{"id":1855,"date":"2016-11-22T14:22:23","date_gmt":"2016-11-22T14:22:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/?post_type=tribe_events&p=1855"},"modified":"2017-09-17T19:58:51","modified_gmt":"2017-09-17T18:58:51","slug":"proofs-of-propositions-in-14th-century-logic","status":"publish","type":"tribe_events","link":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/event\/proofs-of-propositions-in-14th-century-logic\/","title":{"rendered":"Proofs of Propositions in 14th-Century Logic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paul Spade complained<\/a> in 2000 that four key components of late medieval logic were mysterious to modern scholars. Since then, much has been done to clarify two of them (obligations and supposition), but the other two (exposition and proofs of propositions) remain just as mysterious. The aim of this workshop is to reach a clearer understanding of the genre of ‘proofs of propositions’ (probationes propositionum<\/i>) that came to characterize British logic in the second half of the 14th century. The workshop will also consider the earlier theories of ‘exposition’ that were subsumed into this new genre.<\/p>\n

Registration<\/h3>\n

Registration is free of charge, and includes tea and coffee between the talks but not meals. To register, please email Mark Thakkar<\/a> (mnat@st-andrews.ac.uk<\/a>) and Stephen Read<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tuesday 23 May<\/h4>\n

10:00\u2002Graziana Ciola<\/a> (Pisa) ‘Expositiones<\/i> and Consequentiae<\/i> in Marsilius of Inghen’
\n11:00\u2002Tea\/Coffee
\n11:30\u2002Mark Thakkar<\/a> (精东传媒) ‘Wyclif\u2019s Three Treatises on Proofs of Propositions’
\n12:30\u2002Lunch
\n14:00\u2002Ota Pavl\u00edcek<\/a> (Czech Academy of Sciences) ‘Alyngton, Tarteys and Wyclif: An Anonymous Treatise and a Commentary on Probationes Propositionum<\/i> in MS Prague NK VIII F 16′
\n15:00\u2002Tea\/Coffee
\n15:30\u2002Harald Berger<\/a> (Graz) ‘Helmoldus Zoltwedel and his Quaestiones Byligam<\/i>, Prague c1390′
\n16:30\u2002Tea\/Coffee
\n17:00\u2002Martin Dekarli<\/a> (Austrian Academy of Sciences) ‘\u0160tep\u00e1n of Palecz\u2019s Notabilia Super Billingham<\/i>: Another Witness to the Proofs of Propositions Tradition in Late Medieval Bohemia’
\n18:00\u2002Finish
\n19:30\u2002Dinner<\/p>\n

Wednesday 24 May<\/h4>\n

10:00\u2002Egbert Bos<\/a> (Leiden) ‘Henry of Coesfeld (?) as a Commentator on Billingham\u2019s On the Tests of Terms<\/i>, and the Expository Syllogism’
\n11:00\u2002Tea\/Coffee
\n11:30\u2002Joke Spruyt<\/a> (Maastricht) ‘Henry of Coesfeld (?) on Gradation and Change’
\n12:30\u2002Lunch
\n14:00\u2002Heresy Tour of 精东传媒 (Bess Rhodes<\/a>)
\n15:30\u2002Riccardo Strobino<\/a> (Tufts) ‘Probatio<\/i> and Expositio<\/i> in Peter of Mantua\u2019s Logic<\/i>‘
\n16:30\u2002Tea\/Coffee
\n17:00\u2002Jenny Ashworth<\/a> (Waterloo) ‘The Reception of Probationes<\/i> in the Late 14th, 15th and Early 16th Centuries’
\n18:00\u2002Finish
\n19:30\u2002Dinner<\/p>\n

Financial Support<\/h2>\n

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Arch\u00e9 Research Centre<\/a>, the Scots Philosophical Association<\/a>, the 精东传媒 Institute for Mediaeval Studies<\/a>, the Leverhulme Trust<\/a> and the British Logic Colloquium<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Expositiones<\/i> and Consequentiae<\/i> in Marsilius of Inghen (Graziana Ciola)<\/h4>\n

I will focus on the second Book of Marsilius of Inghen’s Consequentiae<\/i> (ca. 1369\u20131370), which deals with “consequences holding from exponentes<\/i> to exposita<\/i>” and offers an overview of “how all sentences in logic should be exposed” (II.1).
\nI will begin by contextualising Marsilius’ Consequentiae<\/i>. Although his treatise is often listed \u2013 along with Buridan’s and Albert of Saxony’s \u2013 among those emblematic of the so-called Parisian or Continental tradition on consequentiae<\/i>, it shows several relevant features typical of the contemporary English discussions on the subject. Furthermore, Marsilius’ text often happens to be transmitted in collections of mostly British logical works.
\nOne interesting aspect of Marsilius’ Consequentiae<\/i> is the insertion of a second book entirely devoted to expositions. We find a few chapters devoted to expositions within the sections on consequences in earlier systematic summae<\/i> of logic (e.g. Ockham’s, Burley’s) and also in some later English authors (e.g. Billingham). However, these analyses of expositiones<\/i> are neither as systematic nor as articulated as they are in Marsilius’ treatise. Furthermore, within the Parisian tradition, such examinations are either absent (e.g. Buridan’s Tractatus consequentiarum<\/i>) or barely sketched (e.g. Albert of Saxony’s Perutilis logica<\/i> IV). I am therefore going to examine the second book of Marsilius’ Consequentiae<\/i>, by outlining its structure, some general features of the theory of expositiones<\/i> as presented there, and how it connects to Marsilius’ theory of consequentiae<\/i> tout court.<\/p>\n

\n

Wyclif\u2019s Three Treatises on Proofs of Propositions (Mark Thakkar)<\/h4>\n

Wyclif\u2019s three treatises on proofs of propositions (?c1370) have been obscured for over a century by the editio princeps<\/i>, which buried them under the fictitious title \u2018Logice continuacio<\/i>\u2019 and gave an inconsistent account of their structure. The resulting confusions continue to plague the scholarly literature, so I will begin by clearing them up. The main point of my talk, though, will be to raise the general question of what a probatio<\/i> actually is. Contrary to the modern tendency to see it as an analysis or a test, I will argue that a probatio<\/i> is in fact (surprise!) a proof.<\/p>\n

\n

Alyngton, Tarteys and Wyclif: An Anonymous Treatise and a Commentary on Probationes Propositionum<\/i> in MS Prague NK VIII F 16 (Ota Pavl\u00edcek)<\/h4>\n

The unpublished treatise conserved in MS Prague N\u00e1rodn\u00ed knihovna VIII F 16, named by Franti\u0161ek \u0160mahel \u201cCollecta de probatione propositionum<\/i>\u201d, is part of the evidence for the reception of English logic in medieval Bohemia. The text is interesting from at least three points of view. First, it consists of several sub-treatises based largely on Wyclif\u2019s and Tarteys\u2019s logical tractates, which led to an understanding of the Collecta<\/i> as a treatise based on these treatises. At the same time, the Collecta<\/i> were also a subject to a commentary, and both of these texts betray the influence of Robert Alyngton. Second, the text is interesting for understanding the working method of the medieval author, i.e. what he borrowed from Wyclif and Tarteys (and Alyngton), what he decided to omit and what he decided to elaborate. Finally, there is a possibility that the author of the Collecta<\/i> was Jerome of Prague, the famous propagator of Wyclif\u2019s philosophy. In my paper, I will first summarise \u0160mahel\u2019s findings on the structure of the Collecta<\/i>. Next, based on my transcription of the text, I will show how the author works with Wyclif\u2019s treatises, how he expands or limits Wyclif\u2019s theories and what his other sources are. In particular, I will focus on the Collecta<\/i>\u2019s chapters related to the problematics of chapters 1\u20133 of the first treatise of Wyclif\u2019s so-called Logicae continuatio<\/i> in which Wyclif laid the foundations of his view on probationes propositionum<\/i>. One of the reasons for this selection is that the commentary on the Collecta<\/i> is related to the first of these chapters, i.e. the one relating to the primary and secondary significations of propositions. Finally, I will show the textual and doctrinal parallels between the Collecta<\/i> and Jerome of Prague\u2019s opus, and will try to discern if there are convincing proofs for ascribing the Collecta<\/i> to Jerome. As we will see, there is a non-negligible connection between Jerome of Prague, John Wyclif, Robert Alyngton, and the Collecta<\/i> with its commentary.<\/p>\n

\n

Helmoldus Zoltwedel and his Quaestiones Byligam<\/i>, Prague c1390 (Harald Berger)<\/h4>\n

Helmoldus Gledenstede de Zoltwedel (\u20201441) is a very interesting figure in the scientific community of the late 14th and early 15th centuries. He was a graduate of the faculties of arts, medicine, and theology, and he was active as such at the Prague and Leipzig universities. In this talk, I shall firstly present Helmold\u2019s life and works. These works are valuable sources for the history of logic and philosophy at the end of the 14th century, because Helmold quotes many authors of his times by name.
\nHelmold\u2019s Quaestiones parvorum logicalium<\/i>, composed at Prague in around 1390, are probably the most comprehensive work of the genre, with regard to both parts and pages: the work comprises nine parts and fills some 200 leaves in folio. The seventh part is devoted to the liber Byligam<\/i> and comprises 20 questions. I shall focus on the relation of the scientia Byligam<\/i> to the scientia sophistriae<\/i> (qq. 1\u20132) and on the termini exponibiles<\/i> (qu. 12).<\/p>\n

\n

\u0160tep\u00e1n of Palecz\u2019s Notabilia Super Billingham<\/i>: Another Witness to the Proofs of Propositions Tradition in Late Medieval Bohemia (Martin Dekarli)<\/h4>\n

The majority of historians consider the oeuvre of John Wyclif (d. 1384) as one of the most important sources imported from England to the milieu of Prague University. After 1385, Wyclif\u2019s treatises received vast acclaim from Czech realists such as Stanislaus of Znojmo (d. 1414), \u0160tep\u00e1n of Palecz (d. 1422), Jan Hus (d. 1415) and Jerome of Prague (d. 1416). However, from the late 1360s, several English logical treatises by Richard Brinkley (d. ca. 1350), Richard Kilvington (d. 1361), Richard Billingham (d. ca. 1361) and William Heytesbury (d. 1372\/3) had already been studied by generations of Prague masters. One of the frequently used handbooks and tools employed for teaching purposes in Prague during the late Middle Ages was Billingham\u2019s De probatione terminorum<\/i>. The impact of this work on the universities\u2019 logic curricula during the 14th century, including that of Prague University, has been thoroughly studied for several decades thanks to A. Maier\u00f9, L. M. de Rijk, E. P. Bos and other scholars.
\nAnother text belonging to the late medieval proofs of propositions tradition is preserved in MS Prague NK X H 9, ff. 101r\u2013108v, under the title Notabilia super Billingham<\/i>. This short tract was compiled sometime around the mid-1390s and its authorship can be attributed to the Czech realist \u0160tep\u00e1n of Palecz. The aim of my talk is to present the content of this work and to provide its contextualization into Prague\u2019s late medieval proofs of propositions tradition, i.e. to retrace further the influence of English logic on the European continent.<\/p>\n

\n

Henry of Coesfeld (?) as a Commentator on Billingham\u2019s On the Tests of Terms<\/i>, and the Expository Syllogism (Egbert Bos)<\/h4>\n

In this paper I would like to announce an edition prepared by Joke Spruyt and myself of a commentary on Richard Billingham\u2019s handbook De probationibus terminorum<\/i> (\u2018On the tests of terms<\/i>\u2019). The commentary is ascribed to a certain Henry of Coesfeld, probably living in the second half of the fourteenth century in the eastern part of Holland. Which are the manuscripts, how are they related? To give an impression of the nature of this commentary I have selected Henry\u2019s comments on Richard\u2019s remarks on the expository syllogism, both affirmative and negative.
\nFollowing Richard\u2019s text, Henry starts with a discussion of the affirmative expository syllogism. This kind of syllogism is one of the main points of interest in both Billingham\u2019s and Henry\u2019s work. According to them it is the basis of all syllogistic reasoning. It is in the context of this kind of syllogism that 1) the part played by singular terms is investigated, and, 2) in logical connection on occasion of the Trinitarian syllogism \u2018Iste Deus est pater, et iste Deus est filius, ergo filius est pater\u2019, the question is considered in how far syllogistic reasoning is universally formal. Henry elaborates and clarifies Richard\u2019s view on both points and solves the problem of the Trinitarian syllogism by introducing the formula \u2018omne quod est<\/i>\u2019, thus reducing it to the \u2018dici de omni et nullo<\/i>\u2019 principle. Henry says: \u2018Ergo non sequitur<\/i> \u201cIste Deus est pater, iste Deus est filius, ergo filius est pater<\/i>\u201d, quia non sequitur<\/i> \u201cIste Deus est pater, ergo omne quod est iste Deus est pater<\/i>\u201d, quia antecedens est verum et consequens falsum<\/i>\u2019. So, in his opinion, singular theological propositions should in this case be universalized.
\nAs to the negative expository syllogism, Henry corrects Billingham\u2019s account on the topic of its foundation. He notes that to test the truth of a negative expository syllogism, three more conditions are required than the ones listed by Billingham with regard to the affirmative one.<\/p>\n

\n

Henry of Coesfeld (?) on Gradation and Change (Joke Spruyt)<\/h4>\n

The commentary on Richard Billingham\u2019s De probationibus terminorum<\/i> presumably written by Henry of Coesfeld pays ample attention to propositions with expressions indicating comparison and change. While Billingham\u2019s explanations of some of those expressions are quite brief and not always clear, Coesfeld makes distinctions and goes more deeply into the complications that arise when several expressions come together in one sentence.
\nIn that regard, Coesfeld\u2019s comments on expressions featuring the superlatives \u2018primum<\/i>\u2019 and \u2018ultimum<\/i>\u2019 are interesting to look at. He starts off with Billingham\u2019s exposition of the sentence \u2018hoc erit primum istorum<\/i>\u2019. Billingham pronounces that this expression should be analysed as follows: \u2018hoc erit pridem istorum, vel pridem inter istos, et nullus istorum erit prior isto, sed aliqui istorum erunt posteriores eo, igitur hoc erit primum istorum<\/i>.\u2019 Coesfeld adds that the master also says that this exposition applies whether or not something is added to \u2018primum<\/i>\u2019, so that we should analyse a sentence like \u2018Sortes erit primus istorum qui venient<\/i>\u2019 in the same way.
\nBut Henry is not altogether satisfied with Billingham\u2019s analysis, and comes up with a list of dubia<\/i> to illustrate his point that matters are somewhat more complex than the auctor<\/i> makes them out to be. What to say of propositions featuring the combinations \u2018primum instans<\/i>\u2019 and \u2018ultimum instans<\/i>\u2019, for example? Coesfeld takes this opportunity to embark on a more elaborate conceptual analysis of physical phenomena.<\/p>\n

\n

Probatio<\/i> and Expositio<\/i> in Peter of Mantua\u2019s Logic<\/i> (Riccardo Strobino)<\/h4>\n

Peter of Mantua\u2019s (d. 1399) Logica<\/i> has attracted attention over the past few years for its original way of combining elements and views borrowed from the two main logical traditions of the 14th century, the English and the Continental, which reflects a high sophisticated level of reception and interpretation of materials in the logica moderna<\/i> roughly a generation before Paul of Venice, whom orthodox scholarship used to regard until recently as the first and main representative of this Italian tradition of assimilation and appropriation.
\nAn unexplored area of Peter of Mantua\u2019s vast and advanced logic textbook includes a number of treatises on probatio<\/i>, in particular one on the proof of the universal proposition, one on the proof of the propositio exclusiva<\/i> and one on proof of the propositio exceptiva<\/i>. The purpose of this paper is to offer a first account of the text and doctrine of these treatises and their role in Peter\u2019s logic alongside other chapters on the expositio of canonical types of propositions such as the reduplicative and of standard syncategorematic terms.<\/p>\n

\n

The Reception of Probationes<\/i> in the Late 14th, 15th and Early 16th Centuries (Jenny Ashworth)<\/h4>\n

Treatises on proofs of terms seem to have developed from texts on syncategoremata<\/i>, abstractiones<\/i>, and sophismata<\/i>, and they seem to have been replaced by texts on exponibilia<\/i>, which themselves disappeared during the sixteenth century. In this paper I will look at some English texts on proofs of terms, especially those that were printed in England, and I shall consider their relationship with some Italian logicians. I shall focus on resoluble propositions and the distinction beween immediate and mediate terms, since the treatment of these notions seems to have been peculiar to texts on the proofs of terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The aim of this workshop is to reach a clearer understanding of the genre of ‘proofs of propositions’ (probationes propositionum) that came to characterize British logic in the second half of the 14th century.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1858,"template":"","meta":{"_tribe_events_status":"","_tribe_events_status_reason":"","_tribe_events_is_hybrid":"","_tribe_events_is_virtual":"","_tribe_events_virtual_video_source":"","_tribe_events_virtual_embed_video":"","_tribe_events_virtual_linked_button_text":"","_tribe_events_virtual_linked_button":"","_tribe_events_virtual_show_embed_at":"","_tribe_events_virtual_show_embed_to":[],"_tribe_events_virtual_show_on_event":"","_tribe_events_virtual_show_on_views":"","_tribe_events_virtual_url":"","footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"tags":[7,8],"tribe_events_cat":[6],"class_list":["post-1855","tribe_events","type-tribe_events","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-medieval-logic","tag-proofs-of-propositions","tribe_events_cat-workshops","cat_workshops"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events\/1855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/tribe_events"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events\/1855\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2967,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events\/1855\/revisions\/2967"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1858"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1855"},{"taxonomy":"tribe_events_cat","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events_cat?post=1855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}