Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:52:40.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogical Concepts: The Fourteenth-Century Background to Cajetan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

E. J. Ashworth
E. J. Ashworth
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1498 Cajetan published a short book, On the Analogy of Names, which is often regarded as a masterly summary of Aquinas's doctrine of analogy. It opens in the very first paragraph with an attack on three views of the concept of being (ens): first, that it is a disjunction of concepts; second, that it is an ordered group of concepts; and third, that it is a single, separate concept which is unequally participated by substances and accidents. A number of questions immediately spring to mind. Why are concepts being discussed when analogy is said by Cajetan to be a theory of language? What is meant by ‘concept’? Who held the views under attack and why? So far as I can tell, the extensive literature on both Aquinas and Cajetan offers no satisfactory answers to these questions.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 31 , Issue 3: Philosophy in the Fourteenth Century , Summer 1992 , pp. 399 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 See Pinchard, Bruno, Métaphysique et sémantique. Autour de Cajetan. Étude [texte] et traduction du “De Nominum Analogia” (Paris: Vrin, 1987), p. 114Google Scholar. The text has “indisiunctionis,” but this has to be wrong: cf. p. 133, par. 71, where Cajetan once more lists the three views, beginning with “conceptum disiunctum.” Pinchard wrongly suggests (p. 152, par. 1, n. 5) that the latter text should be emended.

2 Notably Johannes Capreolus (d. 1444), Dominic of Flanders (d. 1479), and Paulus Soncinas (d. 1494).

3 For full bibliographies and more information on the matters touched on here, see Ashworth, E. J., “Signification and Modes of Signifying in Thirteenth-Century Logic: A Preface to Aquinas on Analogy,” Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 1 (1991): 39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E. J. Ashworth, “Analogy and Equivocation in Thirteenth-Century Logic: Aquinas in Context,” Mediaeval Studies (forthcoming); Ashworth, E. J., “Equivocation and Analogy in Fourteenth Century Logic: Ockham, Burley and Buridan,” in Mojsisch, B. and Pluta, O., eds., Historia Philosophiae Medii Aevi: Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters (Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1991), Vol. 1, p. 23–43.Google Scholar

4 Aristotle, , Categories Ia1–15, in Aristoteles Latinus I 1–5: Categoriae vel Praedicamenta, edited by Minio-Paluello, L. (Leiden: Brill, 1961), p. 5Google Scholar: “Aequivoca dicuntur quorum nomen solum commune est, secundum nomen vero substantiae ratio diversa, ut animal homo et quod pingitur. Univoca vero dicuntur quorum et nomen commune est et secundum nomen eadem substantiae ratio, ut animal homo atque bos. …”

5 I have borrowed nearly all of this translation from the translation of Peter of Spain by Kretzmann, N. and Stump, E., The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts, Vol. 1: Logic and the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 89.Google Scholar

6 Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d’Aristote: Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke, edited by Pattin, A. (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain; Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1971), Vol. 1, p. 39.Google Scholar

7 See the frequently cited Aristotelian tag: ratio quant significat nomen est definitio (Metaphysics 4, 1012a24–25). I take the Latin from Hamesse, Jacqueline, Les Auctoritates Aristotelis: un florilège médiéval. Étude historique et édition critique, Philosophes médiévaux, No. XVII (Louvain: Publications Universitaires; Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1974), p. 124.Google Scholar

8 Boethius, , In Categorias Aristotelis libri quatuor, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, edited by Migne, J.-P. (Paris, 1891), Vol. 64, col. 166; Simplicius, Commentaire, p. 39.Google Scholar

9 William of Ockham, Summa Logicae, edited by Boehner, P., Gál, G., Brown, S., Opera Philosophica I (St. Bonaventure, NY: St. Bonaventure University, 1974), p. 45Google Scholar; Expositio in librum Praedicamentorum Aristotelis, edited by Gál, G., in Opera Philosophica II (St. Bonaventure, NY: St. Bonaventure University, 1978), p. 143, 144.Google Scholar

10 “Convenientia sunt media inter univoca et aequivoca, 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” (in C. H. Lohr, “Logica Algazelis: Introduction and Critical Text,” Traditio, 21 [1965]: 246).

11 Albert the Great, Liber de Praedicabilia, in Opera omnia, edited by Borgnet, Auguste (Paris: Vivès, 1890), Vol. 1, p. 11a–b.Google Scholar

12 Averroes, Aristotelis Opera cum Averrois Commentariis (Venetiis apud Junctas, 1565–74; rpt. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1962), Vol. VIII, f. 65rb: “… 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.”

13 Henry of Ghent, Summae Quaestionum Ordinariarum (rpt. of the 1520 edition), 2 vols., Franciscan Institute Publications, Text Series No. 5 (St. Bonaventure, NY, and Louvain, Belgium: Paderborn, 1953), Vol. 1, f. cxxiiii r.

14 Ockham, Quodlibeta Septem, edited by Wey, J. C., Opera Theologica IX (St. Bonaventure, NY: St. Bonaventure University, 1980), p. 355.Google Scholar

15 Francis of Meyronnes, Passus super Universalia et Predicamenta Aristotelis illuminati Francisci Maironis (with various other works and authors) (Venetiis, 1517), f. 9 vb.

16 Simplicius, Commentaire, p. 43.

17 “In genere multe latent equivocationes,” in Walter Burley, 1337 Commentary on the Categories, in Burlei super artem veterem Porphirii et Aristotelis (Venetiis, 1497), sig. c 5 ra. Cf. Ockham, , Quaestiones in librum Tertium Sententiarum (Reportatio), edited by Kelley, F. E. and Etzkorn, G. I., Opera Theologica VI (St. Bonaventure, NY: St. Bonaventure University, 1982), p. 338.Google Scholar

18 Natalis, Hervaeus, Quolibeta (Venetiis, 1513; rpt. Ridgwood, NJ: Gregg Press, 1966), f. 44 ra-rb.Google Scholar

19 See Adams, Marilyn McCord, “Universals in the Early Fourteenth Century,” in Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony and Pinborg, Jan, eds., Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 436.Google Scholar

20 See Ebbesen, Sten, “Concrete Accidental Terms: Late Thirteenth-Century Debates about Problems Relating to Such Terms as ‘Album’,” in Kretzmann, Norman, ed., Meaning and Inference in Medieval Philosophy (Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), p. 114.Google Scholar

21 Simon of Faversham, Quaestiones super libro Perihermeneias, in Magistri Simonis Anglici sive de Faverisham Opera omnia 1: Opera logica, edited by Mazzarella, Pasquale (Padua: CEDAM, 1957), p. 155.Google Scholar

22 See Owens, Joseph, “Common Nature: A Point of Comparison Between Thomistic and Scotistic Metaphysics,” Mediaeval Studies, 19 (1957): 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Aquinas a common nature could exist only in external objects or in the mind, as a universal. There was no halfway mode of being, despite the fact that he still wished to talk about natures independently of both their possible modes of existence.

23 Aquinas, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura 1.1 n. 25; De veritate 4.2; De potentia 8.1.

24 Aquinas, “Ratio enim quam significat nomen, est conceptio intellectus de re significata per nomen” (Summa theol. 1.13.4; compare 1.5.2).

25 Cf. Paulus Soncinas, Quaestiones Metaphysicales Acutissimae (Venice, 1588; rpt. Frankfurt: Minerva GmbH, 1967), p. 2b: “Conceptus formalis est secundum aliquos actus intelligendi, et secundum S. Thomam est ver<b>um formatum de re, per actum intelligendi.”

26 For further discussion, see Nuchelmans, Gabriel, Judgment and Proposition from Descartes to Kant (Amsterdam, Oxford and New York: North-Holland, 1983), p. 9–26.Google Scholar

27 De Totius Logicae Aristofelis Summa, in 5. Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia Vol. 7, edited by Robertus Busa (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1980), p. 644a. It does not seem possible at the moment to establish the true authorship of this work, but certainly Aquinas is not a likely candidate.

28 Hervaeus Natalis, Quolibeta, f. 43 rb.

29 Dominic of Flanders, Quaestiones super XII Libros Methaphysicorum (Venice, 1499; rpt. Frankfurt: Minerva GmbH, 1967), sig. i 7 rb; see also sig. i 5 rb. For discussion of analogy in Thomas of Sutton's Quaestiones disputatae, see Przezdziecki, Joseph J., “Thomas of Sutton's Critique on the Doctrine of Univocity,” in An Étienne Gilson Tribute, edited by O’Neil, C. J. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1959), p. 189–208.Google Scholar

30 Hervaeus Natalis, Quolibeta, f. 43 rb.

31 See Dominic of Flanders, Quaestiones super XII Libros, sig. i 2 va: “aliquid dicitur commune dupliciter, uno modo communitate abstractionis, alio modo communitate proportionis.”

32 Aureol, Peter, Scriptum Super Primum Sententiarum, 2 vols., edited by Buytaert, Eligius M. (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute; Louvain, Belgium: E. Nauwelaerts; Paderbom, Germany: F. Schöningh, 1956), p. 483.Google Scholar

33 Capreolus, Johannes, Defensiones theologiae divi Thomae Aquinatis. Vol. I, edited by Paban, Ceslai and Pègues, Thomas in seven volumes (Turonibus: A. Cattier 1900–1908; rpt. Frankfurt/Main: Minerva GmbH, 1967), p. 141a.Google Scholar

34 See especially Marion, Jean-Luc, Sur la théologie blanche de Descartes (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1981), p. 80–82 and passim.Google Scholar

35 Thomas Aquinas, In I Sent, d.19 q.5 a.2 ad 1.

36 Auctores, Incerti, Quaestiones super Sophisticos Elenchos, edited by Ebbesen, S., Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi, No. VII (Copenhagen: Gad, 1977), p. 129–34, 310–17Google Scholar. Cf. Simon of Faversham, Quaestiones super libro Elenchorum, edited by Ebbesen, S., Izbicki, T., Longeway, J., del Punta, F., Serene, E. and Stump, E. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984), p. 78, 123f.Google Scholar

37 John Duns Scotus, In librum Praedicamentorum quaestiones, in Opera omnia 1 (Paris: Vivès, 1891), p. 446a–447a; In libros Elenchorum quaestiones, in Opera omnia 2 (Paris: Vivès, 1891), p. 20a–25a.

38 Burley, In Praed., sig. c 5ra-rb.

39 Alyngton, Robert, Predicamenta, Oxford, Bodleian Library: MS Rawl. C 677, f. 25 ra.Google Scholar

40 Robert Alyngton, Predicamenta, f. 24 va-vb: “dicitur equivocum analogum cuius primarium significatum est analogum et hoc contingit quando idem significatum participatur a pluribus sed prius et posterius quo ad ordinem intelligendi vel secundum magis et minus modo quo ens participatur a substantia et accidente.”

41 Capreolus, Defensiones theologiae, p. 135a, p. 142a–b. In the latter part of the sixteenth century, Petrus Fonseca shows that he had the same difficulty as I do in following Capreolus, for he reports the one-ratio view, and then remarks that Capreolus seems to hold it. See Petrus Fonseca, Commentariorvm In Metaphysicorvm Aristotelis Stagiritae Libros Tomvs I–II [one volume] (Cologne, 1615; rpt. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964), cols. 712–13.

42 Capreolus, Defensiones theologiae, p. 142a. The passage is quoted in full, p. 122b–123a.

43 Versor, Johannes, Quaestiones super metaphysicam Arisiotelis (Cologne, 1494; rpt. Frankfurt/Main: Minerva GmbH, 1967), f. xxv vb.Google Scholar

44 Dominic of Flanders, Quaestiones super XII Libros, sig. i 5 ra.

45 Henry of Ghent, Summa Quaestionum, vol. 1, f. cxxiiii r-v.

46 Ibid., vol. 1, f. cxxiiii v-f. cxxv r.

47 John of Jandun, Quaestiones in duodecim libros metaphysicae (Venice, 1553; rpt. Frankfurt/Main: Minerva GmbH, 1966), f. 45ra.

48 Ibid., f. 45rb-va. John of Jandun writes (f. 45va): “Illud quod significat diversa secundum diversas rationes ordinatas, hoc est analogum, ita quod quedam eorum attribuantur uni, sed ens est huiusmodi, quia significat 10 predicamenta secundum diversas rationes ordhiatas secundum prius et posterius.…”

49 Ibid., f. 46rb. He writes “… unde non concipitur uno conceptu simplici et indivisibili ens, sed pluribus conceptibus vel uno conceptu composito, et secundum analogiam ad unum, ut dictum est prius.”

50 Ibid., f. 46va.

51 Pinborg, Jan, “Anonymi Quaestiones in Tractatus Petri Hispani I–III Traditae in codice Cracoviensi 742 (anno fere 1350),” Cahiers de l'institut du moyen-âge grec et latin, 41 (1982): 9.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., p. 131–32.

53 Johannes Versor, Quaestiones super metaphysicam, f. xxv vb.

54 Dominic of Flanders, Quaestiones super XII Libros, sig. i 7 ra.

55 Hervaeus Natalis, Quolibeta, f. 46 va.

56 Ibid., f. 45 va.

57 Soncinas, Quaestiones Metaphysicales, p. 6a–7b.

58 Aureol, Scriptum, p. 471–523.

59 Ibid., p. 509.

60 Ibid., p. 485: “conceptus ille est simpliciter denudatus in actu ab omni ratione, una vel pluribus, propria vel communi, tantummodo unus existens unitate confusionis et omnimodae indeterminationis”; ibid., p. 505: “conceptus entis est simpliciter denudatus ab omni ratione actuali, una vel pluribus, propria vel communi, et idcirco est tantum unus unitate confusionis, implicite omnem rem et omnem rationem continens, explicite vero nullam.”

61 Ibid., p. 520.

62 I have adopted the translation “undiscriminating” for confusus from Alfred Freddoso. See William of Ockham: Quodlibetal Questions, 2 vols., translated by Freddoso, Alfred J. and Kelley, Francis E. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991), Vol. 1, p. 169, n. 2.Google Scholar

63 Soncinas, Quaestiones Metaphysicales, p. 2a.

64 Capreolus, Defensiones theologiae, p. 125b–126b, is drawn from Aureol, Scriptum, p. 491–505, and Capreolus, Defensiones theologiae, p. 126b–127b, is drawn from Aureol, Scriptum, p. 477–80.

65 See, e.g., Fonseca, Commentariorum In Metaphysicorum, col. 689.