aking ood
sense f
therelation
f
real
dentity
6).
2
Complexe
ignificabilia
n
the
Tractatus e
Universalibus
In
his
Tractatus
e
Universalibus,
hich
orms
he ixth
ract f
the
first ook
of
he
o-called
umma eEnte7
nd was
probably
omposed
n
1373-4,
Wyc-
lif,
n
the
course f
defending
ealism
bout
universais,9
dentifies
niversais
with ruths n theonehand,10nd with omplexlyignifiablesn theother.11
For
xample,
he
universal
umanity
s
dentifiedoth
with
he ruth
theres
a man
homo
st),
onceived s a
worldly
ntity,
nd with
he
omplexly
ig-
nifiable hat
heres a
man
hominem
sse).12
n
the
De
Logica
he
proposition
is
defined s an
ens
complexe
ignificans ,
r
more
accurately
s
a
racio
indicativa,
ongrua, ignificans
omplexe
icut st
vel
sicutnon
est ,
nd the
7)
On this
orkn
general,
ee
J.
Robson,
yclif
nd
he
xford
choob
Cambridge,
961),
Part
I.
8)See .Muellersntroductionohis ditionf he ractatuseUniversalibusTdU),Oxford,
1985),
ix-xxx.ll
eferenceso he
dU
will
e o his
dition.
9)
For seful
urveys
f he
ssential
oints
f
Wyclif
metaphysics
nd
heology,
eeA.
Kenny,
Wyclif
Ox
ord,
985);
.
Leff,
The lace f
Metaphysics
n
Wyclif
Theology',
n
A.
Hudson
andM.
Wilks
eds.),
rom
ckhamo
Wyclif
Ox
ord,
987),
17-32.
n
Wyclif
treatment
of
universais,
ee
Conti,
Studio
torico-critico'
n
Johannes
harpe:
uaestio
uper
niversalia
(Florence,
990),
sp.
98-309,
nd
Analogy',
50-8.
10)
TdU,
5,93-56,104;
9,184-84,315;
67,429-172,539;73,490-6.
All
itations
ollowhe
format:
age
umbers,
ine
umbers.)
f.
ohannis
yclif
ractatuse
ogica
vol.
Logica
2)),
ed.M.
Dziewicki
London,
896),
3,12-30;
ohannis
yclif
umma
e
nte,
ibri
rimi
rac-
tatusrimust ecundusSdE),d. . H.ThomsonOxford,930),4,22-45,28.n)
TdU
22,109-11;
4,88-99;
7,161-78,168;
9,184-84,315;
11,17;
67,429-172,539.
f.
Logica
2),
33,12-30;
9,21-41,35;
e
Ente
ibrorum
uorum
xcerpta
ELD),
d.M. Dzie-
wicki
London,
909),
0,10-11;2,31-9;
dE, 7,16-29,16;4,22-45,28.
,2)
TdU
70,13-16.
f.
69,457-172,539;
81,754-5.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
83/156
R.
Gaskin
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96
77
significatesf thepropositionsDeus est and homoest arespecifieds
Deumesse
nd hominem
sse
espectively.13yclif
grees
with
Adam
Wodeham
and
Gregory
f Rimini
hat hese
ntitiesrethe
ultimate
bjects
f
cientific
knowledge,
nd the
reasons e
gives
re
reminiscentf
Gregorys
n
particular:
one
can have
hat
knowledge
ithout
eing cquainted
with
he
relevant
po-
ken
or
writtenerms r
mental
oncepts,
nd that
knowledge
an
survive he
demise f
poken
r
written
igns
nd mental
oncepts.14 yclif
laims,
gainst
the
Ockhamist
radition,
hatno
spoken
r written
entence ould
be true r
necessary
xcept
n
thebasis
fthe
xistencef
truth r
necessity
parte
ei
and that uchreal xistences independentftheexistence fsigns: t s the
universal
orldly
ignificates
f
general
erms,
ot
those erms
hemselves
r
their
corresponding
ental
oncepts,
hat
ives
cience ts
generality.15
As
far s
worldly
ruthsre
concerned,
Wyclif
grees
with
Walter
urleigh
that heres
such
thing
s a
propositio
n
re>
r real
predication,
s he calls
t.16
In
his
De
Logica
Wyclif
n
fact
istinguishes
wo
kinds
f
real
proposition.17
(i)
First,
heres
whathe calls
he
propositio
ealis ,
xamples
fwhich
re ste
homo
nd iste
apls.
Wyclif
lassifies
hese s
propositions
ecause
hey
have
implicit
and
real)
subject- redicate
tructure:
n
the case of
iste
homo for
instance,
umanity
s
implicitly eally
redicated
f the
man
in
question.
(ii)
Secondly,
heres
the truth
ignified
n
the
ide
of
he
hing,
ike
he ruth
thatman
s
Veritas
ignificataparte
eiy
icut
sta
Veritas:ominem
sse).18
ike
Burleigh,
yclif
estricts
eal
predication
o
truths,19
nd
indeed t
one
point
he even
refuses
hetitle
predication
o
false
redications.20
ut
Wyclif
oes
further
han
Burleigh
n
one
mportant
espect:
hereas
urleigh
llowed he
copula
of true
egative
entence
o have
real
orrelate,
amely
he
diversity
of the
things
or
which
heextremes
upposit,Wyclif
enies
eal
xistenceo
13)
Johannis
yclif
ractatuse
Logica
vol.
.
ogica
1)),
d.
M.
Dziewicki
London,
893),
14,1-24;
f.
ogica
2),
03,24-31.
yclif
oes ot
istinguish
etween
he
ignificates
f
rop-
ositionsnd f
heir
ominalizations
dicta):
dE,
7,16-28,4;
9,17-30,20.
,4)
TdU,
44,444-149,564.
f. dE,
35,11-13;
. H.
Thomson,
A
Lost
hapterfWyclif's
Summa
e nte
Speculum
, 1929,
39-46,
t
pp.
42-3.
15)
dU
140,356-65;
44,444-61.
16)
dU
16,24-28,170.
n
Burleigh,
ee
.
inborg,
Walter
urleigh
n
he
Meaning
f
rop-
ositions',
lassicat
Mediaevalia
8,1967,
94-404.
,7)
Logica1),14,25-15,25.f. he efinitionf ere redicationtTdU18,41-4.18)
f.
Kenny,
The
Realismf
he e
Universalibus'
nA.
Kenny
d.,
Wyclif
n
hisTimes
(Oxford,
986),
7-29,
t
pp.
8-19;
onti,
Analogy',
38-42.
,9)
TdU
27,160-28,169;
40,356-65;
f. LD
13,20-3.
20)
TdU, 3,231.
ee
pade,
Introduction,
l-xli.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
84/156
78
R. Gaskin
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96
negative ropositionsout ourt}1 o forWyclifnly ositiverue redications
can be
real. ndeed
he
ntroducesurther
estrictionsn
the
cope
ofreal
red-
ication:
ruths
boutthe
past
nd
future,
ike
negative
ruths
nd
ogical os-
sibilities
re,
for
Wyclif,
mere ntia
rationis
hose
real
correlates
God.22
n
denying
eal
xistence o
negative
ropositions
yclif
position
s more
ir-
cumscribedhan
Burleigh's;
ut
n
another
espect
t s
muchmore
adical.We
can
see this
f
we note hat
Burleigh's
octrine f
the
ropositio
n re
s
wrongly
so
called.
For,
iven
hat
he ocates
he
opula
n
the
mind,
nd
given
hat,
n
his
view,
he
orrelatesf
true
ositive
nd
negative
entences
n
the
world re
the dentityrdiversityf he hingsorwhich he xtremesf hose entences
supposit,
espectively,
urleigh
n
fact nds
up
with
position
n
the
proposi-
tion
not
ubstantially
ifferentrom hat
fhis
nominalist
pponents:
heres
not,
or
urleigh,nything
ropositionally
tructuredhat
s
wholly
n
the
world.
Butfor
Wyclif
ropositions
nvolving
hathe
callsreal
predication
re
ndeed
wholly
n
theworld: o forhim
the
world
eally
oes contain
ropositionally
structured
ntities.23
These
propositionally
tructured
ntities,
hich re
n
effecthe
same as
what
Gregory
alls
omplexlyignifiables,
refurther
dentified
yWyclif
ith
appropriate
ndividuals rawn rom he en
categories.24
yclif
alls he
den-
tity
n
question
essential
dentity,
ut
by
hishe
meanswhat s
usually
alled
real
dentity:
e
uses he
word essence o
denote
hings,
hetherf
generic,
specific,
r
numerical
nity,25
eserving
he erm
quiddity
or
ssences
n
the
usual
ense,
hat
s,
for
collections
f)
constitutive
roperties,
nd
reserving
the
notion real
dentity
or
sub-class f
essential
dentities hich
neednot
concern
s here.26
Like other
roponents
f what
have
calledthe
dvanced es
heory
1),
whoheld that omplexlyignifiablesrereallydenticalwith,butformally
distinct
rom,
orldly
ndividual
hings,
Wyclif
ombines
claim f essential
identity
etween
ndividualsnd
appropriate
omplexly
ignifiables
ith he
thesis hat
ndividuals
re
formally
istinct rom
he
complexly
ignifiables
2,)
TdU,
7,157-28,169.
22)
dU
27,157-28,169;28,77-9;
38,312-18.
f.
Lost
hapter',
42;
ohannis
yclif
e nte
Predicamentali
EP),
d.
R.
Beer
London,
891),
h. .
23)
eehere
gain ogica
1),
14,1-15,25.
24)
TdU72,48-73,67.ee urtherdU74,88-99;0, -20; ,79- 4,322;76,83-277,84.
Cf.
Logica
2),
203,24-31;
LD
37,6-38,19;
dE
19,4-5;
2,1-13;
5,18-27,15;6,11-26;
44,22-45,28.
25)
dU
90,126-91,130;29,110-130,119.
f.
Kenny,
yclif
1-2.
26)
dU
p.
91,131-7.
f.
pade,
Introduction,
xi.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
85/156
R.
Gaskin
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96 79
withwhichthey reessentiallydentical.27nd,givenhis identificationf
universais
ith
omplexly
ignifiables,
hathas the
consequence
hatuniver-
sais re
essentially
dentical
ith,
hough
ormally
istinct
rom,
ndividuals:
I
agree
that
very
niversals
ndividual,
nd ice
ersa,
hough
he wo
re
ormally
is-
tinguished
romach ther.
How,
ask
ou,
ould
nowing
niversally
he
pecies
f
man
elp
oknowhis
man,
nless
hisman ere
species?
imilarly
hathis ans s hat
man
s,
nd
n
his eal
redication
he
uperior
s
omething
ommon
o ts nferior.28
Thispassages nterestingnasmuch sittells s that heres nfact complete
worldly
oincidence etween
niversais,
omplexlyignifiables,
nd ndividu-
als. We have
lready
een
that,
or
Wyclif,
niversais
re to be identified
ith
complexly
ignifiables
nd
complexly
ignifiables
re to
be identified ith
individuals:
t
follows
hatuniversais
re ndividuals.
he above
passage
on-
firms
his
mplication,29
ut
t also affirms
he onverse
mplication
and
vice
versa ),
ndicating
hat
very
ndividual
s a universal.30
t follows hatthe
three
xpressions
universais ,
complexly
ignifiables ,
nd individuals
ick
out
exactly
he same
worldly
hings.
It
follows urther
hat
very
ntity
s
essentiallydentical ith t east ne ndividual.econd-orderniversais,uch
as
being redicable f
many,
re no
exception.)31
ny
given
ntity
icked
ut
underone
of these haracterizations
s,
in
Wyclif
terminology,ssentially
identical
ith,
hough ormally
istinct
rom,
n
entity
icked
ut
under
ach
of
the ther wo haracterizations.
s far s the
upposition
frelevant
xpres-
sions
goes,
hismeans hat noun
phrase
uch s
being
lind
caecum
sse)
can have either
ersonal
upposition,
n
whichcase it
supposits
ither or
blind ndividuals
hemselves
the
ubstances)
r for
ny
ftheir
ccidents,32
r
27)
TdU, 78,695-9;
f.
LD
37,6-38,19.
28)
TdU
87,57-69
I
have
dapted
enny's
ranslation):
concedo...
uod
mne niversale
est
ingulare
t
contra,
icet
istinguantur
ormaliterb nvicem
Quomodo,
uaeso,
oret
pertinens
ognoscere
lium
ominem,
ognoscendo
niversaliter
peciem
ominis,
isi lle
homo oret
pecies,
icutlium
ominem
sse
sthominem
sse,
n
quapraedicatione
eali
communicatur
uperius
uo
nferiori? .ee lso
TdU, 02,100-4;39,346-140,351;84,262-
285,278;89,380-91;
08,176-97;38,193-212.
f.
ogica
2),
37,3-18;
LD
37,5-39,26;
SdE
61,8-12.
29)
f.
TdU, 50,8-16;dE, 5,16-27.
f.
pade,
Introduction,
xiv-v.
30)
f.TdU, 37,281-4.31)
f.
pade,
Introduction,
xv.
32)
Not
ust
he ccidentf
eing
lind,or,
swe hallee
hortly,
ccidental
roperties
re
at
leastn
Wyclif
official
iew)
denticalithheir
ubjects,
nd
hough,
swe hall
lso
ee,
he
relationf ssential
dentity
snot
n
general
ransitive,
yclif
view
ppears
obe hat niversais
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
86/156
80
R. Gaskin
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96
simple upposition,n whichcase it supposits or he form r propertyf
blindness.
he abstract
oun
blindness
caecitas
,
on theother
and,
lways
supposits
or
form r
property,
hough parte
rei
there s no
distinction
between
lindness
nd
being
blind
they
re both
essentially
dentical
with
blind
ndividuals).33
he essential
dentities
n
question
an
be
conveyed
oth
by
what
Wyclif
alls
formal
redication
nd
by
whathe calls
essential
red-
ication :
etus examine
hese
otions.
3 Wyclifn Predication
Formal
redication,
e are
told,
nvolves
heformal
nherence
f the
predi-
cate,
taken
s a real
that
s,
worldly)
ntity,
n
the
subject,
aken
s a real
entity,
hile ssential
redication
s said to
involve ne
and the
ameessentia
featuring
s both
ubject
nd
predicateagain,
aking
ubject
nd
predicate
s
real
ntities).34
ow
Wyclif
treatment
f these
arieties
f
predication
ives
rise o some
exegetical
ifficulties.35
irst,
he official
efinition
f essential
predication
lainly
upplies
nly
necessary
nd
nota sufficient
ondition
f
it,36or hererecaseswherereal) ubject ndpredicaterethe ameessentia
but
where
Wyclif
efuses
he title
essential
redication
o
the structure
n
question.37
econdly,
lthough
Wyclif
laims
n the Tractatus
e Universalibus
that ssential
redication
ncludes
ormal
redication,38
n
thefourth
reatise
ofthe
first ook
of
the umma
e ente
.
urgans
rroresirca
niversalia
n
com-
muni)
9
he
states hat
ssential
nd
formal
redication
re
mutually
xclusive.
But
for ur
purposes
t suffices
o
note he
following
wofeatures
ommon
o
both
formal nd
essential
redication
s
they
re
presented
n
the
Tractatus
e
Universalibus.
oth include
ccidental
s
well as
quidditative
redication,40
that
onverge
n
n
ndividual
re
ssentially
dentical
ithach ther:
dU, 1,138-47;
71,800-
272,806
quoted
n
he
ext
elow).
f.
dE,
4,1
-19.
33)
TdU, 32,171-133,194.
f.
ogica
2),
0,39-41,35;
2,38-43,27;
dE, 3,21-27,15.
34)
dU
28,171-33,234.
f.
Lost
hapter',
42-4.
35)
f.
pade,
Introduction,
xxv-xli.or
ur
urposes
e an
gnore
third
ariety
f
redica-
tion
hat
Wyclif
dentifies:
raedicatio
ecundum
abitudinem.
36)
ace
onti,
Analogy',
56.
37)
TdU, 2,219-33,233;
59,514-22.
38)
TdU, 5,258-36,267.39)
Lost
hapter',
42.
40)
n he ase
f
uidditative
nd
ccidental
ormal
redication,
nd
uidditative
ssential
red-
ication,
hiss
lear rom
he fficial
efinitions
tTdU
28,170-35,249;
orccidental
ssential
predication,
ee,
.g.,
dU, 40,49-59;
f.
LD, 5,26-32;
Lost
hapter',
42-3.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
87/156
R.
GaskinVivarium
7
2009)
4-96
8 1
and both nvolve heessentialdentityfsubject ndpredicate,aken s real
entities.
Wyclif
husfollows
standard
medieval
heory
f
the
truth-conditionsf
simple
ingular resent-tensed
on-modal
eclarative
entences,
he
o-called
identityheory ,
ccording
o
which he ruth f
uch
entences
equires
hat
subject
nd
predicate,
aken s
linguistic
ntities,
upposit
or he
ame
hing;
in
Wyclif
case,
given
hathe
is
construingubject
nd
predicate
s real
nti-
ties,
he
requirement
s
expressed
s a
requirement
hat
ubject
nd
predicate
actually
e
the ame.41
o forestall
ossible
erminological
onfusion,
t
would
be welltostate learly ow the dentityheoryfpredicationiffersromhe
simple
nd
advanced es
heories f
sentence
meaning
we
have
already
men-
tioned. he
dentity
heory
imsto tell
us what he
truth f a
declarativeen-
tence onsists
n
namely
he
dentity
f
subject
nd
predicate,
n
Wyclif
version,
r
the
dentity
f their
ignificates,
n
the
usualversions.
he res
he-
ory, y
contrast,
ims to tell
us what
the
meaning
f a
declarative
entence
consists
n
namely
he
ndividual
ignified
y
ts
subject
erm.
hat s the
simple
ersion f
theres
heory,
o which
he
dvanced ersion
dds that he
relevant
ndividuals
really
dentical
ith,
ut
formally
istinct
rom,
herel-
evant
omplexly
ignifiable.
It is
noteworthy
hat
while
n
Ockhamsmore
amiliar
ersion f
the den-
tity
heory,
o-supposition
f
subject
nd
predicate
s
not
only
necessary
ut
also
sufficientor he
ruth f
the
orresponding
entence,42
yclif
nsists hat
(casting
he
theory
n
his
terms)
dentity
f
subject
nd
predicate
s
only
necessary,
nd not also a
sufficient
ondition,
f
truth.43or
there re
sen-
tences,
uch
s The
Fathers the
Son ,
Man is an
ass ,
The
Deity
s
begot-
ten,
ies
tc. ,
nd
The
uiddity
f man
s
white ,
atisfying
he
requirement
that ubjectndpredicatee identicalnrebutthat reneverthelessottrue.
These
entences eed o
be
subjected
o
exportation
to
borrow
uine
term)
of
critical
xpressions
n
order o
render hem
rue:44
or
xample,
he
first
proposition
eeds o
be
convertedo
The Father
s
that
hing
which s
{illud
quod
est)
he
Son ,
the
econd o
Man
is what n
ass
is ,
etc.45
We arrive
t
predications
hat re
presumably
to
put
it in
Wyclif
terminology)
essen-
tial ,
nd
true;
utwe
do not
have
common
uppositum.
n
saying
hat
uch
41)
n
the
dentity
heory
with
urther
eferenceso
relevant
exts),
ee
my
berlegungen
ur
Identittstheorieer rdikation',issenschaftndWeisheit, 1997,7-103.42)
umma
oeicae
ed.P.Boehner
t l.
St.
onaventura,
974),
I,2,
249,8-250,16.
43)
TdU,
2,219-33,233;
59,514-22.
44)
f.
my
Complexe
ignificabilia
nd
he ormal
istinction',
4.
45)
f.
TdU, 9,
4-
02,
04;
40, 9-67;
64,
22-267,
06.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
88/156
82
R.
Gaskin
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96
predicationsrepresumablyssential,take ssuewith .V.Spade,whoargues
that
n
order o
captureWyclif
real
ntentions
e
should dd
the
require-
ment
f a
common
uppositum
o
the
definitionf
essential
redication.46
f
that s
correct,
he
relevant
xported'
redications
Man
is
what n
ass
is ,
etc.)
will
not
nvolve ssential
redication
fter
ll,
nd so
notreal
predication
either
since
hey
re
certainly
ot
cases
of
formal
redication).
ut t s
one
thing
o hold
that Man
is an
ass
does not
nvolve
eal
predication
it
s
after
all
false
nd,
whatever e think
f
he
point,Wyclif
oes,
s we
have een
2),
restricteal
redications
o
truths;
t
wouldbe
quite
nother
hing
o
holdthat
Man iswhat n ass s ,which strue, oes not nvolve eal
predication,
nd
think
we
should
ry
o
avoid
imputing
uch
strong
octrine
o
Wyclif.
Whether r
not
I
am
right
bout
this,
t is
clear
hat
adding
o
Wyclif
definition
f
truth,
hich,
s we
have
seen,
yields
merely
ecessary
nd not
also
sufficient
onditions,
he
requirement
f
common
suppositum
or,
o
put
it
in
Spades
terms,
dding
he
requirement
hat
he
relevant
redication
e
real)
will
not
patch
up
that
efinition.
nsteadwe will
flip
rom
specification
of
necessary
utnot
ufficient
onditions
or ruth
o
one of
ufficient
ut
not
necessary
onditions:
eal
dentity
n
its own
was
not
sufficientortruth,
because here
re
cases f
falsehoods
nvolving
uch
dentity
Man
is an
ass );
real
dentity
ogether
ith
common
uppositum
s not
necessary
or
ruth,
because here
recases
ftruths
ot
involving
common
uppositum
Man
is
what n
ass
s ).
Rather,
n
order o
convert he
official
efinitionf
truth
nto
specifica-
tionof
both
necessary
nd
sufficient
onditions
we
have to
allude
explicitly
to
supposition
heory.
ow
in
the
reatisen
universais
yclif
s
unwilling
o
do
this,
becausehis
realist
pproach
o
predication
s
precisely
esigned
o
obviate heneedto talk boutrelationsetweenlanguagend theworld.But
how
otherwisere
we to
accountfor
he
datum
hat Man
is an ass
fails
o
be
true,
nd fails ven
to
involve n
essential
redication
n
spite
f
thefact
that man
and ass
have the
same
essentia
the
genus
animali
y),
7
whereas
Man is
that
hing
which s an
ass
ucceeds
n
being
both
rue
nd
presum-
ably)
an
essential
redication?48
here
an
only
be
one
explanation
f
this
difference,
amely
hevariation
etween
hese wo
entencesn
the
upposi-
tionof
the relevant
inguistic
erms
occurring
herein:
here s a
shift ither
from
ersonal
upposition
n
the
firstaseto
simple
upposition
n
the
econd,
461
'Introduction,
xxvii-xxxviii.
47)
TdU, 3,227-32.
48)
TdU, 9,34-43.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
89/156
R. Gaskin
Vivarium
7
2009)
4-96
83
or fromimple uppositionf the pecies nthefirstasetosimple upposi-
tion of the
genus
n
the
second.49
y
contrast,
s
long
as we
remain t the
levelof
ontology
we
do
not
have the
resources
o
distinguish
etween
he
complexly
ignifiables
hatman s
an ass
nd thatman
s that
hing
hichsan
ass.
In
this
onnection
t s
interesting
o
note hat
n
the
Logice
ontinuado
which
s
exclusively
oncerned ith
herelation
etween
poken
nd written
terms
nd their
ignificates,50yclif
ad
followed
presuming
hat
he Trac-
tatus
e
Universalibus
as written
ater51
a more
raditional
ay
of
dealing
with
these nd
similar
roblems,
n
terms f
standard
upposition
heory,
accordingowhich ophismsrise romllicithiftsnthe uppositionfkey
linguistic
erms.)52
Hence,
while
find
ttractive
pades
exegetical
uggestion
hat
Wyclif
doctrine f
formal nd
essential
redication
lays
for
real
predication
he
same
role
hat he
heory
f
personal
nd
simple
upposition
lays
t
the evel
of
linguistic
redication ,53
t
seems
o me
that,
f
he
doctrine
eally
s meant
to
render
upposition
heory
edundant
n
respect
f real
predication,
t
fails.
On this
point,
t
least,
f
not on
others,
he
grand
project
which,
s
Conti
plausiblyuggests,54yclif
s
engagedn,namely
he
hypostasization
f
ogi-
cal
and
linguistic
istinctions the
attempt
o
replicate
hese
istinctions
n
detail
t the
evel f
ontology
breaks
own.
It is an
important
eature
f
Wyclif
version f the
dentity
heory
as,
mutatis
mutandis
of other
ersions)
hat
heessential
dentity
f
subject
nd
predicate,
aken s real
ntities,
oes
hand
n
hand with
distinction
n
the
way hey
re
presented.
s
Wyclif
otes
concerning
ssential
redication
and
he
implies
similar
oint
n
the
case of formal
redication),
hile
he ame
essence s
real)
ubject
nd
predicate,
heratio
raedicati
iffersrom
he
ratio
subiecti55Wyclif position,s so far haracterized,s clearly version fthe
advanced es
heory;
ut here
re
everal
mportant
espects
n
which
is
posi-
tion
diverges
rom
he
typical
nominalist)
ersions f that
heory.
turn
o
these
n
the
next
ection.
49)
or
he
etailsf
Wyclifs
heory
f
upposition,
ee
ogica
1),
9-42.
50)
Logica
2),
5,16-18.
51)
ee
Mueller's
ntroductiono
TdU t
pp.
xxvii-xxxviii;
f.N.
Kretzmann,
Continua,
ndi-
visibles,
nd
Change
n
Wyclifs
ogic
f
Scripture',
n
A.
Kenny
ed.),
Wyclif
n
hisTimes
(Oxford,986),1-65,tpp. 0-1.32)
ee
ogica
2),
4,30-47,2.
53)
'Introduction',
liii.
54)
'Analogy',
64.
55)
TdU,
8,173-4;
0,194-7.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
90/156
84 R
GaskinVivarium
7
2009)
4-96
4 Wyclif's ersion f theAdvancedResTheory
First,
lthough
Wyclif
official
osition
s
that ccidentals well s
quiddita-
tive
redications,
hether f theformal r essential
ort,
nvolve he ssential
identity
f
real)
ubject
nd
predicate,
ogether
ith heir ormal
istinctness,
we find hat
n
practice
Wyclif
ften estrictsis
attention,
hen
onsidering
combinations f
essential
dentity
nd
formal
distinctness,
o
identities
betweenndividuals
nd
their
uidditative
niversais,
hat
s,
to those niver-
sais that
ttach o individualss a condition f
their
xistence,
nd so to the
genera,pecies, nd differentiaen thecategoryf substancepplyingo the
individual
n
question.56
Wyclif
ven uccumbs o a
temptation
t
one or two
points
n
the Tractatus
de Universalibus
though
his s
certainly
othis
onsiderediew nd s
amply
contradictedlsewhere
n
thetreatise to
deny
hat
ccidents an be res ni-
versales57He
also notes
with
pproval
heAristotelianiew
as
he construes
t)
thatwhile
n
per
e
that
s,
quidditative) redications
he
ubject
s
identical
with hat
hings eing
idem
stsubiectumt
psum
sse),
n
the aseof cciden-
tal
predications
his s not so: so a white
hing
album)
nd
(its)
being
white
{album sse) this atter eingdentical ith heuniversal hiteness aredis-
tinctnatures.58
He
interprets
ristotle's
pparently
nconsistent
ronounce-
ments n the
relation
etween
pecies
nd
genera
n
the
ategory
f
ubstance,
on the one
hand,
nd
primary
ubstances,
n the
other,
s
anticipating
is
own view:
formally
uch
species
nd
genera
re
distinct rom
rimary
ub-
stances;
ssentiallyhey
re
dentical.)59
lsewhere
Wyclif
dds that heacci-
dental
properties
f a substance re
consequential pon
that substances
essential
eing,
nd arenot
identical ith)
hat
ubstance,
utare ccidental
modes f
substance;
nd
in an
argument
or he
dentity
fman
homo)
with
the
omplexly
ignifiable
hat man s{hominemsse), hefact hatneithers
an accident ftheother
lays
n
important
ole.60
56)
dU
88,78-89,98;2,163-94,195;
05,182-90;19,207-10;
28,70-131,156
on
his
as-
sage
ee
Conti,
Analogy',
48-50);
96,327-36;
98,390-199,401;
01,440-57;04,527-37;
206,585-207,589;
76,79-277,86.
57)
ee
TdU, 7,140-58,143;8,355;1,138-92,170;18,230-5.
lsewhere
yclif
s
unequiv-
ocal hatherere ommonr niversalccidents
swell
s
econdary
ubstances:
dU, 44,
58-
65; 55,428-32;59,524-260,552;
71
800-272,806;
f.
Lost
hapter',
43; dE, 4,27-59,23.
AtTdU, 70,755e peaksf heuidditiesf eneratherhanhatf ubstance,n context
wheret s learhat
quiddity
s universal.
58)
TdU, 2,48-55.
f.
2,59-73,67;21,257-61.
59)
TdU, 4,196-96,236.
60>
dU
127,65-128,69;20,221-121,261.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
91/156
R.
GaskinVivarium
7
2009)
4-96
85
However,espite hismarkedendencynthe TractatuseUniversalibuso
downplay
he
dentity
heory
f
predication
n
the ase of accidental
redica-
tion,
heofficial
haracterization
f
formal nd essential
redication,
ccord-
ing
to which
not
only
quidditative
ut also
accidental uch
predications
involve he essential
dentity
but
formal
istinctness)
f
subject
nd
predi-
cate,
s
certainly
ot n
oversight
n
Wyclif
part:
or he laim hat ccidental
predications
nvolve n
essential
dentity
f
subject
nd
predicate
s
repeated,
or
presupposed,
t a number f
points
lsewhere
n
histreatise.61
ut
t
would
appear
hat
Wyclif
preferred
iew the
ne that e most
onsistently
pplies
inpractice is that nly uidditativeuchpredicationsnvolve hatdentity.
The
second
respect
n
which
Wyclif
position
iverges
rom
he tandard
versions f the dvanced es
heory
s that
Wyclif
maintains
self-predication
thesis
n
respect
f the
species
nd
genera
hat re
essentially
dentical
with,
but
formally
istinct
rom,
he
ndividuals
alling
nder hem:62he
species
man,
which
ollects ndividual
men,
s tself
aid
to
be an
aggregate
an.63
n
theninth
hapter
fthe
Tractatuse Universalibus
yclif
ackles he
problem
raised
y
the
Third
Man
objection
o
self-predication,
nd claims hat elf-
predication
f
species
nd
genera
oes not
precipitate
n
infinity
f distinct
individuals: e
argues
hat
ll
aggregates
f
ndividuals
n
the ame
pecies
r
genus
re themselves
ndividuals
n
the relevant
pecies
r
genus,
ut claims
that t is
unnecessary
o
posit
distinct
ggregates
f
aggregates,
or
ny
uch
higher-level
ggregates
ollapse
o first-level
ggregates.
ence two
original
individuals
n
a
species
two
men,
ay)
generate
hree esultant
ndividuals
n
that
pecies
the
riginal
wo
plus
he
ggregate),
hree
riginals
enerate
even
resultants,
nd so
on,
according
o
the
principle
hatn
individuals
enerate
2n
-
1
resultants
there
eing
no
empty
esultant).
iven
that here
will
be
generics well as specificndividuals, largenumber foriginalndividuals
will
obviously
enerate
very
arge
umber f
resultant
ndividuals: ut
how-
ever
arge
he
number
f
original
ndividuals,
s
long
s that
number s finite
the
number f
resultantndividuals ill lso
be finite.
In
the
ase
of
the
Trin-
ity,Wyclif
rgues
hat here re
n
fact
ight
esultant
ntities,
incehe distin-
guishes
he
Trinity
aken s an
aggregate
rom he
divine
ssence,
nd both f
these rom he
three
ersons
aken
everally
nd
from he
aggregate
airs.)64
But
although
Wyclif
oes not
concede hat
onsiderationsf
self-predication
61)
TdU, 1,138-47;
7,262-72;32,171-9.
62)
TdUy
91,211-193,266;
94,289-195,296;25,403-19.
63)
See,
.g.,
^,74,88-99;
40,351-5;
53,90-154,94;
57,174-82;
91,200-193,254.
641
dU
187,107-188,136.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
92/156
86
R. GaskinVivarium
7
2009)
4-96
generatenfinitiesforiginalnd resultantndividuals,e neverthelessoes
think hat here
re infinities
f
such
ndividuals,
incehe
claims hat
ny
genus
will
ontain
n
infinity
f
pecies,
o that ven
ne
original,
pecifically
unique
ndividual
Wyclif
lludes
o the
phoenix,
standard
xample)
will
involve n
infinity
fother ndividuals.65
The third
espect
n
which
Wyclif
position iverges
rom he dvanced es
theory
n its standard
manifestationss this:
given
he essential
dentity
f
individuals
nd
suitable
niversais,
yclif
s
prepared
o
say
that ndividuals
are
predicable
f
many,
hough
not
qua
individuals,
nd thatuniversais
re
impredicablefmany,hough gainnotqua universais.66urther,universal
is both
ssentially
he ameas an individual
falling
nder
t
and
essentially
different
rom since
t s
essentially
he ame s other ndividuals
hat iffer
essentially
rom and from ach
other. here eedbe
no
contradiction
n
this
position, rovided
e nsist
hat,
f
is
essentially
ifferentrom
it
does
not
follow hat is
not
essentially
he same as b' universais
rovide
counter-
instance
o the
entailment,
ince
they
re both
essentially
he same as and
essentially
ifferent
rom heir
nstantiating
ndividuals,
utwe
may
not nfer
that
hey
re,
bsurdly,
oth
ssentially
he
ame nd
not
essentially
he
ame
as those ndividuals.67
ndividuals,
n theother
and,
renot
only ssentially
different
rom,
ut lso
not
ssentially
he
ame
s,
each
other.68encethe ela-
tion
of essential
dentity,
hough
eflexivend
symmetrical,
s not transitive.
(But
note
hat
n
the
pecial
ase
where
dentity
elations
onnect
upposita
the
relation fessential
dentity
s
transitive.)69
returno
this
oint
elow.
Fourthly
nd
finally,
here
s no
suggestion
n
Wyclif
treatisen universais
that elevant
ssential
dentities
erve he
purpose
f
reducing
omplexlyigni-
fiables,
hichwould
otherwise
e
extra-categorial
ntities,
o
non-proposi-
tionallytructuredntra-categorialndividuals.70his s the most mportant
point
n which
Wyclif approach
o
complexlyignifiables
iffers
rom tan-
dard
nominalist
ersions
fthe dvanced
es
heory.
s a staunch ealist bout
universais,
nd
given
his
policy
of
identifying
omplexly
ignifiables
ith
appropriate
niversais,
yclif
maintains
hereal xistence
f
complexlyigni-
fiables
s
genuine
ropositionally
tructured
orldly
ntities.
f
any
reduction
65)
TdU
1
0,
8-
91,198.
or different
pproach
o he Third
an
roblem,
hichenies
that
ggregates
re
istinct
romheir
omponent
ndividuals,
ee
LD
43,1-45,3.
66)
TdU,3,174-94,195.f. 56,142-9.67)
TdU, 6,243-9.
68)
f.
TdU
153,90-154,94.
69)
Spade,
Introduction,
xxviii.
70)
f.
onti,
Analogy',
39-40.
8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol Xlvii, No. 1, 2009
93/156
R. GaskinVivarium
7
2009)
4-96
87
were n theoffing,t wouldrather aveto run n thereverse irection. nd
indeed
we find hat
n some
passages
n
the Tractatus
e Universalibus
yclif
follows
he
Porphyrian
nd Boethian radition
f
dentifying
ndividual ub-
stances ith
nique
bundles f ccidentalnd non-accidental
roperties.71
n
that
pproach,
he
fundamental
ntities
n
each of the
ategories
illbe uni-
versais;
ndividuals
ill be derived ntities. ut
then,
iven
his dentification
of universais ith
complexly
ignifiables,
yclif
mostfundamentalnto-
logical
evelwillconsist f
proposi
ionally
tructured
ntities.
Now we
should
no doubtbe
wary
f
treating
hese
assages